In today’s Ricochet podcast, (and welcome back to the Blogosphere, Mark Steyn!) when the Ricochetistas weren’t discussing modern-day dam busters (hmm…that topic rings a bell for some reason), the gang explored Hollywood’s rich fantasy life when it comes to building the perfect president. As they noted, 1997’s Air Force One was particularly fascinating in that department. Hollywood imagined the president as a 50-something tough-on-terror Vietnam-era vet extremely comfortable behind the controls of a modern day jet aircraft — and then threw an eight year hissy fit when voters elected just such a man three years later.
Or did they?
Perhaps not according to Newsweek, who last year, gave us an imaginary look at President Al Gore’s kick-ass eight years in office. In yesterday’s New York Times, David Brooks proffered the logical follow-up — an imaginary alternate history of his successor’s first glorious eighteen months in the oval office.
Then there’s wacky far left Florida Congressman/wannabe MSNBC host Alan Grayson, who blurts that the participants at Glenn Beck’s rally last weekend were KKK members 25 years ago. Setting aside the Klan’s historic allegiance to Beck’s bete noire, as Allahpundit jokes, “I was a bit young at the time so I can’t be sure, but was the Klan really some major force in … 1985?”
Meanwhile, linking to an post debunking “Errors In Jane Mayer’s New Yorker Article Attacking the Kochs,” the Professor adds:
The thing to understand is, this article isn’t about the Kochs at all. It’s about preparing a narrative for the New Yorker’s readers about why Obama has failed. It’s not because they were rubes who voted for an underprepared, under-skilled candidate who then proceeded to alienate the electorate. It’s because Obama was beaten by a right-wing billionaires’ conspiracy so vast as to defy understanding. That’s all. Relax, New Yorker readers. No need to feel bad about yourself for being overwhelmed with hope-and-change fever and voting stupidly. It’s not your fault. It never is!
Hey, it’s not easy living amongst the tiny mummies.
Finally, there’s this, via Jim Treacher:
Yesterday, [Sarah Palin] was on Sean Hannity’s radio show and said this about the [Vanity Fair] story:
“Impotent, limp and gutless reporters take anonymous sources and cite them as being factual references. It just slays me because it’s so absolutely clear what the state of yellow journalism is today that they would take these anonymous sources as fact.”
Whoa. Criticize the media all you want, Sarah, but what’s with the gay-bashing? That’s right, I said gay-bashing. Just ask The Advocate:
Is Sarah Palin using code words to slam gay journalist Michael Joseph Gross, a frequent Advocate contributor who wrote the much-buzzed-about profile of the former vice presidential nominee in this month’s Vanity Fair?
Palin didn’t mention Gross by name while talking Thursday on Sean Hannity’s WABC radio show, but she seemed to be referring to the article — and pointedly used emasculating words that have long been used as euphemisms for homosexuality — when she called reporters who publish “rumors” about her “impotent,” “limp,” and “gutless.”
Now, everybody knows I love The Advocate (which I read for the articles), but if you’re gay and you think “impotent” and “limp” are words that people use to describe your sexual activity, well… maybe you guys aren’t having as much fun as we all thought.
Heh.™ Clearly, for the left (and whatever ideology Brooks considers himself a part of these days), a little projection can be a dangerous thing.
Related: Jennifer Rubin links to Brooks’ Fantasy Land Obama and compares it to the Star Trek mirror universe — which I suppose would be where Thomas Friedman would love to reside — and writes:
This says something about the pundits who believed they were getting un-Obama. They were impressed with image and with pants, but failed to comprehend what Obama was all about. They painted an un-Obama vision — moderate, responsible, evidence-based, unifying. The list could go on. All ludicrously off-base, except in some alternate reality. (Like the Star Trek episode where Spock had a beard.)
Moreover, the real “alternate history” would have to include this:
The mainstream media and liberal pundits – who had been derided by conservative critics as out of touch or as actively engaged in a conspiracy to present a pleasing but false image of Obama – were vindicated. The liberal print media and broadcast news networks enjoyed newfound credibility. The conservative pundits were thoroughly discredited. The New York Times, basking in the glow of its reaffirmation as the “newspaper of record,” saw a dramatic improvement in its balance sheet. Meanwhile, Fox News closed its doors, the blogosphere shriveled, the conservative activists hid under their beds, and the center-left coalition cemented its gains in the 2010 midterm elections.
Yeah, no resemblance to reality. Whatsoever.
And that’s precisely the fantasy word the left tried to cocoon themselves in during the first half of 2009 — and as we saw on MSNBC, had endless hissy fits declaring virtually the entire planet as racist when the rest of us wouldn’t bury our heads in the cocoon.
Meanwhile, at the Weekly Standard, this seems very much related to the much more recent fantasies above: Michael Weiss explores some of the reasons why historically, the left have been so quick to be useful idiots to totalitarian regimes.