January 21, 2011

"We Just Witnessed The Media's Test Run To Re-Elect Barack Obama."

Brilliant blog post by William A. Jacobson:
The ruthless efficiency with which the left-wing blogosphere tied Palin to the shooting, and the success of their efforts in equating Palin with mass murder, is a lesson we should not forget....

Having created a false narrative of Palin's responsibility for the shooting, the mainstream media tried to deprive Palin of the ability to defend herself against the charges. And unfortunately, some who supposedly are on our side have jumped on that bandwagon.

And all the while, Barack Obama stood back for days and let his supporters in the media rip Palin apart, much as he left it to his supporters to go after the Clintons during the primary, only then to proclaim that we don't really know why Jared Loughner did what he did. And the media narrative was how wonderful Obama was, how he helped heal the nation.

Any Republican or conservative or Tea Party supporter who dumps on Palin in any way over the Tucson shooting or her defense of herself should just stop talking now.

It does not matter whether you support Palin for President, whether you think she is electable, or even whether you like her. This is not about Palin, it is about the mainstream media's desire to have Barack Obama re-elected at any cost and to take down any Republican candidate who stands in the way.
Rush Limbaugh gave an excellent dramatic reading of this post yesterday, and Jacobson has the video. Here's the transcript, with this commentary from Rush:
If Republicans are gonna sit by and watch Palin savaged, they'd better be prepared to sit by and watch the next one get savaged and the next one. Because that's what's coming.  If the Republicans cannot defend themselves over this kind of scurrilous, baseless, libelous charge, they got no business running.

They'll not be able to elect anybody.  If we shut up and be silent on this -- if we've got Republicans like Frum who will agree with the left-wing blogosphere and the mainstream media that Palin should shut up, that she should stop defending herself and it's a horrible travesty of just what Palin did; if we're gonna have Republicans sit around and give Obama credit for sitting by for four days while his allies try to take her out, then give a speech and get credit for the wonderful things he said about it -- then we got more idiots in our party than we would want to know....

This call for "civility"? They don't want us to be civil.  They want us to be cowed.  They want all of us to become Frumized.
Go to the links and read the whole thing to see why David Frum is tagged as the exemplar of a useful idiot. Wouldn't you like to see Jacobson and Frum is a dialogue on Bloggingheads? Frum has been on many times. Based on segment headings, he's never talked about Sarah Palin, though. Kind of odd, considering how hard it is not to talk about Sarah Palin. I'm going to recommend a Jacobson/Frum pairing. I think that would be quite delicious.

140 comments:

peter hoh said...

The mainstream media tried to deprive Palin of the opportunity to defend herself against the charges?

I guess that's why Bill O'Reilly was complaining that Palin wouldn't appear on his show to refute these charges.

Wow, if the MSM can keep Palin off Bill O'Reilly's show, I have seriously underestimated their power.

1jpb said...

Has it ever occured to Main-Street-Cons that they're funny to watch when they're (so easily) summoned (by libs) to defend Palin?

Sheesh, the right leadership manipulates you for profit, the left does it for fun.

So easily manipulated.

master cylinder said...

If you set the bar with defending Palin, as the bar for all republican candidates-I got only one thing say to y'all-
Dare to dream! Get serious. A big complaint about Obama was the cult of celebrity. What is a reality tv star with 2 million facebook fans? I know what is coming you are all going to say Im TERRIFIED of Palin and she must be doing something right. Stay here in the echo chamber...it's easy to believe.

lemondog said...

And all the while, Barack Obama stood back...

Won't be surprise if the administration give out talking points to the media, after all, "Never let a serious crisis go to waste."

franglo said...

How is Rush Limbaugh not the mainstream media? How is Newscorp not the mainstream media?

Limbaugh is probably a billionaire. He is the "media." He also slanders and libels "liberals" and Obama and any Democrat on a daily basis.

No one could describe how "the mainstream media" created a false narrative of Palin being responsible for the shooting. Because it didn't happen. It's in the mind of the grievance mongers, of whom Limbaugh and Palin are the greatest entrepreneurs.

You know what won't win conservatives elections? Constant sniveling cries of victimhood. Grow a pair.

Jon said...

Only one nitpick of Jacobson's post: I wish people would stop using the term "mainstream" media. That suggests, falsely, that's it's in the mainstream politically. A better description is "establishment media" or "liberal media". Or even Palin's "lamestream media".

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)
When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.


Or:
When the Media came for Sarah Palin,
I remained silent;
I was not Sarah Palin.

When the Media came for The TEA Party,
I remained silent;
I was not a member of the TEA Party.

When the Media came for The Baptist Minister,
I remained silent;
I was not Mike Huckabee.

When the NYT came for me
there was no one left to speak out.

Ask John McCain about the love of the NYT for “Maverick” Republicans.

Peter said...

"Any Republican or conservative or Tea Party supporter who dumps on Palin in any way over the Tucson shooting or her defense of herself should just stop talking now."

Yeah! Keep your stupid thoughts and feelings and skepticism to yourself! Don't you know that there's something a lot more important at stake?

"The time for talk is over!"

MadisonMan said...

Interesting conflation of Media and blogs in your first two paragraphs.

So are blogs and media the same thing now?

Jon said...

Althouse said: Wouldn't you like to see Jacobson and Frum is a dialogue on Bloggingheads?

I'd like to see someone ask Frum point blank, if Palin were the GOP nominee in 2012, who would you vote for?" I'm sure in that case he either would vote for Obama or not vote, but I'm curious if he would admit it.

MrBuddwing said...

Only one nitpick of Jacobson's post: I wish people would stop using the term "mainstream" media. That suggests, falsely, that's it's in the mainstream politically. A better description is "establishment media" or "liberal media". Or even Palin's "lamestream media".

When George W. Bush was president, Rush Limbaugh routinely referenced the "drive-by media." Now with Barack Obama in the White House, Limbaugh calls them "the state-run media."

"Establishment media"? That might get resounding approval from the left as well as the right.

Word verification: tweters. (Opposite of woofers.)

traditionalguy said...

Sarah Palin is heading South. The media skunks are getting their strongest scents ready for her. The strongest odor is being sprayed by Karl (The Skunk in the grass) Rove. It really stinks.

Hoosier Daddy said...

I'm going to recommend a Jacobson/Frum pairing. I think that would be quite delicious.

Do you like chianti Professor?

peter hoh said...

The mainstream media did what it always does. It hid behind "some people are saying" bullshit and repeated what some people were saying about the possible connection between the Tea Party, Palin's bullseye map, and the Tuscon shooting.

A couple hours after the shooting, it was pretty clear that any such connection was on such shaky ground as to be unworthy of comment.

The media is lazy this way. They do the same thing when they report that "some people claim that the World Trade Center was rigged with explosives."

Obviously scurrilous claims should not be repeated under the guise of representing all sides.

holdfast said...

Prof Jacobsen makes a good point, but it's not new. Who ever is the Republican standard-bearer automatically becomes the "worst person in the world" for the MFM. Look at "Maverick" McCain - after years - decades even - of getting tongue-baths from the MFM, and the NYT especially, for shivving his fellow GOPers on a regular basis, as soon as he becomes the Republican candidate they are running a marital infidelity story based on NOTHING.

They always HATE Republican and conservatives and will do anything to keep him out of office - that's just SOP - but with Obama as the Dem candidate they're trying twice as hard, because they just can't quit sucking those chocolate salty balls. I mean, sure Rather pimped his fake TANG story to try to get Bush out of office - but not for love of Kerry. Does, can, anyone even love Kerry?

The only way that a Republican can win is if Sarah is willing to take one for the team and stay front-and-center, absorbing the slings and arrows, and then move aside at the last minute for a strong candidate behind whom the entire GOP can unite. And no, I don't know who that is, but I know his first name does not rhyme with "spit" nor his last with "Muckabee".

1jpb said...

"Constant sniveling cries of victimhood."

One of my favorite Palin moments was during the campaign when she was complaining to an interviewer that BHO had asked folks to leave his kids alone. Palin, said that it wasn't fair for the media to listen to BHO, but not her.

Poor Palin didn't know that the BHO request was actually for the folks to leave her kids alone. So wrapped in victimhood, everything is an attack on her, even when it isn't.

Regarding Frum: is it really so bad that he's a bit of an elitist? I know that's a four letter word to many Rs (e-l-t-s?). But, if elitists were good enough for the Founders, they can't be all bad.

Sheepman said...

I think it was wrong to suggest that Palin was in any way responsible for what happened in Tuscon and she should have defended herself against such attacks.

But her response to this did her more harm than good. The first message that came out to the media was from someone from her staff claiming that surveyor marks and not cross hairs were used in her ad to target certain congressional districts. By making that dubious assertion, the implication became that it was wrong to use cross hairs in a political ad.

Then she used the phrase "blood libel", which if not over the top is pretty close. She's pushed the boundary, and her opponents' buttons, with her rhetoric with good effect before, but this was not the occasion to stir the pot. She should have calmly and rationally explained why these allegations were wrong and how her opponents were now guilty of the very thing they accused her of doing. Fox News actually did this quite well in some of the pieces I've seen online.

Richard Dolan said...

What is new here exactly? The Dems can count on the support of the NYT, WaPo, LA Times, CBS-ABC-NBC, NPR, CNN, and many others. The Reps can count on the support of Fox, WaEx, NYPost, WSJ and a few others. Reps have talk radio; Dems most of the TV bandwith. Internet is too diverse to categorize.

Pretty much everyone with a pulse has figured this out. And it's been the lay of the land since at least Bush/Gore 2000. The only change in the last 10 years is that the Dem media team has gotten weaker, and the Rep team stronger.

It's always wise to keep an eye on the opposition, and to defend what's worth defending in a timely and effective way. But the premise of the Jacobson/Limbaugh story is that, unless the Reps fight by immediately, the lefty criticism will become the conventional wisdom, fixed as "the narrative" in the minds of all the dimwits who, you know, are the voters.

But the collapse of big city media to control the storyline makes tha concept of 'conventional wisdom' outdated at best. What's happened is that the lefties are talking mostly to the already converted, and so are the righties. Everyone views the media, and particularly the other side's media, with a skepticism bordering on contempt.

That presents a lot of problems all its own. But the likelihood that anyone will be cowed into silence because the lefty op-ed and blogger types are braying at the moon in unison and on cue is not one of them.

garage mahal said...

If Republicans are gonna sit by and watch Palin savaged, they'd better be prepared to sit by and watch the next one get savaged and the next one.

That's pretty funny coming from Limbaugh. Goes to show you that when a right winger accuses you of something you can bet the house they're already doing it.

Scott M said...

This call for "civility"? They don't want us to be civil. They want us to be cowed. They want all of us to become Frumized.

HOWARD JOHNSON IS RIGHT!!!

Hoosier Daddy said...

No one could describe how "the mainstream media" created a false narrative of Palin being responsible for the shooting. Because it didn't happen.

Nonsense as it most certainly did. I recall Morning Joe on Monday after the shooting and Mika remarked that ‘she would not want to be Sarah Palin’ this morning and Joe Scarborough even said that Palin should apologize (this was after showing that cross hair map). That’s just one example.

Editorials were rife with accusations that it was Palin and the crosshair map that drove the shootings. You’re either being deliberately obtuse or simply living in a cave if you don’t think this didn’t occur.
It is interesting that to the left, defending oneself from false accusations is the equivalent of crying ‘victim’

Peter said...

Ann,

More directly, I would like to know why you find this post brilliant at all -- what with its conflation of all media types into a "ruthlessly efficient" conspiratorial message machine, and even more, with its call for lock-step messaging (and silence) to fight back.

You are usually much more skeptical of the language of "fair" and "unfair" speech, or "false" and "true" narratives.

I thought that, in your world of robust political debate, the key was strong speech -- effective speech. (Think of your defense of "death panels," violent metaphors, and other "dysphemisms.")

Palin came out swinging against speech that attacked her with speech that was itself strong and robust and even accusatory. That speech lost, this time.

Why all of a sudden are you finding it brilliant to say that we need a lot less speech in this area?

Where is the brilliance in calling for people to "just stop talking now" or in complaining about whether certain types of accusations were unfair and false?

Scott M said...

So are blogs and media the same thing now?

How can they not be?

PaulV said...

Much fun to see the Palin Deranged defend the frauds at NYTimes, MSNBC and CNN. The lack of integrity should be sad, but mocking them works.
WV: dropoerw
Why does lame stream media dropoerw and moon the public

Hoosier Daddy said...

So wrapped in victimhood, everything is an attack on her, even when it isn't.

You mean like when every criticism of Obama was purely due to racism?

Big Mike said...

And hence Reagan's "eleventh commandment."

Mike Castle's unnecessary violation of the "eleventh commandment" is why I wept no tears over his defeat.

@Richard Dolan, you've made good points, but as Rep. Cohen pointed out, the big lie can be pounded until the not-particularly-interested-in-politics citizenry, which despite the past two years is still the vast majority of them, and nearly all of the college students, come to believe it. (Indeed, Rep. Cohen was himself pushing "the big lie," and the olnly question is whether he knew it or had already fallen for it -- but that's a different thread.)

Defending Palin provides Republicans with an opportunity to change the meme, introducing the notion that the lamestream media lies almost reflexively, and that's a good thing.

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)
Yeah! Keep your stupid thoughts and feelings and skepticism to yourself! Don't you know that there's something a lot more important at stake?


Peter that’s a non-sequitur, I can have doubts about Palin, but what I can’t do is allow someone to tell the Big Lie/Blood libel about another Conservative…If I do, all I’m doing is letting Kos, Krugman, and the NYT tell a Big Lie about ME! As Franklin said, “Gentlemen we must all hang together, for if we do not we shall all hand separately.”

Hoosier Daddy said...

Then she used the phrase "blood libel", which if not over the top is pretty close.

Yes, about as over the top as being accused of being an accomplice to mass murder.

shoutingthomas said...

Fascinating.

No one could describe how "the mainstream media" created a false narrative of Palin being responsible for the shooting. Because it didn't happen.

I can describe it. Within an hour of the shooting, leftist bloggers had linked Palin to the shooting. Within a couple of hours, Krugman had linked Palin to the shooting.

There appears to be no lie that cannot be told about Palin.

This is one tough, smart lady. The left thinks it has checkmated her. Sarah, it's your move.

Indeed, this is one of the most concerted, vicious, smear campaigns I've ever witnessed.

If Palin is what I think and hope she is, she will find a way to counter these vicious slanderers.

PaulV said...

Krauthammer chews lamestream media a new one for its hypocrity
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2011/01/21/krauthammer-attacks-medias-bogus-call-civility-where-were-they-when-b
Make fun of PBJ and like when they bitch

shoutingthomas said...

So, we know the game now. Loonies like garage hate Palin so much that blood libel is justified. Any kind of trumped up accusation is justified.

Feel free to answer with a smirk, garage. You hate and fear Palin. Anything you have to say about her is inconsequential.

The question now is how to defeat this strategy. We know what it is.

The media will continue to cook up these blood libels (and every other kind of libel) you can imagine against Palin.

The time to debate this strategy is over. The real debate now is, how does Palin defeat this strategy? I'll bet she's moved on to that as well.

Spinning her wheels answering the vicious tactics of loonies like garage is just what loonies like garage want Palin to do.

She has to find a way to defeat this strategy. And, I'll bet she will.

She certainly poses a mortal threat to the Democratic Party, doesn't she? They'd rather face any candidate in a general election but Palin. (And don't buy into the loonies like garage when they tell you they are salivating over her candidacy. That's another part of the game.)

PaulV said...

Any one who accuses Palin of misusing the term "blood libel" admits that the attacks on her were libel. LOL!
WV: sabletra

Ann Althouse said...

"Interesting conflation of Media and blogs in your first two paragraphs. So are blogs and media the same thing now?"

You mean Jacobson's paragraphs, which appear sequential because of my use of ellipsis? The material I elided to avoid reprinting everything makes the process clear. It's not a conflation. Read the whole Jacobson post.

Peter said...

@Joe

"Peter that’s a non-sequitur, I can have doubts about Palin, but what I can’t do is allow someone to tell the Big Lie/Blood libel about another Conservative…"

But that's not what the brilliant Jacobson said. He did not say that people should fight back against lies and liars.

He said that "any conservative who dumps on Palin in any way" over this issue "should just stop talking now."

That is not a call for truth or anger or even a call to attack blatant liars. That is a call to STFU.

So, according to Jacobson, if you "have doubts about Palin," you need to keep them to yourself.

Peter

Sheepman said...

Yes, about as over the top as being accused of being an accomplice to mass murder.
Exactly, during a period that called for calmness and control she had the chance to show that she was "better" than those who made the accusations against her.

shoutingthomas said...

And, for the other loonies on here who insist that it's phony to allege a press conspiracy to re-elect Obama, I have one word: Journolist.

We already know it existed. Exposure forced the participants to disband their public chat group.

Do you that that stopped them from conspiring privately?

Richard Dolan said...

Big Mike:

I have no problem with an effort to fire up the troops, which is what the 'big lie' stuff is all about (same with the lefties' conservative = extremist stuff). The strongest evidence against the Jacobson/Limbaugh thesis is the rise of the Tea Parties. No group was more vilified, univerally, by the bien pensants in all the usual media places, from the beginning of the outcry in 2009 against the bailouts, the payoffs to the favored Dem constituencies, Obamacare onwards. The lefties hurled everything they had against the Tea Parties -- they were the racist, dimwits, tools of evil fascist billionaires, etc. -- all much worse, really, than what they've thrown against Palin.

If the self-styled opinion-setters in the lefty media had any power at all to control the national poltical conversation, the Tea Party would have been DOA. If they had any power to silence their critics, to cow them into silence, or to make opposing views 'unacceptable and indecent' -- all of which they tried -- recent history would have turned out quite differently.

Not how it turned out. The world has changed too much for lefty media and blogger types to wield the kind of power that Jacobson/Limbaugh are talking about.

It's all another proof of the existence of God and of his special love for the USA.

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)
Exactly, during a period that called for calmness and control she had the chance to show that she was "better" than those who made the accusations against her.


Do you mean like Bush ’43 and the “Bush Lied” Meme? Nice try a variant of the “Concern Troll” Approach…..Because when she WASN’T responding it was said she was “hiding”…and that her Silence meant she accepted her guilt….please you’re going to have to try harder.

virgil xenophon said...

This really requires a long-form analytical response not really appropriate here, but I would opine that much resistance to Palin in the public-at-large is due to plain old sexism--she looks too good and is too sexy to boot (not all good-looking women are sexy) to be competent. Worse, she is seen by professional/college-educated women (even a maj. of GOP women) as a threat to their social status--didn't go to the "right" schools, etc., married "below her" by attaching herself to a "beta male" blue-collar guy, a "breeder" with 5 kids and totally unashamed, unembarrassed, and unapologetic about it all. Totally "declasse." Meanwhile accomplishing far more than many of her more "credentialed" female counterparts. The blogger WHISKEY at "Whiskey's Place" has been all over this sociocultural phenomenon in a series of intermittent posts over the last year--about how professional women aspire to Alpha-male status even as they despise their own "kitchen-bitch" husbands and see Palin types as living reproof to their credentialed upwardly-mobile status. Whiskey puts forth an interesting social-construct analytical formulation whose explanatory power goes a long way to explain Palin's unpopularity.

And a complimentary part of Whiskey's equation holds that non-white males--"people of color" are seen by these same credentialed women as "bad-boys" "alluring" "edgy" and exciting "Alpha" types who eschew the sort of social strictures and "proper" behavior expected of their cubicle-dwelling corporate-drone beta-male husbands. Hence the strong popularity for Obama polls reflect among college-educated white women who see in him a "cool" "hip" "professional" "credentialed" alternative to their drab, bland white-bread vanilla beta-male husbands/boyfriends. Among these women attachment to Alpha males is the only ultimate goal worth seeking (hence the abandonment of her "kitchen-bitch" beta-male husband by Sandra Singh-Loh which Althouse posted about here a while back) That Palin evidently doesn't buy into this social formulation
as a pathway to success is the ultimate insult.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Exactly, during a period that called for calmness and control she had the chance to show that she was "better" than those who made the accusations against her.

I think she did just that. She calmly explained how she was being falsely accused of being an accomplice to mass murder.

Do you remember when Bill Clinton was accused of racism in the primary? I laughed when he was all indignant over the accusation by saying 'I have my offices in Harlem! I guess that's the Clinton way of saying some of my best friends are black.

Then again she could have just kept quiet and then the usual suspects would have said silence=acceptance, see, she is guilty.

Joe said...

The Crypto Jew)

*WOW* Reading for Comprehension not your thing, right Peter?


Any Republican or conservative or Tea Party supporter who dumps on Palin in any way over the Tucson shooting or her defense of herself should just stop talking now. (Emph. Added)

It does not matter whether you support Palin for President, whether you think she is electable, or even whether you like her. This is not about Palin, it is about the mainstream media's desire to have Barack Obama re-elected at any cost and to take down any Republican candidate who stands in the way.Rush Limbaugh gave an excellent dramatic


Just thought you might want to note what was ACTUALLY written, not what you WANT to be written.

Jon said...

typo alert Althouse:

Your post says "is" a dialogue on Bloggingheads, that should be "as"

Scott M said...

So wrapped in victimhood, everything is an attack on her, even when it isn't.

Isn't this the same logic global warming supporters use? Record high temps = AGW. Record low temps = AGW.

Peter said...

@Ann:

"It's not a conflation" between the blogosphere and the mainsteam media.

OK, it may not be your conflation. But it certainly is Jacobson's conflation.

First, it's a practical conflation, turning the blogosphere and MSM into a ruthlessly efficient machine that makes any distinction between the two absurd.

Second -- and more importantly -- it is also a conflation in Jacobson's own sentence: "Having created a false narrative of Palin's responsibility for the shooting, the mainstream media tried to deprive Palin ...."

In that sentence, who is the agent that "created the false narrative"?

In the opening of the post, it was the blogosphere. Now, by this paragraph, it was the MSM.

Conflation complete.

Maguro said...

Exactly, during a period that called for calmness and control she had the chance to show that she was "better" than those who made the accusations against her.

Right...rise above petty provocations like incitement to murder allegations in the national media. Turn the other cheek (Mark Halperin). Show you're the better person, don't respond.

Well, let me tell you, THAT DOESN'T WORK.

What you suggest is straight out of the George W. Bush playbook. Rise above it all and let history be the judge, etc. Well, that strategy played out like shit. Bush's unwillingness to defend himself or his policies was disastrous to his presidency. Being Mr. Nice Guy and letting the media libel you doesn't work and will never work.

The media knows all this, that's why they're so quick to tell Palin it's really in her best interest to be a nice little Emanuelle Goldstein and "rise above it all", i.e. STFU.

Roger J. said...

Richard Dolan: well said. The attacks against the tea party failed utterly at least among the voting public, and attacked they were--not quite as long as Ms Palin, but with at least the same if not ferocity.

bgates said...

Obama's reaction to the left's smears reminds me of a joke about Frank Sinatra:

I was in Las Vegas, and Frank Sinatra saved my life.

There were these two big guys beating the crap out of me, and all of a sudden Frank came around the corner and said, "That's enough, boys."

Big Mike said...

@Sheepman, I agree that Palin's sense of timing was impeccable (though I can see that the usual left-wing loonies, not to mention useful idiots like peter hoh, are trying to peck at it).

She waited for the wave to crest, then used the energy of the backwash.

And I see that good, old garage is trying to master the Nina Totenberg defense -- whenever Krauthammer pushes reality at her, Nina giggles and takes a tone of "how could anybody possibly believe that"? I dunno, Nina (and garage), perhaps because it's true.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Isn't this the same logic global warming supporters use? Record high temps = AGW. Record low temps = AGW.

Yes it is. Just like AGW skeptics are the equivalent of Holocaust deniers.

Big Mike said...

@Richard, thanks for your thoughtful response.

I think that the lamestream media are in the process of discrediting themselves, and there are fewer people who believe what they read on the editorial pages of the New York Times or see on CBS evening. But I think that this process is far from complete, and pushing back when they throw mud helps to move that process along.

Sheepman said...

Right...rise above petty provocations like incitement to murder allegations in the national media. Turn the other cheek (Mark Halperin). Show you're the better person, don't respond.
If you read my first post you'll see that's not at all what I suggested

In regards to George W, he was elected President twice. If Palin was to be a serious contender for President she'll need to show that she can do more than excite her base and irritate her opponents. She just lost a good opportunity to do so in the way she responded to the events in Tucson.

virgil xenophon said...

PS: I should have added that the point of my post is to explain her already existing susceptibility to such PR damage as is reflected in recent polls. The sustained PR attacks falling on already prepared fertile ground--eager, willing ears--the "fertile-ground" being her mere existence and non-standard lifestyle which ALREADY unsettles so many of the "credentialed"--so ANY excuse will do to confirm their worst expectations.

peter hoh said...

Big Mike, are you confusing me with the other Peter?

I had nothing to say about Palin's response to her critics.

shoutingthomas said...

I'll recommend the only sane future, once again, for Palin.

The bad faith attacks directed by proxies of the Obama administration are going to continue.

Take it for granted.

Find a strategy to defeat the bad faith attacks.

As you can see, loonies like garage want to keep Palin occupied with the bad faith attacks so she cannot expend her energy elsewhere.

Stop debating with the bad faith attackers. Figure out how to defeat them.

I'll bet Palin is hunkered down right now trying to figure out how to parry the bad faith attack strategy of the left.

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)
In regards to George W, he was elected President twice. If Palin was to be a serious contender for President she'll need to show that she can do more than excite her base and irritate her opponents. She just lost a good opportunity to do so in the way she responded to the events in Tucson.

Yeah, by NOT responding she was have accepted complicity in murder, a SURE-FIRE METHOD to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue…..As to Bush, his “Brain” (Rove) now admits the failure to combat the lies told was a SERIOUS mistake.

garage mahal said...

I think she did just that. She calmly explained how she was being falsely accused of being an accomplice to mass murder.

So simply pointing out the fact Sarah Palin put scope cross-hairs on Gifford's district, and Giffords getting shot in the head, is accusing Palin of mass murder?

shoutingthomas said...

Anybody want to take my hint?

The garages of this world feat and hate Palin. They want to occupy all her energy responding to these bad faith attacks.

Arguing with some SOB who is dedicated to destroying you at all costs is a losing strategy. The SOBs want to continue to tie up Palin in these idiot arguments.

What's a winning strategy?

peter hoh said...

Shouting Thomas, I don't think Palin is hunkered down, trying to figure out a strategy. In this latest instance, Palin ably parried the bad faith attacks and made her critics look bad.

I think she's saying, "Bring it on."

Peter said...

@Joe (TCJ)

Sorry, I don't see your point.

I didn't try to hide the fact that Jacobson was talking about doubts conservatives may have about Palin regarding this Tuscon issue.

That's why I phrased it as follows:
"He said that 'any conservative who dumps on Palin in any way' over this issue 'should just stop talking now.' (emphasis added)

If you have doubts about Palin's rhetoric, Palin's defense, or Palin's anything OVER THIS ISSUE, you should just stop talking now -- or else you are complicit in the media's orchestrated effort to reelect Obama.

That seems pretty clear in Jacobson's piece. He wants your silence on this issue.

I also assume that if the real enemy is that media effort to re-elect Obama (and the re-election itself), that any future criticism or voiced doubts make you equally culpable.

(This is why Jacobson's post is really about what conservative have to do in the future, to "survive the coming onslaught." It's about more than Tucson.)

Joe, tell me what YOU think Jacobson means when he calls for conservatives with doubts on this issue to "just stop talking now"?

I think he wants you -- if you have doubts on it -- to "stop talking" lest you aid the enemy. Maybe you see something different

Peter

P.S. I know that Jaconson may simply be quoting Frum's own words in an ironical way. But that would be far too nuanced an interpretation for me to understand. J

shoutingthomas said...

So simply pointing out the fact Sarah Palin put scope cross-hairs on Gifford's district, and Giffords getting shot in the head, is accusing Palin of mass murder?

You can see the vicious bad faith in the paragraph. What's the point of debating with an SOB who just wants to destroy you.

You can argue the facts all you want... that the strategy of using crosshairs to target a district has been used thousands of times by both parties... but you'd be wasting your breath.

garage, and his like, are declared enemies who have made it clear that any slander is justified to defeat Palin.

Debating garage is stupid and a waste of time. He had no intention of arguing in good faith.

How does Palin defeat this obvious bad faith strategy of slander?

garage will repeat the false slander and debate it with you all day. That's where he wants Palin to expend all her efforts.

Roger J. said...

Sheepman--re George Bush; he lost the popular vote in 2000, and ran against a total dipshit in 2004; I I do agree he did not respond very forcefully to the egregious attacks levelled against him, and failed (miserably, IMO) to use the bully pulpit. If you are arguing, as it seems to me, that the remain silent strategy was successful in getting him relected I think other more significant factors were involved.

But that opined, I am curious as to what strategy Ms Palin should have adopted in response to the tragic shooting in Tuscon? Silence? platitudinous statements about non-violence? or her actual response--

Maguro said...

So simply pointing out the fact Sarah Palin put scope cross-hairs on Gifford's district, and Giffords getting shot in the head, is accusing Palin of mass murder?

Um...yes. Clearly the audience is invited to draw a connection between these two facts, when there actually is none.

shoutingthomas said...

So, this is a good laboratory.

garage just lied. He lied outrageously.

He knows that the Democrats have produced maps that are virtually identical to the one Palin produced.

Yet, he continues the vicious, outright lying.

How does Palin defeat this tactic?

William said...

The media makes an unfair charge. Then they loftily admit that perhaps it's a teeny bit unfair to accuse her underaged daughter of being a slut or of her for being complicit in mass murder. But then they go on to the larger, more substantive issue of the way that Sarah Palin handles these accusations. There is, apparently, some statesmanlike way of handling libels, and she just doesn't have the knack. Look, for contrast, at the lofty way Obama responded to criticism of his attendance at the Rev. Wright's church. It was inspirational, and his later disavowal of the Rev. Wright does not diminish the lasting beauty of his response...... People like Tina Fey and David Letterman and Jon Stewart are pretty good at their jobs of making people laugh. I think their ridicule of Palin and reverence for Obama is wrong. But I have read enough history to know that nobler figures than Palin have been successfully trashed not just in their moment but for posterity.

shoutingthomas said...

garage is a pretty good test case for what Palin will face in the upcoming campaign.

garage likes to manufacture racism, too.

I suspect that by the time the primaries come around, Palin's opponents will be busy manufacturing racism accusations, too. Assume the worst from garage and his like.

Again, the question. What's the strategy to counter this and turn it to Palin's advantage?

If she's going to win, she's going to have to figure this out.

Scott M said...

So simply pointing out the fact Sarah Palin put scope cross-hairs on Gifford's district, and Giffords getting shot in the head, is accusing Palin of mass murder?

In the context of the incident and the media overreach that ensued, there is no "simply pointing out".

And, from what I understand, they were geological survey icons, not sniper rifle scope icons. Not that it matters much, I'm just simply pointing it out.

Hoosier Daddy said...

So simply pointing out the fact Sarah Palin put scope cross-hairs on Gifford's district, and Giffords getting shot in the head, is accusing Palin of mass murder?

No garage I said she was accused of being an accomplice to mass murder. Words mean things garage, you should know that.

Tell me why was Palin's crosshair map talked about and not Paul Kranjorski calling for Rick Scott to be put against a wall and shot? Palin used a commonly used electoral campaign trope while Kranjorski openly called for a politician to be assasinated.

Rhetorical question garage. Palin is a Republican and Kranjorski is a Democrat.

Peter said...

@peter hoh and Big Mike

Just to be clear, I am not nor have I ever been peter hoh.

But I've also not complained about anything Palin has done in this regard. I have no problem with her rhetoric, with her imagery, or with the strength of her self-defense. No pecking here.

I simply have a problem with Jacobson.

Lastly, I should say that I completely agree with what peter hoh said about the MSM:

"The media is lazy this way. They do the same thing when they report that "some people claim that the World Trade Center was rigged with explosives."

The bias is there, no doubt. But its just as much about MSM laziness as its mendacity or its prejudice.

Yrs,
the other peter

Joe said...

((The Crypto Jew)

I cannot help you if you are an “idiot” Peter…Jacobson says, and you agree he says,:
Any Republican or conservative or Tea Party supporter who dumps on Palin in any way over the Tucson shooting or her defense of herself should just stop talking now.

It does not matter whether you support Palin for President, whether you think she is electable, or even whether you like her.,/I>

He freely admits, and you AGREE he freely admits that there are those who support her run for POTUS and those who don’t, those who believe she is electable and those who don’t…but then you just continue on saying Jacobson says “STFU” when that’s not what he does or says, at all, and you agree that he does not make that claim.

All he said was, ON THIS ISSUE, “Any Republican or conservative or Tea Party supporter who dumps on Palin in any way over the Tucson shooting or her defense of herself should just stop talking now.” You don’t like “Drill baby, drill”, fine. You’re tired of “Common Sense Solutions”, fine…you don’t like her voice, fine…BUT, in this issue, being falsely accused of complicity in murder, we need to close ranks…That’s what’s being said, but apparently you suffer from cognitive dissonance, and even though you can read the statement, you cannot move past YOUR read of the statement, which bears NO relationship to what is written.

shoutingthomas said...

I'm telling you boys, garage has you right where he wants to.

He's got Palin tied up on the defense, answering his slanders. It's rope-a-dope.

Do you really want to continue that strategy?

Anybody out there?

E.M. Davis said...

So simply pointing out the fact Sarah Palin put scope cross-hairs on Gifford's district, and Giffords getting shot in the head, is accusing Palin of mass murder?

Why are you being so dumb on purpose? Seriously.

You can't recognize the connect-the-dots strategy at work here? The power of suggestion? The implicit notion that one thing obviously led to the other?

Why did they not immediately jump to the DailyKos map instead?

Roger J. said...

I think Garage is demonstrating something here: the big lie (cf my esteemed congresscritter, little Stevie Cohen), and how it works--Garage jerks you around by he posting some bullshit about political maps and cross hairs, precisely the same thing the dems do. And everyone goes nuts responding to his bullshit thereby distracting the thread. Not much different from troll behaviour and MSM tactics.

edutcher said...

Rush and Jacobson are both very perceptive observers, which is why the media hates Rush so much - he, and Jacobson, reads them like the proverbial book.

As an indication of how on the money the post is, note the usual Kos trolls (hoh, PB&J, cylinder, franglo) were the first ones in.

The media has to find a way to get the attention of people away from the economy, and the fact that the Bushes want to prep the battlespace for Jeb in '16 is a wedge they can use to split the Republicans. What will matter in the next two years is how much The Tea Partiers dominate the Republicans.

peter hoh said...

The mainstream media tried to deprive Palin of the opportunity to defend herself against the charges?

I guess that's why Bill O'Reilly was complaining that Palin wouldn't appear on his show to refute these charges.


O'Really (or the rest of Fox) isn't considered mainstream and she did her interview with Hannity.

garage mahal said...

Tell me why was Palin's crosshair map talked about and not Paul Kranjorski calling for Rick Scott to be put against a wall and shot?

Probably because Rick Scott wasn't subsequently shot in the head? That would be my guess.

shoutingthomas said...

Probably because Rick Scott wasn't subsequently shot in the head? That would be my guess.

See, garage will play the game with you as long as you like.

How does Palin defeat this bad faith game of slander?

garage will repeat the slander for you as many times as you want to argue with him.

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)
Probably because Rick Scott wasn't subsequently shot in the head? That would be my guess.

“Post hoc ergo propter hoc”

shoutingthomas said...

When your playing with somebody who's gaming you in bad faith, like garage, you've got to think a few moves ahead.

What's his next move?

I'd suspect he'll deny the obvious slander and pretend he was only making a casual observation.

Any other guesses?

Scott M said...

and pretend he was only making a casual observation.

He/she beat you to that, ST.

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)


I assume the Kos Piece, wherein the writer claimed that his representative is dead to me is EQUALLY to blame for the Giffords’ shooting, Garage?

virgil xenophon said...

occasional commenter here rhhardin
makes a good point over in the comments section of the Profesor's article about the fact that the "economic eyeballs" that fund the MSM are soap-opera-watching women who will tune out anything not "interesting" in a soap-opera sort of way and thus in effect edit everything the MSM does/presents. This is a tough nut to crack as most?/many? such people watch/are informed by, mainly the MSM broadcasts.

jr565 said...

So garage,
As a hypothetical, suppose six months from now (and this is only a hypothetical, lest no one suggest I'm suggesting murder) Rick Scott is shot, while against a wall. And it turns out it was simply a mugging,Should we blamee Kranjowski because a year prior he had said Soott should be put against the wall and shot? Should we have endless dialogues about the heated rhetoric of politics when in fact that heated rhetoric had nothing to do with said shooting? Do you think CNN will push that storyline?

Also, in the case of Kranjowski he was a lot more explic about violence. He suggested that Scott should be put against a wall and shot. Palin targeted districts (and not congressmen) with a crosshair, and in no way suggested that it was in any way a literal call to target someone. CNN the other day had to apologize for suggesting that someone was in the crosshairs, which suggests that saying someone is "in the crosshairs" is a commonly used metaphor, and not an explicit statement of intent.

MadisonMan said...

I did miss the ellipses, so thanks for the clarification.

From the link: I previously posted about a CNN poll showing that 35% of all people (including 56% of Democrats and 34% of Independents) believe that Palin has a great deal or moderate amount of responsibility for the shooting

I wonder if there was a simple followup question: Why. Are they regurgitating someone else's talking points, or are they actually thinking for themselves?

garage mahal said...

I assume the Kos Piece, wherein the writer claimed that his representative is dead to me is EQUALLY to blame for the Giffords’ shooting, Garage?

I've never said either was to blame for anything. How many times have we heard the nonstop bullshit about Bill Ayers, Pastor Wright, Obama even inheriting Muslim-ness through his fathers loins? "Pallin around with terrorists"? Then Palin and the right goes around in a crying hissy fit because someone pointed out she put cross-hairs over someone that was shot in the head?

Big Mike said...

@Peter (with a capital letter and you ain't no "hoh")

Yeah, I was aware.

There are lots of Mikes who comment here, but only one of me.

ricpic said...

Do the geniuses in the MSM who mugged Palin think that 1) the great unwashed didn't register that calling her an accessory to murder was a mugging and 2) didn't resent the hell out of it? If they did they are even bigger cocooned fools than I take them for. The fools who mistake silence for acquiescence have a huge shock coming in 2012.

Peter said...

@Joe (TCJ)

OK, I'm fine with us disagreeing with about whether Jacobson's call for silence and unity "on this issue" extends to silence and unity in the face of the "coming onslaught."

(All I can say is that Jacobson clearly is talking about what this present case indicates about the future. See his title.)

But I'm not sure where the name-calling comes in. What's with the "idiot" stuff?

Are you just wondering if I'm an "idiot" like Frum (quoting Rush) or a "useful idiot" (quoting Ann)? I suppose that's pleasant enough.

Or are you implying that I called you an idiot in my previous posts. Because I didn't.

Peter

jr565 said...

Garage Mahal wrote:
Then Palin and the right goes around in a crying hissy fit because someone pointed out she put cross-hairs over someone that was shot in the head?

Someone? Sounds like more than someone. And did that someone mention it as an interesting factoid (as in "the lotto numbers on 9/11 were 911. How weird!" or was there some suggestion or implication behind those words.
Considering CNN had to apologize for use the words "in the crosshairs" in a recent segment to describe someone clearly the implication is that using those words or images have a negative implication. You on the left were spreading that vicious innuendo. AND YOU KNOW IT.
And isn't it funny that using standard metaphors used in elections since as long as I've seen electoin coverage is beyond the pale, yet working with a guy who actually set bombs in capitol buildings has no bearing on Obama

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)
How many times have we heard the nonstop bullshit about Bill Ayers, Pastor Wright, Obama even inheriting Muslim-ness through his fathers loins? "Pallin around with terrorists"? Then Palin and the right goes around in a crying hissy fit because someone pointed out she put cross-hairs over someone that was shot in the head?

Except those are TRUE, aren’t they Garage, I mean all but the Muslim-ness….or are you saying that Obama didn’t know Ayers, start his political career with Ayers, work with Ayers at Annenberg, and then spend 20-plus years listening to Rev. Wright. I guess it’s really the difference between THE TRUTH and LIES.


Your game is STILL sub-standard today, Garage

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)


No, I’m calling you an “idiot’ because you read the thing written, and then proceed to draw an obviously incorrect conclusion…Jacobson is saying, ON THIS ISSUE, stop dumping on Palin…You, though agreeing that’s what has been written, continue to try to make the statement broader…if that isn’t “idiocy” what is…you freely acknowledge the limiters placed by Jacobson and then proceed to simply ignore them…

edutcher said...

Joe's point on Jacobson and giving the enemy more ammunition goes back to what Big Mike said about Reagan and the Eleventh Commandment.

Then again, the RINOs tried the same thing with him they're tried with Miss Sarah. One might assume, like all Leftoids of one stripe or another, the Eleventh Commandment doesn't apply when their agenda's on the line, unless the Reagan/Sarah/Tea Party crowd are calling the shots.

Maguro said...

How many times have we heard the nonstop bullshit about Bill Ayers, Pastor Wright, Obama even inheriting Muslim-ness through his fathers loins? "Pallin around with terrorists"?

Ah, but Obama did pal around with terrorists. And go to Wright's church for 20 years. And who goes on about Obama inheriting Muslimness from his father's loins? Other than Mick?

On the other hand, Palin's crosshairs map had nothing to do with Giffords getting shot.

Epic tu quoque fail.

Roger J. said...

Garage missed his calling. He would be a very good propagandist esp in his use of the big lie (I could have used Stevie Cohen's Goebbels quote but that would be invoking Godwin's law, so I wont).

But please note my my technique above--I planted the Goebbels meme while disavowing it in the same sentence--Which is precisely your technique. As well as Mr Cohen's (D, TN, Memphis)

Scott M said...

This whole thing can be summed up simply by stating, correctly, I believe, that the left is 1) more pissed off that someone stole their playbook than anything substantive and 2) they spent so much time on their offensive coordination that it never occurred to them to work on defense.

Add to that mix the fact that Blue Earth is seemingly slowly coming to a complete halt, if not outright collapse, and you've got that tinge of hysteria that we're probably stuck with until the last employee of the Department of Education or NEA turns out the lights on his way out on the last day it's legally able to operate.

PaulV said...

Garage-garbage
Since Loughter was shot by Bush deranged 911 truther should not blame KOS for putting crosshairs on Gifford primary campaign and publishing a blogger saying Giffords was dead to him? No, you have no integrity. Palin's map had register marks, not gun sights. For true gunsights and targets look at democrat political ads.I thought you are honest enough to do so

jr565 said...

Paulv wrote:
Palin's map had register marks, not gun sights. For true gunsights and targets look at democrat political ads.

And even if they were actual gunsights, the shooter didn't in fact use a gun with a sight. I'd figure since he was taking the mere image of a gun sight as a call to violence so literally that the very least he'd do is use a gun with a sight on it.

Kirk Parker said...

Jon,

When you look at the shrinking audience size, really the best term is "dinosaur media".


wv - goesting: to become as insubstantial as a ghost, to become a shadow of one's former self. "The mainstream media is goesting these days".

Hoosier Daddy said...

Probably because Rick Scott wasn't subsequently shot in the head? That would be my guess.

Did Palin call for Gifford to be shot in the head? Can you point to any specific comment she made that called for Gifford to be shot?

Didn't think so.

Hoosier Daddy said...

How many times have we heard the nonstop bullshit about Bill Ayers, Pastor Wright

What was the bs garage? That Ayres is an un-repentent domestic terrorist and Pastor Wright's sermons were racist rants and they just happened to be good friends of the President's?

Peter said...

Joe writes:

'No, I’m calling you an “idiot’ because you read the thing written, and then proceed to draw an obviously incorrect conclusion…Jacobson is saying, ON THIS ISSUE, stop dumping on Palin…You, though agreeing that’s what has been written, continue to try to make the statement broader…if that isn’t “idiocy” what is…you freely acknowledge the limiters placed by Jacobson and then proceed to simply ignore them…'

OK, so I'm the idiot. Or rather the "idiot." (I guess those scare quotes are there and in the original post to make you look "smart." Seems a bit much.)

From where I sit, though, it is just as "obvious" that Jacobson is talking BOTH about this issue and about far more than just this issue.

I gave my reasoning and my evidence:

His title says as much. His statement about whether any conservative can "survive the coming onslaught" indicates as much.

Even your own quote from Jacobson says as much: "This is not about Palin, it is about the mainstream media's desire to have Barack Obama re-elected at any cost and to take down any Republican candidate who stands in the way."

This is not, he says, just about Palin. And it is not, he says, just about this issue.

It is, as I read it, about what he says Republicans have to do to thwart the MSM's desires and plans for Obama's reelection.

The whole post points to the future -- to the attacks that will come AFTER this one Tucson issue. And to how conservative should respond.

(Side-note: This is why people in this thread have been citing Reagan's 11th Commandment. They also think that Jacobson is talking about more than just this issue, whether or not they agree with with Jacobson or the commandment.)

I may be "obviously" or "idiotically" wrong in this interpretation. But I have yet to hear a better explanation.

Peter

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)
The whole post points to the future -- to the attacks that will come AFTER this one Tucson issue. And to how conservative should respond.

OBVIOUSLY we disagree, he’s writing about THIS incident! The future point is that IF you allow the Media to smear Palin, falsely, they will smear YOU falsely…again, “we must all hang together or hang separately.” You can vote for Giuliani or Pence or Romney all you want, but if you let Mathews/Kos/Garagemahal falsely accuse Palin of murder and then attack her for defending herself, you are merely setting your candidate up for the same treatment…THAT’S what’s being said…no more…no less. The “attacks” in the “future” are not attacks on Palin, but on ANY Conservative…So no, it’s not STFU about Palin and support her, but STFU about dumping on someone falsely accused of complicity to murder and support the wronged party, UNLESS you want the same thing to happen to YOU or your candidate.

Again, McCain was a “maverick” UNTIL he locked up the nomination…THEN the NYT ran an unsourced, anonymous aide article accusing him of having a long-running affair with a lobbyist…the Media will do this to WHOSOEVER is the Republican nominee, and Republicans and/or Conservatives need to recognize that and band together to combat the Big Lie…

Watch the end of “A Soldier’s Story”…anyone who thinks that the media will “like” your candidate, UNLESS s/he has a “D” after their name. As Sgt Waters says, “You can dress like a white man. Talk like a white man. But in the end, all you’ll ever be is a N*gger to them.” For “n*gger” substitute racist, sexist, bigot, homophobe….That’s the Republican, you can sit on as many couches as you want with Nancy Pelosi, but when YOU’RE the nominee, you’ll be the out-of-touch racist homophobe, out to put womyn in their places and turn the clock back 100 years.

garage mahal said...

Since Loughter was shot by Bush deranged 911 truther should not blame KOS for putting crosshairs on Gifford primary campaign and publishing a blogger saying Giffords was dead to him?

Can you link to the KOS cross-hairs on Giffords piece?

peter hoh said...

I really want to know how "the mainstream media tried to deprive Palin of the ability to defend herself against the charges."

What, does MSNBC control her Twitter feed? Her ability to post on YouTube? Her ability to appear on FOX?

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)
Can you link to the KOS cross-hairs on Giffords piece?

Not any more as it was taken down…..

virgil xenophon said...

What Joe said @12:14

Joe said...

Here's a screen cap Garage:

Daily Kos put bullseye on Giffords in 2008
Photo: Daily Kos (Hillbuzz)

http://www.examiner.com/post-partisan-in-national/liberal-website-daily-kos-put-bullseye-on-dead-to-me-giffords

Bad day for you, huh? All those latinate terms being tossed your way and then some hard evidence?

Hoosier Daddy said...

I really want to know how "the mainstream media tried to deprive Palin of the ability to defend herself against the charges."

You have to think in metaphors. They couldn't really deprive her of it but they were falling over themselves by telling her she should just shut the hell up while they continue to pound the implication her crosshair map drove Loughner to mass murder. Its called controlling the narrative Peter.

Remember the DC snipers? It just had to be some deranged NRA lunatic. The MSM was touting it, the Feds were touting it and then it turns out to be two radical Islamists and you couldn't hear yourself think because the backup horns were tooting so loud.

They did the same thing with the Times Square bomber. Just had to be some Tea Partier, or as Bloomberg thought, someone who was made about health care reform. As it turns out it was just some radical Islamist who hated America. Nothing to see here, move along.

garage mahal said...

Daily Kos put bullseye on Giffords in 2008
Photo: Daily Kos (Hillbuzz)


You guys will believe anything. In this case, a photo-shopped image from fucking Hillbuzz? LOL

Scott M said...

Bad day for you, huh?

Not as bad as putting up the environmentally-friendly Bush casa as the environmentally-hypocritical Gore manse(s).

Hoosier Daddy said...

Not as bad as putting up the environmentally-friendly Bush casa as the environmentally-hypocritical Gore manse(s).

That was priceless.

peter hoh said...

"You have to think in metaphors."

Oh, that must be the nuance thing that everyone is talking about.

Here I've been thinking that words have concrete meanings and what not.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Oh, that must be the nuance thing that everyone is talking about.

Well I for one do understand metaphors. For example during the oil spill, when President Obama said he was looking for someone's ass to kick, I personally didn't actually believe he was going to beat someone up.

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)
You guys will believe anything. In this case, a photo-shopped image from fucking Hillbuzz? LOL

The usual when confronted with evidence, the airy wave of the hand from Garage….It really must suck to be you dood/doodette…wouldn’t be easier to argue form evidence, do a little research BEFORE you post things, try to be internally consistent in your arguments and the like?

So once again Garage demonstrates his/her inability to debate rationally.

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)
Not as bad as putting up the environmentally-friendly Bush casa as the environmentally-hypocritical Gore manse(s).

That was priceless.


I completely forgot that one…

peter hoh said...

Hoosier, I appreciate a good metaphor, too, but in the case of Jacobson's post, he's using fairly concrete language, and I think he deserves pushback on this particular aspect of his post that is simply not true.

You'll note that I have agreed with some of the other points he made.

jr565 said...

And before Garage tries to argue that there is no actual bullseye symbol, he just said the word bullseyed, CNN just said the word "in the crosshairs" and had to apologize for such "incendiary language". I'm sure Garage went after Palin because she used the word "reload" even though she didn't actually fire a literal gun, nor pull out an actual gun and reload it. The mere word "reload" was enough to have democrats and liberals accuse her of fomenting violence. So why should the word bullseyed be exempt?
If this guy was a lefty then Kos is RESPONSIBLE!

garage mahal said...

Only words from black pastors and university professors that live in Chicago have meaning. Chicago is small place after all isn't it? Words from a convicted felon and McCain confidant G Gordon Liddy instructing people how to shoot federal agents have absolutely no meaning!

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)
Only words from black pastors and university professors that live in Chicago have meaning. Chicago is small place after all isn't it? Words from a convicted felon and McCain confidant G Gordon Liddy instructing people how to shoot federal agents have absolutely no meaning!

Flailing about now, aren’t we Garage? Tel me did McCain sit in Liddy’s drawing room for 20 years and hear about a “World in need” and “White people’s greed?” Just akin’?

garage mahal said...

The usual when confronted with evidence, the airy wave of the hand from Garage….It really must suck to be you dood/doodette…wouldn’t be easier to argue form evidence, do a little research BEFORE you post things, try to be internally consistent in your arguments and the like?

The evidence here is you fell for a faked, altered, and photoshopped post! Wasn't the first clue that they never linked to the original KOS post? Google doesn't have a cache of this? Right wing blogs are not notoriously factual, and they despise fact checkers. But seriously, don't you feel stupid falling for it?

Original Mike said...

"Not as bad as putting up the environmentally-friendly Bush casa as the environmentally-hypocritical Gore manse(s).

That was a classic.

Hoosier Daddy said...

G. Gordon Liddy? Seriously?

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)
The evidence here is you fell for a faked, altered, and photoshopped post! Wasn't the first clue that they never linked to the original KOS post? Google doesn't have a cache of this? Right wing blogs are not notoriously factual, and they despise fact checkers. But seriously, don't you feel stupid falling for it?

You can’t link to the “original post” Garage, it was “scrubbed” but the author DID apologize for his incendiary language….

garage mahal said...

And that bullseye image, and picture of Giffords, where did that come from? Yes, it was added.

Are you arguing that it was not?

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)
And that bulls eye image, and picture of Giffords, where did that come from? Yes, it was added.

Are you arguing that it was not??


Can you link to the original and prove me wrong, Garage?

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)


After all, left wing blogs are not notoriously factual, and they despise fact checkers.

garage mahal said...

Here is the original post. If you are claiming originally there was a bullseye and a pic of Giffords on it, I'm afraid that is your job to prove, not mine. Nobody has been able to find a cached version of the original post with those images, so you could be the hero here Joe!

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)


Sorry garage this isn’t the post to which I referred try again…”My representative is dead to me” isn’t in this one…

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)


See Garage this it’s a Trick, or a Trap….you can’t produce it because Kos pulled it. He pulled it because even HE couldn’t claim Palin and the TEA Party were complicit in murder, with their “incendiary/eliminationist rhetoric” AND keep that posting…so to Cover Himself, he pulled it…sure he’s a hypocrite, but now you can’t “prove it.” So keep looking, but your side, in order to make its so-called case, had to drop stuff down the memory hole….Pity how that happens, huh?

Be easier to just admit that your opponent had nothing to do with the tragedy, but like Rahm says, never let a good crisis go to waste, eh? Easier to be adults about it and say that this was a human tragedy, for the shooting victims, for Laughner and his family. THAT would have been the right thing to do, but NO, your side had to make this about something else. Your side decided that this was the “Oklahoma City” Moment you’d been praying for.

So go ahead and search for what Kos “really” said, because I don’t think you’re going to find it, because it doesn’t exist, except as cached pages….because there is no original any more. YOUR SIDE, has a bad case of Orwellian “gude fax” and “bad fax.” Too bad you can’t produce your gude fax anymore, huh?

PaulV said...

jr565,
Correct on gun sights. Most likely a Bush deranged 911 Truther was motivated by hate rhetoric of the Left.

PaulV said...

Garage, Kos took it down in its Orwellian way, but here is link to story

http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/Daily-Kos-Bullseyed-Giffords/2011/01/10/id/382350

They also took down blog about Giffords being dead to me

mccullough said...

Palin could not beat Obama, so I don't see how this helps Obama's re-election bid. Fairly or not, She has turned off independent voters and has no way to get them back.

PaulV said...

Garage, it was 2008 primary. In 2010 even KOS knw=ew Dems would lose big time. How about a Washington Post link, or do you think they are righty wingers?

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/right-turn/2011/01/morning_bits_33.html

roesch-voltaire said...

Poor Palin always the victim complaining about the surveyor's cross hairs focused on her. And I hope that more on the Right do not think like Frum because if they had the Republicans would have won the Senate by running moderate candidates.

Scott M said...

And I hope that more on the Right do not think like Frum because if they had the Republicans would have won the Senate by running moderate candidates.

The older I get, the quicker time whips by. 2012 isn't going to go well for the Democrats in the Senate.

Original Mike said...

"the Republicans would have won the Senate by running moderate candidates."

If this were a football game, your strategy would be sound. But then we'd have the kind of Republicans that you guys, rightly, criticize for being corrupt big spenders.

DaveW said...

I think the way blogs and regular media is being debated here is a false construct.

I was getting re-tweets from people quoting Yglesias and Markos blaming Palin for the attack within an hour or so. These people dance to Soros tune and they didn't all start saying the same thing by coincidence.

And they're embedded in the regular media and all strategize what to say - remember journolist?

So acting as if blogs aren't feeding the media talking points is disingenuous. They are, they have been, and they will continue to do so.

I think Palin's mistake was removing the map from the website, but that's a dicey call. Leaving it up could have seemed callous. I don't think she had much room for maneuver once the pack of hyenas got started.

But it wasn't just blogs. This trash was in my own home paper, and EJ Dionne, among others, jumped in with both feet. The media was saturated with this 'climate of hate caused by Sarah Palin' crap.

jr565 said...

Garage Mahal wrote:
The evidence here is you fell for a faked, altered, and photoshopped post! Wasn't the first clue that they never linked to the original KOS post? Google doesn't have a cache of this? Right wing blogs are not notoriously factual, and they despise fact checkers. But seriously, don't you feel stupid falling for it?

We've already said that Kos said the district was bullseyed, not that there was a bullseye on the initial entry. Here district was "bullseyed" and her name was bolded. She was the one being "targeted". Are you denying that Kos bullseyed her district, or are you saying that because he said it and didn't use an image that it doesn't count.
Does the word "bullseyed" mean to bullseye or to target or not?

jr565 said...

And further garage mahal if you look at the image provided that shows the bullseye from Kos it's obvious that the bullseye is in fact added to the graphic WITH AN ARROW to show you where the phrase bullseye actually is, andthe arrow is added to show where her name is highlighted. You know like in newspapers where they have a blurb that has text from the document that's highlighted with bigger text to draw your attention. That's what this is. It has the quote in the tiny letters blown up with the picture of the bullseye and an arrow pointing to the bullseye to show you where KOS is saying that her district needed to be bullseyed. Why would KOS highlight his own text with a big blurb and an arrow with a bullseye that points to the very same text?
As the author of the website that has the linked image states:

UPDATE: For the benefit of the terminally stupid, the bulls eye graphic did not appear on Kos’s original post, as should be self-evident to a) any sentient being who examines the image, or b) any person who bothers to follow my link to the original Kos post. Kos “put the bulls eye” on Giffords and others with written rhetoric. I think you all knew that already, but Tommy Christopher insists that my credibility demands that I explain this to you as if you were all five year-olds.


You Garage Mahal are one of those terminally stupid that he's referring to. God.

http://patterico.com/2011/01/08/markos-blames-palin-for-giffords-shooting-but-theres-just-one-problem-daily-kos-put-a-bulls-eye-on-giffords-too/

Blair said...

Palin does not need "defending". She needs praising. And I see very little of that happening. Which is a shame, because it should happen.

She should be the Republican nominee. Critics will claim (backed by polling) that she cannot win, but also ignore that no other semi-declared Republican is beating Obama in a one-on-one either. Once again, consider that Reagan was being whipped by Carter by over 20 points as late as March 1980. He was not popular with independents either. In fact, he did not even start to pick up independents (who had flocked to John Anderson) until after the convention in 1980.

People need to ask themselves who can articulate the Conservative message the clearest, and right now that is Palin by a country mile. No other Republican comes close. You might get a "safer" nominee, but Obama, at the end of the day, will whup their ass. Sure, Palin is dynamic and polarising, and that makes her riskier. She could be Ronald Reagan and win well, or she could be Barry Goldwater and lose badly. But, at the end of the day, you are not going to beat Obama with a bog-standard Republican WASP with bad hair. The Republicans are going to have to live a little.

People also forget how well Palin campaigned in 2008, and how much she boosted McCain. She acquitted herself well and her only real error was the Couric interview. She is a safe pair of hands.

Sarah Palin can win, and she can beat Barack Obama. She is the Republicans' best hope. Which is a good thing! We should embrace her.

Ralph L said...

In her first book, Palin says Couric asked some questions over and over until she gave stupid answers. Why the McCain campaign didn't make their own videotape with a hostile interviewer is the big question.

Tscottme said...

Many non-TEA Party conservatives for years have failed to recognize the everyday and comprehensive dishonesty of liberal ideology. They almost always think their local liberal, Blue Dog Democrat or Southern Democrat, is different from the national Democrat structure. That failure to recognize that any liberal you pretend is different than the commie-lib national party is only different when it doesn't matter or when they get permission from the national party.

The lamestream media daily lies, serially persecutes innocent people, including minorities, and willfully ignores more important stories to advance their agenda. Failure to recognize this evil in our midst simply because it's nicer to pretend it doesn't exist is the primary tool of our decline.