You know that sound they make on Sesame Street whenever Cookie Monster befuddles Kermit with his puns? It's a brass instrument dropping four notes: "WAH-wah-wuh-waaaaaaaah"

I am making that noise.

heheheh... I hear the sound, Matt!

Breitbart's "reporting" tells you about his ethics and morals...he has none!!!

Excellent article, Brad!

The thing is, material facts have no place in that unstable and spooky house-of-mirrors which Breitbart and his crew have fabricated so carelessly for themselves. These are the kind of folks that are so used to lying to everyone else (both as a paid profession and as a matter of habit), that as a consequence they even deceive themselves.

I mean, look at James OKeefe. The guy puts on this big dog-n-pony show about pretending that he’s “not a conservative”, that he’s “not interested in conserving anything.” He’s a “radical progressive”, and he’ll sure take you to task for suggesting otherwise. He does this to lend an unconvincing veneer of variety to his drab and uniformly right-wing camp.

But the fact remains that O’Keefe IS a conservative, and this is made explicit by both his own words and actions.

O’Keefe works on behalf of explicitly conservative causes, he explicitly advocates for conservative ideals, he is bank-rolled by conservative extremists, he’s received awards from conservative organizations, he’s been trained through conservative activist groups, he speaks at conservative gatherings, and his own header for the Centurian (the very magazine which he founded with funding from conservative think-tanks) reads “A Journal of Conservative Thought.”

Okeefe IS a conservative, but he and his team refuse to admit that. They insist on the stated lie that Okeefe is a “radical progressive”... and they'll shower you with Alinsky quotes from here-to-Timbucktoo to hammer the point home.

Like Beck, Okeefe is so used to lying, he has thus become the kind of person who simply denies what he had said or done five minutes beforehand.

This kind of self-deception (at which Breitbart's crew is only bested by Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin) speaks to a person who is more than just a liar.

It speaks to a disturbing lack of reflection and honesty by a fragmented personality whose only touch-stone is the morbid hallucinations which he forces others to indulge.

Its speaks of the kind of person who would have you deny your own senses in favor of his contrived fantasy. That’s what Breitbart, his sites, his funders, his audience, and all his contributors are entirely about. Facts have no place in that world.

This might be the best publicity VoterAction has gotten in a long time! That www.voteraction.org.

SreeBee, sounds like an alcoholic or a cocaine addict. Lies to everyone, especially themselves, and denies, even with confronted with proof of lies and fabrication.

"...even when confronted..." is what I meant.

SreeBee @4 provides some excellent insights, except that I do not believe that the word "conservative" aptly applies to the likes of Breitbart, Palin or the rest of the hard-right echo chamber.

I believe that former Vice President Henry Wallace was far more accurate when, on April 9, 1944, while our nation was engaged in a life-and-death struggle with fascism in Europe, Wallace produced an op-ed for The New York Times:

The American fascist would prefer not to use violence. His method is to poison the channels of information. With a fascist the problem is never how best to present the truth but how best to use the news to deceive the public into giving the fascist and his group more money and more power.

They claim to be superpatriots, but they would destroy every liberty guaranteed by the Constitution. They demand free enterprise but are the spokesmen for monopoly and vested interest. Their final objective toward which all their deceit is directed is to capture political power so that, using the power of the state and the power of the market simultaneously, they may keep the common man in eternal subjugation.

American fascist appears a far more apt descriptor for this crowd whose prevarications have duped the useful idiots/know-nothings who call themselves the "tea baggers."

Breitbart is a tool, Brad you have done an excellent job exposing this.

However Kagan herself is a someone that I am very skeptical of - to be light with my words. (tool would be an appropriate term for her too)

Why?

Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan has gotten an angry thumbs-down from 9/11 family members who say she played a key role in quashing a lawsuit that accused the Saudi kingdom of helping finance the terror attacks.

“Kagan is the main reason why the Supreme Court ruled against the 9/11 families,” said William Doyle, who lost his son in the Twin Towers.

aye mas?

She filed a brief to the Supreme Court last May, arguing that the Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act shielded Saudi princes from the suit’s claims that they gave money to Osama bin Laden and other terrorist leaders or to charities that funneled funds to al Qaeda.

Kagan cited “the potentially significant foreign-relations consequences of subjecting another sovereign state to suit.”

The Supreme Court declined to hear the case.

Disgusting!

She is obviously for the Corporate Mega-Empire which deems it OK to blame 3000 deaths (9/11) on an innocent party (Al Qaeda does not produce thermite) and start subsequent global wars with costing ALL of us our very future.

I'm not sure I am willing to extrapolate all of those things about Kagan from that one incident.

@ Chris Hooten (#7) and Earnest A. Canning (#8)

Hello and good tidings to both of you!

Chris,

I think you hit the nail on the head. Like Glenn Beck, Breitbart displays all the classic symptoms of a serious tooter.

Beck has at least admitted that he’s had a coke problem. And if he isnt still using, then the drug has clearly had a permanently debilitating effect on his mind (sort of like Rush with Oxycontin.)

But aside from his perpetual belligerence, Breitbart definitely oozes all the habitual lying, the creepy megalomania and the paranoid, fantasy-prone motivations typical of someone so enfeebled by that addiction. His adoring and unquestioning fans have no idea what they are dealing with.

Earnest,

I agree with you completely when you say (quite eloquently, I might add) “that I do not believe that the word conservative aptly applies to the likes of Breitbart, Palin or the rest of the hard-right echo chamber.”

Certainly, I know many people who identify as conservative, and who definitely do not represent the kind of insanity evidenced and marshaled by the likes of Breitbart or Palin.

And of course, Eisenhower would not have felt any common cause with our modern, hard-right extremists... in fact, I think he explicitly warned against the kind of body which they now have become.

So indeed, I agree with what you are saying.

My point was that within this hard-right political continuum, we find a chronic and wide-spread inability to be candid, honest and accountable about ones own actions, background or words.

Breitbart, Palin and their ilk cannot be honest about anything they do or say. It’s really obvious, but their audience never questions them on this, and that is really creepy.

Certainly base hypocrisy, lying, hyperbole and back-peddling are not at all uncommon to either side of the political divide. But (almost in lock-step with Rove or Cheney) Breitbart, Palin and Beck have somersaulted those qualities into something so monstrously refined, it belongs more properly to the Witch-Hammer than to civil political discourse.

O’keefe is a perfect example of that monolithic dishonesty. His whole shtik about not being someone who identifies as conservative is belied by his explicitly (and thoroughly) fart-right resume.

But even when this is evident and in plain sight (eg, his own title for his own college rag), he’ll press out an unconvincing facade patterned with obscure Alinksy quotes and bold-faced denials about his actual, and transparently visible platform.

That deliberate obfuscation sends up a big red flag ---"this person cannot and will not be honest about the most basic and verifiable facts.”

I’m sure you’ve seen that wonderful clip of Lewis Black (gotta luv him!) calling out Beck for pretty much the same thing–

Beck-“ I’m not accusing Al Gore of being a Nazi or anything like that...”
Black-“ YES YOU ARE!!!! YOU JUST DID!!!!”

These people just don’t seem to listen to themselves.

But what’s infinitely more weird, is that there is a type of hypnosis/denial surrounding the whole thing–
“You arent seeing what you’ve actually seen me doing... you are seeing that I’d never accused Al Gore of being a Nazi”

-or “I (the founder of something I subtitled “A Journal of Conservative Thought” from a far-right think tank) am not a conservative at all...”

-or “There is no racism in the Tea-parties”,

-or “I never called myself a Maverick”,

-or “I never encouraged people to target those who voted for Health Care reform”,

-or “Despite my repeated refusals to interview with CNN when they called me about my bs ACORN tapes (on the very day I released them), CNN is ignoring my bs story!”

Again, while lying and hypocrisy are all too prevalent in the political world (bar none), these people have really actualized such a thoroughly altered “(un)reality”, that it deserves to be in a different category all together.

Orwellian cliche’s are far too common nowadays, but Beck, Palin, O’Keefe, Breitbart, and all of their colleagues and following have achieved such a complete approximation of Double Think it would do Oceania quite proud. This is "Generation Rove."

Anyhow guys, thanks for the replies, and have a great Spring!!!!

@ Earnest A. Canning (#8)

Hi again Earnest,

I know I really poured out a lot above, but your reply gave me pause to consider another difference between the Breitbart style of far-right creepiness versus true conservatism.

The use to which Breitbart puts the internet is one centered around smearing. Breitbart and his crew use partial/doctored sound-bytes and fragmented text to malign, embarrass, harass, misrepresent etc.. all as part of some politically motivated (and utterly insidious) online spectacle.

The constant breech of personal privacy which Breitbart has made his trade-mark OUGHT to be something to which real conservatives and libertarians would take exception. By definition, they should.

But such ironies are part and parcel of the modern far-right.

E.g., while claiming that Obama supporters were trying to indoctrinate children (since a song sung by school-children about Black History Month mentioned Obama), groups like FeedomWorks REALLY DO force small kids to engage in over-the-phone political harassment dealing with subjects they are far too young to figure out. It’s like that movie, “Jesus Camp”.

I also think its interesting that, with his “Big” Sites, Breitbart has basically become the over-bearing, ultra-conformist, Borg-like assimilation-complex which the far-right claims to fear in both the UN and the Obama administration.

Again Earnest, thanks for the reply, and have a wonderful Spring!!!! (

Brian @ 9; Hooten @ 10

This is from Glenn Greenwald’s blog of 5/10/10. It is one of a number he has written on the subject, all powerfully illuminating ... highly recommended.

Excerpts

It's anything but surprising that President Obama has chosen Elena Kagan to replace John Paul Stevens on the Supreme Court. Nothing is a better fit for this White House than a blank slate, institution-loyal, seemingly principle-free careerist who spent the last 15 months as the Obama administration's lawyer vigorously defending every one of his assertions of extremely broad executive authority. The Obama administration is filled to the brim with exactly such individuals --- as is reflected by its actions and policies --- and this is just one more to add to the pile.

Obama chooses an individual with very few stated beliefs who makes the Right quite comfortable (even as they go through the motions of opposing her). As Kevin Drum writes:

[R]ight now Obama has the biggest Democratic majority in the Senate he's ever going to have. So why not use it to ensure a solidly progressive nominee like Diane Wood instead of an ideological cipher like Kagan? . . . . When Obama compromises on something like healthcare reform, that's one thing. Politics sometimes forces tough choices on a president. But why compromise on presidential nominees? Why Ben Bernanke? Why Elena Kagan? He doesn't have to do this. Unfortunately, the most likely answer is: he does it because he wants to.

... Obama would not want to choose someone like Diane Wood. If you were Barack Obama, would you want someone on the Supreme Court who has bravely insisted on the need for Constitutional limits on executive authority, resolutely condemned the use of Terrorism fear-mongering for greater government power, explicitly argued against military commissions and indefinite detention, repeatedly applied the progressive approach to interpreting the Constitution on a wide array of issues, insisted upon the need for robust transparency and checks and balances, and demonstrated a willingness to defy institutional orthodoxies even when doing so is unpopular? Of course you wouldn't. Why would you want someone on the Court who has expressed serious Constitutional and legal doubts about your core policies? Do you think that an administration that just yesterday announced it wants legislation to dilute Miranda rights in the name of Scary Terrorists --- and has seized the power to assassinate American citizens with no due process --- wants someone like Diane Wood on the Supreme Court?

One final thought about Kagan for now. As I said from the beginning, the real opportunity to derail her nomination was before it was made, because the vast majority of progressives and Democrats will get behind anyone, no matter who it is, chosen by Obama. That's just how things work. They'll ignore most of the substantive concerns that have been raised about her, cling to appeals to authority, seize on personal testimonials from her Good Progressive friends, and try to cobble together blurry little snippets to assure themselves that she's a fine pick. In reality, no matter what they know about her (and, more to the point, don't know), they'll support her because she's now Obama's choice, which means, by definition, that she's a good addition to the Supreme Court. Our politics is nothing if not tribal, and the duty of Every Good Democrat is now to favor Kagan's confirmation.

http://www.salon.com/new...0/05/10/kagan/index.html

Brad, this really was a ridiculous critique of my article on Big Journalism. As a former board member of the PDA, and as someone who had touted the support of Dennis Kucinich and John Conyers in his election campaign, I very much doubt that Mr. Bonifaz would dispute that his political views place him well to the left even within the Democratic party.

The fact that he had also supported the impeachment of Clinton could be viewed as only reinforcing this point, since most hardcore liberals viewed Clinton only slightly more favorably than most conservatives.

The primary point of my article was that multiple media outlets had covered Kagan's political donations but had somehow missed (or intentionally omitted) her contribution to Bonifaz.

I actually downplayed the ultimate significance of this with regards to Kagan's nomination. I stand by my assessment of Bonifaz' political orientation, but you are certainly entitled to disagree.

Morgen tried to defend his shameful "journalism" @ 14 with:

Brad, this really was a ridiculous critique of my article on Big Journalism.

Not nearly as ridiculous as the critique you forwarded in your BJ article, however, wherein you suggest an absurd conspiracy theory --- with absolutely no evidence to support it in any way, even as absurd as it is --- that the Boston Herald is somehow working to protect Obama and Kagan by hiding a $500 donation to a constitutional attorney who specializes in non-partisan election law issues.

Not only did you fail to point out his adamant support of both the impeachment and conviction of Bill Clinton, but you also failed to point out his non-partisan work as the legal director of the non-partisan VoterAction.org, which has fought for clean elections for both Republicans and Democrats alike.

You attempted to smear a good person out of desperation to find something, anything, to support your partisan political agenda. I appreciate that that's what Andy Breitbart does, and what his sites are all about it, but it doesn't make it any less loathsome and McCarthyesque.

The fact that he had also supported the impeachment of Clinton could be viewed as only reinforcing this point, since most hardcore liberals viewed Clinton only slightly more favorably than most conservatives.

Yes, it could be "viewed" that way, if one was so desperate to support an unsupportable smear that they were willing to twist and torture the facts to fit their agenda --- or, as the Downing Street Memos which Bonifaz helped publicized said, to "fix [the] intelligence and facts ... around the policy".

The primary point of my article was that multiple media outlets had covered Kagan's political donations but had somehow missed (or intentionally omitted) her contribution to Bonifaz.

What evidence do you have that they "intentionally omitted" it? Or even that it was NOT worth missing? You make a silly attempt at a high-tech lynching, without bothering to learn about who it is you are smearing, or even offering him the chance to respond to your silliness. It is "journalism" at its very worst.

I actually downplayed the ultimate significance of this with regards to Kagan's nomination. I stand by my assessment of Bonifaz' political orientation, but you are certainly entitled to disagree.

Guilt by association seems to be all that you folks have left. It's a shame, since there is much that legitimate criticism that you could bring against the Kagan nomination, but, as usual, you all go for the personal smears --- and ham-fisted ones at that.

Good luck with your campaign. (Not really.)

@ Morgan, #14,

Hi Morgan of BJ fame,

I have a question, somewhat off topic, regarding your place of employment.

Since you work for a site that claims to ferret out bias in the media, and since you claim to be concerned with “misses” and “intentional omissions” in the news, could you answer something?

Why haven’t you addressed any of the faulty aspects of the ACORN videos from your own James O’Keefe?

Even when questioned about it, why does your boss completely avoid the discussion?

Can you explain why your boss, having known (by his own admission) what was on those tapes, opted to go with a misleading and strategically edited launch?

Why, for example, is the tragic tale of “Kenya” (“Eden”, or whatever) and the physical peril which she claimed for her charges, almost completely (if not totally) edited out of O’Keefe’s posted tapes?

Why does the abusive pimp “Sonny”, who formed such an important part of Hannah’s story to ACORN workers, play almost no role in O’keefe’s posted tapes?

That’s a pretty serious (and obviously intentional) omission.

(Consider this— if you have footage of Volda from Brooklyn’s ACORN addressing Hannah on how to protect herself from “Sonny”, but then edit that footage to make it seem like she’s advising Hannah to hide $$ from the government, then that’s not just an omission, that’s a bold-faced lie.)

Why do these tapes have misleading titles that suggest horrific crimes like a “child-prostitution ring”, when that is not at all what the unedited tapes show any evidence for? Why are statements by ACORN members edited down to say things which they werent?

Why does your employer continue to avoid these serious lapses in his own production?

There’s a saying, “Clean your own house before faulting anyone else’s"..., you guys at BJ have a LOT of work to do explaining your own “intentional omissions” before you do anything else.

Otherwise, you just look like bold-faced liars and shameless hypocrites.

Its been several days since i posed the question above to Morgan of BJ fame (sorry that it is, indeed, off-topic.)

For some reason, the bone-heads on Breitbarts payroll seem to either shut-up or ignore the question when asked about the back-story that Giles told ACORN workers, and that Okeefe edited out of his posted ACORN tapes.

If you ask the BigGov.com people about the back-story of "Kenya/Eden", the violent abuse from Sonny, or the fate of the Salvadorean girls, and why these were edited out of the posted tapes, they just either run away or ignore the question.

Even Breitbart frantically tossed that hot-potato away.

When Mike Stark asked Breitbart about these issues, Breitbart refused to answer it, and defered to Okeefe, who used the pending court case to explain both his silence, and the butchered condition of his "evidence." This happened last Fall, when OKeefe released that "oh-so-convincing" Philly tape.

They react this way even on their own sites.

Just a helpful tip.