Steeping The Spin

The modern American Right are certainly doing what they claim liberals/progressives do exclusively - not letting a crisis go to waste, and certainly making sure that they are seen as the helpless victims.

Naturally, I'm speaking of the aftermath of the Tuscon shooting and how people like Fox"Nation" and their fellow compatriots are not only attempting to rearrange the narratives surrounding the actions but are ultimately smearing the victims in the process.

The story du jour over the last 48 hours is an alleged "death threat" leveled at Tuscon Tea Bagger Figurehead Trent Humphries during a live ABC Townhall event that aired over the weekend. The threat came from none other than one of the victims of the shooting - Eric Fuller

Here's the relevant video from Mediaite:



It's a rather muffled, and you'll have to jack up the audio a tad just to hear it, but something is certainly there that sounds like "you're dead". And if that is the case, it's wrong - period.

And while the Right are going all in trying to show that this is a shining example of the "unhinged Left" in action, there are lots of variables in play that have likely put Fuller into this position and also placed him into involuntary psychiatric care.

But there's something that the modern American Right aren't talking about in relation to Humphries - the fact that he blames Gabby Giffords for getting shot:

t’s political gamesmanship. The real case is that she [Giffords] had no security whatsoever at this event. So if she lived under a constant fear of being targeted, if she lived under this constant fear of this rhetoric and hatred that was seething, why would she attend an event in full view of the public with no security whatsoever?” he said. “For all the stuff they accuse her [Palin] of, that gun poster has not done a tenth of the damage to the political discourse as what we’re hearing right now.

Regardless of whom you side with, threats of a physical nature against someone you disagree with only serve to fuel the opposition. The Right is taking full opportunity in every conceivable aspect of what happened in Tuscon before, during, and after the shooting simple to score cheap political points and increase the volume on their "victim status". If they want to be honest about this particular story, it should be about the two men involved and all the facts, not about whether or not the Tea Party is being picked on or whether or not ABC is filled with "liberal bias".

The Unhinged

It's just this sort of incident that allows conservatives to continually cast themselves in the role of "victim", question the integrity of media outlets that aren't Fox"News", and provide specious claims that it's actually The Left that is to blame for moments like this:



A look at Duke's Facebook page - which has been taken down, naturally - reveals this about the man.

Duke's "Favorite Quotes" section contains a number of links to political websites—mostly pretty out-there 9/11-truther-here-comes-the-new-world-order stuff, but also the mainstream liberal Media Matters and, of course, a Wikileaks mirror. (Expect these sites to be the ball in the exciting "Clay Duke Was a Dangerous Liberal" vs. "Clay Duke Was a Nutcase Conservative" game we'll all get to watch over the next few days.) His "Religious Views" are "Humanism" and his "Political Views" are "Freedom Fighter."

And Glenn Beck is already launched into this game, albeit with a half-hearted caveat that Media Matters really wasn't responsible for the shooting.

Considering that Duke's Facebook page is gone, we really don't know what he had to say about Media Matters, but Beck certainly continues to paint a dark and venomous picture of who runs MM. Look for Beck's writers to fold this story into a new chalkboard meme in the coming days.

Other conservatives are even framing this from the angle that Media Matters and liberals/progressives aren't even going to be remotely curious as to why Duke read, watched, and listened to the information sources he listed on his page. Naturally, the "truther" aspects of Duke's digital footprint get no mention from conservatives. Typical.

But looking at Duke's "suicide note", you get a clear picture that this man was pretty screwed up, and is more on par with an Alex Jones fan than a liberal or progressive.

My Testament: Some people (the government sponsored media) will say I was evil, a monster (V)… no… I was just born poor in a country where the Wealthy manipulate, use, abuse, and economically enslave 95% of the population. Rich Republicans, Rich Democrats… same-same… rich… they take turns fleecing us… our few dollars… pyramiding the wealth for themselves. The 95%… the us, in US of A, are the neo slaves of the Global South. Our Masters, the Wealthy, do, as they like to us…

As far as the "V" symbol, this will likely become part of the Beckian analysis of this story, though it just appears to be yet another example of how plain-old batshit crazy this guy was.

Sarah's Sliptastic Spin

In which I ultimately have to dive into this issue.



And while I was somewhat shocked that the conservative spin on this didn't somehow use the verbal gymnastics and trickery they normally employ to show that, in point of fact, we do have "allies" in North Korea in order to show that Palin knows something about what lies to the north of the DMZ - or at least try to make the case that she can see those allies from Wasilla with the right set of binoculars - I think they are missing the larger point that Palin's knowledge of foreign countries and foreign policy in general aren't exactly on par with her liberal/progressive opponents.

I'll cut her enough slack to openly and honestly admit that anyone of any prominence that speaks to large audiences on a daily basis is going to make some verbal stumbles, but when one looks at the broader picture Palin versus Obama, it's a fair statement to say that our President not only knows how to utilize the English language but actually has substantive remarks in regards to policy - both foreign and domestic - without having to rely on glittering word-salad-ism that do nothing more than create the illusion that you know what you're talking about.

If you need any further proof, take any Obama speech about healthcare reform and play it side by side with one from Palin and you'll get a clearer picture of who knows more about what's going on.

Palin's Special Effects

Brace yourself. It's "morning in America" again.



Just like a Micheal Bay film - all style and no substance.

Let's mark this occasion and count the days from the new legislative year until all these people featured in Palin's video end up disappointing those that elected them. Remember, after all, these people "represent" a modern movement that demands instant gratification.

We should also realize that not all the Palin-backed candidates won. Those candidates whom Palin endorsed and ultimately lost shows that the Palin brand isn't as powerful as conservatives would like to believe it is. Most notably, Sharron Angle and Christine O'Donnell's losses have seriously damaged Palin's street cred. But the damage control has already begun in regards to O'Donnell - who is already playing the victim card - and I'm sure that Sharron Angle is going to call for a voter fraud investigation after her loss to Reid.

And if you're looking for O'Donnell to end up as the newest Fox"News" employee, the network is already denying any rumors.

Marked For Continuation?

Here's another dose of Wallace V. Boehner; this time on "earmarks".



I'm given to the notion again that Republicans - be they conservative or not - have varying opinions on "earmarks" dependent on where you live in the US and what your political Q score is at the time.

The late Ted Stevens was widely known as "Uncle Ted" for "bringing home the bacon" to Alaska while Sarah Palin chides them at every given opportunity. Conservative mouth-breathers like Michelle Malkin doggedly create narratives around people like the late Jack Murtha for doing precisely what Stevens did but never a peep from her and her gleefully ignorant compatriots about what their Republican brethren have done.

So, this leads me to ask this question - are "earmarks" inherently bad? I think this all boils down to perception versus perspective. As I've stated before, if you lack proper perspective and allow the noise-machine to shape your perceptions, you aren't going to get an accurate picture of what these projects are, why they were put in place to begin with, and why the funding was directed to them.

It's a common conservative meme that any and all "earmarks" proposed by Democrats are part of some "culture of corruption" and are individual signifiers of the greed, malice, and utter lack of respect for the constituencies each Democrat represents. I find this framing more than just a little mellow dramatic and laughable.

The way that I see it, politicians are elected to go to Washington and do good for their districts, those they represent. If there needs to be highway repair, school reform, safety regulations amended or improved for business, or any variety of interests of the people, the person you elect should be able to provide or at least help provide those improvements to your city, county, or state. Perhaps this is an overly simplistic way of looking at it, but if I'm wrong, what are these people even elected for to begin with?

Lingustic Spin

Some conservatives are coming to Palin's defense regarding her inability to use the English language.

This won’t hurt her with her base, of course — few things ever do, least of all the sort of vocab mistake to which millions of people can relate. All it’ll do is further prove her unpretentious populist authenticity.

"Populist authenticity"? Really?

Of course, this isn't the first time that Palin has used the made-up word, as Mediaite shows in a clip from Hannity on Fox"News"



And while Mediaite not only showcased Palin's premiere of the new term, they also reported that the tweet that garnered all the attention was deleted. Kind of puts a dent in the follow-up where she compared herself to Shakespeare. If she's going to "celebrate" her ability to molest the English language, one would think that she wouldn't be so ashamed of her word-salad dribblings.

I will concede that almost all pundits, politicians, and just about every average citizen makes mistakes like this. However, a woman like Palin - whom conservatives continually lionize as a woman of multiple talents who is allegedly smarter than Obama - makes these sort of mistakes ALL THE TIME.

Just take a look at her mangling of her native language in this clip.



Conservatives will defend anything this woman does or says, no matter how blatantly ignorant she acts. And these are the people that say that everyone in America should be able to speak English.

The Reasons She Shouldn't

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.

Ignorant Of History

Count this as another example of a Tea Bagger that wants to rewrite well recorded history.



But now it appears that Hayworth is doing his best to spin this in his favor.

The language of the two war resolutions is more or less identical, except for two lines: Japan “committed unprovoked acts of war against the Government and the people of the United States of America” and Germany “formally declared war against the government and the people of the United States of America:” Either way, in the lines that followed war was officially “declared.”

Hayworth is now attempting to split some hairs by saying he was referring to Roosevelt’s “message,” regarding Germany but the outcome, and the wording of the outcome, is the same. Probably in the future Hayworth should just stick with the basic facts and not attempt any frivolous interpretation.

I reminded of a special program Beck did on history and how it's recorded. He attempted to use the example of a news story being put through "the system" so that video and audio footage, along with accompanying text, can be called up in a control room at will. The only problem with this rationalization is that he was setting himself up for failure from the start, by relying on discredited, misleading, and often completely false information.

The same is true for Hayworth. I'm not entirely sure where he came up with this notion that America never declared war on Germany, but it's almost a given that he is attempting to validate "The Bush Doctrine" that conservatives once claimed didn't exit ( when Sarah Palin made an abject fool of herself during her first interview with Charles Gibson ) but then later claimed was quite real and in the better interest of our nation.

In the end, conservatives have a real problem with the history of the world and more specifically the history of this nation. For people that claim to love it so unconditionally, you'd think they would get something like America's involvement in WWII correct.

Storytime With Sarah ( Update )

Seems that Fox"News" believes that Palin is ready to with her own show.

Sarah Palin will kick off her new Fox News series with one of the most diverse guest lineups in memory: LL Cool J, Toby Keith, and Jack Welch.

The three very different guests will speak to Palin for her inaugural episode of "American Stories" on April 1st.

According to Mediaite, "the show will 'focus on a range of such stories including a Marine Medal of Honor recipient who gave his live to save his comrades.' But also there will be the celebrity guests – a very broad range of celebrity guests."

But will she use a teleprompter? A script? Will it be improv?

This will more than likely be the true test of Palin's range ( or lack thereof ) since she's not going to have Hannity or O'Reilly to hold her hand. The show hasn't even aired yet and there's already a problem with it.

Fox lifted interview I gave in 2008 to someone else & R misrepresenting to public 2 promote Palins Show

And the spin on this is already in full swing at Mediaite

So Palin’s special on Thursday at 10pmET is called Real American Stories (here’s a preview), and although it is the premiere episode, the concept of “Real American Stories” is not new for Fox News. It began as a website back in July 2008 – a website, it is important to note, that is owned by Fox News.

Well the website is still there, as is the interview LL Cool J did for it.

But here's an aspect of this that I have a bit of an issue with.

The very concept that one story more than another makes it a "real" story from an American isn't a new concept to conservatives, as they are want to claim that certain people are "real" Americans while the rest of us are left to wonder what makes us not "real". But do we really want to be classified as "real" by the likes of Palin and Fox"News"?

Another aspect of this is that promos for the show suggest the only guest to actually be worthy to sit down face to face with Palin is Toby Keith. Seems that LL and Jack Welch just get clips played of their stories. Does this really surprise anyone?

UPDATE

Laffy at The Political Carnival has reports thta Toby Keith was never contacted by Fox"News" about the show or the use of old interview footage.

I wonder if they'll respond to Keith the way they did to LL?

This is all being set up like it's going to be an elaborate April Fools joke.

Send Him Out On A Rail

Don't you just love how conservatives stifle free speech.



I'm kind of curious as to what this guy said that pissed these people off. Granted, McCain isn't a darling of the Right anymore - after all, as some of you may recall, Glenn Beck calls him a "progressive" - and Palin can pretty much cover herself in runny, green, baby shit and sacrifice a puppy on live TV while Ted Nugent provides backing music and Republicans would call it some of the most compelling television ever.

While there will likely be conservatives across the country that will point to this as proof that Palin can stand her ground against a voice of opposition, she really doesn't have anything in the way of value to offer to the modern socio-political landscape. What precisely was this guy supposed to "stick around and learn".

And while he seemed to be willing to leave, it also looked to get a little physical for a moment. So much for conservatives being willing to listen to the opposition and not trying to censor anyone. When was the last time you saw someone literally dragged out from an Obama rally?

Is there a conservative out there ready to claim that this was a hoax, some kind of plant? Let's say that this guy was a Democrat. It really wouldn't do their cause any good if they were seen physically throwing this guy out, would it? And if this was all staged, it doesn't make McCain or Palin look any better either.

Can't Touch This

How are all the loyal Bushies going to spin this?



Did you see it? Kind of hard not to. At the :15 Bush wipes his hand off on Clinton's shirt after shaking a Haitian's hand.

And while Think Progress rightfully points out that Bush has a pretty severe aversion to germs, this just sends the wrong message. After all, how many people that saw it happen know that Bush is known to grab a healthy serving of hand sanitizer to his palms after shaking someone's hand?

Bush is really out of his element in this relief effort. Come to think of it, he was pretty much out of his element while he was occupying the White House. Kind of makes me wonder how he cleaned up after fisting the average American for 8 years.

Wilting Away On Live TV

This was such a wonder to see yesterday afternoon.





You could literally hear what was going on in Beck's head as he tried and tired and tried to get Massa to say anything negative about the Obama administration. It was like watching a marriage proposal going horribly wrong or a watching your girlfriend breaking-up with you at a party you hosted for her.

But I'm sure Beck will find a way to turn this debacle into another keystone in his conspiracy theories. Maybe the Obama administration drugged him and reprogrammed him with what to say and what not to say? Was Rahm Emanuel hiding in an undisclosed bunker controlling Massa remotely with an implant that the Census Bureau put in his ass? Oh, the places Beck can go with this.

The Mask Has Been Removed

Of course the Tea Baggers aren't pleased with this decision by the RNC.

"They don’t get it,” Judson Phillips, a Nashville lawyer who organized the National Tea Party Convention last month, told the Beast. “They freaking don’t get it.” Phillips said he disagreed with the characterization of small donors as “reactionary” and motivated by “fear.” “Our motives are patriotic,” he said. “Can they be any more insulting? I guess they could have called us teabaggers, but Holy Cow, I’m so blown away by the whole thing I’m just sitting here stunned.”

A spokesman for FreedomWorks, the activist group led by Dick Armey that helped organize the first Tea Party protests, called the presentation “inept and silly.”

“I’m just kind of shocked,” the group’s spokesman, Adam Brandon, said. “I don't get what they were trying to accomplish... if I were them I’d try to say we're strong on policy and we're going to get the energy of these Tea Party activists and earn their trust. That seems a much more compelling message than cartoons.”

He added that the “fear” descriptor, while technically accurate in the sense donors are concerned about government policy, sent the wrong message. “When people start using the term ‘fear’ you start getting the black helicopter mythology going,” he said.

Any wouldn't they be pissed at this action from the RNC? After all, the Tea Baggers are nothing more than Republicans disguised as "independent" and "concerned" citizens. They have to maintain that characterization, even if it means attacking the organization that represents the party they are going to vote with regardless of statements made about how they are "upset with BOTH parties".

And Micheal Steele is in full damage control mode.



You see, when you use the "fear" card, you have to be one of two ways: subtle, with nuanced rhetoric that creates the appearance of fact-based research, or smash-and-grab-balls-out-loud.

The Tea Baggers make up the later, but they continually try to claim they are being the former. So, it would be easy to understand why the RNC would want to capitalize on how well their fringe base ( which is really the mainstream base of the Republican party now ) is doing. But the Tea Baggers really shouldn't be so upset with this end result, as they created this monster.

Bunning's Buddy

Seriously, what planet are these people from?



Spoken like someone who's never had to get unemployment insurance.

I'm not entirely certain how the process runs in other states, but here in Kentucky it's difficult to get to begin with, as employers can deny your filing for virtually every reason. And, if you do get unemployment, you're not going to be making the same amount you would had you not lost your job.

The reality is that, if anything, unemployment insurance provides the bare minimum ( sometimes less than ) of what is needed. In that respect, it's a great motivator to find a new job.

Taking Over Their Own House

But I thought that Palin said to "chose" a party, not take one over.



The Reagan worship aside, Palin and Hannity don't seem to realize that Tea Bagger candidates haven't done so well. Doug Hoffman lost and Debra Medina is a "Truther". Christie and McDonnell don't align themselves with the Tea Baggers. Scott Brown was a complete wash - given his activities since taking Ted Kennedy's old seat. So, who are these people going to run?

J.D. Hayworth is an unofficially Tea Bagger candidate, and has the support of people like Orly Taitz, since Hayworth threw his hat into the "Birther" ring with a unique take on why Obama should produce his birth certificate. And with conservatives turning their backs on McCain ( again, as they really didn't support him once he won the party nomination. They were just pissed that they voted for him so they wouldn't have to either not vote or vote for Obama ) Hayworth has a good chance of getting a seat in the Senate. That is, unless McCain can just win on legacy or Hayworth does something monumentally stupid.

And that's the point, the fringe nature of the Tea Bagger cult doesn't really lend itself to fixing or improving the aspects of the country that they claim are in such a state of disarray. So Palin's assertion that the Tea Baggers should somehow "take over" the GOP is a statement that sounds good, sound viable, but is ultimately just that - a statement that sounds good and will boost morale within your base.

The reality of this is that the Tea Baggers know they have nowhere to go unless they can create the illusion that they have the ability to rebrand the GOP or toss out everyone already there. They can't form a "third party", as they will split the GOP vote and Democrats will gain more ground and be in power longer. And there's a good chance of that already. Maybe not so much in this first mid-term election, but the Dems have at least a small chance to maintain a majority in both houses.

Beckian Backlash

Seems like not all the power-players in the conservative movement are pleased with what Glenn Beck is doing.



And while some will discount Levin's stature amongst conservatives, he's a frequent guest on Sean Hannity's Fox"News" program and has a substantial radio program following. He posted his displeasure with Beck on conservatives favorite social networking site, Facebook, and made it clearer that he thinks Beck is dangerous for the movement.

I have no idea what philosophy Glenn Beck is promoting. And neither does he. It's incoherent. One day it's populist, the next it's libertarian bordering on anarchy, next it's conservative but not really, etc. And to what end? I believe he has announced that he is no longer going to endorse candidates because our problems are bigger than politics. Well, of course, our problems are not easily dissected into categories, but to reject politics is to reject the manner in which we try to organize ourselves. This is as old as Plato and Aristotle. Why would conservatives choose to surrender the political battlefield to our adversaries -- who are trashing this society --when we must retake it in order to preserve our society? Philosophy, politics, culture, family, etc., are all of one. Edmund Burke, among others, wrote about it extensively, and far better that I possibly can. But all elements of the civil society require our defense. Besides, why preach such a strategy when conservatism is on the rise and the GOP is acting more responsibly?

But the big news surrounding Beck and his brand of hysterical psycho-babble is what Rush Limbaugh has to say about him.

would not have said that the only people who can stop Obama should be excoriated for being just as bad…It would never occur to me to say that. I don’t know what the objective would be.

It's gotten so bad that even World Net Daily is going after Beck. That gives you a a pretty good indicator of exactly how crazy Beck really is.

Here's a brief response from Beck:



Glenn Beck seems to have let the narrative get a little too out of control. He likely realizes this, but he has so much invested in now that it's hard to stop the crazy train. He's more attuned to the idea of running people down instead.