From Political Wire’s update on the Ensign affair
Senate leaders generally refused comment on Sen. John Ensign’s (R-NV) admission that he paid nearly $100,000 to the family of his mistress but the Las Vegas Sun says GOP support for the embattled senator was dwindling.
If the shoe were on a Democrat’s foot, do you think the Repugnican leaders would refuse comment?
No, I didn’t think so.
Don’t you just love it? The Dems say nothing, allowing Sen. John Ensign to likely escape responsibility for his hypocrisy, while the Repugnicans try to make the poor cuckold the bad guy.
Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) on Thursday issued a blistering attack on Doug Hampton, the husband of Sen. John Ensign’s (R-Nev.) mistress, saying that he had provided false information about paying off Hampton after Ensign revealed he was having an affair with his wife.
“John Ensign hasn’t put me in a tough position at all,” said Coburn, a housemate of Ensign’s at a Capitol Hill home owned by a Christian fellowship. “The person that’s deceiving now is Doug. And you all need to go do the investigation now on that side of it and quit asking us and ask what’s the motivation here.”
Another example of the Repugnicans having the killer instinct and the Dems lacking it.
This is incredible. As has been reported, Sen. Tom Colburn knew of Sen Ensign’s affair. He was there during a confrontation between Ensign and the husband of the woman he was seeing.
Now Colburn says he won’t testify, whether called by a court or the Congressional ethics committee. The reason he gives is another example of the righteous right’s political bullshit.
Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) on Thursday said he would not testify in court or before the Ethics Committee about any advice he gave Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.) on how to handle his affair with a former staffer, citing constitutional protections for communications during religious counseling, as well as the patient confidentiality privilege.
“I was counseling him as a physician and as an ordained deacon. … That is privileged communication that I will never reveal to anybody. Not to the Ethics Committee, not to a court of law, not to anybody,” Coburn said.
These guys who hide behind some flimsy religious facade is one reason many of us think of the religious right as a bunch of sleaze ball political opportunists who use religion to advance a dangerous, treasonous agenda. They are America’s equivalent of the Taliban.
When I feel wronged by a company, I am a pain in the ass . And I have a method for making myself so.
That method was proven again this morning when I received a call from the executive offices of Verizon with a promise that the caller would be my advocate for fixing a problem with our internet connection.
Trying to get satisfaction from a customer service rep is usually a waste of time. They are trained to minimize losses. They can give you myriad reasons why they won’t do a thing for you and with a smile in their voices. That’s what they’re paid to do. So, while I usually make an attempt to go through customer service channels, if I don’t get satisfaction, I ignore them and go right to the top.
No matter how large a company, one can usually uncover the email address of the CEO and other senior executives. They don’t make it easy, but I can usually figure it out. I go to the media relations or investor relations page of their web site. Usually there you can find an email address for the PR or IR person because they want either the press or investors to contact them. That’s their job. Once you see the convention the company uses for its email addresses, you can usually then guess the CEO’s personal email. I send her my complaint and copy some of her top lieutenants.
It’s worked wonders. Aer Lingus lost my daughter’s luggage when she went abroad to study. It took three days for them to find it and when they did, it was broken open. They not only paid for the luggage and the missing clothing (based on her word), but they also paid for her new clothing she had to buy while she awaited her clothes.
AT&T earlier this year tried to charge me for an entire month of service when I cancelled with them on the first day of the billing cycle. Although I had a “package” deal for both local and long distance, they tried to tell me what I cancelled was actually two different services and that the long distance they charge for an entire month. I told them to go to hell. Shortly thereafter, I began getting harassing calls from their collection department. So I looked up the CEO of AT&T, figured out his email address and fired one off. Later that day, I got a call from someone in the executive office telling me to disregard the charges. It works like a charm every time.
But never as good as a recent experience. When I tell friends of this, they are slack-jawed. It was unbelievable customer service.
About a year and a half ago, I bought new eyeglasses. In early April, I noticed a small crack in one of the lenses. It looked like a miniature version of the kind of cracks you get on a car windshield. Then a few days later, I tried to clean the lens after working in the yard and two smears wouldn’t come out. The optician wouldn’t help me, saying the warranty was for only a year.
So I went to the top of Essilor, makers of Varilux lens. The CEO responded to my email within a few hours and asked that a guy in its Dallas office call me. He did and was solicitous, saying he was sure he could satisfy me, but first he needed to call the optician.
He didn’t call me back the next day as he promised. After about a week, I Googled the guy and sent him and the CEO another email. The Dallas guy called me back later in the day, but with a surprising development. He said the optician told him that I didn’t have Varilux lens; they were Zeiss lens.
Before I could attempt to extricate myself from this embarrassing development (for I then recalled that unlike in the past when I bought Varilux lens, this time they were indeed Zeiss lens), the Varilux rep made an astonishing offer. Because he wanted to make me a future Varilux customer, he offered to replace the lens free of charge. A rep of one company offering to replace another’s defective lens at no charge!
I pressed my luck when I told him I wasn’t satisfied with the service I received from the optician, so he found me another one who processed the order.
It was the most astonishing display of customer service I’ve ever encountered. Sure enough, a few weeks later I received a new pair of lens.
It’s apparently working again this morning. I use a wired Internet connection, but the FiOS service from Verizon comes with a wireless router. I use a network switch to keep my wired connection, but my wife uses the wireless service. It’s been intermittent since we got it. She loses her connection several times a day.
At first, a customer service rep said the router had to be “in line of sight” to work. That, of course, is ludicrous. A second rep told her that Verizon offers “an internet connection” but doesn’t guarantee wireless service and that the router had to be away from monitors and electrical outlets and not on a carpeted floor. Which is exactly the location the installer chose to put the router. The Verizon rep said that a new installer could not be sent to relocate the router because, again, we had no guarantee of wireless service.
So I went to the Verizon web site, figured out the convention, found the CEO’s name and guessed at his email address. This morning I received a call from Verizon’s executive office offering their assistance in fixing the problem.
It remains to be seen whether the problem gets fixed. But I got their attention.
The Washington Post’s Steve Pearlstein argues that the meme that comes mostly from Repugnicans is patently false.
Suffice it to say that, in terms of new job creation, the data show that most of it happens in a small number of very fast-growing companies that are no longer what most of us would consider small. There are lots of reasons for the success of these fast-growing firms, among them the ingenuity and hard work of their founders, the availability of capital and a culture that celebrates risk-taking.
But the dirty little secret is that a lot of small-business job growth has also been driven by the decision of big businesses to outsource many tasks that they used to do in-house. In an economic sense, jobs haven’t been so much "destroyed" and "created" as they have been shifted from one company to another.
Pearlstein says the healthcare debate is colored by this myth. If we have universal coverage that requires all businesses offer healthcare and all employees must buy it, the impact on small business will be nil. If all must offer it, none would get competitive advantage and thus be put out of business.
Pearlstein goes on to explain that many jobs created by small business is because big business has found that it is cheaper to outsource work to small businesses that are not saddled with healthcare costs.
What Pearlstein leaves out is that small businesses cited by GOPers are defined as companies with less than 500 employees. I doubt most Americans think a business of 499 employees is a small mom-and-pop small business operation.
Feeling a little disrespected, progressives, after President Obama yesterday told you to mind your manners?
"We shouldn’t be focusing resources on each other," Obama opined in the call, according to three sources who participated in or listened to the conversation. "We ought to be focused on winning this debate."
Specifically, Obama said he is hoping left-leaning organizations that worked on his behalf in the presidential campaign will now rally support for "advancing legislation" that fulfills his goal of expanding coverage, controlling rising costs and modernizing the health system.
And if you don’t…
Obama also hinted that efforts are under way to discourage allies from future attacks on Democrats, according to the source, who did not have permission to speak on the record about the discussion.
So an anonymous source delivers his threat. Obama’s reputation as a wuss is bolstered. Progressives, perhaps it will be an anonymous source who’ll put you in the time-out corner.
And helping the president in his effort to exert discipline on those who worked for change and are increasingly disappointed is the “reporter” of the article.
See, she’s not a real reporter. She’s not the kind of reporter who delivers the facts and context dispassionately. She’s the kind of “reporter” who finds ways of denigrating those she doesn’t respect. Isn’t that what we do when we describe someone in quotes?
MoveOn, a Web-based political action committee that works to elect "progressive" leaders, intended to run commercials….
Can you imagine her writing that Focus on the Family works on behalf of electing “conservative” leaders? You might think that she thinks they’re not really conservative at all, but wannabes. Or worse, some fringe group.
This is the same “reporter” who drew a strong reaction form someone she misquoted, after accusing him of being unable to “to articulate a substantive argument for the public plan,” when the “reporter” hadn’t asked him to do so.
Ceci Connolly clearly has a chip on her shoulder. Or maybe she’s miffed that her employer didn’t invite her to a salon (use the French pronunciation, sa-lawhn, s’il vous plait) where she would get to mingle with health care executives in hopes of finding a cushy “PR” job, when her “reporter” days are over.
Let’s wish her luck in her job hunting.
Fortunately, Executive Editor Marcus Brauchli is trying to extricate the news staff from this offer of pay for access to its reporters.
“Offered at $25,000 per sponsor, per Salon. Maximum of two sponsors per Salon. Underwriters’ CEO or Executive Director participates in the discussion. Underwriters appreciatively acknowledged in printed invitations and at the dinner. Annual series sponsorship of 11 Salons offered at $250,000 … Hosts and Discussion Leaders … Health-care reporting and editorial staff members of The Washington Post … An exclusive opportunity to participate in the health-care reform debate among the select few who will actually get it done. … A Washington Post Salon … July 21, 2009 6:30 p.m. …
"Washington Post Salons are extensions of The Washington Post brand of journalistic inquiry into the issues, a unique opportunity for stakeholders to hear and be heard," the flier says. "At the core is a critical topic of our day. Dinner and a volley of ideas unfold in an evening of intelligent, news-driven and off-the-record conversation. … By bringing together those powerful few in business and policy-making who are forwarding, legislating and reporting on the issues, Washington Post Salons give life to the debate. Be at this nexus of business and policy with your underwriting of Washington Post Salons."
UPDATE: The Post’s ombudsman call this a “PR disaster.” But Brauchli doesn’t have complete deniability.
The flier came out of the office Charles Pelton, who joined The Post recently to find ways to generate business through conferences and events. The Post, like many struggling newspapers, is desperately seeking new sources of revenue.
“There’s no intention to influence or pedal,” Pelton said this morning. “There’s no intention to have a Lincoln Bedroom situation,” referring to charges that President Clinton used invitations to stay at the White House as a way of luring political backing.
Pelton said newsroom leaders, including Brauchli, had been involved in discussions about the salons and other events.
“This was well developed with the newsroom,” he said. “What was not developed was the marketing message to potential sponsors.”
Brauchli acknowledged discussions, but said they had centered on “identifying events that we think are worthy of newsroom participation, whether it’s a conference or a smaller event.”
Had they talked about where to draw the line on participation by reporters and editors?
“I thought we had,” he said, adding that he takes some responsibility for “not communicating effectively enough what the limitations were for newsroom participation.”
Brauchli did not rule out such participation, but said it would have to meet conditions that ensure there are no ethical conflicts for the newsroom.
“We would want to determine the subject matter,” he said. “We would want to assure ourselves that there were multiple sponsors and not sponsors with a vested interest.”
And, he said, “our preference is that things always be on the record.”
Still, it’s nice to have the opportunity to pay to sit down with a reporter in such a setting. Do you think a reporter would feel comfortable questioning sources when the publisher is looking over his shoulder and about to deposit a check for $25,000 from the poor schmuck the reporter is trying to cut down to size?
UPDATE 2: Event is cancelled
How was President Obama’s town hall meeting on healthcare yesterday?
According to the AP headline and its story about it, his performance was thin gruel.
Emotion, few details, in Obama’s health care pitch (headline)
…The health care changes that Obama called for Wednesday would reshape the nation’s medical landscape. He says he wants to cover nearly 50 million uninsured Americans, to persuade doctors to stress quality over quantity of care, to squeeze billions of dollars from spending.
But details on exactly how to do those things were generally lacking in his hour-long town hall forum before a friendly, hand-picked audience in a Washington suburb.
But The Washington Post called his performance “wonkish.”
President Obama offered a wonkish defense of his embattled health-care reform effort during an hour-long town hall meeting in Northern Virginia yesterday that featured seven questions, including one sent via Twitter and several from a handpicked audience of supporters.
…One Twitter user asked whether it makes sense to tax people’s health-care coverage as a way to pay for reform. That led Obama to offer a long explanation of the various financing proposals, including his own for limiting deductions for the wealthy.
Why do reporters try to signal us how we should feel about the information they are imparting? As Jack Webb (as those of you old enough to remember his TV detective persona) might say, “Just the fact, ma’am.”
The Post reporters, Mike Shear and Jose Antonio Vargas, seemed particularly judgmental today.
With the president’s health-care ambitions meeting a cool reception on Capitol Hill, the administration is increasingly seeking to pressure lawmakers with evidence of the public’s desire for action as well as proof that the health-care industry is a stakeholder in — not an opponent of — the effort.
“Meeting a cool reception”? How do they judge that? As best I can tell, the principal tenants of Obama’s outline are still in tact, including the public option. Are there challenges to it? Yes, but principally from the marginalized GOP. There are a few Democratic senators who are balking, but House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has said all along that her chamber’s healthcare plan will include a public option. And now the Senate is moving in that direction.
What’s so cool about that?
This comes after Media Matters objected to a characterization of the effectiveness of a public plan by Post health reporter Ceci Connolly.
[Interim chief executive of Change Congress Adam] Green, in an interview, was hard-pressed to articulate a substantive argument for the public plan [emphasis added] but said that it "has become a proxy for the question of Democrats who stand on principle and represent their constituents."
As Green articulated in his own post about the interview, he wasn’t asked about the benefits of a public plan.
If Green’s recollection of the interview is correction and given today’s characterization of the debate in Congress, one must ask if The Post has a chip on its shoulder about the plan.
There’s nothing cool about that.
Trying to characterize the entire debate in Congress about Obama’s outline – which is not a detailed plan – is a fool’s errand. And Post reporters are no fools.
So what’s the beef?
Roz Helderman had a pedestrian B1 (Metro section) story on the Virginia governor’s race Sunday. It broke no new ground, and it can be argued that its greatest value was that it reinforced a Republican point of view that taxes are one of the most critical issues facing voters in November.
It can also be argued that an article this soon in the race, at the height of the summer doldrums, will not impact the contest to any great degree.
But more disturbing is that this presages the kind of coverage we’re going to get from The Post on the race.
Even Republican nominee Bob McDonnell recently tried to downplay the tax issue by saying that he wouldn’t take the Grover Norquist anti-tax pledge.
But Helderman and her editors, basically being lazy by re-hashing old tax/no tax arguments, lets us know that The Post, at least, is going to follow this political line throughout the campaign. This was the first article since the Democratic primary that discussed an issue, instead of being a process article. And of all the issues The Post could have addressed, they picked taxes.
What we can expect, then, is that Helderman will be asking tax questions throughout the campaign. Why? Because it’s easier to do that than study the more complex issues facing the electorate, such as how are we going to fund necessary transportation improvements in this down economy?
As a favor to the GOP, Helderman details votes Democratic candidate state Sen. Creigh Deeds has taken and suggests Deeds speaks with forked tongue.
Deeds, too, has said he does not intend to propose a tax increase. But he has promised to try to fix the state’s roads and rails — an issue often assumed to carry a $1 billion-a-year price tag — in his first year in office.
Basically she’s saying he can’t do it without raising taxes.
Does she ask how McDonnell might address the transportation problem? No, but she assures us he won’t raise taxes.
[She quoted McDonnell] "I think in a down economy like this, it’s a very bad time to be levying more gas and sales tax on the hardworking citizens of Virginia."
And Helderman gives a prize piece of article real estate to those who argue taxes shouldn’t raised, as she concludes with,
But the economic downturn and a yawning budget gap may provide new resonance for the tax issue this year, said George Mason University professor Mark J. Rozell.
"The state of the economy is so dramatically different than it was in the last election cycle four or eight years ago," he said. "There is a different dynamic out there today."
My argument with this article is not so much what Helderman says or doesn’t say in it. It’s more of a disappointment that we can expect The Post to take the easy way out in its gubernatorial election coverage.
No one loves paying taxes. But real leadership doesn’t start with talking about taxes. How many of us start our day by saying, “Shall I spend something today, or should I try to make more money than I did yesterday?” No, we look at what we have, what we would lie, and make a decision whether it’s a good idea to pay for some things now that we know would be a good investment later. A house comes to mind. But any decision we make about money basically comes down to what we want and how much we’re willing to sacrifice for it.
The first step for politicians then should be, “This is the vision I have, and here’s how I propose paying for it.” Wasting valuable newsprint on whether we should raise taxes absent what we’d use them for means that much less discussion on what we want as an electorate.
In a predictable piece in The Washington Post this morning, there is this:
At its core, Obama’s domestic agenda is a liberal wish list of health care for all, tough new environmental regulations and government solutions to crises ranging from failing schools to faltering auto companies. But as the party’s ranks expanded in 2006 and 2008, its center of gravity shifted to the middle. And the key to a durable majority, White House officials and party leaders agree, is adapting old policy goals to new political realities. [emphasis added]
Sen. Charles E. Schumer (N.Y.), a member of the Democratic leadership, said the party is coalescing as an amalgam of "activist centrists" who think government has a role in solving problems but are more pragmatic than ideological. "I think that’s where the president is, and that’s where we are," he said. "When you win red states, strange things happen." [emphasis added]
I guess the implication is that since Democrats won, it is because they attracted “centrist” or “moderate” voters. Thus, they must govern not by the demands of their base, but by the whims of the centrists, without whose support, the Dems couldn’t control government.
There are two faults with that thinking, as I see it.
One, if that were true, then the same would hold for the GOPers. If they won, it would be because they attracted moderate voters who would then demand that the Repugnican party would govern from the center. Of course, that has not happened. When they were in power, they moved hard in the direction of their base, except in financial policies, where they ignored responsibility so they could fund their war machine.
Two, such “analysis” – and one of the authors of this article, Dan Balz, is famous for passing off conventional wisdom as analysis – demeans the public. Could it be that the public’s view of what is acceptable has changed dramatically. No matter how “progressive” or “liberal” Obama’s policies are described in polls, he has broad support for his goals. While people are concerned about the growing deficit, few except the hard right think the stimulus package was wrong. In fact, many economists think it was too little and not focused enough on infrastructure spending projects. Obama has broad support for financial re-regulation, and the public seems ahead of him on social issues, especially gay rights.
The new political realities may not be that people are looking for small, incremental change with a slight shift left. I argue that “[w]hen you win red states” it reflects a strong move by the public in a new direction. People aren’t looking for a long-term unemployment rate of 7%, a marked improvement over today’s rate. They are looking for full employment again. They aren’t looking for a couple of wrist slaps and a few regulations that simply increase paperwork on Wall St. They are looking for a new structure that rewards steady, long-term investment.
Why is it that reporters aren’t willing to examine if indeed, what we are witnessing in a time of dramatic change in our lives is a dramatic shift in what Americans expect of their government?