Another thing some folks have missed.

The attack on Cheney killed 23 people. Unless this just wasn't covered, Cheney made no mention whatsoever of those 23 people who died in his place.

That's a lot more obscene than the rantings of anonymous posters on a BBS.

The vice president of the United States seems not to be concerned at all that 23 people were killed close by.

Which, of course, is in keeping with Laura Bush's recent remark about that one car bomb a day that spoils all the fun in Iraq.

The selective outrage coming from the right is appalling.

marfrks is absolutely right:

One of the most remarkable things about the rise of the conservative media is the success of the strategy of attacking strength, despite the obvious, staggering hypocrisy of such attacks....

Malkin and Kurtz' attack is on this same pattern, I believe, and the strength that they are trying to neutralize is precisely the fact that a core value of liberalism is reasoned and civil discourse.

Not only do they experience the joys of projection--putting any random scraps of guilt they may sill yet feel onto the self-same liberals they wish dead, but they also directly attack the very essence of liberalism.

We might well call such a maneuver a super-lie, an ultra-lie or a meta-lie.

It's significant enough that we should hold a contest to decide on the best label for it.

From the specific to the general:

A number of Japanese men commit a crime; therefore all Japanese men are criminals

A number of students make an F in class; therefore all students are failures

19 men mostly from Saudi Arabia run planes into buildings; therefore Iraqi’s must die. (Never mind, that one is taken)

Paul and marfrks – this is a fascinating analysis of the right-wing technique … neutralize your opponent by attacking their strength and virtues as not being “strong” enough. This seems to be the crux of our difficulty in fighting back, and our getting apoplectic when confronted with it (and the media piling on). What is needed is a neutralizing tactic of our own for responding to such attacks, and also then a way to go on the offensive. Then again, turning the tables and using this on the neocons wouldn’t work – they have no strengths or integrity. But in all seriousness, the best way to turn it around I would think would be to reaffirm that the attackers are validating our strength with such weak attacks, though that is not as sexy to the press to report as the initial assaults themselves. What to do ….

I will promise to spend 35-cents, 3X-a-week, if Danna Priest and Anne Hall (hint) (Wash/Po/NYT/WSJ etc) do daily reporting as the Press should. That's over a dollar plus a real/non-plug nickle per week from me. Those ladies got my respect.

Zippy the pinhead is worth 35 cents. Helga the Horrible wanted to change jobs from Viking to a CEO or 'internal Wall Street auditor' after spending time in in chains and stocks. Helga was tortured in a lower rendition dungeon, yesterday.

OT- Don't forget to feed the grey snow birds. The birds are extra friendly voyeurs these days. It's because spring is in the air. The first bloom of snop drops are here. That means wild skunk plant begins to bloom along the lower marsh lands. Real skunks will begin to travel at night. Watch. And don't drive over a skunk. Why are there never any skid marks in front of roadkill attorneys I've seen on rural roadside? (bad-joke...i don't have brakes in my truck. i use the parking breaks) I hate to see charred, squished, or slain bodies of all kinds.

Hidden within the Seymour Hersh's article, "Annals Of National Security," 'The Redirection'--a pencil sketch artist shows a bunch of law-folk-neocons acting very angry because Helen of Helga's started 'humming a new tune.' Bad lawyers got angry. Hint.

Also: A couple of boys in a (The New Yorker) cartoon were swinging on a playground swing, back and fort, back and fort, and wondering/muse'ing? "If you can work at NASA you and can still wear diapers," they thought aloud, "We can grow up to become an adult." "Why not fly to the moon by getting a job at NASA for a living?" hint.

marfrks, paul rosenberg and nick,

let me add my voice to those who see this technique as key to the success of the conservative movement in largely defusing debate.

I was first struck by the technique of pre-emptive projection during the first Bush/Gore debate, when Bush hit gold by mimicking Reagan and going all folksy and wagging his finger as he said "No fuzzy numbers." He then promptly provided the fuzziest and most dishonest numbers possible to misrepresent his tax cuts. The media bought it whole, analyzed the shit out of Gore's claims and ignored Bush's (by far the majority of my tax cuts go to those at the lower end of the income scale.) Who could expect him to understand his own errors anyway. Having noticed this m.o. (at the time I thought of it as a policy of 'accuse the opponent of doing whatever it is you intend to do') it soon became apparent that this was a conscious and highly effective strategy.

The Florida recount was a triumph of this. James Baker announced that people couldn't be trusted to count votes, because they were partisan and dishonest. Machines you can trust, but volunteers? They must have a hidden agenda. Meanwhile Republican party operatives were being shipped in to pose as 'grass roots' protesters and harrass and disrupt the vote counts. Nothing new or uniquely republican about hardball vote manipulation. What was unique was the coordinated assault on the truth that accompanied it. As the Republicans actively worked to prevent a proper counting of all the votes, they loudly attacked the Democrats for trying to prevent military votes from being counted. As they actively tried to prevent an actual tally of who won Florida, they accused Gore of trying to use the courts to get a dishonest result.

Maybe the best term for this particularly venal brand of politics is really "Swiftboating", since that was perhaps the most absurd example of turning reality upside down. Whatever yout think of John Kerry, to suggest he's not a combat vet or that his medals are phony is to suggest that all wounded vets may be liars and any medals given may be bogus. We support the troops by attacking them for their service. Those who served are obviously self-loathing.

The rules are simple. Whatever I am about to do that is not acceptable, I accuse you of doing. Whatever I am that I am ashamed of, I accuse you of being. Whatever I do not have has no value, whatever you do not have is what is essential. Rinse and repeat ad nauseum.