WHAT $5 MILLION BUYS YOU! Orly Taitz is a flat-out nut. But then again, so is Chris Matthews: // link // print // previous // next //
THURSDAY, JUNE 10, 2010
What $5 million buys you: What does $5 million buy you in the cable job market?
It doesnt buy you much. Below, you see Chris Matthews, late on Tuesday night, offering his thoughts about the likely victory of Orly Taitz. Taitz was seeking the Republican nomination for secretary of state of California.
Matthews comments occurred after 10 PM Eastern on Countdowns live, election-night program. We were struck by Matthews cluelessness about the likely outcome of this race, and by his debut as an undisguised one-party man. First, well offer the full exchange, then a series of thoughts:
Poor Keith kept trying to change the subject. But his guests deep-sea gushing went on.
Taitz, of course, is a flat-out nut. But lets review Matthews performance:
Brilliant analyst: We have no idea how Matthews got it into his head that Taitz would probably win nomination. As we said, Matthews was trailing this long, oily plume Tuesday night, after 10 PM Eastern. As it turned out, Taitz lost her race for the GOP nomination to Damon Dunn, who squeaked by with 74 percent of the vote! Taitz was massacred in this campaign (click here). Matthews seemed to think shed been nominated.
Undisguised one-party man: With this peculiar performance, Matthews reinvention is complete. You will rarely see a cable host express a party preference as baldly as Matthews did this night. This gentleman spent the Clinton-Gore years (and several years thereafter) aggressively hunting both Clinton and Gore, in the most malignant ways possible. In this performance, he openly exulted in the notion that Taitz would bring down the other two [Republican] candidates for high office in California. The re-purposing of this big flaming cable nut finally seems complete.
Unable to get it straight: In the area of general competence, Matthews persists in the claim that birthers believe Obama is an illegal immigrant who should be thrown out of the country. That may be the way some people view this matter, of course; some people think there was no moon landing. But in the realm of mere reality, if Obama had been born to his mother while she was in Kenya, he would still be an American citizenhe just wouldnt be eligible to run for president as the Constitution is normally understood. To this day, Matthews cant seem to get this distinction straight. But then, he rarely does.
It takes one to know one: Orly Taitz is a flat-out nutbut then again, so is Matthews. We were struck by how much of his Tuesday night rant could be applied to Matthews himselfmore specifically, to his conduct during the Clinton-Gore years (and beyond). Taitz will not treat the president as an American? Shortly after 9/11, Matthews went on Imus and said that Gore doesnt seem very American, evendoesnt look like one of us. Is there something really crazy about Taitz? Is there a malignancy in her attitude? Will it take a shrink to figure it out? To all those questions, you might answer yes. But all these things are also true about Matthews performance toward Clinton and Gore, which persisted for many years. It was hard to avoid a simple thought as we watched this big cable nut Tuesday night: In this unusual cable rant, Matthews seemed to be describing himself.
What does $5 million buy you these days? In this case, it buys you a loud, screaming cable nut. Orly Taitz is a big nut toobut in fairness, she does it for free.
The Cult of the Single Sentence: In this mornings New York Times, Jennifer Steinhauer offers a profile of Sharron Angle, who has won the GOP nomination to oppose Harry Reid in the Nevada senate race. We offer three cheers for Steinhauers workfor something she and her editors chose to omit from this piece.
Go aheadread the full profile. You wont read a single word about liquor, alcohol, beer, Prohibition. We think this shows good judgment on the part of the Times. It represents a defeat for the Cult of the Offhand Comment, the brainless cult which has ruled so much of our modern pseudo-journalism.
Why would a profile of Sharron Angle mention Prohibition? Because of a single sentence Angle apparently uttered in 2006a murky remark which was seven words long. There doesnt seem to be a tape of the interview in which Angle made her murky comment; theres no way to judge her tone of voice, or even to verify that she was quoted accurately in the report of that session. But the dimmer bulbs in our political press corps have been having some good solid fun with that murky, four-year-old comment. Even his highest Lord Dowdinpants tales the bait in todays Washington Post:
Really? Angle floated the idea of outlawing alcohol? In all honesty, noshe really didnt. But so what? Rachel Maddow has been clowning around with this same theme, and youll likely see more clowning around your cable dial as things proceed in Nevada. Unfortunately, this advances The Cult of the Offhand Comment and the low-IQ journalistic culture which lies behind that cult.
This culture increasingly rules our journalism, and our politics. This culture has been very damaging to Major Democrats in the years since its birth.
What did Angle say about alcohol in her one murky statement? You can click this link to see the published account of her one fleeting commentan offhand remark whose meaning is unclear. But remember: In all of recorded human history, Angle has uttered no other statement on this topicand it isnt especially clear what she meant by this one remark. But the comment is fun to clown around with. Cable clowns will probably do so.
Angle favors privatizing Social Security and Medicare. Her views on other major topics are often quite striking. (Although we wouldnt advise you to trust Dowdinpants accounts of such topics.) But in our clown-driven journalistic culture, the clowns may steer you over to this. No one gains anything real from such clowningand a price in paid in the continuing drift of the journalistic culture.
The culture behind the Cult of the Offhand Comment has made our journalism dumb. Its bad for America when that occursbut it has been especially bad for a string of Big Major Democrats. When journalists are allowed to grab a single murky remark and interpret it in whatever manner they please, they are given massive powerthe power to take our political discourse far off the rails. This power was endlessly used against Candidate Gore in Campaign 2000; every word which fell from his lips was interpreted in clownish ways. This power was then used against Candidate Kerry four years later. (He was for it before he was against it! The press corps loud clucking on this theme was extremely dumb.) Its bad for the country when journalists are allowed to clown in such ways. But this power has been disproportionately used against Big Major Democrats.
Do you believe that Power will work, on balance, in support of Power? If so, this disproportion is what youd expect when journalists are given the right to clown in such silly ways.
This morning, the New York Times chose to ignore that one lonely statement by Anglethat single, untaped, offhand remark from 2006. Angle explicit favors many proposals which strike at the heart of our modern policy consensus. When we clown around about banning beer, we are having some good solid fun, thus driving up our cable ratings and justifying our seven-figure salaries. But we are also making our politics dumber in the process.
In the past twenty years, this growing dumbness has been used to harm progressive interests. Just a guess: If we let the culture of dumbness flourish, the dumbness will tilt this way.