GOODWINS CHOICE! Goodwin chose to watch the Sox—then chose to insult your intelligence:
FRIDAY, OCTOBER 15, 2004
DRUM ROLLS: Phew! Kevin Drum is Dr. Pangloss compared to his pals at THE HOWLER! Heres how he introduces a new Nightline report on one of the Swift Boat slanders:
DRUM (10/15/04): Like most bloggers, I have my beefs with the mainstream media. But you know what? They produce an awful lot of damn fine original reporting.Actually, no—they dont. Given their resources and their societal charge, the mainstream media dont produce an awful lot of damn fine original reporting. And in the current election, few things have made this more clear than the coverage of the Swift Boat matter. Tomorrow, well review Nightlines report (we had already planned to do a piece on a recent appearance by John ONeill). But frankly, it makes our skin crawl to see career writers type up words of praise like this—words of praise to a mainstream media that almost completely hid from this story as it transformed this campaign.
How thoroughly did the press corps dodge this story, even as it was changing the race? Well continue our exploration once events permit. But just reread this Tuesdays HOWLER to see the way the press dodged this story (see THE DAILY HOWLER, 10/12/04). Did Nightline have to journey to Nam to find a couple of Kerry-defenders? In fact, unaffiliated Kerry-defenders began coming forward in July and August as the Swift Vet charges began to gain traction. But what did the mainstream media do? Did they produce the damn fine reporting to which Drum refers? No—instead, they ran and hid beneath desks. Kerrys accusers were all over cable, and anyone who read their book could see that, over and over again, its presentations made no earthly sense. But when Kerry defenders began to appear, they were routinely led to the memory hole. At the Washington Post, for example, William Rood pretty much got deep-sixed, along with several other unaffiliated defenders (see THE DAILY HOWLER, 8/23/04 and 8/28/04). And elsewhere? On October 3, the Posts Hanna Rosin finally reported what Bill Means was saying about Swift Boat honcho Roy Hoffmann (see THE DAILY HOWLER, 10/12/04). It was the first time the Post had cited Means since he told his story on September 4—and as our Nexis search revealed, no other newspaper in the country seems to have mentioned his story at all! But thats precisely the way the mainstream media responded to the Swift Boat story. Its very strange to use this topic as a platform for praising the press.
Well be frank. Although were big fans (and daily readers) of Drum, it bothers us—and makes us suspicious—when paid writers praise the press corps this way. Liberal paid writers completely failed you during the debacle of Campaign 2000. Do mainstream media produce an awful lot of fine original reporting? As a general matter, no, they do not. Meanwhile, their treatment of the Swift Boat matter was a stunning Profile in Cowardice—a Profile in Cowardice that may yet end up costing Kerry the current race. We find this matter a very strange platform from which to praise our great press.
MCGARVEY GETS IT RIGHT: How routinely does the press corps wallow in conflicts of interest? The moderator of Wednesdays debate was a long-time, personal friend of George Bush. Earlier, the moderator of the VP debate was a dinner pal of Condi Rice. But did you see a single word about these matters in the mainstream press? This press corps is sick with conflict and compromise—and all scribes know they mustnt discuss it! All of them know to look away from the disaster their gang has devised.
But on Wednesday night, Ayelish McGarvey got it right for the American Prospect! In this case, it was Andrea Mitchell who pontificated in the face of a groaning conflict—and it was Chris Matthews Hardball panel who knew they should keep their traps shut. To read McGarveys fine report, just click here. Meanwhile, here are the names of those who kept quiet: Chris Matthews; Jon Meacham; Pat Buchanan; Ron Reagan. Yep! All of them knew to sit and stare while Mitchell defended her unnamed husband against cruel Kerrys outrageous attack. But time out! Rejecting cant and press corps conventions, Ayelish McGarvey nailed Mitchell cold. Alan Greenspan can take a long hike. Ayelish McGarvey got it right!
BUT WHO WILL QUESTION THE QUESTIONS: Did Bob Schieffer pimp for his golf buddy, Bush, when he hosted Wednesdays debate? Most citizens wont even ask, because all your pundits knew not to mention Schieffers groaning personal conflict. But Schieffers questions are well worth study, and weve continued to scan them.
Lets re-establish a crude distinction, between open-ended and accusatory questions. An accusatory question directly challenges something a hopeful has done or said. For example, Schieffer popped this question to Kerry:
QUESTION 3 (of 20): Senator Kerry, a new question. Let's talk about economic security. You pledged during the last debate that you would not raise taxes on those making less than $200,000 a year. But the price of everything is going up, and we all know it. Health-care costs, as you are talking about, is skyrocketing, the cost of the war. My question is, how can you or any president, whoever is elected next time, keep that pledge without running this country deeper into debt and passing on more of the bills that we're running up to our children?That question was perfectly valid, but accusatory; it directly challenges Kerrys pledge. On the other hand, Schieffer had already lobbed this open-ender to Kerry:
QUESTION 1 (of 20): Senator, I want to set the stage for this discussion by asking the question that I think hangs over all of our politics today and is probably on the minds of many people watching this debate tonight. And that is, will our children and grandchildren ever live in a world as safe and secure as the world in which we grew up?That question was perfectly valid, too. But it was an open-ended invitation for Kerry to grandly opine.
On balance, what kind of questions did Schieffer ask? Overall, he asked a load of open-enders. But it seems to us that he posed far fewer accusatory questions to his old buddy, George Bush. Again, this is at best a crude measure. But in our view, Schieffer posed five accusatory questions to Kerry—questions 3, 5, 7, 9 and 11. But he only posed two such questions to Bush—questions 10 and 16. (How will you fund private Social Security accounts? Why didnt you act RE the assault weapon ban?) Meanwhile, how soft were the softballs lobbed to Bush? Consider this melon on immigration:
QUESTION 12 (of 20): Let's go to a new question, Mr. President. I got more e-mail this week on this question than any other question. And it is about immigration.Did Schieffer got mucho e-mail on this? If so, much of it surely came from conservatives angry at Bush for weak border control and lax law enforcement. But Schieffers question was pure Tejano milquetoast. Youd never know that his pal has been harshly criticized for his work in this area.
Did Schieffer take it easy on Bush? We dont think a pattern is clear. But we probably wouldnt be asking the question if Schieffer didnt have such a rank conflict. Back in the 90s, Schieffer shouldnt have formed a close friendship with the son of a powerful political family. But your press corps is simply sunk in such conflict. Why do they do it? They know that they can! They know their colleagues will never tattle, as was shown again this week. The press corps view is cynical but clear: What the public doesnt know cant possibly hurt our great colleagues.
TIMES HAVE CHANGED: Its our impression that the pundit corps is letting Kerry walk from his lesbian comment. Yes, times have changed since Campaign 2000, when the pundits corps searched high and low for outrages with which to slay Gore.
By the way, we got e-mails from many readers who were eager to share their impressive correctness. But this wasnt about the merits of Kerrys comment—it was about the chance that the press corps would take his comment and ride, baby, ride. But as you may recall from past episodes, HOWLER readers are always most happy when they get to recite pleasing orthodox tales. We know its OK to be gay and lesbian. That isnt what this concern was about. But thanks for providing the scripts.
THE CONSCIENCE OF A CABLE DEMOCRAT: Doris Kearns Goodwin is a good cable Democrat. Result? Speaking on Imus Thursday morning, she said she was appalled—at John Kerry! Imus had opened by trashing Kerry for calling Mary Cheney a lesbian. And Goodwin found this appalling, too. Indeed, the solons conduct had been so gruesome that it made Goodwin think of Al Gore:
GOODWIN (10/14/04): Ill tell you, when the personal becomes political, you really do begin to think that theres nothing sacred left in what anybodys willing to say, nothing private. I remember one time when I heard Gore talking about his sister dying for about half his speech, and his sons accident. You had this feeling that somehow theyll do anything to win and theres nothing left inside. So I think its a much more serious thing than the statement itself.Goodwin had been on the air 90 seconds. But you know how those cable Democrats are! We had already heard how bad Kerry is, and that Gore, even worse, would do anything to win. No Republican had ever so offended; indeed, Goodwin went all the way back to 1992 to find a suitable precedent. And it had to be by a Democrat, of course. Thats how good cable Democrats play the game—and Goodwin does know how to play it.
Indeed, we soon were learning how cable Democrats watch presidential debates. The night before, Goodwin had invited ten friends to watch Bush-Kerry III, all or most of them Democrats, she said. But isnt it weird? When Goodwins friends watched Wednesdays debate, all of them thought that Bush had won! Indeed, Goodwins passel of Democrat friends were puzzled when the public thought different:
GOODWIN (10/14/04): I thought Bush was pretty animated last night. He spoke naturally. The group that was here—as I say, mostly Democrats—was saying, Oh no! Bush is doing well!But Kerry seems to have won in the polls, in terms of what you were saying earlier. And the only answer to that I can have is that, somehow, just standing up to the president as the challenger makes Kerry seem presidential and he doesnt appear to be the person he was made out to be in all those ads.Goodwin—an upstanding cable Democrat—struggled to imagine why the public thought Kerry won. Soon, she revised and extended:
GOODWIN (10/14/04): If you had been here with us last night—and as I say, there were ten Democrats—I think to a person they thought Bush won on style. As I say, he spoke more naturally—Well wait until you return from the sink. But now that youre back, lets review: Goodwin and hubby invited ten friends to watch the third Bush-Kerry debate. These friends were all or mostly Democrats. And guess what? According to Gallup, people who actually watched the debate said Kerry did better, by a fourteen-point margin (53-39). Youd almost think that Goodwins friends might have been pleased with him too.
But up in Boston, Goodwins friends were flummoxed by that Gallup result. Good Dems, they all thought Bush had won—on style. And they were also pretty sure that Kerry didnt jibe with Joe Six-pack. Maybe it was just the wine, but they couldnt figure it out. Why in the world would Kerry have won? They thought that Bush had spoken naturally, and that Kerry had spoken too fast.
But then, maybe Goodwins wine-lovin friends dont connect with Joe Six-pack themselves! For ourselves, we thought Bushs style was horrendous, especially his inappropriate laughter and inappropriate joking when he was asked two separate questions about ballooning health care costs. Of course, Goodwins buddies, gulping their wine, may not have huge concerns in that area. Is there any chance that they have good health care, and dont give a sh*t if Joe Six-pack doesnt? Maybe thats why it failed to offend when a sitting president, asked to discuss this problem, offered inappropriate banter and cackle. No, they werent offended by this; somehow, they were mainly impressed to see that Bush was speaking more naturally. Who knows? Maybe cackling about Joe Six-packs problems comes naturally to these cable Dems too!
Why in the world had Kerry won? As she continued, the cable Democrat wracked her brain trying to explain her mans win:
GOODWIN (continuing directly): But yet, if the polls are saying that Kerry won, thats what Im trying to figure out. It must be because the situation in the country now is benefitting Kerry. The war is a mess. I cant bear watching the war. I mean, the names of those poor dead soldiers every day in that tiny box!Oh! Eight minutes into a ten-minute session, Goodwin abandoned ruminations on style and began to consider matters of substance! As she continued, she even mentioned those health-care costs and the job loss that people were facing. So Kerrys got the fact that the country has not done that well in the past four years, she said. That must be why her man won:
GOODWIN (10/14/04): So just standing there and saying these things and reminding people of what theyre already feeling, that must be the reason why hes won, if he won that debate last night. That must be the reason—not style.She spoke as if she were living on Neptune, trying to decipher an alien race. Soon, she and Imus were back to oohing and aaahing about Bushs sweet style:
IMUS (10/14/04): The president probably—at least hes easier to understand. Thats not addressing whether you agree with him or not.Just trying to be objective, Goodwin said Bush spoke right from the heart. Lets just say it. Goodwin would have kept praising Bushs style if shed stayed on the air for ten hours.
So lets see. All ten Democrats thought Bush had won. They were puzzled by Six-packs contrary judgment. And Goodwin couldnt find a good word for Kerry; if he won that debate last night, it had to be because of external facts, not because of something hed done. Indeed, how bad had he been? Hed been like Al Gore! So it goes when a cable Dem reveals her rank liberal bias.
But we havent even begun to arrive at the outrageous part of this session. Doris Kearns Goodwin was very free in her opinions about this debate. But what was the essential fact about her performance on Imus? Simple! She hadnt actually watched the debate! As we noted in yesterdays HOWLER, Goodwin spent a good chunk of the evening watching the Red Sox, not Bush-Kerry. Heres her description, early on, of her fine garden party:
GOODWIN (10/14/04): But anyway, the debate went pretty well. I was able to watch both the debate and the game, mainly because, loving the Red Sox as I do, whenever the Yankees were up, I was too agitated to watch...So we had about ten friends here—mostly Democrats, actually, and Red Sox fans—and we had the game on in one room and the debate on in the other and sadly, I got to see a lot of the debate because of the way the Red Sox game went.Sadly! Sadly, Goodwin got to see a lot of the debate—whenever the Yankees were up!
We find this disgusting, but sadly typical. Goodwin had been too lazy and too uncaring to sit and watch this crucial debate. But that didnt stop her from coming on Imus and saying the things cable Democrats love! It didnt stop her from trashing Kerry and Gore, and praising Bush for his pleasing style. It didnt stop her from condescending to the people who watched the debate—the people who said Kerry won.
We think you know the rest of this tale. Your pundits corps is vacuous, empty, and Goodwin is a perfect example. She didnt bother to watch the debate, but she knew what to say about it. And guess what? Next time she rips off a real scholars book, her cable pals will come to the rescue! Imus and Russert and Barnicle will be there, eager to help their fine pal survive; and Joe Six-pack can just go to hell when Goodwin throws her next garden party. Her friends will drink their wine and complain that some Democrat is going right over their heads. At least hes easier to understand, theyll affably say about Bush.