MotherJones.com | MoJoBlog - Social Issues and Political Commentary: October 14, 2007

« October 7, 2007 - October 13, 2007 | Main | October 21, 2007 - October 27, 2007 »

October 20, 2007

Family Research Council Straw Poll Results: Romney and Huckabee Tie for First Place

This is big. Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee's tie for first place here at the Family Research Council's Washington Briefing (aka the "Voters Value Summit") should mark his emergence. It's not clear he's a first tier candidate just yet, but he has the heart of the Christian evangelicals, and that's a great base if you're seeking the GOP nod. Here are the results in full:

Mitt Romney: 1,595 (27.6%)
Mike Huckabee: 1,565 (27.1%)
Ron Paul: 865 (15.0%)
Fred Thompson: 564 (9.8%)
Sam Brownback: 297 (5.1%)
Duncan Hunter: 140 (2.4%)
Tom Tancredo: 133 (2.3%)
Rudy Giuliani: 107 (1.85%)
John McCain: 81 (1.4%)

Total votes: 5,776

Other notes, some quite stunning:

- Mike Huckabee crushed all other contenders amongst those voters who submitted their votes on-site. (FRC members have been able to vote online since August.) A whopping 51.3 percent of on-site voters pulled the lever for Huckabee, which reflects the enthusiasm that greeted his speech earlier today. Romney only got 10.4 percent of on-site votes. Fred Thompson placed third, with 8.1 percent.

- Ron Paul's third place finish puts him ahead of frontrunners Thompson, Giuliani, and McCain, but it is a product of his strength on the internet. Paul's speech had a lot of content (on the economy, on foreign policy) that was out of style during a weekend filled almost exclusively with talk of abortion, family issues, and gay rights. He took just 25 votes from on-site voters; that's 2.6 percent. The rest of his votes came online.

- The poll also asked respondents who would be "least acceptable" as president. Hillary Clinton ran away with that one. She took 71.7 percent of all votes. Second, amazingly, was Rudy Giuliani, with 9.2 percent.

- John McCain and Rudy Giuliani couldn't break two percent, which is pretty pathetic. Giuliani has a reason: he's pro-choice and multiple evangelical leaders, including Tony Perkins, president of FRC, have said they refuse to vote for a pro-choice candidate. John McCain, on the other hand, has no excuse for becoming persona non grata. Miserable weekend for the Arizona senator.

You can find MoJoBlog's summary of Huckabee's speech here; the summary of Romney's is here. Sam Brownback would have been a strong contender in this straw poll had he not dropped out; my Brownback experience from yesterday is here.

Huckabee Fever: Catch It!

Mike Huckabee is the closest thing to a rock star here at the FRC's WB. He is the only candidate who actually comes from the evangelical community. (That's actually a Huckabee talking point, but it's true. He's a former Baptist minister, after all.) As I've mentioned before, Huckabee is making a strong pitch for the Brownback votes. His main competitor, Mitt Romney, spoke yesterday.

Huckabee's speech today had an anger and ferocity to it that is well outside the conventional wisdom on Huckabee. The guy who is commonly described as easygoing, warm, and funny seemed seriously pissed that the "holy word of God" is being violated, according to Huckabee, on abortion and on gay marriage. He emphasized that America needs to "make it constitutionally clear that life begins at conception" in order to end the "holocaust of liberalized abortion." Yikes.

He also railed against candidates who "lip sync" the hymnals of the evangelical Right. You listening, Rudy? And he raged against candidates who have more positions on the core issues than "Elvis had waist sizes." You listening, Romney?

After a sea of biblical stories, Huckabee had this core point to make: "I do not spell G-O-D as G-O-P. Our party may be important, but not as important as our principles." He urged the attendees not to conflate their loyalty to their Christian values with their loyalty to the party that most frequently represents them. If the Republican Party doesn't speak for the Christian Right, said Huckabee, stand up, do something, stay true. (When I heard that, all I could think was, "Let's go third party!")

The crowd ate it up. Can Giuliani win this nomination without the evangelical vote? Can Huckabee win it without anything else?

Photo courtesy of mikehuckabeeismyhomeboy.com.

Latino Head of RNC Resigns in Frustration

Hispanics were supposed to be a key part of Karl Rove's permanent Republican majority. The comprehensive immigration reform plan pushed by President Bush was both the product of the president's immigrant-friendly views and Karl Rove's belief that allowing Hispanic immigrants a path to citizenship would lead thousands of those immigrants (and their kids) into the arms of the GOP. Instead, the issue of immigration has been so bungled by the GOP (and so captured by the rabid anti-immigrant portion of the party's base) that Mel Martinez, the Cuban-born senator from Florida, is resigning his post as head of the RNC.

The Republican Party's highest-ranking Latino official abruptly resigned Friday, marking the latest casualty in the GOP's bitter internal fight over immigration and dealing another setback to President Bush's years-long effort to court Latino voters.

The announcement by Sen. Mel Martinez of Florida that he was quitting as general chairman of the Republican National Committee came after he had expressed frustration over the tenor of the immigration debate within his party. Martinez will remain in his Senate post.

"Mel Martinez was a symbol of the party's outreach to Latinos, and that seems to be disappearing," said Lionel Sosa, a longtime Republican strategist and advisor to GOP presidents since Ronald Reagan. "It is not a good day for Latino Republicans, that's for sure."

The White House had engineered the ascent of the Cuban-born Martinez over the objections of many conservatives as part of an effort to repair the GOP's image among Latinos. That image suffered when Republican congressional leaders and conservative activists stymied administration-backed measures that would have created a path to citizenship for millions of illegal immigrants.

Rudy Giuliani's Appearance Before the Value Voters: A Mixed Bag

Rudy Giuliani just faced his toughest crowd of the campaign to date. After some waffling early in the campaign, Giuliani has been honest about his pro-choice and pro-gay rights beliefs. In so doing, he's written off the folks who are likely to attend the Family Research Council's Washington Briefing (aka the Value Voters Summit).

So how did Rudy handle the situation? Unimpressively. He spent as much time apologizing for not pandering to the crowd on abortion and gay rights as he did making the case for why he ought to be the next president of the United States. Let's dig in.

Rudy started by saying, "I've come here to speak to you about our shared values and our shared goals. What unites us is far greater than what divides us." Any suspicion that he would ignore the tension between his positions and the crowd's by raving about "Islamic fascism" went out the window immediately.

Early in the speech, he said, "Christians and Christianity are all about inclusiveness." He went on to explain the early Christians drew people to the faith by accepting doubters, sinners, and outcasts. There are two reasons why this is a dicey line of rhetoric. First, Rudy explaining Christian history to some of America's most devout Christians is kind of insane. In addition to sounding unauthentic, he had no room for error. Second, it's unclear if he was trying to say that the crowd here ought to accept him (as a candidate that doesn't "check their boxes"), or that the crowd here ought to accept gays, immigrants, and other folks that these Christians don't like so much. Either way, he's telling these folks how to improve themselves, which is a bit presumptuous, no?

Giuliani explained that because he too often finds himself failing his moral and religious beliefs, he is reluctant to hold himself up as a model of faith. And that he comes from a background that keeps religion out of public life. Despite that, he said, "You have nothing to fear from me." That's a pretty stunning statement for any presidential candidate to make.

Few campaigns are won on the defensive, but that's where Rudy found himself. "Isn't it better that I tell you what I really believe," he said, "than to change all my positions to fit the prevailing wind?" It isn't leadership in any meaningful sense to pander, he explained, and so, if you'll forgive him, he's not going to pander to you. But don't write him off as a result. "Ronald Reagan said, 'My 80 percent friend is not my 100 percent enemy,'" Rudy pointed out. To rephrase that: "I know we don't agree 20 percent of the time, but please don't hate me as a result." The unspoken but universally acknowledged truth here is that the 20 percent on which Rudy and the crowd disagree are the 20 percent that are most important to the crowd.

Giuliani can talk about his support for increasing adoptions, for decreasing abortions, for appointing strict constructionist judges, he can say things like, "My belief in God and reliance on his guidance is at the core of who I am," and he can talk on and on about how he will always be honest if not perfect on the issues, but in the end none of that is going to be good enough. Running for president doesn't mean convincing the American voting public to vote for you. It means convincing the dozens, if not hundreds, of single-issue groups that make up the American voting public to vote for you. And this is one Rudy's just not going to get.

The folks here have been voting in a straw poll all weekend. They'll announce the winner after the presumptive favorite, Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, speaks this afternoon. I, of course, will be here.

Do I get combat pay for this?

Update: The good news: no phone call.

October 19, 2007

Bear Stearns Traders Deserve Rogue Tag

In the competitive world of hedge funds, it's all about numbers, games, and strategy. But most recently, hedge funds seem to be about crisis. The risky investing by Bear Stearns rogue traders, which skirted established practices and hid true intent from investors, precipitated the global credit crisis and subprime mortgage collapse of late. It has affected families across America whose dream of buying a home came crashing down—entire blocks of towns and suburbs have emptied out.

But the scandal is hitting home for Bear Stearns executives as well. Co-Chief Operating Officer Warren Spector has been fired, and the reputation of the bank may never recover. Yet Ralph Cioffi, the trader who set up these funds, is still on the payroll as an adviser.

Cioffi was able to set up two hedge funds on an extremely shaky foundation because they were getting results. It was a structure that was doomed to crash in any minor downturn in the market, as it was leveraged to the hilt with almost eight times as much money borrowed against what was invested, including $275 million in capital from Barclays. This meant that Barclays had the power to pull its capital from the funds at any time, which would collapse the structure. On top of that, only one percent of the total investment was kept as reserve cash, compared to the usual ten percent that hedge funds keep around for emergencies.

The devastating results of rogue traders are compounded when they are not recognized as such. When they hide under the legitimacy of a major investment bank, the stakes are higher because they are seen as trustworthy and they have more resources at their disposal. If this crash is going to teach traders anything, it should be that their actions resonate beyond the world of the market, their bank, and themselves.

—Andre Sternberg

That's Why It's Called the Nobel, Not the Noble

James Watson, a geneticist who won the Nobel Prize in 1962 for discovering the structure of DNA, was suspended this week from his position at the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory in New York state, after being quoted in the Times of London saying he was "inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa," because "all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours—whereas all the testing says not really."

Even if Watson, who seems believably mortified by his own words, is in fact a horrible bigot, he’s far from the only award-winner to have a less-than-illustrious record. Consider Menachem Begin, who won the Peace Prize in 1978 for helping to negotiate the Camp David Accords and who went on, in the 1980s, to authorize Israel’s invasion of Lebanon. And then there is the notorious Henry Kissinger, who received the prize in 1973 for his work on the Vietnam Peace Accords, and yet also orchestrated the secret carpet-bombing of Cambodia.

Perhaps this is all fitting somehow, considering that Alfred Nobel was the inventor of dynamite.

Romney Makes His Pitch for the Values Voters: Family! Family! Family!

It's Romney Time! The former Massachusetts governor takes the stage to a standing ovation here at the Washington Briefing. Let's go with a quasi-liveblog, shall we?

He starts hammering the family values message right from the beginning. With little prelude, he says, "I think those that know me would say that I am pro-family on every level, from the personal to the political." He then mentions his 45 children and 8,000 grandkids. Wait, it's more like five and 11. But it's high.

Romney is Mike Huckabee's top competitor for the free-floating Brownback votes. His gameplan for winning them: family, family, family. He's been speaking for fifteen minutes already, and it's been nothing but extolling the virtues of family. Apparently, the strength of America's families will determine our place in the "family of nations." (I could have sworn that had something to do with the military-industrial complex. But what do I know? I don't have 45 kids.) Also, "it really is time to make out-of-wedlock birth out of fashion again." So don't buy illegitimate kids for your fall wardrobe.

I will say this about Romney—though he doesn't seem concerned with anything but families, he is speaking in concretes. He wants to revise the tax code to encourage marriage. He'll use the bully pulpit to lower the number of out-of-wedlock births (presumably by raising the stigma with being a single mother or father). He isn't going to find time to mention health care or Iraq, but at least he's not just BSing his way through this speech.

Okay, more specifics. He's slamming the Massachusetts court decision that "got the ball rolling" on gay marriage. Now he's attacking stem cell research. Now he's promising to raise adoption rates. Now he's confirming the "culture of life" and condemning abortion. Now he's promising to "fight the modern plague, internet pornography." Now he's promising not to give child molesters who use the internet to prey on kids more than one chance. Do we do that currently?

School choice! Charter schools! Homeschooling! Reform the tax code! Affirm the place of faith in our public discourse!

Oh, wait, he might be confronting the religious right's discomfort with his Mormon faith. "I understand that some people believe they couldn't support someone of my faith," he says. "I'm so happy so many people of faith have come to endorse my campaign."

Oops, now we're off again. He's not going to get into the Mormon thing. He mentions the three-legged stool of Ronald Reagan—I think we've got a culprit on the anonymous flier.

And we're back full circle. More on the family, and how it's necessary to strengthen America. The crowd loves it. Romney gets a standing ovation on the way out, just like he did on the way in. Hey Rudy, you are so screwed.

Speeches of the Living Dead: Santorum, Blackwell, and Gingrich

It's a real horror show here at FRC's WB. Former senator Rick Santorum came out to slam Hillary Clinton on abortion, former Ohio secretary of state Kenneth Blackwell came out to jabber about civilization or ideas or something, and former speaker of the House Newt Gingrich came out to talk about how Americans support certain things in massive majorities (prayer in schools, the pledge of allegiance, etc.) only be see their near-consensus on these issues overruled by the courts and the elites in Washington. Newt also selectively chose a bunch of historical facts to make it appear the Founders were strong supporters of faith in government. That's been debunked, fortunately.

Newt also thinks we're going to have a sea change in this country, because large swaths of the country can obviously see we're heading to hell in handbasket. I can't warn you about this conservative revolution because my brain is fried. Completely fried. I can hardly type.

And I still have Romney in two hours. Jesus.

Rudy Falls Off Ronald Reagan's Stool

Anonymous flier being handed out here at the super-Christian Family Research Council's Washington Briefing:

The American Stool
Designed by Ronald Reagan

INSTRUCTIONS

Step 1. Attach stool leg labeled: "Strong Economy"

Step 2. Attach stool leg labeled: "Strong Military"

Step 3. Attach stool leg labeled: "Strong Family"
DO NOT SKIP THIS STEP!

Someone make sure that Rudy gets a copy of this! He lost his!

The back? Completely blank. No one wants to take credit. What is this, South Carolina?

Only Three Shopping Days Left 'Til the War on Xmas

The phony war against the "War on Christmas" seems to come earlier every year. Via ThinkProgress, we learn that WorldNetDaily is already pushing its "Christmas-defense kit" to help "ward off the evil spirits of the ACLU grinches." Having just recovered from the War on Columbus Day, I figured I still had a few weeks before I should start dropping the H-bomb (Happy Holidays!). But while secular America sleeps, WND's been busy: It's even reclaimed Turkey Day too.

Duncan Hunter is a Scary Man

I'll just say this about Duncan Hunter— the man could not more be hawkish. At one point in his speech here at FRC's Washington Briefing, he promised more preemptive wars without even bothering to explain why or with whom, saying only that they might be necessary. And almost completely out of the blue, he said, "That little country, that little postage stamp called Israel, has stood by the United States on every major security issue in the Middle East. They should not give back an inch of their land." The room absolutely erupted in cheers—one woman literally jumped up and down. I guess I was unaware of how important Israel is to this community. I wonder why no other candidate has mentioned it.

Tort Reform Brings More Doctors to Texas, But Only for Rich People

In 2003, Texas voters approved a ballot initiative known as Proposition 12 that helped radically restrict state residents' ability to sue doctors or nursing homes that killed or injured them. Insurance company lobbyists had claimed doctors were fleeing the state because of lawsuits and high malpractice insurance premiums, threatening access to care. Proposition 12 was supposed to fix all that. Not only would doctors rush to Texas for its friendly legal climate, but, supporters claimed, obstetricians would move en masse to the 152 poor, rural Texas counties that had no ob/gyn to deliver local babies.

The New York Times recently declared Prop 12 a huge success because doctors (ob/gyns in particular) are supposedly flocking to Texas now that they don't have to worry about getting sued. One thing the Times didn't point out, though, was that the number of those new ob/gyns who've moved to rural, underserved Texas is exactly zero.

The Texas Observer this month crunched the numbers, and came to the not-so-startling conclusion that while there may be more doctors in Texas thanks to tort reform, virtually all of them moved into the state's richest suburbs, which were already well-stocked with highly paid specialists. As it turns out, doctors don't shun the Texas sticks because of lawsuits but because they'd just rather live closer to Starbucks and their golfing buddies.

Thompson Speaks With Substance. What?

In the speech he just gave to the assembled Christian politicos, Fred Thompson bucked the trend by actually laying out some positions and issue ideas. Revolutionary idea for a presidential candidate...

Mixed with a certain degree of pablum (Examples: "We live in the greatest country in the history of the world. Our obligation is to do everything we can to keep it that way." "We must pass good laws. We must stop bad laws."), Thompson took strong positions on the following issues: (1) Unborn babies. (2) Courts. (3) Gays. (4) National debt. (5) "Global conflict with radical Islam."

Those positions were: (1) Save 'em. When Fred Thompson saw the sonogram of his youngest daughter, he knew he could never be anything but pro-life.

(2) Stop 'em. "Too often, it is our judicial branch of government that violates our approved law." (I thought that was called a check and/or balance?) Courts make our social and cultural rules, Thompson argues, and that's just wrong. We need more judges like Chief Justice John Roberts.

(3) Don't let 'em marry. No elaboration needed.

(4) Fight it. We're leaving near-fatal levels of national debt to future generations, who are too young to have a seat at the table during this discussion.

(5) Win it. Duh.

I'll add three things. Because I like numbering, apparently.

(1) Thompson is a clumsy panderer. Witness how he closed his speech: "I don't really know what I would do in my first 100 days... I know what I would do the first hour that I was president. I would go into the Oval Office and close the door and pray for the wisdom to know what was right [cheers] and I would pray for the strength to do what is right."

That could have been phrased better.

(2) There was little excitement during Thompson's speech. Tancredo easily showed more fire and charisma than Thompson.

(3) There was a lot of talk of staying the course, from Thompson and the other candidates. "We will win, if we are persistent," said Thompson. He was referring to reforming the courts, but he could have been referring to inculcating the conservative ideology in American culture, or to the permanent Republican majority. It seems the Republicans here know their short-term prospects are dim. They're taking the long view. What else can they do?

Oh, and one other thing: this place is overflowing with Thompson volunteers. And while Thompson didn't strike out at his opponents, his staffers are handing out a flier that absolutely shreds Giuliani and Romney on their positions on abortion and gay rights. When I get back to the office, I'll try to scan it and post it as a pdf.

For coverage of Sam Brownback and Tom Tancredo, follow the links.

More On How The Weak Dollar Jacks Up the Price of Oil

Yesterday I blogged on how the weak dollar is responsible for roughly $30 of the $90 a barrel of crude has (so far) topped out at. And I'm being doubted by some in our comment section and on Digg. Today, more confirmation from the folks at Bloomberg:

Crude oil breached $90 a barrel in New York for the first time as the dollar traded near a record low against the euro, enhancing the appeal of commodities as an investment....

"The weak dollar is pushing the price higher,'' said Simon Wardell, energy research manager with Global Insight Inc. in London. ``It's hard to see how this is going to turn around quickly.''...

The U.S. currency fell to $1.4302, from $1.4279 yesterday, and traded at a record low of $1.4319 earlier in the day.

A lower dollar makes oil cheaper in countries that use other currencies. In U.S. dollars, West Texas Intermediate, the New York-traded crude-oil benchmark, is up 46 percent so far this year. Oil is up 35 percent in euros, 40 percent in British pounds and 42 percent in yen.

I rest my case.

And for you yahoos who can't understand how this can be possible when they've always heard that the price of gasoline is so much higher in Europe...We're talking about CRUDE OIL, people. A raw commodity. Refined gasoline is indeed more expensive in Europe, because, largely, European governments choose to tax it to pay for roads and schools and health care and to discourage people from buying ridiculously big cars. Now you can argue about whether that is a good thing or a bad thing, but at least argue over the same issue.

Does Barbie Eat Fries?

Back in June, under fire for marketing junk food to children, McDonalds pledged to become more socially responsible. The company insisted that it didn't need to be regulated by the government. It would do its part to fight the childhood obesity epidemic by producing new advertising that included "healthy lifestyle messages" for kids.

Well, here's what they've come up with: A Barbie on rollerblades in every Happy Meal. The plastic sex-kittens are part of a new promotion to get little girls to consume the 700 calories and 28 grams of fat that are the average Happy Meal. But hey, Barbie is rollerblading!

Tom Tancredo and the Plight of the Second Tier

Tom Tancredo has a tough sell here today. He is trying to pitch himself to a crowd that is salivating at the chance to hear McCain, Thompson, Huckabee, and Giuliani speak. In fact, in the lobby of the Hilton Washington earlier this morning, I overheard a girl in her twenties says to her friends, "I keep taking these quizzes on 'Who is your favorite candidate?' And it keeps coming up Tancredo. And I'm like, 'Who are you??'"

Tancredo takes this in stride. He opens his speech with a joke about being a second-tier candidate and by telling a story that goes something like this:

"I went to speak to the NAACP in Detroit recently, and when I got into the cab at the airport, I was wearing jeans, I didn't have an entourage, and I was still eating the sandwich I was eating on the plane. The cab driver asked me, 'What are you doing here?' I said, 'I'm speaking to the NAACP."

He said, 'Why?'

I said, 'Because they asked me to.'

He said, 'Why?'

I said, 'Because I'm running for president of the United States of America.'

And he turned back and looked at me. He paused and said, 'Nah.'"

That joke may not translate onto a blog, but it was pretty funny at the time. Sorry.

Tancredo's speech can be summed up by this line: "When conservatives run on principle, they win. When conservatives run away from principle, they lose." He goes on to criticize the Republican Party for hyphenating their message (neo-conservative or compassionate-conservative, for example) and for straying from the ideals of "John Adams, Margaret Thatcher, and Ronald Reagan."

That is to say, he doesn't talk policy. And this get to the heart of what is happening today: the candidates are taking every chance to throw red meat to this crowd, but offer almost nothing by way of substantive and concrete ideas for America and for their presidency.

Actually, Tancredo does have one idea. Paraphrased, it's this: "Don't hold your nose and vote for the better of two lousy choices. Vote for someone you actually believe in. That's me." And that's the message of a second-tier candidate.

Update: Sorry, didn't mean to confuse anyone. Tancredo also discussed immigration, immigration, immigration.

Live, From the Most Religious Place in America, It's FRC!

I'm at the Family Research Council's Washington Briefing, an annual meeting billed on the FRC website as "THE PREMIER VALUES VOTER EVENT OF 2007." It's a collection of America's most politically-savvy evangelical Christians. That means if the rapture occurs today, it's just going to be me and a bench of media members in bad sportscoats.

The day was kicked off with a Sam Brownback book signing. The senator from Kansas is a long-time defender of pro-life and anti-gay positions, and this ought to be his crowd. But yesterday, it was announced that Brownback will likely drop out of the presidential race today. Brownback, tucked amongst booths for groups like Exodus International ("Freedom for a World Impacted by Homosexuality") and PFOX (Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays), was immediately mobbed by members of the media seeking information on the rumor.

"I'm here for a book signing, folks," he said, taking an exasperated look at the half dozen video cameras and scores of reporters toting laptop bags and notebooks. "I'm making an announcement later today."

Squeezed between members of the media were thirty or so people who actually wanted to get their copies of "From Power to Purpose" signed. A small boy with wire glasses and a buzz cut tired to take a picture of the senator with a digital camera. A convention staffer stopped him, saying "No unauthorized photos. You need a media credential." The kid, a bit shocked, mumbled an apology and began putting his camera back in his pocket when a reporter standing nearby intervened.

"I'll take the picture," he said, reaching for the kid's camera. As the boy got his book signed, the reporter jostled his way to the front of the table to get a picture. Maybe the rapture will take him, too.

Brownback fans were disappointed by the news of the senator's impending withdrawal, but not too disappointed. "God has him where he wants him," said a teenager standing in line. "We need strong Christians in the senate," chimed in a woman standing nearby.

A man in his twenties named Vinny said he was a Romney supporter. He still gave me his opinions eagerly—attendees here are not only media-savvy, they are almost media-hungry. "People are disappointed Brownback is dropping out because he is keeping pro-life issues front and center," said Vinny. "But the buzz I hear is that people are hoping he gets the VP nod."

The convention is afloat in political maneuvering, politicians, and everyday folks with opinions on politics. A stocky gentleman in a suit leaving the Brownback area with a signed book denied vehemently that he is a Brownback supporter. "Actually, I'm the leading independent candidate for president of the United States," he said. His name was Daniel Imperato, and he said he was running because he "wants to bring back one nation under God." He asked for my card. I think I'm on a mailing list now.

On my way out of the Brownback signing, I ran into three Brownback supporters who said they were transferring their support to Mike Huckabee, a former Baptist minister who has strong appeal to Christian voters. Huckabee is the "strongest social values candidate" said Allen Parker, an attendee from Texas. There is a "long-standing consensus that Mike Huckabee and Sam Brownback were splitting our vote" he said. If you combine the Iowa straw poll results for Sam Brownback and Mike Huckabee, pointed out Parker and his friend, you've got a frontrunner on your hands.

The frontrunners will be the focus for the next few days: they are all slated to speak in the "International Ballroom" today and tomorrow. I'll bring it to you as it happens.

October 18, 2007

Senator Chris Dodd Takes Stand on FISA, Takes On TeleComs

From Senator Chris Dodd's site (via Wired News, Via Digg, courtesy of Paul Ward, aka dssstrkl—how hip am I?):

The Military Commissions Act. Warrantless wiretapping. Shredding of Habeas Corpus. Torture. Extraordinary Rendition. Secret Prisons.

No more.

I have decided to place a "hold" on the latest FISA bill that would have included amnesty for telecommunications companies that enabled the President's assault on the Constitution by illegally providing personal information on their customers without judicial authorization.

I said that I would do everything I could to stop this bill from passing, and I have.

It's about delivering results -- and as I've said before, the FIRST thing I will do after being sworn into office is restore the Constitution. But we shouldn't have to wait until then to prevent the further erosion of our country's most treasured document. That's why I am stopping this bill today.

Indicate your support for my hold as well as your thoughts on this issue in the comment section below.

Now unfortunately, it seems as though the "comments" section is really just a way for Dodd's campaign to capture email addresses. And this hold is surely a good way to get publicity when you're stuck in the second or third tier. But let's put cynicism aside for the moment. Well done, Senator!

Update: Correntewire suggests a plan of action for Senator Rockefeller, who authored the bill to give them amnesty...

The Great German Immigrant Panic (aka John Derbyshire Is Just Too Aggravating To Ignore)

Jonathan has a righteous bit of outrage about National Review columnist John Derbyshire's latest inanity (heavens to murgatroid! there are Hispanics in Iowa!) that I can't resist piling on to. About a century ago the Derbyshires of the day were tearing their hair out about the way German immigrants were taking over Upper Midwest towns. In Minnesota, there was much hand-wringing over "Stearns County Syndrome," which consisted of Mueller and Schmidt kids graduating from 8th grade without having learned English.

When I was reporting on Latino immigration in a small town not so far from Storm Lake (10 years ago, by the way--and the town was about 50 percent Latino then, so what's Derbyshire's big news here anyway?), a local church lady told me about how her Norwegian parents used to warn the kids not to hang out with the riffraff from across town. "Back then it was Swedes, today it's the Spanish people," she said. Then she went off to root for the new boys' high school soccer team, 50 percent Mexican kids plus a few Bosnians and Somalis. They made the state tournament that year.

Airport Screeners Fail to Find Fake Bombs; The Onion Reports Stolen Headline

The Transportation Security Administration said today that during tests last year, screeners in major airports across the country allowed dummy bomb components to sail through security up to 75 percent of the time. San Francisco airport, which uses privately contracted screeners, did the best of all the test sites with only a 20% failure rate.

Due to last year's poor performance, TSA now runs drills continuously at every airport in the country, planting fake bomb parts sometimes no larger than a pen cap (next week: no pens on planes!). Screeners who fail must undergo remedial training. Personally, I'd prefer it if they just trained them right the first time. In the meantime, can I have my damn shoes back?

—Casey Miner

FCC Targets Media-Ownership Rules Yet Again

Kevin Martin, the head of the FCC, has announced that he wants to decide on new media ownership rules by the end of the year. In particular, he's considering lifting a longtime ban on cross-ownership—that is, letting a single company own print and broadcast media outlets in the same market. As Eric Klinenberg explained in Mother Jones earlier this year, repealing the ban would be bad news for the news, especially the embattled newspapers and TV stations that—love 'em or hate 'em—remain Americans' main sources of local news.

This isn't the first time the FCC has taken a swing at the cross-ownership ban: Former commission head Michael Powell managed to strike it down in 2003. (A federal court blocked the move.) That time, the FCC rushed the decision through with minimal public input; this time, Martin says he'll take the "unusual step" of letting the public comment on the proposed rule changes... for one whole month.

Dennis Kucinich's Deep Pockets

Last week, Stephen Colbert revealed that pocket-sized Democrat Dennis Kucinich carries a lot of stuff in his pockets—a copy of the Constitution, a union card, a green tea bag, and—courtesy of a 2003 Mother Jones profile by Charles Bowden—a baseball card of Cleveland Indian Rocky Colavito and a quotation from Spanish philosopher Miguel de Unamuno. This week, Kucinich made a good-natured appearance on the Colbert Report, emptying his overtsuffed pockets, and even getting in a nice comeback:

Colbert: "This is the famous pocket Constitution. Did you shrink this down yourself?"

Kucinich: "No, no, no. George Bush already did that."

Raped by the Law Again

I'm kicking myself for not having remembered to add the following to yesterday's post on the Philadelphia judge who ruled that it's ok to rape prostitutes, or rather that it's impossible to rape a prostitute, just as it's impossible to steal from a thief:

Last fall, [Judge] Cheuvront granted a motion by defense attorneys barring the use of the words rape, sexual assault, victim, assailant, and sexual assault kit from the trial of Pamir Safi—accused of raping Tory Bowen in October 2004. Safi's first trial resulted in a hung jury last November when jurors deadlocked 7-5. Responding to Cheuvront's initial language ban—which will be in force again when Safi is retried in July—prosecutors upped the ante last month by seeking to have words like sex and intercourse barred from the courtroom as well. The judge denied that motion, evidently on the theory that there would be no words left to describe the sex act at all. The result is that the defense and the prosecution are both left to use the same word—sex—to describe either forcible sexual assault, or benign consensual intercourse. As for the jurors, they'll just have to read the witnesses' eyebrows to sort out the difference.

Here's what happened at the retrial in July, pretty much what happened when the Philadelphia perp raped, er, "stole the services" of another prostitute four days later: a travesty of justice.

Preteens on the Pill?

A student health center at a middle school in Portland, Maine, recently voted to make birth control pills and patches available to students treated at the center. For those of you who don't remember, middle schoolers range in age from 11 to 13. While making contraceptives more widely available is a noble goal, doesn't an 11-year-old girl seeking birth control pills cry out for a visit from social services? After all, girls that young rarely have 12-year-old partners.

Obviously it's better to have preteens on the pill than pregnant, but still, the news that five kids told the middle-school nurse in Portland that they were having sex last year seems worth more intervention that just a pack of Ortho-Novum....

Organic Milk Continues To Go Sour

Yesterday, the Wisconsin-based farm policy group, the Cornucopia Institute, announced the filing of class action lawsuits against the nation's largest organic dairy outfit—Aurora Organic Dairy. The company, which sells its organic milk to big-box retailers like Wal-Mart, Target, and Costco, has been under investigation by the USDA for the past two years. According to their April findings, the company is guilty of labeling and representing its milk as organic when it was "not produced and handled in accordance with the National Organic Program regulations." Cornucopia's own investigation found animals were confined to pens and sheds, another violation of federal law. In August, Aurora and the USDA established a consent agreement: Aurora can continue to operate as an organic outfit, but the company is on notice with a one-year probation.

The Cornucopia Institute went further. The class-action lawsuit filed yesterday (a second one is being filed today) demands redress for consumers who purchased milk from Aurora, and requests the U.S. District Court halt the ongoing sale of Aurora's organic milk until the company can demonstrate compliance with federal regulations.

Mother Jones has had its eye on Aurora for a few years now. Read this piece on the corporatization of organic milk. The organic dairy business is estimated to value at $3.5 billion by 2010 and industrial operations like Aurora, who already make a killing off organic milk, will be set to rake in a big chunk of that. By flooding the market with a surplus of cheap milk, companies like Aurora have slashed market prices, pushing many smaller operations out of the business. Many large corporations have gobbled up organic operations, check out this chart provided by Cornucopia to see whose in bed with who. Far from a democratization of the market, industrial scale outfits threaten the entire organic movement. More accountability for these corporate producers is a must.

—Michelle Chandra

Bush Wins Battle Over S-CHIP; Will He Lose the War?

I got a little worked up about the Derbyshire thing. Sorry. Here's something a little more straightforward. The Democrats' attempt to override the president's veto of S-CHIP failed today, but Time reports the GOP's troubles won't end. The Democratic leadership in Congress plans on passing other popular legislation that President Bush has threatened to veto—including bills on education and veterans—so as to ruin to GOP's fall. Every time the Republicans block a popular bill, or the president vetoes one, it hands the Democrats a 30-second attack ad come 2008.

John Derbyshire Disgusts Me

I don't normally troll conservative blogs to find and comment on the most outrageous things I find. But when it comes to immigration, National Review writer John Derbyshire really gets under my skin. Maybe it's the thinly veiled argument that blacks are genetically inferior to whites, or maybe its the insistence that maintaining "ethnic balance" is a justification for limiting immigration, legal and illegal. (Or maybe it's a leftover sense of nausea from when Derbyshire blamed the victims of the Virginia Tech shooting for their own deaths.)

No matter what the reason, Derbyshire isn't in Coulter territory. He may be shrill, and there may be a sly knowingness in his inflammatory statements, but he writes for one of the leading intellectual journals of the right and must be taken seriously. So I had to point this blog post from The Corner:

Incidentally, while hobnobbing with those Midwesterners at Storm Lake, Iowa—their surnames mostly taken from the Stockholm, Oslo, and Berlin phone books—I heard a couple of times the remark that in this little corner of rural Iowa, the student body in the schools is half Hispanic. The remark was passed in a polite, diffident and non-condemnatory way—of course! this is Iowa—and when I tried to probe, people just retreated into niceness ("These Mexican restaurants are really great!")

Still, I found it hard to believe, surrounded as I was by Lundqvists and Muellers. In an idle moment, however, I looked up the stats on GreatSchools.net. Sure enough, the "Student Stats" on GreatSchools for Storm Lake show percentages Hispanic as:

High school: 32
Middle School: 43
Elementary schools: 53, 66, 63, 53.

Say what you like, that is truly an invasion. Why on earth are we letting this happen?

Why are we letting WHAT happen? Why are we letting the racial demographics of the nation change, as they have for hundreds of years? There is no indication that the Hispanic students Derbyshire references are in this country illegally, though I'd bet Derbyshire assumes they are. He is, in essence, objecting to the presence of people of a different national origin (or a different race) in high numbers. That's it.

This shouldn't have to be said: As a nation we have agreed to let this happen. Through our laws, our attitudes, and the inscriptions we allow to be placed on our most famous national symbols, we have decided that we are a free nation that allows people from elsewhere to come and share in our success. That's what makes America America, not the fact that a majority of our residents look like John Derbyshire.

But that's not all.

What really gets me are three things:

(1) Derbyshire assumes that the Iowans he's spoken with are hiding their distaste with the situation, when in reality, there's no evidence to suggest this. He pushed them—repeatedly, from his description—to express some unhappiness with the high number of Hispanic students, and they never did. They obviously aren't quite as anti-immigrant as Derbyshire.

(2) Derbyshire is himself an immigrant! He moved here from England and became a U.S. citizen in 2002. By his own admission, he was once an illegal immigrant! He, better than most, knows the opportunity life in America can afford, even when it is ill-begotten. Yet, he objects when that opportunity is given to anyone other than him (or anyone who doesn't look like him), whether they are here legally or illegally.

(3) I went to a high school that was a majority-minority school. In his post, Derbyshire calls the Iowa schools "Aztlan North." If you wanted (because you were a xenophobe), you could have called my high school "Beijing West." The statistics on this site say that my high school was 72 percent Asian the year before I graduated, which sounds about right. And you know what? It was awesome. My experience was richer as a result. The presence of immigrants and the children of immigrants gave students of every race perspective and cultural understanding, and imbued the whole school with the work ethic that immigrants, grateful for the opportunity I mentioned above, often bring with them to this country.

So as a graduate from a school that mirrors the ones John Derbyshire is so horrified by, I'll be the first to say I'm glad that, as a country, we let "this" happen.

It's Not Them, It's Us: The Country's Pundits Reflect

Maybe it's because we are still fighting a war, for which there is no responsible resolution. Maybe it's the dull realization that our Democratic Congress cannot or will not intervene to halt the perpetuation of torture, secrecy, and surveillance. Or maybe it's nostalgia, for a time real or imagined when the press, the judicial system and elected leaders fought for what was right. Whatever the reason, over the past few weeks the country's pundits have been self-reflecting, quietly turning in their recycled outrage at the administration's injustices and wondering instead why we, the educated and appalled electorate, seem capable of little more than pummeling the virtual world with sound and fury, signifying nothing.

The question, of course, is how to protest. Harper's has some suggestions. As for our national despair, well, acceptance is the first step towards recovery.

—Casey Miner

Sam Brownback Dropping Out of Presidential Race

The announcement of Kansas Senator Sam Brownback's withdrawal from the presidential race is slated for tomorrow, when Brownback is supposed to join the other GOP candidates at the Family Research Council's big annual Washington event. I'm not sure how to reconcile that with press reports that Brownback will announce his withdrawal from his home state of Kansas. I'll be at FRC's event, and if Brownback is there, I'll liveblog the announcement as it happens.

Some thoughts on the withdrawal. Brownback had raised $4,235,333 this year. Having spent $4,140,660, he is left with less than $100,000 left in the bank. That's simply not going to cut it, especially when Rudy Giuliani has $17 million in the bank and Mitt Romney has close to $10 million. (More money figures here.)

The big winner here is Mike Huckabee. Huckabee, a former Baptist minister, was Brownback's main competition for the evangelical vote (and the evangelical money). Huckabee is picking up steam lately, moving into a tie for second in Iowa, while Brownback still can't crack the top five. Romney is trying to secure the religious vote, but Brownback has routinely slammed Romney as a phony, so it's unlikely his supporters will jump ship to the Massachusetts Mountebank.

And FYI — if you google Sam Brownback, the first thing that pops up is a sponsored link reading, "Mike Huckabee in 2008."

Past Mother Jones blog posts on Brownback here, here, and here.

October 17, 2007

Stephen Colbert For President (Really! Maybe? Sorta?)

Good lord, this just may be the best thing that ever (maybe, sorta) happened to presidential politics. Last night Colbert announced he planned to run for president ( full details after the jump) and while nobody knows whether or not to take him seriously, he's got both parties worried. Particularly in South Carolina, where he aims to get his name on the ballot for both the Democratic and Republican primaries (he explained the strategy by saying "I can't lose twice") as the state's 'favorite son.'"

"I am from South Carolina and I am for South Carolina and I defy any other candidate to pander more to the people of South Carolina, those beautiful, beautiful people," he said on "The Colbert Report." Colbert listed several different potential presidential tickets including Colbert-Huckabee, Colbert-Putin, or Colbert-Colbert.

And what do party elders have to say to that?

"If Stephen fulfills the requirements met in our delegates' election plan and he actively campaigns in South Carolina, we welcome him to compete," said Joe Werner, executive director of the South Carolina Democratic Party, in an interview with CNET News.com. Werner added that representatives from "The Colbert Report" had placed calls to the state party's headquarters several weeks ago but that the party thought it was all a joke at the time.

Fulfilling the requirements, however, will be the tough part. Party regulations, Werner said, prevent Colbert from attempting to run on both the Democratic and Republican tickets. "It's in our rules somewhere that you can't be on two ballots," he explained. "He'd have to pick one party."

Representatives from the South Carolina Republican Party were not readily available for comment.

I don't even know which alternative would be funnier. Is it possible? Ballot Access News reports that the "filing deadline for those primaries in November 1. He must pay $25,000 to run in the Republican primary, and $2,500 to run in the Democratic primary." For the kind of publicity he's getting (btw: he has a new book), that's a pretty cheap date either way. Awesome. And If you think this doesn't have potential, just remember Jesse Ventura...

From Editor and Publisher:

Stephen Colbert Officially Announces Run for White House!

NEW YORK After nearly a solid week of dropping hints, Stephen Colbert threw his hat in the ring in the race for president tonight.

First, he made a surprise appearance at his old home, Comedy Central's "The Daily Show," Tuesday night to make an official announcement: He was officially considering a run for president and would announce his decision "some time soon."

Soon arrived about 20 minutes later on his own show, The Colbert Report, when, with balloons falling, he said, 'Yes, I'm doing it!" Then he welcomed CBS political analyst Jeff Greenfield to analyze his impact on the race "in the past three minutes."

Greenfield said it was "astounding."

Colbert took out one of the erstwhile "Colbert/Stewart 2008" bumper stickers that have circulated for awhile and cut out the Stewart part, saying that he might replace Jon Stewart as a possible vice president with someone named "Huckabee" or even "Putin."

He said he would run as "favorite son" in his native South Carolina in both the Republican and Democratic primaries.

On "The Daily Show," Colbert said it was all natural for him since he was born in the town of Could-be-President.

He was driven onto the "Daily Show" set by man in an Uncle Sam outfit and immediately set out a bale of hay and popped a brew to prove he was a man "of the people."

Colbert said that he would at least make a big effort in South Carolina. The largest public TV network in that state had told E&P; last week that it would be happy to allow him to launch his campaign at its studios.

Greenfield said that in the GOP primary he would have to stress his military background. Colbert seemed to say he served in the Marines but it turned out he meant "at a marina."

To finance his campaign, he threatened to sell advertising patches on his suit, like a NASCAR driver.

Why Are We Paying $89 A Barrel for Oil? (Answer: It's Not What You Think)

Oil hit a new high today, $89 a barrel. Some analysts predict it will soon hit $100. All this has caused much anxiety in the markets and handwringing in the press, which has generally attributed the increase to 1) unrest in the Middle East 2) increased demand, particularly from China and India and 3) speculators.

Okay, so all of these things are a factor to some extent. But what analysts and pundits generally fail to point out is another reason for high oil prices in the U.S. market is the devaluation of the dollar. If it weren't for that, oil would cost about $60 a barrel, as it does effectively does in Europe and Canada. On George W. Bush's inauguration day in January 2001, you could have purchased a barrel of oil for about $30. If you lived in Europe, a barrel would have set you back about 32 Euro. Because the value of the U.S. Dollar has fallen so substantially since then (it took 93 cents to buy a Euro in January 2001, it now takes $1.42), the increase in the cost of oil for a U.S. consumer has far outstripped the increase for a Euro (or Canadian, or Swiss, or just about any other) consumer.

Today, it takes US $89 to buy a barrel of oil, but only 62 Euro. Going from 32 Euro to 62 is a healthy rise, but is less than a 10% annual increase since Bush has been in office. By contrast, the move from $30 to $89 is nearly a tripling, or more than 17% per year. See this chart, where the price of oil in U.S. dollars is represented in white while the price in Euros is in red:

Thus, of the $59 increase in the cost of a barrel of oil to a U.S. consumer, more than $30 is due to the depreciation of the U.S. Dollar and the fiscal and trade policies that have contributed to it. Not Middle East tensions, not China's increased appetite, etc. Same thing is true with skyrocketing price of gold; gold is going through the roof, sure, but what's really happening is that the dollar is going through the floor.

Many things have led to the devaluation of the U.S. Dollar. But a big portion of it can be attributed to a growing deficit. Now some, like MoJo contributor James K. Galbraith, would argue that deficits per se aren't bad. But the problem with this deficit is that it is largely attributable to 1) runaway spending on a disastrous war with no end in sight—in fact the chart shows how the divergence between currencies really starts to pick up following the invasion—and 2) massive tax cuts to the wealthy.

And that ain't good.

Update: News story from Bloomberg confirms my thesis. Also, a primer on the difference between the price of crude vs. gasoline and the role of taxation.

Nursing Shortage Explained

The most recent issue of JAMA reported that in 2005 the United States had 218,800 fewer nurses than it needed. With nurses getting paid decent wages, why is that the case? Maggie Mahar at Health Beat has the answer:

Consider this: In the San Francisco area, a nurse with a bachelor's degree can hope to start out with a salary of $104,000. The salary for a nursing professor with a Ph.D. at University of California San Francisco starts at about $60,000.

This goes a long way toward explaining why nursing schools turned away 42,000 qualified applications in 2006-2007—even as U.S. hospitals scramble to find nurses.

Mahar also notes that the situation is just going to get worse: "The fact that the average nursing professor is nearly 59 while the average assistant professor is about 52 suggests that, as they retire, the shortage could turn into a crisis." There's also a pretty good post by Niko Karvounis on why the Republican cry of "socialized medicine," frequently used to describe the Democratic presidential candidates' health care proposals, is a bunch of malarkey.

The New York Sun's Ethnic Paranoia

Following up on the talk of Rudy Giuliani as "the New York Sun candidate," the Sun editorial board complained this morning about "[a] new epithet … in use on the left in respect of Mayor Giuliani—namely that he has been 'fostering a climate of ethnic paranoia.'" The "left" here is Talking Points Memo's Josh Marshall, who first used the offending phrase, and the Atlantic's Matthew Yglesias, who repeated it. Both references to "ethnic paranoia" occurred in discussions of Rudy's group of radical foreign policy advisers, several of whom harbor Islamophobic, Israel-centric world views. The Sun notes:

Yglesias quotes Joshua Marshall as saying of Mr. Giuliani that "the guy has no real sense that posturing and pandering to ethnic paranoia in New York City simply isn't the same as running a national foreign policy."

And then wonders, coyly:

What are New Yorkers to make of this idea of "ethnic paranoia"? To what — or to whom — are Messrs. Marshall and Yglesias referring? Ethnic New Yorkers? Ethnic Americans? Well, go figure...

Of course, the ethnic group Yglesias and Marshall are referring to is the American-Jewish community, specifically in New York City. And the Sun's charge, as Marshall noted today, is that he and Yglesias, "two Jews, are peddling some sort of subtle anti-semitism." Coming from the Sun (once described as "a journalistic SWAT team against [those] seen as hostile to Israel and Jews"), this is no surprise. But what I find interesting about this episode is the Sun's inability to accept the neutral descriptor "ethnic" for American Jews. As it turns out, this principle is codified in the Sun's in-house style guide, which, as reported by the Observer, contains this notable entry: "Ethnic. Means not Jewish or Christian." Interesting. But click over to the American Heritage dictionary and you'll find the first, or preferred, entry on "ethnic" accommodates Jews quite nicely: "Of, relating to, or characteristic of a sizable group of people sharing a common and distinctive racial, national, religious, linguistic, or cultural heritage." The Sun's definition is from the second entry, reading in full: "Relating to a people not Christian or Jewish; heathen." Talk about ethnic paranoia.

—Justin Elliott

Politics 2.0 Strikes Back

The July/August issue of Mother Jones roiled the blogosphere with an irreverent take on so-called Open-Source Politics. Web pundits inveighed against yet another print magazine (nevermind our blog and website) questioning the impact of Web 2.0 on political campaigning. A flash point in this flame war was the mock Wikipedia entry that we published in print and on our website. It claimed Open-Source Politics would "revolutionize our ability to follow, support, and influence political campaigns," but then wryly added: "And if you believe that, we've got some leftover Pets.com stock to sell you." Our goal was to mirror the way that Wikipedia and other Web 2.0 pages often get pranked, and slalom between extreme views, even as they move towards a middle ground and, hopefully, the truth. But the critics complained that our definition was a gimmick with little connection to the way Netizens actually thought of themselves.

At the time I wondered if the critics really spoke for the Web masses. Given that Web 2.0 is supposed to enshrine Web users (and not Web pundits) as the arbiters of truth, I decided to see what the Web actually thought about our mock Wiki. So in early July I posted our definition of OSP as an actual entry in Wikipedia. I cut only the Pets.com quip and the reference to Karl Rove, thinking that would get the entry booted. And then I waited. Three months have passed, and I think I can now say the results are in. Not only is my mock Wiki still the official entry for "Open Source Politics," it now comes up as the top hit for the term on Google.

There have been a few changes along the way. Most significantly, the entry is now titled "Open source political campaign" instead of "Open-source politics." But it still goes on to use "open-source politics" as the official term throughout and most of my original text is unchanged. The reference to "party bosses in smoky backrooms" was deleted, but the language about how Web 2.0 will "revolutionize our ability to follow, support, and influence political campaigns" still remains. It seems that what stuck our blogger critics as gimmicky hype strikes Wiki users as a pretty reasonable definition.

The other dramatic change to the entry is how official it now looks. Someone added a list of references that I'd cited, a bevy of links to ideas such as "open source governance," a table of contents, and a list of related terms under the header "see also." I should hope the page looks good, given that on Google it outranks every blog, outranks The Nation, Wired, MSNBC, and Slate, and yes, outranks Mother Jones (which ranks 14th in a search for the term). It's all quite frightening, or flattering, or humbling, depending on how you look at it.

Raped by the Law

Your tax dollars at work—a judge in Philadelphia sent the word that crime, especially violent crime, against working girls is OK.

After a 20 year old prostitute and single mom met a man for sex at an agreed upon price; he was joined by three of his friends who proceeded to gang rape her, unprotected, at gunpoint. Thankfully, the fourth friend thought her tears might signal a tad bit of unwillingness and helped her escape. Imagine the bravery of that young girl filing charges. Too bad it was for nothing. According to Philly.com reporter Jill Porter, the judge "dropped all sex and assault charges. . .[and] instead held the defendant on the bizarre charge of armed robbery for—get this—"theft of services."

At that point, I reread the introductory paragraphs sure to find what I'd glossed over before—the judge had to be a woman. One of the first things you learn in Law School Crim is how much you, as a prosecutor, don't want women on your rape jury. "It could never happen to me, they seem to think: only stupid or immoral women get raped. Only those who asked for it, drinking, dressing slutty, sleeping around. Being all flirtatious and prettier than me." There's some deep, dark psychology there and this judge was filthy with it.

"Did she tell you she had another client before she went to report it?" Deni asked me yesterday when we met at a coffee shop. "I thought rape was a terrible trauma."

A case like this, she said—to my astonishment—"minimizes true rape cases and demeans women who are really raped."

Silly Pennsylvania legislature, defining "sex by force as rape."

Porter goes on to note that, "The defendant was charged in an identical incident involving a 23-year-old woman four days later." Refusing to let another victim face such robed contempt and stupidity, prosecutors refused to present the second case and Deni dismissed it for failure to prosecute, with Church Lady gusto, no doubt.

Since he's only 19, and I watch Law and Order SVU, I'm betting that Judge Deni will be seeing lots more of this defendant as his rage against women escalates.

Must be read to be believed.

The Onion Gets It Right Again

They got Iraq right. Now another bold prediction:

Poll: Bullshit Is Most Important Issue For 2008 Voters

Stay tuned to MoJo Blog and MotherJones.com for lots of non-bullshit news and analysis about subjects (Blackwater, Iraq, race, health care, actual policy controversies) that aren't nearly as important as John Edward's haircut or Hillary Clinton's gender.

Zogby Poll Shows Americans Totally Fed Up With Congress

The United States Congress has again received a whopping 11% approval rating from participants in the most recent Zogby poll--the same score as last month. At the same time, George W. Bush received a 24% approval rating. Zogby participants expressed concern about American economic and foreign policy, and only 26% said that the country is headed in the right direction. At the same time, 45% described their personal financial situations as good.

Among Democratic candidates for president, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's Zogby approval rating jumped 11 points, from 35% to 46%, while Sen. Barack Obama's numbers moved from 21% to 25%. Among Republicans, Rudy Giulliani took a 28% lead, while Sen. John McCain's numbers fell from 13% to 8%. 51% of participants said that former vice president Al Gore should not enter the presidential race.

The New Face of Christian Legal Education

Regent Law, the Christian law school founded by Pat Robertson, is moving forward with disciplinary action against student Adam Key (left, showing off his "Due Process" tattoo). Key ran afoul of school authorities after posting on his Facebook page a video of Robertson scratching his forehead with his middle finger. Regent has banned Key from campus and is forcing him to undergo a psychiatric exam by a doctor of the school's choosing.

The whole episode reflects the Religious Right's utter lack of a sense of humor. Key talked to Above the Law blogger David Lat yesterday about his recent suspension and his background (which includes a stint as a pro wrestler). Here's what Key had to say about Robertson and his pending psych exam:

"I will undergo this psychiatric exam after Regent forces Pat Robertson to undergo one. Truly, what's crazier... disagreeing with the administration, or hearing voices that tell you about hurricanes that don't happen, and the impending apocalypse?"

Clearly they're never going to let this kid loose on campus again...

Dick Cheney and Barack Obama Are Related

It's true. I didn't even need a joke in the headline, it sounds so absurd. But according to genealogical research Lynne Cheney did while writing her book, Barack Obama is the descendant of someone named Mareen Duvall, a French Huguenot. Duvall's son married the granddaughter of a Richard Cheney, a man who, seven to nine generations later, would see his family line produce the worst vice president in the history of the United States. Obama and Cheney are eighth cousins.

Say the cliche with me. Only in America.

CNN Idiocy Watch, Day 1757: Rubber Duckies of DEATH

From "The Situation Room," yesterday (They have situations there. That's why it's called "The Situation Room.")

And I quote: "Still ahead here in the Situation Room: a chemical in lots of household products that could harm all of us. It could harm your reproductive system as well. One state is so worried it's issuing a sweeping new ban... Stay with us, you're in the Situation Room."

They played the story a full 28 minutes later.

A little more info from CNN's correspondent on the "deadly chemical":

"THE AGENTS ARE CALLED 'PHTHALATES,' WOLF... SOUNDS OBSCURE... BUT IT'S VIRTUALLY IMPOSSIBLE NOT TO HAVE COME IN CONTACT WITH THEM SOMETIME IN YOUR LIFE."

"THE QUESTION IS: ARE THEY AS DANGEROUS AS SOME PEOPLE BELIEVE?"

Apparently it's in rubber duckies. Unfortunately, by the time they played this Very Important Story (28 minutes after the teaser), thousands of Americans had died from a chemical in nail polish and rubber duckies. Tragic. Damn You, Wolf Blitzer! BLOOD IS ON YOUR HANDS.

Breaking News: Next on CNN—Could a major cable news company be responsible for the deaths of thousands of rubber-ducky-loving-toddlers? Find out right after these messages from our pharmaceutical-company sponsors! But don't go away—You could die!

This issue's "Practical Values" column has more on Phthalates.

There's also this:

Mukasey Is a Bore

Two hours in to the confirmation hearing for attorney general nominee Michael Mukasey and members of the Senate Judiciary Committee have pestered the former judge about everything from his view of the COPS program (Feinstein) to his stance on obscenity prosecutions (Orrin Hatch, of course). So far, Mukasey hasn't shown many signs of life. He looked as though he was barely tolerating Iowa senator Charles Grassley, who has shown a remarkable amount of concern about the False Claims Act.

It's hard to see how the committee will take a chunk out of this guy. The president couldn't have found a blander (and more humorless) nominee. If boring=competence, Mukasey shouldn't have any trouble getting confirmed.

TSA Falls Short, Foreign Repair Shops Ripe for Terrorist Sabotage

USA Today reports that neglect on behalf of the Transportation Security Administration has left airplanes that are serviced in foreign repair shops vulnerable to terrorist attacks. Almost four years ago, the TSA was mandated by Congress to write security regulations for these repair stations, but failed to do so. There is concern that, because many of these overseas hubs are not within the boundaries of secure airports, there is lack of oversight.

This is not the first controversy surrounding these stations. Mother Jones reported in our July/August 2006 issue, that, in 2005, due to a cash-strapped airline industry, airline maintenance was outsourced overseas and because simultaneously, the FAA faced a massive budget cut and began outsourcing its inspection—shaving its oversight crew by more than 250—airline travel took a safety hit. It was an accident (or quite a few) waiting to happen. Read the full article here.

Larry Craig is a Friend of the Series of Tubes, Though He Says Otherwise

Last night, Larry Craig and his wife sat down with Matt Lauer to discuss the senator's sex scandal. At one point, Lauer asked Craig if he knew the Minneapolis airport bathroom he was caught in is a hot spot for gay sex, a fact Craig would presumably find on the internet.

Craig responded, "Matt, you won't believe this. But I don't use the Internet. I don't have a computer at my desk. I've never used the Internet. It's just not what I do."

Huh. Is Craig really at Ted Stevens' level of online illiteracy? Thanks to the folks at the Washington Examiner, we know he's not.

According to them:

Craig is a member of the Congressional Internet Caucus.

He co-sponsored a bill designating June 2007 as National Internet Safety Month.

He was presented with the 2007 Internet Keep Safe Coalition Award.

On his Web site, he lists as a top accomplishment a Silver Mouse Award given to his site in 2003 and 2006 by the Congressional Management Foundation in 2003 and 2006.

When he endorsed Mitt Romney for president, he did so on YouTube.

Bush's Appointee for Head of Family Planning Hates Family Planning

The deputy assistant secretary for population affairs at the Department of Health and Human Services has an important job. He or she oversees "HHS's $283 million reproductive-health program, a $30 million program that encourages abstinence among teenagers, and HHS's Office of Population Affairs, which funds birth control, pregnancy tests, counseling, and screenings for sexually transmitted diseases and HIV." So who better to run it than someone who once called contraceptives part of the "culture of death"?

That delicious little nugget belongs to Susan Orr, former "senior director for marriage and family care" at the Family Research Council (full bio here) and Bush appointee for the deputy assistant secretary spot (on an acting basis of course, which is a sham).

In another instance, Orr supported a Bush Administration proposal to stop requiring all health insurance plans for federal employees to cover a broad range of birth control. "We're quite pleased," said Orr, who would be perfect for this job in a bizarro universe, "because fertility is not a disease."

And soon, having a kid will not be a choice. You'll have one, dammit! One sexual act equals one kid. That's the moral math in George W. Bush's America.

Why Obama Struggles: Right Message, Wrong Time

The Washington Post runs a story this morning that echoes my thoughts on why Barack Obama has been unable to gain ground on Hillary Clinton.

My thinking is this: Obama is preaching a truly admirable message of bipartisanship and a new politics, but he's preaching it when the Democrats neither want it nor need it.

They don't want Obama's message because they've been bullied by the Bush Administration and the Republicans in Congress for almost seven years and want payback. They don't need Obama's message because the GOP has screwed everything up so badly the Democrats can win with a purely partisan approach. When fewer and fewer people identify with the Republican Party and more and more claim they trust the Democratic Party on important issues like the economy, the war, and health care, why reach across the aisle?

There is a perception, borne out of Hillary Clinton's years of fighting tooth and nail with the GOP, that Clinton will kick ass when she's in office. And there's a perception, fostered by the Obama campaign, that Obama will eschew kicking ass in favor of bringing people together to renew America's politics.

Every poll indicates Democrats, for the time being, prefer ass-kicking to bringing-together.

Okay. So that's my thinking. I personally thinking that Obama's message is appealing no matter what the circumstances, and that a Democratic agenda that seeks revenge on Republicans will only create a Republican agenda in eight years that seeks revenge on Democrats. But I don't think a lot of Dem primary voters out there agree with me.

Here's how the Post puts it.

...it may be that [Obama's] summons to "turn the page" past the country's red-blue polarization is not what many Democrats want to hear after seven years of mounting anger at Bush and the Republican-dominated government.

Obama faults a broken system in Washington for failures that many Democratic voters attribute simply to having the other side in power. By contrast, Clinton more directly exploits Democrats' feelings of resentment. She argues that the troubles of the past seven years -- the Iraq war, Hurricane Katrina, the widening income gap -- are the result not of broken politics in Washington but of poor Republican governance.

And it seems to be working. Clinton now claims over 50 percent of Democratic primary voters. But is Clinton's approach appetizing only to Democratic primary voters? Will she have trouble appealing to the independents that are a necessary part of a winning coalition in the general election? That's the argument Obama's camp would have you believe. Says David Axelrod, Obama's chief campaign strategist:

"Senator Clinton has enormous negatives, were she to go into a general [election], and the fact that Barack is a good unifier is a good harbinger for the general."

I understand the logic. But it's also fair to point out that (1) Republicans will attack any Democratic candidate, be it Clinton, Obama, or anyone else, thus bringing Obama's negatives closer to Clinton's; (2) Obama is black, and that may cost him the chance to win votes that are not traditionally Democratic; and (3) the voting public is so poisoned to Republicans right now that a Democrat could probably get elected no matter how divisive she or he is.

But while Obama's approach may help him win the general election less than Axelrod thinks it will, it probably will help him govern. Says the candidate himself,

"We've become so accustomed to just assuming that 45 percent of the country is red and 45 percent is blue. . . . Even if we [eke out a victory], we can't govern. There's gridlock," he told a crowd at the University of Iowa. "My belief was that I could change the political map and end gridlock." He added: "If we could gain a 60 percent majority on any of these issues, we could actually get something done. My goal . . . is finding that 60 percent majority."

It's a noble cause. But is it a winning one?

October 16, 2007

Onslaught Indeed, Anyone Else Tired of Dove's 'Real Beauty' Campaign?

Dove has unveiled a new chapter in its ongoing effort to hoodwink the conscientious consumer in need of a new bar of soap. Its "Campaign for Real Beauty," like those of Benetton and The Body Shop before it, has been throwing up gorgeous billboards and television commercials featuring women of all shapes, sizes, and shades for years now. The message? Dove is different from other purveyors of beauty products; Dove cares for your skin as well as your well-being, as expressed by its honest portrayals of beauty in its various forms.

Dove's new marketing strategy is to web-release ads that directly critcize deceptive representations of beauty. This past summer, the viral ad Evolution won a Grand Prix prize at Cannes. The minute-long film featured a woman's face transformed through make-up and digital augmentation to an idealized face on a billboard wholly unlike the original. The spot concluded, "No wonder our perception of beauty is distorted." Its sequel—Onslaught—which hit the web at the beginning of October, opens with a close-up of a guileless young girl, blissfully unaware of the pressure to be "younger, taller, lighter, firmer, tighter, thinner, softer," followed by a fast-forward zoom through the debasing and all-too-prevalent beauty ads to which she will soon aspire. Through this campaign, Dove is taking a stand against such ads. Onslaught closes with this message: "Talk to your daughter before the beauty industry does."

Good advice, if only it wasn't coming from a company owned by Unilever, which also owns Slim-Fast and Axe deodorant, products that are pushed by those very ads that Dove is denouncing.

—Cassie McGettigan

Should Bill Richardson Give Up?

That's the question the New Republic is posing. Their argument, in essence, is that no matter how many awesome commercials the governor from New Mexico runs, he's just not catching fire, and he'd serve the Democratic Party and the country better by running for the New Mexico senate seat Pete Domenici is abandoning.

Richardson is so popular in New Mexico, he'd likely have a cakewalk to the senate. And with Big Bill's help, the Dems might get a filibuster-beating 60 seats, which would ensure a serious progressive agenda. It's hard to argue with that logic, but then again, the Democratic Party has a history of letting members doing what is best for themselves instead of what is best for the collective. That's not a terrible thing. And that's not a terrible picture either, eh?

The New York Sun's Candidate (It's Not Rudy)

Garance Franke-Ruta over at TAPPED makes a pretty compelling case for Rudy Giuliani, with his bevy of Likudnik-friendly advisers, being dubbed "the New York Sun candidate"—"culturally moderate, reasonably sophisticated, socially tolerant, and a far-right Zionist hawk on matters Middle Eastern."

Problem is, that particular moniker already belongs to another man. Back in April, the Sun's editorialists explicitly named their dream candidate for '08. Who was it? One hint—the president calls him "Big Time."

—Justin Elliott

Money, It's a Gas: Grab That Cash With Both Hands and Make a Stash

Interesting notes from the presidential fundraising numbers for the third quarter that were released today:

- When identifying the corporation or other entity that gave most to a candidate, the answer usually turns out to be a finance company, a law firm, or some other major corporate interest. Hillary Clinton, for example, raised an astonishing $207,670 from employees of Morgan Stanley, $186,540 from employees of Goldman Sachs, and $96,015 from employees of Citigroup. Not Ron Paul. The oft-slighted Republican congressman from Texas raised more money from members of the U.S. Army than from anywhere else. (This is no surprise to readers of MoJoBlog.) The entity supplying the second most? Google.

- Mitt Romney is also an exception. He gets more money from employees of The Villages, a Florida retirement community, than anywhere else. Romney has loaned a whopping $17.4 million of his own money to the campaign. Meanwhile, he only has $9.2 million in cash-on-hand. Without his own personal wealth propping up the campaign, Romney is in McCain territory.

- Speaking of, John McCain is in debt (and I grow sad). The man from Arizona has roughly $1.6 million to spend in the primary, but $1.7 million in debts. Not. Good.

- Gov. Bill Richardson drew more money from New Mexico state employees than from employees of any other entity.

- Republican Duncan Hunter has yet to top $2 million for the entire campaign. Mike Huckabee, who really checks all the boxes for the Republican base, can't get it going either. He's only raised $2.3 million for the campaign. When do we get to drop-out territory?

Rudy Giuliani Has Advisers Who Would Bomb Iran Tomorrow

I used to believe the most dangerous thing about Rudy Giuliani was the fact that, even though he has zero foreign policy experience, he thinks he knows everything there is to know about foreign policy. That's a scary kind of ignorance.

But I was wrong. The most dangerous thing about Rudy Giuliani is his advisers. They are crazy, crazy, crazy. Too crazy to work for Bush, even. Take a look at what TPMTV has to say.

Democrats' Best-Case Senate Scenario: Filibuster-Proof Majority

Let's take a minute to indulge in best-case scenarios, shall we? Time runs down the situation in the Senate. They note that if the Dems pick up...

The open seat in Colorado being vacated by the retiring Wayne Allard,
The open seat in New Mexico being vacated by the retiring Pete Domenici,
The open seat in Virginia being vacated by the retiring John Warner,
The open seat in Nebraska being vacated by the retiring Chuck Hagel,
The open seat in Idaho being vacated by the retiring Wide Stance,
The New Hampshire seat being defended by John Sununu,
The Maine seat being defended by Susan Collins,
The Minnesota seat being defended by Norm Coleman,
The Oregon seat being defended by Gordon Smith,

and they defend...

The Louisiana seat held by Mary Landrieu,

they will have 60 seats, enough to beat a Republican filibuster. This doesn't even take into account the possibility of Alaska Senator Ted Steven's legal troubles deepening and forcing his retirement. A 60-seat majority means, for the first time, real legislation that can end the Iraq War. And a Democratic tidal wave of this nature would likely usher in a Democratic president, which means a new era of progressive domestic policies.

The races listed above all have a legitimate chance to go the Dems' way—there are 11 seats held by Democrats and 12 seats held by Republicans that I didn't even mention because the incumbent is unlikely to face a serious challenge in any of them. (For a ranking of races, see this pdf.) These races all depend, of course, on the quality of opponents and various local factors. But with so many Republicans up for reelection in states trending blue, it should be an exciting 2008.

Also of note: Which of the challengers will catch the imagination of the netroots? To use the parlance, who will the people power?

Black Macho and the Myth of the Super Predator: The PTSD connection

"Violence in our communities shows [blacks] really do hate each other."

Rush Limbaugh? Bill O'Reilly?

No, Kenny Gamble, famous co-architect of the Philadelphia Sound who's invested his retirement and his fortune in saving his inner city community. This is what's known as tough love, the only kind worth a damn.

Philadelphia, as I've written before, is struggling hard to stem the tide of violence there. Oddly, they've found that protesting racism is less productive than working to get 10,000 volunteers to stand guard over their community and try to reclaim their lost ones. They'll never pull it off without a hard look in the mirror like Gamble's because racism doesn't make you shoot people or sell drugs or drop out of school; there has to be an intervening cause, like hopelessness, a criminal record which prevents employment, an unplanned pregnancy, or internalized oppression that makes you, too, subconsciously hate black people.

Outside of the academy, black interiority is a subject that even blacks have shown little interest in except as it directly implicates racism. It's fair to go so far as to say that it's a taboo subject when it exposes problematic patterns among blacks, e.g. the common black myths that 'they' don't commit suicide or suffer from mental illness. That would be weak and only white people are weak; blacks don't roll like that. Beat your wife? Fine, but see a therapist and see how quickly you lose your street cred. A good plan if stoicism and silence actually eliminated the problems, but til then, blacks should join in the on-going excavations of their own complexity and gird themselves to have some painful discussions. I've long believed that the black community's main problem is widespread PTSD. What else explains ganster rap, the war between black men and black women, and the rage of the black middle class? Yes, I'm serious. And I'm not alone, though perhaps my fellow travelers aren't putting it quite this way.

Another 10,000 Man activist noted, "More killings in Philadelphia are the result of common disputes than over drug-turf wars. ...With the proliferation of guns and lack of training in managing anger, ordinary arguments become deadly. And why has anger not been controlled or properly channelled?"

Excellent question.

A former Philadelphia gang member "speaks eloquently about the lack of love in his urban community and the effect this has on increasing crime, lowering employment opportunities and creating a sense of desperation so deep pre-teen black kids are essentially hopeless before hitting middle school." (emphasis added)

How does racism keep minorities from loving their kids?

However oppressive and determinative racism remains in America - and boy does it - black complicity and inertia has allowed it to turn too many of them into the racist's wet dream: a caricature of disfunction, underachievement and futility. The tired arguments against supplying ammo to the enemy are just that - tired; racists are never going to run out of dirty tricks so blacks should take a page from DuBois.

In The Souls of Black Folk, he wrote, "Between me and the other world there is ever an unasked question: How does it feel to be a problem? I answer seldom a word."

Blacks today should also be too busy tending to their community to participate in racism's mind games.

Ron Paul Wins Polls, Gets Repeatedly Disrespected by CNBC

Another debate, another post-debate poll won by an underdog candidate and then hidden by the media outlet commissioning the poll. Sounds outrageous, but it's almost becoming routine, particularly with Kucinich on the left and Ron Paul on the right.

It happened again after the recent Republican debate on CNBC. Ron Paul's supporters pounced on the post-debate online poll and gave their man a hefty lead, only to find the poll removed. CNBC.com managing editor Allen Wastler eventually "explained" himself—by saying, petulantly, that he'd do it again.

An Open Letter to the Ron Paul Faithful

You guys are good. Real good. You are truly a force on World Wide Web and I tip my hat to you.

That's based on my first hand experience of your work regarding our CNBC Republican candidate debate. After the debate, we put up a poll on our Web site asking who readers thought won the debate. You guys flooded it.

Now these Internet polls are admittedly unscientific and subject to hacking. In the end, they are really just a way to engage the reader and take a quick temperature reading of your audience. Nothing more and nothing less. The cyber equivalent of asking the room for a show of hands on a certain question.

So there was our after-debate poll. The numbers grew ... 7,000-plus votes after a couple of hours ... and Ron Paul was at 75%.

Now Paul is a fine gentleman with some substantial backing and, by the way, was a dynamic presence throughout the debate , but I haven't seen him pull those kind of numbers in any "legit" poll. Our poll was either hacked or the target of a campaign. So we took the poll down.

The next day, our email basket was flooded with Ron Paul support messages. And the computer logs showed the poll had been hit with traffic from Ron Paul chat sites. I learned other Internet polls that night had been hit in similar fashion. Congratulations. You folks are obviously well-organized and feel strongly about your candidate and I can't help but admire that.

But you also ruined the purpose of the poll. It was no longer an honest "show of hands" -- it suddenly was a platform for beating the Ron Paul drum. That certainly wasn't our intention and certainly doesn't serve our readers ... at least those who aren't already in the Ron Paul camp.

Some of you Ron Paul fans take issue with my decision to take the poll down. Fine. When a well-organized and committed "few" can throw the results of a system meant to reflect the sentiments of "the many," I get a little worried. I'd take it down again.

There's a number of things to point out.

(1) Why commission an admittedly unscientific poll if you are going to get upset by the unscientific results? If you are aware the poll may get caught by the whimsy (or the plotting) of the crowd, why not just see where it takes you?

(2) Wastler must be incredibly naive if he can say, with a straight face, "When a well-organized and committed "few" can throw the results of a system meant to reflect the sentiments of "the many," I get a little worried." That's American democracy, buddy.

(3) Isn't there something interesting, and newsworthy, in letting the Ron Paul internet phenomenon play out in plain view? A better approach might be to let the poll stand, because it was voted on without corruption or hacking, and then write an article on what CNBC.com's internal metrics say about who voted. That is to say, as part of CNBC.com's post-debate coverage, they could have written about the poll and Ron Paul's unique advantage in the web. It is, after all, news.

One person who agrees with me is CNBC chief Washington correspondent John Harwood. He rebutted Wastler and responded to the complaints about the hidden poll.

My Open Letter To Ron Paul Supporters

...I agree with the complaints. I do not believe our poll was "hacked." Nor do I agree with my colleagues' decision to take it down, though I know they were acting in good faith.

My reasoning is simple: Political dialogue on the Internet, like democracy itself, ought to be open and participatory. If you sponsor an online poll as we did, you accept the results unless you have very good reason to believe something corrupt has occurred--just as democracies accept results on Election Day at the ballot box without compelling evidence of corruption. I have no reason to believe anything corrupt occurred with respect to our poll.

To the contrary, I believe the results we measured showing an impressive 75% naming Paul reflect the organization and motivation of Paul's adherents. This is precisely what unscientific surveys of this kind are created to measure. Another indication: the impressive $5-million raised by Paul's campaign in the third quarter of the year.

To be clear: I believe that Ron Paul's chances of winning the presidency are no greater than my own, which is to say zero. When he ran as the Libertarian Party candidate for president in 1988, he drew fewer than a half-million votes. In last week's Wall Street Journal-NBC News Poll of Republican primary voters--which IS a scientific poll with a four percentage point margin for error--Paul drew two percent.

He lacks the support needed to win the GOP nomination, and would even if the media covered him as heavily as we cover Rudy Giuliani. Why? Because Paul's views--respectable, well-articulated and sincerely held as they are--are plainly out of step with the mainstream sentiment of the party he is running in.

The difference we are discussing--breadth of views vs intensity of views--is a staple of political discussion and always has been in democracies. Highly motivated minorities can and do exert influence out of proportion to their numbers in legislative debates and even in some elections. They most certainly can dominate unscientific online polls. And when they do, we should neither be surprised nor censor the results.

In the end, Harwood's reasoning adds another reason why the poll should be left up: What's the harm?

Unintended (Meaning Bad) Consequences of Promoting Democracy in Iran

Remember Haleh Esfandiari, the scholar who was detained for eight months on a recent trip to Iran to visit her elderly mother? She's just co-authored a piece in the Chronicle of Higher Education titled "When Promoting Democracy Is Counterproductive."

A longtime advocate of reconciliation between Iran and the United States, Esfandiari points to some unintended yet entirely predictable consequences of bellicose posturing combined with the U.S.'s recent $75 million appropriation for "democracy promotion" in Iran. U.S. policy has succeeded in nothing so much as inflaming paranoia among elements of the Iranian government—some of it justified, arguably—which has in turn contributed to what the authors term “a broad crackdown on Iran’s civil society.” Of course, Esfandiari learned this the hard way when she was accused of conspiring against the regime and was thrown into Iran’s Evin Prison. More from the article (which requires a subscription):

Ahmadinejad has effectively played the nationalist card, using U.S. regime-change rhetoric to deflect attention from his government's poor performance. He has managed to cast himself as a defender of Iran's interests against an interventionist America....

Meanwhile, while eschewing official contact, the United States attempts to financially support Iran's own nascent NGO's so that they can become agents of change within the society. Yet this program of democracy promotion has had the unintended consequence of further reducing the political space for open debate in Iran. In this new climate of intimidation, NGO's and journalists are subject to censorship and are defensively engaging in self-censorship. Prominent Iranian activists, such as the Nobel laureate Shirin Ebadi, declared their opposition to the U.S. program because of continued sensitivity about foreign, particularly American, intrusion in Iran's domestic politics. The fact that the identities of Iranian recipients of U.S. aid are regarded as classified information by the U.S. government feeds the regime's paranoia and casts suspicion on all Iranian NGO's.

An Iranian-American human rights activist made a similar point earlier this year in a chilling piece on stonings in Iran. Soheila Vahdati argued that U.S. saber-rattling and the democracy promotion package had "caused the current Iranian regime to see the hand of the United States at work in every movement for social and legal change." As a result, the women's movement found itself "undermined by an air of suspicion about our genuine aims and activities." Will the administration ever learn that intrusive U.S. policy isn't helping matters in Iran? Probably not.

—Justin Elliott

Maybe Clarence Thomas Can Help With The Appeal

UCLA law prof Richard Sander has a resume that screams bleeding heart liberal. A former Vista volunteer, he has spent his whole life studying social and economic inequality. Lately, though, Sander has won a following from the Clarence Thomas fan club and other affirmative action foes. Sander has published research showing that only one in three African-Americans who goes to an American law school passes the bar on the first try, and that the majority never go on to be lawyers. For this, Sander blames affirmative action.

Sander has argued that black students, admitted with weaker academic records, are unprepared for the law schools that admitted them, and as a result, many dropped out or failed to pass the bar when they did graduate. Sander wants to investigate the phenomenon further, and recently asked the the State Bar of California for permission to mine its 30-years worth of data on student test scores, bar passage rates and law school admissions to learn more about how black law students are faring.

Civil rights groups support the study, but the bar apparently sees it as waaay too controversial, and voted recently to keep Sander out, even though it has given access to other researchers. Naturally, Fox News sees a conspiracy here....

(H/T Above the Law)

October 15, 2007

Bye Bye Columbus Day?

Friday marked the anniversary of Christopher Columbus' chance landing in the Americas. To mark the occasion, Columbus Day has traditionally been celebrated throughout the hemisphere, yet these days in Latin America it is more in protest than in recognition.

We might have a few places that have chosen to change the holiday to reflect what Columbus meant to the native people—in Berkeley it's officially Indigenous People's Day, in South Dakota it's Native American Day, and in Hawaii it isn't even a holiday—but for the most part the legend of Columbus holds strong and there have been few attempts, in our textbooks or statehouses, to change the day's intention.

In Latin America, though, it's national leaders who are working to readjust the public’s view of Columbus and his impact on the Americas. In Venezuela, Hugo Chavez renamed Columbus Day and Avenue Columbus to Indigenous Resistance Day and Avenue Indigenous Resistance. Chavez has made Venezuela's 35 different tribes visible, literally, to the urban public by broadcasting television stations from their regions. Bolivia's Evo Morales marked the anniversary by attending a conference of indigenous people from across Latin America in Chapare, Bolivia.

Last week city officials in Caracas confirmed that a statue of Columbus that was toppled in a square three years ago will not be restored. That statue could very well have been that of any dictator, torn down by the masses as they take to the streets as a new voice begins to emerge.

—Andre Sternberg

GOP to Introduce Universal Health Care Plan; Have Dems Already Won?

Look who's joining the party:

Under fierce attack by Democrats over the children’s health insurance plan, House Minority Leader John A. Boehner said Sunday Republicans will unveil their own health care plan over the next few months.

"Republicans are working on a plan that will provide access to all Americans to high quality health insurance, make sure that we increase the quality of insurance that we have in American, and we want to foster a sprit of innovation," said Boehner on "Fox News Sunday." "This is a plan we'll see over the next coming months where we put the patients in charge of their health care."

I agree with Steve Benen's analysis: "I'm well aware of the fact that the Republican plans for universal coverage aren't going to be very good. That's the not the point. It's more important to realize the big picture — we'll soon have Dems and Republicans arguing not over whether to have every American insured, but how best to have every American insured."

Yup. The debate is shifting in the right direction. Soon, it will be very easy for a Democratic president to put a universal health care plan forward to the American people, because the need for such a plan will already be well-established.

The same can be said for global warming, in large part thanks to Nobel laureate Al Gore. It cannot be said for the Iraq War. It feels like that issue is still being fought on Republicans' turf.

Bill Clinton: President Hillary's Lead Negotiator in the Middle East?

I was reading Matt Yglesias' summary of Hillary Clinton's foreign policy plan (one-line synopsis: just like Edwards' and Obama's, but a shade more hawkish) and noted this paragraph from Clinton on the Israeli-Palestinian issue.

Getting out of Iraq will enable us to play a constructive role in a renewed Middle East peace process that would mean security and normal relations for Israel and the Palestinians. The fundamental elements of a final agreement have been clear since 2000: a Palestinian state in Gaza and the West Bank in return for a declaration that the conflict is over, recognition of Israel's right to exist, guarantees of Israeli security, diplomatic recognition of Israel, and normalization of its relations with Arab states. U.S. diplomacy is critical in helping to resolve this conflict. In addition to facilitating negotiations, we must engage in regional diplomacy to gain Arab support for a Palestinian leadership that is committed to peace and willing to engage in a dialogue with the Israelis. Whether or not the United States makes progress in helping to broker a final agreement, consistent U.S. involvement can lower the level of violence and restore our credibility in the region.

It will be nice to have a president come into office with this mindset. In comparison, George W. Bush announced at his first National Security Council meeting, "We're going to tilt back toward Israel." When Colin Powell warned that such an attitude might lead to excessive uses of force by the Israeli army and a victimized Palestinian population, Bush responded, "Sometimes a show for force by one side can really clarify things."

So we're miles ahead of nonsense. In fact, a commander-in-chief with Clinton's position on the issue would mean that we're roughly back to the attitudes that led to the last serious shot at peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians, under President You-Know-Who. Which begs the question, if Bill is looking for role as First Gent ("If Hillary wins, I want to do whatever she wants me to do."), maybe he can be America's lead negotiator on this issue. Lord knows he's got the gravitas and the experience.

Greed: Why You Pay A Higher Tax Rate Than Buffett

The incomparable Mark Shields (any News Hour fans out there?) quotes Mr. Warren Buffett:

In my office, I have 18 or so people there, and I ask them to compute line 63, which is their tax, and then add payroll taxes, and compare it to line 43, which is their taxable income. And these people who make anywhere from $50,000 to $750,000 a year ... and the lowest person in the office pays a higher rate than I do. I paid 17.7 percent last year, counting payroll taxes. ... The [employees'] average was twice mine. [Private equity managers] say they fix up companies and they get paid for doing that. On balance, they're paying a 15 percent tax rate on that and no payroll taxes, and somebody that fixes up the restroom is paying 15.3 percent in payroll taxes, just to start with. [The janitor who works] for peanuts pays a higher tax rate than people who fix up companies [for] hundreds of millions of dollars annually in income [emphasis added].

That's right: on average, Warren Buffett's employees pay twice as much of their income in taxes as he does. That means you probably pay a higher percentage of your income in taxes than the second-richest person in the world. Thank God the new Democratic Congress is ignoring the fact that the industry gave "77 percent of its $8.2 million in donations to Democratic candidates" and cracking down on unfairly regressive taxation anyway. Oh, wait:

In Washington, D.C. last week, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s office confirmed that the Senate will take no action this year on closing the tax loophole that saves private equity and other private investment fund managers an estimated $12 billion a year.

So what does all that money buy besides huge yachts? Well, it looks like there's a sale on politicians! Get them while the getting is good!

Losing the War in Afghanistan in Four Steps

Terrorism expert Peter Bergen writes in the New Republic's most recent cover story, "Today, Afghanistan resembles nothing so much as Iraq in the fall of 2003, when the descent into chaos began." In searching for why that's the case, he identifies four primary factors.

1. Allowing Osama bin Laden to escape at Tora Bora.

2. Under-funding and under-manning the reconstruction of Afghanistan, and refusing international help early in that process.

3. Turning the military's attention to Iraq before Afghanistan could be stabilized.

4. Appeasing, and not demanding more out of, Musharraf and the Pakistani government.

The whole thing is worth a read, but if you want an easily digestible yet expanded list, take a look at something Bergen put together for Mother Jones this past summer. We call it "The Iraqization of Afghanistan."

The SecDef Tells The Truth

From McClatchy:

"Following contentious and unproductive encounters with Russian officials on Friday, Defense Secretary Robert Gates Saturday said he isn't certain that Russia is interested in cooperating with the United States to defend Europe against Iranian missiles or whether Moscow simply wants to stop the U.S. from building missile defenses in Eastern Europe."

It's pretty shocking that news reports on this subject haven't made Russia's objection clear (maybe because U.S. and Russian diplomats have been beating around the bush to the press). But let's spell it out: Russia does not want American missile defenses in Eastern Europe. They do not want them on a train, they do not want them on a plane, they do not want them here or there, they do not want them anywhere.

US News: "Waxman Hunting for Bush Lies"

US News' "Washington Whispers" columnist Paul Bedard reports:

Rep. Henry Waxman, considered the meanest dog in town by the GOP, is still sniffing around the White House for proof the president lied when making the case for going to war in Iraq. We hear that he's been quietly summoning former Bush aides, especially speechwriters, to testify behind closed doors about what they knew and how they phrased his words on the issue. Whispers hears that one called in was John Gibson, a former National Security Council speechwriter. He wouldn't spill to us. The committee had no comment either, but an administration official says, "It is yet another item on the ever growing fishing expedition list from Representative Waxman."

After interviewing those NSC officials, here's another reference Waxman's investigators can peruse.

Comcast's Fee to the Government and Policy on Domestic Surveillance

The Federation of American Scientists' government secrecy guru Steve Aftergood reports:

Upon lawful request and for a thousand dollars, Comcast, one of the nation's leading telecommunications companies, will intercept its customers' communications under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

The cost for performing any FISA surveillance "requiring deployment of an intercept device" is $1,000.00 for the "initial start-up fee (including the first month of intercept service)," according to a newly disclosed Comcast Handbook for Law Enforcement.

Thereafter, the surveillance fee goes down to "$750.00 per month for each subsequent month in which the original [FISA] order or any extensions of the original order are active." ...

"If your [FISA intercept] request pertains to individuals outside the U.S., please be sure you have complied with all the requirements in 50 U.S.C. sections 105A and/or 105B," the manual says, referring to provisions of the Protect America Act that was enacted last month. "Requests such as these can not be honored after one year and must be dated prior to February 5, 2008, unless extended by Congress."

Comcast will also comply with disclosure demands presented in the form of National Security Letters. However, the manual says, "Attention must be paid to the various court proceedings in which the legal status of such requests is at issue." ...

At the same time, "Comcast reserves the right to respond or object to, or seek clarification of, any legal requests and treat legal requests for subscriber information in any manner consistent with applicable law."

Aftergood obtained a copy of the manual, "Comcast Cable Law Enforcement Handbook," September 2007, available here (.pdf).

Portrait of Presidential Sadness, in Dots

The failures of the Bush presidency are not lost on the stipple portraitists at the Wall Street Journal.

Spotted on Trailhead.

Former Lobbyists Say the Darnedest Things

Dean Kleckner, who used to run the farmer's lobby and took corn and soybean subsidies for years, calls for farm subsidy reform in today's New York Times. "It’s obvious that we need to transform our public support for farmers," he says. "There’s something fundamentally perverse about a system that has farmers hoping for low prices at harvest time — it’s like praying for bad weather. But that’s precisely what happens, because those low prices mean bigger checks from Washington."

Still waiting to hear Doug Brooks come out against military contractors.

Romney Responds to Rancorous Republican Rival

Ohhh, snap! After John McCain shredded Mitt Romney for being a false conservative and a misleading campaigner, the Romney campaign released a video of McCain endorsing Romney for governor of Massachusetts in 2002.

Says McCain, "You got a great team here but it's led by a man of honesty and integrity. It's led by a man who is prepared to serve and a man who I have grown to know for his honesty, his decency, and his commitment to America... we have a man of unimpeachable integrity, decency, and honor." McCain says the word honesty about a dozen times. I'm not kidding. Take a look.

Boy, the Romney campaign must have been sitting on this for ages, just waiting for an opportunity to use it. And McCain finally gave them one.

(H/T PrezVid)

McCain Mauls Massachusetts Mountebank

You might think that because the Democratic side of the primary fight is the one with a solid frontrunner and a set of increasingly desperate also-rans, it would be the one with the more vicious and vitriolic attacks.

You would be wrong.

The Democratic side has been relatively civil (though that might change) while the Republican side has been brutal. And it just got worse. Michael Scherer of Salon has the deets:

"...conservatives that have heard me time and again recognize that I do speak for the Republican wing of the Republican Party," Romney told the Nevada gathering, according to the Associated Press.

Less than 24-hours later, McCain responded with a blistering and detailed assault on Romney that read like an opposition research paper. "I don't usually do this but I'm going to depart for a moment from the issues I want to talk to you about today," McCain said at the beginning of his address to the party meeting. "One of the other Republican candidates made an extraordinary statement yesterday. Former Gov. Romney yesterday proclaimed himself the only real Republican in this race. As we all know, when he ran for office in Massachusetts being a Republican wasn't much of a priority for him. In fact, when he ran against Ted Kennedy, he said he didn't want to return to the days of Reagan-Bush. I always thought Ronald Reagan was a real Republican. When Gov. Romney donated money to a Democratic candidate in New Hampshire, I don't think he was speaking for Republicans. When he voted for a Democratic candidate for President, Paul Tsongas, I don't think he was speaking for Republicans. When he refused to endorse the Contract with America, I don't think he was speaking for Republicans. And when he was embracing the Democratic position on many major issues of the day, I don't think he was speaking for Republicans."

"So you'll understand why I'm a little perplexed," McCain continued, "when Mitt Romney now suggests that he's a better Republican than me, or that he speaks for the Republican wing of the Republican Party."

The problem, though, is that this attack is only really credible coming from Mike Huckabee, Sam Brownback, or Duncan Hunter—true conservatives all but denizens of the second tier. McCain has his own very serious apostasies: campaign finance reform, immigration, opposition to the Bush tax cuts (a position since reversed), and so on. That's why McCain followed his criticism of Romney with this:

"I think I've gotten to know the people of New Hampshire pretty well. I know that before I can win your vote, I have to win your respect. And to do that, you expect me to be honest with you about what I believe. You might not always agree with me on every issue, but I hope you know I'm not going to con you. The most important thing we have in this life is our self-respect. And I'm not going to trade mine for anyone's vote or for any office. I'm going to tell you what I believe and let the chips fall where they will."

Mitt as a flip-flopping con man is a meme the Romney campaign has largely seen come and go. They endured roughly a million press reports painting Romney as a guy willing to say anything and take any position to become president, and they're still on top in Iowa and New Hampshire. McCain has to be wondering what he can do, other than raise the volume.

Oh, and by the way, John McCain isn't immune to the flip-flop bug.

Pat Robertson: Flippin' Out

Remember Regent Law, the school founded by Pat Robertson to bring the will of the Almighty to the legal profession? While half of the school's early graduates flunked the bar on the first go-around, Regent has sent a number of its alumni to the Bush administration, including, most famously, former DOJ staffer Monica Goodling. One Regent student who's not likely to get a White House placement any time soon is Adam Key, who's been threatened with expulsion for posting on his Facebook page a YouTube video of the school's founder, well, flippin' the bird during a TV interview. Apparently the will of the Almighty is that the First Amendment doesn't protect those making fun of Pat Robertson.

Here's the offending video.

October 20, 2007

October 19, 2007

October 18, 2007

October 17, 2007

October 16, 2007

October 15, 2007

RECENT ENTRIES

ARCHIVE

RECENT COMMENTS

SEARCH MOTHER JONES

TODAY ON...

BLOG LINKS

IN PRINT

DONATE TODAY