Part 4—Saint Joan keeps us barefoot and clueless: In large part, we agree with something we read in Salon.
Can things like this be said at Salon? In a typically muddled piece designed to stir our liberal hate, Paul Rosenberg said something good about the racial attitudes of the American people:
ROSENBERG (5/1/14): [Donald] Sterling’s self-immolating drama vividly illustrates what the questions involve. It’s not just that Americans—unbeknownst to Sterling, Cliven Bundy and Limbaugh—have come to an overwhelming consensus that racism itself is evil, though that’s certainly enormously important in and of itself. But there’s also the additional factor of interpersonal depravity—psychopathy, if you will, which people are increasingly coming to see as significantly overrepresented in the 1 percent.Is that true? Have Americans “come to an overwhelming consensus that racism itself is evil?”
We wouldn’t go that far. And for the most part, we tend to stay away from the E-word altogether.
But we were pleased, and quite surprised, to see this statement at Salon, which more typically tries to claim that a ridiculous outlier like Bundy represents the American norm. (Just see our earlier post.)
All too often, Salon seems eager to fuel your hate—and to keep you barefoot and clueless. What is it like when we liberals got conned by our Fox-like leaders?
What’s it like when we got played? Consider what Joan Walsh did.
On Wednesday, April 23, Bundy shared his ridiculous thoughts about race in America. The next morning, Walsh swung into action, inventing various bogus claims about Rand Paul and pounding away at Sean Hannity.
Over the years, there’s been a great deal to pound away at Hannity about. The liberal world has done an extremely poor job confronting the reams of disinformation he has constantly spread.
On this particular day, Walsh was in her glory. She closed her piece with a bit of McCarthyism—and with the latest sign of her own wondrous good faith:
WALSH (4/24/14): Let’s face it: Paul’s been a better ally to Cliven Bundy than to the inner-city poor. I’m not saying he would endorse Bundy’s remarks about “Negroes”; he knows better than that. At least I think he does. But culturally and politically, he’s quicker to empathize with the lawbreaker in Nevada than those thugs in Chicago.In truth, Paul had done very little “empathizing with the law-breaker in Nevada,” although a range of pseudo-liberals (and mainstream reporters) took turns telling you different. Feeding bullshit to us rubes isn’t just for Fox anymore!
Here’s hoping that Rand Paul denounces Bundy’s remarks early Thursday. It won’t change the sad fact that way too many people who think like Paul politically think like Bundy racially.
I don’t expect Hannity to say a word about Bundy’s predictable descent into the muck of racism, but I’d love to be surprised.
In best McCarthyite fashion, Walsh said that “many people who think like Paul politically think like Bundy racially.” Then again, many people who think like Walsh journalistically have been involved in world history’s worst racial and ethnic slaughters!
Whatever! As she closed, our own emerging Saint Joan shared her greatness with us. She said she didn’t expect to see Hannity reject Bundy’s racial theses—but she’d love to be surprised!
The very next day, our emerging saint engaged in an act of self-abnegation.
On Thursday evening, Hannity had given Joan exactly what she wanted. Right at the start of his Fox News program, he denounced Bundy’s racial lunacy, just as Saint Joan had hoped:
HANNITY (4/24/14): And we kick things off tonight with reaction to some disturbing comments that are being attributed to Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy. Now, they appeared in today's New York Times and were made by Bundy in what the paper likened to a town hall meeting with supporters. Now, audio was recently posted of the alleged remarks on line. Take a listen.Saint Joan’s dreams were coming true! Hannity started the evening’s second segment like this:
[clips of Bundy’s racial remarks]
HANNITY: All right, allow me to make myself abundantly clear. I believe those comments are downright racist. They are repugnant. They are bigoted. And it's beyond disturbing. I find those comments to be deplorable, and I think it's extremely unfortunate that Cliven Bundy holds those views.
Now, while I supported the Bundy ranch as they took a stand against the Bureau of Land Management, I was absolutely dismayed and frankly disappointed after reading the article and then hearing the commentary.
HANNITY: And welcome back to Hannity. Now earlier, we told you about the disgraceful comments made by rancher Cliven Bundy. Now, Cliven addressed those racist remarks during a press conference today. Take a look:“It is racist what he said,” Webb declared. “And that he goes back and supports it proves that he’s an idiot.”
[clips of Bundy’s additional racial remarks]
HANNITY: Joining me now with reaction in studio, radio talk show host—and by the way, you fill in on this show—our good friend David Webb is here.
Saint Joan’s dream had come true! She didn’t think Hannity would “say a word about Bundy’s predictable descent into the muck of racism,” though she said she’d “love to be surprised.”
Well hallelujah! Hannity had gone on the air and denounced Bundy’s “disgraceful comments,” his “racist remarks!” Surely, Walsh was surprised—and pleased!
That’s where the saintly self-abnegation came in.
Every saint must be willing to deny herself worldly pleasure. On Friday, April 25, Walsh wrote about Hannity again, even discussing the previous evening’s program.
But how strange! Saint Joan never told her readers about the way Hannity had denounced Bundy’s “racist remarks.” Apparently, we the peasants who read Salon had no need to know!
We tend to agree with the gist of Rosenberg’s statement. By and large, we’re inclined to think that the bulk of the American people turned the corner on these matters quite a while ago.
No situation is perfect, of course. And no one will ever be quite as perfect as we the liberals are. But we tend to agree with what Rosenberg said, although we’d tone it down.
Have Americans “come to an overwhelming consensus that racism itself is evil?”
We wouldn’t be quite as dramatic as that. But on balance, we think most people are ready to continue moving into the all-American future. We think most people would like to be inspired and challenged about our all-American future rather than propagandized and taught to hate, the way we get taught at Salon.
Objectively, Walsh is a hater. She’s also a stone propagandist. That said, here’s the good news, the news you will never hear at Salon:
When it comes to the racial nonsense of Bundy and Sterling, it has been hard to distinguish the reactions of Hannity and O’Reilly from the reactions heard at MSNBC.
In particular, O’Reilly has savaged both men at considerable length. (He's also been scornful of Hannity for his initial reactions to Bundy.) But you will never be told that fact by the hustlers and saints at Salon.
In our next post, we’ll post extended excerpts of what the two Fox hosts have said. Their comments have been fascinating—but saints like Walsh will work quite hard to keep you from hearing about them.
In our view, saints like Walsh are bad for the common good. We would assume that they’re also bad for progressive interests.
(In fairness, saints like Walsh are probably good for the corporate bottom line. Not that she cares about that!)
To judge from appearances, Saint Joan Walsh has hustled us rubes every step of the way. This dates back to the days when she covered for the horrible conduct of her owner, Chris Matthews.
Now, the corporate mission has changed at MSNBC and at Salon. Walsh and Matthews have changed along with it.
Real progressives should spit in the street when Our Own Saint Joan strolls by. Last week, our own emerging saint was keeping us barefoot and clueless.
Walsh was openly playing her readers. At Salon, we fiery liberals swallow this bullshit whole.
Next post: Extended excerpts of the material you’ll never read at Salon