Friedersdorf, addressing the Sage of Wasilla directly:
Do you think the money of rank and file conservatives is well spent building your personal brand? Why should anyone trust you as a steward of their money again? Did you think you'd get away with this just because the conservative media is curiously silent when popular movement figures shamelessly fleece the rank and file?It's that last one that's the key, isn't it? Palin is only perhaps the most obvious, and perhaps the most shameless, of a long series of people who treat conservatives as easy marks. Yes, there's some of that on the other side, but really there's just not much. Well -- someone, perhaps it's my brother but I don't really remember, makes the case that it's just a matter of people serving different markets, with liberals very willing to fork money over to those who make them feel good about Taking the Issues Seriously and other highfalutin things. In other words, that people on both sides are easy marks, but just that they demand different things. Perhaps so, but if what you demand of snake oil is that it looks and feels and works like real medicine, then I'm not sure you're really buying snake oil. Unless you're able to persuade me that all liberals care about is the "looks and feels" part of it.
Still, it certainly does seem to me that there's just an enormous market out there willing to be exploited by fraudulent "conservative" hucksters, and as Friedersdorf says essentially no effort from anyone within the Republican network to do anything about it.
And: nice catch!
Posts
My impression of a Sarah PAC donor isn't somebody concerned with other candidates or fresh ideas, just somebody who wants to see more Sarah. Otherwise, the donor would probably choose a different PAC. She's just giving her audience what it wants. I see nothing dishonest here.
ReplyDeleteSo Sarah Palin, erstwhile ringleader of the Republican circus, is savaged by a documentary on HBO. In order to protect her brand, perhaps for a future national political run, maybe just for her Fox gig, her machine puts out a rebuttal at a staggering cost of nineteen thousand dollars.
ReplyDeleteThey didn't just spend a sawbuck or a c-note, no. That's 1.9 million pennies, for gosh sake! You could fill up a lot of jars with that many pennies, my aunt would say.
Seriously folks, considering the vast motherlode of ways to take shots at Palin, the fact that the zeitgeist has settled on a narrative reminiscent of this famous scene, well, that's just incredibly unimpressive.
If the $19,000 video were the whole story, I'd agree, but there is more to it than that. It's the question of taking in $388,000 (in itself, not a particularly impressive haul) and spending $418,000 with none of it going to any candidates. In this case, I might cede another point. The reporting period is three months, and the electoral season, of course, is longer. She may not be interested in playing off one Republican against another in the primaries and could be setting up some sort of mechanism that will pay off later in the general election. I'm skeptical, but I'll allow that it's a theoretical possibility. Still, in the end, I'd think she has to do more than promote herself as a non-candidate to justify using the superPAC donations. (As soon as I say that, however, it strikes me that I'm not sure how demanding the superPAC rules are in that or any other regard. Any help here, JB?)
DeleteShe sees the PAC as her fan club. If fans want to send her stuff to make her happy (money, in this case), it's just fine. She is just a celebrity now.
ReplyDeleteCan I pose a challenge to you, Jonathan? Any time you feel tempted to say "both sides do it" please provide a specific, documented example of a liberal or Democrat doing it.
ReplyDeleteI think that most of Olbermann's career comes very close. I'd also say that a good chunk of Michael Moore's appeal qualifies. I don't know...I said "some of that...not much." I'm pretty comfortable with that.
DeleteOlbermann has a PAC?
DeletePivoting off the Michael Moore example, check out this documentary from a couple of (ostensibly commie Canadian) documentarians. Moore's breakout film of course was "Roger and Me", about Moore's apparently fruitless quest to get a word with the CEO of GM, though the linked documentary reveals that in real life Smith actually chatted with Moore for several minutes. Footage of that conversation ended up on the cutting room floor. I'd say that counts.
DeleteOr Sicko: remember that scene where the first responders met with a Cuban GP for 15 minutes, receiving a laughably inadequate script for an inhaler or something? How many American liberals watched that scene and tsk-tsked that if only the American health care system were more like the Cuban one? Example number 2.
Moore example only seems relevant if we're discussing activist entertainers. Palin is ostensibly a politician; even if she's really an entertainer/partisan personality, she sees part of her role as avowing that she's has been and could continue holding or running for office. Moore not so much, if at all, unless I'm overlooking some very minor period in which he plausibly flirted with beginning a political campaign for office or funding other politicians in a formal way.
DeleteI've only seen one Moore documentary in full, F9/11, and watching it was a strange experience for me, because I don't know if I've ever felt a bigger gulf between my agreement with a film's conclusions and how dishonestly I felt the film was arguing them. It wasn't even good propaganda: it's striking that a polemic against the most poorly justified war in American history would have no more than one, offhanded reference to WMDs.
DeleteI admit I did enjoy his Alan Keyes/RATM stunt in 2000, and his 60 Minutes piece on Westboro Baptist Church. But those weren't exactly difficult targets.
The hypothesis about "people serving different markets," which came from your brother, you say, or possibly someone else, is interesting. It sort of pushes the question back a degree further, however. Because at least a generation ago it seemed like supporters of the right had a set of clear goals that they were ambitious about achieving. Why have those supporters gradually become less careful about sending their money to competent rightwing figures? Now this may be an illusion. But the hypothesis implies that something has caused rightwing people to become increasingly content with expressive outrage/entertainment, not plausible followthrough, less inclined to care enough to differentiate.
ReplyDeleteAl Sharpton is more impervious to reality and more liberal than even Moore. He siphons cash from his supporters while selling hokum (Brawley, Mangum, etc.) and not admitting to error. Nevertheless, liberals (only liberals) still follow him and employ him as an MSNBC news talker.
ReplyDeleteHe's the face of liberalism.
You don't see Democrats nominating Al Sharpton for Vice President. That is because unlike Republicans, the Democrat's crazy wing doesn't run the national party.
DeleteJohn Edwards always seemed like a sociopath to me. I guess democrats are less-discerning.
DeleteSince you admit that Sharpton is a vile actor, you should tell Obama to quit inviting him to the WH and Holder to quit praising him so unabashedly.