height="249" class="alignnone size-medium wp-image-181656" />
The 1968 ticket-Humphrey and Muskie (photo by the L.A. Times)

Historic Tidbit: Shortly before ending his 1972 Presidential bid, Ed Muskie told a story of “this fellow who got his car stuck in the mud. When asked by a farmer if he was really stuck, the man replied, “you could say I was stuck if I was going anywhere.”

By Scott Crass

On a personal and political level, Hubert Humphrey was my hero. Had he managed to prevail in the 1968 race for President, a race he would lose by a hair despite daunting odds, Ed Muskie would have been vice-president. And from there, who knows? And so America was deprived of a man whose capabilities, judgement, and skill were second-to-none.

Muskie’s story was true, up by the bootstraps American. The Muskies (then named Marciszew-ski) had moved from Poland to Rumford , Maine before Ed was born, and he would often experience taunts about his heritage. But he would be the only one of his six siblings to go to college.

The Making of the President, 1972 notes Muskie was “singled out” by the President of Bates College whether Muskie was indeed a Democrat. Muskie had no choice but to acknowledge it’s truth (remember, this was 1936, the year GOP Presidential candidate Alf Landon could win only Maine and Vermont ). But the “New Deal” helped Muskie.

After the war, Muskie was asked by Maine Democrats to stand for the legislature because the party wanted veterans, and, against the odds, won. By 1954, he was challenging incumbent Republican Governor Burton Cross, and was far from favored. But Cross was tainted by a liquor scandal, and Muskie pulled off a solid 8.5% victory, becoming the first Democratic occupant of the “Blaine House” since 1932.

Like so many Governors of his era, Muskie set Maine on a path to progress. His National Governor’s Association Bio says the creation of the Maine Industrial Building Authority, the Department of Development of Commerce and Industry. Aid to schools and hospitals was increased and a $29 million highway bond issue was created. This was financed by a 1% increase in the sales tax.

By 1958, he decided to stand for the Senate, and despite challenging an incumbent, prevailed with a solid 61%.

It was perhaps because he always faced a GOP legislature in Maine that made him aware of the need to reach out, and Muskie early on gained recognition for his bipartisan proclivities that led to landmark accomplishments. And that applied to non-politicians. Muskie would often invite protesters onto the stage with him.

In his early years, Muskie made his biggest mark on environmental matters. Three major water and air quality acts that became law were his bills, including legislation that would reduce emissions in cars. He helped shepherd creation of the Environmental Protection Agency.

But his drive wasn’t limited to the environment. The Department of Housing and Urban Development in 1965 and the Model Cities Act of 1966 (curious for a Senator from Maine). The Truth-in-Government Act, which created an independent board authorized to make available to the public government documents available to the public was his as well, as was the 1970 Securities Investor Protection Act, which insured investors if brokerage houses failed.

On national matters, he was a solid liberal, though he did oppose banning mail sale rifles, which even his Republican colleague, Margaret Chase Smith, supported.

Then, he went national.

Hubert Humphrey spotted Muskie’s potential early and was said by biographer Edgar Bergen to have brought up his name after a memorial service for Bobby Kennedy, when he invited Muskie and his wife Jane to lunch. Bergman said Humphrey mentioned Muskie’s positive attributes, his “stability, his executive experience as Governor, and his interest in budgetary matters. ” Humphrey, Bergen said, kidded that he’s also “a pole, a Catholic, and looks enough like Abe Lincoln.” Muskie became the pick and was a capable running mate. He had a saying in part perhaps directed at the widely mocked Spiro Agnew, “In Maine ,we have a saying that you don’t say anything that doesn’t improve on silence.”
The ticket lost in a squeaker that lasted through the wee hours f the morning.

When Humphrey lost, Muskie immediately became the odds-on favorite to capture the Democratic nomination in 1972. It was almost fait accompli, like Mitt Romney was always the man to beat following 2008. Muskie had endorsements, fame, and a style that suited many. Furthermore, his closing message for his party on Election Eve in the 1970 mid-terms was said to have been a riveting call that awed party faithful.

As the primaries approached, he seemed unstoppable. The Nixon White House recognized this also. And they wanted to stop him.

It was widely believed that the Nixon White House was most fearful of a Muskie candidacy. A fake letter circulated that said someone had told him had told him that “Canncks” were the “blacks of New Hampshire and that Muskie laughed. “Cannck” is a deragatory for French Canadians, who in those days encompassed a large portion of it’s neighbor to the south’s vote. The episode made it’s way to the cameras. Further, William Loeb, the publisher reported Jane Muskie was often seen in public drunk and telling dirty jokes (“un-ladylike”). Later, it was determined that the memo was forged by Nixon staffers.

Muskie defended her on the flatbed of a truck outside the Union Leader’s headquarters. He called Loeb a “gutless coward” whose “fortune was that he is not standing on this stage.”

The famous “snowflake or tears” phoo (Via Business Insider)

David Broder said Muskie had “tears streaming down his face,” But it was snowing that day and even Broder said it could have been snowflakes. Watching the video, snowflakes were evident but there appeared to be at least some mist from Muskie.

Today, it’s not uncommon at all to see the most battle tested male politicians wiping away tears. Defending wives, particularly But in 1972, it was more of a novelty, and that apparently weakened the Quincy like stability that Muskie possessed. He acknowledged “it changed people’s minds about me. They were looking for a strong, steady man, and here I was weak.”

Muskie received 46%, but McGovern was comparatively and unexpectedly close with 37%

McGovern won handily in the academic towns and Muskie prevailed in “working class towns.” But an expected large number in Manchester turned into just a 600 vote plurality.

In actuality, Muskie’s poor showing had occurred a week earlier, which should have foreshadowed New Hampshire, or at least brought concern. For a time, he soldiered on. But by Wisconsin, it became clear that he could do so no more and he dropped out.

Muskie had been perhaps hampered by facing a wide open field of candidates, including Humphrey and Gene McCarthy. The Almanac of American Politics 1974 observed that Muskie seemed to lack the drive to be President. With lack of seared ambition comes the ability to go off message. Could his Presidential bid have been salvaged if Muskie’s team had those qualities. Maybe. Maybe not. But it’s combination was fatal.

The irony was that in the Senate, Muskie was a decisive and impetuous man. Weakness was a word few would equate with him.

So was Muskie’s ability to articulate his reasons for running. It wasn’t quite a ted Kennedy-Roger Mudd moment. But The Making of the President 1972 described him as an “administered managerial candidate.” which may have been enough in a smooth progression, but not when a crisis hit. Muskie himself said of the press he “never could find a way to turn them off with a humorous answer.”

Could Muskie have defeated Nixon if he had captured his party’s nomination. It’s not likely. He surely would have exceeded McGovern’s 39%, perhaps getting as much as 45%. Nixon’s large margin was aided in fact by many Democrats who felt McGovern was to far to the left. The blue-collar Muskie undoubtedly would have attracted many.

After the primaries, Muskie immersed himself in his Senate duties where he was instrumental in the creation of the Budget Committee. Mainers still loved him. His 60% was slightly lower than his previous two elections, but still mighty comfortable.

Muskie’s big prize came in 1980, when President Carter tapped him as Secretary of State. With Carter’s defeat that fall, the stint would be short, and the Iranian hostage drama occupied most of his time.

Muskie would return to practicing law and served on the Iran Contra investigation commission. He died two days before his 82nd birthday in 1996, having nothing to be ashamed of.

Muskie as a Senator (photo by Senate.Gov)

Getting it Wrong
by Peter Funt

Scott Pelley of CBS News raised eyebrows and passions among journalists at a Quinnipiac University luncheon the other day when he said, “Our house is on fire.” He was talking about challenges to the news business from within, as reporters become careless in a rush to be “first”; and, from outside, where social media supply what he labeled “more bad information” than at any time in history.

Pelley is a worthy recipient of the Fred Friendly First Amendment Award that provided the occasion for his remarks. But in assembling the facts he was unfair to his profession, while overlooking the real issues igniting fires that threaten journalism today.

Referring to the Newtown school shooting and Boston Marathon bombing, Pelley said, “We’re getting big stories wrong, over and over again.” Putting social media aside, that’s a gross exaggeration.

Errors are regrettable but nothing new when journalists operate under pressure, nor are they directly linked to social media, which Pelley went on to lambaste. “We were attacked by terrorists,” he said, “and amateur journalists became amateur vigilantes.

Amateur journalists is an oxymoron. Those gossiping via Twitter and Facebook are not journalists. If news professionals were to put stock in such chatter without verification they would be wrong, but there is little evidence of that really happening. The wild frontier of social media shouldn’t be conflated with the established world of journalism.

Pelley’s other main point was that journalists place too much importance on being first with a story, rather than having the patience to make certain it’s right. That, too, is valid — but getting a scoop has driven journalists since the profession began. And, to some extent, it actually does matter. Viewers changing channels during high-drama events do get a sense of which network is ahead on a story and which is lagging behind, which is why ABC benefited greatly by fast reporting from its Boston affiliate during the days following the bombing.

Coverage of the 1963 Kennedy assassination, and particularly Walter Cronkite’s reporting on CBS, is often cited as the gold standard for handling breaking news in the pre-Internet era. Cronkite’s work, brilliant as it was, along with that of affiliate KRLD, contained many errors in the early going, among them: that a suspect was under arrest, when in fact none was; that a secret service agent was killed; that a witness saw a “colored man” fire the shots.

In his memoir year’s later, Cronkite boasted, “We beat NBC onto the air by almost a minute.”

Here are three areas I wish Scott Pelley had touched upon. First, the biggest threats to established media are cutbacks. As I write this, new layoffs are reported at two New York papers, and NBC has canceled the news magazine “Rock Center.” Accurate reporting requires layers of editors and fact-checkers, and it’s those layers that are going up in flames.

Second, media shouldn’t really be judged on emergencies that captivate the nation’s attention as much as they should on digging up the truth about topics like government and the economy, to name just two. Does anyone fear the impact of Twitter and Facebook in these areas? Need we worry about journalists trying to be “first” with this type of news?

Finally, conventional news outlets are being influenced too much by creeping tabloidism and, in the case of electronic media, by an overdose of politically-weighted opining. These matters are governed largely by the business office, by the people also responsible for sweeping cutbacks.

In the digital age there undoubtedly is more bad information than ever before. That’s not the fault of the choir Scott Pelley was addressing at a luncheon of journalists. Their house, as he referred to it, isn’t on fire, but it is being fired upon.

Peter Funt’s new book, “Cautiously Optimistic,” is available at Amazon.com and CandidCamera.com. ©2012 Peter Funt. Columns distributed exclusively by: Cagle Cartoons, Inc., newspaper syndicate.

Media graphic via shutterstock.com

What is also remarkable is that this mostly Roman Catholic country that little to no experience with, nor appreciation for, diversity, a country with a long history of repression and exclusion, and worse, has become a beacon for progressive values. Maybe that can happen when you’ve been through what Portugal went though, and when you can start anew in a more progressive time, but it is remarkable nonetheless.

And one of the areas where it is most progressive is gay rights:

Portugal has offered marriage equality to same-sex couples since 2010, but until now had not allowed those couple to adopt each other’s children. Today, the Portuguese Parliament passed a bill 99-94 to allow adoption, ending the discrepancy in what it means for same-sex couples to be married. Portugal is one of the few countries in the world that bans discrimination based on sexual orientation in its constitution.

Again: Catholic country, long history of brutal tyranny, relatively new democracy.

And it puts the United States, supposedly, we are constantly told, the greatest country ever, a beacon of liberty, to shame.

You deserve our admiration, Portugal, and our praise.

Cross-posted from The Reaction

One was his Kennedy connection. The two had served in the House together from neighboring states (Ribicoff’s election came in 1948, two years after the future President’s). And Ribicoff spotted the potential in his colleague in no time. As Ribicoff himself explained it, “In 1950, I said that Kennedy would be the first Catholic president of the United States. In Worcester, at the Massachusetts Democratic Convention of 1956, I proposed Jack for vice president. I nominated him in Chicago.”

And, get this! Upon turning down JFK’s offer to be Attorney General, it was Ribicoff who suggested he consider Bobby. That merits him a true place in history. But for Ribicoff, it doesn’t come close to ending there.

Abe Ribicoff (1910-1998) Photo by Solomonscandals.com

Ribicoff’s next 15 minutes of fame also occurred in Chicago, and this time it came via by putting another national aspirant’s name in contention. For political watchers, Ribicoff may have bellowed among the most famous utterances in 20th century history. As the infamous violence ensued at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago, Ribicoff, who was placing George McGovern’s name in nomination, angrily glared down at Mayor Richard Daley and bellowed, “if George McGovern were President, we wouldn’t have these Gestapo tactics from the Chicago police department.’ “How hard it is … how hard it is to accept the truth.”The remark was replayed over and over, and still stands out as a highlight of Election ’68.

The Chicago episode may not have helped Ribicoff, who was facing re-election in Connecticut in ’68, and he had fences to mend. But he did and held his seat with 54%. When McGovern did win the nomination four years later, he offered Ribicoff the number two slot, but was turned down. `I didn’t lust for that type of office. I didn’t want to run all over the country doing the chicken circuit and making political speeches, and I liked the Senate,” he told the Hartford Courant.

But there was yet one more major footnotes. In the late 1970′s, President Carter wanted to send American warplanes to Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Many were against it, particularly those who, like Ribicoff, were strongly pro-Israel. Ribicoff took the view that the Mid-east peace process, then in it’s infancy, required working together. As such, he asked Sadat if he would be willing to take part in “a full discussion on how to achieve a real peace without preconditions.”

Sadat said yes and the sale was approved, leading Jimmy Carter to give Ribicoff the credit for both the sale and the historic handshake. “We would never have induced President Sadat,” Carter said, “to come to Camp David had it not been for that vote.”

Ribicoff had served Connecticut for four decades. He won a seat in the Connecticut House in 1938. After his stint in the U.S. House, he put his odds on a Senate seat. But it was 1952, Eisenhower was taking Connecticut big, and Ribicoff lost to Prescott Bush, the future President’s father. The margin was just 3,000 votes.

Ribicoff would rebound by winning the Governorship two years later, by beating incumbent John David Lodge. Many attribute the 3, 200 vote margin to an Election Eve appearance in which Ribicoff sought to address anti-semitism many felt he could fall victim to. “In this great country of ours, anybody, even a poor kid from immigrant parents in New Britain, could achieve any office he sought, or any position in private or public life, irrespective of race, color, creed or religion.”

An anti-speeding crusade was among Ribicoff’s shining successses.mandating 30-day license suspensions for drivers convicted of speeding. Traffic fatalities via speeding was at a high and 10,346 licenses were suspended for speeding. In 1955, it had been just 372.

The mission took a toll on Ribicoff’s popukarity but he was undeterred.`Unless public officials have the guts to see it through, nothing will work,” he said. “We need tough, hard measures if we are to save lives.”

Kennedy made Ribicoff his Secretary of Health and Human Services, where his most notable accomplishment was the elimination of a requirement that folks receiving Aid to Dependent Children have one child rather than two. By 1962, Bush was retiring. Ribicoff was considered the odds-on favorite to succeed him. In fact, the election was supposed to be such a run-away that, as the saying goes, they could have called it off. But he won a mere 27,000 votes ahead of Horace Seely-Brown, enough for only a 51-49% victory. Still, Ribicoff was off to the Senate.

In the Senate, Ribicoff was concerned about a number of firms winning bids to conduct the Vietnam War and launched an investigation. One such firm was Halliburton. He sponsored an amendment to an Appropriations bill that would pump an extra $1 billion into school districts for desegregation purposes. He helped create the Department of Education.

After 1968, the seat was Ribicoff’s as long as he wanted it.The only other time after the Chicago melee his name appeared on the ballot was 1974, when his re-election wasn’t even in doubt. Turning 70 in 1980, Ribicoff decided to retire.

He signed up with a firm and died in 1998, a respected public statesman. And with integrity above all. He said he’d do it all again.

Ribicoff died at 87 in 1998 and Joe Lieberman said “the extraordinary life he led is a testament to the American dream.” And he lent his service to providing that dream to many “Nutmeggers” and Americans.

Over bowls of cereal and side orders of kiwi fruit, I asked Kay what she thought the LEI report would show, how much it would change.

“Beats me. Eat your Kiwi,” said Kay.

“Guess,” I prodded.

“O.K.,” she replied. “I think it will go up .2 percent.”

“Boy this is good Kiwi,” I said. “I’m guessing it will go up…let’s see…go up .5 percent.”

Doing some quick math, this made the median average of the Kay and Mike LEI expectation .35

Dozens of highly paid economists are polled regularly by various Wall Street trackers. The closely watched “analyst expectations,” a median average of these experts’ prognosticating, move literally billions of dollars in the markets. The economists polled by MarketWatch, according to its website, forecast a .3 percent increase in the LEI. The economists surveyed by Bloomberg, according to its website, forecast a .2 percent increase.

The actual increase in the LEI reported at 10 o’clock this morning was .6. We all got it wrong. But the projection of Kay, a painter and graphic novelist, and Mike, who writes financial verse and comic novels, concocted in less than a minute over breakfast, beat the best-and-brightest on Wall Street in predicting this important economic number.

Here’s two possible conclusions to be drawn from this:

Stock markets these days are moved, often dramatically and in ways involving billions and billions of dollars, by things that are at best well meant guesswork, and at worst sheer nonsense meant to give an appearance of plausibility to the endless finagling of the financial system by Wall Street market fixers.

Or:

That Kay and Mike are unrecognized economic and financial geniuses who deserve wads of contributions for their heroic efforts bringing new profound insights to the markets.

If you believe the former, contact your congressional reps and tell them to support the Brown-Vitter bill that seeks to limit the dangers to our economy of too-big-to-fail Wall Street banks. If you believe the latter, contact me at mike@wallstreetpoet.com, and receive instructions about where to send large contributions to Kay and me in the form of fiat money (all major currencies accepted), gold bullion, or Bitcoins.

(Michael Silverstein’s comic novels, Fifteen Feet Beneath Manhattan, The Bellman’s Revenge and Murder At Bernstein’s, are all available from Amazon.)

Obama administration officials who were in key positions on Sept. 11, 2012 acknowledge that a range of mistakes were made the night of the attacks on the U.S. missions in Benghazi, and in messaging to Congress and the public in the aftermath.

The officials spoke to CBS News in a series of interviews and communications under the condition of anonymity so that they could be more frank in their assessments. They do not all agree on the list of mistakes and it’s important to note that they universally claim that any errors or missteps did not cost lives and reflect “incompetence rather than malice or cover up.” Nonetheless, in the eight months since the attacks, this is the most sweeping and detailed discussion by key players of what might have been done differently.

And here’s a quote that will have “legs:”

“We’re portrayed by Republicans as either being lying or idiots,” said one Obama administration official who was part of the Benghazi response. “It’s actually closer to us being idiots.”

That’s probably a word characterization on Benghazi that could reflect bipartisan consensus at this point — putting aside those who “know” what really happened because suspicions or wishful political thinking = knowing. MORE:

The Obama administration’s chief critics on Benghazi, such as Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., remain skeptical. They see a pattern, even a conspiracy, to deflect attention from the idea that four Americans had been killed by al Qaeda-linked attackers, on the president’s watch. “There is no conclusion a reasonable person could reach other than that for a couple of weeks after the attack, [the Obama administration was] trying to push a narrative that was politically beneficial to the president’s re-election,” Graham told CBS News.

The list of mea culpas by Obama administration officials involved in the Benghazi response and aftermath include: standing down the counterterrorism Foreign Emergency Support Team, failing to convene the Counterterrorism Security Group, failing to release the disputed Benghazi “talking points” when Congress asked for them, and using the word “spontaneous” while avoiding the word “terrorism.”

And the list may grow in coming months…

Roll Call: “Handel is the fourth Republican to enter the race for the seat of retiring GOP Sen. Saxby Chambliss. Notably, she is also the first woman and first candidate who is not a member of Congress. GOP Reps. Paul Broun, Phil Gingrey and Jack Kingston are running. David Perdue, the cousin of former Gov. Sonny Perdue, announced an exploratory committee this week.”

Karen Handel was the main force behind the organization’s move to change the criteria that had a direct impact on Planned Parenthood. Once again, she would rather feign ignorance than accept her role in this mess.

Karen Handel is no stranger to the cut-and-run mentality. She threw the former head of the Log Cabin Republicans, a group of gay and lesbian GOP voters, under a bus, when she claimed she didn’t support same-sex domestic partnerships, though there were a number of emails indicating she supported granting such benefits.Source

After Karen Handel’s abrupt departure from Susan G. Komen, she wrote a book — “Planned Bullywood” — slamming Planned Parenthood and painting the organization as “a bunch of schoolyard thugs.” She claimed she had nothing to do with the funding being reduced to Planned Parenthood, but during a speech to the Family Research Council last December, Handel implied that her battle with the the family planning organization was far from over. She said, “Planned Parenthood counted on conservative elected officials to be quiet, and they were silent, but they didn’t count on me. Cecile Richards has absolutely no idea who she’s picked a fight with, folks.”

I will boldly predict that if Karen Handel manages to win the GOP nomination, she will go on to lose the election and the Democrats will pick up a seat. She is reviled by the Atlanta gay community, blacks and women but we have to get out and vote in large numbers if she prevails as the GOP Senate candidate.

This was cross-posted from The Hinterland Gazette.

A turn in the controversy over Benghazi that will likely defuse it as a major issue for many voters due to the old maxim “consider the source,” because it’s clear the motivation of the source. CBS News’ Major Garrett (formerly of Fox News) has reported that the ABC News “bombshell” emails about Benghazi, which turned out to be at variance with the actual emails, were changed by Republicans. CNN had earlier reported the big difference between the leaked information and the actual memos.

If you felt our politics smelled and increasingly has little to do about getting to the truth and more about doing whatever it takes to decimate the other side (even if truth becomes collateral damage) read this report and weep. Key chunks of it:

The Benghazi attack is a political controversy. Republicans claim the administration watered down the facts in talking points given to U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice for television appearances while Obama was running for re-election. Republicans on Capitol Hill claimed they found proof in White House emails that they leaked to reporters last week. It turns out some of the quotes were wrong.

Republicans have charged that the State Department under Hillary Clinton was trying to protect itself from criticism. The White House released the real emails late Wednesday. Here’s what we found when we compared them to the quotes that had been provided by Republicans.

One email was written by deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes.
On Friday, Republicans leaked what they said was a quote from Rhodes: “We must make sure that the talking points reflect all agency equities, including those of the State Department, and we don’t want to undermine the FBI investigation.

But it turns out that in the actual email, Rhodes did not mention the State Department.

It read: “We need to resolve this in a way that respects all of the relevant equities, particularly the investigation.”

Republicans also provided what they said was a quote from an email written by State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland.

The Republican version quotes Nuland discussing, “The penultimate point is a paragraph talking about all the previous warnings provided by the Agency (CIA) about al-Qaeda’s presence and activities of al-Qaeda.”

The actual email from Nuland says: “The penultimate point could be abused by members to beat the State Department for not paying attention to Agency warnings.”

There’s more so read it in full.

It’s important to note that reporters generally zealously protect their sources, but they do not like to feel burned or intentionally USED to put out false information. Sources that provide inaccurate or downright lying information then have a problem: they have low credibility with reporters and the credibility of the people they try to discredit in turn goes up.

Clearly, in this case ABC ran the original information and it was the first of three scandals to hit the Obama administration. But then the White House released a slew of emails and CNN noted the discrepancies. Garrett and CBS clearly decided that given the fact that false information was given out it was an important part of the story to specify who was giving the information out — since it was clearly false and clearly political.

Despite what partisans on both sides may think at times, professional news organizations unless they are offering an ideological product try to gather information and package it to news consumers as just that — accurate information.

How can this distorted, inaccurate information provided by Republicans come back to bit them? The National Journal’s Charlie Cook today tells GOPers that they’re be well advised not to grandstand and go haywire on Obama and better to undermine him quietly. He writes:

But as much as congressional Republicans are enjoying their schadenfreude, they would be well advised to think long and hard about their next steps. Even the most cursory look at opinion polls or focus groups reveals that the public is convinced we have an ineffectual and out-of-touch Congress that spends too much time backbiting, grandstanding, and Monday-morning quarterbacking while the country’s problems fester. Arguably, showboating for the cameras and holding hearings are what Congress does best; the temptation is unavoidable.

Republicans would be much wiser to pursue a third option: Dig up as much damaging information as they can about the Obama administration and leak it to reporters they know will write tough stories that won’t be traced back to the source. That way, the public won’t see the GOP as being obsessed with attacking the other side and playing gotcha at the expense of the big issues facing the country—the ones voters really care about.

This will be MUCH more difficult to “plant” now. How many editors are reporters are going to take at face value information Republicans on the hill offer them without carefully checking it out before again being burned? FEWER reporters (and editors) will be willing to take planted information at face value.

Here’s how this new development is playing elsewhere:

–The Week:

That doesn’t mean this is the last we’ve heard about the deadly September 2012 attacks in Benghazi, says The Associated Press’ Donna Cassata. “Eight months after the attack, the issue remains a political winner with the Republican base as conservatives have been ferocious in assailing Obama.” No fewer than five House committees are pursuing separate Benghazi inquiries, and they all pledge to hold hearings.

The next big show should be public testimony before Rep. Darrell Issa’s (R-Calif.) House Oversight and Government Reform Committee from retired Ambassador Thomas Pickering and former Joint Chiefs Chairman Mike Mullen, who led an independent review of what went wrong in Benghazi. And if the 100 emails the White House released didn’t work out, Republicans are unfazed. “Why not release all of the unclassified documents?” says Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah).

–New York Times Taking Note:

Now that the White House has released 100-pages worth of emails between the State Department and the Central Intelligence Agency over how to craft post-Benghazi talking points, we know three things.

First, this White House has no clue how to handle a public relations crisis; it should have released those emails ages ago. Second, the more we learn, the clearer it is that there was no cover-up. Third, the Republicans in Congress don’t care about the truth of the matter. They’re going to keep attacking President Obama (to cause him pain right now), and Hillary Clinton’s State Department (to cause her pain if she runs in 2016).

On Wednesday, pretty much every dispassionate news organization reported that the newly released emails do not contain evidence of a scandal. President Obama’s national security team did not try to alter the talking points to shield Mr. Obama’s re-election chances.

–Mother Jones’ Kevin Drum:

So here’s what happened. Republicans in Congress saw copies of these emails two months ago and did nothing with them. It was obvious that they showed little more than routine interagency haggling. Then, riding high after last week’s Benghazi hearings, someone got the bright idea of leaking two isolated tidbits and mischaracterizing them in an effort to make the State Department look bad. Apparently they figured it was a twofer: they could stick a shiv into the belly of the White House and they could then badger them to release the entire email chain, knowing they never would.

But it was typical GOP overreach. To their surprise, the White House took Republicans up on their demand to make the entire email chain public, thus making it clear to the press that they had been burned. And now reporters are letting us all know who was behind it.

This has always been the Republican Party’s biggest risk with this stuff: that they don’t know when to quit. On Benghazi, when it became obvious that they didn’t have a smoking gun, they got desperate and tried to invent one. On the IRS, their problem is that Democrats are as outraged as they are. This will force them to make ever more outrageous accusations in an effort to find some way to draw a contrast. And on the AP phone records, they have to continually dance around the fact that they basically approve of subpoenas like this.

A sane party would take a deep breath and decide to move on to other things. But the tea partiers have the scent of blood now, and it’s driving them crazy. Thus the spectacle of Michele Bachmann suggesting today that it’s time to start impeachment proceedings.

–The Huffington Post:

The news parallels a Tuesday CNN report which initially introduced the contradiction between what was revealed in a White House Benghazi email version, versus what was reported in media outlets. On Monday, Mother Jones noted that the Republicans’ interim report included the correct version of the emails, signaling that more malice and less incompetence may have been at play with the alleged alterations.

–John Aravosis:

As I noted the other day, the email at the core of the Republican case that the White House ‘fixed’ the Benghazi talking points, in the immediate aftermath of the attack on our consulate, in order to edit out any reference to ‘terrorism,’ in a supposed effort to minimize public concern about the attack in the weeks before the 2012 election, is a fake.

The actual White House email, far from proving an attempt by the White House to “spin” Benghazi for political purposes, shows a White House concerned about getting the facts right.

CBS News said tonight that the false quotes “had been provided by Republicans,” and that “on Friday, Republicans leaked what they said was a quote from Rhodes,” referring to then- White House Deputy National Security Adviser for Strategic Communications Ben Rhodes.

CBS’ story online makes clear that they’re referring to “Republicans on Capitol Hill.”

–Josh Marshall:

Generally, once partisan, tendentious sources leak information that turns out to be wrong, nothing’s ever done about it. That’s for many reasons, some good or somewhat understandable, mostly bad. But on CBS Evening News tonight, Major Garrett did something I don’t feel like I’ve seen in a really long time or maybe ever on a network news cast. He basically said straight out: Republicans told us these were the quotes, that wasn’t true.

The U.S. drone program has always been a bit shady. We know, for instance that the U.S. gained access to Pakistani airspace by covertly assassinating the Pakistan government’s enemies of state. Luckily for the U.S. government, Americans have a stunning ability to not care about anyone who does not share their nationality and/or race, and therefore the government’s drone actions have gone uncontested.

Now corporations are getting into the mix, with large funding from Silicon Valley. As I’ve noted before, drones certainly have legitimate uses. However, there is the potential that weaponized drones will be shipped overseas. NBC reports that the Pentagon has approved 66 nations as eligible to purchase U.S. drones. More worrying is the possibility that private corporations will secretly (or openly) sell their wares to foreign governments to be used for repression, or even attacks against the U.S. (hardly an unprecedented move).

The industrial half of the military-industrial complex are eager to start exporting weapons. Michael Buscher, CEO of Vanguard Defense Industries said, “I don’t see the domestic market as being such a boom, our bread and butter is still going to be overseas foreign military sales.”

I urge you to read that twice.

Some are raising concerns about exporting UAV technology. Daryl Kimball, executive director the Arms Control Association warned, “The proliferation of this technology will mark a major shift in the way wars are waged. We’re talking about very sophisticated war machines here. We need to be very careful about who gets this technology. It could come back to hurt us.” Dianne Feinstein has also raised concerns, telling the Wall Street Journal that, “there are some military technologies that I believe should not be shared with other countries, regardless of how close our partnership.”

We must certainly be careful about who gains control of the drones. In February General Atomics sold a predator drone to the United Arab Emirates. This marks the first time U.S. drones have been sold to a non-NATO country. More such sales are likely to come, especially in the developing world. It would be nice if the drones were used only to water crops, but I’m unaware of any predator drone farmer helper kits. Arms can easily change hands and allies can become enemies.

Remember the Mujahideen?

This article originally appeared on Policymic.com

Visit Sean’s blog.

Contact Sean at seanadrianmc@gmail.com

Before 1970, mastectomy was the unquestioned answer for women diagnosed with the disease. Then a 50-year-old writer who had read a magazine article challenged the conventional wisdom.

In McCalls Rosmund learned from a column by Dr. William Nolen about the pioneering work of a Cleveland surgeon who performed lumpectomies, removing only the affected tissue and treating surrounding areas with radiation and chemotherapy.

When she refused to have her breasts removed, Rosmund’s doctor told her she would be “dead within three weeks.” She went to Cleveland, wrote an article about her experience and then a book. Rosmund died in 1997 at the age of 75; her breast cancer never recurred and the treatment she publicized became the standard for women.

Now in the age of advanced genetics, Jolie at 37 tells the world about her decision to undergo a preemptive double mastectomy after being told that she had “an 87 percent risk of breast cancer and a 50 percent risk of ovarian cancer” to avert the fate of her mother who died at 56.

Jolie’s choice and her openness about it are in the brave tradition of Betty Ford, who underwent surgery as First Lady and related all the details to encourage other women to seek detection and treatment.

But now the actress’ OpEd about her experience in the New York Times elicits concerns in the newspaper the following day…

MORE.

Today we are taking a trip back to January 1853 and a southbound train heading for Washington DC. In that era train wrecks were quite common and on this particular date the train did derail and several people were killed. Early newspaper reports indicated that among the casualties was the President Elect of the United States, Franklin Pierce.

As it turns out it was the son of the President Elect who had been killed, not Pierce. But it was quite a close call and but for a little shift in timing he certainly would have died and that would have brought into play an interesting series of events.

The immediate successor would have been Vice President Elect William King of Alabama. King holds a unique place in US History as the only President or Vice President to take the oath of office outside the country. In March 1853 he was in Cuba trying to recover from tuberculosis and a special act of Congress allowed him to take the oath there.

His efforts failed and he died on April 18, 1853.

Now here is where things get interesting. In addition to being the second death in a space of 4 months it also might have sparked a bit of a political crisis. Under the law at the time the next in line to office was the President Pro Tempore of the Senate, then the Speaker of the House. After this the law called for a new election and had no provisions for an acting President during the interim.

In 1853 the President Pro Tempore was David Atchison, a pro slavery Senator from Missouri while the Speaker of the House was a more moderate Linn Boyd from Kentucky. Given the tensions over the slavery issue during the 1850s it is possible that some in the Senate would have been reluctant to elect Atchison to what would have, in effect, been acting President (given King’s illness).

If some tried to block Atchison from being elected in the Senate, it is also possible that some in the House could have worked to block Boyd. Democrats held huge majorities in both houses but there was a deep split betwen southern and northern members.

Obviously the most likely path would have been President Atchison, but the potential for a major political struggle was also quite high. This is especially true given the option of a new election and the idea in the minds of some leading Democrats that they could win such a vote.

And you thought 2000 was the first time we had a big battle.

George Norris, who as Nebraska’s Governor and later Senator championed an abundance of reforms that made him a national hero to progressives, in Nebraska was ousted as far back as a 1942 primary. Tom Kuchel’s loss to Max Rafferty in California was overshadowed by Bobby Kennedy’s assassination that same night. But two other Republican, Mid-Atlanticers, would also be unseated in primaries in the years to come, and they were literally the last two men with direct ties to the once vibrant “Rockefeller Republicanism” in the upper chamber.

The term “Rockefeller Republicans” is now a cliche, but not too long before, it had flourished. The last two men of that era in the Senate were Jacob Javitz of New York and Clifford Case of New Jersey. Both were 70-something liberals who had served 24 years before falling to hard-charging conservatives
almost no one took seriously at first. Javitz, whose ’80 defeat had been proceeded by Case’s two years earlier, were a distinct out in the cold minority within their parties.

And for most of their tenures, they were the pride and joy to virtually all elements of their state’s: Democrats, Independents, labor, moderates, minorities, Jews. All except conservatives. For a time, that didn’t matter. But as they began aging, it couldn’t help but catch up to them.

Javitz and Case often had higher scores than many Democratic Senators, and not always those from the south. Both set records vote-getting as for Republicans.

Their backgrounds were different. Cases’ family was more well-known (his father a Dutch Reformed minister), while Javitz’s was a Jewish city boy, with working class roots. If Case’s family would go to all lengths at maintaining their Republicanism, (his father cancelled a subscription to a newspaper for backing Woodrow Wilson), Javitz backed FDR at least once (though also Fiorella LaGuardia). Case was well liked by his colleagues, Javitz, while ranked among the highest in terms of influence, was the farthest thing from it. Case was comfortable campaigning, the other not. But both were brilliant, and used it in different ways.

And by the Carter Presidency, both had been backing his policies a lot (Case 70% and Javitz 82%), and in a time conservatives were overtaking moderates in the party, the new base would want one of their own. And in the primary at least, they got it, a result that again showed a stylistic difference. Case accepted defeat gracefully, Javitz did not and in fact made futile attempts to overturn the verdict. But neither would have survived long enough to serve their 5th terms had they been re-elected. But their defeats were still shocking and illustrated a change for the GOP.

Jacob Javitz (1904-1986) Photo By Wiki

Javitz and Case both came to Congress — the House, in the 1940′s and both served nearly a decade before going to the Senate. Things were different then. Their liberalism was a vestige of an abundant Republican party. Despite Taft-Hartley, Javitz in particular stumped hard for his Presidential standard bearer, Tom Dewey. In his ’80 campaign, Javitz would claim to be the only one left of the original three “Dewey, Rockefeller, and me.”

Being a moderate was proud and the Mid-Atlantic was in the foremost of the advancement of progress. And early on, they showed colleagues taking aim at liberals they were not afraid to show it. They opposed the creation of the UN-American Activities committee and were outspoken Civil Rights and anti-workplace discrimination even in the 1940’s. They backed President Truman on his veto of Taft-Hartley. Upon being Senators, Javitz and Case continued to champion social progress. Besides Civil Rights, there was the Great Society. And there would be Judicial nominations, on which they wouldn’t hesitate to cause agida even to Republicans in the White House.

Javitz and Case would oppose the nominations of Nixon’s Supreme Court nominees Harrold Carswell and Clement Haynesworth, as did many Senate Republicans. But they were also one of just three Rs to oppose Bill Rehnquist’s nomination as Associate Justice. The other member: Edward Brooke, who nearly lost his own primary in ’78.

The relatively liberal records of Case and Javitz were evident in their Presidential support scores. In 1961, Case backed JFK 76% and Javitz 69%. In ’62, Case had a still high 73% and Javitz 62%. In contrast, Roman Hruska of Nebraska would back the President just 21% and 30% respectively.Disagreements with home-state Democratic colleagues were often notable. In 1965, Case only disagreed with New Jersey Democrat Harrison Williams 16%, while Javitz went against Bobby Kennedy a mere 19%. By contrast, Oregon’s two Democratic Senators Wayne Morse and Maureen Neugebauer took contrary positions: 27%.

Indeed, in many of his early elections, Javitz was far from favored. His 1946 nomination for a Congressional seat was thought to be a worthless prize for having stuck with the losing candidate for Mayor the year before. He won. In 1954, he took on FDR Jr for the NY Attorney General post and, in a lousy year for the GOP, prevailed.

By 1956, Javitz was ready to move up to the Senate, but that meant he’d have to beat popular New York City Mayor Robert Wagner. In the Eisenhower landslide, Javitz won. In 1962, he became the first statewide GOP candidate to carry New York City since, the Times said, Calvin Coolidge. And in 1974, ex-Attorney General Ramsey Clark was seeking to capitalize on the Watergate scandal (Javitz did not condemn Nixon until the final days of Watergate), but Javitz still won by 8% (46-38% in a three way race, with the conservatives expressing their distaste for Javitz by going with Barbara Keating).

Civil Rights was a key Javitz interests. As Goldwater prepared to vote against the Civil Rights Act, Javitz told him he was making a mistake.”I’m sorry you feel that way, Jack,” and walked away. On another occasion, Goldwater suggested Javitz “go straight” and become a Republican. By 1975, he was running for Minority Whip. Nebraskan Carl Curtis, another bald-headed four-termer, was his challenger. Curtis was not liked either, but conservative Senators were persuaded that Javitz was not the ideological face the caucus wanted. Curtis won.

But as a New York Senator, Javitz could not abandon business and throughout his career, he was trying to reconcile the two. One person said, “he gets support from big business and labor. Jack Javitz has no shame…He gives Chutzpah a big name.” But Javitz was unequivically viewed as one of the smartest Senators with a top-notch staff. At an Oval Office visit, LBJ once told him, “with your brains, you should be sitting in that chair.”

Of Javitz, the New York Times wrote “he was affable and ebullient, abrasive and brusque – qualities that made it difficult for him to win acceptance as an insider in the exclusive Senate club.” Local Republicans were happy to have him in the Senate (and may not have found someone to replicate his vote-getting abilities), but resisted his higher aspirations. Javitz wanted to be considered for VP in 1968 and New York City Mayor in ’73 but doesn’t appear to have been seriously considered. He acknowledged he was not close to Rockefeller, often being forced to trail behind him when he visited Capital Hill.

He was a serious individual, even to those who knew him best. His wife once said he brought newspapers to read on the train to their honeymoon. She said “there have always been papers between us.” Working for him was not easy as well, even for his contemporaries. A one-time press secretary, Paul Lenenthal, compared working in Jvitz’ office to being in the Army. “It’s uncomfortable at the time, but some years later, you realized you learn an awful lot.” Yet Javitz had brains and a top notch staff, and that was hard to ignore.

Among his biggest accomplishments: the ERISA pension legislation and the creation of the National Endowment for the Humanities. He had a big hand in the creation of the War Powers Act.

When Al D’Amato told his father he’d e challenging Javitz, he recommended his son “see a psychiatrist.” He was a Hempstead Township Supervisor (Nassau County, Long Island), but had little name recognition beyond. Javitz, on the other hand, was an institution. But Case’s upset would not allow Javitz to take his eye off the ball.

Javitz had developed a degenerative nerve disorder which in no way impaired his mind. But his physical abilities was a different story, and that became an issue. A big one. D’Amato ran three $500,000 ads that showed unflattering pictures of Javitz and used the phrase, “and now, at age 76 and in failing health, he wants six more years.” The D’Amato camp, in part to avoid being seen as insensitive, added the liberal label. Some noted his 82% backing of Carter. And Javitz was forced to affirm his support for Reagan, but could only do so in the most tepid language. He said he had been hoping Ford would seek a comeback, would “not walk away from” Reagan like he did Goldwater in 1964, claiming Goldwater “chased me away.” Unmistakably, his heart seemed to be with John Anderson, another maverick, whom he called “an element that makes the Republican Party a national party.”

In the debate between the two, Javitz claimed “crudeness and vulgarity” on the health issue. On the health issue, he said, ‘that’s about all his campaign is.” But in fact, D’Amato was swinging at Javitz on spending issues, and that was hurting him as much as anything.

D’Amato would win a shockingly large 57-43% victory. Bitter over his defeat, Javitz declined to forfeit the Liberal Party line. Many think the votes he received would have gone to Liz Holtzman, the Democratic nominee. Instead, D’Amato was able to eke out a 1% win over Holtzman with just 45%. Javitz took just 13%, and his long career was over.

Javitz remained active in retirement, even testifying before Congress many times, often times, true to the end, against positions his party was advocating. But his health was worsening and he died suddenly in 1986 while vacationing in Florida. The Jacob Javitz Convention Center, and he was on hand for the groundbreaking two years earlier.

Clifford Case (1904-1982) Photo by Rutgers Publication

Case, like Javitz, was bright. He did most of his own research. He too was aredently pro-Israel. But he was more comfortable around people. When Bell announced his candidacy, few took notice. In fact, there were always rumblings about distrust from conservatives but Case had always turned back their challengers handily (he took 70% six years earlier).

Case had been serving New Jersey in Congress since winning a House seat in 1944 (his only defeat had been a race for the State Assembly two years before). In his 1954 Senate run, he’d enjoy labor support. But some attacked his anti-McCarthy stance, calling him a “pro-communist Republicrat,” and “Stalin’s Choice for Senator.” But Eisenhower was popular and Nixon campaigned for him (Case had been an early backer of Ike). He won by 3,000 votes, the same margin he’d be unseated by in the primary.

Case would prove extraordinarily popular. He was so liberal that it was not uncommon for him to score a 100 from the ADA and a zero from the conservative Americans for Constitutional Action. In 1962, he was the only Republican who backed Kennedy’s Medicare plan.In 1972, Case was returned to the Senate by a record margin. “Garden Staters” incidentally have not chosen another Republican for the Senate since. Katherine Neuberger, an ex-Republican National Committeewoman, summed it up, saying, “he may have been considered an ultra-liberal, but he was for his fellow man.” The environment, where New Jersey shore communities is big for the economy, Case was As a delegate to the U.S. Conference in Stockholm, Case spoke of 88% of dumping taking place on the Jersey Shore. And he was for peace. His Case-Church amendment would cut off funds. And as the Senator who got to recommend U.S. Attorneys, the men Case chose were proven corruption busters who, once assuming the position went after Democrats and Republicans alike.

By 1978, Case was expected to have a tough general against Bill Bradley. The real shock, however was not that Bradley won but that he didn’t face Case to get there.

In the 1978 primary, Bell spent $500,000, with the New York Tuimes noting 80% of his donors came from outside the New York City metropolitan area. He had hammered excessively the issue of a federal tax cut. He even backed the Carter administration 70%. Case attacked Bell’s tax cut platform, calling it “extraordinarily inflationary.”Case, in conceding, called it “an interesting campaign.” Acknowledging “it fooled everybody,” Case blamed light “turnout,” saying it may indicate “a deep unhappiness with the voters of the people in power.”

But among Republicans, his popularity was never universal. Case himself had summed up his philosophy thus: “If the needs of this country are not met by middle-of-the-road progressivism, the problems won’t be met, and the time will come when only extremist solutions are possible.” And on the night he lost, Case again expressed fear that extremists Still, ever a loyal Republican, he vowed to remain so.

Some Republicans, including future Governor Tom Kean Sr, attributed Cases’ loss to his “longtime reluctance to use modern campaign techniques.” For instance, Kean said he should’ve paid $15,000 for a credible poll,” but instead spent less than $5,000 for a poll that, erroneously as it turned out, showed him far ahead.

Nonetheless, Case, who after his loss had begun teaching, told Rutgers students his loss was “not a matter of unhappiness. I think the miracle was that I lasted as long as I did.” Case was diagnosed with lung cancer in 1981 and died the following March. He was 77 years old.

[This is the second post in the series Why Everything You Know about Your “Self” Is Wrong. The series explores how our understanding of selfhood affects our sense of individuality, our interpersonal relationships, and our politics.]

In the first post in this series, we disentangled the notion of selfhood from the body, the mind, and the witness. Another common mistake is to identify a current identity as our “real” self. With age, most people realize that they are not the face they present to the world, not even the superposition of the various identities they’ve assumed over the course of their lifetime.

By my late thirties, I had accumulated enough personal history to see that I had presented several quite different Bobs to the world. Principal among my serial identities were student, teacher, and educator. Alongside these occupational personas were the familial ones of son, husband, and father. As Shakespeare famously noted:

All the world’s a stage,
And all the men and women merely players:
They have their exits and their entrances;
And one man in his time plays many parts …

Like many an Eastern sage, Shakespeare saw that we assume a series of parts while at the same time watching over ourselves as if we’re a member of the audience. That is, we both live our lives and, at the same time, witness our selves doing so. We don’t stop there: we even witness ourselves witnessing.

We know that our current persona will eventually give way to another. In contrast, the self ages little, perhaps because it partakes of the detached agelessness of the witness.

Distinct identities are strung together on the thread of memory, all of them provisional and perishable. No less fascinating than the birth, life, and death of our bodies are the births, lives, and deaths of these makeshift, transient identities. Reincarnation of the body is arguable; metamorphosis of identity is not.

The witness’s detachment facilitates the letting go of elements of identity in response to changing circumstances. As we age, the feeling that life is a battle is gradually replaced with the sense that it’s a game played with a shifting set of allies and opponents who, upon closer examination, are unmasked as collaborators. Without opposition, we might never notice the partiality and blind spots inherent in our unique vantage point.

The more flexible, forgiving attitude that results when we see our self as a home for transient identities turns out to be the perspective we need to maintain our dignity in adversity and accord it to others in theirs. Former antagonists—which may include colleagues, spouses, and parents—come to be seen as essential participants in our development, and we in theirs.

To keep an identity in working order, we continually emend and burnish it, principally by telling and retelling our story to ourselves and anyone who’ll listen. Occasionally, our narrative is revised in a top to bottom reformulation that in science would be called a paradigm shift. Though most incremental changes are too small and gradual to be noticed over months or even years, they add up, and suddenly, often in conjunction with a change in job, health, or relationship, we may come to see ourselves quite differently, revise our grand narrative, and present a new face to the world. Whole professions—therapy, coaching, counseling—have grown up to help people weather such identity crises.

It is tempting to think of the self as simply a home for the identities we adopt over our lifetime, but on reflection, this, too, falls short. Our self is also the source of the identities that sally forth as our proxies. That is, we experience the self as more than a retirement home for former identities; it’s also the laboratory in which they’re minted, tested, and from which they step onto the stage. One can think of the self as a crucible for identity formation.

Before examining this process, we consider two more candidates for the mantle of selfhood: the soul and pure consciousness.

Am I My Soul?

If selfhood, as currently understood, has a shortcoming, it’s its mortality. We grudgingly accept physical aging, but who has not balked at the idea of the apparent extinction of his or her self upon physical death? Alas, our precious but nebulous self—whatever it may be—appears to expire with the demise of our body.

To mitigate this bleak prospect, many religions postulate the existence of an immortal soul, and go on to identify self with soul. After we’ve clarified the concept of selfhood, we’ll discover that, even without hypothesizing an immortal soul, death loses some of its finality and its sting.

Am I Consciousness?

A last redoubt for the self as we’ve known it is to identify it as pure, empty consciousness. But what exactly is consciousness? Arguments run on about whether animals have it, and if so how much, without ever clarifying what consciousness is. Moreover, identifying one’s self as pure consciousness is just another identification, namely that of systematically dis-identifying with everything else.

Even if you don’t find pure, empty consciousness a bit spare or monotonous, there’s another problem with equating it with selfhood. Whatever it may be, stripped-down consciousness is deficient in agency, and agency—that is, not just being, but doing—is inextricably connected to selfhood because mentation does not occur apart from its potential to actualize behavior. To think is to rehearse action without triggering it. Thought involves the excitation of motor neurons, but below the threshold at which the actions those neurons enervate would be emitted. In computer parlance, thought is virtual behavior.

In the next post, I’ll bring in the postmodern perspective, which will complete the deconstruction of naïve selfhood, and set the stage for a self that’s congruent with the findings of both traditional introspection and contemporary neuroscience.

Part 1 of Everything You Know about Your “Self” Is Wrong can be found here.

Robert W. Fuller is an author and independent scholar from Berkeley, CA. His most recent book is The Rowan Tree: A Novel.

David Fitzsimmons, The Arizona Star

See great cartoons by all the top political cartoonists at http://cagle.com. To license this cartoon for your own site, visit http://politicalcartoons.com

This was cross-posted from The Hinterland Gazette.

Is President Obama having a “Katrina moment” with the trio of scandals rocking his administration — Benghazi, IRS snooping and the Associated Press wiretaps? I knew it was a matter of time before someone invoked “Katrina moment” as a way of explaining away the drama that continues to dominate the news cycle. Personally, I believe Eric Holder should be put out to pasture, given his testimony on Capitol Hill Wednesday where he gave different variations to “I don’t know.” I thought the buck stopped with him, being the U.S. Attorney General, but maybe I’m wrong. Dana Milbank characterized his performance as an abdication, mocking him with his responses, “I don’t know. I don’t know. I would not want to reveal what I know. I don’t know why that didn’t happen.  I know nothing, so I’m not in a position really to answer.”

Todd Eberly:  ”What happened to Bush between Election Day 2004 and the Democratic victories in the 2006 election is a cautionary tale that the Obama Administration would do well to consider… Bush had presented himself as a competent manager and a reliable leader – a stark contrast to Kerry. That image collapsed in spectacular fashion in latter half of 2005.”

“Like Bush, Obama was reelected by the same 51% bare majority. Obama’s narrow popular vote victory was bolstered by a more substantial Electoral College victory. Like Bush, Obama was rejected by 49% of the electorate and exit polls showed a majority of voters favored full or partial repeal of the President’s signature legislative accomplishment – health care reform. Much like the Bush 2004 strategy, the Obama campaign spent millions defining Mitt Romney as an unfit leader. Obama was portrayed as the reliable and competent manager who understood there was a positive role for government to play in improving people’s lives. If Obama is not careful, that image will collapse in spectacular fashion.”

The onset of woes threatens to consume President Obama’s policy aspirations and possibly his legacy. It’s been a rough week for the Obama White House and the Republicans, who continue to cry wolf, are only emboldened to keep this going, while the country continues to grapple with the effects of the sequester, among other issues. It is quite clear to me that the Republicans are manufacturing and spinning these ‘scandals’ any way they can to deflect from the fact they have nothing to move this country forward. Instead, dividing us as a country fits right into their narrative. On its face, this isn’t a “Katrina moment” but who knows how this will turn out. We lost four lives in Benghazi, not to minimize the importance of their lives, but that’s compared to the nearly 2,000 who died as a result of Hurricane Katrina. Nobody died as a result of the AP phone records seizure and the IRS snooping.

On a personal note, since we are talking ‘scandal,’ I guess I will tune in to watch a real scandal unfold as the season finale for ABC’s hit show “Scandal” airs tonight.

This was cross-posted from The Hinterland Gazette.

By becoming a female Governor, Ella Grasso made history. Though Nellie Ross Taylor had been the first female elected Governor in Wyoming in 1924. She was succeeded two weeks later by Miriam “Ma” Ferguson in Texas two months later, they followed their husband’s. So did Lurleen Wallace, the spouse of George who succeeded him in Alabama in 1966 when he was ineligible to run again. It wasn’t until 1974 that a woman would win her state’s highest office who didn’t have a spouse there first. And Ella Grasso was that person, a very special lady whose death came entirely to soon.

Like many Connecticut pols, the lady of Windsor Locks, rose up through the ranks, starting as a speechwriter for Democratic candidates. That soon led to her election as a State Senator, in GOP friendly 1952.

Six years later, legendary Connecticut Democratic Party Chair John Bailey (the father of future Congresswoman Barbara Kennelly) sought to add balance to the ticket by tapping her to run as Secretary of State. The ticket won. Grasso meanwhile became the first woman to chair the Democratic State Platform Committee at the 1960 convention and worked on merging counties.

By 1970, she mounted a bid to succeed Thomas Meskill, who was running for Governor. It was another strong Republican year in Connecticut, as Meskill was winning the Governorship and Lowell Weicker was managing to take a Senate seat. But Grasso squeaked into office by 4,000 votes out of 189,000 cast. A staffer said Grasso’s midas touch was that when constituents had a problem, “you almost got the impression you were talking to your mother, someone who was generally concerned about the little things that were happening to you.” She championed economic development for her district, particularly the city of New Britain.

By 1974, she was ready to go higher. “Nutmeggers” were overwhelmingly ready to except her and she got the job over Congressman Robert Steele with 59% of the vote. Some of his supporters had bumper stickers that read, “Connecticut can’t afford a governess” but her gender appeared to help her. And she had always had a penchant for frugality.

Grasso Campaign poster (photo by roykrantz.com)

Grasso had vowed in her announcement to be “guided by only one principle. To work for the people and to serve them with all of my heart, mind, and spirit.” And no one can dispute that she did.
Grasso became known as “Mother Ella,” and was widely popular in office. She was elected as a traditional liberal, but once in, governed as a stern centrist who, “behind her desk was all business..her eyeglasses perched atop her head,” as one profile read.

With folks calling her, “Ella,” Grasso championed a public access law which would allow the public to monitor the activities of their government (which would really resonate as of this climate). She created the Department of Public Utilities Control and gave up her limousine.

If there was disillusionment with Grasso, it appears to have emanated from her left. She acknowledged her “friends in the women’s movement get angry at me for saying this but I never felt that being a woman gave me any special political problems. It was only when my friends from the foreign press, in New York, kept coming here and writing about me as a woman candidate that I began to think I was something special.”

One reason was because despite her membership in the League of Women Voters at the start of her political career, she may not have been one of them.She vetoed state funding of abortions saying, “I do not wish to be a party to killing the children of the poor.” On her low rate of appointments of women, she replied, ”people expect skills. Purely political appointments of persons with no credit other than party affiliation are no longer part of our modern politics,” she said.

Grasso backed Jimmy Carter over Ted Kennedy in the 1980 primary. She opposed expanding gambling in the state, even attempting to abolish the State Gaming Commission

For her entire first term, she had stubbornly resisted an income tax and, despite severe economic woes, refused to entertain changing it. She also consolidate 200 government agencies and employees, which many believed had an impact on state services. That prompted Grasso’s own Lieutenant Governor to challenger her in the 1978 primary and he took 1/3 of the vote. By Grasso was aided by leadership during a treacherous snowstorm that winter which dropped 30 inches of snow and closed the state for three days. Grasso set up command centers and guided the state and walking through snowbanks when her car got stuck. She won rave reviews, which most certainly ebbed the tide of discontent.

Still, in 2nd district Congressman Ronald Sorensen, Grasso faced a challenge in the fall. But “Nutmeggers” liked her style and, “Mother Ella” again won with 59%. But the triumphs would not last long.

Grasso learned she had cancer of the uterus, which eventually spread to her liver and intestine. She resigned effective December 31, 1980. Upon doing so, she said, “I make this decision with a heavy heart but with full appreciation that the people’s business must continue at the highest level.”Lieutenant Governor William O’Neill, whom Grasso had ousted as state Democratic Chair in 1976 before allowing the convention to choose him as her running-mate, took over. Grasso died on February 5, 1981 at just 61.

President Reagan gave her a posthumous Medal of Freedom and she would later be enacted into the National Women’s Hall of Fame.

Grasso had once said, “All of my life has been dedicated to people. You can put me down anywhere in the state and I can find someone to talk to.” And for the first woman to truly win the office on her own, “Ella” set standards that will e forever hard to replicate.

Tina Brown (Vanity Fair>Newsweek>Daily Beast) isn’t someone I’d turn to for the last word on our political culture. She may be condemned by her position at the Beast to chase the latest scandal. Whatever. But when, in an interview this morning, she made it sound as though Obama will never climb out of this mess (you choose.. there are so many), I had to switch her off.

We seem to be stuck in an endless “scandal” that always turns out to be largely fictive. I’m sorry, but we need to remember that Obama couldn’t possibly be elected, much less reelected. In the end, no matter how hard they work at it, our in-House fascists can’t erase is that Obama represents, as Michael Tomasky points out, the “most transformational presidency in modern history.”

I don’t think Tomasky is wrong. I just think we’re stuck with the media we support with our dollars and often can’t see beyond them to reality. We are hoist, to coin a phrase, with our own petard. There’s a whole world of events going on out there that will “go down in history” that we’ve stopped paying attention to. To put it another way, we seem to be inhaling the breath we just exhaled, never taking in fresh air. No wonder we’re woozy-headed.*

To think back over Obama’s tenure is to be struck by a paradox that has, I think, little precedent. Obama’s is the most transformational presidency in modern history, but it simply doesn’t feel that way. Recall the famous words he spoke to a Nevada newspaper in January 2008 when he declared that Ronald Reagan “changed the trajectory of America in a way that…Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not.” Aside from trying to throw then-opponent Hillary Clinton off her stride a bit, Obama clearly meant to be saying that he would be changing history as Reagan did.

His tenure so far hasn’t been much like Reagan’s at all. In large part this is because Reagan’s ascension represented the rise to the very apex of power of a relatively new force, the “movement conservatism” that first sprang to life in the mid-1950s. Before Reagan, that brand of conservatism had been consigned to the barely acceptable fringes of Washington, given voice by a few second-tier legislators (Roman Hruska of Nebraska, for example) and cranky columnists (James J. Kilpatrick). Reagan altered Washington’s chemistry in a vast number of ways, from questions of domestic and foreign policy to seating arrangements in Georgetown society. The many cumulative billions from rich conservatives that helped build conservative think tanks and media outlets such as Fox News started changing the balance of power in Washington as well during Reagan’s term.

Obama has not presided over that kind of political and cultural change, and it’s hard to see how he will. And yet, his record of accomplishments in both the policy and political realms is formidable. He passed near-universal health care and sweeping financial regulation. He ended the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy on military service. He was the first president to endorse same-sex marriage (which I predicted in these pages—wrongly, I’m happy to note—might prove costly at the polls). The night before the election, Rachel Maddow devoted the first ten or so minutes of her MSNBC program to listing Obama’s policy achievements. It was a staggering list.

The political accomplishments are notable as well. Bear in mind that many conservatives (and not a few liberals) believed that 2008 had to be unique, and that Obama’s aberrational triumph was made possible only by a storm of events that conspired to do in the Republicans—the financial meltdown, John McCain’s selection of Sarah Palin, the media’s supposed lionization of Obama, and so on. Surely, conservatives thought, that 2008 coalition was a fluke; America will never reelect a man such as this. …NYRB

*By the way, if you want to spend your time in good (intelligent) company online, this is highly recommended.

Cross posted from Prairie Weather

bad air graphic via shutterstock.com

Democratic scandal does not take the place of a Republican agenda. It does not reform the tax code or reduce the debt or ease regulatory burdens on small business. It cannot substitute for a strategy to replace Obamacare. By all means, Republicans should run against the president and his party — against their refusal to take the entitlement crisis seriously, against the implementation of their “train wreck” health-care law, and even against the unusually politicized executive-branch culture that contributed to the post-Benghazi cover-up. They should at the same time understand that a purely negative message, however justified, will not produce the governing majority Republicans should be aiming for in the next two elections.

Even worse than relying on scandal would be advertising the fact. Republicans should not indulge in public speculation about the electoral repercussions of these scandals for 2014 (much less 2016!). Doing so plays into the Democrats’ hands by making legitimate inquiries seem like opportunistic partisan exercises, and is thus likely to be a self-canceling prophecy.

Republicans should not jump to conclusions, either, about how high up the White House chain of command these scandals are likely to creep. The facts alone will determine that. And perhaps most of all, conservatives and Republicans should not talk loosely about impeachment. The overwhelming likelihood at this point is that Barack Obama will leave office on January 20, 2017. The main task ahead for Republicans is to build a post-Obama majority so that his governing philosophy departs too.

Sound, wise professional political advice — which means talk show hosts who need to whip up audiences, websites that need to capture anger, rage and resentments to get return hits, the Tea Party, and the Republican Party’s base will largely ignore it.

And it sounds like some are ignoring it already..

Rainer Hachfeld, Neues Deutschland, German

WASHINGTON — “What if the government starts enforcing the espionage statute whenever there’s a leak?” Steve Roberts, a former New York Times journalist who teaches at George Washington University, observed to the Baltimore Sun. “It’s going to have a tremendously chilling effect on this interplay between sources and reporters.”

But Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Tex.) insisted that stopping leaks should be a very high priority. “When national security secrets leak and become public knowledge,” he wrote in a letter to the president, “our people and our national interests are jeopardized. And when our enemies know our secrets, American lives are threatened.”

As it happens, these two quotations are separated by seven years. Roberts was speaking in 2005 about the furor over Dana Priest’s important story in The Washington Post revealing that the CIA was maintaining a series of “black sites” abroad where terrorism detainees were interrogated. For this, Priest came under searing attack from allies of the George W. Bush administration.

Smith’s letter was sent to President Obama in 2012. It complained about national security leaks that set off the very investigation which this week prompted fury over the Justice Department’s seizure of two months’ worth of telephone records from a group of Associated Press reporters.

Isn’t it odd that many Republicans who demanded a thorough investigation a year ago are now condemning the Justice Department for doing what they asked for? Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus even called on Attorney General Eric Holder to resign, saying he had “trampled on the First Amendment.”

It’s a funny thing about media leaks: They are either courageous or outrageous, depending on whether they help or hurt your political party.

Forgive me for feeling cynical and depressed about our nation’s political conversation. Scandalmania is distorting our discussion of three different issues, sweeping them into one big narrative — everything is a “narrative” these days — about the beleaguered second-term presidency of Barack Obama.

What’s being buried under a story line?

On leaks, I don’t believe that the media have unlimited immunity. But I am very pro-leak because such disclosures are often the only way citizens in a free society can find out things they need to know. The Justice Department’s actions in the AP case seem to go way beyond what is justified or necessary. There was no need to ignore guidelines suggesting that news organizations should usually have the chance to negotiate or challenge subpoenas.

Holder recused himself from the case, and the White House, which is, in effect, a subject of the investigation, can plausibly claim it was unaware of the decision.

Nonetheless, liberals have reason to contest the Obama administration on civil liberties questions. What’s entertaining is to watch so many Republicans (let’s exempt the consistent libertarians) reverse a decade of hard-line positions on national security matters and speak now as if they were card-carrying members of the American Civil Liberties Union.

Then there is the IRS’s targeting tea party groups for special scrutiny in applications for 501(c)(4) status. Of course this was wrong — and stupid. Liberals were incensed when the IRS questioned the tax status of several progressive groups during the Bush administration. The IRS needs to be ultra-scrupulous about political neutrality, period. That’s why Obama came out late Wednesday to announce a shake-up at the agency.

But the other scandal — as The Washington Post’s Ezra Klein and Ruth Marcus and MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell have all suggested — is that any groups involved in partisan electioneering are being granted standing as “social welfare” organizations, allowing them to hide the identity of their donors. A bad mistake could compound the IRS’s timidity on the 501(c)(4) issue.

And finally, Benghazi, the “scandal” that seems to be all smoke and no gun. The House could have spent its energy trying to figure out what led to this tragedy, why diplomats were in such a dangerous place and how to protect brave Foreign Service officers in the future. Congress could even have asked itself whether it’s providing enough money for the task. But focusing on the narrow concern of who did what to a set of talking points (and bloviating about this episode as a new “Watergate”) takes what could be a legitimate inquiry and turns it into a political carnival.

I know, I know: This “confluence” of “scandals” spells “trouble” for the Obama administration. Well, sure, this has been hell week for the president. But what spells trouble for our country is our apparent eagerness to avoid debate about discrete problems by sacrificing the particulars and the facts to the idol of political narrative. It’s a false god.

E.J. Dionne’s email address is ejdionne@washpost.com.
(c) 2013, Washington Post Writers Group