Whenever I get depressed about the sad state of American politics-which in the month of October is just about every day-I don't have to look far for people who should be held to blame for polarizing our politics.
The collective group of idiots who populate the Liars Club.
To review, the Liars Club is that group of conservative bloggers,who no matter what the subject is, will ensure that whatever story they post on their blog is casting the current President of the United States in the worst possible light-and casting themselves in a light of "brilliance". Or at least that is how they want you think they are. They consist of the National Review, Powerline, Gateway Pundit AKA Jim Hoft, also known in saner circles as the "dumbest man on the internet", William Jacobson of Legal Insurrection, Weasel Zippers, Jammie Wearing Fools ( the last word is a correct title-they are fools), any Town Hall author-but especially Hugh Hewitt. And last but not least, the emotionally crippled children who carry on the legacy of their thankfully expired namesake-Andrew Breitbart.
All of them are quite useless and all of them to figuratively to be beaten to death with a Louisville Slugger.
When they can't find anything news worthy to tar and feather the President or any other Democratic Party member about-they just make shit up.
What probably depresses me the most is that -one can just know when one reads a tag line by them on Memeorandum, that they are completely and certifiably insane. While they all have different day jobs-some are professional hacks "journalists", others are part time writers-but they are all certifiably stupid. I hate them all with a well deserved passion.
They are as John Cole describes it, Serious Persons:
Serious Person– Also frequently appearing as “Very serious person,” this is applied to a person held in great esteem by The Village, who is repeatedly entirely wrong about everything, usually with tragicomic results. Conversely, those who have pretty much been right about everything the last twenty years are referred to as “not serious.” Serious persons believe the only solution to any foreign policy issue is bombing brown people (preferably Muslim, when at all possible), and the only solution to domestic affairs is cutting entitlements and demanding that the poor and working poor “sacrifice.”
In other words, they have no fucking clue what they are talking about. Nor do they have any idea at all the world has changed and its not going back to the 80's-EVER.
Why do I hold them to blame? Because they write for an audience that clearly is as ignorant as they appear to be. Notice I say appear to be-because deep down they know what they are doing. They have no desire to have an honest discussion about anything. Their sole purpose in writing is not to celebrate the joy of communicating a well thought idea. And to take the time to do some research about it. Or to even pause to write about the truly beautiful things in life that have nothing to do with politics.
No they do what they do for the purpose of getting people angry. They want their supporters to be angry at the nasty black man in the White House. They want people like me-smarter than any of them-to get angry in return. And then if I write something that actually catches them in their lie-or points out again how they love to lie-they will simply turn up the volume and make it about me and/or some aspect of my personal life. They truly are reprehensible people.
They exert too much influence in American politics today-and sadly the news media by and large seems to take cues from them. In the case of Fox News, they appear to get story lines from them.
And they get away with it. They shouldn't but they do-because too many Americans are stupid. Right Charles Pierce?
The threat to the country, and to its commitment to self-governing democracy over the previous decade, and especially at the end of it, when the institutions of self-government seemed powerless to stop a cascade of destruction brought down on all of us by the institutions of private capital, the strength of which most of us never had begun to guess. That, through lassitude and a nearly bottomless thirst for snake oil, we had been complicit in the coring out of the strength of the institutions of self-government seemed terribly beside the point at the time, given the ruin that seemed to be looming to all points of the compass. But now, in the first real election conducted entirely after the crisis, and after the depths of the recession that it caused, we do not have that luxury anymore. The stakes are plainly clear. The decision, at this point, may well be irrevocable, and the first opportunity to make that decision is in the simple act of voting, and of explaining to ourselves why we vote. We vote because it is something we do together, for one another. We do not vote to take something back from someone else. We do not vote in a bubble, even if we think we do. Voting is communal, whether we want to look at it that way or not. We will have a self-governing political commonwealth or we will decide not to have one. And, right now, 20 days out, you'd have to be crazy or Nate Silver to think you know what which way that decision will fall.
The lies of the aforementioned members have a lot to do with that. And so I place the blame squarely on them-and hate them with a fervor that will be a flame unrequited until they are exposed as the charlatans they truly are.
Quote of the Day: "It's hard when you have a Nova mind, but are living in a Honey Boo Boo world……"
Oh you left out some of my more compelling reads: Instapundit and Drudge. I wonder what ever happened to journolist and Koss and the anti-war nuts?
Instapundit ranks right up there in stupidity. The rest is just the usual nonsense.
Skippy,
In lat night's debate, when Romney told Obama that we are down to the lowest point in ships in the USN to the point where we were at in 1916, Obama's comments were basically that we just don't have to use "ships" anymore, but we have these things called aircraft carriers and submarines. As the CIC, I think he totally blew that one. Yes we have better capabilities with the fewer ships that we have than the ones we had in 1916, but we have more commitments. Going down to 10 CVN's, as you are well aware is putting a strain on perstempo and optempo. You know just as many guys as I do who are pulling 10 month deploymnets, not including work ups.
But, as you say, his comments will get spun to make them into a "zinger" against Romney, and those who don't know what it means will not just think about it. But partisan politics aside, I think it was beneath him to just try to make a political point at an oppenent at the expense of those guys stuck in the middle of nowhere.
My solution, either build a few more, and get rid of some of the wasteful programs that we have throughout DOD, or just cut back commitments and just let things fall where they land.
The Navy's ship argument is self created-Obama missed a great opportunity to highlight the mess he inherited from Bush, who had Uncle Vern create LCS and the rest of the disasters that followed. The wars too contributed to the PERSTEMPO mess, and that is because the Navy refuses to stand fast against COCOM demands for assets they don't need.
Your talking about reporters, you may want to look at those on the left side of the aisle. They don't report, they are cheerleaders for Obama. This stuff about the killing of the Ambassadore over in Lybia, if it were Bush (pick either one) the press would be all over it like white on rice. Of course, since it's the Obama, they haven't said much at all.
Oh, the part about "this being the worst recession since the Great Depression" is a crock of turds. You may want to take a look at the Carter years for a real recession and high interest rates. Our "cheerleading press" forgot to do even a small bit of basic research to show the truth of how bad it was back in the 1970's.
Our "cheerleading press" forgot to do even a small bit of basic research to show the truth of how bad it was back in the 1970's.
Not only the press but also former Presidents. Bill Clinton said no President could have turned the economy around, and that is false. It was done in 1921 under Harding, and things were pretty bad then but by him lowering tax rates for all, and also spending cuts managed to get us out of the recession and back on track. But, that's not convenient to tell the truth.
I understand that spin goes on both sides, and I can deal with that. But some of it needs to be toned down. If your candidate can't just stand on their record, without someone in the media trying to explain to you what they have done to make them look good, then maybe that person shouldn't be in office.
I guess that just comes from me being just s "simple man."
Well having lived through the Carter years-I beg to disagree, primarily because the economic foundation o the country has changed so dramatically since then it makes the pain of an economic reversal felt more acutely.
And as for the media-there are strident bloggers on the left, but none as reprehensible as the members of the liars club. Furthermore-most liberals are not stupid enough to accept any claims at face value-something the readers of Breitbart etc do routinely. They are the real problem with America today-we have a sizeable majority of people who are really, really stupid.
Depending upon your age Skippy, it may not have effected you as much back then as it does today. Just as an example, I purchased a Nissan truck back in the mid 1980's and with good credit I was paying 14% interest. Now, a car loan runs less than 6%, in the late 1970's, the interest rates were close to 21%.
People on BOTH sides need to remember a lesson from the 1960's, and that was to check out EVERYTHING because the "man" is lying to you. However, I guess that message never got to those in the press much. Maybe it's the fallout of Walter saying the War was lost after Tet.
I lived through a 15.5% mortgage loan inflicted on me because the ex let herself get bamboozled into closing. So yea, I experienced the pain-but I at least had a steady pay check coming in.