As of last Sunday, there were only 100 days remaining in the presidency of George W. Bush. He says he has "a lot of work to do" and that may be true. But it's also true that he is probably the lamest of ducks right now.
I know that the phrase lame duck was invented for this kind of period where the president doesn't really matter that much. People are taken in by the election of the new president and so they spend their time focusing on what the potential incoming chief executives are saying rather than the aged outgoing boss. That even makes a certain amount of sense. However, the degree to which George Bush seems irrelevant, even in the midst of major events, is somewhat stunning.
During the whole plan over the bailout, where was Bush? Yes, he addressed the nation and said that Congress had to pass the bailout, but that didn't even work. The House initially voted it down. Paulson got the credit/blame for being the head person on the bailout. Press coverage focused a lot on what Obama and McCain were doing about things. In all of that it sort of got lost that, oh yeah, Bush is still president.
As I think about it, I've heard barely anything from W. in months now. Again, part of that has to be attributed to the fact that he's the lame duck president in the midst of an exciting presidential election. We can also attribute it to the fact that this president has simply made himself irrelevant by his poor judgement and leadership on issue after issue over the last eight years. And now there's only 97 days left. Start your countdowns.
Showing posts with label Bush. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bush. Show all posts
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Thursday, July 31, 2008
Contempt and More Contempt
Yesterday, the House Judiciary Committee voted to cite Karl Rove for contempt of Congress. The vote was only a recommendation. It still needs to be approved by the full House and the Senate - both of which are not terribly likely to happen. But still. It's nice to see that Congress has gotten into the contempt game. After all, the administration has been hurling contempt at Congress for years now.
As has become shocking for the lack of shock it elicits, Congress summoned some member of the administration to testify under oath about something. The administration member refused and Congress got mad. None of this is new stuff. In fact, it's pretty much the standard playbook for an administration that doesn't have much belief in its own need to follow the Constitution. So this time the committee voted to take some action.
The irony of this is that it doesn't matter to this administration for precisely the same reason that the contempt recommendation was made. Not since Andrew Jackson said that the Supreme Court would also have to enforce the ruling he disagreed with has a president shown such lack of regard for the supposedly co-equal branches of government.
That's the catch in all this. Congress is considering voting to hold Rove in contempt because he doesn't respect their authority to call him in to assert their oversight duties. However, the contempt vote won't really matter because Rove doesn't respect Congress' authority. Tough spot. I'm just glad that January is around the corner.
As has become shocking for the lack of shock it elicits, Congress summoned some member of the administration to testify under oath about something. The administration member refused and Congress got mad. None of this is new stuff. In fact, it's pretty much the standard playbook for an administration that doesn't have much belief in its own need to follow the Constitution. So this time the committee voted to take some action.
The irony of this is that it doesn't matter to this administration for precisely the same reason that the contempt recommendation was made. Not since Andrew Jackson said that the Supreme Court would also have to enforce the ruling he disagreed with has a president shown such lack of regard for the supposedly co-equal branches of government.
That's the catch in all this. Congress is considering voting to hold Rove in contempt because he doesn't respect their authority to call him in to assert their oversight duties. However, the contempt vote won't really matter because Rove doesn't respect Congress' authority. Tough spot. I'm just glad that January is around the corner.
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
The Adventures of Bat Bush
While reading last Friday's Wall Street Journal op-ed about What Bush and Batman Have in Common, I was struck by a brilliant idea for the next Batman movie: dump Christian Bale and hire the recently unemployed George W. Bush for the title role. (If Bale keeps attacking his mother, they may be in the market for someone new anyway.) Here's how the plot would go.
The movie would open with a shot of bustling, though essentially peaceful Gotham City. Suddenly, with no warning, there are two huge explosions as buildings are destroyed. We soon learn that the Joker is the evil doer behind these nefarious deeds. Batbush (usually not great with public relations) holds a press conference and rallies the people of Gotham behind him. He makes it clear that he's going to catch the Joker and bring him to justice for what he's done.
Batbush immediately starts on this quest for justice by leaving Gotham City and heading to Metropolis where he begins a long struggle with Lex Luthor. You see, Batbush explains, Lex Luthor is an evil doer and he's planning to do bad things so he has to be stopped. Everyone kind of goes along with this because he's Batbush and they trust him to do the right thing. A few eyebrows get raised, however, when Batbush refuses to accept any help from Superman or the League of Justice. They want to help Gotham's hero out of solidarity with the cause, but Batbush's stubborn insistence on doing things his way alienates these heroic potential allies.
It turns out that the fight against Lex Luthor is pretty easy and he's quickly put in jail where he's executed. But, it also turns out that Luthor wasn't really planning any big attacks against Gotham or anywhere else. He was just a big talker. However, with Luthor gone all sorts of problems break out in Metropolis and Batbush is obligated to stay and help fight a protracted war against the criminals of the city.
Meanwhile, back in Gotham, the Joker (remember him? the guy who started all the trouble?) hasn't been caught. He's still running around free encouraging other smaller attacks. Batbush is stuck in Metropolis, so he's no help. The people of Gotham are frustrated and angry because crime in their city is way up while Batbush goes running around in another city that he probably shouldn't even have gone to in the first place. Wayne Enterprises is nearly bankrupt from all of Batbush's exploits in Metropolis and that's causing a huge financial drain on the whole city of Gotham.
The film ends with Batbush saying that he has no regrets and that he knows he's doing the right thing. The people of Gotham, meanwhile, are signing a petition to keep him in Metropolis, never to return. Fade to black.
Hopefully there wouldn't be a sequel. Batmccain anyone?
The movie would open with a shot of bustling, though essentially peaceful Gotham City. Suddenly, with no warning, there are two huge explosions as buildings are destroyed. We soon learn that the Joker is the evil doer behind these nefarious deeds. Batbush (usually not great with public relations) holds a press conference and rallies the people of Gotham behind him. He makes it clear that he's going to catch the Joker and bring him to justice for what he's done.
Batbush immediately starts on this quest for justice by leaving Gotham City and heading to Metropolis where he begins a long struggle with Lex Luthor. You see, Batbush explains, Lex Luthor is an evil doer and he's planning to do bad things so he has to be stopped. Everyone kind of goes along with this because he's Batbush and they trust him to do the right thing. A few eyebrows get raised, however, when Batbush refuses to accept any help from Superman or the League of Justice. They want to help Gotham's hero out of solidarity with the cause, but Batbush's stubborn insistence on doing things his way alienates these heroic potential allies.
It turns out that the fight against Lex Luthor is pretty easy and he's quickly put in jail where he's executed. But, it also turns out that Luthor wasn't really planning any big attacks against Gotham or anywhere else. He was just a big talker. However, with Luthor gone all sorts of problems break out in Metropolis and Batbush is obligated to stay and help fight a protracted war against the criminals of the city.
Meanwhile, back in Gotham, the Joker (remember him? the guy who started all the trouble?) hasn't been caught. He's still running around free encouraging other smaller attacks. Batbush is stuck in Metropolis, so he's no help. The people of Gotham are frustrated and angry because crime in their city is way up while Batbush goes running around in another city that he probably shouldn't even have gone to in the first place. Wayne Enterprises is nearly bankrupt from all of Batbush's exploits in Metropolis and that's causing a huge financial drain on the whole city of Gotham.
The film ends with Batbush saying that he has no regrets and that he knows he's doing the right thing. The people of Gotham, meanwhile, are signing a petition to keep him in Metropolis, never to return. Fade to black.
Hopefully there wouldn't be a sequel. Batmccain anyone?
Friday, July 25, 2008
Hope, Global Edition
I think that Barack Obama's speech in Berlin yesterday was a mark of how much things have changed for the worse in the eight years since George W. Bush was elected president. It was a fine speech, though I don't think it was a knockout. What made it remarkable for me was how unremarkable it would have been about a decade ago.
There was a time, not too distant in the past, where if a president had gone to Europe and essentially said, "We're allies and we're going to work together on common problems," everyone would have said, "Well, duh!" But no more. After eight years of unilateral treaty withdrawals and the occasional unilateral, "preventative" war it's an applause line to say that we're going to work with our allies. This is actually what things have come to.
Obama made the point that the problems in New York aren't confined to New York and the problems in Berlin aren't confined to Berlin. He had a great line that problems aren't confined within a country's borders anymore. Again, a decade ago the idea that the global community faced certain shared threats and challenges wasn't exactly news. It certainly wouldn't have been news if a presidential candidate had said that we should work with our allies to addrss those threats and challenges. So what changed? Bush happened.
On the whole, Obama gave a solid speech that likely will play well in Europe (and hopefully here). What he didn't do was offer any particularly new ideas. The ideas just seemed new because for the last eight years the administration has tried to ignore the rest of the world. Obama is promising to change that. No wonder the rest of the world likes him.
There was a time, not too distant in the past, where if a president had gone to Europe and essentially said, "We're allies and we're going to work together on common problems," everyone would have said, "Well, duh!" But no more. After eight years of unilateral treaty withdrawals and the occasional unilateral, "preventative" war it's an applause line to say that we're going to work with our allies. This is actually what things have come to.
Obama made the point that the problems in New York aren't confined to New York and the problems in Berlin aren't confined to Berlin. He had a great line that problems aren't confined within a country's borders anymore. Again, a decade ago the idea that the global community faced certain shared threats and challenges wasn't exactly news. It certainly wouldn't have been news if a presidential candidate had said that we should work with our allies to addrss those threats and challenges. So what changed? Bush happened.
On the whole, Obama gave a solid speech that likely will play well in Europe (and hopefully here). What he didn't do was offer any particularly new ideas. The ideas just seemed new because for the last eight years the administration has tried to ignore the rest of the world. Obama is promising to change that. No wonder the rest of the world likes him.
Thursday, July 3, 2008
Rights? What Rights?
Every so often the Bush administration does something to help us remember just what it is about the Bush administration that we really don't like. This probably counts as some sort of constituent service in their eyes.
The latest example I submit to you is that the Justice Department is apparently on the verge of condoning racial profiling as an investigative technique. My favorite line from the AP article is: "Currently, FBI agents need specific reasons — like evidence or allegations that a law probably has been violated — to investigate U.S. citizens and legal residents. The new policy, law enforcement officials told The Associated Press, would let agents open preliminary terrorism investigations after mining public records and intelligence to build a profile of traits that, taken together, were deemed suspicious."
That's right. The Justice Department is deciding that there doesn't need to be evidence or even allegations that a law has been broken to start an investigation. Instead, they'll look a profiles of traits that seem suspicious.
Wow. I know the Fourth of July isn't until tomorrow, but doesn't that just make you proud to be an American.
Yet again, the Bush administration is making it pretty clear that they'll ignore the Constitution anytime it seems like it might prove an inconvenience.
The latest example I submit to you is that the Justice Department is apparently on the verge of condoning racial profiling as an investigative technique. My favorite line from the AP article is: "Currently, FBI agents need specific reasons — like evidence or allegations that a law probably has been violated — to investigate U.S. citizens and legal residents. The new policy, law enforcement officials told The Associated Press, would let agents open preliminary terrorism investigations after mining public records and intelligence to build a profile of traits that, taken together, were deemed suspicious."
That's right. The Justice Department is deciding that there doesn't need to be evidence or even allegations that a law has been broken to start an investigation. Instead, they'll look a profiles of traits that seem suspicious.
Wow. I know the Fourth of July isn't until tomorrow, but doesn't that just make you proud to be an American.
Yet again, the Bush administration is making it pretty clear that they'll ignore the Constitution anytime it seems like it might prove an inconvenience.
Friday, May 2, 2008
History in the Making
Well, we're witnessing history in the making. A new poll by CNN/Opinion Research Corps. puts President George W. Bush's disapproval rating at nearly 71%. A truly astonishing accomplishment. This is the highest recorded disapproval rating of any president and the first time that a president's disapproval rating cracked the 70% mark. In fact, the previous worst mark was Harry Truman who in 1952 had 67% of people disapprove of his job performance. Lyndon Johnson at the height of the Vietnam War never got to that level. Even Nixon just before his resignation could only muster a 66% percent rate. So this is truly a thing to behold.
I read once a long time ago (meaning not a prayer of finding the link) that poll theorists thought it pretty much impossible to get beyond 2/3 of people disapproving of you. Given that 2/3 is the magic ratio for impeachment, that theory made a certain amount of sense. But George W. Bush is not one to be limited to historical precendent. So he's blasted his way right through that mark.
The other amazing thing (aside from the sheer historic-ness of it all) is that John McCain, who's basically running for a third Bush term - stay in Iraq, make the tax cuts permanent - is virtually tied with the Democratic candidates in head to head polling right now. This tells me two things. First, it means that it's very good to run for president basically unopposed. Second, once the Democrats choose a nominee and really start a campaign, John McCain is in big trouble. So let's get going.
I read once a long time ago (meaning not a prayer of finding the link) that poll theorists thought it pretty much impossible to get beyond 2/3 of people disapproving of you. Given that 2/3 is the magic ratio for impeachment, that theory made a certain amount of sense. But George W. Bush is not one to be limited to historical precendent. So he's blasted his way right through that mark.
The other amazing thing (aside from the sheer historic-ness of it all) is that John McCain, who's basically running for a third Bush term - stay in Iraq, make the tax cuts permanent - is virtually tied with the Democratic candidates in head to head polling right now. This tells me two things. First, it means that it's very good to run for president basically unopposed. Second, once the Democrats choose a nominee and really start a campaign, John McCain is in big trouble. So let's get going.
Monday, March 17, 2008
Wastes of Time and Wire Taps
I've made the editorial decision to pretty much ignore the latest tempest in a teapot controversy surrounding Barack Obama's pastor. Frankly, I don't see it as a big deal. The only thing it really does is give us a preview of what the weeks leading up to the Pennsylvania primary are going to look like. The Obama campaign took down Ferraro from the Clinton campaign. Now the Clinton campaign has taken down Wright from the Obama campaign. Maybe now they'll go back to real campaigning. Somehow, I doubt it.
On a note of actual substance, Julian Sanchez wrote a great article in the Los Angeles Times over the weekend about the real dangers of wire tapping. First, Sanchez makes the point that pretty much since the wire tap was invented, political leaders have used it against their enemies to forward their own ends and seek more power. This was all done in the name of national security of course. But, you know, once you start violating the Constitution it's hard to stop.
Sanchez also refutes the argument that if you are a regular, law-abiding citizen who doesn't spend his free time consorting with terrorists, you don't really have anything to worry about, even if the government is listening in on you. That always bothered me as a slippery slope toward Big Brother in which all opposition is crushed by, "What do you have to hide?"
Sanchez, however, points out that most of us never have and never will invoke our first amendment rights (or many other Constitutional guarantees, come to think of it). But while we may not have anything particularly controversial to say, we recognize the importance of allowing others to say controversial things for the sake of our democracy.
When we start allowing our liberties to be taken, we lose our freedom. In a nation built on liberty and justice for all, that's simply unacceptable.
On a note of actual substance, Julian Sanchez wrote a great article in the Los Angeles Times over the weekend about the real dangers of wire tapping. First, Sanchez makes the point that pretty much since the wire tap was invented, political leaders have used it against their enemies to forward their own ends and seek more power. This was all done in the name of national security of course. But, you know, once you start violating the Constitution it's hard to stop.
Sanchez also refutes the argument that if you are a regular, law-abiding citizen who doesn't spend his free time consorting with terrorists, you don't really have anything to worry about, even if the government is listening in on you. That always bothered me as a slippery slope toward Big Brother in which all opposition is crushed by, "What do you have to hide?"
Sanchez, however, points out that most of us never have and never will invoke our first amendment rights (or many other Constitutional guarantees, come to think of it). But while we may not have anything particularly controversial to say, we recognize the importance of allowing others to say controversial things for the sake of our democracy.
When we start allowing our liberties to be taken, we lose our freedom. In a nation built on liberty and justice for all, that's simply unacceptable.
Monday, March 10, 2008
Liberty, Shmiberty
Taking another page from the book Who Cares What Congress or the Constitution Say?, the Bush admininstration continues in it's efforts to show that Big Brother is alive and well.
An article in today's Wall Street Journal spells out an NSA program of domestic spying. While the program technically is focused on international information, it's hard to draw the line in the digital age. As such, there's a lot of domestic spying going on apparently. For those paying attention, this is substantially the same program that Congress killed when it was the Pentagon doing it. That's right. Congress said no, but the administration is doing it anyway. I know. Stop the presses, right?
For those of you out there who might worry that a domestic spying program seems awfully Big Brother-ish, don't worry. Kit Bond, the ranking Republican on the Senate Intelligence Committee says, "that's not what is happening today." Really? Because when I read the quote below, it makes me wonder.
"If a person suspected of terrorist connections is believed to be in a U.S. city -- for instance, Detroit, a community with a high concentration of Muslim Americans -- the government's spy systems may be directed to collect and analyze all electronic communications into and out of the city."
WHAT?!?! If there's a suspected terrorist somewhere in a city, any electronic communication into and out of the city can be monitored by the government? I'd be curious to hear when Senator Bond thinks that a Big Brother program begins. If being able to monitor every electronic communication in a city isn't Big Brother, what is? Where does that line get drawn?
Essentially, this program gives the federal government power to monitor electronic communications from anyone in the country. I mean, what city doesn't have someone who could be a suspected terrorist? I certainly doubt that the government is actually monitoring every communication I send, but the fact that they could is troubling to me.
What I really don't understand is why this isn't equally troubling to everyone. I get that we're fighting terrorism and that we have to take an aggressive stance to defend our liberties. But, in the end, should we have some liberties left to defend?
An article in today's Wall Street Journal spells out an NSA program of domestic spying. While the program technically is focused on international information, it's hard to draw the line in the digital age. As such, there's a lot of domestic spying going on apparently. For those paying attention, this is substantially the same program that Congress killed when it was the Pentagon doing it. That's right. Congress said no, but the administration is doing it anyway. I know. Stop the presses, right?
For those of you out there who might worry that a domestic spying program seems awfully Big Brother-ish, don't worry. Kit Bond, the ranking Republican on the Senate Intelligence Committee says, "that's not what is happening today." Really? Because when I read the quote below, it makes me wonder.
"If a person suspected of terrorist connections is believed to be in a U.S. city -- for instance, Detroit, a community with a high concentration of Muslim Americans -- the government's spy systems may be directed to collect and analyze all electronic communications into and out of the city."
WHAT?!?! If there's a suspected terrorist somewhere in a city, any electronic communication into and out of the city can be monitored by the government? I'd be curious to hear when Senator Bond thinks that a Big Brother program begins. If being able to monitor every electronic communication in a city isn't Big Brother, what is? Where does that line get drawn?
Essentially, this program gives the federal government power to monitor electronic communications from anyone in the country. I mean, what city doesn't have someone who could be a suspected terrorist? I certainly doubt that the government is actually monitoring every communication I send, but the fact that they could is troubling to me.
What I really don't understand is why this isn't equally troubling to everyone. I get that we're fighting terrorism and that we have to take an aggressive stance to defend our liberties. But, in the end, should we have some liberties left to defend?
In Case You Missed It
Just in case you missed it over the weekend, President Bush vetoed the bill that would limit CIA interrogation tactics to those that are allowed to military and law enforcement officials. Senator Ted Kennedy is quoted saying that this is one of the most shameful acts of Bush's presidency. And that's saying something.
The point of the bill is that it would say that U.S. officials aren't allowed to torture people. In other words, it's just reaffirming the Constitution and the international Geneva Accords. But sometimes you need to remind this president of things like that.
The lead in the New York Times story about the veto said that Bush "further cemented his legacy of fighting for strong executive powers" through his actions. That's one way of putting it. Another way might be that he further cemented his legacy of wrong-headed, unconstitutional, arrogance. But I guess the Times wanted to go with a more positive approach to keep all those media-are-liberal accusations to a minimum.
Bush and his allies on this issue (I'm assuming there are some) say that CIA interrogators need to have every tool available to them in order to combat terrorism. While I agree that we need to work to be kept safe, this is crossing the line. It's simply ridiculous.
In the first place, torture like waterboarding is of dubious effectiveness. Even Gen. David Petraeus (patron saint of surges) says that it's a bad idea because it doesn't work and increases the risk for our soldiers. Experts say that torture increases the likelihood that suspects will say what they think their interrogators want to hear, not necessarily what the actual truth is. So with torture the tactics don't work, you aren't getting the truth, and you're putting our soldiers at greater risk. Tell me again how this is helping us?
Oh yeah, and there's the Constitution. Surely Bush has heard of it at least. The eighth amendment bans cruel and unusual punishment. That's even for after someone has been convicted and found guilty. For torturing suspects there's not even a guarantee that the victim has done anything wrong.
Don't get me wrong. I think that the War on Terror is incredibly serious and needs to be fought in a focused, intense way. But this is not focus. Nor was the War in Iraq. Both of these endeavors have been wrong from the start. They require a dangerous ends justify the means philosophy just to start with. Even if we assume that this is a valid philosophy, let's look at exactly what we've accomplished to make us safer and to win the War on Terror. Osama bin Laden is still at large. Al Queda is still out there. Iraq is destablized and apparently totally dependent on us. If we were to leave there's a chance that the whole region would be destabilized.
So far, I'm not convinced that the ends are doing much justifying at all.
The bottom line on all this is that what makes America a great country is that we don't go around doing things like torturing people. At least for me, I'd like to win the War on Terror, not become a part of it.
The point of the bill is that it would say that U.S. officials aren't allowed to torture people. In other words, it's just reaffirming the Constitution and the international Geneva Accords. But sometimes you need to remind this president of things like that.
The lead in the New York Times story about the veto said that Bush "further cemented his legacy of fighting for strong executive powers" through his actions. That's one way of putting it. Another way might be that he further cemented his legacy of wrong-headed, unconstitutional, arrogance. But I guess the Times wanted to go with a more positive approach to keep all those media-are-liberal accusations to a minimum.
Bush and his allies on this issue (I'm assuming there are some) say that CIA interrogators need to have every tool available to them in order to combat terrorism. While I agree that we need to work to be kept safe, this is crossing the line. It's simply ridiculous.
In the first place, torture like waterboarding is of dubious effectiveness. Even Gen. David Petraeus (patron saint of surges) says that it's a bad idea because it doesn't work and increases the risk for our soldiers. Experts say that torture increases the likelihood that suspects will say what they think their interrogators want to hear, not necessarily what the actual truth is. So with torture the tactics don't work, you aren't getting the truth, and you're putting our soldiers at greater risk. Tell me again how this is helping us?
Oh yeah, and there's the Constitution. Surely Bush has heard of it at least. The eighth amendment bans cruel and unusual punishment. That's even for after someone has been convicted and found guilty. For torturing suspects there's not even a guarantee that the victim has done anything wrong.
Don't get me wrong. I think that the War on Terror is incredibly serious and needs to be fought in a focused, intense way. But this is not focus. Nor was the War in Iraq. Both of these endeavors have been wrong from the start. They require a dangerous ends justify the means philosophy just to start with. Even if we assume that this is a valid philosophy, let's look at exactly what we've accomplished to make us safer and to win the War on Terror. Osama bin Laden is still at large. Al Queda is still out there. Iraq is destablized and apparently totally dependent on us. If we were to leave there's a chance that the whole region would be destabilized.
So far, I'm not convinced that the ends are doing much justifying at all.
The bottom line on all this is that what makes America a great country is that we don't go around doing things like torturing people. At least for me, I'd like to win the War on Terror, not become a part of it.
Monday, February 25, 2008
Feeding the Beast
A recent New Yorker article ostensibly focused on whether or not John McCain could reinvent Republicanism also touched on some interesting points regarding the media strategies of the different campaigns. The profile of McCain opens with him engaged in long, frank conversations with members of the press aboard his campaign bus. This is contrasted with the "overly managed" campaigns of Obama and Clinton in which the media is held at arm's length and only fed pre-chewed sound bites and talking points. Obama's campaign in particular is singled out for its similarity to the Bush White House in terms of message discipline and rooting out leaks with "frightening intensity."
If there's anything that the Bush media team has taught us, it is that hyper-fanaticism in message discipline does not work as a long-term media strategy. It can certainly be effective in the short term (and a campaign may be just the right amount of time), but over the course of a presidency the magic is bound to wear off.
To use a slightly less-than-flattering metaphor, the modern media is a thousand-headed beast with a voracious appetite that has to be fed 24 hours a day (if not more) in order to be kept happy. Faced with this reality, presidents must choose what they are going to do in order to keep the beast calm and well-fed. After all, even thousand-headed beasts will usually refrain from biting the hand that feeds it. What the Reagan White House did so well and the Bush White House tried to take even further was placing such an extreme level of discipline on those who talk to the press that no matter how hungry the beast gets, there is still only one story to cover: the story the White House wants covered. In theory this makes an awful lot of sense. Limit access to the president, everyone else is saying the exact same thing, and there's only one game in town.
Except that's where the problem arises. While there's only one White House and one president, there will never only be one game in a town like Washington. If the press beast isn't being fed at the White House it will lumber elsewhere at which point the White House loses control over the story. Suddenly, the White House isn't dictating the agenda anymore and isn't in front of the news cycle. This is what we've seen over the course of the Bush years.
At first, the press was happy to take what was offered and coverage was generally good. As time passed, the beast began to grow restless. The Bush communications team didn't recognize their changing situation (no surprise there) and continued to insist on one line a day, one story, one morsel. When the press insisted on more and they didn't get it from the White House, they turned elsewhere. Coverage has only gotten steadily worse from there.
While an Obama team (or Clinton team) might be able to improve upon the Bush structure, the system itself is fundamentally flawed because it is impossible to satiate the beast entirely with pre-selected soundbites.
So what is a president to do?
Interestingly, John McCain might already be on the right track. (He is also following in the footsteps of Franklin Roosevelt more than he would like to admit as he tries to solidify his standing among conseratives.) What Roosevelt, and now McCain, did so effectively was coopt the press by giving them a steady stream of information that they wanted, but with his spin on it. FDR engaged in long conversations with members of the press answering virtually whatever questions they asked. In doing so, he was able to give them the White House version of facts first, before they had to go out and learn about it on the street. By getting the first word in, FDR was able to shape the coverage he received. By engaging in frank discussions of the issues the press wanted covered, he was able to maintain his advantage of getting the first word in.
McCain seems like he is doing that now and it should serve him well. Hopefully the Democrats figure it out too. After all, even a thousand-headed beast with a voracious 24-hour appetite will think twice before biting the hand that feeds it.
If there's anything that the Bush media team has taught us, it is that hyper-fanaticism in message discipline does not work as a long-term media strategy. It can certainly be effective in the short term (and a campaign may be just the right amount of time), but over the course of a presidency the magic is bound to wear off.
To use a slightly less-than-flattering metaphor, the modern media is a thousand-headed beast with a voracious appetite that has to be fed 24 hours a day (if not more) in order to be kept happy. Faced with this reality, presidents must choose what they are going to do in order to keep the beast calm and well-fed. After all, even thousand-headed beasts will usually refrain from biting the hand that feeds it. What the Reagan White House did so well and the Bush White House tried to take even further was placing such an extreme level of discipline on those who talk to the press that no matter how hungry the beast gets, there is still only one story to cover: the story the White House wants covered. In theory this makes an awful lot of sense. Limit access to the president, everyone else is saying the exact same thing, and there's only one game in town.
Except that's where the problem arises. While there's only one White House and one president, there will never only be one game in a town like Washington. If the press beast isn't being fed at the White House it will lumber elsewhere at which point the White House loses control over the story. Suddenly, the White House isn't dictating the agenda anymore and isn't in front of the news cycle. This is what we've seen over the course of the Bush years.
At first, the press was happy to take what was offered and coverage was generally good. As time passed, the beast began to grow restless. The Bush communications team didn't recognize their changing situation (no surprise there) and continued to insist on one line a day, one story, one morsel. When the press insisted on more and they didn't get it from the White House, they turned elsewhere. Coverage has only gotten steadily worse from there.
While an Obama team (or Clinton team) might be able to improve upon the Bush structure, the system itself is fundamentally flawed because it is impossible to satiate the beast entirely with pre-selected soundbites.
So what is a president to do?
Interestingly, John McCain might already be on the right track. (He is also following in the footsteps of Franklin Roosevelt more than he would like to admit as he tries to solidify his standing among conseratives.) What Roosevelt, and now McCain, did so effectively was coopt the press by giving them a steady stream of information that they wanted, but with his spin on it. FDR engaged in long conversations with members of the press answering virtually whatever questions they asked. In doing so, he was able to give them the White House version of facts first, before they had to go out and learn about it on the street. By getting the first word in, FDR was able to shape the coverage he received. By engaging in frank discussions of the issues the press wanted covered, he was able to maintain his advantage of getting the first word in.
McCain seems like he is doing that now and it should serve him well. Hopefully the Democrats figure it out too. After all, even a thousand-headed beast with a voracious 24-hour appetite will think twice before biting the hand that feeds it.
Sunday, February 24, 2008
An Unlikely Constituency
What follows is a conversation I overhead two days ago at a free lunch program in a senior center in New York City. I am recording it as faithfully as my memory allows.
Old Man: I hope it's Hillary that gets the nomination.
Old Woman: No! I want Obama!
[minor bickering around the table for a moment]
Old Woman: I just think he's going to be the best.
Old Woman II: Well, after Bush.
Old Woman: Right, of course. I would vote for Bush again, but he's not running. So I hope it's Obama.
That's right. As reported first here, Barack Obama seems to be capturing the elderly, New York City, fixed-income, pro-George W. Bush constituency. Victory now is inevitable.
Old Man: I hope it's Hillary that gets the nomination.
Old Woman: No! I want Obama!
[minor bickering around the table for a moment]
Old Woman: I just think he's going to be the best.
Old Woman II: Well, after Bush.
Old Woman: Right, of course. I would vote for Bush again, but he's not running. So I hope it's Obama.
That's right. As reported first here, Barack Obama seems to be capturing the elderly, New York City, fixed-income, pro-George W. Bush constituency. Victory now is inevitable.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)