The mail-it-in MSM column
posted at 11:00 am on April 19, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
Dear Dana Milbank,
I have to admit that your columns are usually a guilty pleasure. I probably agree with you less often than Shana Alexander agreed with James Kilpatrick on 60 Minutes, but you write with style and an obvious sense of fun. Politics gets awfully fusty and hidebound, and we need someone with the talent to skewer, even when it’s mostly in service to one particular side.
In an attempt to disprove that last part, today you lapsed into the lazy and reflexive “look how many people hate me” genre of column-writing. I know you read extensively on politics, so you can’t have possibly thought this was original:
On Tuesday, I learned that I am a right-wing hack. I am not a journalist. I am typical of the right wing. I am why newspapers are going broke. I write garbage. I am angry with Barack Obama. I misquote Obama. I am bitter. I am a certified idiot. I am lame. I am a Republican flack.
On Thursday, I realized that I am a media pimp with my lips on Obama’s butt. I am a bleeding-heart liberal who wants nothing more than for the right to fall on its face. I am part of the ObamaMedia. I am pimping for the left. I am carrying water for Obama. Lord, am I an idiot.
I discovered all this from the helpful feedback provided to me in the “reader comments” section at the end of my past four columns on washingtonpost.com. I undertook this exercise on the advice of former washingtonpost.com editor Doug Feaver, who wrote on these pages recently that journalists need to take the comments seriously ["Listening to the Dot-Comments," op-ed, April 9]. Further, he added in his blog, “those who don’t are making a mistake.”
Do the layers of editors and fact-checkers give seminars on how to write this column? Almost every mainstream media columnist at some time has suddenly gotten an urge to justify their existence by claiming a centrist position based on the fact that they get a wide range of hate mail and comments. “Oh, I can’t be a knee-jerk liberal/conservative,” they argue, “because people on the left and the right both say I stink!”
Well, that doesn’t mean you’re a centrist; it means that you annoy people across a wide spectrum. That’s not necessarily a bad thing, either; the job of a pundit is to provoke debate, conversation, even a pulse. But commenting on comments is hardly interesting or provoking; it’s a waste of space in an industry where space costs money. And in the end it means … nothing.
At least this is better than some of your colleagues’ attempts to justify their position by holding up threats as badges of honor. That’s the “I must have been right because I got hate mail” response, after a dumb column provoked even less intelligent response from readers. All that means is that really stupid people read the column and couldn’t deal with disagreement in a cogent and rational manner, which has nothing to do with the source material. Threats prove nothing other than the intellectual level of the person who uses them.
Even you have to admit that this column is, well, lame. It’s the equivalent of the inevitable soliloquy at the end of every Scooby Doo episode where Old Man Withers says, “I would have gotten away with it too, if it wasn’t for those darned kids!” At least Michael Malone gave some entertainment value out of his I-finally-read-my-comments essay.
Stick to column writing and political coverage, and skip the feedback. Except mine, of course. And buy George Will a pair of jeans, will you?
Yours,
Ed
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
Go expel that hot air in another direction. The left couldn’t care less about the individual. The left cares only about power and would enslave the minds, bodies and spirits of the entire populace to achieve that power.
rplat on April 19, 2009 at 1:55 PM
Lame.
bluelightbrigade on April 19, 2009 at 1:56 PM
See, now that’s the difference between you and reasonably intelligent people. Intelligent people actually make an effort to know something about what they’re talking about.
You? Well…. lets just say that rectal inversion hasn’t done much for you.
.
GT on April 19, 2009 at 1:57 PM
Studies prove that people on the right give much more money and time to charitable organizations than the left.
That includes both sectarian and secular charities.
Words and slogans don’t help. Money and time and volunteerism does.
SteveMG on April 19, 2009 at 1:59 PM
GT on April 19, 2009 at 1:57 PM
Nice rebuttal.
Back to your regularly scheduled echo chamber.
Off to get informed.
Have fun attacking our President you crazy kids.
getalife on April 19, 2009 at 2:00 PM
Off to get jiggy with Garofalo, eh?
.
GT on April 19, 2009 at 2:04 PM
Tell us again who sponsored the anti-Iraq war protests in 2003. Hint-they were all Socialists who all hate America.
And while you’re at it, answer my question re. how you “supported the troops” by voting for the Democrat for President in 2004. You remember the guy, his favorite Boston Red Sox player is “Manny Ortez”.
Del Dolemonte on April 19, 2009 at 2:04 PM
BTW here is a link to the original post from the racist Firedoglake block that takecrap posted; this includes the claim that one of the guys was waterboarded 183 times in one month.
http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/04/18/khalid-sheikh-mohammed-was-waterboarded-183-times-in-one-month/
Money quote:
According to the May 30, 2005 Bradbury memo, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was waterboarded 183 times in March 2003 and Abu Zubaydah was waterboarded 83 times in August 2002.
Del Dolemonte on April 19, 2009 at 2:08 PM
I left The Man in the Orange Hat a comment asking if he ever followed up on his report of the guy yelling “Kill ‘im” at the Palin rally, after the Secret Service found no evidence of it. Since he’s the one who started the whole “right-wing hate rallies” canard, I thought he might have shown his impartiality by admitting his own mistake.
Or maybe not!
Jim Treacher on April 19, 2009 at 2:14 PM
Him admit a mistake? Ever?
Ha!
.
GT on April 19, 2009 at 2:16 PM
Del Dolemonte on April 19, 2009 at 2:08 PM
You are reading a different blog.
Good for you.
Here is Axelrod’s take on your tea parties:
I agree. The ones that gambled huge and lost huge come to mind.
getalife on April 19, 2009 at 2:20 PM
getalife on April 19, 2009 at 2:20 PM
Ah…..Axelrod. That explains a few things.
Heh! Getalife and Axelrod think that Obama’s attempted bribe of $13 a week (with our own money no less) is a good idea and that we should be thankful.
.
GT on April 19, 2009 at 2:29 PM
All it is, is, food for the ego. Love me, hate me, please make me relevant in my eyes.
All it is, is, a question if anyone is even reading me. Please storm the comment page to prove to the publisher I’m relevant.
All it is, is, I don’t have too many original thoughts of my own, maybe something will shine brightly from the comments and I can give myself relevance by writing about it.
ericdijon on April 19, 2009 at 2:30 PM
getalife, did you ever get around to replying to my rebuttal on the economic crisis?
No?
Why not?
Turtler on April 19, 2009 at 2:30 PM
Turtler on April 19, 2009 at 2:30 PM
Sorry, I reply to many and missed it.
getalife on April 19, 2009 at 2:34 PM
Oklahoma tells Homeland Security where they can stuff the fascist Obama administration’s “Enemies of the State” report.
Oklahoma’s two U.S. senators say a federal report on ‘right-wing extremism’ is offensive for suggesting military veterans and Americans with certain widely held beliefs are potential terrorists.
“Under DHS’s bizarre guidelines, many of our founders, were they alive today, would be classified as potential terrorist threats,” Coburn said Friday. “This carelessly written and poorly reasoned report is offensive to not only our veterans, but to every American who is passionately committed to the ideals of limited government, life and liberty that made our country great.”
MB4 on April 19, 2009 at 2:38 PM
Milbank wrote:
So, obviously, as Allahpundit would not torture cats, and Milbank is an admitted cat torturer, Allahpundit cannot be Milbank.
Logic.
Loxodonta on April 19, 2009 at 2:43 PM
Dang, that was MY favorite article of the month.
AnninCA on April 19, 2009 at 2:46 PM
Yeah, just like you “keep missing” replying to my question asking why you voted for the Democrat for President in 2004.
You remember him, in 2007 he said only stupid people join the military?
He spoke from personal experience, of course.
I’ve concluded that your silence on this issue is an admission that you’re ashamed of your 2004 vote.
Del Dolemonte on April 19, 2009 at 2:48 PM
MB4 on April 19, 2009 at 2:38 PM
Yeah, Tom is in fundraising trouble too.
His rhetoric will be extreme.
I was reading this:
http://patdollard.com/2009/03/the-american-constitution-and-capitalism-defense-front-is-here/
Read the comments. Unhinged.
getalife on April 19, 2009 at 2:48 PM
BTW be sure to read today’s howlingly funny “editorial” from the NY Fishwrap. They have their Frank Riches all in a bunch over those terror memos, and want Darth Cheney put on trial immediately.
Speaking of Darth Cheney, at the same waste of bandwidth, MoDo has her Frank Riches in a bunch because she doesn’t have Cheney and Bush to bash any more.
Del Dolemonte on April 19, 2009 at 2:50 PM
Del Dolemonte on April 19, 2009 at 2:48 PM
Please stay out of my voting booth.
It is private.
getalife on April 19, 2009 at 2:50 PM
Poor Dana got his TV Pundit Chops on Olbermann’s Show, so the Kos Kidz loved him until he went off the reservation more than once. Now he’s forced to go on CNN (which is like a black hole of ratings.) Fox would never book him, he won’t sing off the hymnal at MSNBC and CNN is the dregs. No wonder he feel set upon.
AYNBLAND on April 19, 2009 at 2:51 PM
Love the pic. The resemblance is striking. :)
becki51758 on April 19, 2009 at 2:53 PM
Yeah, its amazing what Getalife will do for $13 a week.
GT on April 19, 2009 at 3:13 PM
More difficult to explain? Not really, consider this, a lot of them are finding out they’ve been played, had, bamboozled, fooled, used as simple/useful idiots.
Lets see, Dems won in 06 and 08 based on lies.
06, end the war, impeach Bush, cleanup corruption in DC.
08, end the war, go after those responsible (for what who knows),
Lacking the internal fortitude to be honest with them selves, and accept the facts as they are, they lash out at those they had “perceived” to be the problem.
This is much easier than actually facing yourself in the mirror.
DSchoen on April 19, 2009 at 3:13 PM
Fair enough, just wondering.
Thank you for the explanation.
Turtler on April 19, 2009 at 3:33 PM
GT, this is not exactly true.
The $13 a weak is based on “working families” meaning both Husband and wife are working.
The actual number or amount is $0.192 cents per hour based on a 40 hour week, per worker.
All numbers rounded
Or $400.00 per year, per worker.
($400.00/52) /40 = $7.69 per week
$7.69/40 = $0.192 per hour
$0.192x 8 = $1.536 per day
Its much more accurate to state the FACT that Getaclue sold out $1.536 per day! Just enough to buy a bottle of soda on the way home from work!
DSchoen on April 19, 2009 at 3:39 PM
No it’s not, because you have repeatedly claimed here that you “supported the troops” in 2004.
By admitting you voted for the Democrat, you’re confirming that “supporting the troops” has no meaning or relevance in your world.
Thanks for the laughs, kid.
Del Dolemonte on April 19, 2009 at 3:45 PM
I stand corrected. ;)
.
GT on April 19, 2009 at 3:48 PM
Columns like Milbank’s latest are more than just a vapid effort to prove their Centrist creds — it’s a gross self-stroking of the ego.
“I’m relevant! The things I say matter! People care about my opinion!”
Yeah. Whatever.
cruadin on April 19, 2009 at 3:48 PM
Perhaps your bi-polar?
DSchoen on April 19, 2009 at 3:55 PM
Thanks for posting that.
Loxodonta on April 19, 2009 at 4:05 PM
Torture doesn’t work. True
Waterboarding, they way we do it, not allowing water to enter breathing passageways, does work.
Conclusion, Waterboarding, they way we do it, is NOT Torture.
By forced suffocation and inhalation of water
If ya haven’t figured it out Getaclue, let me dumb it down for ya K?
Waterboarding torture “water over the face and into the breathing passages.”
“cloth or plastic wrap is placed over or in the person’s mouth” Meaning NO WATER into the breathing passages.
Seriously geta it’s no more difficult than that.
Now is Obama going to tell you the REAL reason they won’t prosecute anyone in the CIA or Bush admin for water boarding?
No mater what song and dance you hear about “why no one will be prosecuted”, this is the real reason. Covering the breathing passages means no water in the breathing passages and that means its not torture by ANY defination.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding
DSchoen on April 19, 2009 at 4:37 PM
Hawthorne on April 19, 2009 at 4:44 PM
Bah, hit the wrong button again, here is the repost…
Your attempt to redefine the tea parties is neither accurate or especially ingenious. Some people are under the impression that Axelrod is some kind of genius or expert on people. yet you and the left consistently seem to miss the reality. Obama benefited from a disenfranchise conservative vote. no more and no less. Axelrod is no genius at all. He was merely the beneficiary of good timing.
As for the tea parties, they are not about taxes being levied today. They are about what future generations will be required to do in order to pay back for our own lack of fiscal responsibility. This country, and the original Boston Tea Party were about taxation without representation. This kind of rhetoric that you are spewing may fool the brainless, but it will not fool the people that understand where we are headed. We are spending the tax dollars of our grandchildren now. They are not represented today. So this is a PURE form of taxation without representation and is the foundation of why federal debt should be illegal.
Hawthorne on April 19, 2009 at 4:46 PM
“Have fun attacking our President you crazy kids.”
Fun? The shit writes itself! It’s not very hard if you’re reasonably informed. President Empty Suit says one thing today, another tomorrow, says he’ll do something else and promptly forgets what it was.
“Most ethical and honest administration ever” has so many ‘exceptions’ that they are the norm. Can only conclude from Team Barry that the reason Democrats don’t worry about higher and higher taxes IS BECAUSE THEY NEVER PAY THEM.
GarandFan on April 19, 2009 at 5:40 PM
I am sure even Michael Moore gets left-wing hate mail, because he doesn’t profess fealty to Stalin.
DeathB4Tyranny on April 19, 2009 at 7:23 PM
And yet you say…
Special privilege for me but not for thee.
Stark contrast, that.
ajacksonian on April 19, 2009 at 7:24 PM
So you oppose Card Check?
The Monster on April 19, 2009 at 7:25 PM
Since women earn on average 20 per cent less than men, that is putting extra strain on many households.
Geez, negative $.20 puts the extra strain on many households. Duh.
Given the lousy economy with 10-12% unemployment, not just the 7-8% being reported, no kidding a single income puts an extra strain on households, particularly when the single income is only 80% of its male counterpart, not necessarily 80% of the unemployed husband’s former income–possibly the wife only brings home 30% of the former household combined income.
Obama brow beats women to go out there and spend what they don’t have so that Michelle can feel good about America.
maverick muse on April 19, 2009 at 7:42 PM
I’m not following your logic here? So you’d like taxes not to be lowered? I know little of the economy, but still this one is confounding.
disillusioned on April 19, 2009 at 7:43 PM
Dana Milbank has never been the epitome of brilliance, in fact he is one of worst political analysts in the country, so what did you expect?
Cr4sh Dummy on April 19, 2009 at 7:44 PM
You need to follow the entire conversation between Getalife, DSchoen and me.
Getalife criticizes us for opposing Obama’s economic plan because Obama’s plan promises us a $400 tax rebate or some such thing. And that doing so we are fighting against our own self-interests. Our point is that the $400 is no excuse for not fighting against the trillions of dollars Obama plans to spend.
I don’t want taxes lowered if that is to be used as a shield against criticism of Obama’s planned spending spree.
What I would like is for taxes to be lowered for those who actually pay them and for government to spend less today than it did yesterday.
GT on April 19, 2009 at 8:00 PM
Now thats a new and interesting take that I haven’t heard before.
disillusioned on April 19, 2009 at 8:03 PM
I actually thought he was a woman.
Driefromseattle on April 19, 2009 at 8:04 PM
Thanks GT. I can follow that.
This may be a bit vindictive though on first reading. Will taxes go up again when the spending spree starts?
disillusioned on April 19, 2009 at 8:11 PM
Yep. Big time. So will inflation. For reference, all one has to do is look at the economy of the 1970s.
.
GT on April 19, 2009 at 8:16 PM
I guess I have some studying to do on this one. I did mention that I didn’t know much about the economy. I was too small back in the 70′s to remember.
disillusioned on April 19, 2009 at 8:24 PM
You will not like it, I promise you…We are so aaccustomed to our money being worth something, if we get inflation, you won’t be able to make enough money to buy even the simplest of things….It is very tough, hopefully it won’t last too long. It is a real hard time, but you do learn to make things stretch and to do without.
clinker46 on April 19, 2009 at 8:36 PM
I was a teen in the 70′s.
When we moved to North Carolina, the interest rate for new home construction hit 22% in 1979.
Check out this this article from Time Magazine when you have a chance.
GT on April 19, 2009 at 8:49 PM
Just to add…..There is a reason why some refer to the current Obama presidential term as Jimmy Carter’s second term.
.
GT on April 19, 2009 at 8:51 PM
What, should we set up a government program to help “our own people”? 1) We believe people have the opportunity to succeed or fail on their own. In other words, if my GOP neighbor gets hungry enough, he’ll find a way to eat.
2) Cons give VOLUNTARILY, to organizations that help the needy. Instead of sending money to Washington, who can then spend it on ridiculous pet projects, we prefer to give money directly to folks in our communities.
hawksruleva on April 19, 2009 at 10:54 PM
Bingo.
[url=http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=2682730&page=1]Full Article[/url]
Kinda makes Getalife look like a fool.
.
GT on April 19, 2009 at 11:54 PM
.
But Obama’s tax cut of $0.192 puts the difference at $0.008 cents!
Especially if the male lost his job!
Anit Obama and Axlerod great!
DSchoen on April 20, 2009 at 1:15 AM
Is 20 trillion dollars of debt piled on to your children and grand children’s back worth a bottle of soda for you today?
The Obama tax cut is used as a shield so you won’t criticize his excessive spending.
You’re supposed to be thankful that Obama will allow you to keep $0.0192 cents per hour or $1.536 per day (till 2010) and not complain about his bs plans.
Ill try it another way.
You paid those AIG folks $165 MILLION DOLLARS with Obama’s excessive spending, stim bill, you know the one no one was allowed to read.
If you want that $1.536 per day then you have no ground’s to complain about Obama’s spending.
Now shut up and enjoy that bottle of soda Obama has ALLOWED you to have.
DSchoen on April 20, 2009 at 1:30 AM
No matter how far out you are, on either the left of the right, you will always be able to find someone further out than you are.
That doesn’t make you a centrist.
MarkTheGreat on April 20, 2009 at 9:09 AM
Exactly! The problem is that our government is spending unprecendet amounts of money as if the dollar is going out of style (and maybe it is). When people start asking where all this money is supposed to be coming from, the answer given to assuage our concerns, is “but don’t you see, Obama’s lowering everyone’s taxes!”.
Event at the shallowest of levels, that doesn’t really answer the question being asked, but when you starting reading into that (even to just the tiniest of depths), it simply raises the concerns even more.
BlueCollarAstronaut on April 20, 2009 at 9:13 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2