I enjoyed Stephen Bannon’s film about Sarah Palin, so I’m looking forward to this as well.

This makes me wonder if Iran isn’t desperate for an attack from Israel. Every tyrant needs a villain and none fits the bill like the Jews. A strike on Iran by Israel would probably be a short term boon to Ahmendinejad and the mullahs:

This seems like all the ingredients for a bomb and, to some extent, that’s true. It’s also really good TV:

Cenk’s intro was pretty loaded, but I think he ultimately deserves some credit for having Andrew on and giving him something of a chance to defend himself on these matters.

Having followed all of these stories closely, I know that all of what Andrew said was accurate. He’s right about the Sherrod story and the N-word claims and the spitting. What’s happened is that the left has generated such a mythology around events like these that no evidence to the contrary is allowed to weigh in any longer. The conventional wisdom is settled.

Frankly, this happens a lot. We saw the same thing when VS published the “wise Latina” remarks by now-Justice Sotomayor. The media created a narrative around the facts which claimed she’d only been talking about cases involving race and gender. In fact, anyone with 8th grade reading comprehension could see this wasn’t true. She was talking about the definition of wisdom and how diversity on the bench would affect “the law and society”, which is about as broad as you can get. That was the context in which she said her racial background would be an advantage, i.e. that she would be more wise than a white guy. But the facts, the actual words of the speech, didn’t matter. The left generated a narrative around the facts and to this day lots of people who’ve never read Sotomayor’s speech are convinced they know what it says.

Again, it’s exactly the same with Andrew’s post about Shirley Sherrod. Cenk and many others know what Andrew did to the point that they’ll discount the actual words in his post in favor of their settled interpretation of what it means (one which just happens to benefit their side).

This is why having a media composed of liberals still matters. Anything coming from our side of the aisle is a) suspect and b) framed in a more convenient way for the left. Meanwhile, anything coming from the left (such as the attacks on Sarah Palin after Tucson) are a) immediately embraced and disseminated and b) framed as neutral questions despite being extremely partisan in nature.

This is war and thought we’ve made great strides in the last 10 years, we’re still fighting an uphill battle.

Update: I really gave Cenk way too much credit. Turns out that quote he pulled was completely out of context in a very intentional and scuzzy way:

“My problem is that it was about the compliance of the radical gay agenda. My problem is that it’s coercion,” he says, as if his reporting on Weiner, Sherrod, ACORN and others was not driven by any agenda or motive, nor meant to do harm, politically or personally. “I’m not the National Enquirer. I don’t engage in that type of journalism. It is meant to inflict a maximum amount of damage. It is an act of political and emotional terror.”

Breitbart was specifically saying that is what he doesn’t do and Cenk edits the quote to make it an admission of guilt? He owes Andrew an apology. Seriously, someone doing the research for Cenk needs to find a new job.

Another post from the Daily Caller, this one focused on the tax status picture for the organization in light of recent developments:

Critics also point to Media Matters’ still mysterious calls and meetings with White House officials, which could prove problematic if the organization is privately sharing information with President Barack Obama’s staff.

“If a section 501(c)(3) organization is privately providing to the Democratic Party information for their use in their political activities, that’s a contribution to the party. Maybe not for FEC [Federal Election Commission] purposes, but certainly for IRS purposes, and would violate their 501(c)(3) status,” one tax law expert told The Daily Caller.

“If, on the other hand, they are compiling information and publishing it for anyone to use, including the Democratic Party, that’s a different thing.”

“But if they are privately providing something of value to the Democratic Party, that’s a revocation issue.”

It sounds good, but the rest of the article goes on to say that it’s not likely MM will actually lose its tax status. The law is apparently too vague and hasn’t been tested very often on this issue.

I had a conversation the other day with a well known conservative who runs a 501(c)(3). His take is that anything used against Media Matters would likely then be turned on similar conservative organizations. In other words, this may be a new front in the political war that we don’t want to open at this point.

This is long but I enjoyed it. I agree with everything Jonah said about diversity, the nature of the culture war, and I especially his take on creating a more honest, more partisan media near the end of the clip.

Hat tip to Breitbart TV for this clip from NewsBusters:

Does Martin Bashir really believe that Santorum is a Stalin figure in waiting? He says the similarities are not just superficial, which must mean they run deep. But all we get are a few pulled quotes. But then, no one would claim Martin Bashir had one of the finest minds of any century.

You can tell he’s become unhinged in this clip when he simultaneously claims that Santorum is a theocrat and also that he sounds like Stalin. This is like saying music sounds like Bach and, oh, also a lot like the Sex Pistols. It’s at this point that we begin to wonder if you know anything about anything.

The rule that applies to referencing Hitler in political discussions of this kind (Godwin’s Law) should certainly be extended to Stalin as well. After all, Stalin was responsible for even more death during his tenure than Adolf. As a political argument, this is a desperate grasping at straws. If you don’t like Santorum’s stand on abortion or gay marriage, make a case against it; calling Santorum a theocratic Stalin just makes you look like an idiot.

Part of an emerging pattern:

Who would have guessed that men would abuse the ability to see women naked. Yeah, that was a tough one to predict.

Hat tip to the Daily Mail for this clip.

Well, it is Valentine’s Day…

Ever since DHS released that report on right-wing extremists (pdf) back in 2009, conservatives have had a sneaking suspicion that they were on some sort of government watch-list. That sense was heightened when, during the fight over ObamaCare, the White House asked the public to report anything “fishy” they heard coming from the right to a special email address.

Now the Obama campaign has done it again with it’s newly announced Truth Team, a trio of campaign blogs which features a web page designed to allow people to submit so-called attacks so that White House politicos can respond. And once again the campaign is eerily similar to the DHS campaign against terrorism which features the motto “If you see something, say something.” Here’s a brief ad containing the motto:

Compare that trademarked motto with this contact form which can be reached from the “Attack Watch” website. Here’s the actual text on the submission page:

“Tell us about it, and help fight back against the attacks…” sounds a lot like “If you see something, say something” to my ear.

If anything, the OFA version goes further than the DHS does. You’re supposed to report where the “attack” is coming from using a drop down menu. One of the options is “website/bog” (perhaps a Freudian slip there) and another option is “rumor”:

Personally, I find this incredibly creepy. I don’t want my elected representatives asking their followers to report me, or people like me, as part of a campaign strategy. That’s especially true when well funded allies of the President have just been caught putting together an enemies list of people to investigate.

Obama’s numbers on the economy continue to be weak. There is consensus that this could be the issue that sinks him in 2012. But it’s also a well remarked upon fact that his likability rating continues to be high. Obviously his team is aware of this and so we keep seeing little things like this:

This stuff doesn’t happen off the cuff. The White House is aware that while the GOP candidates are beating each other senseless every day, making one another less likable, the smartest thing Obama can do is smile, crack jokes and even sing:

This is how he won in 2008. He’s good at this. Every day this nomination process drags on, with its circular firing squad of attack ads aimed at other Republicans, is a day Obama is winning.

I’m loving this series. Today’s entry reveals Media Matters plans to hire investigators to dig into the personal lives of Fox News employees:

What Frisch proceeded to suggest, however, went well beyond what legitimate presidential campaigns attempt. “We should hire private investigators to look into the personal lives of Fox News anchors, hosts, reporters, prominent contributors, senior network and corporate staff,” he wrote…

The memo goes on to suggest new and unusual ways to harass Fox News: “detailed opposition research” on the network’s staff and executives, attacks against Fox News employees on Facebook and other social media, mailing anti-Fox News literature to their homes and placing “yard signs and outdoor advertising in their neighborhoods.”

None of this is really surprising, but it is something to actually have the proof. Kudos to Tucker Carlson for digging into this (and likely setting himself at the top of the Media Matters target list).

So the story of the day was the Daily Caller piece on Media Matters. There’s a lot here and none of it is good for MM. First off, it really paints David Brock as a bipolar, paranoiac:

David Brock was smoking a cigarette on the roof of his Washington, D.C. office one day in the late fall of 2010 when his assistant and two bodyguards suddenly appeared and whisked him and his colleague Eric Burns down the stairs.

Brock, the head of the liberal nonprofit Media Matters for America, had told friends and co-workers that he feared he was in imminent danger from right-wing assassins and needed a security team to keep him safe.

The threat he faced while smoking on his roof? “Snipers,” a former co-worker recalled.

“He had more security than a Third World dictator,” one employee said, explaining that Brock’s bodyguards would rarely leave his side, even accompanying him to his home in an affluent Washington neighborhood each night where they “stood post” to protect him. “What movement leader has a detail?” asked someone who saw it.

He also apparently has fits of erratic, aggressive behavior:

shortly after the 2010 election, Brock behaved in a way one prominent liberal who was there described as “erratic, unstable and disturbing.” Brock’s aggression, this person said, was “hard to ignore and noticed by a number of people,” generating “quite a bit of concern” about his condition.

There’s a suggestion that part of Brock’s problem may be drug related:

A number of people in Brock’s orbit believe he was regularly using illegal drugs, including cocaine. “It’s not like he was trying to keep it a secret,” says a female friend of Brock’s.

I was intending to write a long post summing up my thoughts on CPAC this year, but it turns out Melissa Clouthier has already said most of what I wanted to say:

Generally, the energy just didn’t seem to be there for CPAC this year–not like I think it should be during an election year. Does it concern me for November? Yes, it does. This should be a shoe-in year for Republicans. I’m afraid it’s going to be close because our candidates can’t articulate a clear, inspiring vision. We’ll see…

Mostly, CPAC is about networking. On that account, it was a spectacular success.

Some years back, Hillary Clinton groused about a “vast right-wing conspiracy”. That statement was laughable when she said it. Now, there’s a right-wing network. No, it’s not the top-down MMFA-Obama machine fueled by Journolist like on the left. The more a patchwork of people who tolerate each other and work together when forced to achieve a useful end. Ever try to rangle a hoard of one-man-bands? Well. The bands are starting to become aware of one another, work together, and help promote each other’s work. It’s heartening.

She’s right on both counts. This year’s event didn’t seem as vital as last years’ but the chance to meet people continues to be invaluable. I met people I’d never have met anywhere else. I’ve made friends at these events, real friends. I think that’s true of a lot of people who attend and over time that matters.

If you’re interested in an outsider’s (slightly jaundiced) perception of the networking Melissa is talking about you can read it here. I spoke to this reporter at the party for a few minutes but I guess I didn’t say anything shocking because I’m not quoted. There is a photo of me with Ed Morrissey though.

I had a lot of great personal experiences at this year’s CPAC.  One of the highlights for me was caught on camera by Da Tech Guy:

Last week the US tried to push a condemnation of Syria through the UN, but had it vetoed by Russia and China. Today, in a move that should put the extremism of Russia and China in perspective, the leader of Al Qaeda has joined the rest of the world calling for an end to the Assad regime:

So just to recap the situation, there is a bloodbath taking place in Syria with armed troops using artillery on the populace. The Arab League and Al Qaeda now agree that Assad has gone too far but Putin and Hu think intervention wouldn’t be fair…to Assad. Working with Russia and China is a waste of time. Worse than that, the UN gives them a nay-saying voice in the future of freedom they should not have.