Eisner and Ovitz

It hasn't really made it out of the business pages much, but Disney--and Chairman Michael Eisner--are going through tumultuous times right now. The Comcast bid is almost a sideshow, although it is very much a major story in terms of the entertainment conglomerate it would build. Everybody wants the "free" product to put on their delivery system, and as the delivery system Comcast eyes Disney's product like a cat eyes dangled yarn.

But what's much more interesting is the personal fallout for Eisner as Disney's star declines. Before Comcast's bid, Pixar broke away in a rather nasty end to a long and fruitful partnership, essentially claiming that Pixar movies are some of the most profitable in history entirely because of Pixar (I wouldn't necessarily disagree, either):

"The truth is that there has been little creative collaboration with Disney for years," Jobs said during a conference call with analysts to discuss the company's fourth quarter earnings.

"You can compare the creative quality of Pixar's last three films, for example, with the creative quality of Disney's last three animated films and gauge each company's creative abilities for yourself."

"We feel sick about Disney doing sequels," Jobs said. "If you look at the quality of their sequels, such as 'Lion King 1 1/2' and (the Peter Pan sequel 'Return to Neverland'), it's pretty embarrassing."

Iyiii! All of that is squarely directed at Eisner. So it's been a rough 2004 for him so far, and this week the roof caved in. A shareholder lawsuit developed from the insane severance bonus given to his friend Michael Ovitz, and as part of the trial process, previously confidential correspondence was made public. The letters actually don't paint Eisner as a bad guy in the days that Ovitz worked for him; in fact they show someone struggling to reconcile his company duty with his friendship for a man who seemed to have taken advantage of Eisner's favor. Different pieces have come out in different accounts; some of the best material is here and here. The results of all this bad news are now becoming clear: 30% of shareholders want Eisner out. WaPo shows a little schadenfreude, running a fictional letter from AT&T CEO Michael Armstrong (fitting the Mike theme) commiserating with Eisner:

You're 61, you've got no succession plan, your corporate governance stinks, you've made a guy named Disney an enemy, Steve Jobs jobbed you with Pixar. Your rep is as underwater as Atlantis.

There's a lot of serious business going on in these deals, breakups and lawsuits, but I'm mostly struck by how small minded and petty most of the players in this drama appear to be. I'm not sure what shows more chutzpah--trying to get your company to pay for your daughter's bat mitzvah at House of Blues, or reprimanding your president for doing so, and then firing him to the tune of 140mil. We should all screw up so badly one day! Oy!

The Prius is winning

If there's one thing that constitutes great news in my book, it's that Prius sales are way up; Hummer sales are way down. Until Rasheed Wallace left the state, Oregon was a place with many Hummers, especially in Portland (Sheed had five, apparently). Ironically, the Prius is also a big car in Portland, one of the biggest buyers if not the biggest in terms of where they're bought. I've driven Priuses the city owns, and they're very good cars, in my view. The panel display in the center of the dash takes a little getting used to, as does the fact that the engine goes dead silent in town, like at lights--but all the important stuff is just the same. It handles as well as any small car, has decent room for legs, doesn't need plugging in, goes as fast as other cars, and goes many, many miles between fuelups. I look forward to seeing some of the larger model hybrids, slated to come out in the next couple of model years in several different makes.

Anything that portends the demise of the utter pretentiousness of urban Hummer pilots in an urban setting, I'm for. I suggest a revamp of marketing strategy, starting with a new slogan:

Give yourself a Hummer, just like you always wanted to but never could before!

You could run them back to back with Cialis commercials.

How to make not cooperating look like cooperating

Scott McClellan has none of the artistry of Ari Fleischer, the poetry of Donald Rumsfeld, or even the bumbling, addled humor of the President himself. He just goes out there and puts his prefigured "response to this kind of question, in whatever form and however oft repeated" into play until they move on. Sometimes, as we've seen in GuardGate, he'll throw you as many evasions as you've got followups for. Not to make yet another Nixon parallel, but he reminds me an awful lot of the late Ron Ziegler, who had a rather harsher tongue and better tenacity with the details, but the same blithe way in which he'd throw out complete rubbish and demand it be taken as a serious answer. Who can forget "the other statements are now inoperative?" Classic.

So Scott's had as bad a 2004 as anyone in the White House, and today's gaggle was a chance for McClellan to wildly attempt spin and innuendo on not one but two commissions bugging the President for time and/or documents. The media start with the Iraqi intelligence hearing:

Q Totally different topic. The Senate Intelligence Committee apparently yesterday voted to subpoena the White House for documents if you don't voluntarily turn them over in the next three weeks. Are you planning to do that?

MR. McCLELLAN: One, I'm not aware of any formal request that has been made. And even though the Senate Intelligence Committee does not have jurisdiction over the White House because of a separation of powers issue here, which we discussed earlier in regards to the 9/11 Commission, we have cooperated with their investigation. We provided access to relevant documents and access to White House staff, as well. And we believe we have met the needs of the committee's works. And we understand there may be additional requests and we will be glad to discuss those with the committee.

Curiously, Pat Roberts of the committee took pains to release this statement, a clever bit of non-denial denial about this article in the NYT that purports of a vote to subpoena within 3 weeks if the administration doesn't comply. Unfortunately for the reporter, either he heard decision and wrote vote, or he was told vote and it really wasn't one. Which led to this correction that hangs the reporter out to dry. But note that Roberts relies on the fact that the meeting was closed door, and the disinforming quality of the initial report regarding a vote, to avoid commenting on whether the panel did indeed agree that they need some documents soon or they will issue a subpoena to get it.

Which is what makes McClellan's comments so absurd. He does a fairly nice job of referring to the discussion as not being a formal request, which it isn't. But not leaving well enough alone, he lets everyone know that the White House doesn't HAVE to cooperate, but they are--which leaves open the question of why a GOP-run committee would discuss the need to consider upping the ante in order to get documents. There is a bit more understanding at the White House regarding what the committee seeks, than just that "there may be some additional requests." And that point dismissed with the preset answer, a followup request for any kind of clarity gets...the preset answer:

Q Is that a no or yes?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, again, we'll be glad to discuss that with the committee. I'm not aware of any formal request.

Then in reference to the 9/11 Commission, McClellan's response is this:

When Dr. Rice met with the commission, there was a request for her to meet with all the commission, and she gladly accepted. There was weeks, weeks of notice on that meeting, yet only five members of the commission showed up for that meeting. There was another NSC official that met with the commission and only four members showed up. So I think you need to look at their past conduct in the context of this issue that has been brought up.

What was the question?

Tell us why the President only wants to give the 9/11 Commission an hour to question him

I think McClellan is primarily trying to explain why having the president there for just an hour, and with just two of the commission members present, is normal--why, they're just so busy! (Perhaps because they only just got a 60 day extension today, and that after significant duress at the politicking hands of Denny Hastert). But what he's also saying is that these guys don't even show up half the time; why should the President give up his? So now it's not that the Commission is busy; it's the President who's too busy for three or four commissioners. See where he pouts about giving weeks, WEEKS of notice, and then only five people show up for Condi Rice? Ungrateful commissioning bastards! It came to me as I read that paragraph, as apparently it did to someone in the room who later asked the very question, Could we not assume the members of the Commission would mark their calendars for the day the President showed up?

Further questioning suggests that other Commission members are a little jealous of not getting to meet the President and ask questions, even for an hour, and McClellan's response is right on time:

Look at their past conduct when people make those comments.

Q Pardon me?

MR. McCLELLAN: I think you should look at their past conduct when people make those comments. I just pointed out to you some facts. And I would ask you, why are you not reporting the fact that we have provided unprecedented cooperation to this commission?

What do you say when you're stonewalling, and someone asks you why you're stonewalling? Lather, rinse repeat:

MR. McCLELLAN: What's been agreed to is that the chairman and vice chairman will meet with the President in private session. But, I mean, look at their past conduct. They've had ample opportunity -- and that's the whole point here, when I say that we have great confidence in the chairman and vice chairman to share all that information with the other commissioners so that they can get their -- so that they can get their work done.

Q -- saying the commission is not committed to its task?

MR. McCLELLAN: You would have to ask those individuals that question.

Q Are you suggesting some members of the commission are not committed to the task?

MR. McCLELLAN: I'm not suggesting anything. I'm just -- I'm reporting facts that I don't think are necessarily being reported in this discussion.

Q Scott, can you articulate the reason for only wanting to speak to the chairman and vice chairman?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I just talked to you about how this is an extraordinary move by a sitting President of the United States to do this, and how we are confident that the chairman and vice chairman will be able to share all this information with the rest of the commissioners. There is an important principle involved in this discussion, and that is the separation of powers issues. This is a legislative body.

Nevertheless, the President agreed to the request to meet with the chairman and the vice chairman. And he looks forward to meeting with them because he believes their work is very important. And he wants to help them complete their work in a timely manner. I would say that we are also working in a very timely manner to make sure that the commission has the information they need. We are bending over backwards to make sure that they are able to do a thorough job and complete their work in a timely manner. And that's the way we have worked from day one.

Right on, Edwards

I was not able to find the California debate on TV tonight, which kinda sucked. But from the excerpts and analyses I know enough: good for John Edwards for not loading up on Kerry. It will probably cost him his shot at the nomination, but it makes excellent long term sense, it's who he seems to be as a person, and for God's sake--it's what we want, isn't it? Some people are disappointed at the lack of eye gouging during this Democratic season, and I share the sense that Kerry needs to be well-vetted before being released onto the general public. But trust me, we will be so sick to death of the nasty tone of the campaign, by about June. Please let's just enjoy someone who projects the virtue of polite discourse, even if he's totally faking it.

I think an underrated part of the reason that the Democratic challengers and the party as a whole are doing so well on a general favorability basis relative to Bush, is the lack of heavy bleeding since Iowa. And if you credit Howard Dean with giving Democrats a spine, John Edwards should get the credit for tempering that legitimate anger with a little class, and forcing everyone (even Dean) to move in that direction as well. I figured out what the differences were between the candidates. I didn't need them screaming at each other or digging dirt. And when everybody's focused on looking their best instead of making the others look worse by comparison, it elevates the debate and gives people more confidence that you're up for the job you're applying to. Kucinich and Sharpton are the soul and the crazy uncle of the party, both of whom you'd never actually hand the country's keys to, but their perspectives are a core part of the Democratic tradition. Kerry is the white collar elite Demoract with gravitas, and Edwards the smooth ladykilling guy with the wavy hair who talks plain and came up from nothin', just like you. As a group, they appeal broadly and have turned a moribund general election contest into a fight for the soul of the country. As it should be.

Evenhandedness Dept.

One of the key dismissals of partisanship is the way that supporters can excuse behavior within their own party, that they would excoriate were it to come from the "other side." And it's a valid charge--you lose credibility if you are universally apologetic to the sins of your own.

Sometimes it's easy, though: Corrine Brown, you're this week's Sister Souljah Object of Scorn Award winner. For your outright ignorance and downright bigotry while in a house of Congress, I give you this golden key to Trent Lott's poolhouse. If you're not sure who Corrine Brown is, or why she is being so honored, here's the dope (literally). I don't care which side of town you grew up on, it boggles the mind to think that someone can be elected to Congress without knowing that the phrase "all you [not my race] people look alike to me" is social poison. Rod Paige is a jackass for demonizing the NEA, but Corrine Brown's demeaning comments are truly disturbing. The sad thing is she's technically right--Noriega is indeed white. He's of Hispanic ethnicity, but the Census would tell you he's white.

But that doesn't even share a zip code with the real point--she's ignant! Where does she think a guy named NORIEGA might come from? And as screwed up as our Iraq policy is, we're spending billions on a bunch of nonwhites, so somehow I don't think it's that Haiti is full of black people as to why we're not going in. (It's because Haiti is desperately poor and thus offers no market, is in a region that is harmless at best beyond Cuba, and it really belongs to the French, and if something French wants to fall apart that's just groovy with the US. OK, and maybe because it's full of black people. But that's at the bottom of the list).

I think you can argue strongly for intervention into Haiti on grounds a lot better than by claiming it's a white conspiracy. And then to be so dismissively rude to members of the administration and one of her own colleagues...ugly. The apology came fairly quickly, which should minimize the blowback. But it was definitely a Democratic lowlight.

The Log Cabin is burning

From LAT comes this piece on where gay Republicans stand after Bush's endorsement of the FMA. Anecdotes don't tell the entire story, but it's hard to see how the gay GOP, as a bloc, would not take an assault on their freedoms very personally.

What shocks me a little is that, far from simply vowing to not vote GOP or even to vote Democrat on an individual basis, the Log Cabin is seeking out ways to reverse their advocacy programs, and begin working AGAINST Bush in battleground states like Missouri, New Hampshire, New Mexico and (see below) Ohio. It appears their efforts would be concentrated on reducing support for the amendment rather than Bush per se, but it's going to be hard to do the former without affecting the latter.

Another point raised that I had not thought of--what about family and friends of gay Republicans?

"The day word came out that he was going to support a constitutional amendment, my phone was ringing off the hook, with straight Republican friends saying, 'He just lost my vote,'" said Rebecca Maestri, a lesbian activist who works on Iraqi redevelopment issues for the U.S. Agency for International Development.

Even if the FMA has little chance of passing or even coming up for a vote before the election, the more I cogitate on Bush's decision, the more it looks like a loser to me. And I don't mean an issue on which he is on the wrong side; I mean an issue that will cause him to lose the election.

"Ohio is the new Florida"

I wish I had written it down here while I've been thinking it, because now I have to use an outside source to express the sentiment that Ohio will be THE key state in 2004. Of course, Ron Fournier does a better job from on the ground in Youngstown, than I can from my cushy little office. But we agree, and I'll take credit for that. This is my favorite electoral college predictor so far, and you can clearly see by its reckoning that even with fewer states than Al Gore won in 2000, grabbing Ohio from Bush singlehandedly seals the deal, all else on the map being equal. In other electoral news, John McCain said on Larry King last night that he believed Arizona could be in play--which is rather startling for a Republican from Arizona who officially supports Bush, to say on the record. From polling I've seen, things will have to improve for Kerry for that to happen, but it's still interesting. More on McCain's role in this election later...

A little content analysis

As regular visitors to my world know, in my morning walk through the virtual papers I look at reports of the same event as peddled by different news outlets, to see how they differ in their interpretation of what the story is. This morning's examples:

In Iraq, the Shiite cleric Sistani has agreed with the elections timeline suggested by the UN, that any earlier than the end of 2004 is untenable. Sistani pushes that envelope as far as possible, making that the deadline rather than the earliest feasible moment. This is really somewhat of a non-story; the main news of it is that Sistani is sticking by his word that he would abide by the UN's judgement on the situation. He wanted June 30; the US wanted sometime in 2005. If anything, it's a victory for the Bush administration, since not agreeing to the delay would have been a serious headache for them. Reuters gets it right, IMO, heading the story "Top Shi'ite Cleric Agrees to Delay in Iraq Poll." The word "delay" is perhaps loaded, since elections were never actually set in order to delay them--but as far as Sistani is concerned, it's a delay.

So how does the New York Times characterize the statement? "Iraqi Cleric Calls for Elections by Year's End," which is generally accurate--but the subhead reads "A revered Shiite cleric set the stage for a political confrontation with the U.N. and the U.S. occupation authorities." In what way does capitulation to external advice represent a setup for political confrontation? There is clearly risk still involved, and disagreement over timing--but Sistani's statement sets the stage for a lot less confrontation than insisting on the original timetable, doesn't it? No matter what Sistani does, the Times apparently wants to play up his role as a fly in the ointment.

The other story is about a fairly serious charge, in my opinion: a former British cabinet member under Tony Blair has alleged that her government bugged the offices of Kofi Annan during the run up to war, and has seen transcripts of Annan's conversations from them. The Times gets this head essentially right: Ex-Minister Says British Spies Bugged Kofi Annan's Office. That's clearly the story.

Fox opens their coverage of the issue not by relating the original charge of spying, but on the basis of Tony Blair's non-denial denial: Blair Calls Spy Charge 'Deeply Irresponsible'. Granted, the actual lede focuses on the original charge of espionage, but the headline skips right over that to get to the rebuttal. As with the Times story, there is a disconnect between the reporter of the story and the writer of the headline--usually an editor.

On a roll in crazy times

Wonkette is in high gear these days. Whether it's merely a surfeit of great source material to work from, or a peak period of performance for Ms Cox, lately it's been a must read, especially on gay marriage. I've really been moved by the things that people have expressed to Andrew Sullivan on the issue, and some of them are incredibly poignant. So it's highly therapeutic to switch over to the latest on the Federal No Ass-Fucking Amendment. Given the notable swing and miss from Drudge recently, she's also been having an excellent time with his breathless updates (this one too). Scott McClellan has provided plenty of blog fodder lately, and Wonkette is right on top of it, helpfully producing the very useful pressgaggle.com in the process. But my favorite stuff lately has been the campaign slogans. There are sets for both Kerry and BC04, and a link to several graphic media from John Edwards. There is such intensity in every news cycle now, it seems like, and we definitely need more sardonic wiseassity to place it into proper perspective. Bless you, ma'am.

Media solipsism

Ordinarily I get turned off when journalists look inside themselves for who and what they should be writing about, and how they write it--because when they do that they usually end up writing about the journey inside, and spin themselves into a cycle of self-reflective navel gazing. Usually the discussion is about what the media aren't covering or aren't covering properly, but all I can think of when reading it is, "aren't you still not covering what you think you should be covering, by writing this story about what you're not covering?"

That said, I rather enjoyed Josh Rosen's piece in BotP. Ironically, it's a step further removed from metajournalism; it's metajournalism about metajournalism: whether the media are even asking the right questions about who they are when they write about politics. The usual discussion is about bias vs objectivity, but Rosen adroitly points out the bias OF objectivity.

The way the media express "objectivity" is to claim oppositional status by way of course--that their job is to take the statements of their sources, assume they are at least in some fashion fraudulent or dissuasive, and provide a "translation" of the comments for the receiving public. But doing so necessarily places the media firmly inside the story itself, as another source for the telling. When Tim Russert says, "Now Senator, you know that's not true; you took money from the tobacco lobby from 1990 to 1999," Russert feels that he is setting the record straight and providing a service to his public by calling the Senator on his evasiveness or flat out mendacity.

But now Russert has provided his own take on the comments, creating an interactivity between reporter and subject that previously did not exist. Now you have side A's version, side B's version, and the reporter's interpretations of both. Of course to some extent this has always been true, but it's now become the virtuous norm rather than the sloppy exception, to the extent that Russert's version is the one Russert wants you to take away from the exchange--rather than your own evaluation of it based on the principals' comments alone.

I'm just using Russert as a stand-in, obviously; everyone seems to do it. But somewhere along the line, journalism has gone from descriptive to interpretive, which only seems to stoke partisan flavor as both sides compete for the favorable interpretation.

Rosen has his own blog here, by the way.

The righteousness of reciprocated wrongs

There's a peculiar quality of many humans that makes them justify doing something that they know is wrong, because others who do it are getting ahead of them unpunished (at least in their own perception). If that sounds like a critique on capitalist theory, it's much broader than that--and in any case, it transcends economic philosophy; it is apparently a universal response in all population dimensions. Even when there is no zero sum to the desired commodity, we sometimes just can't countenance seeing others receive ill-gotten gains. Looting is the classic example. It's not that TVs and tires aren't available, it's that others are bouncing four Michelins home, and you just KNOW they'll never be caught for it. Meanwhile, you can't get to work on 3 tires and a rim.

Politics works in much the same way during a campaign. Political ethics have become a delicate balance of what you can get away with, that you can conceivably blame the other side of also doing. In fact, that the other side is doing it is what you have to say when you announce that you're doing it: "I regret that I must make this decision, but I am forced to by my opponent, in order to fairly compete in this race." The Democrats are out in the lead on this one. John Kerry started the ball rolling by saying he simply couldn't afford to take on BC04 unless he went outside public financing limits for the primary season. Who did he blame? BC04, of course. "I regret having to sell out on the idea of limited campaign spending as a way to keep money as disinfluential as possible, but Bush has already totally sold out on it, so I'm covered." He's gotten away with it, generally. But that left Howard Dean in a quandry--declare himself outside the limits, blaming Bush AND Kerry, or stick to guns that he'd already drawn in opposition to no-limit financing. Dean gave up the matching money. He largely got away with it too, although certainly in part because there was just so much else to talk about with Dean.

So too in negative campaigning, another currency for which there is plenty to go around, but a limit to how much you can safely spend. Candidates eagerly wait for the first salvo from the opposition that frees them to fire back with whatever they have, under cover of "well he started it!" Kerry has pre-alibied his way through the latter stages of the primary campaign, as it became increasingly easy to focus his rhetoric on Bush. The ominous warning that "everything" would be on the table if BC04 attacked Kerry on national security was a basic tell--don't blame us for anything we say, because we warned them.

Because the race has been so lopsided on the Democratic side, the campaigning has taken place mostly against Bush, and has taken its toll. Even in Congress, the campaign has begun and members are delivering speeches unrelated to the purpose of their time allowance. At least that's what the GOP members say, and thus released, they vow to fight back. Does it matter that they are complaining about misuse of floor time and vowing to misuse it in righteous defiance? Heck no--they started it!

Even the battles of the surrogates are getting nasty early. It's going to be a long season.

The battle joined

Bush announces his support for the gay marriage ban amendment, and gay Republicans--led by Andrew Sullivan and the Log Cabin GOP--have made their break. Considering that the gay vote for Bush in '00 was estimated at over 1 million, this strikes me as a very risky strategy for the President. His most fervent base is now safely locked down, but based on the sharpness with which Sullivan has now repudiated Bush (not to mention his status as an opinion leader), I believe a huge chunk of those 1 million gay votes are in serious jeopardy. Furthermore, by taking a firm stance before Kerry does, and taking the more divisive road, he risks alienating the independent swings, who trend closer to the Democratic position on gay marriage and show less support for tampering with the Constitution than they do on the topic of bans in general.

There are pitfalls for Kerry as well, but the people he stands to lose are largely people he faced an uphill battle in reaching anyway. The entire South is now virtually unattainable for Kerry, and religious minorities may drift Bushward as well.

Despite the fact that a fair majority of Americans oppose the same thing that Bush does, it is quite a negative political statement to suggest using the Constitution to deny a sector of citizens rights given to all others. And it directly counteracts the GOP's hopeful charge that Democrats are all about "bitterness and anger," which ordinarily would be a fairly strong political attack. The Democrats can now correctly point to this issue as an example of anger, hatred and divisiveness from the right. Complaining about government policy makes you look like a whiner, but complaining about certain groups having too many rights makes you look like a Stormtrooper.

Finally, the timing of the announcement is horrible in my view. Last night Bush kicked off his campaign with a strongly worded speech that laid out the BC04 plan. Until this morning's announcement, the speech was the dominant news of the cycle, and the money quote--on Kerry's waffling--was being prominently run in every single news account of it that I read. Now that story is buried. Why not wait until Friday, when California's AG was set to do some of Bush's heavy lifting by heading to court to block San Franciscan licensure? Bush has come out of the gates talking tough, but the GOP's political team still appears to be in 2004 disarray.

Sharpton may speak at the convention,

but can he afford the hotel room when he gets there?

Massachusetts? They doing something about gay marriage too?

California is quickly leaving the Bay Colony in the dust when it comes to asserting a pre-national boundary on gay marriage. The Battle for Blessed Buggery in Boston (sorry, "Love" didn't work there) was to have come to a head in May at the latest, with another round of teeth-gnashing political calculus from the Legislature in March. Speaking of teeth-gnashing, the orthodonture bills of religious conservatives are skyrocketing as they breathlessly await President Bush's firm stand against the heathen.

But newly elected mayor Gavin Newsom--who rather narrowly won over an even more progressive candidate--followed the city's tradition as Expanded Rights Bellwether, USA by personally fronting thousands of same sex marriage licenses. Are they worth the paper they're printed on? Doubtful, at least at first, but surely no one who has one is getting rid of it if they're declared null. It's like a certificate of completion for protest, something you rarely get in civic disobedience. More often you have to tear up the license, or the court order, or the tax bill, or the tea. A handy keepsake of your rabid outlaw days!

Of course the newlyweds aren't to blame; they're taking what their local government offers them, gladly. It's obviously the city's mayor (and probably the City Attorney) who shoulders the load for establishing city policy in direct opposition to statute. Is it unusual and pretty radical for a new politician's first serious governing statement? You bet. Is it the right thing to do? Again, you bet. Picture yourself the clerk of an Alabama town in 1950, as yourself with today's perspective. If an African American steps to your office declaring the intent to vote, what's your call? To what lengths would you admit going, to preserve an order whose tradition is all that speaks for it? Newsom's response to charges of inopportune, impertinent civic bravado on his part:

"'Next year won't be the best time, and the year after won't be,' Newsom said. 'There are midyear elections, mayoral elections and governor elections. There will never be the best time. It's the same script.'"

That said, a central piece of civil disobedience is accepting the consequences of one's actions, and that they may be adverse. If Newsom takes that gracefully in the process of his protest, more power to him.

Switching from the philosophical to the political, California AG Lockyer is stuck in the middle, having to carry the state's case as defendant in San Francisco's suit, and receiving heat from Gubernor Schwarzenegger despite Arnie's lack of any authority to force the issue. Of course Lockyer would also like Schwarzenegger's job in 2006, although apparently this is just a stepping stone for Arnold anyway. Despite forcefully asserting his independence from the Gubernor on Sunday, on Monday he expedited the state's response to the lawsuit , so that it can be heard as early as Friday, if nothing else to get it over with, up and out of the state courts. Meanwhile, the city will just have to work through the horrible riots and civil unrest that have wreaked havoc in the city over Valentine's Day and through last week--the fires, the beatings, the blocking of traffic, the inevitable injuries and even deaths from this reckless, reckless undertaking. That's Schwarzenegger's take, anyway:

"'All of a sudden, we see riots, we see protests, we see people clashing. The next thing we know, there is injured or there is dead people. We don't want it to get to that extent,' the Republican said in his first appearance as governor on a Sunday talk show.

A number of protesters were escorted out of San Francisco City Hall on Friday when they tried to disrupt the weddings, but no one was arrested."

A big :rolleyes: to Arnold on that one. The rhetoric meter needs a little calibration still.

NEA a "terrorist organization?"

According to Rod Paige, yes.

Pushy? Yes. Overpoliticized? Yes. Hidebound, paranoid, sometimes counterproductive to student welfare? Yes, yes, yes. But a terrorist organization? That not only undermines the credibility of Paige's comments on the NEA, but cheapens the rhetoric from the administration on REAL terrorism.

John Kerry's best one-day news cycle reply: "This administration can't find one big terrorist in Pakistan, but according to them they've found 2.7 million of them, teaching our kids in US madrassas we call the public school system."

Update: Mark Kleiman points out that this is the 2nd time in two months Paige has made the periphery of the news, as another piece of Bush '00 campaign fodder was quietly exposed as bunk.

Sharpton on Nader

from NYT:

"Mr. Sharpton said in a telephone interview yesterday that he would campaign across the nation urging Democrats to reject Mr. Nader. 'The only reason he's running is either he's an egomaniac or as a Bush contract,' Mr. Sharpton said."

After the campaign is over, I'll gladly fork over 10 bucks for a comedy album of Sharpton's commentary.

Hat tip to Wonkette.

It's officially a dead heat

Now that Fox's polling has put Kerry and Bush in a literal tie for the presidency, the battle is officially on. It's helpful to view Fox as a lagging indicator, much as Newsweek tends to be a leading one. Also notable is Bush's approval rating, below 50% for the first time in the Fox polling.

The "wait until the nomination is locked up before spending money" approach BC04 had hoped to stick to is now also officially out the window, although it could be a safe bet that Kerry will have it locked up after Super Tuesday. Placing the start of the GOP ad push one news cycle after ST primary results are known, is a fairly obvious giveaway as to Karl Rove's perception of the Democratic race. My counsel to Kerry's staff and the DNC would be to spend some money right away on the 3rd to blunt the Bush attack. So far Kerry has been quick--almost too quick, IMO--to respond to comments from Bush supporters that even hint of disparagement. Kerry pre-attacked Bush's speech before the National Gubernors' Convention tonight, and wrote a letter to Bush (eagerly leaked to the press by Kerry aides) construing comments by Sen. Saxby Chambliss regarding Kerry's voting record on defense issues as attacks on his patriotism. The link between the two is rather thin, but the subtext is pretty clear, and Kerry seems ready to nip any definition of himself on those terms in the bud. There's also a very interesting subplot developing between Chambliss and Max Cleeland, who fought in '02 over a Senate seat and are now prime surrogates for their respective teams on this issue.

Alan Greenspan turns to drugs

At least, that's the only conclusion I'm able to reach, based on his comments to a credit union conference regarding consumer debt. "Good shape?" Be serious. Total consumer debt has doubled in the last 10 years, and personal bankrupcies set a record in 2003. Greenspan's muddled excuse is that low interest rates have allowed more people to buy homes and keep their payments low. That's certainly true, but only for those who locked in their rates--anybody with an adjustable is surely seeing the best rate they will get, right now. And focusing on real estate debt as the story in personal finance is ludicrous, when revolving credit runs about $13,000 per household. If 1.6 million households are going belly-up each year at these interest rates, what will happen when 2 or 3 basis points are added to the prime? Greenspan's no idiot--he's holding down rates as long as possible to ward off depression of consumer spending--so he's either been hypnotized by John Snow, or he's begun hitting the pipe. Those are pretty thick glasses--maybe it's for glaucoma.

PS--good to be back. I highly recommend Mt. Bachelor.