A pointy, oversized dart to Politics Daily columnist Matt Lewis’s head-scratchingly bad piece, “John Boehner’s Crying: Is He Drinking Too Much?” The premise of the column, published overnight, is that there must be something deeper at the heart of Boehner’s propensity to cry at such unemotional things as memories of his childhood, mentions of his family, and talk of soldiers at war. And—leaping off of a comment from that sober voice of reason, MSNBC’s Ed Schultz—that the something deeper might be alcoholism.
The fact that there is no evidence of this, something Lewis acknowledges repeatedly, doesn’t stop him from lining up the experts and shaping a 1,200-plus word nick-of-time entry into the competition for year’s worst column.
Here is the moment it all goes downhill:
Liberal MSNBC host Ed Shultz, half-jokingly, called Boehner a “cheap drunk” the other day, Capitol Hill aides of both parties are wondering, and there’s even a web page devoted to it.
That quote, which in any other report would be a throwaway bit of color, becomes the crux of the piece as Lewis, po-faced, asks:
So is drinking the issue—and why might a person struggling with drinking be more prone to weeping in public?
Then it’s doctors X and Y’s cue as Lewis begins an exploration of alcoholism that has almost no connection to Boehner, his supposed subject.
Speaking generally, Dr. Robert DuPont, who served as the second White House drug czar and was the first director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, tells me that “alcohol reduces inhibitions. Whatever emotion you have, you’re more likely to express it [when drinking].” DuPont added that alcohol reduces the functioning of the frontal lobes, and “the frontal lobes have to do with judgment, which is why [intoxicated] people do impulsive behavior.”
Alcohol also “brings out underlying emotions,” explains Dr. Michael Fingerhood, an associate professor of medicine at Johns Hopkins University. “It generally is unmasking what is inside them.”
All interesting stuff, if obvious to anyone who’s cracked a bottle of Cab-Sav over Christmas lunch. But there’s no connection made between Boehner’s tears and these pat PSA grafs anywhere in the piece. Lewis acknowledges as much, prodding his cast of doctors to offer a diagnosis of the man they’ve seen on TV.
So do physicians who work in this field believe it is fair to conclude that Boehner’s crying or slurring of words means he is speaking while intoxicated? Not necessarily. According to Sally Satel, a psychiatrist and lecturer at the Yale University School of Medicine, “Out of context, [Boehner’s] simply tearing up would not be a red flag for me.”
And here:
Michael Fingerhood echoed that notion, telling me that if he observed a friend crying on the job, “I would be concerned, but I would not assume anything.”
That, of course, does not stop him from elaborating on Dr. Schultz’s more alarming diagnosis, observing that, shock of shocks, it’s sometimes difficult for Boehner to speak clearly while crying.
Sometimes when he’s tearing up, he also appears to be slurring words, as was the case during a 2007 floor speech. But even here it’s impossible to diagnose (if the Terry Schiavo case taught us anything, it’s not to diagnose something via video). Boehner’s slurred words might simply be a result of his trying to speak loudly while not trying to cry. On the other hand, it should be noted that “occupational functioning” is frequently mentioned when defining “alcoholism.”
In other words: “Here’s a piece of evidence I just thought of. Wait, no, that’s just ridiculous—why did I even write that down? Actually, there might be something in that ”
Unable to mount the case that Boehner’s tears might be a sign he’s headed directly to Lohan-ville, Lewis throws his hands up and eventually settles on telling us that the crying thing just kinda weird. After all, “boys don’t cry.”
And yet Boehner’s public crying, as evidenced by the amount of coverage, is abnormal in our society. According to one psychology textbook, “adults are not supposed to demonstrate signs of emotional distress in social, performance, or work settings.”
Clearly someone’s never worked in a newsroom.

"The premise of the column, published overnight, is that there must be something deeper at the heart of Boehner’s propensity to cry at such unemotional things as memories of his childhood, mentions of his family, and talk of soldiers at war."
--- Wouldn't surprise me if that "something deeper" was a suggestion from his PR consultants. "Well John, you have a reputation for being callous, corrupt to the bone and completely out of touch with the working class.... a few alligator tears hear and there would go a long way toward softening your image. Think you could manage that?"
#1 Posted by Hardrada, CJR on Thu 16 Dec 2010 at 01:26 PM
John Boehner's actions and words are big enough and easy enough targets for criticism on their merits. The alcoholism angle is pure tabloid: shades of Pajamas Media.
(Btw, surely you jest when you write: "that sober voice of reason, MSNBC’s Ed Schultz ...")
#2 Posted by Dan A., CJR on Thu 16 Dec 2010 at 06:02 PM
Anyone at Columbia j-school want to assign a compare-and-contrast study to the press treatment received by Newt Gingrich and John Boehner vs that received by the disastrous Nancy Pelosi? Gingrich was pilloried by NEWSWEEK (presently paying the price for its sins of predicability and cluelessness) as 'the Gingrich who stole Christmas' before he even became Speaker. Boehner's weepiness has become the central narrative of his coverage.
By instructive contrast, most journalists seemed not to have had a clue that a Speaker from one of the least-representative districts in the country, a caricature of limousine liberalism, practically brainless about matters beyond fund-raising and its uses, was a catastrophe waiting to happen for her party. For all the obsession about Sarah Palin's negatives, Nancy Pelosi has an actual track record of liability for her party and unpopularity with voters. But you wouldn't have known it from the press coverage - before, during, and after her Speakership. Even when Pelosi was sounding as deeply in denial prior to Election Day as Baghdad Bob while US troops closed in, nobody in the MSM was highlighting the reasons for her bad poll ratings. Yet they are so obvious.
#3 Posted by Mark Richard, CJR on Fri 17 Dec 2010 at 12:44 PM
@Dan A.
I jest.
#4 Posted by Joel Meares, CJR on Fri 17 Dec 2010 at 01:48 PM
Very good piece.
#5 Posted by Newspaperman, CJR on Fri 17 Dec 2010 at 03:33 PM
Okay, Joel. Thanks for clearing that up. ( :
#6 Posted by Dan A., CJR on Fri 17 Dec 2010 at 05:13 PM
The thing about the Boehner piece is that the people that are leaking all these goodies are conservatives. Matt Lewis is a Tucker Carlson conservative and Joe Scarborugh is definitely conservative,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2RloNSp8tc
but they're spreading all these whispers about Boehner's leadership. Someone else wants to take the job methinks.
And that makes John Boehner a sad panda.
#7 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Fri 17 Dec 2010 at 06:10 PM
Mark Richard, this is just a guess, but I suspect whatever "bad poll ratings" Nancy Pelosi gets are the result of a protracted and intense attack launched by the right. And that comes from the fact she has been the most effective Speaker in several decades.
#8 Posted by Larry Maxcy, CJR on Fri 17 Dec 2010 at 08:27 PM
Thimbles, you make a good point. It could have something to do with a so-called libertarian-leaning conservatism, which lately seems to be more prevalent in the MSM and Congress. I certainly see how guys like Carlson and Scarborough would differ from Boehner in that respect.
#9 Posted by Dan A., CJR on Fri 17 Dec 2010 at 10:21 PM
Thimbles makes good points every single time he/she posts. Matter of fact, I have given up all hope of salvaging any system based on our current Constitution, and believe our only hope is an Enlightened Despotism led by Thimbles and Trudy Lieberman as co-consuls in an arrangement similar to that of Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus from 161-169 AD.
#10 Posted by Hardrada, CJR on Sat 18 Dec 2010 at 11:31 PM
*Blush*
Stop embarrassing me and get back to work, SLAVE. Mistress Trudy wants her nails polished proto or its no healthcare for you!
#11 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sun 19 Dec 2010 at 09:18 PM
Larry, both parties launch "extreme and protracted" attacks on figures on the other side - as I noted above re Newt Gingrich. Pelosi was treated very gently by the press compared to Gingrich and Boehner, thought the GOP did grasp her potential as an object of ridicule. In the press, there was no "central narrative" involving Botox, or the exotic nature of San Francisco politics, or discussion of just who are these people with gazillions of dollars intoning left-wing ideology? The latter, whether you like it or not, is unpopular with most voters - it reeks of condescension, a sensibility that is Nancy Pelosi's defining public sensibility. Even if you don't get it, or refuse to acknowledge it out of partisanship, there's some evidence that ordinary voters did get it, and dislike being condescended to. I ran across an issue of The Economist from 2004 this past weekend that discussed exactly that damaging potential on the part of this politician, so it is not a new or unique observation. Pelosi is to American politics what San Francisco is to America.
#12 Posted by Mark Richard, CJR on Mon 20 Dec 2010 at 12:31 PM
Sorry, the quote should be "protracted and intense". I still challenge CJR to compare Pelosi's coverage between during her Speaker-elect period - when the 'narrative' on newly-prominent figures is 'established' - with the coverage of Gingrich and Boehner.
#13 Posted by Mark Richard, CJR on Mon 20 Dec 2010 at 12:36 PM
"Waah waahh. The press didn't make fun of Nancy Pelosi enough. Only Fox News, the talk radio universe, the news satire programs on comedy central, the Washington Post Editorial board
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=unK0xijFmdw
and thousands of campaign attack ads, dared bring up substantive issues like her botox and her San Francisco background blah blah blah. And poor Newt Gingrich, all he did was shut down the government because he desperately wanted to gut medicare AND leave his wife while she recovered from cancer surgery for a new woman - a woman he then left for a member of his staff while he was impeaching Bill Clinton for a blowjob AND conduct himself so badly as speaker of the house that John Boehner, Dick Armey, and Bill Paxton worked behind the scenes to kick him out. And the mean old press, how have they treated noble Gingrich since these few motes got blown onto his record? He only gets, on average, one appearance on national television a week to trash people like Nancy Pelosi
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-may-19-2009/newt-gingrich-pt--1
while being considered as a perennial republican presidential candidate. When is the press going to be fair to people like Newt Gingrich?"
I know what you mean Mark, and I as myself the same question all the time.
#14 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Mon 20 Dec 2010 at 07:37 PM
"I still challenge CJR to compare Pelosi's coverage between during her Speaker-elect period - when the 'narrative' on newly-prominent figures is 'established' - with the coverage of Gingrich and Boehner."
Here you are:
http://mediamatters.org/research/200611130001
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmlKCtvRet8
#15 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Mon 20 Dec 2010 at 07:49 PM
Thimbles, not for the first time, you change the subject rather than admit a rather obvious point - that Nancy Pelosi received much less skeptical scrutiny from the mainstream media in the run-up to her becoming Speaker than did Gingrich, and that Boehner is receiving. In a way, you confirm this by reciting the sins of Gingrich - which occurred after he took the gavel. (The 'government shutdown' is a classic example of how you and the liberals create your own narrative reality. It takes two to shut down the government. The media simply took Clinton's side. Clinton was re-elected in 1996, but the GOP also retained its majority, so it is hard to see who 'won' this little bureaucratic dispute in the public's eye. But the MSM reliably asserts that Gingrich and the GOP were the losers, because that's how they framed it.)
The MSM airwaves are alive to the danger Sarah Palin is said to pose to the Republicans. But Pelosi is a proven catastrophe (as a result of her strikingly inept political skills outside the world of the left-wing rich) - the Republicans have their biggest majority in the House since 1946. Even after the Democratic moderates were wiped out in November, fully 43 Democratic members voted against her return to the House leadership, which means the crash-and-burn wing of the Party is down to about 150 seats. On the face of it, Pelosi should be the subject of much satire and denunciation, as Gingrich was, but the MSM is too cowed to really go hard on her, even after an election that was more a repudiation of her than of any other figure on the Democratic side.
Oh, and if Boehner's much-written-about tan is "news", then so is Pelosi's obviously cosmetic work. Nothing you can cite in the way of criticism of Pelosi can bear comparison with the war on Gingrich that began before he even became Speaker. I recall that Mother Jones, which seems to be MSM (it feeds a lot of munchkins to the MSM and wins a lot of those journalism awards) portrayed Gingrich as a vampire on one of its covers when he was still only Minority Whip. Where are the MSM caricatures of Pelosi again? The editorial cartoons? You're in deep denial. The MSM has a profound, reflexive urban-bourgeois view of America in its framing, and it shows up in this little matter.
#16 Posted by Mark Richard, CJR on Mon 20 Dec 2010 at 08:31 PM
"Nancy Pelosi received much less skeptical scrutiny from the mainstream media in the run-up to her becoming Speaker than did Gingrich, and that Boehner is receiving. In a way, you confirm this by reciting the sins of Gingrich - which occurred after he took the gavel. "
I remember the 2006 midterm and the press, including the republican attack press demonized Pelosi as a political doberman who would surrender to terrorists and begin the impeachment of George W moments after she was sworn in after caving in Dic Cheney's head with the gavel.
And Gingrich left his dying wife in 1981. Look it up.
"The 'government shutdown' is a classic example of how you and the liberals create your own narrative reality. It takes two to shut down the government."
It takes one to hold the government hostage until medicare is cut, and a spectacular hypocrite to then turn around cry "Leave Medicare alone!" when a democrat tries to cut 500 billion in waste from it.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704820904575055190217079952.html
But, funny enough, it's only in places like a liberal blog where Gingrich will ever be called a hypocrite. The sunday morning press have a table reserved for him.
And the disaster for the Democrats was born out of a crappy economy which Obama passed a small, over promised, stimulus to deal with. On top of that, his government has been inept with the bankers and the public watched as the health care bill got more and more watered down in the senate by people who negotiated in bad faith, and Obama's response to that situation was weakness to his enemies and belligerence to his allies.
The midterms were not a result of Pelosi, they were a result of bad advisors and bad performances by the senate and Obama's team. Who got decimated in the midterms again? The progressives? No, it was the feckless blue dogs and corporate bought democrats who were smashed, and to the degree that Obama keeps associating himself with them, so will his fate resemble.
And how have the press treated these worthless, pathetic, rusted anchors on the progressive agenda?
http://www.globalgiants.com/archives/2006/10/newsweek_cover_4.html
*Cue three eyed aliens*
"Centrists. Centrism. Bipartisan. Ooooooooo."
The press is as out of touch with the people as republicans are from basic economics. Pelosi wasn't the problem, Ben Nelson was.
#17 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Mon 20 Dec 2010 at 09:35 PM
My initial comment, if you want to stick to the subject, Thimbles, was that in the 'framing' period between a turnover in the House (November) and a new Speaker (January), the mainstream press - the TV networks, CNN, the big urban newspapers, the wire services, the newsweeklies, NPR - was much more negative toward Gingrich and Boehner, using personality issues as a cover behind which to engage in partisan warfare. Pelosi is a borderline preposterous figure, as even moderate liberals are becoming dimly aware. As long as you and other people on the Left - including the Left's sympathizers in our political press - remain in denial about this, you are the GOP's best friends. And you still havent' directed readers toward those MSM caricatures of Pelosi to match the vitriol directed at Gingrich, Boehner, or - the most obvious case of media/entertainment double standards - Sarah Palin.
I still challenge the Columbia Journalism School to compare the press coverage before the Speakerships of Gingrich and Pelosi, before they had actually taken power, in other words. After all, Gingrich's GOP House held power for 12 years after 1994. Pelosi's last only four.
#18 Posted by Mark Richard, CJR on Tue 21 Dec 2010 at 12:33 PM
My initial comment, if you want to stick to the subject, Thimbles, was that in the 'framing' period between a turnover in the House (November) and a new Speaker (January), the mainstream press - the TV networks, CNN, the big urban newspapers, the wire services, the newsweeklies, NPR - was much more negative toward Gingrich and Boehner, using personality issues as a cover behind which to engage in partisan warfare. Pelosi is a borderline preposterous figure, as even moderate liberals are becoming dimly aware. As long as you and other people on the Left - including the Left's sympathizers in our political press - remain in denial about this, you are the GOP's best friends. And you still havent' directed readers toward those MSM caricatures of Pelosi to match the vitriol directed at Gingrich, Boehner, or - the most obvious case of media/entertainment double standards - Sarah Palin.
I still challenge the Columbia Journalism School to compare the press coverage before the Speakerships of Gingrich and Pelosi, before they had actually taken power, in other words. After all, Gingrich's GOP House held power for 12 years after 1994. Pelosi's last only four.
#19 Posted by Mark Richard, CJR on Tue 21 Dec 2010 at 12:35 PM
My initial comment, if you want to stick to the subject, Thimbles, was that in the 'framing' period between a turnover in the House (November) and a new Speaker (January), the mainstream press - the TV networks, CNN, the big urban newspapers, the wire services, the newsweeklies, NPR - was much more negative toward Gingrich and Boehner, using personality issues as a cover behind which to engage in partisan warfare. Pelosi is a borderline preposterous figure, as even moderate liberals are becoming dimly aware. As long as you and other people on the Left - including the Left's sympathizers in our political press - remain in denial about this, you are the GOP's best friends. And you still havent' directed readers toward those MSM caricatures of Pelosi to match the vitriol directed at Gingrich, Boehner, or - the most obvious case of media/entertainment double standards - Sarah Palin.
I still challenge the Columbia Journalism School to compare the press coverage before the Speakerships of Gingrich and Pelosi, before they had actually taken power, in other words. After all, Gingrich's GOP House held power for 12 years after 1994. Pelosi's last only four.
#20 Posted by Mark Richard, CJR on Tue 21 Dec 2010 at 12:36 PM
My initial comment, if you want to stick to the subject, Thimbles, was that in the 'framing' period between a turnover in the House (November) and a new Speaker (January), the mainstream press - the TV networks, CNN, the big urban newspapers, the wire services, the newsweeklies, NPR - was much more negative toward Gingrich and Boehner, using personality issues as a cover behind which to engage in partisan warfare. Pelosi is a borderline preposterous figure, as even moderate liberals are becoming dimly aware. As long as you and other people on the Left - including the Left's sympathizers in our political press - remain in denial about this, you are the GOP's best friends. And you still havent' directed readers toward those MSM caricatures of Pelosi to match the vitriol directed at Gingrich, Boehner, or - the most obvious case of media/entertainment double standards - Sarah Palin.
I still challenge the Columbia Journalism School to compare the press coverage before the Speakerships of Gingrich and Pelosi, before they had actually taken power, in other words. After all, Gingrich's GOP House held power for 12 years after 1994. Pelosi's last only four.
#21 Posted by Mark Richard, CJR on Tue 21 Dec 2010 at 12:37 PM
And, as I explained, there were reasons for that which had nothing to do with Pelosi and everything to do with the economy, inaction in the legislative body due to constant (unreported) filibustering and delay tactics, and the false impression that there was more corruption since the democrats took over due to unpatriotic and dishonest reporting from the conservative media and fox news - stuff like this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJr4mCN24vY
.
Gingrich, is a bit of a sociopath as evidenced by his relationships and his willingness to say anything for personal benefit:
http://www.esquire.com/features/newt-gingrich-0910-6
"She called a minister they both trusted. He came over to the house the next day and worked with them the whole weekend, but Gingrich just kept saying she was a Jaguar and all he wanted was a Chevrolet. " 'I can't handle a Jaguar right now.' He said that many times. 'All I want is a Chevrolet.' "
He asked her to just tolerate the affair, an offer she refused.
He'd just returned from Erie, Pennsylvania, where he'd given a speech full of high sentiments about compassion and family values.
The next night, they sat talking out on their back patio in Georgia. She said, "How do you give that speech and do what you're doing?"
"It doesn't matter what I do," he answered. "People need to hear what I have to say. There's no one else who can say what I can say. It doesn't matter what I live.""
Boehner is a guy who handed out tobacco checks on the house floor (which no one seems to talk about), is in the pocket of the bankers (another thing people don't seem to bring up), and the only time you hear about his long hours golfing by day - hard partying at bars by night lifestyle is when a conservative plants the story for the media.
What have you got on Pelosi? Is she selling out to the bankers? Does she have constant affairs while lecturing others on their lack of morality? Did she get a bit of botox?
Is that it?
The media sucks up to republicans after an electoral win, it's wired for republicans and republican narratives. The media chides democrats after their wins reminding them CONSTANTLY, despite the poll evidence, that America is a center-right nation and that they'd better not do anything drastic like listen to their base. And that went double for Pelosi (I remember the framing Mark. The media were scared to death that she would begin impeachment of a president at war. These newcomers were portrayed as hippie radicals, a caricature they worked hard to disprove by not holding republicans accountable and using their powers like they should have)
This unequal treatment makes republicans sloppy, so sloppy that they become too brazen in their corruption for the media not to cover.
As usual Mark, your charges of bias and victimization are overblown and unfounded.
#22 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Tue 21 Dec 2010 at 07:09 PM
Thimbles, if one is not a left-wing urban/campus type, obsessing about the personal failings of Republicans (I am not an admirer of Gingrich, but then I am not an admirer of Pelosi - I was simply suggesting she got much softer 'political' treatment for the usual reasons), what you have on Pelosi is that in spite of fairly even-handed coverage, she led her Democrats in the House to their worst defeat since 1946. You blame the economy, as if Pelosi has nothing to do with that - while Gingrich's personal failings explain everything. (The economy thrived, if you recall, during the Gingrich Speakership, and moderates in his own party loved him.) The Republicans ran explicitly against Pelosi, and as I've attempted to explain to you many times, the left-wing politician with the right-wing lifestyle and Queen-of-France manner is not a political winner in this country. Especially if you come from a district as atypical as San Francisco.
Pelosi may be quite agreeable personally. But her political tactics and ideology are not, and that's what repoerters should be reporting on as ruthlessly as they reported on the alleged unpopularity of Gingrich's ideas. Arrogance is not attractive, and Pelosi made it clear that she did not care about public opinion during the health care debate when the issue was timidly raised by journalists.
But, as I say, if you and like-minded reporters want to pretend that Nancy Pelosi is not a liability to her party for reasons perfectly understandable to ordinary voters, go ahead and make the GOP's year. The press is all over what a liability Sarah Palin is supposed to be, but needs a road map to get from the politics of a rich San Francisco Democrat to electoral disaster in flyover land.
#23 Posted by Mark Richard, CJR on Wed 22 Dec 2010 at 12:24 PM
Mark, the best you can come up with on Pelosi is general characterizations of her "Queen-of-France manner". Gingrich has real, reportable, personal failings you can point to and say "Jesus, how did that guy get in charge?" and so does Boehner. The fact is the media never talks about these issues with republicans, the only time I've seen harsh coverage of Boehner is when they pressed him on his holding the middle class tax cuts hostage to the rich ones.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NehaoNEpqHw
That was the harshest coverage I've seen of Boehner outside of MSNBC (and I'm assuming that you're excluding the more partisan cable outlets from critique since your complaints of weak media coverage hasn't included the time Fox News had her poisoned on air).
Pelosi was a problem for the white male demographic of the republican party, few others cared since she didn't have much real power to get things passed because whatever got passed by congress would get watered down or filibustered by the senate. Republicans don't like Pelosi because she blames them, rightly and publicly, for these recent financial problems:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IeEK4NJ4kM8
"Oh! Oh! A woman embarrassed us! We will not let that stand!"
Outside of whiney conservatives, people don't care about Pelosi, they care about the party. And the party we will get to in a sec:
#24 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Wed 22 Dec 2010 at 09:22 PM
What killed the party was a stimulus that over promised, a perception that Democrats over promised on clean and transparent governance, a fed and treasury that helped everyone but the workers, corporations hoarding cash reserves because it makes no sense to spend cash on production when consumer demand has collapsed, banks operating lawlessly and doing this kind of crap
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/22/business/22lockout.html
credit cards and health insurance companies doing similar kinds of crap despite the reform that over promised to stop it, and the public display of democratic infighting as preening jerks - like Ben Nelson and Lieberman - sabotaged their party's legislation to benefit their donors.
In other words, the rejection of the democrats was not just a simple response to Nancy Pelosi's botox. A lot of what affected the fortunes of the party was in control of the executive who forgot to make a case nor a stand for what they claim to believe, a lot of it was in the senate where one or two hostage takers had the power to dictate the contents of the bill
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/11/hostage_situation_in_the_unite.html
a lot of it was the largely unreported obstruction done by republicans - a dynamic that has only really been challenged recently by Jon Stewart's comedy show coverage over the 9-11 first responder issue.
As Atrios said recently "If Jon Stewart Can Do It, then maybe a charismatic fairly popular tall skinny guy with a fancy podium and the ability to get people to point TV cameras at him almost any moment can figure out how to do it."
He hasn't done it, the media hasn't done it, and the perception is, as a result, the democrats can't do it - so throw them out. Even though the public trusts the republicans less on all the major issues, including security, even though the republicans were responsible for allowing the economic situation to get this bad, even though the republicans have publicly aligned themselves with the worst interests the Chamber of Commerce can drum business from, the voters threw the bums out.
Because the perception was the democrats are inactive. That perception has nothing to do with Nancy Pelosi.
#25 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Wed 22 Dec 2010 at 09:55 PM
I used to think 'Thimbles' was a CJR screen name for Paul Krugman. Same suppressed rage, especially toward those critical of Paul Krugman. But I think Krugman is a somewhat of a cynic; the former Reagan-administration official, the former Enron adviser, he appears to surf the zeitgeist. Presently he panders to the (dwindling demographic of) red-meat Democrats who take The Times' editorial opinions seriously, starting with the guy who signs his checks.
Then I toyed with the idea that Thimbles is Krugman's spouse, said to be a particularly ballistic hater of all things GOP. (She left the US for England rather than suffer that reign of terror that was the Reagan years, I hear.) The notion that Thimbles is really Eric Boehlert crossed my mind, but Boehlert has no trouble expressing himself in the Thimbles style in Media Matters. I think I can dismiss Brendan Daly. There is some of the prolixity of Ralph Nader in the posts, the Naderite desire to recast any skeptical questions into good-guy/bad-guy terms, a certain denial of reality when it comes to actual American electoral politics. But the puzzle remains
#26 Posted by Mark Richard, CJR on Thu 23 Dec 2010 at 12:29 PM
I used to think 'Thimbles' was a CJR screen name for Paul Krugman. Same suppressed rage, especially toward those critical of Paul Krugman. But I think Krugman is a somewhat of a cynic; the former Reagan-administration official, the former Enron adviser, he appears to surf the zeitgeist. Presently he panders to the (dwindling demographic of) red-meat Democrats who take The Times' editorial opinions seriously, starting with the guy who signs his checks.
Then I toyed with the idea that Thimbles is Krugman's spouse, said to be a particularly ballistic hater of all things GOP. (She left the US for England rather than suffer that reign of terror that was the Reagan years, I hear.) The notion that Thimbles is really Eric Boehlert crossed my mind, but Boehlert has no trouble expressing himself in the Thimbles style in Media Matters. I think I can dismiss Brendan Daly. There is some of the prolixity of Ralph Nader in the posts, the Naderite desire to recast any skeptical questions into good-guy/bad-guy terms, a certain denial of reality when it comes to actual American electoral politics. But the puzzle remains
#27 Posted by Mark Richard, CJR on Thu 23 Dec 2010 at 12:30 PM
I used to think 'Thimbles' was a CJR screen name for Paul Krugman. Same suppressed rage, especially toward those critical of Paul Krugman. But I think Krugman is a somewhat of a cynic; the former Reagan-administration official, the former Enron adviser, he appears to surf the zeitgeist. Presently he panders to the (dwindling demographic of) red-meat Democrats who take The Times' editorial opinions seriously, starting with the guy who signs his checks.
Then I toyed with the idea that Thimbles is Krugman's spouse, said to be a particularly ballistic hater of all things GOP. (She left the US for England rather than suffer that reign of terror that was the Reagan years, I hear.) The notion that Thimbles is really Eric Boehlert crossed my mind, but Boehlert has no trouble expressing himself in the Thimbles style in Media Matters. I think I can dismiss Brendan Daly. There is some of the prolixity of Ralph Nader in the posts, the Naderite desire to recast any skeptical questions into good-guy/bad-guy terms, a certain denial of reality when it comes to actual American electoral politics. But the puzzle remains
#28 Posted by Mark Richard, CJR on Thu 23 Dec 2010 at 12:31 PM
I used to think 'Thimbles' was a CJR screen name for Paul Krugman. Same suppressed rage, especially toward those critical of Paul Krugman. But I think Krugman is a somewhat of a cynic; the former Reagan-administration official, the former Enron adviser, he appears to surf the zeitgeist. Presently he panders to the (dwindling demographic of) red-meat Democrats who take The Times' editorial opinions seriously, starting with the guy who signs his checks.
Then I toyed with the idea that Thimbles is Krugman's spouse, said to be a particularly ballistic hater of all things GOP. (She left the US for England rather than suffer that reign of terror that was the Reagan years, I hear.) The notion that Thimbles is really Eric Boehlert crossed my mind, but Boehlert has no trouble expressing himself in the Thimbles style in Media Matters. I think I can dismiss Brendan Daly. There is some of the prolixity of Ralph Nader in the posts, the Naderite desire to recast any skeptical questions into good-guy/bad-guy terms, a certain denial of reality when it comes to actual American electoral politics. But the puzzle remains
#29 Posted by Mark Richard, CJR on Thu 23 Dec 2010 at 12:33 PM
Could it really be that Thimbles is some random guy on the internet who likes to argue about the stuff he thinks about?
Nah, the possibility is too far fetched.
#30 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Fri 24 Dec 2010 at 01:53 AM