Does his basic claim make sense: Unfortunately, the terrible grimy Peter Hoekstra is running for the senate from Michigan.
On Sunday, during the Super Bowl, he aired a small, grimy ad. By now, you’ve probably read about its use of an Asian-American actress who speaks in broken English about Senator Debbie Stabenow’s “reckless spending.”
Last night, Lawrence O'Donnell was chasing around, trying to learn the actress' name so he could suitably maul her. We had a different question. Here goes:
According to the ad, China will soon take over the world thanks to Stabenow’s "reckless spending." Or something very much like that.
The liberal world has spoken out about the ethnic sliming. We're sometimes skilled at doing such things in ways which help perpetrators like Cap'n Hoekstra, although our guess would be that this type of politics may be nearing the end of its road.
(Did you see Clint Eastwood Sunday night? Did you see him in Gran Torino?)
We thought it might be worth your time to see the role the New York Times assigns to this ad’s basic policy claim. Is Senator Stabenow engaged in “reckless spending?”
This morning, in our hard-copy Times, the report on the ad is seven paragraphs long. In this, paragraph 6, we see Steven Yaccino's sole attempt to evaluate Hoekstra’s assertion:
YACCINO (2/7/12): Ms. Stabenow’s office declined to comment but issued a statement from Mark Brewer, the chairman of the Michigan Democratic Party, which described the ad as “shameful” and “deceitful” regarding Ms. Stabenow’s record.In the hard-copy Times, that was it! Essentially, the paper makes no attempt to evaluate the ad's basic claim.
The ad is awful in many ways, including the way it refers to Stabenow by a stupid, demeaning new nick-name.
But does the ad make a sensible claim? People! Your politics doesn’t turn on such questions! Questions like that are dull.
Does Hoekstra’s basic claim make sense? The New York Times doesn’t seem to care. This is not a new policy.
On-line: On-line, Yaccino’s report is much longer. Just click here.
Did Hoekstra make a sensible claim? What “reckless spending” does the ad have in mind? Even at roughly double length, the New York Times still didn’t care.
In these ways, your “political discourse” turns into a long rolling joke, driven along by wild accusations.
You can say any damn-fool thing you want. No one in the "press" cares.