Meanwhile, Bush reached an unwelcome record. By 64%-31%, Americans disapprove of the job he is doing. For the first time in the history of the Gallup Poll, 50% say they "strongly disapprove" of the president. Richard Nixon had reached the previous high, 48%, just before an impeachment inquiry was launched in 1974.
So, The Decider has conquered yet another challenge. Word of this latest poll has spurred on another round of "LET'S IMPEECH BUSH!!1!!11" talk from the online liberal masses, but, from a purely cutthroat point of view, it's much better for the Democrats if any and all impeachment movements continue to fail miserably. Headlines dominated by a President and Vice President who are as unpopular with the American people as vegetables are with little kids will do more for the eventual Democratic nominee than any policy position, campaign ad, or sex scandal ever could. For all their bluster and rhetoric, you can bet the house that, in their private circles, prominent Donkey leaders will make 100% sure that the Cheney Administration stays firmly in place until January 2009.
After all, what's another year and a half of terrible decisionmaking at the highest level when you can win?
As Chandler Bing Would Put It: Could You BE Any More Ironic? Posted by Joe T. November 6 at 12:29 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
During today’s White House press briefing, spokeswoman Dana Perino condemned Gen. Pervez Musharraf’s declaration of “emergency rule” in Pakistan. She said that the administration is “deeply disappointed” by the measure, which suspends the country’s constitution, and believes it is never “reasonable” to “restrict constitutional freedoms in the name of fighting terrorism”:
Q: Is it ever reasonable to restrict constitutional freedoms in the name of fighting terrorism?
MS. PERINO: In our opinion, no.
Ah. Thank God we have the White House Press Secretary Hottie to clear that sort of thing up. For a second, I had thought that this particular administration was in full support of ignoring any damn pieces of paper that got in the way of the Crusades. I mean, uh, its crusade.
It would be nice, however, to see that aforementioned Hottie explain a few particular moments:
First Amendment: In September, a federal judge ruled that the FBI’s use of secret “national security letters” to obtain citizens’ personal data from private companies for counterterrorism investigations “violate[d] the First Amendment and constitutional provisions on the separation of powers.”
First Amendment, Fourth Amendment: In Aug. 2006, a federal district court in Detroit ruled that the Bush administration’ss NSA warrantless wiretapping program was unconstitutional, violating the “separation of powers doctrine, the Administrative Procedures Act, the First and Fourth amendments to the United States Constitution, the FISA and Title III.”
Article I: Testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee in June, then Attorney General Alberto Gonzales attempted to justify the administration’s detainee policy by claiming, “There is no express grant of habeas in the Constitution.” (Article I, Section 9, Clause 2 of the Contitution reads: “The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.”)
Article II: In June, House investigators revealed that Vice President Dick Cheney had exempted his office from an executive order order designed to safeguard classified national security information by claiming that he was not an “entity within the executive branch.”
A few dots to connect here, but it looks like a journalist, John Cheeves of the Lexington-Herald-Leader, with current and previous ties to McClatchy and Knight-Ridder respectively, has been involved in one dubious scheme that at least suggested pay for play journalism. And given where his name also turns up, he might not be the most objective journalist to be leading a witch hunt against current Minority Leader Mitch McConnell.
...Cheeves turns up with a fellowship in the offices of a Liberal Democrat with some potentially pertinent terms and conditions. Must be nice having someone recently with the status of Congressional Staff penning hit pieces on the opposing party's leadership. Not that that's political or anything, right? Think maybe if he does a good job he'll end up back on the Hill with a nice paid position? It's a thought. And it certainly doesn't look much like objective journalism.
In a pragmatic sense, I disagree. I see the point, but frankly, not very many journalists are actually doing their jobs in investigating people in Washington.
The way most big stories explode is that somebody with an axe to grind approaches a reporter. The reporter gets as much information from the source and goes to verify it. Many times, however, verification doesn't go as far as it should. When the work gets hard, a good editor might kill the story. But an editor looking to have a big piece would run with it, peppering the article with words like "allegedly" and "calls were not immediately returned." It's a wager based on how likely the story is. One recent example comes to us from Howard Kurtz.
The Hill did a gotcha piece in which Hillary was accused of skipping a hearing she herself requested. But the basis for the accusation likely came from an opponent's office, not from an attentive reporter. So excited were they to get the information, they ran with it.
BR>
But it turned out that Clinton was there -- and Inhofe's quotes were taken from a July press release -- prompting an embarrassing correction. "Any mistake is regrettable," says Hugo Gurdon, the Hill's editor, "but it's more painful when it negates the story entirely."
There are those times when people go out to get the real dirt -- like Michael Goldfarb at The Weekly Standard and the blogosphere when dealing with the Baghdad Diarist. But those are, unfortunately, highly unusual circumstances.
Take this election, for example. Most coverage focuses on what strategies are being used by the campaigns. Those are neat, insider views into the sausage-making process. They are also easy, particularly when it comes to a deadline. You chat up the communications person in a campaign, ask them how they're going after others, and they'll tell you off the record. Then, you look at how it corresponds to polls, and say that it's either a shift or in keeping with what the electorate wants. And then, you get reaction from a political science professor, a member of the opposing campaign staff, or a voter if you want to get some local flair.
What does that article accomplish? Perhaps it can be argued that it's a preview of how the candidate would run an administration. It could be, but it could also be a way of distracting the press from covering the policy positions of candidates at length. I refuse to believe that readers wouldn't be interested in knowing where Obama stands on healthcare, what the criticisms of it are, and how it has played out in another country. Maybe some editors think that insider campaign strategy is sexier -- but that's only important to Beltway types, not to locals who want to know whether a candidate truly believes what they believe. Policy guides the country. Strategy just guides a job search.
So when I come across a line like this in the article I mentioned in the last post, imagine my frustration. Here it is again:
Voters in Iowa have been so concerned about her vote in connection with the Iraq war that she now declares, at the start of every speech, that she will end the war if she is elected, although she does not detail how.
FIND. OUT. Look for people who are her foreign policy advisers. Interview them. Interview people who have worked with them. Then, under a big heading, write, "Hillary Likely To Do X With Iraq Strategy." And once someone has done that story, somebody else go look at John Edwards's career in politics. Someone read all the critiques of Giuliani and re-report them.
In other words, get off the campaign bus if you're not going to do anything while you're on it. But if it takes having a conflict-of-interest, having a stake in a race, as Cheeves clearly does, it might not be ethical, but gosh, at least somebody's doing *something* with their paycheck.
In Iowa, the polls show what is effectively a three-way tie among Edwards, Clinton and Obama. Befitting her status as the national front-runner, Clinton focused her speeches here on slamming President Bush, never mentioning the other contenders by name, even though they are now criticizing her in almost every appearance.
The "national frontrunner," the inevitable candidate, is tied three ways in Iowa. That is a huge failure on her part -- that is, if you accept the Hillary locomotive line. In fact, not going negative is going to be a problem for Hillary. If either Obama or Edwards picks up Iowa on account of her inability to defend herself, then that could be a major stumble for a machine the press has been all-too-ready to praise as well-oiled.
But what about this story was notable? The hed makes no sense, news-wise: Campaigns get more intense as they move forward. That's a fact. That Clinton is aware of it is not newsworthy. In fact, the story that seems the most interesting is found in this line:
Voters in Iowa have been so concerned about her vote in connection with the Iraq war that she now declares, at the start of every speech, that she will end the war if she is elected, although she does not detail how.
This is what will get more intense: scrutiny over her record. But why are journalists waiting for people to ask questions at rallies rather than taking initiative and investigating Hillary's (or any other candidate's) record? Any senator's voting record is a gold mine of material, yet time and again, lazy journos would rather hop on the campaign bus and listen to the latest press grab.
3.5 million in one day? That sure is something. But is it a mandate for more terrible, terrible ads?
Ron Paul's candidacy is certainly the most principled. He hasn't pledged against running attack ads, yet he has yet to make one. His ideas are crystal clear: No one is in the dark about where he stands on Iraq, taxes, or immigration. That's more than can be said for Obama.
In fact, looking at the field, it doesn't appear that anyone else measures up to Paul's standard aside from John Edwards, who is running as a true socialist. Imagine that match-up -- Paul vs. Edwards. Both are promising everything, just in different flavors. But I think the Edwards administration would be far more successful in passing its agenda than the Paul administration, if only because Edwards is a product of the government and a tool for its growth. Paul would have to push back against the leviathan, something I can't confidently say anyone could do, let alone the Congressman from Texas.
The anti-Hillary crowd is gonna froth at the mouth after this one.
Some talented, Edwards-backed video editors created a YouTube montage of Clinton's dodgiest answers from the recent Demoratic debate. It's a very well-done clip - the message is clear and the selected responses illustrate the oft-repeated criticism that Hillary's politics are mostly about trying to please everyone at once. Even more importantly for Edwards (and the other Democratic contenders), the video has exploded into a level of popularity that has gotten it played on the cable news networks for free. It's a nationwide Clinton-bashing ad that doesn't cost them a cent; somewhere, a $400 head of hair is having a very good day.
I have to say, I'm immensely disappointed by the ad that was so conveniently provided in the other Joe's recent post. Ron Paul has spent the past half-year building himself up as the anti-establishment candidate. He's supposed to be the alternative to carbon-copy Republicans, the man who sounds different and makes sense, the independent-minded candidate who manages to escape political groupthink. He needs to cultivate that image, because if he melts into the mainstream, he doesn't have a chance of making a strong showing (not that he has a very big chance anyway, but why throw away the long shot?).
So, knowing the specific identity he's made for himself, knowing the angles he needs to attack from, Paul's ad team comes up with... that? Really? How does that ad distinguish Paul from any of the other Republican candidates (well, besides the lack of 972 individual utterances of the word "terrorism"), or, hell, any politician of the past 50 years? The spot reeks of so many cliches that I'm astounded Paul didn't opt to throw in a little kid holding an American flag. Let's do a brief run-down of the points the GOP's supposed "dark horse" wanted to hammer home:
He's honest: This is a big one. People have to know that Ron Paul is the honest one, not all the other candidates who talk about honesty in their ads.
He wants out of Iraq: Unique for a Republican Presidential candidate? Sure. Unique for most politicians in the past two years? Well....
He wants to cut spending: Thank God we've finally found a Republican who will run on that platform.
He wants to protect personal freedoms: You know, in contrast with all the candidates who talk about getting rid of freedom.
He knows New Hampshire's state motto: ...and can also tell it apart from Vermont.
He's attractive to college students: Possible "October surprises" include hosting a kegger and releasing a "Ron Paul Supporters Gone Wild" DVD.
He's a doctor, so he'll understand healthcare: Just like Bush was a governor, so he understood how to be President.
He's catching on with bearded, slightly awkward white men: With a demographic like that, how can he lose?
Someone needs to be fired from that campaign staff in a jiffy.
Ah, Ron Paul. He was viewed as ‘that’ candidate, the one that was simply taking up airtime in the Republican debates. Pundits might like him for his soundbites, but no one thinks he actually has a shot. However, Paul seems to be surging (maybe not in the polls, but give the guy a break).
The Wall Street Journal notes that Paul hopes to raise $10 million today through 100,000 activists donating $100,000 each. You can track his progress here.
Ok, so he might have the money. But what does he actually stand for?
On Iraq: "The war in Iraq was sold to us with false information. The area is more dangerous now than when we entered it. We destroyed a regime hated by our direct enemies, the jihadists, and created thousands of new recruits for them. This war has cost more than 3,000 American lives, thousands of seriously wounded, and hundreds of billions of dollars. We must have new leadership in the White House to ensure this never happens again."
On Abortion "Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided, but not because the Supreme Court presumed to legalize abortion rather than ban it. Roe was wrongly decided because abortion simply is not a constitutional issue. There is not a word in the text of that document, nor in any of its amendments, that conceivably addresses abortion."
He already ran for President in 1988 as a Libertarian, so he has the experience. The Economist seems to like him. He is even airing advertisements in NH:
Let's be serious. There is no way Dr. Paul can win the Republican nomination (The doctor in his name comes from his 30 years as a obstetrician and gynecologist). But that's what they said about Navy Football on Saturday and the 1980 U.S. Olympic Hockey team. To be continued...
-Hey, did YOU know that Pakistan is going to hell in a handbasket? Me neither! I guess we've all been a wee bit busy trying to invade Iran. [CS Monitor]
(P.S. Biden is totally on the beat. So is The Atlantic.)
-Will the Crusades never end? A special report. [Economist]
-Once in a while, a mothy academic unearths a quaint and long-forgotten document called a constitution and performs a purely theoretical thought experiment in which Congress shall have the sole power to declare war and raise and support the armed forces. [WaPo]
This article contains the following phrase, which should be reason enough for you to want to read it: "The sex and shopping habits of four rich Saudi girls." [Reason]
-A superhighway from Mexico to U.S. to Canada that subverts national sovereignty, carries truckloads of Chinese toys and toothpaste, and brings brown people! Aux armes, citoyens! [The Nation]
-Michael Bloomberg's billions and billions. [Newsweek]
-It's a sad day in America when LaRouche's little moonbat army runs out of ink and paper and can no longer harass us on our way to the Metro. [Washington Monthly]
-Music, and why your parents are so hopelessly square. [The New Criterion]
-Apostate? Geostrategic soothsayer? A rogue political scientist who brought rational choice theory into the mainstream wants to change the nature of the field -- and use predictions to propose better foreign policy. I have no idea what I just said but it sounded pretty smart. [Good Magazine]
Hillary seems to have discovered that Hillary is a woman, and sees the advantage therein. "Ah!" Hillary says to herself. "Although I am a frontrunner, which makes it not at all surprising that my panicked Democratic challengers are ganging up on me in an effort to take me down, I can play the gender card, and then I will be untouchable! For what kind of man would hit a woman?" Herewith, a roundup.
Maureen channels Dylan: "Women need to rally to support Hillary and send her money because there are men, men like Tim Russert, who have the temerity to ask her questions during a debate. If there are six male rivals on stage and two male moderators and heaven knows how many men manning lights and boom mikes, the one woman should have the right to have it two ways...If she wants to run on her record as first lady while keeping the lid on her first lady record, that’s only fair for the fairer sex...But she can break, just like a little girl, when male chauvinists are rude enough to catch her red-handed being slippery and opportunistic."
Unsuccessful 1984 veep candidate Geraldine Ferraro hopes to run the country vicariously through Hillary: “John Edwards, specifically, as well as the press, would never attack Barack Obama for two hours they way they attacked her...It’s O.K. in this country to be sexist...It’s certainly not O.K. to be racist. I think if Barack Obama had been attacked for two hours — well, I don’t think Barack Obama would have been attacked for two hours.”
Ruth Marcus is like, "What a buncha BS!": "...a candidate as strong as Clinton doesn't need to play the woman-as-victim card, not even in "the all-boys club of presidential politics," as Clinton called it in a speech yesterday at her all-women alma mater, Wellesley College. I have a pretty good nose for sexism, and what I detected in the air from Philadelphia was not sexism but the desperation of candidates confronting a front-runner who happens to be a woman."
And in the campaign video that started it all, Mozart shows he can change the terms of the debate from beyond the grave:
