EXPLAIN THAT, HE SAID! Explain that, Lehrer said to Shields. Fat chance, our analysts said: // link // print // previous // next //
SATURDAY, MARCH 20, 2010
Explain that, he said: Your DAILY HOWLER keeps getting results!
This morning, in one of her rare breaks from custom, New York Times columnist Gail Collins doesnt discuss silly inane utterly pointless amusing sex scandals. Truth to tell, she doesnt have a lot to say about proposed health reform, and she of course offers her mandated jibes about silly Dennis Kucinich. (You know? The former mayor of Cleveland? The long-time congressional rep? The two-time presidential candidate? You know? That laughable fellow?) But at least, health reform is pretty much the only thing she discusses today. Your HOWLER keeps getting results!
But right up to this very moment, do you understand what will happen if the House votes aye tomorrow? This is the way Lady Collins describes the events which may be about to occur:
See there? If the House votes aye tomorrow, the original Senate bill theoretically goes to the president! Go aheadyoure allowed to laugh.
The bill theoretically goes to Obama! Do you have any idea what that means? (Do you think Collins does?) Our questions: Does the original Senate bill go to Obama or not? If he signs it, does it thereby become law, whether the additional package of changes is approved in the Senate or not?
Are you sure you know the answers to those questions? Well be frank. Weve read so many non-explanation explanations, wed have to say we do not.
Something similar happened last night on the NewsHour, which is packaged, spun and sold as our highest-IQ TV program.
Explain that, Jim Lehrer said to Mark Shields, speaking about this very matter. Thus encouraged, Shields brought the eternal note of confusion in. Go aheadread the chunk of the transcript weve posted below! Our questions: If the House votes yes tomorrow, will the original Senate bill be signed by Obama? Will it thereby pass into law, no matter what happens after that in the Senate? And would anyone have the slightest idea from perusing this web of confusion?
Explain that, the hapless Lehrer said. After which, confusion reigned:
According to Shields, the president has to sign the Senate-passed bill as soon as it passes the House. Then, he has to push the Senate to enact the changes the House made to that original bill. The Republican strategy in the Senate is to delay, Shields then said. And if they can delay things right into the Jewish holiday? Thats a killer, Shields explained, because that ends the whole thing.
Question: If the House votes aye tomorrow, will the original Senate bill become law, regardless of happens to the package of changes? (This would include the Cornhusker kickback, of course.) Easy! According to Collins, that original Senate bill will theoretically go to Obama! And according to the hapless Shields and Lehrer, the president will have to sign the original Senate bill right awaybut subsequent delays in the Senate could end the whole thing. Alas! As you review these inept explanations, you are reviewing the work of deeply incompetent upscale elites. And lets be clear: This is only one of the many aspects of this debate they have been completely unable to explain.
Example: Do you understand another conundrum these bozos constantly promulgate? Here it is: Debate on the package of changes is limited to twenty hours in the Senatebut Republicans can propose unlimited amendments. Do you understand that apparent contradiction? Pundits constantly churn that formulation. Rather plainly, they suggest the GOP could pretty much offer amendments forever, without seeming to notice the confusion they have thereby introduced. (One example, out of a million: Sherrod Brown introduced this confusion on Monday night. Our Own Rhodes Scholar didnt notice.)
Final question: Do you think Collins understands what will happen if the House votes aye tomorrow? Do you think Lehrer knows? As best we can tell, Collins spends the bulk of her time mooning about insipid sex scandals. Based on performance, Lehrer seems to spend all his off-air time writing his bus-stop novels.
In reality, these people are six- and seven-figure Potemkins. They play major journalists on TVbut in truth, they cant explain sh*t. They cant explain these bills abortion provisions. They cant explain procedural matters. They certainly cant explain your nations massive over-spending on health care. Nor do they care to try.
Alas. These cardboard cut-outs cant explain sh*tand they seem happy to prove it.