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 not a secret that MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell gives a hard hitting interview and actually turns the tables on his conservative guests by treating them the way people like Hannity, O'Reilly, and Meghan Kelly treat them on their respective shows.
The same was true on The Last Word recently when Congressman Steve King was on:
When a prominent member of the modern American Right is pressed on the issues - or even chided for their ridiculous positions - the cry from their supplicants is one of "stop beingso mean"!
When examining how the Right completely distorts and misinforms regarding their how their "leadership" is questioned, it reveals that they have an overbearing sense of entitlement in regards to media exposure. Granted, it's a legitimate complaint to point out media distortions of a given position regardless of your socio-political bent, but to claim that a particular member of your political party HAS to be interviewed a certain way, then that shows a lack of credibility and honestly before the first question is even asked.
ASIDE: You'll notice that King immediately launched into a rationale regarding how many times O'Reilly interrupted Obama - a topic that was discussed on many left/progressive blogs - but was not even the reason why King was brought on O'Donnell's program. What is more striking about King's excuse is that it is predicated on the notion of "getting even". That's pretty much par for the course, considering how the new Tea Bagger Congress is approaching their legislative duties.
Here's a heaping helping of Glenn Beck doing his best impersonation of Jack Van Impe, complete with "Soros Doomsday Clock".
Despite the fact that all Americans benefit from "socialism", Beck feels that Lawrence O'Donnell's admission that he is a "socialist" while debating "Glennzilla" Greenwald on Morning Joe was clearly a a send-up of conservative fear of the word, those same conservatives - including Beck - have latched onto this like this is the missing puzzle piece in a grander puzzle that is going to rend the fabric of space/time in two.
I will, however, have to pause a moment and say that Beck's concern that Mark Penn saying Obama "needs another Oaklahoma City" incident is actually grounded in reality. But using this as a jump-off point to claim that liberals/progressives actually embrace this idea isn'tgrounded in anything at all, as liberals/progressives have clearly expressed their outrage at such a suggestion.
Beck is quite adept at taking completely disparate moments in time and connecting them in his chalkboard style to create a deceptive web of intruige. And adding George Soros to the mix isn't exactly a new tactic - he just goes a lot further than O'Reilly has ever done.
The part that really gave me a great laugh is Beck's claim that people on Facebook or Twitter who point out the ignorance of those citing him as a credible source are all too often paid operatives of Soros. And while it would actually be nice to get paid for doing this blog, I have yet to receive a check from George Soros.
But while Beck completely brushes off the very real aspects of what he does and how it has affected certain viewers of his program, I think we are beginning to see the culmination of what Beck wants - a conservative, preemptive strike against a foe that really isn't there.
Likely, Beck will also talk about this segment from the Dylan Ratigan program on MSNBC:
This is already something that conservatives are already claiming that Ratigan, his guest, and the entire network are advocating violence. The trouble with that, is that these people obviously didn't pay attention to the interview and will likely not read the book.
And this guy is clearly not a fan of Obama - just in case Michelle Malkin decides she's going to cyber-stalk this guy and find out who is "really is".
Beck does make one claim that is so off the charts that I think I should end with it, as it is something the entire Fox"Network" loves to tout without fulling realizing it's complete irrelevance.
The fact that a large number of people watch his show has no correlation to it being even remotely accurate. It's a lot like saying that since more people went to see Avatar in theatres instead of The Hurt Locker, that James Cameron's film is more factually accurate than Kathering Bigelow's film. The next time some conservative points to Fox's and Beck's ratings as a signifier of accuracy, hit them with that movie reference and see what happens.
My polling place was a local Baptist Church - something I found rather odd - and I immediately noticed that there were more people there than the Presidential election. Taking a quick glance around the room, it was populated largely with white males who's median age was easily over 60. And upon returning to the parking lot, I started to count the Rand Paul bumper stickers. Needless to say there were a great deal of them.
I didn't get exit polled - I never have, actually - but I did decide to drive around town to check and see if the Tea Baggers were out on street corners shouting as cars passed by.
Not a soul.
Were they all posted up on couches having their premature victory talking points spoon fed to them by Fox? Were they at work talking about how great America will be since the Republicans are "taking their country back"? Who's to know.
But here's one thing I do know - the Republicans who do win tonight should really start to consider what they are going to do once they move into those cozy offices on Capital Hill.
I'm not so naive to think that there won't be a majority of Republicans in the House, but they won't control the Senate. Sadly, though, that's enough for them to be even more of the obstructionists than they already have been. And that is precisely what they are going to do. And they are already framing this as "it's all Obama's fault":
And if they are to create spending bills that "cut funding", what exactly will they cut?
Recently on The Last Word, Lawrence O'Donnell interviewed some "leaders" within the "leaderless" Tea Bagger movement about what they think should be cut and how "Socialism" plays into these decisions - a constant cry from Republicans. Turns out that they had some, shall I say, interesting views.
As I watched this Sunday night, I realized that this is exactly how the candidates that the Tea Baggers vote for - the ones that actually win that is - are going to approach their legislative tasks, like a freshman fumbling at his first girlfriend's bra strap.
No clear goals. No battle plan. No forward movement.
And it's not just the Tea Bagger backed candidates that aren't taking their potential assignments as representatives of the people seriously. Their media masters are more in favor of pushing the narrative that Democrats and all other media outlets are going to completely lose it come Wednesday morning:
If anything, the next two years will be legislative gridlock - not that the last two years were as evenly paced as most would have liked. And we will surely see pointless investigations, attempts to repeal virtually every aspect of the Democrats agenda, and possibly articles of impeachment. But don't think for one moment that Republicans are going to work for America - it will be an all out push "against" Democrats.
Will conservatives wake up Wednesday and claim that their "freedom has been restored" - that their "liberties have returned"? I doubt that, even though the opposite is what happened the day after Obama was elected. My guess is that their will be a full blown push to blame Obama for everything that they will fail at.
Michelle Malkin is having to play defense again, after what is becoming all too typical for her - berating a denigrating a child.
Her response is to this clip from Countdown hosted by her new favorite liberal/progressive target, Lawrence O'Donnell.
Malkin uses the following as one of the keystone of her blubbering thesis:
As usual, he gets basic facts wrong — like accusing Rush and me of being “desperate to catch up” with Beck. Actually, he’s got the timeline upside-down...
Malkin is apparently attempting to blatantly misrepresent O'Donnell's statement. It's quite clear that the words "catch up" infer that Malkin and Limbaugh are increasing their crazy output to match Beck's. After all, Beck has set the benchmark so high at this point that it really is virtually impossible to "catch up".
But Malkin takes considerable issue with Chris Hayes' statement that the Right are hellbent on pointing out "errors" when it comes to issues like this. I wouldn't call them errors at all, I would call them distortions. Malkin is certainly no stranger to these type of tactics.
Malkin's hamfisted attempts to clear her name of the widely recorded actions she has so lauded in the recent past is one of the ultimate signifiers that conservatives simply cannot stand behind that which they claim to champion - accountability.
Here is something that I think should be pointed out. Malkin is a mother. How in the hell can she attack children like this. Simply disgusting. I often fear for the intellectual safety of her children.
Mark Thiessen has tried to pull this same crap about how torture of terrorists prevented the Library Tower bombing, though that has been debunked multiple times, and Lawrence reacts the way one would expect him to.
While conservatives are isalreadygleefully portraying this as a completely "unhinged" and "unprofessional" rant on O'Donnell's part, one has to wonder why this didn't come sooner.
The very smug demeanor of Thiessen, who is quite comfortable with his lie, shows just how well conservatives have brainwashed themselves. They actually believe the inane drivel that seeps from their very pores.
The one part I don't quite get is Scarborough kicking everyone off the set after commercial so he can interview Thiessen. I didn't see this live, but it's a fair assumption that Joe played patty-cake with this clown and let him peddle his fact-free screed with no challenges what-so-ever.
Liberals and Progressives are fed up with people like Mark Thiessen, and there's nothing wrong with being passionate about your standpoint.
