Logrolling In Our Time, Thursday Edition

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Media
Posted on Thu Sep 03, 2009 at 01:40:27 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

You may have noticed I pick on Ezra Klein a lot. The reason is not because I dislike him. (Jeralyn says he is a terrific person.) I do not know him. I pick on him because of the brand he carries - "progressive" blogger espousing the "progressive" view. But that is an inaccurate characterization of the Ezra Klein who blogs at the Washington Post (And make no mistake, Ezra is on the fast track to being a major "progressive" voice in the Beltway Media Establishment.)

Part of that process is logrolling. Here is Ezra logrolling for Joe Klein:

Houston, Tex.: Ezra, care to comment on the Joe Klein/Greenwald JournoList spat? According to Greenwald you are the owner of that mailing list. Are the kind of e-mails Klein sent representative? What's the purpose of the mail list? DC Gossip? Gang of 500 mind-meld?

Ezra Klein: The purpose of the list is policy and political discussion. Even that thread was about policy: It was about health care, and that's how people began arguing about Jim Cooper and whether he should face a primary challenge. In it, someone echoed Glenn's argument, and then Joe took some shots at Glenn, as they've both done to each other in public many times, and the thread got sent to Glenn, and here we are.

That side of it is regrettable, but no, it's not indicative of what goes on on the list. Rather, it's discussions of much the sort you'd expect if you got a bunch of bloggers and journalists and wonks in a room. Usually, those discussions are useful. Sometimes, they're snarky. Sometimes, people complain about writers they don't like. That gets folks in trouble, and I wish they'd stop doing it. But I think anyone who's read Joe and Glenn over the years knows you don't need secret e-mail lists to get them to snipe at each other.

(Emphasis supplied.) Excuse me, but that is an outrageous and false characterization of what happened. Ezra should be ashamed of himself. What Joe Klein did was accuse Greenwald of being against the American military. Glenn properly characterized it as "Cheneyite." I called it McCarthyism. Ezra, in logrolling for Joe Klein mode, calls it mutual "sniping." Equating what Greenwald has done to what Joe Klein did is scurrilous and offensive.

Glenn Greenwald criticized Joe Klein's work as a journalist. He did not attack his character. For Ezra to call that "sniping" is offensive and wrong. But when you are part of, or trying to be a part of, the Beltway Establishment, logrolling is part of the game.

At this point, you have to read Ezra through that prism. That's why he is hard for me to take seriously regarding health care reform now. On that, see Blue Texan.

Speaking for me only

< Thursday Afternoon Open Thread | Accountability, But At What Cost? >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Logrolling In Our Time, Thursday Edition | 48 comments (48 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

oxymoron: (5.00 / 6) (#1)
by Capt Howdy on Thu Sep 03, 2009 at 01:48:08 PM EST

"progressive" voice in the Beltway Media Establishment.

for the rest. if (E)Klein expects to rise to the top and float in the pundit toilet bowl the first thing he has to get down pat is the whole "balance" thing. which really has nothing to do with balance but is instead a way of avoiding any real discussion of a hot button issue by acting like any whackjob-full moon-bat $hit crazy point of view has to be presented as if it had merit.

Well put, (5.00 / 2) (#5)
by kmblue on Thu Sep 03, 2009 at 01:57:20 PM EST

Captain!

Ain't no more reporting, just "he said, he said."
I used to be a reporter. It's a lot easier than it used to be!


Me Thinks (none / 0) (#9)
by SGITR on Thu Sep 03, 2009 at 02:08:30 PM EST

all that is being said about these "progressive" pundits should really be said about "progressive" Obama.

Why attack the messenger when you can attack the source?


the Big Sort is in progress (5.00 / 6) (#18)
by ruffian on Thu Sep 03, 2009 at 02:43:12 PM EST

During the last 9 years, when most of the 'progressive' blogosphere took hold, a person got defined as a progressive merely by being against Bush and the war. Defined by the right, I might add, since they control the media message. You are against Bush = you are a 'liberal' = 'oh no, I'm not a liberal DFH, I'm a progressive!

Now, without Bush and a Rep Congress to push back against, the real sorting will take place. Who is in favor of progressive policy, and who is not.


Most of the time we (5.00 / 5) (#33)
by MO Blue on Thu Sep 03, 2009 at 03:29:51 PM EST

were defined by the right and some Dems as being the far left, lunatic fringe. When they were being really polite we were just called the far left.

I still cringe when I hear any Dem describing members of their party as the far left. Here in the states, the far left is almost as distinct as the dodo bird.


: Should read (none / 0) (#42)
by MO Blue on Thu Sep 03, 2009 at 05:44:52 PM EST

almost as extinct as the dodo bird.

Exactly (none / 0) (#26)
by Militarytracy on Thu Sep 03, 2009 at 03:02:01 PM EST

Are you saying that (none / 0) (#27)
by SGITR on Thu Sep 03, 2009 at 03:12:57 PM EST

Ezra Klein and Matthew Yglesias have no Progressive roots or views apart from Iraq?


I duno what the discussion is about (5.00 / 1) (#28)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 03, 2009 at 03:14:44 PM EST

But both Ezra and Yglesias supported the Iraq debacle.


Full disclosure (none / 0) (#29)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 03, 2009 at 03:15:30 PM EST

I support the Afghanistan policy, where Yglesias appears to oppose it.


I wasn't aware that Yglesias (none / 0) (#32)
by Militarytracy on Thu Sep 03, 2009 at 03:27:27 PM EST

is opposed to our Afghanistan policy. I suppose I should go read up.


Correct me if I am wrong (none / 0) (#36)
by SGITR on Thu Sep 03, 2009 at 03:39:24 PM EST

but I think I remember reading that you label yourself a centrist and not a progressive. Is that correct.

If that is true and you supported one war and Klein and Yglesias supported another then that would make them centrists too?


I don't know how it made them progressives :) (5.00 / 1) (#37)
by Militarytracy on Thu Sep 03, 2009 at 03:43:37 PM EST

Maybe it made them serious progressives :)


: Exactly MT, armchair hawks getting their (5.00 / 2) (#46)
by FoxholeAtheist on Thu Sep 03, 2009 at 11:05:56 PM EST

"serious" bona fides via lip-service support for one war or another - people who wouldn't dream of actually enlisting themselves or any member of their immediate family.

I supported a number of wars (5.00 / 4) (#38)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 03, 2009 at 03:44:18 PM EST

I am a Centrist. A Liberal Hawk. The labels roll off the tongue.

I supported Desert Storm in 1991.

I opposed the Kosovo intervention in 1999 (in retrospect, I was wrong about that.)

I supported the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001.

I vehemently opposed the Iraq Debacle in 2003.

I support the President's policy on Afghnaistan because I believe our national interests demand that we make every effort to stabilize the Af-Pak region and stamp out Al Qaida in the region.

I need to write more about that but I have been fixated on the health care issue.


So I guess by your definition (none / 0) (#39)
by SGITR on Thu Sep 03, 2009 at 03:58:16 PM EST

both Klein and Yglesias could be labeled Liberal Hawks then.


Do you still stand behind your support of (none / 0) (#43)
by FoxholeAtheist on Thu Sep 03, 2009 at 06:42:38 PM EST

Desert Storm in 1991 and the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001? If so, may I ask how you define the success of those ventures? Sincere query - no quarrel.


Personally, I came out of medical hold for (none / 0) (#44)
by jeffinalabama on Thu Sep 03, 2009 at 06:53:31 PM EST

retirement for Desert Shield/Storm. It was a war against the world, the UN, against all decent folk.

I don't like it when a big bully picks on a little person.

Apropos of nothing, my service in the suck ended my medical retirement chances. But my career was over anyway afterwards.

Otherwise I might be commanding MilitaryTracy's hubby, lol!

Although I'd rather be garrison commander at Fort Buchanon, lol.

Sorry for the OT post.


: Well jeffinal, you evidently have the courage (none / 0) (#48)
by FoxholeAtheist on Thu Sep 03, 2009 at 11:28:35 PM EST

to follow your convictions. I imagine we would see far fewer wars if military service was somehow required of all people who vote for and/or espouse verbal support of a war. I just don't like how so many are so gung-ho as long as it's somebody else who is fighting on their behalf.

Whoa! (none / 0) (#47)
by Radiowalla on Thu Sep 03, 2009 at 11:06:56 PM EST

I never realized I had that much in common with you!

Saints preserve me! And you as well!

Mega hehs.


Ruffian, it be not so (none / 0) (#30)
by kmblue on Thu Sep 03, 2009 at 03:17:25 PM EST

The ONLY important question is: Has Ezra been on TEEBEE yet?

The rest is silence. ;)


fine by me (none / 0) (#10)
by Capt Howdy on Thu Sep 03, 2009 at 02:09:17 PM EST

I have a history


That 'both sides do it' (5.00 / 4) (#2)
by ruffian on Thu Sep 03, 2009 at 01:49:47 PM EST

false equivalency formulation is the first symptom of Creeping Broderism. I suggest Ezra get some help now, before it is too late. BTD is just performing an intervention.

Help - what does 'logrolling' mean? I sorta get it from the context, but still...don't quite understand.

I stole it from the old Spy Magazine (5.00 / 1) (#3)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 03, 2009 at 01:51:20 PM EST

Wiki link.


logrolling (5.00 / 1) (#4)
by Capt Howdy on Thu Sep 03, 2009 at 01:52:35 PM EST

A practice common in the U.S. Congress and in many other legislative assemblies in which two (or more) legislators agree for each to trade his vote on one bill he cares little about in exchange for the other's vote on a bill that is personally much more important to him. Logrolling is especially common when the legislators are relatively free of control by their national party leaders and are trying to secure votes for bills that will concentrate sizable benefits on their own home districts while spreading most of the costs out over taxpayers in the rest of the country. Local projects such as Federally funded dams, bridges, highways, housing projects, VA hospitals, job-training centers, military bases and the like are often pushed through by logrolling.

thaniks guys! (5.00 / 1) (#7)
by ruffian on Thu Sep 03, 2009 at 02:00:02 PM EST

Here I thought BTD made it up.


Yup (5.00 / 1) (#8)
by andgarden on Thu Sep 03, 2009 at 02:06:27 PM EST

It was in my high school American government textbook.


: Maybe mine too (none / 0) (#14)
by ruffian on Thu Sep 03, 2009 at 02:23:09 PM EST

But that was a looong time ago.
Is it in Jon Stewart's "America, The Book - Guide to Democracy Inaction"?

: Yep, in the same list (none / 0) (#41)
by caseyOR on Thu Sep 03, 2009 at 05:43:10 PM EST

with "mugwump" and "muckraker".

Check BTD's Spy link.... (5.00 / 1) (#13)
by oldpro on Thu Sep 03, 2009 at 02:22:39 PM EST

in this usage, logrolling indicates a mutual admiration society beyond congressional vote trades.

Basically, 'you rub my back, I'll rub yours.' And nevermind where it's deserved or not. It implies insider propaganda and coverup...it is corrupt.


I think this one is pretty relevant (none / 0) (#16)
by Capt Howdy on Thu Sep 03, 2009 at 02:27:04 PM EST

"A family comes to sit down in the forest," wrote an observer in 1835. "Their neighbors lay down their employments, shoulder their axes, and come in to the log-rolling. They spend the day in hard labor, and then retire, leaving the newcomers their good wishes, and an habitation

if you substitute "family comes to sit down in the forest" with "pundit comes to sit down in the beltway"


Ummmm, no. What were you planning (5.00 / 1) (#19)
by oldpro on Thu Sep 03, 2009 at 02:43:50 PM EST

to substitute for "They spend the day in hard labor..."?

Too big a stretch for me...


: good point (5.00 / 1) (#22)
by Capt Howdy on Thu Sep 03, 2009 at 02:46:46 PM EST

Wow (5.00 / 1) (#6)
by Militarytracy on Thu Sep 03, 2009 at 01:59:38 PM EST

Very disappointing....so as far as Ezra is concerned it is okay to write up stuff that is false and it is regrettable when someone points that out?

: Pointing out (5.00 / 2) (#23)
by Fabian on Thu Sep 03, 2009 at 02:48:16 PM EST

serious journalistic failing is "sniping"? So any time someone makes legitimate, substantiated criticisms of the media - that's "sniping"?
"Sniping" is Maureen Dowd's stock in trade. If Maureen Dowd wrote this, I think we'd be asking each other if we had landed in a parallel universe.

obama worship continues apace (5.00 / 1) (#34)
by kmblue on Thu Sep 03, 2009 at 03:31:35 PM EST

at Open Left:

You have to give the President credit for his courage. The willingness to take big gambles and then make them work is a hallmark of greatness.

http://tiny.cc/ohdear249

I pretty much agree with all of this (5.00 / 2) (#35)
by Capt Howdy on Thu Sep 03, 2009 at 03:35:22 PM EST

I have always believed, and continue to, that at the end of the day, the House will pass a fairly strong bill with a good public option, and the Senate will pass a mushed-up compromise with less coverage and a trigger or co-op or some other unworkable thing. After that, the final question will be determined by who blinks in conference committee and takes a fig leaf compromise, and who stays resolute until the end. One side will walk away with some phony rhetorical nod that will allow them to go to the media and say they forced a compromise, and one side will win the policy fight. I still believe it could be the good guys.

until the last sentence. but I still hope.


: It will be (none / 0) (#40)
by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Sep 03, 2009 at 04:23:38 PM EST

revealed by who is clean cut and who goes into the negotiation with unruly hair and unshaven/no makeup and roaring (the mad"men").

The battle of the competing (none / 0) (#11)
by jondee on Thu Sep 03, 2009 at 02:19:48 PM EST

"up and coming voices" continues. Will the world shift on its axis if the wrong yuppie smart aleck gets beltway access first? Tune in and find out.

Bely way media (none / 0) (#12)
by mmc9431 on Thu Sep 03, 2009 at 02:20:17 PM EST

Considering the voices of the Beltway Media, Ezra might fit right in. Most of them are much too concerned with self promoting to let a little thing like principles or even facts to be allowed to get in the way.

: Too many principals (none / 0) (#15)
by jondee on Thu Sep 03, 2009 at 02:23:46 PM EST

too little access.
It's the journalistic version of the too-few-campaqign contributions rule.

Ezra's position on this... (none / 0) (#17)
by BigElephant on Thu Sep 03, 2009 at 02:36:49 PM EST

is actually pretty reasonable. Two children having a tussle. You can argue that you disagree with Ezra's positions, but this is REALLY stretching to find something bad to say about somebody (that he didn't come down harshly enough on who the "bigger" baby is).

Not quite (5.00 / 6) (#20)
by ruffian on Thu Sep 03, 2009 at 02:45:07 PM EST

One of them is a baby, and one of them is Glenn Greenwald. Easy to tell the difference if you read the posts in question.


The problem with Big Elephant is (5.00 / 2) (#21)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 03, 2009 at 02:46:21 PM EST

he hates the American military.

I never really cared for your commenting.

And I have made a decision. Please stick to Jeralyn's threads. It's not that you broke any rules. You just annoy me.

And I would rather you not comment in my threads.

Thanks for understanding.

Have a nice day.


Sorry to hear that BTD... (5.00 / 2) (#24)
by BigElephant on Thu Sep 03, 2009 at 02:51:45 PM EST

I've actually always liked your posts and actually have considerable respect for you as a commentator. I just pull no punches... on anyone. Even those I generally agree with.

In any case, it's your blog and I respect that.

Last post on your threads.


: Thanks (none / 0) (#25)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 03, 2009 at 02:52:46 PM EST

Take care.

: You can post in Open threads too (none / 0) (#45)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 03, 2009 at 08:37:46 PM EST

Totally incorrect (none / 0) (#31)
by kmblue on Thu Sep 03, 2009 at 03:19:17 PM EST

and BTD already has written why, at the beginning of this thread.
