Limbaugh and Beck Subvert Our Democracy.

If you know me personally (or read this blog regularly), then you're no doubt aware of my distinctly masochistic practice of listening to talk radio. I'm usually doing so while I'm in my car eating an unhealthy lunch. The combination threatens a fearsome assault on my digestive system. Still I make this sacrifice so that I can hear viewpoints and perspectives that I would not encounter otherwise. I never go so far as watching these talking heads on television- I could not bear their smug expressions as they justify and defend actions and positions that have destroyed our economy and made us the most hated nation on Earth. Yet they provide talking points for a large proportion of our society, so it's often useful to keep tabs on them.

Naturally the looming presidential election has brought out some of the worst behavior that these hacks are capable of displaying. Michael Savage spews his hate-mongering rants in vile streams of lying filth. Sean Hannity excretes his self-satisfying belch of populist pandering. Neil Boortz and Michelle Malkin peddle their FOX-news inspired drivel. But these are only the minor characters in the pathetic pantheon of 'conservative' talk. The key perpetrators of this insidious cult of the status quo are Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck. They are particularly dangerous because their listeners invest in them a certain authority that extends past their actual worth. They market themselves more as educators than entertainers.

Of course Limbaugh is the pioneer of this particular cult. He blazed a trail of self-righteous hypocrisy throughout the 90's and has actually achieved an unearned respect as a legitimate political commentator. He is utterly convinced of the authority of his opinions, to the point that he publicizes himself as the benefactor of a god-given wisdom and prescience. However his actual agenda is exposed by his dishonest tactics. His program has been running what he refers to as "Operation Chaos", which is meant to throw the Democratic Primary process into disarray by convincing large blocs of Republican voters to switch their party membership, and thereby sabotage Barack Obama's bid for the nomination. Like most right wing strategists he is convinced that Clinton is unelectable, and thus the GOP's preferred opponent.

The amount of success Limbaugh's tactics have actually achieved can't be accurately determined. The pill-popping fat-man himself claims to have redirected 160,000 Republicans in PA alone. Much of this number is no doubt inflated by his own ego, but it's not beyond possibility that Operation Chaos has made it's mark. While the game Limbaugh is playing undermines the democracy of our electoral system, it is definitively not illegal. The same cannot be said about what Glenn Beck and his cronies perpetrated on the day of the PA primary. He made fake campaign ads for Obama and Clinton, in which he had them slandering each other in crassly negative ways. These 'ads' were an abomination, but in and of themselves not against the law.

Where Beck and Co. crossed the line was in tacking on the prerecorded candidate approval statements (in their actual voices, cribbed from legitimate ads) at the end of the fake 'ads'. That was an obvious crime, constituting blatant election fraud. Had a listener tuned in while those messages were playing, he/she would have been convinced that the Obama and Clinton campaigns produced and endorsed those messages. This type of manipulation is not only reprehensible, but completely unacceptable under current campaign laws. Even though I personally filed a complaint with the F.C.C, I have little hope that satisfaction will be forthcoming. That board is (after all) under the control of the Bush administration. The integrity of our 'democracy' is under assault, as usual.

Who Said Conservatives Can't Dance?

Today is "Super Tuesday", and let's say that (for the sake of argument) John McCain has pulled away from Mitt Romney and pretty much clinched the GOP nomination for the 2008 presidential race. Imagine that you are one of the many conservative talk radio hosts who have made it a point to consistently denigrate McCain to the point that you would look like a complete hypocrite if you turned around and embraced him now that he has proven successful. What do you do? What can you do? Surely you view yourself as a perception-maker, and desperately want to remain relevant for the next 9 months... at least until the Supreme Court has anointed the next Commander-in-Chief. Your pick has already dropped from the race, and now you face the prospect of holding your nose and praising the fart that you had hoped would float away quickly.

These guys (and by "guys" I'm talking about people like Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, et al.) look even worse than they usually do. I listened to Beck this morning, and he was trying to explain why he now supports Mitt Romney's candidacy. His boy Duncan Hunter was a no-show at the very start, and so he's already descended his own personal ladder of preference. He says he has three criteria for investing his support: 1. The politician has to be honest. (Which of course is impossible for a major party politician); 2. They have to support the Iraqi War. (Which every Republican candidate besides Ron Paul has); and 3. They have to be fanatical about keeping Mexicans out of the country. This last issue narrows the field to one, as Huckabee and McCain have managed to keep one foot on both sides of the debate.

Beck claims to be unsettled by McCain's record of "flip-flopping". He cites some of the points that I have talked about in this very blog (like Bush's tax cuts, Jerry Falwell, etc.), but he adds to that list McCain's wavering stance in opposition to abortion. Apparently he has changed his mind about overthrowing Roe Vs. Wade. Indeed it seems accurate to claim that McCain is pandering to social conservatives by becoming suddenly outspoken about a ban on "baby-killing". Yet what makes this so amusing is that Beck's-boy Mitt Romney used to be pro-choice, as recently as 2004. In addition Glenn Beck's new paramour also flip-flopped on gay rights, gun control and immigration... only recently coming around to his current positions in order to court the base conservative constituency. It would seem to be in Beck's best interest to pick something other than inconsistency with which to attack McCain. But it seems like Beck is just following the lead of the candidates themselves, who are in a contest to prove who is the biggest waffler.

Of course Glenn Beck has an answer to all of this. He has adopted the use of the term "pivot point" to describe a fundamental change in attitude or belief that alters one's political or philosophical positions. In fact he tends to overuse it a bit, employing the words in almost every single interview he conducts. This is simply another example of political hacks appropriating new verbiage to either rehabilitate or condemn a particular idea or behavior. When a Democrat (or in this case a "Republican-In-Name-Only") changes his mind- then he is a weak and untrustworthy waffler. On the other hand, if a preferred candidate has a similar alteration in stated values- then he has undergone some meaningful revelation of profound significance, and is now a better man for it.

It's going to be awfully entertaining to see Republicans across the conservative spectrum flounder about trying to justify the inconsistencies (hypocrisy?) of their particular favorites. What makes it especially amusing will be watching it in light of the severe criticism they directed at John Kerry during the 2004 election. Even more fun will be had as the pundits themselves try to strain and twist, in order to accommodate their newfound respect for whatever GOP hopeful eventually gets the nod. One might think that the political party that claims to venerate consistency in values across time would reject the type of expediency required to transfer loyalties at the drop of a hat (or candidate). Although one might hope that the exposure of such frauds would lead to a subsequent drop in ratings, someone was on to something when he/she warned that the intelligence of the public is impossible to underestimate. Is anyone recording their rabid assaults now?

Rep. Keith Ellison and his recent comments.

The attack dogs on the right have targeted Congressional Representative Keith Ellison (D- Minn) for comments he made in a meeting last week. If you aren't familiar with Ellison, you should know that he is the first avowed Muslim ever to be elected to the United States House of Representatives. When his campaign was victorious in 2006, he faced a rash of suspicion and intolerance from pundits and wingnuts alike. This is unsurprising given the continual assault on our civil rights in the post 9-11, Bush era. Muslims are the new communists, slowly working behind the scenes to undermine our democracy. To get an idea about some of the irrational paranoia, read my previous post about the conservative attempts to and smear Barack Obama. There is no doubt that every word Ellison utters is somewhere being analyzed for hints of betrayal.

Frequent Limbaugh-pinch-hitter Glenn Beck told Ellison in a CNN-interview, "I have been nervous about this interview with you, because what I feel like saying is, 'Sir, prove to me that you are not working with our enemies.' " This was no surprise to anyone who had ever listened to Beck on AM radio. He is (or should be) infamous for suggesting that the razor wire is coming for Muslims who are not lining up to "shoot bad Muslims in the head." Now it should be pointed out (to his credit) that Beck added that such measures are "Nazi, World War II wrong". But his comments are especially ironic in light of the criticism over Ellison's recent speech to a small gathering of atheists in his home district of Minneapolis.

What Ellison actually did was compare the events of 9-11 to the Reichstag fires in 1930's Germany. For those who are unfamiliar with that event, it was the destruction of the German Parliament (the reichstag) that Hitler used to justify implementing emergency powers which allowed him to seize control over the country. Ellison was making a parallel between the erosion of rights during the rise of Nazi Germany and the current political atmosphere in the United States. He was quite specific about pointing out that he wasn't accusing the US government of planning the 9-11 tragedy. He knows damn well that any kind of suggestion of conspiracy will lead to his marginalization by the media. And it's important to note that he didn't directly compare Bush to Hitler, but rather referred to a specific event in history and its ramifications.

But the way Ellison's remarks have been portrayed on AM talk radio are entirely misleading. Kevin Miller of KDKA 1020 says that the Congressman should be sent to "the pokey" for "aid and comfort to our enemies". He is accusing Ellison of treason. How dare anyone suggest a historical analogy for modern events! Obviously that is not covered by our First Amendment's provision of "Free Speech". It makes one wonder what Bush means when he talks about our enemies and their hatred of "our freedoms". It's OK for Glenn Beck to invoke the spectre of Nazi Germany when he is delivering a veiled warning to our nation's Muslim citizens, but quite another for a public official to criticize the current Executive Department's similarities to dictatorships of the past. Instead of a thoughtful examination of Ellison's points, the radical right is attenpting to quell any meaningful discussion by calling for criminal charges against a member of the US Congress.

Perhaps Ellison was mistaken when he likened the current administration's actions to specific decisions made by Hitler prior to WWII. Maybe the invasion of Iraq, the unlawful surveillance of the communications between US citizens, the suspension of habeas corpus for those "suspected" of "terrorism", the torture of military detainees, government abuses sanctioned by the Patriot Act, etc. are more akin to a democratic system than they appear on the surface. It could be that our Founding Fathers would have liked to see the federal government's separation of powers and checks and balances suspended in times of an undefined and indeterminate war. But that's not my understanding of history.