Posts

When You Break for Lunch at 3PM…

/213 Comments/in /by

You gotta believe you’re going to be here for a while. I’m hearing estimates that this may go till midnight.

Joy.

We’re still waiting in the RBC members to return. Remember–they had lunch together, and there’s the sense that they’re close on at least FL, though probably not MI. But there’s also the question of whether they decide the FL challenge before deciding the MI one. After all, if they seat MI at full strength, they’d have to seat FL at full strength … wouldn’t they?

I’ll do a little bit more live-blogging as we go forward this PM, since the feds sound like they’re crummy. Let me know if that’s still true, once we get started again, alright?

Update: Just a heads up. Things are likely to get contentious here (that is, at the RBC meeting) this afternoon. So in an effort to keep things here (at EW/FDL) polite, we’re going to moderate threads as we would do at FDL.

Did MI’s April 19 District Conventions Just Become a Clusterf^#k Too?

/129 Comments/in /by

There’s something disturbing in the Rules and By-Law Committee Meeting Materials handed out for Saturday’s meeting: the distinct possibility that the RBC will overturn the results of MI’s April 19 Convention, the only thing approaching a real exercise in democracy this year. It’s the problem of how to assign uncommitted delegates as supporting Obama.

First, the document pretty much throws out the possibility of doing a 69-59 split, which is what the MDP recommended.

If the RBC determines that any of the pledged delegate positions should be restored to the MDP, the first question presented is whether the results of the January 15, 2008 primary should be used in any way in allocating the results.

On the one hand, if the RBC does determine that Michigan should be allowed to send some pledged delegates to the Convention, there must be some basis for allocating those delegates among presidential candidates (preferences). A fundamental principle of delegate selection is expressed in the provision of the Charter requiring that delegates be chosen through processes which “assure that delegations fairly reflect the division of preferences expressed by those who participate in the Presidential nominating process.” Similarly, Rule 13(A) of the Delegate Selection Rules provides that, “Delegates shall be allocated in a fashion that fairly reflects the expressed presidential preference or uncommitted status of the primary voters….” In this case, it can be argued, there is no basis for ensuring “fair reflection” of presidential preference other than to use the results of the January 15 primary.

On the other hand, it can be argued that the primary as a whole could not possibly have served as a “fair reflection” of presidential preference because most of the candidates then running for the nomination were not on the ballot.

It then proceeds by considering a whole bunch of possibilities pertaining to the original Clusterfuck, the January 15 primary, apparently believing the RBC can only address those results. It rules out categorically giving all the uncommitted delegates to Obama.

Nevertheless, there is no specific authority whatsoever in the Delegate Selection Rules or the Call for the RBC to award delegate positions won by the “Uncommitted” preference to a particular candidate or candidates.

Read more →

A Return to Zapruder in the Live-Stream World

/83 Comments/in , /by

Last fall, Jay Rosen wrote a post and I wrote a follow-up, both of which elicited much discussion. Jay quoted a member of the White House press corps explaining why the press corps continues to attend the White House press events even though they’re staged spin, rather than news. Here’s the exchange between Jay and the anonymous reporter.

Well, there are two phrases that I’d like to pass along to your readers. They mean more or less the same thing. “Body watch” means covering an event that will produce zero news on its own because you need to make sure the president doesn’t collapse. The other is SSRO — “suddenly shots rang out” — which is basically equivalent, just a bit more dramatic.

[snip]

When I emailed this to my friend, he asked whether we were responsible for the president’s safety, so I assume that others will have the same question. What we are responsible for is making sure that, if he collapses, or is shot at, we are in a position to get that information to our viewers/listeners/readers.

From what I know, a correct and concise statement of what the body watch is.

Think about how much JFK, RFK, MLK, Wallace, Squeaky, and Hinckley have shaped the logistical reality of White House coverage. The history of journalism is littered with stories of reporters who called it a day a bit too early, like the guy from the New York Times (if memory serves) who decided to head back to NYC hours before Wallace was shot. [my emphasis]

Basically, the press corps continues to attend all of Bush’s–or Presidential candidates’–events out of fear that something newsworthy might happen and they wouldn’t be present.

When I read this account of how the reporters covering the Hillary campaign learned of her RFK assassination comment–not to mention the fact that John McCain had a squamous cell carcinoma removed in February, in the middle of a Presidential campaign, without anyone reporting it–it made me want to further challenge the notion that the press corps has to follow the President–and Presidential candidates around–to make sure they, and not some random citizen with a video camera–reports on serious things that happen to the President.

Read more →

Virginia and Tom Davis’ Plan to Save the GOP Brand

/251 Comments/in /by

DHinMI is right. Tom Davis’ memo about how to save the Republican brand is worthy reading–if only because one of the few Republicans who believes in gravity penned it.

To me, the most interesting passage is where Davis reviews the reasons why Republican fundraising sucks.

(1) Abandonment of many traditional GOP interest groups or a hedge strategy to “buy in” on a perceived longer term Democratic majority. For example, Pharma, UPS, government contractors and FED Ex are now giving strategically to Democrats for “protection money”.

(2) GOP leaders turned lobbyists, from Bob Livingston to JC Watts, are giving Blue. Are there any Democratic lobbyists returning the favor?

(Is anyone weeping "K Street Project" tears right now? I guess it’s not enough to ensure all the lobbyists are Republicans, now, is it?)

(3) Net roots and money from the internet have swelled Democratic coffers, from the Obama campaign, to their Red to Blue programs, giving Democrats huge
fundraising advantages across the board. Much of this is fueled by a strong Democratic desire to seize power after eight years of Bush and Cheney, coupled with a strong disappointment among grass roots Republicans at the party’s performance in office. Governance is a tough business requiring tough choices and holding together coalitions of economic and social conservatives is difficult to sustain.

Thank you Tom. Though there are bigger reasons why you Republicans suck at the netroots. First, transparency kills Republicans in the same way sunlight kills vampires. That, and dirty fucking hippies scare you Republicans–in fact, anything that operates on any but a top-down hierarchy. So the Republican Party is just constitutionally inappropriate for the netroots. But thanks for the nod of recognition.

Immigration pits our business wing against our grass roots wing. The War has turned many educated, affluent Republicans away. Spending priorities, scandals, gas prices and home value declines leave little for Republicans to be enthused over, particularly when our ability to draw issue lines and force choices by Democrats is frustrated by House Rules, inarticulate and unfocused national leadership and finger pointing.

Davis could have written a whole memo about these few subjects, starting with the recognition that you can oppose undocumented workers being hired to bring down wages, but focus on prosecuting employers, not brown people. Given that it’s not even in the realm of imagination for Davis, I guess he’s just got a paradigmatic inability to understand the issues that–even he says–could flip this election. Read more →

The Brilliance of the Edwards Endorsement

/63 Comments/in /by

I joked to some folks yesterday that Will Rogers is probably rolling over in his grave about now. Between Obama’s insistence on running one, unified message and party and Obama’s masterful implementation of the Edwards endorsement yesterday, we Democrats may no longer be able to quip–at least for the next several months–that we "belong to no organized party."

That sentiment was widely shared among a bunch of local political types in MI with whom I just had beers. It wasn’t just that Obama (and David Bonior, surely) had managed to headline Obama’s first MI event with the guy in the race who spoke most about the crappy economy. It wasn’t just that it was MI where he chose to get the endorsement–making up for a lot of the bad things some Michiganders have been told about Obama. It wasn’t even just the nice touch of keeping the Edwards endorsement a secret from the thousands who showed up in Van Andel arena to see Obama until Obama got to announce it himself on stage–magnifiying the specialness of the Edwards endorsement. It was, obviously, also the way Obama managed to pre-empt Hillary’s biggest win since Arkansas with the news that both of them have been chasing since February.

But the more I think about it, Obama’s management of the Edwards endorsement was even more brilliant than that.

Consider, for a moment, Robert Reich’s explanation of why Hillary remains in the race (h/t Jane).

She wants the best possible deal she can strike with Obama. She wants Obama to agree to pay her campaign debts, to seat the Michigan and Florida delegations (so she can claim a moral victory), and – the quietest deal of all – a personal commitment from him to appoint her to the Supreme Court when the next vacancy occurs.

Just as a picky point, the Edwards endorsement simplifies any resolution of MI. If the MI compromise proposal goes forward, it’ll make it a lot easier to award Obama 59 delegates now that the other major candidate who took uncommitted votes has endorsed Obama–Edwards isn’t going to complain that "his" votes from uncommitted are awarded to Obama. Read more →

Grandson of Nazi Enabler Decries Talking to Nazis

/139 Comments/in , /by

Boy, George Bush must not have liked his Granddaddy Prescott very much. Here’s what he just said to Israel’s Knesset:

Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: "Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided." We have an obligation to call this what it is – the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.

Or maybe it’s just negotiating with Nazis that’s the problem–making tons of dough by serving as their banker? The Bush family doesn’t appear to have any problem with that.

George Bush’s grandfather, the late US senator Prescott Bush, was a director and shareholder of companies that profited from their involvement with the financial backers of Nazi Germany.

The Guardian has obtained confirmation from newly discovered files in the US National Archives that a firm of which Prescott Bush was a director was involved with the financial architects of Nazism.

His business dealings, which continued until his company’s assets were seized in 1942 under the Trading with the Enemy Act, has led more than 60 years later to a civil action for damages being brought in Germany against the Bush family by two former slave labourers at Auschwitz and to a hum of pre-election controversy.

If we had a press corps with any historical memory, I guess, such a statement might get Bush in trouble (not to mention make it difficult for his hosts who invited a lame duck grandson of a banker to the Nazis to speak to the Knesset). But instead they’re likely to focus on the false claim that Obama wants to appease Hamas.

Update on Michigan

/46 Comments/in /by

News reports say that Obama will be visiting Michigan on Wednesday–with a visit to the heart of Republican territory in Grand Rapids, and a visit to the home of the Reagan Democrats in Macomb County. I would say that’s a pretty strong signal that the general election campaign started this week. I’m rather pleased with Obama’s choice of places to visit, too. Obama supporters in W Michigan did very well by him at District Conventions in April, which suggests he’s got a lot of strong support in Western Michigan. And while Obama can expect strong support from Washtenaw County and Detroit come November (both of which voted for Uncommitted in January), Obama will need to do some work with those Reagan Democrats. So why not go to the home of the Reagan Democrats and explain why McCain won’t improve the economy?

In other news that everyone still claiming Obama won’t seat MI’s delegation seems to have missed, Hillary rejected MI’s latest compromise solution.

Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Rodham Clinton on Thursday rejected a compromise plan to seat Michigan’s delegates to the national convention that would give 69 delegates to Clinton and 59 to Barack Obama.

"This proposal does not honor the 600,000 votes that were cast in Michigan’s January primary. Those votes must be counted," Clinton spokesman Isaac Baker said.

The Michigan Democratic Party had approved the plan and intended to submit it to the Democratic National Committee meeting on May 31. Michigan Democratic Party Chairman Mark Brewer said in a statement that the plan was a "good step toward a solution that unites Democrats and ensures that our state will not face a McCain presidency."

This solution is, numerically, not far off the proposal I suggested. More important, though, is the fact that it was supported by MI’s Democratic Party, even loaded as it is with big Hillary supporters. Even Joel Ferguson (the DNC member who originally submitted a crazy plan punishing elected delegates but not supers), as I understand it, has accepted this proposal.

So what the traditional news isn’t telling you, and Terry McAuliffe isn’t telling you, but I’m gonna tell you is that MI has, for all intents and purposes, been resolved. Read more →

A Big Day for BIFFO?

/28 Comments/in , /by

cowen_page_1.jpg

One of the first things people asked me when I arrived in Ireland on Sunday was whether I had seen Bertie Ahern’s address to Congress last Wednesday. It was the swan song of his time as Ireland’s Taoiseach (Prime Minister-pronounced Tea Shack), a celebrated address in America that had gotten very big play on Irish telly. After a drawn out influence scandal had finally sunk his credibility, Bertie had announced about six weeks ago that he would turn in his resignation on May 6.

Bertie’s resignation was actually a bit of big news in Offaly, mr. emptywheel’s county, since Bertie’s presumed replacement (it’ll become official while I’m on the flight home) is Brian Cowen, the TD from Offaly. In just about every town in the county (particularly Tullamore, the county seat and the home of mr. emptywheel’s parents), there’s a picture of Cowen, congratulating him on ascending to Taoiseach. He’ll be back in Offaly on Saturday for a big celebration.

People call Cowen "BIFFO," the slur one uses for Offaly men–Big Ignorant Fucker from Offaly–presumably invoking the day when Offaly was mostly sheep farms and peat bogs.

That was before Ireland joined the EU, though, and certainly before the time when Cowen took on a leadership role in Fianna Fail, Ireland’s equivalent to the Republican Party. Tullamore has become a bedroom community for Dublin and has attracted a bit of corporate investment itself, so there’s a brand new giant Tesco and new housing developments going up everywhere.

Also, Ireland has started decentralizing the government outside of Dublin. So, as the Finance Minister, Cowen had gotten Ireland’s finance ministry moved to Tullamore, into a building almost across the street from mr. emptywheel’s boyhood home, in what had been a big empty field. (It seems like the decentralization has resulted in national offices springing up in the county seats of all the TDs who have served as ministers in Bertie’s government, but after Cowen shuffles the cabinet, it’ll result in the TD from Cork having to commute from Cork to both Tullamore and Dublin to fulfill all his roles.) And now that Cowen will be Taoiseach, my father-in-law figures, it’ll hasten the completion of the motorway connecting Tullamore to Dublin, and ensure the main streets will be improved.

Pork is not just an American institution, you know.

So today, Cowen will become Taoiseach and, if Tullamore is lucky, it’ll mean lots of pork for Offaly.

Read more →

Wherein emptywheel Gets Shrill

/68 Comments/in /by

otr.jpg

Boy, what a weird news day. Which press conference do you think will get all the coverage on the news? Obama on Wright, or Mr. Irrelevant on the economy?

I’m just about to go fetch mr. emptywheel and set off on my Haggis and Beamish pilgrimage. So I thought I’d leave you with a link to my appearance on MI’s Off the Record last week. Tim Skubick said the calls in response have been mixed–some people find this show wonderfully, um, lively. (And on that note, there’s some debate about how many times I said "pissed." Three? Six? Pissed … it’s the new bitter.) Others found it altogether too lively for PBS.

Please behave nicely for bmaz while I’m on my pilgrimage.

John “Century” McCain Reduces the RNC to Babbling

/69 Comments/in /by

Now, I’m sure the RNC has better reasons to call a press conference and claim this ad is "false and defamatory" than any real belief their hysterics will keep the ad off the air. They’re almost certainly trying to blur this ad with the GOP’s own controversial ads: there’s the DCCC’s two FEC complaints–backed up by documentary evidence–that the NRCC and Freedom’s Watch are coordinating ads, and the race-baiting ad that the strangely impotent John McCain could not prevent the NC GOP from airing. In other words, the GOP is likely trying to water-down any focus on their own (in the NRCC-Freedom’s Watch case) illegal ads. Perhaps, too, they’re testing the mettle of the cable networks, to see if similar complaints will work as we get closer to the election.

But they can’t really be ignorant enough to believe that such an attack won’t attract more attention to the ad–and to McCain’s vision of a century in Iraq?

What I most like about their attack, though, is the way their argument has reduced their babbling lawyer to utter unintelligibility.

This is a complaint about the facts that are being misrepresented in the ad, and this being a deliberate falsehood, that we are saying, stations have an obligation to protect the public from airing a deliberate falsehood.

First, as the GOP must recognize well from having pioneered this kind of ad, there really aren’t facts that are being misrepresented. Consider the content:

  • A questioner asks McCain: President Bush has talked about staying in Iraq for 50 years.

Now to be fair, Tony Snow tried mightily to deny the one thing everyone understood as soon as Bush started saying Iraq would be "like" Korea. That we’d be there for a "like" amount of time, 50 years. But to make the assertion that Bush wants troops in Iraq for 50 years and McCain wants them there for a century, this ad relies solely on this video showing McCain responding to a question about Bush’s 50 year statements in Derry NH. The question and answer happened–it is not an assertion, it is just a video clip.

  • McCain suggests–speaking of a long-term deployment and mentioning Korea specifically–"maybe a hundred."
  • 5 years, $500 billion, over 4000 dead.

Gosh–we could have been hardnosed! We didn’t even mention the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi dead.

  • If all he offers is more of the same, is John McCain the right choice, is John McCain the right choice for America’s future.

In point of fact, since both McCain and Bush are referring to a Korea-model for our engagement in Iraq, his proposed policy is more of the same.

And that schmoozy hug at the end? Not a photoshop.

So, back to the RNC lawyer’s babbling: first, no "facts misrepresented in the ad." There’s really no central logical assertion at all, in fact. Read more →