Roger Ailes Seeks To Improve On Hitler And Stalin

Posted by on March 4, 2010 at 11:48 am. 4 Comments :

In an interview with his pals at the National Review, Fox News CEO Roger Ailes made clear that he won’t be satisfied with the slipshod propaganda techniques pioneered by the Nazis 75 years ago. Responding to a question about whether Fox News was inappropriately engaging in persistent attacks on the President, Ailes attempted to redirect the charge of bias back to the media at large:

“This little cable channel called Fox is somehow ruining your life. Keep in mind, the last two guys to get all of them [the media] lined up together were Hitler and Stalin. That did not work out well.”

So Ailes regards Hitler’s efforts to dominate the press as insufficient. Should we, therefore, assume that he aspires to do a better job of it? He’s off to a pretty good start. His network has already homogenized its coverage to fall in lock-step with a conservative agenda and is expertly regurgitating rightist rhetoric from a well-disciplined army of anchors and guests. But even that’s not enough. He also finds it necessary to lie about his record of blatant bias and disregard for facts:

Q: You have the President of the United States and others, including the extremely intelligent James Carville, saying Fox News shapes the nation’s politics. Are you pleased? Are you appalled?
A: No. That’s their fault. What we do is we go on the air every day with two points of view in the news. Glenn Beck has a phone on his set that says if I make any factual errors please call me so I can correct them immediately and apologize. And the phone never rings. Because what he’s saying is apparently true. We have been thirteen years on the air – in our fourteenth year – and we’ve never taken a story down because of factual problems.

Where to start? First of all, we already know that Fox News deliberately tried to shape politics because Rupert Murdoch admitted it in public. Secondly, the two points of view Fox presents are from the Republican Party and the Tea Party. Third, Ailes’ reference to Glenn Beck (whom he said is “actually not a conservative”) beautifully depicts his absence of reason. If Ailes concludes that Glenn Beck’s acute paranoia represents the truth because the White House hasn’t dialed up his prop phone, then it must also be true that Beck worships Hitler because he hasn’t phoned me to deny it.

Faux PasAnd finally, Ailes must not be watching his own network if he thinks that there haven’t been any retractions or corrections. In fact, they are so sloppy with facts that executives had to issue a memo declaring a “zero tolerance” policy after numerous “mistakes” were broadcast. And that doesn’t even include the intentional lies that are the keystone of Fox’s anti-journalistic brand.

Perhaps the funniest quote from the interview is when Ailes pretended to merely be a contrarian whose only interest was to balance whatever the predominant themes were in the press:

“To be honest with you, if all the media was tipped to the right, I’d be the biggest liberal in New York.”

Not exactly. He’d still be the biggest liar. To which side does he think the media was tipped after 9/11, when an idiot president whose legitimacy was still in doubt, was elevated to hero status and given a free pass to legislate away decades of civil liberties? To which side does he think the media was tipped in 2003 when every prominent network, newspaper, and reporter were uncritically supporting the Bush administration’s march into an unjustified and illegal war with Iraq? Why wasn’t Ailes directing his staff to take a contrary position then? Where was the “biggest liberal in New York” when conservative issues were being championed by the international megaliths that own and operate most of the media (as they have for decades)?

Ailes was just where he’s always been – staked out on the far right, disseminating disinformation in pursuit of his arch-conservative mission. He is marshaling his troops and enforcing strict discipline to insure their adherence to the official doctrine. And now he has even insinuated that his competition are aligned with the principles of Hitler and Stalin. So I hope people will stop complaining when I post this:

Find us on Google+
Advertisement:

How About An Apology Mr. Rove?

Posted by on March 3, 2010 at 7:19 pm. 3 Comments :

Karl Rove, the former Deputy Chief of Staff, and Chief Political Adviser to President George W. Bush, has a new book coming out. “Courage and Consequence: My Life as a Conservative in the Fight,” is a memoir by the former White House aide and current Fox News contributor. The New York Times has an advance copy of the book and has published some interesting excerpts.

Chief amongst the revelations is that Rove acknowledges that the failure to find weapons of mass destruction severely damaged Bush’s presidency. He blames himself for not sufficiently countering the bad publicity generated by having started an illegitimate and illegal war. Specifically addressing the decision to invade Iraq Rove writes…

“Would the Iraq War have occurred without W.M.D.? I doubt it. Congress was very unlikely to have supported the use-of-force resolution without the W.M.D. threat. The Bush administration itself would probably have sought other ways to constrain Saddam, bring about regime change, and deal with Iraq’s horrendous human rights violations.”

Oh great! So tens of thousands (perhaps hundreds of thousands) of innocent Iraqis – not combatants or terrorists, but civilian men, women and children – are dead because of this brutal and unjustified assault, and the only thing for which Rove takes responsibility is a weak response to shore up Bush’s image in the press.

Rove admits that the Congressional authorization for war would not have been approved without W.M.D.’s. That certainly raises the likelihood that an administration determined to embark on this strategy would provide the Congress with what they wanted, whether or not it was true. And the administration’s determination has been well documented, even to the point of trying to pin 9/11 on Saddam Hussein two years before the Iraq war began.

Rove also admits that the administration could have developed “other ways to constrain” the Iraqi regime. So the oft-repeated insistence that war was the last resort is and was a lie. By conceding that alternatives were available, Rove makes it clear that the military solution was the only one to which they gave serious consideration.

And for all of the human costs, including more than 4,000 Americans, Rove is only sorry for not having conducted a better PR campaign. He does not apologize for the loss of life. He does not apologize for depleting our nation’s treasury. He does not apologize for soiling our reputation internationally. The only reputation he is concerned with his his own. And the thousands of grieving American families don’t enter into his consciousness – not to mention the many thousands more in Iraq.

If that isn’t enough, in another excerpt from the book Rove expresses his regret for the ill-advised fly-over of New Orleans after Katrina. Once again, his concern is for the unflattering appearance of his actions, not for the suffering of the people on the ground. His appalling egocentrism is displayed in utmost clarity when he reveals that, not withstanding the horrors of 9/11, Iraq, and Katrina, the thing that drove him to tears was when he learned that he would not be indicted by the special prosecutor in the Valerie Plame leak case.

What a despicable waste of flesh. And this is the man presently employed by Rupert Murdoch to provide insight into the public affairs of our government and social institutions. The question I have is how would Rove know anything about the human interest stories he is being asked to comment on? Wouldn’t being human be a requirement for such a job?


New Tea Party Survey Affirms Overt Partisanship

Posted by on March 3, 2010 at 12:11 pm. 2 Comments :

In a story promoted by Fox Nation, they reference a “survey” that reveals conclusions that are diametrically opposed to what the Fox Nationalists assert.

On the Fox Nation web site the story is headlined: New Tea Party Survey Destroys Media Myths. The story links to an article in the Washington “Moonie” Times that in turn links to a report (pdf) by the Sam Adams Alliance. The report actually arrives at conclusions that not only do not destroy any media myths, but affirm the popular representations of the Tea Party in the press. Even the Moonies went with a more accurate headline than Fox: ‘Tea party’ leaders use survey to strike back at critics.

The Sam Adams Alliance is, of course, a Tea Party affiliated organization. Their report is not a survey of Tea Party activists at large, but of a select group of 49 individuals identified as leaders. Much of the report is an ego-centric exercise that applauds Tea Crusaders for “standing up for their beliefs,” and having “a positive impact on the country.” As if those aren’t the self-identified goals of every organization from the Girl Scouts to the KKK.

However, the portions of the report that address ideological positions paint a clear picture of the so-called movement. And it is a picture of blatant partisanship. 85.7% of the Tea Crusade’s leaders are opposed to a third political party to challenge the Democrats and Republicans. Perhaps that’s because 62% of them are Republicans already. 27% are Independents and only 10% claim membership in the non-existent Tea Party. Zero percent are Democrats. Additionally, while Sarah Palin has proven to be a total bust in national surveys, she is the top choice (36%) of these 49 Tea Baggers.

So contrary to Fox Nation’s dishonest headline, the phony movement is just what everyone already believes they are: Tea-publicans. And it’s kind of funny that Fox Nation feels it was necessary to layer deceit on more deceit by misrepresenting the results of a survey that itself was conducted by a biased Tea Party affiliate.


Malice In Wonderland: Fox News Through The Looking Glass

Posted by on March 2, 2010 at 2:26 pm. 8 Comments :

Tea CrusadesOver the past year the Tea Party phenomenon has attracted a lot of attention from the rightist media. From the beginning Fox News took the lead sponsoring and promoting Tea Party events, dispatching their anchors to literally host Tea Party rallies, and donating hundreds of hours of airtime to Tea Party spokespeople and supporters. Fox News is the de facto Tea Party Channel.

Despite that massive PR push, the Tea Party remains quagmired as a niche clan of exclusionary cultists and corporate dupes. But that hasn’t deterred Fox News from their campaign to Tea Bag America. This morning Fox Nation declared that Tea Parties are going on high alert, and posted recruiting calls for Joe the Plumber’s Tea Party Tax Revolt.

All of this got me to wondering where it will all end. With a major so-called “news” network advocating on behalf of the delusional flank of the conservative crusade, it seems to me that the right stumbled into an abyss and has consumed some mighty potent mushrooms. So, with apologies to Tim Burton, I present…

Malice In Wonderland, Fox News Through the Looking Glass:

~~~

~~~

~~~

~~~

~~~

Later this month a new Tea Crusade will commence in the form of another AstroTurf sponsored bus tour. The thrid Tea Bagger Express will conclude in Washington on April 15. On August 28, Glenn Beck will headline his “Restoring Honor” affair at the Lincoln Memorial. That’s an ironic event considering the obvious lack of honor of the host. He just starting claiming that it’s a fundraiser for the Special Operations Warrior Foundation, but he originally promoted it as the launch date for his next book “The Plan.” Also, the date is the anniversary of Martin Luther’s King’s “I Have a Dream” speech at the same location. A couple of days ago, Beck called King a “radical socialist” and questioned whether we should be celebrating a holiday in his name. Now Beck seeks to muddy King’s memory by usurping this historic anniversary to hawk his book. In September Beck’s second annual 9/12 rally will take place on 9/11. This gives Beck another opportunity to tarnish a sensitive anniversary.

Expect all of these events to be aggressively promoted on the Tea Party Channel (i.e. Fox News). And expect there to be more coverage of, and interviews with, Tea Baggers and there proxies in Congress. And above all, expect more confusion, mischief, and deceit on the part of Fox and the right-wing politico-media complex.

I must say that I have to agree with Alice when she said:

“It would be so nice if something made sense for a change.”


Van Jones ♥’s Glenn Beck

Posted by on February 28, 2010 at 1:50 pm. 6 Comments :

Van Jones received the President’s Award on Friday from the NAACP Image Awards. In his acceptance speech he took the time to acknowledge a special someone in his life.

I can’t say I approve. Glenn Beck has been a relentless foe of Van Jones. He hounded him from the White House with a series of misrepresentations and outright lies. And even after Jones stepped down, Beck continued to smear him. Recently Jones announced that he would be joining the staff at Princeton and working with the Center for American Progress. That news was greeted by Beck with a tirade against both Jones and Martin Luther King, whom Beck called a “radical socialist” and questioned whether we should have a holiday celebrating him.

So now Jones assumes a strikingly tolerant view of Beck hoping to find some sort of unity. As much as I admire Jones, I think he is wasting his time. Beck is not about to reciprocate. He will only use this appeal to fellowship as a springboard for more attacks and ridicule. In fact, he already has in the form of a tweet:

“I love you too,Glad to all live in one country.Will it be the founders country or the one you pushed when with storm?”

Tell me Glenn, which country do you want? The founders country or the one you pushed when you were an alcoholic, drug abusing, dirtbag?

While Jones was unambiguously forgiving, Beck was predictably adversarial. Beck couldn’t resist the urge to jab another blade into his enemy. And that difference between these two illustrates what a waste of time it is to try to appease Beck. Jones ought to initiate a full-blown campaign revealing Beck’s dishonesty. He should join his former colleagues at Color of Change and pursue advertisers on Beck’s show and Fox News. He should not allow Beck to continue smearing people with McCarthyite accusations. He should expose Beck for the divisive, fear monger that he is. He should fight back.

Then if Jones still wants to be magnanimous and profess his love for Beck…whatever. I just can’t go there.


Glenn Beck’s A Historian Like Hannibal Lecter’s A Vegetarian

Posted by on February 25, 2010 at 11:53 am. 8 Comments :

Glenn Beck began his program yesterday asking his audience to…

“Join me on another one of my ‘designed just to get TV ratings’ history lessons?”

The only the wrong with that statement is everything in it. First of all, nobody is joining Beck as he embarks on his solo venture across the blackboard seas of his dementia. The best you say is that his disciples can watch glassy-eyed from afar. Secondly, everything Beck does is designed to get TV ratings, despite his snarky allusions to the contrary. And lastly, his idea of history lessons leaves out a major component of the curriculum: the history.

Pope Glenn BeckIn yesterday’s lecture, Beck sought to explain the concept of “Mutually Assured Destruction,” wherein nations in conflict proposed deterrence of aggression by threatening overwhelming retaliatory response that would effectively destroy both nations. Beck began by falsely asserting that scientists had first proposed a version of MAD that involved a “Doomsday Device,” wherein the whole planet would be obliterated. In fact, that was only proposed by analysts at an Ayn Rand think tank and Stanley Kubrick in “Dr. Strangelove.” It was not real science, policy, or history.

Then Beck reveals to his disciples the source of his historical doctrine. It’s a book called “Tragedy and Hope” written by Mormon historian Carrol Quigley. Beck describes Quigley’s thesis as MAD via a network of interconnected and reliant economies. Then he asserts that this plan has already been implemented and offers as evidence this question:

“[C]an you think of a war since [the 60’s] where there has been a clear winner and loser since then? Vietnam? The Gulf wars? Afghanistan? The War on Terror?”

Well, yes. I’d start with Vietnam and the Gulf wars. Clearly the North Vietnamese took over the whole of the peninsula after American troops pulled out. And does anyone think that Kuwait is still under the grip of Saddam Hussein, or that Hussein wasn’t toppled from power in Iraq? And there is a reason the former Yugoslavia is called the “former” Yugoslavia. And don’t forget the great battle for sovereignty in the Falklands.

This makes Beck’s accusations that “Progressives don’t want you to read real history,” particularly amusing. Clearly it’s Beck who is reading and recommending fictional accounts of history. One of his favorites is “The 5,000 Year Leap” by W. Cleon Skousen, another Mormon historian Beck fancies. Beck beseeched his disciples to heed Skousen as a prophet:

“I beg you to read this book filled with words of wisdom which I can only describe as divinely inspired.”

Skousen also read Quigley’s “Tragedy and Hope,” and found it compelling to say the least. In a superb essay about Beck’s roots and influences, Alexander Zaitchik noted the relationship between Beck, Quigley, and Skousen:

In 1969, a 1,300-page book started appearing in faculty mailboxes at Brigham Young, where Skousen was back teaching part-time. The book, written by a Georgetown University historian named Carroll Quigley, was called “Tragedy and Hope.” Inside each copy, Skousen inserted handwritten notes urging his colleagues to read the book and embrace its truth. “Tragedy and Hope,” Skousen believed, exposed the details of what would come to be known as the New World Order (NWO). Quigley’s book so moved Skousen that in 1970 he self-published a breathless 144-page review essay called “The Naked Capitalist.” Nearly 40 years later, it remains a foundational document of America’s NWO conspiracy and survivalist scene.

[T]he editors of Dialogue: The Journal of Mormon Thought invited “Tragedy and Hope” author Carroll Quigley to comment on Skousen’s interpretation of his work. They also asked a highly respected BYU history professor named Louis C. Midgley to review Skousen’s latest pamphlet. Their judgment was not kind. In the Autumn/Winter 1971 issue of Dialogue, the two men accused Skousen of “inventing fantastic ideas and making inferences that go far beyond the bounds of honest commentary.” Skousen not only saw things that weren’t in Quigley’s book, they declared, he also missed what actually was there — namely, a critique of ultra-far-right conspiracists like Willard Cleon Skousen.

“Skousen’s personal position,” wrote a dismayed Quigley, “seems to me perilously close to the ‘exclusive uniformity’ which I see in Nazism and in the Radical Right in this country. In fact, his position has echoes of the original Nazi 25-point plan.”

So Beck is now promoting Quigley’s book which he plainly fails to understand. Skousen, the authority Beck regards as divinely inspired, was castigated by Quigley as reminiscent of Nazism. Now there’s a shocker – Beck reveres a discredited, Nazi-esque academic. But it’s Beck’s viewers who are the ultimate losers as they are subjected to a plethora of disinformation. Beck’s sermons are as representative of “history” as “Alice in Wonderland.” Anyone who believes Beck’s version of the past may just as well munch down a sack of magic mushrooms in their search for reality.

Find us on Google+
Advertisement:

This Is How Stupid Andrew Breitbart Is

Posted by on February 24, 2010 at 11:00 pm. 2 Comments :

The terminally choleric Andrew Breitbart is embroiled in a flame war with journalist Max Blumenthal. The online altercation was sparked by Breitbart’s dishonest defense of ersatz pimp, James O’Keefe. Then it flared up at CPAC.

Blumenthal valiantly, but vainly, attempted to get O’Keefe to sit still for an an interview. He was, however, able to ask O’Keefe’s hooker, Hannah Giles, a few questions. And this display of responsible reporting set Breitbart off on one of his patented petulant tantrums that would embarrass kindergartner.

After having his sneering mug plastered all over YouTube, it was plain that Breitbart was nothing more than a cantankerous old windbag. He’s a little like Don Rickles if you squeezed out every drop of humor. It’s just one insult after another with no substance or civility. He called Blumenthal a “despicable human being,” and “the lowest life form I’ve ever seen.”

And now, to top it off, Breitbart has scored what he must think is the journalistic scoop of the decade. He captured Blumenthal on video engaging in an act so vile it could bring down all of the institutional left in three weeks. Breitbart actually claimed on Fox News that he was going to that, and this must be his endgame.

Breitbart's BoogerWhat was this offending behavior that has so much significance? While Blumenthal was talking to Giles, she alerted him to the presence of something protruding from his nose and he endeavored to remove it. Saints preserve us.

Breitbart posted the video of this on his web site. Well, actually web “sites.” He has featured it on all three of his “Big” web sites, as well as his eponymous Drudge spinoff. The funny thing is that Breitbart, who insists that he wants to be taken seriously by the media, posts a video of a political rival picking his nose, and he thinks it makes his rival look bad. Blumenthal may have been caught in an all too human moment, but Breitbart will now forever be known as the man who breaks booger news. Nice work, Booger Breitbart.

Update: And of course, Fox gets into the booger business by featuring this video on the front page of Fox Nation – with a photo no less.


Logo-Gate At The Missile Defense Agency Sends Wingnuts Into Orbit

Posted by on February 24, 2010 at 7:55 pm. 4 Comments :

These people have way too much free time and far to little anti-paranoia medication.

MDA LogoIt seems that Fox News has discovered a scandalette to occupy them until President Obama’s next TelePrompter sighting or Sarah Palin’s next tweet. This one concerns a new administration agency logo that is “scarily” similar to the one Obama used in his campaign:

“The Missile Defense Agency, which is part of the Defense Department, now features a circular red, white and blue logo on its Web site that has been characterized in some reports as “scarily” similar to President Obama’s former campaign symbol. Others have noted that it has a crescent and star design, evoking a common symbol for Islam.”

These alarmists need to make up their minds. Is this a propaganda effort to indoctrinate the mindless masses into blind Obama worship, or is it a signal to Obama’s brothers in Islam that their Manchurian plot is still operative.

The notion that this logo has any meaning other than as a symbol for stationery can only have been hatched in a diseased and fearful brain. First of all, the new logo takes its primary elements from its predecessor. There is a star met by red stripes representing the exhaust trails of a missile. That design was updated and the color scheme was reduced to America’s colors: red, white, and blue. Obviously the work of the enemy. The truth is that any logo could be accused of being inspired by the Obama logo if it contains the visual components of the American flag and is placed in a circle. That’s all the Obama logo is.

But what makes this even more ridiculous is that Richard Lehner, a spokesman for the Missile Defense Agency, thoroughly debunked this silliness. He said that not only was there no intention of copying the Obama logo, this logo isn’t even replacing the old one. It will only be used for defined and limited purposes. And the kicker is that this logo was in use prior to the 2008 election, so it couldn’t have anything to do with Obama. And it certainly wasn’t commissioned by his administration which didn’t exist at the time this logo came into being.

None of these facts, however, stopped Fox News from publishing the story, even though they had them and included them in the article. The editors at Fox must have thought that this was just too good an opportunity to start another ludicrous rumor that will shortly arrive at an email inbox near you. This is what passes for news at Fox.

Update: Not surprisingly, Andrew Booger Breitbart weighs in with an article by Frank Gaffney that actually accuses the Obama administration with treason on behalf of Islamic foes:

“Team Obama is behaving in a way that – as the new MDA logo suggests – is all about accommodating that ‘Islamic Republic’ and its ever-more aggressive stance.”

Gaffney also charges Obama with “acts of submission to Shariah” law. Admittedly, I never took these people seriously, but I am beginning to be concerned about their mental health. This is just insane.


Generation Zero vs. Capitalism: A Love Story

Posted by on February 24, 2010 at 2:20 pm. 21 Comments :

Last Night Sean Hannity devoted the entire hour of his Fox News program to the documentary “Generation Zero.” This morning Fox Nation featured it on their web site as a “Must-See” film.

Generation Zero recently made its public debut at the Tea Baggers Ball in Nashville and was subsequently screened at CPAC, where it was introduced by the terminally choleric Andrew Breitbart. The film was produced by David Bossie of Citizens United, the plaintiff in the recently decided Supreme Court case that granted corporations unprecedented financial participation in federal elections. It was directed by Stephen Bannon who, in another life, produced the Sean Penn directed “The Indian Runner.” Don’t tell Bill O’Reilly, who is boycotting Penn’s films.

I haven’t seen this film (it’s not actually been released yet), but its pedigree and cheer leaders reveal something of its intended mission. The web site says the film is not about the failure of capitalism, but it goes on to say that it will “change everything you thought you knew about Wall Street and Washington.” That assertion makes it difficult to separate the movie’s message from the tenets of capitalism. From reviews and discussion of the film, it seems the basic premise is that the current economic meltdown we find ourselves struggling through was caused by the selfishness and egocentrism of the children of Woodstock. This is a peculiar and illogical theory.

It’s a peculiar theory in that it presumes to blame the “Baby Boom” generation for today’s economic catastrophe. But in doing so, the film is really blaming the poor parenting skills of the “Greatest Generation” who, in their zeal to shield their kids from the pain of depression and war, acceded to their every material want and raised them to be shallow and self-indulgent. That’s a pretty harsh condemnation of the generation that survived decades of trauma in the first half of the last century. The filmmakers are essentially charging the generation that fought its way through the economic disasters of the 1930’s and the worldwide conflagrations of the 1940’s with raising their children to be so socially decadent as to lead the nation into near economic collapse. Do the filmmakers really believe that these parents passed no lessons on to their kids about the hardships they endured?

It’s an illogical theory in that it attempts to create linkage between the hippies of the 1960’s and the financial barons of the 1990’s. So much of the rhetoric of right-wing history revisionists relies on castigating the youth movement of the 1960’s. They are portrayed as drug-addled degenerates and dropouts who contributed nothing of value to society. Their preoccupation with trivialities like civil rights, peace, and free love, permanently labeled them as subversive and anti-social. Since when did their reputation get rehabilitated to the point that they are now seen as captains of industry and finance with the blood of our capitalistic empire on their hands? Surely many former hippies went on to successful careers, but I would venture to say that not one of them became the CEO of AIG or Merrill Lynch.

The Baby Boomers that took the helm of big business were the ones that kept their hair short and listened to Pat Boone in the 60’s. They were the hall monitors and the narcs at their prep schools. They were born to wealth and privilege. It was they, who were already inbred with self-indulgence and egotism, who held the reins of power in the 2000’s. It certainly was not a bunch of idealistic, public school, counter-culture, former flower children who somehow grew up to be greedy sociopaths.

It wasn’t a cabal of aging hippies who invented credit default swaps. It was a cooperative of Wall Street pirates and their Washington patrons. It wasn’t the result of permissive parenting, but of submissive regulators and legislators. While Generation Zero dwells way too much on an unrealistic Leave It To Beaver version of the 1950’s, it actually does approach this part of the problem as well. The movie does not neglect the culpability of an entrenched financial class that has no historical memory whatsoever.

Ironically, that’s exactly what Michael Moore presented in “Capitalism: A Love Story.” Moore’s film was an indictment of the coziness between Wall Street and Washington. And it assailed the notion that solutions had to be afforded to the tottering financial institutions, rather than to the suffering citizens who were the victims. So some of the themes in Generation Zero that are now being heralded by the rightist media were previously explored by Moore. But while there are clear parallels between Moore’s Capitalism and Bannon’s Zero, it is unlikely that either side will acknowledge it. The chasm is far too wide to cross. Even on Hannity’s show there was an exchange that came close to recognizing this ideological affinity, but it was ultimately ignored as they broke away to a commercial.

Sean Hannity: Is it the political system that is more corrupt? Because I believe Capitalism works. Capitalism is the answer.
David Bossie, Producer: Clearly Capital Hill is corrupt. Capital Hill is the problem, not Wall Street here.
Stephen Bannon, Director: I think it an inextricably linked network between Capital Hill and Wall Street. […] You’ve had the American taxpayer, the average, middle-class American, paying taxes to bailout these big firms, and there’s been no change in behavior, no change in structure no change in regulation.

It’s interesting to see Bossie quickly suck up to Hannity and absolve Wall Street of any liability. It’s even more interesting to see Bannon contradict both of them and spread the blame evenly across the econo-political spectrum. But most interesting would be if all the people that go to see Generation Zero would pick up a copy of Capitalism: A Love Story as well. They may realize that Michael Moore is not the demon he’s made out to be by the right. And conversely, Moore might take a look at Generation Zero. If it isn’t stuffed with right-wing polemics and denunciations of 60’s “radicals,” perhaps he could promote it alongside his own movie.

If both of these films tell the same story of overarching corporate greed and government complicity, it would make a compelling double bill.


Ron Paul’s CPAC Poll Victory: What Does It Mean?

Posted by on February 21, 2010 at 2:10 pm. 9 Comments :

A lot of jaws dropped yesterday when the organizers of the Conservative Political Action Conference announced the results of their presidential straw poll (pdf).

In a surprise victory, Ron Paul far outpaced his GOP rivals with 31%. Mitt Romney, who has won in several previous CPAC polls came in second with 22%. Sarah Palin, a presumed conservative favorite, trailed badly with only 7%.

So what might have contributed to these unexpected results? For one thing, it is not possible to make general representations about the CPAC attendees. Only 2,395 of them (out of approximately 10,000) voted in the poll. That means that 70% abstained. And there was no effort to develop representative sampling, so the results can’t be extrapolated to the attendees at large.

Ron Paul has fired up a certain segment of conservatives with his independent streak and appeal to anti-government types. But he is also 74 years old (a year older than John McCain) and a plurality of CPAC voters (48%) were students. Apparently that demographic split didn’t hurt Paul. It may, in fact, point to the more anarchistic bent of youth, while older establishment conservatives lean toward the comfort food candidacy of Mitt Romney.

Some analysts have attributed Palin’s poor showing to her not showing. She announced weeks ago that she would not be attending CPAC in favor of the Tea Baggers Ball in Nashville. Of course there was nothing stopping her from going to both – except that the Tea Baggers paid her a hundred grand and CPAC is a gratis affair. Also, presidential hopefuls Tim Pawlenty, Mike Pence, Newt Gingrich, and Mike Huckabee all showed up, gave warmly received speeches, and finished below no-show Palin.

Some other questions posed in the poll may shed light on the presidential numbers. For instance, most voters (53%) were unsatisfied with the current crop of candidates. An overwhelming majority cite smaller government, a key Paul issue, as their main goal. Issues championed by Palin, like traditional values (9%) and national security (7%), were far less important to this crowd. And bombast seems to be out of favor judging by the high negatives of Glenn Beck (27%) and Rush Limbaugh (27%). You would think that number would get more attention. Nearly a third of CPACers have a negative view of their most prominent spokesmen. For some reason, Palin was not included in the favorability question. Not to worry. Perhaps that’s for the best as a recent poll showed that she is not particularly welcome in the 2012 race anyway. 71% said they did not want her to run. That included 56% of Republicans, 65% of Independents, and even 58% of conservatives.

So what does it all mean? The Hell if I know. The only thing that I come away from this with is the certainty that the roster of also-rans in this poll will shortly be adopting more of Ron Paul’s policies and rhetoric.