Kevin McCullough and Mike Gallagher have been in an uproar over the article by Steven Levitt discussing hypothetical ways a terrorist could attack America. Calling him a freak, a maniac and treasonous, the two columnists explain that Levitt has turned over a blueprint to anyone who would be interested in attacking America. The dilemma is this: are these hawkish columnists attempting to produce comedic pieces, or have they gone insane?
Levitt’s “best” scenario for the terrorist consists of random sniper attacks, like the incident in DC, but on a national scale. Ok, it’s a thought. Not a very original one, but a thought. In fact, it’s a less detailed version of the first half of Teeth of the Tiger, a best selling novel by Tom Clancy, in which terrorists sneak across the border and open fire at a number of shopping malls. McCullough and Gallagher don’t seem to regard Clancy’s work as treason, despite it being more detailed and more widely distributed than Levitt’s. Then again, Clancy doesn’t publish in ‘liberal’ media outlets…
Levitt also discusses five cornerstones of a successful attack.
1. Make everyone feel like a potential target. Like hijacking multiple passenger airliners that anyone could have bought a ticket on? I think the terrorists have learned this lesson already.
2. Conduct multiple simultaneous attacks. Four airplanes. The lesson is out there.
3. Try to get away alive. Terrorists seem to be behind the eight ball on this one, but then again, maybe somewhere at some point a terrorist considered preserving his own life. Either way, Levitt fails to provide a reason as to why this boosts the successfulness of an attack.
4. Try to stop commerce. Two of the 9/11 targets were major centers in commerce in America’s commerce center. Terrorists have this one in the playbook already.
5.Get America to pass hampering laws. It is believed that Osama bin-Laden wanted America to respond brashly militarily and domestically to 9/11, in a manner that would do further damage. Ok, so this one is no secret either.
As far as I can tell, Levitt gave no new information to potential terrorists, and the only actual plan of attack he advances omits planning for the hardest parts like training and getting across the border. Multiple readers commented that they too had considered this mode of attack after the sniper shootings. And yet we are to believe terrorists didn’t and/or couldn’t?
Maybe I’m wrong, and terrorists are unable to think up attacks without help. Did Levitt and the NYT commit a crime any different than hundreds of other authors and media outlets? If terrorists were so inventive as to type “terrorism scenario America” into google.com, the first hit they would see discusses the devastating potential of a dirty bomb. The fourth hit reports on a plan of attack that jihadists came up with on their own. Scenarios for devastating attacks are near infinite, in fiction thrillers, the media, think tank publications and even government documents like the 9/11 commission report. So why is Levitt so treasonous?
Gallagher proclaims to be aghast at the glee with which Levitt requests more scenarios from readers. I’ll admit, it seems wildly improbable that the powers that be in charge of homeland security are reading this blog in an attempt to plan for American security. But imagining and discussing hypothetical attacks are necessary to promote general security, drive security planning, to reduce the shock factor were an attack to succeed. So even if this one instance of discussion is unlikely to boost American defenses, the mindset of dreaming up and discussing attacks is likely to help in the long run.
Even if unlikely to do much, Levitt hopes his article will help in the fight against terror. So who is more gleeful, Levitt in the face of terrorism, or McCullough and Gallagher in the face of the chance to badmouth what they perceive as liberal media organizations?
Monday, August 13, 2007
Thursday, June 21, 2007
This is Fred Thompson
Fred Thompson has quietly tiptoed to the top of the polls among potential republican candidates. He’s gotten tons of free media by “considering” running, and avoided too much scrutiny by staying of the campaign trail and out of the debates. He polls well in part due to his acting career, playing a district attorney on Law and Order. The strong but politically mindful DA seems like an affable guy, although his real positions on the issues are still largely unpublicized.
Thompson’s columns provide some insight. He has in fact been quite prolific recently (it almost suggest a ghost writer and the needed for publicity before a campaign.) His leanings are actually a bit more … extreme … than his grandfatherly appearance and acting job would suggest.
Thompson favors a ridiculously high amount Presidential Power. He suggests that “there was nothing wrong with firing eight U.S. attorneys.” That’s a minority opinion to be sure. The Justice Department seems to have involved political calculations in its firing decisions, a no-no. The runaround congress received in its investigation showed an indifference to checks and balances, and neared perjury. Thompson however, considers these firings routine presidential decisions, and objects to the congressional meddling. His call for a “strong president” makes one a little wary to give him the seat of power.
You can take pride in American power, but Thompson goes a step further. Unilateral action is sometimes necessary, but world regard is an important component of US foreign policy. Happy allies are needed to facilitate military action, to further our global goals diplomatically, and to bolster the power of our military deterrent effect. Countries are imperfect, and some are even hypocritical in their complaints to America. Thompson, however, goes too far in suggesting that “we ought to look at a lot of the complaints as a badge of honor.” Angering the world as much as the USA does isn’t exactly honorable, even if it isn’t despicable in every instance.
Iranian proliferation is a serious global concern, one that requires nuance and caution. So far diplomacy has only provided a shield under which nuclear development has continued. However, a military strike, for numerous reasons, would fail. It is unlikely a strike would destroy all the Iranian nuclear program, it would enflame the middle east, damage global oil supplies, in the end risking a massive increase in terrorism, and a collapse of the global economy. An attack may one day be necessary, may be able to be pulled off without catastrophe. However, for now the crisis is not that urgent, and America needs a more nuanced approach. Perhaps a future leader shouldn’t off handedly suggest that it is futile “sit down across the table from these guys.”
It’s early, and if he finally decides to officially run, Fred Thompson will have plenty of time to explain his positions. However, early indications indicate he is a bit more hawkish than his TV persona might lead people to believe.
Thompson’s columns provide some insight. He has in fact been quite prolific recently (it almost suggest a ghost writer and the needed for publicity before a campaign.) His leanings are actually a bit more … extreme … than his grandfatherly appearance and acting job would suggest.
Thompson favors a ridiculously high amount Presidential Power. He suggests that “there was nothing wrong with firing eight U.S. attorneys.” That’s a minority opinion to be sure. The Justice Department seems to have involved political calculations in its firing decisions, a no-no. The runaround congress received in its investigation showed an indifference to checks and balances, and neared perjury. Thompson however, considers these firings routine presidential decisions, and objects to the congressional meddling. His call for a “strong president” makes one a little wary to give him the seat of power.
You can take pride in American power, but Thompson goes a step further. Unilateral action is sometimes necessary, but world regard is an important component of US foreign policy. Happy allies are needed to facilitate military action, to further our global goals diplomatically, and to bolster the power of our military deterrent effect. Countries are imperfect, and some are even hypocritical in their complaints to America. Thompson, however, goes too far in suggesting that “we ought to look at a lot of the complaints as a badge of honor.” Angering the world as much as the USA does isn’t exactly honorable, even if it isn’t despicable in every instance.
Iranian proliferation is a serious global concern, one that requires nuance and caution. So far diplomacy has only provided a shield under which nuclear development has continued. However, a military strike, for numerous reasons, would fail. It is unlikely a strike would destroy all the Iranian nuclear program, it would enflame the middle east, damage global oil supplies, in the end risking a massive increase in terrorism, and a collapse of the global economy. An attack may one day be necessary, may be able to be pulled off without catastrophe. However, for now the crisis is not that urgent, and America needs a more nuanced approach. Perhaps a future leader shouldn’t off handedly suggest that it is futile “sit down across the table from these guys.”
It’s early, and if he finally decides to officially run, Fred Thompson will have plenty of time to explain his positions. However, early indications indicate he is a bit more hawkish than his TV persona might lead people to believe.
Monday, June 4, 2007
Is Any Democratic Candidate Winning on Iraq?
Offense can help win elections, but with all the finger pointing on Iraq, is anyone even making sense? The debate on Sunday highlighted absolutely nothing about the war. Everyone opposes it; everyone blames everyone else for sending and keeping American soldiers in Iraq. And when the smoke clears, none of the frontrunners seem any more palatable discussing the war.
John Edwards came out firing at Clinton and Obama for voting soflty on the war fudning bill – charging a lack of leadership. Am I the only one confused as to why a pre-vote press conference is a necessary component of leadership? So the two senators voted quietly. Maybe that was a political blunder, but does it show a glaring character flaw? Most voters aren’t going to pull the trigger on this elusive ‘lack of leadership.’
Edwards is also continuing his political gamble of admitting a mistake in voting to originally authorize the use of force in Iraq. The risk: does he come of as genuine. If Edwards can seem genuinely reformed and likeable, this gamble pays off and he becomes a strong anti-war advocate. If the move is perceived as showmanship, Edwards comes off as cheap, boyish and not an anti-war bulwark. Being as Edwards is having trouble shedding his trial lawyer elitism, this gamble runs an especially high risk.
Obama defend his (and by association Clinton’s) quiet vote. He counter charged that he has always been against the war, and Edwards only recently recanted his authorization. While factually true, Obama doesn’t seem any more attractive by pushing someone else into the slop. Plus, with Edwards claiming he made a mistake, exactly how meaningful is the charge?
Then Obama makes the empty gesture of asking the others to not “play politics” with the war. Don’t forget, Obama uses the war on the campaign trail as much as the others. So what exactly is he wishing for? Iraq is the campaign issue of the present, a massive foreign policy question with huge domestic ramifications. It seems the war would be the most logical place focus political energy, in an age where the candidates and the media “play politics” with literally everything.
Then there is Hillary Clinton, doing her best impression of being above the fight. Her tactic: blame Bush. Exactly how much distance can she get from blaming the soon-to-be lame duck? Firstly, all the candidates and the Democratic voting base are already in agreement on Bush. Secondly, bashing Bush doesn’t exactly reassure those who are upset with Hillary for originally authorizing the war or continuing the fund it. Lastly, the ‘above the pack’ strategy would seem much more effective if Hillary could keep her own dirty laundry out of the press.
Oddly, the candidates with the most sensible tactics are those with the least strength. Kucinich is ready to blame congress (along with Bush of course) for the war, and is keeping his story simple in opposition to the war in any form. Biden took a stable stance defending his vote for funding as essential to protect the troops.
Its early, tactics will change, and perhaps a candidate will be able to come across as smart, strong and likeable on Iraq. But for now, the Democratic field is plain petty. As the front runners scramble to blame each other and/or Bush for our foreign policy shortcomings, they don’t seem very presidential. For now the campaigns are showcasing drama more than leadership. The opportunity seems great for someone to prove him or herself better than the rest, and no one stepped up.
John Edwards came out firing at Clinton and Obama for voting soflty on the war fudning bill – charging a lack of leadership. Am I the only one confused as to why a pre-vote press conference is a necessary component of leadership? So the two senators voted quietly. Maybe that was a political blunder, but does it show a glaring character flaw? Most voters aren’t going to pull the trigger on this elusive ‘lack of leadership.’
Edwards is also continuing his political gamble of admitting a mistake in voting to originally authorize the use of force in Iraq. The risk: does he come of as genuine. If Edwards can seem genuinely reformed and likeable, this gamble pays off and he becomes a strong anti-war advocate. If the move is perceived as showmanship, Edwards comes off as cheap, boyish and not an anti-war bulwark. Being as Edwards is having trouble shedding his trial lawyer elitism, this gamble runs an especially high risk.
Obama defend his (and by association Clinton’s) quiet vote. He counter charged that he has always been against the war, and Edwards only recently recanted his authorization. While factually true, Obama doesn’t seem any more attractive by pushing someone else into the slop. Plus, with Edwards claiming he made a mistake, exactly how meaningful is the charge?
Then Obama makes the empty gesture of asking the others to not “play politics” with the war. Don’t forget, Obama uses the war on the campaign trail as much as the others. So what exactly is he wishing for? Iraq is the campaign issue of the present, a massive foreign policy question with huge domestic ramifications. It seems the war would be the most logical place focus political energy, in an age where the candidates and the media “play politics” with literally everything.
Then there is Hillary Clinton, doing her best impression of being above the fight. Her tactic: blame Bush. Exactly how much distance can she get from blaming the soon-to-be lame duck? Firstly, all the candidates and the Democratic voting base are already in agreement on Bush. Secondly, bashing Bush doesn’t exactly reassure those who are upset with Hillary for originally authorizing the war or continuing the fund it. Lastly, the ‘above the pack’ strategy would seem much more effective if Hillary could keep her own dirty laundry out of the press.
Oddly, the candidates with the most sensible tactics are those with the least strength. Kucinich is ready to blame congress (along with Bush of course) for the war, and is keeping his story simple in opposition to the war in any form. Biden took a stable stance defending his vote for funding as essential to protect the troops.
Its early, tactics will change, and perhaps a candidate will be able to come across as smart, strong and likeable on Iraq. But for now, the Democratic field is plain petty. As the front runners scramble to blame each other and/or Bush for our foreign policy shortcomings, they don’t seem very presidential. For now the campaigns are showcasing drama more than leadership. The opportunity seems great for someone to prove him or herself better than the rest, and no one stepped up.
Sunday, June 3, 2007
Is the Press Softer on Obama than Giuliani?
A recent Pew survey asked respondents about the press coverage of the presidential election. The surprising (maybe) result: Republicans thought the media was too easy on the Democratic candidates in much higher numbers than Democrats thought the media was soft on the Republican candidates. Republicans, 45% of them, wish harsher coverage upon the Democrats, while only 24% of Democrats feel that way about coverage of the Republican candidates.
An interesting side note: those who identify as independent thought the coverage was equal. 21% of independents thought coverage was too easy on the GOP, and 23% found coverage to be too easy on Democrats. Most independents think coverage is fair on the parties, 47% and 52% respectively. And some good news: those polled want more coverage on the issues and debates, and less coverage on campaign fundraising and current polling. It’s nice to hear that the electorate wants to hear more about the issues, it suggests a higher level of civic education and participation.
So why do so many Republicans, and so many more Republicans than Democrats, think the media is soft on their opponents. It’s not like the Democratic frontrunners have been immune from bad press; in fact the opposite has been true. John Edwards can’t seem to escape his four hundred dollar haircuts and fifty five thousand dollar speeches on poverty. Hillary Clinton can’t keep her jaunts in private jets, her husband’s strange affiliation with InfoUSA, her marital problems, and the upcoming books out of the press. Even the golden boy, Barack Obama, can’t quite get the charge of inexperience to go completely away.
So why are the numbers so disparate? Why are Republican voters upset with the media more than their Democratic counterparts? One potential answer is that Republicans are naturally vindictive, and expect harsher press for their opponents than does the rest of society. I’m disinclined to believe that Republican’s are naturally evil.
The distinguishing issue could be the Iraq war. There is no polling data backing me up (as far as I know), but perhaps Republicans object to the press coverage of the anti-war Democratic candidates. The demands for timetable legislation, and even suggestions for an immediate pullout, have some conservatives on edge. Pundits predict a surge in terrorism and decry America ‘waving the white flag.’ Is it possible that such conservatives expect to hear predictions of disaster whenever an antiwar stance is enumerated? Perhaps whenever the Democrats get coverage for opposing the war, without a discussion of the potential consequences, some Republicans feel the media is being “too easy.” And perhaps Democratic voters view it as perfectly natural for the press to describe a candidate as supporting the surge, without discussing the ongoing casualties.
I suggest that because Iraq has been somewhat of a quagmire for some time, Democrats excuse the press for not going into gory detail every time the surge or plans to stay are discussed. And precisely because its such a major shift, some Republicans may demand gory details concerning the downside of an American withdrawal from Iraq.
And then again I could be wrong. Maybe the press coverage is more lopsided than I perceive, even though independents see the coverage as relatively equal. Maybe Republicans are more vicious. Maybe some other issue hits the Republican sensibility more sharply than the Democratic. In the end it’s not pressingly important; the election is along way off. Media coverage, and the issues themselves, have a lot of shifting left to do. Never the less, it’s interesting to ponder, why exactly are Republicans more annoyed with the media?
An interesting side note: those who identify as independent thought the coverage was equal. 21% of independents thought coverage was too easy on the GOP, and 23% found coverage to be too easy on Democrats. Most independents think coverage is fair on the parties, 47% and 52% respectively. And some good news: those polled want more coverage on the issues and debates, and less coverage on campaign fundraising and current polling. It’s nice to hear that the electorate wants to hear more about the issues, it suggests a higher level of civic education and participation.
So why do so many Republicans, and so many more Republicans than Democrats, think the media is soft on their opponents. It’s not like the Democratic frontrunners have been immune from bad press; in fact the opposite has been true. John Edwards can’t seem to escape his four hundred dollar haircuts and fifty five thousand dollar speeches on poverty. Hillary Clinton can’t keep her jaunts in private jets, her husband’s strange affiliation with InfoUSA, her marital problems, and the upcoming books out of the press. Even the golden boy, Barack Obama, can’t quite get the charge of inexperience to go completely away.
So why are the numbers so disparate? Why are Republican voters upset with the media more than their Democratic counterparts? One potential answer is that Republicans are naturally vindictive, and expect harsher press for their opponents than does the rest of society. I’m disinclined to believe that Republican’s are naturally evil.
The distinguishing issue could be the Iraq war. There is no polling data backing me up (as far as I know), but perhaps Republicans object to the press coverage of the anti-war Democratic candidates. The demands for timetable legislation, and even suggestions for an immediate pullout, have some conservatives on edge. Pundits predict a surge in terrorism and decry America ‘waving the white flag.’ Is it possible that such conservatives expect to hear predictions of disaster whenever an antiwar stance is enumerated? Perhaps whenever the Democrats get coverage for opposing the war, without a discussion of the potential consequences, some Republicans feel the media is being “too easy.” And perhaps Democratic voters view it as perfectly natural for the press to describe a candidate as supporting the surge, without discussing the ongoing casualties.
I suggest that because Iraq has been somewhat of a quagmire for some time, Democrats excuse the press for not going into gory detail every time the surge or plans to stay are discussed. And precisely because its such a major shift, some Republicans may demand gory details concerning the downside of an American withdrawal from Iraq.
And then again I could be wrong. Maybe the press coverage is more lopsided than I perceive, even though independents see the coverage as relatively equal. Maybe Republicans are more vicious. Maybe some other issue hits the Republican sensibility more sharply than the Democratic. In the end it’s not pressingly important; the election is along way off. Media coverage, and the issues themselves, have a lot of shifting left to do. Never the less, it’s interesting to ponder, why exactly are Republicans more annoyed with the media?
Wednesday, May 30, 2007
Where, exactly, is the Democratic Base Going?
The New York Times recently suggested that the Democratic Party needs to look back and regain its base. I don’t see the crisis.
The democratic voting block wants to see the troops come home. The leadership pushed real hard. They didn’t have the votes to override Bush’s veto. Its not rocket science, most voters will understand that it simply isn’t the Democratic Party’s fault that a timetable wasn’t attached to the latest Iraq funding bill.
According to the times article, the base strongly supports the timetable that the Democrats were able to get out of congress. Score one for the leadership, no? Then Bush vetoed the bill. That seems like a strike against Bush, something likely to get the democratic base riled up for 2008, not angry at the democratic representatives and senators.
The majority of the base is also strongly opposed to cutting off all funding for the war. That means that most the base would have counseled the Democrats to do exactly what they did: let the second bill go through to fund the troops. And the Democrats got a minimum wage hike out of the deal.
So the domestic initiatives have been a little weaker than expected. So what? The headlines still show democrats challenging Bush, and the democrats pushing through a minimum wage hike. Other policy weaknesses are receiving little attention.
There is no risk that “some might simply stay home in 2008.” Likely to be another close election dependent as much on base turn out on undecided voters, the base will be riled up to campaign and vote. In fact, the NYT article even predicts how the war issue will continue to hurt Republicans more than Democrats over time:
Most the anti-war voters will have seen the Democrats fighting to bring the troops home and not blame them for the ultimate failure to do so. Even if the democrats could have eaten more fire over the war, the anti-war vote sure won’t vote republican. And these political savvy voters sure won’t sit out an election or vote third party when an election is coming down to the wire, featuring hot button issues they care about.
The Democrats haven’t lost much ground with their base, and when the Democratic voting block sees their other options, they will definitely jump back in line in the voting booth.
The democratic voting block wants to see the troops come home. The leadership pushed real hard. They didn’t have the votes to override Bush’s veto. Its not rocket science, most voters will understand that it simply isn’t the Democratic Party’s fault that a timetable wasn’t attached to the latest Iraq funding bill.
According to the times article, the base strongly supports the timetable that the Democrats were able to get out of congress. Score one for the leadership, no? Then Bush vetoed the bill. That seems like a strike against Bush, something likely to get the democratic base riled up for 2008, not angry at the democratic representatives and senators.
The majority of the base is also strongly opposed to cutting off all funding for the war. That means that most the base would have counseled the Democrats to do exactly what they did: let the second bill go through to fund the troops. And the Democrats got a minimum wage hike out of the deal.
So the domestic initiatives have been a little weaker than expected. So what? The headlines still show democrats challenging Bush, and the democrats pushing through a minimum wage hike. Other policy weaknesses are receiving little attention.
There is no risk that “some might simply stay home in 2008.” Likely to be another close election dependent as much on base turn out on undecided voters, the base will be riled up to campaign and vote. In fact, the NYT article even predicts how the war issue will continue to hurt Republicans more than Democrats over time:
Either Republicans will follow through on their threats to reassess their support for the war by September, or they will keep voting with Bush and doom themselves in 2008.
Most the anti-war voters will have seen the Democrats fighting to bring the troops home and not blame them for the ultimate failure to do so. Even if the democrats could have eaten more fire over the war, the anti-war vote sure won’t vote republican. And these political savvy voters sure won’t sit out an election or vote third party when an election is coming down to the wire, featuring hot button issues they care about.
The Democrats haven’t lost much ground with their base, and when the Democratic voting block sees their other options, they will definitely jump back in line in the voting booth.
Tuesday, May 29, 2007
Religious Right Bogeyman? Convince me otherwise
The religious right is polarizing opinion in this country and heavily affecting our political system. Perhaps the Christian right does not fundamentally threaten the nation, but it clearly represents a central stress point between the social and fiscal conservatives within the GOP. And, the alternate reality “Christian Nationalism” has created for it’s some of its followers, as Michelle Goldberg chronicles in her book, Kingdom Coming, is more than a little bit scary.
Admitting that the religious right may not be the downfall of America, the defense of the movement by Star Parker is as ridiculous as it is hypocritical. Her central thesis seems to be: of course the Christian community frowns on single parent families; it’s the most effective way to fight poverty. What?
The “breakdown” in families may be on the rise, strongly correlating to poverty, and quite depressing, but Parker misses the question of causality. You do not become instantly poor by having a child out of wedlock, or living in a single parent family. However, if you are poor, those family structures are significantly more likely to be your own. Single-parent-families may add to poverty, but they don’t make a person poor. Rather poverty is a cause of the “family breakdown.” Shaming people into marrying and staying married will not magically solve the poverty crisis in America, as Parker suggests:
How can you claim to fight single parenthood and at the same time strongly lobby for abstinence only sex education, which studies have proven have no effect on teen pregnancy? Maybe the Christian right is, just a little bit, obsessed with “abortion and sexual behavior.”
Parker blasts our government for giving away billions in poverty aid to no real effect, in the same article she defends the political groups lobbying heavily for ever greater funding for faith based initiatives. These programs are designed to, among other things, fight poverty. So aid is only effective when given to the religious right? I’m dubious.
Christian organizations, including far right political groups, do tremendous good in America. Their social programs help millions, and their lobbying efforts keep the citizenry politically engaged. However, the religious right has the downside of advocating (often without a willingness to compromise or negotiate) positions which polarize and divide the country, and sometimes even lead to ineffective policies (example: sex education.) The Christian right isn’t all good or all bad, but it clearly isn’t the only effective anti-teen pregnancy, anti-poverty machine that Parker portrays it as.
Admitting that the religious right may not be the downfall of America, the defense of the movement by Star Parker is as ridiculous as it is hypocritical. Her central thesis seems to be: of course the Christian community frowns on single parent families; it’s the most effective way to fight poverty. What?
The “breakdown” in families may be on the rise, strongly correlating to poverty, and quite depressing, but Parker misses the question of causality. You do not become instantly poor by having a child out of wedlock, or living in a single parent family. However, if you are poor, those family structures are significantly more likely to be your own. Single-parent-families may add to poverty, but they don’t make a person poor. Rather poverty is a cause of the “family breakdown.” Shaming people into marrying and staying married will not magically solve the poverty crisis in America, as Parker suggests:
There is no correlation that fits closer to the incidence of poverty than family breakdown.
Yet, we hear about the intolerance and mean-spiritedness of the Christian right because of its unwillingness to embrace single parenthood as a norm or sexual lifestyles and family arrangements outside of what is traditional as a norm.
How can you claim to fight single parenthood and at the same time strongly lobby for abstinence only sex education, which studies have proven have no effect on teen pregnancy? Maybe the Christian right is, just a little bit, obsessed with “abortion and sexual behavior.”
Parker blasts our government for giving away billions in poverty aid to no real effect, in the same article she defends the political groups lobbying heavily for ever greater funding for faith based initiatives. These programs are designed to, among other things, fight poverty. So aid is only effective when given to the religious right? I’m dubious.
Christian organizations, including far right political groups, do tremendous good in America. Their social programs help millions, and their lobbying efforts keep the citizenry politically engaged. However, the religious right has the downside of advocating (often without a willingness to compromise or negotiate) positions which polarize and divide the country, and sometimes even lead to ineffective policies (example: sex education.) The Christian right isn’t all good or all bad, but it clearly isn’t the only effective anti-teen pregnancy, anti-poverty machine that Parker portrays it as.
Sunday, May 27, 2007
Why, Again, Does Bad Press Not Matter?
Clinton, her aids, and recently the Washington Post, have shrugged off the impact of the two upcoming books which paint Senator Clinton in a bad light. Everyone seems to believe that stories featuring Hillary and Bill’s rocky past will have no impact on the upcoming election. I beg to differ.
Aids rejoiced because at none of Clinton’s recent events was she asked about the upcoming books. Does it not bother the campaign handlers then, that despite these successful events, the top news stories concerning Hillary are in regards to the upcoming books and not her issue centered interviews? For now Clinton may be able to stay on message with reporters, but the media isn’t following her lead at press time.
And it’s only going to get worse; the two new books aren’t even out yet. When they are released to the public, “both will be backed by major publicity tours and advertising.” That means more publicity for Hillary’s infamous past.
According to the Post article, strategists from both isles admit that references to the past are no help for Clinton. Voters are looking for inspiration for the future, and the more Hillary seems mired in the past, the worse off her campaign for President.
Plus consider undecided voters. This shrinking segment of the population is often considered the critical votes in Presidential elections, with the country almost equally split in party loyalty. The months leading up to the primaries, and the final election (if Hillary is still in the hunt,) will be full of press references to these books. Even articles on other subjects will throw in a token reference to the “unflattering books,” or the rocky marriage, the affairs, the failure to read all the Iraq reports, or the Clinton control conspiracy theories. None of these constant references will help Hillary gain yardage with the crucial undecided voter.
As confident as the Clinton campaign is that these books “don't have any impact on the race,” at some point bad press has to be, well, bad. Instead of dismissing these claims categorically as irrelevant or preposterous, the Clinton campaign needs to develop a more nuanced strategy to deal with her image.
Aids rejoiced because at none of Clinton’s recent events was she asked about the upcoming books. Does it not bother the campaign handlers then, that despite these successful events, the top news stories concerning Hillary are in regards to the upcoming books and not her issue centered interviews? For now Clinton may be able to stay on message with reporters, but the media isn’t following her lead at press time.
And it’s only going to get worse; the two new books aren’t even out yet. When they are released to the public, “both will be backed by major publicity tours and advertising.” That means more publicity for Hillary’s infamous past.
According to the Post article, strategists from both isles admit that references to the past are no help for Clinton. Voters are looking for inspiration for the future, and the more Hillary seems mired in the past, the worse off her campaign for President.
Plus consider undecided voters. This shrinking segment of the population is often considered the critical votes in Presidential elections, with the country almost equally split in party loyalty. The months leading up to the primaries, and the final election (if Hillary is still in the hunt,) will be full of press references to these books. Even articles on other subjects will throw in a token reference to the “unflattering books,” or the rocky marriage, the affairs, the failure to read all the Iraq reports, or the Clinton control conspiracy theories. None of these constant references will help Hillary gain yardage with the crucial undecided voter.
As confident as the Clinton campaign is that these books “don't have any impact on the race,” at some point bad press has to be, well, bad. Instead of dismissing these claims categorically as irrelevant or preposterous, the Clinton campaign needs to develop a more nuanced strategy to deal with her image.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
