OF AX GRINDING AND SCORE SETTLING
The Heilemann-Halperin campaign tell-all book Game Change has had the political sphere tittling and twittering for the last 48 hours as everyone is leaning over their virtual backyard fence and whispering to their neighbor, “Didya hear what Harry Reid/Bill Clinton/John Edwards/Sarah Palin/Steve Schmidt said about so-and-so and such-and such?”
Impact on contemporary politics? Zero. Even Harry Reid’s ill advised comments about Obama’s “Negro dialect” appear to be blowing over thanks to the generosity of spirit (and political calculation) of such luminaries as Al Sharpton and the entire Congressional Black Caucus. Their forgiveness is touching. Too bad such virtuous behavior is reserved only for members of their own party.
But as the delightful revelations continue to drip from the new book, one might ask what everyone is getting so worked up about? Should we be shocked that Hillary thought Obama was cheating in the Caucuses? Are w surprised that politicians say stupid things in unguarded moments? Are we startled to hear that Steve Schmidt didn’t think much of Sarah Palin? Is it front page news that Palin was so ignorant of history that she had to be tutored like a freshman in high school?
But Palin’s problems stretched beyond the debate performance.
Heilemann and Halperin write that the campaign soon realized that Palin was woefully uninformed on basic issues of U.S. history and politics.
“Her foreign policy tutors are literally taking her through, ‘This is World War I, this is World War II, this is the Korean War,’” Heilemann told “60 Minutes.” “This is the — how the Cold War worked. Steve Schmidt had gone to them and said, ‘She knows nothing.’”
Palin’s spokesperson has said that reporting in the book is inaccurate.
Inaccurate? Has Palin ever sat down for the kind of wide ranging interview that would reveal the depth of her knowledge (or ignorance) about history, about policy, about basic things that we might expect a president to know? The Couric interview doesn’t count because Katie is almost as ignorant as Palin about such matters. One need only see the off air outtakes of Couric’s anchoring the primaries to see that when it comes to politics, Couric knows how to bake a terrific souffle.
Palin has not had a sit down with any serious magazines, nor has she exposed herself to the kind of free wheeling, give and take discussion you might find on Charlie Rose or some other expert interviewer’s show. Because of this, I tend to believe the accounts given by Schmidt and other staffers regarding how ignorant Palin is. She has done nothing to disabuse anyone of the notion that she is an intellectual lightweight and worse, an uninformed neophyte who is not ready - if she ever will be - for national politics.
But the Schmidt-Palin row begs the question; why would the former McCain campaign manager and other staffers want to savage Sarah Palin? Why would Edwards staffers want to paint their boss as a pantywaist, asexual, henpecked hick dominated by an evil harridan of a wife? Who benefits by telling tales out of school about Harry Reid, Bill Clinton, and others?
Why this book in the first place?
The campaign tell all is a relatively new phenomenon. It began during the 1960 presidential race when Time Magazine’s brilliant political writer Theodore H. White convinced the flinty-eyed Henry Luce that he was just the guy to follow the candidates around and gather all the gossipy tidbits that reporters following the campaigns would hear but could never write about because journalistic standards being what they were at the time, rumors and unattributed stories were rarely printed. Staffers would never dream of going on the record to relate some juicy bit of gossip about the candidate or the campaign which meant that these little bon mots were lost to history.
White had followed Stevenson and Eisenhower in 1956 so he was well aware of this hidden treasure trove of titillating trifles. Besides, White argued, chances were good there would be great drama involved because he had a hunch that Kennedy - a handsome, dynamic Catholic with a gorgeous wife - had the inside track to the nomination.
Luce was dubious. Conventional wisdom at the time had the Democrats nominating Adlai Stevenson again. Besides, Kennedy had yet to impress anyone as anything except a playboy brat, the son of a very wealthy and influential man. And the publisher was reluctant to allow his best political reporter the kind of freedom that such a book project would entail.
In the end, Luce gave in and the rest is history - and oh what history it turned out to be. Making of a President, 1960 is not only still a great read, but represented a brand new genre; the political campaign as American morality play. The finely drawn characters in Making of a President were unforgettable due to White’s keen eye, perk ear, and the two decades he had spent writing about politics and issues for leading publications. Heroes, villains, comic relief - it was all there, told in a colorful narrative style that White became famous for.
It also helped that White had an abiding affection for politics and politicians. Even rogues were portrayed with a kind of entertaining sympathy. He liked Nixon, although he was troubled by some of the men around him. He adored Kennedy - as only someone who attended Harvard as a poor kid could admire and wish to be like the rich boys who looked down their noses at the Teddy Whites at the school.
White wrote about how he felt in his autobiographical In Search of History where he unknowingly revealed this love-hate relationship with rich guys like Kennedy; wanting to get close to them while faulting them for their “To the Manor born” wealth. His sympathetic portrayal of the Massachusetts senator in Making of a President was standard for the press of the day anyway so it was barely noted.
By 1964, several authors tried to catch the same lightening in a bottle that White was able to capture and a cottage industry in the campaign chronicle genre was born. Over the years, reporters have dominated as authors although the occasional novelist has tried their hand at it.
The revelations contained in the books seem to be getting more vicious as staffers large and small realize that getting their complaints and perceptions on the record is one way to deflect professional criticism of their performance. In an industry where you are only as hot as your last success, shifting blame to the shoulders of others for losing is a career strategy. Besides, there is little doubt that it feels very satisfying to get back at someone who treated you as a subhuman while you were working your tail off 16 hours a day for them.
So how much in Game Changer is true? Probably everything. Maybe nothing. What matters is the perception imparted by the principles of what went on, who screwed up and why, and how the information fulfills the goals of those dishing the dirt.
For the political junkie, we mainline this stuff. But for the rest of America, it has the impact of a leaf dropping in a forest on a fall day. I wish I could say it doesn’t matter to me, but I find the gossip compelling. Humanizing the great among us is quite democratizing and besides, if nothing else, books like Game Change give everyone something to write and talk about for a few days.
There he goes again.
Ta-Nehisi Coates explains it better than I could.
Comment by Richard bottoms — 1/11/2010 @ 11:22 am
To pinpoint the commentary, do you think I talk like I write and normally express myself out in Silicon Valley or on the job like I do when I’m back in Indiana with my homeboy of 41 years chillin’?
As TNC said, Negro please. (Which is the standard eye-rolling expression of pure doubt you never get to hear because we don’t do it around white folks).
Comment by Richard bottoms — 1/11/2010 @ 11:26 am
“There he goes again.”
And where is he going? Hypocracy, thy name is Dhimmocrat!
OK, emough snark. Do I think Reid should resign over comments such as he made? No. Do I think this is “much ado about nothing”? Yes. But let’s just play this out all the way. Was Trent Lot’s comments about Strom Thurman in any way equivilent to Reid’? No. But let a white Republican/Conservative (i.e. non-Democrat) make a remark similar to Reid’s and watch the fireworks.
Comment by SShiell — 1/11/2010 @ 1:30 pm
Never believe anything you hear and only half of what you see. These guys are doing it for the publicity, money and/or make a name for themselves. Some people just think too highly of themselves and belive everyone else are just ignorant fools.
Comment by Peggy — 1/11/2010 @ 2:24 pm
SShiel:
Actually the closest analogue would be Joe Biden’s remarks about Obama being “clean and well-spoken.” And there was an uproar, mostly from Republicans.
Meanwhile at the tea party demonstrations we have conservatives portraying Obama as a witch doctor and using a misspelled N-word. And of course we get blatant race-baiting from Limbaugh on a regular basis. And not a word from conservatives.
You all have great sensitivity to racially insensitive or anachronistic remarks from Democrats and no interest at all in the blatant racism that characterizes many on your side of the spectrum. Mote and beam, if I may go New Testament on you.
Comment by michael reynolds — 1/11/2010 @ 2:29 pm
This book is typical of the corporate media - report on things that don’t matter to hide the things that do matter. This is why there is little interest in newspapers and the TV.
The real scandals in the U.S. are much bigger. For example, few in the media have the courage discuss the private Federal Reserve. It is a privately owned corporation that has usurped our government.
Instead of covering Bill and Hilary’s adultery, Clinton mentor and Georgetown Professor of History, Carroll Quigley wrote:
“The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole.”
“This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world’s central banks which were themselves private corporations.”
“Each central bank…sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world.”
Why is this never discussed?
In the U.S. we have the private Federal Reserve, in Great Britain, there is the Bank of England, in Europe there is the ECB, and on and on. The central banks are all tentacles of the same private system. The chief architect of the Federal Reserve system, Paul Warburg spoke before the U.S. Senate in 1950 and confidently declared that “We shall have World Government, whether or not we like it. The only question is whether World Government will be achieved by conquest or consent.”
The goal has been to eliminate the nation state to be replaced with international communism run by the private banking cartel. We are seeing this plan come to fruition today as the tyrannical powers are beginning to come out in the open. They are purposely destroying the financial viability and the very will of their client states so that we will acquiesce to their international rule. Everything we are seeing today is intended to lead to this inevitable apocalypse.
They are very powerful in that they literally hold the power to create money. They create as much of it as they need but that is only a means and not not the objective. By creating money they control all industry and finance and they decide who wins and loses.
And the banksters continue with their crimes which continue with a nod and a wink from the corporate media.
Comment by DrKrbyLuv — 1/11/2010 @ 3:05 pm
about the Reid comment I have to agree with Richard. That’s ridiculous. You go to any black barber shop and folks will use the term when talking about people like O.J.. In addition, it’s fun but don’t do it as a white person just like that, might not get over that well. On the other hand, if you are German like me, no problem (smile). However, to compare a statement (that although improperly worded still has more than a grain of truth) from Reid to a career of a racist (does he get points for fathering black children) is ridiculous. The truth is most people (black and white) think like Reid anyway.
Comment by funny man — 1/11/2010 @ 3:08 pm
Want to know why we’re not having a stroke over Harry Reid’s comments?
I direct you the the Google archvies of Ebony Magazine’s January, 1963 issue, page 36 and the ad for Dr. Fred Palmer’s Skin Lightener Cream.
Just because you’re late to the party about “good hair”, and the term “high yellow” doesn’t mean everyone is.
We know that if Obama looked less like Avon Barksdale and more like Chris Partlow he wouldn’t be president now.
Comment by Richard bottoms — 1/11/2010 @ 3:11 pm
Palin just signed with Fox News. So that is that regarding her ‘run’ in 2012. I think that is good because I would like to win in 2012.
Just saw Coulter and Sharpton squaring off about Reid’s comment. That must help regarding clarity! Hardly anyone in the black community takes Sharpton serious anymore and regarding Coulter, well what was she supposed to be? Conservative? No, a clown at best.
Comment by funny man — 1/11/2010 @ 5:01 pm
The only interesting point of discussion is the double standard. I don’t think Reid is a racist nor do I think his comment was racist. But the Democrats who are so “ho hum” about this comment shouldn’t kid themselves about what would happen in a hypothetical situation where a Republican said the exact same thing.
The double standard doesn’t bug me near as much as Democrats or liberals who deny it exists. Can anyone imagine the firestorm that would have erupted had this come out:
Comment by sota — 1/11/2010 @ 5:31 pm
Odd how the policy people, like Schuenenman, and Beigin didn’t have a problem with her, neither did the accounts in
Walshe and Conroy’s book, In fact there are many outright false statements in “Game Change”, by someone who wanted to obscure that they had given up the campaign in September of that year,
Comment by narciso — 1/11/2010 @ 5:57 pm
The GOP has zero credibility to fall back on when this stuff happens.
I guarantee there will some watermelon joke or worse circulating in under a week from another Republican can grasp the simple nuance of how not to insult blacks.
Tell me exactly how many Republican senators or congressmen are black?
Zero you say?
Get back to me when that changes.
Comment by Richard bottoms — 1/11/2010 @ 6:30 pm
The desired effect has occured as is evident in the response here. People are squabbling over politically incorrect terms while the government is thoroughly corrupt and the country is going bankrupt.
But hey, let’s argue over nonsense instead of addressing real problems.
Comment by DrKrbyLuv — 1/11/2010 @ 7:35 pm
Maybe so. Maybe not. But you didn’t respond to my point…deliberately, I’m sure.
Comment by sota — 1/11/2010 @ 7:56 pm
That’s you point? Okay, I’ll respond.
You’re wrong.
The GOP is the family values party with closet queens and serial adulterers who lecture everybody else about their morals so when one of them gets caught the sympathy meter is usually at zero.
Further the GOP is the party that prospered using the Southern Strategy, which held it would do well by becoming the home for Democratic racists who fled that party during integration. Black people are well aware of it. So when Trent Lott praises one of the most despised segregationists as a model for good government it’s a major deal and he has to step down.
Reid on the other hand said what every black person knows to be true: Obama looks less threatening and he talks white, so he should do well at the polls.
To which we respond, big hairy deal.
The GOP is the party of “Christian” School set up to avoid sitting next to black kids.
The GOP is the party that thinks MLK is a commie.
The GOP is the party that hasn’t got one damn black person in elective office.
And so, me and most of the other 19,999,999 other black people in America, think the GOP is full of it and we don’t care what you think and are most assuredly not moved by the crocodile tears about equality and racial harmony.
Comment by Richard bottoms — 1/11/2010 @ 8:38 pm
rick - your dislike (hatred?) of christianity is showing again. every time you criticize sarah palin. it’s obvious.
Comment by ray c — 1/11/2010 @ 9:32 pm
” . . we don’t care what you think and are most assuredly not moved by the crocodile tears about equality and racial harmony.”
No, you wouldn’t be moved by such. And by the way - on any given day I hear the word “Nigger” used at least 20 times - not by Republicans, not by Democrats, not even by whites. It is Blacks calling themselves the dreaded “N” word.
Big hairy deal? Yeah, you can take your racial equality crap and shove it back up your ass where it came from.
Comment by SShiell — 1/11/2010 @ 9:46 pm
As I said, I know which party shows even the tiniest modicum of respect for black folks and it isn’t the GOP.
Comment by Richard bottoms — 1/11/2010 @ 9:51 pm
Richard,
I think you portray that a bit one-sided. I look at it from an economic perspective, what works better what works less good. Of course, no modern society has no government involvement. That would be silly. But let’s get to practical examples. Detroit. Now I actually don’t despise Detroit like so many haters but something went completely awry in that place. So Detroit had racial tensions from the beginning and they were viciously exploited. Henry Ford’s way of union busting was to use blacks as strike breakers and then fire them. Great way of making good neighbors I guess. They were riots in the 40s and then the famous one in 67. Race relations deteriorated after that with the now well known results of emptying the actual city of Detroit of any sizable number of white people (and later middle class blacks moved out). At the same time engineering and manufacturing got worse with the big three. That actually had nothing to do with the unions but their involvement didn’t make things better. (That’s too long to explain here). Anyway, here comes Coleman Young who actually started out with good intentions but over time led to a system that strangulated itself. Because it started out with the wrong assumption that social engineering and government subsidies could help people get out of poverty into productive lives. I don’t have to tell you that that didn’t happen but instead things got worse. Detroit now has the worst public school system in the United States. I know that it is not due to lack of talent but because schools don’t enforce discipline, don’t challenge students, parents don’t care and teachers are often incompetent. You know this too be true and there is no money in the world that can change that. You need a change of system! Maybe like with Michelle Rhee in DC. Then welfare. I mean it doesn’t serve any society if more than half of the families are headed by a single Mom. I know for a fact that there are many single black men out there who would make good fathers but they are just not flashy, they are just ‘normal’. Why then do so many women choose to be with these XXX and even get supported by our government. That is just not healthy.
So for me conservative means asking people to be responsible for themselves that government is only there to help out in a crisis. For a place like Detroit, they can only survive if people put there differences aside, reinvent themselves and pray for a miracle.
Comment by funny man — 1/11/2010 @ 9:51 pm
That’s what conservatives say they believe. But, when George W. Bush has the reins of power, when the GOP had complete control of all three branches of government and enormous political capital to spend after 9/11, what did they do?
Two wars, one the president chose to initiate both almost lost, one trillion dollars vaporized, 4,000 dead, 50,000 maimed followed by the greatest economic collapse since the Great Depression.
How about torture? The loss of America’s standing in the world, and a Christian jihad against science and reason led by a bunch of fruitcakes who think Fred Flintstone and the dinosaurs both popped into existence 4,000 years ago?
Sorry, what conservatives say they believe in and the total goat screw they delivered while in charge leaves a lot to be desired.
So I’ll take the flawed, overly intrusive Democratic approach to government over the utopia promised by the Randians any day.
Comment by Richard bottoms — 1/12/2010 @ 12:00 am
@ray c:
“rick - your dislike (hatred?) of christianity is showing again. every time you criticize sarah palin. it’s obvious.”
Please explain. I’m missing how saying Palin is apparently woefully ignorant to be a candidate for high office is an attack on any religion. Did Rick even mention her religion or religious beliefs at all? I didn’t see it.
Did I miss something that was being implied, something “between the lines”? Or Does Palin actually embody the Christian faith, so a critique of her is a de facto attack on baby Jesus?
(hint: if the answer is #2, you’re going to get laughed at)
Comment by busboy33 — 1/12/2010 @ 5:21 am
You definitely responded. I’m not sure to what, but you did.
At least this comes close to discussing the topic in my original comment. Although simply reiterating what I said doesn’t really make for much of a discussion.
I find it hard to follow all the tangents, but I’m guessing from your reply that because liberals have some kind of credibility with the black population that they can say something that conservatives cannot. Is that what you’re implying?
That’s at least a debate worth having, but tossing in all your other standard GOP-is-evil talking points is just pointless and tiresome.
So is it your contention that because liberals are viewed as sympathetic to the black population, they can get away with saying something that a conservative never could?
Comment by sota — 1/12/2010 @ 6:41 am
“As I said, I know which party shows even the tiniest modicum of respect for black folks and it isn’t the GOP.”
If you, as evidenced by your comments, are the archtypical representative of the black race then I can live with your condemnation - I even WELCOME it. You want respect - grow a pair and earn it!
Comment by SShiell — 1/12/2010 @ 7:23 am
@SShiell:
“You want respect - grow a pair and earn it!”
Does that apply to all races, or just blacks? Do you think whites should grow a pair and earn some respect from you as well? If you do respect whites . . . what have they done as a race that blacks haven’t?
Comment by busboy33 — 1/12/2010 @ 8:10 am
“Does that apply to all races, or just blacks?”
As I said earlier:
“If you, as evidenced by your comments, are the archtypical representative of the black race then I can live with your condemnation - I even WELCOME it.”
But then reading comprehension has never been your strong suit.
Comment by SShiell — 1/12/2010 @ 8:28 am
Not viewed, are. And yes. Black folks hear white people say stupid insulting things all the time.
What matters is intent and track record.
Can’t think of too many blacks who would donate the sweat from their lower parts to quench Strom Thrumond’s thirst if he was dying of dehydration. We’d would have extended that courtesy to George Wallace were he around.
Elect some black people.
Then come calling. We want to be your date, not your beard.
Or are you telling me Michale Steele, the bumbling RNC head you dare not fire, is pure coincidence? Yea, right.
Comment by Richard bottoms — 1/12/2010 @ 8:40 am
@Sshiell:
No, I read just fine. Your earlier quote completely and utterly ignored my question. You welcome condemnation from what you describe as the “archtypical representative of the black race”. I asked if you held the same views of other races. You repeated yourself.
That in no way answers whether or not you hold the same attitude about other races. That in no way explains any differences in your attitude toward dofferent races.
Perhaps you might want to look into that reading comprehension thing you mentioned. I hear it does wonders for actually making a coherent point. Of course, if you just want to be a jackass, don’t worry about it — you appear to have that aced.
Comment by busboy33 — 1/12/2010 @ 10:16 am
Richard bottoms Said: 8:40 am “Elect some black people. Then come calling. We want to be your date, not your beard.”
Quit being such an ass and get real.
IF Thomas Sowell, Ward Connerly, J.C Watts, Lynn Swan, Walter E. Williams, Armstrong Williams, Shelby Steele, Janice Rogers Brown or Clarence Thomas decided to run for a high office I would be first in line to donate and go door to door out here in bitter clinger country to help their cause.
Then again, the statist contingent of their race call them “sell-outs” “Uncle Tom” or my favorite “not black enough” as Obama was first said to be (probably came from the Clinton camp). Jesse Jackson once said he wanted to cut his nuts off. What a genius. Heh.
Just what the hell does “not black enough” mean anyway? I don’t think it has anything to so with skin color.
Comment by CZ — 1/12/2010 @ 10:51 am
And yet they don’t. Run. They do bloviate, write books, and generally provide wish fulfillment that black people really do love Republicans.
I give Alan Keyes credit for running, but he’s batsh*t insane and he got his head handed to him by Barack Obama.
As I said, when the GOP actually gets a single, solitary black person elected to the Senate or Congress then they can lecture the Democrats about anything having to do with race.
They’ve done it before I know, but I’m not sure a deadbeat dad with children out of wedlock is the best poster child for the family values party anymore. Meanwhile, Michelle and Barack and as sweet as can be, devoted, and the epitome of what a solid family should be.
Comment by Richard bottoms — 1/12/2010 @ 11:23 am
“That in no way answers whether or not you hold the same attitude about other races.”
Then maybe this will help - comments like the ones you and other trolls provide here on this blog firts the bill - regardless of skin color. To my mind, it doesn’t matter whether you are black, brown, red, yellow, green, or purple. You want to make stupid comments like what I was responding to and you don’t have to worry respect - you won’t get any. For a more explicit reponse, see comment #28 (CZ).
Beter now?
Comment by SShiell — 1/12/2010 @ 11:26 am
Richard bottoms Said: 11:23 am They’ve done it before I know, but I’m not sure a deadbeat dad with children out of wedlock is the best poster child for the family values party anymore.
Leave John Edwards out of this.
Now, can you tell me Mr. Bottom, exactly what does “black enough” mean?
Comment by CZ — 1/12/2010 @ 2:30 pm
CZ: “Leave John Edwards out of this.”
LOL! That’s gonna leave a mark!
Comment by SShiell — 1/12/2010 @ 2:56 pm
“As I said, when the GOP actually gets a single, solitary black person elected to the Senate or Congress then they can lecture the Democrats about anything having to do with race.”
From Wikipedia: “J. C. Watts served in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1995 to 2003 as a Republican, representing the 4th congressional district in south-central Oklahoma.”
You were saying!
Comment by SShiell — 1/12/2010 @ 3:00 pm
No fair bringing up actual facts! I’m sure he’ll respond with, “Well, show me another!” or “One black guy in 100 years! Great job GOP!” and then when you show him others, he’ll make some off topic derogatory comment about the Tea Partiers and be off on something else before you know it.
Easy. If they’re a Republican, they’re not “black enough”.
Comment by sota — 1/12/2010 @ 7:56 pm
Even Watts thinks the R’s are not black enough:
“In 2008, Watts announced [...] that he considered voting for Barack Obama, criticizing the Republican party for not practicing outreach to the black community.”
Comment by TomD — 1/13/2010 @ 11:38 am