The Romney Campaign's Baffling Mistake

For a man who has gone to great lengths to downplay the role of personal religious practice in the selection of an American president, 2008 GOP candidate Mitt Romney may have gotten what he deserved in his recent verbal exchange with Al Sharpton. By that I do not mean that Sharpton was right, or that his comments about Romney’s faith were not bigoted (they were). On the contrary, Sharpton insulted Romney and Romney’s faith in the same manner Sharpton insults nearly all faiths and ethnicities that differ from his narrow world view. Romney deserved the follow-up criticisms of his faith and subsequent media scrutiny because Romney demonstrated poor judgment by acknowledging and commenting on anything spoken by Al Sharpton in the first place. If the decision was made by a campaign advisor, Romney should start seeking new talent in a hurry. Romney and his team should have recognized Sharpton for the race and religious baiter that he is and not given it a second thought.

If Romney’s goal was to run for president on his substantial and impressive record in politics, business, and family life without having to pass a religious “litmus test,” he could not have chosen a worse course of action than publicly complaining about Sharpton's statements. This was a religious debate in New York City between a raving racist self-proclaimed “reverend” (Sharpton), and an avowed Atheist (Christopher Hitchens). If Romney intends to decry every disparaging remark made about his religion by anyone of prominence, he will ultimately spend far more time doing so in his campaign than describing his views and convincing voters he would make a good president.

What did Romney hope to accomplish by entangling himself in a religious tug of war with Sharpton? Why, if he did not want his religion to be a determining factor for voters, did he engage in religious discussions he knew would draw national attention? Some may argue that Romney was shrewd to allow himself to draw fire from a known bigot and an Atheist, as doing so would arouse the sympathy of religious conservatives (and it did, including Ralph Reed, who staunchly defended Romney on Hannity & Colmes last night). While this may seem a plausible explanation in the immediate aftermath of the incident and continuing verbal exchanges between Sharpton and Romney, it is more likely that this questionable decision will harm Romney’s campaign by making religion the defining issue, or at least the issue receiving the most media coverage.

Sharpton will not back down. He will never sincerely apologize. He will only continue to do what he has already done, which is to escalate his rhetoric against Romney’s faith by raising questions about his church’s restriction on blacks receiving the priesthood, which was discontinued in 1978. Simply by acknowledging Sharpton and commenting to the press, Romney opened himself to attacks publicized in the national media questioning whether his faith is truly Christian (which it clearly is) and whether it practiced discrimination (which it did not, if one accepts the LDS Church’s official declaration issued in 1978). Few will remember what Romney’s stances on terrorism and the economy are while the media focuses on his faith and its mysterious or misunderstood past, depending on one’s point of view.

Romney granted extensive media access to his family and addressed his religious views and the role of religion in his life in Hugh Hewitt’s book, A Mormon in the White House?: 10 Things Every American Should Know about Mitt Romney. As I read the book it seemed that Romney was hoping that Hewitt's work, written as it was by a popular radio host, blogger, and Evangelical, would satisfy national curiosity and answer any question as to whether a candidate’s faith should influence his perceived qualifications for the presidency. Instead of letting the book serve that purpose, aided by his low-profile responses to questions about his faith, Romney has now allowed others to frame the debate over his religion and he finds himself responding defensively. If the best defense is a good offense, then Romney made a tactical error by stepping into a defensive role in a national arena.

Romney would have been well served to do what most Americans do: ignore Sharpton’s vitriolic attention seeking. The "reverend" does not represent the beliefs and values of even a tiny fraction of African-Americans, and Romney could have further marginalized Sharpton by refusing to take his bait. Instead, Romney has now become the only GOP candidate who voters will mentally connect with Sharpton. In mudslinging, the innocent party is often splattered but needs not remain in range of further salvos or join his adversary in the mud. Romney can expect more attacks and will deserve them, not because they are fair, but because, like a matador, he could have side-stepped a perpetually charging Sharpton but chose instead to be gored.

Ann Coulter's CPAC Remark: Room in Politics for "Loving the Sinner, but not the Sin?"

Is it possible in today’s instant-media politics to “love the sinner but not the sin?” At what point does a person’s worth become synonymous with his/her actions or words, especially if those actions or words become a political liability for anyone considered a friend or supporter? In today’s politics it seems that members of both political parties routinely rush to throw the proverbial baby out with the bathwater whenever someone speaks frankly but perhaps with little tact. Influential organizations, with media complicity, demand that politicians not only distance themselves from “inflammatory” or “intolerant” statements made by others, but they are further urged to personally condemn or malign the person who made the comments. In effect, political correctness today demands nothing less than a complete shunning of anyone whose friendship or support could be viewed as political baggage. Ambition trumps friendship, and popularity eschews loyalty.

Recent examples of this phenomenon illustrate the political danger presidential candidates face when someone they know and have publicly associated with does or says something controversial. Their perceived risk of being associated with a controversial figure or policy position almost immediately results in the candidates’ lemming-like dash to jump into the abyss of political correctness to preserve their popularity and appeal.

Unfortunately Ann Coulter placed several 2008 Republican presidential candidates in an awkward position with her controversial remarks at the 34th annual CPAC (Conservative Political Action Conference) on Friday. The candidates’ political views and personalities were overshadowed by the media focus on one sentence uttered by Coulter and the efforts of top Republican 2008 presidential contenders Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, and Senator John McCain to distance themselves from her remark. If you missed it, during her speech to CPAC Coulter made the following comment:

I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, but it turns out you have to go into rehab if you use the word ‘faggot,’ so I — so kind of an impasse, can’t really talk about Edwards.

Clearly, Ann Coulter has a low opinion of Senator John Edwards, but the number of Republicans (and many Democrats as well) who hold similarly low opinions of Senator Edwards is legion. Coulter expressed her sentiment in a forceful manner, leaving no doubt about her disdain for Senator Edwards as a politician and as a person. One could reasonably question her judgment in using a term that has been ascribed only one possible meaning in today’s politically correct climate. It can also be reasonably assumed that she intentionally used the term on such an austere occasion to gain publicity, as the analysis by Right Wing News convincingly argues in the post titled, “Ann Coulter's Juvenile Comment at CPAC.”

Coulter, in manner ironically similar to John Kerry after his derogatory comments toward the intelligence of U.S. Military personnel, explained that her remark was an attempt at humor, or in Kerry’s words, “a botched joke.” When asked about criticism of her comment, Coulter stated, “C’mon, it was a joke. I would never insult gays by suggesting that they are like John Edwards. That would be mean.”

Traditional liberal media outlets, including the Washington Post, who defended Senator Kerry by immediately labeling his insult to U.S. troops in Iraq as nothing more than a botched joke, did not offer similar protective coverage to Ann Coulter in this incident. There were no headlines in the Post softening Coulter’s image with blind acceptance of her Kerry-esque “it was a joke” explanation. On the contrary, she was universally condemned by the liberal media, and also by the leading Republican 2008 presidential candidates.

The following are the reactions of each candidate to Coulter’s remark as reported by the New York Times and Fox News, respectively:

Rudy Giuliani- “The comments were completely inappropriate and there should be no place for such name-calling in political debate.”

Mitt Romney- (via a spokesperson) “It was an offensive remark. Governor Romney believes all people should be treated with dignity and respect.”

Senator McCain- “Wildly inappropriate.”

The larger question raised by the Coulter flap is: what is the appropriate long-term response when someone who supports you does or says something controversial? Should Mitt Romney follow the advice of the liberal critics who demand that he refuse Coulter’s campaign support? The difficulty with this situation is that Coulter, though acerbic in delivery, happens to wield the most sarcastic pen in political punditry, and often provides valuable insight and political analysis couched in phrases no candidate or current office holder would dare to utter. Her remark about Edwards was inappropriate, particularly in a forum of candidates carrying the banner of the Republican Party. Yet as ill-advised as her attempt at humor was, it does not necessarily invalidate all of her past and future political analyses.

By nature politics is a controversial business. One cannot take a position without being excoriated by those holding opposing ideas, even if those opponents are in one’s own party. Should all Republican candidates shun Coulter for one sentence in one speech? The Clintons were wise to remain loyal to James Carville and others within their party who spoke bluntly and controversially in much the same fashion as Coulter. Much of the Clintons’ electoral success can be directly attributed to Carville’s strategies, demonstrating that even “flame throwers” have value beyond their publicity stunts.

Politics as a profession leaves little room for repentance, rehabilitation, or forgiveness, and the media appears determined to punish any candidate who gives any appearance of friendship with Coulter. Attempts by the media to link the candidates personally to Coulter began almost immediately, as the New York Times placed the following sentence directly beneath Coulter’s sarcastic explanation of her intended joke: “At the conference, she said she was likely to support Mr. Romney.”

Apparently the liberal media took notice that Romney won the CPAC straw poll and may be emerging as the preferred candidate among conservative Republicans. Liberal bloggers adopted the strategy of creating the impression that since Coulter officially endorsed Romney, he should be smeared with the stain of her allegedly anti-gay comment. The most egregious misrepresentation of Romney’s Coulter connection can be found on the highly popular liberal blog The Daily Kos in the post titled “Coulter and the Candidates.” Daily Kos contributor MissLaura portrayed the incident as follows:

One of the conservatives whose support Romney drew, of course, was Ann Coulter. The two spent some quality time together before she went onstage to call John Edwards a "faggot."

Can we therefore expect him to refuse to be further associated with someone like Ann Coulter, whose entire career as a prominent conservative is based on the notion that people who disagree with her should be treated with contempt, disrespect, and vituperation?

I'll be looking for him to refuse her support of his candidacy just any minute now.

Thus, according to “tolerant” liberals and Republicans infected with political correctness, if one makes a controversial comment, regardless of intent, that person should be jettisoned permanently. The comments submitted to this Daily Kos post were likewise illustrative of the true nature of liberal tolerance. Readers were outraged by the above photo of Romney backstage PRIOR to Coulter’s speech. Romney was vilified by one reader for “flashing his most cordial smile” at Coulter, as if civility and personal kindness should never be directed toward those with whom one disagrees.

To the right you will see a photo of Nancy Pelosi “flashing her most cordial smile” at President Bush despite having said this of him in 2004: “Bush is an incompetent leader. In fact, he's not a leader. He's a person who has no judgment, no experience and no knowledge of the subjects that he has to decide upon.” Hillary Clinton, in another flashed a very cordial smile to Vice President Cheney prior to taking her oath of office in the U.S. Senate, all while the very friendly Bill Clinton had his hand on the Vice President’s shoulder. These types of photos indicate nothing about the beliefs and policy views of the persons in the photos, they merely demonstrate that snubbing people and burning bridges win few friends and minimal influence in politics. I suppose the tolerant liberal approach to standing next to someone backstage in a green room must consist of glares, the silent treatment, or refusals to stand next to someone with differing views. Romney was obviously being gracious with a well known media figure, and there is nothing substantive to indicate any more or less than this, especially from one photograph.

For liberals, tolerance appears to be a precious commodity only extended to those who agree with them. The comparison between the media treatment of John Kerry and Ann Coulter does not excuse or defend Coulter’s remark, which was truly juvenile, but it does expand on what Hugh Hewitt wrote about this incident. Hugh rightly pointed out that both the Democratic and Republican parties have individuals who embarrass them and Republicans should use caution in using past liberal behavior to justify present conservative missteps like Coulter’s. Hugh stops there, but the difference is that Republicans tend to shun or officially censure those within their ranks who embarrass the party through their behavior or words, as Coulter did at CPAC. Democrats, as in the case of John Kerry’s repeated insults to troops recently and in 1971, or Speaker Pelosi’s personal attacks of the President’s intellect and competence, seem to reward controversial behavior with high office and unwavering support. Hugh Hewitt makes an excellent point by reminding Republicans that they should seek to rise above the standard set by the other party and expect more dignity from its members.

The Republican reaction to Coulter should be sincere and hopefully will send a message that John Edwards’ political views provide sufficient fodder for reasoned, analytical refutation without resorting to personal attacks. While Republican candidates should make it clear that epithets are discouraged, they should likewise not close the door completely on Coulter’s other, more civilized contributions to political discourse. If every public figure, whether in politics, entertainment, sports, or the media, were to be permanently shunned for one lapse of judgment or poor choice of words, few in these fields today would survive the scrutiny. Forgiveness is perhaps the rarest of all human gifts, but is the one commodity that should be meted out, no pun intended, liberally.

Is the "Mess" in Iraq Fact or Fiction? Newt Gingrich, Winston Churchill, and Robert Kaplan Make Their Cases

I was recently asked, “Is Iraq really a mess, or does the media just portray it as a mess?” The knee-jerk reply to such a question would be to blame the media, since liberal media bias against President Bush and the military has been so well-documented in alternative media including Spy The News! However, the recent criticisms by Senator John McCain of the management of this war, which echoed similar criticisms he leveled in 2004, remind supporters of the war effort that criticizing war management does not equate to being anti-war or in favor of our withdrawal from Iraq.

Is the situation in Iraq a mess? Liberals and conservatives agree that it is. The difference lies in what one does with that realization. Liberals interpret the mess as confirmation that we cannot win the war and should withdraw our troops as quickly as possible regardless of the long term consequences for Iraqis and anxious neighboring nations. Conservative critics, except for cut and run advocates like Chuck Hagel, understand that the current situation is a mess, but favor learning from our mistakes and adapting strategy to achieve the original, noble purpose of the war. Both sides have engaged in useless political posturing, with Democrats and some weak-kneed Republicans passing non-binding resolutions assigning blame to someone else despite their own votes for the war in 2003. Republicans too, like McCain, have attacked former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld for what they consider mismanagement of the war strategy.

Assigning blame will not make Iraq any less of a mess than it is now, and merely creates personal animosity when the more important matter, fixing the current situation in Iraq, receives secondary attention. To improve the current situation, it is essential to recognize what mistakes were made (not who made them) and correct the mistakes.

Critics seem to be in agreement that the biggest mistake was our failure to incorporate the then-existing Iraqi army and local tribal sheiks in our efforts to win the hearts of the Iraqi people and offer them security. In a book frequently recommended by radio and blog personality Hugh Hewitt, Imperial Grunts: On the Ground with the American Military, from Mongolia to the Philippines to Iraq and Beyond, journalist Robert Kaplan, who was embedded with Army and Marine units in Afghanistan and later in Iraq, observed the following about our failure to utilize tribal leaders and the Iraqi army:

In fact, repression had not been the only tool used by Saddam Hussein. He had also bribed the paramount sheiks of the Sunni Triangle with cash, fancy cars, tracts of land, and other tangible gifts. But the American-led invasion dismantled that entire system. And what had the Americans brought in return to assuage such notables, who for millennia had affected the thinking of their extended clans? The promise of elections? What was that? An abstraction that meant little to many here. In a part of the world where blood was thicker than ideas, it was a difficult step for one Muslim to dime out another Muslim, especially for something as intangible as elections.

Thus the Sheiks and others, driven by narrow self-interest-as if that should have surprised anyone-made it known that they were open to deals with Syrians and assorted other jihadists. . . . It didn’t help matters that the very militarization of the state facilitated by Saddam had turned Iraq into one huge ammunition storehouse for the supply of rockets and mortars to the jihadists, and the making of IEDs. . . . And with the Iraqi army disbanded, there was now a pool of people with knowledge of ordnance and explosives, and the incentive to use it against the Americans.

In Kaplan’s writings, it is clear he is no fan of the Bush administration, yet his book provides one of the best firsthand accounts of what our Army Special Forces and Marines have faced. The failure to respect and utilize local tribal sheiks to suppress radical insurgents was perhaps the most shortsighted error made in Iraq. After decades of oppression and firm control by Saddam’s regime, Iraqis lived in fear but knew who was in charge in their local areas. After disbanding the Iraqi army, we left no force other than the American military to suppress insurgents, something the Iraqi army had been successfully doing prior to our arrival.

Lest one think that the observation of one embedded journalist is unreliable, consider this excerpt from Newt Gingrich’s book Winning the Future: A 21st Century Contract with America:

The decision to have an American administration in Baghdad was a mistake. We seemed to be doing relatively well in Iraq until late May 2003 when the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) transitioned into power.

Instead of the CPA, we should have created an interim Iraqi government in June 2003 as we had in Afghanistan. It took only three weeks to identify Hamid Kharzai in Afghanistan. The people actually involved in Iraq’s interim government in June 2004 were all known and available in 2003.

The decision of the CPA to disband the Iraqi military, putting hundreds of thousands of armed young men out of work, was a disaster that our military warned against. Had the Iraqi army been kept intact-as General Tommy Franks and General Michael DeLong recommended-it is possible that most of the subsequent violence would have been averted.

History, in fact, provided ample tactical and cultural information about Afghanistan and Iraq that was apparently ignored in the design of “Shock and Awe” and other chest-thumping strategies. As quoted by Kaplan, in 1897 young Winston Churchill (in his Story of the Malakand Field Force) observed the following about Afghanistan, where the British Empire was attempting to hold sway against indigenous forces:

A roadless, broken and underdeveloped country; an absence of any strategic points; a well-armed enemy with great mobility and modern rifles, who adopts guerilla tactics. The results . . .are the troops can march anywhere, and do anything, except catch the enemy. . . .

“The unpractical,” Churchill replied, “may wonder why we, a people who fill some considerable place in the world, should mix in the petty intrigues of these border chieftains.” Some, whom Churchill calls “bad and nervous sailors,” would simply cut and run, even though that would be impossible in the circumstances, whereas others call for “full steam ahead,” that is, a dramatic increase in military and other resources until the frontier valleys “ are as safe and civilized as Hyde Park.” But, as Churchill intimates, there are usually neither the troops nor the money nor the will to do any such thing. Therefore, he concludes, the “inevitable alternative” is a system of “gradual advance, of political intrigue among the tribes, of subsidies and small expeditions."

Did we enter Iraq with small expeditions and forward operating bases (FOBs) spread throughout the country to assess and adapt to local tribal leaders and situations? No, we drove impressively to Baghdad in a glorified televised event, captured Saddam, disbanded the Iraqi army, failed to “grease the skids” with the local sheiks who employed small military forces of their own, and then Washington seemed surprised that an insurgency arose. Of course, bribing tribal sheiks sounds corrupt and even antithetical to the effort of establishing a democracy, but in reality a democracy can only succeed when each local tribe feels safe to go to the polls and feels adequately represented in the national government.

The tribes trusted their sheiks, but the U.S. CPA was loathe to deal with them and chose its own representatives for the tribes. We lacked adequate cultural intelligence to make appropriate decisions, and the sheiks and their armed followers were understandably offended. It would have been far wiser to “shock and awe” the tribal leaders with our monetary generosity. Gifts and yes, even bribes, would have made them forget the past payments expected of Saddam and secured their cooperation in securing local villages and cities against insurgents who could disturb this comfortable arrangement.

Was there military intelligence or training material that could have predicted this eventuality? Kaplan quoted the following from the U.S. Marine Corps Small Wars Manual(initially published in 1940):

Hostile forces will withdraw into the more remote parts of the country, or will be dispersed into numerous small groups which continue to oppose the occupation. Even though the recognized leaders may capitulate, subordinate commanders often refuse to abide by the terms of the capitulation. Escaping to the hinterland, they assemble heterogeneous armed groups of patriotic soldiers, malcontents, notorious outlaws. . .and by means of guerilla warfare, continue to harass and oppose the intervening force in its attempt to restore peace and good order throughout the country as a whole.

It seems clear that the Marines in 1940 were already providing keys to success in the War on Terror 61 years before 9/11, Afghanistan, and eventually Iraq. Kaplan and Gingrich also identified other mistakes that we have made that can still be corrected. Kaplan was embedded with a Marine unit in Al-Fallujah and witnessed what he described as progress in the battle against the insurgents there. Just as our military seemed poised to score what could have been a decisive victory, the Bush administration called for a cease-fire for, as journalist Kaplan writes in Imperial Grunts, media and public opinion reasons:

The focus of the media. . .on Al-Fallujah. . .was central to the decision-made at the highest levels of the U.S. government-to call a cease-fire that would end the Marine assault. This happened just as the Marines, strengthened by the arrival of a whole new battalion, may have been about to overrun the insurgents.

To be sure, the decision to invest Al-Fallujah and then pull out just as victory was within reach demonstrated both the fecklessness and incoherence of the Bush administration. While a case can be made for either launching a full-scale marine assault or continuing the previous policy of individual surgical strikes, a case cannot be made for launching a full-scale assault only to reverse it because of political pressures that were foreseeable in the first place.

The tendency of our political leaders to be swayed by media coverage and subsequent public opinion polls, led to decisions that rendered the tasks of the on the scene military commanders impossible. Those commanders are not being allowed to wage brutal war against a brutal enemy. Had we decisively defeated the insurgents in Al-Fallujah, one of the most violent areas of Iraq, the course of the war might have been vastly different than what we have experienced. Newt Gingrich went into more detail about our mistakes in the public opinion war, specifically that we have not waged one:

We also underestimated the effect of the Arab media’s propaganda campaign against us. We had no information program in the Arab world or in Europe capable of effectively communicating what we were trying to do. CPA media efforts were wrongly focused on American public opinion, not Iraqi public opinion. That made it much harder for us to mobilize Iraqis to our side.

In the global struggles against fascism and communism, the United States waged a military, economic, and propaganda war. Yet we have done nothing similarly organized and coherent in the war against Islamists and the rogue states.

While there is much to criticize about the management of the Iraq War, and plenty of blame to go around, the enduring lesson is that in the course of difficulty it is preferable to recognize and mend mistakes than to withdraw in defeat before the stated goal of the mission is accomplished. The stakes are high for our own security, our international credibility, and most importantly, the future of 50+ million Iraqis. The Boy Scouts are taught to always leave a place better than they found it. Regardless of how Iraq became a mess for us or who contributed to the mess, we are now obligated to leave Iraq better than we found it. Removing Saddam was the right thing to do, but we will not be leaving Iraq better than we found it if we abandon it to a Sunni-Shiite conflict that will quickly escalate and embroil neighboring nations eager to expand their borders and resources.

The only asset in short supply for Americans is patience. The media, possibly influenced by the initial “shock and awe” bluster, focus only on body counts, rarely reporting the rebuilding of infrastructure and other humanitarian work occurring in Iraq. But in fairness, the civilian affairs groups that typically provide humanitarian efforts have been largely unable to operate in Iraq because we have not yet secured the country from insurgents. As a result, as Kaplan describes effectively, our military is forced to fight insurgents while also rebuilding villages, schools, and utilities. The dissatisfaction among the troops in Iraq stems mainly from not being allowed to focus on the duty they are best trained for: engaging and killing the enemy.

Why are they not allowed to engage the enemy fully? Because casualty rates kill campaigns, and we are now in another election cycle. It is time for Republicans and Democrats who are serious about national security and winning the War on Terror to stop making war decisions based on small random sampling polls that purport to represent national opinion. Engaging the enemy more fully despite casualty risk, along with our propaganda efforts and outreach to local tribal leaders, can be corrected and proven effective, but only if we avoid a rash rush to retreat.

Spy the News! Poll Results: Radio/Cable/Internet News Personalities

The results are in from last week's Spy the News! poll, which asked readers to identify which radio, cableTV, or Internet news personality influenced their opinions most.

Here are the results of our poll:

Laura Ingraham 43%
Rush Limbaugh 29%
Sean Hannity 14%
Hugh Hewitt 14%

Visit Spy the News! to participate in this week's poll: Which 2008 Presidential Candidate Best Represents Your Values?

Technorati Search Tags: Radio Personalities News Personalities Laura Ingraham Rush Limbaugh Sean Hannity Hugh Hewitt Polls

Clinton Spokesman: Conservative Media Ruined Bill's Presidency

Bill Clinton’s former spokesman, Mike McCurry, has been busy on the collegiate lecture circuit offering revisionist history to students at Princeton University. In an address to students yesterday, McCurry attempted to rewrite history by depicting his former boss (McCurry was White House Press Secretary from 1995 to 1998) as the victim of a media conspiracy that hobbled all efforts by Clinton to grapple with “more substantive topics.”

As reported by the Daily Princetonian, McCurry’s explanation for former President Clinton’s political failures included a casual dismissal of Clinton’s penchant for personal scandal. McCurry jokingly stated Clinton’s political legacy would forever be a “stain,” in clear reference to his messy relationship with Monica Lewinsky. Were it not for Clinton’s lack of discipline, McCurry opined, Clinton could have risen much higher in his political skills and accomplishments. At first that might seem to be a candid and objective assessment from someone who worked so closely with the former president. Then McCurry proceeded to offer an incredibly deceptive argument for the reason Clinton’s legacy will be a “stain.”

Though McCurry never used the term “Vast Right Wing Conspiracy” to label the forces that in his opinion made certain Bill Clinton could focus on nothing other than his personal scandals, he did not have to. When setting out to enumerate the three factors that most influenced the Clinton presidency, McCurry decried the growth of the Internet and “partisan media networks” that focused only on Clinton’s scandals. It is easy to sympathize with McCurry, who must have found it difficult to try and steer media inquiries away from scandal after scandal to more important matters, like Clinton’s failed efforts to respond to the first World Trade Center bombing, the embassy bombings in Tanzania and Kenya, the missed opportunity to capture or kill Bin Laden . . . . On second thought, Mr. McCurry, perhaps it worked out better for you that the focus was NOT on the administration’s performance record. Hiding behind the skirts of the Monica scandal permitted you to market your boss as a victim of a vicious media assault, a figure to pity, not to impeach.

Shall we begin with the “blame the partisan media networks” defense? When a former Clinton spokesman uses the term “partisan media networks,” to what networks and web sites is he referring? The author of the Daily Princetonian story specifically mentioned the Drudge Report as an example of electronic media that McCurry noted would not look beyond scandals including gays in the military, "White House sleepovers," Paula Jones, Monica Lewinsky and the impeachment proceedings. McCurry was quoted as saying, "This was the press' focus day after day. There was an inability to change to more substantive topics." Perhaps McCurry should consider that personal character, self-restraint, and honesty ARE substantive topics, especially when the man holding the most powerful position in the world clearly lacked all three.

What McCurry failed to include in his “expert” assessment of the rise of alternative media, such as talk radio and the Internet, was the context in which they began to flourish. McCurry railed on “partisan media networks” while omitting the obvious: the existing major media networks were then and continue to be blatantly partisan, made up almost entirely of liberal-leaning journalists who intentionally select story titles that mislead and use terms that evoke memories rather than reality (quagmire, anyone?). One need look no further than recent exposures of New York Times reporters’ story fabrications or the CBS News Bush National Guard episode during the 2004 campaign to know which party members of the media personally prefer in power. I will never forget standing at a major political event on election night in 2000 and seeing the unmistakable glee on the faces of CNN’s live news team when they initially called Florida for Gore. That memory is contrasted so clearly with the palpable gloom I observed in the same crew when that fictitious result was retracted and Florida went to Bush instead. There are numerous books and columns exposing the liberal leanings of the traditional media, but none of these address it as effectively as Hugh Hewitt’s revealing interview with ABC News Political Director Mark Halperin. Halperin seemed to believe he was completely impartial, but note his descriptions of his own staff at ABC News. Halperin clearly saw that the vast majority of employees at major media outlets were liberal Democrats and that media bosses like himself needed to correct this imbalance because it was harmful to objective reporting. I find it impossible to accept that McCurry, a former White House Press Secretary, could innocently omit this truth while telling Princeton students the new conservative media networks were responsible for stalling Clinton’s presidency.

Mr. McCurry, here is a novel idea: stop rewriting history by asserting that alternative conservative media introduced media conflict and an unhealthy focus on scandals. There were no conservative “partisan media networks” in existence during Watergate, Iran-Contra, or other “scandals” during Republican administrations. The media, liberal or conservative, have always sought scandal (apparently this former press secretary is not acquainted with the historical term Muckrakers) because we as a society seem to crave it and seek after it for entertainment. The talk radio and Internet phenomenon, including the blogosphere, sprouted because the majority of Americans grew weary of hearing and reading only the liberal interpretation of the news. Fox News, which is often attacked by liberals for being too conservative, was a breath of fresh air ten years ago because it presented stories from the novel perspective that there were in fact two sides and each was worthy of being reported. With all the major network and cable news channels marching in liberal lockstep, they were forced to compete with each other for shocking news, since they all shared the same opinions and thus none of their reporting was original. With conservative media now presenting its side of the political debate, all networks, liberal or conservative, will be more inclined to focus on a return to issues rather than muckraking.
The most discouraging aspect of McCurry’s defense of Clinton through media blame is the subtle attempt to remove personal character from the qualifications required for a president. Rather than complain about the media coverage of Clinton’s scandals, McCurry should have told Princeton students that if we would elect leaders with character and integrity, the media muckrakers would be reporting on “more substantive topics” out of an absence of scandal. Ironically, the very voices McCurry and Clinton want to blame for Clinton’s failed political legacy may never have risen to prominence had Clinton not stained his own presidency. History will show that the Clinton years brought more balance of opinion into the media than existed for several decades previously, not through liberals embracing conservative viewpoints in liberal newspapers or news programs, but through conservatives embracing new forms of media to take their media-repressed views directly to a thirsting audience.

Bill Clinton Mike McCurry Hugh Hewitt Monica Lewinsky Rush Limbaugh conservative media Princeton

"Permissives" Better Description than "Progressives" for Today's Liberals

Having listened to media coverage of the campaigns from a wide variety of sources, I could not help but notice that the MSM uses the term "secular progressive" with increasing frequency to describe social liberals, and unfortunately many conservative columnists and talk show hosts (like Hugh Hewitt, whom I enjoy) accept this term and use it themselves. I know that using the term "secular" draws a distinction between those who espouse a religious world view and those who would prefer an absence of religion, but it is the term "progressive" which rankles me most.

I refuse to accept the term "progressive" when talking about liberals, as it is a politically correct euphemism (almost as bad as "undocumented worker" used for illegal alien). Conservatives are called conservative because they seek to preserve, as closely as possible, the institutions and socio/economic policies established at the founding of our nation as provided by the constitution. True conservatives then could rightly be referred to as "constitutional conservationists." What is the opposite of a conservationist? One who destroys, demolishes, ruins, or abolishes.

Liberals engaged in environmental conservation take pride in preserving, maintaining, and protecting that which they value. When corporations or local governments determine that economic "progress" will be enhanced by encroaching on the environment through construction and land development, liberal "conservationists" seek injunctions and decry construction as being destructive and harmful. They certainly would never refer to the land developers as "progressive."

"Progress" then, is in the eye of the beholder.Since the definition of progress is entirely subjective depending on what one considers improvement, social liberals should not be allowed the moniker of "progressive." They should merely be called what they are, permissives. Everything unnatural and immoral is accepted, embraced, and declared a "right." Moral absolutes? The Permissives surrendered to moral relativism decades ago, and have now "progressed" to the point where they permit what is wrong to be called right. They lack the fortitude to declare any behavior as wrong (except religious expressions by Christians). No, "progressive" they are not. The "Secular Permissives will eventually permit the collapse of our defense (by "progressively" negotiating with terrorists), our economy (by "progressively" raising taxes, and our national morality (by "progressively" permitting a complete abandonment of religious values in public life).

campaigns conservatives liberals Secular Progressive Hugh Hewitt