FRANKLY BOGUS! Rich began in a typical waywith an absurd misstatement: // link // print // previous // next //
MONDAY, OCTOBER 13, 2008
Downward spiral: The downward spiral has been astounding in the past few daysas it has been in the past sixteen years. In the past few days, the downward spiral has involved the insinuations and statements found in an ad like this:
He worked with a terroristthen lied when discovered! On Friday, we saw the result of this sort of conduct when McCain took the mike from a pitiable 75-year-old woman who had just called Obama an Arab. She had heard a lot of junk about Obamaand didnt know she was being misled.
But many voters are like that woman, whose name is Gayle Quinnell. They cant sort through these emotional claims, through which they are heartlessly used. On Friday, the Associated Press described that ad as McCains toughest commercial yet using Ayers. The ad was released last Fridaythe very day that McCain was telling Quinnell that Obama was a decent family man with whom I have some disagreements.
In all candor, no presidential campaign in recent memory has behaved in such an astounding way. And yet, this was Kevin Drums reaction to McCains chat with that pitiable woman:
Kevin went on to cut-and-paste Ana Marie Cox, who had engaged in some typically careless work, misquoting Quinnell at that rally (details below). Kevin closed with more praise for McCains change of heart: Good for him. Now I wonder if he can get the same message out to Sarah Palin?
Truly, thats astoundingly foolish. But on TV, bigger pundits engaged in standard efforts at finding moral equivalence. In this post, Hilzoy captured Cokie Roberts on This Week, engaged in stupid fake equivalency. Meanwhile, on Late Edition, Gloria Borger was blathering this:
Borger, of course, has been gruesome for years. To her compliant, risk-averse mind, the claim that Obama pals around with terroriststhe claim that he worked with a terrorist, then lied when discoveredseems to constitute run-of-the-mill stuff, the kind of thing you're going to get to stir up the base.
Actually, nono candidate in recent memory has ever campaigned on claims like these. And this remarkable conduct raises a remarkable question: Who within the American discourse has the moral and intellectual authority to discuss this remarkable state of affairs? Below, well start explaining why Frank Rich doesnt really fit that bill. But this has been a remarkable timea time which keeps shedding light on the moral and intellectual squalor that has characterized our political discourse over the past sixteen years.
No candidate has ever campaigned on such claimsbut similar squalor has been widespread. Paul Krugman reminded us of that fact last Friday, on his New York Times blog. The utter lunacy of these claims isnt exactly new, Krugman noted:
This lunacy then spread to the two-year war against Candidate Gorethe war career liberals still rarely discuss. To borrow from Krugman, that war didnt just show up in fringe publications either. It was principally driven by the New York Times, by the Washington Post and by networks like NBC.
As noted, that twenty-month war has also been sort of written out of the mainstream history of politics. Indeed, if you want to see someone work that way, please check the work of our favorite perfesser, in this remarkable post. Simply put, that post traffics in deep delusiona delusion you may not be able to see. But lets be clear: A movement whose professors write nonsense like that is a movement thats destined to fail.
The meltdown of the financial system was preceded by the meltdown of the discourse. But as Krugman implies, many people still refuse to discus the history of that meltdown. And very few people have the moral authority to critique our continuing downward spiral. Theres much more to come on that remarkable topic, which defines the shape of our world.
Its time for Josh to go: Then theres Josh, continuing downward in his own astonishing spiral. This post is simply astounding. It represents an astounding moral/intellectual breakdown. Its time for this guy to go.
Please note: That 75-year-old woman called Obama an Arab, not an Arab terrorist. (Not that it hugely matters.) The latter claim began with the endlessly hapless Ana Marie Cox, who engaged in some typically lazy quotation (click here), then disappeared for the weekend. (She finally corrected her error this morning, some three days later.) As Wonkette, Cox endlessly played the dirty girl; today, she masquerades as a journalist. But Josh has become a black helicopter-level nut, as he displays in that ludicrous post. How does Josh do business these days? Even when the tape made it clear that Quinnell hadnt actually said the word terrorist, Josh kept pretending that she might have done so, suggesting that the microphone might have magically turned itself offno doubt when the black choppers swooped by the event. And he linked you to a tape/transcript of later interviews with Quinnell, saying that she called Obama a terrorist there. Except that simply isnt true either (a point which Cox also fudges today, as her own misstatements continue). For some unknown reason, Josh was determined to peddle this utterly pointless lie. He was willing to play the consummate fool to keep this in circulation. (Since lie has become Joshs favorite word, he wont mind our using it there.)
A progressive world with leadership like this will not assist an Obama presidencyor the nation, or the world. Its clearly time for Josh to goto go live with his mentor, Sean Hannity.
PART 1FRANKLY BOGUS: Unfortunately, Frank Rich is quite correct in the basic premise of yesterdays column. Fairly plainly, John McCain is trying to make voters think of Obama as some sort of terroristas a pal to terrorists, as a supporter of terrorists, as someone who lies about ties to terrorists. Obamas middle name is in wide use. So is a lot of slippery language in McCains most recent commercials.
Others have been working this vein, of course. When a pitiable woman told McCain that Obama was an Arab, she was reflecting insinuations Rush Limbaugh has been happily pimping (see THE DAILY HOWLER, 9/24/08). But Rich is right: The rhetorical conflation of Obama with terrorism is complete within this campaign. Someone needs to tell American voters about the ways theyre endlessly played on this score. Preferably, the message must be delivered by someone the voters might trust.
Unfortunately, Rich cant play that role. To understand why, just consider the opening paragraph of yesterdays truth-challenged column. This opening graf is utterly bogus. Quite literally, Frank Rich can barely open his mouth without lying right in your faces:
Most likely, that blather sounded very goodto a certain group of people who already plan to vote for Obama. But in fact, thats consummate bull-roara fairly obvious lie. As Rich himself surely understands, there was no time in recent history when it seemed preposterous that any black man could be a serious presidential contender. That is a story the hacks have cooked to heighten the drama surrounding Obama. But its plainly untruealmost surely a lie. It helps explain why people like Rich cant help you at moments like this.
Was there a time, at the start of this campaign, when it seemed preposterous that any black man could be a serious presidential contender? That claim is just laughably bogus. Just consider Richs first column about Obama, which appeared two years ago this month, in October 2006. Rich mocked the overstated Obamamania then sweeping through glossy magazine profiles. But after mocking the work of the glossies, the gentleman turned to his major point: Obama should of course run for president:
The more important issue is not whether Mr. Obama will seek the presidency, but what kind of candidate he would be, Rich continued. He said nothing about the idea he now conjuresthe idea that it seemed preposterous to think that Barack Obama could be a serious presidential contender. And indeed: As soon as Obama announced his candidacy in early 2007, panels of pundits began predicting that he would overtake Hillary Clinton in Dem Party polls by Memorial Day (see THE DAILY HOWLER, 2/14/08). No one saidno one seemed to thinkthat his attempt was preposterous.
In the real world, none of these pundits called Obamas attempt preposterous, and Rich said nothing like that either. But then, no one had expressed such a view in 1995, when much of the pundit world begged Colin Powell to run for the White House. Rich wrote several columns about this prospect in the fall of 1995and once again, he never said how preposterous this prospect was. After Powell announced that he wouldnt be running, Rich recalled the way the corps had created a Powell bandwagon:
In 1995, did it seem preposterous that any black man could be a serious presidential contender? Rich said no such thing at the time. Neither did anyone else.
In other words: Rich was lying, right in your faces, in the very first sentence of yesterdays column. But this is a very old habit with Richand it helps explain why people like Rich cant be of much help to the nation. Could McCains ugly attacks on Obama start to turn centrist voters? Its still a possibility. But if those attacks do start to gain traction, hacks like Rich wont be able to help. Nor will he be able to help if Obama reaches the White House.
TOMORROWPART 2: The wages of embellishment.