Gibson: Dumber than the Guitar

I feel the need to hit Charlie Gibson over the head again, just to get it out of my system. His drop-dead dumbest moment was when he insisted that Sens. Clinton and Obama follow Article II, Section I of the Constitution...

Just to quote from the Constitution again, ‘In every case,’ Article Two, Section One, ‘after the choice of the president, the person having the greatest number of votes of the electors shall be the vice president.’”

...apparently unaware that the clause in question was talking about the general election and the electoral college, not a primary, and that it was overruled by the 12th Amendment after the election of 1800, which was, ahem, TWO HUNDRED AND EIGHT YEARS AGO.

But for sheer right-wing nonsense masquerading as penetrating policy analysis, that would have to go to the section where he insisted that cutting the capital gains tax always, ALWAYS produces more revenue. This is, how should I put it, a lie.

My recollection was that Gibson's premise was wrong, but I couldn't remember the details of why. Fortunately, I know a few economists. Here's one of them--Jason Furman of the Brookings Institute--with the story:

Joint Committee on Taxation and Treasury both score raising capital gains taxes as raising revenues. There is some behavioral response but much of that is timing and doesn't affect the medium-to-long term revenue loss.

Note that the experience after the 1997 cut and the 2003 cut is not a meaningful way to assess the impact of capital gains tax cuts on revenues because so many things were happening simultaneously. The JCT score of the capital gains cut in 1997 was a few billion dollars annually. The 2003 cut was something like $5 billion annually. But capital gains revenues can go up or down by tens of billions annually. So it is hard to look at the noisy data and infer ex post the revenue impact of these changes.

Yes, that's part of it; assuming a tax-cut, revenue-gain relationship in a vacuum foretells an ignorance of economics. But there's more to it as well.

I think I found out the answer to the capital gains tax rate vs. revenue issue: Capital gains accrue when an asset is sold. Except in a few specialized instances, people have a choice about when to sell an asset. If they know the capital gains tax rate will be going down as of a certain date, they are likely to sell assets AFTER that date rather than before it, in order to minimize the tax due. So the increase in revenues experienced once the capital gains tax rate goes down is largely due to the fact that more people are selling assets.

Short answer: Charlie Gibson was technically correct, but his statement reflects an artifact.

Yes, the entire premise of Gibson's statement is based on people like him gaming the system. It's impossible to gather how tremendously stupid Republican economics is when you get past the one sentence they all decide to learn.

The Gibson Effect

I agree that last night was an historic moment, where the national press truly jumped the shark and crossed over from a series of newsgathering organizations to the reincarnation of Rona Barrett. Because they are so contemptuous of Americans (they always justify their substance-free remarks by saying "This is what people are talking about") they seek not to inform but demonize, not to set out the major issues but to tear down the major candidates.

And lest one think that the first half of the debate featured the tabloid questions and the second half the "substance," uh, no.

It is certainly true that a case could be made that the moderators explicitly set out to frame even the supposedly "substantive" questions according to GOP designs. The implicit presumption of success in Iraq when, nearly an hour into the debate, the moderators finally deigned to mention the defining current event of this campaign. Gibson, as moderator, lied outright about the supposed effects of capital gains tax cuts, and dogged the candidates over it to a greater extent than any other economic issue: does he really believe that of all the economic challenges facing this nation, the most pressing of them is supplication towards a decade-long Republican bugaboo? Gun control? Affirmative action? These are the issues that are most compellingly on the minds of Democratic primary voters, in 2008? Or were the questions taken from a 1992 time capsule, insightful probes gathering dust for a decade and a half until they could find network moderators desperate enough to dig them up again?

It wasn't just embarrassing in part, but in the whole; a total capitulation of all responsibility as the fourth estate and a salient example of why we may need to actually strike out the "freedom of the press" part of the First Amendment.*

The thing is that, outside of Bobo Brooks, who's just as contemptuous of the American people as Gibson and Stephanopoulos are, most people noticed. They noticed because this is not an isolated event. In fact this campaign season has witnessed a gradually decreasing pattern leading to the irrelevance you saw on display last night. As issues and challenges faded away, the entire campaign - all of it - is predicated on gaffes and misstatements and Russert-like gotcha questions. Not as portion of it, not the last five minutes of the broadcast but all of it. The third paragraph of Tom Shales' jeremiad is technically correct but besides the point.

When Barack Obama met Hillary Clinton for another televised Democratic candidates' debate last night, it was more than a step forward in the 2008 presidential election. It was another step downward for network news -- in particular ABC News, which hosted the debate from Philadelphia and whose usually dependable anchors, Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos, turned in shoddy, despicable performances.

For the first 52 minutes of the two-hour, commercial-crammed show, Gibson and Stephanopoulos dwelled entirely on specious and gossipy trivia that already has been hashed and rehashed, in the hope of getting the candidates to claw at one another over disputes that are no longer news. Some were barely news to begin with.

The fact is, cable networks CNN and MSNBC both did better jobs with earlier candidate debates. Also, neither of those cable networks, if memory serves, rushed to a commercial break just five minutes into the proceedings, after giving each candidate a tiny, token moment to make an opening statement. Cable news is indeed taking over from network news, and merely by being competent.

CNN and MSNBC are no better; the ABC debate was a prime-time version of their substance-free midday programming, replete with everything but a live shot of a burning house somewhere.

The real question is whether this will spark a backlash, the way the media's sexist treatment of Sen. Clinton provoked a backlash in the New Hampshire primary.

Will the Keystone State's Democratic voters -- remember, these are Democrats, not general-election voters -- rebel against the negativity, the "gotcha"-ism, the endless drumbeat of cynical word-twisting and opportunistic gaffe-pouncing, that has become the central operating principle of the Clinton campaign, and vote instead for the man whose message of "hope" and "change" and a "new kind of politics" so inspired voters in the early stages of this nomination contest? If there's ever a moment for that message to gain new traction, it would be now [...]

One of the night's most popular answers, according to WPVI's undecided voter reaction tracker thingy, was this response by Obama to a question about his relationship to former Weather Underground bomber William Ayers:

George, but this is an example of what I'm talking about.

This is a guy who lives in my neighborhood, who's a professor of English in Chicago, who I know and who I have not received some official endorsement from. He's not somebody who I exchange ideas from on a regular basis.

And the notion that somehow as a consequence of me knowing somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago when I was 8 years old, somehow reflects on me and my values, doesn't make much sense, George. ...

[T]his kind of game, in which anybody who I know, regardless of how flimsy the relationship is, is somehow -- somehow their ideas could be attributed to me -- I think the American people are smarter than that. They're not going to suggest somehow that that is reflective of my views, because it obviously isn't.

Hillary's response? "Well, I think that is a fair general statement, but I also believe that Senator Obama served on a board with Mr. Ayers for a period of time, the Woods Foundation, which was a paid directorship position." The undecided-voter meter plummeted.

Perhaps I'm being a pollyanna-ish member of the Cult of Obama here, but I think there is a real chance the voters of Pennsylvania will rise up and, once and for all, reject the endless, party-destroying "gotcha" tactics of Hillary Clinton, and choose the candidate of "change." It would be the backlash to end all backlashes. I'm not predicting it. But I think it could happen.

I think it's vital that it does happen, to discredit these tactics. If the blinders would come off of Clinton supporters and Obama supporters, Democrats would agree that this debate represents a failure of democracy. Corporate media will only get the message if their stock plummets, so I urge everyone to sell Disney stock and send it crashing. But they also made a lot of money last night off their ignorance and sensationalism. The way to send a message is really to reject that. The "b-but the Republicans will come after us in November" canard is ridiculous. That doesn't mean it has to be legitimized. Republican-style attack politics was actually rejected by voters in 2006. Now it's time to reject the media.

* - That's not what I advocate, of course, but let's recognize that national broadcasters use public airwaves and make a commitment to use them in the public interest, which clearly they have failed in doing, so there's a compelling argument to be made to the FCC for a breach in licensing agreements.

Shame

I'm deeply saddened by the state of this country, and tonight's debate is only an extension, a symptom, of that sadness. We are a better people, a stronger people, a smarter people, than is reflected to the nation and the world by our media.

I was the one who started a little campaign to get Charles Gibson and George Stephanopoulos to address the astonishing revelation that the President approved and authorized secret sessions inside the White House where principals from the Vice President on down directed specific torture techniques on specific detainees. Digby and myself and many others in the progressive blogosphere were outraged that this absolutely shocking statement, an almost dismissive one from the President, was met with almost complete radio silence from the traditional media.

So I figured that, since ABC actually broke the story, they might be interested in moving the story along by pushing it into the Presidential arena. And I asked good informed people who love their country to contact ABC so that we can discredit the idea of America torturing other human beings, in violation of domestic and international law, in ways that have been prosecuted by American courts in the past, which scar our nation, provide a recruiting tool for terrorists and yield bad intelligence.

You know, I thought it might have been something to get to.

But it wasn't. As you have seen. The bread and circuses that has characterized the media for over a decade continues apace. Instead of reporting out its story, we heard about lapel pins, and sniper fire, and members of the Weather Underground from 40 years ago. And this is why we have 47 million Americans without health care, and an occupation in Iraq for which these media shills are partially responsible, and finally, a country stained with the sin of torture.

And the only response I have is one of shame. That we have to listen to a Presidential candidate forced to say "I revere the American flag" or answer for the patriotism of random people is actually deeply offensive to me as a sentient being. That the right has so hijacked the discourse that all we hear from moderators in a public forum is a collection of oppo research is even more offensive.

And the worst part is that ABC News obviously has the capacity for good journalism. They considered it worthy enough to follow a story about torture discussions inside the White House, tracked down all the principals, got most everyone on the record about it, and yielded an admission from the President of the United States that he authorized waterboarding. They deemed it important enough to put it on their nightly news program, alone among the entire media. So if this is the output we can expect from them in a high-profile debate, there really is no hope. How can we expect accountability on torture - freakin' torture - if the well-informed citizenry has no knowledge to draw from.

I would gladly trade this media for any other media from any other country in the world. They can even broadcast in their native language without translation and it would have more value than this swill.

I know that traditional media is essentially a relic and that the information explosion of the blogosphere is revolutionizing media. But I have little but depression and sadness in my heart tonight. Corporations are not likely to dissolve in my lifetime. Corporate media is not likely to lose its prominence. We're big and getting bigger, and we're tuning out this narrowness of our politics in record numbers; Barack Obama was essentially standing in for all of us tonight. But that someone can be honored enough to address the next leader of the United States, can take on the responsibility of informing the public, and end up with this?

Shame.



...I think the best course of action is something my fellow Pennsylvanians are prone to using: shunning. Surely we have Kossacks who live and work in Washington DC. These clowns have descended on Pennsylvania, to be sure. They should be shunned. If they approach you on the street, walk away. If you're anywhere near them, turn your back.

One good place to do this would be at the Newseum in Washington, this Sunday, when George Stephanopoulos tapes his first episode of This Week at their new home. I'm just spitballin'.

The Shoe Drops - Obama Addresses Torture and War Crimes

Credit Will Bunch for stepping up and forcing a conversation on the Torture Regime and whether they will be held accountable for their crimes.

Tonight I had an opportunity to ask Barack Obama a question that is on the minds of many Americans, yet rarely rises to the surface in the great ruckus of the 2008 presidential race -- and that is whether an Obama administration would seek to prosecute officials of a former Bush administration on the revelations that they greenlighted torture, or for other potential crimes that took place in the White House.

Here's his answer, in its entirety:

"What I would want to do is to have my Justice Department and my Attorney General immediately review the information that's already there and to find out are there inquiries that need to be pursued. I can't prejudge that because we don't have access to all the material right now. I think that you are right, if crimes have been committed, they should be investigated. You're also right that I would not want my first term consumed by what was perceived on the part of Republicans as a partisan witch hunt because I think we've got too many problems we've got to solve.

So this is an area where I would want to exercise judgment -- I would want to find out directly from my Attorney General -- having pursued, having looked at what's out there right now -- are there possibilities of genuine crimes as opposed to really bad policies. And I think it's important-- one of the things we've got to figure out in our political culture generally is distinguishing betyween really dumb policies and policies that rise to the level of criminal activity. You know, I often get questions about impeachment at town hall meetings and I've said that is not something I think would be fruitful to pursue because I think that impeachment is something that should be reserved for exceptional circumstances. Now, if I found out that there were high officials who knowingly, consciously broke existing laws, engaged in coverups of those crimes with knowledge forefront, then I think a basic principle of our Constitution is nobody above the law -- and I think that's roughly how I would look at it."

Well, this is a politician's answer, but there are institutional constraints that he recognizes. It's true that the Republicans would throw the Mother of All Hissy Fits if they even got a whiff that a Democratic Attorney General was investigating the Bush Administration. There aren't the Howard Bakers of yore to understand the concept of country above party and the rule of law above everything else. So they'll scream bloody murder (if Bush doesn't pardon himself on the way out the door) and the media will want to just move on and cover the exciting 2012 election, besides. Hopefully Obama will recognize that and damn the supposed "consequences" of upholding the law.

There are a lot of hedges and what-ifs and easy outs for Obama in this answer. But the fact that he understands this is a problem, the fact that he's willing to engage in an immediate review, is at least something. Ultimately it'll be up to us to push it further. And there's no doubt that it's vital; otherwise the same cast of characters will show up in Republican Administrations down the road and run it as a criminal enterprise. Nixon was forced to resign but he was crucially not discredited, not made to answer for his actions, and so the same figures recycled back into later Presidencies. The same with Reagan and Iran-Contra.

There's enough information out there already to prosecute, if you ask me. The White House has admitted waterboarding Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the President has admitted approving his Principals to direct that interrogation, and the United States has successfully prosecuted, in U.S. v. Lee and a number of other cases, the commission of waterboarding to obtain evidence and induce confession. So if Obama and his AG, who'd have to made of strong stuff to weather Republican attacks (Edwards?), are serious about pursuing justice they'd simply have to prosecute, on the issue of torture and a host of others.

Ultimately, this answer is insufficient, but you have to start somewhere. Watergate, the only -gate worth its name, started with an internal review. I'd rather Obama be more forceful but he has an election to win, I guess. Still, prosecutorial discretion does not require that people "knowingly" and "consciously" break the law in order to press charges, simply that they break the law. If no man is above that law, as Obama says, he must apply the standard evenly. And he shouldn't look to the Yoo memos as exculpatory, either, they were clearly written as after-the-fact justifications.

The long road begins with a single step, and we have to make both of these Democratic standard-bearers do the right thing. Next up is making Charlie Gibson ask the question in the debate on Wednesday in front of a very large audience in Philadelphia and on television. Will Bunch is a friend of the blogs and can be counted on to understand the difference between substance and fluff (and the blogosphere's insistence on the importance of this subject generated the question, so give yourselves a round of applause). Gibson read on his own broadcast the allegations against the Administration of choreographing and authorizing torture inside the White House. He should be able to discern the difference too. Let him know how you'd feel about that.

World News Tonight with Charlie Gibson

ABC News Programming Specials

Debate Impressions

I did manage to watch both debates yesterday, and I think the contrast between the two parties couldn't be sharper. The Republicans had a nasty, mean, grumpy old man debate highlighted by John McCain's sniping and Fred Thompson occasionally weighing in from his rocking chair with a snide remark, not that he had a plan of his own. In a way Thompson is the quintessential conservative in this race; only caring about what we can't do, completely unconcerned about governance, just interested in showing his dominance by insulting his opponents. If he wasn't in a coma for six months I would say he epitomized the conservative id and would sail to victory. But Mitt Romney's got a better chance even though he was smacked around to an almost pity-inducing degree last night. And the Huckabump is going to be sufficient for him to claim that he defied expectations with a strong third-place finish. I still think he's the nominee, no matter how much the media wanks for St. McCain. Also, I forgot every word 9iu11iani said.

By contrast the Democrats had a pretty sober, substantive debate, outside of one defining moment when John Edwards tried to stick the knife in Hillary Clinton by parrying a Clinton attack with "any time the agents of change speak out, this is what the status quo does." That really pissed Clinton off, though she improved throughout the debate. I thought her faulting Edwards for not getting the patient's bill of rights through Tom DeLay's House when he worked his ass off to pass it in the Senate was a really weak return, however. Obama stayed relatively above the fray. Richardson was kind of just there.

But there were two defining moments. One was in the Democratic debate, when Charlie Gibson proved the cluelessness of the Beltway media with what is going on in the rest of the country.

Summary: During the ABC News-Facebook debate, moderator Charlie Gibson suggested that the Democratic presidential candidates' proposals to roll back or let some of President Bush's tax cuts expire would affect middle-class families, adding, "If you take a family of two professors here at St. Anselm, they're going to be in the $200,000 category that you're talking about lifting the taxes on." According to the U.S. Census, however, the median income for a U.S. household is $48,451, and the mean household income is $65,527; and only 3.4 percent of U.S. households have an income of $200,000 or more.

It was worse than that. The crowd openly laughed at Gibson for the stupidity of suggesting that two professors at St. Anselm make that kind of money (more like $75,000). And the larger point was that, because everybody in Gibson's world is rich, he naturally believes that the rest of the country is the same way.

The other key moment was when the Republicans were asked how they would contrast themselves with Barack Obama. They didn't find it very possible. It was easy for them to characterize Hillary as some sort of demon. But with Obama, Romney praised him, McCain praised him, Huckabee praised him and compared the two's success in Iowa, and Ron Paul praised him and compared the two's success with young voters. When McCain tried to draw contrast on experience, Romney stopped him and said "that's what Chris Dodd, Joe Biden, Bill Richardson, and Hillary Clinton said in Iowa, and they all got smoked." When the Republicans can't figure out a line of attack, you know they're worried. They'll fall back on the same liberal boogeyman stuff, but clearly Obama and his movement represent a real problem for Republicans.

That's all I got...