The press reverts to form.
Nancy Pelosi for president.
Well, not really. But if only more Democrats were this tough in the face of aggressive, pox-on-all-your-houses-style criticism like CNN's Kyra Phillips', we'd be much better off as liberals and as citizens. Pelosi handled Phillips beautifully. Blaming things on "politics" is the classic "non-partisan" journalistic cop-out. And yes, just as Pelosi implies in the interview, the Bush Admin loves this sort of directionless, we're-all-guilty faux-outrage from the press, in which the anti-government party is, at worst, just one player in a funadmentally morbid drama of preening pols, whose sacred-cow institution of "government" it at least has the good taste to want to drown like a rat in the bathtub.
But Pelosi can only do so much. And in fact, the media's initial better-than-average response to Katrina -- aggressive, serious, coverage from CNN and the Washington Post all of which may have helped to tank Bush's Big Man In a Crisis ratings over the course of last week and expose Michael Brown for the absolute embarrassment of cronyism that he is -- was never likely to survive the first public statements from Hillary Clinton. Since Al Gore's retirement, HRC has been unrivaled in her ability to make reporters and pundits get very dumb, very fast. Just try to believe this was actually printed in today's Washington Post:
The raging debate over what happened after Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans and the Gulf Coast has provided Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) an opportunity to emerge as a national spokeswoman for the Democratic Party, stirring Republican criticism that she and other Democrats are seeking political gain at a moment of national crisis.
Clinton has long maintained that she is focused solely on serving the interests of her New York constituents. But she was on all three network morning shows yesterday to promote her call for returning the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to independent status, and for creating an independent commission to investigate what went wrong when the storm hit and the levees gave way in New Orleans.
...Other Democrats, lead by Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.) and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) have been far more strident than the Clintons -- so much so that both Republican and Democratic strategists said yesterday the opposition party is in danger of overplaying its hand. The harsh rhetoric, the strategists said, could create a backlash among the public and engender sympathy for a president who has been on the defensive much of the past week.
...Hillary Clinton has no formal role as a designated spokeswoman on the disaster, but by virtue of her celebrity status and her presumed presidential ambitions, she attracts attention when she chooses to speak out.
...Asked on NBC's "Today Show" about criticism from Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman, who accused her of seeking political gain at what he said should be a moment of national unity, she replied: "Well, you know, that's what they always do. We've been living with that kind of rhetoric for the last 4 1/2 years. . . . Every time anyone raises any kind of legitimate criticism and asks questions, they're attacked."
The message is obvious: Clinton can't make policy points because the only thing that matters is how she represents the party, and whether, in that role, she creates a "backlash" against "the left". And for her to worry about things happening in New Orleans, when she said she was going to focus on New York, and has been granted "no formal role" (whatever the hell that means) in the public response to the catastrophe, naturally opens her to charges of hypocracy which, even if the Post won't take an explicit position on the matter, will happily report as "news".
TAPPED has lots more on the decline of the media's post-Katrina coverage, and Ezra links to an article from LA Weekly, commenting on CNN's initial off-the-reservation reaction to Katrina last week (so I was right!), and its contrast to the lazy, predictable fare on the other networks. Maybe the most amazing piece of the article is that FOX's Bill O'Reilly actually used Katrina as a backdrop to say this:
“First, the huge, bureaucratic government will never be able to protect you. If you rely on government for anything, anything, you’re going to be disappointed, no matter who the president is...If you don’t get educated, if you don’t develop a skill, and force yourself to work hard, you’ll most likely be poor. And sooner or later, you’ll be standing on a symbolic rooftop waiting for help."
It's not Bush. It's not the Republicans. Divided government wouldn't make things better. We can't prove that James Lee Witt's FEMA would have done any better. "The Two Americas"? "Forward Engagement"? Meaningless, all meaningless words. O'Reilly is a FOX loudmouth and easy to hate. But if the Phillips-Pelosi interview is anything to go by, his message, more respectably presented, has once again won the day. Phillips is ragging on Pelosi, essentially for daring to be a politician at a time when government has clearly failed us. Just like is always does, and just like it always will.
And that's why the American press is so toxic. This is bigger than Bush. There will come a day very soon when a Republican president can maintain approval ratings in the high 30s and not even have to worry about his party losing Congress. Because they're all the same, anyway, all awful, and at least the Republicans understand that, and don't try to prettify things, don't try to pretend that government is something it isn't, that it could actually help.
Well, not really. But if only more Democrats were this tough in the face of aggressive, pox-on-all-your-houses-style criticism like CNN's Kyra Phillips', we'd be much better off as liberals and as citizens. Pelosi handled Phillips beautifully. Blaming things on "politics" is the classic "non-partisan" journalistic cop-out. And yes, just as Pelosi implies in the interview, the Bush Admin loves this sort of directionless, we're-all-guilty faux-outrage from the press, in which the anti-government party is, at worst, just one player in a funadmentally morbid drama of preening pols, whose sacred-cow institution of "government" it at least has the good taste to want to drown like a rat in the bathtub.
But Pelosi can only do so much. And in fact, the media's initial better-than-average response to Katrina -- aggressive, serious, coverage from CNN and the Washington Post all of which may have helped to tank Bush's Big Man In a Crisis ratings over the course of last week and expose Michael Brown for the absolute embarrassment of cronyism that he is -- was never likely to survive the first public statements from Hillary Clinton. Since Al Gore's retirement, HRC has been unrivaled in her ability to make reporters and pundits get very dumb, very fast. Just try to believe this was actually printed in today's Washington Post:
The raging debate over what happened after Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans and the Gulf Coast has provided Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) an opportunity to emerge as a national spokeswoman for the Democratic Party, stirring Republican criticism that she and other Democrats are seeking political gain at a moment of national crisis.
Clinton has long maintained that she is focused solely on serving the interests of her New York constituents. But she was on all three network morning shows yesterday to promote her call for returning the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to independent status, and for creating an independent commission to investigate what went wrong when the storm hit and the levees gave way in New Orleans.
...Other Democrats, lead by Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.) and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) have been far more strident than the Clintons -- so much so that both Republican and Democratic strategists said yesterday the opposition party is in danger of overplaying its hand. The harsh rhetoric, the strategists said, could create a backlash among the public and engender sympathy for a president who has been on the defensive much of the past week.
...Hillary Clinton has no formal role as a designated spokeswoman on the disaster, but by virtue of her celebrity status and her presumed presidential ambitions, she attracts attention when she chooses to speak out.
...Asked on NBC's "Today Show" about criticism from Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman, who accused her of seeking political gain at what he said should be a moment of national unity, she replied: "Well, you know, that's what they always do. We've been living with that kind of rhetoric for the last 4 1/2 years. . . . Every time anyone raises any kind of legitimate criticism and asks questions, they're attacked."
The message is obvious: Clinton can't make policy points because the only thing that matters is how she represents the party, and whether, in that role, she creates a "backlash" against "the left". And for her to worry about things happening in New Orleans, when she said she was going to focus on New York, and has been granted "no formal role" (whatever the hell that means) in the public response to the catastrophe, naturally opens her to charges of hypocracy which, even if the Post won't take an explicit position on the matter, will happily report as "news".
TAPPED has lots more on the decline of the media's post-Katrina coverage, and Ezra links to an article from LA Weekly, commenting on CNN's initial off-the-reservation reaction to Katrina last week (so I was right!), and its contrast to the lazy, predictable fare on the other networks. Maybe the most amazing piece of the article is that FOX's Bill O'Reilly actually used Katrina as a backdrop to say this:
“First, the huge, bureaucratic government will never be able to protect you. If you rely on government for anything, anything, you’re going to be disappointed, no matter who the president is...If you don’t get educated, if you don’t develop a skill, and force yourself to work hard, you’ll most likely be poor. And sooner or later, you’ll be standing on a symbolic rooftop waiting for help."
It's not Bush. It's not the Republicans. Divided government wouldn't make things better. We can't prove that James Lee Witt's FEMA would have done any better. "The Two Americas"? "Forward Engagement"? Meaningless, all meaningless words. O'Reilly is a FOX loudmouth and easy to hate. But if the Phillips-Pelosi interview is anything to go by, his message, more respectably presented, has once again won the day. Phillips is ragging on Pelosi, essentially for daring to be a politician at a time when government has clearly failed us. Just like is always does, and just like it always will.
And that's why the American press is so toxic. This is bigger than Bush. There will come a day very soon when a Republican president can maintain approval ratings in the high 30s and not even have to worry about his party losing Congress. Because they're all the same, anyway, all awful, and at least the Republicans understand that, and don't try to prettify things, don't try to pretend that government is something it isn't, that it could actually help.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home