From the moment it was announced, the jobs summit that President Obama held last week drew heavy criticism from the right. The mere fact that the White House was holding such a summit in the first place seemed to be offensive to many conservatives. After all, they say, almost nobody in the Obama administration has any background in business.
Last week, Glenn Beck trumpeted the news that less than 10 percent of Obama’s cabinet appointees have actually "had jobs in the private sector." Thursday, in an interview with Sean Hannity, Newt Gingrich put that number at 8 percent. A similar statistic has appeared on numerous conservative websites, typically to suggest that Obama’s jobs summit is an absurd conference of government bureaucrats and university eggheads who’ve never created a job in their lives.
Unfortunately for Beck, Gingrich and all the others, their new favorite statistic appears to have little basis in fact.
The claim can be traced back to a Forbes.com column by Michael Cembalest entitled "Obama’s Business Blind Spot." In the article, Cembalest, the chief operating officer of J.P. Morgan Private Bank, presents his findings about the private-sector experience of certain Cabinet appointees -- those he thought most likely to weigh in on the job debate -- for every president since Theodore Roosevelt. The post happened to include a chart, which initially indicated that less than 10 percent of Obama’s appointees had business experience. Forbes.com subsequently altered the graph to show that more than 20 percent of Obama’s Cabinet members have a private-sector background -- but not before it had been gleefully reproduced, in it is original form, all over the right.
To the chagrin of Obama’s conservative opponents, even the adjusted figures are dubious. Excluding lawyers and consultants (as Cembalest did), three of the nine members of Obama’s Cabinet included in the study -- fully 33 percent -- do have private-sector experience. Energy Secretary Steven Chu worked at AT & T Bell Laboratories for nine years, ultimately as the head of their Quantum Electronics Research Department. Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Shaun Donovan, was a managing director at Prudential Mortgage Capital, where he directed the corporation’s $1.5 billion of investments in affordable housing loans. Finally, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar -- on top of his work as Colorado attorney general and a U.S. senator -- was a partner in his family’s farm for over thirty years. Salazar and his wife have also owned and operated a number of small businesses, including a Dairy Queen and several radio stations.
Another three of Obama’s appointees -- Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, Agriculture Secretary Thomas Vilsack and Commerce Secretary Gary Locke -- all spent part of their careers working as lawyers. And Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner worked as a consultant at Kissinger Associates, a firm that advises international companies on economic and political conditions abroad.
By this count, seven out of these nine Obama appointees (or 78 percent) do have private-sector experience. Gingrich was only off by about 70 percentage points.
Even the original source of the claim is appalled by what it's become, and has been chastising himself for it. Cembalest told PolitiFact.com that his study was based on "some kind of completely, 100 percent subjective assessment of whether or not a person had had enough control of payroll, dealing with shareholders, hiring, firing and risk-taking that they’d be in a position to have had a meaningful seat at the table when the issue being discussed is job creation."
Senate Republicans had what seemed like a pretty good idea when it comes to the fight over healthcare reform: Propose an amendment that would force all members of Congress to enroll in whatever form of public option is included in the final bill. That plan backfired, though, when their Democratic counterparts decided to actually support the amendment. So now the GOP's going further.
The latest version of the amendment is broader; beyond members of Congress, it also includes staff members, something that had been a sticking point for Democrats before. More than that, though, it would force President Obama and his cabinet into the public option.
"The White House and cabinet secretaries are working very hard for this massive overhaul of America's health care system," Grassley said in a statement reported by the Huffington Post's Ryan Grim. "It's only fair that if this bill becomes law, these individuals should themselves be subject to the reforms. The same is true for congressional staff. Quietly carving out leadership staff and committee staff behind closed doors is unacceptable. If the reforms are as good as their supporters say, the reforms should be good enough for everybody."
At the town halls this summer, people who came to protest against healthcare reform had a few different messages and complaints. One ended up turning into a refrain: If the public option is so great, the protesters would ask their senators and representatives, then why won't Congress be using it?
Now, as the Senate's debate over its version of reform legislation kicks into gear, two Republicans -- Sens. Tom Coburn and David Vitter -- have picked up that theme and are running with it. The two authored an amendment they want attached to the bill; it would require members of Congress to enroll in whatever version of the public option the final legislation creates, if it includes one.
Both Coburn and Vitter are vehement opponents of the public option, and they're hoping to prove themselves right by showing that no senator who's in his or her right mind would want their healthcare covered by it. They've gotten a surprise, though: Genuine support for their amendment from someone on the other side of the aisle -- and a proponent of the public option, at that -- Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio.
Brown doesn't have any illusions about why Coburn and Vitter decided to introduce the amendment. "It's clear they just want to score political points. They hate the public option… they want to introduce [the amendment] and have it lose," the senator said in an interview with Salon on Friday.
But Brown's a strong supporter of the public option, and he's actually been taking a stand like this one since he was first elected to the House nearly 17 years ago, keeping a campaign promise to pay for his own coverage until Congress passed health insurance for everyone. For most of that time, he paid out of pocket; now, he's on his wife's plan, which costs him a fair amount than just using the coverage he's entitled to as a senator would. So he decided he wanted to co-sponsor Coburn and Vitter's amendment.
Senators are usually eager to collect co-sponsors for their bills and amendments, especially ones from the other party, for the simple reason that this helps the bill pass. It turns out their attitude is a bit different when the amendment in question is actually a political ploy, however. Brown's office contacted Coburn's about co-sponsorship of the amendment nine times last week, to no avail.
"We did get an email back saying they would check with their boss," Brown says, but that was the extent of the response.
So on Friday, Brown took matters into his own hands, going to the Senate floor and asking to be added as a co-sponsor to the amendment by unanimous consent. Since objecting under these circumstances is pretty much unheard of, Brown was finally added as a co-sponsor, along with fellow Democrats Chris Dodd and Barbara Mikulski.
Afterwards, Coburn spokesman John Hart claimed that his boss is "happy to have [Brown] on." He did note, however, that Brown had opposed a similar amendment when a reform bill was in the Senate Health, Education Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee.
Asked by Salon about his earlier vote, Brown said, "The one I voted against was to include all of the congressional staff. And the public option is an option. And one of the beauties of the public option is that people have a choice. I don't want to tell the people … in my office what their families should do."
When Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter switched parties and became a Democrat, he immediately got the support of his new party's leadership, including President Obama, for his upcoming re-election fight. But now another party leader has given Congressional liberals room to back the man challenging Specter in the Democratic primary next year, Rep. Joe Sestak.
Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., will be endorsing Sestak during an event in Philadelphia on Monday. It's an important get for Sestak; an endorsement from your average House liberal is nice, but Frank's nod means more.
Because he's one of the most influential men in the House, Frank can bring other members of Congress along with him. At the very least, he gives those among his colleagues who might otherwise worry about angering the White House and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid some cover.
"No one calls it like they see it quite like Barney Frank," Sestak said in a statement provided to Salon. "He's not willing to let Senator Specter get away with running from his record as a loyal Bush Republican. Just like Barney and I, Pennsylvanians won't be fooled by election year conversions."
It's nice of the State Department to provide the public with transcripts of all the public remarks made by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. It'd be even better if the transcripts gave any idea of what Clinton actually said.
That wasn't the case with one that State released earlier this week, of comments Clinton made at the Amsterdam News Educational Fund's 100th Anniversary Gala. And the result ended up -- unintentionally, no doubt -- being pretty funny.
Since the time when an alert reader sent me the transcript a couple days ago, someone at State evidently had the good sense to pull it down from the department's Web site. But through the magic of LexisNexis and Google's cache, it lives on. Here it is, unedited and in full:
Nick, thank you so much. Thank you (inaudible) to Michelle (ph) and everyone who could be gathered at this wonderful event. (Inaudible) I’m just happy to (inaudible). (Applause.) Being with so many friends, with so many people, (inaudible) so grateful. And this is why I am so grateful. I am delighted to have you with us (inaudible) in celebrating the Amsterdam News and helping it to raise money for digitizing its records. This is one of the great archives (inaudible). (Applause.)
(Inaudible) here as well. Susan and Bill Tataum, (inaudible) all these wonderful (inaudible) and in their home, visiting Bill (inaudible) and speak with him. And like everyone here tonight who (inaudible), I was a recipient of all the (inaudible) and I feel better for it. I also know (inaudible).
(Inaudible) one of the most thoughtful, provocative, (inaudible) experiences that I ever had. (Inaudible) and I will always remember Bill’s (inaudible) and energy (inaudible). I also want to just say I think I (inaudible) with a lot of my friends (inaudible) and especially (inaudible). (Applause.)
(Inaudible) be there for you when (inaudible) that you so well deserve because (inaudible). (Applause.) (Inaudible) to raise money for a worthy cause and it’s a night of (inaudible) of American history. (Inaudible) and it’s especially exciting to be here to celebrate the 100th anniversary. Now, recently in Russia where journalists are harassed and (inaudible), in China where bloggers and internet (inaudible) face evermore (inaudible) censorship. And I’ve met with writers who’ve been (inaudible). They (inaudible) sit up and take notice and change their ways forever. (Inaudible) proud.
Thanks (inaudible). (Applause.)
You might assume that Texas politics would still be a wild and woolly business, full of eccentric candidates who’d pull all kinds of crazy stunts to squeak by each other. Like how Lyndon Johnson lost one stolen election for the Senate and, having learned his lesson, probably stole the next one himself. Or like Gov. Lee "Pass the biscuits, Pappy" O’Daniel, the flour-peddling model and namesake for the politician character in "O Brother, Where Art Thou?" But modern Texas has settled into a situation of relatively quiet Republican dominance. Despite the best efforts of novelty-singer and 2006 independent gubernatorial candidate Kinky Friedman, there hasn’t been a genuinely close general election for a Senate seat or the governorship since the mid-1990s.
But this year, Texas looks like it’s getting back to its old self. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison is going through with a long-anticipated run for governor, which sets her up for a major run-in with incumbent Gov. Rick Perry in the Republican primary. Hutchison has amassed a lot of support from the GOP establishment, but Perry is burnishing his right-wing credentials to a fine gleam. (In case you were wondering, he landed Sarah Palin’s coveted endorsement back in February.)
This weekend’s New York Times Magazine will run a piece by Robert Draper on the race. Frankly, Draper leaves Perry looking like something of a buffoon. This is the governor, after all, who started talking about Texas’ right to secede from the union earlier this year. Perry suggested that Lino Graglia, a conservative legal scholar, would back up his view, so Draper called Graglia. Said the law professor, "No, I don’t think there’s any basis to that claim." In the article, Perry also expresses a fantasy about Sam Houston running for president in 1860 and beating Abraham Lincoln. This would, Perry claims, have prevented the outbreak of Civil War. No word, of course, on slavery.
This guy has actual bizarre policy ideas, though, not just Confederate reenactment fantasies. Perry claims that last year’s economic panic was overblown, and the only necessary response to the financial meltdown was to "cut the spending, cut the taxes," instead of passing any emergency bailout. Judiciously, Draper comments, "Most economists might take issue with the governor’s sentiment. Then again, economists are unlikely to decide the outcome of the Texas primary."
Perry’s flirtation with the far right is the basic rationale for the candidacy of the comparatively moderate Hutchison. As she puts it, "I’m in it to save our party."
And that’s just the issue. Perry, with his talk of states’ 10th Amendment rights and his accusation that the president is “hell-bent on socialism,” is as prime a specimen as you can find of tea party influence on the GOP. He’s a politician who’s trying to go as far as possible into right-wing fantasy world while still actually running a state.
Of course, there are some repercussions for acting like that. Assuming that he survives Hutchison’s challenge, Perry will have to put in a real fight in the general election. His approval numbers are relatively weak, and he’s dragging the GOP one way while Texas’ demographics run the other. As Draper points out, Texas has recently become of the few so-called majority-minority -- that is, majority non-white -- states in the country.
On top of all that, on Friday the Democrats landed their ideal challenger. In Houston Mayor Bill White, who confirmed that he will enter the race, Democrats have easily their strongest gubernatorial candidate since Ann Richards. Hutchison might be the voice of relative sanity in the Republican Party, but it's hard not to wonder what a Perry-White contest would be like.
War Room is written and edited by Alex Koppelman, with contributions from Salon reporters around the country.
After 40 years, the Washington Blade closes down
Destroying the So-Called "Unit Cohesion" Argument
On Finding the Source Code of Republican Talking Points