Malice, Spite and An Eye To The Bottom Line

UPDATE:

Shortly after I posted this Edwards released a statement:

The tone and the sentiment of some of Amanda Marcotte’s and Melissa McEwan’s posts personally offended me. It’s not how I talk to people, and it’s not how I expect the people who work for me to talk to people. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but that kind of intolerant language will not be permitted from anyone on my campaign, whether it’s intended as satire, humor, or anything else. But I also believe in giving everyone a fair shake. I’ve talked to Amanda and Melissa; they have both assured me that it was never their intention to malign anyone’s faith, and I take them at their word. We’re beginning a great debate about the future of our country, and we can’t let it be hijacked. It will take discipline, focus, and courage to build the America we believe in.

Mealy-mouthed, but Malkin loses as it seems they’re not fired after all – advantage liberal blogospshere. And my comments below still stand – the right set the agenda again, and the Democrats were caught on the back foot, again.

— ———————————————————————

Leaving aside the fact I consider Amanda Marcotte a friend (though I disagree with her on many things) the vicious public attack on the Edwards bloggers, led by rightwing media-slime Michelle Malkin, is interesting both as an object lesson for political campaigns on how not to handle bloggers and as an insight into the pathology of right wing female pundits.

This story has been all about how personal spite, a minor media figure’s fading popularity and a last desperate attempt by Malkin to get hers before it all goes to shit for the Republicans have co-incided, to produce the early derailing of the Edwards campaign amongst its own supporters.

It couldn’t’ve worked better had it been planned.

First a little backstory. It seems Ms. Michelle “I resent women unless they’re me” Malkin is not unaquainted with the indignity of being let go herself.

A Virginia newspaper recently got rid of her from its pages because she has, according the paper’s ombudsman“…a long history of poorly supported polemic” and because of her propensity to spout rubbish “…regardless of its factual basis or lack thereof”. Nicely and politely put, but the meaning’s clear. Malkin is a proven liar and bigot and was fired for it, simple as that. The difference between her firing and that of the Edwards bloggers is that Malkin got the boot for barefaced, easily debunked lying and no hysterical whipping-up of bloggers by liberals was required whatsoever. It was all her own work.

Malkin’s words spoke for themselves, and they screamed “Liar!”

Wherever did this harpy come from and how did she get to be so prominent? David Neiwert of Orcinus knew Malkin professionally in her early career; she left Seattle under a cloud after issues with her reporting. Her trademark viciousness was apparent even then. This is her parting shot to the city:

The Cattle In Seattle: You Guys Had It Coming

Michelle Malkin

Creators Syndicate Inc.

WASHINGTON – As I watched fire, tear gas and mass chaos consume Seattle last week, one wicked little thought crossed my mind: It couldn’t have happened to a more deserving city.

Nice.

Read More

Heh. Right blogs p4wn3d By Left Blogs, says Tom Delay

[…]

And former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay felt right at home Friday at a conservative members retreat in Baltimore, giving interviews with other conservative bloggers and chatting excitedly about the medium’s political potential. DeLay said conservatives have been “outranked by the left” in the blogosphere, a place where he can communicate directly with his audience without the mainstream media “pounding the crap out of me.”

[My emphasis]

Was That A Paradigm Shift, Or Is My Underwear Just Bunched Up?

Sometimes I loathe blogging and I hate blogs. At the moment I can’t stand all this waiting, it’s driving me absolutely, nailbitingly nuts. My refresh button is wearing out.

Although nemesis is approaching both the Blair and Bush governments in the form of prosecutions for corruption and for perjury respectively, it’s taking it’s own sweet bloody time about it.

I want poodle and chimp blood and I want it now!.

Maybe I’m projecting my own feelings about the endless grey tedium of January but the UK and US news media and punditerati seem to have gone oddly quiet of late. I don’t mean there’s no news, that’s patently absurd what with wars and massacres and plagues all over the place – but there’s a faint whiff of tense anxiety emanating from the political reporters and commentariat. I wonder why?

They do have cause to be tense: both the accelerating Cash for Honours and Plame investigations and subsequent prosecutions will result in large part from the persistence of bloggers on both sides of the Atlantic. Unpaid citizens have been doing the job that the pampered, self-perpetuating mediocracy should’ve been doing. The media’s passive collusion in propping up illegal government and facilitating the obstruction of justice is about to be exposed and it won’t be pretty; no wonder they’re nervous. (Or maybe they’re just desperately trying to catch up on the story. That’s why they’re quiet – they’re reading blogs.)

That doesn’t mean there are no bright, persistent reporters on the big papers, it means they are exceedingly rare pearls of rare price amongst the cosy insiderdom and casual venality that are the modern Cranfords of Westminster and Washington, those murky little worlds of interlocked party-politics, thinktanks, op-ed columns and off-the-record-socialising, where political reporters and pundits work, go to the same schools, live in the same neighbourhoods, go to the same dinner-parties and social events and help each others children do the same in their turn.

That this state of affairs exists is due both to the way patronage, largesse and plain access has been managed by political parties on both sides of the Atlantic in modern times, most recently and blatantly by Blair and Bush. But it also testifies to the media’s willingness to be patronised and managed by politicians, providing there is sufficient personal advantage.

It’s been a long comfortable ride for the pundits so far, but the papers they write for are losing circulation and profits as fewer people turn, not to the papers or tv for news and political analysis, but to the internet and bloggers.

The trouble is that the small world of political blogging is, though supeficially wide-open, actually self-regulated and just as parochial, narrow-minded and self-interested as any other self-selected grouping.

Liberal blogging is already producing its own insider elites even though it’s that which brought us to this pass in the first place. Although they’re much less well-paid (if paid at all) than the right bloggers, the money is coming. With the ascendancy of the Democrats in Congress and a record-funded presidential race on the way, bloggers are no doubt already anticipating a tasty slice of the ad-spending and political-consultancy pie. The Hillary blogads are all over the place already.

I suppose they might argue that that’s the way the system works and what’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander., t’was ever thus, blah blah blah, don’t blame us, a blogger’s got to live and so on. Fine, make your living from politics if that’s what you want to do. I’ve no problem with that, it’s your choice.

But remember that the moment you start to make your living from politics you are part of the political establishment, not the counter-establishment, on the inside not the outside, and expect to be treated accordingly. (I think finding yourself on a Murdoch paper like the Times’ list of 10 bloggers most likely to sink Hillary Clinton signifies that you are indeed, Established.)

Athough superficially separate, the walls between the big liberal blogs. Democratic party politics and paid opinion, already paper-thin, are crumbling. What does this mean for smaller, less exalted left political blogs?

It means that their role as political samizdat is even more important than ever.

US Democratic bloggers argued recently in criticism of the US antiwar march on Saturday that the left is dead, ineffectual and out of date and that party politics, not protest is where the actions’s at. Other big blogs have bought into this too. Observer journalist Nick Cohen has argued the same thing, though from a different perspective ( that of someone who supported the invasion of Iraq and now must spend the rest of his life justifying it by attacking the war’s opponents).

It is not novel to say that socialism is dead. My argument is that its failure has brought a dark liberation to people who consider themselves to be on the liberal left. It has freed them to go along with any movement however far to the right it may be, as long as it is against the status quo in general and, specifically, America. I hate to repeat the overused quote that ‘when a man stops believing in God he doesn’t then believe in nothing, he believes anything’, but there is no escaping it. Because it is very hard to imagine a radical leftwing alternative, or even mildly radical alternative, intellectuals in particular are ready to excuse the movements of the far right as long as they are anti-Western.

Of course the ‘left ‘, at least as Cohen defines it – in terms of the Labour and Democratic parties – is dead: modern party politics is now merely a televised battle of who can raise most to spend on advertising, and electoral platforms are informed by market research, not political principle. Left? What left?

Those allegedly lleftist parties that liberal media and the big blogs argue and raise money for are all in thrall to to the free market. It’s the baseline from which all their political argument springs and it may not be gainsaid. Only in that sense is Cohen’s point valid; the Labour party left, that wanted to change the world is dead and gone, as are the New Deal Democrats. What remains is a bunch of middle-class policy wonks who beleive they can both simultaneously enjoy the fruits of the free market and assuage their liberal guilt by tinkering around the edges so things are a just a little nicer for the poor folk overseas and the blacks and the gays at home and they don’t have to feel so bad that they live so well.

But there is a another left – that’s iinternational and internationalist, that doesn’t trust any existing party, that’s comprised of people who would not necessarily call themselves leftists but who loathe injustice and lies (local or global) who abhor hypocrisy, cruelty, corruption and greed, who see that the free market as a panacea for all social ills doesn’t work and who are not afraid to say so, loudly and often, through any means they can find. They’re not seduced by power because they know they are powerless.

Blogs have given them a voice.

They might forget it now but that’s how the big blogs started too; Kos is only as big as he is now because of all the diarists. That made him and his site dangerous. That he’s now lauded in the media as a Democratic power-broker is the political establishment using the old ‘inside the tent pissing out’ strategy. By neutralising Kos they neutralise the his readers and diarists too, goes the thinking.

Power is very seductive, so I’m not at all surprised by the continuing co-option of the big blogs into the political establishment. It’s the way elites always work: co-opt, absorb and neutralise. Just so long as those bloggers co-opted remember that that they are no longer outside the system but within it and we’ll all get along fine.

But back to my original point, the current nervousness of the media. I may be entirely wrong about the reason why they’re so subdued. Maybe this is all an excuse for self-absorbed metablognoodling and they’re all just waiting for Bush to drop the Big One on Iran.

Now that really would be a paradigm shift
.

An attack on Iranian nuclear infrastructure would signal the start of a protracted military confrontation that would probably grow to involve Iraq, Israel and Lebanon, as well as the USA and Iran. The report concludes that a military response to the current crisis in relations with Iran is a particularly dangerous option and should not be considered further. Alternative approaches must be sought, however difficult these may be.

Yes, that might certainly make the subject of the co-option of liberal blogs somewhat irrelevant.

Tick, Tick Tick……. Boom?

Can it be true? Is  Bush’s ‘accountability moment’ closer than we thought?

All of a sudden and without very much warning the Bush administration has been neatly checkmated by prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald in the Scooter Libby perjury trial. All week the prosecutor has been demolishing Scooter Libby’s memory lapse defence, forcing Libby into his fallback position , that  ‘Rove did it and ran away and I’m being blamed, waaah’.

This defence means that both Rove and Cheney have now been subpoenaed to appear as witnesses, the first time they will be publicly grilled on events surrounding Plame and Bush’s war lies.

Both Karl Rove and Dick Cheney will be compelled to testify under oath about their deliberate outing of one of their own country’s secret agents, Valerie Plame. It’s alleged by the prosecution that they leaked the information just to get political revenge on her ex-husband, who had exposed the administration’s blatant lie that Saddam Hussein had attempted to obtain uranium to build  nuclear weapons. This untruth was a central component of their dishonest and illegal attempts to concoct a casus belli to justify the preemptive invasion of Iraq.

Their problem now – and it seems the White House hadn’t anticipated it, which tells you all you need to know about Harriet Miers’ tenure as WH Chief counsel – is that,  because Libby’s defence consists of the argument that Rove did it and Libby’s the scapegoat, this implies a conspiracy between the Oval office and Dick Cheney, which in turn implicates Bush. Cheney must’ve colluded with both Bush and Rove in blaming his own closest aide , and though it’s Cheney and Rove who’ll actually be on the stand being publicly interrogated, it’s a whole can of worms Bush himeslf would really rather not have opened.

And they’re just two of the witnesses likely to be called to testify. Still to come are many other WH officials and mebers of the Republican nomenklatura, all of whom have their own hides to protect. Former WH press spokesman Ari Fleischer for instance was so concerned about his own skin he refused to testify without a guarantee of immunity.

Bush must be worrying himself sick as nemesis closes in on him. No wonder he looks so dreadful, thin and old. I doubt he’s getting his 12 hour nightly sleep unassisted. Now the trial is about to reach the point where he must do something desperate, like issuing a pardon, to save himself and his closest cronies from public exposure as the criminals they are.

This coming week will see some real nail-biting stuff. Will Cheney & Rove lie under oath to save Bush’s skin, damning Libby? Will their fervid loyalty carry them through perjuring themselves? If they do, will Libby drop the whole cabal into the shit? How far will prosecutor Fitzgerald question Rove & Cheney about the rationale for the war and Bush’s role in that?

So what are Bush’s options at this dangerous stage? Of course Bush, wielding his doubtfully-acquired Presidential powers, could end all this by fiat and pardon Libby tomorrow. Murray Waas thinks this course of action is what Libby’s lawyers are signalling to the WH with their tactics so far.

But why would they do that? Although a pardon would solve a number of his problems, for Libby this would mean he’d admitted guilt. This has the potential to ruin him financially, as a presidential pardon doesn’t preclude the bringing of any civil suit that results from the crime pardoned. That really would be a desperate move.

But Bush’s dilemma is that, although a pardon may halt the prosecution and the inconvenient revelations about his lies, it will cause a political furore. But why should Bush give  a fig for that, as long as his little local difficulty is over and Cheney & Rove kept off the stand? 

It’s always been his way – get a job by nepotism or other dubious means, royally screw it up with incompetence and dishonesty, then run away leaving things in a shambles. Rely on the resulting chaos to mask culpabilty and save his ass and if that doesn’t work, crank up the Republican noise machine.

Will the same strategy work for him this time, or will the WH let the trial go ahead and Rove and Cheney lie under oath? I don’t know, but I can’t wait to see what happens.

But one other eventuality than a pardon occurs to me – over this past couple of weeks, the administration has been quietly firing politically independent US federal prosecutors (8 so far), and replacing them with loyal Republican apparatchiks.

These handpicked and underqualified party loyalists don’t require confirmation by Congress, thanks to a nifty clause slipped into a totally unrelated piece of legislation by a loyal Republican senator. How very cunning of him in the light of those attorneys being in the midst of prosecuting any number of Republican misdeeds. I doubt he thought of that on his own.

Bush may not have to pardon Libby at all, just fire Patrick Fitzgerald instead.

Personally I really, really want to see Cheney on the stand, as do lots of people. It’ll be standing room only for  Fitz v Cheney, the OK corral de nos jours, and if his recent combative appearances on television are any guide, it ‘ll be nothing if not entertaining. Personally I hope Cheney gets so apopletic that a mere lawyer dares to call him to account that he has a stroke and keels over right there in his chair. 

But will the trial even get that far? Has Bush got the gall to step in and stop it?  We’ll just have to wait and see.

UPDATE: Josh Marshall says he knows why Ari Fleischer soght immunity:

It turns out Ari Fleischer will be the next witness, once court resumes Monday. (Damn, just missed him!) The defense team wants to note—for the jury’s benefit—that Fleischer demanded immunity before he would agree to testify, because this might cast Fleischer’s testimony in a different light.

And here Fitzgerald makes a nice little chess move: Fine, he says, we can acknowledge that Fleischer sought immunity. As long as we explain why. Turns out Fleischer saw a story in the Washington Post suggesting that anyone who revealed Valerie Plame’s identity might be subject to the death penalty. And he freaked.

Heh.

Bread, Racists & Circuses

I can’t get Channel 4 so haven’t seen for myself what this racism on Celebrity Big Brother row is about. So I had a little dig at YouTube and found this video of Jade Goody asking Jermaine Jackson (yes, that Jermaine Jackson) whether or not he is black and if so, how is it his brother is white. See for yourself and cringe:

I think that settles the question of whether Jade Goody is a racist or not, don’t you?

But leaving the jawdroppingly banal yet strangely fascinating onscreen behaviour aside, all the hooha in the world press over this, encouraged by Channel 4 and Endemol, is all just so much bread and circuses to pacify the proles. Look! Over there! Slebs! Behaving badly! I would not be at all surprised if the remaining three inmates, all of whom are hungry for fame, had come to some mutially beneficial arrangement with Endemol : how very odd that this happened just as rating slipped…

Lenin calls Bg Brother and other ‘choose your evictee’ type shows ‘placebo democracy’ and says they originate from the same political place as control orders and ASBOs, a way of allowing people an illusion of control so that they don’t notice the lack of real democracy.

That glass box, again. posted by lenin

The whole point of Endemol’s shit-fest on Channel 4 is to force together personalities so incompatible that normal human comity would be impossible, never mind solidarity under the stress of sensory deprivation and constant surveillance. Getting ‘celebrities’ on the show (three of whom are only ‘celebrities’ by dint of a previous connection with the show) therefore guarantees a daily hit of scandal, and therefore mega mega advertising revenues. Further, since C4 controls every condition obtaining in the show, and since their interventions are designed to be humiliating and bizarre, they can always confect a bit of controversy when phone-in rates slump and the tabloids find something else to gyrate over. And what is more, when the bad guy of the hour is evicted, a new balance is created and the recipient of much sympathy the day before can become the latest villain. The infinite malleability and masochism of the characters is one of the dramatic points on a desperately boring programme. So, rancour, humiliation, indignity and daily bullying are part of the mix, and it is entirely hypocritical for people who watch and like this show to complain about it.

[…]

can’t help but think of this whole ‘Neighbours from Hell’ drivel we get in the British press, in which readers are titillated and outraged with daily tales of torment from hideous people next-door or down the road. If it isn’t kids spitting and swearing, it’s old men flipping the bird, or trimming the hedges from over the fence. If it isn’t rowdy couples, it’s gyppos settling on the commons, and asylum seekers eloping from the back of a lorry. These are the people New Labour promises to “boot out” and leave to fend for themselves “in a crackdown on yobs”. These are the people who are expected to face ASBOs and “welfare disincentives” as part of the government’s Respect Action Plan. These are the families the government pledges to put in “Sin Bins”, a conceit that could quite easily have been supplied by Endemol. These are the people New Labour pledges to evict from the very country. New Labour’s campaign message – vote to evict the arsehole! Let them fend for themselves in the ghetto. The tabloids will feature pictures and descriptions of new arseholes every day and encourage readers to participate in a phone-in poll to demand eviction. A daily diorama of candidates for the Sin Bin will be the topic of quasi-anthropological inspection and curiosity, their fate to be decided by our placebo democracy..

There’s only one arsehole I want evicted and he’s sitting in No. 11 day-dreaming about his ‘legacy’ and ignoring the fuckups he’s created. Well, Tone, here’s your legacy in all her glorious ignorance and ill-educated spite. I give you Jade Goody, the ultimate product of Blair’s Britain:

Doesn’t she make you proud?

Read more: UK culture, UK politics, Racism, TV, Big Brother, Jade Goody, Jermaine Jackson