The Roy Moore saga

I'm late writing about this story, but that's OK because the themes of the story are timeless. (I'm also going to be more free-form in writing.)

Roy Moore is a former judge in Alabama who displays a lot of the worst characteristics of evangelicals. He thinks God is on his side. He thinks he's right and anyone who agrees with him is wrong. His beliefs are more important than American law. He thinks he's right when he defies court rulings, laws, whatever. He's been removed from the Alabama Supreme Court twice (TWICE!) for this kind of behavior. The first was for refusing to remove a stone statue depicting the Ten Commandments. (The order was due to that whole 'separation of church and state' nonsense.) The second time was for lying about his directions on how to handle (errr, avoid) marriage for same sex couples, which the US Supreme Court approved a few years ago.

So, although he was controversial, he ended up as the GOP nominee for Senate for a special election in Alabama to replace Jeff Sessions, who left the Senate to become Attorney General. This shows yet again that too few regular people vote in primaries. People shouldn't be so lazy because primaries are important for getting the best possible person in the office.

The GOP had the main primary and then a run-off between the top two. Only after this process were there national reports alleging that Roy Moore had chased, bothered, and even molested at least one 14-year-old girl when he was single, a prosecutor, and in his 30's.

This isn't news to me. I hadn't heard it about Roy Moore, but I've heard it before and even witnessed it with my own eyes. There are too many men who take liberties with women as though men have prerogatives and women must simply comply and supply. So I'm not disposed to believe a man's denials. But beyond my own bias, the preponderance of the evidence is against Roy Moore and with his accusers. There is a pattern, plus there are plenty of people confirming that he gave unwanted attention to teenage girls. There's even a video of a male worker at a store in the mall talking about Moore being banned from the mall, including the name of the police officer to contact if Moore came around. This isn't a guy with an ax to grind, so his story is very credible and very damaging to Moore. The denials are Moore and his friends circling the wagons. Again, this is typical entitled male response (actually, circling the wagons is typical of many groups).

Moore, just as one might expect from a self-righteous person, denies the reports and calls his accusers liars. What is much more likely is that Moore is an abject liar himself.

Only one Republican that I can point to has acted honorably, and that's Senator Richard Shelby. He clearly said that Roy Moore isn't a good candidate, that he wasn't going to vote for him, and that Alabamians shouldn't vote for him. Most other GOPers were weasels about Roy Moore.

The good news is that Roy Moore lost. That's a good reflection on the majority in Alabama, and what a pleasant surprise to give the rest of the country. The Dems were very happy because there hasn't been a Dem senator from Alabama in 20 years. The Republicans aren't completely upset because Roy Moore is a loose cannon that they won't have to worry about, so a bit of relief for them.

Image: al.com

Extras. Lots. Breitbart lies about the inscription in a yearbook. It was clearly a combination of different writers, so this isn't a revelation... to anyone with a working brain. Breitbart then whines about being labeled liars. Another woman shows a greeting card from Roy Moore, who dated her when she was 17. Check out the handwriting.

Fox News interview with a pretty fair analyst. The anchor is trying to skew things, and it's interesting how the info about Sen. Shelby is buried at the end. Probably no accident. Roy Moore never conceded the election (because he's God's choice, you know) and even tried to prevent the certification of the election. He wasn't successful because there is a reality beyond Moore's belief systems. Thank God for that.

Horrendous media transgressions--not

I've read so many people claim that it was just terrible how the MSM favored Clinton, and flagrantly colluded with her campaign.

I'm not naive enough to claim that the MSM is fair and unbiased. I frequently see a liberal bias there. But I wondered about charges of collusion, with journalists breaking ethical rules to help Clinton. The only example I heard about before the election was Donna Brazile providing Hillary with a heads-up on one question at one campaign event. Yes, it was unethical, but there's no way it was a huge deal and a huge advantage.

So how bad was all the other collusion? Did it amount to an unfair advantage?

Finally, I found a list. From Breitbart:

WIKILEAKS REVEALS LONG LIST OF MEDIA CANOODLING WITH HILLARY CLINTON

It lists nine incidents, including the leak of the question. It includes of couple of instances when a reporter emailed ad ideas to the campaign or its advertising agency.

Really, all of NINE instances.

This is pigeon feed next to the bias of the MSM, and next to the bias of the conservative media. It's so incredibly ironic that Breitbart thinks this is horrible, while their lack of critique of Trump's numerous insults, ludicrous boasts, history of cons and bankruptcy is not an issue of ethics.

If we're going to talk about unethical and biased behavior by the media, let's talk about what really happens on practically a daily basis. Let's not pretend a list that doesn't even reach a couple dozen cases makes an ant's worth of difference compared to the daily skewed news of hundreds of media outlets.

Free from bias, free from ethics

Image: breitbart.com

Extras. Here's a list of damaging info about the DNC related to Bernie Sanders. It may be a partial list because document dumps were ongoing. Again, mostly small stuff, nothing like stuffing the ballot box, buying votes, or violently assaulting opponents.

Last output of crazy: Daddy, they're being mean

How can I describe the thin-skinned egotistical asshole that we currently have as president? Maybe the best thing is just to let him out himself with the bizarre things he does.

Now, an adult knows that there are ups and downs in business. An intelligent, honest, non-corrupt president knows not to interfere to help the business dealings of friends, families, donors, and supporters. But Trump isn't intelligent, honest, or free from corruption. So he tweets this when his daughter's fashion line is dropped by a major retailer:

Image: enidnews.com

The idiocy and corruption doesn't stop with Trump, however. Kellyanne Conway told viewers to go out and buy Ivanka Trump merchandise. But it turns out (reasonably) that federal employees aren't supposed to plug commercial enterprises while on the job. That applies when the commercial enterprise is owned by the prez's dear daughter. Imagine that: you aren't even supposed to use all that power to enrich yourself and your family. Who designs these rules?

And what does the pro-Trump, fake news purveyor Breitbart do? A huge article about how the retailer is going to suffer, but how Ivanka Trump is a trooper and will just be stronger. It reads like a bad People magazine article. Barf!

So far Nordstrom's stock took a brief loss and then bounced back. A more important question is whether the asshole president will take a well-deserved hit for this. He truly doesn't seem to understand what his job is now. It sure as hell isn't promoting his businesses or his friends' businesses. A mountain of shame on him and his idiotic supporters.

How bad is the alt-right?

I'm only going to tackle a small piece of this question.

To start, here is David French on the threats he and his wife get daily because he was against Trump. I guess a specialty of some alt-right creeps is to Photoshop his wife's face onto the most disgusting pornographic image they can find and then send her the resulting artwork.

Next, it was instructive to read what Breitbart had to say about the alt-right. Basically, they are currently noisy frat boys, but they're also right:

"In short, they want what every people fighting for self-determination in history have ever wanted, ... — to come out of the woodwork and stand up for their values and culture."

This at the end of an article about the white nationalism, xenophobia, misogyny, and hate in the movement.

A related question is how much Steve Bannon, Trump's chief strategist and adviser, is a fellow of the alt-right. Ben Shapiro, formerly of Breitbart and thus a colleague of Steve Bannon, drops a lot of stories on him. The charges seem fairly specific, but I can't be an unbiased judge.

However, the press isn't finding very horrendous quotes attached to Bannon. Maybe this will change because he had a radio show, and people may need to listen to a lot of it to find the nastiest bits. Stay tuned.

Image: gotnews.com

Update 2/21/17. Milo Yiannopoulos, author of that article in Breitbart about the alt-right, was invited and then disinvited from this year's CPAC conference. He's been a popular guest on college campuses, invited by conservative groups because he infuriates liberals. But evidently he went too far in talking about sex with underage teens, so his fame and welcome are drying up extremely quickly. Ah, a bit of justice.

Update 3/14/17. I don't generally read The Daily Kos, but this very long article has a surprising number of well-made points, with many links. Not your typical conspiracy theory.

Media bias check using Powell email hack

So, here was a great opportunity for a quick check on media bias. Colin Powell's emails were leaked this afternoon. Who is reporting what? I did a quick survey of six sources.

1. Drudge Report. Just one link:

Colin Powell Urged Hillary Clinton’s Team Not to Scapegoat Him for Her Private Server, Leaked Emails Reveal

2. Fox News. Just one link:

Powell warned Clinton not to make him fall guy over email scandal, leaked messages reveal

3. Breitbart. Two links:

Hacked Colin Powell Email: Bohemian Grove Attendees Will Vote Against Trump, Some Support Third Party Candidate

Colin Powell Mocks Clintons: Hillary ‘Greedy’ — Bill Home With ’Bimbos’ 

4. NPR. Just one link:

Powell: Trump A 'National Disgrace'; Clinton 'Screws Up' Everything 'With Hubris' 

5. ABC News. Just one link:

Colin Powell Is Not a Fan of Either Presidential Candidate, Hacked Emails Show

6. CNN. Two links:

Powell: Trump is 'an international pariah'

Colin Powell calls Benghazi a 'stupid witch hunt' in DCleaks emails 

So, three out of three conservative sources have skewed links. Two out of three MSM sources have balanced stories, and one is skewed. Which looks more biased, conservative media or MSM?

Image: wikiquote.org

Republicans get the Trump they deserve

Donald Trump on John McCain's war record: 'I like people who weren't captured'

That's the headline for this story and video. John McCain has accused Trump of riling up the crazies in the GOP, and Trump is firing back. In this video, Trump doesn't actually sound that crazy. He complains that McCain doesn't do enough for veterans. But who doesn't think there's another motive for Trump to complain about McCain?

Another thought: As I said, Trump doesn't sound that crazy in the video. Is the MSM making Trump sound crazier than he is? Perhaps they are selectively quoting the outrageous bits. So I'll go to the conservative media and see what they say.

• HotAir has a slew of posts about Trump. Trumps courts Arizona treasurer to primary McCain. Trump featured on 'Quote of the Day.' 
• Daily Caller--not too much on Trump. 
• Breitbart is a bonanza of Trump: Almost half the main stories are about Trump. Trump bragging that he has five sources corroborating what he said about Mexican immigrants. Trump dissing McCain. Trump dissing LA protesters. HuffPo evicts Trump to the entertainment section. Trump dissing the Common Core.

Trump got 5000 people at a rally in Phoenix. He is leading in the GOP polls with 18%. His supporters like that he'll say things that other politicians won't.

Trump is like a big middle finger to the left, to the GOP establishment, to immigrants, and to the media. That is his appeal right now.

But the GOP deserve that because they pandered to him to 2012, vying for his endorsement. This time he's trying to be more than a king-maker--he's trying to be king. Well, they gave him the platform four years ago, and he never gave it up.

Worse than that is the general support he's getting among the party mob, though perhaps being the top at 18% isn't actually a general endorsement. In the raucous conservative media (which plays to the GOP crowd), he's a star. Limbaugh is touting him.

If he brings disrepute on the GOP by saying most Mexicans are rapists, Obama is a Kenyan marxist anti-white thug, McCain is an overrated, almost-dropout, and that Trump himself is the greatest person in the whole country, the GOP deserves all of this embarrassment. They've been a willing audience for all of Trump's antics, so they own him.

Image: reverbpress.com

Extras. More Trump headlines: "Donald Trump Will Not Apologize to John McCain." "Donald Trumps evades specifics on his draft deferment."

Update 7/23/15. Rick Perry is criticizing Trump. Trump responds by reminding Perry how he sought Trump's support and money. Trump demands to be treated well or he'll run as an independent. This just gets more bizarre.

Benghazi: What is being covered up?

I never got to finish my post on Benghazi because I waited for the GOP House to hold its Benghazi hearings. They were supposed to happen during the summer when they would be filler during the news-drought months of the summer. Then it turned out that summer 0f 2014 was well-populated with political bombs, such as the immigration crisis and Mideast crisis. Benghazi wasn't necessary after all. That also turned out to be true in Fall '14, so the GOP didn't hold the hearings then either.

Nonetheless, I waded through a lot of Benghazi info last summer, and I don't want it to go to waste. So, finally seven months later, I'm publishing what I found out. It's late, but still more timely than our GOP political circus. This is actually two posts in one.

1. The Conservatives' Attempt to Make a Smoking Gun

What is the big new story about Benghazi [as of last summer, that is]? It seems that there was a stand-down order. Well, maybe it was more like a wait-and-let-me-think-about-this order. The CIA leader at the annex  (that secret other location that was attacked later that night but not at first) made his gung-ho underlings wait about 22 minutes before going to the consulate.

This word comes from three security operatives who were among the forces at the annex. These are three of the two dozen or so 'Benghazi survivors' who were strangely absent from previous hearings. Now some information is leaking from a few of these sources. So far it doesn't seem like enough for the GOP to cry "scandal," but the GOP will try anyway.

Here's the headline from Breitbart (same link as above):

BENGHAZI SECURITY CONTRACTORS: ABOUT 25 AMERICANS ARE STILL ALIVE BECAUSE WE BROKE 'STAND DOWN' ORDER

But if you read it closely, they saved 5 people from the consulate, not 25. They didn't exactly defy a stand-down order so much as put pressure on the chief/team leader to end the delay and get going. If there was a stand-down order, the chief/team leader didn't obey either, because he went with the security team to the consulate. Ah, but you must have drama, especially if you're trying to sell a narrative or sell books. 

From another article:

Their team leader was a CIA official who got direct orders from Washington to wait multiple times... [One security operative] said "I strongly believe if we would have left immediately, they would still be alive today."

Neither of these points is supported by other evidence. Was someone in Washington incorrectly telling them to wait? Maybe it wasn't that bad a call. Would leaving immediately have saved lives? That's questionable. Shoot first and plan later isn't a great policy in general.

2. The Worst of It: Bad, but not even close to horrific

Despite conservative media hype, the Benghazi scandal is bigger than the MSM made it out to be. The best evidence of this comes from Hicks, an assistant to the ambassador. The mistakes/poor judgment/incompetence has two parts:

1) Libya was a lot more dangerous than the administration let on, and the staff was expected to live with that danger and not report. If the dangers were known, it would bring unwelcome focus on Obama's decisions on how to handle Libya, and Obama seems to be unable to handle criticism.

2) The administration wanted to cover up that they were informed about the dangers, so they decided to go with the story that it was a protest similar to the one in Egypt. I don't know who made the decision, but people at the top knew it was a lie. However, the lie unraveled pretty quickly because GOP congress members knew of the dangers in Libya from intelligence briefings, and they gave that info to conservative news sources who ran with the story.

Get By with a Little Help from Our Friends

Obama and Clinton have counted on the friendly MSM to not pursue the story hard and not put them in a terrible light. No surprise there. Our media is very skewed, with the conservative media being even worse, and therefore having even less credibility.

How will Obama, Hillary, and the Dems deal with the scandal? I'm not sure, but perhaps they will treat it as a regrettable mistake, but not a huge, disqualifying mistake. Perhaps that's the conclusion of most of the electorate too, and they don't want to hear anymore about it. It boils down to this: most people are tired of it, so it won't matter in the 2016 campaigns.

Image: pinterest.com

Extras. I did lots of research, and here are the most interesting bits:

Three days after the attack and some newspapers are getting the story straight.

Comments at National Review are almost all partisan--not looking for truth, but looking to smear Dems. George will is castigated for not getting on the bandwagon. This is the echo chamber again.

Why Stevens didn't take the offer of more security--a good reason: immunity for the security personnel.

Who and what on the stand down command, maybe. This is the decision not to send fighter aircraft to Benghazi. Might or might not have helped. No refueling support available.

Strong comment with perspective on the incident. "It does not matter to ordinary voters whether it was a local militia stirred up by the video or it was a pre-planned Al Qaeda attack. We sent our people to a dangerous place, some of them died. Who [in the administration] said what ... is not really an important issue." What's not important is all the stuff the GOP is focusing on.

Politifact account of chain email about rape and mutilation. Another rumor with a different name as the source. This is very ugly partisanship, luckily confined to the shadows.

Update 3/13/16.  Did Clinton make false claims about the video to the families of the casualties? Accounts differ in profound ways. Why is this a big issue? Um, oh, because Clinton had a spin-laden story in public, and a different story in private. And because she must be blamed for the spin since she's running for president. Can't forget that reason.

What will the upcoming GOP Congress do?

So we're likely to have a GOP House and a marginally GOP Senate next year. What can we expect?

Per David Frum: The GOP will stop worrying about the deficit amid their rush to pay off their pals.

Daily Kos: It won't happen because we'll all vote and prevail.

Howard Kurtz: Twice the investigative fun! [That should help Hillary.]

Breitbart: Tea party will own the agenda. [That should help Hillary.]

Fiscal Times: No, moderate GOP senators will own the agenda (that is, what goes for moderate these days).

Norm Ornstein: Fights between Tea Party, leadership, and moderate GOP will prevent big reform proposals. Small bills will punish Dem constituencies to fund feel-good white-bread programs like pediatric medical research. Also, another vote for Twice The Investigative Fun!

So, what do I think? Well, I have to go with the past being indicative of the future. Throughout 2013, the GOP wasn't able to get it together. So I think skirmishes will continue within the party. Various pols will present their proposals and grandstand against rivals within the party. And yes, committee chairmen will run their grandiose investigations of various molehills.

I do have one caveat. If the leadership can unite the GOP during this year's campaign and they win some extra seats because of it, they may be able to keep that united front during 2015 and 2016. That's their best hope for capturing the presidency in 2016. But there are a lot of egos and a lot of pent up anger in the GOP, so I strongly doubt it will happen.

Larry Sabato's Crystal Ball

Image: centerforpolitics.org

Extras. Context and another map. My detailed look at the trends in party affiliation and the Senate.

Day2 roundup: GOP plan, maybe. Tea Party plan, no.

So two days into the government shutdown, where are we? The GOP still seems to be scrambling around for a plan, but perhaps there are glimmers of one. Robert Costa, reporter for National Review, seems to have the best inside information. I've been reading his tweets since about 10pm on 9/30/13, and it's interesting. He seemed to learn very quickly what the House leadership's next move would be, like the ridiculous call for a conference committee to work out a deal in, oh, 1 hour.

So this morning, Costa tweets that Paul Ryan is going to try for a combo dealing covering both funding and debt limit, that will be "fiscal." What does that mean? My guess is that negotiations will focus on budget issues, particularly spending cuts to lower the deficit. Delaying or defunding Obamacare won't be the focus.

But wait. Early this afternoon, Costa tweets that the leadership will follow the Cruz strategy of funding everything piecemeal--probably everything except Obamacare and the EPA.

Nope, that didn't last. Mid-afternoon, Costa is tweeting again about Ryan being the lead bargainer on a grand deal. Again, there's nothing about Obamacare in this.

Does the conservative press know about this? I checked HotAir. They're referring to Costa and Politico, and speculating that maybe Ryan can pressure the Dems on Obamacare, or maybe he'll go for a more "traditional" fiscal deal. Meaning--like the sequester, which didn't touch Obamacare.

At Breitbart, a no-name columnist wants to keep the Cruz plan, but it's not a forward-looking column about what could or will happen in the next few weeks--so no plan there. TownHall, NewsMax, nothing on the Tea Party plan. Only at RedState, Erickson wants go back to defunding Obamacare and threatening any non-compliant Republicans with oblivion. It will work!!!!!!

What are the Dems doing? Waiting for the Republicans to sew themselves together into a semblance of a political force and make their next proposal, which hopefully will make more sense and last longer than the three four throw-away GOP proposals of Shutdown Eve.

Image: huffingtonpost.com

Extra. Belatedly in honor of Ted Cruz:

Image:  hyenacart.com

Roundup: Still no Tea Party Plan

So the House surprised watchers by sending a hopeless funding bill to certain dismemberment in the Senate. The Senate even has a timetable for the dismemberment (Cruz yaks on Tuesday through Wednesday noon, cloture vote Wednesday, strip out Obamacare defunding Friday or Saturday, pass it, send it back to House for possible rinse and repeat). The Senate, anticipating the reaction from the House, might make it a short term funding bill only through November or December.

What is the Tea Party plan now? I went looking for it, inspired by Bernstein's very detailed guess about what would be happening in the House concerning the continuing resolution and debt ceiling votes (worth reading).

So this is what I found.

HotAir is telling its TP audience that Boehner's response will be a bill to delay Obamacare. HotAir warns that there will be a shutdown, but that will just light a fire under the lazy Senate.

Several voices are telling Tea Partiers that it's hopeless. Since they lost the election, Obamacare is going ahead and it can't be defunded. When John McCain tells them, the TP is defiant. Erick Erickson at RedState is defiant. He seems to think Cruz has a plan, but forgets to say what it is. At Breitbart, a columnist with that reality message is labeled a progressive, and the message is derided. Elsewhere at Breitbart, it's hooray for Cruz.

There are no signs that the Tea Party has a plan and even realizes the need for a plan. There's no discussion that "we do this, then they'll do that, then we'll counter with this." Nothing like that at all. These people are absurd in their lack of awareness that other people exist and have power. How did they get to be so oblivious? Jennifer Rubin, who is usually worthless, explains that they wrongly extrapolate their media share.

So are there any indications of what the Tea Party will do next? No. However, the ball will soon be back at the House, so the House leadership is trying to figure out its next move. They haven't ironed it out yet, as time ticks away to October 1. Politico reports the next House bill might delay the implementation of Obamacare. That would be another hopeless volley, and shutdown would follow. Perhaps the Washington Post report is more accurate--that the House might do something with a debt-limit increase and lots of sweeteners for GOP causes. It's not reported what the plan for funding is.

So it's all as clear as mud right now, 4.5 days away from the end of statutory funding. Thank you, Tea Party.

Image: citizenchris.typepad.com

Same day update: A preview of the proposal from the House shows one aspect of the Tea Party plan. They plan to make the fight as bloody as possible in non-contact politics. See the likely new demands. The Tea Party will be stabbing and nicking anyone who isn't a complete supporter. And they've invited their ravening friends to watch.

Update 9/27/13. Still no plan. House GOP to meet Saturday.

Leak: For them, Norquist is a RINO

OK, folks, I have no idea how politics is done, so this was eye-popping. You see, to be infulential (I mean influential) in politics, you have to host a weekly members-only strategy session where you talk about who's not pulling their weight, who stabbed you in the back, what words to use to attack someone, and what everyone has to accomplish before next week.

This is like Journolist, but for conservatives. The problem is that there's more than one of these members-only conservative networks. Norquist has had one for twenty years, but now there's an upstart that hates Norquist as a compromising-squish-establishment-fake-conservative. Wow. The right keeps moving so fast that we normal people can't keep up with what's extreme nowadays.

The people behind this ultra-conservative scout troop include Justice Clarence Thomas's wife, defunct representative Allen West, Ted Cruz, and a bunch of, ahem, journalists from Breitbart.

How do we know this? Someone got hold of documents from their private Google site and leaked the whole thing to Mother Jones. Just as I keep saying, whatever you want to hide, it ain't gonna stay hidden.

A good introduction is here, but be sure to read the long version to find out how the powers-that-be craft the news memes you can't stand. One. More. Second.

Oh, and they hate Karl Rove too.

Image: motherjones.com

Extra. Why are we bombarded with so many talking points? Per the Leesburg grid:

"Where this really gets interesting is when you're covering points faster than the opponent can create them. This puts them 'behind the eight ball,' and they never seem to create their own ideas; they only respond to yours."

Please, God, no, it's actually designed that way.

Update 7/30/13. Jonathan Bernstein of PlainBlog (still fascinating during these doldrums--great job!) says:

"Really? You're telling me that the same right-wing kooks who were publicly hyping Benghazi! and publicly urging Boehner and Issa to 'make this supposed scandal a top-priority' were...also doing the same thing when the TV cameras weren't on!"

He makes a valid point--none of this is particularly surprising or a scandal. I still found the information fresh, especially to know who's in the group and who's not.

Merry-go-round of irony and lies

First horse on the merry-go-round: Brietbart's story that Chuck Hagel took funding from a group called "Friends of Hamas."

•  Second horse: Lots of conservative news sources pick up the story.

Third horse: "Friends of Hamas" doesn't actually exist.

• Fourth horse: Is the editor-in-chief, Ben Shapiro, who published the story, still at Breitbart? Or was he fired like the NBC producer who was caught doing misleading edits on the Zimmerman 911 tape? Of course he's still at Breitbart. Scruples are for sissies, as are truth and accuracy.

Fifth horse: Breitbart tells the Washington Post 5 ways to clean up its act, like no longer publishing false charges and mysteriously removing them. Also, not publishing fraudulent stories about racist statements by an Ag Dept official Palin going to Al-Jazeera.

• Sixth horse: How can Breitbart complain about WaPo when they just days ago inflated this fake story about Hagel? Well, it was attributed to a "Senate source [that] told Breitbart News exclusively."

Seventh horse: Didn't something similar happen when Harry Reid "heard" some story that Romney hadn't paid any income tax one year? Oh, that's probably another politically convenient fabrication.

• I'm feeling sick. Stop this ride. Yes, stop the lies and hypocrisy.

Image: flickr.com

Update 2/20/13. The ride is still spinning. The inadvertent source of the rumor has been self-identified. He emailed a question to an unnamed "Republican aide" and less than 24 hours later it morphed into a headline at Breitbart.com. Ben Shapiro at Breitbart continues to practice "do what I say, not what I do" by claiming that [HORRORS!!!] the source, reporter Dan Friedman, knew he was wrong before he published his piece claiming to be the unwitting source. Shapiro, are you saying that's wrong? My heavens, I never would have known that from your example.  Just to say it again, the conservative media can gripe all it wants about the MSM, but until it follows more of the same rules of good journalistic practice, it won't gain credibility. As this case illustrates, again...

Short: The continuing slide of Sarah Palin

I try hard to stay positive even in criticism. Maybe that's why I don't write too often about the latest outrage. I certainly try not to crow over someone's fall. But the latest story about Sarah Palin has been a while in the making.

Sarah Palin will no longer be a Fox News contributor. I've watched a few of her appearances, and I was surprised by how Fox treated her. They would start the interview, she would prattle on mostly about tactical issues, then Fox would cut to some real news and leave her waiting for 20 minutes or more. It's not that she deserves any better. I've never heard her say anything new and insightful. Her speeches and observations always been a chewed-up mess of pre-digested talk radio rhetoric.

So Fox News gives Sarah Palin the heave-ho by way of an insulting contract offer. She says contradictory things in her brief interview published online: conservatives must widen their audience, but then she praises Mark Levin, Rush Limbaugh, and Breitbart.com. These are not commentators who are broadening the audience for conservative ideas. Mark Levin and Breitbart.com are proven conservative fabricators who will lie endlessly if they perceive political advantage. Of course they supply conservative spinners like Sarah Palin with a lot of material, so she better be grateful.

For Fox News, it's reasonable to flush out the stable, but I doubt the replacements are better. I'll have to watch to see.

Image: perezhilton.com

P.S. I wish Fox News would flush Juan Williams too as another commentator who spits out only warmed-over analysis. I haven't missed him on NPR in the least.

Post election: Survey of conservative reaction

Just before the election, I promised to check on four aspects of the election, of them being the partisan spin. Since the GOP expected victory but suffered a clear loss, they have much more spinning to do. Here's my survey:

Anger, War, and Assorted Violence

In this small conservative site I started following just before the election (they tracked Nate Silver's prediction until they were proved too accurate), their first reaction was anger:

Keep in mind, though, that every year these assholes [moderates and libertarians] buy season ticket seats in the peanut gallery and no matter how much you try to appease them they will continue to fling turds at you until you completely concede every single one of your ideological positions. -- Starless, Conservative Commune

It's going to be so much fun seeing all those "unexpectedly" stories continue for the next four years.  Medicare patients "unexpectedly" seeing their actual healthcare access go away. Full-time employees "unexpectedly" getting turned into part-timers. -- Meep, Conservative Commune

When I was a child, we were still proud of our political forefathers... A majority of Americans still believed in things like Honor, Love of Country, Service, Charity, God, Providence… No longer is this so... Half of the people I pass on the street are takers. Half of them are in it for themselves. Entirely. Half of them really do believe the Government is their savior. -- Enoch Root, Conservative Commune

I am sick to death that the class warfare worked for the rat-eared wonder. When he was giving his concession speech last night he was talking about “we did it” but those comments were not addressed to all Americans ...

 ... goin' Galt -- HotAir comments

Breitbart.com declared war:

The defeat of Barack Obama would have launched the beginning of America coming together. But apparently, liberal America prefers to battle for the soul of the country... The war begins now. -- Ben Shapiro

From Breitbart comments:

I was torn before the election and am still conflicted about whether a country of ignorant, obese narcissists was worth saving.  It seems unfair that the other fifty percent of us have to go down with them...

Well... we could always pull a "reverse Christopher Columbus."  Invite all the dumbies here and then go elsewhere.

 Its not worth saving.   Let it burn.

 Image: msnbc.msn.com

The Usual Suspect - The Media

Naturally, there were the usual complaint about the media:

Most of us who follow politics understand the reasons and have a pretty good idea of why [Romney's] going home and the Obama's are staying in the White House.  Short version: They let the left define the election issues....It was a masterful job of distraction aided and abetted by  a complicit media (hey, "60 Minutes", you have NO credibility anymore). ... The winning issues: Jobs.  Economy.  Debt. Deficit.  ObamaCare.  Benghazi. Fast and Furious. -- Bruce McQuain, Conservative Commune

My response: No one gets to own what the issues are, what topics get more continuous coverage, and what people think is important. The issue of Romney's tax returns withered. So did Benghazi. Both died because of the general population judged them as less important. Quit whining that you didn't get to choose the issues--it's a general decision, not yours, not one campaign's.

Damn Them All

The Wall Street Journal lashed out at a lot of targets, including Ben Bernanke, John Roberts, and Hurricane Sandy. The editorial is chock full of instant talking points and over-the-top rhetoric.

• Boehner has as much of mandate as the president does. 
• Obamacare "will spread like termites" as Obama consolidates "this liberal entitlement dream." 
• "However implausibly" voters believed Bush was more to blame for the state of the economy than Obama. [Yes, that's totally implausible.]
• John Roberts' sin was providing "a salve of legitimacy" to Obama. It also helped him "unify his party around something to protect..." [Roberts really should have considered the electoral effect of his ruling, even though he's part of an independent, third branch of government.]
• Obama's victory was "the definition of winning ugly." Well then, how should we label this editorial--maybe "partisan gynmastics."

That king among the haters, Rush Limbaugh, had this to say:

We are outnumbered.  We're losing ground... Why does putting Condoleezza Rice front and center at the convention not work?  Why does putting Marco Rubio front and center at the convention not work? ...We have done the reach-out. We have done everything they, quote, unquote, say we should do to show that we're not just the white guys party... Why doesn't it work? Is it seen as not genuine?  Is it seen as tokenism?

My response: Rush, in the real world, no,, it is not seen as genuine, and yes, it is seen as tokenism. Just look at how you started this discussion--"we are outnumbered."But according to you, it's the media's fault for ridiculing these tokens in the GOP.

Here's the most concise answer to the whiny Republicans:

What is funny is that there are a LOT of us white folks out there who voted for Obama as well. The Republicans are simply on the wrong side of history. They still think they have a God given right to dictate how everyone should live and until that stops, they will lose. -- Atlantic comment

 Image: washingtontimes.com

 The Good News

The National Review had a more practical take on the election results, which serves as a blessed counterweight to the WSJ's caterwauling:

Blame for this debacle is widely shared... Until conservatives devise a domestic agenda... that links small-government principles to attractive results, they are going to have a hard time improving their standing with women, Latinos, white men, or young people.

The surprising number of commenters on HotAir (who are better than those of FreeRepublic but not as generally intelligent as commenters on Atlantic or Washington Post) offered insights:

We are doomed. We can’t “appeal to Latinos” — Ted Cruz lost every Latino border county by 35 points to a fat white good ole democrat in Texas. HISPANICS WILL NOT VOTE GOP... Look, I don’t see the GOP winning the presidency again in my lifetime. We have lost 5 of the last 6 popular votes...THERE IS NO PATH TO 270. Once Texas flips to Latino, CA+FL+PA+MI+NY+IL gives a 200ev route from day one... I think the GOP should say gay marriage and drugs are state issues and basically absorb the libertarians. I hate to say it but suck up the Ron Paul wing. -- picklesgap

I actually think that Romney was probably the strongest candidate we had this year. And that’s a pretty pathetic statement on the quality of the GOP field... Fewer GOP senate candidates who feel compelled to share with the world their Very Special Personal Insights on rape and pregnancy would probably help. -- Hayabusa

I’ll tell ya, in my neck of the woods, most of the younger voters are more libertarian or conservative than they realize but are turned off by the hold religious types have on the Republican Party. Anecdotal but still.  -- oddjob1138

We also need to be aware of the fact that this high turnout among young voters might not be an anomaly... [Kids] who used to be completely indifferent to politics (out of sight, out of mind mentality) are now bombarded by friends on FB/Twitter who share their political musings 24/7. -- Good Solid B-Plus

...When you ask if Obamacare should be repealed and we go back to the days of insurance companies deciding your fate, the majority says no, keep Obamacare... If you watched the Dems you saw a rainbow of colors. This isn’t a white country anymore. Reps better change or go the way of the Whigs... This country needs 2 strong parties to fight it out over ideas. It’s terrible when one goes off the deep end and allows a radical fringe to dominate. -- independentvoice

The Republican Party needs to be more inclusive and welcoming. You can not have issues with minorities, gays and single parents and expect them to vote for you and win elections. As a single mother never having been married I did vote a straight R ticket yesterday in PA, but I need the GOP to change path to stay an active Republican. I can’t defend comments about rape and abortion being illegal even when it risks the life of the mother... I don’t expect the party to adopt my beliefs, but I want to feel welcome within the party. -- LawnGnomeFanFirst

I think we seriously need to look at two things: one, our candidate quality, and two, making small compromises to win bigger... Everything the pollsters were saying about turnout models was right, and everything we said about them was wrong. -- KingGold

 Image: macon.com

Extras: The blame (and 20 minutes of cursing) lays with the libertarians and all those people too scared to post negative stories about Obama on their Facebook pages.

No, it was fruition of a Soviet plan: "Raise the young to be takers and after a few generations when the old conservatives die off, the country is ripe for the taking."

Romney's campaign was convinced by its own spin and were "shellshocked" by the loss.

Still more interesting HotAir comments.

Update 4/27/14. Here's a good post from the National Review. It points out that Romney did better than many GOP senate candidates, so it wasn't Romney that dragged down the ticket.

Short: When you aren't the target audience

Bernstein had a great, timely reminder that the general public is not always the target audience for all parts of the campaign. He writes about the rumors that the Romney campaign is going to start 'vetting' Obama. By vetting, they mean it the way Breitbart meant it, which is digging up any past action or association that looks at all radical or socialist. "Palling around with terrorists" will make a resurgence.

However, this part of the campaign is not for general consumption, but a special mooshy dessert for the GOP loyalists who can't get enough of Obama as foreign agent provocateur. It'll run mostly on Fox and the conservative blogosphere, but not on the general airwaves in the swing states. At least, that's what I'm guessing. I don't live in a swing state, so I can't find out easily by turning on my TV anytime between Labor Day and Election Day. Ah, spared the excitement!

Image: nicedeb.wordpress.com

Goodbye to civility

Conor Friedersdorf at Atlantic has been admonishing other conservatives to watch what they say, and he's getting dissed as a nag, scold, damp squib, etc. I wish he'd be successful, but frankly I think civility is a goner. Some people will practice it, but it isn't generally practiced or expected. So I'm going to try writing a post where I'm totally unrestrained, and I say whatever I want in the harshest terms I feel like using. Maybe this will be fun.

One area where civility that is really a waste is giving the benefit of the doubt to politicians and their shills. Conor had a 10 or 12 volley twitter fight with someone from Breitbart, who finally tweeted:

"I guess it's all worth it if you have a handy cudgel to use against the dread left."

What a fucking waste of time. Of course someone from Breitbart or Fox or DNC is going to use anything imaginable as a cudgel to beat the other side. It doesn't take 12 tweets to figure that out, and 12 tweets is no guarantee that the pundit or shill or whoever is going to admit he's an opportunistic dick. We already know that, so why would we waste time on it?

Ridiculous talking points

I am so fucking tired of the talking points phenomenon. People who repeat them and write them endlessly on the web really should be choking on the stench as they type because it's the same as puking out pieces of cadavers. You don't win any independents with stupidity like that, and you only confirm the biases of the committed on both sides. If I could, I would make anyone mouthing a talking point (right or left) submit to a lie-detector test and make them confess that it's a ridiculous talking point. And I would video it. Maybe start my own channel on youtube.

 Image: crimemuseum.org

The prizes for media bias go to...
The biggest prize for lying belongs to Fox News, for advertising itself every second of every day as "Fair and Balanced" when they are completely in the tank for conservatives. Fox, you really think you'll going to lose credibility if you start calling yourself "conservative news" and change the tag line to "The other side you really need to hear?" Come on, you have the barest credibility anyhow, which is why the Obama administration could threaten to ban your reporters due your network constantly launching attacks on their officials in fall 2009.Yeah, I remember that.

 Image: sicklycat.com

Other prizes are for the mainstream media for pretending it's neutral just because it's not nearly as bad as Fox. If the mainstream media was so neutral, why is there so much space for Fox and conservative talk radio? The obvious answer, if you think about it or watch this media, is that it's riddled with a low to moderate level of liberal bias. A prime example is talking about social problems and social programs without talking about certain favorite conservative issues like personal responsibility and taxpayer costs. Of course we need a conservative media if that hardly ever happens in MSM. That kind of coverage should be right in those articles and reports, not something that only gets consideration in budget reporting. My credit card bill soars if I don't watch how much everything costs. There's a huge multiplier when government acts that way. (This is why I hate idiot bleeding heart liberals and the endless social programs they would create and how they would raise my taxes over and over. I lived through it in New York state, so I'm speaking from experience. I definitely have compassion fatigue. It's real, and it happens when we're asked to do too much. I feel no guilt about it. It's called not being a saint, something I shit-sure am not.)

Fucking Stupid Campaigns
As I've complained before, the presidential campaign coverage is focusing on miniscule, unimportant shit like misleading statistics about women's job losses, Ann Romney's spending habits, and ... (I've already forgotten what yesterday's stupidity was). This is partly the media's fault, but also the campaigns' because they send out their shills and surrogates to repeat this crap on TV.

In the meantime, we know what the important issues are: the size of government, the size of our debt, what programs we really want and what we don't what, how much it costs, tax reform, how much can we afford to spent on policing this unruly world, and trying to stay out of unnecessary, deadly, and expensive foreign messes.

Come on people. We know that what's important. So stop wasting all this bandwidth on other fucking shit.

Your reactions
So, was this too much? Should I return to civility, practice it and defend it, or give up? I'd like feedback, civil or not.

Photo: blogs.courant.com

Scoop: Possible media bias in action

A commenter in the Washington Post put me onto this:

MEDIA TIES ROMNEY TO TRUMP, IGNORES OBAMA-SHARPTON CONNECTION

...But as is always the case, the media's double standard is a glaring one. After all, Al Sharpton is a proud and open Obama supporter, Obama has met with Sharpton, and Obama hasn't distanced himself from the MSNBC' racial demagogue -- who just this weekend made headlines with this: Republicans Want To 'Wipe Out Innocent People' Like 'Hitler's Germany'.

That accusation is very specific, so I looked it up. At that time, only conservative outlets were carrying the story. Here's a fairly complete, well-sourced article quoting Mark Levin. Unless Mark Levin did some nasty editing (as Breitbart did to Shirley Sherrod), Al Sharpton said something pretty inflammatory.

Uh, false alarm. I just listened to the whole exchange on Mediaite, and Sharpton is saying that some Republicans condemn some genocides (like Jews in WWII) but ignore others. Looks like tricky editing to provide red meat to the base... and Mark Levin sounded so calm and persuasive, I fell for it. Oh dear. Thank God I checked a little more before I hit the "Publish" button. And I thought I was going to nail the liberal media on something.

If you're interested, follow the story for a few days. How big does this trumped-up story get? We shall see.

 Before digital made fraud easy.

Photo: soundonsound.com

Update 6/1/12. This story has died. That's good, but as a lie and falsification, it never should have been a story at all. Still, I'll remember it as a lesson in the difference between the standards that mainstream media is held to and the standards of someone like Levin. By the way, if some of the links don't work, the story became an embarrassment.

Reflections 6/12/12.  To the conservative media, this was going to be a story about the MSM being biased for liberals. Instead, it was really a story about the creation of lies for hungry conservative media outlets, their lack of professionalism in the simple act of checking sources, and their lack of accountability. So far, only Mediaite has corrected the story. None of the conservative sites I reviewed contain a correction. Ah, to be so in the right that nothing you do is wrong. The MSM didn't catch this story to show the machinations of the conservative media either. God, I've learned a lot about media bias from this incident.

Update 6/4/15. Another example of editing a story dishonestly.

Death of a partisan

A surprising event today: Andrew Breitbart died.

It's hard to figure what to say on this occasion. I didn't care for his political positions  and especially for his egregious tactics, but I agree with the tradition that it's unseemly to bash someone on their death. After all, some people respected and even loved him.

So, it is OK to say something like this?

This is a reminder that we are all mortal. Through his hard work and pointed commentary, Breitbart had influence on a national scale. He'll be mourned by his supporters, but I'm not among them. However, I don't believe and would never say that this is God's judgment on him. May he rest in peace and may his family find some solace.

I think that is as kind as I can be, but I welcome comments and criticism.

Died March 1, 2012