Baer on Pelosi

I don't have much to say about the merits of Ken Baer's Syria-related Pelosi-bashing other than to note that the injunction to "put aside the argument over whether or not it’s good policy for us to talk with Syria" doesn't make much sense in this context. It's worth just noting the fact that a Democratic-aligned political consultant is harshly criticizing a Democratic Speaker of the House in exactly the terms which the Republican Party is currently deploying all throughout the media. One doesn't remark much upon things like this, because it actually happens quite frequently. But it's also quite remarkable. One might think consultants would live in fear of powerful Democratic Party politicians. Disagree with them from time to time, of course, or maybe even frequently. But disagree quietly, secretly; certainly not join the partisan opponents of the party's leaders in a high-profile political dispute.

And yet it happens all the time. That, in turn, tells you a lot about the relative distribution of power inside the Democratic Party. The consultants -- the important ones at least -- are more powerful than the people they nominally work for. Pelosi, obviously, isn't capable of being muscled-over by consultants the way a back-bencher who'll find his DCCC funds cut off if he doesn't hire the right people is. That said, any Democratic leader either in congress or running for a presidential nomination needs to curry favor with the consultant class lest the media landscape be filled with "Democratic strategists," anonymous or (as in this case) not, slamming them. The consultants, meanwhile, seem to have little fear of speaking out. And fearlessness is, of course, an admirable quality in a journalist or a blogger. It's not, however, really what one would expect from a political consultant -- they're supposed to be hack partisans.

Comments

wow, the "hack gap" is larger than I thought: Dem hack-consultants aren't hackish even when they need to be.

Incredible.

Posted by blatherskite | April 9, 2007 11:02 AM

A lot of people still feel that it's detrimental to US interests to have the president look impotent and the country seem divided. The alternative view gets little play: that, given the intense unpopularity abroad and extremely poor foreign policy skills of this administration, it may be advantageous to US interests to have the president look impotent and the country seem divided. The faster the message gets out that the US has rejected Bush and is moving towards different policies, the faster we can begin to redress some of the damage done to American public diplomacy over the past 6 years.

As for the notion that the Speaker's trip sets a dangerous precedent...this administration has been full of dangerous precedent-setting. Few of the dangerous precedents set have had to do with an overly assertive Congress. The precedent being set here is that if a President conducts foreign policy in an unprecedentedly aggressive and incompetent fashion, he ought to expect unprecedented resistance from Congress.

Posted by mattsteinglass | April 9, 2007 11:05 AM

This whole Pelosi flap is incomprehensible. Congressional junkets to meet with foreign dignataries has been going on from time out of mind. THIS one is supposed to be illegal? And illegal according to the vaguest law on the books?

"I see England. I see France. I see the Republican Desperation Dance."

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | April 9, 2007 11:13 AM

And it's no surprise in the LEAST that it took place on Lieberman-supporting hawkish TPM site.

Posted by sherifffruitfly | April 9, 2007 11:14 AM

(Sorry for the double-comment.)

It occurs to me that in TPM we're seeing the beginnings of the first substantial separation between a blog's journalism and editorial sections - a la WSJ or WaPO fame. TPM on the journalism side is bang-up, as we all know (Soc. Sec., Gonzo, etc.). Their editorial side is shit, however - and in the same manner, qualitatively, as the WSJ and WaPo.

Posted by sherifffruitfly | April 9, 2007 11:18 AM

Great post Matt. I'll throw in that the consultants are especially bold when they align themselves with powerful lobbies and rich donors. Pity the poor congress-person who has only the voters' support - you know, a bunch of nobodies.

Posted by Gary Sugar | April 9, 2007 11:32 AM

Sherrifffruitfly:

Interesting point re: the separation of TPM's news and editorial sides, though I disagree with your assesment of the latter's worth. It's true, TPM Cafe seems to have declined, or become less interesting to me at least, in the last few months. But they've still got some good people, like M.J. Rosenberg, for instance, or Max Sawicky. I liked when Sterling Newberry wrote for them, despite his more-than-occasionally ridiculous pretensions, because at least he tried to approach things somewhat syncretically. Perhaps the least interesting are DC-insider types like Baer, or Harold Ford, or the bilious TPM Abroad types (Ikenberry, Slaughter, other establishmentarians). Ed Kilgore and Steve Clemons, for all their insiderhood, are at least interesting writers.

Posted by Ben Cronin | April 9, 2007 11:46 AM

Excellent post. It's blackmail, facilitated by the Broderite mentality of the DC media clique. Once they get the term "Democratic consultant" attached to their names, they can credibly threaten to bash Dems knowing that somebody will give them the megaphone and the mantle of "objectivity." It's worse than the consulting racket in business, where at least you get judged (usually) by bottom-line results. But these guys--Hi, Bob Shrum!--get work because they cultivate this aura of knowing something. And now their thing is getting big bucks for being concern trolls.
It's what you'd expect before a big political change: the old establishment fighting to stay in power by whatever means. Time to ditch these people altogether. It's really simple, Dem Congresspeople: bring along smart people who know your district, and take the time to learn the issues yourselves.

Posted by Jim M | April 9, 2007 11:51 AM

It seems to me that the key here is that GOP consultants recognize that they are, ultimately, electoral technicians beholden to their customers; Democratic consultants, on the other hand, think of themselves as technocratic policy wonks qualitatively superior to the politicians they collect their paychecks from. This is also evident in the difference between the way left-wing and right-wing think tanks operate; with the exception of CATO, think tanks on the right are first and foremost oriented towards dealing with GOP electoral concerns.

If the progressive Democrats take a similar route as the right did from 1964 through the 1980s, then eventually we may end up with the kind of lockstep dogmatism that characterizes the current GOP. I tend to the opinion, however, that the far right is sui generis and unlikely to be duplicated even within the Republican party over the long term.

Posted by tWB | April 9, 2007 11:54 AM

Considering that the consultants were spectacularly unsuccessful in Congress from 1994 until their control slipped in 2006, why are these people there at all? Why do their contracts keep being renewed? Isn't there a consultant (Shrum?) who's got a presidential winning percentage of less than .100?

I can think of all kinds of explanations, none good. Seemingly some clique of big donors and hawkish ideologues has captured the party and is using it to promote their interests and pet issues, even if it means that the party loses.

I'm hoping for a bloodbath.

Posted by John Emerson | April 9, 2007 12:10 PM

Ben Cronin,

"It's true, TPM Cafe seems to have declined, or become less interesting to me at least, in the last few months."

Then we differ merely quantitatively.

Posted by sherifffruitfly | April 9, 2007 12:11 PM

There are Democratic Party members and "Democrat Party" members and Kenny Baer has been working hard at being a proper member of the Fox News variety for quite some time now.

Nobody is perfect, but Josh Marshall is doing himself no favors by continuing to provide Kenny Baer with a place to slime those who are suppposed to be his own with the same lines that are ginned up for Sean Hannity, Brit Hume, and John Gibson.

If JMM wants to give a blogroll stamp of approval to Mickey Kaus and give a Baer a soapbox, fine, its his site.

But at least mix it up with these people if they insist on urinating in your own tent on a regular basis while you are providing them attention and eyeballs.

Posted by Cynical Bostonian | April 9, 2007 12:15 PM

On a related note, I made the mistake of watching one of CNN's Sunday shows yesterday. As a result, I had the pleasure of watching a panel in which the moderator, the hypothetically liberal journalist (A.B. Stoddard), and some hack from The Politico all took turns bashing Pelosi and Reid.

The technique used was to play footage of the President's thoroughly disingenuous criticisms of Democrats (regarding the Syria trip and the Iraq funding dispute) and discuss the many ways in which these issues "help the President" without even bothering to find anecdotal evidence to support this contention. The possibility that the President was unconvincingly defending an unpopular opinion was not even considered, nor did anyone seem to notice that he was being exceptionally dishonest.

A hack gap, indeed.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | April 9, 2007 12:39 PM

I disagree. One of the things that I've always preferred about D's is that they squabble in public rather than follow the "never speak ill of fellow fascists" line. If a Democratic party consultant believes that the Speaker has monumentally screwed up, he should be able to say so, in public, without fear of being condemned as a right reactionary.

Posted by ostap | April 9, 2007 12:39 PM

I get what you're saying, ostap, but the problem comes in the way the tenured Democratic consultants not merely criticize the direction party leaders are taking, but do so by backstabbing one Democrat to benefit another without disclosing their motivations, and often by re-enforcing dishonest opposition talking points rather than making independent critiques motivated by a desire for self-improvement.

It's common to see GOP consultants criticizing the President nowadays, but they are much more likely to wrap their criticism into a broader, conservative, pro-Republican context. Democrats tend to just go for each others' throats.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | April 9, 2007 1:00 PM

ostap, do you seriously think Baer would be writing this column if Bush and the right wing noise machine hadn't puffed this up into a "controversy"? I've go no problem with Democratic consultants speaking their mind occasionally, either, but that's not the problem here.

Posted by djw | April 9, 2007 1:09 PM

"The consultants -- the important ones at least -- are more powerful than the people they nominally work for.

This is because they are seen as 'delivering' various large Democratic interest groups. For a well-worn example, you wouldn't dare piss off the teachers' unions, nor the person whom you believe spurs the teachers' unions to support you.

Posted by Sebastian Holsclaw | April 9, 2007 1:19 PM

If a Democratic party consultant believes that the Speaker has monumentally screwed up, he should be able to say so, in public, without fear of being condemned as a right reactionary.

The key word here is "Democratic consultant." The job of Democratic strategy and campaign consultants is to help Democrats win elections. One of the ways to do this is by managing public perceptions and by propagating the party's message. Publicly criticizing Democrats and using Republican talking points to do so runs counter to the mission of those consultants.

I might criticize the Republicans for not hiring the best people. You can really see the stark difference in "hacks" on the left vs. the right. The hacks on the left are hired for their academic accomplishments, their good writing skills, and their sheer mental brainpower. This might sound quite meritocratic, but on the right, their hacks are selected because they can toe the party line, they can be bought, and regardless of the issue at hand, they will defend their side as best they can and drive the media narrative in their favor. The fact that they might not have attended a quality university, aren't very well read, and aren't very smart isn't as important. It seems that, counter intuitively, it is the Republicans who are hiring according to "merit" -- they know what is important in their hacks whereas the Democrats are missing the mark when it comes to what they consider important in their own hacks.

Posted by Constantine | April 9, 2007 1:25 PM

"foreign dignataries"

Assad?

Did you people discover the history of the middle east only on 9/11?

Posted by Ben Hur | April 9, 2007 1:37 PM

dignitary n. Very important person: an important or influential (and often overbearing) person

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | April 9, 2007 1:49 PM

I disagree. One of the things that I've always preferred about D's is that they squabble in public rather than follow the "never speak ill of fellow fascists" line. If a Democratic party consultant believes that the Speaker has monumentally screwed up, he should be able to say so, in public, without fear of being condemned as a right reactionary.

If a police officer supplements his income by dealing drugs, that would make him a bad cop regardless of whether he is on duty at the time. If a lawyer advises his client to break the law, or advises him on how to break the law and not get caught, he would get disbarred (as I understand it, assuming of course that he didn't cover his tracks well himself). If a veterinarian's own dog is half-starved and beaten, it should and probably will hurt his business. And when a Democratic party consultant publically trashes the Democratic platform or leadership or image, well, that's fine. Wait, what?

Debate on policy are good, and my examples are all different from political consulting in a lot of ways... but still, if someone spends their free time making their boss's job harder, or loudly deprecating a general class or group of leaders while being employed to help an individual in that class or working with those leaders, at some point it becomes fair to ask them to choose between their contrarian hobby or their job.

Posted by Cyrus | April 9, 2007 1:50 PM

These are not 'normal' times in the battle between the parties for support of the people (are there any normal times?). The Dems have the slimmest majorities in Congress, fighting against a Repub. party that feels it has lost its rightful control of Congress, and against a President of unparalleled assertion of power and willingness to lie lie lie on any topic to maintain power. The media is quite willing to reinforce any message from the Republicans and Bush/Cheny/Rove.

It is in this context that Baer's (and other Dem. functionaries) comments must be read. What would be unexceptional normally, it unacceptable now from so-called Dem. consultants - especially when they repeat the memes of the Republicans almost word for word, idea by idea. They may get paid (someday) by the Dems, but they are doing the work of the devil.

There may be a way to disagree with leaders of the Dem. party and still not give aid and comfort to the Repubs, but the Baer approach accomplishes nothing except tip us off that the Dems have a serious problem that needs harsh remedies.

A quick, hard slapdown by party leaders, with intimations that their future is at risk, is badly needed.

I sure don't want a Dem. party that all sings from the same songbook, but these are extraordinary times, and if the consultants can't sing the party tune on key, they should lower their voice or retire from the choir.

Posted by JimPortlandOR | April 9, 2007 1:54 PM

Because Baer built his comment around GOP talking points it was ill-informed, supportive of the Bush administration and GOP point of view, and lacking in any new information that would help Democrats or the country. If this is an example of the thinking that he brings to Democratic candidates, then Baer has little value as a consultant. The 2006 elections demonstrated that Democrats that run as Democrats (e.g. Boyda, Tester) can beat conservative GOP incumbents in conservative areas. Democrats that run as GOP-lite candidates will lose.

Pelosi's trip will resonate with the electorate because it showed that she is willing to lead. Baer is unable to recognize that.

Posted by rk | April 9, 2007 2:45 PM

There are some people here who are complaining that democrats should be able to disagree publicly.

There are two responses to this. The first has been addressed pretty thoroughly: that using GOP talking points to criticize a Democratic leader is pretty inappropriate. Criticism of Pelosi from a Democratic position would be much more tolerable.

The second is an issue that has been brought up here a lot before, but not in this comment thread. But you need that perspective to understand MY's complaint here. The Democratic power structure seems to be built to try and move the party towards the center, and in doing so, hurt their long term electoral chances by simultaneously shifting the national political language rightwards. MY has argued that they benefit from this career-wise. I am not exactly sure how, but motivation aside, I have to agree that the effect appears to be as stated. One manifestation of this is public criticism of the Democratic House Leader with Republican talking points. And the power structure that is doing this needs to be dismantled. For the good of the party and for the good of America.

Posted by mpowell | April 9, 2007 2:57 PM

I post on TPMCafe fairly regularly. It has a particular value- Josh Marshall has made it a place where the DLC sorts and consultants can have some Net presence and some safety in so doing. It's also a haven for a variety of voices from what one can term the New York Jewish wing of the Democratic Party, in all its idealism, imaginativeness, contradictions, range, internal differences, and generational differences.

I think TPMCafe performs a service in showing us how this consultant pseudoelite thinks and how completely disconnected they are, in their cynicism and narrowed understanding of the American electorate, from the long term agenda and what makes the grassroots tick. There's also a service in giving a forum to the right wing 'pro-Israel' Democrats (sic), exposing them and their political claims to the full light of day and reality of the Party purging itself of right wing factions.

Posted by Jillian | April 9, 2007 3:13 PM

Wait, are we talking about the same TPM Cafe that hosts opinion columns by Max Sawicky, Nathan Newman, and M.J. Rosenberg?

As best as I can tell, Josh Marshall's intent was to to create a Big Tent outlet for Democratic-leaning media. I would tend to agree that the editorial side of the TPM empire has declined in quality over time, but I don't think that's a result of deliberate decisions by Marshall and Co. The site is hardly the pro-Lieberman, hawkish DLC-elite playground that some here are making it out to be.

It's difficult to maintain a media outlet that caters to all the various factions of the Democratic Party without lending a soapbox to some counterproductive internal critics. I don't think Marshall is to be faulted for the effort. It's not as faithful to the party line as Daily Kos, but it's not SUPPOSED to be like Daily Kos. I'd like to think there's room in the Left Blogosphere for both approaches.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | April 9, 2007 3:29 PM

I think that Josh allowing such points of view on his site shows that he is a liberal in the true sense of the word: A liberal is someone who can be tolerant, open-minded, and generous. Moreover, go read Josh's comment on his main blog about Baer's post. Hosting him certainly does not imply endorsement. I am definitely further to the left politically than Josh, but I don't think I am any more liberal. Liberal does not mean "left wing". What I admire most about Josh, and why I read his site every day, is his even-handed, objective liberality.

Posted by postxian | April 9, 2007 5:56 PM

Baer is an utter disgrace. Any candidate hiring this jerk does so at his or her risk. It would go far to rule them out as far as I am concerned. What an utter DLC lamebrain jerk.

Posted by della Rovere | April 9, 2007 9:12 PM

A liberal is someone who can be tolerant, open-minded, and generous

All excellent features for an educated, liberal citizen. Those are not such useful personality traits in a political hack when it comes to promoting your message to the media.

Posted by Constantine | April 9, 2007 9:49 PM

Ken Baer has consistently been the most useless, wrong, talking-points-spouting 'columnists' at TPMCafe.

He was that way right from the beginning, so much so that I wondered how he got and kept the spot. Still wondering.

Posted by Nell | April 9, 2007 11:00 PM

So concern troll Ken Baer is worried that Pelosi may have overstepped her constitutional bounds. In the meantime, we've had 6 years of a rogue president absolutely busting those constitutional boundaries in a big way by implmenting an anti-American theory of the unitary executive.

Has Baer, perchance, spoken out about THAT?

If not -- and I don't know, though I have my suspicions -- then Ken Baer deserves a boot in the ass. Does anyone know?

Posted by The Fool | April 10, 2007 12:25 PM

Hmmm. A Google search on "Ken Baer" and "unitary executive" comes up empty (other than 2 unrelated hits).

My boot just got that much closer to Ken Baer's ass.

Posted by The Fool | April 10, 2007 12:30 PM