SUNDAY, JUNE 6, 2010
KLMNO Sunday OPINION KATHLEEN PARKER Mouths of the South W DANA MILBANK
Worshiping at the BP altar
G
od spoke to Moses through a burning bush on Mount Horeb. He apparently speaks to Republicans through a spew-
ing oil well at the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico. Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.) delivered the star-
tling revelation last week that the BP oil spill was caused not by a faulty blowout preventer but by the Almighty Himself. He explained the spill to an Oklahoma City radio station like this: “Acts of God are acts of God.” With this curious theology, Cole has joined the ministry of Texas Gov. Rick Perry, a fellow Republican, who last month said of the oil spill: “From time to time there are going to be things that occur that are acts of God that cannot be prevented.” So if God is responsible for the spill, and BP is the spill’s “responsible party,” what these men are really saying is that BP is . . . God? This interpretation is at the very cutting
edge of ecclesiastical thought. In the past, our Heavenly Father has involved himself in floods, droughts and the occasional earth- quake, but this may be his first foray into in- dustrial disasters. The Valdez spill was an act of Exxon. Bhopal was an act of Union Carbide. But the BP spill is an act of God. Oiliness is next to godliness. Forgive this blasphemy, but is it perhaps time to question the Doctrine of Boardroom Infallibility? In Washington, belief in corpo- rate divinity has become a bipartisan religion, and it’s polytheistic: Lawmakers, despite the occasional bit of populist rhetoric, routinely provide generous offerings to the automotive, aerospace, financial, pharmaceutical and in- surance industries, along with petroleum. An article by The Post’s Dan Eggen explains
why: More than 1,400 former members of Con- gress, staffers and federal employees regis- tered as lobbyists in the financial services sec- tor alone since the start of 2009, according to a study by Public Citizen and the Center for Re- sponsive Politics. Many of these lobbyists, of course, moonlight as fundraising captains for lawmakers. No wonder politicians have got the corpo-
rate religion. Rep. Don Young (R-Alaska), fur- thering the act-of-God view, asserted that “this is not an environmental disaster” in the gulf “because it is a natural phenomena.” Rand Paul, the GOP Senate candidate in Kentucky, said the administration’s vow to keep a boot on the throat of BP is “un-American.” Former GOP presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani said the criminal investigation of BP is a “mistake.” Democrats have been only slightly less de-
vout. They’re giving no serious consideration to the demand from some on the left, includ- ing Robert Reich, to put BP into temporary re- ceivership. The administration’s criminal in- vestigation of BP has little chance of getting executives locked up. BP CEO Tony Hayward won’t even commit to suspending BP’s divi- dend (more than $10 billion last year), as some Democratic senators have demanded, and he put the clean-up cost at a paltry $3 billion over six months, far less than what many analysts say the real cost will be. That’s just one more contemptuous utter- ance from a man who has already dubbed the spill “tiny,” called environmental damage “very modest,” denied the existence of underwater oil plumes, suggested that sickened oil clean- up workers had food poisoning and com- plained that he wanted his “life back.” Americans feel the outrage more than their leaders do. A recent Gallup poll shows that 73 percent think BP has done a poor or very poor job. Overall, Americans are just as distrustful of corporations as they are of the federal gov- ernment. A Pew Research Center poll released in April found that 64 percent think large cor- porations are having a negative effect on the country, compared with 65 percent who say that of the government. Yet the faux populists of the Tea Party train their anger on the government while giving corporations a pass. And Obama, accused of being a socialist, has actually been a no-fault capitalist, cleaning up corporate messes with- out winning much in the way of new laws to prevent a recurrence. Too many corporations have survived their misdeeds with no more than an angry hearing or two: GM, Chrysler, Toyota, Goldman Sachs, Citibank, Bank of America, Massey Energy. The legislative dressing-down obviously isn’t sufficient deterrent. Neither is firing the CEO, because he’s invariably replaced by another just like him. Pardon the sacrilege, but for a real deter-
rent, it’s time to institute a corporate death penalty — and BP is a perfect candidate. That sort of retribution would be divine.
danamilbank@washpost.com CANDLES: BIGSTOCKPHOTO; WASHINGTON POST PHOTO ILLUSTRATION
hen a long-ago South Carolina legislator described his state as “too small to be a re- public and too large to be an insane asy-
lum,” he might have added, “but just perfect for a bordello!” Perhaps it is the humidity. Throw in a cocktail, stir with human nature, and you’ve got that ol’ fleeting magic. But what’s with all these kissy-boys spilling the beans on their paramours? Whither chivalry? Whither, alas, manliness? The women in these romantic imbroglios are steel magnolias to the weeping willows of their un- doubtedly regrettable (and perhaps forgettable) dalliances. No one needs to be reminded of Gov. Mark San-
ford’s tearful confession of infidelity with his Ar- gentine soul mate. Now-ex-wife Jenny Sanford has turned his betrayal into a cottage industry of femi- nine empowerment. She’s written a book, appeared on talk shows and become the ex officio leading lady of the tragedy formerly known as victimhood. I am woman, hear me call my lawyer. In a twist that would be ironic if it weren’t so overpoweringly icky, Sanford protégée and Jenny favorite-for-governor Nikki Haley is essentially be- ing branded a harlot by two men claiming to have “known” her. In politics, as in love, timing is every- thing. These alleged trysts apparently came to mind just as Haley was leading the Republican pack in the final countdown to Tuesday’s primary. Haley, a married mother of two, has denied the
claims of both men. One of them is former Haley political consultant Will Folks, who for a time was also Gov. Sanford’s director of communications. The other is lobbyist Larry Marchant Jr., who until recently was working for Lt. Gov. André Bauer, also a contender for the governorship. Like Folks, Marchant claims to have had an “in- appropriate physical relationship” with Haley. He felt he had to tell because, oh, he just had to! Bauer, who paid Marchant $50,000 in consulting
fees (before firing him), has challenged Haley to a polygraph test to prove she has been faithful to her husband. Seriously, Mr. Hawthorne? To outsiders, this is the sort of delicious material
that allows comedy writers to sleep in. To South Carolinians, these unfolding events are a blight, a pox, a Deepwater Horizon of gushing shame. It bears mentioning that the players in this little
drama are not equals. I’ve known Folks, a take-no- prisoners political blogger, for years and take him at his word when he says that a story was about to break about his alleged relationship. Recently mar- ried and a new father, he says he was attempting damage control when he broke the story himself. I don’t condone or agree with his decision, but
he’s no Marchant, whose earnest confession reeks of the self-service to which he has now consigned himself. I also know Haley and take her at her word when she denies the allegations. But let’s get at the deep- er truth and ask: Is this really where we want our politics to go? Are only perfect people acceptable
for public service? As Bill Bennett once put it to me: “If perfection is our standard, then no one gets to talk.” This obsession with people’s personal lives, in- cluding the hand-wringing analyses of Al and Tipper Gore’s marriage, has turned us into a nation of purse-lipped old maids. No offense to purses. I’ve re- sisted commenting on the Gores’ decision to split af- ter 40 years of marriage becausewhat possibly could I know? Apologies to the deeply conflicted, but the Gores’ divorce has no bearing whatsoever on my life. I reluctantly decided to weigh in on the Haley
story because therein lie issues of more general consequence. This isn’t only politics at its worst. It’s a persecution, a witch hunt, a political rape. “All I know to do is fight,” said Haley by phone Friday. “Just stay strong and keep a smile on your face. . . . I refuse to let this distract me.” Of greater personal concern than what may or
may not have happened between consenting, if misguided, adults is, what has happened to men? The South has managed through the past 150 years of regional shame to cling to the one admirable trait of its antebellum past: the Gentle Man. He, too, apparently is endangered. With notable
exceptions, the once-honorable protector of wom- en’s virtue is just another gossipmonger. Perhaps this is the legacy of our egalitarian times. When men succumb to their inner Oprah, weeping and telling like slumber-party girls, it may be time for the stronger sex to lead.
kathleenparker@washpost.com
R
A17
TOPIC A Politics as usual? The White House took heat this week for
discussions about possible jobs in the executive branch with Democratic primary challengers Joe Sestak in Pennsylvania and Andrew Romanoff in Colorado. The Post asked experts for reactions.
MACK MCLARTY President of McLarty Associates and chief of staff to President Bill Clinton from 1993 to 1994
The president’s critics are shocked — shocked
—to discover that there is politics going on in Washington. Obama’s supporters are discovering that their lofty expectations of a new paradigm have met the reality that politics is a contact sport. Either way, it is hard to find anything unlawful, unethical or unprecedented in what has come forth about these incidents. Time to move on to Topic B and address the serious challenges facing our country.
NORMAN J. ORNSTEIN Resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute
The White House is guilty, guilty, guilty — not, as Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) suggested, of an impeachable offense but of practicing politics as usual. White Houses routinely dangle job offers in front of people they want to get out of an elective office or to entice people they don’t want to run from messing up primaries. When the Sestak matter blew up into a major story, partly because of Issa’s sensational statements — also politics as usual these days —and partly because the press obediently pumped up the charges, I argued that Issa might also want to consider retroactive impeachment of Ronald Reagan, whose White House directly offered S.I. Hayakawa a job if he declined to run for the GOP nomination for Senate in California. Issa could demand an inquiry into the Bush White House’s discussions with Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) about a Cabinet post, which would have cleared the way for Republican Mike Johanns to run for Nelson’s seat in 2006. And what should happen to Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.), who said he would lead the Commerce Department only if President Obama could promise that his successor — who would have been appointed by a Democratic governor — would be a Republican? At first blush, the Romanoff story looked more questionable, especially after Romanoff offered a less-than-full account of his own
Andrew Romanoff ED ANDRIESKI /ASSOCIATED PRESS
efforts to secure a post in the Obama administration. But the fact that Romanoff had sought a job in the U.S. Agency for Inter- national Development makes the e-mail to him from White House Deputy Chief of Staff Jim Messina, listing the job descriptions of three relevant posts, much less significant. None of that is impeachable or illegal. Other than hypocrisy, the biggest White
House failure here was a failure to respond to the emerging story, believing that it would go away of its own lack of real weight. These days, stories of purported scandal don’t go away, even if they are lighter than helium.
DANA PERINO White House press secretary to President George W. Bush
When you’re in a hole, stop digging. And when you’re at the bottom of the Grand Canyon, ask for a rope. The rope the White House needs is an independent reviewer to take an objective look at whether any laws were broken. The last thing the Obama administration needed was another self-inflicted wound. There were the acts themselves, the three-month stiff-arm of the press and then a
Rep. Joe Sestak ALEX WONG/GETTY IMAGES
news conference during which President Obama knew the answer but was advised or chose not to respond to a question about the White House’s discussions with Pennsylvania Rep. Joe Sestak. This was followed the next day with an ambiguous memo in which the president’s own lawyer conveniently cleared the president’s own staff. In America, that’s not good enough. And now that the White House has created this cloud of suspicion, the only thing that will clear it away is an independent review. It may be that the administration broke no laws — but without a review, no one will ever know. A nonpartisan review is the only credible outcome in the long run. This isn’t partisan advice; it’s stating the obvious.
DAN SCHNUR Director of the University of Southern California’s Unruh Institute of Politics; communications director for John McCain’s 2000 presidential campaign
Party leaders on both sides of the aisle have been strong-arming candidates in and out of campaigns for as long as races have been run, and this administration’s efforts to coerce Joe Sestak and Andrew Romanoff are not significantly different from hardball tactics employed by its predecessors. But this country is experiencing the strongest wave of anti-establishment populist rage we have seen in a generation, which might not be the ideal political landscape for White House staff to engage in this type of power-brokering. Especially when you’re working for a president who promised as a candidate to change the culture of corruption in Washington. It’s also worth remembering, however, that the standard for success in Washington is based not on ethics but effectiveness. When President Obama appointed Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman the U.S. ambassador to China, his advisers were hailed as geniuses for removing a top-tier Republican presidential candidate from the 2012 campaign. But when those same advisers more recently failed to persuade Sestak and Romanoff to step aside, they were derided as incompetent. The lesson to be learned, as Napoleon used to say, is: “When you set out to take Vienna, take Vienna.” Or when you want to bribe a politician with a new job, it’s a good idea to offer him a better job than the one he already has.
TOPIC A ONLINE: Richard W. Painter, former chief White House ethics lawyer.
OMBUDSMAN ANDREW ALEXANDER Weighing the anguish of war
grief has been accompanied by lingering anger at The Post. His son, 21-year-old Army Spec. Stephan L. Mace,
T
died after being wounded in Afghanistan inOctober during a ferocious battle with insurgents. In a grip- ping front-page account three Sundays ago, Post military reporter Greg Jaffe described the daylong effort by Mace’s fellow soldiers to save his life while they were under heavy enemy fire. The story told how Mace, wounded in both legs and his hip, crawled on his elbows, calling out, “Help me . . . . Help me. Please.” A comrade applied a tourniquet and a tree-branch splint to his frac- tured, bleeding leg while stuffing gauze in shrapnel wounds. Mace was in pain. At times, his pulse be- came so weak from blood loss that he nearly slipped away. Desperate to save him, fellow soldiers drew bag after bag of their blood and pumped it into Mace. After about 13 hours, a medical evacua- tion helicopter was able to airlift Mace out. He died on an operating table. For many readers, Jaffe’s story captured the real-
ity of the Afghan war and the extraordinary valor and sacrifice of U.S. soldiers there. But to Larry Mace, the story’s explicit descriptions were jarring and unwarranted. He had no idea The Post was working on the story, he said. And when it ap- peared, he said, it was the first time he learned the disturbing details of Stephan’s final hours.
he period around Memorial Day is especially difficult for those whose loved ones have died in combat. For Larry Mace of Winchester,
These were “details that I have not even heard from the Army and none that should have been printed for the public to read, especially without my permission,” he wrote in an angry e-mail to Jaffe and Post national security editor Cameron Barr. Mace told me that the Army had provided only
vague details of Stephan’s fight for survival. “What actually happened on the field I didn’t know until I picked up The Washington Post,” he said. And those details should be “only for the family.” But who is the “family”? Mace divorced Stephan’s
mother, Vanessa Adelson, when their son was a teen. Jaffe was unaware of that when he talked at length with Adelson while researching the story. Adelson had already learned many details about
her son’s death from his fellow soldiers and from an Army autopsy report she requested. Jaffe assumed Adelson was informing Stephan’s father. Indeed, Adelson told me she had alerted her ex-husband that the story was in the works and that Jaffe knew details of how Stephan died. Mace disagrees, saying she told him only that Jaffe had been in Afghanistan looking into the battle but she did not mention a planned story. Whatever the truth, Jaffe blames himself. “You just don’t think to ask whether people are divorced,” he said. “I absolutely wish I had.” On the Sunday the story appeared, Jaffe e-mailed Mace with an apology. “I spoke with Stephan’s mom Vanessa after return- ing from Afghanistan, but didn’t know the full fami- ly situation,” he wrote. “I should have inquired.” Barr thinks his reporter is overly self-critical.
“What is our burden to determine whether or not members of a family are communicating adequate- ly internally?” he asked. Should The Post have been in touch with Mace
before publication? Ideally, of course. But it’s hard to fault Jaffe, who acted in good faith and is regretful. The greater journalistic question is whether The
Post was wrong to publish what Mace asserts are “very graphic” details that should remain private. That view is understandable when seen through
the eyes of a grief-stricken father. “When I read the article . . . I heard my son crying for help,” he said. Adelson, too, was anguished. “I sobbed when I read the story,” she said. “It broke my heart. But that article was about the soldiers who loved Stephan and what they did to save him.
“If we hide this from the public, if we don’t make this personal, then we don’t get the public to under- stand what these guys are going through,” she added. For Barr, the details were necessary to “make the war visible.” He said that The Post has a duty to “de- scribe war in a compelling and vivid way that makes the sacrifices of someone like Stephan Mace clear to our audiences.” War truly is hell. The story reflected that reality
in a way that was unvarnished, but not gratuitous. The Post made the right call.
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