Thursday’s political round-up

June 16, 2005

Today’s installment of campaign-related news items that wouldn’t generate a post of their own, but may be of interest to political observers:

* Dems hoping for another morale booster got one yesterday when the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee announced it had new polling showing seven incumbent Republican House members who would be easily defeated if their reelection took place today. Rep. Rahm Emanuel (Ill.), head of the DCCC, did not name the members, but said they’re from districts “around the country,” and added that all polled at 43% or less. Emanuel said three of the Republicans polled below 40%, including one, from a Western state, at 32% and another, a Californian, at 34%.

* Speaking of polls, a new poll from Strategic Vision, a Republican polling firm, shows Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) ahead of his likely challenger, Rep. Katherine Harris (R-Fla.), in an early election match-up, 48% to 42%.

* And speaking of Harris, the lawmaker’s recent announcement about her Senate campaign has kicked off a furious rush among those who hope to win her soon-to-be-vacant House seat. Among Republicans, businessman Tramm Hudson, state Reps. Bill Galvano and Nancy Detert, and car dealer Vern Buchanan are said to be leading the pack. Bank president Christine Jennings and attorney Jan Schneider will be running on the Democratic side. It will be Schneider’s second shot, after losing to Harris last November.

* Likely presidential candidate Wesley Clark has made a lot of good moves this year, but this may not be one of them: he’s taken a job at Fox News. Clark has been hired by FNC as a military and foreign-affairs analyst. It’ll help keep his visibility high, but many Dems are likely to be turned off by his association to a Republican propaganda machine. (Though I would like to see it when Clark runs into David Asman at the water cooler.)

* Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) is already worried that Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R) will soon launch a campaign against him, but making matters worse, Texas Comptroller Carole Keeton Strayhorn is expected to announce Saturday that she will challenge Perry in next year’s gubernatorial primary. A three-way race now seems likely.

* Former Rep. David Emery (R-Maine) announced yesterday that he plans to take on incumbent Gov. John Baldacci (D) next year in Maine’s gubernatorial race. Emery, who left Congress over 20 years ago, is the first Republican candidate to emerge from a crowd of possible contenders.

* Republicans in Washington state, desperate to find a top-tier candidate to take on freshman Sen. Maria Cantwell (D), have apparently given up on unsuccessful gubernatorial candidate Dino Rossi (R). Though polls showed Rossi as the only Republican capable of beating Cantwell next year, he doesn’t want to run. The state GOP will now turn its attention towards State Sen. Linda Evans Parlette (R).

I don’t get Clark’s move to Fox. I like Clark a lot and backed his nascent presidential bid in 2003 with $$$. However I was mystified then at his inability to give a straight answer on the reporter’s first question out of the starting gates (if you had been a senator how would you have voted on the Iraq war powers legislation?). He came across as unprepared and politically tone deaf. For him to deign to work with Fox now, unless he shows himself ready to deliver straight talk about Iraq and other issues, is also politically tone deaf. I like Howard Dean’s line on Fox–as a Republican propaganda network we should just have nothing to do with them.

  • Some may view Clark’s move to FNC as a military and foreign-affairs analyst as a mistake; I don’t. First, we know that Clark is principled and disciplined enough to stay on HIS message while providing his analyses for the Fox News viewers. Also, having successfully negotiated the highly politicized waters of the Joint Chiefs of Staff-White House-Pentagon-N.A.T.O. nexus, the “sharks” at FNC will be a walk in the park for Clark.

    How will Dems view that move? If they are anything like me, they will appreciate a rational, progressive voice going out to the largest cable-news audience, which has been denied that kind of voice for far too long. While it may at first seem alien to FNC viewers, some of them are likely to be persuaded by real, honest intelligence and commentary — and this can only have a salutary effect on progressive issues and candidates.

    I say it is a good move for Clark, for progressives, and for political discourse in this country.

  • I like the idea of General-Clark-as-Fox-analyst. I see it as planting seeds into the minds of Fox viewers who are worried about defense and security issues. If he’s the nominee in 2008, the 3 years he will have put in being smart and forceful and patriotic in front of millions of Fox News viewers will have innoculated those viewers against the inevitable attempts to malign his character.

  • And on a non-Clark subject …

    I don’t have poll numbers to back this up, but as a Texas resident, I sense that Carole Keeton Strayhorn is the most popular politician in the state. If I were Gov. Goodhair, I’d be more scared of that “One Tough Grandma” than of Kay Bailey Hutchison.

    Sure would be nice to spot some activity on the Democratic side …

  • Clark has consistently spoken out on getting the message out to his bloggers and in his speeches, so this is no surprise but consistent with his strategic aims.

    1. Snip from a Clark blogger (cate on http://www.forclark.com): “…what infleunces me most about this new opportunity for Wes is what he said to a small group of people at a Hamptons fundraiser last summer. I was there. He talked a great deal about getting our voices heard on right wing media outlets. He said we need to call in to the Rush Limbaugh type shows. He said we need to write opinion pieces in our local newspapers. In my mind, Wes is walking the talk, once again demonstrating integrity in his statements and beliefs. No flip-flopping with Wes Clark… So when I remember hearing his own voice express the need to “be heard” in media and see that he will now be a regular commentator on Faux…well it just makes so much sense.

    2. A clip from a speech (posted by KnightRider on forclark.com): To talk the talk,… “I challenge you! Participate! …Write newspapers, …call Rush Limbaugh, FOXNews – Sean Hannity! …Change the “political culture”! You can do it, …if you engage!” – General Wesley Clark (Johns Hopkins University, 9.10.2004). Note also where he made that statement: Lecture: “Strategic Leadership in the Information Age” Symposium: “Rebuilding America: Peace and Prosperity at what Price? A Symposium on a Struggling Domestic Agenda.

    This is just the fulfilment of one dimension of Wes’ strategy: to get the message out to folks who hear only one-sided news from someone with respect and authority.

  • I think Clark on FNC could be a good move, but only if he’s willing to call “bullshit” in no uncertain terms at the appropriate times. If he can do this well for a substantial period of time without getting fired or marginalized, it should be good for public discourse and good for his candidacy.

    If he does this right, he’ll either provide some real enlightenment to FNC’s viewers, or provoke a quick and very public firing by FNC. I think either case would help his reputation among progressives and moderates, and maybe some disillusioned conservatives.

    On the other hand, if he just provides his own opinion without confronting the FNC anchors and commentators when they present their usual lies and distortions, what’s the point? I think that would hurt him far more than the exposure would help him.

  • The movers and shakers at Fox don’t do anything out of patriotism or even party loyalty. They’re in it strictly for the bucks over the semi-long haul. I wonder what calculations of theirs lie behind this marriage?

  • Ed – I was thinking along the same lines. Does someone high up at Faux think there is a political shift coming? Are they taking baby steps to moving Dem because they think there is going to be a shift, or is this a minor move just in case things start changing? Or are they trying to sully Clark because they see him as a strong candidate in 2008?

    I tenatively feel that it is a bad move. I agree with Dean and don’t think Faux deserves to be dealt with. It really depends on what Clark does, though. If he comes out and starts tearing people a new one(s) like he should then I will be happy. If he caves or is marginalized it will be just another in a string of Dem blunders. Clark has been doing good lately, and that does give me a little bit of hope.

  • A few possible motivations for Fox:

    1. It helps make the ludicrous argument that Fox is “fair and balanced.� (“Hey, we got a Democratic presidential contender on our payroll, for crissakes!�). While Fox has stuck to that line like good soldiers, it is getting a little tarnished.
    2. Clark doesn’t control the cameras. Fine, he’ll reach out to Fox viewers, a much-needed step. But have you ever seen Colms? Clearly, the Fox guys are clever enough to put some squirrelly idiot of a stereotype next to Hannity, like a blueprint for bullying your liberal office-mates with ignorant rhetoric. I will wait to see what tricks they have in store for Clark (poor cutaways, bad interviews, whatever, the deck will be stacked and Fox ALWAYS deals from the bottom).
    3. Clark won’t get the nomination. Assuming Clark comes out swinging against the other Democratic contenders, he will end up working against the actual nomination. Any real fans he gets on Fox will just have tha much more ammo against the Democratic nominee (“Well, not even Clark likes him, and that guy’s smart for a liberal!�).
    4. Clark will come out against the war efforts of the president. With BushCo a lame duck, Fox knows they need to keep the machine rolling without him. I would not put it past them to bail on their man and help the efforts in Congress for ’06. Distancing themselves from the war will also be critical in ’08, and these guys are fantastic at pulling 180’s while calling the other side names.

    Does this mean it won’t be a good thing? We’ll see, but don’t think Fox News is suddenly open minded and balanced. So expect this to get pulled in there isn’t a negative outcome for “liberals.”

  • I wonder how much publicity Gen Clark will bring to his cause in the MSM if he can get fired for calling it like it is on FAUX News? If he ripped Hannity or Oh Really a new one. And I hope he’ll be on The Daily Show or Countdown soon to explain this career move. As an avid Clark supporter, I’m too curious now.

  • Ohfercripessake………Clark has been the only Democrat going around the country telling Dems to stand up for each other. Why in heavens sake would he “come out swinging against other candidates”

    When he ran in 04, he made it a point to stay away from attacking his fellow Dems…..until the attacks on him got so bad that he finally had to retaliate.

    Not to mention mention……………he will be their “military and national security analyst”! Where in that title does it say he will be talking politics at all?

  • two things;

    morale boosters are bad for democrats. they seem to often be looking for good news (i.e, “bush poll numbers low” ) and then as a result they frequently misplace optimism with the need for candid evaluatio. that need shows that democrats need to start effectively making their case better – their own case, and, more particularly, how the far right wing has mischaracterized the issues and the facts, and labels everything that it does not agree with as either “liberal” or, if in the media, “evidence of bias.” also how the media, not getting enough democratic support to refute this, has kowtowed to the right as as result.

    second. clark. tough call. hard to do hypothetically. I would maybe. appear on the fox chanel )the one aptly named after a clever animal, that we keep mistakenly calling a “news” channel) if there was a contractual guarantee backed by enornmous sums that nothing could be cut out, if it was for a longer amoung of time (sufficient to actually assess the facts) and if there was an understanding that like many other guests, their hosts would not be allowed to dominate and continually interrupt. why so many democrat operatives put up with this, and often fail to effectively make their case, is a mystery. maybe.

    as for clark, as an actual analyst. well, it might improve the channel subtly. but I believe it is a bad move. the fox channel reports news, when it is not politically based. when it is politically based, the channel is a propaganda channel, and a very effective one. part of communicating good propaganda is to not appear to advocate, which one does by giving some of the opposing sides arguments, and choosing which facts to report, omit, hilight, and how to present them. the fox channel manipulates this masterfully. as such, many of its viewers, if they do not work in this field and carefully study it, really are being taken advantage of by constant, ongoing subtle manipulation. by clark joining fox, he is only somewhat adding to the legitimany of a chanel that, for democracy to work, really needs to be delegitimzied. democrat shoudl concentrate on making this effective case. democracy can not properly work when the most popular cable channle that professes to cover news, is a blatant political propaganda. its a tough call, but the case realy has to be made.

    IvanCarter
    http://www.joeweiser.com

  • (sorry about the spelling in the last post. corrected here):

    morale boosters are bad for democrats. they seem to often be looking for good news (i.e, “bush poll numbers low” ) and then as a result they frequently misplace optimism with the need for candid evaluation that need shows that democrats need to start effectively making their case better – their own case, and, more particularly, how the far right wing has mischaracterized the issues and the facts, and labels everything that it does not agree with as either “liberal” or, if in the media, “evidence of bias.” also how the media, not getting enough democratic support to refute this, has kowtowed to the right as a result.

    second. clark. tough call. hard to do hypothetically. I would maybe. appear on the fox channel (the one aptly named after a clever animal, that we keep mistakenly calling a “news” channel) if there was a contractual guarantee backed by enormous sums that nothing could be cut out, if it was for a longer amount of time (sufficient to actually assess the facts) and if there was an understanding that unlike many other guests, their hosts would not be allowed to dominate and continually interrupt (why so many democrat operatives put up with this, and often fail to effectively make their case, is a mystery). maybe.

    as for clark, as an actual analyst. well, it might improve the channel subtly. but I believe it is a bad move. the fox channel reports news, when it is not politically based. when it is politically based, the channel is a propaganda channel, and a very effective one. part of communicating good propaganda is to not appear to advocate, which one does by giving some of the opposing sides arguments, and choosing which facts to report, omit, highlight, and how to present them. the fox channel manipulates this masterfully. as such, many of its viewers, if they do not work in this field and carefully study it, really are being taken advantage of by constant, ongoing subtle manipulation. by clark joining fox, he is only somewhat adding to the legitimacy of a channel that, for democracy to work, really needs to be delegitimized democrat should concentrate on making this effective case. democracy can not properly work when the most popular cable channel that professes to cover news, is a blatant political propaganda. it’s a tough call, but the case really has to be made.
    Ivan Carter
    http://www.joeweiser.com

  • Eadie,

    brilliant post above (no. 9). Pelican’s comments are very well taken, and probably correct. but clark’s stance on other democrats is not as critical as those other issues. maybe clark will prove us wrong, buteven if he moves fox slightly away from the far right, not really is not a good thing. on politics, fox is not a legitimate news source, and until that case is effectively made, given its large popularity and vastly under estimated influence, it is going to impact negatively on the nature of the mainstream debate….

    ed and rambuncle — I strongly disagree. the fox channel is intensely partisan. the fact that there may be some “facts” offered once in a while, or some lame analyst (or, less frequently, a decent one) offered, that supports the othe side, not only does not change this fact, but empowers it. they can not effectively be as subtly persuasive as they are if they appear as an advocacy propaganda channel, (nor will they have as much viewership, or make as much money. but drawing in viewers is equally consistent with both goals – to operate at a profit, and to suppor the republican party).

  • To flesh out my concern, I fear Clark will be another Fox beard much as Mara Liasson and Juan Williams (although I don’t really trust their politics). If he comes out with the fire Neal Gabler shows on that media discussion show, fine, but otherwise he gives cover to Fair and Balanced, and I think that is a bad idea. Of course, Fox is atrophying as we speak so maybe they legitimately want to expand the base.

  • Wait and see time for Clark.

    Since this is still well before the election, it seems reasonable for him to give this a try. Clark has always had the big picture in mind when it has come to running for the presidency — winning the White House, not just the primary. And becoming known to Fox’s viewers could aid in that endeavor.

    This is also an opportunity for Clark to do something patriotic right now — which is shift the perception by conservatives that this war is a good thing and help swell the grassroots efforts against it, and against the way the Bush people are conducting it. He may help bring the bad Iraq policies to an end sooner, by this move.

    My biggest concern is with what Fox’s motivation is for hiring him. The debate that Fox ran during the Democratic primaries was, I believe, specifically engineered to marginalize Clark as a credible candidate and to favor Kerry. One of Kerry’s questions was of local interest to New Hampsherites. All of Clark’s questions were foreign policy ones, almost all of those gotcha questions, after which Fox’s commentators complained that Clark never talked about domestic issues. I believe this was very cleverly planned by the people in charge of Fox. So it seems likely that those same people have a plan to discredit Clark with their hiring, since it can hardly be to their advantage to give him a platform for positive exposure among their Republican audience. Perhaps a television version of what the Bushies did to Colin Powell? Just got to trust that Clark won’t put up with much garbage for long when it becomes clear that’s what they’re tossing him.

  • Thanks Carter.

    Pelican, well, that’s true. But remember what Clark is: honest. Watch a pro on Fox put questions to him designed to trap him into a response that makes either him or another Democrat look terrible. They do it all the time. The reason it works it that honest people actually consider their answer, and they refuse to spout BS distractions from legitimate (or in Fox’s case, often retarded) questions.

    Plus, a lot of Democratic contenders’ statements are stupid. Look for some pointed questions every time a prominent Democrat opens his or her mouth on war (“Last week Democratic Senator so-and-so said we need immediate withdrawal of US troops. General Clark, how disastrous would this be for the efforts on the ground?”)

    But to think that the “military and national security analyst” isn’t related to politics not only misses the whole concept of Fox News, it ignores the last presidential campaign. Are you kidding? What else is BushCo’s rhetoric on terror about? Helping people? You need to re-think that comment. Jesus, man, they won the presidency on war and fear. Fox wouldn’t be doing it for any reason BUT politics.

  • Oh I missed Catherine’s while I was writing. I quite agree. I do hope, however, Clark doesn’t just quit, but comes out prepared and swinging. Fox wither proved that they are that much smarter than everyone else (again) or they just invited the Trojans in for a grand tour.

  • Clark is alot smarter than your average bear. I’m willing to give him the benefit of doubt on this one. If he blows it and gives meek “analysis”, then there is no way he gains the nomination. If, however, us Clark supporters here are right and he comes out swinging and possibly gets some of the fox viewers rethinking the GOP national security and foreign affairs policies, then he could still win the nomination and quite possibly win the White House.

    as much as I like Dean, I think he’s dead wrong when he says we have to ignore Faux and other members of the right wing noise machine. That’s akin to running a 17 state strategy. We must engage in order to sway voters.

  • Its a roll of the dice, but I salute Clark for doing it. The main role of right-wing media is to make Dems look unacceptable, regardless of how Republicans do while in office. And it has done a good job, with 40 percent of the country supporting Bush regardless of how incompetent and corrupt his administration is. We need people to go in there and go toe to toe with these people who fill the minds of ordinary Americans with nonsense. I’m sorry Clark got off to such a poor start as a candidate, but I think he can put that behind him and be credible in ’08. I’ll be more likely to watch Fox now.

    • Comments are closed.