CHRIS MATTHEWS: “I dont consider them Democrats, I consider them netroots, and theyre different. And if I see that they vote in every election or most elections, Ill be worried. But Im not sure that theyre regular grown-up Democrats. I think that a lot of those people are troublemakers who love to sit in the backseat and complain. Theyre not interested in governing this country. They never ran for office, theyre not interested in working for somebody in public office. They get their giggles from sitting in the backseat and bitching.“
Markos Moulitsas Responds to Chris Matthews’ Comments Belittling the Netroots
neilsagan
| Thu, Dec 24, 2009
6:39 PM EST
Discuss
58 Comments . Leave a comment below.This isn't the first time Chris Matthews, aka Tweety Bird, has put his foot in his mouth big time (heck, he does so about every show IMO), but this was a particularly egregious comment that really showed a lot of loathing for millions of progressive activists... not to mention is factually incorrect. This kind of comment belongs on Olberman's Worst Persons for sure.... and if K.O. called Matthews out on this BS, it wouldn't go on anymore. Huge props to the Ed Show for actually taking his own network on in this case, because not even K.O. did it.
I remember a couple of my 2008 fellow volunteers who were avid Daily Kos users. These two men were among many fair-weather buddies I came across last year. I don't pretend that we were solid friends (BFF's), but I give them credit for their useful earnestness. One of them helped me (inadvertently) to reach out to our neighbor who got distressed by an independent senator's self-imposition throughout the negotiating over H.R. 3590. Another still holds a real job in Boston (engineer) and was a splendid co-driver in our Getting Out The Vote in Ohio. It's not for any journalist but up to each American voter to decide (through voter registration) to be a Democrat. Secretary of State William Galvin and our Town and City Clerk's offices acknowledge Democrats as those Americans who register by their own hand (on paper, not on the web) their formally being Democrats. It's the contrived whining tone of journalists that drive away voters when it's not November '08. To emphasize, John drove the driver's seat of his own Volkswagen Jetta (through Chris' own Philadelphia into Ohio's Lake County), and when John handed the wheel over to me, he took his front passenger seat. Alan drove me and many a neighbor in his Prius all the way to New Hampshire and back last year. These two men are not whiners. Calm-toned discretion is a personal trait they share. I myself would love to intern for an elected or appointed Democrat public official, with the same zeal that Chris had worked for U.S. President Jimmy Carter.
his research staff to take the time to research the blogs and find the good ones that do analysis of news and break stories wide open.
It's just as clear that Maddow and her team use blogs as one of many resources, sometimes as a source of information or analysis and sometimes as a front for a fake grassroots (astroturf) lobbyist front.
I have watched Olbermann and heard him tell a story or part of a story just as it was framed in a blog post, and thought that he must have used the blog as a resource, typically on obscure topics the netroots took a lead on such as efforts to debunk the FBI investigation of domestic anthrax attacks, and W's Mission Accomplished. Basically stories MSM covers cursorily but netroots gets a hold on and starts picking apart. Also, stories based on information found in big document dumps from Federal FOIA cases and other releases of public records (group sourcing).
Ed seems to be less research driven and more of a progressive advocate. He can be real gung ho (which we sure need now) and he has not backed up one step and proclaimed the Senate Bill is good enough (becuase it isn't) while the other political shows have largely conformed to the savvy pundits' point of view, the senate bill must prevail (Lienerman/Nelson) in conference ergo no PO. Why is that the case? Does no one remember progressive congressional caucus members signing a letter pledging their commitment to a bill with a public option or no bill including the following from MA?
Thanks to Jane Hamsher for whipping the progressive caucus on this issue back in August. Now we have to ask them to use the leverage they have and no fold like cheap beach chairs:
Seems to me Matthews is trashing the netroots because he's a traditional Democrat, not because he's part of the mainstream media. To the extent that some in the netroots are trying to bring down the most significant health-care reform since Medicare, it's hard not to sympathize with Matthews.
Today's Hub Blog has pointers to columns by David Broder and Bill Daley making similar points. Broder summarizes it well:
Read the Daley piece. It's harsh, but needs to be heeded.
... concern trolling from the right for over 165 years.
...before you dismiss it so blithely.
Anyone who characterizes Parker Griffith as some sort of "canary in the coal mine," as Daley does, indeed strikes me as a concern troller. Also, Daley didn't mention that most polling shows consistently strong majority support for the inclusion of a public option in the health care bill, despite ambivalence about the bill as a whole. That would seem to validate the concerns from the left about the bill, and directly undercuts Daley's central argument, namely,
So, yeah, "concern trolling" seems a fair description to me.
Maybe we have different definitions. Mine is from Wikipedia:
Mr Daley is Richard Daley's son and a lifelong Democrat. He was also Al Gore's campaign manager. It's possible to disagree with his conclusion without dismissing him out of hand.
I'm personally torn on the issue. On one hand, I think Obama has erred by trying to achieve rapprochement with the GOP where none is possible. On the other hand, I think the cries to scuttle the health care bill on this blog and elsewhere are way out of hand. I read Daley as saying "push the agenda, but don't lose the center." It seems like a very legitimate um, concern.
Just as a reminder, THIS is concern trolling:
Evidence on Concern Trolling
1. Broder says he is "not so certain" that the Democratic party "is not doomed to ruin."
2. Publicly disavow progressive ideals
3. Obama must be more moderate than his has been on health care, environment, economy and Afghanistan. How could he be MORE moderate than he has been? The Senate Health Care Bill pays tribute to every moneyed interest; moderate on environment means delay; moderate on economy means no second stimulus and moderate on Afghnsitan means surge with 40,000 instead of 35,000.
4. Become a deficit hawk and stop spending
Is that what you think Obama should do Huh?
And his.
Did you read the Daley piece?
BTW, You really don't have to attack everyone who disagrees with you. Really.
I don't see how I have attacked you. I am expressing my view which is not in agreement with yours. I gave you reasons for my opinion.
Normally, you would respond but you did not respond to my reasons with more discussion. Instead, you down-rated my comment and chose to not respond. That's your choice and I don't mind if you choose to not engage but please don't claim I attacked you when there is simply no evidence for it.
You made up a bunch of strawmen, then asked me to defend them. I advocated for nothing of the sort. There was no "discussion" to participate in and no "evidence" provided.
The two important points remain:
1) From Daley:
2) Don't make the Bush Administration mistake of alienating the center. As I said above:
For example, people who care about the deficit (me and Bill Clinton, for example) are not "deficit hawks."
I don't think you even realize how shrill you've become.
Charity starts at home. In this very diary, even.
Outraged Liberal says it even better:
...
Read it. The Globe piece too. It's easy to forget how far we've come.
Outraged liberal conflates things that we are all satisfied with - the election of Obama/Biden and not McCain/Palin - with things that reasonable people may not be satisfied with: the Senate Bill. The choice between embracing the Senate Bill and abandoning health reform is an argument so stacked it's silly to repeat becuase it's not instructive.
I'd like to see outraged liberals everywhere embrace the question: What should progressives fight for between now and when the bill comes out of conference?
Isn't it great when Democrats use name-calling to ostracize people in their own party using the same techniques Republicans use to discredit liberals?
What you are doing here is concern trolling by claiming that people dissatisfied with the Senate bill, who speak on point about their issues with it, are harming the cause. Your straw man, "in pursuit of perfection," seeks to discredit the merit of their argument about problems with the bill. Instead, try tackling their argument about problems with the bill.
Care to respond rather than insult? You're exactly what Mr. Daley and OL are talking about. No one is saying abandon the cause. Just stop acting like everyone who wants to take another approach or has concerns is an idiot.
When people like Bill Daley, Outraged Liberal, and me are "concern trolls" you might want to stop and think where your head might be.
BTW, his writing, not mine. And there are plenty of other issues out there.
just kidding.
If I disagree with an argument, I'll say so. Saying so with reasons isn't the same as calling someone an idiot (in other words, don't misrepresent my comments.)
As far as I'm concerned, this discussion and my words in it are about ideas, political ideas, such as whether Obama's current course is too radical for America and imperils the Democratic party and whether Bill Daley and Outraged Liberal are expressing "concern" about Obama leaning "too far to the left" and its effect on his ultimate success (which they predict will be calamitous.)
Obama ran from the center on the Democratic party in the primary, and ran from the center of the country in the election, and will rule from the center as he perceives it. That is why there is so much debate over what the center is, so much discussion about bi-partisanship, and why the right is moving right.
IMO, the center on the health care reform the house bill. The Senate bill is right of the enter. But people like Daley would have you believe the center is right of both bills, and that centrism is more important than results.
It's expressing concern. I really think you're missing the point of both essays. Neither of them are as black and white as you purport. Nor are they about left or right, per se. They're about listening to people's concerns and selling the agenda. Also about not alienating the center in the name of ideological purity.
Here, again, is Daley on the subject:
Emphasis mine.
don't even need to do anything to bring down the most significant health-care reform since Medicare. Nelson, Lieberman, Lincoln, and Landrieu and company are doing just fine at taking the reform out of reform all by themselves.
...how does he know that what he said in the blockquote above is true. I'm not sure how one would research it, but it seems like a lot of unsubstantiated assumptions.
most of it is false. That's what makes it so funny, and simultaneously, so tragic.
I mean, the idea that most in the netroots don't vote in most elections is patently ridiculous; the idea that there aren't scads of netrootsers volunteering for candidates they like is equally absurd.
That is certainly true of THIS site. Several of us are now elected to local office, or the State Democratic Committee including pulling papers, going on the ballot - for various other offices, like selectman, or other local offices.
Many of us also publish in the main stream media, or are otherwise active in our communities in addition to this and/or other blogs.
Consider how the term "Orange-hatting" entered the Democratic field operative vernacular. When not under tight control the left netroots tends to work in favor of its adversaries:
Howard Dean Campaign, 2004
Connecticut US Senate 2006 (the pro-Lieberman backlash)
The 2007 MoveOn anti-Surge campaign
The 2008 Obama campaign's qualified but overt distance from DailyKos.
There are plenty of case studies of anti netroots backlash (and anti-backlash insurance) in campaigns. While the MoveOn case was triggered by a print ad, the grassroots hostility felt against the organization was instrumental in the creation of the Republican response.
For ongoing empirical research on the web, pollster.com and FiveThirtyEight.com are good; for dead tree case studies, check out early copies of "Campaigns and Elections" magazine, before it was yuppified into "Politics".
Dan Kennedy's point also deserves a shout-out. The netroots tend to be progressive, and progressives tend to alienate culturally working class folk. His current affluence notwithstanding, Matthews qualifies as culturally working class.
Fortunately, there is just as much of a problem coming from the cyber-Right, which works to the benefit of Democrats.
I was asking about participation levels. That is, do bloggers vote, volunteer, and run for office. There's plenty of evidence that they do as far as I can tell, but I was looking for some hard stats. I'm also not sure how or why progressives alienate the working class. On health care for example, a single-payer system, the holy grail for progressives on this issue, would have the most obvious benefits for the working class. No longer would their employers have to pay for it and they wouldn't have to worry about their coverage if they are out of work. They can also take home more of their paycheck rather than putting it toward premia contributions.
It's kind of like saying "Yeah, the answer to your question is in the New York Times somewhere." In particular, I would really like to see where FiveThirtyEight.com said, anywhere, that people turned against any candidate based on "anti-netroots backlash." You know, like somewhere where people were asked whether they were any less likely to support Ned Lamont because "netroots" progressives did.
There are plenty of alternative/supplementary explanations for every loss you're talking about. Howard Dean: Voters in Iowa faced a daily barrage of negative commercials funded by a coalition of the other candidates. Lamont vs. Lieberman: Republicans were more likely to vote for Lamont because he was conservative, and many Democrats were probably reluctant to lose a long-time senator who had built up political power. MoveOn's anti-surge campaign: not quite sure what you're talking about, other than perhaps the admittedly lame "Petraeus/betray us" ad, but the public is always reluctant to draw down from a war without a clear victory. Obama campaign maintaining a distance from Daily Kos: they probably don't share political aims with much of the DK readership.
But after 30-35 years of a conservative revolution, anyone, with impunity, can blame progressives for every political failure and ignore them for every political win (Jim Webb, Obama, Donna Edwards, Alan Grayson, Deval Patrick, ...). In fact, they can blame the progressives not only for losing but for trying in the first place. The Republicans, ever since Nixon, have been very good at pitting working people against progressives (we'll ignore the substantial overlap between the groups here). So good, in fact, that the Republicans don't get any of the blame. No, all the blame must go to, once again, the progressives themselves.
I'm trying to see the logic here: progressives shouldn't have backed a candidate against Lieberman because they'd just spark a backlash that would get Lieberman elected. Instead, they shouldn't have even tried. That would have advanced their cause how exactly? Or perhaps they should have submitted to "control" if they wanted to win. Whose exactly? The ones who didn't want Lamont in the first place?
One last note: I'm curious to find out how Chris Matthews, despite his current affluence, "qualifies as culturally working class." Is that as substantiated by research as your other facts? Will I find it on FiveThirtyEight.com?
The problem with Matthews's comment is that there is not a clean a division between "traditional Democrats" and the "Netroots", since it's pretty clear that the "Netroots" have expanded considerably and become quite diversified. So the description of the Netroots as "troublemakers who love to sit in the backseat and complain" is not an accurate description of the whole "Netroots" universe.
The bigger split, by far, is between what might be called the pragmatists and the idealists -- a split that does not fall on strict "traditional" and "Netroots" lines. This is the classic split in American politics generally, one that certainly was not created by new technologies. Nearly every progressive advance in American politics has been accompanied by a group angered that the policy did not go far enough. It does seem, to channel Will Rogers, that the Democrats (and more generally, liberals) are subject to a larger split between the pragmatists and idealists than Republicans (and conservatives). But in any case, that's the real dispute here, and one that is much longer-running, than between so-called "Netroots" and traditional Democrats.
The syndrome that infects journalism today, church of the savvy, where journalists focus on the meaning or effect of an event rather than reports the facts of the event also infects political journalism.
Savvy-style reporting requires clairvoyance to predict a future effect of a contemporary event. The narrative tends to coalesce around a single narrative, all prayed by the members of the church of the savvy. We call it beltway wisdom. That is what Chris Matthews is defending, insider knowledge, and savvy political reporting.
In one breath he paints Bush or Obama as subject to a bubble, presumably in which they cannot get more and better information, and at the same time proclaims to have a uniquely clear perspective from which to deign the real meaning of what is happening and what is going to happen as a result.
I have to agree with dkennedy and HoyaPaul that Matthews is probably more upset with the subset of the netroots that is progressive at all costs, wants GOP style ideological purity tests, and is currently agitating to torpedo health care reform and essentially shoot the Democratic majority in the foot. That group, IMO, is full of some whiners ('waah Obama is not the messiah waah'), but it is amostly full of serious and dedicated people who think the data points to them being able to have their cake and eat it too on health care, I would disagree with this particular set (I think our own NeilSagan would count himself among this group) but they are not blind idealists or whiners, rather they are progressive activists that think, wrongly IMO, that health care reform with a public option is still politically viable.
In a broader sense, I would agree with Matthews that the individual blogger is not that important, but this misses the broader point that bloggers taken together have made some candidacies (Dean and Lamont come to mind) and really wrecked some others (Specter's re-election). They can amass massive amounts of money and power, and have made some people, like Markos, big players in the Democratic party. They also tend to be driven by ideals though, and thus think taking on Joe Lieberman will have no consequences, think the public option is salvageable, etc. and thus their decisions have profound affects on progressive politics, not all of them positive.
Lastly, Matthews also misses the point that some 'netroots' sites like TPM and 538.com, have also broken big political stories and provided better analysis than the MSM, and perhaps that's his bigger fear.
But it's a fair question whether the netroots is thinking about governing or is overly focused on winning just the one battle of the public option in the HCR bill. Should the Senate Democratic leadership take too hard a line with the moderates that caucus with the Democrats, one may choose to leave the caucus (remember Jim Jeffords, any one?). Then where are we with a climate change bill or any other legislation opposed by Republicans?
But it's a fair question whether the netroots is thinking about governing or is overly focused on winning just the one battle of the public option in the HCR bill.
Well, any substantial question that's treated as a rhetorical one is a bad question. If you see the discussion that occurs on blogs, you see immediately that people who are intent on getting a public option are also aware of the larger political consequences of doing so. Many of them think that giving up on the public option is bad because it has a negative effect on that other legislation.
The frame that there is a straight-line political spectrum from left-wing radical through liberal to moderate to conservative to right-wing radical, and that every question reduces to finding the proper place on the spectrum, is inaccurate and intentionally misleading. The people blocking the public option, Medicare buy-in, and so on, are presenting themselves as close to the center because that's a tried and true framing device, not because there is anything particularly centrist about blocking these measures, which polling shows are favored by a majority but which are opposed by health care insurance companies.
Health care insurance corporations may have a central role in this conflict, but that does not make them the center of the country.
I'm not making a claim about what is left, centrist or any other label. I am raising a concern that a Lieberman or Nelson might pull a Jeffords if pushed too hard. I believe the consequences of that would be devastating for climate change legislation and any other legislation the Democratic caucus in the Senate might wish to put forward, given that the Republicans have opted for a strategy of noncooperation.
You keep up your downratings and I will mark every single one of your comments for deletion starting January 2.
Let's start a movement to boycott advertisers for his show. Whatdayathink?
by banning people who don't think "properly". That kind of thing just makes enemies. If I want to know how the left wants me to think I can watch lamestream TV media but I would much rather try to figure out how to survive global totalitarian Marxism.
getting pissy "my way or the highway" zealots. What floor will this "down" elevator go to next? Imagine if/when this bill passes and it doesn't have what they want in it? What will they do then... oh, blame George Bush!
We blame the current GOP because the shortcomings of this bill are the direct consequence of a failed effort by centrist Democrats to reach out for GOP support. The Democrats offered solutions supported by the overwhelming majority of Americans, the relentlessly-obstructionist GOP said "NO".
The Blue Dogs in the Democratic Party are tolerated because they represent districts dominated by locally-high concentrations of GOP voters that are to the right of mainstream Americans.
We will blame George Bush, Dick Cheney, and the GOP for the economic catastrophe we are struggling to recover from and the dismal international standing of the US because they were responsible for it.
Oh, and speaking of "pissy 'my way or the highway' zealots, I invite you to offer the Democrat equivalent of this:
he makes it hard not to _ _ _ _.
Such comments are best answered with a big bag of punctuation. They're an invitation to a shouting match rather than understanding or anything else.
When a comment provides an opportunity to present a compelling point, I jump on it. "Shouting match"? Not for me.
I treat these more as Socratean dialogs. The audience is other readers, not the other participant. When my argument is strong, and the other participant's is so weak, why would I be unhappy?
That's my approach too. Plus, the vast majority of BMG readers -- the audience -- never comment or post.
if I wanted to comment on the Boston Globe site.
BMG is different — how?
I can't think of better examples of zealotry:
It gets better. Fortunately for the Dems, the Republican core want nothing to do with the "mainstream" Republicans. They want whack jobs like Bachman:
Interestingly, the question whether Congress has the constitutional authority to impose a nationwide mandate on every American to purchase health insurance is not a trivial one. Most authors I've seen think that such authority exists under either the Commerce Clause or the taxing power, but there are respectable people who disagree. And the current Supreme Court is about as favorably aligned toward the "no authority" viewpoint now as at any time in the recent past, though that of course doesn't guarantee that the "no authority" view will prevail when the inevitable court challenge arises.
Now that's a depressing thought.
The stakes are high. The issues are real. We are in the habit of referring to "tests" that we alway pass.
The GOP is shooting live bullets and they aim at our core values. We ignore them at our peril.
I would be interested to hear the rationale for the mandate being unconstitutional, because under current Commerce Clause jurisprudence, the argument does seem trivial. Given that health care is a major part of the nation's economy and already heavily regulated, it is certainly not like (for example) banning possession of a gun in a school zone.
There may be more of a constitutional argument available concerning Nebraska'a special Medicare funding scheme in the bill, though I'm not sure how standing would be established to bring suit to challenge it.
is that the concept of "regulating" commerce among the several states has never before extended down to requiring all individuals to engage in a particular commercial transaction. There are some decent resources at this link. In general, I think the folks arguing in favor of constitutionality probably have the better of the argument, but since Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, Samuel Alito, and John Roberts are 80% of the only opinions that actually matter, I'd deem it an open question.
If the problem is "requiring all individuals to engage in a particular commercial transaction", then isn't government-sponsored single-payer the solution?
After all, public school attendance has been compulsory since the early 20th century (1918, according to wiki). I think the compulsory education laws would be on much shakier ground without a "strong public option", conservative sentiment for private school vouchers notwithstanding. American has a strong national interest in having a healthy population, just as we have a strong national interest in having a literate population (again, conservative sentiment notwithstanding).
I suggest that a Supreme Court decision ruling the "individual mandate" unconstitutional is a very strong argument in favor of government-sponsored single-payer health care.
...but it was taken off the table. Yet another example of how at the end of the day, despite being perceived as more radical a change, I think single-payer is ultimately easier to defend than the current hodgepodge proposal.
is indeed compulsory, but not through federal law, so that's a very different situation. States have a general police power that lets them do pretty much anything they want, as long as it's not specifically prohibited by the state or federal constitution. That's why compulsory education presents no obstacle for states, nor is there any constitutional issue with MA imposing an individual mandate. The situation with Congress is different, since (at least in theory) Congress may act only according to its enumerated powers.
I understand your point.
The feds have never had a problem finding ways to compel states to pass provisions deemed needed at the federal level. One mechanism is to tie necessary federal funding to "acceptable" provisions. For example, the feds tied federal highway subsidies to a minimum 21 year old drinking age in order to "encourage" a common federal standard. I'm under the impression, though I might be mistaken, that similar provisions have long been used to encourage consistency in public education school standards.
I suppose one could attempt to construct a parallel to the 16th amendment allowing a federal income tax.
I suspect that, when the dust settles, this will turn out to be more about GOP negativism than any real constitutional obstacle, however.
... it took me a moment to figure 4 (of a 5 judge majority) is 80% of a winning majority on the nine judge court.
Can the legal challenge begin as soon as the law passes or is it more likely the challenges will come only after the law is enforce?
Did you clerk for O'Connor? Very cool!
clerk for O'Connor.
As for when the challenge could be brought, that's a good question. One could try to sue as soon as the bill becomes law, but it's possible that the case would be dismissed as unripe. Might have to wait until 2014 or whenever the wretched thing goes into effect.
that any challenges would likely have to wait until 2013 or 2014.
I do hope, however, that any progressives skeptical of the individual mandate at least do not get duped into thinking that a successful Commerce Clause challenge to the mandate would be a good thing for liberals more generally.
Indeed, a Supreme Court ruling narrowing the interpretation of the Commerce Clause would be a long-term disaster for progressives and a great victory for the extreme Justice Thomas style of "Lost Constitution" conservatism.
put the unconstitutional mandate in. have it struck down by the SJC conservative and swing vote judge then, fueled by the outrage of having "activist" judges intervene with the will of the people, the population that loves their very expensive and otherwise unaffordable health care stipends, go for single payer.
;-P
I ran for and now serve in (minor) public office. I support others who do so. Instead of bitching, I work to make good things happen. I don't always succeed, but I suck it up and keep going. I keep up the good fight without allowing the debate to devolve into pointless and egotistical punditry.
At first, I had no idea what ol' Chris was "bitching" about, because what he imagines about the netroots doesn't conform to that I know. But I think maybe I figured it out. I get most of my useful political news and opinion from reading on the web, instead of watching Fox or MSNBC or even CNN. My participation in the political process doesn't enrich his sponsors or his ego, therefore I am irrelevant (to Chris).
« Blue Mass Group Front Page
Sun 19 May 6:42 AM