THE REPORT THAT DIDNT EXIST! Ryan Grim said it didnt exist. Then, he linked you to it: // link // print // previous // next //
TUESDAY, JANUARY 27, 2009
In which we turn into them: I dont know why we do this. (The analysts have been sent from the room.) One of our favorites (no name allowed) wrote this yesterday, and angry readers agreed: The Sunday talk shows were filled with conservatives (it really is a new era on Sunday mornings, isn't it?) trashing the Obama recovery plan and demanding more concessions in exchange for their votes, despite the fact that they have almost no leverage in the Congress. A link went to this New York Times report, which quoted Boehner and McCain.
For ourselves, we didnt remember the Sunday shows being filled with conservatives. And so, we decided to check it out! Here are the actual Rep and Dem guests, all of whom appeared in stand-alone segments. For the first four shows, we can provide word-counts for the segments:
Among political guests, Reps were vastly outnumbered by Dems. On the first four shows, Reps got out-worded, three-to-one. And yet, we were somehow convinced that wed gotten the shaft, just like we always do.
I dont know why we want to do this. This represents the mental world of Hannity, Brent Bozell, Bernie Goldberg. Did we really struggle through all that sludge so we could be just like them?
THE REPORT THAT DIDNT EXIST: It would be hard to be a bigger hack than one progressive is this morning. For many years, we complained as the Bozells, the Hannitys, the Goldbergs, the Coulters played conservative readers for fools. But this week, its been the turn of the liberals. Below, you see Steve Benens opening paragraphs. As you read them, you enter the mental world of Hannity, Goldberg, Bozell:
Did you follow the logic there? Yesterdays document is more reliable than the one which didnt exist!
Forget about Kevins positive impression, which may well be perfectly justified. (For Kevins post, just click here.) Consider instead the ludicrous, time-wasting, rube-running process by which we reached this point. In particular, consider Benens continuing claim that the CBOs first report/document did not exist. This claim is just as absurd today as it was last Friday evening, when it made its debut on the web. And by the way: This latest document from the CBO comports quite perfectly with the firstwith the report-which-didnt-exist. If this document gives us a positive vibe, then the initial CBO document could have done so too.
That first report did not exist? Weve been amazed, down through the years, to see progressives cast themselves in the Bozellian mold, offering bits of abject nonsense to trusting, misused readers. But this foolish episode does take the cake. Lets recall where it started:
The problem began last Friday evening, with this weak piece by Ryan Grim at The Huffington Post. Within a few hours, Josh Marshall had linked to it under this plaintive headline: BETTER MEDIA, BETTER GOP, PLEASE. Marshall offered no explanation of what the media had done wrong. (Or the GOP, for that matter.) Instead, he posted the first three paragraphs of Grims report. Reading Marshalls quickie, crowd-pleasing post, you would have thought (if we may borrow from Twain) that reports of a recent analysis/study had been greatly exaggerated. Indeed, you would surely have thought that no such CBO report/analysis/study had ever existed:
That was it! After reading Marshalls post, trusting readers might surely have thought that the CBO did not issue any report, any analysis or any study about the stimulus package. But in fact, the CBO had issued such an analysis; more precisely, the agency had issued an analysis of the large infrastructure component of the package, an analysis which was well worth considering. Indeed, shortly after the passage Marshall quoted, Grim had actually linked to the CBOs report/analysis/studyto the three-page document which didnt exist, if you were willing to put your faith in the likes of Marshall.
Thats right! Right there in his HuffPo report, Grim linked to the CBO report/analysis/study. Even today, you can link to it too! For the record, the CBO analysis-which-didnt-exist carried this actual title:
In our view, that was a rather lengthy title for a report/analysis which didnt exist. For our money, Grim never really managed to explain what was wrong with the CBOs work (more below). Nor did he really explain what was wrong with two news reports to which he disapprovingly linked. (One report was by the Associated Press, one by the Washington Post.) And by the way, what sort of hack-work can you get at The Huffington Post? This was the utterly ludicrous headline sitting atop Grims report:
Did The Onion buy HuffPo when no one was looking? According to the headline, the controversial report had somehow turned out not to exist. And yet, in paragraph 6 of that very story, Grim had managed to link to it! This pretty much proves what the experts have said; no one reads past paragraph 3 of a Huffington Post report. At any rate: Through the miracle of the web, Grim had linked to a three-page study/reporta report which didnt exist!
Quick background: If you want to understand the way we rubes got run by progressive leaders all weekend, the sleight-of-hand Benen continues today turns on a tiny semantic distinction. The analysis which the CBO produced wasnt really a report, your leaders will tell you, if you click and click and click till you find their explanation. Empowered by this perfect nonsense, they proceeded to run us rubes all weekend, handing us the perfect nonsense Benen still dishes today. (Youll note that Kevin sidesteps this matter.) But in fact, the CBO had prepared an analysis of a large part of the stimulus plan, presumably at the request of members of Congress. (Duh. Thats one of the agencys functions.) Just for the record, lets get clear on the time-line:
So lets see: To all appearances, the CBO analysis concerned a large part of the stimulus package as it existed on January 15. The analysis was sent to members of Congress three days later; the AP ran its news report two days after that. In his piece at The Huffington Post, Grim seems to complain that the CBOs report was outdated in some significant way. (Significant changes have been made to the part of the bill the CBO looked at, he wrote. He didnt quantify or describe these changes, or say when they may have occurred.) But as such matters go, the news reports by the AP and the Post struck us as rather timely. Had significant changes to the stimulus package been made by the time these reports appeared? We have no idea, since Grim made no real attempt to say. But when the APs report hit the wires, it was apparently discussing the stimulus package as it had existed just five days before. Had something significant changed in the interim? Grim forgot to say.
So yes, there was a CBO analysis/study/document, despite angry claims to the contrary. Beyond that, its hard to know, from Grims report, what was supposed to be wrong with that study/analysis, or with the subsequent news reports by the AP and the Post. Both news reports made it perfectly clear that only part of the $825 billion package had been reviewed by the CBO. And both news reports were careful to note that other parts of the stimulus package would get their money into the bloodstream more quickly than the infrastructure component, the part the CBO had reviewed. The APs opening paragraph was potentially misleading, but the points of confusion were quickly clarified. And in all honesty, there was nothing wrong with the Posts report. As a piece of journalism, it was roughly a thousand times more competent than Grims faltering effort.
Which brings us back to Benens piece about the new CBO reportthe report which can be said to exist. Steve doesnt tell us this, but the new reportthe report which does existseems to be completely consistent which the first analysis/study. Late in his post, Steve links to Lori Montgomerys news report in this mornings Post, in which she describes the CBOs new presentation. But uh-oh! According to Montgomery, the findings in the new study are quite consistent with those in the firstin the report which didnt exist. Benen skips over this point.
Significant changes have been made to the part of the bill the CBO looked at? Grim offered that claim last Friday, and progressive leaders howled all weekend about this deeply significant matter. But wouldnt you know it? Unless something is grossly wrong with Montgomerys report, it doesnt seem to have turned out that way. By the way: No major Democrat offered this claim in discussing this matter this weekend.
Kevin says the speed-of-spending in the bill strikes me as pretty good. Indeed, this may be a fabulous bill; on that point, we offer no view. But for ourselves, we wasted a ton of time last weekend chasing after the absolute nonsense which got its start in the metaphysical clowning at The Huffington Post. As we wasted this ton of time, we noted that none of the adults involved (Peter Orszag; Paul Krugman; Nancy Pelosi) adopted the utterly ludicrous notion that the CBO study didnt exist. Instead, they did what grown-ups might actually do. They offered sensible, substantive reactions to its contentwhich they didnt dispute.
Yes, Virginia! There was an initial report/analysis/documentand the findings in the new report seem to comport with it thoroughly. But so what? Progressives savaged the one report; today, they heap praise on the other! Worst of all: In comments sections all over the web, weve seen the misinformed posts of angry progressives who got rube-run all weekend long. Examples? Just look at the first three comments on Benens new post. When you do, youll see a sad sight. Youll see what the liberal brain look like on silly Bozellism.
Were always amazed when intellectual leaders treat their readers with open contempt. When we started THE DAILY HOWLER, this rube-running was a pseudo-con game, enjoyed by Bozelland by Coulter. Last weekend, we liberal rubes got a good solid run. And this morning, were told to promote a new report/studya new report which seem to align rather thoroughly with the first one, which didnt exist.
As always, we thank the professors: Luckily, we still have our economics professors to help us think our way through such matters. We turned to one last weekend:
That was itthough you got a link to this post by Steve. Presumably, you could go there if you needed to know what sort of horseshit the liberal media had been so happy to run with. Steve at least managed to offer some nuance. The CBO report, as it's been described, doesnt exist, he said.
By this morning, it hadnt existed at all. The new report was more reliable.
Final points: Peter Orszag is Obamas OMB head. When he responded to the first CBO analysis, he was responding to Senator Conrad, a very competent Democrat. Did that mean this was really Democratic horsesh*t? (Should Marshall have demanded BETTER DEMOCRATS, PLEASE?) Knowing that Conrad isnt a servant, a clown or a fool, Orszag didnt channel the nonsense that wasted your time on the web all last weekend. Behaving as grownups will sometimes do, he gave a substantive response to what the CBO had found. He didnt tell Conrad that the CBO analysis didnt exist.
On Monday, Krugman wrote an entire column about GOP criticisms of the stimulus packagebut he didnt echo this foolishness either. It seems were all Bozell/Hannity nowexcept twice-weekly for him.
Note: If youre offended by what weve written, lighten up! It doesnt exist!