Salon.com > Bryan Keefer

The blowhard next door

Mon, 26 Aug 2002 21:50:00 +0000

If you don't already know who Sean Hannity is, you will. If you are already familiar with the ubiquitous conservative pundit, prepare to see a lot more of him. The 40-year-old co-host of Fox News' "Hannity and Colmes" (as the conservative foil to liberal Alan Colmes) is a young, telegenic face in a graying-man's game. His show is already the third-highest cable news show, trailing only Fox's "O'Reilly Factor" and CNN's "Larry King Live." His radio show, which went into syndication late last year and airs in the crucial 3-to-6 p.m. "drive time" slot, draws 10 million listeners. And he seems poised to follow the gilded paths of Fox colleague Bill O'Reilly and, quite possibly, Rush Limbaugh, who has been the standard-bearing conservative spokesman for nearly two decades.

Eventually, Hannity will "be bigger than Limbaugh," Michael Harrison, the publisher of the radio industry's Talkers magazine, predicted to People magazine earlier this year. It's not difficult to see why. While no less partisan, Hannity's scrappy, boy-next-door delivery would seem to have a broader appeal than that of the more dour Limbaugh.

Cooking up a conspiracy

Tue, 20 Aug 2002 21:48:00 +0000

When the Commerce Department's Bureau of Economic Analysis issued its revised estimates of corporate profits and economic growth for the past few years, prominent conservative commentators were quick to suggest that the Clinton administration had falsified the bureau's earlier reports for political purposes. A look at the facts, however, shows they're wrong.

BEA reported on July 31 that corporate profits for 1999 and 2000 were substantially lower than it had previously estimated. Since actual data from the Internal Revenue Service is typically not available for about a year and a half after it is filed, forecasters use other publicly available sources to make early estimates of corporate profits (the bureau's methodology is also publicly available). For 1999 and 2000, data from the IRS indicated that corporate profits were much lower than BEA's previous estimates, which had been based on overly optimistic projections. Given that both the data and the method used in calculating the estimates are entirely transparent, however, falsifying them for political purposes is virtually impossible.

The patriot patrol strikes again!

Tue, 06 Aug 2002 21:37:00 +0000

With the invasion of Iraq under discussion, several commentators have made troubling first attempts to define opposition to a war as subversive and dangerous. The strategy directly echoes attacks on dissent in the wake of Sept. 11, questioning the patriotism and good faith of those who raise legitimate -- and important -- issues.

Leading the charge are two highly influential pundits: Andrew Sullivan and Rush Limbaugh. Last week, Sullivan vaguely suggested that articles in the New York Times and Los Angeles Times on the growing debate over invading Iraq and congressional hearings on the subject are part of a "campaign to protect Saddam's weaponry." He also suggested that such arguments opposing the war constitute "appeasement" of Saddam. This emotionally charged analogy to pre-World War II European policy toward Nazi Germany is too pat: Deciding not to invade Iraq is not obviously comparable to actively granting territory or other concessions in exchange for peace.

Throwing the book at her

Sat, 13 Jul 2002 22:52:00 +0000

The rise of Ann Coulter's new book, "Slander: Liberal Lies About the American Right," to the top of the New York Times bestseller list may be a shock to some, but the controversial pundit's scathing rhetoric and outspoken conservatism have helped position her as exactly the sort of figure who sells books. More polemic than argument, "Slander" is riddled with factual errors, egregious misrepresentations and a constant stream of broad, inflammatory claims about liberals, as numerous critics have been quick to point out. Yet despite the limits of her one-sided argument, she actually offers a troubling lament for the state of our political discourse -- even as she contributes to its decline.

Coulter began her career as a pundit during the investigation and impeachment of former President Bill Clinton. An attorney, Coulter aided Paula Jones with her legal case and later wrote a book on Clinton titled "High Crimes and Misdemeanors." Since then, she has written a syndicated column and made frequent television appearances.

Do as I say

Tue, 14 May 2002 23:31:00 +0000

The GOP staged a number of events last week designed to pressure Senate Democrats to confirm President Bush's judicial nominations. In the process, it highlighted how the battle over judicial nominees has shifted from considering the records of the nominees to controlling perceptions of the confirmation process. Conservatives hope that by framing the debate in terms of "fairness" and asserting that "Tom Daschle and the Democrats are not letting the Senate work," as Senate Minority Whip Don Nickles did Sunday on Fox News, they can force Democrats to ease their opposition to some of Bush's nominees.

But coming from Republicans -- who used similar tactics against President Clinton during his two terms -- the charge lacks the righteousness needed to be anything more than a transparent P.R. tactic.

Sticks and stones

Tue, 07 May 2002 21:16:00 +0000

Though the Enron controversy has largely faded from the front pages, some liberal activists are doing their best to exploit the scandal in a novel way. Hoping to leverage the negative associations carried by the company's name -- corporate greed, questionable political favors, disappearing retirement savings for workers -- activists have coined the term "Enron conservatives" in an effort to discredit conservative policies. Though this phrase is just the latest in a long line of Enron-related rhetoric, it is especially notable because it is being so aggressively marketed as a potential campaign 2002 slogan by a single individual: Robert Borosage of the Campaign for America's Future (CAF).

All in a name

Fri, 26 Apr 2002 22:07:00 +0000

The fight over the term "Daschle Democrats," coined by conservatives to attack Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, has taken a new turn in the past few weeks. While commentators like Donald Lambro of the Washington Times continue to use the term derisively, a group including a number of prominent Democrats has launched a campaign to transform its connotation from negative to positive.

The phrase entered the media's bloodstream last May, when Sen. Jim Jeffords of Vermont left the GOP, became an independent and gave Democrats control of the Senate, elevating Daschle to majority leader. William Safire announced in his New York Times column on May 24 that Jeffords is "just another Daschle Democrat, comfortable with his ideological kin." That same day, Larry Kudlow used the term in the National Review Online, suggesting that "while it may be true that the Daschle Democrats will take over the operations of the Senate, there is no pronounced move to the left."

“I would challenge them to a duel”

Fri, 19 Apr 2002 23:14:00 +0000

The proposal to allow oil exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), which the Senate voted down on Thursday, brought out overheated rhetoric from public officials and pundits on both sides. Each did their best to frame the issue advantageously: Opponents charged it was big oil vs. the environment, and supporters suggested it was volatile OPEC goons vs. national security and freedom.

Both sides have treated the facts in this debate cavalierly. As journalists Seth Borenstein and James Kuhnhenn point out, environmentalists have often overstated their claims about the potential damage to caribou herds, while some supporters of drilling have exaggerated the amount of oil in the refuge. When the proposal finally came under consideration in the Senate this week (the House approved the proposal last August), the spin reached a new level as each side tried to tie its viewpoint to everything from the war on terrorism to the Bush administration's energy task force.

Quieting the homefront

Fri, 01 Mar 2002 23:38:00 +0000

As Democrats launch their first criticisms of the Bush administration's war policies, several Republicans and conservative pundits have launched an all-out attack designed to frame virtually any criticism of the war on terrorism as illegitimate.

In a press conference Thursday, Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., defended fellow Democrat Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.V., who criticized the Bush defense budget and conduct of the war on terrorism. Asked whether he thought the success of the war had been overstated, Daschle replied:

"I don't think the success has been overstated. But the continued success I think is still somewhat in doubt. Whether we continue to succeed depends on whether we get the right answers to the questions Senator Byrd was posing yesterday. ... I will say that at this point, given the information we've been provided, I don't think it would do anybody any good to second-guess what has been done to date. I think it has been successful. I've said that on many, many occasions. But I think the jury's still out about future success, as I've said."

Coming up Enron

Wed, 20 Feb 2002 23:13:00 +0000

As the Enron scandal progresses, opportunistic politicians are trying their best to turn the company's name into political shorthand to discredit just about anything. From Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, who compared Bush's budget proposal to Enron, to Democratic Senator Carl Levin, who likened the administration's nuclear weapons policy to Enron's accounting practices, the company's name has become an all-purpose attack. Enron's transformation into a political weapon illustrates how sound-bite strategies discrediting opponents by association are increasingly replacing substantive debate over issues of national importance.

In the wake of Enron's collapse, pundits immediately went into full scandal mode, alleging corruption in vague and unsubstantiated ways. Politicians, however, remained relatively quiet until mid-January, when the next and more destructive phase of the Enron association game began. Taking their talking points from their counterparts in the media -- a wait-and-see strategy that has become increasingly popular -- Democratic politicians came out hurling the Enron name at the Bush administration and its policies.