Winds of Change.NET: The Art of the Knife

October 2, 2003

The Art of the Knife

by Armed Liberal at October 2, 2003 6:42 PM

This week, we get to sit back and watch several political knife fights; one in Washington, and one here in Los Angeles. One is, obviously, the issues around Novak's column outing Valerie Plame, and the other is the L.A. Times' Kaus-predicted hit piece on Arnold.

It happens that my nominal team, the Democrats, are behind both; but there's a long and equally despicable history of equally bloodthirsty work by the other side.

Here's the issue.

As many have noted, politics has become a team sport; what we - as 'consumers' - get is message after message in which each side probes, searching for a weakness, some vulnerability, some message that will get traction in the media and with the public, and when it finds it, tries to get the knife in.

That's politics. It's supposed to be partisan, and my own (and others') protestations that it ought to be better aside, it probably hasn't been for a long time.

But...

[UPDATE: Susan Estrich, a professor of law and politics at USC, has an op-ed (buried below the fold) in today's L.A. Times (intrusive registration etc., use 'laexaminer'/'laexaminer') that makes my point far more eloquently than I did:

What this story accomplishes is less an attack on Schwarzenegger than a smear on the press. It reaffirms everything that's wrong with the political process. Anonymous charges from years ago made in the closing days of a campaign undermine fair politics.
Facing these charges, a candidate has two choices. If he denies them, the story keeps building and overshadows everything else he does. Schwarzenegger's bold apology is a gamble to make the story go away. It may or may not work.

But here's my prediction, as a Californian: It's too late for the Los Angeles Times' charges to have much impact. People have made up their minds. This attack, coming as late as it does, from a newspaper that has been acting more like a cheerleader for Gray Davis than an objective source of information, will be dismissed by most people as more Davis-like dirty politics. Is this the worst they could come up with? Ho-hum. After what we've been through?

Read the whole thing. Back to the article...]

There's a significant cost to doing politics this way. At some point, it becomes harder and harder to find any vegetables or fresh meat on the counter with all the junk food.

And, as people's reactions to Tom McClintock (the conservative but knowledgeable candidate for CA governor who many felt made the most impressive showing in the debate) show, there's a hunger for substance that just isn't being met. many of the knowledgeable people I know say that McClintock is running above the levels his core ideology (faaar right) ought to support, because in large part he's seen as the substantive candidate.

Right now, it's my feeling that both the White House and the media - at least in the form of the L.A. Times - stand to lose more than they gain from their obvious partisan stances here.

For the Times, it's an easy call. Arnold has doubtless been a letch on his movie sets and off for most of his career; that's a legitimate issue to use in weighing his character. But Gray Davis has also got a personal history; one of verbally physically abusing staff and those who deal with him who get on the wrong side of his control-freak's temper. Sadly, I can't find the original article online any more, but it's quoted in this Opinion Journal piece:

A 1997 profile by the liberal columnist Jill Stewart of the weekly New Times Los Angeles recounted several instances of Mr. Davis "hurling phones and ashtrays at quaking government employees." She concluded that "his incidents of personally shoving and shaking horrified workers" marked him as "a man who cannot be trusted with power."

A good paper of record - one that took it's responsibilities seriously - would have laid out both issues, talked about what each means in the context of governance, and trusted us - the public - to use that information to make up our minds.

But we're talking about the L.A. Times. And in taking this kind of blatantly partisan stance, it continues to weaken it's role as a reliable source for information.

For the White House, it ought to be easy as well. Bush's core political strength is our belief in his commitment to a strong defense. His personal strength is based on his ability to present himself as candid, even blunt.

Here's a case where he'd have been well served - he'd still be well served - to get in front of the issue, mount a convincing internal investigation, and share the results with the public. It wouldn't be hard; everything in the White House is logged.

Now I don't know - and few people do - if what was done was a crime or simply sleazy. A lot depends on Plame's exact status, and as of today, I haven't seen a clear report on it. Even if it was just sleaze, it's sleaze in the one area where Bush can't afford to look like he's partisan at the expense of commanding, and in an area where his appearance of partisan hackery rather than aggressive leadership in fact weakens us all by weakening the Office of the Presidency.

Printer-friendly Version

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.windsofchange.net/windsopcentre-cms/trackback.cgi/1854

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference
"The Art of the Knife"

Comments

#1 from J S Allison at 7:51 pm on Oct 02, 2003

So lemme get this straight, Arnold is being accused of . . . inappropriate sexual advances? I can see where that might pose a problem, guess he should have registered as a Democrat, huh?

#2 from Chuck at 8:16 pm on Oct 02, 2003

The various terms that Novak has used to describe his contacts could apply to many at the White House, but also at State, Defense, or my personal favorite, the CIA. That makes it tougher to push Bush out in front on this. Let's find out who the leakers were, then watch his reaction.

And, various pundits have alledged that Valerie Plame was known, in cocktail circles, to work at the CIA. That, coupled with the CIA actually acknowledging her employment to Novak, and Marshall, I believe, suggests the start of a none issue. The fact that Wilson names her in at least three on-line bios also lends itself to the "no secret" theory.

The CounterRevolutionary has suggested a job title that makes her covert, but not necessarily as defined by law, Collections Management Officer (�CMO� or a �reports officer� in the old parlance). This is a very interesting suggestion and would explain a great deal of the current confusion.

Wilson, if he knows what's good for him and his point of view, should shut his mouth. Every day we seem to see another instance where he "mispoke". He's not helping the cause.

#3 from Annoying Old Guy at 8:31 pm on Oct 02, 2003

I suspect that one reason President Bush isn't getting out front is because his winning strategy to date has been to let the other guy climb out on a limb until it snaps off. Whether or not that's a good strategy in this particular case is a different issue. But it's really hard to do something different when the same old thing has been successful for so long.

#4 from Clarence at 9:11 pm on Oct 02, 2003

Why would you believe an unsourced story???

#5 from Clarence at 9:12 pm on Oct 02, 2003

Why would you believe an unsourced story???

#6 from Clarence at 9:12 pm on Oct 02, 2003

Why would you believe an unsourced story???

#7 from Robin Roberts at 9:44 pm on Oct 02, 2003

The LA Times still prints Robert Scheer ... so I don't believe anything printed on their cat box liner.

#8 from Gabriel Gonzalez at 10:55 pm on Oct 02, 2003

AL -

Extremely well put on both scores. This latest descent by the LA Times into naked yellow journalism has undermined any remaining confidence I had in the paper's integrity or reliability. A good paper of record would have published this obvious no-brainer cheap shot a month ago, or not at all. You've already said what a good president would do. Unfortunately, that's not happening.

#9 from Gabriel Gonzalez at 10:58 pm on Oct 02, 2003

Wilson is neither helping nor hurting the cause - indeed he's irrelevant to it. He's just the sideshow that the (hard core) right can entertain itself with to change the subject.

#10 from nick foresta at 5:11 pm on Oct 03, 2003

Chuck,

One would assume the CIA knows which of it's employees is covered by the law on disclosure which one's are not. They referred this to the Justice Department as a criminal referral which means the law applies in her case. Whether or not she was known on beltway cocktail curcuit as a CIA employee isn't the point. The CIA obviously felt this was worthy of a criminal investigation. Can you honestly say your response, summed up as "a none issue", would be the same if we were talking about a leak like this from the previous administration?

Nick Foresta

#11 from Kevin at 7:48 pm on Oct 03, 2003

The Wilson-Plame affair baffles me. We're going to suffer weeks and weeks of headlines and breathless punditry about this, because it's good for energizing both sides' base, when it could all be resolved in a day if either the press or the President were serious.

Some enterprising reporter -- perhaps Novak -- could survey the likely suspects until finding several of the other reporters who were leaked to, and after a conversation they could ALL run articles about how they've talked to (unspecified) other reporters, who say their source was X, allowing each of them deniability over who actually outed a source.

The President, if he were serious, would begin his next press opportunity with "Earlier today I personally called Robert Novak to ask who told him that Valerie Plame was CIA, and he said ...". Even if Novak wouldn't tell him, it shows the President is serious.

#12 from nick foresta at 8:20 pm on Oct 03, 2003

To Kevin,

That advice might work if the goal is to learn who leaked the story. Unfortunately, for reporters, the goal is the exact opposite. The last thing they want is for the source of this to come out publicly. First rule of journalism. Protect the source...

The other comment about Bush calling Novak would rightfully be seen as the political theatrics it is.
The President would be better served by finding out himself who is responsible for the leak and kicking their unpatriotic ass out of government. That's unless....

Nick Foresta

#13 from Karen at 9:42 pm on Oct 03, 2003

Can someone please tell me the difference between the Plame situation and the Congressional leaks of classified information a couple of years ago? Bush was enraged and threatened to stop all briefings, except to Congressional leaders. He back down the next day. Granted, no names were named, but it can't be that hard for our adversaries to connect stories with sources. Now to see this outrage as if Washington does not habitually leak like a sieve is hysterical. In addition, does the CIA habitually confirm employment of its undercover or covert employees? If a law was broken, I want to see that person punished. However, it seems to me this is a case of selective outrage.

#14 from Tomanbeg at 3:36 am on Oct 04, 2003

Both issues just show how desperate the Demorats are getting. Their leading presidential canidate isn't even a member of the party. Last election 2 of their canidates were dead (which didn't hurt them in the debates). Are we watching the End of a political party? I think so. I expect the Donks to be down to under 40 Senators and 100 Congressmen by Janurary 22, 2005. Another casualty of the WTC attack. I am going to predict that the Libertians get most of the center Demos and a Green Party gets the wackos on the left. That will be a shame. Remember the Wigs and mugawumps? It has happened before and it will happen again. I'm just very interested in watching it happen now.
T.

#15 from Sandy P. at 7:04 am on Oct 04, 2003

FBI's starting to talk to reporters.

#16 from nick foresta at 4:21 pm on Oct 04, 2003

To Tomanbeg,

Wishing won't make it so. Keep in mind a few facts that are indisputable.

1). The right has been predicting the end of the democratic party since Reagan left office. Most acutely, right after Newt's contract with america.
Two years after that, Clinton was elected for his second term.

2). Al Gore recieved more votes than Bush in the 2000 election. Hardly the sign of a party about to be jettisoned to the margins.

The truth is we live in a country that is a giant bell curve. Each side has it's loony fringes but the great majority of voters occupy the middle. Some lean right and some lean left depending on which way the winds are blowing but to be elected president, you need to play to the middle. Don't you remember Bush's rhetoric during the last election? "uniter, not a divider". "Change the tone in Washington". "I want to be the education President". "We can protect the surplus and still have tax cuts and a perscription drug benefit added to medicare". "The United States needs to be humble before the world". "Compassionate conservative". All of these were aimed at making Mr. Bush palatable to the great middle. Bush will make his move early next year to get back to the middle or he will lose in '04. That's simply the way it is. Whether he can defend his record, especially when contrasted against his promises from the last election is another question but he will most certainly have to try.

Democrats have their own issues to deal with but to assume the party is fading away is premature.
Someone must rise within the crowded field of candidates to take the reigns of the party and lead it but that will happen and it will probably be a very close election.

About the house and senate, we will see whether or not those contests break along a national theme or
remain mostly localized. I think it's impossible to predict what will happen with those elections at this point in the cycle. We'll have to wait and see....

Nick Foresta