Glenn Beck Versus Georgetown Law Student

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Adam,

I wasn't aware of Jacques Ellul--and I have a pretty good library on propaganda. (Life is short and books are long and that seems to be the way everyone wants things...)

I went ahead and got this book.

I see the conceit leading to vulnerability he describes in your quote every day.

Michael

[Selene]

Adam,

I wasn't aware of Jacques Ellul--and I have a pretty good library on propaganda. (Life is short and books are long and that seems to be the way everyone wants things...)

I went ahead and got this book.

I see the conceit leading to vulnerability he describes in your quote every day.

Michael

Michael:

We studied him hard in grad school. The book I took that from came out in 1973 when I was in City government.

He is really solid and I picked up a lot from his concepts.

Enjoy.

As to that particular quote, the effete arrogance that I continually run into, and have, since I was sixteen (16) and started Queens College, is astoundingly ignorant, naive and, frankly, dangerous to a civil society. [wow - there are probably way too many commas in this sentence, but you get my point, I hope]

These intellectual gatekeepers destroy more young minds than I care to admit.

Adam

grammatically challenged

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Gloria Alred is now seeking to have the State of Florida prosecute Rush.

Gloria Allred seeks Rush Limbaugh prosecution

By MJ LEE

3/9/12

Politico

From the article:

In a letter dated March 8, Allred, writing on behalf of the Women’s Equal Rights Legal Defense and Education Fund, requested that Palm Beach County State Attorney Michael McAuliffe probe whether the conservative radio personality had violated Section 836.04 of the Florida Statutes by calling Georgetown University law student Sandra Fluke the two derogatory words.

The statute stipulates that anyone who “speaks of and concerning any woman, married or unmarried, falsely and maliciously imputing to her a want of chastity” is guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree. Allred explained that the statute recently came to her attention as having never been repealed, and that it could very well apply to Limbaugh’s remarks as his show is broadcast from West Palm Beach.

It is now entirely up to the prosecutor to exercise his discretion on whether there will be a prosecution. McAuliffe did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

She is going to have a hard time with that one. But the gesture shows that the true intent of the lefties is to shut right-wing public speech down.

Freedom of speech is important to them, of course, but in their minds, some are more free than others.

Michael

[Selene]

She is going to have a hard time with that one. But the gesture shows that the true intent of the lefties is to shut right-wing public speech down.

Don't be so sure, it is a heavily Democratic County, as of 3/9/2012 Democrats 371,600 [most of them alive] to Republican 242.076.

[Selene]

Now this is impressive use of your women power...

[Selene]

I listen to Rush a lot, as I sit at the computer attempting to get to work. I heard the programs -- two in particular -- where he went on and on about Fluke, repeatedly calling her a "whore," a "slut," etc.

All this sounded way over the top, even for Rush (whom I generally like). Do you want to know what honestly occurred to me at the time? I wondered if Rush was back on the oxycontin. I've had a lot of experience with narcotics, and there is a reason why oxycontin is called "hillbilly heroin." It is essentially prescription heroin, so far as its effects are concerned, and the way Rush was talking struck me as the way a person on heavy narcotics, with his normal self-censoring mechanism shut down, would speak.

...this was in fact my instinctive reaction.

Ghs

George:

I did not make that direct connection and I also listen to him while I work. However, I was working on a document that required extremely intricate language to make the case, so I did not have 100% concentration on his words.

However, when I am in one of those focused moments, another part of my attention is on auto pilot and his words hit me as truly off. Particularly the repetition of the banal words. Very unlike him.

Now I see that he apparently endorsed Dr. Paul's economic plan which I have no problem with. I did not here this directly and the YouTube video is down.

It is reported:

Rush Limbaugh’s endorsement of Ron Paul’s economic plan is a breath of fresh air. For the last several years the most capable and consistent conservative radio host couldn’t find a good word to say about the most capable and consistent conservative politician. All of sudden, Limbaugh declared that Ron Paul’s economic plan can save the country. He of course added, that Ron Paul stole it from him, which was ridiculous and unnecessary: In the age of the Internet it is easy to find out that Ron Paul has been saying the same things 35+ years ago, when Limbaugh was still a music disc jockey and hadn’t discovered conservatism yet. We all knew Limbaugh has been saying the same things in the last ten years or so, and we all knew the two men had the same libertarian approach to economics. There was no need for Limbaugh to make a fool of himself in such a way.

This endorsement means two things.

First, it unequivocally shows that Rush Limbaugh is an honorable and consistent man, even if I disagree with some of what he says and believes. Even in his attempt to ascribe to himself the fatherhood of Ron Paul’s economic plan, he did not shy from praising Ron Paul for his courage and tenacity. And he did not miss indicating that Ron Paul is serious about it and it is not just a campaign promise. Rush also did not miss taking a stab at the other candidates and at the Republican Party in general for only talking about budget cuts but never doing anything about it. That’s right, that same Republican Party to whose service he devoted a large part of his life and career. Limbaugh indicates he is disappointed with the Republican Party – enough to endorse Ron Paul whom he has treated less than honorably in the past.

Second, it shows that Rush Limbaugh is betting on a victory for Ron Paul in the Republican primaries. He knows Ron Paul can and will win. Why do I think so?

It is an old principle that “If you can’t beat them, join them.” Sometime in the 1950s – or may be even earlier – the media discovered a corollary to the principle: “If you can’t beat them, make them look as if they have joined you.” Communists were really good at using that principle in their propaganda, when they had to explain the economic successes of capitalism; capitalism, they said, has economic growth only because they have adopted some of the principles of socialism. In 1981 the Communist newspapers were explaining the rise of Reagan in the same way: “He promised the American people more socialism, and that’s why the American public, wanting more socialism, voted for him.” Stupid and ridiculous, but effective.

Limbaugh just rediscovered it. He apparently expects Ron Paul to win the nomination, and he wants to position himself favorably: “See, I have been telling you all along, this is the right plan, and Ron Paul stole it and he won. Next time listen to me.” Thus Ron Paul is made to look as if he joined Limbaugh and so he won.

Also, Limbaugh apparently doesn’t expect Ron Paul to lose. Because if the plan is Limbaugh’s and Ron Paul only stole it, and if Ron Paul loses the nomination, no other Republican candidate will implement a plan so radical as to cut $1 trillion of federal expenses. Limbaugh is right about the rest of the bunch: Their talk about “cutting expenses” is only marginal, 2% here, 3% there. In fact, if anything, we should only expect increase in government spending under any other candidate but Ron Paul because none of the others is seriously taking aim at the Federal Reserve, the Treasury, and the IRS, the three organizations most responsible for feeding the spending addiction of the Federal government. If Ron Paul loses, then in Limbaugh’s terms it will mean the defeat of his own (allegedly) plan. And it will mean that the Republican Party is not the party Limbaugh believes in anymore.

Thus Limbaugh is indirectly declaring that only a Ron Paul nomination can preserve the Republican Party in its original ideology and purpose; unless, of course, one of the other candidates adopts Limbaugh’s (allegedly) plan – which is as probable as another virgin birth. Apparently, Rush Limbaugh is attaching his reputation, and his assessment of the Republican Party as representative of what Limbaugh himself believes, to Ron Paul’s nomination for President.

Of course, it may be that the words just slipped out of Lumbaugh’s mouth. Very unlikely, taking in account that he sounded quite self-conscious and purposeful in what he said. In any case, the Republican Party is changing drastically, and the conservative field is changing drastically towards what it was originally supposed to be. Whoever may claim the credit for it, whether Ron Paul or the 16-years his junior Rush Limbaugh, America can only benefit from it.

Read more: Rush Limbaugh Endorses Ron Paul's Economic Plan as His Own - Godfather Politics http://godfatherpoli.../#ixzz1okC3sDkr

[9thdoctor]

Ooga-booga, Jane Fonda, Robin Morgan and Gloria Steinem are calling on the FCC to "clear Limbaugh from airwaves".

http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/10/opinion/fonda-morgan-steinem-limbaugh/index.html?hpt=hp_bn9

[Selene]

Ooga-booga, Jane Fonda, Robin Morgan and Gloria Steinem are calling on the FCC to "clear Limbaugh from airwaves".

http://www.cnn.com/2...html?hpt=hp_bn9

Hey, lets not forget the National Association of Gals...NAGS.

Out of curiosity, is there a statute of limitations on treason?

Apparently no:

Federal Statute of Limitations

Murder, capital crimes or crimes punishable by death, such as treason, have no statute of limitations. The Patriot Act, passed in 2001 following the 9/11 terrorist strikes, also removed statutes of limitations on numerous terror-related crimes. Most federal crimes involve tax fraud, wire fraud and other crimes that cross state lines. These generally carry statutes of limitations of around five years.

[Selene]

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Media Matters spin:

Limbaugh's Advertiser Exodus Expands Exponentially

by MMFA Staff

March 10, 2012

Media Matters

From the article:

Radio-Info.com reported on Friday that 98 advertisers have told Premiere Radio Networks, which syndicates Rush Limbaugh's radio show, that they want to avoid advertising on Limbaugh's show and other programs with content "deemed to be offensive or controversial":

"The list includes carmakers (Ford, GM, Toyota), insurance companies (Allstate, Geico, Prudential, State Farm) and restaurants (McDonald's, Subway)."

. . .

Advertisers have dropped their ads from Limbaugh's show in the wake of his misogynistic attacks on Sandra Fluke.

The truth:

Premiere Source: 98 Advertisers Not Targeting Hannity, Beck, Levin

By Newsmax Wires

11 Mar 2012

Newsmax

From the article:

Reports this weekend that as many as 98 major advertisers are asking not to air their ads on conservative radio shows are "totally bogus," a source close to Premiere Networks told Newsmax Sunday night.

Premiere Networks syndicates top-rated shows like those hosted by Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin and Glenn Beck.

This past weekend, news reports on sites like Politico and the Huffington Post are suggesting that as many as 98 major brands and major businesses are asking that their ads not run on such conservative talk programs. The reports suggest the advertisers are taking the action in the wake of comments made by Rush Limbaugh about a female Georgetown law student.

. . .

According to Radio-info, the list of advertisers include "carmakers (Ford, GM, Toyota), insurance companies (Allstate, Geico, Prudential, State Farm) and restaurants (McDonald’s, Subway)."

"These companies for the most part never advertise on Rush, Hannity and other conservative talk shows," the source said, adding, "And they usually don't advertise on liberal shows either."

. . .

"The media is trying to create the impression -- one being propagated by the liberal Media Matters -- that there is mass movement against conservative shows," the source said. "But it simply isn't true."

The source also told Newsmax that several major advertisers who have dropped Rush have already indicated to Premiere they plan to come back on his show, and other Premiere shows like Hannity and Levin have seen strong ad revenue growth.

The sad part it that people like Nancy Pelosi and other high-placed Obama-people are echoing the Media Matters party-line (almost verbatim) and the mainstream media is reporting their words almost as if they are fact.

Is it any wonder the mainstream media does not have much credibility anymore?

Michael

[caroljane]

Michael, the advertiser thing is small change to Rush (or a couple of french fries as he said) but something previous in this thread, to the effect that the stations and the advertisers will not lose money, is bothering me.

From what I remember about media buying, companies buy advertising space at rates calculated by the audience numbers of the specific show, not by the general time slot on the station. Thus an ad on Super Bowl Sunday, during the game itself, is more expensive than a Sunday ad in general, etc. By reassigning the ex-Rush ads to other, lower-rated shows, the stations might not lose money (although their contracts with the advertisers might force them to reimburse the rate difference). But I don't see how the advertisers would not lose money, because now their ads are reaching fewer people.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Carol,

There are two kinds of advertisers for Rush.

1. National advertisers who pay Rush directly and appear on his show on all the stations.

2. Local advertisers who pay Premiere Radio Networks for their regions and are put on the air during all kinds of different shows. These advertisers can stipulate what shows they want to avoid their ads being aired on.

Many products like local car dealerships, insurance, restaurants, breakfast cereals, and so on are not advertised on political opinion shows. Not on Rush. Not on Ed Schultz. Not on any controversial show that deals with politics, left, right or center.

The dishonesty of Media Matters is that they took an in-house memo that was sent around to remind people not to screw up (since screw-ups sometimes happen) and inadvertently put one these companies on the air on a political show in the middle of the current hot controversy and pretended that those advertisers were on a campaign to boycott Rush.

The truth is that they didn't advertise on his show to begin with.

This isn't because they don't like Rush. It's because they address a target public on all political sides, which even then is a non-issue. Politics is not one of their target demographic indicators. They mostly advertise on music and entertainment radio shows.

Note: If a screw-up happens during normal times and one of these companies gets aired during Rush's show, no biggie. Just don't do it again. But if it happens during a media war like the current one, left and right both will be all over it, screaming their heads off, and Premiere possibly will have to deal with a royally pissed-off company from the nasty partisan publicity it gets from everywhere, but neither seeks nor wants. That was the reason for the memo.

The memo was merely saying to local stations to be careful because the current flame war is intense. It was not saying to take sides.

But Media Matters is spinning it to say a group of advertisers is taking sides as an organized movement.

Michael

[caroljane]

Carol,

There are two kinds of advertisers for Rush.

1. National advertisers who pay Rush directly and appear on his show on all the stations.

2. Local advertisers who pay Premiere Radio Networks for their regions and are put on the air during all kinds of different shows. These advertisers can stipulate what shows they want to avoid their ads being aired on.

Many products like local car dealerships, insurance, restaurants, breakfast cereals, and so on are not advertised on political opinion shows. Not on Rush. Not on Ed Schultz. Not on any controversial show that deals with politics, left, right or center.

The dishonesty of Media Matters is that they took an in-house memo that was sent around to remind people not to screw up (since screw-ups sometimes happen) and inadvertently put one these companies on the air on a political show in the middle of the current hot controversy and pretended that those advertisers were on a campaign to boycott Rush.

The truth is that they didn't advertise on his show to begin with.

This isn't because they don't like Rush. It's because they address a target public on all political sides, which even then is a non-issue. Politics is not one of their target demographic indicators. They mostly advertise on music and entertainment radio shows.

Note: If a screw-up happens during normal times and one of these companies gets aired during Rush's show, no biggie. Just don't do it again. But if it happens during a media war like the current one, left and right both will be all over it, screaming their heads off, and Premiere possibly will have to deal with a royally pissed-off company from the nasty partisan publicity it gets from everywhere, but neither seeks nor wants. That was the reason for the memo.

The memo was merely saying to local stations to be careful because the current flame war is intense. It was not saying to take sides.

But Media Matters is spinning it to say a group of advertisers is taking sides as an organized movement.

Michael

I didn't see the Media Matters story - I was just wondering about the ones who were advertising on Rush and now are backing off till the heat dies down. While they're not on his show with its higher ratings, wouldn't they ask the network or station for a reduction to the rates for the shows they are on now?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Carol,

Those like you describe are very, very few in number and I haven't heard of any in specific.

Even Sleep Train was a local advertiser (in multiple locales) and nobody would have known it had such a policy until that dork penned a public statement bashing Rush.

I used to do some radio in Brazil, and your question doesn't fit with general advertisers. Sure they sold specific slots at times (events, etc.), but the vast majority of ads went per time slot, not per show. Mostly, from what I remember, a typical package, for example, would get you 5 ads aired during morning prime time, 5 ads aired during afternoon prime time and 20 ads during the rest of the day, including 7 of those during the wee hours of the night.

The station itself would choose which shows the ads would appear on.

Michael

[caroljane]

Carol,

Those like you describe are very, very few in number and I haven't heard of any in specific.

Even Sleep Train was a local advertiser (in multiple locales) and nobody would have known it had such a policy until that dork penned a public statement bashing Rush.

I used to do some radio in Brazil, and your question doesn't fit with general advertisers. Sure they sold specific slots at times (events, etc.), but the vast majority of ads went per time slot, not per show. Mostly, from what I remember, a typical package, for example, would get you 5 ads aired during morning prime time, 5 ads aired during afternoon prime time and 20 ads during the rest of the day, including 7 of those during the wee hours of the night.

The station itself would choose which shows the ads would appear on.

Michael

Thanks for the info Michael.

[william.scherk]

A memo from the man at Premier Radio Networks to radio stations has been getting a lot of play. Seems like Premier ordered an advertising truce across all affiliates, telling local markets to avoid playing ads by some 100-odd listed advertisers during Rush Limbaugh (and other 'controversial' products it places). The two-week moratorium is explained by the industry insider at the link below, some of it (they did not publish the full list -- though a screenshot of the memo was preserved here).

Creepy, the spin that is going on all over the place. Gossip, or gassip is on all burners, but the facts emerging suggest Rush is paying a commercial price for mouthing off Fluke -- and the Republicans themselves are wearing the stain too, for being so mealy-mouthed, because they each support the acts and legislation that Fluke spoke against.

And none of them seem concerned about the (fair or not) anti-woman stain spreading beyond its first margins.

If the Final Four keep sniping at each other in an attempt to corner the frothy-mouthed "base" holding up the elephant, with all four going to convention ... all in all this week's campaign news sums up as not good for the GOP, to my eyes.

Michael, I think I would be fair to say now is not time to carry Republican banners if you are a woman. What can she write on the sign -- 'Make me submit to transvaginal ultrasound, vote Mitt, Newt, Rick or Ron"? When several high-profile Republican women have repudiated their own parties hard-charge to the wingy right, what does that portend for you in terms of the 51% (and prone to vote) ladies portion of the electorate?

In 2008, Obama outpolled women strongly enough in places like Colorado to take fresh electoral ground for the Democrats. If the GOP does not forestall this happening again -- outpolling among women -- then similar effects will likely ensue.

The Rush imbroglio is the stale lingering cliche on the larger unappealing cake, a big wodge of anti-choice and ant-abortion statutes hustled by GOP politicos accross the nation. I do not point any of this in order to do a victory dance for Obama, but to get folks mentally ready for the 2nd Reign of Evul next January, and to make sure that they understand the truly awful opposing candidates left in the race.

Every last one of them faces being crushed by the O-machine in November, if they cannot change course to attract the disaffected. By spending months picking apart their rivals' flaws, they did Obama's job and helped get him ready for the debates. SInce old Southern Uncle Newt pledges to go all the way to Tampa, as does Santorum, Romney will face factional snipers from his own side and four-way money-splits until quite late in the game. By then, O-machine will have not had to spend its war-chest, nor had to do much but point to the newest misstep from the GOP 2012.

If the economy continues to ramp up even modestly in the next eight months ...

Rush's present issues will be a small sour memory of a stink eight months from now, but the tang will still be attached to the GOP. Sad but true.

Rush syndicator tells news/talk affiliates not to run its barter spots for 2 wks

Edited March 13, 2012 by william.scherk

[Selene]

Michael, it is not time to carry Republican banners if you are a woman. What can you write on the sign -- 'I want government to make me submit to transvaginal ultrasound, with Mitt, Newt, Rick or Ron"?

William:

This is only in the state of Virginia which has a "peculiar" history in these areas:

Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927), was the United States Supreme Court ruling that upheld a statute instituting compulsory sterilization of the unfit, including the mentally retarded, "for the protection and health of the state." It was largely seen as an endorsement of negative eugenics—the attempt to improve the human race by eliminating "defectives" from the gene pool.

Looking to determine if the new law would pass a legal challenge, on 10 September 1924 Dr. Albert Sidney Priddy, superintendent^[3] of the Virginia State Colony for Epileptics and Feebleminded, filed a petition to his Board of Directors to sterilize Carrie Buck, an 18-year-old patient at his institution who he claimed had a mental age of 9. Priddy maintained that Buck represented a genetic threat to society. According to Priddy, Buck's 52-year-old mother possessed a mental age of 8 and had a record of prostitution and immorality. She had three children without good knowledge of their parentage. Carrie, one of these children, had been adopted and attended school for five years, reaching the level of sixth grade. However, according to Priddy, she had eventually proved to be "incorrigible" and eventually gave birth to an illegitimate child. Her adopted family had committed her to the State Colony as "feeble-minded" (a catch-all term used at the time for not only the mentally disabled but also anyone considered abnormal), no longer feeling capable of caring for her. It was later discovered that Carrie's pregnancy was not caused by any "immorality" on her own part. In the summer of 1923, while her adoptive mother was away "on account of some illness," her adoptive mother's nephew raped Carrie, and Carrie's later commitment has been seen as an attempt by the family to save their reputation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buck_v._Bell

[william.scherk]

<p>A funny but sad report from Rachel Maddow, who has much fun with the transvaginal express. In this five minute take, she tells of the Doonesbury cartoon that was held back, or posted to online-only/editorial page ... and Rick Perry's Veep chances, since his transvaginal express bill was signed last year. She also mentions a hilarious note from Georgia's transvaginal express lobby.</p>

<p><p>She has fun with it, somehow, and is probably the only one on political TV who digs into the, er, full depths of the Republican love for probing women ... I trust her to be following her own nose on things like this, rather than pandering to the scandal of the week. She does keep her eye on a certain libertarian lesbian beat of state intrusions into all manner of ladies bits, lesbian and gay bits, military veterans bits, etcetera. She is no Rush Limbaugh, granted, but hey ... it's a free market on cable and she is more handsome than the other dullards and shills on MSNBC. For ever fox, a maddow to cross.</p>

<p><p>Worth the price just for watching her talk calmly about Governor Vaginal Probe -- and for Rick Perry's clip advising women on why they must endure a legislated cold plastic peepshow up the hoho. For GOP Ick connoisseurs only, I might add.</p><p>

<object width="592" height="346" id="msnbc26c7e1" classid="clsid:D27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" codebase="

http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=10,0,0,0"><param name="movie" value="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32545640" /><param name="FlashVars" value="launch=46712965^49213^514128&width=592&height=346" /><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><param name="wmode" value="transparent" /><embed name="msnbc26c7e1" src="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32545640" width="592" height="346" FlashVars="launch=46712965^49213^514128&width=592&height=346" allowscriptaccess="always" allowFullScreen="true" wmode="transparent" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" pluginspage="http://www.adobe.com/shockwave/download/download.cgi?P1_Prod_Version=ShockwaveFlash"></embed></object>

Edited March 13, 2012 by william.scherk

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Speaking of Rachel Maddow, I saw her last night for just a few minutes. She was talking about Game Change, the movie about Sarah Palin.

She said something to the effect that now that we all agree that the true narrative of what happened is in the film, we can... (I can't transmit the rest with accuracy because I was momentarily shocked).

I had to do a double-take. Yes, she really said that and her continuation (after I started recovering) reinforced the meaning that she really believes most people will adopt that film as the true reflection of what went on behind the scenes. And she was acting in a very sincere manner about it.

Living in a media bubble is more like it. These folks are hyping so much they are starting to believe their own hype.

I don't think they even realize they got their asses kicked in 2010 anymore. I think they think all the feelings and conclusions in middle America that led to that just went away.

I haven't seen the movie, but I have heard excerpts from it. Things like the handlers teaching Sarah Palin that WWII was fought against an alliance of Germany, Italy and Japan known as the Axis and her responding as if she were just now learning it. There is lots more Palin is dumb as a farm animal stuff. And McCain cussing like a sailor and yelling. What's that about?

It's weird seeing all this and people latching onto it as if it were reality. The weird part isn't the spin. I expect that. It's seeing the spinners believe their own spin as gospel.

Michael

[caroljane]

Apparently the Missourians are fighting about putting a statue of Rush in the state capitol. As he is a famous Missourian, most people seem to think he belongs there beside Truman and Twain.

I just found out that Brad Pitt is from Springfield, Mo. (hey Seymour, does he ever come home to visit? Maybe build a few energy-friendly houses for the indigent? Does he bring the baby mama?)

What I want to know is, will Brad be getting a statue there if he stays famous as long as Rush has?

[william.scherk]

I am glad MSK takes a glance at Maddow now and again. Her two segments covering HBO's "Game Change" (has anyone seen it yet?) were instructive. Some of the clips from the movie were new to me. Taken all together, Maddow's remarks speak to a new conventional wisdom that has replaced the old conventional wisdom.

In a particularly telling passage, Maddow notes that Palin's Going Rogue book was the first to offer an insider's report of the 2008 campaign. In that book, remember, it was the named and unnamed 'idiots' and operatives and briefers and top campaign who were responsible for such things as her debacle with Couric. Palin's story reigned among Republicans.

Those who took both McCain and Palin to task for lack-of-foresight or a unpreparedness, they were sour-grapers, or seen through Palin's lenses as incompetent or personally-hateful. Rumours of dissension and argument at the highest level in the 2008 campaign were common and reported, but this could be seen as inevitable recriminations that come after failure.

Maddow speaks with the woman (veteran of Bush-Cheney 2004, and former White House communications honcho) who was tasked with briefing Palin (as with Gibson, Couric) for scheduled interviews. Does anyone recall how Palin told this story in her book? Well, the campaign staffer, Nicolle Wallace, wrote a book, a roman a clef called Eighteen Acres (the 2nd and 3rd clip below show scenes ostensibly between her, Schmidt and Palin) ...

Then one of the honchos in the McCain campaign (now MSNBC voice) Steve Schmidt put out his version of events in turn, and that is the book that was adapted for the film with Julianne Moore.

I believe Maddow was talking about, and stressing, the reasonable position that Palin was (at least partly) the agent of her own political misfortunes, and not just a victim of the McCain campaign. Since she herself noted the tension and rejected the advice of McCain campaign staff, it certainly is and was remarkable when McCain staff tell their tale in turn. I do not believe that Palin's account is without self-serving bias, nor do I believe that Schmidt and Wallace are not also glossing their tales.

That's politics. But certainly we can examine their observations and claims, and by way of this HBO movie, figure out which of or which mix of narratives is true. In so many ways, Palin's own testimony supports their stories** -- she did not take their advice, she thought they were morons, she did not listen and preferred to do things her own way.

Most importantly, and all that Maddow points out, the conventional wisdom on Palin has changed since the time of her book. There is a much more general impression that she was simply not ready for the top of a national ticket, and that her selection was an error.

Me, I think they all failed, McCain, the staff, and Palin herself. In 'going rogue' she set herself up for the reaction. Is it a turning away from truth to entertain this kind of analysis? If so, what would an objective analysis look like?

Here are two segments of Maddow, the second of which MSK finds unconvincing. Another glance and listen might reinforce or undermine that conclusion.

Forced Vaginal Probing in Texas/Doonesbury/Virginia ultrasound debate ...

<object width="420" height="245" id="msnbcf0523" classid="clsid:D27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=10,0,0,0"><param name="movie" value="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32545640" /><param name="FlashVars" value="launch=46712965^51963^518252&width=420&height=245" /><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><param name="wmode" value="transparent" /><embed name="msnbcf0523" src="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32545640" width="420" height="245" FlashVars="launch=46712965^51963^518252&width=420&height=245" allowscriptaccess="always" allowFullScreen="true" wmode="transparent" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" pluginspage="http://www.adobe.com/shockwave/download/download.cgi?P1_Prod_Version=ShockwaveFlash"></embed></object>

Maddow covering the 'error' of the Palin selection, and in discussion with Wallace, cued up to Palin TV Movie clips ...

<object width="420" height="245" id="msnbc55ce0" classid="clsid:D27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=10,0,0,0"><param name="movie" value="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32545640" /><param name="FlashVars" value="launch=46712975^19735^250083&width=420&height=245" /><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><param name="wmode" value="transparent" /><embed name="msnbc55ce0" src="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32545640" width="420" height="245" FlashVars="launch=46712975^19735^250083&width=420&height=245" allowscriptaccess="always" allowFullScreen="true" wmode="transparent" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" pluginspage="http://www.adobe.com/shockwave/download/download.cgi?P1_Prod_Version=ShockwaveFlash"></embed></object>

<object width="420" height="245" id="msnbc3a7917" classid="clsid:D27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=10,0,0,0"><param name="movie" value="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32545640" /><param name="FlashVars" value="launch=46713014^2111^430264&width=420&height=245" /><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><param name="wmode" value="transparent" /><embed name="msnbc3a7917" src="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32545640" width="420" height="245" FlashVars="launch=46713014^2111^430264&width=420&height=245" allowscriptaccess="always" allowFullScreen="true" wmode="transparent" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" pluginspage="http://www.adobe.com/shockwave/download/download.cgi?P1_Prod_Version=ShockwaveFlash"></embed></object>

__________________

** but see Palin's video rejoinder to HBO, and the scriptwriter's reply that he wished she would watch his movie before bashing it.

Edited March 14, 2012 by william.scherk

[Selene]

[Selene]

"Bill Maher can’t go an hour without saying something 'disgusting' about Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann.

On CNN’s “Piers Morgan Tonight” Monday, the misogynistic comedian said that he hopes the former Alaska governor gets into the presidential race 'so 'that they split the MILF vote' (video follows with transcript and commentary):"

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2011/07/12/bill-maher-calls-palin-and-bachmann-milfs-cnn

I have always laughed at Maher's bizarre humor, but the double standards out in MSLSD land are just too much for a rational person.

Adam

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

William,

I tried to watch the first clip on Palin you posted and stopped after a minute and a half. I was laughing too hard.

There's a "blame everything on others" attitude that is part of the highbrow leftist mindset and seeing it transmuted into the figure of Sarah Palin is absoluly a hoot.

She blamed McCain's people for not prepping her correctly (presumably with high-school knowledge) for the Katie Couric interview? LOLOLOLOL... On what planet?

"You have ruined me!" Palin screams in the movie to the advisor.

I had to stop at that point. This is like candy for a progressive baby.

Talk about not having a clue...

We know the screenwriter met Sarah Palin, so I wonder what alternate reality that screenwriter lives in.

I can't even type this without laughing.

Sarah Palin blaming others for her performance in an interview? Blaming others for her very political life? Dayaamm!

This progressive mindset just doesn't get "self-reliance." It's like the Tooth Fairy to them.

Portraying Sarah Palin like what I saw is like some dumbass trying to portray Obama as scheming to become emperor of the world.

Nice if it were true if you hate the person enough, but it's just simply not part of the reality we all share.

Now Maddow calls that the new "conventional wisdom"? LOL... Whose conventions and whose wisdom?

I suggest you keep an eye on Palins's influence from here on out and see if this movie had any real effect on "conventional wisdom" other than preaching to the progressive choir.

For the record, I lump old-money crony-capitalist Republicans in with progressives because, at root, big government mixed with big business is what they're all about. They know Palin is poison for their agenda.

But here's a newsflash for them (since they spend so much money on this stuff)... Middle-class America knows it, too. And no propaganda film is going to get them to unknow it.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

As to the vaginal ultrasound requirement for abortions, I keep seeing this framed in ugly-image language. It is a deeper issue than the state forcing "sluts" to be "raped" by doctors for wanting to "murder their babies," which is how the mindset is being framed by activists.

I have already stated that I am against government interference on abortion, that the rights of the human being who is between conception and birth should be controlled by the mother. And I gave my reasons, so I will not repeat them here.

But I am also not against any hospital or clinic making a vaginal ultrasound a requirement as policy for their institution performing an abortion.

This is because I don't see them as fundamentalist religious busybodies who want to punish sinners, but are secretly smutty. Instead, I see them as people who are looking at life from the perspective of the unborn.

They simply want to give the undeveloped human being a shot at living before a permanent undoable act is performed (death). The way they see to do this is make sure the mother has another conceptual referent--a visual one--for the act she is authorizing before she authorizes it. She will not be able to say, "Oops, I changed my mind, I want my kid back" after the act is performed. But for a certain amount of time, she will be able to authorize the abortion again.

Are the people who object to "forced vaginal probe" objecting to "forced vaginal entry" for performing the abortion? Is that vaginal probing considered as rape, too? I think this is a silly argument. There's no sexual gratification or intent involved. (But once again, I am against the government requiring the ultrasound.)

Now, when we get to abortions and abortion clinics paid for by the government, or insurance funded by the government to pay for them, or insurance funded by "forced pocketbook probing" of citizens, we have a whole new ballgame.

Here's the plain fact and nobody likes it. The government will do what the people in charge of the government dictate. When progressives are in power, they will force churches to pay for abortions, provide abortions to teenagers against the will and knowledge of their parents and propose crazy anticoncepts like "post-birth abortions." When religious conservatives are in power, you get ultrasound requirements and stuff like that--if not outlawing abortions altogether.

In both cases, the government forces people to do something that some of them are strongly opposed to. Why not make the simple choice and get the government out of this altogether?

I know why. People on both sides want to force their views on everybody else.

Let's call it "forced trans-spiritual probing," or, in keeping with the tone of the language being used, "spiritual rape."

Michael