With
his frank, engaging and, at times, infuriating book, Stephen Marks has
provided a fascinating glimpse into the mind of one of those guys I
normally hate, the ones who make negative political ads and reduce the
level of political discourse to arguments over, say, who wears flag pins
more consistently.
Marks is a bit of an anti-hero, a term I don't think I've ever written before in reference to a memoir. But I think he'd understand why I use the term, namely he's one of the group of people who make the kind of political ads that I despise. For example, he created an infamous video connecting Al Gore to Al Sharpton through video snippets with the snipped of Sharpton saying "off the pigs"and making other ugly comments.
Disgusting, right? Marks says that video was his finest moment as "Oppo Man," his dark side. The ad was a success, he said, because not only was it condemned by the left but even Bill O'Reilly hated it. Then he notes, "I like to think that my ad moved at least 169 votes in Florida, which would have helped win the state for Bush (he won the state by 336 votes).
I jumped at the chance to interview someone like this, curious if he feels guilt for what he has done, if there is such a thing as an ad that goes too negative, etc. As a result I've turned my usual two-part interview into a three-part interview.
Here is part one. Part two is scheduled tentatively for next Tuesday.
Scott:Was it therapeutic to do a tell all book, sharing all you have seen and done?
Stephen: Yes, very much so. Working in this dark side of American politics for so long caused me to eventually realize that I was living in the same fantasyland as the politicians I was researching; I was doing things in my personal and professional life that were just as wrong and just as hypocritical as the acts of the politicians I was so gleefully digging up dirt on. Like the politicians, I had also become unaccountable, or so I thought. I had developed the same mindset of the politicians, who often justified immoral behavior with the belief that the "ends justified the means."
Therefore, I hoped that this book was a way for me to finally take responsibility for all that I had done to hurt other people in my professional/political life as well as my personal life.
What has been the reception to your book from those you have worked with and have worked for? Put another way, do you think they will want to hire you again knowing you might write a sequel?
Great question and in all the interviews I've done thus far, that question has never been asked. Until now.
I was afraid of what their reactions would be, but surprisingly, the response has either been supportive or neutral. And don't worry, there won't be a sequel.
Do you still plan to do this kind of work?
When I first wrote and published the book, I was convinced that the lifestyle of the work had taken its toll on me and that I was through with this line of work and ready to move on. While I still plan to move on to other things, I've reconsidered my decision not to get
involved in this year's presidential race.
As the race has heated up, I now realize that it's such an historically important election, and I have to admit that I do miss the action to some degree. So while I will definitely not work for any presidential campaign this year, I will be writing and producing "independent" 527 ads for the 2008 presidential election, as I did in 2000 and 2004 against Al Gore and John Kerry. In those two cases, I felt that there were important issues against both Gore and Kerry that were not being addressed by the Bush campaigns, nor in the media, so I produced those ads, which, I like to hope, may have made a difference in Florida in 2000 and in Ohio in 2004. Therefore, if certain issues I believe important are not being addressed, I would be remiss not to again become involved in the political process.
Are you presently working for a campaign? Can you say
which ones?
I will be doing 527 ads against Obama just as I did in 2000 and 2004 against Gore and Kerry [although in 2000 they weren't yet called "527" ads, simply "IE" ads ["independent expenditures"]
What thoughts do you have on the negative ads so far during these presidential campaigns?
Thus far, for the most part, the negative ads have not worked in 2008. Beginning in Iowa, the attacks against both Obama and Huckabee backfired, same in SC and FL as the negatives backfired against both Obama and McCain, and whilst the negative ads against Obama did stick briefly in Pennsylvania, they again backfired in North Carolina and Indiana.
In addition, Hillary Clinton's negative ads against Obama were lame at best.
Even worse, she waited way too late on the Jeremiah Wright issue. I was predicting as early as January on dozens of interviews that she was going to use the Wright issue "soon" before most of the public knew who Jeremiah Wright was.
By the time Hillary got around to making it an issue, it was too late. The idea that Barack Obama was a good guy and not a bigot had already been cemented into the Democratic voters' collective minds. Had Hillary brought it up sooner, before this positive image of Obama had cemented into the minds of the voters, she may have been able to knock him out early.
What did you hope to do with this book?
Many fine book about politics have been written by all kinds of politicos, from campaign mangers [such as George Stephanopoulos], pollsters [such as Dick Morris], and even many politicians themselves, never before has a book been written for the American mainstream by a "political hitman," or as we are more properly and euphemistically referred to; an "opposition researcher," those of us that are used in all campaigns to dig up dirt on the political opposition
What I hoped to accomplish with this book is to help educate the voting public about this underbelly of politics that few Americans know even exists.
I also hoped to explain the most important aspect of negative campaigning, the fact that despite all the complaints about it, it usually works, as most campaigns in America are decided more by the negative than the positive. For instance, in every presidential election since I've been old enough to vote in [Carter. vs. Ford in 1976], with the exception of 1984 [when Reagan was re-elected winning 49 states] in every other presidential election during that period, the voters either voted for change, or for the lesser of two evils. The negatives by and large played far more important roles than the positives.
Another fine example of this looks to be shaping during this year's presidential race, as the current frontrunner to become the next president is Barak Obama. Should Obama defeat John McCain, it will be primarily because the American public wants change, and will therefore vote for Obama not so much because they agree with his politics, but because they want change and an end to the Republican reign.
The book is also my personal story, as I take the reader on a cross-county trip across America digging up dirt on politicians all along the way. I name names, and expose the corruption and hypocrisy on both sides of the political aisle. I tell dozens of outrageous, entertaining, and sometimes even hilarious stories regarding our politicians that have never before been told.
The book finally ends with my disillusionment with both political parties, as well as about how this line of work took a great toll on my personal life as well.
Finally, the book clearly and objectively explains to the reader the positives and negatives of negative campaigning. On the positive side, just as the used car buyer has the right to go to CarFax to learn of any possible negative history of that car [accidents, repairs, etc], the voters also have the right to know as much history as they can [good and bad] about their political candidates in order to cast an educated vote.
On the negative side, of course, is the cynicism and disillusionment so many Americans view our political system because of its overwhelming focus on the negative.
A great example of how sick of it the American public really is is this years' 2008 presidential race, which thus far has been the first in my lifetime where all negative campaigning has not worked; has even backfired. All the vicious and negative attacks thus far against Obama on the Democratic side and against McCain on the Republican side have not only failed, but have actually boomeranged to help both candidates.
It remains to be seen if this trend will continue through the general election, but if it does, it would be historic indeed.
Finally during this year's 2008 presidential campaign, I hope my book can help voters sift through all the negative attacks that are certain to follow, and better understand which attacks are legitimate and which are not. More fundamentally, to let each reader decide for himself or herself the answer to the troubling question of whether or not negative political campaigning is good or bad for America.
What is it like going on shows like Daily Show to promote this book?
I was twice on Anderson Cooper of CNN . Mr. Cooper was a total gentleman and seemed genuinely interested and curious about the subject matter revealed in the book. He had this to say, "It's fascinating. A lot of people don't talk about this. It's a kind of shadowy world".
His staff at CNN was also totally professional and likeable. He's lucky to have them, as was I.
As I was writing these questions the New York Times story came out with what Robert Bennett called "a hatchet job" on McCain. Do you think that story was a hatchet job and is this story the type of thing you have been involved in the past?
If the story turns out to be completely unsubstantiated [as it is thus far], it will indeed be, a "hatchet job." And no, we opposition researchers [as far as all the ones I know and have worked with] would never tell a campaign to use a negative hit as explosive as this one that we couldn't substantiate. When we track down a rumor and find no evidence to support it, we report it for what it is; a rumor. We then ask the client or the campaign if they would like the "rumor" to be looked into further. Sometimes, it is and sometimes it isn't. But we always report the truth to our clients and campaigns we work for.
I'll admit sometimes the client will take research and use it in a misleading way. I even had one client once put out an attack piece, and then ask me to fact-check it after it was already out!
But we opposition researchers don't adhere to this "shoot first; ask questions later" approach. We try to be as accurate as possible.
Finally, in the TV ads that I've personally written and produced, I've used research that I've gleaned personally and have had no campaign nor client to answer for. In those cases, all of my research has also been factually accurate and never based on rumor nor conjecture.
One last point on the McCain "rumor": Although the press probably never should have reported it in the first place, once it was out there, the press took great pains to remind the public that it was just an "unsubstantiated rumor," and nothing further ever came of it. So unless anything new surfaces, it will, in the end, be a non-story.
Some of the commercials we talk about in the interview can be seen at Marks' Web page.
Do you deal directly with the candidates or are there intermediaries? I'm wondering if it's the latter so
candidates can have plausible deniability?
Yes, we always deal with intermediaries, either a campaign manger, campaign consultant, pollster, media person, special interest group, 527, etc. Only on a few occasions, regarding a minor local race have I ever worked directly with the candidate himself.
Yes, this offers plausible deniability, but there's also a more basic reason. The candidates are usually smart enough to let the professionals within their campaigns handle this sort of thing.
What do you think about campaigns seeking to curb 527 groups?
The merit of any of their arguments are moot. the Supreme court ruled 527s are okay. And the Supreme Court is the final law of the land.
But an interesting phenomenon has come from them. Since the candidates now know the 527 groups will do all their dirty work, the candidates can be above the fray and run clean campaigns. For instance, in 2004 and in 2000. Bush and Kerry ran clean campaigns and never said a bad word about each other and acted like gentlemen throughout the campaigns.
Same for Bush and Gore in 2000 [with the exception of Gore making silly faces and interrupting the moderator during the debates]. The candidates ran clean civil campaigns whilst the 527 groups [mine included] killed each other's candidates.
Same will happen this year. Obama and McCain will be total gentlemen whilst the 527s [mine included] will go for the jugular.
Scott: Was it intentional not to have your photo on the book cover? If so, why? If not, what happened?
Stephen: Scott, you give us WAY too much credit. Not everything we do is so clandestine. In this case it was just a mistake, an oversight on my part, missing the date to get the photo in to the publisher.
I see you have a radio show. What kind of stuff do you talk about? Is it available via the net?
I stopped doing the show when the book came out to devote more time to promoting the book. But I hope to go back to it again someday. I did a political talk show, very humorous and off-beat. Sometimes for variety I mixed in music and sports.
Has Fox or Rush ever had you on to talk about yourbook or are you person non grata because you've
exorcised some demons via the book?
I've been on some FOX TV and radio shows. So far, they've been totally good to me. Totally professional
Rush doesn't do interviews unfortunately, but I've sent him a book and am going to write him a letter soon asking him to talk about it on the air [assuming he's read it and liked it]
You started Moveonforamerica.org? Was that in response to moveon.org?
Yes, it was in response to Moveon.org running anti-Bush ads in 2004, my group Moveonfo America.org ran anti-Kerry ads. Viewers can see them on my website politicalhitman.com along with other negative ads I've done. Also some of my TV appearances, as well as [MOST IMPORTANTLY] read the first chapter of my new book for free. RIGHT THERE ON THE WEBSITE! I promise your readers will enjoy it.
The one ad linking Kerry to Dukakis and Willie Horton especially drove the liberals crazy. Also brought me death threats with a picture of my house put on on a reporters' blog to show anyone where I lived if they wanted to do me harm. It was unbelievable.
You wrote a Penthouse article about Pat Buchanan's campaign? Were there any repercussions in response to that?
No. Any repercussions would only give more publicity to the book, and that's the last thing the Buchanans need; to have the whole world know that their presidential campaign illegally laundered campaign cash in order to qualify for federal matching funds. My charges were backed up by an FEC investigation, although the FEC claimed they had neither the time nor resources to further investigate the matter, so they dropped it, despite the seriousness of the issues, and the Buchanans skated. Typical FEC action from m or a typical toothless and gonad-less Federal agency.
I haven't read a book which sounds like it might deal with some related issues, called something like How to Hijack an election. Have you read it?
No, I didn't read it, it was called "How to Rig an Election: Confessions of a Republican Political Operative" but it sounded interesting. Also sounds like he stole part of my title [Confessions of"] which is okay.
It was about a Senate race in New Hampshire [barely won by the Republican] where the Republicans jammed up the Democrats' phone lines on Election Day. What made the story compelling is that the author went to jail.
It has no relation to my book and the opposition researchers we"political hitmen" do, which is all legal. This guy's story is about an illegal dirty trick and how it won an election for them.
Definitely will read it when I have some more time.
So I do want to not only thank Mr. Marks for answering my questions but also for putting up with some admittedly rude, brutal, and possibly loaded, questions.
Let's resume the interview with me noting clearly the difference between us:
Scott: We have a fundamental difference with you calling political negative campaigns a necessary evil and me disagreeing that it's necessary. I think that's best summed up by this two paragraph excerpt from page 191,Re Bob Dole
Stephen: I totally understand where you're coming from. In a perfect world we wouldn't need to have negative campaigning because all the candidates would always tell the truth. They would tell you about all the bad votes they've cast, all the times they've raised your taxes, all the times they've abused their power, all the times they've been unethical and dishonest, all the contributions they've received from crooks, all the all the shady dealings they've had in their personal and professional lives, etc.
Of course in reality, this will never happen, therefore making the political hitman a necessary evil.
Without opposition research and negative campaigning, the voters would be in the dark about who they were voting for, and the politicians would be totally unaccountable. That is not true democracy. Sounds more like a Cuban election.
Have you ever thought about campaigns you would have liked to have worked on? For example, how low would you go if you were doing hit pieces against FDR?
In retrospect, FDR was so far superior to his 4 Republican opponents, it's a good thing his personal life was considered off limits back in those days. Whether or not it would have affected the election results if folk knew about Lucy or about FDR being wheelchair-bound is hard to say.
So thank God this is only a hypothetical question and I was not alive back then working for Herbert Hoover digging up those things on FDR. It would have been a disaster if some of those things came out. I agree with you there.
But it's a different country now. If FDR was president today, people wouldn't care about his personal life if they thought he was doing a good job [as was the case -sort of- with Clinton in 1998.]
You said in an email that you have an opinion on, in your words, "Why nothing negative has thus far stuck to Obama." Can you elaborate?
This is the REAL reason why nothing negative stuck to Obama and why white liberals are supporting him unconditionally: Because Obama offers while liberal voters something no candidate ever had offered…Something more attractive than better education, better health care; something even more attractive than taking troops out of Iraq. He offered them better self-esteem. Supporting Obama made these white liberals feel morally superior about themselves, intellectually superior, and spiritually superior, as they were able to show the world how enlightened and non-racist they were. No more need for therapy and Tony Robbins to give these folks the self-esteem they never had before. Now, for free, and only by requiring five seconds of their time, all they had to say to themselves was "I love Barack."
One of the fascinating parts of Obama's campaign was that he addressed many of his potential negatives in his memoirs, which, to my mind, helps deter some negative stories. For example, when someone mentions his drug use it can now be dubbed an old story. What's your take on that part? Would you encourage or discourage candidates from writing memoirs?
You are exactly right. That's why he did it. Makes it old news. He didn't need a repeat of George W. Bush in 2000 having the DUI story come out 5 days before the election. Which caused Bush's 6 point lead over Gore to go to zero points. In fact, if the Democratic voters in Broward, Dade and Palm beach counties knew how to fill out the ballots properly, Bush's DUI cost him the election.
What do you think Hillary did wrong in her campaign?
Unlike Bill, who had smart professionals running his camping like James Carville and Dick Morris, Hillary chose flunkies with no experience running a presidential campaign, like Maggie Williams and Penn the pollster. Which basically means HILLARY was running the campaign, micromanaging everything no doubt.
Which also shows you what kind of president she would have been; not a delegator; completely power crazy.
She waited WAY TOO LONG to go negative on Obama. By the time she brought up the Jeremiah Wright fiasco, not only was Obama too far ahead in the delegate count to catch, but the idea that Obama is a good guy and NOT a radical like Jeremiah Wright had already been cemented into the voters' minds.
If she had brought out the Jeremiah Wright stuff BEFORE people had formed an opinion of Obama, early on, before Iowa, she most likely would have knocked him right out of the race.
Once again proving what most people know: Hillary is not smart. She NEVER was the brains behind her husbands successes, maybe the ambition, but never the brains.
Every time she has had to do something on her own, whether it was the health care reform or this 2008 campaign, she has been a failure. Anything successful, like her 2000 senatorial bid was a direct result of her husband's popularity and the sympathy she received right after Monicagate.
Bill Clinton had a great mind. She has nothing of the sort. Mediocre thinker at best.
Incidentally, it's always weird to be reading a book and realize they are talking about something you personally covered: You mention on page 220 Congressman Ken Calvert, who I covered while working for a weekly newspaper. The story is even better than how you explained it.
Not only was he caught sitting in a car with a prostitute with his zipper down but you left out his explanation of why she was in the car with him - he said he was giving her a ride home. Unfortunately for him, I think they later determined he was driving the wrong direction to help her. Oh, well.
So you describe seeing all of these family values candidates and elected officials as being the hypocrites they are, from pro-lifer Bob Barr driving his ex-wife to get an abortion to Gingrich and Livingston's affairs. To me that begs the question: So why are you still willing to work for them?
Not ALL Republicans are frauds. Ronald Reagan was not a fraud; George Bush I was not a fraud; Bob Dole was not a fraud; Gerald Ford was not a fraud; even George W. Bush, like him or not, is not a fraud. With W, what you see is what you get, just like Harry Truman.
Likewise, John McCain is not a fraud. I suppose having a wife as beautiful as Cindy would make him have no reason to stray. She is so beautiful.
And I still lean to the Republican side [not as much as I used to perhaps] on the issues. And the 2008 presidential election is an important election historically.
So I feel I would be remiss not to do my small part.
Similarly, the last thing in your book is a comment to the effect of the smartest thing you've done as the oppo man is retire from politics. How does that compute considering you've since come out of retirement? Or am I misunderstanding your plans and intentions?
No you didn't misunderstand. I had a change of heart. I had every intention of quitting this when the book came out, but I found myself getting caught up in the 2008 presidential race.
Every time I do an interview, we talk about the book for a few minutes, but the vast majority of the time is spent discussing my thoughts and expertise as a political "hitman" regarding current election.
My book gives context and relevance to all the negative attacks that were going on in both parties, particularly the Democrats' Obama/Hillary food fight.
So I suppose in the end, I just needed the action. What can I say?
How would you describe what you're doing with this book? It's not so much a kiss and tell or a mea culpa for the simple fact that you've told me you plan to continue doing this sort of work. It's almost like you're trying to both apologize for what you've done while having no compunction or guilt about continuing to do it. Or am I missing something?
Good point. Its still a necessary evil.
Its evil.
But it's necessary.
Lastly, What's your take on Scott McCellan's book? Is he not doing what you are doing, namely trying to come clean on past deeds and misdeeds?
I think Scott's book is more based on revenge and hurt feelings towards those he trashes in his book. My book, of course, has some of that, but is mostly the story of my transformation politically and personally.
Marks is a bit of an anti-hero, a term I don't think I've ever written before in reference to a memoir. But I think he'd understand why I use the term, namely he's one of the group of people who make the kind of political ads that I despise. For example, he created an infamous video connecting Al Gore to Al Sharpton through video snippets with the snipped of Sharpton saying "off the pigs"and making other ugly comments.
Disgusting, right? Marks says that video was his finest moment as "Oppo Man," his dark side. The ad was a success, he said, because not only was it condemned by the left but even Bill O'Reilly hated it. Then he notes, "I like to think that my ad moved at least 169 votes in Florida, which would have helped win the state for Bush (he won the state by 336 votes).
I jumped at the chance to interview someone like this, curious if he feels guilt for what he has done, if there is such a thing as an ad that goes too negative, etc. As a result I've turned my usual two-part interview into a three-part interview.
Here is part one. Part two is scheduled tentatively for next Tuesday.
Scott:Was it therapeutic to do a tell all book, sharing all you have seen and done?
Stephen: Yes, very much so. Working in this dark side of American politics for so long caused me to eventually realize that I was living in the same fantasyland as the politicians I was researching; I was doing things in my personal and professional life that were just as wrong and just as hypocritical as the acts of the politicians I was so gleefully digging up dirt on. Like the politicians, I had also become unaccountable, or so I thought. I had developed the same mindset of the politicians, who often justified immoral behavior with the belief that the "ends justified the means."
Therefore, I hoped that this book was a way for me to finally take responsibility for all that I had done to hurt other people in my professional/political life as well as my personal life.
What has been the reception to your book from those you have worked with and have worked for? Put another way, do you think they will want to hire you again knowing you might write a sequel?
Great question and in all the interviews I've done thus far, that question has never been asked. Until now.
I was afraid of what their reactions would be, but surprisingly, the response has either been supportive or neutral. And don't worry, there won't be a sequel.
Do you still plan to do this kind of work?
When I first wrote and published the book, I was convinced that the lifestyle of the work had taken its toll on me and that I was through with this line of work and ready to move on. While I still plan to move on to other things, I've reconsidered my decision not to get
involved in this year's presidential race.
As the race has heated up, I now realize that it's such an historically important election, and I have to admit that I do miss the action to some degree. So while I will definitely not work for any presidential campaign this year, I will be writing and producing "independent" 527 ads for the 2008 presidential election, as I did in 2000 and 2004 against Al Gore and John Kerry. In those two cases, I felt that there were important issues against both Gore and Kerry that were not being addressed by the Bush campaigns, nor in the media, so I produced those ads, which, I like to hope, may have made a difference in Florida in 2000 and in Ohio in 2004. Therefore, if certain issues I believe important are not being addressed, I would be remiss not to again become involved in the political process.
Are you presently working for a campaign? Can you say
which ones?
I will be doing 527 ads against Obama just as I did in 2000 and 2004 against Gore and Kerry [although in 2000 they weren't yet called "527" ads, simply "IE" ads ["independent expenditures"]
What thoughts do you have on the negative ads so far during these presidential campaigns?
Thus far, for the most part, the negative ads have not worked in 2008. Beginning in Iowa, the attacks against both Obama and Huckabee backfired, same in SC and FL as the negatives backfired against both Obama and McCain, and whilst the negative ads against Obama did stick briefly in Pennsylvania, they again backfired in North Carolina and Indiana.
In addition, Hillary Clinton's negative ads against Obama were lame at best.
Even worse, she waited way too late on the Jeremiah Wright issue. I was predicting as early as January on dozens of interviews that she was going to use the Wright issue "soon" before most of the public knew who Jeremiah Wright was.
By the time Hillary got around to making it an issue, it was too late. The idea that Barack Obama was a good guy and not a bigot had already been cemented into the Democratic voters' collective minds. Had Hillary brought it up sooner, before this positive image of Obama had cemented into the minds of the voters, she may have been able to knock him out early.
What did you hope to do with this book?
Many fine book about politics have been written by all kinds of politicos, from campaign mangers [such as George Stephanopoulos], pollsters [such as Dick Morris], and even many politicians themselves, never before has a book been written for the American mainstream by a "political hitman," or as we are more properly and euphemistically referred to; an "opposition researcher," those of us that are used in all campaigns to dig up dirt on the political opposition
What I hoped to accomplish with this book is to help educate the voting public about this underbelly of politics that few Americans know even exists.
I also hoped to explain the most important aspect of negative campaigning, the fact that despite all the complaints about it, it usually works, as most campaigns in America are decided more by the negative than the positive. For instance, in every presidential election since I've been old enough to vote in [Carter. vs. Ford in 1976], with the exception of 1984 [when Reagan was re-elected winning 49 states] in every other presidential election during that period, the voters either voted for change, or for the lesser of two evils. The negatives by and large played far more important roles than the positives.
Another fine example of this looks to be shaping during this year's presidential race, as the current frontrunner to become the next president is Barak Obama. Should Obama defeat John McCain, it will be primarily because the American public wants change, and will therefore vote for Obama not so much because they agree with his politics, but because they want change and an end to the Republican reign.
The book is also my personal story, as I take the reader on a cross-county trip across America digging up dirt on politicians all along the way. I name names, and expose the corruption and hypocrisy on both sides of the political aisle. I tell dozens of outrageous, entertaining, and sometimes even hilarious stories regarding our politicians that have never before been told.
The book finally ends with my disillusionment with both political parties, as well as about how this line of work took a great toll on my personal life as well.
Finally, the book clearly and objectively explains to the reader the positives and negatives of negative campaigning. On the positive side, just as the used car buyer has the right to go to CarFax to learn of any possible negative history of that car [accidents, repairs, etc], the voters also have the right to know as much history as they can [good and bad] about their political candidates in order to cast an educated vote.
On the negative side, of course, is the cynicism and disillusionment so many Americans view our political system because of its overwhelming focus on the negative.
A great example of how sick of it the American public really is is this years' 2008 presidential race, which thus far has been the first in my lifetime where all negative campaigning has not worked; has even backfired. All the vicious and negative attacks thus far against Obama on the Democratic side and against McCain on the Republican side have not only failed, but have actually boomeranged to help both candidates.
It remains to be seen if this trend will continue through the general election, but if it does, it would be historic indeed.
Finally during this year's 2008 presidential campaign, I hope my book can help voters sift through all the negative attacks that are certain to follow, and better understand which attacks are legitimate and which are not. More fundamentally, to let each reader decide for himself or herself the answer to the troubling question of whether or not negative political campaigning is good or bad for America.
What is it like going on shows like Daily Show to promote this book?
I was twice on Anderson Cooper of CNN . Mr. Cooper was a total gentleman and seemed genuinely interested and curious about the subject matter revealed in the book. He had this to say, "It's fascinating. A lot of people don't talk about this. It's a kind of shadowy world".
His staff at CNN was also totally professional and likeable. He's lucky to have them, as was I.
As I was writing these questions the New York Times story came out with what Robert Bennett called "a hatchet job" on McCain. Do you think that story was a hatchet job and is this story the type of thing you have been involved in the past?
If the story turns out to be completely unsubstantiated [as it is thus far], it will indeed be, a "hatchet job." And no, we opposition researchers [as far as all the ones I know and have worked with] would never tell a campaign to use a negative hit as explosive as this one that we couldn't substantiate. When we track down a rumor and find no evidence to support it, we report it for what it is; a rumor. We then ask the client or the campaign if they would like the "rumor" to be looked into further. Sometimes, it is and sometimes it isn't. But we always report the truth to our clients and campaigns we work for.
I'll admit sometimes the client will take research and use it in a misleading way. I even had one client once put out an attack piece, and then ask me to fact-check it after it was already out!
But we opposition researchers don't adhere to this "shoot first; ask questions later" approach. We try to be as accurate as possible.
Finally, in the TV ads that I've personally written and produced, I've used research that I've gleaned personally and have had no campaign nor client to answer for. In those cases, all of my research has also been factually accurate and never based on rumor nor conjecture.
One last point on the McCain "rumor": Although the press probably never should have reported it in the first place, once it was out there, the press took great pains to remind the public that it was just an "unsubstantiated rumor," and nothing further ever came of it. So unless anything new surfaces, it will, in the end, be a non-story.
Some of the commercials we talk about in the interview can be seen at Marks' Web page.
Do you deal directly with the candidates or are there intermediaries? I'm wondering if it's the latter so
candidates can have plausible deniability?
Yes, we always deal with intermediaries, either a campaign manger, campaign consultant, pollster, media person, special interest group, 527, etc. Only on a few occasions, regarding a minor local race have I ever worked directly with the candidate himself.
Yes, this offers plausible deniability, but there's also a more basic reason. The candidates are usually smart enough to let the professionals within their campaigns handle this sort of thing.
What do you think about campaigns seeking to curb 527 groups?
The merit of any of their arguments are moot. the Supreme court ruled 527s are okay. And the Supreme Court is the final law of the land.
But an interesting phenomenon has come from them. Since the candidates now know the 527 groups will do all their dirty work, the candidates can be above the fray and run clean campaigns. For instance, in 2004 and in 2000. Bush and Kerry ran clean campaigns and never said a bad word about each other and acted like gentlemen throughout the campaigns.
Same for Bush and Gore in 2000 [with the exception of Gore making silly faces and interrupting the moderator during the debates]. The candidates ran clean civil campaigns whilst the 527 groups [mine included] killed each other's candidates.
Same will happen this year. Obama and McCain will be total gentlemen whilst the 527s [mine included] will go for the jugular.
Scott: Was it intentional not to have your photo on the book cover? If so, why? If not, what happened?
Stephen: Scott, you give us WAY too much credit. Not everything we do is so clandestine. In this case it was just a mistake, an oversight on my part, missing the date to get the photo in to the publisher.
I see you have a radio show. What kind of stuff do you talk about? Is it available via the net?
I stopped doing the show when the book came out to devote more time to promoting the book. But I hope to go back to it again someday. I did a political talk show, very humorous and off-beat. Sometimes for variety I mixed in music and sports.
Has Fox or Rush ever had you on to talk about yourbook or are you person non grata because you've
exorcised some demons via the book?
I've been on some FOX TV and radio shows. So far, they've been totally good to me. Totally professional
Rush doesn't do interviews unfortunately, but I've sent him a book and am going to write him a letter soon asking him to talk about it on the air [assuming he's read it and liked it]
You started Moveonforamerica.org? Was that in response to moveon.org?
Yes, it was in response to Moveon.org running anti-Bush ads in 2004, my group Moveonfo America.org ran anti-Kerry ads. Viewers can see them on my website politicalhitman.com along with other negative ads I've done. Also some of my TV appearances, as well as [MOST IMPORTANTLY] read the first chapter of my new book for free. RIGHT THERE ON THE WEBSITE! I promise your readers will enjoy it.
The one ad linking Kerry to Dukakis and Willie Horton especially drove the liberals crazy. Also brought me death threats with a picture of my house put on on a reporters' blog to show anyone where I lived if they wanted to do me harm. It was unbelievable.
You wrote a Penthouse article about Pat Buchanan's campaign? Were there any repercussions in response to that?
No. Any repercussions would only give more publicity to the book, and that's the last thing the Buchanans need; to have the whole world know that their presidential campaign illegally laundered campaign cash in order to qualify for federal matching funds. My charges were backed up by an FEC investigation, although the FEC claimed they had neither the time nor resources to further investigate the matter, so they dropped it, despite the seriousness of the issues, and the Buchanans skated. Typical FEC action from m or a typical toothless and gonad-less Federal agency.
I haven't read a book which sounds like it might deal with some related issues, called something like How to Hijack an election. Have you read it?
No, I didn't read it, it was called "How to Rig an Election: Confessions of a Republican Political Operative" but it sounded interesting. Also sounds like he stole part of my title [Confessions of"] which is okay.
It was about a Senate race in New Hampshire [barely won by the Republican] where the Republicans jammed up the Democrats' phone lines on Election Day. What made the story compelling is that the author went to jail.
It has no relation to my book and the opposition researchers we"political hitmen" do, which is all legal. This guy's story is about an illegal dirty trick and how it won an election for them.
Definitely will read it when I have some more time.
So I do want to not only thank Mr. Marks for answering my questions but also for putting up with some admittedly rude, brutal, and possibly loaded, questions.
Let's resume the interview with me noting clearly the difference between us:
Scott: We have a fundamental difference with you calling political negative campaigns a necessary evil and me disagreeing that it's necessary. I think that's best summed up by this two paragraph excerpt from page 191,Re Bob Dole
While being interviewed in the closing weeks, Dole was flatly asked why he wasn't attacking Clinton more forcefully. Dole's response was lamer than anything I had ever heard in any presidential campaign in my lifetime. "I'd rather lose with dignity."Now, reading that, I think more highly of Dole for refusing to go (more) negative where the author thinks less of him. Do you a) understand where I'm coming from? and b) Do you think me naive to dispute your belief that, essentially, the people need to know the negatives about every candidate so they can decide for themselves about the candidates?
What that means is that Dole didn't have the political stomach to do what was necessary, the down and dirty presidential politics that he would have had to employ in order to have a chance to defeat Clinton. >
Stephen: I totally understand where you're coming from. In a perfect world we wouldn't need to have negative campaigning because all the candidates would always tell the truth. They would tell you about all the bad votes they've cast, all the times they've raised your taxes, all the times they've abused their power, all the times they've been unethical and dishonest, all the contributions they've received from crooks, all the all the shady dealings they've had in their personal and professional lives, etc.
Of course in reality, this will never happen, therefore making the political hitman a necessary evil.
Without opposition research and negative campaigning, the voters would be in the dark about who they were voting for, and the politicians would be totally unaccountable. That is not true democracy. Sounds more like a Cuban election.
Have you ever thought about campaigns you would have liked to have worked on? For example, how low would you go if you were doing hit pieces against FDR?
In retrospect, FDR was so far superior to his 4 Republican opponents, it's a good thing his personal life was considered off limits back in those days. Whether or not it would have affected the election results if folk knew about Lucy or about FDR being wheelchair-bound is hard to say.
So thank God this is only a hypothetical question and I was not alive back then working for Herbert Hoover digging up those things on FDR. It would have been a disaster if some of those things came out. I agree with you there.
But it's a different country now. If FDR was president today, people wouldn't care about his personal life if they thought he was doing a good job [as was the case -sort of- with Clinton in 1998.]
You said in an email that you have an opinion on, in your words, "Why nothing negative has thus far stuck to Obama." Can you elaborate?
This is the REAL reason why nothing negative stuck to Obama and why white liberals are supporting him unconditionally: Because Obama offers while liberal voters something no candidate ever had offered…Something more attractive than better education, better health care; something even more attractive than taking troops out of Iraq. He offered them better self-esteem. Supporting Obama made these white liberals feel morally superior about themselves, intellectually superior, and spiritually superior, as they were able to show the world how enlightened and non-racist they were. No more need for therapy and Tony Robbins to give these folks the self-esteem they never had before. Now, for free, and only by requiring five seconds of their time, all they had to say to themselves was "I love Barack."
One of the fascinating parts of Obama's campaign was that he addressed many of his potential negatives in his memoirs, which, to my mind, helps deter some negative stories. For example, when someone mentions his drug use it can now be dubbed an old story. What's your take on that part? Would you encourage or discourage candidates from writing memoirs?
You are exactly right. That's why he did it. Makes it old news. He didn't need a repeat of George W. Bush in 2000 having the DUI story come out 5 days before the election. Which caused Bush's 6 point lead over Gore to go to zero points. In fact, if the Democratic voters in Broward, Dade and Palm beach counties knew how to fill out the ballots properly, Bush's DUI cost him the election.
What do you think Hillary did wrong in her campaign?
Unlike Bill, who had smart professionals running his camping like James Carville and Dick Morris, Hillary chose flunkies with no experience running a presidential campaign, like Maggie Williams and Penn the pollster. Which basically means HILLARY was running the campaign, micromanaging everything no doubt.
Which also shows you what kind of president she would have been; not a delegator; completely power crazy.
She waited WAY TOO LONG to go negative on Obama. By the time she brought up the Jeremiah Wright fiasco, not only was Obama too far ahead in the delegate count to catch, but the idea that Obama is a good guy and NOT a radical like Jeremiah Wright had already been cemented into the voters' minds.
If she had brought out the Jeremiah Wright stuff BEFORE people had formed an opinion of Obama, early on, before Iowa, she most likely would have knocked him right out of the race.
Once again proving what most people know: Hillary is not smart. She NEVER was the brains behind her husbands successes, maybe the ambition, but never the brains.
Every time she has had to do something on her own, whether it was the health care reform or this 2008 campaign, she has been a failure. Anything successful, like her 2000 senatorial bid was a direct result of her husband's popularity and the sympathy she received right after Monicagate.
Bill Clinton had a great mind. She has nothing of the sort. Mediocre thinker at best.
Incidentally, it's always weird to be reading a book and realize they are talking about something you personally covered: You mention on page 220 Congressman Ken Calvert, who I covered while working for a weekly newspaper. The story is even better than how you explained it.
Not only was he caught sitting in a car with a prostitute with his zipper down but you left out his explanation of why she was in the car with him - he said he was giving her a ride home. Unfortunately for him, I think they later determined he was driving the wrong direction to help her. Oh, well.
So you describe seeing all of these family values candidates and elected officials as being the hypocrites they are, from pro-lifer Bob Barr driving his ex-wife to get an abortion to Gingrich and Livingston's affairs. To me that begs the question: So why are you still willing to work for them?
Not ALL Republicans are frauds. Ronald Reagan was not a fraud; George Bush I was not a fraud; Bob Dole was not a fraud; Gerald Ford was not a fraud; even George W. Bush, like him or not, is not a fraud. With W, what you see is what you get, just like Harry Truman.
Likewise, John McCain is not a fraud. I suppose having a wife as beautiful as Cindy would make him have no reason to stray. She is so beautiful.
And I still lean to the Republican side [not as much as I used to perhaps] on the issues. And the 2008 presidential election is an important election historically.
So I feel I would be remiss not to do my small part.
Similarly, the last thing in your book is a comment to the effect of the smartest thing you've done as the oppo man is retire from politics. How does that compute considering you've since come out of retirement? Or am I misunderstanding your plans and intentions?
No you didn't misunderstand. I had a change of heart. I had every intention of quitting this when the book came out, but I found myself getting caught up in the 2008 presidential race.
Every time I do an interview, we talk about the book for a few minutes, but the vast majority of the time is spent discussing my thoughts and expertise as a political "hitman" regarding current election.
My book gives context and relevance to all the negative attacks that were going on in both parties, particularly the Democrats' Obama/Hillary food fight.
So I suppose in the end, I just needed the action. What can I say?
How would you describe what you're doing with this book? It's not so much a kiss and tell or a mea culpa for the simple fact that you've told me you plan to continue doing this sort of work. It's almost like you're trying to both apologize for what you've done while having no compunction or guilt about continuing to do it. Or am I missing something?
Good point. Its still a necessary evil.
Its evil.
But it's necessary.
Lastly, What's your take on Scott McCellan's book? Is he not doing what you are doing, namely trying to come clean on past deeds and misdeeds?
I think Scott's book is more based on revenge and hurt feelings towards those he trashes in his book. My book, of course, has some of that, but is mostly the story of my transformation politically and personally.
No comments:
Post a Comment