SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: KonKilo who wrote (10509)10/3/2003 1:01:10 AM
From: LindyBill  Respond to of 794330
 
And yet, we demand this sort of behavior from our leaders.

And yet, some of them have greatness inside of them, in spite of the hypocrisy we demand of them. They can "play the game," and make it to the top.

The really good ones seem to be able to handle the political cynicism and still achieve greatness. But they are few and far between. And we very seldom recognize them at the time.



To: KonKilo who wrote (10509)10/3/2003 1:40:56 AM
From: LindyBill  Respond to of 794330
 
Learning from Limbaugh

By Fraser P. Seitel Slate

"I offered an opinion. This opinion has caused discomfort to the crew, which I regret." -- Rush Limbaugh, former ESPN commentator



"We regret the circumstances surrounding this. We believe he took the appropriate action to resolve this matter expeditiously."

-- George Bodenheimer, president of ESPN



Public relations wise, Rush Limbaugh was smart.



Oh sure, it was the week from hell for El Rushbo. The rock-ribbed, conservative icon learned the hard way -- with unprecedented speed and fury -- the fundamental lesson of celebrity in 21st century 24/7 media reality: "If you live by the sword, you die by the sword."



Limbaugh's clearly non-spontaneous comments on ESPN's "Sunday NFL Countdown" that Philadelphia Eagles star Donovan McNabb was overrated because the media wanted to see a black quarterback succeed triggered a predictably unforgiving response.



He was eviscerated, beheaded, verbally lynched by just about every self-respecting Democratic politician or social activist whom Limbaugh has ever bad mouthed on the most listened to radio show in America.



In lightning fashion and with unfettered ferocity:



· McNabb, himself, called a press conference to denounce the statements as the same kind of racially explosive remarks that in the past had led to the celebrated firings of broadcaster Jimmy the Greek Snyder and baseball executive Al Campanis.



· ESPN was barraged with demands for Limbaugh's ouster from, among others, the NAACP, 20 House Democrats, the Rev. Jesse Jackson, and all 10 Democratic candidates for President.



· The New York Daily News, in the pigskin tradition of "piling on," rushed to print a story, alleging that Limbaugh "is being investigated for allegedly buying thousands of addictive painkillers from a black-market drug ring." The News gracefully introduced the story with a 72-point, front page headline, "ADDICT RUSH IN PILL PROBE."



And then, just as swiftly as the loose-lipped Limbaugh crisis erupted to the top of the cable news agenda -- it was over. Nipped in the bud by Rush himself, who threw in the towel immediately, saying:



"I love 'NFL Sunday Countdown' and do not want to be a distraction to the great work done by all who work on it. Therefore, I have decided to resign."



And that's where Rush, the stupidity of his McNabb comments notwithstanding, demonstrated how media savvy he really is.



He knew he couldn't win. The long knives were out for his scalp. Digging in would have only prolonged the agony. The right thing to do -- the only smart thing to do -- was to take the temporary heat, swallow his pride, and quit.



Which brings us to the other swirling national controversy involving the Bush administration and the potentially illegal leak of the identity of an undercover C.I.A. officer.



Like the Limbaugh matter, Democrats smell blood, as the administration fumbles its way through the aftermath of the outing of former Ambassador Joseph Wilson's C.I.A agent wife.



Wilson himself has accused the White House of disclosing the information in retribution for his report that Iraq was not guilty, as the administration had charged, of seeking to buy Uranium from Niger.



Most damning, pro-Bush (but Iraq war skeptic) commentator Robert Novak has acknowledged learning -- and subsequently revealing -- the identity of Wilson's wife in an interview with an "administration source."



In response, the Justice Department has launched an investigation, which has only triggered further Democratic denunciation and doubt. If not properly disposed of, the C.I.A. leak issue threatens to give the loyal opposition a bone fide issue -- i.e. the ethics and integrity of government -- from which to hoist the Bush Administration on its own petard in the coming election.



To prevent this, President Bush has one choice.



A la Limbaugh, he must immediately announce who in his Administration met with Novak, what he told the columnist and why, and, if the explanation is indefensible in the face of logic or law, the person must summarily be fired.



Anything short of this final solution will only enflame the Beltway hysteria and bring further ignominy upon the administration.



· First, with every journalist in Washington -- who wasn't tipped off by the original "Administration source" -- ravenous to find out the identity of Novak's confidant, the name will soon be known by all.



· Second, no matter how "clean" an investigation the Justice Department runs, Attorney General John Ashcroft will continue to engender hurtful daily stories of suspicion.



· Third, in the wake of the Clinton "years of scandal," the last thing the Bush administration needs now is to become distracted in defense of its bedrock issue of "restoring government integrity" -- particularly while it's got a lot more pressing and problematic issues to confront.



The real point is that no matter how critical to the administration the Novak leaker is, he is still less important than retaining the Presidency.



And make no mistake. As we learned first in Watergate, unless politically combustible issues, such as the C.I.A. leak, are dealt with immediately and decisively, they can, indeed, be the straw that brings down a Presidency.



So if the President is smart, he will learn from his friend, the former ESPN announcer, take the hit and move on. Now.



Fraser P. Seitel, managing partner of Emerald Partners communications consultancy, is author of The Practice of Public Relations, now in its ninth edition.


Copyright © 2003 Tech Central Station - www.techcentralstation.com



To: KonKilo who wrote (10509)10/6/2003 6:58:41 AM
From: LindyBill  Respond to of 794330
 
THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL
THE “D” WORD
The New Yorker
— Jane Mayer

Howard Dean, the putative Democratic front-runner, may be gathering strength around the country, but in Washington, D.C., political professionals have tended to see him as a sure loser, a reincarnation of the Democrats’ disastrous 1988 nominee, Michael Dukakis. Many commentators have suggested that Dean bears the markings of a Dukakis liberal. Certainly, Republicans would like to think so. One Republican operative has even coined a political verb, promising to “Dukakis-ize” the Democratic candidate, whoever it turns out to be.

One Democrat who has not found these comparisons particularly amusing is the former standard-bearer himself, the original Michael Dukakis. Reached by phone at home, in Brookline, Massachusetts, on a recent Sunday afternoon, Dukakis, the former governor of Massachusetts, who now teaches political science at Northeastern, took a moment to clarify the record. It would appear that Howard Dean should not be called a Dukakis liberal, for one simple reason: Dean was among those who declined to endorse Dukakis’s Presidential bid when it mattered most, back in the early spring of 1988, and the reason, Dukakis said, was that Dean, who was then lieutenant governor of Vermont, “thought I was too liberal for him.”

“Hell no, it doesn’t bother me,” Dukakis said, with a touch of forced jollity, when he was asked about the irony of this. “But no one then thought of Howard Dean as a liberal. He was a moderate Democrat. I’m a progressive Democrat.” Although Dukakis said that he has got over the slight, he still sounded a bit prickly when it came to judging Dean’s record. “He was a pretty good governor,” Dukakis said. At the time, he added, Dean’s endorsement wouldn’t have made much difference; the governor of Vermont, Madeleine Kunin, a Democrat, had endorsed Dukakis. But Dean chose instead to head up the Vermont committee for Richard Gephardt, who was also seeking the nomination that year.

Bill Carrick, Gephardt’s campaign manager in 1988 and a media consultant for him now, recalls seeking Dean’s support fifteen years ago, during a visit to Vermont. “I met him in his office, the doctor’s office. We went from there over to his house. He had his brain trust gathered there. We had a conversation in which Howard said he thought that Dick was a little too liberal for him, but he knew that Dukakis was way too liberal for him. So he was more comfortable endorsing Dick.”

Up in Burlington, members of the Dean for America campaign declined to discuss Dean’s reasons for opposing Dukakis in the past. Kathy Hoyt, Dean’s former chief of staff, noted that after the Vermont primary in 1988, which Dukakis won, Lieutenant Governor Dean did support Dukakis, who was by then the presumptive nominee.

This year, Dukakis has decided to support not Dean but his own former lieutenant governor, Senator John Kerry. “We’ve worked together a long time,” Dukakis said. “He was a terrific lieutenant governor. I think we need someone absolutely solid on the foreign-policy and national-security side. He has a special strength there.”

But if Howard Dean is no Michael Dukakis, John Kerry is apparently not anxious to be seen as one, either. Last year, almost as soon as he announced his intention to run for the White House, Kerry made one thing clear. “I am not Michael Dukakis,” he said, “and Michael Dukakis is not me, and the first person who would tell you that is Michael Dukakis.”
newyorker.com