On his radio show Wednesday, Glenn Beck confirmed that he was as frustrated as he appeared during his interview of former Rep. Eric Massa, D-N.Y.
"I almost said ... you've wasted enough of my time, get out. I almost said that. I almost threw him out of the studio like three times," Beck said.
Later, Beck tried to spin the whole debacle as a positive, saying, "Now that we've spent the hour, we don't ever have to pay attention to this man ever again."
That's true, though of course if Beck had done his work in advance and not been so quick to leap on what he thought was a story that would advance his anti-Obama narrative, he wouldn't have had to spend the hour in the first place.
Audio below, via Michael Calderone.
The left has been torn over healthcare reform this year. Some liberals argue that Democrats' current proposals are a major step forward and worth passing despite their flaws, while others argue that the bill should be scrapped because the flaws outweigh the good, and because of the lack of progressive favorites like a public option.
On Tuesday night, two liberal favorites got set up to butt heads. Appearing on MSNBC's "Countdown," DailyKos founder Markos Moulitsas was asked by guest host Lawrence O'Donnell about Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich's opposition to President Obama's reform proposal. Moulitsas didn't take it easy on Kucinich in his response.
"[I]t's definitely a very Ralph Nader-esque approach, I think, to politics -- a very unrealistic and self-defeating approach," Moulitsas said.
"And I'm going to hold people, like Dennis Kucinich, responsible for the 40,000 Americans that die each year from a lack of health care. And I don't care if you're a Republican or you're a conservative Democrat or you're somebody like Dennis Kucinich. The fact is, this does a heck of a lot for a lot of people ... It's not the ideal solution. But we have our foot in the door, and if somebody like Kucinich wants to block that, I find that completely reprehensible."
Later, pressed by O'Donnell, Moulitsas said he'd support the idea of a primary challenge against Kucinich if the congressman continues his opposition to the legislation.
As Firedoglake's David Dayen pointed out, it's actually too late for someone to decide to challenge Kucinich in a primary this year. But all this -- and some back-and-forth Moulitsas engaged in on Twitter after the segment aired -- leads to a larger discussion: What, exactly, has Kucinich accomplished during his seven terms in Congress?
Moulitsas argues that the congressman hasn't accomplished anything at all, and -- though I know I'm going to get slammed for saying this -- I have to agree. Sure, it's good to see a politician standing up for his beliefs and fighting for a point of view that might not otherwise be represented. But there are ways to do that and simultaneously be an effective legislator. Kucinich simply isn't, and he's never really tried hard to be. (You could also argue -- I would -- that the way he goes about things makes him pretty ineffective as a spokesman for his ideals.)
Just look at this section from the biography on his congressional Web site:
In Congress, Kucinich has authored and co-sponsored legislation to create a national health care system, preserve Social Security, lower the costs of prescription drugs, provide economic development through infrastructure improvements, abolish the death penalty, provide universal prekindergarten to all 3, 4, and 5 year olds, create a Department of Peace, regulate genetically engineered foods, repeal the USA PATRIOT Act, and provide tax relief to working class families.
Notice that the bio never says whether any of that legislation actually passed. In fact, according to the Web site GovTrack, of the 97 bills Kucinich has sponsored since taking office in 1997, only three have become law. Ninety-three didn't even make it out of committee.
The three that were enacted are, in chronological order from first to last: A bill "to make available to the Ukranian Museum and Archives the USIA television program 'Window on America,'" a bill "to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 14500 Lorain Avenue in Cleveland, Ohio as the 'John P. Gallagher Post Office Building" and a bill "proclaiming Casimir Pulaski to be an honorary citizen of the United States posthumously."
It's not often that "Daily Show" host Jon Stewart's interviews turn truly contentious. That's what happened when Marc Thiessen, a former speechwriter for President George W. Bush who's been in the spotlight defending the previous administration's counterterror policies, was on the show Tuesday night.
"It's a very selective world that you live in," Stewart told Thiessen at one point. "And it must be very lovely to live there, but things are not so clear-cut."
Comedy Central has posted the unedited interview, which you can watch below, in three parts.
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Exclusive - Marc Thiessen Extended Interview Pt. 1 | ||||
|
||||
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Exclusive - Marc Thiessen Extended Interview Pt. 2 | ||||
|
||||
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Exclusive - Marc Thiessen Extended Interview Pt. 3 | ||||
|
||||
WASHINGTON -- Just about everything the government does these days is -- obviously -- part of some nefarious socialist conspiracy; after all, Barack Obama is president and the Democrats control Congress. But even by the standards of paranoia conservatives have laid out for themselves over the last year, the way the right is responding to the 2010 Census is starting to stand out.
With Census forms set to go out next week, the right-wing outrage over the constitutionally mandated affair is starting to boil over. That's mostly due to two things: one, the continued efforts by the U.S. Census Bureau to get people to fill the damn forms out; and two, the fact that the Census questionnaire actually seeks enough detailed information in response to make the survey meaningful.
The letters most Americans received Monday or Tuesday to alert them to the forms are -- like the Super Bowl ad the Census ran -- not going over too well with conservatives. The letter seems fairly inoffensive:
Dear Resident:
About one week from now, you will receive a 2010 Census form in the mail. When you receive your form, please fill it out and mail it in promptly. Your response is important. Results from the 2010 Census will be used to help each community get its fair share of government funds for highways, schools, health facilities, and many other programs you and your neighbors need. Without a complete, accurate census, your community may not receive its fair share. Thank you in advance for your help.
Sincerely, Robert M. Groves
Director, U.S. Census Bureau
But in 2010, where any dollar the federal government spends is, automatically, a dollar that may as well be part of a criminal enterprise, right-wing blogs aren't happy. "I'm having a difficult time deciding if this letter is: 1) Supposed to be helpful or informative in some way. 2) A joke. 3) Some sort of Obama stimulus plan for the postal workers. 4) My imagination," wrote one poster on RedState.com. On Andrew Breitbart's BigGovernment.com, SusanAnne Hiller saw it as a socialist plot. "This form letter has all the characteristics of Obama's 'fair share' and 'spread the wealth around' sentiment because, as we clearly know now, he will return the wealth to its rightful owner -- and it's not the ones who earned it -- because that wouldn't be fair," she wrote. "And it's disturbing that other people's money is used as the bait to motivate people to fill out the census form."
All that is, put simply, nonsense. First, the cost argument. Yes, printing and mailing letters advising people that the Census forms are on their way is expensive. But as Census officials must be getting tired of pointing out, every 1 percent increase in return rates actually saves $85 million later this year. Because when people don't send their forms in, the government has to send an interviewer out to talk to the households in person. Ten years ago, letters like the one that went out this week increased Census participation by 6 percent. Which would translate to a $510 million savings -- and there's no way it costs that much to send out the letter. On top of that, the "fair share" rhetoric that so upset BigGovernment is exactly right. The Census determines how many people live in states, counties and cities. The government, in turn, uses that information in awarding formula-based federal grants and aid. It's not "spreading the wealth around," it's figuring out how many people there are in your city so you get the right amount of federal cash to keep your bridges from falling down. (Which is, as it happens, part of the reason the Census has decided to stop counting incarcerated prisoners as residents of the towns where the prisons happen to be, and start allowing states to figure out how to count them on their own.)
But conservatives have also launched a more involved project to undermine the actual data the Census collects. Writing on National Review, Mark Krikorian blustered that the whole thing is too obsessed with race, anyway. "Fully one-quarter of the space on this year's form is taken up with questions of race and ethnicity, which are clearly illegitimate and none of the government's business," Krikorian wrote. (Note: That's not technically true. Two of the 10 questions on the short form deal with race or ethnicity, which isn't "fully one-quarter," it's "fully one-fifth.") So instead of answering the question the way it's phrased, Krikorian wants you to play a game, instead. "We should answer Question 9 by checking the last option -- 'Some other race' -- and writing in 'American,'" Krikorian wrote. "It's a truthful answer but at the same time is a way for ordinary citizens to express their rejection of unconstitutional racial classification schemes." There's a Facebook group set up to promote the cause, with a whopping 929 members as of Tuesday evening. (Including some boasting about how their ancestors came to this country on the Mayflower, or suggesting that if "you have to be something else" besides American, "you're not good for this country.")
Of course, the "unconstitutional racial classification" that the Census collects also helps researchers -- by looking at the long forms, which deal with things like employment, health and housing -- figure out whether people of different races are disproportionately poor, or sick, or lacking reliable shelter. Or whether they're happier with their jobs than people of other races. Or whether lots of Filipinos, for example, are moving to a certain city. Or any number of useful bits of information that -- because the Census is by far the most comprehensive survey of American demographics -- simply wouldn't be available if it didn't collect that data.
Which may well be the point. Chances are, anyone who's feeling sufficiently insulted by the Census form to write in "American" for their race would, otherwise, be checking off the first one: "white." (As will I.) The write-in movement would essentially make white the default setting on the Census, by erasing the evidence that any other ethnic or racial groups exist here in the United States. Their decision to self-identify only as "American" isn't really any different from someone else's decision to self-identify as -- in the antiquated words of the Census form -- "Black, African Am. or Negro." But checking off that box is suddenly supposed to be somehow un-American. That same impulse led a bunch of old white men to insist, last summer, that only Latinas could ever bring any preexisting biases to the table as judges.
All the conservative rhetoric about the Census has the effect of denigrating one of the only institutions in America that everyone shares in. (Not surprisingly, they're also not big fans of one of the others, paying your taxes.) It would be marvelous if, one day, what race you were made absolutely no difference in your life in this country. Until then, though, the Census needs the information it collects to help us figure out how to get there. Fill it out as honestly and completely as possible.
6:08 p.m.: One final thought about the trainwreck that was this interview. The whole thing may best be summed up by a quote that Tom Tomorrow tipped me to. Here's Beck, talking about Massa during his radio show on Monday:
Who is this guy? Stop! Stop. I want to change the show. This needs to be our lead tonight at 5:00 and get this guy on. I don't have, I don't have guests on. We just don't and we certainly don't lead with a guest. This guy is the guy we've been looking for!
Beck had very little idea who Massa was or what he wanted to talk about. He simply wasn't prepared for the interview -- he just knew that the former congressman had said some things that tended to support his worldview.
This is where we really see the limits of an approach like Beck's. His schtick -- former wacky morning DJ turns guy who's singlehandedly saving America by exposing what they don't want you to know -- works fine when it doesn't involve actual knowledge or reporting. Once he needs that, though, things can fall apart very quickly.
As Salon's Mike Madden put it on Twitter, "Beck's lesson: conspiracy theories much easier to spin without bothering to 'interview' people who would 'know something' about the 'facts.'"
6:00 p.m.: Beck, back at his chalkboard and without Massa, circles one of the questions he asked the audience to consider earlier -- Do you believe what he says about corruption? And if so, does it affect you?
"This is why I said I'm sorry I've wasted your time," Beck says. "We learned a lot -- I think -- but what we learned I don't think affects you at all. From New York, goodnight America."
And with that,he turns and starts walking off the set.
5:55 p.m. "I have wasted your time," Beck says to the audience, and apologizes, then goes on to castigate Massa.
This has been embarrassing for Beck, and he knows it. He came in unprepared and far too ready to believe that the former congressman would have some actual evidence for or substance to the charges he's made.
5:53 p.m.: Beck asks if there's another shoe that's going to drop. Massa basically says there is -- talks about people in Washington being willing to say anything. Then he talks about text messages: "We bantered back and forth all the time," he says.
Little piece of advice for Massa -- and, well, pretty much everyone: Do not ever admit something like that on national television.
5;47 p.m.: Back from commercial, Beck tries again to press him for specifics on "corruption." He might as well be screaming, "Tell me bad things about Democrats!" But Massa either doesn't get it or he's ignoring it, talking instead about how both parties whip votes in the House. As Massa is saying this, it looks like Beck's eyes are going to pop out of his skull.
And then Massa goes on to admonish people in general to stop calling fellow Americans names. Like "Communist." If everyone started following this rule, Beck's show would become a guy standing silently in front of a blank chalkboard for an hour. So yeah, this doesn't go over so well.
5:42 p.m.: Beck's now sounding pretty pissed. Massa simply doesn't seem to get what the host wants from him -- maybe he's not a regular viewer? So Beck goes to commercial break again, making it fairly clear that he tried to explain what he wanted out of Massa during the last break. He lays it out before going to commercial, telling the former congressman, "I haven't heard anything. I've heard generalities. Let's take a break -- let's take a break. Let's go back to: We've had the Rahm Emanuel, maybe let's go back there. What specifically did he do? There's actionable stuff there, so why wouldn't we start with that?"
5:40 p.m.: Beck's trying to get the dirt that Massa basically promised him when he went off on the radio this past weekend. Massa starts talking about campaign finance reform, which is exactly not what Beck wants to hear. The host holds his hand over his mouth, looks pained, maybe a little angry.
"Tell me something about the unions and how the unions are working," Beck says. He's basically begging for some dirt on one of his targets -- the White House would be great too, he says -- right now. And it's not working.
5:31 p.m.: Suddenly things are about Beck, as he goes off on a little rant: "Do you realize my family is at stake? You've got a little scandal with your children in college. I've got one for all time now, because I'm not going to resign, I'm not going to back down. I've come to a place where I believe the system will destroy me. That's OK, because I'm doing what I can to pass on a better system for tomorrow."
He does bring this around to Massa, though, saying he's puzzled by the former congressman putting up a "white flag" and resigning.
Then we're off to commercial, but before that, Beck tells Massa to "make a difference" in the half hour still to come. "Name names," the host says. "What do you know that we need to know?"
5:29 p.m.: Beck's now moving the interview to ground he's much happier on -- talk of broken systems and corrupt Democrats. (Though the two men do disagree on Massa's criticism of lobbyists' money, which the former congressman says is basically legalized bribery. Beck doesn't like that.)
Also, they talk about something Massa alleged this past weekend, a confrontation between him and a naked Rahm Emanuel in a shower. Massa's standing by it, says he'll never forget it.
5:18 p.m. Massa has brought an x-ray of a tumor in his lungs (he had cancer in the 1990's that was supposed to be fatal, and a new cancer scare in December). Even by Beck's standards, this is getting over the top, and the host himself seems to be backing away from it.
5:17 p.m.: An instant classic in this exchange --
BECK: You don't want to fight, you don't want to stand and fight.
MASSA: Nope.
BECK: So why are you here? Out of all the shows you could pick ...
MASSA: I want the toughest, most unforgiving interviewer possible.
BECK: That would be Bill O'Reilly.
5:12 p.m.: Already we've got two different pictures of what Massa's going to do here. On the one hand, as soon as he came on, it seemed like he wouldn't give Beck what he wants -- he said he wasn't forced out, but that he "forced myself out." He added, "I own this." And he said that though he took "full and complete responsibility" for what he's done, he won't talk about it.
And then he talked about it, specifically discussing the new allegations in a Washington Post report from Tuesday afternoon. He suggested the timing of the story was odd -- which conspiracy-minded Beck loved, of course. And then he went on to make things much worse for himself:
"Now they're saying I groped a male staffer. Yeah, I did," Massa said. "Not only did I grope him, I tickled him until he couldn’t breathe and then four guys jumped on top of me. It was my 50th birthday. It was kill the old guy. You can take anything out of context."
Massa also said he "never should have allowed myself to be as familiar with my staff as I was." in response to a direct question from Beck, however, he said he did not ever touch anybody sexually.
5:06 p.m.: And we're at the chalkboard! Beck has three things he wants us to think about: Is there anything new to his charges of corruption? Do you believe what he says about corruption -- and if so, does it affect you? (If it doesn't affect you, Beck says, turn the channel, go some place else.) Finally, do you believe what he says about himself?
I'm going to be asking pointed questions," Beck says, and then goes on to make some very odd point about men in the U.S. having the right to face their accusers, rather than be subject to whisper campaigns.
5:01 p.m.: And away we go. Beck tells us he has no idea what's going to happen -- "it's going to be a wild and interesting hour," he says. Says people on the left and on the right don't want this interview to happen, that it could blow up after five minutes and that he's got guests scheduled as backup just in case.
"He is not on my side," Beck said. "He is a gigantic progressive."
Beck and I agree on this: This will be interesting.
--
Stay with us right here at War Room -- starting at 5 p.m. EST, we'll be blogging Glenn Beck's interview with former Rep. Eric Massa, D-N.Y.
Beck announced Monday that Massa would be on for the full hour of his Fox News show, and he's been promoting the former congressman's claim that Democrats pushed him out of the House because he was a no vote on healthcare reform. Now, though, the two will have to deal with a new report indicating that harassment allegations against Massa are much more serious than he's been letting on.
Former Rep. Eric Massa, D-N.Y., has said that the allegations of sexual harassment that drove him to resign from office were limited to a single poorly chosen sentence at a recent wedding. But according to a new report from the Washington Post, there may be much more.
The Post reports that Massa "has been under investigation for allegations that he groped multiple male staffers working in his office." These allegations go back at least a year, the paper says -- that is, back to just about the time when Massa began serving in Congress -- and are about "a pattern of behavior and physical harassment," the Post quotes an unnamed source as saying. Ron Hikel, Massa's former deputy chief of staff, reportedly told the House ethics committee about the allegations three weeks ago.
Since this weekend, when he began saying that White House and Congressional Democrats had pushed him out of Congress because he was a no vote on healthcare reform, Massa has become a hero to some on the right. (Other conservatives, like the Weekly Standard's John McCormack, have been warning their ideological allies away from the former congressman.) It will be interesting to see how some of those who've embraced him deal with this report. We'll have a chance to observe that in action Tuesday afternoon, when Fox News' Glenn Beck is slated to spend a full hour interviewing Massa.
War Room will be live blogging the interview, which is scheduled for 5 p.m. EST, so don't touch that dial.
War Room is written and edited by Alex Koppelman, with contributions from Salon reporters around the country.
Obama, Liz Cheney Lack Faith in American Justice System
