In a post on the website of libertarian activist Lew Rockwell, Mr. Paul said Monday that the governmental reaction to the tragic explosions was worse than the attack itself. The forced lockdown of much of the Boston area, police riding armored vehicles through the streets, and door-to-door searches without warrants were all reminiscent of a military coup or martial law, Paul added.
“The Boston bombing provided the opportunity for the government to turn what should have been a police investigation into a military-style occupation of an American city,” according to Paul.
Furthermore, this response did not result in the capture of suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, Paul charged. He was discovered hiding in a boat by a private citizen, who called police.
“And he was identified not by government surveillance cameras, but by private citizens who willingly shared their photographs with the police,” Paul wrote on Lew Rockwell’s site.
Yikes. This isn’t going to go down well in Watertown, is it? Citizens there applauded when police finally carted off Tsarnaev alive. The Boston police commissioner told his troops over the radio that “it’s a proud day to be a Boston police officer.” In the wake of the suspect’s capture the media have generally portrayed law enforcement officers as heroes.
But Paul’s contrarian take perhaps should not be surprising. After all, he’s a committed libertarian who at one point in the GOP presidential debates said that the border fence with Mexico might at some point be used to keep US citizens penned in.
And while Paul’s position here is, um, not in the majority, there are other public figures who charge that the Boston response was overkill. In some ways this is one of those points in the circle of American politics were conservative libertarianism and liberal progressivism meet.
The generally left-leaning Guardian columnist Glenn Greenwald, for instance, told PBS host Bill Moyers over the weekend that the public lionization of police in the wake of the Boston bombing isn’t necessarily a good thing.
“The way in which Americans now related to their government, the way in which they get nationalistic pride is through the assertion of this massive military or police force, and very few other things produce that kind of pride,” Greenwald said. “I think [this] shows a lot about our value systems and what the government is failing to do. And that’s the way in which this culture becomes coarsened.”
However, state and local officials have continued to defend their decision to shut down much of Boston for the Tsarnaev manhunt. At the time they did not know whether the suspect had more explosives or fellow conspirators, and they did not want to risk another tragedy.
“I think we did what we should have done and were supposed to do with the always-imperfect information that you have at the time,” Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick (D) said at a news conference last week.
And Paul in particular is now drawing criticism for the company he keeps. Lew Rockwell, Paul’s former congressional chief of staff, now heads the Ludwig von Mises Institute, a think tank with “deep ties to the neo-Confederate movement,” which believes the wrong side won the Civil War, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center.
As a Paul employee, Rockwell oversaw newsletters published under the former congressman’s name that contained controversial statements about race, homosexuality, and other hot-button topics.
Furthermore, Paul’s own new organization, the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity, has an advisory board that contains a “bevy of conspiracy theorists, cranks, and apologists for some of the worst regimes on the planet,” according to Daily Beast writer James Kirchik.
These include Southwestern Law School professor Butler Shaffer, who has written a post for the Lew Rockwell website titled “9/11 was a conspiracy,” notes the Daily Beast.
As far as political debates go, this one was a real rumble.
On one side of the ring was South Carolina congressional candidate Mark Sanford (R), a former three-term congressman, two-term governor – and one-time Appalachian Trail devotee – who came across as a neophyte. On the other side was Democratic candidate Elizabeth Colbert Busch, sister of comedian Stephen Colbert – and the actual political newcomer – who entered the debate swinging.
One week before a special election in South Carolina’s First Congressional District, the “75-minute slugfest” capped a raucous race that saw the frontrunner (the politically seasoned Mr. Sanford) and the underdog (newcomer Ms. Colbert Busch) switch roles.
RECOMMENDED: So you think you know Congress? Take our quiz.
Colbert Busch, we hear, threw jabs all evening long. Here's one: After Sanford spoke extensively about his efforts as a lawmaker and governor to cut wasteful spending, Colbert Busch turned to him and let loose this zinger:
“When we talk about fiscal spending and we talk about protecting the taxpayers, it doesn’t mean you take the money we saved and leave the country for a personal purpose.”
Kapow! For viewers just tuning in, this was of course a reference to Sanford’s use of state funds to fly to Argentina to visit his mistress, under the pretext of hiking the Appalachian Trail, a public relations fiasco that upended his political career. He later got divorced, was censured by the state Legislature, and paid a $70,000 ethics fine, the largest ever in South Carolina.
Barely half an hour into the debate, “the elephant in the room raised its trunk and blew,” as The New York Times put it.
The debate moderators and the audience, which hooted and hollered, weren’t much help.
“She went there, Governor Sanford,” one moderator said helpfully as Sanford stammered.
Sanford swung back, calling Colbert Busch a tool of House minority leader Nancy Pelosi who has accepted contributions and endorsements from labor unions, which are unpopular in conservative South Carolina.
Last week, we hear, he debated a cardboard cutout of Ms. Pelosi, and last night he uttered Pelosi’s name so many times that several people following the debate on Twitter suggested someone start a drinking game.
Once the comic book stunts subsided, the dueling duo dug into the issues, where their differences were many, as Politico reports.
Sanford said he opposed expanded background checks for gun buyers and the gun control bill that recently failed in the US Senate; Colbert Busch said she backed it. Sanford said he would vote against comprehensive immigration reform; Colbert Busch said she supports it. Sanford said gay marriage should be left to the states; Colbert Busch said it’s a matter of equality and civil rights.
“Freedom means freedom for everyone,” she said, echoing the words of former Vice President Dick Cheney.
In mid-April, documents surfaced that revealed Sanford had trespassed onto his ex-wife’s property, slipping into her home and watching the Super Bowl with their 14-year-old, in violation of court orders.
It was one too many personal errors in judgment for the national GOP leadership to bear. It left the former governor to fend for himself just as groups supporting Colbert Busch stepped up the fight, spending nearly $1 million to hammer Sanford on South Carolina airwaves.
Colbert Busch has a 9-point lead over Sanford, according to a survey conducted April 19-21 by Democratic firm Public Policy Polling. The election is next Tuesday.
RECOMMENDED: So you think you know Congress? Take our quiz.
If you had any doubts, it’s now official: President Obama has blacks to thank for his reelection. It turns out that record levels of black voter turnout propelled Obama to victory in 2012. So much so that if blacks had voted at 2004 levels, we’d all be saluting a President Romney right now.
We think Obama has a few million thank you cards to sign.
That’s according to a new Associated Press-Brookings Institution analysis on 2012 election data that contains a few gems that both parties would be wise to examine.
RECOMMENDED: Election 2012: 12 reasons Obama won and Romney lost
Among the surprises: Latinos aren’t as lucrative, votes-wise, as they appear to be – yet. And Democrats, who appeared to have cemented their role in 2012 as the minority party, shouldn’t get too comfortable.
Here are four lessons the 2012 election post-mortem taught us about the minority vote:
Black voters can turn out
Voter ID laws. High unemployment among blacks. Low rates of registration. Lack of transportation and access to polling stations.
These were all supposed to keep blacks away from the polls last year, but they didn’t.
Not only did black voters turn out, their turnout levels surpassed that of whites and most minority groups, including Latinos and Asians, in last year’s elections.
Though we don’t have exact data on the 2012 election turnout breakdown just yet, 2008 turnout data represented the smallest gap on record between whites (66.1 percent turnout) and blacks (65.2 percent turnout). According to the AP-Brookings analysis, 2 million to 5 million fewer whites voted in 2012 than in 2008, erasing that narrow lead.
Latinos still lag
The same headlines that warned of plummeting black voter turnout in 2012 also trumpeted the so-called Latin sensation, which was supposed to see record levels of Latinos turn out at the polls.
They did, but not at the levels black voters turned out.
Consider this: While blacks make up about 13 percent of the population and 12 percent of the share of eligible voters, they represented 13 percent of the total 2012 votes cast, thereby “outperforming” their share.
By contrast, Latinos make up 17 percent of the population but just 11 percent of eligible voters and 10 percent of total 2012 votes cast, somewhat underperforming for their share.
In fact, Latinos probably won’t surpass the share of eligible black voters until 2024, according to the AP-Brookings analysis.
Why the lower Latino rates?
Latinos may be growing fast, but they’re still a fairly young cohort, with more than one-third of Latinos (almost 35 percent) younger than the voting age of 18.
What’s more, many Latinos are not yet US citizens and therefore ineligible to vote. Nearly two-thirds of legal Mexican immigrants are not US citizens, according to a Pew Center analysis – and that’s not even counting illegal and undocumented immigrants.
But their day is coming
A proposed immigration bill in the Senate could see nearly 11 million immigrants currently here illegally become eligible for US citizenship – and voting – in as little as 13 years (the bill proposes a 13-year path to citizenship).
If that bill, or some iteration of it, passes, the total share of Latino voters may leap to 16 percent of the electorate by 2026. Under that same scenario, the share of eligible white voters could shrink to less than 64 percent, as the growing minority population edges out white population shares, according to the AP-Brookings report.
“The 2008 election was the first year when the minority vote was important to electing a U.S. president. By 2024, their vote will be essential to victory," William Frey, a demographer at the Brookings Institution said in the report. “Democrats will be looking at a landslide going into 2028 if the new Hispanic voters continue to favor Democrats.”
But Democrats shouldn’t rest too easy
Whatever you heard about the GOP’s minority problem, the rainbow coalition is not a sure bet for Democrats in 2016 or for future elections.
In fact, 2012 may have been an exceptional year. That’s because Romney was an exceptionally poor candidate for motivating white voters, let alone minorities, to the polls. And Obama was an exceptionally strong candidate for motivating minorities. That’s a scenario Democrats may not be able to replicate again soon.
“The 2012 turnout … suggests … there is an 'Obama effect' where people were motivated to support Barack Obama,” Andra Gillespie, a political science professor at Emory University, told the AP. “But it also means that black turnout may not always be higher, if future races aren't as salient.”
Or, as GOP consultant Whit Ayres told the AP, “It remains to be seen how successful Democrats are if you don't have Barack Obama at the top of the ticket.”
What’s more, the GOP is well aware of its “minority problem” and working overtime to reverse it, starting with comprehensive immigration reform legislation that could make Latinos and Asians more receptive to the GOP in coming elections.
RECOMMENDED: Election 2012: 12 reasons Obama won and Romney lost
President Obama joked about bangs at the White House Correspondents Association dinner on Saturday night, in case you haven’t heard. Bangs, as in hair hanging over your forehead like a curtain. His hair.
It came near the beginning of his very funny turn at the podium. Mr. Obama remarked that the presidency can take its toll on anyone, and he realizes he’ll need a burst of energy and some new approaches to energize his second term. He and his aides have talked about that, he said.
“We were willing to try anything. So we borrowed one of Michelle’s tricks,” said Obama.
Then he showed the audience a photo of himself and the First Lady side by side, both with bangs. It looked great on her. On him it looked like a fringed dish rag.
“I thought this looked pretty good, but no bounce,” said Obama to huge laughs from the crowd.
Overall, Obama was pretty much en fuego. That’s the norm now for presidents – they get professional comedy help with their WHCA speeches and as a result their lines are every bit as good as those of the hired entertainment, in this case Conan O’Brien.
Obama took a stab at a certain news networks recent missteps, for instance, “I know CNN has taken some knocks lately, but the fact is I admire their commitment to cover all sides of a story, just in case one of them happens to be accurate.”
He went on to poke at other networks and then said, “The fact is I really do respect the press. I recognize that the press and I have different jobs to do. My job is to be president; your job is to keep me humble. Frankly, I think I’m doing my job better.”
Ouch. Touché, Mr. President, touché.
What’s going on here is that White House staffs realize that a dinner famously described as Washington’s “nerd prom” is not really that. It’s a gathering of celebrities and power brokers which is televised, and is thus another opportunity for the orchestrated light media appearances at which Obama does so well. It’s like appearing on “The View” or slow-jamming the news with Jimmy Fallon.
In return, the White House Correspondents Association profits from his appearance. We’re not questioning its nonprofit status, as it spends hundreds of thousands of dollars on journalism scholarships every year. We’re just saying the dinner is a huge cash cow.
Look at the latest Form 990 IRS report from the WHCA that’s available, from 2011. Gross receipts from the dinner that year were about $621,000. Expenses were about $435,000, according to our reading of the document. Even political science majors can do that math.
Comedian Seth Meyers was the keynote speaker that year, and the Form 990 lists $10,000 spent on entertainment. Frankly, Obama’s speech last night was pretty funny. Our suggestion to the WHCA: do away with the paid guys, and lengthen the president’s speech. He does it for free! That way the dinner can clear even more.
Nerd prom? Ha. The White House Correspondents’ Dinner is as much a nerd prom as the Super Bowl is a tailgate party.
It’s more of a star-studded, glitzy, Hollywood East elite, inside-the-Beltway bash than a scholarship and awards dinner for journalists.
It’s not for naught that veteran TV journalist Tom Brokaw, who stopped attending the dinner some years ago, turned down an invitation to this year’s gala Saturday night.
“The breaking point for me was Lindsay Lohan,” he told Politico recently of his becoming an outspoken critic of the event last year. “What we’re doing with that dinner, as it has been constituted for the past several years,” he added, “is saying, ‘We’re Versailles. The rest of you eat cake.’ ”
The White House Correspondents' Association (WHCA) is a tax-exempt nonprofit that has actually awarded hundreds of thousands of dollars in scholarships to budding journalists since 1991. Last year it awarded 16 college students $132,200 in scholarships.
But let’s be honest. We all know what this is really about: the celeb-studded guest list, the red carpet, the entertainment, and yes, the after-parties. (At least a dozen media organizations, from Vanity Fair to Bloomberg Media to MSNBC, host chichi after-parties in such venues as the French and Italian embassies.)
Oh, and the money. In 2010, the latest year for which tax records are available for the organization, the WHCA spent $432,443 on the shindig, including $378,092 on renting the facility (the swanky Washington Hilton) and associated costs. Media organizations drop $2,750 per table of 10.
But, as the Washington Post points out, that’s small change. When you count the before- and after-parties, some media groups will dole out as much as $200,000 on the weekend’s activities.
You know it’s gotten out of hand when corporate underwriters are called in to sponsor some of the media-hosted after-parties. Starbucks, Ben & Jerry’s, Smartwater, and Bacardi will provide the refreshments at MSNBC’s party. Five corporate sponsors, including Mercedez-Benz and Corona Light, were listed on the invitation for an event hosted by Capitol File magazine.
But this, we think, is when things hit rock bottom. For the first time in White House Correspondents’ Dinner history, E! Entertainment network announced that it will livestream the red carpet at the so-called nerd prom. What an honor. Like when Kim Kardashian offers to write the forward for your book on the Armenian genocide.
Sure, we know what some of you are thinking: Loosen up, let go. The White House Correspondents’ Dinner long ago gave up pretending that it’s a serious affair.
But here’s the thing. Like financial institutions, media organizations rely on their reputations in exchange for reader trust and credibility. And it’s no secret that the media’s credibility is under perennial siege. (Some 60 percent of Americans said they had little or no trust in mass media, according to a Sep. 2012 Gallup poll cheerfully titled "US Distrust in Media Hits New High.")
In other words, the media need a White House Correspondents’ Dinner like Donald Trump needs self-esteem training.
As Brokaw said about the White House Correspondents’ Dinner on “Meet the Press” in May 2012, “If there’s ever an event that separates the press from the people it’s supposed to serve, symbolically, it’s that one. It is time to rethink it.”
Can a library redefine a presidency?
If George W. Bush’s new library is any indication, you bet.
Like memoirs and a sudden interest in Third World health issues, presidential libraries are one of the many devices in the grand toolbox of “Post-Presidential Image Rehabilitation.” In other words, rewriting history.
In fact, the George W. Bush Presidential Center, which is enjoying a Grand Old Party of an opening Thursday as all five living presidents descend on the Southern Methodist University in Dallas for its dedication, has actually gotten some good reviews.
In all seriousness, we’ve got to hand it to Dubya – and what must be one of the most practiced PR teams in history – on this one. From what we’ve seen and heard, the library comes across as a thoughtful tribute to a nation.
And, thanks to the above-mentioned PR team, the broader image rehab project is already working. A Washington Post-ABC News poll released Tuesday showed Bush’s approval rating has climbed to 47 percent, up from a bruising 23 percent when he left office.
The presidential library in Dallas and its version of the Bush years, along with a healthy dose of amnesia, can only help.
Here’s how Bush – according to his brand spanking new library – wants to be remembered:
As a wartime president
Looming large in the center of the museum is a mangled steel beam from the World Trade Center, dramatically showcasing the 9/11 attacks, and by extension, Bush’s leadership as a wartime president. It’s no surprise this is a focal point of the Presidential Center – 9/11 was a turning point not only for the presidency, but also for the nation. Echoing across the library are the wails of the sirens that blared on 9/11 and, according to Politico, Bush bellowing, “Today our nation saw evil.”
… But a statesman, not a warmonger
He may be a wartime president, but he’s no warmonger, Bush’s library wants you to think. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are largely downplayed, folded into one display on the Global War on Terror in an exhibit called, in classic Bush fashion, “Defending Freedom.” (Not to be confused with Operation Enduring Freedom, Operation Iraqi Freedom, or the Bush Freedom Agenda.)
And while Bush wasn’t the most refined of statesmen, perhaps, (remember the German Chancellor neck rub, the African dance party, and the Saudi sword dance?), as Politico points out, the first thing greeting visitors at the Bush theater is an oversize painting of him with former British Prime Minister Tony Blair.
As a compassionate conservative
You won’t find a whole lot of politics or election memorabilia in the Bush library. (Notably, not a whiff of the controversial, and oft-caricatured, figures of Senior Adviser Karl Rove, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and Vice President Dick Cheney.) Nor will you find any reminders of Bush’s staunch opposition to gay marriage and abortion – positions that may not stand the test of time.
What you will find is a case for Bush as a compassionate conservative, with big displays on his more overlooked causes like No Child Left Behind, the faith-based initiative, and his campaigns to encourage volunteerism and to fight AIDS and malaria in Africa.
As the mid-range department store so aptly put it, it’s the softer side of Bush.
As a resolute leader who faced difficult decisions
There was a lot of controversy in the Bush years – from WMDs and the Iraq invasion to Hurricane Katrina – and the library’s handling of it was masterful.
Rather than ignoring the controversy (too obvious) or glorifying Bush’s agenda (too vulnerable), the presidential center decided to put visitors in Dubya’s shoes, shedding light on the enormity of the decisions he faced.
That’s how the “Decision Points” theater was born, an interactive experience in which guests consider four major dilemmas Bush faced – the Iraq invasion, the troop surge, the response to Hurricane Katrina, and the financial crisis – and based on advice from advisers, choose their own response. Bush then appears on a video explaining his own decisions and how he arrived at them.
Given the sensitivity of the issues explored, this little device is brilliant.
As is Bush’s fifth decision: to take a page from Winston Churchill’s book on securing his legacy.
“History will be kind to me for I intend to write it,” the British prime minister once said.
Have you heard about the Obama family plan to keep daughters Sasha and Malia from getting tattoos? President Obama talked about it yesterday on the “Today” show. It’s sort of based on assured mutual deterrence. Or preemption – you could call it that, too.
“Michelle and I have used the strategy when it comes to things like tattoos – what we’ve said to the girls, ‘If you guys ever decide you’re going to get a tattoo, then mommy and me will get the same exact tattoo in the same place,” Mr. Obama told “Today” journalist Savannah Guthrie. “And we’ll go on YouTube and show it off as a family tattoo. And our thinking is that might dissuade them from thinking that somehow that’s a good way to rebel.”
Wow, that’s interesting, in the sense that it’s a fairly coherent and intellectualized way to approach this common parental problem. But here’s our question: Will that really work?
No, as a parent of two teenagers, Decoder does not think it is a successful long-run strategy, either.
Oh sure, it’s worked for now. They’re still kind of young. Malia is 14 and Sasha is 11. They’re not marching into any tattoo parlor near Sidwell Friends School in upper northwest DC. First, there aren’t any – they can’t afford the rents there. Second, you’ve got to be 18 to get a tat in the city, we believe. The City Council approved that move recently.
So they’d get thrown out, for being under age and because few tattoo parlors care to have Secret Service watchdogs at their door.
But the real reason the preemption strategy probably appeals to the Obamas right now is that their daughters still listen to them. They can process cause and parental reaction and weigh options. They haven’t entered that period where common sense gets suspended, and they focus mostly on their own needs and wants, because that’s what teenagers do.
Oh, were we projecting there?
Once they are 18, they will be away from daily parental authority and tattoos might seem like a better idea. At that age, they don’t really think about long-term consequences, so they might get body art just to spite their parents. Or because they forgot their parents’ we-will-do-it-too vow. Or because they don’t care. Or just because.
As Connor Simpson notes on the Atlantic Wire, “these are young women who take cellphone photos and, yes, go on spring break. You don’t stop them. You can only hope to contain them.”
And then what happens? The president of the United States will probably feel obligated to get a tattoo of a butterfly at the base of his neck, because he vowed he would; and if he does not follow through, opponents will doubt his strength of will, or something like that.
No, once they get old enough to be out of your daily control, the best way to keep them from getting tattoos might be bribes. Tell them as long as they remain tat-free, they can use Camp David for parties, say.
Or Obama might convince some senator to slip a rider in an appropriations bill that simply makes it illegal to give the children of any current or former US chief executive a tattoo. As LBJ once said in another context when someone told him a bill was a bad idea, “Well then what the [expletive] is the presidency for?”
Glenn Beck has spent lots of time in recent days alleging that the Boston Marathon bombing was carried out by a conspiracy that revolved around a shadowy Saudi national questioned by police in a Boston hospital in the immediate aftermath of the tragedy.
OK, is he just winging it here, or does the ex-Fox, now-independent radio and Internet video host have any real evidence for this charge?
He says he does, unsurprisingly. On his show Wednesday morning Mr. Beck produced a document that he claimed is an official US “event report” showing that the Saudi in question is a bad, bad man who was on a no-fly list and already subject to visa revocation.
What he didn’t mention is that Fox News reporter Bret Baier has already looked into this whole alleged Saudi conspiracy, including the document Beck deemed so revealing, and concluded that there was no there there, to paraphrase writer Gertrude Stein’s jibe about Oakland.
It’s “false and misleading” to use the internal document on the Saudi’s immigration status as evidence of the man’s involvement in the bombings, according to US officials quoted by Mr. Baier in a Fox video blog on April 23.
“The FBI says the Saudi [in question] was just a victim of the terrorist attack,” said Baier.
OK, let’s rewind a bit to clarify this, shall we?
In the immediate aftermath of the Boston tragedy, many media outlets reported that law enforcement officials were interrogating an injured Saudi man who had been seen running from the site of the bombs. Authorities that evening searched his residence in suburban Revere.
Officials later reported that this Saudi was a student and an innocent spectator who had been injured by the blasts and was trying to escape along with many other people on the Marathon route.
Although the man’s name has been reported by some media outlets, Decoder won’t be using it, so as to not further publicize the identity of someone police say did nothing wrong.
Since then Glenn Beck has continued to link the Saudi to the bombing and to terrorism in general. He has charged that the man was in the US on a student visa that had expired and that he will be deported by US immigration for security reasons. He has gone so far as to speculate that a Saudi national may have been an Al Qaeda control agent who recruited the Tsarnaev brothers to carry out the Boston attacks.
Then on Wednesday Beck dropped his other shoe, revealing what he said was important new evidence in the case.
Beck said he had received a document he called a 212 3(B) report, named after its reference in the Patriot Act. The document said that a Saudi national with the same name as the person questioned in the hours after the bombing is an “exact match” to someone on a no-fly list and that derogatory information on him is “sufficient to request visa revocation.”
A copy of the alleged document posted online by Beck’s web site The Blaze also noted that the person in question “has One (1) prior event,” though there was no indication what, or how serious, that event was.
Wow, I mean, this does not look good, does it? Twitter has exploded with comments about how important this is, and how it presages the exposure of the conspiracy, which probably involves everyone up to the level of the Oval Office, and perhaps beyond.
But Bret Baier had this piece of paper already. On Tuesday, he talked with US officials about it, and got a different story.
First off, Baier said the wording of the paper was indeed somewhat dire.
“Anyone looking at this would say this is a bad guy, this means they had a lot of stuff on this guy,” he said.
But officials told him it was simply an automatic piece of customs paperwork triggered when police went to question the Saudi in the hours after the bombing.
To make sure he did not somehow get on an airplane before they could talk to him, they put him on a no-fly list. That automatically meant he was subject to visa revocation. The other language, including the reference to an “event,” followed from that.
“Also keep in mind, it’s just … a customs and border control document…. It’s not indicative of any investigative information,” said Baier.
After the FBI determined the man had no connection to the Boston crime, it took several days for the bureaucracy to scrub him out of its system. That is why the document existed for a short period of time, and why it shows evidence of officials trying to change it. But anyone searching the system for his name on the Sunday prior to the bombing would have found nothing, reported Baier, because no US government agency was looking for him.
Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano referred to all this obliquely in a Senate hearing on Tuesday.
The Homeland Security Secretary replied that the Saudi in question had not been on a watch list prior to the bombings and was never really a person of interest in the case.
“Because he was being interviewed, he was at that point put on a watch list,” Napolitano added. “And then when it was quickly determined he had nothing to do with the bombing, the watch listing status was removed.”
As if all this weren’t complicated enough, a number of news outlets have reported that there is a second Saudi man in Boston, unrelated to the student, who was taken into custody when he showed up at a port to retrieve a package, and a routine check showed he had overstayed his visa.
That’s the Saudi who is subject to deportation. The student who was caught in the bomb blast is not.
Of course, it’s easy to point out that all this is based on the word of US officials, and that they’re eager to cover up the conspiracy, since it makes them look bad, or they are part of it, or something like that.
But that’s why conspiracy theories persist: it’s easy to dream them up, and hard to disprove them, especially to believers.
Is George W. Bush having a comeback? It looks like that might be the case, depending on how “comeback” is defined. With his presidential library set to open on Thursday, W. is scoring his highest poll numbers since 2005, according to a new Washington Post/ABC News poll. Forty-seven percent of respondents in the survey say they now approve of how President Bush performed during his eight years in office.
Gee, that’s not much different than President Obama’s current score, is it? Over the last three months the nation’s current chief executive has averaged a 49.7 percent approval rating. Just saying.
OK, Bush’s polls are still underwater, in the sense that more people – 50 percent of respondents, in the Post/ABC survey – disapprove of his performance than give it thumbs up. And for W., “highest poll numbers since 2005” is not a high bar, given that his approval rating began to plummet about then and bottomed out at only 23 percent about the time he left office.
Plus ex-presidents typically see a gradual but steady rise in their popularity after leaving office. Their failures fade, their successes seem hard-won in retrospect, and they’re not engendering any more controversy. Famously, Jimmy Carter rates much higher in the public esteem today than he did in 1980. Bill Clinton? The Big Dog remains the nation’s most popular living former Oval Office occupant, according to a Pew Research matchup.
But, at the least, the ex-president from Texas who’s a new grandfather and Painter of Dogs ™ in his spare time seems to be having a moment. His partisans have taken to the media to defend him this week prior to the opening of the George W. Bush Presidential Center at Southern Methodist University in Dallas.
On her “Right Turn” Washington Post blog, Jennifer Rubin holds that “many of [Bush’s] supposed failures are mild compared to the current president."
Bush rallied the country after 9/11, mostly presided over an era of prosperity, and launched the “fiscally sober” Medicare Part D prescription drug plan, according to Ms. Rubin.
Over on Fox News, Bush political guru Karl Rove appeared on “America’s Newsroom” on Tuesday and defended his former boss, saying that Bush provided “decisive leadership” when the US economy cratered in 2008 and did better among Hispanic voters than Mitt Romney. US voters should realize how complicated the Middle East would be today if Saddam Hussein remained in power, said Mr. Rove.
“People are now able to be looking back and saying that the things he did right, we better understand,” said Rove.
This is not an attitude universally held by the nation’s political chattering class, as you might imagine. Over at Foreign Policy Magazine, Dan Drezner, Fletcher School professor of international politics, writes that the revisionist George W. Bush seems pretty much like the old George W. Bush to him.
It’s true that Bush has been a pretty good ex-president, writes Mr. Drezner. He’s generally avoided controversy, unlike his own ex-vice president, Dick Cheney. And the performance of Bush’s economic team in the face of the financial meltdown deserves credit.
“George W. Bush helmed a war of choice that proved, in the end, to impose powerful constraints ... for American foreign policy. He pursued his foreign policy aims in such a way as to dramatically lower US standing abroad,” writes Drezner.
And at the Washington Monthly, Ed Kilgore, a senior fellow at the Progressive Policy Institute, points out that many more conservative Republicans have criticized Bush 43 in recent years as a big-spending, big-government president in GOP clothing.
“According to a very frequently repeated (if sometimes indirect) conservative account, W. and his minions convinced Republicans to sell their birthright of ideological rigor for a mess of swing-voter pottage that failed politically as well as morally,” writes Kilgore.
Perhaps the most interested observer of the Bush revisionism thus may be brother Jeb Bush, whose 2016 ambitions could depend on how conservative Tea Party types judge his family as a whole.
Is Earth Day dead?
Maybe not, but if we’ve read the tree rings correctly, it may be dying. Which is why 2013 is the year we don’t need to save the Earth – we need to save Earth Day.
Consider this: A new Huffington Post/YouGov poll finds Americans are less concerned about the environment now than when Earth Day began. A lot less.
RECOMMENDED: Earth Day 2013: 10 quotes about planet Earth
In 1971, the year after Earth Day was founded, 63 percent of Americans said it was “very important” to work to restore and enhance the national environment, according to an Opinion Research Corp. poll for President Richard Nixon. This year, only 39 percent of respondents said it was very important, according to a 2013 HuffPost/YouGov poll.
Other categories show similar disinterestedness. In 1971, 25 percent said working to restore the environment is “fairly important,” and 8 percent said it was “not too important.” In 2013, 41 percent said it was fairly important, and 16 percent said it was not too important.
And a 2012 Harris Interactive poll found a similar falloff in eco-consciousness just over the past three or four years, with fewer and fewer Americans describing themselves as “environmentally conscious.”
What with all the other concerns competing for our attention – terrorism, a limping economy, celebrities behaving badly – we shouldn’t be surprised that the Earth has orbited off our list of priorities.
That’s why we’re not surprised to read about fracking in California (Yes, you read that right: The land of redwood-hugging, granola-crunching, eat local-pioneering, plastic bag-banning Earth hippies is considering the controversial technique known as fracking.) and coal mining in the Mountain West.
And that’s why we shouldn’t be surprised to learn that among developed nations, the US is dead last in energy productivity, the level of economic output achieved from energy consumed.
According to a Politico opinion piece by Sen. Mark Warner (D) of Virginia and National Grid president Tom King, 57 percent of the “energy flowing into our economy is simply wasted,” costing US businesses and households $130 billion per year.
Heck, even China ranks better than us.
No, Earth Day isn’t dead. But it needs intervention.
Is it time to make it a priority again – both in government and public opinion? If so, several things would need to happen.
For starters, lawmakers must advance initiatives that support not just the environment and clean energy, but also economic growth. As Senator Warner wrote for Politico, “It’s critical that we recognize stewardship and growth not as mutually exclusive, but as complementary goals.”
Warner also suggests rethinking regulations for our energy market in order to incentivize energy efficiency, as well as adopting a “Race to the Top”-style framework to challenge state and local governments to boost energy productivity.
And if, 50 years after Earth Day began, we want to see more Americans say they care about the environment than do now, it would be key to instill such an ethic in the nation's youths, ensuring that the generations who would be most affected by today’s environmental policy tomorrow are fully invested in Earth Day – and their Earth.
RECOMMENDED: Earth Day 2013: 10 quotes about planet Earth