See this is why what Media Matters does is so important. It hits paydirt now with the story about McCarthy's boast to Sean Hannity.
I wrote about this in my last post but here's the big news I've just discovered: Greg Sargent of the high profile Washington Post the Plum Line has picked up the story.
I've talked a lot in recent weeks regarding the Hillary scandal machine that it's all about the media narrative.
The media says that this email thing is a big deal. It isn't but the fact that the Beltway keeps saying it is makes it a big deal at least for the time being and can have a self-fulfilling impact on Hillary's numbers at least in the short term. But of course, a drop in her numbers is breathlessly picked up by the press and exaggerated which makes them drop even more.
The not so virtuous feedback loop at work.
I had just written about this
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2015/09/kevin-mccarthy-brags-that-benghazi.html
What I didn't know was that Greg Sargent picked it up. His picking it up is so important because what Sargent says can't be ignored by the Beltway so easily. He is part of the narrative himself.
So when the email scandal first broke Sargent himself was saying things like maybe there's nothing there but the Clintons some how seem to always find themselves the target of such with hunts which suggest even if there's no fire they are complicit by blowing smoke somehow.
This gave the scandal life if even he as a resident high profile Beltway liberal refused to push back on Emailgate at all.
So now by the same token this is big as it clearly means that Media Matters has penetrated the Beltway consciousness in a way that can't simply be ignored.
Here is Sargent:
"Top Republican suffers disastrous outbreak of candor about Hillary Benghazi probes."
"Twitter is abuzz with the news that the man who is likely to take over as Speaker of the House suffered from an accidental outbreak of candor on national television, directly linking House GOP investigations of Benghazi to Hillary Clinton’s dropping poll numbers."
"The problem comes in the linking of this directly to Clinton’s “dropping numbers.” It suggests that the probes are less about genuine accountability than about driving up her negatives, to use the cliche so beloved by political pros. It is reasonable to surmise that the probes at this point are more about pumping out as much fog as possible to create a general impression of wrongdoing that, hopefully, will sow inchoate public doubts about Clinton. McCarthy’s quote may not prove this to be true, but it provides more support for that theory of the case."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/09/30/morning-plum-top-republican-suffers-accidental-outbreak-of-candor-about-hillary-benghazi-probes/
This last paragraph shows that Sargent is still a creature of the Beltway:
"McCarthy’s quote is already being pressed into service by Clinton’s allies to delegitimize the ongoing House probes. The Clinton campaign will probably do the same, to remind people of her weathering of the 1990s trials and tribulations, though it might require some careful treading to do this while simultaneously keeping up the line that she is merely trying to earn the public’s trust by navigating the natural rigors of the process."
Why does she have to earn the public's trust about emails? And you consider her too partisan with the Republican Congress' record going back to the Clinton years?
Still just because he is a Beltway pundit his acknowledging this is a big step forward for Democrats.
UPDATE: Kevin Drum also picks up the story.
However, I take issue with this:
"In both cases, there was genuine news that justified a certain amount of coverage. But also in both cases, the amount of coverage was insanely out of sync with the actual evidence of serious wrongdoing. Welcome to the 1990s version 2.0."
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2015/09/welcome-1990s-version-20
I wrote about this in my last post but here's the big news I've just discovered: Greg Sargent of the high profile Washington Post the Plum Line has picked up the story.
I've talked a lot in recent weeks regarding the Hillary scandal machine that it's all about the media narrative.
The media says that this email thing is a big deal. It isn't but the fact that the Beltway keeps saying it is makes it a big deal at least for the time being and can have a self-fulfilling impact on Hillary's numbers at least in the short term. But of course, a drop in her numbers is breathlessly picked up by the press and exaggerated which makes them drop even more.
The not so virtuous feedback loop at work.
I had just written about this
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2015/09/kevin-mccarthy-brags-that-benghazi.html
What I didn't know was that Greg Sargent picked it up. His picking it up is so important because what Sargent says can't be ignored by the Beltway so easily. He is part of the narrative himself.
So when the email scandal first broke Sargent himself was saying things like maybe there's nothing there but the Clintons some how seem to always find themselves the target of such with hunts which suggest even if there's no fire they are complicit by blowing smoke somehow.
This gave the scandal life if even he as a resident high profile Beltway liberal refused to push back on Emailgate at all.
So now by the same token this is big as it clearly means that Media Matters has penetrated the Beltway consciousness in a way that can't simply be ignored.
Here is Sargent:
"Top Republican suffers disastrous outbreak of candor about Hillary Benghazi probes."
To be sure he didn't say it so much to be candor but if anything to head off the desire for some Tea Partiers in the House to have Gowdy rather than McCarthy as next House Speaker. He was trying to assure the base of his piety to the creed.
He didn't think while he was gloating about Hillary to Hannity that he might actually be putting a weapon in her hand.
"The problem comes in the linking of this directly to Clinton’s “dropping numbers.” It suggests that the probes are less about genuine accountability than about driving up her negatives, to use the cliche so beloved by political pros. It is reasonable to surmise that the probes at this point are more about pumping out as much fog as possible to create a general impression of wrongdoing that, hopefully, will sow inchoate public doubts about Clinton. McCarthy’s quote may not prove this to be true, but it provides more support for that theory of the case."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/09/30/morning-plum-top-republican-suffers-accidental-outbreak-of-candor-about-hillary-benghazi-probes/
This last paragraph shows that Sargent is still a creature of the Beltway:
"McCarthy’s quote is already being pressed into service by Clinton’s allies to delegitimize the ongoing House probes. The Clinton campaign will probably do the same, to remind people of her weathering of the 1990s trials and tribulations, though it might require some careful treading to do this while simultaneously keeping up the line that she is merely trying to earn the public’s trust by navigating the natural rigors of the process."
Why does she have to earn the public's trust about emails? And you consider her too partisan with the Republican Congress' record going back to the Clinton years?
Still just because he is a Beltway pundit his acknowledging this is a big step forward for Democrats.
Then you have the story that Boehner actually wanted Gowdy for Majority Leader.
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/09/boehner-secretly-encouraged-gowdy-to-run-for-leader-214256#ixzz3nEYMey7W
So basically the entire House is involved in blatant campaign activities against Hillary Clinton. And they dare accuse her of conflict of interest?
UPDATE: Kevin Drum also picks up the story.
However, I take issue with this:
"In both cases, there was genuine news that justified a certain amount of coverage. But also in both cases, the amount of coverage was insanely out of sync with the actual evidence of serious wrongdoing. Welcome to the 1990s version 2.0."
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2015/09/welcome-1990s-version-20
What exactly was the genuine news for Whitewater? With Benghazi the legitimate issue is that the only conflict of interest is the Committee itself.
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2015/09/irony-is-its-trey-gowdys-committee-who.html
No comments:
Post a Comment