Month: August 2008

The Rachel Maddow Show Coming Soon To A TV Near You

Posted by on August 19, 2008 at 5:32 pm. 9 Comments :

MSNBC announced today that Rachel Maddow will be getting her own show following Keith Olbermann’s Countdown. The program is scheduled to debut on September 8, 2008, just in time for the general election circus. This is a move long expected by insiders, or at least by me.

Maddow is one of the brightest stars in the cable news galaxy. She is insightful and courageous and elegantly articulate. Her show will help to fill a gap in the MSNBC line-up. Dan Abrams, whom Maddow will replace, has failed to capitalize on Olbermann’s lead-in. His show was more a collection of segments than a show, and it had no personality. Maddow, on the other hand, has the potential of creating a program that will build on its lead-in. She appeals to a young demo which MSNBC draws in large numbers. Countdown actually beats its competition, including the O’Reilly Factor, in the 18-49 demo. And Maddow will appeal to MSNBC’s core audience that recent surveys show leans Democratic by 2-to-1 (compared to Fox News’ 9-to-1 right leaning audience). Abrams was a political fence-sitter who couldn’t hold Olbermann’s viewers, but Maddow could make use of him for episodes of “Beat the Press” and commentary on legal stories (his work on Don Siegleman was the best on TV).

Success, however, is not guaranteed. First of all, we have not seen the show or its format. If they make the mistake of patterning it off of David Gregory’s “Race for the White House” it will be a huge disappointment. The last thing cable news needs is another descendant of the Crossfire genus of shouting matches that has already proved to be a failure. Secondly, she will air opposite Fox News’ popular “Hannity and Not Hannity,” and CNN’s Larry King. She will need to aggregate progressive, reality-based viewers from across the dial in order to compete. As I’ve previously noted, Fox News has cornered the market on right-wingers. Democrats and progressives are scattered across the grid. The key to success for Maddow (and for MSNBC overall) is to do a better job of pulling this audience together.

There will be a built in high interest for the debut week that will have to grab the viewers and make them instantaneously loyal. At the same time, she should expect to take some heat from the Foxian Culture Warriors like Bill O’Reilly, who has made bashing MSNBC, NBC, and Keith Olbermann, a sacrament of his demented faith. Rightist media is unlikely to welcome her into their club as the only woman anchoring a political show, and a lesbian at that.

Congratulations Rachel, and good luck.

Don’t Forget Limbaugh’s Threat: Riot In Denver

Posted by on August 18, 2008 at 6:07 pm. NO Comments :

A week from today the Democrats will begin their nominating convention in Denver. This seems like a good time to recall the incitations to violence that were voiced last April by Rush Limbaugh.

The Conventional Media is as consumed today with trivialities as it was four months ago when they virtually ignored Limbaugh’s overt and repulsive call to arms. There is nothing ambiguous about his remarks. They are brazen and obvious, and I re-post them here today in the interest of promoting accountability. I certainly hope that nothing like the nightmare Limbaugh has articulated comes to pass. But should he and his followers succeed with their evil scheme, everyone should know where to lay the blame. [The following was originally published April 25, 2008]

Limbaugh: “Now, I am not inspiring or inciting riots. I’m dreaming. (singing to the tune of White Christmas) I’m dreaming of riots in Denver. Remember 1968?”

Limbaugh says that he isn’t inciting riots, but merely dreaming of them. That distinction is skimpy to say the least. Is he so naive that it has not occurred to him that some portion of his 14 million listeners might be motivated to help him see his dreams come true? Of all the well-deserved criticisms that can be leveled at this ego-bloated pundi-clown, naiveté is not amongst them. He knows the impact of words. He knows his audience. He knows very well the potential consequences of actions.

Limbaugh: “Riots in Denver at the Democrat convention would see to it we don’t elect Democrats – and that’s the best damn thing could happen for this country as far as anything I can think.”

Is it possible to deliberately instigate violence more explicitly than that? The title of this article, “Screw the World! Riot in Denver!” was lifted verbatim from Limbaugh’s web site. That is an unambiguous directive to his listeners who are not called “dittoheads” for nothing. But Limbaugh grants himself somewhat more leeway to engage in hypocrisy. Apparently there are worse things than electing Democrats – i.e. electing John McCain.

Limbaugh: “If I believe the country will suffer with either Hillary, Obama or McCain, I would just as soon the Democrats take the hit … rather than a Republican causing the debacle.”

That, however, hasn’t stopped McCain from pursuing Limbaugh’s favor. Just last February Politico reported that, according to Republican sources, McCain sent an emissary to bring Limbaugh into the fold.

The questions for today are: Will McCain denounce and reject Limbaugh’s repugnant and dangerous remarks? Will the media give an equal amount of airtime to Limbaugh’s lunacy as they did to Rev. Wright’s rant? Will Hell freeze over?

It would be too optimistic to entertain the notion that Limbaugh would be fired over this. He makes too much money for his greedy broadcast benefactors. But if Limbaugh doesn’t face some sort of sanction for this, then what would produce a sanction? Would he have to show up in Denver with a trunk full of Molotov cocktails? Would we need a canceled check payable to Outside Agitators, Inc. (a subsidiary of Blackwater)? If there is trouble in Denver, will there be an investigation to ascertain whether the troublemakers were Limb-bots?

There may not be answers to these questions today, but we must not stop asking them. And we must not stop prodding the press to ask as well. And we must not forget to ask them after the convention. If there is trouble in Denver, if blood is spilled, it will be on Limbaugh’s hands.

Updated to add: More comments from Limbaugh advocating violence:

“I mean, if people say what’s your exit strategery, the dream end of this is that this keeps up to the convention and that we have a replay of Chicago 1968, with burning cars, protests, fires, literal riots, and all of that. That’s the objective here.”

Contact Premiere Radio Networks, Limbaugh’s Clear Channel-owned syndicator, and tell them that inciting violence is illegal and unacceptable.

Here’s a link to Limbaugh’s advertisers who might want to reconsider sponsoring a program that advocates violence.

You can also file a complaint with the FCC.

McCain Coach Working The Refs

Posted by on August 18, 2008 at 2:02 pm. NO Comments :

Following the candidates forum at Rick Warren’s Saddleback Church, a minor controversy erupted with regard to the participants playing fair. The ground rules called for each candidate to be asked the same questions. Therefore, John McCain was to be isolated so that he could not gain an advantage by hearing the questions as they were asked to Barack Obama, who went first.

As it turns out, McCain was not in the “Cone of Silence” as stated by Rev. Warren. Instead, he was en route to the church where he could have plausibly listened to Obama’s interview or been briefed on it by a staffer. Andrea Mitchell reported on Meet the Press that some Obama supporters were questioning whether McCain did, in fact, cheat:

“The Obama people must feel that he didn’t do quite as well as they might have wanted to in that context, because what they are putting out privately is that McCain may not have been in the cone of silence and may have had some ability to overhear what the questions were to Obama. He seemed so well-prepared.”

This set off McCain’s campaign manager, Rick Davis, who fired off an angry letter to NBC president, Steve Capus. The letter said in part…

“We are extremely disappointed to see that the level of objectivity at NBC News has fallen so low that reporters are now giving voice to unsubstantiated, partisan claims in order to undercut John McCain.”

Reporters giving voice to unsubstantiated, partisan claims has been routine in this campaign. Though they have mostly been aimed at Obama. McCain’s people have relentlessly spewed nonsense about Obama’s faith, his patriotism, and his agenda on everything from war to energy to taxes. It is apparently OK if reporters give voice to unsubstantiated, partisan claims if they come from McCain.

Davis’ disingenuous indignation is especially pathetic in this context. In his own letter he quotes Mitchell as saying that the Obama campaign was less than thrilled with his performance. Conversely he notes Mitchell’s assertion that McCain seemed well prepared. Mitchell’s report was actually declaring McCain the winner of the debate, and yet, Davis still finds cause to complain.

McCain’s spokeswoman, Nicolle Wallace, also commented on the affair. In her remarks she pointedly accused the Obama campaign of having “lost its bearings.” I wonder if the intent of that language is meant to imply that she believes Obama may be senile. That’s exactly what McCain adviser Mark Salter alleged when Obama used the same words last May to describe McCain.

This fake outrage on the part of Davis, Wallace, et al, is nothing more than another transparent attempt to bully the media into shaping coverage that is one-sided and positive in favor of McCain. And the really sad part of this cynical and manipulative whining is that it has a damn good chance of working.

Jon Stewart: Ready For His New York Times Close-Up

Posted by on August 17, 2008 at 11:15 am. NO Comments :

It is not surprising that Jon Stewart is getting some “real media” cred. Four years ago I wrote an article titled “The Real Fake News.” It illustrated how far the Conventional Media had sunk. While they were littered with plagiarists, fabricators, tabloid trivialities, and press releases produced by parties with vested interests in the content, the Daily Show was winning Emmys and Peabodys and praise from respected media institutions like the Columbia Journalism Review. The past four years has only validated my argument that Comedy Central is producing a more informational and insightful news broadcast than the so-called “real” media. And news consumers have responded by flocking to the Daily Show and the Colbert Report at the same time that they are abandoning newspapers and broadcast news.

Today the New York Times has published a feature story profiling Stewart. For the most part it is a routine celebrity piece, but it does hit a couple of significant points. I have long maintained that the Daily Show is not political satire – it is media satire. While the jokes frequently target politicians, it is the press that is really in their sights. The Times touches on this concept briefly:

“…at a time when Fox, MSNBC and CNN routinely mix news and entertainment, larding their 24-hour schedules with bloviation fests and marathon coverage of sexual predators and dead celebrities, it’s been ‘The Daily Show’ that has tenaciously tracked big, ‘super depressing’ issues like the cherry-picking of prewar intelligence, the politicization of the Department of Justice and the efforts of the Bush White House to augment its executive power.”

The Times also noted how Stewart amped up his political focus after 9/11 with segments that showed “the White House’s efforts to manage the news media,” and “the foibles of an administration known for its secrecy, ideological certainty and impatience with dissenting viewpoints.” The article also provided a quote that many will be able to relate to. Stewart said that he is looking forward to the end of the Bush administration “as a comedian, as a person, as a citizen, as a mammal.”

Mammals across America, and the world, are cheering in agreement right now.

John McCain and T. Boone Pickens Share A Racist Joke

Posted by on August 15, 2008 at 1:52 pm. 4 Comments :

In a meeting today in Aspen, John McCain met with oil billionaire T. Boone Pickens to discuss his plan to address U.S. dependence on foreign oil and focus more on alternative energies including wind and natural gas (in which Pickens is heavily invested).

Before they even sat down to talk, the subject of a recent study that predicted that white Americans will be in the minority by 2042 came up. Pickens found what he apparently thought was a silver lining in the report. He said to McCain…

“You and I won’t have to worry about that.”

The candidate and the audience chuckled at what the press described as a joke aimed at their advanced age. But that was not a joke about their age. It was an admission that they believe that such a demographic shift is something to “worry” about. They are saying that those of us who will be alive 34 years from now, and are white, should be worried. They are implying that they may be better off dead then to live in an America with a non-white majority.

What exactly are they afraid of? No one in the press corps bothered to ask. One intrepid reporter did ask McCain to comment on the anti-Obama book, “Obama Nation.” McCain ducked the question with a curious non sequitor: “Gotta keep your sense of humor.” Huh? An alert staffer intruded on this exchange and advised the reporter that, “we’re not doing that.” Straight talk? Racist talk? A typical day on the McCain campaign trail.

Swiftboater Jerome Corsi’s New Batch Of Lies About Obama

Posted by on August 14, 2008 at 5:31 pm. 2 Comments :

Obama FixationThere have not been too many authors more discredited than Jerome Corsi. His previous writings include the infamous “Unfit For Command” that made Swiftboating a verb to describe unscrupulous dishonesty. Corsi deserves that honor as he has also written books on debunked conspiracy theories that Bush is planning to merge the United States with Mexico and Canada (dismissed as nonsense even by conservatives like Michael Medved and John Hawkins of Human Events), and his notion that the supply of the world’s oil will never run out.

His latest smear project is “Obama Nation,” a book that he admits was written “to defeat Obama. I don’t want Obama to be in office,” Corsi told the New York Times. Nevertheless his publisher, right-wing harpy Mary Matalin’s Threshold Books, asserts that his book is not political but is a work of “Scholarship.” Uh huh…Then why was it so easy for Media Matters to uncover a plethora of inaccuracies, misstatements, and lies?

Now the book has risen to the top of the Times’ best sellers list, but even that achievement is not without controversy. The Times notes that:

“The book is being pushed along by a large volume of bulk sales, intense voter interest in Mr. Obama and a broad marketing campaign that has already included 100 author interviews with talk radio hosts across the country, like Sean Hannity and G. Gordon Liddy, Mr. Corsi said on Tuesday.”

It is a common tactic amongst rightist authors and publishers to recruit conservative think tanks, and other sympathetic groups, to buy large quantities of their books in order to boost their sales statistics. The books are then either given away – or thrown away – it hardly matters because the goal was just to generate publicity by reporting big numbers.

Barack Obama, however, does not seem to be anxious to get Swiftboated the way John Kerry was. He has already responded to Corsi’s lie-ography (PDF) with a 41 page fact checking. The meticulously researched document cites more than 50 lies in Corsi’s book. Plus, it quotes numerous independent reviews that also fail to find any merit in the book, and it cites examples of Corsi’s racism and frequently offensive mode of communication.

Despite the manipulative methods that Corsi has employed to get attention, Obama’s people are correct to attack it head on. These sorts of smears must never be left alone in the public mind. They must be struck down with the truth and without hesitation.

Update: Sunday, 8/17/18, Fox News correspondent Liz Trotta (who once joked about assassinating Obama), appeared this morning to defend Corsi. She claimed that his book may have contained some errors early on, but as it progressed it was more accurate. She was, in effect, asserting that Corsi was the one being Swiftboated and claimed that his prior book on John Kerry was mostly true. She, and Fox, simply have no shame.

John McCain’s Fear Of The Internets

Posted by on August 13, 2008 at 4:03 pm. NO Comments :

Cable MonstersLast month John McCain said that Americans are tired of the Internet. It’s highly unlikely that he was actually speaking for all Americans, or even anything more than a small brood of Luddites. It is more likely that he himself is tired of the Internet, or perhaps just tired, period. He has never been particularly fond of it, even as he chaired the Senate committee responsible for regulating it.

Amanda Terkel has authored a pretty comprehensive review of McCain’s tech resume. Her article reveals a man who is both uncomfortable with technological progress and beholden to the big corporate interests who seek to dominate the industry. McCain’s pronouncements on the subject, like the one last month, are laughable. He has confessed that he is “an illiterate who has to rely on my wife for all of the assistance that I can get,” and that he “never felt the particular need to e-mail.”

Terkel points out that the United States has fallen behind most of the world with regard to broadband policy. Our failure to be competitive in this arena will cost us the loss of millions of potential new jobs. It will hamstring our children. And it will insure that we run with the back of the pack in opportunities for business growth.

McCain has led the way to the rear by opposing legislation that would keep the Internet open (Network Neutrality). Plus he has promoted the sort of deregulation that has permitted media companies to consolidate so extensively that there are now only a handful of giant players left. McCain advanced this anti-competitive agenda while claiming to be free of conflicts or personal motive. Unfortunately, Terkel proves that that isn’t the truth:

“In 1998 and 1999, McCain wrote at least 15 letters to the FCC, urging members to take action on issues that had potentially major consequences for his campaign donors. For example, McCain wrote two letters in April and May 1999, asking the commission to make a decision on a $62 billion pending merger between telephone companies Ameritech and SBC Communications. The merger went through later that year. A few weeks before the April letter, Richard Notebaert, the head of Ameritech, co-hosted a fundraiser for McCain. He took in approximately $50,000. Just before the May letter, SBC and Ameritech officials contributed or solicited about $120,000 in donations for McCain’s campaign.”

“The current campaign cycle is also shaping up to be lucrative. U.S. Telecom Association president and CEO Walter B. McCormick Jr., Sprint CEO Daniel R. Hesse, and Verizon chairman and CEO Ivan G. Seidenberg have each raised between $50,000 and $100,000 for McCain’s campaign. AT&T executive vice president for federal relations Timothy McKone has raised at least $500,000.”

Maverick McCainMcCain’s association with lobbyists is well documented, if not well reported by the media. He was embroiled in his own scandal some years ago surrounding the corrupt banker Charles Keating. Next week he is attending a fundraiser hosted by Ralph Reed, a prolific lobbyist and an associate of convicted scammer Jack Abramoff. And in this week of tabloid revelations about John Edwards and his mistress, it should be noted that McCain also had speculation swirling about his relationship with telecom lobbyist Vicki Iseman. Unlike the bulldogging National Enquirer, the New York Times dropped the Iseman story after getting yapped at by angry Republicans. But the more salacious elements of the Iseman affair are not really that important. What is most relevant is that she is another lobbyist for closing off the Internet to everyone but her wealthy multinational clients, and that she was indisputably chummy with McCain. Curiously, she has since vanished from the face of earth. She has been so well hidden that even milk cartons don’t have a picture of her. Has the McCain camp shuttled her off to Dick Cheney’s fabled “Undisclosed Location?”

Terkel’s article, along with the other evidence cited here, should cause anyone who values the Internet to be suspicious of McCain’s plans. He is not merely ignorant, he is aggressively antagonistic toward an open, accessible, World Wide Web. He must not be given an authority over it.

Bush: Back On The Bottle?

Posted by on August 12, 2008 at 3:32 am. 45 Comments :

Bush DrunkThe national embarrassment that is our president once again raises its reddened face. In photographs from the Olympics in China, it appears that recovering souse, George W. Bush, is relapsing.

In one picture his face is flushed, his eyes droop, and his expression is dopey. In all fairness, that may be his normal expression. However, the bloody scrape on his arm suggests that he has recently taken a less than normal fall.

In the other picture, Bush appears to be having trouble remaining upright without considerable help. It takes three men to prop up the wobbly boozer-in-chief.

Don’t it make ya feel proud?

This is the man that John McCain’s 3rd term would seek to emulate if, Heaven forbid, he gets the chance. However, this is not the first evidence of Bush’s backsliding. First and foremost, that high bar of American journalism, the National Enquirer, wrote about it three years ago.

EOnline reported last year that Bush’s return to drinking drove Laura to move out of the White House and to a possible split-up. Other rumors had her house hunting in Dallas for a post-presidency home away from George.

Both the Globe and Examiner covered Laura’s “eruption” at her hubby’s imbibing.

Just last month Bush accused Wall Street of getting drunk and having a hangover. Perhaps they were binging together. We know how close they are.

This is a president who can’t stay upright on a bicycle and who nearly chokes to death on pretzels. Maybe we’ll get a better picture of the man when Oliver Stone’s movie “W” is released in a couple of months. Stone’s script reportedly has Bush Sr. telling his no-good progeny that…

“You never kept your word once…you’re only good for partying, chasing tail, driving drunk…You deeply disappoint me.”

He deeply disappoints us all. This is what America gets when they vote for the guy they’d most like to have a beer with.

Starve The Beast: Appetite For Distortion

Posted by on August 9, 2008 at 3:24 pm. 16 Comments :

Media Blindness

Almost exactly one year ago I published a comprehensive examination of the futility of appearances on Fox News by Democrats and progressives: Starve The Beast. The thrust of the article argued that…

“Every time one of our representatives appears on Fox, they are setting back our agenda. They are not just wasting a little time trying to confront the enemy in its lair. They are literally causing harm to the efforts of the rest of us who are fervently struggling to repair and improve our country.”

The case was supported by studies that showed that Fox News audiences supported Republicans by overwhelming margins and that they were significantly more likely to have misperceptions about current news events. I also provided evidence that the centerpiece in Rupert Murdoch’s empire was a far less ominous presence in the mediasphere than they liked to imagine themselves.

It’s all still true. Rasmussen conducted a new study that affirms the previous studies. Their survey shows that Fox News viewers are still a species apart from the rest of the television population.

When nine out of ten Fox viewers say that they will vote for John McCain, you have an audience that may be more accurately described as a cult (as I described it in The Cult Of Foxonality). And while viewers at both CNN and MSNBC express a solid two to one majority for Barack Obama, that is a far cry from the near unanimous, block mentality of Fox viewers. The fact that the CNN and MSNBC audience compositions agree with one another suggests that they may be a better reflection of the population as a whole. They certainly come much closer to public opinion polling on the presidential race. Another indication of the disparity between Fox and its competitors is that 43% of CNN viewers and 38% of MSNBC viewers have a favorable opinion of McCain. However, only 14% of Fox viewers have a favorable opinion of Obama.

This corroborating evidence of how decidedly unfriendly the Fox News audience is to Democrats ought to be enough to persuade them to stay away from the network. Unfortunately, the past few weeks has seen wayward souls like Lanny Davis and Howard Wolfson lured into the Fox lair. To make matters worse, both Hillary Clinton and Obama have recently granted interviews to Fox flacks Bill O’Reilly and Chris Wallace, respectively. Obviously more persuasion is required. So let’s go to the numbers – the Nielsen numbers.

In the first half of 2008, CNN and MSNBC both improved their ratings over the same period the year before by more than 50% in the key 25-54 year old demographic. Fox News squeaked through with a measly 4% gain. In the second quarter Fox actually sunk 2%. And Fox continues to draw the oldest audience in cable news. MSNBC beats Fox with about 35% more viewers in the 18-34 demo. So Fox’s audience is not only growing slower than its competitors, it is failing to attract the next generation of news viewers. The only reason for the size of the audience they presently have is that they have cornered the market for conservative couch jockeys who congregate at their cable water cooler. Hence their dramatic overweighting of McCainiacs. The rest of the news consuming audience is splintered throughout the dial in a manner that disguises the fact that they are in the majority. There are far more non-Fox viewers than Fox viewers, but they are dispersed over a half dozen channels or more. Conservatives are all gathering together, glassy-eyed in the Fox clubhouse.

Democrats and progressives need to be reminded that a network that is overtly hostile to their interests holds no attraction for them. There is no reason to grace their airwaves. There is no benefit to doing so. They will not change the minds of the Foxpods watching programs like Brit Hume’s Special Report or the O’Reilly Factor. Their appearances will only be used to humiliate them and then to lay claim to being “fair and balanced.” It simply makes no sense to ally with a organization that is working openly and vigorously for your defeat. Can it be any clearer that people like Rupert Murdoch, Roger Ailes, Neil Cavuto, and Sean Hannity are the enemy?

Starve The BeastAnd if it isn’t enough that Fox News is avowedly opposed to the goals of Democrats and progressives, then the fact that viewers are turning away from Fox while the market is growing should convince them of what the rest of the country has already decided – that Fox is not a news network, it is a tool for right-wing propaganda and disinformation. That’s why their audience share is shrinking. And that’s why we must not grant them the credibility our association implies. Just stay the HELL off of Fox News!

This beast has a ravenous appetite and we should not be throwing it chum. Leave it to whither and parish and cease to threaten our land and well-being. We are better rid of it. Starve The Beast!

Hollywood’s Conservative Crybabies

Posted by on August 7, 2008 at 10:18 am. 25 Comments :

A couple of weeks ago the Washington Times published a story about beleaguered conservatives in the entertainment industry. Just the fact that the story appeared in the Washington Times would normally be enough reason to laugh it off, but the article gets even funnier than one might imagine. It begins:

“A group of politically conservative and centrist Hollywood figures organized by actor Gary Sinise and others has been meeting quietly in restaurants and private homes, forming a loose-knit network of entertainers who share common beliefs like supporting U.S. troops and traditional American values […] The group, whose members call themselves “Friends of Abe” after Abraham Lincoln [are they sure it’s not Vigoda?], was organized as an underground movement because of fears that prominent industry titans with outspoken liberal views would retaliate, said participants. They often were reluctant to name members of the group in interviews for fear it would hurt their careers.”

To the extent that this shadowy conclave of rebels was willing to shed their reluctance to name names (behavior with which conservatives should be familiar), they thoroughly undermined their stated mission. Those courageous enough to step forward include some of Hollywood’s biggest stars:

  • Gary Sinise
  • Pat Boone
  • Jon Voight
  • Kelsey Grammer
  • Lionel Chetwynd

And this list doesn’t include big conservative names that have not been associated with Friends of Abe:

  • Arnold Schwarzenegger
  • Bruce Willis
  • Tom Selleck
  • Patricia Heaton
  • Adam Sandler
  • Mel Gibson
  • Clint Eastwood
  • Chuck Norris

Conservatives are desperately trying to carve a place for themselves in a Hollywood they believe does not want them. There have been at least three articles in the Washington Times on the subject. It has also been taken up by the Los Angeles Times, the National Review, and Rupert Murdoch’s Weekly Standard did a cover story on it.

But can they really be serious about alleging discrimination, and fear of retaliation when, by their own accounts, they are enjoying stupendous success and popularity? Of course they can. Fealty to the truth or reality has never stopped a conservative before. It’s what the Bush administration relies on whenever they describe programs like “Clear Skies,” “Healthy Forests,” or “iraqi Freedom.” It’s what allows John McCain to complain that the media is unfair to him, or that Barack Obama is a flip-flopper. It is a strategy wherein you assert the polar opposite of what you actually mean – what actually is. This round of bitching is emblematic of right-wing methodology in politics.

It is also ironic that these efforts to exalt celebrity should bubble up at a time when the McCain campaign is mocking celebrity with juvenile ads about Britney Spears.

So it should surprise no one that conservatives would assert that, if they were to disclose their views in Hollywood, they would never be successful, and then trot out a bevy of successful Hollywood conservatives to make their case. This is the way they work, and they pray that the American people are stupid enough to fall for it. I think that’s what they really mean by a “Faith-based Initiative.”