John, Jerry, Welcome to the Lake.

Peterr, Thank you for Hosting today’s Book Salon.

Hi, and thanks for having us.

My pleasure.

Welcome John and Jerry — great to have you here at FDL. This must have been quite a series of interviews, and I can only imagine what got left on the “cutting room floor” from all these conversations. *g*

Any particular interview stand out for you — and why?

Welcome John and Jerry, thanks for joining us!

Jerry, how did you and John work together on the book? Did you each take different chapters/characters, then string them together, or did you collaborate on each profile?

Also, was there anyone you wanted to profile who would not agree to an interview with you? If so, can you name names — because I think that would be almost as interesting as knowing who is included…

Well, I think John and I thought thrughout that our favorite single interview was one of several we did with Rep. Rahm Emanuel, who was at the time in 2006 head of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee–the committee in charge of winning back control of the House. We happened to be in Rahm’s office late on the Friday afternoon when news came out that Rep. Mark Foley, the Florida Republican, was resigning becauseof inappropriate messages to male House pages. Watching the political reaction to that play out was fascinating.

As for our working style, we tried to do–and, in fact, did for the most part–interviews together. Then the book broke down kind of naturally into a series of chapters built around profiles of one or two people. We divided those up according to the people who felt we knew best, and the wrote the first and last chapters jointly.

Welcome John and Jerry

Oh my — that would have been a fascinating thing to see unfold before your eyes. How did you pry Rahm away from his Blackberry long enough to do an interview?

Anyone we wanted to interviw but couldn’t? Well, we were promised an interviw with President Bush that never came through. We’ve each intrviewed him numerous times across the years, but the White House didn’t produce him for this book. I wanted to interview Henry Kissinger for the foreign policy chapter, but didn’t really pursue that all that much because by time we got to writing it didn’t seem totally relevant any more.

We didn’t so much pry Rahm away from his Blackberry as watch him work the phones, catching snatches of conversaton with him between phone calls. In that sense, it wasn’t so much an interview as reality observation!

Hi there. glad to be here

Technical note:

When you are replying to a specific comment, wait for the whole page to load and then hit the little “reply” icon in the lower right corner of that comment. (If you try to hit it before the page finishes loading, it won’t work.)

This will put a little box that says “Replying to xxxxxx @#” above the place where you type in your comment. You can check out how it looks by hitting the “preview” link in the upper left, and then “submit comment” will send it out for everyone to read.

Gotcha.

Welcome, John.

How did the two of you come up with your list of people to profile?

Digg this post

Interesting — I wondered if you all attempted to get anyone from the Dick Cheney sphere, beyond Elliott Abrams. Would have loved to see a David Addington interview, although I know he’s impossible pretty much to get on the record on anything. (I do hear that Scooter Libby has a little more free time… *g*)

Not sure if John is there, but I’ll give you my two cents’ worth. We started with people we thought were importnat players in te effort to get things done in Washington at a time of gridlock. Our effort was, as the book’s overall theme says to show how people accomplish, or at least try, to accomplish things at a time when the city just doesn’t seem to work very well. We chose in the first instance people we have known from reporting over the years, on the theory that we’d get the best, most honest discussions with them, and then built out. We picked a few, like Karl Rove, who are well known, but preferred the folks who are important but less well known, on the theory that they are more interesting and their stories more telling.

Well, Elliott Abrams is pretty close to the Dick Cheney sphere. He is aligned with the vice president’s office in many ways and on many matters. We would have talked to Scooter Libby–and, in fact, had him on our original list–but he fell away because of his legal problems, obviously. We didn’t try David Addington because he’s famously and universally non-cooperative.

Another hopefully helpful hint is to do what some authors have done, like yesterday, and simply type in the commenters name at the top of the post.
It is a more simple and quicker way to get through the thread while FDL is “under reconstruction.” :)
*
And, yowza, what an interesting opportunity to be with Rahm at that time. How many times do we ask ourseleves” Oh if only I were a Fly On The Wall”?

Gentlemen –

Your book is very entertaining. I’ve read your profiles of Rahm Emanuel, Chris Van Hollen, and Debbie Wasserman Schultz. I must say I am amazed at the positive spin you put on their accomplishments and leadership. For example, Rahm Emanuel spent six million dollars on Tammy Duckworth’s failed bid for Congress. Had that money been split up, there are twelve Democratic challengers who came within 2 percent of beating their incumbent rubber-stamp GOPs. Giving Rahm credit for the 2006 election without examining the errors he made in not gaining a less feeble governing majority for Democrats is one-sided, at best. Did you interview any of Rahm’s critics? Did you consider including this counter-narrative other story in your profile, the one where Rahm is not the hero of 2006? It exists, and its proponents are not hard to find.

Chris Van Hollen, after he first promised to stay out of Democratic primaries, has waded in against progressive candidates in several races. Perhaps his broken promise occurred after your book went to press. Did you talk to him about how his own progressive policies might change the corporatist drift of the DCCC under Rahm? Do his breaks with the leadership — on FISA, for instance — make it harder to manage the DCCC?

Debbie Wasserman Schultz has never faced a competitive election for Congress herself, yet due solely to her fundraising prowess she’s been put in charge of the Red-to-Blue program. I wonder why you never reported on her re-adherence to Florida Rules; Clay Shaw’s defeat seems to have been a fluke in her policy not to oppose fellow incumbents regardless of party. Only after great pressure has she decided to oppose the Southern Florida trio of GOP Cuban-Americans, all of whom rubber-stamp Bush every time. Her final comment in your interview makes me wonder over the possibility of primarying her. Does she fear it? Does she even consider whether it could happen?

Finally, I have to wonder if you missed something glaring: under a Democratic Speaker whose ascension to power in California politics was as a fundraiser, not a policy-maker or political candidate, fund-raising has been elevated in the Democratic caucus to the sole criterion for leadership posts. Is this good for Democrats? Is it good for America?

Looking forward to reading the rest of your book; hoping for less hagiography and more actual reporting.

Demi, we WERE flies on the wall that afternoon in Rahm’s office! The thing I love about Rahm is that you usually get the full, unvarnished Rahm Emanuel no matter what. But in that case, we were getting the unvarnished Rahm in action. Far superior, that, to trying to reconstruct scenes later, as we had to do in re-telling, for exmaple, the story of the Dubai Ports World incident, or Nancy Pelosi’s trip to the Middle East.

Jerry and John,
I have not had an opportunity to read your book but this from Peterr’s intro:

Almost all of the profiles speak of crossing party lines, bipartisanship, and other lofty-sounding phrases that bespeak cooperation, public service, and the public good.

makes me wonder are these people totally clueless or do they think those of us outside the beltway are? Most of us have functioning eyes and brains and we can see from empirical evidence how false those statements and sentiments are. Who are they trying to fool?

I wondered if you both could talk a bit more about Hillary Rosen. I know she has been very close with the Clintons for years, but also has maintained an independent streak in terms of her own sphere of interests separate and apart from the issues they’ve pushed. She always seems like the undercurrents are following her in terms of political shifts — but they move without her having a seemingly heavy hand, which is impressive.

Would love to know further thoughts on her — and why she appears to be so effective — above and beyond the fact that she seems, at least from my perspective, to be a straight shooter, which is sadly a rarity among folks I’ve dealt with inside the Beltway.

Did you get the impression that Rahm was hearing the news about Foley as if it was new to him? I ask this only because there’s been credible reporting that Rahm knew about the emails and sat on the information, along with the GOP leadership. In this case, Rahm potentially endangered minors in the care of the House for political gain.

Do you think Rahm knew about Foley before that Friday?

Teddy, fair points all. In the chapter on Rahm Emanuel, we do talk about the tensions between him and the progressive wing of the party, as embodied by Howard Dean. He did NOT agree with the 50-state strategy, and consciously recruited moderate and self-financed candidates, with no apologies. There has been a lot of discussion about his allocatin of resources in the final weeks of the campaign. I can’t remember how we describe it precisely in the book, but they widened the playing field in the last two to three weeks, which is where the $11 million he borrowed for the stretch run went. You can argue that they may have overspent in some cases, of course, but their beleif in the end was that races came into play that the didn’t expect and they weren’t going to leave any opportunities on the table. That probably meant overspending in some cases, but I think they realized that as they shot at the dart board.

For folks who have not yet read the book, there are also some rather telling insights into the some of the people quoted — occasionally unintentionally telling.

My personal favorite came when Bob Packwood was reminiscing about the bipartisanship of the good-old-days when he and Dan Rostenkowski were in charge of reforming the tax code. The problem today, says Packwood, is leadership PACs that have “distracted members’ attention and distorted their priorities at the expense of the legislative process.”

Somehow, the idea of Packwood holding Rostenkowski and himself up as model citizens of DC and model legislators, undistracted from the work of the legislative process struck me as more than a little funny.

I guess one has to be the fly to get the buzz, from time to time.
I’ve got a short list (you don’t believe that) of offices I’d like for you guys to fly (back) to.

I think a lot of folks in Washington come into office thinking they want to reach across party lines and divisions, and they get trapped in the partisan vortex. The differnce, John and I have ocncluded, is that now something MIGHT actually happen because voters are speaking with far more clarity on this point–and because in Obama and McCain there MIGHT be presidential contenders who can actually break the mold.

Teddy, we definitely got the feeling he was hearing this news for the first time. There were many rumors about Foley’s personal life dating back some years, of course, but this particular episode seemed to hit him cold.

Christy, Hillary Rosen is one of the most interesting people in the capital today. She is both a loyal Democrat and very independent minded at the same time, if that is possible. She stands out becuase she is the rare combination of an idealist who knows how to pull levers at the same time. I think she’s well respected among Democratic women,in particular, and will be in on the action for a long time to come.

And get this: According to Russert’s testimony yesterday at Libby’s trial, when any senior government official calls him, they are presumptively off the record.

Lewish Lapham in Harper’s this month refers to the late Tim Russert’s demeanor around our politicians as an “attentive head waiter.” He said that clearly he and Charlie Rose are enthralled by A-list celebrities. That the extended mourning services for Russert, though he was obviously beloved by his peers, were excessive in terms of media time invested. The story teller is the story among fellow story tellers.

After the FISA disappointment and Sarah Palin’s ambush as VP I am wondering if any power even bothers operating in the front rooms, at all?

Unfortunately Jerry, the term “bi-partisan” seems to have become a code for “let’s give the Republicans or Corporations everything they want and the rest of the country can go hang.”

Bi-partisan used to mean that both sides gave a little but now it’s a smoke screen to describe the Dems caving and the Blue Dogs crossing the aisle and voting for the Republican version of a bill.

I’d prefer a strongly partisan set of battles if it meant getting some progressive legislation that would help someone other than the upper 5% of the income brackets and Corporations. As it is…

One quibble — I think the McCain of 2000 might have been able to break the mold. I’m not certain I recognize the McCain of 2008, though, as anything but a creature of his own ambitions above everything else. Which aligns him with the George W. Bush brand of politics in my mind. In bringing Rove on board as an “informal advisor” while simultaneously coordinating 5276 efforts with Freedom’s watch, and Steve Schmidt on board to run campaign work, he singlehandedly repudiated that former Maverick reputation, in my opinion.

Especially given how Rove and his minions/527 pals savaged McCain’s family in the primaries in 2000. To put ambition ahead and say bygones about some of that would have been more than I could ever have stomached, I have to say.

i understand why you say that. but at the same time, there’s reason to think the quality of legislation was higher in the days before partisanship was so extreme and fund-raising so dominant a consideration

You said because voters are speaking with far more clarity on this point
Yes and why do you (or others here) think that is the case?
Is this partially because of the blogeffect?

Jerry and/or John, were there any media types on your list of potential subjects — Russert (before his death), Woodward, etc.? As I said in the post, the media players are certainly a major part of the “backroom power” aspect of DC, especially with the rise of the predominance of stories sourced to “senior administration officials speaking on background” or “congressional staff members, who asked to remain anonymous.”

Just a note: I’m trying to get John re-connected to the Book Salon. Thanks,

Thus, we have “The Democratic Strategist” Rahm Emanuel, who led his party to victory in 2006 and has led the challenges to Bush’s war in Iraq. His profile ends: “Rahm Emanuel — the boy-wonder politico with the cellphone that never stops –

Is this really how Washington views Emanuel? Or is it simply Emanuel’s self-image?

there’s no question that the McCain 2000 candidacy is different from the 2008 version. one question, for which i don’t have the answer: how would McCain’s GOVERNANCE in 2009 be different than it would have been in 2001.

Well said.

Rahm certainly has a health self-image. but i think it fair to say that members of both parties respect his talent and drive.

I don’t think the sort of poker games that Tip O’Neill and Ronald Reagan used to have in the WH after hours would ever happen these days. Too much rancor.

As a lawyer, I can certainly understand the need for taking pitched sides when arguing an issue, but the hatred and bile that stays put long afterward poisons the well for any cooperation thereafter. Sometimes, you have to let it go outside the courtroom — or the cloakroom, for that matter.

Honestly, I have not been able to get a good feel for how he wants to govern at all. Which is a huge part of the problem, in my book.

Agreed. Still, the point might have been better made by someone other than Packwood. Holding up Rostenkowski (who went to jail for misused of Congressional funds) as a paragon of congressional virtue, untainted by the lure of money . . . it was a bit over the top, in my opinion.

Can you comment then on his mental state? It seems to me, from what one can observe, that he is much less sharp and energetic. I had actually found him rather appealing as a candidate in that race. As far as weilding power, do you think he is even sharp enough, perceptive enough to be other than ham-handed in how he would wield vital front room or back room power?

I think it’s both — and perhaps a chicken and egg sort of development of the image. Rahm is good at fronting it out, but there is no question that he’s effective at gathering power around him, either. Unfortunately, he just doesn’t use it the way I would prefer, all the time. (But I’m sure you knew that…)

Well, I simply and deeply disagree with that analysis of Tim Russert. He pioneered a way for TV journalists to hold elected leaders responsible for their own words,and I think we’re all better off for it.

if you mean McCain, i have not observed anything that would cause me to question his mental fitness to serve as president. to my way of thinking the relevant choice for voters is one of philosophy, policy agenda and vision — not mental competence

But Peterr! Between Packwood and his busy hands and Rostenkowski and his sticky fingers, wasn’t Beltway Washington fully encapsulated – both old and new ways?

Sure seems that way, just some stylistic differences is all.

Demi, I think American politics moves in cycles, which are determined more by voters than by the politicians. Just as the country had become more conservative in 1980 and ushered in Ronald Reagan as a result, I think voters have become less enamored of partisan politics right now and thus are ushering in leaders who promise to break out of the Clinton/Gingrich partisan warfare rut.

Don’t see any evidence he knows himself how he wants to govern. Not even sure that he does. He just wants to win.

No indication he gives/has given any thought to what happens after winning. (the ‘Shock & Awe/Mission Accomplished’ syndrome)

I, like Obama, question his temperament to be president. And this vetting veepgate situation… McCain certainly seems reckless with that, or whoever his puppet masters are.

As a close observer, Jerry, how might we see the difference between those who say “bipartisanship!” as a way to win a tactical advantage (and get the other side to cave to their demands) and those who say “bipartisanship!” and actually mean “let’s sit down and work something out.”

After the fact, it’s easy to tell which is which. (Rove is a master at the former, for instance.) Before the fact, though, . . .

In addition to the absence of media Villagers*, I was surprised that there were no profiles of the New Religionists. Now that one party has elevated an obscure Governor to the national ticket based on the recommendation (if not insistence) of its Xtianist right wing, a sense of how religion intergrates into Pennsylvania Avenue’s business would have been very helpful: the National Prayer Breakfast, the weekly White House phonecalls Ted Haggard used to be a part of, the tensions over communion for pro-choice Catholic officerholders.

As religion expands into more of our national discourse, leaving their major players out of a book of profiles could be perceived as offending their followers. And you know it isn’t wise to offend the professional victims!

*blogosphere term for the bloviating gasbags who make up our national political media/governing axis

I don’t think you are responding to me with this (my comment that you are replying to had nothing to do with Russert) but I have to ask, “Gotcha” journalism is an improvement? How? Russert seemed to pour over old interviews and news articles to find a quote he could take out of context and then spring it on someone.

How did this improve the political discourse? How did it show in depth understanding of the issues involved and how someone’s views might have evolved? Or is it impossible to believe in the Beltway that someone can really change their views over a period of time?

if i may add to Jerry’s comment, the idea that Tim Russert was like an “attentive head waiter” to politicians is complete baloney in my view. I think Tim was unmatched among television journalists in his ability to hold political figures accountable for their words and actions in an appropriately respectful and civil manner.

Yes, about McCain. You certainly know him more closely than I do. My follow up question then is about his answer to not knowing how many houses he owns. Do you explain that as the complexity of house titles, not wanting to answer, etc? Lots of folks have a senior moment, but that struck me a quite startling.

But that’s the same false story you tell with Jim Webb.

Rahm had very little with widening the field–he saw a crowd running (with a lead) toward the goal line late in teh race, and ran to the front of that crowd holding a flag.

Similarly, you credit Schumer with a last minute boost to give Webb the primary nod.

There was a great deal of work that had nothing to do with Rahm and Schumer that you just ignore. In the Parisier profile, you say, “the netroots provide a valuable counterweight to some of teh business interests Democrats would like to challange … the netroots breed the sort of political zealotry that can make compromise difficult.” Yet in your book, when it comes time to giving due credit to those “zealots,” you give that part of the story short shrift.

Is this just the story of power that occurs inside the beltway, and not the story of hte power that occurs outside of the beltway, much of which (including the Foley story) lays the groundwork for one of these figures to swoop in and claim credit?

Peterr, belatedly responding to this earlier query: We didn’t put a lot of media types on our list. No particular reason, but I do think we in the media are at risk of spending too much time examining each other rather thant the people we are supposed to cover. More revealing, I think, to look at how someone such as Brendan Daly, Pelosi’s communications director and somebody we do profile, uses the new media landscape for his own purposes.

I think American politics moves in cycles, which are determined more by voters than by the politicians

Yes, but the VOTERS are led so much, too, by the mainstream media … and I think there is a lack of rigorous exploration by the mainstream media.

Thank you for doing some serious EXPLORATION, BTW! I am glad to see a some attention to the guys in the backroom. And I would like to hear of the promise of breaking gridlock.

But “gamesmanship” is what it seems about in every dimension, not statesmanship.

Who on your palette of subjects would you call statesmanlike as well as a gamesman?

After all, the net neutrality battle described in the netroots v. telecom chapter would have been resolved by severely restricting freedom of speech had it been decided by bipartisan impulse.

I do think that part of it is a backlash against the Grover Norquist philosophy of conservatism — drowning government in a bathtub. People may have varying opinions on the role of government versus individuals, but I think most Americans would agree that government where it is doing it work ought to actually…work. And the last few years, it hasn’t. There are a lot of arguments on why that is — and whose fault that might be — but the bottom line is that what we have been doing has not worked well for anyone other than a few. And I think people want a change from that status quo because most cannot honestly say that things are better for them now than they were 8 years ago.

Which is exactly what tends to usher in change when it happens in a wave in government, if my history reading serves me.

You know, the only way to distinguish genuine bipartisanship from faux bipartisanship is to watch what political leaders do, not what they say. Hence, when McCain says “I can work with the other party,” there is at least some evidence to support the idea…Others, I agree, say the words but have never walked the walk.

Good question. I want to know also.
I guess we can start by observing their past behavior. Yes? And then…

I think Tim was unmatched among television journalists in his ability to hold political figures accountable for their words and actions in an appropriately respectful and civil manner.

Tim Russert as media hero – a perfect indictment of the sad state of television ‘journalism’.

I honestly think IMHO Russert held the Democratic feet to the fire a lot longer than the Republicans.

But can you not admit that there have been some serious lapses with American mainstream journalists, present company okay excluded?

Russert’s use of tantalizing hypotheticals in this year’s presidential debates was unnerving. I don’t think we will ever be able to objectively analyze his contribution to Beltway journalism as long as so many of his friends and admirers are in charge of it, but it is deeply distressing to hear young, up-and-coming media persons speak admiringly of his methods and approach.

His Libby testimony alone was incredibly revealing of everything that’s wrong with access media today.

Statesman as well as politician…well, that’s a tall order! I would put Richard Lugar, Lee Hamilton, Jim Baker and, yes, Joe Biden in that category….

Isn’t that rather an issue of corporate influence and not partisan polarity?

One needs to distinguish between the two–after all, teh Democrats who are tied to most bipartisan legislation are also solidly in the pockets of big business, and in some obvious cases (Al Wynn) are (were) far to the right of their constituents.

Defending bipartisanship without looking at whether it is WORTHY bipartisanship, in this day and age, largely guarantees sacrificing our government to the corporate interests.

christy, I personally think we’ve moved out of the “drowning the government in the bathtub” phase. If we were still there, I don’t think John McCain would be the Republican nominee, and I don’t think Democrats would be in charge of the Congress. Maybe, if that’s where the country were at, Ron Paul would be the Republican nominee! But if you watch the Bush administration respond to the housing crisis and the slow sinking of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, it’s pretty clear even a Republican administration is in a different place now.

You might look at his advisors for some guidance on that. It’s not all that encouraging (and I voted for McCain in the primary in 2000).

I think Mike Murphy and other old time loyalists are now recognizing what a cynical, mean-spririted creature McCain’s ambition has led him to become. It’s pretty sad to watch it.

It doesn’t concern you that the candidate celebrated for his policy experience can’t keep the difference between Sunni and Shiite straight?

That’s a great point, Teddy.

But then many of them are another important force in politics that takes place outside of DC.

The profile of Daly was indeed interesting, and one of the few places the new media was mentioned. But the picture of this new media was a bit hazy to me. On the same page (165), there are two rather diametrically opposed statements:

(1) “For both parties, such ‘viral marketing’ has largely supplanted inside-the-beltway gossip among insiders as the consequential ‘buzz’ on Pennsylvania Avenue.”

(2) “But the echo effect of the Internet is something no twenty-first century communicator can afford to neglect.”

Both these statements are saying that the Internet is important, but the latter seems to view the new media as nothing more than an amplifier — one way — of DC messaging. The former, on the other hand, sees things as two-way: the buzz is now done not over drinks in the proverbial woodpaneled clubs of the powerful, but over the internet.

To what extent would you say that the DC backroom players view the internet as a one-way tool of their power, as opposed to a new way of making allies and exerting influence in DC?

yes i do. those of us mainstream journalists have many failures of analysis and reporting to answer for. why did it take us so long to discover the shortcomings of vets’ treatment of Walter Reed? why have we failed to diagnose, in sequence, the bursting of the tech bubble in late 1990s and the housing bubble more recently? why haven’t we done better at explaining to americans the impact of global economic competition, the problems with our health care system, the nature of the new security threats that arose after end of Cold War. those and others all valid criticisms of politicians, and of us,

Look, there’s no doubt that much of what happened to put Democrats in charge happened out around the country. It is, as I said, similar in some ways to 1980, whent he country had become more conservative and then op0ened the door to Ronald Reagan in a way it hadn’t in 1976, or even in 1968. Our book, though,is a look at how Washington players operate in such a climate.

Citizen Teddy Partridge:

Great questions, ya get another citation on yer Norske Medal of Citizenship trophy!

Trust the people!!

i doubt that McCain is actually ignorant of the difference, even if careless or inattentive statements might make it appear so….

Peterr, I’d say people in power in Washington would like to think of the Internet as a one-way street they can travel to expand their power, but have come to see it more properly as a two-way street in which they can try to do that but have to recognize they can also get run over by popular sentiments that build and expand on the Internet. Yes, it’s a way to recruit followers, but also a way in which people who aren’t following find each other and go their own way.

What! Russert a journalist? Russert was just another corporate lobbyist who enabled neo-cons. The funding of the 9-11 attacks, cooking the intelligence books for the Irak Genocide, and Cheney’s numerous False Flag Ops, Russert and the rest of the neo-con tee vee propagandists, failed to expose. But here is Timmy at his best.

Don’t you then see why hearing that Tim Russert automatically considered everything off the record unless told otherwise plays into the failures of the Traditional Media? It appears that the inside the beltway media are more concerned with their access than in doing actual reporting of problems.

Then VOILA! Shock and dismay about the treatment of veterans at Walter Reed! Where’d this tech bubble come from? How come housing prices are in such disarray?

All the signs on all these stories were out there far in advance but no one wanted to report them.

We see all the headlines about supporting the troops and taking care of veterans, but then down in the details of the bills are the cuts to services and the give away contracts to Halliburton. The information is out there. Much of Traditional Media just chose to not look for it.

With all due respect.

I live in MI. I can assure you, Americans know the impact of global economic competition–we talk about it incessantly here (and your average UAW line worker can talk about it more intelligently, in my experience, than congressional staffers). It’s folks inside DC who seem to need that explanation.

Which I think gets us back to the questions about journalism.

When there’s such a big disjunct between reality–what we see out here–and what the media is reflecting back to DC types, it allows them to ignore the problems far far too long (and, I would say, endorse a corporately-funded “bipartisanship” that exacerbates the problems before they get better). I think THAT’s one of the big reasons we’re all asking about media.

Who would you say falls into that second category of seeing the two-way nature of the electronic street?

if you mean McCain,….to my way of thinking the relevant choice for voters is one of philosophy, policy agenda and vision

fair enough. But who was McCain’s first choice for a V.P. running-mate?

And who told the presumptive head, as the presidential candidate, of the Republican party – “No – you can’t have him”?

So whose policy, vision, and philosophy are we talking about here, on the Republican side?

I would like to know, if Sam Brownback’s “belief in protecting life from conception to natural death left no other choice” than to meddle in the Schiavo’s marriage, how he defends staying out of similar cases now. Shouldn’t the Senate be protecting other individuals being removed from life support? Shouldn’t Brownback be seeking out cases like Terri’s on a daily basis?

If it was the Federal government’s business then, how does he defend his current inattention and laxity? Was there then a political element, perhaps, that backfired and left him scarred in ways that make him reluctant to pick up the banner? And how does he justify that to his Overseer when he prays at night?

Thanks. That’s a helpful clarification.

I guess when I came to the Rahm profile, I was hoping 1) to read something other than the Rahm self-hagiography than I’ve read in the popular press, and 2) to read more about the backroom deals that generate him so much power.

Rahm and Steny–for example–are both incredibly powerful largely because they are so well-liked and well-respected. What is the ethic of deal-making that they follow that allows them to get stuff done? That’s what I’d like to know.

One question on the recent sentencing of Jack Abramoff. His role was so intertwined with so much of the K Street Project, the ascendance of Tom DeLay and so many others on the backs of lobbying access and donor control, and with Karl Rove’s chokehold on money access for GOP candidates at the top levels which gave him quite a bit of power in a city where power makes you king. Will we ever see more indictments from the reported Abramoff cooperation, do you think?

We had John Anderson on not too long ago regarding his book, Follow the Money. John’s an old Houston boy, and he has followed the money trail from there and beyond for years. The Rove-Abramoff-Reed-Norquist connections on soft money being laundered through some of the K Street lobby shops was astonishing, yet I rarely see that come up any longer, even though it’s still ongoing in newer forms (see my comment above regarding Rove and the 527 work with Freedom’s Watch as an example — here’s something from National Journal on that).

I know Abramoff seems like old news since he’s already incarcerated — but there is so much more out there, and so many of the players who were involved have not been held to account. Why isn’t there more interest do you think? Still too powerful on K Street and among political circles? Or is the evidence simply not there yet?

I’d say Barack Obama is the leading example of a politician who sees the Internet for what it is: not just a tool to be used (certainly he sees it as that, but not only that) but rather as a new field on which political campaigns and political power will play out. If he were to win in November, it won’t just be politics that will be different as a result of the Internet; I think governance will be too. Interestingly, and surprisingly, Jon Tester of Montana gets it as well.

Right. But as I see it he is either ignorant of the difference (which I don’t believe) or not sharp enough to keep them straight anymore. The number of repeated gaffes he has had before his team put him under tight handler control is a concern. Not out of any disrespect, but just because the number of really simple things he seems to be confusing.

I’d second that — I’d love a “peek behind the curtain,” so to speak of exactly how those two operate. For one thing, because they both work so hard to keep it under wraps as much as they possibly can at all times unless it’s politically expedient to trumpet something or use it to further something else. *g*

I think voters have become less enamored of partisan politics right now and thus are ushering in leaders who promise to break out of the Clinton/Gingrich partisan warfare rut.

For those not privileged to imbibe the Village Kool-Aid every morning, the phrase “Clinton/Gingrich partisan warfare rut” appears to assign equal weighting for the partisanship to Newt Gingrich (IIRC, he shut down the US Goverment and targeted the Dem Pres for impeachment for avowedly partisan reasons) and Bill Clinton (who was Chief Exec while Gingrich shut down the govt and was target of the impeachment).

OK – just for the heck of it, I’ll stipulate for the sake of the question that voters really are less enamored of the sort of alleged partisan politics you cite.

Sooo..where on earth would voters:

a) Have been misled that personal disagreements — rather than fundamental policy disagreements — are the core of “politics”?

b) Have been persuaded that Gingrich’s decade-long assualt on Congress, comity, and the Dem party was a “Clinton/Gingrich partisan warfare” event?

Hint: for Beltway/Village journos, consult the nearest mirror.

Really?

Can you cite evidence that supports your thesis that McCain is not ignorant of the difference?

Or is it a gut feeling, based on the Washington image he has created as a strong foreign policy leader, an image that seems to slide away when closely examined or pressed into actual service in debate or hearings? He’s made the same mistake in several venues, after being corrected publicly, and yet your thesis that he is not ignorant still holds sway among, apparently, you and all of you peers.

Why is that?

Russert a corporate lobbyist? please….

I don’t doubt that there was a hefty dose of politics involved in the Schiavo case. But if you were to defend Brownback’s decision to get involved (and the decision of others), I think you’d say that the attention the case had gotten made its profile so high that public policy precedents would be set in how it was handled, which wouldn’t be true for other cases with similar circumstances but less attention. Having said that, i’d guess most Republicans think in retrospect they should have just stayed out of it.

Can you explain the proliferation of lobbyists in Wash., DC. 34,000 at present. According to your NYT the number has doubled since 2000.

I heard that ATT held lots of lavish parties for the folks at both conventions. FISA-pay back?

And will there be more accountability along with Abramoff?

The Sarah-Palin-gates seem to be piling up, but I have no hope of serious ethics accountability being served from anywhere … after so little accountability during the Bush administration. I feel like anyone with a sense of justice has PTSD by now, from the slings and arrows of amorality — cronyism, double standards, and anti-constitutional behaviors of our TRUSTED representatives.

Actually, I don’t think you’ve seen the end of the Abramoff string yet. He got off lighter than he might have precisely because he’s been cooperating with prosecutors. Justice’s public corruption unit has been busy below the radar screen for two years now, and I don’t think they’re done yet.

no i can’t cite evidence. it is indeed my “gut feeling” — sense of the situation, whatever you want to call it — that McCain’s experience and intelligence have taught him the difference. But i acknowledge i can’t prove it objectively

But what was your assessment of not being able to count the houses? Where does his information go?

Indeed.

But there’s still Dan Froomkin’s observation that I quoted above, noting the coziness of too many journalists to their insider sources. Russert’s testimony at the Libby trial certain opened him up to that charge, and he’s not the only one.

Lots of reasons for the rise in the number of lobbyists: more at stake in government decisions in a global economy, the rise of the earmark culture that made all sorts of special interests think they’d better get a lobbyist to get them their piece of the action, lots of people hiring up Republican lobbyists to accomodate the 2000-2006 power structure, etc.

I thank you for your reply. Russert did not afflict the comfortable, and comfort the afflicted. But yes he seems to have been a “journalist” paid for by corporations. As well as General Electric tee vee.

But, according to the Washington Speakers Bureau, which exclusively handles Russert’s speaking engagements, his standard speaking fee is $60,000 plus first class travel for two for west coast appearances, and $50,000 and first class travel for two for east coast locales — although, they say, private planes are strongly preferred.

And yet….
attempts to influence Barack Obama by the netroots on his FISA betrayal, partly through his own website’s platform, were dismissed and discounted. He voted for the bill in order to inoculate himself against standard soft-on-terror charges, ignoring his supporters and breaking his promises. So the lane on the internet running from us to Washington, composed mostly of money, goes out of service when it comes to actually influencing policy more often than not.

Justice’s public corruption unit has been busy below the radar screen for two years now, and I don’t think they’re done yet.

Haven’t seen much evidence that they’ve *started* yet.

And while Mukasey holds the reins, I firmly refuse to hold my breath while waiting for any such evidence.

John, I respect how respected Russert was by his peers and by many, many viewers. But there is a line I do think was crossed by your 4th estate in your tribute to Russert. Sometimes when I watch Charlie Rose, and know he attends Hampton parties with people on both sides of the political aisle, or people are influenced so strongly by promixity and personality to each other (I mean, McCain must be a helluva guy on his bus to have gotten some serious bonding with the reporters) and Andrea and Alan G. dining with the Cheneys, can the PERSONALTIY factor be pulled back from? That type of unofficial cronyism.

It is almost like the “viewers” feel there is a celebrity class that now INCLUDES both journalist celebrities as well as powers in D.C. and Hollywood AND their power brokers. And the loyalty of the journalists is directed more to their fellow “stars” than to the viewers, not surrogates for us, but enablers of them (presented company… etc.).

And then lets just throw in SERIOUS MONEY FROM CORPORATIONS who are not promoting the “common good” but motivated by profit, and who have an additional strong-armed pressure on our the 4th estate.

not sure on the houses. i suspect his wife Cindy, who as you know is quite wealthy, purchases properties that he may be unaware of and has little to do with. but that is purely a guess

All true. I wrote a long piece at the Democratic convention (which I commend to you highly!) about the disillusion/unease on the left with Obama and the party generally. I think there is an open question about whether the progressive wing of the party is getting now, or could expect to get after a Democratic win in November, the kind of policies it wants, and whether its feelings that it has provided much of the rocket fuel for Democrats this cycle are shared broadly across the Democratic party.

One thing I was curious about in the reading — how much influence does Ken Duberstein have these days? Is it much more in the halls of Congress, because I had heard that he had been effectively shut out of the WH for not being supportive enough of the Bush/Cheney interests and having the temerity to ask questions about some thorny issues when he had been in a meeting or two. Have you all heard that too?

I haven’t heard as much from him the last coupla years, and I’m just wondering whether he’s been doing much more behind-the-scenes powerbroking in Congress that we just aren’t seeing so much publicly.

Perhaps, then, it’s something that ought to be asked? On the off chance either I (he’s losing his edge) or Teddy (he’s ignorant) is right, don’t voters deserve to know?

Let’s get off Russert. According to Wikipedia,

Harwood, along with co-author Jerry Seib, were Tim Russert’s guests in Russert’s last taped interview of the “Tim Russert Show” which was to air the weekend of June 14, 2008, just hours before Russert’s death. [1]

one thing the media does poorly, and in include myself in this critique, is proportionality. that is, when we decide collectively that something is a story, it becomes a HUGE story that tends to crowd out everything else.

that’s a long way of saying: i think you may be right and we may have gone overboarding in covering Tim’s passing…

oops — meant months, not years there. My fingers got ahead of me in the typing. I know Duberstein was involved in the Bolten elevation and several other bits and pieces — but he’s dropped off the WH radar from what I’ve seen and heard of late. Although perhaps it’s his own choosing as much as anything, given the lame duck status of the Bush Administration at this point…

true. it was a terrific interview and i am sad to say it never aired

I wonder if Hilary Rosen talked about whether she’s faced actual discrimination as she does her work in Washington — from people who know she’s a lesbian. Does one’s identity, public though it is, get left to the side of the chessboard when the game is being played? When lobbying for marriage equality, is it hard for her to confront conservative officeholders who hew to their constituents’ views that gays are unequal? Does it parallel the experience successful African-Americans once faced in largely white-privilege society: “Oh, I wasn’t talking about you!”

I just wonder how hard it is to still be “the other” while working among the powerful, some of whom work very hard to keep you down. It’s a little closer to the heart than simply lobbying for one’s corporate client, wouldn’t you say? After all, Hilary has a wife and children. There’s a lot, personally, at stake for her and her family.

With the current problems between Georgia and Russia is MSM doing any investigative reporting or passing on the information it is receiving from the administration. It appears to me to be very similar to what occurred with the lead up to Iraq.

link: http://www.makethemaccountable…..art_04.htm

Oh, I am sorry also. Maybe there will be a time. It does not seem disrespectful to me to share it. I am sorry for your loss.

Some evidence: Abramoff, Ney, Ted Stevens, Jerry Lewis, etc.

I recognize that the Russert issue is unproductive for this issue.

But the way I see it–having watched the media watch most of the Libby trial is this.

Russert was good at what he did–very good.

But media people repeatedly claim he was a “journalist” all the while citing the rules that journalist purportedly follow. For example, I had a local journalist claim that “journalists don’t use anonymous sources” and hold up Russert as an example. That’s objectively false–none of the highfalutin journalists who testified at the trial followed the rules the entire profession purports to follow. The journalists in the media room were very sheepish about it, too.

So Russert was the best at what he did. But what he did does not comport with the rules of journalism repeatedly held up as the example of why journalists are so good and noble and objective and so on.

REcognizing that doesn’t change Russert’s accomplishments. But it ought to cue journalists to be a little more self-critical about the claims of their profession–and whether the supposed ideal is really what people aspire to anymore.

FWIW, in what I’ve seen of her interactions — albeit what I’ve seen has been really limited — it hasn’t been an issue. I think Hillary Rosen more than holds her own, and she’s not at all shy about being herself — her whole self. But that may just be my impression…

Teddy, that’s a terrific question. i have not had that conversation with Hilary but it would be fascinating.

I think Ken Duberstein remains very influential. It happens that he’s not especially close to the Bush White House per se, in some measure becuase he was a John McCain man in 2000. But he also has a much broader base of friends and contacts than the White House, his relationships in Congress are long-lasting, and a lot of what he does, as we tried to explain, happens below the radar line.

At the democrat convention media was besides itself describing a perceived disunity in the demo party. I don’t think there was a chair they didn’t look under trying to find a PUMA person. Did anyone mention that Ron Paul, former Repub. presidential candidate was having a separate convention across town?

Thanks, I appreciate that. And I do enjoy you as reporter/celeb (as well as Rachel Maddow!) on your appearances on Olbermann and Race 2 Whitehouse, etc. How do you feel about doing that kind of commentary? Do you get to talk about what you want to talk about, or is it a narrow topic curriculum?

Oh, and of course, former Rep. Duke Cunningham, which is the best example that Justice is taking this sort of thing seriously.

This has been a great exchange; sometimes the topic sort of drops off. The questions and answers have been very engaging. Thanks to the guests and to all.

i think that is precisely the challenge for journalists — to remain true to the ideal which is the attempt to understand the world, and the truth about how we are governed, and explain that to the voters who need this information to discharge their responsibilities in a democracy.

that imperative sometimes appears to collide with the business realities of journalism. just means we have to try harder.

and anonymous sources, by the way, are sometimes necessary to doing this work.

My pleasure being along for the ride. Thanks to you and to all in the room for your interest!

Amy Goodman, Helen Thomas, Sy Hersch, Woodward the younger.

See, this is the thing: Jerry Lewis is often listed as an Abramoff casualty, and yet… he still wields power, holds office, and lives freely among us. In fact, the USAttorney in charge of his case was fired and the unit investigating him was disbanded. So, while you are not alone in holding him up as an example of the success of the Public Integrity Unit, I don’t believe having to shuffle massive campaign contributions into a legal defense fund qualifies as being punished for wrongdoing.

Same goes for Doolittle. Sure, he’s decided not to run for re-election, but that doesn’t mean his pension, health care, and personal freedom have been affected. At all.

we talk about topics that most interest our host David Gregory. but we have complete latitude to say whatever we want. my goal is to offer the sharpest possible analysis of political developments in a value-neutral way — that is, without offering normative judgments of which policies or election outcomes that OUGHT to occur…

I look forward to reading this book!!!!! THANK YOU!!!

You both are digging and giving and I as a voter and reader really appreciate this!!!! THIS SHARING!

To that end, I highly recommend Myra McPherson’s book on I.F. Stone. We had her on for a book salon a while ago, and it was a fantastic and thoughtful read about investigative journalism. Very, very thought provoking on a number of levels.

If you haven’t read it, I think you both would enjoy it.

You do a good job. And are clear and calm and interesting. And I am hungry for insight and frustrated as hell at what has heppened to this country. So keep on keeping on.

Thanks to both of you.

Oh, I realize anonymous sources are sometimes necessary. Fact is, they’re sometimes necessary in blogging, too.

But there’s a great difference between granting anonymity out of necessity, and granting anonymity out of default (as both Russert and Novak do) or granting confidentality without a source actually asking for it (Cooper) or protecting an anonymous source after you learn that your source is lying about what he said (Judy).

Moreover, every single journalist in the trial who had to define the terms that are supposed to be building blocks of the source-reporter relationship (on and off the record, deep background, background) gave a different definition.

Journalists routinely point to these trappings of the profession to explain why bloggers’ work is untrustworthy and theirs is trustworthy, but there’s little acknowledgment that the profession is nowhere near as professional as journalists claim, and unlike other professions that point to codes of ethics, journalists choose not to enforce theirs. There are a lot of great journalists who always follow the ethics of their profession, but they’re often not the celebrated ones.

I’m not sure whether I buy it or not, but Patrick Grey and his son made a very credible accusation that Woodward made up Deep Throat.

Do you guys vote?

Some reporters don’t, and I’m always interested to know.

Not how you vote, of course, or for whom! Just whether you do.

anonymous sources, by the way, are sometimes necessary to doing this work.

I agree — but this comment is also why I wish you had included a profile of a DC journalist or two in this book. To talk about backroom power in DC, without discussing how the media operates in its own “backroom” ways, seems incomplete.

That “sometimes” is the critical word. Having a journalist explore how he or she decides whether and when to employ such sources would have been a nice addition to the book.

Maybe for your sequel volume . . .

Thanks for coming this afternoon for the Book Salon. You’re welcome to stay as long as you like, and feel free to drop in to visit anytime!

Although I think the hook isn’t out of Doolittle’s mouth just yet, given that recent FBI raid on his house and his office — both for him and his wife and several staffers. One of his top aides entered a cooperation plea, so I think there may be a lot more to come for him.

I would love some answers on where things may or may not be on Jerry lewis, but they have been hard to come by…since the USAtty firings, no one wants to stick their neck out to talk about any of this. Which is part of the reason, I think, we haven’t seen much reporting on it. The retribution factor in terms of firings and other payback is too much of a risk for public disclosures.

Thanks for joining us. Apologize if we were too sharp.

Myra is a spectacularly good journalist. she was for many years a colleague of my late father at The Washington Post…

Some evidence: Abramoff, Ney, Ted Stevens, Jerry Lewis, etc.

sorry, I was away for a moment. Abramoff gift-wrapped Ney. Ted Stevens hasn’t been convicted of anything yet. Jerry Lewis, as Teddy points out above, is as yet untouched, as are Doolittle, Conrad Burns and Tom Delay.

After the supposed thousands of hours that Abramoff has spent writing out everything he knows, where the bodies are buried, so to speak, having netted Ney and Michael Scanlon doesn’t strike me as being indicative of any massive, or even serious, effort, to go after the most corrupt players.

John, Jerry, Thank you for stopping by the Lake today and spending the afternoon with us discussing your book.

Peterr, Thank you very much for Hosting this great Book Salon.

Everyone, if you haven’t had the chance to buy John’s and Jerry’s book yet, there is a link above.

Thanks all.

i try to vote and usually do. but i am embarrassed to say that sometimes i fail to obtain absentee ballots and then fail to vote because i have to work all day….bad example for my kids, i’m afraid

OT Woodward on 60 Minutes

Kirk, just reading this. 800,000 Iraqi dead. 4,000+ American soldiers dead. 30,000+ wounded. How many refugees? How many suicides? How many broken homes? How many homeless? First Gulf War there were never any estimates of Iraqi dead by the press I noticed. Now it is minimal if mentioned at all. Rachel Maddow said on her show average prime time news show mentions Iraq for a few minutes each week. Where is the outrage? Where is the sense of morality? The demonstration of it? Desensitization to the horrors.

Politics not news. Xenophobia of the American people? Denial? Ego-Power-Defiant Manipulation of this administration and corporations? And a 4th estate that, now that our 3 branches are so out of balance and biased by party or money, we need it more than ever, and unfortunately it has colluded and enabled.

Titillation and ratings, not honor and integrity and the common good. So much kool-aid.

I have signed up as a Permanent Voter From Home, as we Californians are called when we always want an absentee ballot mailed to us. I highly recommend it, if it’s offered in your jurisdiction. Makes voting much easier, especially if you live in a referendum-addicted state and locality, as I do.

Thanks for a wonderful chat, gentlemen. Your book will be a valuable reference for me. It sits on my blogdesk now, and I expect it will stay there for years to come as it accumulates post-its, bookmarks, and dogears.

Of course, it’s got a saltshaker next to it, as well. *g*

Thank you, Peter, for a great introduction and chat.

Citizen emptywheel:

Beautifully stated even if it gives too much of the farm away to Russert…and this book and the two authors are perfect examples of the political economy of “journalism” today and why we are fighting a third straight general election against incumbant fascism.

How interesting is that. TY.

Maybe for your sequel volume . . .

I was thinking that myself, Peterr!

Interesting discussion.

Thanks especially to Teddy and emptywheel for so many penetrating questions and trenchant observations. Enjoyed dakine01 and CHS contributions as well.

Learned more from each of you than from the authors themselves – too much beltway CW and credulity for my tastes. (as Peterr intimated in his fine intro). But thanks to Jerry and John for participating and enabling this discussion.

Always enjoy the book salons – best past of FDL! (thanks Bev)

my sentiments exactly….. imo harwood slants a bit right and leans repug…..

Thanks all for the interesting Book Salon today. I’m still on the fence about this book, in particular because of Rahm Emmanuel; I’m not hearing that anybody has written or discussed in development of the text Emmanuel’s gross miscalculation about Duckworth and what Beltway factors and deals might have led him to such a pass.

I also have my concerns because the Beltway seems to screw with powers of observation, or so it appears from flyover country. We cannot discern what force is at play that causes groupthink; a pointed example was the Libby trial, at which commenter/blogger emptywheel was credentialed, and shared with us observations of behavior on the part of media that I can only label as a form of groupthink.

Even on August 29th, while monitoring CNBC as details regarding the vice presidential candidate as yet unnamed became published, I could see a change in tone or tenor as the situation developed. At first what seemed like genuine surprise (and in the case of Greg Valliere, what appeared to be disgust and disbelief) gradually morphed into acceptance as the networks began to “own” their coverage of the story. How do we as outsiders to our own government sort out the groupthink from the media branding of coverage from the propaganda and again from the truth, when we don’t own the pipeline and have difficulty holding any one inside the Beltway accountable, whether media or government?

Unfortunately, he just doesn’t use it [Rahm’s considerable hustle talent] the way I would prefer, all the time. (But I’m sure you knew that…)

Yup!! That qustion was totally rhetorical.