Captain Obvious: GOP Talking Points re: BridgeGate Don't Hold Up

It is obvious that in the few days since Chris Christie's "BridgeGate" scandal went national, the GOP (and the rest of Right Wing World) has been following talking points. Whether they came down from Mt. Limbaugh, were concocted by Reince Priebus, or FOX "News," somebody somewhere decided upon a counter-strategy. And that was to say that Christie gave a big press conference, where he "owned it" (debatable), and took questions. Further, they then say that President Obama has not done the same in regard to his scandals. And then they go down the well-worn list of so-called scandals, Benghazi, IRS and then they have some leeway on further scandals. Some throw in "Fast and Furious," some go NSA, others generically site ObamaCare.

But they're all on that same page as a response to Christie. In tandem with that, they'll compare Christie and Obama both being "unaware" what nefariousness people under them are up to. There are several things wrong with this line of counter-attack, starting with the very large difference between being a President and being a Governor. And it's been irritating me all day, as I've heard and read little driblets here and there, and watched some of the Sunday talk shows. So here, in no particular order, are the issues I find with the response by the GOP and Right Wing World.

If you watch FOX "News", you immediately
know this is Benghaziiiii!!!Image from Washington Post

• The IRS "scandal" has been shown to be mostly hooey, with little-to-no connection to the president.
• The IRS investigated political groups seeking tax exempt non-political status, from both the left and the right. Yes, they selected groups with "tea party" and "freedom" in their names, because these were political groups! They also selected left-leaning groups. Whether it was a straight-up 50/50 dragnet is up in the air, but it was not, strictly speaking, an anti-right-wing probe.
• The real scandal with the IRS is that most of the investigated groups got their tax exempt status, even though they're clearly political groups.
• Obama was expected by the right, to know the inner workings and details of the Cincinnati IRS office, but Christie isn't supposed to know what his closest staff is up to?
• Benghazi was an attack on us, not a conspiracy by us.
• The Republican Congress cut funding for security that may have affected the protection and response to the Benghazi attacks
• The Benghazi attacks was ultimately shown to have a connection to the anti-Muslim video that was originally suspected to have been a motivator.
• What happened in Benghazi--terrible as it was--has precedent in many foreign countries with US dignitaries, under other presidents, notably George W. Bush. Loss of life is an unfortunate fact of life in diplomacy, and while minimizing that loss is always an important goal, Republican interest in Benghazi was absent in prior years.

  

  I'm not nuts about drones either, but it's another
  program started in the Bush Era that the right didn't
  used to question, and it has little to do with
  Governor Christie's issues.

• "Fast and Furious" was a continuation of a Bush-era program that was shut down after the Attorney General became aware of it, at least to my understanding. Conspiracy theories notwithstanding, I'm unsure there has ever been a straight-line to the president for the program.
• The NSA is a powerful shadowy group, and I agree that it's creepy and has too much power. But I think that's been true no matter which party or president has been in charge. And it was the post-9/11, Bush Era policies that pushed NSA even further over the edge.
• The allegation that President Obama hasn't responded to or answered any questions about any of this seems kind of ridiculous too. He's had press conferences, interviews, and White House briefings all the way through his presidency. Not enough? Maybe, but there has not been silence.
• Finally, all of the above (and more) have been pored over by the media, in endless, copious amounts. ObamaCare has been beaten against a rock since it was birthed, and at every step along the way. 

There has been another tactic used by the usual suspects that says this BridgeGate scandal is a lot of hot air over nothing, and they're only touting it to "get Christi," while ignoring the scandals of President Obama and Hillary Clinton. To which I say, are you freaking kidding me? Hillary has had more dirty laundry aired than almost any living political figure in the United States. And Obama has had every little scandal-ette magnified to apocalyptic proportions to fill news cycle after news cycle. The evidence for that fills the pages of just this blog alone, and I'm not terribly prolific. You'd have to be willfully amnesic to state otherwise.

Sausage Being Made: From Karl Rove to GOP to FOX

He's a prize, ain't he? Image from source, Media Matters

This is how it's done, folks, it's just not always quite as easy to follow.

[Excerpt]

From Karl Rove's Mouth, To A GOP Talking Point, To Fox's Ear 

Fox contributor Karl Rove lobbed a line of attack at President Obama during a Fox News Sunday appearance that quickly found its way into a Monday morning Republican press release. While the release was being distributed, Rove returned to Fox to repeat the talking points -- the latest example of Fox News' role as the communication arm of the Republican Party. . .

Read more at: Media Matters

Soledad O'Brien Schools John Sununu

I'm getting tired of political ads and pundits who repeat known falsehoods and debunked "facts." I don't care who's doing it, it ticks me off. But it seems to be the Romney campaign's modus operandi.  So, it's nice when a high profile-reporter calls out a high-profile campaign surrogate, and Soledad O'Brien did a great job. More puzzling than the now standard lie-pushing though, is why John Sununu is any kind of reliable source, with his history. With people like him and Karl Rove (and anyone who turns up from the Bush Administration), it makes you wonder who couldn't stage a comeback. Can John Edwards and Anthony Wiener come out of the penalty box? Or is it only okay if you're a Republican?

Republican Talking Point: The Sun is an Obama Crony!

Duffy, the voice guy on The Randi Rhodes Show has an amazing voice, and some pretty funny schtick. I don't know if he writes his own material, but he is a definite talent.

Captain Obvious: Cut FAT, not BONE and MUSCLE from Budget

One of the most irritating things about politics--if you follow it with any regularity--is the childishness of it all. Politicians long ago realized that the bulk of the public isn't "plugged in" all the time, and so they've only got to give the impression that they're doing what "America wants." Perception is everything. This is where sound bites and Frank Luntz's Words that Work Orwellian NewSpeak comes in.  Relaxing pollution regulations for big business thus becomes a "Clear Skies" initiative, and the casual observer says, "okay, that's fine."

The insidiousness of this is, that politicians now take something they want to accomplish--busting unions, killing Medicare, giving tax bennies to rich guys, making it okay to dump waste into the river--and they dress it up with language and talking points that appeal to their base to get it done. They do this in countless ways. They find one or two good arguments that support what they're doing, and the casual observer (or the blindly partisan) among us not only go along, we actually support the position.  Here are a couple of examples:

Budget Munster, Paul "Eddie" Ryan
from Washington Examiner

- Voter ID laws - Done to decrease Democratic voter turn out, but argued that it is to weed out voter fraud.

- Constitutional amendments against same-sex marriage - Passed to keep a boot on the neck of gay people, but argued to "protect the children" or "protect marriage" (the word or concept).

- Union busting - Done to decrease financial support of Democratic candidates (among other things), but argued that it somehow helps state budgets. Proof of that not needed.

- Privatizing Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, etc. - Supposedly to "save" the programs, but really to dismantle them, and shift the burden and expense to the user. Puts the dollars into private hands, further enriching the upper class, while pushing the middle class, working poor and elderly further down.

There is much more along these lines, and the argument that "both sides do it" may have a little legitimacy in this issue, but not a lot. Democrats may employ similar tactics to get things done, but it is rare for a Democratic policy proposal to take from the poor and give to the rich. It is rare that a Democratic proposal is a wolf in sheep's clothing to enrich the already rich. When it comes down to Koch brothers vs. George Soros, at least Soros is actually spending money that leads to policies that are not in his own financial interest.

All this brings me around to (finally) Rep. Paul Ryan and his supposedly courageous and serious and powerful debt reducing plan.  It isn't either of those things. It fails to address revenue at all, and further cuts taxes for the upper tier. It places emphasis not only on the ridiculous "trickle down" theory that has never been shown to work, but on other projected numbers that have nothing to support them but hope and/or magic. When it could propose cutting fat (think: $500 hammers and $1,000 toilet seats in defense contracts), it instead cuts bone and muscle (EPA regulations, Medicare, Medicaid, etc.).

I'm all for cutting waste. There's got to be tons of it. And there's probably waste even in the popular and needed programs. But using over-simplistic language, buzz words and talking points, politicians like Ryan dive in to the budget with a meat fork and carving knife, and just start hacking away. It may already be cliche, but President Obama's "scalpel" analogy is right on the money. And by not addressing the revenue side of things, Ryan and the Republicans ultimately show that they are not serious.

Sunday Politics. And Mitch McConnell. Ugh.

Image from IndieDesign

Here I sit, yet another Sunday, watching the political yak-fests. Why do I do it? I don't know. I got into the habit several years ago, and can't seem to shake it. Meet the Press with David Gregory is a dim shadow of the program the late Tim Russert hosted (and it wasn't terrific then). Gregory seems to be asking questions only to hopefully inject himself into the news cycle by asking (or being answered) with a zinger. His problem--and frankly the problem with the whole format on any channel--is the fact that uber-partisans are slated to be interviewed, and then spew talking points, regardless of the question. A follow-up from the host is rare, and even then an actual answer is rarer. It is most frustrating as a viewer. I suppose this is the reason for the "panel" segments featured on most shows, but the results can be much the same.

FOX "News" Sunday airs in Las Vegas at the same time as MTP, so I watch it on the DVR. It is the easiest show to zip through, with the most commercials. Today, the host is Brit Hume, who usually plays the part of lead conservative on their ludicrously named "Power Panel." F"N"S--like MTP--started with the political odd couple of Presidents George W. Bush and Bill Clinton and their alliance for help in Haiti. This is the second go-around I've watched (and I assume they've done all of the programs this morning), and it produced little that was newsworthy besides the alliance itself. W managed to not embarrass himself unduly, but I still can barely tolerate the guy.

I haven't gotten to This Week or Face the Nation yet, and I may skip them. My big irritation came from FOX's interview of Senate Minority Leader, Mitch McConnell. He looks like a constipated turtle, and his personality is no better. He pretends that Republicans are only looking out for the best interests of America, rather than merely voting "NO!" to absolutely everything proposed by Democrats. And, of course, he's a talking points machine, sure to work in whatever is on this weeks GOP handout. What was the big talking point this week? My guess is that Americans are supposedly saying (or as McConnell says, "literally screaming") "Please don't pass" health care reform. How do I know it's a talking point? Because he said it at least four times. Repetition may work, but it's annoying as hell.

And looky here. McConnell's misuse of "literally screaming" must be part of the talking point, because he also used it on CNN's State of the Union. . .in freakin' November!

Update: Upon further study, it appears this might be more a Mitch McConnell talking point than a GOP one, though it's difficult to be sure. If you Google "please don't pass" along with "health care" you'll find countless examples of its use. . .almost exclusively by McChinless himself. Which kind of proves my point about these guys on the politics shows: talking points and repetition. What is the point?

Olbermann's WTF? Moment: Republican Chrysler Conspiracy

One of the best things about shows like Countdown with Keith Olbermann and The Rachel Maddow Show, is when they skewer and utterly destroy right-wing talking points. Tonight's was about a conspiracy to close only Republican Chrysler dealerships. Olbermann rips the meme to shreds.

Sadly, these thorough obliterations of GOP ridiculousness seldom do what they are intended to do: shut down the talking point. They keep repeating the debunked stories anyway.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

New Republican Buzzword: "Statist"

Image from Associated Content

Today, on the way home from work, I once again made the silly decision to listen to The Mark Levin Show on the radio. I really don't know why I keep doing this to myself. The program is thoroughly unpleasant, for many reasons. Not the least of which is the fact that when the host gets excitable (which is often) his voice becomes an eardrum-shredding horror.

But you do pick up a few interesting things. For instance, a while back I heard the genesis of "The Censorship Doctrine" as a replacement phrase for "The Fairness Doctrine." Thereafter, I heard or read the phrase in more than one location, though it didn't take off as well as Levin probably hoped.

Lately, there has been the birth of a new buzzword. Not satisfied with calling Democrats (and Barack Obama specifically) Marxists, socialists, communists, terrorists, what have you, there's a new word tripping from the likes of Levin. "Statist" is the word, though I'll confess to never hearing it before. In fact, the first several times Levin said it, I thought he was saying "sadist" or "stasis." I'm not sure the word has much sting, so whatever. We'll see if it catches on.

John McCain's Apolitical Act Actually Political

Image from source, Raw Story

When John McCain made the bizarre announcement that he was suspending his campaign, he couched it in terms of being apolitical. He claimed--as do his apologists--to be putting country first, ahead of politics, and ahead of the Presidential campaign.

Funny thing.

In actuality, his campaign prepared political talking points for how to handle this phase of his (un) campaign. And somebody mistakenly sent it out to a reporter. Scratch the funny, that's hilarious.

[Excerpt]

As McCain suspends campaigning, aide accidentally e-mails bailout talking points to media

Sen. McCain's campaign accidentally e-mailed a list of talking points to several media outlets today amidst his announcement this afternoon that he was suspending his campaign to "focus" on the ongoing Wall Street bailout discussions. . .

Read more at: Raw Story

Confirmed: Bush Gives Talking Points to FOX "News"

Yeah, I know, another shocking headline, right? And yeah, I'm using yet another Countdown with Keith Olbermann clip to illustrate the point. And it features Rachel Maddow. Yes, I'm repeating myself here, but our so called "liberal media" exists only with this one show--at least on cable news. And it is worth pointing out that while Countdown has a libaral slant, it presents news stories other shows don't even touch.