It's depressing enough to see political journalists get paid to print unwitting BS--but it's downright disheartening to see political journalists print intentional BS.
"Pundit" Chris Cillizza of the Washington Post has gone into the business of naming the most influential Republicans in the country, regularly. The "blatant BS" part is that Cillizza identifies our departing GOP governor, Tim Pawlenty, as "fourth" in terms of influence in the GOP.
Of course that's nonsense. In the four quarters of the globe, who reads a Pawlenty book? or goes to a Pawlenty rally? or looks at a Pawlenty picture? What does the world yet owe to Pawlenty policy? What new solutions has Pawlenty discovered? what old problems has Pawlenty analyzed and solved?
You look at Pawlenty's record in Minnesota, and all you see is failure. If you're a working conservative, all you see is a sell-out (he was dyin' to be McCain's running mate before Palin got the nod.)
(CONTINUED)
Who looks to Pawlenty for national leadership? Not America, not Minnesota (where polls show no endorsement of his presidential hopes.) The GOP doesn't. In yet another poll of Republican voters last week, Pawlenty comes in seventh--after years of pursuing a spot on a White House ticket.
But it looks like the traditional media want this guy to be the GOP nominee. So they're keeping his name in front of the public, nationally, despite the fact that he has no real support inside the party or out of it.
Professional journalists and news organs around the country persist in telling their audiences that Pawlenty is "influential," "a major figure in GOP thinking." It's as if corporate news media and reporters are trying to keep him relevant, simply by telling their audiences over and over again that he is. It's like Pawlenty's a product they're being paid to market.
We'll look at this week's evidence in a minute. But first of all, you need to know something about Pawlenty that doesn't make it into traditional media reporting. Mainly: that he's hooked up out that wazoo with the national conservative evangelical movement, and has been for at least a decade. There's a link below. This information doesn't appear in national news profiles of Pawlenty, it's not understood or discussed in Pawlenty's home state of MN but it's a reason that he could be an asset on a GOP White House ticket: he comes with the endorsement of the James Dobson crowd, and thus millions of evangelical votes.
So: the trad media keeps that "heavy connection/Pawlenty master/servant relationship" out of the "profiles" of Pawlenty they write for our consumption. Now to the other part of the trad media marketing strategy--selling the Republican voters on the idea that Pawlenty is their leader (even if they don't want him, and he's not...)
Ya know--it's a very, very expensive proposition to elect a president. The GOP spent 400 million dollars to re-elect Bush in 2004. (And he was an incumbent, for Chrissakes.)
And for whatever reason, Cillizza and other traditional media reporters continue to gift Pawlenty with publicity that would cost millions if he had to pay for it: news space in stories in nationally influential publications that confer a "pretend" national credibility--on a candidate who's lost credibility with his own constituency.
I'm singling out Cillizza, but it's not just him. It's the New York Times; it's the news weeklies and the cable networks.
Despite his lip-service to conservatism, Pawlenty's a non-starter with audiences of conservative activists. Pawlenty's a poor speaker, an uninspiring presence with no conservative triumphs to trumpet. Crowds of conservatives drown Palin, Paul and Bachmann with applause--at the very same events, Pawlenty puts them all to sleep.
He has a crap record on his state's economy--after two terms of office he's leaving the state six billion in the hole, overseeing wild increases in local property taxes and licenses and fees.
No perceptible or articulated positions on foreign policy, he shuns that like it's V.D.--but he gets the puffing, regularly, from national corporate media. Why? Who decides that, and why did they pick this empty suit?
How does anyone arrive at the conclusion that Tim Pawlenty--with no national base, a shrinking base in his home state, no memorable ideas or policy intiatives, no national organization or presence in Washington, no national name recognition--is the fourth most influential politician in the Republican Party?
"Influence" means "power," "leadership," the ability to impose one's will on others, a significant body of followers. Here's how Cillizza defines "influential," in his attempt to identify the ten most influential Republican leaders:
(Cillizza says his list is) an attempt to rank the 10 Republicans currently exerting the most influence on the party's direction whether from the inside (like Republican Governors Association Chairman Haley Barbour) or from the outside (Kentucky Senate nominee and tea party favorite Rand Paul).
Tim Pawlenty? Exerting the most influence on the party's direction? Where? How? Where has Pawlenty demonstrated that, in the national Republican Party? Nowhere; absolutely nowhere. But the professional press seems determined to report that Pawlenty is a player--even though it's demonstrably not so.
Pawlenty isn't exerting influence of any kind; instead he's desperately trying to play catch-up to the rhetoric, influence, and "ideas" of tea party queens like Palin and Bachmann. On closer examination, you see that even Cillizza recognizes that this is so. Look at his explanation for why he ranks Pawlenty as the fourth most influential GOP pol. There's no mention of influence on the national party or voters at all:
- Tim Pawlenty: Allies of the Minnesota governor were ecstatic at how the budget showdown with the state legislature turned out earlier this week -- no new taxes, most notably. And, Pawlenty continues to travel the country to raise money for the Republican Governors Association (he's in Wisconsin today) and for his Freedom First PAC. Pawlenty will need to have a "wow" moment in front of activists and the national media at some point in the next year or so but, in the meantime, he's doing all the basic blocking and tackling right. (Previous ranking: 5)
What the hell does that last football metaphor even mean? How can you be said to "exert influence" on the party or its agenda or voters--if all you're doing is floating around the country for the better part of the year trying (and regularly failing) to build your own name recognition?
Cillizza leaves out Pawlenty's dismal showings in Republican and Minnesota polling. He fails to cite any way in which Pawlenty has influenced GOP strategy or ideas, any way in which Pawlenty has demonstrated "juice" within the party itself. Yet Cillizza and so many other professional journalists insist that Pawlenty, the next to last choice on so many Republicans' list--is a person of consequence.
There are reasons not to write Pawlenty off. He's got an "in" with the national evangelical machine that most people don't know about. He's a two-term GOP governor, which automatically gives him some credibility as a national candidate.
But to call him "influential" within a national party that regularly ignores him or rejects him--is a lie, Chris, it's a flat out lie. It's puffing, and it's baseless puffing of a guy with no stand-out achievements or influence or even name recognition.
It bugs me that professional political journalists can do this--report "nothing" and tell people it is "something," in the expectation that this "nothing" will someday become "something"--simply because the traditional corporate media report that Pawlenty has an influence and national base that he doesn't have.
You want to report that political horse race watchers should keep an eye on Pawlenty--fine; I agree, we've seen bigger mediocrities attain national and party influence (eg, Palin.) But if you want to use your pundit status and lie to readers about "influence" that simply isn't there... well, then, you're an asshole, you've crossed the line from "journalist" into "candidate publicist/volunteer tool."
And people should know that. "Influential?" By himself and without puffing, the guy amounts to a case of media leprosy. Most people here won't even read this because Pawlenty's name is involved.
Links:
Pawlenty's unknown heavy connections into the evangelical conservative political machine...
http://minnesotaindependent.com/...
Cillizza's hilarious description of Pawlenty as "influential" in the national GOP...
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/...