What am I missing?

On July 22, 2008, the National Enquirer reported than John Edwards had met his mistress and love child in a Los Angeles hotel. Ordinarily I would never have known this, NE not being on my reading list. However, three on-line sites I read and consider respectable and even thoughtful promptly picked up this story. I was - to put it mildly - flabbergasted. This is theNational Enquirer. As in tabloid. As in trash. Why on earth would any media outlet or website with any claim to honesty or decency touch this stuff?

Well, I figured, there must be something substantive to this. Maybe NE has done some solid reporting and the evidence is so overwhelming that no one can ignore it. So I did a little investigation. After reviewing everything I can find, I can confidently report that’s not the case. NE story is based on eyewitness testimony from a veritable army of NE reporters and “corroborating evidence” from countless unnamed sources.

Okay, I thought, maybe these honest, decent, respectable, thoughtful sites are talking about this in order to rail against it. After all, I’m writing about it. No, that’s not it either. They largely discuss it as if the reports were true. They - or their commenters - throw in the obligatory “if it’s true” from time to time but overwhelmingly the discussion proceeds as if the reports are known to be accurate.

One point made by the writers who are passing along NE’s garbage is that the amount of detail is impressive and they’re quite right. The NE story tells us:
- where Rielle Hunter (the mistress) drove in from
- who Edwards attended a press event with before their meeting
- what the topic of the press event was
- what time Edwards appeared at the hotel (“9:45pm”)
- what type of car he arrived in and the sex of the driver of the car
- what Edward was wearing and what he was carrying
- how Edwards looked around before entering (“nervously”)
- how he made his way upstairs (avoiding the lobby, “ducking” into a stairwell)
- what his route meant (“he went out of his way to avoid being seen”)
- what room numbers Hunter had reserved and whose name she reserved them under (no information on how NE knew Hunter reserved those rooms since they weren’t in her name)
- who was in those rooms (Hunter in one, baby and friend in another)
- how long Edwards and Hunter were out of the hotel together (“briefly”)
- what time Edwards attempted to leave the hotel (“2:45am”)
- how Edwards attempted to leave (sneakily)
- how Edwards reacted when he saw the army of NE reporters waiting for him (shocked)
- how long Edwards spent in the men’s room after seeing the reporters (15 minutes)
- who got him out of the restroom (security guards)

In response to all this detail, I can do no better than quote Elizabeth Peters. In her book, The Love Talker, the heroine comes across Arthur Conan Doyle’s The Coming of the Fairies. Doyle, desperate for validation of the Spiritualist beliefs he embraced following the death of his son, is attempting to convince the public that the Cottingley Fairies photographs are real. In discussing Doyle’s pathetic faith in the clearly contrived photographs of fairies, the heroine says, “Doyle went into laborious detail about how he was drawn into the case, under the commonly held but illusory conviction that detail constitutes scholarly proof.”

Of course, there may be a reason for all that useless detail. Perhaps it’s meant to distract the reader from what NE doesn’t have:
- there is no video of Hunter and the baby arriving at the hotel
- there is no video of Hunter and the baby in their hotel rooms
- there is no video of Edwards arriving at the hotel
- there is no video of Edwards and Hunter leaving the hotel briefly
- there is no video of Edwards attempting to sneak out of the hotel
- there is no video of Edwards barricaded in the men’s room
- there is no video of the security guards rescuing Edwards from the men’s room
- there is no video of Hunter and the baby leaving the hotel

There is no video. In all of Los Angeles, not one NE reporter could find a video camera. (Please note, video. Still photographs presented by NE are not going to cut any mustard with me. I’ve seen too many UFO abduction, alien baby, and half-man/half-animal photos to place much faith in still photography. And those appeared before digital cameras and Photoshop.)

So what am I missing? At what point did an utterly unsubstantiated report from the National Enquirer merit even being repeated much less taken seriously?

*****

Chronology of the Edwards “scandal”

Begin by reading the Wikipedia entry on The National Enquirer. This provides some background on NE’s past work and on the claims by some that it’s good at winning lawsuits.

December 25, 2006: Newsweek writes ”Politics 2008: John Edwards, Untucked” about short documentaries Rielle Hunter is doing for his OneAmericaCommittee Web site. A line from this article is the source of the “met in a bar” line that shows up in various stories about Edwards and Hunter: “The Webisodes are the brainchild of Rielle Hunter, a filmmaker who met Edwards at a New York bar where Edwards was having a business meeting.” That sentence is both weird and ambiguous. Edwards was having a business meeting with an unnamed party in a bar and Hunter crashed the meeting? Edwards and Hunter arranged to have a business meeting in a bar? Edwards had a business meeting in a bar and when it was over he was sitting there drinking and Hunter picked him up - or he picked her up?

September 26, 2007: Sam Stein at The Huffington Post writes
Edwards Mystery: Innocuous Videos Suddenly Shrouded In Secrecy claiming that webisodes made for Edwards’ One American Committee PAC have “disappeared”. It’s well worth skimming through the first page of comments for some alternate viewpoints.

October 10, 2007, 10:52am: Sam Stein at The Huffington Post writes
Scrubbed: Edwards Filmmaker's Deleted Website Raises Questions claiming that Hunter’s deleted (but recovered by Stein) Website is suspicious. This doesn’t seem to me to make sense unless you combine it with the National Enquirer story that came out the same day.

Again, it’s worth skimming through the first page of comments. My favorite is Grannyhelen. In the article, Stein asks, “Moreover, why did Edwards choose someone with limited film experience to document his behind-the-scenes campaign presence - ‘the real John Edwards’?” Grannyhelen comments:

Hmmm....so, why is a recent Dartmouth college grad (and I notice from the photo not an unappealing young man) given so much space in a prestigious post owned by Arianna Huffington? Why is an article with so little actual, factual content given so much play in a blog owned by an Older Woman?

October 10, 2007: National Enquirer writes PRESIDENTIAL CHEATING SCANDAL! ALLEGED AFFAIR COULD WRECK JOHN EDWARDS' CAMPAIGN BID citing a unnamed “friend” of the mistress as evidence of the affair.

October 11, 2007: The blog mydd.com writes National Enquirer, Wonkette, bullshit bucket quoting Rielle Hunter’s denial of the claims she had an affair with John Edwards. The post sums up, “Just a total bullshit story.”

November 29, 2007: The Daily News gossip section writes Tabloid's affair rumor dispelled, says John Edwards which is worth quoting at length:

The tab's [NE] editors have been promising a followup to The Enquirer's Oct. 10 story romantically linking the married presidential candidate with a female campaign staffer.

Edwards and the woman - identified on the Huffington Post and elsewhere as Rielle Hunter - denied allegations they'd had an affair. But one Enquirer source insisted that the tab would provide further evidence in the form of e-mails to a friend in which Hunter supposedly confided details about her love for the former senator.

But seven weeks after the first story, one Enquirer insider admits, "There's a lot of smoke" but "no smoking gun." Enquirer editor David Perel insists, "I never like to talk about what's not published, but we are still doing the story. The original story was 100% accurate."

Edwards himself has another explanation for the delay. "The story disappeared because it's made up," the Democratic candidate tells us.

December 19, 2007: National Enquirer writes UPDATE: JOHN EDWARDS LOVE CHILD SCANDAL! claiming Hunter is six months pregnant and reporting that both Hunter herself and Andrew Young say Young is the baby’s father. Unnamed sources say this is a ruse to protect Edwards. (Boy, I’d like to meet the Mrs. Young who’d go along with this.) In this story, Hunter is living in “an upscale gated community” in North Carolina and seeing an obstetrician there.

December 19, 2007: The blog mydd.com writes Is this really happening? quoting a statement from Andrew Young’s lawyer confirming Young is the father of Hunter’s baby.

July 22, 2008: National Enquirer writes SEN. JOHN EDWARDS CAUGHT WITH MISTRESS AND LOVE CHILD! This is the story that started the current uproar. NE reported Edwards arrived at the Beverly Hilton at 9:45pm on Monday, July 21, and left at 2:45am on Tuesday, July 22.

A piece of information which didn’t make the NE article and doesn’t seem to have made it into many of the pieces written about the NE story is this from the Philadelphia Daily News (I love this whole article):

As Daily News TV critic Ellen Gray informed us from the Television Critics Association summer press tour, what makes the Beverly Hilton choice even more bizarre is that the place was crawling with reporters Monday night for the TCA, including newspaper people from the New York Times, USA Today the New York Daily News, the Washington Post, and us.

But no one but the National Enquirer seemed to spot John Edwards.

Ah, it's a big hotel, you say.

True, but the Enquirer says Hunter/Edwards friend Bob McGovern reserved rooms 246 and 252 at the Hilton. The TCA hospitality suite was down the hall in Room 234.

July 23, 2008: National Enquirer writes JOHN EDWARDS LOVE CHILD revealing new “details” like the type of car Edwards arrived in and the fact that the driver took an automated parking ticket when he pulled into the lot.

July 24, 2008: National Enquirer writes JOHN EDWARDS AFFAIR: CRIMINAL COMPLAINT FILED. NE reporters have charged hotel security with various violations of the California Penal Code for their actions rescuing Edwards from the men’s room. The article notes that the reporters were guests of the hotel and refers to “one security guard [threatening] to break their camera”.

July 25, 2008: FOXNews.com writes Guard Confirms Late-Night Hotel Encounter Between Ex-Sen. John Edwards, Tabloid Reporters reporting than an unnamed (surprise!) security guard at the hotel is confirming the rescue of Edwards from the men’s room although he says he did not recognize Edwards at the time.

This report also says, “FOXNews.com could not independently confirm the Enquirer's allegations” about Edwards visiting Hunter. It further states:

Beverly Hills Police Sgt. Michael Publicker, meanwhile, confirmed Friday that an incident report was filed with the department by two of the tabloid's reporters. Publicker said that contrary to a published report, a "criminal complaint" was not filed and there are no charges pending.

"It will be looked into," Publicker said, refusing to say whether Edwards would be contacted as part of a formal investigation. "We're not going to comment on the investigation," he said.

Police department spokesman Tony Lee said Publicker told him that Edwards was not named on the incident report.

And remember that NE camera the security guard threatened to break? The FOX article says:

The Enquirer says it has videotape showing Hunter entering the room where she met Edwards, and shows Edwards leaving the same room. However, the Enquirer has thus far declined repeated requests by FOXNews.com to release any photographs or videotape evidence of the incident.

July 25, 2008: National Enquirer writes EDWARDS AFFAIR: ENQUIRER REPORT CONFIRMED! referring to the FOX story. NE talks only about the security guard not about the inability to independently verify, the police comments, or the video.

July 30, 2008: National Enquirer writes EDWARDS' HU$H MONEY TO MISTRESS quoting an unnamed source who claims both Hunter and Young are receiving payoffs from “by a wealthy colleague who was closely tied to the Edwards’ campaign”. The story also gives the baby’s name and reveals she was born in Santa Barbara. No word on why Hunter left her cushy house and her obstetrician in North Carolina.

As far as I can tell, that’s the sum total of the evidence for Edwards’ affair with Hunter: they met in a bar; the Webisodes are missing (or maybe not); unnamed sources and unverified reporters’ accounts in NE; and an unnamed security guard found by Fox who didn’t recognize Edwards during the incident (assuming it occurred). All the other posts about this (some of which I reference below) are just posters talking about this evidence or posters talking about other posters talking about this evidence.

I keep thinking I must have missed something. For example, I read quotes like this:

At first, I was skeptical of the National Enquirer story catching Edwards leaving the Beverly Hills Hilton Hotel at 2:45am because there were no pictures and the tabloids aren't reliable. Now it turns out that Edwards was at the hotel, so was Ms. Hunter, and that he when he saw reporters he hid in the bathroom until security guards came and got him.

and all I can think is, “What has this guy read that makes him so sure about those facts? What did I miss? Where besides NE did he look for confirmation?” Oh, well, he does say he’s going to post his Internet research information on his Website. It’s not there yet but I’ll keep an eye out for it.

Then again maybe I haven’t missed a thing. In Christie’s The Moving Finger, Dr. Griffith is discussing his fears about the spate of anonymous (ahem) letters in the village: “I’m afraid, too, of the effect upon the slow, suspicious, uneducated mind. If they see a thing written, they believe it’s true.”


The Corner at National Review Online

The writers there posted about this repeatedly, especially Byron York. If you want to see everything, you can start with:

July 22, 2008, 6:33pm: Byron York writes Today Is Fitzmas for Mickey Kaus referencing the NE story, remarking that since money probably changed hands most media outlets won’t touch it but saying “it is good to learn what appears to be the real story.”

and work toward the present. I’ve cherry-picked a few of the posts where I have something to say:

July 22, 2008, 7:35pm: Byron York writes Re: Edwards raising the issue of Edwards being in the running for Vice-President, wondering whether any major media will pick up the story, and crediting NE with breaking the story of Rush Limbaugh and Oxycontin. This is a claim I’ve seen repeated elsewhere. It’s worth remembering that when NE reported this story, there was an ongoing criminal investigation and a named source to lend it credence.

July 24, 2008, 6:47am: Jonah Goldberg writes Tabloid Trash suggesting Edwards should be suing and claiming NE “is pretty scrupulous about its facts. They win lawsuits.” Goldberg raises an interesting point about Edwards suing but here’s the place to keep in mind the Wikipedia NE article’s notes about the difficulty of winning libel suits in the United States and the list of lawsuits NE hasn’t won. Keeping in mind the Wikipedia information about the Cameron Diaz story, it would be interesting to know if the Edwards stories are available in the Britain and Ireland and if Edwards (or Hunter or Young for that matter) would have standing to sue in those countries.

July 24, 2008, 11:02am: Byron York writes John Edwards and the National Enquirer answering a reader who objected to him equating the New York Times and NE. York contrasts NE’s stories on Bush drinking again, getting a divorce, and running away with Condoleezza Rice with NE’s stories on Edwards and concludes the former are bogus while the latter “is far different. Beginning with the original story in the Huffington Post, to this piece from the Enquirer last December, to the new one, it seems to me there's a pretty convincing body of evidence.” York does concede that no one has checked NE’s sourcing and mentions the possibility that NE “is fabricating material”. He concludes with “the Enquirer has been right quite a few times.”

The link York provides for the NE’s story on Bush’ drinking does not work. The correct one is BUSH'S BOOZE CRISIS. He does not provide any links to NE stories on Bush’ divorce or on Bush running away with Rice and I was unable to find those stories.

July 25, 2008, 12:37pm: Ramesh Ponnuru writes "Tabloid Trash" which states, in its entirety, “I'm inclined to think that the National Enquirer story is that even if it's true.”

July 25, 2008, 1:07pm: Kathryn Jean Lopez writes re: "Tabloid Trash" in which she agrees with and expands on Ponnuru’s comment.


Slate - The XX Factor

The writers at XX Factor posted about this repeatedly. The first post I see is:

July 23, 2008, 11:45am: Melinda Henneberger writes Mickey's Dream Has Been Rielle-ized

The last is:

Saturday, July 26, 2008, 10:56am: Melinda Henneberger writes My Challenge to Emily and Mickey: Bag a Philanderer and Then Get Back to Me in which she asks:

Isn't cheering and leering from the comfort of the cheap seats on something like this (yeah, you go out and get that sleazo story that I personally would consider beneath my dignity) the journo equivalent of being a Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld-style chickenhawk? And isn't there a journalistic equivalent of the fruit of the poison tree?

I don’t have comments on any of what they’ve said but it’s worth paging through the XX Factor for an interesting discussion on the privacy issue part of this.


Slate - Kausfiles

Mickey Kaus is - in his own words - obsessing about this. (I’m a fine one to talk - look at the length of this post.) The first post I see (for this go-round - he’s posted about Edwards/Hunter before) is:

July 22, 2008, 8:09pm: Mickey Kaus at Kausfiles at Slate writes Busted referencing the NE story and wondering whether the MSM will pick up the story.

There is no last story since he’s still posting about this right now. If you want to get every possible drop of information in support of this story, Kausfiles is the way to go.

One note about an issue Kaus raises in a June 25, 2008 post and that I’ve seen raised elsewhere: why doesn’t Edwards just get a DNA test to disprove paternity? I don’t think Edwards can get a DNA test. Or rather, he can but he can’t compel the baby to. Only Hunter could do that.

Even if Edwards could persuade Hunter to have her baby tested, though, I don’t for a moment believe a negative result would quiet those who are avidly pursuing this story. They would simply claim that the results had been faked or that some mysterious Edwards associate had paid off the lab. In other words, it’s impossible for Edwards to present the “absolute proof” called for here:

Don Fowler of Columbia, a former Democratic National Chairman, agreed.

"Any kind of report like this, unless there is some absolute proof that it is not true, will be believed by some people," he said, "and the degree to which it seems to have credibility will be believed by more people. And when you select somebody to be vice presidential candidate the number one rule of everything is, you sure as hell don't want somebody who will hurt you."

And that means we’re giving the National Enquirer veto power over the candidates’ vice-presidential picks.

Stealing the silverware

David Mamet has a wonderful essay in The Village Voice, entitled ”Why I Am No Longer a 'Brain-Dead Liberal’”. Mamet points out the contradiction in the liberal view of the world - people are basically good at heart yet everything is always wrong; takes a second look at George W. Bush; re-examines corporations and the military; and rethinks the need for and value of government intervention. All in three short pages.

I recommend this essay highly and to whet your appetite here’s one of my favorite lines:

The Constitution, written by men with some experience of actual government, assumes that the chief executive will work to be king, the Parliament will scheme to sell off the silverware, and the judiciary will consider itself Olympian and do everything it can to much improve (destroy) the work of the other two branches.

Sex with goats

I don't have much to say about this post - I just like it. The incident it refers to is the Jessica Lynch rescue so it's practically ancient. I do think Jane's Rule is worth keeping in mind during the elections as are Lileks' musings on the two different attitudes one can take toward one's opponent.

Untitled (From the desk of Jane Galt)

The Lileks post she quotes can be found here:

Untitled (From The Bleat)

Wheat, chaff, babies, and bath water

John McCain’s handling of the Phil Gramm comments drove me crazy. If Gramm was a great economic adviser yesterday he doesn’t suddenly become an economic dunce tomorrow. If your economic adviser says the recession is mental and there’s a lot of whining, don’t pack the guy off to Belarus. Say, “Phil Gramm is right about a lot of things. The economy is growing; we are in a great position globally; and fear of a recession can tip us over the edge into a real one. At the same time, however, we need a plan to be sure everyone participates in that growth and everyone can take advantage of our global economy. That’s the best way to make people stop fearing for their economic futures. As for whining, Phil’s right about that, too: there are people out there who took on more debt than they can handle and are whining about having to pay up and want the government - which really means all you taxpayers - to bail them out. But there are also a lot of people who work hard and live within their means and pay their debts but are hurting from problems like skyrocketing energy prices and we need a plan to help them out.” And when asked if you’re going to continue to use Gramm’s expertise, say, “Of course. I don’t always agree with him but he’s a valuable resource. I make the decisions but I listen to a lot of people before I do so. I can sort wheat from chaff with no trouble at all.”

And while I’m on the subject, could we also stop with the whole No Lobbyists As Advisers nonsense? Obama criticizes McCain for having advisers who are lobbyists for one cause or another - but Obama has lobbyist advisers himself. Now McCain requires all advisers to either resign or cut lobbying ties - as if those who cut their ties will magically forget the causes they once championed. For Heaven’s sake, grow up. When candidates are criticized for listening to advisers with ties to one group or another, they should say, “Sure, I know he sells widgets. But widgets are important and he knows everything there is to know about them. Why would I throw away a resource like that? It’d be like throwing out the baby with the bath water. I always remember he thinks widgets are great and will try to convince me that what the country needs is lots and lots of widgets. I’m smart enough to take what he says with a grain of salt and to listen to the anti-widget guys, too, before I make a decision.”

“I listen to a lot of people but I make the decisions” is a far more powerful statement than “I have to get rid of this guy because I’m so weak-minded he might convince me to do something wrong.” And acknowledging that even smart people with valuable knowledge have agendas and push pet projects is a lot more honest than trying to pretend everyone around you is - or must be - as pure as the driven snow.

*****

Sources:

McCain adviser talks of 'mental recession' - The Washington Times article that started the whole Phil Gramm brouhaha; you can read more of what he said than “whiners” and “mental”

While searching for a full transcript of Gramm’s remarks - which I didn’t find - I ran across a couple of posts that echo some of what I say here:

Phil Gramm post from The Corner on National Review Online

Phil Gramm is right - An interesting article from The Washington Post on “Campaign Econ”

Obama seizes on McCain lobbyist ties

No Ban on Lobbyists as Advisers for Obama

Mike and Carol versus the Baby Boomers

[This is Old News. Chronistic Date is April 24, 2008.]

Today in a post entitled “The Generational War” Andrew Sullivan quotes from a reader’s lengthy communiqué. We never learn the reader’s name so I’m going to call him “Mike” and his wife “Carol”. Mike writes:

My wife and I are what you would call Obama's core demographic. I'm 27, she's 28; we are both working toward earning our doctorates ... I think we have both developed a well-nurtured sense of doom about the future, driven perhaps by predictions of global warming and the seemingly unending War on Terror that President Bush has promised will be the defining struggle of our generation. I know we're going to be taxed to the hilt at some point to pay for that enormous national debt, and I know that our own finances have probably relied a little too much on the credit card and student loan.

It's difficult and often hyperbolic to define a generation's attitudes toward anything, let alone something as complex as voting behavior. But, I do believe this election is being driven by an Obama voting bloc that, to a certain extent, blames the anxieties that I mentioned above on our parent's generation.

Please tell me that Mike - and Sullivan - are aware these attitudes are so “dog bites man”. I suspect every generation has blamed its anxieties about the future on its parents’ generation. I know Baby Boomers played this blame-game with enthusiasm. Everything that was wrong with the world - the threat of nuclear annihilation, the pollution of the natural environment, the Vietnam war, the long lines to buy gas - was our parents’ fault.

Mike goes on to say:

No, not on our parents directly, since how could you not express affection for such an over-indulgent group of ex-hippies, but on their lack of self-discipline.

Like this young man, we Baby Boomers tried to see our parents’ failings kindly. They were scarred by the Great Depression, overly impressed by their performance in World War II, locked into the ridiculous mindset of MAD. They were terribly, terribly wrong, of course, but their error was understandable.

Mike continues:

They were the generation that got their wish in the 1960s with John F. Kennedy and Bobby Kennedy. Who saw the promise of a new politics embodied in both men, and had the electoral power through sheer demographics to propel them to what would have been successful presidencies.

Well that’s rather sweeping. We have no way of knowing whether Robert Kennedy would have won in 1968 nor of knowing what kind of president he would have been. As for John Kennedy, Mike seems to have forgotten how narrow a victory the power of those “sheer demographics” delivered in 1960 - possibly because the oldest of those demographics was only 14. Further, although Kennedy is justly praised for his stand on issues like Civil Rights, the Berlin airlift, and the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, he also presided over a number of less “new politics” endeavors such as the Bay of Pigs; the last pre-Furman federal execution; a bloody coup in Iraq; and increased intervention in Vietnam, including another coup.

Mike goes on:

The promise was cut short, but that generation of baby boomers lived on as the definitive political and economic force in American politics. In the late 60s and early 70s they expressed their social power through a burgeoning cultural and political revolution.

As I read it, Mike is saying that even though the baby boomers lost their iconic politicians, they continued their drive for social and political change. Whether Mike considers this a good thing or a bad thing is unclear. The interesting question for Mike and Carol - who Mike writes “are committed to [Obama’s] campaign no matter what” - is whether if Obama is not the Democratic nominee or not elected President, they will remain engaged in the political process. If not, then we’re talking a cult of personality rather than commitment to a vision of the future.

Mike continues:

As the 70s became the 80s [the Baby Boomers] began to grow into their prime earning potential, demanding tax cuts and beginning a spending spree that would fuel almost all of the economic growth of the 1990s.

Maybe. Or maybe the Baby Boomers who were students in the 70s had to start earning a living in the 80s. After all, they had children to support, like little Mike born in 1981 and little Carol born in 1980. Someone had to pay for baby food and diapers and athletic shoes and braces and the education that would eventually lead to graduate school.

They were narcissistic and short-sighted; all too willing to view an ascendant, powerful America as their personal reward for being born at the right time and place.

Goodness knows all us Baby Boomers will probably burn in hell for the SUV but this still seems harsh judgment on a generation that produced the climate in which an African-American and a woman are now vying for the Democratic Presidential nomination.

Perhaps the greatest metaphor for this generation's attitude is the prevailing belief that the American consumer (and government) spent their way to a victory in the Cold War.

I have heard that the United States government outspent the Soviet government in the Cold War and that broke the Soviet economy. I have to admit I haven’t heard the argument that the American consumer figured into the equation. Since it sounds as if Mike disagrees with this “prevailing belief”, I would be interested in hearing his explanation of what caused Gorbachev to concede the field.

Mike winds up with an impassioned statement about the nearly “Mel Gibson movie” like future that will result if a “pragmatic, problem-solving leader like Obama” does not reach the White House. He begins this last push with:

Now that it appears we've reached the limit of unrestrained consumption, [the Baby Boomers] appear more than willing to take their social security checks and medicaid benefits and ride into the sunset, leaving in their wake a bankrupt, increasingly desparate younger generation.

Interestingly enough, if you actually read what Senator Obama says about Social Security on his website, he offers no plan to cut benefits for Baby Boomers. His only concrete proposal for Social Security is to increase the maximum amount of earnings covered by Social Security (currently pegged at $102,000). I think this is an idea worth considering but it does sound suspiciously like one of those tax increases Mike and Carol are so anxious about.

Senator Obama does not discuss Medicaid under “Issues: Seniors and Social Security” on his website, but he does discuss Medicare and he has some good ideas, like making the Medicare Prescription Plan transparent. As far as saving money, though, he plans to save money by cutting waste - always a popular although rather vague solution. He also plans to close the “doughnut hole” in the Medicare Part D prescription drug program. It’s been a while since I looked at this but closing holes in programs usually means higher costs.

So when Mike says:

The greatest dogwhistle of the Obama campaign so far is his ability to lay out this urgency to our generation.

I find myself thinking how fortunate Senator Obama is that supporters like Mike are content with his laying out this urgency and aren’t insisting on some concrete plans to address it.

It will be interesting to see what Mike and Carol are doing 10 years from now. I imagine they’ll be working at jobs, paying off their student loans, complaining about their taxes, and spending more than they can afford on themselves and their children. On the other hand, if Mike succeeds in convincing his parents to give up their Social Security and Medicare, Mike and Carol will be supporting four aging, uninsured, over-indulgent, undisciplined, ex-hippy parents and living in fear of the day Mom or Dad gets sick.

Bobby Murcer

I was so very saddened to hear of Bobby Murcer's death. I didn't start following the Yankees until after his playing days but I adored him as a broadcaster. He always seemed to think the best of everyone, players and fellow broadcasters alike. He was wonderfully steady and that, along with his "aw, shucks, who me" approach to static in the booth made him invaluable. His sense of humor always delighted me and his drawl made for wonderful listening. I always figured he'd be back next year, after he rested up a little and got back on his feet. It's hard to believe he won't be doing another game.

The speech I wish she'd given back then

[This is Old News. It appears exactly as I wrote it on May 11, 2008.]

I wrote this mentally last night and refined it after listening to the talking heads discuss some of the same issues this morning. I am particularly indebted to Cokie Roberts for her validation of my niggling little sense that there was a women’s side to this.

Here’s the speech I wish Hillary Clinton could give:

Many people are speculating about why I continue to run for the Democratic Party Presidential nomination. Some of the speculation is pretty wild but the real answers are very simple. Let me spell them out for you. Partly I continue to run to honor the women who support me. Not just the women who have voted for me over the last five months - although I owe them special honor - but also the women who have supported me my whole life either directly by being in my life or indirectly by coming before me and paving the way. Many people forget how very far women have come just in my lifetime; even more people forget how very far women have come in the history of this country. I remember every day and I believe I honor that historical perseverance with my own refusal to concede defeat.

Partly I run because I truly believe I am the Democratic candidate with the best chance of beating the Republicans in the Fall. And it is vitally important to beat the Republicans. This country will be ill-served by another four years of the policies of the last eight.

Most importantly, though, I run because I believe I am the best choice to be President of the United States. I offer the best policies and the best platform. I am best suited for the job in terms of my ability to do it and in terms of what I will do with that ability while in office. I make no apologies for this belief. Anyone who does not believe he or she would be the best President has no business running for the office.

A few days ago I referred to the fact that Senator Obama’s support among white working class Americans appeared to be slipping. I was stating a fact and one I believe is very important for reasons I will explain in a minute. Certainly, I phrased it clumsily but I have been horrified to see how my remarks have been taken as evidence that I am racist. No one who knows my history, not just in the Senate but throughout my adult life, can seriously believe I am racist. It simply is not true. I am not the person I see described in so many newspapers and on so many talk shows. Let me repeat. I am not that person.

I realize, however, that I apparently sound like that person and I regret that very much. I’ve given much thought to this and I’ve come to a conclusion. For the remainder of my campaign, I am going to stop talking about the issue of electability. In fact, I’m going to stop talking about Senator Obama altogether. I am going to focus on what I have to offer, what my ideas are, what I can bring to the Presidency. This is partially an acknowledgment of the fact that it is almost impossible to talk about race-based issues - even statistics - without sounding racist myself. It is also a re-emphasis of my most important reason for continuing to run: my belief I am the best choice to be President.

Before I leave this topic behind me once and for all, I do want to sound a warning. What I was getting at - however clumsily - is the question of what the Democratic coalition will look like on November 4, 2008. I am not the only person worrying about this. The recent dustup between Donna Brazile and Paul Begala - both of whom I deeply respect - touched on the same issues and with the same rancor.

It is my belief that there are two large and important groups that are beginning to feel they may not be welcome in the new Democratic coalition that is being discussed. The first group goes by a lot of different names: white working class voters; blue and pink collar voters; ethnic voters; Reagan Democrats; Middle America. Whatever you call them, they have been one of the backbones of the Democratic Party and - as the Reagan Democrat name suggests - when they turn away from the Party, the Party suffers. This group is hearing that it is somehow not well-educated enough, not well off enough, simply not hip enough to belong to the new Democratic Coalition.

The second group that is beginning to feel they may not fit into this new Democratic Coalition is people of a certain age. Those who feel this group might not fit into the new coalition usually refer to them as Baby Boomers. A more honest description would be “anyone born before August 4, 1961”. This group is dismissed as having betrayed its own political and social conscience and thus causing all the ills of the world. This is nonsense, of course. The Baby Boomers were no more perfect than any other generation, but the fact that the next President of the United States will almost certainly be either an African-American or a woman is proof enough of its accomplishments. The reality is that this group is not young enough to belong to the new Democratic Coalition.

It is vitally important that the Democratic Party find a way to make room for these two groups in whatever new form the coalition takes, partly for political reasons and partly on principle. The political reason is simple: it will be very hard to win the White House in the Fall if you lose these groups. The Reagan Democrats have already shown they will vote Republican when they feel the Democrats have lost touch with what is important. The older voters are, in fact, older which increases the chance they’ll vote Republican anyhow. Convince them they’re not well-thought of in the Democratic Party and it makes their move across the aisle that much easier. And then there are women. The Democratic Party believes women - both working class and older - will not side with the Republicans and they may very well be right. But it is not inconceivable that working class and older Democratic women will decide to sit the Fall election out if they feel their value is not respected in the new Democratic Coalition.

Equally important - more important in the long run - the new Democratic Coalition should find a way to make room for these two groups as a matter of principle. The nobility of reducing black-white conflict and red-blue conflict is lost if you do so by stirring up class conflict and generational conflict. Replacing racial and ideological divisions with divisions of class and generation certainly counts as change but it has nothing whatsoever to with hope - or healing.

Let me make it crystal clear that my comments about the shape of the Democratic Coalition are not directed at Senator Obama. I have seen no evidence that Senator Obama himself encourages or desires the un-welcoming of Middle America or Baby Boomers. In fact, if it were Senator Obama who was promoting this exclusionary form of the Democratic Coalition, I could tell you that the issue would disappear if I were the nominee. That is not the case. The idea of a new Democratic Coalition is coming in large part from Democrats newly registered and newly energized by the Democratic Primary and by those who write about these new Democrats. That the make-up of the Democratic Party will change over time is inevitable; I just hope it does so by greater inclusiveness rather than by having the new force out the old. I sincerely believe Senator Obama would join me in this hope.

Finally, I’d like to talk about rules, a discussion which will bring me back full circle in just a moment. I’m not going to rehash the arguments about Florida and Michigan but I do want to make one point. I cannot begin to count how many officials and commentators have insisted that “the rules are the rules” and castigated me for attempting to have some or all of the delegates from these states count. So I’d just like to point out that - under the rules - there is no reason for me to stop running. The rules of the Democratic party established a primary season that runs from January to June; specified the number of delegates needed to win the nomination; ruled out winner take all state primaries; created super delegates who can vote as they please; and set a convention date months from now. Under those rules, I can still win the Democratic Party nomination. It might be highly improbable but it’s not impossible. And I believe that as long as it’s possible, it’s worth fighting for.

Thank you.

It's no fish ye're buying, it's men's lives.

So said Sir Walter Scott on the dangers of fishing.

I first read the Time article "Undertaker for the mules" when it was published in 1997. A copy of it has gone with me from torn-out page in a file to document on my Classic Mac to document and link on my iMac and now to my blog. I think Sir Walter could relate.

Step by step to Global Warming: What is, was, and will be

In my earlier post, ”Troglodytes have feelings, too”, I explained that I’m a Global Warming skeptic and talked about a couple of feeling - as opposed to scientific and philosophical misgivings - that make it impossible for me to just believe in and accept Global Warming. (It looks like Penn Jillette is in a very similar boat. It’s always nice to have company.)

Now I want to lay out those scientific and philosophical misgivings about Global Warming. A big part of my problem is simply the number of separate beliefs I would have to hold in order to make it to full-blown Apocalyptic Anthropogenic Global Warming so I’ll examine each of those beliefs in turn.

Wikipedia defines Global Warming thus:

Global warming is the increase in the average measured temperature of the Earth's near-surface air and oceans since the mid-twentieth century, and its projected continuation.

There’s a lot of complexity hiding in that simple definition. Ask someone, “Do you believe in Global Warming?” If the answer is “Yes” there’s a tendency to think that implies belief in full-blown Apocalyptic Anthropogenic Global Warming. As in, humans are causing it, we’re all going to drown, and we better get busy doing whatever it takes to fix it. If the answer is “No” there’s a tendency to think that implies a lack of belief that the Earth is even getting warmer. Such a lack of belief renders any discussion of antecedent causes and subsequent consequences not just unnecessary but positively pointless.

In truth, however, there is a ladder of steps from someone like William Gray who doesn’t believe the planet is permanently warming to someone like Al Gore who holds the most serious view of the problem and advocates some heavy-duty solutions. Each of us can jump off at any point along the way which leaves the question of belief in Global Warming looking less like a binary problem and more like a sliding scale.

So what steps make up the ladder of Global Warming? I’m glad you asked. To be a full-fledged Global Warming believer you must believe:

1) The planet is getting warmer.
When I first outlined these steps a year ago in an email to a friend, if you wanted to dispute this you talked about measurement problems: urban heat islands, badly placed monitors, missing temperatures from cold countries, and so on. You can still do so - Climate Audit is doing yeoman work on these issues. Now, however, if you don’t want to wade through all that boring technical stuff, you can just point to graphs of the global temperature metrics which have been cool to Global Warming for about 10 years and downright chilly for the last year.

2) The warming is unprecedented in human history.
This is mostly what the Hockey Stick sought to show. It was prominently featured in the IPCC 2001 report. The first controversy swirling around it arose because it wiped out the Medieval Warm Period (and the Little Ice Age for that matter). Then questions arose about the data and the programming. Is the Hockey Stick valid? Depends on who you ask.

3) The warming is caused largely by human activity.
This means it’s not El Nino; it’s not a naturally repeating cycle; it’s not volcanos; and the sun isn’t doing it. Of these, the idea that the sun did it is taken the most seriously by Global Warming believers (although that means they just spend more time saying it doesn’t matter). Why does the sun get extra attention?

Well, remember the Little Ice Age that the Hockey Stick disappeared? That occurred during the Maunder Minimum. A Minimum in this sense is a period of very, very low sunspot activity; this particular Minimum was named after its discoverer, Edward Maunder. There are also Maxima and one of those coincides to some extent with the Medieval Warm Period. More sunspots, warmer earth; fewer sunspots, colder earth? Depends on who you ask. And the answer might be kind of important because although sunspot counts have been high since 1900, our current sunspot cycle (Cycle 24) is late, late, late.

4) The human activity that is causing the warming is the production of greenhouse gases.
In other words, it’s not just that there are more people and more cities making the Earth warmer. It’s a particular thing produced by those humans that is responsible.

5) The greenhouse gas responsible for the greatest part of the global warming is carbon dioxide.
Other greenhouse gases like nitrous oxide and fluorocarbons are not important enough to rate much concern. Methane is getting more attention but CO2 remains the 300-pound gorilla of greenhouse gases. (Water vapor is the by far the most prevalent greenhouse gas but is not considered in this context since it is not caused by human activity.)

These are the Global Warming beliefs that have to do with the past and present. They make up the picture of what Global Warming is and what causes it. They imply the future contained in that last little phrase in Wikipedia’s definition: “and its projected continuation.” Global Warmists believe that so long as humans keep producing enough CO2 to increase the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, the Earth will continue to warm.

Obviously, I have problems accepting some of these beliefs. But what if you don't? Fine, you say, I’m with the Global Warmists so far, believe it all, no problem. The Earth has gotten warmer and will continue to get warmer still. I like beaches, I hate shoveling snow. So why is this a problem? That’s the question I’ll address next in “Step by step to Global Warming: What lies ahead”.

Robbing Peter to pay Paul

I’ve posted earlier about Obama possibly backing off on his plan to “... immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq ... remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months.” In that earlier post, I suggested that such a change in plan might cause him serious problems with his supporters. However, while commenting on a post at TigerHawk, I realized there is a means by which Obama would have a good shot at justifying a decision to remain in Iraq:

A pivot on Iraq withdrawal would be huge but with his rhetorical skills, Obama should be able to recast it pretty easily. The most effective way would be to visit Iraq and then express a “stay the course” position as resulting from talking with everyday Iraqis who want the US to finish the job. If he can present the elements of the basic conservative argument - democracy good; fear of Iran; get rid of terrorists; don’t waste lives already lost; progress being made - as coming not from those nasty militaristic Republicans but from Iraqis who want for their children what we all want for ours, he might well get away with it. It depends on how badly damaged Obama’s reputation as a Teller of Tough Truths is by that time but the man has been able to pull off some amazing feats so far.

A decision by Obama to “stay the course” in Iraq would seem to leave McCain with little opportunity for substantive criticism: he can hardly attack Obama for coming over to his way of thinking and would be left with only the charge of flip-flopism to make. However, there is a substantive issue on which the Republicans could attack Obama if he decides to stay in Iraq: If he didn’t have all that money he was going to save by leaving Iraq, how the heck would he fund his proposed domestic programs?

Deep-Sixing Two and Five

On June 29, Katrina vanden Heuvel was part of the Round Table discussion on This Week with George Stephanopoulos. While discussing the possibility that a Bob Barr third-party candidacy might draw enough votes away from John McCain to open up states like Alaska and Georgia for an Obama victory, vanden Heuvel said:

We’ve been talking about expanding the electoral map. I think until you bust open the Electoral College - which I hope we’ll do in 2012 - you can’t expand it that much.

This struck me as odd since four years is not very long to pass the Constitutional amendment that would be needed to do away with the Electoral College. Or would it? I turned to Wikipedia and eventually found The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, also known as The Amar Plan. This, it turns out, is precisely what vanden Heuvel had in mind.

Under The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (TNPVIC), individual states agree to abide by the national popular vote. In other words, regardless of how voters in a particular state vote, that state will cast all its electoral votes for whoever wins the popular vote nationally. TNPVIC further specifies that states can agree to the Compact but their agreement will not take effect until states controlling a majority of electoral votes have signed onto TNPVIC. As Wikipedia points out, this means that as few as eleven states could put this Compact into effect: the eleven states with the most electoral votes control a majority of those votes.

It is not clear whether TNPVIC is Constitutional. On the one hand, Article Two, Section 1, Clause 2 of the Constitution allows each state to decide for itself how to apportion its electoral votes. On the other hand, Article One, Section 10, Clause 3 (the Compact Clause) forbids states from entering into compacts with other states without Congressional approval. On the third hand, the extent of the Compact Clause’s prohibition seems to be unclear. Even if TNPVIC is Constitutional, however, it is clearly an attempt to make an end-run around the mechanism for amending the Constitution provided in Article Five.

Article Five requires a two-thirds vote of quorums of both Houses of Congress or a request by two-thirds of the state legislatures to even propose amending the Constitution. It further requires that three-fourths of the states (either by Legislature or Convention) approve the amendment before it takes effect. And, in fact, there have been previous attempts to abolish the Electoral College using the Constitutionally prescribed amendment process. Since these attempts failed, TNPVIC was devised to do away with the need for those pesky super-majorities: the Compact could effectively amend the Constitution with only eleven/fiftieths of the states agreeing. Not only does this approach treat the Constitution as a system to be beaten rather than the highest law of the land, it drives another nail into the coffin of Federalism.

Alongside my outrage, however, I must admit to some amusement. I’m not entirely sure the lawmakers and governors who support TNPVIC have thought this through. The Compact was dreamed up in 2001. It doesn’t take a Constitutional lawyer to conclude that the scheme was originally developed in response to the 2000 Presidential election in which Al Gore won the popular vote and George W. Bush won the Electoral College. Based on the timing - and on Katrina vanden Heuvel’s approval - I’m guessing TNPVIC is driven primarily by Democratic outrage over being cheated out of the Presidency in 2000. I’m further guessing that Democrats suspect it’s unlikely approaching impossible that there will be a situation where Republicans win the popular vote but Democrats win the Electoral College. What if they’re wrong?

As a starting point, let’s assume the 2008 election will look just like the 2000 election - and then we’ll change a few things and see what happens.

First, let’s say that all the states that went for Gore in 2000 approve TNPVIC in time for the 2008 election. That would mean states controlling 260 electoral votes would have approved the Compact. (This number is different from the 266 electoral votes Gore received because redistricting has changed the electoral vote map. And because there was one abstention by a District of Columbia elector. Who knew?) To get TNPVIC to go into effect, it needs states controlling 270 votes to agree to the Compact. So let’s say Florida also signs onto TNPVIC. That means that states controlling 287 electoral votes have now approved TNPVIC and it will take effect for the 2008 election.

Second, let’s say that every state that went for Gore goes for Obama. And let’s give Obama Florida by saying that 1000 Floridians who voted for Bush now decide to vote for Obama. Now Obama has 287 electoral votes, all of them from states that signed on to TNPVIC, and Obama has the popular vote. Obama is the President and all is well. But what if there’s a shift - just a slight shift - in the popular vote?

In 2000, Bush got 50,455,156 votes; these become McCain’s votes in 2008. Gore got 50, 992,335 votes; these become Obama’s votes in 2008. We’ve already taken 1000 Florida votes away from McCain and given them to Obama, so now our numbers are:
McCain - 50,454,156
Obama - 50,993,335

Obama is winning the popular vote by 539,179. In 2008 there were 6 states where the margin of victory was less than 12,000 votes: Florida, Iowa, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Oregon, and Wisconsin. That leaves 44 states plus the District of Columbia where we can play with the popular vote a little. Let’s say that in each of these 45 states (yes, I know DC is not a state) there’s a swing in the popular vote of 12,000. That is, in each of these 45 states 6,000 people who voted for Gore decide to vote for McCain. That means McCain would pick up 270,000 votes and Obama would lose 270,000 votes.

Now our popular vote looks like this:
McCain - 50,724,156
Obama - 50,723,335

Oops! Guess who gets to be President? And guess how happy the voters in the states that signed on to TNPVIC are going to be when their elected officials inform them that, yes, we know you voted for Obama and, yes, we know he won the Electoral College and, yes, we know he should be President, but we’re going to cast our electoral votes for McCain?

I’m sure the supporters of the TNPVIC consider an outcome like this very unlikely. But I think there’s a good chance this scenario or one very like it will happen. Look at it this way. More than 225 years ago a group of pretty smart guys wrote a Constitution that embodied a new way of looking at government and at the same time glued a bunch of disputatious states into one nation. That Constitution has served us well for all these years, amended as necessary by a mechanism designed to be as difficult as possible and thereby to avoid the tyranny of the majority. Now a group of people, many angry at losing and all tired of playing by the rules, are willing to do whatever it takes to get their way. If that means cutting the heart out of two Articles of the Constitution, that’s fine with them because they know how this country should be governed far better than those old-timers in funny clothes.

I call that hubris. And as our forefathers in democracy taught us, nothing follows hubris as inexorably as nemesis.

*****

Sources, numbers, and a confession:

Presidential Election of 2000, Electoral and Popular Vote Summary

Wikipedia - United States presidential election, 2000 (detail)

Wikipedia - United States presidential election, 2000

Wikipedia - List of U.S. states by population

I took the transcript of Katrina vanden Heuvel’s comment from my own tape of This Week with George Stephanopoulos. You can find the video at This Week under “The Roundtable”. (I assume this moves off the main site once the next show airs.) Her comment about the Electoral College should begin about 7-8 minutes in.

The final numbers in this post look pretty simple, but I juggled numerous articles and four spreadsheets to get to them. I love my iMac but I hate not being able to put code behind Appleworks' spreadsheet the way I could behind Excel. If you find any mistakes, please let me know.

Although the existence of The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact came as a surprise to me, my home state of New Jersey is one of four states that have signed onto this deal. My only excuse for not realizing this is that the Legislature did this in 2007 when for good reason I was paying absolutely no attention to politics. The other three states that have signed onto the Compact are: Maryland, Illinois, and Hawaii. All four of these states went for Gore in 2000. They also went for Kerry in 2004; and Clinton in 1992 and 1996.