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.
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 | Permalink | 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.
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.
Spain's a great place to vacation, even for terrorists. Remember the 2004 train bombings in Madrid? Via the AP:
That's right. The bombers are actually getting convicted, but STILL getting off easy. Spanish law precludes anyone from spending more than 40 years in jail. However, it wasn't required by law that the Spanish vote out their tough-on-terrorism government right after the bombing. Unfortunatley, the impulse of the Spanish is, these days, more weak-handed than the French -- who would have ever predicted that?
And just a thought: Isn't it ironic that the convicted were radicalized while in jail in Morroco? Does that mean that now they have 40 years to recruit in-country?
Lesson to terrorists? Bomb away. And don't bother killing yourselves doing it. Spain will remain vigilant, however, in the face of the fascists who are already dead.
This weekend Timespiece was a PR coup. Getting a national newspaper to cover your candidates' decision to be stronger? Usually reporters don't go for that sort of thing. They prefer solid actions, so that when they tell their editors they have an article to write, they can say, "And he's done this, this, and this to prove it." In fact, Obama's PR group did a fantastic job of getting something that's not really big news into the mainstream. Look at this video from Reuters made available by The Wall Street Journal:
But his performance last night was hardly the fighting wonder campaign officials promised. Instead, Chris Dodd was far more successful in his swings, as was Edwards. My theory is twofold: Obama's claim to "get tough on Clinton" is an empty promise meant to get the press to attribute any harsher words he *might* speak to the "newer tougher Obama" so they can praise him for how strong he is. And that he's happy to use Edwards as his attack dog -- so he can remain "strong-ish" while not "dirty."
But boy oh boy, would it be great if he went dirty.
The authoritarianism in Russia and the populist demagoguery in Venezuela are both products of the very elections Kagan boosts. The fact is that liberalism has a small constituency in both countries (outside of a very few western European, Anglophone and North American countries, this has often been the case), and when put before the electorates of Russia and Venezuela liberalism fares very poorly. Some of this has to do with the fact that relatively liberal politics was associated with the wealthy elite and tycoons, and the effects of policies carried out in the name of liberalism were generally poor or even disastrous for the people who now back authoritarian populist leaders. There will be objections that Russian elections in particular are not fully “free and fair,” but against this I would note that even with fully free and fair elections the overwhelming majority would still want nothing to do with the Russian liberals. This is hardly surprising: in mass democracy, the politics of liberty tends to lose and lose badly, while one form of demagoguery or another (be it nationalist or revolutionary socialist) usually prevails.
Under those circumstances, a people with a recent memory of a Soviet Republic would likely know the drill. Mutter under your breath, but don't get dead. Right, Anastasia?
"New Book by Media Analyst Brent Bozell Shows How Journalists Refuse to Investigate Serious Charges or Report Clinton Scandals"
Okay kids. Sit down. Take out your notepads. We're going to have a little lesson on how to write a press release title. We're not even going to go further than the title. It would take too long and it's almost happy hour.
Rule #1: Make it interesting. The first interesting phrase in the release is "investigate serious charges." But it's almost at the end. Speaking of which...
Rule #2: Titles should be short. Not long. And definitely not crazy media-conspiracy-theory long like this one. If you're an organization that's into the crazy media conspiracy theories, you can look way more sane by following the "Brevity is the Soul of Wit" rule. It goes as follows: "Brief."
Rule #3: Make it timely (the "new book" angle isn't enough). I want to know why I need to go to Brent Bozell to get all of my Hillary-Gets-Off-Easy news. What is something she JUST DID that she got away with?
Rule #4: New book? Or new study? Because journalists love studies. They get goosebumps just thinking about them. You could write a study showing that the Jews really did make up the Holocaust, and I assure you, reporters will just wave you through, balancing the report by calling it a "controversial study." They can quote all the outraged people they want, they're still publicizing your work, and isn't that what P.R. is all about?
Anyway. I'm not impressed by the press release because I really want this point to go far and wide:
"The national media have flagrantly abandoned their duty as independent and dispassionate journalists," write Bozell and co-author Tim Graham. "When Republicans are investigated by the media, it is done with such tenacity it usually leads to a humiliating resignation or electoral defeat. When there is a hint of impropriety by the Clintons, the media react quite differently."
Partisan cult-of-victimization lines aside, the point stands that the only serious reporting being done on Hillary has been on her laugh, but not very much has been said of her ties with criminal donors. Which, surely, is just the recent news hook Brent Bozell can use to lob his book into the hyperactive media bloodstream.
...Or not:
a) By ignoring the allegation, as NPR and PBS did for 500 days after Whitewater broke,
b) By turning the story into an investigation of the Clinton's accusers, which Mrs. Clinton usually claims to be conservative Republicans, or a "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy,"
c) With little investigation, the issue is not resolved,
d) The public grows weary of it and no longer cares about the end result.
Wait. Whitewater? That was years ago. And yes, it's an example of how no one cares about something because it was underreported, but again. It was years ago. And no one cares! As far as voters are concerned, it's a little like World War I. It was something important but not as important as the thing that happened after it, but it was kinda confusing, and I think I hear the phone ringing. Heck, why not mention the fact that little scrutiny has been applied to her taking advice from fmr. National Security Advisor and Thief ExtraordinareSandy Berger?
It is a big help to the Hillary campaign that she's scrutinized on things that have nothing to do with policy. But that is, in many ways, the fault of Republicans who thought that demonizing her personality would prevent her from moving forward. It's about time they started raising questions about policy and focused on how similar Hillary is to Edwards. Otherwise, they'll have to sit through more rounds of nonsense like useless comparisons between Hillary and the new Presidette of Argentina.
Harry Potter "Is Like Spiritual Peanut Butter" -- And That's A Bad Thing? Posted by J.P. Freire October 26 at 3:25 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
Things are heating up in Wakefield, Massachusetts:
I don't know which is sillier -- the story of a priest banning Harry Potter from his school, or the way reporter Rhondella Richardson (an "investigative reporter") speaks truth to power:
"Parents are petrified to share their opinions... Only a handful had enough faith in their convictions to speak up."
Righto. Otherwise, they might find their tires slashed, or just lose their children entirely to albino assassins. A strict Catholic school? Rhondella, you've got quite a story on your hands.
Especially when you have an archnemesis who says things like this:
"Let's say you have organic vegetables in a bowl of soup. And I happen to know that that broth has some poison in it. [Rowling] had a nice kinda series, ... but I have a problem with the broth she put it into."
Huh?
Interestingly, the Pope has previously written about the dangers of Harry Potter, describing them as "subtly seductive." But what's the big deal? I don't mean with Harry Potter. I mean with religious leaders saying that literature can be bad. If moral authorities are supposed to be moral authorities, why shouldn't they tell their congregations what is and is not okay? Here's something I wrote a few years ago on the topic:
Harry Potter may not exactly lead young Jimmy into a lake of fire, but it is not a reach to say that it could without guidance detract from the Church's message -- just as a child watching Desperate Housewives might get the wrong idea about what marriage is really like.
As for Potter, sure, the series is entertaining, but the emphasis on magic doesn't exactly sit well with Catholic teachings. Maybe the reporter would have been better off investigating the possibility of this priest's relation to St. Peter?
You read and write enough articles that you get to a point where you can totally tell someone's trying to fill space. No one's perfect, but there's certainly a trend among journalists to write ledes that have nothing to do with the content -- that is, a journalist will tell you about the article he wishes he wrote, and then give you the article he had to settle for. All of this is fine if we had all the time in the world to read the news, but a tight piece is easier to read, let alone remember. So, with that in mind, let's look at something sent my way by Wonkette's briefing.
The piece has insight into the Romney campaign, sure, but it looks like someone was trying to write something that went three pages long. It was actually about how Romney has a lot of money and is using it in his campaign. But for some reason, Politico reporter Jeanne Cummings describes it as the extension of a clever business-minded strategy. It reeks of spin to me.
[His campaign headquarters has] an interior design reflecting the private-public partnership that runs through the Romney operation: the investors and businessmen who know Romney from his Bain Capital days who today are teamed up with the professional political strategists from Washington.
What on earth does the "private-public" partnership mean here? And how is that any different from any politician that has business connections (i.e. most of them)? And if the decor of Romney's office is important, why not describe what other campaign headquarters look like? Without that information, what does the reader gain from knowing this?
More nit-picking after the jump.
As in the private sector, the key to success is spotting opportunity early, sharply analyzing strengths and weaknesses, developing a blueprint for success, and having enough money to get the job done. Romney brought all those skills to the table.
Analyzing strengths and weaknesses, eh? Good thing we know that. If it weren't for this line, I would have assumed that business largely hinges on strong handshakes and good opening lines in speeches. But in what ways have his strengths as a businessman allowed him to differentiate himself from everyone else? Sure, he's running a solid campaign, but nothing about it seems to be particularly different from the other candidates.
The most important one now is the built-in financial advantage that comes from his willingness to dip into his personal wealth, valued at $190 million to $250 million. To date, 27 percent of Romney’s receipts have come from his own pocket. ... Romney’s willingness to spend his own cash has made the normally significant cash-on-hand advantage of his rivals meaningless.
This is relevant, but John Kerry did the same thing. Does that make him a good businessman? Any rich idiot idiot can do this -- in fact, idiots do this all the time. Ross Perot, for instance.
Romney’s financial advantage alone won’t win him the nomination. The campaign is bracing for flip-flopper attacks on television and in bold-printed direct mail flyers on his changing positions on abortion and other issues. How well Romney defends himself during that phase will determine his fate far more than his creative finances.
If anything, this shows how being a businessman could hurt his campaign. A businessman looks for safe positions where a politician would look for consistent positions. A businessman can change his mind any number of times because profits, not image, counts, when doing so would be suicide for a politician. The flip-flops aren't a "by-the-way" problem. They're his greatest obstacle.
Even as he sought to build a broad donor base, Romney privately concluded that his lack of national name recognition would require him to invest his own money to compete with his widely recognized rivals.
So Romney's business mojo is to credit for what any candidate in his right mind should do?
In the third quarter, Romney spent more money, $21 million, than he collected from outside donors — $10 million. An $8.5 million personal loan kept the campaign from ending the quarter virtually broke.
Sure, I'm complaining about a bad lede, but I'm also complaining about susceptibility to spin. Surely, the article would have been viewed differently if it were entirely about how a rich guy is holding his position at the top of the field because of self-financing. It's fine that he's doing it. But how is one supposed to interpret the non-sequiturs about his business-oriented approach aside from an effective PR job?
... Oh wait. No it's not. It's not right. They didn't do it. Even in the face of this. New documents were leaked to the press (and up on Drudge yesterday) that clarify that the editors conducted an embarrassingly big (and bungled) cover-up over a number of fraudulent "reports" TNR featured from a soldier in Iraq describing our own military as a group of sadistic thugs. When conservatives smelled a rat, they found one, and the author eventually admitted he made up the articles. TNR never made a retraction. For more background on the matter, read my article in Human Events. The documents include a transcript of a phone call among editors at TNR, as well as Army investigation files. Bob Owens goes into detail with the damning information -- here are the juiciest tidbits, but it's worth reading in full:
That there was a conference call between editors of The New Republic and their debunked author Scott Thomas Beauchamp is a disclosure that I made on my personal blog on October 9, roughly a month after the call was made. Now that we see Beauchamp’s side of the conversation amounts to a weasely "I will neither confirm nor deny what I wrote," it seems obvious that The New Republic should have printed a retraction almost immediately after the call.
...Instead, they chose to remain silent, even though they knew at the time that a formal U.S. Army investigation had determined the charges made by the author were false and that the author himself would not support his own stories, even under direct questioning by TNR editors.
...After getting off the phone with Centcom’s FOIA office just moments ago, I now know that there are a total of 58 pages of sworn statements that have been collected from Beauchamp’s fellow soldiers and are now on their way to legal review.
As I pointed out before, the worst part about this whole scandal? The pieces weren't even worth running in the first place. They were vain, self-aggrandizing, and shed no light on the war. And as one friend told me, TNR has always been hated by the rabid anti-war left, and yet it felt compelled to run these articles to gain the favor of that very group. For what?
Beyond that, editors aren't just there to protect their magazines. They're also there to prevent writers from embarrassing themselves. They're called editors because they are responsible for ushering through copy as WELL as checking it to make sure it is as good as possible -- from grammar, to style, to facts. Sure, Beauchamp, the offending author, did make the choice. But he wasn't an employee hired for quality assurance.
I hear a lot about the possibility that Hillary could blow out just like Dean. I'm not saying it isn't possible. But there's a big difference between Hillary and Dean. Howard Dean was viewed, at that time, as a radical left-wing leader of the netroots. His fall was due to the bursting of a bubble. If anything, the only candidate who resembles his credentials is Ron Paul, though obviously not policy-wise. It wasn't his anti-establishment credentials that got him where he got to be, it was the rabid support of the supposedly fringe elements of his party.
So how on earth does Clinton possibly compare? She's a former first lady, mainline establishment Democrat, who already has her husband's entire campaign machine working for her. There's no parallel. None.
But the idea that Obama is right out? I'm not sure about that. Read to what Gov. Deval Patrick says of Obama and himself:
"People made a mistake … by supposing, presuming, that our appeal would be in certain discrete corners of people who looked like us and thought like us," Patrick said. "The whole point was to reach across divides and invite people who had checked out to check back in. And they did."
Now try to read this article and try to find one thing positive from Clinton strategist Mark Penn (or anyone else) about Hillary. It could be that the reporter is biased, but not a single pro-Hillary quote emphasized her positive attributes. They only emphasized her ability to defend herself in the face of negative ones. That's hard to jump for. It's not good news that Penn, HER OWN EMPLOYEE, couldn't come up with a pro-Hillary quote that a reporter would find irresistible.
Worse news? In this article talking about Hillary's image, Hillary declined the interview. It might have been a smart move, but it implies a lack of confidence she can't afford in the face of... well, audacious hope.
Sure, the devastation, the human tragedy, all of these things bother me. What bothers me more? Sitting through the coverage. I felt like there was something a little gonzo about watching Geraldo Rivera wander around looking for grief-stricken families to get on tape. Is it opportunistic? Or is it compassion? I don't know. I'm actually in awe of the guy regardless -- it takes a lot of energy to face that kind of devastation, and then constantly emote with interviewees. There could be a sociopathic quality to it, but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.
But is there anything redeeming about it? Sure, actually. Coverage like this enables people to feel bad enough to donate money or volunteer. Gonzo or not, these people will benefit from the coverage. So I guess it's not all bad.
But according to some reports I'm seeing, the fire may have been caused by illegal immigrants -- possibly ones who came to America in search of work. Then, I see this:
Hopped up on some kind of flower-based drug, Mario Mario, an Italian-born plumber of questionable legal status is a suspect in the arson investigation. And in one strange twist, Mario Mario is Geraldo Rivera's evil twin.
So one makes the news, the other one reports it. Coincidence? I think not.
Per Joe T.'s post on video games, I interviewed Jack Thompson once, and he was very engaging. The guys at Penny Arcade, amongst others, can't stand him, and frequently place him at the butt of their jokes. But Thompson represents a very real constituency in the country, and the reason he makes it onto the news shows isn't just because he's a good self-promoter. It's because there are lots of parents out there who are worried about their kids being exposed to The Wrong Sort Of Things.
Unfortunately, the segment precluded any kind of discussion on what Thompson meant by the fraud being perpetrated by the video game industry. I think he's saying that the industry isn't enforcing their own rating system -- as he did mention sending his son to do "stings" on Target and Wal-Mart by purchasing these games.
If you're not familiar, the ESRB is the video game industry's self-regulating body. They're responsible for the labels you see at the bottom of video games. The ratings look like this:
When you sell games, you agree not to sell games to kids that have labels that say not to. I don't know about the fines involved or if there are any. But parents that want to be involved in their kids' development benefit from this kind of guidance. Actually, there's an entire site run by a father ("GamerDad") that wants to make sure that his kids play fun, but not "bad" games.
I'm not entirely convinced that exposure to content doesn't have negative effects, which is why I wouldn't discount Thompson's message -- it seems unreasonable to suggest that watching violent film after violent film is unhealthy for kids. But I'm also not convinced that the games are primarily what's responsible for children doing incredibly insanethings. I just think that at the point where your kids can be influenced by media to do evil, they've already fallen pretty far down the rabbit hole. If parents hadn't done their job up to the point where a child goes, "That's not a bad idea!" to a scene in Grand Theft Auto, then there's a bit of a problem.
Anyway, all of this was just me trying to work in a link to Zero Punctuation. Here Yahtzee discusses the original Manhunt game.
You want to know what an "oops" sounds like? Accidentally endorsing someone. That's a major oops. It's a good thing no one is silly enough to make such an error. Oh wait! Somebody did. A preacher. A Very Important Preacher.
The response from the Romney people:
"Rev. Wilton is a great leader in the community and we respect any decision he makes regarding his involvement with the campaign," campaign spokesman Kevin Madden said in an e-mailed statement.
Can anybody think of anything that would upset the Romneys, or their campaigners? At the moment I read that quote, I immediately thought of Mitt saying something like, "We love the Reverend, and we look forward to his input. It'll be great fun!"
So here's some advice. It's free. No charge. Gratis. Me to the Romney campaign:
Forget about mussing up your hair, Mitt. I want to see a photograph of you smoking a cigarette and kicking the tire of a car. I want to know that you hate mornings as much as the rest of us do. I want to watch you pick your teeth with a switchblade. I want to hear you say, "I need coffee and if someone says one more thing about golden plates, I'll pour it on their face."
You do that, Mitt, and you win Giuliani's core supporters. Never again will anyone wonder how you were able to run Massachusetts.
Democrat Congressman Pete Stark apologized today after a censure resolution against him was tabled indefinitely. The resolution was lodged against him by House Minority Leader John Boehner for claiming that the war in Iraq was simply for the President's amusement (video below).
Interestingly, this isn't really being treated as a slam against the troops the same way radio show host Rush Limbaugh's comment was. (Media Matters accused Limbaugh of saying that soldiers who did not support the war were phony soldiers. Here's what Media Matters says, here's what Rush says.) Instead, it's being treated as a simple personal attack. So I'm going to open this up to the readers (Mom? You there?).
Do you think that Rep. Stark should be censured all the same? Do you think that the comment about "blowing heads off" maligns the military? Should Democrats use more moderated rhetoric about the war? Post in the discussion forums here.
"It's in an area that we would rather not have it and discussions are under way" to figure out how much of a hazard the ice might pose to Discovery at liftoff, Launch Control said. An ice-inspection team rushed back to the launch pad for a better look with cameras and binoculars, as the seven astronauts waited inside Discovery for further word.
Oh-kay. While you guys whine about ice on an outdated space vessel destined for God knows what unuseful purpose, I'll be keeping an eye on what the military industrial complex is doing with the free market:
"The way it would work is that a prize - of, say, $50 million - would be awarded to the first group to land an instrument package in a predetermined area of the lunar surface, such as the South Pole, and return data. NASA would define what sort of data it is looking for, but it would be up to the private competitors to determine how to obtain it."
Of course, there is the entirely rational question of Why Bother? when it comes to what NASA wants. Once you have private competitors figuring out ways to get up there, then commercializing space flights, they're going to want to do their own R&D. After all, you want to get the best real estate possible, right?
One major theme of the Values Voter Summit last weekend was how Liberal Hollywood has destroyed our values. In general, there was a lot of martyrdom on stage -- from Giuliani's persecution at the hands of editorials from The New York Times down to the actors/directors/etc. working in the filthy, filthy water of the Left Coast. You can slake that stuff on at red meat conferences because people eat it up like liberals eat up jokes at the expense of George W. Bush. It's shtick.
It can also be an excellent sales pitch. As Andy pointed out, Giuliani did receive praise from The New York Times, though it wasn't because he did stuff that was liberal. But Rudy's not going to say that because it undermines his conservative credentials. And as Julian Sanchez notes, the inability of religiously themed films to find major distribution in the U.S. isn't because of liberal Hollywood's agenda to make the kids gay, but why not pretend? That way, people will feel obligated to see the movie, if only to stick it to all those lib-rawls:
"Major Hollywood distribution companies" never pick up little thoughtful foreign films like Bella. Independent distributors like Lion's Gate or quasi-autonomous niche distributors affiliated with one of the bigger companies do, as you can easily confirm by looking at the last dozen winners of that Toronto Film Festival People's Choice Award. An award, incidentally, which is suggestive of box office potential, but hardly dispositive: There are plenty of hits (Life Is Beautiful, Whale Rider, Hotel Rwanda, Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, American Beauty), but also a fair number of misses: Tsotsi grossed just under $3 million in the U.S.; Zatôichi less than $900,000; The Hanging Garden, under a million. Even the successful ones, though, aren't getting distributed by Paramount.
An entire panel at the summit, composed of members of the cast/production team behind the film Bella, nodded in agreement with each other about how the elites in the movie industry were against the themes in this film. The movie seems like it'll be great and I'd like to see it, but just as Giuliani's goal is simply to sell himself on the basis of how much liberals hate him, the panel was selling a movie based on how much of a threat it was to liberals. That might work, too. But it's misguided to believe the claim that businesses are passing up the opportunity to make lots of money on a movie just because it has a moral message. If anything, the elites are probably learning the lesson of the Passion of the Christ, that there's a lot of money to be made from moviegoing Christians.
Anyway, the other thing I wanted to mention was that the lead actor in Bella was treated like a superstar. Apparently all he's accomplished in his life was "living in sin" (as he tells it, but I'm dying to know exactly how he went about it), but then finding his faith in Jesus Christ. Conversion stories are generally compelling, but hardly grounds for an auditorium full of applause. The crowd felt differently though: After all, he's good looking and has a thick eh-spanish accent (as my Spanish father would say).
The old (and I mean old) face of teen pregnancy. Roar:
"Dinosaurs did pretty much what we do and what most other vertebrates do," explained co-presenter Andrew Lee. "If these species had waited until full size to reproduce, they would have had very few years in which to produce offspring."
You see? Social conservatives aren't against teen pregnancy. They're just against the condoms that would prevent it! It's about upholding tradition, reptilian or otherwise.
Giuliani, if you want the evangelicals, now's your chance.
1,140 airstrikes launched in the first nine months of 2007 compared to 229 in all of last year. Airstrikes are up in Afghanistan, too, with 2,764 bombing runs this year, up from 1,770 last year. Helicopter gunship attacks aren’t included in those numbers.
...They kill civilians, the moral wrongness of which seems to be lost in this story. Yes, it’s good to decrease reasons for locals to hate America, but not killing innocent people is a good unto itself, no? Am I the only one getting tired of seeing civilian casualties as something to be avoided for tactical reasons and not that it’s supposed to be wrong to kill innocent people?
1. It's probably being taken for granted by both the reporter and the military spokesperson, so this is mostly a point of bad PR. Its exclusion doesn't mean that our military is thrilled whenever they see children in bodybags, so why complain about it not being brought up? The point of the article was tactics, so it emphasizes tactics.
2. More troops does mean more air cover, but I find it interesting that no one's mentioning that Clinton's airbombing of Yugoslavia killed a buncha civilians and very few people piped up back then. But then again, Human Rights Watch put the number at around 500, if you want to believe them.
Right-leaning bloggers are out of touch with a large portion--if not the majority--of conservatives in America.
... the semantic distinction between "social conservatives" and "fiscal conservatives" presents a false dichotomy. Conservatism is rooted in principles (transcendent moral order, social continuity, prudence, etc) that naturally have implications for economics. If you are a conservative you are conservative about matters of society and thus likely to espouse economic policies that are fiscally conservative as well. But conservatism cannot begin with economic or fiscal issues as the primary concerns, much less push social issues to the periphery. Anyone who thinks tax reduction is essential while abortion and marriage are secondary or unimportant cannot rightly be considered to be "conservative", at least not by the standards of the American conservative tradition. Currently we don’t have a label for people whose primary philosophical concern is their pocketbooks. It is becoming increasingly apparent, though, that we can simply call them "Republicans."
Hooey. I've flipped through Joe's blog quite a bit and respect his views, but I'm having a hard time buying the argument that the non-adamantly pro-life conservative isn't a conservative, even if he is pro-life.
Rolling back taxes is fairly cut and dry from a rhetorical, as well as economic perspective. But when you're fighting abortion, you have to find ways to convince those who are in the middle of the road. That involves arguing about the beginning of life. Using more secular rhetoric to reach those who disagree. It might involve creating programs to offset the rise in single-parents that would inevitably follow a ban. Where you can argue with statistical analysis on the virtues of tax cuts, it's much harder to argue against abortion -- though obviously that doesn't mean it shouldn't be done. Conservative leaders prior to Roe v. Wade weren't crusading against abortion on the state level by and large. The more recent, higher rates of it everywhere may be a call to arms, but a failure to reprioritize isn't a failure to be conservative.
This reminds me of this cartoon from Investors Business Daily:
And it reminds me that the pro-life movement has seen the biggest advances when it takes smaller steps, such as the ban on partial-birth abortion. Roe v. Wade has yet to be overturned, and that ought to be in sharp focus. Pro-lifers should be looking for ways to accomplish that first. In the meantime, state ballot initiatives are also fair game. As for marriage, my understanding is that the conservative consensus is against gay marriage, but divided over how to deal with it -- some feel it should be taken care of at the state level, some at the federal. The former would see no problem jumping for a candidate who would allow federalism to deal with the issue, and to call that unconservative makes no sense to me.
Perhaps the more divisive rhetoric is spilling out because it's primary season and there's a chance to get in the social conservative ideal, but as Gary Bauer said, evangelicals ought to be against suicide.
Jim Geraghty is having a fit, so happy is he with the Republican candidates' performance. My friends at the AmSpec are also pleased with the performances overall. I have nothing to add, but for one thing: Jonah Goldberg at NRO asks "Who's we?" to Ron Paul's sentiment that the Republicans have historically won on their non-interventionist approaches, citing Eisenhower and Nixon.
What electoral analysis is Paul getting wrong? Republicans want America to win wars when she's in them. That doesn't mean Republicans like getting into them, though. Harding and Coolidge were elected to avoid joining the League of Nations. Ike's New Look was about avoiding large-scale wars by more efficient methods of fighting the Ruskies. Nixon's platform was based on effectively managing our enemies (and in some cases, accommodating them). And Reagan was most certainly eager to use American might to destroy communism, but his efforts in Latin America, the Middle East, and Europe were about stymieing the Soviets, not bringing democracy to foreigners, something we can see in Reagan's reaction to the Beirut bombing. When Clinton wanted to bomb Yugoslavia or invade Haiti, Congress was very skeptical.
I'm not saying that I agree with Paul about the war, but to suggest that non-interventionism didn't play an important role for Republican leaders is to ignore a hefty amount of history. Jonah, if you want to take a stab at it, I might have missed something, but there's definitely a middle ground where some concessions can be made to the Constitution-obsessed candidate.
UPDATE: Andrew Cline asks if Romney mentioned the Sox, and how it might have been nice if he acknowledged their fight for the pennant. What? Why? So he could reemphasize to the midwesterners and southerners most skeptical of him that he's a northeasterner?
And I mean, *really* bombed. Huckabee got 51%. Romney got 10%. That's second, but there are miles between Huckabee and Romney. So Romney failed to inspire, at least the hardcore folks willing to show up, particular in comparison to Huckabee's blow-out (and again, it was a solid speech).
Except, I did sit next to one guy who voted prior to coming to the conference -- unfortunately, there's no apparent means to figure out how these people went.
Maybe it's just because their support was supposed to be a given, but there's no mention of the war on the list of issues that are most important to voters. But given the surprise of Ron Paul in third place in total votes, maybe there's more to it. I asked the FRC officials why the war wasn't included in the poll. The answer? "We asked questions that we work on primarily." But that's a poor calculation -- the war was important enough to be discussed by most of the speakers as was immigration, yet neither appeared on the list.
Uh. K.
Apparently there were about 600 people who voted offsite and showed up at the summit. That means the sample is a little difficult to figure out who the most hardcore of the voters were. You can't just look at who voted onsite to determine how many hardcore people were here, and how they voted.
UPDATE: By the way, I followed up, asking whether the exclusion of that issue would necessarily bias the survey against a particularly pro-national security candidate. But they disregarded the comment since national security isn't one of the issues that FRC deals with.
1. Mitt Romney: 1,595 27.62 %
2. Mike Huckabee: 1,565 27.10%
3. Ron Paul: 865 14.95%
4. Fred Thompson: 564 9.77%
5. Sam Brownback: 297 5.14%
6. Duncan Hunter: 140 2.42%
7. Tom Tancredo: 133 2.30%
8. Rudy Giuliani: 107 1.85%
9. John McCain: 81 1.40%
UPDATE: The poll was taken between August (through secure online voting among FRC Action members) and today -- meaning that those who came out of the speeches had a very different impression than those who voted early. If you look at the totals for onsite, look at how people were moved by speakers (I'll only do the top five):
1. Mike Huckabee: 488 51.26%
2. Mitt Romney: 99 10.40%
3. Fred Thompson: 77 8.09%
4. Tom Tancredo: 65 6.83
5. Rudy Giuliani: 60 6.30%
I forgot to tell you about Mitt's speech last night. Why? Because it was like every other Mitt speech. He got a lot of cheers and hoots, but despite the fact that he is in perfect alignment with social values of this crowd, it didn't seem like people were excited for Romney.
Is it the Mormon thing? Maybe -- if it would count against him anywhere, here would be it. But I think it was his stiffness... and his slickness. His lines seemed canned, and when compared to Giuliani, disingenuous. That's not because Giuliani accused him of changing positions all the time, either (painting Mitt as the new Clinton, perhaps?). It's because Giuliani seemed to spill his heart out, while Mitt seemed like he was performing a show.
The straw poll is coming up, so we'll see, but I think Giuliani will see a surprisingly high number here. Maybe not enough to overtake Mitt, but enough to show that he did well enough.
In this crowd, the success of a speech is measured in the number of standing ovations it garners. Hunter, Huckabee, and Brownback all received one. By this yardstick, Mitt's speech was a failure. People liked his views on social issues, but weirdly, didn't go nuts for it.
Sometimes, it's awesome to listen to music that lifts your spirits. Sometimes, marches do that. But why, during the start of every speech, do they have to play marching music? I've had the "Battle Hymn of the Republic" stuck in my head for the last 45 minutes. Kate Sheppard at The American Prospect mentioned to me that some Bob Dylan played briefly before someone cut it off. Good thing too -- don't want to get anyone's blood up.
Lots of excitement in the room about Mike Huckabee whose appearance raised hoots and hollers several times. In fact, his opening was comfortable, probably one of the most comfortable of any set of remarks I've seen so far. He was especially strong with this line: "I don't come to you… I come from you."
In fact, he has received consistent standing applause throughout his speech. He also looks presidential -- he's comfortable in front of the audience, which is more than one could say for Mitt Romney or Fred Thompson. And when it comes to discussing religiosity, Huckabee couldn't be beat. He went on a riff about what he was taught to believe, referring to Daniel and the Lions Den, David and Goliath, Jesus and the Blind Man -- frequently casting himself as the underdog.
But it wasn't just the religiosity. It was the passion with which he spoke -- he knew how to deliver a line and rile up an audience. The question is whether he can do that without resorting to religious argument. And I think that's what's going to be the difference between his ability to go from the second tier to the first tier, and in particular, his ability to go up against a democratic candidate.
The Values Voters go nuts for a guy who'd be a great president for a country composed entirely of Values Voters.
The reaction in the room to Giuliani's speech was clear: It was a personal speech, one that makes it comfortable to have Giuliani in the party. But not one that will have the values voters beating down the door to vote for him in the primary, no matter how much he talks about how Christians have to be inclusive.
In fact, the whole speech was a strange nod -- but genuine, and compelling all the same. Pinn being raised in an environment in which religion was considered a private matter
But that wasn't the point. The point was for Giuliani to get on camera in front of Christian voters and showing that he was comfortable in the environment, so that the less hardcore, the more moderate conservatives who don't have a religious litmus test, will see his ability to reach out.
As such, he did so masterfully. Though he flubbed his line on abortion ("I've worked to increase the number of abortions-- I mean, adoptions…") he made a number of attacks on Romney's supposed flip-flopping. Of course, record-wise, Romney didn't do much flip-flopping, and, as he highlighted last night during his speech, was even awarded for his pro-life work.
Odd though -- Giuliani made no time available for media outlets following his speech. Possibly because he knew that he'd be slammed with tough questions from Christian media outlets. But you know what? The speech could have been a lot worse, especially if he addressed women's rights.
Oh yeah? Undiminished energy and hope, eh? I seem to recall Carter on TV (... well, I don't remember this from the first viewing...) throwing on a sweater talking about how America was "in a funk." And also that we should conserve energy.
Where was this energetic president during his own presidency? He puts out a book, and people hail him as a great peacemaker. What peace did Carter create? The gas lines were pretty loud with all the honking. And are we going to credit him with getting us involved with the mujahadeen? Heck, in 1993, the Democrats agreed with me -- they didn't even invite Carter to Clinton's inauguration.
Then you see something like this:
Alright. Let's pretend Carter is really The Peace Guy. Should we consider objective a movie by a producer who praises Carter as "obsessed with peace" by contrast to a president who is "obsessed with war"? CNN, it's called a "puff piece" and you do it all the time. Knock it off.
Just kidding! L0Lz0r$! They're coming out as *conservatives* in Hollywood!
The gist of the Jonathan and Deborah Flora's talk: conservatives have avoided the movie industry and that it's risky, professionally, to come out as a conservative in Hollywood. Jonathan is a producer at Disney, and Deborah is an actress. As a result, liberals have dominated -- prime example? Brokeback Mountain's "attack on the iconic symbol of manliness, the American cowboy."
Okay. This gets me upset, and I want to be as clear as possible.
THEY WERE SHEEP HERDERS.
Was the movie actually an attack? I don't know. But I'm reminded of something an editor once told me. The author of the short story upon which the film was based explained that she got the idea for the story when she was at a bar in Montana (I think). She noticed a man looking lovingly at some younger men playing pool. She started thinking about what he was feeling, and based on that, wrote the story.
When my editor heard the story, he shook his head. "Typical liberal," rolling his eyes. "Why didn't she just walk up to him and talk to him?"
Values Voters Criticize Giuliani for Unsturdy Stool. Seriously. Posted by J.P. Freire October 19 at 3:25 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
After the jump, a brief walkthrough on how to create your very own agitprop, entitled "How to Write an Anti-Secularist Pamphlet." Or as I like to call it, Clever Humor Through Photoshop.
This is one of the weirdest/most depressing things to mention in a speech. Describing the effects of abortion, he mentioned an anecdote of a doctor delivering a 2 pound fetus: "They placed the baby in a basket, and pretended not to hear it, and let it die." Everyone groaned in pity.
Is this really the most effective way of hammering in a solid pro-life stance? I'm skeptical. In fact, I'm creeped out. I'm not sure, but I think he also mentioned that he had seen this with his own eyes.
A note on Paul's appearance -- he seems to finally be wearing a jacket that fits him. Oh c'mon. Don't say you didn't think it looked a little silly.
His riff on the war received some polite applause, but you can tell that his religiosity doesn't do much for him with this crowd. The Values Voters appear more concerned about the war, and I don't think they buy the argument that our borders are out of control because our soldiers are abroad (something he's arguing in his speech).
In fact, as he rails against the loss of individual liberty in the face of national threats, people listen respectfully but don't quite go along with him. He only regains his audience once he calls for the abolition of the Department of Education. In fact, maybe this is a signal -- should we get a Republican president (...) maybe we know who the Secretary of Education ought to be.
Duncan Hunter is making a killing right now, getting more cheers and hoots from the audience than most of the other speakers. He was a bit dry when talking about his time in office though, but of course, it's the most Christian credential he has -- fighting for the Mt. Soledad Cross to stand in San Diego.
But Hunter also had a lot of cheers over his "seal the borders" stance. Bragging about the fence he constructed in San Diego along the border: "If you get over my fence, we send you to the Olympics immediately." He then promised to build a fence along the entire border within months of coming into office as president.
Others will disagree I am sure, but frankly, I was surprised at how Hunter sounded -- he certainly sounded the most presidential I've heard, definitely more than Thompson or Tancredo. And he was far more popular.
He sure is folksy, that Thompson. But his opening story? Lame. He talked about how a little girl wanted to stand in the limelight with him throughout his speech during a campaign spot. In a way, that story seems to reflect how Thompson is doing -- he's enjoying being in the limelight, but he doesn't seem to have much to say.
Of course, his campaign is quite different. I was just handed a paper from the the Friends of Fred Thompson, which looks like it was pieced together at the last minute. It hits Romney and Giuliani with short quotes pulled from interviews and campaigns in previous years.
The fight for the nomination is the fight to prove who's a real conservative, obviously, but what Tancredo said earlier is entirely wrong -- conservatism exists in a number of flavors, and its possible to be a conservative and not place social values at the center of your campaign.
I'm not a Mitt cheerleader, but I did think he made a fantastic point during the debates when he noted that he didn't like being attacked on the basis of who was pro-life first. Even if it might have been a little disingenuous on his part, wouldn't it make more sense if conservatives looked at their ideology as an evolution of thought and beliefs? In fact, they call liberals reactionary, so conservatives must be thoughtful, and willing to put ideas against eachother.
Everyone has their pet issues in the conservative movement. But prioritizing some issues over others shouldn't be a disqualification.
Which is why, watching Thompson, I'm convinced he's got a solid stance on a lot of issues. Unfortunately, it's more of a slouch. He repeats a line that hardly resonates, the fact that "we're at a crossroads in this country." What are the crossroads? How are they any different than '04? He's got people clapping on his issues, but he's throwing away his big, inspirational lines. If this summit continues as a checklist of conservative principle, rather than a moment for inspiration, then it won't have been a summit so much as a swan song for a conservative winner of the '08 election.
**UPDATE** This is just what I mean. Fred Thompson's two standing applauses were: Being introduced and promising that when he gets into office, the first thing he'd do is pray. Standing, roaring applause. That's as good as it gets at this talk folks. I think praying is important, but you've gotta be kidding me that this is the Fred Juggernaut.
Jim Geraghty wonders why Brownback didn't mention anything about his departure during his speech here at the summit. It's probably because being introduced as a "former presidential candidate isn't as nice as "current presidential candidate." Besides, if there was any place he could make his point to a receptive audience, it's here.
Geraghty also spoke with Brownback's staff and found out some interesting lessons learned from the Brownback campaign, but I think the one thing missing was that he never seemed like a frontrunning candidate. I think his religiosity was valuable and genuine, but probably didn't resonate because it was so focused on one (albeit important) issue.
His jokes are going over well -- "We need a leader because our enemies are psychopaths and our allies are the French." And something about converting on the road to Damascus and not the road to Des Moines. And he threw in a little Spanish lingo too! He says he prefers to call Bank of America the "Banco de Las Americas," thanks to its illegal alien-friendly policies.
Tancredo still seems a little bewildered, though.
In fact, when he says, "Enter the breach with me!" as a call to arms among conservatives, it sounds more like he's afraid to go in himself...
After a witty take on his experience being a second tier candidate (a cab driver didn't believe he was running for president) he pointed out that he didn't buy all the so-called conservative takes of other candidates. "I don't have to spend millions of dollars to show I'm a conservative. I have a lifetime ... to prove it..." He even refers to "common sense" conservatives as "nonsense." (But he still talked to the NAACP? Seriously?)
"Since when is conservatism not enough?" He asks. Good point, although Tancredo forgets that most conservatives *are* concerned about the kinds of conservative they're being presented with. After all "compassionate conservatism" hasn't been a favorite among the hardcore Republicans.
Well, it's not like Sen. Brownback was ever uncomfortable talking about his faith, but he certainly has a friendly audience here when he talks about an "authentic faith." While it sounds genuine, it is also a good bludgeon to use against the Dems. Brownback's departure from the race would mean that only Huckabee can talk in this kind of way about faith.
Sarkozy is getting a divorce. Rudy, don't get any ideas. There are better ways to get a bump in the press, especially prior to the Value Voters Summit.
