Robert Gibbs opened up his daily briefing today with a frank confession that the administration had made a decision on Shirley Sherrod's speech without all of the facts, and offered an apology to her directly.

QUESTION: And to a lot of people trying to follow this story, they see a government employee who ends up losing her job because of comments posted on a videotape that appears to be taken out of context. It just looks bungled. Is that a fair way to put it?

GIBBS: Well, Ben, I think this is one -- I think this is a fair way to put it: members of this administration, members of the media, members of different political factions on this, have all made determinations and judgments without a full set of facts. I think that is -- that is wholly and completely accurate.

I think, without a doubt, Ms. Sherrod is owed an apology. I would do so certainly on behalf of this administration.

I think if we learn -- if we look back and decide what we want to learn out of this, I think it is, as I said, everybody involved made determinations without knowing all the facts and all of the events.

When pressed on the reason for the rapid-fire response, Gibbs had a reply that should have made everyone in the room step back and offer their own apology, but instead it just fired up the machine louder, because if there's anything the mainstream White House press hates, it's being held accountable.

GIBBS: I can't speak for everybody involved. But I think we live in a -- I think we live in a culture that things whip around, people want fast responses, we want to give fast responses and I don't think there's any doubt that if we all look at this, I think the lesson -- one of the great lessons you take away from this is to ask all of the questions first and to come to that fuller understanding. I say that, again, from the perspective of this administration, I say that from the perspective of those that cover this administration, and those that are involved in the back-and-forth in the political theater of this country.

And more:

QUESTION: It does sound like you've spoken to the president about this. If so, does he think she was a victim of a rush to judgment?

GIBBS: Again, I don't think I'd be out here, Matt, giving you the answers that I just gave to Ben without having those reflect the feelings of the president and the feelings of the members of this administration.

True to form, questions revert back to the horserace mentality so pervasive in Washington DC:

QUESTION: What if any concern is there within the administration that this handling of Ms. Sherrod could hurt the president and the Democrats as well in the elections?

GIBBS: Your question encapsulates a little bit of what I was talking about a minute ago. I know there is a -- we have this society and this culture now that's pervasive in this town where everything is viewed through the lens of who wins, who loses, how fast, by what margin?

You know -- look, a disservice was done, an apology is owed. That's what we've done. This administration has never looked at -- I think if you go well back into the campaign -- never looked at a scoreboard at the end of each day to figure out where we stood.

I'm no Robert Gibbs fan, but I don't think he could have done a better job keeping the message focused on the wrong done to Shirley Sherrod and the White House message of apology and conciliation, despite every effort to deflect it.

Continue reading »

How the Mighty Are Falling

Jason Miller wrote this incredible piece for C&L today:

Somebody tell Karl Rove to drop the applause sign. The minions he manipulates are cheering for an America that does not exist. That abstract concept of America, and its embodiment of liberties and human rights, is a fiction. Norman Rockwell's portrayal of America was an idealistic perversion of a landscape, which for many, has been littered with oppression, bigotry, greed, torture and even murder. Goya's brutal painting "Duel with Cudgels" comes closer to capturing the essence of the underlying mean-spiritedness of that is very much a component of this nation.

Bush, his Neocons, and the obscenely wealthy Oligarchs, who finance Republicans and Democrats alike, embody the face of America which is seldom portrayed by our flag-waving mainstream media. Yes, there is a dark, brutish aspect to this self-proclaimed beacon of freedom and liberty, and I am going to delve into it. Read on if you dare to take an introspective look at the darker aspects of our national identity....please read on

continuing inability of the U.S. military to understand the nature of the Iraqi insurgency, as reported in a New Yorker article, points to "one extraordinary but glaringly simple fact," writes War In Context's Paul Woodward, "America has virtually no friends in Iraq."

DC's Inside Scoop finds that as of today the White House "continues to maintain formal ties" with cash-for-coverage pundit Armstrong Williams. Plus: 'Open Wide and Eat Your Propaganda' and 'No Pundit Left Behind.'

Seeing the Forest's Dave Johnson describes a "conventional wisdom" machine set up by the Right, that in addition to working through conservative media outlets, attempts to influence more mainstream opinion leaders to "reject 'marginalized' information sources," including "Progressive online news sources or blogs." Plus: 'They can dish it out, but...'

Blessed are the sneaky bastards TBogg

Sometime back we referred to Mel Gibson's theological snuff film as Crouching Jesus, Hidden Agenda. Now reader Ed (no, not that Ed, the other one) provides us with a link where handy tips are provided for slipping Jesus through the eye of a needle cracks:

If you are worried that your local schools are teaching children that religion has no place in the study of biology, please consider donating biology-related books, posters, CDs, and DVDs with religious content to your school. These materials can be given to public libraries, too, and even directly to science teachers who can keep them in the classroom as convenient reference sources. Students benefit greatly from being exposed to alternatives to the theory of evolution, which is the bias of most textbooks used these days.

These donations are completely legal, and provide a very good way to provide balance in the school without formally challenging the agenda of the mainstream curriculum.

[...]

"These donations can also be tax deductible, but are best made anonymously so that a connection is not easily made to the religious affiliations of the donor. Purchases made at Amazon.com can be sent directly to the school's librarian." (my emphasis)

Oh. And if you want to have some fun, there's a contest to rename Intelligent Design. Why? Here's why:

As you know, lately we have enjoyed increasing success in getting religious explanations of life reintroduced into public school curricula, and we believe our strategy of "repackaging" every 10 years has been a critical contributor to this success. In particular, it has allowed our members to appear more "fair and balanced" at school board meetings.

Because appearing to be "fair and balanced" is much more important than actually being "fair and balanced".

Mandate Indeed

Geez. The way these conservatives talk, you'd think they won by 30 points instead of 3.

Even Bush himself has been telling the press that he has "the people at my back" (or is that backside?) -- in the process of making clear to everyone considering crossing those bridges they say they're building what the reality is: It's "my way or the highway."

But the entire press corps has bought into the myth of Bush's "mandate." Indeed, it's all any of them can seem to talk about.

Now, just as an experiment, I went back and checked, because I thought I remembered that Bill Clinton cleaned Bob Dole's clock in 1996 by a substanitally wider margin. Sure enough, the final figures were:

Bill Clinton 47,402,357 49%
Bob Dole 39,198,755 41%

Ross Perot 8,085,402 8%

In other words, Clinton won by a margin of of 8 percent of the popular vote -- 8.2 million.
Did the "liberal media" declare that Clinton had a clear mandate from the people?

Well, no.

The mainstream press instead proclaimed that Clinton had been given "a message, not a mandate".

DOWNLOADS: (657)

PLAYS: (1398)

Embed

It's now a fact: Whatever else the Tea Party movement may or may not have achieved, it can claim credit for at least one real phenomenon -- it has revived the far-right Patriot movement of the '90s.

We've been reporting it for the better part of a year now, and the New York Times recently confirmed it.

Now the annual report on "The Year in Hate" from the Southern Poverty Law Center has the numbers to back it up:

Hate groups stayed at record levels — almost 1,000 — despite the total collapse of the second largest neo-Nazi group in America. Furious anti-immigrant vigilante groups soared by nearly 80%, adding some 136 new groups during 2009. And, most remarkably of all, so-called "Patriot" groups — militias and other organizations that see the federal government as part of a plot to impose “one-world government” on liberty-loving Americans — came roaring back after years out of the limelight.

The anger seething across the American political landscape — over racial changes in the population, soaring public debt and the terrible economy, the bailouts of bankers and other elites, and an array of initiatives by the relatively liberal Obama Administration that are seen as "socialist" or even "fascist" — goes beyond the radical right. The "tea parties" and similar groups that have sprung up in recent months cannot fairly be considered extremist groups, but they are shot through with rich veins of radical ideas, conspiracy theories and racism.

“We are in the midst of one of the most significant right-wing populist rebellions in United States history,” Chip Berlet, a veteran analyst of the American radical right, wrote earlier this year. "We see around us a series of overlapping social and political movements populated by people [who are] angry, resentful, and full of anxiety. They are raging against the machinery of the federal bureaucracy and liberal government programs and policies including health care, reform of immigration and labor laws, abortion, and gay marriage."

Mark Potok, the author of the report, went on the Dylan Ratigan show yesterday on MSNBC to discuss it:

Ratigan: Mark, have you ever seen numbers like this?

Potok: Not in my tenure doing this work. I've been doing this close to 15 years, and I haven't seen anything like this.

I mean, the comparison, of course, is to the '90s, when we saw so much activity from militias and other anti-government 'Patriot' groups. And of course that's the sector of the radical right that we're really saying has exploded over the last year.

Uh, a minor correction to what you said -- the growth in hate groups, real race-based groups, 55 percent, has been over the last decade or so. That's slowed a bit. But when you look at the whole grouping of the various kinds of groups on the radical right -- extremist nativist groups, Patriot groups and hate groups -- it's astounding. We've seen an overall growth of something like 40 percent. All together, those three strands of the radical right are really the most volatile elements out there, and they amount to something like 1500 groups. It's quite amazing.

It's also worth noting what the report itself says about how this explosion has occurred:

As the movement has exploded, so has the reach of its ideas, aided and abetted by commentators and politicians in the ostensible mainstream. While in the 1990s, the movement got good reviews from a few lawmakers and talk-radio hosts, some of its central ideas today are being plugged by people with far larger audiences like FOX News’ Glenn Beck and U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn). Beck, for instance, re-popularized a key Patriot conspiracy theory — the charge that FEMA is secretly running concentration camps — before finally “debunking” it.

Yep. As we've been saying ...

Here's Potok discussing the report in more detail:

Continue reading »

David Weigel at the Washington Independent dug up this photo of Dale Robertson, who heads up the would-be national Tea Party website TeaParty.org, with the sign he was carrying at the February 27, 2009 Tea Party in Houston.

According to Weigel, Robertson was eventually kicked out of the event for carrying the sign. But as with most right-wing populist movements, the most extreme elements are very determined to shape the movement in their direction, and will inevitably find ways to float to the top. Especially when the supposed mainstream "just folks" who populate much of the movement turn a willing blind eye to the extremists who increasingly are leading them.

As Weigel notes, Robertson has arranged a series of "Liberty Concerts" to help promote the Tea Party movement. An e-mail sent out to subscribers to news from ResistNet -- one of the major clearinghouses of Tea Party activist information -- described Robertson's plans:

Robertson is molding the Tea Party events to empower Citizens so they will make a difference in the November 2010 elections. The ongoing tactics are to prioritize States, creating a durable model for ballot access, voter eligibility, precinct chair/county chairs, and candidate awareness. The Tea Party is actively seeking candidates that represent Conservative Constitutional Values. It appears the Major Parties can’t get in step with such a complex idea as Conservative Constitutional Values; therefore, the Tea Party will make it easy for the Independent Parties to break the glass ceiling and get on the ballot.

The ‘Liberty Concerts’ event taking place in Stafford, Texas is a developing prototype, which when successful, will allow the Tea Party to create a thriving event not in months but days. We will be quick on the draw, sure fired and ready to rock in a matter of only a few days. This Tea Party formula will work against incredible odds and will be nothing short of a miracle, but Robertson believes with all his heart all the pieces will fall into place.

Does the Tea Party really believe it can make a difference in November? “Some say, “talk is cheap” but 2 years ago when I started the modern day Tea Party no one believed it could work now 7 million strong, the world is listening and America is hoping, we will not fail.” Dale Robertson – TeaParty.org

As Tars Tarkas notes, the folks at ResistNet put out a disclaimer of sorts:

This is in response to the blast mail you received regarding the Liberty Concert being promoted by the National Tea Party group. The purpose of the email was to share an opportunity for you to experience the fellowship and company of other conservatives, as we kick off the election season and strive to take back America, restoring it to the Constitutional Republic it is meant to be. While they are a separate group from us, we share many of the same goals, a free, conservative America, and fiscal responsibility within our government. We are not necessarily promoting their complete ideology.

It's hard to say why ResistNet is even bothering to distance itself; it is, after all, a site riddled throughout with extremists of various stripes, as suggested by its reference to "the Constitutional Republic" in its disclaimer. After all, this is a site that hosts a copy of Louis Beam's essay, "Leaderless Resistance," which was nothing less than the basic blueprint for forming cells of "citizen militias" and "lone wolf" domestic terrorists as the blueprint for action of the white-nationalist far right. Beam, you may recall, was a leader in the Aryan Nations.

This is a movement that is not only riddled throughout with far-right extremists, but is increasingly being led by them. And no doubt they'll keep producing reminders of that for us.

Warning: Shameless self-promotion to follow ...

Digby's hosting a salon at Firedoglake today for my new book, The Eliminationists: How Hate Talk Radicalized the American Right. Come and join us!

In the meantime, the reviews are starting to roll in, too. Elbert Ventura wrote a very positive piece in The American Prospect. (Eric Boehlert gave it a shout-out too.) And a couple of weeks ago, SusanG at DailyKos gave it a big thumbs-up too. (You might want to read my conversation with Susan too.) And then there were the thoughtful reviews from Tristero at Hullabaloo.

I was also on Air America last week with Jon Elliott. You can listen to the show below:

DOWNLOADS: 2056

PLAYS: 638

Embed

State of the Day: The script doctor's 'narrative.'

Politicker: Oklahoma politician's offensive comic book - with the phrase "anal sodomy" in it - doesn't win him re-election. Meanwhile, a Texas State Representative gets caught using campaign contributions to buy $1500 cowboy boots, a Texas Republican Congressman is getting some heat for holding a fundraiser in a Vegas burlesque joint, a Kansan sticks it to the election system, and in Iowa, a judge says "it's about time"

Emptywheel: Scott McClellan dismantles Cheney's Plame firewall

Newshoggers: Republican hypocrites will even run against the GOP brand to get elected. Not surprising coming from a pack of liars who can unblushingly blame Democrats for energy woes and call for more drilling access despite the fact that their Big Oil constituency is shipping record amounts of gasoline and diesel fuel to other countries, enjoying enormous, record profits, while ducking responsibility for massive pollution.

10 Zen Monkeys: This roundup of YouTube clips is meant to give a small sense of what it's like for the people who are killing and getting killed in Iraq - a view that, limited as it is, one can't possibly get from the mainstream newsmedia.

I'm a little behind this story, but yes, the AP acted like goons when they threatened the Drudge Retort with a lawsuit over fair use. I would imagine it was some of their lawyers hunting around the Internets to see if any websites were copying their material. Unfortunately, they got a little trigger happy and attacked a blogger for nothing.

The A.P. took an unusually strict position against quotation of its work, sending a letter to the Drudge Retort asking it to remove seven items that contained quotations from A.P. articles ranging from 39 to 79 words.
On Saturday, The A.P. retreated. Jim Kennedy, vice president and strategy director of The A.P., said in an interview that the news organization had decided that its letter to the Drudge Retort was "heavy-handed" and that The A.P. was going to rethink its policies toward bloggers. The quick about-face came, he said, because a number of well-known bloggers started criticizing its policy, claiming it would undercut the active discussion of the news that rages on sites, big and small, across the Internet

Jamie emailed this story over when it first hit on Slashdot, but I didn't have a chance to post this yet. I've always been treated fairly by the AP so it was surprising to see them act like this, but give someone a new internet tool to play with and you wind up with idiotic threats. As KOS said earlier they now are backtracking a little bit:

The AP is going to lecture bloggers about what the "spirit of the internet" is all about? Laughable. And the AP certainly doesn't have free reign to rewrite copyright law on its own. Fair use provisions.

Hahahaha, OK, sure. Good luck with that, AP, I think it's really about trying to save face on their part at this time, but they walked right into a buzz saw. Look what they got themselves into.

Continue reading »