Rush Limbaugh: Obama Will Own The Media

Sean Hannity recently interviewed Rush Limbaugh and much was made of Limbaugh’s warning to Osama Bin Laden that, if he wanted to “demolish the America we know and love,” he had better hurry because “Obama’s beating them to it.” That was certainly worthy of attracting attention as a classic articulation of Limbaugh’s patently asinine opinion. However, there was another segment of the discussion that didn’t get much play despite being at least as disturbing and stupefying:

Limbaugh: “People ask me about the Fairness Doctrine all the time and I’ve been watching something here – newspapers are losing money. Advertising revenue is down, circulation. But radio companies, too, Sean. Television companies – their advertising revenues are down. Advertising as a whole is down.

Now, what happens if they have to file Chapter 11? What if all these radio companies can’t make their debt payments next year or the year after that and have to go Chapter 11? If Obama is controlling the banks and the banks then will or will not lend to the broadcasters and the newspapers to make them solvent, we could reach a point where Obama controls radio and TV, because he will own it by virtue of the banks he controls owning it.

This is a very stealth way – you don’t need the Fairness Doctrine. You don’t need localism. […] So, if you think that the media in this country cannot also be owned by Barack Obama, think again.”

So, just to break this down…Obama is somehow going to wind up owning all of the banks. Then, he will instruct the banks that he owns to attach conditions to any loans they make to failing media companies. Those conditions will, presumably, include the forced carriage of liberal programming and, perhaps, even the cancellation of programs like Limbaugh’s. In this way the Fairness Doctrine will have been implemented by stealth and Obama will emerge as the owner of all of the media, in addition to the banks, the auto manufactures, the health care providers, the United Nations, the World Wrestling Federation, and Disney World.

This is conspiracy theorism run amuck. Limbaugh is connecting dots that only exist in his OxyContin riddled brain. The right wing’s incessant paranoia with regard to the Fairness Doctrine – which no one is pursuing in Congress or regulatory agencies, and for which Obama has publicly stated his opposition – is warping their their judgment beyond any hope for normal human comprehension (see the related posts below). This obsession is threatening to turn their entire movement into either a political relic or a pathetic joke (most likely, both).

And I still can’t figure out why these people, who regard Obama as an incompetent who could not survive without his TelePrompter, are still terrified of his omnipotent evil genius that will subjugate them all to slavery were it not for the eternal vigilance of superheroes like Rushman and his Boy Hannity.

Glenn Beck Incites Massive Criminal Tax Evasion

Yesterday, on his wildly popular Fox News Acute Paranoia Revue, Glenn Beck laid out a plan to make millions of his viewers criminals. The fact that Beck spewed a tsunami of idiocy is not exactly a revelation. It is, in fact, what Fox pays him for. But now he may have scaled a new plateau that deliberately puts his audience at risk and further demonstrates his own hypocrisy and cowardice.

At issue is the commentary with which he opens his show, “The One Thing.” In yesterday’s installment he overtly made the case to his viewers that they should stop paying their taxes. He prefaced his remarks by referencing his guest from the day before. Craig T. Nelson (of Coach fame) confided to Beck that he is considering not paying his taxes anymore. Despite the fact that Nelson is just the sort of wealthy Hollywood elitist that Beck loves to dismiss as traitors, Beck was inspired by Nelson’s prospective felonious selfishness and believes that it touched a nerve with his audience. So Beck commences to reveal his scheme that he says is just “for argument’s sake.”

“I want to be clear on one thing, I am not advocating that people should not pay their income tax. This is a spooky, spooky area. […] But what, if for argument’s sake, a million Americans intentionally did not pay their taxes?”

Fox News lawyers were probably responsible for the disclaimer with which Beck began this rant. As you’ll see, the remainder leaves little doubt as to where Beck’s intentions really lie. Regular viewers already know that he despises the denizens of Washington, whom he regards as irresponsible and corrupt (at least since the Republicans were voted out). His disciples are keenly aware of his position on deficits and bailouts (except for those implemented prior to Obama’s election). With that in mind, he starts to lay the groundwork for a criminal conspiracy that he hopes will take the nation by storm. And first on the agenda is a courageous stand against the Internal Revenue Service:

“Right now the IRS is already able to go through over 150 million tax returns and punish those (believe you me) harshly, who fail to pay, you know, their income tax. They fine them between 20-25 percent. They’ll collect about $30 billion in back taxes. And going forward, the Obama administration is preparing. They are devoting an additional $400 million of your money to get more money from you.”

Here we see Beck griping that the IRS is engaged in collecting tax revenue from people who failed to pay their taxes. Presumably he thinks that the IRS should just let them be. If they don’t want to pay their taxes, so what? Leave them alone. Unless, of course, you are Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, or anyone associated with President Obama. In which case you’re a sleazeball and the IRS should throw the book at you.

As for Beck’s complaint that the current administration is budgeting $400 million to recover $30 billion in unpaid tax revenue, I’m not sure what his problem is with that. Is he dissatisfied with a 7,500 percent return on investment? Not exactly. The truth is, he is setting up the argument that deliberately withholding tax payment would not present any risk because the government couldn’t prosecute or punish the offenders if there were enough of them. Beck literally advises his audience not to worry about the consequences:

“Still, most tax evaders don’t end up in jail. […] Let’s just say a million people don’t pay – not because they’re cheap – but because they believe the principles that we were founded on have been violated. And they think this is wrong and they try to do something that they think is the only thing they can.”

Then Beck tells them to…

“Put aside the fact America’s federal, state, and local prisons are already overcrowded. They are packed 36% beyond their rated capacity. Overcrowded to the maximum. […] All in all, it’s probably not worth the government’s time to toss you in jail.”

There you have it. Feel free to cease all payments to the government. Nothing’s going to happen to you if you do it. Well, at least you won’t go to jail. Beck doesn’t address whether or not you would have to go through the inconvenience of an audit. He doesn’t raise the possibility of your home, or other assets, being seized. It must not have occurred to him that your wages might be garnished. Even a conviction with a fine and probation, with no jail time, would still leave you with a criminal record.

But never mind any of that. Beck says that this sort of tax evasion would make you like Gandhi. Beck even quotes the famous spiritual and political leader who was fighting to secure India’s freedom from the English imperialists. Gandhi said: “Withholding payment of taxes is one of the quickest methods of overthrowing a government.” Of course, in our case we are not struggling against a foreign tyrant who is imposing their will on us. In fact, for better or worse, we voted for the people who drafted our tax laws. Beck’s battle is more like that of the Fox News Tea Partiers than Gandhi’s Swaraj. But that doesn’t stop Beck from overtly advocating mass criminality. Referring to Gandhi’s fight for independence, Beck says…

“And it makes common sense. Starving them out of trillions of your hard-earned dollars would literally put them out of business. But do Americans want to do that? Do Americans who want to do that have the guts to follow Gandhi’s example, in order to save children, our grandchildren, our great, great, great, great, great-grandchildren from all of this insane debt?”

It seems that after a challenge like that, Beck’s earlier disclaimer is irrelevant. He is virtually daring you to walk up the steps of the IRS and announce your defiance of their authority. Do you have the guts to do it? Do you love your great-grandchildren?

Here’s “The One Thing” (if I may borrow that from Beck): I don’t see Beck doing any of that. I don’t see him withholding his taxes, or even threatening to do so. I don’t see him making any sort of sacrifice on behalf of his great-grandchildren. Gandhi suffered every bit as much as the people he aspired to lead. The only thing I see Beck doing is giving dangerous advice that will bring great distress to anyone stupid enough to take it (and we are talking about Glenn Beck viewers here, so…).

Glenn Beck is proving himself to be a supreme coward and a hypocrite. He won’t for a minute consider assuming the hardships that he so cavalierly counsels for others. This is a man who begins every show with the exhortation of a cult leader to “Come on, follow me.” But he is leading from the rear where it’s safer. He is happy to let his devotees be slaughtered while he takes the limo back to his security-gated estate. Then he’ll go on TV the following day and weep for their loss. He will make martyrs of his legion of tax resisters and profit from their pain.

If you believe this country is great, but people like Beck make a mockery of leadership and integrity, come on, follow me.

Fox News: Republicans Divided Over How to Attack Sotomayor

An article on FoxNews.com is lamenting the difficult position in which Republicans find themselves with regard to President Obama’s nominee for the Supreme Court:

“Sonia Sotomayor, President Obama’s nominee to replace Justice David Souter on the U.S. Supreme Court, is posing a conundrum for Republicans who are struggling to unite against a woman they presume will be a reliable vote for liberal causes.

“The GOP doesn’t want to give Sotomayer (sic) a free ride, because they believe she is a judicial activist who will legislate from the bench.”

So what’s the problem? Why don’t they just attack her as a liberal judicial activist? If that’s really their objection to her, it seems that there would be nothing controversial about taking that approach. All they have to do is fire up their slogans about Socialism and set Glenn Beck and his posse loose, and they have the makings of a conventional rightist campaign of obstructionism. The truth is, that isn’t really their objection. The article states that they are…

“…concerned that if they launch a no-holds barred attack on Sotomayor, the first Hispanic to be nominated to the court, they risk alienating a growing minority they want on their side in the voting booth.”

The only way that they can alienate the Hispanic electorate is if they were to oppose Sotomayor on the basis of her race. Consequently, they are inadvertently admitting that that is precisely what they want to do. The argument within the ranks of Republicans is not centered on Sotomayor’s judicial philosophy or record. Rush Limbaugh, Newt Gingrich and others have already staked their claims that she is a racist, and that her gender renders her susceptible to that peculiarly feminine characteristic of empathy.

It becomes crystal clear that the dilemma facing Republicans, and Fox News, is tied solely to race and gender when you consider this simple scenario: If the nominee were a white male, would they have any hesitation to executing a straightforward campaign criticizing his record as a jurist?

The fact that there is a debate going on in the party at all, and trumpeted in right-wing media, is conclusive evidence that the real subject of the controversy is the nominee’s race and gender. They just don’t want to admit it. And we can count on Fox to obfuscate that truth and to portray the internecine squabble as something more benign. But if they were truly worried about how Sotomayor would rule as a Justice, then why would criticizing that risk their standing amongst Hispanics?

The answer? It wouldn’t. They’re lying. As usual.

The Figment Of The Center-Right Imagi-Nation

Throughout much of last year’s presidential campaign, and right on through the first weeks of Barack Obama’s administration, the media has persistently peddled the falsehood that America is a center-right nation, politically and socially. Now Media Matters has published a study (full pdf here) that thoroughly debunks this notion, and they do it by using surveys and facts that realistically portray the ideological character of the country – something the media may want to check in to.

The Media Matters study is a comprehensive look at the American electorate. It covers virtually every one of the most debated subjects of public discourse: Size of government; health care; taxes; abortion; gay rights. It also examines the demographics of age, ethnicity, gender, and geography. And every case the evidence shows that America is a progressive, and yes, a center-left nation.

And nowhere is this more misunderstood than in the media:

  • Tom Brokaw (NBC): “This country, even with the election of Barack Obama last night, remains a very centered country, or maybe even center-right in a lot of places.”
  • Jon Meacham (Newsweek): “…insisted that to govern successfully, Obama had to become a center-right leader in order to match America’s ‘instinctively conservative’ streak.”
  • David Broder (Washington Post): “…warned that too many victorious Democrats in Congress had ‘ideas of their own about what should be done in energy, health care and education.'”
  • Karl Rove (Fox News): “Barack Obama understands this is a center-right country.”
  • Chris Wallace (Fox News): “You could make the argument that this is still a center-right country.”
  • Chris Matthews (MSNBC): “I’ve noted that we’re right of center except when we’re in a crisis, when we’re left of center.”
  • Bob Schieffer (CBS): “These Democrats that were elected last night are conservative Democrats.”

I’m not sure exactly why the press is so brain dead in this regard. It’s not as if the record isn’t crystal clear. Obama was portrayed by Republicans, and most of the press, as a liberal extremist – even as a Socialist, or worse. And yet, Obama won a decisive victory. Democrats have also been winning larger majorities in the Congress with each election cycle. And Obama’s approval rating have maintained stratospheric levels. The public supports the President’s policies even when they are told that it may increase their taxes.

At the other end of the scale, Republicans are descending into historical depths of disrepute. Their de facto leaders are universally despised figures like Dick Cheney and Rush Limbaugh. Their policies, I’m sure, would be rejected with equal disdain, if they were to articulate any. As it is, they just regurgitate the same old slogans they have been chanting for decades, and those are not particularly well received.

It will be interesting to see what it will take to get the media to recognize what the rest the country already knows. This is a nation that has had its fill of rightist greed and incompetence. We have ousted many of the representatives in public office who led the nation down a path of war and recession. While we can, and did, adjust the make up of our government to more closely reflect our values, it will not be as easy to fix the media. But that doesn’t mean we should stop trying.

The Republican Advance Team For Terrorism

In the past week, Republican politicians and pundits have been striving mightily to invoke fear in the hearts of the American people. They have been blanketing the airwaves with assertions that President Obama’s policies on national security (Iraq, Afghanistan, Guantanamo, torture, etc.) will result in another 9/11. It is a persistent chorus from those who brought us the first 9/11, insisting that Obama is making the country less safe.

On the surface, these panicky critiques could be characterized as warnings to the administration to change course. However, the underlying purpose of this rhetoric is actually to set themselves up to blame Obama should the unthinkable occur. But, in effect, and by their own words, they seem to be up to something even worse. They seem to be signaling to Al Qaeda that now is the time to strike. Take note of what Dick Cheney said on this five years ago:

“Terrorist attacks are not caused by the use of strength; they are invited by the perception of weakness.”

That quote always made me wonder if Cheney was admitting that Al Qaeda perceived weakness in the Bush administration nine months after it had assumed power and, thus, took it as an invitation to attack. However, that would presume a greater degree of honesty and self-reflection than Cheney has ever been known to exhibit. No, he was doing the same thing then that he is doing now. Stoking fear that Democrats are leading us down a path of doom. This time, with Democrats actually in power, Cheney is accelerating the rhetoric, and is bringing along reinforcements to alert the terrorists that America is “less safe” and therefore vulnerable.

Cheney: “It is recklessness cloaked in righteousness and would make the American people less safe.”

Mitt Romney: “It’s the very kind of thinking that left America vulnerable to the attacks of Sept. 11th.”

Joe Scarborough (MSNBC): “I knew by the second day that America was less safe.

Laura Ingraham (Fox News): “I think you can make a pretty compelling case that we’re less safe today.”

John Boehner: “I think this is a pre-9/11 mentality, and I think it’ll make our nation less safe.”

Karl Rove: “They’re doing the wrong thing for our country, they’re doing the wrong thing for our men and women in uniform, and they’re making us less safe.

David Gregory (Meet the Press): But do you agree with the vice president when he says that the country is less safe under President Obama?
Newt Gingrich: Absolutely.

Speaking of Newt Gingrich, in 2002, he castigated Al Gore for making a speech that criticized George W. Bush. Gingrich said that it was “well outside the mark of an appropriate debate” for a former vice-president to allege that the current president is making the country less safe. Today, of course, Gingrich is heralding Cheney for doing just that.

The questions we need to ask are these: If you were a terrorist, what would you make of all of this talk? Would it embolden you? Would you view it as an invitation? What point are Republicans trying to make? If they really believe that America’s defenses are weakening, is there a strategic purpose to broadcasting that to our enemies?

The dueling speeches from Obama and Cheney last Thursday presented a stark contrast between the two approaches. Obama offered a strong, fact-based defense of his national security agenda. Cheney reiterated the same old innuendo and fear mongering for which he is so well known. McClatchy’s Washington bureau published a point-by-point article highlighting Cheney’s departure from reality.

On the other hand, the New York Daily News published a hilariously stupid column asserting that Cheney mopped the floor with Obama. The author, Michael Goodwin, praised Cheney’s use of what Goodwin called the “most compelling” fact: “no successful attacks on America since 9/11.” There were also no Bigfoot sightings or asteroid collisions, but I’m not sure that Bush gets credit for that either. And, of course, Goodwin concluded his tripe with the approved message of the day: Obama has “been warned his policies will make it more likely we will be hit again.”

This is the dominant theme of the Republican Party today. This is a party and a philosophy that has told us that our enemies hate us for our freedom and our principles. It’s a party whose actions then led to constraining our freedom and violating our principles via the Patriot Act, warrantless wiretapping, suspension of habeas corpus, torture, etc. It is as if they concluded that, since the terrorists hate us for our freedom, all we have to do is to be less free and they won’t hate us anymore.

The thread that runs through the Republican messaging is that America is less safe under Obama’s leadership. They are hammering the point that he has made the nation weaker and more susceptible to attack. They are broadcasting this message to the world as they advocate for policies that the world detests. So I still have to ask: What on earth are they trying to do?

How does announcing to the terrorists that they believe our nation is becoming weaker make us safer? Do they even care? Are they just pasting a big bulls eye on America and hoping for an “I told you so” moment? I desperately hope that that’s not the case, but there aren’t many other plausible explanations.

Republicans Flub The Double Reverse Alinsky

For degree of difficulty, I’ll give them a ten, but Republicans are far too incompetent to have risked the political Jujitsu required by their recent exercise.

Saul Alinsky was an activist and author who has been called the founder of modern community organizing. He is said to have been an early influence on Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. His book, Rules For Radicals, outlined a program for effecting social change by building organizations that restored the balance of power from the elite to the people.

Early in last year’s presidential campaign, Republicans sought to exploit Clinton and Obama’s connection to Alinsky, implying that there was something frightful about his advocacy of empowering the poor and middle classes. More recently, his name has begun to reappear in a new, seemingly coordinated assault on the President, the press, and any stray progressive activist that might saunter along. The problem is that these conservatives swing so wide of the mark that they only succeed in making asses of themselves. Their approach is so pedestrian that not only do they fail to make their point, the point they make is often antithetical to what they intended. For example…

Jim Geraghty wrote an article for the National Review, The Alinsky Administration, that seeks to associate Obama with the first of Alinsky’s rules: Power is not only what you have, but what an opponent thinks you have. But Geraghty’s limited comprehension distills the concept down to nothing more than the allegation that Obama is a politician who seeks to attain power. Shocking, isn’t it?

Geraghty: “As conservatives size up their new foe, they ought to remember: It’s not about liberalism. It’s about power. Obama will jettison anything that costs him power, and do anything that enhances it.”

In addition to missing Alinsky’s point entirely, Geraghty also contradicts the vast conservative confederation that has been hammering away at Obama precisely because of his intransigent liberalism. So while everyone else on the right is trying to convince us that Obama is taking us down the road to Socialism, Geraghty contends that the ideology is expendable in the pursuit of power.

Then Geraghty turns up on the Hannity show and invokes his version of Alinsky’s fifth rule: Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. But in making his case, Geraghty has uncovered a heretofore unknown conspiracy that is under the direction of Obama:

Geraghty: “[H]e’s got everything from ‘The Daily Show’ to ‘The Colbert Report’ to, you know, liberal bloggers, entertainers, Bill Maher. He kind of outsources that aspect of the Alinsky operation.

It may come as a surprise to Jon Stewart et al, to learn that they are mere puppets of the White House Overlord. The administration’s army of comedians must keep a lot of Republicans up at night. And, Heaven knows, the President himself loves to laugh. Bill O’Reilly also picked up the ridicule angle and added NBC as an instrument of Obama’s plot:

O’Reilly: “Enter far-left philosopher Saul Alinsky […] Before he died, Alinsky wrote a book called ‘Rules for Radicals,’ and here is where the politics of ridicule was defined. According to Alinsky, in order to change America into a far-left bastion, traditional Americans must be marginalized.”

Of course, O’Reilly made up virtually all of that. Alinsky not only did not advocate for marginalizing “traditional Americans,” he was their biggest advocate. Then again, O’Reilly’s definition of a traditional American is a wealthy, white, Christian, corporatist, social Darwinian, who gets off on torture and loofahs. But my favorite part, personally, is where O’Reilly says, “Before he died, Alinsky wrote a book…” As opposed to the books he wrote after he died? Thanks for making that distinction, Bill.

If the Republicans are sensitive to being ridiculed, it is only because they make it so easy. However, their disingenuous sniveling is hard to take seriously when they are just as guilty of the practice as the left. O’Reilly has a daily feature on his show wherein he calls people pinheads. The RNC repeatedly cranked out campaign videos mocking Obama as a celebrity, a media darling, or “The One”. Glenn Beck has a recurring series on the “March to Socialism”. Rush Limbaugh devotes most of his daily three hour rant to nothing but ridiculing one Democrat or another. The Internet is awash with images of Obama as everything from a terrorist to a Messiah to Hitler.

The flood of references to Alinsky is threatening to drown out all other political discourse. It has been taken up by everyone from Rush Limbaugh to Michelle Bachmann to Karl Rove. When you hear Republicans condemn Democrats for some breach of civility, you can lay odds that they are doing the very same thing. Their capacity for projection is legendary. This is no less true with regard to their allegations concerning Alinsky’s rules. But their execution is atrocious. They are so bad, in fact, that they are even contradicted by their own side. Last year, John J. Pitney Jr., also writing for the National Review, penned a column entitled, “The Alinsky Ticket,” wherein he exposed the real perpetrators of this pinko scheme:

Pitney: “Radical activist Saul Alinsky has had quite a season, especially for somebody who has been dead for 36 years. The two Democratic finalists had Alinsky links […] But the candidates who have most effectively applied Alinsky principles are John McCain and Sarah Palin.”

Well, now the cat’s out of the bag. Pitney dropped the dime on the GOP. How can they assail Obama and the Democrats for a strategy that they are employing themselves? Actually, they can do it very easily. In fact, it is rule number one in Karl Rove’s Rules For Reactionaries: Conduct a campaign of dirty tricks, but accuse your opponents of doing it first.

Rightists are now trying to adapt that rule to Alinsky’s teachings, and to disparage Obama and the Democrats. Unfortunately, their ineptitude is so advanced that they can’t execute a successful program. All they are accomplishing is a reaffirmation of their own desperation and lameness. Nothing illustrates this better than the recent proposal by the RNC to rebrand Democrats as the Democrat Socialist Party [shakes head and sighs].

Watch for more hilarity as Republicans continue in their quest to complete the perfect Double Reverse Alinsky – no matter how many times, or how miserably, they fail.

Michael Steele: The Era Of Apologizing Is Over

In a dramatic announcement on the passing of an historical epoch, Republican National Committee Chairman, Michael Steele, has declared that the Era of Apology is over. That’s right, the Apologiac Age has come to a close, according to Steele:

“The era of apologizing for Republican mistakes of the past is now officially over. It is done. The time for trying to fix or focus on the past has ended. The era of Republican navel gazing is over. We have turned the corner on regret, recrimination, self-pity and self-doubt. Now is the hour to focus all of our energies on winning the future.”

While it is encouraging to hear that Republicans will cease to gaze at their navels, that doesn’t explain how their new tunnel blindness with regard to the past will help them to win the future. It also doesn’t advance the argument that the Apologiac Age is truly over.

One argument against Steele’s hypothesis is that experts have been unable to identify the beginning of the Era of Apology. Despite rigorous searches, no apologies have been uncovered for any of the most profound failures of the last administration:

  • Missing all of the warning signs prior to 9/11.
  • Waging a preemptive war of aggression based on weapons of mass destruction that didn’t exist.
  • Permitting thousands to die in New Orleans due to incompetence and neglect.
  • Politicizing the Justice Department by hiring and firing attorneys based on partisan affiliation.
  • Diluting Constitutional rights through warrantless searches and the suspension of habeas corpus.
  • Violating domestic and international laws against torture.
  • Causing the collapse of the economy via deregulation, collusion with corporate cronies, and irresponsible spending and taxation policy.

The absence of any evidence that an Apologiac Age ever began inveighs heavily against the contention that it has now concluded. Conservative Apologiac theorists like Steele may seek to support their claim by pointing to the frequent apologies made by Republicans (including Steele) to Rush Limbaugh for having referred to him as an entertainer, or otherwise something less than the Republican Overlord. Or they may cite the apology made by Steele himself when, addressing the Wall Street bailout, he said we need to “own up, do the, ‘My bad,’ and move forward.” However, none of these apologies actually represent the Republican Party accepting responsibility for the tragedies it inflicted on this nation, and the world.

Moving forward was a primary theme in Steele’s Apologia speech. He seemed to be especially sensitive to the notion that Americans might linger too long on the failures of the GOP’s recent past. His message was simply to stop looking back. After all, he said, Ronald Reagan would never look back:

“Ronald Reagan always insisted that our party must move aggressively to seize the moment. He insisted that our party recognize the truth of the times and establish our first principles in both word and deed […] So in the best spirit of President Reagan, it’s time to saddle up and ride.”

Steele, it must be noted, had to look back over twenty years to come up with that advice from Reagan against looking back. For Steele, looking back twenty years is enlightening, but looking back at the the last eight years is just rehashing the irrelevant. And everyone knows that if you’re looking to the future, the most inspiring analogy is one that includes saddling up your horse.

Steele is intent on peddling his theory on the end of Apologia. He even borrows Barack Obama’s inspirational message of change. But Steele is quick to point out that his version of change “comes in a tea bag.” Historians, I am sure, will spend countless hours trying to figure out what that means. And this may be the underlying brilliance of Steele’s strategy. If no one knows what you’re talking about, they can’t make much of an attempt to dispute it.

Thus, the introduction of the end of the Era of Apology, an era that never began, should quite sufficiently confuse the people, the Party, and most importantly, the press. At least for another week or two.

My Favorite Part Of Obama’s Speech At Notre Dame

President Obama’s commencement address at Notre Dame drew far more coverage of protests than any actual protests. A dozen or so students held an alternative ceremony in a grotto while thousands of their classmates celebrated with the President across campus.

As a confirmed media analyst basher, my favorite part of the speech was this admonition to the graduating students:

“You will hear talking heads scream on cable, read blogs that claim definitive knowledge, and watch politicians pretend to know what they’re talking about.”

They sure will. And there was plenty of that in the three weeks leading up to Obama’s appearance at the University. What a great object lesson. Obama went on to say:

“Occasionally, you may also have the great fortune of seeing important issues debated by well-intentioned, brilliant minds. In fact, I suspect that many of you will be among those bright stars.”

That is also undoubtedly true. However, some of them may also be among the screaming heads on cable, sanctimonious bloggers, and phony, ignorant politicians. But this was a day for celebration.

The Hypocrisy At Notre Dame

All week long the media has been trumpeting a controversy that barely deserves mentioning. When President Obama gives the commencement speech tomorrow at Notre Dame, he will be following five previous presidents to do so. In addition, he will be the eighth president to be awarded an honorary degree.

The controversy stems from the fact that Obama’s pro-choice position is in conflict with the University’s Catholic principles. However, neither the Catholic protesters nor the media ever threw similar tantrums when George W. Bush delivered the commencement speech in 2001, after receiving his honorary degree.

Every good Catholic knows that the church is strictly opposed to capital punishment. Since Bush set records for carrying out death sentences when he was governor of Texas, you would think that the same guardians of virtue that are protesting Obama, who has never personally signed an abortion certificate, would have been out in force for a man who presided over 152 executions. But there was nary a peep. There were no bishops signing petitions opposing Bush’s appearance. There were no protests on campus. There were no students refusing to participate in graduation ceremonies. And there were no cameras from national news networks circling like buzzards.

If these Catholic Crusaders are truly interested in demonstrating their piety without prejudice, they should immediately call for Notre Dame to revoke Bush’s honorary degree. If the press is honestly endeavoring to be objective, they should pose this question to the protesters.

I can’t fault the pro-life movement’s efforts to advance their beliefs through protest and civil disobedience. That is their right and it is an honorable exercise of protections guaranteed under the First Amendment. But I can shine a light on their inconsistencies. And I can fault the media for the inflated sense of importance they bestow on such a tiny assemblage of adversaries. Polls show overwhelming support for the President’s visit to Notre Dame. That support is constant when looking at the general public, Catholic voters, and Notre Dame students.

So why does the press pump up this event as if there were a groundswell of opposition? And why was there no similar action on the part of the press when Bush attended the Notre Dame graduation?

One word: Hypocrisy. In politics? In media? In religion? I’m shocked, shocked, I tell you.

Update: Ronald Reagan also received an honorary degree and spoke at commencement in 1981. This despite the fact that he was divorced, he traded arms for hostages, he waged an illegal war in Central America funded by selling arms to terrorists in Iran, he advocated capital punishment as governor of California, and he wasn’t even Catholic.

The White House Correspondents’ Comedy Hour

The White House Correspondents’ Dinner is an annual event that places members of the media in close proximity to the subjects they are supposed to be covering. It’s a little like the philosophy behind modern zoo design, where they attempt to show animals in their native habitat. The event generally features comedy routines from both the President and a professional comic.

In the past there have been some memorable moments, particularly Stephen Colbert’s devastating assault on the stenographers in the audience who fancy themselves as journalists. This weekend’s affair ranks fairly well by virtue of having a president who isn’t an inarticulate, emotionally stunted frat boy who thinks he’s a cowboy superhero.

Perhaps the funniest thing about this year’s dinner is the reaction to it afterwords from comedically-challenged right-wingers who simply can’t focus on anything other than their hatred of all things Obama. If they aren’t whining about Wanda Sykes being over-the-top in her remarks, they are shocked that President Obama laughed at them. The right seems obsessed with the President laughing. Recall his appearance on 60 Minutes when he laughed at a question from Steve Kroft. Conservatives went into a full-tilt frenzy. Much the same thing is happening now. Here are a couple of samples:

Ben Shapiro: “[Sykes is] the most gutless and feckless performer ever to grace the White House Correspondents Dinner.”

Michelle Malkin: “Liberal comedian Wanda Sykes indulged in Palin-bashing, Rush Derangement Syndrome, and post-Bush/Cheney-induced psychosis while leftist journalists rubbed elbows with politicos and Tinseltown eye candy.”

Roy Edroso of the Village Voice has compiled a fun and fascinating collection of the conservative umbrage taken at the comedy stylings of Obama and Sykes. Edroso harvested critical gems from the comedy experts at the Weekly Standard, NewsBusters, the always hilarious Wall Street Journal, and more. Here is how Edroso summed up his travels in Rightville:

“So, to recap, Wanda Sykes’ routine was a hate crime abetted by Obama’s hateful laughter, and Obama’s routine was Not Funny except to the liberal media (which in its heart of hearts knows George Bush is actually funnier), as well as an assault on free speech. Plus Obama is prejudiced against black people. Oh, and by noting these rightblogger reactions to the event, we are overreacting, which is an automatic win for conservatism. Given all that good news, you’d think they’d be more cheerful.”

To get the full benefit of that summation, go read the full article. It affirms just how pathetic the right is when it comes to being funny. Not that further affirmation was needed. Just try digging up some old episodes of Fox News’ Half-Hour Comedy Hour. Or Check out Tucker Carlson (whom Jon Stewart demolished on the defunct Crossfire) giving Jon Stewart tips on comedy. or, if you can stand it, wait for Glenn Beck’s upcoming comedy tour: The Acute Paranoia Revue. And since Beck is amongst those so incensed by Sykes’ alleged hostility, perhaps he will include in his act the bit he performed on his radio show wherein he fantasized about strangling Michael Moore to death with his bare hands.

Here are the YouTube videos of Obama and Sykes at the WHCA dinner:
Barack Obama / Wanda Sykes