Journalists Cheerfully Urinating On Senate Bill’s “Ideological” Critics

Journalists Cheerfully Urinating On Senate Bill’s “Ideological” Critics

It would really be nice if certain Beltway journalists could get it into their heads that the Senate bill’s critics on the left have actual substantive differences with the bill’s proponents, and are not motivated solely by “ideology,” whatever the hell that means.

Ronald Brownstein, for one, is actually trying to claim that Howard Dean opposes the bill because he’s a “wine track” Democrat who doesn’t lack insurance and hence has the luxury to indulge in ideological struggles.

Brownstein writes that Dean and the “digital left” are able to “casually dismiss” the bill because “they operate in an environment where so few people need to worry about access to insurance.” He adds that for these critics, the debate is “largely an abstraction” and merely a crusade to “crush Republicans and ideologically cleanse the Democrats.”

Brownstein doesn’t meaningfully respond to any of Dean’s substantive policy objections to the bill. If he did, he could no longer claim Dean’s critique is purely “ideological.”

He’s not the only one making this claim. Sheryl Gay Stolberg of The Times today wrote that “ideology” is “smacking the pragmatic president in the face,” presumably meaning that the word “ideology” is a good catch-all for all criticism of the bill. And Joe Klein has dismissed critics for being in the grip of “ideological fetishes.”

<SNIP>

http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/political-media/journalists-cheerfully-urinating-on-senate-bills-ideological-critics/

Those who spout RW ideological nonsense are given "equal time" (which equals more than the time given to anyone else). MSM business as usual.

Oh, that's going to help. :sarcasm:

:dem:

-Laelth

Probably taking a break to figure out exactly what he said yesterday.

Kill? Work to improve? Vigorously support Obama? Won't vigorously support?

So confusing.

That has been a standard ploy of those who are uncomfortable with his overarching message for going on 7 years now. Go after Dean because Dean actually speaks his mind, and speaking one's mind is frowned on by those who play the political game. It is seldom the most efficient way to employ triangulation, which is usually to most efficient way to employ divide and conquer, which is standard politics101. Correct, Howard Dean is not standard politics 101. Standard politics 101 gets us to a Democratic President winning by a landslide with a dominant majority in the House and 60 members of the Democratic Caucus in the Senate being unable to deliver on campaign promises and even a weakened compromise of a weak compromise of the platform that got them elected.

I am willing to sit here all day defending Howard Dean, God knows he has earned at least that from me but actually much more. But Dean should have earned infinitely more than attacks upon him from current leaders of the Democratic Party, after it was his spark in 2003 that reinvigorated the Democratic base, and after it was his leadership of the DNC that pushed through a 50 State program that Obama piggy backed on to victory in 2008.

But the attempt to make this about Dean is an attempt to pretend that there isn't wide scale bottom up dismay over the compromises Democrats have embraced in their rush to proclaim some type of HCR victory, fueled in part by a political desire to just declare victory and get this over with.

Not only isn't this just about Dean, but attempts by supporters of the current Administration HCR position to make this all about Dean are only going to sink them deeper into the quicksand they blundered into all on their own.

The mindless shitstorm he unleashed with his initial recommendations here on this board yesterday, not so much.

like with most posts on a public political bulletin board, mine tend to become springboards to speak to issues that are up for me as much as they are a specific message meant for the original poster alone.

I accept where you're overall coming from on Dean. Peace.

I appreciate your posts and sense your frustration but let's not exaggerate the personal nature of the conflict.

Dean was mentioned in the OP, which the poster was responding to. Nobody's trying to make it about him any more than he is. Surely, he expected a bit of blowback when he spoke out so forcefully.

That's the only reason why I wrote what I wrote there, and I think we worked that through amicably between us.

Of course Dean had to expect blowback, and most of it is appropriate from the vantage point of those blowing back. But some of it is not. That is where I disagree with you somewhat. I don't think that Dean was wanting to make HCR about him, I think he is a reluctant warrier in opposition or in whatever stance one pegs him in now. However I believe there are some who do want to make this about Dean rather than about the issues. The same pattern happened with the so-called "Dean Scream" and it played out also in early attacks on his DNC leadership as "inept" from those who had a vested interest in deposing him. Attempts were made to move a political agenda forward by discrediting Howard Dean personally. Old habits die hard.

The true 'ideologues' here are the centrists who don't care what is in the bill so long as they can claim it as a 'win' for the Democrats.

We've been maneuvered into a lose/lose situation, wherein if the bill fails the Republicans can claim a victory, and if the bill passes it will benefit the republicans both by giving the corporatists what they want AND by splitting the left off the party thus handing the republicans a big victory in '10 and possibly '12.

I'm a pretty decent chess player myself, and I don't see how Obama is going to pull a win out of this.

the DLC Democrats.

Brownstein and his kind are DLC'ers who are more interested in preserving the status quo than improving things for the majority.

Let the purity purge begin. Bring out the torches and pitchforks!

Those teabaggers got nuthin' on us!

Hey, if you WANT a conservative, corporate party theres always the GOP.

Why make an imitation when the real thing already exists?

:dunce:

And it ain't pretty.

Even solid progressives like Sanders and Dean also are torn in their personal opinion about whether the bad outweighs the good in the current legislation. It is not a simple call for anyone with integrity. For some of us the bottome line is clearer than for others, but for most of us it isn't easy to simply and happily write off some of the positive reforms contained in the current HCR package because of the serious flaws that we also see in it.

It's a tough call, but no one said every call would be easy. Having said that I deplore the heavy handed tactics some, as described in this OP, are using in trying to discredit those who are not willing to sign off on HCR as it currently stands.

I was referring to the pundits who defend the indefensible because it promotes an ideology of corporatism.

I like all the pols who really want the best for this country.

I save my disdain for those like liebershitz who only want to fuck with people.

Dean and Obama aren't the problem, but lazy and sensationalist journalists try to portray it that way.

place for contempt because of their continuous spreading of propaganda in America.

Hi janx..that's a sweet pic of your dog.:)

Probably because being a butt monkey for Corporate America isn't technically an "ideology".

They have compromised, and compromised, and compromised, and got exactly NOTHING in return.

The people called the "moderates" are the ideologues. Look at their arguments against the bill...."too much government involvement", "we do not want a government take-over", "too many people covered". These are not common sense objections, but ideological ones.

It makes me sick to see how easily these fake journalists twist reality. Doesn't matter really because the people they are trying to paint as "ideologues" stopped being driven by media memes a long time ago. It's not going to suddenly stop opposition.