A Blog Version Of The Inside Of My Head. The place where politics, film, the media, music, pop culture, and random topics collide in an orgy of neo-philisophical randomness that would make your mother scream.
The Modern American Right are the perpetual victims in our socio-political society. It is with this in mind that we should not be surprised that Sarah Palin has revealed that she is what the Right have called "thin skinned" in relation to a book about her written by one Joe McGinniss.
Sarah Palin’s family attorney John Tiemessen has written a letter to Maya Mavjee, the publisher of the Crown Publishing Group, a division of Random House, that Palin may sue her, the company, and the book’s author Joe McGinniss “for knowingly publishing false statements” in his book released last week, “The Rogue,” ABC News has learned.
The use of "unnamed sources" really isn't going to hold water. But so long as Palin's handlers can continue to convince people in America that she has been maliciously attacked any and every time someone even whispers her name, then that's what counts.
Fringe Right bloggers are already on the case since their best gal has been "hurt" over what is on par with what they have to say about Obama. But it's a poor defense to say that sloppy investigations that lead to equally sloppy tirades about Obama ( see every Right Wing book written about the Obama administration since Jan. 20th 2009 ) excuse McGinniss' sloppy investigations - if that's really what they are.
So is this what we should come to expect from a Palin presidency should she finally admitted she was in the race and actually won? Would she spend precious time in the White House complaining about everything anyone published about her and then threaten to sue? Considering how her handlers reacted to claims leveled at her during her brief stint as Alaska's Governor it's equally likely that she would either sue or just quit - like she did before.
It's all too easy to berate a person delivering a valid message in favor of addressing the message itself. This is the M.O. of the Modern American Right - they know that their point of view on a variety of issues like women's reproductive rights, race relations, and he very nature of how news is delivered will ultimately fail if they focus on the message over who/whom delivers it.
But such is the nature of Right Wing framing.
Case in point is Keith Olbermann's new program on Current TV and a recent guest that the Tea Baggers and their sympathizers tried to prove was either nothing more than a hack comedian/actor or simply playing the so-called "race-card" in order to make the Tea Baggers look bad.
Internet sophist and over-simplifier, Allahpundit, takes to another meeting of Garofalo and Olbermann in textbook fashion when it comes to not addressing the message:
Via the Daily Caller, is Olby the voice in Garofalo’s head or is Garofalo the voice in his? There’s not a scintilla of disagreement here — just JG doing her usual over-the-top impression of a cartoon liberal with KO mm-hmming all the way — until around 4:35 in, when suddenly a dispute erupts over whether Clarence Thomas is (a) a victim of Stockholm syndrome in having married a white tea partier or (b) a token used by the tea party to distract from its own seething racism. Gee, guys, I don’t know. Can’t it be both? Coming next week to “Countdown,” hopefully: Olby interviews a tape-recording of himself.
And while some of you might claim that I am acting in the very fashion I am decrying, perhaps you should keep reading.
Let's let's look at the interview in question:
And while Allahpundit is want to source a popular Right Wing framing site, it should be pointed out that the very idea that there is racism within the Tea Bagger conglomerate is ignored in favor of insisting that there very well might be racism within Olbermann's staff since they appear to be predominantly white.
So, are Allahpundit and Ace of Spades now calling for some sort of "Affirmative Action Initiative" when it comes to the media, their staff, and their reporting? Absolutely not, as this is nothing more than a diversionary tactic explicitly used to undermine the very accurate and honest statement that racism still exists in this country.
More to the point, this is another aspect of Right Wing framing, as Allahpundit is insisting that Olbermann explain his staffing decisions in favor of confronting the very real aspect that there is a racist element within the Modern American Right. This is something that I have addressedbefore - insisting that it's not you but the other that is to blame for everything.
There's quite a bit that Olbermann and Garofalo get into that I can and will address later on, but the primary aspect is what Allahpundit does to this clip with his misplaced, meandering thesis and the reality behind it. Yes, I completely disagree with - and have for some time - that the blanket racism charge needs to be addressed. Not everyone that considered themselves a part of or even tangenticaly aligns themselves with the Tea Baggers are racists, as there are other primary motivators for such a movement.
I have seen Olbermann take after Obama on a variety of issues, such as warrantless wiretapping or the conflict in Afghanistan or the occupation of Iraq. So does the meme of "Liberal Media Bias" only go so far that the Right is butt-hurt that their water isn't carried on specific issues? I would wager yes on that one.
And with that in mind, I would like to leave you with this clip from Maddow to ponder the next time someone within the Modern American Right claims she is a pure Obama sycophant:
The modern American Right have - over the course of the last decade - slowly moved closer and closer to stating point-blank that higher education is completely worthless.
Seems that they are just moments away from claiming that, in light of this report featured in USA Today:
Nearly half of the nation’s undergraduates show almost no gains in learning in their first two years of college, in large part because colleges don’t make academics a priority, a new report shows.
Instructors tend to be more focused on their own faculty research than teaching younger students, who in turn are more tuned in to their social lives, according to the report, based on a book titled Academically Adrift: Limited Learning on College Campuses. Findings are based on transcripts and surveys of more than 3,000 full-time traditional-age students on 29 campuses nationwide, along with their results on the Collegiate Learning Assessment, a standardized test that gauges students’ critical thinking, analytic reasoning and writing skills.
After two years in college, 45% of students showed no significant gains in learning; after four years, 36% showed little change.
Students also spent 50% less time studying compared with students a few decades ago, the research shows.
And right on cue, one of the biggest Right Wing blogs pushes exactly that question - do kids really need college?
But the author - AllahPundit - doesn't stop there, as they make a none to thinly veiled accusation that there has to be some sort of bias ( read: liberal ) at all colleges that causes students to put emotion and political alignments before "critical analysis", based on an article from McLatchy - then following up with this:
If you think false media narratives are easily absorbed now, wait until the Leaders of Tomorrow graduate and take their place in society. I keep thinking that the combination of a poor economy and ludicrous higher-education costs will solve this problem to some degree by re-normalizing the idea of entering the labor force after high school. If you’re a kid who’s unenthused about incurring a mountain of debt for the privilege of four more years of study with no guarantee of finding a job afterward to fund the repayment, why not pound the pavement for an entry-level/trainee position somewhere instead? The pay will be rotten to start and the lack of a diploma will make some future employers think twice, but in the meantime you’re debt-free and building skills — and if I’m right about re-normalization, the “no diploma” stigma will fade a bit culturally over time.
And there's the money shot - are conservative parents going to stop what they did when I was young, to urge that their children get a higher education so that they can end up better off in the world than they are?
Certainly, the world is a different place than it was in 1989 when I started high school, but have we come so far as a nation that we are willing to buy into this notion that a college education simply doesn't matter?
The first argument that any parent has with their high school senior is of the "cost" of the school of their choice. And while not every child is lucky enough to get that grant or scholarship, it is one of the obstacles with sending a student to college and will be a conversation that a plurality of parents will have with their kids. But should that be the rationalization for telling them they don't need any further education after high school? Should that be the reason that a kid give up their dreams of being a doctor, a lawyer, geologist, or an architect, or even a teacher?
I still owe a fairly large sum of money for my college education. Was it worth it? Every last penny. Could I have made some better choices after I graduated? Most certainly. But are we to believe that the modern American Right think that they could fair better without a college education? Are we to operate under the assumption that college is as outdated as cassette tapes, VHS, and CB radio? Are we to believe that the value of higher education in the eyes of employers will disappear in a sufficient enough timeframe to satisfy Right Wingers like the above mentioned author?
What the study shows, and what most within the modern American Right will ultimately ignore, is a lack of motivation by the students in the percentiles highlighted. This isn't about what classes are offered, where the school is located, or how much it costs - it's the students' desire to learn.
I'm not so naive to think that there won't be temptations at college, as I took part in my fair share of ribaldry and class skipping - but I knew that in order to make the grade I had to do the work. The person that is ultimately responsible for your grade is you, regardless of what the author at HotAir has to say about "grade inflation".
College isn't for everyone. I had this same talk with my nephew after he dropped out of a regional University and thought his parents would be mad at him for the rest of his life. But if you opt to skip college, don't think that you will have the same job opportunities as those with a college diploma, even if you don't have that debt hanging over you.
Got the chance to catch GWAR over the summer at Bonnaroo. Truly a wonderful experience, if you have the stomach and eardrum stamina for it.
One of their latest stage gimmicks is............well, let's just say that Palin fans aren'thappy.
Take a look:
What these reactionary conservatives don't get is that GWAR are equal opportunity offenders - they've done this precise type of act with Bill and Hillary, Monica Lewinsky, Osama bin Laden, and Barack Obama.
I'm sure that once these conservatives see the Obama decapitation piece that they are going to say that GWAR were much more violent in their "assault" towards Palin. Anything to elevate her victimhood status just another notch, you know.
Conservative voters and prominent Tea Bagger pontificators are glossing over the fact that the incoming Freshman class of "patriots" are actually being considered for "leadership" positions.
In a nod to the strength of their newest constituency, House Republican leaders will grant incoming freshmen more say in the party’s direction than most first-term lawmakers receive.
House Republican Leader John Boehner and his No. 2, party Whip Eric Cantor, will notify newly elected Republicans Tuesday that one member of their class will get a seat at the leadership table and another two will be given spots on the Steering Committee, which decides committee assignments and chairmanships in the new Congress.
Members of the class will run for these positions, along with those of class president and freshman representative to the policy committee, on Nov. 17 after the entire Republican caucus selects its leaders for the next two years, according to the letter.
I, and many others, actually expected this to happen. However, it seems that Boehner is looking for a political angle to play, considering this idea is likely to backfire. Not in the sense that the Tea Bagger class will attempt to push legislation that makes them look even more unqualified to lead, but that when the inevitable investigations and lack of forward momentum take center stage, Boehner is going to have the sacrificial lambs to offer up to the masses.
Allahpundit hints at this idea, but it is overshadowed by the gimmick that is Kristi Noem:
Kristi Noem, who’s frequently compared to Palin, is reportedly interested in the leadership position and has the support of Boehner, Cantor, et al. Makes sense for the GOP brain trust: She has tea party cred, knocked off a high profile Democratic up-and-comer in Stephanie Herseth-Sandlin, and is plenty telegenic and well-spoken enough to serve as a spokesman for the new Republican class in TV interviews. More importantly, though, as the Times puts it, Boehner wants to ensure that the new crop is “not tempted into immediate acts of rebellion.” That is to say, they don’t want freshmen tea partiers wandering off and becoming a thorn in the leadership’s side, either by forming their own caucus or joining Bachmann’s tea-party caucus; giving them a voice in the top group is a way to reduce that pressure, and of course to purchase some political cover on tough votes. If they end up bringing something to the floor that makes tea partiers howl, now they can point to Noem or whoever and say, “Hey, she’s partly responsible too.”
So who is Noem?
Here's a clip that Hot Air highlights in an apparent attempt to show that she has the skills and ideas to be an effective representative.
She certainly has her "Palinese" down pat. I didn't hear any specifics, though.
Considering that Sarah Palin's favorability rating is down to roughly 40% as of last week, I'm wondering if conservatives' desire to deify Pailin are backfiring on them. Sarah Gallup results were also the subject of a piece at Hot Air where Allahpundit seemed to infer that Gallup was "cooking" their numbers to reflect badly on Palin. After all, it surely wouldn't have anything to do with her inability to vet those that she endorsed - and those that lost big - in the recent midterms.
But as we all know, "Sister Sarah" can do no wrong.
Let's get back to the incoming Tea Bagger class.
Rand Paul is already starting to look like a complete flop, considering his backpedaling on key fiscal issues that he championed on the campaign trail. From the perspective of the big names that were in play before election day, it's looking like Rand is going to have all the light shining on him. With the losses of Angle, O'Donnell, and Miller, the quartet of unhinged voices is now reduced to a solo performance. Rand, most likely, is well aware of this and likely isn't going to be too comfortable being what his easily lead voting block expects him to be - a game changer.
I think it's fair to say that the spin coming from conservatives in the media and across the country is going to be quite dizzying after January gets under way. Have your Dramamine ready, it's going to be a bumpy ride.
Exit Question: Is Sarah's Facebook Syllabus" for incoming Freshman on Capital Hill going to be seen as a positive or negative for her? Despite the fact that Palin likely has these posts ghost-written, I would have to say that this is more of a preemptive dose of damage control rather than actual encouragement. After all, when things don't pan out exactly the way Palin and her handlers want this to, they are now going to be able to fall back on the "why didn't you do what mommy told you to" narrative.
Gov. Christie, while serving as U.S. attorney, billed taxpayers for luxury hotels on trips and routinely failed to follow federal travel regulations, according to a report released Monday.
The report, released by the U.S. Department of Justice's inspector general, found that while many U.S. attorneys and their subordinates approved their own travel and expenses, the vast majority complied with the approved government lodging rate.
While conservatives will highlight that "it wasn't just Chris" that did this - as the article reports, this doesn't shine be best of lights on the "fiscal powerhouse" of Christie.
This sort of thing, much like how the national debt falls more at the feet of Republican administrations than Democratic, will either largely be ignored or become a talking point about the "need to get one's message out through travel".
I suppose we'll wait and see. The "waiting" part will likely take a great deal of time I would imagine.
Having been at work most of last night as further news unfolded about Keith Olbermann, I feel I need to respond to at least some of it, as most of it has ended up as either rank speculation or nothing more than sophomoric prattling disguised as intellectual discourse.
First, here's Glenn Beck - the man that recently donated a HUGE amount of money to the US Chamber of Commerce. And let's not forget that that action was predicated on the fact that they were doling out money to help bolster the campaigns of conservative, Republican, candidates.
--- clink link to watch clip ---
Beck is most certainly the last person that should be deriding Olbermann for his stance on not voting but giving donations instead.
I'm not going to try and reconcile how the two are different means of socio-political action, but I do think that there is a separation between the two. Though that difference is subtle, Beck would rather take the approach of that of a spoiled rich kid taunting a classmate. To put it a more blunt way, Beck's only ammunition is to either fabricate to insight fear or too mock the messenger rather than address the message. Classic conservative posturing.
Hot Air's mysterious Allahpundit took the predictable route of saying "Fox is more news than MSNBC" - a stance somewhat akin to sticking your thumbs in your ears, wiggling your fingers, while sticking your tongue out and making a mouthy drone. How "professional" of him.
In his response to Olbermann's suspension and the completely unfounded accusation that Keith won't be back - from an anonymous source on less - he referenced a challenge laid forth from the same man that gave Olbermann the temporary boot. That challenge was to show where MSNBC openly "fundraised" for Democrats.
The link provided was to Olbermann stalker Johnny Dollar who referenced less than a handful of examples from Ed Schultz and one from Keith. And while the guests on those specific shows do mention their respective websites, this is nothing in comparison to what the "fair and balanced" folks at Fox"News" do every night. Fox"News" openly encourages their guests that are currently engaged in campaigns to openly ask for support. Then again, that's nuance that conservatives don't seem to understand.
But this is ultimately about the continued war between Fox and MSNBC. For former quite literally coddles to conservativism while the later has booted hosts for even lesser offenses than what Obermann has done.
Michelle Malkin, in full on purse-lipped rage might as well have put her foot in her ever gaping maw as she went on a none-to-clever tirade about "disclosure". Really, Michelle?
Olbermann’s sanctimony and hypocrisy only compound his core failure to disclose the donations before Election Day — especially during the show in which he hosted one of the beneficiaries of that cash.
Whatever NBC’s guidelines may be, it was the basic journalistic failure of the Murrow wanna-be to disclose the donation on the night he hosted one of his cash recipients that seals his fate and undermines whatever iota of credibility his station has left.
So, financial contributions are "free speech" unless an individual does it.
In terms of Malkin's accusations - and actually everyone within the modern conservative movement - that all news networks that aren't Fox are somehow "in the tank" for liberal causes is not only preposterous when even given a rudimentary glance, but that narrative is completely destroyed when considering what MSNBC has done to it's more left-leaning commentators in the past.
To end, here is Racheal Maddow's response to all of this:
Even thought some of the people that I follow on Twitter, some of those in the liberal/progressive blogosphere, and some within my community that I have discussed this with are saying that it's not right for Maddow - or any Democrat - to simply say "well, if Fox does it we can to" is to clearly be missing the point that Racheal put forward; a point that can be seen daily when one watches Fox"News".
What this boils down to is Fox openly campaigning for their Republican and hosting events to raise funds, MSNBC is simply at fault for not attacking their Democratic guests for mentioning their campaign websites on air.
Another distinction that should be noted is that Fox does not have an "ethics" policy like MSNBC does. Also, MSNBC doesn't operate under the false premise of "fair and balanced", and has a clear separation between their news and commentary. But also, isn't that something that Olbermann's detractors are clearly not admitting - that his show is "news and commentary"? After all, those exact words are part of his intro.
To end, I'm not going to remove the fact that Olbermann violated alleged company policy by not disclosing his financial contributions. Also, I'm not going to pretend that this isn't at least fractionally connected to Comcast's take-over of NBC Universal - even though that process is not fully complete. This action by Phil Griffin is clearly one to curry favor with his new bosses prior to their complete placement as NBC Universal owners.
Regardless of what happens to Olbermann, MSNBC management has made a poor decision and conservatives are equally as ignorant to claim some sort of moral victory in this.
With the Angle/Reid and O'Donnell/Coons debates complete, isn't it great fun watching the entire modern conservative movement literally falling over themselves to find just one aspect of how these completely off-the-rails amateurs bested their opponents?
Allahpundit at Hot Air references the single line from Gloria Borger that virtually every conservative in the country was repeating the following day regarding Coon's apparent demeanor:
Coons can can barely contain his disdain for his opponent.
And while followers of the overly peddled "body language" metric are taking this completely at face value, I would argue that Coons showed more disinterest in O'Donnell's presentation of her "argument" rather than revealing to the audience his contempt of her as a person.
But that line just isn't going to drive up your audience share on your next program on Fox"News", is it?
Where Coons fell short - actually REALLY short - was his explanation of the "bearded-Marxist" line, which conservatives continue to fall back on like it's actually a credible piece of evidence against his candidacy.
Rather than explaining how this satirical approach to his political leanings was used in his writings, he relied on the "ah, I was only kidding" defense, which really isn't much of one.
That aside, I'm quite certain that O'Donnell - like most within the Tea Bagger movement - don't really know what a Marxist is, only that it sounds scary and creates the illusion that you have more validity to your side of any particular issue. Kind of like conservatives screaming about the "Constitutionality" of just about everything Democrats have doing and will do. Rather reminds me of a Micheal Bay film - all special effects and no plot at all.
And then there was Sharron Angle and Harry Reid.
Quite literally the only aspect of Angle's performance - or lack thereof - that conservatives are using for her defense is nothing more than childishtaunting. But then again, that is their stock-in-trade.
Malkin's Monday morning quarter-backing of Angle's performance is truly something to marvel at:
In style and substance, Lady in Red Sharron Angle trounced the four-term Democrat Senate incumbent and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid at tonight’s Las Vegas debate.
And in the quotable quote of the night, Angle pricked Reid’s delusions about the teetering Social Security system with two terse words:
“Man up.”
Angle smiled, channeling Reagan’s warrior optimism, and asked for Nevadans’ votes to restore prosperity and freedom and American exceptionalism. Without notes.
One could almost sense the collective "face-palm" of High School debate coaches shivering at the thought of the back and forth at competitions resorting to nothing more than "you man up!", "no, YOU man up!"
This is what the Tea Baggers have done to the intellectual process of debate - reduced it to nothing more than a "you're ugly and your momma dresses you funny" blabber-fest. Then again, conservatives are embracing the idea that you don't need higher education or experience to make your country a better place.
I will say this of Reid, he was - and is, really - too stiff and didn't really take it to Angle like he should have. Perhaps his confidence that he's going to win is showing just a little too much. But if he had been tougher on her, I'm sure the conservative narrative would have shifted from Angle being more effective in her responses to her being bullied. And I'm sure the sexist meme wouldn't have been too far behind.
Both debates were predictable and just a little more than disappointing to watch at times. I'm sure that both sides of the political aisle can agree on that aspect. But from a realistic standpoint, Coons was the clear winner on his night and Reid seemed to just be treading water. The later, to me at least, didn't have a clear winner and that fault falls directly at Reids feet.
What I will say is this - if Delaware elects O'Donnell and Nevada elects Angle, they are going to be sorely disappointed. Anyone recall the last time you heard a conservative shout from the mountaintops about the incredible, patriotic, pro-American job Scott Brown is doing?
In which we see Beck and his "I'm so happy to be here Mr. Beck can I wash your undercarriage" side-kick drone on like a bad comedy duo about something that Palin and Beck are going to be doing on - wait for it...................Sept. 11th.
And we are to believe that this is the same man that said "oh, it's just a coincidence that my rally at DC is on the anniversary of the famous speech by Martin Luther King Jr. at the same location"?
Also, this from the man who is one of the figure-heads of the movement that proclaims with shrieking tones that no one should co-opt Sept. 11th 2001.
And while there is the theory pushed ( and then immediately denounced within the same piece ) by prominent conservative blog Hot Air that this will finally be the day that Palin will tell the world the horrific news that she is going to run for President, I find it quite odd that they would even postulate this.
Sure, the back-peddle within the same piece says precisely what most sane people would also say - that a conservative co-opting Sept. 11th to make an announcement like this would be even greater than what Glenn Beck just did last weekend; or even equal to the press release that Park 51 was going to be built in Manhattan. There are certainly more comparisons, but are we really to believe that conservatives would become enraged even if the "Mother Teresa" of their movement decided she wanted to build her own personal bathroom on the epicenter where Towers 1 and 2 fell?
But is this nothing more than Part II of the Beck/Palin "Let's Use The Anniversary Of Something Important To Make A Rambling Speech About Something That Will Do Nothing But Boost Our Q-Score" Tour? If so, I'm guessing the next date will be in Hawaii on December 7th, only the two will be a few miles away from the USS Arizona - but only if Jan Brewer declines to show up.
What is this all about really? The rallies, the hype, the hysteria, the constant media attacks that don't seems to make much sense the further we get away from Jan. 20th 2009. Are people like Beck and Palin so enamoured with image, fear, and a distorted view of history that they have completely lost the plot?
If I actually believed in God I would say "God bless this woman who took it to Sarah straight on!"
But first, some conservative spin from one of Palin's mouth-agape fame-suckers: Allahpundit.
Late afternoon traffic bait via Breitbart. I assume this was posted by a Sarah-hater, but I’m not sure why: She acquits herself well, as even certain lefties are fair enough to admit, and it’s fun to watch her confront a hostile protester given her rap for hiding inside the Fox News bubble. Even Bristol, newly liberated from 165 lbs. or so of fame-whore dead weight, gets in a shot. Faced with the fact that there’s nothing here that’s actually damning, the lefty spin du jour is that Palin seems to rolls her eyes when the woman tells her she’s a teacher. Which, I guess, is smoking-gun proof that Sarahcuda, the daughter of a science teacher … hates teachers? Or books, or something? Whatever.
You'll notice that while Palin claims that she's all for fighting for "free speech" that her guards with the nice little ear-pieces really don't want this to be featured on tape.
And I like how Bristol gets in her jab that "she's representing *circular hand jesture* United State". Guess her media head-fake that her and Levi were getting back together isn't playing out like she hoped so she has to make sure she's protecting "Mama Grizzly".
And yeah, Palin clearly "rolls her eyes" at the 1:50 mark as the woman declares that she's a teacher. I'm not going to overly-speculate about why Palin would or wouldn't care about teachers in America, but considering that this woman confronting her has called her a quitter and a "money-hungry celebrity", it's clear that Palin was not just annoyed with the confrontation with someone that she used to represent, but didn't have anything to offer once a "real American" slapped her in the face with the reality of who and what she is.
For a good laugh, check out the comments on Breitbart TV and you'll see how easily Palin fanatics are bowled over with not only her lack of candor but her inability to face reality.
This clip of now former Georgia Director of Rural Development Shirley Sherrod needs to be addressed for many reasons, not least of which is the obvious removal of context.
While there is clearly a message of race, financial distress, and how it is remedied coming from Sherrod, one has to take into consideration several factors. In regards to context, the clip showcases remarks that - at first blush - could be considered racist by those whom are explicitly searching for it. And while Sherrod is relating a story of that is predicated on race and how whites and blacks interact, there really isn't a clear ending to her story, as that was obviously cut out in order to further the conservative narrative that it's actually the blacks in America that are racist.
Secondly, there is no proof in this video that Sherrod denied financial assistance to the farmer in question. Granted, the use of the words "his kind" don't exactly help her case, but considering how the story is being framed and how this man allegedly spoke to her, one can almost understand why she chose those words. Was it a poor chose? Most certainly.
Now comes something that I didn't expect.
From the conservative blog First Things and highlighted by Allahpundit over at HotAir, it appears that there's actually the very first example of a conservative showing concern for how a video is being edited that is actually furthering their message.
Doesn’t it seem like, after all of that sort of winking, “you and I know how they really are” racist crap wherein Sherrod–intentionally or not–indicts her own narrow focus, she was heading to a more edifying message? What did it open her eyes about? Was she about to say “I took him to one of his own, but it shouldn’t have mattered about that; my job was to serve all the farmers who needed help.”
Was she about to say, “I learned about myself and about how far we still have to go?”
Was she about to say “it’s not poor vs those who have, because we are not at war, we are just in the same human reality that ever was?”
Was she about to say, “poor is poor, hungry is hungry and the past is the past when a family can’t eat?”
I want to know. Because it seemed like Sherrod was heading somewhere with that story, and the edit does not let us get there. I want the rest of the story before I start passing judgment on it.
And while the piece by The Anchoress quickly devolves into this preposterous notion that the NAACP are shining a light on specific elements of the Tea Bagger movement out of jealously of their alleged success, one has to wonder if conservatives are beginning to show a bit of intellectual honesty - albeit rather late in the game.
Then there's the fact that Sherrod has resigned, apparently due to the release of the heavily edited video. While conservatives are more than happy to insist that Ben Jealous "threw her under the bus" after this trumped-up non-troversy, I'm going to withhold judgement on this until Sherrod makes an official statement.
Fox"News" is all over this story this morning, so I'm sure that the conservative blogging realm is going to be cherry-picking this for some time to come.
New Jersey Governor Chris Christie is having to do some serious damage control after comments he made regarding immigration reform that caused some conservative to do a doublespit-take and start making excuses.
Some righties, Ace among them, are shrugging this off, which I kind of understand. For one thing, conservative rock star though he be, Christie’s still a Republican leading a deep-blue state. We may want to believe he’s Reagan reincarnated but there’s probably a little of Rudy Giuliani in that political DNA. For another thing, he’s wisely chosen not to be too specific about this issue so the quotes end up being ambiguous. What kind of path to citizenship, precisely, does he have in mind? No idea, which is just how he likes it, I’m sure. And of course, he gets the “true conservative” benefit of the doubt that grassroots righties always extend to GOP icons until they say or do something irretrievably RINO-ish. Palin used to be the paradigm example: If she said something sketchy, like, er, about supporting a path to citizenship for illegals, excuses would immediately be offered that she was misquoted or the media was out to get her or (more credibly) that she was only saying that under duress from the McCain campaign, etc. Ever since she endorsed Maverick in Arizona and Fiorina in California, my sense is that people are a bit (but only a bit) stingier towards her in that regard. Christie is still in the full flush of his “the next Reagan?!” buzz, though, he gets the full complement, which means this shouldn’t make too many waves. I think.
So guess where little Chrissy Po ran to for cover?
Gov. Chris Christie (R-NJ) on immigration reform: "The federal government has to get in. They have to secure our borders and they have to set up common sense rules to give people a pathway to citizenship."
Gov. Christie said the state of New Jersey itself can do "very little" to fix this problem, however.
On people who enter legally: "[They] have to be given a pathway to become citizens."
On those who enter US illegally: "My view is that they need to get on the back of the line."
Christie says they should return to the country of their origin "if practical."
"I don't think that you're going to be able to say every person who is in this country illegally is going to go back to their country of origin. That's not going to happen. But, I don't think, Sean, that people who are here illegally should be able to cut [in] the line in front of people who are doing the process the right way," Christie said.
Considering that Christie is already being floated as a possible Presidential candidate in 2012, I’m not surprised that Fox”News” is providing a platform for him to spin his comments. Christie's statements dovetail quite nicely with what conservatives claimed was a call for blanket amnesty from Obama, and that didn’t set well with conservatives. This is spin in its purest form.
This approach is classic conservative misinformation, as they are relying heavily on the suggestive nature of the title to blur the line between fact and fiction.
Allahpundit over at Hot Air claims to have "proof" to back up Kyl's assertions that Obama told him, in a private meeting, that he was not securing the border because amnesty wasn't on the table.
...courtesy of Naked Emperor News.... Obama circa 2004 talking explicitly about border security and amnesty as a political “trade off,” which is precisely what they are. In no sense are the two joined at the hip as a matter of policy; in fact, as I’ve argued before, the feds would be more likely to bring conservatives around on some sort of amnesty if they showed good faith by taking care of the border first. But since Latinos won’t stand for that, neither will a Democratic or Republican president. Hence the obvious “trade off,” and hence The One’s candor in chattering about this with Republicans. We all know the score. Why pretend otherwise?
Take a listen for yourself.
It's common for most people, when hearing statements from others, to remember the first and last pieces of those statements. This has been proven in psychological testing for decades. However, one would think that with the advent of new information technologies that people would be able to utilize those tools and go back to take a second look at something they think may be questionable. This most certainly applies here.
Go back and listen to this clip from Obama.
Did you catch it? Not once was the word amnesty uttered, and the conclusion of the clip ( which was devoid of the question that was obviously asked of him ) was anchored to Obama's call for a path to citizenship for those illegals that have shown to be "good citizens". This completely destroys the talking point that he is in favor of granting blanket amnesty to all illegal immigrants - which was the point that Allahpundit and Naked Emperor News were attempting to make.
With all this talk about how the border is less secure now than it was 2 years ago, I have to wonder why no one is reporting that deportations have increased as well as border crossings had decreased. Could it be that this wouldn't help the conservative cause? Most certainly, yes.
Of course, this is in no way meant to diminish the fact that there are illegals here that are engaging in criminal acts, but where we are losing site of what can and should be a reasonable and justifiable solution to the problem is that our perceptions of who these illegals are, why they are coming here, and what they are doing have been distorted by the ever escalating reporting and how that reporting is done by not just conservatives, but virtually the entire media establishment.
It's a lot like Obama playing golf. He's taken less vacation time and played far less golf than Bush, but you wouldn't know it because that's all that conservatives talk about for days on end. It's a matter of proportions.
As I've stated before, amnesty was granted by Ronald Reagan in 1986 and this didn't hurt Republican's chances for holding office in America. At no point during the 59 second clip ( ripped from a much longer interview that I would really like to hear ) did Obama mention or even allude to amnesty. However, the use of the word has saturated conservative conversations to the point where they think that providing a path to citizenship ( through all legal channels which Obama has proposed ) is the same as amnesty.
It's amazing how some conservatives will attempt to rationalize why Sarah Palin shouldn't have to leave her edited confines over at Fox"News" in order to do a live interview somewhere else. Is it maybe because she will come off as the rank amateur that she truly is?
Palin's number-one metaphorical finger-banger John Zeigler has urged her to accept an invitation to Jake Tapper's program for an interview. This, however, will not happen, even with his semi-drunken ramblings on.
And the damage control for Palin's soon-to-be rejection has already begun over at Hot Air.
Two possible arguments for why she shouldn’t do it. One: Tapper won’t give her a fair shake. Does anyone believe that, though? Granted, JT shouldn’t have excised the term “ObamaCare” from his blog posts just because a few lefty idiots complained, but that’s the only (very minor) sin he’s guilty of that I can recall. There are multiple posts in our own archives about him being tough on Gibbs, and he’s a straight enough shooter to have earned the respect of a Palin-defending media critic as stalwart as Ziegler. He’s not going to ask her what she likes to read, especially not when there’s plenty of topical material circulating on her own Facebook page these days to inquire about. If you want a fair yet challenging interview, that’s your guy.
Two: She’s not ready for an interview with someone who’s not necessarily favorably disposed to her. There may be Palin-haters willing to argue that position, but surely not Palin-supporters. Ziegler thinks she’s plenty capable of handling Tapper’s questions, and the fact that she writes her own Facebook posts supports his position. If you’re serious about her running for presidency, one of the easiest ways to convince swing voters that she knows more than her detractors give her credit for would be to do a “prestige” Sunday show away from the safe haven of FNC. How about it? Israel, the oil spill, offshore drilling, Iranian nukes, the midterms and beyond — there’s plenty to talk about. Palin 2.0 launches now. Exit question: Does Tapper realize that if he trips her up with even a single question, some of her hardest core fans are going to call him a communist?
And here's two points from me to rebuke what Allahpundit is trying to do - aside from his attempt to convince people that her Facebook posts aren't ghost-written.
First: I'm sensing a set-up from Zeigler. If she goes on ( and I honestly don't think she will ) and she flubs ( like she most certainly would ) Zeigler's probably going to have enough material from conservative friends, a possible second interview with Palin, and plenty of video footage from the as-yet interview to make another film for Rich Lowry to masturbate to while he's sipping on his iced tea.
Second: Allah is correct - she's not ready for an interview where someone like Sean Hannity or Bill O'Reilly is going to hold her in the warm arms of the editing suite and practically feed her the answers through a sippy-cup. And yes, the lunatic-fringe Palin fanatics will most certainly lambaste the interview even if there is a modest give and take with Tapper. After all, Jake is known to coddle to the conservative base when he knows it will give him at least a weeks worth of street cred with them. But is that the mitigating factor when decided whom Palin should and shouldn't speak to - whether or not they think the interviewer is going to play a game of tee-ball with her?
I'm really hoping that this will happen. I'm sure, like Allahpundit, that Tapper would stay away from the "what do you read" type questions, but if he asks a question even on par with "what do you think of the Bush doctrine", the Palin is toast.
This clip is really getting under somepeople's skin. But he has a valid point.
Conservatives are want, on a daily basis, to claim that Obama is "think skinned" and that he can't take what's being dished out to him. The reality Obama's statements is completely lost on even the most educated of Tea Bagger. While the truth regarding taxation since Obama took office will not sway any Tea Bagger, it should be pointed out that their Contract For America isn't exactly the picture of fiscal responsibility that they claim to champion.
If you bothered to click the links above, you'll be taken to posts by Malkin and Allahpundit. The former is all pursed-lipped rage while Allah does a great deal of reaching and speculation in an attempt to make some type of semi-cogent point. Both seem to lack the ability to exercise even a fraction of intellectual honesty, but are you really surprised?
Well, if you conservatives that swallow polls hole like so much bitter conservative candy.
That's being said, Allah at Hot Air brings his own particular blend of conservative spin to this.
He leads each of the top GOP contenders by margins that are reasonably healthy, especially in light of the fact that his approval’s headed down the toilet over ObamaCare. That’s because Romney, Huck, and Palin all bring their own baggage to the hypothetical whereas Bush and Paul are more symbolic — Paul because his agenda is probably unknown to most voters (i.e. he’s baggage-less) and Bush because, of course, he embodies the pre-Obamanomics era. In their own way, each is a much purer “Anybody But Obama” choice than the current crop of Republicans.
Allahpundit is a peculiar animal in the realm of Hot Air. His headlines are quite misleading and his semi-cogent prose is somewhat out of place for the particular blog that employs him. He seems to know the reality behind his misinformation but favors staying part of a wildly popular website connected to Michelle Malkin so long as his voice, for what it's worth, is being pushed more than other conservatives. In that respect, he's a much more subdued Glenn Beck without all the preposterous conspiracy theories. After all, Beck recently told Forbes he didn't care about the political process, but to see his nightly show on Fox"News" you'd think otherwise.
Here's where his latest piece reveals what Hot Air is really about.
Nate Silver sampled several polls and weighted for different factors to determine that Huckabee and Romney, not Paul, actually do best head-to-head with The One. That’s useful but no fun; the fun poll, of course, would be an HA reader survey to see where you guys stand on the thorny hypothetical of an Obama/Paul race.
Nate Silver sampled several polls and weighted for different factors to determine that Huckabee and Romney, not Paul,
Yeah, it's no fun looking at the realities of polling and a pollster that Republicans favor. It would be more fun to have a wildly unscientific polls where members could vote multiple times in order to favor the Republican over the Democrat.
...as regular readers of this website will know, the person conducting the poll can have a profound impact on its results. Rasmussen, in particular, has had a substantial Republican-leaning house effect thus far this year. Perhaps they will turn out to be right (although their idea of trying to apply a "likely voter" model 2.5 years in advance of an election is dubious). But it would be wrong to take a Rasmussen poll (or any other) at face value without taking into account this context.
Instead, I've compiled all polls conducted since July of last year(**) that test Obama against a Republican opponent. For this exercise, I use the Real Clear Politics rule of only using one poll from each firm for each matchup (the most recent). I then adjust the polls for house effects using a simplified variation of our standard method; both Presidential approval polls and the numbers from these 2012 matchups are used to calibrate the house effect.
See this graphic:
You see that name, the 4th one down on the Right. That's Ron Paul. What was it that Allah said?
Nate Silver sampled several polls and weighted for different factors to determine that Huckabee and Romney, not Paul....
Oops, seems like somebody wasn't paying attention.
This is just another classic example of how conservatives are more than willing to skew results, and actively ask for results to be contorted, in order for their ideological blatherings to be validated.
GOP Rep. Frank LoBiondo flubbed a questions on two key points of the Constitution by a man who was obviously a Tea Bagger and conservatives jumped allover it
A cringe-inducing moment for GOP Rep. Frank LoBiondo, who confuses the 1st Amendment with Article 1, Section 1 of the Constitution when confronted by a voter at a town hall meeting.
Next time, spare yourself the added embarrassment and just say: “I don’t know.”
Video: GOP congressman fails tea partier’s pop quiz on the Constitution
But it has come to light that this guy is a "truther", so the walk-back has already begun.
The questioner, unfortunately, is a 9/11 Truther. Sigh. Well, even Truthers can expose real truths once in a blue moon...
So what are the pre-requisites for being a Tea Bagger? After all Debra Medina aligned herself with the Tea Baggers and they pretty much fed to to the lions once she admitted on Glenn Beck's radio show that she "wasn't sure" the whole 9/11 story was true.
Odd, that these conservatives will defend racial animus, violent threats against politicians and children, yet if you question your government or the direction your country is going too much then you're obviously to crazy for them. I suppose you have to be just crazy enough.
I will offer this caveat though - by all appearances, this guy seems to know his Constitution, but then again he could have just breezed through Article 1 Section 1 hoping to stump the Congressman enough to fake him out on the obvious follow-up. It would be interesting to see what the questioner knows of healthcare reform. Has he read that?
You can already tell that conservatives are digging for ways to invalidate any portion of healthcare reform they can, and as quickly as possible.
Allahpundit over at Hot Air pulls a clip from Andrew Breitbart and Naked Emporer News to attempt to illustrate some hypocrisy on Obama's part regarding the Executive Order aimed at proving their would be no federal tax dollars used to subsidize abortions.
...in this clip from Breitbart and Naked Emperor News discusses signing statements and not executive orders, it’s hard not to equate the two.
Actually, it IS hard to equate the two, as there is the absence of context as well as them being completely different beasts. But, let's look at his wrap-up.
More to the point, though, this EO will never have any effect. As a host of actual Constitutional authorities have already made clear, any court challenge will wind up with the government forced to obey the law Congress passed and the President signed for the same reasons Obama states in this clip.
What Allah is leaving out is the very reality that the anti-abortion language was already in the bill that was voted on last night. The EO was simply reinforcing language already present. So, if there is a court challenge over the EO, I'd be very interested to see how those opposed to the EO set up their case.
And if you're brave enough, and don't mind giving them the hits, take a gander at some of the 5000+ comments over at Fox"Nation". While Allah and his droogies at Hot Air at least attempt to have a thin veneer of intellectual integrity to their end of the debate, it's all "end of the world" machinations at the "Nation".
While some conservatives are trying to provide covering fire for J.D. Hayworth after his Santorum-esque babblings about gay marriage, those same people are kind of distancing themselves from this type of insane rhetoric. That leads me to wonder two things. First, and considering that conservatives have suddenly embraced the "rights of the individual", can they really risk such a high profile candidate acting like this? Secondly, is this all really just a conservative strategy designed to give them enough wiggle room to blame the "liberal media" when Hayworth looses?
Here's the audio in question.
Hayworth is more of a Tea Bagger candidate than has been presented before - his birther standpoint ( something prominent conservatives have also attempted to whitewash ) coupled with this proves he's got a solid voting block with them - but just take a look at how well they have all fared.
The Republican National Committee plans to raise money this election cycle through an aggressive campaign capitalizing on “fear” of President Barack Obama and a promise to "save the country from trending toward socialism."
The strategy was detailed in a confidential party fundraising presentation, obtained by POLITICO, which also outlines how “ego-driven” wealthy donors can be tapped with offers of access and “tchochkes.”
While this doesn't come as a shock to me or any liberal/progressive, it's interesting to see conservatives already trying to back-peddle on this.
If it’s a day ending in “Y”, it must be time for a Politico story about the RNC alienating its fundraisers. The good news? Given Obama’s state-by-state approval ratings, if fear of The One’s agenda is the key to big money then the path to November shall be paved with bricks of gold. The bad news? Calling your donors “reactionary” and “ego-driven” isn’t usually the quickest way to their wallets.
But they are ego-driven and reactionary, that's why this sort of campaign works so well for the RNC and conservatives all across the nation.
