Month: July 2004

Spin Bitches

In yet another fine report from Eric Boehlert in Salon he notes, as I did last night, that Wolf Blitzer immediately cut to GOP spin after Edwards’ speech.

One other note about CNN’s at-times head-scratching coverage last night. Following Edwards’ acceptance speech, Blitzer, in what may have been a convention first, immediately turned to partisan representatives from the opposing party for a reaction; Bush campaign advisor Ralph Reed and former Bush Pentagon spokeswoman Victoria Clarke.

We’ll be watching closely during the Republican gathering in New York City to see if following Vice President Dick Cheney’s speech, CNN immediately seeks out Kerry advisor Mark Mellman and former Clinton spokesman Joe Lockhart for their analysis.

Atrios mentioned tracking disparities in spin opportunities earlier in the week. Maybe before the GOP convention we could prevail upon Uggabugga to do one of his great charts so we can keep track of this stuff.

This is becoming a favorite new trick. Fox did it during the Democratic primary debates they hosted (and even cut off the last of the debate itself to fit in Bill Bennett’s trashing before the end of the hour.) I have no idea if Reed and Clarke were previously booked for the slot or if they themselves arranged to be there at the appropriate moment. But, the fact remains that the first interview and reaction (and it went on for some time) that was shown on CNN after Edwards’ speech last night was from a highly critical Republican operative. If they do this again tonight I think we should make it our cause to demand that Democrats be given the same opportunity to immediately trash Cheney and Bush’s speeches in NYC before anybody has had a chance to even catch their breath. Very often, people stay tuned in for just a few moments after an event like that. Those moments can be critical.

Compassionate Conservatism

If anyone wonders if the “Republicans don’t give a shit about Homeland Security” line is political cant, Kevin at Catch notices that the right is now openly trashing firefighters and police now. Interesting tactic. He quotes the ever irrelevant Michelle Malkin:

First Responder Fetishists. In her convention remarks on Monday night, New York Sen. Hillary Clinton said the first homeland security priority in response to the 9/11 report was the “need to fully equip and train . . . our first responders in the event of a terrorist attack.” Eager to suck up to men and women in uniform, John Kerry has proposed adding 100,000 first responders to the ranks of firefighters and emergency medical personnel nationwide. As I have said before, there is no question that our brave firefighters, cops and emergency personnel need increased training and support — but dialing 911 is not the solution to stopping another 9/11.

Lucianne’s drunken mistake says:

And while I’m at it, I cannot stand this talk about funding “first-responders” as a defense against terrorism. Obviously, there’s good reason to have an adequate infrastructure and all that. But it’s not a defense in the war on terrorism. To me it’s like telling your kid to defend himself from bullies on the way to school by giving him extra bandaids to carry with him.

They’re right, of course. Funding first responders is not a defense against terrorism. It’s a defense against thousands of people dying unnecessarily in a terrorist attack.

To hell with that pussified nonsense. The more people who die in a big blue city terrorist attack the better. Dead bodies make good GOP politics. I think they’ve proven that.

If The Shoe Fits

According to Tom Shales, “the networks have got to look for a better convention story than the hoary old bore about how conventions don’t matter any more. It makes them sound like shills for the corporate front offices, who hate to lose an hour of profit-making pap even in the middle of summer.”

Well…yes.

Empowering Muslim Grrrls

I take it that Barbara Ehrenreich is using a rhetorical device when she suggests that Kerry and Edwards adopt this line rather than the “manly” veteran image they’re conveying, but some of the ideas within her piece are correct on the merits and contain some smart politics.

I think adding “human rights for women” into the foreign policy and terrorism debate is smart. Bush and his merry band certainly thought it was a good idea in selling Afghanistan. Unfortunately, they have made things worse for the women in Iraq in many ways, while only marginally improving things in Afghanistan (in the areas in which the religious zealotry of the Taliban has really been routed.)

This is an issue that most people can agree that we could possibly affect positively if done respectfully and it is also one which all but the most zealous fundamentalists in the US can agree upon regardless of political ideology. It has the added virtue of being one real, although complicated, approach to dealing with Islamic terrorism.

Nice Work If You Can Get It

According to Jonathan Chait there is actually a type of journalism in which you don’t have to leave your desk and go out amongst the human race — my least favorite thing to do. He and Franklin Foer call it “ass-welt reporting.” It consists of “sitting behind a desk, mining the papers for interesting factual nuggets, reading political commentary from every perspective, poring through books and reports, and using the Nexis database to compile enormous stacks of newspaper stories.” He says, “It means you’ve sat in your chair for so long reading books and documents that you’ve worn a welt the shape of your backside into your chair.”

And you get paid, too. Sweet.

Actually, his article is a very interesting take on what I would say is true of all conventions and trade shows. If you aren’t a good networker or a star they are exhausting and dead boring. I’ve been to my share and I can tell you they’re not for the shy and retiring.

Of course, you can always just get shitfaced.

Via the Political Animal

Message Machinery

Matt Stoller has an excellent post up on The Blogging of the President about the media role at the convention. This is the kind of inside look at “how thing work” that I’ve been waiting to read. He talks to Sean Hannity:

“Why are you here, Sean Hannity?”

“To annoy you.”

“Seriously, why are you here?”

“Because this is newsworthy…. It’s what we do, cover stuff like this.”

Later in the conversation, I asked him if any news will be made at the Convention. He gestured to himself and said, “The best part of the Convention is right here. This is uncontrolled and spontaneous.” And that’s the thing. These guys see themselves as newsmakers.

Well, they are bigger celebrities than pretty much anybody there, aren’t they? (And, please nobody tell me that is meaningless because it just isn’t.)

Matt goes on to describe how Ed Gillespie managed to use the Democratic media infrastructure today to efficiently get their message out. It’s almost funny. But, in the end, he has an insight that I think is very, very astute:

…these guys know why they are here, and no one else except the Kerry campaign does. This is about message for them. They aren’t part of the media, they are part of the Bush reelection campaign. And as a result, they are looking at this Convention just like the Kerry campaign is – as an opportunity to generate and propagate prepackaged message.

I’m becoming much less interested in the question about journalists versus bloggers for precisely this reason. I’m not convinced there’s any journalism going on here. This is about fighting over message – meanwhile there’s a conversation out there, somewhere.

There is absolutely no journalism going on there. (And, frankly, there’s not much blogging going on either. Wherever the conversation is it isn’t taking place in the blogosphere.) What we are watching from out here is a fight to get competing messages out to the American people by hook or by crook.

It’s about media manipulation and marketing and the Republicans are very, very good at it. Their biggest problem is that they are selling an extremely defective product. If they win it will be a true testament to their message machine.

Traitors and Spinners

Please shoot me if I ever, ever forget how loathesome Joe Lieberman really is. The TAPPED convention blog fills us in on his latest reprehensible, deplorable GOP ass-kissing:

FOX NEWS, 9:27 P.M.: Which is the bigger disgrace: Joe Lieberman’s recent decision to join the reconstituted Committee on the Present Danger, or Joe Lieberman’s just-finished performance on Hannity and Colmes? Bad-mouthing the convention delegates, brushing off Florida 2000 as water under the bridge, criticizing Al Gore specifically for his post 9-11 speeches and Democrats in general for their criticisms of Bush (‘I’ve felt more comfortable here, where it’s all scripted, then I have been with what’s been said leading up to the convention’) — he was a gift that kept on giving, for segment after segment. Hannity loved him.

It could actually be worse, though. On CNN they have Ralph Reed on immediately spinning the speech before the Democrats have a chance to do it from their perspective … and, of course, it’s now 11pm in the east and people are tuning out. I just hate this he said/she said format. Although I don’t know that it’s any improvement having Chris Matthews and Howard Fineman spewing pre-fab conventional wisdom.

Once again, it’s time to turn the television off.

Copy Cats

Does anyone think it was weird for Edwards to use the call and response “Hope Is On The Way” when four years ago the Cheney’s signature chant was “Help Is On The Way?”

Maybe they did it just to bug him.

Sharpie’s Speech

Can someone explain to me why it is so hard for the major anchors to get basic facts right? Tom Brokaw just gave a big dissertation about how the campaign has to be careful that Sharpton not be perceived the way Buchanan was for his aggressive speech in San Diego when he ran against Bob Dole in 1996.

Gosh, if he does it really shouldn’t be a problem because Buchanan’s speech was actually in Houston in 1992 when he ran against Bush Sr.

The fact is that Buchanan’s speech was just one of many red meat speeches in prime time in 1992. And, one of the reasons why Buchanan’s speech was taken so seriously is because he had almost WON the New Hampshire primary that year and represented an ascendant movement within the GOP at the time. I don’t know if Sharpton even won five percent of the vote anywhere he ran.

People understand who Sharpton is. He’s a red meat speaker but he represents nothing more than entertainment. He has no influence in the party.

Update: Embarrassing mistakes which I shall not reveal corrected in the above.

Convention Stringer Report

Who needs to go to the convention when you have actual local Democratic activists who are willing to go for you and write it up from the comfort of their own home, (thus avoiding all that scrambling for diet coke and wireless access?)

I am very pleased that Samela, prolific blog and forum commenter and extremely smart person, agreed to write up her impressions for me today of an invitation-only meeting on terrorism. I remain comvinced that this issue is really the only issue on which this election will be won or lost and I have been very curious as to how the Kerry campaign can hone their message going into the stretch as well as how they will aproach this difficult problem once in office. Bush will have left us with a terrible, intractable problem that goes far beyond holding hearings about how screwed up the CIA is.

Here is Samela’s report. It’s quite interesting. (And she got a real, live scoop too.)

As promised, a recap of the panel “On the Status of National Security and the War on Terror” we were able to attend this morning at Suffolk University Law School.This was the kind of deeply substantive discussion that doesn’t hit the convention floor, nor alas even the general media … though it definitely should. It was at once sobering and hopeful–hopeful that is, in the reassurance that Kerry’s advisors and (perhaps to a lesser extent)Democratic members of the Armed Services committees really “get it.” Despite the enormous problems a Kerry administration will face in these areas, the starkly different approach they will  take can only ameliorate the situation.

The panel was moderated by Massachusetts Rep. Marty Meehan who is the ranking Democrat on the House subcomittee on Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and Capabilities. Also from the House were old-timers John Murtha, Rep. of Pennsylvania, who is ranking Democrat on the Defense Appropriations Subcomittee (and by way of interest, the first Vietnam Vet to have been elected to congress); and Ike Skelton, Rep. from Missouri, who is ranking Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee. From the military side were Wesley Clark and 3-star Lt. Gen. Claudia Kennedy.

Each panelist gave a brief opening statement. Murtha stressed two things: how the Bush administration had submitted a budget that (for political reasons) contained absolutely no money for personnel and equipment needs. They’d been borrowing from various agencies because they didn’t want to ask, and the House had to pass $25 billion in appropriations for the most basic needs. His other point, a la Michael Moore, was that working-class people are fighting this war, and that it is a REAL war.

Clark hit on three points that I suspect will crop up in his Thursday speech to the convention. First was the “totally misguided” strategy the Bush admin. has been using for the “war” on terror–namely, the use of the military as a primary tool in this effort and the conviction that you have to go after states. The “right” strategy would be to focus on protection at home first and on working with other nations to get a legal definition of terrorism and a legal international framework in which to pursue it. Second, he blasted Rumsfeld’s idea in 2001 of a military transformation. All the things had already been done by the Clinton administration, according to Clark; the “real” issue for military transformation, he claimed, was (and is) to create both the organizational structure and doctrine for peace building (both preventatively and after military actions). Finally, he spoke about how the administration has overstreched the volunteer force concept, which is at huge risk.

Ike Skelton stressed that there are two wars, and we damned well shouldn’t confuse them: the terrorist threat and unconventional warfare, which has now spread throughout the world after failed Bush strategy; and the war in Iraq, which he thankfully called “a war of choice.” He explained how he’d sent Bush two letters in March 2003 warning of the aftermath, but was assured by the Pentagon not to worry. He gave some historical perspective on how the British handled guerilla warfare in Malaysia and how we tried to do it in Vietnam, but I kind of lost him at this point.

Kennedy was a real breath of fresh air, and clearly a truly progressive thinker. She first spoke about how one flaw in government we can fix with Kerry is how we come to decisions. Usually this process is crisis-driven.We need a much more sophisticated process that is more “granular” and shaded. Echoing Clark a bit, she spoke of the RAMP (Relevance of American Military Report), which clearly suggested we need some kind of “hand off” after military action, whether to the State Department or other agencies. The military is neither resourced nor trained to do these things, and often the military solution is not the appropriate first step. Finally, she explained how we understand hardware very well but not what Joseph Nye called the “soft elements of power”–abstract ways of mapping out the world (like, say, how receptive other countries are to our ideas) instead of counting weapons systems. She also, thankfully, said she felt it was unhelpful to use the “war on X” language,and that we needed to develop new vocabulary. She also stressed that we need to expand the notion of national security to include education, health care, the economy (both ours and the “bad guys'”), etc. Oh … and she said we should invite a greater range of voices, not just the boardrooms of the defense contractors. This is a beautiful woman (both intellectually and physically), and I am so glad she is one of Kerry’s military advisors.

A reporter from the Boston Globe asked an infuriating question about how the Democrats could counter this perception that the Bush administration was stronger on NS. Even more distressing was the response from the Congressmen on the panel. Murtha suggested the American public understands this president has lost trust, while Skelton, focusing again on how the preponderance of deaths are coming from towns under 20,000, said the American people know who is paying the price. Clark seemed to suggest we need to be a bit more overt in pointing out the incompetence of the Bush administration in matters of NS, as opposed to the competence a Kerry administration would bring. The generals were both more political, it would seem, than the Congressmen.

Next question was about a plan for Iraq on November 3, when Kerry was elected. Murtha said Egyptian generals told him we need to pull more troops out of cities, one by one, and let the Iraqis take over completely while we protect perimeter lines, logistics, etc. Clark said we have to go beyond this, because the problem is not just Iraq. He explained how Bush created a dynamic of conflict in the whole region, not just Iraq. The Syrians and Iranians, having been threatened by us, now have a vested interest in our NOT succeeding, because they know if we do they’re

next (with Bush). He said we must talk to governments in the whole region, and that it was imperative to return to solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Meehan said Kerry was going to immediately convene a world summit with international leaders. Kennedy talked about “microcredit,” a concept I don’t fully understand, but I think involves economic development funding to an entrepreneurial class in Iraq for developing community-based projects.

Clark returned to the notion of needing a full-fledged agency for preventing conflicts, a subject he discussed at some length, and which apparently has been the upshot of our initial experience in Haiti.

The last question was from a physician who had been redeployed to Kuwait, at age 58! It was about the Reserves and the strain on this system. This opened a pretty hot and heavy discussion of the draft, which Murtha thought was coming come hell or high water. Which Clark said, more cautiously, we had to have plans for, but “Plan A” should be increasing active duty size by 40,000 and putting more money into recruitment, which is apparently an exact science.

Kennedy was most intriguing. She suggested two things we should think about. First, women apparently are treated differently than men when requesting training assignments. A male wishing to be a military police is assigned for school immediately. Women are delayed for six months, which usually means we lose them. If we really seriously want to include women, we need to consider current practices and attitudes. Second, the needs we currently have in personnel are identical to the number of gay and lesbian personnel who have been discharged recently. Do the math. And these people were often highly trained, some speaking Arabic or

having intelligence skills.

That’s all! Summary: the Generals seemed to be more out-of-the-box thinkers and more politically inclined than the Congressmen, who were fairly territorial about their little corners of committees. That said, Murtha and Skelton, who are pretty conservative guys I think, have clearly been converted, and truly see the dangers and mistakes the Bush administration has wreaked. Oh, and Murtha said passing the Patriot Act was the worst thing he’d done in his life, tho I think

it was an excuse for wanting to “go slow” on implementing the 9/11 Commission’s recommendations.

There were about 200 people at this event, all pretty much the dark suit and tie crowd. I believe this was invitation only, and some seemed to be delegates, some

may have been local hi-tech security company executives–a subject, thankfully, little broached (necessary as these firms are).

Very interesting, I think. A few points stand out to me.

Everybody acknowledges that a draft is on the table although Clark thinks troop levels can be raised with a more sophisticated type of recruitment. I really thought this was a political argument not a real position. It’s big deal if it’s being seriously considered.

The shortage of troops exactly correlate to the numbers of gays and lesbians drummed out of the military. Very intriguing talking point.

General Claudia Kennedy sounds like an excellent prospect to run for office.

But the big news is that Marty Meehan says that Kerry will immediately call for a world summit if he’s elected.

Remember folks, you heard it here first.