Last Friday when I began this blog series, I asked the question “When do we speak?” I maintain that for too long, Progressives have remained politely silent in the face of public challenges to our beliefs, our values, and our president. Today, I want to extend that argument by suggesting that the question that must define us for foreseeable future is “What do we say?”

“They had an enormous opportunity to bring about change and they failed, and I don’t say that harshly,” he said, adding: “They really are left-wing elitists and they really thought the country didn’t get it, and, therefore, it was their job to give the country the government that they thought the country needed, even if they didn’t want it.” – Newt Gringich, on the morning after the midterms in 1994

In Permanence and Change, Kenneth Burke introduces the idea that “motives are shorthand terms for situations.” When someone—say, a political commentator—names something as a “motive” for an outcome, what she or he is also doing is associating that motive with an outcome without discussing the complex mix of contributing factors, all of which add up to an understanding of the situation. The assumption is that the audience—let’s say voters—will fill in the details with what they already know. Or, as was the case last night, with what they didn’t care to know because it might have contradicted what they already believed, which was largely incorrect.

"There can be no liberty for a community

which lacks the means by which to detect lies."

— Walter Lippmann

One of my favorite writers, Timothy Egan, provides an eye-opening account of how Michelle Bachmann’s fiction about the $200 million cost of President Obama’s trip to Asia emerged within the non-reality based Fox community. IMHO, this piece of reporting is worthy of a repost and comment. Here is how “The Liar’s Club” circulated that particular fabrication:

“The $200 million figure originated in India, attributed to an anonymous foreign bureaucrat, and quickly went to the Drudge Report. On Fox and Rush Limbaugh’s radio rant, the absurdity that the United States would spend more on a presidential trip than the daily cost to prosecute the Afghanistan war quickly became gospel. Did these people ever call the White House or the Pentagon to check the facts before going ballistic? Perish the thought.

Glenn Beck went nuts (a redundancy). And while acknowledging that he didn’t know if the figures were accurate, he felt comfortable enough to cite “a report that has made the rounds on the Internet.” A commentator on Fox business “news” and the Republican fundraiser and Fox host Sean Hannity followed their scripts and [that of] Beck."

I opened the op-ed section of the NY Times this morning and saw the lead article “Pretty Good for Government Work” by the fabulously wealthy investment guru from Omaha, Mr. Warren Buffett. In this belated love letter, Mr. Buffett, commenting on the U. S. Government’s intervention to prevent a total economic meltdown observes:

“The challenge was huge, and many people thought you were not up to it. … Well, Uncle Sam, you delivered. People will second-guess your specific decisions; you can always count on that. But just as there is a fog of war, there is a fog of panic — and, overall, your actions were remarkably effective.

Yesterday was Sunday, a peaceful day of promised rest from the great gigamaflanks (yes, I made that word up) that define the usual politics of newsmaking the other six days of every week in 24/7 mediated America. But on Sunday, no. It is a day of rest. Attend services or go for a long walk. Maybe both. Make a proper pot roast, watch some NFL football. Think about whatever. Spend time with the family. Tinker with the furnace before winter arrives. But, alas, as is my nasty habit, I begin each and every day with large cup of black coffee and a perusal of several online news sources.

And so it was that my eyes were assaulted by a series of headlines about Sarah Palin and the 2012 presidential race. These headlines were not good signs. I read on. Surely some modicum of sanity would prevail among my favorite columnists and reporters?