RSS
Using PayPal
A Comment on Political Commentary: Getting Off "Automatic Pilot"
Share / Recommend - Comment - Print - Saturday, Jul 09, 05, 12:30PM
TWN is on a transatlantic flight right now trying to deal with the fact that sleep is impossible for this writer on these planes.
I have been giving some thought to the battle over John Bolton's nomination as Ambassador to the United Nations -- and the implications for other political battles ahead. I'd rather not name the person I was speaking to about this the other day, but let it suffice that he served until not too long ago as chief of staff to an important Republican foreign policy official.
I had posed the question to him of why so many in the Bolton battle had miscalculated.
Lincoln Chafee miscalculated in thinking that Bolton would remain an obscure personality and that this was an easy vote to give the White House. Chuck Hagel -- who wants to be President -- didn't realize that his inaction on Bolton would trivialize him and move him to the periphery of bolder risk-takers. Bill Frist never invested in Bolton at the beginning of the process and then over-invested when others were shorting Bolton's stock and driving it into the ground.
Senators Durbin, Leahy, and Biden all made comments early in the battle that could easily be perceived as conceding defeat on Bolton before the battle was even near over. New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson did the same, and when confronted stated that he praised what those opposing Bolton had done but that he stood by his words. In a note written to TWN, Governor Richardson -- tongue in cheek -- suggested to this writer "stop biting your friends."
When the media had been focused on potential defections of Hagel and Chafee, TWN pointed out that Senators Lisa Murkowski, Lamar Alexander, and George Voinovich were the most likely dark horse candidates to defect from the White House stranglehold on Republican support for Bolton. Murkowski gave a brilliant, heartfelt statement regarding Bolton -- and came within an eyelash of opposing him in Committee. She worked harder than most realize in reading all of the commentary and interviews on Bolton but because of political pressure from the White House stood by the President's choice. But I respect her for the very hard work she put into this effort and credit her for supporting George Voinovich's principled call for a delay in the Bolton vote.
Few saw Voinovich's rebellion coming, but the signs were somewhat obvious. For anyone who knows Voinovich, Bolton offends most of the sensibilities he proclaims are important in public and private life. During the battle after the first Voinovich-instigated delay on the Bolton vote, the State Department starting spinning the story that Voinovich was saying privately that he was with the White House. This became so convincing that the pro-Bolton, rabidly anti-United Nations organization Move America Forward stopped running anti-Voinovich ads in Ohio so as to hopefully keep him in the pro-Bolton camp.
Karl Rove and Dick Cheney miscalculated most, thinking that they could cram John Bolton down the throat of the Senate -- as disagreeable a nominee as he was for this position. They figured Bolton was a close, blindly loyal ally who deserved a top spot in America's foreign policy portfolio. He was obscure to most Americans and being appointed to a position that the body politic rarely noticed.
But the Bolton choice was so wrong-headed that it became possible to turn John Bolton into somewhat of a household name. Jon Stewart lampoons him. He has been featured in Doonesbury and countless political cartoons. But it is his performance as a lousy campaigner and ineffective negotiator against WMD proliferation that is a key reason for his rejection thus far.
But back to my friend who used to run a major Republican Senate operation in the Senate. He said that the President nearly always "gets his way." He said, "When the President of the United States really, really wants something, he usually gets it."
He is absolutely right, and that is one of the fundamental reasons why so many miscalculated. They went with the odds of victory for the White House rather than a rational micro-assessment and calculation of who was winning at each point in the Bolton battle and what the various incentives of the players were.
I'm intrigued by this because as a person both reporting on the Bolton battle and also as an activist of the sorts in the effort, I focused entirely on daily calculations of political positions, policy ramifications of contested issues like document requests, and the weight of various players in the game. Although those opposing Bolton have become a somewhat amazing, formidable force now, four months ago, few of us knew where this would go.
We did not know about the outrageous workplace behavior towards Melody Townsel, or the degree of intel cherry-picking and stove-piping that occurred under his watch, or the brutal treatment of intel analysts Christian Westermann, Rexon Ryu, and others. We didn't know that he had been blocked from critical negotiations on Iran's and Libya's WMD programs, or had been responsible for promulgating the Niger/Uranium story at State after the other intelligence agencies had roundly dismissed it. We didn't know that he had regularly sought to undermine Richard Armitage and Colin Powell in fragile diplomatic efforts.
We knew none of this. And frankly, this is just the digested version of the troubling content about which we knew little. TWN had had a few encounters with Mr. Bolton and hia staff that made it clear how inappropriate his candidacy was to serve as America's Ambassador to the U.N.
And given the fact that I do see myself as a centrist, somewhat of an "ethical realist" in American foreign policy issues, I try hard to praise the Bush administration for anything that it might get right, so as to coax out any semblance of an "enlightened" personality out of the range of so many competing personalities in the administration. After Bush's trip to Europe in early 2005, I gave him the benefit of the doubt that he would get to work uniting America's friends and dividing our enemies, rather than what had been occurring in dividing our friends and uniting our enemies. I thought he might begin to repair the punctured mystique of American power in the world.
But the Bolton nomination was an absolute outrage to those of us in the middle who wanted to give Bush a chance -- and after all, Kerry had failed to seal the deal. Kerry lost. Bush won. We had to work with what we had, and this writer tried.
There is much about the Bush administration that I can embrace. I think that some of the choices in key foreign policy, treasury, and trade positions make a lot of sense -- but there is still a profound lack of strategy in this administration and unwillingness to accept that fact that priorities must be set, that small battles must be lost tactically to win the major ones.
Bolton was a terribly wrong choice. But what is fascinating about the last four months is how difficult it has been to get all sides of this battle to get off "automatic pilot" and to realize that there is a different calculus operating on whether he would be confirmed or not.
Finally, the press has rid itself of the gratuitous line that laced most AP and other stories and editorials that "John Bolton, despite this (respective) setback, is still likely to be confirmed." Now, most stories are arguing that he will get a recess appointment, but they thought that was coming this past week. Wrong again.
He may get nominated in August by recess appointment, but the leming-like willingness to run whatever White House messaging dictates is very disappointing and alarming.
The fact is that the Bolton nomination process is full of moving wheels and pieces. If the White House gave Senators Biden and Dodd what they wanted, there would be a vote in the Senate on Bolton within a few days. That's not likely to happen -- so that road appears permanently closed. Bolton's nomination faces permanent limbo if the White House fails to deal.
Otherwise, the White House has two choices: withdraw or make a recess appointment.
Now, Karl Rove has his own distractions given the degree to which his name and comments seem to proliferate through Matt Cooper's notes on the Valerie Plame outing.
And Supreme Court battles are going to be intense these next few weeks with all Senators playing to his or her base. Bolton is small time (well, maybe not small time…just proportionately not as big time) compared to replacing a Chief Justice (which seems harder than rumor but not fully official) and swing-vote Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court.
One credible editor of a significant Washington publication wrote to me today suggesting that he disagrees with my and Demetri Sevastopulo's assessment that Bolton's nomination is withering on the vine and that the White House is just stalling out on him. This editor -- who has a point -- thinks that the White House could call Bolton up on the Senate floor again just to show how obstructionist and inflexible Democrats can be in the midst of these major fights on Supreme Court nominees.
I appreciate his perspective but disagree. Appointing ideological judges forces moderates to maintain their position on Bolton so as to show that they will oppose wrong-headed White House nominations. In addition, there are three weeks of debate ahead before August recess. The Senate will be consumed with Supreme Court issues, and a UN reform bill will be drowned out. Trying to link Bolton to a pernicious UN reform bill promulgated by Cheney's wing of the White House will seem petty to the nation.
Bolton's nomination will suffocate in the coming weeks of debate.
And what few people publicly say or write but which is true is that the opposition to Bolton is not fully partisan. Many moderate Republicans detest this vote and choice. Their staff people openly moan about the White House's choice and don't hesitate to offer anecdotes of their experiences with constituents -- Republican constituents -- who are encouraging opposition to Bolton, out of principle. The entire battle against John Bolton's nomination would have been impossible without robust behind-the-scenes support from Republican sources.
It's hard work to beat a political establishment whose majority and minority largely fly on automatic pilot, in grooves of behavior that inhibit acknowledgement of new factors, new realities, new information. But it has happened on Bolton.
I think that there is something big here -- not just for Democrats but also for moderate Republicans who want to guide this nation and their party back towards enlightened and principled, problem-solving, empirically-informed engagement in world affairs.
Political miscalculations are opportunities for arbitrage and entrepreneurship. There is a lot of opportunity out there to fix problems now and to redirect both political parties.
More later.
-- Steve Clemons
A grudging "Congratulations" to Steve Clemons for doing more than anyone to derail (so far) the Bolton nomination. I still believe that we need John Bolton to push reform at the UN, but am disappointed in the Administration's efforts to secure his nomination. The Administration has yet to adequately lay out their strategy for UN reform. The pro-Bolton blogs, not expecting a protacted debate, and unprepared to go on "defence", ran out of steam weeks ago amid attacks on their fellow Republicans. You have stayed on the high road, respecting your opponents, cajoling your friends and sticking to the important issues. I only hope that your Democrat friends do not see your minor victory as validating the UN in its current deplorable state.
"I think that there is something big here -- not just for Democrats but also for moderate Republicans who want to guide this nation and their party back towards enlightened and principled, problem-solving, empirically-informed engagement in world affairs."
Inspiringly optimistic. Well said.
"I'm intrigued by this because as a person both reporting on the Bolton battle and also as an activist of the sorts in the effort.."
Ah, yes, you have been a bit of an activist in this matter, and our country has been well served by your integrity and dedication.
I appreciate your fine work to date on the Bolton issue. His nomination is symptomanic of the bullying, holier than thou mindset of this administration. However when a man like Bill Richardson cautions you about biting your friends, I think you should pause and take note. I have met Mr. Richardson and think that he is acutely attuned to the political pulse - there will be many other issues and many other nominations for you to deal with in the future. If you have roasted some friendships on the Bolton pyre, you may be hardpressed in the future.
Steve:
Thank you for your efforts on the Bolton nomination. I reject the notion that sending some little prick down to the UN is somehow going to magically reform it. Bolton is no leader, nor is he a manager. Who would want to follow him? What a bunch of macho hooey.
The notion that breaking some china will solve problems has been disproven by Bush himself. The terrorists have gladly obliged his invitation to "bring it on" by turning Bush's hope for democracy in the Mid-East into "George's terrorist farm."
He has created his own evil. Many of these jihadists were not jihadists before Bush dumped his crusade-based accelerant on the region.
It's interesting to see how the Democrats have opened battles on several fronts and have been able to dilute Bush's best tool, his absolute focus on an issue.
Certainly they didn't expect Bolton to be a win, but this could be a key step in getting them to open up and compromise on issues in the future.
I think overall we'll end up with better government in the future as a result of this and similar ideological battles. It's the adversarial government system and the compromise that results that serves the greatest good, not any one party's domination.
Senator expects Bolton action
Voinovich predicts recess appointment to be used
By Jim Bebbington
Dayton Daily News
DAYTON | The most vocal Republican opponent to John Bolton's nomination as ambassador to the United Nations said there is a "55/45" chance the Bush administration will name Bolton to the job while Congress is in recess.
But Sen. George Voinovich, R-Ohio, also said, "I have a gut feeling that logic will prevail" against appointing Bolton.
"It's like the children's story, the Emperor's Clothes: Everybody knows he's in his underwear and nobody will say it," Voinovich said Friday in an interview with the Dayton Daily News editorial board.
Voinovich's outspoken opposition to Bolton's appointment has attracted national attention.
He allowed Bolton's name to be sent from the Foreign Relations Committee to the full Senate for an up-or-down vote, but has railed on the Senate floor against Bolton.
"The record before the Senate documents the allegations related to Mr. Bolton's lack of interpersonal skills and management style, the pattern of intimidation with intelligence analysts, and the allegations that Mr. Bolton had a habit of cherry-picking intelligence to suit his perception of the world and his ideology," Voinovich said in a Senate-floor speech last week.
Bolton needs Senate confirmation to become U.N. ambassador, but Bush can appoint him temporarily, until January 2007, using a recess appointment.
Voinovich said Friday he has had second thoughts about not voting Bolton down in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee this spring. Instead, Voinovich urged the committee to send the nomination to the Senate without a recommendation — which it did.
Senate Democrats also oppose the nomination. The Bush administration has called for a Senate vote and blame Democrats, not Voinovich, for blocking one.
"You're talking about one individual (Voinovich) who has expressed his opposition to his nomination," said White House spokesman Scott McClellan in June. "But it is a minority Senate Democratic leadership that is preventing this nomination from moving forward and that is preventing John Bolton getting about doing the important work of reform at the United Nations."
In other matters, Voinovich defended James Conrad, who resigned in June as administrator of the Ohio Bureau of Workers' Compensation in the wake of the bureau's $58 million investment in a rare coin fund that is missing $13 million.
As governor, Voinovich said he appointed Conrad to head and correct a number of troubled agencies, including in 1995, the state's workers' compensation insurance fund, after years of complaints of mismanagement.
He said Conrad was "one of the finest public administrators in the country," and is responsible for turning the agency around.
"The Ohio Bureau of Workers' Compensation is one of the finest run organizations in America and is looked on by the business community as such," Voinovich said.
The bureau has been under scrutiny because of investment practices and losses. In addition to the rare coin fund problems, it also came to light that the bureau lost $215 million last year in a high-risk hedge fund.
Content to go with my original gut ("no vote"), but I'll admit I never charted a recess appointment among the no-vote options.
There are still a range of possibilities as to how and when the Bolton endgame interacts with the larger grind toward the post-Bush era.
Even with Bolton down and out, it still seems US policy is that UN reform can be most effectively led from the outside by a self-marginalizing bully (just maybe not one named Bolton).
Bush's does not fare well as a political capitalist, despite that "trifecta" win a few years back ... but his Administration shows not inclination to change course, and his Party does not appear ready (yet) for a parting of the ways. Interesting season ahead, indeed.
I think these quietly moaning republicans should be more vocal about their moaning. We'd get more movement on Bolton then I'd bet.
Anyhow, good job Steve.
Three things to say. First, Steve, you say, "There is much about the Bush administration that I can embrace." Any further elucidation on this would be welcome (beyond "I think that some of the choices in key foreign policy, treasury, and trade positions make a lot of sense..."). I have found next to nothing to embrace in this wanton group of radicals and would love to hear how anybody other than a rabid right winger of whatever stripe could. What does a centrist like you find embracable in this administration? Or are you just trying to maintain some semblance of balance and neutrality for appearances sake (which would be understandable)?
Two. Can the WH truly refuse to turn over documents to the Senate, documents which they have every right to get, as I understand the situation, with impunity? Whether Bolton thrives or dies on the vine, isn't this an issue in its own right? Is there no recourse? Or at least political points to be scored? Such arrogance is intolerable and despicable.
Three, a posting suggestion for all of us: When we have one of those humungous URLs to paste, it would be a great service to the readability of these comments if we would use tinyurl.com to convert the long URL to a short one, thus preventing this forced wide spread in ALL the comments caused by the long unbroken line. If you haven't used it before, check it out, it's easy and fast. And Steve, if the poster does not do that, can you or whoever handles your html and do that for us? It's all but impossible to read comments that get as stretched as this.
Thanks, and add my congratulations to your stellar work on defeating Bolton. Knock on wood.
The obstructionist charge has been over played by the republicna PR people. Dems will see larger donations for publically and loudly sticking to principles over the next several weeks. The dem-base and the middle are already sick and tired of this administration, and its endless flogging of its failed agenda.
If anything since the beginning of the second term the republicans have demonstrated serious concern with the out of touch, ham handedness of the administration, and are much unlikely to support its crumbling facade. Team Bush cost the republicans with the deals he made getting re-elected, he no longer has any cards left. All the positive thinking in the world has not changed Iraq for the better, Social Security phase-out remains a profoundly unpopular issue, with Spain and Canada fragrantly supporting gay marriage the moral crowd is facing real demoralization, and Team Bush is powerless to do anything about it. Team Bush has been oversold, and has no where to go but down.
Wonder if Brit Hume has decided to short them yet?
"But the Bolton nomination was an absolute outrage to those of us in the middle who wanted to give Bush a chance -- and after all, Kerry had failed to seal the deal. Kerry lost. Bush won. We had to work with what we had, and this writer tried."
You give "centrists" a bad name. After the 2000 election I leaned your way. Give Bush a chance. He couldn't be all that awful. Afterall, we survived his dad.
Unlike you, I paid attention. I paid attention to the assault on environmental regulations. I watched with dismay the enveloping cloud of secrecy. I was appalled at what only could be called rampant corruption. The kowtowing of the media has been borderline treasonous. Worst of all, I was shocked when Bush cynically used 9/11 to fearmonger; to attack his domestic political opposition; and, to justify invading Iraq.
If you're still giving anybody in the Bush Administration the benefit of the doubt then you're simply brain dead.
What Jim Bob said. I resent self-proclaimed "centrists" ruining the good name by being suckers for the GOP.
BTW, to Davis upthread:
I only hope that your Democrat friends do not see your minor victory as validating the UN in its current deplorable state.
This is one of the most foolish things I have ever read. The UN is a forum for all countries to come together. But, due to the inherent conflicting interests of a multitude of nations, the UN will NEVER be able to act with the focus and purpose of an institution like NATO. That it cannot does not mean that it is broken, it is simply in inherent limitation of the institution.
Now, this does not mean that it cannot be improved. But any improvement will only result from the U.S. engaging the UN with a genuine commitment to multilateral solutions to problems. That is something that Bolton can never offer.
And not only is Bolton wrong for the UN ideologically, he has demonstrated NONE of the interpersonal skills necessary to actually reform the UN.
For some reason, those clamoring the loudest for UN "reform" cannot see that proposing Bolton immediately removes them from any serious discussion of what UN reform would entail. Bolton is, and always will be, a crackpot and a joke.
Why are you forcing me to scroll back and forth horizontally in order to read your post?
What I have sometimes felt is very strange about the Bush administration is this: it would have taken very little to have made them one of the most popular administrations in the history of the US. Some rousing speeches right after 911 asking for fuel conservation, blood, sweat, toil and tears. A mildly sensible approach to environmental issues and global warming. Adopting a tone of regretfulness instead of eagerness about the "necessity" of war with Iraq. A few sensible appointments rather than rabid partisanship. Really, relatively easy changes.
I just came here via Kos. I'm giving up. I can't read this ... Bye.
WORD JimBob and space. As a recovering yellow-dog democrat, I am particularly sensitive to the label "centrist" being tossed around. Those of us in the disenchanted column tend not to swallow the arrant nonsense being delivered by Bush and co. daily. It seems living during these bereft times of political intrigue there is a tendency for the punditry to overthink -- I guess it's been brown so long that this crap somehow looks green to them.
I hope Bolton gets appointed. I hope he gets implicated in the Plame mess. This Summer is shaping up to be the implosion toward which this crowd has been rushing headlong. I wish nothing but misery for this joke of an administration -- it's karma a 10 year-old could see coming.
Shep asks a valid question about why one should applaud this administration. Was it making Colin Powell Secretary of State? In my mind they are selfish pigs, ruining all they touch.
Dude, where's my country?
"... it would be a great service to the readability of these comments if we would use tinyurl.com to convert the long URL to a short one."
Shep, Thanks for the tip. When I looked at the length of the URL for my post, I hesitated. Then, I thought about the people who might want to validate the article and decided to add it.
I will use tinyurl in the future.
Those "clamoring loudest for UN reform" are not really interested in reform. They want the UN destroyed. Period.
They think Bolton will accomplish this by undermining the UN mission the same way he undermined everything else he was ever part of.
Bolton isn't incompetent. He's a deliberate, and quite accomplished, saboteur.
What I've never heard atwixt all the mutterings of John Bolton being a "reformer" is what his credentials are in that regard. What has he ever reformed?
Same thing in Safari browser. Too wide. I did read it though.
Brother, an editor might have helped on this one. Aside from parlor debating your friends in Washington (Bill Richardson, GOP Senate staffer, "One credible editor of a significant Washington publication ..., etc") what are you offering a reader: what the hell are you saying and why are you taking so long to say it?
So you think Bolton, a really shitty nominee and human being, is going down after 4 months of unexpected opposition including "moderate Republicans"--meanwhile other folks are placing their bets on a recess appointment. Oh and Bill Richardson and the Sen. Dems were poor, even duplicitous leaders here. You've been right all along, etc, etc.
Jesus, that doesn't take 20 paragraphs to say.
Give me back my 5 minutes:
We really don't need your bullshit here. Steve has done a great job and he has taken time to do an overview. If you don't like it: lump it.
This article is completely unreadable in Firefox. It's also pretty unreadable in Internet Explorer, if you have a high-res monitor. (Text looks like microfilm.)
Please, please, consider accessibility. Not everyone uses the browser you use, with the video card you use, on the monitor you use. Not everyone has eyes as good as yours. Forcing pages to certain text sizes and certain line lengths is a sure way to make your page unreadable to many of your visitors.
"...why so many in the Bolton battle had miscalculated."
Uh, Steve, they didn't figure you into the equation.
Hey Alan,
1. I'll say what I want on a public comments thread, and if you don't like it, you know precisely what you can do.
2. The post is a poor overview, and smells too much of a kind of journalist insider baseball that isn't that informative or thoughtful. That's my opinion. Smells a little inflated and flabby. Maybe he's interested in a reader's POV. Most writers are.
3. Statements like these puzzle me:
"But the Bolton nomination was an absolute outrage to those of us in the middle who wanted to give Bush a chance -- and after all, Kerry had failed to seal the deal. Kerry lost. Bush won. We had to work with what we had, and this writer tried.
It has become very jarring to observe people in a self-described "middle" think that because they give Bush [yet another] "chance" that he might actually reciprocate with moderation. Have you been asleep since Jan. 2001? Can you honestly be "outraged" that he isn't supplicating your supposed "middle"?
At this point I think half of the Democrats in this country need therapy for spousal abuse: "He's not going to stop hitting you, no matter how nice you are, or how many chances you give him. He's not playing by the rules you think are normal."
There is much about the Bush administration that I can embrace. I think that some of the choices in key foreign policy, treasury, and trade positions make a lot of sense..."
Again, is this real? What choices, exactly, do you embrace? I don't get it.
4. Was Richardson really being tongue-in-cheek?
"Appointing ideological judges forces moderates to maintain their position on Bolton so as to show that they will oppose wrong-headed White House nominations."
I've read that sentence about five times in a row and I just can't accept it. It sounds like a perfectly logical and rational theory on paper but I feel that the more likely outcome is that appointing ideological judges will force a horse trade: Bolton for a 'moderate' judge, or no Bolton for an ideologue.
If the Democrats in the Senate demonstrate the necessary party cohesiveness and backbone they can avoid this but I think that the editor TWN cites is correct in his theory about Rove and the WH using the obstructionist charge/spin to force a compromise on at least one of their issues.
Whatever one says about Bush and his single mindedness, Rove is definitely wily enough to orchestrate this double or triple whammy (Bolton plus one or two crazy Bible thumpers on the bench) as a bluff to gain leverage on his favorite issue. But which would he give up on in the end? The judicial branch or UN policy?
unreadable
It's not Steven's fault, you have to scroll to read the article because someone posted a MASSIVE HYPERLINK in the COMMENTS. Please to not do that.
Susan,
Never do that again!
Steve, can you edit her post and pull her hyperlink?
Thanks,
Big Don
Just read this:
07.09.2005 David Corn
Explosive New Rove Revelation Coming Soon?
Time to get ready for the Karl Rove frog-march?
"I don't usually log on Saturday evenings. But I've received information too good not to share immediately..."
Susan! You are redeemed.
Ain't it the greatest tiny service?
The problem with reading this discussion is that the right and the left are too far apart. The center cannot hold without scrolling.
(Steve Clemons for doing more than anyone to derail (so far) the Bolton nomination.)
Steve Clemons didn't "Derail" this nomination. This nomination was doomed from the start. Why? because this man Bolton was involved in some very devious activities. How deep it goes we will probably not know for another 30 to 40 years. The facts derailed this nomination. Steve Clemons only was responsible for bringing them to light and discussing them. For someone to come out and complain about that is a travesty of integrity.
Shep,
Oh, I am so happy to be out of the doghouse! I hated those long URLs too, but had no idea how to shorten them.
Thanks for the tip, and for saving me from the all the brickbats and rotten tomatoes that would have come my way flying my way had I not shortened up!
5 minutes -- If you just bounced in here off a passing turnip truck, your confusion is understandable ... but a truly literate reader entering an exchange in midstream would make allowances for context.
If it's your custom to bounce off the turnip truck and declare yourself mayor, kindly get the truck out of here.
There is a comprehensive post at MyDD that offers some interesting reading. The WMD lies are coming back to haunt BushCo. Karma is sweet.
Here's an example of what's covered in the MyDD post: http://tinyurl.com/cghfg
"Also, a full investigation of Rove and the media, will of course come back to Jeff Gannon. Somebody in the inner-circle of the White House planted Jeff Gannon and with Jeff Gannon's relationship to the Plame Affair, we're going to see a lot more on this. Which could potentially even move the scandal into something beyond lying about treason."
For those having trouble via Firefox, I'll try to figure out what is happening with that software when I return from Europe next week.
For those who didn't like the length of this entry, sorry about that. This is my blog -- feel free to read the short digests and snippets on other blogs and avoid this one. I wrote what I did about Bolton and political commentary to think through myself how this debate and the players surrounding it evolved over time.
All the best,
Steve Clemons
Dear Give Me Back My 5/10 Minutes:
I understand your comments about my post -- and perhaps what I wrote was indulgent, and even flabby. I was on a very long flight and thinking out loud about some of the tendencies on both sides of the Bolton battle. It does intrigue me that the WH and Republican leadership are so strong on message and constantly are declaring victory, even while losing a battle. Many of the leading Democratic leaders -- elected and otherwise just pundits -- tend to concede defeat before carrying themselves into a battle.
To win this battle on Bolton, we've had to puncture the mystique of White House confidence and bolster the position of Dems, who were prone to self-deflation.
I can always use more editing -- and admit it, but this piece was written on a long flight, when I had far too much time to ramble on. I probably did.
Sorry if it bothered you, but it was important to me for reasons you might not understand. I use this blog not only to communicate with all of you but to order some things for myself and to articulate how I saw things at the time.
Best regards -- and hope you hang around. I don't mind at all your critiques,
Steve Clemons
Reader Comments (42) - post a comment