Speaks only to favorite friends: Doggone it!
This morning, we wanted to share something Nicolle Wallace said on Monday afternoon's Deadline: White House. But when we tried to activate the original link to the videotape of that day's program, we received this message:
The video you're looking for is no longer available.Go figure! MSNBC maintains a web site for the Deadline program. But it doesn't publish transcripts for the show, and it posts limited video clips.
Please go to msnbc on demand to see the latest videos.
But then, oh wait! Just this morning, we finally found this videotape for the first segment of Monday's Deadline program. This let us transcribe something Wallace said in a long, heartfelt, unwise discussion of allegedly racist behavior by King Donald J. Trump.
Wallace cited a recent ad promoted by Donald J. Trump. NBC had chosen to run the ad, then took it down, due to what a spokesperson described as its "insensitive nature." (According to NBC News, the announcement was made by Joe Benarroch, "a spokesperson for NBC's advertising sales department.")
NBC had cited the ad's "insensitive nature." Wallace described the ad as racist, then asked the following questions:
WALLACE (11/5/18): But how is this where we are? And how is this, how is this, about race, how is this not a 90/10 issue? How are 90 percent of Americans—white, black, brown, men—how are 90 percent of Americans not vehemently, not so upset about racism that they're not out marching and protesting all Republicans?"I don't know," Gene Robinson said. "You know, I guess I'm not the guy to ask that." Zerlina Maxwell then shared her thoughts about Wallace's heartfelt questions.
Readers, can we talk? As we noted Tuesday, Wallace was conducting this discussion with the group she assembles every day—with "some of [her] favorite reporters and friends." In practice, this is another way of saying that everyone in her five-member pundit panel was going to agree with every word Wallace was going to say.
There would be no disputes, questions, disagreements or shadings of meaning; no alternate views of any kind would arise during the hour. No discouraging words would be heard as Wallace conducted her latest semi-discussion with her favorite reporters and friends.
Wallace's ardor was clear on the point she had raised. That said, we could remember the halcyon days when she helped George W. Bush drive up conservative turnout in 2004 by getting same-sex marriage propositions onto various state ballots. In Ohio, let's say!
In this way, her previous morally perfect views had helped defeat Candidate Kerry. We thought of this as we observed her morally perfect behavior this day.
In fairness, that was then and this was now. In her current incarnation, Wallace has such heartfelt feelings about racism that she can't imagine why anyone but the "troglodyte tenth" isn't out there marching and protesting against King Trump's behavior, indeed against all Republicans.
"Sad!" said several of our young analysts. Here's what they said they meant:
It would be perfectly easy for Wallace to learn, or at least to try to learn, why everyone isn't out their marching and protesting, the heartfelt stance she has now adopted in her role on corporate cable. Here's why that would be easy:
There are 63 million different people who voted for Candidate Trump in 2016. And not only that! Just this week, something like 46 percent of voters supported a Republican candidate in the nation's House elections.
Why aren't 90 percent of the people protesting all the racism? Given the network resources at her disposal, it would be amazingly easy for Wallace to interview some of those people—to ask them questions like that, right on cable news air.
She could ask these actual people why they're still supporting Trump and/or other Republicans. She could stop restricting herself to her "favorite reporters and friends." She could descend from her mountain aerie speak to some Others for once!
Given the millions of people involved, there would be no way to form a "scientifically valid" assessment of the reason(s) why so many people aren't marching along with Wallace.
On the brighter side, such interviews might constitute a type of reunion. Almost surely, Wallace would be speaking to some of the people she helped drive to the polls in 2004 through that anti-marriage drive!
We feel sure that Wallace is a very nice person in her personal life. On the other hand, it might be time for her to discard her Orinda/Cal Berkeley/Bush 2004 tuffet and speak to some of the teeming masses who congregate down on the plain.
The segregation is general and self-imposed on Wallace's daily program. Wallace speaks to her favorite friends. She speaks to nobody else.
Future anthropologists, living in caves, have commented to us about this familiar "cable news" conduct.
As we've explained in the past, these experts communicate through exotic electronic communications created by some of the blasts which occurred during the global conflagration they refer to as Mister Trump's War. Mournfully, these experts have spoken to us in late-night transmissions which almost resemble dreams:
Man [sic] was never the rational animal, they've frequently mournfully said. Man [sic] was the animal which was strongly inclined to restrict itself to interactions with favorite reporters and friends!
(Quoting these experts more precisely: "Man [sic] was the animal which assembled in tribes and invented scathing critiques of The Others." These future cave-dwellers have often turned to "cable news" for example of the unhelpful impulses bred in the bone of our warlike species.)
On Monday afternoon, the analysts tore their hair, even saying "Ow ow ow," as they watched the conversation on Wallace's restricted program. Having said that, dear God!
Right before watching Deadline, they'd watched the videotape of CNN's Reliable Sources program from the day before. In the course of a strikingly hapless discussion, they'd seen the Toronto Star's Daniel Dale identify a recent obvious "lie" by Trump.
They screamed and howled and torn at their hair. Tomorrow, we'll show you why.
Tomorrow: Daniel Dale's obvious recent "lie" and other dispiriting statements
Saturday: Who was the late (and sacred) Amal Hussain? Why haven't you heard her name?