But that still doesn’t absolve Fox from giving credence to what is clearly intra-Republican backstabbing and vicious rumor-mongering. If Palin was really that stupid, you’d think that “anonymous McCain aides” would come forward and testify openly so as to prevent her from ever running for anything again. The fact that they haven’t done so, and that plenty of other people — friends and enemies — who know her from more than a couple of bad interviews (namely, the voters and politicians of Alaska) say that she’s plenty smart*, suggests to me that this is, as I said, merely a vicious rumor.

Anonymous sourcing is a first-class ticket to the sort of weasel politics we all should righteously despise, but nevertheless supposedly reputable institutions like the NYT or the Washington Post use it all too frequently against their political enemies. Shame on Fox for succumbing to the same racket.

Since I’ve made an issue of this story, I’m going to keep following it in case the identity of the anonymous source turns up.

* Blogger Beldar reports here:

In the many hours I spent online doing background research on Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin before I wrote my first post about her on June 8, 2008, I read many dozens of newspaper stories about her, dating back to her time as mayor of Wasilla in the late 1990s, in the state’s largest newspaper, the Anchorage Daily News, as well as in some of the smaller Alaska newspapers. I was specifically looking for negatives: I knew that the Democrats would be too, in the (then unlikely) event that Gov. Palin became a serious possibility as the GOP Veep nominee.

The single most frequently recurring theme was that Sarah Palin’s political opponents underestimated her. In every campaign, her opponent attacked her as inexperienced. None of them argued, however, that she was stupid. The closest any opponent ever came to that was one of her two opponents in the 2006 gubernatorial race, Andrew Halcro, who claimed that she didn’t immerse herself in the minutia of policy detail in which he himself reveled. Halcro is a wonk, and an annoying, patronizing twerp, and a sore loser, and the people of Alaska recognized that by leaving him an embarrassing distant third in that race, with less than 10% of their votes. But even Halcro didn’t claim that Sarah Palin was stupid.

Nor did anyone else of consequence make that claim during Gov. Palin’s first year-and-a-half as governor. She was criticized for having “sharp elbows,” for holding political grudges, and for disfavoring those who’d crossed her — complaints leveled by losers left behind in the wake of every successful politician, because that’s the loser-side view of being held accountable for ones actions and positions. But dim? Provincial? Uneducated? Nobody in Alaska had ever seriously charged Sarah Palin with being an airhead — not even the political enemies she’d left bleeding in the dust.

[Emphasis in original]

Turns out it’s not even from a real McCain staffer, or actually even a real person at all.

The NYT:

Who would say such a thing? On Monday the answer popped up on a blog and popped out of the mouth of David Shuster, an MSNBC anchor. “Turns out it was Martin Eisenstadt, a McCain policy adviser, who has come forward today to identify himself as the source of the leaks,” Mr. Shuster said.

Trouble is, Martin Eisenstadt doesn’t exist. His blog does, but it’s a put-on. The think tank where he is a senior fellow — the Harding Institute for Freedom and Democracy — is just a Web site. The TV clips of him on YouTube are fakes.

And the claim of credit for the Africa anecdote is just the latest ruse by Eisenstadt, who turns out to be a very elaborate hoax that has been going on for months. MSNBC, which quickly corrected the mistake, has plenty of company in being taken in by an Eisenstadt hoax, including The New Republic and The Los Angeles Times.

Now a pair of obscure filmmakers say they created Martin Eisenstadt to help them pitch a TV show based on the character. But under the circumstances, why should anyone believe a word they say?

“That’s a really good question,” one of the two, Eitan Gorlin, said with a laugh.

Indeed. Read the whole thing and all that.

What this tells us is that political campaigns in the future need to be much more cognizant of what’s going on in the extended blogosphere. In a properly-run campaign, this story would have been spotted by a real staffer who could have had the campaign manager say “we’ve never heard of this guy — whoever he is, he doesn’t work for us.”

It also tells us that when a story looks too good to be true — when it perfectly confirms our pre-existing bias notions — that maybe we should treat it skeptically until we can verify it independently. Remember, “unnamed sources say” is exactly equivalent to “I heard this juicy rumor.”

As I get into this, I just want to state for the record that when I write “Democrats” or “Republicans” I mean the official establishment of the party apparatus and their elected politicians. I’ll make it clear in context if I mean individual voters of whichever affiliation. So if I write “the Democrats are full of shit,” I don’t mean my wife or the guy next door, I mean Obama/Pelosi/Reid/Dean/the Democratic Congressional caucus/the Democratic Party.

Congratulations

First off, let me say that it’s a testament to how far we’ve come as a nation that an African-American can even be nominated for the Presidency, much less elected to it. My congratulations to President-Elect Obama and all his supporters — not only did you win, but you won big enough that the legitimacy of our election system can’t be seriously attacked this time.

Jonah Goldberg:

[D]uring the debate over the financial crisis, Obama said that a president should be able to do more than one thing at a time. Well, I think we members of the loyal opposition should be able to make distinctions simultaneously. It is a wonderful thing to have the first African-American president. It is a wonderful thing that in a country where feelings are so intense that power can be transferred so peacefully. Let us hope that the Obama his most dedicated — and most sensible! — fans see turns out to be the real Obama. Let us hope that Obama succeeds and becomes a great president, for all the right reasons.

What Scares Me

Ever since the early primaries, I’ve looked on this election as a choice between a merely bad President and an appalling President, and the American people have just elected the appalling one.

Look, we’re in a point in the cycle of history that basically assures that whoever the President turned out to be, he or she would be the Herbert Hoover of the 21st Century. Unfortunately, we’ve elected the candidate who I fear will be the [Herbert Hoover + Jimmy Carter + Franklin Roosevelt + Neville Chamberlain], instead of the [Herbert Hoover + Theodore Roosevelt].

Maybe Obama will govern as a center-left mainstream politician, as he insisted during the general campaign. But I tend to give more weight to what a politician does and says when the national klieg light isn’t on him, and back before he was a serious candidate Obama said a lot of things that make me think his first instinct is to govern from the far left.

(That’s assuming he’s capable of governing at all, of course. It’s a truism in American politics that the skills necessary to get elected aren’t the same skills necessary to run the country. Obama’s never governed anything — not even run a successful business — his state senate position was part time, and he’s spent all his time in the big leagues of the U.S. Senate either preparing to run or running for President. He’s got his name on a few pieces of legislation both in Illinois and in the Senate, but it seems that either his patron tacked his name onto already-completed bills or he attached himself to uncontroversial extensions of uncontroversial programs. It remains to be seen if he has the temperament and strength of will to head up the cutthroat world of the White House or the vast machinery of the Executive Branch, much less be able to manipulate Congress to do what he wants.)

Some examples: Conferring the prestige of a Presidential summit on execrable dictators without preconditions. Raising capital gains taxes on the grounds of “fairness” regardless of any decrease in revenue. Fleeing from our promises to Iraq even if it would mean genocide. Refusal to exploit our energy resources. Deliberately making the cost of energy “skyrocket”.

I’m sure there are more that I can’t think of right now. But these were all policies he advocated before he had to “run to the center” to get elected. Are these ideas going to be tossed in the name of expediency, or are they core principles waiting under a layer of camouflage? I have no idea, because he has no record of how he behaves in executive office, and that’s a little frightening.

Money Talks

Public financing for presidential campaigns is dead forever. The Obama campaign has proven that hundreds of millions of dollars can be raised for a campaign, and significantly it’s proven that large amounts of it can be raised semi-anonymously over the internet. Any future candidate who limits themselves to the $84 million provided by the government is an idiot.

Of course, they might be breaking the law. It’s impossible to prove that the Obama campaign accepted large amounts of illegal money either from foreigners or from Americans in violation of the contribution limits. But the campaign was pretty disingenuous about assuring us that there was nothing going on.

I think that our so-called campaign finance reform laws are idiotic and need to be completely thrown out, but that’s a subject for another post. I do think that the law as it stands needs to be respected, and I would be very reassured if someone could either fess up about the whole thing or definitively prove that illegal contributions weren’t an issue.

Nevertheless, being able to throw around bushels of money and outspend one’s opponent by a four to one ratio certainly made a difference.

The Press

The mainstream media has spent the last six months giving Obama a big, warm, wet, sloppy blowjob. Now that they’ve rested back on their heels, they’ll be looking to see if that makes them his bestest girlfriend or his prison bitch. I’m leaning more towards “prison bitch,” myself, and the existence only now of stories questioning this or that about Obama is evidence that they might have noticed too.

Seriously, the MSM has completely given up on impartiality and objectivity. When pressed they’ll sometimes come close to admitting it, but mostly they’ll self-righteously savage anyone who questions them. Who do they think they’re fooling? People on the right have lost all trust, and people on the left revel in the bias since it’s cheerleading for their team. But the media’s circulation/viewership and stock prices just keep going down.

Mandate?

The term “mandate” gets thrown around a lot in politics — My 50.05% of the popular vote demonstrates that the American people have given me their mandate! — and that of course cheapens the term into mere mouth noise. A 4% 6.4% margin in the popular vote is less than Bush got over Kerry GHW Bush got over Dukakis or Clinton got over Dole. It certainly doesn’t get up into Reagan/Mondale or Nixon/McGovern territory.

This election was no landslide, and Obama has no particular mandate to make any great changes. Most voters were voting against eight years of Bush as much as they were voting for four years of Obama. I mean, look, a history-making candidate running against a mediocre opponent and the legacy of a horribly unpopular President during an economic crisis with a blowjob media strewing flower petals in his path was only able to get 52% of Americans to vote for him. That doesn’t look like a mandate to me, it looks like a weak candidate who was given lots of advantages and still barely made it.

What Did They Know and When Did They Know It?

I think that at some point some section of the press will ask an inconvenient question and the Obama White House will shut down and get secretive. Really secretive — like to Nixon or Clinton levels. I think we’ve already seen the precursors of this in Obama’s refusal to release his college transcripts, his medical records, or his state senate papers, and in his campaign’s snubbing of a Florida TV station that made Joe Biden the teensiest bit uncomfortable.

Or they’ll discover what all Presidents do — that Congress is not their friend, even if it’s controlled by the same party. Some subcommittee will ask for some testimony from some minor appointee on some slightly embarrassing bagatelle and the White House will stonewall, for no particular reason except their own obstinacy.

Lessons for the GOP

The MSM, no matter how depleted and insolvent they are by 2012, will never treat a Republican fairly. Even though they may come around to asking Obama and the Congressional Democrats some hard questions during the term, when the campaign starts they will all fall into line and put their kneepads back on.

Therefore, the GOP needs to run a smart candidate who is unafraid to take on the press directly.

Note that I said smart, not intellectual. “Intellectual” connotes a preference for abstractions and philosophical niceties over reality; in a politician intellectualism tends to drive them to harsh uncompromising measures when their preconceptions are challenged by events. Look at Lenin, for example, forcing the Russian people onto the Procrustean Bed of the New Soviet Man ideal. Look at Woodrow Wilson, probably our most intellectual president ever, but also no great fan of the Constitution as written, an odious racist, an enthusiastic crusher of civil liberties during the Great War, and the author of the Palmer Raids and the first Red Scare after it.

No, the GOP needs a smart and unafraid candidate. A candidate who can speak clearly and lucidly without falling back on doublespeak or the daily talking points. A candidate who can answer the questions that are asked but turn their answer to their advantage, instead of ignoring the actual question and repeatedly answering the question they wanted to hear. A candidate who has no problem saying with a smile, “well, gee, Charlie, the very fact that you asked that question just proves how full of crap you are.” A candidate who knows where they stand on all the issues and can defend their position in their own words, but if surprised by an issue they hadn’t thought of can fall back on their principles and answer on the fly without embarrassing themselves and backtracking later. And as much as it pains me to say it (since I’ve learned that “proper” language is what comes out of peoples’ mouths, not what comes out of a dictionary), a candidate who doesn’t say nucular.

(Actually, this sort of candidate is what all parties need for all positions. Were politicians more like this, they wouldn’t be ranked down with the Ebola virus in popularity polls.)

I think that treating the press like a debate opponent will be necessary in the future. Pandering to them doesn’t work — as with all bullies, it will just invite their abuse. Ignoring them won’t work — for good or ill it’s where a large fraction of Americans will get their news and form their views of the candidates, even if they have to work to filter out the bias. Attacking the press will just make the Republican candidate look like a whiner; best to let unaffiliated proxies do the complaining.

There needs to be a realignment of the party’s priorities. On the political compass (whichever one you use) the GOP needs to shuffle a little closer to the economic liberty position and away from the Culture War position. Because, face it, the Culture War is over and the social-conservative Republicans lost. I’ll address why in a later post, but basically the American people on the whole don’t like the extreme positions, and the social cons scare lots of otherwise centrist people to death and keep them from voting Republican.

The GOP should take as its platform the principle that while Republicans may personally agree with the social con positions, and will afford every chance for the social cons to make their case in the public square, they will not as a matter of policy attempt to legally enforce the social con position on the American people.

Instead, the GOP should stand for economic and personal liberty, the free market, federalism, and decreasing the size and intrusiveness of government, and must be able to make the case for why those principles will bring prosperity — only the cranks like me care about the shape of government; the vast majority just want to feel like things are looking up for their families.

Democratic Predictions

1. Popularity is a very fleeting thing. Barring a one-off rally-round-the-flag event, if Obama governs from the left his approval ratings will be half their starting levels by 2010; 60-70% if he governs from the center.
2. Anti-Americanism runs deep overseas. Foreigners who profess to love us because of Obama will go back to hating us by next March; foreigners who love us now will still love us, only less so.
3. The Bill and Hillary Show is over. Hillary Clinton will have a long career ahead of her as a lioness of the Senate, and hopefully there will be another female Democratic candidate for the presidential ticket in four or eight years, one who isn’t horrible.

GOP Predictions

1. The GOP will make gains in Congress in 2010, but not re-enact 1994. There’s no charismatic leader with strong enough principles in Congress right now who could lead a majority-changing movement.
2. The Republican nominee for 2012 will be:
   • Sarah Palin — 40% chance
   • Bobby Jindal — 25% chance
   • Other known Republican — 10% chance
   • As yet unknown Republican — 25% chance
3. There will be a major housecleaning, although I’m not sure yet which corner’s junk will be thrown out. Fifteen years ago I predicted that it was the Democratic Party that would self-destruct and reinvent itself, but now I’m coming to the conclusion that its the turn of the Republican Party to do so.

Recap

I congratulate President-Elect Obama on his historic victory. I hope he proves me wrong. Remember, Caesar, thou art mortal.

Regardless, there will be no Obama Derangement Syndrome from me. Obama is the President; contra the attitudes of many over the past eight years he is my President. I will oppose and criticize his every move if I think they are wrong or bad for the country, and I’m sure I will get angry on a regular basis, but spittle-flecked hatred will not be found here. I will not take the attitude of anything the Democrats want, I’m agin it. Civility and mutual courtesy must prevail in political discourse, else we are no better than barbarians.

This I pledge on my honor as an American.