WHAT MADDOW SAID! Rachel Maddows puzzling report never made any clear sense: // link // print // previous // next //
TUESDAY, MARCH 1, 2011
George Will lies down with the lamb: Its amazing how much crap you can read in the Washington Posts Outlook section.
Last Sunday, readers were handed this groaning reinvention from former House speaker Newt Gingrich. In his piece, Gingrich mis-describes the events which produced the last government shutdown:
The highlighted statement is grossly misleading. Yes, Clinton vetoed the Republican budgetbut that didnt cause the government shutdown. (In fact, there were two shutdowns during this period.) What shut down the government was the subsequent failure of the two parties to agree on a so-called continuing resolution (CR)a temporary spending measure which would keep the government open while budget negotiations continued. Because Gingrich refused to sign a clean CRa CR which didnt include his larger demandshe was widely blamed for the shutdowns.
In January 1996, Gingrich abandoned his weird demands and signed a series of CRs. The government operated on these temporary measures until a budget was finally achieved in April 1996.
Why would an editor publish this piece? Why not demand greater clarity? Whoever you think was right or wrong in the larger sense, the shutdowns werent caused by Clintons veto; they were caused by the two parties subsequent failure to agree on short-term CRs. At the time, almost everyone agreed that it was Gingrich who was making weird demands as a condition for signing such measures. For the most part, thats why Gingrich was blamed, not Clinton.
You got to read reinvented history in this weeks Outlook section. Then too, the Sunday Post offered this classic op-ed column by George Will.
In his piece, Will applauded a long-standing conservative love object, those alleged educational miracles. In this case, Will gushed and fawned over Wendy Kopp and her Teach for America project.
The small miracles of Teach for America. So the headline read in our hard-copy Post.
TFA is A-OK by usbut it hasnt produced known miracles. But so what? Pseudo-conservatives love to advance such claims. They love to imagine that Kopps Princeton kids can show up in low-income schools and make those miracles happen. This lets privatization proponents attack the nations lazy teachers and their infernal unions. If Princeton kids can make miracles happen, why not fire the lazy hacks who refuse to work such magic?
No miracle claim is too dumb to advance. This has been clear in the last four years as the mainstream press corps ran to credit Michelle Rhees miracle claims, which now seem extremely unlikely. (As they always did.)
That headline spoke about TFAs miracles. But how odd! If you read Wills column, he cites no studies concerning this programs ginormous success. Thats because such studies dont exist. To its semi-credit, this is what TFA currently claims on its web site:
Say what? The impact of the Princeton kids is equal to or greater than that of other new teachers? That doesnt sound like a huge major dealand in studies which seem to show that TFA teachers do somewhat better, they dont do better by much. TFA goes on to make a second claim about the research, a claim which is stronger than the first. But why didnt Will cite whiz-bang research findings? Because they dont exist.
Indeed, in a new C-Span tape (click here), Malcolm Gladwell asks Kopp how well TFA teachers perform. To her credit, Kopp abandons her practice of making anecdotal miracle claims and seems to suggest that TFA teachers arent a whole lot better than everyone else. (This happens at 0:51. Rather typically, Gladwell shows no sign of having prepared for his session with Kopp, whom he describes as one of his heroes.) By the 1:05 mark, Kopp is back to making a miracle claim about a beginning teacher in Phoenix. But again: Will doesnt cite any research about such miracles because it doesnt exist.
Kopp seems a bit saner chatting with Gladwell. Wed love to see her drop her miracle claims and just tell the truth a bit more often, as she seems to do here. But the miracle tales of Kopp and Rhee have long been used to drive attacks on regular teacherson teachers who arent the best of the bestand their infernal unions.
Youd almost think that liberal intellectual leaders would understand this by now. Not Steve Benen! Finally, Benen has found a column by Will with which he can agree:
TFA has been a striking success? Its making a remarkable difference? At best, Steve is reciting the type of cant he has heard for years.
For decades, career liberals have shown few signs of giving a fig about black kids. As Benen recites this conservative cant, it seems they never will.
PART 2WHAT MADDOW SAID (permalink): A lot of bad info was going around at the start of the budget fight in Wisconsin.
On February 17, Day 3 of the fight, Rachel Maddow aired the report Politifact later rejected (see THE DAILY HOWLER, 2/28/11). For a bit of context, consider the report Ed Schultz had aired just one night before.
On Wednesday evening, February 16, Big Eddie was angry at President Obama, who had made an unfortunate two-part statement. As part of his statement, Obama had said that Governor Walkers attempt to restrict collective bargaining rights seems like more of an assault on unions. But uh-oh! The hapless president had also said this: I would say, as a general proposition, that everybodys got to make some adjustments to new fiscal realities.
Big Eddie railed at Obamas statement about those adjustments to fiscal realities. In fact, there was no fiscal crisis in Wisconsin, the big tub of liberal lard said:
Big Eddie said that he would prove that Walker was cooking the booksthat there was no financial crisis. Later that evening, he undertook that task:
Crisis is a term of art; it can mean all things to all people. But Schultz offered a view of the situation which was already becoming quite standard. Even if there was a shortfall, he said, Walker had created most of the shortfall himself! Soon, Schultz called on the fiery fellow to whom he tracked this analysis:
According to Schultz and Nichols, the state had boasted a budget surplus at the start of the year! That surplus had turned into a deficit due to Walkers tax cuts. In that sense, Walker was cooking the books, Schultz said. There was simply no question about it. Or so Nichols said.
By now, of course everybody has agreed that Nichols editorial was factually wrong. Whatever one thinks of Walkers tax cuts, they only affect the two-year budget cycle which starts this July. Walkers tax cuts have had no effect on the current budget shortfall. Indeed: In its complaints to Politifact, the Maddow Show has insisted that Maddow understood these facts all alongthat she never said, or meant to imply, anything different.
By now, everyone agrees that Walkers tax cuts didnt produce the current shortfall. But Nichols analysis was ruling the day in this, the first week of the fight. Even the smart guys thought Nichols was right!
On Friday morning, February 18the morning after Maddows reportEzra Klein produced his first post on the Wisconsin budget. Later that day, Klein would start correcting himself. But that morning, Ezra wrote this:
[see update at end of post?] In that update, Klein began to correct the mistakes he had made in this passage. But on the morning after Maddows report, even Klein was still following the Nichols line, in which Walker helped turn a surplus into a deficitin which Wisconsins current budget shortfall had largely been caused by Walkers tax cuts. The next day, Klein posted a full self-correction, quoting a budget expert from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a liberal think tank. Again, Klein noted that the current shortfall had not been caused by Walkers tax cuts. And he noted a second key fact: Wisconsin faces a $3.6 billion shortfall over the two-year cycle which starts in July of this year.
For our money, Ezra fudged a bit in this second post, understating the size of his error. But he did lay out the basic facts of the budget situation, and he noted that he had been wrong in accepting the analysis which tracks to Nichols piece in the Capital Times.
A lot of bad info was going around as the budget fight took shape. And sure enough! On Thursday evening, February 17, Maddow offered her first full report on the situation. Her report was strikingly imprecise; to this day, its virtually impossible to follow the logic of the various things she said. But to the extent that Maddows report ever made any clear sense at all, it closely tracked the prevailing wisdom which had emerged from the Nichols editorial. Beyond that, you might say the report was Vintage Maddow. It seemed to track the claims Schultz had made the night beforebut in vintage fashion, Maddow improved on Schultz effort, offering the type of arm-waving, weird overstatement which set her work apart.
Below, you see the way she started. To the extent that this makes any clear sense, it seems to be weirdly wrong:
At this point, Maddow showed tape of the public protests in Madison. So, um, why was this happening, the animated broadcaster asked.
One night earlier, Schultz had said that the state of Wisconsin faces no budget crisis. Waving her arms to attract attention, Maddow ratcheted that fuzzy claim up a bit. According to Maddow, nothing was wrong in the state of Wisconsin; actually, Wisconsin was great! In the process, she made the puzzling claim Politifact would score as false. (Despite what you may have heard about Wisconsins finances, Wisconsin is on track to have a budget surplus this year.) Its still unclear what Maddow meant by that statement; at this point, everybody seems to agree that there is a current shortfall. Indeed, as Maddow continued her report, she seemed to contradict that original claimalthough her live presentation is so confused its hard to know just what she meant:
Maddow cited my friend John Nicholsthe man who made the initial mistake. She said the state is not bankrupt, thus refuting a fuzzy claim that no one had really made. At no point were viewers ever told that the state where everything is great is facing a $3.6 billion shortfall in the coming budget cycle. Indeed: Judging from a Nexis search, Maddow has never reported this basic fact as she excitedly waves her arms for her transfixed viewers.
And then, we reached the puzzling statement in which Maddow seemed to contradict her opening claim. Or something like that.
Now, there is, in fact, a $137 million budget shortfall, Maddow hurriedly said at one point, seeming to contradict the claim at the start of her report. If you watch the tape of this report, Maddows delivery here is a bit uncertain; to our eye and ear, it almost seems she may have been surprised when this statement appeared on her prompter. But however one judges her state of mind, the claim that there is a budget shortfall seems to contradict the earlier apparent claim that there isntand Maddow moved directly from there to Walkers tax cuts, the tax cuts everyone else was blaming for the current shortfall. In its complaints to Politifact, the Maddow Show has insisted that Maddow didnt mean to imply that Walkers tax cuts helped cause the current shortfall; she understood this matter all along, the show has claimed. But her presentation was very murkyand it perfectly tracked prevailing liberal wisdom, in which it was claimed that the tax cuts had led to the shortfall.
What did Maddow mean to convey by this confusing report? In an imperfect but detailed analysis, Politifact scored her opening statement false. Beyond that, Politifact said her overall take on this topic was false. For ourselves, we would have used different terms, though we dont find a great deal of fault with Politifacts judgments. We would have said that Maddows report was highly confusing and grossly misleadingand self-contradictory too.
Just so youll know: Everyone agrees that the state of Wisconsin has a real budget problem. Compare what Maddow said that night to Paul Krugmans later assessment:
To the liberal worlds nascent army of ditto-heads, those presentations will mean the same thing. Beyond that, such people will see no contradiction between Krugmans statement about the need for monetary concessions from state workers and Schultzs claim that the whole budget problem represented cooked books. Remember what Nichols said on the Ed Show? (We do not believe that there is a fiscal crisis, period, and we certainly do not believe that there is a fiscal crisis sufficient to cut our pay, to cut our benefits.) Our ditto-heads will affirm that statementand theyll affirm Krugmans too.
A lot of bad info was going around as the budget fight took shape. Klein and others corrected their errors. Last Thursday, Maddow refused.
Tomorrowpart 3: Maddow reacts to a slander