Drowning the News

What is about disasters that make public officials think they can openly scorn reporters? First it was Chertoff huffily refusing to answer a perfectly legitimate question about why he was sidelining Michael Brown (who would quit within days), and now National Review's Media Blog brings us this transcript:

"Male reporter: General Honore, we were told that Berman Stadium on the west bank would be another staging area. . . .

"Honore: Not to my knowledge. Again, the current place, I just told you one time, is the convention center. Once we complete the plan with the mayor, and is approved by the governor, then we'll start that in the next 12-24 hours. And we understand that there's a problem in getting communications out. That's where we need your help. But let's not confuse the questions with the answers. Buses at the convention center will move our citizens, for whom we have sworn that we will support and defend . . . and we'll move them on. Let's not get stuck on the last storm. You're asking last storm questions for people who are concerned about the future storm. Don't get stuck on stupid, reporters. We are moving forward. And don't confuse the people please. You are part of the public message. So help us get the message straight. And if you don't understand, maybe you'll confuse it to the people. That's why we like follow-up questions. But right now, it's the convention center, and move on.

"Male reporter: General, a little bit more about why that's happening this time, though, and did not have that last time. . . .

"Honore: You are stuck on stupid. I'm not going to answer that question. We are going to deal with Rita."

Yes, sir !

Pat Leahy has decided to vote for Roberts--Kerry and Kennedy, no surprise, are against--and that has given us a peek of the kind of pressure the Democrats are under from their left flank, as the Los Angeles Times reports:

"Leahy's endorsement drew an immediate rebuke from People for the American Way, a liberal activist group whose president, Ralph G. Neas, said Leahy had 'eloquently made all the arguments against the confirmation of Judge Roberts, and then made a decision that contradicted his own compelling reasoning. His decision was inexplicable, and deeply disappointing.'

"Holding out the sort of threat that Roberts' critics have said they would apply to Democrats who supported the judge, he said that when Roberts, as chief justice, votes for decisions that erode or overturn court precedents protecting 'fundamental civil rights, women's rights, privacy, religious liberty, reproductive rights and environmental safeguards,' Leahy's support for him would make the senator 'complicit in those rulings, and in the retreat from our constitutional rights and liberties.'"

Former Democratic Hill staffer David Sirota rips the media for . . . not agreeing with him that John Roberts is a menace to society:

"I can't decide who is more pathetic: the mainstream media, or unnamed D.C. strategists/aides/beltway-gliterrati-types and the Democratic Party they've run into the ground? The former's reporting on some of the most important issues has become so silly and divorced from reality that you'd think you were reading/hearing/watching something that was deliberately fiction. The latter regularly spews such inane drivel that you'd think the Democratic Party was actually trying to lose elections and embarrass itself

"In trying to answer the 'who is more pathetic?' question, we can look no further than the to-do over Supreme Court nominee John Roberts for clues. The media is breathlessly discussing how Democrats - especially 2008 presidential hopefuls - supposedly have a big choice to make in their vote on Roberts: whether to vote no to supposedly pander to the Democratic base, or vote yes and supposedly play to 'centrist' voters. Here's the third-grade-level question that the Ivy Leaguers in the Beltway media can't seem to even fathom, much less consider: what is 'appealing' to centrists about voting for a guy as extreme as John Roberts?