Posts

Wherein emptywheel Gets Shrill

/68 Comments/in /by

otr.jpg

Boy, what a weird news day. Which press conference do you think will get all the coverage on the news? Obama on Wright, or Mr. Irrelevant on the economy?

I’m just about to go fetch mr. emptywheel and set off on my Haggis and Beamish pilgrimage. So I thought I’d leave you with a link to my appearance on MI’s Off the Record last week. Tim Skubick said the calls in response have been mixed–some people find this show wonderfully, um, lively. (And on that note, there’s some debate about how many times I said "pissed." Three? Six? Pissed … it’s the new bitter.) Others found it altogether too lively for PBS.

Please behave nicely for bmaz while I’m on my pilgrimage.

John “Century” McCain Reduces the RNC to Babbling

/69 Comments/in /by

Now, I’m sure the RNC has better reasons to call a press conference and claim this ad is "false and defamatory" than any real belief their hysterics will keep the ad off the air. They’re almost certainly trying to blur this ad with the GOP’s own controversial ads: there’s the DCCC’s two FEC complaints–backed up by documentary evidence–that the NRCC and Freedom’s Watch are coordinating ads, and the race-baiting ad that the strangely impotent John McCain could not prevent the NC GOP from airing. In other words, the GOP is likely trying to water-down any focus on their own (in the NRCC-Freedom’s Watch case) illegal ads. Perhaps, too, they’re testing the mettle of the cable networks, to see if similar complaints will work as we get closer to the election.

But they can’t really be ignorant enough to believe that such an attack won’t attract more attention to the ad–and to McCain’s vision of a century in Iraq?

What I most like about their attack, though, is the way their argument has reduced their babbling lawyer to utter unintelligibility.

This is a complaint about the facts that are being misrepresented in the ad, and this being a deliberate falsehood, that we are saying, stations have an obligation to protect the public from airing a deliberate falsehood.

First, as the GOP must recognize well from having pioneered this kind of ad, there really aren’t facts that are being misrepresented. Consider the content:

  • A questioner asks McCain: President Bush has talked about staying in Iraq for 50 years.

Now to be fair, Tony Snow tried mightily to deny the one thing everyone understood as soon as Bush started saying Iraq would be "like" Korea. That we’d be there for a "like" amount of time, 50 years. But to make the assertion that Bush wants troops in Iraq for 50 years and McCain wants them there for a century, this ad relies solely on this video showing McCain responding to a question about Bush’s 50 year statements in Derry NH. The question and answer happened–it is not an assertion, it is just a video clip.

  • McCain suggests–speaking of a long-term deployment and mentioning Korea specifically–"maybe a hundred."
  • 5 years, $500 billion, over 4000 dead.

Gosh–we could have been hardnosed! We didn’t even mention the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi dead.

  • If all he offers is more of the same, is John McCain the right choice, is John McCain the right choice for America’s future.

In point of fact, since both McCain and Bush are referring to a Korea-model for our engagement in Iraq, his proposed policy is more of the same.

And that schmoozy hug at the end? Not a photoshop.

So, back to the RNC lawyer’s babbling: first, no "facts misrepresented in the ad." There’s really no central logical assertion at all, in fact. Read more →

The ABC Debate: An Opportunity?

/70 Comments/in , /by

As it happens, the two Pennsylvania voters I had visiting and I missed the debate last night. Thankfully. Though I’ve watched most of it at NYT. And I agree with the general consensus that the debate marks a low point in American journalism.

Still, I wonder whether it can’t be turned into a public good.

I’ve argued for a long time that journalists need to clean up their own house, first, before they start demanding new privileges or criticizing bloggers (and see Athenae kicking ass on this today in typically glorious fashion). Yet it is rare that journalists take critical stances of their own. They’d rather turn Judy into a martyr–presumably in hopes it will benefit them, too–than acknowledge Judy’s profound failures and how those failures discredit their profession.

But this time, it seems different. Already a number of mainstream journalists have criticized last night’s performance, most notably Tom Shales.

When Barack Obama met Hillary Clinton for another televised Democratic candidates’ debate last night, it was more than a step forward in the 2008 presidential election. It was another step downward for network news — in particular ABC News, which hosted the debate from Philadelphia and whose usually dependable anchors, Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos, turned in shoddy, despicable performances.

For the first 52 minutes of the two-hour, commercial-crammed show, Gibson and Stephanopoulos dwelled entirely on specious and gossipy trivia that already has been hashed and rehashed, in the hope of getting the candidates to claw at one another over disputes that are no longer news. Some were barely news to begin with.

[snip]

At the end, Gibson pompously thanked the candidates — or was he really patting himself on the back? — for "what I think has been a fascinating debate." He’s entitled to his opinion, but the most fascinating aspect was waiting to see how low he and Stephanopoulos would go, and then being appalled at the answer.

More generally, this debate seems to be a rorschach test for journalistic responsibility. Howie Kurtz and David Brooks were delighted with the debate. Greg Mitchell and Will Bunch were appalled. Walter Shapiro judges the debate failed both on democratic terms and on bad spin terms. Read more →

The Breach: McCain Dates, Not Obama Dates?

/78 Comments/in /by

As you’ve no doubt heard, three second-rate burglars have been caught accessing Obama’s passport files. The WaPo reports the tree days when his files were accessed:

State Department spokesman Tom Casey said the employees had individually looked into Obama’s passport file on Jan. 9, Feb. 21 and March 14. To access such a file, the employees must first acknowledge a pledge to keep the information private.

To which Josh connects three events:

A few more details about the Obama passport breach. According to a new piece out in the Post from Glenn Kessler, the breaches occurred Jan. 9th, Feb. 21st and March 14th.

That would be the day after the New Hampshire primary, the day of the Democratic debate in Texas and the day the Wright story really hit.

I’m rather more interested in two of the dates on the Republican side. The day after the New Hampshire primary (when it became clear McCain’s campaign was far from dead), and the day of the Texas primary (when McCain sealed the nomination). After all, New Hampshire was a set-back for Obama. Why would a Democrat waste bribes to do oppo research on Obama when it looked, once again, like Hillary would win the primary? But I can understand why McCain would start doing oppo research at a time when his chances started looking up.

Though, I would still have to explain the February 21 date. 

The First Stage Is Denial

/92 Comments/in , /by

And then they go on to anger, bargaining, depression, and acceptance that John McCain will never be President.

Christy sent along this article catching McCain’s lobbyist friends denying that their lobbying interests have any importance on the campaign.

McCain’s campaign manager, Rick Davis, co-founded a lobbying firm though Davis on leave from the firm at the moment. Charlie Black, an unpaid senior adviser to McCain, is chairman of the Washington lobbying firm BKSH & Associates. Both of their firms have represented telecommunications companies whose business falls under the jurisdiction of the Senate Commerce Committee on which McCain is the senior Republican member.

[snip]

A McCain campaign aide who asked not to be identified said Davis has not been a registered lobbyist for two years. The aide said Black “is an unpaid volunteer and does not and will not lobby Senator McCain.”

John McCain would have you believe that lobbyists are in the business of donating their time for worthy causes, with no strings attached. And that Black’s promise not to lobby "Senator McCain" will extend to complete disinterest in policy issues that affect his clients if McCain were to be President. And that Davis’ two-year leave from lobbying with a firm he still has financial ties to somehow frees him of all interest in the success of that lobbying firm–or its clients’ interests.

This is why it’s so important to point out how false similar claims were when Bush cronies made them. Telecom lobbyist Ed Gillespie came in–refusing to recuse himself outright from issues pertaining to Quinn Gillespie’s clients. And voila, just weeks later, the Administration was awkwardly and belatedly weighing in against net neutrality. To say nothing of the fact that they’re now willing to let entire surveillance programs lapse in an effort to make sure Gillespie’s clients get immunity for having illegally wiretapped Americans.

The Bush Administration’s lobbyist-in-chief has made sure his clients’ interests take precedence over the privacy and free speech of Americans. And there’s no reason to think it would work differently with McCain’s lobbyists-in-chief.

Doesn’t Hillary Have Anything Better to Do?

/42 Comments/in /by

In a matter of 22 hours, Hillary has made two announcements that are only tangentially related to the fact that almost half of all delegates will be awarded today. Yesterday, she once again generously offered to unilaterally decide to reinterpret my state of MI’s Clusterfuck vote, all in the name of democracy. And today, smack dab in the middle of the biggest election day this side of November 4, Hillary has challenged Obama to join her in treating Fox as a legitimate news outlet, rather than the propaganda arm of the Republican party.

Now, I’ll leave it to Jane and Markos (and Stoller) to talk about how stupid it is for Hillary to pander to Fox News. And you already know how I feel about Hillary’s attempts to dictate the meaning of our Clusterfuck.

Still. It amazes that anyone is reporting either of these Hillary ploys without first prefacing that reporting by noting how odd it is that she is spending Super Tuesday on anything except winning Super Tuesday. Isn’t this a rather telling attempt to distract from the most momentous day, thus far, of this primary?

And if she’s got so much free time on her hands, don’t you think it would be better spent in DC trying to save the Constitution, rather than cozying up to Rupert Murdoch?

FISA Fight Reconvenes at 2

/18 Comments/in , , /by

The Senate will take up the FISA fight again today at 2:00, now missing not just the three presidential candidates, but possibly others campaigning for their colleagues. Among the many ways last week’s compromise on FISA really hurt our cause, scheduling the vote for the day before Super Tuesday is at the top of the list. [Update: there will not be a FISA related vote today, we’ll have debate. But I still doubt we’re going to hold off the votes until Wednesday, when everyone will be back from Super Tuesday.]

cboldt has a slightly updated post on what the Senate will be voting on here. By far his most important update is this:

The Senate has formally signaled that it will not request a conference with the House, to resolve differences. At this point of the process on the FISA bill, a conference request is premature because the House has yet to weigh in on the Senate’s proposed legislation. While the two bills are different, the formality of disagreement is presently absent. See Riddicks – Conferences and Conference Reports, in particular pp 467-8, which describe the interaction between both chambers.

For those of you hoping we’ll restore some of the protections from the House Bill (sorry, no pun intended) during conference, I take this to mean that we may well never get to conference, and therefore may never get to improve on the Senate bill once the Senate passes it.

So it behooves us to call our Senators and lobby for them to improve this bill now, in the Senate. When you call, I suggest you tell them to:

  • Oppose telecom immunity. While it’s unlikely that we’ll get the 51 majority vote to pass Dodd and Feingold’s amendment, pushing hard against immunity may convince them to support one or both of the compromise immunity amendments (I just learned this one requires majority vote of those voting, not 51).
  • Support court review of minimization procedures. Right now, the Administration is obligated to tell the FISA Court how they intend to make sure your data and mine isn’t rounded up in un-related searches and then used. But they don’t have to prove to the Court that they’re doing what they say they’ll be doing. Encourage your Senators to support Whitehouse’s amendment giving the FISA Court review of whether the Administration is doing what they say they’re doing. As we know, more often than not, they’re NOT doing what they say. Minimization is one of the things that Republicans consistently say they support, so if your Senator(s) is a Republican, remind him or her that this is really about protecting Americans’ civil liberties and privacy. Read more →

Ground Game

/104 Comments/in /by

As momentous as the possibility of a perfect 19 game seasons is (Go Pats!! Go hit ’em, thuggish Rodney Roid!), Tuesday’s Super is way more momentous than today’s, not least because it’ll have significant input over whether we send the first woman or the first African-American to the White House, and because either one promises to start our painful recovery from the Bush disaster.

But the story most people are telling is still missing the equivalent of Bill Belichick’s pre-game film analysis. Though it has arguably been decisive in all four non-Clusterfuck Democratic contests thus far, few people are talking about ground game. Obama out-performed polls (except one) in Iowa and South Carolina (the latter by an astounding amount); what appeared to make the difference was real grass-roots mobilization–and effective execution–among many who had been largely disaffected in the past. Hillary’s win in NH was at least partially her GOTV. And her win in NV can be attributed to a combination of her own ground game and Obama’s failure to make the most of union support. Ground game is the story of this election thus far.

Now, there’s one big reason why you’re not hearing about ground game. The teevee networks, which still largely set the narrative of the election, cannot sell "ground game." They can sell ads that appeal to women or African-American voters, their insider pundits can either rail for or against the Big Dog and provide value to the network that way. But they have no product to sell called "ground game." As a result, it’s simply not part of the story.

But it’s more than that. Perhaps for this very reason, the media have missed another big story–what has happened to the ground game over the last four years.

When I was at the "No News Is Good News" conference in Boston, one of the participants (I think I remember who it was, but I’m not positive so he’ll remain nameless) said,

If I had to choose between us [the media] picking the President or the County Chair picking the candidate in a smoky room, I know which one I’d pick.

Read more →

Was It Her Colleagues, or Her Constituents?

/50 Comments/in , /by

As Jane reported last night, our presidential candidates have decided to return to DC to exercise their vote, if not to lead.

I’m glad to have them, though I agree with Tim Tagaris that we could sure use their help on Tuesday and Wednesday and Thursday, as well as today.

I’m curious, though, about one thing. On Friday, here’s what Hillary told Matt Stoller about this vote:

Then I spoke with Hillary, and she said she has assured her colleagues she will go back to the Senate if they need her vote.

As was perfectly clear at that point, you don’t need votes to defeat a cloture vote–you just need to make sure your opponent doesn’t get the requisite 60 votes.

So what convinced Hillary to return and cast a vote that, I’m sure, her Republican opponents will find some way to attack (speaking of which, McCain is blowing off the SOTU, presumably to avoid committing one way or another to this vote)? Was it a slew of faxes sent to her campaign office, finally persuading her that missing this vote will be like flip-flopping on an $87 billion Iraq appropriation? Did someone decide that we might have a shot at reaching cloture on the House version of FISA, RESTORE, which should have a cloture vote immediately following the Rockefeller-Bond bill (I doubt that highly–I suspect this cloture vote is Reid’s attempt to prove that RESTORE is no likelier to pass than the Rockefeller-Bond bill [oops, I confused what the cloture vote is on–it’s on the extension of PAA])? Are we at risk of failing to defeat cloture, and Hillary wanted to make sure her vote was registered? Or did Hillary just remember she had a day job?

[Speaking of which, I’m actually in DC hanging around the Senate today, though I doubt they’ll let me vote in the cloture vote, or even see it any more closely than you can on CSPAN. Posting may be either light or heavy–who knows?]

What Ever Happened to “Upperdown Votes”?

/48 Comments/in , /by

Say what you will about Senator Reid. But right now, he’s in a giant showdown with Mitch McConnell (and, disgustingly, Jello Jay Rockefeller), and I guarantee you’d rather have Reid win than McConnell.

The Republicans have refused to allow an "upperdown" vote on any amendment since the Leahy substitution amendment went through. They’ve called for a cloture vote to vote on the SSCI bill, with just one minor amendment. Which means, if cloture passes, we’ll get screwed by Jello Jay, and Bush will get his wet dream of a spying bill.

Reid, on the other hand, wants a fair hearing for the amendments being offered–including immunity, but also things like oversight on minimization and restrictions on wiretaps of Americans overseas. He basically wants the Senate to have a chance to improve on the work of the SSCI. And though he’s not saying it, several of these amendments, though they propose something the Administration has said would be okay, would really cause Bush to veto the bill.

The idea is cloture allows Bush to conduct his spying as he wants to, with Congressional approval. Whereas Reid wants to deliver what Bush has said he needs, rather than what he really wants but won’t admit to.

The cloture vote is scheduled for 4:30 on Monday. We’ve got three and a half days to get at least three of the following people to flip their votes from the vote on the Leahy substitution:

Bayh (202) 224-5623
Carper (202) 224-2441
Inouye (202) 224-3934
Johnson (202) 224-5842
Landrieu (202)224-5824
McCaskill (202) 224-6154
Mikulski (202) 224-4654
Nelson (FL) (202) 224-5274
Nelson (NE) (202) 224-6551
Pryor (202) 224-2353
Salazar (202) 224-5852
Specter (202) 224-4254 (What the hell–he had an amendment ignored today, too)

And to convince those Senators who want to be President that this is a vote they need to be present for. (This assumes Rockefeller won’t flip, since he’s co-sponsoring the bill with Bond.) It’s probably also a good idea to touch base with Senators DiFi (202-224-3841) and Whitehouse (202-224-2921) to make sure they remain on the side of the good.

Several years ago, when they were on the wrong side of a close Senate, Republicans insisted on the sanctity of an "upperdown vote." But now, they want to refuse that right to any legislative action save the one Bush supports.

We can win this one. And boy, Read more →