Awesome Rhetorical Combat Between Chris Matthews and Ari Fleisher

The kind of clip that Harrogate has been given to understand is known as "Da's Turn" in the Solon household.

Lots to chew on here. Rhetorically speaking, from Harrogate's perspective this battle is a battle in two movements, with Matthews getting somewhat out-maneuvered in the first half (though it will surprise nobody that Harrogate still agreed with what Matthews was trying to argue), and with Matthews at least bringing things to a draw with Fleisher in the second half. Harrogate always said Ari Fleisher was a masterful shit-talker, and it is manifest here that once again, he's good with the demagoguery.

Mostly at stake on the level of substance is rehashing our entry into Iraq. But they also argue about other things that might make a few Situationers' and Readers' blood race, such as whether it is honest, and for that matter whether it is decent for the Bush people to keep bragging that we "didn't get hit again under Bush's watch."

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Britney Spears and Situational Rhetoric

Watching Bill O'Reilly last night, Harrogate learned about Britney's new song: "If You Seek Amy." Heh.

And a few Google searches since then shows that already, the song has the political Right screaming bloody murder. This is of course nothing compared to what is coming; it will not surprise Harrogate in the slightest if White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs winds up having to field questions about Spears' song.

Harrogate is no Libertarian, as ye all know, but he is enough of one to be a pure hater of the FCC--an organization which routinely winks at Media Consolidation but which remains angry at Janet Jackson and Justin Timberlake. Thus, it is not so much on the merits of artistry or cleverness, but rather due entirely to the Rhetorical Situation at hand, that Harrogate declares Spears' song positively delightful, and pledges to buy the record at the nearest possible opportunity.

Michelle Malkin Takes Issue With Oxymoron's Smug Dismissal of Joe the Plumber's Journalistic Credibility

Recently, Oxymoron caused quite a blogospheric firestorm with his giggly post about Joe the Plumber's new role as a reporter from the Gaza War front.


Oxymoron's post was the last straw for Michelle Malkin, who as Situationers have long known, is one of our most important public intellectuals. Today she releases a column, the title of which, Who's Afraid of Joe the Journalist, is clearly a taunt and a dare shot across Oxymoron's bow.

Among her many brilliant observations in this piece:

Joe Wurzelbacher, a.k.a. Joe the Plumber, is headed to Israel to interview ordinary citizens about life in the crosshairs of jihad. He'll be filing dispatches for conservative Internet video broadcasting site PJTV.com (to which I also contribute). Predictably, the very idea of a non-credentialed public figure attempting to "do journalism" has catty elite journalists hacking up hairballs.

But Joe the Plumber, Malkin points out, is representative of the remedy which our American journalistic discourse so desperately needs:

Groupthink, credential fetishism and the Sorbonne mentality have turned national newsrooms into stale echo chambers. For all its self-aggrandizing paeans to "diversity," mainstream American journalism remains one of the most intellectually and ideologically monochrome sectors of the public square.

Michelle Malkin. Opponent of Groupthink. Champion of Journalistic integrity. Woman for our Times.

Because Girls Blog Here, Too

Hi everyone. Megs here. Frequent reader, first-time poster. I'd like to nominate Supa's Mr. Noodle post. Because, well, it's not only gratifying to think about Harrogate's anger toward Mr. Noodle. It's also important to introduce the phrase "Mr. Noodle" into the dialogue.

I Heart Ben Affleck (and Keith Olberman)

"As you know, throughout this campaign, I have repeatedly called for Senator McCain's arrest." Awesome.

Assy McGee Award® for 10/20--Amanda Carpenter, Both Currently and Retroactively

First: Carpenter this evening, blogging on and on about the sadness of Tina Fey's life, when juxtaposed against the one and only Sarah Palin.

And here's Carpenter from Sunday the 19th, vociferously defending Rep. Michele Bachmann's performance on Matthews' Hardball, which Solon recently committed to the eternal Memories of Situationers everywhere. Snippets just won't do it justice. Really, ye have to read. the. thing. to. believe. it.

"Keep Talking": In Honor of Pink Floyd, Barack Obama, and a Media That Never Fell for McCain's Effort to Shut Up

Well, as ye all know by now, McCain will debate tonight in Mississippi. The link provided shows you how to spin these developments as evidence of McCain's heroism and leadership virtuosity. It seems McCain, whose level of expertise and gravitas on matters pertinent to this bailout, and to the economy generally, is clear to all Americans, was willing to "put politics aside" and "solve problems in a bipartisan manner," but Obama selfishly put his Presidential ambitions above eveything. That is the Spin you're going to see from the Right all day.

Still, it is a wonderful thing that the debate is on, regardless of how they spin it, and regardless of the outcomes. Harrogate therefore posts this song in honor both of Debate in Principle. And in Honor of Barack Obama. Because as Obama demonstrated in his strong response to McCain's FASCISTIC SUGGESTION that discourse be put off in the name of crisis management.

Yes, as he demonstrated in that response, one of Obama's best features is that he understands the life and death stakes of Talk.




Here are the lyrics to Pink Floyd's "Keep Talking"

For millions of years mankind lived just like the animals
Then something happened which unleashed the power of our imagination
We learned to talk

There's a silence surrounding me
I can't seem to think straight
I'll sit in the corner
No one can bother me
I think I should speak now
I can't seem to speak now
My words won't come out right
I feel like I'm drowning
I'm feeling weak now
But I can't show my weakness
I sometimes wonder
Where do we go from here

It doesn't have to be like this
All we need to do is make sure we keep talking

Why won't you talk to me
You never talk to me
What are you thinking
What are you feeling
Why won't you talk to me
You never talk to me
What are you thinking
Where do we go from here

It doesn't have to be like this
All we need to do is make sure we keep talking

Why won't you talk to me
You never talk to me
What are you thinking
What are you feeling
Why won't you talk to me
You never talk to me
What are you thinking
What are you feeling

I feel like I'm drowning
You know I can't breathe now
We're going nowhere
We're going nowhere

As Much as Harrogate Detests The Current Configuration Of Our Media......

He is still human. Does he not still bleed? Does he not feel the thorns of life? And verily, has he no sense of humor?

Because it is goddamned funny how MSNB has said "to hell with it, we're getting behind Obama the rest of the way, though we promise to be clumsy about it often, to the inadvertent detriment of the candidate we are supporting. Even Buchanan and Scarborough are going to come off, the rest of the way, as friendly old curmudgeons who just need more time around Rachel and Keith, and they might see the light yet." Etc.

Meanwhile FOX says, "whatever, duuuuude. You knew where we'd be the whole time."

Compare all this with the putridness of CNN as they continue to raise the brow and pretend to an above-it-all objecticity and journalistic integrity. But in reality, CNN runs mre fluff pieces, more human interest stories (heh), than the other two, and by a country mile.

FOX and MSNBC therefore win in terms of entertainment value. Flipping back and forth between them lately has been a real treat.

:-)

Vanity Fair's Response to the New Yorker; Or, Something To Do In Between Softball Games

This is Vanity Fair's current "cover", an overt parody of the now ubiquitously discussed New Yorker cartoon.

The editors write:

We here at Vanity Fair maintain a kind of affectionate rivalry with our downstairs neighbors at The New Yorker. We play softball every year, compete for some of the same stories, and share an elevator bank. (You can tell the ones who are headed to the 20th floor by their Brooklyn pallor and dog-eared paperbacks.)

And heaven knows we’ve published our share of scandalous images, on the cover and otherwise. So we’ve been watching the kerfuffle over last week’s New Yorker cover with a mixture of empathy and better-you-than-us relief.

One thing that's interesting about this, although nobody with any stroke at all outside of Ralph Nader would ever mention such a thing, is the idea of collusion between media outlets. Nay, did Harrogate say collusion? Better to say, when a small handful owns the whole shabang, you're gonna get the same tripe rolled out in slightly different packaging. When was the last time we were able to say the major television and print media did a legitimate service for the nation?

But those days are over. Once they got rid of who was by far the most liberal President in the post WWII Era, Richard Nixon (that's right, Tricky Dick), for being more overt about his criminality than other Presidents, that was pretty much it. From there on out it's been water-carrier city. Hello ditto-heads, and a carnivalesque homage about what a great servant ye were, when ye die. Etc.

But stay! lo and forsooth, enough of such things that Readers don't care about, and to the Cover itself.

Jeralyn at TalkLeft writes of the cover:

I think the VF cartoon is much gentler and less offensive than the New Yorker cartoon.

Also, the McCain cartoon has more truths: John McCain is old, Cindy McCain did have a love affair with pills (even though in the cartoon the pills she is holding are for her husband) and McCain does admire George Bush.

What would you have added to the McCain cartoon to clearly represent the "politics of fear"?

Well. Harrogate is going to, as someone said in Office Space, "GO AHEAD and disagree" with her premise. After all, there really isn't that much you can make up about McCain that is harsher than the truth of what he represents.

But soft! What's that? Jeralyn's deeper premise is right, though? Does Vanity Fair really have the gall to treat the burning Constitution as a caricature, after all we've already seen?

Okay, to Jeralyn's last question, Harrogate will answer. In truth they should have depicted, on a War Room type screen, an image of a huge crowd about to be landed upon by a nuclear warhead. Or, to make the same point, simply a picture next to the one of Bush, except this one depicting McCain having lunch and laughing it up with William Kristol.

But then, how far off would those images have really been?