SUNDAY,MAY 16, 2010
KLMNO
Sunday OPINION
POST PARTISAN CHARLES LANE
DANA MILBANK
A bit too much tea in Utah and Maine
F
uture historians tracing the crackup of the Republican Party may well look to May 8, 2010, as an inflection point.
That was the day, as is now well known,
that Sen. Robert Bennett, who took the con- servative position 84 percent of the time over his career, was deemed not conservative enough by fellow Utah Republicans and booted out of the primary. Less well known, but equally ominous, is
what happened that same day, 2,500 miles east in Maine. There, the state Republican Party chucked its platform — a sensible New England mix of free-market economics and conservation — and adopted a manifesto of insanity: abolishing the Federal Reserve, call- ing global warming a “myth,” sealing the bor- der, and, as a final plank, fighting “efforts to create a one world government.” One world government? Do our friends Down East fear an invasion from the Canadi- an maritime provinces? A Viking flotilla coming from Iceland under cover of volcanic ash? I was pondering this mystery while on the elliptical machine this week and watching Glenn Beck (I find he increases my heart rate), when I heard him inform his viewers that “they” — President Obama and friends — “are creating a global governance struc- ture.”
“Social and ecological justice and all of this
bullcrap,” Beck told his viewers, “is man’s work for a global government.” Beck — who is second in popularity only to Sarah Palin among the type of Tea Party activists who hi- jacked the Maine GOP — tossed out phrases such as “global standards” and “global bank tax” — all part of a conspiracy by the “global government people.” He further provided the news that “Jesus doesn’t want a cap-and- trade system.” Not once did Beck refer to the big news
events of the day, such as Afghan President Hamid Karzai’s visit to the White House or the Gulf of Mexico oil spill. It was as if he had created a parallel universe for his 2-million- plus viewers. Similarly, on Monday, when Obama nominated Elena Kagan to the Su- preme Court, Beck omitted that news in favor of a fanciful administration attempt to re- store the broadcast Fairness Doctrine. On Tuesday, USA Today had the headline “Tax bills in 2009 at lowest level since 1950” (the nonpartisan Tax Foundation put it at 1959); Beck skipped that, instead saying he doesn’t want changes to the Internet “at least until people aren’t worshiping Satan, you know, in office.” (Beck maintained later that he really wasn’t “saying that Obama was a Satan wor- shiper.”)
Beck justifiably credited his viewers for
“what happened to Bob Bennett in Utah.” He warned: “People in Washington, you should be terrified.” We should be terrified — particularly the Republicans, whose party is turning into this One-World-Government, Obama-worships- Satan, Jesus-opposes-climate-bill mélange. And Beck is only part of the trouble. Consider these GOP milestones of recent days: In the Alabama gubernatorial race, a con-
servative attack ad charged that a Repub- lican gubernatorial candidate “recently said the Bible is only partially true.” The outraged candidate reaffirmed his “belief that this world and everything in it is a masterpiece created by the hands of God.” In Utah, just a couple of days after Ben-
nett’s fall, conservative Rep. Jason Chaffetz talked about trying to topple none other than Sen. Orrin Hatch (89 percent lifetime conser- vative rating) in 2012. In Arizona, Sen. John McCain, who once said a fence is the “least effective” way to se- cure the border, continued his fight against a conservative primary challenge by releasing an ad demanding, “Complete the danged fence.”
Democrats are having purity putsches, too, in Arkansas, Pennsylvania and Colorado. But these are mild compared with the sort of up- rising Republicans are experiencing in places such as Maine, tranquil land of Henry Wads- worth Longfellow. The Maine Republicans a week ago reject- ed a platform proclaiming that “we believe that the proper role of government is to help provide for those who can not help them- selves”; that “we believe in ensuring that our children have access to the best educational opportunities”; and that “every person’s dig- nity, freedom, liberty, ability and responsibil- ity must be honored.” In its place, they approved a document in- voking the Tea Party movement and Ron Paul and insisting that “health care is not a right.” The new platform demands: “Eliminate mo- tor voter”; “Reject the UN Treaty on Rights of the Child”; “Eliminate the Department of Education”; “Arrest and detain . . . anyone here illegally, and then deport, period.” It was a swap they will come to rue — as- suming they survive the Viking invasion.
danamilbank@washpost.com
President Obama has problems controlling the U.S. budget deficit, but that didn’t prevent him from calling Spain’s prime minister, José Luis Rod- riguez Zapatero, to kibitz about get- ting Spain’s fiscal house in order. Spe- cifically, the president “encouraged” Zapatero to follow through with an austerity plan much tougher than any deficit reduction contemplated in Washington, including a 5 percent cut in public servants’ salaries. I’m sure Zapatero found the message espe- cially welcome coming from a U.S. leader who belatedly canceled a trip to the European Union summit in Spain last February and let Zapatero find out through the media. But, from Obama’s view, it was jus-
tified — and necessary. Justified, be- cause much of the money the United States is borrowing these days goes to underwrite the International Mon- etary Fund, and some of that money is being funneled to the European me-
Obama’s collect call to Madrid
ga-bailout. So, via the IMF, the U.S. government has essentially co-signed a piece of Spain’s debt and has a right to make sure the Spanish get their act together to pay it. The president’s nudge was neces-
sary, because, even more than Greece, Spain poses a menace to the stability of the U.S. economy. And for that, of course, I blame the French. Here’s why: Along with their Ger- man counterparts, French banks hold hundreds of billions of euros’ worth of the public- and private-sector debt of Portugal, Ireland, Greece and Spain. The French financial sector has more than $220 billion worth of exposure to Spain, according to the Bank for International Settlements. Losses on that would be a huge hit to French bank capital, which would be a dis-
aster for Washington because French banks are the largest issuers of com- mercial paper in U.S. money market funds — to the tune of $219 billion, ac- cording to J.P. Morgan. If the French banks take losses on Spain and Greece, then their paper gets downgraded by ratings agencies, U.S. money market funds can’t accept it any more, and we could be back in the situation we faced in September 2008, with suddenly illiquid money market funds “breaking the buck” and facing a run that would ruin the U.S. economy. That’s why a key piece of the euro bailout was the Federal Reserve’s offer to extend dollar swaps to the European Central Bank. French banks can now go to the ECB for the U.S. currency they need to fund dol- lar-denominated business activities,
instead of returning to the U.S. money markets.
Which brings us to the European Bailout Protection Act, introduced by Rep. Mike Pence and several GOP col- leagues, that would prohibit any U.S. funds that have yet to be drawn by the IMF from going to Europe until all eurozone countries comply with the E.U.’s own debt-to-GDP ratio require- ment. Since that’s an impossible goal, the bill would force the United States to abort the IMF mission in Europe, providing Americans with great emo- tional satisfaction, probably followed shortly thereafter by the aforemen- tioned economic meltdown. Back in the real world, Obama’s use of the IMF bailout as leverage to im- pose austerity on Spain and the oth- ers would exact the requisite pound of flesh with less risk of damage to our- selves. In this case, the hypocritical course of action is the only responsi- ble one.
R
A15
TOPIC A Will climate legislation pass?
JOHN F. KERRY (D-MASS.)
Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee
Conventional wisdom says that Congress ducks tough choices in election years, predicting at best a watered-down energy bill. The same doubters said health reform was dead until we passed it. They forget that Congress passed the Clean Air Act in an election year. Two Congresses ago, 38 senators voted for
climate legislation. Last Congress, 54 did. There are 59 Senate Democrats. With several Republicans looking at the American Power Act with fresh eyes, 60 votes are achievable. This year is also different. Industries that successfully opposed previous legislation stand with environmentalists behind this one. In part, that is because if Congress doesn’t legislate, the Environmental Protection Agency will regulate carbon emissions under the Clean Air Act. The House has already passed a bill. Speaker Nancy Pelosi says the Senate must act. President Obama has endorsed our bill and doubled down on legislative victory. And the Gulf of Mexico oil spill has underscored the stakes. Al Gore and I held the first
climate-change hearings 22 wasted years ago. Time and again, we’ve said, “Wait till next year, don’t give up.” But Pastor Joel Hunter is right: It’s not enough to say “I really wanted to protect the Earth and the poor, but I wasn’t sure the votes were there.” We’re not waiting any longer; we can do it now.
FRANK O’DONNELL
President of Clean Air Watch
A year ago, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, one of the city’s best vote counters, observed that “this may surprise people, but I think health-care reform is easier than all this global warming stuff.” Reid looks prophetic as Sens. John Kerry
(D-Mass.) and Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.) founder with climate legislation. They spent months on an inside-the-Beltway strategy: offering special deals to appease powerful special-interest lobbies — oil, coal, power, agriculture, etc. — in hopes that those lobbies would persuade Republicans to sign up. So far that strategy is a bust. No Republicans have yet reached out for the Hail Mary pass that Kerry and Lieberman tossed, and without substantial Republican support, the bill doesn’t have a prayer. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) walked away after Minority Leader Mitch McConnell told him not to
no chance — but then once it starts moving, it was always inevitable. In fact, if President Obama and Senate
Majority Leader Harry Reid can see a measure to the floor, adding further energy and oil-spill components to the Kerry-Lieberman language and then allowing an open amendment process, senators of both parties will be confronted by a series of defining choices. They could vote against American
competitiveness, allowing China and other countries to far surpass us in the race for new, clean energy technologies and jobs. They could spurn the advice of the American military, which has termed global warming a serious threat to national and global security. They could fail to give companies the
regulatory certainty an orderly energy market craves. And they could vote to keep us hooked to what President George W. Bush called our oil addiction, continuing to produce energy
expect additional Republican support. Fortunately, the powerful seniors’ lobby AARP has reminded us there is a more consumer-friendly alternative: legislation introduced by Sens. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) and Susan Collins (R-Maine). It would require polluters to pay for the right to pollute and return most of the money to the public. Though this, too, is an obvious long shot, it is better policy — and bipartisan.
PHYLLIS CUTTINO
Director of the Pew Environment Group’s climate and energy programs
To paraphrase the writing on a car’s passenger-side mirror, a comprehensive climate bill may be closer than it appears. Perception always rules the day in Congress, with nothing so obvious as legislation that has
the way we have for a century. Or the Senate could face the future and give the country a rational climate and energy policy.
DAN SCHNUR
Director of the University of Southern California’s Unruh Institute of Politics; communications director for John McCain’s 2000 presidential campaign
Even inside the bubble surrounding
Washington, the real world matters. Anthem Blue Cross tried to increase its
JOHN MCCONNICO/ASSOCIATED PRESS
insurance rates, which led directly to the passage of health-care reform. Goldman Sachs is charged with defrauding investors, which has motivated increased support for financial reform legislation. But does that mean the BP oil spill can pass an energy bill? Probably not. As the Democrats’ cap-and-trade proposal gradually morphed into a nukes-and-drilling package this year, the prospects for bipartisan agreement grew. But the thousands of barrels of oil pouring into the Gulf of Mexico every day have stiffened the spines of both sides in the offshore-drilling debate, reducing the likelihood of compromise on the broader energy issue. Add the decision of Sen. Lindsey Graham, the bill’s lone Republican supporter, to withdraw his sponsorship in a dust-up over immigration, and the odds look even longer. Public concern about the spill has yet to grow into the outrage that the White House successfully directed against insurance companies and Wall Street. That would require a sustained effort not only to demonize the oil industry but also to explain the direct role that this bill would have in preventing these types of accidents. That’s even more difficult in a political environment in which the rawest emotional energy is expended on Arizona’s immigration law, the Times Square bomber and the private life of a potential Supreme Court justice. There is a wild card: the oil itself, as the slick begins to hit gulf states. A steady stream of photos of oil-covered tourists and shuttered beachfront hotels could grab voters’ attention in a way that the first weeks of news coverage has not. But it might take that level of public and media frenzy to penetrate a capital culture that seems much more exercised about other topics.
TOPIC A ONLINE
Assessments from John W. Rowe, Kenneth P.
Green, and William Antholis and Strobe Talbott
OMBUDSMAN ANDREW ALEXANDER
The myth of the vanishing Post
R
ecently released figures show- ing a sharp drop in Post circula- tion have prompted two pre-
dictable reader responses: angst and glee.
Older subscribers, most of whom do not read news online, have ex- pressed fear the printed Post will soon disappear. Chronic critics of Post news coverage and editorials have celebrated plummeting readership. Both are myths. The newspaper
isn’t about to vanish. And despite eroding circulation, combined print and online readership of The Post has never been higher. The new figures show that for the six months ending March 31, The Post’s weekday newspaper circulation dropped 13.1 percent, while Sunday circulation declined 8.2 percent from the same period a year earlier. The numbers seem worse than they are. Circulation for the comparable period was artificially high because The Post sold more than a million ex- tra copies during President Obama’s inauguration. The decline is more modest when looking only at home delivery circulation, where The Post dropped by 6.4 percent weekdays and 5.7 percent Sundays.
Still, the numbers continue a long, worrisome trend. Weekday circula- tion is about 578,500, far below its peak of roughly 830,000 in 1994. Sun-
day circulation stands at close to 800,000; its high mark was more than 1.1 million in 1992. Both daily and Sunday circulation are at their lowest levels in about 30 years. And many readers are upset over recent price increases at a time when The Post’s staff and content have been reduced by cost-cutting. In January, the home delivery rate increased a dime, to 59 cents a day. The previous month, newsstand prices were raised from 50 to 75 cents on weekdays and from $1.50 to $2 on Sunday. The price hikes were necessary to
offset a continuing advertising de- cline, the core problem facing news- papers. The Post lost money last year. Despite a profitable fourth quarter and improved economic climate, first-quarter ad revenue fell 8 percent from the same period last year. With these trends, will the printed
Post survive? Sure. Here’s why. Its market penetration, measured by the percentage of area households it reaches, remains the highest among newspapers in major metropolitan areas. Scarborough Research last year put it at 33 percent on weekdays and 44 percent on Sundays. Scarborough says Washington is
the nation’s most affluent and highly educated market, which advertisers love. And it’s tied with the San Fran- cisco area for the highest proportion
of baby boomers; many still prefer print to reading news online. For years, The Post prevented sharp circulation drops by keeping the paper’s price low. At metro pa- pers, advertising can account for 70 to 75 percent of revenues, with circula- tion providing the rest. But even with the most recent bump to counter ad losses, The Post costs less than most competitors. “This is an incredible market for people who like to read newspapers,” said Post Circulation Vice President Gregg J. Fernandes. And on cost, he said, “we are still one of the most rea- sonably priced in the country.” Audience erosion is hardly limited
to newspapers, which tend to fixate on their plight. In fact, most traditional media have suffered sharp losses. For local and network television, some de- clines have been breathtaking. Despite media fragmentation and
shifts to the Internet, newspapers re- main powerful advertising instru- ments. They generate lots of revenue, much of it from coupons and other “preprints” where the cost to advertis- ers is tied closely to circulation. In the short term, most can remain profitable by operating on a shoestring if need be. But ambitious journalism is expen- sive, and that gets to a core challenge for The Post. It can survive. But for readers, the key question is: at what
level of quality? To remain among journalism’s
elite, The Post needs to minimize cir- culation erosion while boosting rev- enue elsewhere. Internal tracking shows the Web site’s average monthly audience of unique visitors is higher than ever, but it needs growth to gen- erate greater revenue. New products, such as the locally focused Capital Business, must thrive. The Post lags in exploiting potentially lucrative mo- bile news delivery devices such as the iPad. And its Sunday paper, the week’s largest revenue producer, must flour- ish. A multi-department committee will soon present recommendations on ways to bolster the Sunday edition. Together, these things may offset
inevitable circulation losses as aging print readers depart and are replaced by younger ones who consume news electronically or through niche prod- ucts.
Despite cost-cutting reductions and the recent price increase, the printed Post remains a bargain. It’s still cheaper than a cup of coffee. It perks you up. And it lasts much longer.
Andrew Alexander can be reached at 202-334-7582 or at ombudsman@
washpost.com. For daily updates, read the Omblog at http://voices.washingtonpost. com/ombudsman-blog/.
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152 |
Page 153 |
Page 154 |
Page 155 |
Page 156 |
Page 157 |
Page 158 |
Page 159 |
Page 160 |
Page 161 |
Page 162 |
Page 163 |
Page 164 |
Page 165 |
Page 166