It’s not just that the liberals are annoying because of what they say, but because of the way they say it.
For years, I’ve hated listening to the infantile blathering of America’s leftists. All that was required for me to come down with a splitting headache was to hear John Kerry, Robert Byrd or Joseph Biden, insist that if only they were running things, gas would cost 25 cents-a-gallon, peace would reign in the Middle East, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg would be the most conservative justice on the Supreme Court.
However, not too long ago, I had an epiphany. It’s not just that the liberals are annoying because of what they say, but because of the way they say it. Have you listened to Al Gore lately? He’s as loud as a pneumatic drill. And you would think that after his meltdown following the Iowa primary, Howard Dean would tone it down a notch. Instead, he’s revved up the noise level until he sounds like a chimpanzee on speed.
But all of that is performance art. The moment these politicians see a live microphone or a TV camera, they simply can’t control themselves. The poor creatures are like Pavlov’s dogs salivating at the sound of a bell.
However, if there’s anything worse than having to listen to these shnooks screaming to the choir, it’s having to listen to the ladies on the left. I refer to the sisterhood that includes the likes of Susan Estrich, Teresa Heinz-Kerry, Nancy Pelosi, Gloria Allred, Barbara Boxer, Cindy Sheehan, Barbra Streisand and, of course, Hillary Clinton. Each and every one of them has a voice that sounds like fingernails raking a blackboard.
I don’t want to suggest that their speaking voices are all alike, aside from the fact that each has the power to make your ears bleed. Some, after all, are whinier than others, some are harsher, while a few are so nasal you’d think that Estrich, for instance, must have adenoids the size of grapefruits.
And let us not forget Jane Fonda, the grande dame of the left. Even before she became the pin-up queen of the Viet Cong, it always amazed me that she was able to have an acting career in spite of being cursed with a voice that sounded like it had been transplanted from a screech owl.
It occurred to me one day that Fonda has a voice that every divorced man associates with his ex-wife, and reminds him all over again why he was so willing, even anxious, to divvy up the community property.
BurtPrelutsky@aol.com
http://www.burtprelutsky.com/
Read more articles by Burt Prelutsky
oh of course…pubs never affect tones of voice, grandstand, pander, act like idiots…
whats the point of this? talk about screeching to the choir
Comment by ibbleblibble | March 6, 2006
A great chuckle, start to finish, all the while ringing the bell of truth, and not just by what you say, Prelutsky, but the way you say it.
Comment by Bill White | March 6, 2006
Yay, let's make snide, droll comments about the sound of their voices rather than the substance of their speech! You've got to give it up to these Republicans: They have no qualms about letting the world know their debate is simply incapable of transcending the superficial.
Comment by Michael Vincent | March 6, 2006
Swell column.
Comment by roberta sorenson | March 6, 2006
Mr. Vincent, "Droll," yes, and deliciously spiced with invective. The point of the article is "the way they say it." That is the substance of the article and well worth noting, just as we sometimes notice the way someone is eating, not just "what" he is eating. Haven't you heard the various shrill and irritating tones of the left-wingers that Prelutsky mentions? Their "arguments" would be the subject of a separate article. When Republicans argue substance, in all honesty, I have not found most of them lacking either depth or substance. Can you be serious about about your claim that the debate of all Republicans is superficial?
Comment by Bill White | March 6, 2006
Ah, yes. Mr. Vincent clearly practices "transcending the superficial". It might be interesting if he would define his notions of the meaning of "superficial." Maybe he could give Earth a call and help us poor muckers out. Has he no compassion for the "superficial"?
Comment by Curt Pendergraft | March 7, 2006
oh come now…that fake hillbilly drawl (from a yale educated new england transplant family) and hypocritically pious mispronounced mumbo jumbo that plops out of our president's pie hole every time he opens it in public does not make u wince? i'm a real son of the south with far less education and i can do better than that.
oh - and then there's the smiling would be fundyvangelist inquisitor, the cromwellian american ayatollah, pat robertson (or do you guys not claim him anymore?). never have i heard such hate filled, intolerant, mendacious, murderous, venom spew from so simperingly angelic a visage…
i won't even go into one of my state's very own cookie cutter conservative senators, dim jemint. his recent opponent was only more tolerable in that i voted for her, less in that her school marm braying managed to lose the election to that cardboard talking point blabbering parrot.
Comment by ibbleblibble | March 7, 2006
ibbleblibble,
Your politics certainly don't paint you as a "real son of the South." Your use of terms such as "fundyvangelist inquisitor" and "cromwellian american ayatollah" and "cardboard talking point blabbering parrot" and "ideological propaganda reinforcing factories" paint you more as a Cal-Berkeley Poli-Sci professor.
I can see someone using those terms over a breakfast of wheatgrass and tofu. I have a harder time imagining those terms used over a breakfast of grits and eggs.
Comment by Mike McGill | March 7, 2006
mike - beware preconcieved notions…contrary to popular stereotypes and depressingly true results, the same south that produces anti-intellectual born again bubbas and closet klansmen sometimes spits out one of those sickeningly bothersome iconoclastic questioners of the holy conventional wisdom just as surely as did militaristic, conservative pre ww1 germany spawn such antithetical intellects as hermann hesse - to whom i do not compare myself in any way other than in an analogical sense.
Comment by ibbleblibble | March 7, 2006
just look at flannery o'conner. regardless, any skill i have attained in language, analysis, rhetoric, etc., i attribute in some sense to the very fact that i HAVE been raised my entire life amidst the sometimes stifling intellectual, ofttimes irrational, climate of my native gothic south. my sympathies may be union, but my soul is firmly planted, for better or worse, in the blood stained soil of dixie.
Comment by ibbleblibble | March 7, 2006
libbledibble, is it?
In spite of the romantic pining, you are the kind of fellow most Southerners
would probably giggle endlessly as some angry girl gave you a good ol' butt
whipping.
But, you'll suggest being eloquent and suave, no self respecting woman would
dare lay a hand on you. You would be right — but we know of a few million
gals with little self respect, don't we?
Wear a cup and bring your medical card.
What a moron.
Comment by badcat | March 7, 2006
badcat
what are you talking about? romantic pining? what a moron? highbrow stuff there, kittycat…
still not exactly sure what you are trying to say, but at least i have the testicular fortitude to venture into the lion's den without flinching, my dear, and, despite the #49 or 50 educational ranking of my magnolia sweet home state, the ability to write grammatically correct, if stream of conciousness rambling sentences…
in terms of macho physicality and legendary southern bellicosity, i assure you i have been the source of more black eyes and broken noses than i have recieved, and in terms of romance more satisfied dalliances than were, truth be told, wise…
to equate the ability to express oneself in multisyllabic blabbulance with effete wussness has been the mistake of many in my life…thank god i grew up a while back…
crap - are you a dude? u write like a fiesty wildcat of a grammatically challenged woman, disgusted and intrigued with that she cannot understand. not the first…
Comment by ibbleblibble | March 7, 2006
To ibbleblibble: What an interesting observation! Your speech doesn't impress me, therefore, the logical conclusion must be that I don't understand "big words". That's okay though, I don't blame you for getting it wrong. It's all "Bush's" fault.
Comment by sue | March 7, 2006
sue = bad cat?
my speech does not impress me either. bush's fault? nah - try cheney, his prime handler…
Comment by ibbleblibble | March 8, 2006
Ibble, have yo ever heard of Godwin's law?
It goes more or less like this,
"Who ever makes a Nazi or Hitler comparison has lost the debate"
Well Ibble when you said:
" …oh - and then there’s the smiling would be fundyvangelist inquisitor, the cromwellian american ayatollah, pat robertson (or do you guys not claim him anymore?)…"
You lost the debate ibble, because whoever mentions Pat Robertson has lost the debate.
It is the new version of Godwin's law.
Comment by Anonymous256 | March 9, 2006
anonymous - so they HAVE disowned him?
Comment by ibbleblibble | March 9, 2006
by the way, anonymous, what debate?
Comment by ibbleblibble | March 9, 2006
But, you’ll suggest being eloquent and suave, no self respecting woman would
dare lay a hand on you. You would be right — but we know of a few million gals with little self respect, don’t we?
Comment by badcat | March 7, 2006
Damn boy you must have never gone to Panama city, Myrtle Beach or Virginia Beach. Those few million gals with a little self respect will drop trou faster then you can scream YEE HAH once you get'em away from the local town folk all a judgin and a frownin on like.
All over the western world it's a known fact, you want to get an easy lay…
go south
Comment by Will C. | March 10, 2006
will - bad boy! ha ha! no wildcat like a repressed fundyvangelist female - all that guilt is soooooo delicious!
honestly cons - how can you listen to/read such horribly rude, angry, insulting, radio/tv/print conservative blabbulators and not see exactly the kind of vitriol i have vomited forth upon you all here? it was exactly what i have been going for. i dont think you like it…
Comment by ibbleblibble | March 10, 2006
I could point to a lot of Iraqis who are right now laughing at those oh so droll 'intellectual' conservatives. Interspersed that is with burying their children.
Comment by Max Godwin | March 16, 2006
I guess with 'intellectual' cons whoever says anything you are not ready to hear 'loses' the debate automatically.
I would never in a million years hope to influence a true conservative. That to me would be like trying to convice someone who thinks they are Napoleon that they are not. Logic simply bounces off.
All anyone can do is tell the truth as they see it, and hope that the less extreme among us have their consciences occasionally pricked.
Finally, how about a new Godwin's law, whoever invades a country that is in no way a threat to them is a criminal.
Comment by Max Godwin | March 16, 2006