Today on Hardball, Chris Matthews made what is easily the most cogent observation I have yet seen in the MSM,
regarding Rep. Joe Wilson's unrestrained attack on President Obama.
Last Wednesday, Rep. Wilson accused the president of being a liar by
shouting from the bench during the president's Joint Congressional
Address.
Wilson promptly apologized to The White House for
failing to "control his emotions," suggesting that the outburst was
spontaneous and unplanned.
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
Initially,
I had no intention of commenting on the story, which I saw blanketing
news coverage on T.V. and on the Internet. Yet, Matthews made the
point that other pundits who commented on the story should have made, or at least considered. Namely, he suggested this was, almost certainly, not an "emotional outburst" or
failure to restrain oneself from spontaneity, but a planned, attention-grabbing gimmick that Rep. Wilson had strategically calculated.
There
are no shortage of pundits and political analysts who make their livings
by guessing the political motives of elected officials, and yet, to my knowledge, Matthews
is the only one who has questioned, by insinuation, the sincerity of
the apology made by Wilson to The White House Chief of Staff (though
many have pointed out that Wilson's accusation was, in itself,
dishonest).
More concerning is that, in all probability, Wilson's
calculation will prove accurate, and he and his party will gain
politically from the uncivil act (whether through Congressional distraction from health care, campaign contributions, or another spectacle to fire up the conservative base).
We should all run the exercise of imagining the media reaction, were a Democrat to have shouted "liar" at President Bush during one of his State of the Union addresses, especially one in which the topic was the Iraq War. The result is clear: they would have been politically skewered, not only by Republicans, but by the MSM (obviously, one can not rise to the challenge of PROVING the reaction, however, anyone who remembers the then dogmatic climate, and the "patriotism" attacks on other lawmakers who chose to question President Bush's policies, would likely agree). This double-standard should be noticed and addressed.
Why are Republicans able to frame the issues in ways that are favorable to them, even within the left-leaning media outlets, and frequently when the methods themselves are dishonest? Why do Republicans, within the media, excel in getting away with far more egregious acts than Democrats ever would? It is one of their most impressive talents as a party.
Follow Landon Ross on Twitter: www.twitter.com/landonross
Morgan Warners: Health Care Reform is the New Gay Marriage
Gay marriage and our increasingly obvious interconnectedness present threats to traditions and ways of doing things that many of us think should change. In that regard, health reform is the new gay marriage.
Because we live in a complex society, the yearning for "the good old days" when one was younger and life was less complex is a strong attraction. So when the solution is 3 or 4 words everyone says "oh yeah! things really are simple and a simple solution will [hopefully] work". And slogans are what the campaign machine sells to its customers, so there you are---a thirsty dog and a seller of water.
People want to believe solutions exist and have been overlooked or screwed up by the opposition. Having to work for a solution is much more work---and it is most people's nature to prefer leisure over work. By the political butterfly effect, "you lie" will eventually become the length of "War and Peace" if it is up to propagandists.
The answer is very simple: Republican trade in anger. Everything that the Republicans deal with from National Security to the Deficit (which they created) to Gay Marriage to Illegal Immigration to Taxes is rooted in anger. They play on the public's sense of justice by showboating and grandstanding and acting like they are the victims when, in fact, they are the ones causing problems.
Democrats need to get some of that anger and push back. Hard. Until they do that, they will be perceived as the problem and not the solution.
I have often wondered how they get away with it, myself. A Republican friend of mine always throws in my face, when we discuss such issues, that "the Democrats did it to Bush when he was President". But did they? I daresay, not quite like this. And those that did, in any way, stand up for their opposing viewpoints were - as you said - viciously attacked as being "unpatriotic".
That has always raised my ire, when speaking out when you disagree with the President is the most patriotic thing one can do! Not in the manner that Joe Wilson did, of course, but in a mature, and appropriate manner and in the correct forums. None of us should blindly follow any of our public leaders and in a democracy, it is our right and duty to speak out when we feel our government is going in the wrong direction.
The double-standard here is quite obvious to anyone who is truly paying attention. The nasty game the Republicans have been playing since Obama took office is above and beyond anything we have seen before. While they all have a right to their opinions and the right to express them, they do not have the right to abuse their positions or the Office of the President. Dissension is one thing, outright abuse, attacks, and disrespect is quite another.