One of my great peeves with the mainstream press is their love of the speculative piece. This New York Times article is a prime example. The article is a reaction piece to Karl Rove's recent statement that Hillary Clinton would be the Democratic nominee for President in 2008.
On its own, that's a story. But the meat of the story, though, is about the reaction to it on behalf of John Edwards' peripatetic campaign manager Joe Trippi. Now the focus of the story shifts to whether Rove was trying to sabotage Mrs. Clinton or trying to ensure she would be the nominee by rallying Democrats around her.
However, there's no other substance to the story. We don't know Rove's motivation, nor do we know if his words matter enough to Democrats to move them one way or another. So really, what's the point?
8.28.2007
8.24.2007
Internal Partisan Blogger Wars
What a mess this could turn out to be. The Politico reports here that OpenLeft.com is actively trying to encourage primary challengers against what the blog's operator calls "Bush Dog" Democrats. Apparently "Bush Dogs" are Democrats in Congress who sided with President Bush on Iraq.
The blogosphere defintely has the potential to shape the political agenda, but I'm not convinced this is the healthiest way to do so. This blogger is basically stepping into the role of a party committee. By encouraging candidates to run and then committing resources (publicity in this case instead of money) to them, the blog becomes a quasi-party. But if everyone can do this, suddenly the party fractures into a million self-interested hacks and no candidate can possibly have a mandate from his or her partisans.
The other factor of concern here is that these "Bush Dog" Democrats tend to be sincere moderates in sincerely moderate districts. The kind of districts that would vote Republican in November if the Democratic nominee's agenda went too far to the left. Dangerous for the Democrats, very dangerous.
The blogosphere defintely has the potential to shape the political agenda, but I'm not convinced this is the healthiest way to do so. This blogger is basically stepping into the role of a party committee. By encouraging candidates to run and then committing resources (publicity in this case instead of money) to them, the blog becomes a quasi-party. But if everyone can do this, suddenly the party fractures into a million self-interested hacks and no candidate can possibly have a mandate from his or her partisans.
The other factor of concern here is that these "Bush Dog" Democrats tend to be sincere moderates in sincerely moderate districts. The kind of districts that would vote Republican in November if the Democratic nominee's agenda went too far to the left. Dangerous for the Democrats, very dangerous.
8.21.2007
Thompson's Eleventh Hour
Fred Thompson is the default leader in the GOP race for the presidency, that much is clear. No other candidate can unite the Republicans as Thompson can, and no other candidate from the party can even compete with the Democrats running right now. Thompson is the only candidate who can overcome the GOP's Charisma Gap.
But the only problem is . . . Thompson hasn't officially announced his candidacy yet. Primaries are just about six months away, meaning that filing deadlines in a number of states will hit in October. So Thompson has to raise money, but also get signatures on petitions. As this Washington Post article states, Thompson's expected September announcement leaves him precious little time to get signatures.
So as Thompson has wanted to avoid scrutiny and play above the political game, his non-candidacy is starting to become a liability. Thompson needs to announce or back off if the GOP has any chance in 2008.
But the only problem is . . . Thompson hasn't officially announced his candidacy yet. Primaries are just about six months away, meaning that filing deadlines in a number of states will hit in October. So Thompson has to raise money, but also get signatures on petitions. As this Washington Post article states, Thompson's expected September announcement leaves him precious little time to get signatures.
So as Thompson has wanted to avoid scrutiny and play above the political game, his non-candidacy is starting to become a liability. Thompson needs to announce or back off if the GOP has any chance in 2008.
7.09.2007
And this is news because . . . .
Today's New York Times has an article about how the 2008 Presidential election is playing . . .in France. I don't know why this is newsworthy, quite honestly. Link here: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/09/us/politics/09web-healy.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
One important element in the backstory is this line: " Much of the interest in ‘08 comes from the serious disaffection here for the current American president." So that's it! Ah, this article is another opportunity to take shots at President Bush in a veiled fashion.
Really, there's nothing newsworthy about the story.
One important element in the backstory is this line: " Much of the interest in ‘08 comes from the serious disaffection here for the current American president." So that's it! Ah, this article is another opportunity to take shots at President Bush in a veiled fashion.
Really, there's nothing newsworthy about the story.
2.21.2007
Welcome to Tier 3, Nancy Boyda
The national parties set priorities for where their money goes: Tier 1 is the big-time, Tier 2 is for candidates who might have a shot, and Tier 3 is for everyone else. Nancy Boyda and Carol Shea-Porter just placed themselves on Tier 3.
By foregoing money for the DCCC's "Frontline" program which funnels logistical support and campaign cash to vulnerable incumbents, Boyda and Shea-Porter have distanced themselves from their party. Good luck with those leadership posts, ladies. Those will not happen, now or ever.
The two also make a point about the state of play in national politics. During the 1990's and even as recently as 2002, national party targeting was a great value to candidates. Now, you have some who don't even want to take campaign cash.
More than anything, I think we can chalk this up to the Pelosi-Hoyer rift among Democrats in the House. If you're on Pelosi's side, you're probably looked upon askance by Hoyer. And remember that Hoyer was one of the masterminds behind the DNC/DCCC 50-State Strategy that helped Democrats take the House last year.
By foregoing money for the DCCC's "Frontline" program which funnels logistical support and campaign cash to vulnerable incumbents, Boyda and Shea-Porter have distanced themselves from their party. Good luck with those leadership posts, ladies. Those will not happen, now or ever.
The two also make a point about the state of play in national politics. During the 1990's and even as recently as 2002, national party targeting was a great value to candidates. Now, you have some who don't even want to take campaign cash.
More than anything, I think we can chalk this up to the Pelosi-Hoyer rift among Democrats in the House. If you're on Pelosi's side, you're probably looked upon askance by Hoyer. And remember that Hoyer was one of the masterminds behind the DNC/DCCC 50-State Strategy that helped Democrats take the House last year.
XM-Sirius Merger and the FCC
The New York Times reports that the nation's two satellite radio companies would merge. (Personal disclosure: I'm an XM subscriber and miss my XM144 NASCAR channel, now jumped ship to Sirius)
What does this mean in a democratic system? First and foremost, the Federal Communications Commission has something to say about this deal. The FCC, when Michael Powell was chair, made some public statements about their interest in regulating the content of satellite radio. Powell's comments were on the heels of the infamous Janet Jackson exposure at the Super Bowl, of course, and now that time has passed and Powell has moved on his unique brand of puritanism has gone away.
But the FCC would still like to be empowered in satellite radio, and their ability to broker or dismantle the deal might be the way to do it. I predict the fight will be a long one.
It's not a long bridge to content, either. The FCC's main interest is in monopoly control, and they have a point. The equivalent would be Coke and Pepsi trying to merge, as they are the two dominant powers in the market. In fact, it's worse in the case of XM-Sirius, since they are the ONLY two content providers in satellite radio. A 100% market share awaits the combined company.
If the FCC does approve the satellite radio monopoly, then their allowance may take the same form that the feds created for television airwaves: treating it as a distributable utility, subject to all regulation government sees fit. That could mean limiting choice of channels or content, or both.
Part of the reason for satellite radio's recent success has been those who want uncensored content. XM's Opie & Anthony/Ron & Fez shows and Sirius' Howard Stern/Bubba TLS have been magnets to both services (though Major League Baseball for XM and the National Football League for Sirius have likely drawn the most subscribers) for people who want content they cannot get on terrestrial radio. If the FCC steps in, it may effectively squash any content difference between terrestrial and satellite radio, effectively numbing the market value of satellite.
If the merger does not go through, though, another problem arises. Sirius' debt management is awful, having borrowed big to secure the NFL, NASCAR, and Stern contracts. Sirius' stock price hovers below $5. XM, with more subscribers and a softer debt load, has stock price around $14 but it's still likely not enough to sustain a long-term profit. The merger could, through cost-cutting and economies of scale, make the joint venture profitable and thus viable over the long term. Without a merger, one or both of the companies might fold within the next few years.
What does this mean in a democratic system? First and foremost, the Federal Communications Commission has something to say about this deal. The FCC, when Michael Powell was chair, made some public statements about their interest in regulating the content of satellite radio. Powell's comments were on the heels of the infamous Janet Jackson exposure at the Super Bowl, of course, and now that time has passed and Powell has moved on his unique brand of puritanism has gone away.
But the FCC would still like to be empowered in satellite radio, and their ability to broker or dismantle the deal might be the way to do it. I predict the fight will be a long one.
It's not a long bridge to content, either. The FCC's main interest is in monopoly control, and they have a point. The equivalent would be Coke and Pepsi trying to merge, as they are the two dominant powers in the market. In fact, it's worse in the case of XM-Sirius, since they are the ONLY two content providers in satellite radio. A 100% market share awaits the combined company.
If the FCC does approve the satellite radio monopoly, then their allowance may take the same form that the feds created for television airwaves: treating it as a distributable utility, subject to all regulation government sees fit. That could mean limiting choice of channels or content, or both.
Part of the reason for satellite radio's recent success has been those who want uncensored content. XM's Opie & Anthony/Ron & Fez shows and Sirius' Howard Stern/Bubba TLS have been magnets to both services (though Major League Baseball for XM and the National Football League for Sirius have likely drawn the most subscribers) for people who want content they cannot get on terrestrial radio. If the FCC steps in, it may effectively squash any content difference between terrestrial and satellite radio, effectively numbing the market value of satellite.
If the merger does not go through, though, another problem arises. Sirius' debt management is awful, having borrowed big to secure the NFL, NASCAR, and Stern contracts. Sirius' stock price hovers below $5. XM, with more subscribers and a softer debt load, has stock price around $14 but it's still likely not enough to sustain a long-term profit. The merger could, through cost-cutting and economies of scale, make the joint venture profitable and thus viable over the long term. Without a merger, one or both of the companies might fold within the next few years.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
