The Thinking 

Another Useful, Conservative Careerist

February 4, 2013


She goes by the pretentious name of S.E. Cupp

AN ANONYMOUS correspondent of a reader writes:

CNN and MSNBC and even FOX have become adept at finding cute little lasses who identify themselves as conservative. Their function is to discredit or undermine conservative ideas with weak defense, no defense or outright hostility. Of course, they’re so absorbed with their own celebrity that they don’t know this and aren’t aware of their role as useful idiots. Most of all they want to show off their hipness and cool. Like Sally Field, they just want to be loved. They want to proclaim to the world, “Hey, I’m a Conservative, but I’m cool!”

Yesterday it was Margaret Hoover on CNN, cheerily calling Congressman Lamar Smith a “wingnut” because he raised questions about the Gang of Eight’s immigration proposals.

Today at 3 p.m. on MSNBC’s The Cycle, S.E. Cupp, after first insulting those who oppose the latest amnesty proposals as “nativists,” continued her fantastical rant, wondering how “these people were going to deport, let’s face it, as many as forty million undocumented workers.”  This confident assertion was followed by the obligatory, “duh.”

Her fellow panelists, progressives don’t ya know, nodded in unison like those doggie toys mounted in the rear windows of cars. At which point, Victoria Soto, the obligatory cutish ethnic-pandering version of the dingbat, asked, “What would America do if they had to get through a day without a Mexican?” That got an approving chuckle from the esteemed panel.

S.E. Cupp made it a point to laugh the loudest.

Where are the women with the real smarts and the right stuff? Why aren’t Leah Durant, Rosemary Jenks or Heather MacDonald on these shows?

I know, I know – silly question.

—- Comments —-

Kevin M. writes:

Your anonymous correspondent makes some interesting observations about media conservatives. My only reaction is based on the resounding defeat of Mitt Romney last November: this country’s demographics have changed preposterously since the days of Ronald Reagan, and with Obama’s re-election, the political right can no longer deny it. We are dealing with a voting public that in no way will support (to successful electoral results) the message the right has always delivered.

So now they are going to see if they can lure in the new demographics with a hip and cool image. Young, vibrant, and “with it.” Frankly, I think they will fail. What constitutes a conservative today is a bit murky, and that allows them to be defined by their enemies.

S.E. Cupp never much impressed me with her politics. I remain convinced she is entirely devoted to her future as a television personality and will bend to the wind like a Clinton when it suits her career.

Laura writes:

“Resounding defeat?” Romney won 47 percent of the vote.

Sounds like a bad marketing decision to write off the many conservatives who are part of this 47 percent. I don’t think it’s demographics that keeps conservatives off the air. It’s ideology.

Terry Morris writes:

Attrition and self-deportation are terms and concepts no longer in the “conservative” vocabulary.

“It’s like, duh!, what about “we can’t deport forty million illegal immigrants” do nativist xenophobes not understand?”

The anonymous author of the post writes:

Terry Morris completely misses the point that no serious person has suggested a mass deportation of any number of people, let alone FORTY million – that S.E. Cupp has outrageously set up a monstrous straw man. This is why her ‘duh’ is so dishonest, so stupid, and so pandering to her fellow panelists. S.E. Cupp parrots the false premise already repeated countless times by leftist advocates of open borders and amnesty.

Roger G. writes:

My best friend’s daughter is one of those dingbats, and I’ve known her since she was seven, so I wish you’d show some consideration.

 Daniel S. writes:

The paleo-liberatarian blogger Ilana Mercer has already taken S. E. Cupp and her ilk to task:

Cupp is no conservative. Like a lot of loud idiots, Cupp lacks a coherent ideology.

Dumb distaff abounds on America’s news channels. Cupp is a leader of the pack, a luminary in the Age of the Idiot, rivaled only by Grand Old Party leading lights such as Margaret Hoover and Gretchen Carlson (Bill O’Reilly’s circus clowns, AKA the “Culture Warriors”), Elisabeth Hasselbeck, Carrie Prejean, Noelle Nikpour, and Dana Perino (the Heidi Klum of the commentariat).

Like these low-watt women, Lolita’s forte is to gesture wildly and grimace while parroting talking points disgorged by every other Bush bootlicker before her.

She goes on to provide several examples of Cupp’s utter ignorance and stupidity, and rightly observes that “Cupp is part of an implicit program of fem affirmative action.”

Jesse Powell writes:

I see nobody has brought up that S. E. Cupp is an open atheist.  I don’t know much about her presentation style or the way she argues or the strengths of her conservative views but she is well known in the atheist community as being one of the great mysterious “conservative atheists,” probably the most high profile self-proclaimed atheist on the conservative side out there.  Among atheists she is also widely suspected of putting on an act, of hyping her atheism while shamelessly groveling to the religious so that she will be the religious right’s “favorite atheist” by agreeing with all the anti-atheist prejudices of the religious right.  She has made many statements putting down her fellow atheists such as saying she would never vote for an atheist president, that she envies the religious and would like to be a person of faith but “I’m not there yet,” saying of herself “I am not one of these crazy, militant atheists,” etc.  As one presumably atheist commenter succinctly put it, “She’s making a career of godlessly Uncle Tomming it up. She is quite the entrepreneur.”

Pan Dora writes:

What would America do if they had to get through a day without a Mexican?”

Most likely, we’d be a lot better without them.

” [W]ondering how “these people were going to deport, let’s face it, as many as forty million undocumented workers.”

I guess we should apply the same principles to registration and confiscation of firearms. It just can’t be done, as I’ll bet there are more than 200 million of them.

Mr. Morris responds to the anonymous correspondent:

I’m not sure of exactly what the anonymous writer means by ‘no serious person,’ since many people I would otherwise consider ‘serious persons’ have argued the point with me when they somehow knew of no alternative to “rounding ’em up and deporting them.” But when I’ve mentioned attrition and self-deportation to these people in response (via state immigration laws, not federal immigration laws), it’s like a light comes on more often than not.

But speaking of missing the point, what did your reader think the point of my putting the word “conservative” in scare quotes and mocking that line of argument meant if not to say, “I get it; he betrays his non-conservatism by arguing a nonsensical non-argument that knowledgeable people on the subject do not argue?”

Mark Moncrieff writes:

Mr. Powell, I hope I don’t offend, but your confusing two things that are quite separate. They may be combined but that does not mean they automatically are combined. Being a Christian or an atheist or a Moonie is a religious orientation (for want of a better word), being a Conservative or a Liberal or an Anarcho-Syndicalist is a political orientation. The two should not be confused. Far too often we assume that because someone is Christian that means they are a Conservative and how often can every single one of us say we have been proved wrong? I know Mrs. Wood has said before that an atheist cannot be a Conservative but I’m afraid that is not correct. Political leaning does not have a religion test anymore than religion has a political test. No religion should be a political ideology, which is why Conservatives oppose Jihahists because they have turned their religious beliefs into a political ideology; of course we also oppose their disgusting actions. It is also a big reason why we oppose Liberalism because here a political ideology has been turned into a religion, a secular one but still a religion. We are right to oppose them and we should not follow their lead.

I am an atheist and a Conservative and in my experience atheists fall into two distinct camps. Atheists want proof of God’s existence but religion exists in faith, stalemate. Then there are what I call the Fundamentist Atheist, we’ve all met them: the ones who hate God (how you can hate what you said you don’t believe has got me beat), they hate religion and often religious people. They’re the ones who like to point out that their toy is better and then smash yours so that now there can be no dispute on the matter.  I’m in the first group and maybe S. E. Cupp is also instead of being a hyprocrite or an “entrepreneur”.

Apart from what has been written here I don’t know anything about S. E. Cupp but if history is anything to go by she probably isn’t a Conservative for the simple reason that Conservatives are hardly ever shown on TV. We are often shown right wing Liberals who are called Conservatives and who also call themselves Conservatives, but a Liberal cannot be a Conservative. Here is another big point of confusion whereby everyone politically to the right of the Liberal mainstream becomes a Conservative by default. John McCain is a classic example, a right wing Liberal who is called a Conservative, who believes himself to be a Conservative but is opposed to real Conservatism at nearly every turn and he never sees the contradiction. The best I’ve come across explaining this is in the Ebooks at Mr. Mark Richardson’s site Ozconservative.

Laura writes:

I am sure that Mr. Powell, who describes himself as an atheist, would agree with your basic point.

I don’t remember saying that an atheist can’t be conservative, but I take your word for it that I did. It is more accurate to say that atheists are less likely to be conservative.

You write:

“No religion should be a political ideology …”

But certain religious beliefs absolutely entail certain political beliefs. There is no such thing as a liberal Catholic, but there are liberals who call themselves Catholic. Catholicism is a set of objective truths, not something in the mind of the believer. So basically I would disagree that political orientations and religious orientations are not so interconnected that they cannot sometimes be confused one for the other.

Jim writes:

I believe S.E. Cupp would not be on any of these programs if it wasn’t for the fact that she is considered good looking. The same goes for many of these women on Fox, MSNBC, CNN, etc. Liberals love being against discrimination but not here.

I have seen Cupp on Book TV promoting some book wherein she wrote about how it is a misconception that conservatives don’t have a wild side in the bedroom and that they really are more like liberals than most people suppose — especially the young ones like her! She seems to be trying to attract young people to the conservative side by saying, “Hey, you don’t really have to act any different than a liberal, look at me: sexy, promiscuous, hip, popular, and conservative.” I am not sure she has any coherent ideas. She would be the last person I would want arguing the conservative side on MSNBC because all it does is reinforces into liberal minds’ watching that, wow, conservatives really are that incoherent.

(By the way, I have never seen a “conservative” woman on Fox wearing a skirt that isn’t mid-thigh or higher.)

Laura writes:

But she has glasses! Therefore she must be a very serious person.

Share:Email this to someoneShare on Facebook0Tweet about this on TwitterPin on Pinterest0Share on Google+0