Instapundit Will Just Throw Anything Out There, no Matter How Absurdly Inconsistent

Here is a post today by the famous site Instapundit (aka, "InstaBS"), noting how Democrats have already stopped supporting the Obama Administration. 

Earlier in the day, In yet another post, Instapundit linked to this piece, noting it was now politically safe to criticize the President.

Seemingly oblivious to the fact that his famous blog just criticized the Administration by pointing out how the administration is being criticized by Democrats, less than an hour later Instapundit links to this, as follows:
THOMAS SOWELL: Dismantling America, Part II. “This issue is too serious for squeamish silence.”
The dismantling of America that he quotes as "too serious for squeamish silence"? The outlandishly hypocritical contention that Obama Administration supporters don't let anyone criticize it. Directly contradicting the two earlier attacks on the Obama Administration.

Any attack, any claim, will work by the far right to throw out there. If it's anti the Obama administration, that's good enough, even if it directly contradicts an attack that the same far right indulgent just threw out there against the Obama Administration a half hour earlier.

Repeat:  The issue of not being allowed to criticize the administration is "too serious for squeamish silence." While on the other hand, quite unlike the Bush Administration situation, many supporters of the Obama Administration now not only don't suport it, but criticize, and it is also now "politically safe," to criticize the Obama Administration.

But that's okay. The issue of not being able to criticize the administration, and so few doing so, is "too serious for squeamish silence."

And those on the far right who criticize the administration, and who are responded to in terms far less divisive or insulting, view those responses as "stifling dissent;" but yet coincidentally enough, don't view their own, often more egregious, divisive, emotionally pandering, and often highly derogatory misrepresentations similarly. 

The far right --of which the ideologically driven and almost entirely subjective, and overly influential Instapundit site is a classic example-- is driven by a fierce, almost religiously partisan antipathy toward Obama, and any valid concerns (such as those that might be shared by supporters even) is only icing on the cake of self righteousnes that propels forward such blind hypocrisy as this:

It's ironic; propelled on by a few Liberals who foolishly fell into the trap and thought they were doing something productive by stating how they "hated Bush," almost no one could make a point against the Bush Administration for the better part of this decade, without being accused of simple hyper partisan ideology and/or just hatred of  Bush himself -- when in most instances, it simply wasn't true. But it was a way to avoid the substance of the points made about and against the Bush Administration.

Now almost blind attacks upon the Obama Administration, clinging to shards of evidence that could have been applied several fold over to the prior administration that the far right supported, similarly serve as a way to avoid the substance of points made that are inconvenient to objectively consider if one desires (whether realizing it or not) to cling to a fairly hyper ideological perspective.
As noted here, this is how the far right perpetuates its belief.

More Far Right Wing Projection -- "Real Clear Politics" Dismantling of Objectivity

Yesterday, in a "Real, Clear, Politics" piece ominously entitled "Dismantling of America, Part II," Thomas Sowell wrote:

Years later, and hundreds of miles away, I learned that my worst misgivings about that program did not begin to approach the reality, which included organized criminal activity.

The memory of that long-ago episode has come back more than once while observing both the actions of the Obama administration and the fierce reactions of its supporters to any questioning or criticism.

Almost never do these reactions include factual or logical arguments against the administration's critics. Instead, there is indignation, accusations of bad faith and even charges of racism.
Even though the criminality has nothing to do with the Obama Administration, notice how Sowell reflects back on an earlier episode as a professor in academia, finishing up with that key word/concept that lingers in the mind, leading right into his "expose" of blind Obama administration loyalty. Making that subtle but not directly expressed connection.

It is what the far right does, subtly, over, and over, and over, and over.

But notice what else Sowell does here. He makes a decent enough point -- that is is fair to question the Obama Administration even if one was, or still is, an Obama Administration supporter. But he misses two things, which would make this piece rather humorous, if it were not going to be read by a lot of people shaking their head up and down in agreed outrage, and linked to by one of the most popular blogs in America in "serious" support of Sowell's "point."

And those two things are:

1) There are plenty of people who question the Obama administration, who voted for it,and even who still support it.  Less than one year in.

2) Several years into the Bush Administration, almost no one who voted for it still ever questioned it, and dismissed anything anybody ever said in opposition or disagrement with it as indignations of bad faith, or hatred. Almost constantly. Far more than we see from automatic Obama supporters today. And the Bush Administration, contrary to the constant propaganda by the far right's "news" advocacy station of choice, was not moderate, at all.  The Obama administration, overall, is. 

But once again, the far right sees beautifully in others what it can not see in itself, even though it is but a fraction elsewhere of the pattern that the far right, throught most of the Bush Administration, engaged in constantly.

It's called projection. And to the far right, it is as natural as swimming is to fish.

It is what they do, to perpetuate their beliefs.


Is Senator MItch McConnell Saying that Most Americans are Idiots?

Probably not, because not impugning voters is something that Republicans (and in particular the far right, from which framework McConnell emanates) tend to be much better at than Democrats. Still, Either he is saying this (unlikely), or he is being misleading or illogical (take your pick).

Mitch McConnell:

I think it is perfectly clear that most Americans will treat the vote to get on the bill as a vote on the substance of the bill. So our view is that cloture on the motion to proceed to the bill is a vote to endorse a half a trillion dollars in Medicare cuts, $400 billion in new taxes, and higher insurance -- health insurance premiums for everyone else.
Putting aside McConnell's highly questionable framing of the health care bill, a vote to avoid a filibuster is not a vote in favor of Health Care. These are two entirely separate things. McConnell says most Americans -- perhaps taking their cues from him? -- will, falsely, view them the same.


Rasmussen Reports and Instapundit Both Mislead

Here is the entire Glenn Reynolds post:

POLL: 44% Favor Health Care Reform, 50% Oppose.
In Reynold's defense, he probably did not have time to read the piece. (We have noted this tendency before, particularly in support of the often highly illogical and wildly skewed Althouse site -- see the bottom of this piece here).

What was Rasmussen Reports' excuse? (See the headline to its piece).

Here is what the poll actually concluded:

Forty-four percent (44%) of voters nationwide now favor the health care reform plan proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats. ...The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 50% are opposed to the plan.

Putting aside whether the poll is accurate or not, is this "minor" technicality. Let's try not to put too fine a point on it, and then simultaneously ask how it is that famed law professor and blogger Reynolds did not get this (assuming the read it, which of course then begs the question as to why one of the most popular blogs in America relies in full for its posts upon pieces it does not read) and Rasmussen Reports not get this?

Namely: Support of health care reform, and support of the current health care reform "plan," are not the same thing.

Manipulative Trash to Reach a Pre-Desired End Result Will Attract Readers

The Althouse blog is pure, unadulterated, far right wing bias that often turns logic into sauerkraut. It is often linked to by Instapundit (aka, InstaBS), which alerted us to this little fact:

Althouse is the third most visited law professor blog, in America. (Or at least of those with publicly available site meters).

Here are just a few examples of how logically and politically skewed the Althouse blog is, and yet for the last 30 day period measured, there were over 13 million page views.

That's an awful lot of people being mislead.

Yeah, It's the Media that Harms Limbaugh, Not his Constant Falsities and Misrepresentations

Rush Limbaugh never said anything racist? His comments about Donovan McNabb were not at all racist, just good old common sense? Maybe not racist, but they were not very sensible, either. The fact is, plenty of black quarterbacks have been hammered by the media. And the reason McNabb has not been quite as hammered, is probably because he is extremely polite, and has been hammered by the Philly fans, ever since he was first introduced as the Eagles top draft choice. And he's also not on an elite level, but he's a pretty good quarterback, and always has been. (The media must constantly hammer onetime superstar Terrell Owens, nearly beyond belief, because "he's black and they want him to fail"?)

One from the vault -- another -- how do we put this nicely?? um, "genius" (yeah, that'll work), who doesn't seem to know jack squat about football but cites off a bunch of stats that he knows nothing about, to prove that Limbaugh was right that McNabb is just a bad quarterback and the media loves him because he is black!

Mathias Kawinuka is among those NFL players who say they would not play for the Rams if Limbaugh became an owner.

Limbaugh has a right to try and buy a team, and NFL players have the right to voice their opinions. Frankly, given the many extreme, often bigoted and even more often, wildly inaccurate comments that Limbaugh has made -- and not the ones allegedly discredited in this post linked above, and not to mention his miserable and short lived ESPN experience -- this seems like a rather well reasoned position.

What Limbaugh does, and apparently Ed Driscoll and InstaBS miss this, is that he makes something up that is wildly off the mark -- sometimes a hypothetical, sometimes declared as fact, and the bases almost his entire argument off of it.

One usually does not need to listen to Limbaugh for more than few minutes, often only a few seconds, before he does this. But to a far right audience, led by belief, this slips right on by. But then, this blog has documented other examples where things that might mess up a rigidly partisan, and often far right, orientation, slip right on by InstaBS.

Here is a clip of Limbaugh's rather ridiculous statement that "In Obama's America, the white kids now get beat up, with the black kids cheering." (The particular statement that Mathias Kiwanuka, noted above, wasn't all that down with).

But that's not the really problematic statement; at least it's kind of funny, if in poor taste and likely racist. The real problem statement, the one that routinely gets missed, and the types of statements that Limbaugh utters constantly in order to pull the BS that he pulls and have it go right by so many otherwise well meaning folk, is about 17 seconds in:
Everyone is saying, oh, the white kid deserved it, he was born a racist, he is
No, everyone is not saying this. And in fact, most people are not. And anybody who is, is pretty out there. But then Limbaugh, in his very next statement, utters another falsity, in "support" of his prior inanity:

Newsweek magazine told us this.
In fact, if one listens carefully to what Limbaugh then says next, with respect to what Newsweek magazine said (exaggerating even that part as well), Newsweek magazine did not say anything of the sort.

But then, those that listen to Limbaugh, don't seem to listen too carefully.

All of this is in the first 25 seconds. And it is routine for Limbaugh: If the Olympics were for BS, rather than, say, sports, all Americans could once again be proud of Rush, as he would assuredly shatter Michael Phelps record of eight golds in one year.

Pull out any tape of any show, and this is what Limbaugh does, constantly. It is a disgrace to logic, and fact. But his audience does not want to be shown this; it's easier to just point fingers at those who "criticize" Limbaugh. But the fact is, Limbaugh is not really being "criticized;" it is simply being pointed out that Limbaugh is one of the most misleading, and manipulative, voices in America. And it would take an opposition with about one fourth his rhetorical skill about two days to make the case so effectively that Limbaugh's audience would essentially shrivel up to a few far right zealots. But Limbaugh's staunchest opposition, doesn't know how to make the case to outside of its own choir.

Meanwhile, inane pundits like David Brooks engage in logic that is almost as bad, in order to try and downplay Limbaugh's vast influence.

It's a wonder we have intelligent conversation in this country for our national discourse, and debate.

Oh, yeah. That's right. We don't anymore.

Obama, Baltimore Ravens on "Civility," and Biased Baltimore TV Critics

Baltimore Sun critic David Zurawik on the 60 Minutes Obama Interview:

At the end of last night’s conversation, the president decided to play media critic again and use 24-hour cable news channels as the foil for making himself look like the would-be champion of civility. Kroft set the president up on this theme, and then let him run straight into the end zone untouched – where the interview ended.

Instead of ending the interview there with big smiles between the two as “60 Minutes” did, I would suggest that perhaps Kroft should have respectfully asked the president if he thought using the adverb “stupidly” at a press conference to describe the behavior of the Cambridge (Mass.) police officer who took Harvard University Professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. into custody was a good exampleof civility.

Speaking of running into the end zone untouched, his local Baltimore Ravens football team, despite dominating the still rather horrific Kansas City Chiefs, let them into the end zone 3 times: Once on a blocked punt. Once after a long pick return by former first round pick and current backup Derrick Johnson set them up at the two, and once after some nice passes by K.C QB Brodie Croyle, who shockingly managed to get through the entire game without being injured. This resulted in a rather close game until the end, despite the Baltimore team’s otherwise lopsided domination of the Chiefs.

(The Ravens had an interesting ”running into the end zone” situation themselves. With the game over, if Baltimore on 4th down elects to kick a field goal from inside the one yard line with 36 seconds remaining (thereby putting them up by two scores) Baltimore rather uncivilily opted to go for the touchdown on 4th down. Willis McGahee did “run it in.” But if they got stopped, Kansas City would still have had a shot at the game, which, with the field goal, they would not have. Granted, K.C. would have had around 34 seconds, and they had a long way to go. But still, why increase the other teams chances of pulling it out, when the game is all but over?)
Perhaps it is the many interesting end zone forays in this game that Zarowik could have been writing of, rather than of Kroft allowing the President to go “untouched” into the “end zone” by allowing him to make a well needed point about political discourse and civility without debating the the President about his own civility, because the President once earlier this summer, in a foolish (or, um, uh, err, “stupid”) political move, had called an action stupid, which in fact was stupid.

(Of course, Mr. Uncivility himself, then invited this same police officer, who had acted in a manner which raises significant questions about judgment, to the White House “for a beer.” Prompting us to wonder who else might be invited.)

Baltimore Sun "Critic" Can't take Criticism

Baltimore Sun Critic David Zurawik wrote a relatively dull, typical, non substantive, "gotcha" piece on Barack Obama's "60 Minutes" Interview, Sunday, September 13. In it, he made some fairly lame football analogies; perhaps because it was NFL Football opening Sunday.

And he called out 60 Minutes' Steve Kroft for enabling Obama to make a point about promoting civility, without having challenged Obama for having called the actions of the arresting officer in the Professor Henry Louis Gates Affair, "stupid" (not to mention subsequently inviting this same officer to to the White House for a beer.) This blog addressed it here.

His home team that day, the Ravens, had amassed over 500 total yards and largely dominated the Kansas City Chiefs, yet for a while were in danger of losing the game. Perhaps as a result, at the end of the game, the team engaged in some uncivil (and strategically ill-advised) behavior; by, with around 40 seconds to go, up by 7, from inside the one, going for the touchdown instead of the field goal on 4th down. Had they been stopped, K.C. would have had a chance (albeit a very small chance) to come back and win the game. Had they kicked the field goal, Kansas city would have had to had received a kickoff, scored a touchdown, recovered an onside kick, and scored again, all within about 30 seconds. Virtually an impossibility.

An  Admin' from this blog posted the following comment to Zurawik's 60 Minutes critique:
Did you catch the Ravens game? Now there was some uncivil behavior, speaking of end zones.

I Agree Obama was very foolish to have used that term. I do not agree however, that calling actions that in fact were likely stupid, as stupid, is all that uncivil. [Once It was clear Gates had not broken into his home, and understandable that he would have been upset, whether he overreacted or not,THERE WAS NO ISSUE LEFT. Making it into one, rather than politely apologizing for the rather comical (or not, as far as Gates is concerned) mixup, was an extremely poor error of judgment and/or use of authoritative power.]

Or, at least not to the level of many months later taking issue with Obama's claim that we need more civility, when overall he has been on the receiving end of an enormous amount of uncivility, and otherwise been reasonably civil and courteous himself -- and was agreeing with a relatively important point.

With respect to your very last point, I don't believe Obama was "blaming it all" on the 24 hour news cycles. But, aside from, uh, "all of us," which I for one know is not accurate, who would you blame it on?"
Rather incredibly, this comment was apparently not "approved" by the "blog author" and professional critic Zurawik. Perhaps there was some sort of strange, blog error on the blog, so we can't be certain -- but Zurawik could certainly clarify this. Email is Admin@WeMisleadYouFollow.com  [Update: of course Zurawik never did.]

More Evidence That Fox's Sean Hannity Lives in a Separate Reality

Found here, in eight seconds.


Another fantastic Washington Post Editorial

Some people -- perhaps unfairly, perhaps not -- have taken to saying that the Washington Post editorial page has fallen somewhere below bird cage liner. (They maintain that it is below it, because bird cage liner is not normally of such a misleading and logically adulterated nature.)

This site does not necessarily agree -- but the Washington Post editorial pages does continue its march, ever onward, toward thought excrement poised as thoughtfulness.

Then along comes today's gem by none other than Richard Cohen, who perhaps best exemplifies the recent trend toward the appearance of wit over any semblance of underlying sense.

The same Richard Cohen who pronounced Al Gore unlikable, and more, then years later bemoaned the fact that Gore was not our President and declared him the 'perfect candidate;" even chiding, in his words, his "colleagues in the media" for promoting misleading caricatures of Gore in the past.

The Same Cohen who spent an entire paragraph --in a piece under 800 words no less -- explaining his "standing" to call Stephen Colbert's ('06) correspondents dinner speech "unfunny" (and lash out at and call him a "bully" if not an outright coward") -- namely, many decades earlier, in grade school, his teacher thought him "funny." Just ask anyone, he says.

The same Cohen, who when it comes to bullies, explained in yet another golden Washington Post op ed how he came to know that our decision in 2006 to share top secret nuclear technology with India "was a good move" because it was "stupidity" to treat "friends the same as enemies." Something he learned behind his high school one day while watching a hero get the better of a bully until the bully's friend jumped in. (Cohen bragged about the lesson he learned, but apparently not about getting the victims back or stopping the bully, something he apparently did not learn).

The same Cohen who was so in love with John McCain's inner hero that the he could practically do no wrong, until the evidence mounted so greatly that Cohen - A Democrat and once professed "liberal"-- finally ripped into McCain later in 2008, apparently forlorn that his long time love had so betrayed him, blind to the reality for over a year, when it is his only job, not to be.

The same Cohen who openly supported the Iraq war right upon until it started, then many moons later viciously ripped into the Bush Administraton over it -- even calling for Bush's impeachment, when all of the facts that needed to be known, were in fact public knowledge prior to the war. Namely that we had not credible data on WMDs, that legitimate weapons inspections had not taken place in Iraq since at least the mid 90s, and that in the winter of '03 viable weapons inspections were finally taking place any ever inspector to a tee said to "wait."

The list goes on. And on.

So here today is Cohen professing this wondeful line:
My love of these many years came into the room and asked what I was working on. I detailed some topics, enthralled as usual by my brilliance, but she
scoffed at them all.
So he wrote about the recent Nobel peace prize award, as she suggested. Fair enough. But here is what he wrote: the American people should get the award, because "we" voted for Obama.

It is not clear if this was a dis on white people, since Obama lost the election among whites; really bad satire; or even worse, non satire. You tell us.

What is clear it is that it is yet another inane column, from a vain, ridiculously self righteous columnist, from an increasingly inane, editorial page, from what used to be one of the country's premier newspapers.