Part 2—Fictitions all the way down: Andrew Sullivan is out of touch.
Yesterday, he unmasked himself in this post at the Daily Beast:
SULLIVAN (6/19/12): The idiotic campaign non-news of today is that Mitt Romney has never heard of WaWa stores. This apparently, makes him "out of touch." No it doesn't.Dearest darlings, avert your eyes! Even as he disputed the proof that Candidate Romney is out of touch, Sullivan showed that he himself is:
He thought “Wawa” is written “WaWa!” This fellow is way out of touch!
Is Candidate Romney “out of touch” based on his recent behaviors RE Wawa? In such ways, fictitious “journalists” pretend to engage in journalism—and sadly, this low-IQ culture is spreading. Michael Tomasky is a smart, decent liberal. But yesterday, the analysts wailed and tore their hair when they saw him type the following. His post appeared at the Daily Beast under a "Wawagate" headline:
TOMASKY (6/19/12): [T]he tone of [Romney’s] voice sounds for all the world to me like he had just discovered this touch-screen technology for the first time. Listen to the sense of wonder in his voice. And anyway, there's this, too. I remember the first time I saw that technology, in a Sheetz probably 10 years ago (I'm quite a fan of Sheetz's breakfast sandwiches; elitist of me?!). I marveled that first time. Then the second time, I was used to it. Yesterday, Romney sounded for all the word like someone who had just seen this technology for the first time, and if that's so, it may be a small thing, but to me it says "out of touch."Had Romney ever seen the Wawa sandwich technology? We have no idea—we ourselves only saw such technology perhaps a year ago. (As a general rule, we wouldn’t spend that much for a sandwich.)
But good God! To Tomasky, Romney’s possible ignorance “may be a small thing, but to me it says ‘out of touch?’” As Tomasky offers that judgment, he endorses these past debates:
Debates Tomasky endorses:Good lord! Within the sprawling set of fictitions which now pose as political journalism, such pseudo-discussions have increasingly come to rule our “political discourse.”
The debate about Candidate Kerry’s cheesesteak.
The debate about Candidate Obama’s orange juice (and bowling).
The debate about Candidate Gore, in 1987, out-of-touchedly ordering Perrier.
The debate about Candidate Shriver, in 1976, doing the same goldarn thing.
How bad has this fatuous culture become? Consider:
When Andrea Mitchell pimped the Wawa gaffe on MSNBC this week, she compared it to the time in 1992 when President Bush was said to be out of touch because he was allegedly flummoxed by a supermarket scanner. She was patterning Romney's out-of-touch moment on that earlier failure.
But as Mitchell has surely heard by now, it isn’t even slightly clear that Bush was flummoxed by that scanner. We've discussed this stupidity in the past. For the Snopes account, just click here.
That famous moment was maybe a hoax. Everybody knows that by now. But so what? Knowing her point of comparison was maybe fictitious, Mitchell kept playing the game!
Do we live in ficitious times, as Michael Moore so brilliantly said? Of course we do, and pseudo-journalists are eager to showcase this fact. Yesterday morning, the silliest child at the New York Times worried her simple small head about Romney’s "banter" concerning Wawa.
He had mistakenly called the store “Wawa’s,” this silly young Dowdian said. See THE DAILY HOWLER, 6/19/12.
Today, the silly young children who call themselves journalists are expert at striking such fatuous poses. Does Tomasky want to encourage this culture?
“We live in fictitious times,” Moore said. By now, this statement is so true that even intelligent liberals like Tomasky are happy to play this game.
Citizens drown in such fatuous claims, made by children who pose as reporters. Question: How well do those citizens understand the major issues at the heart of our politics?
Very poorly, the surveys all say. As a group, American voters know very little about almost all major topics. Here again is Citizen Schaller discussing one famous example:
SCHALLER (6/5/12): Last summer at a community fundraiser, I was conversing with a man who began to carp about runaway federal government spending...When I asked him what types of spending ought to be cut, he mentioned foreign aid. “What share of federal spending do you think goes to foreign aid?” I countered, knowing that the correct answer is just under 1 percent. “Forty-eight percent,” he hazarded as my jaw dropped.For years, this has been a famous example showing the cluelessness of us the people. But on one major topic after another, we voters express remarkable ignorance concerning the most basic issues.
Then again, can you really blame us? In our most famous newspapers, we read discussions about the difference between saying Wawa and Wawa’s. We see sily children acting as if this is a point of concern.
How do we voters become so clueless? In part, it’s the propaganda. For decades, pseudo-conservative spinners have encouraged voters to misunderstand the reach of foreign aid. That said, pseudo-liberals are catching up fast. Within the past week, we liberals were instructed to think that “diehard Keynesians” named Reagan, Bush and Bush moved to increase government employment during the recessions which occurred on their watch. In today’s New York Times, the truth is briefly noted. (“During the recession from July 1981 through November 1982, under President Ronald Reagan, and again during the recession from July 1990 through March 1991, under the elder President George Bush, government employment shrank slightly, both overall and in the federal work force specifically.”)
How do we voters become so clueless? In part, it’s because of the propagandists. In part, though, it’s the fictitious culture of modern “journalism,” where silly children pose as reporters, discussing such things as the proper way to banter about Wawa stores.
In fairness, these silly children are extending a culture invented by people with names like Broder. But voters encounter these stupid discussions and think that they are thereby in touch with top-notch political reporting.
Is Candidate Romney “out of touch?” If so, he’s a man of the people!
In recent weeks, the New York Times has told us about Ann Romney’s dressage. It has told us about her fashion choices. It has told us about Mitt’s home in La Jolla. (That’s foreign for “the jewel,” we were told.)
It has told us about the way Candidate Romney banters about Wawa stores. This morning, the paper pretends to discuss an alleged controversy concerning Obama’s memoir.
But how often does this famous newspaper discuss this campaign’s actual issues? If we look at this paper’s alleged reporting, we see a flight from such matters of substance.
Instead, we see a devotion to fatuous bourgeois values. Truth to tell, our journalistic culture is pretty much fictitions all the way down.
Tomorrow: Bringing up Bougie