THE HILL
 

Pitiful punditry

By Markos Moulitsas - 10/27/09 05:51 PM ET

Want to be rich and famous, but you’re not very talented? Sure, you could become a rock star — but political pundits are 50 percent less likely to die choking on their own vomit, and they’re seemingly just as immune to accountability. Observe:

Bill Kristol, April 28, 2003, writing at his Weekly Standard:

“The United States committed itself to defeating terror around the world. We committed ourselves to reshaping the Middle East, so the region would no longer be a hotbed of terrorism, extremism, anti-Americanism, and weapons of mass destruction. The first two battles of this new era are now over. The battles of Afghanistan and Iraq have been won decisively and honorably.”

Kristol, Dec. 17, 2006, on “Fox News Sunday”:

“If [Hillary Clinton] gets a race against John Edwards and Barack Obama, she’s going to be the nominee. Gore is the only threat to her ... Barack Obama is not going to beat Hillary Clinton in a single Democratic primary. I’ll predict that right now.”

Rather than be chased out of town for his laughably bad electoral predictions and tragically faulty foreign policy analysis, Kristol was rewarded — first with a New York Times column, and now with a Washington Post slot.

The 2006 Democratic Senate primary in Connecticut between Sen. Joe Lieberman and Ned Lamont provided spectacular examples of wrongheaded punditry:

Jacob Weisberg, Aug. 9, 2006, on Slate:

“The [Lamont victory] suggests that instead of capitalizing on the massive failures of the Bush administration, Democrats are poised to re-enact a version of the Vietnam-era drama that helped them lose five out six presidential elections between 1968 and the end of the Cold War.”

And this guy runs Slate.

Cokie Roberts, Aug. 6, 2006, on ABC’s “This Week”:

“[Lamont defeating Lieberman is] a disaster for the Democratic Party […] pushing the party to the left […] the position from which it traditionally loses.”

Lamont’s primary victory did push the Democratic Party to the left. Democrats subsequently won the first of two consecutive landslide elections. But hey, ABC needs to keep Cokie around for astute observations like these:

Cokie Roberts, Aug. 10, 2008, on “This Week”:

“[Obama] going off this week to a vacation in Hawaii does not make any sense whatsoever. I know his grandmother lives in Hawaii and I know Hawaii is a state, but it has the look of him going off to some sort of foreign, exotic place.”

Of course, Americans didn’t think that Hawaii was all that exotic. And they thought Obama visiting his ailing grandmother actually made plenty of sense. But for the great unaccountable pundit, it’s all in a day’s work.

Dick Morris, 2008 electoral prediction at Human Events:

“We still see normally Republican states such as Louisiana, Arizona, Tennessee, West Virginia, and North Carolina as tossups; and some Republican states such as Virginia, Missouri, Arkansas, and Colorado as leaning to Obama.”

McCain won Louisiana by 19 points, Arizona by eight, Tennessee by 15, West Virginia by 13 and the supposed “lean-Obama” state of Arkansas by 20 points. Yet Morris remains a staple on Fox News and in this very newspaper.

Indeed, it’s this very inability by the modern American pundit to get things right that has fueled the rise of alternative online media. How can people take the hotshot pundits seriously when they write stuff like this?

David Broder, Feb. 16, 2007, in his syndicated column:

“It may seem perverse to suggest that […] President Bush is poised for a political comeback. But don’t be astonished if that is the case.”

Perverse, yes, and wrong, wrong, wrong.

Moulitsas is founder and publisher of Daily Kos
(www.dailykos.com).

Source:
http://thehill.com/opinion/columnists/markos-moulitas/65067-pitiful-punditry

Comments (20)

Pot. Kettle. Black.BY wytshus on 10/28/2009 at 13:33
I am waiting to see Mr M's predictions which were right, right, right.I won't be holding my breath, however.BY Steven Sam Koukios on 10/28/2009 at 14:31
I would like to see some examples from wytshus (commentor above) on where Moulistas was embarassingly wrong in his predictions… I'll give hime the trouble of doing the research: his predictions have been very good in the past and usually are pretty close to the real outcomes. Sorry wytshus - you fail.BY Kalex on 10/28/2009 at 15:17
I'm waiting for the other commenters to show us where Kos' predictions were wrong, wrong, wrong, and perhaps show us that Kos' batting average is just as bad as the pundits he's called out. I won't be holding my breath, though.BY Doppler on 10/28/2009 at 15:24
The point isn't even that pundits aren't allowed to be wrong sometimes. It's just that even when they're horribly, embarrassingly, and often intentionally wrong [see concern-trolling], a lot, no one calls them on it. And they certainly never admit their own mistakes. And yet they continue to be treated as if they're relevant, at least within the circle jerk of Washington punditry. It's just not polite to do otherwise. This goes for pundits on the Left and on the Right.BY Erik on 10/28/2009 at 15:36
@Steven Sam Koukios, Kos has been wrong any number of times — and I bet he would admit it himself — but he rarely pretends to be a pythian oracle like Broder, Morris or, gods help us, Cokie Roberts. I think the fact that he knows every post he makes will be scrutinized by several thousand Kossacks keeps him more honest.BY agio on 10/28/2009 at 15:39
In response to WYTSHUS. Moulitsas isn't a pundit, and why would you defend washington pundits anyway? they don't add anything constructive to the public discourse.BY buddie on 10/28/2009 at 15:43
@Sam Koukios12/5/2006http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/12/5/12817/5575BY Rick on 10/28/2009 at 15:56
The flip side of Kos's argument is that those who were right on the great issues have not, for the most part, been promoted to equal stature in the traditional media as those who were disastrously wrong. (Rachel Maddow is a possible exception, though she worked her way up through Air America and Olbermann's sponsorship.)If anything, Iraq war critics, such as Ashley Banfield, have been marginalized or dismissed. No matter how right you were on the war, the traditional media will see you as a dirty __ing hippie.BY Upper West on 10/28/2009 at 15:57
TO DOPPLER: Thanks for the imitative flattery. Highly original too!TO KALEX: Sorry, but I'm sort of like that guy from Missouri-SHOW ME (or maybe you "fail")TO AGIO: Thanks. Your point is well-taken. (But see KALEX, dissenting)TO ERIK: I agree with much of what you wrote here—but one point concerns me—didn't Markos just "call them on it". Or—see the entire blogging CAREER of Greenwald @ Salon.BY STEVEN SAM KOUKIOS on 10/28/2009 at 16:00

Add Comment

Name (required)

E-Mail (will not be published) (required)

Your Comments

You need Flash Player 8 (or higher) and JavaScript enabled to view this content

Get latest news from The Hill direct to your inbox, RSS reader and mobile devices.