MotherJones.com | MoJoBlog - Social Issues and Political Commentary: April 29, 2007

« April 22, 2007 - April 28, 2007 | Main | May 6, 2007 - May 12, 2007 »

May 5, 2007

Strange Bedfellows Dep't: Sens. Brownback and Biden

About as different as can be, the Republican senator from Kansas and the Democratic senator from Delaware now have the same plan on Iraq: split it up into three loosely federated regions with one religious sect in each.

May 4, 2007

Small-Scale Campus Shooting

A young man shot his roommate at Keene College and then shot and killed himself as police approached. Clearly, the problem was the gun-free zone Keene College had established in the young men's room.

(The roommate survived.)

Conservative YouTube Steals Its Smokin' Logo From Philip Morris

There's already some derisive buzz about QubeTV, the video sharing site for conservatives who claim that liberal media giant YouTube won't let them play in its digital sandbox. I haven't had time to wade into its archives, but I notice that it's off to a great start by appropriating part of its logo from Altria (A.K.A. Philip Morris). Are the Qubers just lazy graphic designers or image-remixing copyfighters? We'll see what happens when the first cease-and-desist letter arrives...

Breaking: Another Investigation into the D.O.J.

Oh. My. God.

Just when you thought things couldn't get worse for Alberto "Gonzo" Gonzalez, ohmygod! A Washington, D.C., TV news program did some digging and discovered that the Justice Department hasn't just neglected civil rights and voting rights and prosecuted the first ever "reverse discrimination" voting rights case on record—it also fails to hire any non-white lawyers! Now Rep. John Conyers, who leads the House Judiciary Committee, is promising yet another investigation. Among the specific charges is that the key department of the—wait for it—civil rights division has failed to hire a single black attorney since 2003 to replace those who have left. Currently, only two lawyers in that department are black.

In case you're scratching your head saying, "Local news did this?", The reporter who led the investigation for WJLA-TV had recently come from the Center for Public Integrity. The investigation also relied on a consulting firm's analysis of D.O.J. diversity. That report found that "minorities perceive unfairness," are "significantly under-represented in management ranks," and are "more (about 50 percent more) likely to leave than whites."

Snap, Alberto. Join Clarence Thomas in the Top 5 of big-time affirmative action beneficiaries who become reactionary extremists in order not to admit that maybe they got a little more of a leg-up than the next non-white guy.

And resign already.

War Is Driving Soldiers Crazy, Pentagon's Own Task Force Admits

A task force commissioned by the Pentagon itself concluded that repeated deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan are resulting in higher instances of mental health problems among troops, which the military health system is in no way prepared to handle. The panel found that nearly 40 percent of soldiers report psychological concerns. Nearly half of guardsmen report problems, due to repeated deployments—which are expected to continue. The task force labeled the Pentagon's mental health care system conservative and out-of-date, and proposed a paradigm shift from relying on soldiers to self-report to focusing on prevention and screening. Sometimes it takes a task force to state the obvious. Mother Jones has reported all this (and then some) before.

Putting a Pricetag on the Climate

Ecologists and economists have put a controversial dollar figure on biodiversity, but this week marks the first time the UN has ever put a price-tag on the climate. What would it cost to keep greenhouse gases close to their current levels? One estimate of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is shockingly cheap.

"The cheaper scenario would mean going out to dinner one time less a year, whereas the higher figure gets into the range of having or not having a car," says Ralf Martin of the London School of Economics. "The higher figure might be a hard sell. However, I would suggest that whether either figure is acceptable depends largely on how it will be sold to voters."

The problem is, this calls not for individual asceticism like scrimping on toilet paper, but new government policies like a carbon tax. Predictably, the White House had a knee-jerk response, saying the least ambitious target "would cause a global recession." Well, what recession would catastrophic climate change bring? What dent would losing the Eastern seaboard put in the US GDP? The IPCC should estimate that too, if only as a talking point.

Policy wonks have to speak the language of the economic growth. But what is that saying--you can't solve a problem within the mindset that created it? Bill McKibben pointed out how we got stuck in this mindset and why wonks need tolook beyond the framework of the GDP as a measure of progress. The GDP doesn't even correlate with happiness among nations.

See the Exact Dollar Cost of the Iraq War in Your Community

Until today, I didn't know that the Iraq War had cost my home county $4.1 billion dollars. I also did know that for that price, our county could have insured 2.5 million kids or hired 72,000 new public school teachers. The reason I know is because of a nifty website called www.costofwar.com. Check it out, and next time your congressman votes to fund the war, calculate what your community is missing out on and let him or her know.

NRA Fights To Let Suspected Terrorists Have Guns

When reasonable, Constitution-abiding people argue that no one--and especially "suspects" and "persons of interest"--should be imprisoned (and denied legal representation) without being charged with a crime, we are often told that we are "unpatriotic" and "weak." What will our accusers, then, tell members of the National Rifle Association, who are arguing that suspected terrorists should not be denied firearms?

The NRA is lobbying the Bush administration to drop its support of a bill that would prohibit suspected terrorists from buying firearms. In a letter to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, NRA executive director Chris Cox said that the proposed bill "would allow arbitrary denial of Second Amendment rights based on mere 'suspicions' of a terrorist threat."

Cox went on to say: "As many of our friends in law enforcement have rightly pointed out, the word 'suspect' has no legal meaning, particularly when it comes to denying constitutional liberties."

Are the NRA members "unpatriotic" and "weak"? Stay tuned...literally.

Jose Padilla Case Stalled by Jurors Who Doubt Official Story on 9/11

Jose Padilla's trial is ongoing and it turns out jury selection has run into a speed bump. The problem? Too many potential jurors who are so disillusioned by the government and so distrustful of the news media that they doubt the official story on 9/11.

For real. It's this nation's dirty secret that a huge number of people think 9/11 was an inside job. According to mid-2006 poll, "Thirty-six percent of respondents overall said it is "very likely" or "somewhat likely" that federal officials either participated in the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon or took no action to stop them "because they wanted the United States to go to war in the Middle East.""

No one in government on in the news media takes these people seriously, which probably just entrenches their estrangement from the mainstream further. But the government has to deal with them in the Padilla case, big time:

Many potential jurors in the Jose Padilla terrorism-support case say they aren't sure who directed the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks because they don't trust reporters or the federal government....

To be sure, most jurors without a Sept. 11 opinion are aware that the attacks have been blamed on terrorists of some sort. But many seem unwilling to blame al-Qaida and its leader, Osama bin Laden -- the conclusion reached by the national Sept. 11 Commission and the Bush administration and widely reported by news media.

One female juror agreed that was a "general public consensus" but still held out skepticism.

"I don't have an opinion. I don't tend to trust the news media," she said.

Many jurors seem to be unwilling to state the al-Qaida connection as fact because they don't have firsthand knowledge. An older male juror said he answered "al-Qaida and bin Laden" on his questionnaire because "that was what the news said."

As is the case with these trials, the lawyers are trying to find people who have no interest in the news and no knowledge of Padilla. Which means jurors who haven't read Mother Jones' extensive coverage of his case.

Spotted on Wonkette.

Post-Veto, Dems Work on New Plan for Iraq

I'll say this: I admire the Democrats' effort. They aren't always super organized, and they aren't always as ballsy as I'd like, but they've decided they're going to end this war using any politically reasonable means to do so, and they keep plugging away. The spineless Democrat stereotype from a few years back -- when people were saying there was effectively no opposition party in this country -- is dead.

Now that the president has vetoed the Democrats' timeline for withdrawal, here's what the Dem leadership has in the works:

The plan would split the now vetoed supplemental spending bill into two bills, one that would provide two months of funding for the Iraq War and another that would fund the agricultural programs contained in the earlier bill, aides said.

In addition to the two months of Iraq funding, the bill would provide a $10 billion cushion to allow the military flexibility. It would also require the president to report back to Congress by July 13 on the extent to which the Iraqi government had met certain benchmarks for progress.

The plan would "fence off" additional combat funds until Congress voted to "unfence" them. Such a vote would be held on July 24. A vote of the FY08 defense appropriations bill would be delayed until September, one aide said.

I'm okay with this. I know we rally against the surge pretty frequently here at MoJoBlog, myself included, but I'm willing to give David Petraeus two more months to see what progress he can make.

Clinton Gets the Memo: Iraq Is an Election Loser

Even Hillary Clinton has finally gotten it that to win the Democratic nomination, you have to oppose the war in Iraq. With flair and style. Senator Clinton proposed today that Congress formally repeal the authorization it gave President Bush to go to war with Iraq. This, despite the fact that she has repeatedly refused to apologize for (or, in my opinion more importantly, simply to say she shouldn't have) her support for the war measure.

Not to be outdone in his gold-star opposition to the war (which is a brilliant way to spin his lack of experience—he didn't vote for the war because he wasn't in Congress), Obama issued a statement saying he supported Senator Clinton's proposal. The other hopefuls have been tripping all over themselves all week to out oppose-Iraq Clinton and Obama.

If the proposal won congressional support, it's unclear if it would have any effect on the war, since legally it amounts to unringing the bell. But the message is clear: Whoever most strongly advocates unringing the bell will win the nomination. Which is really good news for America's standing in the world, I think.

No Cheap Seats for the Pelosi-Bush Iraq Showdown

Think Progress points out that a side-effect of all the recent congressional sword-play, aimed at attaching a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq, has been to overshadow the staggering amount of money being sent there (if passed, the new appropriation bill will push total spending on the war over the half trillion mark). Think that's high? That's not the half of it. Check out Mother Jones' interview with Nobel Prize Winning Economist Joseph Stiglitz for some real sticker shock. And don't miss MoJo's Iraq for Dummies to see where all that money has been spent.

—Koshlan Mayer-Blackwell

May 3, 2007

Obama's MySpace Meltdown

The blogosphere is abuzz with news of a falling out between the campaign of Senator Barack Obama and Joe Anthony, an unpaid volunteer who created and maintained an unofficial fan page that has evolved into the candidate's most popular site on MySpace, with more than 160,000 friends.

The conflict has been brewing for some time now, but ended messily on Tuesday when MySpace agreed to transfer the URL to Obama.

Micah Sifry of Techpresident writes:

How all this happened is a complicated tale that is still unfolding, and none of the parties involved--Anthony, the Obama online team, and the MySpace political operation--emerge from this story unscathed. Speaking on background, Obama campaign staffers are spreading word that Anthony just wanted a "big payday." Anthony in turn has posted a missive on his blog (that was originally sent to me as an email) accusing the Obama team of "bullying...[and] rotten and dishonest" behavior. However one parses those accusations (more below), the Obama campaign's reputation as the most net-savvy of 2008 has taken a big hit.

Something like this was bound to happen this year as top-down campaign structures have begun to collide with the new bottom-up energy of social networking and content sharing on the Web. Obama's campaign strove for a hybrid model -- Anthony retained control of the MySpace page, but Obama's campaign also had access, and promoted the site. The advantages were obvious: free labor, a sense from the grassroots that they matter, and a populist PR spin. Then the campaign lost faith in Anthony and turned everything on its head. Yesterday, the campaign finally addressed the incident on Obama's blog, but from the looks of the comments, he still has a long way to go to win back the trust of many would-be "friends."

Reagan, Islamophobia, and Slamming Hillary: The Republicans Debate (Also, More Reagan)

My thoughts on tonight's GOP debate at the Ronald Reagan library in Southern California:

- MSNBC.com and Politco.com, don't you dare advertise live web broadcasts again unless you make that thing work. MSNBC's video player delivered audio and video that would start and stop constantly, causing me to miss endless things and almost punch my computer. Politico's was basically the same, but with bonus out-of-focusness. Thanks, guys.

- Reagan, Reagan, Reagan. The candidates on stage couldn't stop invoking the former president. I know the event was held in a building named after him and overseen by his widow, but Jesus, it's like there was only one inspiring Republican in the last twenty five years. What, Bob Livingston doesn't cut it?

- The first half of the debate was all about foreign policy and everyone tried to out macho one another, claiming in increasingly shrill fashion that Muslim extremists want to end the American way of life. They spoke of Iran in tones that were similar to Dick Cheney's talk of Iraq six years ago. Put in the tough position of being unable to slam the president (because he's from their party) and being unable to praise the president (because he has screwed everything up and has comically low popularity), the candidates resorting to setting up Islamic extremism as a straw man and beating the crap out of it rhetorically. It was kind of scary, if you don't like the prospect of bombing/invading another country sometime soon.

- Talking about hawkish one-ups-manship: Romney said of Osama bin Laden: "He will die." McCain trumped that by saying, "I will follow him to the gates of hell." Good heavens, John.

- It has always bugged me that these guys misunderstand or understand and then deliberately misrepresent the reasons why certain factions of the Muslim world hate the United States. They don't hate our freedoms. Okay, maybe a tiny number of al Qaeda types do, but the 70 percent of the Islamic world (rough estimate) that currently tells pollsters that they can't stand the U.S. don't hate our freedoms; they hate that we have supported pro-Western dictatorships in their region, they hate that we reliably and sometimes unthinkingly support Israel, and they hate that we invaded a country that posed no threat to us and completely destroyed it. These are everyday folks, not terrorists, we're talking about. In their position, we might hate us too.

- John McCain continued the tough talk on Iraq, saying stuff like "We cannot surrender" and "Failure is not an option." And yet he also says that we've got a new strategy and a new general and we need to give them a chance to succeed. Well, what happens if six months pass and nothing gets better? Does John McCain finally advocate pulling out? Does he call that surrender? This war isn't going to get better. John McCain will eventually have to agree to what the Democrats are suggesting now: smartly and strategically redeploying the troops out of the country. Will he call that defeat? For his own sake, he better stop throwing around those words.

- Romney was asked for one thing wrong about America, and he said, completely stunned, "I love America." Then he gushed about the American people for 30 seconds. Why have we reached a point as a country where it is politically dangerous to say one damn thing we could improve about ourselves? We couldn't get health insurance for some portion of the 47 million Americans who don't have coverage, Mitt? You couldn't even say something like, "Improve inner city schools"?

- The day Roe v. Wade is overturned, according to Sam Brownback, will be a "glorious day of human liberty and freedom." According to Tancredo, it would be "the greatest day in this country's history." Really, Tom? Not the day of the Emancipation Proclamation? Or, oh I don't know, the Fourth of July?

- Why can't John McCain stop squinting?

- Ron Paul is the GOP's Mike Gravel and I love him for it.

- Towards the end, Chris Matthews asked if it was a good idea for Bill Clinton to be back in the White House again. Dumb question, clearly, because the answer for everyone (they're running for president after all) is obviously "No." But it gave each candidate a chance to rip Hillary. It was like Matthews strung her up as pinata and handed the GOP a big ol' stick. And boy, they beat the daylights out of her.

Okay, that's it. Last observation: this may be the last presidential primary debate for either party that is composed exclusively of white men. Times are changing, folks. Oh, and Reagan Reagan Reagan.

Blog Interviews Office of Special Counsel

We've written about how the Office of Special Counsel has abdicated its responsibilities to protect whistleblowers under the guidance of its current director, Scott Bloch, a religious conservative and Bush appointee. We've also written about how Bloch's investigation of Karl Rove is a bit suspicious.

The Cest Moi Political Blog got a hold of a representative from the OSC and gets his thoughts on some of this, and on other things. You can check it out here.

Health and Environment News of the Day

What do Funyuns, flying squirrels, and octogenarian tortoises all have in common?

You can read news about them all today on The Blue Marble Blog.

LAPD at It Again: Beatings of Protestors and Journalists Caught on Tape

This May Day, immigrants again rallied in Los Angeles. Though not as well attended as last year's national news-making rallies in L.A. and Chicago, the L.A. event drew tens of thousands of participants. The event was peaceful—until the end, when police tried to clear out a city park after having a few bottles thrown at them (8 officers were treated for minor injuries on the scene).

I saw this story yesterday, but decided against blogging it because the video clip made the hubbub look pretty tame. But apparently the clip I saw was misleading. The police "wielded batons and fired 240 'less-than-lethal' rounds at demonstrators and reporters" In the process, they injured 10 people—including 7 reporters who were covering, rather than participating in, the incident.

The LAPD is like one big cautionary tale for insensitivity. The officers had told everyone to clear the park—in English only. Seriously? In Los Angeles, at a rally for Latino immigrants? And here's what the cops did to reporters:

[KPCC reporter Patricia] Nazario said she was walking away from riot police when she was hit in the back.

Wearing a press pass and holding a microphone, she turned around and told the officer, "Why did you hit me? I'm moving. I'm a reporter," Nazario recalled.

Then the officer hit her on the left leg, she said, knocking her to the ground and sending her cellphone flying.

"I was shocked, trying to scramble to my feet," she said. "At that point, I just started crying…. I just felt totally vulnerable."

Pedro Sevcec was anchoring the evening news for Telemundo when he saw the riot police moving slowly toward the news crews.

…Police knocked over monitors and lights and hit reporters and camera operators with batons, he said.

Sevcec said police hit him three times and pointed a riot gun at his face before pushing him out of the park.

The best thing those in power have going in this country is that the middle class really likes to believe that life is fair and that authority operates with equanimity. Most members of the media share that bias. Making them feel under attack is a huge strategic mistake: When a reporter is beaten to the ground, that reporter is going to get up radicalized—and pissed off.

L.A. news crews won the right to cover public protests even when police declare it an unlawful assembly as part of a lawsuit brought on behalf of a handful of journalists who were assaulted by the L.A.P.D. while covering the 2000 Democratic National Convention in L.A.

These guys never learn!

Are You "Devoting Your Life to Weasels"? If So, Rudy Giuliani Hates You

Rudy Giuliani had a well-earned reputation for strong-arm tactics when he was mayor of New York. Whether it was homeless people, graffiti artists, or ferret-lovers, nothing was going to stand in his way of enacting the change he deemed best for the Big Apple.

Wait, ferret-lovers? Yup. In 1999, Giuliani unloaded on a caller who phoned in to the mayor's radio show because the caller was a ferret-owners advocate and Giuliani supported a law that took away the poor guy's pet. Prepare to be entertained. Audio here and a transcript here.

I'm guessing presidential hopefuls will avoid hosting their own radio shows in the future. Or they'll get better call screeners...

Bush: And You All Thought I Was 'the Decider'

Bush is at it again, giving himself great little nicknames that I think are meant to assuage our fears that he makes extremely important decisions without paying mind to Congress, the military, or the American people. Yesterday, Bush, in his explanation as to why he vetoed the $124 billion war spending bill that passed in both the House and the Senate last week, which would have set a timeline for withdrawal, designated himself "the Commander Guy." It's priceless:

The question is, 'Who ought to make that decision, the Congress or the commanders?' As you know, my position is clear – I’m the commander guy.

Thanks to Think Progress, you can watch it here.

Republicans Debate Tonight in LA, 10 Candidates Attending!

When the Democrats debated last week, nothing happened. I think that's largely because there is little ideological difference between the candidates: all they can really do is disagree on how to achieve the goals they all value.

Not so with the Republicans. When 10 GOP candidates get together tonight in Los Angeles, there will be some who support abortion (Giuliani) and some who are violently against it (Brownback). There will some who hate illegal immigration in their bones (Tancredo) and some who have a kindlier position on the issue (McCain, Giuliani). There will be true conservatives (Huckabee, Brownback, others), some mushy conservatives (Romney, McCain, Giuliani), and one libertarian (Paul). I think the frontrunners will play it safe, but the rest of the pack might take a few nasty stabs in order to distinguish themselves.

Should make for good times. You can find a full lineup and a list of things to watch for at the New York Times' political blog, The Caucus.

Army Cracks Down On Military Blogs, Emails

If you are the husband or wife or sibling or parent of a U.S. Army soldier serving in Iraq and you blog (and according to the new rules, email) about the war, you are now in official trouble with the U.S. Army.

The Army is getting strict about its rule that soldiers sending emails or posting items on blogs must first clear the content with a superior officer. Since, to avoid possible court-martial, a soldier would have to check with her commanding officer before making every blog post, soldiers' blogs about the Iraq war can safely be called a thing of the past.

The guidelines also appy to civilians working for the Army, Army contractors and soldiers' family members.

"This is the final nail in the coffin for combat blogging," said retired paratrooper Matthew Burden, editor of The Blog of War anthology. "No more military bloggers writing about their experiences in the combat zone. This is the best PR the military has--its most honest voice out of the war zone--and it's being silenced."

May 2, 2007

The Real D.O.J. Scandal: Infringement of Voting Rights

An article on AlterNet today offers yet more proof that one of the major preoccupations of Bush's overzealous Department of Justice is voter fraud. Voter fraud is trying to vote when you're not eligible.

First, the background. The Bush D.O.J. has all but completely dropped the ball on voting rights cases, with only a single case alleging that black voters were disenfranchised. As Leigh blogged last week, Justice has also neglected civil rights cases in general. But the department did find the time—and I'm sure it took a while to find this case—to prosecute the first ever "reverse discrimination" case, alleging that Noxubee County, Mississippi, has systematically tried to disenfranchise white voters.

The AlterNet article traces a straight line from New Mexico U.S. Attorney David Iglesias's determination that voter fraud cases filed against ACORN weren't substantial enough to prosecute to his appearance on the D.O.J.'s "buh-bye" list. First, State Republican Chairman David Weh encouraged Iglesias over coffee to reconsider. Iglesias held firm. Then Weh went to a Rove staffer he knew and said, "Man, you guys need to get a new U.S. attorney. This guy is hopeless." The next time Weh saw Rove, he asked again about Iglesias. And Rove replied, "He's gone."

Indeed he was. Washington U.S.A. David McKay was also fired shortly after Republican officials complained that he was unwilling to prosecute voter fraud. Both Iglesias and McKay worked in potential swing states. Stricter voter requirements—purportedly to ward off voter fraud—result in lower turnout among minorities and the poor, who usually vote Democrat.

Despite repeated Republican assertions that voter fraud is a widespread problem, the D.O.J. has only convicted 86 people in 5 years. Most of them mistakenly filled out forms or misunderstood the eligibility requirements. These honest mistakes have resulted in serious punishments. Kimberly Prude, 43, has been jailed in Milwaukee for more than a year for voting while on probation. Usman Ali was deported to Pakistan from Florida, where he had lived legally for more than 10 years, for incorrectly filling out a voter-registration card while renewing his driver's license.

All Quiet on the Digital Front

With the bounty of cell-phone-camera footage and blog accounts uploaded out of Iraq (see here and here), the accumulating online absurdities of war feel like a Vonnegut novel being written in real time.

Samantha Shapiro, in a profile of teen anti-war animator Ava Lowery in Mother Jones, describes the new phenomenon:

If the innovation of cable news shaped the representation of the first Gulf War, then this war is partly being defined by another new form of media, one practiced by amateur diarists and commentators. Soldiers blog and upload their footage to Google Video or YouTube more quickly than the government can pull it down.

No one understands this better than the Army, which felt the need to enact stricter rules, effective as of April 19, governing what soldiers can put up on the web.

Since 2005--when the Army first tried to reign in the explosion of unofficial "mili-blogs" citing their potential to reveal classified, and otherwise unflattering, information--active duty soldiers in Iraq have been required to register their blogs with a commanding officer. A special unit of the Virginia National Guard is tasked with monitoring "official and unofficial Army Web sites for operational security violations." Meanwhile, in March, the Army started its own YouTube channel so its version of the "boots on the ground perspective" could reach cyberspace.

The language of the most recent regulations require that soldiers' posts go through an operational security review prior to being published. The previous policy only required soldiers to consult with their commanding officer before launching a blog, not posting. Moreover, the new restriction extends the same level of scrutiny to soldiers who have returned home, whose web sites, blog postings, and message board discussions will now come under review, essentially putting the kabbash on the most honest accounts of a war where politicized proclamations of success and failure tend to wander from reality.

-Koshlan Mayer-Blackwell

It's Over: Obama Gets Oprah's Endorsement (Again)

Oprah Winfrey, appearing on the Larry King Live show, threw her support behind Barack Obama. Her explanation: "I know him personally; I think that what he stands for, what he has proven that he can stand for, was worth me going out on a limb for him. I haven't done it in the past; I haven't felt that I knew anybody well enough to be able to say I believe in this person."

She wishes no ill will on anyone, especially Hillary. "I have great respect for Hillary Clinton. I have said before that because I am for Barack, does not mean that I am against Hillary or anybody else. . . . I have not one negative thing to say about Hillary Clinton."

She's kind of done this before. In the past, though, Oprah avoided saying directly "I endorse Barack Obama." Instead she would say things like Obama is "her guy," or "her choice," or "her favorite senator." Now it's more official.

I'm not kidding around folks. If Obama uses Oprah to chip away at Clinton's base amongst women, it's over. Obama should just start campaign for re-election.

Presidents and Palm Trees: What to Take on a Desert Island

The AP recently asked the presidential candidates what item they would want with them if they were stranded on a desert island. The answers, and their subtexts:

Democrats:

- Sen. Joe Biden: "Jill, my wife." ("Someone has to be around to hear me talk.")

- Sen. Hillary Clinton: "A good book." ("I am unwilling to commit to any particular book. I will focus group Crime and Punishment versus Ulysses and get back to you.")

- Sen. Chris Dodd: "Coffee with cream and sugar." ("Why didn't I choose water? Because I really love coffee. And because I am too short-sighted to be president.")

John Edwards: "A book." ("I don't have time for this question.")

Rep. Dennis Kucinich: His wife, Elizabeth. ("Have you seen my wife? You'd take her too.")

Sen. Barack Obama: "Other than my wife and my kids, an inanimate object I would have to have would probably be a good book." ("Please note, Hillary didn't mention her family. I did.")

Gov. Bill Richardson: "Blackberry and a Davidoff cigar." ("I am an old-style political boss. I am the fattest of fat cats.")

Republicans:

Sen. Sam Brownback: "Tarp." ("I would surely be America's most practical president.") Ed. Note: Hahahahahaha. A tarp!

Rudy Giuliani: "Books and music." ("If terrorists attacked my desert island's palm tree, I would stand strong. 9/11. 9/11. 9/11 9/111/1/1/9/1/1//11.")

Mike Huckabee: "Laptop with satellite reception." ("I don't understand the spirit of the question.")

Rep. Duncan Hunter: "Mrs. Hunter." ("I have strong family values, as proven by the fact that I awkwardly refuse to use my wife's first name. I call her Mrs. Hunter at all times. However, in an ironic twist, I have left no one to care for our children.")

Sen. John McCain: "Books." ("I am a flip-flopper. In 2000, I chose sun-screen.")

Mitt Romney: "My wife, Ann." ("I'll need something to eat, after all.")

Rep. Tom Tancredo: "Boat." ("I will be president because all the other candidates will be stuck on that damn island.")

Spotted on Political Wire.

Road to Ruin?

In its latest issue, Business Week weighs in with a cover story on the push to privatize the nation's highways, bridges, and airports, among other public infrastructure. This growing trend, which Jim Ridgeway and I explored in MoJo's January/February issue, is now moving along at a feverish clip, propelled by investment banks and foreign companies who see in these low-risk assets the prospect of enormous and steady returns, not to mention, as Business Week puts it, "monopolistic advantages that keep those cash flows as steady as a beating heart." For would-be privateers, it doesn't hurt that this model is enthusiastically backed by the Bush administration and a cadre of ardent free marketeers within the Department of Transportation.

With cash-strapped states struggling as it is, the time is ripe for private firms to offer large upfront payments in exchange for long-term leases on public infrastructure (a foreign consortium, for instance, paid $3.8 billion for a 75-year concession on Indiana's 157-mile toll road last summer). “All told," Business Week reports, "some $100 billion worth of public property could change hands in the next two years, up from less than $7 billion over the past two years; a lease for the Pennsylvania Turnpike could go for more than $30 billion all by itself." As Mark Florian, the COO of Goldman Sachs' North American infrastructure division told the magazine, "There's a lot of value trapped in these assets.” You'll often hear privatization proponents like Florian -- who has canvassed the nation pitching this concept to state and local governments -- speak of the value that's locked up in public infrastructure. Left unsaid, however, is that upon being “liberated” the majority of this value will flow directly into the pockets of the investors who are lobbying so aggressively for privatization, not to the taxpayers who technically own these assets and who have funded their construction and operation.

While there is certainly a case to be made for public-private partnerships, as these arrangements are often called, there are numerous public policy questions that have yet to be adequately addressed. One, as Business Week points out, has to do with the "quality of service on deals that can span 100 years.”

The newly private toll roads are being managed well now, but owners could sell them to other parties that might not operate them as capably in the future. Already, the experience outside of toll roads has been mixed: The Atlanta city water system, for example, was so poorly managed by private owners that the government reclaimed it.

Then there's the issue of pricing, since the companies who have thus far secured leases on U.S. infrastructure, particularly toll roads, have been give wide latitude to hike tolls.

Chicago's Skyway could see car tolls rise from $2 in 2005 to $5 by 2017. For some perspective, if a similar scheme were applied to the Pennsylvania Turnpike during its 67 years of existence, the toll for traveling from the Delaware River to the Ohio border would be as much as $553 now instead of $22.75. Macquarie, which teamed up with Spain's Cintra to purchase the Chicago Skyway and the Indiana Toll Road, underscored the governmental trade-off during a presentation at the recent White House Surface Transportation Legislative Leadership Summit: "More Money or Lower Tolls." In an extreme scenario, governments could begin to sell properties that aren't tolled to private owners who will impose fees.

Of course, tolls won't go to the moon if they result in dramatic reductions in traffic. For example, investment firm NW Financial Group estimates that if the Chicago Skyway pricing scheme were applied to New York's Holland Tunnel over its 80 years, it would cost $185 to travel through it instead of the current $6. "No one will pay that much," says Murray E. Bleach, president of Macquarie Holdings (USA) Inc. "It's just not going to happen."

I agree with Bleach that charging $553 and $185 for passage on a toll road is unrealistic. That said, you can bet that the companies who take over toll roads are going to seriously push the envelope in order to maximize returns to their investors, which is one of the ways that the inherent value of these roads is “unlocked.”

In the states where privatization is on the table, including Texas and Pennsylvania, there's strong resistance among citizens as well as public officials. In Texas, as Business Week reports, the state House of Representatives voted in April, by an overwhelming margin, to place a two-year moratorium on privatizing the state's toll road. But it’s unlikely that local opposition will fend off the privatizers who have power, money, and influence to spare. For some time now investment banks have been raising multi-billion dollar infrastructure funds in order to take advantage of opportunities in North America. We reported in January that Goldman's fledgling fund had generated such an outpouring of investor interest that it had surpassed its $3 billion target. According to Business Week, Goldman’s fund now holds some $6.5 billion. That money won’t be sitting idle for long.

While the Business Week piece provides a comprehensive and appropriately skeptical take on the privatization push, it fails to mention a key issue. These deals are rife with the possibility of corruption and cronyism and conflicts of interest. On the latter, Goldman is a prime example. Beyond its persistent lobbying efforts to open U.S. infrastructure to private investment, the firm has acted as an outside financial advisor to states considering public-private partnerships (ostensibly providing disinterested advice to their clients), while simultaneously raising a $6.5 billion fund whose sole purpose is to buy infrastructure on the cheap. Last fall, at a privatization conference in New York, I had the opportunity to ask Goldman's Mark Florian about the firm’s various roles in the emerging infrastructure market. When I asked him whether Goldman wants to be an adviser or an investor in the road business, he replied, simply, "both."

Obama's Selective Memory on His Anti-War Stance

An old friend writes in on Obama:

I arrived home late last night in somewhat of a glum mood thanks to gray skies, constant drizzle and stress from work to find a Barack Obama fundraising letter in my mailbox. (I've given a small donation, so it wasn't a surprise that they had my address and were trying to hit me up for more.)

Included with the plea for continued donations was the text of his October 2002 speech against the war in Iraq. Like many fundraising letters, key portions were highlighted, yet I noticed two occasions of ellipses used in one of the paragraphs about Saddam Hussein. What's Obama trying to hide? I wondered.

Here's the text from the letter:

"Now let me be clear: I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butcher his own people to secure his own power.... The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him. But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors... and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls into the dustbin of history."

I haven't tracked this to an authentic primary source, but here's what Wikisource says is missing:

The first ellipse: "He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He's a bad guy."

The second: "that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength"

The first omission, particularly, is a bit striking. The thrust of his speech is still on point. His foresight was still an exercise in good judgment. Thankfully, he was not parroting stronger anti-Saddam talking points about WMDs as many Democrats did, but still... why the omission?

Why the omission indeed? I'd bet the first the omission is all about one phrase: "developed chemical and biological weapons." Now, that could be referring to Iraq's production of WMDs in the late 80's and early 90's or the alleged production in recent years that turned out to be false, but either way it looks like Obama bought the administration's line about Iraq possessing WMD but wanted to avoid war anyway. Does America want a leader that is okay with rogue states possessing weapons of mass destruction? Obama obviously thinks it doesn't.

The second omission might just be one of economy; keeping the quote short and all that. Perhaps Obama views it as embarrassing that he said the "Iraqi military [is] a fraction of its former strength" when the insurgency continues to rage, but pretty much every American knows the Iraqi military and the insurgency are different things.

Is Obama still the only major candidate who opposed the war from the beginning? Of course. Is he being a bit of a politician here? Again, of course. I'll forgive him this one. I'd say it's interesting, but not a major sin.

Corrupt Investigative Office Investigating Corrupt Investigator: Is Your Head Spinning?

We've got a parallel to the situation at the Office of Special Counsel. The OSC, tasked with looking into the claims of federal whistleblowers and investigating violations of the Hatch Act, has been so willfully ineffective and so corrupted by director Scott Bloch that it is now under federal investigation.

(The OSC is currently in the news because it is leading the ongoing and somewhat questionable investigation of Karl Rove.)

The Washington Post reports today that the inspector general of the Department of Commerce, charged with unearthing malfeasance at the department, is the subject of three government investigations. The investigations are looking into things as serious as misuse of budget and retaliation against detractors, and things as silly as cutting a conference short to go gambling in Atlantic City.

Here's where it gets circular. Claims against the Dep't of Commerce IG, whose name is Johnnie Frazier, were made by his staffers, meaning they applied for whistleblower protections with the OSC. The OSC is one of the bodies currently investigating Frazier.

So a corrupted body under investigation for mishandling investigations is investigating a corrupt investigator.

Inspires confidence, no?