MotherJones.com | MoJoBlog - Social Issues and Political Commentary: March 9, 2008

« March 2, 2008 - March 8, 2008 | Main | March 16, 2008 - March 22, 2008 »

March 14, 2008

A Tribute to Senator Metzenbaum

From Jeffrey Klein, former Mother Jones Editor-in-chief:

Senator Howard M. Metzenbaum called me into his office late one morning in January of 1981. Several months earlier I'd written a cover story for Mother Jones predicting what the first four years of a Reagan administration would look like. As luck would have it, I'd gotten a jump on the national press corps, who initially thought this aging B actor didn't have a prayer of being elected president. But because Mother Jones was based in San Francisco, we knew that it was the country that needed to pray.

A sidebar in the Mother Jones' story had caused the sudden resignation during the Republican convention of Reagan's foreign policy advisor, Richard Allen. We'd exposed that Allen, while serving on Nixon's payroll, had simultaneously worked for Richard Vesco, then the world's biggest swindler.

After being elected in a landslide, Reagan resurrected Allen and announced he would appoint him National Security Adviser.

"I can't help you with that," Senator Metzenbaum said gruffly. "It's not a confirmation post."

Knowing that his time was limited, I dropped my Richard Allen files to the floor and picked up my stack on William Casey, Allen's buddy, whom Reagan had chosen to be the new CIA Director, a post that did require Senate confirmation. "Casey is an even bigger swindler," I said.

Soon Senator Metzenbaum told his secretary to cancel the rest of his morning appointments. (I don't know if he had any—Senators love to convey importance to those in their presence.) "I'm going to take this young man to lunch."

We went to the Senate dining room via the underground trolley. Many Senators were coming and going; Metzenbaum went out of his way to offer courtesies to each colleague, including Sens. Thurmond and Helms.

After these particular greetings, I tried to get Metzenbaum to say something revelatory, or at least catty. All he offered was: "We're in the same club."

At lunch in the Senate Dining Room, Metzenbaum's power was immediately apparent. One Republican Senator introduced young John Lehman, whom Reagan had nominated to become Secretary of the Navy. Another Republican called "Howard" as he came up from behind and whispered something into Metzenbaum's ear. The Republicans had gained a majority in the Senate, but the filibuster torch had been passed from Thurmond and Helms to Howard Metzenbaum. Every one of his colleagues knew that Metzenbaum's convictions were so strong, he'd have no trouble holding this torch aloft night after night.

Metzenbaum focused our conversation on the tax shelter schemes Casey had peddled earlier in his career. A successful businessman himself, Metzenbaum wanted to understand Casey's m.o. After he took shrewd measure, the Senator abruptly said: "I can't help you with this one either. We don't have enough votes."

Next the Senator wanted to hear more about Reagan's attitude towards "working people." He didn't like what heard.

MoJo_Proofs021.sized.jpg

The picture above, taken 14 years later, shows Mother Jones giving Senator Metzenbaum a lifetime achievement award. At this luncheon, I privately asked him, "What piece of your legislation are you proudest of?" It was the only time in my conversations with him that he was at a loss for words. Senator Metzenbaum's great gift to the country, as his colleagues all recognized, was not to produce legislation— but to stop many crooked parts of many crooked bills from becoming law.—Jeffrey Klein, former Mother Jones Editor-in-chief

Dumpster Diving with the Defense Department

Ah, the Friday document dump, where governmental bad news goes to die.

You have to love the hubris behind the federal assumption that, because it's Friday at 5 pm in Washington, DC, all the politerati have gone home for the weekend, abandoning their listservs and laptops for—what, the beach?

For those of you who don't already subscribe to all 20-plus Pentagon email alerts, here are three of this afternoon's offerings:

—A 29-page report on "Sexual Assault in the Military," conducted by the Defense Manpower Data Center, which found that "34 percent of active duty women and 6 percent of active duty men indicated experiencing sexual harassment, while 6.8 percent of women and 1.8 percent of men indicated experiencing unwanted sexual contact." Download the PDF here.

—A video of today's House Armed Services committee Mental Health hearing "to look into how the military is dealing with stress on the force." Watch the hearing here.

—An announcement that "approximately 3,500 U.S. servicemembers will be deploying to Afghanistan this summer."

Happy diving.

Credit Card Industry Kicks Consumers Off Congressional Panel

In 2000, Illinois resident Marvin Weatherspoon (right) got a Bank of America credit card that he used to consolidate $12,000 in home repair bills, thinking the 4.5 percent introductory interest rate would help him get out of debt faster. Instead, though, eight years later, he has paid the bank more than $15,000, yet has reduced his principal balance by only $800. The reason? Even though he's paid his bills on time, Bank of America inexplicably raised his interest rate, first to 19.99 percent and then to 25 percent, where it is today.

Weatherspoon came to Washington yesterday to tell his story at a hearing on the Credit Card Holders Bill of Rights, a bill sponsored by New York Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) that would restrict the kind of arbitrary interest rate increases Weatherspoon got hit with, among other things. But as it turned out, Weatherspoon never got to testify. The ever-powerful credit-card companies successfully bounced all of the consumers off the panel, leaving only academics and credit card executives to speak publicly.

At the outset of the hearing before a subcommittee of the House Financial Services Committee, Maloney explained that "there have been fairness concerns raised about having consumers testify this morning without a waiver that allowed their credit-card issuers to respond publicly." Translation: The credit card companies wanted the consumer witnesses to make their financial records public so the banks could "rebut" their complaints, i.e., trash them in the press.

It's not unusual for Congress to ask hearing witnesses to sign privacy waivers. When Sen. Carl Levin held a hearing on credit card abuses in the Senate last year, witnesses also signed privacy waivers, but they were designed to allow only the Senate staff to access some of their financial information so they could verify it in advance of the hearing. It was basically for the Senate's own due diligence.

But the waivers that Weatherspoon and the others were asked to sign were far broader, and they were foisted on the witnesses only hours before the hearing. Some of the witnesses didn't get them in advance at all. The credit-card executives, of course, weren’t asked to sign any waivers at all that might allow Congress to actually verify the claims they were making.

Democratic members of the committee protested, and Republicans threatened a bunch of disruptive procedural maneuvers if the waivers weren't signed, so Maloney and Frank agreed to put the consumers on ice until some later day, probably in April. Still, score one for the banks. For the moment, they headed off another day of bad press, as without the consumer angle, the media all but ignored yesterday's hearing.

A Top Clinton Aide Fights a Blast from the Past

Jamie Rubin called me a few days ago, and he was upset. A top foreign policy aide in the Hillary Clinton campaign and a past assistant secretary of state for public affairs, Rubin believed he had been slimed by the Obama campaign, and he suggested I had been an unwitting party to the sliming.

Here's what happened. Days earlier, the Clinton campaign had held a conference call to blast away at remarks recently made by Samantha Power regarding Senator Barack Obama's Iraq policy. That morning, Power, a talented journalist, academic, and human rights advocate, had resigned as a foreign policy adviser to Obama after a newspaper reported she had called Hillary Clinton a "monster." And during this conference call, Clinton's senior foreign policy aides insisted that Power's comments about Obama and Iraq suggested that Obama was not truly committed to withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq. During that call, Rubin, as I wrote afterward, "derided Power as Obama's foreign policy 'Svengali or guru' and claimed her remarks about Iraq were proof that Obama cannot create an efficient and effective foreign policy team, calling the episode 'amateur hour' for the Obama campaign."

Rubin and the Clintonites' interpretation of Power's statements about Obama and Iraq was debatable, and their assault on Power struck some (read: me) as overkill and ugly.

Shortly after that conference call, the Obama campaign circulated a Washington Post clip to reporters that made it seem as if Rubin himself had his own "amateur hour" moment in 2004, when he was working for John Kerry's presidential campaign. The newspaper reported that Rubin had apologized for having misrepresented Kerry's position on Iraq by stating that Kerry would have probably launched a war against Saddam Hussein had Kerry been president in the preceding four years. (The George W. Bush campaign was enthusiastically using Rubin's statement to claim there was not much difference between the two candidates on Iraq.) The Post published a statement from Rubin: "To the extent that my own comments have contributed to misunderstanding on this issue...I never should have said the phrase 'in all probability' because that's not Kerry's position and he's never said it. That was my mistake."

A-ha! the Obama campaign was saying: Rubin's now slamming Power for an action similar to one he committed in 2004. In an article on the get-Power conference call, I reprinted a portion of this Post story.

After reading my piece, Rubin was livid at the Obama gang. Why? Because the Post story was false. Or sort of. At least enough so that it was, in Rubin's view, not fair for the Obama camp to be disseminating it.

So Rubin contacted me to give his side of the story--an account that is backed up by a source whom I trust who also worked on the Kerry campaign in 2004--and it goes like this: In August 2004, Rubin was interviewed about Kerry's position on the war by Jim VandeHei, then a reporter for the Post, and the following paragraph appeared in the middle of VandeHei's subsequent article:

Knowing then what he knows today about the lack of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, Kerry still would have voted to authorize the war and "in all probability" would have launched a military attack to oust Hussein by now if he were president, Kerry national security adviser Jamie Rubin said in an interview Saturday. As recently as Friday, the Massachusetts senator had said he only "might" have still gone to war.

Rubin's reported remark was seen within the Kerry campaign as a "political disaster," according to Robert Shrum, Kerry's top campaign strategist. The Kerryites were attempting to portray their man as a leader who never would have misguided the nation into a mess like Iraq. Now a top Kerry aide appeared to be saying that Kerry probably would have followed the course Bush chose.

But Rubin's remark was not fully (or, as he puts it, accurately) reported. What Rubin had said--and a later Post piece did note this--was, "In all probability, [Kerry] would have launched a military invasion with the support of the rest of the world by now." And by that Rubin meant--as he later wrote in a 2007 letter to Shrum--that Kerry "in all probability" would have gone to war if the "entire world had concluded that Saddam Hussein would never comply [with U.N. resolutions compelling it to disarm] and the whole world supported us." That was not a controversial point. If Saddam had not complied with U.N. demands and if the "whole world" had decided that military action was necessary, Kerry would have attacked Iraq. Acknowledging this was not saying much, and Rubin's statement did not contradict Kerry's stated position at the time. (But Rubin had been addressing an irrelevant hypothetical, for Saddam had been cooperating with international arms inspectors before Bush launched the invasion of Iraq.)

Yet if Rubin's words had been twisted--if he had not misstated Kerry's position in his interview with VandeHei--why did he weeks later apologize and say he had made a mistake? In his letter to Shrum--which Rubin wrote in response to Shrum's account of this episode in his memoirs--Rubin noted that Kerry campaign aides

suggested that to defend myself was to somehow be disloyal to Kerry, and that the only loyal thing to do was to take one for the team and repudiate my statement. So I offered to do so....I repudiated my statement, stayed at headquarters doing TV appearances and never again played a meaningful role in the campaign.

So Rubin ended up saying he had made a mistake he hadn't made. (How's that for spin?) And it has haunted him ever since. Now he's peeved that the Obama campaign has dug up this episode to undermine his criticism of Obama. The 2004 Post story reporting his apology is indeed effective political ammo--even if it misrepresented that convoluted chapter. And Rubin has reason to fret that the Obama campaign--and others--will drag it out anytime he's leading a political charge.

"It's fair game to debate a foreign policy adviser's articulation of their candidate's Iraq policy," Rubin says in an email to me. "But it's a cheap shot to send out an attack package based on a four year old controversy just because someone dares debate Iraq policy. This was a type of character assassination intended to stop me from engaging in legitimate debate. And it is doubly outrageous because the attempt to discredit me was based on a four year old charge that isn't even true. What I hope is that the other campaign can just calm down and let the debate continue on Iraq without resorting to these reprehensible campaign tactics that I have always associated with the Republican attack machine."

I'm persuaded that Rubin was unfairly hung out to dry in 2004 by the Kerry campaign. But given his participation in the spitball-hurling Clinton campaign--remember when Hillary Clinton mischaracterized Obama's positions on Iraq?--Rubin may be asking too much if he expects his political foes to recognize the nuances of the 2004 episode. (An Obama aide tells me that the campaign staffers who distributed the 2004 Post article were unaware of the complicated backstory.) After all, the Clinton campaign's attacks on Obama--such as its claim that Obama is not prepared to be commander in chief--have prompted Democrats and commentators to compare the Clinton camp to the Republican attack machine. Unfair attacks do not justify unfair attacks. But when kitchen sinks fly, everyone in the house has to watch out for falling plumbing.

Is There Satanic Symbolism in the GOP’s Logo?

Something's wrong with the Republican logo. The stars are upside down. Five-sided stars that point upwards—like those on the Democratic donkey and the American flag—traditionally symbolize the forces of good. An overturned pentagram, however, represents the goat's head of Satan and the forces of evil—and there are three on the Republican's elephant.

The GOP's stars weren't always upside down; some say the change occurred around 2000. When I called up the RNC to ask about the logo's history, staffers invariably said, "we'll have to get back to you on that" and never did. "Huh, that's interesting," said one, who clearly hadn't noticed Satan hiding in plain view.

"I have a feeling some neo-pagan democratic designed this logo," wrote a commenter on the conservative web site Free Republic. Besides like-minded rants that the design is a huge slap in the Grand Old Party's face, some online chat-room goers speculated that the inverted stars are linked to secret society symbolism.

In any case, the stars have not only turned for the Republicans: A Hillary Clinton website featured a photo of an American flag with upside down pentagrams at the time of the New Hampshire primary.

—Caroline E. Winter

Petraeus: Iraq "Surge" Not Yielding Political Progress

When David Petraeus and Ryan Crocker, respectively the top U.S. commander and diplomat in Iraq, testified before Congress last September, they effectively defused what at the time were rising Democratic calls for an immediate withdrawal from Iraq. The men spent days on the Hill, responding deftly to loaded questions from hostile members of Congress about the progress of the "surge" and whether last year's increase in troop levels was giving way to political reconciliation in Baghdad—the stated of goal of putting more U.S. troops on Iraqi streets. The witnesses did their best to put a positive spin on things, rightly pointing out that, for the moment, violence in Iraq had plunged to levels not seen since shortly after the 2003 invasion. Together, they urged patience in the hope that the decline in killings might soon translate into political progress.

Petraeus is set to testify again next month, and if his recent comments to the Washington Post are any indication, this time he may bring a different message. "No one feels that there has been sufficient progress by any means in the area of national reconciliation," the general told reporters during an interview in Baghdad's protected International Zone.

From the Post:

The Shiite-led government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has won passage of some legislation that aids the cause of reconciliation, drawing praise from President Bush and his supporters. But the Iraqi government also has deferred action on some of its most important legislative goals, including laws governing the exploitation of Iraq's oil resources, that the Bush administration had identified as necessary benchmarks of progress toward reconciliation.

Many Iraqi parliament members and other officials acknowledge that the country's political system is often paralyzed by sectarian divisions, but they also say that American expectations are driven by considerations in Washington and do not reflect the complexity of Iraq's problems.

In what appeared to be a foreshadowing of his congressional testimony, which his aides said he would not discuss explicitly, Petraeus insisted that Iraqi leaders still have an opportunity to act. "We're going to fight like the dickens" to maintain the gains in security and "where we can to try and build on it," he said.

Moreover, the general expressed some healthy skepticism as to whether the security gains produced by the "surge" will have lasting impact:

In the interview, Petraeus conceded that some elements of both the Awakening movement and the Mahdi Army may be standing down in order to prepare for the day when the U.S. presence is diminished. "Some of them may be keeping their powder dry," Petraeus said of Mahdi Army members. "Obviously you would expect some of that to happen.

"The issue is, again," he continued, "how to sort of prolong what has been achieved, in just a host of different neighborhoods, villages, towns and cities, so that the Iraqi structures can continue to gather strength."

McCain's Support for Honest Contracting Costs Jobs

The story of how John McCain backed a European-based plane maker named EADS over American-based Boeing for a $35 billion Pentagon contract to make air tankers is swirling around the internet. Additional juice for the story comes from the fact that McCain was richly rewarded by EADS for his actions in the form of campaign contributions, and the fact that a handful of McCain campaign staffers are current or former EADS lobbyists ("They never lobbied him related to the issues," said a spokesperson).

The appearance of favoritism obviously isn't good for the man who made his career crusading against Washington's politics as usual. But let's focus for a second on the fact that McCain sent $35 billion overseas while the American economy is struggling and jobs are in short supply.

If McCain feels that the federal government should select the bidder who offers the best product at the best value (and shun the bidder who just four or five years ago tried to game the federal government out of billions of dollars, as Boeing did), I understand that. In fact, I think I agree with it. The federal government spends wisely and though an American company didn't get the gig, its failure this time around will urge it to become more competitive in the future. And the whole thing certainly beats the no-bid contracts that have become so common during the Bush Administration.

But McCain has to be honest about the fact that his decision to push business to EADS instead of Boeing comes at a price here at home. At a campaign stop in early March, McCain said of the deal, "I think the bulk of that manufacturing and those jobs will be here in the United States of America." He wasn't being straightforward with his listeners. According to a Business Week analysis done by speaking to EADS and Boeing about their proposals, the Boeing contract would have created 17,000 more domestic jobs. And though the EADS contract does create some jobs in America, it does so in 2010 and later, as opposed to immediate job creation under Boeing.

Here's a comparison:

	EADS	Boeing
Jobs Created or Supported in U.S.	Roughly 27,000	44,000
Locations	Mobile, AL	300 suppliers in 40 states
When	In U.S. starting in 2010 or 2011; starting immediately in France	Starting immediately in U.S.

In the Democratic race, this is the sort of thing that would get a candidate killed in Ohio or Pennsylvania, where America's industrial infrastructure is rusting to the screws. But McCain is coasting along uncontested while the Democrats beat on each other, meaning that stories like this one don't get noticed. But McCain better hope that there aren't other examples like this that pop up in September and October, or Bush's failing economy, which is already a burden to McCain's electoral chances, will haunt him further.

John McCain Vote Skipping Leads to Laughable Hypocrisy

Everyone knows that John McCain skips more votes in the Senate than just about anyone, once going five straight weeks without voting.

The media doesn't make that big of a deal out of McCain's habit of skipping out on his day job, but this newest development can't be ignored. McCain went before a Philadelphia town hall today and called for action on law enforcement, worker education, and VA health care. But just yesterday he missed votes in the Senate that remedied problems in these three areas. See the details, after the jump:

McCain TODAY: Will Support Law Enforcement: McCain called the spike in murders in Philadelphia area “tragic and terrible” and said “I can commit that I will provide whatever support I can to law enforcement agencies.” [Town Hall in Springfield, PA, 3/14/08]

McCain LAST NIGHT: Skipped Vote to Increase Funding for COPS Program. McCain skips vote on amendment “To increase 2009 funding for the COPS program...” [2008 Senate Amendment 4164 to S.Con.Res.70, agreed to in Senate by Voice Vote; Thomas.loc.gov]

McCain TODAY: Educate Displaced Workers. “We have to have education and training programs that work….America has got to give these people a second chance.” [Town Hall in Springfield, PA, 3/14/08]

McCain LAST NIGHT: Skipped Vote to on Worker Training Program. McCain skips vote on amendment “To improve the training of manufacturing workers...” [2008 Senate Amendment 4155 to S.Con.Res.70, agreed to in Senate by Voice Vote; Thomas.loc.gov]

McCain TODAY: Complained About Wait Times at VA Hospitals. [Town Hall in Springfield, PA, 3/14/08]

McCain LAST NIGHT: Skipped Vote to Help Veterans Get Veterans the Care They Need. McCain skips vote on amendment “To provide the Veterans Benefits Administration with additional resources to more effectively meet their increasing workload and to better address the unacceptably large claims backlog.” [2008 Senate Amendment 4194 to S.Con.Res.70, agreed to in Senate by Voice Vote; Thomas.loc.gov]

More Bad News For Bush's Judicial Nominee

What with his deep connections to Dick Cheney and the endorsement of lots of home-state Republicans, Gus Puryear IV should have been a shoe-in for his nomination to a federal trial court in Tennessee. But not only has Puryear run into trouble over his membership in an exclusive country club, but this week, Time magazine and the Tennessean have both published critical stories about him alleging that he abused the attorney-client privilege to prevent the release of damaging information about his employer, the Corrections Corporation of America, the nation's largest private prison company.

A former CCA employee has written to the Senate Judiciary Committee outlining his allegations that Puryear tried to prevent employees from giving other government entities the full details about prison riots, unexplained deaths and other negative events to which they were entitled, for fear that the information could be used in lawsuits or that it might threaten the company's government contracts. If true, it's not a pretty picture, and it might be damaging enough to make Puryear one of the rare trial court nominees to face a bona fide confirmation fight.

Day Three: No Straight Talk from McCain on Parsley's Call for Destroying Islam

No call back from the McCain camp yet.

For the third day in a row, I've called Jill Hazelbaker, the communications director for the McCain campaign, seeking a comment on televangelist Rod Parsley's call for destroying Islam. McCain, as I reported on Wednesday, has campaigned with this politically influential megachurch pastor, has accepted his endorsement, and has praised him as a "spiritual guide." And I've been told--once again--she is unavailable.

McCain and his campaign will not say anything about Parsley's advocacy of a Christian war against Islam that seeks to eradicate what Parsley dubs a "false religion."

Where's the straight talk now?

March 13, 2008

Tier 1, Tier 3, and the Perp Walk Between

Spitzer is teaching us a lot about the habits of men who pay for sex, the savvy of the tech-age women who provide it, and about the super-rich and their...hangers-on. Who knew Econ 101 would come in so handy?

According to Slate, when Giuliani drove hookers off the streets, he just drove them inside. There, the savvy ones, the ones who'd never populate street corners, saw their prices skyrocket; middle class men could cruise the personals and escort ads, rather than stroll in vice squad territory. Though figures are obviously difficult to come by, Bob from Accounting seems to be venturing online for sex a hell of a lot more often than he was willing to go down by the docks, and today's computer-savvy working girls are making him pay through the nose for greater invisibility. Did any of Giuliani's whiz kids see this coming?

Of course, once the average guy started ponying up for call girls, the super-rich had to up the ante. Now, it's not unusual for men to put their favorites on $10,000 per month retainers, or pay $10K per "session." Apparently, paying a year's worth of private school tuition for an hour of sex is the new diamond-encrusted yacht. Let's see Joe Average get one of these! According to the Wall Street Journal:

"...a sizable percentage of the super wealthy use escorts. [Researchers] surveyed 661 people who owned private jets, and found that 34% of males and 20% of females had paid for sex."

"The most popular reason was “unique experiences” (71%), followed by “higher quality experiences” (57%). Conventional wisdom says that the rich visit escorts to avoid messy break-ups or extra demands for cash. But the study shows otherwise: “No strings attached,” ranked last as a reason."

“With the wealthy,” Mr. Prince says, “it’s all about power and control and new experiences.”

Or maybe it's just about conspicuous consumption, since sex seems to be an afterthought. Writes the Slate sociologist, who's studying high-end prostitutes in New York:

What high-end clients pay for may surprise you. For example, according to my ongoing interviews of several hundred sex workers, approximately 40 percent of trades in New York's sex economy fail to include a physical act beyond light petting or kissing. No intercourse, no oral stimulation, etc. That's one helluva conversation. But it's what many clients want. Flush with cash, these elite men routinely turn their prostitute into a second partner or spouse. Over the course of a year, they will sometimes persuade the woman to take on a new identity, replete with a fake name, a fake job, a fake life history, and so on. They may want to have sex or they may simply want to be treated like King for a Day.

His analysis? Spitzer got busted not because he spent too much, but because he spent too little. Kristen, you see, is only Tier 1:

"Fees usually range from $2,000 to $5,000 per session; women come in all ages and ethnic stripes; they rigorously guard their health and watch for STDs; and most have a high-school degree but have limited work experience. They can promise you discretion, but most work through escort services that are routinely under surveillance. In practice, this means buyer beware."

Tier 3-ers, the $10k girls, "date" their clients for long periods before agreeing to sex, rely on references from other escorts, tend to have a stable of a few "regulars," and avoid relationships with those highly surveilled agencies. Also, they're mostly white.

In short, you're much less likely to end up perp-walking if you pay more.

Confirmation Battle Brewing Over Nominee's Country Club Membership

Most ambitious lawyers know that if they want to become a federal judge, they have to fulfill several key requirements. First, they must schmooze the right people, sit on the right bar committees, and make the requisite political contributions. Then, above all, they must 1) pay nanny taxes, and 2) wait until after securing a lifetime appointment to join an exclusive, discriminatory country club.

Gustavus Adolphus Puryear IV, Bush's choice for a trial court seat in the middle district of Tennessee, had ticked off most of the items on the list by the time he was nominated last summer. He'd given money, befriended Dick Cheney's son-in-law, and even prepped Cheney for the vice-presidential debates in 2000 and 2004. But he forgot about rule number 2, an oversight that might be his undoing.

As a prison company lawyer with virtually no litigation experience, Puryear's resume offers any number of reasons why he shouldn't be confirmed. But inexperience has never stopped the politically connected from ascending to the bench. Country club memberships, however, are a different matter. And Puryear happens to be a member of the exclusive Belle Meade Country Club in Nashville, a club whose racist history is so well known that even former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist had the good sense to quit the club before running for office.

After Puryear's surprisingly contentious confirmation hearing last month, several senators asked him to provide additional written answers to their questions. According to the Nashville Scene, Puryear's responses aren't likely to win him any friends with the Democrats on the committee, particularly Ted Kennedy, who sent Puryear four sets of questions regarding the club, including one about its racial diversity. Puryear replied in legalese, writing, “I am advised that the club does not track its members based on race, nor does it respond to such requests. I am personally aware that there are minority members, but I do not myself know the number,” he wrote.

The number of black members of the Belle Meade Country Club is an open secret in Nashville, largely because the number is exactly one. Belle Meade didn't allow black members until 1994, when they admitted one guy, a lawyer from Atlanta. Today, that same guy remains the only black member of the club. So either Puryear is being incredibly disingenuous, or he is a lot dumber than his supporters claim. (The Nashville Scene had no trouble figuring out how many black members the club had, after all, so it's hard to believe Puryear, who's actually a member, couldn't do the same.)

It's rare for the Senate to see confirmation fights over trial court judges, but Puryear could be the exception. His country club membership has caught the attention of women's groups, who are mounting some opposition. Feminist lawyer Gloria Allred has written a letter to the Judiciary Committee raising questions about Puryear's nomination. She, too, doesn't buy his claim of ignorance about the club's discriminatory practices, noting that the club's "entire voting membership is male, "Lady members" are not allowed to vote, and no women have been proposed for Resident Member status that would afford voting privileges."

As a trial court judge, Puryear would preside over a fair number of sexual and racial discrimination trials, which is another reason women's groups are worried about his nomination. If Puryear can't see the blatant, longstanding discrimination going on in his own country club, can you imagine what he'd be like in the courtroom? Egads!

Interesting Numbers From New Poll: Lookin' Good for Dems

There's a new NBC/WSJ poll out today that has lots of interesting numbers. A stunning 76% of respondents say they want a president who brings a different approach than Bush. Democrats lead by double digits in a generic presidential contests. Confusingly, McCain only trails Obama by 3 points and Clinton by two, but that's likely because, according to the poll, many independents and Democrats have bought the spoon-fed Maverick myth. A little reeducating by the Democrats in the fall should drive McCain closer to the results of a "generic Republican."

Half of respondents think leadership style and trustworthiness are the most important attributes in a candidate, while just one-third prioritize ideas and policies. That's good news for Obama, because on almost every issue polled, Clinton is seen as the better candidate.

Bill Clinton's favorability/unfavorability ratings have plummeted to a net negative: 42%/45%. It's pretty undeniable that this election has tarnished his legacy.

And finally, there is evidence Obama is not making progress in his fight to clear up confusion about his faith. Here's MSNBC:

The percentage of respondents who correctly identified Obama as a Christian increased from 18% to 37%. But those identifying him as a Muslim also increased five points (from 8% to 13%).

Hate Your Boss? So Does This Reporter

If you can stomach one minute and thirty seconds of a tenant/landlord dispute over an elevator in New York City, you're in for a treat. Because this video ends with a hilarious 15 second on-air argument between a reporter and an anchor that is very personal. Poor Ollie. He's not the boss of anyone anymore.

http://view.break.com/467869 - Watch more free videos

Why is this a news story anyway? And did the landlord's representative throw in a fist pump at the end of the interview? (H/T The Plank)

Obama Campaign Tries Sarcasm

In all of its recent interactions with reporters, the Obama campaign has had a certain attitude: "We've won the most votes, the most delegates, and the most states! It's almost mathematically impossible for Clinton to come back. How can you continue to portray this as a close race??"

But the Clinton campaign isn't backing down an inch, and it's in the media's interest to keep reporting this thing like it's a dogfight, so the Obama staffers aren't getting the response they want. They're trying a new approach: making fun of the Clinton campaign. They took a recent Clinton campaign memo to reporters and added their own comments in bold, then shot it out to everyone on their media email list. See it, after the jump. Parts of it are funny, parts of it are just snarky and mean. I wonder if BHO himself signed off on this. Somehow I doubt it.

To: Interested Parties
From: Clinton Campaign
Date: Wednesday, March 12, 2008
Re: Keystone Test: Obama Losing Ground [Get ready for a good one.]

The path to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue goes through Pennsylvania so if Barack Obama can’t win there, how will he win the general election?

[Answer: I suppose by holding obviously Democratic states like California and New York, and beating McCain in swing states like Colorado, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Virginia and Wisconsin where Clinton lost to Obama by mostly crushing margins. But good question.]

After setbacks in Ohio and Texas, Barack Obama needs to demonstrate that he can win the state of Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania is the last state with more than 15 electoral votes on the primary calendar and Barack Obama has lost six of the seven other largest states so far – every state except his home state of Illinois.

[If you define “setback” as netting enough delegates out of our 20-plus-point wins in Mississippi and Wyoming to completely erase any delegate advantage the Clinton campaign earned out of March 4th, then yeah, we feel pretty setback.]

Pennsylvania is of particular importance, along with Ohio, Florida and Michigan, because it is dominated by the swing voters who are critical to a Democratic victory in November. No Democrat has won the presidency without winning Pennsylvania since 1948. And no candidate has won the Democratic nomination without winning Pennsylvania since 1972.

[What the Clinton campaign secretly means: PAY NO ATTENTION TO THE FACT THAT WE’VE LOST 14 OF THE LAST 17 CONTESTS AND SAID THAT MICHIGAN AND FLORIDA WOULDN’T COUNT FOR ANYTHING. Also, we’re still trying to wrap our minds around the amazing coincidence that the only “important” states in the nominating process are the ones that Clinton won.]

But the Obama campaign has just announced that it is turning its attention away from Pennsylvania.

[Huh?]

This is not a strategy that can beat John McCain in November.

[I don’t think Clinton’s strategy of losing in state after state after promising more of the same politics is working all that well either.]

In the last two weeks, Barack Obama has lost ground among men, women, Democrats, independents and Republicans – all of which point to a candidacy past its prime.

["A candidacy past its prime." These guys kill me.]

For example, just a few weeks ago, Barack Obama won 68% of men in Virginia, 67% in Wisconsin and 62% in Maryland. He won 60% of Virginia women and 55% of Maryland women. He won 62% of independents in Maryland, 64% in Wisconsin and 69% in Virginia. Obama won 59% of Democrats in Maryland, 53% in Wisconsin and 62% in Virginia. And among Republicans, Obama won 72% in both Virginia and Wisconsin.

But now Obama’s support has dropped among all these groups.

[That’s true, if you don't count all the winning we've been up to. As it turns out, it’s difficult to maintain 40-point demographic advantages, even over Clinton]

In Mississippi, he won only 25% of Republicans and barely half of independents. In Ohio, he won only 48% of men, 41% of women and 42% of Democrats. In Texas, he won only 49% of independents and 46% of Democrats. And in Rhode Island, Obama won just 33% of women and 37% of Democrats.

[I'm sympathetic to their attempt to parse crushing defeats. And I'm sure Rush Limbaugh’s full-throated endorsement of Clinton didn’t make any difference. Right]

Why are so many voters turning away from Barack Obama in state after state?

[You mean besides the fact that we’re ahead in votes, states won and delegates?]

In the last few weeks, questions have arisen about Obama’s readiness to be president. In Virginia, 56% of Democratic primary voters said Obama was most qualified to be commander-in-chief. That number fell to 37% in Ohio, 35% in Rhode Island and 39% in Texas.

[Only the Clinton campaign could cherry pick states like this. But in contrast to their logic, in the most recent contest of Mississippi, voters said that Obama was more qualified to be commander in chief than Clinton by a margin of 55-42.]

So the late deciders – those making up their minds in the last days before the election – have been shifting to Hillary Clinton. Among those who made their decision in the last three days, Obama won 55% in Virginia and 53% in Wisconsin, but only 43% in Mississippi, 40% in Ohio, 39% in Texas and 37% in Rhode Island.

[If only there were enough late deciders for the Clinton campaign to actually be ahead, they would really be on to something.]

If Barack Obama cannot reverse his downward spiral with a big win in Pennsylvania, he cannot possibly be competitive against John McCain in November.

[If they are defining downward spiral as a series of events in which the Clinton campaign has lost more votes, lost more contests and lost more delegates to us – I guess we will have to suffer this horribly painful slide all the way to the nomination and then on to the White House.]

[Thanks for the laughs guys. This was great.]

The Brilliant, Doomed Down Syndrome Adoption Registry

Just what the abortion doctor ordered.

We're finally edging toward the middle on abortion—an agreement that most people, pro- or anti-, want to see unwanted pregnancies decreased and abortions lessened. Weird political bedmates Sens. Ted Kennedy and Sam Brownback (yes, the creepy one) have co-sponsored a bill to create a national registry of those willing to adopt children identified as having severe genetics defects like Down syndrome.

Brilliant. Doomed, but brilliant.

Whenever I hear of zealots terrorizing women at abortion clinics, as they cynically implore these besieged women to let their children be adopted, my lip curls. I was equally offended watching women on TV, (and it was always women), vent their rage on Susan Smith for the murder of her children. Of course Smith shouldn't have killed her kids (duh), but I was so enraged by the spectacle of a nation claiming they'd have loved and raised them for her instead that I checked: Unsurprisingly, there's been no spike in adoptions, not even in Smith's home town. Nor has the general stigma against adoption abated, though many Planned Parenthood Clinics are newly under siege. Hell, this 'Christian' nation doesn't care enough to educate, feed, and offer medical care to our existing children, and we're supposed to be believe people are 'pro life'?

My prediction: This national registry will flop. Protesting outside of clinics is quite different from agreeing to raise a fundamentally disabled child, as birth parents are oh-so-blithely instructed to do on pain of hellfire.

This personal anger I feel towards our society's low regard for children, women, and families goes back to my own childhood. Raised as a fire and brimstone Southern Baptist, I lived daily with the requirement to go out of one's way to do God's work: feed the hungry, clothe the naked, and suffer the children. I bought all that, at least until I was old enough to realize that the clutch of buildings in our neighborhood, set way back from the street and surrounded by high walls, was an orphanage. I was flabbergasted to learn that there were children in the world without homes and families. So, logically, I asked the minister after church one Sunday why every family in the congregation didn't adopt one of those kids so they wouldn't be alone in the world. Nothing but embarrassed silence. That was the beginning of my disillusionment with public displays of one's own morality and fitness to judge others. Fighting to have children born, without fighting to ensure that each has a decent start in life, is immoral. People may be pro-birth, but I'm still waiting to be shown that they're actually pro-life.

But, go ahead: Make a liar out of me. I'll admit I was wrong if anti-abortion crusaders gin up their ferocious lobby to get this bill passed and then fill up those registry slots in a hurry. I've always believed the anti-abortion crusade was more about controlling women and parading one's own sense of self-righteousness than about 'protecting' women or 'innocent life'. Now, we'll see.

Nonetheless, kudos to Kennedy and (can't believe I'm typing this) Brownback, for showing true leadership on this thorniest of issues.

This, my friends, is progress.

March 12, 2008

Our Long, National Geraldine Ferraro Nightmare Is Over

We've covered this pretty extensively, so we might as well give you denouement. Geraldine Ferraro just wrote a letter to Hillary Clinton resigning from her campaign. "I am stepping down from your finance committee so I can speak for myself and you can continue to speak for yourself about what is at stake in this campaign," Ferraro says to Clinton. "The Obama campaign is attacking me to hurt you. I won't let that happen."

Spitzer Resigns

Eliot Spitzer has resigned effective next Monday. There's not much to add, but let's take a step back and reflect on the double standard at work here. Spitzer cheated on his wife and broke the law, but he hasn't been charged with a crime. He is now out of office and endured intense pressure to resign in the two days it took him to make up his mind.

Larry Craig, on the other hand, pleaded guilty to a crime (disorderly conduct) and cheated on his wife. He is still in office. David Vitter, whose number appeared in the DC Madam's phone logs, likely cheated on his wife and likely broke the law, but was never charged with a crime. He, too, is still in office.

So what's the double standard? Governors vs. Senators? Jews vs. Gentiles? Democrats vs. Republicans? Or people with self-respect vs. people without?

Obama Campaign: It's Not All About Pennsylvania!

Part of a memo from Obama campaign manager David Plouffe to reporters:

Now that Mississippi is behind us, we move on to the next ten contests. The Clinton Campaign would like to focus your attention only on Pennsylvania — a state in which they have already declared that they are "unbeatable." But Pennsylvania is only one of 10 remaining contests, each important in terms of allocating delegates and ultimately deciding who are nominee will be. Senator Obama campaigned in Pennsylvania yesterday and will do so again later this week, but he will also campaign aggressively in the other upcoming states — he will travel to other upcoming states in the very near future.

Got it, Keystoners? You're not the whole show!

Hey, Did You Hear Barack Obama Is Black?

As you know, Geraldine Ferraro went and expounded on her original comments on race and gender by making them worse. But you may not know that she went on TV this morning, ignoring my advice ("go away!"), and continued her insanity.

Clearly the Clinton campaign hasn't told Ferraro to stay quiet; to the contrary, it is trotting her out. So, screw it, I'm posting this:

An emailer writes in with an excellent summary of the Ferraro situation:

Seems to me she probably made the original comment off the top of her head, but [the Clinton campaign] made a very cynical short-term political calculation that among the white voters of Pennsylvania painting Obama as a whiny affirmative action case who's constantly "playing the race card" and is racist against whites(!) is in their best interest. Maybe they're right! But you know what, after Mississippi yesterday, Obama has a /bigger/ delegate lead (161) than he had before March 4th. Which means in the last week and a half, while HRC has been "winning" the narrative, she's lost ground in the nomination battle.

Second Muslim Ever Elected to Congress — For 56 Days

On Tuesday, Indiana's 7th Congressional District elected 33-year-old Andre Carson to the House of Representatives in a special election. Carson, a Muslim and a former cop, replaces his late grandmother, Julia Carson, the first African-American and the first woman to represent Indianapolis in Congress. Julia died in December of last year.

Carson is the second Muslim to ever serve in Congress. The first, Minnesota Representative Keith Ellison, was elected in 2006 and came under attack because of his faith. One can only hope that as more and more Muslims enter Congress, the openly discriminatory members ("In the next century we will have many more Muslims in the United States if we do not adopt strict immigration policies," said Virginia Rep. Virgil Goode, a Republican) will realize that Islam doesn't automatically turn people into monsters.

Carson won't have long to make an impact, however. There is a Democratic primary on May 6 to determine who will run for election in November. If Carson is to serve into 2009, he'll have to win three elections in the span of nine months.

A Million Man March Against STDs?

According to a new CDC study, 1 in 4 American teens has an STD. Specifically, reports CNN, they have one of these: "human papillomavirus, or HPV, which can cause cervical cancer and affected 18 percent of girls studied; chlamydia, which affected 4 percent; trichomoniasis, 2.5 percent; and herpes simplex virus, 2 percent."

As unsettling as this news is, it's downright mindbending that black girls' infection rates are more than double those for whites and Mexican Americans; nearly half had at least one STD. It's hard to figure out how to grapple with these numbers; they implicate religious repression, ingrained patriarchy, lack of basic sex ed, pathetic AIDS awareness, nihilism, and childhoods interrupted much too soon. Not just by the STD, but also by the poorly thought out sex that likely caused it.

Nearly half of black teenaged girls has an STD. My daughter will be a teen in only nine years, my son in only six. This is the reality they'll be facing? I wonder how long it will take the usual suspects to make this, too, a conversation about racism. That's a hell of a lot easier than tackling such an intractable problem head on. Especially since the conversation that we should have can't be had without calling black men on the carpet.

We converged on Jena, Louisiana. We converged for the Million Man March. Will we converge on the local high school, or even more daringly, the local Baptist Church, and take care of our children? I'm betting on a resounding silence.

March 11, 2008

Obama Wins Mississippi, and It's All About Race

MSNBC has projected two things: (1) Obama has won tonight's Mississippi primary and (2) Obama's pledged delegate lead will be 160 at the end of the night. Hillary Clinton will have to win 64% of all remaining pledged delegates in order to finish with the pledged delegate lead. That is, shall we say, highly unlikely.

The Clinton campaign plan, best I can see it, is to downplay Mississippi, play up Pennsylvania and win it, and then take the remainder of the states (potentially including do-overs in Michigan and Florida) by severely tarnishing Obama's luster. Narrow the popular vote to almost nothing, then convince superdelegates that are undecided or that support Obama to choose Clinton because she has won the second half of the primary race. Is that a strategy that is likely to win? No, but it's the best they got.

Exit polling from Mississippi says race was a huge factor.*

Clinton won 71 percent of white women and 68 percent of white men. Obama took 94 percent of black men and 90 percent of black women. Whites and blacks were both roughly 50 percent of the electorate.

The only age group Clinton won tonight was 60 and older. Obama won economy voters, war voters, and health care voters.

Oddly enough, Republicans were 12 percent of the vote tonight and they weren't Republicans caught up in Obama's unity magic. They went 75-25 for Clinton. Draw your own conclusions as to why they voted the way they did.

Can Mississippi go blue in the fall if Obama is the nominee? MSNBC reported recently that an unnamed Democratic statistician believes there are "three red states that could swing if African-American turnout was ever maximized (both in registration and in actual turnout)." Those states? Georgia, Louisiana, and Mississippi. Obama took Georgia by 35 and Louisiana by 21 earlier in the race.

But Tom Schaller, author of Whistling Past Dixie: How Democrats Can Win Without the South, would argue that Obama isn't going to rewrite the electoral map down south. He believes that black turnout is already maximized, and any turnout gains that come through an Obama candidacy will be small. The other problem is that, according to Schaller's research, the higher the percentage of black people in any given state, the higher the likelihood that the white citizens of that state will vote Republican. Mississippi has the highest percentage of black residents of any state. If Schaller is correct, Mississippi will stay Republican for a long time.

Update: Final tally: Obama 61%, Clinton 37%.

* MSNBC has changed its exit poll numbers in minor ways since I checked them last night. I've updated this blog post to reflect the network's changes.

Surrogate Problems Continued: How to Make a Bad Situation Worse

Mrs. Ferraro, I respect the role you played in American history, but you are most definitely on the list of people from both campaigns that just need to stop talking.

After saying that Obama is only a hair's breadth from the Democratic nomination because he's black, Ferraro had this to say about her critics:

"Any time anybody does anything that in any way pulls this campaign down and says let's address reality and the problems we're facing in this world, you're accused of being racist, so you have to shut up," Ferraro said. "Racism works in two different directions. I really think they're attacking me because I'm white. How's that?"

Then she kept it going on Fox News:

Enough, enough! Go raise as much money as you possibly can for Hillary Clinton. Go campaign in some corner of Pennsylvania. But stop turning what should be a national debate over two strong candidates both looking to make history into an unhinged essentialist pissing match over whether racism or sexism is worse!