Reply With Quote
I stopped at karl Rove
The Permanent Campaign Continues
The KSM trial announcement was too important for a Friday news dump.
By KARL ROVE
Every modern White House has put out news on contentious issues late on Friday in the hope that doing so will bury it, or reduce the amount of critical scrutiny it would otherwise receive. What is unusual is the degree to which this White House has relied on this tactic.
On Friday, Jan. 30, President Obama revoked the ban on giving taxpayer dollars to international groups that promote or perform abortions abroad. The president released his executive orders on detainee interrogations, closure of the Guantanamo prison, and new ethics rules during the previous week, his first in office.
On Friday, Feb. 27, Mr. Obama announced he would end U.S. combat activities in Iraq in 18 months. This was a much longer combat presence than his antiwar base wanted.
On Friday, April 17, Mr. Obama lifted some limits on the use of federal funds for the creation and subsequent destruction of human embryos for stem-cell research. The move won applause from some research advocates but also disappointed many "scientists who had expected a more liberal policy," according to the New York Times.
On Friday, May 15, Mr. Obama announced he would keep George W. Bush's military tribunals to try terrorist detainees, angering civil libertarians and antiwar activists in the Democratic Party's left wing who thought the administration would dismantle the entire Bush an error structure.
On Friday, Sept. 15, Mr. Obama admitted that it was unlikely he'd meet his own deadline of closing the Guantanamo detention facility in his first year in office, again angering left-wing supporters and demonstrating that exuberant promises made on the campaign trail and during his first days in office were ill-considered and naïve.
On Friday, Oct. 30, Mr. Obama delivered a double dose of late-breaking news. To respond to increasing criticism of the stimulus's failure to curb rising unemployment, the White House announced it had "created or saved" at least one million jobs since February. It hoped for one weekend in which the "million jobs created or saved" mantra had a relatively free and uncontested run before economists chewed the number up and spit it out. A week later, the unemployment rate hit 10.2%.
Then there was this past Friday, when the White House delivered a double news dose with a foreign twist. Attorney General Eric Holder announced that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and five other terrorists would be tried in a civilian court in New York City rather than before a military tribunal. Later that day, the administration announced that White House Counsel Greg Craig was leaving and would be replaced by Democratic National Committee lawyer Bob Bauer. Mr. Obama? He was safely in the air flying to Asia, having left the day before with most of his press corps in tow.
Do Friday news dumps work? Yes, but marginally. The White House press corps is generally exhausted at the end of a long week. Congressional critics are either in route back home to their districts or already there. Friday night network television news and Saturday newspapers and cable coverage are traditionally less seen or read. By Sunday morning, a Friday announcement is often considered old news. Monday is the first opportunity White House correspondents get to ask the president's press secretary on camera about whatever was released Friday. By then there is almost always other news occupying the headlines.
Such tactics, however, can look disingenuous if they undercut public debate on substantive policy changes—such as deciding to bring terrorists to New York for trial.
What we are seeing with the White House's timing in releasing its decision on KSM and other terrorists is a presidency clinging to campaign tactics that aim to dominate the 24-hour-news cycle. The problem is that ploys that work in a campaign don't work nearly as well when you're in charge of the executive branch. Once in office, you have to live with the consequences of a policy decision.
The debate now taking place over trying terrorists in civilian courts is showing this White House that it cannot escape the hard realities that come with making presidential decisions. Not even Friday afternoons can offer sanctuary from dangerous or ill-considered policy choices.
I stopped at karl Rove
Karl Rove is accusing another administration of a permanent campaign?
Karl Rove is accusing another administration of a permanent campaign?
Who would know better?
Did you trolls even read the article. It sounds like you are commenting on the le. Typical. Read the article and then comment on the body.
You stopped thinking for yourself long before Karl Rove.
Why? You didn't comment on the body.
I think the term permanent campaign is tired and lazy. Any politician who wants to do anything has to be on a permanent campaign.
I like how the lying news network trots him out like he's an objective voice... now that's dishonest..IN MY OPINION..
Why? so you dont show your ignorance. The term permanent campaign is where in the body of the article?
Where is your comment on the body of the article again?
Too busy calling adult women 12 year olds to do that?
I guess that is better than attacking them.
Is that in the body of the article?
You haven't commented on the body of the article at all.
Obama should save his load.
Humans easily get desensitized to things very quickly.
BHO is a great politician. However this is nothing about change. Media dumping when the entire MSM is out to demonize you, and doing it a few times within an administration is one thing. This guy is using it all the time. Politically it is genius. It is not change though. This just shows yet again this guy is a yes man for the political machine.
I read it. My comments are that it's nothing more than a hatchet job. Rove admits in the very first sentence that both sides do it, yet then wants us to believe that the other team is doing it more than his team did. Presumably with the intent of getting people to frown at blue team. No doubt, he's got plenty of examples of how blue team is playing the bad news Friday game, but without any acknowledgement that a similar list could just as easily be made when his team was in charge. Basically, Rove is behaving like a child pointing the finger at his twin brother and saying "he took more" when mom asks if they had their hands in the cookie jar.
Attacking = asking questions.
This explains why so many people hate Chump around here.
A much better article on the permanent campaign issue:
~http://www.realclearpolitics.com/hor...d_the_per.html
October 02, 2009 The Olympics, Obama, and the Permanent Campaign
Chicago has lost its Olympics bid, despite Obama's insertion into the process. People are shocked because they figured that Obama would fly in if and only if the deal was done.
But why? That assumes a typical allocation of the presidential prestige. President Obama has been anything but typical in the use of that asset. Let's remember that this is the President who in the last nine months has appeared on both 11:30 PM talk shows. This is the President who can be seen on TBS in a spot advertising the upcoming George Lopez Show. This is the President who has had more primetime news conferences and more joint addresses to Congress than any president up to this point in his campaign tenure. This is the only President to pull a "Ginsberg" (and my guess is that he'll set the record for that when it's all said and done). This is the President who has gone out on the campaign trail again and again and again, even though the election is long since passed. This is the President who puts himself - and his family - on the cover of all sorts of supermarket and newsstand magazines month after month. This is the President who never hesitates to inject himself into the public consciousness for any little reason he likes.
This is the permanent campiagn. We have talked about its imminence for years. Well, now it's here and this is what it looks like. This is what a President does in it. Previous Presidents would only put themselves out there in this kind of diplomatic situation if there was no more campaigning, lobbying, and cajoling to be done. But this President sees himself above all as the chief campaigner, lobbyist, and cajoler. That explains so many of the ways in which the Obama Presidency differs from previous administrations (Democratic and Republican alike), and it also explains why we should not be so shocked by this result. This particular campaign failed.
I, for one, am exhausted by our new permanent campaign. That might sound strange coming from somebody who runs the Horse Race Blog, but it is true. The ominpresence of the Obama campaign apparatus is, frankly, wearing me down. I can't get away from him or it, even in my down times. Watching the Office on TBS used to be a real pleasure for me and the missus, but now we must be interrupted by the President of the United States cracking lame jokes at us in the promotion of a second-rate comedian. There is no escape.
It's not simply because enough is enough, though that is part of it. It's also because he is different now. He holds the executive authority of the United States within his person at this moment, and it is sobering to see the holder of such vast power on the cover of a magazine urging us to follow his fitness regime. By continuing the permanent campaign into his tenure so thoroughly, he has given new meaning to the phrase "big government." When he is on the cover of Men's Health telling us how to work out, in a certain sense, the federal government's executive authority is on the cover of Men's Health telling us how to work out.
And so it continues today. What should have been a story about Chicago - or better yet, Rio (good for you, Rio!) - is now a story about...Obama. Of course. Because just about everything in the public sphere must, must become a story about Obama. Because Obama injects himself and his campaign appartus/mindset/worldview into everything. And so, in this case, what would otherwise have been a "mere" rejection of Chicago and Mayor Daley has now become a rejection of the entire country. Why? Because of his decision to perpetuate the permanent campaign while holding the power of the executive.
I was hesitant to place a bet on the outcome of the health care debates, but I'll place one here. Sooner or later, the American people are going to say, "Enough is enough" with this constant, incessant politicking that is inevitably built around the specialness of Barack Obama. This is not the way past presidents have behaved, and I believe for good reason: the old way is the way the people like it. If this President continues to inject himself into every little thing - such as he did with this Olympian blunder - at some point he is going to exhaust the country, thereby losing the goodwill of his fellow citizens that he still enjoys today.
Mr. Obama: please remember that you're just the President. It's a big deal, but it's not that big of a deal. Chester Arthur was President. For goodness sake, Warren Harding was President, and his share of the vote was much larger than yours. Thomas Jefferson's tombstone doesn't even mention his eight years as President. Your current office isn't discussed until Article TWO of the Cons ution. Take the hint, and tone it down!
The permament campaign has been around since the day when elected office quit being a public service and started being the path to a financially lucrative career.
His team, like all the others didn't use every friday. Make a list of all the Bush media dumping they did. I bet their eight years was less than BHO's one year. It's not a hatchet job when all he does is use facts.
It's the media dumping on friday's that I thought was interesting.
If it was anywhere near as frequent as liberal carping about it, it would have to be a pretty long list. From a pure PR standpoint, it'd be contrary to anyone's self-interest not to dump less than flattering news on Fridays, after the press goes home.
It was common under GWB; it is common with Obama; it will be again with whoever succeeds Obama, regardless of party affiliation.
The Dems don't have a corner on guile and expedience; neither does the GOP.
The same goes for any -head aspiring politician. There is no method for politicians to change anything and certainly no will from a cons uency more concerned with the leatest celebrity news and finding new ways to demonize others who dont think like them religiously/politically/morally/socially.
If people were expecting actual change from Obama, then they were ing re ed to begin with or unabashedly naive.
The only "change" Obama will bring is HealthCare non-reform financed by ever-increasing debt to a system addicted to debt with no eye for ever paying it off...ever....as in never.
Funny thing is that if there were one elected official with the ability to actually change things, it would be the President. But its obvious Obama has no want or need to change anything about the status quo, because he is the status quo. He is the continuity of fiscal ruination our system of government and finance is based on. Corporations buy and sell politicians like we plebs buys socks and underwear...they are the only real, ever-lasting presence in government. Unelected, impractically wealthy beyond even the most absurd levels of reality, we allow them to exist and even idolize them as standard bearers of American opportunity.
I guess they are if your idea of opportunity is the exploitation of every human being around you, raping your governemnt, its people, the environment, its law, decency and humanity as whole the world over in the name of profit and greed.
If thats American opportunity, if corporate wealth is the standard to which most Americans ascribe to achieve and uphold as examples of virtuous free enterprise, then the quicker a lethal virus spreads across this land the ing better.
It's not up to me to make a list of how many times Bush did it. I'm not the one trying to make the claim that Bush did it less than Obama is doing it.
It is a hatchet job when you only offer facts to prove that Obama had his hand in the cookie jar, say nothing about how many cookies Bush took, and then try to pass that off as proof that Obama took more cookies than Bush did.It's not a hatchet job when all he does is use facts.
I know. That was in response to the article mog posted which gave the impression that the permament campaign is some new phenomenon.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
