This morning when I was listening to NPR, I heard the headline that Capuano “switched” his position on the Stupak Amendment to be the same as Coakley’s. When you listen to Capuano explain the legislative process–and what Cap did makes sense–it becomes clear that NPR & the media in general are forcing this event into a pre-packaged narrative they keep on the shelf for when they write about Democrats. Butwhen Bob adopted this same oversimplistic analysis as NPR and the Globe, I was really disappointed. Just look at this sentence:
Capuano could have argued either way on the merits — an excellent debate — but to lambaste one’s opponent for a position on a central issue that one then adopts oneself within 24 hours smacks of…
Capuano did argue for his vote on the merits, in terms even someone less educated than Bob could understand. But that sentence shows a political commenter’s desire to rush past the realities of Congress to repeat the conventional wisdom (an old narrative that will drive the headlines regardless of details). Like when Campbell Brown of CNN says “even if something’s not true, we all talk about and then it becomes true.”
The main value of political blogs has been that they take the time to work out issues that even NPR never does. When BMG starts parroting what the rest of the MSM spits out, that’s just disappointing.