Malkin Pours On The Spin-Love Little Jimmy O'Keefe

Not content with even attempting honest investigative journalism, James O'Keefe and his blind compatriots at Project Veritas have cranked out another completely worthless video "expose". This time attempting to do something along the lines of point out hypocrisy regarding people that own guns and the poor decision of a New York newspaper that printed a map of registered gun owners in the region. At least this is what we are lead to believe.

 The only problem is they just wasted time, video editing equipment, internet bandwidth, but - but at the same time - managed to maintain the uncheck, unwaivering, and fawning support of select members of the Modern American Right that lap up O'Keefe's nonsenscial prattling and context free experiemnts like so much cream. Naturally, Ed Morrissey over at Hot Air attempted - and poorly at that - to approach this from a semi-professional bit of spin, twitching serial misinformer and mouth-breathing sychophant jumps with glee, but it was Michelle Malkin's metaphorical hand-job for young Jimmy that really made me laugh. In her latest piece of Malking drooling over O'Keefe entitled WHAT I ADMIRE MOST ABOUT JAMES O'KEEFE, the Purse Lipped Rage Princess traded in her faux indignation for a warm hand and some lubricated language to prove her undying affections for little Jimmy:

…is his willingness and unmatched ability to go after the most sacred of sacred cows: The sanctimonious beasts of the Fourth Estate;

…his relentlessness in exposing media double standards;

…his entrepreneurial independence;

…his indefatigable humor;

…and his success in bringing a smile to my face every time he produces another classic video using the very techniques of those hallowed beasts of the Fourth Estate who feign objectivity.

let's take these preposterous bullet points ( no pun intended ) one at a time.

- his willingness to distort, lie, misinform, edit, and go after people whom have done no wrong is certainly there.

 - Ah, the dreaded media that doesn't tow the Right Wing line. I would ask her what her alleged "standards" are, but I think that would fall on deaf ears. We know what they are anyway

 - There is NOTHING even remotely "independant" about what Project Veritas do. He was at the beck and call of the late deacon of "nu-media" lies, Andrew Breitbart and WELL funded by the corporate overlords that funneled cash into Breitbart's media complex. However, he is at least marginally considered "entrepreneurial", if only in the sense that even a liar can make a buck.

- I'm wondering where Malkin gets that O'Keefe is humorous in any shape of the definition.

 - The last bit is where Malkin finishes off little Jimmy with her silver-tongued prattlings. It's actually pretty disgusting when you think about it.

 It truly is a sight to see what the Modern American Right consider investigative journalism. But it doesn't matter to them, so long as it can be destributed and they control the narrative across legitimate media platforms that feel compelled to waste precious airtime on discussing such pointless and meandering fakery. But unfortunately, it happens will continue to.

 I guess I at least a little guilty in that regard simply because of this post.

Yes, He Did: Pt. III - It's All A Conspiracy!!!!!

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.

Yes, He Did: Pt 2 - It's All About George

This was a natural path for the Modern American Right to take - credit George W. Bush for the success of the Obama administration. But do they remember this:



So why give credit to a person that admittedly wasn't concerned with Bin Laden - even after the whole "Dead or Alive" meme became such a chant with those that were the unflinching supplicants of the Bush administration. Additionally, since "waterboarding" ended in 2005, and if the Modern American Right are really wanting to maintain that it was the singular technique that helped find Bin Laden, why did the Bush administration not act on this intel they allegedly had?

The reason that people should be asking that is due to the latest meme that has sprung up within the Modern American Right - that Obama took 16 hours to decide how to approach this situation.

Take just a moment to consider the implications of reactionary decision making. While many within the Left wanted the Bush Administration to be more aggressive in going after Bin Laden just days after the attacks on September 11th, we knew that reactionary foreign policy wouldn't work, but this latest and laughable assault on the Obama administration stinks of so much hypocrisy that I shouldn't even have to tell you about it.

But there is an element within this event that I think we all need to understand - that Bush had, at least, a small roll in finding Bin Laden. Obama understood this, accepted this, and wanted him to be a part of the celebration of his death and what should be the singular action that ends our occupation of Afghanistan. The only problem is that Bush wanted no part of it.

Naturally, the Modern American Right are going to frame this as Bush "knowing" that Obama is just using this as a campaign tool. But didn't Bush use Bin Laden as a campaign tool for years? The hypocrisy continues.

Did the Bush Administration have any roll in finding Bin Laden? I'm certain they did, but I'm not so blind to know that "waterboarding" was the singular technique that found him.

Is Bush taking advantage of this to make Obama look bad? you bet he is:

A spokesman for George W. Bush says the former president has declined an invitation from President Barack Obama to attend an observance at New York's ground zero.

Obama plans to visit the site of the destroyed World Trade Center towers Thursday in the aftermath of a Navy SEALs raid that killed Osama bin Laden. The al-Qaida attack, which killed about 3,000 people, occurred in the early months of Bush's presidency in 2001.

The spokesman, David Sherzer, says the former president appreciated the offer to attend but has chosen to remain out of the spotlight during his post-presidency.

I'm almost certain that the Modern American Right are going to use this as yet another tool to claim that Bush is more of a leader than Obama is.

Conservative Paranoia

Ever since the release of the DHS report on Right-Wing extremism, conservatives are beside themselves that Janet Napolitano's department is actually doing what it is supposed to be doing.

Most, like Michelle Malkin, are pushing the notion that ANYONE with conservative beliefs are going to be targeted:

....the piece of crap report issued on April 7 is a sweeping indictment of conservatives. And the intent is clear. As the two spokespeople I talked with on the phone today made clear: They both pinpointed the recent “economic downturn” and the “general state of the economy” for stoking “rightwing extremism.” One of the spokespeople said he was told that the report has been in the works for a year. My b.s. detector went off the chart, and yours will, too, if you read through the entire report — which asserts with no evidence that an unquantified “resurgence in rightwing extremist recruitment and radicalizations activity” is due to home foreclosures, job losses, and…the historical presidential election.

Interesting that Malkin didn't cite her source, only that she "spoke" with someone.

David Niewert @ C&L pointed out the obvious in Malkin's reactionay response:

So, I have a question for Malkin: Are you saying that mainstream conservatives are now right-wing extremists?

Because, you know, the report -- which in fact is perfectly accurate in every jot and tittle -- couldn't be more clear. It carefully delineates that the subject of its report is "rightwing extremists," "domestic rightwing terrorist and extremist groups," "terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists capable of carrying out violent attacks," "white supremacists," and similar very real threats described in similar language.

Nothing about conservatives. The word never appears in the report.

Because, you know, we always thought there was a difference between right-wing extremists and mainstream conservatives too. My new book, The Eliminationists: How Hate Talk Radicalized the American Right, does explain that the distance between them has in fact shrunk considerably, thanks to the help of people like Malkin.

And now she's evidently intent on shrinking it further

Once again, I'm reminded of Ann Coulter's latest book about "liberal victimhood". Sad, isn't it.

Media Matters has a video compilation of some of the loudest and most paranoid voices from the Right.



Interesting that Dobson would say that these people don't exist.

The recent murder of 3 police officers in Pittsburg - by a man that thought the government was going to take his guns away - in Pennsylvania and the church shooting in Knoxville don't seem to gel with the good doctors "facts".

Something that Malkin, Dobbs, Hannity, and others may have conveniently forgotten there has already been an asessment on Left-wing extremism done by the DHS.

"Conservative" Means "To Annoy People"

Well, according to (m)Ann Coulter it does.

Sarah Palin wins HUMAN EVENTS’ prestigious “Conservative of the Year” Award for 2008 for her genius at annoying all the right people. The last woman to get liberals this hot under the collar would have been … let's see now … oh, yeah: Me!

Coulter also thinks that if you put the word "prestigious" in front of an award most people havent' heard of that it will at least sound important. Come to think of it, people like Coulter and Palin never really annoyed most people. They continually provide hours of laughter and are great source material for jokes. If only for that, the two should be receive some sort of achievement award.

That being said, reading through this preachy and long-winded piece - what else would you expect - you start to get the feeling that Coulter is a little slow off the mark, that's she's starting to lose the edge that she had 2 years ago when she put out "Godless".

The entire article is rehash of tired conservative meme's that never worked from the get-go.

However, this segment seemed to contain the thesis that Coulter could muster during her endless, verbal handjob of a preamble:

Palin was a kick in the pants, she energized conservatives, and she made liberal heads explode. Other than his brave military service, introducing Sarah Palin to Americans is the greatest thing John McCain ever did for his country.

But unless Palin is going to be the perpetual running mate of “moderate” Republicans who need conservative bona fides, she will need to become wiser and better read. Even Reagan didn’t run for President in his 40s. (True Obama is in his 40s, but we are not Democrats.)

Palin, a "bona fide" conservative?

If that's the case then keeping people like her as far away from higher office as possible shouldn't be a problem.

It's About Ideology, Not The Economy

From my own personal perspective, conservative Republicans would gladly slit the throats of the working class in order to push their own ideological nonsense.

Further proving that they are the party of "against" ( this time in reference to the auto industry $15 billion dollar bailout ) the conservative Republicans have turned the 'Big Three' auto maker's financial troubles into nothing more than a massive union-busting effort.

Now that Republicans have squashed the bailout, they are claiming that it was the unions that were at fault:



Here are some comments from UAW president Ron Gettelfinger:



The massive $700 billion dollar bailout for "Wallstreet" passed with such literal ease that it reinforces the notion that many within the Republican political realm care far more about corporate interests than those of the working class. When viewed against the $15 billion dollars requested by the auto industry, there seems to be little - if any - reason to question conservatives motives.

The American economy and the working-class be damned. Conservatives seem to be ready to do whatever it takes to destroy an entire segment of the population just so they can save face with a few.

Think Progress has more.

While there are a variety of opinions regarding the auto industry's need for an injection of funds, I have to ask the question when viewed through the lens of the support industry.

What about the companies that supply steel to the auto makers? US Steel has already http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/12/12/8150/9863?new=true thousands of jobs.

There is a definate ripple-effect that many don't seem to be willing to take into consideration.

But He Went Along Anyway

Many within the conservative Republican realm seem to have a difficult time standing on their alleged convictions.

They talk about family values and end up getting caught in some airport bathroom trolling for a quick handjob. They do their best to ensure that kids are protect from child-predators and are busted for trading naughty text messages with 16 year olds.

One begins to understand that their convictions mean absolutely nothing to them unless it''s convenient.

This is SOP for the uber-political, but what about if you are a being used by those same politicians simply because you claim to stand by your convictions. That's where Joe-The-Non-Plumbing-Plumber comes in.

It appears now that he wasn't as cozy with McCain as he was trying to make the world believe. In pimping his new book - and it's "his book" in name only btw - he did an interview with the new kid coming to Fox"News" ( Glenn Beck ) about what he really feels about McCain now:

WURZELBACHER: When I was on the bus with him, I asked him a lot of questions about the bailout because most Americans did not want that to happen. Yet he voted for it. … And I asked him some pretty direct questions. Some of the answers you guys are gonna receive — they appalled me, absolutely. I was angry. In fact I wanted to get off the bus after I talked to him.

BECK: Really? Now why didn’t you get off the bus?

WURZELBACHER: Um, you know, honestly, because the thought of Barack Obama as president scares me even more.

More here from ThinkProgress

But oh, what fun times it was when you were carried into the limelight on a lie.

It seems that Joe is trying to distance himself from McCain simply because of his opportunistic nature. The shear presumptiveness of this man is staggering. I'm guessing that this isn't going to be Pulitzer material, nor that there will be throngs of "liberals" waiting with baited-breath to hear him talk smack about his former buddy.

The Party Of "Against"

Ever since I started paying attention to politics - which I should have been doing since I was of the age to vote - I've notice more and more that Republicans ( primarily the hardline conservatives within their ranks ) are more apt to be "against" everything rather than be "for" something.

The latest example of this is Michelle Malkin's continued chants of "suck it up".

She, along with many others in the conservative Republican realm, are against Unions. They have this irrational hatred for American workers - no matter the industry - that have organized in order to get better wages and healthcare.

She isn't so much concerned with the reprocussions should the American auto industry fail. She could give less than once ounce of a shit if hundreds of thousands of people lost their jobs. She thinks this, says this, and refuses to explain her reasoning. She operates within abstracts, within not-so-well-thought-out catch-phrases because it makes it seem as if the country doesn't need it's auto industry. American workers shouldn't have to Unionize, because surely their employers treat them well.

It's quite the sight to behold, someone so caught up in the script she's been handed that she can comprehend the reality that's right in front of her.

It's apparent that far too many people don't understand that it wouldn't be just the auto industry faily, it would be the support industry as well.

I'm Going To Tell On You

Naturally, if you are a high-level member of an exiting Presidential administration, you've got to get your book-deal on.

Karl Rove's new book ( I'm not certain of the title, but it's probably going to be something like If You Don't Like George Bush Then You're A Baby Killer ) that he apparently wrote in between guest appearances on various Fox"News" shows and allegedly spending time with his family is going to have a "list". It's a list of people that weren't nice to his friend, George.

It's probably going to be long list.

Rove states that...

“There were people who never accepted the legitimacy of George W. Bush and acted accordingly,”

Also reserved for between the covers of Rove’s book is his checklist of the “great many of the political actors in this town (who) never accepted him as a legitimate president.”

“I’ve got behind-the-scenes episodes that are going to show how unreceiving they were of this man as president of the United States,” Rove said, adding: “I’m going to name names and show examples.”

More here from the Statesman website.

Thankfully, this will only be a list of people that work "in Washington". Had this been an open-ended list, you would be better off going out and purchasing a phonebook for every state.

Railing Against A Multicultural America

I have been watching a recent webisode of PJTV - it's one of those moderately done conservative web television shows where far-right conservatives can talk to each other and not have to face reality - where Joe Hicks was interviewing the "purse-lipped-one" Michelle Malkin.

What made this particular webisode stand out - to me at least - was that it was dealing with the notion that the GOP shouldn't have to reach out to minorities - which Malkin as links to "the non-traditional-constitancies in America". Or, as Malkin likes to call it, "pandering".



Once the two got the verbal ego massaging complete - and claming that since they know they can use the internet as a communication tool that THAT must mean they have "the pulse of grass roots actvists" - it became quite clear that neither of them thought the GOP had any problems with minorities. It was almost if they were saying that they simply aren't needed and won't be discussed, talked to, understood, or even identified as such.

The discussion of minorities and the GOP got started in reference to a statement made by former Florida Governor Jeb Bush, when he stated that the Republican party ought to take care to include them, to ensure that their needs and desires not be ignored.

Each of them laughingly passed off Bush's comments and Hicks even drew a comparison to Donna Brazile's comments during her time on the Al Gore campaign when she stated that the Republican party was becoming the party of "old, white, men".

This left both Hicks and Malkin wide open to talk about their own ethnicity, their own individuality - something that stuck out as quite odd, considering what they are postulating.

It's a rather interesting look inside the muddled mind of the "ethnic-conservative" who says wth one breath that they souldn't be judged by their heritage, and then will drone on about that heritage and how it is important, all within the confines of their thesis that the GOP doesn't need to be diverse.

The piece even features talk about Micheal Steeles bid to be President of the RNCC with a video of him race-baiting the oposition.

The "I'm Not Running" Excuse

I'm reminded of a scene with Glen Close and Tom Cruise in Robert Redfords fantastic ( yet widely panned ) Lions For Lambs where, when pressed by Close and prefaced by Redford's character as to Cruise's true motivations, he insists that he is "not running for President".

Enter Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal:

BATON ROUGE, La. -- Gov. Bobby Jindal traveled Friday to Iowa, a state that is pivotal to a presidential campaign, in a trip that has heightened speculation that Jindal is planning a presidential bid in 2012.

But Jindal said the speculation is misplaced. He said he's running for re-election and has no plans to seek the White House.

"The most important thing for me is to be the best governor for the state of Louisiana," the governor said in an interview. "If the people of Louisiana will allow me, I'm going to serve for two terms.

"I'm not running for president."

From wwltv.com

Considering that Iowa and Louisiana don't have anything to do with one another, it's a far assumption that Jindal is doing a little pre-2012 research into just what his chances may be.

I'm not entirely certain how well he will play with the other candidates that

However, his appearance as a person of deep, religious perspective could either be seen as a bonus or a hinderance, depending on whether or not you think being an exorcism enthusiast counts:

As others noted during his 2003 and 2007 gubernatorial campaigns (see update), in an essay Jindal wrote in 1994 for the New Oxford Review, a serious right-wing Catholic journal, Jindal narrated a bizarre story of a personal encounter with a demon, in which he participated in an exorcism with a group of college friends. And not only did they cast out the supernatural spirit that had possessed his friend, Jindal wrote that he believes that their ritual may well have cured her cancer.

It's interesting to see the rampant speculation from the hardline-conservatives over who is going to run in 2012. It would seem that they should be focused on not having a repeat performance of this election. Still, there are plenty of people foaming at the mouth that Palin actually stands a chance.

One has to consider the fascination that so many within the Republican Right have with Bobby Jindal. Perhaps they are operating under the notion that he is their version of Barack Obama. Perhaps.

Regardless of whom it is that will be running four years from now, one would think that conservative Republicans would be more worried about how their party is governing now.

The Motor City Loudmouth

Ted Nugent appears to be at that age, at that stage in his career, where he is willing to completely stereotype himself in order to remain even moderately valid.

He frequently appears on Hannity and Colmes and does the "I'm a hunter and I love my guns and Democrats are pussy-whipped whiners blah blah blah" bit, much to the pleasure of Hannity.

Well, he's at it again. Only this time, he doesn't seem to realize that what he is screaming for is what cause so many conservatives to lose their election bids. What Nugent is wanting is exactly what is making conservatives pointless:

Should President-elect Obama implement his wrong-headed economic policies, our economy will continue to slide into the abyss and America's debt will continue to soar to unsustainable levels. Conservatives must hold the line at all costs and call out all RINOs who support President-elect Obama's economic kamikaze plan.

Make no mistake, conservative values and ideologies are embraced by Americans. The polls all indicate Americans are fed up with the Pelosi-led, do nothing congress, and do not support more government programs and control. Sounds to me like we have a conservative revolution brewing.

Conservative leaders and thinkers such as Newt Gingrich, Jed Babbin, Governor Jindal of Louisiana, Thomas Sowell, Glenn Beck, Michelle Malkin, Governor Sarah Palin and others need to turn up the heat and bring this less government, more individual freedom and strong national defense revolution to a boil. It is time.

More here

So the current administration's hands are completely clean in relation to the current economic crisis? Glen Beck and Michelle Malkin are conservative leader? Has Nugent even seen what type of debt George W. Bush and his cronies have left us with?

This is all just lip-service. Ted Nugent is probably a smart guy, but he can't believe all this nonsense. He is, after all, an entertainer. These people make their living off of making you feel like they identify with you and they care about you. At the end of the day, it's all just scripted and means nothing.