WHEN RACHEL ATTACKED! You really have to watch the tape to appreciate the depth of last Thursday’s clowning: // link // print // previous // next //

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 2, 2011

Direct from Madison, Davey reports: We’re a nation of 300 million souls—and we live in an idiocracy.
What other conclusion can we draw from Monica Davey’s report?
Davey writes for the New York Times, our most famous and “smartest” newspaper. This morning, she reports direct from Wisconsin about that state’s budget fight.
At present, this is our nation’s biggest domestic issue. And yet, what happened when Davey reported? The analysts laughed, groaned, howled and cried when they read this deathless passage, in which Davey helps us understand the extent of Wisconsin’s travail:

DAVEY (3/2/11): No one here disputes that Wisconsin faces a serious fiscal problem, but there is wide disagreement over the severity of the crisis and whether increases in revenues, as well as cuts, might be needed. Among the nation’s deficit-troubled states, Wisconsin is neither the worst off nor the most fortunate.Mr. Walker has described the expected budget deficit for the coming two years at $3.6 billion, among the largest in state history, while others contend the woes have been exaggerated.

Let’s spend a moment on that.
According to Davey, everyone agrees that Wisconsin’s problem is “serious.” There is, however, wide disagreement about how “severe” it is.
To help put that puzzle into perspective, Davey reports that Wisconsin isn’t “the worst off” among the (many) deficit-troubled states—nor is it “the most fortunate.” Of course, that useless description would apply to all but two of these states.
There’s more. According to Walker, the two-year shortfall is $3.6 billion—but Davey then says that “others contend the woes have been exaggerated.” Does that mean that some people dispute that budget projection? It isn’t clear from what Davey writes—and then, we move to this:

DAVEY (continuing directly): “It’s like trying to fix a small leak in your roof by burning your house down,” said Brian Austin, a police union leader in Madison.

Davey said no one disputes the idea that the budget problem is serious. In the very next paragraph, she quoted a union leader—and it seems clear that he does.
Good God, what a worthless attempt at “reporting!” And yet, this passage typifies the work we’ve seen in the past several weeks. Have you seen anyone try to define the size of Wisconsin’s shortfall as compared to the shortfalls in other states? We have not. Have you seen anyone compare Wisconsin’s tax rates to those in other states? In the first paragraph we quoted, Davey makes a rare, glancing reference; she seems to say that some Wisconsinites are proposing higher taxes! But she doesn’t say who those people are—and she, like others, provides no way to evaluate such a proposal.
One more key point:
Early in her report, Davey says Wisconsin Democrats are appalled by Walker’s proposed budget cuts:

DAVEY: Democrats here—some of whom could be seen shaking their heads during portions of Mr. Walker’s address—described the level of cuts, to schools in particular, as devastating, even inhumane, to ordinary families. Some said they feared the cuts might result in the layoffs of teachers, and that public schools might find themselves crammed—perhaps to as many as 60 children in a single classroom in some cases.
“There is going to be an annihilation of education in this state,” said Representative Tamara Grigsby, a Democrat.

Walker’s cuts are devastating, inhumane; they will annihilate education. By the way: What would these Democrats do instead?
There’s no sign that Davey asked.
Big Eddie does the same thing: No, it isn’t Davey alone—although she writes for our most famous, “smartest” national paper. Similar efforts have been widespread on Our One True Liberal Channel. Last night, on the Ed Show, Ed Schultz spoke with all fourteen of Wisconsin’s Democratic state senators, direct from an undisclosed location in a state whose name he disclosed. For undisclosed reasons, Schultz held this segment until his program’s last five minutes. The segment started like this (all fourteen were there):

SCHULTZ (3/2/11): Joining us tonight from an undisclosed location in Illinois are Wisconsin State Senator Lena Taylor. Also, Senator Chris Larson and the longest serving legislator in the United States, Senator Fred Risser.
Fred, I’ll ask you first, how radical is this budget? What was your response to the governor’s numbers today of 900 million dollars being taken out of education?
RISSER: You know, Wisconsin has always been proud of its support for its public education. What the governor is attempting to do would devastate our educational system. He is proposing to take, as you pointed out, close to a billion dollars of funds away.
And how is he going to make it up? Well, he figures—the tools he talks about is busting the union and letting local school boards turn around and unilaterally write these contracts. It is just outrageous.
SCHULTZ: Senator Taylor, how do you feel about the governor blaming you that there will lay-offs if you don’t go back?
TAYLOR: I think it’s ridiculous. The governor knows it is. The governor knows that the amount of money he is taking out of our education system is going to devastate each of the districts. And the fact that we’re gone is not the reason why. And the repair bill does not provide them with, quote-unquote, tools that will make up for the amount of dollars that he’s taking out.
And one other thing, Ed. When you look at the fact that in Milwaukee, in particular, that our children who are African-American are leading the nation for the fourth grade and 8th grade for the lowest reading scores, we’re already devastated.
So, you know, how are we going to be prepared for the jobs that he says he wants to create or be able to compete globally? This is really a sad moment in Wisconsin history.

Taylor seems like a very competent person, as do many of these state senators. How would they address the shortfall?
In the course of a full segment, Schultz forgot to ask.
We’re a nation of 300 million souls. Can you explain the puzzling work you encounter each day, each night?
Not that there’s anything wrong with it: We’ve become intrigued by Big Ed’s political history. He became a Dem in the year 2000. Not long before that, there was this:

BISMARCK TRIBUNE (2/26/94): Sportscaster and radio talk show host Ed Schultz says he may seek the Republican endorsement for Congress. Schultz mentioned his interest in running against first-term Democratic Rep. Earl Pomeroy during Thursday morning's “Viewpoint'” talk show on WDAY radio. The only declared GOP candidate for the House is state Rep. Gary Porter of Minot, an unsuccessful candidate for governor in 1992. "I just think North Dakota needs a new, fresh conservative voice,'' Schultz said. “I think I could be that person. I don't know if I am yet.”

In 2004, Chuck Haga profiled the emerging now-liberal talker for the Minneapolis Star-Tribune. “Back in his sneeringly conservative days, he called the state's three Democrats in Congress—Sens. Byron Dorgan and Kent Conrad and Rep. Earl Pomeroy—‘the Three Stooges,’” Haga wrote. One year later, Howard Kurtz told the heart-warming tale in the Washington Post:

KURTZ (1/10/05): Big Ed (6-2, 250 pounds) was a college quarterback who briefly made the roster of the Oakland Raiders but became a sportscaster after failing to catch on in the NFL. He drifted into political talk after voting for Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush. "I was pretty much a warmonger and a pretty greedy guy,” he says. "I always wanted to make as much money as I possibly could and felt the downtrodden didn't deserve a break."
In the fairy-tale version recounted in his book, "Straight Talk From the Heartland," Schultz saw the light during a first date with the woman who would become his second wife, Wendy, who managed a Fargo homeless shelter. He spoke with military veterans there and realized they were not the bums and freeloaders he had lambasted on the air.
Schultz says his views evolved over time until he declared on the air in 2000 that he was a Democrat.

There’s nothing wrong with true evolution, of course. We applaud when the knuckles come up off the ground! That said, we were struck by that quote:
"I always wanted to make as much money as I possibly could.” Nagging question: How much has that outlook evolved?