JustOneMinute

Media Overseers - Heal Thyselves

We have more fallout from Drudge's denunciation of General Clark. Yesterday, the RNC tried to make two points: Gen. Clark has flip-flopped on the war, and his call for a Congressional probe (now criminal?!?) into the road to war is silly. The transcript of his Congressional testimony was offered in support of the second point - here is the general saying Saddam is a threat, that he has WMDs, and so on. However, Drudge conflated this into "The General was pro-war", and we were off to the races.

From the Carpetbagger report, in their attempt to monitor media fairness and accuracy:

Just to add to the last post, I found it interesting to see how the press played this story differently. It's a classic case study.

...Take yesterday's Drudge example. Drudge ran a report that took Clark quotes out of context and changed the meaning of Clark's original comments. The GOP and Lieberman's campaign tried to make a big thing about it, while Clark's campaign explained that this was ridiculous.

The report generated plenty of attention in the press -- some got it right, some didn't.

The LA Times, for example, got it wrong.

"Republican National Committee Chairman Ed Gillespie on Thursday attacked Democratic presidential hopeful Wesley K. Clark in Clark's hometown of Little Rock, Ark., saying testimony Clark gave to a Congressional committee in 2002 contradicts his current position opposing the war in Iraq. Clark, clearly fired up about what he viewed as a twisting of his comments, said his testimony was consistent with his current stand against the war."

Well, which is it? Do the comments contradict Clark's current position or don't they? Were his words twisted or not? The Times doesn't say, so its readers are left to try and guess who was telling the truth. That's not helpful, especially when there's a impartial correct answer that the Times ignores.

The Washington Post and New York Times were better. The Post, for example, noted a plain fact: "The full transcript...showed that the RNC was selective in its choice of excerpts." The Times said something similar, noting that the "full transcript reveals positions far more nuanced than the excerpts released by the Republicans." That's an exceedingly polite way of saying the GOP lied, but it gets the point across.

There is more, but that should be plenty.

Now, my objection - I don't know what the RNC may have said in a blast-fax or a phone call, but it is easy enough to find the text of the speech actually delivered by RNC Chairman Ed Gillespie. If I were interested in assessing media accuracy, I would want to link to that speech - if the Carpetbagger does, I can't find it. We do see this press release - taken with the speech, the story is consistent.

Next, I would probably look for the relevant excerpt, to see whether the media was summarizing Easy Ed accurately. They aren't. Here we go, in the continuation.

Iowa For The Truly Paranoid

Mickey and the Man point out problems with the poll numbers coming out of Iowa - can we really believe the Kerry surge, and the Dean collapse? Actually identifying likely caucus-goers seems to be a huge problem with all these polls. On the other side, certain campaigns seem to have made a science of staying in touch with their supporters.

So, enough with common sense - let's get crazy. Suppose you were a brilliant strategist for an underdog insurgent outsider. And suppose your guy has caught fire (we did say you were brilliant), and now leads the pack. Do you (a) encourage your supporters to talk him up to every pollster that calls, thereby inflating expectations, or (b) remind supporters that time spent talking to pollsters is time wasted and that all we need to do is bring it on Monday night?

If your campaign is sufficiently well organized and financed, and in contact with its supporters (maybe the Internet would be handy), dampening expectations is a great and achievable tactic. Two weeks ago, Dean getting 28% in Iowa would have been ho-hum - now it will be a triumph.

This tidbit is topical:

In 2000, for example, then Vice President Al Gore led former Sen. Bill Bradley of New Jersey by only four percentage points in the final polling before the caucuses that year. In the end, though, Gore crushed Bradley, 63.4 percent to 39.2 percent, snuffing out the momentum Bradley was hoping to gain in Iowa by exceeding expectations.

Matt Drudge Employs His Selective Excerpter

Matt Drudge sets a trap for the Clark-critics by selectively excerpting his testimony before the House Armed Services Committee on Sept. 26, 2002. Maybe this is oppo research run amok, but Matt is offering as a "World Exclusive" a transcript available right here, and characterizing the general as pro-war, rather than pro-diplomacy. In a coals to Newcastle gesture, I will defend the general on this one - his full remarks are sensible and consistent with what I understand him to have been saying on Iraq. In fact, this is the General that ought to be a candidate - set him free, Chris Lehane!

Highlights:

CLARK: Thank you, sir. There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat...

I'm sure he has a rationale for what he's doing, but we don't always know it. He does retain his chemical and biological capabilities to some extend and he is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet.

OK, that is a bit of an "Aha!" moment. However, his main message is a call for a broad diplomatic effort, with emphasis on Al Qaeda, which we excerpt below.

MID COURSE UPDATE: Jonah Goldberg is nobody's fool, or at least, not Matt Drudge's: a link to Drudge at 11:42 is followed by a link to Clark's opening statement at 12:06.

MORE: The plot thickens - did we allude to the possibility of oppo research run amok? Now Drudge is presenting a statement from the Lieberman folks:

Joe Lieberman issued the following statement in response to the Drudge Report's discovery of congressional testimony from September 2002 in which Wes Clark made the case for war in Iraq. The report provides evidence directly contradicting Clark's repeated claims that he has been "very consistent" on the war "from the very beginning."

Statement by Joe Lieberman

"Yesterday, Wesley Clark attacked me for pointing out his multiple positions on the war in Iraq. It is no longer credible for Wesley Clark to assert that he has always had only one position on the war - being against it. His own testimony before Congress shows otherwise....

So, is this a hit by Kindly and Concerned Uncle Joe? For shame.

AND MORE: Re: Lieberman - Not so fast! Ed Gillespie of the RNC was wacking Clark in Little Rock. Ow, well, Lieberman, the RNC, how can one tell them apart?

Here are Gillespie's comments - there is more dirt than just some selective excerpting in there. Anyway, he mentions this transcript in the context of "Clark said Saddam had WMDs, so quit with the Bush lied nonsense", rather than "Clark was pro-war". No fingerprints!

WaPo coverage.

Timing Is Everything

Al Gore endorsed Howard Dean just prior to the capture of Saddam Hussein. If this poll shocker comes true (Kerry leads in Iowa!), that endorsement may be seen as Howard's high-water mark.

Now, on a bitterly cold and snowy day, Al Gore is in NYC to warn the Apple (and the world!) about global warming.

Stay on message, Big Al! Ignore the critics!

MORE: Of course Big Al has a point: "The extreme conditions are actually the end result of the planet warming," Gore has told advisers...". OK, that may explain Howard Dean (I thought it was Iraq), but what about the weather?

From Last August, The 9/11 Commission Re-Appears...

The NY Times tells us that "2 on 9/11 Panel Are Questioned on Earlier Security Roles":

ASHINGTON, Jan. 14 — The executive director of the independent commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks has become a witness in the inquiry and has been interviewed by his own staff about his involvement in shaping the Bush administration's early counterterrorism strategy, officials said on Wednesday.

In addition, one of the 10 commissioners on the panel, a deputy attorney general in the Clinton administration, was also interviewed this week. The unusual dual roles of the director, Philip D. Zelikow, and the commissioner, Jamie S. Gorelick, have raised fresh questions about potential conflicts of interest in the commission, which has been dogged by concerns about its independence since it was created in 2002.

...In addition, Ms. Gorelick, one of the 10 commissioners to whom Mr. Zelikow reports, said she had been interviewed this week about her involvement in terrorism policy. She was the top deputy in the mid-90's to Attorney General Janet Reno. Like Mr. Zelikow, she has also recused herself from dealings involving decisions in which she was involved.

Officials said Ms. Gorelick and two other commission members had also withdrawn from involvement in aviation issues because their law firms had airlines as clients.

Dwight Meredith kicked off a discussion on the aviation-related conflict of interest point last August. My post, with other links, is here.

And since there may be a prize for "Ask a Stupid Question", I'll plunge forward - how does a 9/11 commissioner recuse herself from aviation issues? Weren't aviation issues somewhat central to the day's events?

Oh, never mind - obviously, there were a lot of law enforcement and intelligence activities and opportunities prior to 9/11 which should be reviewed.

TNR Endorses Lieberman

No surprise. But we like the Baseball Crank's observation - at this point, TNR is a partisan magazine in search of a party.

OK, his sidekick has links.

And Then There Will Still Be Nine... Uhh, Eight

It's time for a bit more history - it has been five long years since the once in a century impeachment trial, and over three years since the disputed Presidential election. Time for a brokered convention!

"Robert Musil" discussed this last week; now, Mickey Kaus and Robert Kuttner join in.

The driving force will be the Democratic reform of their primaries to award delegates based on proportional voting. Over to Mr. Kuttner:

The Democrats no longer use a winner-take-all-system. Thanks to party reforms, votes are allocated proportionally. So, in a nine-person field, a candidate can "win," say, South Carolina with a plurality of 30 percent of the vote -- but only get about 30 percent of that state's delegates. In the old days, the winner would have taken them all.

However, a point that is mentioned by Mr. Kuttner, but not emphasized, is that the prospect of a brokered convention becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Normally, a major candidate would drop out because a shortage of funds or an excess of self-awareness forces him (or Ms. Mosely-Braun) to admit that they have no realistic chance of victory. However, the dynamic changes if candidates are simply playing to stay alive - raising enough money to mount a token effort is much easier than raising enough to make competitive ad buys in California, New York, Texas and Ohio.

A token effort will be enough to allow a candidate to accumulate delegates and be a presence at the convention, where any of the six major candidates could imagine themselves being tapped for the Presidential nomination. On the other hand, the reward to dropping out early is nil - an early leaver will not be considered for the top of the ticket, and almost surely not for the bottom of the ticket either (are you getting this down, John Edwards?).

There are other reasons to drop out, such as to preserve one's stature for 2008, or to placate party leaders seeking unity. These don't seem to apply - the "party leaders" are currently unable to lead, and 2008 is reserved for Hillary and Al.

Therefore, for this group of candidates, the future is now. Dean has plenty of staying power; the remaining big five are hoping to become the un-Dean, and anyone who drops out simply strengthens the hand of those who stay in. All the incentives, therefore, are to stay in, and wait for others to leave. Which they won't. Call your broker.

UPDATE: Amongst the three vanity candidates, I assume Al Sharpton and Dennis the Menace are staying in. Since Ms. Braun is dropping out to endorse Dean, she is testing the alternative strategy - guess early, guess right, and your rewards will be plentiful.

MORE: paraphrasing Jeff Greenfield, appearing on CNN Friday morning: "Two weeks ago, the talk was that Dean was unstoppable. Today, the talk is that Dean is in free-fall and we are headed to a brokered convention. We will have these wild ideas, and more, on Monday".

WOW: The Cal Pundit was on this like angry on Howard, way back in November!

I Infer The Economy Is Improving

A recent Newsweek article implies a desperate shortage of copy editors. Howard Fineman and others write about Howard Dean:

...Dean would seem to be ripe for a fall. For starters, he has perpetrated any number of what, in the trade, are known as gaffes, requiring a crew of staffers (and his skill at fast talking) to constantly clean up after his own parade. Political junkies are familiar with the litany. Among other things, Dean has condescended to Southern, rural white men by inferring that they all drive pickup trucks with Confederate-flag decals on the back; metaphorically compared Washington insiders (including, presumably, those few who support him) to cockroaches; inferred that all his major rivals are really Republicans, and admitted that his lack of foreign-policy experience would require him to "plug that hole in my resume" with his vice presidential pick.

Emphasis added. Let's go online to the dictionary:

Usage Note: Infer is sometimes confused with imply, but the distinction is a useful one. When we say that a speaker or sentence implies something, we mean that it is conveyed or suggested without being stated outright: When the mayor said that she would not rule out a business tax increase, she implied (not inferred) that some taxes might be raised. Inference, on the other hand, is the activity performed by a reader or interpreter in drawing conclusions that are not explicit in what is said: When the mayor said that she would not rule out a tax increase, we inferred that she had been consulting with some new financial advisers, since her old advisers were in favor of tax reductions.

More fine work by whoever proofreads this stuff can be found in this passage:

One Dean defense against the rise of Clark may be the devalued—but not quite defunct—campaign of John Kerry, who began last year as the pundits' pick. But his campaign has been riven with confusion and mixed messages from the moment last spring when he voted to authorize Bush to go to war in Iraq.

What is so rare as this day in spring? Since the Senate vote was in October of 2002, this was a rare day indeed.

Irritating. And, despite a newsstand date of Jan 12, this article seems wildly passe.

I Can Resist Anything Except Temptation

From Prof DeLong:

President Empty Suit

[Excerpting James Fallows from The Atlantic Monthly]

"...One need only compare this with any discussion of foreign policy in Reagan's or Clinton's Administration--or Nixon's, or Kennedy's, or Johnson's... to sense how unusual is the absence of the President as prime mover."

[End Excerpt]

James Fallows's use of the word "unusual" is the most extreme use of understatement I have ever read or will ever read, no matter how long I should happen to live.

OK, then, strike "unusual", and substitute "unpresidented".

The New Paul Krugman On The New Paul O'Neill

The Man Without Amnesia searches for consistency. For some reason, the expression "Be careful who you savage on the way up; you may meet them again on the way down" comes to mind.

Dr. D. also discusses Paul O'Neill.

MORE: Dr. D. again; Alan Greenspan rebuts Paul O'Neill.

"Think carefully, then speak" is not a process Paul O'Neill has mastered.

For A Bit Of Belgravitas...

Check out Gregory Djerejian. He finds Ken Pollack in the Atlantic Monthly, and excerpts a fo-po interview with Walter Russell Mead of the Council on Foreign Relations.

Mr. Mead is skeptical of the notion that President Bush should have gotten more from our allies. We will toss in a reprise of similar skepticism from Nick Kristof, writing last November. And, from futher back, here is Mr. Mead on NPR, in the pre-war era last February.

We're Sending This Out To John Kerry

The Tall Senator appears on Meet The Press and attempts, yet again, to explain his position on Iraq. Hopeless. Consequently, we are dedicating Avril Lavigne's "Complicated" to the Senator and his dwindling band of supporters:

...I like you the way you are
When we're drivin' in your car
and you're talking to me one on one but you've become

Somebody else round everyone else
You're watching your back like you can't relax
You're tryin' to be cool you look like a fool to me
Tell me

Why do you have to go and make things so complicated?
I see the way you're acting like you're somebody else gets me frustrated...

Too late now.

Gen. Ricardo Sanchez For Something!

John Burns of the NY Times has a fascinating profile of Gen Ricardo Sanchez, US commander of the allied forces in Iraq. For policy wonks, the money quote is here:

... [General Sanchez] said that despite the scale of warfare that has disappointed and even shocked many Americans, allied forces here could fail only if the political will of the United States faltered. "I really believe that the only way we are going to lose here, is if we walk away from it like we did in Vietnam," he said. "If the political will fails, and the support of the American public fails, that's the only way we can lose."

However, folks who can only think of politics will try to imagine the reaction of Karl Rove or Terry McAuliffe as they read this:

The conversation with the general in Baghdad suggested that much that informs his approach to the challenges here went back to his childhood, growing up among the poorest of the poor in south Texas. His father, a welder, was divorced from his mother when the son was still in elementary school; she worked as a hospital caretaker to support five children. The general, as a boy, commuted among odd jobs, helping to pay the family bills.

In time, the boy became the first in his family to graduate from high school. While his older brother went to Vietnam as a staff sergeant with the Air Force, he won an R.O.T.C. scholarship to Texas A & I University in Kingsville, and went on to join the Army. He speaks with no trace of bitterness about his origins.

"I guess I never realized then that I was that poor," he said in the conversation before the trip to Abu Saida. "Pretty well everybody else in the Hispanic community was on welfare, too. We just thought we were fortunate because we were in America."

It was a totally different military then," he said. "It was the aftermath of Vietnam, and there was a lot of racial stuff within the ranks."

One year, when he was a lieutenant, a senior officer preparing his efficiency report told him he would get 15 points less than fellow officers who were West Point graduates, General Sanchez said. "But I accepted that, and told myself, `I'll just have to work harder.' " Asked if any of the West Pointers in that group became generals, he paused, then replied: "I don't know of any others who made it to general officer. I think one of them made it to colonel."

...Outside the American headquarters, the general clambered on a tank to chat with crewmen who, like others in the American garrison at Abu Saida, have been retrained as infantrymen for patrols and firefights. As he talked with the crewmen, one, Specialist Hector Quijada, 20, from the Bronx, stepped forward and spoke in Spanish. The two, the general and the specialist, then spoke quietly for several minutes.

Afterward, Specialist Quijada said he and his family migrated to the United States four years ago, settling in New York, where his father worked in a plastics factory. What he wanted the general to know, he said, was that he was a hero among Mexican-Americans and among the specialist's friends in his hometown of Cancún. "I told him that the people of Mexico always talk about General Sanchez — everybody gets excited about him," he said.

Can the Republican use a Senate candidate in California in 2006? Can the Democrats use a gubernatorial candidate out there? Will somebody need a VP in four years?

If this occupation goes at all well, someone needs to figure out what party this guy wants to belong to, and sign him up.

MORE: We should note that the General was "Hispanic of the Year", as selected by Hispanic magazine. And here is the official bio.

Kill. Me. Now.

Last week Maureen Dowd returned from a break to deliver what may have been her most bizarre and incoherent column ever - she began by fretting about George Bush's diet and exercise plans, zoomed to Iraq to hunt for missing WMDs, and delivered her big finish from a Washington High School, observing paid lesbian exhibitionism. Seriously.

Naturally, we had to read her Sunday column, if only to see whether she had found the key to her medicine cabinet. And our horror and shame cannot be described - her latest effort, "The Argyle General" follows almost exactly my post from last Friday titled "Ol' Blue Eyes Is Back!". Evidently, our eyes were drawn to the same NY Times story. We mock the same points, deride the same quotations - I am in near-perfect sync with a purveyor of random gibbering. I am catty, petty, and irrelevant. Sure, maybe it's just an awful coincidence - even a blind squirrel goes nuts. But how will I find the courage to go on, and why should I bother? Even worse, what if next week, I have a pre-cog event with Paul Krugman?

The horror!