at the "the Republicans were better at "spin" line.

Yes, like when Karl Rove boasted that mainstream outlets like Meet The Press were great for him, where Rovian White House propaganda would be given a platform without much questioning, or the New York Times Judith Miller bolstered the Bush case for invading Iraq by turning the NYT into a White House school paper.

Yes, the first step of being better at spin is to pretty much control the media outlets that will be choosing which side to report.

The rest is easy.

- the republican don't have to spin -it is the reality.

I think you should write the next "Ask The Wingnut" column.

You've summarized the philosophy perfectly.

Perfect.

And Karl Rove absolutely has to be the Cheshire Cat, vanishing slowly, until only his bile remained.

That was one of the funniest and most spot-on articles I've read in a long time. Thank you.

I wanted to reassure you, however, whereever you may be (I like to think somewhere with Swift, Thurber, Dorothy Parker and Kurt Vonnegut, just to name a few) that Camille Paglia isn't taken seriously in New York intellectual circles anymore-- not that she ever was in any real way, but even her flash in the pan has long ago burned up all its Crisco. Long ago, certainly not long after you wrote this takedown in 1991.

The only place that Camille Paglia is taken seriously (aside from extreme right wing shock radio, they love her) is at Salon.

No one can figure out why.

No, it doesn't say much about Salon. Go figure.

If it weren't for Greenwald, well, it's become a cliche by now. Personally, I'd add Tom Tomorrow too.

I heard that there are at least that many Republicans in the House also.

Considering that this Rassmusen poll (click sig) shows that a considerably higher percentage of Americans approve of socialism than approve of Republicans at this point, I'd be more careful admitting I was a Republican than a socialist.

Not something you want to advertise right now, Republicanism, it tags you as one of the last remaining crazies. I mean if they want to live that way, that's fine, but do they have to flaunt it openly?

I'd be good money if you asked them "What is a socialist?" they couldn't answer with a description of any kind (let alone a factually correct or historically correct definition).... I'm sure they're (rightly or wrongly) far more worried about terrorists, illegal immigrants, and abortionists.

I think the scary terms are somewhat interchangeable to people like this congress member and other hysterics. Commie, fascist, terrorist, whatever.

Lest anyone think this is just some accusation against uneducated masses, think again, Jonah Goldberg wrote an entire book about not knowing what the terms he used actually mean. The hysterical right wing habit of just yelling any insult you think of interchangeably with the next was at that point sanctioned as a tactic of even the "intellectuals" of the right.

If you live abroad for a while during the Bush Presidency and experience people lumping you in with all of the Americans who elected him ("Well, your country DID elect him!") it goes a long way toward understanding how Southerners on Salon or other somewhat progressive sites feel.

That's what really brought it home for me, anyway. "Oh, this must be how people from Texas feel, the ones who didn't vote for Bush." I'd think.

I say "somewhat progressive" because I'm really not sure about Salon these days. Or ever, really, considering that Camille Pagila has been presented here for ages. However you get the point.

I really cannot understand why these so-called "teabaggers" are so upset about the fact that New York raised taxes on people with incomes of greater than $250,000 - perhaps the top 1% (maybe) of New Yorkers. Did you make $250,000 last year, or ever in your lifetime?

No, but the people who are the voices stirring up all that emotion and outrage do. As in Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and so on.

It's simple really, the whole map: Multi-millionaries use working and middle class people by convincing them that the multi-millionaires' concerns are their concerns, it's the history of the Republican party for the last few decades. It was done by stirring up fear about social issues (that the rich Republicans really couldn't care less about in truth) and now more focused on convincing them that their taxes will be oppressively raised, when in fact it's the people doing all the rabble rousing who are among the tiny percentage who would even be affected.

Bill O'Reilly, Lou Dobbs, yep they might pay a little more. Convincing their listeners that millionaires like them paying as much as they did eight years ago is a dire cause worth destroying the country for is a neat trick.

I don't go for screens at all. I never understood what was wrong with a good old typewriter, why I'm using one now. I just send the hard copy to someone who retypes it into the Internet-sending-machine...

Okay, I'm teasing. But I mean, good luck with this one, don't like to touch screens because it might make them smudgy?? You can wipe them off you know. Micofibers work wonderfully. I actually like cleaning my iPhone screen.

My point really is just that when you look at the popularity of the iPhone right now, turning "I want to stay with an old technology" into "the new technology sucks and is doomed" is a bit of a stretch, no?

-sent from my stone tablet