How Green Was My Talking Point

I guess it’s a priority story after all. Michelle Malkin weighed in with a vengeance (literally) today, in a column in the New York Post — which seems to have gone into “all attack, all the time” mode after the embarrassment of their non-journalistic, anonymously-sourced smear of yesterday.

Oh, did I mention that the Post is owned by Rupert Murdoch? (As may well be Malkin, certainly she pulls down a nice chunk of change from various News Corp. entities.)

The Post’s “related stories” sidebars look like the aftermath of a port-a-potty explosion:

MOVEON’S SMEAR: A VILE NEW LOW
‘MOVEON’ OSAMA
LISTEN TO THE GENERAL
SEN. CLINTON’S SLUR
TIMES GIVES LEFTIES A HEFTY DISCOUNT FOR ‘BETRAY US’ AD
HILL’S AN ASP: RUDY
DEMOCRATS SHOULD CONDEMN MOVEON*
IRAN’S WAR ON THE KURDS

(Can you say idée fixé?)

[* By ex-mayor Ed Koch, who must really need the cash for his prescription drugs. Of course, in the case of The New York Post, their editor is on record as being against his paper ever getting a Pulitzer Prize. (“Who would want to win an award that is dished out by the hard left of American journalism? Who’d want that?” quoth he.) And they’re not exactly a big money-maker, so they OUGHT to have some value as a tool for advancing the agenda, right?Bad reporting, anonymous sourcing and wild accusations of bias by a cross-town rival aren’t exactly going to help recover readership or profitability. ( ‘Post’ To Stop Hemorrhaging Money, Start Hemorrhaging Readers 4-23-07)]

Here, from her blog (she’s been a busy little Kewpie Doll From Hell™) a delineation of a sort of multimedia whirlwind attack:

No, let’s NOT “move on”
By Michelle Malkin • September 14, 2007 07:40 AM
Update: Here’s video of an FNC segment I did on MoveOn.org with E.D. Hill.

I did a special column for the NYPost today on MoveOn.org, the Democrat Party, their in-kind contributors at the NYTimes, and their thug allies who’ll be hitting the streets in DC this weekend. Here’s the conclusion [quotes herself]:

Like Siamese twins, MoveOn and the Democratic Party are conjoined political entities fused at the heart and hip. There will be no repudiation. A house organ can’t reject itself …

Instead, just as anti-war zealots have plotted, the Dems are taking the “high road” in accusing Petraeus of “cherry-picking statistics or selectively massaging information” (the words are Florida Rep. Robert Wexler’s), while the Soros-funded henchmen drag the general’s name through the mud. Meanwhile, their socialist allies led by ANSWER are preparing to take over Washington beginning on Saturday.

The anti-war crew will hold a “die-in” besmirching the troops who believed in the mission in Iraq and gave their lives; they’re planning to shut down military recruiting stations in the nation’s capital, and they’ll continue with other attempts to portray our leaders in uniform as book-cookers and liars.

It is our job to hold these political thugs, their Democrat allies, and their journalistic partners accountable. Let’s not forgive and forget. Hound the Democrat presidential candidates out of their silence. Hound the Times for its advertising bargains to anti-war bullies. And hound the Soros-funded goons body for body, march for march, call for call, letter for letter.

Yes, there’s a war going on. No, let’s not “move on.”

Hahaha. Funny pun, Malkin! “move on.” HOWL-arious! Hyuck, hyuck!

And it’s astonishing to hear someone with such a hateful potty mouth accuwsing ANYTONE else of being ‘thugs’ and ‘goons’ — pot, kettle, and all that.

And your use of smears and slurs to suggest that the “Democrat Party” is BAD (alas, it’s the “Democratic Party,” but then, we can’t expect literacy from this attack planarium of the Reich … er, Right) is filled to the brim with the corruscating literary sewage we’ve come to expect from your poisoned pen.

I know, you think I’m being unfair. But wherein lies civility in Malkin’s past history? Always an Ann Coulter wannabe, Malkin has achieved her position as uber-attack-dog (now surpassing Coulter, whose many gaffes have clearly begun to take their toll on her Ilsa, Barbie Doll of the SS kink sex-symbol status on the Right). Both Malkin and Coulter depend as much on their “sex-symbol” persona as their policy personae — the plural necessitated because each talking point is adopted completely, without regard for any other talking point, if they sell snails one day and snail poison the next, so be it, it is the SELLING that is important, not that day’s talking point — and both seem to understand that split. Both halves are necessary, both masks important since neither could “make it” on policy or sex symbol status alone.

We might as well talk about it. If you look at the detritus of the various events, the “Coulter and me” photos from events, book signings, etc. the “Me and Michelle” snapshots, you realize that they’re supermodels in the company that they keep, acceptable as objets d’art in the Land of the Inaesthetic, to put it delicately and precisely.

It’s no accident that the “superstars” of the Rightie blogosphere and new media are the Michelle Malkins and Mary Katherine Hams, who can keep pace with the Righty Ramp Models that have now taken over virtually all news programs. If you weren’t born with good cheekbones and Modern Bride model looks, forget a career in news.

And don’t forget Laura Ingraham, who Emcee’d the Iowa Republican Straw Poll and has her own conservative talk radio show … or Melanie Morgan, who, when not being a Far Rightie talk radio host for KSFO in San Francisco (and if you know SF, you understand what kind of contrarian-who-hates-her-neighbors you’ve gotta be to hold down THAT job) is the public face of the astroturf “Move America Forward” (Or Move Forward America, I can never keep ’em straight), the anti-MoveOn.org (as Newsbusters is the astroturf anti-Media Matters for America) and is ANOTHER Faux Nooz talking head.

Funny how often these Barbie Dolls from Hell™ also appear on MSNBC’s “Faux Lite” shows, ain’t it?

And so with our Rightie pundits (and, if you watch Faux Nooz, they even have a “Democrat” strategist who debates Malkin — usually on O’Reilly — Kirsten Powers. Remember that Rupert Murdoch invented the “page 3″ girl for his British tabloid The Sun: His paper was failing, and then he decided to put a topless model on Page 3, and the rest, as they say, is history. So, Faux Nooz uses a modification of that technique. (They’d be topless if it were legal, I can guarantee you.)

Sort of a “models talking dirty to you,” only in this case it’s a political pornography.

So, when the Kewpie Doll from Hell™ is called in, you KNOW they’re in serious damage control mode.

Gee. They had the New York Times by the short hairs. What happened? Why was MM suddenly yanked off the Hsu case to attack MoveOn in EVERY Rupert Murdoch outlet it was quickly possible to screech that hate voodoo that she do so well? Hmmm.

The American Spectator (originally financed by Richard Mellon Scaife as part of the “Arkansas Project” and spun off into Tom Phillips’ Regnery Press/Eagle Publishing empire — which publishes Michelle Malkin’s books) is there at midnight with the new talking point.

(They must have recognized that Butt Plug Bob’s rate card argument wouldn’t pass the smell test, and jettisoned it — although they’ll later claim that it was true all along).

Last night it was National Review Online’s house blog “The Corner.” Today it’s The American Spectator’s house blog “The Prowler.” (What is it with this dead tree media obsession with the definite article? The Plank, The Swamp, The Corner, etc. Are they afraid that their might be ANOTHER Plank, Swamp, Corner, Prowler, Crypt, Politico, Slug, Decider, Commander Guy, Oxymoron, Kneecap, Flea, Beagle, etc.?)

And today’s NEW talking point? (Note the time).

Washington Prowler
The New York Times MovesOn
By The Prowler
The American Spectator
Published 9/14/2007 12:08:45 AM

The New York Times in the past has rejected “advocacy” ads from Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, as well as from the National Right to Life Committee, despite the fact that both would have qualified for the same “special advocacy, stand by” rates that the radical, left-wing organization MoveOn.org was given for its smear ad of Gen. David Petraeus.

MoveOn, which is largely financed by billionaire George Soros, as well as other major financial donors to the Democratic National Committee, was given a $100,000 discount for the ad which called the U.S. commander of armed forces in Iraq a traitor.

Oooh. They said BAAAAD THINGS! (This from a website running this ad next to the smear):

fight.gif

Oh no! quoth they: The New York Times is BIASED!! We’re going quietly soft-pedal the “in-kind contributions” argument and move forward the claim that the Times rejected OTHER ads, which is the same thing.

And don’t forget to turn “Betray us” into “traitor.” That’s the same thing in the Faux Lexicon, right? (Well, no, it isn’t, but we promise you, you won’t notice.)

The “smear ad” being the stick that they can beat someone with, and the new talking point is to find as many ‘enemies’ as possible to beat on with their ugly stick.

MoveOn, of course. George Soros (albeit reflexively, from a party entirely financed by cranky zillionaires: Walton Heirs, Coors Foundations, Scaife, the Koch Brothers, the Bradleys, until last year, the Olin foundational monies, a small cadre who finance virtually every Rightie astroturf organization out there … but George Soros is the enemy? It helps, of course, that he’s a damned immigrant … a slimy foreigner, not like our home grown Mr. Burnses, like Richard Mellon Scaife.)

But now the real slime spreads:

According to a former New York Times ad sales staffer, a coalition of pro-life groups attempted to take out a full-page ad in the Times during the Terri Schiavo debate in Congress, but were turned away. “I think that such a group would have qualified for our advocacy discount, but perhaps the policies changed in the past couple of years,” says the ad rep.

Another anonymous source? Yesterday’s story depended on an anonymous GOP staffer to make the talking point, and the assertion that the New York Times was in bed with MoveOn. “Family rate” and all that. Ooooh. And note the certitude … someone who hasn’t worked there in a couple of years. An ANONYMOUS someone who hasn’t worked there in a couple of years. How GREAT is that? (Credibility-wise, that is.)

But, if you’re going to try and sell that the New York Times is biased, you probably shouldn’t try selling THIS (you youthful propagandists, the hope of tomorrow, please take note):

Similarly, during the 2004 election season, a representative from Swift Boat Veterans for Truth sought to place a full-page ad in the paper, but was turned away.

The MoveOn staffer said that the organization was made aware of the discount from a New York Times reporter based in New York.

Oooh, and ANOTHER anonymous source provides another quote. Wasn’t this the bunch who was up in arms about the “Baghdad Diarist” maybe being fake? Screeching that he was ANONYMOUS! Now, all we’re GETTING is anonymous sources.

But suggesting that not accepting wingnut ads on Terri Schiavo, and evil and slanderous ads by the “Swift Boat Veterans” is NOT the way to establish whatever little credibility the Post might have left.

Across the Pond (Atlantic Ocean), at Reuters Alertnet, journalist Andrew Stroehlein blogs:

Iraq: Petraeus ad war
14 Sep 2007 10:24:00 GMT
Blogged by: Andrew Stroehlein

That’s where a new problem has arisen, with accusations now flying around that the Times gave moveon.org a discount on the ad space for political reasons — a charge the paper rejects.

Ignoring for the moment the attempt to shift media attention away from the war and on to attacking moveon.org — a fairly common tactic of freakier parts of the American blogosphere — I think this argument is pretty ridiculous …

And the nails keep getting pounded into the coffin lid of Butt Plug Bob’s Happy Fantasy. As noted, the new talking point in The American Spectator was posted at 12:08 AM, or just barely today, September 14th. Let’s see how the meme trickled through Rightie Blogosmear Land today:

At midnight, Rich Lowry, editor of The National Review posts his latest syndicated column:

September 14, 2007 12:00 AM
Party of Impotents
The perils of overreach.
By Rich Lowry

Containing THIS flaccid construction (among others):

A fear stalks the Democratic party — of the bloggers and activists of groups like MoveOn.org who will punish anyone for departing from the strictest antiwar orthodoxy.

(Is this a political column, or the trailer to the next Wes Craven film? And can there be anything funnier than this geekish WONK making stoopid allusions to erectile dysfunctions? Hell, I thought that the National Review was the literary equivalent of erectile dysfunction: cogitatis interruptus.)

Malkin — as already noted — attacks on her blog, on TeeVee and via the New York Post (bet she had a busy night).

Rudy Giuliani jumps on the story and starts humping it like a creepy little dog on a new guest’s leg.

The Captain’s Quarters criticizes (in lackluster terms) MoveOn’s NEW ad, which is running today, while quietly dropping the whole “ad discount” controversy like a hot potato. Controversy? What controversy? The Captain claims that MoveOn is retreating, even while he runs like hell himself. I think it’s called “projection.” Suddenly the sneer has gone out of the Captain’s sails, as he unleashes this ‘withering’ broadside: “Substantively, they’re still off base.” (I think the technical term here is “shooting blanks.”)

Over at The Corner, the lamest defense of the day is offered, after dropping yesterday’s feeble “smell test” defense. Suddenly all that’s forgotten, and the substitute smear is sent quickly into the classroom (“Your regular smear is sick, so I’m substituting until it gets better“):

Hillary Clinton Hasn’t Criticized the MoveOn Ad [Kathryn Jean Lopez]

but Elizabeth Edwards has . As in Daily Kos/Democratic Underground frequenter Elizabeth Edwards.

(That’s the other new meme: Beat Hillary with the ugly stick. Make her denounce the ad. *Yawn.* )

This was the only good news of the day — for the Righties. From The Des Moines Register, that pillar of journalism, to Ben Smith at The Politico* (He’s the fellow who reported that Edwards was going to drop out of the race because of EE’s cancer, which all the other lemming media picked up and ended up in a massive egg-on-face festival that they quietly swept out of sight, remember? WHY is this man employed? Sure, he occasionally can do almost as good a job as a sighted person, but, really, is this any way to run an art gallery?):

Elizabeth Edwards criticizes MoveOn.org ad
By TONY LEYS
(Des Moines, Iowa) REGISTER STAFF WRITER
September 14, 2007

MoveOn.org should not have labeled Gen. David Petraeus “General Betray Us” in a controversial newspaper ad, Elizabeth Edwards said in Des Moines Friday.

“Someone who’s spent their life in the military doesn’t deserve ‘General Betray Us,’” said Edwards, wife of Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards.

The phony-online-only “Doonsbury” cartoon of the Righties, “Day by Day” responds with a mere FOUR tits and talking points against the New York Times.

RedState responds with a lame ‘parody’ comparing Eisenhower with Petraeus, I guess. (Except, didn’t Ike WIN his war? And WITHDRAW from Korea? Is this like using the Swift Boat Veterans to prove the Times is biased?) Oliver Willis wryly notes the desperation in this tactic.

The Weekly Standard‘s house blog republishes it at 12:28 PM

Reason Magazine’s house blog Hit & Run thinks this is HIGH0larious! and at 1:46 PM republishes it (I’m assuming EDT in all cases here). Along with another “hilarious” bit.

You’re Old Enough to Know Better, So Cry, Baby, Cry
David Weigel | September 14, 2007, 1:46pm

Media director for the Heritage Foundation and RedState, TownHall, etc. contributor
Robert Bluey goes with all of the above (and I guess they all think the “MoveOn” puns are really clever and witty. They’re exactly 50% right).

Move Over MoveOn
September 14th, 2007

It seems everyone wants to capitalize on MoveOn’s attack ad on Gen. David Petraeus. Today’s New York Times features a full-page ad from Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani that documents the liberal smears of the highly decorated four-star general.

And then there’s this: “General Eisenhower or General Lies and Power.” It’s a mock ad on RedState that has one of the most clever things I’ve seen all week. It’s a good thing MoveOn wasn’t around during World War II or we might be living under Nazi-led dictatorship.

Posted at 1:55 PM in Politics

At 3:17 PM, The Corner’s Jonah Goldberg catches up:

What If MoveOn.org Existed 65 years Ago? [Jonah Goldberg]

Red State has the answer.

All Quiet on the Pesterin’ Front.

That’s kind of what you’d call “punting.” After yesterday’s EMBARRASSING blog swarm, the new talking point is tossed out there (never defend, always attack, the venerable “dead agenting” technique) and perhaps we can muddy the waters and go BACK on the attack Monday.Now, WHY do you think that this attack against the New York Times is being pursued, even if yesterday’s bizarro world fantasy of magic rate cards fell flatter than corn tortilla in a trash compactor?

Here’s a hint. From Newsbusters (“Exposing and Combating Liberal Media Bias”):

Two Nets Note Bush’s Anger at MoveOn’s Petraeus Ad
By Brent Baker | September 13, 2007 – 20:03 ET

In his speech preview over lunch with television anchors and Sunday hosts, President George W. Bush expressed anger over the MoveOn.org ad which maligned General David Petraeus, a view Katie Couric vaguely relayed Thursday night without mentioning MoveOn.org while, on NBC, Brian Williams and Tim Russert specifically highlighted Bush’s “outrage.” Russert related how Bush said “those who are responsible could, in effect, stuff it.”

[…]

On the September 13 CBS Evening News, Couric relayed: “The President was as defiant and unwavering as ever. And visibly angry about those who question the integrity of General Petraeus, calling it ‘disgraceful’ and suggesting it was an effort to undermine the General’s testimony.” Over on the NBC Nightly News, with the ad on screen, Williams cued up Russert: “He had a lot to say about the ad by MoveOn.org that went after General Petraeus the day his testimony was to start on Capitol Hill. This ran full page in several newspapers.” Russert confirmed: “He said that he was just absolutely outraged by the trashing of this General, that those who are responsible could, in effect, stuff it. He was very energized and quite angry, Brian, in terms of that ad.” [Emphasis added]

Now, given Bush’s loyalty fetish, and his tendency to be vindictive (cf. L’Affaire Plame) , perhaps we can understand this seemingly no-so-smart howling attack on the New York Times. Attacking MoveOn makes perfect sense, since the Righties have been scared of them for a LONG time (Faux Nooz has, for some time now, seemingly required the phrase “ultra-liberal” be placed before each and every mention of MoveOn, it should be noted), but the Times attack — now desperately in need of metaphoric Viagra™ — seems born more of imperial pique than for tactical gain.

As Benjamin Franklin noted: Whatever is begun in anger ends in shame.

Words to the wise. Which guarantees, of course, that Bush will never heed them.

Meantime, the Los Angeles Times is reporting that the civilian death toll in Iraq may now be over one million.

Courage.

UPDATE — SMOKING GUN !!

The Long War Journal meets President Bush
By Bill Roggio* [*who also posts for The Weekly Standard]
September 14, 2007 2:16 PM

Camp Liberty, Baghdad Province: This afternoon, The Long War Journal had the opportunity to sit in on a meeting with President George Bush and a group of select military bloggers, which including Matthew Burden from Blackfive, Mrs. Greyhawk from the Mudville Gazette, Ward Carroll from DefenseTech, and Mohammed from Iraq the Model. Bill Ardolino flew in from Fallujah and joined me at the 3rd Infantry Division headquarters at Camp Victory to conduct a video teleconference with the White House.

The discussion centered around the war. After President Bush stated his vision on the scope of the war and the importance of blogs in providing an additional view of the conflict not often seen in the established media …

Bookmark and Share

Bookmark the permalink.

14 Responses to How Green Was My Talking Point

  1. Pingback:   Calling ALL BLOGGERS, BOYCOTT THE NEW YORK TIMES! - The Detroit Times

  2. Pingback:   Calling ALL BLOGGERS, BOYCOTT THE NEW YORK TIMES! - The Detroit Times

  3. Pingback: Republicans and MoveOn - Exploiting It « The Van Der Galiën Gazette

  4. Pingback: Republicans and MoveOn - Exploiting It « The Van Der Galiën Gazette

  5. Pingback: How To Handle A Troll (and How Not To) « his vorpal sword

  6. Pingback: How To Handle A Troll (and How Not To) « his vorpal sword

  7. Pingback: WaPost: Bush Meets With Rightie Bloggers « his vorpal sword

  8. Pingback: WaPost: Bush Meets With Rightie Bloggers « his vorpal sword

  9. Ernst Blofeld says:

    The conservatives were right about the ad discount. Will you apolgize to them?

    The NYT Public Editor says here: http://tinyurl.com/3248nm

    Did MoveOn.org get favored treatment from The Times? And was the ad outside the bounds of acceptable political discourse?

    The answer to the first question is that MoveOn.org paid what is known in the newspaper industry as a standby rate of $64,575 that it should not have received under Times policies. The group should have paid $142,083. The Times had maintained for a week that the standby rate was appropriate, but a company spokeswoman told me late Thursday afternoon that an advertising sales representative made a mistake.

    They Public Editor also says it violated guidelines on personal attacks:

    The answer to the second question is that the ad appears to fly in the face of an internal advertising acceptability manual that says, “We do not accept opinion advertisements that are attacks of a personal nature.” Steph Jespersen, the executive who approved the ad, said that, while it was “rough,” he regarded it as a comment on a public official’s management of his office and therefore acceptable speech for The Times to print.

  10. Ernst Blofeld says:

    The conservatives were right about the ad discount. Will you apolgize to them?

    The NYT Public Editor says here: http://tinyurl.com/3248nm

    Did MoveOn.org get favored treatment from The Times? And was the ad outside the bounds of acceptable political discourse?

    The answer to the first question is that MoveOn.org paid what is known in the newspaper industry as a standby rate of $64,575 that it should not have received under Times policies. The group should have paid $142,083. The Times had maintained for a week that the standby rate was appropriate, but a company spokeswoman told me late Thursday afternoon that an advertising sales representative made a mistake.

    They Public Editor also says it violated guidelines on personal attacks:

    The answer to the second question is that the ad appears to fly in the face of an internal advertising acceptability manual that says, “We do not accept opinion advertisements that are attacks of a personal nature.” Steph Jespersen, the executive who approved the ad, said that, while it was “rough,” he regarded it as a comment on a public official’s management of his office and therefore acceptable speech for The Times to print.

  11. No: they weren’t and I won’t. Nuance utterly confuses and dumbfounds you, evidently.

    See HERE for further details. Sorry to hear about your cat.

  12. No: they weren’t and I won’t. Nuance utterly confuses and dumbfounds you, evidently.

    See HERE for further details. Sorry to hear about your cat.

  13. Pingback: Dr. Evil Trolls For Retractions « his vorpal sword

  14. Pingback: Dr. Evil Trolls For Retractions « his vorpal sword