Twice Through the Looking Glass

Michelle Malkin, the deranged Kewpie Doll from Hell™ is up to her old tricks, or, rather, up to old tricks she learned from the cradle on:

click for Media Matters story

Media Matters reports:

Just the messenger. According to ProgressNowColorado:

That’s noted right-wing shill Michelle Malkin posing with who we’ve dubbed “Swastika Guy,” owing to the sign he carried right onto the stage with State Senator Josh Penry, Congressman Mike Coffman, Colorado GOP Chairman Dick Wadhams, State Senator Dave Schultheis, former Congressman Tom Tancredo, and Independence Institute president Jon Caldara, among others. None of whom did anything about it, and in fact one person defended the guy to one of our people saying that the swastika is not a Nazi symbol, but an honored Native American symbol.

This is upsetting  to Malkin, who immediately accuses others of having done the same thing, and therefore she can do it too, because other people were hypocrites.* (* Just hope she never takes up mass murder or serial killing as hobbies.)

Nutroots suddenly hypersensitive about Nazi/president comparisons
By Michelle Malkin  •  February 17, 2009 11:38 PM

For eight years, we’ve heard “Bushitler” invoked endlessly….

Now, the tables have been turned. Some folks are invoking Nazi allusions against Barack Obama.

I’ve pretty much stayed away from using such rhetoric against those with whom I disagree — especially having been on the receiving end of Nazi allusions myself countless times over the years.

Here, for example, is a typical Nazi caricature of me during a trip to Berkeley several years ago:

Whatever.

But now, get this.

The left-wing blogosphere is suddenly up in arms over the sight of others mimicking their over-the-top rhetoric of the past eight years. A protester who attended the Denver Pig Roast today had such a sign and asked for a picture with me. The nutroots are having vapors about it ….

Well, if the jackboot fits … (or, Moms and Judges agree: two wrongs don’t make a right).

But that’s not my point. My point is this: they’re doing exactly the same switch they did between Bush the Smarter and Clinton. And it’s mostly the same players. Listen to this from 2001 (pre 9-11):

Shades of Purple – the Myth of the Red and the Blue America

[...] “I admit it — the liberal media were never that powerful, and the whole thing was often used as an excuse by conservatives for conservative failures.”
William Kristol, as reported by the New Yorker, 5/22/95

“In the west, 10 or 20 years, there has been massive research documenting the fact that the media are extraordinarily subordinated to external power. Now, when you have that power, the best technique is to ignore all of that discussion, ignore it totally, and to eliminate it, by the simple device of asserting the opposite. If you assert the opposite, that eliminates mountains of evidence demonstrating that what you are saying is false. That’s what power means. And the way we assert the opposite is by just saying that the media are liberal.”
Noan Chomsky, in FSTV’s documentation The Myth Of The Liberal Media

… Believing in freedom of speech, I do not mind that far-right viewpoints are presented on TV on a daily basis. What I strongly object to is that these viewpoints are not balanced by equally far-left viewpoints. Tune to CNN’s Capital Gang, and you’ll see a centrist TIME columnist (Margaret Carlson) and a socially liberal but economically conservative Wall Street Journal Editor (Al Hunt) debate two rabid right wingers, Kate O’Beirne and Robert Novak. Progressive voices are completely shut out from the program. Or tune to Fox News’ Hannity & Colmes which is nothing but a thinly veiled solo show for far-right firebrand Sean Hannity who is so “balanced” by the tame Colmes that he might just as well be opposed by a scarecrow made to look like Colmes. College dropout Hannity does almost all of the talking; he introduces guests from the “Family Research” Council as “our good friend from the FRC”, habitually refers to his own views and those of regular guest Jerry Falwell as “christian” without any qualifier (ignoring the fact that religious right views are not representative of mainstream christianity), and treats liberal guests as mere props to get his own point of view across, which usually involves interrupting and screaming. Fair and Balanced?

My, my how things don’t change.

click for larger original

My point is, fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

Suddenly, we have very convenient Republican talking points scandals and stories erupting … as a way of DICTATING policy. They’re shifting from offensive defense to offensive offense, and nobody’s even paying attention.

Look: they virulently TOOK power beginning with Reagan and Newt, and think that the 2008 election was an aberration.

So, if we let the media drink the Koolaid, and we fall for the phony GOP scandal machine, they’ve done the exact same thing as with Clinton, and they will have STOLEN three straight presidencies from us. Obama will never actually get to act as a LEGITIMATELY ELECTED President.

Well, screw that noise.

I had the following exchange on John Zogby’s new blog today:

Linda Willis-Riojas
comment #3 [off topic]

I personally am tired of ‘Politics as usual’ and the threat to our Freedom of Speech, part of which is the “Fairness Doctrine” now being bunted around to stop talk radio shows that have conservative commentators. The joke is that almost ALL of the mainstream media is left leaning and doesn’t give all of the story, just their spin on the story or not to do the story at all (for example, MSNBC’s commentators during the Presidential debates.

I am all for removing pornography from the Internet, but since that is impossible, the parents not letting their children use the home PC as an alternate babysitter as the television. (It’s really a sad commentary on our society that they now have to do commercials to get kids outside to play).

Censorship adds to the ‘dumbing down’ of the United States that has been going on for years (as a former teacher, I know this 1st hand that, saddly, this it true.)

Part of this ‘dumbing down’ is that an trillion dollar plus Bill was passed this weekend and was signed today without even the signers reading the Bill. I know most of us read the fine print before EVER signing a contract (or I hope most of us do; I know my husband and I read everything before signing). To me, the American people not being permitted to read the Bill is down right scary.

I think ALL of us should make our voices heard on this issue.

And again:

Linda Willis-Riojas
comment #6

Ted Schwalbe Broadcast stations use radio wave frequencies that in effect prohibit others from using those frequencies. Not every voice that wants to broadcast (even if they had enough money to build their own station) can do so.

I realize we are discussing the internet, but I was taking the discussion further, i.e. the “fairness doctrine” which was revoke under Ronald Reagan and an attempt at which is now being attempted back in place.

So far as the interet; answer this question: It was promised by the POTUS that ALL bills would be posted on the internet 5 days prior to being signed. The latest Bill was not only NOT placed on the internet, but even the signers didn’t read it. Why? What was the massive rush to sign but not read a bill with trillions of dollars that are going to have to be paid by the people to bail out big business?

By the way, Larry Flint asked for a bail out because pornography is free and readily available on the internet, thereby he’s losing money on Hustler magazine.

I was to know what the American people are paying for and I want to have had the opportunity I was promised to read the Bill (I could have read it in less than 5 days) but wasn’t permitted to read DUE TO CENSORSHIP. Is that germane to the discussion now?

Linda Willis-Riojas
comment  #7

Ted Schwalbe Broadcast stations use radio wave frequencies that in effect prohibit others from using those frequencies. Not every voice that wants to broadcast (even if they had enough money to build their own station) can do so.

I forgot to address this as far as talk radio: the ultra left wing has had the money and attempted and failed as no one was listening. Seems they got what they wanted thru the regular news media.

==

Hart Williams:

All right, Linda: let’s take the conversation further.

Your initial premises are false and questionable, respectively:

First, that “almost ALL of the mainstream media is left leaning.” You have zero proof of that assertion (other than Nixonian paranoia going back to the 1962 Calif. gubernatorial campaign — “You won’t have Dick Nixon to kick around anymore.”) and a plethora of studies proving EXACTLY the opposite.

Corollary: If bias is BAD, as you imply, then how do you justify defending an utterly biased (and openly biased) group of talk radio hosts? You can’t claim that bias in the MSM is negative, but YOUR biased bunch is, therefore positive. Judges and Moms agree: two wrongs do not make a right.

Secondly, your claim “I forgot to address this as far as talk radio: the ultra left wing has had the money and attempted and failed as no one was listening. Seems they got what they wanted thru the regular news media” is, if not false, then highly questionable, at best.

I have watched the rise of Leftie talk radio, and have noticed two salient facts: first that the shows do just fine, WHEN NOT INTERFERED WITH. Secondly, that they have been interfered with, are being interfered with, and there is no “free market” whatsoever (which is what you imply).

The radio stations are controlled by media monopolies, like Clear Channel and Cumulus Broadcasting, who have DEMONSTRABLY refused to carry syndication and have literally killed progressive talk stations (like KLSD in San Diego) to go to far less profitable formats (like “sports talk” — a favorite Clear Channel dodge).

The rise of this monopolistic grasp of right wing radio can be laid directly at the feet of the Reagan Administration’s suspension of the Fairness Doctrine, in 1986, which is, not coincidentally, when Rush Limbaugh’s “I win debates with myself” program went on the air on KFBK in Sacramento, California.

Since that time, the profusion of right wing radio has marched in lockstep with conservative takeover of the airwaves, loss of local ownership and the rise of the huge chains of stations. In that time, the PUBLIC airwaves have been taken over almost entirely by one political point of view, and the attempt at equalization (not counting the local hosts driven from the air) has been actively squelched by the ownership and management.

The purpose of the “Fairness Doctrine” was to ensure that what HAS happened DIDN’T happen — which was envisioned when the “Fairness Doctrine” was originally minted. Turns out they were right.

They remain the PUBLIC airwaves, and the nearly exclusive ownership of that radio spectrum by one ideology is antithetical to the notion of “public” airwaves: check the results of the last election and ask yourself, “How is it that more than half of the public is NOT served by the “public” airwaves?”

Now, stop making false and pejorative assertions and make your case based on the facts.

And I still got dibs on Rush (with the usual caveat).

Santayana famously said, ‘Those who do not remember the past are doomed to repeat it.” George W. Bush famously proved that to be in true in spades in Iraq (see ‘Vietnam’) and Afghanistan (just ask the Russians).

OK, Tony Snow is dead, Tim Russert is dead and Robert Novak might well be before I post this column, but the lineup and the tactics haven’t changed much.

Eerie how it’s almost ALL the same faces and the same tactics. And strange how we don’t seem to notice that the GOP shill shell game gets pulled on us over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and ov

Seig heil, Michelle.

Courage.

---

Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)

2 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized