I've probably got nothing Yglesias hasn't already referenced, but I still can't stop myself from piling on about Mark Halperin's moronic oped in today's N.Y. Times. One reason that it's so infuriating is that its basic conclusion - that more emphasis should be paid to qualifications and issues than to a campaigner's ability to win in our electoral process - is obviously correct, so obvious that only an idiot would write an article about it.
But what puts it over the top is the route he takes to get to this conclusion is littered with garbage as the train tracks leaving Penn Station on the way to Boston.
- Sitting Presidents with high poll numbers running for reelection are not underdogs.
- Has Halperin forgotten that Al Gore won the popular vote?
- As a devoted Democrat, I can only pray that a Republican candidate will ask George Bush to "skillfully serve as the chief strategist for a presidential campaign." Halperin's assertion that he would be skillful is laughable.
- Halperin wrote that candidate George Bush "came across as a man of principle who did not lust for the White House." Paul Krugman responds to the man of 'principle' part. Memories of the faces of the Republican operatives whose demonstration was near to violence in Florida serve as a demonstration of 'lust'.
- The reason that Bush "came across" as he did was the gross incompetence and laziness of stenographers who act as "reporters" like Mark Halperin.
At least the stupidity of today's piece makes me think that Halperin's performance as a "journalist" was an honest one.
h/t Atrios
Comments