Talking Points

Henry Farrell:

Stephen Hayes was on NPR a few minutes ago complaining about how Scott McLellan wasn’t very interesting, because he was just delivering ‘left wing blogworld talking points.’ This complaint itself, of course, being itself a re-iteration of a Karl Rove talking point.

Ironic, yes. More broadly, this line of response to McClellan simply consists of repeating what's so damning about McClellan's new book but saying it as if this discredits him. But the point is this: Scott McClellan, longtime George W. Bush press flack, is now talking like a left-wing blogger. Right-wing flack talking like a right wing flack -- not news. Left-wing blogger talking like a left-wing blogger -- not news. Right-wing flack talking like a left-wing blogger -- news. It's as if a man is biting a dog in the middle of the street. Is this enough penitence to redeem McClellan for his sins? Not in my book. But it's still an extraordinary turn of events.

We are all shrill bloggers now.

Comments

We are all shrill bloggers now.

Well, those of us with books to sell, at least.

Posted by Al | May 30, 2008 11:05 AM

Well, those of us with books to sell, at least.

The publishing industry must be crazy if 65% of the American public have books to sell.

Posted by goethean | May 30, 2008 11:17 AM

This isn't about "man bites dog". This is about how the debating strategy of "references to authority" has come to utterly dominate our political discourse. The quality or correctness of an argument or statement is almost meaningless in today's politics. What matters is the status of the person speaking. That's why the response to Scotty has overwhelmingly been "this isn't the Scott I knew" instead of "Scott doesn't know what he's talking about". Refuting the argument is less important that undermining the legitimacy of the arguer.

Mike

Posted by MBunge | May 30, 2008 11:20 AM

When is the news media going to point out that Bush and his supporters are ducking the specific points McClellan makes in favor of an attack on the messenger?

Hence, the "disgruntled employee" line that corporations use whenever some whistleblower reports that the corporate CEO decided to kill a hundred kids or so in order to make his profit numbers.

A variant being Ann Coulter's use of the epithet "Liberal" to avoid addressing the arguments that liberal make.

What is really strange is that the people making these charges are some of the most despicable scum on the planet -- and yet are NEVER called on it by Democratic leaders and leftist pundits.

Bush and his supporters, after all, are People who say Sept 11 occurred "because they hate our freedom". People who warned darkly of imminent "mushroom clouds" and undefined "Weapons of Mass Destruction". People who wave the flag and "Support the Troops" by sending 4000 soldiers to their deaths in order to seize some oil deposits for Exxon and Chevron.

Why is it that when Stephen Hayes appears on the air, the host doesn't just respond:

"But why should we believe you, Stephen? When all the evidence and past events lead us to the judgment that you are a bald-faced liar -- that you willing deceive the people of this country without hesitation?

That people like you are so damm corrupt you are willing to kill Americans just to earn some money for your patrons. All the time, waving the American flag.

What makes disgusting scum like YOU think you are in a position to criticize pedophiles, much less Scott McClellan??"

Posted by Don Williams | May 30, 2008 11:24 AM

Stephen Hayes is the number one propagandist writer regarding the myth that Al Qaeda and Iraq were connected prior to the Iraq War. The guy is a ridiculous blowhard. I wouldn't listen to his opinion on whether water is wet - I certainly won't take into account whatever utter nonsense he's spewing via the Weekly Standard or on TV or radio at any given time.

It's a crime that charlatans like Hayes are given media exposure for their moronic ideas and trite commentary....

Posted by edsbowlingshoe | May 30, 2008 11:32 AM

Why is it that when Stephen Hayes appears on the air, the host doesn't just respond:

"But why should we believe you, Stephen? When all the evidence and past events lead us to the judgment that you are a bald-faced liar -- that you willing deceive the people of this country without hesitation?...

I heard that broadcast, the Diane Rehm Show's Friday News Roundup, and Hayes made me cringe whenever he came on. To be fair though, Rehm was out today. But I don't think she would've responded this way either.

Posted by JDinBalt | May 30, 2008 11:33 AM

"Ask yourself why, one and a half years later, after he left the administration, he's all of a sudden, coming forward with these grave concerns? If he had such grave concerns, why didn't he come out with them sooner?"

Scott McClellan, March 22, 2004, talking about Richard Clarke.

Sad and hilarious at the same time.

Posted by SoCalJustice | May 30, 2008 11:33 AM

Right, it'd odd that few people making this left wing blogger point are not apparently considering the converse: that left wing bloggers are right because a former administration official is confirming what they've said all along.

I know Rove is supposed to be some genius mastermind, but such obvious unawareness is usually attributed to the lower tier pundit/strategist hacks that face off regularly on cable news. Frankly, I'm very unimpressed.

Posted by Brent | May 30, 2008 11:43 AM

The quality or correctness of an argument or statement is almost meaningless in today's politics. What matters is the status of the person speaking.

Exactly. All they have left is stigmatization. Refutation isn't possible, so, you go with what you got. "Leftist," "appeaser," "elitist," and "radical" is pretty much the GOP campaign.

Posted by Elvis Elvisberg | May 30, 2008 11:46 AM

leftist pundits

*scratches head* huh... I'm not familiar with this phrase. Could someone provide an example?

Posted by drjimcooper | May 30, 2008 11:51 AM

We're missing the point. Those comments aren't directed toward us or about addressing the substance - those comments are all about re-assuring the base that the book and things that it raises are nothing to be paid attnetion to. The guy's disloyal, disgruntled, etc. Nothing he's saying has any substance or merit because it's all fake librul stuff, etc. Ignore him.

And that's what they'll do. Try bringing any of this stuff up with your right wing relatives and they'll just tune you out and dismiss it.

Posted by Ethel-To-Tilly | May 30, 2008 11:56 AM

It's quite puzzling that the people who are defending the administration are the hacks within (or even outside) it. Don't they have any men or women of stature to support and defend them?

Posted by gregor | May 30, 2008 12:26 PM

I agree this line of attack is designed just for consumption by the Bush loyalists, and is basically designed just to give them a rationalization for ignoring something that they really don't want to hear. In that sense, actually addressing the substance would be counterproductive, because entirely avoiding the substance is the goal.

But that said, my sense is that every time this sort of thing happens, a few more former Bush loyalists decide that they have had enough and they disassociate themselves. And that has happened a lot at this point, as the current polling on Bush indicates.

Posted by DTM | May 30, 2008 12:31 PM

all the right can do is attack the messenger.

they can't attack the facts, since scott didn't reveal much of anything that hasn't been written in other books about the bush administration.

he's simply confirming things most of us already know.

Posted by dj spellchecka | May 30, 2008 12:37 PM

Should be a big deal, but won't be b/c Prezzy is already at 27%. The 27 people out there who still like the guy aren't going to be swayed by a 'traitor' who's looking to 'cash in.' Only the sane people who already know all of this (or at least think it) will accept that it's all true now. The others will remain intransigent.

Posted by Mike | May 30, 2008 12:52 PM

If he had such grave concerns, why didn't he come out with them sooner?

I'm totally confused by these critiques. Scottie is a private citizen now, and he can choose to say whatever he wants. But as spokesman for the Administration his job wasn't to tell people the truth, but to tell them what the Administration wanted to tell them. Why the fuck are all these people pretending not to know that? He's a goddam mouthpiece--and you should rationally expect he will spin and lie every time he can get away with it! The job of an independent media is to make sure he can't get away with it (see McClatchy for evidence on how this is done).

Now, should this lackey have realized these were corrupt bastards and resigned? Of course. But the system simply can't depend on a huge number of insiders being wise enough and brave enough to commit political suicide on principle.

What Scottie is saying now is earth-shattering. He's saying "the left-wing bloggers were completely right. You people should have seen through this crap." And he's also implicitly saying that our system of checks and balances shouldn't depend on press secretaries or other high-profile insiders realizing they are part of a corrupt, mendacious cabal and publicly taking it down, because that ain't gonna happen until it's way too fucking late.

The response of the Bush Administration and its lackeys is to say that Scott McClellan has become an irrational bush-hater. They completely avoid the substance of the claims, instead focusing on the politics of partisanship. He's not on "our team," he's on the "other team," so you can't believe a word he's saying. Why can't you believe a word he's saying? Because he's on the other team. How do I know he's on the other team? Why, just look at the words he's saying. It's circular and it totally allows them to sidestep the actual substance of his critique. The question goes from an incredibly important one of: "Is the sitting President of the US a mendacious man surrounded by criminals, and should we have noticed this sooner and let people know?" to "Is an insignificant retired political hack with no power now a liberal?"

Grrr. What's all the more frustrating is that the media remains clueless long after the American people have figured this all out. If they're just going to be a lagging indicator of public opinion, what good are they?

Posted by anonymiss | May 30, 2008 12:58 PM

He's not on "our team," he's on the "other team," so you can't believe a word he's saying. Why can't you believe a word he's saying? Because he's on the other team. How do I know he's on the other team? Why, just look at the words he's saying.

Pvt. Joe Bowers: What *are* these electrolytes? Do you even know?
Secretary of State: They're... what they use to make Brawndo!
Pvt. Joe Bowers: But *why* do they use them to make Brawndo?
Secretary of Defense: [raises hand after a pause] Because Brawndo's got electrolytes.

Posted by daveNYC | May 30, 2008 1:19 PM

MBunge,

Couldn't agree more! The "well that's what they would say wouldn't they?" argument has come to dominate to an insane extent. We see it when office holders like DeLay respond to serious charges or convictions for the same by saying that prosecutors or judges are Democrats or appointed by Democrats. We give it too much credit when we respond, as we are often in a position to do, that in fact they are Republicans or were appointed by Republicans. Our whole system depends on the idea that one can be a member of a political party and hold public office. There are ought to be at least a presumption that public servants are doing their job, not the other way round.

What is more, the argument, in the sweeping form in which it is employed these days, ought, on a moment's reflection, to be seen as hopelessly self-defeating. "Well that's what you would say, isn't it (you fill in the blank: Democrat, Liberal, Blogger, French Person...). Answer: "Well that's what you (Republican, Bush enabler....) would say isn't it?" "What's more, you say it because you have nothing substantive to say in response to what we've said."

What's odd, as Matt points out, is that it's not what a Bush lackey like McClellan would say. I guess the argument now becomes 'he's saying what those people who would say that sort of thing would say and whose views can be dismissed out of hand, therefore..well I'm not sure where to go from here, but pehaps "since (i) the fact that someone is not a right-wing nut job is grounds for dismissing everything they say and (ii) saying something that is said by people who are not right-wing nut jobs is a ground for supposing that one isn't a right-wing nut job, then by (ii) there is reason to think that McClellan isn't a right-wing nut job, therefore by (i) we can dismiss everything he says.
Or something.

Posted by J | May 30, 2008 1:24 PM

In short, it's a given that someone from the Bush White House talking stink about same is going to be trashed in the media, particularly the right wing media.

Hell, if McClellan had released his book as a free PDF download, they'd still be painting him as a nutter. Standard practice.

Posted by cmholm | May 30, 2008 4:16 PM

What's interesting is how many people are becoming willing to come out and suggest that 9/11 "conspiracy theories" may not be as much "conspiracy theory" as people think.

I had a big laugh today. The brother from the Corrs came out on a radio interview and said 9/11 was an inside job by rogue neocon elements of the Bush Administration.

What's unusual about that is that the Corrs have always played it fairly safe about politics, given the issues in Ireland. although they have done much charity work involving the Troubles.

Even Andrea was careful to claim that her anti-war song from her solo album, "Shame on You", was not specifically directed against Bush and Blair.

Some people on the TheCorrsClub fan Web site weren't happy about this, as many of them apparently are right wing types.

Corr brother says 9/11 'an inside job'
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/corr-brother-says-911-an-inside-job-1391867.html

Money Quotes:

CORRS guitarist Jim Corr has claimed that there was overwhelming evidence that the 9/11 attacks in America were carried out by "rogue elements" of US President George Bush's "neo-con administration".

In a rare intervention into the political arena, the male singer with The Corrs band came out against the Lisbon Treaty claiming that it is "tip-toe totalitarianism in the West".

In an interview with Matt Cooper on Today FM's 'Last Word', Corr made the case for voting 'No' to Lisbon, claiming it could introduce the death penalty to Ireland and contribute to a "new world order".

Corr's opposition is based on his three years "studying the New World Order which the European Union is a part of".

He said "the EU is a stepping stone towards a world government, they will merge it with the Asia Pacific Union, the African Union and the North American Union". The Lisbon Treaty itself will introduce "a scientific technocracy" to Europe which will erode national sovereignty.

Corr claimed that The Charter of Fundamental Rights allows for the introduction of the death penalty.

"It makes provision for the introduction to law for the death penalty in times of war or imminent threat of war.

"What we are seeing is tip-toe totalitarianism in the West with 9/11 the key to understanding this.

"When you study 9/11 it becomes very apparent... it was a staged terrorist attack, what they call a false flag operation."

Corr said overwhelming evidence suggests 9/11 "was carried out by rogue elements in the Bush neo-con administration".

Somebody at TheCorrsClub fan site says that he guesses Jim regrets this photo then:
http://static.flickr.com/37/120839163_9997b4cd18_o.jpg

That photo was taken when the Corrs played for Bush at a St. Patrick's Day celebration in 2002:
http://music.yahoo.com/read/news/12065424

Bono's friends the Corrs played at the White House on Wednesday (March 13), at a special luncheon for Bush and Irish Prime Minister Bertie Ahern. Lead vocalist Andrea Corr told LAUNCH about the experience. 'We played for them and looking down at these faces and it just kind of makes you giggle. That is a surreal moment, to play for your president, the President of the United States,' she told us. 'It's quite funny when you see him smiling up at you. It's quite surreal.'

So what did George W. think of the Corrs' performance? 'He said he likes it because it sounds a little like Country and Western to him,' she said, 'and he's from Texas and he loves Country and Western.'

Brother and guitarist Jim Corr quipped, 'There's a compliment in there somewhere.' Drummer Caroline Corr added, 'That's cool with me, I'm a fan of country music.'

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | May 30, 2008 6:13 PM