 |
Morning Jolt July 17, 2013 If you're wondering why posting was so light on Campaign Spot yesterday, or if you're wondering who the guy was that was waving traffic around his stalled vehicle in the left-turn lane on West Franconia Road yesterday morning . . . well, those two wondering thoughts are connected. Cheney. Enzi. Let the Rumble Begin. The good news: The breaking news that "Wyoming has just elected Liz Cheney its next senator" will probably prompt Democrats to feel like this:
The bad news: Get ready for a big, hard-fought, expensive primary in a state that's pretty much guaranteed to elect a Republican anyway. Voter-registration statistics indicate Wyoming has 166,643 Republicans, 53,301 Democrats, 34,330 unaffiliated voters, 1,866 Libertarians, 295 Constitution-party voters, and 118 "other" voters. Assuming every Republican votes in the primary, we're looking at each candidate spending what, $12 per vote, minimum? Ari Fleischer: "I'm a big fan of Liz Cheney. But not in this race." I think Kurt Schlichter articulates the view of a lot of Republicans that, while Enzi may have amassed a conservative voting record, they're largely unfamiliar with him as a combatant against the Obama administration — and that, ultimately, is what they feel the party needs most right now:
Liz Cheney will. The seat would hardly be at risk – the Wyoming GOP primary is better known as the Wyoming general election – so we can take the chance to do better. After all, Liz Cheney has something Enzi doesn't – a taste for political combat. She wants to win. Not to "compromise," not to "work together," not sit around singing "Kumbayah" with the liberals. She wants to win. Enzi wants to be a sober, serious legislator working with his liberal friends across the aisle to make a better country. Except there are no friends across the aisle, and the liberals do not want to make this a better country. Liberals want to ruthlessly acquire and maintain power and control over every aspect of our lives, and anyone who does not see and understand that and who can't commit to destroying their hideous plans for our country needs to get out the way for a true conservative warrior. The Times, perhaps again thinking it was helping, noted that Enzi "avoids political talk shows because, he says, their goal is to get guests to 'beat up on their colleagues.'" Except we need GOP Senators to be willing to "beat up on their colleagues." It's not about collegiality in the cloakroom. We want you hated, despised, and targeted because that will mean you are getting something conservative done. Expect some big guns to sit this one out, as Katrina Trinko reports:
So what will this election be about, besides her argument that it's time for fresh faces and new blood, and his argument that she's not really connected to the state, having only bought a house in Wyoming last year? Probably gay marriage. Liz Cheney on gay marriage, back in 2009: "My family has been very clear about this: we think freedom means freedom for everybody. This is an issue states have to decide for themselves. . . . States have got to make this decision, this is something that I certainly would not like to see a constitutional amendment you know, as was suggested in the last administration, banning it. This is an issue that the democratic process has to decide." San Diego Mayor Bob Filner: I'm Just a Big Hugger, That's All! Oh, I see. It's all just an innocent misunderstanding about "hugs." "I'm a very demonstrative person. I express myself demonstrably. I'm a hugger. Of both men and women. As it turns out that those are taken in an offensive manner, I need to have a greater self-awareness of what I'm doing and we will correct that. I am taking those steps." Video here. Filner's latest statement:
You see, it's just because he cares so much.
Man, this guy thinks we'll believe anything he says, doesn't he? Ahem. Probably Best to Mention Those Checks From Foreign Governments This isn't easy or fun to write, because it involves criticizing people I like and respect, but it has to be said: If you're getting paid by a person or group to write a particular article or column besides the publication running the piece, you ought to disclose that payment to your readers. And if you're getting paid by a foreign government, well then… you really need to disclose that. BuzzFeed has the details on the government of Ukraine going through a third party to pay conservative writers to write about Ukrainian issues. It echoes a similar circumstance last year involving the government of Malaysia. (A note from the editors regarding one piece that ran on NRO can be found here.) No, it doesn't necessarily mean a person's opinion has been bought — although one is free to wonder how many U.S. political bloggers spend a lot of time thinking about the internal politics of Ukraine or Malaysia or any other country. The Malaysia controversy didn't get much coverage in the conservative blogosphere last time around; perhaps we're all too friendly with each other to publicly criticize each other, or we feel like issues like these are best kept "within the family." (Ironic when you read the next item.) Or perhaps times are changing, and not for the better; perhaps neither bloggers nor readers care all that much if the writer has a financial interest in a viewpoint or policy change he advocates. Back in 2010, Jonathan Strong (now with NRO) wrote about bloggers being secretly paid by political campaigns, and Ed Morrissey over at WarmerThanWarmAir.com summarized why taking undisclosed payments from those close to the subject you cover is a bad idea:
Fortunately, blogs aren't regulated by the government, at least not yet, but it's stories like this that will give rise to demands for government to take action. The Federal Election Commission has repeatedly hinted at imposing onerous requirements on bloggers that will create legal burdens too expensive for most to meet. The hook will be undisclosed relationships with campaigns that turn blogs in effect into coordinated third-party efforts, and that could result in hefty fines for both the campaigns and the bloggers. But the larger impact will be to discourage political blogging at all, as the cost of defending oneself from the inevitable complaints will be so high (even for the majority who are innocent of any such connections) that people just won't bother to enter the market at all. Even beyond that, though, it's simply dishonest. Plenty of bloggers get involved in election campaigns, and they make those connections clear by disclosing them o their blogs. Deliberately failing to do that — and to market one's blog as a paid outlet for politicians — puts people into Armstrong Williams territory. It saps credibility and damages the ability of the blogosphere to effect political change in the long run. The Federal Trade Commission issued rules about endorsements and disclosures for bloggers. But bloggers shouldn't do this just because the federal regulators say it's wrong. They shouldn't do it because it's disrespectful to the readers. Just How Much Cynicism Does This Town Warrant? The first joy of Mark Leibovich's "This Town: Two Parties and a Funeral — Plus, Plenty of Valet Parking! — in America's Gilded Capital" comes on page 9, when we learn that Robert Gibbs once called David Axelrod "the guy who walks in front of Obama with rose petals," revealing that even diehard Obama worshippers found other diehard Obama worshippers weird. Early on, Leibovich addresses the inevitable complaint that he's part of the Washington culture that he relentlessly mocks and criticizes:
I have chosen to live, work, and raise my family in the murk. This might well be an easier pursuit for a citizen on solid land. But I have no plans to leave. People ask me about that too. Why? It's not like I'm making lobbyist or TV money. I plead reality; my wife and I have built a good life here. You'll recall a short while back I picked a few bones with the portrait of Washington emerging from the reviews of This Town, and Jonah agreed in part and objected in part. The complaint about clubbiness, ambition, and so on is going to be found anywhere there's power; in this regard, I'm unconvinced there's very little that's uniquely bad about Washington's culture. (Emphasis on "uniquely." I've got my gripes, but I think a little wariness is warranted for conservatives who loudly proclaim how much they hate Washington, and yet choose to live there for their entire adult lives.) Jonah contends that what D.C. produces — laws and regulations — makes the issues of the city's culture different from anywhere else. "Rent-seeking, cronyism and the like may be endemic to all seats of power, but that doesn't mean we can write it off as no worse than the clubhouse atmosphere of say 1950s Detroit or the campus feel of Silicon Valley." But you can argue that law-making makes D.C. clubbiness more important to the public than in other cities . . . except Washington isn't the only city that exerts great power over the rest of the country. We all swim in the popular culture that Hollywood produces, and the 2008 Wall Street meltdown indicated how central Manhattan's banks are to our national economy — and we've all witnessed the effects of groupthink in the leadership of the entertainment and financial industries. A few chapters into This Town, readers get a good sense of what Leibovich finds odious — "the black tie dinners, or the caricature drawings of notable Washingtonians on the wall at the Palm on Nineteenth Street. If you're lucky and you stay long enough, you can get your picture taken with some really notable Washingtonians and then show off the photos on your office 'Me Wall.'" But it's hard to picture what he would prefer the nation's capital to be like, never mind how to get to that better state. It's easy to snicker at other people's pride in meeting or knowing some big shot; everybody insists they're not the type to be star-struck until the moment comes when they are. Scoff if you like, but I'll bet there's some prominent Washington figure you might find yourself irrepressibly gleeful to encounter in person: Charles Krauthammer, Antonin Scalia, Ed Meese, some former president or retired military leader. Maybe they've passed on, like Jeanne Kirkpatrick, or Robert Bork. Or Ronald Reagan. Or Andrew Breitbart. But there's somebody. Anyway, I thought I was cynical, but Leibovich puts me to shame. Describing Tim Russert: "When my mom died, he sent two dozen roses," said Ann Klenk, a producer at MSNBC. "I adored him." He was indeed adored – in that unmistakable vintage of Washington "adored" that incorporated fear and need and sucking up. You needed to be on Meet the Press to be bestowed a top-line standing in what Joan Didion called "that handful of insiders who invent, year in and year out, the narrative of public life." You needed to be friends with Tim, the closer the better, as so many people advertised with deft turns of posthumous networking. People on TV jockeyed to outgrieve one another. Really? Is it that unthinkable that some of Russert's friends, co-workers, and other Washingtonians actually genuinely adored him, because of gestures like sending flowers after a co-worker's mother died? ADDENDUM: Dave Weigel: "'Man, I can't believe the nerve of that Cheney dynasty.' - a liberal who's excited about Hillary 2016." NRO Digest — Month Day, Year Today on National Review Online . . .
To read more, visit www.nationalreview.com
National Review, Inc. Manage your National Review subscriptions. We respect your right to privacy. View our policy. This email was sent by: |
No comments: