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.
It's no surprise that The Modern American Right would start crowing like Peter Pan on crystal meth once the Sarah Palin mockumentary premiered in theatres across the US. But one has to ask whether or not these same people have forgotten even the most recent of Right Wing cinema flops that they claimed was a successful box office opening.
The much anticipated Sarah Palin documentary, “The Undefeated”, which chronicles Sarah Palin’s rise from mayor of Wasilla, Alaska to national prominence, will play exclusively in AMC Theatres starting today. You can vote for the movie to play in your town at The Undefeated website.
The Sarah Palin documentary “The Undefeated” opened to a huge opening day. They are selling out from Atlanta to Orange County.
Opens Friday, July 15th!
There are several reports that the audiences are standing and cheering in the theaters.
And while it's not unusual to witness cheering/shouting/standing in theatres during movies ranging from the latest sophomoric Wayans Brothers production to more serious offerings, The Modern American Right is in full framing mode with this one. After all, they have to, considering Palin has become somewhat of a religious figure amongst conservatives and some libertarians.
But lets look at this from an honest marketing and distributing perspective.
The Modern American Right have everything to lose should this mockumentary fail, so it works to their advantage to frame this opening as "groundbreaking". But what they aren't considering is the fact that we are talking about 10 cities, 10 specific theatres, and a cult following that really can't survive in a mass release.
And while some within the Modern American Right are poorly attempting to minimalize the reality of poor ticket sales, I can't but wonder what sort of "victimhood meme" they will conjour once the initial glow has worn off with members of the Tea Bagger set.
What was fully intended to be a weekly feature on Friday got derailed this past week, but here we are anyway:
- Scott Thill over at WIRED satirized both the Left and Right in his write-up of the Top 10 Patriotic Comic Characters.
- I was reminded of the several counties in Western Kentucky that have food share programs ( as well as those that have amazing private gardens ) while reading this piece from Yellow Dog over at They Gave Us A Republic.
- Breitbart employee Jeannie DeAngelis simply doesn't understand copyright law and the rights of the songwriter while attempting to cast Tom Petty in the role of pseudo-sexist-anti-american-left-wing-loon-that-approves-of-affairs-democrats-have.
- The so-called Media Research Center's Geoffrey Dickens seized the opportunity presented by Mark Halperin's suspension from MSNBC to claim that; Yes, Virginia, There Is A Liberal Media Bias at MSNBC. One glaring problem with Dickens' seemingly endless preamble is that Keith Olbermann lost his job because of whom he was and what he said.
- The newly minted "blog diva" - Tina Korbe - at HotAir continues tradition by showing how a "flip-flop" by a Republican really isn't one. Not only that, but she continues the meme regarding the EFCA, which her ill-informed ideological compatriots have dubbed "card-check".
- Over at Fox"Nation", they have a poll asking what the "Most Patriotic Film" is. Granted, they only listed 9 films ( one of which is Independence Day.......LOL ) it's interesting to note that Red Dawn is in 6th place at the moment while the Mel Gibson film "The Patriot" is in first. I'm guessing that more of a Pavlovian response rather than honest consideration.
Here's a new feature that showcases the blogs I follow.
This section will ( hopefully ) be a continuous Friday feature that showcases both the Left and Right. Not in the spirit of "fairnessy and blancyness", but just to show you how completely off base the Modern American Right are and make you understand that the Mainstream Media aren't digging in like they should on the real issues - while favoring the framing of the Right.
- It's certain to be a Right Wing, GOP, Tea Bagger talking point that Anthony Weiner's seat ( oh wait, are we supposed to say it's "the poople's seat"? ) will tilt to the Republicans, but Nate Silver tells us why Rep's should be tepid in their insistence.
- John Cole how Republican/Conservative/Libertarian/Randian? posturing gets mixes in a pot and either comes out as Galt-Cultist goulash, or just idiocy disguised as important socio-political dialogue.
- My Twitter Pal ( @bluegal - you're "it" ) briefly talks about the different from "non-profit" charter schools and "for-profit" charter schools ( read: Tea Bagger Institutions Of "Learning" ).
- Occasional commenter Busted Knuckles over at "Ornery Bastard" has the greatest description of what it means to be a Republican and really break the law in reference to extra-marital exercises.
- Gryphen over at The Immoral Minority points out what Fox"News" and Fox"Nation" will attempt to spin before we can say "Paul Revere actually brewed that beer with Samuel Adams, donchaknow"
- Former "I'm really the intellectual guy" MTV anchor ( and that's fucking funny on it's own ) Kurt Loder takes to the Doughy Pantload path and ends up highlighting how "Fascism" is part of the Green Lantern movie storyline. Yeah, you knew it was coming.
- Breitbart's "Big Gov't" site continues to push their ignorance ( wait, is it really ignorance or just a veiled attempt to protect those businesses that are more than willing to shaft the consumer if they can have accountability removed? ) of Net Neutrality with another call for "defunding".
- The internet's Dumbest Man is more than eager to show his hatred for women's reproductive systems while stalking his employer Andrew Breitbart at the so called "Right Online" convention to attempt to tell people he knows that his decisions are more important than any woman's. Typical.
- Oh, so the Romney "hey, guys I'm unemployed too" bit was just an innocent joke?
- Once again, Brent Bozell's easily lead employee's equate low ratings with "Liberal Media Bias"
Got a link for me to use? You know where I am.............
UPDATE: Somehow I posted the unchecked, raw version of this post the other day without noticing it. So, in the spirit of showing you that I'm not a dithering buffoon who doesn't understand grammar, here's the version that should have been posted.
---------------------------------------------
In the second installment of our series on Right Wing Entitlement Culture, we examine the singular aspect of the modern American landscape that the Right claims is largely against them - The Media.
While the Modern American Right continually blast the "Mainstream Media", it's interesting to note that they also love to blather endlessly about how Fox"News" enjoys a massive audience share that other outlets should be jealous of.
Admittedly, I do watch Fox"News" now and again, but not for the reasons that they claim most people do. More on that aspect of the Right and the media in America in a moment.
I thought I would start this off with what is likely the perfect example of Right Wing Entitlement machinations: a healthy dose of rank conjecture, conspiracy, and more than a sprinkling of insistence of victimhood.
Immediately Breitbart goes after his most prestigious foe - Media Matters. Not because they are explicitly wrong by using context and the precise and accurately accounted words of the Modern American Right and their Fox"News" masters, but because he has a metaphorical hard-on to see Eric Boehlert and company be proven false by any means necessary.
This is the first, and most shining example, of conservative framing - attack the messenger without merit.
In terms of O'Reilly's insistence that he and Fox"News" have proven that Media Matters is a sham operation funded almost exclusively by George Soros, he again references the demonstrably misleading chart of Soros's financial contributions to Media Matters - something Breitbart and Fox"News" have tried to do with NPR as well.
This is where Breitbart - accompanied by an easily convinced O'Reilly - start to make completely false connections with Media Matters, Daily Kos, and Anthony Weiner's staffers that is the perfect definition of "unfounded". What O'Reilly postulates is that simply because people question Breitbart's motives and sources, they are simply trying to "smear" him.
Here is where they actually got it wrong, though their instincts were right from the start.
Andrew Breitbart has been so eager to prove that his socio-political opposites are nothing but corrupt and immoral that he will distribute and champion material that he apparently doesn't properly vet. And for those that used this template as a rational for going after the story and it's credibility, they were wrong - this time.
Breitbart then tries to explain his specious and laughably poor "connections" by referencing the non-controversial Journolist story as if it were in any way controversial. But, to a Conservative or Libertarian, any way to besmirch media that you don't control automatically demands that you label it as controversial.
The pair then went full-on Beckian to insist that MSNBC, Media Matters, and the White House are in this together in order to attack Breitbart and Fox"News". Again, this is something that is not even provable or even in the realm of speculation. What Breitbart and O'Reilly are relying on is another piece of conservative framing - something that media outlets have decided to cover based on nothing more than the Right has said that it was true.
Certainly, Barack Obama has had meeting with bloggers and reporters that champion the Left, but he has be equally open to those on the Right. But, I suppose that O'Reilly and Breitbart think that since they have both not been invited to an exclusive "sit-down" with Obama that this means that there is some sinister plot to destroy them.
Immediately following, O'Reilly defends his network's easily probable track record - defending, championing, and even employing members of the Modern American Right - against attacks targeting them when Breitbart boasts it is simply "projection" by the Left. It's at this point in the "interview" that reality is completely turned on its head.
After Brietbart lambastes The Huffington Post for being a primary source for ensuring that conservative claims never see the light of day - something that simply doesn't happen - O'Reilly goes full on "you know they are going to try and kill you". And Breitbart is more than eager to embrace that meme. After all, conservative victimhood works to their advantage more often than most people are willing to admit.
With that said, I'm not going to state that people of any ideological stripe have not threatened Breitbart. But one has to question what those threats are and if they are real or just posturing. We have all seen where conservative rhetoric leads to.
So how does this "interview" express the very real aspect of Right Wing Entitlement Culture in relation to modern media?
Primarily, it demands that anyone within the Modern American Right never be accountable for their previous mistakes and favor a singular instance where they were correct. I'm reminded of the popular phrase that "a blind squirrel can find a nut every great once in a while".
Secondly, The Right demand on a daily basis that their framing be used as a primer for all media coverage. Unfortunately for those of Liberal/Progressive perspective, this is all too true - even though the opposition that makes these demands will never admit it. Just take a look at virtually all the Sunday Shows on all major networks and you will see this in action. The Modern American Right demand that all media push their narrative - regardless of its merit - again and again and again. This is where they get the term "Liberal Media Bias". If someone doesn't genuflect to their particular belief system then you are guilty of heresy of the highest order.
For classic examples of what Breitbart and O'Reilly are referencing, check here and here.
Let's get back to the notion that Fox"News" has such a large audience share because their "reporting" is accurate, yet they can't seem to embrace the idea that this would make them "mainstream".
I have stated many times that accurate reporting and ratings-share are mutually exclusive creatures and to state that one equals another is a complete fabrication. This equivocation is another form of Right Wing framing. If this were true, then it should cross over into all forms of communications to audiences: The film AVATAR would have been more factually accurate than The Hurt Locker, as more people saw the former at theatres than the later.
Also, employees of Fox"News" have also claimed that America is a nation that is "Center-Right", yet that flies in the face of the fact that a plurality oppose the views that Fox and their compatriots champion.
The job of the American Media is to report the events of the day. When those events are beginning to be largely shaped by Right Wing ideology - and the media doesn't accept that premise - those that are attempting to shape it consider themselves being attacked by those they are attempting to control. This is the very nature of Right Wing Entitlement culture in relation to media.
Essentially, they are spoiled children being told that they can't have all that they want all the time. The reality is that their socio-political opponents are not in control the way they are being presented as.
In light of yesterdays confession by Rep. Anthony Weiner, it's no wonder that Breitbarts Big Blogs are in full on gloat mode.
But there's something that people need to realize - this doesn't vindicated Breitbart in any fashion other than he somehow managed not to screw this one up. And for the man that is perpetually wrong, that's a pretty big step up.
The downfall is ultimately going to be two-fold: Weiner will likely face an ethics investigation and will probably be resigning in the weeks or months to come, and Breitbart will get away with the narrative that all criticism of him, his websites, and his "employees" are completely unfounded because he showed the world Rep. Weiner's - well - weiner.
What this should cause all people to do is put more pressure on Breitbart to prove his legitimacy. We shouldn't let the media give him a complete pass on this. After all, this is the same guy that pushed the demonstrably false ACORN story that the media didn't even come close to correctly covering.
So the question I find myself asking is this - would Breitbart take the same stance against a GOP member of Congress? Likely not, as his modus operandi is strictly "anti-left" and in no way objective in nature. I would suggest we not hold out collective breath in the hopes that Breitbart "expose" conservative misdeeds.
The boasting and bragging will likely dominate media coverage for the remainder of the week, so look for Fox"News" to claim some moral victory before lunchtime today.
As for Weiner, his credibility is pretty much shot in the eyes of the average media audience. But that was the idea, was it not? As one of the most vocal and intelligent opponents of the Modern American Right, Breitbart knew that he had to get this one right so they could be rid of Rep. Weiner. But the Congressman wasn't really a victim so much as complicit in his own downfall, Breitbart just knew he had to exploit it the best way possible.
A saying that most people in America know and often repeat is that there are only two things guaranteed in this world - death and taxes. However, the Modern American Right has added another item that is also guaranteed - anytime the Obama administration does anything, there's going to be a multitude of conspiracy theories formulated.
But not all of these are as crazy and full of comedic value as others.
For instance, the newest meme is that the still photos of Obama's speech Saturday night were "staged", thereby questioning the legitimacy of the message itself. The only problem is that this has been standard procedure since - gasp - the Reagan Era.
John Harrington, president of the White House News Photographers Association, tells me that the Obama Administration has used this technique before and they are not the first.
“I am aware of it happening in previous administrations. I believe Bush 41 [George H.W. Bush] did it too,” Harrington says. “The times where I have known of it happening before is when the president is in the Oval Office and you are working in a very tight space.”
Other photographers who work at the White House told Poynter.org that since the Reagan era (and possibly before) it has been the standard operating procedure that during a live presidential address, still cameras are not allowed to photograph the actual event.
Questioning the actions of the President or his administration officials is completely rational and understandable - that is, until your questions and accusations fail to be rational or understandable.
The morning following the announcement, members of the Modern American Right even went so far as to decry the celebrations in front of the White House as nothing more than a "staged" incident.
Right Wing Socio-Political Agnosticism is quite an intriguing thing to analyze, as they are want to de-emphasize that which can clearly be seen, yet are more than eager to believe that which simply isn't there.
Seeing as how Obama provided the evidence that should silence the "Birthers" once and for all - but you know they'll keep going - the next (il)logical step for the Modern American Right to take is to use the same template in regards to the verified killing of Bin Laden:
The free world, particularly the United States, has a right to make sure Osama bin Laden is really dead. Every American has a right to walk right up to bin Laden’s corpse and view it. We are entitled to know for a fact that the witch is dead. No shroud for dignity’s sake, please – bin Laden’s naked, bullet-riddled corpse should be put on display in lower Manhattan for all the world to see. The entire body should be digitally scanned, inside and out – and made available for everyone to take his or her own picture.
The snuff fetishism of the Right is likely to be the hot issue on the 2012 campaign trail, and that could likely start tonight, as Ron Paul and Herman Cain will be taking the stage for Fox"News".
Truth-be-told, I enjoy a good conspiracy theory, provided it makes me do the research to either verify or debunk it. But the rapid-fire way in which the Modern American Right display their conspiratorial nature tends to make one realize that these are nothing more than excuses for their own ideological ignorance.
NPR's Board Of Directors are just as much to blame for what is happening right now.
Actually, the remainder of American media fails in this regard as well.
Are they so weak that they can't stand up to the edits and distortions of O'Keefe and his pimp Andrew Breitbart? Apparently not, as this is not the first time they have enjoyed a certain amount of "success".
Let's not kid ourselves - the Southern Strategy is very much alive in America; and the Tea Baggers are more than willing to swallow it whole and parrot it without fear of reprisal - whether it be in "dog-whistle" fashion or in blatant racism. And from what I have seen here in Western Kentucky, it's becoming more and more apparent and unchallenged.
And speaking about that was, from my perspective, the catalyst that gave CEO Vivian and Ron Schiller the boot. But why?
The reason is that the bulk of America media seem to be more than willing to kowtow to Right Wing attacks, seem to be all to eager to not push the stories that they should.
Of course, this isn't to say that they should adopt the same tactics that their Far Right compatriots do, but that they should report and expose what is there, and do it honestly and openly. In that regard, I would say that there should be more "Maddows" on television every night.
But as far as NPR is concerned, I'm guessing that they pushed out Vivian as more of a procedural move, and Ron was on his way out anyway. But the fact remains that NPR has come off as the weaker one in this story. But they shouldn't have - or is this more of an example of how their reporting has morphed. Dave Neiwert takes on this aspect of the story far better than I could.
There's actually a 2-hour unedited video of the Schiller encounter that I am going to watch and blog about that O'Keefe thinks will absolve him of any wrong-doing - as "context" is something that the Modern American Right are struggling with - but I'm guessing that this has more to do with the fact that their original intent of showing how NPR will accept money from The Muslim Brotherhood failed, and that Schiller voiced his "individual opinion" regarding the Tea Baggers........but more on that later.
Make no mistake, this is not "nu-journalism" as much as it is deception dressed up as reality. But then again, NPR fell for it just like the bulk of the media fell for the ACORN distortions. But there is a downfall to this - it doesn't address the real failures of government funding - which is the alleged point of all this O'Keefe/Breitbart hysteria.
At the end of the day, NPR dropped the ball and made themselves look as foolish as O'Keefe and Breitbart intended them to.
When are people going to realize that scams like this are so transparent?
Naturally, Glenn Beck would weigh in on this in order to malign anyone within the liberal/progressive movement.
Funny how he is doing exactly what he told people NOT to do in reference to the Tea Baggers that have repeatedly been caught using racial divisiveness and blatant and unblushing racist language.
And while the reactionaryRight in America are falling over themselves trying to show that it's really the Left that are the racists, there is one thing that separates what happened at the Koch's event and what happens each and every time a Tea Bagger is highlighted for their racial animus - the Left actually holds people accountable while clearly admitting that not everyone in attendance at any event is going to be a "perfect" person.
Common Cause, the group hosting the Florida even where Breitbart and his crew shot the video in question, has released this statement:
Common Cause condemns bigotry, hateful statements caught on film at rally
Common Cause’s 40 year history of holding power accountable has been marked by a commitment to decency and civility – in public and private. So we are of course outraged to find that a few of those attending the events around a gathering Common Cause helped to organize Sunday near Palm Springs voiced hateful, narrow-minded sentiments to an interviewer in the crowd.
We condemn bigotry and hate speech in every form, even when it comes from those who fancy themselves as our friends.
Anyone who has attended a public event has encountered people whose ideas or acts misrepresented, even embarrassed, the gathering. Every sporting event has its share of “fans” whose boorish behavior on the sidelines makes a mockery of good sportsmanship; every political gathering has a crude sign-painter or epithet-spewing heckler.
We organized the “Uncloak the Kochs” panel discussion and took part in the rally afterwards to call public attention to the political power of Koch Industries and other corporations, their focus on expanding that power, and the dangers it presents to our democracy.
We’re committed to staging other forums and public events in the coming months to continue that effort. We urge all Americans of good will to join us.
Those on tape who made these pointless and ridiculous statements are just as bad as the Tea Baggers that make equal claims against their opponents. They are both a pox on their respective movements and should be pointed out as such. However, the modern American Right are more intent on framing this as a failure of American popular media as well as a way to white-wash their own failures.
Once the initial claim broke that ALL within the Tea Bagger caliphate were racists, I knew that this would spell trouble for the Left in America - as it wasn't true. Certainly, there are more than enough racists in the modern American Right to have to deal with at any given "party gathering", but to paint the entire group with the same brush is dishonest. I think there are even some I would regard as my political opposition that just might be able to exercise the intellectual honesty to admit even as much.
The only problem is that a majority of Tea Bagger allies are more content to point the finger in the opposite direction - or even reinforce the Left's claims by trying to be clever - and cast aside accountability ( allegedly a cornerstone of conservative ideology ) in total.
The Left in this country would do well to speak out about this clip, but do so in an honest fashion that not only points out that racial animus can cross party lines but showcase how the modern American Right are continuing with the same debunked narrative - that it's not them.
Sarah Palin is out for blood (again) this time against an Alaska CBS affiliate. She's accusing the station's reporters of conspiring against Joe Miller, calling them "bastards" and suggesting that the initials CBS stand for "Corrupt Bastards Club." The station is strongly defending itself, though, calling her claims entirely unfounded.
Palin, Miller, and their supporters are basing their accusations on a snippet of audio they leaked to Andrew Breitbart's website Big Government. The audio is weak, and it's hard to suss out the context, but what you can hear sounds like KTVA reporters facetiously explaining how to turn a story into a sensation: specifically, jesting about finding a child molester who's voting Republican and tarring Miller by association. The conversation took place after one of the reporters left a message for a Miller spokesperson, but accidentally failed to hang up.
It's a veritable conservative trifecta of outrage.
Let's take a listen to the audio:
Clearly, whomever is involved in this conversation did mention "child molesters", but there is no indication that these people are planning on concocting a story to attack Miller or are just being snarky. Naturally, conservatives are insisting that the former is true, and that "context" has nothing to do with it:
KTVA’s explanation is absurd. What possible context can they put around the suggestion that they start looking for child molesters at a political rally in order to exploit that for their television coverage? That’s a “potential what-if scenario”? Is this a suggestion that came up in strategy sessions when discussing a McAdams campaign rally?
The only absolution KTVA could have possibly had was showing that this conversation didn’t take place among their staff, but was left on the voicemail by some other people or organization. Even if KTVA approached coverage of every political event in this manner, it would be an embarrassment. In this case, it shows a strong bias against Miller and gives a window into the editorial direction at KTVA.
Next up: will CBS management take action against their affiliate?
Considering how the modern conservative movement approaches Democratic candidates, I'm really wondering if this is the argument that Ed Morrissey is wanting to present.
But let's look at the definition of the word "context":
–noun 1. the parts of a written or spoken statement that precede or follow a specific word or passage, usually influencing its meaning or effect: You have misinterpreted my remark because you took it out of context. 2. the set of circumstances or facts that surround a particular event, situation, etc.
I find it very hard to believe that anyone could divine any sort of context from the garbled audio that Andrew Brietbart's Big Journalism is peddling as the latest narrative puzzle piece designed to distract conservative voters.
In addition to Palin's complete lack of understand of who context works, she also seems to be unable to differentiate between the letters "S" and "C":
Apparently, college graduate Former Half-Gov Illiterata McAirHead thinks the letter C is the same as the letter S. CBS cleverly stands for “Corrupt Bastards Club” in her brain-deficient little unschooled world.
Palin, along with virtually every conservative in America, relies heavily on blaming the messenger rather than tackling the message - whatever it may be at the time. Her claims against CBS tend to fall more than a little flat when one considers the fact that KTVA is owned by the Alaska Broadcasting Co.:
KTVA News is owned by the Alaska Broadcasting Co., not CBS. No CBS staffers were involved and CBS has no knowledge of and no comment on these allegations.
Joe Miller has created enough problems on his own, so I'm not seeing how this trumped up accusation is going to improve his chances of winning against Murkowski. The GOP was already distancing themselves from Miller prior to this latest attempt to slander any media outlet that isn't Fox.
ABC's Jonathan Karl reports: A high-level GOP source tells me that party leaders have essentially given up on Republican Senate candidate Joe Miller and are now banking on a victory by write-in candidate Lisa Murkowski as the best bet for Republicans to keep the Alaska Senate seat.
Murkowski defied party leaders by running a write-in campaign after she lost the Republican primary last month. But with Miller's campaign faltering, the source tells me that Republican leaders are now worried that Democrat Scott McAdams has a shot of winning and that Murkowski may be the only way to stop him.
This will be nothing more than a launching pad from where people like Palin, Breitbart, and Miller can unleash boiler plate rhetoric and continue to portray themselves as perpetual victims and that would never engage in pushing fabricated stories about political candidates.
Take a look at this video and "interview" that Fox"Nation" is obviously peddling as a rebuttal to the blatant physical assault on Lauren Valle by a Rand Paul donor.
First, if this man is being choked, why is he finding it so easy to clearly yell.
Secondly, where's the lead-in to this incident?
Oh, that's right, it's been edited out.
If this was such a shocking display of physical force, one would think that the person operating the camera would stick with this to talk to the person "assaulted".
Third, we're meant to take this man at his word as to how the events unfolded after what we saw on camera. And considering not only who is distributing this as proof of "left wing violence perpetrated by MoveOn.org", I'm guessing that there was a little pre-interview coaching going on.
Lastly, where's the proof that this man is a member of MoveOn.org? Yeah, got to rely on specious testimony again.
The sound quality is pretty poor, and you do see a woman approaching Breitbart - I'm guessing it's him, as the video quality is equally as shoddy - but there's more to this than we see. Take a look.
From the start, let's be up front - it does not not do your cause any good if you spit on someone. Period.
That being said, let's examine exactly what Andrew Breitbart and his overtly eager droogie are doing.
Breitbart is essentially running headlong into this crowd, know precisely the type of person he is and how he operates, and is clearly taunted and ridiculing them in order to provoke a response. He's actively searching for that one person who will step over than line just so he can prove his point - if he even really has one.
But here's where we have to question the "spitting" episode.
Certainly, the woman holding the camera-phone has a much clearer vantage than we do - seeing as how her choice in AV technology is seriously lacking. But she is also more than far enough away to not hear what Breitbart has said to this woman. Not only that, but in the video, you really don't see the act of a woman spitting on another person, you see a woman in orange dress lean towards Breitbart and then the shouts of "I have that on camera".
Am I saying she didn't do it? No. I'm just stating that we are lacking relevant context.
Would you become so enraged with a person if they stepped over that one edge with you that the only thing you could think to do is exude this visceral response of spitting? I'm sure we all have that breaking point. Do we know what Breitbart said to her? Absolutely not.
As for the situation, there's enough "evidence" to rule that this woman was more than likely out of line. But then again, we are assuming a great deal considering how Breitbart was acting towards the crowd earlier in the tape, as well as their clear intent on being there.
To use a phrase that we often hear from conservatives - question the timing.
Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele has a party fundraising event coming up in August that is scheduled to feature a very special guest: Conservative media activist Andrew Breitbart, according to a copy of the invitation exclusively obtained by TPM.
The fundraising event, billed as an "Election Countdown," will take place from August 12-14 in Beverly Hills, California, and will also feature other politicians such as California Lt. Gov. Abel Maldonado, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, and Nevada Republican gubernatorial nominee Brian Sandoval. Steele and Breitbart are scheduled to co-headline a welcome reception on the first evening, August 12.
It's certainly some odd timing for the RNC to be working closely with Breitbart, who, of course, has made headlines recently for circulating a video clip of then-Department of Agriculture official Shirley Sherrod, an African-American, seeming to tell a story about how she would not help a white farmer who was down on his luck 24 year ago. Sherrod was quickly forced to resign last week. And as it turned out, the full video showed that Sherrod was telling a story about how she ultimately did not discriminate against the farmer -- that this was a great turning point in her own personal story of race relations in the South -- and she did help him. Indeed, the farmer himself has come forward to defend her and discuss their lasting friendship.
Sure, this could have been planned months in advance, but isn't it odd that Micheal "I'm going to tap into the modern hip-hop movement to get more votes" Steele AND Andrew "I'm going to prove that all blacks are either racists or out to do something illegal or detrimental of the fabric of this nation" Breitbart are going to do a fundraising duet?
I'm guessing this is where Fox"News" will chime in that Andrew isn't a racist because he's going to share the stage with a black man. I'm sure that's coming - probably in the form of Sean Hannity's program complete with "Rev." Jessie Lee Peterson and Eric Rush.
Andrew Breitbart is struggling to get his latest narrative out there no matter who he attacks - even if it's the people he apparently was trying to defend.
The old conservative stand-by - accuse people of being a "plant" simply because your thesis has been torn apart. The sad part of it is that I was actually expecting this to happen.
Think Progress has more details that show how desperate Andrew Breitbart is to win this no matter who gets caught in the cross-fire.
From my perspective, Breitbart is either completely naive when it comes to the use of video footage that is given to him or he is willing to lie to the American public in order to get face-time on cable news. I'm suspecting that it's a healthy dose of the later and more than a pinch of the former. Honestly, how completely clueless does a man have to be to accept edited video from a source without questioning it's authenticity?
- With Arizona governor Jan Brewer the "face of the moment" for Tea Baggers, I'm guessing this upcoming meeting with President Obama is going to earn her some face-time on Fox"News". However, her ability to be honest about the meeting will most certainly be in question from those not within the reactionary realm of conservative ideology. After all, they do tend to confuse constructive criticism with being totally unhinged and "angry".
- As per the norm for Caribou Barbie, she took after NBC when an alleged promise was made to Sarah and Todd that, if they chose not to appear on a program to directly respond to author Joe McGinnis, they would have any prepared statements featured on the show. Naturally, Palin and hubby lack the courage to appear anywhere but Fox"News" and opted out. Statements were prepared but never featured on the program. However, there is no conclusive proof that NBC struck such a deal and we are left to rely on the questionable words of the Palin's. I'm of the mind that they formulated this plan in order to keep up the narrative that there is rampant "liberal media bias" in America.
- Seems that little Jimmy O'Keefe is afraid to do any interviews on his own, as he's got his pimp-daddy Andrew Breitbart in tow during a sit down on Good Morning America. The incessant whining is pretty much non-stop and O'Keefe even admits that he would break the law again if given the chance. And it's likely that he violated his parole by engaging in fraudulent actions by forging Census documents.
- And speaking of O'Keefe and Breitbart, Andrew went on Glenn Beck's radio program to complain that they were "sandbagged". That's conservatives code for asking to be held accountable.
- I'm not entirely too certain who's side to take in this whole Flotilla episode, but when you have the Israeli government conducting the study of the "peace keeper's" actions, I'm detecting just a tiny bit of conflict-of-interest. Of course they are going to allege that they have terrorist ties, it fits their narrative all too nicely.
- Here's something for the brain to chew on. Right now, out of the 24 pieces on the front page of Michelle Malkin's blog, only half were written by her. She's been doing this a lot lately. And while I'm sure even The Purse Lipped Rage Princess needs a break now and again, I'm starting to get the feeling that she's working on another book. Perhaps it's about how conservatives didn't do as well in the mid-term elections as they thought. After all, that "Culture Of Corruption" book came out VERY FAST after Obama won the Presidency. Just sayin.
Is that the chick from China Beach in the lower right-hand corner? Who is that?
Well, nevermind her.
Let's take a look at a couple of things Breitbart is blubbering about.
First off, has anyone notice that Saul Alinsky was never a concern of the conservative movement until Obama pretty much had the election clinched in 2008? I can't recall one instance in the years prior hearing Fox"News" or conservative bloggers or beltway pundits talking about him. Seems there's a great deal of projection going on in that regard.
Secondly, justifying racial animus by claiming that it's not you but THEM that are propagating it does seem a bit typical and predictable. After all, having seen people like this and seeing signs like this, you do tend to be skeptical of the claim that there are no racist amongst the Tea Baggers.
This very idea that people like Breitbart are not admitting the obvious and not distancing themselves from this hate speech and racial divisiveness, that they think by not having a sense of accountability - something that conservatives continually preach but completely fail in on a daily basis, they can say whatever they want and get away with it. This isn't just about Fox"News" - the PR arm of the Tea Bagger movement - but the media at large ( save a few select members ) are not taking conservatives to task and demanding that conservatives explain why they are allowing racial hate speech to continue.
I guess it's ok to denounce "truthers" within the movement but not racists.
This is just really pathetic. Once again, C-List conservative blogger La Shawn Barber uses her temporary duties over at Malkin's corner of the internet to use racial tensions to attack liberal/progressives. She, like most of the Right this week, are claiming that there is absolutely no proof at all that there were racial epithets used at the recent Tea Bagger shout-fest in DC.
Nothing shuts down the debate like relaying third-hand stories about some conservative calling somebody a ni**er. Accuse now, ask questions later.
But this is where her piece takes a turn into conservative idiocy.
You’ve read the news stories. According to reports, Tea Party protestors called Congressman John Lewis a ni**er last weekend as he and other lawmakers walked through the crowd. Is it true? Has the allegation been corroborated? Andrew Breitbart is offering a cash reward for proof.
And he’s upped the ante.
Breitbart’s offered to donate $10,000 to the United Negro College Fund for proof that someone used the epithet. I wonder if UNCF would accept the cash.
Because we all know that paying off blacks in America makes it ok to use the N-Bomb.
Seriously, are we supposed to take Barber and Brietbart seriously?
Why doesn't he just contribute to the UNCF already?
The bottom line is that there will never be enough conclusive proof for people like La Shawn Barber or Andrew Brietbart. Their "proof" is that since no Tea Bagger will come forward and claim they heard anyone called a n****er that THAT is the penultimate signifier that there is no racial animus within the conservative movement.
Apparently there are more "tapes" staring conservatives favorite "filmmaker" James O'Keefe. The only problem is, they can't be released just yet. What, a problem with the editing process? Need to add the "special effects"? Not so said intrepid mouth breather Andrew Breitbart.
So why can't the tapes be released? Are they part of O'Keefe's ongoing ( and justifiable ) criminal proceedings? This is the likely situation, but this is likely the same song and dance that we got during the ACORN dust-up. The intro to the tapes show O'Keefe as a pimp but while in the ACORN offices, he was dressed as a "politician". And it's not that difficult to find someone to dupe no matter who they work for. We haven't seen the complete, unedited, footage that O'Keefe shot, and neither has Breitbart - they were brought to him already edited.
What was cut out? Likely footage that would make this all seem much less sinister than it was presented as. The same will likely be true of the alleged HUD tapes.
I'm with Paddy ( The Political Carnival ) on this one. The more you hear Breitbart prattle on as if he knows what he's talking about, you get the sense that he is one of the most magnificent ass-goblins on the planet.
It sounds all nice in his head, I would imagine, but are we really expected to believe that he would actually say all that to her if they met? He obviously has a very low opinion of Rachel Maddow and anyone who would rightfully point out his connection to James O'Keefe's illegal activities.
That aside, Breitbart's continued assertions that it's all the fault of the mainstream media that the Tea Baggers ( and conservativism as a whole ) are viewed negatively. Certainly, there are opinion shows ( Ed Schultz, Olbermann, and Maddow ) that express their opinions about the Tea Baggers and conservatives, but they have clear examples of racist, hypocrisy, and general ignorance. These weren't just fabricated, as Andrew would have us believe.
And this blathering nonsensical narrative that the media at large held up Obama as some religious icon is preposterous beyond measure. In point of fact, it is the conservative movement that is in the business of deification. Just look at how they treat people like Palin, Brown, and Reagan. If anything, conservatives like Andrew have set the bar so mind-bogglingly high, that there is no way that Obama ( or any Democrat ) will ever meet their alleged "standards". Odd that that bar is considerably lower when Republicans are in power.
Andrew Breitbart is a man of bluster and no substance. His colorful invective creates the illusion that he has some semblance of higher brain functions and original thought. He's really not saying anything new.
Andrew Breitbart fancies himself a rare creature - someone that takes on "The Machine". In reality he is more than willing to bend the laws of America ( and reality ) in order to prove a point. He's not rare, as the bulk of conservatives think and act in this fashion.
During the National Tea Bagger Convention in Nashville last weekend, Breitbart was seen talking with someone about James O'Keefe's run-in with Federal authorities while attempting to tamper with the phones in Senator Mary Landreau's office.
Yeah, nothing wrong with infiltrating a Senator's office under false pretense with intent to tamper with the phone systems. It was just a little prank.
Let's see a group of Muslim-American activists pull this stunt and see what happens. Breitbart would be screaming that it was an act of terrorism.
