Polluting the Airwaves

By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, November 13, 2007 10:41 AM

During the 2000 campaign, a Texas investment banker with ties to George W. Bush began bankrolling TV ads accusing John McCain of opposing efforts to clean up air pollution.

The spots, under the rubric Republicans for Clean Air, were put together by Sam Wyly and his brother, a Bush fundraiser. And McCain wasn't shy about pouncing on this information.

"Are we going to allow two cronies of George Bush to hijack the election?" he asked, accusing the pair of "perverting the political process" by using "dirty money."

Seven years later, McCain is embroiled in another controversy involving a so-called 527 group -- only this time, he's the beneficiary. Worse, the commercial was produced by Rick Reed, one of the creators of the Swift Boat ads against John Kerry that McCain denounced as unfair.

Is McCain now singing a different tune? The answer is no. He's calling for the ads to be yanked, saying: "I will not win this election, nor would I want to win it, by acquiescing in anyone's attempt to put my campaign before my principles."

Here's the back story, in the New York Times:

"The so-called Wounded Warriors Act, legislation intended to improve health care for veterans, has attracted nearly unanimous, bipartisan support in Congress. So why would the newly formed Foundation for a Secure and Prosperous America begin running a television commercial urging the citizens of South Carolina to tell Congress to pass it?

"The answer lies in the commercial's glowing images of Senator John McCain, the Arizona Republican banking on a South Carolina victory to jump-start his cash-poor Republican primary campaign. The group that paid for the advertisement operates independently of Mr. McCain's campaign, but was set up and financed by his supporters seeking to help him as much as possible up to the limits of the law . . .

"Mr. McCain immediately called on the group to cease its activities when its existence was first reported, by The Associated Press, on Friday. Mr. McCain said on Fox News Sunday that he had not spoken to Mr. Reed to ask him to do so directly."

Is this merely the first trickle in a deluge of 527 ads? Time's Mark Halperin ponders the question:

"John McCain disavowed this positive ad run on his behalf, but when will a shadowy group run a negative spot against a candidate? Strategists for all the major campaigns have said for several weeks that they expect there to be tens of millions of dollars spent in Iowa and other early voting states by various 527s and other interest groups on ads attacking just about everyone. . . . The airwaves are going to be packed with positive ads for and by the candidates themselves, making buying time that much more complicated.

"And who, exactly, would donate to these groups? Liberals who want to stop Hillary Clinton? Conservatives who want to stop Hillary Clinton? FOBs and FOHs who want to help Hillary Clinton? Wealthy religious conservatives who want to stop Rudy Giuliani? (Insert your own Dennis Kucinich or Mitt Romney joke here.) Maybe the biggest question of all, though, is this: Is the still-influential Old Media ready to scrutinize the content and sources of these ads, or will things move way too fast for that?"

As an ad-watch guy, I can tell you that Halperin has hit upon a telling point. Reporters have a hard enough time keeping up with the candidates' ads, and most TV coverage doesn't even bother to critique them for accuracy.

Is Fred Thompson shaking the lazy label? The L.A. Times says he's trying:

"Two months into his bid for the nomination, the former Tennessee senator is fighting to shake the image of a laid-back -- even lazy -- candidate who lacks the fervor of his rivals. Thompson not only has adopted a forceful speaking style, he has taken a more aggressive approach toward other Republican candidates . . .

"Thompson, 65, confronted the low-energy concern directly in Fort Mills, S.C., where Muzak has its headquarters. Speaking to supporters crammed into Beef O'Brady's sports bar and restaurant, he suggested that the nation needs a leader with sound judgment, not raw passion. 'Ultimately,' he said, 'the American people have to ask themselves: Do they want someone with their finger on the nuclear button who has fire in his belly?' He paused for effect. 'Or her belly?' The crowd burst into laughter."

Pretty good line.

Thompson is making a favorable impression on National Review's Jay Nordlinger:

"Fred Thompson said something the other day that impressed me. He was asked about Bernard Kerik, and his tangle with the law. The candidate said, 'I heard about it a while ago. It's been in the news, obviously, for a long time. But I don't know anything about the facts of that case, and I really can't comment on it.'

"Refreshing. You know, ol' Fred's all right."

My reaction was, why doesn't the guy read newspapers? This Kerik thing hasn't exactly been a secret. Unless he was simply trying to finesse the question.

Is the war debate starting to shift? No surprise here -- Bill Kristol thinks so:

"It was a reasonable position (though a mistaken one) to oppose the war in Iraq. It was a reasonable position (though a mistaken one) to oppose the surge of troops at the beginning of 2007, on the grounds that it seemed unlikely the surge could succeed, and that some kind of not-too-damaging-withdrawal was the only option.

"But now the surge is succeeding. Any serious person has to be rethinking his position going forward in that light. No Democrat is doing any such rethinking, however. What Democrats are doing now is, in effect, denying evident success. And, by continuing to push for a withdrawal timetable, they are trying to prevent further success . . .

"Obama wasn't alone in predicting that the surge would be 'worsening, potentially' the situation in Iraq. But it didn't. The situation is better.

"And the Democratic party, and its presidential candidates, are in the ridiculous position of being more anti-war now that we're winning than they were when we were losing."

On the other hand, George W. himself had a very different view of going to war in Iraq back in 1997, according to Editor & Publisher:

Sig Christenson, "who covers the military for the San Antonio (Tex.) Express-News, penned the piece for Sunday's paper that cited Bush's comments on Veterans Day 1997 as governor of Texas. He pointed to Bush's defense of his father's decision during the Gulf War not to remove Saddam Hussein.

" 'There are a lot of Americans [who say], "Why didn't you go get him?" ' Bush told the Express-News back in 1997, according to Christenson. 'Well, I'm confident that losing men and women as a result of sniper fire inside of Baghdad would have turned the tide of public opinion very quickly,' Bush added."

He had that part right.

One lingering question about Obama is whether the enthusiasm for him translates into votes. USA Today offers a cautionary note:

"Democrat Barack Obama is generating palpable excitement on Iowa campuses. But he's up against both history and new challenges as he tries to turn that energy into votes in the state's leadoff presidential caucuses.

"In 2004, according to the state Democratic Party, only 3.9% of 124,000 Democratic caucus participants were age 18 to 24. And that was for Jan. 19 caucuses. This time they are on Jan. 3, when virtually all Iowa colleges are on winter break."

Salon's Walter Shapiro was wowed by Obama's speech at the Jefferson-Jackson Day Dinner in Iowa on Saturday night. "But what a difference eight hours can make. The next morning, Obama appeared for a full-hour interview in another arena of political combat, facing off against Tim Russert on 'Meet the Press.' The fiery Obama of Saturday night had been replaced on Sunday morning by a replicant, a tepid candidate mostly concerned with avoiding mistakes rather than winning converts."

Andrew Sullivan, who penned a favorable Atlantic cover story on Obama, isn't leading the bandwagon:

"I don't agree with Obama on some issues. I'm more conservative domestically and economically. I'm closer to the Republicans on healthcare. I may be more hawkish internationally. Philosophically, I have more in common with Ron Paul than Barack Obama. But I hope I can see how someone meets a moment in history, even if I don't fully agree with him. That's how I felt about Bill Clinton in 1992 -- and I don't think in retrospect I was wrong, for all his faults. I also believe that it is good for the republic that the Democratic party regain its nerve and its soul again. Only Obama can do that. Only he still believes. And if the Democrats regain their soul and shuck off their fear, maybe -- who knows? -- the Republicans will be next."

Is this bit of news, reported by Lynn Sweet in the Chicago Sun-Times, important?

"With polls showing African-Americans have yet to give overwhelming support to White House hopeful Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), his wife Michelle said 'black America will wake up and get it' in an interview running on MSNBC on Monday." Does that suggest that African-Americans who don't support her husband are badly misguided? Shouldn't they be able to decide whether to back a white candidate?

McCain charmed legions of reporters on the Straight Talk Express in 1999 and 2000. Now Power Line's Paul Mirengoff learns about life on the bus:

"After a leg or two, we run out of questions, so 'court' becomes a conversation about politics and public policy. By the final leg, the conversation has drifted away from politics and public policy, and into history and sports. McCain sprinkles the conversation with anecdotes -- some about his travels; some about famous people he's known. He also asks a trivia question or two.

"There are plenty of wise-cracks, but none during my time on the bus was anti-conservative. A good example was a joke he directed at me. During his blogger calls, McCain likes to chide bloggers for sitting in their recliners instead of going on the road with him. I mentioned that, while I had taken him up on this offer, the rest of the blog world was hanging out in Las Vegas at a blog expo. McCain responded, 'what that tells me is that your priorities are seriously [messed] up.'

"Reporters, then, have ample reason to like McCain that have nothing to do with ideology or anti-conservative tone. It's only natural to like a politician who is constantly accessible, who answers all of your questions, and who even converses with you not as if you were an enemy or an annoyance, but as if you were a guest at his house. This would be true even if other candidates of his stature did not treat the media as warily as they apparently do."

Should campaign consultants be able to serve two masters? Nation Editor Katrina van den Heuvel says no:

"My colleague Ari Berman has done more than any journalist to shine some light on how pollster-strategist Mark Penn, head honcho at PR giant Burson-Marsteller, and perhaps the most important figure in Hillary Clinton's campaign, poses a real dilemma for the candidate. Penn heads a firm that has represented everyone from union busters to big tobacco, and more recently Blackwater. (According to a Marsteller spokesperson, it was a subsidiary, BKSH & Associates, run by GOP operative Charlie Black, which helped Erik Prince prepare for congressional hearings after his employees killed civilians in Iraq).

"It would seem difficult to find a more controversial client than Blackwater but Penn's firm has just been retained by Spin Master.

"It turns out that Spin Master distributes Aqua Dots, a toy that was recalled last week because it contains a glue ingredient that when ingested is broken down by the body to make GHB, the 'date rape' drug, which can cause unconsciousness and even death. (The Consumer Product Safety Commission says the number of children sickened by Aqua Dots has risen from two to nine in the past week.) Penn has repeatedly stated that he has no direct contact with controversial clients like Blackwater or unionbusters. But what about the good old-fashioned American principles of responsibility and accountability -- principles which his candidate likes to invoke on the campaign trail?"

Liberal radio host Taylor Marsh isn't happy about Hillary's planted questions:

"Whether it's 'at least one question' or 'questions' as ABC reports, this is as stupid as it gets. An amateur mistake that you wouldn't expect from the Clinton team. The campaign will have to take this one on the chin. They deserve to."

According to a Washington Times/Fox poll, "Only 25 percent of voters said recent criticism of Mrs. Clinton constitutes piling on, the survey found, and of those, less than half said she was the target because she is a woman."

This column by onetime Dukakis campaign manager Susan Estrich is as much about her as Hillary:

"I am neither as successful as I wish I were, nor as good a mother as I'd like to be. I'm not as thin as I'd like, I don't work out as often as I should, my house is messy and worse. I don't even have a semi-adoring boyfriend. I'm in the middle of a fight with the unscrupulous rug cleaners who destroyed my living room carpet and floor . . .

"When Hillary is the perfect candidate, the superwoman in teflon, it's a little hard to connect. When she isn't, when she makes a mistake, takes a hit, when her face tells you she's ready to scream in frustration that the guys are never this tough on each other, a funny thing happens.

"She starts looking familiar. She becomes ones of us. Just another girl trying to make it in a world that wasn't made for her."

In media news, a Pulitzer Prize-winning writer for The Washington Post has apologized-- and been disciplined -- for sending an incendiary note to an aide to ex-mayor Marion Barry.

TPM's Greg Sargent goes to the videotape in challenging CNN:

"I'm not sure anyone could outdo this one in terms of, shall we say, 'creative' editing of quotes.

"CNN ran a report Friday afternoon with the headline: 'Record Anger At Congress.' The network quoted Nancy Pelosi agreeing with this thesis, saying:

" 'I know that Congress has low approval ratings. I don't approve of Congress because we haven't done anything.' . . .

"CNN clipped Pelosi's quote so that she was saying of the Dem Congress: 'We haven't done anything.' Anything at all. But Pelosi actually said that she was unhappy with Congress because we haven't done anything to end the Iraq War."

There's been a lot of talk about the possibility of a Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton dynasty. But according to this Times of London piece, it may be more than just talk:

"Grover Norquist, one of America's most influential Republican activists, aims to turn the question of dynasty into a campaign issue.

" 'It will be ridiculous to have Mr. President and Madam President in the White House,' he said. 'We're the United States of America. How can we say to President Mubarak [of Egypt], "You can't hand off the presidency to your son, it's got to be your wife" or, "Hey Syria and North Korea, you've got to knock this stuff off and be like us".'

"Norquist has commissioned lawyers to draw up a constitutional amendment that would ban family members from succeeding one another to elected and appointed office. If passed, it would not apply to the Clintons as a Bush was elected in between them. But Norquist believes that it will alert voters to the perils of dynasty. 'Americans don't like to go back,' he said."

Sure, but don't Americans have the ability to vote against anyone who doesn't deserve the office, regardless of last name?

Megan Carpentier is the newest member of the Wonkette team. She says she has "virtually no qualifications for this job other than a bad attitude, a knowledge of politics and some basic computer skills." Carpentier was previously known as the Anonymous Lobbyist and says readers "may be shocked, SHOCKED, to find out that I fudged some personal details in the column." Oh, and she includes several provocative pictures of herself, including a couple in the bathtub (wearing a black dress with stiletto heels and wielding a cigarette-holder).