Journalism in a vacuum

Courtesy Political Wire:

"Is a movement about its leader or the person who put it together?" the Boston Globe asks.

"That question is fueling a behind-the-scenes struggle between Howard Dean and his former campaign manager, Joe Trippi, as they jockey for control of the campaign's bounty of grass-roots supporters and search for personal direction after the former Vermont governor's failed bid for the presidency."

On his weblog, Dean says he'll announce his plans for a new organization on March 18. And on his weblog, Trippi is soliciting former Dean for America supporters for his new effort.

This is not a criticism of PW in particular, but isn't this just another example of "let's you and him fight" journalism? There is nothing in these stories to suggest that Dean and Trippi are spear-heading conflicting efforts. In fact, I've heard reports that they are communicating very closely with each other.

The press loves conflict and would love nothing better then to report that Trippi and Dean are fighting over the same pie. They will emphasize any story that suggests that that is what is happening because it fits their prejudices. It behooves us not to fall for it.

Aziz has some comments on this same issue over on the Dean Nation blog. He points out that this kind of thing naturally results when the people involved don't communicate enough about their plans. He specifically fingers Trippi but I think Dean should come in for an equal share of the "blame".

But then, neither Joe nor Howard seem to be all that adroit at dealing with the media.

God I hope they go through with this

(link and quote courtesy Kevin Drum)

A report on GOP convention plans:

�The entire format and actual physical setup could be radically different,� one GOP insider commented. �They might not even have a podium, or maybe a rotating podium or even a stage that comes up from underground. It would be like a theater in the round, with off-site events that are part of the convention.�

The source, a veteran official of past GOP conventions, said the 50,000 delegates, dignitaries and guests would watch off-site events on giant TV screens. �Now, we�ll go to the deck of the USS Intrepid as the U.S. Marine Corps Band plays the National Anthem,� he said, pretending that he was playing the part of the convention chairman.

�Or, and this is a real possibility, we could see President Bush giving his acceptance speech at Ground Zero,� he added. �It�s clearly a venue they�re considering.�

All I could think while reading this was Ozzy Osbourne saying, "Bubbles? I'm the f*cking prince of darkness!"

Question: is a political party allowed to use military equipment (the USS Intrepid) as a prop?

Press Gaggle Bingo

So, I was reading this post today from tbogg on the latest "phrase of the day" from White House spokesman Scott McLellan ("sacred institution" with respect to marriage and those dirty, filthy gays who want to destroy it (bwahahahaha)). Suddenly, it occurred to me that those journalists who have been condemned honored to take on the daily duty of covering the White House might adopt a variation of boardroom bingo to pass the time. Lord knows they must be using something in order to remain sane.

Hesiod and I must be long-lost brothers or something

His response to Alan Greenspan's call to slash Social Security in order to pay for Bush's tax cuts is that the Democrats should filibuster any attempt by Bush to re-instate Greenspan once his term expires in June.

I agree. Furthermore, Hesiod points out that just one month ago Howard Dean was criticized for saying that Greenspan should be fired.

Dean tells people what they need to hear even if they don't want to hear it. I guess the kind of character we want in a Doctor is not the kind of character we want in a President. (That's the collective "we". Not me personally.)

Going Long

Kevin Drum makes the point (based on some preliminary calculations from Josh Chafetz) that the FMA has a pretty slim, at best, chance of passing and therefore Bush's support of this amendment is nothing more than a political maneuver.

Tell us something less obvious right?

Kevin points out the obvious drawbacks that will come Bush's way for supporting this measure, not the least of which would be losing a major vote in Congress on the eve of an election. Unless, of course, they somehow find a way to delay it until after November. What a nice bill for a lame duck session this would make!

But doing that, or losing the eventual vote, would hurt Bush as well with the very people he is trying to hold in his hands. The extremists, anti-gay agenda right-wingers. These people simply won't accept a half-assed push for the FMA nor will they abide by a defeat of the measure wants it comes to a vote. They will, in turn, be horrified at the prospect of the gay movement in this country being strengthened by a defeat of the FMA and will turn against Bush as the obvious loser of this all important fight.

(Aside: As I understand it, some groups in Massachusetts are actually stymieing efforts to pass a "friendlier" amendment to that state's constitution for precisely this reason. Defeating a really bad amendment would be better for gays then allowing a less odious amendment to pass into law.)

It's hard to see where Bush comes out a political winner in this battle. Surely Karl Rove has to know how dangerous this gambit is. Which brings up the obvious question of why they are doing it now. The obvious answer is that they don't have any other choice. The consequences for them not doing it, despite the dim prospects of them seeing any political benefit from it, are less than doing nothing at all.

In other words, Rove has done the number crunching and thinks that Bush is in serious danger of not just losing but losing big.

This could turn out to be the mother of all hail-mary passes.

Greenspan isn't touching the third rail...

...he's slipping it the tongue:

WASHINGTON - Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan urged Congress on Wednesday to deal with the country�s escalating budget deficit by cutting benefits for future Social Security retirees. Without action, he warned, long-term interest rates would rise, seriously harming the economy.

Now I may have problems with Greenspan, but surely he is not so dense as to think cutting social security has any realistic chance of becoming a reality. What is unspoken of in this is the alternative solution: repeal or, at a minimum, let Bush's tax cuts sunset out of existence. But suggesting such would be an even worse apostasy on the right than what Greenspan is suggesting here.

Could it be that Greenspan is being deliberately obtuse about this and hoping that it will be some enterprising politician who will step into the lion's den and suggest that the tax cuts have to go? Give his past performance, I wouldn't put such cowardice past him.

ABB Apathy

J at Value Judgment is feeling the same thing I am feeling:

As Dean recuperates and ponders his next steps in Vermont, as Edwards continues to run for Veep, as Kerry continues not to inspire, as the loyalty oaths in the left-leaning blogosphere continue to mount, as the media debases itself repeatedly, and as Bush continues his assault on my country, I find myself sinking back into what I'll call ABB apathy, similar to what I felt after the midterms and before I knew there would actually be a candidate with a clue.

After spending a year getting intimately involved in one political campaign, I'm just to exhausted to get to involved in another. I'll vote for Kerry if he is the nominee but I'm just not sure if I'm up to getting that "into it" so soon.

Dean spoiled me.

 

Success and Failure

Where Dean succeeded: he let Democrats feel that they had something worthwhile to contribute to the public dialog.

Where Dean failed: he didn't himself contribute anything worthwhile to the public dialog. Or, at least, he didn't in such a way that inspired support outside his core-constituency.

 Just think back to where the Democrats were after the 2002 election. They felt humiliated, gun-shy and all-around totally unconvinced of their own ability to affect the public agenda. Part of this came about because of the increasingly extreme attacks on "The Liberal Agenda" by the right. But it was helped by nervous leaders who were more concerned about re-election then they were with actually doing anything meaningful for their constituents. The latter were encouraged by political models that suggested that traditional Democratic programs were no longer "winners" in the political equation. The believe had become wide-spread that the American people were, as the GOP insisted, becoming increasingly conservative and thus rejected what the Democratic party stood for.

Dean stepped into this mix with a simple message, "Put a Democratic agenda up against a Republican agenda and the Democratic agenda will win every time." Dean stripped politics down to a core of ideas vs. ideas. He sold the idea that Democratic ideas were simply better than Republican ideas. The only reason, Dean argued, that Democrats had had failed in recent years only because they weren't willing to fight for them any more.

This was a message of empowerment that Democrats needed to hear at a time when many were in doubt about Democrats ever being able to contribute anything useful to the political dialog. Democrats, dispirited after the debacles of 2000 and 2002, flocked to Dean's message because it is precisely what they wanted to hear.

There was only one problem: once they accepted the basic proposition that Democrats might have better ideas than Republicans, Dean failed to convinced them that he had ideas that were better than his opponents. It's not that he didn't have those ideas. He just spent so much time talking about empowerment that he failed to transition correctly into talking about action.

"You have the power!" was a message that resonated in the Spring and Summer of 2003. But it lost its appeal in the Fall of 2003.

"Yeah, yeah! I know, 'We have the power'. But the power to do what?" was the thing people started asking of Dean.

Dean had answers to these questions. But he was so caught up in the "rock-star" appeal of his candidacy that he failed to explain what it was people had the power to do. Instead, the continued emphasis on "rah-rah go-get-em" left people with a dual impression: (1) that Dean didn't really have answers and (2) he liked the cheerleading more than the leading (and that maybe he was just the "angry man" that was his media image)..

I am not trying to say that this was a conscious process in the mind of the voters in the Fall of 2003. But it may have been the dynamic that was going on beneath the surface as voters, initially attracted to him for his message of empowerment, soured on him as they waited for something more. Eventually they gave up on him and started looking around at the alternatives. And there was Kerry just waiting for them to give him another listen.