Tuesday, August 28, 2012

The Comeback Skid - NYTimes.com

The Comeback Skid - NYTimes.com:

OP-ED COLUMNIST

The Comeback Skid

  • FACEBOOK
  • TWITTER
  • GOOGLE+
  • E-MAIL
  • SHARE
  • PRINT
  • REPRINTS
There will be two big stars at the Republican National Convention, and neither of them will be Mitt Romney. One will, of course, be Paul Ryan, Mr. Romney’s running mate. The other will be Chris Christie, the governor of New Jersey, who will give the keynote address. And while the two men could hardly look or sound more different, they are brothers under the skin.
Fred R. Conrad/The New York Times
Paul Krugman

Related

Related in Opinion

Opinion Twitter Logo.

Connect With Us on Twitter

For Op-Ed, follow@nytopinion and to hear from the editorial page editor, Andrew Rosenthal, follow@andyrNYT.

Readers’ Comments

Readers shared their thoughts on this article.
How so? Both have carefully cultivated public images as tough, fiscally responsible guys willing to make hard choices. And both public images are completely false.
I’ve written a lot lately deconstructing the Ryan myth, so let me turn today to Mr. Christie.
When Mr. Christie took office in January 2010, New Jersey — like many other states — was in dire fiscal straits thanks to the effects of a depressed economy. Unlike the federal government, states are required by their constitutions to run more or less balanced budgets every year (although there is room for accounting gimmicks), so like other governors, Mr. Christie was forced to engage in belt-tightening.
So far so normal: while Mr. Christie has made a lot of noise about his tough budget choices, other governors have done much the same. Nor has he eschewed budget gimmicks: like earlier New Jersey governors, Mr. Christie has closed budget gaps in part by deferring required contributions to state pension funds, which is in effect a form of borrowing against the future, and he has also sought to paper over budget gaps by diverting money from places like the Transportation Trust Fund.
If there is a distinctive feature to New Jersey’s belt-tightening under Mr. Christie, it is its curiously selective nature. The governor was willing to cancel the desperately needed project to build another rail tunnel linking the state to Manhattan, but has invested state funds in a megamall in the Meadowlands and a casino in Atlantic City.
Also, while much of his program involves spending cuts, he has effectively raised taxes on low-income workers and homeowners by slashing tax credits. But he vetoed a temporary surcharge on millionaires while refusing to raise the state’s gasoline tax, which is the third-lowest in America and far below tax rates in neighboring states. Only some people, it seems, are expected to make sacrifices.
But as I said, Mr. Christie talks a good (and very loud) game about his willingness to make tough choices, making big claims about spending cuts — claims, by the way, that PolitiFact has unequivocally declared false. And for the past year he has been touting what he claims is the result of those tough choices: the “Jersey comeback,” the supposed recovery of his state’s economy.
Strange to say, however, Mr. Christie has told reporters that he won’t use the term “Jersey comeback” in his keynote address. And it’s not hard to see why: the comeback, such as it was, has hit the skids. Indeed, the latest figures show his state with the fourth-highest unemployment rate in the nation. Strikingly, New Jersey’s 9.8 percent unemployment rate is now significantly higher than the unemployment rate in long-suffering Michigan, which has had a true comeback thanks to the G.O.P.-opposed auto bailout.
Now, state governors don’t actually have much impact on short-run economic performance, so the skidding New Jersey economy isn’t really Mr. Christie’s fault. Still, he was the one who chose to make it an issue. And even more important, he’s still pushing the policies the state’s recovery was supposed to justify.
You see, all that boasting about the Jersey comeback wasn’t just big talk (although it was that, too). It was, instead, supposed to demonstrate that good times were back, revenue was on the upswing, and it was now time for what Mr. Christie really wants: a major cut in income taxes.
Even if the comeback were real, this would be a highly dubious idea. By all accounts, New Jersey still has a significant structural deficit, that is, a deficit that will persist even when the economy recovers. Furthermore, the Christie tax-cut proposal would do very little for the middle class but give large breaks to the wealthy.
But in any case, the good times are by no means back, and neither is the revenue boom that was supposed to justify a tax cut. So has the very responsible Mr. Christie accepted the idea of at least delaying his tax-cut plan until the promised revenue gains materialize? Of course not.
Which brings me back to the comparison with Paul Ryan. Mr. Ryan, as people finally seem to be realizing, is at heart a fiscal fraud, boasting about his commitment to deficit reduction but actually placing a much higher priority on tax cuts for the wealthy. Mr. Christie may have a different personal style, but he’s playing the same game.
In other words, meet the new boaster, same as the old boaster. And pray that we won’t get fooled again.

'via Blog this'

Saturday, August 25, 2012

Everyone Around You Needs To See This Video Robert Reich Dropped Everything To Make | MoveOn.Org

Everyone Around You Needs To See This Video Robert Reich Dropped Everything To Make | MoveOn.Org:

'via Blog this'

What Are Democratic Chances of Keeping Control of the Senate? | Alternet

What Are Democratic Chances of Keeping Control of the Senate? | Alternet:

What Are Democratic Chances of Keeping Control of the Senate?

 
 
 
 (Need change in filibuster rules for Senate to function. 
In my previous post I forgot about Olympia Snowe's seat in Maine and Richard Lugar's seat in Indiana. The Maine seat will almost definitely go to former Governor Angus King. Gov. King is an independent but he will caucus with the Democrats. So, that's a pickup of one. Polling in Indiana has been neck and neck, so that's another possible pickup. A recent poll out of Nevada showed Shelley Berkley will a tenuous lead over Dean Heller. Polling out of Massachusetts has been up and down. Warren has been ahead in recent polls, but she's down in the one that came out today. The Arizona race looks competitive, too.
With Gov. King included in the Dem column, the GOP needs to pick five seats to take over the Senate (assuming Obama wins reelection). If you take Missouri out of the equation, that leaves the following realistic opportunities for the Republicans: Virginia, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, North Dakota, Nebraska, New Mexico, Montana, and Florida. On polling average, I think the Dems lead six out of nine, with Wisconsin, Nebraska and Montana the GOP's best bets.
If we can win Massachusetts, they need to win six of nine. If we win Nevada, they have to win seven of nine. If we win Indiana, they need to win eight of nine. If we win Arizona, they have to win all nine.
Not that it is going to happen, but the maximum upside for the Dems would be to hold all nine vulnerable seats and win the Republican seats in Maine, Massachusetts, Indiana, Nevada, and Arizona. That would give the Dems 58 seats. However, other than Susan Collins of Maine, we wouldn't find a single Republican willing to break a filibuster on anything. So, we'd still be stuck unless the filibuster rules are relaxed.

'via Blog this'

How Obama Can Push Romney on Student Loans | Alternet

How Obama Can Push Romney on Student Loans | Alternet:

How Obama Can Push Romney on Student Loans

 
 
 
This item by Mark Landler from the New York Times' coverage of the presidential campaign shows that the president is determined to reopen earlier criticisms of Mitt Romney and the GOP for its indifference to the plight of Americans needing help with financing higher education:
President Obama, adding another verse to his litany of differences with Mitt Romney, promoted his record on education here Tuesday and assailed his Republican challenger for advising financially strapped young people who want to go to college to “shop around and borrow more money from your parents.”
Mr. Obama, who portrayed himself as the fortunate product of affordable education, said Mr. Romney’s educational policies were conspicuously lacking in the student loans, grants, work-study programs and emphasis on lower tuition rates that put higher education within reach of millions of middle-class Americans.
If Obama really wants to make this a major campaign theme, bashing Republican indifference isn't enough. Although his record on the subject is quite progressive (particularly his shutdown of bank involvement in federally-backed student loans), he should embrace reforms in the student loan system needed to deal with longstanding abuses that are a major threat to past, present and future cohorts of Americans seeking a better education. In a sneak preview feature ("Getting Rid of the College Loan Repo Man") from the Washington Monthly's upcoming September/October issue, Stephen Burd of the New America Foundation exposes the causes and effects of a nightmarish system of student loan payment collections that fails to distinguish between people who won't and people who simply can't pay, and also enmeshes millions in a complex and poorly administered set of regulations.
The Washington Monthly / By Ed Kilgore | Sourced from 

Posted at August 22, 2012, 10:04am


'via Blog this'

FOCUS | Romney, Ryan and the Devil's Budget

FOCUS | Romney, Ryan and the Devil's Budget:

Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan, 08/11/12. (photo: Jason Reed/Reuters)
Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan, 08/11/12. (photo: Jason Reed/Reuters)


Romney, Ryan and the Devil's Budget

George Lakoff and Glenn W. Smith, Reader Supported News
22 August 12

merica was born with a great soul, a moral view of Democracy in which citizens care about their fellow citizens and join together to take responsibility not just for themselves but for each other, for America as a union, a joint enterprise. The government's job was to carry out that moral vision and to do so it created what we call The Public, the provision of basic protection and empowerment for all.
From the beginning of America, the Public provided roads and bridges, public schools, hospitals, a national bank, a patent office, police, a justice system, public buildings and records, and more. Since then the Public has expanded as public needs have expanded - sewers, clean water, public transportation, public health and disease control, scientific research, the internet, GPS, an energy grid, parks, and much, much more.
The Public provides freedom, the freedom to use what the Public provides to live a decent life and to start businesses. Without the public, there would be no American way of life, no freedom to live a decent life, to run or work in businesses, or work as a public servant. The Public carries out the work of America's soul.
Budgets are moral documents. National, state, and local budgets are commitments about where and how to carry out the work of America's soul, or to abandon it. A national budget that abandons the Public and the freedoms it gives us is selling America's very soul. Such a budget is the Devil's Budget. It uses numbers for an evil purpose: to rob us of our basic everyday freedom.
Who would propose a Devil's budget, and why?
First, why? A significant number of Americans do not share America's founding moral vision. They have a different one. Democracy in America provides the liberty to seek one's own interests and well-being, without being responsible for the interests or well-being of anyone else. It's a morality of personal, but not social, responsibility. The only freedom you should have is what you can provide for yourself, not what the Public provides for you to start out. America's soul, the provisions that represent citizens' moral commitment to each other, would be no more. Those who have this different moral sense will want a Devil's Budget. Let's call them extreme conservatives, who see the conservative moral vision as their highest priority.
Second, who would propose a Devil's Budget? Paul Ryan. Who wants to put it in effect? Mitt Romney.
The Devil is seductive. He is handsome, strong, charming, sincere, engages you in gentlemanly and respectful debate. He says he is on your side, that you are in a crisis. He offers to solve your crisis and makes it sound good. You too can be in the top 1 percent, part of the group with 40 percent of the wealth. He offers you freedom, freedom from dependency on The Public, freedom to care only for yourself, liberty from your fellow citizens caring for you, providing a starting point, freedom from you paying for anyone else.
The Romney-Ryan Budget is a Devil's budget. It guts The Public, America's soul - The American Way of Life that we provide for each other.
A standard American budget has a way to deal with economic problems. First, extremely wealthy Americans whose wealth has depended on The Public's provisions should pay a fair share to restore and maintain the Public. Second, the Public should invest in the American economy by putting people to work rebuilding our infrastructure, educating our young, doing research for innovation, providing better forms of energy - in short, restoring as many as possible of the freedoms that people need to live and make a living.
The money is there. America is richer than she has ever been. But much of America's wealth has been transferred from those whose labor secured it to wealthy investors and corporate managers. A sufficient portion of that wealth needs to be used by The Public for investments in our future, not drained from The Public when it is needed most. A standard budget would restore and maintain America's soul. But that is not what the Devil's Budget would do.
What Evil - with a capital "E" - would a Devil's Budget do? So far Democrats have been pointing to its cruelty: its horrific effects on individuals - death, illness, suffering, greater poverty, and loss of opportunity, productive lives, and money. All true and more. But there is a larger and worse overall Evil, one that deserves the capital "E."
America's soul resides in our relation to one another, the way citizens have from the beginning joined together to form a government whose mission is to protect and empower everyone equally, and to use that government for the sake of The Public, the system that provides the basic means for our freedom to live decent lives and pursue happiness of all kinds, whether it comes from wealth or making music, or becoming a doctor, a scientist, a businessman, an athlete, a teacher, or whatever you find fulfilling. The Public is what unites us in a common enterprise, and the destruction of The Public is a destruction of the bonds that hold us together.
The destruction of those bonds creates Evil with a big E because it institutionalizes the you're-on-your-own view of democracy, democracy as providing the "liberty" to pursue your own interests with no responsibility for the interests or well-being of others. It enshrines greed, selfishness, and dog-eat-dog competition as the governing principle of American life. The intentional severing of our human bonds is the big Evil.
Whatever callously divides communities into sets of disconnected individuals and tries to hide or erase our interdependent humanity, that is what human cultural, religious, literary and folktale traditions have long labelled Evil. We think the Devil's Budget has earned its name.
Those who advocate for such a budget may not be individually evil. That is an independent issue. Demonizing others is its own kind of evil, and we do not apply the name to Romney, Ryan or others. Perhaps many who advocate a Devil's Budget know not what they do.
The big Evil is even bigger than you might think, because it is hard or virtually impossible to reverse once it has gone on for a while.
Let's take "a while" to be until 2050. Derek Thompson, in TheAtlantic.com on March 21, 2012, surveyed The Congressional Budget Office's projection of the Ryan budget estimates to 2050. Defense spending would be kept relatively constant, while what the government has left would be "0.75 percent of GDP - about 100 billion for everything besides defense that the government does." That's what is devoted to education and vocational training now. Suppose that was kept.
"It would leave nothing for infrastructure. Nothing for unemployment insurance. Nothing for food stamps. Nothing for border patrol. Nothing for the FDA, FAA, or FBI. Nothing for research and development. Nothing, even, to pay people to work in government! Do you think it's important to support our veterans with health care, education, and retirement security? Sorry. Veterans programs currently cost more than 1% of our GDP. There would be no room."
The Congressional Budget office estimates that Ryan's "long-term budget, if you project forward defense spending, would cut 91 percent from these and all other non-defense programs. Ninety-one percent." That's 91 percent of The Public gone: Medical and scientific research. Pell grants. The EPA. The NIH. NPR. The small business administration. Unemployment insurance. Regulation of corporations. Money to help state and local governments. Highway repair. Air traffic controllers. And all government employees doing everything The Public does.
This work is done by institutions that have been built up over a long time, with people who have learned to do their jobs over a long time. You don't just get the institutions back after you destroy them. They are gone. If they are replaced, they will be privatized - run for corporate profit, not for public benefit. You will pay through the nose for what you need, if you can get it at all.
The destruction of The Public is not reversible. It would be the death of the very idea of America. Here's what it would mean.
Even more, a lot more, of the nation's wealth than the current 40 percent going to the top 1 percent. Poverty up. Opportunity gone. No way for the poor and middle class to get a college education, and maybe not even a decent K - 12 education, and certainly not public pre-schools. As unemployment rises, competition for jobs gets greater, and so wages get even lower and pensions and health benefits disappear. As the public control of the airwaves disappears with the FCC, the corporate control of news rises, and objectivity of reporting gets much lower. Freedom of the press becomes meaningless. When the military controls almost all of the budget, it gets immensely strong in society, threatening civilian control of the military. When the EPA and FDA disappear, say goodbye to clean air, clean water, and safe food. Wilderness in the National Parks will not exist: it will be destroyed in the race to get at our natural resources - wood, minerals, oil and gas.
Along the way, there will be all the cruelty that Democrats are now warning against - the elderly, children, and the poor going without medical care, and so suffering and dying. The unemployed losing their homes. Our young people unable to get the education what would give the freedom to "pursue happiness" - and thus being forced into lives the keep them from being fulfilled. And much more.
In the outrage over Rep. Todd Akin's "legitimate rape" statement, the role of the Devil's Budget is getting drowned out. Rep. Akin, together with Rep. Paul Ryan, has supported kinds of budgetary legislation that would eliminate funding not only for abortion, but also for family planning, birth control, sex education, including in that legislation a provision that would define a fertilized egg as a legal person, and thus define abortion as murder. In some circumstances, even miscarriages might be viewed as crimes. It is an attempt to use budgets to exert male control over women's bodily freedom, in some cases over her very life, and over a family's freedom to decide on how many, if any, children to have.
The budget is not just an economic document. It does not just reflect an economic theory about deficits or jobs or building the economy. It is a moral document and it can be so Evil as to kill the heart of America.
America would no longer be America. Humpty Dumpty cannot be put back together again, because all the pieces will either be destroyed or owned by corporations with most of the wealth generated going to wealthy investors and corporate managers.
That is Evil with a capital E. That is what the Devil's Budget is about.
The biggest lie is that there is, or should be, no Public. The biggest lie is that Democracy is about personal freedom alone, about the "liberty" to seek your own interests with no responsibility for the interests or well-being of your fellow citizens. The biggest lie is a moral lie. If believed and carried to the conclusion defined by a Devil's Budget, it means Evil with a capital E and the loss of the American soul.
The idea of American Individualism is a moral lie. There can be no Individualism without The Public. Individualism can only begin where The Public leaves off. Individualism begins after the roads are built, after individualists have had an education, after medical research has cured their diseases, after the individualists have received from The Public land grants, grazing, water, and mineral leases, oil and agriculture subsidies, after they have received crucial patents.
Are individualists willful liars? We doubt it. To lie, you have to know that you are lying and intending to deceive. We take most individualists at their word, that they really do believe that they did everything without help from The Public. They believe it so strongly that they can't even see the hand of The Public in their success. And there is a reason for this blindness that follows from the way brains work.
You think with your brain; all thoughts are physical, a matter of the activation of brain circuits called "frames." Everything you understand uses frame-circuits that structure how you think. Without the right frame-circuits, there are facts you just will not be able to make sense of. The frames come in hierarchies, with moral frames at the top. With an extreme conservative morality, you will have an Individualism frame governing your political and economic frames. The fact that real individual achievements depend on what The Public provides to give them their start and help them along will not be comprehensible to extreme conservatives. Why? Because they do not have the American moral frame that requires both personal and social responsibility; the conservative moral frame has only personal responsibility, and the closest thing to social responsibility is imposing personal responsibility alone maximally in every area of life. This requires eliminating as much as possible of The Public. The mechanism for this is the Devil's Budget.
Paul Ryan is a personable individualist and extreme conservative. And he is smart - seen as an intellectual by his conservative colleagues because has mastered budget policy enough to construct a Devil's Budget with all the right numbers. Not the right numbers to eliminate the deficit, as Paul Krugman has observed. But the right numbers to eliminate The Public, which is the real conservative goal.
Mitt Romney knows about Devil's Budgets from Bain Capital, whose goal was to make as much money as possible for investors and major management by squeezing human values out of businesses: treating employees as resources for profit, maximizing profits by outsourcing, minimizing skill levels, eliminating unions, ending pensions, seeking tax loopholes, moving profits to tax havens, eliminating factories and firing employees, moving jobs abroad, devastating communities - whatever was necessary to maximize profits for Romney and other managers and investors. Liberty for Romney has meant applying Devil's Budgets in corporate life. The Romney-Ryan ticket is ideal for destroying the American ideal of The Public and the freedom that it provides for all of us.
In what was perhaps the first statement of the morality that lit the Soul of America, John Winthrop told his fellow passengers on the New World-bound Arbella in 1630:
...that every man might have need of others, and from hence they might be all knit more nearly together in the bonds of brotherly affection. From hence it appears plainly that no man is made more honorable than another or more wealthy etc., out of any particular and singular respect to himself...
This is the morality that informs the Declaration and the Constitution. It is the morality that led to emancipation, to universal suffrage, to the New Deal and the Great Society, and Franklin Roosevelt's Four Freedoms - freedom of speech, freedom of worship, freedom from want, freedom from fear - with the recognition that we are all in this democratic experiment together. It is what, from the beginning, has informed the formation of The Public. It is that sense of morality that we must maintain.

Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.

'via Blog this'

FOCUS: How Elizabeth Warren Can Win

FOCUS: How Elizabeth Warren Can Win:

How Elizabeth Warren Can Win

By Charles Pierce, Esquire
23 August 2012

here's been a bit of a bustling in the hedgerow over Public Policy Polling's new numbers showing Elizabeth Warren five points up the track behind incumbent Scott Brown here in the Commonwealth (God save it!). Democrats around the country are expressing some level of surprise/shock/anaphylaxis at this, despite the fact that it's still August, and that neither one of them is above 50 percent in the poll, and that there's as much good news as bad for Warren in the poll's internal numbers. She simply has to do better among Independents - although, in Massachusetts, that generally means Republicans who didn't vote in the primaries for the last few cycles - but there's also this entirely weird stat that says 53 percent of the people polled want the Democrats in control of the Senate, which is not really a plausible scenario if Warren doesn't win. We'll get to what that number could mean in a moment.
The major problem all along has been that Senator McDreamy really is a nice guy. He doesn't just come across as one. He is. He's thin-skinned as hell, as they all are, and he occasionally acts as though his fluke election was a world-historical event on a par with the elevation of Charlemagne, but his favorability is through the roof and it's going to stay there. We have been deluged here with whadda-nice-guy ads featuring superannuated putative Democratic mayors Ray Flynn of Boston and Connie Lukes of Worcester, neither of whom wields the political influence of the average deer tick, but both of whom are nice old folks who think the young man really is the cat's pajamas. As such, they're very effective ads. By comparison, Warren's commercials are perfectly adequate, but they do very little to capture the charisma that become obvious to anyone who spends 15 minutes with her in the same room.
Other curious local factors are in play as well. For example, we've got a history of voting for R's statewide, as the country is presently learning to its horror. Also, in the history of the state, we have elected a grand total of three women to statewide office, all of them to secondary positions, and none of them to the Senate. (By comparison, Arizona has had three consecutive female governors.) There remains in the old-school Massachusetts Democrats a fundamental abhorrence for candidates with ovaries. Read deeply into Alec MacGillis's piece in The New Republic from a couple of weeks ago, the one in which he quotes a whole raft of guys who were passing over the hill when I was working for the Phoenix in the late '70's. For my money, MacGillis has been as good as TNR gets during this election, and his general perception of the state of the race here is close to dead-on but, Jesus Christ, he's walking with the Undead here. Larry DiCara? Tom Birmingham? Oh, and young Jimmy Shannon! God love ya, lad, but your career is as dead as Curley, boyo. And Chris Lydon is a career foof who told Warren, as recounted by MacGillis, "You have to be an awfully nice girl to run for office and not be too strident or too depressing and not condescending about people's problems. How are you working that?" McGillis says that this condescending warning about the dangers of condescension "caught Warren off-guard," the evidence for which may well be that she didn't pick up her chair and park the fathead who delivered it into the third row. Here's the tell: Anyone who tells you that Warren is "the same candidate" as Martha Coakley, whom Brown defeated in the 2010 special election, has issues with women candidates because Warren has no more in common with the buttoned-up Coakley than she does with Rajon Rondo.
The other real problem is the genuinely stupid deal that the Warren campaign cut with the Brown campaign in which both sides agreed to keep outside money out of this campaign, thereby essentially wishing away Citizens United like children who think, if they can't see the bear, the bear can't see them. The only possible way for Warren to be sure to win is to nationalize the campaign. Here's where that odd polling data about who should control the Senate comes in. Warren's got to be able to point out that, nice guy or not, McDreamy is of the party of the crazy people, and that a Republican-controlled Senate is one step closer to the abyss, and she needs to make that charge stick. Just today, the Boston Herald, McDreamy's local fanzine,went into full high-sterics about the possibility that Todd Akin's little foray into reproductive biology might damage Brown's chances here, even though Brown himself stepped up quickly and strongly and told Akin to step out.
Later, of course, Brown declared himself a "pro-choice Republican."
"Apparently she's a little confused as to who she is running against," Brown said of Democrat Elizabeth Warren. "She is running against Scott Brown. I am a pro-choice, independent Republican who has a history of being an independent thinker."
Of course, he's nothing of the sort. Pro-choice is pro-choice. Period. You are not pro-choice if you believe in banning the medical fiction that is "partial-birth" abortion, a political term of art ginned up by the hardline anti-choice movement to great success, or if you support the Hyde Amendment. That may make you a "pro-choice Republican," but that sort of the whole point, isn't it? At least he's saying he's some sort of a Republican these days. Generally, he doesn't bring that up. It should be brought up for him. He should be made to support or stand against every bit of lunacy that's coming out of the national party with which he's aligned and then he should be asked what's left to support. You can make running from his party and being a part of it two sides of the same political attack but, to make this kind of argument forcefully enough, and given the nature of the bad bargain to which she agreed, Warren needs the dead serious involvement of the national Democratic Party. They need to treat this race like Jon Tester in Montana and, yes, McCaskill in Missouri, and they need not to listen to a bunch of superannuated coatholders who are still waiting for the call to join the cabinet of President Dukakis. Tell all your Democratic friends that they're idiots if they think otherwise.

'via Blog this'

Thursday, August 23, 2012

The Ryan-Romney Flim-Flam Ticket

The Ryan-Romney Flim-Flam Ticket:


The Ryan-Romney Flim-Flam Ticket

By Jim Hightower, Creators Syndicate
22 August 12

et's talk budget! Yes, the wonky wonderland of the federal budget, with page after page of numbers - what fun, eh?
No. Most people would prefer a root canal to a budget discussion (indeed, I've heard that some dentists use a recording of budget numbers to anesthetize their root-canal patients - everything from the neck up quickly goes numb). But Paul Ryan is different.
The GOP's vice presidential nominee is touted as Mr. Budget, a guy who gets excited by running his fingers through fiscal things. That's why the Washington cognoscenti have declared him to be "serious," rather than just another political opportunist riding the right-wing wave of tea party ridiculousness.
Being branded as "serious" means never having to admit you're a flim-flam man. Thus, the widely ballyhooed Ryan Budget is called "honest" and "responsible" by insiders who obviously haven't run the numbers on it.
The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, however, has tallied Ryan's budgetary giveaways to the rich and take-backs from the middle-class and the poor. Far from balancing the federal budget, as the self-proclaimed deficit hawk claims, the analysts found that Ryan's plan increases the federal deficit. And not by a little, but by about $2.5 trillion! So, yes, he is serious - serious as a snakebite.
Then there was Ryan's explosive admission recently that the budget plan of his presidential partner, Mitt Romney, is also a con game. Despite Romney's repeated assertion that - by golly - his nifty plan will balance the federal budget in only eight years, Ryan confessed that they don't really know that, because "we haven't run the numbers on that specific plan."
Say what? What? Hello - a budget is nothing but numbers - numbers that have, in fact, been run! Otherwise, it's just a political hoax.
During his run in the presidential primaries this spring, when he was trolling for votes in the shallow waters of the Republican fringe, Romney embraced the Ryan budget, calling it a "bold and exciting effort" that is "very much needed." And, hoping to glom onto Ryan's "wow" appeal to the hyper-energized right wing, Romney brought Mr.
Budget onboard for the fall run - with one interesting condition: The veep candidate has had to jettison his budget.
That document, which Ryan had rammed through the U.S. House in 2011, would have provided another gold mine for the one-percenters, with millionaires-and-up averaging around $300,000 a year in tax breaks. The rest of us would've gotten the shaft, including tax increases, privatization of Medicare, deep cuts in student aid and job training programs, and federal abandonment of food stamps and health care for the poor.
Yet Ryan is on the Republican presidential ticket specifically because his budget whackery has enthralled the GOP's far right. Anti-government guru Grover Norquist, for example, has gushed that the six-term Wisconsin congress-critter would be the Dick Cheney of economic policy. Sheesh - that's not a threat to be taken lightly!
But the very bauble that got him to the GOP's No. 2 political slot turns out to be so widely and wildly unpopular with voters in the deeper waters of the general election that it's already been trashed by the party's No. 1. "I have my own budget plan," Romney backpedaled the day after he knighted Sir Ryan, "and that's the budget plan we're going to run on." Yes, the budget with no numbers.
That aside, it's kind of strange (and a bit unsettling) to see a candidate for president straining to explain that he's the one in charge, not the young ideologue. Romney even went on national TV to tell us that, while Ryan would certainly be among the people he asks for advice, "I have to make the final call in important decisions." Sure, Mitt - you da man! But was he trying to convince us ... or himself? Or Ryan?
Embarrassingly, at the staged event where Romney introduced his VP selectee, he bungled his line, presenting Ryan as "the next president of the United States." Was that just another Romney gaffe? A Freudian slip? Or an eerie moment of candor?
After all, Romney has no unwavering principles or solid commitment to any policy except, "Elect me, and I'll lower my taxes." Republican leaders are now trying to downplay Ryan's extremism, but if they were honest with voters, their bumper sticker would read: "Ryan-Romney in 2012."
To find out more about Jim Hightower, and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate webpage at www.creators.com.


National radio commentator, writer, public speaker, and author of the book, "Swim Against The Current: Even a Dead Fish Can Go With the Flow," Jim Hightower has spent three decades battling the Powers That Be on behalf of the Powers That Ought To Be - consumers, working families, environmentalists, small businesses, and just-plain-folks.


'via Blog this'

FOCUS: Karl Rove's Covert Domination of GOP

FOCUS: Karl Rove's Covert Domination of GOP:

n a new book, author Craig Unger examines the return of Karl Rove, the man who masterminded the rise of George W. Bush from governor of Texas to a two-term presidency, who advised Bush during two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and who was at the center of two of the biggest scandals of the Bush administration: the Valerie Plame Wilson affair and the U.S. attorneys scandal. While Rove was almost indicted for the Plame affair, he has reinvented himself to become the most powerful political operative in America. Heading up the American Crossroads super PAC and the affiliated nonprofit, Crossroads GPS, Rove has built up a war chest that has given Mitt Romney a significant cash advantage in the fundraising race with President Obama. In "Boss Rove: Inside Karl Rove's Secret Kingdom of Power," Unger writes that Rove's ambitions are not simply about winning elections, but represent "a far more grandiose vision - the forging of a historic re-alignment of America's political landscape, the transformation of America into effectively a one-party state." [includes rush transcript]


AMY GOODMAN: Our guest for the hour is Craig Unger, who has written Boss Rove: Inside Karl Rove's Secret Kingdom of Power. In it, he writes, "Undeniably, he's back," talking about Karl Rove. "He has re-invented himself. He is not merely Bush's Brain; he's the man who swallowed the Republican Party. As the maestro orchestrating the various super-pacs, he has inspired the wealthiest people on the right to pony up what could amount to $1 billion and has created an unelected position for himself of real enduring power with no term limits. Karl Rove has become the ultimate party boss." Craig Unger, lay out his rise to power, his fall, and then his rise again.
CRAIG UNGER: Right. Well, I think a lot of people saw him as a creature of the Bush family, and then that was it, and then it was all over in 2008 when Bush left the White House. And that was not the case at all.
And it's worth going back to how he got power back in the 1980s. And there was not much of a Texas Republican Party in those years, partly because Texas had powerful conservative Democrats, like John Connolly and Lloyd Bentsen, so the big business people who normally would give to the Republicans said, "Well, why bother? We're getting what we want from Connolly and Bentsen." Rove got around that by creating political action committees, and he took an issue that seemed obscure at the time, known as tort reform. It's giving the rights of people to collect in product liability cases. And he went to Philip Morris, who put him on his payroll, and to big pharmaceutical companies and so forth and said, "Look, you guys risk billions and billions of dollars in product liability. Give a few million to my candidates, and we will take over the Texas Supreme Court, we'll take over the Texas legislature, we'll put George W. Bush in as governor, and we will save you billions of dollars." And he did precisely that. And he ended up with-he flipped the-the Texas Supreme Court was completely dominated by Democrats. It became completely Republican. And he ended up with some very loyal campaign contributors, like Bob Perry-who is no relation to Rick Perry-Harold Simmons and so forth. These are Texas billionaires. And they've stuck with him for about 30 years. So, that's really the first phase.
The key moment then came in 2010, and this was the Republican Party was in crisis, as it appears to be again today. And if you-Michael Steele was chairman of the RNC. And you may remember, in early 2010, there was an episode where Republican donors were being entertained at a lesbian bondage-themed strip club. And-
AMY GOODMAN: In California.
CRAIG UNGER: In California, exactly. And partly as a result of that and other things, big money people just refused to give anything to the Republican Party.
AMY GOODMAN: And this was a time when the Republican-when the RNC was broke.
CRAIG UNGER: Absolutely, absolutely. It was also just after a landmark Supreme Court decision, Citizens United. And this opened the gateways for people to give unlimited contributions to super PACs. And so, Karl Rove had a luncheon at his home in Washington, D.C., on Weaver Terrace. He had about two dozen people there. These were the bigwigs in-it was co-sponsored by Ed Gillespie, who had been former chairman of the RNC. And he came away with millions and millions of dollars, and this represented the birth of the super PAC of American Crossroads, Crossroads GPS and so forth.
AMY GOODMAN: Now, before we go forward, I wanted to go back a little further to show-to show Karl Rove's power during the Bush years, both in 2000 and then-you devote an entire chapter to what happened in Ohio in 2004. And a lot of people might not remember this or might not have even known to begin with.
CRAIG UNGER: Right. Well, Rove did a lot of things that were sort of under the radar and that I think have enduring consequences, and they represent real threats to democracy. One of them was the U.S. attorneys scandal, and I think it was widely misunderstood. And, you know, this was-became best known when eight United States attorneys were fired for sort of not toeing the Republican Party line. Now, in fact, to me, the real question is not what happened in the unjust firing of those eight people; it's what about the other U.S. attorneys who were appointed by the Bush administration and were toeing the party line? What were they doing? And what we see happening is that they were prosecuting Democrats, essentially. This is best-it came through best in-I think the most egregious case of this is in Alabama, and it's the case of former Democratic Governor Don Siegelman, who will probably-in early September, will face going to jail for eight years. And I think this is one of the most egregious, unjust acts we've seen from the Justice Department.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: I want to turn former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman, who was found guilty in a 2006 corruption case. Critics say Siegelman was the target of a political witch hunt, in part orchestrated by former Bush administration deputy Karl Rove. Democracy Now! spoke to Siegelman about his case in early 2009. We asked if he believed Karl Rove was involved in his prosecution. Let's just go to his response.
DON SIEGELMAN: I was brought to trial one month before the Democratic primary by Karl Rove's best friend's wife, who was the U.S. attorney in the Middle District of Alabama, on charges that the New York Times said have never been a crime in America. Grant Woods, who's the Republican-was the Republican attorney general from Arizona, said that they couldn't beat Siegelman fair and square, so they targeted him with this prosecution. We have sworn testimony from a Republican political operative, Jill Simpson, who said that she was on a conversation with my prosecutor's husband, who said that he had talked to Karl Rove, and Rove had spoken to the Department of Justice, and everything was wired in for them to-for the Department of Justice to pursue me.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: That's former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman speaking to Democracy Now! in 2006. Siegelman is now appealing his prison sentence three weeks before he's scheduled to report to federal prison to complete a more than six-year sentence.
CRAIG UNGER: Right. Well, I think Siegelman is absolutely right. I mean, it's not the prettiest part of the American political system, but it's sort of standard operating procedure that sometimes campaign contributors get political appointments. And in Siegelman's case, Siegelman personally got zero dollars. He appointed a contributor to a non-paying state-appointed position. And if he's to go to jail-George W. Bush gave appointments to over a hundred campaign contributors and was not prosecuted on any one of those. And it really has been standard operating procedure. Hundreds of ambassadors throughout the years, in one administration after another, have been campaign contributors.
And what you see that happened-and this is really under Rove's aegis-is selective prosecution. And I think there's nothing more damaging democracy than when laws are applied only to one group. And as I began to research this, I saw that, you know, you may notice that a mayor of Alabama was indicted or investigated, a mayor of Honolulu was investigated just before an election, mayor of Miami, mayor of San Francisco. And all in all, I found mayors of 12 major cities. There's Cleveland; Detroit; Portland, Oregon; New Orleans; Chicago; Philadelphia; Pittsburgh; Memphis and Dallas. What do they all have in common? They are Democrats. They are governors and lieutenant governors from five states-Alabama, Hawaii, Michigan, New Jersey and Maryland-and on and on, over 200 politicians, and 85 percent of them are Democrats. And I think there's no data suggests that the Democratic Party is seven times more corrupt than the Republicans.
AMY GOODMAN: But how do you tie this all to Karl Rove?
CRAIG UNGER: Well, there is the testimony, as Siegelman said, of a former Republican operative named Jill Simpson, and she testified before the House Judiciary Committee. Now-excuse me-Rove in GQ magazine said she didn't dare mention his name. His name is in it zero times, zero times. I went back to the testimony. In fact, his name is in it at least 50 times, and it's-and she explicitly makes it clear that he was involved. What happened with the Siegelman prosecution is a colleague of Rove's named Bill Canary was sort of the Karl Rove out of Alabama. He was handling the Republican gubernatorial candidate, Republican senatorial candidates and so forth. And who was appointed U.S. attorney in Alabama but Canary's wife. So he was in this wonderful position. When he was running a campaign, his wife would simply indict the Democratic opponent. And that's exactly what happened.
AMY GOODMAN: So now let's go back to Ohio, in fact, Ohio and SMARTech. This is the one chance you ever had to question Karl Rove about that.
CRAIG UNGER: Exactly. And I met Karl Rove in Alabama, and I asked him. And he said, "SMARTech? What's that? I've never heard of it."
Well, SMARTech is a high-tech company in Chattanooga. And what you see with Rove's methodology is he manages to have things happen in his benefit, and there are no fingerprints. But I traced the ownership of SMARTech and its precursors, and the original company was funded by two-its precursor, rather, was funded by two Republicans named Bill DeWitt and Mercer Reynolds. Mercer Reynolds was finance chairman of the Republican Party. In '04, he raised about a quarter of a billion dollars for the Bush-Cheney campaign. And in the '80s, they had bailed out George W. Bush in his oil ventures, DeWitt and Reynolds had. So they were very, very close to him.
And this company started off as a very legitimate high-tech company in Chattanooga during the dot-com boom. It later reformed under a different name and different ownership, but by then it had become very much a political operation. So, this was a highly, highly partisan Republican high-tech company. It hosted-its biggest clients included the Bush-Cheney campaign, it included Jeb Bush, it included the Republican National Committee. It streamed live the convention, the Republican convention.
And somehow or other, in 2004, in the state of Ohio, which was the single most crucial state in the electoral college, when it came to the actual voting, the secretary of state of Ohio, a guy named Ken Blackwell-and the secretary of state's job is to-part of it is to ensure fair, nonpartisan elections-happened to be co-chair of the Bush campaign. Now, there's no conflict there. And he gave a contract to host the fail oversight for the Republican-rather, for the votes in 2004, to none other than SMARTech. And this is where things went a little crazy.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: But how was that allowed to happen even? I mean-
CRAIG UNGER: Well, I mean, I think it is a huge conflict of interest on the face of it for the secretary of state of a party to be affiliated with one campaign or the other. And we saw it, of course, in Florida in 2000 with Katherine Harris.
AMY GOODMAN: Well, 2004, election night, tell us the story.
CRAIG UNGER: Right, Well, about at 11:14 p.m., things started to happen, exactly 11:14 p.m. And as the votes came in, it was clear it was going to be an all-nighter in terms of the results. And around 11:00, Florida was called for Bush, and that meant the entire fate of the election hinged on Ohio. So, suddenly-excuse me-the servers for the secretary of state's computers were flooded with queries.
AMY GOODMAN: Ohio secretary of state.
CRAIG UNGER: Exactly. And they needed to lock into the fail oversight in Chattanooga with SMARTech. And this is where the results went a little crazy. And suddenly, an enormous number of irregular returns came in, and the votes shifted. The exit polls had shown Kerry winning Ohio, and therefore the election. And it looked like he had won the presidential election. I remember that day vividly because I was getting reports from the exit polls, and I went around telling people it looked like Kerry had won. But there was a 6.7 percent difference between the exit polls and the actual results. And as a result, the election ended up going to Bush. And that was the entire story.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: In writing about what happened in Ohio as well as in Alabama, one of the things that you say about Rove is that a case can be made that for the last three decades he's been putting a systematic attempt to game the American electoral system by whatever means necessary. What kind of vision does Karl Rove have for the Republican Party and for American politics?
CRAIG UNGER: Right. Well, I don't think he's an ideologue. I think he's about winning. And he's often been compared to a guy named Mark Hanna, who more than a century ago was the political mind behind President William McKinley. He was a senator from Ohio, but he was also a political operative who put McKinley in the White House and forged a realignment. There's always been this talk of a permanent Republican majority that Rove is trying to forge, and he sees it, the nation, as being entirely Republican. And, in fact, I think that's Rove's line, and I don't buy it.
He faces, and the Republican Party faces, an extraordinary challenge in the-with the Hispanic boom. There are now 50 million Hispanics in the United States. In 2020, at the current rate of growth, there will be 70 million. If they start to vote, they tend to lean heavily Democratic, and you will start to see states like Texas and Arizona flip from red to blue. And Rove is trying to stop that. And one campaign he's supported is what is known as a campaign fighting voter fraud. And as I found out, I think the fraud about-the Brennan Center at the NYU School of Law says the fraud about-voter fraud is itself a fraud. And there have only been 10 documented cases of people voting under false names in the first decade of this century. So, why-but in response to that minuscule number, there are campaigns in more than 30 states to have voter-require voter IDs and so forth. This will inhibit voting from new immigrants, from minorities, from the elderly and so forth, who, again, lean heavily Democratic.
AMY GOODMAN: Before we go to break, I want to go one more time back to Ohio, because you really focus on these issues in the book. Michael Connell, who he was, and what his death meant?
CRAIG UNGER: Right. Well, he was known as Rove's sort of cyber-guru, and he had a company called New Media that was-hosted all its work at SMARTech, as I-the company I mentioned earlier. And what you see there is, again, a highly partisan Republican operative who gets involved in what are supposed to be nonpartisan activities. And there were a number of things going on there. What first struck my attention is he got contracts to host the House Judiciary Committee, the House Intelligence Committee, a lot of government committees, which included emails and so forth of Democrats. And I thought back to Watergate, of course, when the Republicans broke in to get one file from the Watergate office. Here, they presumably had access to thousands and thousands of files for many, many years. Whether they used that or not, I don't really know.
They were also-you know, but Connell-one of the things that's very interesting is how evidence disappeared again and again and again in this case. And what you saw is that in all of these scandals-in the U.S. attorneys scandal and the Valerie Plame scandal-Rove's emails were subpoenaed, and they were hosted at SMARTech. And, oops, millions of emails mysteriously disappeared. Now, these were supposedly under the-protected by the Presidential Preservation Records Act [Presidential Recordings and Materials Preservation Act], and the destruction of government documents is a very, very serious crime. But every attempt to investigate turns up naught. And Mike Connell became increasingly an important witness in this case. He was subpoenaed once. There was a case investigating the 2004 election. He was supposed to testify again. And finally, before he could testify again, he died in a plane crash, in a solo private plane.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: I want to ask you about Stephen Spoonamore, a former John McCain supporter and a highly successful expert of the detection of computer fraud. In 2008, he named Mike Connell and his company, GovTech Solutions, as having played a crucial role in the electronic subversion of the vote in Ohio in 2004. I want to ask you more about Spoonamore, but first I want to turn to a 2008 interview Democracy Now! did with the media scholar Mark Crispin Miller shortly after Mike Connell died in a plane crash. In this clip, Miller says Connell asked Spoonamore how one would go about destroying White House emails.
MARK CRISPIN MILLER: Stephen Spoonamore is a conservative Republican, a former McCain supporter and a very prominent expert at the detection of computer fraud. He's the star witness in the Ohio lawsuit, right, in which Connell was involved. He has done extensive work of this kind, involving computer security, and had therefore worked with Connell, knew Connell personally and knew a lot of the people who were involved in the sort of cyber-security end of the Bush operation.
Despite his conservatism-or I suppose some would say because of it-he's a man of principle-I mean, believes in the Constitution. He believes elections should be honest. He's the one who came forward and named Connell.
And I have seen his notes of a conversation in which Connell asked Spoonamore how one would go about destroying White House emails. To this, Spoonamore said, "This conversation is over. You're asking me to do something illegal." But clearly, clearly-this is the important point-Mike Connell was up past his eyeballs in the most sensitive and explosive aspects of this crime family that, you know, has been masquerading as a political party.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: That was Mark Crispin Miller speaking to Democracy Now! Do you think Ohio 2004 was stolen, and do you think it's possible that something like that could happen in the 2012 election?
CRAIG UNGER: Well, there was no question there was massive fraud. If you want to actually count the votes, unfortunately it's impossible because so much evidence was destroyed. And then that's why Mike Connell was such an important witness, and his death meant that-you know, I quoted-I talked to Mike Connell's sister, who said either-there are only two possibilities, really, that Connell was murdered-and I don't see any evidence of that-or that he was in an accident, in which case Karl Rove is the luckiest man alive.
Could this happen again? I think-you know, I think electronic voting is very, very dangerous, and it's very easy to manipulate. But I also found evidence in Ohio of extraordinary kinds of fraud that could happen with punchcard ballots, as well, through very elaborate and byzantine means of-known as cross-voting. And I think a lot of people don't realize, when you go into a voting booth and you see another voting booth nearby, if you voted the same way in the adjoining booth, in the wrong booth, or if your punchcard is counted by the different computer, it would register to a different vote. And we saw this happened-
AMY GOODMAN: I don't understand.
CRAIG UNGER: Well, in Ohio, they have what is known as a rotation of ballot. That is, they decide that-whoever's at the top of the ballot has roughly a 2 percent advantage over the candidate below him. So, to compensate for that, they actually rotate the ballot sequence from one precinct to another, which makes a certain amount of sense. But the voter doesn't know that. Now, if your-
AMY GOODMAN: So you might have Romney on top in one ballot, Obama on top on another ballot.
CRAIG UNGER: Exactly. So precinct one has Romney on top. If it's counted by precinct two, however, the vote goes to the wrong person. And we saw a lot of that in Ohio. And the giveaway was in an African-American precinct, where there were third-party people on the ballot there, including a white supremacist-someone linked to a white supremacist party. And suddenly in this African-American precinct, this-and African Americans tend to be very, very disciplined Democratic voters. They've been 95 percent Democratic in the past. And suddenly, this man who is linked to a white supremacist got 40 percent of the vote. And you could see exactly what had happened.
AMY GOODMAN: We're talking to Craig Unger. His new book is Boss Rove: Inside Karl Rove's Secret Kingdom of Power. When we come back from break, how Karl Rove barely escaped indictment and rose to be the biggest powerhouse, political powerhouse, in America today. Stay with us.
AMY GOODMAN: "MC Rove," performed at the 2007 Radio and TV Correspondents Dinner, with NBC's David Gregory, Karl Rove among the backup dancers. Yes, this is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. I'm Amy Goodman, with Nermeen Shaikh. And we're speaking with Craig Unger. His new book, Boss Rove: Inside Karl Rove's Secret Kingdom of Power. We're going to turn right now to another scandal involving Karl Rove, the outing of former CIA agent Valerie Plame. The Bush administration outed her in retaliation for her husband Joe Wilson's accusations that President Bush lied about Iraq's alleged efforts to purchase uranium form Niger before the Iraq war. It was the whole deceit around weapons of mass destruction. Let's begin by playing the famous comment of Joe Wilson in 2003.
JOSEPH WILSON: At the end of the day, it's of keen interest to me to see whether or not we can get Karl Rove frogmarched out of the White House in handcuffs.
AMY GOODMAN: That was the famous comment of Joe Wilson, Valerie Plame's husband, frogmarching Karl Rove out of the White House in handcuffs. Craig Unger, explain what the Valerie Plame scandal was and what Karl Rove had to do about-with it and why he was almost indicted.
CRAIG UNGER: Right. Well, the Valerie Plame scandal, of course, was-Joe Wilson had been an ambassador to African countries. He was sent to check out allegations that the Republic of Niger had sold or was trying to sell yellowcake uranium to Saddam Hussein. This became part of the 16 words in President Bush's State of the Union address that called for war against and launched the war against Iraq. And the allegations, of course, were not just false, but they were based on forged documents. And worse than that, the forged documents had been revealed as forgeries, I found at least 14 times, within the administration before Bush's speech, but they still got in it, and the war went ahead with it.
Since Wilson had discovered they were-the allegations were false, he later wrote a very famous column, an op-ed piece in the New York Times, saying what I found in Africa ["What I Didn't Find in Africa"], and he revealed that. And this was destroying the Rovian narrative, the Bush administration's narrative. So, in retaliation, they outed his wife, Joe Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, who was a CIA agent, and exposed her. And that's what it was all about. And this showed that they would stop at nothing to maintain their narrative. They were trying to discredit Joe Wilson. I think they sort of didn't realize exactly how far they were going. And this was potentially a crime, so this started the whole Valerie Plame investigation.
Now, Bush said he would fire anyone who was responsible for this leak. And one thing that's absolutely clear is that Rove, though he was not the only one-Scooter Libby was later indicted and convicted-Rove played a very, very key role in this. And he did leak Valerie Plame's name-rather, her identity, that she was a wife. At one point he said, "I didn't say her name." Well, he said this is Joe - "Joe Wilson's wife is a CIA agent. She set up everything." And he told that to Time magazine reporter Matt Cooper. So, and Rove went on to lie about it again and again.
I think there's, oddly enough, a link in those two clips you just showed of MC Rove dancing with the press and Joe Wilson, because what is important here, in some way, is the press's complicity with this. What you see is, when Karl Rove is your source, you are beholden to him. I read Bob Novak's memoirs, the late columnist, who was the man who first printed Valerie Plame's name. And he says, rather tellingly, that "Karl Rove was my A-plus source for many, many years." And he was sort of Novak's meal ticket. And Novak goes on to say, "But when that happens, of course, you never write a critical word about him." And a lot of the press was like that. And you see in that clip a lot of the correspondents dancing with Rove.
AMY GOODMAN: How did Rove escape indictment? I mean, Scooter Libby went down, Judith Miller.
CRAIG UNGER: Well, I think it was by a sheer stroke of luck. And there was a woman reporter at Time magazine named Viveca Novak-no relation to Bob Novak. And she would have drinks occasionally with Rove's lawyer, Bob Luskin. And occasionally, they-during one conversation, Rove's lawyer said, "Well, Karl is in danger from Matt Cooper at Time." And she let it slip that, yes, he was. And this was-so, suddenly, Rove was being called before the grand jury, I think a total of five times. He had said again and again that he had not leaked it to anyone. He said that he didn't recall any conversation with Matt Cooper. This turned out to be a lie, frankly. He had told this to Scott McClellan, the White House press secretary. He had told it to President Bush. This had been his story again and again. And he was finally caught in a lie, and now his attorney realized it. So Rove willingly asked to go back to the grand jury and correct the information. And on that basis alone, I believe he escaped a perjury indictment.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: You also talk in your book about Rove's relationship to the judiciary. You say that no other political strategist in history has ever been so deeply indebted to the U.S. Supreme Court, and you talk about a couple of key decisions that went along with what Rove was lobbying for.
CRAIG UNGER: Right, exactly. I mean, there are two United States Supreme Court decisions that are among the two most controversial in history. And one, of course, is in 2000, Bush v. Gore, and the Supreme Court, by a five-to-four margin, effectively appointed Rove's candidate president of the United States. And again in 2010, also by a five-to-four majority, the Citizens United decision opened the gateway for the super PACs and for the billion dollars Rove controls today.
And Rove has always known this, I think, about the judiciary-excuse me. In Texas in-back in the '80s, he started taking over the Texas Supreme Court, and he flipped it from heavily Democratic to heavily Republican. He did the same in Alabama. A lot of people don't realize he had a real power base in Alabama. And he played a key role in the appointment of U.S. attorneys. And it's also-one of his clients was John Ashcroft of Missouri, and Rove made-got him appointed attorney general of the United States.
AMY GOODMAN: And he was one of the names being mentioned if Akin were to pull out.
CRAIG UNGER: Right.
AMY GOODMAN: We only have a minute to go. As you wrote this book, as you wrote Boss Rove, what most surprised you? What do you think it's most important to understand about this man who has now become perhaps the most powerful political operative in America?
CRAIG UNGER: Well, I think it's the enduring aspect of the changes. We see it in the Siegelman going to jail, that this is-this started over 10 years ago with Siegelman, and now he's going to jail perhaps for eight years. I just think it's an absolute travesty. And Siegelman is just one example out of dozens and dozens. So, you have what I think are real threats to democracy that have a lasting power, and with things like the voter suppression drive, that these-a lot of these issues are real threats to democracy.
AMY GOODMAN: Craig Unger, we want to thank you very much for being with us, author of Boss Rove: Inside Karl Rove's Secret Kingdom of Power. It hits the bookshelves on September 4th. He's contracting editor at Vanity Fair, where you can read an excerpt from Boss Rove. We'll link to it on our website.
That does it for the show. We'll be broadcasting two-hour specials every day from the Republican and Democratic conventions.

'via Blog this'