CREEPING HANNITYISM! Why is it easy to beat our side? Wisely, Dionne asked: // link // print // previous // next //
FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 19, 2010
Ezra and Krugman explain: Your DAILY HOWLER keeps getting results! In recent weeks, weve mentioned the press corps failure to examine a ubiquitous GOP claima claim asserting the merits of letting consumers buy health insurance across state lines. On the various cable news channels, voters hear this proposal advanced again and again and again. But Dems and liberals rarely (actually, never) respond. And weve never seen a major news org do an explainer piece about this ubiquitous proposal.
Its constantly saidbut never examined. But then, thats very much the shape of our floundering discourse.
On Wednesday, Ezra Klein explained the problem with this proposal on his Washington Post blog (click here). For our money, his explanation, though very much welcome, was just a tiny bit wonky. That said, heres Paul Krugmans treatment of the same proposal in this mornings New York Times. This explanation is a tiny bit murky, but only because Krugman is explaining the problems with this proposal as part of a larger point:
For the most part, Ezra and Kruggers make the same point. If companies were allowed to sell insurance policies across state lines, they would incorporate in states which impose few regulations, thus driving a race to the bottom.
The voters deserve to hear this explained. We have never seen this explained on cable, although weve endlessly heard the proposal. And we still havent seen this matter explained in a simple, explainer news report. For the most part, our big news orgs simply dont explain things. In all candor, they rarely seem to know what sorts of claims are being made in the wider discourse.
Well offer one further suggestion for any newspaper which might want to do an explainer piecea piece which might be called, Buying across state lines for [us] dummies. On cable, Republicans and conservatives often draw a comparison between health insurance, which cant be sold across state liners, and car insurance, which apparently can. Since voters constantly hear that refrain, an explainer piece ought to address it.
Voters deserve to have things explained. But only if our big newspapers actually want to be part of the actual world.
Final point: We strongly recommend Krugmans new column, which explains the need for comprehensive health reform. If you have followed this general topic, you may already know what his column explains. But its a very cogent explanation, and its tied to the recent flap about rising premium costs in California.
Final point: As recently as last December, Keith Olbermann seemed to have no idea why a mandate must be part of comprehensive reform. Yesterday, E. J. Dionne asked a very good question: If liberals and Obama are so smart, why have we allowed conservatives to argue against us so effectively? (For full text, see below.) One answer, which well extend below: Its easy to argue against a team which has clowning, incompetent leaders.
The gentlemans preference with blondes: Olbermann didnt seem to know the health care mandate from squadoosh. But he always knows what to do when young blonde women ski into his ken. Last week, this was his tribute to Lindsey Vonn, offered as part of his Worst Persons segment. Update: The gentleman is 51 years of age:
The P and U were in the words Sports Illustrated. To Olbermanns finely trained eye, the comically foul-smelling letters were coming right out of Vonns ass!
For ourselves, we had no idea that PU was still a schoolboys term of art. But among humans who are 51 or older, only KO would go on TV and ask us to ponder something like that. Presumably, we all have our quirks, but this is KOs: He simply cant encounter young blonde women without offering his thoughts about whats coming our of their hindquarters.
We turn to KO for brilliance like that. For explainers about health reform, where can progressives turn? The question continues below.
CREEPING HANNITYISM (permalink): E. J. Dionne hit several nails on the head in yesterdays column. We almost could have said it ourselves; in fact, we constantly have! After describing the bad faith of the health bills opponents, Dionne brought it all back hometo us.
Conservatives have focused on made-up issues in the health care debate, Dionne said. The mainstream press has clowned and flailed, he also observed. But this doesn't get liberals or Obama off the hook, Dionne proceeded to say. At that point, he brought it all back home to us:
Dionne asks two very different questions there. For today, lets just consider the first: If we liberals are so smart, why are we so easy to beat in the messaging wars?
In part, it may be because of the intellectual leadership with which we liberals have long been stuck. For our money, things havent gotten much better now that we have our own liberal/progressive network, the ever-hapless MSNBCa network which is run by a bunch of former sports talk jocks. We think especially of the often-miserable work of the nets two leading anchors, KO and Rachel. This includes the dumb and disingenuous types of conduct wed be inclined to call Creeping Hannityism.
Why has it been so easy to beat our side in the messaging war about health care reform? In the war to define the stimulus package? In large part, its because our traditional leadership simply hasnt been very sharpor very disciplineddown through the past several decades. And then, along came KO and Rachel! They pretty much arent real sharp either. Nor are they especially honest, one is sadly forced to announce. Consider Rachels recent preachment concerning the vile Josh Chaffetz.
Chaffetz is a Republican congressman from Utah. On Wednesday night, Rachel included his misdeeds in her latest less-than-intelligent, less-than-accurate rant about alleged Republican hypocrisy when it comes to the stimulus bill. Have Republicans been hypocritical when it comes to this package? Lets put that question aside for a moment, and ask a question closer to home: Has Rachel been especially honest?
The lady was declaiming grandly again on Wednesday nights program. Minor point: There are few things we find more fake and phony than talk-show hostslets call them Sean Hannityswho deliver brave, bold, scolding, pious lectures to people who arent there to respond. But thats what Rachel did Wednesday night, scolding the very vile Chaffetz. Luckily, his hometown paper is on to his game, Rachel said:
It would be hard to explain how dumb that long preachment was. Hoping to bolster a rather weak case (see below), Maddow was suddenly vouching for the brilliant political judgment of principled conservatives like Neil Cavuto, the air-headed business reporter who has an afternoon program on Fox. She was vouching for principled and brave conservatives like those poor Chaffetz would likely encounter at the upcoming CPAC conference. And she played other silly cards too, in which vile Chaffetz really doesnt care about liberals like me, but surely does care about the judgments of his hometown Salt Lake Tribune. (Concerning Chaffetz, there have been some hackles raised, our Rhodes Scholar explained, and not just among the creepy commies like Rachel Maddow.) According to Maddow: When Cavuto asked Chaffetz about this matter, Mr. Chaffetz attempted to squirrel away from his own embarrassing record.
All in all, it sounded like Chaffetz had fallen into a very bad, squirrelly stew.
In fact, Maddows overall case against Chaffetz was quite weak. In all honesty, there is nothing especially hypocritical about seeking funds from a spending program you voted against in the first place (see below). But lets leave that matter of judgment for later. Lets focus for now on a second problemMaddows honesty/accuracy. Watching Maddow in the past year, we have learned an unfortunate lesson: You have to fact-check every word she says. When you do so, you often find things like we found in this instance.
Is it true? Is it true that Chaffetzs hometown paper, the Salt Lake Tribune, is nailing him on this, pointing out that he signed on to a letter with Senator Orrin Hatch and Congressman Rob Bishop seeking $95 million in stimulus funds for the Provo River Water Users Association?
It sounded dramatic. And so we looked it up.
As usual, time was wasted. Because Maddow spoke in the present tense, we assumed this must be an ongoing nailing, a nailing which is happening now. In fact, Maddow seems to be referring to this long news report from more than four months agoa 1549-word news report in which Chaffetz was mentioned, in passing, just once, in one lonely sentence, way far down in the text.
By our count, the one mention of Chaffetz occurs in paragraph 42, in a 46-graf report. And in all honesty, wed have to say this: The Salt Lake Tribune simply isnt nailing Chaffetz on this.
For our money, this news report was rather poorly reasoned, not unlike Cavutos questions when he interviewed Chaffetz But this news report mainly concerned Robert Bennett, Utahs long-time Republican senator; Chaffetz was barely mentioned. Beyond that, we find no mention of Chaffetz and the Provo River project in any later Tribune work; nor do we find any criticism of his stance on the stimulus bill. We do, however, find full news reports in the Tribune in which Chaffetzs judgment about budget matters seem to be getting applauded.
Is the hometown paper nailing Chaffetz? Sorry. She made that up.
The question here is somewhat minor. But is the Salt Lake Tribune nailing Chaffetz for his hypocrisy? Is the Tribune nailing Chaffetz about the Provo River project? Sorry, that claim is squirrel sh*tthe kind of sh*t that drives the Maddow Show on a regular basis.
Consider a more central matter. Consider Maddows political judgment in pushing the hypocrisy matter at all.
We know, we knowthe whole liberal world is suddenly pushing this campaign, in what looks like a somewhat coordinated effort. It warms the cockles of liberal hearts to hear The Other Side nailed this way. Its even possible that this coordinated attack might prove politically effective, though were inclined to doubt it. But is it really hypocritical when a congressman seeks money from a federal program he voted against? Perhaps it isif you listen to brave and principled fellows like Cavuto. But on last Sundays Meet the Press, Maddow asked Rep. Aaron Schock (R-IL) about this very matter. Sorry. If were living in the real world, his answer made pretty good sense:
Schock voted against the stimulus package, but it was passed into law. His constituents will have to pay for the bill, he noted; on that basis, he said they deserve their share of the spending. In fact, thats a perfectly coherent argument; only the most extreme, unintelligent types of conservatives have tended to challenge it. But Maddow was vouching for their judgment in her long, brave rant Wednesday nighta rant against someone who wasnt present to point out the flaw in her argument. And what did she do on Monday night, when she heroically played the tape of her daring putdown of Schock? Of course! What does Maddow typically do? She didnt show the part of the answer where Schock rebutted the hypocrisy argument (the part of the answer we highlight above). She simply played the first short part of his answer, where he finished an earlier point about Republican participation in the stimulus bills design. Rachel, with all due respect, I can assure you Republicans were not consulted on the stimulus bill. Good God! That was all of the answer we rubes got to see! Rachel then triumphantly said, Whether or not House Republicans felt adequately consulted on the stimulus bill, thats not the point. They all voted no on it, every single one of them.
We got played for chumps again. Maddow turned into a hero.
Simple story: Maddows program really isnt very sharp on domestic politics. Sometimes, Olbermanns program is worse. (See: KO on the health care mandate, above.) But her program suffers from a second flawa tendency to shave, select, massage and reinvent facts to produce an outcome which pleases us rubes and fashions its host as a hero. That said, lets note one more embellishment in Maddows bold speech against the absent Chaffetz. This is taken from the longer quotation we presented above:
Youll note the lack of an actual quote. Did Chaffetz actually say at some time that the stimulus does no good at all? Well take a wild guessthe answer is no, he didnt actually say that. But then, Maddow is often quite creative at inventing statements by those she opposes. She does this again and again and again. In the process, we rubes get hosed.
In fact, Chaffetz seems to be fairly capable when it comes to explaining his positions. This seems clear in recent news reports in his hometown paper; in these reports, he comes off quite well when it comes to the cogency of his arguments about earmarks and federal spending. He also explained his position rather clearly when he was interviewed by the principled and brave Fox News host, Cavuto. In this exchange, Chaffetz refers to Rep. Jean Schmidt (R-Ohio), who also voted against the stimulus, then sought stimulus funds:
Actually, one liberal Commie is currently making that very suggestion! And, as she quite commonly does, she is being selective in her factual presentations, to help drive home her rather weak points and make her opponents look bad.
First, a matter of judgment: Its very easy to answer Maddows thundering claim about hypocrisy. A few Republicans have made absurd statements about the worthlessness of the stimulus bill. (Example: Scott Brown, saying it has created no jobs.) In these cases, a claim can be made that Senator X or Congressman Y said one thing and did another, or that these solons said contradictory things. (For ourselves, were not real sure that voters care.) But as a general matter, its extremely easy for solons like Chaffetz and Schock to explain why they sought stimulus funds, even though they voted against the bill. Guess what? Its a gift to Chaffetz and Schock when they get challenged in a way which is so easy to answer. Only a dumb-ass like Cavuto will likely be puzzled by what they have doneand a fiery progressive like Maddow, who ran out this week to vouch for Cavutos judgment.
Thats a matter of Maddows political judgment, which is often quite poor. But theres also the question of honesty, concerning which well only say this: You have to fact-c heck every word you hear on her ballyhooed program.
Why is it easy to beat our side? For years, the answer has been fairly clear. In our view, little has changed.