Atttention Robert Gibbs: Desperately Seeking Coherent White House Press Strategy

In April, when the independent right began holding their local tea-party affairs to a news furor across the nation, Robert Gibbs asked, "What's a tea party?"

On Sept. 12, when the Tea Party Express hit Washington, the White House press office tried to pretend it didn't know where these protesters were coming from or what they represented. I find the tea-partiers insufferably annoying due to their lack of knowledge of history and their tendency to use the Glenn Beck definition of words, but at least they are colorful characters in the right-wing nut-o-sphere. The Democrats have been hyper-analyzing the potential turnout, as witnessed by the furor over the "millions" document. Thus, the White House response can only be interpreted two ways:

1. Ignorance. Due to a bevy of media micro-analyzers in the White House Press Office and a daily national intelligence briefing, we can dismiss this option as ridiculous.

2. Belief that they can sound tempered and cool and logical by feigning ignorance. Oh, please. With daily media coverage of the Tea Party Express, Fox News, Glenn Beck, etc., this dog doesn't hunt, this stance is asinine. Gibbs could take his lead from Examiner.com blogger Ryan Witt, who points out that grassroots political expression is fine, but Fox News' role as sponsor and cheerleader is a clear conflict of interest. Mr. Gibbs, such a position takes the high road, without making the White House look like it's trying to play the ignorance game, and playing it very badly indeed. Are you listening?

Warrantless Surveillance and the Lookalike Parties

To no one's surprise, the Senate completely caved in Feb. 12 and provided the White House and the National Security Agency everything it wanted in gutting the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, including full indemnity for phone companies that get conned into performing illegal surveillance. The New York Times was smart enough to realize that the big issue was not simply how much of FISA was destroyed, or to what extent carriers could parade their "get out of jail free" cards, but rather the degree to which cowed Democrats in both houses of Congress, even when in a majority position, give the president everything he wants so as not to look "soft on terrorism." As the Times article points out, this does not bode well for Guantanamo, waterboarding, extraordinary renditions, habeas corpus, or much of anything else in the Bush imperial presidency. It's nice to have two lookalike parties - note that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton did not vote.