Kill Me Now

David Broder is a fucking idiot. There is not much else to say beyond that.

An elaboration on the theme

In furtherance of my post below, this item from ThinkProgress perfectly illustrates what has been bothering me. Here is the text of the post:

Last Friday, police in Des Moines, Iowa arrested four people who attempted to make a citizens’ arrest of former top White House aide Karl Rove, who was in town to speak at a GOP fundraiser. A retired minister and three members of the Des Moines Catholic Workers community were cited for trespassing. However, according to a press release, the judge presiding over the case praised their efforts:

[Mona] Shaw was the first called before Polk County Fifth Judicial District Associate Judge William Price.

After entering her plea, the judge asked Shaw, “Mamn, what were you doing at the Wakonda Country Club?”

“I was attempting to make a citizen’s arrest of Karl Rove, your honor,” Shaw answered.

“Well,” the judge looked up and said, “it’s about time.”

Here is what bothers me, the American people are entirely sick of the Bush Administration and of the Republican party. They know how badly the policies and politics of this party have hurt the country. Unfortunately, we have a modern press discourse which wants to completely ignore this. They want this election to be about the petty issues or about how the completely fictitious "Real Americans" (as conceived of by David Broder and the rest of the pundit class thinks) are looking at this election. It is this power of the media, their ability to set the agenda for the election, that matters and how it might ultimately doom us all.

Paging Maureen Dowd

I wonder if she and the rest of the commentariat will breathlessly write about how McCain is an out of touch pretty boy since he wears $520 shoes (to put that number in context, that is more than what my wife and I spend in a month on groceries). I think we all remember how the traditional press behaved when they found out that John Edwards got a $400 haircut and even then it made sense. In a time where politics is largely driven by image- you need to look good for the cameras. McCain's shoes, however, are not often going to be seen when he gives an interview- which seems incredibly indulgent.

Yet, as we have seen time and time again- the narrative for McCain has already been created. He is a man of the people. It doesn't matter if he owns nine homes, travels in a private jet or has credit card debt which is more than triple the value of my home. He knows what it is like for the common man. Obama, on the other hand, shops at Whole Foods- which is a clear indicator that he is out of touch.

But...he's the kind of guy that you would want to have a beer with!

The headline to this story really says it all:

Goodling Passed Over Experienced Counterterrorism Prosecutor Because Wife Was A Democrat

I wonder if the traditional press will ever come to grips with how they enabled all of this. To review- the US attorney scandal only became a scandal when a sucky blogger got to the bottom of the story. Even then, there has been almost nothing written about the ways the Bush administration politicized EVERYTHING. Nor has there been anything close to official condemnation from the punditocracy.

It is this particular aspect of the whole scandal which is so anger to-the-point-of-blind-rage inducing, we will hear nothing about how the Bush administration put millions of Americans at risk because someone's wife was a Democrat- there will be no public hand-wringing, no sternly worded editorial from the Washington Post, no call for criminal prosecution, NOTHING.

Doing the work for me

When I wrote that Jib-Jab sucks hard, I had a longer post in mind that I was going to write explaining my position and why I think it is that the traditional media seems to love them so much. Fortunately, if you wait long enough- someone else will usually come along and say what you had intended and in a way that is much better said. To wit- here's Atrios commenting on someone else's post at Open Left:

As many others have observed, it's an odd thing about political journalists that they hate much about the subject they cover, specifically the messy business of politicians actually doing things to attract supporters and voters. While one can certainly hate certain structural aspects of politics as institutionalized in this country and wish them to change, the part about politicians trying to do things to get voters to vote for them is pretty much a constant in a democracy.

To be a good critic you actually have to have the capacity to love what you cover, otherwise you're just a cynical curmudgeon.

This is why they love the inanity that is Jib-Jab, as they both share a deep contempt for the political process. They all want some magical land where all politicians can be like Martin Sheen, Michael Douglas or Kevin Kline, presidents who say exactly what they mean and not have to worry about what the voters will think. Now, how does this president get elected? I have no idea.

Reason #2398 the press bothers me

A week or so ago, the public editor to the Times offered a well-deserved rebuke of (civilization ruining) Maureen Dowd, for her unfair treatment of Hillary Clinton. Unfortunately, that did not mean that Dowd would be relegated to her proper place in the press world, which would mean that her writing would be filling the pages of Maxim, People or Glamour.

Not to fear, however, as intrepid colleague-Gail Collins- publicly rushes to Dowd's defense:

As a Times columnist, I never envisioned myself writing a letter to a fellow resident of the paper’s opinion section. But I feel compelled to respond to your assault on Maureen Dowd.

Your complaint about Maureen seems to be that many supporters of Hillary Clinton found her columns offensive. As a former editorial page editor, I can absolutely assure you that supporters of many, many candidates from both parties have found Maureen’s columns offensive over the years.

The sharpness of her wit makes her commentary particularly painful to those who are on the receiving end. That’s also why so many readers love her and exactly what The New York Times pays her to do.

When the public editor laces into an opinion page columnist for making fun of a controversial political figure, it sounds like a suggestion that all of us tone things down. I hope I’m hearing wrong.

What I think this shows is two things. The first is the mindlessness with which members of the pundit class view criticism. They have one metric- are people from both sides angry? This is just stupid. Rather than splitting it down the middle, writers like Dowd would be far better served to take a look at the nature of the criticism. The complaint from the left is not that she skewers too sharply, it is that her view on the political stage is written for a grade school audience.

The second is that this episode shows quite clearly, that the pundit class doesn't do introspection. The problem is NEVER them.

The Great Wes Clark Treason Comment of 2008

Oh my f-ing word. I really don't have much to add to this, in terms of what exactly Clark said or what the reaction has been. I think any sane person will recognize that this is just all very silly.

The part that is a little more interesting is how the media reaction to this comment differs from the reaction to the rumors regarding Obama's background. Wes Clark made no disparaging comments about McCain's service (in fact, he praises him at length earlier in the interview), all he was saying was that McCain does not have any command experience during wartime. Which (I think) is an important contribution to the debate, and if the press had half a mind to treat the American populace like adults, we could reasonably discuss the merits of the claim. Like it or not, McCain is campaigning heavily on his military background, so he the first one to make it an issue. However, the press has gone batty over what Wes Clark said (here, here, here) and has equated the comment to swiftboating McCain.

Now, contrast this reaction to the one provided by the press over whether Obama is a secret Muslim, Marxist, homosexual, America hater- which are actually still talked about as potential problems for Obama. Instead of leaping all over these baseless claims, the great Commentariat sit and wonder if it is going to be a problem for Obama.

Hence, if you are keeping score at home:

Asking if John McCain's military background is actually something that relates to his performance as president: TOTALLY OUT OF BOUNDS
Wondering aloud if the baseless rumors regarding Barack Obama's background are going to damage his chances in November: A-OK.

awesome.

When Character Matters

Marc Ambinder (who I wrote about here and here) has a follow-up post that attempts to answer his critics. He tries to make the argument that the story was important because it shows us something about Edward's character and his ability to advocate for the poor. However, this is just silly. I cannot see how his decision to get an expensive haircut will inform his policies regarding poverty or how it says anything about who Edwards is as a person.

Even if Ambinder is correct, this is not a standard which is applied uniformly (if at all). For example, look at the coverage of Bush back in 1999-2000. At that time, there was evidence to suggest that he was an absolutely horrible person who had little concern for how others felt. Perhaps the most horrid example comes from an interview Tucker Carlson did with Bush in 1999 where Bush mocked the pleas of a condemned prisoner:

In the weeks before the execution, Bush says, a number of protesters came to Austin to demand clemency for Karla Faye Tucker. "Did you meet with any of them?" I ask. Bush whips around and stares at me. "No, I didn't meet with any of them", he snaps, as though I've just asked the dumbest, most offensive question ever posed. "I didn't meet with Larry King either when he came down for it. I watched his interview with Tucker, though. He asked her real difficult questions like, 'What would you say to Governor Bush?'" "What was her answer?" I wonder. "'Please,'" Bush whimpers, his lips pursed in mock desperation, "'don't kill me.'" I must look shocked — ridiculing the pleas of a condemned prisoner who has since been executed seems odd and cruel — because he immediately stops smirking.

Yet if Ambinder is right, and that political journalists are just trying to highlight possible character flaws in candidates, why didn't this story get some serious coverage? In 2000, Bush sold himself as a compassionate conservative and committed Christian- if anything, the Karla Faye Tucker story shows that Bush was full of it. However, this story is relatively unknown and I only came across it a couple years ago while reading a blog entry on Atrios.

Compare the relative silence on this story with the hubbub surrounding Al Gore's mythic pronouncement that he invented the Internet in 2000. Gore was mocked endlessly by the political press for saying that he invented the internet, when he actually said nothing of the sort. The story was supposed to show that Gore was someone who exaggerated a little too much and suggested that he had some serious honesty problems.

Seen in this light, Ambinder's original assertion that this is all about revealing important character flaws is ridiculous. The political press chooses to cover certain stories because they are just very petty people with an inflated sense of importance. They aren't wisely presiding over our public discourse because they want to inform the American people, they are playing the same type of game silly teenagers play.

The Beltway Clique

Onto Ambinder's other ridiculous statements in his post. He offers another reason why the press latched onto the Edwards story and not the Romney story:

There is a difference in the political reality: fairly or unfairly, a healthy chunk of the national political press corps doesn't like John Edwards.

Fairly or unfairly, there's also a difference in narrative timing: when the first quarter ended, the press was trying to bury Edwards. It's not so much interested in burying Romney right now -- many reporters think he's the Republican frontrunner.

I am really too pissed off to offer anything thoughtful here, so I will let Digby say it for me:

Now, I am not especially surprised that the press corps doesn't like John Edwards. Many of these people probably didn't like guys like him in high school either and one thing we know about the political press corps is that they have never matured beyond the 11th grade. (See: chilean bass stupidity.) But I have to ask, once again, just who in the hell these people think they are and why they think they are allowed to pick our candidates for us based upon their own "feelings" about them? I don't recall electing them to anything. (But, hey, maybe we should just poll the kewl kidz and find out which candidate they "like, totally, like" and we can cancel the election and save a lot of time and money.)

This is our Beltway press corps, in a nutshell. They see themselves as divine creatures. They know what's best for the American people, and they will base those decisions on the most ridiculous of reasons. This, of course, isn't the first time its happened. The press corps fell in love with George W. Bush and hated Al Gore. They mocked John Kerry, Howard Dean, and John Edwards in 2004, while their naughty parts became engorged at the first sight of the War President.

They managed these elections like high school girls manage their own popularity. Unfortunately for us, the outcome here wasn't that Sally got to be homecoming queen, instead we ended up mired in a war that won't end, an economy that is just moments away from collapse and a Constitution that is now in the White House septic tank.

Thanks guys!

Disposable Class Awareness

The Beltway press is the most incredibly petty group of individuals to ever walk the Earth. In a post by Marc Ambinder at the Atlantic, he mentions why John Edwards getting a $400 haircut should have rightly been a story, while Mitt Romney spending $300 on make-up should not be a story.

There is just so much crap here it is hard to get through without putting your head into a microwave oven. So much so, that this will be two posts. The first major problem with Ambinder is the ridiculous assertion that the hair cut matters because Edwards is essentially being a hypocrite over his stance on poverty:

Why doesn't John Edwards's hair equal Mitt Romney's face paint?

The primary difference is definitional: The centerpiece of Edwards's campaign is his anti-poverty efforts; he presents himself as a dedicated messenger for the cause, and he likes expensive haircuts, bought a gimungous house, etc. etc. His credibility as a messenger comes into question when he spends money ostentatiously. (The haircut was inadvertently billed to the campaign, a spokesman later said).

First, Edwards is running for the highest office in the land and if it looked like a drunk monkey cut his hair he would be ridiculed. Second, why should someone apologize for doing well for themselves? Edwards came from working class roots but then worked hard and enjoyed enormous success. Good for him. Why is it that his spending is considered crass, but if you come from money it is okay and you can still say you understand regular folks? As Glenn Greenwald says:

Beyond that, every politician claims to understand and be devoted to the plight of the "working family." Mitt Romney and George Bush, born to great wealth, certainly make those claims, even though they haven't been anywhere near "working families" since the day they were born. Ronald Reagan was endlessly held up as the fighter for "working families" despite his personal wealth. If Edwards' wealth makes him so suspect when he claims to be devoted to the poor, why doesn't the in-born, unearned wealth of Bush and Romney -- and every other non-poor politician -- make them equally suspect as advocates for "America's working families"?

Yet, the largest problem here, is that those who represent the elite, like Ambinder, have no idea what class means in America- while Edwards has lived it. Like your racial background or your religious background, if you are coming from the working class it is not something that just magically disappears if you attain a certain status. However, for those who grow up comfortably, social class isn't something that matters. For them, it can be switched off.

This is why those that manage the public discourse can't believe that Edwards can be both wealthy and focused on class issues. Once he attained that certain financial status, he surrendered any authority on what it means to be poor in this country. But, those of us who grew up as working class know better than this. It may be harder to recognize someone who grew up needing food stamps to get by, but that doesn't mean a certain awareness about life's difficulties doesn't follow you for the rest of your days.

Touche

Of all the mysteries in the world, the one that I have never been able to fully wrap my head around is, "Why would anyone ever listen to Bill Kristol?" The man has been wrong about everything, especially on Iraq.

His latest example of outright hackery was published in the Washington Post, made the argument that history will judge Bush kindly. As you may well imagine, the piece was just ridiculous and had no right to be featured in any newspaper, much less the Post. Fortunately, David Corn has provided a much needed reality check for Kristol. Please read.

Journalistic Theater

Of all the horrible coverage on the Republican filibuster, this is absolutely the worst.

True, there is a bit of political theater involved here but it is happening for a reason. Senate Republicans are purposefully ignoring the wishes of the American people, we want an end to the conflict in Iraq. While we pay the price for this mismanaged ill-conceived war, the President's supporters have managed to keep us headed in the wrong direction. They don't seem to care that this war has cost us billions, thousands of American and innocent Iraqi lives.

Instead of pointing this out, Tumulty frames it as a petty political squabble. The problem, as Tumulty sees it, is that it is just so UNCOOL to point out that the Republicans are standing in the way of what the American people want.

Unfortunately, the reaction from the pundit class is not that surprising. They are more concerned with finger-wagging than they are with things that actually matter to the American people.

Good Move

I just thought I would join the chorus in celebrating the fact that Harry Reid is going to force an actual filibuster over the Iraq War. The American people need to understand just how far the Republicans will go in supporting this horrible war.

I am also dying to find out how the pundit class is going to react to this. My gut tells me they will paint this as the Democrats being too partisan/political. Instead of what it really is, the Republicans ignoring the will of the American people.

The Press vs. The People

I love this post by Glenn Greenwald. In it, he shows just how far removed the press is in regards to what the American people think by looking at recent poll results on a whole host of different issues. In short, the American people want greater oversight of the Bush Administration, an end to the war in Iraq and widely disagree with the Scooter Libby commutation. Yet, according to the Beltway press, all of these are thought to be fringe opinions.

He also points out something that is quite important- in regards to the current disparity between the press and the people. Pundits have been keen to point out that the approval ratings for Congress are very low which, they believe, shows that the American people want to see an end to partisan squabbles. The numbers, however, don't bear this point out. The reason for the low approval ratings is that Democrats are not happy with the lack of partisanship as nearly 50% of all Democrats disapprove of the job Congress is doing. We want our leaders in Congress to show some spine and not roll over when the Republicans start whining. We want them to fight back.

All Impeachment All the Time

Here is the link to the video Disco posted about yesterday.

I recommend viewing it, as it is perhaps the most well reasoned presentation I have yet to see regarding impeachment. I won't say that I am entirely convinced that we should head down this road right now, but it certainly softened my stance against this course of action.

What I will say about it, and I think most sane people would agree, is that this is a conversation that needs to move beyond PBS and onto CNN, ABC, NBC, etc. The American people are certainly open to having a broad conversation about impeachment and it is time for the major news networks to have it.

My concern with the broader debate (and it was actually brought up in the Moyer's video) is that the frame of the debate will be on punishing the President rather then on upholding the Constitution. There is ample evidence out there to show that the major news networks and pundit class will make this a very silly affair. We will have shouting heads rail about how this is payback for Clinton, or how it is sour grapes over 2000 and 2004, when it is really very simple. It is about protecting this country's most sacred principles.

O'Reilly Gets the Smack Down from Donahue

Still waters run deep. Here at Discomo we have such a carefully orchestrated plan for postings, that I now present a vid posted exactly 13 months ago, in honor of this being Friday the 13th....or, I just found it and thought it was cool. You be the judge.

Why doesn't Fox put on Donahue opposite Hannity, instead of that lapdog Colmes?

David Corn has a Ricki Lake moment

The sensible conservative (David Brooks) gets it handed to him by David Corn. If this were Springer or Ricki Lake, David Brooks would be all pouty while Corn would be exhibiting the three snaps.

But Clinton did it?!

The reports from the mainstream pundits are in, and the gold medal for foolishness goes to Tom Curry. The main point of this commentary is that the public reaction to the Libby pardon will be the same as the reaction to Clinton's pardons:

President Bush’s commutation of the 30-month prison sentence of former vice presidential aide Lewis “Scooter” Libby fit the pattern set by his predecessors.

And the reaction to these acts of clemency had a familiar ring.

Compare “the arrogance of this administration's disdain for the law and its belief it operates with impunity are breathtaking” to the statement that the president “will never live down the arrogance of his final departure.”

The first “arrogance” quote came Monday from Democratic presidential contender Bill Richardson. The second quote came from Jim Webb, now the Democratic senator from Virginia, criticizing Clinton’s pardon of Rich in an opinion piece for the Wall Street Journal in 2001.

So...to Curry (and with the vast majority of the press) there is a simple algebra, Bush = Clinton. Yet, this couldn't be further from the truth. There are two major differences here:

1. Clinton was a hell of a lot more popular than Bush is. Bush is seen as a stubborn dolt, while Clinton was seen as a vibrant, popular (though personally flawed) leader.
   
2. The circumstances surrounding the two are vastly different. With Clinton, the criticisms levied against him were part of a conservative witch hunt. The country had just endured 6 years of endless partisan investigations, which yielded nothing substantive. With Bush, the leak investigation yielded real findings and revealed that the White House was willing to subvert national security in order to retaliate against a critic.
   

In the end, I think the American public will respond much more harshly to the pardon than the Washington press corps is willing to believe. The Bush administration might not see a huge drop in overall approval ratings, rather I believe you will see more people go from 'somewhat disapprove' to 'strongly disapprove'.

Not surprised

Libby's sentence was commuted, and I am firmly in agreement with Atrios about the coming press coverage. The White House essentially got away with a very serious crime, and no one will call them on it.

In the Age of the Dinosaurs

Next week, Glenn Beck (the Kansas City Royals of ratings for right-wing pundits) is subbing for Paula Zahn on CNN. As Joe Klein points out, this is just ridiculous. The man has nothing interesting to say, other then the traditional "I am so cool because I am so anti-political correctness", which is equivalent to wearing acid-washed jeans, listening to the Dave Matthews Band or driving a Hummer. In the words of Atrios:

But, Jeebus, what's the obsession with promoting whiny ass titty baby versions of Morton Downey Jr.? I think even cranky white guys who feel like they're the #1 victims of society are tired of listening to whiners like Beck. That era is so over.

I think media outlets like CNN are trying to be cool, like parents try to be cool with their kids. Which, inevitably, comes off as unintentionally hilarious but also kind of sad.