Digby offers up an interesting slice of history wherein David Broder acknowledges that he played a large role in assisting Richard Nixon's successful effort to destroy Senator Ed Muskie's political career, but doesn't seem to feel especially sorry about it or resolve to do anything differently in the future. It's typical of the common code within the press corps which isn't indifferent to the fact that it does its job in a way that wreaks horrible damage on the country, but actually wears indifference to the consequences of their actions as a badge of honor.
« Hollow | Main | Kagan-O'Hanlon Prehistory »
Useful Idiots
18 Nov 2007 10:22 pm
Comments (31)
No, it's far worse than Matthew says. The press isn't indifferent to the terrible damage they wreak on our country, they revel in the that damage. When the Times blew the top secret NSA program, they were damned proud that the actively harmed our country.
And meanwhile Marc Santora of the NY Times pens another puff piece about McCain – this time about how civil McCain is when taking on Hillary Clinton. Yeah, right. The media’s McCainophilia continues unabated.
McCain Takes On Clinton, With an Eye to Civility
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/1...9mccain.html? hp
My only cold comfort in a Hillary presidency is that Al will have his phone tapped and when he screws up and says something possibly seditious he loses his job and gets blackballed and winds up on a no-fly list.
By “Useful Idiots” I assume you mean like Court Jester?
Ed Muskie? Are you seriously pining with nostalgia for the good ol' days of Big Ed? Have you never read "Fear and Loathing: On the Campaign Trail '72"?
Muskie was Humphrey's running mate in '68, and HST never forgave him for that. The Muskie '72 campaign was one of those predictable "it's my turn" affairs, and just as predictably upset by the surprising strength of the McGovern juggernaut.
Muskie had no real constituency, other than the AFL-CIO bosses and party regulars who used to control the nominating process before the post-'68 reforms. I suppose it is possible to be nostalgic for ward-heeler, urban-machine politics, but I just don't know why anyone would be.
Well someone's gotta reprazent for Chaotic Neutral.
Once again Al shows he doesn't know the difference between muckraking and being a jackass.
Al is right. Muckraking and being a jackass aren't mutually exclusive, but muck-INVENTING is something else. See "Iraq Victory Update" on the Daily Dish. One of the half-wits commenting here actually cited the New Yorker propaganda as "evidence"!
I suppose it is in a way, but evidence of the fact that lefty no-nothings are rooting for the terrorists and doing everything in their power to encourage a self-inflicted defeat in Iraq.
Enter Robert Powell. Cue dolschstoss legende.
Where are you getting the idea that Broder is wearing his "indifference" as a "badge of honor"? The whole point of the passage Digby quotes is that Broder feels bad about what happened, both because he got manipulated by Nixon and because he might have gotten the story wrong. That's why he revisited this story, because it "nags at him" like few other stories he's written.
"I suppose it is in a way, but evidence of the fact that lefty no-nothings are rooting for the terrorists and doing everything in their power to encourage a self-inflicted defeat in Iraq.
Posted by Robert Powell | November 19, 2007 2:44 AM"
Wow. Did your father not hug you enough as a child?
What damage, Al?
Right. None.
GFY. DIT.
That's a gut punch to read. Muskie was one of the greats and I never knew this seedy backstory to the 1972 race. Another reason to hope for the departure of Broder and his rictus from the WP.
Also, RP, baby boy, the New Yorker was rather supportive of the war in the beginning (especially Jeffrey Goldberg), so claiming that the New Yorker is now "propaganda" just makes you look silly (well, maybe because you are silly, but everybody here but you knew that).
Does anyone else see a cerain similarity to the "Dean Scream" incident?
A candidate with a reputation for poor self control loses his composure at a high profile event, and his temperment becomes an electoral liability.
What Broder regrets, as he should, is that he and his colleagues faied to run down the Nixon squad that fabricated attacks against Muskie's character.
But the electoral damage to Muskie came from his over-emotional response, not because he might have said something unflattering about Canadians. And on that count, it sounds as though the press had it mostly right.
As with Dean, it was the spectacle of a presidential candidate lacking in self contol that did the damage, not the original setback.
When the Times blew the top secret NSA program, they were damned proud that the actively harmed our country.
That old chestnut -- I s'pose Al uses the 'if you've nothing to hide, you shouldn't care about spying' defense liberally. To which I say, 'if you're so sure Gitmo detainees are the Evil Empire redux, then why aren't you for fair trials that would unearth all those murderous activities?' It seems their moral indignation precludes a pragmatic view of the latter, but in no way intrudes on the former.
The point of Digby's post, I believe, was to provide thought-provoking context for the recent Novak column. Interesting context, indeed.
How very strange to be re-visiting the '72 campaign.
And to be discussing it as if Broder's coverage made all the difference. With all due respect to Broder, it didn't.
Thing is, even in 1972 there were television cameras following the presidential candidates around. And this particular incident was caught by a CBS camera, and broadcast. And I'm willing to bet that more people saw the footage and formed their own view of it than read Mr. Broder's column.
As for Digby's claim that Novak just follows Rove: why couldn't Rove get Novak to support the Iraq war? (Does Digby not know that Novak opposed the war?)
I'm also willing to bet that most saw Muskie cry.
Muskie's campaign at the time conceded that he cried.
I saw Muskie cry on tv, and I didn't read Broder's column then, or ever. I'm certain Thomas is right. Besides HST revealed the real problem was Big Ed's getting strung out on the exotic stimulant ibocaine.
I think Epicurean Quaker is exactly right on trials for Gitmo. What are we afraid of? But, on the other hand, I feel confident that the average American, like me, doesn't feel the Constitution is being damaged by wiretaps on people with connections to Al Qaeda. They're welcome to tap my international calls. Why not? The question is, what gets used in an actual prosecution. No harm, no foul.
They're welcome to tap my international calls. Why not?
Jesus. Listening to people like this makes me think this country doesn't deserve the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.
A candidate with a reputation for poor self control loses his composure at a high profile event, and his temperment becomes an electoral liability.
No, a candidate (Dean) expressing enthusiasm at an event with a lot of crowd noise gets ridiculed via selective video clipping.
Sheesh! These trolls are all soggy and hard to light.
Now, if we were getting a better quality troll, like a guy at Halliburton using a little bit of that no-bid no-audit government contract time, he would start by saying "The Islamo-fascists and Femnazis are using the Defeatocrats as their sock puppets!" and then go on to kind of build on that.
That's why they get paid the big bucks.
I always find it humorous that so many on the left think that their ideological opponents are paid.
The cynicism and bad faith mix with a remarkable naivete to produce something altogether new. Not attractive, but new.
That this trope is deployed in defense of a MY post that ignores, among other things, the fact that television cameras existed in 1972 makes me think that this is in fact the best the left can do. Useful idiots would be an improvement.
Matt might be interested to know that Broder, in his most recent column, wholeheartedly endorses the anti-Tim Russert position on presidential debates that Matt has also espoused.
Ken C.: I saw the Dean scream happen live, and while it is true that there was turned-down crowd noise of which viewers were unaware, it was a very disturbing and bizarre thing to watch long before there was any commentary on it. And since Dean had already lost the Iowa caucuses, I doubt it had much effect on his electoral fortunes anyway.
Powell: "They're welcome to tap my international calls. Why not?"
mq: "Jesus. Listening to people like this makes me think this country doesn't deserve the Constitution or the Bill of Rights."
That's why we don't have them any more - because this country doesn't.
But relax. These morons are all going to die anyway. Just concentrate on making sure you're not pulled down with them when it happens. Sooner or later the US is going to look like Iraq - civil war - between the thirty to fifty million morons and the smart people. As usual, the smart people will win.
They're welcome to tap my international calls. Why not?
I'll always consider the phrase "anti-american" to be a bunch of nonsense, but for the first time in my life the word "un-american" formed in my mind without the slightest bit of pretense or moral ambiguity.
That is just absolutely cowardly.
The idea that using technology to pick up intelligence from international calls between people with established terrorist connections "shreds the Constitution" is simply silly. Expecting that taking such a position is without negative political consequences is naieve. Imagining that doing so is a marker for "smart people" is typical of the tiny minority of fatuous, narcissistic morons who have done so much damage to the electoral fortunes of the Democratic Party over the last few decades. Karl Rove absolutely loves you guys.
Ken C.: I saw the Dean scream happen live, and while it is true that there was turned-down crowd noise of which viewers were unaware, it was a very disturbing and bizarre thing to watch long before there was any commentary on it. And since Dean had already lost the Iowa caucuses, I doubt it had much effect on his electoral fortunes anyway.
I just viewed the speech yet again, and I stand by my characterization: there was no loss of composure or self-control, just some barnstorming enthusiasm. If you think that's "disturbing and bizarre", you must not attend any sporting events.
I made no claim about its effect on his electoral fortunes.
Robert Powell cannot possibly have been alive and sentient during the Nixon years. It is the work of a minute for a scheming unscrupulous politician to get a CIA asset (the known terrorist needed) to call the opposing politician so a tap can be places and the other sides political game plan known in detail.
Of course, there are no such scheming politicians, are there Virginia? Not on either side.
Nice idea, Jane. But why would anyone in their right mind want to know the Democrats' "strategy"?
Comments closed December 02, 2007.
| 
Heads in the Sand
isn't just indifferent, I imagine you meant to say.
Posted by Freddie | November 18, 2007 10:49 PM