Your generous
donations help keep
this site running.
Visa/MC/PayPal accepted.
The two prevailing views so far seem to be: "Good news for Republicans!" and, alternatively, "Good news for Democrats!" It is possible that neither are true, and yet neither entirely false. There was certainly some interesting news, but it's tough to read amongst all the spin.
The day before I cast my vote for Barack Obama, I wrote a column titled "Barack Obama Is Smarter Than Us." By "us," I meant the legions of us lefty bloggers out here, who second-guessed his campaign on a daily basis for nigh on two years. I included myself in that "us" as well -- because, I fully admit, I got incredibly frustrated during Obama's campaign when he didn't do what I really, really wanted him to. Or didn't do it fast enough to suit me.
Much like Sherlock Holmes' non-barking nocturnal canine, the remarkable thing about President Barack Obama's poll numbers last month was that nothing remarkable happened. Both trendlines were pretty flat for the month, which was the second month in a row of little movement. Things are not getting much better for Obama's approval rate, but then neither are they getting much worse.
Meanwhile, back in the real world, the headline today: "Harry Reid Says Senate Bill Will Have Public Option" is being written (in various variations) across the media. Don't ask me how I know this, but "We, The Media, Got It Totally And Utterly Wrong For Months On End; Sorry About That" will likely not be the subheading to many of these stories.
When a stage magician makes a flourish, causing a puff of smoke and a flash of light to appear, there's a reason for it. It is called "misdirection." It is meant to dazzle the audience with a shiny object, so that they don't notice what is going on elsewhere on the stage, or perhaps even in the magician's other hand. It is an effective technique, so effective that it is the basis for most stage magic tricks. And there's a huge story that's sucking up a lot of oxygen from the inside-the-Beltway media scene right now that seems to be tailor-made misdirection which has been tossed into the media shark tank in order to stir up a feeding frenzy.
Kidding aside, though, I'm going to latch onto one of these rumors and see how it could fly or get shot down, because it seems to be a Thursday type of story. If you disdain unsourced rumors masquerading as news, then I would advise you to just stop reading now, and maybe go do a sudoku or crossword puzzle for ten minutes instead.
Idealistically, this means that politicians will do the best possible job to further their constituents' interests in Congress, in the hopes of riding a wave of approval during their next election. Cynically, this means that politicians will do the absolute minimum necessary for "The People," while keeping their deep-pocket donors happy by doing what they're told to do in Congress -- and hoping that "The People" don't notice.
That question has been on my mind of late, due to an overload of idiocy on the airwaves. But, I had to wonder, is it truly idiocy from the media talking heads, idiocy from the people who decide what stories to air (and what prominence to give them), or could it quite possibly have something to do with the idiocy of those watching as well? It's a hard question to ask, which is why "Do we get the media we deserve?" is so much more polite.
So, to honor (and blatantly rip off) Stephen Colbert, I'd like to introduce a new word to the American zeitgeist -- "newsiness." This term (which everyone should start using immediately, of course) is defined as: "An event or subject which the mainstream media determines to be newsworthy by plastering all over national television screens, but which is ultimately proven to be nothing of the kind." Furthermore, I'm going to peg the first story ever covered for its newsiness alone as O.J. Simpson cruising across L.A. in his white Ford Bronco. Since then, of course, there are simply too many stories full of newsiness (but not actual news) to even contemplate counting. Just turn on a cable TV station, and wait awhile -- pretty soon, another one will be along.
I speak, of course, of the new healthcare reform compromise idea being batted about over in the Senate. Trying to build a bridge between the public-option-supporting Progressive Democrats and the fiscally-conscious Blue Dog Democrats was always going to be the Grand Compromise which had to be forged to pass a bill. Various ideas have been floated to build this Compromise Bridge (my metaphors seem to be getting all mixed up today), which all eventually collapsed into the metaphorical chasm below. The "trigger" option, where a public option would be in the law but wouldn't activate unless a "trigger" was pulled at some later date was probably the most-talked about plan prior to this, mostly because it was the favorite of the only Republican who actually may vote for healthcare reform in the Senate. The "co-op" plan, which will be in the bill Max Baucus' committee votes on (Um, guys? Weren't you supposed to have voted this week? I'm just saying...), has also been declared a non-starter.