FLIGHT OF THE LIBERAL COLUMNISTS! It has been a very good couple of decades for pseudo-con hacks like McCaughey: // link // print // previous // next //
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 10, 2009
You live inside a managed discussion: We thought Obama did several notable things in last nights speech. Good God! A major Democrat stood up and said that the public is being handed lies! When has anyone ever done that? He even began to tell a Big Story, about the need for the nations government to regulate/supervise the nations Big Interests. This stands in contrast to the other sides story: Big government never did anything right!
When did you ever see a Major Democrat do either one of those things? Well plan to discuss this next week.
That said, we thought one part of Obamas address was remarkably bad. Late in the speech, he described the way health reform might bend that spending curve:
The highlighted statement describes a world in which both major parties have agreed that we are a corporate democracy.
Incredible! In a world where the following data obtain, Obama dreams of slow[ing] the growth of health care costs by just one-tenth of 1 percent each year. Thats an amazingly tiny goal in a world described by these data:
Look at those datathen look at that statement. Simple story: You live inside a corporate democracy, where the most laughable kinds of corporate looting wont even be discussed. You also live inside a managed discussion. Every sector has agreed to avoid discussing what those data mean.
Go ahead: Explain it differently.
You live inside a managed discussion. Obama mentioned our comparative spending in passing last night, making his latest factual error. Then there's the problem of rising costs, he said. We spend one-and-a-half times more per person on health care than any other country, but we aren't any healthier for it. We do spend much more than any other countryalthough that statistic was blatantly wrong. More significantly: If we were spending that much more than any other country, why on earth would we only be seeking to slow the rate of growthand only by the tiny amount described in that highlighted passage?
In our national pseudo-discussion, those comparative data get mentioned in passing. After that, they disappear. Every sector agrees: We mustnt discuss their blatant and obvious meaning.
You live inside a bungled discussion: You also live inside a massively bungled discussion. Consider the Chicago Tribunes recent attempt to describe the relative size of your nations health care spending.
We first saw the Tribunes feature in the Baltimore Sun. It ran beneath a headline which grossly understates the central fact. (Of industrialized nations, U.S. spends most on health.) At any rate, this is the full Q-and-A about comparative health care spending in the Tribunes feature. (To see the feature as it appeared in the LA Times, click here.) Kim Geiger and James Oliphant significantly bungle. But then, what else is new?
The reader, if there was a reader, was begging for information. She had heard that Japan spends half what we spend. She wanted to know if that was correct.
She went to the wrong place.
First, the less significant problem: Geiger and Oliphant are using OECD data for the year 2003. The data for 2007 have been in wide use for some time now.
The more significant problem: Japan does not spend half of what we spend. It spends considerably less than half. In 2003, Japan spent 39 percent as much as we did. (For the full set of data, click here).
The reader asked about spending and longevity. Geiger and Oilphant omitted the longevityand bungled the spending.
It isnt hard to give an accurate answer to that readers question. But as we told you yesterday: Journalists seem to be required to bungle this question. (Albert Brooks may have guessed why that is.)
We dont spend more than comparable nations. We spend massively more. Japan doesnt spend half what we spend. Japan spends much less than half.
Citizens deserve to hear such facts. Those facts are very important. It isnt hard to state such factsexcept for professional journalists.
PART 3FLIGHT OF THE LIBERAL COLUMNISTS: It has been a very good couple of decades for pseudo-conservative demagogues. Theres nothing such people can say or do to damage high-flying careers:
In 1994, Rush Limbaugh jump-started the ugly claim that Hillary Clinton had been involved in the death of her long-time friend, Vince Foster. Today, El Slimebo is still going strong. His claims only get more ludicrous.
At that same time, Jerry Falwell began pushing the claim that Bill and Hillary Clinton had been involved in a long string of murders. Falwell has moved on to his just reward. But he remained an honored figure on national talk shows until the time of his death.
In 1997, Frank Rich and Maureen Dowd invented the disastrous Love Story flap, dissembling and mind-reading as they did. (Michael Kelly and Mary McGrory pitched in. So did Cokie Roberts.) Today, they remain honored journalists. Rich remains a favorite of liberals, with no questions asked!
In this mornings New York Times, the clownish fantasist, David Bossie, is moving toward his latest victoryin the U.S. Supreme Court!
It has been a good era for pseudo-conservative clowns. But no ones story demonstrates this pattern quite the way Betsy McCaugheys story does. Good God! Just consider this narrative:
In 1994, McCaughey invented ludicrous claims which took the Clinton health plan to defeat. Eventually, everyone came to understand that her claims had been grotesquely bogus. In 2006, The New Republic formally apologized for the fact that theyd ever published her piece. Even Andrew Sullivan, the editor who put it in print, has acknowledged that he knew it had problems.
(By the way: Sullivan has now been widely adopted as a furry liberal house pet. This has been a very good era for those who slime Big Dems.)
Back To McCaughey: Eventually, everyone knew that her claims against the Clinton health plan were bogus. And yet, this year, it happened again! McCaughey popped up with new tortured claims, this time about the Obama health planclaims which roiled this years health care debate! McCaughey proves the pattern as few others can: In the past few decades, there has been no way that a pseudo-conservative can get herself discredited. No matter how clownish her claims might be, she will be live to clown another day.
Why in the world has this happened? What can possibly explain this disastrous cultural pattern?
For starters, consider the way McCaughey has been treated this year in the mainstream press.
To its credit, the New York Times has not rolled over and died for McCaughey this year. Indeed, McCaughey wrote her slick/slippery letter to the Times last week because she has been challenged and criticized in its pagesand this has happened quite a few times.
For starters, Rutenberg and Calmes smacked McCaughey around in this August 14 news report, which pulled few punches in its dismissal of the clownish death panel rumors. On August 25, Rutenberg was back, with a report on the way Ezekiel Emanuel has been slimed in the ongoing health care debate. Right at the start, Rutenberg noted that McCaughey has been [l]argely quoting his past writings out of context this summer. On August 26, local columnist Jim Dwyer profiled McCaughey, saying that she and Sarah palin have driven some of the most disturbing, and distorted, claims about the [health care] proposals. (Headline: Distortions on Health Bill, Homegrown.) On September 5, Rutenberg offered this unflattering profile of McCaughey and her endless buffoonism. In an early passage, Rutenberg captured the oddness of the age:
Everyone is surprised to see her back! Translation: McCaugheys serial clownishness seemed to have ended her career in the late 1990s. But this has been a very good age for pseudo-conservative demagogues.
Its hard to say that the New York Times has looked away this time. The Washington Post has been different.
In the past few months, the Washington Post has gazed away, again, as McCaugheys demagoguery has harmed the nationagain. On August 1, Ceci Connolly mentioned McCaughey one time in a front-page report about the death panel claims. Three weeks later, the Posts editors battered McCaughey around pretty good in an editorial defending Ezekiel Emanuel. The following passage shows a key factthe editors understand the oddness of this big kooks resurrection:
The editors know that McCaughey was misleader-in-chief during the 1994 debate. They seem to see the irony and oddness in her return this year. But on the whole, this is a very forgiving culture for pseudo-conservative crackpot/dissemblers. McCaughey has been mentioned only one more time in the Post, completely in passing. The Post has never done a profile of our serial misleader-in-chief.
Remarkable, isnt it? Acting as misleader-in-chief, you can bring down health reform in 1994. Fifteen years later, you can show up and do the same damn thing! But at a newspaper like the Washington Post, this seems to be viewed as business as usual. McCaughey got whacked once, in that editorial. But that has been where it ends.
This brings us to a third journalistic group: The weak-kneed, soft-headed men and women who get cast as our liberal columnists.
The Post and the Time are full of columnists who get advertised as liberals. None has stooped to tell the story of Betsy McCaughey this year. The big blowhard Rich worked hard, for years, to tell the world what a phony Gore was. (Through 2006! He pimped the crap about Clinton for years before that.) But neither he, nor Dionne, nor Cohen, nor Robinson, has been struck by the story of Betsy McCaugheythe serial misleader-in-chief.
You can lie about Dems as much as you like. These big weak blowhards wont name you.
Thanks to the work of Potemkin liberals, this has been a very good era for pseudo-conservative hustlers like McCaughey. Such hacks have misled the public for decades. Of course, back in the Clinton-Gore years (and beyond), many of those liberal columnists were actively pushing the same story lines! They wont likely step up to explain recent history to a bamboozled public.
The public needs to hear this story. Liberal columnists arent likely to tell it.
People like Rich, Dionne and Robinson have made life sweet for the phony McCoys. Tomorrow, well look at the hapless way this era gets treated on cable. How can voters understand recent history when liberals all agree not to tell?