Tag Archives: Saul Alinsky

How The Conservative Media Lost The Election

BuzzFeed Politics

The plan was to unmask Obama. It didn’t work.

President Obama’s decisive reelection has promised the conservative new media four more years of fodder, but it’s also left some of its more earnest participants with a gnawing question: What went wrong?

The new online right came roaring out of 2008 convinced that the only reason Obama won was because John McCain’s weak-stomached campaign — cowed by the aura of the first black presidential nominee — had failed to document his ties to the radical left. Their mission would be to “vet” the president as McCain hadn’t, and convince the American people to reject him.

Now the loose coalition of scrappy bloggers, advocacy journalists, and unrepentant trolls who spent four years writing about Jeremiah Wright and Saul Alinsky are coming to terms with reality: The polls weren’t skewed, and their narrative didn’t stick.

And with the Republican Party now in full-throttle soul-searching mode, many in the conservative blogosphere are turning introspective as well.

“I think the right media may have erred,” Dan Riehl, a contributor to Breitbart News and longtime proprietor of Riehl World News, told BuzzFeed a week after the election. “I think we let Obama get into our heads and we wound up campaigning against him, rather than for the things we believe in.”

“It was a trap,” he added. “And one I can’t say I didn’t fall into.”

In hindsight, Riehl questioned the wisdom of devoting so much energy to combing through the president’s early life for signs of radicalism — a process that yielded few true exposés, but rather a handful of scraps that bloggers tried to spin into scandals. For example, in March, Breitbart News reported that Obama attended a 1998 production of a play about left-wing Chicago activist Saul Alinsky. The story, which was presented as a major scoop on the site, included this memorable lede:

In The Audacity of Hope, Barack Obama claims that he worried after 9/11 that his name, so similar to that of Osama bin Laden, might harm his political career.

But Obama was not always so worried about misspellings and radical resemblances. He may even have cultivated them as he cast himself as Chicago’s radical champion.

“I just don’t know that America cared,” Riehl now says of this story genre. “The guy had already been elected, and our message was that Barack Obama’s a socialist that wants to control your life. I’m not arguing that he isn’t, but is that a message people want to hear?”

Continue reading McKay Coppins‘ article here…

Comments Off

Filed under U.S. Politics

At this point, being a conservative isn’t a political philosophy, it’s a personality disorder

Daily KosJesseLaGreca

If you LOVE Rush Limbaugh you probably suck to be around. Unhappy, unpleasant, racist, backwards, sexist, homophobic conspiracy theorists who hate hate hate and fear fear fear. At this point they should replace the elephant with Chicken Little.

Image Hosting by PictureTrail.com    Dear Conservatives, all of your ideas, when practiced, result in Epic Fail. Drill baby drill, BP Oil Spill. Let the banks get Too Big To Fail and police themselves, massive bank collapse. Teach abstinence only, teen pregnancies go up. Cut taxes for the rich while waging war, create a massive deficit. Trust me, I could go on.

Your political philosophy is a joke, a tiresome reel of you as Sideshow Bob stepping on rakes, yet no matter how hard your ideas fail you insist that it is only your leaders who fail the ideas, so you have doubled down on stupid and insisted that by being really, really conservative, this time its’ going to work, seriously.

Modern day conservatives are trying as hard as they can to bang a square peg through a round hole, but don’t even get me started on Marcus Bachmann.

It is not your conservative “family values” nonsense that you love to harp on that really matters, ask anyone who voted for Newt Gingrich this primary season. No, what binds the conservative movement at this point is hate, hate of government and socialism and liberals, Saul Alinsky and Reverend Wright and ACORN and Van Jones and whatever else they’ve been prattling on about on Fox News or Rush Limbaugh. Conservatives love it and hate everything else, which brings me to my main point, which is at this point, being a conservative isn’t a political philosophy, it’s a personality disorder.

I’ve tried, I’ve really really tried to reach out to conservatives and find areas where we can work together to fix the country, but we want different things. I want to make life better for the vast majority of Americans and fix our broken system and you want to let the Government of the State of Virginia shove things inside a woman’s vagina whether she wants you to or not while screaming about an out of control government. I just can’t take you anywhere.

So I’m not going to try to pretend that you don’t have this problem, Conservatives, because its’ your problem, not mine. You have a personality disorder. You treat people like shit, you don’t like any of my friends and all of your ideas suck for everyone but the wealthiest 1% and corporations. Frankly, it’s over. I’m leaving you, and I’m taking the kids with me.

Continue reading here…

4 Comments

Filed under U.S. Politics

Bill Maher Wants To Know: ‘Who The F@#k Is Saul Alinsky?’

I saw this week’s Bill Maher Show and it was rather disappointing because Bill’s two right-wing guests dominated the show.

I specifically watched to see political commentator and host Martin Bashir who’s afternoon show on MSNBC is my number one DVR priority for that time slot.  However, Mr. Bashir hardly got a word in because of the two aforementioned extremely talkative wing-nuts.

However, Bill Maher did indeed score big on his question and then analysis on Saul Alinsky, the guy Newt Gingrich, Glenn Beck, and Fox News always compare the President to on their programs…

Mediaite

One of Newt Gingrich‘s most bizarre lines of attack against liberals and President Obama is that they’re basically working from the playbook of Saul Alinsky. This has been a rally cry of his for months now. Most of us who aren’t that aware of early 20th century political activists have no idea who the hell Saul Alinsky is, but luckily, Bill Maher  gave everyone a primer on who this insidious man is on his show tonight. And what he discovered is that it’s not just Newt Gingrich, but also Glenn Beck, who has turned Alinsky into the latest liberal boogeyman.

Maher joked that for Alinsky to garner the ire of Newt, he must be a divorce lawyer or something.  And he admitted that even as a member of the evil liberal media,  he had no idea who the actual fuck this person is. But after a quick Wikpedia search, Maher realized that Alinsky is best known for being a civil rights advocate in the 1950s.  Like the president, Alinsky was a community organizer, but the chances of them ever swapping notes are pretty slim, mostly because Alinsky died during Obama’s preteen years.

But the Alinsky line of attack was not the main target of Maher’s new rule, but rather the Republican attempts to paint Obama as someone he is clearly not. Maher went down the list of attacks (including a small dig at Dana Rohrabacher‘s comments from earlier in the show).

“This is how politics has changed. You used to run against an actual president. But now you just recreate him inside the bubble and run against your new fictional candidate.”

Maher argued that as partisan and occasionally hyperbolic as George W. Bush‘s critics were, at least they were attacking the actual person. But for Gingrich to actually accuse Obama of being “anti-work,” Maher suspected Republicans were operating on “a paranoid feeling about what he might do.”

Watch the video below, courtesy of HBO:

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/bill-maher-wants-to-know-who-the-fk-is-saul-alinsky/

Comments Off

Filed under Newt Gingrich

Blackboard, fly: So long, “Glenn Beck Show”

Glenn Beck ends his controversial three-year run on Fox News tonight…

Salon

So long, “Glenn Beck Show”! We’ve had so much fun with you since you began your hysterical, racist campaign against the president and organizations that have black people in them or that are somehow dedicated to helping minorities and underprivileged people as part of a world domination plot devised by Bill Ayers and Saul Alinsky and Woodrow Wilson. But now it’s time for your daily hour on cable TV to come to an end. Today will be Beck’s last show on Fox News.

Before he went to Fox News, Beck was just a talk radio hack on CNN Headline News with a “funny take” on the news of the day. But on Fox he distinguished himself with unreconstructed full-on John Bircherism, borrowed wholesale from O.G. Bircher Cleon Skousen, modernized with shamelessly racial attacks on contemporary liberal organizations and an obsession with George Soros.

Because his show was so far to the right of the mainstream that it made the rest of Fox’s programming look suddenly reserved by comparison, everyone in the lamestream media spent a lot of time putting Beck on the front pages of magazines and helping him to promote his various moneymaking ventures. (The liberal media expounded a great deal of energy on trying to show people just how fringey Beck’s entire worldview is, to some success.)

We’ll never forget his blackboards and on-screen graphics exposing just how far the great Progressive Conspiracy goes (spoiler: all the way to the top), even though most of us will now go back to not being particularly worried about the modern-day influence of Walter Lippmann.

Continue reading here…

2 Comments

Filed under Fox News, Fox News Distortions, Glenn Beck

Keith Olbermann Special Comment: 9 Days Have Passed & The Willful Blindness Hasn’t Even Slowed Down

This comment is chock filled with surprising information about the attempt to “tone down” the harsh rhetoric on the bloghosphere, television and radio.

TRANSCRIPT

Finally tonight, as promised, a Special Comment on the nine days since Tucson. That awful night, I said this: We need to put the guns down. Just as importantly we need to put the gun metaphors away and permanently. Left, right, middle — politicians and citizens —  sane and insane.

This age in which this country would accept “targeting” of political opponents and putting bullseyes over their faces, and of the dangerous blurring between political rallies and gun shows, ended.

I cited seven examples of violent rhetoric from the right; and only one from the left — my own. Because the point of that Comment and this one was not that the right pulled the trigger in Tucson but that we as citizens must stop the next Loughner, and the only way to potentially do this is to accept personal responsibility and to pledge — as I said that night — that “violence, or the threat of violence, have no place in our Democracy, and I apologize for and repudiate any act or any thing in my past that may have even inadvertently encouraged violence.”

This afternoon, former President Clinton issued a statement honoring what would have been Dr. King’s 82nd birthday:

“…we’d all do well to heed this message. While no one intends their words or actions to incite the violence we saw in Tucson — and it’s wrong for anyone to suggest otherwise – we live in a world where what we say and how we say it can be read, heard, or seen by those who understand exactly what we mean and by those whose inner demons take them to a very different place.

“That’s not an argument against free speech, but a reminder that, as with all freedoms, its use carries with it responsibility. Therefore, we should follow the example Dr. King set and exercise our freedom of speech in ways that both clarify our honest differences and nurture the best of us rather than bring out the worst.”

Perfect.

Yet the response?

To date, only one commentator or politician has expressed the slightest introspection, the slightest self-awareness, the slightest remorse, the slightest ownership, of the existence of the fantasy dream cloud of violent language by which we are now nearly blinded.

“Our political discourse,” John McCain wrote in an otherwise steaming serving of Washington Post Op-Ed partisan flab, “should be more civil than it currently is, and we all, myself included, bear some responsibility for it not being so.”

That’s it.

One individual assumed any personal responsibility for any of it, besides me: John McCain.  Not Palin, not Beck. Not Limbaugh, not West. Not Kanjorski, not Malloy. Not O’Reilly, not Angle. Not Jesse Kelly, not President Obama.

It’s me and John McCain.

I assume he’s like me, not sure whether to laugh, cry, or be proud of that. So what did everybody else say?

They said it was everybody else’s fault. And they often said it with more violence than before.
In approximate chronological order:

Last Monday, while most on both sides were looking askance at the wealth of bogus documents that now traditionally follow these things, a writer at the discredited Breitbart site posted the headline, “Whoops! This Changes Things — Loughner’s Hero Was Barack Obama.”

Jim Hoft breathlessly cited a reference on the ‘Free Republic’ site to a Facebook page supposedly belonging to Jared Lee Loughner, complete with references to the quote “racist Tea Party” and “fight the Right,” and identifying his ” heroes” as Obama, Chavez, Che Guevara, and Saul Alinsky.

Mr. Hoft never noticed that on the alleged Loughner facebook page, the word “tyrrany” is misspelled and so is the name Loughner.

Last Monday a conservative radio host in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, complained about the coverage of the Giffords shooting by The New York Times, Bob Durgin said “Somebody ought to burn that paper down. Just go to New York and blow that sucker right out of the water.”

Mr. Durgin’s supervisor, one R.J. Harris, then improbably claimed “we do not advocate violence, period. That’s why this whole outcry over the shootings in Tucson being linked to talk radio is just crazy.”

Last Monday, another radio announcer named Rush Limbaugh dismissed Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik as a “liberal,” even though last August Fox News was proud to host Dupnik as he rescinded his opposition to the Arizona Papers-Please Law once its racial-profiling was toned down; and the year before Dupnik criticized as “catering to illegals.”

Limbaugh in fact blamed Dupnik for the shootings and added, “My guess is the sheriff wouldn’t mind if the shooter was acquitted.” Mr. Limbaugh also said, “I would wager that the sheriff knew of this shooter long before this event,” which was brave of Mr. Limbaugh, considering the sheriff had said as much two days previously.

Last Monday, Glenn Beck posted what he claimed was a call for non-violence on his Website alongside a shot of him posing with a gun. His pledge was a labyrinthine demand that everyone renounce violence, provided that liberals renounced a 78-year old woman named… named… well, what’s the difference? She’s just the latest target of a man enjoying a sequence of paranoid delusions — he’ll be obsessed with somebody else within the week.

On Tuesday, Republican Congressman Peter King of New York offered a limited, but useful prohibition against carrying weapons within a thousand feet of federally elected officials. But the leader of his party in the House, Speaker Boehner, immediately rejected it, out of hand, without public comment, or any hearing.

On Tuesday, another radio announcer, Mark Levin, wrapped up the case for his audience: “We all know without question that the murderer in Tucson was mentally ill, a liberal pothead and all the rest of it. We know this for a fact.” On Tuesday, after Mr. Levin and yet another radio announcer, Michael Savage, were decried for using violent rhetoric, Mr. Savage called this a  “blood libel” and threatened to sue, seemingly as much for having been linked to Mr. Levin, as for having been linked to violent rhetoric.

On Tuesday, Congressman West of Florida said he had “no regrets” for any of the violent rhetoric he had used in his campaign. Mr. West did not address why **after** the Tucson shootings this video of his first choice to be his Chief of Staff, Joyce Kaufman, had been pulled from You Tube (since, restored):

“I am convinced that the most important things the Founding Fathers did to insure my first amendment rights was to give me a second amendment. And if ballots don’t work, bullets will.”

Mr. West did say he was concerned about “the political opportunism that has come out of this.” He observed that pointing fingers about violent rhetoric was “kind of deplorable and unconscionable this is not the time to start looking for, you know, grandstanding and things of that nature.”

On Wednesday, a high school friend of Jared Laughner’s said, “he did not watch TV. He disliked the news. He didn’t listen to political radio.”

 

Blogger Hoft of the Breitbart site thereupon called for Sheriff Dupnik’s resignation, ignoring the rather obvious fact that there is a way one can avoid radio or television and still be extremely political. It’s called “the Internet” and is popular with bloggers, like Mr. Hoft.

Later, a high school girlfriend would say Loughner was “strongly opinionated” and would be set off by “things about the government, things about politics… anything that pretty much had to do with the government.”  On Wednesday, conservative blogger John Hawkins announced this was all a liberal plot: “Keith Olbermann, Kos, David Brock. All of them are thrilled Gabrielle Giffords was shot. They couldn’t be happier about it. How bout that?”

On Wednesday, former Governor Palin of Alaska seemingly destroyed whatever her career was with an opportunistic video in which she identified the real victim here: herself.

She too invoked a  “blood libel,” possibly as a dog-whistle to the ultra-religious right. And she almost literally said that while her words could not have caused violence, words critical of her words, they could cause violence.

On Wednesday, Arizona Congressman Trent Franks determined that the tragedy was that there just weren’t more bullets flying in that Tucson parking lot. “I wish there had been one more gun there that day in the hands of a responsible person, that’s all I have to say.”

Representative Franks was apparently unaware that there was “one more gun there that day.” A man named Joe Zamudio was carrying, and walked into the carnage. He saw another man with a gun in his hands, and was, by his own calculation, one second away from drawing his own and firing. That’s when he realized the man had taken the gun away from the shooter. Mr. Zamudio had nearly shot one of the heroes. As Mr. Zamudio put it “I was really lucky.”

On Thursday after President Obama’s remarks at the Tucson Memorial, Breitbart’s Mr. Hoft, shaking off his embarrassment over quoting the fake Loughner Facebook page, returned for more.  “Oops!…It Looks Like Obama Fibbed About Giffords “Opening Her Eyes For the First Time.”

Then Giffords’ physicians confirmed, yes, the Gillibrand/Pelosi/Wasserman-Schultz visit was the first time the Congresswoman had opened her eyes spontaneously or at length. She had previously only done so, and only done so briefly, when prodded by doctors.

Doubling down, Hoft then claimed there was an applause sign flashed during the president’s remarks. In fact it was the closed-captioning on the arena video screen, informing the hearing-challenged that there had been applause.

On Friday, Bill Kelly of The Washington Times, took to heart the message in Mr. Obama’s comments to heart. “With the monolith of hooting fans, it wouldn’t surprise me that Obama supporters were actually bussed in for the memorial. Were they union employees or members of ACORN used to pepper the crowd to ensure conformity?”

Mr. Kelly then used the “blood libel” line himself and added “I’m not going to have my words, idioms, or expressions censored by the left because they see, in this crisis, a political opportunity to advance their agenda.”

On Friday, the former counsel to President Clinton, Lanny Davis, now reduced to being a paid contributor to Fox News, explained what he took away from this president’s remarks: that Mr. Obama should now publicly ask me to stop attacking Bill O’Reilly.

On Friday, Tucson Tea Party co-founder Trent Humphries explained the Giffords shooting to the English newspaper “The Guardian.”  “It’s political gamesmanship. The real case is that she had no security at this event.”

James Eric Fuller, one of those wounded at this event, himself a traumatized Vietnam vet, referred to the  “Tea Party crime syndicate” and said he believed that in the Giffords shooting, it had claimed its  “first target.”

On Saturday, in a decision smacking of the tawdriness of the Maury Povich Show, Mr. Fuller was seated in the first row of an ABC News Town Hall in Tucson — with Mr. Humphries of the Tea Party on the stage.  When Humphries suggested talk of gun control be deferred until after all the victims were buried,  Mr. Fuller stood up and started to shout at Humphries, “You’re dead.” Mr. Fuller was, quite appropriately, arrested, and removed for psychological evaluation. He has today apologized, and Mr. Humphries has said he does not feel threatened necessarily and wants Fuller to get psychological help.

On Saturday, Michael Carroll, State Assemblyman of the 25th District of New Jersey, wrote an op-ed rebutting President Obama: “An armed populace is the greatest bulwark of freedom. Our framers understood that, and envisioned a society akin to Switzerland, in which every citizen is armed and responsible for his own defense, and that of the state.”

Assemblyman Carroll not only responded to President Obama’s remarks by painting an America with a gun under every bed. He also — of course — compared Obama to the Nazis: “Germany elected Hitler, who seized all private firearms to consolidate his murderous tyranny.”

And lastly, on Saturday, five days after the blogger Hoft scrubbed the post about the fake Facebook Loughner page with “Loughner” misspelled as “Laughner,” Doug Giles of TownHall.com cited it as gospel, as if it hadn’t been utterly discredited: “Loughner’s  ‘hero list’ (according to Facebook) includes Barack Obama.”

Two days later, Giles’ claim still sits, uncorrected, on that Website.

Nine days have passed, and the willful blindness hasn’t even slowed down yet. Besides the total absence of even the glimmer of personal responsibility that Senator McCain and I have evinced, we learn from all this that the right lives in a perpetual state of victimhood.

We learn that the right doesn’t even recognize the irony of its claim of being unfairly blamed for the violence of others, when it has spent the last several years doing exactly that to Muslims — particularly American Muslims.  We also learn that the right can simultaneously insist no political party or inclination can be blamed for Tucson — while it itself blames the Democratic party and the left, for Tucson.

We learn that the Right does not understand that if you — if we— foment a political environment in which politics are to be settled by violence, or the threat of violence, or in a rhetorical tide of violent imagery, it no longer matters what those politics specifically are, or if the hearer even understands your politics or agrees with your politics — he may hear only the permission to be violent.

And ultimately we learn — especially from Mrs. Palin’s foolishness — this template of what the right would do in an actual open-and-shut slam dunk case in which a partisan of the right attempted to kill one of the left. The right would blame that victim blame him or her for not having brought enough security.  Or for not having brought a gun.

—End—
      

Comments Off

Filed under Keith Olbermann

Rep. Steve King calls Obama administration the ‘gangster government.’

Rep. Steven King is by far one of the more way “out there” people in congress, ala Michele Bachmann, Virginia Fox and a few other looney toons…

Think Progress

Rep. Steve King (R-IA), one of the right wing’s most shameless hate-mongers, has propagated all sorts of baseless attacks on Obama. For example, he has said Obama will make America a “totalitarian dictatorship,” that Obama was raised by polygamists, and that “radical Islamists” would be “dancing in the streets” if Obama was elected. In an interview with the Washington News Observer, King offered his latest diatribe, calling Obama’s team of advisers the “gangster government”:

Valerie Jarrett is a product of Chicago politics. This is power politics through Rahm Emanuel and Barack Obama, son and daughter of Saul Alinsky, linked up with Mayor Daley, the one that actually hired Michelle Obama and put her into that link, which may have well been the link that put Barack Obama into that machine. The Chicago Machine, we know what it is. Someone called it gangster government. In Chicago, you have gangster government and Valerie Jarrett’s been in the middle of that. She’s been brokering power for a long time.

Watch:

 

Comments Off

Filed under GOP, GOP Agenda, GOP Hate-Mongering, Rep. Steve King