Am I correct in theorizing that the key conduit for a shocking amount of these stupid, fact-free arguments is Politico? I’m not saying that their correspondents are stupid; they work like maniacs and get scoops like clockwork. But sometimes you get the feeling they’ll write about anything. Ed Schultz accuses Palin of using “rhetorical dog whistles” in the term “Blood Libel,” and Abracadabra! A 650-word piece examining the theory that Palin used a term most familiar to Jewish historians who focus on European anti-Semitism to send some sort of coded signal to evangelical Christians. Next week, Schultz (or Olbermann, or Maddow, or O’Donnell) will offer some other theory suggesting sinister motive behind Palin’s words and actions. Why is this news? Why is this surprising? Why is this worth the attention of Politico readers?
Because it has Palin in the headline, I suspect; I see the traffic numbers that a good item about Palin can generate. To illustrate this phenomenon, tonight I randomly thought about Palin’s TLC show, and chuckled at how only she could have attracted an audience for a family reality show/travel documentary about her home state. Go ahead, try this with any other GOP contender:
“On TLC tonight . . . Mitch Daniels’ Indiana.”
“On TLC tonight . . . you won’t want to miss . . . Tim Pawlenty’s Minnesota.”
“This evening, join us for a very special . . . Mitt Romney’s Massachusetts and/or New Hampshire, which is his legal residence, and/or Michigan, where he has his roots, and/or Utah, where he saved the Winter Olympics, and/or . . .”
Maybe some folks would watch “Mike Huckabee’s Arkansas.”
He won’t run, but I would watch “Chris Christie’s New Jersey.” I foresee a lot of overlap with “Diners, Dives, and Drive-Ins.”