« Straight Talk on Gasoline | Main | The Superphone » Base Revolt21 Jul 2008 05:04 pm We all know conservatives like to complain about media bias, but it's a bit rich to hear this kind of whining from John McCain, who likes to call the media "my base." In an unrelated development, The New Republic's Jonathan Chait has a piece out about how awesome John McCain is. Comments (36)
Conservative minds can rewrite reality with the power of their thought. Thus if you think really hard "We're WINNING in Iraq!!" then it'll be true. Because to conservatives, rewriting their privileged trust-fund inheriting asses into heroes is the first step down the road of mental reconfiguration of reality, and the rest easily follows. 
Good lord. That Chait piece is an abortion.
[Insert comment, including link, regarding scientific evidence proving that the media has treated Obama much, much better than it has treated McCain.]
Oh whatever will McCain do if the media actually musters up a pair and refuses to propagandize on his behalf? Woe is he...
What Trapper John said. BushCo has destroyed America's economy, reputation, and moral standing. McCain will continue this.
Chait's praise of McCain is entitled "Old Flame"? Yeccch. McCain could very well be a lot more livable than Bush-- if it weren't for the way in which his election would seem to endorse and ratify Bushism And if my dog had gills it would be a fish.
"We all know conservatives like to complain about media bias" Considering that you whine 27 times a day about media bias, I do hope your tongue was firmly in your cheek when you wrote that.
Recently "even the liberal" NPR had a report about how the media gave so much more coverage to Obama than to McCain, with the strong implication that the media was biased toward Obama. They never did discuss what the nature of that coverage was, e.g. whether it was critical or even just plain silly in its nitpicking. Nor did they discuss about how much the lack of any coverage that might conflict with McCain's image as being all Mavericky and stuff actually benefits McCain by allowing his worst gaffes, bizarre ideas, etc., slip under the media radar so people don't know the real and very frightening John McCain. And then, to top it off, they then proceded to have a bunch of reports in which they basically covered what McCain said and ignored the Obama camp completely. Although, NPR, being all "liberal" and "anti-American" did manage to actually put an expert on that blasted one of McCain's talking points to bits.
So the NY Times required substance in an article. The bastards! As to DAS mentioning NPR and the greater coverage of Obama, McCain should thank the heavens that this is true. If the media did its job and really publicized all his flip-flops, lies, deceit, and gaffes, he'd be toast by now.
Here's the simple argument on McCain for independents and moderate Republicans: If you believe that it is important in a democracy for elections to serve as a referendum on governments and policies, and that leaders should fear voter reprisal when they govern poorly, then the Republicans should not be allowed to hold the White House. Close to 80% of Americans feel that Bush has done a poor job as president, and at the very least this merits 4 years in the penalty box for his party. Regardless of whether you feel that, as individuals, Bush and McCain are the same or similar (and nowadays, they are quite), a Republican victory this November provides an endorsement of the Republican administration of the past 8 years. And if this happens, a core tenet of democracy, that of voters' ability to hold their leadership accountable, will have been compromised. That's why a McCain victory would be "a very bad thing", regardless of the man or his policies specifically.
Agreed TH. But, "even the liberal media" will be pushing the McCain is very different than GW Bush -- he's all mavericky and bipartisan and stuff -- talking points. OTOH, if McCain does, alas, get elected, watch for the media to declare the election an affirmation of Bush's policies.
You leftist hippies really do live in an altered reality. Your failure to acknowledge that the media is, by and large, dominated by democrats who long for Obama's election, shows your utter incapacity for obective reason. MY's constant bitching-- like a woman-- about how McCain is actaully the favored candidate borders on pathetic. But you all believe him, so he keeps on keeping on.
Way to call it, dude. Not just that. The *also* keep assuming that conservatives are abusive, small-minded misogynists. Get over it, people! See your own implicit biases!
With the volumes of crap that the NYT publishes by Friedman, Dowd, Brooks, Kristol, Collins, etc., it is a bit odd that they would reject a McCain op-ed for its lack of "substance." Maybe they were trying to save McCain from himself?
Ted and Dude, get real. McCain is first in the hearts of the so-called media.
McCain's NYT submission read like a press release issued by a low-level aide. I wouldn't have printed it either. That having been said, this "McCain has an unfair press advantage vs. Obama(!)" narrative Yglesias keeps pushing underscores just what a mindless hack the latter has now become. It would be as if William Kristol spent all day, every day, arguing that there's an institutional bias against John McCain within the military. When a columnist or blogger compares unfavorably to Kristol on the old hackometer, it's time to hang up the keyboard and go to work for Bob Schrum or some similar imbecile.
it's time to hang up the keyboard and go to work for Bob Schrum or some similar imbecile. You mean John Podesta.
You mean John Podesta. Just as good.
The New Republic is a flaming bag of shit.
McCain's NYT submission read like a press release issued by a low-level aide. Yes it did. I suspect this was deliberate. It's a win-win for McCain to have the NYT reject his op-ed. CNN ran the original, and Campbell Brown fucking led with this story (she's terrible), but the point is that McCain gets it out there. It's a line-by-line hit piece on Obama. Now, when the "revised" op-ed piece is published by the NYT, it naturally gets more attention. Somebody on Team McCain has half a brain. Score one for them.
this "McCain has an unfair press advantage vs. Obama(!)" narrative Yglesias keeps pushing underscores just what a mindless hack the latter has now become. Answering MY's many examples of said phenomenon with a mere argument-free assertion is what's mindless. To wit: you are the mindless hack. Sheer petulant whining.
MY's constant bitching-- like a woman-- about how McCain is actaully the favored candidate borders on pathetic. But you all believe him, so he keeps on keeping on. Posted by Dude | July 21, 2008 6:14 PM Way to call it, dude. Not just that. The[y] *also* keep assuming that conservatives are abusive, small-minded misogynists. Posted by Ted | July 21, 2008 6:21 PM I just thought this exchange bore repeating, even if Ted was taking Dude's side in jest.
TNR is indeed not worth the paper it's printed on. From secretly hosting get-togethers with Chalabi in the run-up to the war (and not telling their readers) to fronting all the latest neo-con boondoggles, they are exhibit A in what's wrong with the Democratic agenda. Chait and Wieseltier both pine for a McCain presidency because foreign policy is their number one concern. Having been wrong on all matters Iraqi, we should now listen to their fears and anxieties regarding Obama. Obama may be headed down the Clenis' Republican-lite road, but he's the best we can hope for in this messed-up country. McCain is indeed one scary old clueless codger. Let's be thankful that Arnold was born in Austria or he'd be the nominee even though he's made a mess of California.
Johnny butter Answering MY's many examples of said phenomenon with a mere argument-free assertion is what's mindless. Uh, he hasn't produced 'many examples,' or even one, as far as I can tell. The closest thing I've seen to a McCain "press advantage" is a picture of some reporters at a McCain barbecue, though Yglesias never linked to an unfair story that came out of it. The "press advantage" story linked here is from an Obama supporter and can be accurately paraphrased as "John McCain isn't the worst person in the world," which isn't good press, let alone better press than Obama. The latter is presently being followed by all three network anchors as they document an "unprecedented and historic" trip to the middle east that would be a largely ignored, mundane pre-requisite for the job if it had been undertaken by John Edwards or Clinton, let alone McCain, whose frequent trips are either sneered at or ignored. So, absent any real evidence of a McCain press advantage, what you're criticizing me for not doing is failing to present evidence of a non-presence; if I want to say this unsupported assertion of Yglesias's is absurd, I must not only knock down nonexamples, but also prove to you that it doesn't exist. Who's mindless, exactly? To take an opposite track, watch for yourself and note the open rooting (and in the case of Olbermann, excuse-making) that comes from David Gregory, Chris Matthews, Olbermann, Rachel Maddow, etc. etc. and remember that the first two figures are supposed to be impartial. There's no leftward or rightward correlary for McCain, who can't even get good press from partisans like Hewitt, Hannity or Glenn Beck, let alone the sort of 'respectable' media that skirt libel insinuating McCainian extramarital affairs based on nudges, winks and nothing. Some press advantage indeed. How's this: when the NY Times or Washington Post publishes an article suggesting that Obama killed somebody (to demonstrate disadvantage, the press will have to claim something more politically and personally damaging than adultery) based on gruel of similar thinness to the McCain lobbyist affair, Yglesias will, then, arguably have a point. Until that day, this theory is garbage and I'm sure Yglesias knows it, even if you, unbelievably, can't identify a dishonest argument coming from someone who has openly announced a career change from columnist to propagandist.
Matt, Start whining like a man, the way John McCain and George Bush do, not like a woman!
The kind of media criticism that regularly occurs in political discourse is venal, dishonest, and gigantically stupid even by political standards. A clue: the argument which goes something like (1)the 'media'(a monolithic entity as far as this argument is concerned)does X, (2) here is an example of an individual within the media doing x, (3) done! is a waste of your time and everyone elses.
Uh, he hasn't produced 'many examples,' or even one, as far as I can tell. Nice: 'As far as I can tell, you're a mindless hack.' Look, it's not really controversial to say that the press loves McCain, that he is and has long been a favorite. Until recently, he has been given a blanket pass on the most glaring idiocies and inconsistancies. If you want to argue otherwise, then argue otherwise. Observing that the teevee people are loving Obama's overseas trip is not an argument - Obama, unlike the others you mentioned, is the nominee; and the electronic 'press' loves pretty pictures and will deem anything pretty as 'historic'. So the electronic press, particularly, is loving Obama too. So? Guess what? MY is a partisan - surprise surprise. Unlike most GOP partisans, that doesn't make him a mindless hack. Some of us aren't post-modern 'thinkers'; some of us believe that honest assessment makes our arguments stronger rather than weaker, that it's not all just a rhetorical game. MY will make mistakes, no doubt, as we all do, but, if you've been reading this blog much, you could tell that he actually sees the value - strength - in constructive criticism. What you're offering isn't that. Yes, some value can sometimes come out of bad faith crit. like yours, but most of the time it's worthless. When conservatives get off the Gingrich/Bush Train of absolute trotskyite discipline and the post-modern style of politics, they will begin to right themselves. Until then, it really is mindless hackery. Stay on that train and you will be buried.
Well, an example of the media favoring McCain would be the Chait piece. In fact, the crux of the "the media loves McCain" argument (aside from all the pundits saying that they love McCain) is that McCain's platform is CONSTANTLY misrepresented as being moderate. For example, McCain's Iraq policy--the formation of permanent bases throughout Iraq--is a hair less extremist than reinstitution the CPA to run Iraq. And, oh yeah, it was just shown this weekend that McCain's Iraq plan is fantasy and will never happen. Obama's Iraq plan is all fired up and ready to go. Somehow, the nullification of McCain's primary platform plank has not merited coverage. Nor has the fact that McCain is now adopting Obama's stance on Iraq and Afghanistan. And Iran. And Pakistan. Furthermore, the majority of Obama's coverage has been negative coverage. Rev. Wright? "Trouble" with Jews or whites? Being inexperienced or naive? BEING A PANDERER ON THE IRAQ WAR? Also, Obama's overseas trip is the first time that a presumptive nominee has gone to a war zone. Period. And he's going to three different war zones. Just because McCain's running a shitty campaign and can't do anything noteworthy doesn't mean the press refuses give him the benefit of the doubt.
Shinyk's technique above has worked so well on Dems for so many years that you can't blame him for trying it again on MY: appeal to Dem's/progressives' native Wonkery, their literalness, their concern with facts. While Liberals are foaming and furiously typing up 10-point reports disproving what the GOP says, the GOP has meanwhile got Dear Leader in the WH, daily talking points fanned out and taliored to each mouthpiece ('give this one to Lott, this one to....'). There is such a thing as Rovian Laughter, and there's been a lot of it over the years. The sub-species Shinyk uses is an old favorite variation on sandbagging: deny the obvious (under the cloak of a healthy questioning of conventional wisdom) and make the Liberal try to prove it to the GOP talking head, which will never succeed, of course, since the truth or falsity of the charge is not what the GOP guy cares about in the first place. Make the Liberal scurry, or try to intimidate her/him by accusing them falsely of being what you in fact *are*; a mindless - ie rigidly disciplined - partisan. It has worked and worked and worked, so why not give it another try? 'You're a reasonable liberal, aren't you, Mr Yglesias? Not one of those wild, ignorant hippies, or [snort} Women, right?'. MY has become more partisan lately, but it's hardly the same as what has gone on on the other side. Many progressives, unlike Mr Turdblossom, actually *want* viable opposition Parties in this country. Quaint as it may sound to someone like Shinyk, some of us put the health of the country above our particular party or rigid ideology. Hell, at this point it would be good for the GOP itself for its current MO to die. You can't blame Democrats - or patriots - for helping out with that as much as possible. It's a disaster which needs to, at long last, end. Rigidity can be powerful for a time, but it's brittle. Re-think now or re-think later. Either one is fine with me, so long as the latter isn't TOO much later. Every party needs a viable opposition.
I've seen so much misreading of that Chait piece in the last day that I almost have to assume it's willful, but that's probably giving too much credit. Commenters like jeer9 can't have actually read the piece if they're coming away with the impression that Chait is "pining for a McCain presidency." The only point he's making with the column is that it would be better than a Bush presidency -- not exactly great fodder for a column, I admit, but as a point unto itself is it even debatable? This reminds me of when Yglesias said he preferred Romney among the GOP candidates, and half the commenters here went f***nuts. It's called reading comprehension, folks. Look into it.
Butter, I can't remember the last time I've corresponded with someone as obtuse as yourself. I sincerely hope it's deliberate. Consider this: Until recently, he has been given a blanket pass on the most glaring idiocies and inconsistancies. If you want to argue otherwise, then argue otherwise. For the second time you've asked me to present a non-presence, which is impossible. You may as well tell me that eating cheeseburgers causes baldness and unless I can prove that such a thing has never, ever happened, never, ever will, and never, ever could, declare it an obvious fact because that's the logical equivalent of what you're doing. Now consider this: MY is a partisan - surprise surprise. Unlike most GOP partisans, that doesn't make him a mindless hack. Some of us aren't post-modern 'thinkers'; some of us believe that honest assessment makes our arguments stronger rather than weaker, that it's not all just a rhetorical game. While this isn't as bad as demanding the impossible, your first sentence invalidates everything that comes after it. A partisan is someone who is loyal to a team, not a set of ideas or thoughts. By admitting that Yglesias is a partisan, rather than an ideologue (which I would respect), you're saying that Yglesias doesn't care about assessment, honesty or arguments--only his chosen team's success (success at affecting what is less important). That makes my point, and undercuts yours completely. I'd respond to the other post, but in the two hours it took you to type it, you still didn't manage to learn the meaning of the word "partisan" or the futility of demanding that someone prove a negative.
Ron thinks Chait's idea that four years of McCain would be better than another four years of Bush is meager inspiration for a column, but not even debatable. Now that's pretty funny. Who's being willfully ignorant now? I will now return to my Bloomian misreading.
Butter: I can't remember the last time I've corresponded with someone as obtuse as yourself. I sincerely hope it's deliberate. Oh yes, you are nothing if not sincere, Shinyk. Thanks for setting us straight about partisanship vs ideology. Pedantry comes in so handy when that's all you have left! Since the word 'partisan' is used about ten thousand times a day to mean 'belonging to a political party', I thought most would understand that I meant the opposite of what is (also commonly) called 'non-partisan' - not belonging to or favoring a party.. But thank god we have you on hand to let us know that ideologues (whom you can respect) are *never* partisans (whom you don't). Ridiculous. A partisan in the dictionary sense is: someone loyal to a Party and/or a set of ideas. It's also defined as a mindless follower, but that's 'also', not 'only'. The meaning of your distinction dissolves at the slightest prodding. Of course one can't prove (or disprove) a negative, which is why people like you take the tacks that you do. To suggest that McCain - who actually has *himself* called the political press 'my base' (which is why MY's post is called what it is, in case you hadn't noticed it, Mr Incisive) - has not gotten very indulgent treatment from the press, is bizarrely obtuse. I sincerely (that is sincerely sincerely) hope it is deliberate, because otherwise you are scary. It is impossible, also, to prove the obvious - no matter how obvious - to someone who simply denies it.
It's not incumbent upon me to dispute that "McCain has gotten very indulgent treatment from the press." I don't dispute that, but the keyword is has. If you want actual examples of McCain's historical favorable treatment in the press, this guy's, well, way ahead of anything you or Yglesias have provided. But it's all irrelevent. As is his "my base" comment. You see, you're goal-post shifting mid-play. You're saying the press has always liked McCain more than his adversaries in the past, therefore the Yglesias narrative that McCain has a press advantage against Obama is true. Providing a quote from McCain about McCain's press advantage against Romney (who never got much good press, let alone the level of good press that Obama gets) doesn't prove that. Providing a Chait article that concludes that McCain isn't as shitty as Bush doesn't prove that either, as Bush has not seen much (if any) favorable treatment from the press, let alone favorable treatment at Obama's level. Providing a picture of reporters at a barbecue--with no evidence of any favorable press that came from it--isn't evidenciary either. Note the dates on the Material provided by Reason's Matt Welch, who has made a career of documenting the "Myth of the Maverick": nothing from the present contest. If he hasn't seen anything, you can bet it's not there. That tells me that "McCain has an unfair press advantage against Obama" is an empty narrative believed only by suckers like yourself. I suppose I could provide evidence that Obama has an unfair press advantage over McCain (wouldn't be difficult), but I'm not even arguing that much, just that Yglesias's narrative is unsupported BS. Your failed, sleight-of-hand attempt at softening 'partisan' (n.) by giving me the definition of 'partisan' (adj.) is more goal-post shifting and obtuseness. 'Partisan' as an adjective just means preferential. 'A partisan' is one whose primary loyalty is to a given team. You can't interchange one with the other. Yglesias isn't just 'partisan,' anymore, he's 'a partisan,' now, which is something you've admitted yourself without any cajoling by me. He's a hack, too, since he's pushing a narrative he knows is unsupported and that benefits his team in the hopes that echo-chamber-types will believe it and spread it to non-echo-chamber-type friends and family. He'll fit right in with the other propagandists at his new job.
Comments closed August 04, 2008. |
Search
Subscribe to this blog by Email Books by Matthew Yglesias
Recent Comments
Recent Posts
Weekly Archives
Categories
|
Copyright © 2008 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Technically, Chait's piece is more about how non-apocalyptic McCain would be, than actually praising him. He could very well be a lot more livable than Bush-- and if it weren't for the way in which his election would seem to endorse and ratify Bushism, I might share his lack of alarm. As it is, he's just the wrong man for the job.
Posted by Anthony Damiani | July 21, 2008 5:26 PM