Here's a game for you to play. It's kind of like sudoku, but it's harder. See if you can paraphrase the meaning of the first and last sentence in this quote. It's a GOP congressman talking about the debt ceiling crisis:
"I've always said I came to this town not looking for a view, but for a solution," said Rep. Jeffrey M. Landry (R-La.), who opposed the Boehner plan earlier this week. "And you know what, the speaker and the leadership, I think at the end of the day, I think that's what's in their hearts." He added: "We went in there and we kept discussing it, and we got to where we realized both the American people and hopefully that conference is."
That's an exact quote, printed in the Washington Post. The object of the game is to figure out "what the congressman is trying to signify, with these two sentences:
(CONTINUED)
"1. I've always said I came to this town not looking for a view, but for a solution."
What does that mean? Why has he "always said it?" Are other elected representatives coming to D.C. to "look for a view," rather than a "solution?"
2. "We went in there and we kept discussing it, and we got to where we realized both the American people and hopefully that conference is."
The meaning of the first clause is clear. What does the second clause mean? (It is an exact quote.)
Please respond, and tell me why you think the Washington Post quoted these observations in a lengthy and otherwise informative article on the progress of the ongoing debt crisis.
My own view is that the WaPo is trying to suggest to its readers that incoherence is now a part of the process. There is substantial evidence of this, given the fact that the Republican Party is now combating its own elected leadership. Some members of the Tea Party element in Congress seem to have gotten behind Speaker Boehner because the press revealed yesterday that Boehner's plan didn't add up.
Other elements on the conservative side signify their own preference for incoherence in the face of a looming economic crisis. Yesterday and the day before, I listened to the Jay Sekulow broadcast on local Christian radio. These broadcasts (going out over evangelical radio supposedly devoted to spreading the Good News about Jesus Christ) were almost entirely devoted to persuading the audience to support the Republican and conservative side in the debt ceiling struggle.
The hosts' message was that the president was at fault for not presenting Congress with a viable budget plan (reversing the constitutional order requiring Congress to work out and submit a budget that the president will sign.) The hosts' message: if the House fails to submit a budget that the Senate will pass and the president will sign and "bad things start to happen"--it's the president's fault and you should blame him, not the Congress that's responsible for creating a budget.
This is a revolutionary interpretation of the responsibilities of leadership and governance. But its adoption by the conservative and Republican party understandable in light of the fact that the Republican leadership (elected to lead the Republicans in Congress) does not in fact lead the Republicans in Congress. If Boehner, Cantor, et al. don't even lead the Republicans in Congress who elected them--how can they provide any sort of leadership on the budget or provide the White House with any sort of meaningful budget plan?
Rather than face that hard truth, the Republicans and conservatives will adopt the "it's the president's fault for not writing the budget for us" line of thinking. And send it out over Christian radio, as well as other media outlets.
Michele Bachmann's solution is even more "straight forward and cork-screw at the same time". She will not, under any circumstances, vote to raise the debt ceiling--but her personal twist on this issue is that she wants money for not raising the debt ceiling and causing an economic catastrophe.
In an email to me entitled "I will not vote to raise the debt ceiling" Bachmann states the following:
Dear Fellow Conservative,
I will not vote to raise the debt ceiling...
...I will not sit by and watch Barack Obama mislead the nation while simultaneously jeopardizing our children's and grandchildren's future. I continue to stand up against not only Barack Obama and the Democrats but also the leadership of my own party when I don't agree with them...
...Will you let me know you stand with me by making a special emergency gift to my campaign today?...
...and then her email includes contribution links so you have the opportunity to send her "emergency" money to help her throw more Americans out of work this year.
And I think she's still leading in Iowa...
LINK:
(to Washington Post and mysterious Congressman from Louisiana)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...
Meanwhile, back on Bachmann's homeworld of Minnesota:
Sometimes you can find out more about "how media operates" by reading a story backwards.
From the front page of the St. Paul Pioneer Press, the daily paper of the state's capitol; their coverage of Bachmann's q-and-a at the National Press Club:
Bachmann has called for dismantling Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, two federal home loan programs, even though she and her husband took out a government-guaranteed loan to buy a house three years ago.
Asked about that apparent contradiction, she replied, "It's almost impossible to buy a home in this country today without the federal government being involved." She reiterated that those programs should be scrapped.
Bachmann's appearance was an opportunity for her to show that she could handle tough questioning. She did so cheerfully...
...Sarah Palin had flubbed a similar question in an interview with CBS News' Katie Couric during her 2008 vice presidential campaign.
Okay. So: a reporter pointed out Bachmann in denouncing a federal program she personally benefited from. But the PiPress gives Bachmann an "A" on her ability to handle tough questions. How is it possible, when the hypocrisy of the answer is palpable? (It isn't "almost impossible to buy a home in this country without the federal government being involved." You can buy just about anything without help from the federal government if you've got the money. The Bachmanns chose to rely on a federal program because they concluded it was in their personal interest to do so.)
It's possible for the PiPress to give her an "A" (even as her answer acknowledges her own hypocrisy) because the PiPress is giving up "plus points" for evading questions, rather than answering them.
From the very same article:
"She declined to answer whether she believes Boehner should be ousted as speaker..."
"She also declined to answer a question about whether she believes her husband's Christian counseling center provides therapy designed to help gay people go straight."
"Asked how she expects the impasse over the debt limit to be resolved, Bachmann said she'd leave that to Boehner, President Barack Obama and Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid."
...the congresswoman from West Lakeland Township made it through the speech and a half-hour question-and-answer period without any apparent slip-ups, although she was evasive at times.
Declined to answer, declined to answer, "resolving the impasse on the debt is the other guys' problem, and "evasive at times"-- all of that (in the PiPress's view) add up to a credible performance by Bachmann, and a headline:
Bachmann holds own before tough D.C. crowd
By Bill Salisbury, St. Paul Pioneer Press
I didn't know that the press gave politicians positive reviews for evading and declining to answer questions from the press.
Why is the PiPress trying to help her, by identifying "refusals to answer" as "success?"
LINK:
http://www.twincities.com/....