George Packer gets in on the Broder-bashing:
Broder wasn’t analyzing Palin’s positions or accusations, or the truth or falsehood of her claims, or even the nature of the emotions that she appeals to. He was reviewing a performance and giving it the thumbs up, using the familiar terminology of political journalism. This has been so characteristic of the coverage of politics for so long that it doesn’t seem in the least bit odd, and it’s hard to imagine doing it any other way.
(Packer goes on to describe some similar silliness from Adam Nagourney, who is at least as bad as Broder, in general.)
It no longer matters whether or not a politician’s performance (I think that’s the right word here) has any connection with any kind of discernible reality. Movie-goers are pickier about the believability of movies than pundits are about the believability of politicians’ claims. You’re more likely to hear a movie-goer complain “there’s no way a school teacher could afford that penthouse” than to hear David Broder complain “there’s no way `we win, you lose’ can be a serious foreign policy”.
The age of realism in politics is over.
slag
Was there ever an age of realism in politics?
Tom Hilton
And of course, when the President criticizes this kind of substance-free horse-race ‘journalism’, the story is all about the White House trying to control the message–not the substance of the criticism.
Mike Kay
I can see Broder watching Governor winky on his big 69 inch flat screen, as he pulls down his pajama bottoms and pops a couple tabs of viagra, and begins to write notes, only he’s not using a PEN!
General Winfield Stuck
Starbursts could be the new au naturale V iagra for Eisenhower republicans. For Mr. Broder, It doesn’t get any more real than that.
Mike Kay
I can see Broder watching Governor winky on his big 69 inch flat screen, as he pulls down his pjs and pops a couple tabs of daddy’s little helpers and begins to write notes, only he’s not using a PEN!
liberal
@slag:
That’s exactly what I’m wondering.
I’ll wager it’s usually like this, in all places and all times.
DougJ
@slag:
Maybe not.
Phyllis
Wouldn’t it be helpful if pundits reviewed actual job performance of politicians as opposed to how well (or not) politicians ‘perform’ for crowds/the media.
Adam Collyer
Disturbing but sadly not surprising. I guess my question really is whether all of the horse race coverage matters in public opinion.
The 2008 election season provided proof over and over and over again that pundits had no idea what they were talking about. Every time we had a debate and contrasted the two candidates, pundits would discuss Obama’s “professorial rhetoric” not “playing well” to the masses. And then the snap polls would come back and immediately discredit them, and they’d sit there on CNN and MSNBC like their dog just got shot. It was amazing. The same scenario happened with the Palin speech, which got rave reviews as a performance in the media, but was generally found lacking in substance by the voting populace; a view that was later confirmed by her stunningly terrible performances against mediocre questioning by people like Katie Couric.
In other words, does the public really care what these people say and think? Most of America doesn’t watch MSNBC, CNN or FNC and they don’t read the political opinion pages of major newspapers. They tune in during big events. I just generally think we’re giving the David Broders of the world far too much credit than they deserve.
Oh, and here’s a good one for you guys – Obama apparently made a comment about how he’s “agnostic” about how his deficit commission will deal with social security insolvency, so a very long diary on the GOS rec list tells us what that really means is that he’s betraying the base by promising to raise the retirement age and slash benefits. “No *REAL* Democrat is ‘agnostic’ about Social Security.”
Welcome to the age of hyperbole, hysteria, and nothingness. I guess it replaces the Age of Realism?
Pangloss
Political jazz hands.
liberal
@Adam Collyer:
I almost never read GOS (or FDL, for that matter), but in itself, it’s pretty reasonable to find a comment from Obama re SS like that somewhere between despicable and extremely wrong-footed, given that there’s huge pressure from the Village, Wall Street, Cato etc etc etc to cut SS.
On the most charitable reading, it’s a dodge.
4tehlulz
>realism in politics
You lost me there.
mr. whipple
@Mike Kay:
Dood, didja have to?
Brain bleach, STAT.
Keith G
In some ways its even worse than that.
It no longer matters comparatively as well as individually. Evaluating achievable ends, there have been times when Obama has been just as vacuous in some proposals as Palin et al. And he deserves to be called on them. Yet folks like Broder and my brother will take the smaller set of mis-step examples from Obama and act as if they are equivalent to the much larger sets of silliness coming from Palin, McCain, Mitchell and the rest.
“They are all the same.” is becoming the watch phrase of our polity’s implosion.
liberal
@General Winfield Stuck:
There ain’t no more Eisenhower Republicans, except for some lying in their graves.
Lolis
Yep. Obama has some of the qualities the media used to fawn over but now that he is prez they say he is too boring. Honestly, we are lucky that Obama is as bright and interested in governing as he is. It seems like the media dings him for it.
What is weird to me is Palin used to have a bipartisan schtick going in Alaska. Thank God she blew that to pieces. As dumb as she is, if she were more moderate, I think she’d have a political future.
slag
All I know is that “political journalism” needs more Ezra Kleins. In fact, if it were up to me, political journalism would be nothing but Ezra Kleins–of all political persuasions.
ThatLeftTurnInABQ
@slag:
Depends on how much realism you want. I think back in the era when there were enough nuclear warheads aimed at us to reduce the entire US to radioactive ash and free ions seven times over, the establishment consensus on foreign policy was a bit more realistic than what we have now. Ditto for economic policy.
Now we can afford to act like idiots and get away with it, at least for a little while until the chickens come home to roost, because the biggest threats to the US are us, not somebody else out there. That’s pretty much what happened to all the big empires in the past. You don’t get Caligula and Nero while Carthage is still intact and waiting for you to slip, but later on when it doesn’t matter so much.
Adam Collyer
@liberal:
I just fundamentally disagree with that reading. It’s a “dodge” only because we haven’t actually had the discussion yet. Obama isn’t someone who merely casts aside options without each getting a full and fair hearing on the merits.
What the diarist does is take a bunch of relatively broad quotes, gins up his own personal biases, and then uses that as a basis for this conclusion:
That’s just not a fair reading. It’s possible there might be benefit reductions, a raise in the retirement age, AND an increase in payroll taxes for the wealthy. It’s possible to do one of those things, or none of those things. To draw such strong conclusions against the President from the quotes the diarist cites is patently ridiculous.
As an aside, I don’t read GOS that much, certainly not as much as I used to. I still like it for breaking electoral stories though, and find half of the front pagers more useful and insightful than most media voices. But the fact that this was rec’d, to me, is just indicative of the hyperbole that occurs. Let’s have the discussion, then debate the merits of a plan that is on the table or being considered. Calling the President a liar only serves to limit your conclusions to your own predispositions.
mr. whipple
Bot alert: Obama live on MSNBC.
Scott P.
More credit than they deserve, yes, but all this has to have a negative impact over time.
slag
@ThatLeftTurnInABQ: That’s a really good point. I felt like during the bulk of the economic crisis, there was more serious journalism going on. In fact, I would attribute some of Obama’s popularity at the time to the seriousness of overall coverage. But then, people got used to the idea of a recession and it was back to starbursts and silly string.
Personally, I don’t want to have to trade living in a crisis for seriousness. But our lack of seriousness is creating its own kind of crisis.
Comrade Dread
It’s just court politics, Doug. Insiders obscenely obsessed with the various plots and intrigues, gossip and scandals. They are the modern day French aristocrats chatting about how embarrassed the countess must be about some petty slight, all the while the peasants outside are getting increasing pissed off about the lack of affordable, well, everything.
Sadly, of course, thus far the aristocrats have managed to keep the peasants’ anger focused on everything but the root cause of their ills.
Adam Collyer
@Scott P.:
I agree, but I still think it’s possible that we overestimate it’s importance. I certainly wish our news coverage was better, though.
Stooleo
You know who also gave great political performances? Hitler.
Full Godwin… Booyaa.
rootless_e
@liberal: Actually, no. The idea that there is a litmus test of hysterical language that must be used for all sorts of issues is an idea held by “progressives” conditioned to find losing natural.
General Winfield Stuck
@rootless_e: It sure seems like a “need” for them to hover above the transom waiting for a word or phrase to faint with concern over. It’s what baffles me to no end.
ThatLeftTurnInABQ
@slag:
I noticed that too – there was a brief moment in late 2008 when under the impact of the acute crisis in the credit markets our news media almost started acting as if they had a shared stake in what happened to the rest of the country, knowing that if the ship went down they were going to get wet. But that feeling didn’t last. I think it is because the bank bailouts were successfull at keeping things under control enough to give our economic elites (including the folks running the new business) a feeling that they were going to make it, that things would come out OK for them – that this wouldn’t be 1933 all over again, instead it would be more like one of the intense but short lived financial panics in the 1880s and 1890s. So once the immediate danger was over they went back to pissing on the rest of us, just like before. The Great Recession is a little people problem now.
BTD
When did George Packer get on the acceptable list of people to cite?
Even though I agree with everything he says in THIS piece, Packer has a history of adopting right wing memes so I must protest his being quote here at this progressive site.
Balloon Juice has jumped the shark citing this concern troll.
Face
Q–why are all the blogs saying the Bayh is eyeing a 2012 run? Has a party ever not re-nominated the current president? Just what kind of primary is Bayh envisioning that he may win?
Adam Collyer
@BTD:
You’ve managed to say that this blog has “jumped the shark” several times over the past two days. If that’s true, don’t you think your time would be better spent somewhere else? And you can use that space somewhere else to complain about this blog?
I just don’t see why you’re unable to discuss the content of the citation rather than take a shot at the author himself and this blog. You said yourself that you agree with the article, so what’s the point?
Eric U.
the pundits only have one group that listens to them: a small group of “centrist” congressional democrats. Sadly, that’s enough to screw things up pretty badly.
DougJ
@BTD:
George Packer is up and down. Nuts on the war, good on most other things. I thought he made an interesting point.
If the piece had begun “an anonymous Democratic source tells me he heard David Broder say the Democrats are screwed”, I would not have cited it approvingly
BTD
@Adam Collyer:
What? You mean you aren’t concerned about concern troll George Packer being quoted uncritically at this blog?
Me either.
DougJ
@slag:
I agree.
DonBelacquaDelPurgatorio
I don’t think this is new, I think it’s always been more or less true. It’s just that the nature of modern media exposes and highlights this feature more dramatically than in the past.
Do you really think that voters in 1910 were seeing politicians in a more realistic light and seeing them be more in touch with reality than they are today? I really doubt this. It’s just that now we have electronica to give us the immediate and reviewable material.
The citizen today has a tsunami of information available, and the tools to use it, to an extent that people even 30 years ago wouldn’t have dreamed to be possible.
The Broders of the world are anachronisms. Followers of the buzzy crowd, seldom really contributing anything of value to the process. The citizens have to learn to take the new tools and resources and drive the creation of a new process. I think maybe the 2008 Obama campaign was a step in that direction? They went right over the heads of the anachronisms directly to the people using the new tools.
Once the blog world learns to stop obsessing over the old and become part of the new, it will become really relevant. Maybe. But I thought that DKos was a step in that direction, and I sure blew that call. It’s a trainwreck.
DougJ
@Face:
I can only speak for us and we’re only saying it as a joke.
BTD
@DougJ:
I see DougJ. It is the “anonymous source” thing again.
You will be ignoring Jane Mayer and Dana Priest and any number of quality journalists I suspect.
forked tongue
This:
But I think the real question for Mr. Broder is, if the Palins were to move into the White House, would Washington be “their place”? and would they or would they not be likely to “trash the place”? Now, there is something on which he’s qualified to comment.
rdale
Here’s how Mooselini will conquer the Kenyan usurper!
http://zaiusnation.blogspot.com/2010/02/sarah-palins-new-secret-weapon.html
ThatLeftTurnInABQ
@BTD:
Would it kill you to comment here in some way other than just to stir shit up? Here’s an novel idea – you could have an original thought. Or present facts not already in evidence. Or have an interesting and thought provoking argument based on a chain of logic, or a useful metaphor or analogy. Or say something funny.
Adding value to the conversation – it’s not just for breakfast anymore. Try it, you might like it for a change.
slag
@Adam Collyer:
I think it’s possible that we underestimate it’s importance.
arguingwithsignposts
@BTD:
Concern troll is concerned.
Your concern is duly noted.
General Winfield Stuck
I think Balloon Juice has done gotten under BTD’s skin and he ain’t gonna stand for it. Teehee.
Adam Collyer
@BTD:
How I feel about the author of the cited piece is generally irrelevant. Certainly in this context.
Would it have really been more helpful for DougJ to post this:
…in the original post? Does that change the content of the message? No. I don’t really care how DougJ views George Packer personally or politically/historically. I care about what DougJ thinks about the cited piece, which is why I read this blog.
Mumphrey
It sickens me that Broder still has a column. It sickens me that people take him seriously. If you took everything that’s wrong with American politics today, crammed it into a pot and cooked it until it boiled down to the greasiest, slimiest, most concentrated residue of awfulness, what you’d be left with would be David Broder.
I’ll never forget him writing a few years ago that “foul-mouthed, vituperative bloggers” were as much a threat to American society as right-wing, quasi-fascist, fundamentalist Christians who want to break down the seperation of church and state. I can’t fathom the cluelessness it would take to believe that the first group is anywhere nearly as dangerous as the other. It’s hard to believe anybody could believe the first group is dangerous enough, but I guess I don’t have the tender sensibilities of Mr. Broder.
Purely as an aside, Broder is the baldest dude I have ever seen. I wonder if he was bald as a child. Maybe that explains his sensitivity…
BTD
@ThatLeftTurnInABQ:
No, it wouldn’t.
My comment was relevant to a position espoused in a previous Balloon Juice post and approved of by the person who wrote THIS post.
I thought it was relevant.
As for Packer’s piece, I agree with it and it has been written by dirty bloggers (you do know Packer hates bloggers right?) since blogging started.
Was it worthy of comment? In a way it was. Even an Establishment journalist like Packer is repeating the obvious. That is what is noteworthy about it. There is no special insight to the piece.
BTD
@Adam Collyer:
No it would not have been imo.
This is a point I have been making since yesterday.
Sly
@Adam Collyer:
While certainly true of the electorate at large, which needs to be repeated ad infinitum, this is not the case of the DC Press, who think everyone in the country has three TVs simultaneously displaying the cable stations and have the latest inane ramblings from Broderdom ready at hand because that’s how they, inside the Beltway, live.
The imporant aspect of all of this is that the Beltway mentality acts as a virus, propagating outward from DC and infecting the rest of the country via the Cables and the major op-ed pages. And, most importantly, the representatives that actually live in DC but are supposed to be championing the interests of their constituents eat all this shit up. This is basically a manifestation of a dominant, concentrated political culture that you find in every state, but attempting to insinuate itself across the entire nation.
BTD
@General Winfield Stuck:
Indeed. The post I complained about bothered me. DougJ’s support for it bothered me.
And the hypocrisy of this post bothers me.
I think it is interesting that pointing out this inconsistency is bothering many of your fellow commenters.
I think Adam Collyer has made MY point very well.
I would hope his analysis could be applied in a more universal fashion here.
forked tongue
@Mumphrey:
There was another Broder’s Greatest Hit in a WaPo online chat, where he admitted that GW Bush had dome some serious fucking around with the Constitution, but he hadn’t told baldfaced lies to his staff, which is why Clinton deserved impeachment while Junior didn’t.
Ash Can
@General Winfield Stuck: Yup. No substance + continually trashing the FPers = green with envy. No doubt about it.
gwangung
@BTD: Y’all being a little WATB this mornin’…
Just saying.
General Winfield Stuck
We don’t need no stinkin’ special insight piece. If Broder shows up in it, Dougj is the man with the plan. That is all you need to know.
Ash Can
@Mumphrey: If he’s that enamored of Palin, he evidently no longer has a problem with that church-state separation issue.
ThatLeftTurnInABQ
@BTD:
Oh horseshit. Your comment was in no way relevant to the topic of the top level post in this thread. It was nothing but a meta-level reference to Dennis G.’s post from yesterday about Daily Kos which ticked you off. If you are going to be that way, then at least own your actions rather than trying to claim that you were really doing something else. This passive-aggressive caught red handed little boy “I was just putting the cookie back in the cookie jar” BS is downright insulting to our intelligence.
BTD
@gwangung:
In a big way. But then aren’t we all WATBs?
Blogging is just a form of whining anyway.
Balloon Juice and its commenters are no different.
General Winfield Stuck
@BTD: I just think you are sweet on Mcjoan is all, and are defending her perceived besmudged honor.. That’s cool, I do the same thing sometimes. Chauvinism is not dead, though it ain’t what it used to be.
Mumphrey
@forked tongue
I guess some enterprising vituperative, foul-mouthed blogger could make a livelihood of setting down all of Broder’s pathetic rants about how awful these awful kids today are, what with their vituperation and their foul mouths and their blogs, and they won’t keep off my yard, damn it, when I was a kid, we respected our elders, and if John McCain lied to our faces, we were too well bred to say anything about it. These kids today, what are you going to do? I’m going to take a nap, now, so you kids stay out of my yard or so help me I’m going to keep your damned baseball!
BTD
@ThatLeftTurnInABQ:
It was relevant in that DougJ cited George Packer, a concern troll of the highest order and Balloon Juice earlier posted a severe criticism, and DougJ commented approvingly, of citing “concern trolls.”
Now is it uncomfortable to be called out on inconsistencies? Certainly. But it is relevant.
BTD
@General Winfield Stuck:
Yeah well, that’s the way this blog rolls apparently.
Pretty piss poor if you ask me.
eemom
The basher of the Broder is our friend.
How often does someone in the emmessemm ever call out that useless old hack? Or point out the “performance review” tripe that passes for political commentary in this infinitely fucked up country?
It is good and noteworthy to see it happen, for fucking ONCE.
Now, where’s that can of Troll-B-Gone…?
Josie
Oh, good grief, BTD. I am somewhat new to blogging and don’t know all the history of your silly “I know what I am, but what are you?” arguments from the last couple of days, but I am really tired or seeing them in the comments. I came here to get away from those sorts of inane back and forth comments on Kos and other places and really hate seeing them here. You remind me of someone who marries with the intention of changing the person and then constantly complains when the change doesn’t occur. If you don’t like the slant the bloggers here take, follow the lead of those of us who left Kos and go read something else.
General Winfield Stuck
@BTD:
I didn’t.
Josie
Oh, good grief, BTD. I am somewhat new to blogging and don’t know all the history of your silly “I know what I am, but what are you?” arguments from the last couple of days, but I am really tired of seeing them in the comments. I came here to get away from those sorts of inane back and forth comments on Kos and other places and really hate seeing them here. You remind me of someone who marries with the intention of changing the person and then constantly complains when the change doesn’t occur. If you don’t like the slant the bloggers here take, follow the lead of those of us who left Kos and go read something else.
liberal
@Adam Collyer:
Of course it’s a dodge (at best).
(a) There’s nothing wrong with Social Security, in the medium term. OTOH, there’s something wrong with the general fund—a combination of (1) a terrible recession/depression cutting into receipts, and (2) a structural imbalance of receipts and outlays, caused by low taxes on the wealthy, bizarre large military budgets, spending on wars that do nothing to improve America’s security situation, and a health care system out of control. So why is SS even being discussed? What “fair hearing” is necessary?
(b) As for a full hearing of the merits, it’s clear to anyone modestly familiar that any such discussion re SS is just a stalking horse for more benefit cuts for people less wealthy.
As politics, I suppose Obama could be using this as a sop to those with (faux) concerns about budget deficits, but all he’s doing is playing with fire, and enabling those who want to gut social insurance programs to say “even socialist Obama thinks we should consider cutting back on SS!!1!”
Suppose, by way of analogy, that Obama proposed a commission to debate the wisdom of bombing Iran. One could say he would be merely asking for a full hearing of the merits, but one would be wrong—it would be an assinine idea, as is this.
BTD
@Josie:
It is not an “I know you are” argument.
It is you said this was bad yesterday when someone else did it, but now it is ok today when you do it argument.
Fairly common in politics. And blogging.
You’ll see many examples of it in Balloon Juice posts and comments. So if your intent was to “escape” that, I am pretty sure you have missed the mark.
Adam Collyer
@Sly:
This is very true. The biggest problem here though isn’t necessarily the DC media (although it is, in and of itself, a huge problem), but the education system for political analysts.
Bear with me for a moment. I am close with a student who goes to school at one of the prominent DC universities and is receiving her graduate degree in political communications. She also has worked as a press intern in several Congressional offices. Late last spring I was on a long road trip an was speaking with her on a cell phone, and the discussion turned to politics and specifically Guantanamo Bay. It was my position that we need to shut down that facility and try people in some manner because we can’t just hold people indefinitely. She disagreed because she thought it created too much risk on American soil. We discussed it for a few minutes and I made my points, and she actually agreed. But then came this…
This is absurd. This person is going to school for political communications. You can’t “sell” this? Well, what good are you then? And what good is your degree? The politicians job is to create policy. Your job is to sell it. Do your job.
This conversation doesn’t even begin to cover my general aversion to a graduate degree for what amounts to “political spin.” That’s the worst part of it all. But you can’t sell this? The GOP has been creating objectively awful policy for years (tax cuts create revenue, privatizing social security, excessive deregulation, the entire Tea Party movement) and their press people have sold it well. What do you mean you can’t “sell” this?
Scott
@BTD: What, are you a fucking first-grader? Go the fuck away, Republican shitbag.
Tom Hilton
@BTD: This is a classic example of the worst sort of mindless prog-blog-think–a reductionist with-us-or-against-us approach that renders the substance of everything secondary to the approved/disapproved status of the author.
Packer has said some very stupid, very wrong things; he has also said some very smart things. The same is true of Glenn Greenwald. The stupid things Packer (or Joe Klein or Andrew Sullivan or whomever) has said do not make the smart things he says not smart. Conversely, the smart things Glenn Greenwald has said do not make the stupid things he says not stupid. This is so blindingly obvious that it’s a little embarrassing to have to point it out.
Ash Can
@Josie: Please don’t give up on the BJ comment threads; they can be very thoughtful and entertaining. Just skip past the trolling/ bickering when it breaks out, and you’ll be rewarded in due course.
eemom
as one of the few ‘Zilla bashers around here, I must take this opportunity to emphasize this very important point. : )
BTD
@Tom Hilton:
I completely agree.
It is my point.
BTD
@Scott:
To be clear, I may be a shitbag, but not a Republican one.
For example, unlike George Packer (and John Cole for that matter), I vehemently opposed the Iraq Debacle and protested the attacks on the patriotism of those who opposed it.
Of course, that does not make Packer’s (or Cole’s) opinions on other matters invalid, nor is citing them “concern trolling.”
That is a point I have been making for 2 days.
J. Michael Neal
I think we should all just accept BTD’s words as the pearls of wisdom that they are. As we seek enlightenment, it is important for us to recognize the enlightened among us, and heed what they say. We should be thankful for his teachings.
See, a koan:
Peace be upon you.
Yossarian
Yossarian’s ideal media universe:
Politician: “I have stated something. It is a potentially verifiable claim.”
Mainstream media: “This politician’s claim cannot be verified. It is untrue or at least out-of-context, and I can so demonstrate using the following facts (facts then follow). This politician should be regarded as suspect for his/her’s attempt to mislead or even lie to the American public.”
OR
Mainstream media: “This politician’s claim, while certainly serving the interest of his/her party, is true and can be verified by the following facts (journalist then elucidates facts). This politician makes an interesting point that the American public would do well to at least consider in evaluating public policy.”
Actual media universe:
Politician: “I have stated something. It is a potentially verifiable claim.”
Blogger: “This claim is dubious. I will now demonstrate how.”
Mainstream media: “THIS POLITICIAN’S FACE IS PRETTY AND MAKES ME SMILE. HOW WILL THIS AFFECT PEOPLE MAKING VOTES I DON’T KNOW BUT I WILL ASK BEST BUDDY AND GRANDPA JOHN MCCAIN!!!1!”
Scott
@BTD:
Looks like a Republican, smells like a Republican, acts like a Republican — goddamn, I think we’ve discovered the secret ingredient in this shitbag!
slappy
@Josie: Google “balloon juice pie filter”. You can set up firefox to automatically get rid of known PUMAs/trolls/whatever.
BTD
@Scott:
If you are talking about Packer and Cole, I must protest.
Their support for George Bush’s policies was misguided no doubt, but Cole at least has changed his views.
Josie
Ash Can – Thanks for the encouragement. I have indeed enjoyed the entertaining and enlightening comment threads at this site. It is one reason, along with John Cole’s and others’ wonderful pet photos and stories, that I keep returning. I guess that is why it upsets me for someone to come in and disturb the atmosphere with juvenile quests for attention. But I suppose we must tell ourselves that this too shall pass, right?
fraught
In 1992 Modo “with” Tom Friedman wrote a series of very influential articles titled “The 1992 Campaign” which appeared every few days in the Times and in which she refined her trade mark little personal jabs at the players, how they spoke, if their hands shook, if their shoes were shined, what their strategy seemed to be, what their nicknames were. Everyone read it and talked about it and because it was so entertaining it became more popular than any of the wonky front page articles about (Yawn) issues. Some of these eventually made it to the front page. It secured Modo’s reputation and not long afterward she became a columnist. One of these was headlined: “THE 1992 CAMPAIGN: Behind the Scenes; The Faces Behind the Face That Clinton’s Smile Masks.” Politico foretold.
I blame much of the way politics is covered now on that series.
It can be found in the Times archives.
General Idiots
deleted due to general idiocy
General Winfield Stuck
@BTD:
That is a point I have been making for 2 days.
Tom Hilton
@eemom: I’m right there with you.
Cat Lady
@Josie:
BTD = kidney stone.
OccasionalReader
It’s funny, because I just read an interesting article somewhere on how arguments about substantive issues keep getting derailed by commentators who are obsessed with trivial bullsh-
Oh. Wait.
Adam Collyer
@Tom Hilton:
Yes, but just to play devil’s advocate, what if the author was Sarah Palin? Or Dick Cheney? Actually, Cheney is the perfect example, given the conversation here the other day about his “support” for the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. I don’t commend Cheney’s comments – he had the opportunity to deal with gay rights (and the “excuse” of his daughter’s sexuality), and instead chose to campaign on DOMA and the FMA.
I suppose my general rule is that Packer, Klein, Sullivan and Greenwald say both dumb and smart things, and we should be dealing with the content of their arguments. But Sarah Palin has far exceeded the patience of most rational people, and she’s not arguing in good faith. Neither is Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, or the rest of that ilk. To cite them would be to impeach your own credibility. But I think there is a line, but it’s demarcation isn’t necessarily clear.
BTD
@General Winfield Stuck:
That is incorrect. The point was that the House will not pass the Stand Alone Senate bill without a reconciliation fix and the House does not trust the Senate so the fix has to be contemporaneous with passage of the Senate bill by the House.
Strangely enough, the post you are praising quoted Tim F. arguing for pressure on the Senate to do a reconciliation fix.
It was indicative of the obstuseness of the post, which focused on so called “concern trolling” instead of the substance of the post.
Now many of you do not want to believe that the House won’t pass the Senate Stand Alone bill. That’s fine. Make the argument if that is what you believe. Argue for them to pass it.
But the attack that was made by that post was absurd. I think the comments in this post defending citing Packer make the point well. Address the message, not the messenger.
J. Michael Neal
@fraught:
The biggest problem is that Michael Lewis does this sort of thing much better. So well, in fact, that he often slips actual substance into the mix. Plus, he’s guaranteed to fall in love with some lovable loser or other.
BTD
@General Winfield Stuck:
I also note with amusement this part of your comment:
“But without triangulating with the GOP. It is the same tactic we opposed Hillary making in the primary. And will oppose every single time, regardless of what dem uses it. I am not surprised however, that you don’t get it.”
Every single time? Really? Come now.
BTD
@Adam Collyer:
This is an interesting comment.
Are you familiar with what Packer wrote over the years? He went well over the line a lot.
And even more egregious example is Sullivan, of Bell Curve/Fifth Column infamy, just to mention 2.
How is it that he never crossed that line for you?
I also note that DougJ cites to Sully all the time.
Josie
@Cat Lady – A painful metaphor, but apt.
J. Michael Neal
@Adam Collyer:
On one level, I agree. On another, though, I have a problem. Take this piece by Packer. He is making observations on political journalism, some of which rely on his interpretation of events. Our prior belief as to the value of his arguments is critical to assessing whether or not we should value this one.
People in this thread are saying that Packer has made a valuable contribution solely because he has written something that they already agreed with prior to reading it. He hasn’t added anything of value to the discussion.
General Winfield Stuck
@BTD: Well, we just come from different planet it seems. I read Mcjoan as her not doing a detached analysis of the situation, but brandishing a meme from a right winger that the House passing the senate bill unfixed would cause doom for dems because the public opposed it. This to bolster her view that the bill should be killed if not fixed. Complete with Barones made up poll numbers and ignorant claims of understanding the dem house and it’s constituents.
BTD
@J. Michael Neal:
Self selection is what we all do. We find folks who say things we agree with and cite them approvingly.
When Cole was on his ideological journey from Republican to Democrat, I was a FPer at Daily Kos. We used to cite Cole ALL the time during that journey, because he would say things we agreed with.
Part of the reason was because he was a Republican. It is the same reason we would cite Scowcroft, Bruce Fein, even Bob Barr.
Lolis
If you want to see the worst blog post in history google BTD’s post on Talk Left about how Sarah Palin’s college professors were sexist because they didn’t remember her. As a former university instructor and a feminist, this one was laugh out loud funny to me.
General Winfield Stuck
@BTD: When campaigning in a primary against another democratic candidate, or a left wing blogger attacking a dem president. Yes, every single time within human error limits. Don’t care if dems use it to attack and defeat republicans.
And yes, I didn’t like it when Obama used Reagan years to attack Hillary in the primaries.
BTD
@General Winfield Stuck:
Well, I agree that you come from a universe that believes that the House will pass the Stand Alone Senate bill and I come from one that does not believe it will.
As for “made up poll numbers” and the like, well you know they are not made up and you also know that House members, including the Speaker of stated that they will not pass the Senate Bill standalone.
People actually interested in passing the bill have also realized this and are now all urging the sidecar reconciliation fix. That includes President Obama.
Events have really passed this debate by frankly.
But people will believe what they want to believe.
BTD
@General Winfield Stuck:
How about while governing?
BTD
@Lolis:
Google it please. Because I am positive that is not what the post said.
Tom Hilton
@Adam Collyer:
Point taken; I’ll try to clarify. There are certainly people who are so consistently wrong, or mendacious, or arguing in bad faith, or operating from ideological assumptions that are completely incompatible with one’s own, that there really isn’t any point in considering what they have to say.
There are also people like Broder or Richard Cohen or Maureen Dowd, who are so consistently substance-free and weirdly unaware of their own biases that they can generally be dismissed.
(Barone, by the way, is a little of both.)
But Packer, Klein, Sullivan, et al. aren’t in either of those categories (IMO). They have been spectacularly wrong on some high-profile issues, but they are also right (or more importantly, make intelligent arguments on the right side) on other fundamental issues. What I’m rejecting is the with-us-or-against-us approach applied to people who really do have something useful to say.
eric
@Adam Collyer: But isn’t the point of Packer the same as for Cheney…EVEN THIS GUY, who is otherwise evil/dead wrong/reactionary/hateful gets just how stupid/ridiculous/insane/hypocritical the position/artcle/policy is.
Packer is a Villager. Broder is a Villager. You are not supposed to go after other Villagers as high as Broder in the Village pecking order. that is what makes the citation to Packer germane to Broder bashing.
eric
Tom Hilton
@BTD: Ah, I see–instead of making a substantive comment, you were merely carrying on some childish petulant grudge match. My mistake in responding.
J. Michael Neal
@BTD: Another statement of wisdom that we must ponder:
BTD
@Tom Hilton:
If you want to take it that way.
I thought I was making a substantive point. Indeed, the point you articulately made.
You seem upset that you agree with me.
BTD
@J. Michael Neal:
No need to ponder. It is understood by everyone except a few now.
That is why Obama is backing a sidecar reconciliation fix.
As I said, events have passed this debate by.
General Winfield Stuck
@BTD: Pelosi says she doesn’t have the votes to pass the senate bill, which is the same as saying it wouldn’t pass now.
And it is bullshit to claim we just want the House to pass the senate bill regardless. Everyone here wants it fixed first, but if not, then there is only one option to pass HCR.
And if true, I do hope Obama and the senate have decided to go for reconc. to fix the bill.
But you are deflecting the basic reality that Mcjoan jumped the shark using Barone as a prop for her kill the bill wishes. And that his analysis was BS in toto. You can apologize and deflect all you want, but can’t change that simple fact and that you are OK with it. so be it. But don’t blow smoke up our asses that it was somehow appropriate. Won’t fly here.
So tell me, are you going to troll every thread here from now on, to restore the Dkos Mcjoan honor and drivel your concern that BJ is not up to your blog standards, which btw, that idea makes me laugh?
J. Michael Neal
@BTD:
Wow. Deeper. People living in multiple universes, understood by all but a few.
BTD
@General Winfield Stuck:
You write:
“Pelosi says she doesn’t have the votes to pass the senate bill, which is the same as saying it wouldn’t pass now. And it is bullshit to claim we just want the House to pass the senate bill regardless. Everyone here wants it fixed first, but if not, then there is only one option to pass HCR. And if true, I do hope Obama and the senate have decided to go for reconc. to fix the bill.
But you are deflecting the basic reality that Mcjoan jumped the shark using Barone as a prop [. . .]”
I see. The “basic reality” is that you do not object to the actual message of the post – which is that to pass the Senate bill, a reconciliation fix has to be done, but rather the citation of Barone.
But I’m the one deflecting?
You’re the one concentrated on substance?
Adam Collyer
@BTD:
I’m generally familiar with Packer, but not even close to a regular reader. I’m definitely more familiar with Sullivan, so I’ll use him as a guide since it’s more common ground.
I have vehemently disagreed with Sullivan many times and have occasionally been his “Dissent of the Day.” I think his initial reactions and thoughts are overwhelmingly emotional and many times devoid of reason and logic. It’s the reason he tends to walk back statements so much. But I like Sullivan mostly because I feel as though he’s being honest with himself and his readership. When he’s wrong and called out, he admits it. He’s not preening for political points or trying to just be the popular kid. He’s generally arguing in good faith, as Tom Hilton said, even if his arguments are wrong or based on assumptions of the way political actors and ideologies in the US work as opposed to to the UK. He’s been intensely good on some issues, terrible on others, and able to think critically when given time to let his strong emotions subside.
@eric:
Yes, but it only goes so far. Cheney has a skin in the game now as far as personal credibility and popularity (not to mention the feelings of his family). It’s easy for him to take that position now that it has no demonstrable consequences. I also don’t believe he’s ever been debating in good faith, and thus I’m inclined to really ignore him no matter what arguments he makes, even if they are ones with which I agree.
I also agree with your points on Packer, Broder, and villagers attacking their own.
BTD
@J. Michael Neal:
Heh. I guess denying global warming is next for you.
J. Michael Neal
@Tom Hilton:
No, no. You completely miss his purpose. You can not analyze his teachings with reason or logic, but only through intuition.
danimal
Warning: Troll feeding to follow.
How does a person go by the name of Big Tent Democrat and then continually stir up crap on a blog that represents a fair number of mainstream Democrats? I’m not arguing that the BJ commentary is above reproach or shouldn’t be challenged, but the irony of continuously attacking one stream of Democratic thought while laying claim to the “big tent” mantle is beyond irony. Argue your pov away, but the nitpicking and stirring up crap for its own sake is really annoying.
J. Michael Neal
@BTD:
Stop! Please! I’m still working on the multiple universes lesson, and now you want me to contemplate denying global warming when it hasn’t even asked me for anything yet.
J. Michael Neal
@danimal:
Now, you, too? I need more time to meditate.
BTD
@Adam Collyer:
I completely disagree with this:
“. When he’s wrong and called out, he admits it. He’s not preening for political points or trying to just be the popular kid. ”
He has never admitted his errors, racist and offensive errors, on the Bell Curve.
He has never admitted his errors, offensive errors, on the Fifth Column remarks, which he dishonestly tried to cover up.
He is in fact a major preener and it is how he became notable- his preening against Clinton and Gore and in favor of Bush.
Sullivan has been and will be awful.
All that said, I cited him myself yesterday on torture, where he is great.
I write all that to make a point – it is ridiculous to argue that certain people are off limits.
To me it is especially ridiculous to argue it at a site run by a former Bush loving Republican.
Cole’s conversion has been admirable. But it WAS a conversion. He had a history.
It ill behooves commenters at this site to argue that citing certain people is off limits.
Comrade Scrutinizer
I just love it when
ArmandoBTD comes around. I can pop a big bag of popcorn and just watch the insanity. It’s better than BoB!I mean “ill behooves”. Who says that?!
BTD
@danimal:
As always, the crap stirring that is agreed with is always good.
John Cole is a sedate civil blogger who never stirs up crap?
The commenters here never stir up crap?
Whatever.
General Winfield Stuck
@BTD:
Here is Mcjoans analysis.
She is promoting the House not pass the senate bill till it’s fixed. Not objectively predicting they won’t.
And here is her opening to the post. Gives me a good belly laugh, A “reality check” from Barone. His analysis was full of wingnut propaganda hoseshit complete with made up numbers to go along.
How many times we gonna have to state it before it sinks into your thick skull dude? You are just pissed that BJ attacks another progressive like yourself and come here to parse the clear evidence and troll our threads with mindless wankery by pissing down our backs and telling us it’s raining. Though progressive you nor your netroot buds are.
gwangung
Yeah, definitely WATB today.
ThatLeftTurnInABQ
@Adam Collyer:
To me the line is crossed when it is pretty clear from a contextual analysis that the advice or analysis coming from a particular source is a poisoned chalice – it is being offered in bad faith in the hopes that the gullible will accept it to the detriment of their cause or side. That is one of the things which distinguishes Packer from Barone. Packer is all too frequently a creature of the establishment, but he is not what Barone has become – a political operative disguised as a media figure, deliberately making mischief and sowing discord in order to gain a benefit for his side in the partisan political wars.
Blue Raven
@J. Michael Neal:
Ah, yes, the starburst effect. Most apt.
General Winfield Stuck
gotta go now and make BTD’s case to the Flat Earth Society.
Tom Hilton
@ThatLeftTurnInABQ: That’s a good way to frame it.
mr. whipple
The tent really only sleeps 1?
Desargues
If the demise of realism in politics is official, what will succeed it? Surrealism? To judge from some of the right-wingers’ antics these days, they must have plead undying allegiance to Tristan Tzara. John Thune-Andre Breton 2012!
The Elk Pie Lady instead seems to go for magical realism. “It’s true” and “I wish it were true” have conflated into an ethereal, amorphous blob of make-believe in the name of which she wants to govern. If reality gets too harsh, we should pray it away.
Sarah Palin-Gabriel Garcia Marquez 2012!
Sly
@Adam Collyer:
She means that she and her cadre can not put it in the context of improving people’s lives over what is currently the status quo. And I would agree with her that the counterposition, that terrorist suspects be kept as far away from the American populace as possible, is comparatively easy to sell than what is moral and legally necessary under American law. The GOP always frames issues in a way that connects with a large constituency, even when they’re flat out lying: Family farms get hurt by the estate tax (they don’t), reducing corporate taxes creates more jobs (it doesn’t), etc. Moving terrorist suspects to American soil will result in more attacks and you will be killed when Mohammad blows up your local strip mall.
It’s a similar situation with healthcare. Taken individually, many of the proposals within the current legislation are pretty horrible. The mandate, the excise tax, the lack of any public alternative for people who don’t qualify for Medicare/Medicaid, etc. All these provisions poll poorly. But let them know what the complete package does, and approval for it goes way it.
liberal
@Adam Collyer:
Of course it’s a dodge (at best).
(a) There’s nothing wrong with Social Security, in the medium term. OTOH, there’s something wrong with the general fund—-a combination of (1) a terrible recession/depression cutting into receipts, and (2) a structural imbalance of receipts and outlays, caused by low taxes on the wealthy, bizarre large military budgets, spending on wars that do nothing to improve America’s security situation, and a health care system out of control. So why is SS even being discussed? What “fair hearing” is necessary?
(b) As for a full hearing of the merits, it’s clear to anyone modestly familiar that any such discussion re SS is just a stalking horse for more benefit cuts for people less wealthy.
As politics, I suppose Obama could be using this as a sop to those with (faux) concerns about budget deficits, but all he’s doing is playing with fire, and enabling those who want to gut social insurance programs to say “even socialist Obama thinks we should consider cutting back on SS!”
Suppose, by way of analogy, that Obama proposed a commission to debate the wisdom of bombing Iran. One could say he would be merely asking for a full hearing of the merits, but one would be wrong—-it would be an assinine idea, as is this.
Adam Collyer
@Sly:
I agree with you about what she means. I just find it incredibly uncritical for her to proclaim it. By definition, a press secretary (and his/her staff) is useful for the sole purpose of selling policy ideas to the public. If we posit that Democrats are unable to do so, then why should any of them have press staff at all?
I understand that it’s difficult. But that’s the hand you were dealt. Otherwise, go work for the GOP or go into another line of work. If you’re claiming that you’re unable to do something that is definitionally part of your job, I don’t think I’m being uncharitable to claim that you’re incompetent.
(Not you, obviously Sly. More like a universal *you*)
Midnight Marauder
For a while, I was excited about where this thread was headed. And then things like this started happening:
@BTD:
Because that’s the point people are making about you and your inane, pointless “Old Man Yells At Clouds” visits over here. Exactly. NAILED IT.
mistersnrub
@Desargues: Arthur Smith the sensible candidate and next to him is Jethro Q. Walrustitty the silly candidate with his agent and his silly wife.
Sarah Palin can be the head of the very silly party.
Sly
@Adam Collyer:
I would agree with your general argument, and personally wonder how much focus group testing the Democrats do compared with the GOP, because my general impression that the Democrats lose because they fail to try to reach people on contentious issues in the first place. Your story about the PR flak adds to that. As far as I know there is no liberal version of Frank Luntz.
Not that I necessarily want one. Luntz is a fucking cancer on the body politic, and not just because his job entails applying copious amounts of lubricant to the spike-encrusted phallus the GOP has been jamming up the ass of the American public. I genuinely dislike him as a human being (and I’m being generous in even classifying him as such) and, were I religious person, I’d probably pray daily for his destruction.
les
@Josie:
Josie, BTD and others are much easier to take, and threads much more enjoyable, when they disappear behind a big “REDACTED” sign. Try this–
http://ok-cleek.com/blogs/?p=2149