Sunday, October 4, 2009

When I dreamed long ago of appearing some day on 'Meet the Press' . . .

. . . this wasn't quite what I had in mind (7:40 mark):

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

Rachel Maddow has got several facts wrong, and you know what? I'm going to let her try to figure out which facts she's got wrong. She gets paid by MSNBC to report the facts, and as she goes about the process of proving she couldn't find her own ass with both hands, I'll be content to watch and laugh.

How many times have I said that it's a long story, and that I'm not going to tell the whole thing until somebody pays me for the story? There are very good reasons I've kept calm, and resisted the temptation to confirm or deny this, that or the other specific point in their "Ransom Note Method" indictment. In such a situation, it's important to keep in mind your rights under Miranda v. Arizona. I don't have to explain myself or prove a negative.

Let Rachel Maddow find out for herself that, for example, Donkey Cons wasn't Lynn Vincent's most recent book. Or let her get in touch with novelist Tito Perdue or Stogie at Saberpoint and ask them to explain some of this. There is no obligation for me to speak a word in my own defense.

When the Left first came after me with this stuff eight years ago, I was under orders not to respond. Difficult, but it gave me a lot of time to contemplate, to watch how they do this to people (like they did to George Allen in 2006) and I think this painful education has taught me a thing or two about dealing with crap like this.

Remember: Being notorious isn't the same as being famous, but it's better than being anonymous.

(Hat-tip: Professor Donald Douglas, who still needs to apologize to Attila and Cassandra, if he wants to regain his "known associate" credentials.)

UPDATE (Smitty): Cythia Yockey musters the artillery for some solid counter-battery fire.

UPDATE II (RSM): Stogie at Saberpoint brings the cavalry. You can read the "Meet the Press" transcript, as I'm sure Sarah Palin and Lynn Vincent's lawyers will be doing quite carefully . . .

UPDATE III (Smitty):Fishersville Mike plays a heavy guilt-by-association card. Wow.

UPDATE IV (Smitty): Picks himself up after being knocked over by the Most Powerful 'Ahem' Ever Recorded. Thank you, Little Miss Attila.

28 comments:

  1. Where did NBC find that Mike Murphy clown? Typical inside-the-beltway GOP hack: he hates Sarah Palin and Rick Perry, two real Republicans that people actually support and vote for. With the likes of Murphy and Brooks, who the hell needs Democrats? Fifth columnists, both of them.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Facts have never stopped Ms. Maddow before, Stacy. Once she gets a hold of a meme that she believes plays in her favor, you can bet your ass that she's going to push it. Monday sure is going to be interesting as I'm willing to wager a large sum of tip-jar money that, not only are you going to be on the Maddow show, but you're going to make a "Countdown" list of some kind. You should get used to hearing about your "white supremacy" on MSNBC, my friend.

    Maybe it's time for a lizard king to meet a slick southern libel lawyer, eh? You'll probaly end up with CJ's bike spoke collection once this is all over.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I would like to take this moment to point out to Rachel that Sarah Palin's husband, Todd, is not a white man.

    You think the fact that Sarah Palin herself is in an interracial relationship would come up more.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Bringing up the Reverend Wright, who is actually a racist, when discussing Obama's past is bad. Bringing up RSM, who is only a racist in CJ's scaly mind, when discussing a book that he had nothing to do with is good?

    Imagine the loops Maddow's mind must leap through to reach a conclusion.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Well, McCain, the fact is I have indeed apologized to Cassandra, and we're on reasonably good speaking terms:

    "I am sorry we had this fight. I am sorry it got as nasty as it did, and I am sorry for fighting ruthlessly, because it makes me feel bad if I have harmed you or embarrassed you. I think you are a good woman. I am sorry if I have hurt you.

    We can even talk by phone if you want. I'm sincere."

    LMA is another story, but perhaps you might put your good offices to work.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Wow, the left is really going all in with this racism meme aren't they.

    And I don't just mean in regards to RSM.

    I thought they would at least tone it down after the claims about racism being a root cause for opposing ObamaCare blew up in their faces.

    I guess Rio getting the Olympics has stirred them up all over again.

    ReplyDelete
  7. They don't call her Rachel Mad Cow for nothing, Stacy!

    ReplyDelete
  8. I can't stand listening to these "intellectual pygmies" spewing their opinions. I've heard more interesting things form my two dogs and two cats. As for Rachel Maddow, even little old me picked up the number of things she got wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Well you are white.....so addition by subtraction...equals crazy liberal logic. And based on that logic I claim Rachel Maddow a man because she never said she wasn't and she wears her hair like a man. Again, addition by subtraction...:-)

    ReplyDelete
  10. Well I, for one, am enjoying this new game of making heinous crap up and pretending its true. Thanks, Ms Maddow. Endless fun.

    ReplyDelete
  11. How ironic for the left to be blaming someone for the alleged views of someone who worked with someone who they worked with. Do they really want to play a "degrees of seperation" game with Obama's associates?

    ReplyDelete
  12. MTP has become unwatchable. Of course it has been for years but to assemble this panel is like The Amateur Hour.

    OK, Brooks has some cred but Dionne is a hack who uses "cut and pasted talking points provided to him from DNC headquarters to write a column". And Maddow and the other guy are nobodies.

    ReplyDelete
  13. "as she goes about the process of proving she couldn't find her own ass with both hands"

    Not that anyone else would want to find Rachel Madcow's ass ...

    ReplyDelete
  14. "I don't have to explain myself or prove a negative."

    Good for you. Give them nothing, lead them nowhere.

    Because this (with my emphasis added) is what happens if you make it your responsibility to sort out the mess of confusion their unjust attacks create (link):

    - "Several LGF commenters were primed and ready with disinformation provided by such extreme Left sites as Yelloman, Blokwatch, and EXPO. Charles Johnson used their material uncritically, without doing due diligence on it; in fact, he seemed to accept it at face value without any checking at all."

    - "For details concerning the accusations and our refutations of them, see “Suggested Corrections for Charles Johnson”."

    - "Unfortunately, although it took Mr. Johnson but a moment to paste in any given tidbit of disinformation, it took five people on the CVF team six weeks to research, document, and prepare the refutations."

    There is a vast disproportion between the effort needed to pass on a smear and the effort required by each person smeared to make a reply. It's contrary to the interests of anti-jihadists in general for each person attacked to make detailed replies and in effect shut themselves down, doing "opposition research" free for the enemy, for as long as the attacker feel like putting in the trivial and intrinsically rewarding effort to damn you again. (Why would they ever stop?)

    The more muddle-headed and toxic the attack, the heavier the burden on everyone smeared, if they have to turn the attack into something pointed so they can reply to it.

    In doing this, you can never really meet and beat the specific allegation. It's always open to the attacker to redefine the attack to have meant something that hasn't been covered yet - or better yet, do another open-ended cheap shot attack on several targets that "obliges" them all to start trawling through their lives for anything and everything that might support such an attack.

    You can never be secure against memory lapses, faulty or lacky record-keeping, or failure to realize how someone else might reinterpret what you said to make it serve their hostile purpose. You were there and know what you meant; that can blind you to how useful such a quote might be to someone assembling a typical "ransom note" attack. Of course any error or failure to find the best documents and interpret them in the best way for an attacker sets you up for the "cover-up!" and "liar!" attacks. You would be better not to speak in the first place.

    And, taking on this vast burden of hack-work may imply that others smeared in the same way ought to do the same sort of work. That's unhelpful. If enough people - and Charles Johnson has smeared a lot of people over the years - someone's going to harm themselves through the exercise of an overly active scrupulous conscience. If the list of targets is long enough, someone on it, at some time, will have had a "Walt Kowalski" moment (I mean Clint Eastwood's character from Gran Torino (2008)), and if it's their job to publicize it and eviscerate themselves over it, you get a terrific reward for a lousy attack method.

    More fundamentally, it doesn't work. Gates of Vienna was negatively affected by Charles Johnson even after their toil to set everything straight. People will still wonder: "but what is it about you, that this attack came to be directed at you?"

    It's more helpful to put things in their right context. The right context, as detailed thoroughly and usefully in the Gates of Vienna post I linked at the top, is the madness of King Charles.

    - David Blue

    ReplyDelete
  15. RSM, I hope you don't mind me using the title of your blog post for my English class. We're going to be doing a lesson on pre-reading where they read the title of a piece of non fiction and the name of the author and then predict what the article is going to be about. That way when they read Mary Bakers article about why she no longer considers herself an African American they'll have the strategies they need. I'll check back later to get your response.

    ReplyDelete
  16. The Vegas Art Guy said...
    RSM, I hope you don't mind me using the title of your blog post for my English class.

    Cool. You know, one of my advantages in the blogosphere -- beside the Speedo pic -- is that I spent years writing headlines for newspapers. Headline writing is a real discipline, because you've got a limited number of words available to get the point across, but you've also got to make it snappy enough so as to say to the reader "Read This!"

    And nine times out of 10, you're writing headlines for stories you care absolutely nothing about. It's your job. So you'd be compiling a briefs column where you had a column width of 11.6 picas -- about 2 inches -- and the font was 16-point Helvetica and you only got two decks. And you're trying to fit seven items into a column 18.5 inches deep.

    Discipline. Well, then you get over here in the blogosphere, where it's wild and woolly and you can let your freak flag fly, and still the value of those years of discipline persists.

    I got back from Kentucky about 4 p.m. Thursday, after driving 1,314 miles since Monday. By 4:25 p.m. Sunday, I had produced (a) an 800-word rebuttal to Newsweek, (b) a 4,000-word first installment of a series about the trip, and (c) rather incidentally, a few blog posts here.

    Discipline.

    ReplyDelete
  17. RSM, thanks so much. And I've been following your saga in Kentucky. I'll let you know how the lesson goes. Now I need to get back to my lesson planning.

    Oh, and that was a sweet rebuttal too!
    I'll be linking to your article in my current blog post about what I am doing with article titles.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Revolted by the idea of interracial relationships? Does this seem like a guy who is revolted by interracial relationships?

    http://tinyurl.com/m3hra6

    -----
    MONDAY, AUG. 3, 2009, 4:34 P.M. – Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin and husband Todd “went at it like crazy” Sunday evening at their home in Wasilla, according to one source familiar with the couple’s rendezvous.
    “Man, I don’t know what got into her last night,” said the source, who spoke on condition of anonymity. “I’ve never seen anything like it before. No, wait, maybe that time we went camping back in . . . ‘96. Yeah, I’m pretty sure it was ‘96, but it might have been ‘97. Anyway, the thing is, it was awesome.”

    UPDATE 6:17 P.M. – I now have further confirmation of the previously reported romantic encounter between the Palins, although one of my best sources disputes key details of our earlier account.
    “Me? He said it was me?” said the source. “Oh, no way, it was totally him. You betcha. All I did was put on an old Rod Stewart CD while I was cooking the fish we caught last weekend, and next thing ya know, he’s singin’ along about ‘tonight’s the night’ and stuff. Of course, he can’t sing worth a darn, but he doesn’t know that.”
    According to this source, Todd Palin “came up behind” the former governor, put his arms around her and began kissing her neck “all sweet-like” which caused the 2008 Republican vice-presidential candidate to laugh.
    “Like I don’t know what you’re up to, Mister,” Mrs. Palin reportedly said.
    Todd Palin was obviously seeking to make amends for previous neglect, according to this source. A four-time Tesoro Iron Dog snow-race champion, the governor’s husband “was trying to make up for lost time, I guess, because . . . well, he sure as heck wasn’t complaining, I can tell you that. You betcha.”
    -----

    http://tinyurl.com/m3hra6

    I think it's safe to say that he's cool with different races bagging each other. Unless you don't recognize Todd Palin's Inuit blood, Rachel the Raaaaacist!

    ReplyDelete
  19. Wow. You know what I heard? That people widely believe, even though they don't have any proof, that because Johnson and Maddow have occasionally been seen in the company of children, they may be pedophiles. I'm not saying that Johnson and Maddow are pedophiles, just that some people believe they are.

    ReplyDelete
  20. It's good to have friends who can testify to your character and who will defend you without prompting.

    Madcow and company must not have had any grandmothers (If you can't say something nice...Make something up??)

    ReplyDelete
  21. When did Todd Palin become other than white? And this is a good thing, how?

    ReplyDelete
  22. Anyone who opposes our all-benevolent central government is racist. Any talk about loss of rights is nothing but a cover for an irrational hatred of minorities.

    Condi Rice denounced opponents of the Iraq invasion as racist. Anyone who's against socialized medicine is racist. The SPLC, whose pronouncements are quoted verbatim by a fawning corporate media, warns that anyone who doesn't embrace Open Borders is racist.

    Stand up for liberty, and you'll be called bad names.

    ReplyDelete
  23. "When did Todd Palin become other than white?"

    He became "other than white" when he was conceived in his mothers womb, Genius. People weren't joking when they called him an Inuit eskimo. You do know that Inuit eskimos are a race of people, right? What did you think SP ment when brought up her shared blood ties to the chinese in her HK speech? Here's a history lesson, some chinese nomads migrated to Alaska over an ancient land bridge that used to connect both land masses. One of those nomads is Todd's ancestor.

    "And this is a good thing, how?"

    If RSM is such a "white supremacist" why is he not "revolted" by a race traitor like Sarah Palin? She's married to, and has had sex with (at least 5 times!), a man who is not of pure aryan blood. In a different time that would get her and her children killed.

    I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure the KKK isn't to keen on the mixing of races.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Question 1: How many A's in supremaaaaacist?

    Question 2: Did Maddow really spend a solid 4 minutes in a discussion lamenting how civility is lost in modern politics ... and then play smear merchant? Uh wha!? Hypocrite much?

    Question 3: What's the appropriate amount of cringing when the only two people who could possibly defend you are faux-conservatives like David Freaking Brooks who just spent 4 minutes talking about how Talk Radio isn't relevant and how they hate Palin? Ugh.



    Finally, if you can play the supremaaaaacist-card a full 4-hops (Sarah Palin <-> Lynn Vincent <-> RSM <-> League of the South), well, the logical extension of that logic lets me jump from
    -> Wright
    -> to Obama
    -> to just about any Democrat
    ... and I still have a hop to spare!

    Raaaaacists the whole lot!

    ReplyDelete