Skip to content

Month: August 2008

News Analysis

by digby

I happened to tune in to CNN for a couple of minutes and this is what I learned:

Republican character assassin Alex Castellanos: “This convention is much too liberal for the country. Plus it’s boring.”

Republican David Gergen: “This has been entirely without substance, two hours just frittered away with a lot of hoopla”

Christian Broadcasting network’s David Brody: “Leah Daughtry came before the convention to talk openly about faith and prayer, so the Democrats have a whole different tone than they’ve ever had before.”

There you have it.

.

Thomas Frank (and Those Pesky Footnotes)

By Batocchio

Via Rick Perlstein, here’s Thomas Frank illustrating points from his new book The Wrecking Crew with a brief video tour around the D.C. area:

(I grew up in the D.C. area, so I wish Frank had mentioned the neighborhood names, but he’s sure right about the number of palatial estates that have cropped up in the past decade or two. The lawyers in the crowd should know, but unless the road itself is private, shouldn’t Frank have every right to film whatever he wants, as long as he doesn’t step on their actual property?)

Earlier this month, Frank was interviewed on Fresh Air and Democracy Now!

Shifting gears somewhat, in her New York Times review of The Wrecking Crew, Michiko Kakutani took Frank to task for omitting what she deemed crucial information. It turns out that, as Jonathan Schwarz demonstrates, Frank was using “a literary convention known as a “footnote.””

It brings to mind Andrew Ferguson of the Weekly Standard, reviewing Al Gore’s The Assault on Reason for The Washington Post and claiming in his opening sentence that Gore didn’t use footnotes. Those 20 pages of endnotes apparently eluded Ferguson. The Post issued a correction and Ferguson admitted his error, but he got the smear “out there” first.

It’s funny how reviewers not checking citation tends to hurt liberals but help conservatives. (Perhaps it’s because reality has a well-known liberal bias.) Recently, Jerome Corsi has been trumpeting the “nearly 700 footnotes” in his latest hit job, The Obama Nation, a mighty tome whose “scholarship” has been attested to by none other than Mary Matalin. It’s been refreshing to see Corsi receiving some frank and deservingly harsh critiques, but Matalin has to be happy Corsi’s still won prominent coverage. As Digby noted:

But the job of a book like this isn’t necessarily to get people to buy the book, but rather to legitimize some of these existent themes by having it be publicly discussed. It’s another way of getting out the word, that’s all. They don’t care if the media is refuting it or not — after all it’s the “liberal media.” Why would anyone think they would tell the truth? In that respect, regardless of the factual pushback, they have already succeeded.

Indeed, they’re “debating it” right now on Lou Dobbs. Dobbs just made the point that none of the “attack” books about John McCain are on the NY Times best seller list like Corsi’s book and that must tell you something. Mission Accomplished.

If it’s on TV, if it’s on the NY Times bestseller list, if it’s footnoted, it must be true – at least, if it’s from a conservative. (It’s surprisingly common for a conservative author to disown his or her own thesis later, but that’s another post.)

Bob Somerby’s pointed out we’ve seen this footnote attitude before – with Ann Coulter’s 2002 Slander. As he documented back then, New York Times reviewer Janet Maslin was very impressed by Coulter’s “780 footnotes,” even though many of Coulter’s claims were (shockingly!) false. Dr. Limerick reviewed all of Coulter’s claims in Chapter 2 of Slander, and then blacked out the unsupported claims, resulting in images like this. In its own way, it may be as illuminating a picture as that drawn by Thomas Frank, but both the conservative “scholarship” racket and Thomas Frank’s critique of movement conservatism would be useful to remember this week and in the campaign forward.
 

Transcendental photo op of our time, my friends
by Dover Bitch

How hard is John McCain trying to keep Georgia in the news? He’s sending his wife, Cindy, there for a photo op with president Mikheil Saakashvili.

SACRAMENTO — Cindy McCain, wife of Sen. John McCain, is headed to the Republic of Georgia, where tensions between the government and Russia have sparked international concern and have become an issue on the presidential campaign trail.

McCain announced to a group of fundraisers in Sacramento that his wife was headed to the country, but the campaign did not provide any details about the trip.

McCain has been very aggressive in his condemnation of Russia’s invasion of Georgia, and his campaign has been critical of Obama’s more measured response when Russian tanks first pushed into the country.

You’ve got to hand it to him. Four years ago, George Bush tried to change the subject by sending his wife and kids to New York. At least McCain’s wife is heading to an actual war zone. Even scarier, there are rumors that Dick Cheney may be hunting in Tbilisi.

Where there’s smoke, there’s Segretti
by Dover Bitch

Digby and dday are in the Mile High City, but here’s a view of the convention coverage from closer to sea level. When the news broke last week that the Clinton’s formed a “whip team” to handle troublemakers, I immediately realized that any disturbance, no matter how insignificant, would be elevated to a top story. It’s kind of like when there’s an earthquake and all the helicopters swarm over a burning shack somewhere and people across America get the impression that all of California is engulfed in flames.

The McCain campaign is smart to put out these otherwise ridiculous Hillary Clinton ads this week. The ads may be easy to mock if you are an Obama supporter (they are easy to mock), but McCain’s real target audience is his base, which means the tire-swinging press corps.

Naturally, FOX News is already leading the way by not just reporting that it’s 1968 all over again, but trying to actually stir up trouble for their broadcasts. But the rest of the media appears to be receiving the message perfectly. CNN is spending most of their time this morning talking about the attempts to “paper over” the big divisions in the party. MSNBC just ran a clip of Teddy Kennedy standing with Jimmy Carter in 1980 as NBC’s David Brinkley cooed, “This is awkward.”

It’s a well-rehearsed GOP strategy and it’s going to be monumentally difficult to keep this convention from being turned into a Clinton-Obama civil war — at least as far as it appears to everybody outside Denver this week.

UPDATE: As soon as I hit ‘publish’ for this post, Chuck Todd said the Clinton-Obama story “is like catnip for us.” He then explained that the media will get over it soon. Yeah, right.

LATE UPDATE: In fairness to Todd, as the convention opened, he dumped cold water all over the topic by telling Chris Matthews that it’s not a real story and reporters will likely look back and wonder why they wasted time on it. But wasting time, they are.

Denver Impressions

by dday

Well, yesterday was uneventful for me. Just getting in and getting my bearings around the city. The first thing I saw was a parade of four pickup trucks full of cops riding toward downtown.

Later, a friend of ours took us down by the Platte River to a spot near the enormous REI store, where fire spinners congregate every Sunday night. Afterwards, we stopped in on some vegetarian restaurant holding a poetry slam, and Dennis and Elizabeth Kucinich were in there having dinner. While most people in from out of town were eating their corporate-funded cocktail weenies, I stumbled upon some actual leftists for a change.

While George Bush won Colorado by 4 points in 2004, John Kerry took Denver by 40. This city grows more and more Democratic with each passing year, and raising turnout here – and keeping them in the Democratic fold – would be a key to victory in the state, I gather.

This morning there’s a breakfast for the California delegation, and as a member of the press, I’m going but certainly not getting any breakfast. I believe Hillary Clinton will be there, and I’ve seen over the last couple days the McCain campaign try to drive a wedge between her supporters and Sen. Obama, with multiple ads trying to stir up some resentment. It doesn’t have to make sense in the politics of spite. They even found a PUMA for today’s offering:

Clinton released a statement after the first ad, and it’s not entirely fair that she’ll have to do such heavy lifting in her speech tomorrow night, but it will certainly be closely watched.

That’s all I’ve got. Digby’s panel is at 11 AM MT, I’m goign to try and make it so maybe I’ll do a wee bit of liveblogging.

…Oh yeah, the big rumor is that Ted Kennedy will be making a surprise appearance. The crowd should go crazy.

.

Everything Helps McCain

By Batocchio

McCain likes to mention himself as part of the “Reagan Revolution,” but his greatest legacy from Saint Ronnie may be his Teflon coating. On ABC’s This Week, Mark Halperin explained how McCain not knowing how many houses he owned helped… McCain. TPM has the video:

A few key lines:

HALPERIN: My hunch is this is going to end up being one of the worst moments in the entire campaign for one of the candidates, but it’s Barack Obama… I believe that this has opened the door to not just Tony Rezko in that ad, but to bringing up Reverend Wright, to bringing up his relationship with Bill Ayers… I think it would have been hard for John McCain, given the way he says he’s going to run this campaign, to do all this stuff without the door being opened… It started with the Obama campaign, filled with machismo and aggressiveness…

Halperin gets extra points for bringing up Rezko, Wright and Ayers all in one sentence. Mighty efficient. Never mind if there’s little to nothing to these “scandals” — in Halperin’s world, it’s all about what will play and what will stick.

It’s interesting how Halperin speaks about McCain and “the way he says he’s going to run this campaign.” It’s as if Halperin hasn’t bothered to watch what the man of honor and his campaign actually have been doing, and remains blissfully unaware of the numerous negative ads they’ve run. Stephanopoulos even brings up McCain’s smear against Obama, that he’d rather lose a war than an election, but Halperin brushes it off. In his world, the macho, aggressive Obama campaign started all this, and it will be their fault when the McCain campaign continues decides to go negative – with great reluctance, I’m sure. Halperin’s always been about the perception game versus the merits of a claim (or heaven forbid, a policy), but it’s a pretty bizarre stance nonetheless. Even Cokie Roberts isn’t buying it.

Think Progress points out that Halperin claimed the Russia-Georgia conflict helped McCain, too. Crooks and Liars has a slightly longer clip of the same segment (about 5 minutes), and ABC has the entire segment (about 20 minutes).

To their credit, Stephanopoulos and Brazile challenge Halperin somewhat, and Cokie Roberts actually makes some sensible points about the real economic issues at work. Unsurprisingly though, none of that lasts long. It’s especially rich to hear Halperin say, “But Donna, would you rather this election be about Ayers versus Keating, or about the economy and George Bush?” as if Halperin’s being talking about the economy in a substantive way rather than bringing up gossipy GOP smears.

The C&L clip also shows some choice comments of George Will’s before Halperin starts in. Few pundits can bring the pompous like George Will, and he’s in fine form here. Will tries to dismiss the charges against McCain by pointing out that FDR was wealthy but did a great deal for those who weren’t, according to what he calls “the mythology” of the Democratic Party. FDR did do a great deal for the non-wealthy, of course, and Will is correct that both McCain and Obama are rich, but he conveniently avoids any discussion of their economic policies and their consequences. McCain is certainly no FDR on taxes. Digby recently revisited the campaigns’ competing tax policies and how the rich get even richer under McCain while the middle class fares better under Obama, yet the Democrats still get tagged as “elitists.” This is not a dynamic Will wishes to change. In his most recent column, he plays a similar game, assailing Obama on his energy policy and also on his plan to raise taxes on the rich. Will closes by asking, “In this year’s campaign, soggy with environmental messianism, deranged self-importance and delusional economics, the question is: Where is the derisive laughter?” Will smacks Obama around for his “nonsensical political rhetoric,” but on taxes Will never does mention who benefits under Obama’s plan versus McCain’s, and never discusses their comparative soundness. He won’t mention that Obama will pay more in taxes under his own policy, while Cindy McCain will receive about $370,000 under the McCain plan. Nor does Will offer any derisive laughter for McCain’s plan to balance the budget and reduce the deficit through “victory” in Iraq and Afghanistan.

It’s not surprising that conservative pundits such as Will would take this approach, but it would be nice if supposedly objective reporters like Halperin didn’t also push GOP talking points, and great if supposedly Democratic pundits pushed back much more forcefully. Despite Halperin’s high-minded protestations, it’s not so much that the Obama campaign hasn’t been about Bush, the economy and other issues, it’s more that our television talking heads prefer talking about the Keating Five, Ayers and attack ads. (And if they must talk about such things, it’d be nice if at least they weren’t nonsensical.)

It’s not just Halperin, of course. Tom Brokaw and Chuck Todd recently defended McCain on the houses front, with Brokaw citing an e-mail to invoke — you guessed it – the POW defense. I imagine they heard what Halperin heard — John McCain said he’d run a respectful campaign, and John McCain is an honorable man (so are they all, Rick Davis included, honorable men). It reminds me of this stirring defense for the Teflon saint:

I’m not sure why it’s a ringing endorsement that McCain doesn’t know what’s going on in his own campaign. But still, who’s Mark Halperin supposed to believe, the honorable John McCain, or his lying campaign?
 

Passed Over
by Dover Bitch

The Rat[Loving] Express is rolling ahead with an ad called “Passed Over,” lamenting the fact that Barack Obama didn’t select Hillary Clinton as his running mate, despite the fact that she received millions of votes. The McCain camp charges that Clinton spoke the truth and Obama couldn’t stand the pain.

I, for one, cannot wait to celebrate the exciting news that John McCain has selected Ron Paul as his vice president.

Old school
by Dover Bitch

Over at his new base of operations, the Washington Monthly’s Political Animal, the prolific Steve Benen (he has to be a robot) brings up the impolitic age issue:

Interestingly enough, 87% said they were comfortable with an African-American president, but 55% said the same about a 72-year-old president. Moreover, while 11% conceded they were uncomfortable with an African-American president, 45% said the same of a 72-year-old president. Only 6% said they were “entirely uncomfortable” with a black president, while more than triple, 20%, said the same of a septuagenarian.

Now, I don’t doubt that some respondents were being less than honest about their racial prejudices, but even putting that aside, that’s a lot of people who are obviously uneasy about McCain’s advanced age.

I continue to think this is something of a sleeper issue in this campaign. There’s been enormous interest in exploring the racial angles to this campaign, but there’s ample data — going back to early last year — that McCain’s age actually matters to voters, and it’s an issue that raises doubts.

Absolutely it’s a big issue. And there’s no way that the Obama campaign can come right out and say it. Fortunately, the McCain camp has already demonstrated how to get a message out there: By ostensibly putting out an entirely different message.

John McCain stands in front of signs that read “COUNTRY FIRST” and states flatly that Obama wants America to lose a war for his own personal interests. That’s clearly a question of judgment! How could anybody think he was questioning Obama’s patriotism?

JILL ZUCKMAN, “THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE”: I just want to be a little contrarian here. How do you talk about a war—how do you talk about your opponent’s position on the war without it being imbued with the patriotism issue? McCain didn’t say, I’m questioning his patriotism. He’s questioning his policy. Obama wanted to bring the troops home when things were very, very bad in Iraq. And he wants to bring them home now when things are good.

Well done, Jill!

Even though IOKIYAR is usually the order of the day, the subtext detectors of the chattering classes appear eager to scrutinize Obama’s ads for hidden meaning. Here’s Chris Matthews, reacting to the Obama ad that points out how out-of-touch John McCain is with his countless assets:

MATTHEWS: Let me ask you, Richard, tough call here, was that an implicit shot at what some people call a senior moment, when a person can’t remember what they should remember? Was that another way they thought they were hurting him by jumping on him?

WOLFFE: The framework they’re using—and you can decide for yourself whether this refers to age—is him being out of touch. Now, is he out of touch with his own life or out of touch with the American people and the economy as it is today? The campaign would argue strenuously this is about the economy. But, you know, what’s the explanation for someone not knowing how much property they own? It’s either his wife was really running things. Their marriage is such that they don’t really share these issues with each other. Or he’s got too much property. Or he’s somehow cut loose from his own life.

Every “Democratic Strategist” on his show has explained to Matthews that the ad is about the economy and that a guy who believes in “mental recessions” ought to at least understand what it is to have money on your mind. But if Hardball wants to talk about John McCain’s age all day, great. Let them think that Obama wants to make age an issue, too. We all know that “journalistic rules” prevent the media professionals from creating a debate unless the Democrats explicitly tell them to. If they don’t think that things like the age and Ambien consumption of the president are worthy of discussion without provocation from the Obama camp, then they’ll have to be led to believe that provocation is really happening. It would seem they’re willing to believe it already.

There will be no honeymoon
by Dover Bitch

On the eve of the Democratic Convention, I think it might be a good idea to remind ourselves what happened after the last one and prepare ourselves for how quickly the Republicans will try to change the subject.

On Thursday, July 29, 2004, John Kerry had a modest lead in the polls and Democrats were energized as the convention came to a close. Delegates, activists and party leaders returned home, ready to re-engage with their communities. But before Monday rolled around and anybody had a chance to gather at the water cooler, Secretary of Homeland Security Tom Ridge emerged with an important announcement:

Secretary Ridge: Good afternoon, ladies and gentleman. President Bush has told you, and I have reiterated the promise, that when we have specific credible information, that we will share it. Now this afternoon, we do have new and unusually specific information about where al-Qaeda would like to attack. And as a result, today, the United States Government is raising the threat level to Code Orange for the financial services sector in New York City, Northern New Jersey and Washington, DC.

Since September 11th, 2001, leaders of our commercial financial institutions have demonstrated exceptional leadership in improving its security. However, in light of new intelligence information, we have made the decision to raise the threat level for this sector, in these communities, to bring protective resources to an even higher level.

Code Orange!

It was still 2004, so millions of Americans who know now that the Bush Administration will tell them absolutely anything were still willing to accept that there was a legitimate threat and action needed to be taken immediately. It wasn’t just Republicans, after all. When crazy Howard Dean suggested there may be politics involved (YEARGHH!), George Bush’s favorite Democrat took to the airwaves with outrage:

SEN. JOE LIEBERMAN (D), CONNECTICUT: I don’t think anybody who has any fairness or is in their right mind would think that the president or the secretary of Homeland Security would raise an alert level and scare people for political reasons.

Perish the thought. This was “specific credible information” and Sec. Ridge had no choice but to come right out that particular Sunday and deliver the grim news. After all, the information they had was, uh, three years old.

Ridge hadn’t exactly divulged that the information was in their possession for a long time and was more along the lines of surveillance notes rather than attack plans. But any reporter — or citizen — with the ability to think rationally when the government screamed “TERROR!” might have noticed that this is a strange thing to see when you bring your camera to a building that’s about to be attacked by al-Qaeda:

Naturally, when there is “specific credible information” that a building is about to be attacked, the Presidential Playbook instructs him to send his wife and children to the target for a photo op with the mayor and governor. Bush’s decision was textbook.

It is as clear in retrospect as it should have been to any observer back then: The Bush/Cheney/Rove operation would play on America’s fears to win the election. Keith Olbermann has documented this strategy well with his Nexus Of Politics And Terror.

It’s also important to note that there is a steep cost to us all when this happens. Not just the psychological damage that comes with an electorate whose judgment is clouded by fear and not just the damage done to our nation when a population ceases to trust a government that cries wolf. According to the American Public Transportation Association, “[e]very day on Orange Alert costs transit systems at least $900,000 a day.”

In 2003, New York Governor George Pataki explained that Code Orange isn’t free:

GOV. GEORGE PATAKI (R), NEW YORK: Well, there’s no question that being at this heightened level of alert has cost New York State hundreds of millions of dollars.

MESERVE: Neighboring New Jersey says maintaining threat level orange costs $125,000 a day. And the city of Baltimore estimates its costs at $300,000 a week.

The U.S. Conference of Mayors in 2003 (PDF) wrote:

[W]we estimate that cities nationwide are spending nearly $70 million per week in additional homeland security costs due to the war and heightened threat alert level. If the war and/or threat alert level continue for six months, cities would incur nearly $2 billion in additional costs.

We stress that these costs come ON TOP OF existing homeland security spending already underway or planned since 9/11. In addition, this survey only asked cities about DIRECT costs, new money that had to be allocated for homeland security because of the war or threat alert. These figures do NOT account for the huge INDIRECT costs cities are experiencing.

In the case of this “limited” Orange Alert in New York, many of those indirect costs were paid by ordinary citizens:

”Anything that slows down the city in general has economic impact, and anything that affects the financial institutions that are still our most important industry also has an impact,” said Ronnie Lowenstein, an economist who is director of the city’s Independent Budget Office. ”It is hard to imagine that these kinds of warnings don’t have any impact.”

Rob Kotch, who runs Breakaway Courier Systems, a business that like much of New York’s economy depends on speed and mobility, put it another way.

”The cost of all this security is friction to the economy,” Mr. Kotch said. ”You consider the cost of a driver is $45 an hour. Do the math. If you put a dollar amount on waiting time sitting in traffic for security checks, it can be huge.”

Millions of dollars for the First Lady and Twins to “reassure” the people working in one building. Millions of dollars to make everybody in America afraid. Mostly taxpayer dollars. That Aug. 1 Orange Alert remained in effect for 102 days, through the RNC in New York City and until after the election.

And the cost was actually much steeper. It wasn’t simply a financial loss America took to change the subject away from John Kerry’s convention:

But what’s more disturbing, perhaps even more than the new details of al-Qaida’s twisted plotting, is the Bush administration’s outing of an undercover al-Qaida agent in its rush to justify raising the terror alert. This move, whether politically motivated or rooted in incompetence has terrorism and security experts shocked and dismayed for the harm inflicted on intelligence operations against al-Qaida. CNN reports today that the administration “may have shut down an important source of information that has already led to a series of al-Qaida arrests” when officials revealed Muhammad Naeem Noor Khan’s identity to journalists last week (Khan is the computer expert who “flipped” last month and was operating as a double-agent for the Pakistani government). Do we have so many plugged-in al-Qaida double agents that we can afford to lose one and with him all of his connections and leads? Of course not.

Juan Cole looks at the consequences: British intelligence agents scrambled last week to arrest 13 members of a London al-Qaida cell before they fled after learning  from the Bush administration!  that Khan had been arrested. “The British do not, however, appear to have finished gathering enough evidence to prosecute the 13 in the courts successfully,” Cole writes. And even worse: 5 got away. “If this is true,” Cole says. “It is likely that the 5 went underground on hearing that Khan was in custody. That is, the loose lips of the Bush administration enabled them to flee arrest. Of the 13 taken into custody on Aug. 3, two were released for lack of evidence and two others were ‘no longer being questioned on suspicion of terrorism offences.'”

It may be another election, but George Bush is still president, Dick Cheney is still VP. Karl Rove’s team is advising John McCain. Joe Lieberman and Tom Ridge are on television every day as McCain surrogates and potential VP picks. The polls are close and all the talking heads believe (as does McCain, evidenced by his reaction to events in Georgia) that anything involving threats to America will help the GOP.

I’m glad Barack Obama already had a week to have fun in Hawaii. There will be no honeymoon after this convention.

UPDATE: By popular demand, here is a 2005 USA Today story about the source of Ridge’s announcements:

WASHINGTON — The Bush administration periodically put the USA on high alert for terrorist attacks even though then-Homeland Security chief Tom Ridge argued there was only flimsy evidence to justify raising the threat level, Ridge now says.

Ridge, who resigned Feb. 1, said Tuesday that he often disagreed with administration officials who wanted to elevate the threat level to orange, or “high” risk of terrorist attack, but was overruled.

His comments at a Washington forum describe spirited debates over terrorist intelligence and provide rare insight into the inner workings of the nation’s homeland security apparatus.

Ridge said he wanted to “debunk the myth” that his agency was responsible for repeatedly raising the alert under a color-coded system he unveiled in 2002.

“More often than not we were the least inclined to raise it,” Ridge told reporters. “Sometimes we disagreed with the intelligence assessment. Sometimes we thought even if the intelligence was good, you don’t necessarily put the country on (alert). … There were times when some people were really aggressive about raising it, and we said, ‘For that?’ “

For the record, I’m not predicting that there will be a terror alert next week. I’m merely pointing out that this crew will go to serious lengths to change the subject and we might as well prevent the element of surprise from being a factor (and bust out the popcorn).