"Media Matters"; by Jamison Foser

This Week: BREAKING NEWS: Dog bites man Chris Matthews, "standards" and "defin[ing] deviancy downward" Even John McCain's vices are virtues to his "base" -- political reporters and pundits

BREAKING NEWS: Dog bites man!

You might want to make sure you're sitting down for this one.

This week, the Republican National Committee distributed materials attacking Democratic presidential candidates for such sins as ... liberalism. Hillary Clinton, for example, is described as a "lifelong liberal." John Edwards is a "liberal," as is Barack Obama. And Chris Dodd.

Shocking, isn't it?

Strangely, some journalists apparently thought the RNC criticizing Democratic presidential candidates was unusual and surprising enough to merit a news story.

At ABC, for example, the RNC hit pieces were touted in The Note -- before they were even "released":

Armed and ready, and cognizant of just how major a news peg the Carson City form [sic] is, the RNC's nimble research shop is using the moment to unload on the Democratic '08ers with a series of "Meet the Candidates" pieces. The RNC's Lisa Miller, Tracey Schmitt, and Shawn Reinschmiedt are also holding a 12:30 pm ET conference call with reporters.

The RNC's hit pieces won't be released until later today. But here's an early look at the flavor and "substance" to what amounts to rhetorical framing, rather than any smoking guns:

Joe Biden: "An Undisciplined, Self-Described Northeast Liberal, In Love With The Sound Of His Own Voice"

Hillary Clinton: A Calculating, Divisive, Lifelong Liberal With Political Baggage" (Note to the RNC: how come the female candidate is referred to by her first name in work?)

Chris Dodd: "A New England Liberal, Past His Prime, On An Unrealistic Vanity Run For The White House"

John Edwards: "A Hypocritical, Inexperienced Liberal With A Negative Attitude"

Barack Obama: "An Inexperienced, Insulated, Arrogant, Unabashed Liberal"

Bill Richardson: "A Self-Promoting, Washington Insider With a Controversial Record"

Tom Vilsack: "A Tax-Hiking, Mismanaging, "Blip" Candidate With No Foreign Policy Experience"

Think about that for a second: ABC's The Note touted and quoted advance excerpts of ... talking points. Advance excerpts of ... "what amounts to rhetorical framing." Stop the presses!

Then again, as Eric Boehlert noted in Lapdogs, Mark Halperin & Co. once actually wrote the following: "Who wrote (and edited) the latest very awesome Republican talking points defending Rove that address the Novak situation and much more?"

So perhaps The Note's fanboy response to the RNC's talking points shouldn't surprise.

But, not to be outdone, The Politico's Mike Allen touted the "just-the-facts" and "sophisticated" nature of the RNC's talking points in a 700-plus word article that somehow managed to avoid including a single fact from the purportedly "fact-based" documents.

Indeed, Allen's description of the documents as "just-the-facts" suggests that he is a little unclear on the difference between "fact" and "opinion," as a quick glance at the very first entries in the hit sheet on Clinton make clear:

American Prospect's Robert Kuttner: "But These Days, Everything She Does Seems Calculating, Poll-Tested, And Money-Driven." (Robert Kuttner, Op-Ed, "Dangerous Liaison," The Boston Globe, 5/14/06)

Time's Ana Marie Cox: "She's The Most Calculating Person In Modern Politics..." ("Noted," The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 8/27/06)

Or the first entry in the talking points about Chris Dodd:

"No Mystery Exceeds...The Question A Lot Of Connecticut Democrats Are Quietly Asking Each Other In Beseeching Voices: Why, Oh Why, Is Chris Dodd Running For President?" (Kevin Rennie, "Is Dodd Bid Only Vanity?" Hartford Courant, 1/21/07)

That's what Allen describes as "just-the-facts."

And what about Allen's claim that "[s]uch 'talking points' used to be closely held, but Republicans are going public with them in an effort to standardize the message they propagate through the new media culture"?

That would seem to be the justification for detailing the talking points -- explaining a new tactic. But it isn't a new tactic at all, despite Allen's false claim. As Media Matters explained, the RNC has been releasing talking points for years.

Indeed, a quick browse through the organization's website yields several very similar documents posted last year. Like this hit piece on Rep. Charlie Rangel. Or this truly bizarre attack on "nutroot" Markos Moulitsas Zuniga of Daily Kos, which inexplicably leads with the fact that he had just returned from vacation.

If reporters like Allen simply reported on these talking points one time and then went back to something a little more important, we wouldn't really mind. Indeed, an article about the hit sheets could even be useful, if a reporter were willing to assess the truthfulness and fairness of the documents and point out examples of the RNC distorting the record. "Republicans criticize Democrats" isn't all that newsworthy -- but "Republicans misleadingly criticize Democrats" is a bit more interesting.

Unfortunately, neither Allen nor The Note -- nor The Washington Times, the (unofficial) newsletter of the Republican Party -- made any effort to assess the validity of the attacks.

Had they done so, they might have pointed out that the RNC included this example of Hillary Clinton's "Numerous ... Ties To Questionable Activities":

"Webb Hubbell, at the epicenter of the Whitewater scandal, was Hillary's close associate and law partner. It was the 'consulting fees' paid to him after the Rose scandal that drew fire during the Clinton years." (Dick Morris and Eileen McGann, Because He Could, 2004, pp. 203-204)

Let's leave aside the fact that the RNC cited unrepentant liar Dick Morris. Including Webb Hubbell as an example of Clinton's "ties to questionable activities" is deeply misleading at best. Hubbell went to jail after admitting to the theft of nearly $500,000 from the Rose Law Firm, in which he was partners with Hillary Clinton, and its clients. Hubbell's "questionable activities," in other words, consisted in large part of stealing from Hillary Clinton.

Using Hubbell as an example of Clinton's "ties to questionable activities" is like saying Abraham Lincoln had ties to murderers ... and using John Wilkes Booth as evidence.

Or they might have pointed to the RNC's hit piece on John Edwards, which falsely and misleadingly claims "Edwards' First Campaign Promise Was To Raise Taxes." "Falsely" because it wasn't Edwards' first promise, and "misleadingly" because it fails to note the tax increases in question would affect almost nobody -- Edwards called for the repeal of Bush's tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans.

Just how misleading is this RNC attack? Here's what is in the RNC attack document:

Edwards' First Campaign Promise Was To Raise Taxes. NBC's Tim Russert: "Would you be willing to raise taxes in order to help pay for this?" Former Sen. Edwards: "Yes. We'll have to raise taxes. The only way you can pay for a health care plan from 90 -- that costs anywhere from $90 billion to $120 billion is there has to be revenue source." (NBC's "Meet The Press," 2/4/07)

Here's the very next sentence Edwards said on Meet the Press, which the RNC conveniently left off: "The revenue source for paying for the plan that I'm proposing is, is first we get rid of George Bush's tax cuts for people who make over $200,000 a year."

How many other false, misleading, or unfair claims are contained in the RNC hit pieces? We have no idea -- but we found those in about five minutes of looking. If political reporters really think the RNC documents are important enough to write about, they should do so in a meaningful way -- with a serious assessment of the validity of the charges contained in the documents. Such a report would be useful.

But not only do reporters typically fail to offer such an assessment, they all too often internalize the GOP's attacks and begin using the criticisms themselves, or letting the GOP's preferred themes shape their news coverage. Republican operatives attack Democrats for looking "French" or like the "Breck Girl" -- and, the next thing you know, journalists are repeating the insults -- and the character flaws the insults are meant to convey become dominant media narratives.

In other words, if you think Allen's (and The Note's) stenography of GOP talking points was bad this week, just wait. All too soon, you'll see reporters casually referring to Obama as "arrogant" and to Edwards' "negative attitude."

Chris Matthews, "standards" and "defin[ing] deviancy downward"

On Thursday's edition of Hardball, Chris Matthews once again spent a significant portion of the show talking about his favorite topic: the Clintons' marriage, and whether Bill Clinton will "distract from this campaign ... because of personal behavior."

There's nothing new about that. Peering into the Clintons' bedroom window (figuratively, of course) is what most turns Chris Matthews on (figuratively, of course).

No, what was interesting about this particular edition of Hardball was that among Matthews' guests was former Rep. Susan Molinari (R-NY), currently a lobbyist and campaign adviser to Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani.

Did Matthews ask Molinari six times whether Giuliani will "behave" during the campaign? Whether Giuliani would be a "good boy"? Of course not; Matthews reserves such questions for Clinton supporters.

Even as Molinari darkly hinted "there is this whisper campaign that there is something that we don't know about the Clintons," Matthews refused to ask her the sort of badgering, probing questions about Giuliani's personal behavior he frequently asks about Hillary Clinton.

Which made us wonder: What has Matthews said about Giuliani in the past? We know that now Matthews touts Giuliani as the "perfect candidate" to replace Bush, declares that Giuliani "looks like president to me," compares Giuliani to JFK, and gushes over Giuliani's "street cred."

But what did Matthews have to say about Giuliani in the past? Giuliani's soap-opera relationship with his second wife (and various other women) was an occasional topic on Hardball in 2001 and 2000, during which time, Matthews described the situation as "the strangest thing in the world" and Giuliani as "a guy who's not under control" who would "define deviancy downward" if he ran for president:

Hardball, May 18, 2001: "I haven't seen a quicker, faster meltdown than this one. It starts with, I think, Rudy Giuliani announcing that he was getting separated from his wife at a press conference, which is the strangest thing in the world, never told her. She's captured by the reporters. She holds her own press conference and says a lot of nasty things about him and suggests there's other people involved in this problem. Now apparently she's saying, keep your girlfriend out of the mayor's house, the Gracie Mansion, the White House of New York. This thing is so public and ridiculous."

Hardball, May 12, 2000: "Well, I guess that's the legal appropriate question, I shouldn't say legal, but the appropriate question to ask about any candidate is not whether he has a problem at home especially but whether that problem at home is going to get in the way of him being a serious candidate, a serious politician, a serious senator should he be elected. Giuliani seems to be a guy who's not under control. ... Is that a fair estimate, he's not in control of events right now?"

Hardball, May 11, 2000: "Well, if all this turns out to be true and Donna Hanover's account that she took him back after he messed around with somebody for a number of years and then he messed around again in her face, I just -- this is the end of this conversation. I'm not a marital expert or a moralist, but this sounds like dead, bad news for all people involved. This is not politically acceptable. ... Let me ask -- OK. He could always define deviancy downward further [by running for president.]"

But even then, Matthews seemed to have a soft spot for Giuliani. On May 8, 2000, Matthews asked, "Do you believe it's relevant or irrelevant that this mayor, who's the Republican candidate, apparently, against Hillary Clinton, that he have this somewhat hard to explain lifestyle right now?" He then immediately answered his own question: "I don't think it's particularly important."

On May 12, 2000, he praised Giuliani's berating responses to reporters who asked about his marriage: "I saw a grownup there trying to keep the pack of animals at bay."

On May 18, 2000, Matthews announced, "I like that guy more for some reason in all this crazy turmoil than I did a couple of weeks ago."

Best of all, Matthews wondered whether there would be a double standard in the treatment of the personal lives of Giuliani and Clinton. During the May 11, 2000, Hardball, Matthews wondered:

"The question is, are the standards going to be the same for both these couples? Is it going to be something we put behind us? Or is it something we're in the Rudy Giuliani-Donna Hanover case, where it's always be in front of them?"

Matthews suggested that "we" had put the Clintons' personal lives "behind us" -- and wondered if Giuliani would be afforded the same courtesy; if the "standards" would be "the same for both these couples."

That was then. It's now painfully clear that Matthews has no intention -- none at all -- of holding Giuliani and Clinton to the same "standards."

In 2000, Matthews said a Giuliani presidential campaign would "define deviancy downward further." Now he says Giuliani "looks like president."

In 2000, Giuliani stressed the importance of holding candidates to the same "standards." Now he barely pretends to give a damn about fairness.

Even John McCain's vices are virtues to his "base" -- political reporters and pundits

When a Democrat (say, John Kerry) changes his mind on something, political reporters call it a flip-flop.

When George W. Bush changes his mind, political reporters politely look the other way. The especially creative ones find a way to portray Bush's flip as an opportunity for him to depict his opponent as inconsistent.

But that's nothing compared to what happens when John McCain abruptly switches from calling Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson "agents of intolerance" to seeking their support.

In the February 26 edition of Newsweek, White House correspondent Holly Bailey described McCain's startling turnabout as a "Pro" with "values voters" (the political media's brain-dead shorthand for "conservative Christians").

Just a few paragraphs later, Bailey noted that McCain rival Mitt Romney's "alleged flip-flops ... could really hurt" with the same voters.

So: Romney's flip from opposition to policies held dear by conservatives to support for those policies "could really hurt" him. But McCain's flip in the same direction is a "Pro."

If McCain's flip-flops are described as positives by political journalists, what do they make of him skipping votes?

John McCain skipping a vote -- a vote about war, at that -- is a sign that he is a "maverick." And not just any "maverick" -- a "maverick" on an "upswing."

We wish we were making this up. Oh, how we wish we were making this up. But no.

Meanwhile, CNN went to the trouble of pretending that it had stopped calling McCain a "maverick" ... all so it could tout the maverick's return. On-screen text during the February 22 edition of CNN's The Situation Room read "McCain: A Maverick Again?" It had been two full days since a CNN reporter referred to McCain's "independent thinker not beholden to any political party" and more than two weeks since CNN correspondent Jamie McIntyre referred to him as "maverick Republican John McCain."

At CNN, apparently, making it nearly three whole weeks without describing McCain as a maverick is cause for a segment touting the moniker's comeback.

Is this a press corps or a pep band?

(And don't get us started with the media's somewhat creepy praise for Mitt Romney's looks.)