What Is a ‘Right Wing slut’?

Ed Schultz and Laura Ingraham

Right Wing Slut – An individual who will purposely and automatically sacrifice any and all attempts to concede any element of integrity, truthfulness, fairness or deserved credibility when concerning all political opposition for the lustful, marginalized satisfaction of garnering or sustaining political linkages to the conservative Right.

Before we delve into the ethics of whether or not Ed Schultz should have referred to Laura Ingram as a “Right Wing Slut,” I think it’s time to explore the real life possibilities of the existence of such an item. This entire exchange reminds me vividly of the film, “Roadhouse“, when Patrick Swayze, who played a character named Dalton; was asked by an underling what should be done if someone called his mother a whore, and Swayze looked at him and asked the underling “Is she,” and that is exactly how I feel about this Laura Ingram situation. Even though there are many who found Schultz’s “Right Wing Slut” comment to be morally and journalistically offensive, does that, in any way; exonerate Ingram from the claim? As Swayze asked the underling, “Is she?” Is Ingram truly a Right Wing Slut? Does a Right Wing slut truly exist within the realm of politics or any other realm?

My answer to both questions is a resounding yes! Anyone can be a slut for any reason, at any time, at any place, and any notion that suggests otherwise is about as gullible as the Jonestown guppies who thought they followed Jesus into the jungle. I mean, seriously, do you really believe that it is not possible to actually be a Right Wing slut—really? Is that an argument you really want to make? Not only can there be Right Wing sluts, but there can just as easily be Left Wing sluts too, because there are just as many politically led ants that can be just as blind to the facts by choice as there are ants that are truly hapless enough not to know any better; victimized by force, and lying down for the cause without asking questions for the truth is about as bipartisan as it gets. So, the scissors of this political cloth cuts both ways, as long you are objective enough to truthfully read the cut-out patterns!

For example, when Fox News commentators like Bill O’Reilly reference the so called “Slobbering Love Affair with Obama,” it’s the Left Wing sluts who are being attributed with it, according to O’Reilly. When Sean Hannity characterizes President Obama as the “Anointed One,” it’s the blindly led, sheepish, Left Wing sluts who have anointed the anointed one as the anointed one, according to Hannity. And most importantly, when people like Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity, Bernie Goldberg and other Fox News contributors and commentators complain about the power of what Palin refers to as the “Lame Stream Media,” they are ascribing all other media outlets, except Fox News, as Left Wing sluts who have been bought and sold like puppets on a string to perform in the liberal, Democratic, Obama playhouse!

The wording may be different, less offensive and much more subtle, but the basis is the same as Ed Schultz’s “Right Wing Slut” comment, which is the implication that blind, political, party line toeing is alive and well, which is a claim that should surprise no one, and it does not stop with politics either, because any term can be turned into a political term, no matter how distasteful some of the terms might be. When it is a word that describes behavior, it could always be used to transcend its original meaning and be redistributed in another form. Do you remember when Arnold Schwarzenegger used the term “economic girlie men?” He actually implied that feminine attributes are a weakness; political or otherwise! And in actuality, Schwarzenegger’s comment was even worse than Schultz’s “Right Wing slut” comment. If you can find a way to step away from your emotionality surrounding the word slut, which attacks a certain behavior often displayed by both men and women, you would realize that Schwarzenegger’s girlie men comment attacks feminine behavior as a whole, as a certain behavior often displayed by both men and women, but it is a cornerstone of what it means to be a woman, which goes back to the age-old ideology of why women are not fit to lead, and I don’t think that Schultz was implying that sentiment by referring to Laura Ingram as a “Talk Slut.”

So, when the biased obsession with something becomes so overwhelming to the point where you can no longer be objective about it enough to evaluate it, re-evaluate it, criticize it, or abandon it for the sake of your own cravings, political or otherwise, the reality of an ideological slut has been fulfilled. As a Realacrat or a Democrat, I have enough honesty within my logic to know that my side cannot always be right simply based on my acceptance of it or its acceptance of me! My loyalty as a Realacrat or a Democrat is not, and never has been, a ‘get-out-of-the-responsibilities-of-wrong’ card, because this has nothing to do with just being a woman or being a promiscuous woman, but it has everything to do with the insecurities of human hypocrisy!

Now as for the societal magnitude of Ed Schultz’s comment about Laura Ingram being a “Right Wing Slut” and having to apologize for it later and being suspended because of it, that has more to do with the politics of gender than the politics of political politics, and that is why Schultz found himself in hot water. Sexism is one of the most volatile isms of all time—right behind racism and both make excellent, political lightning rods. So, let’s take Schultz out of the discussion for a minute, and replace him with any other man, because this is not really about Schultz or Ingram, this is about the proverbial, double-dealing standards of who’s qualified the most to be a slut, and who’s qualified the least to be a slut, not based on the actions of an individual, but based on the gender of the individual. According to the old, Neanderthal, Manifest Destiny handbook, women who like to lie down with two or more men, not women—but men, all at one time or separately, are sluts; but the men who make a conscious choice and a conscious donation when lying down with them are conquering, seed-sowing playboys.

This is why a slur like the word slut or the word whore is such a radiant beam of power when wielded by a man, but is much less effective when emanating from the mantle of femininity, and it has been that way since the beginning of time, as proven by the age-old story of the slut/hooker/prostitute who was due to be stoned to death by a mindless mob of self-righteousness when Jesus Christ appears and demands that only those without sin be allowed to cast the first stones, which thwarts the one sided, judgment mob for the time being! Slurs such as these are often looked upon as unfairly sexist, but in all honesty; they are really more hypocritical than sexist, because sluts don’t become sluts without help from willing, usually male, participants. So, how is the receiver a slut, while the distributor remains squeaky clean? If you choose to ideologically lie in bed with what you have deemed to be corruption, that corruption has no problem adding the egotistical pompousness of your male induced, filth free proclamations to its collection of corrupted souls, and any denial of such a transaction by even the highest levels of blinded, rule favoring, rule bending bravado defies the very existence of common sense and honest, intellectual integrity.

This is why you should be very careful when tossing around insults like the words: slut, whore or the B-word. This doesn’t mean that Ed Schultz has now permanently purchased his membership into the good-ole-boys/male superiority club, at least not in my opinion, and here is why I say that. I honestly believe that Schultz was speaking about Ingram in a politically ideological way, not a physical/sexual way. I don’t think that Schultz or other liberals, including me, give a conservative rat’s ass about how many GOP men Laura Ingram might be having sex with. It’s not the crap that MIGHT BE INSIDE HER VAGINA that concerns me. It’s the crap that is most definitely inside her head exiting her mouth that causes me discomfort, and that point has to be made exquisitely clear! Nevertheless, I’m not ready to criticize Schultz for allegedly proving that he is a male, chauvinist pig based on his Ingram comment, but I am ready to criticize Schultz for proving that he got carelessly caught up in the moment and failed to clarify his description of Ingram within a precise context, and fairly or unfairly—Schultz knows better than anyone else that misinterpretations derived from a mistake are taken just as seriously as a blatant insult with no intention of being misinterpreted. In the game of politics, an opportunity is an opportunity—whether it’s mistakenly induced or purposely done. So, I don’t think Schultz had any choice outside of apologizing to Ingram, which he did, but now it’s my turn to characterize Ingram!

So as for you Ms. Ingram, I’ll give my opinioned analysis of you and remember—I don’t work for MSNBC, so I can tell you how I really feel! So Laura Ingram; politically speaking—in my unprofessional, yet just as credible opinion, you my friend are a picture perfect snapshot of a grade-A approved, five star endorsed, propaganda mosquito and everything that a blood sucking pest should be! You’re a talking points tyrant, an ideological drone, a mercenary attack dog that’s more about the destruction of liberalism than the love of conservatism, an old, political, phonograph record where the needle is happily stuck on the words ‘I hate liberalism; must destroy liberalism,’ and I’d even go so far as to describe you, Ingram, as an ideological, political suicide bomber who will consistently blow any inkling of truth or personal credibility to smithereens, not for what’s right, but only for what’s right for your anti-liberalism, crucifixion cross. You’re a biasedly wound-up, toy soldier demanded to and agreed upon to follow your marching orders at all costs, and you are not alone. People like you, Ingram, Rush Limbaugh, Monica Crowley and Sean Hannity all specialize in throwing rocks from the relative safety of the sidelines, while real politicians are forced to get out onto the campaign field, and take real hits. I’m not here to call Ingram another Right Wing slut, but I will paraphrase that description of Ingram by saying that she is the proverbial, conservative weasel who is as liberally biased as they come. In fact, the river of Fox News is polluted and filled to capacity with conservative piranha that swim the liberal shorelines just waiting for a piece of liberal meat to fall in or be pushed in, and I would rank Ingram as the number two piranha behind Sean Hannity. So how about that Ingram? Instead of a Right Wing slut, I’m calling you a Right Wing piranha—different wording; same meaning. Heck, I’ve got more respect for “Factor” producer Jesse Watters and his ambush journalism than you!

I’ve seen you and your kind in action many times Ingram, and your inability to stray even slightly from your talking points, party lines is exactly what the doctor ordered when prescribing the follow-the-conservative-leader diagnosis to piranha like you. This is why I side with the liberal ideology, because we have more freedom to criticize our president, our party and our political ideology, which many liberals have done and rightfully so. The day that I’m told that I’d better toe-the-liberal-line or else will be the day that I tell such demands to kiss my former backside on the way out! That’s what Realacrats do Ingram. If I’m going to be a slut for anybody or for anything, it had better be for me personally, and it had better be for something that I staunchly believe in, even if the ideology or the party does not believe in it. I guess that makes me a Bryian R.-Realacrat-Democratically friendly-Left Wing linked, but not Left Wing enslaved-slut, and I wouldn’t have it any other way. So, I’ll leave you with this piranha lady/Ingram. It’s always easier and more fun to swim with a one-track-minded school of predators, but keep in mind that as soon as one of the drones is either unable or unwilling to fulfill its expected duties, it will be disposed of through consumption or abandonment, and if you ever miraculously decide to grow a conscience by embracing some ideology that is considered to be outside of the conservative, Right Wing bounds, that conservative, Cinderella clock that you cherish so blindly will strike midnight a lot sooner than you ever thought it would!

If you are consistently willing to sell your soul, politically or otherwise, as part of some pre-requisite gesture of loyalty to reaffirm and continuously solidify your membership where your only demands and responsibilities are to submit ideologically or physically, then you have just fulfilled your obligations as a slut. If you are willing to just drop your ideological pants for any Joe Plumber, any Joe Sixpack, any Momma Grizzly, or any Joe Liberal, who comes along with a Bible, an I’m-Jesus-card, a liberal lap-dance, a conservative time machine back to the good-ole-days, or some unproven rhetoric about all of the financial and emotional stability that they can give you, then not only are you a slut, but you are a fool as well! The ideology of slut has always been on the political table, even if it wasn’t called slut by name! Again, anyone is capable of being a slut for something they like, but it takes true grit to recognize when that enthralling like is no longer worth it, and move on, regardless of how scary or how painful it might be to do so, and the Laura Ingram’s, the Donald Trump’s, the Sean Hannity’s, the Michele Bachmann’s and anyone who would classify themselves as the “Professional Left” have done nothing to remove themselves from this circle of political and ideological redundancy, at least not in my book.

Bryian K. Revoner

Author of the book: The Fear of Being Challenged; Democratically Independent, I Am the Realacrat