HaloScan.com - Comments

Yet another pathetic display by the media, who is so determined to prove to the Republicans that they aren't "liberal".
Quintus | 11.17.06 - 8:59 am | #

Well all I can say is THANKS for reading these knuckle-heads and riding herd on all their lies and distortions...So I don't have to read them!

;-)
KarenMcL | Homepage | 11.17.06 - 9:06 am | #

Hmmmm. I must have missed the blog and ended up at Page Six.
shooter242 | 11.17.06 - 9:06 am | #

OT (I haven't read Glenn's post but I can't resist): Charles the Kraut Hammer finally lays it out.

As the WaPo has it:

Charles Krauthammer: It's the Iraqis' Fault

And it always was.

Sigh.
Baldie McEagle | 11.17.06 - 9:06 am | #

"It's what these pundits and journalists do. They have pre-conceived, vapid notions about everything and everyone -- all driven by deep self-love for their own superior wisdom -- and they distort reality and crowd out sober analysis of everything that matters."

Pretty much sums it up perfectly. Somehow i doubt she'll worry too much about the pundits.
hankest | 11.17.06 - 9:11 am | #

Did anybody see the photo essay at WaPo.com on election night? They made Pelosi look like some kind of Nazi Wicked Witch haranguing the crowd, by shooting her from below through the glass podium so that her image was fractured and reflected and her neck wrinkles defined her face. It was genuinely frightening, and no one else got that treatment that night.

So it's clear the Washington establishment hates and fears Pelosi. Expect to hear more bad news about her.

(To be fair, by the same evidence, I don't think they ever liked either Bush, either, or for that matter Clinton.)
Baldie McEagle | 11.17.06 - 9:12 am | #

Charles Krauthammer: It's the Iraqis' Fault

I read that. I didn't write about because (a) I just wrote about this "blame-the-Iraqis" excuse last week and (b) I'm working on an article on punditry dishonesty re: their positions on Iraq, and this is a perfect example.

Krauthammer vigorously supported the war by attacking as bigoted the notion that Iraqis don't have the culture and history for democracy. Now, he is making that very claim in order to evade blame for the war he supported. It's beyond craven and dishonest at this point. They unleashed a devestating and unbelievably deadly war that has no end in sight and the only thing they care about is finding other people to blame for it.
Glenn Greenwald | 11.17.06 - 9:13 am | #

Pelosi's decision to support Murtha was a smart political move no matter what the chattering classes and the MSM says. In the first place she repaid him for the support he gave during her earlier contest against Hoyer for leadership of the House Democrats. That favor has been repaid in full and she has retained Murtha's support for the hard slogging ahead of them.

In addition, this dust-up will be mostly forgotten when House members return to Washington in January. There may still be hard feelings between Murtha and Hoyer but none of that will be Pelosi's cross to bear. They are big boys and they will have to settle their differences without her interceding. She rewarded a friend but she didn't break any arms to punish colleagues who supported someone who is not exactly in her corner.

Pelosi made the right move early enough in the process so that next year her caucus can focus on more important things. She deserves applause instead of criticism. She repaid a political debt to a deserving colleague and no one in the Democratic Caucus who is smart and observant will fail to notice her gesture. This is how a leader builds loyalty.
fogcitynative | 11.17.06 - 9:18 am | #

It's worth wondering why that is.

It's because of the acute misogynistic tendencies of the beltway pundit class. Expect this to continue, relentlessly.

OT, but related. The defeat of Murtha does not bode well at all. It tells me that even in power, the Dems will be easily cowed by media narratives and criticisms. Murtha was Mugged says Justin Raimondo at antiwar.com, and the Dems not only allowed it to happen, but may have facilitated it, betraying the antiwar sentiments of it's voters.

*sigh*
sunny | Homepage | 11.17.06 - 9:19 am | #

It's beyond craven and dishonest at this point. They unleashed a devestating and unbelievably deadly war that has no end in sight and the only thing they care about is finding other people to blame for it.

You are too kind to these people, Glenn. They are not looking only to blame others, but to continue down the path that has been the goal all along. Next stop Iran and Syria. Deflecting blame is part of the process. It's also part of why Nancy is getting the cold shoulder (aside from the sheer childishness of many media types). Nancy is not particularly pro-war, she wants to get rid of Harman, and has rebuffed AIPAC on a number of occasions. She is in the way of more war and must be marginalized.

So the Krauthammers and Goldbergs will do their steady drip drip of disdain, and the MSM picks it up because they are mindless cheerleaders of power.

Sorry, feeling bitter this morning. Don't even care if my tenses don't match!
Svensker | 11.17.06 - 9:23 am | #

Could the blogosphere mount a coordinated full press attack regarding this? Maybe change the conversation from how shallow Pelosi is to how shallow the press it? The press seems to pay attention to significant moves by the blogs. Or maybe they'd just ignore it.
MIke | 11.17.06 - 9:25 am | #

Expect this to continue, relentlessly.

No doubt - Drudge DOES rule their world, and we literally can expect this for the next two years at the very least.

And Svensker, you're absolutely right: This is about moving the ball further down the field in terms of the Middle East, circumventing what the voters have said they wanted. The state of our democracy these days.
Bgno64 | 11.17.06 - 9:28 am | #

My daily type alert: "cross-purposes in the post" should be "in the past."

Substantive comment:

Pelosi is way too tough to be thrown off her game by this nonsense. The Speaker's role is entirely behind the scenes. This commentary is not going to influence her ability to do her job.

But it is very illustrative of how narratives dominate actual facts in the media these days. And a very compelling example of just how sexist the DC culture still is. You can be Sally Quinn or Katherine Graham. But you can't be Speaker.
jayackroyd | 11.17.06 - 9:28 am | #

Thanks again for an excellent post. Honestly, I don't know how folks like you and Eric Boehlert, who both do such a superb job of analyzing and documenting the anti-Dem attitudes in the press, are able to continue sometimes. The attidude about which you write is so pervasive and unrelenting, with rarely an exception that might give critics pause, I don't know how you stop yourself from feeling despair at times. This leads to a question that completely baffles me: Why aren't wealthy folks on the left doing everything possible to create a left=wing media outlet, where honest and independently-thinking people like you could be regular talking heads? Olbermann on MSNBC and Goodman on public access just isn't even close to being enough.....
gerbear | 11.17.06 - 9:28 am | #

Folks, we'd better get used to this because that's all we're going to hear for the next two years. All year all we've heard is how fucked up the Democrats were -- then they swept the election. Now we'll hear about how fucked up the Democrats will be at running Congress. All I hope is that the Democrats pay attention to the people who put them where they are and not to the Beltway bloviators who will try to undermine them at every opportunity.
phil from new york | 11.17.06 - 9:29 am | #

Murtha is a lightning rod. Pelosi made the right choice.

Believe me: I would rather have had Murtha, politically speaking. If that isn't proof positive...
Who'd 'a known | 11.17.06 - 9:29 am | #

Whoops, the Dems made the right choice.
Who'd 'a known | 11.17.06 - 9:30 am | #

They have a whole pre-fab story line running through their lizard-like brains that it was a great victory for conservatives, the Dems are already imploding, it's business as usual. The truth of the matter is that Pelosi doesn't forget loyalty and the rank and file has been warned. The REAL story is about the old Miss, old bigot Trent Lott reclaiming a leadership role.

Ah, the new journalism. Start with the ending you want and then bend the facts (or lack thereof) to fit. Along the same lines, McCain is now a "common sense conservative." I have NO idea what they're talking about.

Joshua Norton | 11.17.06 - 9:31 am | #

worked as cross-purposes in the post

Worked at cross-purposes in the past?
Baldie McEagle | 11.17.06 - 9:32 am | #

First, the law of comments pointing out errors will invariably contain errors proves true in my 9:28 post.

Second, sunny, when you say this "It tells me that even in power, the Dems will be easily cowed by media narratives and criticisms." I think you're mistaken. Henry Waxman is not influenced by media narratives, and he strongly endorsed Hoyer.

We see very little of what goes on in the House. Most of the work is done behind the scenes by staffers, whose primary responsibility is protecting the boss. The internal political work done by the members themselves is all out of the public eye. Pelosi wanted, imo, to have her number two be someone she trusted. The House want her number two to be Hoyer. I don't know why, but there are certainly good reasons for it. They may have wanted a check on her. They may have wanted a backchannel where they could express opposition without repercussions. They may simply owe Hoyer more favors than they owe Murtha.

No way to know. But it is certainly not the media driving this one.
jayackroyd | 11.17.06 - 9:34 am | #

This has everything to do with Pelosi being a woman. "Cat fight" is a typical patriarchal put down to female conflict. Makes it sound petty and oh-so-bitchy instead of what it is...two powerful women in a power struggle.

Expect to see more of this. Just wait until the crazy pundit women get involved. Then it will be really ugly.
Dolly Dagger | 11.17.06 - 9:35 am | #

Believe me: I would rather have had Murtha, politically speaking. If that isn't proof positive...
Who'd 'a known | 11.17.06 - 9:29 am

No, I don't believe you. Steny Hoyer was anxious to give Bush his dirty little wars. In addition, Hoyer was jonny-on-the-spot in support of every creepy weapon Ronnie Raygun dreamed up in his fevered little mind.
sunny | Homepage | 11.17.06 - 9:35 am | #

I was watching c-span this moring. some w supporter called in and claimed that the solution to the iraq mess was to tax the iraqis to pay for the war!!!!

that blew my mind.
euphronius | 11.17.06 - 9:36 am | #

It's a good column. I'm sure sKKKooter and the ilk will ignore the substance for some drive-by shootings and lame attempts to hijack another thread.

Before they wreck it, I will say this:

This is nothing new. This contempt cycles back-and-forth between the parties and both parties have suffered this stupidity for as long as I've followed politics. And within the contempt oscillations between the parties, there is a subset of who gets more scorn: beltway outsiders are more prone to the attacks than insiders.
Moses | 11.17.06 - 9:36 am | #

To underscore what Glenn is saying, all one has to do is go to 'Google News' and search "Pelosi".

The results this morning: Pelosi's "foe" has become #2, "Pelosi backslides on ethics", "Will Pelosi Continue Catfight with Harman?", "Whither Pelosi", and "Powerless Pelosi".

As Glenn states, it's all manufactured by the punditry, based on group-think, and will be repeated ad naseum by the MSM until (they hope) it will be accepted by the "confused" American majority that supports her.

One week after the election and 2 MONTHS before serving as Speaker, Pelosi has already become "powerless". That tells you everything you need to know about the beltway bitchboys.

This ridiculous trashing of Pelosi is based SOLEY on her being a woman & a Democrat. THAT'S what makes her "powerless" and "backsliding" and has "foes" in the eyes of the ever-ridiculous punditry.
My Sweet Old World | 11.17.06 - 9:37 am | #

The REAL story is about the old Miss, old bigot Trent Lott reclaiming a leadership role.

Yes, that is bigger story, and one that bodes ill for the GOP. The Southern Strategy was meant to add the South to the Republican constituency, not replace it. They're well on the way to making themselves a regional party, and Lotts return epitomizes this.
jayackroyd | 11.17.06 - 9:37 am | #

Great post, Glenn. But what I've been wondering is this: there was a ton of slime about Murtha floating around in the press once they got wind of his nomination--where was it all coming from? It seems that someone was really frightened at the prospect of Murtha getting nominated, because I saw more clips out there of grainy ABSCAM footage than I did of Trent Lott being a bigot--and the latter is surely far easier to find.
. | 11.17.06 - 9:38 am | #

The only good things about the Pelosi story is that no one outside the cocktail weenie circuit honestly gives a sh-t.
rumpole | 11.17.06 - 9:39 am | #

the solution to the iraq mess was to tax the iraqis to pay for the war!!!!

That's already been discussed. The idealogues that Bush sent over to rebuild Iraq (with their freshly minted college diplomas) spent most of their time arguing about how to implement a flat tax in Iraq, rather than doing anything actually constructive about rebuilding the country.

Joshua Norton | 11.17.06 - 9:44 am | #

A. It's because she's a woman. The Washington pundits prefer cowboys.

B. They're just practicing for when Hillary runs for president. Pelosi is their practice dummy.
Jeff | Homepage | 11.17.06 - 9:44 am | #

Makes me think about the inevitable Hillary Clinton run.

I believe Americans are ready for a woman as President - Democrats at least.

But I don't think the all knowing guardians of the discourse are.

I watched the election returns on MSNBC, and when Hillary won her race and gave her speech, Bill was standing behind her applauding. Chris Matthews just went totally wacko. At a time when there were dozens of race results coming in, he seemed to think of nothing for the next hour but "how weird" it looked for her to be in front of Bill, and that "this is a problem that she has to solve right away". The story for the night wasn't the Democratic landslide, it was the surreal image of a woman in front.

Same thing for Obama. Do we really believe, no matter how deep his "rock star" qualities, these same pundits are going to let a black man punch thru? No way.
Joe Briefcase | 11.17.06 - 9:48 am | #

Has anyone ever told Timothy Noah that demonstrating your moron stupidity in public is not the way to advance your career?

Unless of course you're an otherwise-unemployable would-be New York "intellectual" working for other otherwise-unemployable New York intellectuals. Then you all sit around and give each other a circle-jerk, which is what all this stuff about Pelosi is.

Proof that an overeducated idiot is still an idiot.
TCinLA | Homepage | 11.17.06 - 9:53 am | #

Is it just me or does Marty Peretz sound like an idiot. "...where Pelosi's vanity goes, there, apparently, the House Democrats will follow." Even if you accept that Pelosi's support of Murtha was done for her "vanity" did Peretz not notice that the House Democrats did not "follow" it. Murtha lost. Is this the same illness that causes people like Dick Morris to claim that Murtha was so much more liberal than Hoyer when the opposite is true?

Digby's post on this subject was great but to me the best part was when he pointed out that after five months, president Clinton was featured
in Time as screwing up big time because he got a 200 dollar haircut and allowed a Hollywood producer to work out of the White House. For this Time quotes an anonymouse "longtime friend" to say Clinton has "squandered his moral authority" to which Digby says "And moral authority is about haircuts and Hollywood, not torture and illegal wars." Talk about the Freak Show.

Digby also points out that Gingrith's choice for majority leader was defeated by Tom Delay without all this handwringing by the press. Unfortunatly it looks like the Dems chose the liberal doppelganger of Delay in Hoyer.

How about this one for Slate "reporter" Noah:

"Noah's animus toward Pelosi is cloudy and in all likelihood personal." That statement is just as true as what Noah claimed about Pelosi. How does she like it?

Pacific Views blog has an excellent post about torture today. It makes the imporntant point that one of the affects of a society condoning torture is to drive good people out of participating in the governing of that society because they want no part in condoning torture themselves. It also talks about how people who have been tortured are more prone to torture other people if given a chance. The whole issue is one big viscious circle.

Great work Glenn.
Paul | 11.17.06 - 9:54 am | #

It is especially ironic that the pundits are declaring Pelosi in trouble already when she hasn't even taken office, while they gave George Bush a free pass for years -- and they still aren't calling him for gaffes like re-nominating Bolton and a group of rejected judicial nominees, none of whom have a snowball's chance in hell of being approved.

I guess if you are a Republican office-holder you are not expected to win every battle, or even be reasonably competent. If you are a Democrat, you have to demonstrate supreme competence dating back to the early 70's.

What this actually demonstrates is that the only committment to "bipartisanship" in Washington, DC, these days, is completely internal to the Democratic party, where decisions are made by largely uncoerced votes.

Meanwhile, in the GOP, the arm-twisting methods pioneered by DeLay are still being employed.
Charles | 11.17.06 - 9:56 am | #

A little off course, but someone mentioned Hillary.

I will not vote for her if she runs for president. She was prowar, and as far as i can tell is still prowar and pro sending more troops.

May as well vote for McCain, due to the fact it will be less political damage to him (think Nixon meets Mao) if he pulls us out of Iraq, he may do it sooner than Hillary will. And McCain is certainly a stronger or at least more vocal advocate of controlling greenhouse gases.

I pray Hillary doesn't run. Gore/Webb is my dream ticket.
hankest | 11.17.06 - 9:59 am | #

Jeff: Your summary is succinct and accurate. I hadn't thought of your point B, but I think you're definitely correct.

Glenn:
Did you not mention the sexism angle in your post because you don't think it's actually involved, because you didn't think of it at the time, or for some other reason?

Do male readers take you less seriously if you call something misogyny, for instance? Jeff seems to be able to do it without threat to his precious bodily essence.
Doctor Science | Homepage | 11.17.06 - 9:59 am | #

Marty Peretz encapsulates the reasons for the critcisms of Pelosi in his comment, "Pelosi is rather svelte, which Bella was not. Pelosi also doesn't wear a big-brimmed hat." These attacks are all about her gender. It's been said before and will remain true these folks are shallow sycophantical supporters of what they perceive to be the status quo. I'm from San Francisco so I am familiar with Pelosi's shortcomings but being a woman is certainly not one of them. That being said I agree with jayackroyd that Pelosi will not be threatened by this. The classy and effective way she handled the shit shoveling by the Republicans before the election showed me she is up to the task. I think the Republicans and the pundits both fail to understand that when they attack her simply for being a woman they are attacking 51% of the population. Like all the black folks who had no problem seeing the racism in the RNC's anti Ford ads most women will understand the underlying reasons for the media's and the Republican's unsubstantiated attacks. Keep it up you retrograde geniuses, you're cutting off your own legs by doing this. By the time the Democratic Congress starts uncovering the Republican's malfeasance and corruption the 'battle' for House Majority Leader will be very old news indeed. Oh, and shooter and who'duh'known please keep it up with your trenchant comments. You are really doing your party proud! First claiming a Democratic Senate win in Connecticut and now the election of a House MAJORITY Leader as wins for your side is the kind of conservative thinking I can live with...
Les Izmore | Homepage | 11.17.06 - 10:02 am | #

What this actually demonstrates is that the only committment to "bipartisanship" in Washington, DC, these days, is completely internal to the Democratic party, where decisions are made by largely uncoerced votes.

To the beltway pundits, "bipartisanship" means the Repubs never have to say "I'm sorry", while Dems must constantly do so.
sunny | Homepage | 11.17.06 - 10:03 am | #

What's conspicuous by its absence in all these media analyses of Pelosi, is any input by people who've been there. There must be a couple still living Democratic ex-speakers who could provide some insight.

Hell, at least get some ex-house members to talk about what an incoming congress goes through and why. Ironically, Joe Scarborough as a member of an incoming congress in 1994 taking the Majority should know a bit more about this stuff than any other Gang of 500 types. If one can trust his opinions to be objective...

We can certainly speculate and opine as to the wisdom of a speaker backing a losing majority leader candidate. Yet if she had her way, and Murtha had won, no doubt the CW parrots would be complaining about the 'dictatorship' Pelosi was running in imposing her will to have an unpopular majority leader installed.

I doubt she can "win" in their eyes. I'm waiting for them to start analyzing 2008 and somehow concluding that winning congress in 2006 will hurt the democrats' presidential chances in 2008.
Dan D | Homepage | 11.17.06 - 10:03 am | #

I also note Harry Reid is not undergoing any similar level of derision. He's an incoming first time Majority Leader with the narrowest margins possible and a possible defector in his caucus. That should warrant some idle speculation and gossip no?

Can it really be that because he's a man he doesn't get the same nonsense thown his way? It is difficult to conclude otherwise.
Dan D | Homepage | 11.17.06 - 10:06 am | #

Hey. Fair's fair. After all, the press did the same thing to Newt Gingrich in 1994 when his preferred candidate for Majority Leader was rejected by his party.

Oh. Wait a minute ....
Galloping Goose | 11.17.06 - 10:06 am | #

Sorry, looks like Noah is a he not a she. And I meant Gingrich's.
Paul | 11.17.06 - 10:07 am | #

Obviously, the Washington Press Whores--I mean, corps--write for each other, each vain narcissist striving to outquip the other, each hoping for a high five and a "good job, mate" from their professional colleagues at cocktail hour that evening in the local watering hole. The ultimate validation for them, of course, is to be greeted by first name at social occasions by our public servants who think they're kings over us.

(No wonder Steven Colbert's evisceration of the Washington Press Corpse--I mean, Corps--was greeted largely with silence by this cadre of lackeys...they either recognized, shamefully, that Colbert had nailed them for their obeisance to and collusion with power, or they refused to recognize this truth and simply felt insulted that Colbert could mistake their intrepid "truth-telling" as anything less than heroic and essential to the continuance of civilization.)

They're like a bunch of nerdy high school outsiders--hell, the ARE nerdy high school outsiders--who so wish to be insiders, to be "cool," that they adopt the attitudes of the insiders--the power elite--and express a bullying and snide contempt toward any they perceive to be antipathetic to the in crowd they so wish to be part of.

They're not purveyors of serious commentary, but mindless repeaters of gossip and received, or conventional, wisdom...almost always utterly bereft of any trace of wisdom at all.

Pathetic wankers, the bunch of them.
Robert1014 | 11.17.06 - 10:09 am | #

Glenn, I think you need to cut the media some slack here. Nancy Pelosi was always going to have a hard time of it, given that she is following Dennis Hastert into the Speaker's chair -- only Henry Clay can be compared, right?

Anyone who has watched Mr Hastert "read" the inspiring words of that other great Illinois Republican, Abraham Lincoln, from the stage of the Kennedy Center while being accompanied by Aaron's Copland's soaring music could not fail to make the connection. Among Democrats, only Carl Albert could have competed in oratorical skill.
DeWitt Grey | 11.17.06 - 10:11 am | #

It's what these pundits and journalists do. They have pre-conceived, vapid notions about everything and everyone -- all driven by deep self-love for their own superior wisdom -- and they distort reality and crowd out sober analysis of everything that matters.

With this post, Glenn returns to what has become his vocation: destroying the myths that prop up “conservatism” in this country, myths that have been ingrained into our basic political discourse and that will take years, and a lot of work, to expose and destroy.

Some of these myths are so prevalent that even some liberals have adopted them, and the language used by conservatives to describe them. Certainly, the mainstream pundits and journalists have, and the extent to which they have is the subject of this post.

The myth of the “liberal media” has been one of the most effective of the “conservative” myths, and is used to deny reality, facts, evidence and the truth about their movement. Glenn’s last post was the double standards of how extremism was treated by the media, today it’s the double standards in how our political parties are treated.

Another myth I hope Glenn takes aim at is the myth of the “conservative as victim” – another one that has been particularly useful in intimidating the media too.

In a letter to the New York Times today, a reader demonstrated how David Brooks recent column “The Heyday of Snobbery” (column, Nov. 16) helps perpetuate that myth.

Glenn today is attacking the “snobbery” of the media elite, but not from the typical “conservative” point of view.

Brook’s tried to paint “snobbery” of the media and pin it to all “non-conservatives” as that of “blue America snobbery” – you know, something that “conservatives” don’t do. In short, Brooks tried to support the “persecution complex” of conservatives when, as Glenn’s post shows, the exact opposite is true.

As the letter pointed out, Brooks “plays right into the conservative movement’s carefully groomed spin of red-staters as sincere, God-fearing “real” Americans who are constantly pushed around on the playground of politics by godless, America-hating blue-state bullies.”

Poor conservatives, just can’t get a break from our snobbish “liberal media”……Another myth Glenn is in the process of deconstructing.
zack | 11.17.06 - 10:13 am | #

Glenn Greenwald,

Right, I'm under no illusions that either Murtha or Hoyer are somehow squeaky clean, what with all their lobbyist ties and time spent in Washington. However, if that slime was coming from Hoyer, then in a just world, he should be ashamed of himself, (and he obviously isn't...) or exposed for it.

Which, you know, will probably never happen given the media we have today. They'd never even think to ask the question--ABSCAM was 26 years ago, so why dig it up now, and who dug it up? Why not talk about something more recent and relevant instead? At least Murtha wasn't running on Hoyer's K-Street ties, let alone waging a secret slime campaign against him based on whatever skeletons he might be able to dig up from 25+ years ago.
. | 11.17.06 - 10:15 am | #

Glenn's right. Murtha's ethics have been called into question on a number of occasions, and apparently rightly so. But he did take a brave stance on the war. If you're looking for a poster boy for the newly-empowered Democrats, he's probably not it. And in the end the war isn't the only issue on the table.
89A | 11.17.06 - 10:15 am | #

If Pelosi hadn't supported Murtha, we'd be inundated with stories about how ungrateful she is to her supporters, how he could have won if she had made an effort...yes sir, yes sir, three bags full.

You know the drill.

Joshua Norton | 11.17.06 - 10:23 am | #

Michael Steele "brillant and independent"? Noonan is nuts. The man is a huge failure and corrupt. He lied about being asked to head the RNC. Do some research Peggy.
Md voter | 11.17.06 - 10:27 am | #

Dude, the pundits are getting worse all the time. They seem incapable of serious or intelligent discourse anymore. Last weekend they were all aquiver because there were two entire candidates for the job of House Majority Leader, as if having more than one person want the job and having people split over who should get it was the most amazing thing in the history of politics. And, of course, if Pelosi's choice didn't win, they speculated about how deeply damaged her Speakership would be.

The Washington pundit corps resembles nothing so much as monkeys screaming over a handful of bananas while the zoo is burning down.
DBK | Homepage | 11.17.06 - 10:39 am | #

Glenn,

I agree with your post. So much of this media narrative, I think, is attributable to sexism. It shows how far we have to go as a society.

That said, Pelosi's choice of Murtha and rumored choice of Hastings seem tin-eared at best. Their ethics baggage --(Murtha: abscam, earmarks, etc. Hastings: impeachment as a judge for bribe-taking) should exempt them from consideration.

Democrats have been handed a unique opportunity to deliver the reform the American people clearly want. It would be stupid to squander that chance. The media and public are bound to scrutinize the speaker's first actions -- more harshly because she is a woman. Her early decisions will set the tone for her regime. It will not be a long one if she does not heed the lessons of this election. Solutions for Iraq and clean government are imperative.
Raj | 11.17.06 - 10:40 am | #

tweety's got my vote so far of how internalized the fear is ofa woman in charge:

MATTHEWS: Will she go that far? I haven‘t heard that yet. ...

MATTHEWS: Is she going to castrate Steny Hoyer if he gets in there?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15713961/
linda | 11.17.06 - 10:40 am | #

Glenn,

Once again I find myself impressed with your ability to concisely expose, summarize, and then dismantle the Republican talking point of the week. Well done.

Is any other evidence needed that the TNR is in the faithful service of the GOP apparatchiks, when they so dutifully parrot the Rove spin of the week? It's laughable that they think anyone would consider them anything but an online mouthpiece for the Republican Party any longer.
melior | 11.17.06 - 10:41 am | #

She's not even Speaker yet, and they've already pronounced her to be a bitchy, vindictive shrew incapable of leading because she's consumed by petty personal bickering rather than serious and substantive considerations. And all of this is based on nothing.

why are they picking on Nancy Pelosi?

simple answer: she's a woman.

the whole catalogue of criticisms against her in this case is rooted in conventional patriarchal stereotypes of feminine challenges to masculine hegemony.
./
WoodyG'sGuitar, Rogue Scholar | Homepage | 11.17.06 - 10:42 am | #

Hello Glenn,

Great article (as usual)!

Nit: Did you actually mean "vassals" for "vessels" above?

.
ManOnBlog | 11.17.06 - 10:43 am | #

I think her move was brilliant. She expressed publicly support for Murtha, satisfying the base of people who like him on the war, while she privately knew that he'd never get enough votes to win, making sure his ethics problems did not come to the forefront.

Brilliant, saavy move. If this is a sign of things to come, then Pelosi is going to be a very effective Speaker.
Disgusted Beyond Belief | 11.17.06 - 10:44 am | #

Great stuff but one thing about Harmon:
"I think Harman -- who was one of the most aggressive defenders of the President's warrantless eavesdropping program ("both legal and necessary," she repeatedly chimed) and is currently under investigation for her work on behalf of AIPAC"

Harmon says what she was briefed on was legal.

Harmon:
"And number two, now that there are allegations in the press about broader activities, I think our intelligence committees, which are leadership committees selected by the leadership of people who, I believe, are all capable of holding the nation's deepest secrets — I think our full committees deserve to be briefed"

In this interview and others Harmon says since the newspaper articles on the scope of the program came out she thinks maybe she wasn't briefed on the whole program. Before she says anything is illegal she needs to be told the facts. sounds reasonable. And the aipac thing is trash. That's a rove planted story.
hadenough | 11.17.06 - 10:46 am | #

The storyline is pretty simple and getting awfully tired, at least to me:

If Rebulicans do x it shows they're strong, healthy and in the right.

If Democrats do x it shows they're weak, divided, and ready to drop dead as a party.

It doesn't seem to matter in the slightest what x is.

The treatment of the Hoyer/Pelosi divide vs. the Gingrich/Delay slugfest is a typical example.
Bullsmith | 11.17.06 - 10:47 am | #

The pundits' distaste for Pelosi is a function of 2 things:
1)As Svensker said: They are not looking only to blame others, but to continue down the path that has been the goal all along. Next stop Iran and Syria. Deflecting blame is part of the process. It's also part of why Nancy is getting the cold shoulder (aside from the sheer childishness of many media types). Nancy is not particularly pro-war...
Many of the pundits you've cited want to neutralize Pelosi because she is unenthusiastic about using America's military might for the benefit of the Likud faction in Israel.

2)The more effete the line of work, the more relentless the misogyny. This I've found even within the mining industry. It was never the drillers, truck drivers, etc. who I had to watch out for in mining -- it was the guys with graduate degrees who were continually laughed at by the former group(s). Aside from the entertainment business, there are few lines of work less macho than print journalism. The normative backstabbing frivolity of the pundits' work lives has turned them into sour woman-haters, who are taking out their petty frustration on the women who aspire to power: Pelosi & Clinton most notably, but they were quick to deride Harriet Miers too.
Fluffy | 11.17.06 - 10:49 am | #

yes the media is dumb, veers to the center-right, and would rather report on some stupid personal rivalry or scandal and political gamesmanship than on actual issues that affect the American people. The best antidote is clear: the dems need to start at day one by implementing their agenda, passing bill after bill.

The media would still prefer to talk about '08 and whether Hillary's haircut plays well in Idaho, but if the dems are passing minimum wage and prescription drugs and holding hearings on profiteering, etc., the MSM will give those topics a minute or two of air-time also.
aviatrix | 11.17.06 - 10:50 am | #

That said, Pelosi's choice of Murtha and rumored choice of Hastings seem tin-eared at best

The notion that Pelosi would choose Hastings if she didn't choose Harman is tied solely to his being second in seniority to Harman. Pelosi's response to a question asking about Harman's status as ranking member was "There is no seniority," which is, of course true. Committee assignments, while often following seniority lines, are at the pleasure of the (unanimously elected) Speaker.
jayackroyd | 11.17.06 - 10:50 am | #

But what I've been wondering is this: there was a ton of slime about Murtha floating around in the press once they got wind of his nomination--where was it all coming from? It seems that someone was really frightened at the prospect of Murtha getting nominated, because I saw more clips out there of grainy ABSCAM footage than I did of Trent Lott being a bigot--and the latter is surely far easier to find.

In a word, Hoyer, the Blue Dogs, the DLC, and perhaps the Clintons. I.e. those elements in the party who either felt threatened by a Pelosi-Murtha alliance, or who viewed Hoyer as a better advocate for their agendas. This was pure "inside baseball" internal party politics, that the MSM was largely clueless about in its repetitive spin about how this was a major bonehead move by Pelosi that seriously undermines her authority and shows how disarrayed the Dems still are, blah blah blah.

Cynical or not, the Pelosi-Murtha-Hoyer "fight" for majority leader was simply internal party democracy in action--i.e. what happens, or should happen, in a diverse, vibrant, "big tent" party like today's Democratic party, as opposed to what has been going on in the GOP since 1994, which is top-down authoritarianism imposed with a thug-like severity. Pelosi and Murtha lost, Hoyer and the Blue Dogs/DLC won, life will go on, no one has been fatally damaged. Geez, you don't have to be Joe Klein to get that (and yes, that was a joke).

I'm completely with Glenn on this. The MSM completely mischaracterized what really happened in the fight for majority leader, be it due to their breathtaking idiocy and cluelessness, or, more likely, their craven desire to appear to be so much smarter and cooler than any stuffy old reality-based reporter and pundit could ever hope to be--i.e. the triumph of truthiness over truth. And since this is still the dominant mode of "reporting" and "analysis" in the MSM, it is neither widely diverged from let alone openly challenged by those within it and hoping to retain their positions within it. It's an empty and vacuous echo chamber that has far more to do with the biases, agendas and moral and ethical failings of those participating in it than with actual reality.

In any case, I find it interesting that so few in the MSM have touched upon what's really going on here, namely, that having won the majority, there is now what was bound to be an inevitable struggle for control of the party's goals and agenda--and perhaps even soul--between, roughly, the "go along to get along" "centrist" and "moderate" faction of pro-business DLCers and Blue Dogs like and led by Hoyer and Harman, who have been so effective in enabling if not promoting so many horrible Bush/GOP policies (e.g. the war, bankruptcy bill, tax cuts, NSA wiretaps, etc.), and the more reform-minded progressive and liberal faction led by Pelosi, Conyers and Rangel (but not, interestingly, Murtha, who on everything but the war is quite conservative and pro-business).

THIS is BY FAR the more significant struggle within the party, not just in the house but in the senate and beyond, that will to a large extent affect what happens in the 100th congress, and the MSM has been strangely silent about this, be it due to its cluelessness, or because it's simply not seen as being "sexy" enough.

Or, perhaps, because they've been directed to spin the news this way by their pro-business overlords in the MSM and beyond, to avoid giving the reform wing of the party any legitimacy--i.e. discredit Pelosi et al by making her and them seem like extremist liberal harpies who are too clueless and hysterical to be fit to lead the party let along congress and the country (it's the Dean "scream" all over again).

I'm betting that it's mostly the latter, mixed in with a little bit of personal bias, idiocy and the desire to reduce this serious struggle for power within the party to the level of a personal catfight between serious adults and crazed adolescents. The MSM and its corporate owners feel threatened by the progressive wave that's sweeping the country, and is fighting mightily to keep it at bay, on many, many, many fronts. And that is, I believe, what is essentially going on here.
Kovie | 11.17.06 - 10:56 am | #

Fantastic post. Those out to destroy Pelosi will take a page from the playbook used to destroy Harold Ford in Tennessee. Appeal to anxieties about the "other" and imply that the person being targeted has qualities that are most feared by the dominant race/gender. They scored big by playing on white's fears of black sexuality. Now they plan to attack by appealing to male fears of powerful (read "emasculating") women.
It's so tried and true. Wins every time and it will triumph again unless people have the sense to see through it. I wish the media would begin to criticize on substantive grounds, but the urge to entertain and hit that hot button of gender/race/religion is just to tempting for them. Thanks for calling them to account for this, Glenn.
CarolynC | 11.17.06 - 10:56 am | #

If you are fed up with the Washington media establishment and its compulsion to toady to reactionaries while savaging Democrats, one real blow to the system would be for progressives in the DC area to cancel their subscription to the Washington Post. If enough people took this step, the rag would be out of business and the DC commentariat would have a nice object lesson to remind them why sucking up to the enemies of progress isn't such a hot idea after all. Everyone who reads this post and is in a position to do so, please consider taking this step. The Post deserves it for carrying Bush's water for so long.
Frank Sinatra | 11.17.06 - 10:56 am | #

Glen great point about vapid notions of pundits and journalists to distort reality and crowd out sober analysis of everything that matters.

Here's latest case in point. Why aren't pundits and journalists calling Bush on this ?

Bush vs. Robert McNamara's Lessons from Vietnam

Bush
• freedom takes time to trump hatred.

McNamara's 11 lessons from "The Fog of War"
• We misjudged then — and we have since — the geopolitical intentions of our adversaries ... and we exaggerated the dangers to the United States of their actions.
• We viewed the people and leaders of South Vietnam in terms of our own experience ... We totally misjudged the political forces within the country.
• We underestimated the power of nationalism to motivate a people to fight and die for their beliefs and values.
• Our judgments of friend and foe alike reflected our profound ignorance of the history, culture, and politics of the people in the area, and the personalities and habits of their leaders.
• We failed then — and have since — to recognize the limitations of modern, high-technology military equipment, forces and doctrine...
• We failed as well to adapt our military tactics to the task of winning the hearts and minds of people from a totally different culture.
• We failed to draw Congress and the American people into a full and frank discussion and debate of the pros and cons of a large-scale military involvement ... before we initiated the action.
• After the action got under way and unanticipated events forced us off our planned course ... we did not fully explain what was happening and why we were doing what we did.
• We did not recognize that neither our people nor our leaders are omniscient. Our judgment of what is in another people's or country's best interest should be put to the test of open discussion in international forums. We do not have the God-given right to shape every nation in our image or as we choose.
• We did not hold to the principle that U.S. military action ... should be carried out only in conjunction with multinational forces supported fully (and not merely cosmetically) by the international community.
• We failed to recognize that in international affairs, as in other aspects of life, there may be problems for which there are no immediate solutions ... At times, we may have to live with an imperfect, untidy world.
• Underlying many of these errors lay our failure to organize the top echelons of the executive branch to deal effectively with the extraordinarily complex range of political and military issues.

As I told you, I am not going to comment on President Bush," McNamara said, patting his briefcase. "I refer you again to the 11 principles. You apply them! ...You don't need me to point out the target. You're smart enough!"
km4 | 11.17.06 - 10:59 am | #

Never watch AM network crap; turn on NBC this morning, volume down low, headline on screen: "one week later: Democrats in disarray" Nora O'D droning pointlessly.....W.T.F?

Why bother with these fools? No serious discourse, of course.
Jay Ell | 11.17.06 - 10:59 am | #

Actually, the punditry just relies on stereotypes and makes every action a person makes fit the stereotype they have. That's why there is the "cat fight" between Pelosi and Harman - both are women. I remember someone - I think it was Chris Matthews, but not sure - saying that Pelosi's post-election interview with Brian Williams didn't have the "screeching" of her campaign appearances. Of course, there would be a difference in voice level between a one-on-one interview and a speech at a campaign stop. But the "screeching" fits a stereotype of a woman and a liberal.
BC | 11.17.06 - 10:59 am | #

Michael Steele would be a positive gift to the Democrats had he become head of the RNC. This is a guy who shipped in homeless out-of-state people to hand out leaflets falsely advertising him as a democrat and lying that he had the endorsement of several black community leaders.

It's even better than having a closeted gay man lead the RNC, to have a Republican who once claimed to be a Democrat.
Dan D | Homepage | 11.17.06 - 11:01 am | #

Is the focus when it comes to this question really to be placed upon the media and pundits or is it more appropriately addressed to the sell-out of the popular will by the new Democratic Congress. Here's a link that says it right:

http://antiwar.com/justin/

We've got the accent on the wrong syllable.

John Lowell
John Lowell | Homepage | 11.17.06 - 11:01 am | #

Nancy Pelosi, and really everyone, would be well-advised not to listen to them and, above all, never adopt as a goal trying to please or satisfy them.

I'm certainly in accord with that sentiment, but I do think Madam Speaker would be well-advised to get out ahead of this developing narrative.

One opportunity to do so would be to start clearly enunciating her opposition to Harman, and her reasons therefor.
brautigan | 11.17.06 - 11:02 am | #

The pundits are spinning "Pelosi"s loss" because they wanted Murtha to win in order to flesh out their "corruption is a bipartisan" story line. The allegations against Murtha come as no revelation to his opponents and the MSM, yet he has become the most powerful antiwar voice and administration critic, with little or no comment on his past problems. Indeed, Murtha's hawkish past enhances that voice, while 26 year old ethical allegations have little relevance to the underlying antiwar message.

However, elevating Murtha to a leadership position would also fairly raise the relevance of his ethical issues, which would at very least be a distraction for his opponents to seize upon, and could possibly silence Murtha altogether.
Lawstsoul | 11.17.06 - 11:02 am | #

The right wing thinks that having differences of opinion is a character flaw. Mature adults see it differently.

The democrats had two good candidates for majority leader and they picked one. Of course, that's just normal behavior——except to authoritarian thugs.

That's a big difference between democrats and the guys who lost.
Publicus | 11.17.06 - 11:02 am | #

And even as the media is already pronouncing Pelosi's speakership to be "doomed" because of a typical leadership battle, they aren't trying to spin the revival of the titanic Boehner-Blunt Majority Leader rivalry in the House GOP as evidence of the GOP House Caucus's allegedly fragile state.
Phoenix Woman | Homepage | 11.17.06 - 11:02 am | #

Harmon says what she was briefed on was legal.

Not quite. Well after the NYT revealed that Bush was eavesdroppçing without warrants, she kept going all over the media defending that, insisting that "the program is both legal and necessary," evne though it unquestionably was not the former and almost certainly not the latter.

She has backed off that claim some, and has gotten a little better (many believe because of her spirited and somewhat-well-backed primary challenge), but her insticts are all wrong and not at all the Intelligence overight force which is so desperately needed.
Glenn Greenwald | 11.17.06 - 11:03 am | #

Right on point! I also (oddly enough) find myself in concurrence with Who’d ‘a known.

CREW has been a critic of Murtha for a while now. CREW has been associated with the left by some in the media, yet Murtha was high on their list of Congressman to keep an eye on. He is also much more politically conservative than the majority of the caucus (Not saying that the balance is a necessarily bad thing).

As far as the lightening rod comment, there is definitely substance to that. If, for no other reason, Pelosi’s promise to “drain the swamp.” Now I know Murtha has not been convicted of any offense, but he is a target- which will likely lead to undo scrutiny to the new house leadership and their promises. Remember, we were all up in arms about Delay, Ney, Rove/Scooter et. al., for their roles in less than above board and/or illegal activities. This is the same reason I don’t want to see Hastings in a chairmanship (the perceived acceptance of impropriety, convicted or not).

You have to be able to objectively look at your own back yard, before proceeding (with any real credibility) to effectively change the climate or culture of corruption in DC.
Propulgate | 11.17.06 - 11:03 am | #

As a start, I'd recommend never again watching TV news. The lion's share of this nonsense comes from the televised chat groups that the networks try to pass off as expert commentary.
Horatio | 11.17.06 - 11:03 am | #

Great Green Globs of Greasy Grimey Gopher Guts!!
Could it be that so few media sources of truth exist??
Thanks, thanks, thanks be to the Greenwald line!
Nancy Willing | Homepage | 11.17.06 - 11:04 am | #

It seems raj beat me to it.
Propulgate | 11.17.06 - 11:05 am | #

To show how messed the MSM is, even Tom Delay is giving Nancy props for her win and I wouldn't have believed it if I didn't see it.... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/20...- r_n_34154.html

Thankfully the big difference between then and now - BLOGGERS!! YAY!
HereWeGoAgain | 11.17.06 - 11:05 am | #

Harmon says what she was briefed on was legal.

In addition to Glenn's comment, the Gang-of-8 includes then Minority Leader Pelosi who thus ostensibly has the same information as Harmon, and is making an informed opinion about her suitability to lead the Intelligence committee.
Dan D | Homepage | 11.17.06 - 11:08 am | #

From Timmy Noah:

"Let Pelosi remain speaker for now. But let her know that, before the new Congress even begins, she has placed herself on probation."

Weird, isn't it, that after she split the Democrats by backing Murtha, she was elected Speaker unanimously? Fifty-one percent is a mandate, but elevation to Speaker by acclamation is probation? Put down the crack pipe, Tim.

Committee assignments, while often following seniority lines, are at the pleasure of the (unanimously elected) Speaker.

Exactly. People have already forgotten the pre-Hastert era, when the Speaker wasn't just a sock puppet for a gray enema, er, eminence like Delay. House Dems unanimously granted Ms. Pelosi the power to order many things as she sees fit (though one should logically engage in horse trading if one wants support for legislation). If only I could go on that sort of probation at my office.
mds | 11.17.06 - 11:08 am | #

jayackroyd,

Yup. Pelosi is not limited to choosing between the two. Word is that Silvestre Reyes (sp?), who is third in line to succeed Hoekstra, might be Pelosi's pick. If he's qualified and doesn't come with his own serious ethical issues, then this would be a smart move by Pelosi as it would not only bypass the need to choose between two very imperfect people, but would also score her points with the Latino caucus in the house and party (and beyond). Plus, having picked Clyburn to be whip, she will not have to worry about the CBC for bypassing Hastings. But no way should Harman become Intel chair, after her spineless support of the warrantless wiretap program. That would not only be wrong, it would be dangerous. And then there's this brewing AIPAC scandal...

Pelosi is a LOT smarter, tougher, shrewder and more competent than most give her credit for. Which, perhaps, can work in her favor the way that being "misunderestimated" benefitted Bush (until even the MSM realized that it was a well-deserved reputation, which is not the case with Pelosi). History is full of people whom no one took seriously until they were proved quite wrong (for better or worse). E.g. Lincoln, FDR, Truman, Reagan, Bush II.
Kovie | 11.17.06 - 11:08 am | #

Nancy Pelosi was simply in a good old fashion political fight in an arena called democracy; She did nothing wrong.

She went public for Murtha because she knew he didn't have the votes and she hoped that going public for Muthra would add enough votes for him to win. Simple.

She wanted Murtha for #2; She didn't get it.

The votes have been taken. There are winners. There are losers.

Now move on.
James | 11.17.06 - 11:09 am | #

The organization of the House and Senate are up to the members. This is a much ado about nothing, and considering the nonsense the beltway pundits treated us to for years, you have to wonder if many of them wouldn't be better suited to commenting on the wrestling circuit.
I suppose this is the basic "let's you and him(her) fight" and they get to write about it, but this is absurd and most ought to know better.
qwerty42 | 11.17.06 - 11:10 am | #

Kovie,

Agreed--if the MSM hasn't buried the lede here, then that's just because they can't find it in the first place. Keith Olbermann on Countdown had some good analysis and criticism of the horribly bad coverage this has gotten, but that was about it--I think he may actually be the only newsman left on the so-called cable news stations.
. | 11.17.06 - 11:10 am | #

Glen, breathtaking, as usual, up until the last two sentences. please explain to me why it is better to ignore this crap, and let it hang out there unchallenged, than to confront it immediately and forcefully at every opportunity.I believe that Barney Frank last night did a masterful job of just that on the news hour in response to this very thing.I'm convinced that the democrats should make it about the media at every opportunity, constantly challenging the frame of weak and feckless dems as often as possible jim olson
Jim OLson | 11.17.06 - 11:19 am | #

Glenn,

For those not up to speed on why Harman is so unsuited to head the Intel committee due to her support of, or at least lack of principled resistance to, the warrantless wiretap program, here are a couple of DailyKos diaries that I wrote earlier this year about her that offer some more detail:

Jane Harman to Face Primary Challenger
Open Letter to Rep. Jane Harman and Democratic Leaders

This all began, of course, after her awful performance on Meet the Press earlier this year in which she made the remarks that you refer to.
Kovie | 11.17.06 - 11:20 am | #

Thanks for expressing what I was thinking and doing it so well. Please note these are the same "media" who are critizing OJ Simpson for writing a book while giving him and his book even more air and print coverage than Nancy Pelosi, George W. Bush, etc. put together.
marilyn | 11.17.06 - 11:22 am | #

In the dotage of the Roman Senate, pretty much all votes were unanimous. That's not to say everyone always agreed. But to be on the losing side of a vote was a sign of weakness and, very literally, dangerous. Votes were canvassed in secret, and the public vote was not held until everyone knew the outcome. The final vote would be unanimous. That is a sign of a very sick system.

It is a sign either of great power, or a healthy system, to be willing to be on the losing side of a vote. Pelosi can count. She clearly knew Murtha wasn't going to win, and she publicly supported him anyway. That is a sign of great confidence and security. Lets not forget that Pelosi was elected unanimously. That the talking heads are portraying what has happened as a sign of weakness is either shameful, stupid, or both.
shargash | 11.17.06 - 11:23 am | #

In recent years, "the media" in the royal sense of the word has come to hold a pretty low approval rating among the American public.

Media elites with their giddy inside jokes, gossipy chit-chat and glittery cocktail parties have NO concept of what goes on outide of the Beltway. They have no consideration or respect for what the average American thinks is newsworthy.
Stinky | 11.17.06 - 11:23 am | #

General comment on Pelosi:

I respect her. I think she's got an excellent chance of doing some good work, and she's the right person at the right time. I think in general Democrats like her, but no one is in awe of her, which is a good place to have her. Democrats will not treat her as a god, but she has earned a good measure of respect.

If you look at DailyKos straw polls on Pelosi over the last year, she generally did not do so well in approval rating among internet activists. That has gone up significantly, of course victory does that. Except Emmanuel's still net negative.

I hope she's the left's answer to Margaret Thatcher. I do think we can't say enough about how good it is that a woman will be in such a prominent and powerful position finally, and that no one can claim she didn't get there on her own merit.

In Canada, we had a female PM briefly in 1993 when our conservative PM Mulroney stepped down, and the party chose Kim Cambell so she became PM by virtue of leading the majority party in parliament. It was too easily perceived as pandering to female voters and maybe it was (I can't really claim to know). Pelosi was an embattled Minority leader who got there on her own steam in an era where Democrats were dirt. She (among others) led her party to victory.

Pelosi ain't perfect, and she's not one of our natural favourites - she's no Feingold, Dean or Wellstone, but she's credible and generally on the side of angels. She's what we've got and I frankly like our chances.
Dan D | Homepage | 11.17.06 - 11:23 am | #

Who is Nancy Pelosi? Who is Steny Hoyer?

What is a Majority leader?

Murtha, we've sort of heard of him.
most of america | Homepage | 11.17.06 - 11:24 am | #

I agree with zack @ 10:13 am

Glenn is doing an excellent job in dispelling the myths that permeate the air waves and internet tubes.

Dispelling the liberal media myth shouldn't be as difficult as it's been, when even Republicans admit, that there's not really a "liberal media".

"I admit it," he told a reporter. "The liberal media were never that powerful, and the whole thing was often used as an excuse by conservatives for conservative failures." - Bill Kristol

"I've gotten balanced coverage, and broad coverage--all we could have asked. For heaven sakes, we kid about the 'liberal media,' but every Republican on earth does that" - Pat Buchanan
AkaDad | 11.17.06 - 11:25 am | #

I find it interesting that so few in the MSM have touched upon what's really going on here, namely, that having won the majority, there is now what was bound to be an inevitable struggle for control of the party's goals and agenda--and perhaps even soul--between, roughly, the "go along to get along" "centrist" and "moderate" faction of pro-business DLCers and Blue Dogs like and led by Hoyer and Harman, who have been so effective in enabling if not promoting so many horrible Bush/GOP policies (e.g. the war, bankruptcy bill, tax cuts, NSA wiretaps, etc.)

This is THE issue. The uprising of the grassroots has them all in a tizzy, to the point where Carville gets unhinged on CNN. The netroots, immature and undeveloped as it is, had a much larger effect on this election than anyone expected. Dean's decentralization strategy threatens the DC elite. The combination of the two is a force to be reckoned with.

You can respond, as Schumer did, by recognizing that the playing field has changed. Or at least saying so.

Or you can respond in the way the traditional media has, and as Carville did, by minimizing the effect of the uprising of the grass roots. This is a short term, self-defeating strategy, as all their strategies seem to be. Despite the media's message supporting the republicans, minimizing the democrats, people voted. They saw through the spin. This weakens the ability of the media to transmit the spin. When people say they are getting their news from The Daily Show, you have to realize that means they don't find the "real" news as accurate or useful. When people, like me and millions of others, turn to the internet as a news source, the MSM message is further marginalized.

The response of the DC insiders-- media, consultant, and elected official all--is to villify the opposition. But their audience is shrinking, and they're starting to sound shrill.
jayackroyd | 11.17.06 - 11:27 am | #

"she kept going all over the media defending that, insisting that "the program is both legal and necessary," "

She keeps saying the program she was briefed on was legal. Not what was reported but what she was briefed on.

Here is Harmon from your link:

HARMAN: All right. Well, first of all, the program we were briefed on in a very closed environment in the White House, with no staff present, on a basis that we could not discuss it with anyone, was basically a foreign collection program.

Shorter Harmon:
"the program we were briefed on"... "was basically a foreign collection program"

She says she was briefed on a "foreign collection program" and she also says she thinks it is legal.

Then:
HARMAN: My concern about the nature of the briefings, now that the program has been disclosed by the president, which is the only basis on which I could discuss anything with anybody else...

All she can discuss is what bush has talked about. The program she was briefed on and what bush talked about she thinks is legal. Not what was reported in the papers but what she was briefed on.

Now here is the money quote:
"HARMAN: Well, the foreign collection program that I know about I believe is legal and necessary. If in fact, as some of the newspaper stories allege, there is a domestic surveillance program going on, my view is that the law requires that domestic surveillance only be done pursuant to a court order, either with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court or the criminal court."

The program she knows about she thinks is legal. She says she doesn't know about the program reported in the papers. And what about the stuff the papers reported:
"If in fact, as some of the newspaper stories allege, there is a domestic surveillance program going on... my view is that the law requires that domestic surveillance only be done pursuant to a court order"
hadenough | 11.17.06 - 11:28 am | #

Great post Glenn; keep it up!
tompaine | 11.17.06 - 11:29 am | #

let's just be honest: it's because she's a WOMAN.....they'd do the same thing (and worse) to hillary........
darladoon | 11.17.06 - 11:30 am | #

Qwerty42:

The organization of the House and Senate are up to the members.

If you are implying the public should have nothing to say about it, I disagree vehemently. That would mean we have nothing to say about Lott being elected Whip for the Senate Republicans. He is a reprehensible choice and non-racists everywhere should oppose him. I am willing to accept critical thought of the Democrats' choices in those matters when it means we can rebuke the Republicans for theirs.
Dan D | Homepage | 11.17.06 - 11:32 am | #

I'm convinced that the democrats should make it about the media at every opportunity, constantly challenging the frame of weak and feckless dems as often as possible jim olson

"there oughta be a law against them com'n around."

i'm sort of serious about that. we should not forget that W could not have lied us into this war without the media airheads. accountability, in media and in government. i'm not sure how that squares with the 1st amendment...
most of america | Homepage | 11.17.06 - 11:32 am | #

I think he may actually be the only newsman left on the so-called cable news stations.

Yup, and the operative word here is indeed "left", because he seems to be one of the few journalists "left" who aren't afraid to wear their left-leaning politics on their sleeve, while at the same time not allowing it to improperly bias their news reporting.

But I wouldn't quite go so far as to say that Keith was the only one "left". David Gregory has really been grilling the administration, David Schuster generally (but not always) does a good job of investigating stories, and Jack Cafferty has been pretty good at calling the GOP's BS (although he seems to be more of a Menkenite curmudgeon than left-leaning). Even Lou Dobbs has been pretty hard on the GOP (when he's not promoting his pro-business agenda or himself).

But Keith is definitely as good as it gets in terms of anchors right now, leagues above the rest. He really deserves his own network (to which he could bring the two Davids and Jack among others) as his talent and integrity is really wasted on the otherwise forgettable MSNBC (which is mostly about pundit froth, pretty young female "reporters", and endless shows about jail, violent crime, missing white women and pedophiles--it is the news version of pornography, in a nutshell).
Kovie | 11.17.06 - 11:32 am | #

I have a question. With respect to all the media and pundits currently focused on the shortcomings of Nancy Pelosi, did we hear anything from these same pundits for the past six years about Dennis Hastert and his performance as Speaker?

Hastert was one of the worst Speakers in memory, and these same pundits ignored him, his policies (or lack thereof), and his legacy.

Perhaps Hastert's Do-Nothing, Know-Nothing style and substance is just what these pundits expect out of their lapdogs in Congress.

Pelosi threatens them. They react in their instinctive, libidinal way. I think Nancy has them right where she wants them -- her substance is a thing with which they are not familiar.
MD | 11.17.06 - 11:34 am | #

Other accomplishments that can only be ascribed to Nancy Pelosi's "terrible defeat:"
1. She stole the entire news cycle from Preznit Bush, traveling aimlessly abroad.
2. She introduced her diverse leadership team to a larger American crowd than would have paid attention had there been no "divisive fight"
3. She gave House Dems who needed a way to show their indpendence from her "SF liberal values" a very early out with constituents: I voted for Pelosi, but defied her in my very first vote!
4. She showed how the House Dems operate differently from the GOP
5. She showed America her brand of "personal loyalty" in contrast to W's.
6, (And this one is a mistake) She enabled TradMed to skip right over the return of the horrid Trent Lott to the Senate GOP leader team. But don't worry, he'll step in it again, and soon.

Thanks for this compendium of TradMed Beltway awfulness, Glenn. Unlike AC360, you really are keeping them honest!
TeddySanFran | 11.17.06 - 11:35 am | #

Great post, Glenn. So many sources
keep documenting the atrocities of the pundit class - yet they continue to spew the slime with little or no consequenses.

So how do we hold these people accountable? Or how do we get the message out beyond the netroots?
Hank | 11.17.06 - 11:35 am | #

On his radio show, Sean Hannity said that Pelosi now has no credibility because Murtha wasn't chosen.

Now if someone suggested to Sean that Bush no longer had any credibility because Harriet Miers nomination to the Supreme Court had to be withdrawn, how well do you think he would take that?
m.b.f. | 11.17.06 - 11:36 am | #

JIM OLSON - Glen, breathtaking, as usual, up until the last two sentences. please explain to me why it is better to ignore this crap, and let it hang out there unchallenged, than to confront it immediately and forcefully at every opportunity.

I obviously don't think the punditry garbage should be ignored, given that I write about it frequently, and just did again today.

I mean that Pelosi and Democrats in Congress should ignore it. It is not well-intentioned or wise advice that they give. Beltway Democrats often end up trying to show the Fred Hiatts and David Broders and TNRs that they are the good, responsible leaders (as they define it), and that is when they run into big problems. Republican leaders ignore editorial boards and unfriendly pundits and Democrats should, too.
Glenn Greenwald | 11.17.06 - 11:37 am | #

HADENOUGH - She keeps saying the program she was briefed on was legal. Not what was reported but what she was briefed on.

The program she was briefed on whas the NSA warrantless program. All she is saying is that there may be other programs - such as ones eavesdropping on domestic communications - that she wasn't briefed on, but the one she was briefed on (the NSA program at issue) is the one she repeatedly defended as both "necessary and legal."
Glenn Greenwald | 11.17.06 - 11:39 am | #

jayackroyd,

I agree with everything you wrote--especially the parts where you agreed with me. ;-)

Seriously, though, this is about a political insurgency, not just on the left but in general, and neither the political or party maintream nor the MSM are dealing with it well. Which is to be expected, and fought every step of the way. The country's and party's politics are being shifted to the populist progressive left, and they are scared to death of this, and reacting to it in a totally expected and unsurprising way. They will lose.
Kovie | 11.17.06 - 11:39 am | #

Glenn, the word is "sexism." See also "sexist," "misogynist," "patriarchal," and "anti-woman." None of those terms appear anywhere in your essay. They've got nothing, so they're after her strictly because she's female. It's really obvious from the language they're using.

Just the fact that they're calling her "powerless" when she hasn't even assumed power yet is the key. She has too much power already for their liking, and so they've got to get the "powerless Pelosi" narrative going, if only to make themselves feel better. Right now, a female Speaker-elect has them way outside their comfort zone, and we all know they love the status quo, especially if it fits them like an old pair of fuzzy slippers.

What we have here is a bunch of male punditoids who are getting nervous because someone's taking a sledgehammer to the glass ceiling. Just wait until the Ladies Against Women brigade weighs in.
Interrobang | Homepage | 11.17.06 - 11:40 am | #

With respect to all the media and pundits currently focused on the shortcomings of Nancy Pelosi, did we hear anything from these same pundits for the past six years about Dennis Hastert and his performance as Speaker?

i am convinced it is because she is a woman. men still don't think that women can do a "man's" job, plain and simple.

else, why are they so obsessed with her face, her hair, her eyes, her nose, her suits, her "cat fights," her purses, her make up, etc, etc, etc...

no politician DC is ever subjected to such ridiculously irrelevant scrutiny....

as greenwald says: "Based on nothing"
darladoon | 11.17.06 - 11:41 am | #

Kovie,

Yes, I should probably qualify my original remarks a bit--when I said that Keith "may actually be the only newsman left on the so-called cable news stations", I was thinking in terms of anchors, and I probably should have said so. Of course David Gregory and David Schuster are actual news reporters. Cafferty and Dobbs of course have their own biases, but they are pretty honest about that, at least.
. | 11.17.06 - 11:43 am | #

First, let me say I am no expert on internal House rules.

But, in an interview of Pelosi, she was asked about the House Intel Committee, and its chairmanship.

She didn't mention Harman, Hastings, or Reyes.

She said, "There is no seniority on the House Intelligence Committee; its entire membership is open for review in each session, and we'll certainly be looking at that."

The implication was that Harman, Hastings, and/or Reyes might not even be on the Committee, much less act as Chairman.

This is what I heard her say; I don't vouch for its accuracy.
MD | 11.17.06 - 11:47 am | #

But but but...Nancy's so bitchy and assertive! And she's from San Fracisco!

I think I'll start a pool on when we'll begin seeing the L word used to describe the next Speaker of the House.

In Hillary's case, it started in the spring of '93 when she was working on health care reform...
Barton Keyes | 11.17.06 - 11:48 am | #

the beltway media will turn us all into ranting bob somerbys.
cedichou | Homepage | 11.17.06 - 11:53 am | #

if nancy were a typical, straight, white male, would CNN run stories like this:

http://mediamatters.org/items/20...ms/ 200611170001
darladoon | 11.17.06 - 11:57 am | #

Glenn,

Why did you refrain from specifically describing the punditocracy's characterizations of Pelosi as sexist or misogynist in this post? Did you feel the sexism factor was secondary, and that her sex was simply used as a weapon because it was available?

You were still monitoring the comments section as of 20 minutes ago so I hope I'll reach you on this.
Fluffy | 11.17.06 - 11:57 am | #

Of course, the pundits within the Beltway are "out of touch with everything that matters and should be treated as such," as Glenn writes in his latest post. The herd of independent minds got their plum positions to pontificate by lock-stepping in line with their corporate editorial leaders. Above all they want to hold on to these precious columns of opinion , which validate their careers in journalism rather than incisive and insightful commentary. And above all, the pundits want to remain at the top of the corporate heap where they can bask in the glory of their position.
george hoffman | 11.17.06 - 12:01 pm | #

Excellent post, as usual, Glenn.

Nancy Polosi is a powerful woman, still a problem with many US males.

If Bush and Cheney should die or become incapacitated, Peolosi would be president. This is a problem with many US Conservatives.

Pelosi, moreover, is a powerful, post-menopausal woman. She is of the age when, in our culture, woman become invisible. And, to make it even worse, she is an attractive, post-menopausal woman. My theory is that people are more comfortable with a unattractive (by Hollywood standards), older woman. Think Golda Meir, Madeline Albright, Margaret Thatcher.

I would prefer that my granddaughter NOT become a politician, but if that were her inclination and talent, then I am glad that Nancy Pelosi is available to her as a role model.
Eclaire | 11.17.06 - 12:02 pm | #

In Bizarro-world, right wing freaks have convinced (once again) the Beltway Book Club crew that well, since they have just been soooooooooo harsh on the poor widdle Republicans and poor widdle Preznit Bush Jr, now they have to 'prove' their independence by being unhingedly harsh on the Democrats.

And the Beltway reporters love it, because they hate liberals and liberalism (I won't even mention leftism so that any one of them reading this may not faint) and this fake 'balance' now gives them a publicly justifiable reason to hate on liberals.

The major media hated, hated, hated having to criticize Bush Jr. and the Republicans.

They love conservatism because they THINK that the biggest shots of the corporate world (whom they idealize above all humanity) love conservatism.

Now the major media have been giving exactly what they wanted: an excuse to stop being critical of Bush Jr. and the Republicans and, most of all, conservatism (which means now ethno-nationalist capitalist fundamentalism).
El Cid | 11.17.06 - 12:03 pm | #

The Murtha/Hoyer contest wass handled very smartly. Pelosi knew exactly what she was doing, and the inhabitants of Minas Pundit (still clutching the palantír in their hands focussed on the White House) got it all wrong as usual--and on purpose.
Jack Murtha is a hero out there. The crusty old conservative Democrat, the Pentagon's Pal, who stood up for the troops and said bring them out, and who got shat upon, has tremendous resonance with the voters. He's a good choice for VP in '08.
Steny Hoyer--even politically aware folks don't know much about him, partly because he's never stuck his neck out on anything. He's an insider, and well liked. He had the support in Congress for being majority leader. He was going to win.
So what did bad-leader Pelosi do? She supported Jack Murtha, rewarding a popular hero. It didn't change the outcome; Steny got his post; Jack got the public show of support; the voters felt that Nancy did right by their favorite.
When it comes down to it, it was about as substantive as a state delegation at a national convention casting the first ballot for a favorite-son candidate.
And the kewl kids just showed their true colors.
pbg | Homepage | 11.17.06 - 12:07 pm | #

if the punditocracy has no evidence to support their claim that pelosi is "damaged goods," then can we not fairly assume that at least some modicum of sexism or misogyny is fueling their criticisms? otherwise, why all the emphasis on her fashion, her make up, her emotions? similar criticisms are almost never used against men....
darladoon | 11.17.06 - 12:10 pm | #

I think there are three reasons that this has been such an issue for the media:

1) As mentioned in several comments, sexism is a huge factor. There would be no mention of castration, catfights, or outfits if a man were involved.

2) A general acceptance of Republican views and rejection of Democratic views among the punditry. (By the way, Glenn didn't mention anti-Democratic bias explicity, but that doesn't mean that he's ignoring it. Both the sexism and the anti-Democratic bias are implicit in the post. So, give him a break about not using the word "sexist.")

3) The press loves a winner. Pelosi's candidate lost. The first two points would still be in play even if she "won" (i.e. if Murtha had been elected), but I think there would have been less of a feeding frenzy.
Science_Guy | 11.17.06 - 12:16 pm | #

pundits are rich. they know what side the bread's buttered on. They are the ones getting money from the abolition of the estate tax (FRIEDMAN?) they are the ones winning out on the capital gains cuts.
they dont worry about health care, or their son dying in Iraq, or the choice between gas to get to work and prescriptions.
The American pundit class has the blood of 600,000 iraqis on their hands. they should all be fired.
feckless | 11.17.06 - 12:28 pm | #

Glenn,

Big Tent Democrat has written a diary at Dailykos on your treatement of Harnan you may wish to read and possibly address.

I am in general agreement she is a poor choice for Intelligence chair but I think he has a point on saying Harman has never explicitly said warrantless domestic wiretapping is legal.

In the comments is my analysis of what seems to be Harman's problematic definition of what constitutes "domestic" wiretapping - namely exclusively calls between American citizens on American soil.

Also her opposition to the program is best described in air quotes with a sneer. It's the epitome of equivocal technically plausible but substantively weak and milquetoast non-opposition opposition.
Dan D | Homepage | 11.17.06 - 12:29 pm | #

Now, now, it isn't just sexism. After all, you never hear them criticise Condi like that. I think that to them, it's just another weapon they can use to subtly slime someone, in a way that many readers might not even overtly recognize.
. | 11.17.06 - 12:30 pm | #

That's called an "election," and only those to whom Eric Alterman refers as the "smart boys" at TNR and Slate would view a simple election for House Majority Leader as some apocalyptic sign that Democrats are lame, idiotic and hopelessly divided.

They're reaching. They are desperate to paint the Dems as being "losers" to deflect away from their huge election losses. It's very childish. When Tom Delay is acting like the grown up, you know you've got a problem.

It's also why they're painting Murtha as slightly to the left of Che Guevarra. They are somehow claiming that the house Dems have repudiated the "leftist fringe wing" of the party. (As we all know, Murtha is gets an A rating from the NRA and a 0 rating from NARAL - not exactly a raving leftist.) Ask them tomorrow, however, and they'll tell you that the entire Dem party is a bunch of socialists who just won't admit it.

Like Glenn points out, they'll say whatever is convenient at the time, and not bother to remember that what they said five minutes ago was contradictory.
Kristin | 11.17.06 - 12:37 pm | #

That should be "Che Guevara" in my last post.
Kristin | 11.17.06 - 12:39 pm | #

Why did you refrain from specifically describing the punditocracy's characterizations of Pelosi as sexist or misogynist in this post? Did you feel the sexism factor was secondary, and that her sex was simply used as a weapon because it was available?

I don't think my readers need to have their hands held and have their faces shoved in every obvious conclusion. I frequently compile evidence that I think makes a case and leave it to the reader to draw their own conclusions.

I compiled the evidence based on what I thought was going on and those selections made extremely clear that I think there is a substantial amount of sexism motivating this commentary. That's why I said things like:
_______________________

- She's not even Speaker yet, and they've already pronounced her to be a bitchy, vindictive shrew incapable of leading because she's consumed by petty personal bickering rather than serious and substantive considerations. -

- Their overseer, Marty Peretz, surveys his decades-deep familiarity with American politicians and decides that Pelosi reminds him of . . . . . of all people . . . . Bella Abzug. After he notes the many important and serious differences between the two -- "Pelosi is rather svelte, which Bella was not. Pelosi also doesn't wear a big-brimmed hat" -- he says that neither of these women can "discern between a political difference and a personal war. So if it was the former, it quickly also became the latter."

- . Yet Pelosi does nothing other than support an ally rather than an opponent for the position immediately underneath her, and that makes her some out-of-control egomaniac consumed by personal vanity and emotional impulses.

- It's now an article of Beltway faith that Pelosi opposes Harman because of what is being referred to as a personal "cat fight" between them, arising out of purely personal issues (like they both wore the same dress to a Capitol Hill event and Pelosi has never forgiven Harman).

-Washington is full of all sorts of personal conflicts and animosity that drive personnel decisions of every type, yet somehow and for some reason, in Pelosi it's depicted as some unique and glaring flaw. It's worth wondering why that is.
________________

Would it really add a lot to say "This is sexist"! The reason why it appears so clear is because the excerpts I chose on purpose make that case. That, to me, is a much more effective way to demonstrate its presence than to just throw around all the standard terms that would persuade nobody other than those already inclined to believe it.
Glenn Greenwald | 11.17.06 - 12:39 pm | #

I can agree with parts of Glenn's post this morning. Hastings as Chairman of the Intel Committee would send a message that would be incredibly wrong. Murtha has some old and newer ethics issues that apparently don't preclude his reelection to the House, but give some members some heartburn over his elevation to a more visible leadership position. It's the swamp thing. Harman isn't sufficiently vicious opposing Bush's anti-terrorism efforts for Pelosi's tastes so she must go.

I find it amazing in this bright new dawn of Democratic control of Congress that the Democrats are seeming to eat their own so soon and organs like the NY Times are suddenly discovering the existence of ethics issues on the part of Democrats and that cut and run may actually not be the best policy for Iraq. Wonders never cease.

Glenn's last paragraph says it all for the opinion conservatives had of the agenda based media and pundits leading up to the election. Their bias was clear and they gave the Democrats a MAJOR assist in winning the election. How can you turn on them so quickly?
daleyrocks | 11.17.06 - 12:43 pm | #

Oh, yeah, Pelosi chose 'Abscam' Murtha (ethics reform is 'total crap') and impeached judge Alcee Hastings for their merits, and not because of personal ties and business as usual horse-trading. Curse those beltway types for not realizing what pillars of integrity they're trodding upon!

Pelosi has made a disastrous misread of the mood of the electorate and engaged in politics as usual. Alcee Hastings and John Murtha have indulged in criminal (yes, criminal) behavior - in Murtha's case, he was saved by the personal intervention of Tip O'Neill, and in Hasting's case, he was impeached and removed from his judgeship.

And Pelosi HAS begin her leadership...that's what this is all about. It's a shame you attack the 'belway' types for actually believing the Democratic rhetoric about the 'cleanest Congress' in history, rather than condemn the sleazy political deal-making behind the Murtha and Hastings choices.
Mark Coffey | Homepage | 11.17.06 - 12:46 pm | #

That, to me, is a much more effective way to demonstrate its presence than to just throw around all the standard terms that would persuade nobody other than those already inclined to believe it.

i certainly wouldn't disagree with this statement, but just saying, "this is sexist!" is not exactly the sort of depth for which we cared. ethnographic observations and textual analysis are two ways to gather data and make conclusions, which you have done, as always, quite carefully. however, it's the, "what's the point of all of this?" type of question at the end which will take us to the next level. but i guess that's why we have a "discussion" or "comments" section.
darladoon | 11.17.06 - 12:49 pm | #

Re: wealthy folks on the left--Why didn't Soros buy ClearChannel??????

Too late now-and per segment on NPR this moring, Bain will probably follow in the footsteps of other arbitrageurs and borrow to the hilt, pay themselves well, and leave a debt-burdened communications company--which then might not be a good buy for anyone...except Murdoch? He doesn't mind losing money for his ideology.
jawbone | 11.17.06 - 12:50 pm | #

A few things to keep in mind. Murtha is ethically challenged, 'the prince of earmarks.' He and Hoyer both voted for the Bankruptcy bill.

Let's not get carried away with the idea that these people are knights in shining armor. They're corrupt in the way that the political system corrupts most politicians. Until we get public financing of elections, that won't change.
dubiousraves | 11.17.06 - 12:50 pm | #

The response to the "cool kids" is simple: go after their jobs. This isn't 1999. Left leaning moderate commentators who look down on Dems are not exactly sought after. On TV, Olbermann is showing what a principled liberal can do for ratings. On the web, same deal: how many clicks does Micky Kaus get compared to, say, Atrios?

Arguably, the single biggest audience for these jerks are Democrats themselves. How long will it take for Shumer and Pelosi to realize who their friends are - the "cool kids" or the blogosphere? They can start by asking Howard Dean who had has back after "the scream." The Netroots will fight to the death for them. And they'll need it. They'll learn soon enough.

The netroots needs to go for the jugular with these people. Their audience is NOT huge. Sure, Ignatius and Broder are safe - but the rats down at the Note? They are nothing. With sustained attacks from bloggers, they WILL change their tone.
owenz | 11.17.06 - 12:50 pm | #

After all, you never hear them criticise Condi like that.

The sexism takes a different form there. Condi isn't criticized because Condi is not, like Pelosi, tough, strong and in opposition. It's telling that they call her "Condi" and call the future Speaker "Pelosi." Noah's bizarre comparison to Bella Abzug is a comparison he would never make to Condi. Condi's an enabler, which is an approved female role. Pelosi is a back room brawler, which is not an approved role.
jayackroyd | 11.17.06 - 12:52 pm | #

Amen Glenn!! They've been up to this crap at least as far back as Carter--Dems don't even get to be actually **IN POWER** before the attacks start.
tikistitch | Homepage | 11.17.06 - 12:52 pm | #

Mark Coffey,

Please don't tell me that you actually believe all that. I should have stopped reading after you pulled out the most recent fake smear quote used to slime Murtha.

And incidentally... you *do* know that Murtha didn't get the job, right? Or that Pelosi isn't running the show yet? Actually, can you contribute *anything* to this discussion that isn't a smear, or baseless speculation, or both? Why don't you start by showing us where Pelosi 'chose' Hastings--can you find a quote?
. | 11.17.06 - 12:54 pm | #

Curse those beltway types for not realizing what pillars of integrity they're trodding upon!

you mean like they did when hastert was elected speaker???? ;)
darladoon | 11.17.06 - 12:54 pm | #

In my previous comment I misattributed the Bella Abzug comment. It was Marty Peretz, as per Glenn. (I read the Noah piece, not Peretz, and conflated the two.)
jayackroyd | 11.17.06 - 12:55 pm | #

jayackroyd,

Right, so it's not just pure sexism or misogyny--there's an agenda at work there, too, and I'd argue that it's more of a political agenda than anything else.
. | 11.17.06 - 12:56 pm | #

Olberman says pretty much the same:

Countdown sifts through the mud: Our Liberal Media bias on Pelosi…

http://www.crooksandliars.com/20...bias-on-pelosi/
Moses | 11.17.06 - 1:00 pm | #

As much as it sickens me to admit it, I'm beginning to lean towards turning a blind eye toward some of our right-wing terrorist "friends" who were advocating blowing up certain media outlets. I certainly wouldn't bother to stop them.
Capt Obvious | 11.17.06 - 1:00 pm | #

ARMSTRONG WILLIAMS' SQUINTING FRIENDS
The GOP gave Armstrong Williams some NCLB money, but they sure aren't giving him any respect.
Armstrong Williams wrote, in 2002:
http:/www.townhall.com/columnists/ ArmstrongWilliams/2002/12/10/ again,_gop_drops_the_ball_on_the_race_issue

Again, GOP drops the ball on the race issue
By Armstrong Williams
Tuesday, December 10, 2002
... In 1948, Sen. Strom Thurmond ... declared that "All the laws of Washington and all the bayonets of the Army cannot force the Negro into our homes, our schools, our churches." Ultimately, Thurmond captured 39 electoral votes and carried Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana and South Carolina. It was one of the most successful third-party bids in this nation's history ... Trent Lott recently said that the Unites States would have been better off if Thurmond had actually been elected president in 1948 ... Lott went on to express pride in the fact that his home state of Mississippi supported Thurmond's 1948 presidential bid. "We're proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years, either." ... Our Republican leaders cannot keep squinting their eyes to Lott's racial insensitivity.

"Insensitivity" is such a nice word for such vile language. Apparently, Armstrong Williams' friends in the GOP can indeed keep squinting their eyes, as he puts it.
sysprog | 11.17.06 - 1:01 pm | #

Could someone please tell me how to turn off the italics at the end of the sentence to be italicised? I have no problem getting it going, it just always affects the entire post.

Thanks.
Who'd 'a known | 11.17.06 - 1:02 pm | #

Someone mentioned Condi. To be fair, I thought there was some unfairness in her being lambasted for shoe shopping during Katrina. She's Sec-State and has 0 to do with domestic disaster recovery.

That said, there's a shred of validity to it, as President Nero was almost literally fiddling while New Orleans sank. But I do wonder if the attention was paid to Condi mostly out of that she was a woman shopping for shoes.

Did paparazzi hunt down every Bush cabinet member?

The sexism does go both ways, though Democratic women get it worse.
Dan D | Homepage | 11.17.06 - 1:04 pm | #

Why, all of a sudden, is the vilest sort of racism not newsworthy?
sysprog | 11.17.06 - 1:05 pm | #

Could someone please tell me how to turn off the italics at the end of the sentence to be italicised? I have no problem getting it going, it just always affects the entire post.

Begin - 

End - 

But without the spaces in between the brackets.
Glenn Greenwald | 11.17.06 - 1:07 pm | #

If someone else has posted this, my apologies. Here's a C&L link to Olberman's coverage of this. Much savvier and more accurate than anything I've seen on CNN or in other media sources.
jayackroyd | 11.17.06 - 1:09 pm | #

Close HTML tags with a forward slash.

sysprog | 11.17.06 - 1:09 pm | #

I am in general agreement she is a poor choice for Intelligence chair but I think he has a point on saying Harman has never explicitly said warrantless domestic wiretapping is legal.

I refer you once again to her appearance on MTP earlier this year:

HARMON: I still support the program, but it needs to be on a sounder legal footing, and I think the Gang of Eight process violates the National Security Act of 1947, which requires that, unless it’s a covert action program—Congress, that means the two Intelligence Committees—have to be fully and completely briefed.

I.e. it's not Bush's refusal to get warrants that troubles her, but his uwillingness to fully brief congress that does.

HARMON: This is not a covert action program, this is a very valuable foreign collection program, and I’m—I think it is tragic that a lot of our capability is now across the pages of the newspapers.

Anyone who claims that publicizing the fact that we listen in on phone calls between suspected terrorists has seriously damaged our ability to protect ourselves is not fit to serve in congress, let alone chair the Intel committee.

HARMON: Well, I wish I’d been a lot smarter in those briefings about the legal underpinnings of the program.

Yeah, so do the rest of us.

HARMON: We’re only 36 members total that we’re talking about, and those members should decide whether this program fits within the law, and if it does, which I think it does, we should all declare victory. If it does not, then we should be changing the law or changing the program.

By "changing the law" doesn't she mean legalizing warrantless wiretaps? What else could this possibly mean? Reading the rest of the transcript, she also expresses many reservations about the program (in its current warrantless form), but so tempers thsi concern with all of these equivocating remarks, that I really can't tell where she stands on this issue. Personally, I think that she either doesn't care, or wants to have it both ways. And I don't want someone this unprincipled, stupid and unqualified anywhere near the Intel committee, let alone chairing it.
Kovie | 11.17.06 - 1:12 pm | #

Harman isn't sufficiently vicious opposing Bush's anti-terrorism efforts for Pelosi's tastes so she must go.

No, Harman isn't sufficiently knowledgeable about and principled in opposing Bush's "anti-terrorism" lawbreaking charade for Pelosi's good judgement to appoint as chair.

I find it amazing in this bright new dawn of Democratic control of Congress that the Democrats are seeming to eat their own so soon

Actually, it's called DEMOCRACY. Didn't your party get the memo about that?
Kovie | 11.17.06 - 1:17 pm | #

Let's not get carried away with the idea that these people are knights in shining armor. They're corrupt in the way that the political system corrupts most politicians. Until we get public financing of elections, that won't change.
dubiousraves

Excellent point. For many of who voted Dem, it was a "hold your nose" deal.
Kristin | 11.17.06 - 1:20 pm | #

Gee, I can't for the life of me understand why traditional media's revenue is dropping like a rock!
Bob | 11.17.06 - 1:21 pm | #

It's a shame you attack the 'belway' types for actually believing the Democratic rhetoric about the 'cleanest Congress' in history, rather than condemn the sleazy political deal-making behind the Murtha and Hastings choices.

Neither Murtha nor Hastings were convicted of anything. I'm not even sure that they were even indicted. And both happened a couple of decades ago, yet the voters in their districts saw fit to elect and reelect them multiple times.

So what is Pelosi to do, act as judge, jury and warden and punish them for their non-crimes, and disenfranchise the majority of voters in their districts? This is what you call good and principled leadership?

And considering how the GOP leadership not only ignored the massive and undeniable (and in some cases truly sickening) lawbreaking going on in their caucus right in front of the their eyes, but actively worked to supress it, I find these comments to be especially weighless.
Kovie | 11.17.06 - 1:22 pm | #

Kovie, I think he doesn't understand Democracy - he's too used to the GOP Congress, where a few key people in a smoke-filled room decide what legislation will be passed, with no debate, no oversight, and often without the knowledge of the other memebers of even what it is they will be voting on in the full chamber.

Actually voicing a disagreement and then having a real debate and a real vote where the outcome isn't predetermined is alien to these people.
Disgusted Beyond Belief | 11.17.06 - 1:24 pm | #

How to italicize:

Quote

displays like this:

Quote

It works the same way for bold if you substitute "b" for "i".
Kovie | 11.17.06 - 1:24 pm | #

"But without the spaces in between the brackets.
Glenn Greenwald"

Thanks.
Who'd 'a known | 11.17.06 - 1:26 pm | #

Dan D,

Actually, I think the only reason the shoe shopping was ever a story was because a woman who was in the store at the time called her out on it, and for that, Condi ordered that she be physically removed from the store:

A fellow shopper, unable to fathom the absurdity of Rice’s timing, went up to the Secretary and reportedly shouted, “How dare you shop for shoes while thousands are dying and homeless!” Never one to have her fashion choices questioned, Rice had security PHYSICALLY REMOVE the woman.
. | 11.17.06 - 1:27 pm | #

Thanks Kovie
Who'd 'a known | 11.17.06 - 1:27 pm | #

Someone mentioned Condi. To be fair, I thought there was some unfairness in her being lambasted for shoe shopping during Katrina. She's Sec-State and has 0 to do with domestic disaster recovery.
She got heckled at the store and then was booed later that night at the theater. Made me proud of New York. But I don't think that was sexist. Of course, the Sec State has nothing to do with homegrown disasters, but her shopping seemed on a par with the entire administration: Bush eating cake and playing air guitar, Cheney buying a new multi-million dollar property -- while the rest of us were glued to our TV sets, watching in horror. Clueless and uncaring -- or as one Repub friend who had the scales drop from his eyes during Katrina -- "really without any sense of decorum."
Svensker | 11.17.06 - 1:30 pm | #

Who'd 'a known,

My markup seems to have been stripped by stupid haloscam. It looked ok in the preview. Must have been developed by a Republican programmer!

In any case, just insert a "/" before the "i" in the closing tag, as Glenn described.
Kovie | 11.17.06 - 1:30 pm | #

I am in general agreement she is a poor choice for Intelligence chair but I think he has a point on saying Harman has never explicitly said warrantless domestic wiretapping is legal.

I'm seeing this around in places today and it is completely untrue. In addition to the Fox interview I linked to and the MTP appearance Kovie excerpted, here is this article from Karen Tumulty in TIME:

G.O.P. strategists argue that Democrats have little leeway to attack on the issue because it could make them look weak on national security and because some of their leaders were briefed about the the National Security Agency (NSA) no-warrant surveillance before it became public knowledge. Some key Democrats even defend it. Says California's Jane Harman, ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee: "I believe the program is essential to U.S. national security and that its disclosure has damaged critical intelligence capabilities."

She issued a statement a few days after the original Times story saying that she thinks FISA warrants are only required for purely domestic conversations. She went all over the media defending the NSA program, making clear that she's a supporter of it. On Fox, she specifically said that it was "legal and necessary," and she repeatedly attacked the NYT for publicizing the story.
Glenn Greenwald | 11.17.06 - 1:31 pm | #

Jonah Goldberg at the National Review:
http://article.nationalreview.com/print/? q=ZDAzYTNjNGRkZjYwMmNlMmI0NjJkZTk1N2RkMDRmNWU=

November 17, 2006, 5:47 a.m.
Why Trent Lott?
By Jonah Goldberg
... Lott’s rehab is a nice story — for Lott. But it’s hard to see how it will have a happy ending for the rest of us ... ... Lott is a bad face for the Republican party. Period. Full stop.

sysprog | 11.17.06 - 1:31 pm | #

Disgusted Beyond Belief,

The Repub definition of democracy is "We tell you how to vote, and that's how you vote. Any questions? Oh, what's that Mr. soon to be smeared and crushed in your next primary race if you don't STFU RIGHT NOW? Ah, now that's a good boy!"
Kovie | 11.17.06 - 1:34 pm | #

I heard talk of what is called "the list"--the lengthening White House list of those who are to be treated as enemies.

Cool! I always felt cheated that I was too young to make Nixon's list-- I was only 12 when he resigned. For years I thought that no administration could ever possibly bad enough to re-create the shameful, pathetic, paranoid freak-show of the Nixon administration, so I'd never earn a place on such a list. But now I have a second chance, thanks to The Worst Administration in History®.
e_five | Homepage | 11.17.06 - 1:39 pm | #

Glenn,

I don't know if one could come up with a clearer example of all that's wrong with the appeasing, enabling, pandering, sellout, weak-kneed, unprincipled and feckless wing of the Democratic party these days than Harman. Well, in the house at least, as we still have Lieberman & friends in the senate to contend with.

Replacing and/or marginalizing them will be a slow but necessary process, but at least we've made significant inroads this past year. Pelosi as speaker is a huge step in the right direction (assuming, of course, that she proves to be as progressive, principled, smart and tough as she seems to be, but she'll have many friends and allies chairing key committees and in the caucus and blogosphere to back her up).
Kovie | 11.17.06 - 1:41 pm | #

I don't have a lot of confidence in anyone who talks about the Pelosi - Hoyer contratemps without at least mentioning their relationship goes back to Brewster's office in the sixties. More suprisingly, few analysts have commented on Hoyer's competition with Pelosi for the Minority Leader post during our years in the wilderness. These two know each other, and have a great deal of history the rest of us simply don't understand and that the MSM deems too trivial to report. I suspect that the reasons Pelosi supported Murtha and the degree to which she gave that support are so complicated and so *inside baseball* as to be beyond normal understanding. It's quite likely that anyone expressing an opinion is wrong.

As to Harmon/Hastings -- again, the Pelosi/Harmon currents run very deep. These women have known eachother for quite some time. It appears most likely that the problem with Harmon is that she's been too willing to allow Bush to have his way on warrantless wiretapping, etc. The divide between Pelosi and Harmon is principled and political. Hastings is too damaged to be Intel Committee Chair. It's more likely that Sly Reyes will fill the top spot.

If "passing over" Hastings upsets the Congressioinal Black Caucus -- good. What are they going to do about it? Leave? Blacks can't desert the Democratic Party because to a large extent they ARE the Democratic Party. At any rate -- it's a triangulation victory for Pelosi to irritate the CBC.

Finally, this pre-inaugural stuff is fine for junkies, but I doubt it means anything to the great unwashed.

Rich
Rich | 11.17.06 - 1:42 pm | #

If I went to the Sean Hannity school of debate, I'd be saying this.

The Republicans can't help themselves.

It's been less than two weeks since the election, and the "Pelosi bashing" has already commenced. Americans spoke loudly on Nov, 7, and sensible Americans demanded a new direction.

Instead of being gracious losers, the Republicans are already trying to undermine her crediblity, and defy the will of the people. I'ts shameful really. Here's a thought. How about letting Speaker Pelosi "hang the drapes", before you start the shameless and vicious attacks.

Look, Americans were disgusted by the moral bankruptcy of Republicans, and were fed up with their endless corruption, incompetence and failed policies. Get over it Republicans, you lost, so stop whining.

Here's a suggestion. For once, try doing what's right for the Country, instead of putting your party first, or you will become a permanent minority party. I'ts no wonder why you guys lost this election.
AkaDad | 11.17.06 - 1:43 pm | #

.,

Ah. How quickly I forget the various ludicrous power abuses by every member of this administration.

Good ol' Condi, exercising the constitutional powers of cabinet members to remove members of the public from public places for saying things they don't like.

The woman should be glad Condi didn't order her tased.
Dan D | Homepage | 11.17.06 - 1:46 pm | #

calm down glenn, the thing you have to try to remember is that the american people have stop listening to these beltway pundits. Most of us out know that the attacks on a speaker elect is just as valid as their claims that we there are still hidden WMD's out there.
Stoney | 11.17.06 - 1:48 pm | #

In any case, just insert a "/" before the "i" in the closing tag, as Glenn described.

Got it, tks. Tks to Sysprog too.
Who'd 'a known | 11.17.06 - 1:48 pm | #

"Harman ... is currently under investigation for her work on behalf of AIPAC"

Looks like the Israel lobby is trying to get Pelosi for trying to remove one of their operatives from a postion of power. That would explain the role of Peretz and the New Republic.
Captain Video | 11.17.06 - 1:50 pm | #

Well e_five, if you don't make the Bush Enemies list, you can always make the no-fly list, and maybe even the no-return-to-the-US list.

There's plenty of unregulated, unappealable and undemocratic lists for you to make these days. Good luck!
Dan D | Homepage | 11.17.06 - 1:53 pm | #

for me, the issue isn't harman, but hastings. appointing an impeached federal judge would be a major political blunder. i'm all for pelosi, but politics is politics. hastings would be a huge gaffe
josh | 11.17.06 - 1:55 pm | #

Folkses: I think an analysis of The New Republic and the other Beltway chatterers may be in order. The New Republic is a boys' club, its notable recent editors being Andrew "Boomerang" Sullivan and Peter "Boomerang" Beinert. Neither can quite leave the boys' club, no matter how unpleasant their firings. Franklin Foer came in and brought out a series of "cool" covers--that smacked of desperation, an odd sort of shallow desperation, as TNR's circulation figures plummet. Can you think of any woman who has come out of TNR with a career in punditry? Peretz is certainly part of the problem--as is the whole style of argument that he employs. Typically, he'll start an essay on looking at the blue sky, being reminded of the Israeli flag, thinking of how Palestinians are dogs, and ending with a condemnation of Arafat (even after his death). So the Bella Abzug comparison, even if it may seem pulled out of his butt, is typical. Andrew Sullivan is another exemplar of the loose-connection-to-the-facts style of argument. I'll admit that I let my long-standing subscription to TNR lapse recently, so I may have an animus. Or I may just be tired of the idea of politics as the privilege of the few, the snarky, the well connected, and the trust-funded. But then I prefer Lewis Lapham's democracy to the courtier class of Washington, that sleazy Versailles on the Potomac with bad cooking. Oh, don't forget the not-so-subtle bigotry of Washington as a last bastion of white entitlement: She'za excitabile Italiana, that Nancya Pelosi. So instead of Bella Abzug, you may want to recall Barbara Bush's "rhymes with witch."
JJHunsecker | 11.17.06 - 1:56 pm | #

Stoney,

That's not how propaganda works. If these people only convince 1 in 100 or 1000 people with each erroneous statement, essay and diatribe they make, that cumulatively still adds up to a fantastic societal cost.

Everyone likes to believe they are an objective and skeptical savy media observer. Some indeed are, but no one is totally immune to being influenced by ill-intentioned medacious pundits out to push an agenda.

In short: Ignoring it will not make it go away. Our parents were wrong about the kids who make fun of others on the schoolyard. Fighting back is essential.
Dan D | Homepage | 11.17.06 - 1:57 pm | #

and strangely, i haven't seen any commentary on how pelosi's choice to lead the House was primarily about getting out of iraq.
darladoon | 11.17.06 - 2:00 pm | #

Shooter

Hmmmm. I must have missed the blog and ended up at Page Six.

You forgot to say "heh."
armagednoutahere | Homepage | 11.17.06 - 2:02 pm | #

Who'd 'a known:

You can also bold you italics by placing the two tags together

 "abc" 
Propulgate | 11.17.06 - 2:05 pm | #

Propulgate,

You can, but technically speaking that's probably an incorrect (i.e., improperly nested) way to do it in your example.
. | 11.17.06 - 2:10 pm | #

it works for me...obviously.

What is the proper way?
Propulgate | 11.17.06 - 2:12 pm | #

armagednoutahere,

I loved the delicious irony of shooter dismissing Glenn's post by comparing it to the very gossip-column style of journalism he is complaining about. Further, wasn't it a right wing paper that invented the page 6 column?
Dan D | Homepage | 11.17.06 - 2:12 pm | #

This is just a test

test
Propulgate | 11.17.06 - 2:18 pm | #

...all driven by deep self-love for their own superior wisdom -- and they distort reality and crowd out sober analysis of everything that matters.

Enough said...
thepoetryman | Homepage | 11.17.06 - 2:20 pm | #

another test
sorry
Propulgate | 11.17.06 - 2:21 pm | #

The beltway pundits are busy creating the frame from which all else will flow. I can just see the Sunday political hack shows grabbing on to this and posing questions to Dems along those lines. Rather than taking the bait by trying to defend Pelosi, they should go straight on the attack. When a Dem is asked - Has Pelosi been damaged by this? - the response should be a counter attack rather than defense. They should take the opportunity to create their own frame. Something along the lines of - Why does the media seem to be enamored of tough male authoritarian rule as a model of leadership? Or - Why does the media seem to prefer robot-like loyalty without dissent, to open honest discussion and debate about issues? It seems anathema to pundits that open-minded discussion, with varying degrees of agreement and disagreement, is a viable way to solve the problems our country confronts.
greenchilecheeseburger | Homepage | 11.17.06 - 2:26 pm | #

I've noticed some troubling habits starting to develop in the MSM regarding the new Dem majority. The stuff that's been going on this week, which is just the basic housekeeping of congress, is being referred to in ways that make it seem like the world is already crashing down on the newly elected Dem majority.

The MSM is already developing narratives of failure for the Dems, regardless of what really happens on The Hill. I've heard them call the simple act of selecting majority leaders as a "meltdown," and a "circular firing squad," and all that kinda crap.

There's no comparison with the way the MSM looked off into space as the Republicans trashed the country. Suddenly any little bump in the road is a sign of the coming collapse of the new congress.

I hope congress ignores the pundits and proceeds as if they know the American public is still behind them all the way. But I remember the 90's and what the MSM can do to our political discourse if their corporate masters decide its in their favor to trash the Dems, which it always is. If they decide to try to use their power to bring down the Dem majority, it could be a long couple years.

This congress needs to hear from the people directly. Don't let the millionaire pundit class determine who stays and who goes.
Great work Glenn, keep it up. You've got enough of a voice now to provide a counter to the entrenched MSM.

Murtha always did bug me. I like his war stance, but he's a typical Washington lifer. Too willing to accept the shady perks of office as part of the package.
armagednoutahere | Homepage | 11.17.06 - 2:27 pm | #

km4 - Great comment.

So good, I copied it and put it here.

Let me know if you want any other credit for it.

--WKW
William K. Wolfrum | Homepage | 11.17.06 - 2:28 pm | #

Glenn:

Begin - 

End - 

But without the spaces in between the brackets.

You mean like this:

italics

;-)

Cheers,
Arne Langsetmo | Homepage | 11.17.06 - 2:33 pm | #

Speculation over Pelosi's choice for Chairman of the House Intel Committee seems to mirror one of the Republican talking points, current since election night: Pelosi is in a bind, and she's bound to make a mistake; we'll sit back and see which mistake she makes.

I haven't heard Pelosi say a peep about either Harman or Hastings. The only thing I've heard Pelosi say about the issue is "there is no seniority on the Intelligence Committee," a statement with rather ominous implications for both Harman and Hastings (and every other Democrat who sat on that worthless committee).
MD | 11.17.06 - 2:37 pm | #

Propulgate,

Good: stuff

Bad: stuff

Note how in the first example, the b tags are entirely nested within the scope of the i tags, yet in the second example, they are not. Also, just because it may co-incidentally work in your browser--or many browsers--doesn't mean that it's technically correct--go figure. Dern standards!
. | 11.17.06 - 2:38 pm | #

To be honest, Nancy Pelosi is exactly as Glenn described her - "a bitchy, vindictive shrew incapable of leading because she's consumed by petty personal bickering". Everyone knows that. You just can't handle the fact that they (the media) are calling it like it is.

I think Pelosi represents the Democratic party to a tee - a bunch of whiny, PMS bitches that can''t get a fucking thing done. I am happy your dipshits got the majority so that now America can se just what a fucked up party the Democrats are - and that way we get ANOTHER Republican President in 2008.

You people are total fucking losers, and will get your just rewards.
VOR | 11.17.06 - 2:41 pm | #

. | 11.17.06 - 2:38 pm |

got it.

went to the site you linked- tried the colors and font style (hence the tests above)... didn't work!

How do you insert a link?
Propulgate | 11.17.06 - 2:43 pm | #

VOR - really, why don't you tell us what you REALLY think? Is that you Ann Coulter?
Disgusted Beyond Belief | 11.17.06 - 2:44 pm | #

VOR posted: "You people are total fucking losers, and will get your just rewards."

Once again elevating the discourse.

Must've been a shift change.

No kings,

Robert
Desert Son | 11.17.06 - 2:44 pm | #

You people are total fucking losers, and will get your just rewards.-VOR
My, what a thought-provoking commentary.
Rick | 11.17.06 - 2:54 pm | #

My, what a thought-provoking commentary.
Rick | 11.17.06 - 2:54 pm | #

Rick - since you folks act like spolied teenagers the majority of the time, I thought I would speak in the vernacular that you would understand.

Besides which, Democrats are incapable of "though-provoking" commentary. You too insipid for such depth.
VOR | 11.17.06 - 2:58 pm | #

Well VOR, thanks for stopping by to tell us how childish and irredeemably stupid we are.

I wouldn't want to interrupt your busy day of freeping polls and sending envelopes of white powder to Democrats.

Maybe I'll see you later at the latest "God hates fags" rally?
Dan D | Homepage | 11.17.06 - 3:02 pm | #

Thank you, Glenn. Another good post.
Wayne | 11.17.06 - 3:03 pm | #

I wonder if it ever occurred to these
pundits that sexism lies under their
every comparison of Pelosi to other leaders. To compare her to Bella Abzug is ludicrous. Perhaps the Washington pundits might go to school with local newsies in states which have had women governors, so as to understand different management styles which the local newsies are more familiar with. But that would cut their pay, wouldn't it--demoted to Detroit?
Charlie Burke | 11.17.06 - 3:08 pm | #

"Well all I can say is THANKS for reading these knuckle-heads and riding herd on all their lies and distortions...So I don't have to read them!"

-- very good then ... one idiot can do the thinking for the other.
Jon | 11.17.06 - 3:08 pm | #

1. The Beltway pundits are not journalist and bear no similarity to the people doing good work digging up information that is important for the democracy.

At best, they should be viewed as Vegas odds-makers who refuse to do any research.

2. Nancy Pelosi is being targeted because of her gender. The kind of behavior she is being criticized for is exactly the kind of behavior these same useless talking heads praise in male politicians.

3. Why is it, as Keith Olbermann said last night, that a knock-down dragout that resulted in the return of a compromised racist to the Senate GOP leadership is being painted as a comeback story, while a battle for the second-in-command slot among Congressional Democrats is the tsunami that will wipe Nancy Pelosi out of office.

As Eric Alterman would say, "what liberal media?"
Hank Kalet | Homepage | 11.17.06 - 3:08 pm | #

If "passing over" Hastings upsets the Congressioinal Black Caucus -- good. What are they going to do about it? Leave? Blacks can't desert the Democratic Party because to a large extent they ARE the Democratic Party. At any rate -- it's a triangulation victory for Pelosi to irritate the CBC.

Ok, that's taking it too far, and you seem to be revealing some personal animus here towards the CBC that verges on overt racism.

And actually, the reason that Pelosi can bypass now Hastings is because Clyburn got the #3 whip position over Emanual. Plus, Conyers will be chair of judiciary, Rangel at ways and means, and several other prominant African-Americans will be in other positions of power and authority. And if Reyes gets intel, she scores points with the Hispanic coalition.

She's actually a lot smarter than most people give her credit for. It just doesn't come across well in her public appearances, where she has this unfocused "deer in the headlights" quality that makes her look weak and dumb when she's neither (as opposed to Bush who pretty much is what he comes across as).
Kovie | 11.17.06 - 3:10 pm | #

I think Pelosi represents the Democratic party to a tee - a bunch of whiny, PMS bitches that can''t get a fucking thing done.

I know that describes ME!
Baldie McEagle | 11.17.06 - 3:12 pm | #

Glenn-
Wanted to give you a heads up that TalkLeft has a
post, by BigTentDemocrat, disagreeing with your assessment of Harman, with a comment by somebody named "Froomkin."

Apparently his or her Dream Dem tent is big enough to include those who tell Fox News that "the program we were briefed on in a very closed environment ... on a basis that we could not discuss it with anyone, was basically a foreign collection program [which]... I still support."

BTW, here is a link to an HTML tutorial cite, which instructs on how to bold, italicize and add links in comments.
david | Homepage | 11.17.06 - 3:13 pm | #

Glenn Greenwald | 11.17.06 - 12:39 pm | #
Would it really add a lot to say "This is sexist"! The reason why it appears so clear is because the excerpts I chose on purpose make that case. That, to me, is a much more effective way to demonstrate its presence than to just throw around all the standard terms that would persuade nobody other than those already inclined to believe it.

This is true; the post is better for not belaboring the obvious. However, I was curious. You do not always refrain from stating the obvious in your posts. If you make an argument with allusions, excerpts are less "soundbiteably" extracted as quotes to be used elsewhere. However, the argument as a whole is usually better.

I was not lobbying for you to make explicit statements about misogyny in the body of your post.
Fluffy | 11.17.06 - 3:16 pm | #

Rick - since you folks act like spolied teenagers the majority of the time, I thought I would speak in the vernacular that you would understand.

Yes, as opposed to Mark Foley who merely PREYED ON AND HAD SEX WITH teenagers. That was the very model of mature and proper adult behavior.

And Ted Stevens wearing his Increbible Hulk tie and ranting about how he'll resign the senate if he doesn't get his way is SO mature--especially coming from an octogenarian from the land of rugged individualists.

You got one word right, though: MAJORITY!!!
Kovie | 11.17.06 - 3:17 pm | #

VOR | 11.17.06 - 2:58 pm | #

Wow, VOR, for someone complaining about lack of thought-provoking commentary and those making comments here being insipid, you really outght to LEARN HOW TO WRITE. My god, boy, how old are you?

Another one here just to provoke and spew mindless bile, as opposed to actually participating in any discussion or debate: TROLL. Please go away.
Nick | 11.17.06 - 3:29 pm | #

VOR just dropped by because the other trolls weren't jaw-droppingly moronic enough.
Paul Dirks | Homepage | 11.17.06 - 3:33 pm | #

I'm looking for the similar stories that must have been written about Newt Gingrich in 1994 when he backed the losing Robert Walker against Tom Delay for Majority Whip. I can't find any.

h/t Michael @ Discourse.net
ThomasAllen | 11.17.06 - 3:37 pm | #

Thanks Propulgate
Who'd 'a known | 11.17.06 - 3:38 pm | #

VOR just dropped by because the other trolls weren't jaw-droppingly moronic enough.
Paul Dirks

Aw Paul, right when I thought I was being too civil.
Who'd 'a known | 11.17.06 - 3:39 pm | #

...since you folks act like spolied teenagers the majority of the time, I thought I would speak in the vernacular that you would understand. Besides which, Democrats are incapable of "though-provoking" commentary. You too insipid for such depth.-VOR.

Oh, joy: VOR has graced us with yet another fact-filled post while displaying his finely-honed language skills. With such brilliant punditry, it's a wonder that the right-wing wasn't more persuasive in the last election campaign.
Rick | 11.17.06 - 3:44 pm | #

We have to kick back hard on this. The press thinks it's "Clinton rules" again, where they can hunt in packs, repeat any gossip/scandal as fact, and persist in accepting it even after their own paper has debunked it. Glenn, meet Bob Somerby at the Daily Howler. The War on Pelosi is another extension of the War on Gore, or the attack on Whitewater. One of the ways we can temper it is by flooding them with complaints. Kick back!
Jim | 11.17.06 - 3:45 pm | #

Here is the thing that you narrow-minded, insipid Democrats just don't get...

It is her OWN party that is throwing her under the bus! The reporters are basing their opinions on what members of her own party have said about her!

How about -

From the Washington Post
1. One conservative Democrat said that a Murtha-Pelosi ally approached him on the House floor and said pointedly: "I hope you like your committee assignment, because it's the only one you're going to get."

2. In a phone call initiated by Murtha that same day, the lawmaker told the longtime politician that he had already signed a letter of support for Hoyer. The congressman said he was stunned when Murtha told him, "Letters don't mean anything."

3. "Commitment is something of value in this institution," said Rep. Artur Davis (D-Ala.). "If you have somebody in this race saying, 'Oh, your promises don't really mean anything in a secret ballot,' that bothers me, and it should bother a lot of people."

4. "He [Murtha] said, 'You know, I believe it's total crap, but Nancy supports it, and I'm going to push it,' " said a senior Blue Dog Democrat and Hoyer supporter, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was divulging comments from a closed-door meeting.

5. For the most part, lawmakers, Hill aides and some outside advisers -- even some close to her -- say they are at a loss to explain why Pelosi has held a grudge for so long, because she clearly has the upper hand as leader of the House Democrats.

From the LA Times
1. Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) said a lot of members are wondering, "How did someone as good and as smart as she make this one mistake?"

2. "The caucus is fractured in a way because of her involvement" in the leadership race, said Rep. Allen Boyd (D-Fla.). "Her big challenge, starting from this moment, is to figure out how to wrap her arms around the caucus. It was a mistake for her to get involved."

3. Some Democrats said that the setback could send a message to Pelosi that rank-and-file members want her to reach beyond her inner circle and not try to run the party with top-down leadership. "Loyalty can be blinding," said a former House Democratic leader who did not want to be named for fear of offending Pelosi. "You can't force somebody on people if they don't want them."
VOR | 11.17.06 - 3:45 pm | #

Who'd:

Did your read VOR's post?
Paul Dirks | Homepage | 11.17.06 - 3:46 pm | #

VOR:

You people are total fucking losers, and will get your just rewards.

Just a reminder, VOR, it was the American people (not just those who comment on this blog) who wanted Pelosi to be Speaker. Remember, “conservatives” like you spent millions warning the American people of the dangers of “San Francisco values” and you know what? They weren’t frightened at all.

In fact, they said, “yes” overwhelmingly to her as Speaker.

Now, perhaps you think that makes the majority of American people “total fucking losers” – and you are of course entitled to your opinion.

However, the opinion of the majority of Americans is that “San Francisco values” is preferable to “Crawford values” by a long shot.

Deal with it.
zack | 11.17.06 - 3:46 pm | #

Oh yeah VOR? Well, the jerk store called. They're running out of You!

I'm pretty sure that's the last we'll see of him.

--WKW
William K. Wolfrum | Homepage | 11.17.06 - 3:46 pm | #

Who'd:

Did your read VOR's post?
Paul Dirks

Yeah, not very impressive. I'm an equal-opportunity contempt cop.

To the jerk store comment I would add, "Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out."
Who'd 'a known | 11.17.06 - 3:49 pm | #

I'm sorry but this CAN backfire on the press. The Democrats, more so than the Republicans, are interested in media reform and reversing consolidation. I'd be in favor of radically changing how the media opperates. If they continue this garbage it might be just the thing to push the Democrats to pay more attention to it. Then again, maybe not.
Wicked legs | 11.17.06 - 3:50 pm | #

Oops, forgot the thingy.
Who'd 'a known | 11.17.06 - 3:50 pm | #

CREW - which drove the Mark Foley story - insists that Murtha is one of the dirtiest House members.

I'm so glad you pointed that out Glenn. I read that entire long transcript which was recently released and I have to say I was shocked, even though I already knew that politics is a dirty business. But I had NO IDEA that it was that dirty. Murtha is no principled gentleman politician. He is a self-dealing power broker.

Naturally I would always lean toward an antiwar person to be in ANY position. But is he antiwar or is he anti what has happened in Iraq?

I fault Nancy Pelosi for choosing someone who has such a horrible background with respect to ethics, but I think that if she hadn't supported someone loyal to her she should be institutionalized. Every rational person wants to work with someone who is supportive. It's just too hard to get things done fighting with members of one's own team. It drains all your energy and makes you disgusted with the assignment.

On the other hand, there is one sense in which Hoyer, who sounds dreadful, might be the better choice, which a commenter above points out. PCR wrote a lot of good articles about how isolated the Bush White House was, and how nobody could pierce through the shield around the President to present opposition viewpoints.

If the Democrats feel that with a divided leadership they will have more opportunity to express dissent meaningfully, that would be good.

Does it compensate for Hoyer being pro-war? Probably not. That's the worst thing we need now.

My question is why were these two flawed persons the only ones being promoted for the job? Couldn't someone else, antiwar and honorable, be found to put into that position, someone who was supportive of Nancy Pelosi so she could work effectively with him?
.
Eyes Wide Open | 11.17.06 - 3:59 pm | #

Pelosi has in the past been regarded as one of AIPAC's more reliable supporters in Congress, but I wonder whether her opposition to the Iraq war has made her reconsider. Certainly, even more reliable support of AIPAC is one thing that Hoyer and Harman share.

By the way, is Michael Steele on this White House "list"? Is Trent Lott on it?

Who keeps the list? Was it somebody in the White House who initially leaked that Steele was going to replace Mehlman?
lysias | 11.17.06 - 4:06 pm | #

Remember, “conservatives” like you spent millions warning the American people of the dangers of “San Francisco values” and you know what? They weren’t frightened at all.
zack | 11.17.06 - 3:46 pm | #

Zack - I am NOT a conservative. I don't believe in religion AT ALL and think abortion should NEVER be outlawed.

What I am is an independant. I find extremisim on either side to be disgusting. I despise Neo-Cons as much as Left Wing Lunatics. But, I find the Democratic party, in general, to be more reprehensible than the Republicans. I think Democrats are much more 2 faced about things and they just seem sleazier.

Trust me, I bash Neo-cons on their blogs as well.
VOR | 11.17.06 - 4:11 pm | #

Trust me, I bash Neo-cons on their blogs as well.
VOR | 11.17.06 - 4:11 pm | #

Linkee?
.
greenchilecheeseburger | Homepage | 11.17.06 - 4:13 pm | #

Anyone who thinks Democrats are much more two-faced than Republicans just hasn't been paying attention for the past six years (I say as someone who only recently changed his registration from Republican to Independent.)
lysias | 11.17.06 - 4:16 pm | #

That's funny. It appears that the Press is once again chanelling its deepest ID (based on the owners, GOP pimps) in assuming anything that appears aggressive or confident in a man, is considered frivilous, catty and bitchy when a woman does it.

The Press is a living breathing person, raised by GOP parents in Oklahoma but currently attending college in NY. They have some skills, but are still brainwashed by the people who pay their phone and food bills.
Blogtopus | 11.17.06 - 4:22 pm | #

Glenn:

These notions, while preconceived, are not "vapid". The chatterers take orders. They are out to torpedo any hint of an an anti-war caucus. Marcus is a perfect example of someone with this agenda: successive op-eds in favor or Harman, AIPAC's candidate, and against Murtha, the anti-war candidate. All the other stuff -- the ABSCAM video, the props from TNR only cement my conviction that this was a concerted media attempt to keep the Democrats pro-occupation.
brendan | 11.17.06 - 4:30 pm | #

EWO - I'm so glad you pointed that out Glenn. I read that entire long transcript which was recently released and I have to say I was shocked, even though I already knew that politics is a dirty business. But I had NO IDEA that it was that dirty. Murtha is no principled gentleman politician. He is a self-dealing power broker.

Unfortunately, this is true. He is very keyed into the Pentagon and is set to control virtually of the military appropriations in the country. He is not a clean politician. What he is is a uniquely credible voice on Iraq. Some people thought that was enough, despite the ethical clouds surrounding him, but I don't see how a party that campaigned against corruption can be so cavalier about ethics.

Then again, Steny Hoyer is no reformer. He is awash with K Street money and influence. Ultimately, our political system is filthy and corrupt and it is very hard to find a political operative who has been around long enough to know the system, has advanced through the ranks, and is clean. There are a few, but it's very rare.

Naturally I would always lean toward an antiwar person to be in ANY position. But is he antiwar or is he anti what has happened in Iraq?

Absolutely the latter. The reason Murtha's anti-war stance was so jolting is because he is an absolute hawk and as far to the Right as it gets for a Democrat in the House (that's why he kept emphasizing that he will only do "what Nancy wants").

There have been statements from him recently strongly suggesting that we should have attacked Iran, not Iraq. On the blogger call, he insinuated the same thing, saying that the "real threat was Iran, not Iraq." He quickly added that, at this point, military action isn't an option (because we don't have the resources), but I'd be surprised if he weren't one of the most hawkish Congressman when it comes to confronting Iran.

He is a very odd person to have become the face of the anti-war movement, let alone the her of the anti-AIPAC movement (and Pelosi herself is hardly anti-Israel - quite the contrary). And, and as EWO says, Murtha is much more anti-Iraq-war than anti-war (not just in general but even in terms of very likely future conflicts).

My question is why were these two flawed persons the only ones being promoted for the job? Couldn't someone else, antiwar and honorable, be found to put into that position, someone who was supportive of Nancy Pelosi so she could work effectively with him?

As others have pointed out, these things are driven more by behind-the-scenes caucus considerations and horse-trading than anything else.

I think Pelosi knew Murtha would lose but - as someone above astutely pointed out - by backing him, she signalled that she will support and reward those who are loyal to her, an important signal for a leader to send.

Ultiamtely, I don't see that it matters at all who the Majority Leader is in any real way. Murtha can still speak out against the war from his very powerful sub-Committee chair. Pelosi will control the House. And every member has to choose their position on Iraq, knowing that they will face the voters again in 2008.
Glenn Greenwald | 11.17.06 - 4:33 pm | #

These notions, while preconceived, are not "vapid". The chatterers take orders.

From whom? Who issues these orders to them?
Glenn Greenwald | 11.17.06 - 4:38 pm | #

Blogtopus:

The Press are bred and raised on a 1,000 acre moron farm just outside Staunton, VA. I believe that Tyson Foods operates it under license from Rupert Murdoch.

Republican Congresspeople, on the other hand, are assembled in a recently reopened GM plant in Dearborn, MI. I'm told that it was last used in the early seventies to produce the Cadillac Coup de Grace.
William Timberman | 11.17.06 - 4:39 pm | #

does it ever end?

more pelosi bashing:

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/11...ondracke-witch/
darladoon | 11.17.06 - 4:50 pm | #

Glenn,

As my own "off-again," "on-again" congressperson, a lacky of the old Burton machine, she represents her district very well. She's also personally very charming.

But she's not smart. She's not a leader. Some of us hoped her "conciliating" strengths would help her in her new position, building consensus within the party (she has a reputation for that).

Out of the gate, she's already stumbled and fallen on "obvious" problems, like "ethically-challenged" preferences. What about this election and ethics did she not get? Turning to impeached-Judge Hastings to chair the House Intelligence Committee, when an imminently qualified Jane Harmon comes with no "ethically-challenged" problems?

Her "judgments" are positively obscene. The pundits are right about this one!
The Gay Species | Homepage | 11.17.06 - 4:57 pm | #

Favorite line from just after the election:

Subpoena Power, ACTIVATE!

One of the more effective ways to deal with the punditry circle jerk is to flood them with so much news about money scandals in the coming months they will not be able to come up for air on "bitchy" Pelosi stories.

The billions in fraud perpetrated by war profiteers will be an endless source for us all...now if we can only figure out a way to to have Haggard, Foley, Santorum, and Katherine Lopez all caught in coitus while helping with the corruption. The chattering class would be satiated for years.
Politically Lost | 11.17.06 - 5:01 pm | #

It's pretty clear that voters are starting to get buyers' remorse about their choices last week. And the Democraps were being too clever by half in nominating and electing quasi-conservative candidates to Congress. It's obvious they aren't going to be very comfortable with Pelosi and company. Watch for vigorous backstabbing as they try to sort things out. It won't be very surprising if some of the freshman class get disgusted and switch parties. Perhaps we won't have to put up with that liberal harridan for a full term.
anonymoose

Damn straight, Moose. I'm changing my party, I'm so disgusted with the Wicked Witch of the West's performance so far.

Hey, do you know any corrupt, greedy, lying, hypocritical, protofascist, perverted, unAmerican, warmongering, procorporate Republicans I can vote for next time?
Baldie McEagle | 11.17.06 - 5:16 pm | #

anonymoose,

You must have been influenced by chicken little.
brainfaht | 11.17.06 - 5:25 pm | #

The bigger story is here is really about the Republicans, and how after losing badly in the elections, give their supporters the message that it will be “business as usual” with their picks for leadership – the redemption of a racist and promotion of someone who helped covered up Mark Foley’s predatory predilections.

Not only are the voters not having any “buyers remorse” the Republicans base is not at all happy with their leadership choices either. Now, why hasn’t that got more media attention?

Unfortunately, I think we all know the answer to that question.
zack | 11.17.06 - 5:26 pm | #

Think of how happy that Republican base will be if it's shown that the troops are being shorted for war profiteers.
Politically Lost | 11.17.06 - 5:28 pm | #

Think of how happy that Republican base will be if it's shown that the troops are being shorted for war profiteers.

What is this "IF" of which you speak?
Paul Dirks | Homepage | 11.17.06 - 5:55 pm | #

Guess I'm being a little optimistic Paul, we know this is occuring but having sworn testimony in front of an angry Henry Waxman might hit home to the heartland more than it is right now.
Politically Lost | 11.17.06 - 6:04 pm | #

VOR | 11.17.06 - 4:11 pm | #

What I am is an independant. I find extremisim on either side to be disgusting. I despise Neo-Cons as much as Left Wing Lunatics. But, I find the Democratic party, in general, to be more reprehensible than the Republicans. I think Democrats are much more 2 faced about things and they just seem sleazier.

Trust me, I bash Neo-cons on their blogs as well.

In otherwords, you're just a equal-opportunity asshole who enjoys pissing AND spitting into the wind... Great... A crank who can't even take a stand...
Moses | 11.17.06 - 6:10 pm | #

Actually I think your optimism is fully justified. I was thinking the the "if" should be a "when" in your original post.
Paul Dirks | Homepage | 11.17.06 - 6:11 pm | #

(Spending some fantasy time in that glow of optimisim)

Won't it be great if our congress actually does its job and investigates all this good stuff?

War profiteering, abuses of executive power...

OK, I'm starting to salivate.

My name is Politically Lost, and I'm a news junkie.
Politically Lost | 11.17.06 - 6:16 pm | #

Centrist stand for nothing. They let the "extremes" (this term by itself means NOTHING, it says nothing of specifics the left and right believe in and doesn't offer a critique of anything specifically) duke it out, cause they actually believe stronly in things instead of being lukewarm, and stand in the middle, saying "I'm not extreme, I'm RATIONAL, I believe in nothing, vote for me". Yuk, you can have your do nothing mentality. I'm a leftie, I believe in actual things, I have a passion for stances on issues, I must be crazy.
Wicked legs | 11.17.06 - 6:23 pm | #

I can't find the link, but there was an article in the New York Times within the last couple months that provided a statistical analysis of what actually is the most important pitch during an at bat in baseball. Broadcast announcers like to say it's the first pitch-- get that first strike! -- but those quoted in the NY Times piece said that it is actually the 2-1 pitch.

That is, if the pitcher gets a strike and the counts goes to 2-2, the odds increase substantially that what happens after that point will be an out. And if the pitcher throws a ball and the counts goes to 3-1, the odds increase substantially that the batter will prevail in one way or another. This is less true for other counts. It's the 2-1 that matters.

So that's the question around Nancy Pelosi's failure -- if, indeed, it was a wholehearted effort that can be deemed a failure -- to get Jack Murtha as her Number Two Man. Was this a key moment in a larger strategy with much contingent on it? Or was in just a one-off moment, complete in itself and not the first carom in a nine-cushion shot?

I don't know, but it is lovely to see the pundits earn their bread by assuming it's a key moment in a long skein of feints, ducks and counterpunches that will determine Pelosi's success. The pundits rush to fill the vacuum even if they are the vacuum.

But maybe Murtha's shortfall was just rock, paper, scissors, complete in itself and just about as serious.
jm robertson | 11.17.06 - 6:32 pm | #

In otherwords, you're just a equal-opportunity asshole who enjoys pissing AND spitting into the wind... Great... A crank who can't even take a stand...
Moses | 11.17.06 - 6:10 pm | #

No, what I am is a person who enjoys telling both sides of the extremism aisle to FUCK OFF! You (meaning both sides) are ruining this country for regular Americans. Your contempt and hatred for each other is disgusting.

I wish there could be a war between you Left Wing Lunatics and Conservative Right Wingnuts so you could just completely wipe each other out. Then, the rest of us (the NORMAL people) could actually enjoy living in this country again, instead of watching it picked apart by you fucking assholes.
VOR | 11.17.06 - 6:58 pm | #

The New York Times is now piling on. How long has it been since she was elected?

Speaker Pelosi Tempts Disaster

Nancy Pelosi has managed to severely scar her leadership even before taking up the gavel as the new speaker of the House. First, she played politics with the leadership of the House Intelligence Committee to settle an old score and a new debt. And then she put herself in a lose-lose position by trying to force a badly tarnished ally, Representative John Murtha, on the incoming Democratic Congress as majority leader. The party caucus put a decisive end to that gambit yesterday, giving the No. 2 job to Steny Hoyer, a longtime Pelosi rival.

But Ms. Pelosi’s damage to herself was already done. The well-known shortcomings of Mr. Murtha were broadcast for all to see — from his quid-pro-quo addiction to moneyed lobbyists to the grainy government tape of his involvement in the Abscam scandal a generation ago. The resurrected tape — feasted upon by Pelosi enemies — shows how Mr. Murtha narrowly survived as an unindicted co-conspirator, admittedly tempted but finally rebuffing a bribe offer: “I’m not interested — at this point.”

It's a good thing you wrote this post Glenn. This is absolutely ridiculous. "Damage to herself is already done"...

The headline should read, "Pelosi, should take herself behind the woodshed and shoot herself in the head."

I can't remember how to link, go read it now!
Politically Lost | 11.17.06 - 6:59 pm | #

Dingel, Conyers and Rangel "on the wrong side of every issue"? And after having read that, I'm supposed to take TNR seriously about what, exactly? Beyond that, someone post a portrait of these TNR wiseguys beside the dictionary definition of circle jerk, or self-referential. I suppose they assume their reader (who is their reader anyway? certainly not a not-self-hating Democrat) is waiting with baited breath for every - brief - pronouncement. After all this time, I finally understand why Kos mentions them so often. He just can't help having all that fun.
ash | Homepage | 11.17.06 - 7:01 pm | #

This is a NYTimes editorial!

Yup, this liberal media just doesn't know how to treat conservatives do they?
Politically Lost | 11.17.06 - 7:02 pm | #

Yikes. Justin Raimondo sure has a different take on all this indicating we have a disaster on our hands. And who funds CREW? Soros? I should have known better than to trust that creep Soros. He's probably behind Carville blasting Dean also.

Anyway I'll be writing another post about Soros after I finish a little more research. His motives hardly appear to be what most people think they are. Definitely more of an enemy than a friend to America.

Anyway go read Justin

In this spirit, then, examine the CNN photo of Nancy's coronation and notice its composition: Rahm Emanuel to the left of her, Hoyer to her right – a veritable Praetorian Guard that is little short of menacing. [Menancing is an understatement. Emanuel is right out of "24"] The former torpedoed antiwar candidates in the primary and snubbed them in the general election, while the latter defeated antiwar leader Jack Murtha – frowning in the background – for majority leader on the strength of a smear campaign of extraordinary proportions. Are the men surrounding Madam Speaker an honor guard, or a police escort? Who's in charge here?

Arrayed against Murtha was a united front of the Democratic Party establishment, from a George Soros-backed "liberal" consumer-complainer group to an anonymously run YouDontKnowJack.org, featuring replays of the infamous Abscam tapes...

The Great Realignment of 2006 lasted a little over a week before it turned into the Great Sellout. It is a perfect illustration of how the War Party controls the leadership of both major parties and maintains its grip on the levers of power. Given near-monopoly status on account of repressive ballot access laws in most states, the parties can thwart the popular will. Given a mandate for peace, the Democratic Party leadership has effectively rejected it and reversed the election results...

Americans voted for peace, and they're going to get more war....

It is instructive to observe how readily supposedly "liberal" groups stabbed the antiwar movement in the back by fueling the "Murtha = corruption" meme: they caviled that the conservative Catholic congressman is anti-abortion and not exactly a San Francisco Democrat, either in style or substance. With his blue-collar demeanor, Murtha is the exact opposite of the white-wine-and-brie crowd – i.e., big business and the "labor" aristocracy – that mobilized around Hoyer.

As support for a quick exit from Iraq gathers strength among the public, the Washington elite draws closer together in defense of a failed policy, and the differences between the Democrats and Republicans begin to meet and merge. In the face of a popular rebellion against the madness of our foreign policy, both wings of the War Party present a united front against the electoral onslaught. Faced with the "choice" of John McCain versus Hillary Clinton in 2008, both pro-war and avidly interventionist, where does the antiwar majority go?
.
Eyes Wide Open | 11.17.06 - 7:06 pm | #

From VOR at 6:58pm:

wish there could be a war between you Left Wing Lunatics and Conservative Right Wingnuts so you could just completely wipe each other out.

A war to exterminate extremism.

That makes about as much sense as "raping for virginity".

Then, the rest of us (the NORMAL people) could actually enjoy living in this country again,

So, you envision a world with neither diversity of thought, creed, religion, ideal, color, manner, nor action?

Enjoy your fantasies of a graveyard, friend. The rest of us will carry on living without you.
yankeependragon | 11.17.06 - 7:06 pm | #

Then, the rest of us (the NORMAL people) could actually enjoy living in this country again, instead of watching it picked apart by you fucking assholes.

lmao.. we now officially have identified the WNRCINO (wacko-nut radical "centrist" in name only).
Simp | 11.17.06 - 7:07 pm | #

YES! (OT, but I don't care)

Judge won't halt AT&T wiretapping lawsuit
SAN FRANCISCO--A federal district judge on Friday rejected the Bush administration's request to halt a lawsuit that alleges AT&T unlawfully cooperated with a broad and unconstitutional government surveillance program.

U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker said the lawsuit could continue while a portion of it was being appealed, despite the U.S. Justice Department's arguments that further hearings and other proceedings would consequently endanger national security.

"I do think these are matters we can proceed on," Walker said toward the end of the status conference here, which began at 11 a.m. PST and was attended by around 50 attorneys from the government, nonprofit groups, class action law firms and major telecommunications companies. ...

ej | 11.17.06 - 7:15 pm | #

yankeependragon | 11.17.06 - 7:06 pm | #

You entire post is idiotic. You obviously have neither the mental capacity to respond intelligently nor to even comprehend what I wrote. Your conclusions of my post would earn you an F on a paper. Please fuck off. And take the "Simp"leton with you on the way out.
BlueDog/VOR | 11.17.06 - 7:26 pm | #

From BlueDog/VOR 7:26 pm:

You entire post is idiotic.

Says the one offering eliminationalist fantasies.

You obviously have neither the mental capacity to respond intelligently nor to even comprehend what I wrote.

I'm afraid I only speak plain old English. If you were writing in another language, will you please identify it?

Your conclusions of my post would earn you an F on a paper.

Again, please identify what language you were writing in, or at least offer a coherent translation of it.

Please fuck off. And take the "Simp"leton with you on the way out.

How droll. I guess this means your first name is "Homer", isn't it?

Or is it "Barney"? Or "Weyland"?
yankeependragon | 11.17.06 - 7:36 pm | #

Did Glen mean "most obedient vessels" or "most obedient vassals".
Medical Diagnosis By Video | 11.17.06 - 7:37 pm | #

ABSCAM WAS A SCAM

The only people who should have gone to prison were Mel Weinberg and the FBI. That was my opinion in 1980 and it's still my opinion.

Murtha wasn't indicted because, if you review all the tapes, you can see that he couldn't have been convicted.

Five U.S. Reps, and some other corrupt guys, were convicted, and back in 1980 I remember being pretty lonely in my opinion that ABSCAM violated due process.

Almost everybody said that if corrupt politicians were getting punished, then due process was no big deal. I disagreed, and I still disagree, but I doubt I'll influence anybody's opinion.
sysprog | 11.17.06 - 7:39 pm | #

SMALL BEER
Jane Harman might win the chair, but ...
... at least it won't be Hoekstra.
sysprog | 11.17.06 - 7:45 pm | #

PS. Everything is very confusing. It is very difficult to sort it all out and figure out what's going on. You think one thing and then wham, you get new information which proves it wrong.

What makes it all so difficult is the very real possibility that there really isn't anyone in politics who can be trusted.

In real life, you trust yourself. But in politics, where you are not in the arena and have to rely completely on others to inform you about what's happening, it's completely different.

Between Justin Raimondo and George Soros, it isn't even close. But does Justin know all the things Glenn just wrote about Murtha? Or maybe Justin thinks that Murtha represents to the public the face of antiwar so he was the better person for that job because the people would push Murtha to follow through with antiwar programs?

I'd like no corruption and no bloodshed. I guess that isn't on the menu, however.

Glenn, do you ever get confused about all this?
.
Eyes Wide Open | 11.17.06 - 7:47 pm | #

I wish there could be a war between you Left Wing Lunatics and Conservative Right Wingnuts so you could just completely wipe each other out. Then, the rest of us (the NORMAL people) could actually enjoy living in this country again, instead of watching it picked apart by you fucking assholes.
VOR

Hey VOR. What's the "NORMAL" political position in a 2-party democratic republic? I'm curious.
Baldie McEagle | 11.17.06 - 7:56 pm | #

EWO:

I was never under the illusions that Dems taking the house would lead directly to troop withdrawals. After all, a significant fraction of voters this time out were voting against sleaze as opposed to the war itself.

That's why sadly enough ABSCAM still matters and everything we maty hope for will have to come in smaller increments than we may like.

The important thing as far as I am concerned isn't that Democrats won, but rather that the architects of the war lost.
Paul Dirks | Homepage | 11.17.06 - 7:57 pm | #

What a cacophony of whining. What did you people expect?
Did you think escaping judgement by offering nothing in the way of action or substantive commentary was going to continue?
Welcome to the real world where actions have consequences and generate instant judgements. How's it feel to be on the recieving end for a change? Heh.
shooter242 | 11.17.06 - 8:11 pm | #

actions have consequences and generate instant judgements.

Which are you referring to?

Consequences are the eventual result of actions wheras instant judgments are pretty much guaranteed to be foolish.

It seems that actually thinking has become a lost art.
Paul Dirks | Homepage | 11.17.06 - 8:17 pm | #

From shooter242 at 8:11pm:

Welcome to the real world where actions have consequences and generate instant judgements.

The 600,000+ Iraqis you've managed to kill since March, 2003 rather proved that point, shooter. Let us know when you're prepared to face the consequences of your crowd's actions.

How's it feel to be on the recieving end for a change?

The 'receiving end' of what, exactly? The methane you're venting out your backside?

That's just being rude, you know.
yankeependragon | 11.17.06 - 8:40 pm | #

Turning to impeached-Judge Hastings to chair the House Intelligence Committee, when an imminently qualified Jane Harmon comes with no "ethically-challenged" problems?

How do you expect to be taken seriously with this triply wrong remark? First, she HAS NOT declared that her pick will be Hastings. Can you please refer me to where she has done this? Second, Harman proved herself to be supremely unqualified to chair this committee with her repeated support of the warrantless wiretap program. And third, she appears to now have ethical if not legal problems as well with the FBI AIPAC probe.

Do you even fact-check before you post?
Kovie | 11.17.06 - 8:47 pm | #

At the risk of piling on:

No, what I am is a person who enjoys telling both sides of the extremism aisle to FUCK OFF! You (meaning both sides) are ruining this country for regular Americans. Your contempt and hatred for each other is disgusting.

I wish there could be a war between you Left Wing Lunatics and Conservative Right Wingnuts so you could just completely wipe each other out. Then, the rest of us (the NORMAL people) could actually enjoy living in this country again, instead of watching it picked apart by you fucking assholes.

Normal? C'est ne pas normal. C'est--comme on dit?--le grande bizarre!

I find it endlessly laughable for someone telling others to "FUCK OFF!" and calling them "fucking assholes" to be complaining about anyone of showing "contempt and hatred". That's like Bush calling someone stupid and incompetent.

Looks like someone needs a looooong recuperative vacation. They have places for folks like you in the south of France, in Arles, where it's always pleasant and the sunflowers are so bright and yellow. Just stay away from sharp objects and ladies of ill repute.
Kovie | 11.17.06 - 9:06 pm | #

shooter commented:

Hmmmm. I must have missed the blog and ended up at Page Six.
shooter242 | 11.17.06 - 9:06 am

From the home of "Page Six" :

New York Post
CALL HER 'NANCY SHREW'?
By DEBORAH ORIN-EILBECK
November 17, 2006 -- FORGET "The Devil Wears Prada the hot show in Washington is "The Shrew Adores Armani." In just a few short days, House Speaker-to-be Nancy Pelosi has turned into a caricature of the shrill, petty woman boss ... The speaker-to-be yesterday made clear her determination to use her new post to command center stage when she showed up in a screaming red power suit - instead of the fade-into-the-background gray that she's favored in the past ... If you look at her face, you can see that she's angry - and the problem for Democrats is that will be literally and figuratively the face of the Democratic Party for the next two years.
Deborah Orin-Eilbeck is The Post's Washington bureau chief.

Shooter's correct -- it's getting harder to tell which part of the NY Post isn't Page Six ... and it's getting harder to tell which part of the SCLM isn't the NY Post.
sysprog | 11.17.06 - 9:08 pm | #

Shooter:

What a cacophony of whining. What did you people expect?

I don't think any of us really expected anything less.

I'm going to ask a straight forward question...

Does this show liberal media bias?
Politically Lost | 11.17.06 - 9:13 pm | #

I wish there could be a war between you Left Wing Lunatics and Conservative Right Wingnuts so you could just completely wipe each other out. Then, the rest of us (the NORMAL people) could actually enjoy living in this country again, instead of watching it picked apart by you fucking assholes.
VOR

It's called crossfire. And you will still never hear the shot that kills you, dumbass.
LWM | 11.17.06 - 9:24 pm | #

I wish there could be a war between you Left Wing Lunatics and Conservative Right Wingnuts so you could just completely wipe each other out. Then, the rest of us (the NORMAL people) could actually enjoy living in this country again, instead of watching it picked apart by you fucking assholes.
VOR

Hey! I think the "radical center" found us out!

Centrists are suck weak ass punks.
LWM | 11.17.06 - 9:28 pm | #

Hmmmm. I must have got lost in the fog and ended up in the Deep Six.
shooter242 | 11.17.06 - 9:06 am

Hallelujah!
LWM | 11.17.06 - 9:30 pm | #

Deborah Orin is a right-wing shill who obviously has an axe to grind (although about what or why I'm not sure), and an idiot to boot. It only takes a couple of minutes to figure that out. I've seen her on tv a number of times and it's clear who she's taking her marching orders from. She's one unoriginal talking point after another, of the Mary Matalin sort. She's hardly qualified to accuse or complain about anyone being motivated by anger. Projection, anyone?

It's amazing just how much visceral and free-floating hatred there is on the right towards the left. You can seee it in the degree to which their attacks are personal and not substantive. When you refer to someone's dress color and facial expressions instead of their policy positions and proven leadership abilities, you pretty much disqualify yourself from being taken seriously. When Maureen Dowd does this, it's funny at best and annoying at worst. When Orin does it, it's downright revolting.
Kovie | 11.17.06 - 9:30 pm | #

Hey! I think the "radical center" found us out!

Centrists are suck weak ass punks.
LWM | 11.17.06 - 9:28 pm | #

Sorry, the only "weak ass punks" are you spineless liberals. Centrists are the only NORMAL ones around.
BlueDog/VOR | 11.17.06 - 9:52 pm | #

Oh, I'm keeping this one for the archives. I have no doubt it will come in handy.

It's amazing just how much visceral and free-floating hatred there is on the right towards the left. You can seee it in the degree to which their attacks are personal and not substantive. When you refer to someone's dress color and facial expressions instead of their policy positions and proven leadership abilities, you pretty much disqualify yourself from being taken seriously. Kovie | 11.17.06 - 9:30 pm

Kind of like this.....?

In yet another pathetic display of right-wing desperation as their unholy "cabal" unravels, neocon Max Boot shamelessly tries to defend his buddies in the Bush administration in an op-ed in Wednesday's LA Times titled "Plamegate's real liar" by claiming that Joe Wilson was the real liar and villain in the Plame outing scandal.
* kovie's diary :: ::
As with most of the the lies and distortions disseminated by these knee-jerk Kool Aid-chugging robocons in obviously coordinated talking points, it's becoming increasingly easier to see through them and tear them apart. And with their neocon agenda increasingly being seen as dishonest, disasterous and unpopular, it's important that every time they put out one of these inane screeds, they be called on the carpet for it. This is clearly a Howard Beale moment (well, at least before he too drank the Kool Aid!).

Have you apologized to Rove yet?
shooter242 | 11.17.06 - 10:06 pm | #

"Have you apologized to Rove..."

You mean Hasta la vista, baby? The late, great asshat? That Rove? So sad. I'm glad.

Payback is SUCH a bitch.

Joshua Norton | 11.17.06 - 10:21 pm | #

Maureen Dowd has a voice for newspaper.
daleyrocks | 11.17.06 - 10:30 pm | #

Bela Pelosi is a cupid stunt. The disarray and stupidity being reflected in the leadership elections and committee assignment process of the Democrats mirrors their inability to come up with a platform prior to the election other than saying no to anything Bush advanced. The only unity Pelosi ever achieved among her colleagues was her refusal to permit them to introduce alternatives to Republican bills. That the liberal media is attacking them so soon is indeed curious, but for Glenn and the commenters on the blog to attack the media who were so helpful to their cause is incredibly disingenuous.

How soon we forget.
daleyrocks | 11.17.06 - 10:36 pm | #

Screw the beltway thugs. Pelosi and the democrats are going to pass the bills we need:

to end the war
raise the minimum wage
restore our Consitutional rights

Bush may veto them——but then, the cat's out of the bag. Anyway, after the investigations, Bush's popularity will be in the single digits, and he'll be lucky to avoid jail time.
Publicus | 11.17.06 - 11:10 pm | #

From daleyrocks at 10:36pm:

How soon we forget.

Has the 110th Congress convened and no-one's noticed?

Perhaps you should hold the invectives and empty harping until they actually convene?
yankeependragon | 11.17.06 - 11:16 pm | #

Thanks for the sanity check Glenn.

On Washington Week, the guy from the Washington post just pitched the line about the Murtha endorsement being a terrible defeat and a very shakey and embarrassing start for Pelosi, etc., etc...
roberto | Homepage | 11.17.06 - 11:20 pm | #

> Bela Pelosi is a cupid stunt.
>
> daleyrocks | 11.17.06 - 10:36 pm |

Yup. "Cupid stunt," uttered as non-cleverly as "bass ackwards" or "yuck fou."

Unfettered misogyny played off as cute word play. How non-refreshing -- and, given the speaker, completely predictable behavior.

--Lou
Luis Bueno | 11.17.06 - 11:25 pm | #

It doesn't make a bit of difference what the Republicans do over the next two years.
If they filibuster they become obstructionist, Sen. Inhofe has already announced he will filibuster any legislation involving climate change, if they cooperate they lose their base.
All Pelosi needs to do to be successful, is propose new legislation that will be vetoed by Bush ensuring a Dem victory in 08.
One thing the pundits don't realize is that the last time they tried to snare a Democratic leader they didn't have the blogs to deal with. It should be highly entertaining to watch, pass the popcorn please.
brainfaht | 11.17.06 - 11:29 pm | #

Have you apologized to Rove yet?

Ok, I relent. I'm sorry that Rove was an ugly nerd child whose only friends were his pet gerbils Adolf and Hermann, whom no one wanted to play with during recess, and who thus resolved to grow up and get back at them.

I'm sorry that Rove smeared dozens of undeserving politicians and destroyed their careers in order to make his own.

I'm sorry that Rove has supported a war that has served absolutely no positive purpose other than to enrich Halliburton.

I'm sorry that Rove coordinated the outing of a hard-working and courageous patriot who was working to protect national security and taken down for no good reason, and was then able to perjury himself out of an indictment.

Does that work for you? Your point is not at all proven, and yet again you're talking out of your ass. I guess that I'm sorry for that too.

What I am NOT sorry for is that Rove turned the country against his party and ultimately cost it a huge election and quite possibly put it out of contention for years. No apologies from me on that one.

Oh, and what the hell are you doing going through all my old diaries on DailyKos? Is this what you do with your free time, troll for something to nitpick about? I don't have a problem with this since it's all public domain and I stand by everything I've posted online (even the occasional display of idiocy and/or foolishness). But it just seems kind of, well, sad.
Kovie | 11.17.06 - 11:47 pm | #

Yankme - Brilliant, incisive analysis from you as always. Do you think much or did you get a new calender?
daleyrocks | 11.17.06 - 11:47 pm | #

"The incident follows the recent announcement that four of the campus police department's nearly 60 full-time sworn officers had won so-called Taser Awards granted by the manufacturer of the device to "law enforcement officers who save a life in the line of duty through extraordinary use of the Taser." The award stemmed from an incident in which officers subdued a patient who allegedly threatened staff at the campus' Neuropsychiatric Hospital with metal scissors."

La Times

Did I read that correctly?

Taser inc. has a reward program that gives cops honors for tasing people heroically?

Is this typical?
Plisko | 11.17.06 - 11:51 pm | #

oops wrong comment window I think sorry OT post.
Plisko | 11.17.06 - 11:52 pm | #

Bela Pelosi is a cupid stunt.

As far as I'm concerned this should be a bannable comment. I.e. ban this poster, not just the comment. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what this contemptible display of adolescent misogyny and rage actually means.

This person not only has nothing useful or productive to contribute to the discussions here, but clearly is not fit to even be allowed to try. There are lines that are not crossed without consequence. This is clearly one of them.

Glenn--it's time to Bart this loser.
Kovie | 11.17.06 - 11:53 pm | #

>"If "passing over" Hastings upsets the Congressioinal Black Caucus -- good. What are they going to do about it? Leave? Blacks can't desert the Democratic Party because to a large extent they ARE the Democratic Party."

It is always good to see who appreciates and respects the support the black electorate gives the Democratic Party and who believes that black folks' support should be taken for granted because they don't have any other place to go.

Let me get this straight. In 1989 Alcee Hastings, who was then a federal judge, was impeached by the House and subsequently removed from office by the Senate for allegedly taking a bribe and committing perjury. He was also acquitted of any criminal acts by a jury. Three years later, he was elected to the House of Representatives with the overwhelming support of the black voters living in the 23rd Congressional District of Florida. He has been reelected to the House seven times always with the overwhelming support of these same black voters.

Now people who claim to appreciate the unwavering support that black voters have given to the Democratic Party are telling the Congressional Black Caucus and their constituents that they should not expect to cash their winning tickets at the winners' window. There is something wrong with this picture and the contemputous attitude that accompanies it.

When it comes to the Democratic Party black folks bring much more than their appetite to the table and they deserve to receive much more than the scraps being set on their plate. I don't think that white liberals and progressives who identify themselves as Democrats really understand the depth of frustration many, many blacks feel in terms of their relationship to the Democratic Party.

The connection between Democrats and the black electorate is not fixed forever. It can change and that change does not have to occur over generations or many election cycles. Telling black folks that they don't have any other place to go might hasten their desire to test that assertion.
fogcitynative | 11.17.06 - 11:58 pm | #

roberto,

Babington is basically the Post's version of Nagourney. I saw WWIR (actually watching it right now on the left coast), and his comments were right out of the MSM wurlitzer. What I want to know is whether they all get together to coordinate their talking point stories, get their marching orders from the same source, or are simply parroting each other to avoid being labelled as too liberal (see: Mehlman).

It's so wearisome to keep hearing this same "Pelosi messed up big time, Dems are in disarray, voters' remorse, etc." mem coming out of one MSM reporter and pundit after another. It's just so boring and unoriginal, and so very very very disappointing. This is so clearly a coordinated attempt by someone to smear Pelosi and the Dems and weaken them out of the gate. I'm just wondering if this was an inside job a la Carville, or from the GOP.
Kovie | 11.18.06 - 12:01 am | #

Nancy Pelosi is perfectly capable of taking the heat. She doesn't need the defense, brilliant as it is. I didn't like Nancy Pelosi 5 years ago when she moved into the leadership, but she's earned my respect over the years. I trust her strength, and I think she'll be a great Speaker. All of this early baiting is just flotsam and jetsom on the Democratic Wave, folks.
Brighid | 11.18.06 - 12:10 am | #

daleyrocks-
Next time you sarcastically question whether someone "thinks much" or instead got "a new calender" you should learn how to spell "calendar."

Please don't throw a "potatoe" at me!
david | Homepage | 11.18.06 - 12:11 am | #

Kovie, dude, take a chill pill. No rage on my end, it must reflect your attitude. It's too bad you have a problem with opinions that differ from your own as you frequently display in your comments. It's not calling plastic Nancy names that bothers you, it's the rest of the comment, as you indicate by your words in your next post.

Get it together. Maybe the Democrats can too. It should be entertaining at least, with full tilt loonies in charge in Congress. Why not start with a $15.00 per hour minimum wage, it's as good an artificial number as any?
daleyrocks | 11.18.06 - 12:52 am | #

Black people are reading the Democrats loud and clear: "We don't want you," they're constantly being told, "you're an embarrassment, ghosts of a past we'd much rather put behind us. We aren't the New Deal Democratic Party or the Party of the Great Society anymore. You are no longer among our constituents, and we resent your constant nagging for our attention. Go away. We've resolved the Negro question. We're comfortable in our colorblind racist illusions."
IngSoc | Homepage | 11.18.06 - 1:04 am | #

It may just be that it's late, but I've been following this thread off and on all day, and the only sense I can make out of it is that crazy and stupid seem to have grown closer as I've gotten older.

And no, I don't mean any of the commenters, I mean the subject matter of Glenn's last two posts. If I didn't know Glenn, I'd swear he was making all of this up. Whatever Gestalt binds Pam Atlas, Marty Peretz and -- for example -- David Broder together, it seems to me increasingly likely that we won't find it in their motivations.

One is histrionic, another calculating, the third somnolent, but the thing they all share is that they are very, very, very much about whatever they're about.

Seventy-some years ago Basil Bunting remarked of Ezra Pound that he said too little, and referred to too much. That, I think, is what the matter is here.

What Pam Atlas says could be summed up as this: I really, really don't like the people I don't like. They're icky. Marty Peretz: What's bad for Israel is bad for the United States, and everything is bad for Israel. David Broder: Nothing which happens which hasn't already been happening for a long time should be disdained.

The rest is interminable advocacy, when, in a sane world, it would be silence.
William Timberman | 11.18.06 - 1:27 am | #

Mmm...it is late. That should have been Anything which happens...
William Timberman | 11.18.06 - 1:34 am | #

WT,
perhaps you should have been a diagnostician. The element that binds the pundit class is simply ego. Perhaps ego gone awry, but its there and its blinding.
There was a time, I think, when we could have a common dialogue but perhaps I'm wrong. I remember as a child driving with my family through the west and seeing all the Burma Shave signs on farms in Rural Nebraska or Iowa and occasionally you would see the "impeach Earl Warren" signs put up by the Birch society. My dad gave me his best explanation and it fell short, or perhaps I was too young to grasp his interpretation. But radicalism was a thriving enterprise, I'm sure. Later as I grew up we had on our local television station, the Joe Pyne show, who was like a Bill O'Reilly of his time. He was very popular in the neighborhood I grew up in, but pulled no weight with my family but neither did Roller Derby which was popular also. So I think this ailment has been with us for a long time, but it took us a long time to notice its presence. Perhaps this is the strength of the media after all, and the blogs will be its cure. One thing is for sure however, and that is the jury is out for the immediate future.
brainfaht | 11.18.06 - 2:08 am | #

IngSoc,

Yeah, tell it to the recently elected Democratic House Majority Whip for the 110th Congress, and then get back to me--I'm not buying it.

Shortly after his Democratic colleagues elected him whip on Thursday, Clyburn pointedly noted that there are no black Republicans in Congress.

"What I'm proud of is the diversity of the Democratic Party," Clyburn said. "Now, 61 percent of the American people say they want Democrats in charge of our government, diversity and all."
. | 11.18.06 - 2:14 am | #

brainfaht:

Ah, ego -- the bane of the West, and now, increasingly, of the East as well.

There's no love in it, is there? And yet D-rocks loves it as he loves nothing else. To the extent that love governs him, I mean, which is to say almost not at all.

I wonder that Buddhism isn't on the cusp of sweeping the world, now that the warring monotheisms are firmly wrapped in each other's claws once again. Time for the rest of us to sneak away and plant trees, I'd say. The again, we tried it in the seventies, which D-rocks now sums up as Kumbaya. In his case, of course, we're dealing with considerably more stupid than crazy, but he may command the future nevertheless. He certainly seems to think so.
William Timberman | 11.18.06 - 2:55 am | #

Well said my friend,
I'll miss daleyrocks when he's gone.But he is easily replaced.
After all, the war goes on. I'm off to plant my trees tomorrow.
brainfaht | 11.18.06 - 3:15 am | #

The New York Times / December 6, 1994Republicans All for One, and the One Is Gingrich
By ADAM CLYMER
Representative Newt Gingrich was unanimously chosen today to be Speaker of the House by ecstatic Republicans chanting "Newt, Newt, Newt," and he told them that the way to get rid of bad Federal programs was simply not to provide any money for them.

Nominated for the post by Republicans who called him "a revolutionary" and a "visionary," Mr. Gingrich, a Georgian, talked for an hour about the America he would like to help fashion and the hard work ahead for the House. He gave his fellow Representatives an eight-item reading list that included titles as diverse as the Federalist Papers and Mary E. Boone's "Leadership and the Computer."

He was occasionally overcome and had to pause because his boyhood ambition is one step from realization, awaiting a Jan. 4 House vote that is no more than a formality. Accepting the nomination from his majority party, Mr. Gingrich compared the gray, rainy day to March 4, 1933, when Franklin D. Roosevelt was inaugurated in the depths of the Depression and assured the nation, "We have nothing to fear but fear itself."

"I think we're in that tradition," he said. "I think we want to say to the nation that we have nothing to fear but fear itself, that we can reach out together as a family, all Americans, and we can dramatically improve our quality of life, the economic opportunity and the safety of virtually every American between now and the year 2000."

* * * * *

The New York Times / November 17, 2006
Pelosi Rebuffed Over Her Choice for Majority Leader
By CARL HULSE
WASHINGTON — House Democrats chose Representative Steny H. Hoyer of Maryland as their new majority leader on Thursday, rejecting the choice of the incoming speaker, Nancy Pelosi ... whom Democrats chose unanimously to be their candidate for speaker and who would be the first woman to hold that office ... “It is a great leadership team,” Representative Henry A. Waxman of California said in nominating Mr. Hoyer. “Let’s keep it in place.”

* * * * *

Maybe if Nancy had acted like Newt, and arranged for acolytes to praise her as a "visionary" and a "revolutionary" ... Does anybody remember the "mandate" madness, and the authoritarian GOP party discipline, and the cult of personality erected to worship Newt's "vision"? ... It's good that Nancy's style is unlike Newt's, but it would have been nice if the NY Times considered her unanimous nomination as speaker to be worthy of a headline, especially after ten days of inaccurate stories about how the newly elected Dems were very conservative and therefore wouldn't support her to be speaker.
sysprog | 11.18.06 - 4:10 am | #

Kovie, dude, take a chill pill. No rage on my end, it must reflect your attitude. It's too bad you have a problem with opinions that differ from your own as you frequently display in your comments.

It is not differing opinions that I have a problem with. I actually welcome them, provided that they are honest, fact-based, coherent and respectful. Yours are none of these, and so hardly even qualify as opinions. More like swirling delusions and paranoid rantings, and hardly deserving of serious responses, which is why you'll get none.

Oh, and it is a universally recognized fact that whenever someone resorts to either name-calling, vile cursing, or the exhortation to "chill"--i.e. when they turn personal--they have essentially abandoned the field of battle to their adversary, and admitted defeat. You sir, are now in that position, and everyone here knows it.

You have made your bed, "dude", and now you're going to haver to sleep in it.

Goodbye, and try not to trip over that tail caught between your legs.

And to everyone else here who is actually interested in engaging in serious and respectful discussion, please don't feed the troll. His is a bottomless appetite that when fed merely regurgitates and excretes vile and bilious substances best left unexamined.

And until Glenn sees fit to actually ban this virtual Gollum, please, just ignore him and move on. Surely you all have better things to do with your time and minds.
Kovie | 11.18.06 - 8:17 am | #

Telling black folks that they don't have any other place to go might hasten their desire to test that assertion.
fogcitynative | 11.17.06 - 11:58 pm

I wouldn't confuse the deluded and dishonest rantings of an obvious troll with the current relationship of the Democratic leadership with the CBC, which actually bear no relation to what this person claims. This might have been true years ago, and I suspect that he or she is trying to dredge up that sad history to stir up some present mud.

But with James Clyburn being elected majority whip, several of the most prominent and important committees about to be chaired by African-Americans (e.g. Rangel, Conyers), and talk of reviving the movement to give DC a representative (to be balanced, of course, with one that will surely be a GOP seat in UT), it can hardly be truthfully said that the Democratic party is still telling its black members to vote and shut up.

There is still a long way to go before true parity is achieved (especially in the senate and at the state level). But this is not your father's Democratic party any more. Compare that to the GOP, which has exactly how many Afrrican-American representatives and senators, not to mention ones in leadership positions (and yes, I am aware of Watts, Blackwell, Steele and Swann--none of whom are in elective office at present)?

I rest my case.
Kovie | 11.18.06 - 8:30 am | #

From daleyrocks at 11:47pm:

Yankme - Brilliant, incisive analysis from you as always. Do you think much or did you get a new calender?

Do you think at all, or are simply incapable of it?

Your crowd is still in control of Congress for the next month and a half. Your crowd has shown itself incapable of doing anything constructive or worthwhile for the country.

Perhaps you should hold your tongue until the next Congress convenes and actually tries to accomplish something.

I am of course wasting my breath, but one feels obligated to be the adult here.
yankeependragon | 11.18.06 - 11:20 am | #

What's so striking is that the media has ignored the Democrats for 6 years and would not cover anything that they did or said. Murtha was called a coward in the House but no one mentioned Abscam. this week all I heard about was how tainted he is. All of a sudden the whole story is about Dems and no stone is too old or too small to scream about. What a difference 10 days makes.
k | 11.18.06 - 1:10 pm | #

k | 11.18.06 - 1:10 pm

This was obviously a smear campaign coming from the Hoyer camp and not the GOP (although I'm sure that they did nothing to discourage it and only rejoiced at the apparent "disarray" in Dem ranks that they and the MSM want to imagine still exists), and the MSM just ate it up. And by Hoyer camp I don't just mean Hoyer himself, or even principally, but the Blue Dogs, DLC and corporate world (including of course the corporate-owned MSM) who are loath to see the progressive wing of the party (which Murtha ironically is not a part of but which he has now come to be associated or at least allied with) dominate. THAT is why Murtha was swift boated now--because his ascendency threatened them--and not when he opposed the war, which didn't really threaten them.

Hoyer and his wing may have won this round, but Pelosi has not at all been fatally wounded, despite the MSM's claims that she has. And I suspect that she will make her authority quite evident fairly soon (because she needs to do this lest some wonder if she has in fact been seriously damaged). Nor will Murtha forget, or easily forgive. What was done to him will not go unresponded to in kind, at the right time and in the right way. He is, after all, a marine.

Just wait and you will see. And it will likely happen during the coming conflict with the white house. His loss will be our victory before this is all over, I believe. And it was probably a good thing that he lost, as the GOP and MSM won't be able to use his undeniable ethical problems to undermine us. I think that he'll be far more effective working behind the scenes and out of the limelight (and in charge of the military appropriations subcommittee) than as majority leader.
Kovie | 11.18.06 - 1:58 pm | #

Need enlightenment? Visit the Mainstream Media Whorehouse:

http://www.newstarget.com/020430.html
sparafucilli | 11.18.06 - 2:30 pm | #

Great blog with good informations and pictures.
Thank you for this interesting blog.
I have bookmarked it.
Greetz Franz from
Limousinenservice in Munich
Franz | 11.18.06 - 8:50 pm | #

Glenn-
Great read as always. The MSM punditocracy is as worthless as it is verbose. One step away from sorority house gossip mongering.
Alan Coltharp | 11.19.06 - 1:06 am | #

alaska state board of pharmacy alaska state board of pharmacy alaska state board of pharmacy // liar's poker rules liar's poker rules liar's poker rules
Jaiden | Homepage | 02.01.07 - 10:32 am | #

cash advance services cash advance services cash advance services // bad credit visa cards bad credit visa cards bad credit visa cards
Rahul | Homepage | 02.03.07 - 2:18 am | #

Commenting by HaloScan