Huffington Post: A Tool For The GOP?

Posted by on May 23, 2009 at 11:35 am. 3 Comments :

Michael Calderone has a column at Politico that suggests a new tactical approach by Republicans to get their message out. He asserts, that the GOP is exploiting the broad reach of the Huffington Post to expand their media presence. It’s not a particularly bad idea as HuffPo is cracking 8.8 million unique visitors a month. But it is a cynical effort to advance propaganda and, to the extent that HuffPo is an accessory to it, it is shameful and counterproductive.

The insidious element to this plot is that the GOP isn’t trying to reach out to new voters or gain access to people that might not otherwise be exposed to their views. They are taking advantage of the popular web site to use as a platform from which to launch their viewpoints into more mainstream media in much the same way that conservatives have used the Drudge Report. In his column, Calderone interviewed a collection of Republican press reps who confess to this strategy.

John Hart, press secretary to Sen. Tom Coburn: [I]t’s one of a handful of sites that can have an instant impact on the national debate.

Brian Rogers, spokesman for Sen. John McCain: HuffPo and [Talking Points Memo] really are the assignment editors for many in the Washington press corps – particularly the cables.

Brad Dayspring, press secretary for Rep. Eric Cantor: The reality is that at the end of the day, like them or dislike them, sites like The Huffington Post, Plum Line, Salon, and others can drive news.

Michael Steel, press secretary for House Republican leader John Boehner: Republican aides [are] being sure to engage with liberal websites like Huffington Post – just because for no other reason than they drive a lot of cable coverage.

Alex Conant, former RNC national press secretary: When I was at the RNC, it wasn’t something that could be ignored. To the contrary, I thought the more we could work with them – recognizing they had a bias – the better off we were.

Republicans are well aware that much of the audience at HuffPo is not sympathetic to their cause. But that’s irrelevant. Part of the strategy is to drive a wedge between the Democratic establishment and its activist base. Another part is just to garner more publicity:

“Huffington Post reporter Ryan Grim, a former POLITICO staffer, said that after the House leadership released a video earlier this month questioning the White House on national security, a senior House Republican aide reached out to make sure he’d received it – that’s despite knowing how the site would probably play the story (and how commenters would react).

The piece that resulted – “House GOP Obama Ad Aims to Terrify” – likely appealed to liberal Huffington Post readers, while also drawing attention to the Republican clip, which is what the party wanted all along.“

~~~

Liz Mair, former RNC online communications director: While I certainly never expected left-of-center sites to echo our message, giving them access to information or background they needed to report accurately (if not favorably) was certainly something I thought of (and think of) as useful, given that their audience is not solely comprised of Democratic activists, and given that storylines that begin on left-of-center blogs frequently find their way onto the nightly news and into other outlets where a lot of swing voters get their information.

HuffPo, for it’s part is not the least bit concerned about how they are being used. Arianna Huffington told Politico that the attention the site gets from Republicans…

“…is a reflection of our traffic, our brand, and the fact that we are increasingly seen … as an Internet newspaper, not positioned ideologically in terms of how we cover the news.”

HuffPo is, of course, a business, and it has every right to pursue a mission that furthers it’s financial interests. However, if their stock in trade is their audience, then there is something untoward about exploiting them to benefit an ideological opponent. In other words, HuffPo should not be permitted to sell us out to right-wing flacks who just want to do us harm. If it is our patronage that makes HuffPo such a valuable asset, perhaps we ought not to be so patronizing.

There is nothing wrong with providing a forum that presents diverse opinions and perspectives. But there is a limit reached when you are seen by one side as simply an avenue to advance their public profile, further their media strategy, and beat you, and your audience, over the head with your own bat. You know you’ve reached that limit when Grover Norquist says of you…

“There are fewer better places to refute the opening bid by the [Democrats] than to plant your flag in the middle of The Huffington Post.”

HuffPo would be wise to consider that, if it is their readers that make them an appealing political community, they may want to avoid alienating those readers by serving the interests of their opponents. How many HuffPo readers would continue to visit the site were it to turn into a fancier version of the Drudge Report? And once readership scales back, how many Republicans would still view it as a useful platform?

Continuing down this path would be a downward spiral for HuffPo. They should take note of this and correct course as soon as possible. The market has no need for an Internet news/community that caters to the far right. They already have Fox Nation.

Find us on Google+
Advertisement:

Republicans Flub The Double Reverse Alinsky

Posted by on May 22, 2009 at 10:31 am. 7 Comments :

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.


Morley Safer Doesn’t Trust Citizen Journalism

Posted by on May 21, 2009 at 11:53 am. NO Comments :

Veteran newsman and 60 Minutes correspondent, Morley Safer, just won the Fred Friendly First Amendment Award from Quinnipiac University’s School of Communications. His long and distinguished career certainly justifies receiving this honor. It’s too bad he had to spoil the ceremony with the crotchety old man impression that he must have picked up from Andy Rooney.

In an attempt to address his concern for the withering state of newspapers, Safer warned that the medium’s decline “threatens all of journalism and, by extension, our precarious right to know.” He stated his belief that newspapers provide the source material for stories presented in other mediums. There is a case to be made for these assertions, but he went too far when he attacked new media, characterizing it as crammed with nuts:

“The blogosphere is no alternative, crammed as it is with the ravings and manipulations of every nut with a keyboard. Good journalism is structured and structure means responsibility,” he said. He added later, “…I would trust citizen journalism as much as I would trust citizen surgery.”

If Safer is really concerned with responsibility, he ought not to lash out indiscriminately at online journalism. If he wants to cast a net around “every nut with a keyboard,” and label them all journalists, then I should be able to do the same with his medium and every nut with a microphone.

Surely there are manipulative ravers on the Internet, but they could hardly be called journalists. The same is true with television and newspapers. Josh Marshall (a reporter of proven reliability) and Michelle Malkin (a purveyor of bias and propaganda), are two completely different species. Credible and principled Internet journalists would cringe at the thought of being associated with likes of Matt Drudge. Would Safer fare any better by being lumped together with Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck? Does Safer think that Ann Coulter brings honor to the newspapers who carry her column? Does he think that the National Enquirer or the New York Post are structured and responsible? If Safer wants to draw parallels between online reporters with their old media equivalents, he should not be making apples to idiots comparisons.

It would also be helpful if Safer refrained from disparaging the public at large. Safer’s analogy to “citizen surgery” carries an insulting implication that “citizen” equates to “unqualified.” Many citizens are quite capable of producing good journalism. And, perhaps to Safer’s surprise, some journalists are, in fact, good citizens. The two designations are not mutually exclusive. A better analogy might compare a modern surgeon with an old-school sawbones who refused to use an MRI or other advanced technologies. I expect that most people would prefer the modern surgeon. And as it turns out, most people prefer new media, as demonstrated in this poll:

  • 67% believe traditional journalism is out of touch with what Americans want from their news.
  • 32% said Internet sites are their most trusted source for news and information, followed by newspapers (22%), television (21%) and radio (15%).
  • 75% believe the Internet has had a positive impact on the overall quality of journalism.
  • 69% believe media companies are becoming too large and powerful to allow for competition.

There is a notable irony in that Safer would level these criticisms while accepting an award honoring the First Amendment. A true advocate for a free press would welcome more public participation, not less. After all, what could be more representative of free expression, and a free press, then citizen journalism?


SPINCOM: Still A Deafening Silence

Posted by on May 20, 2009 at 2:50 pm. NO Comments :

A couple of weeks ago, I posted this story on David Barstow, the author of Message Machine for the New York Times. Yesterday, the New York Press Club awarded Barstow it’s Golden Keyboard Award. Barstow had previously won a Pulitzer for the story.

Message Machine described how the Pentagon in the Bush administration conspired to train and deploy former military personnel to spread propaganda in support of the war in Iraq. And if that weren’t bad enough, the program also permitted them to use their high profile media platform to enrich themselves and the defense contractors to whom they were attached.

To date, Barstow has still not been invited to appear on any of the major news networks to discuss his article. The allegations have been investigated by Congress and by the Inspector General of the Pentagon. The Department of Defense halted the programs exposed by Barstow. He is continuing to receive accolades from his peers, but none of this is enough to persuade television news editors to book him.

We can eliminate Fox News as a potential host for a discussion with Barstow. But at the very least we ought to be able to get MSNBC to schedule a segment or two. Feel free to give them some encouragement.

Contact MSNBC:
MSNBC General
Keith Olbermann
Rachel Maddow
Ed Schultz
David Shuster
Chris Matthews


Rush Limbaugh To MSNBC: Leave Me Alone

Posted by on May 20, 2009 at 10:26 am. 1 Comments :

The towering ego that is Rush Limbaugh is tottering on its foundation. On his radio rant yesterday, Limbaugh lashed out at what he perceives to be a vicious cabal, led by MSNBC, dedicated to being mean to him. In the typical manner of bullies everywhere, Rush wiped his nose, stammered a bit, then fired back a volley of indignant spittle:

“It is clear to me that MSNBC is hoping to build its ratings on my back. […] they cannot go any appreciable length of time without showing video of me […] or excerpts from this radio show or having a bunch of hack guests on to discuss me. So my challenge is this, to MSNBC […] Let’s see if you can do Rush withdrawal. Let’s see if you can run your little TV network for 30 days without doing a single story on me”

Poor Rush. Those meanies at MSNBC won’t stop saying stuff about him. He would like it much better, I’m sure, if he were allowed to spout off about whatever he wants, no matter how ignorant or infested with lies, without some TV news commentators pointing out what a fraud he is. He would be so very happy if, for just thirty days, he could be free from having his ill-informed tripe rebutted by facts and logic.

This is the same Limbaugh who can’t go a day without flailing at what he calls the “drive-by” media. He is one of the most vituperative critics of any and all press with whom he disagrees. He bashes MSNBC regularly, but now he is begging for a thoroughly one-sided truce.

What could have provoked this pique? Ordinarily Limbaugh would be thrilled that people were talking about him at all. He frequently asserts that his adversaries just make him stronger. Now, all of a sudden, he wants them to shut up? Perhaps he revealed the answer in this remark:

“As you know, Michael Steele made a speech today outlining the future of the Republican Party. And apparently he mentioned every conservative’s name in the book except mine and Cheney’s. This has caused many excited media people to point this out.”

There it is. Steele’s speech actually cited only three conservatives (all deceased), in a rambling dissertation on how his leadership will bring change “delivered in a tea bag.” But by leaving out Limbaugh (not deceased, but still extinct), Steele set off a media frenzy that didn’t include the de facto head of the Republican Party. That is an unforgivable oversight that must be immediately corrected by imploring the press to pay more attention to Boss Limbaugh.

So Rush issues a challenge that he knows won’t be considered in an attempt to turn the spotlight back on himself. In the process he advocates for constraining the free speech rights of his critics. And underlying all of that, he exposes himself as the thin-skinned, sorehead that we all knew him to be. If Limbaugh really wants MSNBC and others to leave him alone, there is one very simple way to accomplish that: Leave!

Late Breaking: On his radio program today Rush issued this announcement regarding his position as Republican Party chief:

“I have been anointed to this position by members of the drive-by media, and of course, the Obama White House. I am resigning as the titular head of the Republican Party.”

Uh oh. Does that mean that the party is stuck with Michael Steele? Rush nominated Colin Powell for the job, but let’s be realistic…it’s more likely to be Dick Cheney. Given the choice of Limbaugh, Steele, Powell, or Cheney, Democrats would probably choose all of the above.


Michael Steele: The Era Of Apologizing Is Over

Posted by on May 19, 2009 at 4:47 pm. 2 Comments :

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.

Find us on Google+
Advertisement:

My Favorite Part Of Obama’s Speech At Notre Dame

Posted by on May 18, 2009 at 10:08 am. NO Comments :

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

Posted by on May 16, 2009 at 1:07 pm. 3 Comments :

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.


Are Conservatives Getting Stupider?

Posted by on May 14, 2009 at 11:32 pm. 1 Comments :

“I sense intellectual deterioration of the once-vital conservative movement in the United States.”

Those are the words of Judge Richard Posner, a Reagan appointee to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. Posner is also one of the founders of the Chicago school of law and economics, a cornerstone of modern conservatism.

I’m not sure that I agree that there was ever a vital conservative movement, but Posner’s essay this past weekend offers an interesting inside perspective of the decline of conservative intellectualism. You know that there are troublesome tempests taking shape when an icon of Posner’s stature says this:

“…it is notable that the policies of the new conservatism are powered largely by emotion and religion and have for the most part weak intellectual groundings. That the policies are weak in conception, have largely failed in execution, and are political flops is therefore unsurprising […] By the fall of 2008, the face of the Republican Party had become Sarah Palin and Joe the Plumber. Conservative intellectuals had no party.”

Since the fall of 2008, things have only gotten worse. The Palin/Plumber contingent has grown to include Rep. Michelle Bachmann (R-Loon), Glenn Beck, Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, and Miss California. Whatever pretense held by a previous generation of conservative thought leaders (i.e. William F. Buckley) has been abandoned by the contemporary crop of conservatives who prefer style over substance. Their superficial aspirations are exposed by an agenda that values public relations over policy.

Recently Mike Pence, the chair of the House Republican Conference, advised his party peers to cut their legislative staff to make room for communications aides. And bigshots like Mitt Romney, Jeb Bush, and Eric Cantor launched an effort to re-brand the Republican Party, as if branding were their problem and not their paucity of ideas. In this environment, how do Republicans recruit a new generation of policymakers capable of contributions more profound than abstinence-only family planning?

Posner’s focus on this issue is not the first light out of the right-wing wind tunnel. Conservative stalwarts like Andrew Sullivan, Christopher Buckley, Colin Powell, and Arlen Specter have articulated similar laments as regards the right’s brain drain. I, myself, have long been frustrated by the apparent drift in American culture toward an exaltation of averagism as a superior alternative to reason and intellect. It is this trend that allowed an inarticulate, persistently mediocre, dynastic runt to pass himself off as a brush-clearing cowboy and assume the presidency. It is a mindset that defines anyone subjected to higher learning as elitist and out of touch and, therefore, unfit for public service. During last year’s campaign, I wrote a handbook for electoral success in this new era of self-imposed idiocy. It’s a concise guide for how to appeal to an electorate that has been deliberately stupefied by a congregation of conservative anti-intellectuals, and a compliant press corps.

It’s nice to see that there are still conservative thinkers like Posner with the courage to tell the truth about their colleagues, the honesty to face their movement’s shortcomings, and the insight to understand the consequences. It’s nice to see that there are still conservative thinkers who actually think. Unfortunately, what thinking conservative thinkers think is that today’s conservatives don’t think.


Is Glenn Beck Suicidal or Paranoid?

Posted by on May 14, 2009 at 1:19 am. 9 Comments :

Well, actually, he may be both.

On his Fox News program Tuesday, Glenn Beck revealed that he suspects some nefarious, unspecified, malicious entity has it out for him. He beseeched his audience to be vigilant on his behalf, lest some dreaded fate befall him:

“If I’m ever in a weird car accident, or I commit suicide or something, after the media stops celebrating my death, could they check into it? Because I’m not suicidal. And I’m a pretty good driver.”

Apparently Beck thinks that assassins are stalking him, and they plan to disguise his murder as an accident or a suicide. That demonstration of classic paranoia might be sufficient to raise concerns about his mental well being (such as it is). The problem is that part of his comment was not entirely truthful – and I’m not talking about his driving skills.

Beck has written about his suicidal tendencies wherein he threatened to snuff himself out on more than one occasion. He even recorded a rambling video that included a confession that he was “full-fledged suicidal.” Beck is a recovering alcoholic and there is a history of mental illness in his family. His mother committed suicide when he was thirteen. His brother also committed suicide.

Given this background, I think that upon hearing that Beck was in a car accident, or that he committed suicide, I’m not sure that my first thoughts would be of some Illuminati-inspired murder conspiracy.

Or maybe that’s just what they want me to think…..