RAVE PARTY! Pundits raved about Palin, Rich said. Frankly, it was just one more fantasy: // link // print // previous // next //
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 11, 2008
Jackson tells it like its been: As weve noted, many pundits have told a heart-warming tale in the wake of Obamas election: They never dreamed theyd ever see a black guy reach the White House! Theyve said this despite their own conduct in 1995, when they stood in line to beg Colin Powell to run against the vile Bill Clinton. In November 1996, exit polls said that Powell would have beaten Clinton, 48-36. But so what? Today, pundits know the shape of the Current Novel. They never dreamed a black guy could get elected, they all seem to know they must say.
In truth, your (white) pundit corps is very unsophisticated (and very unconcerned) about matters of race. Theyve met Clarence Page, and thats about it; they compensate by adopting the most simple-minded possible approach to any matter that involves race, or that seems to do so. (For the record: Page is a very decent person. Heres something we like about him: As a pundit, if hes pushed too far on race, the steel stiffens in his spine.) Well discuss this matter later this week, looking at Sundays Maureen Dowd column. But before we do, we want to compliment Jesse Jackson and Dr. Kings son, Martin Luther King III.
Each man appeared on last Wednesdays Larry King Live. Larry was celebrating Obamas win by pretending that no one could ever have dreamed that such a thing could ever have happened! We had to chuckle when Larry even presented the framework to Jackson himself:
It struck us as an odd framework to offer to Jackson, who ran for president twice in the 1980s. He finished second in the race for the Dem nomination in 1988, twenty years ago. We chuckled a bit at Jacksons reply. The analysts all cheered him for it:
Duh. Of course Jackson would have understood that this had become a possibilitythat your nations progress had reached a point which makes this pundit corps novel a joke. To his credit, he didnt fall in line with the Group Novel. But then, neither did Dr. Kings son, appearing a few minutes later:
Darn these people, who kept refusing to cough up a novelized no!
We dont mean to single out Larry King; the pundit corps has been playing this silly song generally. (Chris Matthews, running for the Senate, has been pimping especially hard. The man is a total disgrace.) Theres nothing they care about to the point that theyll tell you the truth about it. They certainly dont care enough about race to stop their incessant novelizing.
Jackson and King seemed in touch with the truth. As always, your pundit corps trafficked in fiction. They begged Colin Powell to run, long ago. Today, only Jackson recalls.
PART 2RAVE PARTY: Whatever Frank Rich was smoking this weekend, hes been puffing it quite a long time. In 1998, the gentleman couldnt tell the difference between twelve years and maybe ten minutes (see THE DAILY HOWLER, 1/19/07; search on duration). In 1999 and 2000, he couldnt tell the difference between Bush and Gore. The latter problem persisted for years, helping bring major harm to the nation.
This week, Rich is front-running on the side of us Dems. In the past, his front-running ran in a different direction. Quite Frankly, his previous failures-to-discern seemed to be driven by Hard Pundit Scripting. During that era, it was Hard Pundit Law: All judgments must denigrate Clinton/Gore/Clinton. Rich bowed to this communitarian diktat right through the recent Democratic primaries. By Sunday, though, he was on his own tangent, inventing a string of odd reactions to last Tuesdays vote.
Lets be blunt, Rich bluntly said. Almost every assumption about America that was taken as a given by our political culture on Tuesday morning was proved wrong by Tuesday night (see THE DAILY HOWLER, 11/10/08). Rich listed a string of such assumptions, torturing data as he went. But this was surely the oddest remark he made in this puzzling column:
As we noted yesterday, these claims by Rich are utterly bogus. What does it mean when your national discourse is created by fantasists of this type?
Palin made that debut in St. Paul on Wednesday evening, September 3. Was her selection being hailed as a brilliant coup by a nearly uniform pundit corps? Did their rave reviews only flip when Palin began to dive in the polls? Not if you scan four major newspapers, including Richs own paper. In these precincts, reviews of Palin were rather harsh in the wake of her St. Paul debut. Quite Frankly, Rich is making this latest claim upas he has done so many times, with such bad effects, in the past.
Was the pick getting rave reviews? Lets consider Richs own paper. By Sunday, September 7, Clark Hoyt, the Times ombudsman, was responding to widespread complaints that the Times had been savaging Palinthough he didnt seem to agree with this view. But in truth, Times pundits were offering very few rave reviews of Palins selection. In fairness, one such review did appear that weekend, voiced in two paragraphs by William Safire. Heres the gist of what he said:
If a whole lot of pundits had written like that, Richs claim would have merit. But most big pundits werent writing like that, as a glance at the record makes clear.
Lets start with the Washington Post, a major America newspaper.
What rave reviews were Post pundits penning? Heres David Ignatius, reviewing the selection of Palin that very same Sunday:
In our book, thats less than a rave. But then, no one in the Post offered anything like a rave on the weekend which followed Palins debut. The vice president's only constitutional duty of any significance is to become president at a moment's notice, Charles Krauthammer wrote that Friday. Palin is not ready. But that column actually was a rave when compared with E. J. Dionnes, on the same page, the same day:
Gene Robinson wasnt quite raving either: I guess I didn't drink enough Kool-Aid before [Palins] convention speech, which was received inside the Xcel Energy Center here as if Ronald Reagan had returned from the great beyond. Nor did Post editors seem to be thrilled. In an editorial criticizing McCain for what he said in his convention speech about climate change, the editors said this: It was as if his running mate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, who has questioned whether human activity contributes to global warming, exercised a line-item veto on his speech.
But then, the editors at the New York Times were even less upbeat RE Palin. On Wednesday, the nastiest night of the week, Mr. McCain's running mate, Sarah Palin, and other speakers offered punch lines, rather than solutions for this country's many problems, the editors wrote on September 5. Two days later, in a Sunday editorial, they discussed energy issues too. Mr. McCain's choice of Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska as his running mate raises even more worrisome questions, they wrote. Governor Palin's views are alarmingly out of touch with reality. Who knows? Perhaps Rich was thinking of Sarah Vowell, who offered this rave review in a Sunday Times op-ed piece:
Trust usGail Collins, Paul Krugman and Bob Herbert werent raving about the selection either. And quite Frankly, if you think Rich was pimping Palin, you must have been sampling his private stash. The McCain campaign's claims of a full vetting process for Palin were as much a lie as the biographical details they've invented for her, he bluntly opined on September 7. Palin is a high-energy distraction from the top of the ticket, even if the provenance of her stardom is in itself a reflection of exactly what's frightening about the top of the ticket.
Was the punditocracy raving in unison elsewhere? We found no signs of such behavior in the Los Angeles Times or the Chicago Tribune. I spent much of the last week in a state of apoplexy at the hypocrisy and cynicism of the political process in general and the Republican Party in particular, Meghan Daum wrote at the start of an LA Times op-ed piece. She had watched Palins speech with some religious conservative friends. She described her own reaction:
Actually, no, that isnt a rave. But in all candor, no one raved at the Tribune either. Jessica Reaves did write this:
At the Tribune, the Palin pick reeked.
Lets be blunt. The punditocracy wasnt nearly uniform in declaring [Palins] selection a brilliant coup. In these major American papers, very few pundits had good things to say about the selection at all. They didnt offer rave reviews, then demote her to scapegoat overnight after her polling flipped. These claims by Rich were utterly bogus. But on Sunday, the front-running fantasist devoted three paragraphs to this utterly ludicrous claim.
What does it mean when your nations discourse is driven by fantasists of this odd type? Should you be proud of a country like that? Does such a country exist?
Tomorrow: Other claims from Richs pieceand a column penned by a King.