The cynicism of the Washington, D.C., press toward national politics has become so profound that when a politician gives a detailed speech about a serious issue with immediate ramifications, the journalists splashing around in the kiddy pool of Beltway conventional wisdom don’t know how to react. Such was the case on Friday when Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell delivered a thorough indictment of the Democratic Party’s attempts to bully, punish, and silence its political opponents.
The speech, delivered at the American Enterprise Institute, was more than 4,000 words long, yet Politico’s write-up of it found the one word it wanted–Koch–and repeated it over and over as if that was the point of the speech. Yet Politico isn’t the only outlet that assumes any time a Republican defends free speech he is covering for moneyed interests. Fred Hiatt’s latest column in the Washington Post is a disturbing example of what free speech advocates are up against when it comes to a national media obsessed with smearing conservatives instead of doing its job.
McConnell said he favors donor disclosure for those who give to candidates and parties–a position he has held consistently. He also said everyone should have to play by the same rules with regard to disclosure, rather than allow those in power to exempt their donors while singling out those of their opponents. But Hiatt, attempting to peer into the dark Republican soul of his imagined adversaries, has divined what McConnell and the Republicans really want:
They want unlimited contributions, in secret.
“Republicans are in favor of disclosure,” Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said in 2000 on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” making clear he was including issue advocacy — campaign ads with a thin veil of policy — as well as candidate spending. “Why would a little disclosure be better than a lot of disclosure?”
That first sentence is undone by McConnell’s own speech. But what about that second part–is that the Beltway’s favorite piece of evidence, the smoking gun of hypocrisy?
No, of course not. Hiatt wants Republicans to drop their opposition to the DISCLOSE Act, which would protect liberal interest groups while removing protections from conservative groups. Here’s McConnell in his own words:
This is the Democrats’ legislative response to Citizens United, in which the Supreme Court correctly ruled that Congress may not ban political speech based on the identity of the speaker. The DISCLOSE Act aims to get around this ruling by compelling certain targeted groups to disclose the names of their donors, while excluding others, such as unions, from doing the same….
Because if disclosure is forced upon some but not all, it’s not an act of good government, it’s a political weapon. And that’s precisely what those who are pushing this legislation have in mind. This is nothing less than an effort by the government itself to expose its critics to harassment and intimidation, either by government authorities or through third-party allies. And that should concern every one of us.
Hiatt says nothing has changed except an influx of money to the GOP, suggesting that McConnell has been bought off by, I don’t know, the infamous Free Speech Lobby? But then Hiatt moves on to defending the indefensible. Part of McConnell’s speech was calling attention to the strategy of liberal groups, sometimes aided by government agencies such as the IRS, of intimidating donors to conservative grassroots causes.
Hiatt, in the most shameful sentence of a shameful column, writes off these intimidation tactics as conservatives merely “being called mean names by liberals.” But McConnell reminded his audience that conservatives have received death threats (I know private citizens personally who have been subjected to this), had their private information made public, had their children harassed by liberal bloggers, and have been the victims of a new liberal tactic called SWATting, in which a liberal blogger or activist will make a fake 9-1-1 call reporting a murder at the house of his target, to which law enforcement (often SWAT teams) will show up with guns out ready for a firefight.
Hiatt presumably does not need the danger of this explained to him, nor would he need a primer on why death threats are not merely “mean things” people say. He just doesn’t care. But he should at least stop dismissing acts of violence and mocking the victims.
Note that even though some of the legal intimidation has been going on in Montgomery County, last I checked the Washington Post hadn't run a single article on the topic; not even its Metro section. n nThere's another "campaign finance" hypocrisy that the Post is engaged in. Last week, the Post had an editorial questioning Romney for not publicizing his "bundlers." As the editorial acknowledged, Romney was under no obligation to reveal his bundlers, but thought it raised questions that he was unwilling to share such information. n nOf course, if there's something to be learned from a candidate's bundlers, why didn't the Post use that information with regards to President Obama? For example even though George Kaiser was one of his major bundlers, the Post raised no red flags when the government extended a loan to Solyndra, a company that Kaiser was invested in. To be sure, Kaiser lost his money too and denies asking for government intervention. But didn't the possible benefit to contributor warrant a bit of scrutiny on the part of of the Washington Post? n nOr consider Steven Rattner. Rattner also was a bundler who was appointed "car czar" by President Obama. He went about restructuring GM and Chrysler as per the President's wishes. Even Rattner now says that he should have asked for more concessions from the unions. Was it due to his closeness to the President that Rattner failed to do the best job for the American people? Here too, I haven't found that the Post raised any red flags about undue political influence playing a role in the appointment. (I'm not an expert on such things, but, at least superficially, Rattner looks like he may have been well-qualified for such an appointment.) n nIf the Washington Post and its editors are going to make a big deal about campaign finance reform they ought to show concern across the board and not just criticize on side. Unless, results are more important than processes. But then it ought to stop pretending that it's an "independent newspaper."
The antique media newspersons (journalists seems a tad strong) have become delusional. They dance naked around the bonfire of their ideological prejudices, like a coven of satanists, and curse their enemies. It's perfectly justified because they're supremely righteous. Riiiiiiiiiiight.