What's Happening in Tunisia Explained

 

— Tunis, Tunisia: Thousands of demonstrators took to the streets of the capital on Friday to demand the president's resignation, despite concessions in his speech on Thursday. | © Maxppp/ZUMAPRESS.com.

— By Nick Baumann

| Fri Jan. 14, 2011 9:30 AM PST

Reports just emerged around 12:30 p.m. Eastern time that the Tunisian dictator, Zine El Abidine Ben Ali (Ben Ali), has fled the country and the Army has taken power. (Also: We have a scoop about how Washington Media Group, the DC public affairs firm that Tunisia hired to rehab its image, abruptly booted the country from its client roster last week.)

Want to know what's happening in Tunisia? Let me explain:

What is Tunisia? Tunisia is a mostly Arab, mostly Muslim country in North Africa. It is on the south side of the Mediterranean sea, east of Algeria and west of Muammar Gaddafi's Libya. Its capital is Tunis, and it has been ruled by dictators since it won independence from France in 1956. The current ruler, Zine El Abidine Ben Ali (Ben Ali), has ruled since 1987. He is the kind of ruler who gets re-elected with 90 percent of the "vote."

What's happening? Violent riots and protests have spread across the country over the past four weeks. Now Ben Ali's totalitarian government seems to be collapsing. (Elliott Abrams, a former Bush administration official who unfortunately is rarely right about anything, thinks that if democracy can take hold in Tunisia, it could spread elsewhere in the Arab world, too.)

Why are Tunisians unhappy? Well, they don't have much freedom. But there also just aren't enough jobs. Official unemployment is 13 percent, but it's probably actually much higher. The combination of a repressive regime and a faltering economy is often bad news for the regime. Plus, the regime has diverted a lot of the country's wealth to Ben Ali's family and friends, so people are really upset about official corruption.

How did it all start? On December 19, authorities in the small, central city of Sidi Bouzid seized the produce cart that 26-year-old Mohamed Bouazizi was using to make a living. So Bouazizi set himself on fire. Young people in the small, central city of Sidi Bouzid rioted, and police moved to seal the city. In early January, Bouazizi died, becoming an early martyr for the cause. Brian Whitaker, the Middle East editor of the Guardian and a Tunisia expert, has a good article explaining how Bouazizi and Sidi Bouzid got the ball rolling on revolution. 

What's the WikiLeaks connection? Foreign Policy's Christopher Alexander explains:

Shortly before the December protests began, WikiLeaks released internal US State Department communications in which the American ambassador described Ben Ali as aging, out of touch, and surrounded by corruption. Given Ben Ali's reputation as a stalwart US ally, it mattered greatly to many Tunisians—particularly to politically engaged Tunisians who are plugged into social media—that American officials are saying the same things about Ben Ali that they themselves say about him. These revelations contributed to an environment that was ripe for a wave of protest that gathered broad support.

Hackers affiliated with Anonymous, a vaguely defined, loosely organized group that has defended WikiLeaks, hit Tunisian websites in early January.

What's the latest news? A visibly shaken Ben Ali appeared on national television Thursday night, promising reforms and indicating that he would step down in 2014. But protests only grew larger on Friday. The very latest—i.e., what happened Friday afternoon—is that Ben Ali has fired his cabinet and promised legislative (but not presidential) elections in six months. Then he declared a state of emergency. He's trying to buy time. But the regime is clearly reeling, and there are unconfirmed reports of gunfire in the capital. Police are definitely shooting at protesters, according to an American quoted in this New York Times report.Whatever is going to happen could happen soon. The very very latest is that Ben Ali has fled the country, according to Al Jazeera, and the Army has taken power.

How do I follow what's happening in real-time? Your best immediate resource is theTwitter feed of Sultan Sooud Al Qassemi, a columnist for The National, the United Arab Emirates' leading English-language newspaper. The hashtag to follow (or "feed," as theTimes mistakenly dubbed it) is #sidibouzid, after the city where the first riots took place.#tunisie is another good option. Al-Bab, a blog written by Brian Whitaker, the Guardian Middle East editor mentioned above, is indispensable. Whitaker's latest posts—"Tunisia: Double or Quits," and "Tunisia: The Last Days of Ben Ali" are must-reads. If you're looking for a more US-centric view, you should also check out "Tunisia on the Brink of Revolution?" and "When Pro-Western Regimes Fall: What Should the US Do?" over at Democracy Arsenal.

George Will smears Howard Dean

Posted at 11:08 AM ET, 01/11/2011

By Greg Sargent

George Will has a column today denouncing those who are hoping to use the Arizona shooting to spark some introspection about the tone of our discourse. He calls such people "charlatans" and accuses them of "political opportunism" and "McCarthyism."

One of the primary pieces of evidence for the charge is Will's claim that Howard Dean supposedly called Tea Partyers racist:

Three days before Tucson, Howard Dean explained that the Tea Party movement is "the last gasp of the generation that has trouble with diversity." Rising to the challenge of lowering his reputation and the tone of public discourse, Dean smeared Tea Partyers as racists: They oppose Obama's agenda, Obama is African American, ergo...

Let us hope that Dean is the last gasp of the generation of liberals whose default position in any argument is to indict opponents as racists. This McCarthyism of the left -- devoid of intellectual content, unsupported by data -- is a mental tic, not an idea but a tactic for avoiding engagement with ideas.

It didn't take long to dig up what Dean actually said:

Dean, the former Vermont governor known for his no-holds-barred demeanor, was careful at The Christian Monitor-sponsored breakfast for reporters to add that he didn't view tea party activists as "racist." But he suggested that discomfort with the election of the first African-American president and an increasingly diverse electorate largely fueled the movement.

"I think it's the last gasp of the 55-year-old generation...a group of older folks who've seen their lives change dramatically,'' he said. "The country is not the same...and all of a sudden it's here for them and they don't know what to do...Every morning when they see the president they are reminded that things are totally different than they were when they were born and I think that has a lot to do with it."

"Economic uncertainty fuels this but this is the last gasp of the generation that has trouble with diversity,'' Dean added. "The tea party is almost entirely over 55 and white, and the country has changed dramatically as a result of what happened in 2008 and it's not going back. Every day that goes on, the demographic change continues, and that's what a lot of this is about."

In other words, Dean explicitly didn't call Tea Partyers racist. Rather, he was arguing that demographic change and economic uncertainty are among the factors creating the unease in Tea Party ranks. That's a blunt point, to be sure, but even those who strongly disagree with it would have to agree -- if they're being intellectually honest -- that Will's depiction of it has no basis in reality. I'd say Will's casual misrepresentation of Dean's words does far more to lower the "tone of public discourse" than anything Dean said. 

By Greg Sargent  | January 11, 2011; 11:08 AM ET

The charlatans' response to the Tucson tragedy

By George F. Will

Tuesday, January 11, 2011

It would be merciful if, when tragedies such as Tucson's occur, there were a moratorium on sociology. But respites from half-baked explanations, often serving political opportunism, are impossible because of a timeless human craving and a characteristic of many modern minds.
The craving is for banishing randomness and the inexplicable from human experience. Time was, the gods were useful. What is thunder? The gods are angry. Polytheism was explanatory. People postulated causations.
And still do. Hence: The Tucson shooter was (pick your verb) provoked, triggered, unhinged by today's (pick your noun) rhetoric, vitriol, extremism, "climate of hate."
Demystification of the world opened the way for real science, including the social sciences. And for a modern characteristic. And for charlatans.
A characteristic of many contemporary minds is susceptibility to the superstition that all behavior can be traced to some diagnosable frame of mind that is a product of promptings from the social environment. From which flows a political doctrine: Given clever social engineering, society and people can be perfected. This supposedly is the path to progress. It actually is the crux of progressivism. And it is why there is a reflex to blame conservatives first.
Instead, imagine a continuum from the rampages at Columbine and Virginia Tech - the results of individuals' insanities - to the assassinations of Lincoln and the Kennedy brothers, which were clearly connected to the politics of John Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald and Sirhan Sirhan, respectively. The two other presidential assassinations also had political colorations.
On July 2, 1881, after four months in office, President James Garfield, who had survived the Civil War battles of Shiloh and Chickamauga, needed a vacation. He was vexed by warring Republican factions - the Stalwarts, who waved the bloody shirt of Civil War memories, and the Half-Breeds, who stressed the emerging issues of industrialization. Walking to Washington's train station, Garfield by chance encountered a disappointed job-seeker. Charles Guiteau drew a pistol, fired two shots and shouted, "I am a Stalwart and Arthur will be president!" On Sept. 19, Garfield died, making Vice President Chester Arthur president. Guiteau was executed, not explained.
On Sept. 6, 1901, President William McKinley, who had survived the battle of Antietam, was shaking hands at a Buffalo exposition when Leon Czolgosz approached, a handkerchief wrapped around his right hand, concealing a gun. Czolgosz, an anarchist, fired two shots. Czolgosz ("I killed the president because he was the enemy of the good people - the good working people. I am not sorry for my crime.") was executed, not explained.
Now we have explainers. They came into vogue with the murder of President Kennedy. They explained why the "real" culprit was not a self-described Marxist who had moved to Moscow, then returned to support Castro. No, the culprit was a "climate of hate" in conservative Dallas, the "paranoid style" of American (conservative) politics or some other national sickness resulting from insufficient liberalism.
Last year, New York Times columnist Charles Blow explained that "the optics must be irritating" to conservatives: Barack Obama is black, Nancy Pelosi is female, Rep. Barney Frank is gay, Rep. Anthony Weiner (an unimportant Democrat, listed to serve Blow's purposes) is Jewish. "It's enough," Blow said, "to make a good old boy go crazy." The Times, which after the Tucson shooting said that "many on the right" are guilty of "demonizing" people and of exploiting "arguments of division," apparently was comfortable with Blow's insinuation that conservatives are misogynistic, homophobic, racist anti-Semites.
On Sunday, the Times explained Tucson: "It is facile and mistaken to attribute this particular madman's act directly to Republicans or Tea Party members. But . . ." The "directly" is priceless.
Three days before Tucson, Howard Dean explained that the Tea Party movement is "the last gasp of the generation that has trouble with diversity." Rising to the challenge of lowering his reputation and the tone of public discourse, Dean smeared Tea Partyers as racists: They oppose Obama's agenda, Obama is African American, ergo . . .
Let us hope that Dean is the last gasp of the generation of liberals whose default position in any argument is to indict opponents as racists. This McCarthyism of the left - devoid of intellectual content, unsupported by data - is a mental tic, not an idea but a tactic for avoiding engagement with ideas. It expresses limitless contempt for the American people, who have reciprocated by reducing liberalism to its current characteristics of electoral weakness and bad sociology.

Drawing Board

Editorial cartoonists react to the shooting of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords.

Drawing Board

Editorial cartoonists react to the shooting of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords.

Video: Giffords: a medical miracle

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Video: Crowd gives 8 year old assist during anthem

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Video: Tea Party continues violent rhetoric

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Video: When will the viloent rhetoric end?

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Civility is the New Censorship - Rush Limbaugh

January 13, 2011

RUSH: This is Kathy in Potomac, Maryland. It's great to have you here. CALLER:  Oh, thanks, Rush.  Happy New Year, and happy belated birthday to you. RUSH:  Thank you very much. CALLER:  Before I get to the reason for my call I would like to make a very brief linguistic observation and that is that "civility" is the new word for "censorship." RUSH:  I think you're right.  It's a great point. CALLER:  Yeah.  We don't want to criticize the state.  So, Rush, the reason I called is I can only take two minutes of that whole Wellstone Memorial yesterday, and that's exactly what it was.  In essence, I think people were asked to worship at the altar of the state -- and if I may be so bold as to say the Church of Barack the Redeemer.  That's why there were no religious figures reading from the Bible.  The statists read from the Bible.  It was very discouraging. RUSH:  Well, particularly, I'm sure, against what you were expecting. CALLER:  Yes.  Yes.  In fact, I saw it on the television. I decided eventually to listen to it on the radio, because what I saw on the television with people milling around that arena, I found very distasteful, and I thought, "I don't want to be distracted by watching all the people there, so I'll listen to it on the radio," and when the whooping and hollering started, I said, "This is almost sacrilegious" and I had to turn it off. RUSH:  Well, let me ask you a question. CALLER: Yes. RUSH: Since you were listening on the radio, I have to ask you what your impression was of something I was watching.  I was watching before everything got started. They had the cameras in there, but they did not have the cameras on the orchestra.  There was an orchestra, there was a band in there that was playing. I didn't know that, and shortly before the festivities -- uh, the ceremony -- began, I kept hearing what I thought was gunshots or a drum or something.  And I'm trying to figure out, "What in the world is going on in that room?"  I'm looking around and nobody's reacting to it.  I figured, "There's gotta be a band." Are you aware of what I'm talking about, and if you are, I'm curious what you thought when you heard this. CALLER:  No, I don't think I recall hearing a drumbeat. RUSH:  Not a drumbeat, not a drumbeat.  Every now and then, you know, somebody smashing a bass drum or something object a gunshot going off.  Obviously it wasn't that, but I'm trying to figure out, "What is this noise in there?" The band was doing a warm-up or something. CALLER:  Or maybe it was the medicine man. RUSH:  Well, I did. I thought, "Maybe there's some Native American ceremony going on in here before the actual memorial begins," because I couldn't see the band, and I was -- CALLER:  Right. RUSH:  -- wondering if something like that was going on. CALLER:  Yes.  Well, that could well be.  But it was unseemly for a memorial service. RUSH:  Yeah. CALLER:  At least as I think of a memorial service. RUSH:  Well, do you remember the Wellstone Memorial? CALLER:  Oh-ho-ho, yes. RUSH:  Yeah. CALLER:  I remember -- RUSH:  Well -- CALLER:  -- President Clinton walking out and wiping the tear from his eye when he camera was on him, and the university president reminded me of the same thing: Yukking it up beforehand. RUSH:  Yeah.  Yeah.  We have some sound bites from the Wellstone Memorial.  I'm debating whether or not we should go back and play them, and draw... There's a slight analogy.  But I think her point about words is really great: "Civility" is the new "censorship."  "Civility" is the new word for "shut the heck up."

RUSH: We keep hearing about "uncivil," and I love our previous caller's comment that this civility equals censorship.  That's exactly what Obama and the left mean when they start talking about civility. "We need to bring civility back to our discourse," that means shut us up!  Censorship.  Now, if politicians are uncivil to us -- if they are dismissive of the last election, for example. They lost.  They got shellacked.  But if they are dismissive of that election, if they are dismissive of the Constitution (as they were the other week, when it was read on the floor of the House) how are we to react to them? Say we disagree but do it quietly, without passion, in hushed tones, with words "please" and "thank you." How are we supposed to react when they are uncivil to us?  I've actually been thinking about doing a program the way they would like to hear this program done. (laughing)  I think it would be fun to try, you know, to do an hour of civility as they mean it. (interruption)  Don't get scared, Snerdley.  There's no reason to fear this. (interruption)  No, there's not.  No, there's not.  It's like every other illustration we do on this program, make the point of our silly and stifling it would be. (interruption) Well, no, I could be boring.  I could very easily be boring.  I'd just have to be myself.  (laughing) No, seriously, I've been thinking about it.  They want it? Okay, here's what it would sound like.  So we got a sound bite of them saying Sarah Palin is asserting herself improperly, she's dumb and stupid. What would be the civil way of reacting to that?  What would be the civil way of reacting to their allegation that this program's responsible for what happened in Arizona?  What would be the civil way of reacting to it?  Because understand, it is not uncivil to make the accusation, as they define all this.  There's no limit on them.  They are not guilty of anything.  What's uncivil is when those of us minding our own business, bothering no one, are accused of some atrocity, and we respond to it.  That's the incivility. So what would be a civil response to that allegation?  I've been toying with it.  I don't know.  Someday I may just spring it on you without even telling you that's what I'm doing.  It would be instantly spottable. You'd know it instantly what I'm doing.  But I just want you to know that I've been toying it.  When they pass laws to harm our businesses or control our lives, what should we do? What's the civil response?  What is the civil reply to legislation that limits freedom?  What's the civil response to legislation that further erodes the opportunity for economic prosperity?  Well, some say that I wouldn't have to do a program the way the libs want me to. Just listen to NPR and you have the idea -- and to a certain extent, yes. And I could do NPR.  I've done it, way back, long ago.  I did a half hour or so that way on this program.  I actually tried to become a liberal for a half hour, and some people bought it.  The point was to prove something. I forget exactly what it was, but I was getting inundated with calls about how Republicans always fail. "They tell us one thing and they're gonna lie and they're gonna go out there and lie to us in the campaign and they're gonna be cave when they get into governing," and I was being inundated, as though I was responsible for it.  "When are you gonna tell the Republicans? When are you gonna tell the Republicans? Why are the Republicans...? I'm not them!  "What do you...?" I was judged to be the one to have the ability to make 'em stop, so I was gonna actually be one of those guys that caved.  I still think it would be fun so I'll spring it on you when you are least expecting it.  Heh-heh-heh-heh-heh. (playing of funeral crashers spoof) RUSH:  I forgot all about the Coretta Scott King service.  It took three hours for somebody to remember that there was a body in that casket, and that was Bill Clinton.  So you see that's a parody of ours from years and years and years ago.  There's a pattern of behavior here, of course very civil behavior.  Let me ask you a question here.  Was Saul Alinsky civil?  Did he preach civility?  Was Reverend Wright's church civil?  Bill Ayers, architect of the Pentagon bombing, Obama's buddy, was he civil?  Let's have some examples of leftist civility.  The next time they talk about it, which will be sometime today, tonight, let's ask, "Let's have some examples of leftist civility.  Where is leftist civility in any of your discussions of Sarah Palin?"  Was John Kerry civil during his happy days protesting against the Vietnam War?  Have you noticed we haven't heard much from Harry Reid?  My guess is they locked him away somewhere, keep him away from this event 'cause very little that's civil comes out of his mouth.  Fortney "Pete" Stark, Barney Frank, well known for their civility, insulting their own constituents.  Was Barbara Boxer civil when she berated that general for not calling her "Senator"?  When the late Ted Kennedy went on the Senate floor and smeared Robert Bork when he was nominated to the Supreme Court by Reagan, was Kennedy civil in his vicious accusations against Bork?  Was Joe Bite Me civil when he orchestrated a hateful smear campaign against Clarence Thomas during his confirmation hearings?  And if you'll permit me to be blunt, you can say much about this current presidency, but civility is one of the last words that comes to mind when thinking and talking about this regime.  Has Obama been civil to his predecessor, George W. Bush?  Has Jimmy Carter been civil to the state of Israel?  And who can forget all that civility surrounding the candidacy of Sharron Angle or Christine O'Donnell. RUSH:  Okay.  Civility lessons, civility practice.  Practice, ladies and gentlemen, your civil reaction to this charge:  The Republican Party's policies are based on hate and racism.  Tell me how you would respond in a civil way.  The reason you oppose immigration is because mostly Hispanic people are coming across the border and taking your job.  Give me the civil response to this charge.  I got some other examples, too.

RUSH:  President Obama urges civility in public discourse.  F. Chuck Todd is now happily reporting this on MessNBC: President Obama urging civility in public discourse.  When I think of the left wing, I think civil, don't you?  Code Pink, the New Black Panthers, union bosses beating up black conservatives in St. Louis, ACORN, illegal alien marches, why, it doesn't get more civil than that.  The trashing of the Tea Party movement for the last nearly two years, that's civil.  When I think of MSNBC, I not only think of journalistic excellence, but civility, don't you?  That whole class warfare thing, I mean that's nothing but civility on display.  When I think of the counterculture movement of the sixties, I think civility.  When I think of Rahm Emanuel, the man Obama chose as his own chief of staff two years ago, I think of civility.  We don't need lectures from uncivil leftists about civility, much less Obama. Bitter clingers and all the other incendiary things he's had to say, both as a candidate and as president. In fact, ladies and gentlemen, isn't one of your complaints that Republicans are too docile?  Isn't one of your complaints that Republicans just sit there and take it, that the left is always on the march, always accusing, always throwing bombs, and the Republicans just sit there and take it?  The fact of the matter is the Republicans are civil, as the left defines it.  They don't say anything.  That's exactly what civil means.  Another couple of examples.  Give your civil reaction to the charge that you oppose Obama because he's black.  Give me your civil reaction to you are a racist because you have criticized President Obama.  Show me how to react in a civil way.  Give me your civil reaction to this: You want to take money from the poor and line your pockets and the pockets of the rich.  You don't care about the unfortunate.  In fact, you and your buddies have created homelessness.  Give me the civil reaction to that.  If it was up to you, we would still have slavery today. Give me the civil reaction to the entire sports media making up quotes about you, quotes suggesting that you support slavery, quotes utterly false and made up, give me the civil reaction to this.  Give me the civil reaction to you don't care how many soldiers die when you send 'em into battle.  It's all about oil profits for your contributors.  Give me the civil reaction to any of this.  And of course this exercise establishes that we don't need lectures from uncivil leftists.  What is the civil reaction to being accused of inciting murder, the Oklahoma City bombing and now the Tucson shootings.  Somebody tell me how to react to that in a civil way, in a way that the left would approve, in a way that the president would approve.  What are we supposed to say, "You're right, I'm sorry. I won't do it again?"  What is the civil response to this?  Lest we forget just a few weeks ago we were told that people were shooting their TVs because Bristol Palin was on Dancing with the Stars, what's the civil reaction to that? Sheriff Dupnik was in attendance at the speech last night.  He was not on the dais.  There was no dais.  He was not in the front row.  He was midway.  He did not get a shout-out from Obama for his wonderful civility.  By the way, is that an example of civility, Sheriff Dupnik, is he civil?  What's the civil response to any allegation being made by Sheriff Dupnik?  Now, Sheriff Dupnik did get a camera shot when Obama was talking about the great work that had been done by people in the area to bring order to the chaos. What is the civil reaction to the president joking that you are a racist?  What is the civil reaction to a TIME Magazine cover that asks are you good for America?  Many of these questions I'm asking you are allegations that have been made about me and to me.  What's the civil reaction?  I would venture to say I've been pretty damn civil during all of this for 23 years, laughing at a lot of it.  Apparently the civil thing for Sarah Palin to do is to get down on her hands and knees and beg forgiveness for her obvious crimes, and maybe that's what some Republican candidates would have done in the past.  But Palin isn't that kind of Republican, whether she's a candidate or not, I don't know.

RUSH: Orem, Utah this is Kent, and welcome to the EIB Network.  Hi. CALLER:  Hi, Rush.  What a pleasure to speak with you. RUSH:  Thank you. CALLER:  I am so thrilled to be with you. RUSH:  Thank you very much, sir. CALLER:  Hey, I just wanted to mention: I think that today's show and yesterday's show are among the best pieces of information that anyone could have who's a true conservative to combat what the insane left-wing talk television people and everyone else who's non-conservative is doing.  Yesterday, in the beginning of your second hour, I believe, you gave a monologue where you were addressing somebody who was talking about incivility, and you responded to this person by saying, "Mr. So-and-So, what about what the left is doing with class warfare?  Mr. So-and-So, what about what the left is doing with race? Mr. So-and-So...?" Do you remember that monologue? RUSH:  Of course I do, yes, thank you very much. CALLER:  I would love, Rush, to have a copy of that.  I don't care how I have it -- electronically, if I could have it printed, I don't care -- but that monologue, to me, was one of the most important monologues and one of the most important statements that I have heard, ever, on that subject.  And I just need a copy of that. (chuckles) Is there any way I could get that? RUSH:  Well, let me ask you this.  Are you a subscriber to Rush 24/7? CALLER:  Well, I would love to be.  I'm a little tight on the budget. You know, someday I'll get there.  I'm not there quite yet, though. RUSH: (sigh) Well, it's really worth the investment.  The transcript of everything is there. CALLER:  Huh-uh. RUSH:  It really is.  I'll tell you what I'm gonna do.  We're gonna make you a complimentary subscriber. (interruption) Don't frown in there, Snerdley. Don't start acting all uncivil on me.  We're gonna make you a complimentary subscriber for a year.  After the call you stay on hold and Snerdley or somebody will pick up the phone -- he'll probably accuse you of some unseemly things but ignore it -- and we'll get all the information necessary to make you a comp subscriber for a year, including the Limbaugh Letter newsletter. CALLER:  That is so awesome. RUSH:  All right? CALLER:  Thank you so much. RUSH:  And then if you have an iPhone or an iPad, get the app, the Rush app and all the transcripts are right there on your iPad, right there on your iPhone, as well as on your computer.  Thanks Kent.  Don't go away.  Snerdley, remember the order of the day is civility.  Be civil.

Unbridled, Vitriolic Hatred for Sarah Palin Continues Unabated - Rush Limbaugh

January 13, 2011

RUSH:  So there's Obama being praised to the heavens, Obama being exalted and held up as only Obama can be, The Messiah, the one, being praised for this wonderful healing speech last night by the same people who are exhibiting and announcing and proclaiming a vicious hate against Sarah Palin, who gave a perfectly fine speech that morning.  In fact, they're even trying to say that Palin tried to mislead her viewers at Facebook because she was using a teleprompter and didn't tell anybody.  I kid you not.  And then of course there's this blood libel business.  Now, to show you blood libel, Glenn Reynolds is a law professor at the University of Tennessee, and Glenn Reynolds is a longtime blogger, and he had a piece Monday in the Wall Street Journal, and in the headline of his piece on the op-ed page was the term "blood libel."  Not a peep.  No one said a word. There wasn't one level of outburst. There wasn't one instance of anybody disagreeing or saying that Glenn Reynolds was anti-Semitic or how reprehensible the use of that term, he doesn't understand what he's talking about, what an idiot.  Palin uses it in her eight minute Facebook video and all hell breaks loose.  So the very people that the president is asking to tone it down here, although not by name, just cannot stop.  The unbridled hatred for Sarah Palin goes on, unchecked, uncommented upon.   RUSH:  Here's an affirmation, folks, of my point earlier.  Dan Balz in the Washington Post.  "As Obama Urged Unity, Palin Brought Division."  Now, if anybody has read the transcript or watched Sarah Palin's video speech, there's no "division" whatsoever.  It's an attempt to do the same thing Obama was attempting -- unity, perspective, honesty -- and yet there the Drive-Bys out there: "As Obama Urged Unity, Palin Brought Division." They just can't help it.

RUSH: According to ABC News, the death threats against Sarah Palin have reached an unprecedented level.  I have the story in the stack.  In San Francisco today I guess we can say the president's words are being ignored because there are insulting posters of Sarah Palin on a street which encourage violence against her.  The president's admonition for us to be nicer to each other is not working.  And ABC News: "Death Threats Against Palin Have Reached 'Unprecedented Level.'"  Should Obama have specifically mentioned how wrong that is?  Should he?  I mean this is not some vague academic hypothesis.  This is actually happening and Obama is ignoring it.  Now, Obama has no problem warning against the backlash against Muslim terrorists, and during the Fort Hood scenario, after it was discovered that Major Hasan had been getting inspiration from a militant Islamist, a guy named al-Awlaki, not only Obama, but some high-ranking general said, "My main priority is to make sure there's not a backlash against Muslims in the US Army."  Okay.  All right, cool.  If that's your gig, fine. What about the backlash against Obama?  Even ABC is calling it a backlash against Obama.  Dan Balz, Washington Post: "As Obama Urged Unity, Palin Brought Division." Mr. Balz, why do you feel it necessary to stir things up?  Why is it that you want to continue to paint a bull's-eye on Sarah Palin, Mr. Balz?  Here's the Drive-By Media doing it.  So in this speech last night, basically Obama's saying what Chris Matthews and the others have been saying, that there's no causal relationship between this crime and public debate.  However, public debate, meaning conservative passion and arguments, needs to change.  Don't doubt me on this.  Can anybody name a single Republican -- I'm serious -- can anybody name a single Republican who has said that this murder should be used to smear liberals or Democrats or to advance some political agenda?  We have off-the-record types saying it to Politico and others.  But can anybody name a single Republican?  Is there any outpost of conservatism or in the Republican Party where a strategy is ongoing behind closed doors about how we can use this to demonize liberals?  Or are we minding our own business and simply reacting to yet another spate of assaults on our character and dignity while we were minding our own business doing nothing? The president talks about challenging old assumptions.  That's something he argues for when it comes to his agenda.  Challenge old assumptions.  That means the way this country's been in the past, no more.  Barack Obama.  I put the "me" in memorial.  It starts out you spell memorial m-e.  I, Barack Obama, I put the "me" in memorial.  Now, nobody's gonna remember any particular phrase or sentence from this speech.  And I think some of the praise for this speech is forced.  I actually do.  Particularly among some of the conservatives who are doing cartwheels over this.  There are things going on beneath the surface, people want to position themselves or to be viewed a certain way or whatever.  But that whole night last night was surreal to me in a whole lot of ways with much of it spent with my mouth in various stages, phases of open, in disbelief. Now, as you know, people from the beginning of time have tried to figure out why liberals are liberals.  I, on this program, have announced various theories and reasons.  Everybody has.  It's Mars-Venus.  I mean seriously, the left is mad that Sarah Palin is inserting herself into this.  Now, Sarah Palin, I don't know, maybe killing and dressing a moose on Saturday afternoon, incident happens, 30 minutes later she's responsible for it.  So three days later she does a video on Facebook, and they accuse her of inserting herself and trying to take over the story, to put herself in front of it.  They dragged her into it.  And Dan Balz:  "As Obama Urged Unity, Palin Brought Division."  Division?  So here's more of the Drive-By Media pointing a finger of blame and suspicion at Palin.

Media meme o’ the day: Obama’s speech was much more presidential than Palin’s

POSTED AT 8:04 PM ON JANUARY 13, 2011 BY ALLAHPUNDIT
PRINTER-FRIENDLY

This is a useful way to wrap up (hopefully) the coverage of Our National Conversation On Rhetoric as it’s a stark example of how easily the propaganda about Palin’s culpability in the shootings was accepted as a political fact of life. There are two ways a reporter could address yesterday’s oratorical bookends by her and Obama. One: “Hey, isn’t it insane that Palin had to give this speech? People don’t normally have to point out that they’re not responsible for a mass murder that they’re not linked to in any way, do they?” Call that the “reality-based” approach. Two: “How silly of Palin to set up an unfavorable contrast with Obama by giving a defensive speech on a day when he’s pushing uplift. Don’t her advisors know anything about ‘messaging’?” We’ll call that the “you’re badly missing the point”take. It’s true as far as it goes — Palin’s team should have anticipated that some viewers will naturally compare her tone to his, notwithstanding the two speeches’ dramatically different circumstances — but it’s also utterly banal and lazy. What’s a more constructive use of a political reporter’s time — pointing out to his audience the eminently apparent fact that, yes indeed, Palin’s tone doesn’t compare favorably to Obama’s in this case? Or pointing out, in case they’re not aware, that that might be because she had to respond to an endless Orwellian smear tying her to a homicidal lunatic? Accuse The One of complicity in mass murder and, I assure you, his reaction won’t be sunshine and candy canes either.

The “badly missing the point” take is what I was getting at in goofing on Politicoyesterday. For political media, whether any facts exist that link the right to Loughner is more or less immaterial; what matters is that the left’s narrative of tying the right to Loughner exists and, as such, it’s a fact of political life that should be assimilated and covered like any other. Obama’s eulogizing the victims of a shooting and Palin’s defending herself from the repulsive charge that she’s somehow responsible for the body count, but since they both spoke on the same day, well, that’s good enough for a moronic superficial horserace-type comparison. Politico:

At sunrise in the East on Wednesday, Sarah Palin demonstrated that she has little interest — or capacity — in moving beyond her brand ofgrievance-based politics. And at sundown in the West, Barack Obama reminded even his critics of his ability to rally disparate Americans around a message of reconciliation…

The former Alaska governor has a knack for supplying rhetoric that will delight her supporters, send her critics howling and invariably create a frenzy of coverage. But her response suggests she is capable of hitting just that one note…

But for much of the eight-minute talk she was defensive and showed little interest in doing anything other than channeling the understandable resentment of her ideological kinsmen over the blame-casting. And that won’t appeal much to a political center that — even while they may not think Palin is in any way responsible for Tucson — preferred more conciliation even before the jarring attempted assassination of a member of Congress.

A homework assignment for aspiring speechwriters: Try to write an address titled “I Didn’t Kill Anyone” without sounding aggrieved. More from the Times:

Ms. Palin’s decision to post the video on the Internet on Wednesday morning all but invited comparisons to the president’s previously announced appearance at the memorial service for those slain in Arizona.

And her choice of words — most notably the accusation that her critics were guilty of “blood libel” for the things they have said about her — made it impossible to ignore the video as merely another statement from a politician…

[W]hat could not have been more different was the tone. Where Ms. Palin was direct and forceful, Mr. Obama was soft and restrained. Where Ms. Palin was accusatory, Mr. Obama appeared to go out of his way to avoid pointing fingers or assigning blame. Where she stressed the importance of fighting for our different beliefs, he emphasized our need for unity, referring to the “American family — 300 million strong.”

Nowhere in the piece does the Times explain precisely what “things they have said about her.” If you read it without knowing the backstory of the past several days and the left’s obsession with her crosshairs map, you might think Palin had posted a video to eulogize the victims and then inexplicably launched into a tirade against the media halfway through based on old grievances, like the Couric interview. The closest it comes to filling the reader in is to quote her denouncing “mindless finger-pointing we endured in the wake of the tragedy.”

And on we go. Here’s some refreshing candor from Lloyd Grove: Yes, it’s unfair to compare the two speeches — but why should that stop us?

The prematurely retired Alaska governor had to serve up her remarks, really a litany of complaints against her critics and political adversaries, while seated in front of a non-working stone fireplace, apparently at her home in Wasilla—a claustrophobic setting framed by an outsize American flag.

The president got to deliver his affecting half-hour of heartfelt reflection and soulful inspiration—repeatedly interrupted by standing ovations—to an arena at the University of Arizona filled to the rafters with 14,000 mourners, notably members of his Cabinet and the Supreme Court, the governor of Arizona, the astronaut-husband of wounded Rep. Gabby Giffords, the heroes who risked their own lives to save others, the doctors and nurses who tended the injured and bleeding, and the friends and families of the six people, including a 9-year-old girl, who were killed by a gun-wielding maniac Saturday morning at a shopping center.

“At the end of the day, after listening to the president, we’ll know why he’s president and she never will be,” said Robert Shrum.

To the speechwriters: For extra credit on your assignment, figure out a “presidential” way to explore the theme, “I Didn’t Beam Homicidal Mind Control Rays into that Crazed Gunman’s Brain.” The big joke here, of course, is that the only “presidential” way Palin could have handled this — according to the media, I mean — would be to simply let this whole thing slide. That’s what presidents do, right? Thick skin, stiff upper lip, even when their enemies are being terribly unfair to them. When it comes to politics, that’s business as usual. My point this week, though, andAce’s point at his site, has been that this episode isn’t business as usual. This isn’t some standard “Palin’s using rhetorical dog whistles for her Christian base!” attack. This is a congresswoman bleeding out of her head on the sidewalk with six bodies lying around her, one of them a little girl, and Palin being blamed for it instantly. And yet according to Keith Ellison, the proper response here should have been to validate that accusation by implication by saying, gee, yeah, I guess I should have toned it down. I’m not known for being a Palin fan (as, er, any actual Palin fan could tell you) and even I can’t contain my indignation at the charge. And yet she’s supposed to just mellow out and take it because political reporters who won’t flatly correct the record for their readers think it’s bad “optics” to do otherwise? Unbelievable.