The Message, The Messenger, And Right vs. Left

It's all too easy to berate a person delivering a valid message in favor of addressing the message itself. This is the M.O. of the Modern American Right - they know that their point of view on a variety of issues like women's reproductive rights, race relations, and he very nature of how news is delivered will ultimately fail if they focus on the message over who/whom delivers it.

But such is the nature of Right Wing framing.

Case in point is Keith Olbermann's new program on Current TV and a recent guest that the Tea Baggers and their sympathizers tried to prove was either nothing more than a hack comedian/actor or simply playing the so-called "race-card" in order to make the Tea Baggers look bad.

Internet sophist and over-simplifier, Allahpundit, takes to another meeting of Garofalo and Olbermann in textbook fashion when it comes to not addressing the message:

Via the Daily Caller, is Olby the voice in Garofalo’s head or is Garofalo the voice in his? There’s not a scintilla of disagreement here — just JG doing her usual over-the-top impression of a cartoon liberal with KO mm-hmming all the way — until around 4:35 in, when suddenly a dispute erupts over whether Clarence Thomas is (a) a victim of Stockholm syndrome in having married a white tea partier or (b) a token used by the tea party to distract from its own seething racism. Gee, guys, I don’t know. Can’t it be both? Coming next week to “Countdown,” hopefully: Olby interviews a tape-recording of himself.

And while some of you might claim that I am acting in the very fashion I am decrying, perhaps you should keep reading.

Let's let's look at the interview in question:



And while Allahpundit is want to source a popular Right Wing framing site, it should be pointed out that the very idea that there is racism within the Tea Bagger conglomerate is ignored in favor of insisting that there very well might be racism within Olbermann's staff since they appear to be predominantly white.

So, are Allahpundit and Ace of Spades now calling for some sort of "Affirmative Action Initiative" when it comes to the media, their staff, and their reporting? Absolutely not, as this is nothing more than a diversionary tactic explicitly used to undermine the very accurate and honest statement that racism still exists in this country.

More to the point, this is another aspect of Right Wing framing, as Allahpundit is insisting that Olbermann explain his staffing decisions in favor of confronting the very real aspect that there is a racist element within the Modern American Right. This is something that I have addressed before - insisting that it's not you but the other that is to blame for everything.

There's quite a bit that Olbermann and Garofalo get into that I can and will address later on, but the primary aspect is what Allahpundit does to this clip with his misplaced, meandering thesis and the reality behind it. Yes, I completely disagree with - and have for some time - that the blanket racism charge needs to be addressed. Not everyone that considered themselves a part of or even tangenticaly aligns themselves with the Tea Baggers are racists, as there are other primary motivators for such a movement.

I have seen Olbermann take after Obama on a variety of issues, such as warrantless wiretapping or the conflict in Afghanistan or the occupation of Iraq. So does the meme of "Liberal Media Bias" only go so far that the Right is butt-hurt that their water isn't carried on specific issues? I would wager yes on that one.

And with that in mind, I would like to leave you with this clip from Maddow to ponder the next time someone within the Modern American Right claims she is a pure Obama sycophant:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

The Consequences Of Free Speech

While reading this piece from Tulsa World, I immediately recalled Rand Paul's words to Rachel Maddow about how private businesses should be allowed to discriminate:

Shortly after finishing their protest at the funeral of Army Sgt. Jason James McCluskey of McAlester, a half-dozen protesters from Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kan., headed to their minivan, only to discover that its front and rear passenger-side tires had been slashed.

To make matters worse, as their minivan slowly hobbled away on two flat tires, with a McAlester police car following behind, the protesters were unable to find anyone in town who would repair their vehicle, according to police.

While I doubt that people like Rand Paul would even begin to consider instances like a liberal business owner who operated a local restaurant denying entry to local and regional Republican politicians, I find it quite interesting what an entire town did to the Westboro Baptist Church. I think that this, more than anything as so now, shows us that "freedom of speech" doesn't come with "freedom from consequences".

That being said, I in no way condone the actions of anyone destroying property in order to make a socio-political statement. But, is there any nuance here? Was the van purchased with tax-free donations to the church? Sure, that might be a reach, but the larger point here is that these people should be realizing that their message - if they even have one - is not one reciprocated by the average American.

Come to think of it, it would be interesting to hear what both Maddow and Paul have to say about this.

The Foxiness Of Projection

Having been at work most of last night as further news unfolded about Keith Olbermann, I feel I need to respond to at least some of it, as most of it has ended up as either rank speculation or nothing more than sophomoric prattling disguised as intellectual discourse.

First, here's Glenn Beck - the man that recently donated a HUGE amount of money to the US Chamber of Commerce. And let's not forget that that action was predicated on the fact that they were doling out money to help bolster the campaigns of conservative, Republican, candidates.

--- clink link to watch clip ---



Beck is most certainly the last person that should be deriding Olbermann for his stance on not voting but giving donations instead.

I'm not going to try and reconcile how the two are different means of socio-political action, but I do think that there is a separation between the two. Though that difference is subtle, Beck would rather take the approach of that of a spoiled rich kid taunting a classmate. To put it a more blunt way, Beck's only ammunition is to either fabricate to insight fear or too mock the messenger rather than address the message. Classic conservative posturing.

Hot Air's mysterious Allahpundit took the predictable route of saying "Fox is more news than MSNBC" - a stance somewhat akin to sticking your thumbs in your ears, wiggling your fingers, while sticking your tongue out and making a mouthy drone. How "professional" of him.

In his response to Olbermann's suspension and the completely unfounded accusation that Keith won't be back - from an anonymous source on less - he referenced a challenge laid forth from the same man that gave Olbermann the temporary boot. That challenge was to show where MSNBC openly "fundraised" for Democrats.

The link provided was to Olbermann stalker Johnny Dollar who referenced less than a handful of examples from Ed Schultz and one from Keith. And while the guests on those specific shows do mention their respective websites, this is nothing in comparison to what the "fair and balanced" folks at Fox"News" do every night. Fox"News" openly encourages their guests that are currently engaged in campaigns to openly ask for support. Then again, that's nuance that conservatives don't seem to understand.

But this is ultimately about the continued war between Fox and MSNBC. For former quite literally coddles to conservativism while the later has booted hosts for even lesser offenses than what Obermann has done.

Michelle Malkin, in full on purse-lipped rage might as well have put her foot in her ever gaping maw as she went on a none-to-clever tirade about "disclosure". Really, Michelle?

Olbermann’s sanctimony and hypocrisy only compound his core failure to disclose the donations before Election Day — especially during the show in which he hosted one of the beneficiaries of that cash.

Whatever NBC’s guidelines may be, it was the basic journalistic failure of the Murrow wanna-be to disclose the donation on the night he hosted one of his cash recipients that seals his fate and undermines whatever iota of credibility his station has left.

So, financial contributions are "free speech" unless an individual does it.

In terms of Malkin's accusations - and actually everyone within the modern conservative movement - that all news networks that aren't Fox are somehow "in the tank" for liberal causes is not only preposterous when even given a rudimentary glance, but that narrative is completely destroyed when considering what MSNBC has done to it's more left-leaning commentators in the past.

To end, here is Racheal Maddow's response to all of this:



Even thought some of the people that I follow on Twitter, some of those in the liberal/progressive blogosphere, and some within my community that I have discussed this with are saying that it's not right for Maddow - or any Democrat - to simply say "well, if Fox does it we can to" is to clearly be missing the point that Racheal put forward; a point that can be seen daily when one watches Fox"News".

What this boils down to is Fox openly campaigning for their Republican and hosting events to raise funds, MSNBC is simply at fault for not attacking their Democratic guests for mentioning their campaign websites on air.

Another distinction that should be noted is that Fox does not have an "ethics" policy like MSNBC does. Also, MSNBC doesn't operate under the false premise of "fair and balanced", and has a clear separation between their news and commentary. But also, isn't that something that Olbermann's detractors are clearly not admitting - that his show is "news and commentary"? After all, those exact words are part of his intro.

To end, I'm not going to remove the fact that Olbermann violated alleged company policy by not disclosing his financial contributions. Also, I'm not going to pretend that this isn't at least fractionally connected to Comcast's take-over of NBC Universal - even though that process is not fully complete. This action by Phil Griffin is clearly one to curry favor with his new bosses prior to their complete placement as NBC Universal owners.

Regardless of what happens to Olbermann, MSNBC management has made a poor decision and conservatives are equally as ignorant to claim some sort of moral victory in this.

Freedoms, Fears, And Fox

It appears that a new narrative has begun threading itself through the modern conservative movement - a new definition of the freedom of speech.

And it all ties in with Juan Williams and NPR.

First, let's be quite clear - Juan Williams' freedom of speech was not taken away nor infringed upon. What happened was his employer exercised their legal right to end his contract and thereby his employment with them. This is something that conservatives don't seem to understand. Freedom of speech does not include freedom to gainful employment.

As Racheal Maddow sums up quite nicely:



This same sort of rationalization was more recently used when Sarah Palin came to Dr. Laura's defense after her use of racist language on her former radio broadcast:

Dr.Laura:don't retreat...reload! (Steps aside bc her 1st Amend.rights ceased 2exist thx 2activists trying 2silence"isn't American,not fair")

Again, modern conservatives love to wave around The Constitution but either haven't read it or don't understand the parts that are quite clear.

What this all boils down to is that conservatives are unwilling and incapable of understanding the very basic concept they once championed - accountability. To put it another, more blunt way, freedom of speech isn't freedom from consequences.

In what I can only assume is a tactic to help mask this complete misrepresentation of the First Amendment and the rights of employers, conservatives have opted to take two roads: vilify NPR and use the spectre of Islamic jihad to stir the base emotions of reactionary conservatives.

Michelle Malkin takes a two pronged approach in utilizing the fear of "state run media" - not to thinly coded rhetoric of media that is government controlled and designed to decimate disinformation and propaganda tilted towards a specific agenda - as well as language used to create the appearance of Americans sympathetic to the causes of jihad:

Not one more red cent of public money should go to NPR, PBS and CPB. Let the speech-squelching progressives and jihadi-whitewashing apologists pay for their own propaganda. Free the taxpayers!

Malkin's article also includes an anecdote that Megyn Kelly used in her "interview" with CAIR spokes man Ibrahim Hooper - that NPR correspondent Nina Totenburg's comments regarding Jessie Helms were not met with similar force by NPR. However, are we simply to take Malkin and Kelly at their words, that no corrective action was taken? And while Totenberg's comments weren't exactly as Malkin is presenting them, as they are only highlighting an 18 second clip from a more broader discussion surrounding Helms.

While some conservatives will argue that I am claiming "context" while not examining Williams' statements in the same manner, perhaps they should read my previous post in which that is very much taken into account.

A more interesting, if not bizarre, approach that conservatives are taking up is that Fox"News" is somehow more tolerant than NPR.

So says Michael Barone in a must-read analysis of the firing of Juan Williams. But don’t take his word for it, because NPR’s omsbud says essentially the same thing in NPR’s defense.

Despite the fact that ombudsman Alicia Shepard isn't even remotely saying what Ed Morrissey is claiming, this line of defensive action by a conservative is leaving out one important factor - Juan Williams all too often towed the conservative line with his fellow Fox"News" employees - even going so far as to be a repeat guest host on Bill O'Reilly's program - but to being nothing more than a gimmick to help reinforce the "Fair and Balanced" meme.

I don't think Morrissey, or anyone for that matter, can claim there is a "tolerance" within the confines of Fox"News", as evidenced from this "interview" yesterday on Megyn Kelly's continued prime-time-opinion-program audition when she was "tolerant" of the views of a Muslim civil rights group representative:



What Fox"News" is tolerant of is, from not only my perspective, abject hatred of other's religions and races. Once can easily recall how Sean Hannity devoted a full hour to spin Duane "Dog The Bounty Hunter" Chapman's racist tirades, as well as giving Don Imus his own show on their "business" channel not long after he was fired from MSNBC for racially charged language. Bill O'Reilly even kept his job after his shock that black people behave themselves in a restaurant setting. Tolerance of the opinions and language outside the conservative realm doesn't seem to get the same, by any means.

Juan Williams is not suffering by any means, as his "freedom of speech" has just netted him a newly minted 2 million dollar contract and a wider role at the conservative home for all things "pro-Constitution".

But what of NPR and the ever evolving firestorm of criticism from conservatives? Well, it was inevitable, but Jim DeMint is planning on introducing legislation to the longstanding organization that, apparently, most conservatives have never really listened to.

Conservative Republican Senator Jim DeMint of South Carolina today announced plans to introduce legislation stripping federal funding from National Public Radio and the Public Broadcasting Service.

The move comes following the firing of NPR contributor Juan Williams for comments about Muslims. Williams said among other things that he gets "nervous" when he sees Muslims on his airplane flights.

The firing prompted calls from Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee and others on the right to strip NPR of funding, and now DeMint, who is beloved in the Tea Party movement despite his Senate perch, has taken up the call.

Much in the way that ACORN lost it's federal funding due to reactionary posturing by Tea Baggers in Congress, I'm not thinking that this is going to proceed much further than the "let's make a bunch of noise to distract from the issue" process. And more to the point, if Williams really is a liberal, would people like DeMint, conservative voters, and Republican Presidential hopefuls to be on his side?

At the end of the day, the freedom of speech is afforded to all of us. What we are not afforded is the freedom from consequences. But if you're in good with the folks at Fox"News", and your rhetoric is filled with enough red meat goodness, there's likely a nice financial windfall coming your way - maybe even your own show.

Since The Right Won't Listen To Him.....

Conservatives are working themselves into a collective lather over this video of the President that was shown at Netroots Nation this past weekend.



As soon as I heard of it's showing, I knew that it wouldn't take the reactionary masses of the modern conservative movement to scream about how this is proof positive of liberal media bias because it featured Rachel Maddow.

Noel Sheppard of conservative website NewsBusters ended his screed with this:

Potentially the most liberal president in American history needed potentially the most liberal commentator on television to help him sell his record to a gathering of potentially the most liberal people in the country.

Despite what Maddow thinks, what does that say about this man's job performance eighteen months into his presidency?

And what does it say about MSNBC?

While I think it's more than a bit of a stretch to claim that Obama is the most liberal president ever, as he and his administration have caved to conservative demands far more than Bill Clinton did in his first term in office. There's still no Public Option in Healthcare Reform - though I am still strongly in favor of the Single Payer system. The recently passed Financial Reform act still have some gaping holes in it, namely the fact that the auto industry lobby was kowtowed to and they are getting a free pass on how they are inextricably linked to Wall Street. We are still in Afghanistan and Iraq, the cost of which maintaining our presence there make up more of the deficit that conservatives suddenly thought was created after Bush left office. Those three things alone don't paint the greatest liberal portrait of Barack Obama, so to claim him to be the King of the Liberals is a bit overreaching.

As far as Maddow's inclusion to the video, that was actually a segment from her program last month where she highlighted the accomplishments of the administration - something that conservatives most certainly don't want to be known, as it clearly tears down their narrative that he hasn't accomplished anything since taking office. And to say that she is the most liberal voice on television, it should be pointed out that she has been critical of democratic positions, and very affective at that.

Are conservatives claiming that Obama hasn't spoken to them? It seems as such, even though he has done more than just listen to the inane dribblings coming from the Right side of the metaphorical and literal aisle. The reality of this is that conservatives had 8 years to make gains for the country and didn't live up to what they were elected to do. What were their goals? Ask any conservative pundit and the answer you'll most likely get is that we were only attacked once during Bush's tenure. Or, to put it another way, that "we were kept safe". No policy accomplishments, not even a successful end to our occupation in Iraq or attaining even modest goals in Afghanistan.

Conservatives aren't as much pissed that there was a video of Obama addressing Netroots Nation as they are ashamed that they can't say that Bush was as successful as Obama has been in less than 2 years.

Conservatives Ratings Fetish

She just reiterates what I've been saying for a long time.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

I've gotten into quite a few debates with conservatives on Twitter regarding their love for high ratings and their inability to understand that a higher Neilson score and the accuracy of the alleged reporting are mutually exclusive. To put it another way, conservatives believe that the more Fox"News" viewers there are, the more truth they must be telling.

This. Is. Not. True.

To follow conservative logic, as Rachel Maddow correctly points out, if your rating score is high, then your program - no matter what the subject matter - is proportionately true. So is there really a talking sponge under the sea that hangs out with a star-fish and has wacky adventures with celebrity guest stars? Of course there isn't. That's like saying since O'Reilly claimed that there wasn't a homeless Veteran problem that there isn't one.

Fox"News" enjoys it's ratings success largely due to the very nature of modern Americans. We are voyeuristic in nature. We crave entertainment, confrontation, and programming that is sensational. The consumerist nature of Americans is tapped into by Fox on virtually every program they air. It's info-tainment porn. We tune into Fox because of who they are and how they act. It's the proverbial car wreck that you slow down to take a look at, the fight in the school-yard that you know you can stop but are having too good of a time standing back and watching unfold.

The reality of it is that people watch Fox"News" for a variety of reasons. I would speculate that it's a minority within the country that watch Fox purely for informational purposes.

Gender Politics

We all have looked back at our high school photos and been shocked by how different we look now. However, for a group of people that have decried alleged sexist rhetoric, it's amazing to see how easily conservatives can become the people that they claim to despise.

Recently, a photo of Rachel Maddow from high school was posted online and the fine, civil, upstanding folks over at Fox "Nation" let their real colors show. For some context, here is a look at Maddow then and now followed by comments from Fox"Nation".

flyinjohn23
Reply

He should have his.... cut off. Oh, wait a second... He did ..didn't he....Never mind!
Saturday, July 10, 2010 at 07:34 AM

California has failed
Reply

A transgendered woman?
Friday, July 09, 2010 at 09:54 PM

decamptownlady
Reply

I could spot that man-neck a mile away.
Friday, July 09, 2010 at 08:26 PM

topswifey
Reply

I thought it was a guy playing dress up
Friday, July 09, 2010 at 07:25 PM

Moonraker
Reply

She / it ,or whatever is the dominate male now.
Friday, July 09, 2010 at 05:13 PM

Scott - CO
Reply

I wonder if the politics were as radical when Rachel Madcow was a woman?
Friday, July 09, 2010 at 05:10 PM

Constitution scholar
Reply

well i guess being a dike will age the hell out of you
Friday, July 09, 2010 at 04:10 PM

November is Almost Here - Goodbye Progressive-Cancer In America
Reply

It's Kieth Oblablaman wearing his usual weekend wig and makeup.
Friday, July 09, 2010 at 03:13 PM

hdm
Reply

He used to be a woman??????
Friday, July 09, 2010 at 01:18 PM

Stop Liberal Insanity
Reply

I think its "Bob the dog" from the old Letterman show.
Friday, July 09, 2010 at 12:48 PM

And there's much more, as those are the ones that jump right out at you as unblushing example of sexism by a group of people that wet their collective undergarments if you even hold Sarah Palin accountable for her words and actions.

This is the second example in as many days of Fox"Nation" allowing language on their site that violates their clearly stated mission statement. Then again, the very idea of Fox and it's various entities are fair, balanced, and civil is completely laughable.

Some Thoughts For Your Morning

- Micheal Steele takes issue with Rand Paul's comments on discrimination by private businesses but can't openly condemn them. Steele doesn't seem to have a problem condemning the Obama administration on a multitude of policies but as a black man in America he can't distance himself from Paul's blatant racial animus? That's GOP "leadership" for you.

- Talk about a serious lack of "spine". I mean, if Rand Paul is afraid of facing David Gregory in Meet The Press, then you won't last one term as a Senator.

- And right on cue, Sarah Palin ran to Rand Paul's defense on Fox"News" claiming that Rachel Maddow was being unfair and playing "gotcha" by asking a completely legitimate question. The bulk of conservatives are following this same narrative line and showing that they are willing to accept racial divisiveness with open arms.

- With conservatives all up in arms regarding illegal immigration and deportation of illegals, one has to question why these same people aren't being honest about the fact that the US has deported more illegals in an upward trend since 2009.

- No matter what Obama does, conservatives are going to complain about him and his administration. Now, they are claiming that he is hiding because he hasn't held an official press conference since last summer. I have to say that there are far more important things that the president needs to be doing rather than taking questions from the press pool right now.

-

Defending Institutional Racism

It's almost a given now that Kentucky is going to be watched very closely by the media, considering Rand Paul won the primary this week for the Republican Senate seat. And with such attention to Paul, the conservative movement will be all in a frenzy to defend his every word and action. It's already starting.

Here's Rachel Maddow's fantastic interview with Paul. You get the sense that he has really met his match with this one.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

"First Floor Jobs"? Do they get their own drinking fountain as well?

As Paul says, "isn't it interesting" that he would never once answer Rachel's questions - not once. But as any person watching this show that wasn't about to attempt to defend Paul's stance on Civil Rights would see, he is completely in favor of anyone that owns a business to discriminate against anyone they don't agree with.

I'm reminded of signs in restaurants that read "management reserves the right....". One could say that Paul takes that stance to it's utmost extreme ends. While he has been quite clear of what he thinks is acceptable behavior by private business, it appears that some former Tea Bagger heroes are distancing themselves from Paul's point of view.

It's quite clear that Paul is completely fine with racism as long as it's not in a "publicly owned" area.

This Is What A Journalist Does

I'm sure there are far more adept people than I writing about this this morning.

But let me just say Ho-Lee-Shit!

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

I'm very impressed with how Maddow handled herself against this sanctimonious prick. There was a moment where she did seem to exude some amount of frustration, but she knows what she's doing, and she does it well. Let's just say that you'll not see this type of interview happening over at Fox"News".

Muzikal203 at Daily Kos has a nice piece up about this now.

The fact-checking has already shown that Stein is a blatant liar.

Twitter friend GottaLaff from The Political Carnival has coined a new term - "Steined".

One has to simply see the look on Dan Stein's face to see that he honestly doesn't care what Maddow presents to him, what is revealed about his organization, or what associations he and former members have had. This is the face of conservativism at it's rancorous worst. Racism writ large.

It's Come To This

It's starting to get ugly. But we knew this was coming.

No one was inside when the brick was hurled through the Democratic Patry Headquarters on University Avenue. Attached was a note quoting conservative Barry Goldwater: “Exremism [sic] in defense of liberty is no vice”. [...]

[Rep. Louise] Slaughter has been at the center of the push for reform. Last Thursday she received a chilling recorded message at her campaign office. “Assassinate is the word they used…toward the children of lawmakers who voted yes.”

The FBI is now investigating.

The death threat business was almost expected, but threatening a child is just beyond the pale. What happened to conservatives compassion for kids? Well, I suppose that only applies to their OWN children.

And now there's this:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

And John Cole has it right on as always.

The next plan for these clowns is to march on Washington on 19 April (the anniversary of Waco and the Oklahoma City bombing) with their guns to… well, you know why they are doing it, because you have a working brain. No doubt, however, it is time for another thought piece at Reason on the myth of right wing violence (prefaced, as always with “Other than Oklahoma city, the abortion murders, the Atlanta Olympics… what have the Romans done for us?”). Because remember- it is just a coincidence that gun nuts, militia movements, and angry mobs are on the rise. It has nothing to do with the fact that Clinton Obama is President and Republicans are whipping people into a froth on a daily basis.

I mean, what can wrong, right. Angry, right-wing, nutjobs ( with guns this time ) that aren't distancing themselves from threats to kill children. The exponentially increasing insanity amongst conservatives is literally going to get someone killed. Regardless of your political affiliation, no one needs to get murdered over any of this.

Liz Should Research Her Meme Narratives

In which Rachel Maddow unknowingly channels Glenn Beck.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

And while I must sincerely apologize for equating Rachel with such twitchy blatherings, we really should look at the nature of Liz Cheney's thesis.

Straight away, this whole storyline is being given credibility by some of the loudest voices within the conservative movement, so you have to wonder why they didn't so their research on this to begin with.

As much as I want to be able to wrap my head around this issue from a conservative perspective - you know, those people that claim to worship at the feet of our judicial process and the rights afforded to those arrested, caught, or captured - it amazes me that they AND Liz Cheney have conveniently forgotten that these alleged terrorists were captured and consulted by these people while George W. Bush was in office. Oh, the irony is so delicious.

We should break this down into simpler terms.

1 - only three cases tried in the allegedly pristine tribunal setting during the entirety of the Bush occupation of The White House.

2 - over 140 civilian proceedings of terrorists have successfully taken place in the last 15 years.

The numbers don't lie.

Military tribunals require an alleged terrorist to be represented by someone, so her little horror show is moot. But don't expect conservatives to admit this.

The Fame Position

Check out this wonderful segment with Rachel and then I have a question for everyone.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

By their very nature, politicians crave a certain amount of fame. And for those conservatives reading this, yes, I'm including Obama in that statement. The question of whether they choose to use that "fame" to better their district, their state, their nation, is what needs to be asked.

People like Bart Stupack aren't in this for their constituents or their country, they are in it so they can have a moment in the spotlight. The same is true for people like Mitch McConnell, who is allegedly the man that "represents" my state - Kentucky. The same is true for the other alleged "representative" of Kentucky - Jim Bunning. I could go on.

This is all the more true now that Barack Obama is president. They see him as a "controversial" person, since he is displaying the desire, compassion, and drive to offer real, lasting, and long-overdue change to this country. When you have someone that has that dream and determination, you will have a thousand little Stupaks, McConnells, and Bunnings. They aren't acting the way they are because they care about this country; they are doing it because they are attention whores and must be catered.

Andrew's Blubbery Rage: Pt. II

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.

Chaning The Game

No clearer picture is given as to what matters in the eyes on conservatives than when they refuse to answer a very simple question and their fanbase rallies around them. Alternately, those same conservatives are often seen with their metaphorical torches and pitchforks shouting that any and every Democrat be held to a different standard when it comes to accountability.

Case in point, once again revolving around the dubious claims in the new book Game Change, we see John McCain being asked by Matt Lauer about some of the claims in the book regarding his campaign and Sarah Palin. It appears that John isn't knows what he's going to be asked and then suddenly....

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

As McCain hits Lauer with a double dose of "why you bringing up old shit" coupled with "but what about the troops", one gets the sense that hit other statement - that he simply doesn't care - has more weight to it than one might first realize. And that weight surely is being carried by folks in the conservative blogging realm.

This clip got some buzz this morning because he appears to say at one point that he didn’t know how well Palin had been vetted. I don’t think that’s what he meant, though; he’s simply issuing blanket I-don’t-knows in response to questions about dirt in “Game Change,” but the testiness shines through when Lauer presses him. Is he just bored with the subject, or is there … something more?

That's Allahpundit over at HotAir, who seems to be confusing the word "apparent" with "actually". The spin from that site alone shows the double standard quite clearly, but it also begs the quesiton - are conservatives the ones that are truly afraid of Sarah Palin?

The reason that I ask this is because of the power that she weilds within the modern conservative movement. It's power that she doesn't know how to control. She quite literally, at this point at least, can open her mouth and tell someone that John McCain doesn't belong in the party anymore and suddenly his place in the Senate is in peril. It doesn't work the other way, and it's likely that McCain knows that. Could that have influenced the way he did/didn't answers this question?

Rachel Maddow took on the Palin/McCain allegations in Game Change on her MSNBC program:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Most of us realize that Palin was, and likely still is, unqualified to be VP of the United States. Her true calling, at least until she quits, is that of easily guided mouthpiece at Fox"News". John McCain is doing his best to distance himself from her selection as VP because he knows this as well, but he still needs to keep her at arms length for the sole purpose of tapping her on the shoulder and saying to people, "hey, I know her, isn't she awesome".

The book Game Change, however, is likely to be riddled with many falsehoods, as the authors aren't exactly open to talking about who they interviewed. The credibility of the quotes in the book are most certainly in question, so once again - why no real push-back from Palin and McCain? O'Reilly was literally feeding Palin her responses in regards to the book and McCain had the opportunity to simply say "it's all a lie" but he chose to say he didn't know and that frankly he didn't care.

This book has, and will be, a thorn in the sides of many until some real fact-checking is done. Conservatives and Fox"News" aren't going to do it, there simply going to run with the, as yet, unsourced quotes about Hillary, Bill, and Obama in order to get some face time on the TV. The double standard remains in play.

Consulting With Bristol

Just watch this first and then let me theorize what this could mean.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

I'll forgo the obvious "who in their right mind is going to take political advice from a 19 year old single mom" schtick and get right to the meat of this.

This is either a pseudo-clever way for Bristol to raise money for her mommy to make a Presidential run in 2012 or these two words come to mind: Money Laundering.

Context, Revisionist History, And A Maddow Retort

In more ways than one, Racheal Maddow has the chops and the know-how than anyone on MSNBC, sometimes even Olbermann, and this segment highlights why this is so.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

The way in which conservative politicians, former officials of the Bush administration, and their mouth-agape followers use the spectre of terrorism to tilt the playing field is quite spectacular at times.

Some people are trying to campaign off of terrorist attacks much in the way Bush did in 2004 while others are attempting to show that since Obama didn't immediately make a grand, theatrical statement that this means he is soft of terrorism and putting our country at great risk.

And while context, honesty, and an acceptance of even recent history is a foreign concept to most conservatives, it still boggles the mind how so many in our country can fall for even a portion of what they attempt to pass off as fact.

In many ways, conservatives rely on manipulating people's perceptions of events. Does anyone remember all the Jack Bauer "24" references that seemed to be endlessly streaming in from Fox"News" and various other conservative media outlets? That's how they want you to perceive that American intelligence agents work, that everything is just like a fictitious spy film or television program. They want you to believe that everything can be wrapped up in a tight timeline with action, intrigue, and the good guy nabbing the al Qeada operative and getting the girl at the end. They molest people's perceptions to such an extent that the perspective is shifted and that person suddenly has no idea where they are anymore.

This is the mission of the conservative and the media actors that carry their message into millions of homes every day.

Some Thoughts For Your Day

- I'm never shocked and occasionally satisfied ( as it verifies the stereotype surrounding them ) when I see the conservative movement continually show itself as an isolationist movement. So when former governor and garage band enthusiast Mike Huckabee continues this strain of thought, it makes one wonder if he says things like this to get back into the good graces of those within the fringe after the revival of his clemency affair.

- It's one thing to show that children are adversely affected by unaffordable healthcare, but when you completely distort the reality of sex education and portray children as the victims of deviant sexual indoctrination, that's a whole new level of pathetic. For anyone that has gone through sex education in schools in the late 80s like I did ( in grade school mind you ) there really wasn't such an outcry when children learned about oral sex and "ass-to-mouth" from C. Everitt Coop.

- I live in a part of the country that thinks Reagan was the second coming of Christ, that believes that Obama is a secret Muslim, and honestly believes that "teh gay" can be cured. So it was with great interest that I watch Rachel Maddow interview the man that claims that a good hug-and-cuddle will keep you straight and narrow.

Raves For Rachel

While Brian Donovan of True/Slant thinks that Maddow taking the reigns of Meet The Press from the absolutely disasterous David Gregory would be great for the show, I honestly think it would be a step down for her.

But let's say that this did happen, what staunch conservatives would come on the show after seeing her take issues head-on and not flinch. Like this:



And if she did take this gig away from Gregory, would she still keep her week-night program that follows Olbermann? It would be preposterous to assume that a woman as talented as Maddow couldn't handle 5 nights and an early Sunday program, the question is would the network be willing to let her do it. They would be fools not to.

The bottom line is that Gregory has completely ruined a program that Russert kept solid. Someone has got to step-up and be a real host.

Is There A Voice Of Sanity Amongst The Raving Masses

In my local paper today **subscription required**, there were dueling write-ins from readers responding to criticisms of the media. As always in this portion of the Bible Belt, it came down to Fox"News" versus MSNBC.

On the conservative side, a man named Lacy was attempting to rationalize the actions of the fringe conservative movement by claiming two things: Fox"News" is superior to all other channels not just because of their "fair and blanaced" stance, but because they have a larger audience share. Even though both of these statments are preposterous, the later is still somewhat of a mystery - why do conservatives believe that high rating equal accurate reporting. The two are mutually exclusive as should be easily recognizable to even those with a partially functional frontal lobe.

Media Matters has multiple examples of not only Fox's fringe-conservative bias, but of how they blur the line between straight news reporting and opinion.

The second piece of Mr. Lacy's poorly constructed thesis was what really struck me. He claimed that people like Glenn Beck weren't guilty of dispersing racism and hate-speech, it was Kieth Olbermann and Rachel Maddow.

There was a portion of his piece where Mr. Lacy spoke of the right to bear arms - a trending topic amongst the tea-party set, of which this gentleman sounded like an ardent supporter - and he concluded his piece by telling urging the man with whom he was responding to "not go outside". The thinly veiled threats from the reactionary fringe aren't as veiled as they once were.

Here is my response piece to him which will be published in tomorrows edition of my city's paper.

In Response To Bill Lacy’s Op-Ed From Wednesday, Oct. 13th.

I’ll not waste time on Mr. Lacy’s thinly veiled threat at the end of his opinion peace where he suggests that Mr. Watson should “not venture out into public”, as rhetoric such as this is no commonplace in the modern conservative movement. But what I will focus on are two glaringly preposterous notions that make up the flaccid thesis within Mr. Lacy’s piece.

First, is the accusation that Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow are purveyors of not only fear, but also “hate-speech”. My first reaction to this would be to pose the question to Mr. Lacy – what exactly is your definition of “hate-speech”? While this sort of classification of speech requires no definition to most people, it is apparent that Mr. Lacy lacks understanding in this manner. However, some forms of “hate-speech” have - by some form of bizarre osmosis – become acceptable in certain circles within our modern socio-political dialogue. Does this mean that we all have to accept the notion that the demonization of a specific religion, culture, or race is part of America? Absolutely not. So, to Mr. Lacy, I would ask when he has ever heard Olbermann or Maddow use “hate-speech” or the tactics of fear. It seems to me that Mr. Lacy has never watched either of these programs, but relies on the latest set of talking-points to be distributed through various conservative “news” outlets.

There is a way that Mr. Lacy’s ignorance on this manner can be explained. Ever since Fox”News” gained such wide-ranging attention, conservatives have muddied the debate in America by claiming some liberal conspiracy has threaded its way through virtually every news organization and that every story reported on by anyone other than Fox has an obviously and scientifically provable “liberal bias”. This, by and large, is how conservatives view the genesis of “hate-speech”, through the prism of ideological mistrust.

In the interest of full disclosure, I have been watching Olbermann since his days at ESPN and have been watching Maddow since her premiere broadcast on MSNBC, even listen to her radio program on the still operational and ever growing Air America radio network. The truth about these two people and their programs is that they don’t hide the fact that their shows are more liberal, more progressive, more Democratic than other programs. This is not to say that they have never challenged the Democratic Party on ideals and legislation, as they have. The difference between MSNBC’s giants of prime-time reporting and the entire Fox”News” network is that Fox continues to hide behind the “fair and balanced” meme. They are, for lack of a more colloquial term, patent liars in that regard.

As far as Mr. Lacy’s final assertion in his piece, that Fox”News” is somehow vastly superior to any and all other networks simply because they have a larger audience share, is beyond laughable. The very standpoint that he is making is that higher-ratings equal accurate reporting has no basis in fact whatsoever. I watch Fox”News” a great deal. I watch not because I feel that I am going to get any information that will benefit my day, my walk in life, but I watch to see the every growing ignorance and blindness within the modern conservative movement. I watch to see what new stunt, what new conspiracy-wrapped-in-a-riddle-inside-an-enigma Glenn Beck is going to uncover at 4pm. I watch to see how marginalized people like Bill O’Reilly have become. I watch, and I see a network that has created such willful ignorance within people in my own community. It is a truly saddening thing to see unfolding each and every day.