DailyHowler.com

DailyHowler.com http://www.DailyHowler.com THE DAILY HOWLER is the first post-Socratic press corps review and applies the simplest rules of thought to the exertions of the celebrity press corps. en-us Copyright 1998-2010 Tue, 09 Feb 2010 05:56:00 +0400 Tue, 09 Feb 2010 05:56:00 +0400 marc.cherbonnier@gmail.com (Marc Cherbonnier) bobsomerby@hotmail.com DailyHowler.com http://www.DailyHowler.com/dailyhowler_logo070604g.jpg http://www.DailyHowler.com Your country is dying, Krugman warns. KO keeps driving the process http://www.DailyHowler.com/dh020810.html Shoveling is powerful: Heroically, a 7-11 not far from here stayed open this weekend, even on Saturday. What we've learned from this weekend's storm: 30 inches of snow is a great excuse to purchase a hot dog each day. Sadly, life has begun to return to something on the fringe of near-normal. For the past two days, with threats of new storms bruited, it was hard not to think of The Long Winter, volume 6 in Laura Ingalls Wilder's prairie memoir--her account of the semi-famous South Dakota winter of 1880-1881. ("Flat out on the western plain," as the recently-passed Kate McGarrigle sang, on what may be the best album we ever heard.) We strongly recommend The Long Winter, and Wilder's other books. Of course, They never heard of a 7-11! Throughout the course of her nine volumes, it's a point Wilder just never drops. WITH A WHIMPER<a name="WHIMPER"> </a>(<a href="http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh020810.shtml#WHIMPER">permalink</a>): Is our nation dying before our eyes? Here's the start of Paul Krugman's new column, complete with <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/08/opinion/08krugman.html?ref=todayspaper" target="external">its gulp-worthy headline</a>: <blockquote> KRUGMAN (2/8/10): America Is Not Yet Lost We've always known that America's reign as the world's greatest nation would eventually end. But most of us imagined that our downfall, when it came, would be something grand and tragic. What we're getting instead is less a tragedy than a deadly farce. Instead of fraying under the strain of imperial overstretch, we're paralyzed by procedure. Instead of re-enacting the decline and fall of Rome, we're re-enacting the dissolution of 18th-century Poland. A brief history lesson: In the 17th and 18th centuries, the Polish legislature, the Sejm, operated on the unanimity principle: any member could nullify legislation by shouting "I do not allow!" This made the nation largely ungovernable, and neighboring regimes began hacking off pieces of its territory. By 1795 Poland had disappeared, not to re-emerge for more than a century. Today, the U.S. Senate seems determined to make the Sejm look good by comparison.</blockquote> America's downfall is playing out as a deadly farce, Krugman says. Krugman refers to ways in which your nation stands "paralyzed by procedure." But we're also paralyzed by sheer inanity. We've been paralyzed by sheer inanity for several decades now. Will it help if our side becomes inane? This is the way Keith Olbermann started Friday night's latest embarrassment. There are words for this sort of thing: Silly, inane, not accurate: <blockquote> OLBERMANN (2/5/10): Which of these stories will you be talking about tomorrow? The jig is up for Sarah Palin: 1200 official State of Alaska e-mails reveal her husband is almost co-governor, reveal she coached her staff on how to disguise the amount of electrical work needed at the governor's mansion to hook up her tanning bed. [...] Good evening from New York. Politicians who pad their expense accounts, who will look for ways to bill taxpayers for private airline flights taken by their relatives, maybe even for the electrical work needed to hook up their tanning beds. And there are the lawmakers who tried to thwart transparency by withholding information or when they finally do release it, by redacting pages upon pages of it from public scrutiny. Supposedly, these are the kind of public officials that the tea party members are fighting against. Yet tomorrow night, a former governor, matching that exact description is to deliver the keynote address at the first national tea party convention in Nashville. Perhaps by then, convention organizers will have found an American flag somewhere in the convention hall, literally found one--they opened proceedings without one. And then she could use it to drape herself in it. For now, the former governor of Alaska drowning in nearly 3,000 pages of newly released e-mails revealing just how closely entwined her family's finances were with state finances. And revealing that her husband, self-proclaimed first dude, Todd Palin, having been actively involved in a wide range of state business. The e-mails released exclusively to MSNBC under the public records law and in them, Governor Palin stewing over a state agency's refusal to provide a private plane so that her children could fly to Todd Palin's family home in Dillingham, Alaska. The governor calling the agency's decision "really outrageous." Governor Palin's event manager charged with finding a public event, any event, "I just need one," to use as a justification to charge the state for an airline flight taken by her daughter, Willow, who made a trip with the family but failed to attend the public event on the governor's schedule. Governor Palin coaching her staff on how to keep quiet on the amount of electrical work needed at the governor`s mansion to hook up her new tanning bed at a cost of $3,252 to Alaska taxpayers.</blockquote> It would be hard to describe the degree of inanity driving those highlighted passages. "Which of these stories will you be talking about tomorrow?" No one is talking about these stories, because very few people in this country are anywhere near as inane as Olbermann has become. The Anchorage Daily News, no fan of Palin, hasn't even wasted its time with the ridiculous tanning bed/airline flight e-mail stories--stories which led Olbermann to announce that "the jig is up" for Palin. But sadly, the jig isn't up for Palin. And she won't be defeated this way. (We withdraw our earlier, unwise prediction--predictions almost always are--in which we said there was simply no way she could ever become president.) How silly are Olbermann'sscreeching claims? As best we can tell, they aren't being talked about at TPM. They aren't being talked about by Steve Benen. They aren't being talked about by Digby. And, of course, they aren't being talked about anywhere in the actual press corps--<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/05/AR2010020504232.html" target="external">except by Ceci Connolly</a>, the greatest embarrassment of the past decade! By now, they've even buried this embarrassing headless turkey over at MSNBC's web site, where the nonsense started. Might we suggest a reason? These stories aren't being talked about because they're baldly inane. Because several of the things Olbermann says in those highlighted passages simply aren't truthful or accurate. Make no mistake: During the Clinton/Gore era, stories of equal inanity were widely, endlessly used to batter and defeat Big Democrats. Alas! We ourselves just spent the weekend (when we weren't shoveling) re-researching the way a certain (inaccurate) claim finally emerged in 1999, rewarding eleven years of Republican effort: Al Gore grew up at the Ritz Carlton! Needless to say, Maureen Dowd played a key role in the process, way back in July 1992. (In this case, she even seems to have plagiarized her mewing, inaccurate quips.) Inanity was used against Clinton, then Gore. Inane claims were adopted all over the pres corps; inane topics were discussed by the mainstream press corps for years. But people! The press corps will not adopt our side's inane claims (nor should progressives want that). And your country will simply cease to exist if this process of dumbing-down continues much longer. Could your country (essentially) cease to exist? If you don't think so, read Krugman. Please don't make us waste our time walking through the inanity of Olbermann's opening, or his later discussion with Richard Wolffe, puppet to the stars. Don't make us detail his flat misstatements. You can track the whole mess from <a href="http://rss.msnbc.msn.com/id/35238034/" target="external">this pitiful report</a> by MSNBC's "investigative reporter," Bill Dedman. You can click on Dedman's links to read the e-mails which fueled his claims about the tanning bed and the airplane flight. After reading those e-mails, see if you have any idea where Dedman's claims came from--or Olbermann's. See if you have any idea how either one of these guys ever got a job in journalism. Your nation is dying, Krugman said. He said it's dying from broken procedures. But your nation has been also dying, for decades, from the disease of inanity. By at least the 1990s, this disease had spread from the talk-radio world and the RNC into the world of the "mainstream press." In unison, pundits agreed to shriek ludicrous claims about flatly ridiculous topics. Now, young liberals hear a big nut do the same thing many nights. But in fact, no one is talking about his stories--and it's good that his stories don't thrive. If you are talking about Friday night's stories, you're talking to yourself. Sorry. You just can't build a progressive politics by selling bull crap like this to young liberals. To defeat Palin and Palinism, we'll actually have to do a hard thing: We'll actually have to build and promote a winning progressive politics. Olbermann and his puppet-boy Wolffe will never be up to any such task. In the place of developing actual politics, these well-trained ad salesmen invent inane claims--shriek, clatter, mislead and howl. As Krugman says, this is the way a nation may end: Not with a bang--with something "grand"--but with an inane, silly whimper. As George Will set a new fact in stone, Ron Brownstein pimped Senator Ryan http://www.DailyHowler.com/dh020510.html Krugman speaks, following Ezra: This morning, Paul Krugman presents his view about projected levels of deficit/debt. We're not saying he's right on every nuance, though for all we know, he may be. But we strongly recommend that you study his column--<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/05/opinion/05krugman.html?ref=todayspaper" target="external">this observation, for example</a>: <blockquote> KRUGMAN (2/5/10): Let's talk for a moment about budget reality. Contrary to what you often hear, the large deficit the federal government is running right now isn't the result of runaway spending growth. Instead, well more than half of the deficit was caused by the ongoing economic crisis, which has led to a plunge in tax receipts, required federal bailouts of financial institutions, and been met--appropriately--with temporary measures to stimulate growth and support employment.</blockquote> Where have our current (mammoth) deficits come from? Others have (quite occasionally) tried to explain that matter along the way, though such explanations rarely dent the deeply unintelligent discussions conducted each evening on cable. Nor do our biggest national newspapers make real attempts to lay out such matters. At one point, Krugman puts it like this: <blockquote> KRUGMAN: To me--and I'm not alone in this--the sudden outbreak of deficit hysteria brings back memories of the groupthink that took hold during the run-up to the Iraq war. Now, as then, dubious allegations, not backed by hard evidence, are being reported as if they have been established beyond a shadow of a doubt. Now, as then, much of the political and media establishments have bought into the notion that we must take drastic action quickly, even though there hasn't been any new information to justify this sudden urgency. Now, as then, those who challenge the prevailing narrative, no matter how strong their case and no matter how solid their background, are being marginalized.</blockquote> That "media establishment" is highly Potemkin. The following claim remains counterintuitive: At the present time, our media establishment tends to be extremely unintelligent. In Krugman's presentation, its members rush to affirm "dubious allegations, not backed by hard evidence." And yet, they hold great power. That said, we'll recommend Ezra Klein's column from last Sunday's Washington Post. <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/30/AR2010013000032.html" target="external">In this column</a>, Klein discussed the difficulty Obama had in the past year in explaining two "very important economic arguments." In particular, "the stimulus proved almost impossible to explain," Ezra said. We would ask a simple question: Why was that so hard? This morning, Krugman describes a deeply unintelligent "media establishment"--an establishment devoted to hysterical, uninformed groupthink. Last Sunday, Ezra described a problem which partially tracks to the failures of this "elite." We don't agree with each tilt to Ezra's piece. But he's describing a profound problem--the profound lack of "intellectual capital" within our public debates. We live in an exceptionally unintelligent political/journalistic culture--a culture in which a fool like Dowd gets handed our highest journalistic awards. Krugman and Klein have their hands on the same problem. More on this topic next week. Special report: Dumb like us! EPILOGUE--AS THE NEWS TURNS: This has been a very good week--if you enjoy observing the very bad way the "news" gets invented in our country. This includes the role played in this process by incompetent "liberal" "elites." Yesterday morning, in his nationally syndicated column, George Will nailed down our society's latest new "fact." Careful, rubes! And please note this: Will doesn't assert that the new "fact" is true. In this, his column's opening paragraph, he simply leaps to repeat it: <blockquote> WILL (2/4/10): On Day One of his vow to take "meaningful steps to reuin in our debt," Barack Obama asked Congress to freeze portions of discretionary domestic spending. This would follow an astonishing permanent expansion: Republicans on the House Budget Committee say appropriations bills Obama has signed, along with his stimulus spending, have increased discretionary domestic spending 84 percent. He almost certainly will not keep his promise to veto spending bills when Congress, as it almost certainly will, largely disregards his request.</blockquote> Will's column appeared <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/03/AR2010020302951.html" target="external">in the Washington Post</a>, our most important political newspaper. But it also appeared (among other places) in the Biloxi Sun Herald, the Bismarck Tribune, the Norfolk Virginian-Pilot and the Sarasota Herald Tribune. And in the Pittsburgh Tribune Review. It appeared in Salt Lake City's Deseret Morning News, in New Jersey's Gloucester County Times. The column even appeared in the Island Packet. (Hilton Head/Bluffton. <a href="http://www.islandpacket.com/" target="external">Click here</a>.) But then, Wikipedia says that Will's column appears in 450 newspapers. We'll assume that number jumps around quite a bit. But whatever the number may currently be, it represents a lot of us rubes getting exposed to our country's new "fact." Alas! Given the ubiquity of Will's column, his presentation pretty much makes it a fact: Obama is freezing domestic discretionary spending--but only after increasing such spending by an "astonishing" 84 percent! Again, Will doesn't say that this claim is true; he simply reports that Republicans have been "saying" it, as we noted in yesterday's HOWLER. But surely, this new "fact" will never die, now that Will has advanced it. Indeed, here's the way our country's new "fact" got pimped on last evening's Hannity program. Republican strategist Karen Hanretty moved the new "fact" along as part of a truly repulsive performance during the program's panel discussion. Lanny Davis served as her foil, but there's been quite a bit of that lately: <blockquote> DAVIS (2/4/10): Excuse me, the Republicans voted against a bill that they were in favor of last year that would say we're going to cut the budget, both in spending, and we're going to do it in a-- HANRETTY: That's nonsense! Discretionary--discretionary spending increased 84 percent! An 84 percent discretionary spending increase since Barack Obama has been president. HANNITY: That's right!</blockquote> Hanretty's claim may even be technically accurate, given the limited way she expressed it. But in context, she was advancing the country's new "fact." Obama will freeze domestic spending--but only after increasing such spending by an astounding 84 percent! But is that new fact actually accurate? On Tuesday, Peter Orszag said it wasn't, and he even mentioned numbers (see <a href="http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh020410.shtml" target="external">THE DAILY HOWLER, 2/4/10</a>). But even today, using the Nexis archives, we can find no indication that any news org in the whole country has bothered to fact-check this shiny new claim, the claim which emerged from last Friday's session between Obama and the House GOP. That includes our hapless "progressive news channel," on whose air a second, more important new script got advanced last night. Ronald Brownstein chatted with the hapless Chris Matthews and advanced a New Standard Press Line: <blockquote> BROWNSTEIN (2/4/10): Midterm elections--it is harder for the party in power to make it a "choice" election. That's clearly what the Democrats want to do. They want to talk about Republican ideas. Paul Ryan, that very smart House Republican, put out a budget last week that talks about, again, replacing Medicare with a voucher for everybody under 55. That's something the Democrats more than Republicans are likely to want to talk about in the fall.</blockquote> Ryan is the guy who invented our newest fact, during last Friday's session with Obama. By last night, Brownstein was letting us know that Ryan is "very smart." But then, that's pretty much what Matthews said last Friday night, on the utterly clown-worthy show where three millionaire "liberal" cheerleaders let us see how hapless and scripted they actually are. "That guy, Ryan, is pretty smart," MSNBC's primal idiot said. "I think he did ask a good question." Three hours earlier, clowning on Hardball, Matthews didn't even seem to know who Paul Ryan was (see <a href="http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh020110.shtml" target="external">THE DAILY HOWLER, 2/1/10</a>). Just a guess: You'll continue to see Paul Ryan cast in the role of the "very smart" fellow. This is not unlike the Group Process we liberals ignored in an earlier decade, a Group Process in which Candidate Bush got defined as "plain-spoken," while Candidate Gore got defined as a delusional liar. Everyone recited those scripts; liberal leaders were too dumb--and/or too store-bought--to criticize, challenge or complain. Last night, Brownstein seemed to be mouthing a New Insider Script. And last week, Steven Hayes told us where it was going, speaking rather frankly on Fox. Paul Ryan is being pimped to take a Wisconsin senate seat, Hayes explained. Brownstein's comment could be a part of that film: Pimping Senator Ryan. But is Paul Ryan "very smart?" Is he "extraordinarily knowledgeable," the way they prefer to say it on Fox? More specifically, is his 84 percent allegation accurate--or is it just the latest pile of steaming invented sh*t? In an attempt to cipher that out, let's look at what some major pundits have been saying on Fox about that freeze in discretionary spending. Let's start our search with Charles Krauthammer. No one is more relentlessly negative about Obama than Charles is. On the other hand, Charles is actually technically smart; unlike many other pundits, he actually knows how to evaluate a factual assertion. Which is odd, because what follows is what Charles said last Friday night, when asked to evaluate the very smart Ryan's new 84 percent claim. Charles appeared on that evening's Special Report. Host Bret Baier played tape of Ryan making his allegation, as he spoke to Obama that day. Asked to comment, Krauthammer said what follows. In the (probably bungled) Nexis transcript, his words are somewhat murky--but an earlier, clearer statement will follow: <blockquote> KRAUTHAMMER (1/29/10): To stay still knee high in the weeds: If you include stimulus and you just include the appropriations for all the regular departments, which Obama now is saying is going to have a freeze that he, Obama instituted himself, in the case of 20 percent, which is much higher than you normally get. So he is, no matter what number you use, ratcheting up and freezing the spending of these departments at an extraordinarily high level.</blockquote> Wonderful! No matter what number you use, Obama is "freezing the spending of these departments at an extraordinarily high level," Charles rather fecklessly said. Unfortunately, the number the "very smart" Ryan had used was a very large one--84 percent! But uh-oh! All week long, Krauthammer had been telling Fox viewers that the actual number was twenty percent! Here he is, on the O'Reilly Factor, three days earlier. To watch this presentation, <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zhy-UwLq178" target="external">click here:</a> <blockquote> KRAUTHAMMER (1/26/10): What he's saying is, "I want to do a freeze on the regular departments." But what he doesn't tell you is that last year, in their first year in office, when they had a free ride in spending, they ratcheted up the spending for all of these departments astronomically--an average over the last half of fiscal 2009 and all of fiscal 2010, an average of about 20 percent. Now, that's huge, because normally year over year you would increase a department's spending by 3 percent, 4 percent, especially with low inflation.</blockquote> According to Charles, the relevant spending had bumped up by twenty percent. Indeed, Charles had said this same thing just two hours earlier, on that same evening's Special Report: <blockquote> KRAUTHAMMER (1/26/10): This isn't a real cut. It's an appearance of cuts. It's a maneuver as a response to what happened in Massachusetts because he lost the independents, Obama [sic], three to one, and he knows independents worry about debt and deficits and spending. JUAN WILLIAMS: Sure. KRAUTHAMMER: So he announces a freeze which is meaningless. Remember, these departments enjoyed a 20 percent increase in budget as a result of what Obama and the Democrats have done in 2009. So you are freezing it at an extraordinarily high and unusual time.</blockquote> All week long, Fox viewers had been told it was twenty percent. When Ryan came along and said 84 percent, Charles affirmed the general claim, "no matter what number you use!" Too perfect! Too funny! But then, within our society's Potemkin discourse, one number is always as good as another when you're inventing a potent new narrative. Given the lack of push-back from liberal elites and/or from the mainstream "press corps," you can pretty use the numbers you choose! That said, these are the numbers Karl Rove chose this Tuesday evening, on Hannity: <blockquote> HANNITY (2/2/10): Do you see any moderating of this president or is it just rigid ideology to the very end even if he's "one-term Obama?" ROVE: I think they think that they're showing ideological dexterity by emphasizing a spending freeze and by saying they're going to work on reducing the deficit. But realize, the American people are not dumb. They have increased discretionary domestic spending, by their own measure, from $530 billion of Bush's last full budget to $704 million by next year. And they're going to flat-line it there. They've given a huge increase in their discretionary spending. They're going to freeze it and then play around with these pockets of money they have in these various stimulus bills to top off the tank for any of the Democrat who needs it and think the American people somehow don't see that going on, but they do. HANNITY: All right, Karl Rove, always appreciate you being on. Thank you.</blockquote> In Rove's numbers, the relevant spending had bumped up by roughly thirty percent--thirty percent, over a rather murky number of years. Who says conservatives don't support choice? On Fox, viewers get to choose from among an array of factual claims about the phony freeze. According to Charles, domestic discretionary spending was ratcheted up at an "astronomical" rate of twenty percent. According to Rove, there was a "huge increase"--an increase of roughly thirty percent, over some undisclosed number of years. And Paul Ryan, who is "very smart"/"extraordinarily knowledgeable," says the jump is 84 percent! (As far as we know, he's never been asked to say what years he's talking about.) And when these numbers start to collide, everybody knows that they don't have to notice! "No matter what number you use," Charles explains, the story comes out the same way. Too perfect! (On last Friday's Special Report, you may recall, Steven Hayes also failed to affirm Ryan's 84 percent allegation. Like Charles, he simply vouched for Ryan's "overall point"--though he then said the brilliant Ryan is standing in line to take a senate seat. After watching Brownstein recite, are you sure that isn't correct?) What's the actual fact in all this? Within our Potemkin journalistic culture, it's exceptionally hard to find out. Remember: According to OMB director Peter Orszag, domestic discretionary spending was a bit more than $400 billion in fiscal year 2008--and it's a bit less than $450 billion in fiscal year 2010. The freeze will occur at that level, he says. At that level, such spending has increased maybe 10-12 percent over a span of two years (see <a href="http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh020410.shtml" target="external">THE DAILY HOWLER, 2/4/10</a>). That's what Orszag says. But for the past several decades, our "political discourse" has run on two familiar fuels: It has run on Invented Group Facts, and on Invented Group Tales About Character. Here's our new fact, in the wake of Will's column: Obama plans to freeze domestic spending after bumping it up 84 percent. Here's our new character tale, after Brownstein: Paul Ryan is very smart. "The American people are not dumb," Rove said. But we the people live within an exceptionally dumb journalistic/political culture. And remember: Now, as during the Clinton/Gore years, this process is enabled by our array of liberal baboons--by Keith and Rachel and Uncle Matthews, who can sit and clown for hours. In our view, our three cheerleaders played the fool for two hours last Friday night. Gimme an O, these simpletons cried. One week later, as new narratives fly, can you see where their cheerleading got us? Paul Ryan is very smart, our baboon said. Their baboon said something stronger http://www.DailyHowler.com/dh020410.html Death by novel: For years, we've told you two things. Much of our "news" is really a nove1. And our "journalists" may not be real humans. Yesterday, a novel appeared on the front page of the Washington Post. It made us wonder about the status of its author, Eli Saslow--who, if recollection serves, has done some good work in the past. Good God. What consummate crap! Saslow's novel concerns the current president--more particularly, the president's middle-class background. For the record, Saslow was writing the type of profile which turns on brainless "paradoxes" and deeply puzzling pseudo-contradictions. This particular profile would turn on silly "paradoxes" about Obama's middle-class background. As if to show us where we were going, <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/02/AR2010020202644.html" target="external">Saslow weirdly typed this</a>: <blockquote> SASLOW (2/3/10): [Obama's] first year in office was defined in part by a paradox. He is a rare president who comes from the middle class, yet people still perceive him as disconnected from it.</blockquote> Huh? It would be a stretch to say that President Kennedy "came from the middle class." But Truman and Eisenhower certainly did, and after Kennedy, haven't most presidents come from some pocket of this broad class? Even George W. Bush attended the Midland, Texas public schools through the seventh grade, after all. Is it really "rare" to have a president "come from the middle class?" Warning: Saslow's piece is really a novel! But good God! Just peruse this pitiful chunk, which came early on: <blockquote> SASLOW: Obama's two sides During his recent tour of blue-collar towns, factories and burger joints, Obama has tried to reconcile two pieces of his reputation. He turned down high-paying jobs after graduating from Harvard Law School and became a community organizer, compelled by the experience of growing up with a single mother who sometimes lived on food stamps. He married a woman from a working-class family on the South Side of Chicago, and they rented a walk-up condominium in Hyde Park. But during his campaign for the presidency, Obama bungled some of his early attempts to connect with blue-collar workers, complaining about the price of arugula at Whole Foods and visiting a bowling alley only to roll an embarrassing score of 37. Some political rivals continue to disparage him as an elitist. Even his aides have sometimes worried that his intellect can be mistaken for condescension and that his composure can seem like detachment. Those shortcomings were evident last month when Obama invited the two previous presidents to join him at the White House for a news conference about the U.S. relief effort in Haiti. George W. Bush was simple and frank: "Just send us your cash," he said. Bill Clinton spoke without notes and verged on tears as he recalled his personal connection to the devastated country: "I have no words to say what I feel," he said. "I had meals with people who are dead." Obama, meanwhile, spoke from prepared notes, looking all business, glancing to his left and to his right to establish eye contact while standing with perfect posture behind the lectern.</blockquote> Did a human being write that? Are Saslow's editors human? First, Saslow's chronology seems a bit wrong. After Obama graduated from Harvard Law School, he did spend six months directing a major voter registration drive in Chicago. But he was also writing the memoir, Dreams From My Father, for which he already had a contract, and he was already mixing and mingling, in serious ways, with upper-end Chicago. (There's nothing wrong with that.) More conventionally, Obama's period of selfless community organizing is pictured occurring before Harvard Law, after he graduated from Columbia. (This was a three-year period.) For purposes of Saslow's novel, the story works better this other way. But the chronology does seem a bit wrong. That said, Saslow's account of Obama's marriage is just a flagrant novel. Did Barack Obama marry "a woman from a working-class family on the South Side of Chicago?" In a sense. But he also married a graduate of Princeton University and Harvard Law School who, at age 25, when she met her future husband, was already making around $65,000 per year (in the late 1980s) working for Sidley & Austin, a very high-end corporate law firm. (Obama met her because he spent his first summer during law school working at that same firm.) Her brother, also a Princeton graduate, was apparently making very big swag on Wall Street at this time, working for Morgan Stanley Dean Witter. (Later, he left Wall Street to coach college basketball. To read Liza Mundy's less-novelized account of these years, <a href="http://www.mskvt.com/images//pdf/obama%20article.pdf" target="external">just click here</a>.) Saslow's account of "who he married" is a novel--a silly novel--and it's little else. And sure enough! The next stop on this sub-human ride takes us through familiar terrain: Arugula and bowling scores and then Obama's "perfect posture!" Somehow, Obama's posture at a press event is supposed to distinguish him from Presidents Clinton and Bush, who are, apparently, more middle-class in appearance than he due to the way they slouch. But then, posture has always been useful in this cohort's sometimes-destructive novels. Who can forget the novel Ceci Connolly typed, way back when, when Candidate Gore's stiff posture marked him as different from President Clinton? Paradoxes--sorry, "contrasts"--<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/campaigns/wh2000/stories/clinton052699.htm" target="external">were central this day too</a>: <blockquote> CONNOLLY (5/26/99): In an effusive introduction at a White House conference on "empowerment zones," Clinton said Gore--"more than any single person in the United States"--deserved the credit for reviving America's inner cities and depressed rural areas. But the body language between the empathetic president and his ramrod stiff deputy suggested a curious awkwardness. [...] With the giant seals of their respective offices hanging on a blue curtain behind them, Clinton and Gore were a study in contrasts. To the strains of "Hail to the Chief," Clinton strode on stage, waved to the crowd and draped his arm over the shoulders of Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman. Gore, meanwhile, stood erect on the other side of the stage briefly waving. During Clinton's introduction, Gore studied his note cards and gazed out at the group of community leaders gathered at the University of Texas-Pan American. When it was Gore's time to speak, Clinton patted the vice president on the back; then, from his seat, waved and grinned at familiar faces in the gymnasium. About 30 minutes into Gore's address, Glickman fiddled with something in his pocket and Cuomo reached for a mint.</blockquote> Cuomo even reached for a mint! All through this lengthy piece, Connolly struggled, stretched and strained to let us know that Gore had been boring. And please observe: Even back then, speaking from notes (in this case, "note cards") was a big problem too. In Saslow's novel, Obama spoke from notes. So did Gore, back then! Connolly's piece was close to insane, though it drove an obvious point about the deeply troubling person against whom she had marched off to war. But that particular piece turned on Gore's ramrod stiff posture! Saslow's piece is less awful, but it points to a cultural problem: At present, we are an exceptionally low-IQ nation, with an exceptionally low-IQ political culture. Much of this destructive problem traces back to the programming found within this "mainstream press corps." It's hard to believe that human beings can really type such low-IQ drek. But Saslow wrote a silly novel this week--and the Post took it straight to page one. Special report: Dumb like us! PART 4--WHERE DO FUTURE SENATORS COME FROM<a name="SENATORS"> </a>(<a href="http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh020410.shtml#SENATORS">permalink</a>): Paul Ryan is a major up-and-comer in Republican politics. Last Friday, he made a striking presentation, then asked Obama a question. Cable's "three tenors" --the MSNBC cheerleading team--offered two dueling reactions. On the one hand, KO and Maddow turned cartwheels and flips, insisting that our team's star quarterback had left poor Ryan face-down in the dust. "This is what it is like to be in the room with the president of the United States," the ludicrous Olbermann marveled. "You pick your topic, and are left wondering whether or not you know as much about it as he does." Maddow megaphoned the exchange the same way, channeling what Obama had said. "You've brought a pet issue here, congressman," she imagined him saying. "Let me tell you 400,000 things about it, and invite you to continue the discussion with me later." Neither Olbermann nor Maddow made the slightest attempt to discuss the substance of what had been said. They simply performed their corporate duties. Gimme an O, they both cried. Chris Matthews took a different approach, one we'll focus on today. First, he did a bit of cheerleading himself. ("I think this president's sort of mix of charm, poetry and prose is pretty impressive, because he can be witty.") But then, he noted a fairly obvious fact: Obama hadn't actually answered Ryan's specific question, his 84 percent allegation (see <a href="http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh020310.shtml" target="external">THE DAILY HOWLER, 2/3/10</a>). And Matthews spoke in praise of Ryan, an up-and-comer in GOP politics. "I think that guy, Ryan, is pretty smart," Matthews dumbly said. "I think he did ask a good question. Why has spending gone up on your watch and now you're freezing it?" Ryan's brilliance was vouched for once again. Neither Rachel nor KO said squat. But then, this is the way careers get made in our deeply pitiful politics. More specifically, this is the way senate seats change hands. Is Ryan really a "pretty smart guy?" (Amazingly, on Friday's Hardball, Matthews didn't even seem to know who Ryan was.) Did he really ask a good question? For ourselves, we'll guess that his presentation was bogus--his 84 percent allegation. But people! So what? Since Friday, Ryan's 84 percent allegation has gone all round the world: Tape of Ryan's presentation has been played on NPR's Talk of the Nation--with no attempt to fact-check his claims. On Fox News Sunday, Ryan made his presentation again, in person--and two major Democrats sat and watched, without offering a peep of factual challenge (Evan Bayh, Chris Van Hollen). Jacob Sullum has authored a nationally syndicated column (Creators Syndicate) which repeats Ryan's 84 percent allegation. At least three Republican members of Congress have sent our press releases affirming the 84 percent allegation--and those are just the three who have posted their press releases in the Nexis archives. Most significant is an exchange from the panel portion of last Friday's Special Report, on Fox. Host Bret Baier played tape of Ryan's exchange with Obama, showing Ryan as he made his 84 percent allegation. In response, Steve Hayes turned a couple of cartwheels in praise of Ryan's brilliance. (Kirsten Powers sat and said nothing, as Bayh and Van Hollen would do two days later.) Then, just a few minutes later, Hayes told the truth about the way our politics works. Having praised Ryan's obvious brilliance, he sketched his future career: <blockquote> HAYES (1/29/10): One, the president was very smart not to get in the debate about budget specifics with Paul Ryan because very few people know it, the budget, better than Paul Ryan does. Ryan's overall point was that the president when he is talking about this spending freeze, in effect what he has done is taken money from the stimulus, because we have money that's sitting there that's been allocated from stimulus in 2011, 2012, 2013 that raises the discretionary spending levels. By freezing at its previous levels, he has already accomplished what he would do if he didn't have this freeze at all. I think it's a budget gimmick. [...] HAYES: I would say Paul Ryan [would be the strongest Republican candidate against Obama in 2012]. He has done a lot of things that seem to be preparing him for a national run. He is a House member from Wisconsin. People assume that he is going to run for the Senate against Herb Kohl or if it's an open seat. He is extraordinarily knowledgeable. He is something of a policy wonk. He has been giving foreign policy speeches. He endorsed Marco Rubio in Florida. He has taken a trip to raise money in New Hampshire. He's doing sort of the kinds of things that you would do if you were planning to run for president.</blockquote> Quickly, note a significant fact. Note that Hayes did not affirm Ryan's 84 percent allegation. He only praised Ryan's "overall point"--perhaps because he knew or suspected that Ryan's specific allegation was hogwash. That said, will Ryan actually run for president? We have no idea. But Ryan's exchange with Obama massively helped grease the skids for him to take Kohl's senate seat. After all, he's "extraordinarily knowledgeable!" Or, as the ludicrous Matthews put it, without a peep from KO or Rachel: "That guy, Ryan, is pretty smart. I think he did ask a good question." Can we talk? While all this stage-setting for Ryan was happening, three millionaire chimps on MSNBC minced, fooled, tumbled, led cheers and clowned. None of them made the slightest attempt to evaluate what Ryan had said--his 84 percent allegation, the allegation to which Obama had in fact failed to respond. Long story short: Ryan's claim is spreading out through the ether--and so is talk of his greatness. And by the way: According to <a href="http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/ratings/the_scoreboard_friday_jan_29_150679.asp#more" target="external">these cable ratings</a>, 2.45 million people heard Hayes Friday night as he praised Ryan for his vast genius. A few hours later, only 1.31 million people were watching MSNBC as KO and Rachel did their hand-stands. And of course, even those viewers heard Matthews say what a smart fellow this young Ryan was, without a word of contradiction from either Rachel or KO. First simple story: Ryan is being praised for his genius. He's being pimped to run for the White House. More significantly, he's being pimped to take that senate seat Second simple story: Ryan's presentation--his 84 percent allegation--has been making its way through the ether. Using Nexis, we can find no sign that any news org has ever fact-checked his allegation. This includes the silly baboons who led cheers for your team that night. This leads us to ask a few questions about the state of reality: Did Ryan "ask a very good question?" Is Paul Ryan "very smart?" Was Obama "very smart not to get in the debate about budget specifics with Paul Ryan?" Is Paul Ryan "extraordinarily knowledgeable?" We've seen no news org make any attempt to fact-check his 84 percent allegation--although, for various reasons (more tomorrow), it strikes us as absurd on its face. But did Ryan ask a good question? This is what happened in the House Budget Committee on Tuesday, when someone finally asked. Was Ryan's ballyhooed presentation accurate? John Yarmuth asked one last question: <blockquote> REP. JOHN YARMUTH, D-KY (2/2/10): One last question. It may have been answered here, but I don't recall it. Some of our colleagues over the weekend were talking about the fact, making the claim that terms of, terms of non-security discretionary income, that we raised it 84 percent on one year. Would you respond to that and speculate on maybe how they got that number and whether there's-- Well, just comment on that claim, please. PETER ORSZAG, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND THE BUDGET: Sure. It's not an accurate depiction of the base off of which we are freezing non-security discretionary spending. What happened is that category of spending went from just north of $400 billion in 2008 to just south of $700 billion in 2009 because of the Recovery Act and because of the measures that were necessary to try to mitigate the economic downturn. In 2010, it then declined to roughly $450 billion, a little bit south of that. We are freezing off of that lower level. So it went up, came down. We're freezing off of the lower level. The claim that we're freezing off of that higher level is simply wrong. YARMUTH: OK, I appreciate that explanation. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.</blockquote> According to Orszag, domestic discretionary spending was a bit more than $400 billion in fiscal year 2008. It's a bit less than $450 billion in fiscal year 2010. The freeze will occur at that level. At that level, such spending has increased maybe 10-12 percent over a span of two years. Is Orszag's presentation correct? Here at THE HOWLER, we have no idea. Orszag is an interested party too--and according to Nexis, no one at any news organization has fact-checked Ryan's claim. But this is precisely the way our politics has worked for several decades now. The three baboons on MSNBC were simply extending a culture. And of course, they were stuffing millions of dollars into their over-stuffed pants. Just a guess: No one gained from Friday's session quite the way Ryan did. Tomorrow, we'll take a guess at the reason why Hayes didn't praise his specific presentation--his 84 percent allegation. Beyond that, we'll show you more of what Fox viewers have heard about this spending freeze in the past week. For ourselves, we will guess that Ryan's claim was wildly inaccurate--wildly misleading, presumably something less than honest. But so what? NPR played tape of the presentation without a word of analysis or comment. Even on our "progressive" channel, viewers heard a large baboon saying how smart Ryan is. Obama failed to answer Ryan--unless you watched Keith and Rachel http://www.DailyHowler.com/dh020310.html Covering Saint McCain's flip: Yesterday, in a New Hampshire town hall session, Obama got some good solid laughs as he (quite effectively) described the latest Republican flip-flop. Let's give Dana Milbank some love! He described this Republican conduct <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/29/AR2010012903874.html" target="external">in Sunday's Washington Post</a>, although he probably overstated the urgency of our debt problem. "A month ago, a bipartisan group of senators asked Obama for his `strong support' for a commission to solve the national debt crisis," Milbank noted. (Is there a crisis? Most likely, no.) "Obama heeded the letter writers' advice and backed the commission." But uh-oh! Readers, hold onto your scripts! Here's what happened next: <blockquote> MILBANK (1/31/10): Obama heeded the letter writers' advice and backed the commission. But when the proposal came to a vote on the Senate floor Tuesday, four of the Republican signers...voted no. So did three other Republican senators who had also been co-sponsors of the legislation--2008 presidential nominee John McCain (Ariz.), Sam Brownback (Kan.) and John Ensign (Nev.). An eighth co-sponsor, Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), didn't vote. Thanks to these defections, the commission legislation fell seven votes short--and with it went any hope of tackling the debt crisis anytime soon. Even by recent standards, this may be a new level of legislative fecklessness. </blockquote> They were for the commission till Obama endorsed it! Then, they voted no! The most notable name in that Gang of 7 belongs to a secular saint. Since the 1980s, the Washington press corps has novelized McCain as a straight-talking straight-shooting maverick truth-teller--as a genuine war hero authentic, a virtual secular saint. For that reason, his recent flip should perhaps attract special interest. But almost surely, it won't. Even now, this most fallen of all secular saints tends to get a free ride from his former believers. Whatever one thinks of our problem with debt--whatever one thinks of the proposal to have a commission--McCain's flip-flop is really quite striking. To Milbank, the Republicans' flip "wrote a startling new entry in the Annals of Obstruction." According to Milbank, this "fecklessness" is so extreme that "we've pretty much reached rock bottom." Our question: After pimping McCain for decades, will our big news orgs examine his flip? (It's the latest of several.) Ask him why he did such a thing? Examine the answer he gives? As best we can tell from the Nexis archives, this is the full extent to which the New York Times has so far <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/29/us/politics/29cong.html" target="external">examined his conduct</a>: <blockquote> HULSE (1/29/10): At least six Republicans who had previously supported the plan voted against it, as did others who have backed the idea in concept. Some of those who voted against the plan suggested they did so because they did not want to give Democrats political cover by joining with them in a deficit reduction effort. "It was stacked," Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, told reporters in explaining his rationale for switching from a supporter to an opponent of the commission.</blockquote> We have no idea what that explanation might mean, but it was good enough for the Times. In its own news reporting, the Washington Post doesn't seem to have discussed the GOP flip-flop at all. <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/31/AR2010013101837.html" target="external">In this column</a>, "debt crisis" hawk Fred Hiatt joined Milbank in slamming the GOP flippers. But he focused on Mitch McConnell, whackng McCain only once. As usual, the ways of the mainstream press are strange. <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/03/opinion/03dowd.html?ref=opinion" target="external">This morning</a>, McCain gets slammed for a flip by Maureen Dowd. But this alleged flip involves gays in the military, where McCain's flip is less clear-cut, where his staff's explanation is less murky. And sure enough! To help her narrative move along, Dowd (what else?) authors a very loose paraphrase of a past statement by John. Yesterday, Obama got some very good laughs describing the latest GOP flip. But surely, a secular saint must be first among equals when it comes to such wanton behavior. The press corps sanctified this straight-shooting straight-talker for years. And as they did so, they were rewarded. He rode them around in his big white bus; told them wild tales about stripper ex-girl friends; and gave them piles of free gooey donuts. Often, he'd say they were smart. A secular saint has reached "rock bottom." Do journos ask saints to explain? The spokesperson's tale: Mike Allen pretty much jump-started this story, <a href="http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=6D34D040-18FE-70B2-A8DEBA0F905BD558" target="external">with this short report</a> in Politico. He quoted a McCain spokesperson, who explained the straight-shooter's flip. But alas! Just the facts! Allen made no earthly attempt to evaluate the spokesperson's tale. Special report: Dumb like us! PART 3--THE 84 PERCENT ALLEGATION<a name="ALLEGATION"> </a>(<a href="http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh020310.shtml#ALLEGATION">permalink</a>): Just how well did Obama do in last Friday's meeting with House Republicans? On Friday night, the cheerleading was general over cable, on Fox as well as on MSNBC. In part for that reason, it's a bit hard to be sure. Just consider the first two questions Obama was asked that day. (For the White House transcript of the full session, <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-gop-house-issues-conference" target="external">click here</a>.) Then, consider the way Obama's answers were treated on MSNBC's special Friday night broadcast, in which Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow and Chris Matthews spent two hours reviewing the day's Qs and As. The day's first question, from Rep. Mike Pence, was arguably the world's biggest softball. (As stated by Pence, in its second iteration: "Mr. President, will you consider supporting across-the-board tax relief, as President Kennedy did?") There was nothing "wrong" with Obama's wide-ranging answer, in which he challenged a good deal of recent Republican conduct. But for any major Democrat, this is an utterly easy question. Except on MSNBC, that is, where Matthews railed against how "unfair" the question was (see <a href="http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh020210.shtml" target="external">THE DAILY HOWLER, 2/2/10</a>). The sheer absurdity of Matthews' response showed where this evening was going. For the rest of the evening, MSNBC viewers heard a lot of cheerleading for Obama--and they got very little clarification of what Obama and the House members said. Consider the absurd reaction on this program to the day's second exchange, in which Obama responded to a question from Rep. Paul Ryan. Ryan is a big deal in the House GOP caucus, though Matthews didn't seem to know who he was as he clowned on that afternoon's Hardball (see <a href="http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh020110.shtml" target="external">THE DAILY HOWLER, 2/1/10</a>). For our money, Ryan's question--it had two parts--was extremely hard to understand and evaluate. The more important part of the question dealt with a very hot recent issue--Obama's proposal for a three-year freeze on domestic discretionary spending. Ryan's question simply begged for clarification and analysis. This is what the gentleman asked, just as it was presented that night on MSNBC's special program: <blockquote> RYAN (1/29/10): I serve as a ranking member of the Budget Committee. so I want to talk budget, if you don't mind. The spending bills that you've signed into law, the domestic discretionary spending has been increased by 84 percent. You now want to freeze spending at this elevated level beginning next year. This means that total spending in your budget would grow at three-hundredths of one percent less than otherwise. I would simply submit that we could do more and start now. You've also said you want to take a scalpel to the budget and go through it line by line. We want to give you that scalpel. I have a proposal with my home state senator, Russ Feingold, bipartisan proposal, to create a constitutional version of the line-item veto. Problem is, we can't even get a vote on the proposal. So my question is, Why not start freezing spending now? And would you support a line-item veto and helping us get a vote on it in the House?</blockquote> Let's review the first of Ryan's two questions. Let's review the presentation he made, and the question he asked, about the spending freeze. Ryan made a striking claim in that presentation. (It's a type of claim Fox viewers have heard with some frequency in the past week.) According to Ryan, Obama's previous spending bills have massively increased domestic discretionary spending--have done so by 84 percent. According to Ryan, Obama's "spending freeze" would therefore freeze domestic spending at a vastly "elevated level." How big a deal would the spending freeze be? According to Ryan, "total spending in [Obama's] budget would grow at three-hundredths of one percent less than otherwise." On the basis of this presentation, Ryan said we could do much more. Ryan made a striking presentation. But was his presentation accurate? In part, his presentation was a bit murky: When he said that "domestic discretionary spending has been increased by 84 percent," he didn't say it had been increased by that amount as compared to what. Ryan's statistical claim was a bit murky, but the gist of his statement was perfectly clear: According to Ryan, Obama has raised discretionary domestic spending by a large amount, and so the announced "spending freeze" would actually lock such spending at an unusually high amount. Fox viewers have heard variants of this claim for the past week or so. But is the claim accurate? By Friday night, MSNBC's cheerleading squad had had many hours to marshal their facts. (Obama's session started at noon. Their program started at 8 PM.) If published reports cane be believed, they command $11 million in annual salaries; among them, they direct three separate staffs. But before we show you the fruits of their labors as they fact-checked Friday's session, let's review Obama's answer to this striking-but-murky question. How did Obama respond to the claim that he will freeze domestic spending at a highly elevated level? Fox viewers have heard this claim for weeks. This is what Obama said to Ryan, exactly as presented on MSNBC's special broadcast. We'll only include the part of Obama's statement which dealt with the spending freeze: <blockquote> OBAMA (continuing directly): Let me respond to the two specific questions, but I want to push back a little bit on the underlying premise about us increasing spending by 84 percent. Now, look-- I talked to Peter Orszag right before I came here, because I suspect I'd be hearing this argument. The fact of the matter is that most of the increases in this year's budget--this past year's budget--were not as a consequence of policies that we initiated, but instead were built in as a consequence of the automatic stabilizers that kick in because of this enormous recession. So the increase in the budget for this past year was actually predicted before I was even sworn into office and had initiated any policies. Whoever was in there, Paul--and I don't think you'll dispute that--whoever was in there would have seen those same increases because of, on the one hand, huge drops in revenue, but, at the same time, people were hurting and needed help. And a lot of these things happened automatically. Now, the reason that I'm not proposing the discretionary freeze taking into effect this year--we prepared a budget for 2010 that`s now going forward--is again, I am just listening to the consensus among people who know the economy best. And what they will say is that, if you either increased taxes or significantly lowered spending when the economy remains somewhat fragile, that that would have a de-stimulative effect and potentially, you'd see a lot of folks losing business, more folks potentially losing jobs. That would be a mistake when the economy has not fully taken off. That's why I proposed to do it for the next fiscal year. So that's point number two. With respect to the line-item veto...</blockquote> Obama made a lot of accurate statements in that part of his answer. But Ryan had made a claim about jumps in discretionary spending. After assuring Ryan that he had prepared for this question, Obama proceeded to answer a different question--a question he hadn't been asked. Making a series of accurate statements, he described rises in automatic spending which had kicked in because of the recession. Just a guess: Obama really wasn't prepared to address Ryan's specific statistic. Just a guess: He'd probably never heard it before. He probably hadn't been prepared for Ryan's presentation. Everything Obama said was accurate. But Ryan had made a striking claim--a claim about something else. Again: Was Ryan's claim accurate? We don't have the slightest idea. You see, Obama didn't address his claim--and then, hours later, neither did Maddow or Olbermann! Instead of addressing the heart of this question, they did handstands, cartwheels and flips. As we showed you yesterday, this what the three cheerleaders said about Obama's answer to Ryan. We're sorry, but this is utterly foolish. It's cheerleading, pure and simple--and it <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35182685/ns/msnbc_tv-countdown_with_keith_olbermann/" target="external">just doesn't help</a>: <blockquote> OLBERMANN: Rachel, you and I in October, and Chris more recently, have had this experience that I think people--certainly Republicans did today, and I think people watching are getting. This is what it is like to be in the room with the president of the United States. You pick your topic, and are left wondering whether or not you know as much about it as he does. MADDOW: So much for the he always needs a teleprompter attack. This is unscripted, no notes, no teleprompter, no nothing. "You've brought a pet issue here, Congressman"--who is the ranking member of the Budget Committee. "Let me tell you 400,000 things about it, and invite you to continue the discussion with me later." This is actually very Clintonian, I thought. OLBERMANN: Chris, it begs the question, why does the president ever give a speech? Why doesn't he just say maybe a minutes worth of opening remarks, and then say, "Any questions?" A lot of people can give good speeches, but this thing that we see on almost any topic you can throw at this man is singular, at least this year, or the last few years, I think. MATTHEWS: Keith, Bill Clinton was awful good at this. Even when he ran in '92, we`d watch him up in New Hampshire, in the round--theatrically in the round, even when he was being challenged on things like his draft letter, incredibly personal stuff. He was equally good at this. I think this president's sort of mix of charm, poetry and prose is pretty impressive, because he can be witty. I don`t think Bill Clinton was witty. So, he can be witty, smart, informed, poetic, and also very smart about the numbers at the same time.</blockquote> Truly, that's ridiculous. Ryan had in fact "brought a pet issue here"--and Obama had failed to address it. But so what? The cheerleaders described an alternate world--a world in which Obama had somehow left Ryan wondering if he knew as much about his topic as the genius Obama. In Maddow's deeply absurd presentation, Obama had told poor foolish Ryan "400,000 things" about his topic, then had invited the hapless schoolboy to continue the discussion later. Maddow was referring to this exchange, which ended Obama's session with Ryan: <blockquote> RYAN: I would simply say that automatic stabilizer spending is mandatory spending. The discretionary spending--the bills that Congress signs, that you sign into law--that has increased 84 percent. OBAMA: We'll have a, we'll have a longer debate on the budget numbers then. All right?</blockquote> In that closing exchange, Ryan drew the distinction between mandatory and discretionary spending, then reasserted his claim about that 84 percent increase. Once again, Obama failed to respond to Ryan's claim, only saying that the two could have a longer debate at some other time. We wouldn't fault Obama for that, but he clearly side-stepped Ryan's specific claim. Indeed, how obvious was it that this had occurred? As we continue from the cheerleading posted above, even Matthews notes it: <blockquote> MATTHEWS: I think this president's sort of mix of charm, poetry and prose is pretty impressive, because he can be witty. I don`t think Bill Clinton was witty. So, he can be witty, smart, informed, poetic, and also very smart about the numbers at the same time. However, on that point, I think he just pulled a fast one on Ryan, because Ryan was talking about that part of the budget which is controllable, and the president switched over to the part that's not controllable, the unemployment statistic, unemployment benefits and things like that. I think he pulled a fast one on that guy, and he's trying to challenge him. So there you have a president using some showmanship, rather than exactly addressing the point. I think that guy, Ryan, is pretty smart. I think he did ask a good question. Why has spending gone up on your watch and now you're freezing it?</blockquote> Even Matthews noticed the switch! But you know the rules! Before Matthews could say that Obama had pulled "a fast one," he himself praised the president for being "very smart about the numbers." In this, he followed Olbermann and Maddow, who had openly clowned. They get paid millions for this? By the way, is Ryan "pretty smart?" Had he really "asked a good question?" That depends on the accuracy of his presentation, his 84 percent allegation. But wouldn't you know it? Eight hours after the session occurred, our three cheerleaders had no idea if Ryan's presentation was accurate. They made no attempt to fact-check his claim. Instead, they turned cartwheels and showed us their flips, praising the brilliant handsome fellow who plays quarterback for our team. Gimme an A, the cheerleaders cried, keeping us happy--and dumb. Let's say it again: We wouldn't necessarily fault Obama for his answer to Ryan. We would guess he had no idea where Ryan's statistic came from. We do find fault with millionaire stars who brainlessly pimp the tribal line. We've seen Hannity do this for years. The phony practice is no less dumb when it's done by our tribe's millionaires. And by the way: It provides no basis for challenging the various things true believers are hearing on Fox! Over on Fox, the other tribe has heard variants of what Ryan said for the past several week or two. Tomorrow, we'll look at some of the things they've heard. But know this: After watching that Friday night session, sincere young liberals would have no idea what to say to earnest Fox viewers. This is how nations get turned into Bosnia--get divided along immutable tribal lines. Young liberals felt good after watching that show. They'd also been played, for two hours. Tomorrow--part 4: No way to respond. ''Gimme an O,'' three cheerleaders cried, fawning and pandering hard http://www.DailyHowler.com/dh020210.html History continues today/Chapter 2: Over at our companion site, we have posted Chapter 2 in our history book, How he got there. How did George Bush ever get to the White House? This chapter describes the most consequential month in Campaign 2000. It describes the events of March 1999, twenty months before we all voted. To access the web site, <a href="http://www.howhegotthere.blogspot.com/" target="external">just click this</a>. For Chapter 2, <a href="http://howhegotthere.blogspot.com/2009/08/chapter-2_5454.html" target="external">just click here</a>. This is by far the toughest part of this story to tell. In March 1999, the national press corps invented a liar--a liar named Candidate Gore. (As archived press releases make clear, they seemed to take their cues from the RNC all through this unfortunate month.) With remarkable speed and through flawless Group Conduct, the press corps invented a trio of lies, thereby creating a punishing narrative which would eventually drive the coverage of this entire campaign. This part of the story is hard to tell because so much consummate nonsense occurred all at once--and because the press corps' group misconduct flies in the face of the way people think the world works. (The way sane people think the world works.) We'll make a few tweaks to this chapter this week. If we get to finish this project, many appendices lie ahead; every part of this chapter could be fleshed out in greater detail. (We plan to do the chapters first). Eleven years later, the mainstream press corps' conduct in March 1999 remains a gong-show and a disgrace--and truly, a thing to behold. And yes, this is how Bush reached the White House. We think this tale should be told. If our nation ever regains its senses (we're placing no bets), it will be through a fuller appreciation of foundational stories like this one. We'll say the following each time we post a chapter: We would appreciate any financial support you could give to this project. Years of work lie behind today's companion post, as you can possibly tell. The national press corps invented a liar. Even stripped down, this chapter is long. But then, so are the miseries handed down by the conduct this chapter describes. For our desperately floundering nation, March 1999 was a real "month that was." With apologies, we will say this: It's quite hard to do this month justice. Special report: Dumb like us! PART 2--GIMME AN O<a name="GIMME"> </a>(<a href="http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh020210.shtml#GIMME">permalink</a>): Let's make sure we understand the foolishness of last Friday's discussion--the discussion on Hardball concerning Obama's Q-and-A with the House GOP. Last night, cable hosts were still calling the session "historic." Such excess of rhetoric is a mark of the medium. But Obama did respond to questions from House Republicans on a wide range of crucial domestic topics. To wit: In the name of countering unemployment, Mike Pence asked if Obama would "consider supporting across-the-board tax relief, as President Kennedy did?" Paul Ryan challenged certain aspects of the freeze in domestic discretionary spending Obama has proposed for next year. "I would simply submit that we could do more and start now," Ryan said. Shelley Capito cited "cap and trade, an aggressive EPA, and the looming prospect of higher taxes." She asked if Obama "would be willing to re-look at some of these policies, with a high unemployment and the unsure economy that we have now." Jason Chaffetz told Obama, "I can look you in the eye and tell you we have not been obstructionists." He said Obama had failed to honor various pledges--pledges concerning openness, lobbyists, earmarks, full consultation. Marsha Blackburn asked if Obama was willing to "start anew" on health care reform, working more closely with Republicans. Tom Price insisted the administration has been wrong in saying that the GOP has no ideas about health care. Peter Roskam said House Republicans have been stiff-armed by Speaker Pelosi on a number of issues. Jeb Hensarling said Obama presented a budget last year "that would triple the national debt over the next 10 years." He asked if Obama's new budget would continue that trend. (The new budget was released yesterday.) Obama spoke to all those issues--to many of the domestic issues which drive our current floundering politics. And a few hours later, on the cable show Hardball, Chris Matthews asked Politico's Dan Vogel what the headline from the day's session would be. In a stunning act of self-revelation, this is what Vogel said. In this statement, Vogel described the headline he would take <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35182604/ns/msnbc_tv-hardball_with_chris_matthews/" target="external">from the historic session</a>: <blockquote> VOGEL (1/29/10): "Obama, GOP caucus--" Actually, "Obama, GOP conference trade barbs." It was interesting that the House Republicans refer to themselves as a "conference." Obama referred to them as a "caucus." He also, whether purposefully or not, got the first name wrong of--the first name wrong of his final questioner, Jeb Hensarling, Republican from Texas. He called him "Jim" several times, even after Hensarling corrected him. So, there was definitely an undercurrent of contentiousness, even as both sides sort of went into this with--billing it as a way to sort of produce a productive dialogue.</blockquote> Mistakenly, Obama had called Jeb Hensarling "Jim." And people, that wasn't all! The president had referred to the GOP caucus. The Republicans call it a "conference." In that statement, you see the unvarnished, sub-human inanity which had been driving our public discourse at least since the Clinton/Gore years. For well over a decade, this kind of screaming inanity has been the reliable norm on Hardball. Quite often, Matthews himself provides the nonsense. (Why did Candidate Obama drink orange juice instead of beer?) In this case, a helpful guest did. Obama had discussed almost every serious domestic issue which afflicts our failing nation. On Hardball, we were told that the headline would be the fact that he missed Jeb Hensarling's name! We the people are just a bit dumb, a recent survey from Pew has just said (see <a href="http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh020110.shtml" target="external">THE DAILY HOWLER, 2/1/10</a>). But then again, check out our cable news leaders! Our leaders are dumb--just like us! Back to Friday's historic session: Friday evening, <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35182724/ns/msnbc_tv-rachel_maddow_show/" target="external">in a special two-hour program</a>, MSNBC reviewed the things Obama had said. (The program aired in the normal time slots of Countdown and the Maddow Show.) During those two hours, Matthews joined Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow for a discussion of the day's session. The program didn't reach the level of inanity offered by Vogel. But in its relentless cheerleading for Obama--and in its substantial technical bumbling--it sadly came pretty darn close. The cheerleading was the first thing that struck us. But the technical bungling came close. Consider part of the trio's reaction to the day's first Q-and-A--the Q-and-A in which Pence recommended an across-the-board tax cut. After playing tape of Obama's answer, Matthews went first, weirdly offering this review of the question Obama was asked: <blockquote> MATTHEWS (1/29/10): Now there's a profile in courage! The first thing you do is throw one of these medicine balls at the president and hit him at the stomach and say, "Let's chat." I mean, I think it wasn't a fair exchange right up front. I don't think anybody thinks, with a $1.4 trillion deficit, right now, it's time for a huge, across-the-board tax cut for the rich. I mean, that wouldn't be reasonable or responsible. And I think Mike Pence knows it. I think he knows it.</blockquote> In fact, the country is full of people who think it's time for an across-the-board tax cut. Many of them are watching Fox, which has roughly three times as many viewers as MSNBC does. We have no idea if Pence is such a person, nor do we know why Matthews feels so certain he isn't. But the true weirdness of Matthews' response involves that silly "medicine ball" image. Pandering hard--as the network wanted?--Matthews suggested there was something unfair in asking Obama that opening question. It was like hitting him right in the gut! We have no idea why Matthews would say that, unless network "suits" had told him to fawn. In fact, this must be the easiest softball question a major Dem could possibly get! Weirdly, Obama slightly muddied his answer. (Does the gentleman know what "across-the-board" means?) But KO and Rachel showed no sign of noticing any of this. "Gimme an O," Keith exclaimed, marveling at the historical greatness laid out before him: <blockquote> OLBERMANN (continuing directly): Rachel, there was still that policy of throwing the medicine ball, as Chris suggested, continued. It almost felt like watching the stories of John L. Sullivan, the 19th century boxer would volunteer to fight anybody and everybody in the house and knock them all out. I don't mean to be too partisan on this, but whatever the strategy was in the Republicans in this event, it didn't really work.</blockquote> "I don't mean to be too partisan," the cheerleader said. He then said that Obama was like John L. Sullivan, licking every man in the House. And sure enough--the cheerleading continued in the pundits' response to the day's second Q-and-A. "Gimme a B," the pundits cried, reviewing Obama's second answer, the answer to Ryan's query: <blockquote> OLBERMANN: Rachel, you and I in October, and Chris more recently, have had this experience that I think people--certainly Republicans did today, and I think people watching are getting. This is what it is like to be in the room with the president of the United States. You pick your topic, and are left wondering whether or not you know as much about it as he does. MADDOW: So much for the he always needs a teleprompter attack. This is unscripted, no notes, no teleprompter, no nothing. "You`ve brought a pet issue here, Congressman"--who is the ranking member of the Budget Committee. "Let me tell you 400,000 things about it, and invite you to continue the discussion with me later." This is actually very Clintonian, I thought. OLBERMANN: Chris, it begs the question, why does the president ever give a speech? Why doesn't he just say maybe a minutes worth of opening remarks, and then say, "Any questions?" A lot of people can give good speeches, but this thing that we see on almost any topic you can throw at this man is singular, at least this year, or the last few years, I think. MATTHEWS: Keith, Bill Clinton was awful good at this. Even when he ran in '92, we`d watch him up in New Hampshire, in the round--theatrically in the round, even when he was being challenged on things like his draft letter, incredibly personal stuff. He was equally good at this. I think this president's sort of mix of charm, poetry and prose is pretty impressive, because he can be witty. I don`t think Bill Clinton was witty. So, he can be witty, smart, informed, poetic, and also very smart about the numbers at the same time.</blockquote> "Gimme a B," the pundits cried, fawning and pandering hard. Did the suits at MSNBC order an evening of unvarnished cheers? In this time of discouraged liberals, did the suits perhaps think that this would be good for the channel's bottom line? We have no idea, of course. But to our ear, this special two-hour session involved a striking change of tone, to a tone which was childish and silly. (When we think we hear such a change in tone, we wonder if somebody ordered it.) But the cheerleading in this last passage was especially striking, because Obama's answer to Ryan was a bit murky and problematic--as was Ryan's question itself. Ryan's question, and Obama's answer, begged for clarification. Instead, we got this silly portrait, in which Obama had masterfully set poor Ryan down. How problematic was Obama's answer? This problematic: Even Matthews noticed a bit of confusion--confusion he mentioned as he continued, but only after he and the rest of the Bring It On gang had completed their tumbles, handstands, pyramids and flips. In fact, it wasn't the cheering alone which made this an unfortunate evening. It was the inability of our progressive hosts to avoid making policy bungles--or to clarify the points on which we could use some instruction. ("Pick me! Pick me!" Maddow said at one point, entering her patented I'm-just-an- adorable-third-grader mode. Instantly, she completely misstated something Hensarling said.) We've watched Hannity lead cheers for years. We simply don't think this childish approach will work real well for our side. And then, there were the technical blunders--the failure to make liberals smarter. Tomorrow, we'll look at Ryan's murky question, and at Obama's murky answer. (For ourselves, we don't understand what either man said. Nether did KO or Rachel.) Even Matthews saw a problem with the answer Obama gave. But so what? "Gimme a B," his colleagues were shouting. We doubt that our side wins this way. TOMORROW--PART 3: A murky question got a murky reply--and a round of cheers. Why did Obama's session seem smart? Consider Hardball's discussion http://www.DailyHowler.com/dh020110.html History continues tomorrow: Barring technical disaster, we expect to post Chapter 2 <a href="http://www.howhegotthere.blogspot.com/" target="external">at our companion site</a> on the morrow. We'll offer a bit of an overview here. Then, on to the things-in-themselves! Added note on that Clinton-Graham dinner: <a href="http://mediamatters.org/columns/201001280053" target="external">In this column</a> at Media Matters, Jamison Foser questions Sally Quinn's account of that Katherine Graham dinner--the dinner at which the brand-new President Clinton supposedly gave an unfortunate toast. It may be that Quinn is wrong about this event, as Foser suggests in his piece. We did think it was worth recording a recollection. Years ago, we were told that this dinner was in fact the place at which Establishment Washington turned on the Clintons. The story came to us second-hand; we're not sure we remember exactly what we were told. (Our recollection of what we were told differs from Quinn's account.) But this story, attributed to a major Clinton supporter, identified this very same dinner as the place where it all fell apart. We know, we know--it's hard to believe that the path to impeachment could have been paved at a 1993 dinner party. For that reason, we've always found it hard to credit what we were told, years ago. But Establishment Washington--aka, The Village--has operated by very strange rules over the course of the past several decades. And now, years later, along comes Quinn--and she points to that very same dinner. Whatever one thinks of Quinn's views or outlooks, we're inclined to listen carefully to the things she says about the views of this potent elite. As always, we recommend Foser's piece. Also, all musings by Boehlert. The hate that dare not speak its name: We've long admired Colbert King's columns on local Washington matters. But land o goshen, Clinton-hatred is powerful! In his column in Saturday's Washington Post, King repeated a prediction he made on last week's Inside Washington. On that show, he said Obama may face a primary challenge in 2012 if he loses the Congress this fall. "It's happened before to incumbents in both parties," King wrote in the Post. "Consider the one-term presidencies of Jimmy Carter and George H. W. Bush." Anything can happen, of course. But finally, at the end of his column, King seemed to let the world know what he meant when he first issued that warning. Good lord! Clinton-hatred seems to die <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/29/AR2010012903404.html" target="external">very hard</a> around here: <blockquote> KING (1/30/10): I'm not predicting a Democratic presidential primary challenge to Barack Obama. But it is a possibility that he needs to bear in mind as he navigates the GOP's political minefields. So I offer this: Where possible, seek common ground with Republicans. Reach out to the independents who helped put you in office. But don't ignore your base, Mr. President. A rejected true believer is a lover scorned, with all that follows. Think Bush and Carter. Remember also the words of the football coach in Texas who, when asked about his starting lineup in the championship game, declared he would "dance with the one who brung us." Keep faith with your base, Mr. President. At least they will have your back. And sir, if I may be so bold, also keep an eye on your Cabinet.</blockquote> "Keep an eye on your Cabinet?" Unless Arne Duncan is planning a run, Clinton-hatred seems to be dying hard. (And hatred likes to speak in dog whistles. As has been true in earlier Clinton columns, King won't stand up on his hind legs and actually say what he actually means. As the haters always do, he chooses to wink, nod and whistle.) King is part of Establishment Washington. Clinton/Gore-hatred has driven this group for many disastrous years. In the past, we have revisited the striking column King wrote in October 2000, when he gave an almost comically negative non-endorsement endorsement to the horrible Candidate Gore. We were stunned by King's apparent loathing of Candidate Clinton in 2008. Could Hillary Clinton challenge Obama? Anything is possible, of course. But on face, few thoughts could seem a whole lot less likely. Few predictions could seem more absurd. That said, our brutal history eats at the souls of many decent men and women. This is the way King started his column: <blockquote> KING: On Jan. 19, a Maryland weapons owner accused of plotting to kill then-presidential candidate Barack Obama--reportedly because he didn't like Obama's gun-control positions--was sentenced to more than five years in federal prison. On that same date, the liberal Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence awarded Obama a grade of "F" for failed leadership on common-sense gun laws. Message to the president: Watch both flanks.</blockquote> In King's world, Obama's left flank seems to be an unsatisfied issues group. Obama's right flank seems to be a weapons owner accused of plotting to kill him! (For the full story, <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/19/AR2010011904460.html" target="external">click here</a>.) We've long admired King's columns on D.C. issues. But Clinton-hatred dies hard, if at all. Then too, in these latter days, hatred seems to be all around. Earlier failed predictions: Michelle Bernard seems like a pleasant person. But even with this sunny soul, Clinton-hatred has led to gong-show predictions at several points in the past. Within Establishment Washington, this hatred dies hard. See <a href="http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh111708.shtml" target="external">THE DAILY HOWLER, 11/17/08</a>. Special report: Dumb like us!<a name="Dumb"> </a> (<a href="http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh020110.shtml#Dumb">permalink</a>) PART 1--CONFUSED BY RYAN'S NON-DAUGHTERS: The Pew Research Center did something naughty last week--it released the gruesome results of a public information survey. (Not an opinion poll. To see Pew's report, <a href="http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1478/political-iq-quiz-knowledge-filibuster-debt-colbert-steele" target="external">click here</a>.) Such surveys always show the same thing: We the people are massively mis-, dis- and under-informed. Perhaps in part for that very reason, news organizations tend to steer clear of such information surveys. News orgs like to pander to voters almost as much as our major pols do; telling us how little we know may seem a bad way to do business. (The American people are pretty sharp! It's one of our most treasured sound-bites.) At any rate, Charles Blow cited this survey's results <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/30/opinion/30blow.html" target="external">in his New York Times column</a> this Saturday. Believe it or not, Blow overstates the degree of the public's knowledge in this passage: <blockquote> BLOW (1/30/10): According to a survey released this week by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, only 1 person in 4 knew that 60 votes are needed in the Senate to break a filibuster and only 1 in 3 knew that no Senate Republicans voted for the health care bill.</blockquote> In fact, since the questions in this survey were a form of multiple choice, it's almost certain that fewer than one in four could have cited that 60-vote threshold on their own, without any prompting. (To review all the survey's questions, <a href="http://people-press.org/reports/questionnaires/586.pdf" target="external">click this</a>.) One other result: Only 39 percent were able to name Harry Reid as majority leader of the Senate. And they picked his name from this gang of four: Reid, Al Franken, Hillary Clinton, Mitch McConnell. There's no way of knowing how many people could have named the gent on their own. Information surveys constantly show it: We the people are always under-informed, even on the day's biggest issues. This brings us to last Friday's meeting between Barack Obama and the House Republicans. Many observers have oohed and aahed about the brilliance of the exchange; this tendency has been especially strong among Obama's supporters. In part though, the seeming brilliance of this exchange may just be a reflection of the cosmic dumbness which typifies most discussion within our floundering discourse. We the people are massively dumb--but then, so are our multimillionaire tribunes! Consider Chris Matthews' groaning performance on Friday afternoon's Hardball. We the people don't know Harry Reid? Matthews, paid five million per year, doesn't know Paul Ryan from Tim! In the wake of the Obama-GOP meeting, this is part of the hapless discussion Matthews conducted with Perry Bacon (Washington Post) and Ken Vogel (Politico). To watch this full segment, <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036697/" target="external">click here</a>: <blockquote> BACON (1/29/10): If you remember the last part of the event today, [Obama] started praising Paul Ryan, this congressman from Wisconsin, saying, Paul Ryan has lots of good ideas. He said after that, no, no, no, I don't really mean it, because I don`t want to get, Paul Ryan to be primaried.... MATTHEWS: Yes. Isn't Paul Ryan the congressman who is pro-life, I think, but he's trying to find a common ground between the pro-choice and the pro-life people? Isn't he that one, Perry?</blockquote> Poor Bacon! Politely, he covered for his host, as journalists frequently have to do when they get to dance with the stars. As the stars always do in this part of the dance, Chris pretended he knew all along: <blockquote> BACON (continuing directly): I believe that's Tim Ryan, I think. MATTHEWS: Tim Ryan, you're right! You're dead right! That's exactly right! That was Tim. BACON: Paul Ryan is a fairly--Tim Ryan of Ohio, who is a Democrat, I think, yes. Yes. Yes. MATTHEWS: OK. So, it's a different Ryan. BACON: Paul Ryan is a--yes, exactly.</blockquote> "Yes, exactly," Bacon said, covering for The Man. Let us finish Bacon's thought: Paul Ryan is a very significant up-and-comer within the House Republican caucus. He's the "ranking member" on the House Budget Committee; whatever one thinks of his views and claims, he is widely regarded as one of the most important players in the GOP's next generation. He's been promoted and featured for several years as the GOP's new budget maven. That, of course, is why he was picked to ask the day's second question. (Obama bantered with Ryan about his family, who were sitting there at Ryan's table.) Presumably, Matthews had watched the event. Ryan had played a key role, asking about--what else?--the budget. It's stunning that Matthews, several hours later, still had Paul Ryan mixed up with Tim, a relatively insignificant House member--a guy from the other party! We the people don't know Harry Reid? Matthews is paid five million a year--and he didn't know Paul Ryan, several hours later! He did know how to play the fool. A few moments later, he asked Vogel for the headline which would emerge from this ballyhooed forum. Vogel offered a pair of the world's dumbest observations--a dumbness Chris easily topped: <blockquote> MATTHEWS: Your thoughts, Ken, about the historic nature of this and what the headline's going to be in Politico when I read it next. VOGEL: "Obama, GOP caucus--" Actually, "Obama, GOP conference trade barbs." It was interesting that the House Republicans refer to themselves as a "conference." Obama referred to them as a "caucus." He also, whether purposefully or not, got the first name wrong of--the first name wrong of his final questioner, Jeb Hensarling, Republican from Texas. He called him "Jim" several times, even after Hensarling corrected him. So, there was definitely an undercurrent of contentiousness, even as both sides sort of went into this with--billing it as a way to sort of produce a productive dialogue. I don`t think that we`re going to see much change-- MATTHEWS: (Laughter) That's an old Irish trick, by the way! My grandfather used to do it. And Tip O'Neill used to do it. Get the other guy's name wrong. It drives them crazy, especially when they know you're doing it. Anyway, Perry Bacon, sir, of the Washington Post, Ken Vogel of Politico.</blockquote> What did Vogel take from the meeting? The GOP says "conference"--but Obama said "caucus!" And Obama got a little-known congressman's first name wrong several times! But then, on the matter of Jeb's first name, Matthews responded to Vogel's inanity with some old-world inanity of his own. His grandfather used to do the same thing! It's an old Irish trick! Why did Obama's session seem so damn smart? In part, because we're all accustomed to public discussion like that. We the people don't know Harry Reid. But then, Matthews, our multimillionaire tribune, doesn't know Uncle Ryan's non-daughters! But just as Matthews told Vogel and Bacon, MSNBC played excerpts from this event all night long on Friday night, offering hours of expert analysis. If it's Unvarnished Millionaire Dumbness you love, we'll suggest you return here tomorrow. TOMORROW--PART 2: KO and Rachel and Matthews, oh my! The fawning--and fumbling--were monstrous. Previous stunning non-knowledge: As late as December 2007, Matthews didn't seem to know which of Obama's parents had been "Islamic." We know, we know--it sounds hard to believe. But he said it over and over. See <a href="http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh122107.shtml" target="external">THE DAILY HOWLER, 12/21/07</a>. Friedman begged for ''adults only.'' Across the page, there sat Dowd http://www.DailyHowler.com/dh012910.html At long last, the new math is born: How strange has our political system become? Consider this much-discussed part of Obama's state of the union address. For our money, the second part of this passage cancels out the first: <blockquote> OBAMA: I know it's an election year. And after last week, it's clear that campaign fever has come even earlier than usual. But we still need to govern. To Democrats, I would remind you that we still have the largest majority in decades and the people expect us to solve problems, not run for the hills. And if the Republican leadership is going to insist that 60 votes in the Senate are required to do any business at all in this town, a super-majority, then the responsibility to govern is now yours, as well.</blockquote> Alas! That "largest majority in decades" is an illusion if we now need a super-majority to do any business. The Dems hold 59 votes in the Senate. But 59 votes is like the old 49, if we need 60 to function. How strange is our country's new math? Consider what happened on Tuesday, when the Senate voted on a proposal to establish a bipartisan commission to make recommendations on future deficit reduction. Last Sunday, the AP's Andrew Taylor explained how the commission would work. Note the new math it involved: <blockquote> TAYLOR (1/24/10): President Barack Obama on Saturday endorsed a bipartisan plan to name a special task force charged with coming up with a plan to curb the spiraling budget deficit, though the idea has lots of opposition from both his allies and rivals on Capitol Hill. The bipartisan 18-member panel backed by Obama would study the issue for much of the year and, if 14 members agree, report a deficit reduction blueprint after the November elections that would be voted on before the new Congress convenes next year. The 14 would have to include at least half of the panel's Republicans, a big obstacle.</blockquote> The commission couldn't make anything happen unless 14 out of 18 members agreed! For the record, that means that this new commission would need a super-majority of 78 percent! In the current political environment, can anyone imagine 14 members, out of 18, reaching such an agreement? But despite the apparent implausibility, the proposal stirred great opposition. On Tuesday, the Senate voted. The new math ruled again: In this vote, the Senate was trying to establish a panel which would require a 78 percent super-majority. But the Senate failed to establish this commission. Fifty-three senators voted for the proposal. But so what? The proposal lost because it needed 60 votes! Let's review, and drink in the irony: The Senate, which requires a 60 percent super-majority, had been trying to break its ongoing logjam by establishing a new commission--a commission which would require a 78 percent super-majority! But alas! The 78 percent solution will never occur, because the Senate couldn't manage to drum up 60 percent! Do Democrats have "the largest majority in decades?" In a sense, but not as such! For decades, screeds have been launched against the new math. At long last, the new math is born. Matthews and the birthers: Why is your country the joke of the world? Consider Chris Matthews' discussion, on Tuesday's Hardball, with former congressman J. D. Hayworth. Hayworth is challenging John McCain in Arizona's GOP senate primary. In the course of his interview, Matthews raised the question of Barack Obama's citizenship. Matthews frequently raises this topic, using it as a way to identify political crackpots. (After trashing Big Dems for years, Matthews has switched sides, tracking the change in political orientation at the corporation which owns him.) But speaking of crackpots, could anyone possibly be as dumb--as clueless, as unprepared, asdaft--as Matthews himself is? Given the salary this numb-nut is paid, is anyone a bigger crackpot? <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35101214/ns/msnbc_tv-hardball_with_chris_matthews/" target="external">Here is the segment</a> in which Matthews discussed this topic with Hayworth. Do you see a problem with Matthews' performance? Warning: Matthews has conducted this sort of discussion before (link below): <blockquote> MATTHEWS (1/26/10): Are you as far right as the birthers? Are you one of those who believes that the president should have to prove that he's a citizen of the United States and not an illegal immigrant? Are you that far right? HAYWORTH: Well, gosh, we all had to bring our birth certificates to show we were who we said we were and we were the age we said we were to play football in youth sports. Shouldn't we know exactly that anyone who wants to run for public office is a natural-born citizen of the United States and is who they say they are? But let me pause and make another point, Chris, because-- MATTHEWS: Do you think there's a question out there-- HAYWORTH: I've read some of the-- MATTHEWS: No, I'm reading your letter that says the president should go back and get his birth certificate from the governor of Hawaii. You dated this November 6, 2009. I'm just asking, do you stand by this letter? HAYWORTH: Yeah. No, I-- MATTHEWS: Should the governor of Hawaii produce evidence that the president is one of us, an American? Do you think that's a worthy pastime for the governor of Hawaii right now? Should she do it? HAYWORTH: No, look, I think it's important for all of us to be-- I'm just saying the president should come forward with the information, that's all. Why must we depend on the governor of Hawaii? MATTHEWS: OK. Well, let me ask you about former Governor Palin.</blockquote> Matthews raised this topic himself, as he often does. As always, he overstated by dumbly framing this as a claim that Obama may be "an illegal immigrant." But note the larger absurdity of Matthews' pathetic performance. As always, Matthews showed no sign of knowing that Obama already has "prove[n] that he's a citizen of the United States." He showed no sign of understanding that the president already has "come forward with the information." Matthews asked if the governor of Hawaii should "produce evidence that the president is one of us, an American?" He showed no sign of knowing that Hawaii's health director, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, has already made at least two formal statements about this very matter. (To see USA Today's treatment of Fukino's second declaration, in July 2009, feel free: <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-07-27-obama-hawaii_N.htm" target="external">Just click this</a>.) Matthews constantly raises this question as a way to smoke out the crackpots. But when he does so, a strange thing occurs: The crackpots in question (in this case, Hayworth) get to restate their claims or offer their implications without encountering factual push-back from this most hapless of humans. His owners pay Matthews $5 million per year. But he's too lazy to acquaint himself with the simple facts of this case, or he's simply unwilling to embarrass a fixer like Hayworth. Matthews raised this topic himself. He teased the topic before Hayworth came on; he discussed it later in the program with a pundit panel. But he never stated the elementary facts: Obama already has produced his birth certificate. The state of Hawaii already has vouched for this fact. This isn't the first time Matthews has conducted such a discussion. (To see him flounder and flail with Tom DeLay, see <a href="http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh082209.shtml" target="external">THE DAILY HOWLER, 8/22/09</a>). In a rational world, no one in Matthews' high position could be so cosmically clueless. But as long-time Matthews watchers, we'll offer our expert opinion: Most likely, he simply doesn't know the facts of this case. Most likely, he has been too lazy (and too daft) to gather the basic facts. Your country is the joke of the world. Matthews is one prime reason. For reasons the corporation understands, he is paid $5 million per year. But the basic concepts of "facts" and "information" play almost no role on his program. The corporation keeps this big nut on. Will anyone with a loud megaphone in the big mainstream press ever stand up and ask why? Or do they just want to play Hardball themselves? Is that why this big nut hangs on? SEXY LOVES PEPSI: We're not big Tom Friedman fans around here, but his Wednesday headline made a sane request. "Adults Only, Please," it implored. Friedman began with an observation about the ongoing conduct of <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/27/opinion/27friedman.html" target="external">two of our daft elites</a>: <blockquote> FRIEDMAN (1/27/10): Maybe it's just me, but I've found the last few weeks in American politics particularly unnerving. Our economy is still very fragile, yet you would never know that by the way the political class is acting. We're like a patient that just got out of intensive care and is sitting up in bed for the first time when, suddenly, all the doctors and nurses at bedside start bickering. One of them throws a stethoscope across the room; someone else threatens to unplug all the monitors unless the hospital bills are paid by noon; and all the while the patient is thinking: "Are you people crazy? I am just starting to recover. Do you realize how easily I could relapse? Aren't there any adults here?" Sometimes you wonder: Are we home alone? Obviously, the political and financial elites to whom we give authority often act on the basis of personal interests. But we still have a long way to go to get out of the mess we are in, and if our elites do not behave with a greater sense of the common good we could find our economy doing a double dip with a back flip.</blockquote> Friedman begged for adult conduct from our "political and financial elites." As is standard in the press corps, he didn't mention his own journalistic elite, which was clowning in typical ways right across the page from his column. Across the page from Friedman's column, Maureen Dowd was holding court in standard manner. "Bringing Sexy Back," her own headline said. As always, her column was daft from the word go. Soon, though, Dowd was drawing this inane comparison between <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/27/opinion/27dowd.html" target="external">Obama and Scott Brown</a>: <blockquote> DOWD (1/27/10): Even some in the Obama White House secretly wonder if the wonder from Wrentham, Mass., is The One. Could he be a more authentic version of their guy, who also swept in as a long-shot outsider only 14 months ago? Obama is coming across as plastic and hidden, rather than warm and accessibly all-American. (Brown has even been known to do his daughter's laundry when she gets too busy.) Whereas Obama had to force himself to nibble French fries and drink beer (instead of his organic Black Forest Berry Honest Tea) during the Pennsylvania primary, Brown truly loves diners, Pepsi, Waffle Houses and the unwashed masses.</blockquote> Would Friedman consider that to be "adult" work? According to Dowd, Obama likes organic Black Forest Berry Honest Tea. Brown, by contrast, truly love Pepsi, and may therefore be more authentic. Before she reached this inane point, she had of course churned this: <blockquote> DOWD: Everyone in Washington now wants to touch the hem of President-elect Brown--known in the British press as "the former nude centrefold"--who has single-handedly revived the moribund Republican Party. It uncannily recalls the way they once jostled to piggyback on the powerful allure of One-Term Obama.</blockquote> Dowd very much wanted to discuss that nude shot. So of course! She laid it off on the Brits! The headline here is hers alone: "Bringing Sexy Back." The relentless inanity of Dowd's work is of course a thing for the ages. But as we read that passage about Brown and Pepsi and Obama and beer, we couldn't help remembering how many times our reigning idiots, like Dowd, have played the what-does-he-drink- and-is-he-therefore-authentic card. This inanity goes back many years: In 2008, there was a terrible problem when Obama asked for orange juice instead of beer in a bar. Related: In 2004, there was a problem when Kerry asked for the wrong type of cheese on his Philly cheesesteak. In 1988, there was a problem when Candidate Bush the elder asked for coffee at a New Hampshire truck stop. Dowd herself helped invent the claim that he had requested "just a splash," thereby showing himself to be an elitist. (See <a href="http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh042307.shtml" target="external">THE DAILY HOWLER, 4/23/07</a>.) In 1988, there was another problem when Candidate Gore asked for a Perrier in Atlanta. For Michael Kramer at U. S. News, this "tone-deaf" behavior recalled a much earlier problem involving Candidate Shriver: <blockquote> KRAMER (2/29/88): On the stump, you see, Al Gore is not his father's equal. Senator Albert Gore, Sr., a legendary liberal populist was a famous back-slapper. Boy Gore, with his never mussed hair and always pressed blue suit, seems even preppier than George Bush. He may be from Tennessee, but he is of Harvard. In Atlanta several weeks ago, a group of supporters at a cocktail reception shook their heads when Gore asked for a Perrier--a tone-deaf order reminiscent of the time in 1972 when, with the TV lights on in a Pittsburgh bar, Sargent Shriver blew the chance to commune with the blue collars gathered to meet him by requesting a Courvoisier. (In both instances, by the way, the bartenders' reaction was identical: "Don't got it.")</blockquote> To all intents and purposes, the Kramers and Dowds have been insane for decades. For decades, they have been standing about in groups, clucking sadly and shaking their heads about the lack of authenticity involved in the candidates' drink choices. Your nation can't survive this "elite." On Wednesday, Friedman wisely asked for "adults only," and he savaged two elites, the political and the financial. But as is required by Hard Pundit Law, he didn't mention the child-like behavior of his own "journalistic" elite. And sure enough! Across the page, the idiot Dowd was clucking and cooing and vamping. Before too long, we reached her main idea. Before too long, we got to read about the way Sexy Loves Pepsi. Her headline: "Bringing Sexy Back." Our question: Can your nation survive? Also the suits: Note this too from Kramer's excerpt. For decades, these scripted idiots criticized Gore for wearing blue suits. (In this case, for wearing "always pressed blue suits.") In 1999, they began to screech and wail about "earth tones" when one of his suits was brown. In this way, George Bush reached the White House (<a href="http://www.howhegotthere.blogspot.com/" target="external">click here</a>). Can your nation survive? Sally Quinn describes the price (certain) presidents pay if they don't play well with locals http://www.DailyHowler.com/dh012810.html Connectivity is powerful: Did you ever notice that you clean the house a great deal more when you can't get on-line? Well after last night, the dust gods can safely plot their return to our sprawling campus! Final point: Never say this to a tech whiz: "Why did it happen?" The problem: He'll start to explain. Obama, Alito, Scarborough: Starting today, the world will cluck, muse, fuss and fume about What Joseph Alito Did. ("Not true," the Justice seemed to say, as Obama commented on last week's "Citizens United" decision.) For pundits, the incident will make a lovely time-killer, driven by conflict and personality--and fueled by loops of videotape. These are the trivial social dramas around which our discourse now turns. Then, there's the larger dysfunction. We were struck by Joe Scarborough's handling of the topic at question on today's Morning Joe. At present, we have no tape or transcript of what he said--but Scarborough took Alito's side in this relatively pointless social drama, even as he presumed to know what Alito's specific objection had been. According to Scarborough, the president vastly misstated the facts when he said, "With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that, I believe, will open the floodgates for special interests, including foreign corporations, to spend without limit in our elections. I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests or, worse, by foreign entities." Obama's statement was absurd and untruthful, Scarborough said, since there is a separate provision in election law banning foreign corporations from spending in our campaigns. (Again, no transcript is available.) But this is what the Washington Post's Robert Barnes writes about the issue today <a href="http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2010/01/alito-mouths-not-true-at-obama.html?hpid=topnews" target="external">on the paper's web site</a>: <blockquote> BARNES: The court's 5 to 4 decision, in which Alito was in the majority, said it did not have to address the question of electoral spending by foreign corporations, because the law being considered did not differentiate between domestic and foreign corporations. But Democrats have seized on the issue as a way to highlight legislation in response to the court's ruling. There are restrictions on foreign participation in U.S. elections that were not part of the case, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.</blockquote> Last Saturday, Dan Eggen offered this account of the matter <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/22/AR2010012204811.html" target="external">in a Post news report</a>: <blockquote> EGGEN (1/23/10): Democrats are also eyeing restrictions on U.S. companies that are subsidiaries of foreign-owned corporations; they believe the public will be outraged by the possibility of foreign influence in U.S. election campaigns. The high court's majority opinion avoided addressing possible implications for foreign-owned firms, which are barred from direct participation in U.S. elections but can use their American subsidiaries to form political action committees. The subsidiaries now appear free to spend as much as they wish on ads targeting specific U.S. election candidates, and critics said the opinion could be applied even more broadly. "Do you really want the Chinese or any other country to be able to spend money on our elections?" [Rep. Chris] Van Hollen asked.</blockquote> For our money, Scarborough seemed to give a rather one-sided account of this particular issue. (After mind-reading Alito's specific objection.) Surprise! Neither Mika nor anyone else jumped in to suggest as much. Alito will star on cable this week, seeming to mouth the words, "Not true." But how well will the merits of this matter get fleshed out in these discussions? Just a guess: Americans will be able to choose their facts, depending on which programs they watch. Overall, a great deal of heat will get dispensed, perhaps not a great deal of light. Obama will be gruesomely wrong on some shows, Alito on most of the others. All shows will play lots of tape. Sadly, this will force one progressive news channel to stop playing its well-worn tape of Sarah Giles' fetching round keister. The tape shows Giles's keister as Giles walks up stairs. "Progressive" producers adore it. THE WAGES OF QUINN<a name="QUINN"> </a>[<a href="http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh012810.shtml#QUINN">permalink</a>]: In late November, the Washington Post introduced a new feature in its "Style" section--a weekly column, headlined "The Party," written by Sally Quinn. Right at the start of her opening column, Quinn gave a general idea what <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/23/AR2009112301706.html" target="external">the column would be about:</a> <blockquote> QUINN (11/23/09): A number of years ago I wrote a book about entertaining called "The Party: A Guide to Adventurous Entertaining." I didn't really have any grandiose theme in mind, I just had a lot of delicious anecdotes and some advice I had picked up over time from covering parties for The Washington Post, going to a lot of them and giving them myself. It wasn't until I sat down to write the dedication that I had an epiphany about the point of the book. It was to my parents "who taught me that entertaining is really about generosity of spirit."</blockquote> There's nothing "wrong" with writing a column about the best ways to entertain. (For links to all these columns to date, you can <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/linkset/2009/12/01/LI2009120102162.html" target="external">just click here</a>.) But yesterday's column offered an insider-eye view of a great deal of recent history--history stretching all the way back to the Kennedy era. This is our country's political history as recalled by a major DC insider. Whether Quinn's presentations are right or wrong, they're so remarkable that we thought they deserved a review. <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/26/AR2010012603507.html" target="external">In yesterday's column</a>, Quinn explains how certain presidents came to harm in DC in the past fifty years. Is she right or wrong in her assessments? That's hard for us to know. But this is the way a very highly-placed observer understands Insider Washington's behavior toward these presidents. In Quinn's vew, new administrations should make an attempt to socialize with "native Washingtonians." (By that, she clearly means upper-class, insider natives.) What happens to the fools who don't? Let's start with President Carter: Quinn recalls Carter-era socializing issues in a brief, fleeting passage. But this passage includes a stunning bit of political analysis--analysis which may well be accurate: <blockquote> QUINN (1/28/10): Though well liked, the Fords were not in office long enough to create an imprint of their own. When Jimmy Carter arrived in Washington, he and Rosalynn and many of their advisers were decidedly not interested in the locals and made it known. That chill was such a mistake that Teddy Kennedy felt free to challenge Carter, which doomed Carter's reelection. </blockquote> Did Ronald Reagan reach the White House, in part, because the Carters "were decidedly not interested in the locals and made it known?" Did the ensuring social rift embolden Challenger Kennedy? We have no way of knowing, though we'd certainly say it's possible. Here's Quinn's account of the social dynamics affecting the next Dem prez: <blockquote> QUINN: The Clintons brought in a whole new crowd, many of them young and arrogant and clique-ish, which created such a competitive social atmosphere that the environment became toxic. In the beginning, advised by bipartisan fixer David Gergen, the Clintons hosted a series of small dinners for the chattering classes; these petered out as the first couple didn't find them useful (or fun). Ironically, President Clinton had given a toast at Washington Post publisher Katharine Graham's welcoming dinner for him shortly after he was elected. He talked about Washington being a place that was obsessed by "who's in and who's out, who's up and who's down." It was as though he were predicting his own tenure: A lot of enemies were made. When the Monica Lewinsky affair turned into a debacle, during his second term, Clinton was impeached partly because of the ill will toward him in the city. After that, the Clintons went underground and very few from the administration were seen out and about.</blockquote> In Quinn's account, Clinton was impeached "partly because of the ill will toward him in the city"--ill will which stemmed in part from an enemy-making toast and from the "clique-ishness" of his young, arrogant crowd. Is it even remotely possible that this could be true? Consider: In November 1998, Quinn wrote a lengthy, very important account of the views of "Establishment Washington" on the eve of Clinton's impeachment (<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/quinn110298.htm" target="external">click here</a>). She recorded the "outrage and disgust" these insiders were feeling toward Clinton because of the Lewinsky affair--and she stressed, several times, that the public as a whole did not share this sense of outrage. We're sure Quinn was right in that report. (We discuss it <a href="http://howhegotthere.blogspot.com/2009/08/chapter-1_20.html" target="external">toward the end of Chapter 1</a> at our incomparable companion site, How he got there.) We can think of no reason why she couldn't be right in this passage from yesterday's column. Quinn is personally sympathetic to the Obamas. But in this passage, she may be shedding some light on a recent inane, but rather dangerous, flap-doodle: <blockquote> QUINN: When Obama was elected, people began singing "Happy Days Are Here Again." Expectations were over the top. It would be only hours before we would all be dancing on tables. They were beautiful and glamorous, hip and fun. They were the new Kennedys, and Washington would come alive again. They would set a new social tone. Young people would be out every night, partying, mixing and mingling. Members of Congress, who had been sleeping on sofas in their offices and in group houses because their families lived back in the home districts, would start accepting invitations again instead of working for 18 hours, three days a week, and then going home for four. It was all a Camelot fantasy. Obama inherited the helm of the Titanic. Many of those he brought in were from past administrations. A lot of his crowd came in from Chicago and stuck together. People are working around the clock, and too exhausted and overextended to go out. The Obamas rarely entertain, except for large events. They are raising two young children and, understandably, prefer to stay home most nights with them, enjoying a family dinner and helping with homework. They have said that going out is such a huge production (sharpshooters, ambulances, decoy limos, motorcades, etc.) that it's almost not worth it. They have hosted only one state dinner. That, unfortunately (aside from the gate-crashers), was used to reward White House staffers instead of being an opportunity to bring in the best and the brightest from around the country. </blockquote> Given the disastrous circumstances in which Obama took office, try to ignore the sheer inanity of those "expectations." ("It would be only hours before we would all be dancing on tables...They were the new Kennedys, and Washington would come alive again.") But: Do readers recall all the hissing and spitting aimed at social secretary Desiree Rogers in the wake of that one state dinner--hissing and spitting by the likes of the ever-ludicrous Maureen Dowd? Here again, we see a line of complaint which lurked in Dowd's ridiculous columns. Obama's crowd came in from Chicago, Quinn says. Once in DC, they stuck together. And alas! Obama used his one state dinner to reward these rank outsiders! In the aftermath of that dinner, Rogers became Target One. Inane as such ludicrous episodes are, such episodes are also quite dangerous. Let's review: Carter got a primary challenge in part because he failed to mingle. Clinton got impeached in part for roughly the same offense. Obama has made social errors too--errors which bubbled up in weird complaints in the aftermath of that dinner. Beyond that, Quinn doesn't mention the giant price which was paid in the wake of the Clinton impeachment--the seamless transfer of insider loathing from President Clinton to Candidate Gore. Carter was challenged--and Clinton was impeached. Gore was hunted down for two years. According to the logic of Quinn's piece, all these prices were paid--by your nation--due to the failure to kiss local keister at Insider Washington parties. Please note another striking point about the Quinn social history. Please note the failure of any Republican president (at least since Nixon) to pay a price for this sort of thing. In Quinn's account, Presidents Reagan and Bush 41 failed to conduct themselves properly too. But she mentions no specific price being paid for this bad misconduct: <blockquote> QUINN: The Reagans, at first, tried to engage local Washington, with a dinner for insiders at the exclusive F Street Club, and hosted many state dinners. In the end, though, they drifted toward importing glamorous friends from New York and California, especially in the Iran-contra slog of the second term. The first Bush White House came in with a small coterie of friends and kept to them; no second term (see also, The Carters).</blockquote> That's it! Why wasn't Reagan impeached, like Clinton? Quinn doesn't say. Ditto with President Bush 43, who slept when he should have mingled: <blockquote> QUINN: By the time George W. Bush arrived, despite the bitterness about the way the 2000 election had turned out, Washington social life was ready for renewal but found none. The Bushes almost never went out and the president was in bed by 9:30, even when they entertained, which was rare. </blockquote> What price was paid by this sleepiest president? None is mentioned--though Quinn does manage to make us think that Insider Washington was very upset about the way Campaign 2000 turned out. This is stunning political history; we'd be slow to suggest that it's wrong. Again: Quinn's account of Establishment Washington on the eve of impeachment is a deeply important piece of Clinton/Gore era history. In yesterday long, off-handed piece, Quinn fleshed more history out. On the seventh day, we tried to figure why we can't get on-line http://www.DailyHowler.com/dh012710.html ON THE SEVENTH DAY! Doggone it! This is the seventh day we haven't been able to get on-line! (For posting purposes, we've been commuting to Cherbonnier's place to use his back-up computer.) For that reason, on this, the seventh day, we decided to stand and fight. Or at least to try to figure what is going on. Tonight, we may find out! We'll post tomorrow, one way or the other. By the way, just as a minor heads-up: The state of the union? Not good. Bob Herbert has good points to make. Instead, he gins a demon http://www.DailyHowler.com/dh012610.html How liberals lose/A scolding term: We'd tend to agree with the New York Times, which advocates passing the health reform bill <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/26/opinion/26tues1.html?ref=opinion" target="external">in today's top editorial</a>. We do think one part of the piece helps show how liberals lose. The editors note that voters in Massachusetts support their own state's health plan. We were struck by several scolding terms as the editors reasoned: <blockquote> NEW YORK TIMES EDITORIAL (1/28/10): A poll taken in Massachusetts after the election by The Washington Post, the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation and the Harvard School of Public Health found that a surprising 68 percent of those who had voted said that they supported their own state's plan, including slightly more than half of those who had voted for Mr. Brown. Mr. Brown, who promised to block reform in Washington, voted for his state's program in 2006 and did not campaign against it this year. Instead, he argued that since Massachusetts' citizens already have coverage, why should they help pay to expand coverage elsewhere. That cynical I've-got-mine argument doesn't make a lot of sense--even in Massachusetts. The Senate bill would funnel additional money into the Massachusetts program and federal efforts to rein in costs should ultimately benefit all of the states.</blockquote> Would that be a "cynical, I've got-mine argument?" We think liberals tend to lose when they adopt such above-it-all attitudes. Immediately, the editors say that Brown's argument didn't make a lot of sense--that Massachusetts would make out all right financially under the reform bill's provisions. That might make Brown's argument wrong--but what makes the argument "cynical?" Is it cynical when voters don't want to pay for other states, having bitten the bullet within their own? (Presumably, many Bay State voters reacted favorably to brown's argument.) Considering another example, is it "cynical" when other states recoil against the special indulgence the bill would grant Nebraska? Almost surely, Massachusetts voter are over-taxed, in various ways. Given the vast overspending on health care which characterizes our system, they're almost surely being asked to pay too much for health care--for their own health care through the premiums they pay, and for that of some others through their state and federal taxes. (Presumably, much of the overspending goes to corporate and professional elites.) There's no reason on the face of the earth why they should be happy with this. When middle-class voters are asked to pay too much, that should of course be a progressive concern. But often, a certain type of pseudo-liberal will react to such concerns as the editors do--by scolding the voters for being "cynical," for taking an "I've got mine" attitude. In these instances, pseudo-liberals put their love for cultural condescension ahead of the desire to pursue a winning politics. (A politics which is right on the merits.) Those voter were cynical, the editors will be taken to say. "We can afford it," Ezra Klein wrote, describing the vast level of over-spending which marks our health care system. In each case, upper-class liberals lecture to people who have much less than they. It's a wonderful way for scolding liberals to lose. We liberals have mastered the practice. Final general question: Is it "cynical" when some middle-class voter doesn't want to pay for somebody else? We would have to say no, it is not. But pseudo-liberals love to scold. It's one way we liberals lose. What's up with those House progressives: In that New York Times editorial, the editors recommend an approach which would surely produce storms of protest: <blockquote> NEW YORK TIMES EDITORIAL: The most promising path forward would be for House Democrats to pass the Senate bill as is and send it to the president for his signature. That would allow the administration and Congress to pivot immediately to job creation and other economic issues. The Senate bill is not perfect, but it would expand coverage to 94 percent of all citizens and legal residents by 2019, reduce the deficit for decades to come, and create pilot programs to move the medical system toward better care at lower costs. Rank-and-file House Democrats apparently won't accept the Senate bill without modification. So Congressional leaders are looking for ways to commit both the House and the Senate to changes--such as better subsidies to make insurance more affordable--that could be approved through parallel "budget reconciliation" legislation that could be approved by a simple majority in both the Senate and House.</blockquote> For ourselves, we'd be inclined to support that "path forward" too, assuming the political price wouldn't be too disastrous. (It does no good to pass a plan if it generates a voter revolt which elects a Republican president and Republican Congress, thus producing the plan's repeal.) That said: The editors are a bit vague about the reasons why many House Dems have balked at the idea of passing the Senate bill. Why have House progressives balked at passing the Senate plan? Last week, Keith Olbermann failed to push Rep. Lynn Woolsey on this question. When Ed Schultz popped the question to Dennis Kucinich, Brother Kucinich said this: <blockquote> SCHULTZ (1/19/10): Congressman, let me get back to health care just one more time here for a moment. Why won't the progressives in the House just go ahead and rubber-stamp the Senate bill so President Obama can get a legislative victory and then come back later on and introduce some other legislation that might tweak the bill down the road? Why not do that? KUCINICH: We wouldn't be doing President Obama or the American people any favors if we rubber-stamped a bill that would cause workers to have to give back money out of their paychecks so they could pay a tax that would then be recycled into the profits of insurance companies. SCHULTZ: So you think it's a sellout to the insurance industry? KUCINICH: Well, I mean, that's a mild way of putting it. I think that we don't do the president any favors. We stand up for the people and we say, "Look, let's go back to the drawing board." We can support our president, but we can support him by having specific health-care initiatives that we can rally the American people on, that we can get Democrats and Republicans to agree on, and then we can move forward. But this bill? Not a chance. SCHULTZ: Congressman, great to have you with us.</blockquote> We like Kucinich here at THE HOWLER. But can Democrats possibly pass a serious bill by "going back to the drawing board?" Sometimes, we wonder two things: Sometimes, we wonder if some "progressives" hate insurance companies so much that they would deny health care to 30 million people just to keep profits down. Sometimes, we wonder if "progressive" House members pander completely to their union backers, in much the way that other pols cater to corporate backers. <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/26/health/policy/26health.html?ref=todayspaper" target="external">In this news report</a> in this morning's Times, David Herszenhorn discusses the possibility of passing the Senate bill as is, then passing improvements through reconciliation. For us, his report moves the discussion forward. But just what's up with those House progressives? In our experience, interviewers have rarely pushed them to explain their ultimate views. WHEN MSM LIBERALS ATTACK<a name="WHEN"> </a>[<a href="http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh012610.shtml#WHEN">permalink</a>]: We've been disappointed with Obama too. Two possible explanations sometimes come to mind: First, he may be a bit of an upper-end guy. In 1988, he went to Harvard Law School, where he succeeded brilliantly. From that time forward, Obama's life has largely been lived among upper-end groups. His "community organizer" days came before that--and, in all honesty, they didn't last very long (three years). Who knows? At heart, he may be somewhat less a "man of the people" than progressives may prefer. Then too, we sometimes think that President Obama may just be lacking experience. When Bill Clinton came to the White House, he had adjustment problems too. But Clinton had served twelve years as governor of Arkansas, working in one of the nation's kookiest political cultures. When it comes to political fighting, he was vastly more experienced than Obama is. Experience counts in any field. Politically, Clinton had many of the skills which allowed him to start fighting back. Why has Obama been disappointing? In the end, we can't really say. Bob Herbert is plainly disappointed too. Unfortunately, <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/26/opinion/26herbert.html?ref=todayspaper" target="external">his new column</a> reminds us of what tends to happen when MSM liberals attack. "Who is Barack Obama?" the fiery Timesman asks. And uh-oh! Obama may not be the most "credible" person, Herbert quickly suggests. Must we state the column's headline? Tracking back to the days of LBJ, the fiery headline proclaims "Obama's Credibility Gap:" <blockquote> HERBERT (1/26/10): Obama's Credibility Gap Who is Barack Obama? Americans are still looking for the answer, and if they don't get it soon--or if they don't like the answer--the president's current political problems will look like a walk in the park.</blockquote> Oof! Obama's rhetoric cannot always be trusted," Herbert soon says. "He is creating a credibility gap for himself." But just how fair are Herbert's examples? We were underwhelmed by several of the examples here. They seemed to play an old song: <blockquote> HERBERT (continuing directly): Mr. Obama may be personally very appealing, but he has positioned himself all over the political map: the anti-Iraq war candidate who escalated the war in Afghanistan; the opponent of health insurance mandates who made a mandate to buy insurance the centerpiece of his plan; the president who stocked his administration with Wall Street insiders and went to the mat for the banks and big corporations, but who is now trying to present himself as a born-again populist. Mr. Obama is in danger of being perceived as someone whose rhetoric, however skillful, cannot always be trusted. He is creating a credibility gap for himself, and if it widens much more he won't be able to close it.</blockquote> We're disappointed with Obama too. But is there some sort of contradiction--some issue of "trust"--if you're opposed to one war, but are willing to escalate another? Is Obama's change on mandates an honesty issue? It might be, of course. But who knows? Alas! This is what often happens when MSM liberals decide to attack. Once they decide they're troubled by some Liberal Pol, they start pretending that everything said and done by that pol shows his bad, vile character. Check the highlighted gripe: <blockquote> HERBERT: Mr. Obama's campaign mantra was "change" and most of his supporters took that to mean that he would change the way business was done in Washington and that he would reverse the disastrous economic policies that favored mega-corporations and the very wealthy at the expense of the middle class and the poor. "Tonight, more Americans are out of work, and more are working harder for less," said Mr. Obama in his acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention in August 2008. "More of you have lost your homes and even more are watching your home values plummet. More of you have cars you can't afford to drive, credit card bills you can't afford to pay, and tuition that's beyond your reach." Voters watching the straight-arrow candidate delivering that speech, in the midst of the worst economic crisis since the Depression, would not logically have thought that an obsessive focus on health insurance would trump job creation as the top domestic priority of an Obama administration.</blockquote> But Obama campaigned on health care reform. He did so in the same convention speech from which Herbert took those quotes: <blockquote> OBAMA (8/28/08): Now--now is the time to finally keep the promise of affordable, accessible health care for every single American. (APPLAUSE) If you have health care--if you have health care, my plan will lower your premiums. If you don't, you'll be able to get the same kind of coverage that members of Congress give themselves. (APPLAUSE) And--and as someone who watched my mother argue with insurance companies while she lay in bed dying of cancer, I will make certain those companies stop discriminating against those who are sick and need care the most. (APPLAUSE) Now is the time to help families with paid sick days and better family leave, because nobody in America should have to choose between keeping their job and caring for a sick child or an ailing parent.</blockquote> Herbert may have preferred a different focus in the past year. But is it fair to call Obama's pursuit of health reform "obsessive?" Herbert points to some real problems with Obama's tenure. But in this column, he does what MSM liberals tend to do when they start to attack: Having decided he's peeved with Obama's policies, he turns it into a character problem--and every stance Obama takes displays his "character flaw." This is similar to what MSM liberals did to Gore, starting in 1997. During that year, they decided that Gore was a big dishonest sleaze, just like Bill Clinton before him. To help us rubes reach the same conclusion, they began to gin up ludicrous incidents which "showed" Gore's character problem. Most disastrously: In December 1997, Frank Rich and Maureen Dowd invented the ludicrous Love Story flap. The press corps pounded the Love Story nonsense for three years, adding in ludicrous, brain-dead claims about Gore's other LIES. Al Gore said he invented the Internet! And George Bush went to the White House. (On February 2, we'll post Chapter 2 at our companion site. It deals with the gruesome Love Story charade, a gong-show which helped change the world.) Herbert asks sensible questions today--sensible questions about Obama's devotion to the interests of working-class people. But lord! When MSM liberals start to attack, they sometimes end up seeing a demon in every thought, word and deed. Point. Click. Search. Search this weblog. q http://www.google.com/custom