Fwd: WH on Question time

[Glenn Reynolds]

FYI

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Mary Katharine Ham <marykath...@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 1:47 PM
Subject: WH on Question time
To: Glenn Reynolds <glenn.r...@gmail.com>


Thought you could use this.

Bill Burton at the briefing: "The reason Friday worked with the Republican conference was because of the spontanaeity"..."The president thinks there is opportunity for more open dialogue and he'll look for more opportunities...but in terms of regular scheduled event, I don't have anything for you on that."

[David Corn]

I asked. Burton smiled first, knowing what I was going to ask. He was well prepared to respond. We're definitely on the radar. Can we get someone to ask Boehner? I can try.  

David Corn

Office: 202-347-7958

Cell: 301-379-3282

Washington bureau chief

Mother Jones

Winner of the 2008 National Magazine Award for General Excellence

[Michael Moffo]

Bill Burton at the briefing: "The reason Friday worked with the Republican conference was because of the spontanaeity"..."The president thinks there is opportunity for more open dialogue and he'll look for more opportunities...but in terms of regular scheduled event, I don't have anything for you on that."

This response is a distinct copy of what Axelrod said yesterday (as David said, they were prepared and we are on the radar.)

I would propose the "Demand Question Time" response is something simple like this: "We love spontanaeity. But, we believe that transparency and candor will always "work" for the American people, particularly when they are regular, frequent and not subject to the shifting winds of Washington, DC."

David--what are your thoughts? I'd like to at least post something on the Facebook and Twitter fairly quickly.

M>

[da...@aol.com]

If we are going to respond to the White House and others, the responses should be short and sweet--if only to avoid a long, complicated process of reaching consensus. And I think we should avoid using the word "we"--which conveys a speaking-with-one-mind-and-one-voice approach that may not accurately reflect the nature of our very ad hoc group. I'd say what you have below sounds good. But I'd tweak it this way:

Spontaneity in political discourse has its benefits. But the goal is to encourage transparency and candor that works for the American people--that occurs on a regular and frequent basis and that is not subject to the shifting winds of Washington.

---
We might want to consider issuing a follow-up statement after we have the initial responses from the WH and Republican leaders. That could obviously be longer and be subject to editorial back and forth within the group. What are people's thoughts on that?

BTW, Mindy Finn and I are doing Hardball tonight on this. And tomorrow AM, Mark McKinnon and I are doing CNN. I'm also scheduled to go on CSPAN.

In question,
David

[Todd Gitlin]

Good statement.

-------

Todd Gitlin

Professor of Journalism and Sociology

and Chair, Ph. D. Program in Communications

Columbia University

The Journalism School

Room 201F

New York, NY  10027

Phone:  212-854-8124

Fax:  212-854-7837

E-mail:  tgi...@columbia.edu

www.toddgitlin.net

[Micah Sifry]

I like David's initial approach and certainly hope he and Mindy and Mark MacKinnon all use it. 

I will ask one thing--people who are core signers who are going on TV or other media to talk about this ought to be in this Google Group, so there's some ability for interchange and accountability for their words, if need be. So, could whomever pulled in MacKinnon ask him if he's ok being added to the Google Group?

I also think we will need to start doing two things in order to respond to changing opportunities:

1. We need to blog and track what the major players are saying in response to the idea, and at some point share that with the list of signers (not just the core group of 50) but the 2500+++ we are building.

2. If we feel the need for a common response, at a minimum we need to run it by our core group first.

Interesting challenges ahead.

--
http://www.personaldemocracy.com
http://www.techpresident.com
http://micah.sifry.com
http://www.twitter.com/mlsif

[Clay Shirky]

> 1. We need to blog and track what the major players are saying in response
> to the idea, and at some point share that with the list of signers (not just
> the core group of 50) but the 2500+++ we are building.

Can I propose an RSS/Twitter feed for what the major players are
saying, so anyone can opt in or out? Less central overhead, better fit
w/preferences.

> 2. If we feel the need for a common response, at a minimum we need to run it
> by our core group first.
> Interesting challenges ahead.

I'd advocate David's approach above, which I read as "Let's just not
feel the need for a common response." I think the sentiment expressed
speaks for itself, and we can each pursue that shared goal without
sharing everything else as well.

-c

[Michael Moffo]

Speaking of people to loop in:

Andrew Sullivan has added himself to the list and will be on BBC tonight to discuss: http://bit.ly/aSQLG8

Can someone pull him in to the group?

M.

[da...@aol.com]

Stupid question: how do we pull in someone like Andrew to the core group? How do we add his email?
DC

[Micah Sifry]

I'm adding McKinnon to this Google Group and will happily add Sullivan if someone gets me his email address.

I agree with Clay about being as lightweight as possible about this and trust that Clay will be on the watch for those vibes.

One of my favorite quotes from the Tea Party folks that I heard recently on NPR, who was asked if she was building a political machine, was that if we had a machine, they would know who to go after, but how do you go after 3 million machines?

[Micah Sifry]

I'm doing a phoner on C-Span for about 10 minutes at 9:30pm, with Steve Scully I think.

[Clay Shirky]

> I agree with Clay about being as lightweight as possible about this and trust that Clay will be on the watch for those vibes.

Aye aye, Cap'n.

> One of my favorite quotes from the Tea Party folks that I heard recently on
> NPR, who was asked if she was building a political machine, was that if we
> had a machine, they would know who to go after, but how do you go after 3
> million machines?

There was a similarly beautiful moment last year when the NYPD was
complaining that Critical Mass refused to tell the police who was in
charge of the movement.

-c

[Michael Moffo]

Anyone have any luck with a YouTube clip of Corn's question and Burton's answer?

On a related note, can anyone work on a quick-turnaround YouTube clip of the Hardball segment tonight?

Thanks much,
M.

[Mindy Finn]

From the parties involved and from the press, the answer we will get is "this is great in concept, but what are the logistics?" Where should they meet? Who should be there?

I expect we'll get this question on Hardball tonight. My inclination is to say the logistics of the day/time or venue are not what's important. What's important is a mutual, hard commitment from the President and the opposition party, currently the GOP, to engage in open dialogue on at least a monthly basis. Friday was a start, but that type of dialogue between  President Obama and GOP leadership should be the rule, not the exception."    

[Ari Melber]

The *process* of logistics will be important. Without nailing down details on the fly, we can say that establishing a regular format ensures that this does not become a politically negotiated orchestration, ala the presidential debates.

Personally, I'd favor a quarterly session on the Hill, with both parties participating for opposition questions, and transparency in showing how different members take turns to ask questions. Obviously, others may have very different ideas.

But a big picture point is that the public would benefit from an open, independent and transparent format for this, rather than letting politicians use and discard it for their short term ends.

[da...@aol.com]

Here's a transcript of myfull exchange with Burton re DemandQuestionTime:

 

Q    Thanks.  As you might know, there's a coalition of right and left bloggers, politicos, including --

 

MR. BURTON:  Cable pundits?  (Laughter.)

 

Q    -- people who watch cable TV and people who don't, including people who used to work in the administration and people who worked on the Obama campaign, who are asking both the President and the congressional Republican leaders in the House and Senate to hold these question sessions, to commit to holding them on a regular basis.  Would the White House do that?

 

MR. BURTON:  Well, David Axelrod has talked about this a little, and what he had to say was that part of the reason that Friday was so successful with the GOP conference is that it was for the spontaneity that occurred there.  And it's going to be hard to sort of recreate that spontaneity that happened. 

 

Now, the President thinks that there is space for more open dialogue, more -- and he's going to look for more opportunities to do things on camera and have open discussions on important issues.  But in terms of a regularly scheduled event, I don't have anything for you on that.

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Moffo <michae...@gmail.com>
To: question...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wed, Feb 3, 2010 4:25 pm
Subject: Re: WH on Question time