Bluey Blog - Official Blog of Robert B. Bluey

Romney Press Shop Unmatched in Debate Spin

I can sympathize with Mark Steyn, who had this to say about the proliferation of e-mails around debate time:

Mitt’s guys clogged up my in-box with so many urgent releases in the hours after last night’s debate that it’s seriously impacting my ability to order generic Viagra and e-mail my bank details to Nigerian dictators’ wives.

The e-mails came pouring into my inbox last night as well. In fact, I just went back and counted.

Mitt Romney: A total of 35, some of which were duplicates, came to my two e-mail accounts. They came in under headings such as “research briefing,” “what they’re really saying,” “press release” and “Romney record.” The most clever were the four “YouTube statements” from Romney surrogates, which can be found on Romney’s Debate Central page. The e-mails came from spokesman Kevin Madden (pictured above), blog guru Stephen Smith and a generic Romney Press Shop address.

John McCain: A total of 15 e-mails, mostly from new-media consultant Patrick Hynes, who sent snippets of blog reaction during the debate, and also from campaign press flack Brian Rogers, who hit me with a couple e-mails at the end of the night.

Rudy Giuliani: Nine. All came from Katie Harbath, who works in the communications shop. They were a combination of “fact check” and “what they’re saying” messages. On another note, Giuliani’s campaign was the only one to contact me in advance of the debate to schedule an interview with surrogates Peter King and Bill Paxon. I had to write the other four campaigns to inquire about interviews.

Fred Thompson: I received six e-mails, half of them coming from Jon Henke at New Media Strategies, two from campaign manager Bill Lacy and the last one from a generic Friends of Fred Thompson account that targeted me because I live in Virginia. It obviously worked, prompting me to write about the campaign’s George Allen videos.

Mike Huckabee: One lone e-mail from research director Joe Carter, which he cleverly titled, “The Inevitable Post-Debate Campaign Spin Email.” To Joe’s credit, it was the most personalized of any I got all night.

There’s no right or wrong approach in my opinion. As someone who prefers e-mail — because it’s the best way to ensure I’ll read something — I can’t fault Romney’s campaign for bombarding me. The multiple versions are somewhat annoying, but I’d rather get more than less so I don’t miss anything.

As for the campaigns that don’t put as much emphasis on e-mail, they might be concentrating their resources elsewhere. Zephyr Teachout at techPresident praised Huckabee’s team for the best post-debate website, giving Thompson second place in that category. Perhaps the time they’re not spending on e-mails frees up their ability to add content to the website.

Debating the Debate: Tough Times for CNN

The CNN/YouTube debate has devolved into a full-fledged nightmare for the TV network. Conservative bloggers show no sign of relenting after a day of disparaging CNN for its poor selection of questions. The story has been at the top of the Drudge Report all day and new reports from the New York Times (in which I’m quoted) and San Francisco Chronicle paint CNN in a very negative light.

The Save the Debate coalition, of which I am a member, released a statement tonight expressing its disappointment.

The Save the Debate coalition would like to thank the Republican candidates for participating in the YouTube debate, which reached an estimated 4.5 million Americans, a record for this primary cycle. We are hopeful that the candidates will consider future opportunities to use technology to reach new participants in the political process.

Further, we applaud the YouTube community for the quality of the questions submitted that sparked informative and substantive exchanges among the Republican candidates. With nearly 5,000 YouTube user-submitted questions — 2,000 more than for the Democratic debate — Americans are increasingly taking advantage of the opportunity to participate in the democratic process.

Unfortunately, CNN’s flawed editorial process in choosing the questions asked of the candidates marred an otherwise lively debate and betrayed the trust of the Republican candidates and the YouTube user community. In the most glaring example, a questioner affiliated with the Hillary Clinton campaign was given a soapbox to berate the Republican candidates at the debate — when even a cursory web search of the individual would have revealed his clear conflict of interest.

A YouTube debate should strive to minimize the media filter rather than highlight it. Instead the selection of questions for the Republican CNN/YouTube debate highlighted CNN’s selection bias.

We strongly encourage YouTube and other new media platforms to refrain from working with CNN on future debates.

Conservative bloggers are taking a variety of views. The Directors at RedState are calling for the heads of two people at CNN, Michelle Malkin is pursuing the identities of the questioners, and Patrick Ruffini gave out grades — an A for YouTube and an F for CNN. Others, like Mary Katharine Ham and David All, who were with me in St. Petersburg, are disappointed as well. Amanda Carpenter of Townhall says, “The Clinton News Network Strikes Again.” The list goes on and on.

In the past 24 hours, CNN has released at least three official statements about the debate. The first statement defends the vetting process for selecting questions.

The whole point of these ground-breaking CNN/YouTube debates is to focus on substantive questions of concern to real people and to throw open the process to a wider range of Americans all around the country. CNN cared about what you asked, not who you were. This was the case for both the Democratic and the Republican CNN/YouTube debates.

The issues raised during last night’s debate were legitimate and relevant no matter who was asking the questions. The vested interests who are challenging the credibility of the questioners are trying to distract voters from the substantive issues they care most about. Americans are tired of that discredited low-road approach, and throughout this election campaign CNN will stay focused on what the candidates are saying about the pressing issues facing this country at a critical time in our history. Judging by the fact that last night’s event was the most-watched primary debate ever, it seems that the audience responded to our focus on plain-spoken questions about important issues.

CNN political director Sam Feist, the man RedState wants fired, also released a statement about the selection process.

When choosing among the 5,000-or-so questions, CNN considered factors such as length, video quality and whether the question would help Republican primary voters select their presidential nominee. We sought a variety of questions on a variety of topics. We also sought to eliminate anyone with a direct role in a campaign and with one unfortunate exception, which we regret and have fully explained, we accomplished that.

And finally, in a statement released during the Google after-party at The Coliseum in St. Petersburg last night, CNN sought to clean up the mess created by Hillary Clinton supporter Keith Kerr, who asked the question about gays in the military and was then encouraged by Anderson Cooper to lecture the candidates on the issue.

Following the debate, CNN learned that retired brigadier general Keith Kerr served on Clinton’s lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender steering committee.

CNN Senior Vice President and Executive Producer of the debate, David Bohrman, says, “We regret this incident. CNN would not have used the General’s question had we known that he was connected to any presidential candidate.”

Prior to the debate, CNN had verified his military background and that he had not contributed any money to any presidential candidate.

Following the debate, Kerr told CNN that he’s done no work for the Clinton campaign. He says he is a member of the Log Cabin Republicans and was representing no one other than himself.

I know several people who work at CNN, so it brings me no joy to criticize the network. I was tremendously hopeful in advance of the debate that we’d all be praising this unique format that promotes greater participation in the democratic process. While YouTube certainly lived up to its end of the deal, CNN let us all down.

UPDATE — 10:30 p.m.: Soren Dayton found a gem on the New York Observer from Steve Kornacki on CNN’s Democrat debate two weeks ago.

Once the gold standard for all-news television, the Cable News Network used the night to make a convincing argument that it should never again be entrusted with a presidential debate.

RNC to Bloggers: Come Work for Us

The Republican National Committee is taking an interesting approach to recruiting staff. In an e-mail that was presumably sent to its list of bloggers, eCampaign staffer James Richardson asks if I’ll consider working for that RNC. The e-mail includes a link to a job application. But even more interesting is what the e-mail says (emphasis added).

Do you want to help elect the next Republican president? Are you tired of a do-nothing Congress? Then apply to work with the Republican National Committee, the national organization devoted to electing Republican presidents and Republicans in every office across the country. Just fill out this simple online application with your previous campaign experience and political proficiency and you’re off! You may create a clip on YouTube of why you want to work at the RNC and cut/paste the URL in the box provided.

It seems the RNC is saying that if you don’t know the technology, you can’t effectively communicate the message. It’s a smart strategy for the GOP and a model for offices across Capitol Hill searching for communicators.

George Allen, Video Blogger

Fred Thompson’s campaign just e-mailed me a link to former Sen. George Allen’s video responses from last night’s Republican presidential debate. I didn’t get a chance to follow it last night, but it’s actually quite impressive. Kudos to Sean Hackbarth and the Fred File team for a job well done.

Speaking of Allen, we were on the same plane ride back to Washington today. I didn’t get a chance to chat with him, however. Washington Post reporter Michael Shear and Newsweek’s Howard Fineman had him cornered. It was surprising to see Allen treat them so kindly, but he is a politician after all.

An All-Around Bad Night for CNN

If you think the criticism of CNN’s question selection at last night’s Republican debate is harsh, just wait until you read the following letter from Quin Hillyer of Citizens United about the program that aired after the debate. “Campaign Killers: Why Do Negative Ads Work?” was hosted by Campbell Brown, and according to Hillyer, was full of lies and misrepresentations.

November 29, 2007

Melissa Dunst Lipman
Senior Producer
CNN Productions: CNN Presents/SIU
1 Time Warner Center
New York, NY 10019

Dear Ms. Lipman:

I write to register strenuous objections to your highly unprofessional hit piece last night (Broken Government – “Campaign Killers,” hosted by Campbell Brown) against David Bossie and Citizens United, and to demand an on-air retraction of part of it, along with corrections made in any future showings. In particular, if a retraction of the defamatory words “fringe militia” is not offered publicly by CNN, and soon, I will advise Mr. Bossie to consider legal action.

All of us here at Citizens United object to numerous aspects of CNN’s conduct.

Ms. Brown referred to Mr. Bossie and Citizens United as being one of several “fringe militias.” Not only is Citizens United hardly a “fringe” group (unless consistent and open association with the former Speaker of the House, a current leading presidential candidate, and numerous other leading Republicans can be considered “fringe”), but to refer to it as a “militia” is a clear and obvious falsehood. We demand a retraction.

Ms. Brown called Mr. Bossie a “dirty trickster.” As Citizens United prides itself on open, aboveboard, transparent, and accurate documentaries and ads, all fully fact-checked, we demand a retraction.

Ms. Brown said, and I quote, that “Many mainstream Republicans have denounced his tactics.” The only example she offered was of the elder President Bush complaining about an ad 15 years ago that Mr. Bossie did not produce. As both Ms. Brown and you, yourself, Ms. Lipman, consistently represented to us that your interest was in Citizens United, rather than in anything done by other groups or people at other times , we challenge you to produce anything approaching “many” mainstream Republicans who have denounced Mr. Bossie’s tactics as president of Citizens United. Furthermore, Ms. Brown said that “mainstream Republican may distance themselves from Bossie….” I challenge her to find mainstream Republicans, right now, in 2007, who are familiar with the work of Mr. Bossie at Citizens United and yet who distance themselves from him or his organization.

Throughout our dealings with Campbell Brown and with you, Ms. Lipman, CNN consistently misrepresented the purpose of the show and the nature of the focus on Citizens United and Mr. Bossie. You consistently said that your interest was in Citizens United, not in people who once were associated with the organization or in political activities not taken under the auspices of the organization. All of these representations turned out to be false. You also originally expressed a particular interest in Citizens United’s unique focus on full-length documentaries rather than in the typical, short TV ads of the sort your show went to great pains to portray as being sleazy or “filthy.” Midstream, you changed your focus with us to campaign ads—thus putting us in the same category as the nasty tacticians of MoveOn.org, even though at one point you specifically told us we would not be presented as a counterweight to MoveON—but then only in the most fleeting way did you air or discuss a single ad actually produced by Citizens United. Instead, you dug up a 15-year-old controversy irrelevant to the work of this organization.

To wit: During the taping of CNN’s interview with Mr. Bossie, you personally misrepresented the several degrees of separation between Citizens United and the aforementioned 1992 ad about the relationship between Bill Clinton and Gennifer Flowers. Having later confirmed for ourselves that your questions to Mr. Bossie were asked under a false scenario, we kindly offered to let Mr. Bossie be re-interviewed on that subject with the correct facts at hand (in other words, with the facts themselves on hand, not the false context in which you originally presented the question). Despite your acknowledgement, by phone with me, that you had presented the wrong context when asking the question, you declined our offer to re-answer the questions. Then, in airing the segment on Mr. Bossie, you did not air any of his contentions that the ad in question was decidedly not a “low blow,” which is how you characterized it on the air. So you associated Mr. Bossie with an ad that neither he nor Citizens United produced, and you characterized the ad as a “low blow,” but then did not give Mr. Bossie the chance to explain why the ad you associated with him was not a cheap shot.

More bizarrely, even though you interviewed the man, Floyd Brown, who actually did produce the Gennifer Flowers ad, you did not ask him on air about that ad but instead asked Mr. Bossie about it. Why would you ask Mr. Bossie about it rather than Mr. Brown, unless your pre-conceived plan all along was to tar Mr. Bossie with the brush of a political hit-man?

Furthermore—and this is where your show carefully skirted direct factual errors only to deliberately enter the realm of rank unfairness (clear violation of journalistic ethics if not of the law)—you threw out nearly a full hour of an interview in which Mr. Bossie explained a philosophy of not being a political hit organization, in order to portray Citizens United as nothing but, yes, a hit organization, without offering any proof thereof. Again and again during the interview, Mr. Bossie explained that his goal is to put out “thoughtful” (direct quote, repeated numerous times) documentaries aimed at providing context and depth to the political debate. Not one of those explanations from Mr. Bossie was aired, however.

This is important. Eli Pariser of MoveOn gleefully welcomed the portrayal of his group as unapologetic muckrakers. You did him the courtesy of accurately portraying his own stated self-understanding. But with Mr. Bossie and Citizens United, you offered a portrayal directly counter to our own professed goals, without offering a single example of Citizens United ads or actions that contradict those stated goals. And the incredibly brief snippets of quotes from Mr. Bossie that you did air were ones that did not even begin to accurately reflect the tenor of his interview. Again, if you are going to call somebody a “dirty trickster” or say he is part of a “fringe militia,” you certainly have the obligation to offer evidence thereof and to give the subject a chance to respond (or at least to quote earlier published responses thereto). Instead, you repeatedly assured us that we were definitely not going to be so portrayed, and that we had nothing to worry about on that front. In short, you lied to us, deliberately and repeatedly.

But wait—it gets worse! We wanted to videotape your interview with Mr. Bossie ourselves, for internal use, but you refused to let us do so. Now it becomes clear why: because you did not want us to have an independent video record of your distortions of that interview.

Meanwhile, I repeat that we can offer Republican elected officials aplenty, including some of the most recognizable GOP “moderates” in Congress, as witnesses that we are not “fringe” and that they do not want to “distance” themselves from our work. I challenge CNN to find mainstream Republicans who will support CNN’s portrayal of us.

The fact of the matter is that our documentaries feature the willing participation of such decidedly not conservative people as former Senate Democratic Leader George Mitchell, historians Walter Isaacson and Douglas Brinkley, and many others. Those documentaries have won top honors at non-political, mainstream film festivals. And when our documentaries or commercials hit political adversaries, we definitely hit them hard—but we also hit them fairly and accurately. None of that context was provided by CNN—nor did they accept other helpful offers of ours to provide context for our efforts.

I could offer other examples, too, of snide and unfair characterizations made by CNN just in the short segment on Mr. Bossie and Citizens United, but our point has already been amply made. Broken Government – “Campaign Killers,” hosted by Campbell Brown, was a despicable piece of sleazy, tabloid journalism. I repeat our demand for the specific retractions and corrections listed in the first four paragraphs of this letter. And we hereby notify both you and anyone who (unlike you) cares about responsible journalism that we are willing and ready to take our moral case against you to the judgment of public opinion.

With disgust,

Quin Hillyer
Director of Strategic Communications
Citizens United

The False Hope of Ethanol

I’ve already offended farmers across the Midwest with my earlier assault on farm subsidies, so why not pile on with news that ethanol is under siege. Lauren Etter reports in today’s Wall Street Journal that ethanol isn’t all it was cracked up to be:

Little over a year ago, ethanol was winning the hearts and wallets of both Main Street and Wall Street, with promises of greater U.S. energy independence, fewer greenhouse gases and help for the farm economy. Today, the corn-based biofuel is under siege.

In the span of one growing season, ethanol has gone from panacea to pariah in the eyes of some. The critics, which include industries hurt when the price of corn rises, blame ethanol for pushing up food prices, question its environmental bona fides and dispute how much it really helps reduce the need for oil.

Of course, my Heritage Foundation colleague Ben Lieberman has been saying this for years. He wrote a paper back in March explaining why ethanol wouldn’t bring energy independence to America or be the environmentally friendly savior that many make it out to be. Worse still, it will end up costing consumers more money.

While a boon to Midwestern corn farmers and big ethanol producers like Archer Daniels Midland, ethanol has been bad news for the driving public. Ethanol usually costs more than gasoline, so adding it to gasoline increases fuel prices at the pump.

Ordinary vehicles can use gasoline blends con­taining up to 10 percent ethanol, and specially modified vehicles can use fuel that is up to 85 per­cent ethanol. However, ethanol lowers fuel econ­omy because a gallon of ethanol has only two-thirds of the energy content of a gallon of gasoline. Diffi­culties in transporting it to markets far from the Midwest and other logistical problems add further to the price of ethanol in several regions.

Unfortunately, with all-mighty Iowa and its January caucuses standing in the way, don’t expect any viable Republican presidential candidate to speak ill of ethanol anytime soon. Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney have proclaimed their love for it. John McCain even flip-flopped to support it. And Mike Huckabee and Fred Thompson aren’t saying anything different. This is yet another example of the sad state of the Republican status quo.

The True Conservative?

Fred Thompson says he is, but will conservatives agree?

UPDATE — 4:32 p.m.: I have no interest getting in the middle of the spat between Mike Huckabee and the Club for Growth on fiscal issues, but since it was part of the Thompson attack ad, it’s worth noting that Huckabee’s newly hired research director, Joe Carter, has put together a lengthy piece responding to the Club.

Romney, Giuliani Flop on Farm Subsidies

A question about farm subsidies at last night’s Republican presidential debate gave the candidates an opportunity to talk candidly about the problems with America’s agriculture policies. Instead, with an eye on Iowa, Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani said they support the status quo.

It was one of the worst cases of political pandering I’ve seen in the campaign. The Club for Growth was right to hit Romney and Giuliani for their position on farm subsidies in the context of both candidates’ “strong rhetoric in favor of protecting American taxpayers and promoting limited government.”

My Heritage Foundation colleagues Brian Riedl and Ron Utt have been writing about the problems with farm subsidies for years. Utt’s most recent contribution examined how members of Congress (and their families) benefit from these programs. Riedl spelled out four specific problems with farm subsidies:

• Farm subsidies are intended to alleviate farmer poverty, but the majority of subsidies go to com­mercial farms with average incomes of $200,000 and net worths of nearly $2 million.

• Farm subsidies are intended to raise farmer incomes by remedying low crop prices. Instead, they promote overproduction and therefore lower prices further.

• Farm subsidies are intended to help struggling family farmers. Instead, they harm them by exclud­ing them from most subsidies, financing the con­solidation of family farms, and raising land values to levels that prevent young people from entering farming.

• Farm subsidies are intended to be consumer-friendly and taxpayer-friendly. Instead, they cost Americans billions each year in higher taxes and higher food costs.

If conservatives can’t get the Republican candidates to commit to solving these problems now, what on earth are we supposed to expect if they’re actually elected?

UPDATE — Nov. 30, 7:10 p.m.: Philip Klein of the American Spectator wonders why Giuliani passed up an opportunity to win over fiscal conservatives when New Hampshire is more important than Iowa to his electoral strategy?

Where Were the Health Care Questions?

At a time when CNN had an opportunity to shine as host of last night’s Republican presidential debate, the network faltered. Today conservatives are left with yet another example of bias at the highest level of the media establishment. It’s another sad example of how liberals deliberately portray conservatives as gun-toting, Bible-thumping, and gay-bashing bigots.

I had high hopes for CNN in its role of selecting questions for last night’s debate. The network had nearly 5,000 to choose from — plenty to get a good representation of a variety of issues. Instead, we heard three questions about guns, a topic of significance to the GOP, but was it really that important to ask three different questions? There was also a question attacking trade, another about the North American Union, a silly question about The Holy Bible and two each on abortion (here and here) and homosexuality (here and here). By the time Anderson Cooper got around to introducing a question about the Confederate flag, I was flabbergasted.

It’s no wonder the Politico’s Jonathan Martin wrote on his blog, “Is this the Upper East Side view of the GOP?”

Before the debate, I asked Mitt Romney spokesman Kevin Madden about health care — a topic I figured would play a particularly important role last night. Instead, it didn’t come up at all. John McCain briefly mentioned the SCHIP debate, but it came up in the context of another question.

Is there a more serious public policy debate taking place in Washington right now? YouTube users submitted questions about health care — I know because I looked. Why CNN chose to ignore the subject is a question that should be asked today.

With conservatives already skeptical of CNN, last night’s debate reinforces why so many people on the right think the media are biased. It’s actually probably more accurate to say they’re out of touch with reality — painting the GOP and candidates on stage at the debate in the context of God, guns and gays.

UPDATE — 9:01 a.m.: I just scanned the headlines of a few conservative blogs and I’m not alone in my assessment of CNN. Patrick Ruffini and David All, who were both on hand with me last night, were not impressed. And I’d be remiss not to mention the biggest story of the day — CNN’s use of a gay Hillary Clinton supporter’s question. Matthew Balan at NewsBusters and Kevin Aylward of Wizbang have the details.

UPDATE — 6:06 p.m.: It’s one thing for CNN to deliberately exclude questions about health care, as the network did last night, but it’s another thing for one of its own correspondents to then blame the Republican field for not talking about it. Believe it or not, that’s exactly what happened.

Vivian Lee reports on NewsBusters and Conservative Belle that CNN’s Emily Sherman had the gall to say “the Republican presidential contenders seemed to all but ignore what is considered a major priority for many voters.” Give me a break! Did Sherman even watch the debate?

Not only was it ignorant on Sherman’s part to make such a comment, but she looks foolish because, as Lee points out, the candidates did talk about health care.

Sherman must have missed when health care was brought up by former Governor Mitt Romney (Mass.). When question about pork spending, Romney managed to include his experience with health care insurance.

…

Sherman must have also missed when former Governor Mike Huckabee (Ark.) discussed health care coverage expansion for African-Americans. In response to a question asking why African-Americans don’t vote for Republicans, Huckabee managed to mention his health care initiatives in Arkansas.

That makes at least three candidates — McCain, Romney and Huckabee — who discussed health care on their own without any prodding from CNN. It’s time for Sherman to issue a correction and YouTube to dump CNN as a partner.

UPDATE — 10:45 p.m.: I neglected to link to Joe Garofoli’s story in the San Francisco Chronicle earlier. It’s an excellent recap of the debate from the tech crowd.

I’ve also posted statements from CNN and a release from the Save the Debate coalition here.

Photos of the CNN/YouTube Debate

Yeah, I know, it was a debate built around video, but I love my Nikon D50 more than my Flip video camera.

UPDATE — 11:55 p.m.: Mary Katherine Ham has photos on Townhall.