Free Markets, Free People

Media Matters Compares Political Atmosphere With Dallas, 1963

Eric Boehlert destroys whatever shred of credibility he might have ever had in two quick paragraphs:

I’ve been thinking a lot of Kennedy and Dallas as I’ve watched the increasingly violent rhetorical attacks on Obama be unfurled. As Americans yank their kids of class in order to save them from being exposed to the President of the United States who only wanted to urge them to excel in the classroom. And as unvarnished hate and name-calling passed for health care ‘debate’ this summer.

If Boehlert had spent some time in class actually studying about the Kennedy assassination, he might have learned that the guy who is believed to have shot Kennedy was a communist. But of course that’s not important – this is about establishing an assassination scenario in the mind of the reader, who he hopes, is as witless as he is.

He then fully jumps the shark:

The radical right, aided by a GOP Noise Machine that positively dwarfs what existed in 1963, has turned demonizing Obama–making him into a vile object of disgust–into a crusade. It’s a demented national jihad, the likes of which this country has not seen in modern times.

Where in the world was this blowhard the past 8 years? Did he just emerge from a hermetically sealed chamber and a total news blackout?

The absurdity of the original premise is stunning. His apparent ignorance, willing or otherwise, of the history of the past 8 years is appalling. Why would anyone anywhere ever take anything this goof or the organization he works for seriously again?

[HT: Hot Air]



Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on RedditPin on PinterestEmail this to someone

43 Responses to Media Matters Compares Political Atmosphere With Dallas, 1963

  • Eric who?

  • It’s clear that the left is having a nervous breakdown.

    They have been unable to present substantive arguments for the Obama agenda in the face of criticism nor have they been able to out-organize the Tea Party movement nor have they been able to explain or even confront the debacles of Van Jones and ACORN as well as other Democrat scandals. And every week they see Obama and his policies sinking further in the polls.

    The left can’t understand this. They have a charismatic President, large majorities in Congress, and the media squarely on their side. They thought they had reached the promised land of New Deal II, but they instead they have hit a brick wall and it makes no sense to them.

    The only explanation they have is to decry the violent, ignorant, racist intolerance of their opponent.s

  • Have you all noticed how the unpretty sexual term “teabaggers” has now mainstreamed as a snide reference to the Tea Party participants? It’s not enjoined at all. In fact, its use as a referent to Tea Party participants has been quickly sandwiched in between two sexual definitions at the Urban Dictionary.

    Coulter’s law applies here. If you want to know what the Left is up to pay attention to what they are accusing you of.

  • Wow. So, it is Dallas, 1963. The Clown™, scheduled to go to Texas to shore up his support there…

    Wait – scratch that. The Clown™ lost Texas. Follow me on this one, if you please.

    So, it is Dallas, 1963. However, because The Clown™ lost Texas, he goes to…to…to…how about Detroit?…to shore up his support there…

    Wait – scratch that one, too. The Clown™ won Michigan, even though now they have a 15% unemployment. Plus, there is no campaign The Clown™ would be involved in until 2012. So, no Detroit.

    Oh, I have it now…

    It is somewhere in the US, 1963.

    Wait, scratch that, too. Because if it is 1963, Martin Luther King, Jr. has just made his “I Have a Dream” speech, which means that there is no black man in the White House. Oopsy.

    So, let’s try it again.

    It is somewhere in the US, and it feels somewhat like 1963, although it is 2009. The President is harangued by conservatives for being a piece of garbage in office.

    Wait, scratch that one, too. Only a few conservatives hated JFK, and there were not hundreds of thousands marching on DC to protest him.

    So, out with that one, too.

    Once again, dammit:

    It is somewhere in the US, and it feels somewhat like 1963, although it is 2009. Opposed by conservatives, the President tries to shore up his support, but he is gunned down by a right wing lunatic.

    UNNKKKKKKK! Cut that one out, too! Because, as facts are wild things to behold, JFK was murdered by Lee Harvey Oswald, a committed leftist who had gone to the Soviet Union and then returned to the US to found the “Fair Play for Cuba Committee.” You see, Little Harv was a Communist, a Castro-supporter.

    So, let’s try this one more time, shall we?

    It is somewhere in the US, and it feels somewhat like 1963, although it is 2009. The President, opposed by conservatives, goes to some state somewhere, to shore up his political support for a campaign that doesn’t get underway for nearly 2+ years, and somehow he is shot by a Leftist who supports Castro.

    My God, that’s it! Van Jones is going to kill Obama!

  • George W. Bush was treated very well by the left for quite awhile. Sure, the anti-war activists opposed him, but he got Democrats to vote to go to war in both Afghanistan and Iraq, and it wasn’t until his policies started failing that the rhetoric against him turned up. Even then, it had nowhere near the breadth and depth of negative hostility that is now being thrown at Obama. With Bush, you had the activist left attacking him, while the activist right was hurling vicious attacks on Murtha, Pelosi, Ried, and before him Daschle. But those were just the fringes of each party, the bloggers and political junkies who imagine they represent a larger part of the country than they do. The whole right wing machine now is focused on Obama.

    This can be compared to the attacks on Clinton, which were of similar scope, and also had early success. Clinton recovered, of course, thanks to GOP overstretch in the government shut down. After two horrid years and loss of a majority, Clinton bounced back. Obama seems to be holding up better than Clinton, and if he gets health care passed, he’ll have a victory moving forward, rather than a defeat like Clinton had. But no, Bush was not treated like this by anything but the small activist class. Obama is getting a full assault. But he seems to be weathering it well.

    • >>>>George W. Bush was treated very well by the left for quite awhile

      Absolutely f-ing hilarious. What more can you say after that

    • “George W. Bush was treated very well by the left for quite awhile.”

      So that is why he couldn’t do the traditional walk down Pennsylvania Avenue on the day of his inauguration because of the thousands of anti-Bush protesters throwing eggs at his Limo. Could it be those people were not of the left?!?

      And the reason Democrats voted for the war was the country was for the war to the tune of about 75-80% in the polls. Hillary and company couldn’t wait to vote for the war to show that they, the democrats, had some foreign policy moxie equakl to that of the President.

      What’s wrong with this picture is a delusional so-called professor from Maine wanting to rewrite history to fit his own present day narrative.

      What a Buffoon!

      • The protesters early on simply had a hard time getting over the fact Gore lost in a very emotional race. But get past the extremes (and the right was just as hard on Gore and others), and most people were quite supportive of the President, especially after 9-11.

        That’s virtually undeniable. Your problem, SShiell, is you’re so caught up in the political junkie world of looking at the extremes that you don’t really see the issue clearly. After the initial pain of losing a bitterly contested election, Democrats pretty quickly were behind Bush, especially after 9-11 and well into the Iraq war. True, Bush became the least popular President in perhaps all of history, but that’s because his policies failed, not because of the left.

        • The protesters early on simply had a hard time getting over the fact Gore lost in a very emotional race. But get past the extremes (and the right was just as hard on Gore and others), and most people were quite supportive of the President, especially after 9-11.

          I apologize for calling you a liar. You’re not smart enough to know right from wrong.

        • Take a short ride through history. Use a simple tool called Google and search for typical anti-Bush lexicons of the day and find their origin. Terms like “Bush-Hitler”. Anything related to Halliburten in all it’s glory. I don’t need to make the list for you, just ask your compatriats in academia to fill in the blanks. They were all there in their glory the day Bush took office.

          And yeah, there was this tiny shiny hole in the ether immediatly after 9-11 when we were “all together” but it dried up fairly quickly. How quickly? Again check google – people were asking questions about Bush’s reaction when he was first told of the 9-11 attacks within 2 weeks of the event. Questions about where he went, where was Cheney, and even questions about what he knew and when he knew it were already bubbling up within 3 weeks of this Kum-By-Ya period of bi-partison peace and harmony you are harping about.

          It is true that Bush maintained his popularity with the people as evidenced in the polls for some time but it was not for lack of trying on the part of the left from the very first day. Just watch the Bush limo trying to drive down Pennsylvania Avenue on Inauguration day and tell me how nicely the left welcomed Bush into his Administration.

          Note – and it was not only the hard core lefty trolls. Remember the damage done to offices, equipment and PCs from departing Democratic Staffers from the West Wing and other sectins of the Clinton Administration? That was not an urban legend. I was working in
          DC at the time and I saw it first hand.

          Obama is getting what is his due. It is true he won the election but he got 52% of the vote – not the 90% Mandate he’s acting like he got.

          My problem is not that I spend my time looking at the political extremes. My problem is that I have a fairly good memory. I remember your swearing on this blog that you would do whatever you could to defeat what you perceived to be the aberration of the right. Your problem is that you, as with your messiah Obama, are not above lying through your teeth in order to promote a left skewed vision of where you want to take our world.

          By the way, why did you lie about not being associated with that anti-war rally with Cindy Sheehan?

        • Alas, I’d like to credit you with original stupidity here, Scott. But I happened to catch Dee Dee Myers pushing the same bit about “Bush facing nothing like this” the other morning on MSNBC, so you probably just plucked it out of one of your incoming emails.

          But maybe you can get some credit for going back to whoever put it out there and telling them it’s one of the biggest losers they’ve ever tried.

          People are not that stupid, Scott.

    • George W. Bush was treated very well by the left for quite awhile.

      Never open with the most blatant lie you’ve got. Save it for the end.

      • So you can yell “Liar” hey? I guess that’s all some on the right have these days. Pathetic.

        • It’s either that or stupid, Scott.

          They are the two choices for such a ridiculous claim.

        • Erb says: “George W. Bush was treated very well by the left for quite awhile. Sure, the anti-war activists opposed him, but he got Democrats to vote to go to war in both Afghanistan and Iraq, and it wasn’t until his policies started failing that the rhetoric against him turned up.”

          Aside from the absolute ridiculousness of this statement, Erb, I ask of you one simple request: can you show me, even with a modicum of support, where the Left “treated Bush well” from any point from January 20, 2001, to September 10, 2001. How about during the 2002 campaign, after many Democrats voted for the war in Iraq and at that time, and since, have claimed that “they were lied to” (which to me sounds like they shouldn’t be politicians in the first place) or that “Bush lied us into a war” (which they happily voted for, including Mr. Rockefeller of WV, who claimed in his speech on the US Senate floor that Saddam Hussein already had nuclear weapons.

          Remember, please, and show me one instance in which the normally unhinged Howard (“the Duck”) Dean, before screaming his top off, did not during his ill-fated run for the presidential nomination, did not accuse George W. Bush of war crimes, of killing innocent people, of other foul deeds? Just one speech in which he said, “I disagree with President Bush but he is our President.” Notice that many Republicans have been on television this week siding with Obama over his Afghanistan policy of probably sending more troops. Do you have an instance of just ONE Democrat (not counting Joe Lieberman, who was punished by the party for his apostasy) who said he agreed with just one thing Bush did? Hell, even after the Democrats (like Ted Kennedy) voted for the No Child Left Behind Act, they railed against Bush for the manner in which is was being funded, forgetting that it is Congress that does the funding.

          How about an instance where Attorney General John Ashcroft was not accused of being the anti-Christ? Or where Democrats reveled in bringing down Linda Chavez, Bush’s first pick for Secretary of Labor, who had to step aside because she had helped a neighbor who turned out to be an illegal alien?

          Erb, I know you made that statement I highlighted at the start of this posting, so all I want you to do is back it up with some firm examples. One or two would be fantastic.

          Alas, if you cannot find one or two examples where “George W. Bush was treated very well by the left for quite awhile,” then perhaps you should just apologize and realize your error and slink away and not make wholly unsupportable and outrageous statements like the one you posted. Because I can tell you, having lived through that period, and watching what was fired at our (then) new President, the Left berated him and called him names and even threatened his life from the day he was sworn in as the 43rd President.

          • James, there’s also the not-so-minor matter of CBS News using third-rate forgeries in an attempt to sandbag President Bush before he was even elected.

        • Out of liar or stupid, with Erb it’s a deliberate, willed, ignorance. He still thinks only 50,000 people showed up for the 9/12 march.

      • No kidding, that was all I read of that cpmment before I moved on.

    • The left made the close election and Florida an issue for months. Bush got a pass only after 9/11, and only for a while. Clinton “bounced back” when the dot-com bubble created a massive wave of good economic news.

      You’re right, there is always criticism of the President from the other side. Whether or not that criticism has any effect depends in large part on how well or how badly things are going in the country. The criticism against Bush began to have a greater effect as we got farther from 2001 and as the economy finally cracked under the weight of the real estate bubble. The criticism against Clinton died away as unemployment declined and tax revenues soared, allowing for smaller deficits.

      The criticism against Obama is having an effect because the country is in a deep economic downturn, one that looks to continue for a while and possibly get much worse even without any additional burdens placed on it via legislation. The left is working as hard as it can to blunt the impact of the criticism, but crying “racism” and crying “right wing conspiracy” are not as effective as having the economy rebound. Without that, expect the criticism to continue to be effective.

      • If this “racism” talk continues, sooner or later, somebody is going to say that criticism of a President of opposite color is “racism” .. at that point will Barack Obama be able to continue to blame George Bush

    • “Awhile” = 5 mins, right?

      Because he STOLE THAT ELECTION!!!!

      Thanks for beclowining yourself.

  • Erb, either lying or suffering from apoplectic memory loss: “George W. Bush was treated very well by the left for quite awhile.”

    Impossible nitwitery.

    From the very beginning the Left charged Bush, unceasingly, with having “stolen” the 2000 election.

    There was also a “pledge” going around to treat him with utter contempt as payback for the “mistreatment” of Bill Clinton.

    He was accused of wanting to force Americans to use drinking water with arsenic in it. That was just one of the rotten lies hurled at him early in his presidency.

    And these attacks were only briefly interrupted by 9/11. In fact, down the street from me in NYC, the far Left began laying the foundations for the “antiwar” movement within days of 9/11, converting the forces of the “anti-globalization” movement into “antiwar” troops virtually overnight.

    I think you’re lying again, Erb, but then you have long had a memory of convenience. Which is it?

    • I don’t think he’s lying.

      He actually believes this stuff.

      I’d actually have more respect for him if he was a liar. At least that indicates working towards an agenda.

      • If he believes it, then his beliefs mutate faster than a virus.

        How about, he will always lie for his agenda, but the agenda shifts frequently. Undergirding the agenda are the twins: anti-Americanism and socialism. But the meaning of those two is shifting as well, so even on an “ends justify means” basis the ends are substantially uncertain.

        Paradoxically, Scott is a phenomenally weak individual who shows great strenth in pursuing his weakness. As he grows weaker he grows stronger.

        So, the deceptions are real, but they don’t require much energy, or intelligence. It’s the repetition that takes strength, but it’s the strength of a child refusing to swallow his mouthful of peas.

        In my weaker moments I feel sorry for him.

  • Boehlert isn’t ignorant; he knows very well that he’s lying.

  • Have you all noticed how the unpretty sexual term “teabaggers” has now mainstreamed as a snide reference to the Tea Party participants?

    Anyone who uses it as an insult is outing himself as a teabaggee.

  • Why bother with the crazy left?
    It’s time we ignore them and build the country we believe in.

  • The hell with “Bush Derangement Syndrome”, how about just flat out DERANGED.

  • aided by a GOP Noise Machine

    Does such a thing exist ?

    To take a page from the past ..

    I belong to no organized party. I am a Democrat. — Will Rogers

    … since the beginning of the year, we have been pummeled with reports of the death of Republicanism and the Republican Party, and now we are supposed to believe that a vast Republican operation is afoot to destroy the current President ? Get a grip. Barack Obama is doing a better job of destroying the current President than anything the Republican Party could unleash upon him.

    • “Barack Obama is doing a better job of destroying the current President than anything the Republican Party could unleash upon him.”

      That’s what happens when a presidency is both conceived and endeavored in bad faith. The whole thing has been a series of head fakes and outright lies right from the beginning, back as far as the “one America” speech at the ’04 Democratic convention.

  • How can you ‘wingers be so obtuse?

    Everyone knows that the Reality Based Community are never violent.

    Since we are never violent, it’s a foregone conclusion that all violent people are Reich Wingnuts, irrelevant considerations like being a Marxist or defecting to the Soviet Union notwithstanding. It’s all so beautifully circular, which you dangerously unhinged types would know if you were as good as the Reality Based Community at using facts and logic to call out lying liars who lie.

    Quod erat demonstrandum.

  • Media Matters is a real news organization and we should care what they say?

  • Someone e-mailed me asking why I ignore Martin McPhillips. I gave a personal reply to that person, but in case others wonder, I’ll repost it here:

    “Thanks for the e-mail. To answer your question: Easy: his shtick is transparent. He’s been wrong on everything. He argued vociferously in 2000 that the US would pass a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. It hasn’t, gay marriage has spread, and Maine may even approve it in a referendum this year. He said Blair would be the most important politician in Europe because of the Iraq war. It destroyed Blair’s career. He said Bush would be triumphant in Iraq, it left Bush in disgrace. He ridiculed me when in 2005 I said the Taliban was resurgent and Afghanistan was not yet won. Now the Taliban is recognized by all as growing, and some estimates say it controls 80% of Afghanistan. He said the Rev. Wright stuff would guarantee Obama’s defeat, and ridiculed my claim that it wouldn’t be a factor. Again, he was wrong, I was right. He ridiculed warnings I was making the past few years that the sunny news about the economy was wrong, and that we were in for a severe shock. Again, he was dead wrong, I was right. Every step of the way he makes outlandish statements, surrounded by insults. It’s shtick. There’s no way he can seriously believe the stuff he writes (unless he’s clueless about the state of America in the 21st century), he’s just trying to provoke. Others have noted it too recently, mocking him for his consistently off base wild ‘predictions.’

    So, either he’s a silly crank who thinks we are still in 1955 and can’t understand the cultural changes that have taken place — the caricatured crank who shows up at local school board meetings and rails against the education system — or he’s simply playing games. But one thing to remember: whenever he makes a prediction, he’s always wrong.”

    Now I will go back to ignoring him.

    • Ahem.

      You have never ignored me, Scott.

      Your combing through my comments on various matters over time to find predictions I made (I don’t even remember some of them) is proof of that.

      You don’t respond to me because you know that I know that you don’t know your own field and that you are a flimsy, weak propagandist, a semi-official liar for the Left, given your academic position and the way you try to play it.

      It’s not because I take an authentically nasty tone with you, because you respond to people who take an even nastier tone. It’s because I deal with you on and in your own terms. I don’t see too many participants here who have missed your chronic absurd mendacity and your lack of knowledge, but I had many more direct one-on-one net conversations with you than probably anyone, from the mid- to late-90s, and I know your cheesy rhetorical habits better than you do.

    • Nobody give a f**k who you ignore or why Erb.

  • Nice to see leftists rewriting history to suit their argument. Makes me sorta nostalgic for Pravda.

    “we’ve always been at war with Eastasia.”

    • It’s reminiscent how after WWII and the Nazi atrocities it was very difficult to find anyone in the U.S. who had been an advocate of eugenics.

      One of the greatest of all makeovers in that category was done on Margaret Sanger, who was, and is, a Progressive heroine and a racist and a eugenicist.

      In the greatest of all ironies, the organization she founded to, among other things, reduce the black population, is one of Barack Obama’s most intimate supporters. It goes by the euphemistic name Planned Parenthood, and according to Jonah Goldberg’s book Liberal Fascism about 80% of its offices are located in or near black and other minority communities. Blacks account for 12% of the population, but have about 37% of all abortions.

    • Or ignoring history. It is interesting that so many of the left have joined the “Racism” bandwagon begun by Jimmy Carter in recent days. Talk about pots and kettles! (Taken from an entry in PowerLine) Laughlin McDonald, director of the ACLU’s Voting Project, recently wrote the book “A Voting Rights Odyssey”. In the book he describes Carter (one of Erb’s heroes) in some earlier years:

      When Carter returned to Plains, Georgia, to become a peanut farmer after serving in the Navy, he became a member of the Sumter County School Board, which did not implement the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision handed down by the Supreme Court. Instead, the board continued to segregate school children on the streets of Carter’s hometown. …
      Carter’s board tried to stop the construction of a new “Elementary Negro School” in 1956. Local white citizens had complained that the school would be “too close” to a white school. As a result, “the children, both colored and white, would have to travel the same streets and roads in order to reach their respective schools.” The prospect of black and white children commingling on the streets on their way to school was apparently so horrible to Carter that he requested that the state school board stop construction of the black school until a new site could be found. The state board turned down Carter’s request because of “the staggering cost.” Carter and the rest of the Sumter County School Board then reassured parents at a meeting on October 5, 1956, that the board “would do everything in its power to minimize simultaneous traffic between white and colored students in route to and from school.”

      • Another one of the great buried facts of near-term history is that the POTUS who was most successful in achieving desegregation of Southern schools was…Richard Nixon, after 1970. He did that and still won a 49-state victory in 1972, including the Southern states won by either Wallace or Humphrey in ’68.

  • We do owe Boehlert thanks for one thing: We’ve been concentrating on Carter parallels. The JFK parallels are equally or more striking.

    Assassination pr0n is a sign of desperation. The guy’s become such an abject failure that only martyrdom can rescue him, and the Left and Democrats are starting to long for it. Yours truly, on the other hand, is at least one “wingnut” who hopes Barry lives forever.


    • I agree. I felt the same way about Slick Willie and the Hilldabeast.

      Quite aside from a certain (ahem) repugnance for murder, I’m not interested in living the rest of my life listening to liberals cry and moan and sob about how much so-and-so had to offer, what a bright future he / she had, what a loss to the country it was, blah-blah-blah. It’s nearly fifty years after President Kennedy was murdered and the libs are STILL harping on it.

      • I think the vehemence is going to be far greater on the extreme left as point after point of the “great plan” is cast aside for pragmatic victories.

        • That’s one way it could go, into the smog of gagging mediocrity.

          But that’s a very traditional path in American politics.

          I think Barack and his gang might have something more like the period between the world wars in Europe. Many flavors to choose from.

          Or perhaps something on the style of Latin America.

          Maybe a mixture of both.