Media

UPDATE (7:25 p.m., Mon., Dec. 19) —

Today Josh Block misstated and mischaracterized what I wrote in this blog. He headlined my piece pertaining to him and apparently sent this distorted version of what I wrote and intended to his mailing list:

"Lanny Davis: CAP sandbagged me; Josh Block is right — CAP needs to clean up its act."

This is the kind of loose language and mischaracterizations that gets Block into difficulty.

I did not write nor intend to imply I was "sandbagged" — I believe Clifton sincerely thought I understood he would be emphasizing my disagreement with parts of Block's statements.

Nor do I agree that Block is "right" — he did not include the section of my column where I disagreed with his characterizations and attacks on CAP and its leadership.

Nor did I ever state or imply that "CAP needs to clean up its act." Those are Block’s words, not mine.

I resent his attempt to put words in my mouth, words I did not use or not mean.


What happens when you are wrongly accused in a posting on the Internet and you call to correct the false or misleading assertion?
 
This happened to me on Dec. 8 — not the first time — on a post on a website associated with the liberal Democratic organization the Center for American Progress (CAP) — an organization I strongly support and whose leader, John Podesta, is a close friend of mine of over 40 years.
 
The CAP-affiliated website, Think Progress, and the author of the piece, Eli Clifton, wrongly accused me of supporting the “coup” in Honduras in 2008 and of defending the military strongman, Laurent Gbagbo, who had been defeated in an election in the Ivory Coast. He did so in the context of criticizing my business partner, Josh Block, for accusing CAP bloggers of using language that was “borderline anti-Semitic.” And Clifton never called me first to check his facts before attacking me.

MSM, seeking to frame OWS in context, brings some unfortunate editing. The hardships these kids suffered — one lost his computer cable — and comparisons to the Civil Rights movement exhibit inexperienced and youthful prose selections which poorly represent a rising generation. But there is here the feeling of a movement striving for a voice. A feeling that something is wrong; a dread, but it is not clear what the source is. It seems it has been wrong for a long time — most of these young people’s lives — and wrong at the center. In the last debate, for example, at least three Republicans announced that they willfully support the use of torture. It is not that they shouldn’t be elected. They should be sent into exile.

There was no excuse for CBS virtually blacking out Michele Bachmann and Ron Paul from the Saturday evening debate. The inadvertently released email from CBS's John Dickerson essentially suggesting Bachmann disappear from the debate was appalling. The mere seconds given to Ron Paul, who has important positions on foreign affairs that deserve a hearing, and who served in the military and deserved better, was equally appalling.

I believe Scott Pelley, the new CBS evening news anchor, is trying — to his credit — to make the broadcast more serious. And I believe Major Garrett of National Journal is an excellent reporter. But what happened in the debate Saturday evening was flat-out inexcusable.

"I can't stand him. He's a liar," Sarkozy said of Netanyahu, according to CNN.

Obama replied, "You're tired of him; what about me? I have to deal with him every day.”

In an off-mic situation, Obama and Sarkozy are discovered not to trust Netanyahu, and Sarkozy went so far as to call him a liar. Not only did Obama refuse to defend him, but chimed in by saying he has to "deal" with the Israeli prime minister every day.

I can’t pinpoint precisely when presidential politics turned into a game, but I can tell you who owns the casino.

Flashback: Halfway through the Nixon v. McGovern campaign of 1972 — ancient history, but bear with me — Vice President Spiro Agnew arrived in Los Angeles prepared to answer reporters’ questions about the Vietnam War, Nixon’s new economic policy and a host of other major issues (including the Watergate break-in five months earlier). Instead, the first question asked by a local TV reporter was whether the vice president was planning to run for president in 1976.

I am glad that Ron Paul raised between $2 million and $3 million from his super-bomb tied to the news blackout against him. On this, I agree with Ron Paul, very strongly. I have certainly not blacked out Ron Paul, and while his supporters like some of my columns and not other columns, I have always tried to give him the attention he deserves, and explore various aspects of his philosophy, especially some commonalities between Ron and Occupy Wall Street on certain issues.

It is amazing that Paul, who has serious ideas and a serious following, has received comparatively little attention compared to, say, Donald Trump. He is right about this, and I am glad he raised money in response to this.

Here is how Ron Paul can win. He can kidnap Chris Christie. Hold Christie hostage in a cabin. With Christie now receiving the media adoration once given to the buffoon Donald Trump, then poured on the hapless Rick Perry, my kidnap plan could propel Paul to the White House. Here's how it would work:

Every morning, outside the cabin, Paul could host a news conference to end the Christie kidnap. Imagine: With the media herd hungrily assembled, Chris Mathews would breathlessly ask Paul: "When will you release Christie?” Ron would reply: "I will that discuss that soon, but first I want to discuss my plans to end secrecy of the Federal Reserve Board" to the huge audience.

Matt Drudge and Roger Ailes would have a field day with the Christie kidnap.

I was working out at the gym this morning (I know, miracles never cease), and I looked over briefly (I know, you don’t believe me) at the television and saw one of the hosts interviewing Rachel Maddow.

I am not the biggest Rachel Maddow fan in the world (OK, I am not really a fan at all) and I immediately assumed that the topic of conversation was on the president’s decision on “Don’t ask, don’t tell,” an issue that apparently is important to the MSNBC host.  

Chris Cillizza, politics reporter for The Washington Post, writes over at “The Fix” today that President Obama doesn’t have a “women” problem. Problem is, he’s wrong. Very wrong.

No, the Ron Suskind book, Confidence Men: Wall Street, Washington and the Education of a President, which describes a hostile work environment for women in the Obama White House, is not the reason for this “women” problem. Nor is the book going to be the downfall of his presidency.

But Cillizza grossly underestimates the gender dilemma facing this president. 

Several recent books see the end coming. John Birmingham’s “After America”: Fighter bombers rushing at us on the cover. You get the picture. Paul Starobin’s “After America: Narratives for the Next Global Age”: Planet of the Apes with nerds instead of apes. Be afraid. But not that afraid. Mark Steyn’s “After America: Get Ready for Armageddon”: Self-explanatory. Andrew Breitbart said, “May puke I’m so happy.” Meaning he liked it.

These books see America as an idea rather than a place because the authors don’t understand place and have probably never been to an American place they were inclined to stay in. They would get a rash in real places like Tobaccoville, N.C., Haverhill, N.H. or Luckenbach, Texas, where Waylon, Willie and the boys hang.