Sarah Palin And Jesse Griffin: Alinsky’s Rules For Radicals Turned On The Left
Wednesday, August 5th, 2009Rule 11: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, polarize it. Don’t try to attack abstract corporations or bureaucracies. Identify a responsible individual. Ignore attempts to shift or spread the blame. –Saul Alinsky
The purpose of Leftist blogs is to achieve a political goal. The purpose of Right blogs is to report the truth. Dan Riehl gave approximations of these thoughts for my radio show airing tonight on RFCradio.com at 10 EST.
Do you believe his statements? It seems true to me.
Why, for example, do Lefty bloggers seem to have no problem spouting inane lies as fact. Think Andrew Sullivan and his Trig Palin stories. Think, now, Jesse Griffin, and his Trig Palin and more recently, Palin divorce rumors.
Dan’s premise is that on the Left, blogging is deemed successful if it achieves a political purpose. That is why scores of Lefty blogs picked up an unsourced, unconfirmed, anonymous blog post and wrote it as fact. More than that, the tone of the writing was generally breathless and had a tabloid feel. Certainly not measured and reasoned.
Now, Dan Riehl has been investigating the blogger at Immoral Minority and found out that he’s not very anonymous. The blogger outed himself, in fact, after being contacted by the Palin legal team. He didn’t have to do that, but chose to, evidently, after being asked to take down the defamatory post at his blog.
On the Left, there is cheerleading for a blogger whose claim to fame has been trading in falsehoods. There has been mostly silence on the right except for the digging done by Dan Riehl and Robert Stacy McCain.
The Palin family has been subjected to an incredible amount of lies and smears. In this case, they fought back. In this case, some Right-leaning bloggers did some digging of their own. And while the credibility of the now, not anonymous blogger is now in question, he will suffer no ill effects on the left (think Michael Moore and Andrew Sullivan) for being a wackadoodle. He’ll actually get street cred. The point isn’t to reveal a truth, for guys like this, it’s to score political points which often means obscuring truth, providing a distraction, or outright lying.
O’Reilly had a segment last night discussing whether the Palins should fight or if they had a case:
My thought is that they should fight. Because of Jesse Griffen’s not-so-hidden identity, people seeking the actual truth have done some digging and published it. No one has to make anything up–good reporting is just giving the facts. At the very least, fighting back against a harasser will harass him and make him feel some of the discomfort he’s inflicted elsewhere. Since liberals have trouble with empathy, this could be an education.
John Hawkins said that the Right needs to fight dirtier like this. Since the Left dictates the rules of the game–dirty, personal and isolating as Saul Alinsky says–why not turn the tables on them? And in the case of the Left, things don’t need to be made up. The truth is bad enough.
Note: I’m thinking about Rush Limbaugh here, too. He refused to be cornered. He fought back against the most powerful radical, Barack Obama. The fighting actually strengthened Rush. Perhaps the same thing will happen with Sarah Palin. This makes me think that the wise course for her is to fight.
Report Your Neighbor If He Spreads (Mis) Information–UPDATED
Tuesday, August 4th, 2009If for example, you see your neighbor use the President’s own words to describe his desires for health care, please, by all means, send in an email of proof of this citizen’s nefarious deeds:
The solution to the problem of citizens having actual information about the intent of President Obama, is to spread disinformation from a spokesperson of President Obama. That’s the MSM.
UPDATE:
There is a fun way to deal with the government’s nefarious intent.
Network Executives Get No Pity
Monday, August 3rd, 2009Losing $40 million to host the Obama gab-fests? Turning into a big propaganda arm for the Leftist government? Selling your soul and your credibility to be pals with your ideological hero? Poor, poor television networks.
If the major networks go over the economic edge because their lips are forever locked on the President’s butt, may they all go down in a ball of flames together. That network executives said yes for fear of being out of favor with this administration speaks volumes about not only the President’s tactics but about their own ideological bent.
Like I said way back, he conducts press conferences like he’s daring any reporter to ask a tough question. They will comply or they will be cut off. He holds the power and the reporters better acknowledge it by obsequious behavior….or else. There is always a threat inferred or implied when dealing with Barack Obama.
In short, spare me the crocodile tears. The networks essentially told President Bush to Eff Off for eight years and coverage was anything but fair–it was nearly always hostile. Ironically, President Bush respected the networks’ profit needs. And now, Obama acts, surprise!, entitled to network time whenever he wants it. And the networks do not deny him. They dare not–as if they want deny him anyway. They desire to please the master, so they comply, willingly.
And People Wonder Why Sarah Palin Stepped Down
Saturday, August 1st, 2009I won’t link to the abomination about Sarah and Todd Palin. Let’s see, it’s a New Media trifecta: unsourced, no confirmation, no eye-witnesses. Lots of innuendo, next some backtracking and finally, the denial from the person involved, Sarah Palin.
Why do they do it? Fear and loathing.
There is not one politician on this planet who has been harassed, harried, and harangued like Sarah Palin. Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie must be breathing a sigh of relief. All the scum and scoundrels in the media salivate over the lives of strangers. What the hell is wrong with people? The Palins are human beings. They live, breath and have feelings.
The excrable Firedoglake features Lisa Derrick’s salacious joy at the thought, with the post titled, “Sarah Palin is Quitting AGAIN: Now, It’s Her Marriage?!?!”:
“And the family has had a lot of stress and media exposure. Kind of like John and Kate Gosselin, but with fewer kids.”
And making a comparison to Jon and Kate…as if Sarah Palin’s goal is to exploit her children.
This whole episode says more about the amorality of the Left than it says anything about the Palin family. When a political threat exists, the Left, with one accord, grabs the metaphorical pitchforks and readies the stake. They’ve had the fire burning for Sarah Palin for months. Now, all they need is the Scarlet letter and they’ll feel justified in doing what they’ve wanted to do all along-burn her to a cinder. Well, they’ve been doing that anyway. What they need is justification for their actions.
A friend told me that Sarah Palin Hate reveals so much about the hater. Yes it does.
Ace struggled with whether to write about it, since its such unsourced garbage and blogging would give oxygen to the growing flames. But these flames continue if not fought with fire.
Really, I figure the blogs and press will get more vicious, the more Sarah Palin goes around them. I love that she issued a denial through Facebook. I love that they’re irritated that she hasn’t even Tweeted for a week. They need headlines! Can’t they see that by stepping down and using alternative new media outlets, the press is deprived of the circulation numbers a woman like her generates?
The solution, then, is to make stuff up. And on the day she resigned, she chided the press for making stuff up. The press got offended. So, they make more stuff up and prove her point. If it weren’t so pathetic, it would be comical.
I’m Tired Of The Birther Nonsense But The MSM & Left Can’t Get Enough Of It
Friday, July 31st, 2009Why are so many in the media touting a stupid Kos poll*? Could it be…..Journolist?
*Hint: It’s not the Right leaning media promoting this theory. Oh wait, I remember, try to discredit critics of your policies by painting the opposition with the “crazy” brush.
Why The Press Loves The Birther Issue–UPDATED
Monday, July 27th, 2009The Birther issue serves one important purpose: if the whole of the Right can be painted as conspiratorial nutters, then the Left doesn’t have to defend or explain very unpopular policies like Cap-n-Trade, Card Check and Health Care.
It is, in short, a diversion. When you got no game, play dirty. That’s the Left’s mantra and so far, it’s worked because the press colludes with Democrats and their agents.
Mind you, unlike the seriously deranged nutjobs on the Left who felt like 9/11 was an inside job, aka Truthers, the “birthers” issue seems more easily resolved. Although, as my co-blogger here at Right Wing News noted on the podcast the other day, actual facts tend to not dissuade conspiracy theorists.
Anyway, I see this as one more trumped up way to divert attention from the true nonsense in Washington, D.C.–horribly unpopular policy. Since the criticism of the policies can’t be discredited, the only solution is to try to discredit the critics.
UPDATED:
Funny how many nuts, with many on the Left, went on about how Bush planned 9/11 and cooperated with either the Saudis or Israel depending on your source, was never big news.
Can The Press Make It All Better For President Obama’s Poll Numbers Blues?–UPDATED ALREADY
Wednesday, July 22nd, 2009How powerful is the press in creating the narrative around President Obama? His poll numbers have slipped and I’m wondering if their full court press can rescue him. Can shiny, happy, soft-focused coverage for a huge government health care plan change the poll numbers? Will President Obama’s cajoling, reasoned, pleading tones work on the American people?
The members of the press won’t ask any challenging questions of Obama because they believe the greater good to be served is that President Obama’s agenda must be served. Please note, the mainstream media won’t even report that Democrats are divided on the many provisions in different versions of bills never mind whether the whole thing is a good idea at all. They want this FOR OBAMA. Good poll numbers are key. Can they do it?
UPDATED:
So I finish this post, go over to Instapundit, and see this link to Boing Boing about Hitler’s use of American-style advertising:
It continues:
“As is well known, the word propaganda in Germany is used synonymously with the word advertising. Although in this country and in Great Britain propaganda has the unfortunate connotation of being free instead of being paid for, this distinction does not exist in Germany.”
Ah, yes, that unfortunate connotation of freedom! Interesting that this is the only negative connotation of “propaganda” at this time. In fact, the (American) author makes sure to point out that in the Hitler speech that follows the word “propaganda” should be read as “advertising.” Apparently, the trade mag wants credit for schooling the Führer.
The article then goes on to quote Hitler at length talking about something that Americans who worked in advertising at the time already believed: that the masses are morons who respond only to simple messages repeated thousands of times (a perspective I discuss at length in my book).
Seventy-some years later, this belief is as popular with the powers that be as it was in 1933. Which, if nothing else, provides a shred of evidence connecting the makers of the Head-On commercial to the Nazis.
I do believe that President Obama and the press believe that the American people are sheeple and need to be lead to the right conclusion rather then presented the evidence and be allowed to come to their own conclusions. I’m still wondering how effective the non-stop advertising will be here. We’ll see in the coming two weeks.
My thought: If President Obama’s numbers rise over the next two weeks in the face of the horrendous economic numbers and general distaste for the ever expanding government, President Obama and his beholden press possess extraordinary power to manipulate the masses.
Does this make the masses stupid? I’m not sure. When the only information people receive is distorted, biased and yet presented as objective fact, can the people be blamed for believing and giving their President the benefit of the doubt?
Besides The God Language & The ESC Federal Funding Ban, How Was President Bush Conservative?
Tuesday, July 21st, 2009David Brooks flaps his jaws again and this time, he’s going after his beloved, well-spoken Barack Obama for falling into the same trap as Republican president George W. Bush, except, I don’t see the parallel. At all. Here’s Brooks:
It’s not that interesting to watch the Democrats lose touch with America. That’s because the plotline is exactly the same. The party is led by insular liberals from big cities and the coasts, who neither understand nor sympathize with moderates. They have their own cherry-picking pollsters, their own media and activist cocoon, their own plans to lavishly spend borrowed money to buy votes.
Well, that perfectly describes the Senate on both sides, but I don’t see how it’s the Conservatives controlling anything. In fact, had Republicans stood up for fiscal responsibility, one could argue that an Obama presidency wouldn’t have even occurred.
So, President Bush talked God with a cowboy dialect but his actions were all moderation. Hello? AIDs spending in Africa? School reform with Teddy Kennedy? Amnesty? And all these things made the federal government bigger (or would have), more powerful and invasive. The Bush presidency wasn’t about restraint and limiting government power–traits I associate with conservatism.
David Brooks and the Beltway elites are delusional. If President Bush governed conservatively, then David Brooks would put nearly every conservative person I know into the Right Wing Extreme camp. No wonder Barack Obama sounded good to him. Obama moderate? Is he insane?
Dan Riehl says of Brooks new found Gah!-Barack-Obama-Is-A-Liberal! Religion:
This is all great. But if Brooks is so smart, where the hell was he during the campaign when the rubes knew what to expect?
Right. David Brooks knows politics. He’s smarter than you. And he knows a Moderate when he sees one.
Boycott ABC Advertisers: Propaganda Arm of the Obama White House
Tuesday, June 16th, 2009Well, ABC is one of the propaganda arms, anyway. When it comes to Health Care, ABC’s Charlie (look down-my-nose-at-Sarah-Palin) Gibbs and Diane Sawyer will be asking “tough questions” of President Obama, in the White House about the President’s health care plan. Every once in a while I pine for the Fairness Doctrine. Maybe then, the MSM would find some balance. Never mind. It would be worse. At least there’s alternative media.
Here’s a solution for the ABC interview: boycott the products being advertised on ABC and let ABC know about it.
Thoughts?
Positive Press Coverage For Obama: It’s Good To Be The King
Monday, April 27th, 2009Howard Kurtz detail more media bias and the insider access afforded the elite few. And those few love President Obama, especially the New York Times:
The networks have given President Obama more coverage than George W. Bush and Bill Clinton combined in their first months — and more positive assessments to boot.
In a study to be released today, the Center for Media and Public Affairs and Chapman University found the nightly newscasts devoting nearly 28 hours to Obama’s presidency in the first 50 days. (Bush, by contrast, got nearly eight hours.) Fifty-eight percent of the evaluations of Obama were positive on the ABC, CBS and NBC broadcasts, compared with 33 percent positive in the comparable period of Bush’s tenure and 44 percent positive for Clinton. (Evaluations by officials from the administration or either political party were not counted.)
On Fox News, by contrast, only 13 percent of the assessments of Obama were positive on the first half of Bret Baier’s “Special Report,” which most resembles a newscast. The president got far better treatment in the New York Times, where 73 percent of the assessments in front-page pieces were positive.
It’s good to be the king. And the press isn’t even owned by the state.
