Not For Nothing

Tea Party Shake-Up?

David Scharfenberg — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 17:23:00 GMT

UPDATE: Marina Peterson called N4N to say that she cannot yet publicly discuss her ouster from the Rhode Island Tea Party. But she says she has been informed by the other two leaders of the group, Colleen Conley and Nan Hayden, they are planning to vote her out of the triumvirate. Once the vote is official, Peterson says, she'll be willing to talk

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Curious message today, to the Rhode Island Tea Party faithful, from one of its lead organizers - Marina Peterson. Just ahead of a key organizational meeting for the group, which is trying to shift from protest group to political force, Peterson says she is out. N4N has a call into her to inquire as to why.

For the last nine months I have spoken to you as Treasurer of the RI Tea Party and as a director of the RI Tea Party Corporation.

I am writing to let you know that I am no longer a part of the leadership of this group. I only learned of this yesterday and I wanted to pass on the information as soon as possible because I have spoken to so many of you regarding the upcoming open meeting and wanted to explain why I would not be present, after asking that you attend.

The first Public Meeting will be held in Warwick on November 24th from 6:45 to 8:30. I urge you to attend this meeting and be heard. It promises to be an interesting one, and there will be an open forum portion for those of you who have questions or ideas.

I will continue on with Tea Party Nation and some of the other groups that I am active in, and will be writing to you from time to time with important issues that need action. Please feel free to contact me with any information that you feel should be "out there" and I will pass it on. We all have to work together if we are going to take back our country!!

It has been wonderful meeting you all and working with you and I thank you for your personal notes and emails. Let's all stay in touch!

The Tea Party Marches On

David Scharfenberg — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 14:37:00 GMT

The Rhode Island Tea Party, attempting to move from protest vehicle to political force, has scheduled an open meeting November 24 from 6:30-8:30 p.m. at the Warwick Public Library.

As I wrote in a cover story in the Phoenix a few weeks back, part of the challenge for the movement will be organizing a group of anti-establishment types. And that tension is evident in the Tea Party's own pitch for its gathering next week: "We envision a somewhat decentralized organization of members conducting a variety of projects," the lead organizers write.

Can a decentralized group be effective? We'll see. The Tea Party did a good job centering attention on a labor-backed bill around the resolution of contracts that stalled in the General Assembly last month. But that bill was widely opposed by municipal governments, too. So it's hard to know, at this point, if the Tea Party can really have an impact.

Newsweek's Palin Cover

David Scharfenberg — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 20:08:00 GMT

An interesting controversy brewing over Newsweek's new Sarah Palin cover. The image, of Palin in running shorts next to an American flag, accompanies an article titled "How Do You Solve a Problem Like Sarah?: She's Bad News for the GOP, and for Everybody Else, Too."

The photo originally appeared in Runner's World. And Palin has labeled Newsweek's use of the picture "sexist and oh-so-expected by now" on her blog.

Newsweek editor Jon Meacham responds thusly: "We chose the most interesting image available to us to illustrate the theme of the cover, which is what we always try to do. We apply the same test to photographs of any public figure, male or female: does the image convey what we are saying? That is a gender-neutral standard."

Both parties win here, of course. Palin garners more attention for her book and gets to take another base-inciting shot at the "liberal media." Newsweek, which is relying ever more heavily on commentary and analysis to move magazines, lands in the spotlight, too.

But which party is right? Newsweek, with caveats. The magazine did pick a Palin-sure-is-ridiculous image that fits its story. But it strains credulity to suggest that the magazine was unaware that it was overlaying its critique with an image designed to exploit the pretty-ditzy archetype.

Colbert on Carcieri

David Scharfenberg — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 17:14:00 GMT

As noted on RIFuture and the Huffington Post, Stephen Colbert took aim at Governor Carcieri last night for vetoing burial rights for domestic partners. It's a witty little bit and, less noticed, the host takes a swipe at Rhode Island media, too. Pretty amusing stuff. Embedded video at both sites.

Over the Weekend

David Scharfenberg — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 15:20:00 GMT

Some musings on media happenings over the weekend:

The White House may be shunning Fox News, but its surrogates are still pushing the administration's line. Rhode Island's senior senator, Jack Reed, was on Fox News Sunday this weekend doing battle with Rudy Giuliani over Attorney General Eric Holder's decision to try some of the alleged 9/11 terrorists in civilian court. And Reed came out on top, due in no small part to Chris Wallace's tough questioning of Giuliani. Who knew Fox could be so fair and balanced?
Up in Massachusetts, Martha Coakley and Michael Capuano - both candidates for the late Ted Kennedy's seat in the Senate - have clashed over health care reform, with Coakley saying she would not vote for a bill that included abortion restrictions and Capuano taking a more nuanced - and muddled - view. Patrick Kennedy, who has clashed with the Catholic Church over abortion and health care reform, is weighing in on that race - suggesting his father would have voted for reform, even with the abortion restrictions.
Speaking of that clash with the church, the Boston Globe's Joan Vennochi says Bishop Thomas J. Tobin's hammering of Representative Patrick Kennedy signals a shift in the always-complex relationship between the church and the nation's most famous Catholic family. Scott MacKay, over at WRNI, has his own take on the spat - coming down squarely on Kennedy's side. I'll have my own in this week's Phoenix.
And speaking of WRNI, reporter Ian Donnis' piece on prostitution in Rhode Island made NPR's national news show this weekend - more evidence of an increasingly robust report from a station that long struggled to find its place.

The Williams Media Blitz

David Scharfenberg — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 18:04:00 GMT

Frank Williams, retired Supreme Court chief justice, went on the radio and television yesterday and spoke with the Associated Press in a bid to squelch talk of an inappropriate relationship with his former driver and her daughter. The notable exception in his media tour: the Providence Journal.

The paper reported that Williams wanted veto power over the reporter who would sit down with him. A ProJo source indicates that the judge did not want to talk to Bill Malinowski, a long-time investigative reporter who has taken the lead on the story for the paper. His most significant break: a front-page piece revealing that Williams had hired his driver's mother as a courthouse cleaning woman.

I've got a call into Williams' spokesman, Mike Doyle. And I'll be sure to post his version of events if he calls back.

Williams' carefully planned excursion seemed to pay dividends, for the most part: he got to tell his side of the story for some three hours in a chat with old friend Buddy Cianci on radio station WPRO. And, more broadly, he was able to get out his side of the story - that his relationship with his former driver, Pamela DosReis, and her daughter was appropriate - largely unchallenged.

But this tale won't go away. Frank J. DosReis, whose divorce proceedings with estranged wife Pamela brought the matter to light, was on John DePetro's show on WPRO this morning disputing Williams' version of events.

Bishops' Influence on Health Care

David Scharfenberg — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 15:52:00 GMT

The clash between Patrick Kennedy and Bishop Thomas J. Tobin is but the most public flare-up in a broader effort by the church to build abortion restrictions into health care reform. The Associated Press has a good overview:

WASHINGTON — The call came in from Rome, just as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her top lieutenants were scrambling to round up scarce votes to pass their sweeping health overhaul.

Cardinal Theodore E. McCarrick, the former archbishop of Washington, was on the line for Pelosi, calling to discuss adding strict abortion restrictions to the House bill.

It was just one element of an intensive lobbying effort orchestrated by the nation's Catholic bishops, who have emerged as a formidable force in the health care negotiations. They used their clout with millions of Catholics and worked behind the scenes in Congress to make sure the abortion curbs were included in the legislation — and are now pressing to keep them there.

They don't spend a dime on what is legally defined as lobbying, but lawmakers and insiders recognize that the bishops' voices matter — and they move votes. Representatives for the bishops were in Pelosi's Capitol suite negotiating with top officials for three hours last Friday evening as they reached final terms of the agreement. That was just hours after Pelosi, a Catholic abortion rights supporter, took the call from McCarrick.

Boston's Cardinal Sean P. O'Malley personally appealed to President Barack Obama about the issue near the church altar at the late August funeral for Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass. Bishops quietly called their congressmen and senators to weigh in.

"The Catholic Church used their power — their clout, if you will — to influence this issue. They had to. It's a basic teaching of the religion," said Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., a leading abortion foe and architect of the health measure's restrictions.

It was Stupak who told Pelosi last Friday that if she wanted a deal on the health bill, she'd be well advised to invite the bishops' staff, who were already in his office, to her table. "I said, 'Well, they're here, and they're one of the key groups you want to have on your side, so why don't we just bring them in and work this out," Stupak said.

Pelosi did, and the result was a final measure that — much to the outrage of abortion rights supporters — bars a new government-run insurance plan from covering abortions, except in cases or rape, incest or the life of the mother being in danger, and prohibits any health plan that receives federal subsidies in a new insurance marketplace from offering abortion coverage. If women wanted to purchase abortion coverage through such plans, they'd have to buy it separately, as a so-called rider on their insurance policies.

The outcome has put Obama and Democratic leaders — already struggling for consensus on the complex and politically tricky health measure — in a tough spot. Democratic abortion foes in the Senate vow they won't support health legislation that omits the strict restrictions approved by the House, while abortion rights champions say they can't possibly vote for a bill that contains them.

Obama suggested Monday that he wants to strike a balance that doesn't allow backdoor federal funding of abortions but preserves women's insurance choices. For now, however, no such middle ground has been identified, and the bishops have served their notice that they will be a player — perhaps the dominant one — in the final outcome.

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, the church's Washington-based advocacy organization, which is staffed by more than 350 lay people, derives its power in large part from the sheer number of Catholics in this country — 68 million — but also from the special moral and religious standing of its members. Many of them are in regular contact with lawmakers, weighing in on issues from immigration policy to benefits for low-income people.

The conference distributed fliers to every parish in the nation asking people to pray for abortion restrictions and to call their congressmen and senators asking them to "fix these bills with pro-life amendments."

Some have publicly pressured Catholic elected officials to fall in line with the church's position on abortion. Bishop Thomas Tobin of Providence and Rep. Patrick Kennedy, D-R.I., abruptly canceled a meeting they had planned for Thursday to calm a simmering feud over the issue. Kennedy has criticized the church for threatening to block the health measure over abortion curbs, and Tobin has questioned whether Kennedy can call himself a Catholic given that he has opposed the strict abortion limits bishops were seeking to add.

Kathy Saile of the conference said Democratic leaders were willing to listen to the group because it has been in favor of the party's broader push for a health overhaul.

"We stayed in the conversation until the end, because the bishops have always been adamant about the need for genuine health care reform and want to see health care reform happen," Saile said.

Another factor that undoubtedly helped: Democrats are keenly aware of the power of Catholic voters, more than 50 percent of whom embraced Obama in the 2008 election. That was a substantial swing after Catholics had eschewed the 2004 Democratic presidential candidate, Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, who is Catholic.

The outcome left abortion-rights supporters, who couldn't muster enough votes in the House to head off Catholic abortion foes' intervention, fuming. The bishops "essentially got signoff. They dictated this, and it's totally inappropriate — it's blatant interference between church and state," said Eleanor Smeal of the Feminist Majority. "The women's movement and the pro-choice forces feel like they were had."

Rep. Diana DeGette, D-Colo., a prominent abortion rights supporter who has gathered the signatures of more than 40 representatives who refuse to back a health bill that contains the restrictions, said the bishops had been allowed to overstep their bounds.

"No one group should get to dictate the outcome of legislation in Congress," DeGette said. "Every group should be listened to, but I don't think one group should be given veto authority over what we do."

On the Governor's Veto of Same-Sex Burial

David Scharfenberg — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 15:59:00 GMT

Governor Carcieri's veto of a bill that would allow gays and lesbians to claim the bodies of - and make funeral arrangements for - their partners is proof positive of an old political maxim: elections matter.

In a heavily Democratic state where a majority support gay marriage, in a region that has embraced same-sex unions more than any other in the country, this sort of modest expansion of gay rights should have passed without incident. But a socially conservative governor killed it with the stroke of a pen.

It is, at once, a disheartening development for gay and lesbian advocates and, in an odd way, a reminder that better times lie ahead: it is hard to imagine any of the major candidates for governor vetoing a similar bill.

Kennedy Responds to Bishop's Critique

David Scharfenberg — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 20:19:00 GMT

Representative Patrick Kennedy responded, today, to Bishop Thomas J. Tobin's critique of the legislator in the diocesan newspaper Rhode Island Catholic.

Tobin had questioned Kennedy's Catholicism in the wake of a nasty war of words over health care reform and abortion. Kennedy's reponse, via the ProJo:

The bishop asked in his letter if Kennedy supported the church's essential teachings on faith and morals, including abortion, if he belonged to a parish, attended Mass on Sundays and regularly received the sacraments.

Kennedy said Tuesday that he has a pastor, and "I have my sacraments through that pastor. I don't want anyone hounding my pastor. I have sought the sacraments of reconciliation and communion and all the rest."

When a reporter asked asked Kennedy: "Does all of this hurt you? Do you feel wounded?" Kennedy responded: "I think it's unfortunate. I'm not going to engage this anymore."

But when asked if he had been threatened with denial of communion or other sanctions, Kennedy said those were subjects he planned to discuss with the bishop. "Ideally, he will keep it between us."

Kennedy said he initiially criticized the U.S. Catholic bishops because they said that they would oppose the health-care reform bills pending in Congress if they did not explicitly deny federal funding for abortion.

"What I disagreed with them is that if they didn't get their they, weren't going to support overall health-care reform," he said. "That's something I felt very strongly was destructive to the process."

Kennedy would be wise to stick to his pronouncement that he will not "engage this anymore." The tete-a-tete will probably not do any lasting political damage - Kennedy has clashed with the church before and is in a safe seat. But the battle is distracting from what should be a proud family moment: the realization of Senator Ted Kennedy's long quest for health care reform.

Reed's Approach to Credit Rating Agencies Gets Play

David Scharfenberg — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 18:06:00 GMT

Senator Christopher Dodd has unveiled his lengthy, long-awaited bill on overhauling a financial system that played a central role in the economic crash. The bill is sweeping in scope, but includes - among other things - significant segments of legislation Jack Reed submitted earlier this year cracking down on ratings agencies.

The agencies have come under fire for rosy ratings of exotic financial instruments at the center of the downturn.

Tobin Questions Patrick Kennedy's Catholicism

David Scharfenberg — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 22:06:00 GMT

In an extraordinary escalation of their public feud over health care reform and abortion, Bishop Thomas J. Tobin has penned an open letter to Patrick Kennedy in Rhode Island Catholic magazine questioning his Catholicism.

This comes with news that a meeting between the two to discuss the public war of words has been postponed.

Kennedy and Tobin have exchanged words, in recent weeks, after the Congressman blasted the church for its refusal to back health care reform unless the overhaul includes an explicit ban on federal funding for abortion (a provision that pro-lifers secured in the House version of reform passed this weekend).

In a letter to the church dated October 29, Kennedy wrote: “The fact that I disagree with the hierarchy on some issues does not make me any less of a Catholic.” Tobin responds with his piece in Rhode Island Catholic.

But let’s get down to a more practical question; let’s approach it this way: What does it mean, really, to be a Catholic? After all, being a Catholic has to mean something, right?

Well, in simple terms – and here I refer only to those more visible, structural elements of Church membership – being a Catholic means that you’re part of a faith community that possesses a clearly defined authority and doctrine, obligations and expectations. It means that you believe and accept the teachings of the Church, especially on essential matters of faith and morals; that you belong to a local Catholic community, a parish; that you attend Mass on Sundays and receive the sacraments regularly; that you support the Church, personally, publicly, spiritually and financially.

Congressman, I’m not sure whether or not you fulfill the basic requirements of being a Catholic, so let me ask: Do you accept the teachings of the Church on essential matters of faith and morals, including our stance on abortion? Do you belong to a local Catholic community, a parish? Do you attend Mass on Sundays and receive the sacraments regularly? Do you support the Church, personally, publicly, spiritually and financially?

In your letter you say that you “embrace your faith.” Terrific. But if you don’t fulfill the basic requirements of membership, what is it exactly that makes you a Catholic? Your baptism as an infant? Your family ties? Your cultural heritage?

The Atlantic on Langevin and Cyber Security

David Scharfenberg — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 20:30:00 GMT

Shane Harris over at the Atlantic suggests that last night's 60 Minutes piece on cyber security will raise the profile of the issue. The story, he suggests, also annoints US Representative James Langevin the chief spokesman on the issue:

On the legislative side, electrical plant owners and operators of other critical infrastructures should take note: Rep. James Langevin (D-RI) is coming for you. Langevin has been one of the most outspoken cyber security advocates on the Hill, but he was portrayed last night as the leading voice. (His press office sent out a preview of his remarks in a press release Saturday, and indication that they planned to take full advantage of Langevin's prominence in the story.) He told 60 Minutes that the electrical utilities had "lied to Congress" about steps they were taking to close holes in their networks, the kind that hackers could exploit to cause a blackout in the United States. He ended up by saying that Congress needs to "change [the utilities'] motivation so that when we see a vulnerability like this we can require them to fix it." If Congress requires the electrical companies to fix their weaknesses, or to disclose them to the government, it will be a watershed moment in regulation. And it could set off a chain reaction whereby Congress requires other industries to disclose their network vulnerabilities to the government. This would be a game changer. Electrical generators aren't the only vulnerable systems. And for years now, law enforcement, security, and intelligence officials, all of whom have a stake in protecting the Internet, have complained that companies aren't more forthcoming about their weaknesses. The government has shown a lot of sympathy for industry's plight. They understand that companies have no interest in advertising their weaknesses to investors, shareholders, and would-be hackers. But Langevin's comments show that lawmakers' patience has worn thin.

Smith Names Campaign Team

David Scharfenberg — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 18:20:00 GMT

Republican gubernatorial hopeful Rory Smith has named his campaign team. Norway Hill Associates, led by David Carney, White House political director under George H.W. Bush and James McKay, a New Hampshire Republican political operative, will serve as political consultants. The Tarrance Group, a Republican pollster that has worked for Republican Senators Thad Cochran and Chuck Grassley, among others, will do polling for Smith.

Job number one for the team: put some distance between Smith and Governor Carcieri, another out-of-the-blue businessman who ran for governor.

Rhody Pols in National Spotlight

David Scharfenberg — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 15:04:00 GMT

Rhody's Congressional delegation was in the spotlight this weekend. First, Senator Jack Reed was on CBS' Face the Nation doing battle with Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, of South Carolina, on health care reform. Reed voiced support for a public option, while acknowledging an "active debate" on alternatives to a straight public option: an opt-out provision for states and a trigger that would allow the public option to kick in if private insurers are unable to meet certain metrics for care. But Graham had the headline-grabbing quote, labeling the House-passed version of the bill, which includes a public option, "dead on arrival to the Senate."

Last night, it was US Representative James Langevin's turn, sounding warnings on 60 Minutes last night about a pet concern: cyberterrorism. The issue probably doesn't move voters - too abstract until there's a major, widely publicized incident. But Langevin's appearance, heavily promoted by his staff, lends a certain gravitas. And the nation's vulnerabilities, if not the stuff of everyday news accounts, are beyond worrisome: our utilities, banking system and even weapons systems are under assault. Langevin says the country is in a sort of pre-9/11 moment and must act. He may be right.

About that Shield Law

David Scharfenberg — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 20:59:00 GMT

There has been near unanimous support, in the media, for a law making its way through Congress that would protect journalists from revealing confidential sources. And this scribe is inclined to cheer on the bill. But there's an interesting contrary view at Slate from Jack Shafer who notes that the proposed law is not an out-and-out shield: it would simply force the government to show why reporters should be required to testify about sources - a hurdle, he suggests, that is quite surmountable.

Moreover, he writes, the government has rarely gone after reporters. And current guidelines are murky enough that prosecutors can wriggle out of pursuing these uncomfortable cases. The new law provides a clearer sort of rule that the press - lobbying hard for the bill - might come to rue, he writes.

A federal shield law would reduce this helpful murk by legally codifying the process of subpoenaing journalists. Prosecutors and judges could now say to the press, We have this new law that balances the First Amendment with the government's need for important and sensitive information that you hold. We're going to walk through it very slowly, and no bellyaching if we tell you to give up a source. You wrote the goddamn thing and lobbied Congress to pass it!