DARLING SARO! Groaning work in the New York Times may yet help elect Sarah Palin: // link // print // previous // next //
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 3, 2008
MATTHEWS GETS IT WRONG, AGAIN: This time, Matthews is on the Democrats side. Beyond that, he may be planning a Senate run as a Dem (in Pennsylvania, in 2010). But no matter which side hes rooting for, Matthews is almost always a cipher when it comes to the simplest facts.
In a rational world, it couldnt have happened. But as recently as last December, Matthews thought it was Barack Obamas mother and maternal grandmother who provided the Islamic part of his story. (We knowyou think we must be joking. See THE DAILY HOWLER, 12/21/07.) Last night, on Hardball, he lacked the first clue about a part of Sarah Palins pasta part of her past that involves one of Matthews MSNBC colleagues. We hate to kill a small party here. But in what follows, Matthews was wrong on his (implied) facts:
Does this guy ever know anything? In this presentation, Matthews was referring to reports like this, by The Nations Chris Hayesreports about Palins appearance with Buchanan at a 1999 rally in Wasilla, Alaska. But this event took place in July 1999, when Buchanan was seeking the Republican nominationas he had done, with substantial success, in 1992 and 1996. (He won the New Hampshire primary in 1996, for example, beating Bob Dole by two points. He won three more states that yearincluding Alaska.) When Palin appeared with Buchanan three years later, Buchanan was running as a Republican, seeking the Republican nomination. (As you can see from Hayes AP excerpt, Buchanan had also appeared that day at an Interior Republican luncheon in Fairbanksour emphasis.) Though Hayes edit jumbles the articles meaning, when Buchanan appeared that same day in Wasilla, the AP report included this: Among those sporting Buchanan buttons were Wasilla Mayor Sarah Palin and state Sen. Jerry Ward, R-Anchorage. That R, of course, stood for Republican.
(Buchanan sought the Republican nomination until October 25, 1999. The next day, the Posts Tom Edsall reported his party switch: Patrick J. Buchanan, whose presidential bids in 1992 and 1996 bedeviled the Republican establishment, yesterday severed his lifelong ties to the GOP and declared his candidacy for the Reform Party presidential nomination.)
Back to Matthews, who is paid $5 million by NBCbut is too lazy and too entitled to get even the simplest facts right. (It was Obamas mother!) The hapless host blustered ahead last night, repeatedly misstating this matter (and weirdly commenting on his efforts to learn the pronunciation of Palin). Its hard to get much dumber than thisbut this has been the shape of your journalism over the past many years. And this has shaped a good deal of Palin hysteria in the past few dayshysteria which may yet bring a wave of sympathy to McCains VP selection.
Matthews bungling on this point was fairly minor, though we find such cluelessness endlessly fascinating. But many others, in their own foolishness, may yet produce a wave of sympathy for Palin. To check a bit of the New York Times work, just keep reading.
DARLING SARO: Darlings, be sure to understand: It isnt Dowd who is saying these things. Its some bloggers, and its New York magazine. And its the National Enquirer!
Dowd herself doesnt focus on sex on skates. Shes just quoting those others, who do.
As usual, Dowd plays the consummate fool today, closing her piece with inane remarks about people who hide behind manufactured claims of sexism. (One more chance to scold Hillary Clinton!) But in her purring, in her mockery, she (and others) run the risk of making Palin a figure of sympathy. On Sunday, for example, Dowd seemed to mock the fact that Palin attended the University of Idaho. Darlings! It just isnt done! Except by tens of thousands of voterswhile many more dream of the chance.
Well offer you this one small guess: This is a syndrome which may have helped recommend Palins selection. Our guess: The McCain campaign may have assumed that Palin would trigger a wave of liberal condescension and insultinsult and condescension which would work in their favor. In todays purring comment about Broken-watergate, Dowdwho admits to being vacuousruns the risk of making that happen. Many women (and some men) will of course be offended by such mocking references. Loungers like Dowd may be piling up votes when they purr in this way about Palin.
In our view, there are many serious questions to ask about Palins views and past conduct. But is your upper-end journalistic elite smart enough to sort them out? Consider this mornings New York Times editorial. We think it offers a good example of the broken intellectual state of our modern press elite.
As we said, there are many real questions to ask about Palin. Indeed, the Times makes that very statement at one point in this piece. But people who reason as poorly as this are unlikely ever to ask them:
In that groaning passage, the conservative activists who didnt want Lieberman somehow get melded into the people who trashed McCain in a particularly ugly way in South Carolina eight years ago. You have to be an utter fool to write a stupid passage like that. But at the Times, there was more where that came from. Consider this nonsense, for instance:
Yes, Ted Stevens is under indictment. But what on earth does that have to do with the merits of that railroad to that ski resort? Perhaps this hapless editorial board will soon type something like this:
Did Palin build that railroad as a favor to Stevens? The editorial makes no such claim. Why then was that nonsense included?
In our view, there are many important questions that ought to be asked about Palins views and prior conduct. The Times even stumbles upon a few in the course of its bumbling editorial. But how inept is this particular board? Continuing directly from above, this is the best they could do with Palins Bridge to Nowhere deception:
Thats fairly weak tea in our book, although some of those statements are actually accurate. In fact, Palin herself is making that presentation, in a self-glorying sound-bite which is just flatly inaccurate. In her first appearance on the national stage, Palin is thus flatly misstating the facts of this casebut the Times doesnt seem to know that. Meanwhile, some of the statements here are not accurate. In fact, Palin diverted the money several years after the bridge became a political disaster. What a surprise! In this passage, the editorial board shows little sign of understanding the facts of this case.
In this bumbling editorial, the Times hits upon a few of the problems with Palins record. (It completely misses some others.) But it also bumbles around, making the leaps of logic which have characterized this page since son-of-a-honcho Andrew Rosenthal was handed control of its contents. Why is your upper-end press corps so weak? Well guess that the wages of nepotism have sometimes been part of the problem.
Then, theres this passage by Garry Wills, next to Dowd on the op-ed page. In this passage, he lists four things McCain should have known about:
Which of those four things doesnt belong? If you can tell, you have no future in High Manhattan Culture.
THE TRUTH MUST NOT BE SOUGHT: The McCain campaign is battling the press corps on the Palin front. In todays Post, Howard Kurtzs report on this aggressive push-back is deeply, completely inept. Early in his groaning report, he makes this groaning presentation:
Wow! Schmidt bravely spoke on the record in lodging these complaints! Unfortunately, he doesnt seem to have spoken specifically; if he did, Kurtz has forgotten to report the gentlemans specific complaints. Fineman was predicting that the governor might have to step down? When did Fineman make that prediction? That Times report was a work of fiction? What in particular made it fictitious? In this rendition, Schmidt doesnt answer such obvious questionsand more significantly, Kurtz doesnt ask them. Kurtz reports Schmidts chargeand Finemans denial. But wouldnt you know it? Absent-mindedly, he forgets to let us know if Schmidts claim is actually true.
Its hard to be more gutless than that, but Jim Rutenberg gives it the old college try in this equally worthless report. Rutenberg pretends to discuss Campbell Browns recent interview with McCain honcho Tucker Bounds. So youll understand what the New York Times wont tell you, this was the initial exchange which defined this discussion:
Indeed, Bounds wasnt answering her question; to her credit, Brown actually said so. A bit later, Bounds referred to the Alaska National Guardand Brown narrowed her question:
Brown was breaking all rules of the gameand uh-oh! She seemed to be prepared! As Bounds continued, Brown kept asking for an exampleand she soon made a factual assertion:
Youre rightBounds final reply doesnt really make sense, since hes once again discussing a deployment within the state of Alaska. In short, he still couldnt cite a particular action by Palin that supported his original claimthe claim that shed gained foreign policy experience from serving as head of the Guard.
In that fuller exchange, Brown did something you never see. Someone made an apparently bogus claimand, instead of ignoring the problem, she asked him to defend it! When that happens, media reporters will often piddle in their pants, confused by this change in the rules. In todays piece, Rutenberg completely fails to explain the basic shape of this discussion. In the end, heres how he describes what transpired:
Rutenberg thought he had seen an argumentan argument which soon devolved. It ended with no real resolution, he said, seeming to choose his words carefully. In fact, this was a perfectly normal exchangeand it ended with Bounds failing to support his initial claim. Heres what Rutenberg would have typed in a more rational world:
In this exchange, Brown actually did what a journalist shouldwhich may be what made the exchange so confusing. When such unexpected behavior occurs, people like Rutenberg get so scaredand so amazedthat they think theyre watching an argument. In his piece, Rutenberg fails to describe the Bounds claim which was in disputeand he doesnt report what is actually true. But then, within the culture of upper-class media, truth is no longer a basic concept. As they piddle in their pants, it doesnt occur to fellows like these that theyre hired to learn what is true.