When I learned that Texas Congressman John Culberson is a Twitter user, I began following him right away. I suspect that the Congressman and I, a conservative Republican from my own state, would agree on very little. But his Twitter persona, is open and “human”. The posts are neither boring advertisements for his own accomplishments, or spin-filled obfuscations. And he respond to a lot of other Twitterers. That’s more than I can say for the bots that represent other Twitterfied polticians. So what if we don’t agree on policy. He knows how to Twitter effectively, and he gives me a window into the workings of the greatest deliberative body in the world, the Congress of the United States.
Today, Culberson sent a series of Twitters alerting his followers (that just sounds a little creepy in a political context, but I digress) to a letter (pdf) written by the chair of a Congressional subcommittee regarding the posting of video (and by extension, other media content) to non-house.gov domains. The letter basically proposes that members of Congress not be allowed to post video to external sites from within the Capitol or other federal facilities, in accordance with the body’s franking rules. Franking, for those of you who can’t remember your high school government class,refers to communication, usually by mail, from members of Congress , to their constituents. Regulations both provide members free postage. Franking also governs the rules under which members’ official Web sites are hosted, and content that’s allowed on those sites. The idea is to clearly demarcate official communication (allowed) from electioneering or campaigning (not allowed).
The letter, larded up as it is with jargon and committee-speak, seems to say that members of Congress (and staff) should be disallowed from freealnce social media posting for the same reason that they can’t update their campaign Web sites, make fundraising calls, or stuff those direct mail pieces from their Capitol offices. The letter actually reads a lot like corporate policies against using personal email accounts, or making personal phone calls at work. Video and social media posting, the letter posits, are not part of the members’ official duties, if they’re posted to external Web sites that may have commercial or political content.
This is a conflict worth some serious thought. I would be surprised if the franking rules have kept up with Internet communication. I really like being able to read a Congress member’s Twitter posts. I might even enjoy watching his or her Qik videos, if I did that sort of thing. But how would I feel if, say, my congressman spent time liveblogging committee hearings instead of participating? And how would I feel if, let’s say, access to the members’ social media output were restricted based on contributions made to his or her campaign? Not happy.
The solution is not to call the evil Democrats (one subcommittee chair = “the Democrats”?) out as censors, but to undertake a rewrite of the franking rules that takes social media reality into account. It is certainly possible to create rules that, as they do for telephone calls, allow members of Congress to communicate just as the rest of us do—with no prior restraint, and no unnecessary restrictions—while still allowing voters to feel confident that their elected officials are not running 140-character re-election campaigns from the floor of the House. I’m confident that forward-thinking members of both parties will support such changes, if people like Mr. Culberson, and his Twitter followers seek to educate, rather than demonize. On that, he and I could agree.
The YouTube clip featuring MSNBC shouter Chris Matthews taking down hapless conservative talk show host Kevin James has been everywhere, most notably promoted by MSNBC itself. As an Obama supporter, and hater of content-free punditry, you’d think I’d get a kick out of that, wouldn’t you?
Actually, no.
The clip represents everything I dislike about political “analysis” done by talking head pundits of whatever stripe.
In the clip, Matthews, trying out for the role of teacher-pundit, asks the clearly over-excited, over-matched James to explain exactly what Neville Chamberlain did in 1938 to appease Adolf Hitler. James can’t answer, but continues to blather senselessly, digging himself deeper and deeper.
What’s the problem? Start with the structure of televised political conversation. A moderator, often projecting himself into the discussion, asks questions of talk show hosts, party hacks, ex-oficeholders who are assigned to act as spokesmodels for “the left” or “the right”. Their very appearances on these shows are based on their prefab associations, not on their personal expertise, or even their own true opinions. The conversation is structured to elicit left versus right arguments.
Fortunately, there is a ready supply of ambitious local talk show hosts looking for a big break, or perhaps enhanced book sales. For the cable shows, these people are perfect, because they understand the speed and pithiness demanded of TV dialog, and are often unburdened by the need to do research, or provide nuanced analysis. They are walking, talking sound-bites.
In the absence of bigger names, or perhaps to mix it up a bit, cable shows book people like James on to run through the right’s talking points. Last week, it was a defense of Bush’s appeasement comments in Israel. “On the left” as they say, was Air America honcho Mark Green, who occupied his little box onscreen, but had very little to do, once Matthews went all pitt bull on James. Standard operating procedure on Hardball would normally be for Matthews to ask leading questions of the two guests, let them argue a little, and maybe throw his lot in with one of them, just for fun. Little information is transmitted to the audience, and guests aren’t often challenged on their facts, but everyone leaves entertained, secure in their preconceived notions of whether conservatives or liberals are right.
But this time, Matthews pounced on a clearly clueless guest; not for his “ideas”, but for his lack of in-depth knowledge. He did so for two reasons: because he could, and because he apparently feels the sting of recent criticism. James is no great thinker, and his delivery is one loud, shrill note. He ain’t very good as a cable show guest, and he isn’t famous enough to throw a successful tantrum if Matthews picks on him. And then there’s Matthews own recent bad PR; his seeming disdain for Hillary Clinton/tongue kissing of Barack Obama, a demonstrable tendency toward creepy sexism, and a recent New York Times Magazine profile that makes him look far from Murrow-like in his conduct or motivations. Picking on Kevin James, in short, is a win-win for Matthews on the left, because as we ridicule the talk show host’s performance, we elevate Matthews to straight-talking hero status.
I’m not losing any sleep over Matthews using Kevin James as a punching bag, only the state of political discourse it symbolizes. What I do find troubling is the extent to which MSNBC itself has exploited the clip. You can find it featured on the networks Web site, of course, but it was Matthews being feted on Countdown (guest-hosted by my favorite pandit, Rachel Maddow, unfortunately) that really got under my skin. Maddow dutifully introduced a replay of the clip, then talked to Matthews in-studio about it. Come on now! How much self-congratulation are we expected to stomach? OK, Matthews had a good night, and the lesson to be learned from this should be to hold more guests accountable, or to choose better guests in the first place. Perhaps MSNBC could even produce a show where pundit-boxing is not the main event. I nominate Rachel Madow to hos it.
I had an epiphany about all the hoo ha over Senator Obama’s remarks last week about rural voters in Pennsylvania. Yeah, yeah, I’m supporting Obama, so take my comments for whatever you think they’re worth.
Obama’s clinical, detached explanation of voters’ motivations, which seem to have agitated the pundit class way more than they have the actual electorate, pretty much mirror the dismissive style of the very “journalists” who find this story so compelling. How many times have you heard voters lumped into categories like “angry white males” or “soccer moms”, and their feelings distilled down to simple, marginalizing language. Soccer moms care about security more than they do about the deficit. Working class white males are motivated by hatred of affirmative action or illegal immigrants.
Sure, a presidential candidate should be held to a much higher standard than the nattering know-nothings of cable news, but when he’s being held to that standard by the know-nothings themselves, that’s just disgusting.
Frank and I have been making fun of Idaho senator Larry Craig for a couple of days. We’ve been greeting one other with “I am not gay.” to which the response is “I have never been gay.” This is inexplicably hilarious to us, and we hope our gay friends won’t disown us. Like most folks who know and actually like gay people, we see Craig as fully hypocrisy-compliant figure. His arrest and embarrassment, and possible loss of his office, should he run again next year, would be a just outcome.
But when Republican officeholders yesterday (including John McCain) started urging that Craig resign, I began to get a gnawing sense that the senator from Idaho is not the only one with a hypocrisy problem. The calls for his resignation focus on the fact that he broke the law and plead guilty to doing so. Fair enough. The crime to which he plead guilty is a misdemeanor. It is not subject to prison time or a trial. if misdemeanor crimes committed by politicians are in fact grounds for requiring their resignation, shall we also force out those who inadvertently carry guns through airport security, or drive under the influence (without causing injury)? You see, both of these crimes have been committed by members of congress in the past couple of years. And I take no joy in telling you that in the most recent cases, the offenders were Democrats. Though I don’t have facts in front of me, I would wager that there are a few Republican DUIs that could also be dredged up in comparison.
The demands by members of his own party that Larry Craig resign are part damage control, and part a response to the ick factor of homosexuality, as experienced by straight men. In terms of Republican senate hopes, it’s beter for the GOP if Craig resigns or doesn’t run. If he does run, they’re bound to help him, and that would be awkward. The Democrats faced the same problem when $90,000 in cold hard cash turned up in congressman Bill Jefferson’s freezer. He ran for reelection and won. Very inconvenient for the Dems.
It doesn’t help Craig with conservatives that Craig parted company with them on the president’s recent immigration bill. A guy who likes I-legals and gay sex pretty much has no chance to obtain the kind of circle-the-wagons protection that crooked cabinet officers and congress members that like money more than sex are afforded by the selectively sanctimonious .
If you want proof of this, consider the good fortune of Louisiana senator David Vitter, recently found to have his phone number in the records of the “DC Madam” and accused by a New Orleans hooker of having been a good customer. Vitter has not been convicted, or even charged with a crime, but it is not this that keeps him in the good graces of the Republican party. It’s his solid conservative record, and the fact that he likes women,not men.
