Two Emory University researchers found that: "A growing number of Americans have been voting against the opposing party rather than for their own party." Hate is easy; understanding is hard. That's why I'm going to say a few good things about the remaining seven candidates for President, starting with the most likely to win. (NOTE: This is based on poll numbers, Electoral College delegate counts and such... NOT my personal beliefs)
Thinking Positive
Hillary Clinton: Clinton is one of the most experienced candidates in the race. She's fought battles with opponents both inside and outside her party and does not get rattled by tough questions/debates. She has, easily, the most foreign policy knowledge of any candidate on either side.
Donald Trump: Trump has run an incredibly smart campaign in regard to communication. He knows no fear, will take on any subject or person, and speaks with a confidence that is unprecedented. His "outsider" credentials are backed up by his ability to finance his own campaign.
Marco Rubio: Rubio is a strong speaker who has been tabbed by his party before as their spokesman. He can appeal to both the moderate and conservative wings of his party in a way that others cannot. Has proven willing to work with political opponents without sacrificing his principles.
Bernie Sanders: Bernie is appealing and energizing. His views on Wall Street are attractive for a generation that saw relatively few changes from the Great Recession. He is not just a one-issue candidate, but has nuanced views on issues and has offered ways to pay for them.
Ted Cruz: Cruz is an intelligent debater that can connect to his audience. He is willing to make a tough decision or take an unpopular stance even if it's not the easy thing to do. He is a man who knows his own principles, and he has the strength to defend and hold to those principles.
John Kasich: Kasich has a good record of economic success not only in Ohio, but in past positions in the government. He has not fallen into the trap of negative politics and has remained positive. He is the type of candidate that would have been a front-runner even 10 years ago.
Dr. Ben Carson: Dr. Carson inspires a lot of hope in people who believe in his personal story. He speaks with a quiet tone that is rarely found on the campaign trail. Comes at issues from a different angle than most lifelong politicians.
More on the Court
GOP leaders continue to promise to not even have a hearing on an Obama nominee to the Supreme Court. I want to hit one more point: The GOP has seized on lines by Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and then-Sen. Joe Biden in years past about delaying confirmation hearings until after elections. They're wrong for four reasons: 1) Those statements were made in the summer before the election, not February. 2) Those statements were theoretical and not actual opposition. The one chance Biden or Schumer had to hold a hearing on a Supreme Court nominee in an election year came in 1988 — when Schumer approved current Justice Anthony Kennedy (Biden ran for president and didn't vote). 3) In that same speech, Biden decries the politicization of the Supreme Court nomination process. He said he'd vote for a moderate candidate and hoped, if it came to that, that then-President Bush would work with the Senate. 4) Most importantly, I think Biden and Schumer were both wrong with their statements, however out of context they were. The GOP called those statements obstructionist back then. But now that the shoe is on the other foot, it's the right thing to do?
Short version: There's a lot of hypocrisy when it comes to Supreme Court nominations. But obstructionism is obstructionism. The Constitution set a process in place. The GOP doesn't have to approve the nominee — there's plenty of precedent for that. You can vote no if you want. But to not even have a hearing is disrespectful and disingenuous.
Original Senator
I heard an interview on NPR this week with Sen. Cory Gardner, R-Colo. He was upset about President Obama's Guantanamo Bay closure plan. He gave three terrible reasons to dislike the plan. 1) The plan was too short! It's only eight pages, and surely this should be longer, right? But when the Affordable Care Act came out, many complained it was too long. Regulations are also too long, they say. Can Obama opponents just tell everyone what page count they're OK with? 2) Obama is only bringing this up because it was a campaign promise. He's just trying to fulfill campaign goals before the end of his term. I honestly don't know how this is a complaint, because shouldn't all politicians try to fulfill campaign promises? Is the message here that politicians should not try to do what they said during an election? 3) When talking about this issue, Obama only delivers speeches or appears on NPR to talk about it. Which is a thing that Sen. Gardner said. On NPR. That's like complaining to your Starbucks barista that your friend only goes to Starbucks.
There are many reasons to be opposed to Obama. There are legitimate, honest arguments to make about his policies or his actions. Other GOP members have made strong, compelling arguments about this issue in particular. But if these are your three best arguments, you've already lost the battle.
Summary Judgments
Having a Chick-fil-A on campus does not mean you support their CEO's views on homosexuality any more than having a Burger King supports a monarchy. • • • Oh, Trump campaign... Oaklahoma? Really? • • • It's a long read, but this Jezebel story on a conspiracy theory cruise hilariously called the Conspira Sea is worth your time. • • • NPR did a story on the 30th anniversary of the Challenger explosion, and talked about the guilt from one engineer who said the shuttle shouldn't have flown that morning. The follow-up is incredibly touching and helped the engineer come to terms with that guilt. • • • Next week's post may be delayed; it's the day we move into our new home in Liberty and the night is a big event for work. We're closing on Tuesday, moving Thursday/Friday/weekend. Meanwhile, 3/4 of our family is sick right now (I'm the only one not sick.). Next week is going to be pretty crazy.
Thursday, February 25, 2016
Thursday, February 18, 2016
Courting Disaster
In shocking news, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has passed away. This week's post is all about how to replace a Supreme Court Justice. It's a little longer than usual.
My favorite story has been the friendship Scalia had with his judicial colleague, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. The two used to vacation together, and (while her husband was alive) would share New Year's Eve together. On the court, the two could not be any more perfect foils: One a brash, outspoken conservative and the other a frail-looking, diminutive liberal. I also liked the story that Scalia recommended Elana Kagan to President Obama, saying that he didn't have any illusions that Obama would select a conservative, but if he's going to pick a liberal judge, the pick should at least be someone smart. What a sentiment: If we're going to do battle, let's at least have a good fight.
Take Your Chances
Hours after Scalia's death, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell announced plans to delay a confirmation of Scalia's replacement until after the election. He said the people need to have their say. GOP Presidential candidate Ted Cruz has announced he would filibuster any nominee, no matter who it is.
McConnell and Cruz are both gambling. They're hoping that if they delay long enough, the GOP might win the Presidency and hold on to its Senate majority.
Best-case scenario for them, the Supreme Court keeps four conservatives, four liberals and a swing voter (Kennedy). But looking at electoral college numbers and the number of GOP Senate seats up for election this year, the odds are just as good of the worst-case scenario: Hillary wins election, and Democrats take over or close the gap in the Senate. In that case, she'd probably select an even more liberal nominee. That's more likely if it's the polarizing Trump or Cruz who win the GOP nomination (I believe those two would have a difficult time in the general election).
Lastly, McConnell et al are also gambling that their move won't backfire. That is, that Americans will be upset by their blatant obstructionism and say "enough." Seeing the GOP leadership refuse to even hear a nominee is off-putting in an election year. And there is an election coming up soon...
Precedent for the President
The short version is there is no precedent for an 11-month delay to fill a Supreme Court vacancy. There's not any recent precedent for filling one — it's a situation that frankly hasn't come up much.
On Tuesday morning, I heard an NPR interview with Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, saying that Obama and the Senate Democrats should expect this type of delay since they did it to Robert Bork in 1987. First: Obama was not in the Senate. Neither were most of the current Democratic senators. In fact, only nine senators remain in office since 1987: six Republicans and three Democrats. That includes Hatch, McConnell, John McCain, Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (all GOP), and Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (Dem). You should not hold people responsible for moves they did not make.
Second, there are major differences between Bork and the current situation. 1) Bork actually had a hearing in the Senate. 2) The Senate did vote on Bork. They rejected him on ideological grounds, but at least had a vote. 3) Anthony Kennedy, Reagan's third choice, was confirmed 97-0 by a Democratic Senate (!). 4) Kennedy was nominated in November and confirmed in February — three or four months. A Democratic Senate overwhelmingly confirmed a Republican nominee, but it took some give-and-take.
The only other pre-WWII example came in June 1968, when Chief Justice Earl Warren offered to resign "at the President's leisure." Note: four months later than our present issue. LBJ picked a sitting Justice, Abe Fortas, to move up to Chief, but ethical issues for Fortas popped up during confirmation that caused the Senate to look unlikely to approve Fortas' promotion, and LBJ pulled the pick. He didn't bother making a new one.
Thurmond rule
Finally, the "Thurmond rule" came out of the Fortas fight. You'll hear politicians reference this, but it's a bastardization of a terrible person's ideas to say that's a rule worth keeping. Thurmond was a notable racist, running for President in 1948 on a platform of segregation and fighting the Civil Rights Act tooth and nail. Further, the "Thurmond rule" was that no lifetime appointment should be considered in the last six months of a lame-duck president's term. That's cool if you want to stick with a segregationist's stupid rule, but Obama has 11 months left. The rule doesn't even apply.
The Replacements
I've read a lot of good stories on who Obama could/should nominate. Let's leave aside the idea that the Senate will not hear the nomination. I expect the nominee to be a minority.
Paul Watford, Sri Srinavasan and Loretta Lynch are probably your leading candidates. Here are your quick bios: Watford is a 49-year-old black judge of the Ninth Circuit. He is considered a moderate and was confirmed 61-34 in 2012. Srinavasan (grew up in Kansas!) is a 48-year-old Indian-American judge on the DC Circuit Court who was confirmed 97-0 in 2013. He's also considered more moderate. Finally, current Attorney General Loretta Lynch, 56, is a black female (double minority). She's a former prosecutor who was recently confirmed 56-43 by the Senate. Watford and Srinivasan's confirmations were filibuster-proof. Lynch's was not. However, she's a well-qualified woman, and if the GOP is perceived to "gang up on her," that could galvanize both the black vote and the female vote in favor of the Democrats in this fall's election.
Summary Judgments
Well-written article by Howard Kurtz at Fox News. I swear I wrote much of the above before I read that. • • • I loved seeing the Alabama Shakes win a Grammy for Best Rock Performance on Monday. Alyson and I saw them live for my birthday three years ago, and they were awesome. • • • Roland's got another ear infection, so we've finally hit the magic number! He can get tubes in his ears now! I shouldn't be so excited about that, but I kind of am.
My favorite story has been the friendship Scalia had with his judicial colleague, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. The two used to vacation together, and (while her husband was alive) would share New Year's Eve together. On the court, the two could not be any more perfect foils: One a brash, outspoken conservative and the other a frail-looking, diminutive liberal. I also liked the story that Scalia recommended Elana Kagan to President Obama, saying that he didn't have any illusions that Obama would select a conservative, but if he's going to pick a liberal judge, the pick should at least be someone smart. What a sentiment: If we're going to do battle, let's at least have a good fight.
Take Your Chances
Hours after Scalia's death, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell announced plans to delay a confirmation of Scalia's replacement until after the election. He said the people need to have their say. GOP Presidential candidate Ted Cruz has announced he would filibuster any nominee, no matter who it is.
McConnell and Cruz are both gambling. They're hoping that if they delay long enough, the GOP might win the Presidency and hold on to its Senate majority.
Best-case scenario for them, the Supreme Court keeps four conservatives, four liberals and a swing voter (Kennedy). But looking at electoral college numbers and the number of GOP Senate seats up for election this year, the odds are just as good of the worst-case scenario: Hillary wins election, and Democrats take over or close the gap in the Senate. In that case, she'd probably select an even more liberal nominee. That's more likely if it's the polarizing Trump or Cruz who win the GOP nomination (I believe those two would have a difficult time in the general election).
Lastly, McConnell et al are also gambling that their move won't backfire. That is, that Americans will be upset by their blatant obstructionism and say "enough." Seeing the GOP leadership refuse to even hear a nominee is off-putting in an election year. And there is an election coming up soon...
Precedent for the President
The short version is there is no precedent for an 11-month delay to fill a Supreme Court vacancy. There's not any recent precedent for filling one — it's a situation that frankly hasn't come up much.
On Tuesday morning, I heard an NPR interview with Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, saying that Obama and the Senate Democrats should expect this type of delay since they did it to Robert Bork in 1987. First: Obama was not in the Senate. Neither were most of the current Democratic senators. In fact, only nine senators remain in office since 1987: six Republicans and three Democrats. That includes Hatch, McConnell, John McCain, Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (all GOP), and Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (Dem). You should not hold people responsible for moves they did not make.
Second, there are major differences between Bork and the current situation. 1) Bork actually had a hearing in the Senate. 2) The Senate did vote on Bork. They rejected him on ideological grounds, but at least had a vote. 3) Anthony Kennedy, Reagan's third choice, was confirmed 97-0 by a Democratic Senate (!). 4) Kennedy was nominated in November and confirmed in February — three or four months. A Democratic Senate overwhelmingly confirmed a Republican nominee, but it took some give-and-take.
The only other pre-WWII example came in June 1968, when Chief Justice Earl Warren offered to resign "at the President's leisure." Note: four months later than our present issue. LBJ picked a sitting Justice, Abe Fortas, to move up to Chief, but ethical issues for Fortas popped up during confirmation that caused the Senate to look unlikely to approve Fortas' promotion, and LBJ pulled the pick. He didn't bother making a new one.
Thurmond rule
Finally, the "Thurmond rule" came out of the Fortas fight. You'll hear politicians reference this, but it's a bastardization of a terrible person's ideas to say that's a rule worth keeping. Thurmond was a notable racist, running for President in 1948 on a platform of segregation and fighting the Civil Rights Act tooth and nail. Further, the "Thurmond rule" was that no lifetime appointment should be considered in the last six months of a lame-duck president's term. That's cool if you want to stick with a segregationist's stupid rule, but Obama has 11 months left. The rule doesn't even apply.
The Replacements
I've read a lot of good stories on who Obama could/should nominate. Let's leave aside the idea that the Senate will not hear the nomination. I expect the nominee to be a minority.
Paul Watford, Sri Srinavasan and Loretta Lynch are probably your leading candidates. Here are your quick bios: Watford is a 49-year-old black judge of the Ninth Circuit. He is considered a moderate and was confirmed 61-34 in 2012. Srinavasan (grew up in Kansas!) is a 48-year-old Indian-American judge on the DC Circuit Court who was confirmed 97-0 in 2013. He's also considered more moderate. Finally, current Attorney General Loretta Lynch, 56, is a black female (double minority). She's a former prosecutor who was recently confirmed 56-43 by the Senate. Watford and Srinivasan's confirmations were filibuster-proof. Lynch's was not. However, she's a well-qualified woman, and if the GOP is perceived to "gang up on her," that could galvanize both the black vote and the female vote in favor of the Democrats in this fall's election.
Summary Judgments
Well-written article by Howard Kurtz at Fox News. I swear I wrote much of the above before I read that. • • • I loved seeing the Alabama Shakes win a Grammy for Best Rock Performance on Monday. Alyson and I saw them live for my birthday three years ago, and they were awesome. • • • Roland's got another ear infection, so we've finally hit the magic number! He can get tubes in his ears now! I shouldn't be so excited about that, but I kind of am.
Thursday, February 11, 2016
It's not You, It's Media
We closed on our house in Pittsburg this week. It's been a long, frustrating, head-scratching, expensive and annoying process. It feels inadequate to say it is be a relief to be done with that. I'll miss Pittsburg a lot. We're also under contract on a house in Liberty later this month and have already purchased a new sofa/couch/mattress/frame/fridge. Things will be very different in our family come March.
Blurred Lines
A good way to turn an issue into a non-issue is to confuse people. If it sounds like a he-said, he-said, then often people call it a tie and move on from the issue. Better yet, "the media" makes a nice scapegoat to move things into the he-said, he-said realm. Often, "the media" is afraid to push back on accusations by campaigns, even when what they say is downright stupid. Often, the issue isn't a he-said, he-said, but really just someone lying.
Take, for instance, Ted Cruz, who was accused by the Ben Carson campaign of lying just minutes before the Iowa caucus. The Cruz campaign sent out an email that Ben Carson was going home to Florida after the caucus (true) and was planning a big announcement next week (not true). The truth is that Carson flew home Tuesday, then went back to the campaign Wednesday. The original CNN report only said he wasn't flying straight to New Hampshire or South Carolina. In fact, the original report said that Carson was staying in the race.
Even in his apology, Cruz continued to misinterpret the very CNN report his campaign used, claiming that CNN said Carson wasn't going to resume his campaign in either New Hampshire or South Carolina (not true). Further, Cruz said they should have THEN spread the news that Carson was going to remain in the race once it broke that Carson would remain in the campaign. He said that "CNN got it correct" while blaming them for confusion. CNN did get it right. But Cruz's campaign didn't. He said his campaign passed on news that was relevant, "true and accurate." That's wrong. Cruz was caught in a lie that he is attempting to blame on CNN.
But CNN isn't totally innocent. Thursday morning, the headline at the top of their website was "Cruz: 'CNN got it correct'". Yes, CNN got it right, but it's not until three paragraphs into that article that there's a link to a story that Cruz's claims about CNN are false. Effectively, CNN gave high-profile position to Cruz's incorrect claims, but low-profile position to a fact-check of those claims.
I paid attention to see when CNN would change their positioning. Late Friday and over the weekend, CNN changed headlines and positioning to highlight that Cruz was lying and wrong. But why did it take a day and a half? Cruz had a whole news cycle before he got called out on it.
What's the Matter with Kansas?
I had something else written here, but the Kansas Supreme Court's ruling on school finance was too important to forget. In short, they ruled the Kansas Legislature isn't funding small schools fairly compared to big schools. They also gave the Legislature until June 30 to fix it, or else. And the "or else" has teeth: Schools would not be able to open in the fall. What most of the stories coming out on this issue will miss is that school finance rulings are on two issues: equity (is it fair to the small districts?) and adequacy (is it constitutionally enough?). Today's ruling is ONLY on equity, the smaller of the two issues. It's a $50 million fix. The bigger issue is adequacy, and hasn't been decided yet. That's a hundreds of millions of dollars fix. The schools won today, which is important, but it's only the tip of the iceberg to what's really at stake.
Poll Weasels
This headline and story by Fox News is curious. You can see the work being put in to make things look worse for Hillary Clinton. The story says that according to two national polls, Bernie Sanders is closing the gap with Clinton. The first nine paragraphs are all about these two polls and how bad they are for Clinton. However, the 10th paragraph amounts to this: A third poll shows she's still got a huge lead, but we won't talk about that. Then it goes back to talking about the first two polls. There are two interpretations of this. 1) Fox News doesn't trust the Rasmussen poll or 2) "She's losing her lead!" is the narrative they wanted to tell. If 1) were true, a responsible journalism operation would explain why the Rasmussen poll is ignored. Since they didn't, that leaves option 2. Writing a story around a narrative is bad journalism. The story should be your guide.
Summary Judgments
Donald Trump has tweeted and said insults about people in the vein of "I refuse to say these terrible things... even though I'm verbalizing them." Donald, I refuse to say you're a vacuous, narcissistic chauvinist who can't discuss real policy without staring at your notes. Instead, I'll just say you're an awful person. See? I didn't say those other things! • • • Oh, Meryl Streep. We're not all Africans, really. Maybe we were a long, long time ago... but I think enough time has passed that we can move on. • • • We haven't been getting much uninterrupted sleep lately because the kids are getting their canine teeth. Evie's is funny, however, because she hasn't got her top incisors yet. So she's got two teeth on her bottom gums, and then her two top canines. She's practically getting fangs, the poor thing.
Blurred Lines
A good way to turn an issue into a non-issue is to confuse people. If it sounds like a he-said, he-said, then often people call it a tie and move on from the issue. Better yet, "the media" makes a nice scapegoat to move things into the he-said, he-said realm. Often, "the media" is afraid to push back on accusations by campaigns, even when what they say is downright stupid. Often, the issue isn't a he-said, he-said, but really just someone lying.
Take, for instance, Ted Cruz, who was accused by the Ben Carson campaign of lying just minutes before the Iowa caucus. The Cruz campaign sent out an email that Ben Carson was going home to Florida after the caucus (true) and was planning a big announcement next week (not true). The truth is that Carson flew home Tuesday, then went back to the campaign Wednesday. The original CNN report only said he wasn't flying straight to New Hampshire or South Carolina. In fact, the original report said that Carson was staying in the race.
Even in his apology, Cruz continued to misinterpret the very CNN report his campaign used, claiming that CNN said Carson wasn't going to resume his campaign in either New Hampshire or South Carolina (not true). Further, Cruz said they should have THEN spread the news that Carson was going to remain in the race once it broke that Carson would remain in the campaign. He said that "CNN got it correct" while blaming them for confusion. CNN did get it right. But Cruz's campaign didn't. He said his campaign passed on news that was relevant, "true and accurate." That's wrong. Cruz was caught in a lie that he is attempting to blame on CNN.
But CNN isn't totally innocent. Thursday morning, the headline at the top of their website was "Cruz: 'CNN got it correct'". Yes, CNN got it right, but it's not until three paragraphs into that article that there's a link to a story that Cruz's claims about CNN are false. Effectively, CNN gave high-profile position to Cruz's incorrect claims, but low-profile position to a fact-check of those claims.
I paid attention to see when CNN would change their positioning. Late Friday and over the weekend, CNN changed headlines and positioning to highlight that Cruz was lying and wrong. But why did it take a day and a half? Cruz had a whole news cycle before he got called out on it.
What's the Matter with Kansas?
I had something else written here, but the Kansas Supreme Court's ruling on school finance was too important to forget. In short, they ruled the Kansas Legislature isn't funding small schools fairly compared to big schools. They also gave the Legislature until June 30 to fix it, or else. And the "or else" has teeth: Schools would not be able to open in the fall. What most of the stories coming out on this issue will miss is that school finance rulings are on two issues: equity (is it fair to the small districts?) and adequacy (is it constitutionally enough?). Today's ruling is ONLY on equity, the smaller of the two issues. It's a $50 million fix. The bigger issue is adequacy, and hasn't been decided yet. That's a hundreds of millions of dollars fix. The schools won today, which is important, but it's only the tip of the iceberg to what's really at stake.
Poll Weasels
This headline and story by Fox News is curious. You can see the work being put in to make things look worse for Hillary Clinton. The story says that according to two national polls, Bernie Sanders is closing the gap with Clinton. The first nine paragraphs are all about these two polls and how bad they are for Clinton. However, the 10th paragraph amounts to this: A third poll shows she's still got a huge lead, but we won't talk about that. Then it goes back to talking about the first two polls. There are two interpretations of this. 1) Fox News doesn't trust the Rasmussen poll or 2) "She's losing her lead!" is the narrative they wanted to tell. If 1) were true, a responsible journalism operation would explain why the Rasmussen poll is ignored. Since they didn't, that leaves option 2. Writing a story around a narrative is bad journalism. The story should be your guide.
Summary Judgments
Donald Trump has tweeted and said insults about people in the vein of "I refuse to say these terrible things... even though I'm verbalizing them." Donald, I refuse to say you're a vacuous, narcissistic chauvinist who can't discuss real policy without staring at your notes. Instead, I'll just say you're an awful person. See? I didn't say those other things! • • • Oh, Meryl Streep. We're not all Africans, really. Maybe we were a long, long time ago... but I think enough time has passed that we can move on. • • • We haven't been getting much uninterrupted sleep lately because the kids are getting their canine teeth. Evie's is funny, however, because she hasn't got her top incisors yet. So she's got two teeth on her bottom gums, and then her two top canines. She's practically getting fangs, the poor thing.
Wednesday, February 3, 2016
Second Step is Easier than the First
Thanks to all of you who have read and shared this blog. I'm eager to hear from people about what they think. You can contact me on Facebook, email, old-fashioned hand-written letters, smoke signals or Braille. I may not understand smoke signals or Braille, but at least I'll know you read the previous sentence.
Friday, I'm in trouble
When is the best time to release bad news? There's an easy answer: Friday afternoons. This is for several reasons:
1) There's very little time to interview news sources before the end of the M-F work week, so lazier reporters will tend to publish the press release without further investigation.
2) The weekend (starting Friday night) is typically family time. It's not a time when most people are paying the most attention to politics, so it's easier to sweep bad news under the rug.
3) Do you like cable 24-hour news? Well, they don't have their "A" teams on the weekends unless something is incredibly major. They save the A-team for M-F. It's one thing to have the Chris Wallaces and Anderson Coopers hosting a major news event. But it's rare on the weekends, when they've typically got people who get paid a fraction of those men and women. It signals to a viewer that "this news isn't as important, because if it were, they'd have been in the Situation Room."
4) Because of the above reasons, the hope is that serious inquiries won't take place until Monday, at least two full days later. Perhaps by then, something else will have happened to push the bad news deeper.
Need an example? Last Friday afternoon, at 4:42 p.m. EST, CNN published a story that the State Department will not release 22 of Hillary Clinton's emails because they are "top secret." To summarize why this is important: This is the first time the Obama administration has admitted that Clinton's personal server had "top secret" information on it. Because of the timing of this story's release, it made me recognize that this was news that was only begrudgingly being released.
Expect Yourself
Iowa is about expectations. The Daily Show had a good clip about how the media reported that Clinton lost even though she won, Marco Rubio and Bernie Sanders won even though they lost, and Jeb Bush didn't win or lose, so he lost. In truth, politics is often about expectations. Sanders and Rubio both outperformed what most media expected, so they were "winners," even though they haven't won anything yet. Likewise, both Trump and Clinton performed worse than expected, so they lost, even though they finished second and first respectively. Going into New Hampshire, I expect Sanders and Trump to win. Long-term, Clinton will win the nomination easily on the Dem side, while the GOP is too early to call.
Summary Judgments
One thing I love is to laugh at silly names of people. Luckily, high school athlete Signing Day provides plenty of fodder. Here's this year's list of the best names from the 2016 recruiting class. My favorites include Priest Bluitt, Divine Deablo, Brodarious Hamm and, of course, DiCaprio Bootle. • • • While covering politics, I've seen the sort of "Voting Violation" mailers that Ted Cruz's campaign sent out before the Iowa Caucus that listed people and their neighbors' "voting scores." It's a terrible tactic that seems to be legal. Cruz said he'd apologize to no one for using every tool he could to encourage Iowans to vote. It's ironic, then, that the candidate who uses shame tactics has no shame himself. • • • RIP to the Presidential campaigns of Rand Paul, Rick Santorum, Mike Huckabee and Martin O'Malley. More candidates will drop out after New Hampshire. Jim Gilmore, who received 12 votes (!!) in Iowa, somehow thinks he still has a chance. • • • Kevin Durant plays for the Thunder. He'll be a free agent after this season. Yet there have been reports recently that IF he decides to sign with another team, then the Lakers are the frontrunner. Or maybe the Warriors. Speculative journalism is the worst journalism, because it's reliant on an if. IF Durant stays, the frontrunner for biggest foot in mouth are these two reporters. • • • Column-ending story about the kids: Roland and Evie were giggling and happy, running through the living room yesterday. What they didn't realize is they were running right at each other. I watched as they collided, like two trains barreling into each other. Luckily, they got up right away. Good: Because if they were hurt, I would have had a hard time consoling them while I laughed.
Friday, I'm in trouble
When is the best time to release bad news? There's an easy answer: Friday afternoons. This is for several reasons:
1) There's very little time to interview news sources before the end of the M-F work week, so lazier reporters will tend to publish the press release without further investigation.
2) The weekend (starting Friday night) is typically family time. It's not a time when most people are paying the most attention to politics, so it's easier to sweep bad news under the rug.
3) Do you like cable 24-hour news? Well, they don't have their "A" teams on the weekends unless something is incredibly major. They save the A-team for M-F. It's one thing to have the Chris Wallaces and Anderson Coopers hosting a major news event. But it's rare on the weekends, when they've typically got people who get paid a fraction of those men and women. It signals to a viewer that "this news isn't as important, because if it were, they'd have been in the Situation Room."
4) Because of the above reasons, the hope is that serious inquiries won't take place until Monday, at least two full days later. Perhaps by then, something else will have happened to push the bad news deeper.
Need an example? Last Friday afternoon, at 4:42 p.m. EST, CNN published a story that the State Department will not release 22 of Hillary Clinton's emails because they are "top secret." To summarize why this is important: This is the first time the Obama administration has admitted that Clinton's personal server had "top secret" information on it. Because of the timing of this story's release, it made me recognize that this was news that was only begrudgingly being released.
Expect Yourself
Iowa is about expectations. The Daily Show had a good clip about how the media reported that Clinton lost even though she won, Marco Rubio and Bernie Sanders won even though they lost, and Jeb Bush didn't win or lose, so he lost. In truth, politics is often about expectations. Sanders and Rubio both outperformed what most media expected, so they were "winners," even though they haven't won anything yet. Likewise, both Trump and Clinton performed worse than expected, so they lost, even though they finished second and first respectively. Going into New Hampshire, I expect Sanders and Trump to win. Long-term, Clinton will win the nomination easily on the Dem side, while the GOP is too early to call.
Summary Judgments
One thing I love is to laugh at silly names of people. Luckily, high school athlete Signing Day provides plenty of fodder. Here's this year's list of the best names from the 2016 recruiting class. My favorites include Priest Bluitt, Divine Deablo, Brodarious Hamm and, of course, DiCaprio Bootle. • • • While covering politics, I've seen the sort of "Voting Violation" mailers that Ted Cruz's campaign sent out before the Iowa Caucus that listed people and their neighbors' "voting scores." It's a terrible tactic that seems to be legal. Cruz said he'd apologize to no one for using every tool he could to encourage Iowans to vote. It's ironic, then, that the candidate who uses shame tactics has no shame himself. • • • RIP to the Presidential campaigns of Rand Paul, Rick Santorum, Mike Huckabee and Martin O'Malley. More candidates will drop out after New Hampshire. Jim Gilmore, who received 12 votes (!!) in Iowa, somehow thinks he still has a chance. • • • Kevin Durant plays for the Thunder. He'll be a free agent after this season. Yet there have been reports recently that IF he decides to sign with another team, then the Lakers are the frontrunner. Or maybe the Warriors. Speculative journalism is the worst journalism, because it's reliant on an if. IF Durant stays, the frontrunner for biggest foot in mouth are these two reporters. • • • Column-ending story about the kids: Roland and Evie were giggling and happy, running through the living room yesterday. What they didn't realize is they were running right at each other. I watched as they collided, like two trains barreling into each other. Luckily, they got up right away. Good: Because if they were hurt, I would have had a hard time consoling them while I laughed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)