Pretty much everything this morning is about VA Tech (as it should be).
But I happened to click by this last nite.
The circles and paranoia involved in these two feeding off each other really scares me. I'm not "in the know" enough, but someone should be keeping an eye on this.(And woman, you were NEVER the President of NOW, you were President of the LA Chapter of NOW.)
Liars and mis-informers.
Talk about coordination. This is from Limbaugh yesterday, same day as the O'Reilly screed.
Non-Soros Funded Media Matters
LIMBAUGH: And I'll tell you who's out there doing all this monitoring, and then reporting things out of context, and that's our old buddies at Media Matters for America. If you want to know what the liberal media are going to report as news, ask them. Ninety percent, it seems, of what is said about me in the drive-by media does not come from them hearing me say it. It comes from where they read it on these watchdog websites. They don't listen to this program.
*ed note: He sure does spout alot of words saying very little.
UPDATE FROM CLIFF: After watching these two sad, deranged, resentful, self-hating lunatics, I just felt I had to add my two cents. Engaging their silly arguments is obviously a waste of time. O'Reilly said he and Hannity are issuing a "report?" Is that hysterical, or what? You mean, you two guys are journalists? Oh, that's right, it must be from all the valuable knowledge you picked up at Inside Edition, right Bill? Or that Hannity picked up doing fundraisers for the GOP, like good journalists do. And the "report" is going to list mainstream media members who are fed "far-left" talking points. Gotcha.
And then there's pathetic Tammy Bruce, who calls herself a Lieberman Democrat. Where to go with this. Tammy, we all know the world is out to get you, you hate yourself for your sexual urges and somewhere along the way, like David Horowitz, someone on the left didn't quite get you, so you became a righty moron. Please stop referring to yourself as a Democrat. Unless you also want to refer to yourself as something equally false, like, let's say, someone with a functioning cerebrum.
As I always do in these cases, when resentful righties rear their paranoid heads, whether it be over their self-hatred over their sexual proclivities or for an establishment that never accepted them as journalists (ahem...Bill), I send you to the work of Richard Hofstadter: The Paranoid Style In American Politics. An excerpt:
It had been around a long time before the Radical Right discovered it—and its targets have ranged from “the international bankers” to Masons, Jesuits, and munitions makers.Read the whole thing. You'll find Mr. O'Reilly and Ms. Bruce popping out of his descriptions more times than an email can disappear from Karl Rove's Outlook.
American politics has often been an arena for angry minds. In recent years we have seen angry minds at work mainly among extreme right-wingers, who have now demonstrated in the Goldwater movement how much political leverage can be got out of the animosities and passions of a small minority. But behind this I believe there is a style of mind that is far from new and that is not necessarily right-wind. I call it the paranoid style simply because no other word adequately evokes the sense of heated exaggeration, suspiciousness, and conspiratorial fantasy that I have in mind. In using the expression “paranoid style” I am not speaking in a clinical sense, but borrowing a clinical term for other purposes. I have neither the competence nor the desire to classify any figures of the past or present as certifiable lunatics., In fact, the idea of the paranoid style as a force in politics would have little contemporary relevance or historical value if it were applied only to men with profoundly disturbed minds. It is the use of paranoid modes of expression by more or less normal people that makes the phenomenon significant.
Of course this term is pejorative, and it is meant to be; the paranoid style has a greater affinity for bad causes than good. But nothing really prevents a sound program or demand from being advocated in the paranoid style. Style has more to do with the way in which ideas are believed than with the truth or falsity of their content. I am interested here in getting at our political psychology through our political rhetoric. The paranoid style is an old and recurrent phenomenon in our public life which has been frequently linked with movements of suspicious discontent.