... I heard Rush Limbaugh pose an interesting question on the radio (pre-Fairness-Doctrine). He wondered aloud where all that leftie hate is going to go. You know the hate he means, it’s the hate that was heaped on Pres. Bush for years, the hate that called him Hitler so often that the name Hitler eventually lost all meaning. You know the hate he means; it’s the same hate that drove liberal "progressives" to ridicule the name of the Palins’ (then-four-month-old) Downs Syndrome baby… within moments of the initial announcement that she would be on the Republican ticket.
Imagine a hate that extends to innocent infants. Infants with Downs Syndrome. Then imagine such a hatred were it to intensify… with not only billy clubs, but record funding and raw political power. Imagine the chances of such a force of evil being kept in check -- by a mesmerized and rapidly impoverished electorate, together with a compliant and obsequious media....
Rush thought of it first. It was not until a year later that the Left actively and admittedly sought a new target for their hate. Check this out, from the excellent investigative series on Media Matters accomplished by the Daily Caller (kudos to Tucker Carlson et al):
A little after 1 p.m. on Sept. 29, 2009, Karl Frisch emailed a memo to his bosses, Media Matters for America founder David Brock and president Eric Burns. In the first few lines, Frisch explained why Media Matters should launch a “Fox Fund” whose mission would be to attack the Fox News Channel.
“Simply put,” Frisch wrote, “the progressive movement is in need of an enemy. George W. Bush is gone. We really don’t have John McCain to kick around any more. Filling the lack of leadership on the right, Fox News has emerged as the central enemy and antagonist of the Obama administration, our Congressional majorities and the progressive movement as a whole.”
“We must take Fox News head-on in a well funded, presidential-style campaign to discredit and embarrass the network, making it illegitimate in the eyes of news consumers.”
What Frisch proceeded to suggest, however, went well beyond what legitimate presidential campaigns attempt. “We should hire private investigators to look into the personal lives of Fox News anchors, hosts, reporters, prominent contributors, senior network and corporate staff,” he wrote.
After that, Frisch argued, should come the legal assault: “We should look into contracting with a major law firm to study any available legal actions that can be taken against Fox News, from a class action law suit to defamation claims for those wronged by the network. I imagine this would be difficult but the right law firm is bound to find some legal ground for us to take action against the network.”
Frisch went on to call for “an elaborate shareholder campaign” against News Corporation, the parent company of Fox News: “This can take many forms, from a front group of shareholders, to passing resolutions at shareholder meetings or massive demonstrations are [sic] shareholder meetings.”
Given the leaky nature of electronic communications, it’s unusual to see the term “front group” used approvingly in office email. Yet Frisch continued: “We should also hire a team of trackers to stake out private and public events with Fox News anchors, hosts, reporters, prominent contributors and senior network/corporate staff.”
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. Contributions to political campaign funds or public statements of position (verbal or written) made on behalf of the organization in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public office clearly violate the prohibition against political campaign activity. Violating this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes.
... voter education ... with evidence of bias that (a) would favor one candidate over another; (b) oppose a candidate in some manner; or (c) have the effect of favoring a candidate or group of candidates, will constitute prohibited participation or intervention.
EXCLUSIVE: Media Matters sources, memos reveal erratic behavior,close coordination with Obama White House and news organizations