Epistomology In Her Pants

by digby

I happened to catch this exchange while channel surfing and realized that we are about to enter the wingnut twilight zone again. (Luckily C&L preserved it for posterity … people will study this freakshow someday.)

Behar: Ronald, let me ask Ron — why do we pay attention to this woman? She has a point.

Reagan: Well, indeed, and I think we do have to pay attention to her, unfortunately — it’s sad that we have to pay attention to her, because she’s totally unqualified for high office. Yet —

Geller: Your father would love her. Your father would love her.

Miller: First of all, his father didn’t quit halfway through the term.

Geller: Neither did she. Neither did she. She did not quit. The Lower 48 needed her, and she heeded the call. She did not take the easy way out.

Reagan: No, she quit. No, Pam, she quit. When you leave the governorship halfway through your first term, it’s called quitting. She quit.

Geller: She came to lead the next revolution.

Reagan: Quit. Quit.

Behar: Ron, Ron — no, I want to hear from Ron. Why would your father not like this woman?

Reagan: Because she doesn’t have a thought in her head. That’s why.

Geller: That’s what they said about your father.

Reagan: My father knew what he stood for, you can agree with it or disagree with it, he knew how — what he stood for, he could explain what he stood for. He was conversant in domestic and foreign policy — she’s neither! She can’t explain where she stands on anything!

Geller: Your father would love her, and frankly I don’t think you can speak for your father, because you — you don’t even espouse —

Reagan: No, Pam, actually, have you ever met my father, Pam? Pam, did you ever meet my father?

Geller: Did you ever meet the Founding Father. I’ve read everything he said. I’ve read everything he said.

Reagan: Did you ever meet my father? I’m asking you a simple question. You can’t answer that because the answer is no. So why don’t you rely on someone who knew him very well to tell you what he would think of Sarah Palin.

Behar: It’s really hard for you to argue with the offspring of the guy and claim you know more than he does.

Geller: He’s nothing like the father! He doesn’t share the epistemology of the father. He doesn’t have the nature of his father, the knowledge — he has nothing in common with the father. Look —

Behar: He knows what his father would think rather than you.

[Crosstalk]

Reagan: Is Pam still blathering about me and my father? Oh, you are. You still haven’t met him, though, right? You still didn’t know him, so you’re just sort of making things up as you go along, right?

Geller: You never met him either. You know, you never met him either. Do you think you’re making your father proud? Do you really think you’re making your father proud?

(The Founding Father? I’d assume she was talking about Jesus, but she’s Jewish, so maybe Moses. John Bolton?)

How dare Ron Reagan assume that he knows his own father when Pam Geller has spent countless nights cuddled up in bed with her Ronnie statuette fantasizing about jelly beans and nuclear war. Let’s just say that in her mind, Gellar has “known” Ronald Reagan in the biblical sense, and one has to admit that’s something Ron Jr is very unlikely to have experienced.

For a substantially less vulgar (if no less snarky) discussion of Geller’s epistomology, LGM has the goods.

.