Month: February 2004

They’re trimming the segment. I’m trimmed. Reliable Sources was a little surreal. We had to discuss why we won’t mention the story that we weren’t discussing.

Rough night. Friends of ours – a couple from Chicago – were visiting and dropped by to leave their bags while we went to dinner. It’s Valentine’s Day and so a large amount of chocolate was brought and left in a bag on the floor. We have a beagle. You can fill in the rest. When we got back, there were wrappers all over the apartment, beautiful Godiva boxes ripped open, small little brown paper cups strewn on the bed. Major score for the beagle. But horrifyingly dangerous. The beagle – she’s called Dusty – was cowering and looking really, really guilty. Animal hospital? I took her out, got some emissions, gave her huge amounts of water and hoped for the best. A little while later, the puking began. Chocolate doggy-puke. Projectile vomited all over the place – couch, chairs, etc etc. I was relieved, actually. Probably saved Dusty’s life. But we were up all night. So if I’m a bit cranky today, give me a pass.

John Ellis gets it pretty much right about the Kerry story:

Let’s say this is a story about Colin Powell. Let’s say that there is a woman who has approached numerous media organizations and every Republican political opponent of Mr. Powell’s with a story. The story is that her “best friend” or her “close friend” (who used to be a reporter with the AP and at some point worked for Mr. Powell) had an affair with Mr. Powell and was shipped off to Africa when Mr. Powell decided to run for President. What is known about the source of this information is that she has a major axe to grind; she hates Powell. She really, really hates him. She is grinding the Mother of All Axes.
Publish her story or not?
The answer from “mainstream media” so far: “No.”
Good decision: “yes.”

Maybe this will be the first time that a true firewall is established between the web, the Brits and the rest of the media. Maybe I’m wrong and this won’t break out as a major story. That in itself would be a media milestone. (On the other hand, Drudge got 15 million hits in the past 24 hours – twice his normal traffic.) Can we all pretend we didn’t hear this and carry on as normal?

Kerry denies it on Imus. Why would he do that if it were true? He can’t be suicidal. Right now, you have to assume there is no truth to this. So I will. Meanwhile, the question of whether I’ve been “Moby’ed” arises. Was that highly polished email I received and posted yesterday, positing the possibility of a Republican plot … a plant? Jonah writes about a strategy openly discussed by Moby (one of my favorite musicians but a Bush-hater). Here’s what the techno-wizard told the Daily News:

“No one’s talking about how to keep the other side home on Election Day,” Moby tells us. “It’s a lot easier than you think and it doesn’t cost that much. This election can be won by 200,000 votes.”
Moby suggests that it’s possible to seed doubt among Bush’s far-right supporters on the Web.
“You target his natural constituencies,” says the Grammy-nominated techno-wizard. “For example, you can go on all the pro-life chat rooms and say you’re an outraged right-wing voter and that you know that George Bush drove an ex-girlfriend to an abortion clinic and paid for her to get an abortion.
“Then you go to an anti-immigration Web site chat room and ask, ‘What’s all this about George Bush proposing amnesty for illegal aliens?'”

So was I Mobyed? The email writer wrote me back again in the middle of the night – 4.57 am – to deny any wrongdoing. Here’s the text:

Dear Andrew,

I want to thank you for the compliment you paid me by posting my letter on your site, though in light of the day’s developments, including your brief exchange with Jonah Goldberg, I find myself regretting the decision to write it. It seems I did, indeed, jump the gun when I presumed the source of the rumor to be Republican. (It was a natural enough assumption, given that Drudge broke the story, but premature nonetheless.) At this point, I suppose I shall simply wait and see how the situation progresses.

As to your concerns that my letter may have been a plant and that I may be a Democratic activist in disguise, rest assured that I am not. I may be growing increasingly disenchanted with the Republican party, but if I decide to withdraw my support from them in November, I will likely just remain at home rather than transfer it to any of the lackluster crop of Democrats currently on offer.
In any event, I hope my earlier email did not cause you any unwarrented discomfort vis-a-vis your colleagues, and I thank you again for giving a wider voice to my concerns.

Sincerely,

Paul

It’s Krugman! Only kidding. Actually, there’s a HUGE qestion-mark hanging over this email, and that is its email address. I should have worried about that before. It’s from “disillusioned_conservative@xxxx.com.” (I’m not giving out a person’s email address in full. The writer could still feasibly be genuine; and people are innocent till proven guilty.) But how many people have an email address that reflects exactly the sentiments of one particular email? It is impossible to verify all letters. My general view is that if they make good points, I couldn’t care less who sent them. And then there’s human nature. I think I was Mobyed.

We have several stories in major papers in Britain on the alleged Kerry story. Some interesting angles. The conservative Telegraph suggests the following:

Democratic sources blamed the allegation on Republican “dirty tricks”. They said it marked the long-expected start of a campaign from the Right to smear the frontrunner and damage his chances of fighting a strong campaign against President George W Bush.

I don’t see any evidence of this at all, despite my reader’s worries yesterday. (I’m even beginning, in my paranoid moments, to wonder if that email was a plant. It reads a little too convincingly. Was I being set up by some Democratic activist to promote the new Dem line? I have no idea. But I’m ready to believe anything in this town.) In fact, it now turns out that the first blog reference to the story – which I linked to yesterday – was made by a man who worked for Wesley Clark. (Hat tip: Jonah.) Of course, that might mean nothing, as well. The story is on the front-page of the Times of London, which I think means it’s arrived globally. Oddly, it’s not in the Guardian. Maybe they think it’s a Republican plot as well. This is another new feature of the Internet, isn’t it? The English-speaking media are fusing somewhat – it’s so easy to click and read – so the number of “serious” English-speaking outlets increases the odds of any rumor story going mainstream. To recap: the food-chain is Clark or “X” blabbing to Washington reporters off-the-record; said reporters spilling to Drudge; Drudge to the blogs; then the Brits get to write about an “Internet scandal,” which loops back to Drudge. And now … Imus. Dizzy yet?

SILVER LINING WATCH: “Well, this is a good test for the general election. The Kerry campaign will have to swiftly respond to this stuff, and get Time, ABC, etc. to contradict Drudge. Otherwise, we have no chance against the Bush slime machine in the fall.” – an optimist on the John Kerry blog forum.

I’ll be on CNN’s “Reliable Sources” this weekend with Howie Kurtz, on the Michael Medved radio show from 4 – 5 pm ET, and, as of last night, due to be on the Newshour on PBS this evening.

Yesterday, the Wall Street Journal ran a dry but challenging piece by Martin Feldstein. It’s behind a subscriber firewall, alas. It’s a piece that essentially argues that the spending increases we have seen under Bush are, in fact, Clinton’s fault. Here’s the critical paragraph:

The appropriations for discretionary spending outside defense and homeland security rose 16% in the final Clinton budget, propelling future spending on these programs. The Bush administration reduced the growth of these appropriations to 9.2% in 2002 and then to 2.7% in 2003 and 2004. As a result, such appropriations fell from 3.5% of GDP in the first Bush budget to 3.3% in 2004 (including all supplemental appropriations.) The president’s latest budget proposes to keep the 2004 dollar amount unchanged in 2005, implying a decline to less than 3.2% of GDP. Despite these tight controls on appropriations, the earlier appropriations caused actual outlays to rise 12.3% in 2002 and kept their growth at 5.8% in 2004. This long-term effect of past appropriations shows that bringing spending under control requires the passage of time as well as tough budget choices.

I’m afraid I don’t know what this means. Does he mean that the Republican Congress under Clinton increased proposed spending so much that it took a few years for the government to actually spend the money? And that therefore the Bush administration doesn’t deserve the blame for the money it actually spent? Is that a good analysis or the weakest excuse you ever heard? And that 16 percent figure is a new one to me. Should it be 15 percent? Nevertheless, Feldstein ignores the new Medicare entitlement, and warns that “tight spending controls” are needed now, as well as “reforms” of Social Security and Medicare. But the reform of Social Security will cost a huge amount; and the latest Medicare “reform” will cost trillions. I was hoping to be reassured by this piece. Alas, I’m mainly puzzled.

EMAIL OF THE DAY: “I really enjoyed listening to you on Boston’s NPR tonight. After listening to the Christian Coalition spokesman tonight, I write in what I suppose is a defense of Evangelicals — we’re not all like that. I’m 20 years old, a senior at a large (liberal) public university, straight, female, an evangelical christian, a conservative, and a vehement supporter of civil gay marriage. I’ve been involved in theatre and the arts for most of my life, and have known and loved a number of gays, and seen the war waged on them by the religious right, which is what brings me to this fight anyway…
I was once walking across campus and found myself trying to navigate between a group of LGBT folks and the Fred Phelps psychos, and I thought “If I have to pick sides here, whose side do I stand on?” and it was without question with the LGBT folks. I’m willing to cede gay marriage because it’s practical, and because I dream of the day that gay people don’t automatically assume that Christians are out to get them. What Jesus has to offer is for everyone, not just heteros, and in any case, he never sought to change the laws of his culture, he set out to change people. And he hung out with the beautiful people that made the Pharisees uncomfortable. I still have issues with gay marriage in the church (if I thought I could rationalize it with the Bible, I’d support it in a heartbeat, but as much as it kills me, I can’t) but as far as I’m concerned, if you want to marry the man you love at the courthouse (or wherever, really), that’s fine by me. The amazing thing is that most of my conservative Christian friends agree with me on civil marriage for various reasons. We’re not all the Christian Coalition.” – more feedback on the Letters Page.

A reader writes:

“I can see where Jonah is coming from, jumping your case about posting an impressively detailed letter speculating about Republican involvement; and I am amused by Lucianne’s reply; and if you hear from Rube, I suppose that ends the matter.

As for Lucianne and the VRWC, could this be an opening shot of the TRWC (tiny right wing conspiracy)? It all seems like such a hall of mirrors at this point, and once through, who the hell cares? To throw a final mirror into play, what if it originates from the Kerry camp itself – i.e. self-false-smearing, to further the image of strength in the face of adversity. I’m waiting to see someone suggest that.

What useless twaddle.”

Rube, are you out there?

Goldberg, that is:

You can set your readers’ minds at ease. As the mother of the VRWC I can assure you we had absolutely nothing to do with the Kerry rumor. Time will tell where it came from.

Indeed.

I have absolutely no idea where this Kerry story came from. I posted the letter below because it strikes me as a slightly new angle on the story and worth airing. I wrote that the possibility that some Republicans might be behind it worries me. That’s not the same thing as believing it’s true. I think it should worry anyone who doesn’t want this campaign to degenerate into one side yelling “Deserter!” and the other side yelling “Adulterer!” (Can it get any worse? Gulp.) If I had to guess, I’d say it strikes me as far more likely that this is a Lehane internecine Democratic smear than some Republican plot. But I don’t know. Perhaps the best idea at this point is for me (and others) to shut up. So I will. Unless and until there’s a real story with real facts that has actual merit. Promise.