This isn't the leftist Hollywood regime doing the dissing. It's not special interest groups or lobbyists trying to persecute the right. The socialist communist hippie-loving media has nothing to do with the latest slap to Rush Limbaugh's substantial face. This is the NFL. The owners. The players. The business. They don't want Rush Limbaugh to be an owner of the St. Louis Rams or any NFL franchise.
A story like this exposes Rush for what he is: a melodramatic caricature of the Republican Party whose sensational opinions and exaggerated tactics have become untethered from reality.
Rush Limbaugh is a professional incendiary in the same mold as Vince McMahon and the chest-beating, steroid-ridden hulks who wrestle for him. He is an entertainer, a promoter, a showman whose business depends on controversy. And that's all well and good when the audience willingly suspends disbelief to give credence to their overblown senses of moral outrage toward the heels and inspiration drawn from the downtrodden champions of America. You can forgive the WWE its over-the-top shtick because (believe it or not) the majority of their fans know perfectly well it's fake.
But way too many Rush fans and detractors don't realize he's an act. They don't realize the conservative muscles he's flexing have been enhanced by a little drug called Showbiz. This sad truth became painfully evident when Rush's name entered the public discussion as a possible head of the GOP. The Repubs might as well have called on Dr. Drake Ramore from Days of Our Lives, because Rush ain't a real person. He's just a character on the radio.
Rush's fictional quantity comes into sharp relief when he tries to enter an industry where the main commodity is something other than opinionated shock and awe. He didn't last a month as an ESPN analyst for Sunday NFL Countdown. And he didn't last a week as a potential minority owner of the St. Louis Rams before another team's owner (and a host of players) said, No thanks.
This has nothing to do with Limbaugh's stance on the issues. Wait, what am I saying; Rush is fictitious! This has nothing to do with the stances on issues Rush Limbaugh pretends to have. It's simply a matter of fact that no business wants to be that closely associated with a guy whose primary goal in life is to get rich by making people mad.
Let's get it straight. Rush Limbaugh: not real. Glenn Beck: fake as Formica. Keith Olbermann: manufactured in the land of make believe. Feel free to be entertained by these people. But please don't call them informative. That's like going to Triple H for advice on conflict resolution.
So please, Rush, go on back to your little pretend island where being an opinionated, fire-breathing rabble rouser is viewed as heroic. Even the NFL's gargantuan gladiators who tackle and crush each other for a living find you too disruptive for their reality. Too bad the XFL went out of business.
I can already hear the carbon-copy complaints circulating: The healthcare debate has nothing to do with race; Here we go again with the race card; We don't hate any race, we hate socialism; Political Correctness has taken over the world. That's the reaction to every accusation of racism, and it's almost always just that: a reaction. And probably a racist one.
To anyone who is already fuming at former President Carter, I'm gonna ask you to refrain from crafting your witty, scoffing rants just long enough to think. Take five minutes and think about one or all of these questions:
Why is the national debate about healthcare so heated? I've never seen any issue like this stir such profound emotions. You expect heated protests and raging arguments over matters like war, religion, elections. . . . But healthcare? Why is the nation this divided about insurance? This should be about as stirring as the SAT vs. ACT issue. I'm not saying people can't disagree about the right plan (and neither is Carter) but there has to be a deeper reason for the intensity of the rage.
Is there a chance that a lot of conservatives believe Obama's skin color won him the election? I know a lot of people on both sides of the aisle who think Sarah Palin's main political assets were only skin deep. Do Obama's detractors think the same thing about him? Former President Carter believes a lot of Americans think Obama—or any African American for that matter—was never qualified to serve as president. To be fair, a lot of those people felt the same way about Jimmy Carter, just not as passionately. Is Carter's accusation of racism really that far-fetched?
Can you really say that you aren't racist? If you ask most Americans publicly, we all will say the same two things: 1) I don't think race should be a factor in any decision, opinion, belief, and 2) I'm not racist. White people especially work extra hard at the denial. Sometimes we work so hard in trying to deny the existence of racism, we expect the denial of the existence of race. But if we ever felt safe enough to really explore our feelings about racism and race relations, I think a lot of us would find bubbles of racism hiding not far beneath the surface of our emotions.
Obama's presidency has given a lot of people the chance to let their racism boil over under the guise of anti-socialism, level-headed thinking, or simply the refusal to drink the Kool-Aid of the false Obamessiah. As all the angst blends together in the bubbling pot, it becomes very hard to differentiate the anger over conservative policies from the fear of a black man wielding more power than anyone in the world, especially when no one is ready to admit, even to themselves, that such a fear exists at all.
Jimmy Carter had to say this. A white male outside of the political game had to say this. A statement of this magnitude, essentially pulling the race card on America, had to be made by someone who stood to give more than he gained from the message. If the dissenters could label the messenger as a victim, an ingrate, or a political opportunist, his words could be dismissed. But Jimmy Carter is none of those things. America has to take his accusation seriously because he stands to gain nothing from speaking out.
Nothing, that is, except a nation that is aware of its own deep-seated problems.
I've spoken out strongly against people accusing Barack Obama of being a socialist, which has, without fail, almost immediately resulted in me being accused of Obama discipleship. In the days leading up to the election, it was difficult to debate such issues without being labeled. People, it seemed, forgot the difference between thinking over the facts and making up one's mind. I had hoped the intellectual stalemate would resolve itself, yet it continues in a world hopelessly devoted to an Us vs. Them mentality.
It may be less plausible now than it ever has been for me to argue against the image of President Obama as Socialist. So I won't. I will allow a card-carrying Socialist to make the case for me.
By the way, I am not a card-carrying Socialist. If you believe me, great. If not, I'd like to invite you to our next meeting.
Ignore the issue (because, really, who disagrees that Mad Money and 95% of all CNBC financial advice is pure farce) and ignore the question of who won (again, that's like calling a winner at Little Big Horn). Focus instead on the tectonic paradigm shift that took place during the slightly publicized interview between Jon Stewart and Jim Cramer last night.
It wasn't Frost/Nixon. Come to think of it, Frost/Nixon probably wasn't Frost/Nixon. But last night, Jim Cramer had to stop acting like a mad genius because Jon Stewart stopped acting like he was a comedian. It may have been the only real interview I've ever seen on TV (the kind Murphy Brown used to conduct in the land of let's pretend).
There was Stewart, skewering Cramer for impersonating a human being and masquerading as a dispenser of worthy advice. He challenged the raving bald man and his entire network to rise to their true responsibility: reporting the markets and scrutinizing the financial sector to uphold a fair standard of accountability. Stewart didn't make the connection completely, but when Cramer referenced the inadequacy of "the regulators," the Daily Show anchor quickly retorted that it's the job of the media to expose rather than enable the crooks who skirt the shoddy surveillance of the SEC. I just want to take that a step further with this first puzzle piece:
If the media were doing their job of informing the American people and exposing corruption in all its forms, we wouldn't be relying on the government to impose new regulations and bail out the economy from the ruins of Wall Street's undeterred transgressions. That's just one puzzle piece, so let's not jump to conclusions quite yet.
The hypocrisy of Cramer is self-evident. But I hope we don't lose the hypocrisy of Jon Stewart. True, as he said in the interview, The Daily Show labels itself as snake oil while CNBC purports to be a source of true remedies. But does being upfront about prioritizing entertainment above integrity really justify the decision? If so, a lot of people owe Vince McMahon a big apology, because Stewart and Colbert are to news what the WWE is to sports. We know they're all entertainers (yet unquestionably good at what they do) appealing to niche fans who would rather be entertained than suffer through the ennui of the real thing.
And there's my problem with Stewart and Colbert: by acknowledging their own facade, they unintentionally give undue credence to the notion that the other guys are legit. Reality showed us that pro wrestlers weren't the only ones on steroids—real athletes were fake, too. And now, just maybe, it's starting to dawn on the American public that the real journalists are faking it as well.
One reason I love Stewart and company is the adversarial nature they bring to the table. They impeach with impunity. They are equal-opportunity satirists. They are filling a void left by so-called credible news outlets who tiptoe around controversy, refuse to press the issues, and allow special-interest groups to forge fake news in respected publications. But by casting themselves as comedians, shows like Colbert Report perpetuate the notion that challenging the corrupt, exposing the liars, and mocking the incompetent are not legitimate journalistic tactics. Mainstream news outlets have this bizarre habit of treating everyone with respect and tact, and I wish they'd drop it already.
Because if it's only the entertainers—the self-acknowledged (Stewart, Colbert), the closet cases (O'Reilly, Limbaugh), and the bloggers (John Peter Zenger they are not)—who actually dig their claws into the public evils, then the worst and most secretive criminals of society will continue to roam freely with our money, our opinions, and our pride in tow. So here's the second piece of this puzzle (and don't worry, it's not a very large puzzle):
If pseudo-journalistic entertainers took themselves more seriously (I'm looking at you, Jon) and approached their content honestly (Rush, come on), their powers could be used for the good of journalism and society as a whole.
Which brings me to the final puzzle piece: society. Me. You. All your friends on facebook. The reason CNBC doles out fake financial news whilst flinging farm animals and spraying spittle, the reason The Daily Show appears on Comedy Central instead of CNN, and the reason Rush Limbaugh speaks unwaveringly (and clownishly) for the right no matter how wrong it may be is the simple, inevitable fact that collectively we binge on entertainment. We flee anything that challenges us to think or re-evaluate our opinions. We want so desperately not to be wrong that we choose only those options that reinforce our opinions or free us from having to form them.
As a result, when mainstream news gets controversial, the phones start ringing (future boycotter on line 1) and the sponsors start pulling their money away (former customer on line 2). Why don't the phone lines light up when meaningless, inconsequential news wastes our air space? Why do we protest when programming offends but not when it simply sucks? Where are the angry calls from viewers who are offended by lazy, substance-free reporting? You, my friend, are the final puzzle piece. Let's face it, we got conned into viewing a piece of accidentally real news. It's rare that such a thing would come into existence, let alone that millions of people would wind up seeing it. But now that we have, is there any chance we might actually develop a taste for it?
If media end-users like you and me would, en masse, start demanding honest journalism and serious investigation, media outlets would start providing it and the criminals of this world would eventually be exposed and government based on letting the free market model work itself out might actually, you know . . . work. But a government for the people, by the people, and of the people will never work well within a free market if all the people collaboratively agree to suck in our own special way.
In the economy of words, Glenn Greenwald spared no expense lambasting the ridiculously prevalent pseudo-journalistic practice of allowing anyone and everyone to put their lies on the record while keeping their names safely off of it. To give you time to read it, I'll hold my response to a quick, "Hear, hear!" . . . and just a bit of embellishment:
Every time I read the words "according to a source close to the negotiations," or anything along those lines, a small part of my soul comes down with flu-like symptoms and dies a slow, painful death.
(And as you read, try to set aside your feelings about the issues he discusses—this is an article more about bad journalism than about Israel relations.)
The recent frenzied search for a Republican Messiah has reached the very bottom of the barrel, only to reveal that it's a Messiah-free barrel (Jindal: no style; Rush: no substance . . . and most likely no soul). I honestly don't think there's any use in continuing the search. What are they hoping to find, the next Ronald Reagan? I've got news for the GOP: Ronald Reagan was an aberration.
The Republican Party doesn't thrive on its heroes. Can anyone name a single Republican superstar in the last 20 years? Rudy? W? H. W.? Rush? Newt? Ah-nold? If politics were American Idol, all of these guys would rank somewhere between William Hung and Bucky Covington (with nary a Sanjaya in the bunch). But that's okay. Superstars don't make good conservatives. Rallying dreams and stirring up hopes just isn't . . . Republican.
The superstar is primarily, though not exclusively (see Reagan), the Democrats' shtick. Obama. Bill. Hillary. Pick a Kennedy . . . any Kennedy. Somehow Al Gore, the Human Yawn, even managed to achieve superstar status in defeat, no less. The Democrats live in Hollywood, where anybody has a shot at worldwide fame. The Republicans live on Wall Street, where even the most successful studs amount to little more than rich nobodies. The most famous Republicans enter the conversation when they screw up, speak up, or otherwise stir up some controversy. The hotshot Dems never seem to leave the conversation. (Can we really go a week without Bill giving the world a coy wink from just below some major headline just to let us all know he's still relevant?)
Whereas the Democrats thrive on personality (and cozy notions like hope, compassion, and justice), the Republicans deal in a currency of fear. Let's be honest, they're more concerned about what we should not do and what we can't let happen. Let's not screw up. Let's not let democracy die. Don't let the terrorists--or the socialists--win. They don't need a hero, no sir. The Republicans need an enemy they can believe in.
Thank God for the Soviets. They kept the GOP united and strong for the better part of a century. Jimmy Carter and the Ayatollah teamed up to launch Reagan into unprecedented Republican stardom. Roe v. Wade cemented the Republican Party's place as the only evangelical option. Saddam Hussein gave two Bushes more than their fair share of the limelight. Heck, the fear of Osama bin Laden dealt W the win over Kerry when simple statistics show that Bush probably received votes from a few million people who thought he was doing a bad job as president (I know he got at least one). And if Rush Limbaugh were to be honest (which would require elephantine doses of narcotics) he would tell you that he owes his entire career to the Clinton presidency . . . and he must also credit his recent resurgence in infamy to the rise of Obama. (Honestly, other than the revelation of his addiction and hearing loss, I can't remember hearing a single thing about his political views during the Bush years. . . . I suppose there was the whole feud with Al Franken, but I always considered that to be more of a suppressed homo-erotic version of a David Addison/Maddie Hayes will-they or won't-they dramedy--I mean, seriously guys, get a room.)
Forget the myth of finding the next great Republican leader. What the Republicans really need is a quality enemy, and they don't really have one. Right now it's Obama's brand of socialism, a truly pathetic foil. Wishing doom upon his economic policies is the political equivalent of cheering for Osama's escape during the Bush years (which, if the Dems did, they did so privately). This is precisely why Limbaugh is praying for failure. For him and his party to succeed, he needs some truly juicy object of hatred and fear to arise from the liberal ooze.
My advice: don't wish for it to come from Obama. Sit back, smile, and moderately applaud as his supporters sing "Obama Bless America" on the steps of Congress. Give the Dems this moment, Republicans, and you'll come off looking like gracious losers, team players, and unified patriots. Meanwhile, set your sights on Congress. Good lord, they're all so inept, you really shouldn't have to look hard to find someone doing something awful. Don't waste your time battling someone viewed as a Messiah. It's much easier to attack a Judas.
Coates is a bit more charitable in his analysis than me: "It's interesting that so many of their most dominant voices of the GOP (Steele, Gingrich, Limbaugh) have either never won an election, or haven't won in a decade."
I recently posited that the GOP was trying to resemble the cast of "30 Rock." It turns out that the Republicans are using a far worse strategy: letting James Carville dictate their public image. Essentially, Carville and team did polling last fall that revealed that Rush Limbaugh has lower popularity ratings than even Jeremiah Wright. (It should go without saying that this means his popularity is way lower than President Obama--some 40 points lower.) It didn't take the Ragin' Cajun long to realize that identifying the GOP with El Rushbo would further sink the Republicans in popular opinion.
Rush has been all too happy to play along. He has depicted himself as the counterpoint to Obama, fomented at CPAC, and played the part of party whip, lashing out at any Republican who dares to challenge him. Rush wins, the Democrats win, and the media wins. Who loses? The GOP.
The recent kerfuffle with Michael Steele is just the latest in a months-long parade of Republican leaders lining up to apologize for Rush: Phil Gingrey, Mike Pence, Eric Cantor, and now Steele. Now, if the Mighty Rush had the sort of popularity that resulted in 50% + approval ratings and the ability to deliver enough votes to win elections, this groveling might make sense. But he doesn't. The Democrats know this. Why don't the Republicans?
The Republicans are playing all the parts of The Scarecrow with no brain, the Tin Man with no heart, and the Lion with no courage. They haven't seen that the Wizard of Oz is just a large man behind a microphone.
I'm waiting for the GOP to Grow-O-Pair and confront the elephant in the room: Limbaugh is popular with the millions who listen to his radio program, and deeply unpopular with the tens of millions who don't. If Republicans want to win any elections in the next 2-8 years, following Rush will only lead to the party shrinking smaller than the tiniest Munchkin.
I've been trying to figure out what grand strategy the Republicans are using to win the hearts and minds of America. I think I've got it: They are trying to be the "30 Rock" political party.
We have Tina Fey:
We have Tracy Morgan:
And we have Kenneth the Page:
Don't tell Alec Baldwin, but it seems that the Republicans have a mad crush on his show. They are embracing the "bizarre, absurdist" comedy, which industry insiders love but which fails to attract viewers. The Republicans seem not to realize that winning a shelf full of awards for comedic brilliance doesn't necessarily mean that anyone is paying attention to you (see: "Arrested Development").
Maybe the Republicans should embrace a new strategy based on "The Office."
Former President Bill Clinton urged Barack Obama to speak positively about the economy, no matter what every economic indicator seems to point to. Be cheery, Barack, and let's see where the sunshine gets us!
Clinton also encouraged President Obama to "play it free and loose with the meaning of the verb to be." For example: There is no economic crisis with our country.
Recently the television gabfest show The View came up in a conversation with a friend. Supposedly I am the target demographic for this show--female, at home most mornings, opinionated--and yet I find this one of the most obnoxious shows on television.
In fact, I think The View is more revolting than, say Rock of Love. (I am slightly embarrassed to A) know what that show is and B) say that I've seen it.) In case you have been privileged enough to never hear of or see Rock of Love, it's a reality show in which several dozen women, of questionable intelligence and frequently surgically altered, compete for the affections of Bret Michaels, former member of the 80's band Poison. Hijinks ensue.
So why would I find a show featuring conversation between 5 women of relative intelligence more obnoxious than a show featuring 25 women who seemingly want to win the heart of a guy who's a walking STD?
Because The View is supposed to represent me. On Rock of Love, I can feel pity or disgust or shock for the people on the show, knowing that none of them in least represents me. But on The View, I am usually annoyed more by the nature of the conversation and the people who are supposedly like me than the ones who aren't. And that's extremely unpleasant television.
You gotta give a giant hand to Rod Blagojevich. Sure, he was ousted from the governor's mansion in humiliating fashion, but you have to admire the way he continued to compete right up to the very end.
On the other hand, how ashamed should the Illinois senate be? Running up the vote to 59-0? That's unconscionable. Their coach should be fired.
The Beanie Babie people have some serious nerve. I thought it was odd that they were making toy versions of the Obama girls (Sweet Sasha and Marvelous Malia). But "odd" wasn't strange enough for them. No, Pennington, Hansbrough, and Cobb can now get in line behind Ty Inc. as the most objectionable Ty in history.
That's because Ty is denying the dolls are based on the real-life Sasha and Malia, neither their names nor their likenesses. It's so absurd, I can't even comment. All I can say is, Obama better take action. Not only is it an offense to his own daughters, it's an affront to truth, justice, and the American way. Besides, everybody knows that Malia is the sweet one. Sasha handles all things marvelous, alliteration be damned.
Whatever else you might say about George Bush, and maybe I'll add more thoughts on that later, he has handled the transition to the Obama Administration with grace and class. His parting moments with the Obamas seemed genuinely to wish them well.
I really wanted to like the poem. So that's all I'm going to say about it.
I just heard Rev. Joseph Lowery speak on Sunday. Now this is how a prayer is done. This man is 86 years old, and I think he's done a bit of praying in his day. What a great way to conclude this ceremony.
And speaking of hats: George H.W. Bush is sporting a festive fur number with ear flaps. I guess when you're over 80, you just wear whatever you want.
The speech is off to a fine start -- certainly getting right to the point without a lot of flowery blah blah blah. But I'm hoping for more poetry, some more of that oratorical skill to drive home his points that Obama is capable of.
Okay, now it's picking up. He's getting his preacher's cadence going here at the end. A stirring conclusion to a good speech that felt shorter than that invocation.
I love that they chose the only concert musicians I recognize by name.
Although I'm a little disappointed John Williams didn't conduct them in a rousing version of "Superman" instead of the whole "Tis a Gift to Be Simple" medley. 'Tis a gift to be Super, too, you know.
I could listen to this quartet all day long. Absolutely beautiful.
I'm watching this with my favorite Obama enthusiast, my 7-year-old son. As the oath of office concluded, he jumped up and down, shouting and waving his American flag.
Who is directing the NBC cameras? Some weird angles and odd choices for camera shots.
I think Obama stumbled a bit getting through the oath to remind everyone that he is a human being, not the embodiment of the Olympus descended to walk among us mortals.
Anybody else wondering why the PA announcer for the inauguration sounds so much like the bodiless voice that introduces Oscar presenters? I mean, I'm sure it's not the same guy, but the cheese factor in his voice is off the charts. Maybe comparing him to the Academy Awards is too lofty. There's an almost beauty-pageantesque quality about it.
I think Michelle looks fantastic. Love the color, love the cut of her dress and coat, love the details, love the gloves. It's a complicated dress, but she pulls it off and makes it look effortless.
I'm watching NBC, and in general I think the commentary this morning has been drivel. But Lester Holt got me when he described his mother watching the Inauguration at home. If you don't feel at least a twinge of emotion watching Barack Obama stride out on to the podium, you must not know any black people over the age of 60.
Love the shot of Malia peeking during the invocation.
With all the somber reminders about this historic day, someone needs to step up to comment on other less important details of this day. Some thoughts on watching the dignitaries process to their spots:
Most Improved Look: Marilyn Quayle. Without her infamous flipped hair, she looks 10 years younger instead of 20 years older since her husband left office.
Best Preserved Face: Rosalynn Carter. She's over 80 and looks amazing.
Grumpiest Face: Bill Clinton. Not sure if he's aiming for serious gravitas or just pouting.
Most Adorable Attendees: Malia and Sasha Obama. I almost want to have two more kids in the hopes of getting daughters that cute.
There's been a hubbub over Obama's selection of Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at the Inauguration. Many of Obama's gay and lesbian supporters and others have felt betrayed because of Warren's support for Proposition 8 in California, in addition to other comments he has made about gay marriage. Recently Melissa Etheridge spoke out, supporting Obama's choice. Not because she's a big fan of Rick Warren -- although she said they had met and had a cordial conversation, she finds his views about gay marriage repugnant. Rather, she understood that Obama was delivering on his promise to reach across divisions. If indeed it's supposed to be a climate of open dialogue, we have to welcome people that we disagree with and perhaps dislike.
Many people have wondered what the nature of the promised "Change" will be. So far, here on Inauguration Day, the change looks less like radical policy reversals. It looks like radical reaching across ideologies to have conversation. We'll see if the perspective of Melissa Etheridge will carry the day among other Obama supporters. We'll see if the conservatives/Republicans will be willing to participate in the conversation.
Which is the more hilarious comedy: 
