Why should we respect politicians who don't answer the questions they are asked?

By Richard K. Barry

Among the many things wrong with how the media covers politics is the way they so often give up on fairly simple "yes or no" / "A or B" type questions when their first attempt to get a straight answer from a politician is batted aside.

Recently, CNN's Wolf Blitzer was interviewing Nikki Haley, the Republican Governor of South Carolina, about the current field of contenders for the GOP presidential nomination. One of the questions was about the "disagreement" between Mitt Romney and Rick Perry on whether or not climate change is man made.

As the Washington Post reports the divide:

Apparent front-runner Mitt Romney believes the world is getting warmer and that humans contribute to the pattern. Texas Gov. Rick Perry on Wednesday called that "a scientific theory that has not been proven."

Okay, Perry doesn't like science. He knows this view will appeal to a lot of idiots who also call themselves Republicans. I don't care.

But when Governor Haley was asked which side of this debate she came down on, she did what many politicians, of all stripes, do all too often. The way she answered was to say something like "what Americans really care about are jobs."

I know why she avoided the question. Giving a direct answer would have perhaps suggested support for either Romney or Perry, and she's not ready to go there. I don't even know if she has a stated opinion on the matter, which, if she did, would only make her answer more foolish.

It is well known that politicians are trained to say whatever they want to say no matter what question is asked. It even has a name. It's called "message discipline." I'm not sure, though, why any self-respecting journalist would embarrass himself by having a direct question ignored.

Think about how you'd feel if in the real world you asked someone what time it was and they answered by saying that it was supposed to rain this afternoon. Welcome to the world of politics.

Perversely, we even consider good message discipline to be the mark of a talented politician and the approach of answering questions too directly the sign of a political neophyte.

When Haley dodged the question, Blizter should have quickly said, "would you mind answering my question?" And then, every time she failed to answer, he should have stopped and respectfully asked that she try again.

I think we could even give this approach a name. It would be called "question discipline." Whenever a politician came on an interview program they would be told what to expect, that they answer direct questions or the interview would not move on.

I know some in the media already do this, but not nearly enough.

I also know I'm dreaming and that this will never happen, but our political discourse would be better if it did. And the only way it will ever change is if journalists start doing their jobs differently.

(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

Karl Rove on the perils of GOP radicalism

By Richard K. Barry 



Somehow Karl Rove has become my "go-to-guy" on assessing the relative radicalism and potential "un-electability" of GOP candidates. When Karl gets nervous, I'm having a good day. In fact, The Wall Street Journal is even a bit spooked by this Bachman/Perry surge, so I'm having a very good day, but I digress. 



As Karl said recently on Fox News:

You don't want these candidates moving so right in the Republican primary that it becomes impossible for them to win the general election, because it becomes a self-defeating message in the primary.



People want to win. They don't want somebody who goes so far to the extremes of either party that they lack a chance to carry a victory off in November. 

 

My point just after Rick Perry got in the race was that he will serve to pull Romney further to the right. This is simply because Romney will now have an opponent powerful enough to force him to defend his right flank. By the time Romney becomes his party's nominee, which he will become, there will be an extensive record of things said he will wish he could take back. 



Romney will have no choice but to rise to Perry's bait and Rove will have been proven right: extremism in the defence of the Tea Party view of the world is no way to win in November 2012. 



Here's Rove saying exactly what is quoted above, but he looks uncomfortable saying it, and I like that.

(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

Random thoughts on the GOP presidential field

By Richard K. Barry

Michele Bachmann won the Ames Straw Poll. I understand that it's an important indicator of how a GOP presidential contender might fare over time. I get it. Although the fact that she barely beat Ron Paul, who is a perfect example of a crazy fringe candidate, doesn't exactly make the results unequivocally useful, as far as I can tell.

I understand that this will make it easier for her to raise money and to get some wind in her sails (and any number of other metaphors you might be able to think of).

But she is not going to win the Republican nomination. Conjuring up Dana Carvey's brilliant George Bush senior impersonation: "Not gonna happen."

It's still probably going to be Romney. I guess Texas Gov. Rick Perry's announcement complicates things, though I was intrigued by the assessment of a few pundits who thought that we would be able to tell very quickly if he was the real deal or not.

I'm not sure I know what that is supposed to mean. Does it mean that either all of the Tea Party /social conservative energy in the campaign comes to him more or less immediately, in which case he becomes the consensus choice anti-Romney? Or that a number of candidates continue to share the hard-right constituency, in which case his campaign never really takes off?

Maybe that's their point.

I must say that I loved Paul Begala's description of Perry as "the perfect candidate for those Republicans who viewed George W. Bush as just a little too cerebral."

But is that a problem?

Unkind as this may be, I could modify that famous H.L. Mencken quote to say that "nobody ever lost electoral ground overestimating the intelligence of the average Republican voter." So maybe being duller than George won't be a bad thing for Perry.

Judging from Perry's campaign launch speech, which contained every standard fare Tea Party / social conservative speaking point, he will not be doing anything to alienate the radical right and he will not be forcing anyone on that side of things to think outside the box they've made for themselves. No, no, no.

And as I suggested yesterday, if you base your campaign on pandering to the radical right, you might be able to win the GOP nomination, but the general election would be a much harder nut to crack.

So here's the radical prediction of the day:

Perry's candidacy will eventually force Bachmann out. They appeal to the same constituency and he's going to be a better standard bearer.

Palin will endorse Perry. She has been saying all along that she will only run if no one meeting her criteria steps forward. Perry will be her guy and that will matter.

Most importantly, this will become a Romney - Perry street fight and the campaign will move decidedly to the right as Romney attempts to counter claims from Perry that he is not sufficiently conservative.

And, the prefect storm for the Democrats will have just gotten perfecter. The Tea Party and fellow travellers will have found their candidate. And, even if Romney is the eventual nominee, as I still think he will be, he will have had to tack so far to the right that independents will no longer be available to him.

In the short term, the Democrats have needed one effective, theoretically electable, Republican presidential contender to force Romney to the far right. Bachmann was never that contender. She's not that serious. Perry is.

(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

Scarborough's rant on Bachmann and why he's (partly) wrong

By Richard K. Barry

Joe Scarborough went off Friday morning on the idea that Michele Bachmann should be considered a serious contender for the Republican presidential nomination or for the whole ball of wax itself.

We are talking here about a guy who is a staunch Republican, a former member of the House of Representatives, venting about how disgusted he is that Bachmann is being taken so seriously by members of his own party in the early going.

In discussing her performance during Thursday night's Iowa debates, Scarborough had this to say:

Michele Bachmann's first answer was, I wish the federal government had defaulted. Had defaulted! A week after Americans lost -- some of them perhaps half their pensions. Lost half their 401ks. When trillions of dollars went down the drain with Americans suffering, she said that and got applause, and if anybody thinks that guys like my dad are going to be voting that way... they are out of their minds and they are too stupid to prognosticate, they are too stupid to run a Slurpee machine in Des Moines... Michele Bachmann is a joke. She is a joke. Her answer is a joke. Her candidacy is a joke...Iowa, if you let her win, you prove your irrelevance once again.

Okay, that's all very interesting that Morning Joe would go ballistic in this way on one of his party's own. Here is what is more interesting:

He also said that Bachmann was symbolic of a kind of presidential "conspiracy" that always happens in the early stages of presidential elections, where the base pushes for "somebody who is never going to win." And, he continued, the media "run articles on these people on the far right and point for a year about 'look how whacked out the Republican Party is."

But as much as I agree that it is unlikely Bachmann will even get the GOP nomination, let alone come close to winning the presidency, is this really just like other years? Isn't it actually the case that all of the Republican candidates are tripping over each other to prove how crazy, how extreme, they can be and that Bachmann is simply doing a better job of it?

The Democrats best hope is that by the time Romney is the nominee, the debate amongst Republicans will have for so long taken place in crazy-town that there won't be any way to recover - that Romney will have lost the ability to appear sane enough to independent voters - maybe even to a lot of voters in his own party.

Republicans like Scarborough are hoping against hope that this year will be like other years and that by the time things get serious the party will be able to do enough of a course correction to win the White House - that the GOP will be able to distance itself from its more radical elements.

I think Scarborough's anger and frustration is built on the fear that what should be a good chance for the Republicans is being squandered but that we've sort of seen this movie before and things could still work out for the GOP.

But is Joe really being honest with himself?

Yes, Michele Bachmann is an embarrassment to any thinking Republican, but long after she is gone, her impact, and the impact of the Tea Party, will be felt. The very nature of the debate from the right has, by now, been set in stone.

There is no going back and this is not like other years.

(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

New Jersey Gov. Christie gets one right on the irrational fear of Sharia Law

By Richard K. Barry

Okay, I don't like Gov. Chris Christie. I've said before that I think he's a bully and I've been disgusted by his union bashing. But he is an effective politician and when he occasionally gets something right, it is a thing of beauty.

Such was the case when he defended the appointment of Sohail Mohammed to the state bench despite the fact that it angered some wackos on the right who seem to see the threat of Sharia Law wherever they look.

Christie called such concerns "crap." He went on to tell reporters that he rejected complaints that have been made that Sohail Mohammed is unfit to be a judge because he defended Muslim Americans who were wrongly arrested post- 9/11, saying that:

Ignorance is behind the criticism of Sohail Mohammed. He is an extraordinary American who is an outstanding lawyer and played an integral role in the post-September 11th period in building bridges between the Muslim American community in this state and law enforcement.

And in addressing frequently heard comments by conservatives who fear that Sharia Law will come to America he said:

Sharia Law has nothing to do with this at all, it's crap. The guy is an American citizen. Sharia Law business is crap and I'm tired of dealing with the crazies. It's just unnecessary to be accusing this guy of things just because of his religious background.

Too bad Christie hasn't jumped into the Republican presidential nomination race, as some thought or still think he might. It would be fun to see him take on Herman Cain who has made quite an effort to fire up his base by suggesting that we need to actively oppose Sharia Law coming to America because, apparently, that's going to be such a big problem for us.

Christie's politics aside, there really are potential Republican presidential nominees who know that in this go round you have to be more than a little insane, or pretend to be, to be seriously considered. If Christie got in, he'd be dealing with the crazies every day and that is something for which he seems to have little patience.

Here's the clip of Christie addressing the press on the issue:

(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

Maybe Cain should stick to business, something he apparently understands

By Richard K. Barry

One of the more interesting things about the politics of presidential nomination races is the motivation of "no hope" candidates. We know that there are some candidates, perhaps like Tim Pawlenty, who should be a serious contender but appears to be devoid of momentum of any kind, at least at the moment. This is not what I mean. Not doing well in the campaign is not the same as never really having had any expectation of doing well.

Similarly, Newt Gingrich, as pathetic a campaign as he has run, would have to be considered a serious candidate. Jon Huntsman may be polling in the single digits, but he's a serious person. Sarah Palin may have no real shot despite what she seems to think, but, in fairness, she's not really a "no hoper."

I'm thinking here about someone like Herman Cain, he of the dumbass comment about how he should be president because "I'm not a professional politician. I'm a professional problem solver."

I've been telling a really corny joke lately about this knock on "professional politicians." I say that if I needed surgery, I would not be pleased to have the person about to do the work announce that he was not a professional surgeon. I would suggest he bring me one. When it comes to running the country, I want a professional politician, and if you are not one, bring me one.

Yeah, I know Cain made himself a lot of money managing a big pizza company, so, apparently, that means he should be president. Not for me, thank you.

This conceit in America that running a business is qualification enough for succeeding in elected office boggles my mind. It completely misunderstands what is required of a successful politician.

We so devalue the work that politicians do that we often delude ourselves into thinking that anyone could do it. Sorry folks, but that is simply not true.

If you want proof of what an utter lack of political skill looks like, consider Cain's recent grossly insensitive comments about immigration:

I just got back from China. Ever heard of the Great Wall of China? It looks pretty sturdy. And that sucker is real high. I think we can build one if we want to! We have put a man on the moon, we can build a fence! Now, my fence might be part Great Wall and part electrical technology... It will be a twenty foot wall, barbed wire, electrified on the top, and on this side of the fence. I'll have that moat that President Obama talked about. I would put alligators in that moat.

Now, there are two possibilities that suggest themselves to me when assessing Cain's words. Either he has a really stupid and inappropriate sense of humor or he is a dangerous fool -- maybe both.

And, to get back to my original point, why is he in this thing? I can't imagine that he has ever really thought he might win the nomination. Maybe some kinds of egos never really get it .

Maybe the point is that some people just can't stand the idea of a stage without them on it.

Or maybe he really does think that running a big pizza company, while otherwise devoid of any political experience, makes him an ideal candidate.

I just don't know.

Anyway, here's the clip of Cain giving us his views on immigration. Not funny. Not appropriate. Just embarrassing.

(Cross-posted to Lippmann's Ghost.)