SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home The Politico's Pit Bull

THE PLANK MARCH 3, 2009

The Politico's Pit Bull

Slowly but surely, Politico's Jeanne Cummings has morphed her "Pit Boss" column from a gilded gossip sheet to a right-wing echo chamber. Or worse--because unlike much of the mainstream media these days, she's not so much repeating the GOP line as distilling it. Last week, in a piece titled "Class Warfare Returns to D.C.," she wrote,

... right on cue, Obama defended his $1.3 trillion in tax hikes over 10 years with a little class warfare."I know that this will not always sit well with the special interests and their lobbyists here in Washington, who think our budget and tax system is just fine as it is. No wonder — it works for them," the president said. "I work for the American people, and I'm determined to bring the change that the people voted for last November."

Perhaps only in Washington does "American people" versus "special interests" count as class warfare. In any case, notice that Obama doesn't even mention economic class. Nor does anyone else cited in the column. Cummings is simply taking the stalest of conservative talking points and applying it where all but Rush fear to tread, asserting as fact what is really a pernicious, and useless, slur. 

Today's column, "Tough Talks to Banks Could Backfire," is equally ridiculous. After running through a raft of supposedly dangerous new regulatory proposals in Congress, Cummings writes,

And even President Barack Obama has allowed himself some venting."I understand that, on any given day, Wall Street may be more comforted by an approach that gives banks bailouts with no strings attached and that holds nobody accountable for their reckless behavior," the president said in his national address last week."I intend to hold these banks fully accountable for the assistance they receive. ... This time, CEOs won't be able to use taxpayer money to pad their paychecks or buy fancy drapes or disappear on a private jet. Those days are over," he added to roaring applause inside the House chamber — and probably in many American living rooms, as well.The investor class, of course, answered Obama in its own signature way: with a brisk sell-off the next morning.

But that's not at all what happened. The market did tank, but it wasn't because investors wanted revenge--it was because existing housing sales hit an 11-year low. If anything, investors are nervous about the lack of strong government action, not too much. Nor does Cummings' assertion make up in logic what it lacks in evidence: As an investor, better accountability is exactly what I want to see right now, and I'm not particularly concerned about limits placed on executive compensation. And of course, Cummings gets exactly no direct quotes in her piece, because no one is willing to accompany Cummings that far out on a limb. For all her baseless wing-nuttery, Cummings would never make it on right-wing radio--she's still too circumspect for Rush and Laura. The question is, what's she doing in Politico?

--Clay Risen 

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 7 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

7 comments

On the last point, of the supposed response by the "investor class" to Obama's talk of accountability, Cummings's argument makes no sense even if you grant that it's true. Who suffers if the stock market declines? Sure, most of us now have a little bit of skin in the market, so we all suffer a little. But most of us who have a little bit of savings in mutual funds don't depend on daily, monthly, or even yearly appreciation to keep roofs over our heads and food on our tables. But the "investor class" Cummings speaks of does. So Cummings implicitly likens the "investor class" to French labor unions: They stand athwart history and threaten to cut off their own legs if you don't give them what they want.

Which is to say, if the "investor class" responds to public policy by making themselves poorer through symbolic acts of stock-selling, why should the rest of us care?

- rhubarbs

March 3, 2009 at 11:19am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Class warfare my ass.  So Cummings fellow traveler John Derbyshire over in The American Conservative gets to use the word 'elitism' to describe liberal snobs, and Cummings wants to chastise Obama for playing the class warfare card?  Liars, (Cummings and the like who would make such dishonest accusations) all of them.

- jet

March 3, 2009 at 11:23am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I've seen a lot of dumb news reports in my life, but I'm not sure anything can quite match this

- Anonymous

March 3, 2009 at 11:24am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

TNR bemoans main stream media dying.  Case in point as to why is shown above.

- tnmats

March 3, 2009 at 12:11pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

There is no such thing as "symbolic stock selling," with the limited exception of left-wing types who like to divest from countries and companies that pursue policies they disapprove of.  The whole notion is ludicrous.

- roidubouloi

March 3, 2009 at 12:43pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

To be fair, my 401(k) is mostly symbolic these days.

- ratnerstar

March 3, 2009 at 1:03pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Exactly, roid. But Cummings's theory of the "investor class" signaling their objections to policy proposals with stock selloffs requires us to accept the idea that the "investor class" engages in dumping equities as a symbolic act. Which is one way we can tell that Cummings is full of it.

- rhubarbs

March 3, 2009 at 1:52pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close