When Columnists Attack!

Here's a quick example of stupidity:
...............
In the House, Suddenly Righteous Republicans
By Dana Milbank Thursday, January 4, 2007; Page A02, Washington Post

Thirty-one-year-old Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-N.C.) is not a large man, standing perhaps 5 feet 3 inches tall in thick soles. But he packed a whole lot of chutzpah when he walked into the House TV gallery yesterday to demand that the new Democratic majority give the new Republican minority all the rights that Republicans had denied Democrats for years.
"The bill we offer today, the minority bill of rights, is crafted based on the exact text that then-Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi submitted in 2004 to then-Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert," declared McHenry, with 10 Republican colleagues arrayed around him. "We're submitting this minority bill of rights, which will ensure that all sides are protected, that fairness and openness is in fact granted by the new majority."
Omitted from McHenry's plea for fairness was the fact that the GOP had ignored Pelosi's 2004 request -- while routinely engaging in the procedural maneuvers that her plan would have corrected. Was the gentleman from North Carolina asking Democrats to do as he says, not as he did?
"Look, I'm a junior member," young McHenry protested. "I'm not beholden to what former congresses did."
Anne Kornblut of the New York Times asked McHenry if his complaint might come across as whining.
"I'm not whining," he whined.
.............

First, there is the stupidity of McHenry, for answering as he did. Second, there is the stupidity of Milbank, for assuming that his readers weren't paying attention during the election cycle. Third, there is the stupidity of those readers who will accept this version of events, thereby proving Milbank's assumption warranted.

Was the gentleman from North Carolina asking Democrats to do as he days, not as he did?
YES. Why? BECAUSE THEY CAMPAIGNED ON THE FACT THAT THEY WOULD.

The elections were held almost two months ago. One of the many reasons theorized for the Democrat power shift was their promise of changing the method of doing business. McHenry is showing himself to be none too bright, if he's not going to bother bringing up the fact that he's simply asking the Democrats to hold to a nationally disseminated campaign promise. But at least he has the excuse of being on the spot; I cannot believe Milbank, who had covered the entire two-year runup to the election for the primary paper in Washington D.C., didn't know the talking points of both major parties during the election cycle. The most likely answer is that he is writing his column to be intentionally deceptive.

And here's the thing: if the Democrats don't want to revise the rules, I'm in support of them. There are no reasons to do so, other than to keep their campaign pledge and to diminish their ability to get their agenda items passed. It would be honorable to do the first; it would be effective to do the second. They have chosen the second. If they wish to do the bidding of their constituents in terms of passing legislation... which is what they were elected to do... they have made the right call. But they have also made the wrong call, if they wish to do the bidding of their consituents in terms of being honorable. Pelosi and her Congress have had an opportunity, provided by themselves, to make a choice between principle and pragmatism, and they've chosen the latter. That's cool; especially because they've given themselves an out with the wording: if you pay attention, at no point that I'm aware of did they specifically promise to provide those options to Republicans in the event of a Democrat win. Instead, they simply mentioned the options they'd presented, and then spoke about how they'd change the method of doing business if they were elected.
That means that technically, if you were to break down what they said, they provided themselves wiggle room. But their method of presenting it was blatantly deceptive. This is part of what politics is about. I can respect that; just don't insult me by pretending there hasn't been a false implication there, or that the politicians who have used those tactics are suddenly honorable for doing so, or (as Milbank does, by exclusion) that the tactics were never used in the first place.

This was just the beginning of one column, taken as an example because it made me laugh when I read it. There are others out there, every day. Just look around; one of the big topics of discussion today is the proposal of new rules regarding lobbyists. The Left is making a big deal about the fact that they're going to get tough on lobbyist abuses; the Right is making a big deal out of the fact that K Street, where the lobbyists work, is being filled up with Democrat lobbyists right now, in the same sort of massive shift that happened when the Republicans took over. Both sides are accurately pointing out how many in the leadership of both parties were significant beneficiaries of lobbyist money. (Both former Republican leader Tom DeLay and current leader Nancy Pelosi were questioned about violating the previous ethics rules on lobbyist money, for example.) The truth is that the Democrats deserve credit for trying to clean up some of the lobbying abuses. The truth is also that there are obvious loopholes which have been pointed out ahead of time, and those loopholes have so far been ignored. Many Republicans don't want to give them any credit, and many Democrats want to give them much more than deserved. As is often the case, the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

If you don't want to be caught up in all of this petty bullshit, I don't blame you. By the time the next election cycle comes around, this may not even be a bullet point in a list of objectionable or positive actions taken by a given congressperson.

My suggestion is simply this: either you try to tune all of it out until just before an election, and go into it with as open a mind as you can, unpolluted by the constant barrage of attacks on one side or another; or that you pay as much attention as possible, using some of the tactics I've outlined in earlier posts, so you're kept up to speed all along the way. If you only casually follow the news, you're going to be caught up in the current of whatever media outlet you prefer, and you're going to have your opinions shaped by those outlets.