Replies to post #61149 on Discover GOP Opprobrium

[teapeebubbles]

tend to read the Washington Post's Chris Cillizza regularly, and he frequently offers some pretty reliable reporting, but it's items like these that I find frustrating.

Loyal Fix readers know that we follow the movements of one Matt Drudge -- and his eponymous Web site -- quite closely.

Why? Because, despite any number of critics across the media sphere, Drudge's site remains a powerhouse of political news influence -- driving and influencing daily coverage.

If you doubt that statement, go back and trace where the hubbub over the handshake between Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez and President Obama began. Or where the controversy around Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano's comments about radical right wing groups started.

As a self-proclaimed Drudgeologist, we were very interested to read....



Look, I get the argument. Major traditional news outlets keep hitting refresh at Drudge's site, effectively using him as an assignment editor. For some political reporters, including Cillizza, the idea is to keep reading Drudge so you know what the cool kids are going to be talking about. And how do you know? Because they're all reading Drudge, too.

The frustrating part, of course, is that Cillizza doesn't seem to appreciate the circular, self-fulfilling nature of the argument. Drudge, the theory goes, is a "powerhouse." Why? Because the powerful (political reporters and producers with large audiences) read his site and follow his lead. This, in turn, gives Drudge more power, which makes more political reporters read his site and follow his lead. Lather, rinse, repeat.

But this is an awful way to do political journalism. Consider the examples Cillizza provides. Was there anything remotely shocking about two heads of state shaking hands at an international gathering? Of course not, but Drudge said it was a big deal and the sheep followed. Was there anything at all unusual about domestic security officials raising concerns about domestic terrorism at the hands of potentially violent extremists? Not in the slightest, but Drudge said it was important, and that's what mattered.

Drudge "drives and influences daily coverage" because the political establishment says so. That's just crazy.

Here's a radical idea for Drudgeologists: the next time he says a story is important, ask yourself why it's important. If the answer is "because Drudge says so," perhaps you should consider reading some different websites for a while.

[teapeebubbles]

Portfolio ran an anonymous piece today by a self-described TARP wife lamenting how far she's fallen both socially and monetarily. The article only serves to further the notion that perhaps one of the few silver linings of this financial crisis is to burst the bubble of the TARP wives. Except her bubble hasn't really burst, just punctured with the air slowly leaking out. What's always astonishing about these Wall Street "look how much worse my life is" pieces is that they're written with the belief that people, besides their friends at the country club, will have any sympathy for them whatsoever.

For example, take this paragraph:

I haven't even looked at spring clothes; God forbid someone catches me out in something new. Keeping up with fashion seems somehow decadent in this new era, like getting Botox injections or catered dinners... If I buy a present for someone, I have the package sent to their home. I don't want to be spotted climbing into a taxi, laden with Bergdorf Goodman shopping bags.
One senses that the spring fashions she would consider are not from The Gap because, really, if your new pair of pants is going to cost less than $250, is there a point in getting new pants? And then there is the line about buying presents. The point this wife seems to be missing is that she can still afford to, and still does, buy presents for friends at Bergdorf's. The only thing that's changed is she's embarrassed to be seen with the bags. This is not a real problem.

The next paragraph is equally cringe-worthy and it's only the third paragraph:

As you can see, being a TARP wife means, in short, making decisions according to a complex algorithm: balancing the need to look like your world hasn't crumbled beneath you--let's not alarm the investors!--with the need to appear duly repentant for your subprime sins. It also means we're part of the community of more than 400 companies that have received government bailout funds, whose fall from grace has been swifter and harsher than any since Mao frog-marched intellectuals into China's countryside.
As tasteless these sentences are, they nicely sum up the disconnect between this wife and the real world. The "complex algorithm" by which she lives her life is not complicated all. Expending energy to determine how much less money you have to spend to satisfy the need "to appear duly repentant" is what we call one of those "good problems." Most of America lives their lives by the complex algorithm of balancing the need for rent, food, and the occasional night out to blow off some steam.

The author acknowledges that hers are "luxury problems" but that she's still getting "squeezed." Sorry, but no, you're not getting "squeezed" if when planning your husband's birthday party "it came down to a choice between an especially accommodating (and well-known) high-end restaurant and a less expensive, clubbier spot" and you went for the cozier but more expensive place because it's "low-profile" and "rarely mentioned in the press" (as in, still famous enough to be mentioned in the press)

Read the rest of the piece if you want to laugh at how clueless this woman is and then be sad that despite her relative fall her life is still filled with "good problems."

New York Magazine thinks they have sniffed out who the author is: Liz Peek, former New York Sun business writer and wife of CIT Group's Jeffrey Peek.

For a much more revealing piece about how clueless Wall Street husbands are, check out Gabriel Sherman's great piece "The Wail of the 1%"

[teapeebubbles]

Reihan Salam, a prominent conservative blogger and Republican strategist, has defended Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin (R) quite a bit over the last several months. He's promoted her, made excuses for her shortcomings, and tried to convince any who'd listen that she's really not as awful as she might seem. Up until recently, Salam has argued valiantly that Palin is a credible national figure and a plausible presidential aspirant.

Now, however, Salam has reluctantly given up.

Palin's campaign antics can be forgiven. What can't be forgiven is the ham-handed way she's tried to build her national profile since she returned to Alaska. She's abandoned the bold right-left populism that won over Alaska voters -- and me -- in the first place in favor of an increasingly defensive and harsh partisanship. After making her name as a determined enemy of Alaska's corrupt Republican establishment, she recently called for Democratic Sen. Mark Begich to step down so the hilariously crooked Ted Stevens could get another crack at the seat. She loudly promised to leave federal stimulus money on the table before clawing that promise back with a whimper. One can't help but get the impression that Palin is a clownish, vindictive amateur.

Now, for example, Palin is raising hackles for naming colorful crackpot Wayne Anthony Ross to be Alaska's attorney general. It turns out that Palin may have consulted with Ross over a state senate appointment, a move that would have been against state law. As a general matter, state law is something you might want your AG to be on top of.

What I'm wondering is: Has Sarah Palin undergone some kind of secret lobotomy?



Notwithstanding the possibility of secret brain surgery on the governor, Salam is arguably understating the case. As we talked about last week, Palin's on-the-job performance since last year's presidential election has been a train-wreck. (It's apparently getting worse, too, with a new ethics complaint having been filed against her this week.)

What's curious about all of this is that Palin had a more obvious and productive route, which she's inexplicably chosen to ignore. As Chris Orr noted the other day, "Perhaps the most mystifying element of Palin's recent forays into nuttery is that, politically speaking, it would be difficult to come up with stupider way to position herself in the wake of her v.p. run. The base already loves her -- the diehard pro-lifers, the hands-off-mine individualists, the anti-elitist brigades, you name 'em. Where she has (deepening) trouble is with everyone else: moderates, socially liberal libertarians, DC-establishment types, and anyone who places a premium on basic competence."

And yet, Palin has chosen to become an even more rigid ideologue, annoying lawmakers (in both parties) and locking up the support of the GOP's far-right base that already supported her. Reform-minded Republicans like Salam, meanwhile, are left with the impression that the governor is "a clownish, vindictive amateur," after hoping against hope that she'd step up as a genuine Republican leader.

There's simply no logic to this strategy.