Today I finished Front Row at the Trump Show, the new book by ABC White House reporter Jonathan Karl. I’ve read most of the big books on Trump.* Front Row at The Trump Show is not as comprehensive a history of Trump’s presidency as some of the other books I have read (I think Tim Alberta’s American Carnage is the most comprehensive) and does not really try to be. But it’s one of the most entertaining — and arguably the most credible.

I’ll write this review by flying through a few of the tidbits that grabbed my attention, as signified by my Kindle bookmarks:

• Karl reminds us that the centerpiece of Donald Trump’s 1999 campaign for the Reform Party nomination was … a wealth tax of 14.25% on all wealth over $10 million. It would have been the biggest tax increase in human history by far.

• Sportswriter Rick Reilly wrote that he played golf with Trump, who introduced Reilly to anyone who would listen as the publisher of Sports Illustrated. Reilly asked Trump why he was lying about him. Trump replied: “Sounds better.”

• I had forgotten how Fox News was really on Jeb’s side at first, and was anti-Trump. But Trump got his airtime anyway — by going on Fake News CNN, once spending an hour with Don Lemon, who said Trump could come on any time.

• When Trump came down the escalator to announce his candidacy, there was a crowd of people applauding. They were paid actors. A company hired by his campaign had put out a casting call offering $50 a head to come applaud Trump as he announced that he would be running for President.

• One of the stories that bothers me the most is Karl’s lengthy description of a famous event at a campaign rally that many of you might remember. Trump started complaining that the cameras would never show the size of the crowd. He singled out the cameraman in the middle and started saying, over and over, that it was “terrible” that the cameraman would not turn the camera to show the crowd. Trump riled up the crowd for several minutes, whipping them up into a frenzy of anger at the supposedly biased cameraman who refused to show the crowd. I found the video online. You can view the relevant portion here:

  Karl explains that the cameraman was a guy named Stuart Clark who was performing the role of a “pool camera operator” for the big five TV networks. He had one job: keep your camera on the candidate. The networks could then use other cameras for other shots, knowing that the pool camera was assigned to do one thing and one thing only: keep that camera trained on the face of the candidate.

  Karl explains that many candidates might not know this, but Trump does:

  Nobody understands this system better than Donald Trump. If you watch his speeches, he plays to that center camera. He knows it’s the pool camera and he knows that the pool camera shoots the video that cable networks use when they broadcast his speeches live.

  If you watch the clip I have cut for you, you can see him playing directly to that camera. As you watch him look at that camera, it’s very obvious when you actually watch the video that Trump knows exactly what he is doing

  Karl talked to Stuart about it afterwards.

  “I just sucked it up and did my job,” Stuart later told me.

  As the rally ended and the crowd left, Stuart stayed behind in the fenced-off press area. After that experience, he didn’t want to have somebody take a shot at his as he left, lugging all his equipment, heading off to cover the next Trump rally.

  A CNN producer later complained to Corey Lewandowski, saying that this sort of thing was dangerous. The contemptible punk Lewandowski replied: “Yeah, right.”

I bookmarked a lot of other passages, but this post is getting long and you get the idea. If you’re a fan of this genre of book (and I definitely am), you’ll find this book as entertaining as any other on the market. And Jonathan Karl has a real integrity in the way he presents the story. He asked a lot of important, newsmaking questions, but he comes across like the consummate newsman — not looking to be the news, but merely to ask the questions that make the news.

I recommend this book.

*These include Fire and Fury (maybe 60-90% accurate!, Bob Woodward’s Fear (fun; pretty well sourced but take it with a grain of salt); Team of Vipers by Cliff Sims (enjoyable view from someone more favorable to Trump than most); A Very Stable Genius: Donald J. Trump’s Testing of America, by Philip Rucker and Carol Leonnig (enjoyed this one); and American Carnage: On the Front Lines of the Republican Civil War and the Rise of President Trump, by Tim Alberta (I never did a review but I found this book very wide-ranging and insightful).

Our old friend Karl still blogs at the Green Room at Hot Air, and his latest is a strong defense of the Eastwood bit (can’t call it a speech) at the GOP convention. I hope Karl won’t mind if I quote him at length:

If you doubt that Eastwood was not simply winging it, don’t watch his performance — read the transcript. There may be no better indicator of just how intentional Eastwood’s performance is than to compare the visual impression he gave with the text delivered.

Eastwood begins with a touch of Admiral James Stockdale, but Clint answers the question of why he is there. The fact is that everyone really knows why Clint is there — to make a political statement. But Eastwood, in mentioning that Hollywood is perhaps not as monolithic as the stereotype suggests, is making a subtle suggestion to the audience he wants to reach: you may be part of some left-identifying group, but it’s okay to disagree and there may be other quiet dissenters in your group.

Eastwood then introduces the dramatic device of the empty chair, which in this context also echoes the political metaphor of the empty suit. This has been remarked upon, particularly as an echo of comedic dialogs from people like Bob Newhart, so I won’t dwell on it here, although it reappears below.

Eastwood then proceeds to use this comedic device to deliver — as Mark Steyn noted in passing — some of the toughest political attacks on President Obama heard during the entire RNC. A number of the traditional speakers strove to play on swing voters’ disenchantment with the failed promises of Hope and Change. But notice how tired and traditional that just sounded in your head. Mitt Romney (likely with help from a professional political speechwriter) did it pretty well: “You know there’s something wrong with the kind of job he’s done as president when the best feeling you had was the day you voted for him.” But did anyone do it as powerfully and emotionally as Eastwood’s segue from everyone — himself included — crying with joy at Obama’s historic victory to the tears we now shed over 23 million still unemployed, which Clint bluntly called a national disgrace?

This was the first part of Eastwood’s simple and effective argument. Eastwood points out — in a prodding, joking manner — that Obama was elected to bring peace and prosperity, but failed to bring either. That Eastwood may disagree with the GOP on some war issues is perfectly alright in this context, because, as suggested earlier and explored further below, Eastwood is not really targeting Republicans.

Eastwood then arrives at his Joe Biden joke: “Of course we all know Biden is the intellect of the Democratic party. Just kind of a grin with a body behind it.” That last part is not accidental in a performance featuring an empty chair. But the first part is even more dangerous. For the last 3+ years, we have been accustomed to having Biden as safe material for humor, while Obama has been kept off-limits. Eastwood leverages the latter into the former, suggesting that Sheriff Joe is the real brains of the operation. Ouch! No wonder Team Obama got annoyed enough to respond.

Having delivered these punches regarding our dire situation with velvet gloves, Eastwood then does the softest of sells for the Romney/Ryan ticket. As Jesse Walker noted, it was almost more of a pitch for Not Obama. Again, there was nothing accidental about the nature or placement of this speech withing Clint’s imagined dialogue.

Eastwood concludes by summing up the GOP case to undecideds and rebutting the main point Dems seem to advance for Obama. First, “[p]oliticians are employees of ours… And when somebody does not do the job, we got to let ‘em go.” Second, “we don’t have to be metal [sic] masochists and vote for somebody that we don’t really even want in office just because they seem to be nice guys or maybe not so nice guys if you look at some of the recent ads going out there.”

Eastwood was not “rambling.” He improvised within a structure, making a clear and concise case for dumping Obama.

The only part of Eastwood’s bit that I found uncomfortable was the bit about Afghanistan and the Russians. That part left me going whaaa? But in general I thought that it was about time somebody made fun of Obama in front of a national audience.

A perspicacious reader who does not wish to be named made an excellent observation. You had Ann Romney talking about love, and Chris Christie talking about how respect is more important than love. Then you had Clint Eastwood the next night. Does this make sense? Yes, it does:

Ann and Christie were the set up and Eastwood closed the deal. In other words, you can love Obama but respect is what matters, and Eastwood was there to make sure that no one respected Obama as much after he spoke as they did before.

I still think they should have done more humanizing Mitt on national TV, and maybe less of something else. But the idea that they began the important part of the campaign by making mockery of Obama fair game? Not bad, really. Not bad at all.

If this doesn’t creep you out I don’t know what will. It’s Brad Friedman’s terrorist pal Brett Kimberlin posing with Karl Rove:

Yeah, Brett the Bomber even got a picture of Rove’s car, complete with license plate. (I blacked that part out.)

Brad has the whole amusing and heartwarming story here.

Your media betters, scheming to spin the news:

I do not endorse a Popular Front, nor do I think you need to. It’s not necessary to jump to [Rev. Jeremiah] Wright-qua-Wright’s defense. What is necessary is to raise the cost on the right of going after the left. In other words, find a rightwinger’s [sic] and smash it through a plate-glass window. Take a snapshot of the bleeding mess and send it out in a Christmas card to let the right know that it needs to live in a state of constant fear. Obviously I mean this rhetorically.

And I think this threads the needle. If the right forces us all to either defend Wright or tear him down, no matter what we choose, we lose the game they’ve put upon us. Instead, take one of them — Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares — and call them racists. Ask: why do they have such a deep-seated problem with a black politician who unites the country? What lurks behind those problems? This makes *them* sputter with rage, which in turn leads to overreaction and self-destruction.

Luckily, some JournoListers disagreed, because casually smearing people as racists is wrong they disagreed with the effectiveness of the strategy.

It’s all at the Daily Caller.

I just wanted to take a moment to thank Karl for his post yesterday about what to do on health care going forward, and for all his contributions throughout the Obama presidency on this important topic.

When a disaster like this health care bill happens, it’s inevitable that we will all ask ourselves: did we do enough to stop this? In truth, there is very little a blogger can do.

Here, we have tried to do a little more than simply rant about how bad Democrats are for the country (although we have done a fair amount of that as well!). We tried to fight Obama’s election by pointing to unknown facts dispelling the prevailing media narrative (such as when that blog tried to disappear the evidence that Obama’s campaign was launched in Bill Ayers’s living room). During the health care debates, we noted the evidence of phony doctors at town hall meetings, like Roxana Mayer (an observation that was far more of a team effort than you might realize).

But one of the things I am proudest of is something I deserve very little credit for, because it requires no effort on my part: namely, providing a forum for Karl, someone who seized on the importance of the health care debate early on, and provided unique insights throughout the course of the debate.

His post on what to do going forward was excellent, and it reminded me that we should take a second to thank him for everything he has done here.

[Posted by Karl]

HotAir is launching a new “Green Room,” where about a dozen people will be blogging. I am one of them.  I would not have accepted the invitation without Patterico’s blessing, and he was as gracious about it, as he has always been with me. AFAIK, I will still be commenting here, and posting (or cross-posting) here with some frequency. 

One of the reasons I have blogged at all is the quality of commenters I have found here and during my stint at Protein Wisdom.  I accepted the invite from HotAir for the opportunity to write for a different audience. “If the mountain will not come to you…” and all that.  But I would not have received the invitation in the first instance if not for folks like Patterico and y’all, so I thank you like a Munchkin thanks Dorothy for dropping a house on the Wicked Witch of the East.

–Karl

[Guest post by DRJ]

The online version of the New York Times published this interview with Karl Rove that is entertaining because it’s clear Rove has no affection for the questioner, Deborah Solomon. The article also contains these notices at the end:

“INTERVIEW CONDUCTED, CONDENSED AND EDITED BY DEBORAH SOLOMON

A version of this article appeared in print on November 16, 2008, on page MM16 of the New York edition.”

Despite the use of the past tense, I assume this means the New York Times will publish some or all of this interview in print on Sunday. In addition, the online questions and/or answers have apparently been “condensed and edited” by the reporter.

There should be plenty of space to print the complete interview in an online version, and it doesn’t seem right to edit questions or answers after-the-fact. I know there are journalists who read this blog. What am I missing?

— DRJ

[Guest post by DRJ]

If you read the Instapundit (and I bet most of you do), you’ve noticed Glenn Reynolds’ frequent links to stories about government earmarks, pork and corruption. Sadly, greed and government excess are facts of life.

However, Prof. Reynolds’ focus on these subjects may actually be a harbinger of the 2008 elections. At least, that’s what Karl Rove thinks according to this excerpt from an article about his recent speech at the University of Texas of the Permian Basin:

“At a reception at the Presidential Museum before his remarks, Rove wouldn’t handicap the presidential race.

“It’s a jump ball,” he said. “(Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt) Romney was leading in the early stage and (former New York City Mayor Rudolph) Giuliani’s leading in the national polls; (Arizona Sen. John) McCain’s got a little momentum and Fred Thompson is doing well in some of the early stages.”

Rove said the Republican nominee will win if they draw enough of a contrast between themselves and leading Democratic contender Hillary Clinton. He added that corruption, not Iraq, will be the No. 1 issue.”

Karl Rove and Glenn Reynolds: Great minds think alike? Indeed.

— DRJ

An Instapundit link. Thanks!

Another Instapundit link. Thanks again!

On Tuesday, the House Judiciary Committee inquires into allegations that Karl Rove was the driving force behind the corruption prosecution of Don Siegelman, the former Democrat Governor of Alabama. To hear leftists tell it, a Republican lawyer signed an affidavit in June that unequivocally alleged that Rove was behind the prosecution. The L.A. Times made this claim in June:

Just this month, a Republican lawyer signed a sworn statement that she had heard five years ago that Rove was preparing to politically neutralize the popular Siegelman.

. . . .

This month another Republican activist, lawyer Dana Jill Simpson of Rainsville, Ala., filed a sworn statement saying that she was on a Republican campaign conference call in 2002 when she heard Bill Canary tell other campaign workers not to worry about Siegelman because Canary’s “girls” and “Karl” would make sure the Justice Department pursued the Democrat so he was not a political threat in the future.

Not quite.

You can read the affidavit here. The relevant passage is on page three, and reads as follows:

That language doesn’t say that Rove was behind the investigation. It could also be interpreted as a report that Rove had simply heard that the investigation into Siegelman had commenced.

You don’t believe me? Then maybe you’ll believe Jill Simpson, who executed the affidavit — because she says the same thing:

An affidavit cited as proof that White House strategist Karl Rove helped arrange the Justice Department prosecution of former Gov. Don Siegelman doesn’t actually say Rove was behind the investigation, the lawyer who wrote it said. But that hasn’t stopped others from using the affidavit to demand a congressional hearing.

Jill Simpson, the Republican Rainsville lawyer who wrote the affidavit, said in an interview that she is not responsible for how others interpret her sworn statement. She said she tried to accurately represent a conference call she heard in which Rove’s name came up, and she said no one definitively said in that call that Rove arranged for Siegelman’s investigation.

It’s not clear if Rove was being identified in the call as the person behind the investigation or as someone who heard Siegelman already was under investigation, Simpson said.

“You can read it both ways,” Simpson said in the interview Friday. “I did it as best I could to factually write it down as exactly as to what was said. And there’s two interpretations to it, there’s no doubt about that.”

It’s true, as the article later says, that Simpson “personally believes” that Rove “had a role in the federal investigation of Siegelman.” (All emphasis mine.) She also believes Siegelman, who was convicted beyond a reasonable doubt of bribery by a unanimous jury, was “politically persecuted.” She recently reiterated to the Judicary Committee in an interview (summarized here) that “[w]hat I understood, or what I believed Mr. Canary to be saying” was that Rove was behind the prosecution.

But even she admits that her sworn affidavit doesn’t claim that she unequivocally heard that Rove was behind the prosecution.

As you read reports of Tuesday’s hearings, keep that in mind.

An L.A. Times article about Washington officials’ blabbing about Valerie Plame ends with this zinger:

Assessing Grenier’s testimony, Larry Johnson, a retired CIA and State Department counter-terrorism expert, said, “They wanted to avoid any unpleasantness with the vice president.”

Besides, Johnson said, “If you can’t give the vice president and president information with any degree of confidence that it is going to be protected, then you know, the entire game is up.”

BAM! What a burn! Because, of course, Plame’s identity wasn’t protected, and the L.A. Times has been busy implying that it’s Cheney’s fault. Now an independent “retired CIA and State Department counter-terrorism expert” has given them the quote they need to drive the point home. And when a “retired CIA and State Department counter-terrorism expert” says it, the credibility of the statement is undeniable. Especially since there’s no indication in the article that Johnson has any pre-existing bias against anyone in the Bush Administration.

But, like Columbo always said . . . there’s just one more thing. Unbiased “retired CIA and State Department counter-terrorism expert” Larry Johnson? Here’s what he once said about Karl Rove:

Karl is a shameless bastard. Small wonder his mother killed herself. Once she discovered what a despicable soul she had spawned she apparently saw no other way out. It would be one thing if his vile tactics were simply mere smears of politicians like Kerry and Murtha. They are big boys and should be able to defend themselves quite ably against this turd.

An isolated outburst? Well, back when blogger Seixon was questioning the Jason Leopold story about Karl Rove’s alleged indictment, Seixon said that Larry Johnson wrote Seixon a threatening e-mail in which Johnson “repeated my mother’s name, my parents’ address, and even my birth month and year.” Seixon says that Johnson then told him: “I am prepared to ratchet this up several levels,” adding: “I know where you are living.”

None of this information appears in the L.A. Times article. It might spoil that zinger, don’t you know. Better to describe him simply as a “retired CIA and State Department counter-terrorism expert.” That’s how the Journalism Experts do it.

UPDATE: More from unbiased Mr. Johnson, courtesy of Seixon:

Until Patrick Fitzgerald calls off the dogs that Porcine Ass called Rove ought to worry about who he might be getting up close and personal with in jail.

and:

Now, if fat Karl had been at the head of the line to enlist in the Army and help lead the invasion, I wouldn’t be so cranky. But he didn’t, and Cheney didn’t, and Wolfowitz didn’t, and Rummy didn’t and the Bush daughters were busy getting drunk in DC bars. What is it about Republican chickenhawks who played every angle during the Vietnam War to avoid going to war but have no hesistation to start a war in Iraq and send other peoples children into the fray?

More at the link.

Just an unbiased expert, Mr. Johnson is.