Category Archives: The Nation

Media stats

About once a week I get these releases from an organization called "Project for Excellence in Journalism" that does statistical analysis of political coverage in national media over the preceding week. Generally, it’s a matter of "Hillary Clinton dominated coverage with X percent of headlines" or something like that.

The point, I suppose, is to quantify something that every consumer of news thinks he knows without counting.

Anyway, I pass this week’s release on to y’all, and if you show any interest, I’ll try to pass them on more often.

And yeah, this is a dull week in presidential politics — the most telling stat is that media interest in the campaign was only half as much as the week before — but that’s also why I had time to look at it; it’s a slower week here in S.C. as well. Maybe you would be more interested in browsing through past reports. Anyway, here’s the release:

The media marked the kickoff of the general election with a focus on how Barack Obama and John McCain differ on major issues such as the economy and the war in Iraq, according to a Project for Excellence in Journalism study of election coverage.
A variety of issues led the media narrative last week. Attention to the candidates’ positions on the economy (18% of the total newshole for campaign stories), gas prices (6%), the Iraq war (5%), health care and immigration (both less than 1%) accounted for nearly one-third of the campaign coverage newshole as measured by PEJ’s Campaign Coverage Index for June 9-15.
   Obama generated the most candidate coverage last week, appearing as a significant or dominant factor in 77% of campaign stories. McCain trailed at 55%, but jumped 34 points, up from 21% the previous week. In the first week after officially suspending her campaign, Hillary Clinton was a leading newsmaker in 10% of election stories—a 50-point drop from the week before.
   Aside from coverage of the policy arguments, the press last week devoted a good chunk of the campaign narrative (18% of the newshole) to controversies, particularly the resignation of Obama’s vice-presidential search-team leader James Johnson. The Johnson flap alone accounted for 11% of last week’s campaign coverage. In addition, the theme of the two candidates trying to unify their parties accounted for 13% of the coverage—with most of that devoted to the fallout from the bruising Democratic nomination battle.
   The findings in PEJ’s Campaign Coverage Index—which will appear weekly during the campaign season—include:

Michelle Obama appeared as a significant or leading newsmaker in 6% of election stories the week of June 9-15—a major increase from the week before when she registered in only 1%.

The controversial pastors just don’t seem to go away. Together, coverage of Obama’s relationship with Rev. Jeremiah Wright and McCain’s relationship with Rev. John Hagee accounted for 3% of the week’s campaign coverage.

The campaign, which filled 24% of the overall newshole, registered its second lowest level of coverage in 2008 during the week of June 9-15, a significant plunge from the previous week’s 50% mark.

Click here for a direct link to a PDF of the report. The study is for immediate release at our website, www.journalism.org.

Tom Rosenstiel
Director
Project for Excellence in Journalism

Desirée Jaimovich, Argentine journalist

9 Replies

Remember a few months back, when I was visited by Zoe Rachel Usherwood, Foreign Affairs Producer for Sky News in the U.K.? Well, whether you remember or not, it was right after the primaries, when there had been a lot of international attention focused on South Carolina. Well, today the same international program brought Desirée Jaimovich by the office.

Desirée is a writer and editor for the Buenos Aires Herald, an English-language publication. Argentina is, as you probably know, one of the more cosmopolitan of South American countries, a lot of people having ethnic roots from across Europe.

We talked about a number of things. She asked in particular about a recent story that recently led our front page, "S.C. first in on-job deaths of Hispanics." I told her that illegal immigration was an extremely hot issue in this country, but that unfortunately, while our lawmakers will demagogue no end about illegality, there is little talk among our politicians about the dangerous conditions that illegals often work in — and there should be.

She of course asked WHY illegal immigration was such a hot issue, and I somewhat glibly told her that it was a matter of xenophobia. A little later, though, I told her not to go by me, that I don’t understand and never have understood the roots of passion over illegal immigration. (And don’t explain to me for the millionth time that it’s because it’s illegal; as I indicated back here, maybe I’ll believe that’s core of it when folks get as stirred up about speeding on the highway.)

Anyway, we had a nice visit. I never did practice my Spanish on her though, because it embarrasses me. When I was a kid living in Ecuador, I was more or less as fluent in Spanish as English. But I’ve been back in this country since 1965, which is a long time. Whenever I try to speak it now, it’s such a struggle that I find it distressing.

Excerpt from Hollings’ book

4 Replies

Andy Brack, former aide to Sen. Fritz Hollings, offers a link to an excerpt from the senator’s new book, Making Government Work.

From what I gather, it’s sort of a history of what once was, not science fiction. Just thought I’d head you wiseacres off on that one.

Here’s the link.

Hey, Lindsey, if you thought THAT guy was a nativist, wait until the fall

35 Replies

We knew Buddy Witherspoon had his problems with people who are different coming into the country. Yeah, yeah, he said the usual stuff latter-day nativists say, about how it’s just because they broke the law, but he was pretty frank that he was worried these folks would "weaken our common culture and national identity." And we know about his past associations.

But hey, at least ol’ Buddy did limit himself to the illegals. Here’s what Bob Conley, whose thin vote margin over Michael Cone for the Democratic nomination to this very same Senate seat will likely trigger a recount, has to say on his Web site:

The legal
importation of foreign workers is also driving down wages, and placing
Americans in unemployment lines. This is wrong, and must end.

He elaborated on this in our interview. He complained in particular about foreign engineers coming into the country, making it hard for American engineers to get jobs. Mr. Conley describes himself as "a Commercial Pilot and a Flight Instructor as well as a licensed Professional Engineer," so apparently he knows about these things.

Rob Miller’s victory speech

21 Replies

Sorry I haven’t had time to blog today, folks. Not much to say — or at least, nothing that needs to be said immediately — about the primary results. The overwhelming majority of our endorsees did well, I see. More about that later.

Right now, I’m playing hooky from a meeting (Bob Coble and Charles Austin are talking about Columbia city budget matters with Warren Bolton in our board room) to try to catch up on all sorts of neglected work, such as reading the live page proofs that I have to have to Mike in 18 minutes.

This is e-mail I got last night, and am just now seeing. I can’t stop to read it, but I’m sure it will be of interest:

June 10, 2008
News Release – For Immediate Release

Rob Miller‘s Victory Speech

Victory Speech:
First, let me thank everyone who helped us win our first battle for change tonight, especially my wife Shane and my son Robert.
Blaine Lotz called me a few minutes ago. Blain is a good man, and he ran a good campaign.
Three-and-a-half months ago, I was a Captain in the US Marine Corps. On February 16, we began our campaign for change.
Tonight we celebrate this win, but tomorrow the real battle to change Washington begins.
The incumbent is a proud card-carrying member of the status quo. He’s been in Washington for years voting for ballooning deficits and out-of-control spending. He took money from and had fundraisers with corrupt and dishonest politicians like Tom DeLay, who he still says is a man of integrity. Joe Wilson has been in Washington too long. He doesn’t believe in change and is out of touch with the people he is supposed to represent.
This campaign, our campaign, is all about change. Unlike the incumbent, we understand that times are tough.
We’ll work for change by developing a sensible exit strategy for Iraq and reinvest those resources here at home to rebuild our infrastructure because we need good jobs, we need safer neighborhoods, and we need more affordable health care here in South Carolina.
We’ll work for change by pushing Congress to do more to develop alternative forms of energy so we can say goodbye forever gas that’s to $4.00 a gallon.
We’ll work for change by making the politicians in Washington balance the budget. Families all over South Carolina live within their means and it’s time for Congress to do the same.
The forces of the Status quo will not stand down without a fight. But, after serving 13 years in the Marine Corps, to include twice in Iraq, I’ve never been afraid of a good fight.
I understand I can’t win this by myself; I need all of you fighting with me.
Go to my web site at RobMillerForCongress.com and join our battle for change.
The battle for change begins tomorrow.
Thank you.

Noticing the last line, I should point out: "Tomorrow" would be "today" now, since this was sent last night.

Does the New England Journal of Medicine know about this breakthrough?

27 Replies

All of y’all who get worked up about having Spanish-speakers around will love this letter on today’s page:

I am sick and tired of the wailing and gnashing of teeth by some business owners and Chambers of Commerce over the new immigration law.
I don’t normally put much faith in our legislators, but they hit a home run for a change. I only wish the law had been implemented earlier.
My company hired a Hispanic three years ago who used falsified documents. He worked two weeks, suffered an aneurysm and our Workers’ Compensation Commission, in its infinite wisdom, ruled it was job-related and awarded him $175,000. As a result, my workers’ compensation insurance increased dramatically.
If this law had been in effect three years ago, it would have saved me a lot of money and much grief. As a result of this incident, we now use the federal electronic database and verify every new hire.
My advice to all the malcontents: Make sure your employees are in this country legally or hire U.S. citizens.

So it turns out that illegal immigration causes aneurysms! Who knew?

Isn’t that just like those Hispanics? They come up here and take jobs just knowing they’re going to have an aneurysm, no doubt as a result of the very act of wading across the Rio … The nerve of these people.

Remember, hire U.S. citizens (or, if you must, legal aliens), because they don’t have aneurysms.

McCain-Obama: America at its best

42 Replies

Now is a time to savor the way the nominating process has come out. Before the usual polarizing interests do their worst to try to make you HATE THE OTHER GUY, it’s time to reflect upon the fact that the best candidate won each of the major parties’ nominations. And that has not happened in a lifetime.

You’ll recall, from what I have written and from this hastily produced video I did on the day we endorsed Barack Obama (10 days after endorsing John McCain) in the S.C. primaries, that this is the outcome I had hoped for, the win-win for our nation.

If you — and unfortunately, I’ve noticed that some of my readers have already toed their respective party lines and starting spewing venom toward the other side’s candidate, like so obedient little soldiers in what they imagine to be a war — can’t see how blessed we are this year (as opposed to the lousy choice we had, say, four years ago), maybe you need to step back for a moment. If you step back, say, as far as London, maybe you can see what The Economist sees.

That British publication’s cover this week celebrates both John McCain and Barack Obama, with the headline, "America at its best." Indeed. An excerpt from the main leader (that’s Brit jargon for "editorial"):

… In John McCain, the Republicans chose a man whose political courage has led him constantly to attempt to forge bipartisan deals and to speak out against the Bush administration when it went wrong. Conservatives may hate him, but even they can see that he offers the party its only realistic hope in November.
Mr Obama has demonstrated charisma, coolness under fire and an impressive understanding of the transforming power of technology in modern politics. Beating the mighty Clinton machine is an astonishing achievement. Even greater though, is his achievement in becoming the first black presidential nominee of either political party. For a country whose past is disfigured by slavery, segregation and unequal voting rights, this is a moment to celebrate. America’s history of reinventing and perfecting itself has acquired another page.

Note that The Economist can see that these are mortal men, and each has his weaknesses. But in the end, these choices are good news for America, and about America:

Both candidates have their flaws and their admirable points; the doughty but sometimes cranky old warrior makes a fine contrast with the inspirational but sometimes vaporous young visionary. Voters now have those five months to study them before making up their minds (and The Economist will be doing the same). But, on the face of it, this is the most impressive choice America has had for a very long time.

Our last interview: Phil Black, who’s challenging Joe Wilson

9 Replies

OK, technically this wasn’t our last interview, but it is that last one from which I have video. As we neared the end (I lost count somewhere around 45 interviews, but there weren’t more than a handful after that), we had to do some of them (Buddy Witherspoon, Joe Wilson and Bob Conley) by phone.

You may not have heard much about Phil Black, who’s running against Joe Wilson in the 2nd congressional district. He’s not one of your big-budget candidates, and by his own account he’s pretty much been treated like "a red-headed stepchild" at party functions.

But I think you’ll like him. I did, when I met him Tuesday. I particularly liked his willingness to think outside his party’s box. He’s a single-payer health care guy, like me, and he actually has an intriguingly creative idea on how to deal with illegal immigration.

So, Doug Ross will say, why didn’t you endorse him? Why did you go with the incumbent, yet again? Doug won’t like my answer, which is this: Yep, I really liked Mr. Black. But I’ve never seen him hold public office (he’s serve on two school boards, but I wasn’t aware of it at the time), so I’ve had no opportunity to observe from experience whether he would really be the smart, down-to-earth regular guy he seems to be, or whether he just makes a good first impression.

With Joe Wilson, you know what you’re going to get. And there’s great truth in what Mr. Black says about him: "Joe Wilson is a fine individual, (but) Joe Wilson is a career politician."

But I’m just not prepared to send a guy as far away as Washington when I’ve never had a chance to observe him on the job.

See, Doug? I told you you wouldn’t like it. Anyway, watch the video. Get to know Phil. Joe you know already. Make up your own mind.

History to be made tonight

39 Replies

Leave it to Samuel T., who gets really pumped about politics (and life in general), to put things in perspective, just when we’re on the brink of getting jaded:

Tonight the western world , the white world is nominating an African-American for President of the United States of America !!!!!!!!!!!. Remember 1964 and how far have we come and how far we have to go ! Look how far Senator Obama had to go to get here from 5 months ago in Iowa. He was behind by 20 plus points ! Senator Obama’s victory tonight is a huge victory for all those who made the ultimate sacrifice for America to get here !
Mazel Tov America! Samuel

That was a broadcast e-mail that Mr. Tenenbaum sent out to his list at 5:13 p.m. Seven minutes later, Luther Battiste III responded thusly:

Well said. Using a NBA analogy, we have qualified for the finals. Now we have to win the ring. Yes, we can. Luther Battiste

More of what I’ve really been doing

3 Replies

Just so you know that I’ve been doing some actual work on these days that I’ve been tossing out pretty lightweight posts in a desperate effort to keep y’all interested, I’ll point first to our endorsements page, and then give you another quick gallery of pictures from the endless interview…

The pictures that follow are, respectively:

Rob Miller, Democrat, candidate for the 2nd Congressional District (Tuesday, May 27, 1 p.m.)
Blaine Lotz, also a Democrat, also a candidate for the 2nd Congressional District (Wednesday, May 28, 11 a.m.)
Jeanette McBride, candidate for Richland County clerk of court (Wednesday, May 28, 1 p.m.)
Lexington County Sheriff James Metts (Friday, May 30, 10:30 a.m.)
Phil Black, Republican candidate for the 2nd Congressional District (Tuesday, June 3, 3:30 p.m.)

And we have a couple or three or four more coming…

Here are the pics…

Millerrob_009

Lotzblaine_019

Mcbridejeannette_027

Mettsjames_029

Blackphil_003

Another Southern take on Warner-Lieberman

33 Replies

Mere moments before the DeMint release came in, I received another release from the Southern Environmental Law Center with a different take on Warner-Lieberman, also from a Southern perspective.

Since I’ve got a lot of other stuff to do, I’m leaving this for y’all to sort out:

South has much at stake as U.S. Senate begins historic debate on climate change legislation

June 2, 2008
Nat Mund, Director, SELC Legislative Director (703) 851-8249
Trip Pollard, Director, SELC’s Land & Community Program (931) 598-0808

The U.S. Senate today began much-anticipated debate on the Climate Change Security Act of 2008, also known as the Warner-Lieberman bill. The U.S. has lagged well behind other industrial nations in addressing the threat of global warming.

While the nation and the world will benefit from passage of legislation to control carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, the South in particular has much at stake – and much to contribute toward curbing carbon emissions. Each of the six states in SELC’s region (AL, GA, NC, SC, TN, VA) rank among the top 15 highest sources of carbon pollution in the U.S. If the six states were a nation, we’d rank 7th in the world in total carbon emissions.

Nat Mund: “The South’s sprawling development patterns and reliance on coal for electricity mean a huge carbon footprint. And we have a lot at stake – miles of fragile coastline and some of the most biologically diverse spots on the planet. Senators Warner, Lieberman and Boxer deserve tremendous credit for shepherding legislation to this point.”

Trip Pollard: “Transportation generates one-third of carbon dioxide emissions in the U.S., and is the fastest growing source of greenhouse gas emissions in many states in the South. Federal climate legislation must include significant funding for states and localities to implement smart growth and alternative transportation measures that can cut emissions – and help people save money – by reducing driving.”

Background:
Power plants The South is heavily reliant on coal for its electricity. The region is home to the nation’s three dirtiest coal-fired power plants in carbon emissions – Scherer (GA), Miller (AL), and Bowen (GA). The Cumberland plant in Tennessee ranks #8. Today there are proposals pending for four more conventional-style coal-fired power plants that would add at least 22.6 million tons of carbon to the atmosphere every year (see chart below).

Transportation The South is the fastest sprawling region in the U.S., and transportation programs in the region have focused on road-building. This translates into rising carbon emissions from the ever-increasing number of miles we are driving. From 1990-2005, vehicle miles traveled (VMT) in SELC’s region increased 48.9%, outpacing the national increase of 39.2%. Between 1982 and 1997, SELC’s six-state region developed more land by far than any other region; 6,064,500 acres compared to the next highest, the eastern Midwest at 3,777,200 acres. Last week, a report by the Brookings Institution found that many southern metro areas had a higher than average carbon footprint per capita.

At risk If global warming is unchecked, miles of shoreline in Virginia, North and South Carolina and Georgia – and the people who live there – will be more at risk from rising sea levels and more frequent and powerful hurricanes. By the same token, the likelihood of more intense drought will dry up drinking water supplies along the coast, in the Piedmont and in the mountains of the fast growing region. Ecologically, some of the most biologically diverse habitats in the world – including the Southern Appalachian highlands and longleaf forests along the coast – could suffer dire consequences.

      Company Megawatts    CO2 emissions tons/year Cost estimates as of 5/08
Pee Dee, SC    Santee Cooper 1320 11 million    $1.35 billion
Cliffside, NC Duke Energy    800    6.25 million $1.8 – 2.4 billion
Washington County, GA Electric cooperatives 850    unknown at this time $2 billion
Wise Co, VA    Dominion Power 585    5.4 million    $1.8 billion
TOTAL          3,555 at least 22.65 million at least $6.95 billion

Sorry about that chart; it didn’t transfer all that well. I’d give you a direct link to the release, but it’s not up on the site yet.

Lieberman-Warner can’t possibly be as good as DeMint makes it sound

5 Replies

Just got a release from Jim DeMint about the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act. Now I’ve gotta tell ya that what with the last week of the legislative session and the last week before the state primaries and other stuff, I haven’t sat down and studied said legislation. If I were going to editorialize about it, I suppose I would, but who’s got time for that?

This leaves me with sort of a vague sense that it must be a pretty good thing, since Joe says it "would substantially cut US greenhouse-gas emissions" and other good stuff, and Joe’s never lied to me as far as I know.

But now Jim DeMint is trying to double my knowledge of this bill with HIS release, and I don’t have time to read to the end of that, either, but I did read the headline, which says "Lieberman-Warner Will Cost SC Jobs, Could Double Gas Prices."

OK, "cost SC jobs" sounds pretty bad, but then he says it "could double gas prices," which sounds like a move in the right direction, in Energy Party terms, and that’s amazing in itself, seeing as how everybody else in Washington seems to be all about encouraging increased consumption with gas tax holidays and tapping the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and other demagogic doo-dads.

But surely he’s exaggerating with the "double" bit. Now mind you, if we had doubled the price a couple of years ago with a stiff federal tax — jacking it from $2 to $4 a gallon — we’d be paying the same price we are now, have chilled consumption, encouraged conservation, dealt a likely death blow to some of the worst regimes in the world by dropping the floor out from demand, and the extra money would be OURS, in our federal coffers, rather than in the hands of the sheiks and the thugs abroad.

But we didn’t. And I sincerely doubt we’re going to do so now, no matter how brave Mr. DeMint thinks Joe is…

Joel pauses between cocktails to say hey

17 Replies

Last night, while my wife was monopolizing the TV watching "So You Think You Can Dance" (that’s OK; I can watch that "Sopranos" DVD tonight), I sent a heads-up to my former pupil who has since gone over to the Dark Side, Joel Wood. Basically, as I told him, I didn’t want to be talking about him behind his back:

Hey, Joel, how are you?

I thought I’d better tell you, as an old friend, that I mentioned you on my blog, in the context of sort kinda disagreeing with your perspective on things:
http://blogs.thestate.com/bradwarthensblog/2008/05/hey-wait-a-minu.html

You see, I’ve become one of those single-payer radicals. It’s funny because I’m not radical about anything else. This is the one thing I agree with Dennis Kucinich about; I promise. Here are a couple of columns in which I set out my thoughts on the issue several months ago:
http://blogs.thestate.com/bradwarthensblog/2007/11/health-care-ref.html
http://blogs.thestate.com/bradwarthensblog/2007/12/can-anyone-any.html

Anyway, I thought I should give you the chance to demolish my arguments, which you probably can do, on account of being a professional in this particular policy area and all…

I didn’t want to be talking about you and your industry behind your back.

And besides, I wanted an excuse to say "Hey."

So, hey.

— Brad

About an hour later, Joel wrote back, which was nice, because it was good to hear from him. But that’s not the good part; that’s not the schlag, the whipped cream atop the dessert — the lagniappe, if you will (as Johnny Malone used to say — you remember, Joel). The good part is that this now-senior lobbyist for the insurance industry wrote back, at 10:45 p.m. on a Thursday night, on his Blackberry from a cocktail party. If you put this stuff in a movie, they wouldn’t believe it.

Anyway, he promises to send a more substantial rebuttal to my ramblings later. In the meantime, this is all he said:

Total kick, and a delight.

But as I’m still in cocktails at a soiree with my benefits guys at the Homestead (every horrible image you imagine!), I can only glean so much from my peckings on the BlackBerry. First blush is that you have some insightful readers who make my case. But certainly when I get back to town, or to a regular computer screen, I shall respond as a good Republican insurance lobbyist should, probably with some invective about Michael Moore and commie journalists getting their due through diminished circulation. But, in the meantime, I am stupified that this stuff gets read by people I care about, and thoroughly thrilled that you would give it the time of day. And very happy to hear from you …. You would be proud to know my editors and colleagues, to whom I forward this, are no less redistributionist than you. …. Miss you!

Thanks Brad.
j

Consider that a preview.

Of COURSE ‘Sex and the City’ is trashy; isn’t that the point?

44 Replies

Just for a moment, I stopped to glance over this piece in the WSJ today, headlined "The ‘Sex’ Effect: Empowering To Some, Trashy to Others."

I guess you’d have to put me in the "others" category. What I have to wonder about is how any rational adult with the slightest trace of maturity or propriety — or, to put it another way, anyone who has daughters — could see that program (now, I’m told, also a major motion picture) as anything but trashy. (Of course, I have trouble following the reasoning behind a lot of elements of feminism, and "Do-Me Feminism" makes the least sense of all.)

It’s hardly alone. On the rare occasions that I stumble across prime-time broadcast fare in recent years, I’ve run across programs — from "Friends" to the one with the two gay guys and the woman, the name of which escapes me at the moment — that seem to be largely devoted to sniggering about sex. (I once heard someone assert that Jennifer Aniston’s character, supposedly a girl-next-door sort, had 37 sexual partners during the course of the show. I took the speaker’s word for it, although perhaps he was wrong.)

But "Sex and the City" put the point right in the title. And nothing I have ever heard about the show has seemed to contradict the impression the title intentionally gives.

Mind you the point of the article that started me on this reflection was fashion, so it quickly lost me. But I got the gist — it was about whether or not trashy fashion was a good thing.

We live in a trash culture. We have for a long time. We live in a culture that fights against parents every moment in the never-ending battle to try to raise children who respect themselves and others.

That’s the way things are, and as near as I can tell, there are no compelling arguments for any alternative way of looking at it.

People don’t usually say this, because they’re afraid of being labeled prudes. To hell with that. The truth is staring us all in the face.

Blasts from past come unexpected in this business

28 Replies

Needless to say, I get a lot of unsolicited, pure junk mail in my line of work. Most of it goes into the round file with hardly a glance. But I guess I was moving slow or even more easily distracted than usual today (and folks, if I weren’t easily distracted, I wouldn’t be doing a blog), but I happened to notice something today that made me say, wait a minute… and actually open one of the pieces of junk.

The junk in question is this slick magazine with a snazzy cover called Edge. or Leader’s Edge (look at the cover and tell me which one it is). It’s a big one, as you can see compared to The Economist above. To the extent that it has registered on my consciousness at all in the past, I’ve just thought it was some generic thing aimed at business execs, a category in which I fit only technically (on account of having the title of V.P.). But today, I noticed there was, shall we say, a theme running through the headlines of the articles teased on the cover:

"Committing Insurance Without a License"
"Employer plans: best cure for ill health insurance market"
"Attacking group benefits — why destroy what works?"

The last one grabbed me, as it seemed to be about health insurance, and seemed to suggest that we Edge_006
currently have a system that works. Those of you who know me know that I strongly disagree.

So I opened the mag, and eventually found the masthead, and sure enough, this is a publication of "The Council of Insurance Agents and Brokers." It’s full of institutional advertising from such luminaries as UnitedHealthcare.

But that’s not the good part, the part that prompted me to write this. The good part is that in the few seconds I spent flipping through this thing, I ran across the name of an old friend, Joel Wood.

I first met Joel when I was a reporter operating out of a bureau in rural West Tennessee back in the 70s. He was a student who wrote for one of the local weeklies. Later, when I was the news editor of The Jackson Sun, he was one of my best reporters. But after the 1982 election, he left the paper to become press secretary to Don Sundquist, who had been elected to Congress over a candidate whose campaign press secretary was another former writer at the paper (whom I later hired back, as it happened). Sundquist later became governor of Tennessee. But before that happened, Joel became a lobbyist for the insurance industry. In one of those startling coincidences that make Washington seem like such a small town, I ran into him years later when I was showing one of my kids around the Capitol.

Anyway, I last ran into Joel three years ago at a Jackson Sun reunion. True to form, he kept doing deals via cell phone while the reunion was going on, as seen in the picture I shot below.

Now that I’ve read his mag, and read in his latest column (the one about destroying "what works," which isn’t on line yet; here’s a previous one) that "I’ve been blessed with terrific health benefits in my 15 years at the council," which he says is a good thing given his lifestyle, which he says consists of "attending political cocktail parties professionally in the selfless service of our member firms," all I can say is…

Joel, it’s not too late. Come home! All is forgiven. And don’t bring the phone this time…
Woodjoel

Are Democrats more sexist? Hillary Clinton seems to think so

26 Replies

Normally, I don’t think very hard about things that make little sense, such as the claim by Hillary Clinton that her flagging political fortunes result from "misogyny." Since such claims are not logical, I don’t bother carrying them to their "logical conclusions."

That’s a mistake on my part, because such an exercise can yield interesting results. Check out this very short op-ed piece in the WSJ this morning, headlined, "Nothing but Misogynists."

It starts out by considering some of her statements along the lines of what I quoted earlier in the week:

"I think that both gender and race have been obviously a part of it because of who we are and every poll I’ve seen show more people would be reluctant to vote for a woman to vote for an African American, which rarely gets reported on either…. But it does seem as though the press at least is not as bothered by the incredible vitriol that has been engendered by comments and reactions of people who are nothing but misogynists."

It then considers that at the same time she’s blaming misogyny for her failures in Democratic contests, she asserts — in practically the same breath — that she’s "the strongest candidate against John McCain."

So the op-ed piece arrives, quite logically, at this conclusion:

This fact (if it be a fact) reveals a hitherto unknown, ugly truth about the Democratic Party. The alleged bastion of modern liberalism, toleration and diversity is full of (to use Mrs. Clinton’s own phrase) "people who are nothing but misogynists." Large numbers of Democratic voters are sexists. Who knew?
But here’s another revelation. If Mrs. Clinton is correct that she is more likely than Barack Obama to defeat John McCain in November, that implies Republicans and independents are less sexist than Democrats.
It must be so. If American voters of all parties are as sexist as the Democrats, Mr. Obama would have a better chance than Mrs. Clinton of defeating Mr. McCain. The same misogyny that thwarted her in the Democratic primaries would thwart her in the general election. Only if registered Republicans and independents are more open-minded than registered Democrats – only if people who lean GOP or who have no party affiliation are more willing than Democrats to overlook a candidate’s sex and vote on the issues – could Mrs. Clinton be a stronger candidate…

Who knew, indeed?

Our Joe cup overfloweth

13 Replies

Y‘all saw where I bragged on Joe for his fine piece in the WSJ the other day. Well, today we have a counterpoint from Joe in that same publication, so our cup overfloweth.

OK, for those of you too lazy to follow links, I’m talking Lieberman and Biden, respectively. Both of them are good guys. We endorsed the first Joe in his presidential bid in 2004, and might well have endorsed the other this time around if he hadn’t dropped out before the S.C. primary (we went with Obama instead, you’ll recall). Both are blessed with essential Joe-ness, as I’ve explained before.

And although these pieces are set against each other, there is much to love in each of them, infused as they are with Joe-ness. In other words, they are written by rational men who are not entirely enslaved by the idiotic partisan extremes of our times. Joe is much more inclined to support his party’s nominee, but that’s because he hasn’t made the radical break that Joe was forced into. But you still don’t find the kind of polarized claptrap that you usually hear from the party faithful on either side.

OK, I’ll start using last names, although it sounds unfriendly…

Here’s one of the best parts of Mr. Biden’s piece. It repeats a point that I’ve praised him for making in the past, which is that President Bush blew a once-in-a-lifetime chance to lead this nation, and the Western alliance, into a far better place than the sad situation that Joe, I mean Tom, Friedman described the other day. Anyway, here’s the Biden excerpt:

Sen. Lieberman is right: 9/11 was a pivotal moment. History will judge Mr. Bush’s reaction less for the mistakes he made than for the opportunities he squandered.
The president had a historic opportunity to unite Americans and the world in common cause. Instead – by exploiting the politics of fear, instigating an optional war in Iraq before finishing a necessary war in Afghanistan, and instituting policies on torture, detainees and domestic surveillance that fly in the face of our values and interests – Mr. Bush divided Americans from each other and from the world.

As with Lieberman, though, there are weak spots. In particular, there’s this contradictory passage:

Terrorism is a means, not an end, and very different groups and countries are using it toward very different goals. Messrs. Bush and McCain lump together, as a single threat, extremist groups and states more at odds with each other than with us: Sunnis and Shiites, Persians and Arabs, Iraq and Iran, al Qaeda and Shiite militias. If they can’t identify the enemy or describe the war we’re fighting, it’s difficult to see how we will win.
The results speak for themselves.
On George Bush’s watch, Iran, not freedom, has been on the march: Iran is much closer to the bomb; its influence in Iraq is expanding; its terrorist proxy Hezbollah is ascendant in Lebanon and that country is on the brink of civil war.

The problem is that on the one hand, he feels constrained (since he’s still in the party) to state the party line that terrorism is a means, not an end, or even a coherent enemy — all of which is true, but his litany of all the different contending actors is belied by the truth he later embraces: That through it all, Iran has been on the march, and gaining against us. That would have been an excellent point to make; it’s just too bad he weakened it by making the situation seem less coherent than it is two paragraphs before (this incoherence of the enemy is essential to the modern Democratic ideology that Lieberman abhors — the refusal to clearly see and clearly state the degree to which we face a coherent, albeit complex, enemy).

I refer to another recent Friedman column, which — thanks to the fact that he isn’t carrying anybody‘s political water — states how all of these superficially disparate issues are connected, to our nation’s great disadvantage (largely due to the Bush failures that Biden refers to):

The next American president will inherit many foreign policy challenges, but surely one of the biggest will be the cold war. Yes, the next president is going to be a cold-war president — but this cold war is with Iran.
That is the real umbrella story in the Middle East today — the struggle for influence across the region, with America and its Sunni Arab allies (and Israel) versus Iran, Syria and their non-state allies, Hamas and Hezbollah. As the May 11 editorial in the Iranian daily Kayhan put it, “In the power struggle in the Middle East, there are only two sides: Iran and the U.S.”

Anyway, if the link works for you, I recommend you read this one as well as the last one. Between the two of them, you’ll see an intelligent way to debate foreign policy, as opposed to the idiocy of left and right, Democrat and Republican.

Joe laments loss of the party of FDR, Truman, JFK

51 Replies

This is why I like Joe Lieberman so much — he’s always writing stuff that sounds like I wrote it myself, always giving me cause to think, Thank God I’m not alone here…

Specifically, he wrote in an op-ed piece in today’s WSJ:

How did the Democratic Party get here? How did the party of Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman and John F. Kennedy drift so far from the foreign policy and national security principles and policies that were at the core of its identity and its purpose?…

This was the Democratic Party that I grew up in – a party that was unhesitatingly and proudly pro-American, a party that was unafraid to make moral judgments about the world beyond our borders. It was a party that understood that either the American people stood united with free nations and freedom fighters against the forces of totalitarianism, or that we would fall divided.

He goes on to lament how this unraveled over Vietnam. He writes wistfully of efforts by such Democrats as himself (remember the Third Way?) to pull the party back from a condition in which it blamed America for all its international troubles, as the party became "prisoner to a foreign policy philosophy that was, in most respects, the antithesis of what Democrats had stood for under Roosevelt, Truman and Kennedy."

There are flaws in the piece, admittedly. He uses the inaccurate common terminology, referring to this trend toward self-loathing isolationism as a move "to the left" — when I would assert that it is the rejection of the kind of idealistic, internationalist liberalism of FDR, JFK and the rest. Isolationism is, if nothing else, a manifestation of conservatism — and not the better sort of conservatism, either.

But set that aside. He ends strongly, with a quote from "a great Democratic secretary of state," Dean Acheson (who, perhaps not coincidentally, was from Connecticut):

(N)o people in history have ever survived, who thought they could protect their freedom by making themselves inoffensive to their enemies.

Paying respects to Kennedy

10 Replies

Going through my e-mail, I was struck by the notes of condolence and respect from our two senators after the awful news that Ted Kennedy received today.

What a shame it is that, what with the partisan craziness of recent years, it takes something like this for a man to be spoken of in human terms by Republicans, to the extent that we’d notice. Mind you, perhaps Sens. DeMint and Graham have said similar things in the past and I missed it. After all, Kennedy has the reputation of being highly respected by his colleagues across the board, whatever may be said about him out by partisans out on the hustings. And Sen. Graham, for instance, has had good things to say about working with Hillary Clinton, while leaving no room for anyone to think he approves of her politics overall.

But still, a good word for Ted Kennedy from a Southern Republican is still a thing worth taking note of.

A year or so ago I wrote a column about how, every once in a while, politicians will break down the usual barriers to treat each other as human beings. It’s something I try to watch for, because I find it so gratifying. It gives me a little hope for our politics, and for the human race. So while these releases are no big deal, and will be dismissed by cynics as wholly inadequate, I take some little comfort from them.

Anyway, here’s the release I got from Jim DeMint:

DeMint Statement on Senator Ted Kennedy
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senator Jim DeMint made the following statement:
“Our thoughts and prayers are with Senator Kennedy and his family right now. I have tremendous respect for Senator Kennedy as do all of his colleagues. I wish him a full and speedy recovery.”
###

As insubstantial as that message is, it occurs to me that politically, he did not have to do it. Seriously, what would be the political cost to Jim DeMint of saying nothing? Not much, I’d wager. So at some point the decision was made, "Let’s say something." Maybe it’s not much, but I will grasp at straws looking for UnPartisan hope.

Speaking of cynicism — I mentioned the DeMint release to a colleague right after it came in, and he said You won’t see one from Graham, not in this election year. But at that very moment (12 minutes behind the DeMint one), this was coming in:

Statement by Lindsey Graham on Senator Kennedy
WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) made the following statement on the news concerning Senator Ted Kennedy.
“All of us who serve in the Senate respect Senator Kennedy and were shocked to hear his diagnosis. We all hope for a speedy recovery. Senator Kennedy is a tough guy and my money is on Ted when it comes to recovering. He’s a worthy adversary and at times, someone you can do business with. He’s a man of his word. I’m very much hoping for a speedy recovery and praying for him and his family.”
####

Sure, he got the "adversary" part in, but it was gracious nonetheless.

These aren’t much. They are, in fact, what anyone should do under the circumstances. But I still find these simple, brief expressions of human decency a welcome relief from the usual.

Finally, may God grant peace and hope to Sen. Kennedy and his family. We’ve been through this in my family, and I know that prayers help — whatever the creed, whatever the party.

Radical Chic, and Mau-Mauing the Superdelegates