Well, the story of the first ever Tea Party convention just gets more and more interesting. The confab is set for Nashville next month and features Sarah Palin along with right-wing birther nut Joseph Farah, which raises all kinds of obvious questions. Such as, is Palin a birther fan? Does she condone the run-away gay and Muslim-hating that Farah so proudly traffics in? Those types of uncomfortable questions seem blindingly obvious given the circumstances, yet the political press remains mum.
But now comes word that Palin's appearance will be closed to the press, and it sounds like virtually the entire Tea Party convention will be hermetically sealed in order to keep nasty, mainstream media reporters.
Set aside the hypocrisy of a grassroots political movement that rallies around a cry of transparency (the way the Tea Party does) suddenly deciding to make sure nobody but paying members are admitted to its convention, and that journalists are not welcomed. More importantly, will the press raise questions about why Palin's refusing to allow her speech to heard and seen by journalists? Will the press ask why Palin is hiding? That would seem to be the next logical move since remember, the same Beltway press corps went bonkers when former vice president Al Gore taught a class as Columbia Univ. and the school asked that it be treated as off the record.
Here, Palin's getting paid big bucks to give a political speech before a convention crowd, but journalists won't be allowed in? If reporters don't raise doubts about that, than I give up.
UPDATED: FWIW, the GOP blog RedState thinks Palin might be making a big mistake by appearing at the Tea Party convention.
UPDATED: According to this Minneapolis Star Tribune report, a limited number of "selected" journalists will be allowed to cover the Tea Party convention. Question: Will Fox News (i.e. Palin's employer) be among the anointed few allowed to cover Palin's speech?
And now, a special guest commentary on Game Change, the new book about the 2008 presidential election by Mark Halperin and John Heilemann:
For most of my time covering presidential elections, I shared the view that there was a direct correlation between the skills needed to be a great candidate and a great president. The chaotic and demanding requirements of running for president, I felt, were a perfect test for the toughest job in the world.
But now I think I was wrong. The "campaigner equals leader" formula that inspired me and so many others in the news media is flawed.
[W]hat do those of us who cover politics do now?
Well, we pause, take a deep breath and resist. At least sometimes. In the face of polls and horse-race maneuvering, we can try to keep from getting sucked in by it all. We should examine a candidate's public record and full life as opposed to his or her campaign performance. But what might appear simple to a voter can, I know, seem hard for a journalist.
If past is prologue, the winners of the major-party nominations will be those who demonstrate they have what it takes to win. But in the short time remaining voters and journalists alike should be focused on a deeper question: Do the candidates have what it takes to fill the most difficult job in the world?
Oh, wait: I'm sorry. That isn't a commentary about Game Change. That's from an op-ed published by the New York Times on November 25, 2007. The author? Mark Halperin.
(Ana Marie Cox has found another example of Halperin violating his own prescriptions for better journalism.)
Because that's the only one reason I can think of to explain why Politico continues to cover a book release about a two-year-old campaign as if it were a lunar landing; because Politico's under contract to gin up publicity.
Let's go to the tote board:
-"Palin aide warned of 'epic debacle'" (Jan. 7)
-"Sunday talk show tip sheet" (Jan. 9)
-"Palin attacks book; Reid regrets" (Jan. 9)
-"Reid confirms racial remark" (Jan. 9)
-"Book: Obama, Biden clashed in '08" (Jan. 9)
-"Republicans charge Lott-Reid double standard" (Jan. 10)
-"Harry Reid holds his ground" (Jan. 10)
-"Steve Schmidt: Sarah Palin has trouble with truth" (Jan. 10)
-"'Game Change': The freak show" (Jan. 10)
-"Raising Tim Kaine over Harry Reid" (Jan. 11)
-"Harry Reid apologizes again" (Jan. 11)
-"Game over: The Clintons stand alone" (Jan. 11)
-"Inside the Reid eruption" (Jan. 12)
-"Coburn bucks party, backs Reid" (Jan. 12)
The scary part? Game Change has been in stores for only 48 hours. I'm guessing that by week's end, Politico will have churned out close to three dozen Game Change-related stories.
And a note to Politico's publisher: If your pub isn't on retainer, it ought to be.
The Washington Times responds to Sen. Harry Reid's controversial comments by penning a January 12 editorial in "Negro dialect":
I cain't believe all the fuss that's been kicked up over what I said about th' president not bein' like a reg'lar Negro.
Lawks a mercy, I was complimentin' the man.
Billy Bob said a few years back he'd be the one fetchin' the coffee; I don't see people getting' so danged riled up about that.
That's way worse'n what I said.
I said he had no Negro dialect. NO dialect. None.
He ain't like them other Negroes.
People can understand what he's sayin'.
Unless he wanted to talk like a Negro, of course.
Dang right. And jumpin' on me for sayin' he's light-skinned. Well he is! It is a fact! Judas Priest, he's half-white.
I'm saying he's not like the rest of 'em; that's my point. He appeals to white folk. He can get votes. Nothin' negative about it.
You said great things about the man, and anyway, you already apologized for 'em.
Now here I'm gettin' dumped on by them dang reporters when the president already said he forgave me.
He said the book is closed, his own words.
Yep. He stood by me. Proves my point.
Mighty white of him.
Yep, he's one a th' good uns.
PARKS: Well, first off, the liberal establishment seems to have a problem with dark-skinned black people. Look at what happened to O.J., the darkening of his picture for the Newsweek cover. If you look at Hollywood in general, light-skinned black women seem to be the preference of Hollywood, and the darker-skinned black male usually tend to be the bad guys when it comes to these kind of portrayals.
As far as Harry Reid is concerned, I think he's just more embarrassed and has been pushed to apologizing because he got caught saying these statements. I don't see anything in his recent history that shows that he has any kind of great love for black people. I'm not saying that -- I'm not going to jump right out and say he's a racist like a lot of other people are saying, but I think his apology is more out of convenience than out of sincerity.
PARKS: Well, this is where I could probably get in some trouble, but I'll say it anyway. I think a lot of black people like being the victim. And whenever a racist statement is issued, they can get all offended, but if you look at the way that the Democrats' policies in the past -- if you don't mind, I'm going to read a quote from my "bonehead of the day," which was Eleanor Holmes Norton on January 10:
"Eleanor Holmes Norton (IF she can be intellectually honest with herself) should look at all things that Democrats like Reid have done To blacks instead of for them: the destruction of the black family through entitlement programs, politically endorsed mass abortion of black babies, denial of school vouchers to help black kids escape failing schools run by liberal teacher unions (sound familiar, Congresswoman?) economic development broken promises, a liberal entertainment cul-ture that discourages black education and towards sports and rap are prominent things that come to mind."
The Democratic Party can scream racism all the want. The Congressional Black Caucus, which I don't believe sends any of their kids to public schools, they can scream racism all they want. And unfortunately, the black community will hear this. Hopefully, at one point in the near future, the Republicans, the conservatives will come out and throw the history of the Democratic Party back in their faces, so they may think twice before going this knee-jerk route of race-baiting.
From Jason Cabel Roe's January 11 BigGovernment.com post:
Republicans have, of course, drawn parallels to another famous majority leader's race gaffe, Senator Trent Lott (R-MS). There are major differences however that no number of Al Sharptons can - or should be allowed - to paper over.
Lott's comment about America being better off if centenarian Senator Strom Thurmond would have been elected as a Dixiecrat in 1948 was a light-hearted salute to an old man at his birthday party. Rather than being considered an article of faith, it rightly should have been considered a gratuitous tribute at someone's birthday celebration. It is like giving your grandpa a t-shirt that reads "World's Best Grandpa."
However, Reid's comments show a belief. And further, that belief is a stereotype and it is only made worse that Reid now says that he thought he was off the record - as if that makes it better.
From Ramesh Ponnuru January 11 post to his Washington Post Right Matters blog, headlined "Harry Reid and Trent Lott: There's No Comparison":
Republicans and conservatives are comparing Harry Reid's comment about "Negro dialect" to Trent Lott's remark about how we would have avoided a lot of problems if Strom Thurmond had been elected. Just as Republicans turned on Lott and forced him to give up the Senate majority leadership, they say, so Democrats should turn on Reid and make him resign his post.
But the comparison is off the mark. Lott's comment implied that the country would have been better off keeping segregation and enforced white supremacy. What Reid said isn't within a lightyear of that.
We had thought/hoped that no one else would be stupid enough to pick up and run with Erick Erickson's moronic attacks on Erroll Southers, President Obama's nominee to be chief of Transportation Security Administration. We were wrong.
Back story: In a 2008 interview, Southers discussed the dangers posed to the United States by Al Qaeda, as well as Middle-East-based groups like Hezbollah and Hamas. Asked about domestic groups, he referenced "World Church of the Creator, National Alliance, Aryan Nations," and black separatist groups. He was then asked, "Which home-grown terrorist groups pose the greatest danger to the US?" He replied:
Most of the domestic groups that we have to pay attention to here are white supremacist groups. They're anti-government and in most cases anti-abortion. They are usually survivalist type in nature, identity orientated. If you recall, Buford Furrow came to Los Angeles in, I believe it was 1999. When he went to three different Jewish institutions, museums, and then wound up shooting people at a children's community center, then shooting a fellow penal postal worker later on. Matthew Hale who's the Pontifex Maximus of the World Church of the Creator out of Illinois and Ben Smith who went on a shooting spree in three different cities where he killed a number of African Americans and Jews and Asians that day. Those groups are groups that claim to be extremely anti-government and Christian identity oriented.
In a reaction reminiscent of their frenzied response to the release of a Department of Homeland Security report on "rightwing extremists," the conservative blogosphere has decided that Southers' comments are either 1) actually targeting them or 2) worth mocking.
The video, headlined "Obama's TSA Nominee Worries About Those Who Are 'Christian Identity Oreiented' by Breitbart.tv, features Southers' comments with the captions "Anti-Abortionists?" "Survivalist-Types?" and "Identity-Oriented?" flashed over the video. At the end, a caption reads, "Christian Identity Oriented? What does that mean? Not fit to head the Transportation Safety Administration."
So in 2008, Southers noted that anti-abortion rights extremists and white supremacists could commit dangerous terrorist acts. In 2009, Dr. George Tiller was murdered by someone who opposed abortion rights, and a white supremacist shot up the Holocaust Museum, killing a guard. In 2010, the right-wing is mocking Southers for suggesting that white supremacists who are anti-abortion could be dangerous.
The ignorance of the "Christian Identity Oriented? What does that mean?" comment is similarly staggering.
According to the Anti-Defamation League, "Christian Identity is a religious ideology popular in extreme right-wing circles. Adherents believe that whites of European descent can be traced back to the 'Lost Tribes of Israel.' Many consider Jews to be the Satanic offspring of Eve and the Serpent, while non-whites are "mud peoples" created before Adam and Eve. Its virulent racist and anti-Semitic beliefs are usually accompanied by extreme anti-government sentiments." The ADL has written of Christian Identity attacks in the 1990s:
In the 1990s, Identity criminal activity continued apace, including efforts by an Oklahoma Identity minister, Willie Ray Lampley, to commit a series of bombings in the summer of 1995 in the wake of the Oklahoma City bombing by Timothy McVeigh. The following year, the Montana Freemen, whose leaders were Identity, made headlines for their "paper terrorism" tactics and their 81-day standoff with the federal government. In 1998, Eric Rudolph, who had been associated with Identity ministers such as Nord Davis and Dan Gayman, became a fugitive after allegedly bombing gay bars, the Atlanta Summer Olympics, and an abortion clinic. The following year, Buford Furrow, a former Aryan Nations security guard, went on a shooting spree at a Jewish Community Center in Los Angeles, wounding four children and an adult, and later killing a Filipino-American postal worker.
Breitbart and co. apparently find anti-Semitic hate groups hilarious.
Eighty advertisers have reportedly dropped their ads from Glenn Beck's Fox News program since he called President Obama a "racist" who has a "deep-seated hatred of white people." Here are his December 2 sponsors, in the order they appeared: