 |
|
|
|
|
|
| | | | |
|
|
|
08.31.04
TEAM MENTALITY:
During last month's Democratic convention, it was hard to find any of the party's Senate candidates in Boston. Many of them avoided the convention altogether, fearing the effect of the Kerry-Democrat image back in their conservative states. Republicans don't seem burdened by the same concern. Today the National Republican Senatorial Committee held a press briefing here in New York, attended by six of its candidates: Johnny Isakson of Georgia, Pete Coors of Colorado, John Thune of South Dakota, Jim DeMint of South Carolina, Bill Jones of California, and George Nethercutt of Washington. NRSC Chairman George Allen was bullish about his party's chances this November, particularly in light of a new poll (by the right-leaning Public Opinion Strategies) that shows Thune with a 50-48 lead over Tom Daschle among likely South Dakota voters. (The Daschle campaign, meanwhile, has released a new poll--by the left-leaning Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research--which shows Daschle with a 53-46 lead.) Allen was also happy to learn, via a reporter's question, that Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter, who recently survived a savage primary, has been endorsed by that state's AFL-CIO--a harsh blow to his Democratic opponent, Joe Hoeffel.
Parties always spin their own candidates' chances, of course, so one has to take Allen's boosterism with a grain of salt. But surely if you're a Senate candidate, it's a lot easier if you can attend your party's convention and embrace your nominee than if you need to hide out at home, like so many Democrats did last month. There was one notable person missing from the NRSC's event, however: Alan Keyes who, despite being in New York this week, was nowhere to be seen. The only trace of Keyes, in fact, was a "Keyes for Senate" sign hung among those for several other candidates behind the podium. But the Keyes sign had been positioned on the wall at roughly waist level, so that when the NRSC's lineup was at the podium, it was obscured almost completely. Not that Republicans find him embarrassing or anything.
--Michael Crowley
|
LEADING MAN:
Speaking of Grover Norquist, the "conservative echo chamber award for best leading question of the day" has to go to him. The scene was a lavish lunch thrown by CNBC earlier today at Le Cirque, a famously swank midtown restaurant. Stephen Friedman, Bush's top economic adviser, was holding forth and fielding questions from the press when Norquist raised his hand and was passed a microphone. Reporters were clearly not asking the right questions. Norquist wondered if Friedman could explain to the assembled press corps the difference between the Labor Department's payroll numbers, an employment survey of large American businesses, and its household numbers, a survey of workers. Friedman said that "most economists think that the payroll numbers are more reliable" but then went on to make a case for the value of the household numbers. Why would Grover ask such a seemingly technical question? Well, the morning after Bush's Thursday speech, the latest payroll numbers, which are not expected to provide happy news for the president, will be released. Expect to hear a lot from Republicans about the household data, which has been much less pessimistic.
--Ryan Lizza
|
FOREIGN TERRITORY:
Last night's performances by McCain and Giuliani spurred lots of discussion today about both men's prospects to win their party's nomination in 2008. Most of the coverage about the problems they would face in a Republican primary has centered on the fact that their views on taxes (McCain) and social issues (Giuliani) are anathema to conservatives. But actually, the issue that could sink both men is the war in Iraq.
I am amazed by how much open hostility is expressed by grassroots conservatives here in New York about the war. Last night, I was at the New York Yacht Club sipping mojitos and nibbling seared tuna at a party thrown by liberal bogeyman Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform. In the heart of the right-wing conspiracy, I couldn't find a defender of the war. Granted, Norquist's instincts since the end of the Cold War are fairly isolationist, so his gathering attracted many similarly minded Republicans. But it's still surprising to hear how unpopular the war has become among some on the right. One guest assured me that anti-war sentiment among conservatives is "like a virus that is rapidly spreading."
As many have noted recently, if Bush loses, the war will be blamed and the party will feud and fracture over the issue. That's one reason a Bush victory is so important for McCain and Giuliani. To offset their heresies on several conservative issues, McCain and Giuliani have defined themselves as defenders of Bush's record on the war. Right now, the premise of their '08 campaigns is support for Bush's approach to foreign policy. But if he loses, not only will they be unacceptable to conservatives on domestic policy, but on foreign policy as well.
--Ryan Lizza
|
FOOL ME ONCE:
I had coffee with a small group of reporters and a senior member of the House Republican leadership yesterday afternoon. There's been a lot of talk lately about how on Thursday Bush will unveil the details of his domestic agenda under the rubric of the "ownership society," a phrase that is likely to be the 2004 equivalent of "compassionate conservatism." In 2000 many reporters missed the story of how conservatively Bush would govern because they were seduced by the fancy packaging of compassionate conservatism, a slogan intended to signify the party's break with mid-90s Gingrich conservatism. Lots of reporters over-emphasized some of the seemingly progressive aspects of Bush's agenda and failed to explain just how conservative he was on taxes, regulation, social policy, and the judiciary.
Rather than using Bush's speech--which will surely contain some policy nuggets aimed at moderates--as a guide to what Washington will actually focus on should Bush win, it is far more instructive to hear what the House Republican leadership believes will be the most important aspects of Bush's ownership society. According to the Congressman at the coffee klatch, the House will have two major priorities next year if Bush is re-elected: tax reform and Social Security privatization. This Congressman said that both issues will be a centerpiece of Bush's speech Thursday and that the president will campaign hard on them, believing that victory will create a mandate for sweeping change on both issues. But if history is any lesson there will also be lots of filler included in the speech to soften the ideological impact of the two proposals. The media should keep their eye on the ball. Bush is not expected to lay out details on either Social Security or taxes, so the questions worth asking about the ownership society are not so much the navel-gazing ones that were emphasized in the coverage of compassionate conservatism, but rather the hard ones about things like massive transition costs, the possibility of raising the retirement age, progressivity in the tax code, etc.
House Republicans know what parts of Bush's agenda to take seriously, and so should the press.
--Ryan Lizza
|
NO SHAME:
Despite the convention's profusion of lobbyists and corporate-sponsored parties, the award for most shameless suck-up isn't even close. Walking through Times Square this morning, the enormous blue glowing electronic nasdaq billboard scrolled the same message over and over: "nasdaq welcomes United States Congressman Richard Baker (R-La)." Baker, of course, chairs the committee that regulates the financial services industry. Congratulations, nasdaq. You're not just tech-heavy; you have the brownest nose in town.
--Franklin Foer
|
STRATEGY SESSION:
At this morning's Christian Science Monitor breakfast, Bush-Cheney '04 campaign manager Ken Mehlman and senior strategist Matt Dowd gave their take on the state of the race. Their read of the numbers, of course, was that everything was breaking Bush's way. Dowd argued that historically, challengers tend to be strongest coming out of their conventions; their position tends to erode as Election Day nears. Dowd says this was the pattern with Carter, Reagan, and Clinton, and that there is little reason to think Kerry will be the exception. Given that Kerry has at most a two point lead according to most polls, this spells trouble for the senator.
Dowd and Mehlman also seemed confident about their prospects in a number of battleground states. They noted that while traditionally-Republican states Nevada, Arizona, and Colorado are in play this election because of demographic shifts, the race is tight in Democratic stalwarts Minnesota and Wisconsin. In addition, the operatives noted that the Kerry campaign seems to have abandoned Arkansas and Tennessee, two states in which the Democrats have been competitive in the past several campaigns. The strategists also cast doubt on whether Kerry would continue to battle them in West Virginia, where they claim "Bush is doing very well." What's more, they were optimistic that Pennsylvania might end up in the Bush camp. "It's now trending to the national number, whereas last time it was five points below the national number," Dowd said. He later added: "Kerry's people have to thread the needle because we are playing in more of their states than they are in our states."
Perhaps predictably, the Bush campaign operatives denied that the Swift Boat ads were the source of Kerry's fall in the polls, arguing instead that Kerry's slide had begun much earlier, right after the Democratic Convention. The reason, according to Dowd and Mehlman, is that Kerry failed to set out an agenda in his convention speech, instead focusing on the one aspect of his biography--his military service in Vietnam--with which most voters were already familiar. They also drew an interesting contrast to the 1992 race, claiming that Bush 43's numbers were far worse at this point in his race, and that Clinton was succeeding in converting anti-Bush sentiment into a pro-Clinton groundswell. But Kerry, they said, has failed to convert anti-Dubya feelings into strong pro-Kerry support.
Still, the strategists predicted a very tight race that would be decided by a margin of three to four points. And, perhaps as a way of lowering expectations for a Bush convention bounce, they foresaw little change in the poll numbers between now and the election, barring what Dowd called "an unforeseen external non-political event." (Dowd later said this could range from new economic data to a terrorist attack.)
--Jeremy Kahn
|
FLIP-FLOPPER:
Giuliani boosters--yes, they already exist--are crowing over the ways in which last night's speech laid the groundwork for a 2008 bid. Most importantly, they point to a line that he inserted in the middle of his attack on Kerry: "Yes, people in public office at times do change their minds--I've done that--or they realize they are wrong or circumstances change." The theory goes, he will be invoking this line plenty in the next couple of years to justify his "reconsideration" of various domestic issues. Most importantly, he'll need to change his position on guns. "Come on, if he weren't the mayor of New York, he'd never have this position," says one booster. It is also possible to imagine Giuliani describing himself as experiencing a spiritual rebirth, a return to his days as an aspiring prelate--a narrative that would allow him to move into the pro-life camp. But gay marriage is another story. Given his experiences with Judith Nathan and Donna Hanover, it's nearly impossible to imagine him defending the sanctity of the institution of marriage. And in a way, gay marriage will help him accurately describe himself as experiencing a resurgence of faith: He's praying that the issue will disappear before 2008.
--Franklin Foer
|
BORDER PATROL:
You would think that as a member of Congress, Colorado Representative Tom Tancredo would enjoy special privileges at this convention. And, for the most part, you'd be right: Tancredo has invitations to lots of parties; he has access to the convention floor. But, in one very important respect, Tancredo is just like the rest of us: He's totally in the dark as to who served on the Republican platform committee. And there's no privilege Tancredo would like more than that one.
Tancredo, the chairman of Congress's Immigration Reform Caucus, is the Republican Party's most outspoken proponent of toughening America's immigration laws. He favors using the military to patrol the border with Mexico, arresting and deporting all illegal aliens currently in the United States, and curbing legal immigration as well. These views have not always sat well with some members of his party. Not long after September 11, Tancredo told the editorial board of The Washington Times that if foreign terrorists attacked the United States again and no action had been taken to crack down on immigration at that time, then "blood would be on our hands and on the hands of the president." That prompted a call from Karl Rove, who, Tancredo recalls, told the congressman he was "a traitor to the party, a traitor to the president," and warned him not to "ever darken the doorstep of the White House." (Tancredo's reply? "I said, 'Well, I don't remember the welcome mat ever being out for me, number one, and number two, it's not your house,' but by that time you have to understand we were yelling.")
Not surprisingly, Tancredo had hoped that this year's Republican platform would include some of his immigration reform proposals. And when the platform committee met last week to craft the document--to be ratified by delegates at the convention--Tancredo put forth three immigration-related amendments: one calling on states to refuse to grant drivers' licenses to illegal immigrants; the second opposing amnesty for illegal aliens already in the United States; and the third opposing an agreement with Mexico granting Mexicans in the United States, including those here illegally, access to the U.S. Social Security system. Just as quickly as Tancredo proposed them, the platform committee voted down all three amendments.
This essentially spelled the end to Tancredo's hopes of having a strong immigration reform plank in the GOP platform, but he did have one last hope: a floor fight at the convention. There are two ways to bring a matter to the floor: One is to convince six state delegations to support the motion for a floor debate--a virtual impossibility, Tancredo realized; the other is to get 19 members of the platform committee to support bringing a matter to the floor. This latter route seemed doable to Tancredo, save for one problem: The congressman couldn't find out who, exactly, was on the platform committee. Running the platform process with all the discipline and secrecy that's come to be expected from the Bush White House, the RNC, citing security concerns, refused to divulge the identities of the handpicked delegates who served on the platform committee--even, in some cases, to other members of the platform committee.
So, to try to find 19 platform committee members to support his amendments, Tancredo had to get creative: He went on seven talk-radio shows late last week to plead with listeners to call him if they knew the identities of any members of the platform committee. By the time he arrived in New York on Sunday night, Tancredo had the names of four committee members. Of course, as Tancredo conceded to me in an interview last week, "I think we know who four of them are, but I can't even tell you if they're on our side." But before Tancredo could identify any other members of the platform committee to lobby to support a motion for a floor debate on his immigration amendment, the matter was made moot on Monday morning when the convention delegates ratified the GOP platform.
About a half hour after the platform was officially adopted, Tancredo held a downbeat press conference in the basement of a Kosher restaurant on Broadway, a few blocks away from Madison Square Garden. "I'm here today somewhat reluctantly," he told about a dozen reporters, including two from the Spanish-language networks Telemundo and Univision, "and I say that because I recognize fully well that holding a press conference during a Republican Convention to complain about some part of the platform that you don't like is probably not something that's going to endear me to my colleagues in the party or on the Hill." What he said next almost certainly didn't.
Although Tancredo insisted he was supporting President Bush, he denounced the president's immigration reform plan as an amnesty proposal in disguise. "In that plan he allowed for people who are here illegally to gain legal status," Tancredo said. "Now that, in the language I speak, is amnesty. The president went on to say in that particular speech that he is opposed to amnesty. Nonetheless he proposed it. ... It's Clintonesque, which is probably the worst epithet I can think of to describe it." Tancredo added that there are two major obstacles to immigration reform: "One, it's the Democratic Party that sees massive immigration, both legal and illegal, as a source of voters. And two, it's the Republican Party that sees massive immigration, both legal and illegal, as a source of cheap labor."
Still, despite such blustery rhetoric during the press conference, in an interview before he took to the podium, Tancredo was anything but defiant. "Somebody just told me that if I could get the Republican National Committee to do it, we could get an amendment to the platform that way," he said. "Yeah, and if I can stop the hurricane from coming here tonight, I'd probably have the same power to get the RNC to do something about [amending the platform]." So, I asked him, with the immigration fight over, what did he plan to do for the rest of the week? "Party and go home," Tancredo said. "And I'm going to go home early. I don't think we'll stay for the whole thing."
--Jason Zengerle
|
STATE OF SURPRISE:
Last night I wound up watching the convention with an unlikely bunch: a group of Deep South Republican delegates, including a semi-prominent member of Congress and a close buddy of a devout Senate right-winger. I won't identify these people because it was a casual setting (a hotel bar), they seemed to assume they were off the record, and, more important, I actually found them pretty likeable and don't want to get them in trouble. What struck me was how liberal a group this was, given their state of origin. The biggest personality of the bunch was a gregarious 60-ish trial lawyer whom we'll call Walter. Though he spoke with a thick drawl, and revealed that he'd just come from dinner with his extremely conservative GOP senator friend, Walter described himself as a Rockefeller Republican who has become appalled by the religious right's influence within the party. He also called the invasion of Iraq "the dumbest thing we ever could have done." But while he clearly agrees with John Kerry on most issues, Walter seems to find Kerry an untrustable panderer. A veteran himself, Walter fixated on the fact that Kerry brought a video camera to Vietnam and resents Kerry's emphasis on his war record. And he argued that George W. Bush's evasion of the draft and heavy-drinking habits were a testament to the fact that, unlike Kerry, Bush "hasn't been running for president since he was 21." Walter was a John McCain supporter in 2000--although his wife walked out of the room when McCain started speaking (a state party official, she loathes him for championing campaign finance reform, which has eviscerated the party apparatus)--and McCain's speech brought him to his feet. McCain helped Walter feel that it was okay to be enthusiastic about the convention--a fine reminder of the Arizona Senator's emotional power.
Walter wasn't the only one who coupled lukewarm support for Bush with real animus toward Kerry. When I pressed another member of the group, a gung-ho party man married to a congresswoman, he admitted that he thought Bush had bungled the invasion and occupation of Iraq. But he, too, seemed more interested in bashing Kerry than defending Bush. Picking up on Rudy Giuliani's devastating ridicule of Kerry as a flip-flopper, this guy said he simply doesn't trust Kerry to manage the war on terrorism; he worries that when push comes to shove, Kerry would take the politically easy path. I don't agree with his assessment, but he was sharper and better-informed than I'd expected. (This sort of thing led to much talk about the wonders of honest bipartisan dialogue.)
Finally, after the night's speeches someone raised the question of which Republican would be the heir apparent to the GOP nomination in 2008. The fast consensus was McCain and Giuliani. But, someone insisted, "McCain would never get the nomination. There's too much resentment towards him in the party." What about Giuliani? "It would be tough," because of his liberal social positions. "But he might be able to make up for it. That was a pretty incredible speech."
|
08.30.04
BOOK CLUBBED:
American Compass is a conservative book club that sells a raft of tomes from such noted Fox News authors as Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, and other right wing scribes--five books for $1. (That's probably what most of them are truly worth, if judged by objective literary standards.) This afternoon, American Compass compiled an all star panel of its authors, including turncoat Senator Zell Miller, editorialist John Podhoretz, former Congressman Bob Barr, former Bush speechwriter David Frum, and the talk show host Hugh Hewitt.
These should be fat times for conservative authors. For the first time, they don't have to rely on the estimable Regnery Publishing to get their way into print. All the big publishing houses now trip over each other to land conservative talk radio hosts and the next work of Bush hagiography. Many of these houses have even created their own right wing imprints. So, with all this success, why aren't conservative gloating?
(An aside: I have considerable nostalgia for the day's of Regnery's monopoly on conservative publishing. The house had a genuine interest in printing important works of political thought, ranging from Buckley's God and Man at Yale to Chamber's Witness. Most mainstream New York publishers doesn't have such a strong interest in sending sophisticated arguments to market. They aren't working out of ideological commitment. (They mostly want another Ann Coulter who will make them stinkin' rich.)
For all conservatism's mainstream success, panel members made clear that they haven't done away with their old world view. They're still kvetching about media bias. The panel's moderator Cal Thomas intoned, "The gatekeepers of publishing are keeping out ideas with which they don't agree." L. Brent Bozell III griped that David Brock couldn't get on TV when he was a conservative. But after Brock switched sides and became a man of the left, he suddenly dogged Bozell's channel surfing. (It is strange that this complaint should come from Bozell, who admitted that Crown, a division of Random House, publishes his books.)
Because the panel included smart men, they needed to justify their production of schlock that makes no effort to appeal to anyone outside the conservative choir. And they went to great, sometimes absurd, lengths to explain themselves. Podhoretz suggested, "A lot of conservatives feel alone, [they feel] that the culture belittles what they believe. ... Our books make people feel like they're not alone." Tonight, I'm curling up with Bill O'Reilly's Who's Looking Out for You?, hoping to find a companion that will help me get through the night.
But the biggest anxiety that they expressed is the fact that the angry left seems to have bumped them from the top of the sales charts. (For a group of people who spend all their time bashing The New York Times, they sure seem to pay a lot of attention to its bestseller list.)
John Podhoretz summed up the befuddlement of the panel best. When he described the response to his own hagiographic treatment of the president, Bush Country, he noted, "I was startled that I got relatively friendly reception the places where [the book] was considered. It's very hard to put that together with the attendant rage that has greeted the president." When such a circle becomes hard to square, maybe it's time to change the old world view. Maybe the elites aren't so arrayed against conservatives. And maybe the gatekeepers have welcomed them with wide open arms.
--Franklin Foer
|
SPY GAMES:
How are the Jews attending the Republican convention reacting to allegations that a mid-level Pentagon employee spied for the Israeli government? The first response, not surprisingly, is indignation. At yesterday's AIPAC/Republican Jewish Coalition/United Jewish Communities event at the Chelsea Pier--the one with the likes of Michael Bloomberg and Rudy Giuliani on the dais--AIPAC president Bernice Manocherian angrily dismissed the allegations as "baseless" and vowed that they wouldn't distract AIPAC from its mission. (One charge is that AIPAC acted as the go-between for Pentagon officials passing information to the Israeli government.) Others in AIPAC have denounced the allegations as a cynical effort to drive a wedge between Americans and Israelis, and vowed not to let that happen. By way of explanation, they add that the information in question could have been obtained by Israeli officials from any number of aboveboard White House contacts.
The second response is a combination of media criticism and conspiracy-theorizing (which I say with the proviso that not all conspiracy theories are necessarily wrong). David Frum made the most explicit form of the argument at an American Jewish Committee panel this morning: The CBS story breaking the news led with allegations of espionage, but as you read further, you realized the entire story hung on a source that wasn't even a current government official. (It took CBS about 24 hours to achieve in Jewish-Republican and pro-Israel circles what it took Fox years to achieve in liberal democratic circles.) Frum also argued that the FBI investigation of Larry Franklin, the accused Pentagon employee, had been ongoing for months and months and was on the verge of fizzling out when news of the investigation leaked. The timing, according to this view, suggests that the people driving the investigation leaked word of it as a final act of desperation, and that they were hoping to create problems for the Bush administration on the eve of the Republican National Convention.
The most affecting response is the final one: despair. The Republican (and Jewish) pollster Frank Luntz also spoke at this morning's AJC event. Toward the end of his presentation, Luntz insisted that Americans' support for Israel is weaker than it's been at any point since 1973: 40 percent of Americans have a favorable image of Israel, 15 percent unfavorable, and 45 percent have no opinion, which, according to Luntz, means they're anti-Israel but are too polite to express it. "The American people believe the American Jewish community has too much power, too much influence, too much money," Luntz concluded. The potential resonance of the spy story, in Luntz's opinion, is the practical consequence of this belief.
This was all a little jarring to me. Certainly the country Luntz describes isn't the one I've been living in. But when it came time for the Q&A;, at least half the questioners pretty much parroted Luntz's point right back to him. I hate to trivialize the concerns of Jews who belong to organizations like AIPAC. But you got the sense that, before Larry Franklin, a lot of them only half-believed relations between the United States and Israel were as fragile as they'd been conditioned to say they were. (How could twelve years of good relations between the United States and Israel not lull you into complacence?) Now that a spy scandal threatens to set those relations back, many of these people seem genuinely stunned that their own apocalyptic rhetoric may actually be true.
--Noam Scheiber
|
PARALLEL UNIVERSE:
"We really miss your spontaneity"--an adoring fan to Ari Fleischer as he's mobbed today by Republican delegates at The New Yorker Hotel.
--Jason Zengerle
|
OBJECTIVE BENEFIT:
Maybe it's the fact that it's being held in Madison Square Garden, but it's hard for me not to think of the Republican National Convention as a giant, week-long sporting event. And if you'll allow me to take that conceit just one step further, at this convention, the conservative Fox News Channel is definitely the network of the home team. From the giant Fox News billboard in front of the Garden itself to the convention delegates in the hotel elevator giddily exchanging tales of Brit Hume and Sean Hannity sightings, the Republican Convention belongs to Fox almost as much as it belongs to President Bush. The liberal protestors swarming Manhattan yesterday certainly seemed to think so, chanting "Fox News sucks!" and "Fox News lies!" in between their anti-Bush, anti-GOP bromides.
So, given this media dynamic, where does that leave Fox News's main rival, CNN? I posed that question to a handful of CNN'ers this morning at a media breakfast the network hosted at a diner across the street from the Garden. Of course, the very fact that CNN has rented out the restaurant for the week--temporarily changing its name from the Tick Tock Diner to the CNN Diner and completely refurbishing it, from the booths to the neon lights to the people doing the actual cooking--is one sign that CNN is trying not to cede too much ground to Fox here. ("I hear Fox has got a sandwich cart around the corner," one CNN'er quipped.) That CNN's corporate parent, Time Warner, hosted the giant media party at its new headquarters on Saturday night helped deliver that message as well.
But, aside from wining and dining the media, CNN seems to be hoping that its attempts to play the news straighter than Fox will pay off at the convention. "I don't want to be the away team, I want to be the referee," a CNN news exec explained. This objectivity, another CNN news executive boasted, was why the RNC has, in his view, bent over backwards to accommodate the network this week. (His evidence of the RNC's accommodating posture? Last night, when the lights briefly went off inside the Garden, it only took one phone call and about 20 seconds for CNN to get its lights turned back on.) According to this CNN exec's theory, the RNC realizes that his network is actually more valuable than Fox this week. "They don't need to reach the hard-core party loyalists who watch Fox," he explained. "They need to reach the swing voters and undecideds who are watching us."
Of course, those hard-core party loyalists don't always appreciate that objectivity. One CNN'er told me that on his way over to the diner, he was accosted by a stranger on the street. "The guy saw my CNN credential and asked me, 'What are you doing here?'"
--Jason Zengerle
|
SIGN OF THE TIMES:
After lunch with GOP chairman Ed Gillespie, I spent the day yesterday with the protesters--or the "supporters of John Kerry," as Ed called them. Two observations are worth passing on. One is that the dominant Bush puns among anti-Bush folks have dramatically shifted from the horticultural to the scatological. The uproot the Bush signs were rare, replaced with musings such as Somewhere between Bush and Dick we got screwed, the only Bush I trust is my own--a popular slogan on woman's t-shirts--and, simply, lick Bush. I think I know what explains the shift. In the last four years, opponents of the president have gone from believing he is an idiot to believing he is a threat to civilization. Calling him "shrub," which was popular in 2000, no longer does the trick. Now, most Bush-haters think he's a ... well you know.
The other thing I noticed was how much the mainstream protesters despise the anarchists, who seemed bent on getting themselves arrested. From my perch below the Fox News jumbotron at Seventh Avenue and 34th Street I watched as a group of black-clad kids wearing bandanas on their faces lit something on fire in front of Madison Square Garden. As smoke filled Seventh Avenue, they booked around the corner and down 34th Street. Halfway down the block, they stopped, huddled together, and waited for the cops to descend upon them. Some opened up umbrellas and one threw a small rubber ball at the approaching police. The cops seemed to realize they were out-numbered. At one point the small group of cops and the anarchists faced off in opposing columns in the middle of the street. The cops slowly backed away as the anarchists approached them. It sort of looked like a small-scale version of that scene from the first days of the Iraq war when American soldiers slowly retreated in the face of a crowd of Iraqis protecting a holy site in Najaf. But a few minutes later the cops closed off the protest route, forcing thousands of demonstrators to pause in front of the Garden, and flooded the block with a massive show of riot police, emergency vehicles, police motorcycles, vans, and horse-mounted cops. After some small scuffles, the cops nabbed a few of the people who they believed had either lit the fire or who had antagonized them in the subsequent face-off. Some protesters shouted typical anti-cop remarks like, "Horses shouldn't carry pigs!" But what was more remarkable was that many protesters condemned the idiot anarchists rather than the cops. One guy in jogging garb from a group called Run Against Bush started a chant of "Lock them up!" Another woman, spotting a female anarchist on the sidewalk, actually ran across the street and smacked her. "For what?" she yelled. It was a pretty good question.
--Ryan Lizza
|
CONTROL FREAKS:
It hasn't taken long to see what the media can expect this week from the control-freak Republicans managing their access. Take last night's "R: The Party" event hosted by the Bush twins at the Roseland ballroom. GOP officials had told reporters that they could attend the bash for 90 minutes, from 9:30 p.m. to 11 p.m. But when the media arrived, it turned out that several reporters who'd been told they could attend never made the list. Those who were on the list discovered that, far from "attending" the party in any real sense, they'd be escorted through in groups of about a dozen, for about five minutes at a time, to get "the flavor" of the party. (Yum.) Afterwards, everyone could look forward to being herded over to a "pen" around the block for "the arrival" of the twins. Clearly, all the GOP cared about was delivering a good photo-op for Barbara and Jenna--mission accomplished, judging from CNN footage I caught this morning--and had no interest in letting print reporters talk to anyone or witness anything that hadn't been choreographed back at RNC headquarters. In a bleak sign of what's in store this week, one desperate radio correspondent resorted to interviewing other reporters in the line around her. When a young operative announced the Bush girls might be as many as 45 minutes late to their photo-op, dignity required that I give up.
This morning I saw more of the same phenomenon. Strolling around the event-packed Sheraton Hotel, I passed a National Republican Congressional Committee reception. On a table outside was a pile of schedules of some kind. I picked one up, only to be accosted by a prototypical GOP operative--a blonde woman in a red power suit--who asked me, "Are you one of our donors?" No, I said. But is this some kind of secret? "Yes," she replied, and pulled the schedule from my hand. Were it not for this exchange, I wouldn't have been terribly interested in the schedule. But once I'd been told I couldn't have it, I naturally had to have it. I returned a few minutes later and, seeing our crack operative distracted, helped myself to a schedule.
My illicit prize was a list of events at which the high-dollar crowd will enjoy access to top Republicans in return for their largesse. Today, for instance, there will be a luncheon at the Beacon Restaurant with NRCC chairman Tom Reynolds and Newt Gingrich. Tomorrow, White House political affairs director Matt Schlapp will brief donors over breakfast at the Sheraton. Later there will be something called "Amigos de America" at the Copacabana, and a thrilling-sounding "Energex Systems New York Harbor Cruise." And every day, it appears, donors can drop by--take a deep breath, now!--the "21st Century Freedom PAC & Honorary Chairman Gov. George Pataki Hospitality Suite honoring NRCC Chairman Tom Reynolds," at the Leadership Cafe next to Madison Square Garden. This is all pretty standard stuff--hard to see what the fuss is about. But that's just how Republicans operate.
--Michael Crowley
|
JACK KEMP, SHABBOS GOY:
My assignment this week is to chronicle the Bush campaign's efforts to win over Jewish voters, so I spent most of yesterday at one Jewish-themed event or another. Even from that limited sampling I can state that Rudy Giuliani is the Republican most beloved by the Jewish convention-goers. At an afternoon event at Chelsea Pier, he anchored a lineup that included Michael Bloomberg, Bush campaign manager Ken Mehlman (not widely known to be Jewish until a recent appearance in version 16 of Adam Sandler's Hannukah song), and Bill Frist (not a Jew). Giuliani's meandering pep talk--the point of which was to connect America's fight against terrorism with Israel's fight against terrorism, and to bash Hillary Clinton and John Kerry ("He voted against the Gulf war in '91--Gimme a break...")--brought down the house in a way that no other speaker even approached.
But, in what comes as a surprise to me, Jack Kemp probably finishes second in the Jewish sweepstakes--edging out actual Jews like Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter, Minnesota Senator Norm Coleman, and Virginia Representative Eric Cantor (all much-beloved in their own right). When I stumble onto Kemp at the Plaza Hotel in the early afternoon, he's gushing to Cantor about how proud he is that the Republicans are making inroads into the Jewish community. (More later on the size of those inroads.) Pretty soon he's working the crowd in his usual emotive style, shaking hands and fixing gazes, while random AIPAC members line up to confess their nostalgia for 1996, the year he appeared on the Republican presidential ticket.
Somehow I get sandwiched in between Kemp and a stray well-wisher, and he inquires about what I'm up to. I'm a little sheepish because I remember then-TNR correspondent Michael Lewis skewering him repeatedly in his campaign dispatches in 1996. But when I come clean, Kemp's face lights up. "Believe it or not, I actually read the new republic," he tells me. I'm ready to take him at his word (his subscription probably just lapsed between that July and that November), but he won't let it go. He proceeds to introduce me to everyone in our vicinity, pointing out where I work and re-emphasizing that he "actually" reads the magazine, as though the onlookers might vouch for him.
It's easy to see why Kemp plays so well among Jews. He tells yarn after yarn about his righteous deeds on behalf of the Jewish people--for example, how he bucked his party to vote for Jackson-Vanik (the law imposing sanctions on the Soviet Union for preventing Jews from emigrating to Israel) in the House in 1975, even after President Ford called him to ask, "What are you doing?" "I couldn't go back to Fairfax High School in L.A." without voting for it, he says, referring to his overwhelmingly Jewish high school. This leads to a second selling point: "I was the Shabbos goy. [Fairfax High School] was 98 percent Jewish," Kemp adds. "My mother made me go because it had the highest academic standards in the country. ..."
Shabbos goy is one way of putting it. I'd say Kemp's more like the friend every slightly bookish Jewish kid (okay, me) secretly wanted in high school--bubbly, blithe, athletic, uncomplicated by even the slightest hint of neurosis or self-consciousness. On some level it was transactional. Hanging out with Jack Kemp made you (okay, me) feel a little more American. And maybe hanging out with you made Jack Kemp feel a little smarter.
Is this loony as a political proposition? I won't pretend it explains much of the reasonably warm relations between the Jewish community and other happy-warrior Republicans, like Dwight Eisenhower and Ronald Reagan. There is, for example, that little matter of Israel to throw into the mix. But on some level maybe this is part of it. Anyway, it certainly seems true in Kemp's case. On his way out, a good 45 minutes after we're first introduced, Kemp makes a point of saying goodbye to Cantor, then drifts over to squeeze my wrist and remind me again of his soft spot for TNR. And all I can think is, "That Kemp is such a nice boy."
--Noam Scheiber
|
TRUTH OUT:
The Bush campaign's strategy in responding to Swift Boat Veterans for Truth's [sic] ads has generally been to change the subject to 527s. But this strategy of diversion actually avoids the main issue at hand in more ways than most realize.
There has been some deep confusion among Republicans about what it is they intend to do about the so-called "shadowy 527s." Last week, both the president and his spokesman unambiguously announced that their plan was to outlaw these groups completely. Scott McClellan was the first person to brief the press about Bush's plan to team up with John McCain to take on the groups. McClellan told reporters on Thursday, "The President, also, on board Air Force One, called Senator McCain this morning. And the President said he wanted to work together to pursue court action to shut down all the ads and activity by these shadowy 527 groups [my emphasis]." That same day, in an interview with The New York Times, Bush was again unequivocal. "Let me talk about a larger issue," he said, "and that is 527s. I spoke to John McCain today, and I think these ought to be outlawed. I thought they ought to be outlawed a year ago, when I--whenever I signed the bill. I think they're bad for the system." Bush added, "Let's get rid of them all."
Reporters have consistently repeated that the president and the Bush campaign want to outlaw all 527s and thus prevent groups like Swift Boat Veterans for Truth [sic] from running the very ads that set off this debate. But Bush and McClellan appear to be completely uninformed about the lawsuit that the Bush campaign is pursuing. The point of the lawsuit isn't to ban or outlaw 527s, which would clearly be unconstitutional.
Rather, the lawsuit seeks to force the groups to register as political action committees and thus be confined to using hard money only. In other words, under the Bush plan, if SBVT registered tomorrow in the way the president wants it to, there is nothing that would prevent the group from continuing to run the same ads it has been running. In fact, the group that Republicans say they are so incensed about, Moveon.org, has been using hard money to finance its campaign ads for several months.
Sure, someone like GOP donor Bob Perry would not be able to write SBVT a big check, but the lesson the Swiftees taught us is that you don't need to spend much money on ads to inject their content into the media's bloodstream.
At a lunch for reporters yesterday here in New York, I asked Ed Gillespie whether SBVT--the group that the president says his plan would "outlaw"--would still be able to run the same ads it's running now if the Bush campaign's lawsuit were successful. His answer? Yes.
--Ryan Lizza
|
BASE BALL:
This morning I stopped by a meeting of the Iowa GOP delegation, attended by Nebraska Senator (and potential 2008 candidate) Chuck Hagel. I'll be writing more about Hagel later this week, but the thrust of Hagel's short speech was a strong call for a more multilateralist U.S. foreign policy. Speaking in a drab little conference room at a midtown Sheraton Hotel, Hagel said that America must "reach out" to allies in the war on terror, and follow ideals of "tolerance, listening to people, bringing people together with a common purpose." It all sounded more like John Kerry than a Republican angling for a presidential bid. It's not clear how well this line went over. The delegates interrupted Hagel's remarks with applause a couple of times, but only when he talked about ending divisiveness in politics--never during his foreign policy spiel. It seemed to me that these delegates have other priorities. Soon after Hagel spoke, the acting state Republican chair--an African-American man in a white cowboy hat named Leon Mosley--urged his delegates, "Let's remember what's paramount in our life: God ... This is the GOP: God's Official Party." At that, the room burst into sustained applause. Behold, the Republican base.
--Michael Crowley
|
|
|
|
|
RSS FEED |
|
|
|
ADVERTISEMENT
More Hotels
Hotel Rates
Hotel Ratings
Hotels
Event Tickets
|
|
|
