On American politics and policy.
Yet few of the stories on Johnson, the founder of Black Entertainment Television and a top surrogate for Clinton in South Carolina, noted his controversial standing in the African-American political community. Johnson has been one of President Bush's top black allies, lobbying for the repeal of the estate tax and the privatization of Social Security, as Jonathan Chait of The New Republic reported in a 2001 profile of Johnson.
Johnson also has a history of opposing unions that makes Clinton's allies in labor quite uncomfortable. Back in 1993, workers at BET voted to join the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) and the Writer's Guild. According to an article in the Washington Afro-American, a historically black newspaper, AFL-CIO organizer Ed Feigen alleged that "during and after the election, BET violated the workers rights by offering them raises and promising benefits if they didn't join the union in."
"Employees were also threatened with job loss if they did vote the union in. A total of 13 employees were laid off after the election, hours were cut back, and two lead organizers with the Writer's Guild were fired, according to reports issued by the AFL-CIO. Mr Feigen told the AFRO that Mr. Johnson had stated to his workers that their actions were an act of disloyalty and that BET would never have a union."
One BET employee, Kimberlyn Dickens, said management had a "plantation attitude." Another BET employee, Samone Lemieux, said Johnson "promised us increased benefits and improved working conditions if we stopped our union organizing activity. However, after the election Mr. Johnson threatened us with discharge because of our union activity. He told us he had taken a $15,000 investment and turned it into a $400 million company, and that he was not about to start giving his money away."
There's little evidence that Johnson's opinion of unions has changed since then. Keith Boykin, host of the BET show My Two Cents, writes on his blog:
In May 2000, BET made the AFL-CIO's list of notorious anti-union companies, and the year before, 120 comedians, including Richard Pryor, bought full-page newspaper advertisements to complain that Johnson refused to offer union wages to performers on its "Comic View" show. Three years before that, Johnson was reprimanded by the National Labor Relations Board for BET's interference with the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers' organizing efforts, a case that BET later appealed and won. But in February 2000, Johnson told USA Today, "We don't need a union. They're only money-making machines."
Johnson is not the only controversial figure within labor circles to play a high-profile role in Clinton's campaign. I reported last May that the PR firm of Clinton's chief strategist, Mark Penn, maintains an active union-busting division.
The actions of Johnson and business of Penn tell a different story than Clinton's advocacy for labor. Clinton may not share these views, but as she courts union workers in Nevada and elsewhere, it's fair to ask why she deploys anti-labor individuals on behalf of her ostensibly pro-labor campaign.
For weeks the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), the largest union in the AFL-CIO, has been relentlessly criticizing Barack Obama's healthcare plan on behalf of their favored candidate, Hillary Clinton. AFSCME President Gerald McEntee has long been a controversial figure in the union movement because of his exceptionally close ties to the Clintons. But conventional wisdom said the union would boost Clinton, especially in Iowa.
Following the Iowa caucus, members of AFSCME's executive board had seen enough, taking the unprecedented step of rebuking McEntee's anti-Obama strategy in a letter to the union chief. "We are writing to protest in the strongest terms the negative campaign that AFSCME is conducting against Barack Obama," the letter states. "We do not believe that such a wholesale assault on one of the great friends of our union was ever contemplated when the International Executive Board (IEB) made its decision to endorse Hillary Clinton."
The letter continues:
We were therefore shocked and appalled to learn that our union-through "independent expenditures" is squandering precious resources to wage a costly and deceptive campaign to oppose Barack Obama. As Barack's standing in the polls has soared, according to numerous press reports AFSCME has spent untold dollars in Iowa and New Hampshire to send out mailings and run radio ads whose sole purpose is to undercut his candidacy. And now AFSCME has even registered a website with the explicit purpose of "opposing Barack Obama."
While we would not approve of attacks on any of the Democratic candidates in this race, all of whom have good relationships with our union, it is worth noting that AFSCME has chosen to attack only one of those candidates, Barack Obama.
It is also worth noting that the campaign that AFSCME is waging against Sen. Obama is fundamentally dishonest and inconsistent with past positions of our union, i.e. attacking him for not forcing individuals to purchase health care even when they can't afford it. The ads are misleading in attempting to give the impression that they are associated with John Edwards rather than Hillary Clinton and in their claims that Sen. Obama's health care plan will exclude 15 million people when infact every person will have the opportunity to participate. This dishonesty is giving our union a "black eye" among many in the media and the progressive community.
Funnily enough, when I interviewed McEntee back in the spring, he had nothing but nice things to say about Obama. He called the Illinois senator "lightning in a jar" and described how popular he was among the union's Illinois delegation. At AFSCME's national convention in Washington in June, it was Obama, rather than Hillary, who stole the show.
Thus far, Obama has gotten by with scant union support. Another victory in New Hampshire and that could change.
The Los Angeles Times ran an eyebrow-raising story this morning about how Hillary Clinton is raising money from a highly unlikely source: New York's Chinatown.
"Dishwashers, waiters and others whose jobs and dilapidated home addresses seem to make them unpromising targets for political fundraisers are pouring $1,000 and $2,000 contributions into Clinton's campaign treasury," the paper reports. "In April, a single fundraiser in an area long known for its gritty urban poverty yielded a whopping $380,000."
According to the article, powerful Chinese neighborhood associations pushed residents to donate to the Clinton camp. The source of many of these donations remains a mystery.
The Times examined the cases of more than 150 donors who provided checks to Clinton after fundraising events geared to the Chinese community. One-third of those donors could not be found using property, telephone or business records. Most have not registered to vote, according to public records.
Several dozen were described in financial reports as holding jobs -- including dishwasher, server or chef--that would normally make it difficult to donate amounts ranging from $500 to the legal maximum of $2,300 per election.
The Clinton campaign's response hardly puts the matter to rest. "In this instance, our own compliance process flagged a number of questionable donations and took the appropriate steps to be sure they were legally given," said Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson. "In cases where we couldn't confirm that, the money was returned."
The Edwards campaign was swift to react. "Clinton campaign contributions are raising eyebrows again," said Edward campaign manager David Bonior. "Many of their donors are not even registered to vote, and at least one denied even making any contribution at all."
The article--and the Clinton reaction--raises more questions than answers. Did officials in Chinatown invent the names and identities of campaign donors? If so, why? How involved was Chung Seto, Clinton's liaison to the Asian community and a former executive director of the New York State Democratic Party? How did the Clinton campaign verify the source of these donations? How many potentially illegal donations were eventually returned?
Listen up. Can you hear the drums beating for a third war?
The neocons are in a bubbling rage over Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's visit to Columbia University. The pro-surge propagandists at Freedom Watch labeled the Iranian leader a "terrorist" in--of all places--a New York Times ad. Neocon godfather, Giuliani advisor and "World War IV" author Norman Podharetz went to the White House recently to urge President Bush to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities.
And now Senators Jon Kyl and Joe Lieberman, who's already advocated attacking the country, are introducing a sense of the Senate resolution, possibly up for a vote today, that accuses Iran of fighting "a proxy war against the Iraqi state and coalition forces in Iraq." [SEE UPDATE AT END]
The resolution states that "it is a vital national interest of the United States" to prevent Iran from turning Iraq's Shiite militias into a "Hezbollah-like force" and says that US policy should "combat, contain and roll back the violent activities and destabilizing influence inside Iraq of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, its foreign facilitators such as Lebanese Hezbollah, and its indigenous Iraqi proxies." To accomplish this task, Kyl and Lieberman advocate "the prudent and calibrated use of all instruments of United States national power in Iraq." Finally, the resolution dubs Iran's largest military branch, the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps, "a foreign terrorist organization."
It's clear where this resolution is going. The Council for a Livable World, one of the more astute peace groups in Washington, says it "could wind up being another in a long line of blank checks provided to the Executive Branch in the mold of the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution and the authorization to use force in Iraq." The line advocating the "prudent and calibrated" use of US power is "a loophole is big enough to drive an aircraft carrier or a fleet of planes through."
Moreover, the case for the next war is as shaky as the last one. "The Kyl-Lieberman amendment is a resolution based almost entirely on falsepremises," the Council states. "The resolution only quotes questionable and unsubstantiated assertions provided by the US military about Iranian involvement in Iraq."
The Council warns that actions like these from the US Senate, while still only symbolic, could lead to serious blowback of the worst kind. "Provocative measures such as the Kyl-Lieberman amendment can lead to a tit-for-tat escalation resulting in military confrontation between the US and Iran. There are no good military options for solving our disagreements with Iran. Military action would only result in disastrous and unintended consequences for U.S. and Israeli interests. If we have learned nothing else from Iraq, it is that there are limitations to the use of military force."
The only thing that neocons have learned from Iraq is that Joe Lieberman should be secretary of state.
UPDATE: A revised resolution, which deleted the sections referenced above about combating, containing and rolling back Iran's influence inside Iraq and using all instruments of US power to do so, passed the Senate this afternoon by a vote of 72-22. Harry Reid, Dick Durbin and Chuck Schumer voted aye. Of the '08 Dems, so did Hillary Clinton. Chris Dodd and Joe Biden voted no. Barack Obama missed the vote.
Late last month, the US Air Force transported a dozen cruise missiles from Minot Air Force Base in North Dakota to Barksdale Air Force Base in Louisiana. The cargo, unbeknownst to the crew, included six nuclear warheads, with the power to destory 60 Hiroshimas. As they were moved across the country, the nukes went undetected for 36 hours. In an explosive front page story today, the Washington Post asks the question: "How Could It Have Happened?"
"It was the first known flight by a nuclear-armed bomber over US airspace, without special high-level authorization, in nearly 40 years," Post reporters Walter Pincus and Joby Warrick write. A high-ranking former Air Force official called it "one of the biggest mistakes in [Air Force] history."
The B-52 plane carrying the nukes sat on the tarmac in North Dakota for 15 hours with only minimal security protection. It was not authorized to transport such weapons. The episode, the Post writes, "may not have been a fluke but a symptom of deeper problems in the handling of nuclear weapons now that Cold War anxieties have abated." The military's post-Cold War nuclear safeguard system is described as "utterly debased."
The Bush Administration was repeatedly warned about the potential for security breaches at Air Force instillations housing nuclear weapons. A 2003 Air Force inspector general report, according to the article, "found that half of the 'nuclear security' inspections conducted that year resulted in failing grades." Among those flunking the test was the Minot base in North Dakota. The report attributed the problems to "the demands of supporting combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan."
Memo to Democrats: you control the Congress. That means you can decide what bills come to the floor for votes--and what don't. So why, in a week where Republicans blocked the restoration of habeas corpus, voting rights for DC and adequate rest time for our troops between deployments, did you allow Republicans the opportunity to score a cheap PR stunt by approving a resolution condemning a week-old newspaper ad by Moveon.org--on the same day Republicans once again voted to keep indefinitely continuing the Iraq war?!
It boggles the mind. I have no idea what Harry Reid was thinking. Does he think that by repudiating Moveon.org suddenly Fox News will like him? That Ann Coulter will take back all those nasty things she said? That Republicans will stop trying to blame the Democrats for losing this war?
MoveOn has been one of the most effective and persistent voices pushing for progressive change inside the Democratic Party. They helped elect politicians like Jon Tester in Montana and Jim Webb in Virginia, who today stabbed the group in the back. MoveOn didn't start this war. George Bush did. And General Petraeus is keeping it going. They've only been in the majority for nine months, but you'd think by now Democratic leaders in Congress would be able to comprehend the obvious.
Written by Matthew Blake:
Back in July, support for the war in Iraq was at an all-time low, with prominent Republican Senators like Richard Lugar of Indiana and Pete Domenici of New Mexico advocating the need for an exit strategy. But then, as the New York Times notes Thursday, the White House unveiled a new campaign to sell the surge.
Key enlistees in this PR effort were Brookings Institution Senior Fellows Michael O'Hanlon and Ken Pollack. Their July 30 New York Times op-ed ("A War We Just Might Win") and endless parade of subsequent public appearances supposedly lent credibility to the idea that US military commander David Petraeus (who invited his old Princeton buddy O'Hanlon over for a visit) was winning over Iraqis, leading to region-by-region improvements and an overall decrease in violence.
On Thursday, O'Hanlon and Pollack assembled at the National Press Club, along with four other Brookings colleagues, to evaluate the surge in the wake of Petraeus' and US Ambassador Ryan Crocker's testimony on Capitol Hill.
The panel reached a consensus that a real change in Iraq policy will only come with a new president. They also agreed--O'Hanlon and Pollack included--that the stated goal of the surge--to create space for political reconciliation--had not been achieved. Yet O'Hanlon and Pollack continued to put a positive spin on the war while their colleagues offered damning indictments.
O'Hanlon and Pollack both spoke of a "Sunni awakening" and credited the US military with gains in specific provinces such as Anbar and Mosul. "Petraeus and Crocker are pragmatic," O'Hanlon said. "They adopted beyond the counterinsurgency manual."
But their Brookings colleagues pointed out that the official name of the surge is the Baghdad Security Plan and Baghdad is neither secured as a city or a site for the national government. "The surge is not meeting its stated goals of buying time for Iraqi leaders to reach political reconciliation," said Brookings Senior Fellow Philip Gordon.
And Gordon and his colleagues directly differed with O'Hanlon and Pollack on the question of whether the surge should be given more time to work.
"The bar for success in Iraq is falling so quickly that we better duck before it hits us on the head," Gordon said. "Whatever happened to a model democracy?"
Brookings Middle East policy expert Bruce Reidel said the opportunity costs in Iraq are too great to stay. "You cannot judge this policy alone," he said. "You put forces in some place and you can't put them somewhere else."
Brookings Senior Fellow Susan Rice, a foreign policy advisor to Senator Barack Obama, spoke of a "fundamental disconnect between our military strategy and the realities on the ground."
"There is an insurgency and a raging civil war," she said. "The surge is a counterinsurgency tactic not relevant to dealing with the civil war."
And moderator Carlos Pascual ended the session noting, "Getting a country in the middle of a war to politically fix themselves is a departure from any historical precedent."
Before the war, Brookings played a major role in drumming up support for the invasion among Democrats. Since then, most of its foreign policy, as evidenced by Thursday's event, have become war opponents. We'll see if these dissenting colleagues get to join O'Hanlon and Pollack on the talk show circuit.
This email from Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell just hit my inbox: "This Nation Needs A New Attorney General, And It Can't Afford To Wait."
The subhead below read: "Democrats Who Asked For New Leadership Will Soon Have The Opportunity To Expeditiously Confirm A New Attorney General."
In other words, get ready for an announcement--soon--of a new Attorney General.
The rumor mill in Washington says the frontrunner is Ted Olson, the former Bush Administration solicitor general who argued Bush v. Gore.
Back in the 1990s, he helped the American Spectator magazine run its notorious "Arkansas Project," which heaped mounds of dirt, much of it later proven untrue, at the Clintons. Democrats tried to raise the issue at Olson's solicitor general confirmation hearing, but the investigation was stymied by then-Chairman Orrin Hatch, another rumored Attorney General candidate.
"I have become concerned that Mr. Olson has not shown a willingness or ability to be sufficiently candid and forthcoming with the Senate," current Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy said in 2001. The Judiciary Committee deadlocked on whether to confirm Olson, by a vote to 9-9, and eventually he was narrowly confirmed by the full Senate, 51-47. Democrats Ben Nelson and Zell Miller (who later left the party) were the only ones to vote aye.
If Olson is selected as AG, will his background as a conservative operative and Bush partisan remain an issue? At least some Democrats think so.
Said Senator Chuck Schmer this week: "Clearly if you made a list of consensus nominees, Olson wouldn't appear on that list."
All he did was say that by the summer of 2008, US troop levels in Iraq would be the same as in December 2006. Yet David Petraeus, ever the stoic general, sat before Congress and claimed this would be a "very substantial withdrawal."
Critics of the war long suspected this was the Bush Administration's strategy: revert to status quo pre-surge levels--130,000 troops--while trumpeting the exit and warning that anything more would lead to genocide/Iranian domination/US defeat/an Al Qaeda caliphate, etc, etc.
The question now is whether the media and political class will fall for the Administration's PR trap?
Some in the media already have.
"The General's Long View Could Cut Withdrawal Debate Short," write the usually astute Karen DeYoung and Tom Ricks in the Washington Post. "Prospect of pullout raises some hope," said the Detroit Free-Press. "Petraeus upbeat over reducing US troop levels," wrote The Guardian of London.
Others in the media, however, sniffed out the Bush Administration's long-term plan. "Bush policy to bequeath Iraq to successor," read the headline of an excellent Los Angeles Times analysis. "Viewed more closely," Paul Richter writes, "his [Petraeus] presentation, and that of US Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker, were better suited to the defense of an earlier strategy: 'stay the course.'"
The latest manifestation of the Administration's Iraq offensive might temporarily reassure the restless Republicans who waited until September to decide what to think about Iraq and then liked what they saw. But it shouldn't satisfy Democrats in Congress. Rather than giving Petraeus the red-carpet treatment, they'd be smart to listen to their Democratic constituency, which is hopping mad over party leaders' inability to effectively question Petraeus and refusal to use every tool in their arsenal to try and bring a close to a seemingly never-ending war.