By definition, projection is revealing of what lurks in a person's heart and mind. Arianna Huffington projected tonight, and what she revealed wasn't pretty. So much so, that even her liberal host hastened to diassociate herself from the HuffPo editor. Huffington, grossly misquoting Grover Norquist's famous line about doing away with government, added an infanticidal twist.
Huffington was a guest on Rachel Maddow's MSNBC show. The two shed crocodile tears about the diminished state of the Republican party. It was in suggesting that, of all things, she and Maddow should head up a Marshall Plan to save the GOP that Huffington engaged in that ugly bit of projection.
"She wants to rehabilitate her image and get everyone to love her again," says Larry Persily, a former Palin aide. "If I were advising her, say it once and then stop. You protest too much. You start to look a little foolish."
But Dan Schnur, who runs the University of Southern California's Institute of Politics, says the challenge is simple: "Feed the media beast or it's going to feed on you."
Who is Larry Persily? Kurtz added a little detail when he forwarded another Persily insult at article’s end:
With the campaign over, Palin seems more than happy to fill the media void. "Being in the limelight is good," says Persily, a former Anchorage Daily News editor. "She's smitten by it, just like McCain was smitten by her. She loves the attention."
On his November 10 Huffington Post, Nicholas Graham and nearly every commenter thereafter, purposefully distorted what Governor Palin said about prayer and the 2012 presidential race. The universal misconstruction of Palin's comments was that she was "praying to become president" in 2012 and that somehow God was speaking directly to her. But reality is she did not say that at all.
Graham offhandedly claimed that Palin said that she was waiting "for a sign from God" as to whether she would run in 2012. Further distorting her comments, he claimed she was "confident God would show the way to the White House." But, once again, she said neither of these things. In fact, what she actually said is rhetoric that is pretty much in accord with what even elected presidents have said at one time or another.
Unfortunately, we have arrived at a time when the default position for Democrats as a party is to despise religion even if individually they consider themselves religious. They consider any expression of religious sentiment whatsoever to be an example of "extremism," and "bigotry" against others. Well, at least the second any Republican expresses a religious sentiment, that is. When anyone from their side does it, they wink, nod and assume that their politician is just lying and merely trying to get elected and doesn't really mean it -- which is still an expression of a hatred for religion when all is said and done.
Studs Terkel, author and broadcaster, died on Halloween. Barack Obama observed: "Studs was not just a Chicago institution, he was a national treasure. His writings, broadcasts, and interviews shed light on what it meant to be an American in the 20th century." Obama highly praised Terkel when he was alive, declaring him " not just a national treasure - he's one of Chicago's treasures."
Terkel's politics were liberal, vintage FDR. He would never forget the many New Deal programs from the Great Depression and worried that the country suffered from "a national Alzheimer's disease" that made government the perceived enemy.
For a guy who calls for the rejection of the "politics of fear and division," Bob Cesca has an odd way of showing it. His HuffPo column is one long, headfirst dive into the ugly politics he purports to decry. Cesca hurls insult after distortion not merely at Sarah Palin, but more importantly, at the Americans who support her. Among other things, Cesca-the-rejector-of-division calls Sarah Palin's supporters "easily-led gomers."
Read along, as we excerpt from Cesca's cesspit [emphasis added]:
The leftwing blogosphere went into full panic mode Saturday as a result of a tough interview Democratic vice presidential candidate Joe Biden had with a Florida anchorwoman two days ago (video embedded right).
As my colleague P. J. Gladnick previously reported, Barbara West of the ABC TV affiliate WFTV in Orlando gave Biden quite a grilling Thursday.
Yet, despite the obviously favorable and well-documented treatment Barack Obama and his running mate have received from the press during this campaign, Netroots members were shocked and appalled with how Biden was questioned.
Katharine Zaleski, the Senior News Editor at the Huffington Post, published the following Saturday (emphasis added):
Has Mike Barnicle called Sarah Palin stupid? Seems that way. In a Huffington Post column that Mika Brzezinski read on today's Morning Joe, Barnicle, referring to Palin, wrote of the:
preposterous pronouncements of a woman whose candidacy is an insult to intelligence.
Let's deconstruct. The normal formulation is an "insult to our intelligence," used to describe an assertion that is obviously unbelievable. For example, you might say Barack Obama insulted our intelligence when he claimed against all evidence during this week's debate that his only tie to ACORN is his past representation of the group in a lawsuit. But when Barnicle writes that Sarah Palin's candidacy is an insult not to "our" intelligence, but to intelligence itself, it's hard to read that other than as suggesting Palin is something other than smart. Throw in his reference to "preposterous pronouncements" and there's little doubt that the person Barnicle intended to insult is Palin herself. Mika seemed to acknowledge that Barnicle meant to slur Sarah, observing, after reading that last line, "that's rough stuff."
For the last few days various groups like MoveOn.org, and the folks at Huffington Post, DailyKos and DemocraticUnderground have been beating the drum of a new theme to attempt to undermine the McCain campaign among the media. The newest claim from the extreme left is that McCain's focus on the Obama/Ayers connection is responsible for fostering "threats" and "violence" to be ginned up among Republicans at McCain rallies. The left is pushing the idea that McCain is inciting riots and "hate" among GOP voters and they are pushing this theme in an email campaign to the main Old Media outlets.
On October 9, for instance, I got no less than 25 emails "alerting" me to a particular Huffington Post jeremiad that is amusing in its replication of the same behavior it pretends to condemn. In this childish bloviation the HuffPo writer uses as much name calling, guilt by association, and bald faced lies as he claims to be refuting from McCain. But, the germ of the argument is that McCain is inciting violence.
This is getting extraordinarily old, and I vow that this will be the last time I respond to the hacks at the Huffington Post, at least on this issue, but I must again back-hand the disingenuous and highly tenuous Seth Colter Walls.
Mirror, mirror, on the wall; who's the kookiest HuffPo blogger of them all?
Until today, I would have declared former Al Gore fashion consultant, Naomi Wolf, the hands down winner in the flat out nuts department over at the Huffington Post. I thought there was no way anybody over there could exceed Wolf's insanity. Here are some Naomi Wolf gems that any contender for the kooky crown would have to exceed:
..I believe the Rove-Cheney cabal is using Sarah Palin as a stalking horse, an Evita figure, to put a popular, populist face on the coming police state and be the talk show hostess for the end of elections as we know them. If McCain-Palin get in, this will be the last true American election.
Friday morning, I made a 7:45am appearance on the Fox News Channel's Fox & Friends to discuss how nearly every media outlet is avoiding like the plague any coverage of Illinois Senator Barack Obama's long relationship with ACORN (the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now), the serially criminal voter registration outfit.
So as to better explain why the press, who love Sen. Obama with the intensity of a thousand suns, would be steering clear of reporting on the connections, I cited briefly some basic factual information about Sen. Obama's dealings with ACORN. The media are sitting on this information because they know it would be very damaging to Sen. Obama and his Presidential campaign.
It actually came after the debate, when for seemingly the millionth time, Sarah Palin trotted out her piece de resistance, her favorite prop of this campaign season: her five and a half month old son Trig.
Why is this child up so late every time there is a camera op? Why isn't this baby sleeping in a crib or bassinet somewhere with a sleep sheep or some other sound apparatus lulling him into night-night? Is it just me or does it seem like she carts this poor child around like a living breathing example of how wonderful a mom she is? After all, she's more than adopted the "I'm just a mom, just like you moms out there, America" attitude.
At the top of her second hour yesterday, talk show host Laura Ingraham offered a hilarious dramatic reading of Eve Ensler, the feminist-hack playwright of The Vagina Monologues, despairing over the ascent of Sarah Palin and how she doesn’t "much believe in thinking" and how she will destroy the beautiful polar bears, and how, if the McCain-Palin ticket wins, the "fall-out may be so great, the destruction so vast in so many areas that America may never recover." Hear the satirical audio at Laura’s Free Stuff page. The text, with all its anti-religious bigotry, is posted in a perfect spot: The Huffington Post, or as we've called it, Huffington's House of Horrors. Remember this when the media says all the invective in the campaign is coming from conservatives. Here’s a part:
Call it the Blame Game. The liberals are already coming up with excuses if Barack Obama loses in November. We have already seen how members of the MSM are blaming it on racism. However, Huffington Post blogger, Paul Slansky, has found another villain: Bill Clinton. Slansky lays out the blame scenario in his blog:
Given that we would never have had the odious George W. Bush in the White House in the first place if it wasn't for your blow jobs, Bill, it seems obvious that you owe it to the people of this country, and especially to the parents whose kids died in the Iraq War that Gore would never have started, and to all the parents whose kids would be killed in the WarFest that would be a McCain/Palin -- sorry, Palin/McCain administration -- to do everything in your power to get Barack Obama elected.
It sounds like the rabid rantings of some poor demented shlub posting at the Democratic Underground. Instead, it is Al Gore's former fashion adviser, Naomi Wolf, indulging in sanity-challenged fantasies on her Huffington Post blog. The target of Wolf's derangement is Sarah Palin and it is so over the top that one might suspect Wolf is an agent provocateur working for conservatives in order to discredit the left. Think I'm kidding? Check out this sampling of Wolf's plunge off the political deep end (emphasis mine):
Please understand what you are looking at when you look at Sarah "Evita" Palin. You are looking at the designated muse of the coming American police state.
It's been less than a month since Barack Obama has picked Joe Biden to be his running mate and already there are calls from liberals, made desperate by Obama's plunge in the polls, to replace Biden with Hillary Clinton. One such plea comes from Huffington Post blogger Andy Ostroy, described as a "New York City-based political analyst," with a blog entry titled, "Why Replacing Biden With Hillary Makes Perfect Sense for Obama." Here is Ostroy's rationale for one of the biggest flip-flops in political history (emphasis mine):
Sen. Joe Biden's a perfectly appropriate vice presidential running-mate for Sen. Barack Obama. He's got 36 years of Senate experience, is a true intellect, a foreign policy expert, and a genuinely nice guy. But ever since Sen. John McCain added plucky Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin to his ticket, the old adage nice guys finish last is beginning to take on new meaning in this year's presidential contest. It's time to dump Biden and replace him with Sen. Hillary Clinton. I don't care how it's done. Campaign chief David Axelrod can figure that out. And the sooner the better. Because I'm starting to think that if Team-Obama doesn't do something dramatic fast, it's gonna lose this election. There's a worrisome shift in momentum and in the polls. The Palin phenomenon, while truly unfathomable to Democrats, has energized McCain's campaign and allowed him like Houdini to snatch Obama's "change" theme right out from under him. It's time to snatch it back.
If you wanted a better understanding of why conservatives always beat liberals in a debate -- and why Barack Obama won't dare be interviewed by Fox News's Sean Hannity -- you to need to see Chuck Norris wipe the floor with Arianna Huffington.
In what almost turned into a free-for-all on Wednesday's "Larry King Live," Norris demonstrated how little Huffington understands about the Iraq war, while proving that liberal elites like her, because of their position, are allowed to say and write whatever they want, regardless of factual inaccuracy, and do so with total impunity.
With that as pretext, prepare yourself for this well-deserved and truly delicious smackdown of one of the nation's foremost, holier-than-thou, liberal media elites (video embedded right):
On CNN's American Morning today, White House correspondent Suzanne Malveaux reported on Barack Obama's campaigning in Virginia. Afterwards, anchor Kiran Chetry had a question:
CHETRY: All right. And Suzanne, what's on tap for the campaign today? And please tell me it's not lipstick again.
MALVEAUX: Let's hope not. He's going to be in Norfolk, Virginia. That is in southeast Virginia, and it's home to the world's largest Naval base. It's one of the most competitive areas that the Democrats and Republicans are fighting over. It's a critical piece of property, piece of land there with folks in Virginia, and they want those voters.
Your humble correspondent would like to thank Huffington Post blogger, Benjamin R. Barber, for giving him a hearty bellylaugh this morning for conjuring up the image of a traumatized Barack Obama getting "moosed" by Sarah Palin. However, on the way to delivering that comedy line, Barber, who is described in his HuffPo bio as a "democratic theorist" who authored a book (ranked #254,970 on Amazon) with the long winded title of "Consumed: How Markets Corrupt Children, Infantilize Adults, and Swallow Citizens Whole," provides us with a bunch of other laughs in his blog (emphasis mine):
It seems forever since the Democrats completed their triumphant Convention in Denver with its Obama/Biden/Clinton/Kennedy unity ticket and its intoxicating sense of take-it-to-the-finish line momentum. What happened? Not Sarah Palin. How could a small-time Alaska mayor and first term Governor derail the Obama freight train? No it was not Sarah Palin but the extraordinary reaction to McCain's wildly irresponsible decision to make her his running mate that seems to have paralyzed the Party.
Conservative blogs led the way in raising questions about Barack Obama's home church, but for months on end the MSM ignored the story until incendiary video of Rev. Jeremiah Wright made the rounds earlier this year and the story was too juicy to ignore.
Not so when it comes to Sarah Palin and her former church, the Wasilla Assemblies of God, as media outlets try to find juicy "controversial" video to prove Palin was poorly vetted.
MSNBC's First Read blog picked up on a Huffington Post item in a September 2 post.:
When I first read Seth Grahame-Smith's July 1 blog in the Huffington Post I had a nice chuckle starting with the title, "All of McCain's Base Belongs to Us; Why It Won't Even Be Close." Grahame-Smith's over the top confidence in the certainty of Barack Obama's election victory was so gloatingly bold as to be quite hilarious in its assertions (emphasis mine):
It's mathematically impossible for John McCain to win.
Were the great Tim Russert still with us, he would call the election for Obama at 7pm Eastern time. No, I'm not talking about November 4th -- I mean tonight.
Yup! It was all over as of July 1. However, Grahame-Smith was only getting warmed up:
Is it essential for an extreme liberal to be a paranoid conspiracy theorist?
Whether it's American involvement in taking down the World Trade Center, or war for oil, these folks can't swing a dead cat without hitting some nefarious cabal involving Republicans.
The newest one, floated by Jane Hamsher of Firedoglake fame, is that if Joe Lieberman is John McCain's running mate, and they win only to have the aged McCain die in office, President Lieberman would round up all the bloggers that supported Ned Lamont's senatorial campaign in 2006 and send them to Gitmo.
Profanity, those taboo words banned from the broadcast airwaves, is a feature of many people's daily lives. It's much less so in the establishment media world. TV and radio broadcasts are legally prohibited from using it, most newspapers have traditionally refrained from its usage.
That's not the case with the Web, where bloggers and readers face no such restrictions. That likely comes as no surprise; what may be surprising, however, is to what degree profanity seems to be a feature more common on one side of the political blogosphere than the other.
Which side is that? For answers, I turned to the search engine Google to see how common swearing is in the right and left blog universes by looking up the late stand-up comic George Carlin's "seven dirty words" in the most popular blog communities.
The results showed that online liberals tend to use profanity a lot more than online conservatives.
It appears something else that isn't tolerated at the ultra-left-leaning website Daily Kos is too much discussion about the extra-marital sexual escapades of Democrats the Netroots hold in high esteem.
At least, this appears to be the case given Saturday's banning of Lee Stranahan, a liberal blogger and video producer who's been writing diaries at DKos since at least April 2007, and has had his work featured at the Huffington Post.
My colleague P.J. Gladnick referenced Stranahan's HuffPo piece about Edwards back on July 27:
So just how upset do you think the leftwing blogosphere is over Barack Obama's latest policy switch on offshore oil drilling? You can get a good idea of the passion generated by this flip flop by noting that the Huffington Post currently has over 4700 comments on this topic. In addition, there is a tidal wave of outrage at both the Democratic Underground and the Daily Kos on Obama's apparent reversal on his prior stand of opposition to more offshore oil drilling. The story that the HUffington Post commenters reacted to so overwhelmingly was titled, "Obama Shifts, Says He May Back Offshore Drilling":
ST. PETERSBURG, Fla. — Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said Friday he would be willing to support limited additional offshore oil drilling if that's what it takes to enact a comprehensive policy to foster fuel-efficient autos and develop alternate energy sources.
Shifting from his previous opposition to expanded offshore drilling, the Illinois senator told a Florida newspaper he could get behind a compromise with Republicans and oil companies to prevent gridlock over energy.