Category Archives: Hypocrisy Watch Watch

Hypocrisy watch watch:  remembering that Hillary was against gay marriage before she was for it

HC: “I think you are trying to say that I used to be opposed and now I am in favor and I did it for political reasons, and that’s just flat wrong. “

That’s right, that’s what Gross is saying.  And Hillary’s indignity aside, of course it’s the truth.  I think what I’m actually astonished at is that this is an apparently earnest question by Gross.  I mean, the ground shifted under everyone’s feet for sure, but before that you figure the Democrat base was giving its candidates a fair amount of leeway to make this absurd pander to moderates, swing voters, and other squares about their commitment to a defense of traditional marriage.  They are just not traditionalists on the whole, and the GLBT has a great influence within the party specifically.

It’s clearer in hindsight now.  People exceeding a modest understanding of politics know that elected Democrats were lying about their objection to gay marriage.  The Democrat base gave them a pass on the lie, if in fact they were not in on the truth.

Gross can not be oblivious to this knowledge.  So I don’t know why she asks the question and has an expectation that there’s a genuine, clarifying answer to be gotten.

PS: I’m for marriage equality, in case I have to say it again

Chait Stains: On the GOP on the CBO

The CBO has analyzed for the effects of a raise in the minimum wage to $10.10 / hr, and found say 500k low wage jobs would be eliminated.  The Republicans say, see, Obamanomics kill jobs.  The Democrats say, no, you misunderstand… because you’re Republicans, and you’re dumb.

This is typical.  Republicans make some fairly no brainer critiques of Administration claims… ACA won’t save money, won’t reduce premiums, will in fact increase premiums… minimum wage will kill some jobs.  And the administration or its sycophants calls them liars and dumb, chortle, chortle.

I wouldn’t claim the GOP is always correct.  I think the GOP is often correct, economically.  But I’m more amused that the CBO is only credible if it comes to conclusions you agree with.  Now, both sides abuse this to some degree, and are hypocrites.  But to me it seems the Democrats are more brazen in their hypocrisy, as they really love to play the CBO’s non-partisanship and expertise as a trump card in any statistical argument.  Them Dems love their credentials and their non-partisanship baby.

So the Democrats with the minimum wage are on the wrong side of the CBO. Cuz its intuitive and immutable, you make the price of labor higher, and people will buy less of it.  I’d grant that the impacts of $10.10 might not be that much.  But they’re not nothing.  Obtusely or worse, the White House wants to argue its nothing.

This is a lie, as far as that goes.  And insofar as a reliable chorus of sycophants can be rounded up to parrot the administrations absurdities most of the time – Klein, Yglessias, Cohn – this is a bit too much.  So they’re not on board.

Jonathon Chait is somewhat different from those three.  I’ve been trying to put my finger on it.  Thing is, where many times Klein, Yglessias, and Cohn can be called on to parrot the Administration talking points, Chait is not quite ike that.  Here’s a recent example:

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/02/cbo-and-the-bizarre-partisan-jobs-debate.html

Chait is one of the real brainiacs, and you figure it would pain him to have to argue for any of the Administration’s absurdities.  So what Chait does, commonly, as shown in this example,  is acknowledge that the Administrations lies.  But then moves past that to make the argument that the Administration should or could make were they not captive to political realities.   Tradeofffs, blah, blah.  Then he goes on to call Republicans mendacious and dumb and stupid, based on his reconstruction of the argument, as if the presence of the Administration lie has no bearing at all.

He’s a better writer and analyzer than those other guys, bu its basically the same brand of obsequious douche-baggery.

Hypocrisy Watch Watch: Chaitred

I read Jonathon Chait.  He’s an interesting writer, which is more than half the battle.  He consistently makes elaborate observations that are true (…and uses them for conclusions I disagree with).

So having learned from his writing in the past, it’s losing that utility for me lately.  Generally now, his aim seems to be to call Republicans and conservatives out for hypocrisy.  Often this is in service to an assertion that Republicans would support liberal policies if they weren’t merely being obstructive (…because they’re racists, yada yada).

This is, I think, obtusely simplistic or worse.  Chait is no doubt smart and not obtuse, so I lean toward ‘or worse’.  But in any event, it’s getting repetitive here in year 5 of the Obama administration.

Here today, Chait critiques a recent Matthew Continetti long form article on Washington clubbiness and nepotism.   At issue is Continetti’s antipathy to a Jacob Weisberg piece in Vogue describing the marriage of Sam Kass and Alex Wagner.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/01/third-generation-nepotist-assails-nepotism.html

Chait acknowledges Continetti’s evaluation of the Weisberg piece as basically correct, but then quibbles with Continetti’s correctness given that Wagner’s success is not an obvious example of nepotism.

The Wagner point is small ball. Inasmuch as Chait is correct, he’s pro forma, nit-picking by rote.

To conclude his piece, Chait delivers the goods, detailing that Continetti attained his position as editor of the webzine Washington Free Beacon by nepotism.  In this case, Continetti married Bill Kristol’s daughter, with Kristol having then guided Continetti’s career at various points.

If true, what this means is Continetti is a hypocrite.  What’s to be gained by calling Continetti a hypocrite when there’s not an obvious practical tie to GOP legislative obstruction (…and then racism?).  I’m not sure.  Figure, it’s just Chait’s knee jerk reaction these days.

Chait happened to be wrong though, and had to update his column with an appending paragraph that accurately transcribes Continetti’s career.  Seems Continetti started his work in the Kristol publishing business some years ago, ascended through it, only to marry Kristol’s daughter last year.

The premise of a Chait column being entirely invalidated by Chait is kinda priceless.  He’s one of these extreme certitude guys.

Watching the hypocrisy watchers: its Hypocrisy Watch Watch!

We left off with a discussion of the Strib having called out Scott Nienow for fiscal hypocrisy.  The verdict here:  The Strib is right, Nienow is a hypocrite.

I alluded at the time, this form of news story where the article details the Republican’s monetary travails, then in an ironic buried lede identifies him as a ‘fiscal conservative’, is a news reporter favorite.   They are their own form, and would be a rich topic to chronicle here as they occur.

True enough, and mere days later we can do our latest installment.

Today Aaron Rupar at the City Pages is piqued that Stewart Mills calls Cash for Clunkers  “another failed example of Washington, D.C., trying to legislate the free market.”

http://blogs.citypages.com/blotter/2014/01/congress_candidate_stewart_mills_profited_big_from_cash_for_clunkers_program_he_now_decries.php

Rupar is keen to point out that Mills has a business selling cars, and that this business sold cars with Cash for Clunker incentives when that program was in effect.  Ergo, thereby, ipso facto, Mills is a hypocrite for conducting business under Cash For Clunkers and then criticizing it later.

This is City Pages, mind you:  a clickbait gambit, whereby low paid, cultural lefty writers of insignificant professional accomplishment speak to a low information crowd.  But even with that understanding, this stuff is noteworthy for its insipidness.

The big problem with Rupar’s premise is that Mill’s evaluation of Cash for Clunkers is not in conflict with … anything.  Mils having participated in the program as a car retailer and then saying it failed DOES NOT EQUAL HYPOCRISY.  Rupar would do well to bone up on what elements must be present for hypocrisy to exist.

The second existential problem with Rupar’s premise is …. Mills isn’t guilt of blatant lying, gross overstatement, or even mere playing to ambiguity.  Cash for Clunkers failed, and it was a failed example of Washington DC trying to legislate the free market.  Both these things are true, and not in much dispute anywhere.  Mills is right.

As I noted, the quality of the venue – City Pages – in many ways speaks for itself and the content therein.  Still… this is a weak, pathetic piece.  Rupar has to use several quotes by people other than Mills to create the context in which he can assert Mill’s hypocrisy.  Some of these are the mundane asserted as malevolent.  You know, dog whistles.  But in at least one quote, the sales manager, Rupar ellipses the source material severe enough to dramatically misconstrue its original meaning.

I’m fully prepared to be illuminated that Republicans can be fiscal hypocrites.  This isn’t an example.