CNN's Kyra Phillips: Reid's "War Is Lost" Comment Is "Discouraging" To Troops
(April 21, 2007 -- 1:53 PM EDT // link // )
Matthew Yglesias rightly chastises the media for failing to ask whether Harry Reid is substantively right or wrong in his assertion that the war is "lost." But perhaps we should be careful what we wish for.
Here, for instance, is CNN's Kyra Phillips explaining in a surprisingly cutting way that Reid is in fact wrong. How does she know this? One key reason: General Petraeus told her so -- yes, the same General Petraeus who was handpicked by the White House largely because he was willing to utter optimistic noises about the current strategy's prospects for success. Take a look:
Note that Phillips manages to pack three whopping GOP talking points into less than three minutes of TV:
(1) We can't make the overall judgment that we're losing the war because little bits of progress are being made in isolated pockets ( if this is the metric, how can we ever make an overall judgment that we've failed?);
(2) Democrats have no concern for what military commanders say;
And worst of all...
(3) Reid's statement was "discouraging" to the troops (it's unclear how Phillips knows this, of course).
Look, given CNN's abysmal coverage of the bogus Pelosi-to-Syria story, you'd think CNN would be trying a little harder this time to avoid complete capitulation to the White House/GOP spin on this story. But the network appears prepared to blow this one, too. In addition to Phillips, the Lou Dobbs show also let a battery of administration apologists unload the most fanciful of GOP talking points at Reid -- that Reid was appealing to the "antiwar left" and that Reid was saying flat out that Al Qaeda had won. No Dems were allowed to rebut these charges. And needless to say, the show didn't bother pointing out that Reid's opinion is not a marginal one at all, given the current state of public opinion, or that the Al Qaeda attack line completely removes from the equation the fact that there's a civil war going on in Iraq.
Anybody else find this coverage to be appallingly weak and irresponsible?
To visit the homepage of this blog, where you can see many more posts, click here.
GOP's Cornyn: Reid's "War Is Lost" Comment Playing To "Antiwar Left"
(April 20, 2007 -- 12:02 PM EDT // link // )
One thing that's been completely missing from all the media attention being lavished on Harry Reid's assertion that the "war is lost" is that much of the American public basically agrees with Reid here.
The GOP and the wingers are out in full force denouncing Reid as "treacherous" and so forth. The logical extension of such an attack is that these good folks must also believe that pluralities of the American people are traitors, too.
Take a look at this appearance on CNN by Senator John Cornyn, in which he actually tries to float the falsehood that Reid's "war is lost" comment was an effort to play to the "antiwar left":
Here's a partial transcipt:
CORNYN: I think this is just crass politics. Senator Reid is playing to the worst elements of the antiwar left. That's part of unfortunately his political base. But I think, you know, we need to be more responsible. We need to try to not make this a partisan issue.
Actually, Reid is expressing an opinion held by pluralities of Americans. It's not easy to gauge public opinion on this question -- because few if any polls ask bluntly whether people think the war is completely lost already -- but these numbers strongly suggest that Reid's position is a far more mainstream position than the one held by Bush and the GOP:
Which comes closer to your view about the war in Iraq?Definitely win: 11%.
Probably win: 17%.
Can win, but don't think will win: 20%
Do not think it can win: 46%
Do you think the U.S. can win or cannot win the war in Iraq?Can win: 46%
Cannot win: 46%
Washington Post/ABC News poll, April 16:
Will U.S. win or lose the war?Lose: 51%
Win: 35%
Thirty-three percent (33%) of American voters believe that history will ultimately judge the U.S. mission in Iraq a success. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 50% of Likely Voters believe the mission will be deemed a failure.
Again, not perfect measurements of public opinion on the question, but highly suggestive. Has anybody seen any better numbers on this?
And why has the fact that large chunks of the American public basically agree with Reid here been completely absent from the media's discussion of this?
New Poll Suggests McCain's "Electability" Problem -- Will Pundits Talk About It?
(April 19, 2007 -- 2:52 PM EDT // link // )
So is it possible that John McCain has the same "electability" problem -- or even conceivably a worse one -- than Hillary does? A new poll suggests that it's time to at least ask this question. But will the pundits ask it?
As you all know, the notion that Hillary is so polarizing and disliked that she may not be electable in a general election is etched deeply into the sacred tablets bearing the Pundit Codes of 2008. Here, for instance, is a very partial list of all the pundits/commentators/reporters who have raised the "electability" question about Hillary:
Stuart Rothenberg, Tucker Carlson, Chris Matthews, Kenneth Walsh, Karen Tumulty, Charlie Cook, Adam Nagourney, etc.
But now check out these numbers buried in the new Washington Post/ABC News poll:
44. If (NAME) wins the (Democratic/Republican) nomination for president would you definitely vote for (him/her) in the general election for president in 2008, would you consider voting for (him/her) or would you definitely not vote for (him/her)?Hillary Clinton: Definitely would, 27%; Would consider, 26%; Definitely would not, 45%
John McCain: Definitely would, 12%; Would consider, 39%; Definitely would not, 47%
As you can see, McCain has edged higher than Hillary in the "definitely would not" category. WaPo comments that McCain "has become significantly less acceptable as a general-election candidate. A year ago, 28 percent of Americans said they `definitely would not vote' for him if he were to become the Republican nominee." That's a jump of nearly 20 points.
I'm not saying that questions about Hillary's electability aren't valid; they are. Nor should we conclude too much from this one McCain number. But here's my question: If more numbers suggest that McCain's support for the "surge" is creating an "electability" problem for McCain in the general election rivaling the one Hillary's presumed by some pundits to have, will those pundits discuss his candidacy in such terms?
My bet is they won't. While McCain has endured some rough press of late, there really seems to be a kind of invisible line that pundits and commentators won't cross in his case. Whether it's because he's a vet, or because he was tortured, thus rendering him an unassailable patriot, or whether it's because he's always presumed to be acting on principle, or whether he's merely well liked by the pundit class, there's a certain type of criticism directed at other pols that you rarely if ever see aimed at McCain. Pundits seem to squirm at the thought of questioning McCain's sincerity. They just won't go there. And my bet is they'll be similarly reluctant to discuss his unelectability -- as if it's somehow untoward to raise such a possibility about someone who's suffered so much for his country.
I could be wrong. But if numbers like this keep coming, we'll find out soon enough.
To visit the homepage of this blog, where you can see many more posts, click here.
*******************************************************************************
Update: TPM Reader JR writes: "There is nothing here that 'suggests' his support for the surge is increasing his unelectable numbers -- it could be any number of other things: support for gun rights, spot on his head, etc." Fair point; however likely it seems that his support for escalation is the thing sinking him, I shouldn't have assumed the direct connection between that and this particular number.
Update II: Don't miss this analysis of these numbers by Mark Blumenthal (a.k.a. "Mystery Pollster").
David Broder: Liberal Bloggers Are Right About Media
(April 19, 2007 -- 8:25 AM EDT // link // )
This won't be a typical David Broder post, so bear with me. As you know, Broder bows to nobody in his disdain for liberal bloggers. He's called them "vituperative" and "foul-mouthed," suggested that bloggers are "deranged," and written that blogs are "heavier on vituperation of President Bush and other targets than on creative thought."
Yet in his column today, Broder finally appears to have gotten religion about a key point that liberal bloggers have been trying to make about the traditional media for literally years now. Writing about Imus, Broder notes that many traditional journalists have pumped up his credibility by appearing on his show, even as CBS and MSNBC looked the other way while making gobs of money by giving his ugliness a platform. The fact that Broder's valued colleagues sullied themselves by going on Imus appears to have come as a severe shock to him, and he chastises them harshly for it:
I was stunned to learn how many of the journalists I admire had been regular guests on the program. Many are now having a hard time explaining their association...The simple lesson, which some stubbornly are not acknowledging, is that when professional journalists lend their credibility to entertainers or others whose standards are far lower than those of the news organizations for which those journalists work, they not only damage their credibility but also diminish the standards they are supposed to embody...when will we take our responsibilities seriously?
And this comes as a surprise to him?
Seriously, the idea voiced here by Broder or some variation of it, of course, has been central to the liberal blogosphere's critique of the media for a very, very long time. Broder's words could easily have been written by any number of liberal bloggers. Here's Atrios, on April 11:
As I wrote before, the problem with Imus is largely a problem of his large list of guests which make him "respectable," thus reasonably raising the bar for what should be expected from him. Arguably, calling the Rutger's basketball team a bunch of nappy-headed hoes should be a firing offense for anyone on the public airwaves, but it's certainly one for the guy who's simulcast on a "respectable" news channel and is a regular destination for all of Washington's elite.
Of course, Broder has done as much as anyone to prop up the phony construct holding that he and his colleagues are heroically guarding the citadel against the barbarian assault on journalistic standards and civility from without, but perhaps today's column constitutes a revelation of sorts. One can hope. At any rate, I'm sincerely curious to know whether Broder is even aware of just how central the point he made today has been to the lib blogosphere's continuing argument with him and his traditional media colleagues.
To visit the homepage of this blog, where you can see many more posts, click here.
WaPo's John Solomon Pushes White House Line On Rove, Miers Testimony
(April 18, 2007 -- 3:25 PM EDT // link // )
TPM Reader LG emails:
"The Washington Post’s “Post Politics” chats sometimes reveal a treasure trove of information about how WaPo reporters actually think and reason."
He's right. Case in point: Today's reader chat with Post reporter John Solomon. It's not to be missed.
As you all know, Solomon gives us plenty of fodder here at TPM, and in today's chat, he doesn't disappoint. In it, he actually says outright that he thinks the Bush administration's offers to allow Harriet Miers and Karl Rove to testify with no transcripts represents some kind of middle-ground compromise between the White House position and that of Dems -- precisely the false characterization the White House wants us to adopt.
Solomon was asked by a reader if the Bush administration wouldn't be better served if it stonewalled every request made by Dems. From Solomon's answer:
John Solomon: The Bush administration folks I've talked with say they want to pick their battles carefully. They need to cooperate with Congress where they can in hopes of achieving some legislation accomplishments in its final two years. All-out stonewalling would run contrary to that goal. I expect the administration will continue to propose solutions somewhere in the middle -- like the one they offered to allow Congress to interview Karl Rove and Harriett Miers in private with no transcripts.
Solomon's opinion that the no-transcript offer is "somewhere in the middle" between Bush and Congress -- that is, that it represents some kind of compromise, rather than further stonewalling -- is precisely the view of things being pushed by the White House. Here's how White House counsel Fred Fielding characterized the offer:
"The proposal reflects a series of balanced coompromises designed to respect and accommodate your interests in obtaining information while also protecting the institution of the Presidency."
Indeed, even GOP Senator Arlen Specter -- who was initially floating the White House's line but now opposes the no-transcript idea -- says that the White House's no-transcript position isn't "in the middle" at all, but rather is, well, the White House's position. Here's Specter on Larry King (via Nexis):
I think the president is wrong when he does not want to have a transcript made of what Karl Rove has to say...Look here, Larry, what I think we've got to do is stop the bickering and come to terms and find a way to accommodate the various concerns, the president's executive privilege with the Congressional need to know and get to the facts.
How could anyone covering this stuff closely possibly characterize the White House's offer as "somewhere in the middle"?
To visit the homepage of this blog, where you can see many more posts, click here.
Associated Press Covers Edwards' "$400 Haircut," Labels Him "Pretty"
(April 17, 2007 -- 6:24 PM EDT // link // )
Check out the lede on the story just moved by the Associated Press about John Edwards' $400 haircut (yes, the AP did cover it):
WASHINGTON Apr 17, 2007 (AP) -- Looking pretty is costing John Edwards' presidential campaign a lot of pennies. The Democrat's campaign committee picked up the tab for two haircuts at $400 each by celebrity stylist Joseph Torrenueva of Beverly Hills, Calif., according to a financial report filed with the Federal Election Commission.
"Looking pretty?"
You can argue that the story's legit, because Edwards apparently used campaign money to pay for the haircut, or that such lifestyle choices are fair game for coverage, or that the Edwards people should be prepared to deal with such smears. Whatever.
But this is about the AP. It's a news organization, and it shouldn't be playing the "pretty boy" game in stories about Edwards, given the degree to which it's become a tried-and-true GOP and winger talking point, both against Edwards in particular and those wussy Dem males in general (remember the stories about Bill Clinton's and John Kerry's haircuts/stylists?). Labeling Edwards "pretty" in this context just isn't defensible for a news org like the AP. You already have a long history here, with assorted GOP operatives labeling Edwards the "Breck girl"; Ann Coulter calling him a "faggot"; and Rush Limbaugh asking whether Edwards might be our "first female President."
And now the AP is playing along with this ugly game, labeling him "pretty." Oh, man, how weak. And yes, I get the "pretty penny" joke. It's still garbage. Maybe the AP should have capitulated completely and run Rush's graphic with its story:
Update: Glenn Greenwald explores the larger media dynamic at work here.
Update II: Steve Benen has a sober and fair-minded take on this story, too.
To visit the homepage of this blog, where you can see many more posts, click here.
Poll: Fewer And Fewer Americans Buying GOP Arguments About Iraq
(April 17, 2007 -- 10:06 AM EDT // link // )
Josh has already highlighted one of the key numbers in the new Washington Post/ABC News poll -- House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's approval rating sits at an astonishing 53%, even though "establishment Washington tried to take her down," as Atrios puts it.
But I wanted to flag another number buried in the poll that is an eye-popper and says a lot about the strength of the Dems' political hand as they confront the White House:
20. Do you think (the United States must win the war in Iraq in order for the broader war on terrorism to be a success), or do you think (the war on terrorism can be a success without the United States winning the war in Iraq?)US must win war in Iraq for success: 37%.
Can be a success without US winning war in Iraq: 57%.
Now check out the response to the same question in WaPo's poll four months ago, back in January:
US must win war in Iraq for success: 45%. Can be a success without US winning war in Iraq: 47%.
As you can see, over the past four months the percentage of respondents who think the US "must win" in Iraq for the sake of the broader "war on terror" dropped eight points. Meanwhile, the percentage who think victory is not necessary to it has gone up a surprising ten points. This is striking -- because in that four months or so since Dems took power in January the overriding message that the White House, the GOP and all of their lackeys and shills in the media have been blaring at the electorate in every conceivable forum is that (a) victory is absolutely essential in Iraq and failure is not an option lest America become less secure; and (b) leaving Iraq would constitute a catastrophic defeat in the broader war on terror.
In other words, not only is the central White House/GOP message failing to persuade, but fewer people buy it now since back when the GOP propaganda campaign geared up again in earnest, and significantly more people hold the opposite view. Simply put, the White House and GOP are losing the argument, if they haven't completely lost it already -- suggesting that on Iraq, their once-daunting ability to persuade, something that was jealously eyed by Dems after the 2004 losses and has been hailed by the media for far too long since, has been reduced at this point to little more than smoldering wreckage.
Relatedly, it should be noted that WaPo reporter Jonathan Weisman deserves credit for his piece today on the showdown between the White House and Congress. It leans heavily on WaPo's poll numbers to make the case that "Democrats appear to be standing on firm political ground" over Iraq.
A couple weeks back a bunch of us stamped our feet about another Weisman effort that said Republicans were "gleeful" about impending Dem overreach on Iraq and terror despite WaPo poll numbers that made this GOP "glee" unlikely indeed. One wants to believe that blogospheric criticism helps bring around pieces like today's, but who the hell knows. Either way, Weisman's effort today was a good one, with lots of that underrated commodity known as "empirical information."
Update: Commenter Glenn writes: "What I would like to believe here is that Weisman listened to the liberal blogospheric criticism, realized the validity of (at least some of) that criticism, and adjusted his reporting accordingly." Yep -- exactly what I meant, despite my clumsy "blogospheric pressure" formulation, and I've edited the above accordingly.
To visit the homepage of this blog, where you can see many more posts, click here.
Tenet Now Apparently Says He Never Said "Slam Dunk" On WMDs -- Contradicting His Own Previous Statements
(April 16, 2007 -- 2:41 PM EDT // link // )
Sometimes you have to wonder whether our commentators and pundits do even the most basic research into discussion topics before going on the air and spewing about them.
Case in point: Chris Matthews. On his Sunday show yesterday, he flacked a forthcoming book by former CIA director George Tenet in which Tenet is supposedly going to come out and deny a now-infamous episode in the runup to the war: That he privately told the Bush administration that the pre-war intel on WMDs was a "slam dunk." As Editor and Publisher noted today, here's how Matthews described the book (via Nexis):
MATTHEWS: Welcome back. This month George Tenet, the former director of the CIA and a key member of Geroge Bush's war council, is said to release an explosive new book. In it, Tenet takes on Vice President Dick Cheney. Cheney has maintained that Tenet told President Bush in December of 2002, two weeks before Bush decided to invade Iraq, that there was a slam dunk case to be made that Saddam Hussein possessed those banned weapons. But now Tenet denies ever making that claim.
Matthews discussed this claim with two other well-established pundit/commentator types: The Washington Post's David Ignatius, and NBC's Andrea Mitchell. But none of these three appeared to have any command of even the most basic facts associated with Tenet's claim.
Specifically, none of them appeared to know that Tenet himself has publicly admitted to having used the "slam dunk" language. Tenet admitted this during a speech he gave in Pennsylvania in 2005. From Pennsylvania's Allentown Morning Call on April 28, 2005 (via Nexis):
Open about his mistakes and sometimes brutally frank about the state of America's intelligence system, former CIA Director George Tenet stole the show Wednesday night at a Kutztown University forum that also featured 9/11 Commission Chairman Tom Kean.Tenet drew laughs from a crowd of about 1,200 business leaders and community members when he ruefully acknowledged that "the two dumbest words I have ever said in my life" were "slam dunk," his label for the certainty of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
Tenet's remarks were picked up by Time magazine, The New York Times, and elsewhere. There's simply no doubt but that Tenet has publicly told some version of the "slam dunk" story -- something that should at least prompt the likes of Matthews to mention that the tale has potential problems.
Here's why this is important. The "slam dunk" tale was one of the key defenses by the administration against attacks by John Kerry and the Democrats in 2004, helping deflect blame for the WMD fiasco onto the CIA and thus helping Bush get reelected. Tenet allowed the story to go unchallenged -- even saying outright that it was true as late as 2005. So presuming Matthews' information on the forthcoming denial in the book is good, Tenet was either lying then or he's lying now. And if his current denial is the true version, the real question is, Why did he prop up the false "slam dunk" tale, covering for the administration rather than reveal the truth about it at a time when it might have really made a real difference?
More broadly, why wouldn't Matthews do even a bit of elementary Googling and Nexis-ing on this topic before unskeptically floating Tenet's denial on the TV? And will any pundits seriously press Tenet about this when he makes the talk show rounds in upcoming weeks after the book's release?
Update: I should add a bit of clarification. There are certainly conceivable explanations for this apparent difference in the two tales. The point is that if we accept Tenet's assertion that he never made the claim that the WMD story was a "slam dunk" (which is perfectly possible) or if we accept that the media mischaracterized and misrepresented the original tale (which is perfectly probable) -- then we all deserve to know why he let the claim basically stand unchallenged through the 2004 election and beyond.
Has anyone seen any evidence of him on the record clarifying in detail what happened or outright denying it beyond just saying he didn't recall saying it? I haven't been able to find any, though that of course doesn't mean he didn't.
To visit the homepage of this blog, where you can see many more posts, click here.
California Paper Reprints Liz Cheney Op-Ed, Tells Readers She's Veep's Daughter
(April 16, 2007 -- 10:29 AM EDT // link // )
One final postscript on the whole Fred Hiatt-Liz Cheney thing, then it's on to other stuff (swear!).
The Sacramento Bee reprinted Ms. Cheney's Washington Post Op-ed bashing Nancy Pelosi the other day. For some reason, this little paper was able to figure out what the Post couldn't -- that the readers of a piece attacking Veep Dick Cheney's principal political antagonist right now -- Pelosi -- deserved to know that the author of that piece is the Veep's daughter.
Here's how the Sac Bee identified Ms. Cheney:
Liz Cheney, daughter of Vice President Dick Cheney, was deputy assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern affairs from 2002 through 2003 and principal deputy assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern affairs from 2005 to 2006. She wrote this article for the Washington Post.
Nothing to it, really. And in the process, the Bee's opinion page shows it has more integrity than the mighty opinion page of The Washington Post. Special thanks to TPM Reader Jim for sending this in.