HOW BULLSHIT WORKS, PART INFINITY-PLUS.

When every other outlet reports what the Quinnipiac poll says thus:

Poll Shows Low Approval Rating For PBA’s Pat Lynch, Officers Turning Backs On De Blasio (CBS News) 

New Yorkers Didn't Approve of NYPD Officers Turning Their Backs to Mayor de Blasio: Poll (NBC) 

Mayor de Blasio Finds Support in Handling of Protests, Poll Says (New York Times) 

Poll: New Yorkers Overwhelmingly Disapprove Of Cops Turning Backs On Bill de Blasio (Huffington Post) 

Majority of New York City voters oppose cops’ back-turn on de Blasio, disapprove of PBA’s Pat Lynch: Poll (New York Daily News)

Cops turning backs on de Blasio went too far, says poll (Newsday)

...then it gots to be librul media bias, and that's when you turn to the New York Post and Bob McManus:

De Blasio’s next lesson: He still hasn’t learned last year’s 

Bill de Blasio isn’t the first chief executive of New York City to need remedial education on the state’s political power grid — but he may be the most obtuse. 

And that’s no lie. 

Gov. Cuomo took the rookie mayor to school a year ago on three of the latter’s must-have public-policy initiatives. With Year Two cranking up, it’s time to check back...

Flip flip flip... paragraph #16:

Pestered yet again about whether an apology to cops might be useful in ending the standoff, he tendered this gratuitous gem on Wednesday: 

“The things that I have said that I believe are what I believe. And you can’t apologize for your fundamental beliefs.” 

Rough translation: Hey, cops, all those things that you think are so horrid, that you’re so mad at me about? I meant it all. Kiss my patootie. 

So, Bill the Peacemaker he surely ain’t.

Finally, graf #23:

Yesterday’s always-estimable Quinnipiac University public-opinion poll suggested that PBA President Pat Lynch’s rhetorical overreaches have damaged the union, something that de Blasio’s own polling operations couldn’t help but detect. 

And all those reports of discord within the PBA, while probably overstated in practical terms, show that the union’s leadership itself is also weary of the angst. 

Yet by ramping up the rhetoric, de Blasio increases the likelihood of a Cuomo crisis-intervention going far beyond the two-hour sit-down the governor had with Lynch and other union bosses this week...

Remember, there is a world of difference between a bullshitter and a bullshit artist.

UPDATE. Most of the brethren at this writing are keeping their mouths shut about this, but thank God for Free Republic commenters:

Quinnipiac can be counted on to release polling data that supports the media narrative...

Of course, NYC is full of far lefties, so who knows... 

In a city that elected a known communist by a significant margin, I don’t see why this poll is inconsistent with observed facts...

Unfortunatley, only about 20% of New Yorkers are intelligent while the majority are incredibly dumb. We’re talking sub morons that can’t handle complex thinking.

Why, they can't even spell "unfortunatley." My favorite:

Yeah, those morons voted for John F#*king Kerry as soon as they could after 9.11 

That should tell you all that needs to be known about that place. I wouldn’t even go there on a field trip, because the firearms I own would land me in jail, and being a smoker I’d go bankrupt. 

To hell with that place. It’s basically the ‘Tower of Babel’, as far as cities go. Well, NYC, and DC may run close together for that title....

I find these guys a lot more enjoyable when they're not pretending to like New York.

HOW BULLSHIT WORKS: AN ENDLESS SERIES.

Back when Gabby Giffords was shot and some liberals gave Sarah Palin and other conservatives a hard time about their incendiary rhetoric before the fact, I wrote this:

To be fair, we can imagine a reasonable answer to [these liberals’] argument. And we have to imagine it, as no one is actually making it. (Those who come closest are actually milquetoast liberals like the New York Times' Matt Bai who, in our current, debased political discourse, take the role once filled by moderate Republicans back when such creatures existed.) 

What we got instead was less reasonable, because once a connection had been suggested between the sainted Palin and an actual, horrific act of violence -- worse, a connection that such Americans as can remember back a few news cycles might actually grasp -- the necessity of severing that connection became stronger for rightbloggers than any faint impulses they might have had toward decorum, logic, or common sense. 

For example, when leftblogger Matthew Yglesias cited Congressnut Michele Bachmann's 2009 "armed and dangerous" comments as an example of violent rightwing lunacy, the Daily Caller's John Guardiano said it wasn't as bad as it sounded: "Bachmann clearly was using 'armed and dangerous' in a metaphorical and political, not literal and violent, sense," he said…

Etc. Now some of these same conservatives who defended themselves after the Giffords shooting are scapegoating like crazy after the murder of two cops in Brooklyn last weekend, claiming that protesters and officials who disputed the handling of the Eric Garner case are to blame for it. In fact, here’s Guardiano himself on Twitter: “Obama, Holder & de Blasio R to the mob today what Pontius Pilate was to the mob in Jesus’ time: weak-willed enablers.” Etc. etc.

It's tu quoque, I guess, but conservatives alway manage to be quoqueier than anyone else -- they whine such a lot about the flak they take (Jonah Goldberg even complained it was unfair to conservatives that Giffords continued to appear in public after her shooting) that it makes their viciousness when it's time to grandstand even more repulsive. Now they're circulating their clip of some knuckleheads shouting for “dead cops” at a New York protest and implying that all the tens of thousands who protested the Brown and Garner cases across the country were calling for assassinations.

Some of them put a lot of apparently wasted effort into trying to look reasonable -- like Jonathan S. Tobin at Commentary, who every few paragraphs assures us that "conservatives know very well that attempts to politicize violence on the part of the mentally ill is deeply unfair" and such like, but keeps spinning around and coming back with convoluted quasi-accusations such as this:

If there is any reproach today that should be laid at the feet of Obama, Holder, and de Blasio, it is that by helping to foster one false set of assumptions they have now left themselves vulnerable to questions about their own willingness to accept and exploit calumnies against the police and the justice system.

This grammatical cloverleaf is not improved when you read the whole thing and realize that by “false set of assumptions” Tobin means the idea that police sometimes treat black people unfairly. (He also says "narrative" about 70 times, which is wingnut shorthand for "who ya gonna believe, me or your own lying eyes?") More forthrightly absurd is New York Post harrumpher Bob McManus:

Nobody knows what was in the shooter’s mind, of course; happily, he relieved society of the ­responsibility of trying to find out with a well-placed bullet to his own head. 

But anybody who thinks he wasn’t emboldened by City Hall’s placidity in the face of nihilistic, bloodthirsty incantations is delusional.

“Wow, a liberal Democrat is in office!” cried the psycho career criminal; “Now’s my chance!”

At National Review, Jim Geraghty says hopefully that “police shootings will do for the anti-police movement what the Oklahoma City bombing did to the militia movement.” This will sound weird to ordinary people, but it’s perfect in a way: Conservatives tend to think of Oklahoma City as a propaganda put-up job to make them look bad — you seldom hear them talk about what a shame it was those people were killed, and mostly hear them explaining, as Byron York did a 2011 column, “How Clinton Exploited Oklahoma City For Political Gain.” That’s really how they think about the Brooklyn shootings — it’s not life and death to them, and certainly not right or wrong: It’s just a way to get back at people who made them look bad.

Another point: This shows how big a fraud the vaunted libertarian-conservative harmonic convergence really is. Conservative columnists recently had a brief libertarian-flavored fling of police criticism over the Mike Brown case -- remember National Review's "It’s Time for Conservatives to Stop Defending Police"? You won't be seeing anything like that for a while, now that their old lawn-order avatars Rudolph Giuliani and George Pataki are tugging the leash. Mutual respect between the governed and the government might be alright for a weekend fling, but when the party's over it's time to go back home to authoritarianism.