Tag Archives: Michele Bachmann

ABC’s Jake Tapper takes on The Newsroom

Media, Politics, , , , , , , , , ,

Actually, he took it on over a month ago, but I somehow missed it until just now. In the pages of The New Republic, Tapper took Sorkin to task:

There’s much to criticize in the media—and TV news in particular. But though “The Newsroom” intends to lecture its viewers on the higher virtues of capital-J journalism, Professor Sorkin soon reveals he isn’t much of an expert on the subject.

So far, so good. But what bothers me about Tapper’s critique is that he dislikes The Newsroom for all the wrong reasons. Here’s the crux of the problem with the show for Tapper:

McAvoy sanctimoniously laments the deterioration of public discourse and the news media’s complicity in it. But if that is the problem, his subsequent actions reveal a commitment to a uniformly partisan solution. McAvoy—and, by extension, Sorkin—preach political selflessness, but they practice pure partisanship; they extol the Fourth Estate’s democratic duty, but they believe that responsibility consists mostly of criticizing Republicans.

See, this is the crux of my problem with Tapper. I have a whole laundry list of complaints about The Newsroom — from the excessively preachy tone of all the dialogue to the half-baked and subpar romantic suplots to the improbably lucky connections the newsroom stuff was able to milk for details following the Gulf oil spill, and a million other things besides.

But if there’s one thing Sorkin doesn’t get wrong, it’s also the one thing that rubs Jake Tapper the wrong way. This is unfortunate, because — as someone who, admittedly, is not as familiar with Tapper’s journalism as I should be — I nevertheless have some unexplained fondness for the guy. But it appears something about Sorkin’s critique struck a little too close to home.

But before I get into that, Tapper’s not finished:

And when McAvoy goes after a National Rifle Association campaign to portray Obama as anti-gun, he insists on depicting it as a moral crusade in defense of the public good. But he never feels the need to question whether—in the midst of crises in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the international economy—it’s really so noble after all to devote one’s limited resources to fact-checking relatively unimportant political attacks. As such, it’s hard not to judge the resulting segment as falling short of McAvoy’s newly idealistic raison d’être—though Sorkin clearly seems to think otherwise.

Tapper goes on to say that McAvoy, much like other cable news stars, is blind to his own ideology. There may be a crumb of truth in that. But aside from the anchor’s comically atrocious disdain for the common people (“we are the media elite,” McAvoy declares on-air, without a smidgen of irony), it seems that the NewsNight anchor’s worst crime in Tapper’s eyes is assigning the truth any relevance at all. There are wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, he says, and an economy in crisis. Why not discuss that?

But to those of us who would like to see something more from the news than a mere dash-to-the-bottom for the juiciest new storyline (another suicide bombing in Baghdad! stocks fall 2% in an afternoon!), it really does matter whether the NRA lied about Obama’s alleged anti-gun record. And it really does matter that Michele Bachmann falsely claimed the Obamas’ trip to India cost American taxpayers $200 million per day. (It would appear that even Tapper would agree with this last assessment: he filed a short report about the White House’s rebuttal of Bachmann’s claims.)

Tapper treats the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as completely separate entities from the “relatively unimportant political attacks” to which Sorkin’s Will McAvoy devotes so much of his time. But the aggregate effect of lie after lie being spouted by many vocal Republicans at the time, without any fear of being held accountable by the media, helped to fuel the popular discontent that has rendered Obama a much less effective president on both domestic and foreign policy issues. Political capital is a very real thing.

But that’s not actually the biggest mistake Tapper makes. Indeed, he believes some stories are irrelevant, and yet he and his organization, ABC News, continue to cover them indiscriminately. But the one thing they’ve forgotten to do right — and practically the only thing Aaron Sorkin actually got right — was to nail the coffin definitively on the constant stream of baseless attacks emanating daily from right-wing circles. (Tapper’s tepid report on the India misinformation story, especially given the update he tacked on at the end, leaves the impression this was just another political squabble between perpetually lying politicians. It wasn’t: one side was lying. The other side wasn’t. This matters.)

This isn’t about being ideological. It’s about doing the very thing Jake Tapper thinks he’s doing by focusing on the “moderates and liberals wielding [power]:” holding our elected officials accountable. This is not to say that liberals or Democrats or Obama himself shouldn’t be held to account either. But to simply assume that pointing out one side’s deliberate falsehoods is somehow partisan — without even bothering to evaluate whether the other side is actually guilty of the same crimes and to the same extent — is actually taking sides. It’s taking the side of those who choose to distort and disguise and deny the truth, at the expense of those whose attachment to facts is at least somewhat stronger. (These are all politicians, so we can safely assume no one’s that sentimental about honesty.)

Jake Tapper may be a good reporter, but his attack on Sorkin’s “moral crusade” smacks of New York Times public editor Arthur Brisbane’s prejudicial term “truth vigilante.” Sorkin is a lot of things: preachy is one of them, for instance. But being evenhanded — as in a real balance based on facts, not the faux balance based on the terror of appearing partisan advocated by Tapper — is not something Sorkin got wrong. It’s something Tapper didn’t get right.

Related articles

A short blast through today’s Internetz

Miscellaneous, Politics, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

There are way too many funny and crazy things to see on the Internet today, so I suppose I’ll just have to link to them all. Here goes.

First off, Rush Limbaugh is launching a “Rush Babes” campaign to counterattack the National Organization for Women’s attempts to get advertisers to boycott his program:

Rush Limbaugh is fighting back against the National Organization for Women, the progressive women’s group that has been targeting local advertisers and affiliates in an effort to get the conservative talk show host off the air.

On his program today, Limbaugh announced a new National Organizaion for Rush Babes”dedicated to the millions of conservative women who know what they believe in: family, American Values, and not being told by Faux Feminist Groups how to think.”

Beyond the immediate laughter such a mental image provokes — what is a Rush babe, after all? an overweight, pale, white Midwesterner who hates Mexicans and loves Cheetos and Jim Carrey? — the comments section below the article is absolutely hilarious. See how quickly it devolves into complete insanity from its original starting point of…well, it was basically already insane when it started. I love Internet commenters.

Then, it turns out that, as soon as Michele Bachmann was out of the political limelight, she took stock of “birtherism” and decided, hell, being something other than American isn’t so bad after all. Therefore, she is now Swiss. I smell a double standard here:

Rep. Michele Bachmann is now officially a Swiss miss.

Bachmann (R-Minn.) recently became a citizen of Switzerland, making her eligible to run for office in the tiny European nation, according to a Swiss TV report Tuesday.

Best part is when they asked her if she’d consider running for Swiss public office: “Bachmann joked that the competition ‘would be very stiff because they are very good.'” And by that she means that they make more sense in English than she does.

A lot happened yesterday at the voting booth. Republican senator Dick Lugar of Indiana lost to Tea Party favorite Richard Mourdock in the Republican primaries, signaling the further polarization of the Senate. (Of course, there is really only one “pole” here, and it is the fanatical right wing, but I digress.) Meanwhile, Wisconsin Democrats chose their candidate, Tom Barrett, to challenge Republican governor Scott Walker in the special recall election next month. But in the biggest piece of news, North Carolinians chose bigotry and homophobia over normality: yes, Amendment One passed overwhelmingly, which inscribes a prohibition of gay marriage and even civil unions into the state constitution.

Meanwhile, Democrats are worried about campaign dollars and where they’ll be going. The New York Times has more interesting backstory to the Chen Guangcheng saga. And the Underwear Bomber 2.0? Turns out he was a double agent working for the CIA. Nice work, but also a good reminder that the next terrorist attack is undoubtedly a matter of when, not if.

And lastly, because this is just too weird, I was looking through the Atlantic‘s stellar collection of Hindenburg photographs (it crashed 75 years ago last Sunday) and was actually viscerally shocked to see so much Nazi imagery in connection with the United States. It’s easy to forget that the Nazi Party existed before World War II began, and that they were fully recognized and welcomed abroad in many places, including in the United States. Anyway, worth checking out.

Live-blogging tonight’s Republican presidential debate

Politics, , , , , , , , , , ,

Hello! Are you ready? I’ll be live-blogging from Paris, where I’m sitting on a couch in the living room and generally wondering why I’m not asleep.

2:01 AM — Hello, and welcome to the nth GOP debate (n, in this case, stands for infinity). Anderson Cooper just showed up, and we’re now watching a truly entertaining (in a car-wreck sort of way) promo video about…the American West, Las Vegas, and (I think) the Republican debate.

2:03 AM — And the crowd goes wild! Can I just say, I love Anderson Cooper. Also, I have a full glass of wine waiting for me, and another half-bottle in the kitchen. I think I may have to turn this night into a 9-9-9 drinking game.

2:04 AM — Newt Gingrich is announced. I take a quick sip of merlot.

2:05 AM — They just announced Rick Santorum’s name. I suddenly have this uncontrollable impulse to Google something.

2:06 AM — While the national anthem is sung, a large video of the waving American flag is displayed at the front of the theater, just in case we didn’t get the point that this debate is taking place in the United States. Honestly, would any other country allow a pizza magnate to lead a presidential race? There has to be a law against this somewhere.

2:09 AM — Ron Paul opens with, “I am the champion of liberty.” And I am Captain America, but we can’t all be heroes, Ron.

2:11 AM — +1 to Bachmann for incorporating the “What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas” slogan. She also just got the first question from the audience, which means she has now matched her entire TV exposure from the last three debates combined. I give her three minutes until she mentions her 1500 or so foster kids/army.

2:13 AM — Herman Cain is speaking about the economy. I compulsively gulp down more wine.

2:14 AM — “Herman’s well-meaning,” says Santorum, “but what is a black guy doing on stage?” OK, so I may have made up that last part, but I know he was thinking it.

2:15 AM — Cain: “I invite every American to do their own math.” Now you’re just stealing George W. Bush’s intellectual property, Herman. Not cool.

2:16 AM — This debate has gotten off to a surprisingly wonky start. Wow, and then Rick Perry just called Herman Cain “brother” twice in thirty seconds. Not a good sign from a guy who may or may not have painted over a rock named “Niggerhead.”

2:18 AM — Cain is under fire. Big time. You can almost see the thought-bubble around Anderson Cooper’s head: “Fight. Fight. Fight!”

2:19 AM — Cain is holding up surprisingly well so far. He must’ve eaten a lot of pizza beforehand. Oops, spoke too soon. Romney just calmly, coolly, and calculatingly owned him. Just like the cruel, job-killing CEO he is. Where do I sign up?

2:22 AM — Gingrich with a good line. When asked why he thought Herman Cain’s 9-9-9 plan would be a hard sell, he quickly replied, “You just watched it.” Well played, Mr. 1994. Well played.

2:24 AM — And there it is! Ronald Reagan gets mentioned by Bachmann. I’m going to go ahead and drink one for the Gipper right here.

2:26 AM — OK, I’ll say it: Rick Perry looks better this time around. Now time to take Mitt to task over health care.

2:27 AM — Rick Santorum’s plan: Kill all gay people and bomb every country starting with the letter I. (I really need to stop making things up. What is it with me and Santorum?)

2:29 AM — Rick Santorum and Mitt Romney Go. At. It. “Rick, Rick, let me speak.” But I have to say (gulping down my pride): Santorum was right. Romney’s lying.

2:32 AM — Now it’s Mitt’s turn to get hammered. And by Newt, of all people. And now Bachmann.

2:36 AM — Andddd we take a break. Which means I take a drink. It’s getting a little hot in here.

2:40 AM — Rick Perry looks sick every time he’s called on. I know that feeling from sitting in the front row at comedy clubs. I guess there is a minor difference, though, since I’m not running for president.

2:43 AM — Wow, Mitt actually reached out and touched Rick for several seconds. I was waiting for a fistfight. Didn’t happen. But the fight continues.

2:45 AM — Mitt Romney just inadvertently admitted he had to fire the undocumented immigrants that landscaped his lawn because he’s running for public office. Gotta admire the man’s honesty. Even if it wasn’t on purpose.

2:48 AM — I cannot believe Rick Perry just advocated using Predator drones in the service of guarding the border. Then, just as I was regaining my composure, Bachmann pinged Obama on his undocumented relatives previously living in the US. Wow. This is getting dirty. And disgusting. (Now she said English will be the official language of the United States government.)

2:54 AM — A Latino questioner reasonably asks what message the Republican candidates have for Latinos in the United States. Newt Gingrich ably evades the entire question. Ron Paul immediately begins discussing how to “attract Latino votes.” Sorry, Ronnie, but that wasn’t the question; it was just what you heard. And Herman Cain makes it a trifecta of avoidance. Make it quadrafecta (is that a word?), with the addition of Perry.

2:58 AM — It is unclear whether Michele Bachman supports the repeal of the 14th Amendment. I have just downed the rest of my merlot. Now she just finished educating us all on “anchor babies.”

3:04 AM — Mark notes that Rick Perry just referred to France as a “who.” This personification is, however, a step up from the usual way Republicans address France-related issues. That said, he did have a bit of a hard time remembering what the 10th Amendment is. (Don’t we all.)

3:09 AM — No way! Bachman just said, “I’m a mom.” But then she did not mention the foster kids. What happened? Did someone trademark the phrase?

3:11 AM — Ron Paul dings the Fed. I guess we could all see that coming. When do we get our next commercial break so I can refill my glass?

3:18 AM — Another break in progress. Another glass of merlot for me.

3:27 AM — Bachmann: “That makes all of us much danger.” Or something along those lines.

3:28 AM — Bachmann: “First Obama brought us into Libya. And now he’s gone into Africa.” You can’t make this up.

3:30 AM — Uh oh. Here come the Israel questions. I always cringe a little when this happens in GOP debates. Cain on the Gilad Shalit deal: I would not negotiate with terrorists, but it’s possible I would make a Gilad Shalit-type deal. Coherent as always.

3:34 AM — Ron Paul: “I want someone willing to cut something.” So, so true. But when it comes to defense, no one will touch anything. Except the brave Rick Perry, who just announced he wants to defund the UN. Sure.

3:38 AM — Michele Bachmann actually just said she wants Iraq and Libya to “compensate” the United States for “liberating” its citizens. There really are no words. Her comments speak for themselves.

3:40 AM — Ron Paul just nails everyone else by asking if they would condemn Ronald Reagan for his hostage deal with the Iranians. Rick Santorum stumbles through a response. Why is Ron Paul so crazy on some issues? If it weren’t for, well, every single domestic policy he has, I’d vote for him immediately.

3:49 AM — Rick Perry keeps getting booed. This is especially shocking at a Republican primary debate, where Rick Perry should absolutely own.

3:51 AM — Michele Bachmann is just about crying that her time is almost over. Her desperation is really showing. Meanwhile, Newt Gingrich continues his streak of being incredibly cranky.

3:53 AM — And that’s it. This may be the beginning of the end for Rick Perry. Even with his stronger responses, he may have crossed a line with some of them and got booed multiple times.

3:55 AM — And that’s good night from me.

Related articles

Key moments from last night’s debate

Politics, , , , , , , , , , , ,

I didn’t get the chance to watch the Republican presidential debate on FOX last night, where it seems that Bret Baier and Chris Wallace did a great job of asking tough (if at times off-topic) questions. But I’ve caught up on the highlights and the reactions, and here are a few of what seemed like the important (or funny, or depressing) points to me.

1. When asked for a show of hands as to who would walk away from a budget deal that contained a 10-to-1 ratio of spending cuts to tax increases, every single one of the eight Republican candidates raised their hands. Every single one of them claimed to oppose a 10-to-1 deal on the grounds that it isn’t good enough. I don’t think the below video needs any additional commentary; it speaks for itself.

2. Ron Paul thoroughly schooled Rick Santorum on Iran. Santorum’s incoherent foreign policy was no match for Ron Paul’s common-sense advice to simply try to imagine putting oneself in Iran’s shoes, surrounded as it is by nuclear threats, to determine why it might be so interested (assuming that it is) in pursuing nuclear weapons capabilities.

3. Tim Pawlenty and Michele Bachmann took the gloves off last night (something Pawlenty was accused of being unable or unwilling to do in relation to Mitt Romney and “Obamneycare” in the previous debate). While looking a little more feisty this time around, T-Paw nevertheless wasn’t able to do much damage, as Bachmann ably pivoted with some sharp-edged comebacks of her own. (It almost goes without saying that neither of the two showed even the slightest glimpses of ability to govern, preferring instead to boast of their uncompromising positions on everything, but such is the nature of the primaries, and especially so with today’s GOP.) I’m not certain what Bachmann achieves by going head-to-head with Pawlenty, though, since he’s possibly on the verge of being forced out due to lack of traction, and she’s running at or near the top in polls.

4. I’m a bit torn on this one: Far be it from me to agree with Newt Gingrich on anything, but he may have a point here. While I do think that Wallace and Baier largely seemed to do an admirable job of asking questions that voters wanted to hear, Gingrich was understandably (also, self-servingly) frustrated with questions that pertained more to campaign dynamics and gossip than actual policy positions. Given the frequent insanity on policy positions emanating from all the Republican candidates (Gingrich himself being perhaps the most notable in that regard), I can’t say I entirely disagree with his take on the questions.

5. Jon Huntsman. Whatever happened to this guy?

Related articles