I seem to recall a firestorm of controversy about the Edwards campaign hiring so-called foul-mouthed Catholic-hating bloggers. Presumably John Edwards was not personally involved in hiring decisions for low-level staffers like that, but that didn't stop the media having a field day.

When is everybody going to recognize that Kurtz is a simply a putz and just leave it at that? He displays no credibility as a critic of any sort. Howard Kurtz is, as the cinematic Kurtz (played by Marlon Brando) in the film APOCALYPSE NOW remarked about his oncoming assassin, "an errand boy sent by grocery clerks." He is a mouthpiece for his ignoble employers.

To paraphrase a famous old line of wisdom:

"You can't make a man imagine something if his job depends upon him not imagining it."

Howie Kurtz will continue to be a "media critic" but only within the narrow confines that the conventions of his profession allows. Don't expect any moments of true insight from him.

I think we can reach Kurtz. He's not completely unreasonable. My bet is we can persuade him in this case...

signed,
Pangloss

You have more faith in Kurtz than I.

In the interests of full disclosure:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Kurtz

"He [Kurtz] is married to Republican consultant and commentator Sheri Annis."

I think we can reach Kurtz. He's not completely unreasonable. My bet is we can persuade him in this case...

I don't know. His wife's livelihood is predicated on creating these distinctions that don't exist.

The thing that Kurtz's absurd rationalization also fails to get at is that in the case of the Iowa farmer real people felt that they had been treated terribly shabbily because they weren't rich enough. Whatever you might say about Edwards' haircut, who was hurt by it? No one, of course. Yet the wretched treatment of the sort of plain folk whose values Republicans always like to pretend they represent is of no real consequence? How does THAT behavior not exhibit the worst sort of hypocrisy in Republicans?

Most people hearing about the Iowa farmer story immediately get the disappointment and insult felt by this family, and feel angry about it. What does it say about Kurtz that it means nothing to him?

Isn't a standup tough guy like Giuliani supposed to take responsibility for his actions, and not blame his staff?

Most people hearing about the Iowa farmer story immediately get the disappointment and insult felt by this family, and feel angry about it. What does it say about Kurtz that it means nothing to him?

That he's so insulated in the Beltway that real people are things he only reads about.

If Howard Kurtz were capable of even imagining the media firestorm that would erupt had Clinton, Edwards or Obama behaved this way, he wouldn't have ever said he didn't think the noncoverage of Guiliani wasn't a problem. (Apologies for all the negatives...)

I mean, is there any doubt whatsoever that if Edwards had done this there would have been an enormous media frenzy? any doubt at all?

This media default setting also holds that the wealth of Republicans doesn't make them hypocrites because of their lack of interest in poverty.

Obviously that's because if the media took wealthy Republicans to task for not caring about poverty it would be Class Warfare. And that, of course is not permitted.

"Isn't a standup tough guy like Giuliani supposed to take responsibility for his actions, and not blame his staff?"

What, you mean like Gonzo and Wolfowitz?

It is to laugh.

monkey dave- damn that is an excellent point. I remember a fair amount of "will Edwards recover?" and "What should Edwards do?" kinds of pieces on that. Zip for Rudy, though, apparently.

I mean, is there any doubt whatsoever that if Edwards had done this there would have been an enormous media frenzy? any doubt at all?

Anyone who thinks otherwise has had their head so buried in the sand only feet are sticking out. There's not doubt that it would be a 24/7 story on the cable channels, with headlines in the Times and the Post about Democratic misteps, etc. To think otherwise is to belong to that group of individuals who still think the mainstream media is the heir to the reporting done during Watergate.

In a twisted way, the logic here proves that nobody in their right mind should vote Republican. I know, reason 1 million. But, if any of the Democrats did this it is a problem becasue their policies and values are supposed to be about helping regular people. If you or your campaign treat normal people like crap, then it is evidence that the candidate doesn't really care about regular people and won't actually help them if they win. Republican policies, by contrast, are all about screwing regular people, so if they and their campaigns treat regular people like crap, that just shows they are consistent and can be trusted, if elected, to continue screwing regular people. Now, for somebody like Kurtz, who is -- like most of the inside the Beltway Media elite totally unconcerned with regular people, this is just fine. Of course, my logic doesn't totally work out, because Republicans do pretend to care about regular people, which should mean that Rudy should have been tagged with the hypocrite line. However, for Kurtz and those of his ilk hypocrisy in pursuit of screwing people he'll never meet at a cocktail party is not a problem

Along the same lines, TV people are always saying things like "Since President Bush is a former oilman, don't expect him to take actions that the oil industry won't like" AS THOUGH THAT'S ACCEPTABLE BEHAVIOR on the part of a politician. There's never the slightest hint that since a politician is supposed to represent the public, not his former industry, this is selfish, corrupt behavior. It's simply to be expected that they'll help out certain types of corporations.

But try to help out the disadvantaged and they'll heap contempt on you in flash....

Has no reporter called all the campaigns, yet, and asked how much the candidate pays for hair and makeup prior to TV appearances?

Or was the Edwards haircut not for an appearance?

I'm sure there's some range of what they pay, and I'd love to know what that is. Not to keep the story alive, but this sorta interests me.

What does Romney pay? How about Giuliani? Why isn't that news? Or did I miss this comparative article?

You know...maybe the problem here is thinking about it in terms of media bias, or I should say, in terms of the media giving Republicans a free ride. Maybe it's more like the parent who comes down on the smarter kid more often, because they expect better from him.

The point is that the press should stop covering all these type of stupid stories.

The point is not that Rudy was looking for a farmer who was going to lose his/her farm to the Estate Tax; but, that the press continues to present that as a serious story. The fact is that Rudy and the other clowns can't find such a family for the simple reason that such "loss of family farm stories" are just made up.

That is the story, and yes, you will never hear about it.

If it was a democrat, Howard would say the buck stops with the candidate. Since it's a rethuglican, he just bends over.
Who in hell ever made this idiot a judge of media matters in the first place?

I sort of second what William Stone writes above, but I see that as a reason why the press *should* cover this story, not why they *shouldn't*. This story should be a big one for two reasons: It involves an embarrassment to one of the leading political campaigns (the press love those, but so do their readers) AND it reveals, in a very easy-to-understand way, a big lie that Republicans have been repeating for years. They want everyone to think that there are hordes of family farms being sold each year to pay off "death taxes" when actually those events are pretty rare. This staffer figured that a successful 80-acre farm must fit the profile, but instead he found what is probably the norm -- a couple of family farmers who don't make a ton of money and whose family farm will be able to be passed on to their heirs without problems.

What bothers me about this is that the media resorted to the whole populist thing - Brian Williams I think said he never spent more than $17 on a haircut, for example - and how really they are just one of us and thus cannot fathom how that Breck girl fag Edwards could spend so much.

But once it comes out that Rudy took a huge steaming dump on top of a supporter because she's not rich enough, those populist strains in the media that were so outraged by Edwards just sort of... vanish.

I really hope Edwards' staff finds out how much these clowns spend on their suits and haircuts. Romney in particular.

Good points, Greg! and great reporting.

thanks, anne! appreciate it

To accept Kurtz's argument that Edwards "presumably knew about" the cost of his haircut, you'd have to believe that Edwards makes his own haircut appointments and pays for them out of his own pocket. Sounds far-fetched to me.

Excuse me, but why does anyone pay any attention to the shilling of Howie Kurtz, who is married to a GOP political operative? One who likely is now or will be soon working for Guiliani?

The response to Howard's comment should have been: "So, it's not important that a propective Chief Executive doesn't know what his staff is doing? (I seem to remember that being a problem for the current Administration). And, since Giuliani already has a checkered past as far as selecting aides, both in his mayoralty and his campaign (remember the "stolen" briefing book?), isn't his ability in this area a matter of potential voter interest?

all great points, all, thx. seriously -- why are we assuming Edwards knew the cost of the haircut? His staff almost certainly made the appointment.

Howard Kurtz has a 4-page WaPo Web article on the Republican debate and makes no mention whatsoever about the "values" of torture.

Look, look, over there! John Edwards is getting a haircut!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2007/05/16/BL2007051600104_pf.html

Not the WaPo. The HoPo.

Bingo Greg. Analysis crystal clear and perfect in its entirety. What a lame and transparent excuse by Kurtz.

Kurtz is a two faced putz. It is amazing to what extremes these media bastards will contort themselves to justify their heavily slanted reporting.

If someone can reach him, give him a good hard smack for me, will you?

This is just totally shocking coming from the Malkin-worshipping Howard Kurtz.

Excellent, perceptive analysis. Keep up the good work: this kind of truthtelling works slowly, and that is frustrating, but it really does work in the long run. (Even Howard will have to perk up his ears eventually.) Remember the days when there were no blogging truth squads: even in a few short years, we've come a long, long way. Thanks again!

If the snubbing wasn't such a big deal, why did McCain then take advantage of the situation to call the farmers personally and offer to meet with them instead. McCain was obviously expecting some kind of media attention as well.

Stupid on its face.

Does Kurtz really believe that staff wasn't involved in the Edwards story, that John Edwards personally decided to claim the haircut expense as a campaign expense?

Its good that you bring this up. The only way to get fair treatment for Democrats from the Howie Kurtzs of the world is to hold their feet to the fire every time they show their lack of unequal treatment.

If you want to defend the poor you will have to prove to us (who are mostly not rich either) that you are truly poor. but if you cannot prove that you are not now and never have been even slightly well off, never owned property, do not have any assets, are not married to someone who does have a job, and are not supported by any organization that does have some funds, then you are not worthy.

This is a standard attack of the
reactionary against all those who would support social justice. It comes up strongly every time
it is proposed to increase the salaries of Legislators. And the ones who bring it up most strongly are the working reporters, they do not even need a push from the reactionary political leadership, or the nedwspaper's owner.

This economic system is about as moral as the split after a murderous robbery among a gang of bandits, which is why you always see a strange grouping of the leaders of that society and the outright bandits at places like Las Vegas. They are together because they belong together. So they intuitively recognize anyone who is playing the game (in this case politics) but is advancing ideas that would weaken or destroy the game as a cheater or a lunatic. IN either case they deserve to be destroyed for the good of the game, it is thought.
It is said in Ireland that there are two opposed but equally acceptable responses to British oppression. You can go down on your knees and pray. Or you can go down on your knees and take aim.
In this case, if you are not attracted by self sacrifice, the only political answer is to denounce those who do not object to outrageous profit making but would deny to the poor that their tribunes should receive a reasonable buck. Turn it upside down, and go for it. The bastards can only fuss and fume at that one.