Jason Linkins is a Political Reporter at the Huffington Post, covering media and politics. He's based in Washington, DC. Previously, he wrote for HuffPo's Eat The Press, and has also contributed to DCist and Wonkette.
This past Sunday, America was treated to the sight of Senator Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) rolling out yet another argument against why he will filibuster any health care reform bill that contains a public option.
LIEBERMAN: One last word on the public option. I understand that some who have-- who have advocated say we need to have a government insurance company in the market to keep the insurance companies honest. This is a radical departure from the way we've-- we've responded to the market in America in the past. Here's what I mean.
We rely first on competition in our market economy. That's brought us a lot of wealth and-- given people a lot of jobs. But when the competition fails, then what do we do? We regulate or we litigate. We have never before said in a given business-- we-- we don't trust the companies in it, so we're gonna have the government go into that business. An irony of all ironies, Congressional Budget Office says, I repeat, the government run public option company will charge more than the private companies will.
In June, Lieberman said, "I don't favor a public option because I think there's plenty of competition in the private insurance market." That didn't make sense, and it was quickly dropped from his talking points.
In July, Lieberman said he opposes a public option because "the public is going to end up paying for it." No one could figure out exactly what that meant, and the senator moved onto other arguments.
In August, he said we'd have to wait "until the economy's out of recession," which is incoherent, since a public option, even if passed this year, still wouldn't kick in for quite a while.
In September, Lieberman said he opposes a public option because "the public doesn't support it." A wide variety of credible polling proved otherwise.
In October, Lieberman said the public option would mean "trouble ... for the national debt," by creating "a whole new government entitlement program." Soon after, Jon Chait explained that this "literally makes no sense whatsoever."
In a nutshell, reform advocates are saying, "Giving people the choice of a public option is likely to help consumers by cutting costs and promoting competition." Lieberman is effectively responding, "We haven't done things that way in the past."
The other malformed component of Lieberman's reasoning is that he finds the fact that "the government-run public option company will charge more than the private companies will" to be an "irony of ironies." Of course, one of the things that will keep those private premiums low is that private insurance companies will be offloading the sickest patients into the public plan.
But the real irony of ironies is that, as I already mentioned, Lieberman and other conservative Democrats oppose the sort of cost-reducing provisions that would keep the public option premium low, like tying reimbursement rates to Medicare.
Naturally, there's a much simpler explanation for why Joe Lieberman keeps shifting wildly between different, incoherent rationales for opposing the public option: he's entirely beholden to the health insurance industry, who have given him millions of dollars, through thick and thin!
That question being: "Was "The Daily Show" in part to blame for Bahari's imprisonment?"
The relevant portion of Bahari's story reads as follows:
"Well," said Mr. Rosewater [Bahari's nickname for his interrogator], who had been fairly quiet up to this point, "we have interesting video footage of you. That may persuade you to be more cooperative." I could not imagine what that might be. Something personal? Something that might compromise my friends? But...I reminded myself I had done nothing wrong.
I saw the flicker of a laptop monitor under my blindfold. Then I heard someone speaking. It was a recording of another prisoner's confession. "It's not that one," said the second interrogator. "It's the one marked 'Spy in coffee shop.' " Mr. Rosewater fumbled with the computer. The other man stepped in to change the DVD. And then I heard the voice of Jon Stewart on The Daily Show.
As it turns out, what Bahari's interrogators unspooled for him was his appearance in the segments that "The Daily Show" produced when it sent correspondent Jason Jones to Tehran. In those segments, Jones presented himself as a broad caricature of a woefully-underinformed American journalist, attempting to look "intrepid" as he searched high and low for confirmations of the broad, cliched ideas about Iranian society that he'd conceived prior to arrival. Bahari's participation in the show's segments ended up landing the Newsweek reporter into a situation that was as deadly serious as it was absurd, in which he had to explain the Daily Show's jokes to an interrogator who was threatening him with bodily harm and imprisonment.
"It's just a joke. Nothing serious. It's stupid." I was getting worried. "I hope you are not suggesting that [Jason Jones] is a real spy."
"Can you tell us why an American journalist pretending to be a spy has chosen you to interview?" asked the man with the creases. "We know from your contacts and background that you told them who to interview for their program." The other Iranians interviewed in Jason's report--a former vice president and a former foreign minister--had been arrested a week before me as part of the IRGC's sweeping crackdown. "It's just comedy," I said, feeling weak.
"Do you think it's also funny that you say Iran and America have a lot in common?" Mr. Rosewater asked, declaring that he was losing patience with me. He took my left ear in his hand and started to squeeze it as if he were wringing out a lemon. Then he whispered into it. "This kind of behavior will not help you. Many people have rotted in this prison. You can be one of them."
Of those segments, MacNicol says, "at the time those clips aired I found them non-funny and borderline offensive -- fake news tends to lose its thrust when real news reporters (and civilians) are risking their lives to get the actual news out to world."
Personally, I'm not as damning -- I think there was some value in showing that much of what Iranian protesters were fighting for was founded in a way of life and in values that we would recognize... and that too often the media glibly elides over such things to make pointless bellicosity seem palatable. But the segments did err, in my opinion, in making too many jokes about the danger that Jason Jones was not in during a time when many of the Iranians he met in Iran ended up in such real, deadly danger.
What I am reminded of, reading this, is that one of the dangers in satire is that when it's done right, you might miss the joke entirely. This is something that's as true now as it was when Jonathan Swift wrote "A Modest Proposal." But the issue of whether or not autocratic, fundamentalist regimes are capable of "getting" a joke is beside the point. The fact is that Iran is run by deranged and paranoid despots, who need only the thinnest of pretexts to lock people up or do them harm. This is a pretty sobering way to learn that lesson.
I missed the latest Saturday Night Live, but by the next morning I had received an email from a concerned citizen about the content of its "cold open," in which Fred Armisen, as President Barack Obama, is assailed by Will Forte's Hu Jintao over America owing China money. The emailer was angry at Saturday Night Live for reinforcing flawed media narratives to the effect that the stimulus package has not created any jobs and that health care reform will not save any money -- and overall getting facts wrong. "This is really the wrong time for SNL to be getting basic facts so sorely wrong."
WATCH the sketch in question:
Does anyone actually expect Saturday Night Live to get its facts straight? Well, yes! Very recently, the show ran another sketch that featured Armisen as Obama running down a list of achievements -- and finding that none had been accomplished. This actually led to CNN factchecking the show:
Now, I am basically of the mind that holding Saturday Night Live up to some high level of fact-check scrutiny is more than a little absurd. The traction point of this Saturday's cold open was simply that lots of people joke about China holding so much of our debt. The writers basically take this fundamentally oversimplified idea to give the Jintao character room to complain about how America is spending money to ameliorate social problems and bail out banks while China has an outstanding IOU. I suppose that Armisen could have launched into a lengthy analysis of how the stimulus package is rolling out, or delivered a treatise on how reforming health care could keep people out of crippling debt, allowing them to purchase more Chinese exports, but doing so would commit the comedy crime of "negating the premise" -- the premise being that America is literally screwing China. This whole sketch is nothing more than a vehicle for the comedians to make a broad anal sex joke. They even follow the "rule of three," to maximize it's accessibility.
All of which is true, I suppose. But it's worth pointing out that the sort of comedy Cobb makes is a unique animal. Cobb's Public Service Administration produces hilarious satire, but it's comedy that hinges on being well informed about a topic. For instance, their take on Dana Milbank and Chris Cillizza's "Mouthpiece Theatre" is fantastic, but wouldn't work with an audience unfamiliar with the two reporters' callow belief that their journalistic perch makes them funny, or the Washington Post's struggles with creating a web-based brand identity. I suspect this joke would not play well on NBC's affiliate in Des Moines:
On top of that, Cobb often lends his considerable talents to advocacy. His comedic premises account for facts because he is in the business of "making the case" for things. That's what's on display in this spot for Health Care For America Now, sending up the way insurance companies arbitrarily change the rules on their consumers:
Of course, the mass consumption version of this comedic ethos is seen on Comedy Central's The Daily Show and The Colbert Report, both of which do a great job of informing their viewers because their stock in trade is penetrating and demystifying media narratives and laying them bare.
Everything I've read from SNL writers describing how their comedic sausage gets made indicates that they do not feel any sort of higher obligation to "making the case" for one particular point of view. Similarly, they don't often apply themselves to decoding media narratives -- because that would get in the way of the anal sex jokes. We could argue whether SNL is passing on the chance to create a better or more trenchant or more "dangerous" brand of sketch comedy, but I think what's unavoidable is that Saturday Night Live has its own unique set of priorities, and they include preparing a show that puts their guest host to his or her best use and putting the talents of their own character-driven comedians on display. (I think if we were to fact-check Kristen Wiig's "Penelope" character, many of her claims would not hold up to scrutiny. Still, LET'S NOT GET WOLF BLITZER INVOLVED, OKAY?)
Nevertheless, I think that going forward, we're going to see the factcheck fetish continue to be applied to Saturday Night Live. There are two things that are driving this. First and foremost, legitimate news organizations are, more and more, repurposing SNL's content as a cheap way to kill a few minutes every hour. For example, ABC News's This Week devotes a whole portion of its weekly broadcast to the antics of late-night comedians. By the end of today, MSNBC might well show that cold open three or four times, unless their prudishness gets the better of them. No one intends SNL's content to stand in as the literal truth, but as long as comedy is appearing on the same platform as news, people are going to treat it as fair game for high levels of scrutiny.
The other reason new outlets are likely to fact-check comedy shows is that it makes them look tough, at a time when the public does not have a lot of faith that they are capable of holding anyone accountable anymore. Organizations such as Politifact and FactCheck.org have risen to fill that gap. And now, we're often treated to the spectacle of news organizations citing these outside political factcheckers, which always makes me wonder what's wrong with their own stable of journalists! Watching a spokesman for Politifact come on teevee to talk about what's true and what's not is a lot like walking into a Starbucks and finding out that they've outsourced the boiling of water to a contractor.
That might be a pretty good premise for a joke actually, but I'm not sure it would play all that well at 11:30pm, live from New York.
Hello there and welcome to your Sunday Morning Liveblog of the weekly political chatfests, which, like midnight basketball, occupies the time of pundits and newspeople who would inevitably be off doing something dangerous to us or to one another. My name is Jason. Today we begin with a programming note: there will be no liveblog next Sunday. EVERYONE PANIC, I GUESS!
No, seriously, I will be spending my morning staring at a bleak landscape where everyone is an amoral, hellbound jerk and where something bleak and irrational lurks around every turn, but I am referring to the New Jersey Turnpike, which is kind of like MEET THE PRESS if MEET THE PRESS offered you occasional opportunities to stop and have Cinnabon.
What should you do while I am speeding my way...to DELAWARE, LAND OF TOLL BOOTHS? Well, you might consider reconnecting with loved ones, or reconnecting with sleep, or reconnecting with Dilaudid...anything that's not watching Bill Kristol reflect on the true meaning of Thanksgiving. Don't do it. Stay in bed, and be satisfied for once. You followed this recipe to cook your turkey, didn't you? Good. Then you are an American hero.
Anyway, as always, you should feel free to leave a comment, or send an email. You can also take the opportunity to involve yourself somehow in whatever useless stuff I put up on Twitter, because why not!
Okay. Let's get on with it.
FOX NEWS SUNDAY
Today! Woo! Health care! I think I heard something about this. Lamar Alexander and Kit Bond and Debbie Stabenow AND Arlen Specter? Glad this is not a stag film!
Anyway, the Senate voted to allow themselves to talk about the health care bill. Lamar Alexander says he'll "beat the bill" by scaring people with talk of "medical ghettos." He's counting on everyone staying medically gentrified. It is apparently "arrogance" to think we can fix health care "all at once" says Lamar Alexander, who probably wants a LOLSURGE in Afghanistan. Anyway, Stabenow says that "doing nothing is not an option," and that "at the end of the day, we will be together." OH MAYBE THIS IS A STAG FILM. "AARP is with us." LEMON PARTY!
Mammograms! Will people not be allowed to have them? Kit Bond says people should be worried. But they shouldn't! This panel isn't "playing around with excessive government control," they just made recommendations based on scientific findings. Bond continues to say that seniors will die as well.
Wallace wants to bring Arlen Specter into the conversation, to talk about his mammogram, apparently? He points out that the legislation provides for mammograms and pap smears and all sorts of fun tests, none of which a woman ever wants to be in the middle of, look up, and see that Arlen Specter is performing, at that very moment. Specter says, "the one option we don't have is the option of doing nothing." But that's the most public option of all!
Wallace wants Specter to name another Congress that has cut Medicare by such a significant amount. He can't! BURN! Specter says there will be commissions and crap set up so that some other entity will have to face to choice of reining in Medicare costs -- which must be done, anyway.
Wallace kicks it back to Bond, pointing out that the CBO scoring does indicate that the Senate bill will reduce the deficit, to which Bond rattles off two big calls in the game of Beltway Blather Bingo. "I don't think one out of ten Americans believe that" -- which has no bearing on the facts of the matter. Then: "David Broder wrote a great column." Wrong. David Broder never writes great columns. A David Broder column about a Quinnipiac poll is the most awful piece of writing that anyone can imagine. David Broder is long past the day where he should have been shipped off to some lonely tundra to be eaten by ice wolves. Seriously, anyone who respects Broder needs to be trepanned.
Debbie Stabenow is now saying something, about mammograms, and the Stupak amendment, which she wants to see changed. Kit Bond says "Bernie Madoff would envy the fact" that the health care legislation would collect taxes in advance of paying out services. You'll forgive me if I don't find that unusual. People start businesses with lines of credit and take time to start earning a profit all the time. Anyway, I think Bernie Madoff would envy just about anything right now.
Kit Bond and Debbie Stabenow just had a spat over tax credits for small businesses, which Stabenow says are great, and Bond says are a scam. There's something depressing about watching the elderly pretend to get bellicose.
Bond also is mad about Obama for "dithering" on Afghanistan, but he has clearly never read Stanley McChrystal's report, because he thinks it "laid out a strategy" when really what it did was ask for a new strategy to be created. Bond straight up doesn't know what he's talking about. He and his staff of apparent dumbasses should read it. It's not 2,000 pages long.
Ohh, Specter is a little pissed about not getting to talk. "Why Chris, I guess you forgot I was on the program." Then he talks for about a million boring years.
Apparently, Fox is going to talk about the BREAST CANCER DEATH PANELS or something. Dr. Bernadine Healy is here to talk about it, and she says that ladies should start getting screened at age 40 and have it done every year. Ignore the new guidelines! As for the pap smears, the new guidelines are "responsible and reasonable." So, there you have it! NOT AFRAID TO BE SERVICEY!
Shall we commence with the demagoguery? Healy sort of begs off, saying only that the task force involved does public policy modeling and has no experience with "hands on patient care." She says that THIS WILL BE CODIFIED INTO LAW!! Experts! Making guidelines! Like Stalin did! Anyway, you should watch out for the HIDDEN GOVERNMENT RATIONING. It's apparently far more nefarious than the current OUT IN THE OPEN GOVERNMENT HEALTH CARE RATIONING, where millions of Americans don't get a ration at all and millions more get a ration until they get sick and really need it.
Panel time, with Ann Kornblut and her Eyes Of Pure Need filling in for Juan Williams. Hume says that Congress is caterwauling about Geithner. He also talks about "calls to audit the Fed." Has he not heard that the Grayson-Paul Amendment passed? Anyway, the panel is very sad, now, that everyone is being mean to Tim Geithner. Liasson says that everyone will be talking about jobs, now. Forever. And the deficits. Kristol reminds us again that health care reform will destroy jobs, forever, and turn the world into a bleak place, like the New Jersey turnpike.
Kornblut says that "we're going to hear nothing but this Jobs Summit for the next few weeks." I guess that's because the Jobs Summit will be releasing it's new book, GOING ROGUE, by the JOBS SUMMIT.
Now Brit Hume is mad about something! That guy!
Mara Liasson is impressed with the fact that health care keeps moving forward, but will eventually have to force women to be pregnant, at all times, and the public option will have to be turned into a memory. In the end, the conference committee will pass a get well card, and insurance companies will make more money, and every single one of these turds will get re-elected, forever.
Ann Kornblut is staring at Bill Kristol, thinking, "I can fix him!" YOU CAN'T, ANN! Hold out for someone who loves you for you.
Now, they will yammer about foreign policy. The trip to Asia? TOTAL FAIL, APPARENTLY. There's this terrible "diminished role of the U.S." because, as Hume believes, Obama is solely responsible for the economic straits we're in, and is too polite. Hume says that we need to be a lot more unreasonable and bellicose so that we can threaten foreign powers into accepting a position of burden on our behalf for nothing in return. Kristol, of course, is apoplectic, and doesn't know why Obama didn't destroy Chinese Communism singlehandedly.
Anyway, Iran, they are intransigent? And that's because Obama wanted to maybe have diplomatic talks with all sorts of nations? But really, we should be dropping our awesome new bunker busting bombs on Iranian dissidents. Hume repeats that we need to be a lot more unreasonable and bellicose to make Iran heel. Liasson says that "at some point you need to move to Plan B."
Anyway, I guess we should be bombing more people? It's hard to say what policy solutions just got advocated. But obviously, the White House should have been able to terraform China into democracy on their first trip.
HA! So, the Club For Growth is the "Power Player of the Week," because they failed to win an election in the 23rd District of New York. It's worth mentioning that they lost for many reasons, not the least of which is they sat around the final week of the election congratulating each other while Bill Owens was running a traditional Get Out The Vote operation. Anyway: POWER PLAYERS.
THIS WEEK, WITH GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS
What a great montage of Senators gesticulating! You would almost believe that actual adult democracy happens in this country!
Tom Coburn is on, today? The Senate is literally mounting a Sunday morning charisma offensive. This panel is Marsha Blackburn, Ben "Ralph Wiggum" Nelson, Tom Coburn, and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz. So, that makes ONE person who thinks all Americans should have health care. Great!
Nelson leads things off: "FIRE IS BURNY AND IT MAKES ME SAD." GS asks about filibustering, and Nelson replies: "SOMETIMES KITTY IS BITEY!"
Tom Coburn decided not to have some poor Senate page read the bill out loud because that would have required the GOP to sit in the chamber all weekend long, reading to each other, while the Democrats retreated to coke-and-masturbation domes to eat kalamata olives off one anothers backs, which is some REAL EYES WIDE SHUT NONSENSE, I can tell you. Your eyes will never unsee that shizz.
Did you know that Coburn is a close personal friend of Obama, for some reason? That friendship sure paid dividends!
Debbie W-S says that the House bill and the Senate bill are similar enough that they will find a way to reconcile themselves to each other, if not make out in the rain for seven consecutive minutes, like Ryan Gosling and Rachael McAdams. Coburn looks on thoughtfully, wondering why he's never even invited to his own party's coke-and-masturbation dome. Marsha Blackburn is blonde and pretty and has a voice that sounds like sloe gin fizz as she lies and fearmongers. She touts the GOP health bill, which is a great great bill if you figure out a way to never get sick or never get old.
And now: LADY FIGHT! Debbie W-S and Blackburn are cold talking over each other. WHERE IS BART STUPAK WHEN YOU NEED SOMEONE TO CALM THIS FEMININE HYSTERIA, WITH INVASIVE LAWS.
Ben Nelson adds: "I HEAR BABIES COME FROM CLOUDS!"
Debbie W-S says, "I don't want to speak for Senator Nelson." And that's good, but it would be nice if she could, after the discussion was over, help the Senator get out of the Newseum. I hear that Nelson has been working very hard at mastering stairs, but he's like, ON THE FOURTH FLOOR!
Coburn says that there are "eleven studies out" that say the health care reform bill will raise premiums, Debbie W-S says, uhm, "Differences of opinion exist." Also: insurance company bureaucrats are getting between patients and doctors, to beat the band.
This discussion is going about as well as I suspected, with everyone yelling at Debbie W-S for daring to suggest that insurance companies aren't awesome.
Marsha Blackburn has actually read the part of the bill that makes her scared about the mammograms. Debbie W-S says, uhm: no, that does not provide for the BOSOMPOCALYPSE, and "for the first time, you are politicizing breast cancer." It does make you wonder why we haven't politicized breast cancer before! Coburn says: these guidelines make sense from a cost standpoint, but not for a patient standpoint, BLAH GOVERNMENT HEALTH CARE. I wonder if he thinks the War in Afghanistan makes sense from a "cost standpoint."
Nelson adds: "NOW THE TREES ARE SAD, BECAUSE IT'S WINTER!"
George Stephanopoulos needs to ask Tom Coburn about John Ensign and his sex scandals because they are both roommates in the C Street House for Christian Sexytime, where everyone is having an affair and pleasuring themselves to various Psalms, at all hours, drenching their domicile in the heady scent of musk and desperation. But because George is such an awesome reporter, he APOLOGIZES for having to ask the question. OHH, SORRY SENATOR COBURN, IF THE JOURNALISM CAUSES YOU ANY BOTHER, BUT I HAVE TO ASK YOU A HARD QUESTION NOW, GOD I WISH I DIDN'T! If I were the host of the show, my first question to Coburn would be: "You smell very fresh this morning! What soap do you use, Senator Coburn, to get rid of the stench of Astroglide?"
Anyway, let's panel! With George Will and Robert Reich and Walter Isaacson and Liz Cheney! GS correctly identifies Keep America Safe as a "Republican advocacy organization," which makes Cheney pout that it's a "national security advocacy" organization that wouldn't actually secure anybody.
Tim Geithner is making everyone personally unemployed, with his crapulence. George Will says Geithner "ran into a buzzstorm." WHAT IS A BUZZSTORM? Will touts Ron Paul for getting a bill passed to audit the Fed.
Robert Reich says that Washington is filled with the Men Who Stare At Scapegoats. They, then, get caught in the BUZZSTORM. I get the feeling that no one is bringing their A-Game, the week before Thanksgiving.
Isaacson says Geithner is getting a bad rap, and also that his wife was taking money out of their bank last year, because of bank runs? Liz Cheney, of course, says that the stimulus package emboldened terrorists, and we will all soon die when KSM unleashes his hypnobeams upon New York City. Reich says that the stimulus should have been bigger, better, and not stuffed with useless tax breaks. Will says it's ironic that the White House is touting the success of the stimulus while suggesting that a third one is needed. Reich totally disagrees with Will on the net effect of the stimulus, and GS pulls out some graphic analysis that indicates that there has, at least been a net positive impact. Liz Cheney says we need a "private sector driven stimulus."
Robert Reich attempts to build the case for running high short term deficits, while reforming entitlement programs when the economy is healthy, but now we have to talk about China! Will says that if Bush had gone to China and gotten nothing, "this town would be incandescent." But this town is incadescent over this China trip! And anyway, China owns our ass because of a ton of terrible economic policies. Cheney says that "it's another foreign trip that's style over substance," where, again, "substance" equals "the naive insistence that everyone should do what we want, or else!"
Cheney thrusts her teeny fists vainly heavenward and says, "We are more powerful than China!" This causes my wife to nearly snork scrambled egg through her nasal passages, with laughter. Can we just have George Will and Robert Reich debate things, please? And Walter Isaacson? You are snoozeville! Yes, Liz Cheney! Interrupt Walter Isaacson. I approve of you doing that! KEEP AMERICA SAFE FROM WALTER ISAACSON AND HIS BORING STORIES ABOUT ANDREW JACKSON, GAH.
George Will and Liz Cheney are battling over Afghanistan. Will says, "The danger is that the president is going to be seen as escalating this war, he'll do it half-heartedly, with his heart not in it, he will lose his party, and he'll be supported by Republicans of the stripe of Liz Cheney, and that's not a sustainable path.
Cheney insists that Obama needs to "follow the strategy laid out be General McChrystal." BUT THAT STRATEGY WAS THIS: "Hey! Things are all shithouse here! Could you guys maybe come up with a new strategy? Because DAMN THIS COUNTRY IS BONKERS." General McChrystal is getting precisely what he asked for! Liz Cheney's objection is simply that Obama hasn't sent 80,000 magical troops, ginned out of the ether, and dropped them on the Hindu Kush, to bomb terrorists who all live in Pakistan now.
FIRST SARAH PALIN MENTION OF SUNDAY! DRINK. Walter Isaacson is all: I HAVE A BOOK, TOO. A SERIOUS ONE. Why won't anyone buy his dull book? He's such a scintillating raconteur!
MEET THE PRESS
Fun fact! Last night, I led a discussion about what "pony play" is, over drinks, and you really cannot convince me that it would not have garnered higher network ratings than this show, which is now the only thing standing in the way between me having a Thanksgiving break from David Gregory.
The president may be back from the actual Asia, but there's no escaping the awesomeness of this Asia:
I'd rather just pull awesome YouTube videos than subject anyone to this show! You know that Joe Lieberman is on today? JOE LIEBERMAN! Gah. Heaven knows I'm miserable now.
Dr. Nancy is on? OH YOU HAVE TO BE KIDDING ME.
Ugh, so, anyway, MEET THE PRESS.
Senator Durbin calls yesterday's vote "an amazing victory for the president." WOO YEAH, THE SENATE WILL DELIBERATE FOR WEEKS, MITT ROMNEY CAN SUCK IT, OBAMA FOREVS! Huh, what? Anyway, Kay Bailey Hutchison says, NO THIS IS A DISASTER FOR THE COUNTRY! The Mayans predicted that there would not be enough GOP input in the health care bill and then GOD WOULD SMITE YOU.
God, you know? It's so hard to imagine this country could have been founded had David Gregory been a prominent American, centuries ago.
Anyway, Dianne Feinstein is a big fan of the bill, and voting for the bill, and debating the bill, and reconciling the bill, and most of all getting re-elected.
Joe Lieberman said he wants to "begin debating health care reform" but that he "doesn't think that anybody thinks this bill will pass." Anyway, he will destroy the public option that Americans want. He doesn't really understand what the public option does. He calls it out, on one hand, for not doing more to insure people or get them health care, BUT HE DOESN'T WANT TO DO THOSE THINGS EITHER! He's also worried about costs, but what he wants done with the bill isn't to control costs.
It's also worth emphasizing that while only the House-style public option will save a lot of money, even the relatively weak public option from the Reid draft would save money relative to doing what Lieberman wants. He's talking about filibustering a deficit-reducing bill in order to try to remove a cost-reducing provision, and doing so on grounds of fiscal probity. It's ludicrous, and the political reporters covering him need to point this out.
I'd ask Lieberman that question! And then my follow-up would be to smash a grapefruit on his face, Jimmy Cagney style! I'd have grapefruit for everyone on this damned show. The show would be called, MEET THE GRAPEFRUIT HURTLING TOWARD YOUR DUMB FACE, YOU USELESS NINNY.
Gregory asks, "WHAT ABOUT WARS?" Lieberman says, oh well, I wanted to have tax programs to pay for it. Gregory responds, so you think the wars should be paid for? And Lieberman says, absolutely, and somehow it doesn't occur to David Gregory to ask BY WHAT MAGIC WE INTEND TO DO THAT.
This panel is filibustering my life! David Gregory thinks it is significant that Americans think it won't cut costs than the fact that experts in the field say it will. Someone, somewhere, in the world is always gathering together to say something dumb or uninformed or half-assed...it isn't always "an interesting point of view." SOMETIMES IT IS JUST STUPID.
Lieberman says that the CBO says that the public option will charge more than private insurers. And that's true! But people who don't have access to the private insurance will suddenly have access to insurance. What's the point of a more affordable product that you aren't allowed to purchase? WOW, FREEDOM WOULD BE AWESOME IF THE PREVAILING AUTHORITY WOULD LET ME HAVE SOME.
Meanwhile, everyone be hatin' on Tim Geithner! Here's a long video of Geithner hate porn! REMIND ME WHAT POST YOU WERE HOLDING, says the Congressman who probably sat their, with his junk in his hand, as the government passed all sorts of laws that made the economic collapse possible! I LOVE WHEN SELF-RIGHTEOUSNESS AND VAPIDITY FORM IN THE LARNYX OF A CONGRESSCRITTER!
If this panel died in a plane crash, Don McLean would write a seven minute song about how rock music was awesome again! LOOK AT THE LEVEE, IT'S SO WET, AND YET IT'S NOT FAILING.
Kay Bailey Hutchison thinks it's CRAZY to try to pass a health care bill when the economy is bad and people are unemployed. We should obviously wait until the economy is healthier and people are back at work, at which point it will still be crazy to pass a health care reform bill.
Gregory wants to know if Geithner should resign, but what's Hutchison supposed to say? She's been selling out to Wall Street, he's been selling out to Wall Street. She needs people to be mad at the Obama administration, but not so angry that it will endganger the longstanding relationship between people in Congress and people in Wall Street. Gregory presses, though: "Do you think he should keep his job?" KBH replies, "Well, look, we shouldn't keep our jobs, either." Actually, that's exactly right!
Before KBH and DiFi can have an interesting debate on costs that might be clarifying, Gregory changes topics to Afghanistan. "Let's all keep to this study in happy dilettantism!"
A critical point: Afghanistan's "surge" won't be like the one in Iraq. As Ackerman points out: "Unlike Iraq, Afghanistan's escalation is being talked about in terms of not being a one-time surge, where when the initial brigades used for escalation go home, the whole thing goes back to where it was before, but a sustained escalation whereby new brigades have to come in and relieve the ones that go home initially."
Now they are all talking about a Charles Krauthammer column? FAST FOWARD.
KBH says that the mammogram guidelines are "the beginning of rationing," which is weird, because health care rationing is EVERYWHERE in America, especially if you are poor, and can only go to CVS for their health care.
Did you know that somehow, more people are watching this show than any other Sunday Morning talk show? It's true. And I am one of them, and for that, I am very sorry. The Nielsen people really should have a calculation for "conscientious objectors," like me, who have to watch the show, but wish the Vogons would come and destroy it to build an interstellar highway.
One thing that will be great about the health care bill getting either passed, or watered down into nothingness, is that MSNBC will hopefully cancel the Dr. Nancy show, where lately she's been goin' crazy over the way tweens are way into vampires.
I wonder when someone is going to point out that for all her alarmism over how these new non-binding guidelines about mammograms are rationing, Marsha Blackburn doesn't want to actually help make mammography more widely available or more affordable.
Boy, looking at Nancy Brinker, I wonder what she has to say about the "Botox tax!" Her face has literally been frozen into a plasticine rictus. She is fascinating to look at. I think their might be a series of Nancy Brinker nesting dolls inside Nancy Brinker!
Anyway, Dr. Nancy says that the task force was given an assignment to examine the issue as "scientists," and they came back with results and opinions, like scientists often do. "This week, I believe we through the scientists under the bus," and then goes on to suggest that maybe the media shouldn't take a quick glance at scientific findings and always move to their default position, which is to set buildings on fire and arrange high-stakes political demolition derbies between demogogues.
"We are on the verge of becoming a scientifically illiterate country," Snyderman says. ON THE VERGE? We teach SORCERY as an equivalent scientific alternative to evolution! We make fun of volcano monitoring!
Oh,. and Robert Byrd is still in Congress! No one sees that as a problem: that a bunch of old men who are scared of the noises that microwave ovens make and who pee their own pants everytime there's a voice vote are in charge of every important committee in Washington.
Wait, is that it? I'm already to the part where MEET THE PRESS celebrates the show it used to be in lieu of proffering any vital content, relevant to our lives right now. What's the point of this?
MEET THE PRESS: 57 YEARS AGO, WE SOMEHOW MANAGED TO POINT A TEEVEE CAMERA AT ROBERT BYRD. THIS WAS A TREMENDOUS ACCOMPLISHMENT, FOR WHICH NBC NEWS DESERVES HANDJOBS, ALWAYS.
Anyway, STOP, CLICK, DELETE FROM TIVO. The one thing I will give this Sunday props for is for making scant mention of Sarah Palin, this is as it should be, because she remains terrified to come on these shows and submit to questions, even though it's painfully clear they will coddle her like a quail egg.
OK, WOW. That's that We'll return in two weeks for more of these long, dark Sunday mornings of the soul. I hope everyone has safe travels and a great Thanksgiving this weekend.
NPR Ombudsman Alicia Shepard makes note of the curious way that news organizations choose to identify White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, whose very name is like a dead fish mailed to everyone's style guide:
...when he's quoted or mentioned on radio, TV, or print, reporters and anchors generally identify him on first reference as Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel.
But for some reason -- most likely his unusual first name -- news organizations are conflicted on how to identify Emanuel on the second reference. Standard news editorial practice across the board is to give a person's full name on first reference and only the last name on second reference.
But not for Emanuel.
Oddly, several news organizations refer to him on a second reference as "Rahm Emanuel." NPR has just decided to make that a policy after correspondent Nina Totenberg referred to Emanuel three times by his first name only on-air.
Naturally, I feel compelled to point out that in the vast majority of news reports, Rahm Emanuel is most often referred to as "senior White House adviser, who spoke on the condition of anonymity."
The good people over at the National Republican Campaign Committee have a favorite punctuation mark, called the ellipsis. And they enjoy using it, mainly to make strategic truncations in a piece of text to make it look as if it says something completely different from its author's original intent.
For example, the NRCC could take a movie review that read, "Gigli is a great big sack of audible farts," and repackage it as "Gigli is great...audible." Or, as they did back in September, they could make Representative Tom Periello appear as if he was intimating that all of the constituents he encountered at town hall meetings were racist.
First, a lighthearted slug to the National Republican Congressional Committee. In response to a recent column item that suggested the party hacks in Washington were undermining their own cause by offering only childish potshots at Democrats without offering any substance or solutions of their own, the NRCC sent out another release. It quoted this column -- only it creatively used ... ellipses ... to remove words it didn't like. So their version made it look like the column item was taking a Democrat to task, not them. OK, so it was kind of funny -- but didn't do much to combat the notion that it's amateur hour up there.
Orlando Sentinel columnist Scott Maxwell notes that Rep. Suzanne Kosmas - far from covering her political bases with a 'NO' vote on Pelosi's healthcare bill - continues to get hit from both sides:
"Democrat Suzanne Kosmas may have irritated her liberal base when she voted against Nancy Pelosi's health-care bill...[and Republicans] are continuing to bash her on the topic, saying: OK, she may have done what they wanted -- but not for the reasons they wanted." (Orlando Sentinel, 11/10/09)
The only problem comes when you click out to Maxwell's column, where you realize that he was actually writing about what titanic, embarrassing hacks the NRCC are!
Democrat Suzanne Kosmas may have irritated her liberal base when she voted against Nancy Pelosi's health-care bill. But she also backed the National Republican Congressional Committee into a corner ... at least she would have if the party hacks had any shame or integrity.
For months, the NRCC had been sending out releases, asking whether Kosmas had the courage to do the right thing (in its mind anyway) and stand up to "Pelosi's health-care takeover."
Well, she did. She voted against it.
This apparently confused the simpletons at the NRCC, who don't know how to do anything but gripe. So now, they are continuing to bash her on the topic, saying: OK, she may have done what they wanted -- but not for the reasons they wanted. So they still hate her.
Why anyone pays attention to these petulant partisans who couldn't care less about Central Florida issues is beyond me. In fact, I'm hearing from more and more Republicans -- including respected ones contemplating congressional campaigns -- that the NRCC's incessant whining makes the whole party look like amateur hour.
I have bolded the part that the NRCC places behind an ellipsis. You know, the part where Maxwell refers to the NRCC as a bunch of "hacks" without "shame or integrity" who are "confused" "simpletons" "who don't know how to do anything but gripe." All points that the NRCC went out and basically proved, with ellipses!
Seems like only weeks ago that CNN was parting ways with former anchor Lou Dobbs because everyone was yelling at Dobbs to stop saying crazy birther and anti-immigrant nonsense on the teevee. Despite all that negative attention, Dobbs is setting his post-CNN job-seeking hopes very high, telling reporters that he is "considering career options including possible runs for the White House or U.S. Senate" and that, "Right now I feel exhilaration at the wide range of choices before me as to what I do next."
Since his departure, some have speculated he might run as a candidate for the U.S. Senate in New Jersey, where he has a home, or even run as a third-party candidate in the 2012 U.S. presidential elections -- options he says remain on the table.
"I am ruling nothing out. ... I have come to no conclusions and no decisions," he said. "Do I seek to have some influence on public policy? Absolutely. Do I seek to represent and champion the middle class in this country and those who aspire to it? Absolutely. And I will."
One is reminded of the fact that Dobbs is just one of a long line of ivory-tower-educated millionaire media elites who fancy themselves to be an authentic voice of the "middle class." Fun fact: Dobbs's daughter is way into equestrian sports, America's most populist pastime!
At any rate, Dobbs's presidential hopes face numerous obstacles. His CNN ratings suggest that voters' first reaction to a potential Dobbs candidacy will be to raise the question: "Wait. Who is Lou Dobbs?" He mainly enjoys name recognition among people who at best think that he's some sort of bloviating joke, and at worst think he's some sort of weird nativist. Which leads me to the next impediment to Dobbs's presidential hopes -- he will not win the vote of a single Hispanic voter -- not one, not ever.
Still, in these recessionary times, it's nice to see that not everyone has become completely discouraged from looking for work.
What will it take to convince dead-enders that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his 9/11 masterminding ilk should be tried in federal court in New York City? Maybe this will do it: here's intrepid Washington Times reporter and Friend of Eat The Press Liz Glover, asking rap legend-slash-star of reality television shows with loose hygienic standards Flavor Flav about whether KSM and his henchies should be tried in New York City.
"Hey, check this out," responded Flav, "That's where he needs to be tried... it's his fault right now that the Twin Towers ain't standing, it's his fault that a lot of children lost their parents... it's real messed up, so yeah, they need to be tried."
Flav offered no insight into whether KSM's presence in the city would represent a security risk for city residents, his previous criticisms that "911 is a joke in your town" notwithstanding.
One of the things that's obviously under-appreciated about right-wing radio and television is the way hosts wield this awesome variety of artful metaphors about the state of the nation.
In this new mashup video from Media Matters, however, you really see the full measure of their rhetorical brilliance, as various figures from the fringe calmly and with clear heads describe the RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE of various things: the nation, the poor, the Statue of Liberty. Michael Savage drops a strange little "rape missing children missing children rape" hip hop verse, and Glenn Beck channels Roman Polanski (Glenn's very topical!). Meanwhile, the human cost of actual rapes continue to outpace the cost of fictional rapes that happen in people's minds.
The more I hear about the troop level increases that are ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY to win in Afghanistan, the more and more I feel detached from any sense of what this troop escalation is supposed to achieve in practical terms. That doesn't necessarily mean it can't achieve something, it just means that I don't know what 40,000 additional troops will be tasked with, or stationed, or deployed to support. And why 40,000? Where did that number even come from? I suspect that future generations will refer to "40,000 troops" as a "Kagan unit," the same way the "next three to six vitally important months" are a "Friedman unit."
But the escalation conversation in the media hasn't only failed to account for what 40,000 additional Afghanistan bound troops are meant to achieve, it's also run far ahead of whether or not such an escalation is even humanly possible. At the Washington Independent, Spencer Ackerman dug down into whether our current state of military readiness can even achieve the goal of the plus-40,000 crowd. What he found was this: "If President Obama orders an additional 30,000 to 40,000 troops to Afghanistan, he will be deploying practically every available U.S. Army brigade to war, leaving few units in reserve in case of an unforeseen emergency and further stressing a force that has seen repeated combat deployments since 2002."
You don't hear anyone talking about that, do you? But if the rumors are true, Obama is supposedly poised to green-light an additional deployment of 34,000 troops, which "would raise U.S. troop levels in the eight-year war to an all-time high of 102,000." But can it be done?
The shortage of available combat brigades means that an escalation of between 30,000 and 40,000 troops is "not realistic," said Lawrence Korb, a former senior Pentagon official in the Reagan administration who now studies defense issues for the liberal Center for American Progress. To send practically all available soldiers into one of the two wars would leave the U.S. with "no reserve in case you had a problem in Korea."
Obama would have something of a cushion, but not much, in the early months of 2010. An additional five brigades will finish their 12 months of so-called "dwell time" at home between deployments by April 2010, providing an additional 22,600 troops, but by that time, about 10,200 troops will be scheduled to leave Afghanistan, leaving available a net gain of 12,400. More brigades become available in the summer and fall, although others currently in Afghanistan will be ending their scheduled deployments then as well. Under current Pentagon policy, dwell time for the National Guard varies, but can be no shorter than two years, and so it is possible but not certain that two National Guard brigades composed of 6,800 National Guard soldiers might be available for deployment by March 2010 as well, beyond the 24,000 theoretically available now. Pentagon leaders had hoped to extend dwell time this year, but that was before McChrystal's request for additional troops.
Ackerman took up this issue with Rachel Maddow on last night's Rachel Maddow Show:
WATCH:
A critical point: Afghanistan's "surge" won't be like the one in Iraq. As Ackerman points out: "Unlike Iraq, Afghanistan's escalation is being talked about in terms of not being a one-time surge, where when the initial brigades used for escalation go home, the whole thing goes back to where it was before, but a sustained escalation whereby new brigades have to come in and relieve the ones that go home initially."
All of this begs the question: Why has the "40,000 troops" idea taken root, when practical realities throw so many obstacles in the way of this escalation? Well, at the risk of using the tired "What we talk about when we talk about [X]"snowclone, what we talk about when we talk about "40,000 troops" is not the practical needs of the Afghanistan mission, but rather, the "magic number" that President Obama has to clear to avoid constant political excoriation. No one seems to realize that this, essentially, abets political blackmail on the backs of soldiers.
This is how the media is wired to talk about war: "troops" are nothing more than ephemeral concepts, measuring sticks against which we measure who's winning and who's losing politically. Right about now, you might find yourself wanting to blast the media for treating our troops as pure abstractions, but can you blame them? They're just following the example of the president who took them to war in the first place.
The latest alarmist claptrap that's emerged in the debate over health care reform involves a study that's been done by the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) on breast cancer screenings. That study led that agency to formulate a new set of recommendations on when and how often women should receive mammography exams that were subsequently published in the November 17th edition of the Annals Of Internal Medicine, and which are now being debated by the medical community. The recommendations included suggestions that women not receive routine screenings before the age of 50, and adjusting the "screening interval from 1 year to 2 years.
This has led health care reform opponents to screech about how this is an indication that Nancy Pelosi will ration breast cancer treatment, resulting in women getting riddled with tumors. They seem to be confusing this agency's study and subsequent recommendations with a policy decision that impacts the health care reform bills being debated in Congress. In reality, this has nothing to do with policy, or health care reform, or pending legislation, or previews of coming health care apocalypses. There are just some recommendations that have been made and stuck in a scholarly journal.
How will these recommendations impact your life? Dr. Victor G. Vogel, the national vice president for research at the American Cancer Society, says, "Clinicians should recognize that very few agencies, including the ACS, are altering their screening guidelines based on the USPSTF modeling results, which simply reanalyze previously published data." The ACS recommends, and will continue to recommend "annual mammograms... starting at age 40 years and continuing for as long as a woman is in good health." USPSTF Vice Chair Dr. Diana B. Petiti has said that, "This recommendation is not a recommendation against ever screening women age 40 to 49; it is a recommendation against routine screening of women starting at this age."
And between those two points of view, there is a healthy debate on the merits, based on scientific data. But there's also a lot of confusion, because people like Representative Dave Camp (R-Mich.) go around braying nonsense like this:
"Some people discounted the idea that the government would actually put people to death...And this actually is really showing how the insidious encroachment of government between the patient and their doctor plays out. And it's not a pretty sight."
But the USPSTF has been doing research and making recommendations since 1984! And they've been doing so entirely independent of whatever health care debates have been going on in Congress. There's nothing about their mammography study that involves an "insidious encroachment of government" and they can't force a doctor to do anything to a patient or oblige the government to start "put[ting] people to death." Anyway, Kathleen Sebellius is, I guess, pushing back with what I guess, to Dave Camp, is the equivalent of "reverse insidious encroachment":
"There is no question that the [USPSTF] recommendations have caused a great deal of confusion and worry among women and their families across this country," said US Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius in a statement issued yesterday. "I want to address that confusion head on. The [USPTF] is an outside independent panel of doctors and scientists who make recommendations. They do not set federal policy and they don't determine what services are covered by the federal government."
Despite new evidence presented by the USPSTF, Dr. Sebelius noted that "our policies remain unchanged. Indeed, I would be very surprised if any private insurance company changed its mammography coverage decisions as a result of this action."
As you might suspect, the media is doing a terrible job at providing clarity. Even as I write this, MSNBC is teasing a segment on this story this afternoon by asking, "Did the government back down on guidelines suggesting mammograms for women at age 50 instead of age 40 because of critics comparing it to rationing and even death panels?" Uhm... no! Because there's nothing to back down from!
This article, from NPR, is pretty typical of the coverage this study has garnered. You get plenty of news on the "political brouhaha" that's flared up, with one side spewing shrill doomspeak and the other side trying to point out that no one's going to be denied breast cancer screenings. What's missing are any of the actual facts: what the study recommends, how cancer care agencies are treating the recommendations, what practical effect the agency has over patient care, and, last but not least, the most vital point, pursuant to the health care reform debate, of all: THAT IT HAS NO BEARING ON THE HEALTH CARE REFORM BILL.
Is the Newsweek cover sexist? Yes. But let's put the photo back into context for a minute: Sarah Palin's entire existence is sexist.
Let's try to imagine, for a moment, the thought process that went into creating this Newsweek cover image : "We need to convey that Palin sucks really bad! Let's take some photo of Palin lookin' sexy, slap it on the cover of Newsweek, and then use her sexuality in attempt to draw attention to all the terrible things this woman has brought upon us."
Hey! That sounds kind of like what John McCain did when he chose Palin as his VP: Found an attractive lady, slapped her on to his campaign, and used her image as a sexy lady in order to distract people from her scant qualifications, her total lack of concern for women's issues, and her complete suckiness as a candidate.
Real talk. As Hess points out, Palin has been subjected to a noticeable share of deplorable treatment. And I think it's absurd to suggest that Newsweek selected this photo from Runner's World magazine because they thought it would cast the subject of their cover story in a neutral light or elucidate the magazine's underlying point. I think that Newsweek made the choice they did to ensure that if they couldn't manage a discrediting of Palin on the merits, they could plant their discrediting through some cheap subtextual shortcut.
But Hess is correct when she points out that "the game works both ways." You remember that whole day of our lives that was given over to that riveting discussion over whether the phrase "lipstick on a pig," was a sexist slag at Sarah Palin? Because at one point, Palin had used the word "lipstick" in a joke? That bought Palin a whole day of media figures rising to her defense over something that was plainly nonsensical. Hess puts it like this: "I am sick and tired of only having to care about it when that sexism means something bad for Sarah Palin." But you know what? That, too, is "oh-so-expected by now."
As facts continue to emerge about alleged Fort Hood gunman Nidal Hasan, reasonable people should be able to agree that serious questions need to be asked regarding how he advanced in his career and why he was apathetically shuttled from assignment to assignment by a military bureaucracy that just didn't feel like confronting the fact that Hasan seemed to be a deeply disturbed individual.
Who promoted Peress? That was the question posed by Sen. Joseph McCarthy, the indefatigable red-hunter of the 1950s, regarding an obscure army dentist named Irving Peress who was promoted from captain to major despite having refused to answer questions regarding his loyalty. That right-wing rallying cry ought to be revived, only this time to pose a much more serious question: Who the hell promoted Nidal Malik Hasan?
Need I point out that Cohen's entire premise is psychotically confused? Irving Peress' crimes -- insofar as there was once a time when these could be considered "crimes" -- was to refuse to disclose his affiliations with the American Labor Party when he filled out a "loyalty-review form." On the other hand, Nidal Hasan is charged with thirteen counts of premeditated murder.
But more to the point, what the Fort Hood tragedy clearly calls for is a reasonable, case-specific inquiry into what steps could have been taken to prevent these murders, and who was ultimately responsible for failing to take them. But here we have Cohen, gratuitously invoking the need for some sort of frantic witch-hunt which, followed to its logical absurdity, would lead the inquiry far from the facts of the case, into the paranoid territory where people are persecuted for simply holding certain specific beliefs.
An ordinary columnist, capable of thinking clearly, could have written about the need to attend to the bureaucratic failures that could have saved lives without veering off into the phantom zone. But, to borrow from David Lowery: in the mind of Richard Cohen, wheels they turn and gears they grind, buildings collapse in slow motion, and trains collide.
The Daily Show's Jon Stewart welcomed former CNN anchor Lou Dobbs with a Mariachi band because... why not? Over a long interview, only portions of which aired, Stewart and Dobbs discussed the newsman's decision to quit on the air... or not quit on the air... or come to some sort of mutual understanding tied up in contracts that dissolved the relationship between CNN and the controversial anchor. Dobbs basically offered that CNN "wanted to move in another direction," to which Stewart replied, "I see the direction they're going in, I believe it's called down."
Then, praising Dobbs for having "abhorrent and wrong" views that are nevertheless "consistent," Stewart pressed Dobbs on the issues he invoked in his "I'm quitting, in some contractual fashion" speech: "The issue seems to be -- and you allude to it in your resignation speech -- that the winds of change are blowing this country -- people have, apparently, lost their minds. there seems to be a panic that we have lost the fabric of our society and I'm having trouble getting a handle on what has happened that is so drastic that people would think it's tyranny or fascism or Hitler-esque."
Dobbs noted that "what has happened" goes back to previous administrations, and that the Bush administration fostered a great "indifference" to the way policy impacted the lives of Americans. Which strikes me as, uhm... suddenly very generalist! Stewart basically countered by saying that it seems to be the coming of the Obama administration that has set everyone's "hair on fire." Dobbs cited the "Obama health care legislation" as something that's uniquely scaring people about the current administration with the prospect of fundamental change.
Stewart countered by pointing out that there's really no such thing as "Obama health care legislation" ("Obama hasn't really said anything," Stewart said, "to his discredit."), adding, "We're not a fragile country. This idea that somehow getting a health care plan through takes us back to the days pre-revolution is bunk. There's a fear out there that seems irrational." Stewart contended that individuals like David Addington, architect of the unitary executive and the torture policy in the previous administration, represented to him a more frightening agent of change than an administration that seems to, essentially, want to "expand Medicare."
Dobbs allowed that he thought that "part of that fear is simply catching up with the events of some years ago." Stewart observed, "Why do they always catch up to the fears during the Democratic administrations? It feels like all the people that want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans."
The Daily Show has made extended versions of the interview available.
PART TWO: Dobbs raises a good point about the lack of priority on ending the unemployment crisis, but insists that the current state of play -- where one party controls the legislature and the White House -- doesn't allow any avenue for the "expression of frustration." Stewart counters by pointing out that elections are the avenue for this expression, and that people are confusing "losing an election" with tyranny.
Dobbs goes on to discuss at length his contention that government is best led from the center, and that the past two administrations are scaring the center. Stewart's contention is that the crazy anger spilling out into the street isn't centrist, noting the lack of angry protesters carrying signs that read "Be reasonable!"
In this final part, Dobbs and Stewart wind down their discussion, with Dobbs continuing to press for a return to centrism, and insist that the nation is in a "delicate" state. Stewart won't sign on to the idea that the nation is somehow fragile. "It's trumped-up fear that's being used as a wedge."
Last week, Jon Stewart and The Daily Show caught Fox News' Sean Hannity running old footage of September Tea Party crowds in an attempt to make Michele Bachmann's smaller November Tea Party shindig appear to be more well-attended than it was. Is Fox up to the same tricks today? Faiz Shakir at ThinkProgress thinks so, and he pulls a segment that seems to tout the crowds that greeted Sarah Palin on the stump during the 2008 campaign as throngs that are gathering to purchase Sarah Palin's book, Going Rogue.
In the clip below, watch as Fox anchor Gregg Jarrett describes "pictures just coming into us" as "huge crowds" that have amassed while Palin is "promoting her new book." The pictures that are supposedly "just coming in" are actually year-old video from the presidential campaign:
[WATCH]
For what it's worth, I think this appears to be little more than a momentary disconnect between newsreader and news producer than a conscious attempt to mislead. I am sure that Fox News is more than aware that crowds are mainly gathering today at a mall in Michigan, where Palin is expected to appear, and not at some rally that Palin presided over today. Of course, the fact that Fox was caught manipulating footage in a misleading manner is only going to spur further suspicions when things like this happen.
MSNBC has also been reporting on Palin's book signing all day today. It's not something that Fox is likely to have missed, and it looks a little something like this:
[WATCH]
UPDATE: Fox has released a statement:
"This was a production error in which the copy editor changed a script and didn't alert the control room to update the video...There will be an on-air explanation during Happening Now on Thursday."
Mark Silva, writing for the Chicago Tribune's The Swamp blog, reports that "that it's highly like [sic] that serious disciplinary action will be taken for those responsible behind the scenes in the control room. News executives there consider this to have been a sloppy and unnecessary error.'
UPDATE, AGAIN: Fox aired an apology for the video mistake this afternoon:
November 23, 2009