B-Norm Barack Blog

Conservative Defections and the Liberal Media Myth

Brian Normoyle — Sat, 18 Oct 2008 03:15:20 EDT

In a FOX News interview Friday, John McCain campaign spokesman Tucker Bounds complained about media scrutiny of "Joe the Plumber"--the newest character in the three-act farce that has become their campaign. Of course, McCain's "old buddy Joe" and the veracity of his narrative would have merely been a passing blip on media radar had the campaign not thoughtlessly forced him front-and-center in the final presidential debate as just another prop in their play. Bounds huffed and puffed about "[Barack Obama's] allies in the media"--otherwise known as journalists doing their job--but in so doing, he forgot McCain has a penchant for throwing otherwise ordinary persons under the bus by not properly vetting their "compelling" narratives before pitching them headfirst into the gladiator arena of national politics. If the campaign had done its job the way journalists are now trying to do theirs in this election, most of us would never have heard of Sarah Palin or Joe the Plumber.

One can hardly fault campaign surrogates for attempting to discredit the media and label them as biased, liberal or "in-the-tank" for Obama. The cultural myth of a liberal mainstream media is dubious, but conservatives have successfully framed political discourse for decades by propagating it among a credulous base.

This time, however, it seems terribly desperate and utterly disingenuous to denigrate journalists for doing something McCain should have done days earlier--and with respect to Sarah Palin--months earlier. At this point in a flailing and increasingly erratic campaign, the tactic of complaining about a liberal media bias is as futile as is it trite. But more importantly, it belies a more significant and insurmountable problem for the campaign: apostate conservatives. Traditional media conservatives are abandoning John McCain like rats deserting a sinking ship. Andrew Sullivan questioned his integrity, Peggy Noonan and Kathleen Parker his judgment. William Kristol advocated McCain fire his entire campaign and start from scratch and even Charles Krauthammer seemed perplexed by his frenetic behavior while admitting Obama passes the Reagan presidential-mettle test. Stinging as those resounding critiques may be, and they certainly have a bite, the final nail in McCain's campaign coffin may have been hammered in by conservative endorsements of his opponent.
Andrew Bacevich endorsed Obama in March and Wick Allison did it in September. Then there were the two iconic Christophers: recently Hitchins and last week Buckley, son of National Review founder William F. Buckley, who is widely credited as the father of modern conservatism. Hitchins endorsed Obama Monday in a rebuke of McCain's temperament and character, while Buckley cost himself a job at his late father's magazine by announcing he will vote for a Democrat for the first time in his life when he pulls the lever for Obama in November.

The nation also heard Thursday from David Brooks and Friday the Chicago-Tribune endorsed a Democrat for president for the first time in the 160-year history of the paper. As if it couldn't get any worse for McCain, we're likely to hear the revered Colin Powell offer his support, if not a full-throated endorsement, of Obama on Meet the Press Sunday morning.

With just over two weeks to go until the election, this repudiation by the right-of-center punditocracy doesn't bode well for a candidate who was never a darling of conservatives to begin with--particularly among the evangelical right. Does this mean McCain has already lost the election? No. There exists a real possibility for a McCain squeaker, though getting there will be an uphill war (not battle) at this point.

What it does mean is that Republicans will not be able to blame a mythical liberal media for their failure to energize the electorate. I have long considered the specter of a liberal media to be a fable born of paranoia. Invented as a strategy to win elections, it later became a defense against potential Republican failure and a tagline to foment mistrust among the electorate. But when used to perpetuate a patrician v. plebeian mentality, it's a script perfect for aiding campaigns that win and justifying those that don't.

Casting themselves as the underdog party of Jesus, small government and real patriotism, Republicans claim to fight for the common man while they brand academics and journalists as biased, elitist pigs (instant snobbery, just add education). Then they rehash the hackneyed line about liberals and how much better they think they are than the working-class, and the result is a seemingly impervious battleship of electoral dominance. That is until reality seeps in and that ship starts to sink, leaving many heretofore stalwart conservatives to reverse course or jump ship altogether.

If McCain fails to win in November, the campaign will have the sellout himself to blame, along with several other parties. This year, however, the imaginary liberal media will not be one of them.

The Presumption of Ignorance

Brian Normoyle — Tue, 14 Oct 2008 23:34:49 EDT

Brian 1:2 So spake the Fool in prayer before the angry masses on that 11th Day of October 2008, the year of our Lord: "there are millions of people around this world praying to their god—whether it's Hindu, Buddha, Allah—that [Barack Obama] wins, for a variety of reasons. And Lord, I pray that you will guard your own reputation, because they're going to think that their God is bigger than you if that happens."

Brian 1:3 And lo, the huddled mob—rabid with loathing and stricken, like others before them, with a fear of change and leaders of color—praised the Fool with applause. And both were pleased in their ignorance.

The fool in question of course is Arnold Conrad, former pastor of Grace Evangelical Free Church, pleading with God at a John McCain rally in Iowa. However, unlike the shrewd fools in literature from Socrates to Shakespeare, this one is anything but wise.

For the sake of argument, let's ignore the fact he's a pastor and alleged scholar of religion and give the Fool the benefit of the doubt. After all, an imbecile can't reasonably be expected to know that Hindu is not a god (or even a proper noun for that matter), Buddha isn't a deity either, and neither are prayed to by anyone. Anywhere.

And of course, while any average idiot—except this one apparently—knows Allah is the same God prayed to and worshiped by Christians and Jews, we needn't require Pastor Arnie to understand these or other religions and cultures. Why? Because, despite his Doctor of Ministry degree, that brand of cultural sensitivity and theological understanding is anathema to a myopic and intellectually incurious fundamentalist.

The pomposity of this self-righteous dolt notwithstanding, I'm always amazed by proselytizers who pray, prattle and pontificate with the arrogant assumption they know who God is rooting for—as if God has a stake or interest in a particular candidate.

Prayers like Pastor Arnie's are futile of course and as patently absurd as asking the almighty to intervene in the Superbowl. But the obvious silliness doesn't stop so many evangelicals from so frequently contending Republicans are the party of God and John McCain (R-Nazareth) is Christ's personally vetted nominee for President. Their presumption is as comical as their worldview is provincial.

My personal hunch is that God doesn't much care about American electoral politics but, if s/he does, I doubt s/he'd be categorically opposed to a Democrat. Barack Obama is a Christian. He was "saved," he was baptized, and he was a regular congregant in a Church of Christ for over 20 years.

Besides—from the right to universal health care, nondiscrimination, and racial/gender equality to the eradication of poverty, earning of a living wage, dealing with AIDS and tax relief for those who actually need it—Democrats and their standard-bearers have traditionally favored policies uniquely more suited for and geared towards the middle and working classes and the poor/disenfranchised. In other words, Obama's policies tend to support the very people that the foolish pastor's God named "the Salt of the Earth" in the best-selling book s/he "authored" thousands of years ago.

Christ didn't say much in favor of the free market, unprovoked war, assault weapons for "hunting," or tax-cuts for the rich and he was completely silent on those "cardinal sins" of abortion and gay marriage. But he did have an abundance of opinions about equality, justice, compassion, tolerance, forgiveness and love, as well as leaving judgment of others to God and taking care of our neediest brothers and sisters.

So frankly, Pastor Arnie, I still don't think God is rooting for either candidate, but if s/he is, given their agreement on the issues, my money's on Obama. I'll give you 5:1 odds on your money for McCain, but I'd call that a Fool's Bet.

Matthew 25:40 "And the King answering shall say to them, 'Verily, I say to you, Inasmuch as ye have done it to one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it to me.'"

Lies, Evasion & Gimmicks: An Open Letter to the Honorable John McCain

Brian Normoyle — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 04:07:15 EDT

Dear Senator McCain:

My name is Brian Normoyle and I'm an average, middle-class American. I'm writing with concern because I'm starting to wonder whether or not this whole McCain-Palin campaign is just a colossal three-act farce that the American public is being forced to sit through.

It started with lies--not exaggerations, as politicians are prone to, but outright lies about Obama's economic plan, his vote on sex education and Palin's supposed opposition to earmarks and the bridge to nowhere. Then lies became evasion: refusing to meet with reporters on your plane or take their questions after rallies; Palin's two softball interviews with the national press and still no press conference; and the campaign's patent refusal to allow media access to her. Shortly thereafter, Senator, you tried to pull the wool over our eyes again by attempting to convince us that, all along, you've been a pro-regulation populist who takes on Big Business in America.

Finally, though, the third act of this horrible farce I can't bring myself to laugh at: you're "suspending" your campaign to go to Washington to fix this bailout problem. This is an even more obvious gimmicky political ploy than the rush-to-judgment choice of Sarah Palin--and trust me, that's saying a lot. The really juicy part of the joke? You want to postpone the debate scheduled for Friday and even the Vice-Presidential debate next week.

I've had it. Enough! Let's call this exactly what it is: moose-shit.

No, Senator McCain, you do not get an extension on your homework assignment. You can show up to the University of Mississippi, like the all the other kids, and give the presentation you were assigned months ago. I don't care that you're clearly grossly unprepared and I have little sympathy for your apparent inability to defend your 25+ years of pro-business, anti-regulation policies that helped lead us to where we are today. Like any other person who wants to be President of the United States, you need to be able to handle more than one assignment concurrently and you need to do your homework on time.

Senator, you sold me and America a first-class ticket on your Straight Talk Express, and I've come to learn that I actually hold a coach-class seat on the No-Talk Express, or as I like to call it: Sham-trak. I want off this train and I want answers. I'll even give you the questions in advance so you can study your scripted responses.

1. With Republicans in control of congress for 12 years and Bush at the helm for the last 8, with the SEC Chairman and all its commissioners appointed by a Republican, with the FRB Chairman appointed by a Republican and with a Republican-appointed Secretary of the Treasury, why do you think we should trust you, a Republican, with the levers of economic power and vote for you?

2. When your economic advisor, Phill Gramm, said that our failing economy was all in our head and called struggling Americans "a nation of whiners" what exactly did he mean by that? And since he is the man who in 1999 wrote the law that repealed certain restrictions and regulations on the financial sector, how can we be sure that you're not beholden to his "expert" financial policy advice?

3. In 2005 you stated "I’m going to be honest: I know a lot less about economics than I do about military and foreign policy issues, I still need to be educated" and again last December, "the issue of economics is not something I’ve understood as well as I should [but] I've got Greenspan's book.” Do you think those statements instill confidence and hope in the American people about your ability to steer us out of this mess? Why do you feel uniquely more qualified to handle something you've admitted you know little about?

4. Why do you continue to deny media access to your fragile flower, Sarah Palin? Why do you not talk to reporters anymore? Why are you avoiding the debate? Why won't you give us the answers we deserve about the issues facing our nation and our everyday lives?

Senator McCain, here's some advice from an average, middle-class American. Think of it as Straight-Talk 101: when you own 13 cars and can't remember that you own 7 homes; when you've consistently been on the wrong side economically of the average working American; when you want to inflict further damage on the few of us who are provided employer-sponsored health insurance by taxing that benefit; when you and your party make it harder for struggling Americans to access bankruptcy but you want to bailout Wall Street with our money; when you want to continue the failed Bush-Republican policies of giving tax breaks to the wealthiest 1% while giving short-shrift to the middle class; when you have all these factors about you pitted against a voter's reason and logic and rational thought--to say nothing of that voter's emotional response to losing a home, a job, and/or life savings--then you shouldn't be running from the the media and the debates, you need to hop in the engineer's compartment of your BS-Express and slam full-throttle towards them so that you can explain yourself and give us one, just ONE reason, why any sentient human being should vote for you.

See you in class on Friday.

Good luck... I think you're gonna need it.

Love,
Brian Normoyle

Enough with Lipstick and Dipstick

Brian Normoyle — Fri, 19 Sep 2008 00:09:30 EDT

It becomes more apparent by the day that the choice of Sarah Palin may come to haunt the McCain campaign this November. It has now come to light that Moose-ah-lini used her private yahoo email account to conduct state business--flagrantly circumventing Alaska laws requiring all state-related correspondence to be archived and saved. And we recently learned that the self-titled pit-bull's private lawyers (or, more accurately, McCain's) are suing to stop the ethics inquiry she welcomed and the Republican-dominated, bipartisan Legislative Council unanimously decided in July to initiate. Talk about being before the investigation before she was against it.

But of course all that was before Obama's choice of Biden and his subsequent convention bounce, and well before McCain realized he was absolutely fucked in November without someone or some way to get evangelicals excited about him--or at least some Republican. As it turns out, now that she's the Republican VP nominee, she'd rather have the investigation conducted on her turf by a "Personnel Board" answering only to her administration. Here's the best part: she filed an ethics complaint against herself--the only way to constitutionally get said Board to investigate--and her appointed, non-elected Attorney General instructed state employees not to cooperate with the Legislative Council supboenas. I guess her brand of government reform is ignoring it altogether when it proves politically inconvenient to her ambitions.

There's a very distinct possibility no laws were violated or ethics impinged, but I generally tend to think that where there's smoke there's a good chance of fire. The bottom line, of course, is McCain's glaring hypocrisy. How can he convince any lucid American he's going to "reform" Washington when he's running as a 25-year veteran of said institution whose running-mate is fleeing from her own ethics inquiry and doing whatever she can to shut it down?

McCain took a risk in picking such a political amateur, but he'll do well to stop her making more sophomoric mistakes so early. It does little good to run as an agent of change and government reform when your running mate agrees to cooperate with a bipartisan ethics investigation and then, six weeks later, does all she can to derail it.

I hope Sarah's family enjoys moose-stew as much as she does because, frankly, that's about all she's qualified to nuke.

If You're Not Incredulous Yet You Should Be

Brian Normoyle — Fri, 19 Sep 2008 00:02:42 EDT

Forget about linking John McCain to George Bush. Barack Obama would benefit from telling Americans that Sarah Palin is every bit as vacuous and unskilled as President Dubya ever was, and she's equally evasive of the media.

I'm shocked by the lack of confidence McCain continues to have in his insulting and dangerous choice of Sarah Palin. Aside from her abuse of power by intervening in personnel matters in Alaska, the blatant lie about opposing the "bridge-to-nowhere," and her laughable claim to be against congressional earmarks when Alaska is the leading per-capita recipient of those very same congressional funds, why don't we hear more from this co-maverick of his?

If Palin is ready on day one to be a heartbeat away from the most powerful job in the world, then why quarantine her from reporters while sending her out speaking the same stump speech on teleprompter she gave at the convention? I could hazard an intelligent guess, but there's clearly no need to discuss that or any pressing, relevant issues now that McCain has a token, pandering ploy of a runningmate. Who cares if she's competent when she excites the base (particularly the men) and values the "culture of life"--except of course the life of animals she wears around her neck and those she "field-dresses" for a novel snack (moose stew, for the record, is the puppy chow of choice for this self-described pit bull).

I have a friend who is an Emmy-winning actor on a long-running daytime soap opera. He said yesterday that he was still dumbfounded he has "given more interviews to the press than Sarah Palin." Isn't this the woman that, if elected, could be one second away from having her trigger-finger on 'The Button?' With less than two months left until the election, don't Americans deserve and need to know where McCain's number two stands on the issues that really matter in our everyday lives? Not likely, it seems, since campagin manager Rick Davis admitted two weeks ago this campaign wouldn't be about issues, it would be about personalities.

Hmm. Well, the problem with running a campaign on personality is twofold: a) McCain doesn't seem to have much of one without Palin; and b) the person-we'd-rather-have-a-beer with already had a crack at running the country and it didn't turn out so well, remember? For for all his good-ol' boy charm--never mind he was the very New England born, silver-spooned, prep-school, Ivy League elitist he likes to mock--and despite his [apparently] endearing inability to formulate two thoughts into a coherent sentence, these last eight years have been so disastrous to our economy, military and global credibility that we will be spending the next eight years just starting to clean up the mess. And although he loved Jesus, guns, and white people and appealed to the fundamentalist base, he's still not appealing--even when disguised in a skirt and lipstick with a Cracker-Barrell updo.