David Corn

Washington Bureau Chief

Corn has broken stories on presidents, politicians, and other Washington players. He's written for numerous publications and is a talk show regular. His best-selling books include Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the Iraq War.

Get my RSS | Follow @davidcorndc

Romney Education Adviser and His Dropout Scandal

—By David Corn

| Tue May. 22, 2012 9:26 AM PDT

Mitt Romney.

With President Barack Obama on a tear in recent weeks to keep interest rates on college loans low—an issue that plays well with young voters—Mitt Romney, the presumptive GOP nominee, on Tuesday unveiled his Education Policy Advisory Group. It features at least ten education experts who served during the George W. Bush administration, most notably Rod Paige, who was education secretary during Bush's first term. The short bio of Paige released by the Romney campaign states that he once was superintendent of Houston's schools. But it fails to mention that Paige, once he was in Bush's cabinet, became mired in an ugly scandal, when the news broke that the Houston school system, the seventh largest in the nation, had falsified its dropout stats during Paige's tenure.

As the Los Angeles Times put it:

A series of internal audits and external investigations that followed found that nearly all of the schools examined in Houston, with the nation's seventh-largest school district and where U.S. Education Secretary Rod Paige had been superintendent, were vastly underreporting dropouts.

A New York Times editorial explained why this was particularly embarrassing for Bush and Paige:

As a presidential candidate and Texas governor, George Bush boasted that his state's school accountability system would be a model for the nation. A focus on basic skills and frequent testing had turned around an underperforming set of school systems in a state with a large poor, nonwhite population. In particular, he said, Houston was leading the way. When he was elected president, Mr. Bush selected Rod Paige, the Houston superintendent, as his education secretary.

It turns out the Houston schools have not lived up to their billing. Their amazingly low high school dropout rate was literally unbelievable—the educational equivalent of Enron's accounting results. The school district has found that more than half of the 5,500 students who left in the 2000-1 school year should have been declared dropouts but were not.

Dr. Paige, who has declined to comment on the Houston scandal, can remain silent no longer. He was brought to Washington to provide national educational leadership. With Houston facing a crisis of fiddled data, he owes it to the country to share his thoughts on how this happened and what it means.

Several years later, when 60 Minutes was reporting on the Houston dropout scandal, Paige still wouldn't explain his role:

60 Minutes also tried to talk to Paige himself, but he declined. His spokesman said the dropout controversy broke after Paige left Houston to become education secretary....

Paige's spokesman suggested that 60 Minutes talk to Jay Greene, a leading expert on dropouts at the Manhattan Institute. Greene supports the kind of accountability reforms Paige enacted in Houston.

But this is what Greene said when asked what he thought about Houston's "official" dropout rates: "I find that very hard to believe. It is almost certainly not true. I think it's simply implausible. I think a reasonable guess is that almost half of Houston's students do not graduate from high school."

If Paige has ever publicly spoken candidly about what happened on his watch in Houston, I couldn't find it. Yet Romney has tapped him as a "special adviser" on education (a move that didn't happen during the GOP primaries, when Romney had to appeal to a base that included conservative voters skeptical of the Bush adminstration's No Child Left Behind legislation, which Paige helped develop). By selecting this former Bush official, Romney once again is rushing back to the future—and embracing a fellow who called for accountability for schools but ducked accountability for himself.

Advertise on MotherJones.com

Romney, Obama, and Voters: It's Complicated

Are voters torn between the guy they like better and the fellow they hope could do more for the economy?

—By David Corn

| Mon May. 21, 2012 3:00 AM PDT

Barack Obama is ahead in the polls. Then Mitt Romney is. The president is leading among women. Then the likely Republican nominee is. Romney's favorable rating is in the dumps. Presto! It's above water. The volatility of the 2012 presidential race is a boon for pollsters and pundits, who every day, it seems, have new data to dissect and a new shift to explain.

The reasons for the movement in the polls can seem obvious. With Romney no longer being sniped at daily by fellow Republicans—and with him keeping his distance from reporters and no longer appearing at crazy-town debates—it's no surprise his favorability numbers have crept upward. And with the economic recovery remaining sluggish—and the jobs picture still grim in many regions—Americans have cause to be frustrated with the status quo and the president. But for those who'd like to short-cut much of the nanosecond-by-nanosecond analysis, there is a fundamental dynamic to the race to consider: Many voters tend to like Obama but are disappointed that the economy has not rebounded more robustly on his watch. And many voters—perhaps some of the same voters—don't like Mitt Romney, the awkward, say-anything quarter-billionaire, but they fancy the idea of a business-savvy Mr. Fix-It who can turn around the economy. Consequently, voters in the middle—those not propelled by partisan or ideological views and those not yet decided—will be tugged in opposite directions over the next five-and-a-half months, as they sort out conflicting impulses. Consequently, poll results will see-saw.

A Gallup poll conducted earlier this month found that 60 percent consider Obama more likable than Romney. And a recent Washington Post-ABC News poll noted that 56 percent held a favorable opinion of Obama; merely 35 percent said the same of Romney. But in other surveys Romney is doing better of late on the favorability front. A USA Today poll noted his favorable/unfavorable rating had flipped back to a net positive of 50/41 percent. This is not a shocker. With the wacky Republican primary contest completed, voters are no longer being subjected to nonstop Romney gaffes and constantly reminded of his 1-percentness and attendant policies.

[Read the full article]

Obama Comes Out

The president finally declares his support for gay marriage. Here's why he did it.

—By David Corn

| Wed May. 9, 2012 11:55 AM PDT

President Barack Obama's evolution ended today, when he told ABC News one of the worst kept secrets in Washington: he's good with gay marriage.

For the past several days, the politerati have been abuzz over this matter, after Vice President Joe Biden appeared on Meet the Press and, in response to a question, said he was for marriage equality. An impassioned Biden declared he was "absolutely comfortable" with gay marriage. This detonated a media frenzy. The next day, reporters hurled questions at White House press secretary Jay Carney about the president's neither-for-nor-against-but-evolving position. The headline on a Washington Post piece by Dana Milbank described Biden's comment as a "gaffe" that was a "mess for the White House." Meanwhile, Secretary of Education Arne Duncan, during a Monday interview, noted that he, too, favored gay marriage. Why have you not said so before? he was asked. No one had bother to inquire, Duncan replied.

Speculation exploded. Was the White House mounting an orchestrated campaign to pave the way for an Obama declaration of support for same-sex marriages? And if so, why? Gay and Democratic activists had been threatening to wage a platform fight at the presidential convention this summer over a pro-gay marriage plank. Was Obama now taking steps to avoid such a made-for-cable fuss?

In Washington, the first question always is, what's the political gain? But in this instance, despite all the hypothesizing, that was not obvious. Specific Obama constituencies could be expected to be heartened by this announcement: the gay rights community, fundraisers (one of six Obama bundlers are openly gay), and young voters. But same-sex marriage does not generally poll well among African-Americans and Latinos, two voting blocs Obama must rev up in November.

[Read the full article]

Why Washington Needs Dick Lugar

Not because moderate Republicans are nearly extinct, but because the voted-out senator was serious when it came to forging foreign-policy compromises.

—By David Corn

| Tue May. 8, 2012 5:15 PM PDT

Sen. Dick Lugar (R-Ind.)

Centrism and bipartisan consensus often are unduly worshiped by Washington's punditeers, who are ever bemoaning the decline of across-the-aisle dialogue and compromise. Frequently, these calls for cooperation are escape routes for those who prefer to transcend real and important political and policy divides and who yearn to position themselves above the critical but down-and-dirty squabbles that shape this country's future. Yet there are times when the pursuit of a common purpose uniting Democrats and Republicans is necessary to advance important policy aims and to demonstrate to the citizenry that the nation's capital can function and serve the public interest. And in an era of increasing political rancor, Washington's ability to rise to this task is now diminished with the primary defeat of Sen. Dick Lugar, an Indiana Republican.

Lugar was beaten on Tuesday by Richard Mourdock, the tea-party-favored state treasurer. This was not unexpected. Lugar, a moderate GOPer who had served in the Senate since 1977, was ripe for the defenestration. Tea partiers in recent years had eviscerated other targeted-from-the-right Republican senators, including Bob Bennett of Utah and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska. (Murkowski was able to retain her seat via an unconventional write-in campaign.) And Lugar, unlike John McCain (who successfully beat back this sort of challenge in 2010), did little to protect his right flank in the past two years.

[Read the full article]

Romney's Biggest Fib?

Under Obama, the GOP candidate says, government will "control half the economy." Economic experts rate this scare tactic somewhere between "ridiculous" and "stupid."

—By David Corn

| Fri May. 4, 2012 3:00 AM PDT

Inevitable Republican nominee Mitt Romney

On April 24, the night Mitt Romney triumphed in five primary contests and essentially clinched the Republican presidential nomination, the former Massachusetts governor delivered his victory speech in Manchester, the largest city in the swing state of New Hampshire. This address, CNN noted, marked Romney's "pivot to the general election campaign." WMUR, the ABC affiliate in New Hampshire, declared, "Romney Delivers Rousing Speech in Manchester." Fox Nation dubbed the address, "Romney's Killer Speech." The New York Times reported that Romney "laid out a succinct argument for his economic leadership."

There was not much media analysis of the substance of the speech—especially Romney's chief argument that he and Obama "have very different visions" of the United States. The core of Romney's case for himself was this:

Government is at the center of [Obama's] vision. It dispenses the benefits, borrows what it cannot take, and consumes a greater and greater share of the economy. With Obamacare fully installed, government will come to control half the economy, and we will have effectively ceased to be a free enterprise society.

More Romney stories:

With government controlling 50 percent of the entire economy, Romney said, "our lives will be ruled by bureaucrats and boards, commissions, and czars." But is it true that once Obamacare fully kicks in, government will have complete dominion over half the economy? Or might this be one of the biggest fibs of Romney's campaign?

I asked Romney HQ for an explanation, and it graciously replied with this:

In 2010, government expenditures as % of GDP were 38.13%. By 2020, with Obamacare in place, the government estimates that health care spending as a % of GDP will climb 1.84 points. This would bring government expenditures as % of GDP to 39.97%. In addition, private health care expenditures will be 10.03% of GDP in 2020. If we count that as under federal control, we get to 50.00% of GDP.

I ran this justification by several economists who are consulted on such matters by media fact-checkers, and—to various degrees—they took exception. There is, it seems, much wrong with Romney's statement and the analysis upon which it rests.

[Read the full article]

Mitt Romney and the OBL Raid: He Needs To Read "Showdown"

—By David Corn

| Mon Apr. 30, 2012 12:33 PM PDT

Mitt Romney today demonstrated that he doesn't understand presidential decision-making—and that he should read my book, Showdown: The Inside Story of How Obama Fought Back against Boehner, Cantor, and the Tea Party, or at least Chapter 10.

While campaigning in New Hampshire Monday—a day before the one-year anniversary of the Osama bin Laden raid—Romney was asked whether he would have ordered that operation. "Of course," he huffed. He then added, "Even Jimmy Carter would have given that order."

Romney made it seem that this had been a slam-dunk, no-brainer decision. But it wasn't.

As I recount in the book—and an article adapted from it and posted at The Daily Beast makes this point—Obama's decision to launch the raid was a case study in tough presidential decision-making. It was not a simple go/no-go order. The few national security advisers who knew about the potential mission were divided on what to do. Vice President Joe Biden and Defense Secretary Bob Gates urged Obama to wait for more definitive intelligence. Several advisers favored a missile strike. Only a handful supported a unilateral secret US raid. There was so much that could wrong with such a mission, and Obama's presidency would probably be over if a commando raid went bad. A majority of his national security team members did not back a commando assault.

Obama had to choose first between a missile strike and a raid (and doing nothing until more intelligence came in). He rejected the missile strike due to concerns over collateral damage and the possibility that it would be difficult (if not impossible) to determine if Bin Laden had been killed in this attack. (David Frum understands the importance of this decision.) Then Obama raised crucial questions about the helicopter raid that shaped the mission in a way that contributed to its success. (For details, see the aforementioned extract.) Finally, Obama had to issue the green light, knowing that he was placing his presidency on the line.

This was an episode in which Obama acted deliberately and decisively. It was a test of presidential leadership, as Kevin Drum notes. And Obama's performance in this instance is highly relevant when it comes to determining whether he ought to keep the job for another four years—just as Romney's experiences building (or destroying) businesses is relevant. Republicans who accuse the White House of politicizing this decision have little ground on which to stand, particularly after GOPers have long claimed Ds are weak on terrorism (and after W. put on a flight suit and cockily strode across a flight deck underneath a "Mission Accomplished" banner). More important, Romney's dismissal of this decision as no-big-deal indicates he hasn't thought much about one of the most crucial decisions that had to be made in the Oval Office—and that he may not be ready for the job himself.

Advertise on MotherJones.com

Romney's Message: Obama's Not a Real American

Forget Ted Nugent's violent rhetoric; the GOP candidate has been mainstreaming the Obama-ain't-one-of-us meme for months.

—By David Corn

| Fri Apr. 20, 2012 3:00 AM PDT

Ted Nugent's violent remarks at the NRA's annual paranoia-fest triggered (pun intended) a new round in the always-good-for-cable debate over extreme rhetoric in the political discourse. The episode showed—no surprise—that GOP presumptive presidential nominee Mitt Romney was unwilling to condemn an out-of-bounds Obama-hater when his campaign released a mealy-mouthed response to the uproar, ignoring Nugent's specific comments and noting that "Mitt Romney believes everyone needs to be civil." And Nugent's threatening words were nothing new; in 2007, he held up two machine guns at a concert and told Obama to "suck on my machine gun," adding, "Hillary, you might want to ride one of these into the sunset, you worthless bitch." But his latest rant, in which he denounced Obama's "vile, evil America-hating administration," was part of a never-ending Republican/conservative crusade to portray the president as not a true American. And it's an effort that Romney has played footsie with.

For years, conservatives have said (or implied) that Obama is not really one of us: He was born in Kenya, he's a secret Muslim, he pals around with terrorists. They have also endeavored to attach this otherism to all Democrats. Ex-presidential candidate Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) accused Obama and his wife of holding "anti-American views" and called on the media to investigate Democratic members of Congress to determine if they were anti-American, too. Last week, Rep. Allen West (R-Fla.), a tea party darling, declared that "there's about 78 to 81 members of the Democratic Party that are members of the Communist Party." After he was lambasted for uttering this absurd charge, he defiantly proclaimed that he did not regret his statement and reaffirmed his stance: "I'm not going to back down. I'm not going to be afraid about the fact that I called a spade a spade." (House Speaker John Boehner said nothing about West's derogatory and fact-free claim.)

[Read the full article]

Santorum's Choice

Conservative movement leaders want Santorum to be their flag-waver, but is he willing to be a right-wing watchdog focused on Romney?

—By David Corn

| Mon Apr. 16, 2012 3:00 AM PDT

Last week, appearing in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, Rick Santorum surrendered to the inevitability of Mitt Romney and suspended his insurgent and quixotic presidential bid. Shortly after that announcement, Santorum held a conference call with several conservative movement leaders. Most of the people on the call had previously encouraged him to stay in the race. But Santorum had told them that the presidential bid was putting a strain on his family. (At a dinner with these folks in March, Santorum complained he had had only five days off since beginning his campaign.) Now, in this post-retreat call, he emphasized that he needed to unwind and focus on his family. The conservative leaders accepted the former Pennsylvania senator's decision—it was too late to argue, anyway—but there was another matter they did encourage him to consider: his future as a conservative leader. That future could well be shaped by a choice facing Santorum: whether to be a cheerleader for Romney or an ideological enforcer for the right.

Richard Viguerie, a political direct-mail pioneer and a founding father of the modern conservative movement, was one of the right-wingers on that call with Santorum. As he recounts it, this gang encouraged Santorum to use the conservative cred he established during this campaign to establish himself as the preeminent figure on the right: "I specifically said that for the 50 years I've been involved in conservative movement politics, we have always needed more organization, more candidates, more money, more think tanks, and more elected officials, but that all of that pales in comparison to one thing: We need above everything else leadership." And Viguerie was nominating Santorum as the new grand pooh-bah of the right. "There really is no obvious leader for national conservatives," he says.

[Read the full article]

How Romney Fibs—and Gets Away With It

Blame it on the media embrace of false equivalency.

—By David Corn

| Thu Apr. 5, 2012 12:30 PM PDT

"Romney sharpens criticism of Obama." "Romney blasts Obama's 'hide and seek' presidency."

These were some of the headlines accompanying media reports of Mitt Romney's speech to the Newspaper Association of America on Wednesday. The GOP front-runner's address was a harsh assault on President Barack Obama and marked another effort on Romney's part to present himself as the inevitable Republican nominee and to strike at the incumbent president rather than his remaining and hobbling-along GOP primary rivals. But as important—if not more so—as his biting and sarcastic tone was the fact that Romney repeatedly tossed off false accusations against Obama. And he did so—and got away with this—in front of a large audience of journalists.

At the start of his remarks, Romney praised the media—while noting he was sometimes irked by coverage of his campaign—and nobly observed that voters will be "informed by your coverage" and will "hopefully…have an accurate understanding" of the 2012 race and the choice at hand, due to hard-working journalists chronicling the contest. But then Romney went on to hurl a series of utterly untrue remarks.

Here are a few examples:

* In slamming Obama's stimulus package, Romney declared, "The administration pledged that it would keep unemployment below 8 percent…it has been above 8 percent every month since." This charge—a favorite on the right—has been debunked repeatedly. Obama never promised to bring unemployment below 8 percent. Two economists on his presidential transition staff produced a report prior to Obama's inauguration projecting unemployment would fall below 8 percent if Obama's stimulus were to be enacted. But this projection came with all the usual caveats, and it was written before the full impact of the economic crash under way was realized. (In fact, the stimulus did lift employment as this projection predicted, yet the economic hole was deeper than most economists at the time assumed.) The Washington Post's "Fact Checker" has deemed the 8 percent accusation false. Yet Romney and others keep on repeating it.

[Read the full article]

The Times Gets It Wrong on the Debt Deal

Sometimes both sides aren't equally at fault.

—By David Corn

| Tue Apr. 3, 2012 10:06 AM PDT

Moral equivalency often exerts a gravitational pull for political reporters and pundits. When assessing what's wrong with Washington (or other elements of the political system) it's easy to accuse all, casting a pox on each side. Matt Bai's deeply reported epic account in the New York Times Magazine of the collapse of the Grand Bargain—the debt reduction deal attempted by President Barack Obama and House Speaker John Boehner last summer—cannot resist this overpowering tug.

Here's the bottom line of the article: "Obama and Boehner have clung to their separate realities not just because it's useful to blame each other for the political dysfunction in Washington, but because neither wants to talk about just how far he was willing to go."

Relying on the Rashomon cliché, Bai gives the impression that each of the key players is locked within his own perspective—and, consequently, no one is right or wrong. Boehner and his GOP comrades huff that Obama tried to change the terms of the deal and overturned the possible accord; Obama and his aides claim that Boehner couldn't cut a deal because of opposition within his tea party ranks. And this clash of realities is what's wrong with Washington.

Interest declared: My new book, Showdown: The Inside Story of How Obama Fought Back Against Boehner, Cantor, and the Tea Party, covers the clash over the Grand Bargain, and much of Bai's in-depth account overlaps with mine. But Bai doesn't emphasize what is the bottom-line point: Obama and his crew are right to say that Boehner could not deliver—and that is what was most responsible for the deal's collapse.

[Read the full article]