Stock Up On Canned Goods

Don't look now, but Mickey has posted six (6!!!) largely unobjectionable posts in a row, including a defense of the pro-card check nominee for labor secretary (the daughter of a Mexican union organizer, no less!) and an always-enjoyable reminder to an amnesiac Iraq war supporter of where they were six years ago.

[The good bloggers know to bury their final conclusion under mounds and mounds of vacillations --ed. "Vacillations"? A desk fan is known to vacillate; Mickey flailed wildly from one conclusion to another. He had so many "on the other hand" caveats that by the day of the invasion he looked like Vishnu.]

Also, something he wrote actually came true!

Yesterday's CW: This Daschle business stinks. He has to withdraw!

Today's CW: He sure withdrew easily. Weird.

Tomorrow's CW: Obama sure gave up on him easily. Wimp!

It's like the media's version of the Madonna/Whore complex. If you give in too quickly, they lose respect.

Not quite three days later:

I can't figure out what's more upsetting, Mickey's hot streak or the fact that I'm here mocking a blogger that not even paid employees of Slate bother to read.

John Dickerson Explains (And Is) Everything That Is Wrong With The World

So there's this:

Republicans will have to get comfortable with the stimulus bill's contents and find plausible explanations to offer their constituents for their yes vote.

Followed by this:

We hear about war, and we think whatever bold actions this politician is asking us to take must be worth it because, well, it's war.

So, um, yeah.

Now, the most obvious explanation for the stimulus -- like, you know, the complete collapse of the American economy, or something, whatever -- sounds pretty plausible to me. The majority of the American public, too, views the stimulus plan as necessary and finds reports of our cratering economy "plausible" (to say the least). So, by "their constituents", I take it Dickerson means "John Dickerson" (or possibly "other Republicans", or both).

And when he writes, five years into a crazily unpopular war, that "we think whatever bold actions ... must be worth it because, well, it's war", who exactly is the "we" that he's referring to? It can't really be the American public, can it, John?

***********

Reading claptrap like this actually puts Mickey in a better light. More often than not, Mickey's voice is that of the guy just tellin' it like it is, even -- perhaps especially -- when noone wants to hear it. His message, usually but not exclusively pitched to Democrats, is "you know I'm right, even if you don't want me to be", which explains the high contrarian tone of his arguments (illegal immigration hurts workers, unions aren't progressive, progress leads to backlash backlash backlash, etc.) [even the angel on his shoulder is a Devil's advocate -- ed. I hear that!].

Dickerson, on the other hand, can't bear the thought of being a center-right Cassandra, and must constantly tie his whims to those of the electorate (e.g., it's not me demanding a response to bad-faith concern trolling, it's the American people). Dickerson, in essence, has conjured up an America where everyone thinks the same as him, and files every report from the heart of that illusion.

In their own way, each has invented their public: an America that loves war, hates the government and doesn't trust Democrats (Dickerson) and an America that just won't listen to Mickey Kaus (Mickey).

I think I'd prefer to live in the latter.

I Am Shocked, Shocked To Find Premature Criticism of Obama Here

An almost perfect encapsulation of John Dickerson's travails as he's thrown willy-nilly by the group-think of the Washington Press Corps:

12/9 -- Criminal Complaint is released, contains no evidence of any wrongdoing or even awareness of wrongdoing on the part of Obama ("Motherfucker A" in the complaint, I believe). Obama "looks great"!

12/9 -- Within 24 hours, this obvious lack of evidence has magically combined with an "unsatisfying" Obama response to produce the vague outlines of a scandal. Left unsaid is that any response short of "I resign" is unsatisfying to right-wingers desperately trying to push this story into the Clinton Zone of Permanent Suspicion.

12/10-12/15 -- Quick break: "Boy, it must be hard to be Bush."

12/17 -- Hey, lay off Obama, boys! He's had enough from you terrible vultures! Quit telling him his responses are "unsatisfying" and raise unsettling questions!

In the world of criminal law, a member of a criminal conspiracy can avoid being culpable for the acts of his conspirators if he openly withdraws from the conspiracy by disavowing the conspiracy prior to the criminal act. In practice, this means that you get a lot of criminals jumping ship and "disavowing" their cohorts at the point when it becomes obvious that the scheme is going to fail.

I'd like to say that explains why, after a week of Blago scandal coverage utterly failed to dent Obama's popularity, Dickerson has decided to turn and lecture his peers on the irresponsibility of scandal-mongering. But that would be unrealistic -- in real life, criminals don't turn on each other that quickly.