This is Interesting

From FAIR:

An internal memo from ABC Radio Networks to its affiliates reveals scores of powerful sponsors have a standing order that their commercials never be placed on syndicated Air America programming that airs on ABC affiliates.

The October 25 memo was provided to FAIR by the Peter B. Collins Show, a syndicated radio show originating on the West Coast.

Headlined "Air America Blackout" and addressed "Dear Traffic Director"—referring to the radio station staffer who coordinates programming and advertising—the memo gives the following order to affiliates:

Please be advised that Hewlett Packard has purchased schedules with ABC Radio Networks between October 30th and December 24th, 2006. Please make sure you blackout this advertiser on your station, as they do not wish it to air on any Air America affiliate.

The directive then advises ABC Radio Network affiliates to take note of a list of other sponsors who do not want their programming to run during Air America programming.

Please see below for a complete list of all advertisers requesting that NONE of their commercials air within Air America programming.

The list, totaling 90 advertisers, includes some of largest and most well-known corporations advertising in the U.S.: Wal-Mart, GE, Exxon Mobil, Microsoft, Bank of America, Fed-Ex, Visa, Allstate, McDonald's, Sony and Johnson & Johnson. The U.S. Postal Service and the U.S. Navy are also listed as advertisers who don't want their commercials to air on Air America.

The ABC memo is evidence of the potentially censorious effect that advertisers' political preferences can have on the range of views presented in the media.

Best. News. Ever.

Entire Daily Show will now be posted online. Daily. Whoo-hooo!

You tell 'em Jemmy

From TMW and Greg Saunders:

"Ten days of substance. That's all we ask"

From The News Blog.

An open letter to the "Gang of 500"

Dear "Gang of 500":

Did you pursue a career in journalism so you could help shed much-needed light on important topics, so you could help educate and inform your fellow citizens, so you could seek the truth and hold those in power accountable to the people they are supposed to serve?

Or did you pursue a career in journalism because you wanted to discuss whether Hillary Rodham Clinton has had plastic surgery, which candidate "looks French," and which "looked scary"?

We know of no poll that shows that respondents consider Nancy Pelosi's San Francisco residence of primary importance in this November's elections. We know of none that suggests that Tennessee voters care more about whether Harold Ford Jr. went to a "Playboy party" than they care about keeping America safe. We see no indication that the public is calling out for more "analysis" of the candidates' appearance, or even that their primary concern is how the midterm elections will affect the 2008 presidential prospects of various members of Congress.

No, the American people know what is important. Iraq is important. Capturing or killing Osama bin Laden is important. Keeping America safe, securing our ports, and preventing future attacks are important. The growing gap between rich and poor is important; the fact that millions of Americans lack health care is important.

The American people know these things are important -- and they tell you that every time you ask. You pick the poll, any poll you want: We guarantee you the poll shows that people think these things are important.

You won't find much evidence that the pressing questions on their minds have anything to do with Hillary's hair, or whether Pelosi's "San Francisco looks" turn them off, or whether the latest political ad "goes too far."

So please -- please -- use these last 10 days well. Use them to educate your readers and viewers and listeners about the things that really matter. Use the next 10 days to help people understand what the candidates want to do about Iraq and whether their solutions have worked in the past. About how we've failed to capture Osama bin Laden and what we're doing to change that. About what is happening in Afghanistan, about port security, about the budget deficit, about wage stagnation, about runaway energy costs, and about health care.

Don't just use this time to play an RNC ad -- or a DNC ad, or any ad -- over and over and over and over again. Voters will see these ads; the parties and candidates are paying for voters to see them. That's the whole point of an ad. Voters don't need you to air these ads nonstop, for free. The parties want you to do that. You're doing their bidding. You're telling voters about campaign tactics rather than issues. But campaign tactics don't keep us safe, don't keep our troops from dying needlessly in Iraq, don't put food on the table, and don't help people get health care.

We know: The vicious attacks demand attention. But not at the expense of issues that really matter. That isn't mud they're slinging -- it's quicksand they're leading you and the voters into. It swallows up and suffocates everything that gets caught in it, transforming elections that should be about Iraq, about bin Laden, about the economy, about the minimum wage, and about health care into a race to the bottom dominated by substance-free bickering. The campaigns responsible want you -- and the voters -- to get swallowed up in the quicksand. You know a radio host's attack on an actor shouldn't be the dominant story of the days before Americans choose their representatives. Your audience doesn't consider it the most important issue. So don't treat it that way.

For 10 days -- just 10 days, that's all -- use your platform to focus attention on matters of substance, not on the horse race. Don't tell us how an issue is "playing" -- tell us where the candidates stand, what they plan to do, and how they'll do it. We'll tell you how it "plays" on November 7, when we vote.

Once November 7 comes and goes, by all means, knock yourselves out telling us what our votes meant, what the future holds, what you think about the cut of Barack Obama's jib or John McCain's "steely resolve." There's plenty of time for you to do that. Plenty.

But for 10 days -- just 10 short days -- think about what really matters.

Think about why you first put pen to paper, what your motivation was the first time you asked a politician a question, what you think the highest aim of journalism should be.

Think about what makes your profession one of the highest callings a democracy has to offer, what makes journalism so essential to our existence as a nation that its freedoms are enshrined in our Constitution.

Think about the people who have fought and died for those freedoms. Think of your colleagues who have had their phones tapped, who have risked being killed in order to report from war zones, who ended up on "Enemies Lists," who have gone to jail because of their pursuit of the truth.

Did they do all that so you could bring us a story about the Democratic Party's "Two Left Feet," or about allegations that Hillary Clinton has had cosmetic surgery?

Or did they do it so you could tell us the truth about why we went to war, how that war is progressing, and what our leaders plan to do to get us out of it?

Ten days of substance. That's all we ask.

Too many recent elections have been decided based on earth tones and sighs, on windsurfing and swift-boating, on claims that are false or trivial, or both. Too many votes have been cast by voters who are misinformed about some of the most important issues of our -- or any other -- time.

The media don't bear sole responsibility for those things, of course. Our political leaders (on all sides) and those who help elect them deserve their share of blame, to be sure. And the voters themselves bear ultimate responsibility for not being better informed.

But, yes, you in the media are responsible, too; of that, there can be no doubt.

And in the next 10 days, your own performance is the only thing you can change. You cannot change the fact that some politicians will lie; that others will have great ideas but be less tactically savvy than their opponents; or that voters would rather watch Fear Factor than the evening news.

But you can make sure that those voters who read your newspapers and watch your television shows -- who try in these last 10 days to make an informed decision -- get the information they need about things such as war and health care, rather than trivia and pointless prognostication.

You can do that in these last 10 days. And by doing so, you can force the candidates (and help the voters) to talk and think about substance, about issues, about the future of our nation. Your readers and viewers and listeners need you to do that. Your nation needs you to do that.

Isn't that why you wanted to be a journalist in the first place?

Why the Triumphalism?

From MyDD:

polls from over fifty House races are currently showing campaigns within the single digits. Here they are (and yes, it really is this many):

Republican held seats
AZ-01, AZ-05, CA-04, CA-11, CA-50, CO-04, CO-05, CO-07, CT-02, CT-04, CT-05, FL-13, FL-16, FL-22, ID-01, IN-02, IN-09, IL-06, IL-10, IA-01, IA-02, KS-02, KY-03, KY-04, MN-01, MN-02, MN-06, NV-02, NV-03, NH-02, NJ-07, NM-01, NY-03, NY-19, NY-20, NY-24, NY-25, NY-26, NY-29, NC-08, NC-11, OH-01, OH-02, OH-15, OH-18, PA-04, PA-06, PA-07, PA-08, VA-02, VA-10, WA-08, WI-08, WY-AL

Democratic Held Seats
GA-12, IN-07, IA-03, IL-08, VT-AL, WV-01

In the immortal words of Yogi Berra, "It ain't over 'till it's over."

Blogger is. . . .

as they say, a bit bloggered today. New posts may not appear on the home page. For updates, try going here.

The Campaign So Far

Here's a decent overview of some of the more controversial political ads of this season, from the Grey Lady. "Messy Desk" remains among my favorites, I must confess. . . . . .

Not just nuclear annihilation

We've seen a few ads -- most recently the RNC/Osama one with the ticking clock -- that communicate a fairly straightforward message: vote Republican or you will die. Here's "Wallbuilders" President David Barton trying to make that seem mild, suggesting to Christian voters that if they don't vote (and vote Republican) they will be damned for all eternity:

Be active this election! Much is at stake!

In closing, while I’ve approached this article from a positive viewpoint, allow me to offer a thought for those who are better motivated by negatives than positives: What will Christians say to themselves (and to the Lord) if: (1) they don’t vote this election, (2) we lose pro-family champions in the House and Senate, (3) after the election, a Supreme Court Justice announces his retirement (two-thirds of the Court is now older than 65), and (4) we no longer have the necessary votes to confirm a fifth strict-constructionist Justice to the Supreme Court and thus begin bringing the culture war to its well-deserved demise? I certainly wouldn’t want to try to explain that one to my friends or family (or especially to the Lord!). Just a thought for those who might need additional motivation!

Sheesh, just when you thought being incinerated by a suitcase bomb was about as bad as it could get.

Now, the question, of course, is what actual effect such tactics have on turnout and voter choices. . . . .

Polling and the Midterms

Stolen in its entirety from Kos's DemFromCT. Lots of polling-related issues we should think about. The Hotline article it cites is worth a gander, too.

I seem to be among the very few who will not be at all surprised if the Republicans hold on to both the House and the Senate, albeit with slimmer majorities. This touches upon some of the reasons.

What Makes Republicans Confident?

by DemFromCT

Sat Oct 28, 2006 at 05:15:38 AM PDT

Winning. Oh, sure, there are details behind that, and other reasons we should and will review. But had it not been for 2004, no one would be paying attention to what Rove thinks. The flip side is that what makes Democrats incapable of overconfidence is losing (despite a record GOTV in Ohio in 2004). But we talk about Democrats often enough... let's talk about Republicans.

In this Hotline post by Marc Ambinder, Seven Reasons Why Karl Rove Is Optimistic, we look at the major factors. Of course, the most important reason is that Rove can't afford not to show optimism because the troops, already shaky, will be demoralized and stay home. But even 'optimism' means losing.

Let's define our term, first. "Optimism" doesn't mean that these Republicans are convinced that they'll pick up seats. The White House knows that its majorities in both chambers will be reduced. Optimism also doesn't imply that these Republicans are blind to the probability of a Dem House takeover and the possibility of a Dem Senate takeover.

What optimism means is that these Republicans believe that there are enough reasons to believe that Republicans can hang on to enough seats in the House and enough in the Senate to barely miss the guillotine.

Some of those reasons include

• GOP internal polls
With more money available, there's more polling. this helps Mehlman, et al direct Cheney to Idaho and other weak third tier areas that Democrats (no D polling) may not realize are weak. Follow the monay, follow the surrogates, hope it's not a fake like Bush to CA in 2000, or GOP spending in Ohio for DeWine.
• The GOP GOTV


There are about 20 additional races where the D candidate either leads the R candidate WITHIN the margin, trades leads with the Republican, or occasionally leads outside the margin of error. The Rove Optimist believes that the national Republican turnout effort - the 72 Hour Program - can add one to two percent to the margins of Republicans. So if these Republicans can stay within the margin of error - within two points - of Democrats until Election Day, there's a chance that Republicans can eek out victories in 70 percent of those contested races. Many of these races are located in congressional districts won by President Bush. Many involve incumbents who have had time to develop party-independent personas. Many represent districts drawn especially to preserve their seats.

• The mantra
What happens during the last week of the election matters as much as what happened during the last month; what happens during the last three days matters as much as the last week. Republicans might catch a break from exogenous events; they might win news cycles in critical areas.

Included in the discussion is the idea that the core can always be mobilized. Dispirited or not, they'll show. In this interesting post at RCP, John McIntyre lays that idea out more clearly.

In some ways there are two very different ways to look at what is going to happen on election day.

1) Republicans are in big trouble. The generic ballot shows a huge lead for Democrats (over 15%) with fewer than 10 days until the election. Republicans in contested races are either trailing or polling in the mid-40's, and given the national mood toward the GOP as seen in the generic ballot, it is reasonable to assume that these races will break for the Democrats. With the close races tipping the Democrats way they are poised for substantial pickups in the House of 25 seats or more and perhaps the six seats needed for a majority in the Senate.

2)The generic ballot is problematic and is over sampling Democrats, pushing the raw numbers higher for the Dems than they should be. Trying to use the generic ballot to predict who will then win x, y and z house races is a jump that can't be made soundly. In 2004 the voter turnout was 60% of eligible voters. In 2002 and 1998 in the two previous midterms it was 40%. What if a significant number of that 15%-20% who aren't going to show up at the polls this year come from soft voters in the middle? These are the exact group of voters that are helping drive the big polling numbers for Democrats. What if they don't show up in these contested races at the same proportion they are representing in many of these polls? Following this line of thinking, it is possible the bulk of the races that the polls now say are close will actually go to the GOP because the pollsters aren't sampling a representative field of who will actually vote in the contested races.

Simplifying things dramatically, the first view is essentially the one taken by Charlie Cook, and it's why he is out forecasting a 20-35 seat pickup for the Dems in the House and a very good shot for them to take the Senate. The second view is the one taken by Karl Rove, which is why he believes the GOP will hold both chambers, losing less than 15 seats in the House and 3-4 in the Senate.

Then again, there are those that believe that while only a rough guide, that generic ballot means a lot. Frank Newport has studied the Gallup generic ballot and is a believer in Gallup's likely voter model, at least for turnout. (When the interview was done, there was a tied generic LV, which has since skewed D by 13%). Here's another group that believes (click the link to see where the Figure comes from):

Although the Democrats hold a large advantage in generic ballot polls, there has been considerable uncertainty regarding whether the Democrats would win the most House Seats. Doubts are often expressed about the accuracy of the generic ballot polls. How district lines are drawn raises further doubts about whether the Democrats could win a sufficient majority of the vote to win the most seats. We estimate how the generic ballot "vote" translates into the actual national vote for Congress and ultimately into the partisan division of seats in the House of Representatives. Based on current generic ballot polls, we forecast an expected Democratic gain of 32 seats with Democratic control (a gain of 15 seats or more) a near certainty.

In the end, someone's right and someone's wrong. If the Republicans retain the House, there are going to be a good number of embarrassed professional and academic prognosticators. OTOH, whereas most of the reasons to believe there's a strong Democratic wave are based on published data, the reasons for Republican optimism are based on conjecture, anectodes, head games and fear.

My guess is that there's less "there" there for the GOP for the simple reason that this election is about the moderates and not the base, and the moderates have had enough.If Rove's polls were so great, he'd be leaking them like a seive. I'll put my money on the wave, and watch Rove and Mehlman try to make history.

Push Polling

We'll talk about a bit about this phenomenon this week.

You may have gotten a call from Gabriel Joseph III already. It starts with one of those cheery robo-voices asking if you'll participate in a 45-second survey. If you don't slam the phone down at that point, you'll soon get to a question like this one: "In America when a person dies, the IRS can take up to 55 percent of the inheritance left for family and friends. Do you want Congress to permanently eliminate this unfair tax?" Next, you'll be told that the Democrat running for Congress in your district "voted to keep the death tax in place and refused to vote to make permanent the tax cuts that have caused record economic growth in 2001." At that point, you'll know that you're dealing with a "push poll"—one of the dirtier, yet mostly legal, tricks in a political operative's bag of last-minute campaign tools.

Push pollsters operate behind the scenes: They don't advertise their services, don't go on TV, and often can't be tracked as they hide behind dozens of aliases. The push polling firm that placed calls to voters in the South Carolina GOP primary in 2000, suggesting that John McCain had an out-of-wedlock child who was black, was never identified, though the calls may well have cost McCain that election.

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

Dave Johnson, a fellow at the Commonweal Institute, a progressive think tank based in California, says push polls are among the most effective forms of political messaging, far more persuasive even than TV spots. "People are inclined to believe you when they think they're getting a poll," he explains. "It immediately adds credibility to what they're hearing." Push pollsters also identify voters' party preferences—information that can then be used in get-out-the-vote campaigns. Just how successful these tactics are is a matter of some debate, but according to Larry Sabato, the director of the University of Virginia's Center for Politics, they certainly have an effect. "Even if they change just 1 percent of the vote, that's a close election margin," he told me in an email. Nancy Mathiowetz, the president-elect of the American Association for Public Opinion Research and a professor of sociology at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, says that with the use of robo-calling, "we've seen a proliferation of push polling this year, because it's relatively cheap."

Oh Dear

From the WaPo:

U.S. Rank on Press Freedom Slides Lower

By Nora Boustany
Washington Post Foreign Service
Tuesday, October 24, 2006; A15

Some poor countries, such as Mauritania and Haiti, improved their record in a global press freedom index this year, while France, the United States and Japan slipped further down the scale of 168 countries rated, the group Reporters Without Borders said yesterday.

The news media advocacy organization said the most repressive countries in terms of journalistic freedom -- such as North Korea, Cuba, Burma and China -- made no advances at all.

The organization's fifth annual Worldwide Press Freedom Index tracks actions against news media through the end of September. The group noted its concern over the declining rankings of some Western democracies as well as the persistence of other countries in imposing harsh punishments on media that criticize political leaders.

"Unfortunately nothing has changed in the countries that are the worst predators of press freedom, and journalists in North Korea, Eritrea, Turkmenistan, Cuba, Burma and China are still risking their life or imprisonment for trying to keep us informed," the organization said in a news release. North Korea holds the worst ranking at 168.

Iran ranks 162nd, between Saudi Arabia and China. The report said conditions in Russia and Belarus have not improved. It said that Russia continued to steadily dismantle the independent media and that the recent slaying of investigative journalist Anna Politkovskaya "is a poor omen for the coming year."

Northern European countries top the index, with no reported censorship, threats, intimidation or physical reprisals, either by officials or the public, in Finland, Ireland, Iceland and the Netherlands. All of those countries were ranked in first place.

Serious threats against the artists and publishers of the Muhammad cartoons, which caricatured the prophet of Islam, caused Denmark, which was also in first place last year, to drop to 19th place. Yemen, at 149th place, slipped four places, mostly because of the arrests of journalists and the closure of newspapers that reprinted the cartoons. Journalists in Algeria, Jordan, Indonesia and India were harassed because of the cartoons as well.

Although it ranked 17th on the first list, published in 2002, the United States now stands at 53, having fallen nine places since last year.

"Relations between the media and the Bush administration sharply deteriorated after the president used the pretext of 'national security' to regard as suspicious any journalist who questioned his 'war on terrorism,' " the group said.

"The zeal of federal courts which, unlike those in 33 U.S. states, refuse to recognize the media's right not to reveal its sources, even threatens journalists whose investigations have no connection at all with terrorism," the group said.

Lucie Morillon, the organization's Washington representative, said the index is based on responses to 50 questions about press freedom asked of journalists, free press organizations, researchers, human rights activists and others.

France, 35th, dropped five places since last year because of searches of media offices and journalists' homes, as well as physical attacks on journalists during a trade union dispute, the group said.

In Lebanon, a series of bomb attacks targeting journalists and publishers in 2005, and Israeli military attacks last summer, contributed to a drop in the country's ranking from 56th to 107th in the past four years.

The Omnipresent Enemy?

The RNC ad caused me to ask a few questions of Prof. Resnick, who knows many things. He pointed me to this article in Foreign Affairs, which asks, "Is There Still a Terrorist Threat?" It's good. Check it out.

Olberman on the new RNC ad

Video is here. An excerpt:

The commercial, you have already seen, it is a distillation of everything this administration and the party in power have tried to do these last five years and six weeks.

It is from the Republican National Committee, it shows images of Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri. It offers quotes from them, all as a clock ticks ominously in the background. It concludes with what Zawahiri may or may not have said to a Pakistani journalist as long ago as 2001, his dubious claim that he had purchased suitcase bombs. The quotation is followed by sheer coincidence, no doubt, by an image of a massive explosion. "These are the stakes" appears on the screen, quoting exactly from Lyndon Johnson's infamous nuclear scare commercial from 1964, "Vote November 7^th".

There is a cheap Texas Chainsaw Massacre quality to the whole thing. It also serves to immediately call to mind the occasions when President Bush dismissed Osama bin Laden as somebody he didn't think about, except, obviously, when elections were near. Frankly, a lot of people seeing that commercial for the first time have laughed out loud, but not everyone. And therein lies the true threat to this country.

The dictionary definition of the word ‘terrorize' is simple and not open to misinterpretation: "To fill or overpower with terror; terrify; coerce by intimidation or fear." Note please that the words ‘violence' and ‘death' are missing from that definition. For the key to terrorism is not the act-but the fear of the act. That is why bin Laden and his deputies and his imitators are forever putting together videotape statements and releasing virtual infomercials with dire threats and heart-stopping warnings.

But why is the Republican Party imitating them? Bin Laden puts out what amounts to a commercial of fear; the Republicans put out what is unmistakable as a commercial of fear.

The Ministry of Sewage

From Baghdad and the NYT:

Nearly every night here for the past month, Iraqis weary of the tumult around them have been turning on the television to watch a wacky-looking man with a giant Afro wig and star-shaped glasses deliver the grim news of the day.

In a recent episode, the host, Saad Khalifa, reported that Iraq’s Ministry of Water and Sewage had decided to change its name to simply the Ministry of Sewage — because it had given up on the water part.

In another episode, he jubilantly declared that “Rums bin Feld” had announced American troops were leaving the country on 1/1, in other words, on Jan. 1. His face crumpled when he realized he had made a mistake. The troops were not actually departing on any specific date, he clarified, but instead leaving one by one. At that rate, it would take more than 600 years for them to be gone.

The newscast is a parody, of course, that fires barbs at everyone from the American military to the Iraqi government, an Iraqi version of “The Daily Show With Jon Stewart.” Even the militias wreaking havoc on Iraq are lampooned.

Debuting last month during Ramadan, while families gathered to break their fast after sundown, the show, “Hurry Up, He’s Dead,” became the talk of Baghdad, delighting and shocking audiences with its needling of anyone with a hand in Iraqis’ gloomy predicament today.

Read the whole thing

Mmmmmmmm

Rich, geeky goodness:

Today, the Benton Foundation and the Social Science Research Council released four independent academic studies on the impact of media consolidation in the United States. The new research focuses on how the concentration of media ownership affects media content, from local news reporting to radio music programming, and how minority groups have fared – as both media outlet owners and as historically undeserved audiences -- in an increasingly deregulated media environment. These studies make clear that media consolidation does not create better, more local or more diverse media content. To the contrary, they strongly suggest that media ownership rules should be tightened not relaxed. The studies are intended to inform the FCC's re-examination of media ownership restrictions and have been filed with the FCC during the initial public comment period ending Monday, October 23.

Follow the link. I may add sections to our readings coming up. . . . .

The Net at Risk

from Moyers on America -- watch the whole program here. We'll watch Part 5 in class Monday, time permitting.

Here

Fear itself

According to Mark

summarizes the first two Chapters of McChesney. How did he do?

Daisy, Daisy

Annenberg on new RNC ad

On Sabbath Gasbags

FROM THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

America's Next Top Pundit

What does it take to be a talking head?

By JEFFREY ZASLOW
October 20, 2006; Page W1

Whenever news breaks -- on the fall campaign trail, in North Korea, in the most trivial corners of Hollywood -- thousands of pundits have something to say. What most of them don't have is somewhere to say it.

Every morning, Tammy Haddad, executive producer of MSNBC's "Hardball with Chris Matthews," hears from more than 100 aspiring commentators. They each explain why they'd be the perfect guest to spout off on the issues of the day. "We call them 'street meat,' " says Ms. Haddad. "They're always available, walking the streets, waiting for your call on their cellphones."

VIDEO

• Debbie Schlussel¹ on Fox, via YouTube

• Ron Christie² on MSNBC

• Michael Smerconish³ on Comedy's Central's Colbert Report

• Glenn Beck⁴ on CNN

They are the minor-league pundits -- political consultants, professors, activists, actors, journalists, bloggers and opinionated civilians -- and they're using 21st-century stunts to troll for airtime. Some try to break out of the blogs by repeating particular phrases in their written rants, designed to pop their sites up when TV bookers search for keywords online. Others are buying air time on AM and Internet radio stations to practice their punditry. And many are turning to media advisers or partisan training programs, where they learn new rules of engagement, such as how to use food to bribe producers. The ploys can work, as networks like CNN regularly survey the field, looking for new contributors.

Debbie Schlussel, 37 years old, supports her pundit habit by practicing commercial law in suburban Detroit. She is among the most proactive B-list pundits. Almost daily, she emails her appearance schedule, availability or sharp-elbowed conservative commentaries to 5,000 people in media and politics.

A NEW SPIN

Many lesser-known pundits are vying for airtime. Here are nine gaining attention.

Jenny Backus, 38
Day job: Political consultant
Claim to fame: Served as Democratic spokeswoman during 2000 presidential recount.
Maybe you've seen her: On "Good Morning America," analyzing a study that said conservatives have more kids than liberals.
Punditry perspective: Women should resist being lured into on-air squabbles, she says. "Your voice rises, you sound squeaky, and people take you less seriously."

Glenn Beck, 42
Day job: Hosts shows on radio and CNN Headline News
Claim to fame: Overcame drug and alcohol addiction.
Maybe you've seen him: On CNN, discussing why American society sexualizes children.
Punditry perspective: "TV has to get away from the left and right stuff, and get to what's right and wrong."

Ron Christie, 37
Day job: Lobbyist
Claim to fame: Former deputy assistant to Vice President Cheney.
Maybe you've seen him: On Fox News, touting his book, "Black in the White House."
Punditry perspective: "One woman told me she wants to be the black Ann Coulter," he says. "I told her, 'Just be yourself.' "

Chris Cillizza, 30
Day job: Political reporter, WashingtonPost.com
Claim to fame: "The Fix,"⁵ a political-junkie blog.
Maybe you've seen him: On MSNBC, saying negative campaign ads are memorable, "like a bad jingle that you can't get out of your head."
Punditry perspective: He says viewers want humanized commentary, which is why he often mentions his parents and wife, who aren't in politics. "If people were just looking for straight information, then robots could do it."

Flavia Colgan, 29
Day job: Columnist, blogger⁶, various TV gigs
Claim to fame: In an eBay charity auction, a date with her went for $8,390. She took two winners, both Iraqi War vets, to dinner and a TV taping.
Maybe you've seen her: On MSNBC, saying that Hillary Clinton would beat Jeb Bush if both ran for president.
Punditry perspective: She used to be sassier on air, which makes for better TV, she says. "But at age 21, you don't know how much you don't know. Now I want to be more responsible and nuanced."

Debbie Schlussel, 37
Day job: Suburban Detroit lawyer
Claim to fame: Alleging terror ties of Islamic-American groups.
Maybe you've seen her: On Fox News, saying Oprah Winfrey preaches selfishness and conspicuous consumption.
Punditry perspective: "I don't need caffeine. I am caffeine."

Tara Setmayer, 31
Day job: Communications director for Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R., Calif.)
Claim to fame: Conservative commentary about social policies.
Maybe you've heard her: On NPR, saying Clinton administration officials "don't want to face the music" on mistakes they made that may have led to Sept. 11 attacks.
Punditry perspective: "You can be telegenic without being obnoxious. But if I told you how to do that, I'd be giving away my secret."

Michael Smerconish, 44
Day job: Lawyer-turned-Philadelphia-radio-host
Claim to fame: Ads on Philly buses showing the back of his bald head.
Maybe you've seen him: On CNN, saying airport security should target those with "commonalities of radical Islam," because the terror threat isn't coming from "white guys from suburbia who are bald. It's not urban African-Americans. It's not Jews. It's not kids....So let's stop wasting time with them."
Punditry perspective: "Ideologues get rewarded in this business. But I'm unwilling to say something I don't believe just for career advancement."

A.B. Stoddard, 39
Day job: Associate editor of the Hill, a newspaper about Congress
Claim to Fame: Getting revelations from Capitol Hill insiders.
Maybe you've seen her: Telling MSNBC's Chris Matthews that Rep. Mark Foley's fixation on young pages was "a known fact" in the halls of Congress.
Punditry perspective: Appearing on the pundit circuit is "great for me with my sources. More people will talk to me if they see me on TV," she says.

In the wake of North Korea's recent nuclear test, a hawkish Ms. Schlussel hit the radio circuit, saying U.S. officials responded too mildly in calling the test "a provocative act." "A Paris Hilton video is a provocative act," she said. "What North Korea did was an act of war." To get noticed, Ms. Schlussel says, "I've become the master of the confrontational sound bite."

"She's fearless," says Ms. Haddad, "and we need provocateurs willing to poke other people." Still, with 1,765 pundits on the producer's list of contacts, Ms. Schlussel has lots of competition for air time.

The proliferation of pundits in the last half-decade has been fueled by 24-hour cable news networks, which are built in part on the relatively cheap framework of heated discussions. And as the rise of blogging has given anyone with an opinion a public platform, more newcomers are joining the fray.

Most pundits are unpaid, but they're enticed by the potentially rewarding byproducts -- book deals, big-dollar speeches, new consulting clients and congratulatory calls from their mothers and friends. Also, pontificating on TV can be an intoxicating hobby. "It's the most fun you can have sitting down," says Paul Kedrosky, a venture capitalist from La Jolla, Calif., whose patter on a variety of subjects lands him about 35 TV appearances a year.

Mr. Kedrosky, 40, has learned to take clear positions. Many of his fellow B-listers have "too many hands," he says. "They're always saying, 'On the one hand, on the other hand.' " As he sees it, punditry is "like pounding a volleyball back and forth. You just have to remember which side of the net you're on. If you all stand on the same side, you don't have a game."

At the top of the pundit pecking order are those with hit TV or radio shows, such as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly. Next are the top-tiered right- and left-wing spinmeisters who've won big book deals, like Ann Coulter and Al Franken. A few steps below them are the reliable sound-bite artists -- Arianna Huffington, Ed Rollins, James Carville, Donna Brazile, Bob Shrum and Bay Buchanan.

Minor leaguers, meanwhile, are most likely to get a call from the Bigs when A-listers are too busy or lazy to go on TV. Holiday weekends, for instance, are times when up-and-comers get to show up and shine.

Class distinctions in the pundit trade are easy to spot. A-listers are offered limo rides by the networks. B-listers often drive their own cars or take a cab. Some A-listers are paid to appear as network contributors, including former House Speaker Newt Gingrich on Fox, former Congressman J.C. Watts on CNN, and Newsweek columnist Jonathan Alter on MSNBC. (Payments range from a couple hundred dollars per appearance for some regulars to several thousand dollars for the biggest names.) In lieu of payment, B-listers receive coffee mugs with a show's logo.

Self-Promotion

Many minor leaguers take a methodical approach to getting recognized. They don't just stand on the patio of the "Today" show, shouting pithy remarks at Al Roker, hoping to be discovered. Instead, they invest in promoting themselves and honing their skills.

This year, more than 1,000 people paid between $760 and $1,995 to buy ads in the Washington-based "Yearbook of Experts," which TV bookers turn to for guests. In New York, the Learning Annex, an adult-education program, hired a former producer from CNN and a BET Radio Network producer to teach would-be pundits such skills as "how to design an irresistible hook" and "how to build up your profile."

In Racine, Wis., Don Crowther runs 101PublicRelations.com⁷, a company that sells audio CD seminars priced from $39.95 to $79.95. Mr. Crowther says tens of thousands of people have bought his pundit-related products, with titles such as "How to Get Booked on 'The View.' "

He advises wannabe pundits to get face time and experience on local newscasts first, and to woo station decision-makers. One tip: "Send three-dozen doughnuts to the newsroom with a card that says, 'Thanks for considering me for your upcoming shows.' " Do such blatant ploys work on jaded news professionals? "They tend to roll their eyes," Mr. Crowther says. "But they eat it and they remember you."

Others suggest befriending A-listers, so they will recommend you to bookers if they're unable to make an appearance.

Network producers say B-list pundits sometimes overdo on-air strategies. There's the "Leaning Forward Trick," where you lean toward the host to show you are engaged in the discussion. There's the "Well, Bob," where you ingratiate yourself by repeating the host's name.

TV producers can grow weary of the pundits' attention off the air as well. "It's almost like they're salesmen with a tickle file. They keep checking back with you," says Russ Hodge, a former producer on talk shows including "Politically Incorrect" and "The McLaughlin Group." He once received a hair dryer as a gift from a would-be guest. Their motivation isn't just about ego, he says. "They're also looking for approval. Does the world think enough of my ideas?"

Sam Feist, CNN's U.S. senior executive producer of political programming, says would-be pundits often send him DVDs of themselves in action, but he rarely watches them. And unlike a few years ago, he now hears regularly from TV agents representing pundits, he says.

Media advisers also have tips to help bloggers get noticed by bookers running online searches. Mr. Crowther tells bloggers to find two- and three-word combinations and to use them repeatedly in their copy. Ambitious bloggers take those targeted key words -- "patriotic Republicans," for instance, or "Bush administration mistakes" -- and include them in comments posted on other people's blogs, with links to their own pages.

To raise her profile, Ms. Schlussel blogs all day long, and works every other angle, too. Whenever she's asked to appear on a show, she sends out "Me On..." email blasts, with subject lines like "Me On Fox News Cavuto."

Her sound bites infuriate many people, which builds buzz. She argues that the WNBA is lame and boring. She compares female golfers seeking to play on the men's tour to the midget who in 1951 played baseball for the St. Louis Browns as a publicity stunt. She charges that radical Muslims are threatening America by posing as moderates. For research, she has gone undercover, disguised in a hijab, at political meetings in the Arab-American stronghold of Dearborn, Mich., which she calls "Dearbornistan."

Anti-Curling

She has even criticized the Winter Olympics. When asked about curling on CNN, she said, "They play it down in south Florida before the early-bird special, and there it's called shuffleboard." Clarence Wright, the 75-year-old president of the Florida Shuffleboard Association, says shuffleboard is "more challenging than football, basketball or baseball."

Ms. Schlussel often spars on the radio with Howard Stern, who makes fun of her wonkish chatter and her unwillingness to reveal sexual secrets -- but gives her a forum to discuss issues that matter to her. She first appeared on Mr. Stern's show when she called in and got through while the World Trade Center was still burning on Sept. 11, 2001.

So far this year, Ms. Schlussel has appeared on more than 600 radio shows and 35 TV programs, she says. But while Ms. Coulter, America's most-famous blonde pundit, earns millions, the also-blonde Ms. Schlussel has earned well under $10,000 this year from her punditry, she says. Still, Ms. Schlussel feels momentum: Her online fan clubs have grown to 5,496 members.

Michael Smerconish, 44, considers punditry a calling. In 2002, he left his law practice to host a Philadelphia radio show, and soon got noticed by cable networks. He is now a frequent "Today" show guest and a fill-in host on Bill O'Reilly's radio show. He'd like to reach ever-larger audiences. "I believe I am someone with things of substance to say," he says.

He's far from alone. Several dozen radio stations sell air time to pundits. WNJC-AM, based in southern New Jersey, is "brokered radio," charging show hosts about $125 an hour. The station is sold out 24 hours a day, with about 30 paying pundits, says John Forsythe, the station's owner. He believes reality TV has led more regular folks to think they belong on the air.

Although his station is small, Mr. Forsythe uses imagery to pitch would-be pundits. "At rush hour, 20,000 people might be tuned in to us," he says. "Picture Madison Square Garden filled with people listening to what you have to say." Accountant Brian Greenberg, 49, hosts a WNJC show on Thursday nights. He would love to land a national talk show, though he knows he's at a disadvantage, since he's a political "agnostic" who doesn't argue with guests. "When tact comes back in style," he says, "I'll be in vogue."

In a search for emerging talent, CNN last year hosted 100 young writers, bloggers and political consultants at a reception titled "The New Guard." "We wanted to broaden our Rolodexes and cultivate new voices," says David Bohrman, CNN's Washington bureau chief.

In 1999, a Fox News executive, vacationing at the Jersey shore, spotted 21-year-old Flavia Colgan on a Philadelphia TV station. She was working in local Democratic politics at the time. Impressed by her looks and comments, the executive hooked her up with network chief Roger Ailes, who quickly gave her a paid-pundit deal. "I didn't know what the word 'pundit' was," she says. (For the record, it means "learned person.") Now 29, Ms. Colgan does punditry all over TV, including chatting with celebrities about social issues for the syndicated show "Extra."

Partisan groups are helping the new generation polish its punditry. At the Leadership Institute in Arlington, Va., conservatives receive media training in "political technology," based in part on the communication skills of Ronald Reagan. In June, at the YearlyKos convention in Las Vegas -- sponsored by the liberal blog DailyKos.com⁸ -- bloggers and activists attended a "Pundit Project" training session, designed to help them hone their on-air personas. Among other tips, they were told to wear collared, button-down shirts, crucial for microphone-clipping.

Such partisan efforts worry Andrew Cline, a Missouri State University journalism professor who has tracked the art of punditry. Wannabes are sensing that overconfidence is a prerequisite for success, and "that there are only two positions in the world, yours and wrong," he says. Given the current political and media landscape, he says, he's skeptical that a "uniter pundit" could emerge.

Finding Centrists

Some producers say they are weary of the bickering between the left and right, each parroting talking points emailed from party headquarters. Most news-talk shows have pundits representing only "the four poles -- Democrats, Republicans, liberals or conservatives," says CNN's Mr. Bohrman. He has an Internet reporter "scouring the blogs," partly to look for non-partisans who can articulate the middle ground in an engaging way. He says he'd love to find the great American "centrist pundit."

That will never be Ms. Schlussel, of course. She is proud that Ms. Magazine labeled her a "woman to watch out for" and described her as "anti everything progressive." And it doesn't bother her that she is deemed one of the most annoying Americans by AmIAnnoying.com⁹; as of this week, 76% of 4,231 voters considered her annoying. But she keeps plugging away.

Last year, Jason Alexander was on Howard Stern's show pitching a children's book he'd written. Ms. Schlussel called in and berated the "Seinfeld" actor for supporting OneVoice, a group that advocates nonviolent conflict resolution in the Middle East. Ms. Schlussel charged that the organization has ties to Hamas. Mr. Stern got laughs saying he'd like to create a "Six Degrees of Separation" game based on her ability to connect any person to terrorists in six links or less.

After much arguing, and repeated impersonations of a raving Ms. Schlussel by Mr. Stern's sidekicks, Mr. Alexander lamented on air that he "came in to talk about a children's book and ended up being branded a terrorist."

Ms. Schlussel thought the segment made great theater. And she's thrilled that, even as a B-lister, she has the power to reach millions of people with information they're not hearing elsewhere.

Ask her to survey the punditry landscape, from the A-list on down, and she gets contemplative. "Who is good who does what I do?" she says out loud as she thinks. Soon enough, the answer comes to her. "Me!"

The Governator,

The Media, and The Irony

Watch this.

Campaign Ads 101

This is perfect. Hat tip to immanent eschaton.

Campaign 2006

Here's an ad that doesn't look and sound like the rest. . . I wonder how effective it will be. . . .

The Media Cartel

This is worth taking a look at again as we get ready to discuss McChesney. Can't seem to upload the image (bad blogger!), so follow this link.

Bloggers of the world unite!

One of our own takes on Helen Thomas (C-Doc missed this when first posted, and tries to make up for it now. . . .):

I had to disagree with Ms. Thomas on another point as well. She was very quick to dismiss blogging as an illegitimate form of journalism. “Everyone with a laptop thinks he’s a journalist,” she said with a bit of disdain, and concluded that the lack of professional experience these 'online journalists' have is hurting the profession.

Firstly, she failed to acknowledge the experience and high level of political knowledge many bloggers have. While some people do use the blogosphere to rant and rave about either inconsequential things or consequential things in a disrespectful and unintelligent matter, many do not. Blogging is very valuable, giving many people with important things to say a venue in which to say them. Critical issues that have been overlooked by the mainstream media for their political concentration and/or lack of sensationalism are now being discussed.

Furthermore, as many of the panelists pointed out in blatant opposition to Thomas’s insinuation about blogs, the public, and reporters dedicated to the ideals of journalsim (conveying truth and infroming the public), should welcome blogs to the news world becaue they actually elevate journalism and hold journalists accountable for their work. As Stengel said, quoting bloggers around the world, “we can now fact check your ass.” The blogosphere keeps reporters and news sources in check by picking up on even the slightest mistakes.

The blogophere also promotes democracy, a value journalism in its ideal form is supposed to uphold. Now every person with a computer can participate in the news process. People from all over the world are connected. Everyone can now have a voice. While opening up the media in this way may have some negative results, as Thomas implied, in a country claiming to be committed to freedom and equality, this inclusiveness is necessary and should be welcome.

400,000-950,000

Listen to this interview with one of the authors of the peer reviewed Lancet study of the number of dead Iraqi civilians.

Then read this article by Paul Craig Roberts. He asks:

When does "collateral damage" so dwarf combatant deaths that war becomes genocide?

Yes, he's being intentionally provocative. But it seems to me a fair question.

Not puzzling at all

Some have found Rupert Murdoch's recent relationships with the Clintons puzzling (he's held a fundraiser for HRC and supported WJC's Global Initiative, notably). Doesn't strike me as puzzling at all. First, let's not let the myth of Clintonism obscure the reality of it -- this was a center or center-right administration in most arenas (or conservative, with a small "c," if you prefer), especially on economic policy. Second, as John Cassidy writes in this New Yorker article (hat tip to Cursor),

Lord Palmerston’s description of nineteenth-century England applies to Murdoch’s empire: it has no eternal allies and no perpetual enemies, only permanent interests.

Again, refer to your current reading in McChesney. Don't let the politics distract you -- focus on the permanent interests.

More Stewart-on-Foley action

Labor beaten

From Kevin Drum. Compare this with the argument McChesney makes in The Problem of the Media.

October 11, 2006

THE DISAPPEARING LABOR BEAT....The labor beat at daily newspapers has been on the verge of extinction for years. My local paper, the LA Times, used to have some of the best labor coverage in the country, thanks to its great labor beat reporter, Harry Bernstein, but that heritage declined and then finally died last year when labor writer Nancy Cleeland left the beat. As Michael Massing reported:

She made the move "out of frustration," she told me. Her editors "really didn't want to have labor stories. They were always looking at labor from a management and business perspective — 'how do we deal with these guys?'"...."They don't consider themselves hostile to working-class concerns, but they're all making too much money to relate to the problems that working-class people are facing," observed Cleeland, who is now writing about high school dropouts.

At the New Republic, John Judis observes that BusinessWeek has increasingly transformed itself from a serious chronicler of business into a Smart Money clone ("Revealed! Secrets of the Male Shopper") and suggests that its prize-winning labor coverage was one casualty of the change:

I have read BusinessWeek regularly for 30 years....But, over the last year or so, I started reading it less, and finally stopped altogether. I didn't know why at the time, and I even felt somewhat guilty about neglecting the magazine. But I figured out why last week when I heard that the magazine's new editor, Stephen Adler, had fired Aaron Bernstein, who had worked at the magazine since 1983 and had written many of its most outstanding stories.

....To see the difference between the old BusinessWeek and the new, you need only compare issues from a few months toward the end of Shepard's tenure with some recent issues that Adler has put out....As I looked over these issues, I suddenly understood why I had stopped reading BusinessWeek and why its new editor would let someone like Bernstein go. A serious writer — and particularly one who writes about the American worker — has no place at a magazine that aspires to be the People of the business world.

As labor unions decline in power and advertisers insist ever more vigorously on appealing to specific demographics (young, white collar, lots of disposable income), coverage of blue collar and working class issues simply fades away. It's like this stuff doesn't even exist anymore. And let's face it: if all you read is BusinessWeek or your local daily, it doesn't.

"Without serious dissent, democracy is a sham"

Jeff Cohen fears for Keith Olberman. (Here are the Olberman Special Comments Cohen's referring to.) But here's my (and BD's) question: does Olberman delivering the Commentaries himself undermine his other identity as "neutral," "non-partisan," or "fair" anchor/reporter? Should news and editorial pages be better separated, as they (theoretically) are in newspapers?

Cutting Edge

This is extraordinary, and technology I've never seen before. How to volunteer for a campaign without having to leave your chair (though I can't tell you anything about this particular candidate, except that he's got really good outreach and tech folks on staff). Expect to see a lot of this in the future, I would guess. . . .

Late to the Game

Charlie Rose with our (some say) Court Stenographer. Start about 19:00.

Dumb ads

The Washington Senate race, from Slate:

And, of course, there is a subtext to each of the inanities in McGavick's commercials. They all have been focus-grouped and market-tested. For example, in one press release expressing his "disappointment" (I bet) that Cantwell had voted against some tax cut, McGavick says, "This isn't about Senator Cantwell." It's about "partisan nonsense." Cantwell is (the headline says), "Following Party Over State's Interests."

Now ask yourself: Why would she do that? Why would she put her party's interests over those of her Washington state constituents? Who cares enough about either party to actually put their own political futures at peril? Answer: no one. Taken literally, the charge is absurd. But it's not meant to be taken literally. It is just part of the miasma of themes and images that political professionals create around candidates. Cantwell is popular, partisanship is not. So blame partisanship and not Cantwell. Be for "families." Be for "change." Be against "Washington, D.C." and "lobbyists."

The media do a better and better job each election cycle at pointing out and analyzing these campaign constructs. But by doing so, in a way, they legitimize it all. By raising up the subtext, they diminish the importance of the text. Don't be naive: You're not supposed to take this stuff literally. Politicians are trying to push your buttons. They aren't trying to communicate with you.

Take a look at the rest.

"Annual GOP BBQ and Nude Cub Scout Wrestle"

From the Daily Show. But be warned: there's more than a little crude language and sexual references in this clip. For those of you who won't be troubled, it's a pretty sharp critique of both the Foley story and the media coverage of it. . . . . .

Is FAIR fair? Part II

Part I here. Now, what do you make of this?

Study Finds Lack of Balance, Diversity, Public at PBS NewsHour
Public TV's flagship news program offers standard corporate fare

10/4/06

The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, PBS's flagship news program, touts its "signature style—low-key, evenhanded, inclusive of all perspectives"; Corporation for Public Broadcasting ombud Ken Bode called it "the mother ship of balance." But a new FAIR study finds that the NewsHour fails to provide either balance or diversity of perspectives—or a true public-minded alternative to its corporate competition.

To evaluate the NewsHour's evenhandedness and commitment to the public interest, Extra! studied its guestlist during the six-month period spanning October 2005 through March 2006.

Among the most prominent findings:

• Public interest groups accounted for just 4 percent of total sources. General public—"person in the street," workers, students— accounted for only 14 percent, while current and former government and military officials totaled 50 percent of all sources.
  
  
• Male sources outnumbered women by more than 4-to-1 (82 percent to 18 percent). Moreover, 72 percent of U.S. guests were white males, while just 6 percent were women of color.
  
  
• People of color made up only 15 percent of U.S. sources. African-Americans made up 9 percent, Latinos 2 percent, and Asian- Americans and people of Mideastern descent made up one percent each. Alberto Gonzales accounted for more than 30 percent of Latino sources, while Condoleeza Rice accounted for nearly 13 percent of African-American sources.
  
  
• Among partisan sources, Republicans outnumbered Democrats on the NewsHour by 2-to-1 (66 percent vs. 33 percent). Only one representative of a third party appeared during the study period.
  
  
• At a time when a large proportion of the U.S. public already favored withdrawal from Iraq, "stay the course" sources outnumbered pro-withdrawal sources more than 5-to-1. In the entire six months studied, not a single peace activist was heard on the NewsHour on the subject of Iraq.
  
  
• Segments on Hurricane Katrina accounted for less than 10 percent of all sources, but provided nearly half (46 percent) of all African-American sources during the study period. Those African-Americans were largely presented as victims rather than leaders or experts: In segments on the human impact of the storm, African-Americans made up 51 percent of sources, but in reconstruction segments, whites dominated with 72 percent of sources; 59 percent of all African-American sources across Katrina segments were general public sources.
  

The findings confirmed the results of FAIR's 1990 study of the NewsHour, which found that the PBS news program offered less diversity than ABC's Nightline.

PBS's editorial guidelines emphasize that "the surest road to intellectual stagnation and social isolation is to stifle the expression of uncommon ideas." With at least 15 years on that road, the NewsHour has utterly failed the public it exists to serve.

The Reluctant Cyberprof

posts about CrankyDoc. And you. Many of you have impressed the Cyberprof. He's right to be impressed -- you've all done some pretty impressive work so far this semester.

He asks why it is that students seem more willing to use their own blogs than other systems and software, like our own beloved (ahem. cough.) Angel course management system. What's your take on this? Is the Cyberprof on the right path? I think some of the answer is also simply ease of use, which, I hope, you all can attest to. It took you how long to set up and customize your blogs? And how hard is it to post? That's my point.

Big ole' hat tip to the Cyberprof, by the way, since he inspired Crankydoc to try this experiment in Disposable Blogging. So you may extend your thanks, or your anti-thanks, to him. I am, as ever, blameless.

A year

That's how long some papers had evidence about Foley and Congressional pages. Read this NYT article about it, and while you're doing so, think about the fact that the NYT knew about the warrantless wiretapping program a year before they published it. Right decisions? Wrong decisions? Similar? Different?

This sounds about right

From TIME:

Sunday, Oct. 1, 2006
Campaign 2006: The Republicans' Secret Weapon
You think the GOP is sure to lose big in November? They aren't. Here's why things don't look so bad to them
By MIKE ALLEN AND JAMES CARNEY

The polls keep suggesting that Republicans could be in for a historic drubbing. And their usual advantage—competence on national security—is constantly being challenged by new revelations about bungling in Iraq. But top Republican officials maintain an eerie, Zen-like calm. They insist that the prospects for their congressional candidates in November's midterms have never been as bad as advertised and are getting better by the day. Those are party operatives and political savants whose job it is to anticipate trouble. But much of the time they seem so placid, you wonder whether they know something.

They do. What they know is that just six days after George W. Bush won re-election in 2004, his political machine launched a sophisticated, expensive and largely unnoticed campaign aimed at maintaining G.O.P. majorities in the House and Senate. If that campaign succeeds, it would defy history and political gravity, both of which ordain that midterm elections are bad news for a lame-duck President's party, especially when the lame duck has low approval ratings. As always, a key part of the campaign involves money—the national Republican Party is dumping at least three times as much into key states as its Democratic counterpart is—but money is only the start. "Panic results when you're surprised," says Republican National Committee (r.n.c.) chairman Ken Mehlman. "We've been preparing for the toughest election in at least a decade."

Thanks to aggressive redistricting in the 1990s and early 2000s, fewer than three dozen House seats are seriously in contention this election cycle, compared with more than 100 in 1994, the year Republicans swept to power with a 54-seat pickup in the House. Then there's what political pros call the ground game. For most of the 20th century, turning out voters on Election Day was the Democrats' strength. They had labor unions to supply workers for campaigns, make sure their voters had time off from their jobs to go to the polls and provide rides to get them there.

Now, though, Democrats are the ones playing catch-up when it comes to the mechanics of Election Day. Every Monday, uberstrategist Karl Rove and Republican Party officials on Capitol Hill get spreadsheets tallying the numbers of voters registered, volunteers recruited, doors knocked on and phone numbers dialed for 40 House campaigns and a dozen Senate races. Over the next few weeks, the party will begin flying experienced paid and volunteer workers into states for the final push. The Senate Republicans' campaign committee calls its agents special teams, led by marshals, all in the service of the partywide effort known as the 72-Hour Task Force because its working philosophy initially focused on the final three days before an election. . . .

There's more. Worth reading.