35 years ago, + 1 day: the break-in

I meant to blog about this yesterday, but I was just too tired to blog after we got home from visiting my dad in the Poconos.

Thirty-five years ago yesterday, five men broke into the Watergate complex, home of the Democratic National Headquarters, and were caught by police after security guard Frank Willis noticed tape over a door latch (put there by the burglars to keep it from locking). The burglary touched off a cascade of events that led to the downfall and resignation of President Nixon.

Editor & Publisher had an interesting piece late last week about the anniversary that asks the question, "Would the Watergate story have been broken today?" A sample:

If Watergate had broken today, chances are someone would have posted a news story with inaccurate information too early, or the in-depth reporting needed might have been neglected in favor of quicker, more immediate, and more broad-interest scoops. That is not to say that the Post, still among the best daily papers and Web sites in the industry, would not have been on top of the story. But there is no doubt that online and immediacy demands of today could have impacted the careful, slow-building and meticulous coverage.

As for anonymous sourcing, it is clear the recent efforts to penalize confidential sources, and reporters who use them, may have an impact on reporting another Watergate today. Famed Deep Throat source W. Mark Felt, who helped guide Woodward during his parking garage meetings, may have felt more threatened with legal problems, and possibly jail, had he cooperated in today's climate -- as would Woodward and Bernstein.

Who knows, someone with a cell phone camera working in the parking garage might have snapped a photo of Woodward chatting with this unknown source. Or a blogger would have blown the whistle.

It's not an easy question to contemplate, because much of the cynicism and partisanship that exists today can be traced back to Watergate and Vietnam. (It's not a stretch to say that without Vietnam, there would have been no Watergate Scandal.)

The idealist in me likes to think that somehow the truth would still come out if such a political firestorm happened today, but the realist in me says "no way."

Why?

Because Watergate-caliber stuff has been happening in this country for over six years now, and because of the poisoned political atmosphere in Washington, the rise of Fox News and the pervasiveness of right-wing radio and the consolidation of our media, it's highly unlikely that such a scandal would be revealed today unless some major whistle blowers stepped forward.

In today's partisan atmosphere, can you imagine how harshly Woodstein would be crucified by Fox News, Rush Limbaugh and Sean Insanity? They'd be labeled "reporters with an agenda, out to get the president." Period.

And that's one of the main reasons why the Bush administration has gotten away with the mind-boggling things it has since January 2001 - when a legit news story comes out that's a major embarrassment to the administration, either the people reporting it get attacked, or the administration manipulates the media with another terrorism or War in Iraq story. Remember the timing of the Saddam Hussein verdict?

A few examples of the people who've been smeared: Richard Clarke, former counter-terrorism chief from presidents Reagan through George W. Bush; former treasury secretary Paul O'Neill; the U.S. attorneys who were fired; a number of former army generals who served in Iraq; John DiIulio, the former head of Bush's stalled effort to aid religious charities; and Matthew Dowd, a former Bush staffer who played key roles in Bush's "victories" in 2000 and 2004.

Hey, the list goes on and on. The Karl Rove template on whistle blowers and defectors is simple - impugn the integrity of the turncoats, so at least the possibility is raised that they might be speaking out because of a missed-out promotion, or a political ax to grind.

So, in the end, I don't think Watergate could be exposed like it was from 1972-1974. Our mainstream media is too corrupted, consolidated and focused on pop culture pap, and very few journalists do honest, thorough reporting anymore. The norm now sadly seems to be "report now, and we'll correct it if we need to." In other words, report now, verify later, but only if someone screams and complains loud enough that we got the story wrong.

Think I'm being too cynical? Then you haven't been paying attention to the presidential candidates' press coverage so far, specifically on the Democrats. From Hillary Clinton's wardrobe and ancient marital problems to John Edwards' "$400 haircuts," the Dems, so far, have been subjected to a great deal of superficial, biased and irrelevant reporting.

On the flip-side, candidates like Rudy Giuliani and John McCain have largely gotten a pass. Giuliani, a man who has profited greatly and shamelessly from 9-11, made about $10 million in speeches last year, and his speaking contract demanded all sorts of ridiculous luxuries; use of a Gulfstream IV Jet among them, along with a $100,000 speaking fee. And the press is bitching about a $400 haircut? Please.

Anyway, Joe Strupp, the author of the E&P piece, ended with a note of optimism:

I'm not saying all is lost in the realm of true investigative journalism. A look at the recent Pulitzer Prizes found a welcomed return, in many categories, to investigative packages and stories, with news microscopes focused on issues ranging from housing scandals in Miami to oceanic problems in the Pacific.

Those are some good examples, no doubt, but I still maintain that in the age of infotainment, there is much, much more horrific and superficial journalism in our mainstream media than even adequate reporting.

Bob Schieffer - a dyed-in-the-wool journalist

I've only recently become a fan of Bob Schieffer, but I'm glad I did. I love Face the Nation, but it's my least favorite of the three network Sunday morning political shows. The only reason I dislike it is because it's 30 minutes instead of the hour-long This Week and Meet the Press.

Schieffer is the most qualified to host one of the Sunday morning shows. He is one of the very few journalists to have covered The White House, The Pentagon, The State Department and Congress. He routinely does a very, very good job; he's not afraid to take some shots at people and institutions he's unhappy with.

Last weekend, he more than called out the Bush Administration on the U.S. Prosecutor firings, complete with video tape. (That's always my favorite, because video doesn't lie.)

At the end of the footage, take a look at the shifty-eyed performance of White House Counselor Dan Bartlett, as he lamely tries to impugn the integrity of Matthew Dowd, a former Bush staffer who played key roles in Bush's "victories" in 2000 and 2004. Last weekend, Dowd came out quite strongly against the Bush Administration, and the Sunday morning talk shows were the first opportunity to respond, and respond they did.

Like this was unpredictable - character assassination by a Bush mouthpiece in the face of dissent. I'll have more on Bartlett later today, including some footage from his appearance on last Sunday's MTP appearance.

Pretty impressive that Bartlett managed to get on MTP & FTN on the same day. I guess This Week declined the ménage à trois.

Ex-Bush aide: Kerry was right

This was pretty big news this past weekend - ex-presidential aide Matthew Dowd has spoken out against President Bush, and in a very unequivocal, public way.

Dowd, a former Democrat who was not happy with many things during the Clinton Presidency, was taken in by Bush's messages of "restoring honor and integrity to the Oval Office" and bringing bipartisanship and cooperation to Washington. Dowd switched parties and remained with Bush for the next six years, serving as Bush's chief campaign strategist during the 2004 election.

However, many events began to change his mind - Abu Gharib, Bush's refusal to meet with Cindy Sheehan, the decision to keep Donald Rumsfeld on after a number of missteps, and the renomination of former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton.

"I really like him, which is probably why I’m so disappointed in things," he said during an interview with The New York Times. He added, "I think he's become more, in my view, secluded and bubbled in."

During his NYT interview, Dowd stated his faith in Bush's ability was misplaced, and he called for a withdraw from Iraq. In retrospect, Dowd says his faith in Bush was misplaced. You've got plenty of company, Mr. Dowd.

He asserted in the interview that Bush "still approached governing with a 'my way or the highway' mentality reinforced by a shrinking circle of trusted aides." What a surprise.

Dowd said he decided to go public with his disagreement with the administration because his disappointment was so great. He also reasoned he felt an obligation to speak out now because he played a part in Bush's electoral victories.

The most powerful passage from the Times article comes here:

Mr. Dowd, a crucial part of a team that cast Senator John Kerry as a flip-flopper who could not be trusted with national security during wartime, said he had even written but never submitted an op-ed article titled "Kerry Was Right," arguing that Mr. Kerry, a Massachusetts Democrat and 2004 presidential candidate, was correct in calling last year for a withdrawal from Iraq.

"I'm a big believer that in part what we're called to do — to me, by God; other people call it karma — is to restore balance when things didn’t turn out the way they should have," Mr. Dowd said. "Just being quiet is not an option when I was so publicly advocating an election."

Even more outrageous, and in retrospect, sad, it what Dowd had to say in the interview about Kerry's qualifications to lead a strong national defense:

In television interviews in 2004, Mr. Dowd said that Mr. Kerry’s campaign was proposing "a weak defense," and that the voters "trust this president more than they trust Senator Kerry on Iraq."

But he was starting to have his own doubts by then, he said.

He said he thought Mr. Bush handled the immediate aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks well but "missed a real opportunity to call the country to a shared sense of sacrifice."

The two events that hardened Dowd's resolve to speak out against Bush happened during the summer of 2005, said Dowd: the president's poor decisions regarding Hurricane Katrina, and Bush's refusal to meet with Cindy Sheehan around the same time that he was entertaining Tour de France Champion Lance Armstrong at his Crawford ranch, said Dowd during the interview.

His thought process was further influenced by working with California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger during his 2006 campaign, which had a theme of broad, bi-partisan appeal. (I can relate to Dowd's thinking here - Arnold is most definitely a Republican I would consider voting for were he eligible to run for president, which he is not.)

"I think we should design campaigns that appeal not to 51 percent of the people," said Dowd, "but bring the country together as a whole.

"If the American public says [it's] done with something, our leaders have to understand what they want," Dowd said. "They’re saying, 'Get out of Iraq.'"

Pretty powerful statements from one of Bush's inner circle. This is by no means a crippling blow, but it comes at a time when Bush needs as few of these stories as possible in the media.

While it's about three years too late, I applaud Dowd for his courage - it's not a stretch that Bush's Rasputin, Karl Rove, will avenge Dowd's change of heart in whatever way he can.

Photos from AP via The Huffington Post