Politics Daily

Did The Press Corps Unfairly Pick on Palin?

Bonnie Goldstein — 2009-07-12T17:03:00+00:00

Filed under: John McCain, Joe Biden, 2008 President, Republican Convention, Sarah Palin, Woman Up

On Meet The Press this weekend, former presidential candidate John McCain, discussing his running mate Sarah Palin, gave a shout out to Politics Daily's Carl Cannon for this piece about Palin bashing by the media during the campaign. If you haven't read Carl's piece yet, you should stop reading this and click over to read it now. I'll wait.

Carl's shaming of our colleagues in the press for stampeding and trampling Sarah Palin made me embarrassed. Over the course of the campaign, I personally read, shook my head over, laughed at, linked to, quoted, and wrote many unflattering Palin posts.

He also writes that the liberal ideology of members of the press corps is partly to blame. Politically neutral journalists are rare and I admit my political principles tend to be on the "liberal" side of the spectrum. Many of my friends outside of journalism have worked for Democrats or in support of traditionally Democratic issues. Most of my friends in the profession also lean to the left. That said, while there are many politicians whose platforms I support, including Mr. Obama, there are none I would hesitate to expose for looking ridiculous, hypocritical, or uninformed.

I do agree with Carl that Palin's counterpart on the opposing ticket, Joe Biden, got a much softer ride in the media but I don't believe that was due to political bias. I was willing to give Palin the benefit of the doubt, but, after seeing her poor performance in interviews, it was hard to take her seriously. She did not seem very informed. And though Joe is fun to make fun of -- I personally have a long history of finding Biden insufferable -- the familiar pleasure of mocking him could not compete with the fish-out-of-water frontier flamboyance of the Palin family on the campaign trail.

This is embarrassingly shallow, but the woman on the GOP ticket was also more interesting to cover because she was a giant celebrity, unusually attractive and, with the help of doppelganger comic styling by Tina Fey, hugely quotable. We were groupies. From the moment the press corps and most of the country met the VP candidate at the Republican convention in St. Paul, we were hooked by her unusual background, her natural public speaking ability, and, for tabloid fans, the most oddball press release of any budding ticket in history.

Much was made by Palin critics of her itinerant undergraduate career but she actually completed more schooling than I did. I am not from the Ivy League-educated circle of news reporters that Carl cites in his essay; I dropped out of my state university my freshman year and found my way to journalism through an instinct for investigative research and a love of the written word. But when I find myself out of my league, I try to lay low until I bone up, ask experts and read in. I don't want to make a fool of myself; Washingtonians are a tough crowd.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

The Media as Villains in the Palin Story? Not Guilty, Your Honor

Jeffrey Weiss — 2009-07-08T10:55:00+00:00

Filed under: 2008 President, Sarah Palin, Faith 'n Values

With all due respect, Carl: Horsepucky.

To claim that Sarah Palin is the victim of leftist journalism gone unusually amok is to cherry-pick the record and ignore the circumstances of her candidacy.

Where do I start?

I was one of the hundreds of U.S. journalists who reported on Palin last year but somehow never made it onto a cable TV talkfest. (My small corner was mostly looking at her religious background and its relevancy -- if any -- to her ideas about governance.)

So I resent the broad-brush accusation you apply to journalism as a whole. For the most part, you draw your examples from opinionists, some of whom do some journalism. And you ignore the opinionists who fail to support your conclusion.

For instance: Charles Gibson's "Bush Doctrine" question to Palin was roundly criticized in the days after that interview by pundits large and small. With the help of Nexis, I found just a few: Charles Krauthammer, Frank Luntz, Dan K. Thomasson, Michael Gerson, Mona Charen, Clifford D. May, Helle Dale, Dennis Prager -- even Clarence Page -- came to her defense.

And as to your broader claim that Biden got a pass on his gaffes: I know you didn't sleep through the campaign. "Gaffe" was as inextricably linked to "Biden" in those months as "hockey" was to "Palin." (Seriously: Do a Google search for "Biden" and "gaffe.")

But there's an obvious difference between Biden and Palin that you did not mention: Biden had a public record that went back decades. Votes, speeches, releases, positions taken. Palin did not.

In baseball, a new player's batting average will shift with every at-bat. For someone who has been in the lineup for a while, not so much. So too in the campaign: When Biden repeatedly misspoke -- as had been widely predicted -- the media and the public had a long context in which to place the bobbles of the day. With Palin, what she said was pretty much what we -- journalists and voters -- had to go on.

But even beyond that, Carl, do you suggest there was no fact-checking of the vice presidential candidates' debate by the media at the time? Here's one. And here's one. And here's another. And here's the GOP's list of Biden's errors that I know I heard most about on Fox (which had pretty good ratings during the campaign, as I recall).

Did any of them include your entire list? Nah. But did media large and small provide timely and ample examples of Biden's errors in that debate for anybody who was paying attention? Yup.

Let's shift to your complaint about how Palin was treated online and in e-mails. I got those same e-mails about the banned library books, etc. I also got the ones about Obama being a Muslim. (I'm still getting those.)

So? That's not journalism. Journalism is, in fact, the debunking of those online rumors about Palin. Which the fine folks at Snopes.com (to choose a respected online source) had done by September.

Attacking journalism in general because of spam e-mails and partisan blogs is like attacking the financial industry because of Nigerian bank scam e-mails.

Let me make this personal: In the days immediately after Palin was picked for the GOP ticket, a fierce debate (fierce in some quarters, anyway) spun up about whether she was a Pentecostal and what that might mean to the campaign. I was one of several religion reporters across the country who sifted through every public record we could find to come up with an answer. I found this. And this. And this.

Did I go hunting for Joe Biden's religious track record in the days after he was named to Obama's ticket? I did not, because that topic had been chewed over for many years. Discussions about whether Biden was a "good Catholic" and whether that would make a difference in the campaign were already littering the public record. Was I unfair to Palin? I think not.

Finally, here's where I agree with you: TV and the Internet have blurred the lines between journalism and opinion. The 2008 campaign provided ample examples of that. On the left and on the right. But that makes it all the more important to recognize that lots of real journalism was and is still being done.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Jake Tapper Gets Unfairly Pilloried for Obama 'Muslim Roots' Article

Tommy Christopher — 2009-06-03T16:43:00+00:00

Filed under: Barack Obama, Religion, 2008 President, Media, Obama Administration

Media Matters, Gawker, and DailyKos, to name just a few, are out for blood -- Jake Tapper-flavored, Venti, please. Why the outrage? Here's what Gawker says:

ABC News' Jake Tapper, seemingly bored silly on a flight to Riyadh, or maybe just experimenting to see how many links he could get from wingnut websites, published perhaps the most imbecilic article in the history of journalism on ABC.com.

With a title, "The Emergence of President Obama's Muslim Roots," that just pathetically screams "please link to me Matt Drudge," Tapper regurgitates a slew of widely known facts about Obama's family's Muslim faith, slaps a provocative title on the piece, and repackages the whole thing as some sort of breaking news story in conjunction with Obama's trip to the Middle East.

Wow, that's pretty harsh. I went into reading Jake's piece wondering if he'd gotten into the absinthe at the duty-free shop, started licking toads, and let it all flow into his keyboard. Here's what I found:
Nothing. It's as if these frothing villagers hadn't even read the article. While Tapper, over the course of the piece, does lay out widely known facts about President Obama's Muslim roots, here are some of the things they missed:

The very thesis of the article is that the president is now almost bragging about these innocuous connections, while he downplayed them during the campaign. All 100 percent true, but look how Jake casts this shift:

Given widespread unease and prejudice against Muslims among Americans, especially in the wake of 9/11, the Obama campaign was perhaps understandably very sensitive during the primaries and general election to downplay the candidate's Muslim roots.

...With insane rumors suggesting he was some sort of Muslim Manchurian candidate, then-Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., and his campaign did everything they could to emphasize his Christianity and de-emphasize the fact that his father, Barack Obama Sr., was born Muslim.

Yes, calling the rumors "insane" is sure to stoke them.

What makes this attack so unfair is the lengths to which Tapper goes to benevolently explain the shift.

The left is predisposed to scrutinizing Tapper, especially since Rush Limbaugh singled him out as his favorite White House reporter. This isn't the first time prominent liberal blogs have tarred Tapper unfairly as a right-wing tool. I've agreed with Jake in the past, and disagreed, but you can't question a guy's objectivity just because you disagree with him. There is no merit to this attack.

If there's any issue to be taken at all, it might be with the headline. Rather than "emerging," you could describe the president's Muslim roots as "being emphasized now, rather than de-emphasized as they were before," but that ain't exactly a grabber. I give it a pass.

There is one fact in the Gawker article that makes me like Jake even more, if it's true:

(Tapper), at the beginning of his career, reportedly handed a Salon reporter a wad of his chewed gum, telling her it would be "worth something someday."

Man, if he didn't do that, I'm gonna. That's funny.

Update: Damn, according to Jake, the gum story isn't true. Well, at least now, I can have people re-tell the story with me doling out the gum.

Tommy on: Daily Dose:

Top 10 Conservative Women I Love to Love

Daily Kos Founder Twitter-Feuds with Meghan McCain Over Gay Marriage

Politico Takes Down Light Touch Version of Playboy 'Hate List

Playboy Magazine Officially Hates Women, Conservative or Otherwise

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Mitt's Makeover: Channeling Reagan for 2012 Run

Carl M. Cannon — 2009-06-02T05:00:00+00:00

Filed under: Mitt Romney, 2008 President

Mitt Romney is running for president of the United States, again. The former Massachusetts governor doesn't say it quite that way. He merely states that he won't "close that door," adding that he isn't yet ready to walk through it, either. But there's only one plausible reason why a wealthy and happy family guy -- and Romney is both -- would undertake all the speeches, interviews, and fundraising for fellow Republicans that Romney is doing. He has unfinished business in politics. To put it bluntly, Mitt Romney does not want to follow in the footsteps of his father, George Romney, another governor-turned-unsuccessful presidential candidate. He wants to be the incarnation of Ronald Reagan.

Just this weekend, Romney appeared at the GOP state convention in Richmond, VA, made a Sunday morning appearance on Fox News, and gave a dozen interviews on the Sonia Sotomayor nomination in which he urged Republicans to show respect and civility. And on Monday, he delivered the keynote address for this month's edition of The Heritage Foundation's "Leadership for America" lecture series, held in an auditorium of the United States Navy Memorial. I caught up with him there.

The newsworthy sound bites from the event, such as they were, involved federal spending priorities. Not surprisingly, Romney thinks the Democratic Congress and the Democratic administration are spending too much on things like the General Motors bailout, and too little on missile defense and military modernization. As a guy who grew up in Detroit -- his father once headed American Motors -- Romney expressed appropriate remorse over GM's impending bankruptcy, while arguing in his speech and brief Q & A with reporters afterward that the government blew it when it tossed untold billions at GM -- only to see the iconic car company declare bankruptcy anyway.

Foreign policy was the actual subject of Romney's address at the Navy Memorial. He delivered a workmanlike explication of America's military rivals in the world, ranging from China to the worldwide network of jihadists and terrorists, while maintaining that spending 3 percent of America's gross domestic product on military defense, which seems to be where President Obama and the Democratic Congress are heading, is too little. Romney singled out missile defense, an idea first proposed by President Reagan in 1983.

Reagan called it the Strategic Defense Initiative; jeering liberals immediately dubbed it "Star Wars." Liberal Democrats considered the technology fanciful and dismissed the whole idea as destabilizing. If it worked, it might prompt the Soviets to have a hair-trigger on their nuclear arsenal. This criticism was proven wrong. SDI helped persuade the Soviets to throw in the towel on the arms race -- and even to end the Cold War.

Much has changed in the ensuing two-and-a-half decades. For one thing, SDI's technology has shown promise. Also, as Romney pointed out, the United States now faces the threat of a nuclear-armed North Korea, a regime headed by a dictator with such little regard for human life that he starves his own people. Pakistan now has the atomic bomb -- and a dysfunctional government -- and Iran wants one. In other words, this might be a time to step up SDI spending, not cut it, as Obama's budget contemplates.

"I know the liberals have opposed missile defense ever since Ronald Reagan came up with it," Romney said in his Monday talk. "But this is too big an issue for ideology or politics to prevail over national security."

That is a point well taken -- or, at least, it should be. So what are we to make of the 2009 version of Mitt Romney? For starters, he looks and sounds exactly like the old version. He's still eerily handsome, poised, and well-groomed, if a bit robotic. (Two quick comments on that. First, former Nixon aide Roger Stone quipped to me last year that Romney was actually an android created in a Disney studio. Second, when Time magazine released its list of the world's most influential 100 people a month ago, Sarah Palin made the roll, but Romney didn't. "Was that the issue on the most beautiful people or the most influential people?" Romney responded. Romney is such a square he might have figured that Palin would mistake his dig for a compliment. She didn't: Her people produced a video -- with her assistance -- called "There's a bore in the woods," borrowed from a mid-1980s Reagan campaign ad.)

Speaking of which, Reagan figures heavily in the narrative Romney has created to justify his presidential ambitions. It has proven a difficult example to live up to, however. In his formative political years, Mitt Romney was a liberal Massachusetts Republican who didn't owe his political fortunes to Reagan, wasn't associated with him, and, as far as anyone knows, never even voted for him.

And yet, his Monday speech, like his entire 2008 campaign, was peppered with Reagan references. Most of these were appropriate enough, as when he quoted Reagan as noting that of the four wars involving the United States in his lifetime, "none happened because America was too strong." It's a line Romney has used for three years now, but Reagan wouldn't have minded: The Gipper was fond of repetition, too. And Romney's clear-eyed, but not wild-eyed, view of the dangers lurking in the world is certainly reminiscent of Reagan.

Unlike Romney, however, Reagan was a long-time national figure who, by the time he was elected president, was the unquestioned leader of the conservative movement. Reagan did not pattern himself after anyone else (with the possible exception, paradoxically, of Franklin Roosevelt) or tailor his views or image for the times. Reagan waited for national public opinion to catch up with him, which it finally did in 1980.

As president, the secret to Reagan's success wasn't his consistency; it was his practicality. This was a lesson lost to Reagan's critics as well as his loyalists. In his own White House, the battle cry of conservative purists was "Let Reagan be Reagan." This slogan had the unintended effect of underestimating Reagan's talent, and what it came to symbolize has been the downfall of more than one would-be Reagan imitator. In 2008, Mitt Romney, was one of those candidates who fell into the trap of trying to emulate Reagan rather than rely on his own (considerable) talents. While campaigning in Florida in August 2007, Romney was asked to rate himself on a scale of conservatism from one to 10 -- with Reagan being a 10. "Probably a 10 as well," he replied. "I'm tying to think in what places we would differ." And on Jan. 30, 2008, at the debate at the Reagan Library, Romney stated flatly, "Reagan would endorse my candidacy."

Actually, it's unlikely Reagan would have endorsed Romney in a GOP primary. But Romney would have been a curious choice for Reagan anyway. Romney won the Massachusetts governorship as a pro-choice moderate; and during a senatorial race against Edward M. Kennedy in the mid-1990s, he stated in response to Kennedy's jibes: "I was an independent during the time of Reagan-Bush. I'm not trying to return to Reagan-Bush."

Obviously, running a nationwide campaign in 2008, Romney had to modulate this kind of rhetoric. But in trying to remake himself into a Reagan clone, Romney went too far -- so far that he hurt his own campaign.

One example came when Hillary Clinton unveiled her second attempt at health care reform. Her initial try came as First Lady, when the solution devised by a White House task force she chaired was such a non-starter that even Bill Clinton walked away from it. So how did Mitt Romney, who almost single-handedly enacted universal health care in Massachusetts, handle it? First let me tell you what I expected him to say.

Senator Clinton, welcome back to the debate. I like some of your ideas. They sound familiar. They are what we did in Massachusetts when I was governor. The Democratic Legislature fought us, but we prevailed, because even Democrats could see that the answer to this riddle is that we have to coerce young, healthy workers to buy insurance. The reason? Because most of them are healthy and the insurance pools need their premiums. I notice also that some 22 states have copied us -- many of them blue states, and I'm flattered you did, too. Better late than never.

Or something to that effect. But what did Romney actually say? He dismissed her plan as "Hillary-Care," sort of implying it was socialized medicine. He didn't mention what he'd done as governor. In the end, this kind of cookie cutter, more Reagan-than-Reagan conservatism made Romney seem disingenuous.

But Ronald Reagan got another chance, and it looks like Romney will, too. There is an obvious rationale to his candidacy now that was lacking in 2007 and 2008. I'm referring to the sorry state of the U.S. economy, and the Democrats' notion that we can simply borrow our way to prosperity. Romney's rich experience as a successful businessman who turned companies around, rescued the 2002 Olympics, and made the Commonwealth of Massachusetts solvent, and yes, brought his state universal health insurance, would suit him well in this environment. If he'd talk about it. And so, with all due respect to the remaining Reaganauts out there, I have a modest proposal to make with respect to Romney's handlers, speechwriters, and campaign ad guys in 2012:

Let Mitt be Mitt.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Book Excerpt: Obama 'Not Begging' Hillary to Take Secretary of State Job

Tommy Christopher — 2009-06-01T10:28:00+00:00

Filed under: Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, 2008 President, Obama Administration

Former Newsweek reporter Richard Wolffe's new book, "Renegade: The Making of a President," details some uncomfortable behind-the scenes wrangling about the selection of Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State, according to an excerpt on Huffington Post.

The excerpt describes a candidate eager to have Clinton on his team, but not willing to jump through hoops. On retiring Clinton's campaign debt:

"I'm not begging her to take this job," Obama told his senior aides. "If she wants it, I could help. But I'm not willing to go out in these difficult economic times to do a flashy fundraiser in California."

Obama made the decision to pick Clinton while the bitter primary battle still raged on, and over the objections of his staff::

"I don't hold grudges," he told his aides. "I don't worry about the past. I'm concerned about what happens now. If she can help me and Bill Clinton isn't too much of a liability, we should seriously look at this."

Although the excerpt contains lots of praise for Hillary Clinton from Obama, it's the juicy quotes that will get the most play and revive dormant water-cooler debates.

I'm a little bit surprised to learn that the hard feelings from the primary campaign ran so deep. At the time, I thought that questions about Obama's and Clinton's ability to put the past behind them and work together were mainly a construct of their ardent supporters and a drama-loving media.

Still, as they say, all's well that ends well:

Several weeks into the administration, even Clinton's internal critics believed the relationship was a success. "They have both worked really hard at it," said one senior White House official. "There's a natural affinity and respect that ironically grew out of being opponents. You get to know someone really well after all that."

Wolffe's book hits shelves Tuesday.

Tommy on: Daily Dose:

Top 10 Conservative Women I Love to Love

Daily Kos Founder Twitter-Feuds with Meghan McCain Over Gay Marriage

Politico Takes Down Light Touch Version of Playboy 'Hate List

Playboy Magazine Officially Hates Women, Conservative or Otherwise

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Joe Biden, Al Franken Hold a Summit of the Powerless

Dylan and Ethan Ris — 2009-05-06T18:37:00+00:00

Filed under: Senate, Democrats, Joe Biden, 2008 President, 2008 Senate, Humor

You'd be hard-pressed to find two people in Washington with less to do than Vice President Joe Biden and would-be Minnesota Senator Al Franken.

In the weeks and months since November 4th, both men have been thoroughly screwed by our nation's Constitution, albeit each in his own unique way:

* Biden got roped into a job that the Founding Fathers deliberately stripped of any tangible responsibility. (If Barack Obama wants to model his presidency after Lincoln, we can't help but wonder if Biden will similarly model his own tenure after Lincoln's first VP, Hannibal Hamlin, who declared himself "the least important man in Washington" and sulked off to his farm in Maine, never to return.)

* Franken's problems are much simpler. He'd be in the Senate right now, conducting real government business, if only that pesky Constitution didn't provide Norm Coleman with more legal challenges than O.J.'s defense team.

Which brings us to today's events, wherein the two men convened at an undisclosed location (that most vice- presidential of locales) and held a summit of the nation's token and powerless. We're not sure what was discussed, but we assume that Biden wore a mask the entire time, as Franken traveled to Washington by airplane and thus most-assuredly has swine flu.

Determined not to be completely emasculated, we're told Biden and Franken concluded their pow-wow by appropriating $9.86 in federal stimulus money toward some take-out Arby's.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Illicit Affairs 101: Politicians Can End Up In Legal Trouble

Jill Lawrence — 2009-05-04T13:18:00+00:00

Filed under: Democrats, John Edwards, 2008 President, Woman Up

Inevitably, another politician's extramarital affair has gone from personal to political to investigated. They never see it coming. But of course there was plenty that nobody foresaw, including me while I was covering my second John Edwards presidential campaign.

I did notice some things that seem more significant in retrospect.

When Edwards announced his second presidential run, a couple of days after Christmas 2006 in New Orleans, Rielle Hunter was there. Elizabeth Edwards was not.

I remember being puzzled by her absence, and by Edwards' quick exit from a dinner he was scheduled to have with reporters covering his announcement. It was at the hotel, a wasted opportunity in a town of renowned eateries. And he didn't eat.

Just after the announcement, inside part of a Katrina-wrecked house, I remember talking to him about the books he and his wife had just published. His: a coffee table volume called Home: The Blueprints of our Lives. Hers: Saving Graces: Finding Solace and Strength from Friends and Strangers.

I told him teasingly that clearly she was the confessional half of the couple and his book was a typical guy book. Mostly about other people's houses, it gave away nothing. In fact, Publishers Weekly said his introduction "unfortunately reads like a political speech."

I look back now in amazement on the debates and town meetings and appearances that I covered, including the extraordinary press conference at which the pair told the nation Elizabeth's cancer had come back.

How could he have waited to tell her about the affair until after he announced his candidacy? How could she have stood by him after she knew? Why didn't they use the cancer to get out of the race? Aren't these people Democrats? What if he'd gotten the nomination? Were they trying to destroy their party?

So many questions. Who is really the father of Hunter's baby? And now federal investigators are asking whether more than $100,000 in payments to Hunter and her video production company were legal. Edwards says he's confident campaign funds were spent properly.

Elizabeth's new book is called Resilience: Reflections on the Burdens and Gifts of Facing Life's Adversities. It's coming out Friday, and it's already the No. 87 bestseller on Amazon. Home is in remainders, going for $3.17.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

New NY Times Columnist Envisions a Cheney Candidacy

Dylan and Ethan Ris — 2009-04-28T08:15:00+00:00

Filed under: Republicans, Dick Cheney, 2008 President, Media, Voting

Ross Douthat has made his debut as the house conservative at The New York Times, taking over for the much maligned William Kristol.

Douthat's first column, which re-imagines the 2008 election, rings of Kristol in that it presents a ridiculous premise, but unlike Kristol, Douthat duly acknowledges as much.

The title? "Cheney for President."

In the column, Douthat posits what might have happened had a "true conservative" (read: war and supply-side economics) carried the Republican standard in 2008 instead of John McCain. (Who believed in war and supply-side economics but also campaign finance reform.) Douthat acknowledges, with resignation, that no one fits this bill better than Cheney himself.

But unlike Kristol, Douthat never strays far from reality. While he imagines candidate Cheney as "disciplined," "ideologically consistent," and "cunningly effective," he also speaks of the "landslide loss" that would have surely greeted the ex-VP.

Douthat goes on to call Cheney's current trashing of the Obama administration "bad form" and "distinctly unwelcome"-- presumably because he wants to last longer at The New York Times than Kristol did.

With this promising debut unleashed on the public, it's a shame to know that Douthat's first column for the New York Times will also be his last. It's just that-- given the news that Cheney loyalists remain embedded in the CIA and NSA-- we have a hard time believing Douthat will last through next week without having his laptop seized while he is gagged and thrown in the trunk of an unmarked vehicle, never to be seen again.

Then again, the column could continue. Perhaps Douthat will be able to get a wi-fi signal in his new Undisclosed Location.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Hillary Clinton Sounds Ready to Join the Ron Paul Revolution

Dylan and Ethan Ris — 2009-04-23T16:15:00+00:00

Filed under: Hillary Clinton, Ron Paul, 2008 President, Humor

We already know that Ron Paul enjoys the most devoted group of followers this side of Jonestown, but apparently he's expanded his ranks even further since his failed presidential bid last year.

It seems that now he's counting a sitting Secretary of State among his admirers...

Talk about an odd couple: Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton on Wednesday gave a little bit of love to fellow former presidential candidate Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas)...

"I just want to say, having campaigned during the last presidential election, you had the most enthusiastic supporters of anybody I ever saw," Clinton said. "I mean, my goodness, everywhere I went, they were literally running down highways holding your signs.

"So I've never had a chance to tell you that, but your message obviously resonated with a lot of people," the secretary of State gushed.

Clinton is right. Paul's supporters were running down highways all last summer, waving hand-painted signs acclaiming the Texas congressman/gynecologist. But that's not all they did.

They also held faux-Woodstock events in his honor, crashed nominating conventions for him and, in one case, attempted to make a sex tape with him.

They also went to impressive lengths to hurl insults and death threats at bloggers who deigned to mock their candidate in a humor column-- a tradition that we expect will continue below...

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Team McCain Comes Out For Gay Marriage

Dylan and Ethan Ris — 2009-04-17T08:00:00+00:00

Filed under: Republicans, John McCain, 2008 President, Gay Rights

The marriage-equality movement has gained traction amongst and unexpected demographic: the John McCain campaign.

Several key members of McCain's failed presidential bid have announced their support for legalized gay marriage in recent days -- most notably McCain's daughter, Meghan.

The latest addition is even more of a shocker: Steve Schmidt, McCain's former chief strategist. In a speech scheduled for later today in front of the Log Cabin Republicans (a group whose name seems to suggest that Abraham Lincoln was gay), Schmidt will make the argument that conservatives should support same-sex marriage on principle.

Schmidt will use a speech Friday to Log Cabin Republicans, a gay rights group, to urge conservative Republicans to drop their opposition to same-sex marriage, CNN has learned.

"There is a sound conservative argument to be made for same-sex marriage," Schmidt will say, according to speech excerpts obtained by CNN. "I believe conservatives, more than liberals, insist that rights come with responsibilities. No other exercise of one's liberty comes with greater responsibilities than marriage."

"It cannot be argued that marriage between people of the same sex is un American or threatens the rights of others," he says in the speech. "On the contrary, it seems to me that denying two consenting adults of the same sex the right to form a lawful union that is protected and respected by the state denies them two of the most basic natural rights affirmed in the preamble of our Declaration of Independence - liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

Also in attendance at the Log Cabin Republicans gathering will be Meghan and -- believe it or not -- Cindy McCain. Could the Senator be next?

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Randy, Paula, Simon and Hillary

Patricia Murphy — 2009-04-09T16:41:00+00:00

Filed under: Hillary Clinton, Democrats, 2008 President, The Capitolist

If you have a song in your heart, Hillary Clinton on your mind and $5 burning a hole in your pocket, this is your lucky day.

Ragin' Cajun James Carville just sent an email to supporters of the Secretary of State imploring them to donate money to help retire her still-sizable campaign debt. According to the Federal Election Commission, Clinton's campain was still $5,943,384.58 in debt at its most recent filing at the end of 2008.

"I won't spend a lot of time trying to convince you to help Hillary," Carville wrote. "So let's get to the fun part -- enter today to win one of three truly once in a lifetime opportunities and you will also be doing something great to help finish off Hillary's debt."

What are today's prizes, James? A weekend talking politics with James Carville and Paul Begala in Washington, D.C.; a weekend talking third-world debt and politics with Bill Clinton in New York; or tickets to the "American Idol" finale in Los Angeles. "You and a guest will watch live as the American Idol judges make their final comments and decisions on this year's most anticipated season finale!"

For your chance to see Danny Gokey with your own two eyes, or just to see the lengths a campaign has to go to in order to raise money for election that's already over, check out Hillary Clinton's campaign web site HERE.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Republican Claims Times Spiked ACORN/Obama Story

Dave — 2009-03-30T20:53:00+00:00

Filed under: Barack Obama, 2008 President, Fundraising

The Philadelphia Bulletin reports about what the New York Times didn't consider fit to print about ACORN:

A lawyer involved with legal action against Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) told a House Judiciary subcommittee on March 19 The New York Times had killed a story in October that would have shown a close link between ACORN, Project Vote and the Obama campaign because it would have been a "a game changer."...

During her testimony, Ms. Heidelbaugh said Ms. Moncrief had told her The New York Times articles stopped when she revealed that the Obama presidential campaign had sent its maxed-out donor list to ACORN's Washington, D.C. office....

"Upon learning this information and receiving the list of donors from the Obama campaign, Ms. Strom reported to Ms. Moncrief that her editors at The New York Times wanted her to kill the story because, and I quote, "it was a game changer."'

I agree. If true this would be a game changer. But following the chain of sourcing, we have Ms. Heidelbaugh, a Republican recounting a hearsay story from a Ms. Moncrief who worked for ACORN. The New York Times Reporter, Stephanie Strom, wouldn't confirm anything.

But Strom would have been the right person, through the magic of Google, I could find several stories she did for the NYT about ACORN ( like here and here), but I couldn't find one that would fit the sourcing of Moncrief. Which doesn't prove that the Times did or did not spike the story.

This would not also not be the first time that someone claimed to have evidence of bad dealings at ACORN using Anita Moncrief as a source. From October 22nd of last year we have Michael Gaynor:

Minutes later, I read this: "Anita MonCrief. Google me. Please do not use my name with anyone until we connect. I also emailed Michelle Malkin but she scares me."

I responded: "I googled that name and hope it's the real you. If it is, you should have plenty to prove that should be publicized. Please call me at or after 9 PM: 631-757-9452. I will be home by then and free to talk."

Anita emailed: "I am really terrified. When I say threats and intimidation, I am not kidding. We (my 2 year old) are moving and I have had union pressure to make me be quiet. I am on linked in. If you still have doubts add me and I will confirm you."

Keep half an eye on this one. If Moncrief does actually talk (for herself) and can back up that ACORN served as a way for Obama to double-dip the same donors, this could get embarrassing fast for both the president, ACORN and the New York Times. But I think until Ms. Moncrief is willing to go on the record about what she saw during her time at ACORN, this is going to remain just an underground story.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Obama Now $3 Million Richer

Dylan and Ethan Ris — 2009-03-19T11:51:00+00:00

Filed under: Barack Obama, 2008 President, Humor

Call off the parades.

Barack Obama's historic rise to the presidency has been revealed to be nothing more than a vast conspiracy to enrich the former community organizer with millions of dollars.

While Americans believed that he was genuine while giving pretty speeches about the need for broadened health care and sound foreign policy, Obama was actually just on the campaign trail in order to drive sales of his books, Dreams From My Father and The Audacity of Hope. And now he's laughing all the way to the bank, where he'll be depositing a cool $3 million.

Disclosure forms filed with the Secretary of the Senate for Barack Obama's final year as a U.S. senator show that, as he spent 2008 campaigning for president, he earned nearly $2.5 million in royalties from the sale of his books.

And he added $500,000 more on Jan. 15, just before taking office as president, when he signed a deal for "an abridged version of Dreams from My Father suitable for middle grade or young adult readers."

Most of the royalties came from Obama's more recent book, which brought in $1,512,933 in 2008. "Dreams from My Father" also continued to sell well, earning the author $949,910.

This national shame will surely go down in history along with other travesties such as the 1919 Chicago Blacksox Scandal and the 1990 Milli Vanilli betrayal.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Obama Accepted AIG Cash for Campaign

Mark Impomeni — 2009-03-19T06:15:00+00:00

Filed under: Barack Obama, 2008 President, Obama Administration

With all the outrage coming from the White House over bonuses paid to executives at the troubled AIG Insurance group, the White House might be a bit embarrassed to admit that as a Senator, President Obama took plenty of money from AIG in the form of campaign contributions. According to OpenSecrets.org, Senator Obama was the second largest recipient of campaign dollars from AIG at $101,332. Only Connecticut Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT), Only Connecticut Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT), who, it turns out, is responsible for the loop hole that allowed the bonuses to be paid to AIG executives.

For politicians, campaign contributions act like "bonuses" for a job well done. Like individuals, companies and interest groups contribute to the political campaigns of politicians at all levels based on how likely a candidate is to be sympathetic to their issues and how much help an incumbent has been in office. There is nothing wrong with the practice, so long as there is no vote selling going on; and there is no proof that President Obama did anything illegal or unethical in respect to AIG's political contributions to his campaign fund. However, some critics will question how AIG received an additional $30 billion from the Treasury just two weeks ago with no apparent concerns about how the money would be spent. And they might wonder how a provision that specifically protects bonuses paid at companies receiving federal bailout funds made it into the economic stimulus bill that the president championed and Democrats in Congress pushed through. That provision will likely prevent the president from following through on his threat to recoup the bonuses.

Public anger at AIG is running high right now and it is only natural for politicians to try and capitalize on it. But the public is every bit as frustrated with the political leadership in Washington, which it views as just as responsible for the nation's economic woes as greedy corporate executives are. President Obama is leading the charge against the AIG bonuses and trying to benefit from the firestorm politically. In the interest of transparancy, he should at least acknowledge the large contributions he accepted from AIG, and answer questions about why AIG beleived he was worthy of their investment.

Hat tip: RedState

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Parsing the President's Pledges

Mark Impomeni — 2009-03-18T09:30:00+00:00

Filed under: Barack Obama, 2008 President, Obama Administration

Liberal supporters of President Barack Obama have busied themselves trying to explain how the presidential signing statement he issued last week did not violate his policy against using signing statements on legislation. Critics of the president's critics rest their arguments on a semantic parsing of candidate Obama's answer to a question posed to him on the campaign trail, and his Administration's recently issued guidelines on signing statements. But an examination of the president's actual words, rather than an analysis of one's feelings about what was said, reveals that candidate Obama did indeed promise not to use signing statements as president.

"Question: When the Congress offers you a bill, do you promise not to use presidential signage [sic] to get your way?

Obama: Yes.

That is a definitive acknowledgment, not a qualified one. The president's defenders, however, skip over this and rely more on the explanation that follows to arrive at their conclusion that Obama really meant no when he said, "Yes." This is faulty reasoning. Obama's answer is an absolute, "Yes." not a, "Yes, but..." The explanation that follows, then, is properly seen as a dissertation on why the answer is yes, and not an explanation on how it could be no.Candidate Obama's explanation of his denial makes it even clearer that his signing statement on the $410 billion omnibus spending bill was a violation of this campaign promise.

Obama: Let me just explain for those who are unfamiliar with this issue. We've got...a government designed by the Founders so that there'd be checks and balances. You don't want a president that's too powerful, or a Congress that's too powerful, or a court that's too powerful. Everybody's got there own role.

Congress's job is to pass legislation. The president can veto it, or he can sign it.

Looking at this part of the explanation, it is clear that candidate Obama rejects the notion that presidents can issue signing statements at all. In his view expressed here, Obama says that if the president disagrees with a bill he can veto it. But that is not what President Obama did on the omnibus spending bill. Contrary to what he said was the Founders' intent, President Obama did not follow candidate Obama's advice and veto the bill. Rather he issued a signing statement outlining his objections to the legislation and laying out the Executive Branch's reasons for not following certain portions of the bill.

In the next segment, candidate Obama discusses President George W. Bush's use of signing statements, and concludes that signing statements on the whole are unconstitutional.

Obama: But what George Bush has been trying to do as part of his effort to try and accumulate more power in the presidency is, he's been saying 'Well I can...basically change what Congress has passed by attaching a letter saying "I don't agree with this part," or, '"I don't agree with that part. I'm going to choose to interpret it this way or that way."'

That's not part of his power. But this is part of the whole theory of George Bush...that he can just make laws as he's going along.

Here candidate Obama makes it clear that he believes signing statements are not a legal tool for presidents to use. They are "not part of [the president's] power," in his words. By this standard, it is a violation of his campaign promise for President Obama to even have a policy on the use of signing statements in his Administration. For the president to have actually used a signing statement is a step into the territory he reasoned was forbidden when George W. Bush issued them.

Lastly, candidate Obama restates his pledge not to use signing statements as president, and provides some ammunition for his supporters' claim that he has not really broken his pledge.

Obama: I disagree with that, I taught the Constitution for ten years, I believe in the Constitution, and I will obey the Constitution of the United States.

We're not going to use signing statements as a way of doing an end run around Congress.

The president's defenders will focus on the last sentence and say that Obama has allowed himself the room to issue signing statements, so long as they don't undo Congressional intent and meet some unstated Constitutional test. But it is the first sentence that actually contains the message candidate Obama wanted to impart on his audience and the electorate. He believes, by virtue of his authority as a Constitutional professor, that signing statements are unconstitutional. It is both illogical and revealing for Obama's supporters to claim that he would declare signing statements unconstitutional in one breath, and reserve the right to use them in the other.

In order to make a reasoned judgment, it is necessary to separate feelings from facts. Just as his detractors often view President Obama's actions in a negative light, his supporters tend to put too much emphasis on what they hope Obama will do, as opposed to what he has actually done. Whatever those hopes, however, in the case of the signing statements pledge, President Obama's own words show that he has violated not only the spirit, but the letter, of his campaign promise.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Meghan McCain's Super Creepy Dating Tales

Tommy Christopher — 2009-03-03T08:00:00+00:00

Filed under: Republicans, John McCain, 2008 President, Humor

I'm talking "It puts the lotion in the basket" creepy. Meghan McCain puts it all out there for The Daily Beast, talking about the toll the election has taken on her personal life.

Just a hint to all you guys out there: the last thing you want to bring up when you're out with a young woman is her dad. There's no context in which that helps you. I'm gonna jump right to the money quote here:

One extreme fan of my mother's recently told me I could be "his Cindy." And then asked me if I ever wore pearls...

Yeah, I'm gonna stop you right there, Meghan. Whoah. I hope you took down that guy's plate number and went straight to a good sketch artist.

Less terrifying, but equally uncomfortable, was this slick suitor:

Once I went out with a guy who said the food I had ordered was a "maverick choice" and proceeded to tell me, "Wow, straight talking must run in the family."

You would think this would be good news for Naderites and Ron Paul supporters, but Meghan has a different bar in mind.

At this point, my biggest aphrodisiac is an apathetic attitude toward politics.

That, and as image consultant Robin Walker says, make sure you wash.

Tommy on: Daily Dose I I Twitter
Order The Audacity of Democracy Starring Tommy Christopher

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Jackson Browne and John McCain to Headline California Central District Court!

Dylan and Ethan Ris — 2009-02-24T15:19:00+00:00

Filed under: Barack Obama, Ads, John McCain, 2008 President, Humor

...And Browne gets top billing! At least in the sense that the court case is called Browne v. McCain.

As you might recall, back in August, Browne sued McCain for using his song "Running on Empty" in a song mocking Barack Obama. McCain largely ignored the lawsuit, letting his lawyers have it out with Browne's and trusting that a judge would eventually throw out the case.

Well not so fast...

A federal district court in Los Angeles over the weekend declined to dismiss singer Jackson Browne's lawsuit against the senator and the Republican National Committee for the unauthorized use of his song "Running On Empty" in a political Web video...

The rocker's attorney, Lawrence Iser, says the court's decision this past weekend is a "solid victory for songwriters and performers and reflects an affirmation of their intellectual property rights and their freedom from being conscripted as involuntary endorsers of political candidates and campaign messages."

So now McCain, who much like his chief strategist Joe the Plumber, has been moonlighting in the media, must immerse himself in a six month-old lawsuit filed by a musician he has obviously never heard of. (Although we hear he'd be willing to trade a couple of his Stephen Foster wax cylinders for a copy of Late for the Sky.)

Meanwhile now-President Obama, for his part, is just grateful that McCain didn't choose to run a Jackson Browne song that might have hit a bit closer to home: "Cocaine."

(Which we all know Browne actually wrote about George W. Bush.)

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Sarah Palin: Obama's 'Best Fundraiser and Organizer'

Dylan and Ethan Ris — 2009-02-13T14:32:00+00:00

Filed under: Barack Obama, John Edwards, Mitt Romney, 2008 President, Tom Tancredo, Humor, Fundraising, Sarah Palin

It's about time someone said something nice about Sarah Palin! During the campaign, it seemed like every time we opened our Washington Times or World Net Daily, we were smacked in the face with reports of Barack Obama and thirteen members of Congress calling her a pig or some McCain sourpuss complaining that she had all the foreign policy expertise of Miss South Carolina.

Well it's time for some good news, and it comes from an unlikely source: Barack Obama's campaign manager David Plouffe. It turns out that he really appreciated Palin's contributions...

"Vice presidential picks rarely but sometimes make an electoral difference. Our view was it probably wasn't going to matter that much. It's the most over-covered story in politics. This was the one exception to that. It did have an effect."

"She was our best fundraiser and organizer in the fall."

Talk about a compliment! Obama himself was a community organizer, and yet Palin - a relative novice - was even better at it than he was! That's akin to her being richer than Mitt Romney, talking slicker than John Edwards, or looking better in a straitjacket than Tom Tancredo!

And there's good news in this for Plouffe as well. By all accounts, Palin is actively preparing to haul $150,000 worth of clothes out of a garbage bag in the RNC's basement and start organizing for Obama's 2012 campaign!

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Bill Ayers Wants to Get Together With Sarah Palin

Tommy Christopher — 2009-02-12T10:45:00+00:00

Filed under: Republicans, Barack Obama, 2008 President, Humor, Media, Sarah Palin, Obama Administration

No, not in some sick, erect couch potato kind of way.

Campaign boogieman William Ayers has kind of a genius idea for himself and Alaska Governor Sarah Palin. From CNN:

"I did send her a note after the election," he says of Palin in the upcoming issue of the New York Times magazine. "I suggested that we have a talk show together called 'Pallin' Around With Sarah and Bill.' I haven't heard back."

A show like that would be absolutely huge, and it would make Crossfire look like Barney and Friends. Actually, there's a good chance that the Bill & Sarah show could hire away some of Barney's writers.

I can see it now. Sure, there would be conflict, but also sharing. Bill could show Sarah how to blow up a moose, and Sarah could teach Bill about whatever she can see from their studio.

They could also have a recurring spot for Reverend Wright. It would be like Andy Rooney, but Wright would think up a new annoying thing for God to damn in each segment. "God damn these people who answer their cellphones in the movie theater!"

Joe the Plumber could be the show's live correspondent, explaining how each story means the death of whatever place he's in, and denouncing himself for reporting on it.

Which Campaign 2008 TV pairings would you most like to see?

View Poll

Tommy on: BlogTalkRadio I Digg! I Facebook I Twitter
Order The Audacity of Democracy Starring Tommy Christopher

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Did You Cry During the Inauguration?

Dave — 2009-01-29T19:20:00+00:00

Filed under: 2008 President, Inauguration

This Fox Poll says that if you did, you are likely to be a Democrat, a woman, or black. And if by chance you were all three, then hopefully there was a tissue box nearby!

FOXNews.com

More than one of four voters -- 28 percent -- got teary-eyed or cried during the ceremony. Those most likely to say they cried include Democrats (38 percent), women (36 percent) and blacks (58 percent).

And while most Americans (69 percent) think race relations will get better in the United States with the election of Obama as president, most also agree his election does not symbolize the end of racial barriers in the country (68 percent).

The last paragraph mystifies me, there was no Wilder effect and it can easily be pointed out that Obama's race was a benefit, not a hindrance, but whatever... back to the crying.

This is going out to the stone-hearted among us who rolled their eyes during the inauguration. You know who you are:

White Republican Males, that's who!

Other notables: Approval of congress has ticked up, which should not be surprising as both sides have gotten much more partisan.

And 44 percent disapprove of Geithner to 35 percent approve. With the economy, this is likely to be the high point for Geithner, who is going to hang on Obama like an anchor. The GOP should send him a thank you for pushing it through.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments