MotherJones.com | MoJoBlog - Social Issues and Political Commentary: March 23, 2008

« March 16, 2008 - March 22, 2008 | Main | March 30, 2008 - April 5, 2008 »

March 28, 2008

Jihad USA: Fox's Take on Homegrown Terror

Harboring vague thoughts of anti-government mayhem may mean the Justice Department labels you a criminal. So I'm intrigued to see how Fox covers the alleged homegrown terror cells in their special this weekend, Jihad USA. It promises to investigate the "emerging threat from people who have been radicalized by extreme Muslim doctrine within the U.S."

Well, one such case of alleged domestic terrorism is the "Liberty City 7" trial , which now rests in the hands of a jury—again. The first trial for the Miami-area men accused of plotting to blow up the Sears Tower in 2006 ended in a mistrial, partly because there was little concrete evidence the men were serious about the plot and because FBI collaborators provided many of the materials needed to complete it. The jury so far has spent four hours in deliberation, and will return on Monday to continue.

If Fox's preview of the documentary, in which the Miami case is discussed, is to be believed, then Jihad USA will be one-sided indeed. Fox anchor and Jihad USA host E.D. Hill says the documentary "will frighten you, but it will inform you." I don't doubt Jihad USA will be frightening, but informative? If the hysterical tone of the preview is any indication, probably not.

Where Is the Black Outcry Against China?

As much opprobrium as is being heaped on Obama's pastor Rev. Wright these days, what about the black folks who aren't speaking up? If anyone with an African forebear is black, and blacks are assumed to feel some sort of kinship with each other, how can any blacks take part in the Beijing Olympics this summer?

Of course, my argument is that 'black' is meaningless unless its disparate communities can be shown to overlap politically or culturally and, most of all, demonstrate some sort of allegiance to each other. I wish all 'blacks' did, but we don't. So what's the point in demanding that the label be applied to all of us when it comes to protests, but not on the ground when a discrete group of non-native born blacks are getting their asses kicked for the crime of being black?

We didn't fight for the Haitian boat people, qua blacks. We didn't fight for Rwanda, nor against the Darfur genocide. Steven Spielberg pulled out as artistic director of the Beijing Olympics (and adopted a black child), but multi-millionaire black athletes are taking the fifth on China's crimes lest their marketability drop even a tad. China is Sudan's largest investor, a country which is at war with its 'black' population. It even enslaves them. If 'black' has any meaning, where is the black outcry against China's investment in genocide against Sudan's blacks?

Black Olympic athletes did exactly that in 1968 when they had everything to lose. But today? From Orin Starn:

This summer marks the 40th anniversary of the famous black power protest at the 1968 Mexico City Olympics.

Two American sprinters, John Carlos and Tommie Smith, raised black-gloved fists on the medal stand during the Star Spangled Banner. They wanted to spotlight poverty and racism just months after the murder of Martin Luther King Jr. and riots in Newark and Detroit.

Can we expect any such protests at the Beijing Olympics this summer?

No. The era of the activist athlete is over. We’ve entered the age of the corporate sports champion, the superstar as a global brand who shies from politics to keep full market share.

Consider the contrast between 1968 and a more recent medal ceremony controversy. At the Barcelona Olympics in 1992, Reebok was the official U.S. Olympic team sponsor, but Michael Jordan and other American basketball stars had big Nike endorsement deals. The players decided to drape American flags over the offending Reebok logo on their team sweats during the gold medal ceremony. Here the dispute no longer concerned the great social questions of the day. It was about the arithmetic of marketing and the endorsement dollar.

It's easy to be against whites. But are you for blacks? Even when it costs you something?

Does Wartime Service Matter in Presidential Elections?

An interesting point to consider as you digest McCain's hero-heavy entrée into the world of general election advertising, from Matt Stoller, via The Plank:

1992, 1996, 2000, and 2004 all saw the candidate without military service elected over the candidate who had served, in several cases heroically.

One could argue that Vietnam is a bigger part of John McCain's persona and appeal than it was of Al Gore's when he ran for president. And while John Kerry made a big deal of his wartime service, it essentially got dismantled by the Swiftboat folks. I'm not denying the trend; just saying we should be on the lookout for a possible exception this time around.

Obama and Clinton Speak About Housing and the Economy: A Compare and Contrast

This past week, all three presidential candidates gave major speeches on housing and the economy. Hillary Clinton highlighted her extensive work on the subprime housing crisis and Barack Obama emphasized a modernization of the institutions that regulate the financial industry for the federal government. John McCain, in a widely panned speech, offered no new proposals on either subject. In late January, McCain told reporters, "Even if the economy is the, quote, No. 1 issue, the real issue will remain America's security… I am running because of the transcendental challenge of the 21st century, which is radical Islamic extremism."

Clinton and Obama's speeches, though they had slightly different focuses, underscore the difference between the Democrats and the sole Republican in terms of economic aptitude.

Both Clinton and Obama said that trouble on Wall Street eventually hurts Main Street, and vice versa. Both offered sympathy to families going through foreclosures and tough love for bankers and financial types who rode mortgage-backed securities to ruin. Obama was willing to say plainly "our economy is in a recession," while Clinton went only so far as to say "our economy is in serious trouble."

Clinton claimed that she's been on the subprime hunt for a while now, and she's right. In March 2007, she told the National Community Reinvestment Coalition that she wanted to expand and reinvigorate the Federal Housing Authority, so it could offer "more mortgages at better rates." She also called for "more counseling and information" for potential homeowners, so they could avoid high-interest loans. Shortly thereafter she introduced the 21st Century Housing Act, a bill which, if it were to become law, would use these proposals and others to address the subprime mortgage crisis.

In October 2007, she followed up by proposing criminal penalties for foreclosure consultants and lenders who take advantage of naïve homebuyers. She suggested making a $100 million fund available to the states so they can more effectively prosecute foreclosure fraud and assist homeowners who have been duped.

Clinton's speech this week went even further than her past proposals. She called for "meaningful broker licensing standards" to screen mortgage brokers and govern their conduct. She also called for all brokers to register with the federal government. She reiterated her support for a 90-day moratorium on all subprime foreclosures and a voluntary five-year freeze on interest rates for subprime mortgages.

In a move that elicited smirks across the Internet, Clinton also suggested an "emergency working group on foreclosures" that would be led by Alan Greenspan, the former Fed Chair who neglected the growing housing crisis for years, and Robert Rubin, the former Treasury Secretary who is currently the Director and Chairman of the Executive Committee of Citi.

Finally, Clinton announced a $30 billion stimulus package that would "go directly to cities and states to address the housing crisis." It would allow cities to purchase foreclosed or "distressed" properties, which they could then convert into affordable housing units.

Senator Obama could point to a less extensive history of action on the housing crisis, but paired his proposals on that subject with ideas for modernizing the regulation of America's financial industry, a topic Clinton ignored this week and has touched on only briefly in the past. Both Obama and Clinton are somewhat compromised on the issue: They have both received millions from securities and investment firms, and Clinton friend Rubin was a key deregulation advocate in the '90s.

Speaking on Thursday, Obama said that because of "new and complex financial instruments like hedge funds and non-bank financial companies" we need to create "a 21st century regulatory framework." Regulatory reform should rest on several core principles, Obama suggested. The first being that because banks borrow from the government, they ought to be subject to government oversight. "The Federal Reserve should have basic supervisory authority over any institution to which it may make credit available as a lender of last resort. When the Fed steps in, it is providing lenders an insurance policy underwritten by the American taxpayer. In return, taxpayers have every right to expect that these institutions are not taking excessive risks."

But Obama was quick to assure his audience at Cooper Union that he wasn't suggesting a new and burdensome bureaucracy. "Reshuffling bureaucracies should not be an end in itself," said Obama. "A streamlined system will provide better oversight, and be less costly for regulated institutions." The priority is to make the federal government's oversight apparatus more modern, and fit to keep pace with the financial industry's constant innovation and evolution.

Clinton's record on regulation is somewhat impoverished. In November, she acknowledged that innovations in the financial industry present "new threats." In December, she called for "an industry-wide commitment to tightening underwriting standards and disclosure obligations." But she has not previously discussed renovating or modernizing America's regulatory capacity at any length, and did not do so on Monday.

Obama also provided suggestions for dealing with the housing crisis. He mentioned the FHA Housing Security Program, which he introduced into the Senate with Chris Dodd earlier this month. If passed, the Dodd-Obama legislation will provide incentives for lenders to convert adjustable rate mortgages that are currently problematic into stable 30-year fixed mortgages. Obama also proposed a $10 billion fund that would help struggling homeowners sell their homes or modify their loans. He suggested tougher penalties for fraudulent lenders, and a "Home Score system" that would allow potential homeowners to learn more about mortgage offers. These ideas mirror those Clinton has unveiled previously.

Obama reiterated his support for middle class tax cuts and the elimination of all incomes taxes for retirees making less than $50,000 a year. He also suggested a $30 billion stimulus package targeted at communities hardest hit by the housing crisis. It parallels very closely the stimulus package put forward by Clinton on Monday.

McCain Ad: Cue the Ugly "American" Campaign

The American president Americans have been waiting for!

That's the tag line on John McCain's new ad, which features a film clip of McCain as a captured POW and a baritone-voice narrator asking, "What must a president believe about us, about America?" He kindly provides the answer: "That she is worth protecting." Could the implication be that Barack Obama is not quite American and that he is not interested in protecting our country, which the ad describes with the feminine pronoun. In other words, the half-black dude with a funny name--who might be a secret Muslim--can't protect her. Has Lee Atwater been resurrected? This smacks of the George H.W. Bush smear-tossing campaign against Michael Dukakis in 1988--but also of Hillary Clinton's claims that Obama is not yet ready to be commander in chief.

By the way, when has America not had an "American president"?

If the Republican campaign is this vulgar and creepy seven months ahead of the election, expect much worse in the fall.

Railroaded Former Alabama Gov. Released from Prison; To Tesify Before Congress

A federal appellate court has ordered former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman released from prison while he appeals his 2006 conviction for bribery. Siegelman, you'll remember, is the Democrat who went to prison under extremely suspicious circumstances after a long-term witch hunt conducted by the Republican party apparatus in the state. (Karl Rove was involved, too.)

The House Judiciary Committee has invited Siegelman to come testify about his case. Should make for good viewing.

GOP's New Jersey Senate Snafu

The GOP is struggling to find a viable challenger to four-term Democratic Senator Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey. Republican party leadership courted millionaire Goya Foods heir Andy Unanue, a man that fringe Republican campaigns are calling "a slick New York-inhabiting nightclub-owning playboy."

When it became apparent that Unanue lives in Manhattan, and that his supposed home in New Jersey actually belongs to his parents, Unanue's campaign manager said, "Andy Unanue lives in New Jersey, he votes in New Jersey, his car is registered in New Jersey, he pays New Jersey auto insurance, and his business is in New Jersey. Andy Unanue is New Jersey."

When Unanue himself was asked for comment, he admitted, "For the past few years I've lived in New York. I'm in the process of moving back to New Jersey."

Props to Blue Jersey for spotting this. Unanue's (supposed) qualification for the Senate appears to be the fact that he was, for a short time, the COO of his parents' business. He was eventually run out by other family members and the reviews of his work were not good:

Robert Unanue, who emerged from the court battle as Goya's president, testified he "had information Andy was going to work drunk" and "wasn't projecting the right image for the company." Joseph Perez, a vice president, testified about Andy, "I've seen him come to the office drunk or smelling of alcohol."

...Joseph Perez, a vice president, testified Andy Unanue was "coming in late, leaving early, to the point I spoke to him and that I was concerned that perhaps he was ill." He rated Andy's leadership skill as "'fair to poor," adding that he could be "'arrogant and cutting."

Rest easy, Senator Lautenberg.

New Hope for the DREAM Act

The bipartisan DREAM Act is a favorite bill of mine, and its been painful to watch it get killed over and over. Now there's new hope. Brave New Films is launching an ad campaign called "A Dream Deferred" that aims to force the new president to make the DREAM Act a priority in 2009. If you visit the "A Dream Deferred" website, you'll find a petition in support that you can send to Senators Obama, Clinton, and McCain. Here's Brave New Films' first ad:

March 27, 2008

Bush's Latest Nuclear Catastrophe

Defense Secretary Robert Gates is demanding a full inventory of all U.S. nuclear weapons and materials. The announcement comes in the wake of the Pentagon's realization last week that four nuclear warhead fuses were mistakenly shipped to Taiwan in 2006. This is just the latest chapter in the Bush administration's mismanagement of nukes.

In "Failure to Launch" (January/February 2008), James Sterngold writes, "the real problem with Bush's nuclear policy...was simple neglect. From the dawn of the nuclear era more than six decades ago, every administration, whether in peaceful or violent times, has maintained a solemn focus on its policies for the only weapon that can end civilization. But not this one."

Obama to Clinton: Show Me Your Taxes

Barack Obama posted his and Michelle's tax forms yesterday, and it seems that their recent rise to fame has also brought a rise in fortune. From 2004 to 2006, the Obamas' combined income increased five-fold to just under $1 million: $983,826 (adjusted gross income). Must be nice. During this same period, from 2004 to 2006, the personal savings rate in the U.S. declined significantly, even dipping negative at the end of 2005—something that hadn't happened since the Great Depression.

This may stir doubts among cautious Obama supporters. Can Moneybags relate to the average American? However, in the battle over transparency with rival Hillary Clinton, this may be a winning move. HRC has positioned herself as the establishment candidate, which breeds a certain amount of resentment in itself, and her hesitancy to release her tax forms might only deepen the feeling. If she doesn't release them, she appears secretive (already a problem for her); but if she brings more media attention to her and Bill's wealth, she'll make Obama look like a regular working stiff.

—Jesse Finfrock

"Blackwater Fever" Boils Through Anbar Province

It begins with the chills, matures into a fever, and gives its victims cold sweats. It kills red blood cells and ultimately can induce failure of the liver or kidneys. And, most noticeably to many of the Iraqis who now suffer from it, it turns urine reddish black—a detail that has caused it to be called "Blackwater fever."

The illness has nothing to do with Erik Prince's security company, but Blackwater's reputation among Iraqis has now become the stuff of dark humor as a virulent form of malaria has begun to burn its way across Iraq's Anbar province, particularly the Sunni strongholds of Fallujah and Ramadi. From the Inter Press News Agency:

Talat al-Mukhtar is an Iraqi doctor now studying abroad. IPS asked him to comment on the Blackwater fever outbreak in Iraq.

"Malaria is endemic in Iraq, mainly in the northern part. However, it is prevalent in the milder forms; the severe form had been reported but not at an epidemic level."

Dr. Mukhtar said this form of malaria requires a "triple-drug treatment programme because it is an aggressive infection." He said the patient "requires meticulous medical and nursing care, and might even need time in an intensive care unit, as it can easily lead to kidney and liver failure."

Like the other doctors IPS spoke with, Dr. Mukhtar was clear that the Iraqi ministry of health needs to take a proactive role before the disease spreads further...

The spread of this condition follows the outbreak of other diseases. According to the WHO, as of Oct. 3, 2007 cholera outbreaks in Iraq had spread to nine of 18 provinces, and roughly 30,000 people had fallen ill with acute diarrhoea, with 14 deaths.

An Oxfam International report released last July showed that the humanitarian disaster in Iraq is compounded by a mass exodus of medical staff fleeing chronic violence and lawlessness. The report said the lack of doctors and nurses is breaking down a health system now on the brink of collapse.

The report said many hospitals had lost up to 80 percent of their teaching staff.

Zimbabwe: What 200,000% Inflation Means in Real Terms

Zimbabwe goes to the polls Saturday to see if it can manage to democratically oust 28-year despot Robert Mugabe. I say "manage" because Mugabe can't win a fair election, but he can rig it so that he wins, as he is widely suspected of having done in the past. Opposition candidate Simba Makoni presents a stronger challenge than any Mugabe has seen recently, but suspicions about the election have already been raised.

What makes Zimbabwe unique among the world's failed states is its inflation: a historic 200,000 percent. Here's what that means in real life, from Somewhere in Africa, via Andrew Sullivan:

To understand what 200,000 percent inflation means, a journalist friend I was traveling with, N., said that on Friday, he had lunch at a hotel in Harare , where a local beer cost 2 million Zimbabwean dollars (less than $1). He passed by the hotel after work the same day and the same beer was going for more than 4 million.

Earlier this month, the AP reported that $1US was worth 25,000,000 Zimbabwe dollars.

Nighttime in a McCain White House

I love Harold Meyerson's 3 a.m. scenario from the Washington Post:

It is 3 a.m., and the stillness of the White House night is shattered by the ringing of the red phone. President John McCain, rousing himself from a deep sleep, turns on the light and picks up the receiver. A U.S. embassy in a Middle Eastern country, he is told, has been blown up, and al-Qaeda is taking credit.

McCain takes a deep breath. "Character counts, my friend," he says. "Bomb Iran. Bomb, bomb Iran."

There is a rustling of blankets, and, brushing aside Cindy McCain, a concerned Joe Lieberman rises from the bed. "Not Iran, Mr. President," he says. "They hate al-Qaeda."

"That's right," the president says. "I remember now." He sighs with relief. "Good thing you're here every night, Joe."

McCain's initial mention of the fictional Iran/al Qaeda axis wasn't a slip; it was part of pattern that raises questions about McCain's claims of foreign policy expertise. (Example of such claims, from a speech in Keene, NH: "My friends, I know how to handle the Iranians. And I'll handle 'em.")

Actually, if McCain does take the White House, perhaps Democrats can get Lieberman a post as his National Security Adviser or butler. At least he'll be out of the Senate.

McCain: More of Nothing on the Financial Crisis

Should we start counting the days before John McCain has anything real to say about the current financial crises? In a speech on Tuesday, he offered not a single concrete proposal. Today, as Barack Obama was delivering a speech on the financial crisis, McCain issued the following statement:

On Tuesday, I addressed the housing crisis and its devastating impact on our financial markets and the household budgets of millions of hardworking Americans. The fact is that there are about 4 million homeowners in danger of losing their homes. We have a responsibility to take action to help those among them who are deserving homeowners, and as I said this week, I am committed to considering any and all proposals to do so. Any action must further look to the future to make certain this never happens again.

As I said on Tuesday, I believe the role of government is to help the truly needy, prevent systemic economic risk, and enact reforms that prevent the kind of crisis we are currently experiencing from ever happening again. Those reforms should focus on improving transparency and accountability in our capital markets -- both of which were lacking in the lead-up to the current situation.

However, what is not necessary is a multi-billion dollar bailout for big banks and speculators, as Senators Clinton and Obama have proposed. There is a tendency for liberals to seek big government programs that sock it to American taxpayers while failing to solve the very real problems we face.

This is a complex problem that deserves a careful, balanced approach that helps the homeowners in trouble, not big banks and speculators that acted irresponsibly. I again call on our lending institutions, where possible, to step up and help Americans who are hurting in this crisis.

Again, not one specific proactive idea. McCain is quick with the usual anti-Democratic rhetoric. And he has a populist point about no bailouts for irresponsible corporate actors rings. But does he intend to spend the next seven months campaigning as Mr. No? McCain notes that he is willing to consider proposals placed before him. He's apparently not interested in coming up with any of his own. Is that a model of economic leadership that will play well in the fall?

Poll: Age Is a Liability for McCain

All joking aside, age is a serious issue that John McCain is going to have to overcome this fall. According to a new NBC/WSJ survey, 29 percent of respondents feel this country isn't ready for a president over 70. McCain, who was born August 29, 1936 at the Coco Solo Naval Air Station in the Panama Canal Zone, is currently 71 and will be 72 by election day. If elected, he would be the oldest first-term president in American history. If he runs against Obama, the 25-year age difference between the two will be the largest-ever difference between major party candidates.

By contrast, the same survey showed that 20 percent of respondents said the country is not ready for a female president and 18 percent said it is not ready for an African American one. This is consistent with an early 2007 poll that showed being 72-years-old on election day is as much of a disadvantage as being homosexual. No joke.

Can the Bush Administration Run a War? (You Know the Answer)

Can the Bush administration run a war?

That is, of course, a rhetorical question. But if you needed any additional proof of the obvious answer, The New York Times provides it in a fine example of front-page investigative reporting that shows how a fledgling firm run by a 22-year old and by a licensed masseur has been the American military's lead supplier of arms--and shoddy and ineffective arms, at that--to the Afghan army. It's a tale of incompetence and absurdity. Due to the Times' probing, the company has been suspended by the military. But the real question is, will anyone in the military lose their job because of this massive foul-up? From Iraq to Walter Reed to this, Bush's adventures overseas have revealed how screwed up the military can be. That ain't a surprise. But heads ought to roll. Paging Congressman Waxman.

Update: That didn't take long. Waxman's House Oversight Committee has called the company's top brass, plus officials from State and Defense, to come testify.

March 26, 2008

U.S. Spies Have Serious Job Gripes, Survey Finds

The shadow world of intelligence portrayed in the movies bears little resemblance to reality. Need proof? Just reference the third annual Intelligence Community Employee Climate Survey (.pdf) released Tuesday by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI). If the halls of the CIA really are full of Jack Ryans, you'd think the survey results would be a little more positive. Instead, they show that the nation's spooks aren't that different from you and me—they suffer the same office politics and bureaucratic inflexibility that have bedeviled workers since time began.

The ODNI puts a positive spin on the survey results, highlighting that some 88 percent of respondents agreed with the statement "the work I do is important," and 81 percent acknowledged "I like the kind of work I do." But lest we are overly encouraged by such statements (after all, many people like the kind of work they do even if they hate their jobs), a deeper look at the survey results shows serious issues with how intelligence employees perceive things like performance incentives, job training, recruitment, and the competence of their colleagues.

Some choice data points:

Percentage who agree that steps are taken to deal with poor job performers who cannot or will not improve: 28

Percentage who say pay raises reflect job performance: 28

Percentage who say promotions are based on merit: 41

Percentage satisfied with ability to advance: 46

Percentage who say that leaders generate motivation and commitment in workers: 45

Percentage satisfied with policies and practices of senior leaders: 47

Photo used under a Creative Commons license from ford.

"John McCain's Slacks Don't Reach His Ankles"

This site is absolutely hilarious. Keep clicking through. And remember, John McCain tips 9%.

It's a reaction to this site about Obama. Also good, but not as funny.

McCain's Free Ride (in the MSM) on Rod Parsley

John McCain has still not had to deal with his Rod Parsley problem. One reason he's been able to avoid controversy about his campaign connection to a megachurch pastor who has called for the eradication of the "false religion" of Islam is that major media outlets have not covered this story.

Media Matters, a liberal news-watching outfit, reports that a March 25 search of the Nexis database shows that

The New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, The Washington Post, NBC, ABC, and The Wall Street Journal have not reported on Parsley or noted his comments in the context of McCain's campaign. A March 17 USA Today article reported only that Parsley was "accused of urging war on Muslims."

MM adds, "The media have devoted extensive coverage to Obama's supporters, but have failed to report the controversial comments of supporters of McCain." And McCain's campaign press office refuses to take my calls regarding Parsley. On this matter, the Not-So-Straight Talk Express has so far gotten a free ride.

HRC Says Wright Would Not Be Her Pastor; So Who Would Be?

In Pennsylvania Tuesday, Hillary Clinton spent the day personally fanning the flames of the Obama-Wright fire. "He would not have been my pastor," Clinton said. "You don't choose your family, but you choose what church you want to attend."

That's a fair point, but the the logical follow-up is, who would Hillary have chosen as her pastor? Kathryn Joyce and Jeff Sharlet delved into that question in our September/October 2007 issue:

When Clinton first came to Washington in 1993, one of her first steps was to join a Bible study group. For the next eight years, she regularly met with a Christian "cell" whose members included Susan Baker, wife of Bush consigliere James Baker; Joanne Kemp, wife of conservative icon Jack Kemp; Eileen Bakke, wife of Dennis Bakke, a leader in the anti-union Christian management movement; and Grace Nelson, the wife of Senator Bill Nelson, a conservative Florida Democrat.

Clinton's prayer group was part of the Fellowship (or "the Family"), a network of sex-segregated cells of political, business, and military leaders dedicated to "spiritual war" on behalf of Christ, many of them recruited at the Fellowship's only public event, the annual National Prayer Breakfast. (Aside from the breakfast, the group has "made a fetish of being invisible," former Republican Senator William Armstrong has said.) The Fellowship believes that the elite win power by the will of God, who uses them for his purposes. Its mission is to help the powerful understand their role in God's plan. ...

That's how it works: The Fellowship isn't out to turn liberals into conservatives; rather, it convinces politicians they can transcend left and right with an ecumenical faith that rises above politics. Only the faith is always evangelical, and the politics always move rightward.

Read the rest here.

—Justin Elliott

Astroturf Axelrod?

You've probably never heard of ASK Public Strategies. It is the highly secretive, private sector-focused twin to David Alexrod's political consulting firm AKP&D Message & Media. Axelrod, of course, is Barack Obama's chief strategist. Through ASK, Axelrod "discreetly plots strategy and advertising campaigns for corporate clients to tilt public opinion their way," according to a new BusinessWeek investigation.

Lots of political consultants do private sector work. Hillary Clinton's top strategist, Mark Penn, is worldwide CEO of a massive PR firm called Burson-Marsteller which is infamous for working with nasty corporate clients (Blackwater, for example) and for pioneering the use of "pseudo-grassroots front groups, known as "astroturfing," according to a 2007 Nation article.

Looks like astroturfing is Axelrod's stock-in-trade, too. According to BusinessWeek, here's a description of the work his company has done for electrical company ComEd:

The Chicago-based utility says ASK has been an adviser since at least 2002. ASK's workload picked up in 2005, as the Exelon subsidiary was nearing the end of a 10-year rate freeze and preparing to ask state regulators for higher electricity prices. Based on ASK's advice, ComEd formed Consumers Organized for Reliable Electricity (CORE) to win support.

One TV commercial, penned by ASK, warned of a ComEd bankruptcy and blackouts without a rate hike: "A few years ago, California politicians seized control of electric rates. They held rates down, but the true cost of energy kept rising. Soon the electric company went bust; the lights went out. Consumers had to pay for the mess. Now, some people in Illinois are playing the same game." CORE, which describes itself on its Web site as "a coalition of individuals, businesses and organizations," was identified as the ad's sponsor. After a complaint was filed with state regulators, ComEd acknowledged that it had bankrolled the entire $15 million effort.

And does all this touch Obama? It does. According to the article, "Illinois employees of the utility and its parent, Exelon, have contributed $181,711 to Obama's presidential bid—more than workers at any other company in the state."

Wall Street Welfare

George W. Bush is not exactly known for his magnanimity—think SCHIP. For American homeowners, especially those facing foreclosure, his aversion to government assistance programs must be particularly vexing. Last year, Bush declared that government should not "bail out... those who made the reckless decision to buy a home they knew they could never afford." Recently, he has decided that his modest tax rebates for families and businesses are adequate help for squeezed homeowners, and he opposes legislation in Congress that would provide more support.

But despite the rhetoric, there is still one place Bush and his Fed chair are willing to socialize—Wall Street, where investment bank Bear Stearns was bailed out last week. On Monday, the terms of the Fed's deal with JP Morgan to purchase Bear Stearns assets were readjusted—the Fed is now coughing up only $29 rather than $30 billion—but the American taxpayer still gets a raw deal.

Robert Reich, former Secretary of Labor and a professor at the University of California at Berkeley, argues in his online journal that as taxpayers we should be getting more out of this deal. Nobody, says Reich, knows the actual value of Bear's assets (the $2 to $10/share price jump is evidence of the guesswork):

"It still may be a good deal for old JP, because the worst that can happen is JP loses $1 billion. If losses turn out to be more than $1 billion, the Fed—that is, you and I and every other American taxpayer—will make it up to JP... We're bearing the big downside losses if everything goes to hell and Bear's assets are worth less than zilch. But we don't get any of the upside gain if any of the bets pay off. That's what I call a lousy deal.... We as taxpayers are chumps if we bear all the downside losses but get none of the upside gains."

Today the Senate began to show signs of concern over the deal as well. However, even if we were to get a better deal, in the bigger picture, there's a real chance that the bailout won't work at all, that our constricting economy and falling housing prices may actually present a larger problem than the Fed, and our maxed-out consumers, can handle. Reich estimates that investment banks here and abroad are still sitting on several hundred billion dollars of bad debt that will eventually have to surface, meaning more bank failures. Guessing that the Fed won't be able to ward off all of the ill effects, Reich poses a larger question:

"The next question is how to cushion the blow for middle and lower-income people who might lose their homes or their jobs, cars, medical insurance, and large chunks of their pensions. This may require federally-subsidized insurance—mortgage insurance so homeowners can meet payments, along with expanded unemployment insurance, health insurance, maybe even pension insurance."

That may be a solution, but given his track record, Bush isn't likely to sign on anytime soon. In the meantime, perhaps we, or our regulators, should be focusing on feelings of entitlement in Wall Street boardrooms, the land o' plenty.

—Jesse Finfrock

John McCain Plagiarizes Himself

McCain's major speech on housing was panned, so he's trying again today on foreign policy. If you want, you can read the whole thing here.

But in the meantime, check this out. Here's an excerpt from McCain's speech in Los Angeles today.

"The lives of a nation's finest patriots are sacrificed. Innocent people suffer and die. Commerce is disrupted; economies are damaged; strategic interests shielded by years of patient statecraft are endangered as the exigencies of war and diplomacy conflict.... However heady the appeal of a call to arms, however just the cause, we should still shed a tear for all that is lost when war claims its wages from us."

And now check out a paragraph from a 2001 editorial McCain wrote for the Wall Street Journal:

"The lives of a nation's finest patriots are sacrificed. Innocent people suffer and die. Commerce is disrupted, economies are damaged. Strategic interests shielded by years of patient statecraft are endangered as the exigencies of war and diplomacy conflict. However heady the appeal of a call to arms, however just the cause, we should still shed a tear for all that will be lost when war claims its wages from us."

That's exactly the same. I appreciate McCain's sobriety about war, but it's time to get a new speech writer. And it probably isn't good to send such a strong suggestion that McCain's thinking hasn't changed in seven years.

Clinton: Sleeping with the Enemy To Mess Up Obama's Bed?

The Clinton campaign keeps insisting that Hillary Clinton is the victim of a sleazy Obama campaign--though it engages in nasty tactics to denigrate Barack Obama. The Clintonites, it now seems, will even make common cause with the rightwing Hilary-haters to do so.

As Marc Ambinder reports, the Clinton campaign has distributed an American Spectator article that claims that retired General Merrill McPeak, an Obama foreign policy adviser, is an anti-Semite and a drunk. An anti-Semite? Supposedly because he has noted that the Israel lobby in America influences Mideast policy and because he advocates Israel withdrawing to its pre-1967 borders. Of course, that definition of anti-Semitism is absurd. But for the Clinton campaign to turn to the American Spectator, a rightwing publication that led the Clinton witch-hunts of the 1990s (and which published stories by David Brock and others regarding Bill Clinton's personal life), shows a certain desperation--or a damn-history opportunism. The article argues that Obama is bad for the Jews. The Clintonites are disseminating it. That would be ugly enough. The source renders the episode damn ugly.

Meanwhile, Clinton herself cozied up to the Richard Mellon Scaife--the man who funded the "vast rightwing conspiracy" (which included the American Spectator) that tried to destroy the Clintons in the 1990s--in order to take a swipe at Obama. On Tuesday, Clinton met with editors and reporters of the archly conservative Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, which Scaife owns. At that session, she did what she could to keep the Jeremiah Wright controversy alive by saying, "He would not have been my pastor. You don't choose your family, but you choose what church you want to attend." In attendance was Scaife. ("Hell has officially frozen over," rightwing journalist Byron York commented.) So has Clinton no shame? No pride? Or merely a sharp sense of political calculation? Did she ponder the irony of using Scaife's platform (in the key state of Pennsylvania) to discredit a fellow Democrat?

All's fair in love, war, and hotly contested primaries? Maybe. But that doesn't make it right. Clinton might be willing to put aside her grudge against the American Spectator and Scaife because doing so helps her politically. But in the 1990s this band of Clinton-haters were out to ruin not merely her and her hubby but the entire progressive agenda. (They always believed the Clintons to be far more left than Bill and Hillary actually were.) But now, for Hillary Clinton, they're good enough to use against Obama.

On Monday, during a conference call with reporters, Phil Singer, a senior Clinton aide, expressed tremendous outrage that a Clinton supporter in Iowa had blogged that a Bill Clinton remark (which may have been a poke at Obama's patriotism) was "a stain on [Bill Clinton's] legacy much worse, much deeper, than the one on Monica's blue dress." Singer went on about how this was proof the Obama camp was running a tawdry campaign reviving the rightwing Clinton hatred of the past. That was hyperbole, of course. But it was hypocritical hyperbole. If Clintonites can use an over-the-top American Spectator article to try to whip up trouble between Obama and Jewish voters and if she can sit politely next to Scaife because doing so affords her a good media opportunity for slamming Obama, her campaign has no basis for comparing criticism from the Obama camp to the misdeeds of Kenneth Starr and the Clinton pursuers of the 1990s. By legitimizing the "vast rightwing conspiracy" so she can put down Obama, Hillary Clinton may be confirming one of the Klinton Krazies perennial talking points about her and her husband: they will do anyting--anything!--to win.

Stuff Some Money In Your Mattress, Just In Case

More troubling news for the economy: The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation is staffing up in preparation for a rash of projected bank failures:

Gerard Cassidy, managing director of bank equity research at RBC Capital Markets, projects 150 bank failures over the next three years, with the highest concentration coming from states such as California and Florida where an overheated real estate market is in a fast freeze.

According to the AP, that's a whole lot more than the usual six banks that go belly up in a good year, but perhaps not very surprising given how few Americans these days actually have any savings in their passbook accounts. Federal deposit insurance will hopefully prevent panicked depositors from making a run on the banks, but the image of banks closing up shop doesn't inspire a whole lot of confidence in the future of the economy, regardless of how optimistic the president is about it.

Photo by Flickr user teseap used under a Creative Commons license.

One Superdelegate Who Gets It

Washington Senator Maria Cantwell, a Clinton supporter, has announced that she will cast her superdelegate vote for whichever candidate wins the pledged delegate count. From The Columbian, via The Stranger:

U.S. Sen. Maria Cantwell, one of Washington’s 17 Democratic superdelegates, isn't ready to shift her allegiance from Sen. Hillary Clinton to Sen. Barack Obama — yet.

But in an interview with The Columbian’s editorial board Monday, she said the candidate with the most pledged delegates at the end of the primary season in late June will have the strongest claim to the party’s presidential nomination.

"I definitely don't want the superdelegates to be the deciding factor," she said.

"If we have a candidate who has the most delegates and the most states," the Democratic party should come together around that candidate, Cantwell said. The pledged delegate count will be the most important factor, she said, because that is the basis of the nominating process....

Cantwell said she wouldn’t object to a primary contest that went into the summer if it focused on the issues facing the nation, but added, "We wouldn’t want to tear apart the party."

"I think it’s important that we let it play out in June," she said. At that point, she said, "I'd be urging my party to make a decision."

There may be some around here who disagree with me, and if so I welcome them to make their case, but I think this is how superdelegates ought to act. (Of course, the fact that Obama won Cantwell's state by 27 points probably has something to do with her decision...)

March 25, 2008

McCain Has No Money; Obama Has No Debt: Weighing the Candidates' Campaign Coffers

Last Thursday was the deadline for the presidential candidates to file their latest fundraising numbers with the FEC. As we await the updates, it's worth taking a look at their most current numbers, and what they may portend for the general election.

With the media focused exclusively on the battle between Clinton and Obama, Republican nominee John McCain has been spending his time shoring up support for his candidacy—and, presumably, fundraising. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, he really, really needs to: In the month of February, he raised just under $11 million, compared to $34 million for Clinton and $55 million for Obama.The numbers get worse when you look at the whole election cycle: in total, McCain has raised just $64 million, less than half of Clinton's $170 million, and a third of Obama's $193 million.

But what's most striking is the debt. The Clinton campaign has amassed a staggering $8.7 million worth, double McCain's $4.3 million. Obama, on the other hand, owes only $625,000. By campaign standards, he's debt free.

What to make of this? If it were only about cash on hand, either Clinton or Obama could trounce McCain in the general election. But Clinton's campaign spent nearly as much as it raised in February, while Obama's used only about 80%. The combination of more funds to use and less debt to pay down would give Obama an unquestionable advantage in the general election. On the flip side, however, McCain's getting a free ride right now. As long as the Democratic infighting continues, he may not need that much money to make his case. But once the general really gets underway, he'll need to compete with an already-daunting cash lead and a horde of enthusiastic donors. If dollars are what count, McCain loses.

—Casey Miner