Deep down, I know that I should be outraged or disappointed or one of those other sorts of negative emotions over the fact that my state government is being described as beyond dysfunctional (because "dysfunction at least includes the word function"). Here in New York we're looking at a massive budget deficit, a broke (as in no money, not in need of repair, though it is) public transportation system, a state senator expelled from the senate for assaulting his girlfriend but now running to reclaim his seat, and a governor under at least three separate investigations and who may yet resign. This is bad stuff.
Yet at some level, I can't help but find it amusing.
There's a line from Stalin to the effect that one death is a tragedy, but one thousand deaths is a statistic. A similar line applies here.
One scandal/controversy/dire situation is cause for real concern. When we get to this many, it's just beyond what I can fathom. At some level, it has to be a joke, doesn't it?
In terms of actual direness of situation, we aren't at the California level yet. But it sure looks like we're trying our hardest to get there.
Showing posts with label scandal. Show all posts
Showing posts with label scandal. Show all posts
Friday, March 5, 2010
Friday, March 28, 2008
The Tom Cruise Effect
The big question when a scandal breaks is this: Will it or will it not stick to whoever is in the middle of it? Sometimes these things come and go and after a day or so of anxious pundit hand wringing they've gone gently into that good night where old scandals go to die. Other times, the scandal sticks around and haunts a candidate or politician until either a bigger scandal comes along or they get out of the game.
Matt Bai wrote a brilliant piece yesterday explaining why some scandals stick like Krazy Glue and why others slip away. It was brilliant for it's insight, depth, writing, and the fact that it's something I've said several times before. Basically, Bai writes that a scandal will stick if it jars against the general narrative of your campaign or fits the narrative that someone else is trying to tell about your campaign. For instance, the controversy over Hillary Clinton NOT landing in Bosnia under sniper fire will probably stick around because it jars against her claims of having tough commander in chief qualifications and it fits with the narrative that she'll say anything (true or not) to get elected.
I've been calling this the Tom Cruise Effect. The gist of the effect is that a news story will be made to fit the narrative that already exists about a person. That's where Tom Cruise comes in. In recent years the general narrative about Tom is that he's off the wall loony. Fair or not, I don't know. That's just the story. However many years ago, he and Katie Holmes had a daughter. There was a stretch after she was born that none of the press got to see or take picures of the baby.
Now, had this been someone with a normal, nice guy reputation (think Tom Hanks) the story would have been about what a great parent he was being by trying to shield his daughter from the glare of the paparazzi. But this wasn't Tom Hanks, this was Tom Cruise. And the Tom Cruise story is that he's a Scientologist nut job. So the story that I ended up reading wasn't about how great a dad he was. I was reading a story about a sinister conspiracy (interestingly, no one could really say of what or why) to keep the baby hidden - if there was a baby at all.
We've seen pictures of the baby now, so the media can breathe a sigh of relief. But the story remains instructive for our look at political scandals. In short, a scandal won't hold on if it comes out of nowhere and doesn't fit into any sort of narrative that has already been established. However, beware the scandal that fits the narrative. It sticks around and it makes the narrative even stronger. That can be a dangerous double whammy for anyone seeking office.
Matt Bai wrote a brilliant piece yesterday explaining why some scandals stick like Krazy Glue and why others slip away. It was brilliant for it's insight, depth, writing, and the fact that it's something I've said several times before. Basically, Bai writes that a scandal will stick if it jars against the general narrative of your campaign or fits the narrative that someone else is trying to tell about your campaign. For instance, the controversy over Hillary Clinton NOT landing in Bosnia under sniper fire will probably stick around because it jars against her claims of having tough commander in chief qualifications and it fits with the narrative that she'll say anything (true or not) to get elected.
I've been calling this the Tom Cruise Effect. The gist of the effect is that a news story will be made to fit the narrative that already exists about a person. That's where Tom Cruise comes in. In recent years the general narrative about Tom is that he's off the wall loony. Fair or not, I don't know. That's just the story. However many years ago, he and Katie Holmes had a daughter. There was a stretch after she was born that none of the press got to see or take picures of the baby.
Now, had this been someone with a normal, nice guy reputation (think Tom Hanks) the story would have been about what a great parent he was being by trying to shield his daughter from the glare of the paparazzi. But this wasn't Tom Hanks, this was Tom Cruise. And the Tom Cruise story is that he's a Scientologist nut job. So the story that I ended up reading wasn't about how great a dad he was. I was reading a story about a sinister conspiracy (interestingly, no one could really say of what or why) to keep the baby hidden - if there was a baby at all.
We've seen pictures of the baby now, so the media can breathe a sigh of relief. But the story remains instructive for our look at political scandals. In short, a scandal won't hold on if it comes out of nowhere and doesn't fit into any sort of narrative that has already been established. However, beware the scandal that fits the narrative. It sticks around and it makes the narrative even stronger. That can be a dangerous double whammy for anyone seeking office.
Thursday, March 13, 2008
New York Snapshot
Just a picture of what's happening here in the state:
It's looking like New York City Councilman Dennis Gallagher will be resigning from his position as part of a plea agreement stemming from charges that he'd raped a grandmother in his office over the summer.
The funny thing about this (relatively speaking, I guess) is that if you go to the main New York Times page there's no mention of this because of all the Spitzer coverage. Such is the state of New York politics right now that the resignation of a grandmother-raping Councilman doesn't quite make the main page. What a world.
New York. It's a hell of a town.
It's looking like New York City Councilman Dennis Gallagher will be resigning from his position as part of a plea agreement stemming from charges that he'd raped a grandmother in his office over the summer.
The funny thing about this (relatively speaking, I guess) is that if you go to the main New York Times page there's no mention of this because of all the Spitzer coverage. Such is the state of New York politics right now that the resignation of a grandmother-raping Councilman doesn't quite make the main page. What a world.
New York. It's a hell of a town.
What About Barack?
As the smoke clears over the remains of what was once Eliot Spitzer's promising career, it's time to look at the important question: What does this mean for Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama?
The general tone of articles I've seen is that this isn't going to have much of an impact, but it will probably hurt Hillary Clinton's campaign more. If nothing else, she's losing Spitzer as a super delegate. Plus, she comes from the same state and this reminds people of how generally unpleasant and destructive sex scandals in politics can be.
While I see some of the logic here, the first point about super delegates doesn't make any sense. First, the new governor-to-be is also a Hillary supporter so she's got his vote. Also, you can't throw a rock in Albany without hitting a potential superdelegate for Hillary. So don't worry about the replacement. Also, I know it's close, but do we really think this is going to come down to one vote? Seriously?
What I'm more concerned about than the effect on Hillary is the possible effect on Obama's campaign.
Remember, when Eliot Spitzer ran for governor his slogan was "Day one everything changes." Changes? Sound familiar? A little change we can believe in, anyone? Further, he ran on the idea of ethics reform and fixing the way things were done in state governmnent.
In other words, he was the white proto-Obama of New York. More aggressive, more of an attitude, but the similarities are inescapable. I just hope they don't turn out to be harmful.
While I don't think that Obama is going to end up in a prostitution ring and I don't think anyone is going to try to link the two change candidates in that way (though the month is young), I'm more worried about the effect on the electorate. Obama's great strength in this election so far has been his ability to turn people who were turned off by politics into voters. Change and hope and all that good stuff was really connecting. To have seen another change candidate go down in a politics-as-usual-but-worse scandal has to damage the credibility of change.
I worry that yet another letdown by our elected leaders is just fuel for the cynicism fire. Let's hope that I'm wrong and that people can still believe in change.
The general tone of articles I've seen is that this isn't going to have much of an impact, but it will probably hurt Hillary Clinton's campaign more. If nothing else, she's losing Spitzer as a super delegate. Plus, she comes from the same state and this reminds people of how generally unpleasant and destructive sex scandals in politics can be.
While I see some of the logic here, the first point about super delegates doesn't make any sense. First, the new governor-to-be is also a Hillary supporter so she's got his vote. Also, you can't throw a rock in Albany without hitting a potential superdelegate for Hillary. So don't worry about the replacement. Also, I know it's close, but do we really think this is going to come down to one vote? Seriously?
What I'm more concerned about than the effect on Hillary is the possible effect on Obama's campaign.
Remember, when Eliot Spitzer ran for governor his slogan was "Day one everything changes." Changes? Sound familiar? A little change we can believe in, anyone? Further, he ran on the idea of ethics reform and fixing the way things were done in state governmnent.
In other words, he was the white proto-Obama of New York. More aggressive, more of an attitude, but the similarities are inescapable. I just hope they don't turn out to be harmful.
While I don't think that Obama is going to end up in a prostitution ring and I don't think anyone is going to try to link the two change candidates in that way (though the month is young), I'm more worried about the effect on the electorate. Obama's great strength in this election so far has been his ability to turn people who were turned off by politics into voters. Change and hope and all that good stuff was really connecting. To have seen another change candidate go down in a politics-as-usual-but-worse scandal has to damage the credibility of change.
I worry that yet another letdown by our elected leaders is just fuel for the cynicism fire. Let's hope that I'm wrong and that people can still believe in change.
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
Out With a Bang
Well, the sad drama is over. Eliot Spitzer officially resigned the New York governorship effective next Monday. The details of the whole mess have been hashed out and rehashed so many times that it seems pointless to dwell on them here. What's clear is that the more that comes out about this the worse it looks for Spitzer.
Compounding all of that is the sense that poetic justice has really been served here. More than anything else that's what seems to stand out the most of this whole thing. Here was the Sheriff of Wall Street, the White Knight of Albany sleeping with a hooker.
In the coming days before everyone loses attention and moves on to the next train wreck we're going to be seeing a lot of speculation about why he did it. The answer is pretty simple. He did it because he was dumb, thought he was smarter than everyone else, and thought he could get away with it.
It's sad because this guy was supposed to be bound for the White House. There was so much potential and promise. Now he really had no choice but to resign. With Democrats scrapping to gain control of the state senate and his once powerful mandate (and credibility) completely shot, there was nowhere for Spitzer to go but out.
Two more notes on this before I wrap up.
First, during New York 1's coverage of the press conference they had the usual talking head commentary about what this all means. On the show was someone who purported to be a friend of the (now ex) governor. He very helpfully put things in perspective by saying something to the effect of: I just hope it doesn't turn out that he was using drugs or sleeping with more than one at a time. Boy, with friends like these no wonder he's out.
Second, my favorite line during his resignation was when he said, "Then I will try once again, outside of politics, to serve the common good and to move toward the ideals and solutions which I believe can build a future of hope and opportunity for us and for our children." Outside of politics. You think?
Compounding all of that is the sense that poetic justice has really been served here. More than anything else that's what seems to stand out the most of this whole thing. Here was the Sheriff of Wall Street, the White Knight of Albany sleeping with a hooker.
In the coming days before everyone loses attention and moves on to the next train wreck we're going to be seeing a lot of speculation about why he did it. The answer is pretty simple. He did it because he was dumb, thought he was smarter than everyone else, and thought he could get away with it.
It's sad because this guy was supposed to be bound for the White House. There was so much potential and promise. Now he really had no choice but to resign. With Democrats scrapping to gain control of the state senate and his once powerful mandate (and credibility) completely shot, there was nowhere for Spitzer to go but out.
Two more notes on this before I wrap up.
First, during New York 1's coverage of the press conference they had the usual talking head commentary about what this all means. On the show was someone who purported to be a friend of the (now ex) governor. He very helpfully put things in perspective by saying something to the effect of: I just hope it doesn't turn out that he was using drugs or sleeping with more than one at a time. Boy, with friends like these no wonder he's out.
Second, my favorite line during his resignation was when he said, "Then I will try once again, outside of politics, to serve the common good and to move toward the ideals and solutions which I believe can build a future of hope and opportunity for us and for our children." Outside of politics. You think?
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
Steamrolled
Talk about a guy who just can't catch a break. He was mendng fences, working with the legislature, and his main opponent was getting wrapped up in an ethics scandal. Things were starting to get back on track for New York Governor Eliot Spitzer. Then something like this happens.
We don't know the facts yet, but the situation is bad however it turns out. The word right now seems to be that the Governor paid about $4,000 for a night with a prostitute. The newscasters yesterday must have used the word "stunning" (as in "stunning revelations", "stunning charges", etc.) about 10,000 yesterday, but I don't blame them. After all, this was the guy who was supposed to clean up Albany.
While we wait for more facts to come out (and see how the Governor responds), here are a few loosely connected thoughts.
1. Note to politicians: You will ALWAYS get caught.
If we haven't learned anything else from Bill Clinton, Larry Craig, Mark Foley, and now Eliot Spitzer, it's that politicians will always get caught. Brilliant people though each of them may be in their field, they are very dumb about this. What Spitzer lacks is a plausible excuse for why he thought he'd be able to get away with hiring a prostitute. Larry Craig demonstrated pretty clearly that even trying to solicit anonymous sex in an airport bathroom gets caught. What did Spitzer think was going to happen if he paid for a prostitute.
2. Even smart guys can be dumb.
This is kind of a corollary to the first point. By most accounts Eliot Spitzer is pretty brilliant. Well, he was. But this has to rank as one of the more boneheaded moves we can expect to see from a politician. I don't know if it's ego, libido, or something else entirely, but this was not a smart move.
3. The perfect storm of circumstances.
In addition to being dumb, Spitzer set himself up in a perfect storm of circumstances and revelations. First of all, coming to Albany as a crusading ethics reformer and then sleeping with prostitutes is obviously going to be made a big deal of. Every news report is going to make note of that fact and the phrase hypocrite is going to be in pretty heavy circulation for the next few days. In addition, as more and more details come out it becomes clear that this is like some sort of tabloid writer's fantasy. Prostitutes, Client-9, "Kristen", wire taps, "unsafe acts," and the sadly ironic detail that the whole thing took place the day before Valentine's Day means there will be plenty to write about for a while.
4. The New York Times is not afraid to pull the trigger.
Just weeks after being roundly panned for running a thinly and anonymously sourced story about possible sexual indiscretions from Republican presidential candidate John McCain, the Times was back in action again. The story, as posted when I first read it at around 2 p.m. yesterday seemed to have one or two unnamed sources. That was it at the time, though now the floodgates have opened and the story has been fleshed out. It's interesting that these allegations are much more sensational (stunning even) than what was released on McCain. But the Times ran with it. Give them chutzpah points for not being afraid to pull the trigger.
We'll see what happens today and in the next few days. My guess is that soon Eliot Spitzer will have plenty of free time to dedicate to regaining the trust of his family.
We don't know the facts yet, but the situation is bad however it turns out. The word right now seems to be that the Governor paid about $4,000 for a night with a prostitute. The newscasters yesterday must have used the word "stunning" (as in "stunning revelations", "stunning charges", etc.) about 10,000 yesterday, but I don't blame them. After all, this was the guy who was supposed to clean up Albany.
While we wait for more facts to come out (and see how the Governor responds), here are a few loosely connected thoughts.
1. Note to politicians: You will ALWAYS get caught.
If we haven't learned anything else from Bill Clinton, Larry Craig, Mark Foley, and now Eliot Spitzer, it's that politicians will always get caught. Brilliant people though each of them may be in their field, they are very dumb about this. What Spitzer lacks is a plausible excuse for why he thought he'd be able to get away with hiring a prostitute. Larry Craig demonstrated pretty clearly that even trying to solicit anonymous sex in an airport bathroom gets caught. What did Spitzer think was going to happen if he paid for a prostitute.
2. Even smart guys can be dumb.
This is kind of a corollary to the first point. By most accounts Eliot Spitzer is pretty brilliant. Well, he was. But this has to rank as one of the more boneheaded moves we can expect to see from a politician. I don't know if it's ego, libido, or something else entirely, but this was not a smart move.
3. The perfect storm of circumstances.
In addition to being dumb, Spitzer set himself up in a perfect storm of circumstances and revelations. First of all, coming to Albany as a crusading ethics reformer and then sleeping with prostitutes is obviously going to be made a big deal of. Every news report is going to make note of that fact and the phrase hypocrite is going to be in pretty heavy circulation for the next few days. In addition, as more and more details come out it becomes clear that this is like some sort of tabloid writer's fantasy. Prostitutes, Client-9, "Kristen", wire taps, "unsafe acts," and the sadly ironic detail that the whole thing took place the day before Valentine's Day means there will be plenty to write about for a while.
4. The New York Times is not afraid to pull the trigger.
Just weeks after being roundly panned for running a thinly and anonymously sourced story about possible sexual indiscretions from Republican presidential candidate John McCain, the Times was back in action again. The story, as posted when I first read it at around 2 p.m. yesterday seemed to have one or two unnamed sources. That was it at the time, though now the floodgates have opened and the story has been fleshed out. It's interesting that these allegations are much more sensational (stunning even) than what was released on McCain. But the Times ran with it. Give them chutzpah points for not being afraid to pull the trigger.
We'll see what happens today and in the next few days. My guess is that soon Eliot Spitzer will have plenty of free time to dedicate to regaining the trust of his family.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
