TheDailyBanter.com

David Brooks puts 'peripatetic', 'equanimity', 'homeostasis', 'sojourner', 'grandiloquent', 'didactic' all in one article

By Ben Cohen

Writing is a competitive, cut throat business with not much money being distributed around a lot of people. Writing for the New York Times would probably put you in the top 1% of earners, and would mean a good share of at least 90% of the money. I'm a professional writer, and I manage to make about 1/3 to 1/2 of my total income from writing - and believe me, that isn't easy. I would probably cut my arms off to get a chance to make a serious income from writing (and write with my toes), but I'm relatively young, so don't expect it any time soon.

Getting to the top can't be easy, and most of the time, I'm sure it takes a lot of hard work, a good deal of sucking up, and an acute ability to write for an audience. The Times conservative columnist David Brooks is a perfect example of a writer who has spent a life time perfecting all of those traits, writing vague, bourgeois opinion pieces catered specifically to the upper middle classes.

Brooks distances himself from right wing blowhards like Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh, but essentially advocates the same policy positions without the bombast, and a lot of fancy words. On Sarah Palin's debate with Joe Biden, Brooks offered the following drivel:

Hack Watch: John Stossel

Ari Rutenberg

Most people with any familiarity know that John Stossel of ABC News is a shill for corporate interests.  In a op-ed today on RealClearPolitics Stossel makes the argument that re-regulation is not the solution to the current economic crisis.  His article is factually and intellectually incorrect from start to finish, with the occasional total fabrication thrown in for good measure.  Here I'm just going to address a few of the more outrageous and hackish statements.

1)Stossel starts by saying possibly the most on-its-face stupid comment uttered so far in the current crisis.  Stossel asks rhetorically  "Is deregulation is the culprit?" Answering "It can't be. There was no relevant deregulation in the last 25 years."  No relevant deregulation?  That is just wrong.  Whether it is wishful thinking or a lie remains to be seen, but if he really believes this he should be fired. 
A short time line:

1994: Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act of 1994 (IBBEA) repeals the interstate provisions of the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 that regulated the actions of bank holding companies.
1999: Fannie Mae eases credit to aid mortgage lending (September)^[2]; Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act repeals Glass-Steagall Act, deregulates banking, insurance and securities into a financial services industry (November)
2000: Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 bans regulation of credit default swaps, many of which were sold to insure mortgage-backed securities and collateralized debt obligations that later lost value as their component subprime mortgages went into default. Concerns over swap issuers' ability to cover all of the defaulted debt they had guaranteed contributed to financial crises for companies such as Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, and AIG in 2008

Hack Watch: Norah O'Donell

By Ben Cohen

While watching the Democratic Convention, I've been switching between MSNBC and C-SPAN to alleviate some of the boredom, and I'm fast becoming a fan of the comment free public channel. As Jon Stewart has pointed out, the mainstream media's coverage of the event has been pretty pathetic, regurgitating campaign talking points instead of doing serious journalism.

The analysis of the event seems more like sports commentators discussing the line up for a major game rather than looking at some of the pressing issues present in the campaign (and there are quite a few).

It is Norah O'Donell that I am developing a particular irritation with, as she literally recycles every bit of conventional wisdom known to campaign politics.

"I think Michelle Obama needs to define herself"

"Michelle Obama needs to introduce herself to the American people"

"The Democrats are trying to present a unified front"

"Barack Obama needs to broaden his appeal"

If she repeats one more bland, meaningless statement I'm going to throw my computer at the TV screen. Seriously though, why do they have to trivialize something so important? The Democratic convention is a big deal, especially given the times we live in. The convention showcases many Democrats from many different parts of the country with wildly different ideologies - progressive, centrist, and even right wing.

They do however, have one thing in common: Supporting Barack Obama, and making sure a Republican doesn't come in and do more damage to an already badly damaged country.

Norah O'Donell is doing her best to trivialize the event, and is therefore doing her bit to damage the country. Please, someone get her off the air.

Hack Watch: Dick Morris

By Ben Cohen

Spineless, immoral, Machiavellian, sinister, loathsome. These would be adjectives that spring to mind when describin

g super-hack and 'political' consultant Dick Morris. Morris, a former adviser to Trent Lott and Bill Clinton, is the guy who helps create your image as a politician. When it looked like Bill Clinton would not get re-elected for a second term, Morris had Clinton do photo ops of him hunting and fishing in order to resonate with white America. Morris has no political affiliation, hiring himself out to the highest bidder and bringing his skills in image manipulation to men desperate enough to sell their souls to get elected.

Morris once called Spanish people cowards because the voted out the president who took them into a war they did not believe in, and allowed a prostitute he was seeing listen in on phone calls to President Clinton. Also listed as one of the nations top tax evaders, it is incredible Morris is still a respected figure amongst media talking heads.

Want to win an election? Hire Frank Luntz

By Ben Cohen

Republican Pollster Frank Luntz is an interesting character. He is the modern definition of a political hack, having made his money by treating politics as an advertising industry. But he is at least an extremely smart hack.  If you want to understand how language can be used to  win campaigns, Luntz is your man. If you want to understand how body language and image can be manipulated to sway voters, Luntz is definitely your man.

In short, if you want to win in today's political climate, hire Frank Luntz.

Check this video of Luntz dissecting the Democratic candidates performance in the Iowa debates last week. It's an interesting segment, and fascinating to see how voters react to the language of politicians:

Hack Watch: Joe Klein

By Ben Cohen

Joe Klein is the most sophisticated of political hacks, a sharp minded analyst with no fixed values and a thirst for relevance. Apparently a Democrat, Klein has spent most of his career advocating the 'Third Way' for his party. A major player in the 90's, selling out to the business community and adopting right wing national security policies was the order of the day, and Klein reveled in lecturing Democrats on giving up their core values.

Glenn Greenwald  on Salon.com recently bashed Klein for his support for government wiretapping, provoking others in the blogosphere to hammer him for his continued dedication to triangulating on the issues.

Not to be left out, The Daily Banter did some digging on Klein, and surprise surprise, we found an even deeper commitment to political hackery.

In a brilliant expose earlier this year, Arianna Huffington took Klein to task for revisionist journalism when the political pundit pretended that he had opposed the war in Iraq from the beginning. Wrote Huffington:

"While offering his Time blog take on the Sunday show appearances of John McCain, Chuck Hagel, and John Edwards, Joe Klein once again made the claim that he opposed the war in Iraq from the beginning. Speaking of McCain he said: "I disagreed with him about going to war in 2003..."

"But here is Klein on Meet the Press in February 2003:  "This is a really tough decision. War may well be the right decision at this point. In fact, I think it--it's--it-it probably is." When Tim Russert presses Klein on why he thinks Iraq is "the right war," Klein responds, "Because sooner or later, this guy has to be taken out. Saddam has -- Saddam Hussein has to be taken out... The message has to be sent because if it isn't sent now, if we don't do this now, it empowers every would-be Saddam out there and every would-be terrorist out there."