Free The Joy of Hate by Greg Gutfeld Page B

his tussles with various anchors at the nework—made a big issue about them laying off President Bush while going after Obama—which, as I’ve said before in other places, is nuttier than squirrel poop. Let’s not forget that while Bush was president, he was trashed by a left-wing posse who delighted in military defeat, for it meant their side was winning. To them, dissent was patriotic even if it meant dead troops. As many have pointed out, if the casualties during World War Two were reported the same way they were during Iraq, we’d all be speaking Belgian. (We fought Belgium, right? Or was it Mexico? I majored in English Lit.)
    My network wasn’t ignoring Bush’s actions. Maybe it was reacting to what I would call Patriotic Terrorism. I saw a fully realized, anti-America lynch mob who would rather win an election than a war, and that made me more of a righty than 9/11, my life at Berkeley, and all my head injuries combined.
    Want to see proof of my point? Ask yourself where is this feverish antiwar movement now that Obama got into power. Obama has killed more terrorists than anyone in recent memory (God bless him for that), and you don’t hear much of a peep from anyone other than Michael Moore (who even Karl Marx would have termed a commie pinko). Gitmo is still open, doing more business than your local Hampton Inn, but that ceases to be an issue now that their guy is in office. Remember, Gitmo was the albatross around Bush’s neck—now it’s the puka shells around Obama’s neck (a shout-out to his tiny island nation, Hawaii). As of this writing, we’re still losing troops in Afghanistan, for purposes ever more attenuated from our original mission there. Where’s the outrage? The “not in our name” marches? The judging on
Dancing with the Stars
gets more scrutiny.
    On one of my shows, a cohost took issue with my accusation that Stewart was smarmy. He said, “Smarmy is one word. I’d say brave. He came into the lion’s den and defended himself.”
    Which isn’t surprising. My cohost, whom I love like a demented little brother, is like everyone I worked with in media—someone who considers himself apolitical, until he runs into someone like me, who isn’t a liberal. Apolitical, in the media, means decidedly liberal and not used to being challenged. So I get that he sees Stewart as brave. But this is no lion’s den—because the lion’s den is the world that contains my network. Think about it: A few years back, the
New York Times
ran a piece pointing out the dearth of conservatives in journalism, theater, therapy, and academia. Which, considering the collective output of those fields, I would take as a resounding compliment. You’ve had, for a long spell, a Democratic House, a Democratic Senate, a Democrat for president, a liberal media, a left-wingHollywood, a liberal arts and music culture. You’ve got it all, and you’re mad because one entity isn’t playing ball? What happened to that whole “Dissent is patriotic” thing? It seems we only look right because everything else is left. Stewart (and my cohost) are both blissfully unaware of their own biases because, cue Madge, they’re soaking in it. Stewart coming into the “lion’s den” of an atypical network was about as “brave” as the Soviet Union invading Hungary. And no matter how hard a time Stewart may have gotten there, he knew 95 percent of the media had his back. His “schooling” of those guys was heroic. I’ll bet the columns lauding Stewart’s rally were written the night before it happened.
    And more amazingly, even with the deck so stacked in their favor, the left still can’t seal the deal. Because their message just doesn’t jibe with the American public, whose center-right stances are revealed in poll after poll. Talk about snatching defeat from the jaws of victory—this is a collapse of Red Soxian magnitude.
    A perfect example of the mythical tolerant media type can be found in the JournoList scandal—a blip