Morris' Outrageous Outrage at ex-Lobbyist Thompson

"The enemy of my enemy is my friend" is a clever phrase that is often true, but when it comes to Hillary-hater Dick Morris, conservatives have accepted the phrase far too trustingly. Because Morris so vehemently and convincingly attacks the Clintons, and Hillary in particular, conservatives tend to laud him as a shrewd political genius who confirms the worst opinions of Hillary with insights only an insider could offer. Sean Hannity and Dick Morris may differ in political party affiliation, yet both are working almost in tandem to "derail the Hillary Express" and thwart her campaign for the presidency. Listening to both men on Fox News programming, there is little that distinguishes one from the other when it comes to their near obsession with defeating Hillary. The political differences between the two remain intact, but are suppressed in the service of a higher cause.

There is no doubt that Morris is an accomplished political adviser who knew the ins and outs of the Clinton White House, but for conservatives there is the potential for great folly in taking the entire spectrum of Morris' political views at face value. Political pitfalls await conservatives who subscribe to Morris' general political predictions and theories simply because he despises Hillary Clinton as much as or more than they do.

Morris has made a lucrative living by stoking the fires of anti-Clinton sentiment, authoring bestselling books, writing columns for The Hill and other publications, and appearing on Fox News as a political analyst. His writings and television appearances are embraced warmly by conservatives seeking for validation of their Clinton suspicions from a Democrat who worked closely with the Clintons and learned to loathe them.

Yet, in the glee over finding such a bitterly avowed enemy of their enemy coming to their aid, conservatives tend to lose sight of an important fact: Morris will do anything to prevent another Clinton presidency, but his loyalties remain squarely in the liberal camp, and thus his books, columns, and commentary on other political figures, especially conservatives, should be viewed with a far more critical eye than his views on the Clintons.

Morris has deep-seated and understandable motives for his anti-Clinton crusade, but he still considers conservatives to be political infidels. He likewise has motives for his attacks on conservative politicians and presidential candidates. If looked at from the proper perspective, the motives for his verbal and written criticisms of conservative figures are no different than Hillary's; both are working to defeat conservatives, conservatism, and to elect Democrats who champion liberal causes.

Morris' latest diatribe against a conservative presidential candidate appeared in his regular FoxNews.com column, "Fred Thompson: First Lobbyist for President." When reading the following excerpts, your blood may start boiling about lobbyists, greed, and Fred Thompson's cozy embrace of lobbyists who have joined his campaign staff. After the initial "Outrage" subsides, we will look more closely at Morris' argument and at the messenger himself:

We’ve already seen the first woman candidate, Hillary Clinton and the first African American with widespread support and a serious chance at winning the presidency.

But now there’s another groundbreaker: the first lobbyist candidate — Fred Thompson.

...Now Fred’s campaign is attracting other lobbyists, who are bundlers and donors to the Thompson campaign.

Most Americans feel strongly that a presidential candidate should not accept any money from lobbyists. According to a recent Gallup Poll, 75 percent of Americans find it unacceptable for candidates to finance their campaigns with contributions from lobbyists — and 80 percent want candidates to return any contributions they do receive from lobbyists.

But Fred definitely doesn’t agree with them. His promising campaign is positively overflowing with advisers and donors who are lobbyists, former lobbyists or employees of lobbying firms.

...So the "Fred Thompson for President" campaign — based on his promises to shake up Washington — is being run by and paid for by corporate insider lobbyists.

Do you think Fred will make any big changes if he’s elected?

It is no secret that Fred Thompson worked as a paid lobbyist for various organizations and corporations prior to and after his service in the Senate. It is likewise no secret that Morris' most recent book Outrage presents a fairly damning case against lobbyists and political influence peddling in the nation's capital. Clearly, lobbyist influence is a legitimate issue of concern, but Morris' newly found aversion to lobbying and politicians who accept soft money from lobbyists seems more than just a little contrived.

During the 1992 and 1996 presidential campaigns, the Clinton's made an art form out of accepting lobbyist donations, brazenly taking money from a wide variety of shady shell corporations. Later, the Clinton-Gore White House accepted campaign donations very clearly traceable back to foreign governments, specifically China. Taking this soft money from the seediest of lobbyists was bad enough, but the Clintons demonstrated their appreciation for these donations by providing China with military technologies that significantly reduced the technology gap between the U.S. and Chinese armed forces. Where was Morris' "Outrage" over lobbyist donations and influence during his former employers' terms in the White House?

Here Morris is performing at his shrewdest level, smearing Thompson with the tainted label of lobbyist and thus implying that Thompson is not presidential material. Are we expected to forget that when given the opportunity to strut the halls of the White House, Morris was perfectly comfortable affiliating himself with the Clintons and considering Bill Clinton worthy of the presidency despite his campaign war chests overflowing with lobbyist donations? Having read "Outrage" we know that Morris now considers the American Trial Lawyers Association to be a powerful and overly influential political lobbying group, but we're still researching to find one instance where Morris spoke out against the Trial Lawyers' donations to the Clintons while Morris worked for and with them or urged the Clintons to give the money back to the lawyers. Somehow we think that search will be a long and fruitless one.

Apparently, in Morris' view being a former lobbyist or accepting lobbyist money should disqualify only a Republican candidate like Thompson for the presidency, while such corrupting influences in no way affected Bill Clinton's loyalties and agenda as a candidate or as president. Morris is right to point out the lobbyist corruption saturating both parties in his book "Outrage" but his well researched arguments might carry more weight if he had not proven so willing to overlook the corruption when speaking out about it might have hurt his career as a political adviser. Morris was silent on the issue until his falling out with the Clintons and subsequent celebrity status as a Fox News political expert and prolific author.

Morris has attacked presidential candidate Mitt Romney by characterizing him as a "flip-flopper" on certain issues, and now assails Thompson for his former employment as a lobbyist. Yet it is Morris who has "flip-flopped" on the entire issue of lobbying and lobbyist donations, having once turned a blind eye to them but now wielding the issue like a crusader's sword against the newly declared and potentially formidable presidential candidate Thompson.

Conservatives should continue to enjoy Morris' personal quest to defeat Hillary in 2008 while keeping in mind that his expertise on the Clintons does not also signal general expertise as a political analyst. Rather than viewing Morris only in context of the phrase "the enemy of my enemy is my friend," conservatives should adopt an added slogan: "the conservative Morris attacks most is he whom liberals fear most."

Based on Morris's opening salvo against Fred Thompson's candidacy, containing as it did name lists of known lobbyists who have donated to or work for the Thompson campaign and portrayals of Thompson as an unsavory character beholden to special interest groups, the liberal fear factor Thompson induces feels almost palpable. Morris only attacks those who pose a risk to his personal or political interests. Hillary Clinton and Fred Thompson, respectively, appear to pose the greatest risks for Morris in each category.

Technorati Tags:
Dick Morris, Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, Outrage, Fred Thompson, Lobbyists, Influence Peddling, Campaign Donations, Presidential Candidates

Matador Mayor and Thompson Win GOP Debate

Although the announced candidates who participated in Wednesday's GOP debate in New Hampshire would disagree, Fred Thompson may have done himself a favor by skipping the debate and announcing his candidacy on the "Tonight Show" with Jay Leno instead. After all, the first seven minutes of Wednesday's debate were dedicated to him, with each candidate offering light jabs at his absence while ultimately welcoming him to the race as a formidable and charismatic candidate. Thompson aired his first official thirty second campaign ad on Fox News immediately prior to the debate, but, courtesy of Fox News' choice of questions, received seven minutes of free publicity and praise at the expense of his rivals, who surely bridled at having to talk about the qualities of a candidate who leads all but Giuliani in the polls and intentionally skipped the debate itself. The decision could not have worked out better for Thompson, who was running a strong second in GOP polls even before his official announcement Wednesday night.

After each GOP candidate debate, Capital Cloak has published an analysis of each candidate's performance and assigned a letter grade. The results from Wednesday's debate follow, in grade order:

Rudy Giuliani A-
It was interesting to observe that in Fox News' post-debate interviews of New Hampshire residents, Giuliani was criticized for over emphasizing his accomplishments as mayor of America's largest city. One alleged GOP voter expressed her desire to ask Giuliani, "What else did you do?", in reference to his qualifications to be president. Apparently she had done no research on Giuliani and missed his mention of having been the third highest official in the Justice Department, in which capacity he actively prosecuted the mafia and terrorists prior to becoming mayor, it bears repeating, of America's largest city. To nearly every question asked in the debate, Giuliani had a ready response that included documented achievements he was responsible for as mayor, and not coincidentally, those responses covered the hottest topics of the debate: illegal immigration, gun laws, government spending, high taxes, and private behavior of public officials.

The more one listens to Giuliani's responses, the more satisfying those answers become. He is a political matador who recognizes "bull" in questions or accusations and deftly avoids it by waving his red cape of mayoral experience. This was evident on a number of issues, but perhaps most clearly expressed when asked about whether the public should examine closely a candidate's private life. Giuliani, who of course is on his third marriage, offered an honest, human response by pointing out that some of the most difficult moments in his personal life occurred while he was mayor, yet those struggles did not detract from his ability to lead New York out of fiscal, crime, and image crises. It was an interesting adaptation of the concept of leadership under personal duress. He modestly mentioned that he was not running as "the perfect candidate" for president, but as an imperfect human who is also the best qualified for the job.

Although the Fox News panel attempted to portray Giuliani as weak on foreign policy through its previously mentioned question to McCain, Giuliani actually provided the best answer to the foreign policy scenario question regarding Iranian nuclear weapons. Giuliani asserted that the risk is not that Iran will attack Israel or other nations with nuclear weapons; the risk is that Iran will supply nuclear weapons to terrorists they are currently supplying with conventional weapons. He added that America must be clear in its policy against Iran nuclear capability. He drew tremendous applause for reminding viewers that Ronald Reagan pointed thousands of nuclear weapons at Soviet cities during the Cold War while negotiating arms reduction.

The Fox News post-debate interviews were critical of Giuliani and New Hampshire voters voiced their disappointment in his performance, but in comparison with his rivals on stage, Giuliani did nothing to lessen his status as the GOP front-runner.

John McCain B+
After his poor showings in prior debates and given his plummeting poll numbers, I did not expect McCain to turn in a strong performance Wednesday. It was not a matter of his specific answers or changing his message, but McCain somehow managed to come across as decisive, forceful, and better prepared than in previous debates. On nearly every issue, from illegal immigration to torture of enemy combatants, McCain's responses were indistinguishable from those he offered in other debates, but his delivery was more polished and confident and he appeared comfortable defending his record in the Senate on controversial issues. The difference in grade between Wednesday's debate and previous debates can be attributed to McCain's conscious effort to add an element of style to the substance of his responses, and as a result he was far less robotic and far more engaged. I credit McCain for delivering the best statement of the debate. When asked to address Rudy Giuliani's lack of foreign policy experience, McCain praised Giuliani for providing solid management to New York City before and after 9/11, but then described his own leadership credentials in foreign policy, national security, and military issues. McCain commented, "I was once put in charge of the largest squadron in the U.S. Navy. I didn't manage it, I led it."

In this debate, McCain seized the optimist mantle from Mitt Romney and with nearly every statement expressed confidence in America's eventual victory in Iraq and in the War on Terror. When Romney stated that General Petraeus' surge strategy "is apparently working," McCain countered, "It is not apparently working. It IS working." These small but significant changes in style and delivery transformed McCain's standard answers on various issues into more forceful and confident statements than he had made throughout his campaign to that point. Of the candidates, McCain was one of only three who actually answered the hypothetical scenario question regarding taking military action to prevent Iran from constructing nuclear weapons. McCain made it clear that we cannot rely on the UN Security Council, with China and Russia sitting like so much dead weight on this issue, to resolve it safely. His statement that ultimately it will be the U.S. that must take action to keep nuclear weapons out of Iran's hands will likely prove prophetic.

It was his strongest performance to date, and although I disagree with his positions on illegal immigration and "torture" of enemy combatants in certain dire national survival situations, he outperformed all but one of his rivals on this occasion.


Mitt Romney B
As Fox News' Carl Cameron confirmed at the conclusion of the debate, Romney was targeted with the toughest questions of the debate as well as the highest overall number of questions asked directly to the former Massachusetts governor, allegedly because he was the New Hampshire front-runner. In these questions, Romney was accused of the following: turning a blind eye to illegal alien "sanctuary cities" in Massachusetts while hypocritically charging Giuliani with doing the same in New York; previously supporting abortion rights in Massachusetts; defending to a father of a son returning soon from two tours in Iraq his already apologized for comparison of his sons' campaign service to military service by other American sons; wanting to wiretap mosques and churches without warrants; claiming to reduce taxes while sneakily raising fees and fines in Massachusetts to make up for lost tax revenue; more eagerly advocating a withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq than Hillary Clinton.

No other candidate was forced on the defensive by the moderators than Romney, and as a result he did not manage to portray the image of poise and optimism he had exuded in the previous debates. He offered plausible explanations for each of the above-listed accusations: Governors are not responsible for mayors who do not enforce immigration laws in their own cities; candidates make hundreds of appearances and sometimes say things in ways they don't intend and apologize profusely, acknowledging that those who place their lives on the line for America are "in a league of their own"; wiretapping mosques and churches would be done only with warrants and although such surveillance is distasteful, the most fundamental right Americans have is the right to be kept alive by government diligence; denied increasing fees in Massachusetts and reiterating the numerous tax cuts he implemented in that state; advocated no timetable for troop withdrawal and asserted that such decisions should be made between the president and the generals fighting the war.

Unlike previous debates, Romney was not addressed with any questions about family values, defense of marriage, and other issues perceived as strengths of the picture-perfect family man. He graciously brushed aside post-debate comments from Fox News' Alan Colmes that implied he had been treated harshly by the panel, stating that he felt it had been fun. His body language, facial expressions, and voice inflections throughout the debate itself, however, indicated he found the orchestrated ambush unfair and unexpected. Considering the level of questions aimed at him and his efforts to address them, Romney did well enough to earn a respectable grade in this debate. He has worked long and hard in New Hampshire and likely did not lose his lead in that state's GOP polls based on his debate performance.


Sam Brownback B-
Like Mike Huckabee, Brownback was fed a steady diet of easily digestible questions geared toward his declared strengths: family values, gay marriage,and tax cuts. The only controversial question directed to Brownback was whether he would support a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. Brownback has addressed this issue in previous debates, including the prior debate hosted by Fox News, thus it was strange that it would be repeated once again to the same candidate. Brownback's response was soothing to conservative ears: Yes there should be an amendment because America needs more children born into wedlock with a mom and a dad "bonded together for life." While Democratic opponents would challenge that view, there was naturally nary a note of discord from his GOP debate rivals.

I also was pleased by Brownback's comment that an important result of lower taxes would be that more families could afford to live off of a single income, allowing one of the parents to be home and available to care for children. Yet, in comparison with the thorny questions tackled by Romney, Brownback was too treated to lightly with kid gloves by the moderators to merit a higher grade. It was Brownback's best performance to date, but I stand by my previous assessment that he is the GOP version of Al Gore in his delivery and voice intonations.

Mike Huckabee C+
Huckabee was the grateful beneficiary of Fox News' ambush of Romney, in that there appeared to be no difficult questions left to throw at him. The most pointed question directed specifically to Huckabee merely required him to explain his view on the "fair tax." Other softball questions lobbed to Huckabee included issues the ordained minister surely appreciated, such as abortion. To his credit, Huckabee responded well to the abortion question, citing the Arkansas Human Life Amendment as a potential model for eventual federal legislation, as the Arkansas amendment established that life begins at conception and should be protected until its natural conclusion.

Huckabee engaged in an exchange with Ron Paul over what to do about Iraq, with Paul arguing that we should withdraw because we never should have invaded Iraq in the first place and Huckabee responding that regardless of how we got there, we are there and need to leave with honor and victory. Huckabee's "we bought it because we broke it" view on Iraq was anything but complimentary to the Bush administration's conduct of the war. Any exchange with Paul is guaranteed to liven a debate, and this was no exception.

Huckabee was at his worst in responding to the Iranian nuclear weapons scenario. Quite simply, he did not even attempt to answer the question about whether to use force. He sputtered for a minute about how decisions must be guided by the constitution and a leader's conscience and character. He emphasized that such scenarios illustrate why it is critical for a president to surround himself with wise people. He made no effort to explain what he would do in such a situation, leaving viewers with the impression that he does not know whether he would use force against Iran to keep nuclear weapons out of its hands. Americans are not looking for indecision from its next president and that is why Huckabee remains quagmired in GOP polls.


Duncan Hunter D
After every Duncan Hunter debate performance, I hopefully expect to see a text on my screen stating, in Monty Python fashion, that "the advisers who prepared Hunter for the debate wish it to be known that they have just been sacked." Unfortunately for Hunter, no sackings have occurred. In every debate thus far, Hunter has made the same lame reference to "not that scraggly fence you see on CNN" when discussing border security and his beloved fence that he claims to have personally built near San Diego. Hunter is the epitome of a political figure who can do much good in Congress but is not destined to hold high executive office. His value appears to be in defending his party and looking out for the interests of the military. Hunter was the only candidate, including self-proclaimed military expert McCain, who could reel off from memory statistics regarding reductions of civilian casualties in the various Iraqi provinces. Hunter would make a fine Chairman of the Armed Services Committee, and should limit his aspirations to that noble duty.

Hunter did issue the most effective barb to Democrats, pointing out that the while the GOP acts to remove figures like Larry Craig when they are found to be ethically challenged, Democrats make such figures chairmen of committees. Hunter was also the only candidate other than Giuliani who viewed Iran's capacity to share nuclear material with terrorist groups as the most pressing reason to take action against Iran before it produces sufficient enriched uranium to make such a scenario reality.

Ron Paul D-
Other than entertainment value as the designated foil, it is difficult to find justifiable reasons for the inclusion of Ron Paul in these debates. Still, he earned a higher grade than Tancredo because Paul is nothing if not entertaining, in a lecturing college professor of political philosophy way.

Paul's expressed Libertarian views were no different in substance or style from previous debates: 9/11 happened because the government was too involved with the airlines and should have left airline security for private companies to handle; we should not assume GOV will take care of us; People who say there will be a bloodbath in Iraq if we leave are the same people who said it would be a cakewalk and it would all be paid for with Iraqi oil revenues; Threatening Iran is the worst possible strategy and it will make us less safe; we are only staying in Iraq now to save face; when we sacrifice liberty for security, we lose both; the Department of Homeland Security only worsened the existing intelligence bureaucracy that led to the failures of 9/11 and it should be disbanded; Israel can take care of itself and we should back off from our rhetoric toward Iran and talk to its leaders rather than attack without provocation.


Tom Tancredo F
Tancredo was his normal angry, bitter, pedantic self in this debate, lecturing on his two pet issues, illegal immigration and the war with Radical Islam. Americans have little patience for people who display an attitude of "I told you so," yet Tancredo long ago adopted that attitude regarding illegal immigration as the basis of his entire campaign. In consecutive debates, Tancredo has commented on his "surprise" that it took his rivals so long to realize the pressing nature of the illegal immigration problem that he has been talking about for years. "I told you so" will not win many votes, as Tancredo has discovered in his fruitless campaign.

For all his tough talk on the war against Radical Islam, Tancredo declined to answer the hypothetical scenario question regarding Iranian nuclear weapons. He made vague comments about restrictive rules of engagement for our military, and that political correctness will get us all killed, but would not address the question, which was whether he would use force against Iran under the cited circumstances.

Fox News B
More than any other network, Fox allowed the candidates at times to directly engage each other, as in the Paul-Huckabee exchange described above. Likewise, unlike other networks, Fox formulated some very pointed and controversial questions and a thorny hypothetical scenario for the candidates to address. Fox could have earned a higher grade by more equally distributing the tough questions among the candidates.

Wednesday's debate offered a timely illustration of why Fred Thompson, and potentially Al Gore, have been wise to make their cases directly to voters through electronic media rather than rely on traditional media outlets to objectively report their messages. Voter impressions of candidates are too easily manipulated by media outlets through camera angles, lighting, photo captions, article headlines, and choice of debate questions. In a ninety minute period, Fox News successfully altered voter perceptions of Mitt Romney's poise and optimistic spirit from what they were before the debate. In the high stakes game of presidential campaigning, controlling the content and presentation of a candidate's message becomes a priceless commodity. Thompson is working hard to maintain that control, while his rivals are placing their political heads in the media lion's mouth in hopes of earning applause rather than being devoured.

Technorati Tags: GOP Debate Fox News Rudy Giuliani Mitt Romney John McCain Mike Huckabee Sam Brownback Ron Paul Report Cards Fred Thompson

WSJ Better Off With Murdoch Than Burkle

There is a neglected question surrounding Rupert Murdoch’s purchase of the Dow Jones Company and the Wall Street Journal: why were critics of the purchase and Dow Jones and Wall Street employees themselves up in arms over the threat to journalistic independence posed by Murdoch but none of them seemed even slightly concerned over the potential danger to literary freedom that might have occurred under a different buyer? The media attention Murdoch’s purchase garnered revolved around the assumption that Murdoch might meddle with the Wall Street Journal and compromise its journalistic integrity while there seemed to be very little concern that an owner other than Murdoch might inject his or her own ideology into the paper’s news coverage.

Before Murdoch and the Bancroft family, owners of Dow Jones, entered into the latest intense round of purchase negotiations that ended with this morning’s announced final decision to sell to Murdoch, the names of other potential buyers made brief splashes on media pages, only to be obscured by the long shadow cast by Murdoch’s media empire. One billionaire who expressed significant interest in purchasing Dow Jones, parent company of the Wall Street Journal, was Ron Burkle, former grocery store magnate and unquestionably the closest influential and wealthy friend of Bill and Hillary Clinton, both during Bill’s presidency and after.

Since leaving the White House, the Clinton’s have flown more mileage around the globe on Burkle’s private jet, an ostentatious Boeing 757, than on all other aircraft combined. Burkle’s Bel Air (Los Angeles) estate has hosted countless parties, fundraisers, rallies, and private retreats for the Clintons, as president and former president. Further cementing his position at the Clintons’ side, Burkle has consistently ranked as one of the top individual donors to the Democratic National Committee, Hillary’s election and reelection campaigns for the Senate, and currently to her presidential campaign.

I am not suggesting that there is anything improper about this cozy financial and political relationship. Wealthy and influential individuals in both parties have always ingratiated themselves with political figures for a variety of personal or business reasons. Likewise, I am not impugning Burkle’s motives for his desire to bankroll and provide free transportation to the Clintons to further their political ambitions. The significance of this relationship lies in the complete lack of attention given to it by the media and Dow Jones employees while Burkle was floating multi-billion dollar offers that many found more appealing than selling to Murdoch. While Murdoch was vilified for his personal involvement in making changes to previous news enterprises he had acquired, no one gave any serious consideration to how the Wall Street Journal might have covered news under Burkle’s ownership in light of his close ties to the Clintons.

The Wall Street Journal (WSJ), largely because of its foundations in American business, has usually been a reliably conservative publication, with a few exceptions such as its advocacy of open borders and amnesty for illegal immigrants. Even in taking that position, as flawed as it was, the WSJ was consistent with the views of many influential businesses that utilize cheap labor. Aside from that issue, though, the WSJ’s conservative news coverage and Op/Ed pieces are a welcome alternative to the brazenly liberal news coverage offered by the New York Times and most major dailies in America’s cities. As “meddling” as Murdoch’s takeovers and purchases of various media outlets may have been, few would argue that his influence has ideologically altered the news coverage of those outlets. It is certainly true that he has employed certain tactics such as shocking headlines and stories with some reference to sex to generate attention, particularly in some of his international publications. Yet he established Fox News as a more conservative alternative to liberal CNN and traditional network news offerings, and after more than a decade of broadcasting, Fox News remains dedicated to providing that conservative perspective. Dow Jones and WSJ employees should consider that aspect of Murdoch’s track record and breathe a little easier than they might have if Burkle had successfully purchased Dow Jones.

The Clintons already have an influential and widely read publication consistently doing their bidding: the New York Times. Their reach would have been enormously increased if Burkle had purchased the WSJ. It is extremely unlikely that an aggressive businessman like Burkle, who enjoys personal involvement in running his enterprises, would have been an absentee owner who would have kept his hands off of the WSJ’s journalistic ideology. Burkle is highly active in the DNC and his personal relationship with the Clintons would certainly have influenced what he would or would not want to read in his version of the WSJ. Why would he have paid billions of dollars to purchase Dow Jones and the WSJ only to allow it to undo his political activism through articles or Op/Ed pieces critical of his party and specifically the Clintons? That would not have been a wise return on his investment. Under Burkle’s ownership, the WSJ likely would have embarked on a slow but steady drift to the left, something neither its readers nor its employees would have appreciated.

It is easy to understand why Dow Jones and WSJ employees feared a Murdoch takeover, but they had much more to fear, including their jobs as conservative journalists, had a less controversial buyer like Burkle gotten his hands on the WSJ. Murdoch will be under enormous pressure to maintain the WSJ’s reputation and broad readership. He will surely tinker with the WSJ, attempting to make it more widely available, or perhaps bring it into more direct competition with the New York Times or even USA Today. Some of those efforts might achieve spectacular success, and some might prove to be dismal failures. The good news for WSJ employees is that his track record with Fox News indicates that he will not alter the generally conservative bent of the WSJ, which is the source of the paper’s journalistic independence in a news media world dominated by liberal lock-step ideology.

Technorati Tags:
Wall Street Journal, Rupert Murdoch, Dow Jones, Takeovers, News Integrity, Ron Burkle, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton

Fox Analyst Flays "Friend" Musharraf

It is a rare occurrence when I must side with the usually left-leaning State Department on any issue that directly involves national security. However, when it comes to calls from certain quarters for the Bush administration to aggressively pressure Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf to wage all out war on Islamic radicals hiding in the mountainous Afghanistan/Pakistan border, I found myself siding with Richard Boucher, Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asian Affairs rather than Fox News military analyst Colonel David Hunt. Ordinarily I appreciate Col. Hunt’s blunt assessments and aggressive posture towards engaging the enemy with full purpose and force rather than limited rules of engagement, but Col. Hunt’s recommendations for conducting the War on Terror within Pakistan are fraught with dangers that he either minimizes or ignores in his online columns and cable news interviews.

A summary of a new threat assessment leaked to the Associated Press this week highlighted the reality that the Taliban and al Qaeda have regrouped and regained strength nearly on par with pre-9/11 levels, thriving in their mountain hideouts in the tribal regions of Pakistan’s northwestern border with Afghanistan. What to do about that reality is, next to Iraq, the most hotly debated issue in Washington. Counterterrorism and intelligence officials believe Musharraf has not done enough to root out the terrorists while accepting $100 million from the U.S. each month ostensibly to develop the local economy in the tribal areas where many find the money alternatively offered by terror groups and border smugglers irresistible. Musharraf has insisted that Pakistani forces execute all counterterrorism raids and operations within Pakistan, and the amount of success he has achieved forms the crux of the debate between the State Department’s approach toward Pakistan and the approach favored by Col. Hunt and others.

In his latest column at FoxNews.com, Col. Hunt wrote the following:

This week, we learned that in 2005, great guys from Seal Team 6, Special Forces, and other terrific Special Operations Organizations were sitting on a runway in Afghanistan, all geared up, ready to go and capture and or kill much of al Qaeda's top leadership. You remember al Qaeda; they’re the ones who killed us on September 11, 2001. Our supremely brave, conditioned and trained men were fully rehearsed, totally committed and ready to kick some serious al Qaeda [expletive].

They call him Rummy … or at least I do. He's the former and totally incompetent Secretary of Defense, who less than two years after 9/11 — two years after the president says “we will hunt them down” — decides that this mission was to be canceled. He makes this bone-headed decision because it might be “dangerous” and it might piss off the president of Pakistan. ARE YOU KIDDING ME? Hey, Mr. “Ask and Answer Your Own Questions,” everything about war is dangerous and General Musharraf is not our friend.

I do not fault Col. Hunt for his dislike of former Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld or for his desire for Special Forces operations like the one he described to act swiftly and lethally to eliminate Bin Laden or other terrorist leaders. From a counterterrorism and military perspective, the idea that a Special Forces team had a specific location to hit within Pakistan and was prepared to strike but was denied the opportunity for political reasons is incredibly frustrating. It is easy for those of us who work in intelligence or related fields to conclude that though such an operation might anger Musharraf, the ends would justify the means, especially if Bin Laden were captured or killed. Yet that is precisely where Col. Hunt’s assessment of the missed opportunity and the risk to Musharraf drifts from understandable disappointment to dangerous miscalculation.

Col. Hunt’s assessment that “General Musharraf is not our friend” is shared by many within the intelligence and counterterrorism community, but it is based on unrealistic expectations for “friendship” in the War on Terror, as well as a dangerous underestimation of the Muslim power vacuum that would occur in nuclear-armed Pakistan should Musharraf lose control or be assassinated. Although Musharraf may not be the “friend” that Col. Hunt understandably hopes for, considering the seething cauldron of Islamic radicalism that surrounds him within his own population it is remarkable that he has survived to assist the U.S. as long as he has. Assistant Sec. of State Boucher defended Musharraf’s contributions to the War on Terror during a House committee hearing yesterday, as excerpted from the Washington Post:

At the hearing, Boucher said that Pakistan has "captured more al-Qaeda than any country in the world, and lost more people doing that." He added that Pakistani authorities had killed or captured three of the top 10 Taliban commanders in the border area over the past six to nine months -- and caught several more in the past week.

Boucher said that Pakistan has about 85,000 troops stationed in the border area, with Washington reimbursing Islamabad for its $100 million monthly expenses. Musharraf has promised the tribal leaders $100 million annually for 10 years, and the United States has pledged another $150 million annually for five years, in an effort to promote economic development as an alternative to smuggling and terrorism.

"These were all joint efforts with Pakistan that led to the elimination of some of the top Taliban leaders who had been operating from Pakistan to support the insurgency in Afghanistan," Boucher said.

He said that there are signs "every now and then that there's not a wholehearted effort at all levels in all institutions in Pakistan" -- a reference to news accounts of Pakistani intelligence officials supporting terrorists.

"We've raised those when we need to," Boucher said. When asked about Musharraf's role, he said, "I think if Pakistan was not fighting terrorism, there'd be no way we could succeed in Afghanistan or in terms of the security of our homeland."

The State Department and intelligence community are nearly always at odds over strategy and alliance issues, and nowhere is that more evident than in the debate over how much pressure the U.S. should apply to Musharraf to wage war against Islamic radicals within his own country. In addition to the contributions Musharraf has made as outlined in part by Asst. Secretary Boucher, Musharraf recently showed courage in raiding a radical mosque and killing a barricaded Islamic radical cleric, actions that were wildly unpopular In Islamabad and caused riots. He has reportedly survived fourteen assassination attempts, and yet continues to mount Pakistani military operations against Taliban and al Qaeda leaders in the tribal regions. In this precarious position reality dictates that losing Musharraf, regardless of his perceived level of “friendship” with the U.S., would be far more dangerous to world stability and our national security than his continued allegedly half-hearted engagement in the War on Terror.

Col. Hunt was quick to criticize Musharraf and to call for American military strikes within Pakistan regardless of the potential ramifications for Musharraf’s continued control over Pakistan’s nuclear weaponry and resources. Such rash action might satisfy our desire for revenge on Bin Laden and it might very well weaken al Qaeda greatly for many years. However, as recent plots in Britain, Indonesia, the Philippines, and other nations have demonstrated, al Qaeda’s leadership may be holed up in Pakistan’s mountains, but its ideology and followers have formed a global movement. By striking within Pakistan without the consent of President Musharraf, America would undermine his authority and control over his country and embolden radical Islamists to gain control of Pakistan’s military and nuclear weapons through a coup or other violent action. Would America be safer with a Pakistani leader who, though far from being a perfect “friend”, at least keeps nuclear weapons and material out of the hands of Islamic terrorists, or with the alternative; a radical Islamist Pakistani leader who opens Pakistan’s nuclear resources to the highest bidding terrorist organization?

If a U.S. War on Terror, waged by the U.S. inside Pakistan, would create no other repercussions than making Musharraf angry, as Col. Hunt simplistically assumed, then it would be well worth doing, and doing immediately. Unfortunately, war carries multiple dangers, and angering Musharraf is not the reason we have forestalled sending our Special Forces into Pakistan. The simple truth is that Musharraf’s stability in Pakistan has earned him the right to demand that Pakistan’s military conduct all operations within its border. One wonders how Col. Hunt might respond if he were President of the United States and a terrorist group, later discovered to be holed up in the Rocky Mountains near Denver, flew planes into government buildings in Islamabad, killing 3,000 Pakistanis. Would “President Hunt,” when contacted by an angry Musharraf, agree to allow Pakistani forces to operate inside the U.S. and attack the terrorists hiding in the Rocky Mountains? It is not likely. “President Hunt” would rightfully expect to be respected and would likewise rightfully assure Musharraf that the U.S. military would handle any such operation within our borders. Why would Col. Hunt expect Musharraf to act any differently when given the same type of request?

For a military man steeped in the culture of respect for authority, it is surprising that Col. Hunt would demonstrate so much contempt for the authority of a foreign president of a nuclear power with a population of 165 million who has, lest it be forgotten, taken high profile terrorists like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed into custody and turned them over to American intelligence operatives. The information gleaned from those prisoners has been the most significant contribution to our knowledge of the enemy in the War on Terror, and Musharraf’s military operations against al Qaeda in Pakistan made that possible. While Musharraf holds onto his fragile control over Pakistan, America should patiently assist this “friend” rather than cast stones at him. Who among world leaders is a perfect “friend?” Let him cast the first stone. Secretary Rumsfeld, also a far from perfect Defense Secretary, clearly had more significant reasons for not sending Special Ops into Pakistan than making Musharraf angry, reasons that continue to shape current American restraint in order to preserve a known and stable leadership in Pakistan.

Technorati Tags:
Musharraf, Pakistan, al Qaeda, War on Terror, Bush Administration, Colonel David Hunt, State Department, Richard Boucher, Taliban, Counterterrorism

O'Reilly Dead Wrong on Cho Manifesto

It gives me no pleasure to take issue with the nation’s #1 cable news personality, but when Bill O’Reilly is wrong, he can be spectacularly wrong. In defending the media’s (including the O’Reilly Factor’s) airing of Virginia Tech killer Cho Seung-hui’s videotaped “manifesto,” O’Reilly demonstrated an intellectual shallowness that was inconsistent with his usually erudite opinions.

O’Reilly would have done better to state the truth behind his decision to air portions of the “manifesto” provided by NBC: he was glad the killer sent the video to NBC rather than Fox, and relieved that NBC decided to air it, thus giving all other networks guilt-free reign to circulate the footage. I am sure the thought that viewers would be fascinated by the depraved ranting and disturbing images, thus leading to even higher ratings for his #1 rated program, never crossed O’Reilly’s mind!

It is difficult to describe O’Reilly’s Twister game-worthy contortions of logic while explaining why he chose to air the “manifesto” footage, so I will allow the following excerpt from his Talking Points to illustrate:

Many Americans believe the media was irresponsible, broadcasting the sick words of the Virginia Tech killer. They say that's what he wanted, that it might lead others to imitate him, that it brings even more pain to the families of the victims.

Now I respect and do not disagree with any of those points. But I ran the tape last night and I'd do it again. Here's why:

Evil must be exposed and Cho was evil. You can see it in his face, hear it in his voice. All of us who saw the tape will never forget it. And it made me and millions of others angry. Once evil is acknowledged, steps can be taken to contain it. And once anger is in the air, policy can change.

No matter how many laws we pass, you're never going to stop evil killers, they'll find a way. But public policy must make it more difficult for evil people. It's a lot harder for terrorists to kill Americans today than it was before 9/11. And that's because new laws and better security have been imposed. . . .

O’Reilly continued by demanding that two steps be taken due to the Cho case. The first, which will turn into a heated national debate over medical record privacy, was that anyone who has ever been deemed by a court as a “danger to himself or others” could never own a gun.

The second demand for action was even more controversial:

Second, any institution or work place that accepts a person for employment or education must have access to FBI records. Virginia Tech didn't tell Cho's roommates that he was considered dangerous, even though the university knew. Can you believe that?! What if you were the parents of his roommates?

Now I predict the Commonwealth of Virginia will have to pay a massive amount in damages, because it didn't protect the students from Cho. So if a videotape of this monster can spur Americans to demand Congress pass new laws to protect the folks, then the videotape accomplishes a positive thing.

His second demand was an apples-oranges comparison. Cho had no criminal history in the United States, thus checking FBI records would have yielded no information for the school or any employer. Additionally, having the ability to query criminal history databases (I don’t think O’Reilly actually meant “access”) maintained by the FBI, known as the National Crime Information Center (NCIC), has been available to employers for many years. Many thriving database companies, such as Integrascan or Intelius, offer criminal background checks for a fee, a portion of which is filtered back to the state agencies that maintain those criminal history records. Arrests and court dispositions are public record, and like property records, can be obtained directly from states for a fee. For example, for $23 any citizen can obtain a Florida criminal history. Thus, O’Reilly’s indignant huff that all employers must have the ability to check these records demonstrated that his staff did not research the issue even superficially.

The flawed logic of O’Reilly’s argument here deepens, however, when one considers that medical records, unlike arrest and court records, are NOT public record, and thus cannot be purchased for a nominal fee by citizens. That, most would agree, is a good thing. Would you want your neighbor, or a stalker, or your business competitor to have the ability to pay a database company $30 to gain access to your medical history? Millions of Americans suffer varying degrees of diagnosed mental illness, and a high percentage of these can function in society, marry, raise children, and hold responsible employment with the help of medication. Imagine how that would change if all employers could purchase access to applicant medical records. The discrimination against applicants diagnosed even with treatable and common forms of mental illness, such as manic depression, would be immeasurable. What employer would ever take a chance by hiring an applicant after paying a fee and discovering that psychiatric treatment was listed in the applicant’s medical records?

The information about Cho known by Virginia Tech officials was not public record. It related to his psychological condition and school counseling referral, which under law are governed differently than criminal background information. Both are confidential, and it is unlawful to distribute such information without a subpoena or other form of legal order. Had school officials informed Cho’s roommates that he had been referred to counseling and was dangerous, they would have been violating Cho’s right to privacy in counseling. What student needing counseling would ever seek it if he or she knew that the school might disclose information obtained in confidential counseling to roommates? The integrity of counseling as a profession would be lost forever. This would not exclude administrators and counselors from notifying law enforcement of their concerns, but law enforcement cannot take action on what a person thinks about but hasn’t declared intent to do (sorry, Minority Report fans, there is no PreCrime yet).

The argument that evil must be exposed is questionable at best, but exposing evil can be accomplished without giving evil prime time fame. Evil exposed, more often than not, leads to further, more widespread evil. As I write this post, there have been 12 threats to schools nationwide today, including threats of carnage greater than Virginia Tech in Yuba City, CA, for example. Copycat killers have quite a standard to live up to now that they have seen and heard Cho’s demeanor, ideas, and ultimate success. Thanks to the video, others sharing Cho’s alienation and rage now know what violent cult film Cho mimicked during his slaughter preparations. Expect downloads and purchases of that film to receive a big boost.

O’Reilly wrote that viewing Cho’s video made him angry, and that he hoped it would make all viewers angry at evil. O’Reilly mistakenly believed that this anger would lead to action to eradicate evil. Unfortunately, the anger stirred up by the video has thus far not been directed at the killer or his evil but has instead targeted law enforcement, Virginia Tech administrators, and other innocent people who were deeply impacted by the event but receive no sympathy. Anger leads to blame, not solutions. When experiencing anger, it is conventional wisdom to take a few deep breaths, and calm down before speaking, writing, or taking action.

O’Reilly should have followed that advice and let his anger recede before deciding to air the killer’s video, which did in fact give Cho exactly what he wanted, to live in infamy. O’Reilly made a business decision knowing that NBC would take the brunt of the criticism as the recipient of the video and that the O’Reilly Factor could not be left as the only cable news program NOT broadcasting the warped ranting of a sick man. Fox’s claim to be “Fair and Balanced” seemed disingenuous, as “balance” would have been achieved by not airing the “manifesto” and delineating the reasons why.

NBC cited giving viewers a glimpse into the mind of a killer as the compelling reason for airing Cho’s video, and sadly, O’Reilly parroted that logic under the guise of exposing evil. The truth is another matter. The “manifesto” could have been analyzed by the FBI’s criminal psychologists and profilers, and we would have learned what, if anything could have been done to prevent another such tragedy from occurring. As Spook86 at In From the Cold reminded on Tuesday (“Guns and Schools”), the Secret Service established the National Threat Assessment Center, which specializes in studying school shootings. A review of Cho’s video and a summary of his stated motives by one of these agencies would have sufficed to answer the question of why Cho did what he did, and appropriate steps to minimize the possibility of another such tragedy could have been recommended.

There was no need to hear Cho’s voice, or watch him arming himself, or mimicking scenes from a horribly bloody movie he was obsessed with while he blamed everyone but himself for what he was about to do. That video was sensationalist journalism at its worst, and NBC proved an all too willing co conspirator. The other networks, once the line had been crossed, acted as greedy accomplices, desperate for any portion of the media ratings windfall they could capture from the tragedy.

Cho’s craving for attention was exceeded only by the media’s craving for ratings. O’Reilly proved, at least in this instance, to desire ratings and shock value more than taking the moral high ground out of respect for the victims’ families. He could have scheduled all of them for the interviews they cancelled with NBC had he not wallowed in the mud with the Natural Born Cruelty network. Instead, he intentionally added to the pain of those families and attempted to purge his guilt by insisting that he was serving the greater good. O’Reilly should have selected his own defense of airing the video as his trademark Ridiculous Item of the Day.

Debate Sponsored by Fox News too Intimidating for 2008 Democratic Presidential Candidates?

Candidates for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination are scrambling to intentionally schedule alternative debates and public appearances in Nevada in order to avoid the upcoming August primary debate co-sponsored by Fox News. Yesterday I wrote about the thin skin of Russian President Vladimir Putin, but even his skin appears to be much thicker than that of Democrats who apparently cannot tolerate the existence of a major media outlet that presents news without liberal spin and are afraid of being mocked by conservative pundits.

The Daily Kos is actively contacting the campaign staffs of major Democratic presidential candidates to encourage them not to participate in the Fox sponsored debate. Kos happily reported yesterday that “the first to definitely say ‘no’ is John Edwards.” Kos then quotes from an email he received from Deputy Campaign Manager Jonathan Prince and declares it to be “great news”:

We will not be participating in the Fox debate. We're going to make lots of appearances in Nevada, including debates. By the end of March, we will have attended three presidential forums in Nevada - and there are already at least three proposed Nevada debates. We're definitely going to debate in Nevada, but we don't see why this needs to be one of them.

Kos goes on to laud the Edwards campaign, remarking that they were “showing real leadership on this issue. Hopefully others will soon follow.” Kos further set forth the reasoning behind the push for his party to shun a Fox sponsored debate:

It's not a position they want to be in, and I'm sure they're cursing whoever it was that negotiated the deal with Fox News. (That Democratic Party decision maker, by the way, is still secret. Everyone claims they don't know who signed the deal.)

The campaigns could make things easier for themselves by just stating, en masse, that they won't do a Fox News debate, but that they'll be happy to debate in Nevada with another media partner.

The issue here isn't to screw over Nevada or its Dems (it's a state where we should be far more competitive, and will be in the next few cycles), and to deprive them of a close look at the field.

The issue is to deprive the right wing's premier propaganda outlet an easy opportunity to take cheap shots at our guys.

If Republicans ran in fear from appearances on news networks that mock and misrepresent them, there would have been no televised presidential debates or White House press conferences held in the past 50 years. Forgotten by Fox News critics is the important distinction that the network’s claim is not to be completely objective or impartial, but rather it is to be “fair and balanced,” which it accomplishes simply through its existence as a balancing alternative to the blatantly liberal traditional networks and newspapers. If there is a traditional major network news channel that has not mocked, belittled, or impugned the integrity of President Bush and Vice President Cheney, Spy The News! invites Kos to bring it to our attention. Republicans have been good sports in the past about attending debates orchestrated by CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, and others, with full knowledge that the Republican message would be twisted and distorted by the news anchors within seconds of the event’s conclusion. Yet they participated anyway. Democrats should do likewise, even if makes them squirm a bit.

Small people avoid big challenges, and Edwards has demonstrated by his choice to duck the Fox debate in Nevada that there really are two Americas as he frequently argues, only it is not a rich versus poor divide but rather a clear distinction between courageous America and cowardly America. Considering that it took him longer to decide to pull out of the Fox debate than it did for him to advocate pulling out of Iraq should give voters little confidence in his courage to make tough decisions. In both cases he has chosen the easy path.

Democrats should consider that Fox News is the most watched cable news channel in America, with an audience nearly triple CNN’s and quadruple MSNBC’s. It has more viewers than both of its chief competitors combined. Fox News hosts also sweep the top 3 spots for their individual programs, with the O’Reilly Factor and Hannity & Colmes consistently holding the top two spots. Democrats should also keep in mind that many Fox News viewers also watch CNN and other networks in order to witness examples of media bias. In essence, although conservatives tend to agree with Fox News’ presentation of the news, they are keenly aware of how those same stories are being described in the liberal media. Fox News is clearly not the Democrats’ preferred news network, but for Democrats to advocate avoiding political debate simply because Fox has paid to co-sponsor the event suggests that what is actually feared may be the exposure to scrutiny their political views would receive.

Edwards insists there are 2 Americas, one rich and one poor, but the media outlets he deigns worthy to interview him never ask him pointed questions like “Isn’t the involuntary taxation of the rich to give to the poor also called socialism?” Another question he likely would not want asked is “How many doctors did you drive out of practice or out of state in North Carolina with your frivolous malpractice lawsuits? And Senator, if I may, did your persecution of doctors in North Carolina result in lower or higher healthcare costs for both rich and poor citizens of your state?” I wonder if Fox News has recorded chirping cricket sounds or perhaps the Final Jeopardy theme to play while Edwards crafts a reply.

All joking aside, Edwards should have no fear of a debate on an opposing network, since, as he claimed in many of his malpractice trials, he possesses clairvoyant abilities to channel spirits that reveal important facts of his cases to him. As reported by the New York Times, while “channeling” the spirit of a baby girl who allegedly died of doctor error resulting in delivery-induced cerebral palsy, Edwards told the jury:

"She speaks to you through me," the lawyer went on in his closing argument. "And I have to tell you right now — I didn't plan to talk about this — right now I feel her. I feel her presence. She's inside me, and she's talking to you."

The jury came back with a $6.5 million verdict in the cerebral palsy case, and Mr. Edwards established his reputation as the state's most feared plaintiff's lawyer.

In the decade that followed, Mr. Edwards filed at least 20 similar lawsuits against doctors and hospitals in deliveries gone wrong, winning verdicts and settlements of more than $60 million, typically keeping about a third.

He should have no difficulty calling on sympathetic liberal spirits to warn him in advance what questions he will be asked and how he should answer. The only tough question he should face from them is how much he will charge by the hour for his channeling services.

Daily Kos, MoveOn.org and others advocating a boycott of the Fox News sponsored Nevada primary debate should heed the surprisingly astute advice of the Nevada Democratic Party as quoted in the Las Vegas Sun: “The debate in August is not an endorsement of Fox News. Instead, it is an effort to reach out to Fox News viewers. We will not win elections if we don't win over new people."

If speaking or debating only in front of comfortable network accomplices is so desperately sought by the 2008 Democratic presidential candidates, one can only assume that as president they would not be comfortable debating serious issues with a foreign head of state sitting across the table from them. If they cannot face potential mockery from Fox News, how will they be trusted to stand up to Ahmadinejad? If “fair and balanced” strikes fear in their hearts, how will they react to being called “the Great Satan” that should be annihilated?

It is not surprising that John Edwards was the first to personify Monty Python’s cowardly character Sir Robin, whose adventures were captured so well in song: “When danger reared its ugly head, he [Edwards] bravely turned his tail and fled.” We will surely soon hear Edwards’ response, echoing Sir Robin’s denials: “I did not. . . I never did.”

"Cut and run" as a policy may be the Democrats’ wish for Iraq, but in the case of debate avoidance it demonstrates a decidedly thin-skinned and cowardly approach to political discourse. The days of political immunity in the media for liberals are over, and hopefully a new “fair and balanced” ratio of liberal and conservative media will one day result in televised political debates hosted by a variety of networks of all political stripes. Democrats should show confidence in their political views and willingly debate each other regardless of the sponsoring network. The only message Democrats will send by boycotting a Fox News sponsored debate is that the liberal version of "freedom of the press" is extended only to traditional liberal sycophant networks.