Month: October 2009

The anti-gay forces flooding Maine with ads right now have honed in on the issue they think will work: the age-old fear that gay people will corrupt children. In fact, schoolkids will not be in "safe" schools if they are told about the mere existence of gay married couples. Maine's school curriculum has no content that could be used to indoctrinate kids; but it seems to me that the existence of gay married couples should not somehow be excised from what children are taught. Gay marriage is now part of the world's reality. It has been the law in a nearby state for several years. This is a difficult balance, but just as Catholic kids need to know they live in a country where divorce and contraception exist, even though their own church disavows and opposes both, so simple information about gay couples seems to me to be part of a proper education. I think it should veer on the side of extreme caution so as not to offend parents or tilt into propaganda. One reason I back marriage rights is that the existence of such couples in itself is an educational tool that schools simply need to acknowledge, not proselytize for. I think the details are best conveyed by parents, not schools.

But the underlying truth is: this ad is designed to provoke fear of a small minority and its factual basis in Maine does not exist, which is why they have to cite California. Against this kind of fear, reason has a Sisyphean task. But I trust the people of Maine – not an easily intimidated lot – will see through this. Or rather I hope so.

No wonder it was banned:

The CBO scores the Baucus bill and concludes that it would shave $81 billion off the deficit over ten years. Marc's parsing:

Baucus says he can get this bill to the floor. It's a bill that at least one Republican — Sen. Olympia Snowe — could vote for. And no Democrat — or Republican — can argue that, based on the shared reverence for the CBO source, health care will add to the deficit… even though, as the CBO admits, a projection is just a projection.

Further thoughts from Suderman, Cohn, and Klein.

A reader writes:

Holtz-Eakin is right about the first time homebuyers' tax credit, but he's dead wrong to link the failed initiative with the successful Cash-for-Clunkers program. Holtz-Eakin accuses C4C of yielding few benefits, because consumers could obtain the rebate by "simply raising your mileage by only four miles-per-gallon." That was an interesting theoretical objection *before* the program was initiated, but now that it's over, we can actually measure its relevance. The preliminary data show an increase from 15.8 to 25.4 mpg, a gain of some 61%. Oops. He also derides the benefits of Cash-for-Clunkers as illusory, when creating an illusion of growth and thus stimulating consumer confidence was its principal objective.

It's precisely because C4C was a success that it provides a useful gauge of the shortcomings of the first time homebuyers' credit. It doesn't promote the construction or purchase of houses that better meet some set of criteria – more energy-efficient, denser – which might result in longterm social benefits or savings. Unlike car sales – accompanied by a massive advertising blitz from manufacturers and dealers, local news broadcasts from the parking lots, and easily-tracked statistics – the tax credit offers little in the way of theater, limiting its effects on broader consumer sentiment. It's comparatively expensive – it's already estimated to cost five times as much as C4C, even if it's allowed to expire. And, since more than three-quarters of recipients were going to purchase homes anyway, it hasn't succeeded even in advancing the pace of sales, let alone significantly expanding their number. Expensive, inefficient, and ineffective – so why is Congress likely to renew it anyway?

Start with the real estate and construction lobbies. Throw in the fact that it's a government program that helps working families (appealing to Democrats) and does so by lowering their taxes (appealing to Republicans). Holtz-Eakin, who has never met a stimulus program he likes, is too busy grinding his ideological axes to make note of this. The truth is that policy wonks of all stripes, from Cato to CAP, are opposed to renewal. But instead of pointing to the consensus among experts and economists, Holtz-Eakin would rather use the absurdity of the homebuyers' program to re-fight the battle over C4C. I have trouble thinking of a less effective rhetorical strategy than telling Congress: "Remember that incredibly popular program that re-opened shuttered assembly lines and provided terrific bang for the buck? This initiative is just as bad!" Sometimes, it's better to admit error, and move on.

The environmental benefits of Cash For Clunkers were always fairly minimal, and the economic benefits have waned. The WSJ's recent op-ed against the program is worth pondering. DiA counters:

With low consumer spending acting as a drag on the economy, a cash infusion is likely to be more useful now than it would be in a year or two. These programmes help to smooth out consumption over time. There are plenty of reasons to still dislike them—does the car programme really help the environment? should the government be picking industry winners?—but this isn't one of them.

Goldblog doesn't understand why Afghanistan is considered the central front of the war on terror. He has some other candidates.

Michael Cohen counters William Galston's claim of liberal hypocrisy surrounding the McChrystal affair:

General McChrystal not only had his strategic review leaked to the Washington Post, but he has appeared on 60 Minutes in recent days and even went to London to plead the case for population centric counter-insurgency in Afghanistan. In other words, McChrystal voiced his candid views in public instead of in private up the chain of command. Eric Shinseki did nothing of the sort. In 2003, he was Army Chief of Staff and when he publicly contradicted the Bush Administration's rosy view of the post-war occupation of Iraq he wasn't being interviewed on television – he was testifying under oath to Congress. As Shinseki's spokesperson correctly pointed out at the time, "He was asked a question and he responded with his best military judgment." We should expect nothing less.

Cohen adds:

Galston wants a public debate about troop levels in Afghanistan. No disagreement there. But the notion that it should be instigated by the military as opposed to elected, accountable officials that serve in a co-equal branch of government just seems bizarre. And frankly I'm less bothered than many on the left about the idea of General McChrystal testifying before Congress. My gut tells me this should wait until after the President has made his strategic assessment, but if Congress wants to hear from the country's military commander in Afghanistan it doesn't strike me as unreasonable.

Jon Stewart won’t be sucking up to the president next Saturday night like the HRC crowd. Instead, he’s actually standing up for the troops this president continues to persecute:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c
The Gay After Tomorrow
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Ron Paul Interview

Tom Schaller checks in on Tim and Mitt:

I'll go on the record right now as saying I don't think that Romney will win the nomination. He had enough problems with the evangelicals and social conservatives, and he now has an equally bigger policy problem on health care. As for Pawlenty, I think he's more likely to be on the bottom of the ticket.

What I'm looking forward to is the battle between Huckabee and Palin.

A stunning look at PRC’s parade last week. Creepy, yes, but gob-smacking nonetheless:

China’s 60th Anniversary national day – timelapse and slow motion – 7D and 5DmkII from Dan Chung on Vimeo.

Conor responds to Breitbart's letter at length. The Dish has aired Andrew's defense. It's only fair to air Conor's rebuttal:

In a letter published on Andrew Sullivan’s site (and posted at Big Hollywood), Andrew Breitbart complains about recent pieces I’ve written that include criticism of his approach to political discourse. I want to direct readers who’ve read my work to his objections, and to respond. Before I begin, I want to note that I’ve repeatedly complimented Mr. Breitbart for publishing the ACORN pieces on Big Government, and dubbed him a savvy media critic who lands some punches against his targets.

Of course, I’ve also got major objections to his punditry, hence the criticism that I’ve offered.

It is my understanding that The Daily Beast, where we’ve both written, is up for hosting a debate where we can air our disagreements, and engage in what I think would be a productive conversation about journalism on the right, the left, and otherwise.

I’d certainly be up for that, or a Bloggingheads episode (assuming that they’re willing to host) or both.

Meanwhile I’ll address Mr. Breitbart’s letter.

He writes:

In the piece you link to and affirm in the Daily Beast, “The Right’s Lesser Press,” Conor Friedersdorf refuses to interview me as he continues to be my unofficial biographer. (I’m VERY reachable, Conor.) He writes opinion pieces on me purporting to be journalism. He doesn’t quote or cite me, he simply assumes and pushes the point of view he thinks I have and makes an argument based on these alleged positions. It’s sloppy and you, of all people, should know better.

This gets a couple of things wrong.

Prior to the first piece I wrote about Mr. Breitbart, “At the Gates of the Fourth Estate,” I wrote him a lengthy e-mail requesting an interview. It is dated May 1, 2009, if he’d care to check his records (subject line: “We Met at the GenNext Panel”). He did not respond to my request.

Even so, I didn’t write a piece that failed to quote him — I quoted him twice, and argued against a position that he articulated on national television! If there is some position in that piece that I’ve imputed to Mr. Breitbart, but that he doesn’t actually hold, I wish he would tell me what it is. I am happy to append a correction to the piece if that is the case, but I do not believe that anything in it is inaccurate.

If memory serves, the next piece I wrote that mentions Mr. Breitbart appeared in The Daily Beast. Titled “The Right’s Bob Woodward,” it lauds the ACORN expose published on Mr. Breitbart’s Web site Big Government, and offers a lengthy quote that he offered on the site. Around the same time, I wrote a blog post at The American Scene titled, “Credit Where It’s Due: Andrew Breitbart 1, ACORN 0.” On September 11, 2009, I e-mailed the full text of that post to Mr. Breitbart, with “Kudos on the Big Government Piece on ACORN” in the subject line.

As many of you know, the NEA conference call where artists were asked to support the Obama Administration is another topic Mr. Breitbart’s sites have covered at length. I also criticized the NEA for its behavior here, citing Mr. Breitbart’s site as inspiration, and here, where I argue that yes there is so something wrong with what the NEA did.

So what am I supposed to make of it when Andrew Breitbart writes this to Andrew Sullivan:

I believe that you and Conor would like to paint me into a corner, the one you are currently trying to paint Glenn Beck into. You are trying to marginalize me because of the net effect, pun intended, of the White House/NEA “propaganda” series on Big Hollywood, and the explosive ACORN expose´ on Big Government. Protecting President Obama and the left at all costs is your prerogative.

If my objections to Mr. Breitbart are his ACORN and NEA stories I’ve sure got a funny way of showing it! Seriously, how can he possibly attribute that motivation to me when I’ve written at length in defense of the ACORN stories, and against the NEA’s behavior?

Mr. Breitbart writes:

As you well know, I was the person who came up with the idea behind the Huffington Post, and even helped Arianna and Ken Lerer launch the sucker. At the time I did not abdicate my point of view as a right leaning voice. I stated what I believe today: Let’s put it all out there, and may the best ideas win.

Is it insignificant that I was behind the left’s most prominent blog/media site?

It isn’t insignificant — it’s telling. I submit that The Huffington Post and The Drudge Report, two projects with which Mr. Breitbart are associated, share many of the same flaws — that is to say, visit those sites on any given day and you’re likely to see a misleading/sensationalistic headline that spins the news to attract an audience that prefers to exist inside an ideological cocoon. That isn’t to say that those sites are all bad. They’re both impressive in their own ways, and Mr. Breitbart is without question an Internet genius who is uncannily able to create successful Web properties that offer benefits to their audience (and revenue for their creator).

What Mr. Brietbart misunderstands is what I’m up to. I am trying to paint him into a corner! It’s just that what I am after is for him to do better journalism, as he rails against the Obama Administration, or the Hollywood establishment, or when he creates the next Huffington Post. I’ll cheer-lead for any quality journalism done on his sites — as I’ve done already — no matter their political fallout.

He and I agree on a surprising number of things, among them that we should “put it all out there, and may the best ideas win.” But that model of public discourse requires a commitment to accuracy, arguing in good faith, exposing people to ideas with which they disagree rather than contributing to the cocooning of American media, challenging one’s audience as much as one panders to them, avoiding bombastic hyperbole, etc. I’d like to provoke Mr. Breitbart to do those things, whether by persuading him that it’s best for the country, or that it’s best for his purposes, or shaming him into living up to the standards to which the right holds other enterprises.

My position is that at present, his punditry and the Web properties that he is associated with fall short of one or another of those standards. I am happy to provide a long list of examples if this is a matter in dispute.

Mr. Breitbart writes:

The New York Times is a daily read. It always has been. I loved its recent profile of my college pal, hotelier Jeff Klein.

No daily publication can capture the essence of the cultural elite — good, bad and ugly — like the New York Times. The paper has its merits, no doubt. But when it comes to the political scene, its ascent into monolithic partisan hackery in its news pages — never mind the op-ed experience — is worthy of exploration granted its self-identified motto “all the news that’s fit to print” is disproved day after day when the news that hurts the political left is either ignored or distorted to sate its diminishing readership’s need for political conformity.

Here is what I wrote in my piece:

As a hegemonic newspaper, the Gray Lady has accomplished journalistic goods unprecedented in history—a long-running global network of first-rate reporters, a record-setting 101 Pulitzer Prizes, and powerful advocacy for First Amendment causes, for starters. These feats don’t obviate the need for vigilant critics, especially given the newspaper’s history of significant screw-ups: false apologia published for Joseph Stalin’s Soviet Union, fictional dispatches filed by Jayson Blair, and insufficient due regularly paid to conservative insights are notable examples.

Its most recent journalistic sin concerns the ACORN story broken by activist reporters with hidden cameras. Thoughtful critics, including the Times’ own ombudsman, rightly castigated the newspaper for being slow to cover news that was obviously fit to print.

Again, it appears that Mr. Brietbart and I agree on some things, though you wouldn’t know it from reading his rebuttal. What we disagree on, apparently, is whether the right’s press outlets should adopt some of the core journalistic values that the mainstream media claims as their own, though they often fall short of them.

I regard that as a question that Mr. Breitbart and I could profitably debate, if he is game.