Media Watch

Where In The World Is The Honduras?

2009-06-28T22:20:00.001-04:00

Back in the 1980s, it would have been hard not to have read or watched a story about the troubles of many Central American nations. Central America was considered one of the "front lines" of the Cold War, with the Soviet Union pumping money into Cuba, and then into Nicaragua, which at the time was run by the "dictator in designer glasses" Daniel Ortega, the head of the FSLN Movement/Party. Ortega left with the end of the Cold War and is now the Nicaragua's democratically-elected president (you may have recalled the news blurb back in April when he "lashed out" against the United States in a meeting attended by President Obama).

The United States pumped billions of dollars into Central America, propping up many right wing governments in an attempt to thwart a Western Hemisphere "domino-effect." One of those countries receiving US (military) aid was the Honduras. President Reagan even ordered National Guard troops from all over the US into the Honduras as part of a series of "military exercises." In fact, there was a high profile show down between Reagan and some Democratic Governors--including Ohio's own Dick Celeste (famous for the phrase from Republican critics: "Dick Celeste before he 'dick's' you")--where the Governors refused to send their national guard troops in protest to Reagan's foreign policy.

Then the Cold War ended, and with it the media's interest in Central America. And outside political science departments across the US, you would be hard pressed to find anyone who could locate a country like Honduras on the map. I bring all of this up because trouble is once again brewing in Central America, and this time it is the Honduras that has experienced a military coup that used to be as common as the changing days. And yet the press in the United States could care less. First, some background.

The Honduras had a "democratically" elected President named Manuel Zelaya, elected in 2006 to a "constitutionally" limited four year term in office, had moved for a referendum to amend the Constitution in order to limit the presidency to two terms, enabling him to run for a second term. This move apparently was opposed by the Congress, the military, and the Court, yet Zelaya pushed forward anyway with a vote set to today, but in the dead of night, the military busted into Zelaya's residence, roughed him up, and exiled him to Costa Rica, with nothing more than the PJs he was wearing. The military was apparently acting on the request of Honduras Supreme Court (I can imagine our own Supreme Court would envy such power). In his absence the Honduran Congress named the Honduran vice-president the "interim" President until the next election.

There is a bit of irony at play here that doesn't seem to be overt in the coverage I have read--the military kidnaps and exiles the democratically elected president because it believes he is acting in contradiction to the democratic process! But then again President Reagan once referred to the US supported resistance military in Nicaragua--deemed a terrorist organization by the Nicraguan people--the "moral equivalence" of our Founding Fathers.

So despite all the goings on, wouldn't the US media be interested in it? It doesn't appear so. If you look at Google News, the first several media sites listed are all foreign news outlets--the BBC and Reuters (which has a reporter based in the Honduran capitol of Tegucigalpa, and even filed a story that reads as an "Honduran-coup FAQ page"), followed by the Xinhua news service out of China. And a look at the television media sites, they aren't much better. On CNN's frontpage, titled "Breaking News"--there is a giant photo of Papa Joe Jackson. On the side, under the banner "Latest News", three links down in little letters you find "Honduran Congress names new president." To the person who knows nothing of the events, they may not think much of a story that a congress names a new president.
ABC News does a little better, with a picture of Zelaya that makes him look like Cesar Chavez, and a link titled "illegal' Honduran Coup has Obama 'Deeply Concerned". CBS News has a giant photo of Michael Jackson, circa-1984, and like CNN has a side bar with a headline that reads "Top News" and five links down in litle letters it reads: "Coup' in Honduras: Army Expels President." So you might learn something if you can get past the blaring headlines to the "King of Pop". NBC News runs from Brazil's defeat of the US in soccer to Michael Jackson to the Madoff scam. Down at the bottom of the page under a small banner that reads "Explore Other Top Stories" there is a litle link titled "Honduran President Ousted in Coup." But right beside it in a bigger box it reads: "Reader Tributes, Michael Jackson: 1958-2009". And finally, Fox News has a giant artistic photo of a "Jackson 5" Michael Jackson and a title that reads "Artists Pay Tribute to Jackson". Other stories are about Governor Sanford of South Carolina, who has his own "Latin America" problem and a story about fallen pitchman Billy Mays. Like NBC, you have to scroll all the way to the bottom of the page, under a link titled "News Happening Now," you go two links and find "Honduran Military Ousts President During Siege." You could be forgiven for missing it because right next to it is a link that reads, in bold lettering, "Florida Mayor Arrested After Found Nude at Campsite." What is worse is that each of that 3/5 sites all point to the same source: AP, though CBS tries to distort the sourcing by crediting CBS/AP.

This is dismal. There is no mystery that foreign news has all but dried up in the US press, but this is not news that takes place in a remote place on the other side of the world, but instead right in our own backyard. And given the US commitment to supporting democratic regimes the world over, you would think that the US press would find it interesting that one is being threatened in our hemisphere. But if anything highlights the pitiful state of US media, it is the fact that Michael Jackson, who died days ago, continues to get above the fold, front page treatment, and not the exile of a country we call an ally (though given that Zelaya is cozy with Hugo Chavez and the military isn't, I doubt you will hear much protestation from the Obama administration--just check the White House frontpage to see what I mean, which could also be a reason why there is muted coverage in the US).

The Boogie Man Is Real (if you are a Republican)

2009-06-24T22:09:00.000-04:00

Republicans, knocked completely out of power for the first time since 1994, are looking for a foothold to relive those glory days leading up to the 1994 election when everything seemed to break their way. Having lost in 2006 and 2008, and gaining no traction in the first 6 months of a new presidency, they have come up with the solution to their problems: They are doing nothing wrong, but instead have been conspired against by the liberal media.

First, to "operationalize" their terms: The liberal media equals ABC, CBS, and NBC. It also sometimes includes the NY Times and the Washington Post, but to be honest, the newspaper industry has been so devastated, it seems that they are no longer directly in the sights of the conservative right. Not included in the media is Fox News, talk radio like Rush, Hannity, and others, and conservative opinion writers such as George Will and Charles Krauthammer. And, to add to the hypocracy, none of these Republicans raised a peep when George Bush or Dick Cheney camped out on Fox News when they wished to spin a negative story or attack their opponents, or when the Bush administration fed disinformation to conservative outlets like the Drudge Report. AND, to make their case about liberal bias, they did so on Fox News, all with the nodding approval of the morons who anchor Fox News segments.

Here is what I mean. In early June, intellectual heavy weight and Texas Republican Representative Lamar Smith announced the formation in the Congress of the "Media Fairness Caucus" because of concern surrounding "unfair reporting by the mainstream news media." And, for those of you who think there are limits to Republican hyperbole, try this one on for size--Representative Smith told knucklehead Fox News anchor Bill Hemmer that the danger of liberal media bias is a greater threat than "a recession or another terrorist attack..."! Worse than 9/11! This is how eyes wide shut some Republicans and conservatives have become.

The goal behind the MFC is similar to the goals of the "Conservative Opportunity Society" of the 1980s--then it was the goal of backbench Republicans to be as outlandish as possible and to pick high profile fights with the Democratic Leadership in order to draw media attention. Once they garnered the media attention, they could then use that platform to highlight their policy differences with the Democrats, and if successful, parlay that into wins at the ballot box. Thus if you are looking for a rationale behind "liberal bias is more dangerous than terrorism," there you have it.

The most recent high profile fight (with conservative media providing as much attention as possible) is with ABC, and its devotion to the Obama health care reform plan. The MFC has begun to run ads attacking "a national TV network," or ABC, for turning over control of the network news to the Obama administration. The MFC sent off a letter to ABC News President David Westin, complaining of the "exclusive arrangement from which the President and his viewpoint stand to gain." To his credit, Westin came back swinging:

Sadly, some inside government and within the private sector see every issue as material for a sort of political high theatre, to be used to gain votes or energize political bases or simply to raise funds. I would have thought that a subject as important as the health care received by the American people would rise above this sorry spectacle. Our citizens need and deserve more.

Smith's MFC began with a dozen lawmakers signing on, but have since grown to 40--good luck reading most of their names!

What's Worth Reading

2009-05-29T17:29:00.000-04:00

Are you interested in the topic of interest groups and American politics, both from a theoretical and practical level? Robert C. Lieberman of Columbia University writes in Foreign Affairs an abbreviated, annotated syllabus of major readings designed to bring you up to speed. It is worth collecting, particularly if you are an undergrad or grad student who is looking for a short cut to comprehensive examinations.

While it is a decent list, there are a couple of readings that are missing--readings that I think make an important contribution to the research on interest group theory, American politics, and, from Foreign Affairs standpoint, the making of American foreign policy:

Theodore Lowi's The End of Liberalism: The Second Republic of the United States. Norton, 1979. This book is a muddled mess to read, but its central theme is spot on--the Great Society program, and its aftermath, opened up the political process to interest groups in a way never before seen in American history, and in so doing ended the democratic experiement started by the Founding Fathers and continued through the Great Depression, New Deal, and WWII.
Dennis Chong's Collective Action and the Civil Rights Movement. Chicago, 1991. One of my favorite books on interest group theory. It seeks to explain collective action when concepts such as fairness and justice are at play and when there is very little personal benefit to be gained. Collective action theorists in the vein of Olson and Axelrod would tell you that where a person was likely to receive little personal gain in a voluntary commitment, collective action would be difficult to obtain, yet in the case of the Civil Rights Movement, it happened. So there must be something beyond personal gain that motivates individuals into collective behavior. It is one of the few rational choice tomes that I could stomach.
Jonathan Rauch's Demosclerosis. This originally appeared as an article that was turned into a book. Rauch builds upon Lowi's work on the danger that interest group behavior presents to a democratic system such as ours, where interest groups latch on to the body politic like ticks, but unlike ticks, do not fall off once satiated. Eventually, just like plaque in the arteries will eventually cause the heart to seize and the body to collapse, interest groups clog up the political system, rendering it unable to do innovative programming and eventually death.
Daniel Deudney and G. John Ikenberry's The Nature and Sources of Liberal International Order (Review of International Studies, 1999). This article explains why the United States is a different type of hegemon in the international system--different from those of the past (Rome, Great Britain). The key is our open political system, that allows foreign governments to employ lobbyists to effect US foreign policy, thus effecting the behavior of the United States in the international system. The term the authors employ to explain the US is penetrated hegemony, and because of this you should not see the sort of conflict that was present in earlier international systems dominated by a single hegemon.

This is a selection of my favorites, and it certainly does not include the comprehensive list. These are important works that I felt were left out of the collection listed byLieberman. Feel free to add on to his and my list!

Does This Suprise Anyone?

2009-05-05T20:46:00.000-04:00

Mark Milian, blogging at the LA Times, has a blurb today about the Sunday news program Meet the Press may be losing its lead to its competitors, ABC's This Week and CBS's Face the Nation, and the question I ask is if anyone is really surprised?

Gregory, who got the job in large part because of his posturing (some say "Peacocking") as a member of the White House Press Corps during the Bush administration, is not an appealing figure as a moderator (and certainly nowhere near the man whose shoes he stepped into). Some would say that any host of MTP was doomed given the larger than life personality of Tim Russert, but I disagree. There are others in NBC's rank who would make decent moderators (and there are certainly a number of reporters who don't work for NBC but could have been recruited for the job).

Gregory is an abrasive character, and for it his questioning is less like prosecutor-grilling-defendant and more like noone-is-really-interested-in-your-answer-because-they-are-all-wowed-by-me. Thus I was sure that NBC would lose out to either ABC or CBS (it was ABC that was the at the top of the heap in the 1990s that caused NBC to shift from Meet the Press to Meet the Press with Tim Russert. It seems that NBC may be better off going back to a roundtable of reporters asking questions to invited guests. At least it would jive with the title.

At the end of the posting, Milian notes that many in the business feel we have reached a "golden age" of television with the Sunday morning public affairs programs, but I would disagree. The Sunday programs have devolved in response to the live action roundtable babbling that is Cable News programs. All of the Sunday programs now leave just 30 minutes for interview, and then 30 minutes with a roundtable gathering of reporters and pundits, whose volume may be just a bit below that of "Crossfire" but is equally inane. Why is Sam Donaldson still on television, if not for his colorful opinions (and terrible rug)? These 30 minute segments add nothing to our basic understanding of what is going on in politics, and is instead nothing more than pad one liners from the politicos to inside gossip from reporters, fresh from Saturday evening cocktail parties. If this qualifies for the "golden age," then I dread what the future will bring.

Senator Switch

2009-04-28T13:14:00.001-04:00

That is how Fox News described Senator Arlen Specter's switch today from the Republican Party to the Democrats. The Hill has a lengthy post from Specter on why he has come to this decision, which for many seemed obvious years ago:

Since my election in 1980, as part of the Reagan Big Tent, the Republican Party has moved far to the right. Last year, more than 200,000 Republicans in Pennsylvania changed their registration to become Democrats. I now find my political philosophy more in line with Democrats than Republicans.

When I supported the stimulus package, I knew that it would not be popular with the Republican Party. But, I saw the stimulus as necessary to lessen the risk of a far more serious recession than we are now experiencing.

Since then, I have traveled the State, talked to Republican leaders and office-holders and my supporters and I have carefully examined public opinion. It has become clear to me that the stimulus vote caused a schism which makes our differences irreconcilable. On this state of the record, I am unwilling to have my twenty-nine year Senate record judged by the Pennsylvania Republican primary electorate. I have not represented the Republican Party. I have represented the people of Pennsylvania.

For Democrats, this must be the kind of news you sit and savor, having had a number of their Party members bolt ship over the past several decades. And for the Republicans, this speaks to the kind of trouble they will have in the Rustbelt States, where evangelical partisanship of any stripe does not fly.

And for the Democrats, they probably should contain their glee and continue to monitor their vote from Connecticut. With news of Specter's defection and with Senator Al Franken set to arrive anytime now (or as soon as Norm Coleman does what Al Gore did in 2000, and face reality about winning without any chance of winning), I would not be surprised to hear that Senator Lieberman decides it is time to join the Republican ranks.

There are some questions set to be answered, such as where does Specter stand via seniority, for instance? What will be his standing in Committee? Despite his recent outrage about the exercise of presidential power, this was a guy who bent to White House demands that no witness (either nominee or official) be required to swear to tell the truth.

Journal Nerd

2009-04-25T15:06:00.000-04:00

Jay Cost, writing yesterday at Real Clear Politics, doesn't help those of us who teach higher education for a living by equating reading an academic journal with being a nerd: "As a politics nerd, I have several subscriptions to very nerdy academic journals." Oh yes, blogging on a political website for a living is the epitome of machismo and verve. But that is not why I write here today.

Cost has been wowed by an article appearing in the most recent issue of "Political Behavior" that examines the political effect that Jon Stewart has on his audience. The article is written by a former colleague of mine, Jonathan Morris, who, along with Jody Baumgartner (both at East Carolina University) have cornered the market on the political effects of Jon Stewart, David Letterman, Jay Leno, and Fox News on our political system.

In this particular article, the author wants to know if Stewart was more critical of Republicans than Democrats during the 2004 party conventions and if so, whether that caused his audience to become more critical of the Republican nominee--George W. Bush. The findings? That Stewart (and his cast) were far more critical of Republicans than Democrats (which really is no mystery), and that the audience did indeed turn more critical towards Republicans during their convention than they did when the Democrats held theirs.

In Cost's analysis of the paper, he notes that one should not take this finding too far since Stewart's audience size is "fewer than Adult Swim on Cartoon Network and just 1.2% of the total number of people who voted for President last November." And that most of his audience is predisposed to be critical towards Republicans anyways.

While the caveats are warranted, there is something that Cost leaves out. There is an impact that is not considered in his analysis. It is what Matt Baum calls the "watercooler effect." The conversations that individuals have with friends and co-workers based on what they see or hear that interests them. So what of the network of the individuals who watch Stewart everynight? This "secondary" or "ripple" effect of individuals who may the cherished "Independents" of American politics, whose vote could go either way and look to important cognitive shortcuts to make their decision? At the voting booth, do they recall what their (best friend/girlfriend/boyfriend/spouse/brother/sister/boss/etc) had to say about Republican policy based on what they saw from "The Daily Show"? Or, what about the individuals--again the "Independents"--who see a posting of Stewart on YouTube after they were sent there via email from a friend?

All I am saying is that, sure, there are limits to the influence that Stewart has, but while we should caution against over-estimating, we should also caution against under-estimating.

Online Conference, 4/16/09

2009-04-15T21:20:00.002-04:00

Tomorrow at 8 a.m. EST, there will be an online conference (appropriately so) covering YouTube and the 2008 Election in the United States--One of the first of many conferences to come to assess the role of new media technology on elections here and abroad.

Given the candidate-centered nature of campaigns here in America, all candidates try to exploit the newest and best technologies to give them the needed edge over the opposition, and thus sets the trends for other democratic countries where the political party plays a greater role over campaigns.

The information about the conference can be found below:

Tomorrow�s YouTube and the 2008 Election Cycle in the United States Conference will stream live for the duration of the conference at the following URL:

http://youtubeandthe2008election.hosted.panopto.com/CourseCast/Student/Default.aspx

User: guest
Login: youtube

A complete program is available here: http://www.umass.edu/polsci/youtube/final_program.pdf

Things get started at 8:00 am EST

Fairness Doctrine Electric Boogaloo

2009-04-14T20:54:00.001-04:00

The Federalist Society as a very nice primer on the Fairness Doctrine. The Fairness Doctrine is something of a boogie man used by conservatives (particularly talk radio) to whip up support among conservative Republicans and Libertarians--a boogie man because there is little reason to expect that it will ever be reinstated. Instead, it seems to me to be another indicator of the problems within and among conservatives in the US to find legitimate issues with which to rile Americans toward their side.

The Fairness Doctrine, which was designed to force broadcasters to broadly explore all angles of cultural, political, social, and religious issues, was put in place in the 1940s by the FCC and lasted until the mid-1980s, finally falling victim to a Reagan veto of a bill supported by congressional Democrats, who attempted to override a FCC decision to abandon it.

Democrats have, from time to time, attempted to reinstall the Fairness Doctrine, not because there is a real need to force commercial broadcasters to offer more diverse and heterogeneous programming, but because the moment that the Fairness Doctrine was vetoed, political talk radio (read: Rush Limbaugh) exploded across the country, and for Democrats, neutralizing talk radio is one more way to make politics difficult for Republicans.

Origins of The Daily Me

2009-03-19T17:20:00.001-04:00

Nicholas Kristof has an OpEd in today's NY Times about the problem of increased polarization as a result of the death of newspapers and really conventional news in favor of "online" news. He refers to Nicholas Negroponte, at MIT, who he says has come up with a concept known as "The Daily Me." This is a tendency to only seek out news that conforms with our pre-existing beliefs about politics, culture, etc. And he is right--this is a big problem as the news media becomes fragmented. The problem though is the ideal of "The Daily Me" originated first with Cass Sunstein, former law professor at the University of Chicago and now Obama insider. In 2002, Sunstein published "Republic.com," a treatise warning about the effects that online communication would have on civil discourse. In fact, his first chapter is titled "The Daily Me."

You're So Pretty. Can I Come In Now?

2009-03-08T20:36:00.000-04:00

As I tell my students, one of the biases that is profound upon the news gathering/news production process comes from the media "beat" system, put in place long ago as a way to bring efficiencies to the news. You assign a reporter to a particular agency/institution/corporation where news is highly likely to happen. From this all sorts of problems emerge: For instance, the reporter comes to identify with the source and over time (and not a long span of time), comes to like the person, thus is not as likely to write critical stories. Or, even worst, as a result of the competitive nature of the news business, the source can leverage the reporting by threatening to cut access to one reporter if the reporter refuses to play ball. Rather than all reporters on the beat standing together, the opposite works. And then, there is the problem of the Beat Sweetner.

Because a reporter is told by his or her employer to gain access to his or her new beat, they feel flattery is the best way in--hence the sweetner. As this article by Michael Calderone in "Politico" argues: "The problem...is that beat reporters 'are kind of captives to this bureaucracy, [and] they know that some laudatory pieces at the outset will pave goodwill in the future.'" The problem? Jonathan Alter, of "Newsweek" argues: "It's emblematic of the way Washington journalism often works. The problem is when a reporter puts the ease of their working relationship ahead of the interests of the reader."

The problem begins at the outset of a new administration, or when new control comes to the Congress. All reporters look to buy future cred with the power structure by writing puff pieces or flattering profiles. One way to break the conflict of interest is to have a reporter who is not covering the beat write the piece (or better yet, why write puff pieces anyway? Aren't they supposed to be the watchdogs?) Another way to break up the symbiotic relationship is to term limit reporters. Break it up by cycling reporters every year or two.

As Calderone notes, it is not a problem that this is done during the honeymoon period of a new administration, but anything after the first 100 days (although it would be great to get away from the "first 100 days metaphor") or the first six months, whichever your prefer, is doing a disservice to the reader or viewer.

Assistance

2009-02-28T20:36:00.002-05:00

I am in need of a bit of help locating video from President Bush's address to the nation regarding the invasion of Afghanistan, October 7 2001. I was unable to find it at the White House, and the American Presidency Project only has the audio.

I will throw it out to all of you. Anyone know where to grab the audio/video of this?

Confused

2009-02-10T20:35:00.000-05:00

There has been much made about President Obama calling on Sam Stein at last night's press conference. For those who did not watch, Stein is a blogger at the liberal Huffington Post and is not a traditional reporter. Obama called on 13 different people last night, and the nod to Huffington was both designed to throw a bone to the liberal bloggers AND to an important constituency in helping secure his November win. Clearly the Obama Internet campaign had everything to do with his win over Clinton and McCain, so it is natural that one would be in the audience.

What has puzzled me is the media's hype that this is a first. For instance, this article in Time notes that this is a first and not Jeff Gannon, the conservative reporter/gay porn star who was exposed in 2005 for lobbing softballs to President Bush during a press conference. Gannon represented Talon News Service, which was a Republican front.

But what about Garrett Graff? Doesn't ring a bell? Graff was a 23 year old blogger writing for Mediabistro's Fishbowl D.C. He was credentialed in March 2005, and attended both press briefings and press conferences. And there was a lot of fanfare at the time about the appointment.

So what gives? Is it one more example of the liberal media?

Scalia 0, Undergrad 1

2009-02-04T21:46:00.000-05:00

I am no fan of bringing television cameras into the Supreme Court. I have a mountain of evidence about the damage that cameras have done to all other aspects of American politics, and would no doubt do massive damage to the Supreme Court, should it allow them inside. But on the otherside, there is something to facing the press and their questions. It makes the person consider how his or her answers will resonate with the American public. Thus the millions that are spent keeping the PR industry in business.

To underscore this point, consider the ass Associate Justice Antonin Scalia must have made of himself when he barked at a legitimate question asked of him by, of all persons, a junior political science major at Florida Atlantic University. To set the stage, Scalia is on tour promoting a new book geared towards new trial lawyers. He gave a talk in Palm Beach that was attended by 750 people, including Sarah Jeck, the junior political science major. Here is how the South Florida Sun Sentinel described what came next:

Student Sarah Jeck stood in front of 750 people and asked Scalia why cameras are not allowed in the U.S. Supreme Court even though the court hearings are open, transcripts are available and the court's justices are open enough to go "out on book tours." Scalia was at the Kravis Center for the Performing Arts in part to do a book signing and wasn't happy at the question.

Scalia sneered that the question was "nasty" and "impolite," and ordered that someone ask the next question. It is hard to see just what part of the question was nasty or impolitie? It seems perfectly legitimate--a spin on "eating your cake and having it too." It appears that Scalia did get around to addressing the question once he had time to process her meaning. He told the audience that he opposes cameras in the courtroom because of the "30-second takeouts," which led to this conclusion: "Why should I be a party to the miseducation of the American people?" Clearly comments without a care in the world of public perception, since we are all too dim-witted to understand in the first place.

I doubt Scalia gave this a second thought considering his actions in the past, but he should. The Congress has been increasingly pushing for greater access inside the Supreme Court, and the last thing that I think Scalia and his colleagues want is a public that actively sides the Congress.

Oh Jake, How Could You?

2009-01-20T21:34:00.002-05:00

Some of you may be suffering from inauguration overload (particularly if you have watched even the smallest amount of network/cable news coverage of today's event, where each news station tried to outdo all the competitors with delivering the greatest commentary on the "levity of the moment" or to show how today's event had international implications (ABC broke away several times to Indonesia, where a group of elementary-aged students stared bleary-eyed at a television set, at nearly 12 in the morning their time, all the while feigning interest of their own). If you could stomach it, you turned to cable news, where MSNBC tried desperately to signal to the new administration that they were ready to carry their water, much in the same way Fox News did for the Bush administration (Chris Matthews paused on the image of Dick Cheney being wheeled out of the White House as a metaphor for the way the Bush administration was leaving the presidency). I stayed with C-SPAN for much of the day--if you are a political junkie, C-SPAN is where it is at. There you could tell your kid who the important folks were assembled on the inaugural stand or you could pipe up that Obama made a mistake by declaring that 44 men had stood where he did, taking the oath of office (43 men have been elected president, though Obama is the 44th president--Grover Cleveland is the discrepancy).

I waited until 6:15 p.m. to turn the local news on. By that time, it was safe that the locals were talking weather and sports. There is very little more aggravating than watching local news readers attempt to supersede their network peers. At 6:30, I turned to ABC News, which is flush in money and thus could afford a prolonged, 90 minute special on the days events (6:30 to 8 p.m.). It was then that I heard something disappointing from a reporter I normally like (there are so few). Jake Tapper, who will be covering the Obama White House as the White House correspondent for ABC, made a crack about keyboards missing their "W's" when the Bushies left office today. If you didn't understand the significance of the inside crack, turn your clock back eight years. Then it was George W. Bush moving his things into the White House. The Republicans controlled Congress, and the Clinton administration had just tarnished its reputation further by granting a last minute pardon to a millionaire fugitive from justice whose wife had dumped a pile of money into the Clinton library. Furthermore, there was a moment late in the day on the 20th, 2001, that the Clinton administration might not vacate the premises. Clinton held a number of "goodbye" ceremonies that some saw as an attempt to upstage the incoming Bushies.

That set the tone for a series of stories that ran for several days about rampant vandalism/theft/debauchery by the outgoing Clinton administration. Here are some of the highlights that drew the press right in, lock, stock and barrel:

Numerous keyboards were missing the letter "W"--in fact, an business supply store sent the Bush administration 500 "W's" to help make up for the losses;
The cords were cut to telephones, fax machines, and computers at a cost of at least $10,000 just to get the phones back up and running;
Desks were turned upside down and file cabinets had some gooey substance dumped into them that appeared to be a mix of glue and vaseline (and symbolically as a stand in for semen);
Above one office hung a sign: "White House Office of Strategery," a play on a SNL skit during the election;
The message machines contained the outgoing message: THIS IS AL GORE'S OFFICE. DUE TO A CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS, I'LL BE OUT FOR THE NEXT FOUR YEARS;

And then there was Air Force One. The stories about what the Clintons did on their way home on board Air Force One were hysterical. Supposedly the Clintons walked off with everything that was not nailed down--wine glasses, robes, soaps, seat cushions, paintings--this followed a similar theme of the things they managed to cart off from the White House before they turned over the keys to the Bush's.

And given the nature of the MSM in America, this fit in precisely for what is regarded as newsworthy--conflict and sensationalism.

Andrea Mitchell, a correspondent for NBC titled her report: Transition of Power to Bush Administration Marred by College Pranks and Vandalism by Departing Clinton Team. She referred to "sources" who said that "phone lines were cut, drawers filled with glue, door locks jimmied so that arriving Bush staff got locked inside their new offices, obscene messages left behind on copying machine paper."

Other sources told the White House Press Corps that "Air Force One" would "replace glasses and hand towels taken by passengers traveling with the Clintons" to which Sean Hannity blustered: "They strip Air Force One of the china and everything else that wasn't bolted down."

Even Tipper Gore, wife to VP Al Gore, phoned the Bush administration and apologized for all the damage down by the outgoing staff.

If you recall, this was an administration that won the presidency under the worst possible circumstances. And it was taking over for an administration that was popular with most Americans. How best to shift public opinion than to let the American public see what the Clinton's were really about. The Republican Congress, ever willing to help out, demanded that an investigation be done and the taxpayers reimbursed for the money it would take to fix all the damages. Republican Bob Barr, one of the leaders in the Clinton impeachment, ordered the GAO--then called the General Accounting Office and changed in 2004 to the Government Accountability Office--to undertake such an investigation.

And what did the GAO find out? That this "scandal" was an invention of the Bush White House, part of a strategy (used over and over again) to snow the MSM in the United States. At the center was Ari Fleischer, master manipulator, who used "unnamed sources" to lure the press in, and outside conservative media (Drudge Report, Fox News, and Talk Radio) to keep the story going as part of an "echo chamber" effect--that as it bounced from one conservative outlet to the next, it eventually found its way onto the pages of our newspapers and onto our television stations.

As Fleischer and the rest of the Bush communications operatives understood it, and rightly so, the media has a strong taste for the unusual, a strong desire for being first, and a very short memory. Just days after taking office, Fleischer told the White House press that they would be cataloging all of the abuses that took place, which signaled to the press that this incident went beyond a simple "prank":

The cute story that had appeared in the Post earlier in the week had officially ballooned into one more tawdry Clinton scandal. Now, according to the Post, "Bush officials described serious damage that has taken taxpayer money to repair." There was a full accounting of the pranks that some Democrats now, on background, confirmed: the missing "W" keys, the placement of phony signs on certain doors with titles like "Office of Strategery," "Office of Subliminable Messages" and "Division of Uniting," and reports that Clinton staffers had "interspersed blank photocopy paper with a fake Time magazine cover -- widely circulated on the Internet during the Florida recount litigation -- featuring a photo of an unhappy Bush saying "Oh shit."

Allen's front-page story included even more damaging allegations, quoting one unnamed Bush official who accused Clinton staffers "of taking White House paintings and trying to have them shipped to themselves. Others are said to have steamed official seals off office doors and tried to have them shipped." In fact, according to the story, "the incoming Bush administration ordered all packages X-rayed starting at noon" the day it moved in.

By the time the GAO got around to releasing their report--months after the fact--other matters had moved in that were far more important. There was a massive energy crisis coupled with a burgeoning collapse of major businesses who had been caught cooking the books. There also was an international incident with the Chinese and a crisis involving stem cell research. Thus the Clintons were never really cleared, as far as the press was concerned, evidenced by the comments today of Jake Tapper.

I doubt you will see a replay of that episode in the new Obama administration. It is unfortunate that more was never really said about it in the first place, because it clearly was evidence of things to come--using the media to completely dupe the rest of America. It is one of the reasons, I think, of why the administration will get high points from communications strategists while simultaneously receiving low marks from those who judge such things as a "legacy."

But in closing, it is disappointing that Tapper repeated this low point since he was one of the firsts to catch on to the dubious nature of Fleischer and the White House Office of Communications.

Bah

2009-01-18T20:55:00.001-05:00

Not that I mind getting comments from yahoos, but I wish it was for justifiable reasons. A reporter with the Cox News Service picked up the press release from Miami regarding my recognition by the House Judiciary Committee for my work on the signing statement. The reporter simply reposted the press release verbatim, which isn't unusual. But he changed the title, and in so doing attributed my work as something that it is not.

The Miami press release says: POLITICAL SCIENCE PROFESSOR NOTED IN JUST-RELEASED HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE REPORT, which is right. In this mammoth report very critical of the administration, some of which is partisan attacks, I have a blurb whereby it makes reference to my work on the signing statement.

The Cox News Service article's title is: MU PROFESSOR CLAIMS BUSH ABUSED POWER IN REPORT. Now that is entirely different. This now has me co-writing the report with Chairman Conyers. Overall, the tone suggests not an academic examination but rather a partisan jab. Now for those who read my blog postings, you know that from time to time I have been critical of the Bush administration and its use of the signing statement, and it is a statement of fact that he blows the lid off using the signing statement to challenge provisions of law. But that is my blog. To suggest that I use my academic writing to make partisan attacks is a swing at my reputation as a researcher. Thus I take issue with the posting and have written the reporter to say as much.

What I love are the comments that this news posting as received, telling me to return to my "Ivory Tower" (I live in a modest two story brick house) and, despite clearly noting that I am employed at Miami University, one commentor suggests I "get a job." Suppose he or she has one to offer?

The Top 25

2009-01-12T21:14:00.001-05:00

Jacob Weisberg, who has made a good living off of President Bush's destruction of the English language, has published what he feels are the top 25 "Bushisms"--those crazy sentences the come from President Bush speaking off the cuff and not off the teleprompter.

I am sure that Weisberg has gotten tons of email from fans who quibble with his picks. I don't intend to do that here. Instead, I just sat back and soaked it all in while listening to President Bush's final press conference (more below). Some of my favorite Bushisms from Weisberg's list:

#2. "I know how hard it is for you to put food on your family."�Greater Nashua, N.H., Chamber of Commerce, Jan. 27, 2000.

#4. "Too many good docs are getting out of the business. Too many OB/GYNs aren't able to practice their love with women all across the country."�Poplar Bluff, Mo., Sept. 6, 2004.

#5. "Neither in French nor in English nor in Mexican."�declining to answer reporters' questions at the Summit of the Americas, Quebec City, Canada, April 21, 2001.

#17. "People say, 'How can I help on this war against terror? How can I fight evil?' You can do so by mentoring a child; by going into a shut-in's house and say I love you."�Washington, D.C., Sept. 19, 2002.

#21. "Families is where our nation finds hope, where wings take dream."�LaCrosse, Wis., Oct. 18, 2000.

As Weisberg accurately notes:

Being able to laugh at yourself is a rare quality in a leader. It's one thing George W. Bush can do that Bill Clinton couldn't. Unfortunately, as we bid farewell to Bushisms, we must conclude that the joke was mainly on us.

No lie there.

The "joke on us" line comes into clear view if you listened to the final press conference this morning. Keep in mind that this is an administration that made no bones about the way it felt about the national media. They used every technique--including inventing a few new ones--to muzzle and control the press that covered them. Who can forget Ari Fleischer's threat to a reporter who had written a story that he didn't like, that the reporter had been "noted" in the White House? Or who could forget demanding that the press corps provide their questions in advance back in March 2003 in Bush's press conference before our march to war in Iraq? And who could forget the way Helen Thomas had been treated or the way in which conservative hacks were given a prominent place during the rare press conference that Bush actually gave?

With all this in consideration, Bush gave a "no holds barred" press conference, and opened up with this whammy:

Through it all, it's been -- I have respected you. Sometimes didn't like the stories that you wrote or reported on. Sometimes you misunderestimated me. But always the relationship I have felt has been professional. And I appreciate it.
I appreciate -- I do appreciate working with you. My friends say, what is it like to deal with the press corps? I said, these are just people trying to do the best they possibly can.

And did the reporters finally give it to the President? Here are some of the questions, so you be the judge:

Q. Well, a couple years ago, Charles Krauthammer, columnist and Harvard-trained psychiatrist, coined a term, "Bush derangement syndrome," to talk about your critics who disagreed with you most passionately -- not just your policies, but seemed to take an animosity towards you. I'm just wondering, as you look back, why you think you engendered such passionate criticism, animosity, and do you have any message specifically to those -- to that particular part of the spectrum of your critics?

Q. Mr. President, thank you very much. Since your philosophy is so different from President-Elect Obama's, what concerns you the most about what he may attempt to do?

Q. Mr. President, you spoke of the moment that the responsibility of the office would hit Barack Obama. The world is a far different place than it was when it hit you. When do you think he's going to feel the full impact? And what, if anything, have you and the other Presidents shared with him about the effects of the sometimes isolation, the so-called bubble of the office?

It boggles the mind. Which brings me back to Weisberg's list. Number 25 on the list says it all:

#25. "I'll be long gone before some smart person ever figures out what happened inside this Oval Office."�Washington, D.C., May 12, 2008.

A Moment of Silence, Please

2009-01-06T23:20:00.001-05:00

Don't ever think that the administration missed a chance to either change the subject, when things were bad, or to go in search of new supporters. For instance, if you have been browsing the White House "News" page, you would see for January 5--under the announcement regarding President Bush's meeting with the government officials from Sudan and above the memorandum for the Secretary of State--the announcement that "President, Mrs. Bush, Barbara, and Jenna" are "Deeply Saddened by Passing of Their Cat India ("Willie"). We learned that the cat was 18, named by daughter Barbara when she was 9, and got the name "India" after Texas Ranger ballplayer Ruben Sierra, who was nicknamed "El Indio." It appears also that when the Bush twins went to college, the cat got a name change by those at the White House, who "affectionately called" the cat "Kitty."

But what about those of us who need more information than just this? The White House doesn't disappoint here either. Another link, which takes us to the White House website for kids, has a complete biography for India, or Willie, or Kittie. This page tells us about India's "Dream" job ("presidential historian") and favorite book, assuming he could read (If You Take a Mouse to the Movies by Laura Numeroff and Felicia Bond).

So please take a moment, when saying your prayers tonight or tomorrow, to say one for the First Cat, who lived a long life despite the multiple names.

The Power of the Internets

2008-12-28T22:14:00.000-05:00

There is a pretty good article today in the "Washington Post" on the potential the Internet has to transform the manner in which politics in the United States plays itself out. Under the title: "Politics is no Longer Local. It's Viral," Jose Vargas argues that the Internet has the potential to bring together individuals in a way no other technology in the past has--to connect individuals spread out distances great and small, and organize them into a political force. From "Facebook" to SMS to "YouTube," it is a force that is only in its infancy, which means great things lie ahead for those of us who carefully watch politics.

The writer, who tells us that he was hired by the "Post" in 2007 "just before" his 26th birthday, to cover "the marriage of Internet and politics." We also learn that he "majored in political science" but is in fact "no political expert." He let's us know that the Internet is transformative to politics as usual, with the usual being television, because television is all about "being in control and staying on message." The Web? It is "an uncontrollable, freewhelling medium" that allows individuals a voice in the process.

The only downside to the article in large part comes from the writer's declaration that, while being a political science major, he was never interested much in politics at a deeper level. And since all he has known, in his young age, has been the Internet and people telling him that he (or his generation) is special. Thus the technology that is his (or his generation) is naturally bound to tear up the old order and the old way of thinking. So the article underscores the ideal that the traditional media is dead.

To make matters worst, what he understands about the new technology has come from technophiles--and for his money, the best book on the subject--drumroll--is Al Gore's The Assault on Reason. And we all know how measured Al Gore is when it comes to something like the Internet. It would be like writing about democracy in America, and the only thing you know about it has come from the collected writings of Dennis Kucinich.

Vargas, to bolster his point that we have a way around the media block, points out the "wall-to-wall coverage of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright's provactive homilies" where the MSM "coverage consisted mostly of sound bites, replaying and replaying a 20-second or so clip of what Wright had said" while Netizens could have their own conversation by watching Obama's speech on race on YouTube while also forming discussion groups on the topic at other "social networking sites." He also notes that the media were forced to take notice of Obama prior to the start of the primaries because he had brought together so many people, who had contributed less than $200, but together had raised serious money. In the pre-Internet period, the MSM may not have given Obama any notice because he didn't attract those with deep pockets.

But before we get carried away, we should temper our enthusiasm by considering:

The candidacy of Ron Paul, who raised, in one quarter, as much as anyone and who had a viral network of thousands of die hard fans who would show up in droves at rallies. Despite this outpouring of netroots activity, Paul's campaign got either zero or negative coverage by the MSM, and we saw how far he got;
How much was Obama helped by the 1) novelty of the candidate and 2) the lack of decent slate of presidential hopefuls?
How much did old fashion, traditional politics play into the way the 2008 election unfolded? Obama built organizations in smaller, off the beaten path states and placed organization in Iowa while Clinton placed all her eggs in the first several races, planning on wrapping up the nomination by early- March? Thus when Clinton stumbled out of the gates, her strategy left her behind the eight-ball once the race wound its way through March and then into April, she quickly ran out of money and options. Had her plan worked, it is not likely that Obama would have ended up the nominee.
How much did the race come down to money? If Obama had come into the general election struggling to raise cash, how much different might this race had been? What did money do for Obama? It enabled him to buy advertising in more states than just the battleground states, thus forcing McCain into defending areas that should have been naturally for him. It enabled Obama to run those informercials and to run some positive ads, thus when the question came down to who was more negative, money bought him positive press coverage there as well. Money, money, money. Nothing new about it.

I don't wish to come off as a Luddite here. I am just not willing to write off 1) television or 2) the powerful force of the MSM on politics and elections in the US. New technology has always been powerful at the margins, and the Internet is no different in that respect. It may, one day, replace how Americans learn about politics and become engaged in the process, but that day is not here yet. People still get their information from television and newspapers, and when they venture online for information, it is mostly to the brick and mortar media sites like Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, and the networks, as well as the major newspapers. I don't see that changing anytime soon.

But I do agree with one of Vargas's central points--any candidate in the future who does not have an Internet/new technology component to their campaign will start the race well behind those who do.

One More Thing Re: Fox News Interview of Cheney

2008-12-23T20:12:00.001-05:00

I have one more thing to add to yesterday's post regarding the interview Dick Cheney had with Fox News's Chris Wallace, which was conducted on December 19 and ran this past Sunday, December 21.

Cheney got in a number of licks against critics without any, or much of a response from Wallace. One of the glaring criticisms that went unchallenged was this one regarding Cheney's response to some recent criticisms (really extensions from the campaign) by Joe Biden against Cheney and his view of executive power.

Wallace asked Cheney what he thought of this Biden criticism made on the campaign trail in October as well as Wallace's characterization:

"Vice President Cheney has been the most dangerous Vice President we've had probably in American history." Transition officials say that Biden plans to shrink his office; that he is not going to meet with Senate Democrats the way you did every week with Senate Republicans; that he is not going to have his own "shadow government" in the White House. Biden has said that he believes you have dangerously expansive views of executive power. "Vice President Cheney has been the most dangerous Vice President we've had probably in American history." Transition officials say that Biden plans to shrink his office; that he is not going to meet with Senate Democrats the way you did every week with Senate Republicans; that he is not going to have his own "shadow government" in the White House. Biden has said that he believes you have dangerously expansive views of executive power.

Cheney scoffed by questioning Biden's intelligence regarding the Constitution (suggesting that if he did not understand the most basic parts of the Constitution, how can we ever trust him as the number 2 guy?):

Well, I just fundamentally disagree with him. He also said that all the powers and responsibilities of the executive branch are laid out in Article I of the Constitution. Well, they're not. Article I of the Constitution is the one on the legislative branch. Joe's been chairman of the Judiciary Committee, a member of the Judiciary Committee in the Senate for 36 years, teaches constitutional law back in Delaware, and can't keep straight which article of the Constitution provides for the legislature, which provides for the executive.

That struck me as surprising, and I wondered why Wallace didn't pursue it by looking at what Biden actually said and then asking Cheney whether he really watched the debates himself or did he allow staff to fill in the blanks? Here is Biden's response during the debate to a question he got from moderator Gwen Ifill regarding Cheney's interpretation of the vice presidency:

Vice President Cheney has been the most dangerous vice president we've had probably in American history. The idea he doesn't realize that Article I of the Constitution defines the role of the vice president of the United States, that's the Executive Branch. He works in the Executive Branch. He should understand that. Everyone should understand that.
And the primary role of the vice president of the United States of America is to support the president of the United States of America, give that president his or her best judgment when sought, and as vice president, to preside over the Senate, only in a time when in fact there's a tie vote. The Constitution is explicit.

The only authority the vice president has from the legislative standpoint is the vote, only when there is a tie vote. He has no authority relative to the Congress. The idea he's part of the Legislative Branch is a bizarre notion invented by Cheney to aggrandize the power of a unitary executive and look where it has gotten us. It has been very dangerous.

In the first paragraph, it really isn't clear precisely what Biden is saying, but by the final paragraph, it comes into focus what the meaning was behind the first paragraph. Biden says: "The ideal he's part of the Legislative Branch is a bizarre notion invented by Cheney to aggrandize the power of a unitary executive and look where it has gotten us..."

You may recall a minor kerfuffle a year or so ago where Cheney was trying to battle a requirement by the "Information Security Oversight Office," or ISOO, to turn over information regarding its classification process. During that dust up, Cheney made the remarkable claim that he was exempted from the policy because it demanded that executive branch entities turn over the information, and he was not an executive branch entity. Instead, the vice president was an Article I officer. Cheney made that argument. Publicly, I might add.

So would it not behoove Wallace to remind Cheney that it was he, and not Biden, who needed the constitutional lesson as it was Biden, maybe not clearly, who was chiding Cheney's interpretation of the Constitution?

So much for liberal bias.

Enough of Fein and Anyone Else

2008-12-22T20:40:00.000-05:00

Bruce Fein, a former attorney in the Reagan administration, has gotten more than his say when it comes to the press and its need for reflections on the Bush administration or presidential power in general--especially since some of what he says is wrong. I am not sure anyone would have listened to Fein had he not had the Reagan connection. It would be nice to see Washington-based journalists adding more than just his name to their Rolodex.

Case in point is this article by Lisa Mascaro of the "Las Vegas Sun" titled "Will Lawmakers Reclaim Power?" The article examines presidential power under the current Bush administration as well as presidential power with the incoming Obama administration--using this open letter from Senator Russ Feingold to Obama asking him to throw a bone to separation of powers in his inauguration speech. For my money, that should tell you about the current ability of Congress to uphold its end of the constitutional bargain when it requests the new president to take it easy on them.

As for Fein, here is an example of where he is wrong about the record of presidential power. Mascaro quotes Fein, reflecting about separation of powers during Clinton, saying this:

"Congress...did not protest when the Clinton administration engaged in military action in Kosovo without full congressional approval required under the War Powers Act..."

Nothing could be further from the truth. Congress passed legislation requiring US troops to remain under US command, and not NATO command. Congress even conditioned appropriations on Clinton's use of troops in the Balkans. To say that the Congress sat back and allowed Clinton to run roughshod over them is just wrong. What is puzzling about the Congress under Clinton and Bush II is that the Republicans from 1995-2000 were very aggressive in seeking to grant itself a greater role over domestic and foreign policy and then played dead from 2001-2006.

What Congress should be prepared for once Obama takes office in 2009 is that it will need to fight to maintain its role in this constitutional system and not sit back and hope that the new president will grant them anything. Only then will Congress live up to its responsibilities under the Constitution.

It's That TIme Of The Year Again

2008-12-14T10:55:00.000-05:00

June Kronholz, a reporter for the "Wall Street Journal," has a very good substantive article about the Electoral College, which most Americans are woefully uninformed about the process involved in electing the president. Most Americans assume the race ends in November, when they go to the polls to select the candidate of their choice. In reality, the voters go to the polls to select the electors, who will cast their vote for the President of the United States.

The Electoral College was the result of a compromise at the Philadelphia Convention surrounding who got to select the President--Congress or the voters. The Founders worried--with good reason--that if Congress was allowed to select the President, as one plan called for, then checks and balances would be fundamentally upset because this person would owe his or her selection to the Congress and thus would be in a position to do its bidding. But no one at the Convention favored allowing the voters to decide (they didn't even favor giving everyone the right to vote), for fear that they would be swayed by emotion and select demogogues instead of statesmen. In walks the Electoral College. It was designed to negate the choice of the voters should they make a "wrong" selection.

The Constitution mandates that the Electors in the states meet the first Monday following the second Wednesday in December--which means that this meeting will take place at noon in every state capitol this coming Monday, December 15. Because it is up to the states, the process happens differently state to state. In some states, there is a great deal of pomp and circumstance that accompanies the choice the electors make--for instance, in my own state of Ohio, there will be a "color guard and musical interlude" that leads up to the elector vote. In other states, such as Vermont, the three electors will meet in "Room 10 of the statehouse" and be done "20 minutes" later. Once the vote is counted, it is transmitted to Washington D.C., where Congress, meeting in a joint session (and covered only by C-SPAN) will recount the vote and the President of the Senate (VP of the United States) will announce a victor, bringing the 2008 election to an end. This vote will take place on January 8--not January 6, which s the date that the new Congress (111th) comes into session.

In 24 states, there is no law binding the Elector to the vote that took place in November. Thus an Elector can vote for someone different than the person one--so-called "Faithless Elector." We have seen a Faithless Elector in each of the previous two elections. In 2000, the Elector for D.C. cast no vote to protest D.C.'s lack of statehood. In 2004, a Minnesota Elector cast his vote for John Edwards as President. President Nixon is the only U.S. President to have a Faithless Elector in each election he ran--1960, 1968, and 1972. In each election, an Elector voted for someone more conservative than President Nixon.

Check your own secretary of state's webpage for information about the meeting this Monday in your state. Some are providing live webcasts of their vote. They also have a list of who these faceless Electors are, such as the case of Ohio.

Winners and Losers

2008-11-28T19:48:00.001-05:00

In my American Government class, I spend a great deal of time on the effect that McGovern-Fraser reforms had on the American political system, including the enduring effects on the current political system. McGovern-Fraser ended the party hold on nominations, thus removing from the political party an effective mechanism of control on candidates. This meant that the candidates would need to figure out their path to nomination minus the party, which meant developing their own strategy of engaging voters and managing the press. And from this was born the campaign strategy, and now bachelors and graduate degrees in campaign management.

Once a campaign manager established him or herself as a winner, he or she was in great demand and could charge boatloads to work on a campaign--thus contributing to the high cost of elections in the United States. Furthermore, many of these individuals--and the firms they started--worked for the candidate regardless of party--and thus had no incentive on advancing a cause or the larger questions of governing--what is in the best interest of the citizenry or democracy took a backseat to winning at all costs. And all costs is what it has become.

So my students--some encouraged by the possibility of having a political science degree that also makes money--ask how do the candidates know the best from the worst? Is there some scorecard that shows wins and losses? Well there actually is--and accessible to anyone with an Internet connection.

Campaigns and Elections magazine has just published its list of the winners and losers in 2008, broken down to the state and local level as well as national elections, and where applicable, by political party. So if you are interested in working as a campaign manager or thinking about your big run in 2010, these lists may come in handy.

Channeling FDR

2008-11-16T09:53:00.001-05:00

FDR was partly successful in office because he exploited the power of radio to bypass the national media and speak directly to the American people in a series of fireside chats. But radio had it the national scene long before FDR came to the presidency. So why didn't earlier presidents recognize the power of radio?

The answer lies in FDR's understanding of how people listened to the radio. Some of FDR's predecessors did attempt speaking to the American public over radio, but they did so as if they were speaking to all assembled in a large hall. Many Americans complained that when the president spoke, he was so loud that the speech came across garbled. FDR noticed, when visiting the homes of friends, that when a favorite radio show came on, they gathered around and listened in a way that showed they forged an emotional attachment with the voice on the radio. It drew them in as if they were part of the story. Thus when FDR spoke during his fireside chat, he spoke as if he were talking one on one with his audience.

Successful presidents are those who think of ways to get around the press, either by thinking about how the White House communications is organized (Nixon, Bush II) or think of ways to engage media of all types (Reagan) or think of ways to exploit new and emerging technology (FDR, Clinton). Into this third category we may now place President-elect Barack Obama.

Obama, who used new media as an essential instrument in his campaign, has taken that thinking to the White House. President Obama plans to replace the Saturday Radio Address--a staple since FDR but listened by a tiny fraction of Americans--with the YouTube Saturday Radio Address. Obama has already been using YouTube to explain to Americans what he plans to do in tackling the economic problems facing the country, and to explain how they plan to limit lobbyist access to the Executive Branch. And to reinforce these addresses, Obama has brought in several bloggers who wrote positively of him during the campaign to serve inside the White House Office of Communications. The White House Office of Communications has traditionally worked to move the president's message through or around the national press, and now it seems it will also seek to move the president's message in the blogosphere.

Time will tell to determine if this matters, but clearly taking into account the online community is a way to reach millions of potential supporters who do not use the traditional media to say informed. If it works, then historians will look back on Obama the way we look back on FDR and his strategy to reach Americans directly.

McCain on the Couch

2008-11-05T21:31:00.001-05:00

I have heard a great deal from my conservative friends who blame McCain's loss on the press--that the press had a love fest with Obama unlike anything we have ever seen, with some claiming that he was anointed as the second coming. These conservatives were blithely unaware of the similar recriminations in 2000 and 2004 when the Democrats were in the same boat.

This Slate article by Christopher Beam is a great primer on how McCain can "rebrand" himself, pointing out that a sizable chunk of his loss lays with him and his campaign. And that is true. Thus if the media treated McCain poorly (and in many respects they did), it was not motivated by partisan bias so much as it was motivated by the candidate and his campaign.

In the 2000 election--one that parallels this election--there was a poll taken on the Bush campaign bus before the election, asking the traveling press corp who would win the election. Bush's own traveling press picked Gore over Bush. But the Bush campaign did not flinch. Why? 1) They had run a campaign with a unified message while the Gore campaign started and stopped with different messages (Remember Gore 2.0, 3.0, etc.?). 2) They went out of their way to make the traveling press feel special. Remember all those nicknames that Candidate Bush had for various members of the press? Stretch, SuperStretch? And yet the Gore press corps hated the candidate. He denied them access, and when he did grant access, he lectured them like they were school children. So when they filed their stories, the tone was down right hostile, including complaints about what they were being fed day to day. The interesting thing is that in 2004, when the Bush campaign was tighter in access and where the Democrats could have made in-roads, the Kerry campaign made the same mistake as the Gore campaign. A candidate who rarely interacted with his traveling press and when he did, do so as a lecturer. The press didn't like Kerry any better than they liked Gore. Thus the stories continued to be filed with a hostile or critical tone. And Kerry also fell into the trap of appearing to lack a unified message, thus it appeared as if he was banking on a wing and a prayer.

Enter John McCain, who once claimed the press as his "base." He allowed his campaign staff to run the kind of campaign he is not comfortable running. After McCain had a rough couple of interviews early on in the election, his campaign staff shut him down. And when his running mate, Sarah Palin, blew the softball interviews with Katie Couric, Charlie Gibson, and Sean Hannity, the campaign shut her down as well. Thus when the press was shut down, they went looking for stories, like the $150,000 wardrobe shopping spree for Palin, which generated several days of bad news. Furthermore, McCain never had a unified message. From the start of the campaign back in September, he seemed to adopt a new message every week. And if your message changes week by week, it is easy for your opponent to sell the press on the narrative of erraticism. And when external conditions turn as poor as they have, the candidate who seems erratic in a time of crisis is going to pay the bigger price.

Here's hoping that McCain rediscovers his mojo.

Hardball, Local Style

2008-10-26T15:47:00.002-04:00

One of the techniques of modern presidential campaigns to bypass the national filter and reach the citizen unfiltered is to give interviews to local television, which often are so glad to get the attention that the reporters accept the questions ahead of time from the candidates themselves. Apparently this Orlando station did not get the message. And the interview is also instructive to those who bring up the "liberal press" boogymen in general or the McCain-Palin campaign specifically.

The reporter, WFTV's Barbara West is a "health reporter and anchor" during the noon and 5:30 broadcasts. By looking at her bio, it shouldn't be hard to guess her politics, and after listening to her interview, it shouldn't be hard to see that she has a difficult time hiding her politics.

Her bio says: "When Hillary Clinton attempted to reform our health care system, I traveled to Canada to examine the Canadian national health care system as a possible model for the U.S.

In her interview with Senator Biden, she uses language very similar to the McCain-Palin campaign about "redistribution of hte wealth," and for emphasis, she asks Senator Biden: "From each according to his abilities to each according to his needs" which she followed with "that is a quote from Karl Marx. Is Obama's comment to 'Joe the Plumber' about spreading the wealth wasn't being Marxist."

Biden chuckled, thinking that her comments were a joke, and asked if this was some kind of joke. Ms. West sat there stoicly, in fact there wasn't any evidence in her questions that she gave any thought to them, instead simply reading what was put in front of her.

The Obama campaign responded by cutting the station off for any future interview. A spokesperson for Obama told the station they were pulling Mrs. Biden from an interview, and that the "cancellation is non-negotiable, and further opportuniites for your station to interview with this campaign are unlikely, at best for the duration of the remaining days until the election."

One has to wonder if the Obama campaign did their homework ahead of time. Given the comments on this webpage about West's war with national health care, it should have been obvious where her politics rested. And if that wasn't enough, shouldn't the Florida Democratic Party told them which news stations were likely to be sympathetic?