Hugh Hewitt's column in the Weekly Standard is manifesting a problem developing in the blogoshere right now. Fresh off its victory in the Rathergate scandal, the blogoshere is going a bit over the top on what it thinks is "news." I am sorry, Hugh, but John Kerry OD'ing on beta carotene or losing the fight with the bronzer girl is not news. Hugh makes the point:
"[MSM not reporting on Kerry's 'tan'] is doubly indefensible because candidate appearance stories have mattered in presidential debates from Nixon's sweat in 1960 to Gore's pancake in 2000. If Kerry's sudden play for the Great Pumpkin vote isn't gone or made over by tonight, millions of viewers won't get past his appearance to hear what he has to say about his many positions on Iraq because they won't be able to stop laughing."
Okay, Hugh, I am kinda with you, but its not the debates yet. Then he loses me:
"Old media's refusal to note what ordinary Americans are talking about is the latest in a series of stubborn refusals that began with elitist indifference and ideological bent and which are ending in irrelevance."
I just do not feel anyone, MSM or the blogoshere, has a responsibility to note "what ordinary Americans are talking." With all the high crimes and misdemeanors MSM has perpetrated, Kerry's skin tone does not rank high.
Further, note Hugh's ideological leap: Rathergate was about accuracy in what was reported (a sin of commission, if you will), now Hugh is taking MSM to task about a sin of omission.
I am not there. While I think there are plenty of stories MSM misses every day, that is their choice. What I expect from them is to get it right if they choose to report. Right now, that is hard enough.
9.30.2004
9.28.2004
Dems in 2008
Assuming that things go the way they seem to be and President Bush does not step into it with the debates, GWB wins in 2004. So what about 2008? Ramesh Ponnuru engages in some idle speculation. Most interestingly, Ramesh assumes two things, first the GWOT will continue (highly likely) and second, the HRC will be the nominee.
Given the 2004 campaign, is that a certainty? A month ago, I would have said yes, but seeing how badly Terry McAuliffe and Joe Lockhart have performed (both loyal Clintonistas), I am no longer sure. I wonder if HRC will be tainted with that brush.
Probably not. The fact is John Kerry is a completely un appealing candidate that has run an unappealing campaign. (One can argue that President Bush has also run an unappealing campaign, ala Andrew Sullivan.) He has not acted Presidential in the least. Nor has his staff, nor has the chairman of the DNC. Again, all these points can be argued against the Republicans, but the individuals (Bush, Rove, Gillespie) have pretty much stayed out of it. I think most voters will be forgiving of flip-flops and what one did 30 years ago, but for God sakes act the part. JFK has not.
So what about HRC in 2008. While I am not an HRC fan, I think she has tremendous cross over appeal. She has a very likeable public persona, she is unquestionably smart (book and street) and she plays the system like a virtuoso. She does not pander hard to the base because the base knows her and she is confident enough to realize that the Democratic base is not going anywhere. She will craft a centrist message and has not been in the Senate long enough to suffer an attackable voting record. (As for Hillarycare, she will brush that off as a great idea, badly implemented. "Let's do it right next time.")
Further, she has her own team. She will not stand by while her husband's political cronies (especially a lightening rod like McAuliffe) screw-up. Her team will a classic liberal, Democrat team cloaked in the "New Democrat" label - no Max Cleland's around. And, she will run as the incumbent. The Republican nominee will be new to the nation (a downside of a Bush/Cheney ticket), but she will run as Clinton III (and IV).
Ouch. Unless Rudy Gulianni runs, HRC beats a Republican governor of your choice by 4%, picks up a working majority in the Senate and has small gains in the House. Remember, you heard it here first.
Given the 2004 campaign, is that a certainty? A month ago, I would have said yes, but seeing how badly Terry McAuliffe and Joe Lockhart have performed (both loyal Clintonistas), I am no longer sure. I wonder if HRC will be tainted with that brush.
Probably not. The fact is John Kerry is a completely un appealing candidate that has run an unappealing campaign. (One can argue that President Bush has also run an unappealing campaign, ala Andrew Sullivan.) He has not acted Presidential in the least. Nor has his staff, nor has the chairman of the DNC. Again, all these points can be argued against the Republicans, but the individuals (Bush, Rove, Gillespie) have pretty much stayed out of it. I think most voters will be forgiving of flip-flops and what one did 30 years ago, but for God sakes act the part. JFK has not.
So what about HRC in 2008. While I am not an HRC fan, I think she has tremendous cross over appeal. She has a very likeable public persona, she is unquestionably smart (book and street) and she plays the system like a virtuoso. She does not pander hard to the base because the base knows her and she is confident enough to realize that the Democratic base is not going anywhere. She will craft a centrist message and has not been in the Senate long enough to suffer an attackable voting record. (As for Hillarycare, she will brush that off as a great idea, badly implemented. "Let's do it right next time.")
Further, she has her own team. She will not stand by while her husband's political cronies (especially a lightening rod like McAuliffe) screw-up. Her team will a classic liberal, Democrat team cloaked in the "New Democrat" label - no Max Cleland's around. And, she will run as the incumbent. The Republican nominee will be new to the nation (a downside of a Bush/Cheney ticket), but she will run as Clinton III (and IV).
Ouch. Unless Rudy Gulianni runs, HRC beats a Republican governor of your choice by 4%, picks up a working majority in the Senate and has small gains in the House. Remember, you heard it here first.
9.20.2004
CBS' Mea Culpa
So Dan Rather has expressed his apologies for what happened. CBS will investigate the incident and get back to us. I am sure in late November.
Hugh Hewitt, Jim Geraghty, the folks at the Corner and even Glenn Reynolds are not satisfied. I am very satisfied. As I said below, I think Dan Rather - hobbled, humbled, and doubted - in place is a much better partisan outcome then his head on a pike and CBS with a fresh start. Graciously accept the apology, knowing that plenty of viewers just switiched to FOX or ABC or NBC.
Mary Mapes is toast. John Ellis is being kind to her, though I think I would hold out for seven figures for the book deal.
On another note, first Barnes' daughter (maybe) and then Mapes' dad publicly trashing their family. What is up with this? And this is not some polite "I don't agree with their position" talk. Very public, very tough. I guess I am naive, but I can't see doing that
Hugh Hewitt, Jim Geraghty, the folks at the Corner and even Glenn Reynolds are not satisfied. I am very satisfied. As I said below, I think Dan Rather - hobbled, humbled, and doubted - in place is a much better partisan outcome then his head on a pike and CBS with a fresh start. Graciously accept the apology, knowing that plenty of viewers just switiched to FOX or ABC or NBC.
Mary Mapes is toast. John Ellis is being kind to her, though I think I would hold out for seven figures for the book deal.
On another note, first Barnes' daughter (maybe) and then Mapes' dad publicly trashing their family. What is up with this? And this is not some polite "I don't agree with their position" talk. Very public, very tough. I guess I am naive, but I can't see doing that
9.17.2004
Let Dan Stay (Awhile)
Some very smart people are giving advice on the next steps to bring down Dan Rather and CBS. (See Jim Geraughty and Hugh Hewitt.) Hugh even calls for a Congressional review.
There is a different way...
Leave them in place. Think this through, guys and gals. If the Recall Dan movement is successful, CBS will takes its licks for sure, but soon the parties will be shuffled along and Leslie Stahl (say) becomes the new face of CBS. New face, fresh new start.
But what if Dan stays? With Dan in place, CBS will NEVER be taken for a serious news organization again. Dan lingers on - retirement postponed to allow him to recover face - meanwhile the most severely partisan of the major networks is hobbled for the foreseeable future.
So...fresh start or severely hobbled. Which do you prefer?
There is a different way...
Leave them in place. Think this through, guys and gals. If the Recall Dan movement is successful, CBS will takes its licks for sure, but soon the parties will be shuffled along and Leslie Stahl (say) becomes the new face of CBS. New face, fresh new start.
But what if Dan stays? With Dan in place, CBS will NEVER be taken for a serious news organization again. Dan lingers on - retirement postponed to allow him to recover face - meanwhile the most severely partisan of the major networks is hobbled for the foreseeable future.
So...fresh start or severely hobbled. Which do you prefer?
527s and the State of Political Discourse
I have been reading much on the low level of the political discourse of this campaign be it the 527s or personal attacks. Along with each of these articles is much head scratching and muttering about causes. Is it worse this year, yes. Will it be worse next presidential cycle, I would bet yes. Why? The answer is in the Carville-ization of politics.
Jim Carville, uber Democratic strategist and CNN commentator, fundamentally changed the landscape of politics during the 1992 and 1996 campaigns. During these campaigns, it became more obvious that a) the media was generally more sympathetic to the Democrat's cause and b) the public has a very short attention span. These two items are the pillars of the politics of personal destruction. Recall his wonderful summary of Ms. Paula Jones: "Drag a hundred-dollar bill through a trailer park, you never know what you'll find."
The bimbo eruptions President Clinton endured and Jim Carville managed taught the seedy underbelly of Democratic strategists not only how to handle these charges (which they used to their benefit in Monicagate), but how to counterattack with charges of their own. Once president, Mr. Clinton could operate above the fray. But the trouble the Democrats had was that Clinton was always on his heels because of one scandal or another, and his support team was always in defend and attack mode.
Lewinsky, Florida 2000, etc. just added fuel to the fire, but the Carville-ization of Democratic politics is here to stay, but where once it was limited to sex scandals, now it is being used against a sitting President.
Jim Carville, uber Democratic strategist and CNN commentator, fundamentally changed the landscape of politics during the 1992 and 1996 campaigns. During these campaigns, it became more obvious that a) the media was generally more sympathetic to the Democrat's cause and b) the public has a very short attention span. These two items are the pillars of the politics of personal destruction. Recall his wonderful summary of Ms. Paula Jones: "Drag a hundred-dollar bill through a trailer park, you never know what you'll find."
The bimbo eruptions President Clinton endured and Jim Carville managed taught the seedy underbelly of Democratic strategists not only how to handle these charges (which they used to their benefit in Monicagate), but how to counterattack with charges of their own. Once president, Mr. Clinton could operate above the fray. But the trouble the Democrats had was that Clinton was always on his heels because of one scandal or another, and his support team was always in defend and attack mode.
Lewinsky, Florida 2000, etc. just added fuel to the fire, but the Carville-ization of Democratic politics is here to stay, but where once it was limited to sex scandals, now it is being used against a sitting President.
Getting the Ball Rolling
Well it's my turn. I am not sure how long this hobby will last, but I thought I would try my hand at blogging. That might understate it a bit as, like most of the new bloggers, I am a rapid blog fan. While CNN will continue as my home page, I get the vast majority of my news from blogs and only go to the traditional media to see if they have caught up.
I have my ambitions, limited by work and family commitments. (Ironically, I probably will do most of my blogging in my Pajamas.) Truth be told, I hope to add to the debate, get in a few points and, if I am lucky, open a mind or two just a little bit.
I have my ambitions, limited by work and family commitments. (Ironically, I probably will do most of my blogging in my Pajamas.) Truth be told, I hope to add to the debate, get in a few points and, if I am lucky, open a mind or two just a little bit.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)