Comments on: New D.C. Insider Rumor is About…

By: charlie finch

charlie finch — Sun, 24 Feb 2008 00:46:11 +0000

Perhaps it is worth reflecting on Franklin Roosevelt as a template for Presidential “scandal”. He was chosen in 1920 as the VP candidate because his name was Roosevelt and because he was a “dry” (pro-Prohibition). He served one term as Governor of New York , when said term was two years. Many are familiar with the “coverup” of FDR’s crippled state (the most hearfelt passages in FDR’s biography are his lifelong relations with the poliostricken denizens of Warm Springs). What has never been resolved is whether or not FDR remained potent or impotent after being bit by polio. In the evident jealousy of Eleanor towards Lucy Mercer Rutherfurd and Missy LeHand, under the mores of the time, perhaps it doesn’t matter. FDR ran his White House like a hippie commune: Harry Hopkins lived there, as did, periodically, other New Deal braintrusters. Every day at 5 PM, Roosevelt, the ex-dry would serve a few shaker of martinis to whomever was living at the White House at the time. Not only was Eleanor perceived as having same sex affection for her pal “Hick” and others. but the Army wiretapped her hotel room in Chicago, because it feared that Eleanor was having an affair with Army Sergeant (and future Roosevelt biographer) Joe Lash. FDR drove the press with the whiphand, famously ridiculing HL Mencken at a Gridiron Dinner by reading a speech which acidly attacked journalists, that turned out to actually be one of Mencken’s own articles! The press was not so much complicit in FDR’s reign (many attacked and detested him) as dominated by a protean figure. FDR even had the balls to host a toga party at the White House in which he dressed as Caesar. The problem with our political culture nowadays is that everyone is too timid, because they fear the public; subconsciously they know that the sans-culottes could (and should) strip them of their insider privileges. A sensible opponent, replying to Hillary’s mantra that she would be “ready on Day One”, would respond, a la FDR, “that anyone who pays Mark Penn $10 million and drops $100,000 on one deli in Iowa won’t be ready on Day 1000″, but Obama can’t do that because of the media backlash to such a comment. Hence, he leaves an opening for Hillary to manufacture an Obama scandal in the very long six months ’til Denver. I believe, based on experience, that Hillary’s people drove the McCain story as a test, a cat’s paw, for a much bigger Obama leak. A rule of thumb, a Kinsley corollary, is that a candidate will admity to 10% of what has happened, deviance-wise, in his or her life. (Apply this to Nixon, JFK, LBJ, Clintons in terms of the whole of their admitted public confessions). Barack has written that he did pot and toot during his younger days. Go ahead, do the math; Hillary is.

By: Ulla Lauridsen

Ulla Lauridsen — Sat, 23 Feb 2008 19:43:38 +0000

I’ll prefer the media to tell me the whole verifiable truth.
I’d say that a sentence like “At the time, his staff worried that the relationship was either adulterous, or might be persieved as such, should it come to public attention. In a meeting on march 5, they decided to…” is permissible.
Leave it up to the american people to weigh the information and decide what to think and do with it.
BTW; I’m Danish. So it’s not really my horse race, but I care a lot anyway.

By: Robert M.

Robert M. — Sat, 23 Feb 2008 18:08:28 +0000

Ron

[By the way, read Shakespeare 2x in the month after it came out--bought it trade too. Happy to let you work your obsession so I can indulge mine of reading abut S. {I'm deeply appreciative of Vendler's SONNETS analysis, too.}]

As to journo & history–not anthro as its not my discipline & its all absorbed by a good historian anyway–there is never a good time for a badly conceived and badly executed story, as with the NYT on McCain & affair rumors. See also 2/21 frontpager on NFL & Pats & “cheating” which (1) misses completely the competitive edginess in the profession, (2) misses completely what the quarterback, in this case Brady, is ALWAYS doing, and (3) misses compltely that any so-called new allegation is not new to Goodell who already knows Belichick was doing all from 2000 and has already taken it into account–or at least they could have asked Goodell that, but no! Having this story entirely written by non-sports people means it had no context and so they got to assuming things and those things were wrong. Which suggsts, sociologically, that professionals WITHIN the Great Grey Lady are too compartmentalized with specialities. Maybe they should all take to getting drunk together at the nearest saloon after the PM re-write so as to foster cooperation.

The same problem occurs with the McCain story and likely afflicts what you called the LAT prez spousal sex scandal from the fall. (I take it these are not the same?) The STORY re McCain is not the sex, which if true is the lead hook, yes, but is really the icing on the cake. It is, as headlined today over at Huffington, “McCain campaign being run by lobbyists.” Or “McCain Repeats Keating Five Blunders”. Which gets at “McCain shows lack of judgement” etc. And that continued lack of judgement is epitomized with the confirmed (two aides sourced & NOT denied by Bob Bennett) that he was acting “inappropriately” in 1999-2000 with the Iseman woman. THAT story is just a building block in the overall story of cronyism and special favors, but THAT KEY STORY the Times buried or really did not address in a new way to catch the readers attention in an “Aha!” moment. And Bill Keller takes the readers to task? [cf NYDN online article 2/23] HUH? Oh, where’s Abe Rosenthal or even Punch when ya need ‘em.

As to the ethics of the Prez Spouse Sex Story that those “in the know” haven’t moved on. Dammit, TWO SOURCE it and run with it early. By sitting on it even if sourced, its abetting a “coverup”, and the “coverup” is always worse than the “crime”. Which means, print it when its fully sourced, but NOT a moment before, and that WHEN comes when it comes, whether early in a primary season, midway or after the last primaries. We are well past, I had hoped, Beltway media FDR/JFK cronyism. I had hoped.

But “rumour” rides before all, and itself is a coin within any organization and profession. Yet when “sourced” it is no longer rumor, but “Story” and so can be publicly told in print.

By: dustwitch

dustwitch — Sat, 23 Feb 2008 03:12:59 +0000

Oh,geeez,why the heck do you think they sat on it,huh?

To damage McCain once it was fairly clear that he would be getting the nomination, otherwise, the GOP voters may have chosen a more formidable opponent for Obama, THAT IS WHY .

By: Rick

Rick — Sat, 23 Feb 2008 01:29:37 +0000

You don’t need a complex model for this story:

Guys (and gals) who have a history of cheating on their spouse have a habit of continuing that behavior throughout their life.

By: Mark Van Wagoner

Mark Van Wagoner — Sat, 23 Feb 2008 01:27:21 +0000

What? You didn’t like my snarky post?

I posted it, sorry I’ve fallen behind. I do have a life outside the blog.

By: small market

small market — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 09:20:33 +0000

Just wondering if this rumor you are writing about involves a Democratic Presidential Candidate and accusations made on youtube. If so, it appears the LAT and the Washington Media are not the only ones sitting on it. A lot of small market media is too.
Even us little media folk require multiple sources before publishing stories.

I understand the curiosity. I just don’t want to play 20 questions, which would ultimately lead to revealing something, I’ve decided I’d rather not reveal at this time.

By: michael

michael — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 02:42:10 +0000

If I have it right, the Talmud enjoins a person not to gossip because the person gossiped about might kill themselves. For that reason, the words of an English aristocrat, “Publish and be damned” comes to mind.

By: charlie finch

charlie finch — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 23:57:56 +0000

Check out the AP story, “Is Obama’s Love Affair with the Media Ending?”, textbook example of the Rosenbaum Principle of Media Uncertainty, i.e. “something’s coming”

By: Larry Matthews

Larry Matthews — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 20:42:44 +0000

I’ve been watching this drama play out today on the national news and it appears that quarter 1 has the conservatives and John McCain in the lead. They have handled this furor very well in placing focus on the liberal rag New York Times.
I would wager that at least one of your sources emanates from Marilyn Thompson who has now left the Times and is returning to the Wash Post. I hope she was able to take some of her research with her.
To go to the ethical portion of the report dealing with the FCC, I would like to see in print the actual provision that aided a client of her firm and who that client was. I could care not if McCain strayed with an attractive lobbyist who was 1/2 his age except that it does open the door to blackmail or other favors. The fact that the fund raiser in Miami where they were together and the second demanding letter to the FCC to act on a long overdue decision the very next day does raise questions of ethics. No one can deny the factual basis of this party and the letter the following day after they returned from Miami. These facts lead to more questions about other favors like why he is still helping to hide over 750,000 pages of investigation related to the Abramoff investigation with the help of the DOJ.