Huey: What is it?
Dewey: It’s a letter from the Pentagon.
Louie: A letter from the Pentagon?
Huey: A letter from the Pentagon.
Dewey: Is there an echo in here?
Louie: There’s no echo. There’s no “in here.”
Huey: Because we’re outside.
Dewey: This is outside?
Louie: It’s a theme park.
Huey: Were inside a theme park.
Dewey: Which is outside.
Louie: Thank goodness we’ve got that straight.
Huey: You said there’s a letter from the Pentagon.
Dewey: I thought I had it right here.
Louie: What’s in it?
Huey: A lot of military guys—
Dewey: No, what’s in the letter?
Louie: It’s a letter that says we may be under surveillance.
Huey: Surely you must be kidding.
Dewey: Don’t call me Shirley.
A gray haired man who also was waiting in line said, “You can call me Shirley.”
Louie: The Pentagon wrote a letter?
Huey: Who taught a building how to write?
Dewey: The pentagon isn’t
Louie: a building, it’s
Huey: a bureaucracy.
Dewey: One thing bureaucracies can do
Louie: is create paperwork.
Huey takes the letter.
Huey: It’s not from the Defense Department.
Dewey: It’s from someone who says he works in the Defense Department.
Louie. A leak.
Huey: Are you
Dewey: sure your name is
Louie: Shirley?
Shirley: Surely.
Backstory
Recently three of the countries best political satirists met—no, I was not invited to join them. A nice person in the Homeland Security Office sent me a transcript of their conversation, complete with color pictures that were taken of the event. The satirists met at Disneyland. The reasons are obvious. The satirists find the absurd very attractive. Clearly, Southern California was the perfect place for them to meet. While they were waiting to take the Splash Mountain ride, much of their talk turned to politics.
The satirists, either for reasons related to their natural playfulness or a harebrained attempt to maintain anonymity referred to themselves as Huey, Dewey, and Louie.
Huey: I still don’t know who this guy who claims to be Shirley is.
Dewey: I hear Splash Mountain is sometimes called Flash Mountain.
Louie: As in take a picture . . . flash.
Huey: Flash? I knew a dog named Flash. Did someone let a dog in here?
Dewey: You want a dog to take a picture?
Louie: There’re no dogs in Disneyland.
Huey: Pluto’s a dog.
Dewey: And Pluto’s in Disneyland.
Louie: Pluto’s a planet.
Huey: Not anymore.
Dewey: What have you been doing?
Louie: Getting your news from the President?
Huey: They call it Flash Mountain as in flash . . .
Dewey: as in women flash
Louie: their features.
Good Time to be a Satirist?
Shirley said, “No doubt it’s a good time to be a satirist.”
Huey, Dewey, and Louie frowned.
Shirley: Whattareya talkin about? Huey wrote a spoof on McCain shopping in Baghdad and how safe it was—as long as he was wearing a flack jacket and a helicopter was flying overhead. A month later the same thing happened in real life.
Dewey wrote that really funny piece on how the all but one of candidates of the party of family values—all but one of them were divorced. Louie wrote that over a year ago. Now, a year later, all but one of the candidates for the party of family values are divorced—all but one of em. And the one who isn’t divorced, one of his ancestors was a polygamist.
Years ago Louie wrote that very funny piece about how the Democrats would regret voting for the war in Iraq. That too has happened.
As I said, this has got to be a great time to be a satirist.
Huey, Dewey, and Louie: Surely you must be kidding.
Shirley: I definitely am not kidding. We live in hilarious times.
Huey: That’s the problem.
Shirley: How is being funny a problem—when it’s your job to be funny?
Dewey: Our job is to be funny?
Louie: That’s what he said.
Huey: I thought our job was
Dewey: to poke fun at hypocrites,
Louie: deride the self-important,
Huey: shine a light into areas of darkness,
Dewey: and
Louie: make a few bucks.
Shirley: Anyway, so why are you guys depressed?
Huey: Law and order Republicans are talking seriously about a pardon for Scooter Libby—a man found guilty on four—
Dewey: Count em
Louie: four
Huey: felony counts.
Dewey: As the great Yogi Berra said,
Louie: You could look it up.
Huey: And the Democrats are being Democrats.
Dewey: Policies of the Pro-life party have killed hundreds of thousands in a war their policies started.
Louie: And the Democrats are being Democrats.
Shirley: What does that mean?
Huey: That means the Democrats are just preaching the politics of opportunity.
Dewey: It means they haven’t learned what they should about fear.
Louie: So what’s new about that?
Huey: Nothin.
Dewey: That’s the Democrats
Louie: being Democrats.
Take Nixon
Shirley: This can’t be all that different from other times. In other times politicians did stupid stuff. Take Nixon for example.
Huey: I don’t want to take Nixon.
Dewey: Do you want to take Nixon?
Louie: Not if you paid me.
Huey: He’s dead.
Dewey: Why would I want
Louie: to take a dead man?
Huey: My wife, now someone could take my wife.
Dewey: Please!
Louie: We should try
Huey: to be a little serious.
Dewey: Who can be a little serious?
Louie: You’re right.
Huey: We’re not good at being a little anything.
Shirley: So how’s Bush all that different from Nixon?
Dewey: Nixon wiretapped a few people; Bush wiretapped half the nation.
Louie: Nixon did some good things.
Huey: Environmental Protection Agency.
Dewey: He helped get the amendment passed that lowered the voting age to 18.
Louie: He opened the door to China.
Huey: Détente with Russia.
Dewey: What’s Bush done that’s good?
Louie: Well he goes to Texas a lot, and when he’s there, he generally doesn’t do much.
The Heart of the Matter
Shirley: Are you complaining that your job is too easy?
Huey: We try to be incongruous and absurd
Dewey: provocative and ridiculous.
Louie: Usually we do this by exaggerating
Huey: a trait or a quality
Dewey: a policy or a position.
Louie: The people we’re to ridicule, they do these things naturally.
Huey, Dewey, and Louie: It’s a horrible time to be a satirist.
Shirley: Why’s that?
Huey: Because the people we’re to make fun of are being so ridiculous that to exaggerate what they do,
Dewey: well to exaggerate what they do is
Louie: not possible.
Huey: They’re the satirists.
Dewey: And they’re not even trying to be satirists.
Louie: Imagine how that makes us feel.
Kudos
To Paul Begala and CNN for getting the gaffe thing right after the second Republican debate. Many media sources criticized Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee for confusing the date that Reagan died (June 5—the date of the debate) with the day he was born (February 6). Begala correctly pointed out a far more serious error made by Mitch Romney. Romney said, “If you're saying, let's turn back the clock and Saddam Hussein had opened up his country to IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency] inspectors and they'd come in and they'd found that there were no weapons of mass destruction – had Saddam Hussein therefore not violated United Nations resolutions – we wouldn't be in the conflict we're in. But he didn't do those things, and we knew what we knew at the point we made the decision to get in.”
Begala noted correctly that in September 2002 Saddam Hussein did allow IAEA inspectors into his country. They did not find evidence that the country had weapons of mass destruction.
The failure of the media to notice the mistake, the failure of many to urge that the mistake be corrected, and the failure of the media to correct this mistake speak volumes about the weaknesses of the media today.
Line of the Week
Courtesy of The Late Show with David Letterman, “Paris Hilton is behind bars, but still no word on Osama”
Monday, June 11, 2007
Monday, June 4, 2007
On Hillary's Problems
Often I go to great lengths to avoid talking about politics after work. Once I went to a costume party dressed as an angry protestor. I carried a sign that announced, “I don’t want to talk about politics!”
I hadn’t been at the party five minutes before a woman came up to me. She pointed to the sign and said, “Very funny.” Without taking a breath—or laughing—she began sharing her opinion about some dumb thing a politician had done.
The darndest thing about people is that sometimes they say something worth hearing. Not long ago I was at another party and the same woman came up to me. She couldn’t wait to tell me about the members of her book club. All of them are women. They’re all Democrats or left leaning independents. She told me, “The other day politics came up. Soon we were talking about Hillary. Each of them said, ‘I don’t like her.’ ”
Being the intrepid adventurer I am, I realized that my next mission in life was to find some voters who liked Hillary. I didn’t think it would be too hard.
Early Findings
Since then I’ve been trying.
I’ve found plenty of people who support her. I’ve found plenty who hope she is the next president. I’ve met many who admire her. Strange things happen after I ask, “Well, do you like her?”
Loud and bold supporters become quiet. Soft-spoken and civil supporters become shy. And a lot of people either rub the toe of their shoe in the dirt . . . or stare off into space . . . or hasten to change the subject.
I went to a focus group. It lasted two hours. One person in the focus group agreed with Ms. Clinton on all the major issues.
He was asked, “Will you vote for her?”
Later I chased him down. I asked, “Why can’t you vote for her?”
“Don’t like her.”
This likeablity thing is important. If you like a candidate, you are more willing to forgive the candidate when s/he makes a mistake. If a candidate is likeable, then the candidate will get votes and often money from people whose positions are more aligned with another candidate.
As the nice man who was running the focus group later said to me, “Emotions often turn off logic.”
I wanted to ask, “Who’s logical?” But that, I suppose, is another conversation.
The nice guy who ran the focus group added, “If a candidate is liked enough, people who logically wouldn’t have voted for him or her, very often will.”
The nice guy continued. “Reagan was so well liked that millions of Democrats voted for him. Reagan was so well liked that millions of people who were hurt by Reagan’s programs—millions of those people voted for him.”
If you Need an Excuse
Flying to Iowa I wandered into a dark area of an airport I shouldn’t have been in. Security found me. I thought I was a gonner. I envisioned being questioned. I envisioned being put in jail. I saw myself doing the perp walk. I got goose bumps.
A tall security guard who looked like a retired linebacker approached. He barked, “And just what are you doing here?”
“I’m looking for someone who likes Hillary.”
“Oh. Wanna borrow my flashlight?”
A few days later, I was late for a business meeting.
As I entered I mumbled, “Sorry, I was looking for someone who likes Hillary.”
My boss replied, “Well I’m surprised you’re here at all.”
In Iowa
I passed much of this week in Iowa. I figured Iowa would be the perfect place to find someone who likes Hillary. Iowans are warm—they have to be to survive those artic blasts that roll in from Canada. Iowans are patient—they have to be, life moves at a slower pace there. When you are in Iowa, you do a lot of waiting.
Again I found people who supported Hillary. Again I found people enthusiastic about her candidacy. But I found no one who likes her.
Now I could have cheated. I could have wandered into an office where supporters for Senator Clinton were working. Even if they didn’t like her, they would have to say they did.
These things get around. No one would want it getting around that they worked for a candidate they didn’t like.
I could have called members of Hillary’s family. I could have called Bill. He’s got a light schedule now. He might even talk with me. He’d tell me he likes Hillary.
I went to town hall meetings for Democrats. I went to town meetings for Republicans.
I never met anyone who likes Hillary Clinton.
Multi-tasking
The on-line magazine I work for is just getting started. I’m doing a lot of publicity for the magazine. Many times a week I’m a guest on a radio talk show. Recently, while a Clinton rally was winding down, I got a call on my cell phone. It was two o’clock. The talk show I was to appear on started after the news—at 2:05. I connected my phone to an earbud and put the earbud in my ear.
The rally ended. I listened to the news.
It came time for the talk show to begin. I stepped outside.
Fifteen minutes later a guy came up to me. The radio show I was a guest on was beginning a long commercial break.
They guy introduced himself. His name was Sam.
Sam was a Hillary supporter.
I asked him if he likes Hillary.
He did what politicians often do. He didn’t answer the question I asked. He answered the question he wanted to answer.
When Sam was younger, he had “worked security at rock and roll shows.” He’d done this in the DC area. First President Ford’s daughter and then President Carter’s son came to some of the shows where he worked. Sam saw Secret Service people “all the time.”
I told him I was not with the Secret Service.
“I know, I know. You’re with Treasury. That’s what they all said. I got to compliment you.
When you left the room, I couldn’t figure out who the other agents in the room were. ”
He pointed to the car I was leaning on. It was a tiny Japanese car I’d rented.
“And they used to drive boxy American cars. No more.
“And the earbuds. They were always white. I can see you’ve gotten more sophisticated.”
The radio program was still playing commercials. So I asked Sam, “Do you like Hillary?
He loved her chances. He loved Bill.
“Please. I’m really interested.”
He backed away. “Don’t get me wrong. I’d never harm her or anyone. Not a soul. I don’t even kill flies.”
“But do you like Hillary?”
“Goodness no.”
The commercial break ended. I had to return my attention to the radio program.
While a caller on the radio program asked me a question, Sam said, “Love the way you blend in now. Wish they did that in my day. Keep up the great work!”
I knew the civil thing to do was to repeat that I wasn’t a member of the Secret Service. But I had to respond to a question from a caller who was listening to the radio program.
Soon I realized: I do work that probably is as difficult as working for the Secret Service. I do work that probably is as challenging as working for the Secret Service.
I look for voters who like Hillary.
Idiots of the Week
Speaking on National Public Radio on March 31, NASA Administrator Michael Griffin said, “I have no doubt that global–that a trend of global warming exists. I am not sure that it is fair to say that it is a problem we must wrestle with.”
A NASA climate scientist, Jim Hansen, said Griffin’s comments showed “arrogance and ignorance.” A scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, Jerry Mahlman, said that Griffin was “totally clueless” or “a deep antiglobal warming ideologue.”
In a related story, his wife asked him if taking out the trash was something he could wrestle with.
As you no doubt know, Andrew Speaker, an Atlanta resident has a rare form of tuberculosis. He traveled to Europe to get married—as if people don’t get married in Atlanta? Though he was on a “no fly list” the Department of Homeland Security allowed him to reenter the country.
Obviously Mr. Speaker makes our idiots list as does the Department of Homeland Security. But the Democrats do as well for not criticizing the Bush Administration and the Department of Homeland Security enough. This is one reason why Democrats lose so many elections. They don’t do the fear thing well. Speaker’s entering the US shows how poorly managed The Department of Homeland Security it. American’s should be scared about this issue. Once again the Dems blew it.
Oh, and in case you were wondering what Mr. Speaker’s profession is, he’s a lawyer.
Bush—hereafter referred to as Shrub—the term was first coined by the late Molly Ivins. It is used in this column as an affectionate homage to a talented colleague. This week Sir Shrub called for the fifteen biggest polluters to agree to non-binding agreements to cut emissions. They would start in ten years. Each country would create its own plan.
This is just like talk about the hydrogen car. Everyone loves it—especially automakers and the oil industry. It will go into effect so many years from now that it does nothing, nothing to change behavior in the short run.
If Shrub wanted to do something about global warming, he could lobby the Senate to endorse the Kyoto Treaty. If Shrub wanted to do something about global warming, he would urge the Environmental Protection Agency to approve the California plan to reduce emissions from automobiles. If Shrub wanted to do something about global warming, he could endorse the German plan. It would cut global greenhouse gas emissions to half of what they were in 1990. And it would do this by 2050. Shrub and his administration reject this proposal. He claims it is impractical.
And finally the US punditocracy and the editorial boards of the various media outlets deserve the IOW award for not calling Shrub’s environmental initiative what it is—a PR initiative to divert attention from the problem.
Line of the Week
Conan O’Brien on Late Night said, “Sources at the Pentagon—ah this is interesting—say that several factories in Iraq will soon begin making clothes to be sold in the United States. Yeah. That’s right. Yeah. Cause Americans only want two things from Iraq: a stable central government and affordable quality men’s wear.
I hadn’t been at the party five minutes before a woman came up to me. She pointed to the sign and said, “Very funny.” Without taking a breath—or laughing—she began sharing her opinion about some dumb thing a politician had done.
The darndest thing about people is that sometimes they say something worth hearing. Not long ago I was at another party and the same woman came up to me. She couldn’t wait to tell me about the members of her book club. All of them are women. They’re all Democrats or left leaning independents. She told me, “The other day politics came up. Soon we were talking about Hillary. Each of them said, ‘I don’t like her.’ ”
Being the intrepid adventurer I am, I realized that my next mission in life was to find some voters who liked Hillary. I didn’t think it would be too hard.
Early Findings
Since then I’ve been trying.
I’ve found plenty of people who support her. I’ve found plenty who hope she is the next president. I’ve met many who admire her. Strange things happen after I ask, “Well, do you like her?”
Loud and bold supporters become quiet. Soft-spoken and civil supporters become shy. And a lot of people either rub the toe of their shoe in the dirt . . . or stare off into space . . . or hasten to change the subject.
I went to a focus group. It lasted two hours. One person in the focus group agreed with Ms. Clinton on all the major issues.
He was asked, “Will you vote for her?”
Later I chased him down. I asked, “Why can’t you vote for her?”
“Don’t like her.”
This likeablity thing is important. If you like a candidate, you are more willing to forgive the candidate when s/he makes a mistake. If a candidate is likeable, then the candidate will get votes and often money from people whose positions are more aligned with another candidate.
As the nice man who was running the focus group later said to me, “Emotions often turn off logic.”
I wanted to ask, “Who’s logical?” But that, I suppose, is another conversation.
The nice guy who ran the focus group added, “If a candidate is liked enough, people who logically wouldn’t have voted for him or her, very often will.”
The nice guy continued. “Reagan was so well liked that millions of Democrats voted for him. Reagan was so well liked that millions of people who were hurt by Reagan’s programs—millions of those people voted for him.”
If you Need an Excuse
Flying to Iowa I wandered into a dark area of an airport I shouldn’t have been in. Security found me. I thought I was a gonner. I envisioned being questioned. I envisioned being put in jail. I saw myself doing the perp walk. I got goose bumps.
A tall security guard who looked like a retired linebacker approached. He barked, “And just what are you doing here?”
“I’m looking for someone who likes Hillary.”
“Oh. Wanna borrow my flashlight?”
A few days later, I was late for a business meeting.
As I entered I mumbled, “Sorry, I was looking for someone who likes Hillary.”
My boss replied, “Well I’m surprised you’re here at all.”
In Iowa
I passed much of this week in Iowa. I figured Iowa would be the perfect place to find someone who likes Hillary. Iowans are warm—they have to be to survive those artic blasts that roll in from Canada. Iowans are patient—they have to be, life moves at a slower pace there. When you are in Iowa, you do a lot of waiting.
Again I found people who supported Hillary. Again I found people enthusiastic about her candidacy. But I found no one who likes her.
Now I could have cheated. I could have wandered into an office where supporters for Senator Clinton were working. Even if they didn’t like her, they would have to say they did.
These things get around. No one would want it getting around that they worked for a candidate they didn’t like.
I could have called members of Hillary’s family. I could have called Bill. He’s got a light schedule now. He might even talk with me. He’d tell me he likes Hillary.
I went to town hall meetings for Democrats. I went to town meetings for Republicans.
I never met anyone who likes Hillary Clinton.
Multi-tasking
The on-line magazine I work for is just getting started. I’m doing a lot of publicity for the magazine. Many times a week I’m a guest on a radio talk show. Recently, while a Clinton rally was winding down, I got a call on my cell phone. It was two o’clock. The talk show I was to appear on started after the news—at 2:05. I connected my phone to an earbud and put the earbud in my ear.
The rally ended. I listened to the news.
It came time for the talk show to begin. I stepped outside.
Fifteen minutes later a guy came up to me. The radio show I was a guest on was beginning a long commercial break.
They guy introduced himself. His name was Sam.
Sam was a Hillary supporter.
I asked him if he likes Hillary.
He did what politicians often do. He didn’t answer the question I asked. He answered the question he wanted to answer.
When Sam was younger, he had “worked security at rock and roll shows.” He’d done this in the DC area. First President Ford’s daughter and then President Carter’s son came to some of the shows where he worked. Sam saw Secret Service people “all the time.”
I told him I was not with the Secret Service.
“I know, I know. You’re with Treasury. That’s what they all said. I got to compliment you.
When you left the room, I couldn’t figure out who the other agents in the room were. ”
He pointed to the car I was leaning on. It was a tiny Japanese car I’d rented.
“And they used to drive boxy American cars. No more.
“And the earbuds. They were always white. I can see you’ve gotten more sophisticated.”
The radio program was still playing commercials. So I asked Sam, “Do you like Hillary?
He loved her chances. He loved Bill.
“Please. I’m really interested.”
He backed away. “Don’t get me wrong. I’d never harm her or anyone. Not a soul. I don’t even kill flies.”
“But do you like Hillary?”
“Goodness no.”
The commercial break ended. I had to return my attention to the radio program.
While a caller on the radio program asked me a question, Sam said, “Love the way you blend in now. Wish they did that in my day. Keep up the great work!”
I knew the civil thing to do was to repeat that I wasn’t a member of the Secret Service. But I had to respond to a question from a caller who was listening to the radio program.
Soon I realized: I do work that probably is as difficult as working for the Secret Service. I do work that probably is as challenging as working for the Secret Service.
I look for voters who like Hillary.
Idiots of the Week
Speaking on National Public Radio on March 31, NASA Administrator Michael Griffin said, “I have no doubt that global–that a trend of global warming exists. I am not sure that it is fair to say that it is a problem we must wrestle with.”
A NASA climate scientist, Jim Hansen, said Griffin’s comments showed “arrogance and ignorance.” A scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, Jerry Mahlman, said that Griffin was “totally clueless” or “a deep antiglobal warming ideologue.”
In a related story, his wife asked him if taking out the trash was something he could wrestle with.
As you no doubt know, Andrew Speaker, an Atlanta resident has a rare form of tuberculosis. He traveled to Europe to get married—as if people don’t get married in Atlanta? Though he was on a “no fly list” the Department of Homeland Security allowed him to reenter the country.
Obviously Mr. Speaker makes our idiots list as does the Department of Homeland Security. But the Democrats do as well for not criticizing the Bush Administration and the Department of Homeland Security enough. This is one reason why Democrats lose so many elections. They don’t do the fear thing well. Speaker’s entering the US shows how poorly managed The Department of Homeland Security it. American’s should be scared about this issue. Once again the Dems blew it.
Oh, and in case you were wondering what Mr. Speaker’s profession is, he’s a lawyer.
Bush—hereafter referred to as Shrub—the term was first coined by the late Molly Ivins. It is used in this column as an affectionate homage to a talented colleague. This week Sir Shrub called for the fifteen biggest polluters to agree to non-binding agreements to cut emissions. They would start in ten years. Each country would create its own plan.
This is just like talk about the hydrogen car. Everyone loves it—especially automakers and the oil industry. It will go into effect so many years from now that it does nothing, nothing to change behavior in the short run.
If Shrub wanted to do something about global warming, he could lobby the Senate to endorse the Kyoto Treaty. If Shrub wanted to do something about global warming, he would urge the Environmental Protection Agency to approve the California plan to reduce emissions from automobiles. If Shrub wanted to do something about global warming, he could endorse the German plan. It would cut global greenhouse gas emissions to half of what they were in 1990. And it would do this by 2050. Shrub and his administration reject this proposal. He claims it is impractical.
And finally the US punditocracy and the editorial boards of the various media outlets deserve the IOW award for not calling Shrub’s environmental initiative what it is—a PR initiative to divert attention from the problem.
Line of the Week
Conan O’Brien on Late Night said, “Sources at the Pentagon—ah this is interesting—say that several factories in Iraq will soon begin making clothes to be sold in the United States. Yeah. That’s right. Yeah. Cause Americans only want two things from Iraq: a stable central government and affordable quality men’s wear.
Monday, May 28, 2007
Inside the Bush Administration
The Bush Administration isn’t really as incompetent as it may appear to be. For example, there is a report—some allege it is merely a dream someone had, but what do they know? The report/dream is that high-ranking members of the Bush Administration are already interviewing people to be the next Attorney General.
See, they really do have foresight.
If you have been completely captivated by American Idol, you will need to know that Mr. Gonzales has come under all kinds of attention that public officials are loathe to attract. It’s really been a lot of silly hubbub over nothing. Just that some federal lawyers who were Republicans were fired—fools allege they were fired for very political reasons. They weren’t prosecuting Democrats or they weren’t prosecuting them fast enough.
There is that matter that Gonzales either didn’t know about the idiocies going on in his own department or that he did . . . and let it go on anyway.
A former Justice Department senior official has given damning testimony to the Senate.
Then there’s the matter of the high-ranking Justice Department official who took the fifth. Rumor has it that many senior officials in the Justice Department are looking for this fifth that that the high-ranking official took.
The missing fifth may have been found, but e-mails about its whereabouts are missing. Fortunately for the Justice Department news of the missing fifth haven’t reached the media yet.
All these concerns will easily be put to rest if we simply see how effectively senior members of the Bush Administration work. A brief sampling follows. To protect the guilty—we don’t pretend that anyone involved with any of this is innocent—names have been changed.
Bob: Well Mr. Smith we’d like to thank you for taking time from your busy day to interview for the position of Attorney General.
Smith (smiles): I’m delighted to be here.
Ray: Would you explain how you obtained your current job?
Smith: I don’t recall.
Bob and Ray smile. Ray whispers to Bob, “Precisely the way Gonzales put it. This guy is very good.” Bob nods.
Ray: Where did you go to law school?
Smith: Regent University.
Bob: That’s the law school founded by televangelist Pat Robertson. Over 150 of its graduates now work in Justice.
Smith (smiles): Our motto is "Christian leadership to change the world."
Ray: Regent certainly has done that.
Bob: Do you have a comment about the fact that many of your colleagues from Regent work here at Justice.
Smith: I've now been made aware of the fact that there was a conversation with the President that basically mentioned the same thing in October of 2006.
Bob looks through some papers. Then he whispers to Ray, “Exactly what Gonzales said, word-for-word.”
Bob: You don’t have much experience as a lawyer?
Smith: No.
Ray: Good. So you haven’t developed any bad habits.
Smith smiles insincerely.
Can You Spell “Potato”
Bob and Ray confer and agree he has a winning smile. Bob whispers to Ray, “Reminds me a little of that fellow Quayle.”
Bob: Can you spell potato?
Smith correctly spells potato.
Bob and Ray become so excited they almost give each other high and low fives at the same time.
Ray: Could you give us an example of when you used good judgment?
Smith: I don’t recall.
Again Bob and Ray exchange smiles. Ray says, “Just the way Gonzales put it. This guy is good.”
Bob: What would your priorities be?
Smith: The protection of civil rights, the protection of our voting rights, the protection of our civil liberties.
Bob shuffles through some papers. Then he whispers to Bob, “Why, that’s , why that’s, that’s exactly the way Gonzales put it. Very good.”
Ray: There are sensational rumors that the Justice Department has lost a fifth. If you accept the job of Attorney General, you will have to respond to rumors. How would you respond to this one?
Smith: People are concerned about a missing fifth of scotch?
Bob: Goodness no. Just a missing fifth.
Smith: Sounds like a musical term to me. I’d blame it on those Flappers.
Bob: Do you mean Rappers?
Smith: Yes. Thank you.
Ray: When did you decide to apply to work for the Justice Department?
Smith: I don’t recall.
Bob shuffles through papers. Then he nods. To Ray he whispers, He can quote this Gonzales guy real good.
Getting Rid of Unwanted Baggage
Ray: The job we are considering you for carries with it a lot of baggage.
Smith (smiles insincerely): If I may be allowed to brag. I hold the North American record for losing more baggage than anyone.
Bob: More than even the Denver Airport?
Smith: When it comes to loosing baggage, the people who work at the Denver Airport are rookies.
Ray: We place a great emphasis on loyalty here. This of course is why we are letting Mr. Gonzales go. This will allow us to be loyal to our pedigree which of course is to watch your backside my boy, if I may pass along something of advice to a man as young and talented as you are, Watch your backside my boy. Watch your backside.
Bob elbows Ray. Ray turns and looks at Bob. Then Bob says: Could you give us an example of how loyal you are?
Smith: Being loyal is the best revenge.
The Reagan Connection
Bob: At the moment the Justice Department is suffering something of an image problem. It will all blow over of course. It’s just some more liberal nonsense. But it is, for the moment, a problem. Just how would you address it?
Smith: My grandfather helped Ronald Reagan at a low point in his career.
Ray: You can’t mean Bedtime for Bonzo?
Smith (nods): Reagan worked with a chimp in the movie. The chimp’s contract was renewed. Reagan’s was not.
Ray chuckles. Bob casts a sneer in his direction. Ray’s face goes stoic.
Smith: There’s a scene in the movie where the chimp wanders onto a ledge. Reagan steps out onto the ledge . . . to save the chimp. People in the audience often yelled to Reagan, “Jump! Please jump!”
Bob and Ray lean forward.
Bob: Well . . . did Reagan take the advice?
Smith: It was a movie sir.
Bob and Ray: Oh sorry.
Ray: Well a connection with the Gipper. This is good news indeed.
Ray passes Bob a note. It reads:
Good news: Tell Gonzales he can leave now. We’ve found the perfect man to replace him.
Not so good news: No leads on the missing fifth. Suggest that if the cover story on the missing fifth blows, we blame it on the flappers, ah, some rapper fella or something.
Kudos
To Joe Paterno—the grand old man of college coaches handed down some old-school punishment. Recently a few of his players were involved in a fight. Charges are still pending. Paterno did not look the other way. In this era of spin, he took another tactic. He announced that this season after home games the entire team would clean Beaver Stadium—where Penn State plays its home games.
The 80 year-old said, "We're all going to do it. Everybody. Not just the kids that were involved. 'Cause we're all in it together. This is a team embarrassment."
Sometimes the old school is the best school.
To John Edwards who, during a speech to the Council on Foreign Relations, said, "The war on terror is a slogan designed only for politics, not a strategy to make America safe. It's a bumper sticker, not a plan.” He added, “It has damaged our alliances and weakened our standing in the world."
To Bill Ridhardson for running what is so far the best political advertisement.
Richardson sits before a man interviewing him for a job. The man appears to be looking at a resume and then says:
Mmmm hmmm. Hmmmm …
Ok, 14 years in Congress. U.N. Ambassador. Secretary of Energy. Governor of New
Mexico. Negotiated with dictators in Iraq, North Korea, Cuba, Zaire, Nigeria, Yugoslavia, Kenya … got a ceasefire in Darfur …nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize four times …So … What makes you think you can be president?
His face displaying a playful grin, Richardson then says, “I’m Bill Richardson and I approved this message.”
Line of the Week
While on HBO’s hold-no-punches Real Time with Bill Maher, actor-director Ben Affleck commented on the weepy, maudlin, sappy, overly-emotional, and sappy performance House Minority Leader John Boehner made this week before his colleagues. Affleck said, “I don’t want to judge anyone who’s had bad acting moments.”
See, they really do have foresight.
If you have been completely captivated by American Idol, you will need to know that Mr. Gonzales has come under all kinds of attention that public officials are loathe to attract. It’s really been a lot of silly hubbub over nothing. Just that some federal lawyers who were Republicans were fired—fools allege they were fired for very political reasons. They weren’t prosecuting Democrats or they weren’t prosecuting them fast enough.
There is that matter that Gonzales either didn’t know about the idiocies going on in his own department or that he did . . . and let it go on anyway.
A former Justice Department senior official has given damning testimony to the Senate.
Then there’s the matter of the high-ranking Justice Department official who took the fifth. Rumor has it that many senior officials in the Justice Department are looking for this fifth that that the high-ranking official took.
The missing fifth may have been found, but e-mails about its whereabouts are missing. Fortunately for the Justice Department news of the missing fifth haven’t reached the media yet.
All these concerns will easily be put to rest if we simply see how effectively senior members of the Bush Administration work. A brief sampling follows. To protect the guilty—we don’t pretend that anyone involved with any of this is innocent—names have been changed.
Bob: Well Mr. Smith we’d like to thank you for taking time from your busy day to interview for the position of Attorney General.
Smith (smiles): I’m delighted to be here.
Ray: Would you explain how you obtained your current job?
Smith: I don’t recall.
Bob and Ray smile. Ray whispers to Bob, “Precisely the way Gonzales put it. This guy is very good.” Bob nods.
Ray: Where did you go to law school?
Smith: Regent University.
Bob: That’s the law school founded by televangelist Pat Robertson. Over 150 of its graduates now work in Justice.
Smith (smiles): Our motto is "Christian leadership to change the world."
Ray: Regent certainly has done that.
Bob: Do you have a comment about the fact that many of your colleagues from Regent work here at Justice.
Smith: I've now been made aware of the fact that there was a conversation with the President that basically mentioned the same thing in October of 2006.
Bob looks through some papers. Then he whispers to Ray, “Exactly what Gonzales said, word-for-word.”
Bob: You don’t have much experience as a lawyer?
Smith: No.
Ray: Good. So you haven’t developed any bad habits.
Smith smiles insincerely.
Can You Spell “Potato”
Bob and Ray confer and agree he has a winning smile. Bob whispers to Ray, “Reminds me a little of that fellow Quayle.”
Bob: Can you spell potato?
Smith correctly spells potato.
Bob and Ray become so excited they almost give each other high and low fives at the same time.
Ray: Could you give us an example of when you used good judgment?
Smith: I don’t recall.
Again Bob and Ray exchange smiles. Ray says, “Just the way Gonzales put it. This guy is good.”
Bob: What would your priorities be?
Smith: The protection of civil rights, the protection of our voting rights, the protection of our civil liberties.
Bob shuffles through some papers. Then he whispers to Bob, “Why, that’s , why that’s, that’s exactly the way Gonzales put it. Very good.”
Ray: There are sensational rumors that the Justice Department has lost a fifth. If you accept the job of Attorney General, you will have to respond to rumors. How would you respond to this one?
Smith: People are concerned about a missing fifth of scotch?
Bob: Goodness no. Just a missing fifth.
Smith: Sounds like a musical term to me. I’d blame it on those Flappers.
Bob: Do you mean Rappers?
Smith: Yes. Thank you.
Ray: When did you decide to apply to work for the Justice Department?
Smith: I don’t recall.
Bob shuffles through papers. Then he nods. To Ray he whispers, He can quote this Gonzales guy real good.
Getting Rid of Unwanted Baggage
Ray: The job we are considering you for carries with it a lot of baggage.
Smith (smiles insincerely): If I may be allowed to brag. I hold the North American record for losing more baggage than anyone.
Bob: More than even the Denver Airport?
Smith: When it comes to loosing baggage, the people who work at the Denver Airport are rookies.
Ray: We place a great emphasis on loyalty here. This of course is why we are letting Mr. Gonzales go. This will allow us to be loyal to our pedigree which of course is to watch your backside my boy, if I may pass along something of advice to a man as young and talented as you are, Watch your backside my boy. Watch your backside.
Bob elbows Ray. Ray turns and looks at Bob. Then Bob says: Could you give us an example of how loyal you are?
Smith: Being loyal is the best revenge.
The Reagan Connection
Bob: At the moment the Justice Department is suffering something of an image problem. It will all blow over of course. It’s just some more liberal nonsense. But it is, for the moment, a problem. Just how would you address it?
Smith: My grandfather helped Ronald Reagan at a low point in his career.
Ray: You can’t mean Bedtime for Bonzo?
Smith (nods): Reagan worked with a chimp in the movie. The chimp’s contract was renewed. Reagan’s was not.
Ray chuckles. Bob casts a sneer in his direction. Ray’s face goes stoic.
Smith: There’s a scene in the movie where the chimp wanders onto a ledge. Reagan steps out onto the ledge . . . to save the chimp. People in the audience often yelled to Reagan, “Jump! Please jump!”
Bob and Ray lean forward.
Bob: Well . . . did Reagan take the advice?
Smith: It was a movie sir.
Bob and Ray: Oh sorry.
Ray: Well a connection with the Gipper. This is good news indeed.
Ray passes Bob a note. It reads:
Good news: Tell Gonzales he can leave now. We’ve found the perfect man to replace him.
Not so good news: No leads on the missing fifth. Suggest that if the cover story on the missing fifth blows, we blame it on the flappers, ah, some rapper fella or something.
Kudos
To Joe Paterno—the grand old man of college coaches handed down some old-school punishment. Recently a few of his players were involved in a fight. Charges are still pending. Paterno did not look the other way. In this era of spin, he took another tactic. He announced that this season after home games the entire team would clean Beaver Stadium—where Penn State plays its home games.
The 80 year-old said, "We're all going to do it. Everybody. Not just the kids that were involved. 'Cause we're all in it together. This is a team embarrassment."
Sometimes the old school is the best school.
To John Edwards who, during a speech to the Council on Foreign Relations, said, "The war on terror is a slogan designed only for politics, not a strategy to make America safe. It's a bumper sticker, not a plan.” He added, “It has damaged our alliances and weakened our standing in the world."
To Bill Ridhardson for running what is so far the best political advertisement.
Richardson sits before a man interviewing him for a job. The man appears to be looking at a resume and then says:
Mmmm hmmm. Hmmmm …
Ok, 14 years in Congress. U.N. Ambassador. Secretary of Energy. Governor of New
Mexico. Negotiated with dictators in Iraq, North Korea, Cuba, Zaire, Nigeria, Yugoslavia, Kenya … got a ceasefire in Darfur …nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize four times …So … What makes you think you can be president?
His face displaying a playful grin, Richardson then says, “I’m Bill Richardson and I approved this message.”
Line of the Week
While on HBO’s hold-no-punches Real Time with Bill Maher, actor-director Ben Affleck commented on the weepy, maudlin, sappy, overly-emotional, and sappy performance House Minority Leader John Boehner made this week before his colleagues. Affleck said, “I don’t want to judge anyone who’s had bad acting moments.”
Monday, May 21, 2007
Kudos to "Race Beat" and Republican Surrealists
In 1955, John Chancellor, who was then a reporter for the Chicago Sun-Times, was in Mississippi. Emmet Till, a teenage boy visiting Mississippi from Chicago recently had been viciously beaten, murdered, and then hidden in a river. Suspects were found. A trial was held.
An all-white jury found the defendants not guilty. It was in this volatile and turbulent atmosphere that Chancellor was interviewing a black woman. He was confronted by a phalanx of white men wearing overalls. Many carried pitchforks and other intimidating tools. The men clearly were out to get Chancellor.
Chancellor considered a variety of responses. He held up the microphone of his tape recorder and said, "I don't care what you're going to do to me, but the whole world is going to know it."
The threat was an empty one. The microphone was attached to a tape recorder, not a radio transmitter. Had the mob acted against Chancellor, it easily could have ruined the man’s tape recorder. But the threat dispersed the mob.
It is one of my favorite stories—because it is a very good story, because it is true, and because it is more than a story. It’s a little morality tale that represents the larger story that was going on. Many reporters and editors were doing gutsy things. By telling the truth about what they were seeing, they were exposing powerful and ugly exhibitions of ignorance. The exposition of these ignorances was helping to address them.
The Chancellor story and a host of others make The Race Beat: The Press, the Civil Rights Struggle, and the Awakening of a Nation a fascinating and very human story. But it is the larger arcs of the novel that show how the press generally long ignored and then often aggressively pursued the race story in America that makes it such a compelling and important book.
Race Beat
I get plenty of invitations to go hunting with Dick Cheney—one may even be legitimate. But I never have been invited to have dinner with the Pulitzers or any of the members of the various committees that award the coveted Pulitzer Prize. Nor do the people who award Pulitzer Prizes consult me for advice. Over the years I have criticized Pulitzers and, at times, have criticized the awards the Pulitzer committees have conveyed.
But this year they got one of the awards right. This year the Pulitzer for historical non-fiction was awarded to The Race Beat. The book, researched and written over a sixteen-year period by veteran reporters Gene Roberts and Hank Klibanoff is a gem.
The authors begin with a nod to a Swedish economist and lawyer who in 1944 published The American Dilemma, a work that told some of the dark truths about how blacks were treated in the US as well as how little of this news was reported widely.
The authors of Race Beat suggest that the murder of Emmett Till in August 1965 changed all that. Till, a teenage boy from Chicago, was visiting family in the tiny Mississippi town of Money. Till may have whistled at a white woman. Later, he was beaten and brutally murdered. The acquittal of the defendants exposed the racial pathologies and judicial perversions that had been going on for decades in the region. The Chicago black press covered the story. Soon the white press did as well.
An unusually creative journalist William Bradford Huie paid the defendants in the trial—and the men who murdered Till—to tell their story. In January of 1956 it was published in Look. The story shocked readers and showed editors that the race story had legs.
According to the authors of Race Beat, it is the Till trial and the repercussions of it that alerted northern white reporters and editors to the importance and power of stories about race. But not everyone got the wake-up call.
Race Beat follows the story of race in America and how it was and often wasn’t covered by the various factions—Northern press, Southern press, black press, television. Race Beat shows how television producers learned to use the tools of their medium to cover the stories revolving around race. The authors often step back from the crises and conflicts to explain the larger historical context.
The book details stories of many courageous white Southern reporters and editors—the way The Arkansas Gazette covered the integration of Central High School in Little Rock is an iconic but certainly not the only example.
There are times when even the best-intentioned reporters failed—according to the authors of Race Beat the Watts riots stand as just one illustration. The authors often criticize Southern papers for attempting to exile watered down versions of race stories to the back pages. They also chastise the New York Times for failing to step up to the truth.
Race Beat and the Pulitzer Prize it earned for history may not have come at a better time. Newspapers in America are dealing with various assaults—new technologies, massive layoffs, increased pressure to become even more profitable—all at a time that readership is shrinking. Race Beat provides a powerful reminder of the importance of good reporting. It holds up to the reader a provocative mural that shouts how simply telling the truth can serve as a powerful catalyst for change—something valuable at any time, but especially one where the truth seems to be taking so many ugly and powerful beatings from so many different sources. More importantly, Race Beat not only shows what good reporting can do, it frequently provides a model of it.
Republicans Acting like Surrealists Part I
Testimony last week before the Senate Judiciary committee revealed a story that seemed too incredible and bizarre to be true. In March 2004, James Comey was the Assistant Attorney General. Comey and the then attorney general, John Ashcroft had determined that wireless wiretaps were illegal. They had decided not to renew their support for such activities. This came at a time when the Attorney General Ashcroft was in the hospital to have his gall bladder removed. While Ashcroft was hospitalized, Comey served as Acting Attorney General. White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card asked Comey to approve continuing the authority to wiretap. Comey refused. Card and other administration officials, one was Alberto Gonzales (who was then White House Counsel but as I write this is Attorney General), rushed to Ashcroft’s bed. The head of the FBI, Robert Mueller, also accompanied Card.
Comey beat them there. Carr sought to have Ashcroft sign the continuance. Ashcroft refused and said that Comey was Acting Attorney General.
The story gets worse. Comey testified that Carr was upset. Later that day Carr asked Comey to come to the White House immediately. Comey replied that he would not come tot the White House without a witness.
And there’s more: Card pushed to have the continuance authorized. Ashcroft, Comey, and Mueller—the head of the FBI—said that if the authorization was continued, they would resign. Only then did the Bush Administration back down.
To suggest this was damaging testimony to the Bush Administration is to suggest that the Titanic was a little ship. The incident has been compared to the Twilight Zone, The Sopranoes, Absurdist Theater, Twin Peaks—and no doubt a lot of other wild and crazy fictional endeavors. The incident shouts to the world that Alberto Gonzales either does not understand or does not respect US laws.
Many of the chattering classes are predicting that because of these and many other indiscretions that Attorney General Gonzales will have to resign. But the Bush Administration can’t want this to happen. If Gonzales goes, they will have to put forward another candidate for the office. If the candidate does not appear to be squeaky clean, unbiased, and non-partisan, that means a long, complex, and damaging confirmation hearing. And if someone with some gravitas and sense of fairness does get the job, s/he no doubt will find more evidence of blundering, backslapping, and miscarriages of justice at the department that is supposed to be above such shenanigans.
Lines of the Week/Republicans Acting like Surrealists—the Sequel
The second Republican debate was held last Tuesday. It was notable for many things. Though Fox News had over ninety minutes to ask the candidates questions, education, health care, and the environment did not come up. There’s nothing surrealistic about that from Fox, that’s not unusual for them. But check this out, during the debate, not one but three Republican presidential candidates were witty—and generous enough to provide this week’s installments of the lines of the week.
Colorado congressman Tom Tancredo, “I am glad to see conversions. I am glad they happen. But I must tell you I trust them when they happen on the road to Damascus, not on the road to Des Moines.”
Arizona Senator John McCain: “We spent money like a drunken sailor, though I never met a sailor drunk or sober with the imagination of the US Congress.”
Former Arizona governor, Mike Hucabee: “We’ve had a Congress that spent money like John Edwards at beauty shop.”
Tancredo probably was more interested in debilitating Romney’s character and highlighting his flip-flops than winning any prizes for wit. McCain has used the line and variations of it before—but probably not as effectively. Still this was an unusual if not monumental moment in Republican political history—three witty moments in ninety minutes—from my point of view, the last two were-laugh-out loud funny. That’s a record that may last longer than most.
Idiots of the Week
Bush and his administration for going through the idea of creating a “war czar”—the formal name is Assistant to the President and Deputy National Security Adviser for Iraq and Afghanistan Policy and Implementation. According to the Administration, the czar will be able to cut through bureaucratic red tape. Creating the war czar position and all the aides that will accompany it is similar to initiating the post of Director of National Intelligence in 2005. Rather than solve problems, the issues are disguised by creating another bureaucratic layer. Perhaps this also positions yet another person, who when things turn really ugly in Iraq, will be scapegoated.
An all-white jury found the defendants not guilty. It was in this volatile and turbulent atmosphere that Chancellor was interviewing a black woman. He was confronted by a phalanx of white men wearing overalls. Many carried pitchforks and other intimidating tools. The men clearly were out to get Chancellor.
Chancellor considered a variety of responses. He held up the microphone of his tape recorder and said, "I don't care what you're going to do to me, but the whole world is going to know it."
The threat was an empty one. The microphone was attached to a tape recorder, not a radio transmitter. Had the mob acted against Chancellor, it easily could have ruined the man’s tape recorder. But the threat dispersed the mob.
It is one of my favorite stories—because it is a very good story, because it is true, and because it is more than a story. It’s a little morality tale that represents the larger story that was going on. Many reporters and editors were doing gutsy things. By telling the truth about what they were seeing, they were exposing powerful and ugly exhibitions of ignorance. The exposition of these ignorances was helping to address them.
The Chancellor story and a host of others make The Race Beat: The Press, the Civil Rights Struggle, and the Awakening of a Nation a fascinating and very human story. But it is the larger arcs of the novel that show how the press generally long ignored and then often aggressively pursued the race story in America that makes it such a compelling and important book.
Race Beat
I get plenty of invitations to go hunting with Dick Cheney—one may even be legitimate. But I never have been invited to have dinner with the Pulitzers or any of the members of the various committees that award the coveted Pulitzer Prize. Nor do the people who award Pulitzer Prizes consult me for advice. Over the years I have criticized Pulitzers and, at times, have criticized the awards the Pulitzer committees have conveyed.
But this year they got one of the awards right. This year the Pulitzer for historical non-fiction was awarded to The Race Beat. The book, researched and written over a sixteen-year period by veteran reporters Gene Roberts and Hank Klibanoff is a gem.
The authors begin with a nod to a Swedish economist and lawyer who in 1944 published The American Dilemma, a work that told some of the dark truths about how blacks were treated in the US as well as how little of this news was reported widely.
The authors of Race Beat suggest that the murder of Emmett Till in August 1965 changed all that. Till, a teenage boy from Chicago, was visiting family in the tiny Mississippi town of Money. Till may have whistled at a white woman. Later, he was beaten and brutally murdered. The acquittal of the defendants exposed the racial pathologies and judicial perversions that had been going on for decades in the region. The Chicago black press covered the story. Soon the white press did as well.
An unusually creative journalist William Bradford Huie paid the defendants in the trial—and the men who murdered Till—to tell their story. In January of 1956 it was published in Look. The story shocked readers and showed editors that the race story had legs.
According to the authors of Race Beat, it is the Till trial and the repercussions of it that alerted northern white reporters and editors to the importance and power of stories about race. But not everyone got the wake-up call.
Race Beat follows the story of race in America and how it was and often wasn’t covered by the various factions—Northern press, Southern press, black press, television. Race Beat shows how television producers learned to use the tools of their medium to cover the stories revolving around race. The authors often step back from the crises and conflicts to explain the larger historical context.
The book details stories of many courageous white Southern reporters and editors—the way The Arkansas Gazette covered the integration of Central High School in Little Rock is an iconic but certainly not the only example.
There are times when even the best-intentioned reporters failed—according to the authors of Race Beat the Watts riots stand as just one illustration. The authors often criticize Southern papers for attempting to exile watered down versions of race stories to the back pages. They also chastise the New York Times for failing to step up to the truth.
Race Beat and the Pulitzer Prize it earned for history may not have come at a better time. Newspapers in America are dealing with various assaults—new technologies, massive layoffs, increased pressure to become even more profitable—all at a time that readership is shrinking. Race Beat provides a powerful reminder of the importance of good reporting. It holds up to the reader a provocative mural that shouts how simply telling the truth can serve as a powerful catalyst for change—something valuable at any time, but especially one where the truth seems to be taking so many ugly and powerful beatings from so many different sources. More importantly, Race Beat not only shows what good reporting can do, it frequently provides a model of it.
Republicans Acting like Surrealists Part I
Testimony last week before the Senate Judiciary committee revealed a story that seemed too incredible and bizarre to be true. In March 2004, James Comey was the Assistant Attorney General. Comey and the then attorney general, John Ashcroft had determined that wireless wiretaps were illegal. They had decided not to renew their support for such activities. This came at a time when the Attorney General Ashcroft was in the hospital to have his gall bladder removed. While Ashcroft was hospitalized, Comey served as Acting Attorney General. White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card asked Comey to approve continuing the authority to wiretap. Comey refused. Card and other administration officials, one was Alberto Gonzales (who was then White House Counsel but as I write this is Attorney General), rushed to Ashcroft’s bed. The head of the FBI, Robert Mueller, also accompanied Card.
Comey beat them there. Carr sought to have Ashcroft sign the continuance. Ashcroft refused and said that Comey was Acting Attorney General.
The story gets worse. Comey testified that Carr was upset. Later that day Carr asked Comey to come to the White House immediately. Comey replied that he would not come tot the White House without a witness.
And there’s more: Card pushed to have the continuance authorized. Ashcroft, Comey, and Mueller—the head of the FBI—said that if the authorization was continued, they would resign. Only then did the Bush Administration back down.
To suggest this was damaging testimony to the Bush Administration is to suggest that the Titanic was a little ship. The incident has been compared to the Twilight Zone, The Sopranoes, Absurdist Theater, Twin Peaks—and no doubt a lot of other wild and crazy fictional endeavors. The incident shouts to the world that Alberto Gonzales either does not understand or does not respect US laws.
Many of the chattering classes are predicting that because of these and many other indiscretions that Attorney General Gonzales will have to resign. But the Bush Administration can’t want this to happen. If Gonzales goes, they will have to put forward another candidate for the office. If the candidate does not appear to be squeaky clean, unbiased, and non-partisan, that means a long, complex, and damaging confirmation hearing. And if someone with some gravitas and sense of fairness does get the job, s/he no doubt will find more evidence of blundering, backslapping, and miscarriages of justice at the department that is supposed to be above such shenanigans.
Lines of the Week/Republicans Acting like Surrealists—the Sequel
The second Republican debate was held last Tuesday. It was notable for many things. Though Fox News had over ninety minutes to ask the candidates questions, education, health care, and the environment did not come up. There’s nothing surrealistic about that from Fox, that’s not unusual for them. But check this out, during the debate, not one but three Republican presidential candidates were witty—and generous enough to provide this week’s installments of the lines of the week.
Colorado congressman Tom Tancredo, “I am glad to see conversions. I am glad they happen. But I must tell you I trust them when they happen on the road to Damascus, not on the road to Des Moines.”
Arizona Senator John McCain: “We spent money like a drunken sailor, though I never met a sailor drunk or sober with the imagination of the US Congress.”
Former Arizona governor, Mike Hucabee: “We’ve had a Congress that spent money like John Edwards at beauty shop.”
Tancredo probably was more interested in debilitating Romney’s character and highlighting his flip-flops than winning any prizes for wit. McCain has used the line and variations of it before—but probably not as effectively. Still this was an unusual if not monumental moment in Republican political history—three witty moments in ninety minutes—from my point of view, the last two were-laugh-out loud funny. That’s a record that may last longer than most.
Idiots of the Week
Bush and his administration for going through the idea of creating a “war czar”—the formal name is Assistant to the President and Deputy National Security Adviser for Iraq and Afghanistan Policy and Implementation. According to the Administration, the czar will be able to cut through bureaucratic red tape. Creating the war czar position and all the aides that will accompany it is similar to initiating the post of Director of National Intelligence in 2005. Rather than solve problems, the issues are disguised by creating another bureaucratic layer. Perhaps this also positions yet another person, who when things turn really ugly in Iraq, will be scapegoated.
Monday, May 14, 2007
Three Big Things
This was an unusual week. Big things happened—three of them.
We’ll start at home.
“Things have to change.”
On Tuesday eleven moderate Republican members of the House of Representatives met with the President. After the meeting they said they told him the "in the most unvarnished way that they possibly could that things have got to change" in Iraq. Other comments they made suggested they would remain loyal to Bush’s Iraq policy through September. Many would translate that to mean: “If we Republicans don’t change our tune on the war, my political career will be over about an hour after the polls close in November 2008.” They also probably stated that unless the US policies in Iraq changed, that the war in Iraq probably would have profoundly negative long-term affects on the Republican party.
Bush has heard comments like this before. He has rebuffed comments like this before. Two days after meeting with the moderate Republicans, Bush announced that he would be open to the idea of benchmarks.
Bush did not say he and Congressional leaders had agreed on the benchmarks. He did not say that he would link benchmarks to funding the war.
Still, it’s easy to envision a scenario that would begin to extract the US from the war. Benchmarks are agreed to. Benchmarks are attached to funding. The US fails to meet the benchmarks while unpopularity about the war continues to grow. The ideas from the Iraq Study Group are talked about and talked about and talked about. Hopefully Senator Biden’s idea of a soft federation of the three main sectarian groups is Iraq is added to the mix. The President and the Congress agree on a plan. US forces begin to leave.
But let’s be realistic. Bush shows no signs of being open to a plan like this. He shows every indication of extending the surge or something like it to the end of his term and letting his successor clean up the mess he has made.
Still, the meeting the Republicans had with Bush last week is telling. It informs Bush and the US that very soon Republicans will begin to defect from the Bush strategy in Iraq. When they do, they will break the trail for others to follow. This will clear the way for any number of scenarios that will reduce the US presence in Iraq.
The Republicans realize that the more they are linked with failed policies in Iraq, the more likely it is that they will pay the piper during the next election. Which is why the Democrats are using phrases like “support the troops” at every opportunity and making guarantees that funding will not be cut off. To many it appears that Democrats are moving forward with the deliberate speed of your average turtle on downers. They are doing this for many reasons. One of the most important is that they don’t want to repeat the repercussions of Vietnam—where anti-war protests and actions were later perceived as being disloyal to the troops. Actions Democratic party leaders took to end the war in Vietnam and the way they presented themselves enabled them to be branded as soft on national security. This crippled the party for decades.
The Republicans and the Democrats know that far more than the next election is at stake. The party that emerges from the war in Iraq with the better record on national security probably will have political advantages that echo for decades.
But back to the war the US is fighting in Iraq—actions taken by Republican lawmakers this week may mark the beginning of the end.
Exit: Stage Left
Last Thursday Britain’s Prime Minister, Tony Blair announced he would step down next month. When he came to power ten years ago, he rode the momentum of a huge landslide. His youth and energy, intelligence and charisma added dynamism to his administration.
He achieved peace in Northern Ireland. He helped calm troubled waters and end horrible human rights violations in Sierra Leone. He was one of the leading crusaders for intervention against Milosevic in Kosovo. Along with most of his European brethren, he supported US efforts to fight the Taliban in Afghanistan.
At home he had the leverage and the skill to change the constitution to give greater autonomy to Scotland and Wales. He increased spending in health care and education. His calm demeanor and steady hand helped soothe the shock of the terrorist attack that plagued London in July 2005. Perhaps his brightest moment in the public eye came after the death of Princess Diana. While the royal family elected to remain distant from the bright spotlight Diana’s death created, Blair stood at center stage, expressed his shock and concern, and called her “the people’s princess.”
Under Blair’s watch England’s economy has far outpaced the sluggish economies on the Continent. Since Blair has been in office, job growth in Britain also grew much faster than in the rest of Europe.
Blair’s successes at home and abroad helped convince the English that the Labour Party could be effective leaders. They rewarded Blair with three landslide victories. And many think that he has moved the political center of England to the left.
It was Blair’s strident support for the war in Iraq and his close affiliation with Bush led to his downfall. Bush saw in Iraq an opportunity to spread democracy and direct Iraqi oil toward to the West. Blair certainly was not blind to these opportunities. But unlike Bush, Blair brought to the conflict his crusader spirit. Blair supported the war in Iraq too quickly and without equivocation. His steadfast support of the war and Bush’s policies has led many to attack him as Bush’s poodle.
As the news from Iraq turned sour, Blair’s popularity plummeted. Scandals also plagued his last months in office.
In June he will be succeeded by Gordon Brown—currently the number two man in the Labour Party and Chancellor of the Exchequer. (In the US and many countries his position would be called Secretary of the Treasury.) Brown is widely respected within his party. Though Brown lacks Blair’s baggage on Iraq, he also does not have Blair’s warmth, style, or charm.
Blair’s stepping down clearly marks the end of an era—and a new beginning. The Labour party hopes that the party may be reborn without being replaced.
Trade Regulations
Democratic legislators and the Bush Administration reached an agreement on Thursday that will expand most future trade agreements. The agreed that in the future trade agreements with other countries will contain the following provisos.
o Child labor and forced labor will be banned.
o Labor rights will be guaranteed.
o National and international environmental laws will be enforced.
o Poor people will have greater access to generic drugs.
o The US will have greater authority to ban vessels coming into US ports.
This agreement is the result of a push by Democratic leaders to revise issues they have had for years with the Bush Administration’s trade agreements. It is a big deal. It does good things. The agreement shows that the Bush Administration can be realistic and that there is some evidence that Democrats have a spine.
Commonalities
These events show that personality matters. Bush’s rush to war and a-historical method of fighting it led to shallow and often silly tactics and policies. Blair’s crusader idealism short-circuited a process that should have provoked the US to improve its strategies.
They show actions often have consequences.
They showcase the vulnerability of a tragic flaw. Bush could not see the horrific consequences the war in Iraq would bring. This weakened his party and gutted his presidency.
Blair flaw has deprived Blair the mantle of greatness.
The events of this week show that the core of most political actions is a power play.
They show that politics can create horrific responses (the war in Iraq) and intelligent solutions to complex problems (Northern Ireland, Sierra Leone, Kosovo, the new trade regulations). Sadly, they also show that time, often years of it, is necessary for politics to do the hard work necessary to do good work.
Kudos
To Derek Fisher. Fisher is a guard for the Utah Jazz. Monday he missed practice and the first three quarters of the second game of the playoff series with the Warriors. Most who talked about his absence in public said he was not present for undefined “personal reasons.” Early Monday Fisher was home. With his wife, he comforted his 10-month-old daughter. On Monday in New York City she was operated and given chemotherapy for retinoblastoma, a rare form of eye cancer. Once the operation was completed, Fisher boarded a plane and flew to Utah. He entered the game late, played very well, and proved crucial to the Jazz’s victory that night. But he took his performance on Monday to a new level, when, after the game, he told the story of his daughter’s illness and urged parents to have their children’s eyes tested.
Idiots of the Week/Line of the Week
The US military gets the idiot award for not doing more to address the perils that flow from this statistic: a recent poll suggests that 47 % of US troops think that it is okay not to treat Iraqi’s with respect.
Rudy Giuliani gets both the IOW and LOW for the pretzel-like logic and contorted statements he made to defend his position on abortion. As he has in the past, he commented, “I don’t always agree with myself.”
We’ll start at home.
“Things have to change.”
On Tuesday eleven moderate Republican members of the House of Representatives met with the President. After the meeting they said they told him the "in the most unvarnished way that they possibly could that things have got to change" in Iraq. Other comments they made suggested they would remain loyal to Bush’s Iraq policy through September. Many would translate that to mean: “If we Republicans don’t change our tune on the war, my political career will be over about an hour after the polls close in November 2008.” They also probably stated that unless the US policies in Iraq changed, that the war in Iraq probably would have profoundly negative long-term affects on the Republican party.
Bush has heard comments like this before. He has rebuffed comments like this before. Two days after meeting with the moderate Republicans, Bush announced that he would be open to the idea of benchmarks.
Bush did not say he and Congressional leaders had agreed on the benchmarks. He did not say that he would link benchmarks to funding the war.
Still, it’s easy to envision a scenario that would begin to extract the US from the war. Benchmarks are agreed to. Benchmarks are attached to funding. The US fails to meet the benchmarks while unpopularity about the war continues to grow. The ideas from the Iraq Study Group are talked about and talked about and talked about. Hopefully Senator Biden’s idea of a soft federation of the three main sectarian groups is Iraq is added to the mix. The President and the Congress agree on a plan. US forces begin to leave.
But let’s be realistic. Bush shows no signs of being open to a plan like this. He shows every indication of extending the surge or something like it to the end of his term and letting his successor clean up the mess he has made.
Still, the meeting the Republicans had with Bush last week is telling. It informs Bush and the US that very soon Republicans will begin to defect from the Bush strategy in Iraq. When they do, they will break the trail for others to follow. This will clear the way for any number of scenarios that will reduce the US presence in Iraq.
The Republicans realize that the more they are linked with failed policies in Iraq, the more likely it is that they will pay the piper during the next election. Which is why the Democrats are using phrases like “support the troops” at every opportunity and making guarantees that funding will not be cut off. To many it appears that Democrats are moving forward with the deliberate speed of your average turtle on downers. They are doing this for many reasons. One of the most important is that they don’t want to repeat the repercussions of Vietnam—where anti-war protests and actions were later perceived as being disloyal to the troops. Actions Democratic party leaders took to end the war in Vietnam and the way they presented themselves enabled them to be branded as soft on national security. This crippled the party for decades.
The Republicans and the Democrats know that far more than the next election is at stake. The party that emerges from the war in Iraq with the better record on national security probably will have political advantages that echo for decades.
But back to the war the US is fighting in Iraq—actions taken by Republican lawmakers this week may mark the beginning of the end.
Exit: Stage Left
Last Thursday Britain’s Prime Minister, Tony Blair announced he would step down next month. When he came to power ten years ago, he rode the momentum of a huge landslide. His youth and energy, intelligence and charisma added dynamism to his administration.
He achieved peace in Northern Ireland. He helped calm troubled waters and end horrible human rights violations in Sierra Leone. He was one of the leading crusaders for intervention against Milosevic in Kosovo. Along with most of his European brethren, he supported US efforts to fight the Taliban in Afghanistan.
At home he had the leverage and the skill to change the constitution to give greater autonomy to Scotland and Wales. He increased spending in health care and education. His calm demeanor and steady hand helped soothe the shock of the terrorist attack that plagued London in July 2005. Perhaps his brightest moment in the public eye came after the death of Princess Diana. While the royal family elected to remain distant from the bright spotlight Diana’s death created, Blair stood at center stage, expressed his shock and concern, and called her “the people’s princess.”
Under Blair’s watch England’s economy has far outpaced the sluggish economies on the Continent. Since Blair has been in office, job growth in Britain also grew much faster than in the rest of Europe.
Blair’s successes at home and abroad helped convince the English that the Labour Party could be effective leaders. They rewarded Blair with three landslide victories. And many think that he has moved the political center of England to the left.
It was Blair’s strident support for the war in Iraq and his close affiliation with Bush led to his downfall. Bush saw in Iraq an opportunity to spread democracy and direct Iraqi oil toward to the West. Blair certainly was not blind to these opportunities. But unlike Bush, Blair brought to the conflict his crusader spirit. Blair supported the war in Iraq too quickly and without equivocation. His steadfast support of the war and Bush’s policies has led many to attack him as Bush’s poodle.
As the news from Iraq turned sour, Blair’s popularity plummeted. Scandals also plagued his last months in office.
In June he will be succeeded by Gordon Brown—currently the number two man in the Labour Party and Chancellor of the Exchequer. (In the US and many countries his position would be called Secretary of the Treasury.) Brown is widely respected within his party. Though Brown lacks Blair’s baggage on Iraq, he also does not have Blair’s warmth, style, or charm.
Blair’s stepping down clearly marks the end of an era—and a new beginning. The Labour party hopes that the party may be reborn without being replaced.
Trade Regulations
Democratic legislators and the Bush Administration reached an agreement on Thursday that will expand most future trade agreements. The agreed that in the future trade agreements with other countries will contain the following provisos.
o Child labor and forced labor will be banned.
o Labor rights will be guaranteed.
o National and international environmental laws will be enforced.
o Poor people will have greater access to generic drugs.
o The US will have greater authority to ban vessels coming into US ports.
This agreement is the result of a push by Democratic leaders to revise issues they have had for years with the Bush Administration’s trade agreements. It is a big deal. It does good things. The agreement shows that the Bush Administration can be realistic and that there is some evidence that Democrats have a spine.
Commonalities
These events show that personality matters. Bush’s rush to war and a-historical method of fighting it led to shallow and often silly tactics and policies. Blair’s crusader idealism short-circuited a process that should have provoked the US to improve its strategies.
They show actions often have consequences.
They showcase the vulnerability of a tragic flaw. Bush could not see the horrific consequences the war in Iraq would bring. This weakened his party and gutted his presidency.
Blair flaw has deprived Blair the mantle of greatness.
The events of this week show that the core of most political actions is a power play.
They show that politics can create horrific responses (the war in Iraq) and intelligent solutions to complex problems (Northern Ireland, Sierra Leone, Kosovo, the new trade regulations). Sadly, they also show that time, often years of it, is necessary for politics to do the hard work necessary to do good work.
Kudos
To Derek Fisher. Fisher is a guard for the Utah Jazz. Monday he missed practice and the first three quarters of the second game of the playoff series with the Warriors. Most who talked about his absence in public said he was not present for undefined “personal reasons.” Early Monday Fisher was home. With his wife, he comforted his 10-month-old daughter. On Monday in New York City she was operated and given chemotherapy for retinoblastoma, a rare form of eye cancer. Once the operation was completed, Fisher boarded a plane and flew to Utah. He entered the game late, played very well, and proved crucial to the Jazz’s victory that night. But he took his performance on Monday to a new level, when, after the game, he told the story of his daughter’s illness and urged parents to have their children’s eyes tested.
Idiots of the Week/Line of the Week
The US military gets the idiot award for not doing more to address the perils that flow from this statistic: a recent poll suggests that 47 % of US troops think that it is okay not to treat Iraqi’s with respect.
Rudy Giuliani gets both the IOW and LOW for the pretzel-like logic and contorted statements he made to defend his position on abortion. As he has in the past, he commented, “I don’t always agree with myself.”
Monday, May 7, 2007
At The Doug Moe Academy of Sartorial Splendor and Architectural Design: Drinks with My Republican Friend
For years I was able to quip, “None of my best friends are Republicans.”
Then I met Harry. Like me, he can’t stay away from politics. Like me he likes to drink.
Harry’s wife thinks the main reason we get along has nothing to do with any of that. Neither one of us look at the bright side of life. Harry and I think we are realists. Given the sunny attitude Americans bring to nearly everything, we are considered pessimists by most.
Harry’s wife thinks we get along so well because well, you know that old chestnut about the glass of water and whether it is half empty or half full. Harry’s wife says we look at that proverbial glass of water and say, “Its almost gone—and will you look at all the contaminants that are in it?
Friday Harry and I were in the same town. And so Friday night we met at Moe’s and gabbed.
He was in a lousy mood. He didn’t see how the Republicans could win the White House in 2008.
I asked him why.
Big Stuff
“Mostly its this damn war. Conservatives are not supposed to be nation builders. Conservatives are not supposed to be eager to be international activists. And it shows. Bush has botched this war just about every way it can be botched. The war will be wall-to-wall bad news from here til 2008.
“If you do the math, it’s even worse. Something like 61% of Republicans support the President on the war. But only 27% of American’s support the President on the war. The Republicans can’t win that battle. To get the nomination it looks as if Republican candidates will have to support the war. And with that in their portfolio, there’s no way they can win the general election where the war is the central issue.
“Then there are the other major issues. The issues that are making headlines: energy independence, national health care, immigration, the environment—these issues play to the strengths of the Democrats.”
He took a sip from his drink.
“There’s a classic problem with Republican politics. For the Republicans to be united and enthused, the conservatives have to be on board. All the conservatives have to be on board. That probably means the nominee has to be a conservative—or someone with a helluva lot of charisma—nobody in the current field has that. So for the Republicans to win, they probably have to nominate a conservative. And a moderate is at the top of the heap right now. That’s a problem.
“And then there’s the problem with the candidates.
“Romney is handsome. Guiliani has a viable street cred. McCain is liked by a variety of people. If the Republicans could roll all those qualities into one candidate, they would have a verifiable A-list candidate. The way I see it they don’t really have an A-list candidate. Guiliani and McCain are close. But close is not good enough.
“And the Democrats have three of them.”
Harry nodded.
Guiliani
I asked him about Guilliani.
“Sure he’s leading the polls. With the field the Republicans have now, he’d have to. Someone has to lead. That doesn’t mean that person deserves to lead. I think about Guiliani, and I roll my eyes. Did you get the answer he had to the abortion question at the debate last night? He said it would be okay of abortion was made illegal. He said it would be okay if remained legal. You can’t answer a question on an issue as important as abortion that way and be a viable candidate. You just can’t.
“Moderate Republicans have reason to like Guiliani. But as conservative Republicans find out more about his pro-choice status, his three marriages, that one marriage was to a second cousin, that his values don’t really fall into the classical Republican family values—my god, for a while he lived with two gay men. Can you imagine what conservatives will think when they hear about that! Two gay men! And all those pictures of him in drag—that’s enough to sink a campaign.
“It may not matter all that much, but I hold a grudge against Guiliani that he dropped out of his campaign to run for the senate against Hillary.
“And then there’s all that shady stuff that he can’t drop. His business partner, Bernard Kerik, did more shady deals than some gangsters. His law firm is a lobbyist for that Socialist Chavez. A socialist! My God, is this guy trying to be stupid?
“A cynic could say that Guiliani is where he is because he had one great day—on 9/11—the way I see it, that’s not going to be enough to move conservatives en masse to become passionate about him.”
McCain
I said the word “McCain,” and Harry winced.
“As I see it, his central problem is that he was a rebel. Conservative Republicans never warmed to his rebel bit. They saw it as something like disloyalty. Two things made McCain popular with independents—his crusades for campaign finance reform and against Bush’s tax cuts for the wealthy. They are the same two positions that give conservative Republicans the jitters.
“Now he’s flipped on the Bush’s tax cuts. He was against them. Now he’s for keeping them. He’s embraced noted evangelists.
“He’s abandoned his rebel status. He’s tried to be someone more classically conservative. But this has unsettled many who liked the old McCain.
“He’s old. If he served two terms as president, he would be 80 at the end of his second term—if he lived that long.
“He’s had many health issues. He’s had cancer.
“He doesn’t like to do fundraisers. He’ll do em, but he doesn’t like em. Bad mistake. You can’t let stuff like that out. Big mistake.”
Harry finished his drink and ordered another.
“I have nightmares. I have nightmares that McCain is the Republican nominee, and during the first debate with the Democratic nominee, a reporter asks this question. ‘When you were shot down over Hanoi, you were shot down because you ignored the warning that a missile was headed toward your plane. You waited too long to try to dodge it. That caused you, your family, and, to some extent, your country, great pain. Will you say you made a mistake ignoring that warning? And what evidence can you present that you have learned from this incident and that you will avoid similar cocksure reactions in the future?’
“And in my nightmare, McCain blows it. He won’t say waiting to dodge the missile was a mistake. He fumbles the rest of the question. And it’s over for him.
“Don’t ask me about Romney. Don’t ask me about Romney. He’s a Republican Kerry—a flip flopper—a political opportunist conservatives will forever be suspicious off. He’s smooth. Sometimes he’s even slick. But he’s not warm enough to get people to trust him. I don’t care that Romney’s a Mormon—not a twit. I don’t care that one of Romney’s forefathers was a polygamist. It makes me question the sanity of his forefathers. But lots of people who are just fine thank you have nutty forefathers. My grandfather was a fan of the Washington Senators—a perpetually lousy team. You can’ t get much nuttier than that.
“But it matters that there is all that ignorance out there about Mormonism. Romney could hit this Mormonism thing out of the park if he showed some cajones. It would put some spine in his campaign. But he hasn’t done it yet.”
Harry took a sip from his drink. Then he said the word “Advisors.” He said it with contempt and hate and enough vitriol to start a forest fire.
The “P” Word
“Now Regan had many of the liabilities these guys have. He had passed a very liberal abortion bill in California. He had changed some of his positions, toned down others. But he was warm. He was likeable. People trusted him.
"Conservatives loved him. They were passionate about him.
“And to me that’s a central problem for the Republicans. They have their good moments. They have their strengths. But I don’t see any of em stirring passions.
“That’s really what elections are about. Elections are about passion. If you can get passion on your side, you’re halfway there. Some of the top three Republicans are likeable—sometimes. Every now and then they’re warm. But I don’t see passion. The passion is with the Democrats.”
“And I don’t see A-list.”
Polls suggest six in ten Republicans agree with Harry. But Harry didn’t need to be reminded of that.
Thompson—Fred not Tommy—the Actor not the Guy from Wisconsin
“So you agree with those who say, former Senator Fred Thompson, a man who wasn’t even on the stage the other night for the debate, won the debate?”
Harry nodded. But he didn’t smile. “Thompson has his series of issues. He’s got cancer. It may not affect him at all, but he’s got cancer. That’s a huge liability. Thompson has values issues. His first wife was pregnant when they married. Like so many of the Republican candidates, he’s divorced and remarried. He’s late to the party. He’ll be behind raising money. He’ll have trouble, at first any way, getting talented advisors. And there’s already someone in the Republican race whose name is Thompson.
“But he does have genuine conservative bonafides. He has presence. He has a great voice and phenomenal name recognition. If he’s smart, he’ll get his act together before he declares. If he does that, he could freeze Republican fundraising efforts. Then if he enters and makes a big splash, well that could be something to make me smile. That could make me smile. And if he does that, because he’s a conservative, because he’s an actor, and because he’s likeable, people will compare him with Regan.
“Now, if all that happens, and it’s likely that it will, that could be interesting.”
But Harry’s not the kind of guy to get out of a serious funk simply because something might happen in a few weeks.
Good News for Harry
I tried to cheer him up. “It’s early. The polls suggest that a few Republicans could win the election. The tables could turn ten times between now and November 2008. The war could change dramatically. It could end, or be as good as over. That would give Republicans a fighting chance. Or something bizarre could happen that could help the Republicans on this issue.
“You said that if Fred Thompson enters the race, it changes the dynamics completely. You said he’ll probably enter the race. If it matters, I agree. That changes the dynamics completely.
“Democrats lost to GW Bush—twice. They have a genetic predisposition toward botching presidential elections. They screwed up their message ending the war in Vietnam. They could screw up the way they end the war in Iraq. If they botch that, the election could go to the Republicans.”
Harry shook his head. “A-list candidates don’t make those mistakes. The Dems have three A-listers. Forgettabout what the polls say. The way things stand now, Republicans are dead meat.”
Idiots of the Week
This week four deserve the honor.
George Tenet who in his memoir which was published this week, At the Center of the Storm: My Years with the CIA notes that in August 2001 he met with Bush. Though he had the data to support it, Tenet did not impress upon the President the possibility of an attack like the one that took place on 9/11.
Also, attention must be paid to the three Republican candidates for the Presidency—Senator Brownback, Gov. Mike Huckabee, and Rep. Tom Tancredo—who raised their hands to answer the question, “Is there anybody on the stage that does not agree, believe in evolution? ”
Line of the Week
Courtesy of Craig Ferguson on The Late Late Show, “President Bush was on American Idol last night. . .. He made an appearance and afterwards the phone lines were jammed with people trying to vote him off.”
Then I met Harry. Like me, he can’t stay away from politics. Like me he likes to drink.
Harry’s wife thinks the main reason we get along has nothing to do with any of that. Neither one of us look at the bright side of life. Harry and I think we are realists. Given the sunny attitude Americans bring to nearly everything, we are considered pessimists by most.
Harry’s wife thinks we get along so well because well, you know that old chestnut about the glass of water and whether it is half empty or half full. Harry’s wife says we look at that proverbial glass of water and say, “Its almost gone—and will you look at all the contaminants that are in it?
Friday Harry and I were in the same town. And so Friday night we met at Moe’s and gabbed.
He was in a lousy mood. He didn’t see how the Republicans could win the White House in 2008.
I asked him why.
Big Stuff
“Mostly its this damn war. Conservatives are not supposed to be nation builders. Conservatives are not supposed to be eager to be international activists. And it shows. Bush has botched this war just about every way it can be botched. The war will be wall-to-wall bad news from here til 2008.
“If you do the math, it’s even worse. Something like 61% of Republicans support the President on the war. But only 27% of American’s support the President on the war. The Republicans can’t win that battle. To get the nomination it looks as if Republican candidates will have to support the war. And with that in their portfolio, there’s no way they can win the general election where the war is the central issue.
“Then there are the other major issues. The issues that are making headlines: energy independence, national health care, immigration, the environment—these issues play to the strengths of the Democrats.”
He took a sip from his drink.
“There’s a classic problem with Republican politics. For the Republicans to be united and enthused, the conservatives have to be on board. All the conservatives have to be on board. That probably means the nominee has to be a conservative—or someone with a helluva lot of charisma—nobody in the current field has that. So for the Republicans to win, they probably have to nominate a conservative. And a moderate is at the top of the heap right now. That’s a problem.
“And then there’s the problem with the candidates.
“Romney is handsome. Guiliani has a viable street cred. McCain is liked by a variety of people. If the Republicans could roll all those qualities into one candidate, they would have a verifiable A-list candidate. The way I see it they don’t really have an A-list candidate. Guiliani and McCain are close. But close is not good enough.
“And the Democrats have three of them.”
Harry nodded.
Guiliani
I asked him about Guilliani.
“Sure he’s leading the polls. With the field the Republicans have now, he’d have to. Someone has to lead. That doesn’t mean that person deserves to lead. I think about Guiliani, and I roll my eyes. Did you get the answer he had to the abortion question at the debate last night? He said it would be okay of abortion was made illegal. He said it would be okay if remained legal. You can’t answer a question on an issue as important as abortion that way and be a viable candidate. You just can’t.
“Moderate Republicans have reason to like Guiliani. But as conservative Republicans find out more about his pro-choice status, his three marriages, that one marriage was to a second cousin, that his values don’t really fall into the classical Republican family values—my god, for a while he lived with two gay men. Can you imagine what conservatives will think when they hear about that! Two gay men! And all those pictures of him in drag—that’s enough to sink a campaign.
“It may not matter all that much, but I hold a grudge against Guiliani that he dropped out of his campaign to run for the senate against Hillary.
“And then there’s all that shady stuff that he can’t drop. His business partner, Bernard Kerik, did more shady deals than some gangsters. His law firm is a lobbyist for that Socialist Chavez. A socialist! My God, is this guy trying to be stupid?
“A cynic could say that Guiliani is where he is because he had one great day—on 9/11—the way I see it, that’s not going to be enough to move conservatives en masse to become passionate about him.”
McCain
I said the word “McCain,” and Harry winced.
“As I see it, his central problem is that he was a rebel. Conservative Republicans never warmed to his rebel bit. They saw it as something like disloyalty. Two things made McCain popular with independents—his crusades for campaign finance reform and against Bush’s tax cuts for the wealthy. They are the same two positions that give conservative Republicans the jitters.
“Now he’s flipped on the Bush’s tax cuts. He was against them. Now he’s for keeping them. He’s embraced noted evangelists.
“He’s abandoned his rebel status. He’s tried to be someone more classically conservative. But this has unsettled many who liked the old McCain.
“He’s old. If he served two terms as president, he would be 80 at the end of his second term—if he lived that long.
“He’s had many health issues. He’s had cancer.
“He doesn’t like to do fundraisers. He’ll do em, but he doesn’t like em. Bad mistake. You can’t let stuff like that out. Big mistake.”
Harry finished his drink and ordered another.
“I have nightmares. I have nightmares that McCain is the Republican nominee, and during the first debate with the Democratic nominee, a reporter asks this question. ‘When you were shot down over Hanoi, you were shot down because you ignored the warning that a missile was headed toward your plane. You waited too long to try to dodge it. That caused you, your family, and, to some extent, your country, great pain. Will you say you made a mistake ignoring that warning? And what evidence can you present that you have learned from this incident and that you will avoid similar cocksure reactions in the future?’
“And in my nightmare, McCain blows it. He won’t say waiting to dodge the missile was a mistake. He fumbles the rest of the question. And it’s over for him.
“Don’t ask me about Romney. Don’t ask me about Romney. He’s a Republican Kerry—a flip flopper—a political opportunist conservatives will forever be suspicious off. He’s smooth. Sometimes he’s even slick. But he’s not warm enough to get people to trust him. I don’t care that Romney’s a Mormon—not a twit. I don’t care that one of Romney’s forefathers was a polygamist. It makes me question the sanity of his forefathers. But lots of people who are just fine thank you have nutty forefathers. My grandfather was a fan of the Washington Senators—a perpetually lousy team. You can’ t get much nuttier than that.
“But it matters that there is all that ignorance out there about Mormonism. Romney could hit this Mormonism thing out of the park if he showed some cajones. It would put some spine in his campaign. But he hasn’t done it yet.”
Harry took a sip from his drink. Then he said the word “Advisors.” He said it with contempt and hate and enough vitriol to start a forest fire.
The “P” Word
“Now Regan had many of the liabilities these guys have. He had passed a very liberal abortion bill in California. He had changed some of his positions, toned down others. But he was warm. He was likeable. People trusted him.
"Conservatives loved him. They were passionate about him.
“And to me that’s a central problem for the Republicans. They have their good moments. They have their strengths. But I don’t see any of em stirring passions.
“That’s really what elections are about. Elections are about passion. If you can get passion on your side, you’re halfway there. Some of the top three Republicans are likeable—sometimes. Every now and then they’re warm. But I don’t see passion. The passion is with the Democrats.”
“And I don’t see A-list.”
Polls suggest six in ten Republicans agree with Harry. But Harry didn’t need to be reminded of that.
Thompson—Fred not Tommy—the Actor not the Guy from Wisconsin
“So you agree with those who say, former Senator Fred Thompson, a man who wasn’t even on the stage the other night for the debate, won the debate?”
Harry nodded. But he didn’t smile. “Thompson has his series of issues. He’s got cancer. It may not affect him at all, but he’s got cancer. That’s a huge liability. Thompson has values issues. His first wife was pregnant when they married. Like so many of the Republican candidates, he’s divorced and remarried. He’s late to the party. He’ll be behind raising money. He’ll have trouble, at first any way, getting talented advisors. And there’s already someone in the Republican race whose name is Thompson.
“But he does have genuine conservative bonafides. He has presence. He has a great voice and phenomenal name recognition. If he’s smart, he’ll get his act together before he declares. If he does that, he could freeze Republican fundraising efforts. Then if he enters and makes a big splash, well that could be something to make me smile. That could make me smile. And if he does that, because he’s a conservative, because he’s an actor, and because he’s likeable, people will compare him with Regan.
“Now, if all that happens, and it’s likely that it will, that could be interesting.”
But Harry’s not the kind of guy to get out of a serious funk simply because something might happen in a few weeks.
Good News for Harry
I tried to cheer him up. “It’s early. The polls suggest that a few Republicans could win the election. The tables could turn ten times between now and November 2008. The war could change dramatically. It could end, or be as good as over. That would give Republicans a fighting chance. Or something bizarre could happen that could help the Republicans on this issue.
“You said that if Fred Thompson enters the race, it changes the dynamics completely. You said he’ll probably enter the race. If it matters, I agree. That changes the dynamics completely.
“Democrats lost to GW Bush—twice. They have a genetic predisposition toward botching presidential elections. They screwed up their message ending the war in Vietnam. They could screw up the way they end the war in Iraq. If they botch that, the election could go to the Republicans.”
Harry shook his head. “A-list candidates don’t make those mistakes. The Dems have three A-listers. Forgettabout what the polls say. The way things stand now, Republicans are dead meat.”
Idiots of the Week
This week four deserve the honor.
George Tenet who in his memoir which was published this week, At the Center of the Storm: My Years with the CIA notes that in August 2001 he met with Bush. Though he had the data to support it, Tenet did not impress upon the President the possibility of an attack like the one that took place on 9/11.
Also, attention must be paid to the three Republican candidates for the Presidency—Senator Brownback, Gov. Mike Huckabee, and Rep. Tom Tancredo—who raised their hands to answer the question, “Is there anybody on the stage that does not agree, believe in evolution? ”
Line of the Week
Courtesy of Craig Ferguson on The Late Late Show, “President Bush was on American Idol last night. . .. He made an appearance and afterwards the phone lines were jammed with people trying to vote him off.”
Tuesday, May 1, 2007
Handler’s Notebook: Party Debates with a Whole lot of Candidates
In Man of the Year, Robin Williams portrays a TV host who has a nightly TV show. He’s a good deal like Jon Daily. Unlike Daily, the Williams character ends up running for President. At a debate, the Williams character goes deep. He rants. He violates the rules. He launches an oratorical outburst that is wild and crazy, comical and provocative. He condemns special interest money—it has to create an obligation. He attacks politicians who back things like the hydrogen powered car. Its fruits will come so far down the road that companies—and therefore politicians—will be able to continue to do business as usual for years.
The debate sequence in the movie creates a series of wonderful moments. It’s zany. It’s engaging. And it’s very funny.
Few watching the Democratic Presidential Debate on Thursday were hoping to stumble onto moments that were that captivating and rich.
They were not surprised.
The debate did not include anyone who was wild or crazy, anyone who had a world-class wit or who was particularly provocative.
As the debate rambled on, it occurred to me that independently or as a group, all but two of candidates had agreed to follow most of the rules that would be in the notebook of any seasoned handler.
Instructions
1) Before the debate, lower expectations for yourself. Try to raise them for the other candidates. (This was one reason an e-mail about Edwards’ abilities as a lawyer was circulated before the debate. It was an attempt to raise expectations for him.)
These rules are standard operating procedure for politicians and so cut and paste neatly into your debate prep.
2) If asked about terrorists, be sure you talk about killing the bastards. Democrats don’t want to appear to be soft on terrorism. If they are to be considered more credible than Republicans on national security issues, Democrats can’t appear to be soft on terrorism.
3) Do not say anything stupid. (You don’t want to pull a Gerald Ford and while the Cold War is raging say something like, "There is no Soviet domination of Eastern Europe, and there never will be under a Ford administration.")
4) Never answer the question you’re asked to answer. We know this has been part of your DNA for years, but it should be repeated. Never answer the question you are asked to answer. Never answer the question you are asked to answer. Are you getting it?
5) Instead, take something from the question you are asked and use that as a springboard for what you want to talk about. For example, Senator Blowdry, what is your position on apple imports? Talk about how you love apples, always have, how they are as American as Mom, apple pie , and the American Dream.
6) Never worry about a follow up. The American reporters rarely ask a follow up. (On the rare occasion that one does, follow the same advice as is noted above.)
7) Be civil. The first primary is months away. (Don’t go raising those negatives now.)
8) Every question will be loaded with bait. Bait is anything that causes you to do anything that violates any of the rules. Never take the bait. Never take the bait.
9) Never take the bait.
10) Don’t tell the truth about the consequences of any of your actions. The truth always involves some negatives. Always emphasize the positives.
11) And never tell the truth about taxes—unless they can be cut.
12) Use any means necessary to brag about yourself. No stretch is too far.
13) Use the phrase “I’m proud” as often as you can.
These rules apply not to everyday campaigning, but apply to the debate.
14) This is an extension of rule number seven: Be civil. Don’t attack your fellow Democrats. Do attack GW Bush. It’s easy, just pick one of the items that follows that is the most relevant to the question you’re not answering: the war in Iraq, the war in Iraq, the war in Iraq, the war in Iraq. If things are going well, you may toss in Bush’s awful response to Katrina every now and then.
15) Be sober. We’re betting that not even John Edwards—who will smile at the sight of a pieces of litter on the side of the road—will not smile during the debate. That litter is part of one of two Americas and whichever one it is a part of, he wants the votes that may be garnered from it.
16) Regarding Kucinich and Gravel: Kucinich is the really little guy; Gravel is the one even you won’t know. He has white hair and white eyebrows. Kucinich and Gravel will grandstand. They will try to be outrageous. This will show how different they are from the rest of the pack. Don’t think of Kucinich as a short politician. Think of him as five feet six inches of bait. Never take the bait he offers.
Kucinich and Gravel will, over time, make themselves irrelevant. Kucinich is against war—he’ll never make it on the national stage. Gravel can’t walk across a room without saying something in a stupid way. Don’t attack them. Attack GW Bush. See rule number fifteen.
17) After the debate, look as if you won. Hold, kiss, but do not steal any babies. Mingle.
18) After the debate, avoid commenting on who won the debate. Say something like, “I think the Democratic party won the debate. “
On Message?
Clearly most of the Democrats got and more importantly followed most of the memo.
Obama was tossed a softball question that allowed him to pounce on the idea of killing terrorists (rule two). He failed to pounce. Instead he listed rational and sober responses to a terrorist attack. When you are talking about national security, it is not a time to be sober and rational. If we had done this we never would have had McCarthyism. We would have had a very cool cold war. When it comes to foreign policy, Americans don’t understand sober and rational. Obama didn’t talk about hunting down and killing the terrorists.
For years Clinton has been encumbered with the challenges presenting herself as a candidate who is not a wimp. She pounced on the idea of attacking terrorists.
The one area where the Democrats are vulnerable is on national security. For decades Republican have owned the fear card. They can scare people better than bushel basket of Hollywood thrillers. Because of this, they can scare people into voting for them. If the Democrats are going to win in 2008. they will have to own the issue of national security. They have to take the fear card from the Republicans.
Here, Obama was offered an early and probably a relatively painless lesson.
Who Says Politics is not Absurd?
Brian Williams, anchor of the NBC Nightly News hosted the debate. He asked, “Senator Biden, words have, in the past, gotten you in trouble, words that were borrowed and words that some found hateful. An editorial in the Los Angeles Times said, ‘In addition to his uncontrolled verbosity, Biden is a gaff machine.’
“Can you reassure voters in this country that you would have the discipline you would need on the world stage, Senator?”
Biden paused, responded, “Yes.” Smiled—just a little, and wisely did not say anything else.
The audience laughed.
Williams said, “Thank you, Senator Biden.”
And the audience laughed even louder.
Biden who was not elected to the Senate when he was 29 because he is a warm and funny guy, got the only big laugh of the evening? Biden, who has earned a reputation of “uncontrolled verbosity” is pithy?
Who says we don’t live in strange times?
This Week
should be a good one for Democrats. Former Bush aide, Paul Wolfowitz, is in so much hot water at the World Bank that he may have to resign. The former head of the CIA, George Tenet will be making the rounds publicizing his new book, At the Center of the Storm: My Years at the CIA. All the attention his book tour will bring to the intelligence gaffes leading up to the Iraq war will not be welcome at the White House. And on Tuesday, the new appropriations bill will be delivered to the President—on the fifth year anniversary of his victory celebration on the deck of the carrier, USS Abraham Lincoln. It was on this day that Bush declared, “Major combat operation in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed.”
Kudos
To NBC, the format for the debate was refreshing: short responses, questions centered around a theme, avoiding the windbag thank yous at the beginning, a few questions that demanded very short answers. This format enlivened a prescription that can be deadly.
To Bill Moyers and the opening segment in the newest edition of his PBS series Bill Moyers Journal. For the first time, Moyers showed a television audience how the American media responded to the distortions the Bush Administration presented during the run-up to the war in Iraq. Even when a few reporters exposed the cracks in the Bush Administration’s façade, most of the media folded up like a cheap lawn chair.
Idiot of the Week/Line of the Week
Who would have thought that with all those Democrats talking for so long before, during, and after the debate that one of them would not garner the award this week? Instead it goes to Laura Bush. It is difficult even in a world riddled with absurdity as ours is to get more absurd than this. While on the Today show Laura Bush commented on the suffering going on in Iraq, “Believe me, no one suffers more than their president and I do."
Instead of yielding to absurdity, the line of the week honor go to Tim Rutten who wrote an appreciation of reporter and author David Halberstam who died last week in a car accident. Halberstam did some of the best early reporting on the civil rights movement in Nashville. He was one of the first reporters to tell the truth about the bad news emerging from the war in Vietnam. When Halberstam was 30, he won the Pulitzer Prize for his reporting on the war in Vietnam. He was the author of twenty books. One of his early efforts remains a classic. The Best and The Brightest chronicles the hubris, ignorance, and narrow-mindedness that characterized the Kennedy and Johnson administrations’ management of the war in Vietnam. Of Halberstam, Rutten wrote, “We have an expression in journalism to describe the sort of lethargy that comes on reporters of a certain age: ‘losing your legs.’ David Halberstam never lost his legs.”
The debate sequence in the movie creates a series of wonderful moments. It’s zany. It’s engaging. And it’s very funny.
Few watching the Democratic Presidential Debate on Thursday were hoping to stumble onto moments that were that captivating and rich.
They were not surprised.
The debate did not include anyone who was wild or crazy, anyone who had a world-class wit or who was particularly provocative.
As the debate rambled on, it occurred to me that independently or as a group, all but two of candidates had agreed to follow most of the rules that would be in the notebook of any seasoned handler.
Instructions
1) Before the debate, lower expectations for yourself. Try to raise them for the other candidates. (This was one reason an e-mail about Edwards’ abilities as a lawyer was circulated before the debate. It was an attempt to raise expectations for him.)
These rules are standard operating procedure for politicians and so cut and paste neatly into your debate prep.
2) If asked about terrorists, be sure you talk about killing the bastards. Democrats don’t want to appear to be soft on terrorism. If they are to be considered more credible than Republicans on national security issues, Democrats can’t appear to be soft on terrorism.
3) Do not say anything stupid. (You don’t want to pull a Gerald Ford and while the Cold War is raging say something like, "There is no Soviet domination of Eastern Europe, and there never will be under a Ford administration.")
4) Never answer the question you’re asked to answer. We know this has been part of your DNA for years, but it should be repeated. Never answer the question you are asked to answer. Never answer the question you are asked to answer. Are you getting it?
5) Instead, take something from the question you are asked and use that as a springboard for what you want to talk about. For example, Senator Blowdry, what is your position on apple imports? Talk about how you love apples, always have, how they are as American as Mom, apple pie , and the American Dream.
6) Never worry about a follow up. The American reporters rarely ask a follow up. (On the rare occasion that one does, follow the same advice as is noted above.)
7) Be civil. The first primary is months away. (Don’t go raising those negatives now.)
8) Every question will be loaded with bait. Bait is anything that causes you to do anything that violates any of the rules. Never take the bait. Never take the bait.
9) Never take the bait.
10) Don’t tell the truth about the consequences of any of your actions. The truth always involves some negatives. Always emphasize the positives.
11) And never tell the truth about taxes—unless they can be cut.
12) Use any means necessary to brag about yourself. No stretch is too far.
13) Use the phrase “I’m proud” as often as you can.
These rules apply not to everyday campaigning, but apply to the debate.
14) This is an extension of rule number seven: Be civil. Don’t attack your fellow Democrats. Do attack GW Bush. It’s easy, just pick one of the items that follows that is the most relevant to the question you’re not answering: the war in Iraq, the war in Iraq, the war in Iraq, the war in Iraq. If things are going well, you may toss in Bush’s awful response to Katrina every now and then.
15) Be sober. We’re betting that not even John Edwards—who will smile at the sight of a pieces of litter on the side of the road—will not smile during the debate. That litter is part of one of two Americas and whichever one it is a part of, he wants the votes that may be garnered from it.
16) Regarding Kucinich and Gravel: Kucinich is the really little guy; Gravel is the one even you won’t know. He has white hair and white eyebrows. Kucinich and Gravel will grandstand. They will try to be outrageous. This will show how different they are from the rest of the pack. Don’t think of Kucinich as a short politician. Think of him as five feet six inches of bait. Never take the bait he offers.
Kucinich and Gravel will, over time, make themselves irrelevant. Kucinich is against war—he’ll never make it on the national stage. Gravel can’t walk across a room without saying something in a stupid way. Don’t attack them. Attack GW Bush. See rule number fifteen.
17) After the debate, look as if you won. Hold, kiss, but do not steal any babies. Mingle.
18) After the debate, avoid commenting on who won the debate. Say something like, “I think the Democratic party won the debate. “
On Message?
Clearly most of the Democrats got and more importantly followed most of the memo.
Obama was tossed a softball question that allowed him to pounce on the idea of killing terrorists (rule two). He failed to pounce. Instead he listed rational and sober responses to a terrorist attack. When you are talking about national security, it is not a time to be sober and rational. If we had done this we never would have had McCarthyism. We would have had a very cool cold war. When it comes to foreign policy, Americans don’t understand sober and rational. Obama didn’t talk about hunting down and killing the terrorists.
For years Clinton has been encumbered with the challenges presenting herself as a candidate who is not a wimp. She pounced on the idea of attacking terrorists.
The one area where the Democrats are vulnerable is on national security. For decades Republican have owned the fear card. They can scare people better than bushel basket of Hollywood thrillers. Because of this, they can scare people into voting for them. If the Democrats are going to win in 2008. they will have to own the issue of national security. They have to take the fear card from the Republicans.
Here, Obama was offered an early and probably a relatively painless lesson.
Who Says Politics is not Absurd?
Brian Williams, anchor of the NBC Nightly News hosted the debate. He asked, “Senator Biden, words have, in the past, gotten you in trouble, words that were borrowed and words that some found hateful. An editorial in the Los Angeles Times said, ‘In addition to his uncontrolled verbosity, Biden is a gaff machine.’
“Can you reassure voters in this country that you would have the discipline you would need on the world stage, Senator?”
Biden paused, responded, “Yes.” Smiled—just a little, and wisely did not say anything else.
The audience laughed.
Williams said, “Thank you, Senator Biden.”
And the audience laughed even louder.
Biden who was not elected to the Senate when he was 29 because he is a warm and funny guy, got the only big laugh of the evening? Biden, who has earned a reputation of “uncontrolled verbosity” is pithy?
Who says we don’t live in strange times?
This Week
should be a good one for Democrats. Former Bush aide, Paul Wolfowitz, is in so much hot water at the World Bank that he may have to resign. The former head of the CIA, George Tenet will be making the rounds publicizing his new book, At the Center of the Storm: My Years at the CIA. All the attention his book tour will bring to the intelligence gaffes leading up to the Iraq war will not be welcome at the White House. And on Tuesday, the new appropriations bill will be delivered to the President—on the fifth year anniversary of his victory celebration on the deck of the carrier, USS Abraham Lincoln. It was on this day that Bush declared, “Major combat operation in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed.”
Kudos
To NBC, the format for the debate was refreshing: short responses, questions centered around a theme, avoiding the windbag thank yous at the beginning, a few questions that demanded very short answers. This format enlivened a prescription that can be deadly.
To Bill Moyers and the opening segment in the newest edition of his PBS series Bill Moyers Journal. For the first time, Moyers showed a television audience how the American media responded to the distortions the Bush Administration presented during the run-up to the war in Iraq. Even when a few reporters exposed the cracks in the Bush Administration’s façade, most of the media folded up like a cheap lawn chair.
Idiot of the Week/Line of the Week
Who would have thought that with all those Democrats talking for so long before, during, and after the debate that one of them would not garner the award this week? Instead it goes to Laura Bush. It is difficult even in a world riddled with absurdity as ours is to get more absurd than this. While on the Today show Laura Bush commented on the suffering going on in Iraq, “Believe me, no one suffers more than their president and I do."
Instead of yielding to absurdity, the line of the week honor go to Tim Rutten who wrote an appreciation of reporter and author David Halberstam who died last week in a car accident. Halberstam did some of the best early reporting on the civil rights movement in Nashville. He was one of the first reporters to tell the truth about the bad news emerging from the war in Vietnam. When Halberstam was 30, he won the Pulitzer Prize for his reporting on the war in Vietnam. He was the author of twenty books. One of his early efforts remains a classic. The Best and The Brightest chronicles the hubris, ignorance, and narrow-mindedness that characterized the Kennedy and Johnson administrations’ management of the war in Vietnam. Of Halberstam, Rutten wrote, “We have an expression in journalism to describe the sort of lethargy that comes on reporters of a certain age: ‘losing your legs.’ David Halberstam never lost his legs.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)