The coming Barack Hussein Obama thugocracy

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by bernardos70

Here's what I mean about everything being partisan in this country anymore:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/we...2009/rape-nuts

the video is not playing for me (getting stuck too much right now). But do you mean the fact that news comes through politically one-sided comedy shows these days?

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

the video is not playing for me (getting stuck too much right now). But do you mean the fact that news comes through politically one-sided comedy shows these days?

you mean shows like glenn beck?
-------------------------------------------------------
From John Birchers to Birthers
By THOMAS FRANK

Next month will mark the 45th anniversary of the publication by Harper's Magazine of Richard Hofstadter's famous essay, "The Paranoid Style in American Politics," a work that seems to grow more relevant by the day.

I was not always a fan. When I first read it two decades ago, I thought Hofstadter was being needlessly insulting by equating political views with mental illness—despite his insistence that he wasn't using the word that way. Besides, I thought, who really cared about the strange notions that occurred to members of marginal groups like the John Birch Society? Joe McCarthy's day was long over, and even in the age of high Reaganism, I thought, the type of person Hofstadter described was merely handing out flyers on street corners.

As the historian himself admitted, "in America it has been the preferred style only of minority movements." Why bother with it, then?

How times have changed! Hofstadter's beloved liberal consensus has been in the grave for decades now. Today it would appear that his mistake was underestimating the seductive power of the paranoid style.

The essential element of this mindset, Hofstadter explained, was its predilection for conspiracy theory—for understanding history as a theater in which sinister figures control the flow of events from behind the scenes, nudging us constantly and secretly in the direction of communism.

Back in Hofstadter's day this sort of thinking at least had something supremely rational going for it: The existence of the Soviet Union and its desire to bring the West to its knees.

But take that away and the theories become something far more remarkable. Consider, by contrast, the widespread belief that President Barack Obama's birth certificate was forged. What could have been his parents' motives for committing such a bizarre deed, or his home state's motive for colluding in it, or the courts' motives for overlooking it?

Or consider the widespread conservative conviction that we are being marched secretly into communism or fascism. Why would someone bother? It seems equally likely, given today's circumstances, that conspirators would trick us into becoming a colony of Belgium or the imperial seat of the Bonaparte family.

The paranoid pattern persists regardless. It is impervious to world events; a blurting of the American subconscious that has not changed since Hofstadter analyzed it 45 years ago. Consider the recent wave of fear that the hypnotic Mr. Obama was planning to indoctrinate schoolchildren. In "The Paranoid Style," Hofstadter wrote, "Very often the enemy is held to possess some especially effective source of power: he controls the press; . . . he has a new secret for influencing the mind; . . . he is gaining a stranglehold on the educational system."

Conspiracy-mindedness isn't just for fringe political groups anymore; it makes for riveting entertainment. And it is all around us today, a disorder with an entire industry to act as its enabler.

The source for much of the current epidemic of paranoia is no doubt the "Glenn Beck Show" on Fox News, which follows the Hofstadter script with remarkable faithfulness. One episode last month featured Mr. Beck and a panel of guests speculating darkly about indoctrination in the public schools, about the war on religion, about the Federal Reserve, about the student loan system, the United Nations, and the swine flu vaccine. As a bonus, Mr. Beck rattled off a short history of lobbying that was almost entirely incorrect—perhaps to illustrate his favorite plaint about Americans not learning history. And in the commercial break the real-life conspirator G. Gordon Liddy advised viewers to invest in gold.

What is most remarkable about the paranoid style, though, is the earnest self-pitying that always seems to follow each round of accusation. Case in point: a recent essay by syndicated columnist Michelle Malkin. After describing the murder of a controversial abortion doctor, a guard at Washington's Holocaust Museum, and a census bureau employee who was found with the word "Fed" written on his corpse, she insisted that "The criminalization of conservative dissent is well underway." How so? Because some of these acts caused media revulsion against certain branches of the conservative movement; surely the clampdown is not far behind.

Just a few years ago the right percolated with grand schemes to "defund the left," to win a "permanent majority," to destroy the Democrats with a "K Street Project," to outsource government itself and wreck the regulatory process—but now its liveliest leaders turn to us, fat glycerine tears running down their cheeks, and complain that the libs just don't play fair.

"Pseudo-conservative" was another term Hofstadter used to describe the far-right fringe: "pseudo" because they didn't embrace conservatism's "temperate and compromising spirit." It's a pity Hofstadter isn't here to see the fakes eclipse the real thing.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

you mean shows like glenn beck?
-------------------------------------------------------.

Uh, I don't know. That's what I'm asking bernardos.

It's been around a while.
http://tobingrant.wordpress.com/2009...-name-calling/

Here's a cartoon that was published much earlier than "recently" or "these days."

[bernardos70]

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/notio...rape_amendment

Check it out, this is what the video is about.

Err. Looks like it's even embedded!

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by bernardos70

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/notio...rape_amendment

Check it out, this is what the video is about.

Err. Looks like it's even embedded!

10 republicans were for it, and the whitehouse (DoD) were against it. That's not partisanship. That's defense contract suckup.

[Mavdog]

the dept of defense wants an all encompassing statute rather than a narrow prohibition that pertains only to their contracts/contractors.

that is completely different than the basis of opposition by republicans such as sessions.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

the dept of defense wants an all encompassing statute rather than a narrow prohibition that pertains only to their contracts/contractors.

that is completely different than the basis of opposition by republicans such as sessions.

I think a few of the 30 republicans were able to muster some pretty lame excuses, too.

[bernardos70]

Oh geez.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

I think a few of the 30 republicans were able to muster some pretty lame excuses, too.

are you suggesting a position asking for more enforcement is equatable to those who argue for no enforcement? really?

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

are you suggesting a position asking for more enforcement is equatable to those who argue for no enforcement? really?

I'm saying that a no vote was a vote for the benefit of military contractors, and the excuses were filled in afterward.
Here's from the office of one republican:
"Unfortunately, the Franken amendment would not do anything to protect women from violence or to punish criminals. If it had, Senator Burr would certainly have voted for the amendment."

If you interpret the spin only to the benefit of your own party, how can you complain about partisanship?

[dude1394]

Nixonian...heh...

James Rosen reported on the incident during FNC’s Special Report last night, saying the White House pool, which is a five-network rotation “that for decades has shared the cost and duties of daily coverage of the presidency, to which Fox News has belonged since 1997,” was told the pay czar would be available for round-robin interviews, but FNC would not be included. “The Washington bureau chiefs of the five TV news networks [ABC, CBS, CNN, FNC and NBC] consulted and decided that none of them would interview Feinberg unless Fox was included, and the administration relented,” said Rosen.


Yes – instead of five-minute interviews with the four networks, they agreed to two-minute interviews with the five networks, plus Bloomberg. This was the first true test for the White House press pool as the other networks start feeling the affect of the FNC vs. WH battle – and they very clearly came down on the side of their fellow media.
“I think it’s outrageous that the White House tried that,” said Baltimore Sun TV critic David Zurawik in the report. “And I’m really cheered that the other networks said ‘no’.”


On Special Report, Fred Barnes continued a line of comment that was discussed by Anderson Cooper earlier this week. “One adjective comes up and when this adjective comes up you know you’re in trouble and it’s ‘Nixonian.’”

[dude1394]

Say it ain't so... NPR?? And there goes that man "Nixon" again.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...ryId=114005771

ROBERTS: This is TALK OF THE NATION. I'm Rebecca Roberts in Washington. If you're just joining us, NPR political editor Ken Rudin is with us for our weekly Political Junkie segment.
We turn now to a little controversy that's been brewing in the news lately. The Fox News channel hasn't been exactly kind to the Obama administration. Glenn Beck, one of the network's most popular hosts, said that President Obama has, quote, "a deep-seeded hatred for white people." Some would say that Fox News hosts encouraged the so-called tea party movement, and it's widely believed that Fox News played a role in the resignation of Van Jones, the former White House green jobs czar.
Earlier this month, Anita Dunn, the White House communications director, told the New York Times that the administration planned to treat Fox News, quote, "the way we would treat an opponent." She went on to say that: As they are undertaking a war against Barack Obama and the White House, we don't need to pretend that this is the way that legitimate news organizations behave.
Should the president or an administration have an open adversarial relationship with a news organization? Our number here in Washington is 800-989-8255. Our email address is talk@npr.org, and you can join the conversation on our Web site. Go to npr.org, and click on TALK OF THE NATION.
Joining us now from our New York bureau is David Carr, a media reporter for the New York Times. He also writes the Media Equation column for the paper. You can find a link to his recent article at our Web site, npr.org.
David Carr, it's good to have you back on TALK OF THE NATION.
Mr. DAVID CARR (Media Reporter, Columnist, New York Times): Oh, it's nice to be with you, Rebecca. Hi, Ken.
RUDIN: Hello, David.
ROBERTS: So what do you make of this dynamic between the White House and Fox News? How has it affected either side?
Mr. CARR: I find it really surprising, given the way that Obama campaigned. I - my impression, and I'll leave the political analytics to Ken, but on a media level, I always thought of the president as sort of the king of cool. You can't get under his skin, that he is able to get rid of - you know, get things out of the way with a flick of the wrist. This seems really heavy-handed, and given the amount of assets the administration has sort of turned on Fox, it's turning it into something of a war and suggests that they are very much under his skin, I guess, which I find surprising.
ROBERTS: And has it backfired? Has Fox seen a bump in ratings?
Mr. CARR: Well, Fox would be ahead in the ratings no matter what. As people well observe, being the party of opposition in terms of media dynamics is always a great thing. Liberal magazines do it very well when there's a Republican in the White House, conservative magazines and talk shows and radio do very well when there's a liberal in the White House.
Those dynamics occur whether the White House punches back or not. In this instance, they've decided that they're not going to let a lot of these things, some of which you ticked off, Rebecca, go unanswered. And they've gone right at Fox with the kind of rhetoric, including telling other news organizations they shouldn't appear on Fox, which seems, I don't know, very aggressive to me.


ROBERTS: Ken, what do you think the political upside is for the administration to take this on?



RUDIN: Well, it's not only aggressive, it's almost Nixonesque. I mean, you think of what Nixon and Agnew did with their enemies list and their attacks on the media and certainly Vice President Agnew's constant denunciation of the media. Of course, then it was a conservative president denouncing a liberal media, and of course, a lot of good liberals said, oh, that's ridiculous. That's an infringement on the freedom of press, and now you see a lot of liberals almost kind of applauding what the White House is doing to Fox News, which I think is distressing.



Whatever you think of Fox News, whatever you think of Glenn Beck and some of the things he says, which clearly are outrageous, but at the same time, there are some things on MSNBC that I think are equally outrageous - well, I don't know about equally, but certainly outrageous. And, you know, if we had a Republican president saying we're banning MSNBC or it's not a real organization, it just gives you a weird feeling in the stomach. I think it's a mistake.

[Usually Lurkin]

his own party thinks his partisanship is too thuggish.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1009/28638.html

[dude1394]

Boy I love me some Krauthammer.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...203801_pf.html

Fox wars
The 'post-partisan' president makes an enemies list
By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, October 23, 2009

Rahm Emanuel once sent a dead fish to a live pollster. Now he's put a horse's head in Roger Ailes's bed.
Not very subtle. And not very smart. Ailes doesn't scare easily.

The White House has declared war on Fox News. White House communications director Anita Dunn said that Fox is "opinion journalism masquerading as news." Patting rival networks on the head for their authenticity (read: docility), senior adviser David Axelrod declared Fox "not really a news station." And Chief of Staff Emanuel told (warned?) the other networks not to "be led [by] and following Fox."

Meaning? If Fox runs a story critical of the administration -- from exposing "green jobs" czar Van Jones as a loony 9/11 "truther" to exhaustively examining the mathematical chicanery and hidden loopholes in proposed health-care legislation -- the other news organizations should think twice before following the lead.
The signal to corporations is equally clear: You might have dealings with a federal behemoth that not only disburses more than $3 trillion every year but is extending its reach ever deeper into private industry -- finance, autos, soon health care and energy. Think twice before you run an ad on Fox.
....
Fox and its viewers (numbering more than those of CNN and MSNBC combined) need no defense. Defend Fox compared to whom? To CNN -- which recently unleashed its fact-checkers on a "Saturday Night Live" skit mildly critical of President Obama, but did no checking of a grotesquely racist remark that CNN falsely attributed to Rush Limbaugh?

Defend Fox from whom? Fox's flagship 6 o'clock evening news out of Washington (hosted by Bret Baier, formerly by Brit Hume) is, to my mind, the best hour of news on television. (Definitive evidence: My mother watches it even on the odd night when I'm not on.) Defend Fox from the likes of Anita Dunn? She's been attacked for extolling Mao's political philosophy in a speech at a high school graduation. But the critics miss the surpassing stupidity of her larger point: She was invoking Mao as support and authority for her impassioned plea for individuality and trusting one's own choices. Mao as champion of individuality? Mao, the greatest imposer of mass uniformity in modern history, creator of a slave society of a near-billion worker bees wearing Mao suits and waving the Little Red Book?

The White House communications director cannot be trusted to address high schoolers without uttering inanities. She and her cohorts are now to instruct the country on truth and objectivity?

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

his own party thinks his partisanship is too thuggish.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1009/28638.html

Not everyone lives in liberal lala land. Some of those representatives have to actually get re-elected. It doesn't help to have the prez and his minions calling their constituents nazis, racists, teabaggers, etc.

The representatives had better bone up on Alinsky's book however if they want to understand their leader's politics and methods.

The attack against the Chamber of Commerce is particularly troubling...just who the heck does barry think creates jobs anyway, a magic pony?

Some of that article sounds like whistling past the grave.

Some Democratic critics of the White House attacks say it may strengthen the relationship between the Chamber and moderate Democrats in Congress, who will fast become the organization’s best hope for addressing its concerns if it is frozen out by the White House.

“I don’t think the White House’s relationship with the Chamber will have any effect on individual members’ relationships with the Chamber,” said Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh, a centrist Democrat. “I think we’ll be judged on how we conduct ourselves.”

Sure being attacked by the democrat leader is going to make business more apt to work with ....democrat reps? Evan Bayh seems to be distancing himself from Barry also...I expect many dems will do so in this upcoming election. 10%+ unemployment and > 1.4trillion debt every year is tough to run on.

[dude1394]

Interesting discussion about the recent attempt by Barry to ban Fox from a "public" function, it appeared to be a public interview with I understand not sitting in on television shows, granting interviews etc. to a rival group. But I'm not so sure about the ability of the guvment to ban certain individuals from a public news event based on their politics.

http://homepage.mac.com/mkoldys/blog/rjo277998087.html

Robert Gibbs is coming off as the new Baghdad Bob for sure. One day after saying Barry would NOT dictate who was in the press pool, they try to dictate who is in the press pool.

[rabbitproof]

lolz:

http://www.madatoms.com/site/blog/so...roying-america

[alexamenos]

Franklins anti rape rung shows you still have to be very careful when hiring mercenaries...they do tend to write their own rules.

[alexamenos]

Plus...this is fairly typical of the washington partisan debate. Dems arguing for more stringent criteria in hiring mercenaries for foreign wars, repubs for less stringent criteria. Oh the vast partisan chasm.

[DirkFTW]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

Plus...this is fairly typical of the washington partisan debate. Dems arguing for more stringent criteria in hiring mercenaries for foreign wars, repubs for less stringent criteria. Oh the vast partisan chasm.

In that context, no wonder Ron Paul's declaration to f all foreign wars sounds so radical. It's all about the jobs.

[dude1394]

Heh...

[dude1394]

NPR couldn't stay on the wrong side of history for long. Heh.. I'm sorry barry, please love me!!

It's not the usual thing you hear from NPR analysts. Reaction from the NPR audience was negative, and within 24 hours, Rudin was in backtrack mode. "I made a boneheaded mistake yesterday," Rudin wrote on his NPR blog. "Comparing the tactics of the Nixon administration -- which bugged and intimidated and harrassed journalists -- to that of the Obama administration was foolish, facile, ridiculous and, ultimately, embarrassing to me. I should have known better and, in fact, I do know better. I was around during the Nixon years. I am fully cognizant of what they did and attempted to do."
"I apologize for a dumb comparison."
Rudin's full-180 earned warm praise from NPR ombudsman Alicia Shepard. "While it was a dumb thing to say, I applaud Rudin for quickly apologizing," Shepard wrote. "Journalists are going to make mistakes -- not intentionally but they will happen. Acknowledging them goes a long way to maintaining credibility."

[dude1394]

Chamber tells our inexperienced radical left-wing community organizer to bring it on.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefi...amn-helmets-on

Donohue to opponents: 'Put your damn helmets on'


By Jordan Fabian - 10/24/09 12:10 PM ET
U.S. Chamber of Commerce President Tom Donohue had some choice words on Saturday for the group's recent opponents, which include the Obama administration.
"One thing I can tell you: They can go out and chase me and chase the Chamber and put stuff in the newspaper. It only...drives more and more support," he told the Wall Street Journal. "You think we are going to blink because a couple of people are out shooting at us? Tell 'em to put their damn helmets on."

Recently, the White House has gone after the Chamber for opposing several items on its first-year agenda, such as cap-and-trade climate legislation and new financial regulations. Companies such as Nike and Apple have dropped out of the Chamber for its stance on cap-and-trade, which the House passed in June.

But Donohue defended the organization's positions against its opponents, specifically targeting the White House.

"The White House doesn't give out the seats at the table," he said. "The seats at the table go to the people who have a rational policy, who have strong people to advance that policy, that have a strong grass-roots system, that have the assets to support their program, and that are willing to play in the political process."

He continued, saying "the bottom line is you can't do this job if you are squeaky about all that stuff. My job is to represent the American business community in an honorable way, to present their interests in a way that I really think is good for them and good for this country."

"I plan to keep doing it," he added. "We want to encourage and promote and educate and get a bunch of enthusiasm behind...the free enterprise system with free capital markets and free trade and the ability to fail and fall right on your ass and get up and do it again!"
Donohue's words might create a hostile environment for White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, who is scheduled to speak at the group's November board of directors dinner.
President Barack Obama has criticized as "false" advertisements the Chamber has run in opposition to a new Consumer Financial Protection Agency, which would regulate credit extended to businesses. The White House has also skirted the Chamber, meeting directly with top CEOs to discuss its agenda.

More broadly, the Chamber has attracted the enmity of Democrats in recent years for a perceived going alliance with Republicans. Sen. Chuck Shumer (D-N.Y.) last year attacked the Chamber as an arm of the GOP.

[Mavdog]

wow, for a supposed "thugocracy" in dealing with the chamber of commerce the obama administration sure has a lot of support from ex-chamber members....

Last Monday, Apple announced that it would be quitting the U.S. Chamber of Commerce because of the Chamber’s opposition to global-warming legislation. And that was just the latest in a series of defections: in the past few weeks, the public-utility companies Pacific Gas & Electric, PNM Resources, and Exelon all announced that they’d be leaving the Chamber, while Nike quit the organization’s board of directors

seems that there's a lot of criticism directed at the chanmber....and most of it is not coming from the white house.

http://www.newyorker.com/talk/financ...alk_surowiecki

[dude1394]

Well, well, well...
http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/88221/

INSPECTOR-GENERAL-GATE UPDATE: Walpin cleared.

Gerald Walpin, the AmeriCorps inspector general fired by the White House in July during his probe of Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson, has been cleared of a complaint by the acting U.S. attorney in Sacramento that he had acted improperly.
Now, he says, he wants his job back.
“It takes away any basis belatedly set forth by the White House as a reason for my termination,” Walpin said this morning in an interview from his home in New York. “So I am certainly looking forward to a final determination by the court and to be reinstated.”
Walpin filed suit in federal court in Washington, D.C., in July alleging that he was fired improperly while investigating whether Johnson had misused federal grant funds. The government is trying to have the case dismissed, but Walpin filed documents in court late Monday opposing that.

This could be fun.