Fear and Loathing

By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, June 25, 2008 10:12 AM

Was Charlie Black right?

Did he simply commit the political sin of saying something that is unspeakably true?

And how could such an old pro, whose campaign experience dates back to the Reagan era, make such a blunder? Or was it not such a blunder after all?

As I noted yesterday, Black, who is John McCain's top political gunslinger, told Fortune that the Benazir Bhutto assassination helped his man by focusing the debate on foreign policy, and if America should be hit by another terrorist attack, "certainly it would be a big advantage to him."

Let's just say that conjuring up the specter of mass murder as being helpful to a presidential candidate doesn't strike the most uplifting tone. It sounds uncomfortably close to wishing that one would come along and knock some sense into the voters. That's why Black apologized and McCain did the disavowal thing.

But if there was such an attack, might it not remind people that McCain's pal George W. Bush had spent five years fighting in Iraq rather than capturing Osama bin Laden? Might it not suggest that the Republicans hadn't kept the country safe after 9/11?

Or would it arouse a desire for a commander-in-chief with military experience, rather than one four years removed from the Illinois legislature? There's obviously something to that.

The most Machiavellian interpretation would be that Black put this out there, knowing there would be some blowback, as a way of stirring up the debate, knowing full well he'd have to fall on his sword. I doubt that's what happened, but stranger things have happened in politics.

The blogosphere is pretty hepped up about this. Time's Michael Scherer wonders whether this was truly a mistake:

"McCain likes to say he would rather lose an election than lose a war. To this, I guess his campaign is now awkwardly adding that he would rather lose an election than have terrorists succeed in another attack. The sad part is that now we are having this conversation. We can look forward to days of cable news chatter over the issue, and meta-chatter about who benefits from the chatter. Is it a dark Atwaterian/Rovian ploy or another embarrassing McCain campaign stumble?"

At the New Republic, Michael Crowley questions whether GOPers still have a terror card to play:

"It wasn't so long ago that Democrats hesitated even to accuse Republicans of using security-related scare tactics, lest they seem whiny and weak. Now John McCain feels the need to distance himself from one of his own aides, who was only responding to a press question. Not that that's an excuse. (Actually, McCain's statement is doubly odd--he answered as though Black had implied McCain was somehow encouraging an attack, which was not at all his point . . . )

"P.S. Do we assume it's true that a big attack would help McCain? I think a lot depends on the particulars. Another failure of the homeland-security bureaucracy would further discredit Republicans. An attack clearly linked to anger over the Iraq war could also hurt. There's no way to know in advance; but here's hoping it's all hypothetical anyway."

At Chuck Todd's blog, the ruling is that "the impact of a national security crisis in October is unknown for this reason: It depends on who initiates it. If it's an outside force, then Black's probably right. But if it's something that President Bush sparks, then Obama could benefit."

Firedoglake's Christy Hardin Smith is appalled:

"Anyone who would publicly contemplate the pro and cons of another attack on this country for his crony's political calculations needs a big ole smack upside the head . . . That's just shameful and wrong on so many levels at once.

"It's also telling: McCain's best hope for election in November? The 'scare the bejeebers out of people' strategy."

National Review's Jim Geraghty goes the sarcasm route:

"Of course. There's no reason to think that after a terrorist attack, Americans would prefer the leadership of a war veteran who's spent his entire career dealing with national security issues. There's every chance that with Americans dead and more attacks possible, they would turn to the former community organizer who, when asked about his military response to terrorist attacks, gives a lengthy answer listing every action except the military response . . .

"No, of course, Black is wrong. The American people would eagerly want the guy whose foreign policy advisers contend that Osama bin Laden, if captured, should be allowed to appeal his case to U.S. civilian courts."

Hey now: Maybe that Newsweek poll wasn't off after all.

"Buoyed by enthusiasm among Democrats and public concern over the economy, Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) has captured a sizable lead over Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) at the opening of the general election campaign for president, the Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg Poll has found."

Obama leads 49-37. If this keeps up, look for a flood of stories about how screwed up the McCain campaign is.

If we're electing a president for the age of terror, we're also picking one for the Internet age. After attending a conference, CQ blogger David Corn wonders how McCain could have no clue about computers:

"Let's (at least this time) avoid the cheap shot, for there is a serious point here: where is McCain's intellectual curiosity? Over the past decade, more and more Americans of all ages have become wired. Using email and the Internet has become a fundamental activity of modern life. How could McCain, who has long wanted to lead this nation, say to himself, I don't need to know how this stuff works? And in an era when so much depends on the Internet--including much of the economy and aspects of national security--how could a senior legislator and commander-in-chief wannabe eschew firsthand experience of how this series of tubes and wires functions?

"What motivated--or demotivated--McCain to be a computer illiterate? Is he a fuddy-duddy resistant to change? Is he--let's be frank--too old to absorb new notions? Is he a Luddite? None of these are qualities you'd want in a president. Are there other explanations?"

Maybe he'll appeal to the Internet-befuddled demographic.

I can't recall the last time I saw the editor of one conservative magazine calling for the editor of another conservative magazine to step down, at least temporarily. But NR's Rich Lowry does just that to the leader of the Weekly Standard:

"I've been thinking lately that Bill Kristol should take a leave of absence for a couple of months and go help out on the McCain campaign. McCain has been nothing if not energetic (giving a majorish speech almost every day). He has scored day-to-day tactical victories over Obama, as this Washington Post story noted. But the sum is less than the parts. Worse, McCain's political persona seems to be getting lost . . .

"There's a sense you never know where McCain is going to be on any given day. Is he zigging toward the center, or zagging right? And on top of this, the campaign feels so defensive--all about not being Bush and not being Obama . . .

"I think some new blood--focused just on the big picture--would help the McCain team. My candidate would be Kristol. He obviously has a keen political mind; he's a McCain guy going way back (and as far as I know has a good relationship with McCain's key people); and he's a conservative who understands the need to move beyond the Bush administration without being panicked by every Bush association."

Has it occurred to Lowry that Kristol might be more valuable to McCain at the Standard? And joining the team (officially, at least) would also require him to give up his Times column?

Conservatives are seizing on some Obama comments that stayed under the radar last week. "We know what kind of campaign they're going to run. They're going to try to make you afraid. They're going to try to make you afraid of me. He's young and inexperienced and he's got a funny name. And did I mention he's black? He's got a feisty wife. We know the strategy because they've already shown their cards. Ultimately I think the American people recognize that old stuff hasn't moved us forward. That old stuff just divides us."

WSJ's James Taranto says Obama is setting a trap:

"This is a very clever bit of rhetoric. For one thing, note how Obama conflates the entirely legitimate concern over his inexperience with prejudice against his race or 'funny name.' If you vote against him because he's green, you might as well be voting against him because he's black.

"For another, Obama is baselessly accusing Republicans of racial prejudice, or at least of cynically pandering to racial prejudice. But by wording this 'accusation' as a prediction, Obama is able to cast aspersions without needing any evidence to back them up. He implicitly ascribes to the GOP the view that voters are prejudiced against blacks, then calls on voters to prove they are not by voting for Obama. The fear of GOP racism also provides black voters an extra motive to get to the polls."

I don't think he's accusing all Republicans of anything, as opposed to McCain's allies.

At Right Wing Nuthouse, Rick Moran says the media are complicit:

"We expected it, of course. It is his greatest political weapon and he will use it again and again, shamelessly accusing the GOP of bringing up his race (even, as this proves, when they don't) in order to deflect criticism away from he and his wife for anything they say or any associations in their past.

"The press will let him get away with it because they are terrified of being accused of racism themselves.

"What makes Obama's race card such an effective weapon is that it is virtually impossible to accuse him of using it. He is the oppressed minority. You don't question oppressed minorities in this country. Anything they define as racism is accepted almost without question."

More on the perversion of justice at the Justice Department:

"The blocking of applicants with liberal credentials appeared to be a particular problem in the Justice Department's civil rights division, which has seen an exodus of career employees in recent years as the department has pursued a more conservative agenda in deciding what types of cases to bring.

"Applications that contained what were seen as 'leftist commentary' or 'buzz words' like environmental and social justice were often grounds for rejecting applicants, according to e-mails reviewed by the inspector general's office. Membership in liberal organizations like the American Constitution Society, Greenpeace, or the Poverty and Race Research Action Council were also seen as negative marks. Affiliation with the Federalist Society, a prominent conservative group, was viewed positively."

Of course.

Having lived through the media's Elian furor, I never thought I'd have to revisit it. But Politico is causing some buzz with this analysis:

"Eight years after the furor over the repatriation of Elian Gonzalez to Cuba possibly cost Al Gore the state of Florida in his 537-vote loss to George W. Bush, the international custody saga has returned to haunt another Democratic presidential nominee: Barack Obama. Having two top advisers who played key roles in the episode -- Greg Craig, who represented Gonzalez's father in Cuba, and Eric Holder, then a Clinton administration deputy attorney general when federal agents stormed the Miami home of Gonzalez's relatives to remove the then-6-year-old and return him to Cuba -- Obama now finds himself on the wrong side of an emotional issue in a battleground state.

"The wound reopened again last week after Gonzalez returned to the headlines in South Florida following a report in a Cuban communist youth newspaper that he has joined Cuba's Young Communist Union."

American Prospect's Dana Goldstein says the piece has it all wrong:

"I thought Politico prided itself on objectivity toward the presidential race. Now they are the arbiter of the right and wrong side of an eight-year old debate?"

Actually, it is the arbiter, not they. But we digress.

"These Cuban American voters are traditional Republicans -- it's no great surprise they are skeptical of Obama, just as they would have been of Hillary Clinton. That doesn't necessarily mean that Obama will lose Florida, as the piece suggests. He will be able to make inroads among younger Cuban Americans, who are more progressive."

If McCain wins in November, does his beer-baroness wife create complications? The L.A. Times thinks so:

"Hensley & Co., one of the nation's major beer wholesalers, has brought the family of Cindy McCain wealth, prestige and influence in Phoenix, but it could also create conflicts for her husband, Sen. John McCain, if he is elected president in November. Hensley, founded by Cindy McCain's late father, holds federal and state licenses to distribute beer and lobbies regulatory agencies on alcohol issues that involve public health and safety.

"The company has opposed such groups as Mothers Against Drunk Driving in fighting proposed federal rules requiring alcohol content information on every package of beer, wine and liquor. Its executives, including John McCain's son Andrew, have written at least 10 letters in recent years to the Treasury Department, have contributed tens of thousands of dollars to a beer industry political action committee, and hold a seat on the board of the politically powerful National Beer Wholesalers Assn. . . .

"Cindy McCain holds the title of company chairwoman and controls about 68% of the privately held company stock with her children and the senator's son."

Further evidence that Google is taking over life as we know it, from the NYT:

"In a novel approach, the defense in an obscenity trial in Florida plans to use publicly accessible Google search data to try to persuade jurors that their neighbors have broader interests than they might have thought.

"In the trial of a pornographic Web site operator, the defense plans to show that residents of Pensacola are more likely to use Google to search for terms like 'orgy' than for 'apple pie' or 'watermelon.' The publicly accessible data is vague in that it does not specify how many people are searching for the terms, just their relative popularity over time. But the defense lawyer, Lawrence Walters, is arguing that the evidence is sufficient to demonstrate that interest in the sexual subjects exceeds that of more mainstream topics -- and that by extension, the sexual material distributed by his client is not outside the norm . . .

"The search data he is using is available through a service called Google Trends. It allows users to compare search trends in a given area, showing, for instance, that residents of Pensacola are more likely to search for sexual terms than some more wholesome ones."

For Buzz Machine's Jeff Jarvis, we are our links:

"If you truly want to see the community standards that define obscenity we'll know when we see it, then don't listen to our preaching but to our searching.

"Marketers have always known this. Back when I was at People, we'd test covers of Diane Sawyer in a suit vs. Brooke Shields in a bathing suit and in person, people would say they'd buy the former but on their own, in the newsstand, they, of course, bought the latter. Behavior trumps opinion."

How about Diane Sawyer in a bathing suit vs. Brooke Shields in a suit?

Finally, Slate offers a partial solution to the energy crisis: "Could I Use My Breasts to Recharge My IPod?"

I don't know about that, but if only we could harness the wrist energy of all the people who clicked on the cheesy headline.