Watching British prime minister Tony Blair on TV last night, as he shared a White House podium with his longtime senior partner in war, I was struck by the fact that his famed silver tongue was no longer waxing eloquent about the mission in Iraq; that his once-boyish features now seemed as rumpled as an unmade bed; and that his once-buoyant grin had been replaced by the dour stoicism usually seen on a British bobby caught in a London downpour.
That's what happens when you hitch yourself to a falling star. All those years of being ridiculed as "Bush's poodle," coupled with reality-based evidence of mayhem in Iraq, have clearly taken their toll. You know that things must be going badly when a master practitioner of the English language decides to let the other guy do most of the talking. No wonder the respected Economist magazine now refers to Tony Blair and President Bush as "The Axis of Feeble."
It was clear that Blair was already hurtling toward lame-duck status a year ago, when I spent a week in Britain prior to the national elections. Voters in his own party, Labor, were furious with him for hanging tough with Bush on Iraq and refusing to admit error. I went door-knocking in southern Nottingham, a Labor stronghold, and quickly encountered a resident named Dave Smith, who set the tone for that evening:
"I've voted Labor all my life, but I won't do it again! Get rid of that Blair bloke! He's got that supercilious smirk, like he doesn't care how many people get killed! He lied to get into that war, just to be friendly to America! Stick him on an island, like what the French did to Napoleon!"
A week later, Blair's party was humbled at the polls, nearly losing all of its once-mighty Parliament majority, and it has been clear ever since that Blair's days are numbered. (In Britain, unlike in America, the political leader sometimes deems it wise to truncate his own tenure if it is is clear he has lost the confidence of the people.) Perhaps that explains why the PM showed little self-confidence last night, preferring at times to utter rare words of contrition.
Standing beside Bush, he admitted error on a key issue of postwar execution that has long been cited by his critics: The decision to quickly disband the Iraqi military, a move that allowed former Saddam Hussein loyalists to join (and fuel) the insurgency; a move that also sowed administrative chaos in what remained of the governmental infrastructure. Retaining his gift for British understatement, Blair said that this process could have been accomplished "in a more differentiated way." It was also noteworthy that Blair renounced the prewar talk of a cakewalk, saying instead that he should have better foreseen that "it was going to be a more difficult process" to build a "democratic Iraq."
As for Bush, he too ate a few slices of humble pie. That was in sharp contrast to his behavior on the night of April 13, 2004, during a press conference, when he resisted any suggestion that anything had gone wrong in Iraq. Asked to cite a mistake that he might have made, he shook his head twice and replied, "I'm sure something will pop into my head in the midst of this press conference, with all the pressure of trying to come up with an answer, but it hadn't yet." And it didn't. Instead, he added that "even knowing what I know today about the stockpiles of weapons, I still would've called upon the world to deal with Saddam Hussein."
Bush last night didn't renounce that statement, of course, but it was somewhat startling to hear him walk away from his 2003 Texas swagger - notably, his call to the insurgents to "bring it on." Two thousand American deaths later, that line apparently no longer seems politic.
So this time Bush said: "Kind of tough talk, you know, that sent the wrong signal to people. I learned some lessons about expressing myself maybe in a little more sophisticated manner."
I had to replay that remark to ensure that I was really hearing it. Clearly, the president who always says he pays no attention to the polls, is paying attention to the polls. But I think there is something more: He is thinking about his legacy.
Friday, May 26, 2006
Thursday, May 25, 2006
Self-absorption as a point of principle
The Republican leaders on Capitol Hill, who have rarely fought back against the Bush administration's ongoing efforts to diminish Congress' constitutional powers, are suddenly declaring that they are mad as hell and they're not gonna take it anymore.
Yes, they are outraged. They are inveighing against what they call an unconscionable executive branch violation of the separation of powers. They are drawing a line in the sand, and spoiling for a fight.
So what's the reason?
Is it because the Bush administration bypassed Congress, and 1978 statutory law, by setting up a warrantless surveillance program?
No.
Is it because the White House stonewalled Congress' attempts to obtain the full documentary evidence of the administration's performance during Katrina?
No.
Is it because President Bush has reportedly signed 750 bills into law, and then declared in "signing statements" that he would not enforce those laws as written, but rather as he chose to interpret them?
No.
Is it because Bush's lawyers argued in legal briefs that Congress is powerless to interfere with any presidential decision to torture enemy prisoners?
No.
Is it because they perhaps agree with the conclusions of the Cato Institute, the conservative think tank which contends in a new report that Bush has "repeatedly dishonored" his pledge to respect the separation of powers and that Bush "has weakened the constitutional order on which the American way of life depends"?
Again, no.
Here's the reason: An assertive act by an executive agency has personally ruffled the politicians' feathers.
Last Saturday night, some FBI agents armed with a search warrant raided the Capitol Hill office of a congressman who's under investigation for taking bribes. House Speaker Dennis Hastert is suddenly voicing outrage, invoking the seperation-of-powers doctrine, and declaring that "no person is above the law," even in the executive branch, because this time the prerogatives of lawmakers are directly involved. And the House Judiciary chairman, Republican James Sensenbrenner is suddenly gearing up for a hearing next week, entitled "Reckless Justice: Did the Saturday Night Raid of Congress Trample the Constitution?" (Hastert was joined in protest by Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi, who must be enjoying this moment.)
In other words, the politicians have drawn a principled line in the sand...at their own office vestibules.
This isn't even a particularly good crusade, because, as legal scholars point out, the search by an executive agency of a congressional office, while unprecedented, is not a specific violation of any wording in the Constitution; as one scholar, Akhil Reed Amar, noted, "It's really a matter of etiquette. I don't see any constitutional principle here."
More importantly, however, is the unintended political message. Voters, who are already sour on the performance of Congress, might draw the conclusion that the leaders on Capitol Hill, far from appearing to be standing on principle, might be coming off as a tad self-absorbed, as more concerned about their own nests than the civil liberties of average folks.
One Republican senator, David Vitter of Louisiana, sensed this danger yesterday. He warned that the public "will come to one conclusion: that congressional leaders are trying to protect their own from valid investigations...For congressional leaders to make these self-serving arguments in the midst of serious scandals in Congress only further erodes the faith and confidence of the American people."
Yes, they are outraged. They are inveighing against what they call an unconscionable executive branch violation of the separation of powers. They are drawing a line in the sand, and spoiling for a fight.
So what's the reason?
Is it because the Bush administration bypassed Congress, and 1978 statutory law, by setting up a warrantless surveillance program?
No.
Is it because the White House stonewalled Congress' attempts to obtain the full documentary evidence of the administration's performance during Katrina?
No.
Is it because President Bush has reportedly signed 750 bills into law, and then declared in "signing statements" that he would not enforce those laws as written, but rather as he chose to interpret them?
No.
Is it because Bush's lawyers argued in legal briefs that Congress is powerless to interfere with any presidential decision to torture enemy prisoners?
No.
Is it because they perhaps agree with the conclusions of the Cato Institute, the conservative think tank which contends in a new report that Bush has "repeatedly dishonored" his pledge to respect the separation of powers and that Bush "has weakened the constitutional order on which the American way of life depends"?
Again, no.
Here's the reason: An assertive act by an executive agency has personally ruffled the politicians' feathers.
Last Saturday night, some FBI agents armed with a search warrant raided the Capitol Hill office of a congressman who's under investigation for taking bribes. House Speaker Dennis Hastert is suddenly voicing outrage, invoking the seperation-of-powers doctrine, and declaring that "no person is above the law," even in the executive branch, because this time the prerogatives of lawmakers are directly involved. And the House Judiciary chairman, Republican James Sensenbrenner is suddenly gearing up for a hearing next week, entitled "Reckless Justice: Did the Saturday Night Raid of Congress Trample the Constitution?" (Hastert was joined in protest by Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi, who must be enjoying this moment.)
In other words, the politicians have drawn a principled line in the sand...at their own office vestibules.
This isn't even a particularly good crusade, because, as legal scholars point out, the search by an executive agency of a congressional office, while unprecedented, is not a specific violation of any wording in the Constitution; as one scholar, Akhil Reed Amar, noted, "It's really a matter of etiquette. I don't see any constitutional principle here."
More importantly, however, is the unintended political message. Voters, who are already sour on the performance of Congress, might draw the conclusion that the leaders on Capitol Hill, far from appearing to be standing on principle, might be coming off as a tad self-absorbed, as more concerned about their own nests than the civil liberties of average folks.
One Republican senator, David Vitter of Louisiana, sensed this danger yesterday. He warned that the public "will come to one conclusion: that congressional leaders are trying to protect their own from valid investigations...For congressional leaders to make these self-serving arguments in the midst of serious scandals in Congress only further erodes the faith and confidence of the American people."
An honors graduate of the Last Throes School of Military Policy
See if you can guess who uttered these confident words last June:
"With the exception of periodic flare-ups in isolated corners, our struggle in Iraq as warfare is over."
Was it...
(a) President Bush, updating his 2003 declaration that major combat was over?
(b) Donald Rumsfeld, telling Pentagon reporters why the reality-based media had it all wrong?
(c) Dick Cheney, improvising on his earlier announcement that the Iraqi insurgency was in its last throes?
(d) Claude Allen, White House domestic policy advisor, defending the war during his final days on the job -- before he was arrested for shoplifting?
or (e) none of the above?
The correct answer is (e). The man who last June declared the end of our warfare in Iraq is:
Karl Zinsmeister, a veteran of the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank, whose perception of a basically peaceful Iraq might be of interest to the families of the 710 American soldiers who have been killed since he wrote those words -- and to the 4,502 soliders who have been wounded since then.
Why am I spotlighting Zinsmeister?
Because he just got named by Bush to be the new White House domestic policy advisor, replacing the aforementioned alleged shoplifter.
There was a time, several months ago, when mainstream Washington Republicans such as David Gergen and Vin Weber were urging the Bush administration to shake up the staff and bring in a wider spectrum of opinion. Those Republicans may question whether the addition of Zinsmeister meets that standard.
On the other hand, Zinsmeister is being hired for domestic policy, so he probably won't be tapped to contribute to the administration's comunications effort on the war. That task still falls, primarily, to the President. The problem is that he is still making statements that do not square with the facts.
Late Tuesday afternoon, while speaking about Iraq, the Decider took on the Suicider:
"It is a difficult task to stop suicide bombers. That’s the — but that’s one of the main — that’s the main weapon of the enemy, the capacity to destroy innocent life with a suicider." However, "If one were to measure progress on the number of suiciders, if that's your definition of success, I think it obscures the steady, incremental march toward democracy we're seeing."
But Bush got it wrong. The Suicider is no longer "the main weapon of the enemy."
As documented in a chart here (see page five), 56 percent of U.S troop deaths during May have been caused by improvised explosive devices (IEDs), not suicide bombs. In fact, IEDs have caused the majority of U.S. deaths during seven of the past nine months. And during 2005, only 411 of 34,131 insurgent attacks featured suicide car bombs.
Yet the strife in Iraq today (or, as Zinsmeister might call it, "periodic flareups in isolated corners") goes far beyond the largely Sunni insurgency. Bush may still be focused on Suiciders, but the biggest threat to peace appears to be the roaming death squads that have infiltrated the Iraqi government, to the point where it's tough to tell the sectarian killers from the peace officers.
Naturally, as an attention-getter, this is not an issue that can begin to compete with American Idol, but it's clear that the "periodic flareups" caused by death squads and IEDs will nevertheless continue to bedevil this administration in the runup to the '06 elections.
"With the exception of periodic flare-ups in isolated corners, our struggle in Iraq as warfare is over."
Was it...
(a) President Bush, updating his 2003 declaration that major combat was over?
(b) Donald Rumsfeld, telling Pentagon reporters why the reality-based media had it all wrong?
(c) Dick Cheney, improvising on his earlier announcement that the Iraqi insurgency was in its last throes?
(d) Claude Allen, White House domestic policy advisor, defending the war during his final days on the job -- before he was arrested for shoplifting?
or (e) none of the above?
The correct answer is (e). The man who last June declared the end of our warfare in Iraq is:
Karl Zinsmeister, a veteran of the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank, whose perception of a basically peaceful Iraq might be of interest to the families of the 710 American soldiers who have been killed since he wrote those words -- and to the 4,502 soliders who have been wounded since then.
Why am I spotlighting Zinsmeister?
Because he just got named by Bush to be the new White House domestic policy advisor, replacing the aforementioned alleged shoplifter.
There was a time, several months ago, when mainstream Washington Republicans such as David Gergen and Vin Weber were urging the Bush administration to shake up the staff and bring in a wider spectrum of opinion. Those Republicans may question whether the addition of Zinsmeister meets that standard.
On the other hand, Zinsmeister is being hired for domestic policy, so he probably won't be tapped to contribute to the administration's comunications effort on the war. That task still falls, primarily, to the President. The problem is that he is still making statements that do not square with the facts.
Late Tuesday afternoon, while speaking about Iraq, the Decider took on the Suicider:
"It is a difficult task to stop suicide bombers. That’s the — but that’s one of the main — that’s the main weapon of the enemy, the capacity to destroy innocent life with a suicider." However, "If one were to measure progress on the number of suiciders, if that's your definition of success, I think it obscures the steady, incremental march toward democracy we're seeing."
But Bush got it wrong. The Suicider is no longer "the main weapon of the enemy."
As documented in a chart here (see page five), 56 percent of U.S troop deaths during May have been caused by improvised explosive devices (IEDs), not suicide bombs. In fact, IEDs have caused the majority of U.S. deaths during seven of the past nine months. And during 2005, only 411 of 34,131 insurgent attacks featured suicide car bombs.
Yet the strife in Iraq today (or, as Zinsmeister might call it, "periodic flareups in isolated corners") goes far beyond the largely Sunni insurgency. Bush may still be focused on Suiciders, but the biggest threat to peace appears to be the roaming death squads that have infiltrated the Iraqi government, to the point where it's tough to tell the sectarian killers from the peace officers.
Naturally, as an attention-getter, this is not an issue that can begin to compete with American Idol, but it's clear that the "periodic flareups" caused by death squads and IEDs will nevertheless continue to bedevil this administration in the runup to the '06 elections.
Wednesday, May 24, 2006
A fresh start
I am traveling today, so any thoughts on politics won't be posted until late this evening. However, the historic sale yesterday of my longtime employer warrants a few words.
This may mean nothing to those readers of this blog who don't live in the Philadelphia region, but the Philadelphia Inquirer and Philadelphia Daily News were sold yesterday -- by the corporate chain that purchased the paper from another corporate chain -- to a local collection of investors, businessmen, and civic leaders all gathered under a new privately-owned entity called Philadelphia Media Holdings.
This is a big deal. It means that the two papers will be freed from the dictates of Wall Street, where, under the destructive credo of capitalism run amok, publicly-traded media companies for decades have been under constant pressure to milk their products dry, diminish quality, slash costs, and generally violate the public trust, all in the interests of squeezing extra dollars for the next quarterly report. I, along with many others, have witnessed this process in action at the Philadelphia Inquirer. Two personal examples: I used to be a foreign correspondent based in London; now there is nobody in London. I used to write regularly for the Sunday magazine; now there is no Sunday magazine.
It would be foolish to think that the new PMH, helmed by marketing/advertising executive Brian Tierney, will suddenly rain down money on the Inquirer newsroom, restore foreign bureaus, bring back the Sunday magazine, and hire scores of young and hungry reporters. That's not how the world works; I couldn't help but notice, in our coverage of the sale this morning, that Tierney declined to say what level of profits the Royal Bank of Scotland expects to see. The new owners may not have to march to the tune of quarterly earnings, or tremble whenever some Wall Street bean-counter forecasts the death of newspapers, but they still need to staunch the losses that have been exacerbated by burgeoning Internet competition, and they still need to develop long-term business plans to "grow revenue."
So nirvana will not dawn tomorrow; nor will we know, in the short term, whether the various special interests that comprise PMH will adhere to their signed pledge to keep their mitts off the newsroom. Nevertheless, there is a great sense of relief that we have avoided the worst of all outcomes -- being stripped, ravaged, and abandoned by some new absentees who know or care little about these papers and the community they serve. We had enough of that from the dying Knight Ridder, whose chairman, Tony Ridder, leaves the scene with his golden parachute. Tierney has the opportunity to play a key role at ground zero of a great national experiment, and those of us with a stake in that experiment wish him well. We would like nothing more than to see it succeed, and help make it happen.
This may mean nothing to those readers of this blog who don't live in the Philadelphia region, but the Philadelphia Inquirer and Philadelphia Daily News were sold yesterday -- by the corporate chain that purchased the paper from another corporate chain -- to a local collection of investors, businessmen, and civic leaders all gathered under a new privately-owned entity called Philadelphia Media Holdings.
This is a big deal. It means that the two papers will be freed from the dictates of Wall Street, where, under the destructive credo of capitalism run amok, publicly-traded media companies for decades have been under constant pressure to milk their products dry, diminish quality, slash costs, and generally violate the public trust, all in the interests of squeezing extra dollars for the next quarterly report. I, along with many others, have witnessed this process in action at the Philadelphia Inquirer. Two personal examples: I used to be a foreign correspondent based in London; now there is nobody in London. I used to write regularly for the Sunday magazine; now there is no Sunday magazine.
It would be foolish to think that the new PMH, helmed by marketing/advertising executive Brian Tierney, will suddenly rain down money on the Inquirer newsroom, restore foreign bureaus, bring back the Sunday magazine, and hire scores of young and hungry reporters. That's not how the world works; I couldn't help but notice, in our coverage of the sale this morning, that Tierney declined to say what level of profits the Royal Bank of Scotland expects to see. The new owners may not have to march to the tune of quarterly earnings, or tremble whenever some Wall Street bean-counter forecasts the death of newspapers, but they still need to staunch the losses that have been exacerbated by burgeoning Internet competition, and they still need to develop long-term business plans to "grow revenue."
So nirvana will not dawn tomorrow; nor will we know, in the short term, whether the various special interests that comprise PMH will adhere to their signed pledge to keep their mitts off the newsroom. Nevertheless, there is a great sense of relief that we have avoided the worst of all outcomes -- being stripped, ravaged, and abandoned by some new absentees who know or care little about these papers and the community they serve. We had enough of that from the dying Knight Ridder, whose chairman, Tony Ridder, leaves the scene with his golden parachute. Tierney has the opportunity to play a key role at ground zero of a great national experiment, and those of us with a stake in that experiment wish him well. We would like nothing more than to see it succeed, and help make it happen.
Tuesday, May 23, 2006
The pitfalls of selective outrage
There's not much political news this morning -- aside from a report that Democrat Chris Dodd of Connecticut wants to run for president, thus making him roughly the 500th senator to look in the mirror and glimpse glory -- so let's take a moment to dwell on the weekend kerfuffle at the New School university in Manhattan. It seems that conservative pundits are outraged by the rough treatment (in the form of booing and heckling) that graduating students meted out to commencement speaker John McCain.
The Wall Street Journal editorial page, which is ground zero for conservative punditry, blamed the rudeness on "the peculiar rage" and "mere Manhattan derangement" of "the angry left." Catcalls aside, the Journal was particularly incensed that a graduating senior speaker tossed aside her prepared text and said this, in the presence of the hawkish senator who supported the decision to launch a war with Iraq: "Osama bin Laden still has not been found, nor have those weapons of mass destruction." (To the Journal editorial page, that kind of observation qualifies as "derangement.")
And Rich Lowry at the National Review weighs in today, calling the rude students "spoiled brats...flagrantly tatooed and pierced left-wingers."
On a point of principle, I have no problem with the conservatives' complaint, because, as a First Amendment absolutist, I tend to think that all speakers of all persuasions should be free to enter the marketplace of ideas without being censored or shouted down. As a college student way back in the last century I saw students on the radical left assail and obstruct speakers who sought to defend the war in Vietnam. That kind of behavior seems undemocratic, no matter who is perpetrating it.
But here's the problem: The conservatives apparently have a double standard. They are outraged about how McCain was treated, but seem to have overlooked a similar incident last week, at the University of Missouri in St. Louis, involving conservative students who heckled their commencement speaker -- an antiwar Democratic congressman.
A conservative website recounted the incident without apology: Missouri Rep. Lacy Clay spent a few minutes talking about failures in Iraq, whereupon, according to eyewitness accounts provided to the website, "people began to boo and yell...(H)e had to stop three times during his talk because the boos from the crowd had drowned him out!...Lacy Clay needed security to escort him friom the building..."
I don't see the Journal talking about "the angry right," or Lowry reducing these students to a stereotype and dismissing them as, say, "flagrantly cornfed and applecheeked right-wingers." And the website that applauded the heckling of Clay has also been untroubled by similar treatment meted out to Democratic congressman and war critic John Murtha. Their basic defense of that kind of heckling is that the students were justifably provoked.
First Amendment lawyer and blogger Glenn Greenwald frames the double standard this way: "So, to re-cap the rules: (1) When a pro-war politician gives a pro-war speech as part of a graduation ceremony, and students in the audience heckle and boo him, that shows how Deranged the Angry Left is -- because they heckled a pro-war speech. (2) When an anti-war politician gives an anti-war speech as part of a graduation ceremony, and students in the audience heckle, walk out and even riot, that also shows how Angry the Left is -- because they 'provoked a near riot' by pro-war students."
There is an imperfect solution to these commencement contretempts: Maybe colleges should just stop inviting politicians -- of either party -- since they generally tend to use the occasion to stump for themselves anyway (as evidenced by the fact that their transcripted remarks all wind up as emails to people like me). It's not as if they don't have plenty of other outlets in the marketplace of ideas.
But since that isn't likely to happen, and since students in this politically polarized era won't sit silent, it might be best for the ideologues -- on either side -- to avoid the intellectually dishonest practice of selective outrage.
The Wall Street Journal editorial page, which is ground zero for conservative punditry, blamed the rudeness on "the peculiar rage" and "mere Manhattan derangement" of "the angry left." Catcalls aside, the Journal was particularly incensed that a graduating senior speaker tossed aside her prepared text and said this, in the presence of the hawkish senator who supported the decision to launch a war with Iraq: "Osama bin Laden still has not been found, nor have those weapons of mass destruction." (To the Journal editorial page, that kind of observation qualifies as "derangement.")
And Rich Lowry at the National Review weighs in today, calling the rude students "spoiled brats...flagrantly tatooed and pierced left-wingers."
On a point of principle, I have no problem with the conservatives' complaint, because, as a First Amendment absolutist, I tend to think that all speakers of all persuasions should be free to enter the marketplace of ideas without being censored or shouted down. As a college student way back in the last century I saw students on the radical left assail and obstruct speakers who sought to defend the war in Vietnam. That kind of behavior seems undemocratic, no matter who is perpetrating it.
But here's the problem: The conservatives apparently have a double standard. They are outraged about how McCain was treated, but seem to have overlooked a similar incident last week, at the University of Missouri in St. Louis, involving conservative students who heckled their commencement speaker -- an antiwar Democratic congressman.
A conservative website recounted the incident without apology: Missouri Rep. Lacy Clay spent a few minutes talking about failures in Iraq, whereupon, according to eyewitness accounts provided to the website, "people began to boo and yell...(H)e had to stop three times during his talk because the boos from the crowd had drowned him out!...Lacy Clay needed security to escort him friom the building..."
I don't see the Journal talking about "the angry right," or Lowry reducing these students to a stereotype and dismissing them as, say, "flagrantly cornfed and applecheeked right-wingers." And the website that applauded the heckling of Clay has also been untroubled by similar treatment meted out to Democratic congressman and war critic John Murtha. Their basic defense of that kind of heckling is that the students were justifably provoked.
First Amendment lawyer and blogger Glenn Greenwald frames the double standard this way: "So, to re-cap the rules: (1) When a pro-war politician gives a pro-war speech as part of a graduation ceremony, and students in the audience heckle and boo him, that shows how Deranged the Angry Left is -- because they heckled a pro-war speech. (2) When an anti-war politician gives an anti-war speech as part of a graduation ceremony, and students in the audience heckle, walk out and even riot, that also shows how Angry the Left is -- because they 'provoked a near riot' by pro-war students."
There is an imperfect solution to these commencement contretempts: Maybe colleges should just stop inviting politicians -- of either party -- since they generally tend to use the occasion to stump for themselves anyway (as evidenced by the fact that their transcripted remarks all wind up as emails to people like me). It's not as if they don't have plenty of other outlets in the marketplace of ideas.
But since that isn't likely to happen, and since students in this politically polarized era won't sit silent, it might be best for the ideologues -- on either side -- to avoid the intellectually dishonest practice of selective outrage.
Monday, May 22, 2006
The camera doesn't lie
Baghdad ER debuted last night on HBO not with a bang, but with a whimper. And that tells us a lot about the national mood.
If this documentary - a grim and gritty depiction of life and death on the gurneys inside the Green Zone - had been aired during the first year of the Iraq war, the backlash from President Bush's defenders would have been intense. They would have charged that the visual depictions of severed body parts, writhing National Guardsmen, and blood-spattered floors were calculated attempts by the "liberal media" to undermine the war effort at home. They would have contended that the documentary was designed to make squeamish Americans question whether the (literal) spilling of blood was worth the mission, as outlined by the president. They would have lumped HBO with the Dixie Chicks and called for a boycott.
Yet the reaction among the war's supporters has been noticeably muted. Naturally, there have been some complaints; as one conservative newspaper said, "There is no overt anti-war message, but the medical people are frequently heard muttering standard war-is-hell phrases like 'sheer madness,' 'stupid war,' and 'a lot of young kids getting hurt.' And the cumulative effect of the film...is powerfully negative....Baghdad ER is neither for weak stomachs nor supporters of the war." But, on the backlash meter, these grievances barely register at Def Con One.
In fact, even the Weekly Standard magazine -- ground zero for the neoconservative case for war -- dismissed the idea that the graphic visuals in the HBO documentary would send the wrong, i.e. antiwar, message. Such a fear, said the magazine, "would be mistaken...It takes a hard look at the human cost of war. But the film is also a testament to the sacrifice and perseverance of our soliders in the face of terror. Their story needs to be told."
True enough. The documentary is such a testament. And that theme can arguably resonate across the political spectrum, because in this war everybody supports the troops; on the left, where anti-Iraq war sentiment is strongest, there is none of the hostility toward the troops that was common during the Vietnam era. But if this kind of film had been aired a few years ago -- when support for the Iraq war was greater, and when Bush's defenders were far more numerous and assertive -- HBO's testament-to-the-troops theme would have been dismissed as a fig leaf for an antiwar "agenda."
The visuals of severed bowels in a plastic tray, the severed limbs being placed in red plastic bags, the close-ups of emergency eye surgery, the tag being affixed to the toe of a dead soldier (whose skin had turned the color of pale ivory)...these images would have been assailed as items on the agenda. Much the way that Ted Koppel was assailed two years ago when he decided to read the names of dead soldiers on Nightline.
The difference today, as evidenced in every poll, is that most Americans have already turned against the war. They either reject its underlying premise, or reject the way that the administrating has handled it. It would be futile for the president's dwindling core of defenders to attack Baghdad ER for undermining domestic morale -- because it has already been sapped, both by the facts on the ground, and by the accumulation of evidence that has undercut the president's prewar rationale. (This morning on CBS, for example, John Murtha, the hawkish Democratic congressman and ex-Marine who has broken with the administration over the war, said: "There’s not only no progress, it’s worse than it was prewar. This thing has been mishandled so badly. The American people needed to hear. We’re spending $450 billion on this war by the end of the year, $9 billion a month, and so we need to change course. ")
There is a moment, during the HBO documentary, when an ER chaplain pauses in front of the body of a dead soldier. He says, "Lord, we pray that his life - and even his death - might be used to hasten peace and end this terrible war." A few years ago, that scene would have been widely denounced as evidence of an antiwar agenda. But today, it plays more as a consensus plea for deliverance.
-------
Speaking of the war, Bush talked about it in Chicago today.Here's the headline I saw: "Bush Urges Patience on Iraq." Stop the presses. He does have a new word, however: incremental. He used it a lot, to explain why we still face "days of challenge and loss." That's certainly not a phrase that would play well on a GOP bumper sticker in election '06.
-------
Still speaking of the war, it continues to roil the Democratic ranks. Following up on my recent column about pro-war Joe Lieberman's travails with the antiwar left, I duly note today that the Connecticut senator will be officially challenged in an Aug. 8 Democratic primary by antiwar hero Ned Lamont.
Lamont, a cable TV entrepeneur with minimal political experience, won the right to challenge Lieberman last Friday night, when, at a state party convention, he won 33 percent of the Democratic delegates. (In Connecticut, the minimal share required for an aspiring primary challenger is 15 percent.) In other words, it was an embarrasing night for the incumbent senator, because his aides got hurt by their own spin. In advance of the convention, they spread word that Lamont would get around 33 percent, in an attempt to raise expectations; then, assuming Lamont would get a lower share, they could paint the challenger's tally as disappointing. But they wound up nailing it perfectly. Rest assured that wasn't part of the Lieberman game plan.
Anyway, here's what it means: At the exact time that Democrats everywhere want to be focused on keeping Bush and the GOP on the defensive, they now have to pause in their labors and conduct what will be, in essence, a national referendum on their own internal divisions about the Iraq war. In the dead of summer, no less, when there is typically not much competing political news. Maybe it's "healthy" for Democrats that this will occur; antiwar Democrats have long sought such a confrontation with Lieberman. But rest assured that this primary is not part of the national party's ideal game plan.
-------
Meanwhile, regarding my posting here Friday about the blogosphere's faux scoop on Karl Rove's purported indictment, we're still waiting. The offending website, truthout.org, has now decided to eat crow: "The time has now come...to issue a partial apology to our readership for this story. While we paid very careful attention to the sourcing on this story, we erred in getting too far out in front of the news-cycle. In moving as quickly as we did, we caused more confusion than clarity. And that was a disservice to our readership and we regret it."
"Too far out in front of the news cycle?" What's that supposed to mean? Whatever. Howie Kurtz has more on the topic, here.
-------
I wrote a newspaper column this morning on the religious right's expectations for a federal amendment banning gay marriage (a Senate vote is slated several weeks from now), and its desire to hold Republicans accountable if they don't push the issue. I mentioned that John McCain might be on the spot; he's wooing the religious right, but in an earlier Senate vote two years ago, he came out against the anti-gay amendment. Well, he may get in trouble with his new best friends, because apparently he plans to vote against it again. Every respositioning politician apparently has his limits.
-------
Here's yet another blow to the Democratic '06 message that the GOP has fostered a "culture of corruption." Now it turns out that ethically-challenged Lousiana congressman William Jefferson was videotaped taking 100 grand in bribes from a guy wearing a wire for the feds. Memo to the Democrats: When one of your own people is captured on video acting corrupt, then it's time to dump the party message. Because the camera doesn't lie.
If this documentary - a grim and gritty depiction of life and death on the gurneys inside the Green Zone - had been aired during the first year of the Iraq war, the backlash from President Bush's defenders would have been intense. They would have charged that the visual depictions of severed body parts, writhing National Guardsmen, and blood-spattered floors were calculated attempts by the "liberal media" to undermine the war effort at home. They would have contended that the documentary was designed to make squeamish Americans question whether the (literal) spilling of blood was worth the mission, as outlined by the president. They would have lumped HBO with the Dixie Chicks and called for a boycott.
Yet the reaction among the war's supporters has been noticeably muted. Naturally, there have been some complaints; as one conservative newspaper said, "There is no overt anti-war message, but the medical people are frequently heard muttering standard war-is-hell phrases like 'sheer madness,' 'stupid war,' and 'a lot of young kids getting hurt.' And the cumulative effect of the film...is powerfully negative....Baghdad ER is neither for weak stomachs nor supporters of the war." But, on the backlash meter, these grievances barely register at Def Con One.
In fact, even the Weekly Standard magazine -- ground zero for the neoconservative case for war -- dismissed the idea that the graphic visuals in the HBO documentary would send the wrong, i.e. antiwar, message. Such a fear, said the magazine, "would be mistaken...It takes a hard look at the human cost of war. But the film is also a testament to the sacrifice and perseverance of our soliders in the face of terror. Their story needs to be told."
True enough. The documentary is such a testament. And that theme can arguably resonate across the political spectrum, because in this war everybody supports the troops; on the left, where anti-Iraq war sentiment is strongest, there is none of the hostility toward the troops that was common during the Vietnam era. But if this kind of film had been aired a few years ago -- when support for the Iraq war was greater, and when Bush's defenders were far more numerous and assertive -- HBO's testament-to-the-troops theme would have been dismissed as a fig leaf for an antiwar "agenda."
The visuals of severed bowels in a plastic tray, the severed limbs being placed in red plastic bags, the close-ups of emergency eye surgery, the tag being affixed to the toe of a dead soldier (whose skin had turned the color of pale ivory)...these images would have been assailed as items on the agenda. Much the way that Ted Koppel was assailed two years ago when he decided to read the names of dead soldiers on Nightline.
The difference today, as evidenced in every poll, is that most Americans have already turned against the war. They either reject its underlying premise, or reject the way that the administrating has handled it. It would be futile for the president's dwindling core of defenders to attack Baghdad ER for undermining domestic morale -- because it has already been sapped, both by the facts on the ground, and by the accumulation of evidence that has undercut the president's prewar rationale. (This morning on CBS, for example, John Murtha, the hawkish Democratic congressman and ex-Marine who has broken with the administration over the war, said: "There’s not only no progress, it’s worse than it was prewar. This thing has been mishandled so badly. The American people needed to hear. We’re spending $450 billion on this war by the end of the year, $9 billion a month, and so we need to change course. ")
There is a moment, during the HBO documentary, when an ER chaplain pauses in front of the body of a dead soldier. He says, "Lord, we pray that his life - and even his death - might be used to hasten peace and end this terrible war." A few years ago, that scene would have been widely denounced as evidence of an antiwar agenda. But today, it plays more as a consensus plea for deliverance.
-------
Speaking of the war, Bush talked about it in Chicago today.Here's the headline I saw: "Bush Urges Patience on Iraq." Stop the presses. He does have a new word, however: incremental. He used it a lot, to explain why we still face "days of challenge and loss." That's certainly not a phrase that would play well on a GOP bumper sticker in election '06.
-------
Still speaking of the war, it continues to roil the Democratic ranks. Following up on my recent column about pro-war Joe Lieberman's travails with the antiwar left, I duly note today that the Connecticut senator will be officially challenged in an Aug. 8 Democratic primary by antiwar hero Ned Lamont.
Lamont, a cable TV entrepeneur with minimal political experience, won the right to challenge Lieberman last Friday night, when, at a state party convention, he won 33 percent of the Democratic delegates. (In Connecticut, the minimal share required for an aspiring primary challenger is 15 percent.) In other words, it was an embarrasing night for the incumbent senator, because his aides got hurt by their own spin. In advance of the convention, they spread word that Lamont would get around 33 percent, in an attempt to raise expectations; then, assuming Lamont would get a lower share, they could paint the challenger's tally as disappointing. But they wound up nailing it perfectly. Rest assured that wasn't part of the Lieberman game plan.
Anyway, here's what it means: At the exact time that Democrats everywhere want to be focused on keeping Bush and the GOP on the defensive, they now have to pause in their labors and conduct what will be, in essence, a national referendum on their own internal divisions about the Iraq war. In the dead of summer, no less, when there is typically not much competing political news. Maybe it's "healthy" for Democrats that this will occur; antiwar Democrats have long sought such a confrontation with Lieberman. But rest assured that this primary is not part of the national party's ideal game plan.
-------
Meanwhile, regarding my posting here Friday about the blogosphere's faux scoop on Karl Rove's purported indictment, we're still waiting. The offending website, truthout.org, has now decided to eat crow: "The time has now come...to issue a partial apology to our readership for this story. While we paid very careful attention to the sourcing on this story, we erred in getting too far out in front of the news-cycle. In moving as quickly as we did, we caused more confusion than clarity. And that was a disservice to our readership and we regret it."
"Too far out in front of the news cycle?" What's that supposed to mean? Whatever. Howie Kurtz has more on the topic, here.
-------
I wrote a newspaper column this morning on the religious right's expectations for a federal amendment banning gay marriage (a Senate vote is slated several weeks from now), and its desire to hold Republicans accountable if they don't push the issue. I mentioned that John McCain might be on the spot; he's wooing the religious right, but in an earlier Senate vote two years ago, he came out against the anti-gay amendment. Well, he may get in trouble with his new best friends, because apparently he plans to vote against it again. Every respositioning politician apparently has his limits.
-------
Here's yet another blow to the Democratic '06 message that the GOP has fostered a "culture of corruption." Now it turns out that ethically-challenged Lousiana congressman William Jefferson was videotaped taking 100 grand in bribes from a guy wearing a wire for the feds. Memo to the Democrats: When one of your own people is captured on video acting corrupt, then it's time to dump the party message. Because the camera doesn't lie.
Friday, May 19, 2006
Defending Karl Rove from the perils of "blog porn"
I don't mean to sound like an old buzzard, a "mainstream media" relic who pines for the bygone days of manual typewriters, glue pots, and rotary phones (all of which I used). But here is my main beef with the blogosphere:
All its attributes aside, it still has the potential to debase journalistic standards that are worth preserving.
A classic case in point:
It has now been a week since an online report declared breathlessly that not only was GOP strategist Karl Rove facing imminent indictment, but that he had already shared that impending news with President Bush and numerous high-level administration officials. This report, according to a website called truthout.org, was supposedly based on the inside skinny from "a half-dozen White House aides and two senior officials who work at the Republican National Committee."
What happened next was the blogosphere at its worst. Even though the report was really no more than a rumor -- in the sense that no other news organization was able to confirm its veracity, or to determine why eight high-ranking sources would spill the beans to somebody named Jason Leopold and nobody else -- it nevertheless sped through the "new media" like a virulent disease.
Liberal blogs linked to the story, thus spreading the word, not because they had checked it out and found it to be true, but because they wanted it to be true. Last Friday, a few hours after Leopold's report appeared online, Kevin Drum of the respectable Washington Monthly blog provided a link and said, "What the hell. It's Friday evening, and that's a good time for some blog porn."
Also that same night, a blog called the Democratic Daily allowed a reader to link the story. Others soon followed, with headlines such as "Bush's Brain Takes a Hike." One blog linked to Leopold, simply saying, "This is huge news if true." And as I mentioned a few days ago, the "news" moved so swiftly that Rove's supposed indictment was announced at the podium of a Michigan trial lawyers association dinner on Saturday night.
I recently watched the movie All the President's Men, and was struck by the fact that those reporters spent weeks on one story, methodically nailing down each fact -- and then Ben Bradlee tosses it back at them and says, "You haven't got it...Get some harder information next time." What an amazing concept -- OK, I am sounding like an old buzzard -- because today we're in a climate where basically a reporter empties his raw notes into the blogsophere and people who like the premise simply pick it up without a moment of reflection.
Here's what a moment of reflection, and a few minutes on Nexus, would have turned up: Jason Leopold, by his own admission, has "a checkered past," which includes being deficient in the craft of collecting facts. Four years ago, he wrote an article about a Bush administration official for Salon, the online magazine, and there were so many questions about the material that Salon had to retract it. Leopold has also written a book that talks about a 1996 arrest for grand larceny, and a dispute with a former employer, Dow Jones Newswires, which was upset with his coverage of Enron because (in Leopold's words) "seems I got all of the facts wrong."
All this was covered by Washington Post media writer Howard Kurtz, just one year ago.
By the way, if Rove is ultimately indicted, I'm sure somebody will argue that Leopold was right all along. Sure. In the same way that a stopped clock is right twice a day.
This whole incident reminds me of what happened to John Kerry during the 2004 presidential primary season, when the right-wing Drudge Report (which in the past had billed itself -- this is an attribute? -- as 80 percent accurate) posted the "world exclusive" that Kerry had dallied sexually with a young unnamed woman. And since the rumor was deemed to be "out there," it was spread by bloggers who wanted it to be true. It took a week for that non-story to die.
I wrote a piece about that incident at the time. It appears in full below (because I can't link it from the paid archives), and it deals with some of the same underlying issues. Call it another cautionary tale. If you're still interested in this topic, keep reading:
-------
February 18, 2004
By Dick Polman
When a gaggle of national political reporters sat down to an Italian dinner in Milwaukee on Thursday night, they were too wired to read the menu. Instead, they peppered one another with questions:
"What do you hear? What do you know?"
It was fruitless. They had all heard the same rumor - that Democratic presidential front-runner John Kerry had allegedly dallied with an unnamed woman - but nobody "knew" anything, beyond the fact that the rumor had been floated on a right-wing Web site that bills itself as 80 percent accurate.
But six days later, now that the frenzy has subsided, it's possible to look back and track the rumor as it moved like a virus through the media bloodstream - demonstrating, yet again, the ways in which instantaneous scandal-mongering threatens traditional news values, warps the discourse of campaigns, and imperils political careers.
In this case, despite the best efforts of the anonymous tipsters, the rumor flopped. As posted last Thursday on the Drudge Report Web site, the "world exclusive" stated that some respectable news outlets were looking into whether the rumor had any basis in fact. But apparently there is no such fact, because Kerry's alleged lover now says there is nothing to allege.
Within the mainstream media community, the apprehension persisted all weekend, in part because memories of 1998 were still raw. Drudge had been right that year: There really was a complicit intern, and she really did have a soiled dress. Drudge had gone where the mainstream media had feared to tread, and everyone followed. Suddenly, it seemed old-fashioned to believe that a rumor should be vetted as true prior to dissemination.
And the speed of dissemination has quickened during the last decade. When Bill Clinton ran in 1992, his first accusers were the supermarket tabloids (especially the Star, which paid Gennifer Flowers for her allegation). Today, there is no respite from infotainment; Web-driven rumors can flash on your Blackberry within seconds.
In the words of ex-reporter Tom Rosenstiel, who runs the nonpartisan Project for Excellence in Journalism: "There are more outlets to shovel this stuff out fast. People who want to manipulate the press and public have more leverage than ever. It's a seller's market."
And there are no rules of evidence in cyberspace, no editors to ask irritating questions about accuracy. Matt Drudge posted his tease Thursday morning (he offered no proof of a liaison), and by noon, Rush Limbaugh was in full cry on his radio show ("This is sort of like the Lewinsky situation. . . . If Kerry denies this, that's not going to be good enough."). To underscore the point, Limbaugh's Web site ran a doctored photo of former intern Monica Lewinsky hugging Kerry.
Two Web sites, run by the National Review and the Wall Street Journal, also recycled the rumor, even though the Journal site noted that Drudge was sometimes wrong. Indeed. In 1997, Drudge "exposed" a Clinton White House aide as a wife-beater. The aide sued, and Drudge had to run a retraction.
Then last Friday, the British, with their looser standards, weighed in. The Sun, a tabloid owned by conservative magnate Rupert Murdoch, ran the rumor and outed the woman, Alexandra Polier. (It also quoted Polier's parents speaking harshly about Kerry; Terry Polier now says that he was misquoted and that his wife never spoke to the Sun.) Later Friday, Wonkette, a U.S. Web log, supplied a link to the Sun, and that put Polier's name in play stateside.
Also that day, Kerry dismissed the rumor on the Don Imus radio show. That, in turn, prompted the New York Post and New York Daily News tabloids to decide that Kerry's denial of an unsubstantiated rumor merited cover-page treatment Saturday.
Another London newspaper, the conservative Telegraph, ran its own weekend story, hinting that a blockbuster scandal was on the way. This is the same paper that, during the '90s, ran a long string of articles accusing Clinton of drug-smuggling, money-laundering, murder, and "incipient fascism." But its Kerry story was displayed on C-Span on Sunday morning, when a caller from Ohio complained that the U.S. press was covering up.
Meanwhile, Drudge wasn't delivering promised goods. Thursday, the site had hinted that Kerry's purported affair was being outed by a disgruntled former aide named Chris Lehane. It had attributed this rumor to Craig Crawford, a respected analyst employed by MSNBC. But it turned out that this was merely Crawford's unproven theory, which Crawford had shared in private e-mail with MSNBC producers - only to discover later that someone had forwarded it to Drudge. Crawford complained to Drudge, and the Lehane item was removed.
Lehane, who had moved from Kerry to candidate Wesley Clark, also denied that he was Drudge's tipster. Not everyone buys that, particularly since Clark reportedly mentioned the rumor during some off-the-record banter with reporters prior to the first Drudge posting. But Clark went mum on the matter when he endorsed Kerry on Friday; the campaigns of Howard Dean and John Edwards stayed silent, treating the rumor as radioactive.'
Actually, most of the mainstream media did the same. The Inquirer didn't acknowledge the rumor until yesterday, when it reported Polier's Monday denial. This approach was not atypical; as Larry Sabato, author of Feeding Frenzy, a book on scandal coverage, said yesterday: "The mainstream media has generally weathered this one responsibly. TV, too. I was on some shows over the weekend, and I was repeatedly warned by producers, 'Don't bring it up.' "
The caution paid off, because this rumor failed the Lewinsky test. There is no independent documentation of guilt (Lewinsky's friend Linda Tripp had worn a wire), for starters. But Rosenstiel said that more sordid Web rumors would probably plague the '04 campaign, because "there are more outlets with low standards. If a rumor is 'out there,' that's enough justification to cover it."
For some conservatives, the Kerry rumor is still "out there." In the chat room on FreeRepublic.com, they don't buy Polier's denial. As "Doctor Raoul" writes: "Was she threatened? Were parents pressured? . . . It's time for John to release all his records with regard to 'Le Affair Kerry.' "
All its attributes aside, it still has the potential to debase journalistic standards that are worth preserving.
A classic case in point:
It has now been a week since an online report declared breathlessly that not only was GOP strategist Karl Rove facing imminent indictment, but that he had already shared that impending news with President Bush and numerous high-level administration officials. This report, according to a website called truthout.org, was supposedly based on the inside skinny from "a half-dozen White House aides and two senior officials who work at the Republican National Committee."
What happened next was the blogosphere at its worst. Even though the report was really no more than a rumor -- in the sense that no other news organization was able to confirm its veracity, or to determine why eight high-ranking sources would spill the beans to somebody named Jason Leopold and nobody else -- it nevertheless sped through the "new media" like a virulent disease.
Liberal blogs linked to the story, thus spreading the word, not because they had checked it out and found it to be true, but because they wanted it to be true. Last Friday, a few hours after Leopold's report appeared online, Kevin Drum of the respectable Washington Monthly blog provided a link and said, "What the hell. It's Friday evening, and that's a good time for some blog porn."
Also that same night, a blog called the Democratic Daily allowed a reader to link the story. Others soon followed, with headlines such as "Bush's Brain Takes a Hike." One blog linked to Leopold, simply saying, "This is huge news if true." And as I mentioned a few days ago, the "news" moved so swiftly that Rove's supposed indictment was announced at the podium of a Michigan trial lawyers association dinner on Saturday night.
I recently watched the movie All the President's Men, and was struck by the fact that those reporters spent weeks on one story, methodically nailing down each fact -- and then Ben Bradlee tosses it back at them and says, "You haven't got it...Get some harder information next time." What an amazing concept -- OK, I am sounding like an old buzzard -- because today we're in a climate where basically a reporter empties his raw notes into the blogsophere and people who like the premise simply pick it up without a moment of reflection.
Here's what a moment of reflection, and a few minutes on Nexus, would have turned up: Jason Leopold, by his own admission, has "a checkered past," which includes being deficient in the craft of collecting facts. Four years ago, he wrote an article about a Bush administration official for Salon, the online magazine, and there were so many questions about the material that Salon had to retract it. Leopold has also written a book that talks about a 1996 arrest for grand larceny, and a dispute with a former employer, Dow Jones Newswires, which was upset with his coverage of Enron because (in Leopold's words) "seems I got all of the facts wrong."
All this was covered by Washington Post media writer Howard Kurtz, just one year ago.
By the way, if Rove is ultimately indicted, I'm sure somebody will argue that Leopold was right all along. Sure. In the same way that a stopped clock is right twice a day.
This whole incident reminds me of what happened to John Kerry during the 2004 presidential primary season, when the right-wing Drudge Report (which in the past had billed itself -- this is an attribute? -- as 80 percent accurate) posted the "world exclusive" that Kerry had dallied sexually with a young unnamed woman. And since the rumor was deemed to be "out there," it was spread by bloggers who wanted it to be true. It took a week for that non-story to die.
I wrote a piece about that incident at the time. It appears in full below (because I can't link it from the paid archives), and it deals with some of the same underlying issues. Call it another cautionary tale. If you're still interested in this topic, keep reading:
-------
February 18, 2004
By Dick Polman
When a gaggle of national political reporters sat down to an Italian dinner in Milwaukee on Thursday night, they were too wired to read the menu. Instead, they peppered one another with questions:
"What do you hear? What do you know?"
It was fruitless. They had all heard the same rumor - that Democratic presidential front-runner John Kerry had allegedly dallied with an unnamed woman - but nobody "knew" anything, beyond the fact that the rumor had been floated on a right-wing Web site that bills itself as 80 percent accurate.
But six days later, now that the frenzy has subsided, it's possible to look back and track the rumor as it moved like a virus through the media bloodstream - demonstrating, yet again, the ways in which instantaneous scandal-mongering threatens traditional news values, warps the discourse of campaigns, and imperils political careers.
In this case, despite the best efforts of the anonymous tipsters, the rumor flopped. As posted last Thursday on the Drudge Report Web site, the "world exclusive" stated that some respectable news outlets were looking into whether the rumor had any basis in fact. But apparently there is no such fact, because Kerry's alleged lover now says there is nothing to allege.
Within the mainstream media community, the apprehension persisted all weekend, in part because memories of 1998 were still raw. Drudge had been right that year: There really was a complicit intern, and she really did have a soiled dress. Drudge had gone where the mainstream media had feared to tread, and everyone followed. Suddenly, it seemed old-fashioned to believe that a rumor should be vetted as true prior to dissemination.
And the speed of dissemination has quickened during the last decade. When Bill Clinton ran in 1992, his first accusers were the supermarket tabloids (especially the Star, which paid Gennifer Flowers for her allegation). Today, there is no respite from infotainment; Web-driven rumors can flash on your Blackberry within seconds.
In the words of ex-reporter Tom Rosenstiel, who runs the nonpartisan Project for Excellence in Journalism: "There are more outlets to shovel this stuff out fast. People who want to manipulate the press and public have more leverage than ever. It's a seller's market."
And there are no rules of evidence in cyberspace, no editors to ask irritating questions about accuracy. Matt Drudge posted his tease Thursday morning (he offered no proof of a liaison), and by noon, Rush Limbaugh was in full cry on his radio show ("This is sort of like the Lewinsky situation. . . . If Kerry denies this, that's not going to be good enough."). To underscore the point, Limbaugh's Web site ran a doctored photo of former intern Monica Lewinsky hugging Kerry.
Two Web sites, run by the National Review and the Wall Street Journal, also recycled the rumor, even though the Journal site noted that Drudge was sometimes wrong. Indeed. In 1997, Drudge "exposed" a Clinton White House aide as a wife-beater. The aide sued, and Drudge had to run a retraction.
Then last Friday, the British, with their looser standards, weighed in. The Sun, a tabloid owned by conservative magnate Rupert Murdoch, ran the rumor and outed the woman, Alexandra Polier. (It also quoted Polier's parents speaking harshly about Kerry; Terry Polier now says that he was misquoted and that his wife never spoke to the Sun.) Later Friday, Wonkette, a U.S. Web log, supplied a link to the Sun, and that put Polier's name in play stateside.
Also that day, Kerry dismissed the rumor on the Don Imus radio show. That, in turn, prompted the New York Post and New York Daily News tabloids to decide that Kerry's denial of an unsubstantiated rumor merited cover-page treatment Saturday.
Another London newspaper, the conservative Telegraph, ran its own weekend story, hinting that a blockbuster scandal was on the way. This is the same paper that, during the '90s, ran a long string of articles accusing Clinton of drug-smuggling, money-laundering, murder, and "incipient fascism." But its Kerry story was displayed on C-Span on Sunday morning, when a caller from Ohio complained that the U.S. press was covering up.
Meanwhile, Drudge wasn't delivering promised goods. Thursday, the site had hinted that Kerry's purported affair was being outed by a disgruntled former aide named Chris Lehane. It had attributed this rumor to Craig Crawford, a respected analyst employed by MSNBC. But it turned out that this was merely Crawford's unproven theory, which Crawford had shared in private e-mail with MSNBC producers - only to discover later that someone had forwarded it to Drudge. Crawford complained to Drudge, and the Lehane item was removed.
Lehane, who had moved from Kerry to candidate Wesley Clark, also denied that he was Drudge's tipster. Not everyone buys that, particularly since Clark reportedly mentioned the rumor during some off-the-record banter with reporters prior to the first Drudge posting. But Clark went mum on the matter when he endorsed Kerry on Friday; the campaigns of Howard Dean and John Edwards stayed silent, treating the rumor as radioactive.'
Actually, most of the mainstream media did the same. The Inquirer didn't acknowledge the rumor until yesterday, when it reported Polier's Monday denial. This approach was not atypical; as Larry Sabato, author of Feeding Frenzy, a book on scandal coverage, said yesterday: "The mainstream media has generally weathered this one responsibly. TV, too. I was on some shows over the weekend, and I was repeatedly warned by producers, 'Don't bring it up.' "
The caution paid off, because this rumor failed the Lewinsky test. There is no independent documentation of guilt (Lewinsky's friend Linda Tripp had worn a wire), for starters. But Rosenstiel said that more sordid Web rumors would probably plague the '04 campaign, because "there are more outlets with low standards. If a rumor is 'out there,' that's enough justification to cover it."
For some conservatives, the Kerry rumor is still "out there." In the chat room on FreeRepublic.com, they don't buy Polier's denial. As "Doctor Raoul" writes: "Was she threatened? Were parents pressured? . . . It's time for John to release all his records with regard to 'Le Affair Kerry.' "
Thursday, May 18, 2006
Why the GOP wins elections, Chapter 267,000
Judging from what John Conyers is saying today, it's clear the Democrats are still trying to figure out how they can best deal with the Republican charge that they are just a gang of Bush-bashers thirsting for revenge.
As I mentioned in print last weekend, the beleaguered GOP will argue this year that the election in November of a Democratic House would usher in two years of hearings, probes, subpoenas and government gridlock. The Democrats, as always fearful that any charge made against them will stick like Velcro to their hindquarters, are now working hard to reassure voters that a handover of power would not result in another impeachment psychodrama.
Which brings us to Conyers, the Michigan congressman who would take over the House Judiciary Committee if the Democrats capture the chamber. He writes in today's Washington Post that, regarding the notion that he would immediately bring impeachment proceedings, "I will not do that." He goes on to say that he merely wants to get some answers about the Bush administrations' conduct "in a responsible and bipartisan manner."
More Conyers: "So, rather than seeking impeachment, I have chosen to propose comprehensive oversight of these alleged abuses. The oversight I have suggested would be performed by a select committee made up equally of Democrats and Republicans and chosen by the House speaker and the minority leader."
But did he really think this relatively benign message would get the Republicans to back off? That's not how the GOP plays the game. Democrats always calibrate; Republicans cede nothing. Within hours of Conyers' remarks today, GOP headquarters emailed a press release entitled REAL DEM AGENDA: IMPEACHMENT...which pointed out that Conyers was evading the fact that he introduced a bill last December to "make recommendations" on possible grounds for impeachment. Therefore, said the Republican email in boldface, CONYERS ATTEMPTED TO CUT AND RUN FROM HIS IMPEACHMENT PUSH.
So let's review: Before his Post piece, Conyers was being painted by the GOP as a Bush-bashing avenger.
Then he writes his piece, and now the GOP has him as (a) a Bush-bashing avenger (b) a truth-trimmer, and (c) a coward trying to "cut and run" (which is also the all-purpose GOP term for Democrats weak on Iraq).
Nice work, Dems. Here's a new article that makes the case for campaigning without apology on a platform of bringing accountability to Washington.
As I mentioned in print last weekend, the beleaguered GOP will argue this year that the election in November of a Democratic House would usher in two years of hearings, probes, subpoenas and government gridlock. The Democrats, as always fearful that any charge made against them will stick like Velcro to their hindquarters, are now working hard to reassure voters that a handover of power would not result in another impeachment psychodrama.
Which brings us to Conyers, the Michigan congressman who would take over the House Judiciary Committee if the Democrats capture the chamber. He writes in today's Washington Post that, regarding the notion that he would immediately bring impeachment proceedings, "I will not do that." He goes on to say that he merely wants to get some answers about the Bush administrations' conduct "in a responsible and bipartisan manner."
More Conyers: "So, rather than seeking impeachment, I have chosen to propose comprehensive oversight of these alleged abuses. The oversight I have suggested would be performed by a select committee made up equally of Democrats and Republicans and chosen by the House speaker and the minority leader."
But did he really think this relatively benign message would get the Republicans to back off? That's not how the GOP plays the game. Democrats always calibrate; Republicans cede nothing. Within hours of Conyers' remarks today, GOP headquarters emailed a press release entitled REAL DEM AGENDA: IMPEACHMENT...which pointed out that Conyers was evading the fact that he introduced a bill last December to "make recommendations" on possible grounds for impeachment. Therefore, said the Republican email in boldface, CONYERS ATTEMPTED TO CUT AND RUN FROM HIS IMPEACHMENT PUSH.
So let's review: Before his Post piece, Conyers was being painted by the GOP as a Bush-bashing avenger.
Then he writes his piece, and now the GOP has him as (a) a Bush-bashing avenger (b) a truth-trimmer, and (c) a coward trying to "cut and run" (which is also the all-purpose GOP term for Democrats weak on Iraq).
Nice work, Dems. Here's a new article that makes the case for campaigning without apology on a platform of bringing accountability to Washington.
Ted Kennedy, fiscal conservative
I couldn't help noticing that Edward Kennedy rose to his feet on the Senate floor yesterday and denounced the proposal to build a 370-mile fence on the southern border. He complained that it would cost too much; for instance, he said, a fence built not long ago in San Diego wound up being 200 percent over budget.
All this, from the same guy who championed the Boston "Big Dig" highway boondoggle, which was financed largely with your money and mine...and would up more than 300 percent over budget.
I covered that saga, and the mounting costs, back in January 2003. There wasn't a word of complaint from Ted about that $15 billion.
All this, from the same guy who championed the Boston "Big Dig" highway boondoggle, which was financed largely with your money and mine...and would up more than 300 percent over budget.
I covered that saga, and the mounting costs, back in January 2003. There wasn't a word of complaint from Ted about that $15 billion.
Another Keystone milestone
I was remiss yesterday in not mentioning another key election that transpired Tuesday night here in the Keystone state, further evidence that an anti-incumbent/anti-Republican voter revolt could be in the works for November.
Voters in Chester County, a rock-ribbed Republican enclave of suburban Philadelphia, were invited to choose a new state senator. They went with the Democratic candidate, Andrew Dinniman -- and he'll be the first Democrat state senator to represent that county since the horse and buggy era. Republicans outnumber Democrats in that district by a 2-1 margin, yet Dinniman took 55 percent of the vote. Dinniman also won 22 of 26 muncipalities.
He and his Republican opponent, Carol Aichele, are both county commissioners. There were no scandals to skew the results. So what happened? Well, Skip Brion, the county Republican chairman, gave the local paper an instant analysis: "What happened here was obviously our voter base decided to send a message to us." And another Republican told the paper that voter dissatisfaction with the Republican leadership contributed to Aichele's defeat, even though she was not to blame.
Coupled with evidence that a significant number of Republican voters crossed over to vote for Dinniman, this election could have implications in November for Jim Gerlach, the Republican congressman whose district includes a large slice of Chester County, and who has only won narrowly in the past.
Gerlach has already been listed by non-partisan handicappers as one of the most vulnerable GOP incumbents nationwide, and now, as Pennsylvania analyst Terry Madonna noted the other day, the Dinniman election "should cause Republicans at the state level to be concerned about the ability of the Democrats to extend their reach in the suburbs....This is not good news for Gerlach. He will have a state official in his backyard who can help plan his political demise."
One can always argue -- as some diehard GOP defenders are doing -- that these are merely local results, with no ill portent for Republicans nationwide, but not even the party's top activists are buying that. They say that this is no time to be in denial.
Pat Toomey, president of the conservative Club for Growth said yesterday that what has happened in Pennsylvania "shows a very worrisome, elevated level of anger and frustration on the part of Republicans. In a primary, they can vent that by voting for challengers. The problem is, in a general election they stay home. It's a very worrisome sign for Republicans in Washington."
Voters in Chester County, a rock-ribbed Republican enclave of suburban Philadelphia, were invited to choose a new state senator. They went with the Democratic candidate, Andrew Dinniman -- and he'll be the first Democrat state senator to represent that county since the horse and buggy era. Republicans outnumber Democrats in that district by a 2-1 margin, yet Dinniman took 55 percent of the vote. Dinniman also won 22 of 26 muncipalities.
He and his Republican opponent, Carol Aichele, are both county commissioners. There were no scandals to skew the results. So what happened? Well, Skip Brion, the county Republican chairman, gave the local paper an instant analysis: "What happened here was obviously our voter base decided to send a message to us." And another Republican told the paper that voter dissatisfaction with the Republican leadership contributed to Aichele's defeat, even though she was not to blame.
Coupled with evidence that a significant number of Republican voters crossed over to vote for Dinniman, this election could have implications in November for Jim Gerlach, the Republican congressman whose district includes a large slice of Chester County, and who has only won narrowly in the past.
Gerlach has already been listed by non-partisan handicappers as one of the most vulnerable GOP incumbents nationwide, and now, as Pennsylvania analyst Terry Madonna noted the other day, the Dinniman election "should cause Republicans at the state level to be concerned about the ability of the Democrats to extend their reach in the suburbs....This is not good news for Gerlach. He will have a state official in his backyard who can help plan his political demise."
One can always argue -- as some diehard GOP defenders are doing -- that these are merely local results, with no ill portent for Republicans nationwide, but not even the party's top activists are buying that. They say that this is no time to be in denial.
Pat Toomey, president of the conservative Club for Growth said yesterday that what has happened in Pennsylvania "shows a very worrisome, elevated level of anger and frustration on the part of Republicans. In a primary, they can vent that by voting for challengers. The problem is, in a general election they stay home. It's a very worrisome sign for Republicans in Washington."
Wednesday, May 17, 2006
The Keystone uprising...and Al Gore rising?
So now we finally have solid empirical evidence that actual voters are in open revolt against the Republicans, also known as the incumbent governing party. I need look no further than the primary results last night in my own state.
Granted, the 12 fallen Republican incumbents were only state legislators, so maybe it's wrong to interpret these results as symptomatic of the national political mood. But Robert Jubelirer, the defeated state Senate President Pro Tempore, wasn't born yesterday, and he's the one who says "It is a historic year, my friends."
Jubelirer was ousted after 32 years in office, and Senate Majority leader David Brightbill, a 20-year veteran, suffered the same fate. Brightbill lost to a tire salesman whose ex-lover was suing him. This is the first time that top state legislative leaders have been ejected from their jobs since the year that the Philadelphia Phillies blew the pennant with 10 straight losses (that would be 1964).
Jubelirer had to spend $1.3 million on his primary campaign, but was beaten by a guy who spent around $200,000. Both leaders were punished for giving themselves a pay raise in a bill that passed at two in the morning, for enacting a series of state income tax hikes, and for expanding the size of state government at twice the rate of inflation. Grassroots Republican voters, using the Internet, spread word that the incumbents were arrogant and out of touch.
All told, this is shaping up to be the largest primary season turnover of Pennsylvania legislative seats in 30 years. One can argue that this is just a local squall. On the other hand, the grievances that animated conservative Pennsylvania voters last night (free-spending incumbents, betraying the GOP philosophy) are roughly similar to the current conservative base complaints against the GOP Congress in Washington.
It's also useful to remember that Pennsylvania in the past has foreshadowed the national mood; witness the special U.S. Senate election in 1991, when underdog Democrat Harris Wofford trounced ex-Pennsylvania Gov. Dick Thornburgh by 10 percentage points, riding a wave of voter discontent over Republican inaction on health care and the economy. Bill Clinton won the presidency a year later.
By the way, there was one noteworthy GOP congressional primary race last night, in northeastern Pennsylvania. Three-term Republican congressman Don Sherwood got slapped around pretty badly. In both 2002 and 2004, this guy was untouchable; he didn't have to run in any primaries, because he never drew any challengers from within the GOP ranks. But this year was different, thanks to a little contretemps that sullied his conservative family-man image:
It turns out that Sherwood had a mistress 35 years his junior; this became widely known after the woman, Cynthia Ore, filed a $5.5-million lawsuit against Sherwood, claiming that he had tried to choke her while giving her a back rub at his Capitol Hill apartment. (Ore had called 911 at the time.) The suit was settled last November, but the uproar prompted an underdog Republican to challenge him in the primary. Sherwood wound up spending $300,000; the challenger, a political novice, spent around $5000.
Sherwood survived last night, but with with only 56 percent of the vote. Now he has to face Democrat Chris Carney, a former Pentagon intelligence officer, in November. He may well survive that faceoff - he represents a heavily Republican district - but this race is now listed by the nonpartisan National Journal as one of the 50 most competitive House races in 2006.
In a normal incumbent-friendly year, there's no way that Sherwood would crack the top 50. Kinky back rub, notwithstanding.
-------
On another topic entirely, I recall some weeks ago saying that it would be wise, regarding the 2008 Democratic presidential race, to keep an eye on Al Gore. The Wall Street Journal said the same thing nine days ago.
I'll say it again today. Leaving aside the fact that in recent months he has landed on the cover of three magazines and helmed the opening sketch on Saturday Night Live, he has now dropped a hint that his political ambitions might yet be freed from his lockbox. On Monday in Atlanta, he said: "I’m a recovering politician. But you always have to worry about a relapse.”
One sign that he's being taken seriously as a public figure: A business group called the Competitive Enterprise Institute, which is bankrolled in part by Exxon, intends to head off Gore's new global warming documentary by inveighing against "global warming alarmism."
Well, as attacks go, that's not so bad. At least Big Oil isn't painting him as a liar who claimed to have invented the Internet. (Which, for the record, he never claimed to have done.)
Granted, the 12 fallen Republican incumbents were only state legislators, so maybe it's wrong to interpret these results as symptomatic of the national political mood. But Robert Jubelirer, the defeated state Senate President Pro Tempore, wasn't born yesterday, and he's the one who says "It is a historic year, my friends."
Jubelirer was ousted after 32 years in office, and Senate Majority leader David Brightbill, a 20-year veteran, suffered the same fate. Brightbill lost to a tire salesman whose ex-lover was suing him. This is the first time that top state legislative leaders have been ejected from their jobs since the year that the Philadelphia Phillies blew the pennant with 10 straight losses (that would be 1964).
Jubelirer had to spend $1.3 million on his primary campaign, but was beaten by a guy who spent around $200,000. Both leaders were punished for giving themselves a pay raise in a bill that passed at two in the morning, for enacting a series of state income tax hikes, and for expanding the size of state government at twice the rate of inflation. Grassroots Republican voters, using the Internet, spread word that the incumbents were arrogant and out of touch.
All told, this is shaping up to be the largest primary season turnover of Pennsylvania legislative seats in 30 years. One can argue that this is just a local squall. On the other hand, the grievances that animated conservative Pennsylvania voters last night (free-spending incumbents, betraying the GOP philosophy) are roughly similar to the current conservative base complaints against the GOP Congress in Washington.
It's also useful to remember that Pennsylvania in the past has foreshadowed the national mood; witness the special U.S. Senate election in 1991, when underdog Democrat Harris Wofford trounced ex-Pennsylvania Gov. Dick Thornburgh by 10 percentage points, riding a wave of voter discontent over Republican inaction on health care and the economy. Bill Clinton won the presidency a year later.
By the way, there was one noteworthy GOP congressional primary race last night, in northeastern Pennsylvania. Three-term Republican congressman Don Sherwood got slapped around pretty badly. In both 2002 and 2004, this guy was untouchable; he didn't have to run in any primaries, because he never drew any challengers from within the GOP ranks. But this year was different, thanks to a little contretemps that sullied his conservative family-man image:
It turns out that Sherwood had a mistress 35 years his junior; this became widely known after the woman, Cynthia Ore, filed a $5.5-million lawsuit against Sherwood, claiming that he had tried to choke her while giving her a back rub at his Capitol Hill apartment. (Ore had called 911 at the time.) The suit was settled last November, but the uproar prompted an underdog Republican to challenge him in the primary. Sherwood wound up spending $300,000; the challenger, a political novice, spent around $5000.
Sherwood survived last night, but with with only 56 percent of the vote. Now he has to face Democrat Chris Carney, a former Pentagon intelligence officer, in November. He may well survive that faceoff - he represents a heavily Republican district - but this race is now listed by the nonpartisan National Journal as one of the 50 most competitive House races in 2006.
In a normal incumbent-friendly year, there's no way that Sherwood would crack the top 50. Kinky back rub, notwithstanding.
-------
On another topic entirely, I recall some weeks ago saying that it would be wise, regarding the 2008 Democratic presidential race, to keep an eye on Al Gore. The Wall Street Journal said the same thing nine days ago.
I'll say it again today. Leaving aside the fact that in recent months he has landed on the cover of three magazines and helmed the opening sketch on Saturday Night Live, he has now dropped a hint that his political ambitions might yet be freed from his lockbox. On Monday in Atlanta, he said: "I’m a recovering politician. But you always have to worry about a relapse.”
One sign that he's being taken seriously as a public figure: A business group called the Competitive Enterprise Institute, which is bankrolled in part by Exxon, intends to head off Gore's new global warming documentary by inveighing against "global warming alarmism."
Well, as attacks go, that's not so bad. At least Big Oil isn't painting him as a liar who claimed to have invented the Internet. (Which, for the record, he never claimed to have done.)
Tuesday, May 16, 2006
The National Guard flipflop
What is it with President Bush and the National Guard, anyway? As a candidate, he got ambushed by all the reports about how he'd never finished his youthful tour of duty; and now, as president, his conservative base is skinning him alive for his largely symbolic decision to send a few thousand guardsmen to the border for backup duty.
Well, not to add to his woes on the Guard decision, but just take a look at these remarks, uttered last December on Fox News. The question, from Bill O'Reilly, was: Why not send National Guardsmen to the border to back up the border patrol?
Answer: "Well, the National Guard is really, first of all, not trained for that mission. I mean, the fact of the matter is the border is a special place. There are special challenges that are faced there...I think it would be a horribly over-expensive and very difficult way to manage the problem."
Care to guess who made those remarks?
The much-maligned Homeland Security director, Michael Chertoff.
So, on the issue of dispatching the Guard, I guess the administration was against it before they were for it.
The conservative activists don't mind the flipflop, per se. But they apparently detest the idea of sending only 6000 Guardsmen, which strikes them as wimpy and (the worst insult of all) "Clintonian." Some of today's highlights:
Mark Levin, a conservative legal activist, says today on his blog: "I didn't spend 35 years in the conservative movement for this. . . . This is pure idiocy, and (Bush's guest worker idea) has the potential of being far more damaging to this nation than any big-government power-grab perpetrated by any previous president and Congress."
Minneapolis lawyer and conservative blogger John Hinderaker: "He had his chance, and he blew it...President Bush doesn't have many chances left to salvage his second term. After (last night), he might not have any."
For a more complete roundup of today's right-wing Bush-bashing, check here and here.
Well, not to add to his woes on the Guard decision, but just take a look at these remarks, uttered last December on Fox News. The question, from Bill O'Reilly, was: Why not send National Guardsmen to the border to back up the border patrol?
Answer: "Well, the National Guard is really, first of all, not trained for that mission. I mean, the fact of the matter is the border is a special place. There are special challenges that are faced there...I think it would be a horribly over-expensive and very difficult way to manage the problem."
Care to guess who made those remarks?
The much-maligned Homeland Security director, Michael Chertoff.
So, on the issue of dispatching the Guard, I guess the administration was against it before they were for it.
The conservative activists don't mind the flipflop, per se. But they apparently detest the idea of sending only 6000 Guardsmen, which strikes them as wimpy and (the worst insult of all) "Clintonian." Some of today's highlights:
Mark Levin, a conservative legal activist, says today on his blog: "I didn't spend 35 years in the conservative movement for this. . . . This is pure idiocy, and (Bush's guest worker idea) has the potential of being far more damaging to this nation than any big-government power-grab perpetrated by any previous president and Congress."
Minneapolis lawyer and conservative blogger John Hinderaker: "He had his chance, and he blew it...President Bush doesn't have many chances left to salvage his second term. After (last night), he might not have any."
For a more complete roundup of today's right-wing Bush-bashing, check here and here.
The downside of having convictions
In today's Inquirer, I assessed the political side of President Bush's prime-time immigration speech, but there is more that needs to be said. In a sense, consider these supplemental remarks to be a tribute to Bush's stubborn convictions.
Yes, he felt compelled to lean rightward on border enforcement (at least symbolically) because the anti-immigrant right-wingers have been putting the squeeze on him. But he didn't go belly up and pander, either. He still managed to slap them around pretty well, with this passage:
"We cannot build a unified country by inciting people to anger, or playing on anyone's fears, or exploiting the issue of immigration for political gain. We must always remember that real lives will be affected by our debates and decisions, and that every human being has dignity and value no matter what their citizenship papers say."
That's presidential politesse, of course, but what it means in plain English is this: "People in my own base are acting like racists and demagogues, and they oughta knock it off."
Also, I don't sense that Bush favors a slow-assimilation guest-worker program just because he thinks it would be politically advantageous to bring Hispanic voters into the GOP. That's only one factor. Conservative thinker James Pinkerton, who worked in the senior George Bush's White House, provided useful context in his own column this morning:
"...Bush has held a pro-immigration opinion for a long time. His business background convinced him that low-wage immigration was good for the economy, Karl Rove convinced him that Hispanic immigrants could become future Republicans, and his father -- who signed the North American Free Trade Agreement back in 1992 -- convinced him that the Bush destiny was to preside over improved U.S.-Mexico relations. As governor of Texas, he was proud to show off his Spanish; as president, he has been no foe of bilingualism."
So I sensed last night that Bush was truly sincere when said this: "We must honor the great American tradition of the melting pot, which has made us one Nation out of many peoples. The success of our country depends upon helping newcomers assimilate into our society, and embrace our common identity as Americans...from cleaning offices to running offices ... from a life of low-paying jobs to a diploma, a career, and a home of their own. When immigrants assimilate and advance in our society, they realize their dreams...they renew our spirit...and they add to the unity of America."
Passages like that won't help him heal the growing breach with many on the right -- particularly those House Republicans who have already passed a bill to build a border fence and send the illegals back home. David Frum, a former Bush speechwriter who sides with the enforcement-only faction, framed the political stakes this morning on his blog:
"With last night's speech, President Bush severely worsened the schism in the party over immigration. The people he has put in gravest danger are those who most strenuously disagree with him: the House Republicans. Depressed turnout among Republican core voters threatens House members most - with one ironic possible result being an even more liberal immigration bill next year that will gain support from the president, Senate Republicans and a new Democratic House majority."
It's ironic that Bush, the reputed conservative, is suffering some of his worst damage on an issue on which he is actually a genuine moderate. That's politics for ya.
-------
Speaking of the prospects for sluggish Republican turnout, I wrote a weekend newspaper column about the GOP's counter-strategy: to invoke the specter of "House Speaker Pelosi" as well as other purportedly scary Democrats, as a turnout motivation tool. Anybody still interested in this topic can find a new report, here.
Yes, he felt compelled to lean rightward on border enforcement (at least symbolically) because the anti-immigrant right-wingers have been putting the squeeze on him. But he didn't go belly up and pander, either. He still managed to slap them around pretty well, with this passage:
"We cannot build a unified country by inciting people to anger, or playing on anyone's fears, or exploiting the issue of immigration for political gain. We must always remember that real lives will be affected by our debates and decisions, and that every human being has dignity and value no matter what their citizenship papers say."
That's presidential politesse, of course, but what it means in plain English is this: "People in my own base are acting like racists and demagogues, and they oughta knock it off."
Also, I don't sense that Bush favors a slow-assimilation guest-worker program just because he thinks it would be politically advantageous to bring Hispanic voters into the GOP. That's only one factor. Conservative thinker James Pinkerton, who worked in the senior George Bush's White House, provided useful context in his own column this morning:
"...Bush has held a pro-immigration opinion for a long time. His business background convinced him that low-wage immigration was good for the economy, Karl Rove convinced him that Hispanic immigrants could become future Republicans, and his father -- who signed the North American Free Trade Agreement back in 1992 -- convinced him that the Bush destiny was to preside over improved U.S.-Mexico relations. As governor of Texas, he was proud to show off his Spanish; as president, he has been no foe of bilingualism."
So I sensed last night that Bush was truly sincere when said this: "We must honor the great American tradition of the melting pot, which has made us one Nation out of many peoples. The success of our country depends upon helping newcomers assimilate into our society, and embrace our common identity as Americans...from cleaning offices to running offices ... from a life of low-paying jobs to a diploma, a career, and a home of their own. When immigrants assimilate and advance in our society, they realize their dreams...they renew our spirit...and they add to the unity of America."
Passages like that won't help him heal the growing breach with many on the right -- particularly those House Republicans who have already passed a bill to build a border fence and send the illegals back home. David Frum, a former Bush speechwriter who sides with the enforcement-only faction, framed the political stakes this morning on his blog:
"With last night's speech, President Bush severely worsened the schism in the party over immigration. The people he has put in gravest danger are those who most strenuously disagree with him: the House Republicans. Depressed turnout among Republican core voters threatens House members most - with one ironic possible result being an even more liberal immigration bill next year that will gain support from the president, Senate Republicans and a new Democratic House majority."
It's ironic that Bush, the reputed conservative, is suffering some of his worst damage on an issue on which he is actually a genuine moderate. That's politics for ya.
-------
Speaking of the prospects for sluggish Republican turnout, I wrote a weekend newspaper column about the GOP's counter-strategy: to invoke the specter of "House Speaker Pelosi" as well as other purportedly scary Democrats, as a turnout motivation tool. Anybody still interested in this topic can find a new report, here.
Monday, May 15, 2006
Karl is still Rove-ing the land
Mark Twain once had a line about how reports of his death were greatly exaggerated. We can say the same about Karl Rove.
Last Friday, a report on a website -- which I will not link here, because I didn't believe it -- insisted that not only has President Bush's political swami been secretly indicted, but that he already has informed a number of White House officials in advance. The rumor was so hot by Saturday that an announcement of Rove's indictment was made from the podium at a Michigan trial lawyers association dinner, prompting a standing ovation.
But there he was earlier today, still innocent of any charges that may or may not be brought, speaking in Washington to one of his favorite conservative groups, the American Enterprise Institute. It's worth noting his most interesting remarks, which I excerpt below:
Referring to the mood of the nation, he said, "I think the war looms over everything. No doubt about it....Look, we're in a sour time. I readily admit it. To be in the middle of a war where people turn on their television set and see people dying is not something that makes people happy and optimistic and upbeat.
"I heard the same kind of language about the 2004 election. We're going to be just fine on the fall elections. We stand for... a strong national defense, (winning) the war on terrorism, which involves victory in Iraq, strong national defense, economic policies that are pro-growth involving tax cuts and free trade, fiscal restraint in the budget process. Our opponents at this point stand for little more than...obstructionism....
"The American people are a center-right country presented with center-right candidates will vote center-right candidates....
"I know our own polls. I love reading your polls. I love this (media) mania that substitutes polls for substance. There's going to be a special Betty Ford addiction for those who are addicted to regular poll numbers. The polls I believe (are those) that get run through the (Republican National Committee). I look at them all the time. Americans like this person. (His) personal approval ratings are in the 60s. Job approval is lower. What that says to me is that people like him, they respect him, he's someone they feel a connection with, but they're just sour on the war. And that's the way it's going to be. We'll just fight our way through."
(Whoa, time out for a second: Rove thinks that more than 60 percent of Americans still like and respect Bush? I suppose there's always the chance that the RNC is right and every single other polling operation is wrong, and that would certainly gibe with the administration's general confidence in its own rightness. But, for the record, let us note that the late-April Gallup poll reported that only 39 percent of Americans had a favorable view of Bush personally; that a separate late-April Gallup poll, cosponsored by USA Today and CNN, found that only 40 percent of Americans viewed Bush as honest and trustworthy; and that the new CBS-New York Times poll reports that only 29 percent of Americans have a favorable view of Bush personally. That's down from 64 percent, as reported by CBS-NYT during the summer of 2002.)
Anyway, those Rove remarks were all in response to audience questions. What's most striking was that his formal address was almost entirely a numbing rendition of economic statistics, designed to demonstrate that Bush deserves political credit for a healthy economy. In other words, his chosen theme totally ignored Iraq. I'm sure that those polls he professes to ignore had no influence whatsoever on his choice of topic.
By the way, the issue of Rove's possible indictment did surface -- but only once, and in an oblique fashion, during the question phase. David Corn of The Nation decided to raise a sensitive topic:
Two years ago, Rove had informed Bush press flak Scott McClellan that he, Rove, had played no role in the outing of CIA employe Valerie Plame, wife of Bush critic Joseph Wilson. Later, it turned out that Rove had indeed played a role, by discussing Plame with a Time magazine reporter. (This is one reason why Rove could be indicted.)
So, Corn asked Rove today: "Scott McClellan told the White House press corps--many are here today--that he had spoken to you and you were not involved in the CIA leak. Can you explain why the American public...two and a half years later hasn't been given an explanation? Don't you think it deserves one, for it does seem that you were to some degree--though it may be disputed--involved in that leak?"
Rove said only that his lawyer had issued a statement on April 26, end of response. It turns out that the April 26 comment only addressed Rove's legal status, and didn't deal with the issue Corn was raising. Here is Corn's recounting of what happened today.
Last Friday, a report on a website -- which I will not link here, because I didn't believe it -- insisted that not only has President Bush's political swami been secretly indicted, but that he already has informed a number of White House officials in advance. The rumor was so hot by Saturday that an announcement of Rove's indictment was made from the podium at a Michigan trial lawyers association dinner, prompting a standing ovation.
But there he was earlier today, still innocent of any charges that may or may not be brought, speaking in Washington to one of his favorite conservative groups, the American Enterprise Institute. It's worth noting his most interesting remarks, which I excerpt below:
Referring to the mood of the nation, he said, "I think the war looms over everything. No doubt about it....Look, we're in a sour time. I readily admit it. To be in the middle of a war where people turn on their television set and see people dying is not something that makes people happy and optimistic and upbeat.
"I heard the same kind of language about the 2004 election. We're going to be just fine on the fall elections. We stand for... a strong national defense, (winning) the war on terrorism, which involves victory in Iraq, strong national defense, economic policies that are pro-growth involving tax cuts and free trade, fiscal restraint in the budget process. Our opponents at this point stand for little more than...obstructionism....
"The American people are a center-right country presented with center-right candidates will vote center-right candidates....
"I know our own polls. I love reading your polls. I love this (media) mania that substitutes polls for substance. There's going to be a special Betty Ford addiction for those who are addicted to regular poll numbers. The polls I believe (are those) that get run through the (Republican National Committee). I look at them all the time. Americans like this person. (His) personal approval ratings are in the 60s. Job approval is lower. What that says to me is that people like him, they respect him, he's someone they feel a connection with, but they're just sour on the war. And that's the way it's going to be. We'll just fight our way through."
(Whoa, time out for a second: Rove thinks that more than 60 percent of Americans still like and respect Bush? I suppose there's always the chance that the RNC is right and every single other polling operation is wrong, and that would certainly gibe with the administration's general confidence in its own rightness. But, for the record, let us note that the late-April Gallup poll reported that only 39 percent of Americans had a favorable view of Bush personally; that a separate late-April Gallup poll, cosponsored by USA Today and CNN, found that only 40 percent of Americans viewed Bush as honest and trustworthy; and that the new CBS-New York Times poll reports that only 29 percent of Americans have a favorable view of Bush personally. That's down from 64 percent, as reported by CBS-NYT during the summer of 2002.)
Anyway, those Rove remarks were all in response to audience questions. What's most striking was that his formal address was almost entirely a numbing rendition of economic statistics, designed to demonstrate that Bush deserves political credit for a healthy economy. In other words, his chosen theme totally ignored Iraq. I'm sure that those polls he professes to ignore had no influence whatsoever on his choice of topic.
By the way, the issue of Rove's possible indictment did surface -- but only once, and in an oblique fashion, during the question phase. David Corn of The Nation decided to raise a sensitive topic:
Two years ago, Rove had informed Bush press flak Scott McClellan that he, Rove, had played no role in the outing of CIA employe Valerie Plame, wife of Bush critic Joseph Wilson. Later, it turned out that Rove had indeed played a role, by discussing Plame with a Time magazine reporter. (This is one reason why Rove could be indicted.)
So, Corn asked Rove today: "Scott McClellan told the White House press corps--many are here today--that he had spoken to you and you were not involved in the CIA leak. Can you explain why the American public...two and a half years later hasn't been given an explanation? Don't you think it deserves one, for it does seem that you were to some degree--though it may be disputed--involved in that leak?"
Rove said only that his lawyer had issued a statement on April 26, end of response. It turns out that the April 26 comment only addressed Rove's legal status, and didn't deal with the issue Corn was raising. Here is Corn's recounting of what happened today.
Farewell, parallel universe
West Wing, that venerable liberal wet dream, took its final bow on NBC last night, ushering in the Matt Santos administration with so much schmaltzy earnestness that, by 8:45 pm, even the most dewy-eyed Democratic viewer was probably hungering for the street-smart cynicism of The Sopranos at 9.
And yet, there was an odd and intriguing little detail, amidst all the blowing of trumpets, and the solemn musical chairs among wistful and highly verbose policy wonks. At one point, the moving guys stormed into Jeb Bartlet's Oval Office and began to strip the place clean. They went to the bookshelves...whereupon the camera lingered on a volume, Society Must be Defended, by the French political philosopher Michel Foucault.
Why him, of all people? Are we to believe that Bartlet, the earnest idealist from New Hampshire, actually had a secret cynical side? Here's Michel Foucault, who died a few decades ago, summarizing his views: "The role of history will, then, be to show that laws deceive, that kings wear masks, that power creates illusions, and that historians tell lies."
No matter. The best of angels of our nature triumphed in the end: There was Bartlet riding to the Inauguration with Santos, a seamless handover of power from one high-minded Democrat to another. And that got me thinking: When was the last time that an exiting Democratic president bequeathed his job to a Democratic successor? I ran to my almanac.
Ready?
It was 1856.
Franklin Pierce to James Buchanan.
And this is why West Wing was the ultimate liberal wet dream.
And yet, there was an odd and intriguing little detail, amidst all the blowing of trumpets, and the solemn musical chairs among wistful and highly verbose policy wonks. At one point, the moving guys stormed into Jeb Bartlet's Oval Office and began to strip the place clean. They went to the bookshelves...whereupon the camera lingered on a volume, Society Must be Defended, by the French political philosopher Michel Foucault.
Why him, of all people? Are we to believe that Bartlet, the earnest idealist from New Hampshire, actually had a secret cynical side? Here's Michel Foucault, who died a few decades ago, summarizing his views: "The role of history will, then, be to show that laws deceive, that kings wear masks, that power creates illusions, and that historians tell lies."
No matter. The best of angels of our nature triumphed in the end: There was Bartlet riding to the Inauguration with Santos, a seamless handover of power from one high-minded Democrat to another. And that got me thinking: When was the last time that an exiting Democratic president bequeathed his job to a Democratic successor? I ran to my almanac.
Ready?
It was 1856.
Franklin Pierce to James Buchanan.
And this is why West Wing was the ultimate liberal wet dream.
Sunday, May 14, 2006
Sunday sermons from Mary and John
Mary Cheney is a tad puzzling. The vice president's openly lesbian daughter was on Fox News this morning, still exuding outrage that John Kerry referred to her as openly lesbian during a 2004 presidential debate. As she told Chris Wallace, "I think it was a pretty sleazy thing to do."
I was there that night, in Arizona, and when Kerry brought up Mary Cheney ("she's being who she was, she's being who she was born as"), we scribes nodded knowingly at each other, because we could see what Kerry was doing. Of course it was a hardball political act on his part. He was going for a two-fer:
1. By mentioning to viewers that Mary was gay, Kerry was hoping to shock those religious conservatives who might be hearing that fact for the first time, and thereby dampen their enthusiasm for the Bush-Cheney ticket.
2. And, more importantly, Kerry was charging Bush-Cheney with hypocrisy, for tolerating and supporting an open lesbian family member who was living with another woman, while, orchestrating a state-by-state referendum campaign to ban gay marriage.
Which brings us back to Mary Cheney today. In addition to calling Kerry's move "sleazy" on Fox News, she charges in her new book: ''What was offensive was that he was trying to use me and my sexual orientation for his own political gain.'' She also called Kerry an SOB.
By now, you might be hip to Mary's blind spot.
Here was the 2004 Bush-Cheney campaign, in the midst of its nationwide effort to use gay people for their own political gain -- by getting anti-gay marriage referenda on ballots in key states, in order to gin up conservative turnout -- and Mary today is still most outraged about the Democratic challenger. Moreover, Kerry had brought up her name in response to some comments that Bush had just made -- about his opposition to gay marriage.
It was Mary's party that was trying to intrude on her personal life, by passing laws curbing her personal choices. It was Mary's party that had put the gay issue on the table in that election. It was Mary's party that had made the issue fodder for discussion during that debate. It was Mary's party that got the issue on the ballot in Ohio, thereby attracting anti-gay voters and helping Bush win that pivotal state by a thin margin.
And yet she's still outraged at the Democrats...for saying something that was true. And, having vented again on that subject today, she then tried to have it both ways -- by criticizing the idea of amending the U.S. Constitution to ban same-sex marriage ("I would also hope that no one would think about trying to amend the constitution as a political strategy, that people wouldn't try and use amending the constitution to further their own political goals").
Well, guess what: her own party, in the Senate, is planning to bring up that idea for a vote next month, as a conservative base motivating tool. I haven't heard President Bush seeking to dissuade the Senate Republicans from doing so. In fact, the Republicans are trying again this year to get those referenda on state ballots, in time for the November congressional elections. But in Mary's view, Bush is "a very good man. On these issues, he hasn't caught up."
Yet it's Kerry who is the SOB.
-------
Well, the Straight Talk Express stopped at Jerry Falwell's college this weekend for some long-scheduled sweet talk with the Falwell student body. I caught the commencement speech earlier this evening on C-Span. Two observations:
1. McCain, who once called Falwell an "agent of intolerance," has absolved Falwell of that harsh sobriquet (because now he needs Falwell, as an ambassador to religious conservatives). Now he has found a new agent of intolerance:
"When I was a young man, I was quite infatuated with self-expression, and rightly so because, if memory conveniently serves, I was so much more eloquent, well-informed, and wiser than anyone else I knew. It seemed I understood the world and the purpose of life so much more profoundly than most people....I had opinions on everything, and I was always right. I loved to argue, and I could become understandably belligerent with people who lacked the grace and intelligence to agree with me....All their resistance to my brilliantly conceived and cogently argued views proved was that they possessed an inferior intellect and a weaker character than God had blessed me with, and I felt it was my clear duty to so inform them.
"It’s a pity that there wasn’t a blogosphere then. I would have felt very much at home in the medium."
There it is, an anti-media punch line for the 21st century. I guess all those blogger barbs about his rightward positioning have stung a bit.
2. He stood foresquare behind the war in Iraq: "My patriotism and my conscience required me to support it and to engage in the debate over whether and how to fight it.... I stand that ground because I believed, rightly or wrongly, that my country’s interests and values required it...Should we lose this war, our defeat will further destabilize an already volatile and dangerous region, strengthen the threat of terrorism, and unleash furies that will assail us for a very long time. I believe the benefits of success will justify the costs and risks we have incurred."
He is at least as hawkish on Iraq as the president whom he supports. Which again prompts a key question: If he becomes the '08 GOP nominee, would he really be able to sustain his past popularity among swing-voting independents and moderate Democrats -- when most of those voters have already soured on the war?
I was there that night, in Arizona, and when Kerry brought up Mary Cheney ("she's being who she was, she's being who she was born as"), we scribes nodded knowingly at each other, because we could see what Kerry was doing. Of course it was a hardball political act on his part. He was going for a two-fer:
1. By mentioning to viewers that Mary was gay, Kerry was hoping to shock those religious conservatives who might be hearing that fact for the first time, and thereby dampen their enthusiasm for the Bush-Cheney ticket.
2. And, more importantly, Kerry was charging Bush-Cheney with hypocrisy, for tolerating and supporting an open lesbian family member who was living with another woman, while, orchestrating a state-by-state referendum campaign to ban gay marriage.
Which brings us back to Mary Cheney today. In addition to calling Kerry's move "sleazy" on Fox News, she charges in her new book: ''What was offensive was that he was trying to use me and my sexual orientation for his own political gain.'' She also called Kerry an SOB.
By now, you might be hip to Mary's blind spot.
Here was the 2004 Bush-Cheney campaign, in the midst of its nationwide effort to use gay people for their own political gain -- by getting anti-gay marriage referenda on ballots in key states, in order to gin up conservative turnout -- and Mary today is still most outraged about the Democratic challenger. Moreover, Kerry had brought up her name in response to some comments that Bush had just made -- about his opposition to gay marriage.
It was Mary's party that was trying to intrude on her personal life, by passing laws curbing her personal choices. It was Mary's party that had put the gay issue on the table in that election. It was Mary's party that had made the issue fodder for discussion during that debate. It was Mary's party that got the issue on the ballot in Ohio, thereby attracting anti-gay voters and helping Bush win that pivotal state by a thin margin.
And yet she's still outraged at the Democrats...for saying something that was true. And, having vented again on that subject today, she then tried to have it both ways -- by criticizing the idea of amending the U.S. Constitution to ban same-sex marriage ("I would also hope that no one would think about trying to amend the constitution as a political strategy, that people wouldn't try and use amending the constitution to further their own political goals").
Well, guess what: her own party, in the Senate, is planning to bring up that idea for a vote next month, as a conservative base motivating tool. I haven't heard President Bush seeking to dissuade the Senate Republicans from doing so. In fact, the Republicans are trying again this year to get those referenda on state ballots, in time for the November congressional elections. But in Mary's view, Bush is "a very good man. On these issues, he hasn't caught up."
Yet it's Kerry who is the SOB.
-------
Well, the Straight Talk Express stopped at Jerry Falwell's college this weekend for some long-scheduled sweet talk with the Falwell student body. I caught the commencement speech earlier this evening on C-Span. Two observations:
1. McCain, who once called Falwell an "agent of intolerance," has absolved Falwell of that harsh sobriquet (because now he needs Falwell, as an ambassador to religious conservatives). Now he has found a new agent of intolerance:
"When I was a young man, I was quite infatuated with self-expression, and rightly so because, if memory conveniently serves, I was so much more eloquent, well-informed, and wiser than anyone else I knew. It seemed I understood the world and the purpose of life so much more profoundly than most people....I had opinions on everything, and I was always right. I loved to argue, and I could become understandably belligerent with people who lacked the grace and intelligence to agree with me....All their resistance to my brilliantly conceived and cogently argued views proved was that they possessed an inferior intellect and a weaker character than God had blessed me with, and I felt it was my clear duty to so inform them.
"It’s a pity that there wasn’t a blogosphere then. I would have felt very much at home in the medium."
There it is, an anti-media punch line for the 21st century. I guess all those blogger barbs about his rightward positioning have stung a bit.
2. He stood foresquare behind the war in Iraq: "My patriotism and my conscience required me to support it and to engage in the debate over whether and how to fight it.... I stand that ground because I believed, rightly or wrongly, that my country’s interests and values required it...Should we lose this war, our defeat will further destabilize an already volatile and dangerous region, strengthen the threat of terrorism, and unleash furies that will assail us for a very long time. I believe the benefits of success will justify the costs and risks we have incurred."
He is at least as hawkish on Iraq as the president whom he supports. Which again prompts a key question: If he becomes the '08 GOP nominee, would he really be able to sustain his past popularity among swing-voting independents and moderate Democrats -- when most of those voters have already soured on the war?
Saturday, May 13, 2006
Saturday potpurri
I suggested here on Thursday that most Americans might not take kindly to the idea of the National Security Agency scrutinizing their phone records, with the blessing of the phone companies who bill us every month. So when the Washington Post released a quickie poll on Friday morning, showing that 63 percent of Americans were giving the surveillance program a thumbs-up, I was quickly informed by triumphalist emailers that not only do I hate America, but I am also obviously not in touch with the average person's fear of terrorism.
And Friday was also a good day for the pro-Bush conservatives, who reveled in that poll; witness Mark Levin, a legal activist who wrote on his blog, "Once again the American people prove they are smarter than the media and political elites. They understand that we are at war, that the enemy had infiltrated our country successfully and unleashed devastating attacks against their fellow citizens, and that all this talk about an imperial presidency and violations of privacy rights is ACLU pabulum."
I advised my emailers not to get too giddy. I suggested that the first poll was probably akin to the early polls on the Iraq war, that the first reaction of most people was to assume that the government was doing the right thing, and that support for the phone-data program could wane over time as more information about its workings came to light, or as the ramifications for privacy became clearer.
Well, that didn't take long.
Newsweek has a new poll out today, after surveying twice as many people as the Post did, and it reports that 53 percent of Americans think the NSA program “goes too far in invading people’s privacy,” while 41 percent feel otherwise. (Among the independent swing voters, it's 56 percent to 41 percent.)
Moreover, the Newsweek poll posed a far more specific question. Whereas the Post only asked whether the NSA program was "acceptable" or "unacceptable," Newsweek's pollsters asked Americans to choose between "goes too far" or "it is a necessary tool to combat terrorism."
In other words, the pro-Bush conservatives are premature in thinking that the President won the PR battle at the starting gate. In his parlance, he faces "hard work" on this issue, especially with ex-NSA chief Michael Hayden facing Senate scrutiny next week on his CIA nomination.
-------
By the way, you think there's any chance that Qwest will be flooded with prospective new customers who will beg them to come East?
-------
I also noted the other day that Democratic chairman Howard Dean is at loggerheads with other party leaders over tactics, money, and the proper use of precious resources. And vice versa. He has already spent most of the money he has raised, spreading it around to states where Democrats are not well poised to win anything in November. That practice -- blowing all his money -- is better known in a politics as a "high burn rate," and he did the same thing when he ran for president. By the time he staggered screaming out of Iowa, in round one of the '04 primaries, most of his money was already gone.
On CNN late Thursday, I heard this shot across Dean's bow, courtesy of ex-Democratic strategist Paul Begala, who is still close to Hillary and Bill Clinton:
"He's in trouble, in that campaign managers, candidates, are really angry with him. He raised $74 million and spent $64 million. He says it's a long-term strategy. But what he has spent it on, apparently, is just hiring a bunch of people to wander around Utah and Mississippi and pick their nose. That's now how you build a party. You win elections. That's how you build a party."
Translation: If Hillary Clinton wins the '08 nomination, say, by clinching it in the early primaries, Howard Dean would be well advised to start scrawling "Burlington, Vermont" with magic marker on his packing boxes at the Democratic National Committee, because he will be going home.
-------
Bush is slated to give a televised speech Monday night on the immigration issue. That fact alone is a testament to the administration's growing concern about its disaffected conservative base. Many of his followers -- or ex-followers, as the case may be -- think that he's a wimp on the immigration issue because he wants to let a lot of the illegals stay here. The base calls that "amnesty." So, in his speech, expect him to float a lot of get-tough border enforcement ideas. Then it's off to the border for a photo-op. This paean to the conservative base could be a big story early next week, unless Karl Rove gets indicted. The rumors persist.
And Friday was also a good day for the pro-Bush conservatives, who reveled in that poll; witness Mark Levin, a legal activist who wrote on his blog, "Once again the American people prove they are smarter than the media and political elites. They understand that we are at war, that the enemy had infiltrated our country successfully and unleashed devastating attacks against their fellow citizens, and that all this talk about an imperial presidency and violations of privacy rights is ACLU pabulum."
I advised my emailers not to get too giddy. I suggested that the first poll was probably akin to the early polls on the Iraq war, that the first reaction of most people was to assume that the government was doing the right thing, and that support for the phone-data program could wane over time as more information about its workings came to light, or as the ramifications for privacy became clearer.
Well, that didn't take long.
Newsweek has a new poll out today, after surveying twice as many people as the Post did, and it reports that 53 percent of Americans think the NSA program “goes too far in invading people’s privacy,” while 41 percent feel otherwise. (Among the independent swing voters, it's 56 percent to 41 percent.)
Moreover, the Newsweek poll posed a far more specific question. Whereas the Post only asked whether the NSA program was "acceptable" or "unacceptable," Newsweek's pollsters asked Americans to choose between "goes too far" or "it is a necessary tool to combat terrorism."
In other words, the pro-Bush conservatives are premature in thinking that the President won the PR battle at the starting gate. In his parlance, he faces "hard work" on this issue, especially with ex-NSA chief Michael Hayden facing Senate scrutiny next week on his CIA nomination.
-------
By the way, you think there's any chance that Qwest will be flooded with prospective new customers who will beg them to come East?
-------
I also noted the other day that Democratic chairman Howard Dean is at loggerheads with other party leaders over tactics, money, and the proper use of precious resources. And vice versa. He has already spent most of the money he has raised, spreading it around to states where Democrats are not well poised to win anything in November. That practice -- blowing all his money -- is better known in a politics as a "high burn rate," and he did the same thing when he ran for president. By the time he staggered screaming out of Iowa, in round one of the '04 primaries, most of his money was already gone.
On CNN late Thursday, I heard this shot across Dean's bow, courtesy of ex-Democratic strategist Paul Begala, who is still close to Hillary and Bill Clinton:
"He's in trouble, in that campaign managers, candidates, are really angry with him. He raised $74 million and spent $64 million. He says it's a long-term strategy. But what he has spent it on, apparently, is just hiring a bunch of people to wander around Utah and Mississippi and pick their nose. That's now how you build a party. You win elections. That's how you build a party."
Translation: If Hillary Clinton wins the '08 nomination, say, by clinching it in the early primaries, Howard Dean would be well advised to start scrawling "Burlington, Vermont" with magic marker on his packing boxes at the Democratic National Committee, because he will be going home.
-------
Bush is slated to give a televised speech Monday night on the immigration issue. That fact alone is a testament to the administration's growing concern about its disaffected conservative base. Many of his followers -- or ex-followers, as the case may be -- think that he's a wimp on the immigration issue because he wants to let a lot of the illegals stay here. The base calls that "amnesty." So, in his speech, expect him to float a lot of get-tough border enforcement ideas. Then it's off to the border for a photo-op. This paean to the conservative base could be a big story early next week, unless Karl Rove gets indicted. The rumors persist.
Friday, May 12, 2006
The Bush base bailout
I’m on the road today – I’m slated to be on a panel that will debate whether the media has been too hard or too soft on President Bush – so forgive me if this blog entry is a bit undernourished. In fact, let’s just turn it over to Peggy Noonan.
In yesterday’s Inquirer, I wrote a column about Bush’s sliding poll numbers. I don’t normally do poll-driven stories, but the current situation is particularly newsworthy, because of the solid evidence that followers in his conservative/Republican base are starting to bail in significant numbers. (This morning, in fact, the Wall Street Journal reports that a new Harris survey pegs Bush’s overall approval rating at his lowest ever, 29 percent.)
It is Noonan, the former speechwriter for Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush, who provides the best insights into why so many conservatives and Republicans are bailing on the current president. Writing yesterday in the Journal, here are the key excerpts:
“(T)he administration and the Congress are losing their base, but it isn’t because of the media….The Republicans talk about cutting spending, but (instead) they increase it – a lot. They stand for making government smaller, but they keep making it bigger. They say they’re concerned about our borders, but they’re not securing them. And they seem to think we’re slobs for worrying. Republicans used to be sober and tough about foreign policy, but now they’re sort of romantic and full of emotionalism. They talk about cutting taxes, and they have, but the cuts are provisional, temporary. Beyond that, there’s something creepy about increasing spending so much, and not paying the price right away but instead rolling it over and onto our kids, and their kids....What’s a voter to do? Maybe stay home….One gets the impression that party leaders, deep in their hearts believe that the base is…unsophisticated. Primitive….But if history is a guide, the base is about to teach them a lesson instead.”
Sounds like a great political opportunity for the Democrats, but there are no guarantees that they won’t screw it up. Note, for example, that party chairman Howard Dean is heatedly at odds with the party leaders on Capitol Hill who didn’t want him to be chairman in the first place. Dean wants to spend money on organization in all 50 states, but his many party establishment detractors think he is wasting precious bucks in a lot of red states where Democrats don’t have a prayer of gaining ground in the November congressional elections.
And nobody should overlook the track record of Bush maestro Karl Rove, notably his longstanding ability to turn the tables and paint the Democrats as weak, wimpy, wobbly, feckless, and frightening. With emphasis on the frightening. In fact,, the key strategy for re-energizing Peggy Noonan’s grousers will boil down to this message:
Be afraid. Be very afraid.
I hope to write about that, in detail, this weekend.
And if anything insightful happens on that aforementioned press panel, I’ll pass it along here.
In yesterday’s Inquirer, I wrote a column about Bush’s sliding poll numbers. I don’t normally do poll-driven stories, but the current situation is particularly newsworthy, because of the solid evidence that followers in his conservative/Republican base are starting to bail in significant numbers. (This morning, in fact, the Wall Street Journal reports that a new Harris survey pegs Bush’s overall approval rating at his lowest ever, 29 percent.)
It is Noonan, the former speechwriter for Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush, who provides the best insights into why so many conservatives and Republicans are bailing on the current president. Writing yesterday in the Journal, here are the key excerpts:
“(T)he administration and the Congress are losing their base, but it isn’t because of the media….The Republicans talk about cutting spending, but (instead) they increase it – a lot. They stand for making government smaller, but they keep making it bigger. They say they’re concerned about our borders, but they’re not securing them. And they seem to think we’re slobs for worrying. Republicans used to be sober and tough about foreign policy, but now they’re sort of romantic and full of emotionalism. They talk about cutting taxes, and they have, but the cuts are provisional, temporary. Beyond that, there’s something creepy about increasing spending so much, and not paying the price right away but instead rolling it over and onto our kids, and their kids....What’s a voter to do? Maybe stay home….One gets the impression that party leaders, deep in their hearts believe that the base is…unsophisticated. Primitive….But if history is a guide, the base is about to teach them a lesson instead.”
Sounds like a great political opportunity for the Democrats, but there are no guarantees that they won’t screw it up. Note, for example, that party chairman Howard Dean is heatedly at odds with the party leaders on Capitol Hill who didn’t want him to be chairman in the first place. Dean wants to spend money on organization in all 50 states, but his many party establishment detractors think he is wasting precious bucks in a lot of red states where Democrats don’t have a prayer of gaining ground in the November congressional elections.
And nobody should overlook the track record of Bush maestro Karl Rove, notably his longstanding ability to turn the tables and paint the Democrats as weak, wimpy, wobbly, feckless, and frightening. With emphasis on the frightening. In fact,, the key strategy for re-energizing Peggy Noonan’s grousers will boil down to this message:
Be afraid. Be very afraid.
I hope to write about that, in detail, this weekend.
And if anything insightful happens on that aforementioned press panel, I’ll pass it along here.
Thursday, May 11, 2006
All past statements are inoperative
Once again, we are witnessing a presidential credibility gap.
In the wake of today's revelation that the National Security Agency since 2001 has been secretly amassing the home and business phone records of tens of millions of ordinary Americans, most of whom aren't suspected of any crime -- in other words, a purely domestic surveillance program -- it becomes necessary to revisit certain Bush administration statements, and to reclassify them as untrue.
1. President Bush, August 2004: "Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires--a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so....because we value the Constitution."
That turned out to be untrue, in the wake of the news last December that the NSA was monitoring international calls between people here and people abroad. The NSA was doing it without a court order, even though warrants are apparently required by the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which states that it is "the exclusive means by which electronic surveillance...may be conducted," even ""during time of war."
2. After that program was revealed by the New York Times, thereby rendering Bush's 2004 statement inoperative, Bush stated anew on Jan. 25 of this year that Americans at home need not be concerned, because "the program applies only to international communications. In other words, one end of the communication must be outside the United States."
3. A White House spokeman also said NSA spying was not domestic in nature: "This is a limited program. This is not about monitoring phone calls designed to arrange Little League practice or what to bring to a potluck dinner."
4. A strong assurance came from Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, testifying to the Senate Judiciary Committee on Feb. 6: "First, only international communications are authorized for interception...to protect the privacy of Americans still further, the NSA employs safeguards to minimize the unnecessary collection and dissemination of information about U.S. persons."
5. A stronger assurance came from Gonzalez, during an exchange on April 6 with the House Judiciary Committee. Check this out.
Q: "Can you assure us that there is no warrantless surveillance of calls between two Americans within the United States?"
GONZALES: "That is not what the president has authorized."
Q: "Can you assure us that it's not being done?"
GONZALES: "As I indicated in response to an earlier question, no technology is perfect (but) we do have minimization procedures in place..."
Q: "But you're not doing that deliberately?"
GONZALES: "That is correct."
All those statements now appear inoperative, in the wake of today's report that the NSA successfully leaned on all the phone companies (except QWest) to cooperate in its purely domestic program to collect "external" data on millions of citizens, and ultimately, in the words of one inside source, "to create a database of every call ever made" in America. And, just as adherence to FISA was deemed unnecessary for the international program, adherence to Section 222 of the federal Communications Act was deemed unnecessary for the domestic program. (Under that law, phone companies are barred from releasing information on customer calling habits - such as who gets called, or how often. And the law also covers incoming calls.)
So now we have new operative statement from the president, issued earlier today. Considering the administration's record, it probably requires some parsing. He stated: "We're not mining or trolling through the personal lives of innocent Americans." That can be classified as a non-denial denial. Bush never specifically denied the news that the NSA has indeed been running a purely domestic program. He was merely insisting that the collection, analysis, and storage of people's phone call records should not equated with "trolling" through their personal lives.
No doubt, there will be another debate about the legalities of all this -- I see that Bush's defenders are already online saying that this newly-revealed program is constitutional -- but, for now, I am more interested in its political dimension.
Last winter, the polls reported that a slight majority of Americans were OK with the idea that Bush was monitoring international calls, and it was clear earlier this week that he was relishing the opportunity of defending that program when ex-NSA chief Michael Hayden comes up for scrutiny as the new nominee to run CIA. But what about now? It will be instructive to watch the polls, and gauge the reaction of Americans to this domestic program, because this is now the factual shorthand:
The Bush administration got the telecommunication firms to fork over data that will enable it to track every call made by every American. It's likely that conservatives who are concerned about privacy rights will sound off about this. It's arguably less likely that many Democrats, still fearing to appear "weak on terrorism," will do the same.
Nevertheless, expect to hear the lawmakers make noise about conducting (yet another) probe of the administration's conduct. After all, the Bush administration has already demonstrated that it won't probe itself. For instance:
Recently, the Justice Department's ethics office launched a probe that was intended to scrutinize the actions of the government lawyers who had signed off in secret on the international surveillance program (the one that was revealed last December). But today we learn that the ethics office investigators hit a brick wall -- because they were denied the requisite security clearances.
In the wake of today's revelation that the National Security Agency since 2001 has been secretly amassing the home and business phone records of tens of millions of ordinary Americans, most of whom aren't suspected of any crime -- in other words, a purely domestic surveillance program -- it becomes necessary to revisit certain Bush administration statements, and to reclassify them as untrue.
1. President Bush, August 2004: "Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires--a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so....because we value the Constitution."
That turned out to be untrue, in the wake of the news last December that the NSA was monitoring international calls between people here and people abroad. The NSA was doing it without a court order, even though warrants are apparently required by the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which states that it is "the exclusive means by which electronic surveillance...may be conducted," even ""during time of war."
2. After that program was revealed by the New York Times, thereby rendering Bush's 2004 statement inoperative, Bush stated anew on Jan. 25 of this year that Americans at home need not be concerned, because "the program applies only to international communications. In other words, one end of the communication must be outside the United States."
3. A White House spokeman also said NSA spying was not domestic in nature: "This is a limited program. This is not about monitoring phone calls designed to arrange Little League practice or what to bring to a potluck dinner."
4. A strong assurance came from Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, testifying to the Senate Judiciary Committee on Feb. 6: "First, only international communications are authorized for interception...to protect the privacy of Americans still further, the NSA employs safeguards to minimize the unnecessary collection and dissemination of information about U.S. persons."
5. A stronger assurance came from Gonzalez, during an exchange on April 6 with the House Judiciary Committee. Check this out.
Q: "Can you assure us that there is no warrantless surveillance of calls between two Americans within the United States?"
GONZALES: "That is not what the president has authorized."
Q: "Can you assure us that it's not being done?"
GONZALES: "As I indicated in response to an earlier question, no technology is perfect (but) we do have minimization procedures in place..."
Q: "But you're not doing that deliberately?"
GONZALES: "That is correct."
All those statements now appear inoperative, in the wake of today's report that the NSA successfully leaned on all the phone companies (except QWest) to cooperate in its purely domestic program to collect "external" data on millions of citizens, and ultimately, in the words of one inside source, "to create a database of every call ever made" in America. And, just as adherence to FISA was deemed unnecessary for the international program, adherence to Section 222 of the federal Communications Act was deemed unnecessary for the domestic program. (Under that law, phone companies are barred from releasing information on customer calling habits - such as who gets called, or how often. And the law also covers incoming calls.)
So now we have new operative statement from the president, issued earlier today. Considering the administration's record, it probably requires some parsing. He stated: "We're not mining or trolling through the personal lives of innocent Americans." That can be classified as a non-denial denial. Bush never specifically denied the news that the NSA has indeed been running a purely domestic program. He was merely insisting that the collection, analysis, and storage of people's phone call records should not equated with "trolling" through their personal lives.
No doubt, there will be another debate about the legalities of all this -- I see that Bush's defenders are already online saying that this newly-revealed program is constitutional -- but, for now, I am more interested in its political dimension.
Last winter, the polls reported that a slight majority of Americans were OK with the idea that Bush was monitoring international calls, and it was clear earlier this week that he was relishing the opportunity of defending that program when ex-NSA chief Michael Hayden comes up for scrutiny as the new nominee to run CIA. But what about now? It will be instructive to watch the polls, and gauge the reaction of Americans to this domestic program, because this is now the factual shorthand:
The Bush administration got the telecommunication firms to fork over data that will enable it to track every call made by every American. It's likely that conservatives who are concerned about privacy rights will sound off about this. It's arguably less likely that many Democrats, still fearing to appear "weak on terrorism," will do the same.
Nevertheless, expect to hear the lawmakers make noise about conducting (yet another) probe of the administration's conduct. After all, the Bush administration has already demonstrated that it won't probe itself. For instance:
Recently, the Justice Department's ethics office launched a probe that was intended to scrutinize the actions of the government lawyers who had signed off in secret on the international surveillance program (the one that was revealed last December). But today we learn that the ethics office investigators hit a brick wall -- because they were denied the requisite security clearances.
Guy from HUD walks into a room...
I began today with another pleasurable visit to my "reader line," the voicemail service that keeps me in touch with the dissatisfied customer. The first fella in the queue said: "I've never read anything that you've ever said positive about our president or about our country or about anything. Everything has been extremely negative...I feel sorry for you."
Well, what can I say? I suppose I could burst into song, like Maria in The Sound of Music, and croon about "My Favorite Things," all of which can be found on my blog profile, anyway. But this job is about watching the folks in power and exercising due vigiliance. And today, for instance, it would be hard to wax positive about President Bush's man at HUD, Alphonso Jackson.
You ask, who's Alphonso Jackson? He's secretary of the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development. And even though much of the media (including my own newspaper) has either overlooked or ignored the Jackson saga that has unfolded in recent days, it's worth recounting if only for its entertainment value.
Jackson has been caught in a messy and embarrassing situation, and here is his best defense:
I am a liar.
This is no exaggeration. But let's start from the beginning:
On April 28, Jackson delivered a speech in Dallas to the Real Estate Executive Council, a national consortium of minority-owned real estate agencies. During that speech, he said that he didn't want to award federal money to anyone who didn't like President Bush.
And - as reported in the Dallas Business Journal - he related this detailed, specific anecdote about one prospective minority contractor:
"(This contractor) had made every effort to get a contract with HUD for 10 years. He made a heck of a proposal and was on the list, so we selected him. He came to see me and thank me for selecting him. Then he said something ... he said, 'I have a problem with your president.' I said, 'What do you mean?' He said, 'I don't like President Bush.' I thought to myself, 'Brother, you have a disconnect - the president is elected, I was selected. You wouldn't be getting the contract unless I was sitting here. If you have a problem with the president, don't tell (me).'"
Jackson then told his Dallas audience, "He didn't get the contract. Why should I reward someone who doesn't like the president, so they can use funds to try to campaign against the president? Logic says they don't get the contract. That's the way I believe."
Well, first of all, such conduct on Jackson's part -- denying a contract because the contractor lacked political loyalty to the leader -- would appear to be a violation of the impartiality requirements in federal law, specifically 48 CFR 3.101-1:
"Government business shall be conducted in a manner above reproach and, except as authorized by statute or regulation, with complete impartiality and with preferential treatment for none. Transactions relating to the expenditure of public funds require the highest degree of public trust and an impeccable standard of conduct."
But naturally, the saga got wierder once the spinners got to work.
Jackson's speech sparked an uproar on Capitol Hill, among Democrats who were concerned that the federal procurement process was being skewed by a GOP appointee on the basis of political loyalty. This in turn prompted a defiant defense of Jackson by a HUD flak, Dustee Tucker. She supplied fresh details to the Dallas journal on May 3, saying that the dispute concerned "an advertising contract with a minority publication," but that the rejected contractor had persisted in "trashing, in a very aggressive way" the president.
Again, that explanation raised questions about violations of federal law.
But then the explanation changed.
The new explanation, offered a couple days ago, goes like this: Jackson made the whole thing up.
As reported here and here, spokeswoman Tucker now says that the HUD secretary's story was "hypothetical," that, in reality, Jackson "did not actually meet with someone and turn down a contract. He's not part of the contracting process."
And yesterday, in the wake of a report that the HUD inspector general was examining the incident, Jackson stepped forward to say this: "I deeply regret the anecdotal remarks I made at a recent Texas small business forum and would like to reassure the public that all HUD contracts are awarded solely on a stringent merit-based process. During my tenure, no contract has ever been awarded, rejected, or rescinded due to the personal or political beliefs of the recipient."
How negative of me to ask these questions:
Can we believe with confidence that explanation number two -- that the story is untrue -- is really true?
Would Jackson have come forward to assert that he had lied to his audience if a furor had not ensued on Capitol Hill and in the HUD inspector general's office?
And if he really did make the whole thing up, why would he want to volunteer the notion --again, apparently illegal -- that Bush opponents are turned away if they ask for federal contracts?
Maybe, to quote Porter Goss, it's just "one of those mysteries."
Well, what can I say? I suppose I could burst into song, like Maria in The Sound of Music, and croon about "My Favorite Things," all of which can be found on my blog profile, anyway. But this job is about watching the folks in power and exercising due vigiliance. And today, for instance, it would be hard to wax positive about President Bush's man at HUD, Alphonso Jackson.
You ask, who's Alphonso Jackson? He's secretary of the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development. And even though much of the media (including my own newspaper) has either overlooked or ignored the Jackson saga that has unfolded in recent days, it's worth recounting if only for its entertainment value.
Jackson has been caught in a messy and embarrassing situation, and here is his best defense:
I am a liar.
This is no exaggeration. But let's start from the beginning:
On April 28, Jackson delivered a speech in Dallas to the Real Estate Executive Council, a national consortium of minority-owned real estate agencies. During that speech, he said that he didn't want to award federal money to anyone who didn't like President Bush.
And - as reported in the Dallas Business Journal - he related this detailed, specific anecdote about one prospective minority contractor:
"(This contractor) had made every effort to get a contract with HUD for 10 years. He made a heck of a proposal and was on the list, so we selected him. He came to see me and thank me for selecting him. Then he said something ... he said, 'I have a problem with your president.' I said, 'What do you mean?' He said, 'I don't like President Bush.' I thought to myself, 'Brother, you have a disconnect - the president is elected, I was selected. You wouldn't be getting the contract unless I was sitting here. If you have a problem with the president, don't tell (me).'"
Jackson then told his Dallas audience, "He didn't get the contract. Why should I reward someone who doesn't like the president, so they can use funds to try to campaign against the president? Logic says they don't get the contract. That's the way I believe."
Well, first of all, such conduct on Jackson's part -- denying a contract because the contractor lacked political loyalty to the leader -- would appear to be a violation of the impartiality requirements in federal law, specifically 48 CFR 3.101-1:
"Government business shall be conducted in a manner above reproach and, except as authorized by statute or regulation, with complete impartiality and with preferential treatment for none. Transactions relating to the expenditure of public funds require the highest degree of public trust and an impeccable standard of conduct."
But naturally, the saga got wierder once the spinners got to work.
Jackson's speech sparked an uproar on Capitol Hill, among Democrats who were concerned that the federal procurement process was being skewed by a GOP appointee on the basis of political loyalty. This in turn prompted a defiant defense of Jackson by a HUD flak, Dustee Tucker. She supplied fresh details to the Dallas journal on May 3, saying that the dispute concerned "an advertising contract with a minority publication," but that the rejected contractor had persisted in "trashing, in a very aggressive way" the president.
Again, that explanation raised questions about violations of federal law.
But then the explanation changed.
The new explanation, offered a couple days ago, goes like this: Jackson made the whole thing up.
As reported here and here, spokeswoman Tucker now says that the HUD secretary's story was "hypothetical," that, in reality, Jackson "did not actually meet with someone and turn down a contract. He's not part of the contracting process."
And yesterday, in the wake of a report that the HUD inspector general was examining the incident, Jackson stepped forward to say this: "I deeply regret the anecdotal remarks I made at a recent Texas small business forum and would like to reassure the public that all HUD contracts are awarded solely on a stringent merit-based process. During my tenure, no contract has ever been awarded, rejected, or rescinded due to the personal or political beliefs of the recipient."
How negative of me to ask these questions:
Can we believe with confidence that explanation number two -- that the story is untrue -- is really true?
Would Jackson have come forward to assert that he had lied to his audience if a furor had not ensued on Capitol Hill and in the HUD inspector general's office?
And if he really did make the whole thing up, why would he want to volunteer the notion --again, apparently illegal -- that Bush opponents are turned away if they ask for federal contracts?
Maybe, to quote Porter Goss, it's just "one of those mysteries."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
