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 | 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 Tale Of Investigative Journalism Posted by J.P. Freire November 6 at 9:54 AM | Comments (1)
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.
Headline: Clinton Knows She's In A Campaign. Whoopee. Posted by J.P. Freire November 6 at 6:21 AM | Comments (976)
Andy passed this along to me on Sunday and I missed it. From WaPo:
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 Politics of Parsing Posted by Joe T. November 5 at 5:21 PM | Comments (0)
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.
That's the Best He Can Do? Posted by Joe T. November 5 at 12:52 PM | Comments (0)
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]
Gender: A Study in Political Convenience Posted by Anastasia November 5 at 10:19 AM | Comments (0)
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:
The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee recently posted a video on YouTube asking people to try to capture Republicans on camera in compromising situations.
“The next time a Republican has a 'Macaca Moment,' will you be there to capture it? The power to hold Republicans accountable for their lies, distortions, and attacks belongs to you. Keep an eye on your local newspaper and your Member of Congress' web site to see when they are having their next public event. Don't forget to bring your camera!”
This is all becoming rather ridiculous. Let’s get past the fact that it isn’t smart to throw stones if you live in a glass house. But are all these “I-report, you-report, we all-report” videos changing politics as we know it? CNN uses I-Report, a way to allow viewers to submit their own videos and stories on the promise that they may make it onto the CNN airwaves. MSNBC and FOX News both have similar programs. Some media analysts and experts say that this is new media, where viral video sets the terms of the debate. It only takes one viral video to dominate the 24-cable news cycle for the day.
Sure, it's easy to score political points by sending out an army of activists hell-bent on catching candidates in an unflattering situation. Gaffe-prone politicians favor the odds that someone armed with a video camera will be there the next time a senator has a macaca moment. But as this study shows, the public is growing impatient with the media's focus on the horserace and 'gotcha' journalism at the expense of issue coverage.
Carl Bernstein's Book Tour in a High School Near You Posted by J.P. Freire November 2 at 10:05 AM | Comments (0)
It must be weird to be Carl Bernstein. You're a celebrity journalist, but you're second to Bob Woodward. Not a bad gig, especially after getting a U.S. president to resign. Then what's going on here?
Newspapers are devoting fewer resources to issues of importance such as the Iraq war and potential abuses of the U.S. Constitution, the former
Washington Post reporter told students at the Brunswick School on Thursday (emphasis mine).
How did his book tour take him to Brunswick School? Does anyone know the science of figuring out where to go on book tours? Because one look at this list, and I'm clueless how it gets done. But I'm guessing that if Bernstein lives in New York, he's got a relative who attends. But isn't it weird to have him speak to a college preparatory high school about... the problems in the media? Why not talk about how to read a newspaper?
"The problems we have in news and journalism are about us not doing our job well enough," Bernstein said. "The ideal of providing the best available version of the truth is being affected by the dominance of a journalistic culture that has less and less to do with reality and context."
Should I be concerned with the fact that most high schoolers will have no idea what he's talking about? This isn't Charlie Rose.
Bernstein, 63, said he believes an "idiot culture" is partly to blame for the dysfunction of political life in the United States.
"You can't separate the appetites and demands of the people themselves and what they are given," he said. "The blame simply can't all be put at the feet of those who present news."
The more I hear this caterwauling about how media has changed for the worse, the more suspicious I become of the critique. People have always wanted more blood and sex in their news. When news was first on television, it was a snooze-fest, offered as a public service (and treated like one). Ratings went up when newscasters got serious. Higher ratings and more subscriptions mean more revenue.
So what's Bernstein's beef with paying the rent?
For Sale: 10 acre, 4 bdrm with BTFL view, large cave, but no weed Posted by J.P. Freire November 2 at 9:29 AM | Comments (0)
I don't know if you caught that little tidbit though: A gigantic property that included an extensive cave filled to the brim with potgrowing equipment is going up for auction. But guess who is the beneficiary of the auction?
The drug task force.
Most drug task forces receive money from seizures of drug dealer property. They auction it off to enable them to go after more drugs. That means, if they get a lot of money for this, they'll only get that much more of a budget to go after drug dealers. Oh-kay.
Unfortunately, much of that weed is going to get set on fire. And that's too bad, since it could be used for, er, higher purposes. Like medicinal marijuana.
Phillip Alden, a writer living in Redwood City, Calif., told me that marijuana was a godsend for him in dealing with the effects of AIDS. He said it eased excruciating pains in his fingertips, controlled nausea and enabled him to avoid the wasting syndrome that afflicts AIDS patients who are unable to eat enough food.
But the federal government doesn't really care, Phillip. See, because marijuana is a gateway drug. Forget about becoming dead from AIDS. You could become a coke-head!
On the same theme, Drew Carey drew cocked eyebrows for his participation in the new Reason.TV project, particularly his stance on marijuana. The new host for The Price Is Right appears in a series of 20 documentaries, each explaining libertarian solutions to common problems in layman's terms. The AP covered Carey's involvement, but didn't cover much of his message -- an unfortunate side-effect of having a celebrity on-board. At least it's publicity.
Ralph Nader: Unsafe On Any Ticket Posted by J.P. Freire November 1 at 7:51 PM | Comments (0)
Remember Ralph Nader? He's not running for president (so far), but he's raging mad about what happened last time:
The Democratic Party is going after anyone who presents a credible challenge to their monopoly over their perceived voters," Nader said in a statement. "This lawsuit was filed to help advance a free and open electoral process for all candidates and voters. Candidate rights and voter rights nourish each other for more voices, choices, and a more open and competitive democracy."
Among other things, the lawsuit alleges that the DNC tried to bankrupt Nader's campaign by suing to keep him off the ballot in 18 states. It also suggests the DNC sent Kerry supporters to crash a Nader petition drive in Portland, Ore., in June 2004, preventing him from collecting enough signatures to get on the ballot.
Isn't it ironic that the man who spent his entire career suing companies for bad products is now suing politicians for bad politics? Maybe that's not ironic. Maybe it's just cute. But he gets a star for consistency. One thing I wonder: Do Democrats look at Nader and say, "That would be the ideal candidate for me, but he just would never get elected?" I remember thinking of him as the "principled" candidate, but that doesn't mean I found his principles correct. It reminds me of Ron Paul, in a way.
But is it possible for Paul to become, well, that much of a movement figure? Libertarians have always loved him, but his popularity comes from virulent anti-war activists who would never appreciate Paul's constitutionalist approach to politics. Nader, on the other hand, never spread in his appeal -- those who want to draft Nader for '08 are hardly much evolved from those who wanted him to run in '92.
Once upon a time, James Fallows wrote a mighty Atlantic cover story called "Why Americans Hate the Media". In it, he argued (persuasively) that the American media focuses mainly on the game of politics -- who's winning, candidates' strategies, and superficial analysis -- that really only interests the political and media elites themselves. He might as well have predicted that Americans would begin tuning out en masse and finding alternative outlets that, in turn, would reinforce their existing worldviews.
A few days ago, the Project for Excellence in Journalism released a new report on the coverage of the 2008 presidential campaign showing fairly conclusively that not much has changed since Fallows wrote his piece in 1996:
In all, 63% of the campaign stories focused on political and tactical aspects of the campaign. That is nearly four times the number of stories about the personal backgrounds of the candidates (17%) or the candidates’ ideas and policy proposals (15%). And just 1% of stories examined the candidates’ records or past public performance, the study found.
All of these findings seem to be at sharp variance with what the public says it wants from campaign reporting. A new poll by The Pew Research Center for the People and the Press conducted for this report finds that about eight-in-ten of Americans say they want more coverage of the candidates’ stances on issues, and majorities want more on the record and personal background, and backing of the candidates, more about lesser-known candidates and more about debates.
The methodology is worth a glance, but it encompasses every major print, TV and radio news outlet -- and some minor ones too. Coverage is judged by a team of independent content analysts whose ratings have high intercoder reliability.
So, out of the candidates the media chooses to focus on, who's getting the kid gloves and who's feeling the press assault?
Just five candidates have been the focus of more than half of all the coverage. Hillary Clinton received the most (17% of stories), though she can thank the overwhelming and largely negative attention of conservative talk radio hosts for much of the edge in total volume. Barack Obama was next (14%), with Republicans Giuliani, McCain, and Romney measurably behind (9% and 7% and 5% respectively). As for the rest of the pack, Elizabeth Edwards, a candidate spouse, received more attention than 10 of them, and nearly as much as her husband.
Overall, Democrats also have received more positive coverage than Republicans (35% of stories vs. 26%), while Republicans received more negative coverage than Democrats (35% vs. 26%). For both parties, a plurality of stories, 39%, were neutral or balanced.
Most of that difference in tone, however, can be attributed to the friendly coverage of Obama (47% positive) and the critical coverage of McCain (just 12% positive.)
And now, back to your regularly scheduled campaign commentary!
The "brains" surrounding Hillary Clinton didn't make any friends last week at Conde Nast when they balked on a firm, longstanding commitment to let the candidate pose for Vogue, while the astute Julia Reed hung ten waiting to write about her and photog Annie Leibovitz had her cameras at the ready for nothing. Handlers for the senator suddenly decided Vogue would be "too elitist" and Hillary might come off as "too glamorous." Hmmm, after those hideous Al Gore-type pantsuits, like the one she wore at her 60th birthday fund-raiser, I think Mrs. Clinton could use a touch of glamour. Elitists vote too, you know.
Wait -- she's rejecting an offer to participate in a tightly controlled, media-constructed glamour boost? Is that your final answer, Hillary?
