Everything that is wrong with David Brooks

Brooks on Wednesday, writing about the shallow ABC debate that everyone hated:

We may not like it, but issues like Jeremiah Wright, flag lapels and the Tuzla airport will be important in the fall. Remember how George H.W. Bush toured flag factories to expose Michael Dukakis. It’s legitimate to see how the candidates will respond to these sorts of symbolic issues.

Okay, but, see, no it's not. Only in the twisted mind of a mainstream political reporter is anything related to these issues "legitimate". The other day I had an argument with a commenter in which I suggested that our media (elite and wannabe-elite) is cognitively incapable of distinguishing the symbolic from the real; well, here you have Exhibit A. This man needs help.

...Perhaps the greatest contribution of political blogging since its inception around 2002-2003 has been its thesis that mainstream political journalism, as an institution, is intellectually bankrupt. Digby has been the most prominent and eloquent articulator of this thesis, and Atrios probably the most reliable, but it informs almost all the discussion everywhere from activist-type blogs to snark blogs to the wonkosphere and outward. It's a commonplace at this point. So maybe that's why so many bloggers were in such googly-eyed outrage on Wednesday night; ABC unabashedly and unreservedly endorsed all the transparently stupid bullshit that we've spent years trying to beat back. Moments like these, and Brooks' astonishing column, ought to remind us how far away we really are from having a media with a brain...

Blogger? Check. Posting on Policy? Check. Registered? Uhhh....

What a gem of legislation:

"Section 220 of S. 1, the lobbying reform bill currently before the Senate, would require grassroots causes, even bloggers, who communicate to 500 or more members of the public on policy matters, to register and report quarterly to Congress the same as the big K Street lobbyists." [1]

Now looking at the actual legislation (just browse to S.1, section 220), the language only pertains to bloggers who are paid by a specific firm based off of what I can tell, thereby a lot different from just making we bloggers here on DemApples register, but it is still very dangerous. The ACLU has written a letter to try to get it stricken from the bill:

"Advocacy organizations large and small would now find their communications to the general public about policy matters redefined as lobbying and therefore subject to registration and quarterly reporting. Failure to register and report could have severe civil and potentially criminal sanctions. Section 220 would apply to even small, state grassroots organizations with no lobbying presence in Washington....

The right to petition the government is 'one of the most precious of the liberties safeguarded by the Bill of Rights.'[1] When viewed through this prism, the thrust of the grassroots lobbying regulation is at best misguided, and at worst would seriously undermine the basic freedom that is the cornerstone of our system of government."

Go get 'em ACLU. Frankly, I haven't been able to read everything else this bill says, but I hope its good, otherwise the sponsorship of Harry Reid, and co-sponsorship of fellow Democrats like Sherrod Brown, Maria Cantwell, Dick Durban, Dianne Feinstein, Frank Lautenberg, Patrick Leahy, Bob Menendez, Barbara Mikulski, Ken Salazar, Chuck Schumer, Debbie Stabenow, and Jim Webb will be really disappointing.

"I Don't Know Anyone Who Voted For Nixon"

MyDD's Matt Stoller posted a quick thought today that grabbed my attention:

It's so interesting to watch the DLC struggle aggressively against the mainstream of American opinion while furiously thinking of themselves as representative of it. Boomer pundits like to reminisce about their days in the left, saying that in 1972 their elitist liberal friends were shocked Nixon won because they didn't 'know anyone who voted for Nixon'. It was evidence to them how out of touch the liberals were. It's interesting how the DLC just can't fathom an America that is against this war, they just can't believe it. They are as out of step with the mainstream as the left was in 1972.

I think when Matt writes "DLC" he means more the centrist DC establishment in general -- the "punditocracy" or whatever you want to call it -- Team Lieberman, basically. Or at least he's hinting at it. And this follows a general trend that's come out lately in the blogosphere, prompted by the "surge" debate: the overwhelming sense that much of our media and political establishment is absurdly out of touch.

I'll look closer at this notion and its implications for the party, after the jump.

Read more »

Blue Mass. Group is here at the Berkman Center

Update: I'm here...come in, come up the stairs, come down the hall, and look for the room on the left called the "John Forry Faculty Library". Oh, but I have class at 11:30.

Stop by and say hello (I'm heading over now). Here's a map.

The good folks at Harvard's Berkman Center for Internet and Society have kindly agreed to host a unique election day live-blogging extravaganza, to which all bloggers, commenters, and lurkers, of whatever political stripe, are cordially invited. Starting at 10 am or so, Bob (up from New York for the occasion), Charley, and I will all be on site at the Berkman Center blogging the day's events -- both local and national, as we hear about them -- and you are heartily encouraged to join us. The Berkman folks offer free wi-fi (BYOLaptop, if you can), as well as free refreshments throughout the day, and we of course offer scintillating conversation and astonishing good looks.

The Berkman Center is just outside of Harvard Square in Cambridge, next to the law school campus, on the second floor of 23 Everett Street (Everett runs between Mass. Ave. and Oxford Street, and unfortunately does not have a street sign on the Mass. Ave. end - note that it's called Chauncy St. on the other side of Mass. Ave.). No. 23 is an unprepossessing yellow house, and I don't think there's a sign (or possibly even a street number) on the building, which is an odd choice by the powers that be at Harvard, but there you go.