If they chase their tails any harder, they’ll disappear up their own arseholes

Over the past few days, professional rabid wingnut blabbermouth Dana “Drop Trou” Loesch has been working herself into even more of a frenzy than usual. This time, it’s over allegations that somebody at the DOJ referred an enquiry from credibility-starved hack-hive startup The Washington Beacon to a “site accused of antisemitism.”

The Beacon‘s edited by Bill Kristol’s underemployed son-in-law Matthew Continetti, the alleged “journalist” whose back copy includes The Persecution of Sarah Palin: How the Elite Media Tried to Bring Down a Rising Star. It’s quite possible that the DOJ has better things to do than help feed the Beacon‘s hysteria mill by responding to its request for a comment about a book with the transparently impartial title Fast and Furious: Barack Obama’s Bloodiest Scandal and Its Shameless Cover Up, but Loesch needs the page hits and something to do with her days now the boss is six feet under and evidently staying there. Her subliterate headline reads:


The site in question? Why, Media Matters, of course, which carried a detailed debunking of the book.

Loesch and her crew have been trying desperately to link the words “antisemitism”—a favorite of the Breitbartlets, an antidote to “raaaaacism,” if you will—and “Media Matters” in the same way that Jim Hoft loves to pair “thugs” with “union” or “OWS.”

Loesch has mustered her cavalry, including arch-racebaiter Ben “You burn down one mosque and they call you an Islamophobe” Shapiro, to the attack:


Subsequently, Loesch enlists the help of “P.J. Salvatore,” the inhouse sockpuppet charged with defending her honor when she hasn’t got the guts or hutzpah to put her own name to her whining:


The “misrepresentation”—and yet again hilarious accusations of “selective editing”—in this case concerned Loesch’s remarks that Martin Bashir, being a furriner and all, should go back to jolly old England and keep his nose out of American politics. Loesch doesn’t seem to feel this advice should apply to her colleague, South African-born Joel Pollak, but then you may be gaining the impression that consistency isn’t really part of her makeup.

And now, dick-obsessed Lee Stranahan steps into the breach:


They’re going to wear out those pearls and that fainting couch.

The “charges” referred to in these articles, when they’re explained at all, are usually self-referential links to the customary “fair and balanced” coverage emanating from Breitbart.com itself, but boil down to allegations involving Media Matters’ staff’s opposition to the overweening influence of AIPAC etc. on American politics, and the predictable reactions thereto from some quarters.

Of course, you point these failings out at your peril. As Charles Johnson has discovered, Loesch’s ace-in-the-hole argumentative tactic when she’s got nothing else (which is pretty much all the time) is to come out with casual allegations of pedophilia, as blogger MSWallack witnessed:

Following Johnson’s post about Loesch’s comments, she expressed her anger toward Johnson on Twitter and called him a pervert. One of her far-right colleagues took up the call and tossed off a somewhat offensive tweet about Johnson. Loesch then followed with this:

I wouldn’t be shocked if he has to live so many miles from schools as per the law.

In other words, Loesch was suggesting that Johnson was a sex offender and thus had to live away from schools. Her colleague then wrote:

I hear sirens going off if he so much as rides his bicycle 2 close. Did U know it has a cool horn. Beep Beep - Uncle Charlie’s hre!

To which Loesch responded:

‘Step inside my van for some candy!’

Funnily enough, this issue wasn’t something Loesch chose to discuss when she interviewed self-confessed pedophile Ted Nugent from his new gig under Mitt’s bus the other day. Neither is it something that’s prevented Sarah Palin—herself pretty damn quick to throw around the “pedo” charge when it’s suited her purposes—from palling around with Nugent in the company of at least one of her children at various functions in the past few years.


Ironically, Nugent can now add another proud feather to his hat, having just been convicted of illegally shooting a mama grizzly in Alaska. Maybe Snooki should be more concerned about keeping an eye on her pals than worrying about being scoped by a Bush I-appointed member of her security detail way back when she was considered important enough to warrant one.

Sheesh. It’s only April and I could just keep adding the crazy instances of dual standards and hypocrisy and ginned-up outrages from various winger outlets to this post till it filled the page. These people are going to work themselves into early graves if they’re not careful.

If I feel the need to apologize to y’all for not blogging more frequently at the moment, it’s because so much of what I’m reading around the blogosphere, and not a few MSM outlets, is on a par with this nonsense—I’ve focused on the Breitbartlets because they’re such a fine exemplar of the genre—currently interspersed with pooch jokes, it’s hard to type with your eyes rolled hard to the back of your head, and quite often I just click out and go do something a bit more useful with my time rather than offer you folks a presumptious view from afar on events much closer to your homes.

I’d be concerned that these nutters’ sheer doggedness might yield meaningful results in terms of the election, but anyone who staggers into these articles will be faced with some truly terrible writing and some of the vilest comment threads around (if by some freak chance the commenting system’s working), so they’re mainly preaching to a dwindling choir. And besides—I’m hiding this after the fold so that the likes of Loesch don’t get to see it—I’m persuaded by Jonathan Bernstein at The Plum Line that these news cycle one-hit wonders and whipped-up furors matter less in the grand scheme of things than people might imagine:

Political scientists have had a long argument about whether anything in campaigns matters to general election results. That argument has mostly been won by those who have demonstrated that campaigns can have some effect in November. But still: Whole campaigns, including everything from door-to-door electioneering to millions of dollars of TV ads to all those rallies with the bunting and the speeches and the music — all of that probably moves the needle a few percentage points.

That’s very important, no doubt, in a close race! But it also places everything in context. If debates rarely affect the results at all; if vice-presidents rarely affect the results beyond perhaps a small boost in their home state; if perceptions of the candidates’ personality may not matter at all; then what are the chances that a silly flap about what some talking head said in April will have any effect whatsoever? The first rule: Basically ignore the back-and-forth.
Here’s what’s important in determining who will win: Polling does become meaningful, but only later this summer. And here’s how campaign events can make a difference: Look more for broad themes than single-day flaps. We have pretty good evidence that perceptions of ideology can affect vote choice, so it’s worth paying attention to anything that might really move the way voters think about that.

Most important of all: External events. It’s the events far from the campaign trail that will influence swing voters the most. Chief among them is economic news, but other major events, such as foreign policy crises and natural disasters, especially if they make a real difference in people’s lives, can change votes. These are the real things to watch.

As a furriner myself observing and marginally participating in your political process from a considerable distance, I’m reliant on you Rumproasters to let me know what’s going on on the ground where you are, how your media and social Gestalt stacks up, how it actually feels for you. Just so you know: when I call an open thread and ask what’s eating you folks, I mean it, and that’s why I ask.

Posted by YAFB on 04/22/12 at 08:40 AM • Permalink

Categories: PoliticsBedwettersElection '12NuttersTeabaggeryOur Stupid MediaPoliblogsSkull Hampers

Share this post:  Share via Twitter   Share via BlinkList   Share via del.icio.us   Share via Digg   Share via Email   Share via Facebook   Share via Fark   Share via NewsVine   Share via Propeller   Share via Reddit   Share via StumbleUpon   Share via Technorati  

These people are going to work themselves into early graves if they’re not careful.

Well, that worked out swimmingly for ol’ dead Andrew so I’ve got no major problem with it.  Being digested from the inside out due to chronic bile production seems to be a choice, not fate. 

Seriously, I had been thinking that they seemed crazier and more spittle-flecked than usual, but I figured it was just me.

In the immortal words of Buffalo Springfield

There’s something happenin’ here
what it is ain’t exactly clear

I think, in a way, Americans are exhibiting signs of group PTSD.  One of the side effects of our involvement in WWII was a convinction that Americans had some preordained, messianic role to play in the world. Then came the murder and mayhem of the ‘60s . . . assassinations, riots, drugs, generational war and the dashing of our messianic self-image through our misguided participation in the Vietnam War.

To my mind, Frank Rich summed up our current national pathology very well, in 2010, while opining on the histrionics surrounding the Health Care Reform fight:

If Obama’s first legislative priority had been immigration or financial reform or climate change, we would have seen the same trajectory. The conjunction of a black president and a female speaker of the House—topped off by a wise Latina on the Supreme Court and a powerful gay Congressional committee chairman—would sow fears of disenfranchisement among a dwindling and threatened minority in the country no matter what policies were in play.

It’s not happenstance that Frank, Lewis and Cleaver—none of them major Democratic players in the health care push—received a major share of last weekend’s abuse. When you hear demonstrators chant the slogan “Take our country back!,” these are the people they want to take the country back from.


Add to that opinion a more statistical outlook from The Daily Beast:

Over half of surveyed Republicans said they believe that the president is a socialist Muslim who wants to take away gun rights and turn over U.S. sovereignty to the U.N.

What’s deeper, though, is the vitriol of those beliefs, with a substantial number of Republicans believing that Obama resents America’s heritage (47 percent), is the “domestic enemy that the U.S. Constitution speaks of” (45 percent), wants to use an economic or terrorist event as an excuse to take dictatorial powers (41 percent), is doing some of the same stuff that Hitler did (38 percent), and may, in fact, be the Anti-Christ (24 percent).

http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2010/03/24/obama -the-anti-christ.html

Americans live their daily lives in a miasma of misinformation about ourselves and others.  Our social values are transmitted, increasingly, via multinational marketing programs and the media that they dominate.

Predictably, more Americans are swooning over our becoming more “socialist” than are noticing the very real evidence that we are becoming dangerously sociopathic.


When Ann Althouse sees fit to criticize your prose style, well ...

“Is the Department of Justice sanitizing its connection to Media Matters for America?”

“Needless to say, nobody’s talking over at DoJ… at least they’re tacitly admitting that getting caught at treating with MMfA too openly is a public relations disaster…”

Treating with?

Could the people inclined to inform us about this Fast & Furious episode please write more competently? I went to that link (at RedState) after reading this story at Breitbart where I couldn’t find a quotable sentence. It seems like an important story. How about making it easy to share?

Don’t give up the day job, Lee. Oh. Right ...

Not sure what AA’s complaint is. “Treating with” is proper English, though kind of archaic. It has to do with communicating/negotiating, related to the term “treaty”, right?

If she’s not complaining about that, she is STILL as usual the physician that could benefit from some healing of herself. I can’t figure out her problem.

I think there’s something to that, Bette.  I particularly think the Cold War framed the world stage in such a way where everything was “It’s the Apocalypse! Oh Noooo!” and now people are walking around with the equivalent of “apocalyptic- news receptors” in their brains; anything might be the end of the world. When someting simple like “Kids shouldn’t be bullied” gets turned into “The fascists are taking our freedom of speech” and “Female-bodied people should be able to make reproductive health choices” gets turned into “The liberals are attacking religion”, it strikes me that the people who adopt these positions are looking for that extreme apocalyptic, dystopic scenario. To us, they’re changing the subject with nonsense—to them, their position makes sense no other way.

Oh ho ho, you almost lost me at “Bill Kristol’s underemployed son-in-law”!  So, Billy K’s daughter married a shaygetz; did Matthew Continetti convert?

Not sure what AA’s complaint is. “Treating with” is proper English ...

Oh yeah, sure it is. The reaction’s a typical Althousism, and was still being thrashed out in her comments last I looked. The bit that made me *snork* in particular was:

I couldn’t find a quotable sentence

Especially as it came on top of criticism in Breitbart.com’s comments that Loesch’s first article above has attracted:

Um, Dana, you have a few grammatical errors in you piece you should correct.

No disrespect, but they are fairly glaring.

This has all the pieces necessary to be a great column, but the errors made are glaring and obvious, and really need to be corrected.

Please, people, take the time to check your articles. The amateurish writing on this website is making conservatives look bad, and is a blemish on the memory of Andrew Breitbart, who was anything but careless in his approach to new media.

Andrew was a quote machine, but certainly no wordsmith, and he didn’t aspire to it.
The writing here is not great, because the authors are not J-school graduates.
But they get the truth out, and that’s what counts.

OK, I see what you’re getting at.

I love the whole concern with “making conservatives look bad” - in this case for once not automatically assuming that liberals were responsible, unless that comes later in the thread.

... in this case for once not automatically assuming that liberals were responsible, unless that comes later in the thread

Things seem a bit subdued over there at this point in time, but I’m sure it wouldn’t take much to plant the idea that their articles are being hacked to make them read like spectacular drivel.

Loesch needs the page hits and something to do with her days now the boss is six feet under and evidently staying there.

This is their problem right there.  His death was an incredible marketing opportunity for the Bigs—national media attention, publicity you couldn’t buy, a rallying cry for the troops.  But they had no product to ship.  It’s as though Oprah endorsed your book back when she was Queen of TV and your publisher went out of business the same day.  And your agent was Ben Shapiro.  So they’re out beating the bushes for whatever they can find.  Desperation is never attractive.

Page 1 of 1 pages

Sorry, commenting is closed for this post.

Next entry: Paul Ryan is the Devil

Previous entry: 'til Tuesday

<< Back to main