Tuesday, January 31, 2012

Irrational Crapola

John Cassidy of the New Yorker joins the ranks of know-nothing punditry with his latest blog post, Newt’s Going Down so the G.O.P. Establishment Can Live. As one can tell from the title, it's yet another of the very tired, very wrong, pseudo-analytical "they's out to get Newt!" sort of pieces.

Cassidy offers nothing new in the piece, no new quotes (hell, only one quote, from Palin of all people), no heretofore unknown facts, no penetrating insights, nothing. Just another series of declaratory statements grounded in assumptions that look like they belong in the latest G. Edward Griffin "history."

Really, I'm starting to worry about the media elites. Forget the GOP, Democrat, or DC establishment, let's talk about the media establishment. I think about 80% of this group no longer knows what an original thought is, they seem to just pick up some bit of an idea and roll with it. Look at what passes for analysis in Cassidy's piece:

For the poo-bahs in Washington, that represents mission accomplished. Although nominally conservative, the primary goal of the Republican establishment is to maintain a grip on power, thereby enabling it to safeguard its own position and protect the economic interests that finance the Party. The likes of Bob Dole, Ann Coulter, and Elliot Abrams didn’t necessarily pounce on Gingrich because they dislike him personally, or disagree with him on the wisdom of establishing a lunar colony. They roughed him up him because they thought he could lose the election for the Party and give Barack Obama another four years in the White House.
Nevermind that none of this is sourced, nevermind that not even a fool would call Coulter and Dole part of the establishment (hell, Dole wasn't even establishment when he was Establishment), and never mind that yes they do dislike him personally (along with about 75% of the country, I'll wager), the idea that this is about protecting the "economic interests that finance the party" is laughable. Lest we forget, the GOP controls the House and that's unlikely to change in 2012 (actually, I'd argue that the best chance for the Dems to regain control of the House would be if Gingrich is the nominee). The Senate will likely remain close to a 50/50 split. Such a fear makes no sense.

And just as silly as that is the idea that Gingrich was "roughed up" because he might lose the Election. Newsflash, Cassidy: it's still Obama's to lose, he's got the money, the media support, and the history (incumbents  going into a reelection year after suffering huge midterm losses for their party) on his side. It's certainly possible that Obama might lose the 2012 Election, but right now he's the favorite. Certainly, the GOP Establishment would know that, right?

Near the end of this pointless piece, however, Cassidy does ask what I consider to be a brilliant question:
How can a Party élite that is inextricably tied to wealthy, corporate interests co-exist with, and largely direct, a popular protest movement of the economically squeezed middle class?
But he asks that question about the Republicans, when he should be asking it about the Democrats. That would make for some interesting reading.

Cheers, all.

1 comment:

  1. I am not entirely clear about the point of the first bit you quoted. Supporting a candidate of your party that is in your view is more likely to win is a problem or a sign of "establishment" how exactly? Isn't it the basic idea of having a primaries? To elect a candidate which you think is the most likely to win?