OBAMA ABANDONED! I see myself in others, he says. Maddow and Olbermann wont: // link // print // previous // next //
FRIDAY, APRIL 17, 2009
Re-electing Perry: Could a Democrat win the Texas state house next year? We have no idea. On the Republican side, Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison will challenge incumbent governor Rick Perry. Last night, Chris Matthews got busy re-electing Rick. On Fox, Geraldo may have been even worse.
Matthews was re-electing Rick in the standard mannerby aiming repeated insults at Texans from his Yankee lair.
A bit of background: Perry has been mouthing off a bit this weekthough not as much as Matthews conjured. On Tax Day, Perry was asked about secessionand he gave an overly-flogged, if suggestive, reply. (It has begun producing reaction in Texas.) But Matthews was especially vapid last night when it came to the question of sovereignty. In the process, he may have been busy re-electing Rick.
It was a classic performance. Perry had been involved in some matter involving sovereignty, the perpetually uninformed host seemed to know. Throughout the program, he offered wild thoughts about what the unexplained matter could mean. Early on, the following ruminations emergedbefore Matthews began to lecture the world about what the Civil War meant:
As is his wont, Matthews sustained this floundering through the full hour. By the end of the show (7 PM program only), he was thrashing about with Roger Simon, a fellow uninformed Yankand he was churning strings of remarks about nut country, crazy world, Perrys sanity.
Music to Rick Perrys ears? (To watch that last segment, click here.)
Matthews never seems to do any research on any topic, of course. In this instance, he plainly had no idea how the topic of sovereignty had arisen. But then again, this is hardly surprising. Before the sovereignty flap-doodle reached the mainstream, it got itself filtered through Drudge.
What was up with the sovereignty deal? The story emerged this week, through Drudges edit penbut it dates to April 9. On that day, Perry endorsed Texas House Concurrent Resolution 50a resolution which continues to draw little attention in Texas newspapers. But this is how the helpful word sovereignty got into the mix.
Heres part of Perrys statement from April 9. At no point in last nights program did Matthews show any sign of knowing about this resolutionlet alone about what it says:
Last night, a full week later, Matthews was wondering if the sovereignty yap amounts to a claim that Texas is an independent country. Were not suredoes it sound that way? If you acknowledge all powers granted to the federal government under the U.S. Constitution, are you claiming that youre a new country?
In endorsing HCR 50, Perry endorsed his states sovereignty over all powers not otherwise granted to the federal government. It happened on April 9and no one said boo about it. So someone peddled the tale to Drudge, and he improved it a tad. DONT MESS WITH TEXAS GOV DECLARES STATE SOVEREIGNTY, one April 14 headline said. One day later, Politicos Andy Barr simplified things somewhat further:
If you read all the way to paragraph 3, you learned that this was a thinly-veiled reference to certain parts of the stimulus package. But if you read the first paragraph only, you read something vastly simpler. And lets face it: Very few major broadcasters seem to make their way past that first graf.
Last night, Perry got what he may have wanteda string of Yankees lecturing Texans about their obvious lack of sanity. A certain kind of southern pol has won elections this way forever. Matthews was highly uninformed last night (Geraldo may have been even worse). And who knows? As he thundered and flailed and pronounced, the typically under-informed cable host may have been re-electing Rick.
Too perfect: On Hardball. Roger Simon sent Perry the perfect Care package. Maybe if we could keep Austin and a few other places and give them the rest, the Yankee scribe wistfully mused. What a perfect bit of messaging! Wed have to guess that Governor Rick is hoping all Real Texans watched!
PART 4OBAMA ABANDONED: We progressive news consumers got a major break last night. The dick jokes and clowning largely stopped on our cable news programswith Obama as proximate cause. You see, the president had announced some decisions on tortureand thats pretty much the only topic that gets taken seriously on our programs. (As it should be taken, of course.) Result? Olbermann and Maddow put on their dark suits and acted like they were half-human. The dick jokes largely faded, though Olbermann managed a few. (Tea-bagging has now petered out, he cleverly said, throwing in a clever reference to the penal code.)
The pair of progressives put on their dark suits and acted like serious people for once. Torture is taken seriously herethough other subjects may produce clowning. How silly can the policy work get on Countdown? The analysts simply shook their heads at this Wednesday night Olbermann riff:
We dont know where Olbermann got his data, though Texas does seem to be a donor statea state which gets back less in federal spending than it submits in taxes. (For Tax Foundation data, click here.) No, those data arent really relevant to Perrys current complaints. But how silly can analysis get on this program? According to Olbermann, Texans are somehow supposed to be pleased because they get 88 cents on the dollar! (Indeed, this comparison was offered to help show Perrys remarkable ignorance.) Does Olbermann know that a dollar contains 100 centsand that 88 cents is less?
Yes, that was a comical moment. We point it out for one reason onlyto help you see the Potemkin nature of such cable analysis. On Countdown, the occasional fact is thrown in the stew to create the illusion of analysisbut its really all about the name-calling. Consider something else Olbermann said Wednesday nighta segment he did about a new report by the US Public Interest Research Group.
In this second instance, Olbermann went off on one of his famous, highly theatrical rants. On the whole, his rant was aimed at Fox News personnelbut he didnt miss the chance to insult some less exalted citizens. Keith was madhe even cursedas he discussed a type of topic he pretty much never discusses. Yes, he was mad at Cavuto and Beck. But then too, he also seemed mad at the simpletons in Sacramento, the handfuls of sheep who had been herded that day, just like some actual sheep seen earlier on this same program:
The study concerns a serious topica topic Olbermann never discusses. He ranted and yelled about Fox Newsprospectively, since the report in question had only appeared that day. But in the process, he pleasured his viewers with a few choice insultsinsults aimed at the less exalted. But then, his has been a basic feature of progressive news for the past week.
Thats right! Average people attending those Tax Day events have been name-called on these shows for a week. Prurient insults (Maddows term) have rained down on their headseven on the names of their towns. (An event was held in Marble Falls, Texas. This made Olbermann, who supposedly isnt a simpleton, think of whats found in a scrotum.) In this particular Countdown segment. these people were described as simpletons, handfuls of sheep; there was no apparent need to explain. But so it has gone for at least the past week as progressive news mavens insult average people for their stupidityeven as these mavens keep presenting bungled, gong-show news reports.
Consider what happened Tuesday night when Rachel Maddow tried to discuss Obamas speech on the economy.
By the rules of progressive pseudo-journalism, it had to start with some prurient jokes. That particular gob-smack accomplished, Maddow quickly observed a distinction between herself and Obama. She had been taking a juvenile approach to this unfolding story, she acknowledged. (She just couldnt help herself.) By way of contrast, in his speech, Barack Obama had not:
According to Maddow, Obama had taken on his critics as if he has been able to discern...some legitimate concerns that require rebuttal. Throughout the bungled report which followed, she seemed to suggest that such legitimate concerns had come from the left, the right and the centerbut not from the tea-baggers themselves, whose concerns had come from over the top. (That was a play on what occurs when a fellow lowers his scrotum onto a sex partners face.) To help us see how stupid these tea-baggers are, Maddow offered three examples, captured and edited down on tape:
After sneering at the tea-baggers (grand-child robbery!), Maddow played tape of Obamas smart response.
Who were the tea-baggers offered on tape? For the record, Colon is a Young Republican activist; Lang seems to be an average Joe. To state the obvious, Maddows use of what Lang said was a typically disingenuous case of nut-picking; if you get tape of enough people speaking, you can always make someone look dumb, especially if youre willing to take one odd comment out of all context. But for ourselves, we were most struck by the third tea-bagger, the unidentified young woman who spoke with great concern about her childrens and grandchildrens futures. To Maddow, this young woman was just one more tea-baggerone more person to be mocked and insulted, then tossed on a pile like a big smack of gob. The young woman hadnt gone to Stanford, after alland shed never been a Rhodes Scholar! She was thus ripe for sexual insult from a deeply disrespectful young host.
That young woman was worried about her children. Frankly, she ought to be worried about themthough Maddow, drawing gigantic swag, will never have to worry like that. At any rate, Maddow was soon speaking with former DNC chairman Howard Dean. Dean brushed off the tea-baggers toothen made a rather odd statement:
Maddow seemed to self-contradict; Obama wasnt setting up straw-man arguments, she said, just before saying that the arguments in question dont really exist. But then, Maddow made little sense at any point in this long segment on the economy, except when she was insulting people who hadnt quite made it to Stanford. But we were struck by Deans comment here: People should be worried about those big deficits, he said. (And about the bank bail-outs.) We were struck by that comment for an obvious reason; to state the obvious, those big deficits may be the very thing which have that young mother so concernedthe concern which Maddow so instantly mocked. Surely, this might be the source of her fearand here was Dean, saying that people should be concerned about this.
Question: If people should be concerned about that, why was that young woman mocked?
Earlier, Maddow had tried to discuss those deficitsthe deficits to which Dean now alluded. And uh-oh! Although shes more brilliant than that young womaneverything in the GE machine tells us thatMaddow had done a rather poor job handling this part of her brief. It came right after she showed tape of Obama explaining the thinking behind his stimulus package:
Does Maddow know if Obamas analysis is correct? Since she never spends any time on such topics, we have no ideabut wed be quite surprised if she did, despite her endless insults aimed at those dumb tea-baggers. Her throw-away comment about Greggs remark did strike us as less than astute. Gregg made this statement on March 22, two days after the CBO released its gob-smacking deficit projections for the next decadeprojections which presumably include the effects of Obamas health care proposals. (For Lori Montgomerys March 21 news report, just click here.) Gregg was right about one thing: The CBO is projecting deficits in the trillion-dollar range for years 7-10 (2016-2019), long after our presumed recovery from the current recession. And in fact, the CBOs projected deficits dwarf the exploding deficit of the past eight years, the crutch to which Maddow quickly turned in her pointless reaction to Gregg.
What do the CBOs projected deficits look like, as compared to Bushs actual deficits? To see the Washington Posts striking graphic, just click here. This graphic doesnt adjust for the expanding size of the economybut still, the contrast is rather startling when we compare the size of Bushs deficits to those projected under Obama. (And yes, those are Bushs actual deficits. They do include war costs.) Thats the situation to which Dean referred when he said that people should be concerned about those big deficitsafter ridiculing any tea-baggers who might be concerned about them, that is. But then, lets be candid about the garbage Olbermann and Maddow have been pumping out since last week. (Yes: The garbage.) Lets be truthful: Their programs have been insult masquerading as newsthe latest gong-show pseudo-news product churned by MSNBC.
Lets return to that unidentified woman included in Maddows tape.
Based on the things we saw her say, we would guess that she is concerned about those big deficits. She should be concerned about them, Dean said. But she and her kind have been insulted for the past several weeks on our progressive news programsendlessly mocked in sexual terms, vilified for their stupidity. As Maddow and Olbermann have dished these insults, they have also presented a series of hapless reportsknow-nothing segments which nicely dove-tail with their previous lack of work on these subjects. Those CBO projections appeared on March 20, for example; have you ever seen the brilliant Lady Maddow make any attempt to discuss them? Dean says they constitute a real problem; any time Maddow wanted to, she could have brought experts on the air to analyze what those projections might mean. (And to analyze the explanation Obama gave in his speech.) But mainly, shes dealt in crude, stupid insultsdick jokes aimed at regular people, night after night, for more than a week. She has taken a prurient, juvenile approach, she admits. She cant help herself, she explains.
But then, for as long as weve been alive, some young liberals have tended to act this way toward citizens like that young woman. They love to ridicule red-state rubesthe ones who didnt quite make it to Stanford. (Or to Cornell, in Olbermanns case. To Harvard, in the case of Bill Wolff.) Long ago, they helped elect Nixon this wayand they seem to be hard at their labors again. Upscale progressives love to mock less brilliant peoplethe kind of people who get interviewed at strip malls, as Maddows three tea-baggers did. Theyll play the fool all week long, as these TV stars did, to bring their friends this prize.
Marble Falls! Mount Juliet! And omigod! Mount Vernon!
Obama tends toward a different approach, an approach he has long discussed. I see myself in others, he says; he says that he is all about seeing the meritthe point of connectionin the other persons viewpoint. Obama has never insulted young women who worry about their children and grandchildren. It would be comical if it werent so sad: Young progressives who fawn about Obama the most cant wait to reject his approach.
Maddow seemed surprised to see Obama giving serious answers. But Obama was responding to real concernsreal concerns of real people. By contrast, Maddow has been hired, by General Electric, to aim crude insults at lesser beings on behalf of you and yours. In fairness, shes the most skillfully crafted news product, by far, that has ever rolled down GEs line.
I see myself in others, Obama says. Maddow and Olbermann wont.
The saddest day at the fair: For the crowning blow, Olbermann brought out the ludicrous Janeane Garofalo last nightand she explained, in endless detail, that the people at those Tax Day rallies were just a bunch of racists with extremely bad limbic brain problems. To see a performance which couldnt be parodied, you know what to dojust click here.
Keep an eye peeled for the finniest moment:
Given the astounding blather which went before it, that statement was really too much.
By the way: Keith introduced her as an actor. Look whos talking, the analysts said.
Susan Boyle sang: Were you thrilled by the scene when Susan Boyle sang? The audience was laughing before she began. She was sooo beneath their level. We thought of Keith and Rachel.
By the way: Heres what Boyle told ABC News, Jennifer Macey reporting:
Oh. Our. God. She said that word! On this side of the pond, two very-hip urbandic souls would have mocked her for it.