Campaign Blog: News & Updates

I can't believe I missed this, but according to Ed Kilgore, I did ... Seymour Martin Lipset passed away on December 31st.

Ironic that this would come a few days after I note the concept of American Exceptionalism, I suppose. Lipset was one of the key minds that shaped a lot of thought that went on at the Progressive Policy Institute (as the related New Dem Dispatch attests to).

I never had the opportunity to meet Lipset during my brief stop in the PPI interns' den. But I was aware of his effect on those that I worked with. By the time I happened upon a used copy of "American Exceptionalism" in the late 90s, I better understood the effect he had on several others in search of "third way" policy options. Whether you've heard the name or not, you've seen his ideas put into practice, enunciated from the lips of others, or attempted in whatever halting a manner as lesser minds might take a swing at. He'll still be missed, though.

Well, I posited yesterday about what an Yglesian "liberal" media might do to "balance" out the kind words on behalf of a a deceased Republican President. Turns out I was only slightly off. Instead of an Alterman style hit, Slate gives us a Hitchens hit from the right.

Since Hitchens covers Ford's foreign policy legacy, I'd have to go so far as to say that it's practically fair game due to the timing of Woodward's release of Ford's position on Iraq and other conservative apostasies. In all fairness, Woodward might have been wise to at least hold off on the release until Ford had at least been physically buried. As it is, there's a certain degree of fairness in asking what's so relevant about Ford's views on this matter and putting them into context of his own foreign policy credentials.

I noted earlier how the Ford years were a bit before my time and that more or less mutes any sort of reflection that one might have on the era. But the Chicago Trib does a great job in their editorial of Ford, I think. For one, it captures a rather poignant aspect of Ford's legacy: forgiveness. It also puts their own coverage during Ford's presidency into the context, however slightly. What strikes me about that is that it's not every day you see an editorial page refer to itself this way. We have seen numerous cases of editorials quibbling with politicians and then endorsing them either by dismissing or downplaying those disagreements - though rarely referring to them as explicitly as the Trib does here. I'd suspect that there are more moments where such referential treatment could serve to illuminate readers better on the ebbs and flows of thought that coarse through an editorial board.

For what it's worth, Bob Dole also has a short read on President Ford that's worth the reading. Bill Bennett has a take that calls Ford cowardly due to his embargo of his disagreement with Bush's Iraq policy until he dies. Channelling Laurence Simon, I guess the rightwing retards learned this lesson from the John O'Neill & the Swift Boat crew (not to mention the infamous Rep. Jean Schmidt) - there's no low low enough when it's time to call a war hero a coward.

Likewise, I think it's worth calling out Matt Yglesias' commentary on the obit coverage of Ford. It doesn't disprove the existence of a liberal media that there are an overwhelming number of positive obits of Ford upon his passing. It is, however, a sign that the Washington Post (and most of the MSM) may be a skosh saner than the batwing fringe elements. I mean, I'm just curious what it is that Matt would consider "fair and balanced" ... an Eric Alterman screed on how Ford's ruinous economic policies weren't covered enough by the media and therefore must be enumerated now that he's dead? Such an animal might not necessarily prove the existence of a liberal media, but it very well would indicate one with no sense of tact.

» WaPo: Former President Ford Dies at 93

Ford was just before my time, so it's hard to really wrap up any grand appreciation for him beyond the multitude of stereotypes he left us (not the least of which was his lack of knowledge about tamales while campaigning in Texas). Still, it's an American President that we mourn the loss of and there's a respect that ought to go along with that.

Alright now, I'm trying to keep the holiday spirit all cheery and positive, but Media Matters (and an intellectually laughable local) just made this too easy for me ...

» From the White House's mouth to CNN's ... mouth?

Just another data point on the whole "talking points" meme. Among the last remaining bloggers who refuse to admit falling for the same trap (aka - Kevin "RINOs Among Us!!!" Whited), there's this other data point that highlights the clear double standard at play by our friends on the right:

I don't know that it's front page material, but if there is no editor at 801 Texas Avenue who thinks it more newsworthy than Page 11, then one can't help but wonder about the dangers of groupthink (and perhaps even journalistic incompetence) among the Chron newsroom editors.

(Greg note: so he's not sure it's page one material, page two is sortofa set page already, three full pages were taken up by advertisements ... which means there's clearly a conspiracy going on to keep this off the lesser of five possible pages ... four if you omit page A6, which only had a sixth of a page used for news. As clear a sign of "groupthink" as there ever was, by gum! I'm suddenly curious why groupthink would dictate relegating the story to page A11 instead of, oh ... say "not at all." I mean, if you're going to play the liberal media card, why do it halfway?)

And the constant "scorekeeper" references are odd. If groupthink prevails among the editors of the place, maybe someone DOES need to keep score, in an effort to prompt them to think a little more deeply about their choices! You have criticized the groupthink among editors yourself in the past, so I guess that even makes you a scorekeeper of sorts (at least every once in a while). The newspaper would surely benefit from a few more internal and external critical eyes (and less PR spin).

(Greg note: Defensive much? I'd say that when you whine about the story not getting the upper draw of four pages of print instead of the lesser, you might want to count yourself lucky to be tagged - properly - as a scorekeeper. Far more incendiary claims would be defensible.

FIrst up, the references to scorekeeper are deemed odd. But "[i]f groupthink prevails," then they're needed (and presumably less odd). And since the Chron's Public Editor has referenced groupthink, that makes him a scorekeeper (though it's not clear from this ramble as to whether the term is still "odd" or not).

Of course, I'm also reminded of the irony that Kevin sees such a need for the Chronicle to be prompted about thinking through their choices - to the point of warranting an exclamation point, no less! All while the Kevster himself refuses to answer to his own intellectual challenges on that newfangled open media thing called a blog - to the point of banning commenters who challenge his "objectivist" contentions! I believe this indicates an example of how the Houston Chronicle is more open than blogHouston. Irony for ya. Apparently there's one thing the scorekeepers fail to have on the Chron ... Scoreboard!!!)

Yeah, my pastor said I needed to laugh more. Blame him.

Anyways ... apparently, it's utterly impossible for conservative bloggers to fall for talking points to the point of parroting them on time and in the proper key (and shortly after a rightwing think tank pushes a financially "sponsored" idea), but it's entirely plausible for the Chron (and presumably the rest of the VLWC) to do so under the guise of "groupthink." Guess that's what passes for intellectual consistency on Houston/Spring's rightwing these days ;-)

» LAT: "Does Iraq need more debate?" (Martin Kaplan)

Some pure brilliance woven into this opinion peice ...

From healthcare to education, immigration to entitlements, there's hardly an issue on the national radar screen that hasn't been nominated for a cleansing and clarifying national debate.

But what would a national debate on anything really look like? How would it be any different from what we're already doing now? Imagine the elements of a national debate on Iraq, and then ask whether what's going on today fits the bill.

Analysts offering opposing views on television shows? Check. Dueling Op-Ed pieces? Check. Senators and representatives making floor speeches? Check. Presidential candidates staking out positions, and critics taking them on? Check. Magazines and journals offering thoughtful, conflicting takes? Check. A take-no-prisoners brawl in the blogosphere? Check. Public opinion polls? You can't go to the restroom without tripping over a new one. Thousands of people in the streets? Well, it's not like the Vietnam era — without a draft, it won't ever be — but plenty of cities have seen plenty of passionate marchers.

So why, despite all appearances of actually having a national debate right now, do people keep insisting that we mount one?

Perhaps it's because the mainstream media are too timid to declare the difference between right and wrong. Imagine if journalism consisted of more than a collage of conflicting talking points. Imagine the difference it would make if more brand-name reporters broke from the bizarre straitjacket of "balance," which equates fairness with putting all disputants on equal epistemological footing, no matter how deceitful or moronic they may be.

There's a market for news that weighs counterclaims and assesses truth value. It just hasn't kept up with demand. No wonder Jon Stewart has such a loyal audience: He has a point of view, and it's rooted in the reality-based — not the ideology-based — world.
...

Maybe we don't need a national debate. Maybe what we really need are leaders with more character, followers with more discrimination, deciders who hear as well as listen and media that know the difference between the public interest and what the public is interested in. National debates nicely fulfill the circus part of the bread-and-circuses formula of modern public life. Like psychoanalysis, national debates are basically interminable. And in our postmodern era, they do a nice job substituting for the hard work of actually figuring out what's true and what's good.

Perhaps the only quarrel I might pick with Kaplan is that I don't see it as the aim of the media to determine truth and goodness on a universal level across the spectrum of every type of story that runs in a newspaper. Granted, there's a range of stories - particularly in the realm of political coverage - where Kaplan's prescription represent a huge improvement. But I'd be more than a little content seeing a media that isn't afraid to challenge spin as the bunk that it often is. Instead of say, cutting to the "He said/She said" format, look for facts rather than a counterclaiming quote to balance things out.

» PressThink: "Retreat from Empiricism: On Ron Suskind's Scoop" (Jay Rosen)
» TPM: "Bush's Dead Letter" (Josh Marshall)
» TPM Muck: "Bush Dodges Question on Overruling Military Brass" (Paul Kiel)

Three critical reads on the inanity of Bush's predicted "surge" option. Starting with Rosen's revival of the Suskind/McKinnon quote about "reality-based" decision-making in the White House and you've got to almost marvel (or is it weep?) at the degree to which President Bush is set to decide that he and he alone knows best about how to achieve the "certain victory" that is before us in a war that is being "neither won nor lost" (which strikes me a bit like Cubs fans planning trips to the World Series in February). Of course, Bush will claim support from others, presumably all civilian leaders in the Pentagon like Gates. But yes-men need not apply. The President has done a splendid job of surrounding himself with people that have an uncanny ability to tell him exactly what it is that he wants to hear and nothing more ("ref: Gonzales, Alberto").

As Marshall highlights, the canard of Bush basing his decisions of troop levels on military advice has been shattered for good. And Kiel posts the video of Bush claiming something as a "dangerous hypothetical" which has already been leaked as imminently inevitable. I'm curious to see a show of hands by my Republican friends as to who's proud they voted for this clown.

» CNN polling ....

Yeah, I know it's early. Whatever.

McCain v Obama: 47%-43%
Giuliani v Obama: 49%-42%
Romney v Obama: 35%-51%

McCain v Gore: 46%-47%
Giuliani v Gore: 46%-46%
Romney v Gore: 37%-53%

I'm guessing there's more data to be released later? Monday saw the release of Presidential approval data, which summed up, translates into the President and Iraq being less popular than gay marriage in Appallachia. Yeah, I might have made up that last part, but the sad part is, I'm pretty sure it'd hold up if they actually polled it that way.

» Talking points alert ...

It's been a laugh riot watching how certain right-leaning bloggers, first ladies, media opiners and other assorted activists have latched onto the concept that the media is behind all of this negative reporting of Iraq and that not only is what caused the 2006 midterm election vote of no confidence in the President, but it also harms the military.

Kevin Drum notes how Stanley Kurtz engages in a bit of self-parody by blaming the biased media on this count.

Media coverage of Iraq has been biased, and that bias has indeed helped to shape events there for the worse. At the same time, conservative distrust of the media’s very real bias has inclined us to dismiss reports about problems in Iraq that are real.

Laura Bush slams the media for not reporting the good news as much as the bad news.

LAURA BUSH: It is not encouraging coverage for sure. There’s no doubt about it. But I do know that there are a lot of good things that are happening that aren’t covered. And I think that the drum beat in the country from the media, from the only way people know what is happening unless they happened to have a loved one deployed there, is discouraging.

O’DONNELL: She says that she hopes that there is “more balanced coverage by the media,” in her words. She also said “I understand why the polls are what they are” she says, “because of the coverage we see every day in Iraq.”

It's considerably less surprising to see Republican bloggers, both locally and nationally, pick up on the tired meme of "the liberal media is out to get us." Of course, those same folks will claim that they're never susceptible to falling for talking points and reciting them as their own independently arrived at notion, either. Sucks when you can't even realize you're being played like a fiddle.

Meanwhile, Rich Lowry sticks to his "liberal media" guns while at least getting Iraq coverage half right ...

Conservatives need to realize that something is not dubious just because it's reported by The New York Times, and that the media ultimately will be wrong about Iraq only if - fully acknowledging how bad it is there - the Bush administration takes bold steps to reverse the tide.

» Eric over at Houstonist finally takes up my suggestion for Christmas YouTube fun. I love Billy Squier's "Christmas is the Time to Say I Love You" all year round, of course. It's Squier in his prime and MTV in an era when some of us were just getting over our letdown that Friday Night Videos had been usurped.

Reminds me, at the Infinite Record Convention last weekend, I saw something that really really spoke to me and I probably would have bought it if I could preview it for quality and one of the artists I was hunting for. The dealer was peddling DVDs of concert footage and other assorted video of your favorite artists. Not sure how the guy makes it with YouTube cutting into his action, but there was another dealer with similar wares who had more foresight to bring a portable DVD player for folks to sample the wares. The DVD in question here was a compilation of musical guests from ABC's Fridays. There's some incredible stuff on there ... early Idol & some prime Cars. The cover listed like 20 artists on the DVD with the tag line "And More!!!" at the end. Well, if I knew for a fact that one of the "more" was Steel Breeze (previously YouBlogged here), I'd have considered that $15-20 well spent for the mere minutes of pleasure in owning such a disc. No luck, though ... and I'm pretty bad about talking myself out of spending money I really don't need to for such reasons.

Anyways, Eric at Houstonist rags me for beating him to the Twisted Sister video. So I'll return the favor and complain about him stealing my thunder with some quality Billy Idol lounge singing of "White Christmas." Check out Houstonist for all your holiday YuleTubing over the Christmas season. Some great stuff making the rounds there.

Further proof that Washington journalists are crap ...

» The NYT on Hillary's "power lunches" ...

The three dine together once or twice a year, with each taking a turn at picking up the check. (Mrs. Clinton, who had the $56 Dover sole, paid yesterday, so the White House consultation did come at a price, something north of $250.)

Page B1 of the New York Times for those of you keeping score at home.

» AP's ghoulish headline as Sen. Tim Johnson is in the hospital:

"Senate Back to 50-50 With Johnson Out"

Likewise, Tom Daschle was asked after visiting his friend in the hospital whether Johnson should resign his seat. Add that to the plethora of stories that contain the phrase "If the Senator dies ..." to the pile of crap that somehow counts for modern journalism. Noel Shepherd has more @ Newsbusters - ironically a site meant to expose liberal media bias. Yeah, nevermind that whole Brian Williams rating-grab lead-in that anxiously begs for a dead body to be added in the mix. Fear not, though. Shepherd has gone back to exposing liberal bias on the one show that really is the source of all Democratic political intel ... The View. Keep fighting the good fight, Noel.

» Jeff Greenfield defends his "joke" comparing Barack Obama to Iranian President Ahmadinejad ...

A piece I did for "The Situation Room" -- a piece I thought an obvious, patently absurd parody of muddled political thinking -- engendered howls of outrage from elements of the blogosphere, where it was assumed I actually meant to tie Sen. Barack Obama with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. And therein lies a tale.

My starting point was the way Obama prefers to dress: a jacket, collared shirt, no tie -- a kind of "business casual" look.

Hmmm ... wonder why it is he thinks this should have just been a joke and yet I don't recall anything comparable with Bush & Hitler comparisons on the show. Oh right, when you pull this with a Dem, it's a joke. Because we're supposed to be all chummy with the media. But to do it with a Republican would invite nasty emails and phone calls and that, of course, would have to be taken "seriously." Consider Jeff Greenfield one "referee" who has been properly "gamed." Then again, while we're at it, let's consider any reference to Greenfield as a "Senior Analyst" to be the joke we were supposed to laugh at all along.

» LAT: Mega-projects could reshape L.A. growth (Cara Mia DiMassa)

Interesting read, if only for what it might have in store for what we can expect here in Houston. I'm more than a little wary of most grand "smart growth" attempts. The story linked yesterday about Wallis, TX offers a few micro-lessons in how poor bets can have an ill effect on a community years down the road, also. Still, read the thing and see what you think.

» Democracy Journal

New issue out now. There's few articles that just jump out at me for immediate reading, but that's not likely to prevent me from reading it cover to cover anyways. Interesting choice for inclusion though: Jeff Faux on globalization. That's not your average DLC/PPI style pick there. More in line with the type of stuff I'm expecting is this article on socially responsible. How can you miss with a subtitle like this:

Progressives need to end their fixation with corporate social responsibility–and focus on reform that actually works.

Clay Risen is another good bet for good reading. So if you're not going to read the whole thing, there's your short list.

» Hillary, Meet Barack. America, Meet the New Storyline
» Hey, Victor Davis Hanson! It's Not Our Fault

Paul McLeary has a twofer of must-reads over at CJRDaily that your week isn't made until you've read them both.

» RATT and Van Halen are both reuniting (minus Robbin Crosby, of course). The summer tour season might be fun after all. Actually, I saw Dave "sing" at the Sam & Dave tour with Hagar years back. He clearly didn't have it anymore and his performance was a complete joke. I swore then that, as a diehard Van Halen fan, I seriously did not want to see DLR back in the band. I think I'm just coming off that due to the fact that it'd still be Eddie playing guitar on a stage and I might be willing to pay the $100 ticket price to see the original lineup (I passed on the Van Hagar version at that price). Whatever ... just get on stage and play guitar.

» WaPo: Beyond Baker-Hamilton (Barry McCaffrey)

Best for last here. McCaffrey's been critical of the ISG from the get-go and his critique is one that has to serve as surprising in terms of the ISG leaving this out there. Maybe that's why the report is such an orphan right now, with no party really wanting to pick it up and run with it despite popular support for the report by the public.

Let me add a note of caution regarding a deceptive and unwise option that springs from the work of the Iraq Study Group. We must not entertain the shallow, partisan notion of rapidly withdrawing most organized Marine and Army fighting units by early 2008 and substituting for them a much larger number of U.S. advisers -- a 400 percent increase -- as a way to avoid a difficult debate for both parties in the New Hampshire primaries.

This would leave some 40,000 U.S. logistics and adviser troops spread out and vulnerable, all over Iraq. It would decrease our leverage with Iraq's neighbors. It would not get at the problem of a continuing civil war. In fact, significantly increasing the number of U.S. advisers in each company and battalion of the Iraqi army and police -- to act as role models -- is itself a bad idea. We are foreigners. They want us gone.

Lack of combat experience is not the central issue Iraqis face. Their problems are corrupt and incompetent ministries, poor equipment, an untrained and unreliable sectarian officer corps (a result of Rumsfeld's disbanding the Iraqi army), and a lack of political will caused by the failure of a legitimate Iraqi government to emerge.

We need fewer advisers, not more -- selected from elite, active military units and with at least 90 days of immersion training in Arabic. Iraqi troops will not fight because of iron discipline enforced by U.S. sergeants and officers. That is a self-serving domestic political concept that would put us at risk of a national military humiliation.

Add-on thoughts ...

» Bring it on! .... indeed. You just gotta love that old man Al's breakin' the news to beauticians. I've also heard he sent a letter to area pastors pleading bankruptcy as his basis for running again. Borris apparently wasn't hurting. After winning the primary he chipped in some change to folks named Hopson ($2000), Thibaut ($4000), Farabee ($1000), Vo ($1000) and Robbie Cook ($1000). And don't forget the fact that the guy made sure Dot Nelson had a nice chunk of change to get her "Roll.Everywhere" campaign going up in HD150. Dude hasn't even been sworn in yet and he's done more for his party than Al Edwards ever did.

» Oh yeah ... Joel on Barbara Walters' lil show: my thoughts over at the other blog. Suffice it to say, but I think the old lady would do better to fascinate herself elsewhere.

It's a shame that journalistic gems such as these require top dollar to read in full ...

» David Brooks - November 9, 2006: "The Middle Moves In"

If you wanted to pick out a stereotypical swing voter in this election, it would be a white evangelical suburban office park mom in a blue state suburb. She's part of the one-third of white evangelicals who voted Democratic this year, as did 20 percent of self-described conservatives. She supported the Iraq war once but believes it has been conducted terribly. She doesn't have a lot of faith in government generally -- 54 percent of voters believe government interferes too much, while only 37 percent want it to do more, according to a recent CNN survey -- but she does think government should be able to accomplish its core missions.

» David Brooks - November 30, 2006: "Waiting to be Wooed"

Over the next few months, pollsters are going to pick out the key demographic groups (left-handed Catholic orthopedists) and offer advice on how to kiss up to those people. Majorities are never built that way. You end up proposing inconsequential micropolicies and selling your soul.

The real shame of it all is that there's a side of Brooks' writing that I truly enjoy. Not so much the shallowness of his worldview, nor the ridiculous stereotyping that he engages in. But rather, he covers a good beat that deserves more attention from a wider swathe of modern journalism ... namely the new suburbs, heretofore known as exurbs. While I think "Bobos in Paradise" captured Brooks' overuse of stereotype in the feeble effort of making a point, I've long been more intrigued by "On Paradise Drive" despite Michael Kinsley's masterful point regarding the "difference between sociology and schtick." Making my life far simpler is the fact that it's now available for a whopping $6.99 on Amazon.com. At that price, I'll take my chances wading through Brooks' schtick.

Bloggers' briefing??? Why, I've been led to believe that every Republican blogger arrives at their thoughts independently of such machinations.