Andrew Breitbart in lead at the Summer's Eve invitational

Always up for a challenge, when Right-wing blogger raving, utterly discredited, con-man Andrew Breitbart found himself with the opportunity to face Sarah Palin in a contest to see which one of them could cram his/her foot further into his/her mendacious, truth-averse pie-hole, he didn't flinch.  Even when the Quitter led off by responding to the recent assassination-spawned controversy over her militant rhetoric and gunsight imagery by not merely playing the victim, herself, but by invoking the anti-Semitic smear of "blood libel" to do it, Andy knew he could still do better.  Summoning heretofore unseen levels of tone-deafness, staggering ignorance, and the most casually exploitative view of other people's pain and human suffering, he took to his Twitter account and went straight-up Kobayashi in this competitive eating contest of moronitude (h/t Feministe):

"I used ‘blood libel’ because I thought using analogy of lefties at pinball machine in Jodie Foster film ‘The Accused’ was too obscure."

Now, to clear up the "obscurity": The Accused earned Ms. Foster an Oscar for her portrayal of a woman who was--wait for it--thrown up against a pinball machine, beaten, and gang-raped by a bunch of drunks.  (Such a wit, that Andy; always ready with the perfect 160 character bòn mót.)  Because, really, when you think about it, what could be more similar to violent sexual assault than having people criticize your choice of words as having a negative effect and suggest that you tone it down a bit?

My question is this: If Mr. Breitbart is of the opinion that what Sarah Palin has gone through is on par with rape, exactly what does he think about what happened to Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, or Judge John Roll, or Christina Taylor Green?  If questions that one can parry with safe, one-sided, unchallenged video releases are akin to a fundamental violation of one's body and dignity, what analogy would he use for what the nine year-old Green's parents and family are now going through?

At least Mr. Breitbart has answered the riddle of where he comes up with his views and provided the solution in an equally cinematic bit of framing: the As Good As It Gets rule: You think of a man...and take away reason, accountability, and every last shred of human decency.

Sarah, Sharon, & the Shooter

Remember, "Don't retreat, RELOAD:"



And who can forget:

"I hope that's not where we're going, but, you know, if this Congress keeps going the way it is, people are really looking toward those Second Amendment remedies and saying my goodness what can we do to turn this country around? I'll tell you the first thing we need to do is take Harry Reid out."

or

"Well it's to defend ourselves. And you know, I'm hoping that we're not getting to Second Amendment remedies. I hope the vote will be the cure for the Harry Reid problems."

And if it's not, Sharon?

Those individuals--like noted Red State turd-in-chief Erick Erickson--who are now bristling at the the notion of teabagger rhetoric being discussed in the context of yesterday's atrocity in Tuscon or claiming progressives are "playing politics" are, as is so often the case, missing the point, entirely.

None of this is about "political advantage." It's frustration at the possibility that this tragedy was foreseeable and perhaps avoidable.

You tell people long enough, not that your ideas are better, but that your opponents hate America and are actively trying to destroy it, accuse them of "palling around with terrorists" and sympathizing with dictators and despots and lie about people wanting to take your rights and put grandma to death, it's going to have an effect. If you further stoke those fears with aggressive, militant rhetoric and talk of "second amendment remedies," it doesn't take a genius to see what can happen. Unequivocally, the responsibility lies with the shooter, but the hysterical climate is a contributing influence.

Pretending that one of the clear sources of this rage-filled, violent milieu is just some sort of inconsequential triviality transcends simple ignorance; it's a cowardly avoidance of accountability.

Jared Lee Loughner is clearly a nut who went around the bend. That said, how much easier is it to take that step when you have, not just other beady-eyed trolls on the internet reinforcing your paranoia, but mainstream political figures claiming that elected officials are conspiring to destroy the country, kill grandma, and planting the seeds for looking to bullets when you lose on the ballots?

Profiles in Turdage

Plum Line's Greg Sargent elicits George Stephanopoulos' response to criticism over his questioning the President about comments made by Sarah Palin that compared his nuclear policy to a child asking to be beaten up:

"Whatever you think of Sarah Palin, she’s a former VP candidate — and a potential challenger to President Obama — with a strong following in the GOP. She made a pointed critique of a new Presidential policy. By getting the President’s response, I was doing my job."

First of all, here's the "pointed critique" in question:

"It's kinda like getting out there on a playground, a bunch of kids, getting ready to fight, and one of the kids saying, 'Go ahead, punch me in the face and I'm not going to retaliate. Go ahead and do what you want to with me.'"

That is what Stephonopoulos, when finding himself in a one-on-one interview with the most powerful man in the world, decided to put on the short list of matters to be addressed.

Think about that:

It is Stephanopoulos' stated understanding that it is his job (as a "journalist," presumably) to solicit the President of the United States' response to what can be charitably described as an ignorant, juvenile attack from an individual with no background, whatsoever, on the policy issues at hand.

And the worst part is, he's probably right.

It is no longer the journalist's job to take a public figure's statements, see how they comport with objective facts, and follow up for an explanation if they fail to do so. The "journalist's" job is simply to pass claims along, uncritically, and, when given the opportunity (as Stephanopoulos was here) to effectively become one of the kids on Palin's imaginary playground, breathlessly sharing overheard insults in the hopes of instigating a fight.

Stephanopoulos--and Sargent, alike--justify this decision in the same, profoundly cowardly way: Palin is popular, therefore her views matter. No effort, whatsoever, is made to claim that this line of questioning was acceptable because she has relevant policy experience or even that her observation is correct, and for good reason: she doesn't and it's not.

While their "popular = newsworthy" argument might explain repeating Palin's childish attacks, it's the unspoken--but clearly evident--way that rule actually works in practice that's far more damaging: Popularity isn't just a standard, it's the only standard, utterly supplanting things like "accuracy." In the field of stenographic journalism, as practiced by Stephanopoulos and defended by Sargent, no matter how asinine or factually bereft the claim, it's presented as if it merits equal weight to the opposing view.

It's this shoulder-shrugging "What can you do? Some say this, some say that?" mentality and the resultant abdication of journalistic responsibility that keeps the decayed corpses of discredited zombie memes (Death Panels, Socialist takeovers, etc.) shambling their way through our public discourse.