WHY ISN'T A LOBBYIST WHO MAKES OR OFFERS TO MAKE A CONTRIBUTION TO A POLITICAL OFFICE HOLDER OR OFFICE SEEKER IN ORDER TO INFLUENCE A VOTE OF SUCH HOLDER OR SEEKER ENGAGING IN A BRIBE?
I DON'T KNOW. MAYBE BECAUSE HIS ACTIONS ARE LEGAL. HEY, WHY ARE WE SHOUTING? WHAT'S WITH THE ALL CAPS?
Matt, I wanted to tell you that your article about the Corzine/Christie/Daggett campaign was excellent. As a newer, 'netroots' blogger, I read tons of political prose online. Your writing exceeds most. I came across you through a New York Times Magazine article about Independents. I am looking forward to purchasing and reading your 'Argument' book.
well that's awfully kind of you, Kevin--thanks. I do hope you like the book and that it doesn't feel too dated now. I'm working on another, but that's going to take a while.
very insightful as with your previous articles -- you really understand what's up and can connect D.C. to the people. I assume many influential people read what you write (maybe even Obama).....so... how about some solutions to Obama's problems you mentioned the public financed election campaigns -- Obama (Congress?) could increase presidential allotment to $190 million enuf for a publicly funded campaign if: Obama gets the FCC (new appointments) to mandate free 10 mins at 6 and 10 PM for 60 days in Sept and Oct (none in Nov) for candidates in 3 or 5 min substantive dialog/ announceements/issues (no 30 sec lies or attack)rotated among all the major candidates and offices. might make a good story-- if Obama and others would buy in, (i.e. publicly funded House and Senate campaigns too)(talk to Rep Rush Holt or?)..
Very kind of you, Joel, and I would love to see the president take on this kind of reform. I suspect he'd say that 1)he's got a lot more urgent business to fight about right now and 2) that he's already contributed a lot to reform simply by collecting so many small donations. I think both points would have some merit. On another topic, and I really don't mean to pick on you, but is this what our correspondence is coming to in the Internet age? No punctuation, no complete sentences, etc? I'll admit to feeling old (and I have no idea how old you are), but I had to read your email like four times before it made any sense to me. I guess I should resign myself now to the inevitability of my own kids writing to me this way when they're older--if they write at all. A new world.
With all due respect, it would have been worth mentioning that the reasons FDR has a much stronger legacy regarding the New Deal than Huey Long included that FDR acquiesced in a politically motivated IRS investigation of Long and his associates which essentially turned up nothing, and that Long was killed in 1935! The latter is a pretty staggering omission, I would think.
(Doug is talking here about my most recent column, titled "No Commoner Obama.") Well that's a very fair point, Doug. I don't actually think it negates the point I was making, but it's certainly theoretically true that Huey Long might have been remembered differently--or even elected president, who knows?--had he lived longer. I should have made mention of it, you're right. Thanks.
I'd like to preface the following screed by saying that were I a resident of New Jersey, I'd be voting for either Corzine or Daggett; the idea of pulling the lever for a nothing like Christie would be akin to choosing Spam over Porterhouse. That said, could you specifically - and the Times in general - be more in Corzine's corner? You rightfully - and thoroughly - report Christie's failing to report the income earned on a $50,000 loan to a friend, but limit Corzine's affair with Carla Katz by saying "he has gone to court to protect the secrecy of his email messages to an ex-girlfriend who also happened to lead one of New Jersey's largest unions." Firstly, Katz led the state's LARGEST state worker union. Corzine didn't report the $470,000 he loaned her - nor its forgiveness, nor the gift tax ($160,000 appox) he paid upon that forgiveness. None of this was included. Secondly, I've a problem with reporters injecting themselves into stories. That said, when the two of you were (I think) in that diner, you'd pointed out some of what you viewed as Corzine's accomplishments. My question: who cares what you think? I can read that in a book or in an editorial. You could have pointed out his accomplishments (there've been more than a few) without saying YOU pointed them out. You didn't even wince when Ed Rendell said that "if (Corzine) wins...I think a lot of governors will say: it's ok to tell the people the truth" and what tough medicine lies ahead. Why didn't you jump all over that? How many will read that their state exectives have been lying to them for fear that we're too stupid or sensitive to know what's got to be done and that getting elected is more important? Unfortunately, the piece is endemic of how the Times is treating the race. A few days after your story appeared, another, entitled "A Rivalry as Strained as New Jersey's Finances" appeared
featuring accompanying pictures of Corzine - bathed in light and looking to
the heavens for guidance - and Christie - snarling in a darkened background. I understand that total objectivity can be elusive; it should at least be attempted. Thanks for listening.
Well. Thanks for taking the time to read and to write me, Adam. I can certainly appreciate your passion, but I fear you need to be a little more sophisticated about the way you read different venues. I'm a magazine writer and essayist. That's different from a newspaper reporter. I suppose I stay "objective" in the sense that my views are never predictably ideological, but I don't aspire to be objective in the sense that I treat all views, allegations and arguments as equal. Who cares what I think? The readers of the New York Times Magazine, I suppose. There's plenty of other media they can read if they want a less opininiated report. Readers of the magazine know that I will bring an honest, nonpartisan and analytical worldview to my writing. It's what I get paid for, and it's what they expect.
To a few of your specific points...first, on the treatment of Christie's loan versus Corzine's, I was making a specific point about Christie, which is that his campaign as a reformer had run into some problems. Corzine's personal issues are a older and less relevant to the present dynamic--that people don't like or especially trust him is well established already. It's not my intention nor my obligation to provide a perfectly balanced and compehensive laundry list of each man's transgressions. For that, I suggest you try wikipedia or something. Second, as for the Times' coverage generally, I have nothing to do with it and can't speak to your accusations. The magazine operates completely separately. If there's some institutional bias, no one sent me the memo.
Finally, I'm kind of fascinated by this line in your note: "You could have pointed out his accomplishments (there've been more than a few) without saying YOU pointed them out." I see: so you would be OK with my half-lying to the reader about that conversation, as long as it didn't appear that I had actually admitted to the governor what I believed to be true. That's not how I interact with my subjects, and it's now how I serve my readers. I think your complaint actually raises some interesting questions about how reporters should go about their jobs and how much candor is appropriate, but that's for a seminar someplace else. Suffice it to say that I believe in total transparency and in letting the reader draw his own conclusions about it, as you have.
Thanks again for a thoughtful critique.
My name is Rajiv and I'm a community organizer in Philly. I just wanted to say that I'm a huge fan of your political writing. As you know (better than most), politics is more than just policy. It's also about the well-intentioned yet flawed human characters who populate the political arena. And your writing captures this aspect of politics beautifully. You employ the techniques of a gifted novelist, truly narrating and not merely reporting. By reading your pieces, people become a little more familiar with the psyches, the egos, and the motives of those who we elect to carry our country forward. I applaud you for your insightful work.
Hey Rajiv, can't thank you enough for taking the time to write. That's certainly what I try to do in my writing, even if I don't always succeed. Getting such a thoughtful note from a Philly reader means that if the Phillies win the series, I will be slightly less crushed. But only slightly.
I read the New York Times magazine regularly, so I’ve seen your byline plenty of times and appreciate your thoughtful approach to the political arena. But you really outdid yourself with State of Distress. The opening of the article paints such an incredible picture that I felt as though I were there in person. And when I got to the line, “You could almost see Corzine’s heart sink in his chest,” I knew I was in for a good read. I appreciate good writing, but when it’s married to outstanding substance, it’s like eating chocolate cake with a twice the icing. And you’ve really done that here. I’ve never understood the reason for the ongoing tax angst in New Jersey (I mean, everyone hates taxes, but it really seems worse in the Garden State than elsewhere). Now I get it. After reading your bio, I was surprised to find that you have never seen an Audrey Hepburn movie. I’d lose no time in seeing Charade. Also, I’m not sure how our political outlooks would line up, but the World Series will hold the same interest for both of us.
Well, Siobhan, thank you--that really made my day. What else could a writer want to hear? I will say that I really liked this piece, too. I'd forgotten how much I enjoy state politics and governors and wonky stuff like taxes. It really is good to get away from Washington on a regular basis, just to keep your perspective and curiosity intact. As for Audrey, I know, it's a sin. And as for the Yankees, well, let's just say nothing political will matter for the next week or so. Go Yanks. Thanks for your note.
As a moderate young Republican/former administration official/capitol hill flack I've lately become very interested in your book and work in the New York Times Magazine on the Democratic Party's transition and debate during the Bush wilderness years. I realize you've picked an area to focus on-the post clinton Democrat party and naturally want to focus on continuing to watch the party transition and develop.
That said, there's another story and it's one I'm familiar with in my career and life and it's a big deal right now. It's the story of what our party once was and why for example in places like New Jersey which you wrote about this week, Virginia which you've written about in the past (warner), Illinois, New York and other areas, where the party is mentally dead and ideologically exhausted. For all the coverage of the christian right, there's been very little explored into why the moderates have disappeared without a fight and why the party can't find new leaders in those places.
I realize you are busy, but to me there's nothing more exciting in politics right now than the fight and debate over the future of the GOP in blue America and given the barrels of ink your op-ed page spills complaining about the unchecked power of the right in my party, it might be worth some of your time and fine reporting.
Keep up the good work.
Thanks, Dave. You know, I'm actually not continuing to focus on Democrats exclusively. I did for a while, while I was writing the book, but not anymore. In fact, I did a long cover piece on Newt Gingrich and some of the themes you're describing last spring. (I also wrote about Senator McCain and and Rudy Giuliani during the campaign.) Your idea is a good one, but sadly I think it's for someone else. I'm a big believer in never trying to do the same thing twice, whether through mirror images or sequels. But I'll certainly keep looking for opportunities to write about the chaos in the Republican world for the magazine. Many thanks again.
Matt - just finished your book, and it's awesome, but I'm sure you hear that all the time. You're obviously smart, which is why it's a little disappointing to see you "miss" Fritz Holznagel's point regarding Obama's Special Olympics remark. Even more disappointing is your apparent misrepresentation of his website's verbatim transcript (assuming Fritz or someone else didn't alter the website since you checked it, which would be nakedly obvious and very stupid. I don't know Fritz from Adam, but judging by his spot-on analysis, I'm speculating he's not that stupid).
On the website, Fritz (or someone) makes the explicit point Obama said "this" is like the Special Olympics, not "it" or "it's". Perhaps you listened to the taping and disagree, but it would be disingenuous for you to write it down as "it" without making this distinction. At a minimum, IMHO, you should correct at least that. Either you disagree with Fritz's hearing, or you simply copied it wrong in the first place.
Although this is an important distinction, it still makes no sense that Obama would say EITHER phrase referring to the quality of his bowling. If you watch the video (have you?), it's clear that Jay was mugging, Obama was quite aware of it, and Obama's comment referred to Jay's over-the-top praise.
As background, Jay made a presumption that Obama was trying to dispel: he would tear down the bowling alley (generally considered a white man's sport) and put up a basketball court (generally considered a black man's sport). Obama was actually making the point that bowling was indeed a sport he played and respected (fully aware of the implications), and it would have been totally incongruous for him to make a joke about his "lame" ability. Let alone to let slip out a comparison to Special Olympic athletes. Yes, it could happen to anyone - even Obama - but not in that context. The apparent fact (listen closely) he said "this" - referring to the present circumstances - just confirms what already makes sense.
Even if you disagree, IMHO you should at least post a correction to "misquoting" the who2 website (unless you believe someone changed it after you first viewed it - in which case, you should so state). It would raise your already high journalistic integrity.
Seriously, Todd, this thing again? You would think it actually mattered to more than six people in the world. But OK...for the record, first, I took the official transcript from Jay's site, as noted. I have no idea where it came from originally. Second, I listened to the audio myself, and I think the official transcript is correct. Third, this may be hard for you to believe, but I really don't have time to sit around doctoring transcripts to change the use of words like "it" and "this" in order to disprove the allegations of bloggers. I kind of have a life. And finally, more to the point, I think this little controversy has probably long surpassed its relevance in the big scheme of things. I mean, even the special olympics has moved on. Jay Leno has a whole new show, for Christ's sake. As conspiracy theories go, the one about President Bush and the hump in his suit during the debate was far more interesting.
So my advice is that we agree to disagree and talk more about how much you liked my book, which is a topic that never gets old. Thanks.
I read your piece in the Sunday Times which was reinforced by your appearance today on Morning Joe. I am always surprised to see the poll results for elderly people’s lack of support of Obama and/or of health reform. I am 72, born in GA but raised in FL and live in a very conservative area. Obama became my candidate after the 2004 convention speech. I was joined in my enthusiasm for Obama by a 91 year old longtime Democrat, originally from IL, who worked the phones for Obmma at the local Democratic office every Thursday. Another fiend, 80 years old, raised in VA, was an Obama supporter and was joined by her Wall Street Journal subscriber, Republican husband in voting for Obama. Lest you think it is racial preference, we are white. None of us has ever been polled which makes me skeptical of polling results. There are scared elderly people but many don't seem to understand the facts. As a member of the Southern Poverty Law Center, I think some of the fear is racial and the feeling of a loss of dominance. The only way to grow...and to stay young in spirit...is to adapt and even embrace change instead of fighting it.
Thanks for writing, Jane. You're certainly not alone--more than four in 10 senior citizens still support the president, depending on the poll. It's just a less impressive number than other Democrats have enjoyed. Race probably has something to do with it, but as I noted in the essay, I think it's a bit too facile an explanation by itself.
