Companion site:


Google search...


Daily Howler: Peter Beinart--a very good boy--has kept his mouth shut for six years
Daily Howler logo
PUNDITRY LOST! Peter Beinart—a very good boy—has kept his mouth shut for six years: // link // print // previous // next //

WE DO LOVE OUR SEMI-DISTRACTIONS: As you know, we rarely praise Richard Cohen—but this morning, we think he’s largely right. On that score, we couldn’t help chuckling a smidge at this letter in today’s New York Times:
LETTER TO THE NEW YORK TIMES (5/4/06): The "debate" in the blogosphere over Stephen Colbert's performance at the White House Correspondents' Association dinner misses the point. The routine was neither a flop nor very funny.

Mr. Colbert's aim wasn't to please the attendees; there was no trace of anxiety when a "zinger" was received in silence. His real audience was at home, and his aim was to make his allegiances clear. On that score, it was no flop.

We’ll guess that may be right. And we’ll be honest—we hate that. Was Colbert trying to please “his real audience?” Unfortunately, he was being paid by the “attendees”—by the people he said he would entertain. To the extent that this letter is right, we think Colbert became the thing he denounces for just a moment—a pompous, self-impressed man.

Oh! But, oh! some readers will say. Importantly, Colbert spoke truth to power! We don’t buy it. For a decade or more, we liberals have haplessly lolled about, refusing to confront the mainstream press corps where it actually defeats us (see below). Again this week, we settle for a petty distraction—for a bit of semi-pointless theater, which often just backfires. The bulk of the public doesn’t care what Colbert thinks or says (unless it’s funny). And many centrist voters will agree with Cohen; Colbert’s conduct will strike them as rude. We don’t think that any of this is the end of the world. But it struck us that way a bit too.

By the way, that letter writer agreed—Colbert wasn’t funny. And uh-oh—here’s the explanation. “If his performance wasn't funny, perhaps it was because he wasn't joking.” Exactly—that was the problem!

WHAT COHEN SAID: By contrast, Atrios comes down on Cohen, leading to this reader’s comment:

COMMENT TO ATRIOS: Can anybody explain to me why some so-called liberals/Democrats feel any need whatsoever to denigrate Colbert? I'll bet Cohen thought Don Imus' anti-Clinton performance was hilarious.
Darn it! We only wish that Duncan’s readers would bring their wagers here to us! This was Cohen’s view on Imus, stated in real time:
COHEN (7/30/96): In reading the extensive literature about Don Imus, I was struck by how, over and over again, politicians defended going on the show by saying Imus has an audience. Yes—and so what?

Imus also has a taste problem. Making jokes about Bill Clinton's purported (rumored, alleged, suspected, widely believed) extramarital affairs in the very presence of the Clintons is, no doubt about it, boorish behavior. At last March's by-now famous Radio and Television Correspondents Association dinner here, he made Bill and Hillary Clinton feel uncomfortable—she more than he, I was about to say, but, really, who's to know?

But Imus has done far worse—although not in the presence of the Clintons. He has used a parody of the song "The Lady is a Tramp" that was about Hillary Clinton. It mentioned how she "fornicates," "menstruates" and "urinates" and concludes, "That's why the first lady is a tramp." No, that's why Don Imus is one.

The fact is I hesitated before repeating these words from Imus's show. But then I had to remember that they are the very words that came out of a radio—any radio in any house or any car. A newspaper has to be bought, and editorial pages are not where you are likely to find the kids going. But a radio? Just turn it on, kiddie, or just listen along with mom and dad as they rock with laughter about what Imus had to say about Hillary Clinton.

For more on the corps’ real reaction to Imus, see THE DAILY HOWLER, 5/2/06. By the way, why are we so sure about things which aren’t true? Could it be due to chump-runs like this?

SOME HAVE ASKED: What do we think about Colbert in general? We thought he was great on The Daily Show. We think his own show hasn’t been that good. Yet.

Special report—Punditry lost!

ENJOY EACH PART OF OUR CURRENT SERIES: Joe Klein’s new book is definingly daft—and Peter Beinart rushed to praise it! Be sure to read each thrilling episode. More on this daft tome next week:

PART 1: Joe Klein’s new book is fake and inane. And Peter Beinart is there to applaud him. See THE DAILY HOWLER, 5/1/06.

PART 2: To Klein, Dem hopefuls must all be fake. But one must be Most Fake of All. See THE DAILY HOWLER, 5/2/06.

PART 3: Klein lies in his reader’s face—and shows us his own dreadful ethics. See THE DAILY HOWLER, 5/3/06.

Today, we ask an historical question. How long has Beinart’s mouth been wide shut?

PART 4—MOUTHS WIDE SHUT: That passage in Politics Lost would be stunning—if it weren’t totally standard (see THE DAILY HOWLER, 5/3/06). In his definingly laughable book, Joe Klein was typing a standard press script: Dem White House hopefuls are fake, inauthentic. Republican hopefuls are straight-shooters. But as it is typed in all Great Pundit Scripts, one Dem had to be Most Fake Of All—the “apotheosis of political inauthenticity.” And as it’s been written, that Dem is Al Gore. Result? Because Gore had to be Most Fake, Klein conjured a “perfectly dreadful moment”—a moment when the fake, phony Dem showed he was “slavishly devoted” to polls, “with every word he uttered.” (According to Klein, Gore “had been polled and focus-grouped and dial-grouped and market-tested literally to the point of distraction.” Klein’s emphasis.) But uh-oh! Because Klein could find no such actual moment, he decided to make one up—he invented a “perfectly dreadful moment!” In essence, Joe Klein lied in his readers’ faces, as we saw in yesterday’s post. And yes, this part of his book would be stunning—if it weren’t perfectly standard.

But Klein’s lies about Gore—his lies about Dems—are in fact perfectly standard. Our millionaire pundits have been inventing such tales at least since March 1999—and as they’ve done so, our brave liberal leaders have stood by politely and stared into air. Meanwhile, some of our most brilliant leaders will actually run to vouch for the lying! One such fellow is the brilliant Peter Beinart, who read Klein’s definingly laughable book—then praised it, in last Sunday’s Post. According to the silly sycophant, Politics Lost “provides a highly entertaining tour of how political consultants progressively hijacked the presidential campaigns of the last 40 years.” Of course, part of Klein’s “entertaining tour” was that bald-faced lie about Gore—about Dems. But Beinart, a very well-trained boy, has agreed to purchase this package. He hands us a taste of Klein’s brilliance:

BEINART (4/30/06): Another great strength of Politics Lost is that, whether by accident or design, it models the kind of political discourse Klein would like to see. Against the neutered, white-washed language that dominates contemporary American political life, Klein counterposes his own edgy, raw and often hilarious rhetorical style. Again and again, he uncorks one-liners so good that the reader stops to savor. Carter was "as serious as cancer and as colorful as cement." "The 1970s were the 1960s for nerds." Dukakis "hailed from the National Public Radio wing of his party." In their obsession with the minutiae of environmental policy, Democrats "had trouble seeing the forest for the tree huggers.”
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! And yes, as you can plainly see: In the daft world of this fallen class, “hilarious” rhetoric is all aimed at Dems, who are like cancer, cement. And as we showed you in yesterday’s post, a great deal of this “hilarious rhetoric” is simply and plainly made up. Klein’s hilarious takedown of Gore—like so many in the past—is, in simplest language, a lie. And Beinart—a future millionaire pundit—is eager to stand up and praise it.

That’s right. Klein can clown and deceive all he likes—because Beinart, so well trained, will praise him. But then, the obedient fellow has been playing this game over these past several years.

True story! By May of 2000, we’d been describing the mainstream press corps’ War Against Gore for over a year. And uh-oh! Here came a brush with greatness! We got a call from Marty Peretz, owner of The New Republic, asking if we’d do a lengthy piece discussing this ongoing matter. We typed, and sent, the requested piece. It bore this tangy synopsis:

To date, the "character problem" of this election has been that of the Washington press corps.
For what it’s worth, the piece was never published by TNR. But through the miracle of the world wide web, you can see it posted—right here. And yes, we’ll suggest that you take time to read it. Treat yourself to some forlorn knowledge—to a sense of What Might Have Been Said.

Why didn’t this piece get published? We don’t have any idea. (We never heard back from Marty. Never got paid by him, either!) As a matter of fact, we wouldn’t have published this piece ourselves, for at least two different reasons. But if we’d been running The New Republic in the spring of the year 2000, we damn sure would have published some piece about the ongoing War Against Gore—the war which eventually sent Bush to the White House. In fact, we would have published such reports again and again, as long as that war kept unfolding. We would have wanted to let readers know what was happening to their election—to their democracy, indeed to their lives. Because we aren’t the stupidest critters on earth, we would have thought it was our obligation.

We would have thought it was our obligation. But uh-oh! Peter Beinart became editor of TNR in September 1999. In the fourteen months which followed, Beinart never published any such piece. Beinart performed like a very good boy—a very good boy, then as now.

Why was Beinart’s mouth wide shut? We offer these helpful insinuations:

Chuck Lane was editor at TNR before Beinart took over the job. Starting in March 1999, the press corps’ War Against Gore unfolded—driven by the Washington Post. Lane never published a word about this. In September 1999, he left TNR—for a job at the Washington Post.

Dana Milbank was TNR’s campaign reporter in 1999. Starting in March of that year, the press corps’ War Against Gore unfolded—driven by the Washington Post. Milbank never published a word about this. In January 2000, he left TNR—for a job at the Washington Post.

And Beinart performed like a very good boy, all the way to the end of the race. Last Sunday, he praised Klein’s book—once again, in the Washington Post! And he’s been busy this week too, as we see in this morning’s paper. To see how such fellows make their way “in this town,” you know what to do—just click here.

That passage in Politics Lost would be stunning—if it weren’t so completely the norm. But we think you know those Millionaire Pundit Values! Mainstream pundits have been printing “hilarious” lies about Dem White House hopefuls at least since March 1999. And future millionaires—those very good boys—tell us to “savor” their insight.

TOMORROW: Why are others on the liberal web such big fucking simps on these matters?

ALSO TOMORROW: We’ll let you enjoy a good solid laugh as Klein limns the great Saint McCain! (With help from David Ignatius!)

MONDAY: We start a four-part look at the major themes of Politics Lost. How inane is Klein’s millionaire cohort? We’ll begin to sketch that strange tale out—as Beinart’s praise rings in our ears.