Saturday, October 07, 2006
Right Wing Spinmeisters
So last Tuesday we were full swing into the Foley thing, and I thought I'd tune into Laura Ingraham's daily spin, er, I mean, show. I wasn't disappointed. I heard her talking to someone, I'm not sure who, who she's disagreeing with the whole time (not offering any counter-evidence of course, but saying things like "oh, I don't know about that", or "that doesn't sound right to me" - or her stupid little dismissive laugh she always does). Then she takes a call, and the caller is saying something about how "libruls" don't like wiretapping, so where did these IM conversations come from? I doubt "libruls" really are opposed to people in power being watched, it's blanket illegal wiretapping (you know, violating the LAW) that they are opposed to. But nevermind all that...
...because then we're on to hushed discussion between Laura and the caller about CREW, and how they are a George Soros funded (or "someone like Soros", she says) outfit, they can be just dismissed. What I just don't get is why the Republican noise machine always acts as if they are talking about the Illuminati when they talk about Soros. At least we KNOW who he funds - let's talk about another billionaire who funds foundations: Richard Mellon Scaife- why doesn't Laura divulge exactly what role the Heritage Foundation (co-founded by Scaife) played in her life? I think a perfect litmus test as to whether the media is really "librul" or not is to see often Soros' name comes up vs. Scaife's. If my only source of "news" was television, I doubt I'd even know who Scaife was, but I have CNN turned on all day at a typical workday - and I see the visage of Soros OFTEN.
Then Laura (and others - I listened to Hannity later that day when he "interviewed" Hastert - total love-fest) moves on to general implications about how Democrats held onto this for maximum effect - very interesting half-ass theory, and even though it was quickly debunked by ABC (it was Republicans who leaked this), it didn't stop Hannity and other despicable characters like him from continuing to imply this.
And this nonsense increased all week - a clip the Daily Show played of Hannity doing the inevitable - dragging up Clinton for Pete's sake. Clinton was a great whipping boy for the right for a while, but these people need to get a new scapegoat for crying out loud. Even funnier was how Hannity brought up some Democrat from 1983...gold. Besides being 23 years ago, it was also a much different political landscape - there was no internet, there were no bloggers.
Republicans just have to face the music on this one. A Republican did a terrible and despicable thing and they have to own up to the fact that other Republicans covered up for him - apparently some even encouraged him to run again - even after knowing. From the polls taken Democrats now win in polls on every major issue, so apparently all the spin isn't helping and is most likely hurting. Hastert should step down as a bare minimum. When the Sun Myung Moon Washington Times calls for a Republican to go, it's time to go, because if that paper doesn't support you, no one but the most deluded of your base will support the decision to stay.
...because then we're on to hushed discussion between Laura and the caller about CREW, and how they are a George Soros funded (or "someone like Soros", she says) outfit, they can be just dismissed. What I just don't get is why the Republican noise machine always acts as if they are talking about the Illuminati when they talk about Soros. At least we KNOW who he funds - let's talk about another billionaire who funds foundations: Richard Mellon Scaife- why doesn't Laura divulge exactly what role the Heritage Foundation (co-founded by Scaife) played in her life? I think a perfect litmus test as to whether the media is really "librul" or not is to see often Soros' name comes up vs. Scaife's. If my only source of "news" was television, I doubt I'd even know who Scaife was, but I have CNN turned on all day at a typical workday - and I see the visage of Soros OFTEN.
Then Laura (and others - I listened to Hannity later that day when he "interviewed" Hastert - total love-fest) moves on to general implications about how Democrats held onto this for maximum effect - very interesting half-ass theory, and even though it was quickly debunked by ABC (it was Republicans who leaked this), it didn't stop Hannity and other despicable characters like him from continuing to imply this.
And this nonsense increased all week - a clip the Daily Show played of Hannity doing the inevitable - dragging up Clinton for Pete's sake. Clinton was a great whipping boy for the right for a while, but these people need to get a new scapegoat for crying out loud. Even funnier was how Hannity brought up some Democrat from 1983...gold. Besides being 23 years ago, it was also a much different political landscape - there was no internet, there were no bloggers.
Republicans just have to face the music on this one. A Republican did a terrible and despicable thing and they have to own up to the fact that other Republicans covered up for him - apparently some even encouraged him to run again - even after knowing. From the polls taken Democrats now win in polls on every major issue, so apparently all the spin isn't helping and is most likely hurting. Hastert should step down as a bare minimum. When the Sun Myung Moon Washington Times calls for a Republican to go, it's time to go, because if that paper doesn't support you, no one but the most deluded of your base will support the decision to stay.
# posted by Sean LeBlanc : 4:36 PM
