It’s Friday afternoon. It’s time to write my column. True to form, I procrastinate. It’s off to the grocery for sodas and chips.
I’m on my way to the checkout when I see Henderson. He’s a nice guy. But Henderson is not the sort of person you ever have a short conversation with. Normally I avoid Henderson. But with the blank computer screen awaiting me, I’m delighted to see him.
“Saywhat?”
We talk about Kobe Bryant’s phenomenal corkscrew jump shot three-pointer. We talk about filing our taxes—neither of us has. Soon we reach the point of the conversation where I normally would say goodbye and move on. But Henderson leans toward me and says, “I had a strange experience last night.”
Henderson leaves for work every morning at the same time. He returns from work almost every evening at the same time. He and his family have chicken cacciatore for dinner every Wednesday. He has been playing golf on Sunday afternoon with the same three other guys for nearly a decade. Every Sunday afternoon he leaves to play golf at the same time. You get the picture. When Henderson says something strange happened, well it’s enough for you to sit up and “Saywhat?”
“You’ve got to see this”
Henderson says, “Last night. It’s after dinner. The kids are in bed. My wife says, ‘You’ve got to see this.’
“She cues up a videotape. It’s from C-Span. My wife whose tastes are about as normal as they come has taped something from C-Span.”
Henderson steps a little closer and speaks in a whisper, “She’s taped a press conference.”
My first thought is, Hey wait a minute. I’m the one in the neighborhood who watches C-Span. I’m the geek who watches press conferences. Henderson’s wife made fun of my viewing habits at a party not all that long ago.
“So we’re on the couch and John Edwards and his wife come down this staircase thing, and they stand on this lawn and Edwards goes on about how his wife has had some tests.
“For a while I’m looking at my wife. I’m looking at the TV. I’m thinking, What in the heck is going on? It’s Thursday night. The basketball tournament is on. I have some e-mails to read.
“But as the news conference continues, I get more interested in what’s going on. And then Edwards says his wife’s cancer has returned. And they stand there and take questions and talk with more than some degree of intelligence and to the whole world they’re saying words like “breast” and “not curable” and they’re standing there in the sunshine . . . and I can’t take my eyes off the television. I look to my left and my wife is crying. And then I realize I’m crying.”
The Facts Mam
John Edwards is running for the Democratic Presidential nomination. He has consistently been running third in the polls—behind Hilary Clinton and Barack Obama. But Edwards is leading the polls in Iowa—the first state that holds an official caucus.
Edwards was Kerry’s Vice Presidential running mate in 2004. Before that he was a senator from North Carolina. Edwards and his wife were lawyers. She played an active roll in his campaign in 2004. She has been playing an active roll in his campaign this time around the track.
When John Edwards was young, his family was poor. His wife, Elizabeth came from a military family. He made a mint as a lawyer. They had two children. The boy, Wade, was a little too good to be true. He was an honors student, modest, likeable—he even had a dry sense of humor. In 1996 Wade Edwards was killed in a car accident. After their son died, John and Elizabeth Edwards had two more children.
Shortly before the election in 2004, Elizabeth Edwards was diagnosed with breast cancer. She was treated and the cancer retreated. This week John and Elizabeth Edwards and everyone who cared to notice learned that the cancer had resurfaced in a rib. There also may be small portions of it in her lungs.
Political pundits are using phrases like “uncharted waters” to describe John Edwards’ political status right now. Many Americans are applauding John and Elizabeth Edwards for their candor and their poise. Many Americans think John and Elizabeth Edwards should fold up their tent and go home.
Truth and Politics
Almost all politicians have a very unusual relationship with the truth. For some politicians the truth is like clay—something that can be molded to suit them. For some politicians the truth is something to be danced around. Most politicians like to tell their version of the truth. Indeed, one of the maxims of politics is, The candidate who tells the best story wins. This is almost always the version of the truth the candidate likes to tell.
I have a theory that great presidents make the most of the truth. A good example of this is President Johnson’s vigorous efforts to pass Voting Rights legislation. The same theory suggests that awful presidents avoid the truth. In the long term, such habits are ruinous to the country. A good example of this is President Johnson during the Vietnam war. He couldn’t change the awful truth about the war. By denying the truth about the war, he insured the US would lose the conflict, that his often glorious presidency would be marred by it, and that the suffering the war caused would be magnified.
Let’s be honest. Most politicians want as little to do with the truth as is possible. Telling the truth creates problems. You start telling truth, and soon people want more of the stuff. Pretty soon voters start asking questions that require honest solutions. And if you want problems, nothing creates them more than honest solutions. Can you imagine the tsunamis of vitriol that would be created by an honest solution to the deficit? What about all the damage to honor and tradition that an honest response to the war in Iraq would produce?
There is another maxim of politics—script everything. This is because bloopers travel at a speed faster than light. Bad news travels through the American media at a volume that is louder than your average rock concert. Campaign events are scripted so thoroughly to minimize the chance of bloopers will mar or even ruin a campaign.
Which is what made the Edwards press conference so unusual.
They spent the whole time—the whole time—talking about the awful truth of Elizabeth’s cancer. They spent the whole time speaking without a script. And they looked alternately poised and serious--and cheerful and open.
And There’s More
No one in our culture can say the word “cancer” without eliciting a great deal of emotion. Most of us live most of our lives knowing and caring about and praying for a few people who have cancer—or are in what we will hope will be a long period of remission from it.
But on Thursday, John and Elizabeth Edwards stood on a grassy lawn in North Carolina in front of reporters and a host of cameras. And they told the truth about an emotionally charged topic.
Some, like my friends the Henderson’s, thought them noble and grand and more than a little heroic.
A Few Comments
The obvious reaction is for someone like me to comment on it all. Obviously, for a few days the public eye will turn toward John and Elizabeth Edwards. Obviously, whatever many may think about John and Elizabeth Edwards, most will applaud their candor and their dignity. Edwards’ positive ratings will go up. His character ratings will go up. For the short term, he probably will become more popular in the polls. For a very brief period of time comics will not tell jokes about him. The news of Elizabeth’s cancer will require the candidate to add yet another balancing act to his repertoire. Now, in addition to being all the things all candidates have to be, John Edwards will have to balance being an energetic and dedicated campaigner with being a kind, attentive, and sympathetic husband.
But as I write these words, I really have only a few thoughts that amount to a hill of beans. I hope Elizabeth Edwards lives to be a hundred and twenty. I hope she outlives all of the people who think she should go home and stare at the walls of her house and wait to die. Whatever she ends up doing on Inauguration Day 2009, I hope that she continues to be as candid and as articulate and as gutsy and as brilliant and, yes, as mind bogglingly beautiful as she was in front of all those cameras last Thursday.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Too Serious A Matter provides intelligent, provocative, and often funny commentary about the often convoluted intersections of politics, strategy, and history. The title of the blog comes from De Gaulle’s comment, “I have come to the conclusion that politics are too serious a matter to be left to the politicians.”
Monday, March 26, 2007
A Tragedy of Errors
This just in . . . last week an agency of the Defense Department issued a report. It provided an update on the war in Iraq. The report referred to the conflict in Iraq as a “civil war.”
In a related matter a spokesperson for the Pentagon said that another Defense Department agency is about to issue a statement that . . . check this out . . . “rejects the theory that the world is flat.”
March Madness
This week many in America are happily consumed with a basketball tournament and what is often called March Madness. The literal among us are perhaps too quick to remind too many that the tournament often ends in April. Anyway, an all too familiar form of madness revisited the Democratic presidential hopefuls.
General Pace, the person in charge of the Joint Chiefs of Staff had a much-discussed conversation with the editorial board of the Chicago Tribune this week. He said, “I believe homosexual acts between individuals are immoral and that we should not condone immoral acts. Saying that gays should serve openly in the military says to me that we, by policy, would be condoning what I believe is immoral activity.”
So it seemed that General Pace was going to be the runaway winner of the idiot-of-the week award.
Until the Democrats got into the mix.
Both Little-Miss-Cautious Hilary and Gimme-a-big-smile-Obama were asked to respond to the General’s comments. Senator Clinton said, “I’ll leave that to others to determine.” Obama’s comments were equally bland.
For an entire day both fumbled and bumbled as if they were trying to imitate the milquetoast qualities of Gore and Kerry at the same time.
The Democrats, after all theses years, after two failed presidential campaigns, are still making comments that make it appear as if their spine has left them.
Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell
The “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy is fifteen years old. This is now a post Will and Grace America. Many think that the “don’t ask don’t tell policy” will not last long if a Democrat is elected president. Young voters simply do not have the paranoia about gays that other generations had. And they are right. A list of gays who helped the US win wars would embarrass even the most self-righteous homophobe. I’ll stop at three stories.
Before the United States was the United States, Baron Von Stuben transformed the Continental Army into a disciplined and effective fighting force.
He was gay.
During World War II General Eisenhower ordered his secretary, WAC sergeant Johnnie Phelps, to create a list of the names of all the lesbians in her battalion. She responded, "I'll make your list, but you've got to know that when you get the list back, my name's going to be first." Eisenhower decided he did not need the list. He decided not to take actions against gays.
US Marine Eric Alva was the first US service member to be injured in the Iraq war. He is gay.
Joke of the Week
This week the story of the week is best summed up by the joke of the week—courtesy of Jon Daily of The Daily Show.
“Good news for the Bush Administration, just one week after the outrageous Walter Reed Medical Center Scandal. That story is gone—off the front page, way back now in Marmaduke Country.
“There’s a new kid in town and his name is Outrageous-Fired-Federal-Prosecutor’s-Attorney-General’s scandal. Yes in one week it’s been revealed that the Administration screwed over wounded vets, the most revered people in America, and lawyers, the most reviled people in America.
“Proving, They’ve got range.”
Escalation
Escalation is a strange thing. We usually use the term to refer to military action. But it is a mainstay of politics.
Monday we were welcomed by the wonderful story coming from the lips of General Pace. Tuesday there was more bad news out of the Justice Department and the firing of the US attorneys.
The Bush Administration, proving they are not completely incompetent then pulled out a chestnut they no doubt had been keeping in the wings for a while. They released the news that Khalid Shaikh Mohammed was behind most of the ugly things Al Queda has been up to in the last years. This included the 9/11 attack, the death of journalist Daniel Pearl, and a host of other incidents.
Khalid Shaikh Mohammed has been in US custody for more than three years. No doubt releasing this information late Tuesday was intended to knock the stories about Mr. Gonzales’ troubles into the hinterlands.
It didn’t work that way.
Gonzales had stated that he did not recall knowing all that much about the firings of the Republican US attorneys.
E-mails released this week showed he knew a great deal about the firings. And that story had enough traction to mow down the Jolly Green Giant and all his buddies.
Hot Potato
US attorney’s are fired all the time. But they are fired only rarely during mid-term. These attorney’s were fired in December, after the Bush Administration knew that the Democrats would control the House and the Senate. Six of them had positive performance reports. Some were prosecuting or had prosecuted Republicans.
No one would complain if a US attorney were fired during a change of administration. Few would complain if a US attorney were fired to give a job to someone to repay a political debt. But to fire US attorneys at mid-term, because they were taking actions against Republicans—well if such charges are provable, the Bush Administration has a hot potato the size of Texas in its lap.
Credit and Blame
Three months ago, Congressman and uber Democratic activist Rahm Emanuel was harping about this story—and few responded. Cleary he was right and all those who ignored it were wrong. And credit should be given to bloggers who helped keep the story alive.
The really bad news for the Bush Administration is that Democrats clearly are willing to let this fire burn for a while. They can subpoena Gonzales. They can supbeona Rove. They even can supboena Harriet Meirs who has left the Bush Administration. The President can’t do much to prevent Gonzales and those who work for him from being subpoenaed and testifying under oath. But Bush can play hardball about people from his staff appearing under oath.
To most whatever it is that the Bush Administration is doing will not pass any smell test. Clearly the evidence may be read to suggest that the Bush Administration has something to hide.
Today
Gonzales and his charges in the Justice Department look like bozos for pursuing the firings when they knew it had the potential to provoke some heat in a House and a Senate dominated by Democrats. Gonzales and his staff look even more foolish when news surfaces as it did this week that Gonzales’ chief of staff warned them to "Prepare to Withstand Political Upheaval."
Down the Road
There are a host of possibilities.
The Democrats have to savor this one: what the Republicans are trying to cover up is so bad that it warrants all the heat they are now taking.
This is possible, but not likely.
At this point the story seems to be about competence. The Democrats seem certain to go on subpoena driven fishing expedition to determine if there is something deeper and darker that will be revealed. They probably relish the idea that a story like this could dominate the headlines for weeks.
And as one week of bad news seques into another for the Bush Administration, the Democrats have to love their chances in 2008.
But to think this way would be a horrible mistake for the Democrats.
No matter how badly the Bush Administration bungles the war in Iraq and domestic matters, if the Democratic front runners continue to bumble the way Senators Clinton and Obama did last week, Americans will rightly turn away from Democrats again.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Too Serious A Matter provides intelligent, provocative, and often funny commentary about the often convoluted intersections of politics, strategy, and history. The title of the blog comes from De Gaulle’s comment, “I have come to the conclusion that politics are too serious a matter to be left to the politicians.”
In a related matter a spokesperson for the Pentagon said that another Defense Department agency is about to issue a statement that . . . check this out . . . “rejects the theory that the world is flat.”
March Madness
This week many in America are happily consumed with a basketball tournament and what is often called March Madness. The literal among us are perhaps too quick to remind too many that the tournament often ends in April. Anyway, an all too familiar form of madness revisited the Democratic presidential hopefuls.
General Pace, the person in charge of the Joint Chiefs of Staff had a much-discussed conversation with the editorial board of the Chicago Tribune this week. He said, “I believe homosexual acts between individuals are immoral and that we should not condone immoral acts. Saying that gays should serve openly in the military says to me that we, by policy, would be condoning what I believe is immoral activity.”
So it seemed that General Pace was going to be the runaway winner of the idiot-of-the week award.
Until the Democrats got into the mix.
Both Little-Miss-Cautious Hilary and Gimme-a-big-smile-Obama were asked to respond to the General’s comments. Senator Clinton said, “I’ll leave that to others to determine.” Obama’s comments were equally bland.
For an entire day both fumbled and bumbled as if they were trying to imitate the milquetoast qualities of Gore and Kerry at the same time.
The Democrats, after all theses years, after two failed presidential campaigns, are still making comments that make it appear as if their spine has left them.
Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell
The “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy is fifteen years old. This is now a post Will and Grace America. Many think that the “don’t ask don’t tell policy” will not last long if a Democrat is elected president. Young voters simply do not have the paranoia about gays that other generations had. And they are right. A list of gays who helped the US win wars would embarrass even the most self-righteous homophobe. I’ll stop at three stories.
Before the United States was the United States, Baron Von Stuben transformed the Continental Army into a disciplined and effective fighting force.
He was gay.
During World War II General Eisenhower ordered his secretary, WAC sergeant Johnnie Phelps, to create a list of the names of all the lesbians in her battalion. She responded, "I'll make your list, but you've got to know that when you get the list back, my name's going to be first." Eisenhower decided he did not need the list. He decided not to take actions against gays.
US Marine Eric Alva was the first US service member to be injured in the Iraq war. He is gay.
Joke of the Week
This week the story of the week is best summed up by the joke of the week—courtesy of Jon Daily of The Daily Show.
“Good news for the Bush Administration, just one week after the outrageous Walter Reed Medical Center Scandal. That story is gone—off the front page, way back now in Marmaduke Country.
“There’s a new kid in town and his name is Outrageous-Fired-Federal-Prosecutor’s-Attorney-General’s scandal. Yes in one week it’s been revealed that the Administration screwed over wounded vets, the most revered people in America, and lawyers, the most reviled people in America.
“Proving, They’ve got range.”
Escalation
Escalation is a strange thing. We usually use the term to refer to military action. But it is a mainstay of politics.
Monday we were welcomed by the wonderful story coming from the lips of General Pace. Tuesday there was more bad news out of the Justice Department and the firing of the US attorneys.
The Bush Administration, proving they are not completely incompetent then pulled out a chestnut they no doubt had been keeping in the wings for a while. They released the news that Khalid Shaikh Mohammed was behind most of the ugly things Al Queda has been up to in the last years. This included the 9/11 attack, the death of journalist Daniel Pearl, and a host of other incidents.
Khalid Shaikh Mohammed has been in US custody for more than three years. No doubt releasing this information late Tuesday was intended to knock the stories about Mr. Gonzales’ troubles into the hinterlands.
It didn’t work that way.
Gonzales had stated that he did not recall knowing all that much about the firings of the Republican US attorneys.
E-mails released this week showed he knew a great deal about the firings. And that story had enough traction to mow down the Jolly Green Giant and all his buddies.
Hot Potato
US attorney’s are fired all the time. But they are fired only rarely during mid-term. These attorney’s were fired in December, after the Bush Administration knew that the Democrats would control the House and the Senate. Six of them had positive performance reports. Some were prosecuting or had prosecuted Republicans.
No one would complain if a US attorney were fired during a change of administration. Few would complain if a US attorney were fired to give a job to someone to repay a political debt. But to fire US attorneys at mid-term, because they were taking actions against Republicans—well if such charges are provable, the Bush Administration has a hot potato the size of Texas in its lap.
Credit and Blame
Three months ago, Congressman and uber Democratic activist Rahm Emanuel was harping about this story—and few responded. Cleary he was right and all those who ignored it were wrong. And credit should be given to bloggers who helped keep the story alive.
The really bad news for the Bush Administration is that Democrats clearly are willing to let this fire burn for a while. They can subpoena Gonzales. They can supbeona Rove. They even can supboena Harriet Meirs who has left the Bush Administration. The President can’t do much to prevent Gonzales and those who work for him from being subpoenaed and testifying under oath. But Bush can play hardball about people from his staff appearing under oath.
To most whatever it is that the Bush Administration is doing will not pass any smell test. Clearly the evidence may be read to suggest that the Bush Administration has something to hide.
Today
Gonzales and his charges in the Justice Department look like bozos for pursuing the firings when they knew it had the potential to provoke some heat in a House and a Senate dominated by Democrats. Gonzales and his staff look even more foolish when news surfaces as it did this week that Gonzales’ chief of staff warned them to "Prepare to Withstand Political Upheaval."
Down the Road
There are a host of possibilities.
The Democrats have to savor this one: what the Republicans are trying to cover up is so bad that it warrants all the heat they are now taking.
This is possible, but not likely.
At this point the story seems to be about competence. The Democrats seem certain to go on subpoena driven fishing expedition to determine if there is something deeper and darker that will be revealed. They probably relish the idea that a story like this could dominate the headlines for weeks.
And as one week of bad news seques into another for the Bush Administration, the Democrats have to love their chances in 2008.
But to think this way would be a horrible mistake for the Democrats.
No matter how badly the Bush Administration bungles the war in Iraq and domestic matters, if the Democratic front runners continue to bumble the way Senators Clinton and Obama did last week, Americans will rightly turn away from Democrats again.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Too Serious A Matter provides intelligent, provocative, and often funny commentary about the often convoluted intersections of politics, strategy, and history. The title of the blog comes from De Gaulle’s comment, “I have come to the conclusion that politics are too serious a matter to be left to the politicians.”
Thursday, March 22, 2007
Drinks with Harvey: The Libby Verdict
I was at a party once with a woman who believed in reincarnation. After she met my friend Harvey, she said that in a previous life she thought Harvey was “a great white shark—a miracle of evolution—an eating machine.”
I think the woman at the party was a victim of understatement. Harvey is more like a T-Rex on steroids.
“People are laughing in hell.”
When I got to Moe’s, Harvey was waiting for me. I hadn’t even ordered a drink before he said, “I hear people in hell are laughing.”
I had no idea where this was going. And I was tempted to parse his comment . . ... There are not supposed to be people in hell, there are supposed to be souls there. But with Harvey, parsing is not the wisest of options.
“People in hell are laughing,” Harvey laughed, “Yeah, GW’s week on earth is like what their life is like now.”
But Harvey didn’t want to talk about GW’s week from hell: the congressional hearings on the health care given to veterans . . . the hearings about the lawyers in the Justice Department who were fired—many think they were fired for political reasons. Harvey didn’t even want to talk about the news on Friday that the FBI committed thousands of violations of the Patriot Act. Harvey didn’t want to talk about the protests GW was dancing around during his visit to South America.
Harvey wanted to talk about the Scooter Libby conviction.
The Facts Mam
Last Tuesday, the former chief of staff of Vice President Cheney was convicted on four counts—two counts of perjury, one count of making a false statement to the FBI, and one count of obstructing justice.
Libby will be sentenced June 5. Conventional wisdom suggests Libby will be given one-and-one-half to three years in prison. Libby is the highest-ranking White house official to be convicted of a felony since the Iran-Contra scandal in the 1980s. Many think Bush will pardon Libby.
The week’s national political news wasn’t all sour. Al Kamen, a columnist for The Washington Post is running a contest. He has asked readers to submit guesses regarding when Bush will pardon Libby. Those who submit the ten closest guesses will win a t-shirt.
“It would have taken me ten minutes.”
Harvey said, “Ten days. Took the jury ten days. Wouldn’t a taken me ten minutes.”
Finally, Harvey paused long enough for me to order a drink.
Harvey continued, “I mean what were they doin? Listenin to their iPods and drinkin Pina Coladas?”
I informed Harvey that though I did have a few sources in DC, none were on the jury.
“Ah . . . columnists,” he said. “Always being cute. You know what I think of cute.”
Harvey hates cute.
He used his comment about columnists to harass me about some of the comments I have made in columns lately. I was finishing my second drink before he returned to Libby.
Controlling the Message
Harvey had used his computer to access some documents from the trial. Harvey spent a long time showing me printouts he had made that showed how Cheney and his staff had tried to control the administration’s message concerning the run-up to the war in Iraq. There were criticisms of the Bush Administration’s logic for invading Iraq. Some of the criticisms led to the Libby case.
About ten times Harvey said, “Cheney talked about going on Meet the Press because the spokesperson for the administration could control the message.” He also talked about how more conventional sources, like the New York Times and op-ed pieces in major newspapers could be used to control the news.
Harvey took a sip from his drink. Then he sighed. “God I’m glad I’m out of it.”
Like me, Harvey used to be a newspaper reporter. Unlike me, he left to pursue a more lucrative profession. He and his wife make a pile of dough selling houses.
Harvey left reporting because he got tired of being used.
Harvey said, “Often I would come home from work and feel as if I’d spent the entire day getting doused by a skunk.”
One Reason Reporter’s are a Cynical Group
Whether a reporter is covering an inauguration or an investigation, the reporter is always a conduit for various sources. Often when using comments from politicians in powerful positions, it is very easy for a reporter to feel as if s/he is being used.
Politicians have been “using” reporters for as long as both have been in existence. All good politicians try to use reporters. All good politicians try to use every tool the media has.
All good reporters and all good media outlets balance comments from powerful politicians with a healthy dose of hard work and pragmatic skepticism. Keeping an appropriate balance is easy when you do not put a high value on social graces or on being liked.
This is one reason why Harvey was an excellent reporter.
But for the rest of society, for the reporters who want to be invited to one-on-one briefings, for the reporters who want to keep their friends close and their sources closer, maintaining this balance is probably impossible.
Which Brings us to the Bush Administration
The Bush Administration pushed much harder than most to control the media. In some situations this strategy worked very well—for the short term. It is now easy to substantiate that during the run-up to the war in Iraq, that the US media did not do nearly enough to question and dig deeply into the assertions the Bush Administration was making. The US media let the Bush Administration use them too much. The US media didn’t let their pragmatic portion of their skepticism do enough work.
Sometimes an administration uses public forums to state its case to the American people—what Harvey would call using the media.
The Bush Administration used public forums to do most of the work to present the case to attack Iraq.
The Bush Administration often used high-level confidential sources to control the mop up operations—the “little” dribs and drabs that leak out of most operations. The case that provoked Libby to make the comments that led to his trial was one of these mop-up operations.
Confidential sources are crucial to many stories. The great work done by Woodward and Bernstein on Watergate often relied on confidential sources. The great work done by Dana Preist and Annie Hull to expose the bureaucratic horror and small bore cruelties veteran outpatients had to endure was also the result of confidential sources.
Confidential sources played a central role in the Libby trial.
Ten out of the nineteen witnesses at the Libby trial were reporters.
It wasn’t just Scotter Libby on trial. In a very important way, American journalism was also on trial. Seeing journalists walk to and from the courtroom certainly scarred the reputation of journalism in the US.
Harvey Pontificates
Harvey talked for quite a while about the Libby case. He said that the hardball politics the Bush Administration has played resulted in the Libby case. He said, “Many who might be sources will think often about the ‘complexities of confidentiality.’ “
Harvey said that in the future judges probably will not be reluctant—as they often have in the past—to throw journalists in jail for protecting their sources.
Harvey took a gulp from his drink. Then he continued, “There’s more. The incendiary bomb Bush’s war in Iraq has become in the Middle East is just beginning to burn. When Bush came into office, poverty was at a 26 year low. Now it’s at a 32 year high. The US now has five million more poor people than it had in 2000. The Bush Administration’s horrible response to Katrina is yet another scar on Bush’s presidency. The debt is rising faster than a hooker’s dress. We’ve lost eight years in the fight against global warming.”
Harvey took a long pull on his drink, “And Bush’s hardball politics has scuffed up the image of the media.”
Cloud of Suspicion
Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald did most of the heavy lifting that led to the Libby trial. He said, "There is a cloud over the vice-president . . .. That cloud is something that we just can't pretend isn't there."
One thing about having a few drinks with Harvey, there is plenty of time to drink. Once he gets going, you don’t even need to prompt him with questions.
Also, talking with Harvey gives you plenty of reason to drink.
“All this Cheney stuff. Of course there’s a cloud. In most administrations, the VP goes into attack mode. It’s the VP who handles the red meat of most campaigns. You can’t think that the VP can do a whole lot in any administration without some sort of consent from the President.”
“So all this talk by the media about whether Cheney will go, it’s all missing the point?”
“Exactly. Putting the VP into attack mode helps the Prez stay above the fray. All this noise in the media about whether Cheney will go plays right into the Administration’s hands. Bush’ brain, Carl Rove wants the heat on Cheney—not on GW.”
I took a sort of inventory. In a few short minutes Harvey had attacked my columns and the media. Usually in the time it takes me to sip a drink with Harvey he also can insult the American people. I was almost done with my drink. Was Harvey mellowing?
Valuable Lesson?
The obvious question for me to ask was if the Libby Trial would have any significant impact on Bush. Once again, Harvey didn’t need to be prompted. “Bush is so deep into the dumps that this can’t hurt him much. What is his overall approval rating, 29%? My goodness. A lame duck can’t get much lamer than that.”
Given the unabashedly cheery nature his comments I thought it was a time for something really depressing. “So do you think many will get some sort of valuable lesson from all this?”
Harvey put his glass down. “Some of the mud will stick. Some of the mud always sticks. But is this some sort of [I deleted an explective] morality tale playing out before an enthralled American public?”
Harvey answered his own question. “Of course not. The story’s too complex. The particulars are too complicated. Without sex, lurid pictures, sultry rumors, Americans will never en masse pay attention to such complicated stuff.”
“So the lessons will be lost on most of us?”
He nodded.
And some people wonder why reporters are a cynical lot.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Too Serious A Matter provides intelligent, provocative, and often funny commentary on the convoluted intersections of politics, strategy, and history. The title of the blog comes from de Gaulle’s comment, “Politics are too serious a matter to be left to the politicians.”
I think the woman at the party was a victim of understatement. Harvey is more like a T-Rex on steroids.
“People are laughing in hell.”
When I got to Moe’s, Harvey was waiting for me. I hadn’t even ordered a drink before he said, “I hear people in hell are laughing.”
I had no idea where this was going. And I was tempted to parse his comment . . ... There are not supposed to be people in hell, there are supposed to be souls there. But with Harvey, parsing is not the wisest of options.
“People in hell are laughing,” Harvey laughed, “Yeah, GW’s week on earth is like what their life is like now.”
But Harvey didn’t want to talk about GW’s week from hell: the congressional hearings on the health care given to veterans . . . the hearings about the lawyers in the Justice Department who were fired—many think they were fired for political reasons. Harvey didn’t even want to talk about the news on Friday that the FBI committed thousands of violations of the Patriot Act. Harvey didn’t want to talk about the protests GW was dancing around during his visit to South America.
Harvey wanted to talk about the Scooter Libby conviction.
The Facts Mam
Last Tuesday, the former chief of staff of Vice President Cheney was convicted on four counts—two counts of perjury, one count of making a false statement to the FBI, and one count of obstructing justice.
Libby will be sentenced June 5. Conventional wisdom suggests Libby will be given one-and-one-half to three years in prison. Libby is the highest-ranking White house official to be convicted of a felony since the Iran-Contra scandal in the 1980s. Many think Bush will pardon Libby.
The week’s national political news wasn’t all sour. Al Kamen, a columnist for The Washington Post is running a contest. He has asked readers to submit guesses regarding when Bush will pardon Libby. Those who submit the ten closest guesses will win a t-shirt.
“It would have taken me ten minutes.”
Harvey said, “Ten days. Took the jury ten days. Wouldn’t a taken me ten minutes.”
Finally, Harvey paused long enough for me to order a drink.
Harvey continued, “I mean what were they doin? Listenin to their iPods and drinkin Pina Coladas?”
I informed Harvey that though I did have a few sources in DC, none were on the jury.
“Ah . . . columnists,” he said. “Always being cute. You know what I think of cute.”
Harvey hates cute.
He used his comment about columnists to harass me about some of the comments I have made in columns lately. I was finishing my second drink before he returned to Libby.
Controlling the Message
Harvey had used his computer to access some documents from the trial. Harvey spent a long time showing me printouts he had made that showed how Cheney and his staff had tried to control the administration’s message concerning the run-up to the war in Iraq. There were criticisms of the Bush Administration’s logic for invading Iraq. Some of the criticisms led to the Libby case.
About ten times Harvey said, “Cheney talked about going on Meet the Press because the spokesperson for the administration could control the message.” He also talked about how more conventional sources, like the New York Times and op-ed pieces in major newspapers could be used to control the news.
Harvey took a sip from his drink. Then he sighed. “God I’m glad I’m out of it.”
Like me, Harvey used to be a newspaper reporter. Unlike me, he left to pursue a more lucrative profession. He and his wife make a pile of dough selling houses.
Harvey left reporting because he got tired of being used.
Harvey said, “Often I would come home from work and feel as if I’d spent the entire day getting doused by a skunk.”
One Reason Reporter’s are a Cynical Group
Whether a reporter is covering an inauguration or an investigation, the reporter is always a conduit for various sources. Often when using comments from politicians in powerful positions, it is very easy for a reporter to feel as if s/he is being used.
Politicians have been “using” reporters for as long as both have been in existence. All good politicians try to use reporters. All good politicians try to use every tool the media has.
All good reporters and all good media outlets balance comments from powerful politicians with a healthy dose of hard work and pragmatic skepticism. Keeping an appropriate balance is easy when you do not put a high value on social graces or on being liked.
This is one reason why Harvey was an excellent reporter.
But for the rest of society, for the reporters who want to be invited to one-on-one briefings, for the reporters who want to keep their friends close and their sources closer, maintaining this balance is probably impossible.
Which Brings us to the Bush Administration
The Bush Administration pushed much harder than most to control the media. In some situations this strategy worked very well—for the short term. It is now easy to substantiate that during the run-up to the war in Iraq, that the US media did not do nearly enough to question and dig deeply into the assertions the Bush Administration was making. The US media let the Bush Administration use them too much. The US media didn’t let their pragmatic portion of their skepticism do enough work.
Sometimes an administration uses public forums to state its case to the American people—what Harvey would call using the media.
The Bush Administration used public forums to do most of the work to present the case to attack Iraq.
The Bush Administration often used high-level confidential sources to control the mop up operations—the “little” dribs and drabs that leak out of most operations. The case that provoked Libby to make the comments that led to his trial was one of these mop-up operations.
Confidential sources are crucial to many stories. The great work done by Woodward and Bernstein on Watergate often relied on confidential sources. The great work done by Dana Preist and Annie Hull to expose the bureaucratic horror and small bore cruelties veteran outpatients had to endure was also the result of confidential sources.
Confidential sources played a central role in the Libby trial.
Ten out of the nineteen witnesses at the Libby trial were reporters.
It wasn’t just Scotter Libby on trial. In a very important way, American journalism was also on trial. Seeing journalists walk to and from the courtroom certainly scarred the reputation of journalism in the US.
Harvey Pontificates
Harvey talked for quite a while about the Libby case. He said that the hardball politics the Bush Administration has played resulted in the Libby case. He said, “Many who might be sources will think often about the ‘complexities of confidentiality.’ “
Harvey said that in the future judges probably will not be reluctant—as they often have in the past—to throw journalists in jail for protecting their sources.
Harvey took a gulp from his drink. Then he continued, “There’s more. The incendiary bomb Bush’s war in Iraq has become in the Middle East is just beginning to burn. When Bush came into office, poverty was at a 26 year low. Now it’s at a 32 year high. The US now has five million more poor people than it had in 2000. The Bush Administration’s horrible response to Katrina is yet another scar on Bush’s presidency. The debt is rising faster than a hooker’s dress. We’ve lost eight years in the fight against global warming.”
Harvey took a long pull on his drink, “And Bush’s hardball politics has scuffed up the image of the media.”
Cloud of Suspicion
Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald did most of the heavy lifting that led to the Libby trial. He said, "There is a cloud over the vice-president . . .. That cloud is something that we just can't pretend isn't there."
One thing about having a few drinks with Harvey, there is plenty of time to drink. Once he gets going, you don’t even need to prompt him with questions.
Also, talking with Harvey gives you plenty of reason to drink.
“All this Cheney stuff. Of course there’s a cloud. In most administrations, the VP goes into attack mode. It’s the VP who handles the red meat of most campaigns. You can’t think that the VP can do a whole lot in any administration without some sort of consent from the President.”
“So all this talk by the media about whether Cheney will go, it’s all missing the point?”
“Exactly. Putting the VP into attack mode helps the Prez stay above the fray. All this noise in the media about whether Cheney will go plays right into the Administration’s hands. Bush’ brain, Carl Rove wants the heat on Cheney—not on GW.”
I took a sort of inventory. In a few short minutes Harvey had attacked my columns and the media. Usually in the time it takes me to sip a drink with Harvey he also can insult the American people. I was almost done with my drink. Was Harvey mellowing?
Valuable Lesson?
The obvious question for me to ask was if the Libby Trial would have any significant impact on Bush. Once again, Harvey didn’t need to be prompted. “Bush is so deep into the dumps that this can’t hurt him much. What is his overall approval rating, 29%? My goodness. A lame duck can’t get much lamer than that.”
Given the unabashedly cheery nature his comments I thought it was a time for something really depressing. “So do you think many will get some sort of valuable lesson from all this?”
Harvey put his glass down. “Some of the mud will stick. Some of the mud always sticks. But is this some sort of [I deleted an explective] morality tale playing out before an enthralled American public?”
Harvey answered his own question. “Of course not. The story’s too complex. The particulars are too complicated. Without sex, lurid pictures, sultry rumors, Americans will never en masse pay attention to such complicated stuff.”
“So the lessons will be lost on most of us?”
He nodded.
And some people wonder why reporters are a cynical lot.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Too Serious A Matter provides intelligent, provocative, and often funny commentary on the convoluted intersections of politics, strategy, and history. The title of the blog comes from de Gaulle’s comment, “Politics are too serious a matter to be left to the politicians.”
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
Newton, Traction, and "Normalcy"
Newton’s third law of motion is wonderfully simple and economic: For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
Politics is not that simple.
A story about neglecting veteran outpatients and some sloppy maintenance in a building appeared the front page of The Washington Post recently. It created more political reverberations that a bomb exploding in an echo chamber. The story resonates powerfully with many Americans—as well it should.
Political pros say the story has traction.
News of Congressional investigations about these matters almost certainly provoked the Bush Administration to try “to get out in front of the story.” The Bush Administration announced an investigation of its own. A few people were fired. President Bush and others made some high profile visits. These actions were taken to deflect the impact of the Congressional hearings that began on Monday.
Which Leads Us to Obama
The early stages of Senator Obama’s presidential campaign has many purposes. One is to introduce himself to most Americans. To suggest his campaign to introduce himself to America is working is to suggest that winter in the Northeast this year has been a little cold.
In some polls, he has closed to within eleven points of Senator Clinton. And, he has only just begun.
He is doing a particularly good job of winning over African American voters from the Senator from New York.
Obama’s actions have prompted Senator Clinton to formulate a variety of reactions. She decided that Senator Obama should not attract all the media attention devoted to a commemoration of one of the most important turning points in the American Civil Rights Movement—what is now called Bloody Sunday. Last week Senator Clinton announced that she would attend the festivities commemorating the event.
Then near the end of the week, former President Clinton noted that he too would attend the activities.
The annual celebration quickly turned into the political pit stop of the week.
Briefly
On Sunday, March 7, 1964, activists hoping to gain voting rights for African-Americans crossed the Edmund Pettis Bridge. Their voting rights campaign had been going on for weeks. Morale was low. They had few successes.
Near the top of the Edmund Pettis Bridge protesters were confronted by a cadre of law enforcement officials. The protestors stopped to pray. Soon the law enforcement officers hurled tear gas into the group of protestors. Then the officers beat the protestors. Television cameras recorded the violent actions.
What had been a faltering and largely ineffective protest, got traction. Movement leaders then orchestrated a brilliant protest—a march to the state capital of Montgomery.
Eighteen months later President Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act.
Jockeying for Position
Last Sunday morning, Obama addressed a group at what was called a prayer breakfast. He noted that a relative his mothers had owned slaves. He said, "That's no surprise in America!"
The comment generated a great deal of applause.
Later that day Senator Obama was at Brown’s Chapel—where the march on Bloody Sunday started.
To me the speech seemed to be mostly a response to those who had argued that he was “not black enough,” that he was not of the generation of Civil Rights Activists. He spoke of the Moses generation—the activists during the Golden Age of the Civil Rights Movement. They laid the groundwork but did not see the promised land that equal opportunity provided. Obama asserted that he and others were part of the Joshua generation—those who would see the promised land. He talked about how the actions of the Moses generation affected his parents and others of their generation.
In terms of style, I thought he started very slowly, gained momentum at about the twenty minute mark and tossed a little of the magic dust he is now is so associated with. He read most of the end of his speech. He did not follow the Hollywood maxim of “have a big finish.”
While Senator Obama was speaking at Brown’s Chapel, a few blocks away, Senator Clinton was addressing a warm and responsive crowd at the First Baptist Church. Like Obama, she spoke of the Golden Age of the Civil Rights Movement with reverence. Repeatedly she referred to finishing the march.
To me the most interesting part of the day came later. After the march participants had taken their places, but before the commemorative march across the Pettus Bridge started, President Clinton joined the group.
No doubt you have seen a faint breeze swell into a gust of wind. It was a little like that. At first a few who saw him rushed to greet and touch the former President. He responded with excitement and brio. His responses encouraged more to rush toward him. Enthusiasm filled the air and rippled through the crowd. For a moment he was more than a man, more than a former president, he was a force a nature.
After the thousands who had assembled in Selma crossed the bridge, the former President was made a member of the hall of fame of the National Voting Rights Museum.
The Billboard
On the other side of the bridge is a billboard. It thanks visitors for supporting local Civil War tourist spots. The billboard features a large Confederate battle flag and a portrait of General Nathan Bedford Forrest. The general was the first leader of the Ku Klux Klan.
I looked at the billboard and said, “That’s no surprise in America.”
A black woman next to me replied, “You got that right.”
Television
In 1964, the film shot of the protestors being attacked had to travel along a long and windy road to be broadcast. It had to be transported, developed, and edited before it could be aired. The images did not reach Americans living on the East Coast until late in the evening. Students of irony usually are quick to mention that ABC interrupted the movie Judgement at Nurenburg to show film clips of the events that later came to be known as Bloody Sunday.
News travels faster now.
About an hour after the event ended last Sunday, I turned on the television in a hotel room. As is often the case, the event played differently on television than it had in “real life.” The report on the Selma events showed Obama flying high and looking as if he was a veteran preacher come civil rights activist.
Senator Clinton looked great in a pale green pantsuit. But even with all the coaching she has been given and the months of experience she has garnered of late, she was a little shrill and very pedestrian.
In that charmingly sterile environment that seems unique to hotels and the parties I threw when I tried to become a more well rounded geek, I studied the speeches the two senators had given that morning. In terms of content, both deserved good marks. They praised the history of the civil rights movement and credited it with their and their country’s future—not a particularly difficult call. But I had to give Obama more than a slight edge. He dug deeper and rose higher.
On style points, Former President Clinton had the best moment of the day. But that did not make it to any of the television news reports I was able to see. So in the only game that really counts, Senator Obama won the day because stylistically he soared so much higher than Senator Clinton.
Senator Clinton’s response to Senator Obama’s surge in popularity—her appearance in Selma—certainly served to blunt Obama’s impact on the day. But her reaction to Obama’s success of late, also served to escalate the importance of the events that took place on Sunday in Selma. She did well, but Obama won the day—most would say by quite a bit.
Normalcy?
Senator Obama has flubbed a bit of late. His image has been tarnished. He made a comment about lives being wasted in Iraq. Some suggest he fumbled the follow-up to remarks a celebrity fundraiser made. Nonetheless, the Obama machine continues to roll along.
It is still very early in a long campaign. It is foolish to make too much of one day or one speech. But right now Senator Obama is playing offense and has momentum on his side. Senator Clinton is forced to play a good bit of defense. More importantly, the dynamics of the campaign probably will force her to do more events where she may be easily compared to Obama. Given his natural gifts and her stubborn shortcomings, Obama seems likely to be the perpetual winner of the oh-so important style contest.
For the short term it is obvious that Senator Obama has enough traction to run up an ice covered hill in his socks.
Congress is now getting very much involved with the veteran out-patient scandal. This issue, important though it is, may soon transition into the status of “politics as usually.”
Already this is a very unusual election campaign. For the first time in decades an elder-in-waiting from a current administration is not plotting to succeed his current boss. There are more A-list candidates in both parties than we often see in three or four presidential election cycles. The campaign will easily be the longest in US history. The campaign is sure to shatter all records for money raised. And this doesn’t even begin to address the issues: a very unpopular war, a massive deficit, a growing desire to address global warming—when it’s easier for most Americans to get their arms around a gas guzzler than to understand the complexities of the problem. And there is still host of problems swirling around Social Security, a health care crises that won’t go away, and a long and often loud parade of other issues.
Normalcy does not appear to be an option.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Too Serious A Matter provides intelligent, provocative, and often funny commentary about the often convoluted intersections of politics, strategy, and history. The title of the blog comes from De Gaulle’s comment, “I have come to the conclusion that politics are too serious a matter to be left to the politicians.”
Politics is not that simple.
A story about neglecting veteran outpatients and some sloppy maintenance in a building appeared the front page of The Washington Post recently. It created more political reverberations that a bomb exploding in an echo chamber. The story resonates powerfully with many Americans—as well it should.
Political pros say the story has traction.
News of Congressional investigations about these matters almost certainly provoked the Bush Administration to try “to get out in front of the story.” The Bush Administration announced an investigation of its own. A few people were fired. President Bush and others made some high profile visits. These actions were taken to deflect the impact of the Congressional hearings that began on Monday.
Which Leads Us to Obama
The early stages of Senator Obama’s presidential campaign has many purposes. One is to introduce himself to most Americans. To suggest his campaign to introduce himself to America is working is to suggest that winter in the Northeast this year has been a little cold.
In some polls, he has closed to within eleven points of Senator Clinton. And, he has only just begun.
He is doing a particularly good job of winning over African American voters from the Senator from New York.
Obama’s actions have prompted Senator Clinton to formulate a variety of reactions. She decided that Senator Obama should not attract all the media attention devoted to a commemoration of one of the most important turning points in the American Civil Rights Movement—what is now called Bloody Sunday. Last week Senator Clinton announced that she would attend the festivities commemorating the event.
Then near the end of the week, former President Clinton noted that he too would attend the activities.
The annual celebration quickly turned into the political pit stop of the week.
Briefly
On Sunday, March 7, 1964, activists hoping to gain voting rights for African-Americans crossed the Edmund Pettis Bridge. Their voting rights campaign had been going on for weeks. Morale was low. They had few successes.
Near the top of the Edmund Pettis Bridge protesters were confronted by a cadre of law enforcement officials. The protestors stopped to pray. Soon the law enforcement officers hurled tear gas into the group of protestors. Then the officers beat the protestors. Television cameras recorded the violent actions.
What had been a faltering and largely ineffective protest, got traction. Movement leaders then orchestrated a brilliant protest—a march to the state capital of Montgomery.
Eighteen months later President Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act.
Jockeying for Position
Last Sunday morning, Obama addressed a group at what was called a prayer breakfast. He noted that a relative his mothers had owned slaves. He said, "That's no surprise in America!"
The comment generated a great deal of applause.
Later that day Senator Obama was at Brown’s Chapel—where the march on Bloody Sunday started.
To me the speech seemed to be mostly a response to those who had argued that he was “not black enough,” that he was not of the generation of Civil Rights Activists. He spoke of the Moses generation—the activists during the Golden Age of the Civil Rights Movement. They laid the groundwork but did not see the promised land that equal opportunity provided. Obama asserted that he and others were part of the Joshua generation—those who would see the promised land. He talked about how the actions of the Moses generation affected his parents and others of their generation.
In terms of style, I thought he started very slowly, gained momentum at about the twenty minute mark and tossed a little of the magic dust he is now is so associated with. He read most of the end of his speech. He did not follow the Hollywood maxim of “have a big finish.”
While Senator Obama was speaking at Brown’s Chapel, a few blocks away, Senator Clinton was addressing a warm and responsive crowd at the First Baptist Church. Like Obama, she spoke of the Golden Age of the Civil Rights Movement with reverence. Repeatedly she referred to finishing the march.
To me the most interesting part of the day came later. After the march participants had taken their places, but before the commemorative march across the Pettus Bridge started, President Clinton joined the group.
No doubt you have seen a faint breeze swell into a gust of wind. It was a little like that. At first a few who saw him rushed to greet and touch the former President. He responded with excitement and brio. His responses encouraged more to rush toward him. Enthusiasm filled the air and rippled through the crowd. For a moment he was more than a man, more than a former president, he was a force a nature.
After the thousands who had assembled in Selma crossed the bridge, the former President was made a member of the hall of fame of the National Voting Rights Museum.
The Billboard
On the other side of the bridge is a billboard. It thanks visitors for supporting local Civil War tourist spots. The billboard features a large Confederate battle flag and a portrait of General Nathan Bedford Forrest. The general was the first leader of the Ku Klux Klan.
I looked at the billboard and said, “That’s no surprise in America.”
A black woman next to me replied, “You got that right.”
Television
In 1964, the film shot of the protestors being attacked had to travel along a long and windy road to be broadcast. It had to be transported, developed, and edited before it could be aired. The images did not reach Americans living on the East Coast until late in the evening. Students of irony usually are quick to mention that ABC interrupted the movie Judgement at Nurenburg to show film clips of the events that later came to be known as Bloody Sunday.
News travels faster now.
About an hour after the event ended last Sunday, I turned on the television in a hotel room. As is often the case, the event played differently on television than it had in “real life.” The report on the Selma events showed Obama flying high and looking as if he was a veteran preacher come civil rights activist.
Senator Clinton looked great in a pale green pantsuit. But even with all the coaching she has been given and the months of experience she has garnered of late, she was a little shrill and very pedestrian.
In that charmingly sterile environment that seems unique to hotels and the parties I threw when I tried to become a more well rounded geek, I studied the speeches the two senators had given that morning. In terms of content, both deserved good marks. They praised the history of the civil rights movement and credited it with their and their country’s future—not a particularly difficult call. But I had to give Obama more than a slight edge. He dug deeper and rose higher.
On style points, Former President Clinton had the best moment of the day. But that did not make it to any of the television news reports I was able to see. So in the only game that really counts, Senator Obama won the day because stylistically he soared so much higher than Senator Clinton.
Senator Clinton’s response to Senator Obama’s surge in popularity—her appearance in Selma—certainly served to blunt Obama’s impact on the day. But her reaction to Obama’s success of late, also served to escalate the importance of the events that took place on Sunday in Selma. She did well, but Obama won the day—most would say by quite a bit.
Normalcy?
Senator Obama has flubbed a bit of late. His image has been tarnished. He made a comment about lives being wasted in Iraq. Some suggest he fumbled the follow-up to remarks a celebrity fundraiser made. Nonetheless, the Obama machine continues to roll along.
It is still very early in a long campaign. It is foolish to make too much of one day or one speech. But right now Senator Obama is playing offense and has momentum on his side. Senator Clinton is forced to play a good bit of defense. More importantly, the dynamics of the campaign probably will force her to do more events where she may be easily compared to Obama. Given his natural gifts and her stubborn shortcomings, Obama seems likely to be the perpetual winner of the oh-so important style contest.
For the short term it is obvious that Senator Obama has enough traction to run up an ice covered hill in his socks.
Congress is now getting very much involved with the veteran out-patient scandal. This issue, important though it is, may soon transition into the status of “politics as usually.”
Already this is a very unusual election campaign. For the first time in decades an elder-in-waiting from a current administration is not plotting to succeed his current boss. There are more A-list candidates in both parties than we often see in three or four presidential election cycles. The campaign will easily be the longest in US history. The campaign is sure to shatter all records for money raised. And this doesn’t even begin to address the issues: a very unpopular war, a massive deficit, a growing desire to address global warming—when it’s easier for most Americans to get their arms around a gas guzzler than to understand the complexities of the problem. And there is still host of problems swirling around Social Security, a health care crises that won’t go away, and a long and often loud parade of other issues.
Normalcy does not appear to be an option.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Too Serious A Matter provides intelligent, provocative, and often funny commentary about the often convoluted intersections of politics, strategy, and history. The title of the blog comes from De Gaulle’s comment, “I have come to the conclusion that politics are too serious a matter to be left to the politicians.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)