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.
IN THE SPRING of 2009, as the titanic fight over President Barack Obama's health care proposal was beginning, Frank Luntz—an infamous Republican consultant who specializes in the language of politics—drew up a confidential 28-page report (PDF) for congressional GOPers on how they could confront, and defeat, Obama on this crucial issue. He suggested that they use a particular phrase: "Government takeover of health care." And they did. Again and again, for the entire months-long debate. During one Meet the Press appearance, Rep. John Boehner (R-Ohio), then the House minority leader, referred to Obama's plan as a "government takeover" five times (without once being challenged).
It was a clear falsehood. Obama's system relies on private insurance and the market—especially after he abandoned a public option—albeit with additional government regulation. PolitiFact.com, a fact-checking site operated by the St. Petersburg Times, declared Luntz's formulation the "Lie of the Year" of 2010. (Luntz didn't have to make an acceptance speech.) Yet the line stuck. A Bloomberg poll conducted as Congress approved the legislation found that 53 percent of American adults believed it amounted "to a government takeover." A USA Today/Gallup survey indicated that 65 percent thought the new law would expand government's role in health care "too much." Several months later, a Gallup poll found that 10 percent selected "government involvement in health care" as the No. 1 health care problem facing the nation—over access or cost. In 2008, only 1 percent had cited government interference as the top problem.
In characterizing President Barack Obama's message on Libya hours before his scheduled speech on the matter, Jay Carney, the White House press secretary, essentially said this: it's complicated.
During a White House press gaggle—an off-camera briefing—conducted by Carney and deputy national security adviser Denis McDonough on Monday, reporters repeatedly pressed the Obama aides to describe what Obama would say in his speech. Both men demurred, noting they were not there to preview his remarks. It seemed reasonable for White House officials to tell the reporters that the upcoming speech would speak for itself. Still, White House reporters yearned for a hand-out of some sort.
Meanwhile, they also pushed McDonough and Carney to answer the unanswerable—that is, what's the endgame in Libya? That's probably, as Donald Rumsfeld might say, a known unknown, at this point. Obama has agreed to a limited military action, designed and initiated to prevent a result (Muammar Qaddafi making good on his vow to turn Benghazi into a slaughtering field), rather than to produce a specific outcome (say, a Qaddafi-less Libya). And this has yielded a media narrative: the public is confused about the warfare in Libya.
With that in mind, I asked Carney the following question:
Critics on the left or right and voices in the media have talked about there being some confusion in the public over the President’s aims and the goals and intentions of this mission. Do you believe that from the very start the White House has communicated effectively with the public about what the President is thinking regards to the Libyan action?
Carney, with a straight face, said, "Absolutely, yes." The reporters laughed. He was joking, in a way. He then proceeded toward a more serious reply:.
Seriously, I think—I want to get at this question, because somebody over the weekend on one of these shows suggested that—or claimed outright that the White House had suggested that some of the questions raised by members of Congress were illegitimate. No one in the White House ever said that. I certainly never said that from this podium.
Questions are legitimate. They deserve to be answered. We have endeavored to answer them from the President, to the Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, National Security Advisor, Deputy National Security Advisor, and the Press Secretary and others. So they’re all—they are legitimate questions. And it is understandable that there is complexity here that needs to be explained and we have tried to explain, which is that there is the military mission, the goals of which are quite clearly laid out in the resolution authorizing the use of force in all necessary measures.
And then there are the over—and there are the other baskets, the other tools. I think Secretary Gates said it well that we have more than just hammers in our toolbox here, and the things that we are doing unilaterally as the United States, but also in concert with our international allies, to put pressure on Qaddafi and isolate Qaddafi, that is also very much an important aspect of our policy.
And I think that where you see the question of confusion come up is this idea that because we have stated, the President has stated, that we do not believe Qaddafi is a legitimate leader and that he should leave power, and yet we are not authorizing our military—or the U.N. Security Council resolution is not authorized to take out or remove or effect regime change in Libya, that there is somehow confusion in that.
There is a military mission designed to protect civilians, to enforce a no-fly zone. And there is a policy of this administration that we are pursuing through other measures that seeks to isolate and pressure Qaddafi to the point where he leaves power.
In other words, there has been some confusion—due to the complexity of the issue. Carney might have a point. The mission is not a simple one, as in, do everything possible to get Qaddafi. The mission is to do what is possible, in conjunction with NATO allies and a few Arab partners, to block Qaddafi from butchering Libyans opposed to his rule—hoping (or intending) to create a set of circumstances that just might lead to the dictator's downfall. Tripoli or Bust this ain't. This is a military action of nuance.
I followed up Carney's reply:
Mitt Romney has attacked the President for being nuanced... Do you think that having a policy that has these different levels is just hard to explain in a hyper-media environment?
Carney answered, "we’ve tried to explain it and I think—when it’s explained well and clearly, that it is understandable. And the President has done that on a number of occasions, and again the American people will hear him speak to it tonight."
With critics on the right and left assailing Obama and the media echoing trumped-up accusations of confusion, Obama might need more than a single speech to ensure his policy is understandable throughout the land.
Would you like to read the gubernatorial emails of Mississippi's Haley Barbour, a likely GOP presidential candidate? If so, it's gonna cost you. At least $53,460—and possibly closer to $200,000.
Several weeks ago, Mother Jones filed a request under the Mississippi's Public Records Act for all of Barbour's official emails, calendars, call logs, and travel records since the beginning of his tenure in January 2004. Amanda Jones, Barbour's counsel (who has referred to her boss as "one of the greatest governors that the State of Mississippi has ever had"), replied in a letter that the state could not process this request until it receives a check for nearly $60,000.
Crossroads GPS, the Karl Rove-connected dark-money outfit that works to elect Republicans, is not too strong in the fact-checking department. As I reported this morning, the group has kicked off a transparency initiative targeting the Obama administration—which is a bit hypocritical, given Crossroads GPS' refusal to disclose its funders. As part of this project, it has touted the "breaking news" scoop that Elizabeth Warren, the White House aide overseeing the start-up of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, had dinner with the American Prospect’s Bob Kuttner, DailyKos.com's Markos Moulitsas, and me.
A government official dining with journalists and pundits is hardly stop-the-presses material. But, as I noted, Crossroads GPS was wrong: I have never dined with Warren (though I'd be delighted to do so). A Crossroads GPS spokesman told me that my (non-existent) dinner with Warren was listed on her official schedule, which Crossroads GPS has posted on a new web site for this transparency project.
Now that I've checked the documents, I've found that my original story was not as accurate as it could have been, for Crossroads GPS was more wrong than I had assumed.
The site does list Warren's calendars for the last three months of 2010. I appear on her October 19, 2010, log at 5:45 PM: "Interview with David Corn." Yes, I've been caught practicing journalism. That interview was for an article that appeared 10 days later and that noted I had interviewed her. Journalist interviews Warren on the record: no scoop here. Plus, her calendar listed her dinner date for that night; it was Mitchell Kapor, an information technology pioneer. That would have been a fun dinner to attend.
As for Moulitsas and Kuttner, the calendars note that Warren had two phone calls scheduled with Kuttner and one breakfast scheduled with Moulitsas. No dinners with any of us. Zero for three.
And there's more on the hypocrisy front. My original piece neglected to cite a Politicoarticle from last October reporting that when Rove began his American Crossroads effort, the GOP operatives developing the organization claimed they relished transparency and would disclose their donors. But when it became tough to raise money, Rove and his pals specifically created Crossroads GPS so they could accept secret contributions. Politico noted, "With the Crossroads fundraising team, led by Rove, emphasizing to prospective donors the ability to give to Crossroads GPS anonymously, fundraising took off."
Crossroads GPS was designed as an end-run around transparency. Now it's claiming to be a champion of openness. Maybe if Rove invites me to dinner, we can discuss what's wrong with this picture.
Karl Rove's dark-money political operation has uncovered a major piece of what it's calling "breaking news": Elizabeth Warren, the White House aide in charge of assembling the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, once "made time for dinner" with me. Alert the blogosphere! Send out the tweets! Launch an investigation!
But there's a slight problem with this supposed scoop: there was no such dinner. Nor a lunch. Not even a breakfast, or a snack.