What The Kool Kidz Think

by DemFromCT

Stop being so logical. You reality-based people out there keep trying to rely on facts. Facts don't matter; the only thing that matters is the opinion of the Gang of 500, preferably the ones that suck up to those in power. Here, let me show you how a professional does it. This is from yesterday's the Note from ABC (pre-report release):

The political class -- the Gang of 500, plus the 33,000 people who aspire to be Gang members -- (stupidly) believes that two questions are currently shaping the contours of the midterm environment:

1. Is the leaking of the National Intelligence Estimate linking the Iraq war to failures in the war on terror a paradigm-shifting moment for the Daddy Party?

2. Is Bill Clinton's Wallace-Rorschach outburst a paradigm-shifting moment for the Mommy Party?...

Most masterfully, however, the New York Times' Jim Rutenberg says "dunno to (1) and (2), but isn't it all intriguing??!! And you would be smarter to focus on Question (3), which is how the Bush-Cheney Campaign will take (1) and (2) and put them in a stew with everything else and make this a Daddy Party election no matter what."

It is a must read.

See, all you wannabe Note writers, we control the horizontal. We control the vertical. The 24 hour news cycle is all, and we decide who wins it. We'll tell you how the GOP wins even when they lose, okay? We're fair, we're balanced, and we're in the tank for the GOP. Just wait until tomorrow's David Sanger news analysis to see what we mean.

Three years ago, Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld wrote a memo to his colleagues in the Pentagon posing a critical question in the "long war'' against terrorism: Is Washington's strategy successfully killing or capturing terrorists faster than new enemies are being created?

Until Tuesday, the government had not publicly issued an authoritative answer. But the newly declassified National Intelligence Estimate on terrorism does exactly that, and it concludes that the administration has failed the Rumsfeld test.

Portions of the report appear to bolster President Bush's argument that the only way to defeat the terrorists is to keep unrelenting military pressure on them. But nowhere in the assessment is any evidence to support Mr. Bush's confident-sounding assertion this month in Atlanta that "America is winning the war on terror."

Oops. That's not right. Check someone else in the Gang for something more reliable.

But the release of the document's principal findings appeared likely to add fuel to the election season debate over the impact of the war in Iraq, and provided scant support for the president's position that the U.S. occupation of the country had made America safer.

But the release of the document's principal findings appeared likely to add fuel to the election season debate over the impact of the war in Iraq, and provided scant support for the president's position that the U.S. occupation of the country had made America safer.

Damn. What about the WaPo?

In announcing yesterday that he would release the key judgments of a controversial National Intelligence Estimate, President Bush said he agreed with the document's conclusion "that because of our successes against the leadership of al-Qaeda, the enemy is becoming more diffuse and independent."

But the estimate itself posits no such cause and effect. Instead, while it notes that counterterrorism efforts have seriously damaged and disrupted al-Qaeda's leadership, it describes the spreading "global jihadist movement" as fueled largely by forces that al-Qaeda exploits but is not actively directing. They include Iraq, corrupt and unjust governments in Muslim-majority countries, and "pervasive anti-U.S. sentiment among most Muslims."

Oh, shit. Too damn substantive. This makes the War President look like he's losing the WoT^TM. Well, not to worry, they'll bury it on A21. Just write that it only looks like the Democrats are winning the news cycle all week. Find some quotes to show they don't know how to handle being aggressive, and that they're nervous and divided (get a staffer from Lieberman's office, on background).

Oh, yah, and don't forget. Whenever we talk about the war on terror, Republicans win. Don't look up the data, there isn't any. The Kool Kidz say it's true (get Tony Fabrizio to agree, on record, and call Frank Luntz).

Damn. Journalism is hard, kidz. Interpretation is for professionals. Please don't try this at home.

Comments

[Katie Jensen]

Last night Al Franken was on Hard ball. He looked like a carbon copy of Clinton. Red face, angry and valid. One thing that kept coming out yesterday was that Clinton was angry but that his words were true. He had validity on his side which cannot be said for the current pres. It was pretty amazing and made me wonder if there hasn't been a true shift.

One, Tony Blankley is usually very smooth and even tempered. He was clearly flabbergasted. His spin was called "spin" and Franken basically jumped in and called him on his lies. Blankley tried to call "uncle" by saying that the confrontation (with direct quotes from Blankley last spring) was not "fair". Blankley's demeanor clearly shifted from self assured to "shook up". It "felt" like a shift. but feelings aren't facts. I enjoyed seeing Blankley confronted. I felt Franken countered with facts so that his temper was somewhat ameliorated. It seems valid for folks to be getting angry about the lies and the obvious desire of this administration to obscure the truth about the war.

[DemFromCT]

The encounter ended on a funny-cordial note. franken's good at this.

[demtom]

I think Katie gets to an interesting point: for the last six years (including during the 2000 election), Democrats have held wide poll advantages on most every issue important to voters...yet, when Election Day came, too great a number of those voters went GOP, apparently for atmospheric "feelings". The fact that Dems were so rational, so calm, while the GOPers went for the jugular, helped create the sense that Pubs "cared" more. While the usual civility-nannies in DC are appalled by the Clinton interview ("What he said was correct, but I didn't like his manner"), his fury may be what the public responds to most strongly -- and the fact that it's being taken up by other Dems 1) is a good sign and 2) tells me they know it's a winner.

A second thing the punditeers are absolutely wrong about: I've heard, about 20 times in the past two days, that it's disastrous for the Clinton story to be soaking up so much oxygen, when it'd be better for Dems if the NIE dominated completely. This is horse-pucky. First of all, there's no guarantee the press would even give the NIE the attention it has; they could just as easily have provided wall-to-wall Terrell Owens coverage for camouflage. Second, The Note's "Ho ho; this really helps Bush" approach would probably be far more widely promulgated were the Bushies not on the defensive to begin with. What I see is, the Clinton manifesto has dovetailed perfectly with the NIE, to bring a far more negative slant to an area of discussion -- "the war on terror" -- where Bush is used to, even at this late date, universally adoring coverage. Hmm...his supposed strength turned into a negative -- isn't that the sort of thing that supposedly makes Rove a genius?

Last point: even if The Note remains in the ideological weeds, much of the other TV coverage has been far more willing to ring the truth bell. On ABC, Jake Tapper's report flatly contradicted Condi on her main points; John Roberts on CNN, while straining not to use the word "lie", said her contentions "were not exactly the truth". This wouldn't have happened two years ago. And, as DemfromCT documents, though Bush has issued his traditional "signing statements" with the NIE ("It may say this, but it means the opposite"), no one outside of FoxNews and the WSJ editorial page are buying.

[Katie Jensen]

Another point. When we lose our temper, we create news, which gives us some control over the topic and the news cycle. This is an old trick that the repubs have used repeatedly. This is another way to control the story. Yesterday, the story was clearly that Clinton got mad, but that his points were valid. In response to Franken, some titter has been made that he wasn't acting like a statesman. It worked because Franken is not a statesman. He doesn't have to act like one and all the American people know that. Yes, this is about emotion, and about taking control of the news cycle. I think that for the first time, the dems are more secure in the facts and this then can feed the emotion. Up to now, the dems couldn't prove that Bush was on the wrong track. Today we can, and we need to take up the discussion and talk it to death.

[DemFromCT]

contrast the Note's Halperin (what he says):

When the Clinton political family and the Bush political families fight, it's bigger [than] the Hatfield and McCoys. It's bigger than King Kong vs. Godzilla," said ABC News political director Mark Halperin. "They set the tone. Now every politician around the country is going to be engaged on the national security debate. That could help the Republicans," who have historically been trusted more by voters to handle terrorism and national security issues.

It's been a winning issue for the GOP in 2002 and 2004. The question is, can the Clintons fight back so aggressively that they can break that streak? Or does it just bring attention to what's been a losing issue for their party?

and what he does

More Gingrich: "As a calculated political decision, it is reasonably smart because Bill Clinton is more popular than Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid or Howard Dean or any Democrat who is not very well known and therefore he can rally the base in an off year election. . . On the other hand, it is very bad for the Democrats if they are looking to spend all of October arguing about terrorism because the country generally feels much safer with Republicans in fighting terrorism than they do with the Democrats."

with a more reasoned and accurate approach:

The escalating debate over national security reflects the belief among strategists in both parties that the terrorism issue works to their benefit. The question is how voters will interpret each side's arguments.

If the R's did it, Halperin would cite it as Rove attacking the other guy's strength, a sure sign Rs will win (and of Rove's genius). But since it's the D's, he ignores it.

[Katie Jensen]

My point has been and continues to be that the dems cannot win if we are still "limping" on the issue of national security. Bottom line is that all americans are safer under democratic rule. Thoughtful, careful and effective. The American people still do not understand what happened in Kosovo. There is nothing to fear here, we can and should put our record up against there's on national security. Wesley Clark was explaining what we accomplished in Kosovo and the fact that only a few soldiers died. Literally a few. There are handles here if the dems will only stop fearing the topic.

[rj]

Bingo, bingo and bingo, Katie, Dem and dem. I've long felt like Katie about the necessity of going straight at the terrorism/security issue. And after all the years of despairing at the right's ability to harness the power of emotion against legitimate but bloodless arguments, Dems are finally seeing that they can harness that power on BEHALF of those arguments, and that two can play Karl's game of jiu-jitsu. The koolies can bemoan the ill manners of the angry all they want, but anger is not an emotion of the wimpy, or of those without conviction. And what emotion has fueled the right's successes all this time, after all? Hallelujah, and about time.

[crab nebula]

DemCT, love the Outer Limits reference.

DemTom is right. Until the Democrats have a Presidential nominee, it's very good for Bill Clinton to frame the debate, because he does it well. I'd like to see people pick up Clinton's words and combativeness.

The Gang of 500 are idiots. David Broder is a deluded, self-absorbed fool. I have not read the note or watched a network TV news broadcast (outside of crises like Katrina) in 5 or 6 years.

[freepatriot]

ever seen 500 deer stand and stare at the headlights of reality before ???

the democrats need to aim reality at the mifddle of the herd

lets watch all the koolkids blinking and stunned on November 8th

reeality has a way of doing that

Karma sucks if you're a repuglican

[Jodi]

Clinton was trying to be one of those coaches that when his team is losing and everything he has tried has failed, he finally charges the referee or umpiree and gets tossed from the game trying to rally the gang to play better.

I think he thinks the Dems are losing. Well, he is pretty good at politics.