Dueling Post columns on Rahm Emanuel

By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, March 5, 2010; 9:13 AM

Pow!

That was the general reaction around town to David Broder's column yesterday.

The so-called dean of the Washington press corps -- not everyone considers that a compliment -- is usually gentle with his jabs. So when he took a couple of whacks at journalists who happen to be on The Washington Post payroll, some folks acted like there was blood on the floor.

A pundit taking on his fellow pundits -- horrors!

Forgive me for not hyperventilating over this. What are we, some kind of Victorian debating society? Columnists should feel free to challenge each other, regardless of where they work. Newspapers need to be more provocative, not less. As long as there's no eye-gouging, let it rip.

The subject is Rahm Emanuel and whether he has mounted an offensive in the press that is making him look good and his boss look bad. The chief of staff is a central figure in this administration, so it's not a trifling subject.

Nor should we be shocked if Emanuel's allies are talking him up at a time when he's under fire for the administration's lack of progress. This happens every hour or so in the nation's capital. It's the job of journalists to sift through the spin and try to present a reasonable approximation of reality.

I have just one problem with the Broder offensive, which we'll get to in a second. Here's the column:

"In the space of 10 days, thanks in no small part to my own newspaper, the president of the United States has been portrayed as a weakling and a chronic screw-up who is wrecking his administration despite everything that his chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, can do to make things right.

"This remarkable fiction began unfolding on Feb. 21 in the Sunday column of my friend Dana Milbank, who wrote that 'Obama's first year fell apart in large part because he didn't follow his chief of staff's advice on crucial matters. Arguably, Emanuel is the only person keeping Obama from becoming Jimmy Carter,' i.e., a one-term failure. . . .

"And on Tuesday, The Post led the paper with a purported news story by Jason Horowitz saying that a president with Obama's 'detached, professorial manner' needed 'a political enforcer' like Emanuel to have a chance of succeeding, 'because he [Emanuel] possessed a unique understanding of the legislative mind.' Unfortunately, the story said, 'influential Democrats are -- in unusually frank terms -- blaming Obama and his closest campaign aides for not listening to Emanuel.' "

A purported news story? That's unfair. Horowitz's piece was an extensively reported effort at analyzing what is going on inside the White House that quoted 11 people on the record, most of them members of Congress as well as Obama aide Valerie Jarrett. Broder may disagree with the story's thrust, but that doesn't make it faux news.

Broder continues: "It sounded, for all the world, like the kind of orchestrated leaks that often precede a forced resignation in Washington. Except that the chief of staff doesn't usually force the president out."

But then Broder goes to his own unnamed sources -- "others high in the White House" -- quoting one unnamed staffer as having "said to me, 'Rahm likes to win,' and when the losses began to pile up, he probably vented his frustrations to some of his old pals in Congress. It's clear that some of them are talking to the press."

Well, maybe. But I don't see the difference between Broder opining after talking to his sources and Milbank doing the same thing, or Horowitz producing a story with some unnamed sources but nearly a dozen officials on the record. They each have a take, but it would be a pretty boring newspaper if everyone, especially the opinion people, viewed things the same way.

The spat gets the attention of Joe Klein: "This is something I thought I'd never see: The Post's marquee political writer of the past 40 years beating up on The Post."

Milbank's Feb. 21 column also made news elsewhere, as in this Noam Scheiber piece in the New Republic:

"In February, The Washington Post's Dana Milbank penned a column defending Emanuel against a rising drumbeat of criticism, including some recent calls for his resignation. The column made several valid points about Emanuel and his value to the president. But it also indulged in caricature. While holding up Emanuel as an all-knowing sage, Milbank dismissed Gibbs as a 'hyper-partisan former campaign flack' and [David] Axelrod as a man so 'blinded by Obama love' he can't think clearly.

"The reaction was immediate and intense -- multiple sources told me it had created tension within the White House. It also, in some respects, epitomized the Emanuel dilemma. Contrary to his cut-throat reputation, Emanuel has generally been a team player during his time as chief of staff. He tends to resist cooperation with the dozens of profiles that are written about him. He is quick to defend colleagues from the kvetching of journalists and pundits, and he has thrown himself into major initiatives whose logic he disagrees with.

"Which raised an intriguing paradox. On the one hand, no one seemed to believe Emanuel had engineered the Milbank piece -- even critics conceded that, if nothing else, he was too savvy for such a stunt. Nonetheless, almost all these people believed the Milbank piece was a problem for Emanuel, because less-informed outsiders would assume he was behind it, prompting a cascade of chatter about White House infighting. It's not hard to see how this could wear on a man."

None of this is sparing Emanuel criticism from the likes of Wizbang:

"We are witnessing the unraveling of what may be the most ineffective, amateurish and tone deaf political operation ever run out of the White House. It sounds as if Rahm Emanuel is finally paying attention and sees the wave coming over the bow as President Obama orders full speed ahead on reconciliation. As we predicted here months ago, this will not end well for the Democrats. Backstabbing and leaks are the first real sign of the political ship sinking."

Commentary's Jennifer Rubin is dismissive: "Broder recites the White House spin (whose? in the hall of mirrors, is this Rahm's version of events?) that it's not Rahm but Rahm's friends who are fanning the flames, and that it's the economy that's sunk the president's approval ratings."

At the Atlantic, Ta-Nehisi Coates critiques the media mind-set:

"There is, in the press, a profane bias toward political success, a sense that success is strictly defined by elections won. Left uninterrogated is the ends to which those elections serve.

What we're really talking about is the fake 'objectivity' which the press worships. Serious policy reporting necessitates making calls, and making calls open you up to the charge of political bias. . . .

"Reporters began talking about a White House bureaucrat as though he is the equal of far-reaching phenomenon like unemployment."

Well, he is the top assistant to the leader of the free world. But Coates is right that if Obama were riding high, we'd be flooded with pieces about Emanuel's genius.

Hunting Votes

In the end, no one, not even Emanuel, can twist arms like a president, and Obama is trying to summon his inner LBJ:

"President Obama and top Democrats set out Thursday to thwart defections and solidify support for their health care overhaul bill, focusing on skeptical rank-and-file House Democrats antsy about voting for the unpopular measure and then having to fend off Republican attacks in the midterm elections," the Washington Times reports.

"A dozen House Democrats who supported the bill in the House said they'll vote against Mr. Obama's plan unless strong abortion restrictions are inserted. Others question whether the Senate bill, the basis of the president's plan, will do enough to stem rising health care costs or address regional disparities on Medicare rates.

"Nearly 20 House Democrats were called to back-to-back White House meetings with Mr. Obama in which he told the rank and file that 'to maintain a strong presidency, we need to pass this bill,' said Rep. Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona Democrat and co-chairman of the Progressive Caucus."

Short-timer?

No one really knows, based on this NYT report:

"Gov. David A. Paterson will be governor on Friday. After that? He will not say.

"As Mr. Paterson ducked out of a side entrance to the Yale Club in Midtown Manhattan on Thursday afternoon, he offered a simple "yes" when asked if he would still be governor on Friday.

"But when asked whether he would be governor next week, the governor was silent."

A rather deafening silence.

Others, the New York Post reports, are jumping ship: "Another staffer quit yesterday amid Gov. Paterson's meltdown -- Communications Director Peter Kauffmann, who said he couldn't take the lying anymore. 'As a former officer in the United States Navy, integrity and commitment to public service are values I take seriously,' said Kauffmann, who joined Paterson's administration almost a year ago."

Revolving Door

Politico (which just rehired Jonathan Allen after his 40-day stint with Democratic Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz) reports:

"David Cloud, who covered national security and foreign affairs for several publications, took a detour last year from journalism and into government.

"But after spending seven months in Kabul as special assistant to Karl Eikenberry, the U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan, Cloud began this week in Tribune's Washington bureau on his old beat. . . .

"He said that briefly working in government didn't preclude him from getting back into journalism, pointing out that he had a non-political job, wasn't making policy, or dealing with the press."

I wonder if there would be more of a fuss if such journalists were returning from Bush administration jobs.

Woman from Wasilla

The Palin brand seems to be hot, as Time's James Poniewozik observes:

"For a woman who has so many issues with TV series and hosts, Sarah Palin is becoming awfully active in the industry. The former Alaska governor and vice presidential candidate turned Fox News contributor is now, according to Entertainment Weekly, teaming up with Survivor producer Mark Burnett to pitch a reality show about Alaska.

"It's not clear what the show would be, should it come to pass; EW variously describes it as a 'docudrama' and as a 'Planet Earth' type series, which indicate two different styles of show. Maybe the concept is, 'we'll produce a reality show with Sarah Palin's name attached and figure out the concept later.' "

Meanwhile, "Sarah Palin is ready for the next chapter of her publishing career.

"Publisher HarperCollins announced Wednesday that the former Alaska governor and Republican vice presidential candidate is working on a 'celebration of American virtues and strengths.' "

Blowback

Are comments on newspaper Web sites scaring off some potential sources?

The Post recounts an effort to persuade debt collector Michael Sutherland to be interviewed. Once the story ran, "among the comments were these hard-to-stomach posts:

" 'What scum. . . . Scam-acne-face-Sutherland and all his little minions, scum . . . . special place in Hell for them,' wrote someone who went by the screen name griffmills.

" 'They should be hung up by their private parts and shot,' wrote billdinva2.

"Sutherland said such comments were 'why I was so hesitant in doing an interview' in the first place. 'Lesson learned,' he wrote, 'I will never allow for another interview.' "

You can't always get rid of comments, and inevitably there are going to be ugly ones. Journalists have to develop thick skins, but I can see where some civilians may not think it's worth the aggravation.

Fight Club

Some amazing video here of a newsroom slugfest -- not the polite kind between Washington Post columnists -- that plays out on camera.

Briefest Scoop in History

Radar Online: "John Roberts, Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, is seriously considering stepping down from the nation's highest court for personal reasons, RadarOnline.com has learned exclusively."

Half an hour later: "Update: RadarOnline.com has obtained new information that Justice Roberts will NOT resign. The justice will be staying on the bench."

I know this is terribly old-fashioned of me as a representative of the dinosaur media, but if you're going to report that nation's highest-ranking jurist is on the verge of quitting, wouldn't it be nice to have it nailed down?

Howard Kurtz also works for CNN and hosts its weekly news program, 'Reliable Sources.'