January 18, 2011

Designated Villains and the Tea Party
— Gabriel Malor

Ace already noted the clumsy CNN report attempting to link contemporary "hate rhetoric" with violence that occurred during the civil rights movement. This is old hackery, so thoroughly debunked it's hardly deserving of reply at this point. Suffice it to say, I kept waiting for the piece to explain what "hate rhetoric" is and how it is a sign or cause of impending violence, either in the 1950s and 60s or in the past few years. Alas, I waited in vain because the "reporter" never got around to clarifying the supposed topic of the piece.

That's because the real object isn't to examine "hate rhetoric", whatever that is. It's to call the Tea Party racist. Again. This type of slime job relies on several techniques common to bad fiction, but the central trope is the Designated Villain. The Designated Villain, like its counterpart the Designated Hero -- about which I wrote here in relation to the President -- occurs when an author violates the "Show, Don't Tell" rule. A character is treated by the author and the other characters as the villain of the work even though the character hasn't actually done anything to justify this treatment. Quite simply since the protagonists oppose him, he must be the bad guy, even if all his evil occurs off screen and is barely mentioned. The villainy has to be assumed by the reader.

Like the Designated Hero, the Designated Villain is very much present in modern reporting. Fortunately, unlike fiction in which the reader has no choice but to accept the assumptions made by the author, we do not have to accept the assumptions of reporters. Here are just a few the CNN reporter uses to designate the Tea Party as the villain of both the Tucson shooting and, illogically, racist violence that occurred fifty years ago:

She said she saw hundreds of Tea Party members shout down Giffords at a town hall meeting. She saw scores of ordinary Arizonans openly carry guns around town. She noted the rising ethnic strife.

There are five assumptions here (go figure, there are only three sentences). The first is that Tea Party members "shouting down" a Congresswoman is "hate rhetoric." But even more fundamental than that is the question of whether that event, the shouting down of Representative Giffords, even occurred. I spent some time on Google looking for news or video suggesting that she had been shouted away from the podium or otherwise had her views suppressed during town halls and couldn't find any. But see here and here for some characteristic exchanges at town hall events questioning Giffords' support for the proposed healthcare reform bill.

Please, please, please click the second link and watch the whole thing to see the Tea Partiers asking Giffords not to treat them like "a mob" and Giffords talking about the Tea Party and swastikas. That's how far from reality the CNN reporter wanders. Rather than shouting her down, the Tea Partiers tried to get her to state her positions and treat them with respect. In return, she slandered them with a Nazi comparison.

The third assumption is that carrying guns is somehow bad, a common one among liberals. This is paired with the idea that the bad guys carry guns. Unsaid and apparently forgotten because it undermines the reporter's point is that civil rights activists relied on firearms for protection in the 1960s. They recognized the danger they faced, and armed themselves for protection and quite openly let others know that they were armed.

Finally, the reporter references "rising ethnic strife" which, to be honest, I'm puzzled by. What ethnic strife exists in Arizona right now? Certainly not what existed in the South during the civil rights movement. Rather, this seems like an oblique reference to the Arizona immigration law. Because apparently, assumptively, enforcing immigration law and supporting border security is just like firehoses, bombs, and lynchings or something.

Then, after all those assumptions, the reporter (really, an author of fiction now) reinforces the designation with a convenient quote:

"I told people, this is the new Mississippi," Hayden said. "This is where the focus of the resurgence of right-wing hostility is located."

Nothing in the first blockquote leads to the conclusion in second...but only if you recognize the assumptions that are made. I guarantee you that liberals, the reality-based community, would nod along with those two paragraphs as if they made perfect sense.

Then there's this:

Rep. John Lewis, D-Georgia, said the recent political tone "takes me back to that period in the civil rights movement when we were called un-American."

Lewis, who was beaten in Selma, Alabama, while leading a civil rights march, said rhetoric turns dangerous when groups go beyond the war analogies common in political speech and imply their foes are enemies of America. During the health care reform debate, some leaders called their foes "un-American" and "socialists," he says.

Again, there are a couple major assumptions here. First, the author and, apparently, Rep. Lewis, wants the reader to believe that the Tea Party using "hate rhetoric" called opponents "un-American" and "socialists." Setting aside whether either is "hate rhetoric", yes to the latter, but let's go to the record on the former. Calling their opponents "un-American" in an op-ed for USA Today is none other than then-Speaker Pelosi and then-Majority Leader Hoyer. Lewis either doesn't know that or conveniently forgot it. The author doesn't correct or even note the misperception and, of course, it's entirely possible that the author doesn't actually know the truth either.

Some additional slurs used during the healthcare debate that are conveniently forgotten by the CNN author: "the mob", "terrorists", "racists", "fascists", "like the KKK", "evil-mongers", "they want to kill the president", "traitors", "Neanderthals", and "tea baggers."

This is the problem with designating a villain outside of fiction. The assumptions necessary to make it work depend on the reader to be utterly ignorant of reality. In the real world, charged political rhetoric is common and rarely leads to violence. But to liberals, it is a feature of "right-wing" political speech and someone always ends up getting hurt. Evidence? No evidence required, this narrative has already been written. If President Obama is the hero, then ipso facto the Tea Party is the villain.

That's why the racism card is played so frequently these days. It's not because, as liberals would have it, there are more racists in America these past two years than in the eight before that. It's because the Designated Hero is a black man. Ipso facto, the Designated Villains must be motivated by racism. Writers (and leaders and voters) are fundamentally lazy and it's easiest to fall into convenient narratives, particularly when the media are so provocatively implying the racism narrative with every piece of "reporting."

This article is no different:

Hartford said it's virtually inevitable that rapid social changes in America -- electing the first black president, the influx of Latino immigrants -- will be accompanied by violence.

"There is almost always an undercurrent of violence in this country that emerges as a reaction to the advancement of a despised minority's rights," Hartford said.

Whoa. Does he really think that blacks are a "despised minority" in America or that Obama's election is a "rapid social change"? And anyone who believes that we're seeing an "influx of Latino immigrants" has conveniently forgotten the amnesties in the 1980s and is apparently ignorant that the U.S. is seeing net negative illegal migration at the moment. Again, these are vague assumptions, conveniently embedded within a quote so the author can just slide them into his piece and move on. In reality, black politicians of national (and even international) stature stopped being a novelty long ago. That's not "rapid social change." But note that here we are again, somehow -- without even a shred of evidence to connect recent violence to conservatives or the Tea Party -- talking about violence from the political right.

That's the take-away: the Tea Party is the villain because that's what the story says, dammit, that's why. The Tea Party is violent because this story demands a violent villain to contrast with the author's peaceful Designated Hero. The Tea Party is racist because that's their designation. Didn't you read that they're opposing President Obama? Ipso facto, racist, violent villains.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 03:15 AM | Comments (180)
Post contains 1394 words, total size 9 kb.

1 Someone has to teach the spammers the 'First!' routine.

Posted by: Tami at January 18, 2011 03:16 AM (VuLos)

2 f the media. with a 2x4. sideways.

that is all.

Posted by: negentropy at January 18, 2011 03:23 AM (27KAF)

3 I believe there was plenty of violence in the north during the civil rights era, not just the south. Newark, Detroit?

Posted by: Museisluse at January 18, 2011 03:29 AM (kb7mQ)

4 Come on guys, what if we limit threads to one new one each 2 hours? Jow can a conversation develop when people kerp switching to the latest thread every 10 minutes? Not to mention when an afternoon and evening go by with no new thread at all, so you wind up with 700 off topic comments on one dead thread. A time thread posting limit would be a good thing.

Posted by: CoolCzech at January 18, 2011 03:30 AM (tJjm/)

5 The last race riot was in Boston I think.

Posted by: FlaviusJulius at January 18, 2011 03:30 AM (SJ6/3)

6 It is commonplace in the media now days to confuse logical fact-based firey rhetoric with hate.  The real hate is when it lacks truth.  I think the reporter wasn't going to define hate rhetoric for you, but instead demonstrate it with his own article.

Posted by: dogfish at January 18, 2011 03:43 AM (N2yhW)

7 That article was written by a noted communist. Why should anyone give it any credence at all.

As for "violence in the South" aren't we hearkening to the MFM again? Google Springfield Race Riot of 1908. That was probably the most devastating act of black lynching in history but you never hear anything about it because it doesn't fit the past "designated villains".  Every one knows that black hate crimes only occur in Mississippi or Alabama.

7 blacks were killed and the entire segregated black quarter of the city was burnt to the ground.  

Posted by: Vic at January 18, 2011 03:44 AM (M9Ie6)

8 It's amusing to watch socialists like Bob Woodward on MSNBC, slamming Palin as "obviously ignorant" based on a Saturday Night Live Tina Fey skit. OK, Bob... acute political analysis you got there! Meanwhile, Joe Scarborough keeps pronouncing Palin's political career "over." THIS from a guy hoping to be Michael Blooming-idiot's Vice Presidential candidate in 2012! Earth to Scarborough: It's SO Over your chances of being VP are deader than that girl they found in your office, Dude!

Posted by: CoolCzech at January 18, 2011 03:50 AM (tJjm/)

9 Mathematics has a small number of core, unprovable, but assumed principles known as axioms.  This is the origin of the term axiomatic. 

The media has their own axioms.  The difference is that mathematical axioms conform to reality.  The media's do not.  Nonetheless, for the media, their axioms are immutable and eternal.  At least they will be until the current media's jobs evaporate. 

I can't wait.

Posted by: pep at January 18, 2011 03:51 AM (GMG6W)

10 Some other observations overlooked. If you take the words "civil rights activists" or 'marched with MLK Jr' off of the resume of the voices of conscience of the Democrats what else do they have?

Having outbursts by members of groups like Code Pink from the gallery of the congressional building somehow is not hate speech.

Doing research into the backgrounds of private citizens in an attempt to discredit them, like what was done to Joe the Plumber and several citizens of CA in the wake of the Prop 8 vote in CA is somehow protected.

The shows of affection from the left on the passing of conservatives like Tony Snow or each hospitalization of Dick Cheney is free speech.

And on and on.

Posted by: Just A Grunt at January 18, 2011 03:52 AM (pOC9r)

11 Great post, thanks!

Posted by: Bill at January 18, 2011 03:57 AM (B6Wjs)

12 Did she say "degradating"?

Posted by: Word Police at January 18, 2011 04:05 AM (a8p0Q)

13 thanks for the post.  Oh and MFM?  Kiss my Ass.

Posted by: NotAMolly at January 18, 2011 04:06 AM (ADJFU)

14 Great post, Gabe.

Posted by: Andy at January 18, 2011 04:06 AM (veZ9n)

15  Taxed Enough Already is definitely racist to any mindless marxist scribe towing the propaganda line. And the Swastikas are the symbol of National Socialism. Who comes closer to that distinction, Oliar's collection Constitution skirting communists and former anarchists, or supporters of individual rights, freedoms and the Constitution like The Tea Party?
That's without even searching quotes espousing violence of leftists like Van Jones, Andy Stern, Bill Ayers and The Won's cast of thousands.
 These losers in the MFM are relying on the repetition feature of The Big Lie, which becomes the primary strategy when believability isn't a strong point. and by default repetition always has to be their primary strategy. That's the pathetic raison d'etre of the ethically diseased and morally compromised MFM. 

Posted by: ontherocks at January 18, 2011 04:07 AM (HBqDo)

16 I hope to live long enough to see food become expensive.

Posted by: Bucks County farmboy at January 18, 2011 04:15 AM (le5qc)

17 Its Selma all over again. And again, and again. Could we pass the plate and buy the media a new template? I know things are tight, but it would give the media something new to chew on. Their chew toy has been consumed. Oh yeah, one other thing, could I expect the end to Affirmative Action in my lifetime so that I could experience equality in my own country once before I die?

Posted by: Krugman: NOBEL at January 18, 2011 04:20 AM (fy8R6)

18 Blood Libel Media.  I want them all eating out of dumpsters. 

Posted by: SurferDoc at January 18, 2011 04:23 AM (o3bYL)

19 If the media isn't biased, what possible reason was there to go after Joe The Plumber?  He got 'vetted' more than Obama ever did.

Posted by: nickless at January 18, 2011 04:27 AM (MMC8r)

20 Because the media loves to place blame (PTSD, American's lifestyle, Republicans, Palin) I thought I just might help them out here.

The reason we even needed a Tea party, or met up in DC, or went to Town Halls is OUR VOICE WAS BEING IGNORED.  The Government became the RULING class, and acted as such.  THEY STOPPED LISTENING TO US.  In fact, THEY WENT AGAINST the WILL of the PEOPLE.

You want 'blame', opinion media?  You have to look no further than CONGRESS, and the PRESIDENT.

How pathetic it is that you love to 'blame' the Tea Party, but refuse to look at the Unconstitutional, Immoral, Disgraceful, Thieving acts of Obama/Pelosi/Reid, etc.


Posted by: momma at January 18, 2011 04:31 AM (penCf)

21 It's hard to debate race issues when the real history is hidden, omitted, conveniently forgotten and spinned to make certain people look bad while others look soooo innocent.  The fact is this country, all of it, had a problem with race and it will continue.  The race baiters and spinners will see to it.  As Americans about all we can do is treat each other with the dignity and respect that each person deserves.  It cannot be forced by government or politics.  But it can be done if people take it upon themselves to do what is right, and teach their children.  ..not be judged by the color of their skin but the content of their charactor. MLK.  He was right about this. 

Posted by: Case at January 18, 2011 04:34 AM (0K+Kw)

22 A local wordsmith here in Minnesota Explained it this way (He was an old Journalist and current columnist)

Comfort the Afflicted and Afflict the Comfortable.

If we had a non-ideological press this would work just fine, but we don't. So in their minds people and ideas they like are Afflicted. Things they don't like are the Comfortable.

They frame the Narriatve around that. They had the story ready to go. Teaparty "wako" kills people. Boom! Run with it. Reality doesn't matter, the Narrative matters.Krugman had that story filed Saturday night for it to run on Monday.  Lee Child's had a similar line in one of his Jack Reacher novels.

Posted by: Zakn at January 18, 2011 04:37 AM (zyaZ1)

23 I mean hell. We are all told in the Military that appearances matters more than the facts. Look like a shitbag, doesn't mater what work you actually do or how well you do it.

Posted by: Zakn at January 18, 2011 04:40 AM (zyaZ1)

24 Because shut up!

Posted by: CNN News Room at January 18, 2011 04:41 AM (te9lM)

25 Alas, I waited in vain because the "reporter" never got around to clarifying the supposed topic of the piece.

The quality of the J-school graduates is not getting any better.  Recently NPR did a story claiming Gitmo-like abuse of Haitians by immigration officers at US detention facilities.  Again, the reporter never got around to pointing out any actual victims of abuse, or telling the audience exactly what kind of torture was employed, or even naming any specific detention facilities where it was happening.

Posted by: Follower of Cthulhu at January 18, 2011 04:43 AM (F/4zf)

26

The reason given for segregation was the large number of stabbings, rapes and shootings involving the races in the south.

As it is today some areas are no go zones for those of different ethnic backgrounds because of crime. Segregating made it easy to keep the fparties apart.

Posted by: HEP-T at January 18, 2011 04:44 AM (9G/0v)

27 But it can be done if people take it upon themselves to do what is right, and teach their children.  ..not be judged by the color of their skin but the content of their charactor

In the 21st century, ignoring skin color when you judge people is considered the most vile form of racism (recent study conducted to "prove" color-blind racial ideology is despicable).

I don't know how that happened, or how to change it back, but society is boned until the "color matters!" ideology gets discredited and marginalized like Nazi racial theories were.

Posted by: HeatherRadish at January 18, 2011 04:47 AM (4ucxv)

28 Scarborough is going more and more nuts.That Mika must have some spectacular pussy.

Posted by: steevy at January 18, 2011 04:49 AM (RG+kL)

29 I don't know how that happened, or how to change it back, but society is boned until the "color matters!" ideology gets discredited and marginalized like Nazi racial theories were.

Take the money out of it.

Posted by: nickless at January 18, 2011 04:50 AM (MMC8r)

30 "The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who, in times of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality." — Dante Alighieri (Inferno)

Posted by: SurferDoc at January 18, 2011 04:51 AM (o3bYL)

31 um.....do they realize....this was a white on white crime?

Posted by: phoenixgirl at January 18, 2011 04:52 AM (eOXTH)

32 Great piece.  Best one Gabe has done in a while.

Posted by: Hatchet Five at January 18, 2011 04:53 AM (ofEJm)

33 Lee Child's had a similar line in one of his Jack Reacher novels.

Posted by: Zakn at January 18, 2011 08:37 AM (zyaZ1)


I love his books!

Posted by: momma at January 18, 2011 04:54 AM (penCf)

34

With respect to the Tea Partiers, whom sleazy liberals call the Tea Baggers, a slimy Bill Mahar recently stated that our founding fathers would have "hated the guts" of the Tea Partiers, and an equally slimy Michael Moore made an equally irresponsible statement to the effect that racist Tea Partiers are stockpiling guns & ammo for the sole purpose of keeping people of color out of their homes.

Never mind that, almost nightly, and oftentimes in a sneaky, round about kind of a way, also, a slimy Joy Bahar continues to snidely tell incendiary, bald face lies about Tea Partiers, and never mind the frequency with which liberal columnists like Cohen, Millbank, Krugman and Klein viciously attack Sarah Palin for no other reason than just to be mean and nasty, which is now chic and en vogue among all other Democrats in certain cliques, also.  But yeah, the Tea Partiers are the haters. Those sick freaks are projecting their own hate onto Tea Partiers, as they've been doing since the 60's, because they get away with it, thanks to one clique in particular. and you don't have to be smart to realize who those sick freaks are.

Posted by: Brian at January 18, 2011 04:55 AM (sYrWB)

35 Scarborough is going more and more nuts.

He's always been nuts.  What's happening is the cheap paint is peeling off and you see more and more of what's underneath.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at January 18, 2011 04:56 AM (tWaW3)

36 This whole CNN interview is propaganda at its best/worst.  The person interviewed was Tom Hayden's wife.  You know, that Tom Hayden, founder of the SDS, acquaintance(being kind here) of William Ayers.  And she's lecturing about violence.  It would be funny if it weren't so disgusting.  End of story.

Posted by: Deanna at January 18, 2011 04:59 AM (8l6Ql)

37 um.....do they realize....this was a white on white crime?

The bigotry in Arizona means only white people feel free to go to Safeway to chat with Congress members, or some shit like that...

Besides, everything that happens in America is about Obama, except the stuff he actually does.

Posted by: HeatherRadish at January 18, 2011 05:00 AM (4ucxv)

38

Scarborough has always known on which side of his bread the butter is on.

Posted by: Brian at January 18, 2011 05:00 AM (sYrWB)

39 Scarborough is going more and more nuts.

MSNBC's going more nuts, Scarborough is just following his paycheck.

Posted by: nickless at January 18, 2011 05:11 AM (MMC8r)

40 They need to deftly pin this on the tea partiers. Just like the Clinton White House deftly pinned the Oklahoma City bombing on the militia and anti-government people.

Posted by: Democrat Strategist Five Seconds After the Shooting at January 18, 2011 05:12 AM (eTknn)

41

Scarborough has always known on which side of his bread the butter is on. You might recall, that even Lauraa Ingraham began to go down the same slippery slope when she was on MSNBC, and Pat Buchanan continues to go down that road, selling out to the company that pays their bills. It's nauseating to watch the extent to which Pat Buchanan has become Chris Matthews' buddy, as John McCain was willing to do, too. I'll stop short of calling them unprincipled whores. 

Posted by: Brian at January 18, 2011 05:17 AM (sYrWB)

42 "Hate rhetoric" is anything these jerkoffs disagree with.

Posted by: Comanche Voter at January 18, 2011 05:20 AM (3ESDJ)

43 Can't we all get along means agree with me and we'll get along. Otherwise, go fuck yourself.

Posted by: Brian at January 18, 2011 05:23 AM (sYrWB)

44 Comfort the Afflicted and Afflict the Comfortable.

If we had a non-ideological press this would work just fine, but we don't. So in their minds people and ideas they like are Afflicted. Things they don't like are the Comfortable.

I don't think there is any situation where that would work.  The press should report facts about what is happening, not operate in a fashion that they believe makes society better.

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at January 18, 2011 05:23 AM (TpXEI)

45 We need another federal holiday.  March or April is the period when teachers and gov'ment workers must feel worst, it being so long between President's Day Monday and Memorial Day.

In honor of that almost-martyr-for-freedom-from-wingnut-violence, Representative Gabrielle Giffords, let's get the ball rolling in congress to designate, say, the fourth Monday in March as "Gabby Day!"  A federal holiday.

I wuz gonna suggest it be in mid-August, but hey, the teachers are off then anyway.

Posted by: MMJ Cardholder at January 18, 2011 05:24 AM (4sQwu)

46 The passive-aggressive bi-atches on the left, those elegant Solons, want to keep as their trump card the renewed threat of urban racial violence. Don't believe it? Ask yourself why the Chicago P.D. has sub-machine guns. And, of course, the accusation of racism might shut some people up.
If and when it happens to me, I'll just quote Delroy Lindo as Bo Catlett in "Get Shorty" (1995): "You don't know me. You just think you know me". It won't shut me up.

Posted by: Thorvald at January 18, 2011 05:25 AM (6WUZl)

47 You might recall, that even Lauraa Ingraham began to go down the same slippery slope when she was on MSNBC, and Pat Buchanan continues to go down that road, selling out to the company that pays their bills. It's nauseating to watch the extent to which Pat Buchanan has become Chris Matthews' buddy, as John McCain was willing to do, too. I'll stop short of calling them unprincipled whores. 

Posted by: Brian at January 18, 2011 09:17 AM (sYrWB)

Pat's been an embarrassment going back to when he was the phony conservative on the McLaughlin Group.  He is in no way a "conservative" any more than Sully is; and people like Laura Ingraham keep fucking up by giving that assbag a forum.

Posted by: Captain Hate at January 18, 2011 05:31 AM (olKiY)

48 Joe Scarborough has an Op-Ed in the Politico, if you can suppress your gag reflex enough to read it .  Can you guess what the theme is?  Yes, it is...

Moving past right-wing rhetoric

The first paragraph sets the tone for the piece:

We get it, Sarah Palin. You’re not morally culpable for the tragic shooting in Tucson, Ariz. All of us around the “Morning Joe” table agree, even if we were stunned that you would whine about yourself on Facebook as a shattered family prepared to bury their 9-year-old girl.

How did that joke go?

MFM:  Sarah Palin and her violent rhetoric influenced the circumstances under which the Tuscon shootings occured..

SP:  I mourn the loss of life and grieve for the families that were affected by the shooting.  However, I don't think my campaign rallies or electorial maps influenced Jared at all - the guy is a loser nutter....

MFM:  Stop making it about you, people were shot here, damnit! 

Posted by: Kratos (Ghost of Sparta) at January 18, 2011 05:37 AM (9hSKh)

49 O/T:  wow Oprah went to Jeremiah Wright's church? 

Posted by: curious at January 18, 2011 05:40 AM (p302b)

50 Imagine if we had a Private Sector Holiday. If you work for Government you have to work.

Last year I was on vacation with my GF. She had MLK day off, I had to burn vacation. I laughed my ass off when our waitress for breakfast gave her shit for being a Government worker. IN MINNESOTA!

Posted by: Zakn at January 18, 2011 05:42 AM (zyaZ1)

51 A time thread posting limit would be a good thing.<<<CoolCzech

It would be fascist to make them post by schedule.  This blog is worth absolutely every penny you pay to enjoy it.

Posted by: Kerry at January 18, 2011 05:42 AM (a/VXa)

52 Please, Gabe.  This is just an Alinsky tactic that has been around for decades.

RULE 5: "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon." There is no defense. It's irrational. It's infuriating.

Dems use this playbook for everything.  We keep trying to defend the indefensible.

Offense is the answer to Rule 5.

Posted by: Cherry π at January 18, 2011 05:42 AM (+sBB4)

53 Gabe presenting this argument to a liberal would be like trying to teach calculus to a pre-schooler.

Posted by: Mr. Sar Kastik at January 18, 2011 05:45 AM (A3oMO)

54

OT, I read this morning that Dick Cheney may need a heart transplant.

 

A prudent person would stay just out of his arm's reach.

Posted by: Dave in Texas at January 18, 2011 05:45 AM (WvXvd)

55 Scarborough has openly hated Palin from Day One. He's spent more time pronouncing her political death on the air than he spent days in Congress. I think he's seriously jealous of her.

Posted by: CoolCzech at January 18, 2011 05:46 AM (tJjm/)

56 wow Oprah went to Jeremiah Wright's church? 

Posted by: curious at January 18, 2011 09:40 AM (p302b)

I thought that was pretty common knowledge.

Posted by: Captain Hate at January 18, 2011 05:47 AM (olKiY)

57 #49 - I don't disagree, but Pat Buchanan has been an embarrassment (and a disgrace) ever since, like that other insufferable creep, Ross Perot, he ran an outrageously dirty and despicable campaign against G.H.W. Bush, virtually colluding with Democrats, and in Perot's case, that little weasel did collude with Clinton's boy, George Steponallofus. 

Posted by: Brian at January 18, 2011 05:47 AM (sYrWB)

58 I think he's seriously jealous of her.

Posted by: CoolCzech at January 18, 2011 09:46 AM (tJjm/)

And she couldn't give a rat's ass about him. 

Posted by: Tami at January 18, 2011 05:47 AM (VuLos)

59 Palin was put in Koyubashi Maru situation. Dammed if you do Dammed if you don't. All by design.

Damn the Narrative, Full Speed Ahead.


It appears that's what she's doing.

Posted by: Zakn at January 18, 2011 05:48 AM (zyaZ1)

60 Doing research into the backgrounds of private citizens in an attempt to discredit them, like what was done to Joe the Plumber and several citizens of CA in the wake of the Prop 8 vote in CA is somehow protected.

Prop 8 is a good example.  It went down largely do to minorities (blacks and Hispanics) voting no.  But the supporters wanted a villain so they found convenient ones, like some religious people.  Including, laughably, a few Mormons -- a potent force in CA politics to be sure.

Posted by: AmishDude at January 18, 2011 05:48 AM (BvBKY)

61 Kobayashi (sorry)

Posted by: Zakn at January 18, 2011 05:49 AM (zyaZ1)

62 I hate dueling threads.....

Taiwanese animators are at it again:

Hu Jintao jets into Washington

http://tinyurl.com/5s6j7he

Posted by: Tami at January 18, 2011 05:49 AM (VuLos)

63 43

Scarborough has always known on which side of his bread the butter is on. You might recall, that even Lauraa Ingraham began to go down the same slippery slope when she was on MSNBC, and Pat Buchanan continues to go down that road, selling out to the company that pays their bills. It's nauseating to watch the extent to which Pat Buchanan has become Chris Matthews' buddy, as John McCain was willing to do, too. I'll stop short of calling them unprincipled whores. 

Posted by: Brian at January 18, 2011 09:17 AM (sYrWB)

I thought Pat was an anti-ZOG NAZI-Bund loving right wing facist pig...did he get rehabbed/released from the FEMA camps to do TeeVee?

Posted by: torabora at January 18, 2011 05:49 AM (igfD8)

64

During the health care reform debate, some leaders called their foes "un-American" and "socialists," he says.

Did you know that calling someone a "socialist" is hate speech?  It's true and it's one of these assumptions Gabe is talking about.  Seriously, they think you're engaging in hate speech if you call Obama a socialist.

Some of them believe it, some of them know it's a tool of "shut up".  They don't say it out loud very often, but that's what they think.

Posted by: AmishDude at January 18, 2011 05:54 AM (BvBKY)

65 I don't think he is so much jealous as envious cause she "has a brass set" and he has none.   Plus, working on that network right next to a person who gets their information on a crackberry ostensibly "directly from the WH" has to take it's toll.  Was Scarborough party affiliation Republican?  That would be hard to believe or understand. 

Watching this whole situation in AZ with the T party makes you understand why people would opt to simply walk away.  This is why I think the "independent" status is growing.  No one wants a party affiliation as you have to carry too much of a sack filled with crap that you might not believe in but someone would assume you do believe in cause you have designated yourself as a "member of said party".   It's not worth it to be a member of anything if you are receiving death threats based on that membership.

Someone last night said on here that Palin said even her kids are getting death threats.  That is just horrific. 

Posted by: curious at January 18, 2011 05:55 AM (p302b)

66 This blog is worth absolutely every penny you pay to enjoy it. Posted by: Kerry at January 18, 2011 09:42 AM (a/VXa) So you're saying it's worthless?

Posted by: CoolCzech at January 18, 2011 05:55 AM (tJjm/)

67

23 A local wordsmith here in Minnesota Explained it this way (He was an old Journalist and current columnist)

Comfort the Afflicted and Afflict the Comfortable.

Look, journalists have always been liberal, just not so uniformly partisan.

Now they're just speaking power to truth.

Posted by: AmishDude at January 18, 2011 05:55 AM (BvBKY)

68 The last race riot was in Boston I think.

Cincinnati, 2001.

Posted by: Rob Crawford at January 18, 2011 05:56 AM (ZJ/un)

69 Anyone here from North Dakota:

WaPo:

North Dakota Democratic Sen. Kent Conrad plans to announce his retirement today, according to two informed Democratic sources, creating a potentially prime pickup opportunity for Republicans in a GOP-leaning state.

Conrad, who currently chairs the Senate Budget Committee, has been in office since 1986 and risen to become one of the most influential -- and intellectual -- policy makers operating in the nation's capital.


Posted by: Tami at January 18, 2011 05:56 AM (VuLos)

70 Look, journalists have always been liberal, just not so uniformly partisan. Now they're just speaking power to truth. sucking each other's dicks in the Echo Chamber. Posted by: AmishDude at January 18, 2011 09:55 AM (BvBKY) FTFY

Posted by: CoolCzech at January 18, 2011 05:57 AM (tJjm/)

71

A character is treated by the author and the other characters as the villain of the work even though the character hasn't actually done anything to justify this treatment. Quite simply since the protagonists oppose him, he must be the bad guy, even if all his evil occurs off screen and is barely mentioned. The villainy has to be assumed by the reader.

And sometimes the writer fakes out the readers (or viewers) and causes them to assume wrongly.

Posted by: Regina George at January 18, 2011 05:58 AM (sWynj)

72

5  The last race riot was in Boston I think.

 

I think that riot had something to do with integrating the schools IIRC.  A movie was made about it, starring Jane Curtin of SNL as one of the designated "bad guys", and she couldn't get work for years afterward in part because she did such a good job portraying her character. 


Posted by: Boots at January 18, 2011 05:58 AM (neKzn)

73 During the health care reform debate, some leaders called their foes "un-American" and "socialists," he says. Yeah, well Socialism IS as un-American as un-American comes, and the Democrat Left Wing IS Socialist. The REAL travesty is that ALL Republican leaders didn't say that.

Posted by: CoolCzech at January 18, 2011 05:59 AM (tJjm/)

74 Is he saying the rapid rise of Tea Party-ism and the rapid fall of The One is sure to lead to violence? Should we be worried?

Posted by: t-bird at January 18, 2011 06:00 AM (FcR7P)

75 Even Fox is pushing the "Obama comeback" meme this morning.

Why people think they're a conservative news outlet when they push the same Associated Press spin (look at the bylines of all their Web content!) as everyone else in the MFM is beyond my understanding.

Posted by: SGT Dan at January 18, 2011 06:01 AM (HBTr7)

76 O/T:  Interesting little tidbit from the SC NAACP yesterday.  Now even George Washington is apparently controversial.  Who knew?   h/t Hillbuzz

NAACP disrespects George Washington

Posted by: Lady in Black at January 18, 2011 06:01 AM (x9xik)

77

Great post, Gabe.

 the influx of Latino immigrants

Cuz that's totally new to Arizona. I must have dreamed that my great-grandparents did some of that there influxing...

Idiots.

Posted by: Mama AJ at January 18, 2011 06:01 AM (XdlcF)

78 o/T:  Wow, I just read that the president of tunisia's wife left the country with 1.5 tons of gold.  I mean what does it take to transport 1.5 tons of anything.  Certainly she couldn't put it in her carry on or her purse.  And is it their gold or their country's gold?

Posted by: curious at January 18, 2011 06:01 AM (p302b)

79 The third assumption is that carrying guns is somehow bad, a common one among liberals. This is paired with the idea that the bad guys carry guns.

As evil as a lady smoking a cigarette proving herself a fallen woman (Chesterton's essay v. his day's observation of America's cultural dogma, PC).

Posted by: maverick muse at January 18, 2011 06:02 AM (H+LJc)

80 "...the influx of Latino immigrants" As an immigrant, I will absolutely SCREAM if I hear illegal aliens referred to as "immigrants" JUST ONE MORE FUCKING TIME. AAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGYYYYYYYEEEAAAAAAAAAHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: CoolCzech at January 18, 2011 06:03 AM (tJjm/)

81 Great analysis Gabe. Takeaways: 

The assault on Palin is really an assault on each of us. Its an effort to delegitimize all of us, and it may very well succeed. As someone upstream noted, repetition of a smear trumps factual refutation.

Second, Gabby Giffords is a stand in for the insane left. Her beatification as St Gabby the Moderate is nearly complete.  As ABC network is preparing Specials on "The Congresswoman and the Astronaut," Gabe points out that she was, like the rest of the left, up to her neck in the Tea Party as Nazi smear long before Jared went Loughner. It is no accident that Giffords' father kicked off the "Tea Party did it" lie that Fuller later repeated; indeed, no accident that her campaign was aided by the likes of Fuller.

So its bad for the Tea Party and cons. Really bad. But what do we do? "We" being the designated villains.

Posted by: some dope at January 18, 2011 06:03 AM (BZEkR)

82  don't think there is any situation where that would work.  The press should report facts about what is happening, not operate in a fashion that they believe makes society better.

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at January 18, 2011 09:23 AM (TpXEI)

Who says? Free speech is about who owns the printing presses. When B+rry & Co. start bailing out newspapers we're in REAL trouble.

Of course some TARP money went to GE/NBC so the trouble has started.

Posted by: torabora at January 18, 2011 06:03 AM (igfD8)

83 And is it their gold or their country's gold?
Posted by: curious

president for life presumes his nation's wealth is his 'right' to plunder

Posted by: maverick muse at January 18, 2011 06:05 AM (H+LJc)

84 If any type of grass-roots movement on the left even sniffed the level of participation and success the Tea Party brought, the MFM would be breathlessly celebrating the "American way" of democracy.  But, when said movement comes from the right?  Not so much.

The MFM is certainly pushing to shut down any voices on the right.  When you try to force someone to shut up, 2 outcomes exist.  The person shuts up voluntarily, or things get broken.

Posted by: The Hammer at January 18, 2011 06:07 AM (32ubA)

85

I thought Pat was an anti-ZOG NAZI-Bund loving right wing facist pig...did he get rehabbed/released from the FEMA camps to do TeeVee?


He's all those things, which is why MSNBC parades him as a 'conservative.'

 

Posted by: nickless at January 18, 2011 06:07 AM (MMC8r)

86 So its bad for the Tea Party and cons. Really bad. But what do we do? "We" being the designated villains. Posted by: some dope at January 18, 2011 10:03 AM (BZEkR) We openly reject the liberal media narrative. We write letters to the editors of local papers and newsmagazines. We call in on CSPAN. Most of all, we do not succumb to Political Correctness, and call a spade a spade when it is a spade.

Posted by: CoolCzech at January 18, 2011 06:08 AM (tJjm/)

87

wow Oprah went to Jeremiah Wright's church? 

She also had the sense to leave it.

Posted by: Mama AJ at January 18, 2011 06:08 AM (XdlcF)

88 All these attacks show is that we're winning. Now is the time to up the pressure, not back down. They're panicking, because they know we're gonna crush them in 2012, the census went our way despite all their best efforts, so our gains will be long term, and their great socialist dream is going down the shitter.
Its gonna get ugly as the country wakes up and realizes that liberalism is totally unsustainable.
So we need to go for the jugular now.

Posted by: Iblis at January 18, 2011 06:08 AM (hLGVM)

89 It is also legitimate to routinely call all members of a political party a bunch of ballsuckers (i.e., teabaggers) while smirking into the camera.  It's just a really clever play on words that never gets old.  Seriously.

Posted by: CNN & MSNBC at January 18, 2011 06:10 AM (4o/Qp)

90 We try not to let facts get in the way of a good meme.

Posted by: Wolf Blitzer at January 18, 2011 06:10 AM (zgZzy)

91 Excellent analysis, Gabe. I have to say, the bloggers here have been of fire lately. It's so nice to be able to see some sanity right now. I've felt like I woke up in an alternate universe for the past two weeks.

Posted by: Mandy P. at January 18, 2011 06:11 AM (5i0Wk)

92 $10 says Gabby Giffords replaces Biden on the Obama ticket, if she's recovered enough by then.

"This is what a real VP candidate looks like!"
"What an amazing story - congresswoman, shot in the head, first female VP!"
"Obama's going to the middle with this one."

All bullshit, and all perfect for the BLM narrative.

Posted by: grognard at January 18, 2011 06:11 AM (NS2Mo)

93 Posted by: Lady in Black at January 18, 2011 10:01 AM (x9xik)

The NAACP ceased being about "civil rights" a long time ago. They are now one of the most racist groups in the country. Their primary focus now is about inriching the leadership of the NAACP through extortion of large companies.

Posted by: Vic at January 18, 2011 06:11 AM (M9Ie6)

94 Anyone catch my shuck and jive routine with Hu Jintao?

Posted by: Barack Obama at January 18, 2011 06:13 AM (DYJjQ)

95 $10 says Gabby Giffords replaces Biden on the Obama ticket, if she's recovered enough by then.

Hmmm... a less brain-damaged VP. I have no problem with that move!

Posted by: Rob Crawford at January 18, 2011 06:14 AM (ZJ/un)

96 Kent Conrad to retire.  Slam dunk pick-up.

Posted by: Waingro at January 18, 2011 06:14 AM (uAytX)

97 Oath?  What oath?

Posted by: Fritz at January 18, 2011 06:15 AM (GwPRU)

98

"$10 says Gabby Giffords replaces Biden on the Obama ticket, if she's recovered enough by then."

She has half a brain and the media advertises her as moderate. Seems she has Biden beaten on every metric. I wonder if she likes trains?

Posted by: Tigtog at January 18, 2011 06:15 AM (Q5+Og)

99 Question of the day for CNBC, Erin Burnett gives the results right before they go off the air:  "If you had children now, would you make them learn Chinese?"

Posted by: curious at January 18, 2011 06:16 AM (p302b)

100 Odd how thirty days ago the left couldn't stand Gabby Giffords, but now -- presto!! -- by virtue of being shot she's the martyred saint for all things liberal.

Oh, and on the what to do about it thing: define the left the way they really are.  Never use the term progressive, always revert to their old name liberal; tie them into unions in every sentence you can work it in; constantly point out that in every city and state in America where that awesomely awesome combination of Dem politicians and union labor management is in place the economy has been driven into the ground, that sort of thing.  In short, screw civility and punch them in the nuts.

Posted by: The social sciences aren't really sciences at all - they're gabfests where dumb people conflate corr at January 18, 2011 06:18 AM (4o/Qp)

101

"$10 says Gabby Giffords replaces Biden on the Obama ticket, if she's recovered enough by then."

She has half a brain and the media advertises her as moderate. Seems she has Biden beaten on every metric. I wonder if she likes trains?

Posted by: Tigtog at January 18, 2011 10:15 AM (Q5+Og)

Yes, she's an upgrade from Slow Joe, but she'd make Obama very difficult to beat. The idiot middle in this country would eat it up, regardless of the reality on the ground.

Posted by: grognard at January 18, 2011 06:18 AM (NS2Mo)

102

84 You take away their argument by pointing out what it really is: a smoke screen, a bunch of bs they are using for political advantage.  Then you redirect the discourse onto the things that really matter: the economy, the wot, our foreign policy or lack thereof, the courts, the influx of questionable immigrants (and I leave out "illegal" because right now we are getting an influx of legal immigrants -- or "refugees" as they are wont to be called for newspeak purposes -- that are in some ways more of a danger to our populace than some of the illegals coming across our southern border, or at least as dangerous).

I think the remark: "I'm not going to shut up" is probably a good one to make right now.  It's worth pointing out how many similarities there are between this round of kabuki and others -- isn't like this hasn't happened before; they just have a new weapon in Giffords (yes, I used "language" so be it; this is the way real men and women speak, to paraphrase a certain political figure).

Posted by: unknown jane at January 18, 2011 06:18 AM (5/yRG)

103 Most of all, we do not succumb to Political Correctness, and call a spade a spade when it is a spade.

Posted by: CoolCzech at January 18, 2011 10:08 AM (tJjm/)


I see what you did there...racist!11!!!11!

Posted by: The MFM at January 18, 2011 06:21 AM (32ubA)

104

"Yes, she's an upgrade from Slow Joe, but she'd make Obama very difficult to beat. The idiot middle in this country would eat it up, regardless of the reality on the ground."

One thing they need to do is program the teleprompter to never reference the Special Olympics again. That damn teleprompter is vicious and full of vitriol.
It must be a white teleprompter.

Posted by: Tigtog at January 18, 2011 06:21 AM (Q5+Og)

105

103  And NO!  They do not get to be called "liberal" because they aren't!  The Founders were by and large liberal -- after all, the conservative stance would have been the Tories.

Quit allowing them so much -- call them for what they are really and truly or allow them any definition they want, because you are conceding by allowing them a choice in the first place.

 

Posted by: unknown jane at January 18, 2011 06:21 AM (5/yRG)

106

wow Oprah went to Jeremiah Wright's church? 

She also had the sense to leave it.


So, she left for a different church? Or she became an atheist?  Or, maybe Obama worship?

Posted by: Cherry π at January 18, 2011 06:22 AM (+sBB4)

107 #104 - I'm not sure about that, grognard. I suspect that 7% have peeled off from that 52%. 

Posted by: Brian at January 18, 2011 06:22 AM (sYrWB)

108 Who says? Free speech is about who owns the printing presses

Yes, and people can print whatever they want.  I'm not saying the press should be legislated to report only facts.  I'm saying the press *should* seek to only report the facts, otherwise they suck at what they do.

The notion of "comforting the afflicted and afflicting the comforted" is something that should be challenged when reporters say it is their job.  It isn't their job.  I don't want to buy a newspaper to afflict the comforted or comfort the afflicted.  I want to buy a newspaper to get the news.  Is it any wonder they are losing subscribers and floundering?

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at January 18, 2011 06:24 AM (TpXEI)

109 109  Pretty sure she worships herself at this point: feminine energy and grrrlpwr, all that shit.

Posted by: unknown jane at January 18, 2011 06:25 AM (5/yRG)

110

But what do we do?

Keep bringing up those pesky facts. Like how Sarah Palin's church was set on fire. That kind of fact disturbs the narrative.

Posted by: Mama AJ at January 18, 2011 06:26 AM (XdlcF)

111 To liberals: Opposing the liberal agenda = lynching black men/assassinating the president

Posted by: chique d'afrique (the artist formerly known as african chick) at January 18, 2011 06:26 AM (2WZZW)

112 68 This blog is worth absolutely every penny you pay to enjoy it.
Posted by: Kerry at January 18, 2011 09:42 AM (a/VXa)


So you're saying it's worthless?<<<

No.  I'm saying you have absolutely no voice in how it's organized.  You're welcome for the translation.

Posted by: Kerry at January 18, 2011 06:26 AM (a/VXa)

113 The MFM will ensure that this all continues as background noise, this vitriol-by-villians-equals-violence thing, the three Vs, while they then crank up the main theme, that known as OBAMA 2.O, which will portray him as being right there in the middle, sonorously calling for civil bipartisanship.

This will be the theme.  No deviations.  Campaign ON.

Posted by: MMJ Cardholder at January 18, 2011 06:26 AM (4sQwu)

114 110 #104 - I'm not sure about that, grognard. I suspect that 7% have peeled off from that 52%. 

Posted by: Brian at January 18, 2011 10:22 AM (sYrWB)

I hope you're right.  My faith is a bit shaken in my fellow countrymen.  Based on the poor educational system, indoctrination, and celebrity obsessed pseudo-culture, I think 60% of the country has very fickle fingers.

Many of the 52% voted for Barky because it was a feel-good story, and nothing more.

Posted by: grognard at January 18, 2011 06:27 AM (NS2Mo)

115 This "report" goes far to illustrate exactly why CNN's ratings are in the toilet. 

Oh, and CNN has also confected yet another poll "proving" that 56% of Democrats believe that Sarah Palin's target map was directly responsible for the shootings, and that 20% of "moderate conservatives" (whatever those are) agree.   Needless to say, this is a product of their usual creative sampling techniques, although they are honest (or arrogant) enough to show a margins of error exceeding + or - 3%, thus rendering the poll complete junk.  (Margins of error range from 5% to 6% for all categories, all though they have friggered the "Total" to 30%).

Unfortunately, this poll will probably influence the thinking of the easily influenced and uninformed, which seem to constitute an alarmingly high proportion of the population.

Posted by: Minnie Rodent at January 18, 2011 06:27 AM (PZLW0)

116 3 I believe there was plenty of violence in the north during the civil rights era, not just the south. Newark, Detroit?

Posted by: Museisluse at January 18, 2011 07:29 AM (kb7mQ)

Holy Shit, there is racial violence NOW. You go into the "wrong" area with the "wrong" ethnicity and see what happens.

Posted by: dagny at January 18, 2011 06:27 AM (oceiy)

117

We need to not accept the premise that there ever was any "right" wing violence.

Tell me when and where it existed. The premise is a lie.

Posted by: dagny at January 18, 2011 06:28 AM (oceiy)

118 Sorry to be O/T, but this is somewhat related. Laura Ingraham asked black Americans to call and say whether they feel uncomfortable in the Republican party as Chris Matthews asserted. This awesome AA lady calls in and says she doesn't care whether Repubs like her as long as they do their jobs. She then calls Obama a hypocrite for speaking differently in black churches and visiting churches only while campaigning. She had an awesome line: "They say churches are full of hypocrites, but when he [Obama] shows up, that makes one extra hypocrite. So he should just sit at home and not bother." Of course, it was said in a funnier way. I loled.

Posted by: chique d'afrique (the artist formerly known as african chick) at January 18, 2011 06:32 AM (2WZZW)

119 Posted by: Cherry π at January 18, 2011 10:22 AM (+sBB4)

Was never a big Oprah fan.  From what I gather she said she was going to retire and then no one but her really cared so she started her own network or something so that she didn't have to endure the low ratings.  One of my friends said she was "trying to walk it back" during that interview last night.  don't know what my friend meant but I think when she became so highly political her audience saw a side of her they didn't like and ran away in droves.

Posted by: curious at January 18, 2011 06:33 AM (p302b)

120 Who is at home watching Oprah at 4 o'clock? Stay at home moms! How many of those tend to be more conservative? She screwed herself.

Posted by: dagny at January 18, 2011 06:35 AM (oceiy)

121

Read the "Spirituality" section of Oprah's Wikipedia article if you really want to see where's she ended up...

Re some New Age book: During a Webinar class, in which she promoted the book, Winfrey stated "God is a feeling experience and not a believing experience. If your religion is a believing experience [...] then that's not truly God."

Posted by: Mama AJ at January 18, 2011 06:37 AM (XdlcF)

122

We need to not accept the premise that there ever was any "right" wing violence.

Tell me when and where it existed. The premise is a lie.

Posted by: dagny at January 18, 2011 10:28 AM (oceiy)

 

Well, once many years ago, I put a dead cockroach in my lefty brother-in-law's salad to shut him up while our whole family was having dinner in a restaurant.

He didn't shut up, but my one consolation was that he must have eaten that cockroach.

I was precocious when I was 12.

Posted by: Brian at January 18, 2011 06:39 AM (sYrWB)

123 124 So why read a book abour spirituality? Just rub god all over your elbows and call it a day.

Posted by: dagny at January 18, 2011 06:39 AM (oceiy)

124

Glenn Reynolds has a continuing series called "Why they'd rather talk about Sarah Palin".

So maybe we should steer conversations back to the economy...how's that doing again?

Posted by: Mama AJ at January 18, 2011 06:41 AM (XdlcF)

125

I believe the Left offered up Obama at this time as they were going full bore to push their ideology. They knew after years of weakening America this was a perfect opportunity,  they could use His blackness as a tool to shut up those in disagreement with the push of The Progressive Lefts wanting to go mainstream.

They have used this tactic from the moment He came into the primaries against their own to us the other  half of america. Do they ever offer Sincere conversation about their ideology no, they lie and hide behind Obama.

A very cynical view, but I believe I'm correct.

Posted by: willow at January 18, 2011 06:42 AM (h+qn8)

126 North Dakota Democratic Sen. Kent Conrad plans to announce his retirement today, according to two informed Democratic sources, creating a potentially prime pickup opportunity for Republicans in a GOP-leaning state.

Yeah, that's an easy pick-up, probably was before the retirement.  I think he'd made the decision a long time ago.  He wasn't doing the usual Washington-liberal Home-state-conservative dance recently.

Posted by: AmishDude at January 18, 2011 06:43 AM (T0NGe)

127
like I said...the Left viciously smears their political enemies and Obama walks away from the whole thing smelling like a rose.

It's time for ideas and action. Enough analysis.

Posted by: Soothsayer3P0 at January 18, 2011 06:46 AM (cgEHM)

128 Gabe rightly points out that "The Narrative" is an idea derived from straight fiction, which must always have, as they say, "a through-line," a clear plotline with advancing action and players assuming recognizable roles. Like in fiction, the inventors of the Narrative discard details that do not advance the through-line. Details that undermine the central through-line or cause confusion in the reader are omitted or changed. Thus we aren't hearing about Eric Fuller, of course. It would confuse audiences who need (the MFM has decided) a simple morality tale to contextualize events. Another literary device is "the telling detail," a small-seeming detail which in fact communicates by implication a larger amount of information, about character or mood. Authors sweat finding the telling detail. The MFM doesn't sweat it -- they're hacks -- but they employ it all the time. With Joseph Stack, that telling detail is "anti-tax extremist," from which you are meant to infer "right-wing crazy." Of course that telling detail is false; a more accurate telling detail is how he concluded his suicide note: "The communist creed: from each according to his ability to each according to his need. The Capitalist creed: from each according to his gullibility to each according to his greed." That telling detail would communicate an entirely different, and more accurate, world of implied facts about Joseph Stack, which is of course why it has been so vigorously suppressed.

Posted by: ace at January 18, 2011 06:49 AM (nj1bB)

129 Best Gabe post ever.

Posted by: Internet Commenter at January 18, 2011 06:49 AM (IIDZ+)

130 o/T:  I'm listening to beck talk about a laundry list of great American cities that have turned bad and I'm thinking "how did we let this happen?"  and "why was this allowed to happen?"  There have to be Rudy Guiliani's in other parts of the country.

Posted by: curious at January 18, 2011 06:51 AM (p302b)

131

We need to not accept the premise that there ever was any "right" wing violence.

Tell me when and where it existed. The premise is a lie.

Posted by: dagny at January 18, 2011 10:28 AM (oceiy)

 

This.

 

My moonbat relatives and aquaintences are steering clear of me these days. Beofre I would toy with them in the political arguments, now I just nuke them at first opportunity. After the guy who shot the partial-birth abortion doctor, and McVeigh (who I insist was not a winger), they have nothing they can point to as purely "right-wing" violence. I refuse to be civil any longer. Kill them with facts.

Posted by: Mike Church at January 18, 2011 06:53 AM (YmPwQ)

132 curious.....WE didn't let this happen....the idiots that live there elected DEMOCRAT EVIL CRIMINALS and allowed them to rape their cities......

Posted by: phoenixgirl at January 18, 2011 06:53 AM (eOXTH)

133 I'm confused... calling a socialist a socialist is hate speech?

You had me until I read that, and thereafter I became distracted and unable to focus on your essay. That's a problem I have with being de facto falsely accused.

Posted by: Full Loughner at January 18, 2011 06:53 AM (gbCNS)

134 Given my choice of handle, it should come as no surprise that, yeah, I kinda figured all that out a good long while ago.  Still, it's good to see folks understand why the media does what it does; the whole incredulous/shocked routine gets old right around the 46th time you're digging some hack's poison pen out of your back.

Behave with honor and roll with it.  When you understand it's going to happen no matter what you do, it's actually kinda liberating.

Posted by: AoSHQ's DarkLord© at January 18, 2011 06:56 AM (GBXon)

135
Within minutes of the news of the shooting we all knew what was in store for us.

Between prayers for the victims people here at AoS were leaving comments such as "this is gonna get real ugly, real fast."

While we were praying, the Democrats were plotting.


Posted by: Soothsayer3P0 at January 18, 2011 06:59 AM (cgEHM)

136 soothsayer.....EXACTLY!!!!!

Posted by: phoenixgirl at January 18, 2011 07:00 AM (eOXTH)

137 We'll do whatever it takes to keep you all from looking at the sidebar topics (fuckin' A, they are devastating this morning!). So... non sequitir!, Palin!, violence! racists!

Posted by: The MFM at January 18, 2011 07:02 AM (FcR7P)

138 I've said this before but I'm going to repeat it.  Lately I've had discussion with highly educated people who, when I've mentioned socialism have literally said to me "what's wrong with socialism, it is a much fairer system?"   I've countered with the "we are a democratic republic" stuff and the "we operate under a capitalist system" stuff yet they seem to not really care about our republic or our system of government even though they probably would not have gotten as far as they've gotten up the economic, social and education chair were it not for this system.   They aren't related, they don't know each other.  They aren't the same religion or class even or the same educational level, yet they've all said something to the effect of "what's wrong with socialism?".   It's starting to frighten me that people can embrace this literally foreign concept so easily and without thinking.

Posted by: curious at January 18, 2011 07:02 AM (p302b)

139

Gabe, I was actually going to send you an e-mail. But why do that when I can post what I have to say on the board.

Dude, the healthcare post yesterday and this post today . . . superlative!

That's all.  Now carry on.

p.s. and I am one who rarely uses exclamation marks.

Posted by: journolist at January 18, 2011 07:04 AM (LwLqV)

140 Who is at home watching Oprah at 4 o'clock? Stay at home moms! How many of those tend to be more conservative? She screwed herself.

Posted by: dagny at January 18, 2011 10:35 AM (oceiy)

One thing I could never understand about the entertainment industry and many of them getting into politics. When your livelihood depends on selling yourself as a product why would you ever want to automatically turn off  50% of the available audience. 

But from what I understand, her core audience is married white middle class women commonly referred to as "soccer moms". Most of them are liberal in nature. Or at least, they vote Dem more than not. If the Democrat Party ever loses them they will be a dead Party.

Posted by: Vic at January 18, 2011 07:04 AM (M9Ie6)

141 I'm confused... calling a socialist a socialist is hate speech?

Yes.  It's a built-in assumption.  I couldn't figure out what the libs meant by hate speech directed at the president and this was mentioned.

Posted by: AmishDude at January 18, 2011 07:10 AM (T0NGe)

142 If any type of grass-roots movement on the left even sniffed the level of participation and success the Tea Party brought, the MFM would be breathlessly celebrating the "American way" of democracy.

Fuck success. They already do that with Code Pink.

Posted by: The Mega Independent at January 18, 2011 07:11 AM (eTknn)

143 Posted by: curious at January 18, 2011 11:02 AM (p302b)

It won't work, but tell anyone who asks "what's wrong with socialism" any combination of the following:

Only millions of dead people, starved or eliminated for not agreeing with the party line.

Starved because socialism destroys the human spirit and the motivation to produce, meaning there is less to go around.  Much less.  Eliminated because the default human state is freedom (endowed by God). Living case studies of the falseness of socialism must be eliminated to keep the rest of the people frightened and in line.

And it eventually happens every. single. time.

Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Ho Chi Minh, Pol Pot. 

The only difference between those dictators and the "modern, enlightened" socialist states like Canada and the US is that socialists have learned to be much more patient, corrupting from within rather than overthrowing quickly.  However, we can see the nascent beginnings of suppressive behavior in leftist politicians, media, and groups.  We have Bill Ayers advocating for the elimination of millions of people that don't agree with him.  We have the media's behavior toward the Tea Parties and Palin - it's words, right now, but it won't stay that way. We have the unending PC behavior on the part of western governments who know that they need middle eastern and east asian (and mexican) workers to continue to pay the exorbitant union demands from the refuse of the "greatest generation" that has sold us out for their own comfort.  You'll never see the UK or Canada standing up to muslim encroachments - they need the muslims they have to keep working.

The bill for all of this socialism will come due, and when it does, it won't be pretty.  Like I said, it eventually happens every. single. time.


Posted by: grognard at January 18, 2011 07:16 AM (NS2Mo)

144

I dunno, but I suspect that there isn't any more acrimony between conservatives and liberals now than there was 50, 75 or 100 years ago.

 Contrary to what the incredibly ignorant dimwits in the MSM would like us to believe, that is exactly the way that our founding fathers wanted it to be.

The system is working, people. I continue to be optimistic that this country will go batty at times, but that it will always get back on the right track. It is the batty people, not the batty government that makes the USA both the greatest and the battiest country in the history of this planet.

Posted by: Brian at January 18, 2011 07:17 AM (sYrWB)

145

Posted by: curious at January 18, 2011 11:02 AM (p302b)

At least they are giving you a great setup by asking, "What's wrong with Socialism?" You can drive a truck through that opening. You can start by saying, "What's wrong with Socialism is that it leads to national poverty and a dulled populace with no inspiration to work for a brighter future. It leads to walls being built to keep people in a country, instead of out. Millions of people all over the world wake up every day and say, "If I could just get to America." They don't wake up and say, "If I could just get to Cuba."

I could go on, but you can take it from here.

Posted by: Glenn Reynolds at January 18, 2011 07:19 AM (2NWjl)

146 I'm confused... calling a socialist a socialist is hate speech?

Yep. Yet they'll also refuse to say that socialism is a bad thing.

Posted by: Rob Crawford at January 18, 2011 07:20 AM (ZJ/un)

147 There is an economic consequence to the Obama Administrations constant hate speech against business and tonsil-happy pediatricians.

Posted by: Mr. Barky at January 18, 2011 07:21 AM (qwK3S)

148 Nice take-down, Gabe.

Posted by: OregonMuse at January 18, 2011 07:21 AM (ixLpQ)

149

142 You answered yourself: "without thinking"

I've had that "what's so bad about socialism" thrown at me -- usually by people who consider themselves educated, urbane...intelligent, and then the people who always sniff around for handouts back them up.  It's easy to counter both:  to the former I ask them, since they are such mental giants, if they have taken the time to educate themselves on the histories of socialism in the countries it has been tried in (at this point they "but, but, but" and bring up Sweden...I then link some articles on how Sweden ain't doing so well after all); to the latter I remind them that handouts can easily be taken away and rights (which usually are quid pro quo given away for the handouts) are not easily reinstated...then I say something that breaks Godwin's law and crash the discourse...because I can

Posted by: unknown jane at January 18, 2011 07:24 AM (5/yRG)

150 Sock off at 11:19, geesh. I'm sure Glen would agree though.

Posted by: Meremortal at January 18, 2011 07:25 AM (2NWjl)

151 Posted by: Glenn Reynolds at January 18, 2011 11:19 AM (2NWjl)

believe me, I think I've said it all.  But what I think frightens me the most is how laissez faire they are about it.  As though it is here to stay and they have no say about it whatsoever.  A sort of "I'm going to live my life and ignore what is happening outside my life cause I can't do anything about it anyway, it's going to happen no matter what I say or do so I'm going to worry about me and my family and no worry about the stuff I can do nothing about" 

Posted by: curious at January 18, 2011 07:27 AM (p302b)

152 Lately I've had discussion with highly educated people who, when I've mentioned socialism have literally said to me "what's wrong with socialism, it is a much fairer system?"

With the exception of those who are focused on a particular specialty, the vast majority of "highly educated" people are complete dummies. They're just people who figured out how to work a system. And it's a very easy system to work. You just have to know which noises to make.

Posted by: The Mega Indepedent at January 18, 2011 07:28 AM (eTknn)

153

Is there a literary device called the Designated Moment, or something like that?

Thrillers with a supernatural element tend to do bring the audience to accept that it all comes down to this most important point in time. This is the day that the alien invaders will be defeated, the Galactic Republic will be restored, Sarah Connor will prevent nuclear annihilation, Demi Moore will have a baby that will prevent (or at least delay) the end of the world, etc. So many stories depict not just a tale of good winning over evil but The Ultimate Triumph Of Good Over Evil!!!!!

Because I got a lot of that with Obama, too -- that his wouldn't merely be just another presidency. No, this was supposed to be epic and that it was supposed to happen now.

Posted by: FireHorse at January 18, 2011 07:32 AM (sWynj)

154

Lewis, who was beaten in Selma, Alabama

Yeah, beaten by Democrats in Governor George Wallace's Democrat Alabama.

Posted by: Speller at January 18, 2011 07:35 AM (J74Py)

155

156 They are laissez faire because they don't believe any of those nasty consequences could happen to them and theirs.  The soccer mommies and college folks are particularly susceptible to this.

I tend to start getting really wicked with them: hey, my family is military...if you get what you wish for, then it will be me and mine who come to requisition your stuff (including your darling Trevor, who is so smart and should be in college rather than being a mere grunt); it will be us that come and take you for questioning if you protest this.  Just like in every other socialist society that has ever been, it will come down to people like you (soccer moms) at the tender mercies of black hearted pos like me

When they argue that can't happen I remind them that history has proven otherwise.  When they say "how could you?", I counter with: people have to survive somehow; if it should come to pass I go to bed unconcerned, as I was not the one who would have called it up.

They may not listen, but it shuts them up (and gives them a bit of a scare) -- and then they don't seek me out for discussions of that nature anymore.

Posted by: unknown jane at January 18, 2011 07:38 AM (5/yRG)

156 Obama's election was like turning over a rock. People are no longer ashamed to openly declare themselves to be socialists. "After all, it works in Europe".

Posted by: real joe at January 18, 2011 07:44 AM (w7Lv+)

157

Posted by: curious at January 18, 2011 11:27 AM (p302b)

I find that disturbing. I remember one similar instance at a party several years ago. Some moderate guy asked a teacher for a definition of Capitalism. The answer came, "Exploitation of the weak." The questioner then turned to me for my definition. "Capitalism is the economic dimension of freedom" was my answer. Everybody then dropped the conversation for some reason.  

Posted by: Meremortal at January 18, 2011 07:47 AM (2NWjl)

158

But from what I understand, her core audience is married white middle class women commonly referred to as "soccer moms". Most of them are liberal in nature. Or at least, they vote Dem more than not. If the Democrat Party ever loses them they will be a dead Party.

 

Yeah, well I don't believe that "meme" either. They want us to think that the "soccer moms" are lib voters and they are not. I live in  one of the largest lefty enclaves in the nation. The "soccer moms" or rather the ones at home who can rightly call themselves that are not libs. The "drama" moms, maybe. They all drive big bit SUVs, all abjure Obama stickers, all depend on taxation not eating their budget, all try to send their children to private schools, etc. If they are redefining the soccer mom as the welfare mom; i.e. confusing stay at home by choice with staying at home for welfare check then maybe. In fact, I don't know a single one under 50 who is a lib. There are a lot of dumb ones who vote how their husband tells them to vote and spend all their media time at the food channel or QVC but  I think that "soccer mom" idea was a lib invention to try to make socialism look mainstream. Another false narrative.


Posted by: dagny at January 18, 2011 07:49 AM (oceiy)

159

"what's wrong with socialism, it is a much fairer system?"

Because every time it's been tried it descends into poverty and tyranny. Show me a successful socialist experiment.

Posted by: dagny at January 18, 2011 07:51 AM (oceiy)

160 With House set to debate healthcare, government White House finds up to half of Americans under 65 have preexisting conditions


The new report is part of the Obama administration's salesmanship to convince the public of the advantages of the law, which contains insurance protections for people with preexisting medical conditions.



No villians here.  Nada.  None.

Posted by: LC LaWedgie at January 18, 2011 07:59 AM (kb0wl)

161 OMG, I'm getting my courage up so I've sent gabe's post to a couple of people and the best response so far was "it's a shame, the guy seems brilliant but he's lost his way.  These conservatives are racists and gay bashers and you'd probably be better off not reading their rhetoric".
I nearly lost it....people came running to find out just what was so hysterical....

It's only a snippet but it's wholly funny how he can conclude that gabe is a gay basher.

Posted by: curious at January 18, 2011 08:05 AM (p302b)

162 I spent some time on Google looking for news or video suggesting that she had been shouted away from the podium or otherwise had her views suppressed during town halls and couldn't find any.

Yeah. 

I've spent plenty of time at "Townhall Meetings" here and in fucking Douglas, AZ over the past two years with my little snappy camera.

Only reason I wasn't at this particular meet and greet, to get shot at by a weirdo was because, I gave up.

Swastikas, you conniving little mini-Nan?

(I had never heard that little gem before!)

That's bullshit!

Never forget that Saint Gabby was also a protege of Jack Mutha.

Prayers for her full recovery, so that I can vote against her.

Again.

"Nice" cannot trump "Wrong".


Posted by: Deety Jersey (Guernsey, whatever) at January 18, 2011 08:11 AM (Jb3+B)

163

Dick Cheney needs a new heart.  I say he should just reach in and take Jared Loughner's for himself.  Cheney could then perform the transplant surgery himself live on Dr. Oz.

 

Also, when people ask "What's wrong with socialism?" the best approach is:  Say "May I see your wallet?"   Then steal their money right in front of their noses,  tell them it's going to be given to some beggars in the street, so don't try to stop me from being compassionate.

Posted by: Kortezzi at January 18, 2011 08:13 AM (zAZNI)

164 Also, when people ask "What's wrong with socialism?" the best approach is:  Say "May I see your wallet?"   Then steal their money right in front of their noses,  tell them it's going to be given to some beggars in the street, so don't try to stop me from being compassionate.

You need to do that at gunpoint for the full effect. Of course, you will incur criminal liability, which the state does not. They put robbers in jail because they don't like competition.

Posted by: real joe at January 18, 2011 08:28 AM (w7Lv+)

165 I'm really bothered by the assumptions made about republicans and conservatives.  I almost think they should embrace another v word.  Maybe they should say, "you want to stop the vitriol and we want to stop the vilification".

Posted by: curious at January 18, 2011 08:29 AM (p302b)

166 So, she left for a different church? Or she became an atheist?  Or, maybe Obama worship?

No, the Oprah only worships the Oprah. That's why M'Chelle hates her.

Dick Cheney needs a new heart.  I say he should just reach in and take Jared Loughner's for himself.  Cheney could then perform the transplant surgery himself live on Dr. Oz.

I figure some D-Boys have a jihadi "volunteer" lined up already. Just waiting the go-code from Lord Cheney.

Posted by: Iblis at January 18, 2011 09:11 AM (9221z)

167 156   A sort of "I'm going to live my life and ignore what is happening outside my life cause I can't do anything about it anyway, it's going to happen no matter what I say or do so I'm going to worry about me and my family and no worry about the stuff I can do nothing about"

Show them the way to the ovens.  They'll just jump in.

Posted by: Derak at January 18, 2011 09:16 AM (CjpKH)

Posted by: ol_dirty_/b/tard at January 18, 2011 09:42 AM (IoUF1)

169

If Gabe beats his dick the way the Ewok In Chief beats his, does that count as gay-bashing?

Fuck, now I have a horrible visual of an Ewok jacking off.

 

Posted by: just askin' at January 18, 2011 09:47 AM (QUuUE)

170

I've always been scandalized by the strange reluctance of Americans to identify a socialist as a socialist. We do it here in Canada all the time: if you are a member of the New Democratic Party (notice how they always self-identify as "democrats"), you are a socialist, period. And if you don't like being called a socialist when you obviously are one, then that's your problem, not mine. I have no problem being labelled a conservative, and in fact on the not-so-rare occasion during political discussions that I am accused of sounding like an "American" ( a Canadian socialist construct that is code for "someone who doesn't fall for our bullshit"), my answer is thanks, because I sure as hell am not a fucking socialist.

Trust your instincts, folks: Barack Obama is a socialist. Let me be more specific: Barack Obama is a Fucking Socialist, and America won't survive as a concept if he is allowed to do almost anything he wants to do.

But then, how any Democrat gets elected after the damage they've done is a total mystery to me.

Posted by: YFS at January 18, 2011 10:02 AM (3BeL9)

171 and an equally slimy Michael Moore made an equally irresponsible statement to the effect that racist Tea Partiers are stockpiling guns & ammo for the sole purpose of keeping people of color out of their homes.

So, that fat POS is arguing that most burglars are minorities? He is correct that our Second Amendment protects our right to bear arms for self defense.

Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at January 18, 2011 10:43 AM (mHQ7T)

172 Did you know that calling someone a "socialist" is hate speech?  It's true and it's one of these assumptions Gabe is talking about.  Seriously, they think you're engaging in hate speech if you call Obama a socialist.

Even though several Democrats are actual card-carrying socialists.

Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at January 18, 2011 10:49 AM (mHQ7T)

173

Going up to the Nazi reference made by Giffords at the town hall, it's interesting that just this morning on the Daily Rundown the moustache and the airhead with the humongous mouth had Congressman George Miller, Pelosi's consigliori, where he accused REPUBLICAN Congressmen of calling the Dems Nazis.  The moustache and the airhead with the humungous mouth sat back, aghasted that such a thing could occur.  Thinking to ask for names and places didn't seem to occur to either one.

I was flipping between that inteview and a Hemmer FNC interview of Pawlenty.  It was cordial but Hemmer pressed Pawlenty a number of times on everything from his faint Palin criticism to spending cuts (the inevitable 'why can't you tell me what you'll cut').  And that's the difference between FNC and MSNBC.  The latter has these 'paths that shall not ever be taken' i.e. Democrat hypocrisy, Democrats having to provide specifics etc..  Some questions simply can't be asked on MSNBC.  FNC is right, but the news gang there asks the tough questions of both sides.  Even O'Reilly, though not Hannitty of course.

 

Posted by: East Bay Jay at January 18, 2011 11:23 AM (ocHBO)

174

But then, how any Democrat gets elected after the damage they've done is a total mystery to me.

 

The Dems offer people the path of least resistance...and blinders.

Posted by: Luca Brasi at January 18, 2011 11:26 AM (YmPwQ)

175 It's only a snippet but it's wholly funny how he can conclude that gabe is a gay basher.

Posted by: curious at January 18, 2011 12:05 PM (p302b)

You used the word "conclude," which implies thought about facts leading to a conclusion. Pretty clearly that's not what happened.

Leftists are the most reactionary, thoughtless people ever to have lived, and yet the consistently view themselves as the most thoughtful.

Probably relates to the 12% rule - the bottom 12% of people in a skill or discipline tend to be unable to place themselves on the chart of who is most skilled - they have no sense of their own ability. People above 12th percentile tend to place themselves fairly accurately.

Also, the left seems to waste most of their thinking time on ensuring "compliance" rather than verifying ideas or facts, thus "you're better off not reading (these scary facts and ideas)." I think that's pretty telling about the person who wrote that.

Posted by: Merovign, Bond Villain at January 18, 2011 11:34 AM (bxiXv)

176 This piece was WAY too fact-based, Gabe. The oppressive influence of The Patriarchy is clearly evident in your violent use of logic against mind-images.

Posted by: KarenT at January 18, 2011 12:15 PM (UtkVC)

177 mind images.

Posted by: KarenT at January 18, 2011 12:16 PM (UtkVC)

178 SHOW ME THE MONEY VIDEO!  Next time someone says something erroneous like that than we need to just start demanding proof.  No debate without proof.  If you can't bring it, than stay out of it.

Posted by: earlgrey133 at January 18, 2011 12:28 PM (3+pZy)

179 hair extensions suppliers "Even losers are special in their own special way. hair manufacturers Oh no, not this," I said, rolling my eyes. "Everyone is special in their special own way," I mimicked sarcastically. human hair manufacturers

Posted by: hair extensions suppliers at January 18, 2011 01:37 PM (tpvde)

180 A well-crafted explanation of the facts, Gabe.  This is what "the narrative" is all about.

Posted by: K~Bob at January 18, 2011 07:58 PM (9b6FB)

Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
193kb generated in CPU 0.3065, elapsed 0.5084 seconds.
64 queries taking 0.2378 seconds, 308 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.