Category Archives: The Nation

As if the Democrats weren’t bad enough last night…

Now Mitt Romney has jumped in, along with Edwards and Obama, for a twofer — demagogue the immigration issue, and bash Hillary.

Just got around to reading this e-mail that William Holley of the Romney campaign sent me this morning:

    One more for you:
    If y’all didn’t catch the Democratic debate last night, Senator Clinton and other Democrats made some troubling remarks in support of a plan in her home state of New York to give driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants.
    That won’t fly here in South Carolina.
    Governor Romney, on the on the other hand, has a clear record of opposing driver’s licenses for illegal immigrants.
    Here is a “Romney Vision” policy document on the issue: http://mittromney.com/News/Press-Releases/Romney_Vision_Illegal_Immigration

    Enjoy.

Urging me to "enjoy" it is being just a tad optimistic there, William.

Why don’t candidates ask us for more than our votes?

By BRAD WARTHEN
EDITORIAL PAGE EDITOR
    “We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win….”
       — John F. Kennedy, 1962

WHAT WOULD we do if one among the horde of candidates seeking to become president of the United States in 2009 challenged us as a nation to do something hard?
    Most Americans alive today can’t remember a president or would-be president doing anything remotely like that. The ones we’re used to are all about what they’re going to do for us, not what we should do for our country. Republicans want to cut our taxes; Democrats want to give us more programs and, to hear them all talk, at no cost to us.
    But I believe that if the cause were worthwhile and the proposal made sense, we’d rise to it. Maybe not all of us, but there’s a critical mass out here who would follow someone courageous enough to ask us to do our part.
    I, for one, am sick of being treated, by people who seek my vote, as some sort of “gimme-gimme” baby, lacking in any sense of responsibility for the world around me. Those of us who are grownups are used to accepting, in our personal lives, challenges that are by no means easy to meet — going to work day after day, paying our bills, raising children. Why would we not understand a president who said, “Here’s a challenge that concerns us all, and here’s what each of us needs to do to rise to it”?
    Young people among us want to pitch in and accomplish difficult things a lot more than we give them credit for. Part of Barack Obama’s appeal among the young is his call to service, his challenge to build a better nation. But unless I’ve missed it, he has not asked us, as a nation, to do anything hard.
    Don’t misunderstand me, as did a colleague who wrote:

    The feeling I get… is that you’re so frustrated that you just want the government to demand SOME SORT OF SACRIFICE, on something, anything. Whether it’s needed or not. Doesn’t really matter what.

    Well, yes and no. Sure, there’s a part of me that just wants to be asked for a change to do something, if only for the novelty: Buy bonds, save scrap metal, whatever.
    But there’s more to it than that. The truth is, our country faces a lot of challenges that demand something or other from all of us, but political “leaders” have a pathological fear of pointing it out to us.
    Back when JFK challenged us to go to the moon because it was hard, we did it — even though there was no practical reason why we needed to do so. Sure, it gave us the creeps to think of “going to sleep by the light of a communist moon,” but it was a symbolic competition, with only marginal applications to the true, deadly competition of the arms race. We couldn’t stand not to be No. 1.
    But today we have very real, very practical challenges that have tangible consequences if we fail to meet them.
    Take just one of them: our dependence on foreign oil.
    Sen. Joe Biden had a great speech a while back about how President Bush missed the golden opportunity to ask us, on Sept. 12, 2001, to do whatever it took to free us from this devil’s bargain whereby we are funding people who want to destroy us and all that we cherish. And yet, his own energy proposals are a tepid combination of expanding alternative fuels (good news to the farmer) and improving fuel efficiency (let’s put the onus on Detroit).
    A broad spectrum of thinkers who are not running for office — from Tom Friedman to Robert Samuelson to Charles Krauthammer — say we must jack up the price of gasoline with a tax increase, to cut demand and fund the search for alternatives. It makes sense. But the next candidate with the guts to ask us to pay more at the pump will be the first.
    My friend Samuel Tenenbaum is on a quixotic quest to build support for restoration of the 55-mph speed limit. It would be hard (for me, anyway), but the benefits are undeniable. It would conserve fuel dramatically, starving petrodictators from Hugo Chavez to Vladimir Putin to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. It would save thousands of lives now lost to speed on our highways.
    Samuel pitches his idea to every candidate he can corner. They smile and move away from him as quickly as possible.
    But you know, when I wrote a column a while back proposing the creation of an Energy Party — that would among other things demand that we jack up the gas tax by $2 a gallon (to fund an Apollo-style project on alternatives), institute Samuel’s 55-mph limit, ban SUVs for anyone without a proven “life-or-death need to drive one” and build nuclear power plants as fast as we can — I got a surprising number of positive responses. I think that was less because my respondents thought those were all good ideas. I think they just liked the idea of being asked to do something for a change.
    Energy independence is just the start. Add to it the urgent needs to stop global warming, win the war on terror, make health care affordable while at the same time avoiding the coming entitlements train wreck, and you’ve got a list of things that require a lot more audience involvement — and yes, sacrifice — than our current candidates have been willing to ask us for.
    And while you may not feel the same, I’m dying to be asked. Not because it would be easy, and not even because it would be hard, but because these hard things actually need doing.

Since when are we in Albany?

Keeping to my policy of putting any extended e-mail exchange on my blog so it reaches a wider audience, I share this one from this evening. It begins with my receipt of this:

Mr. Warthen,
I would like to know whyThe State has not ran anything as far as I know, regarding NY Governor Elliott Spitzer’s decision to demand that illegal immigrants be issued NY drivers licenses? I  have noticed that The State ran several articles about a variety of other issues in NY but seemed to have chosen to ignore a major story in which the governor is suing defiant DMV employees who have refused to issue the licenses and they in turn are suing him for alledgedly breaking federal law and a possible recall could even be in the works.I for one believe that since his decision could directly impact not only NY residents but the entire nation since the illegals could obtain a "valid" license in NY and exchange it for a "valid" SC license. It also has the potential for massive voter fraud since it is connected with "motor voter" states which I do believe SC is one. It is also important because a potential Presidential candidate and Senator from NY , Hillary Clinton, has been conspicuously quiet on this matter and the public should be made aware of her stance on this very important issue.
Remember, "homeland security?" (LOL) Well, what about it Mr. Warthen?

I responded as follows:

Well, first of all, you’re asking the wrong guy. I have zero, zip, nada to do with what appears in The State‘s news pages.

Second, in spite of that, I’ll venture a guess as to why precious news hole wouldn’t be devoted to this: This Spitzer guy is the governor of New York, and we’re in South Carolina. I appreciate your effort to draw a line of relevance to S.C., but compared to all the stuff that affects S.C. directly that it would be good to have more news on, it seems thin.

Third, since like all such inquiries, this is no doubt one of those ridiculous "you’re suppressing news in accordance with your political views on the matter" things, I should tell you that personally, I don’t have an opinion on the matter. I say that despite having thought about it a great deal back when I was a member of the S.C. Hispanic Leadership Council. I can see the advantage of having a way to keep track of an "underground" portion of our population, but I can also see the disadvantages of issuing such licenses. One thing I DID decide: Anybody who quickly arrives at a clear preference on this issue is somebody who isn’t thinking.

Fourth, there’s no way on Earth I or anyone else could suppress news of this. I just started working out again the last couple of days, which means I’ve been exposed to Cable TV down in our gym (I don’t have it at home). Both nights, I heard some doofus named Lou Dobbs who would not shut up about this. To him, it seemed to be the only thing worth talking about in the known universe. I say "doofus" because he had an uncanny ability to respond to anything anybody else said in a way that lowered the intellectual tenor of the discussion another notch or two. His main mode of communication seemed to be the repetition of childishly unimaginative insults and name-calling, mostly aimed at Spitzer for being a spoiled rich boy or some such. Even for TV, it was remarkable.

Finally, as I do with all such extended responses, I’m going to post this one on my blog. If you’d like to respond, please do so there.

Lindsey’s ‘hard pander’ on immigration

A colleague brings my attention to what he refers to as "a hard pander on immigration from Lindsey." Mike goes on to say:

Not
only is it a reasonable bill he would otherwise support, but he also lapses into
cartoonish military-speak about our southern border. "Boots on the ground" …
"force multiplier" … "unmanned aerial vehicles" … "operational
control."
You’d
think these people were surging over the border with assault rifles, instead of
sneaking in to pick our fruit and prepare our chickens.
Pretty
chickenhearted, from a man with $4 million in campaign funds and no known
opponent.

Anyway, here’s the release he was referring to:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:      Contact: Wes Hickman or Kevin Bishop
October 24, 2007                                                                           

Graham Opposes DREAM Act
WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) today voted against invoking cloture on the DREAM Act.  Sixty votes were necessary to move to consideration of the legislation and the vote in the Senate was 52-44.  He made this statement following the vote:
     “First, we must show the American people we are serious about securing our nation’s borders.
     “I have twice introduced and passed legislation through the Senate providing $3 billion for improved border security.  There is no doubt we need more boots on the ground, more miles of fencing, better technology which acts as a force multiplier, additional detention beds, and unmanned aerial vehicles at the border.  I have and will continue to push for adoption of the Graham Amendment until it is signed into law by President Bush.
     “Regaining operational control of our nation’s borders is a gateway to further reforms of our broken immigration system.
     “I’m sympathetic to the concerns expressed today on the floor of the Senate, but I believe the legislation was poorly drafted and in need of further amending.  Additionally, Majority Leader Reid made clear that he was not going to allow any meaningful changes to the DREAM Act, a legislative process I found to be very unfair.  Without assurances border security would be addressed, I would not vote to proceed to this matter.
     “There is no reason to abandon our border security efforts at this critical moment in time.  We need to be focused on securing our borders to ensure people who come into the country do so legally.”
                 #####

I’m with Mike about the chest-thumping in this release. I will say one thing in Lindsey’s defense, though: He and McCain always couched their immigration efforts in terms of "securing our borders." When I asked Sen. McCain why on Earth he wanted to beat himself up with this issue in the midst of a presidential campaign, when the only people who see this as an urgent issue are the ones who will hate him for not being mean enough to the Mexicans, he said he couldn’t see putting off such an important Homeland Security issue. In other words, it’s not the Mexicans he’s worried about keeping out.

All that said — yeah, Lindsey’s going out of his way, once again, to win hearts and minds among our latter-day Know-Nothings.

Who could be president of ALL of us — Hillary or Obama?

Clinton_2008_wart2

This is probably not going to change anybody’s minds out there, but before Democrats put the tiara on Hillary Clinton and send her down the runway, they really ought to ask themselves: Would anybody besides us vote for her? I realize that a lot of her supporters are likely to be personally offended that someone other than true-blue partisans would get a say in this, but unfortunately, them’s the rules.

And time and time again, a key difference between Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama emerges: She appeals to the party-warriors who want to refight the polarizing battles of recent years, and he appeals more to people who want consensus government.

It was summed up fairly well last night by Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick, who had this to say upon endorsing Obama:

“A lot of the Democrats are feeling heady these days — we’re sensing victory. We feel like we can reach out and grab at the White House again …. But I’m asking you to beware my friends. Beware because this discontent with Republicans is not enough to ensure a Democratic victory, nor should it be. I believe the challenges before us transcend party partisan politics. We don’t just need a Democrat — we need a leader.”

But the fact remains that plenty of folks just want a Democrat, preferably one who yearns to stick it to the "vast right-wing conspiracy," which apparently refers to the 50 percent of the electorate that says it would never vote for Mrs. Clinton — while Mr. Obama’s negatives in the same poll were only at 37 percent.

As I said, this post probably won’t change any Democrats’ minds, as those who care about getting the votes of Republicans and independents probably already prefer Obama between the two, and the rest would stick with Sen. Clinton.

But I thought it was time to issue a warning to the Democrats similar to the one I raised to Republicans a few days ago: You really, really need to think about November, people.

And I would add, you really need to think about the next four years. There are a lot of us out here who just aren’t going to put up with any more of this incessant red state-vs.-blue state, tit-for-tat, so’s-yer-mother, trashing of our shared public life.

Obama_2008_taxes_wart

Which candidate do YOU hate the most?

Ahillary             "NEVER? Whaddaya mean, ‘never?’"

Seems like I’ll stoop to anything to get you to click on a blog post, doesn’t it? Sorry about the headline. Tacky. I would never encourage you to hate anyone.

But my point was to share with you the results of this Zogby poll, which found that half the electorate says it would never vote for Hillary Clinton. She has the highest negatives, and Mike Huckabee and Bill Richardson have the lowest, going by that standard. (You may have already read about this, as it came out Saturday, but I’m just now getting around to checking the e-mail account the release came to). An excerpt from the report:

    While she is winning wide support in nationwide samples among Democrats in the race for their party’s presidential nomination, half of likely voters nationwide said they would never vote for New York Sen. Hillary Clinton, a new Zogby Interactive poll shows.
    The online survey of 9,718 likely voters nationwide showed that 50% said Clinton would never get their presidential vote. This is up from 46% who said they could never vote for Clinton in a Zogby International telephone survey conducted in early March. Older voters are most resistant to Clinton – 59% of those age 65 and older said they would never vote for the New York senator, but she is much more acceptable to younger voters: 42% of those age 18–29 said they would never vote for Clinton for President.
    At the other end of the scale, Republican Mike Huckabee and Democrats Bill Richardson and Barack Obama faired best, as they were least objectionable to likely voters. Richardson was forever objectionable as President to 34%, while 35% said they could never vote for Huckabee and 37% said they would never cast a presidential ballot for Obama, the survey showed….

Here’s the full list:

Whom would you NEVER vote for for President of the U.S.?

%

Clinton (D)

50%

Kucinich (D)

49%

Gravel (D)

47%

Paul (R)

47%

Brownback (R)

47%

Tancredo (R)

46%

McCain (R)

45%

Hunter (R)

44%

Giuliani (R)

43%

Romney (R)

42%

Edwards (D)

42%

Thompson (R)

41%

Dodd (D)

41%

Biden (D)

40%

Obama (D)

37%

Huckabee (R)

35%

Richardson (D)

34%

Not sure

4%

I got to thinking about it just now, and wondered for the first time which, of all the candidates, would I be least likely to choose at this point? Here’s how I would rank them personally:

Mind you, that’s just off the top of my head, based on what I know now, without any of my editorial board colleagues setting me straight on any of the calls. And I’ll admit I cheated on one — I can’t even picture "Hunter," much left summon up any relevant impressions, so I just sort of buried him in the pack toward the "less likely" end, hoping no one would notice.

How about you?

McCain’s lame health care plank

Proving once again the truism that no candidate is right about everything, John McCain is talking about a health care "plan" that sounds an awful lot like the standard GOP laissez-faire approach, which is, "Let’s help them that has put away money to pay for their own health care, and forget (to use the euphemism) everybody else."

Here’s a story about him talking about it in the Upstate.

This is further evidence supporting Mike Huckabee‘s observation that most Republicans don’t have a clue how regular folks who don’t have a bunch of money live.

As he said in an op-ed piece:

I offer a genuinely conservative vision for health-care reform, which
preserves the most essential value of American lives — freedom.

That’s libertarianese for "The last thing in the world we would want government to do is help anybody. (After all, if it did that, you might stop hating it.) Remember, we stand up for your freedom to suffer and die from lack of affordable health care."

Jews know what they’re about

As a Roman Catholic, I’ve got to tell you that the Jews have got it going on. We should be so focused on what we’re supposed to be about.

Today we ran up to Greenville for a naming ceremony for my young niece at a local synagogue (I have a diverse family — Catholic, Jewish, evangelical protestant, mainline protestant — no Muslims yet, though). Anyway, during the two-hour Shabbat service, we heard a couple of times about the fact that this was a special weekend in which synagogues and churches across the country are focusing on children’s health care.

And when I say focus, I mean focus. No vague platitudes. The rabbi stepped aside so that a local pediatrician could give the homily. He addressed himself to the kids in the congregation, and explained to them why it was important to make sure all children had access to health care. But he and other speakers went beyond that — they explained why the S-CHIP bill veto should have been overridden, and made sure everyone know that their congressman (Bob Inglis) and both U.S. senators had voted with the president. He told the kids it was their responsibility to urge their parents to vote for officeholders who cared more than that about children’s health.

Why? He told them three reasons why: Because their own children might someday not be able to afford health care. Because they had friends in school who had no coverage. And finally, the best reason of all:

"Because you’re Jews." In other words, because you believe in doing the right thing by other people.

He explained to them that the Jews had been blessed by having been enslaved in Egypt. It taught them what it was like to be without the basic necessities of life, and served as a lasting lesson that they should always care about people who were deprived of such fundamental things.

So why should they care about the 10 million kids whose moms and dads can’t afford to take them to the doctor when they have a sore throat? "Because you’re Jews."

We Christians could definitely do with such straightforward, blunt reminders of what we’re supposed to believe in.

Hey, you Republicans! You want to stop McCain, or you want to stop Hillary? Looks like it’s one or the other

Speaking of polls that really count, the only kind of national poll
that means anything is one that looks toward the general election. So
it is that I pass this on from the Rasmussen folks, in case you had missed it:

McCain and Clinton Are Neck-and-Neck

   
Arizona Senator John McCain has fallen nearly out of the top tier in the race for the Republican Presidential Nomination, but he’s still competitive in a general election match-up with Senator Hillary Clinton. The latest Rasmussen Reports survey shows Clinton with just a single point edge over McCain, 44% to 43%.
     McCain also trailed Clinton by just one percentage point in September and by two points in August.  Those consistent results put McCain in a more competitive position at this time than any other Republican hopeful.
    The new survey shows Clinton with a 47% to 41% lead over former
Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney. Clinton has led Romney every time
we’ve polled this match-up. In September, she had a nine-point advantage.
    Clinton
currently leads former NYC mayor and Republican frontrunner Rudy
Giuliani by seven and former Senator Fred Thompson by 15. Her lead has been growing steadily over these two in recent months.

So, a little something for you Republican ideologues to ponder:
Either get over whatever problems you may have with McCain, or get
ready to start saying "President Clinton" again (if she is indeed the
nominee).

It’s up to you — unfortunately.

Why do folks climb onto bandwagons, anyway?

As you’ve no doubt heard, Sam Brownback is bowing out. Makes all the sense in the world, doesn’t it — too far behind the front-runners, unable to come up with the cash. So of course he must go.

But as we urge him not to let the doorknob hit him in the posterior on his way out, think about this: There goes a guy who, if we went by the kind of candidate S.C. Republicans act like they want, should be someone they would like better than the stars who are still in it:

  • Brownback beats Rudy on moral and cultural issues.
  • He was always the kind of conservative Romney recently started impersonating.
  • He’s thought the issues through a lot better than Fred.

And while I think McCain’s right about the surge, at least Brownback had a clear plan for what should happen next, something that no one in either party, outside of Joe Biden, could say.

So how come South Carolinians and other voters won’t get a chance to choose Brownback if they were so inclined? Because the TV networks decided long ago who was in, and who is out. And there’s a disturbing truth in politics that I have yet to fully understand — voters answer pollsters by saying who they think is GOING to win (generally based on what the herd is telling them to think), rather than who they think SHOULD win. It doesn’t make sense. It’s not in their own interests. But they do it anyway.

Katon Dawson’s audio response

Katon Dawson responded to my post about the Democratic Primary schedule, in which he says that a referendum would not be allowed under the legislation that put the state of South Carolina in charge of paying for the parties’ presidential primaries.

Only instead of leaving a typed comment, he left a phone message. Here’s the audio.

Emma Forkner, head of the state Health and Human Services department

Here’s what it said in my Treo (copied and pasted from an e-mail from Cindi, who set up the meeting):

The Editorial Board will met at 9 am on Thursday, Oct. 18, with Emma Forkner, the (still sort of) new director of the Department of Health and Human Services. There’s nothing in particular on the agenda, although the agency has been in the news lately over questions about its new private Medicaid transport system. And there is of course the ever-present issue of how our state (and others) pay for Medicaid.

We will meet in the Board Room on the third floor.

And that was what it was, a get-acquainted meeting. But I report it for the same reason I’m trying to report all such contacts, because I want you to know who I’m talking to, and some readers — such as "GreenvilleGuy" on this post — are very suspicious of the supposedly cozy relationships between us and newsmakers.

Since there was nothing in particular we were looking for in the meeting, I had a good time talking big picture, and I was able to launch freely onto digression without Cindi kicking me under the table.

For instance, we learned that while 25 percent of Medicaid recipients were on some kind of managed care plan — translated into private-sector terms, either a PPO or HMO — 75 percent of recipients are on, essentially, a fee-for-service plan. She hopes that, thanks to the waivers GreenvilleGuy decries, those numbers will be reversed in 18 months to two years.

Fee-for-service? I asked. Isn’t that essentially what we in the private sector had 30 or 40 years ago? Yes.

After acknowledging that she was new to this world, I asked why she thought it took so long to institute such cost-saving measures as managed care in the public sector, when out here in the private world, our employers are constantly tweaking our insurance to save costs? (I had spent two hours the previous day hearing how my own insurance will change come Jan. 1.)

She hesitated to answer, so I gave her MY answer: Because whether you’re talking state employee insurance or Medicaid, the public at large doesn’t really want to take anything away from anybody. That makes it tough for anybody who answers to voters, or anyone who answers to someone else who answers to voters, to institute cost savings — whereas private employers can change things as they please, and what the hell are their employees going to do about it?

She agreed. This led to her problems with getting anything done in the civilian public sector. She had come up in the military, where you’re part of an organization that is disciplined to turn on a dime. That makes the military less regulation-bound that the civilian public sector, which for a lot of people is counterintuitive.

Since I grew up in the Navy, and have always thought the military way of running things superior (to ALL civilian systems, public and private), we got along swimmingly.

The cognitive divide between black and white

By BRAD WARTHEN
EDITORIAL PAGE EDITOR
THE TIME of the week has arrived at which I look at some problem or other and confidently pronounce, as though I knew, just what we should do about it. But I have no solutions today.
    Today, I’m just sad, and solutions seem scarce. Part of it is personal. I just returned a few days ago from Pennsylvania, where my youngest daughter’s closest friend had died after a traffic accident. But there are other causes.
    As I write, my wife is on her way back from Memphis, where she had been, tending to family business, when the awful news came about David. She had to fly back there after the funeral to get her car, and drive it home.
    A few minutes ago, I checked on her by cell phone. I told her I was groping about for a column idea, and she said I should write about how lucky we were to be living in South Carolina rather than Memphis. She cited what she described as the painfully divisive victory speech Mayor Willie Herenton had delivered after his re-election a few days ago.
    I just saw the video, and she’s right. Lord knows we have our own demons here in the state that was first to secede, and would do it again if some had their way. But there is a rawness to racial tension in Memphis that is hard to describe if you haven’t been there.
    There was a time — 16 years ago, when he became the first black mayor of that city — when Willie Herenton was a sign of hope: a black man elected with both black and white support.
    It was the sort of thing we had wanted and expected to see for a long time. Back in 1974, when we were students at Memphis State, Harold Ford — senior, not the one who ran for the U.S. Senate last year — ran for Congress against incumbent Republican Dan Kuykendall. My wife and I were totally for Ford, even though Rep. Kuykendall was her Dad’s friend and business partner. He had been all very well and good for the folks his age, but our generation was going to change things. And that race thing? Our kids would only know about that from history books.
    So it was sad, here in the next century, to hear Mayor Herenton tell his supporters in his hour of victory that “I now know who is for me, and I also know who is against me,” and the overwhelmingly black crowd applauds, because they know just what he means.
    For a man just re-elected to an unprecedented fifth term, Mr. Herenton had a huge chip on his shoulder. “There are some mean, mean-spirited people in Memphis,” he said to much cheering. “There are some haters…. I know about haters, and I know about shaking ’em off.”
    He went on to tell about “two sad occasions” from the campaign. “I’m gonna let you know about the sickness in Memphis.”
    He spoke of a basketball game at which he had presented the key to the city during halftime, and “the fans showed so much disdain and hatred… and that place was full, 90 percent white.”
    Another time, while appearing live from Memphis on “Good Morning America” along with Justin Timberlake, “I get up on the stage, and it was 95 percent young white kids, they booed me on national television.”
    “But what they want to say is, can Willie Herenton bring us together? I didn’t separate us.”
    “Memphis got a lot of healing to do. But see, I don’t have that problem. They’ve got a problem.”
    We’ve all got a problem, and not just in Memphis. What is Memphis but a great, big Jena, Lousiana? Another town where there are no heroes, just a place full of people, black and white, all messed up over race.
    Mayor Herenton isn’t just some isolated megalomaniac. Judging by the reaction, every person in that room saw what he saw, just the way he saw it. And whites, watching on TV, saw a guy who was calling them racists.
    The Commercial Appeal, the newspaper the mayor dismisses as the voice of the white establishment, harrumphed that “contrary to the innuendoes he made during his speech, the 58 percent of voting population who opposed him can’t all simply be dismissed as racists.” No, they can’t, especially since one of the two candidates who split the anti-Herenton vote was also black. But Herenton supporters can stew over the fact that in the whitest precincts, his support was in single digits.
    It’s this cognitive divide between what white folks and black folks perceive, when both are looking at the very same thing, that keeps us from putting this mess behind us. And I didn’t just arrive at this conclusion.
    Somewhere — maybe in a box in my attic — is a manila folder containing a printout of a column I wrote in 1995, but never ran in the paper. I wrote it in a state of bewilderment on the day O.J. Simpson was acquitted. I hadn’t followed the trial and didn’t care much about it one way or the other, but I had found myself in a room with a television when the verdict came in, and a crowd had gathered to hear it. You know what happened next: The black folks watching cheered; the whites stared in silence. To me, another rich guy’s lawyers had gotten him off; big deal. But that wasn’t the way my black friends in the room saw it at all, and I was shocked at the contrast. But because I had no solution to offer, because the column just chronicled my shock, I didn’t deem it worthy of publication. I’d hold it until I could come up with an answer.
    I’m still holding it. And now, here we are. What’s my point? I don’t have one. I just think it’s sad. Don’t you?

A racial Rorschach test

Help me with a little experiment. Go watch this video footage of the mayor of Memphis, Willie Herenton, giving his victory speech upon being elected to an unprecedented fifth term.

For added data, here’s an editorial about his speech in The Commercial Appeal, a newspaper he mentions. Here also is a story showing how the vote broke down along racial lines, and here’s an item about election night from an alternative paper.

What I’m wondering is: Based on this speech, what is your impression of the city of Memphis, and of its mayor?

My Sunday column is a sort of funky one, as it gropes around the problem of the dramatically different ways that black and white Americans see things around them. It’s a question I’ve been pondering anew ever since the Jena Six thing hit the headlines — I was struck by all the well-meaning black folks who were willing to suspend their lives to go march in behalf of some kids who, basically beat up another kid. Yeah, it looked like the justice system overreacted, but how could a person looking at it from afar see such moral clarity in a situation in which I saw no heroes.

This case from Memphis seems another illustration.

If you can, get someone who is not of the same skin color as you to look at the same stuff I’m asking you to look at. I’m guessing that would mean recruiting a black friend, since I have this image — which is in itself probably an unjustified racial assumption — of most of y’all as being way white. If I’m wrong about that, forgive me.

Anyway, please share your thoughts.

I don’t deserve the credit

Gas1

After noting that one or two of my correspondents were — and I’m sure they were doing it for convenience’s sake — referring to the gasoline tax hike as "Brad’s taxing scheme," or using similar terms, I thought I’d better set the record straight.

I deserve neither the credit nor the blame. In fact, before I embraced the idea, I went through all the objections that y’all raise — disproportionate burden on the working class, cooling effect on the economy, etc. But I believe this is the best, clearest way to:

  • Spread the burden of fighting terror among ALL of us; it’s obscene that we’re not asked to do a thing beyond being inconvenienced at airports. (And while I worry about the poor as well, it’s interesting that David Brooks seems to think that raising the gas tax is more progressive than the SCHIP program. He must be correlating SUV ownership to wealth, or something.)
  • Cut off funding to some of the worst enemies we have in this world, who are made a little richerGas3
    every time we top off the tank.
  • Push us toward alternative fuels that are not only strategically smarter, in terms of making us less dependent, but much, much friendlier to this endangered orb. It would do this partly by making gasoline less marketable, but it would also…
  • Provide a lucrative new revenue stream to — take your pick — pay for the war, fund our neglected infrastructure, build public transportation (I’ll take light rail, please) and develop better fuels. My pick would be all of the above, if the stream were big enough.

I did not arrive there by myself. I was influenced by an array of other writers, who have hit this theme again and again over the last couple of years.

To answer the question asked by Jimmy Rabbite of prospective band members in "The Commitments," here are my influences, and links to their works:

Robert J. Samuelson
As the economist in the bunch, he presents the idea most credibly, thoroughly and convincingly. If a guy like Samuelson were against the idea, I’d be worried. His being for it gives me confidence in something that I arrive at in a more intuitive manner.

  • An Oil Habit America Cannot Break — October 18, 2006 —…Our main energy problem is our huge dependence on imported oil. For years, some remedies have been obvious: Tax oil heavily to spur Americans to buy more fuel-efficient vehicles and to drive a bit less, raise sharply the government’s fuel economy standards so those vehicles are available, and allow more oil and gas drilling. In recent years, we’ve done none of these things. It’s doubtful we will anytime soon…
  • Greenhouse Guessing — November 10, 2006 — …In rich democracies, policies that might curb greenhouse gases require politicians and the public to act in exceptionallyGas2
    "enlightened" (read: "unrealistic") ways. They have to accept "pain" now for benefits that won’t materialize for decades, probably after they’re dead. For example, we could adopt a steep gasoline tax and much tougher fuel economy standards for vehicles. In time, that might limit emissions (personally, I favor this on national security grounds). Absent some crisis, politicians usually won’t impose — and the public won’t accept — burdens without corresponding benefits…
  • Seven Tough Choices We Will Not Make — January 17, 2007 — …Enact an energy tax equivalent to $2 a gallon on gasoline — introduced over six years, or about 33 cents annually. The purpose: to increase tax revenue and induce Americans to buy more fuel-efficient vehicles….
  • Blindness on Biofuels — January 24, 2007 — …The great danger of the biofuels craze is that it will divert us from stronger steps to limit dependence on foreign oil: higher fuel taxes to prod Americans to buy more gasoline-efficient vehicles and tougher federal fuel economy standards to force auto companies to produce them. True, Bush supports tougher — but unspecified — fuel economy standards. But the implied increase above today’s 27.5 miles per gallon for cars is modest, because the administration expects gasoline savings from biofuels to be triple those from higher fuel economy standards….
  • A Full Tank of Hypocrisy — May 30, 2007 — …Today’s higher gasoline prices mostly reflect supply and demand. "Holiday travelers ignoring fuel costs," headlined USA Today before the Memorial Day weekend. Gasoline demand is up almost 2 percent from 2006 levels. Meanwhile, gasoline supplies have tightened. More refineries than usual shut this spring for repairs — some outages planned, some not (from accidents or dangerous conditions). In April and May, refineries normally operate well above 90 percent of capacity; in 2007, the operating rate was about 89 percent. Imports also declined for many reasons: higher demand in Europe; refinery problems in Venezuela; more gasoline demand from Nigeria. It’s true that oil companies will reap eye-popping profits from high prices. Still, the logic that steep prices, imposed by the market or by taxes, will encourage energy conservation is irrefutable. At the least, high prices would curb the growth of greenhouse gases and oil imports….
  • Prius Politics — July 25, 2007 — …But we’ve got to start somewhere

Why no one leads on energy

Check out this detail from a McCain speaking engagement today in Detroit:

   "We can’t keep this level of gas guzzling and make a strong impact on our dependence on foreign oil. It’s a national security issue," McCain said in response to a post-speech question about gas mileage requirements. His remarks were met with silence from a skeptical audience. "I noticed no applause," he said with a chuckle before a few people obliged.

Too often, when those in public life say the things that we Energy partisans take for granted, they are greeted with dead silence, or worse. And not always in Detroit.

Friedman took out his frustration in this regard, quite rightly, on the current president…

    Of course, we can pay for the Iraq war without a tax increase. The question is, can we pay for it and be making the investments in infrastructure, science and education needed to propel our country into the 21st century? Visit Singapore, Japan, Korea, China or parts of Europe today and you’ll discover that the infrastructure in our country is not keeping pace with our peers’.
    We can pay for anything today if we want to stop investing in tomorrow. The president has already slashed the National Institutes of Health research funding the past two years. His 2008 budget wants us to cut money for vocational training, infrastructure and many student aid programs.
    Does the Bush team really believe that if we had a $1-a-gallon gasoline tax — which could reduce our dependence on Middle East oil dictators, and reduce payroll taxes for low-income workers, pay down the deficit and fund the development of renewable energy — we would be worse off as a country?

… but the sad truth is, who is running on a platform that touts the kinds of sacrifices that we really, truly ought to be embracing? No one — at least not to the extent that I believe is called for. And personally, I am more than ready to follow someone who challenges me to ask the question that JFK proposed.

Finally, while we’re on the subject, I hope y’all all saw the piece we ran Monday from the British consul who recently visited:

    The recent meeting of Major Economies in Washington showed that
governments around the world have yet to agree whether binding targets
for reduction of greenhouse gas emissions (favored by the United
Kingdom and many other countries) present a better way forward than
voluntary goals, the preference of the United States.
    But tackling climate change can bring countries together if we are wise enough not to let it drive us apart.
    The
United Kingdom shares its knowledge and experience with governments
around the world. Last year, the United Kingdom signed a far-reaching
agreement with California on climate change cooperation. Gov. Charlie
Crist enthusiastically supports the new U.K.-Florida Partnership on
Climate Change. And we have been in regular contact with members of
North Carolina’s Legislative Commission on Global Climate Change,
including a visit by parliamentarians from the House of Commons. We
would like to work with South Carolina too, if that would be welcome.

Yes, there are some leaders actually leading on climate change, and on energy independence. But neither Arnold nor Tony nor even Lula is eligible to run for president.

Joe Biden on having the juice to get thing done

Biden_001
By BRAD WARTHEN
EDITORIAL PAGE EDITOR
Why should voters in South Carolina’s Democratic primary skip the front-runners to pick Joe Biden as their nominee for president?
    Because, he explained to our editorial board last week, he’s the guy with the juice. He’s got the experience to have the knowledge, he has sound ideas based on that knowledge, and he’s got the credibility to sell the ideas.
    Today, he says, there’s no juice in the White House.
    Take the immigration issue. Why, we asked, did the recent comprehensive bill fail?
    “Bush,” said Sen. Biden.
    “That’s not a criticism,” he added.
    “I think Bush was more right on immigration than he’s been on any other national issue. But he had noBiden_019
credibility. He could not carry any of his base.”
    He said it was a failure of presidential leadership. “You’ve got the lamest lame-duck president in modern history now. And it is actually a shame. No fooling. Because the few things where you could generate a consensus with him, he’s not of any help.”
    So who has the juice? Joe Biden does, as he had demonstrated a few days earlier.
    The previous week, he had pulled off the apparent miracle of getting 75 members of the U.S. Senate — which meant getting a bunch of Republican votes — to vote for the centerpiece of the Biden platform: A plan to divide Iraq into three semi-autonomous regions under a loose federalist system.
    After all those pointless votes about timetables and such that other Democrats kept pushing, in full knowledge that they would not find their way into law, all of a sudden a consensus approach had emerged.
    How did that happen?
    First, “I don’t think there are 12 Republicans that support this president’s position,” which can be summed up in two sentences: “Stand up an Iraqi army so American troops can stand down. Two, strong central democratic government in Baghdad that will act as the first domino to fall through the middle east, generating the end  — if not the end, a fatal blow  — to terror.”
    Under that approach, the purpose of the surge was “to give the warring factions breathing room… to make a political accommodation.”
    Biden_007
But there’s no such accommodation. Sen. Biden says a lot of senators have been over to Iraq and talked to real people. And what have they learned?
    “Nobody  — nobody, nobody, nobody — thinks there’s a possibility of establishing a strong unity government that can gain the support of the Iraqi people and bring security and economic prosperity to Iraqis. Nobody.
    “Every success that exists in Iraq has been at the local level. That’s where the successes come.”
The only ways the surge has worked, he maintains, is where it has enabled local, homogenous authorities to run things their way, without interference from Baghdad.
    Last year, only 1,000 Sunnis stepped forward in Anbar province to join the national police force run by the Shi’a-led government in Baghdad. “The national police force is corrupt,” says Sen. Biden. “It is zero; it’s worse that zero. They’re death squads.”
    “Eliminate it.”
    The surge worked when Americans “said to the tribal leaders, look guys, you can patrol your own streets. You mean we don’t have to have the central government here? Absolutely. Good.” So “10,000 people show up from the tribes…. They’re patrolling the streets. They still haven’t gotten it under control. But it’s a lot further down the road, and no one’s talking about a national police force.”
    Look at Kurdistan, he says, which has had local autonomy for some time. “And so everyplace you look to, it comes down to devolving power, where there’s any possibility of it working.”
    How did he sell the Senate on this? First, “I’ve been working these guys and women for a year on it; I’m like a broken record on it.” He sold it on the merits, but it was also appealing because it didn’t involved the constitutional problem of trying to tell the commander in chief how many troops he can send where when.
    But it also came down to juice, to credibility: “I think if you ask Lindsey or you ask other Republicans, they trust me; I don’t ever play a game with them. I think that they think I know something about thisBiden_022
issue, and I have not been one who is saying things that they know is not rational.”
    As opposed to certain other people seeking the Democratic nomination: “How can you say on stage, almost to a person, that I will not withdraw troops; I’ll have to have troops there, combat troops there for X amount of years, maybe to 2013, and by the way, I’m voting to cut off funding for those troops, yesterday?”
    So unlike certain people named Clinton, Obama and Edwards, “I have some credibility with these guys that I’m not playing a political game with them.”
    What about bringing troops home? “What I don’t want to do is fly under false colors here. I don’t want to tell the American people that if this plan is adopted, all Americans come home,” he said.
    “If this plan were adopted, it’s the only way in which you could justify keeping American forces there.”
    But if it weren’t adopted, unlike his rivals, he’d get the troops out right away.
    “I would not withdraw from the region. But I’ll be damned if I’m gonna continue to have my son’s generation stuck in a position where they’re on the fault line, and the only thing they’re there to do is keep things from getting worse,” without any prospect of them getting better.
    So that’s his deal: He’s the guy with the plan, and the juice to get it done. And last week, he had the cred to make folks believe it.

For video from this editorial board interview, click here.

Biden_031

The end of the Wal-Mart era?

Whoa. I don’t even have anything in particular to say about this right now, but it seems that the tectonic plates have shifted beneath us, and I thought I’d bring it to y’all’s attention:

Wal-Mart Era Wanes…
By GARY MCWILLIAMS
October 3, 2007; Page A1
    The Wal-Mart Era, the retailer’s time of overwhelming business and social influence in America, is drawing to a close.
    Using a combination of low prices and relentless expansion, Wal-Mart Stores Inc. emerged from rural Arkansas in the 1970s to reshape the world’s largest economy. Its co-founder, Sam Walton, taught Americans to demand ever-lower prices and instructed businesses on running a lean company. His company helped boost America’s overall productivity, lowered the inflation rate, and strengthened the buying power for millions of people. Over time, it also accelerated the drive to manufacture products in Asia, drove countless small shops out of business, and sped the decline of Main Street. Those changes are permanent.
    Today, though, Wal-Mart’s influence over the retail universe is slipping….
    Rival retailers lured Americans away from Wal-Mart’s low-price promise by offering greater convenience, more selection, higher quality, or better service….
    … American shoppers are increasingly looking for qualities that Wal-Mart has trouble providing. "For the first time in a long time, quality has a chance to gain on price," says Lee Peterson, a vice president at Dublin, Ohio-based brand consulting firm WD Partners Inc….

Quality? What kind of gimmick will these ad wizards come up with next?

Be sure to check out the short video showing graphically how Wal-Mart took over the country. It’s cool.

‘Prudence’ or ‘timidity’? Chris Dodd thinks he can win, too

Someone brought this Des Moines Register piece to my attention. It seems Joe Biden isn’t the only longshot on the Democratic side who thinks he can win.

Of course, Chris Dodd’s pinning his hopes on voters who look at prudence and see it as "timidity:"

Published October 2, 2007
Yepsen: 1st-tier Dems’ timidity on Iraq may create opening
David Yepsen
    Connecticut Sen. Christopher Dodd is the longest of long-shot candidates for the Democratic presidential nomination. But he doesn’t seem too agitated about that.
    He’s an experienced politician. He knows how the caucus game often breaks late. Because of his 33 years of experience in Congress, he also knows something about U.S. foreign policy and the war in Iraq.
    He does get agitated about that, particularly when the leading candidates for the Democratic nomination appear to be in no big hurry to get out. Hillary Clinton, John Edwards and Barack Obama all declined in last week’s debate to say they’d have U.S. troops out of Iraq by the end of their first term – in 2013.
    "I was stunned, literally stunned" to hear them say that, Dodd said in an interview for last weekend’s Iowa Press program on Iowa Public Television. "It was breathtaking to me that the so-called three leading candidates would not make that commitment. That’s six years from today."…

Pentagon takes on payday lenders

After all the hard work my colleague Warren Bolton has done fight predatory lenders here in South Carolina, it’s gratifying to see this finally taking effect:

New DoD Predatory Lending Regulation Takes Effect
            The Department of Defense today put into effect a new regulation that protects service members and their families from high-cost, short-term loans.
            The regulation limits the fees and interest that creditors can charge on three specific types of loans: payday loans, vehicle title loans, and tax refund anticipation loans. These three products were targeted because they have high interest rates, coupled with short payback terms.
            Payday loan and vehicle title loans can often lead to a cycle of ever-increasing debt. Refund anticipation loans provide seven to 14-day advances on tax refunds, but at a high cost to the borrower. The financial stress service members and their families suffer in turn causes a decline in military readiness.
            The new regulation is part of wide-ranging DoD efforts to increase ‘financial literacy’ among servicemembers and their families. These efforts include 24/7 access to confidential financial planning and counseling, a variety of financial readiness training courses, improving the availability of small low-interest loans from financial institutions, promoting the practice of setting aside a $500 emergency savings account, and educating service members on the availability of counseling, grants, loans and other services from military aid societies.

For more on the subject, here’s a report I heard this morning on NPR:

Morning Edition, October 1, 2007 ·
A new federal law bans predatory lenders from taking advantage of
military personnel and their families. Check-cashing stores around
military bases often charge annual interest rates of 300 percent. But
the new law caps interest at 36 percent for loans to active-duty
military and their families.

                        

Alison St. John reports from member station KPBS in San Diego.