Earlier tonight I watched a discussion between Tim Russert, Charlie Cook, Stu Rothenberg and Chuck Todd on Russert's CNBC program. They were analyzing the election, and I found very little to disagree with them about on the specifics of who would probably win, but I did note that they seem to share a very odd opinion about one of the potential effects of the election. They seemed to think that because some moderate Republicans were going to lose their seats as a result of the Democratic wave they see coming, there would therefore be increased polarization in Washington.
Increased polarization? As if it could really get worse than it's been?
This view, of course, ignores entirely the fact that the current polarization in Washington is almost entirely the result of right-wing fanatics having taken over the Republican Party and, through it, the Federal government, and their attempt to totally shut-out the Democrats from any practical involvement with crafting legislation. Those moderate Republicans who are now going to get shoved out the door had the chance to either stand up to their new radical leadership or to leave their party and go independent or join the Democrats -- none of them did. If they had, they might not now be feeling the probable effects of what seems like it might be a virulent anti-Republican backlash. (I'm trying hard not to count my chickens too early, but...)
They chose to stick it out, and they lost. They made their choice and they live with the results. I, for one, was here begging Chafee, Snowe and Collins to come over.
But more than that, the idea that the incoming Democratic Congresspeople are going to be some wild-eyed band of ultra-liberals is just so pathetically wrong that it brands all four of these gentlement as being blinded by conventional inside-the-beltway wisdom. As has been pointed out many, many times on Daily Kos, MyDD and other activist sites, the underlying point of this election is not to elect liberals to office, it's to elect Democrats to office, on the very sound theory that the first step is to throw out the assholes who have been causing all the problems, i.e. the Republicans! That's why you've seen solid netroots support for some not all-that-liberal candidates, because the main idea is to Elect Democrats.
So the Democrats coming in are going to hold a much broader spectrum of views then the contemporary Republican party has since the Gingrich revolution, which means that there are going to be occasions when a number of Democrats are going to side with the Republicans on legislation, perhaps even enough to get it passed. That's not going to lead to more polarization, it's going to lead to less because the Democrats (inherently) don't have the party discipline to enforce ideological polarization the way the Republicans did, and legislation is therefore going to rise or fall on the basis of the collective personal and political views of the Congress, which is (perhaps) how it should be.
That smart guys like Russert, Cook et al. can't see that is wierd -- but no wierder than their perception that Nancy Pelosi is some kind of flaming radical who is going to have trouble relating to incoming conservative Democrats because their politics will clash. Are these guys for real? Do they really see Pelosi as being as much to the left as DeLay and Hastert and those guys are to the right? Are they so completely immersed in the DC culture that they cannot see how far their "center" has drifted under the influence of decades of (brilliantly executed) right-wing propaganda?
Update: One other thing about the Russert program -- between them, they must have mentioned talking to political consultants perhaps 10 times, maybe more, and yet only once (that I can recall) was it a Democratic consultant referred to, the rest were all Republicans. Perhaps because they're generally running behind in this election, the Republican consultants need to "work the refs" more than usual, but the impression given was that these guys (Russert, Cook, Todd and Rothenberg) are pretty damn tight with Republican operatives, and not so much with Democrats.
Now, I'm not disputing the ability of the analysts to be relatively unbiased in their reading of polls and evaluations of the various races, but it does seem to me that they're quite a bit more conversant with the Republican view of the world than they are with the Democratic one, and (even worse) give it more credence. This is unfortunate, not simply because it mght cause them to unconsciously favor the other side rather than my own, but because (as has been amply demonstrated for many years now) the Republican worldview is seriously out of whack with reality, and one thing that political analysts really should have is a clear and accurate view of what's real and what's just bullshit.
I would say that a very serious flaw with today's reporters and other members of the mainstream media is that their bullshit detectors are busted, and they're apparently unable to see right-wing propaganda for what it is until it gets up, crosses the room, and slaps them in the face -- and that's giving them the benefit of the doubt and assuming that they're really interested in uncovering b.s. in the first place.
absolutist
aggresive
anti-Constitutional
anti-intellectual
arrogant
authoritarian
blame-placers
blameworthy
blinkered
buckpassers
calculating
class warriors
clueless
compassionless
con artists
conniving
conscienceless
conspiratorial
corrupt
craven
criminal
crooked
culpable
damaging
dangerous
deadly
debased
deceitful
delusional
despotic
destructive
devious
disconnected
dishonorable
dishonest
disingenuous
disrespectful
dogmatic
doomed
fanatical
fantasists
felonious
hateful
heinous
hostile to science
hypocritical
ideologues
ignorant
immoral
incompetent
indifferent
inflexible
insensitive
insincere
irrational
isolated
kleptocratic
lacking in empathy
lacking in public spirit
liars
mendacious
misleading
mistrustful
non-rational
not candid
not "reality-based"
not trustworthy
oblivious
oligarchic
opportunistic
out of control
pernicious
perverse
philistine
plutocratic
prevaricating
propagandists
rapacious
relentless
reprehensible
rigid
scandalous
schemers
selfish
secretive
shameless
sleazy
tricky
unAmerican
uncaring
uncivil
uncompromising
unconstitutional
undemocratic
unethical
unpopular
unprincipled
unrealistic
unreliable
unrepresentative
unscientific
unscrupulous
unsympathetic
venal
vile
virtueless
warmongers
wicked
without integrity
wrong-headed
Thanks to: Breeze, Chuck, Ivan Raikov, Kaiju, Kathy, Roger, Shirley, S.M. Dixon
recently seen
i've got a little list...
Elliott Abrams
Steven Abrams (Kansas BofE)
David Addington
Howard Fieldstead Ahmanson
Roger Ailes (FNC)
John Ashcroft
Bob Bennett
William Bennett
Joe Biden
John Bolton
Alan Bonsell (Dover BofE)
Pat Buchanan
Bill Buckingham (Dover BofE)
George W. Bush
Saxby Chambliss
Bruce Chapman (DI)
Dick Cheney
Lynne Cheney
Richard Cohen
The Coors Family
Ann Coulter
Michael Crichton
Lanny Davis
Tom DeLay
William A. Dembski
James Dobson
Leonard Downie (WaPo)
Dinesh D’Souza
Gregg Easterbrook
Jerry Falwell
Douglas Feith
Arthur Finkelstein
Bill Frist
George Gilder
Newt Gingrich
John Gibson (FNC)
Alberto Gonzalez
Rudolph Giuliani
Sean Hannity
Katherine Harris
Fred Hiatt (WaPo)
Christopher Hitchens
David Horowitz
Don Imus
James F. Inhofe
Jesse Jackson
Philip E. Johnson
Daryn Kagan
Joe Klein
Phil Kline
Ron Klink
William Kristol
Ken Lay
Joe Lieberman
Rush Limbaugh
Trent Lott
Frank Luntz
"American Fundamentalists"
by Joel Pelletier
(click on image for more info)
Chris Matthews
Mitch McConnell
Stephen C. Meyer (DI)
Judith Miller (ex-NYT)
Zell Miller
Tom Monaghan
Sun Myung Moon
Roy Moore
Dick Morris
Rupert Murdoch
Ralph Nader
John Negroponte
Grover Norquist
Robert Novak
Ted Olson
Elspeth Reeve (TNR)
Bill O'Reilly
Martin Peretz (TNR)
Richard Perle
Ramesh Ponnuru
Ralph Reed
Pat Robertson
Karl Rove
Tim Russert
Rick Santorum
Richard Mellon Scaife
Antonin Scalia
Joe Scarborough
Susan Schmidt (WaPo)
Bill Schneider
Al Sharpton
Ron Silver
John Solomon (WaPo)
Margaret Spellings
Kenneth Starr
Randall Terry
Clarence Thomas
Richard Thompson (TMLC)
Donald Trump
Richard Viguere
Donald Wildmon
Paul Wolfowitz
Bob Woodward (WaPo)
John Yoo
guest-blogging
All the fine sites I've
guest-blogged for:
Be sure to visit them all!!
recent listening
influences
John Adams
Laurie Anderson
Aphex Twin
Isaac Asimov
Fred Astaire
J.G. Ballard
The Beatles
Busby Berkeley
John Cage
"Catch-22"
Raymond Chandler
Arthur C. Clarke
Elvis Costello
Richard Dawkins
Daniel C. Dennett
Philip K. Dick
Kevin Drum
Brian Eno
Fela
Firesign Theatre
Eliot Gelwan
William Gibson
Philip Glass
David Gordon
Stephen Jay Gould
Dashiell Hammett
"The Harder They Come"
Robert Heinlein
Joseph Heller
Frank Herbert
Douglas Hofstadter
Bill James
Gene Kelly
Stanley Kubrick
Jefferson Airplane
Ursula K. LeGuin
The Marx Brothers
John McPhee
Harry Partch
Michael C. Penta
Monty Python
Orbital
Michael Powell & Emeric Pressburger
"The Prisoner"
"The Red Shoes"
Steve Reich
Terry Riley
Oliver Sacks
Erik Satie
"Singin' in the Rain"
Stephen Sondheim
The Specials
Morton Subotnick
Talking Heads/David Byrne
Tangerine Dream
Hunter S. Thompson
J.R.R. Tolkien
"2001: A Space Odyssey"
Kurt Vonnegut
Yes
Bullshit, trolling, unthinking knee-jerk dogmatism and the drivel of idiots will be ruthlessly deleted and the posters banned.
Entertaining, interesting, intelligent, informed and informative comments will always be welcome, even when I disagree with them.
I am the sole judge of which of these qualities pertains.
E-mail
All e-mail received is subject to being published on unfutz without identifying names or addresses.
Corrections
I correct typos and other simple errors of grammar, syntax, style and presentation in my posts after the fact without necessarily posting notification of the change.
Substantive textual changes, especially reversals or major corrections, will be noted in an "Update" or a footnote.
Also, illustrations may be added to entries after their initial publication.
the story so far
unfutz: toiling in almost complete obscurity for almost 1500 days
If you read unfutz at least once a week, without fail, your teeth will be whiter and your love life more satisfying.
If you read it daily, I will come to your house, kiss you on the forehead, bathe your feet, and cook pancakes for you, with yummy syrup and everything.
(You might want to keep a watch on me, though, just to avoid the syrup ending up on your feet and the pancakes on your forehead.)
Finally, on a more mundane level, since I don't believe that anyone actually reads this stuff, I make this offer: I'll give five bucks to the first person who contacts me and asks for it -- and, believe me, right now five bucks might as well be five hundred, so this is no trivial offer.
