NYT's Ross Douthat's Flawed Analysis of the Komen-Planned Parenthood Controversy

New York Times columnist Ross Douthat criticizes media coverage of the Komen-Planned Parenthood controversy in his latest column, The Media's Abortion Blinders. Douthat argues that media coverage decisively favored Planned Parenthood, leaving the impression that the organization was itself without controversy.  Douthat, however, ignores available information that undermines his claims and that reveals his own ideological blinders regarding the abortion topic.

Partially Reporting Gallup Results

To prove his case, Douthat cites a recent Gallup survey, which he says shows that "[a] combined 58 percent of Americans stated that abortion should either be 'illegal in all circumstances' or 'legal in only a few circumstances.'" Douthat cites this survey in order to argue that the media coverage ignored millions of Americans who disfavor abortion.  He also attempts to depict Planned Parenthood as an organization that sits outside of mainstream public opinion.

The same Gallup poll, however, shows that 77 percent of Americans want abortion legal in all circumstances or legal under certain circumstances. This is so because the majority of Americans -- 51 percent -- favor abortion under certain circumstances. Only a minority of the country occupies the most extreme positions in this debate (abortion legal/illegal in all circumstances). While 21 percent want abortion illegal in all circumstances, 26 percent want it legal in all circumstances. So, more Americans favor abortion (with some restrictions) than those who do not. Also, more Americans favor unrestricted access to abortion than those who want it illegal in all cases. These numbers have remained somewhat consistent over the last two decades.

Douthat Relies Upon Heavily Biased Coverage of Planned Parenthood

Douthat contests Planned Parenthood's statement that abortions only constitute 3 percent of its services. To do so, he cites "conservative estimates," which he claims challenge this figure.

Douthat's conservative estimates, however, come from a highly biased analysis in The Weekly Standard, a unabashedly conservative and partisan publication that was previously owned by Rupert Murdoch.

The Weekly Standard article does not even dispute Planned Parenthood's statement about the breakdown of its services. Instead, it reports that revenue from abortion services constitutes a much larger share of Planned Parenthood's overall intake. Because abortion is more expensive than other services the organization provides, this result is not surprising. Still, this fact does not alter the data that Planned Parenthood presents regarding the mix of services it provides to patients. Conservatives, however, including Douthat and Mike Huckabee, continue to make this false assertion.

Douthat Ignores Available Information to Reach His Conclusion

Douthat concludes his column with a volley of claims. He that argues that fighting breast cancer is "unifying" while abortion is "polarizing"; that the Komen decision to defund Planned Parenthood was no more "political" than the decision to fund it in the first place; and that equal numbers of Americans were "probably" angered and relieved by Komen's decision. For several reasons, Douthat's reasoning fails.

While abortion is a polarizing topic, most Americans disagree with the extreme pro-life position. Furthermore, Komen made breast cancer controversial by thrusting itself into the public debate about abortion. This was unwise from a marketing standpoint. Undoubtedly, the public anger over Komen's decision led to the reversal.

Also, contrary to Douthat's assertion, the Komen defunding decision was absolutely political. It follows decisions and plans by conservative states to defund Planned Parenthood. These state policies are illegal because they violate federal Medicaid rules.

Also, reporting on this issue reveals that Karen Handler, the Vice President for Komen, is anti-choice. Handler ran as an anti-choice candidate in a Georgia gubernatorial election, during which she criticized Planned Parenthood.

When Handler arrived at Komen, she pushed the organization to split from Planned Parenthood.  Komen seized upon the fact that anti-choice House Republicans had launched a partisan "investigation" of Planned Parenthood. Komen created a rule barring the distribution of its funds to entities under federal investigation. It then used this rule to justify defunding Planned Parenthood.

Komen, however, gives money to other organizations under congressional investigation. Yet, it only cut funding to Planned Parenthood. And while the federal investigation is the initial excuse Komen provides for parting with Planned Parenthood, Douthat accepts an alternative argument the Komen made up after the controversy erupted -- that it defunded Planned Parenthood because the latter did not provide many breast cancer screenings in the first place.

Douthat's article omits a lot of available information on this subject.  Douthat does not provide this information either because he has not thoroughly researched the topic or because he wants to ignore facts that challenge his own position.

NYT Article Makes Peculiar Claim About Plagiarism In The "Digital Age"

According to New York Times reporter Trip Gabriel, the "digital age" raises questions about what constitutes plagiarism. Gabriel argues that the availability of information on the Internet complicates traditional notions of ownership and originality.

Citing examples of students copying information from websites without attribution, Gabriel makes the following claim:

[T]hese cases — typical ones, according to writing tutors and officials responsible for discipline at the three schools who described the plagiarism — suggest that many students simply do not grasp that using words they did not write is a serious misdeed.

It is a disconnect that is growing in the Internet age as concepts of intellectual property, copyright and originality are under assault in the unbridled exchange of online information, say educators who study plagiarism.

Digital technology makes copying and pasting easy, of course. But that is the least of it. The Internet may also be redefining how students — who came of age with music file-sharing, Wikipedia and Web-linking — understand the concept of authorship and the singularity of any text or image.

My Take
I am completely unpersuaded by Gabriel's argument. The availability of information on the Internet -- along with technology that allows for simple "cutting and pasting" of text -- undoubtedly makes plagiarism easier to accomplish. These innovations, however, do not change the definition of plagiarism. Rather than relaxing the standards of academic integrity, educators need to police plagiarism more intensely in the digital age.

Now, New York Times In Flap Over Blumenthal's Vietnam Comments

How quickly things can change. Earlier this week, the New York Times ran a bombshell article, which revealed that Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal has misstated his military record. During a filmed presentation (and on other ocassions), Blumenthal said that he served in Vietnam, but he never did.

The article created quite a stir. Democratic politicians, however, continue to support Blumenthal, and the controversy might not cost him the upcoming senate election.

The New York Times, however, is now receiving criticism. Apparently, the New York Times failed to disclose potentially exculpatory statements by Blumenthal from the same taped speech in which he falsely stated that he served in Vietnam. During the taped speech, Blumental said that he served during Vietnam in the Marine Corp. reserves; later, however, he referenced his service in Vietnam. The New York Times only presented the most damaging statement.

It is unclear why Blumenthal would make potentially contradictory statements during the same speech (perhaps he truly misspoke). It is equally baffling that the New York Times would eliminate such an important part of the speech.

The New York Times, however, has defended its failure to present the entire context, stating that the earlier portion of the speech is not necessarily exculpatory ("during" does not exclude "in"). To some extent, this is true, but readers should have had the opportunity to evaluate the entire context of the story -- not simply the most damning parts.

Nancy Pelosi: She Who Saved Comprehensive Healthcare Reform

The New York Times joins Politico with an article that gives House Speaker Nancy Pelosi much of the credit for comprehensive healthcare reform. Sheryl Gay Stolberg, Jeff Zeleny, and Carl Hulse report that after Scott Brown won the Massachusetts Senate election, the prospects for comprehensive reform died. White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel urged President Obama to abandon the more elaborate package and to pursue piecemeal legislation. Pelosi dismissed this approach as "Kiddie Care."

The New York Times article confirms much of the substance of the Politco article, but it adds factual details. The New York Times describes a partnership between Obama and Pelosi that developed once he trusted her instincts on reform more than his most senior advisor.

Here is a clip from the article:

In a series of impassioned conversations, over the telephone and in the Oval Office, [Pelosi] conveyed her frustration to the president, according to four people familiar with the talks. If she and Harry Reid, the Senate Democratic leader, were going to stick out their necks for Mr. Obama’s top legislative priority, Ms. Pelosi wanted assurances that the president would too. At the White House, aides to Mr. Obama say, he also wanted assurances; he needed to hear that the leaders could pass his far-reaching plan.
“We’re in the majority,” Ms. Pelosi told the president. “We’ll never have a better majority in your presidency in numbers than we’ve got right now. We can make this work.”

Now, in what could become a legislative Lazarus tale — or at least the most riveting cliffhanger of the Obama presidency so far— the House is set to take up the health bill for what Democrats hope will be the last time.

For Mr. Obama, who vowed earlier this month to do “everything in my power” to see the bill to fruition, the measure’s passage would be an extraordinary triumph. Its defeat could weaken him for the rest of his days in office.

Only a month ago, several journalists wrote off comprehensive healthcare reform and asserted that Emanuel was right to advocate less. Today, it appears that the opposite is true.

See also: Pelosi Convinced Obama to Reject Emanuel's "Kiddie Care" Proposal and to Pursue Comprehensive Reform.

Very Scary: NYT's Article Discusses Highly Partisan Revision of Texas Social Studies Curriculum

An article in the New York Times describes a disturbing list of possible revisions to the social studies curriculum in Texas public schools. The Texas Board of Education ("TBE") approved the changes, which, after a public comment period, could face possible revision before final approval.

Highly Partisan Process
The article describes contentious discussions among Democrats and Republicans within the Republican-dominated TBE. All members are elected.

Ultimately, the TBE approved the changes with a strictly partisan 10-5 vote. A conservative member of the TBE says that the changes will add "balance" to the curriculum.

Highlights With a Caveat
Although the New York Times article is clearly slanted against the proposed changes, some of them sound quite disturbing on their face (regardless of the overall slant of the article). It is unclear, however, to what extent the TBE also accepted favorable improvements to the curriculum and to what degree the proposals listed in the article represent extreme outliers.

Here are some of the details from the article.

One board member said the following:

“I reject the notion by the left of a constitutional separation of church and state,” said David Bradley, a conservative from Beaumont who works in real estate. “I have $1,000 for the charity of your choice if you can find it in the Constitution.”

This view represents the same bankrupt notion that the Constitution spells every right out with particularity. The Ninth Amendment directly refutes that concept, as does the word "liberty" in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Nonetheless, social conservatives continue to hawk this folly as solid constitutional interpretation.

This view also ignores the role of the Supreme Court to interpret the meaning of the Constitution. Conservatives might disagree with Court rulings, but students should understand that they are binding on matters related to the Constitution. Texas would do a severe disservice to its students if it does not teach them about the responsibilities and powers of each branch of government.

Another conflict centered around race:

Efforts by Hispanic board members to include more Latino figures as role models for the state’s large Hispanic population were consistently defeated, prompting one member, Mary Helen Berlanga, to storm out of a meeting late Thursday night, saying, “They can just pretend this is a white America and Hispanics don’t exist.”

“They are going overboard, they are not experts, they are not historians,” she said. “They are rewriting history, not only of Texas but of the United States and the world.”

Some changes represent blatant efforts to boost the reputation of the Republican Party. For instance:

[Conservatives] made sure that textbooks would mention the votes in Congress on civil rights legislation, which Republicans supported.

“Republicans need a little credit for that,” [Dr. Don McLeroy] said. “I think it’s going to surprise some students.”

I do not mind students learning about the Democrats' or the Republicans' racial past; in fact, I teach these issues in my law school courses. But students should also learn that, as President Johnson accurately predicted, the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 cost the Democrats an entire generation of Southern whites. The Republican Party was more dominant in Northern states at the time (as it was historically). Now, due to a dramatic political realignment, its power is concentrated primarily in the South and among whites.

Also since the passage of the Civil Rights legislation, no Democratic presidential candidate has ever won a majority of white voters nationwide, due primarily to "white flight" from the Democratic Party. Republicans and Democrats deserve full "credit" for their decisions.

Even Thomas Jefferson could not escape the conservative knife:

Cynthia Dunbar, a lawyer from Richmond who is a strict constitutionalist and thinks the nation was founded on Christian beliefs, managed to cut Thomas Jefferson from a list of figures whose writings inspired revolutions in the late 18th century and 19th century, replacing him with St. Thomas Aquinas, John Calvin and William Blackstone. (Jefferson is not well liked among conservatives on the board because he coined the term “separation between church and state.”)

No Historians, Sociologists and Economists Consulted
Perhaps the worst aspect of the process of curriculum reform in Texas is that "[t]here were no historians, sociologists or economists consulted at the meetings, though some members of the conservative bloc held themselves out as experts on certain topics" (emphasis added). Playing with the minds of young people for partisan gain is reprehensible. Students deserve access to a wider variety of information. Curtailing knowledge cannot serve good ends.

NYT's Bob Herbert Blasts Democrats For Not Doing Enough to Create Jobs

While other analysts trace President Obama's woes to his senior staff, his lack of a "message" or his failure to bite off "small" policy initiatives, New York Times columnist Bob Herbert has a different explanation. Herbert, a staunch liberal and Obama supporter, contends that the Democrats have not done nearly enough to address unemployment and the economic woes that many Americans face.

Herbert does not have kind words for the Republican opposition, but he does let Democrats off the hook either. Here is a clip:

The talk inside the Beltway, that super-incestuous, egomaniacal, reality-free zone, is that President Obama and the Democrats have a messaging or public relations problem. We’re being told — and even worse, Mr. Obama and the Democrats are being told — that their narrative is not getting through. . . .

That’s just silly. People are upset because they are mired in economic distress and are losing faith that their elected representatives are looking out for their best interests. . . .

People know that the government that is supposed to be looking out for ordinary people — for working people and the poor — is not doing nearly enough about an employment crisis that is lowering standards of living and hollowing out the American dream. . . .

The Republican Party has nothing in the way of solutions to Americans’ economic plight. It is committed only to the demented policy of trying to ensure that President Obama and the Democrats fail.

But the fact that the Republicans are pathetic and destructive is no reason for the Democrats to shirk their obligation to fight powerfully and relentlessly for the economic well-being of all Americans. . . .

The many millions of new jobs needed to make a real dent in the employment crisis are not going to materialize by themselves. Mr. Obama and the Democrats don’t seem to understand that.

I agree that the Democrats have a "message" problem. I also vehemently agree that they have not done nearly enough for Main Street. As with the Republicans, saving the banks and big businesses are the priority for Democrats. There's the bipartisanship everyone claims to seek!

My Concise Response to Stanley Fish: Absolutely Not!

Stanley Fish's latest effort in the New York Times bears the title "Do You Miss Him Yet," a reference to former President George W. Bush. My concise answer: Absolutely not!

Fish is apparently arguing that as the country moves away from the Bush presidency, it will embrace a more nuanced account of his time in office. Well, that is not a novel claim. In fact, I have made the same argument twice (see here and here), as have many other commentators. But, Fish, that moment has not arrived.

UPDATE: No More Mister Nice Blog has ripped Fish's "evidence" of a Bush revival to shreds.

The Latest Installment of Rahmology

The New York Times delivers the latest installment of Rahmology -- devoting 8 web pages to analyzing the White House Chief of Staff. The article, written by Peter Baker, is a "preview" to an article in the forthcoming New York Times Magazine.

The article does not tell readers much that differs from other installments in the Rahmology genre. Instead, it simply provides more background details about Emanuel in an effort to explore what makes him tick. You can read the full article here: Magazine Preview - The Limits of Rahmism

Related articles on Dissenting Justice:

Poor Rahm Emanuel: Misunderstood, Ignored, and Handsome

OK, We Get It: The Washington Post "Hearts" Rahm Emanuel!

NYT On David Axelrod: Tired, Confused, But Determined

New York Times reporter Mark Leibovich has written an article that analyzes David Axelrod (a welcomed departure from the Rahm Emanuel love fest that has gripped the media). Leibovich portrays Axelrod as tired, confused, yet determined.

Tired
Leibovich reports that several of Axelrod's friends are concerned about his health. According to the article, Axelrod, who is 55-years-old, lives on 5 hours of sleep per day, and he spends only one week with his family each month:

Mr. Axelrod’s friends worry about the toll of his job — citing his diet (cold-cut-enriched), his weight (20 pounds heavier than at the start of the presidential campaign), sleep deprivation (five fitful hours a night), separation from family (most back home in Chicago) and the fact that at 55, he is considerably older than many of the wunderkind workaholics of the West Wing. He wakes at 6 in his rented condominium just blocks from the White House and typically returns around 11.

Confused
Leibovich also reports that Axelrod seems confused by the public's failure to appreciate the daunting challenges that the Obama Administration faces. Axelrod has received a lot of criticism for not creating an effective communications strategy for President Obama. Although Obama's message during the presidential campaign was pitch perfect, according to many observers, he has lacked a coherent strategy as president. These observations leave Axelrod scratching his head:

Mr. Axelrod said he accepts some blame for what he called “communication failures,” though he acknowledges bafflement that the administration’s efforts to stimulate the economy in a crisis, overhaul health care and prosecute two wars have been so routinely framed by opponents as the handiwork of a big-government, soft-on-terrorism, politics-of-the-past ideologue.

"For me, the question is, why haven’t we broken through more than we have?” Mr. Axelrod said. “Why haven’t we broken through?"

Determined
Despite the hardships, Axelrod, who admittedly does not like Washington, comes across as determined and undaunted:

Mr. Axelrod is tired, but he says that is nothing new. “I have dealt with a lot of ‘real stuff’ in my life,” he said, referring to his daughter’s long struggle with epilepsy, his father’s suicide and his wife’s bout with breast cancer. “The disapprobation of some folks in Washington doesn’t seem very meaningful.”

Perhaps Axelrod can take solace in the fact that he only committed to doing this work for about two years -- a term that will soon expire.

Final Take
This article does not analyze Rahm Emanuel in much detail. Nevertheless, it subtly supports the growing media depiction of Emanuel as a skillful Washington insider and Obama's other senior advisers as clueless devotees of the president.


See also: A Baffled David Alexrod

Governor David Paterson: Indefensible

I have defended New York Governor David Paterson in the past, and I stand by my defense of him. Today, however, I cannot defend Paterson.

When President Obama called Paterson to persuade him to pick the highly inexperienced -- yet very privileged -- Caroline Kennedy to replace Senator Hillary Clinton, I defended Paterson's option not to comply with the White House. Ironically, most New York residents did not prefer Kennedy until after Paterson rejected her, and this decision contributed to a plunge in his approval ratings.

Furthermore, when Obama publicly and awkwardly tried to convince Paterson not to run for office, I defended him -- and the vast majority of New York residents agreed. The issue was one of democracy. New York voters, not the White House, should determine Paterson's fate.

Finally, when rumors recently emerged implying that the New York Times was poised to run stories regarding infidelity by Paterson, I defended him against what would have constituted tabloid journalism. The NYT ran two stories on Paterson that did not raise an eyebrow and which convinced many observers that the paper was simply running in the direction of muck. The final NYT "bombshell," however, prevents me from defending Paterson.

It appears that Paterson directed state officials to contact a woman who had filed an abuse claim against David Johnson -- an aide to the governor. Paterson's conduct is reprehensible. Rather than conducting an investigation and suspending Johnson, he apparently sought to "silence" the matter. According to the latest news, he may have even directed the woman to lie about the situation. This behavior by Paterson could, in fact, violate the law. At the least, it is highly unethical, which is why Paterson is now no longer seeking office and why I cannot defend him this time.

Al Gore Op-Ed: We Can't Wish Away Climate Change

Al Gore has written a very passionate defense of the science pertaining to climate change. Conservatives -- who never accepted the arguments in the first place -- have used recent revelations of faulty data among some scientists in the field to discount and belittle decades of research. Gore takes on these and other arguments.

Here is a clip:

I, for one, genuinely wish that the climate crisis were an illusion. But unfortunately, the reality of the danger we are courting has not been changed by the discovery of at least two mistakes in the thousands of pages of careful scientific work over the last 22 years by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. In fact, the crisis is still growing because we are continuing to dump 90 million tons of global-warming pollution every 24 hours into the atmosphere — as if it were an open sewer.

It is true that the climate panel published a flawed overestimate of the melting rate of debris-covered glaciers in the Himalayas, and used information about the Netherlands provided to it by the government, which was later found to be partly inaccurate. In addition, e-mail messages stolen from the University of East Anglia in Britain showed that scientists besieged by an onslaught of hostile, make-work demands from climate skeptics may not have adequately followed the requirements of the British freedom of information law.

But the scientific enterprise will never be completely free of mistakes. What is important is that the overwhelming consensus on global warming remains unchanged. It is also worth noting that the panel’s scientists — acting in good faith on the best information then available to them — probably underestimated the range of sea-level rise in this century, the speed with which the Arctic ice cap is disappearing and the speed with which some of the large glacial flows in Antarctica and Greenland are melting and racing to the sea.

Because these and other effects of global warming are distributed globally, they are difficult to identify and interpret in any particular location. For example, January was seen as unusually cold in much of the United States. Yet from a global perspective, it was the second-hottest January since surface temperatures were first measured 130 years ago.

Similarly, even though climate deniers have speciously argued for several years that there has been no warming in the last decade, scientists confirmed last month that the last 10 years were the hottest decade since modern records have been kept.

The heavy snowfalls this month have been used as fodder for ridicule by those who argue that global warming is a myth, yet scientists have long pointed out that warmer global temperatures have been increasing the rate of evaporation from the oceans, putting significantly more moisture into the atmosphere — thus causing heavier downfalls of both rain and snow in particular regions, including the Northeastern United States. Just as it’s important not to miss the forest for the trees, neither should we miss the climate for the snowstorm.

Read the full essay here: We Can’t Wish Away Climate Change.

My take: I emphatically agree that flaws in some scientific research collected by a few scientists cannot diminish the findings of researchers who have studied this issue for years. One can and should debate policy, but playing games over scientific data is silly. At the same time, the individuals responsible for producing poor research should be taken to task by their peers (rather than fire-breathing bloggers and media). Their mistakes have enabled this political circus.

Massive Earthquake Hits Chile

A massive earthquake has struck in Chile.

From the New York Times:

A powerful 8.8-magnitude earthquake struck Chile early Saturday, shaking the capital of Santiago for 90 seconds and sending tsunami warnings along much of the Pacific basin.

Chile’s TVN cable news channel was reporting 122 deaths, with the toll expected to rise, as communications were still spotty around the center of quake, near the city of Concepción in the south. Chile President Michelle Bachelet declared a “state of catastrophe" . . . .

The quake downed buildings and houses in Santiago and knocked out a major bridge connecting the northern and southern sections of the country.

It struck at 3:34 a.m. local time and was centered about 200 miles southwest of Santiago, at a depth of 22 miles, the U.S. Geological Survey reported. The epicenter was some 70 miles from Concepcion, Chile’s second-largest city, where more than 200,000 people live.

Phone lines were down in Concepcion as of 7:30 a.m. and no reports were coming out of that area. The quake in Chile was more powerful than the magnitude 7.0 earthquake that caused widespread damage in Haiti on Jan 12, killing at least 230,000, earthquake experts reported on CNN International.

Lawyer for Idaho Kidnappers Possibly Tied to Trafficking Ring

The El Salvadoran government is conducting an investigation to determine whether Jorge Puello, a lawyer for 10 Americans accused of attempted kidnapping in Haiti, is connected to a trafficking and prostitution ring. The Haitian judge presiding over the criminal case has also initiated an investigation into the matter.

The 10 Americans, who are members of an Idaho Baptist sect, say they only intended to "rescue" the children from the earthquake-ravished country, and several news articles have portrayed the group in sympathetic terms. Dissenting Justice, however, has argued that this type of behavior is absolutely unacceptable and goes against the legal standards for treating children in every civilized country. The earthquake and poverty in Haiti should not invalidate established legal norms that protect children from exploitation. Indeed, poor children are among the most vulnerable for exploitation and abuse.

This Is Not A "Politically Charged" Case
In its latest coverage of the case, the New York Times reports that the prosecution of the Americans is "politically charged." The article, however, does not offer any evidence to support this claim. An earlier New York Times article similarly described the case as being "fraught with diplomatic and political land mines."

Perhaps the New York Times believes that it is inherently a matter of politics for an impoverished nation to prosecute a clear case involving crimes against innocent children if the defendants are Americans. I disagree. Also, the State Department has rebuffed a request by the group to negotiate a release.

The United States prosecutes foreign nationals routinely, without the major media, including the New York Times, describing the cases as politically charged. Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the infamous "underwear bomber," is a religious foreign national subject to prosecution in the United States for trying to harm innocent Americans. Most media would not consider his prosecution "politically charged." It is unclear what distinguishes these two cases in that regard.

For more on the story of the 10 Americans, see: So God Authorized Attempted Mass Kidnapping? Give Me a Break!

For more on the possible tie between the group and a suspected human trafficker, see: Adviser to Detained Americans in Haiti Is Investigated.

NY Governor David Paterson Pushes Back Against Rumors

Blogs and mainstream media have been buzzing with a flurry of rumors regarding New York Governor David Paterson. Many of the rumors have centered on a supposed article regarding Paterson that the New York Times will allegedly publish. Several commentators have stated that the article will focus on allegations of infidelity.

Paterson is not going down without a fight. Last year, President Obama sought to embarrass Paterson by demanding that he step aside and not run in the 2012 gubernatorial election. But Paterson basically told Obama to step aside. At the time, the New York Times ran a set of White House talking points masquerading as an article that sought to justify the White House effort to push Paterson out of the New York governor's race. Now, the New York Times is apparently trying to isolate Paterson once again.

Paterson, however, offered tough words in response to the rumors during an interview with the Associated Press. Here is a clip from an article describing the interview:

[Paterson] said he hasn't been involved sexually with another woman since he and his wife separated more than a decade ago, an admission he made upon taking office 23 months ago. He also said he hasn't used drugs since his early 20s.

Paterson said the rumors have portrayed him as a fan of frequent partying, but he said that aside from fundraisers and official functions, he doesn't go out much - and noted that he has eaten away from home or outside the executive mansion in Albany only five times in his tenure.

"For the last couple of weeks I have been the subject of what, even by Albany standards, has been a spate of outrageous rumors about me" . . . .

[Paterson] said the rumors had been stirred up by an as-yet unpublished New York Times investigation "that spawned a bunch of speculations that are so way out that it's shocking" . . . . He said he now fears that all reporters are "stretching the bounds of journalism" in a race to get anyone to confirm a vicious rumor about him.

Paterson sounds like a rare breed of Democrat who is willing to fight. Also, Obama's preferred candidates have not performed well in recent months. Paterson, by contrast, has chutzpah, and he has been quite liberal on important social issues like gay rights. If I were a New York voter, I would think twice before tossing Paterson aside.

The New York Times Channels Its Inner National Enquirer: To Run Story on Gov. Paterson Adultery

The New York Times, masquerading as the National Enquirer, is supposedly waiting to run a story describing alleged adultery by Governor David Paterson. At least one member of Paterson's staff has already launched a preemptive strike against the yet unpublished story.

The fact that these types of stories are newsworthy and potentially career-ending astonishes me. Paterson and his wife have already stated that they both have had sex with other people during the course of their marriage. So what is the big deal?

Adultery is illegal in New York, but this law is rarely enforced, and it is likely unconstitutional. It is only a Class B misdemeanor, along with "crimes" like fortune telling and loitering. "Consensual sodomy" was on the list until 2000 when the Supreme Court held that these types of laws violate the Constitution. The same logic imperils adultery and (definitely) fornication laws. This law does not make Paterson's alleged adultery newsworthy.

After John McCain secured the Republican presidential nomination, the New York Times revived smutty stories from the distant past regarding rumors of infidelity and ethical violations concerning McCain. After receiving so many complaints, the paper published a notice to readers denying that the article ever stated that McCain had in fact committed adultery or engaged in any ethical misconduct -- even though the article focused solely upon "rumors" that he had. The New York Times also made Elliot Spitzer's sexual conduct a cottage industry -- competing with Nancy Grace for sensationalism and prurience. Apparently, the paper is at it again.

NYT's Adam Nagourney Peddles New White House Attacks on Progressives

Adam Nagourney has written an article that purports to analyze ideological divisions in the Democratic Party. But the "article," which reads more like an op-ed, narrowly and incorrectly frames Democratic Party divisions in the same flawed terms as the White House has done: Obama, the pragmatist, is dueling with unrealistic and impractical leftist ideologues.

Nagourney repeatedly portrays Obama's progressive critics as political "outsiders," which supposedly makes them naive about politics and intolerant of compromise:

It is not just that the left wing of the party thinks that its centrists hold too much sway and are too quick to cave when faced with pressure from the right. It is also that this White House, stocked as it is with insiders, people whose view of politics is shaped by the compromises inherent in legislating, is confronting a liberal base made up largely of outsiders to the lawmaking process who are asking why they should accept politics as usual (boldface added).

Nagourney's portrayal of Obama's critics, however, is highly simplistic and deceptive. The growing list of progressives who have criticized Obama includes veteran lawmakers such as John Conyers, Maxine Waters, Russ Feingold, and Louise M. Slaughter. And while some of the more passionate critiques have come from independent journalists and writers, who are not professional politicians, that does not make these individuals ignorant of the political process or unreceptive to compromise. Instead, it simply demonstrates that they are either more liberal or freer to speak honestly, without worrying about maintaining access to the White House -- something Nagourney must consider when he writes his own articles.

Nagourney, however, chooses to rest his entire article on a simplistic dichotomy. To Nagourney, Obama is a results-oriented pragmatist, while his critics, especially Howard Dean, are ideologues:

As much as Mr. Obama presented himself as an outsider during his campaign, a lesson of this battle is that this is a president who would rather work within the system than seek to upend it. He is not the ideologue ready to stage a symbolic fight that could end in defeat; he is a former senator comfortable in dealing with the arcane rules of the Senate and prepared to accept compromise in search of a larger goal. For the most part, Democrats on Capitol Hill have stuck with him.

By contrast, Mr. Dean, the former Democratic Party chairman who has long had strained relations with this administration, said the White House was slow to fight and quick to make concessions — particularly on creating a public insurance plan — and demanded that Democrats kill the Senate version of the health care bill.

To build upon this theme, Nagourney uncritically quotes Senior White House adviser David Axelrod:

"The president wasn’t after a Pyrrhic victory — he wasn’t into symbolism. . . .The president is after solving a problem that has bedeviled a country and countless families for generations."

Earlier this month, Axelrod called liberal opponents of the Senate bill "insane."

Last week, I wrote an essay that criticizes the Obama-as-pragmatist rhetoric, which has flourished in response to liberal critiques of the Senate healthcare bill. Nagourney cannot resist employing this flawed script. The pragmatism rhetoric rests on a false understanding of political change. Historically, liberal change has been incremental. It has involved compromise. And it has involved dealing with setbacks from successful countermovements. But liberal change has never occurred in the absence of open and vocal criticism of politicians from progressives. Participants in abolition, suffrage, the Civil Rights Movement, feminism and GLBT rights have all employed criticism (as well as compromise) to effectuate change.

The White House and Nagourney, however, continue to approach politics from an ahistorical perspective. Broad social change has only resulted from and can only occur with political pressure. Indeed, even the passage of the watered-down Senate bill occurred as a result of decades of activism on the issue of healthcare reform and from the political activism that secured Obama's election victory and Democratic majorities in Congress. The White House and Nagourney, however, portray the healthcare victory exclusively as the product of pragmatic politicians making deals.

Nagourney also accepts the White House's belief that liberal opposition will be irrelevant in November 2010. According to Nagourney, if progressives could not persuade one Senate Democrat to vote against the healthcare bill, then they cannot impact midterm elections. This is a simplistic understanding of politics from someone who believes he is educating his audience about the complexity of politics. Politics involves short-term defeats and victories. The passage of the Senate bill does not guarantee that the Democrats will not be vulnerable in 2010 (or 2012) to forces on the left or right. Senators undoubtedly supported the legislation for numerous reasons (party unity, etc). Their interests, however, do not determine the outcome of elections. Voters do.

Final Take: Nagourney's article falls far short from useful political analysis. Instead, it sounds like White House talking points designed to marginalize progressive critics.

Update: NYT's writer Ross Douthat continues the Obama-as-pragmatist rhetoric. His opinion essay, however, is far more intelligent and complicated than Nagourney's piece. Douthat considers the downsides of pragmatism and cutting deals, including the reality that: "sometimes what gets done isn’t worth doing. The assumption that a compromised victory is better than no victory at all can produce phony achievements — like last week’s 'global agreement' on climate change — and bloated, ugly legislation" (boldface added). I concur.

See also:

Criticizing President Obama Is Pragmatic

Rahm Emanuel Tells Liberals To Kiss His Arse

Liberals Battle White House Over Healthcare Reform

White House Shows Its True Colors on Healthcare Reform

Irrational Robert Gibbs Says Howard Dean Is Irrational

Salon's Glenn Greenwald Says: Blame Obama, Rather Than Lieberman

Why Is Obama Still Protecting Lieberman?

House Democrat Louise M. Slaughter: Scrap Senate Healthcare Bill

Obama Falsely Claims that the Senate Healthcare Bill Matches His Campaign Promises

Ezra Klein's "Pink=Blue=Colors" Logic Regarding Healthcare Reform

Audit Criticizes Federal Reserve Bank of New York for Handling of AIG Bailout

The New York Times reports that a government investigation faults the Federal Reserve Bank of New York for failing to use its "considerable leverage" when it decided to pay AIG's banking creditors the full value of their insured risk. AIG "insured" risky financial transactions of its investment banking clients, like Goldman Sachs. AIG, however, failed to maintain enough reserve assets to cover to extent of the financial risk it insured. When the investments soured, the investment banks came to collect from AIG, which sent the company into financial ruin.

Federal regulators at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, the Federal Reserve, and the Treasury Department, however, stepped in to provide assistance to AIG, which ultimately meant covering its obligations to creditors. A prior blog entry on Dissenting Justice discusses the connections that many of the federal regulators had to Goldman Sachs, which received nearly $13 billion from AIG after the federal government rescued the company. Here is a quote from that essay:

Henry Paulson, Secretary of Treasury during the Bush administration, is a former Chairman of Goldman Sachs. Paulson was responsible for administering TARP, and he had a large role in structuring the legislation.

Robert Rubin, Secretary of Treasury during the Clinton administration, was a Co-Chairman of Goldman (along with Stephen Friedman -- see below) before he earned a Cabinet post. Although Rubin does not have a formal position in the Obama administration, he has served as an informal economic advisor to the President. Also, current Secretary of Treasury Tim Geithner worked as an assistant to Rubin (and later to Lawrence Summers -- former Secretary of Treasury and current head of Obama's National Economic Council) when he headed the agency. Paulson was also a partner at Goldman when Rubin was Co-Chairman.

Mark Patterson, Geithner's Chief of Staff, is a former lobbyist for Goldman. Obama waived his anti-lobbying rules in order to secure the job for Patterson.

Tim Geithner, current Secretary of Treasury, served as the President of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York until his current position. In that capacity, he helped to structure the federal bailout of AIG. Geithner, unlike many of the other individuals listed in this article, never worked at Goldman, but he worked for Rubin during the Clinton administration and for Summers, who replaced Rubin. Summers heads Obama's National Economic Council.

Stephen Friedman, the current Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, was the Co-Chairman of Goldman with Rubin, and he has held several other executive positions at the company. In his current position, Friedman presumably will have a significant role in the ongoing federal bailout of AIG. Friedman also sits on the board of directors of Goldman.

According to the New York Times, federal auditors challenged Goldman Sachs, which argues that it should not have been forced to collect from AIG in a bankruptcy proceeding. Earlier reports (including an entry on Dissenting Justice) argued that the federal government should have forced AIG, like the auto industry, to go into bankruptcy, and that Goldman Sachs likely would not have collected nearly as much money from the troubled insurer. The auditors confirm the position taken in these previous reports.

Goldman Sachs, however, continues to deny that it received preferential treatment; Geithner also says that Goldman Sachs did not benefit from a backroom deal. But as the auditors' report states, regardless of the parties' intent, "[t]ens of billions of dollars of government money was funneled inexorably and directly to A.I.G.’s counterparties." This story will likely continue to unfold.

Shameful and Pathetic Tactics by Illinois Prosecutors: Attacking "Innocent" Students

Students in the Medill Innocence Project at Northwestern University investigate claims of innocence and wrongful conviction by inmates. Over the course of a decade, the Medill project has helped secure the release of 11 innocent persons, 5 of whom were slated for execution.

Rather than applauding the students for their difficult and compelling work, prosecutors have hit them with a low blow. In a current case involving a claim of innocence by Anthony McKinney, Cook County prosecutors have served the Medill project with a shocking subpoena. According to the New York Times, the subpoena demands "the grades, grading criteria, class syllabus, expense reports and e-mail messages of the journalism students themselves."

The Subpoena Is Highly Inappropriate
The subpoena raises several red flags. First, the information the prosecutors seek is completely unrelated to the question of McKinney's guilt or innocence. Second, student grades are normally protected from disclosure by federal law. Third, the program is operated by the school of journalism and likely qualifies for protection by state journalism shield laws and the First Amendment. Fourth, the professor's course materials are possibly protected from disclosure by the concept of academic freedom -- which the Supreme Court has construed as a value secured by the First Amendment.

Sally Daly, a spokesperson for the Cook County District Attorney's Office, denies any wrongdoing by prosecutors. Instead, Daly points the finger at students. Daly claims that prosecutors are concerned that students could have qualified for higher grades if they concluded that the inmate was innocent. This is a highly unusual -- and insulting -- assertion. First, any reputable professor would grade a student's research by evaluating the methodology and written presentation, rather than using the final conclusion as a litmus test. Second, prosecutors should make their own independent determination regarding McKinney's guilt or innocence -- rather than treating the students as suspects.

During interviews the students conducted, several key witnesses recanted their testimony. The students have already turned over videotapes of these interviews to prosecutors. Prosecutors should question these witnesses rather than fishing for the students' personal materials.

Daly makes other nonsensical and outrageous arguments in defense of the subpoena. Although the subpoena extends to grades, she says that "[w]e’re not trying to delve into areas of privacy or grades. . . ." Daly also likens the subpoena to the routine disclosure of information by "detectives." Police detectives, however, work for the government and assist the prosecution. They are colleagues. Although private detectives do not work for the government, they have an unambiguous financial stake in the outcome of their investigation. The students, by contrast, are private citizens and journalists. The Medill project exists to monitor and improve the criminal justice system -- not to service the prosecutors' office or inmates.

Northwestern University Vows to Fight the Subpoena
Fortunately, Northwestern University is fighting the subpoena. As the New York Times reports:

Northwestern University and David Protess, the professor who leads the students and directs the Medill Innocence Project, say the demands are ridiculously overreaching, irrelevant to Mr. McKinney’s case, in violation of the state’s protections for journalists and a breach of federal privacy statutes — not to mention insulting.

John Lavine, the dean of the Medill School of Journalism, said the suggestion that students might have thought their grades were linked to what witnesses said was “astonishing.” He said he believed that federal law barred him from providing the students grades, but that he had no intention of doing so in any case.

Professional journalism groups have also stepped forward to defend the students.

Irony
The outcome of this matter could turn on whether a judge treats the students as "journalists" under Illinois law. If the students are journalists, their work is protected from disclosure.

Ironically, the prosecutors' brief provides the best argument for treating the students as journalists. In awfully butchered and revealing prose, prosecutors complain that: "The school believes it should be exempt from the scrutiny of this honorable court and the justice system, yet it should be deemed a purveyor of its inadequacies to the public. . . ." The prosecutors are uncomfortable with the idea of shielding journalists who investigate and publicize "inadequacies" in the criminal justice system. But having an additional "check" on the government is one of the strongest justifications for vigorously protecting the work of journalists.

Illinois prosecutors are blatantly using the strong arm of the state to harass Medill journalism students. The prosecutors' behavior evinces a deep contempt for the law, which makes the students' efforts to uncover wrongful convictions even more compelling.

Obama: War Is Still Hell

In February, President Obama authorized 17,000 additional troops to fight the war in Afghanistan. At the time, the Pentagon wanted 30,000 more soldiers, but the president said that he would revisit the issue later.

Later has arrived, and Stanley A. McChrystal, Obama's choice to wage war in Afghanistan, says that many more troops are needed. According to a New York Times article, McChrystal will ask for 10,000 to 45,000 additional troops.

With public support for the war on the decline, Obama faces a potentially volatile situation if he agrees to an additional troop surge. Obama, who ran as the "anti-(Iraq)War" candidate, has always advocated the rightness of the war in Afghanistan. But his liberal base has begun to question the war. According to recent polls, a slight majority of the country believes that the war has not been worth the costs. These numbers do not bode well for decisions to prolong the operation into its ninth year.

The Hard and Bitter Truth
On a more human touch, Bob Herbert's latest column reminds us that war is still hell. I particularly found the following passage of "The Hard and Bitter Truth" moving:

A friend of mine. . .sent me an e-mail about a young serviceman in civilian clothes whom she and her husband noticed as he talked on a public telephone in the Atlanta airport last week. He was 19 or 20 years old and quite thin. His clothes and his shoes were worn, my friend said, but the thing she noticed most “was the sadness in his eyes and his sweet demeanor.”

The young man was speaking to his mom in a voice that was quite emotional. My friend recalled him saying, “We’re about to board for Oklahoma for the training before we move out. I didn’t want to bother Amber at work, so please tell her I called if you don’t think it will upset her too much. . . .I miss you all so much and love you, and I just don’t know how I’ll get through this.”

At the end of the call, the serviceman had tears in his eyes and my friend said she did, too. She wrote in the e-mail: “I stood up and wished him good luck, and he smiled the sweetest smile that has haunted me ever since" (ellipses in original text).

Read the full column here: The Hard and Bitter Truth.

NYT Publishes White House "Talking Points" Justifying Paterson Move

The New York Times has published an article that seeks to justify and contextualize President Obama's request that New York Governor David Paterson not seek election in 2010. The article, written by Jeff Zeleny and Adam Nagourney, portrays Obama's move in New York as part of a national strategy of deep White House involvement in local political contests:

The president’s top strategists have recruited candidates — and nudged others to step aside — in races in Colorado, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York and Pennsylvania. They said they intended to continue this practice heading into the 2010 midterm elections, as well as with an eye to the redistricting fights that will go on within states early in the next decade.

The article also suggests that Rahm Emanuel orchestrated this strategy: "The intense involvement reflects the tactics and style of the White House chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel. . . ."

Two Major Distinctions: Paterson Is An Incumbent; Paterson Defied Obama on Senate Appointment
The article seeks to draw parallels between Paterson's treatment and the White House endorsement of candidates in other contests. Two major distinctions, however, are Paterson's status as an incumbent and his failure to abide by Obama's "request" that he appoint Caroline Kennedy to fill Hillary Clinton's vacated Senate seat.

Publicly instructing an incumbent not to run is an extraordinary tactic. Yesterday, former New York Governor George Pataki criticized the decision as dangerously weakening Paterson and thus threatening the state. Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell, quoted in the New York Times article, makes a similar assertion:

The president is the head of the party, and he has a right to express his opinion . . . . The only thing I would have done differently is not let it become known. This can’t be helpful to the governor.

The article fails to discuss Paterson's refusal to appoint Kennedy to the Senate. This fact, however, also distinguishes the Paterson case from the ordinary situation where a president chooses to get involved in local races. It looks more like a political "payback," rather than a legitimate political move. The fact that Obama has not acted the same way towards other embattled candidates (like Jon Corzine and Deval Patrick) undermines the involved leader narrative that the White House has evidently floated.

The Bottom Line: I have no problem with presidents trying to influence local politics behind the scenes. But even Obama's supporters should admit that this public display does not represent the "graceful" politics that he promised. Instead, it looks very messy.

Telling an incumbent to drop out of a race matters. Telling a person to drop out after he declined to deliver a huge political favor also matters. And if having "diversity" in public life matters -- as many of Obama's supporters zealously advocated in 2008 -- then telling only the fourth black governor in the nation's history to step aside matters. Saying this does not mean that Paterson must get elected or that Obama or others cannot oppose him. Instead, it means that his race is not a neutral category. Supporting Obama should not require liberals to abandon their so-called principles.


Related articles:

Republicans Making Better Arguments Regarding Obama and Paterson

Obama Is Pathetically WRONG: Paterson Should Run!