What Shoddiness?
The “Martin Eisenstadt” show writes itself. David Shuster and MSNBC are the gift that keeps on giving. Gawker has the blow-by-blow account.
What does it say about the “shoddiness in the traditional news media and especially the blogosphere”? It’s “not that some in the media don’t check stuff on the web. It’s that they’re prepared to believe – and write – anything about Sarah Palin.”
“It’s the Economy, Stupid” Redux
According to Jay Cost at RealClearPolitics.com, one of the sensible metrics “has been more or less operative since the election of 1840: if the economy tanks during a Republican administration, vote Democrat. If it tanks during a Democratic administration, vote Republican.”
Applying this rule to 2008, we get the following. McCain, because he is of the incumbent party, gets the political harm. Obama, because he is of the out party, gets the political benefit. That’s all there is to it.
Since Lehman went belly up on September 15, the markets have gone over a cliff. Which means, with less than a month to go, that Sen. McCain’s fortunes are, largely, “out of his control”. Still, one can’t help wondering about the propitious timing for Dems.
The 95% Myth
Well, if you paid any attention to the increasingly heated political rhetoric from both parties, you would’ve heard ad infinitum, and justifiably impressed by, Sen. Obama’s “tax cut” for “95% of Americans”. Republicans, predictably, take issues with how the Obama camp define “middle class”, be it income below 65k or 43k.
It might be futile handwringing figuring out whether you fall into the lucky 95% bracket.The Economist provides a handy fact check.
[A]ccording to [Obama's] written plans, he really means 95% of families with children, not 95% of Americans. But his real sleight-of-hand is to count handouts administered through the tax code as “tax cuts”. You might think that a tax cut means keeping more of what you earn. The way Mr Obama uses the phrase, however, it can also mean being given a chunk of money that someone else has earned. That is how he is able to offer “tax cuts” to “95% of Americans” when about a third of American households already pay no federal income tax.
So, how can you “cut” zero, you might ask? Well, It’s called a “refundable tax credit”, or “welfare” as it’s known in the real world. Basically,
It involves the federal government taking money from those who do pay taxes, and writing checks to those who don’t.
Mainstreet on Bailout
If MSM reactions are anything to go by, the House has taken a severe beating for failing to pass Paulson’s bailout plan. However, ‘blog chatters’ – dismissed by an assortment of self-styled pundits – seem to tell a different story. Money quote this comment at FT Gideon Rachman’s blog:
[T]his is no longer about a bailout. This is about $3 ATM fees, getting charged $5 for using your credit card in Mexico, and a whole host of other things Americans are upset with their banks about. This is about people being irrationally mad at “Corporate America”. I saw one poll that said a majority would prefer a deep recession (51%) as opposed to this bailout. I don’t think anyone cares about the Dow falling 800 points. It is inconsequential to the average American. They want their pound of flesh. They have tasted blood and will not allow anything similar to this plan to pass.
Blogosphere Enlightenment
We chanced upon this interesting ‘discourse’ and thought it illustrates the “sanctimonious fatigue” from the anti-hicks with what they call “reverse snobbery”, aka culture war.
Self-styled liberal blogger: “Some of us, in fact, don’t give a rat’s ass where she [Ed: Gov. Palin] comes from.”
Commenter: “Really? Did you support Obama over Clinton and Edwards because you liked where Obama wants to take us all next. or because you liked where he comes from?”
Hysteria Watch
Needless to say we love nothing more than the hysteria from the uppity. In all fairness, ivy-educated and self-styled feminists are not the only ones who feel ‘insulted’. Some middle-brow state school ‘progressives’, males and females, are no less sanctimonious, if not more outspoken with their contempt for Governor Palin.
Alas, the splendid irony completely escapes them. As one of our friends points out, in his trademark deadpan tone, “It’s kinda odd that an attractive, relatively devout mother of 5 who by all all accounts is basically together if not Harvard material gets people so bent out of shape.”
Self-serving “News”
In case you’re mired in the financial meltdown, Yahoo News got some timely distraction for you. One of today’s headlines reads, Poll: Obama tops McCain as football-watching buddy.
Eye-catching as it is, however, if you drill down, the devil is in the details.
The AP-Yahoo poll finds that by a margin of whopping (given its margin of error is 2.3 percent) 3 percentage points, Sen. Obama leads Sen. McCain as the choice of football buddy. Of course, people’s preference vary by race, age, whatnot. Well, that’s pronunced, is it not? To say that the AP-Yahoo News’ political coverage is as ‘fair and balanced’ as Fox News is nothing short of a compliment.
Political Nexus of the Fallen
If anything, the glee of a sewing circle over the paroxysms underway in the financial market presents a splendid bit of irony in an otherwise tumultuous week.
On the heels of de facto nationalization of Fannie and Freddie, venerable Lehman Brothers fell on its sword, dying an ignominious death, followed by an eleventh-hour rescue of AIG that “brings on bloodbath”, as investors fear more shoes may drop.
Mind you, this is an election year. The “bewildered” candidates offered standard boilerplate responses. While partisans are parsing whether the economy is “fundamentally strong”, political junkies dig the piles and uncover some interesting factoids.
Deranged Hillary-Hatred
This is also crossposted at the old blog.
Perhaps the specter of credit crunch has got into the heads of political pundits in the media, otherwise how can you explain the popularity of CDS, aka Clinton Derangement Syndrome? The US editor of UK’s New Statesman, Andrew Stephen, eviscerates media’s hideous Hillary coverage in the Dems primaries.
Hillary Clinton (along with her husband) is being universally depicted as a loathsome racist and negative campaigner, not so much because of anything she has said or done, but because the overwhelmingly pro-Obama media – consciously or unconsciously – are following the agenda of Senator Barack Obama and his chief strategist, David Axelrod, to tear to pieces the first serious female US presidential candidate in history.
Not to mention maniacal Obama supporters who seem nonchalant at best, happy at worst, with the way Hillary was treated. Her any action, no matter how innocuous, was “proof of evil intent”. Paul Krugman, NYT columnist, believes that most of the “venom” in the campaign “is coming from supporters of Obama”.
Stephen also pins down Sen. Obama in his complicity in the attacks: “But Obama himself prepared the ground by making the first gratuitous personal attack of the campaign during the televised Congressional Black Caucus Institute debate in South Carolina on 21 January”, contrary to media allegation that it was Hillary who started the negative campaign. Money quote, Read the rest of this entry »
