Upload
trinhkhue
View
215
Download
2
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1 U.S.NEWS WEEKLY | FEBRUARY 27, 2015 NEXT PAGE »PRINT
eklyWeFebruary 27, 2015 Volume 7 • Number 9
TOM WILLIAMS – CQ ROLL CALL / GETTY IMAGES
This Week in Washington WASHINGTON WHISPERS 2Hillary Clinton’s purple place; John Kerry’s smackdown; bigger is better; on the edge of financial ruin
HEADING TOWARD A SHUTDOWN 4Congress hasn’t come to an agreement on Homeland Security funding
NET NEUTRALITY MOVES AHEAD 6The FCC approved the new rules on a party-line vote
QUESTIONS FOR THE FED CHAIR 7Janet Yellen says interest rates will not likely rise in the next few months
WHY THEY REALLY RUN 8These candidates don’t have much of a shot to win the presidency
SPECIAL REPORT | A CELEBRITY IN THE OVAL OFFICE 12President Barack Obama has become a part of popular culture
Commentary and Features THE PRESIDENCY | KENNETH T. WALSH 10The likability factor is very important in the 2016 presidential race
QUIZ OF THE WEEK 11The House of Representatives’ long and storied history
CAPITAL NOTIONS | ROBERT SCHLESINGER 16King v. Burwell is the silliest Obamacare challenge yet
WASHINGTON BOOK CLUB 17Sarah Chayes’ “Thieves of State: Why Corruption Threatens Global Security”
BLOG BUZZ 19
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR 20
EDITOR’S NOTE 20
MORTIMER B. ZUCKERMAN | EDITORIAL 21Netanyahu’s mandate on preventing Iran from going nuclear
THE BIG PICTURE 23
Speaker John Boehner
COLLISION COURSE
2 U.S.NEWS WEEKLY | FEBRUARY 27, 2015 « PREVIOUS PAGE | NEXT PAGE »CONTENTSPRINT
WashingtonWhispers By David Catanese
Hillary Clinton says if she were to become president,
she’d strive to fuse red and blue America into “a
nice warm purple space where we’re trying to
solve problems.”
Clinton’s comments at the Lead On Watermark
Silicon Valley Conference for Women on Tuesday
afternoon are a slight indication that the former
secretary of state already has one eye trained on the 2016
general election before she’s even announced a campaign
to seek the Democratic nomination. How Clinton will
position herself ideologically in a likely White House bid
is one of the largest questions she’s confronting as she
seeks counsel before an official announcement.
Even without the threat of a formidable primary
opponent, liberals are hoping to pressure Clinton to
gravitate toward the left as she builds a governing
agenda. But the embrace of “purple” America suggests
she remains most comfortable in the center, embracing
common-sense, collaborative ideas that aren’t
polarizing. With a 45-point lead over the primary field
in the latest CNN survey, Clinton must be tempted to
forego any genuflecting to progressives.
She ticked off the minimum wage, paid family leave,
wage disparity and energy efficiency as issues around
which she’d form a hypothetical campaign. When asked
about the debate over the National Security Agency
Clinton’s Purple Place
Vocativ looked at the voting records for all sitting representatives to see who has missed the most votes. Here are the most absent representatives:
1. John Conyers (D-Mich.)
2. Don Young (R-Alaska)
3. Richard Nolan (D-Minn.)
4. Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.)
5. Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.)
6. Jaime Herrera Beutler (R-Wash.)
7. Jackie Speier (D-Calif.)
8. Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.)
9. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.)
10. Rubén Hinojosa (D-Texas)
The List: Most Absent Representatives
Keep up with thelatest Washington
buzz at www.usnews.com/whispers
WALT HANDELSMAN – TRIBUNE CONTENT AGENCY
3 U.S.NEWS WEEKLY | FEBRUARY 27, 2015 « PREVIOUS PAGE | NEXT PAGE »CONTENTSPRINT
WASHINGTON WHISPERS
spying, she again struck a balance,
speaking about the importance of
valuing both liberty and security.
At one point, the moderator
interjected, floating a hypothetical
President Elizabeth Warren. Clinton
barely flinched and couched her answer
around “whoever it is.”
Later during the discussion, she
yearned for a political dialogue, “if we
could get back to working together
cooperatively again.” That’s not even a
whiff of the rhetoric of Warren, or Sen.
Bernie Sanders, the ornery independent
from Vermont who is contemplating a
challenge to Clinton.
But Clinton appeared to feel little
pressure to move from a political
sweet spot that’s more appealing for
a broader electorate. When asked to
come up with her favorite hashtag to
close the program, she replied blandly
but safely, “#LeadOn.”
John Kerry’s SmackdownJust when you thought the bad ro-
mance between Israeli Prime Minis-
ter Benjamin Netanyahu and President Barack Obama’s administration couldn’t
get uglier, Secretary of State John Kerry
upped the ante with a verbal smack-
down of Netanyahu on Wednesday.
Kerry said that Netanyahu’s
meddling in the sensitive negotiations
with Iran makes it seem like he’s
spoiling for a war he wants the U.S.
to fight – the same position he took
when the U.S. invaded Iraq in 2003.
“The prime minister was profoundly
forward-leaning and outspoken about
the importance of invading Iraq under
George W. Bush,” said Kerry, on Capitol
Hill to brief the House Foreign Affairs
Committee on Iran negotiations, the
goings-on in Ukraine and other hot
spots. “We all know what happened with
that decision.”
But the secretary added a touch
more heat, just in case Netanyahu
didn’t get the message. “Israel is safer
today with the added time we have
given [to reach a deal] and the stoppage
of the advances in the [Iranian] nuclear
program than they were before we got
that agreement,” Kerry said, “which by
the way, the prime minister opposed.
He was wrong.”
Bigger Is Better Some prefer brick exteriors over siding.
Others like the look of shingled roofs.
But nearly 60 percent of Americans
agree that their ideal home would be
a different size than the one in which
they currently live.
A Trulia housing study out Thursday
found that 43 percent of more than
2,000 survey respondents would
prefer living in a larger home. About
40 percent of Americans are satisfied
with the size of their current house,
while only 16 percent would prefer
to downsize. “The responses to our
survey show significantly more demand
for larger homes than for smaller
ones,” Trulia housing economist
Ralph McLaughlin wrote in a statement
accompanying the survey results. “But
the reality, of course, is that households
must make trade-offs between things
like accessibility, amenities, and
affordability when choosing what size
homes to get.”
On the Edge of Financial RuinAmericans’ overall perception of the
domestic economy has ticked up to pre-
Great Recession levels, though more
than a third of the country still sits on
the edge of financial ruin.
A study published this week by
Bankrate.com suggests 37 percent
of Americans have credit card debt
greater than or equal to their emergency
savings, meaning a steep medical bill,
a car accident or other unexpected
expense could push them over a
budgetary cliff. “A pretty good chunk of
the population still has more credit card
debt than they have in their emergency
savings account,” says Jeanine Skowronski, a senior credit card analyst
and reporter at Bankrate.com. “The
recession’s over, but there’s still some
lagging effects that can be affecting
some people’s pockets.” Though about
58 percent of those surveyed said they
had more savings than debt, Skowronski
says that’s only “marginally” improved
from years past. l
With Joseph P. Williams
and Andrew Soergel
MOUTHING OFF
Everyone has an opinion. Send yours to [email protected].
Will the Supreme Court strike
down Obamacare after the
King v. Burwell hearing?
4 U.S.NEWS WEEKLY | FEBRUARY 27, 2015 « PREVIOUS PAGE | NEXT PAGE »CONTENTSPRINT
This Week In WashingtonA
fter the 9/11 attacks, Congress found a unifying
issue in national security. The bitter partisanship
following the disputed 2000 presidential election
and recount evaporated while Democrats and Re-
publicans set about making sure the nation would be
protected from another attack. Congress moved quickly
– way too quickly, critics later said – to give more sur-
veillance power to federal law enforcement. Republicans
who had long been opponents of a bigger federal gov-
ernment joined Democrats in creating an entirely new
agency, the Department of Homeland Security.
Fast-forward to the present, and Congress is at a mirror-
opposite position. Everyone generally agrees that national
security is critical (recent world events have made it even
more of a priority), but domestic politics are trumping that
consensus. In what would have seemed unthinkable in the
frantic months after 9/11, the Department of Homeland
Security has been threatened with a shutdown as lawmak-
ers bicker over an unrelated immigration policy. And the
situation has united lawmakers only in their frustration
over their own inability to keep functioning a department
dedicated to the nation’s basic safety.
“[The Islamic State group] has funding,” says an exas-
perated Sen. Tim Kaine, Democrat of Virginia. “We need
to have funding for security in this country, and not just
for a few weeks.” Adds an equally annoyed Sen. Susan
Collins, Republican of Maine: “I have always said that the
department should be fully funded.” And given that “we
live in a time when the new generation of threats facing
our country continues to grow, I think the mission of the
department is absolutely vital,” Collins says.
And yet, as the Friday midnight deadline approached
to fund the agency, lawmakers were still stubbornly fight-
ing over how and whether to include immigration policy
language in the DHS bill. The snag started last year, when
congressional Republicans were balking at passing fund-
ing legislation for the entire government because they were
unhappy with President Barack Obama’s November execu-
tive action expanding temporary legal status to millions of
» Net Neutrality Moves Ahead » Questions for the Fed Chair » Why They
Really Run » The Likability Factor
Heading Toward a Shutdown The House and Senate haven’t come to an agreement on Homeland Security funding
By Susan Milligan
Sen. Harry Reid at a news conference Tuesday discussing the fight over the Department of Homeland Security
BILL CLARK – CQ ROLL CALL / GETTY IMAGES
5 U.S.NEWS WEEKLY | FEBRUARY 27, 2015 « PREVIOUS PAGE | NEXT PAGE »CONTENTSPRINT
immigrants. To avoid a politically trouble-
some and disruptive shutdown, Congress
grudgingly agreed to keep all of the gov-
ernment going at current spending levels
until September – all except DHS, which
was given a reprieve until Friday. Repub-
licans, armed with an expanded majority
in the House and a new majority in the
Senate, hoped to strong-arm Democrats
into approving a longer-term DHS fund-
ing bill that included language undoing
Obama’s executive action.
That plan started to unravel as Sen-
ate Democrats four times filibustered
the mixed-policy measure, insisting on
a “clean bill” extending funding. That
put the “hot potato” (as Senate Minor-
ity Leader Harry Reid, Democrat of Ne-
vada, called the issue this week) back in
the House, which came under pressure
to pass a bill without the immigration
language. House Speaker John Boeh-
ner, Republican of Ohio, responded
that his chamber had done its job, and
it was time for the Senate – specifically,
the Democrats – to do the same. Senate
Republicans were not eager to get into
a cross-chamber feud with their compa-
triots in the House, but expressed some
consternation that House GOPers did not
seem to comprehend that there was no
way Senate Majority Leader Mitch Mc-
Connell, Republican of Kentucky, was
going to get the 60 votes to approve the
House language. “Some of my colleagues
in the House have recommended that we
go to 51 votes,” getting rid of the filibus-
ter entirely, says Sen. John McCain, Re-
publican of Arizona. “I would do that if
I could be assured that we’ll always have
Republican control of the United States
Senate, but I’m not positive of that.”
As the deadline neared, McConnell
made a peace offer to the other side of the
aisle: he’d separate out the bills, allow-
ing the Senate to vote on a clean funding
bill as well as another measure reversing
Obama’s order on immigration. (Some
said the GOP didn’t even need the bill,
since a Texas judge has already issued a
temporary restraining order keeping the
Obama administration from moving for-
ward with the action. The White House
said it would obey the ruling but appeal.)
Reid balked, saying he didn’t want to pass
anything unless he was given assurance
the House would go along. That put it
back on Boehner, who bluntly told re-
porters, “the House has done its job. I’m
waiting for the Senate to pass a bill. At
the end of the day, the Senate has to act.”
Fine, Reid concluded. On Wednesday,
the Senate, by a near-unanimous tally,
voted to advance a clean funding bill, with
plans to pass the measure on Friday. That
put the “hot potato” back where it has been
hopping for some time – in the lap of Boeh-
ner, who most recently floated a proposal
to fund DHS for three weeks while they
sort it out. A CNN poll last week showed
that 53 percent of Americans would blame
congressional Republicans if DHS was
shut down, compared to the 30 percent
who would blame Obama.
While the Hill fiddled around with
Homeland Security funding, Obama
burned the GOP with some strong lan-
guage about immigration. At a Florida
town hall meeting on the topic, the presi-
dent vowed to fight the Texas ruling and
said there would be consequences for Im-
migration and Customs Enforcement offi-
cials who don’t follow the new guidelines.
“There are going to be some jurisdictions
and there may be individual ICE officials
or Border Control [agents] who aren’t
paying attention to our new directives.
But they’re going to be answerable to the
head of Department of Homeland Securi-
ty, because he’s been very clear about what
our priorities should be,” Obama said. “If
somebody’s working for ICE … and they
don’t follow the policy, there’s going to be
consequences to it.”
A DHS shutdown would not end all
Homeland Security programs, since
certain employees would be required to
come to work (unpaid, until a funding
measure was finally approved) and other
programs are funded largely through
fees, and could continue based on that
revenue stream. But ironically for Repub-
licans determined to thwart illegal immi-
gration, the “E-verify” program – which
allows employers to check immigration
status before hiring someone – would not
be protected during a shutdown.
Meanwhile, lawmakers grouse that
the entire mess is an international em-
barrassment. “The security of our na-
tion is so important. If we can’t show
the world that we have a commitment
to keeping our homeland safe, then God
help us all,” says Sen. Joe Manchin, a
West Virginia Democrat who wants to
fully fund DHS but also believes the pres-
ident overstepped his bounds. As the 11th
hour approaches, the Homeland Security
bill remains as hot a political potato as
ever. And Boehner is likely to be the last
one holding it. l
THIS WEEK IN WASHINGTON
What Do You Think? Are GOP legislators acting responsibly in the battle over the Department of Homeland Security? Email your thoughts to [email protected].
6 U.S.NEWS WEEKLY | FEBRUARY 27, 2015 « PREVIOUS PAGE | NEXT PAGE »CONTENTSPRINT
Title II of the Communications Act as
part of an effort to replace regulations
struck down by a federal appeals court
last year. Wheeler has said he expects
another lawsuit, but that Title II invokes
a stronger legal authority that would
survive a challenge while ensuring the
rights of consumers and companies. “It’s
simply too important to be left without
rules or a referee on the field,” Wheeler
said during the commission’s meeting
Thursday. “The Internet has replaced
the function of the telephone and the
post office.”
Title II, however, will allow the FCC to
“decide the future of the online world” by
giving the commission the power to regu-
late transaction rates, FCC Commissioner
Ajit Pai said. Pai voted against the rules,
along with the agency’s other Republican
commissioner, Michael O’Rielly.
Pai’s concerns, shared by other Re-
publicans, also include that the rules
would harm the Internet business by
discouraging investment and opening
the door to government meddling. “This
order imposes intrusive government
regulations for a problem that doesn’t
exist … using the legal authority that the
FCC doesn’t have,” Pai said. “Consumers
should expect their bills to go up and
they should expect broadband speeds to
slow down going forward.”
Senate Majority Leader Mitch Mc-
Connell, a Kentucky Republican, echoed
those concerns in an email calling the
commission’s rules an overreach of gov-
ernment power that endangers the Inter-
net by “suffocating it under the weight of
an outdated bureaucracy.” Republicans
have broadly criticized the commission’s
proposed net neutrality rules but have
embraced some open Internet policies
after the FCC received more than 4 mil-
lion public comments on the issue, many
of which called for strong regulation to
ensure equal access.
House Energy and Commerce Com-
mittee Chairman Fred Upton, a Michi-
gan Republican, has sought to avoid FCC
regulation by proposing a bill he claims
would uphold some principles of net
neutrality, including that Internet ser-
vice providers should not block or slow
down traffic.
During a hearing of his committee
on Wednesday, Upton said the FCC vote
“is just the beginning” and “means an
inevitable return to the courts for net
neutrality rules, which will lead to more
years of uncertainty for consumers and
providers.” AT&T has indicated it will
sue the FCC to challenge the approved
rules. l
After nearly a year of intense debate about the fu-
ture of the Internet, the Federal Communications
Commission voted 3-2 Thursday to approve net
neutrality rules that aim to preserve competition
online by treating all Internet traffic equally. But Re-
publicans and telecom companies still plan to fight the
regulation in court and in Congress.
The newly approved rules forbid Internet service
providers from blocking or slowing the traffic of their
rivals, and ban new fees for faster download speeds that
would create “paid prioritization” or “fast lanes.” The
rules will affect competition between certain compa-
nies, especially those reliant on fast download speeds
like Skype and Netflix.
Republicans and telecoms like AT&T are particularly
concerned that the rules apply some of the commis-
sion’s regulatory power over phone companies to In-
ternet providers. FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler invoked
Net Neutrality Moves AheadThe FCC approved the new rules on a 3-2 vote
By Tom Risen
FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler at Thursday’s meeting
PABLO MARTINEZ MONSIVAIS – AP
THIS WEEK IN WASHINGTON
7 U.S.NEWS WEEKLY | FEBRUARY 27, 2015 « PREVIOUS PAGE | NEXT PAGE »CONTENTSPRINT
THIS WEEK IN WASHINGTON
cent as other facets of the economy gain.
Yellen cited stagnant wages as a drag
on the domestic economy and a thorn
in the side of any potential interest rate
increase, and some analysts agree that
wages have thus far represented a miss-
ing piece in the economic recovery puz-
zle. “Wages are a big part of inflation.
You can’t really get inflation to stick un-
less you get wages to move higher,” says
John Canally, chief economic strategist
for LPL Financial.
Sen. Charles Schumer, a New York
Democrat, advised Yellen and the Federal
Reserve on Tuesday to “act with caution”
when considering interest rate increases
if limp wages persist. “Let me be clear: I
believe the Fed should remain committed
to its current accommodative policy until
it sees clear evidence that shows a con-
sistent improvement in wages,” Schumer
said. “In the current environment, wage
growth needs to be a major factor, maybe
even a loadstone for the Fed, when it’s
deciding to raise rates.”
But Sen. Pat Toomey, a Pennsylvania
Republican, said he believed the current
low interest rate policy is “unbelievably
accommodative” and urged Yellen and
the Fed to boost rates sooner rather than
later. “I can’t help but observe what strikes
me as a very obvious paradox here, and
that is the financial and economic crisis
is over,” Toomey said. “It’s been over for
years, at least six or seven years, and yet we
still maintain crisis-level interest rates.”
The Fed weighs a collection of econom-
ic indicators, including employment and
unemployment figures and the consumer
price index, when making policy deci-
sions, though some have criticized Yellen’s
posse for a perceived lack of transparency.
Sen. Rand Paul, a Kentucky Republican,
is among a host of federal lawmakers hail-
ing legislation calling for an audit of the
fed, which proponents say would allow for
more oversight of the Fed’s inner work-
ings. “I want to be completely clear that
I strongly oppose Audit the Fed,” Yellen
said Tuesday, referring to the legislation.
“...Audit the Fed is a bill that would politi-
cize monetary policy, putting short-term
political pressures to bear on the Fed.”
Canally says the chances of the legis-
lation passing are relatively low, noting
that the bill would have trouble making
it through the Senate. President Barack
Obama also would still have the opportu-
nity to veto it. “The last thing markets want
is Congress running fiscal policy and mar-
ket policy,” says Canally, distinguishing
the congressional budget responsibility
from the Fed’s monetary oversight. “That’s
everyone’s worst nightmare.” l
Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen on Tuesday
dodged giving a definitive starting date for awaited
interest rate hikes, but outlined a potential path
toward such a move as the domestic economy con-
tinues to recover. Appearing before the Senate Banking
Committee, she noted that an interest rate hike is “un-
likely” to result from “at least the next couple of [Federal
Open Market Committee] meetings.”
“I think it’s fair to say that when we look into raising
our target for the federal funds rate, it will be because we
are confident about the recovery, and we are reasonably
confident that inflation is back to our 2 percent objective,”
Yellen said. Low interest rates generally keep more money
in consumers’ pockets, which in turn spurs economic ex-
pansion and should theoretically boost inflation. But the
Fed hasn’t raised interest rates since 2006, and inflation
has rested stubbornly beneath the Fed’s target of 2 per-
Questions for the Fed Chair Janet Yellen says the Fed isn’t likely to raise interest rates in the next few months
By Andrew Soergel Fed Chair Yellen speaks to the Senate Banking Committee
SUSAN WALSH – AP
8 U.S.NEWS WEEKLY | FEBRUARY 27, 2015 « PREVIOUS PAGE | NEXT PAGE »CONTENTSPRINT
This is true of the large 2016 Repub-
lican lineup, which features interested
politicians who will struggle to compete
in a single primary state, let alone sit in-
side 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. But there
are plenty of reasons to run other than to
win. Here are four incentives for a hand-
ful of long shots.
Sen. Lindsey GrahamWhat He Could Really Win: Secretary of Defense
Imagine a scenario in which Sens. Ted
Cruz and Rand Paul dominate the Iowa
caucuses and Jeb Bush and Gov. Scott
Walker battle it out for supremacy in
New Hampshire.
The South Carolina primary that fol-
lows suddenly becomes pivotal in the
chase for primary momentum. And this
third-term GOP senator just happens
to hail from the place that could turn it.
Let’s say, hypothetically, that Graham
finishes in single digits in each of the first
two nominating states, but still carries
considerable sway in his native land. So,
in an attempt to halt a surging Cruz – or
other conservative alternative – he drops
out days before the Palmetto State pri-
mary and throws his blessing to Bush.
Bush ekes out a victory, much like
Sen. John McCain did in 2008, avoid-
ing disaster and paving his way toward
Super Tuesday. Graham then could be
credited with saving the establishment
from a right-wing coup. And that would
earn him valuable chits.
There’s nothing Graham cares more
about than national security issues, and
he’s well-versed and well-respected when it
comes to the flare-ups popping up around
the globe. Bush will be seeking a muscu-
lar defense secretary who is ready on day
one, and Graham will have earned himself
a high place on the list of candidates.
Carly FiorinaWhat She Could Really Win: Vice President
The former Hewlett-Packard CEO has
never held elected office and may be
most remembered politically for a bizarre
if not engrossing Web video during her
2010 California Senate campaign that
featured “demon sheep.”
Nonetheless, Fiorina has been quietly
traversing the country for months now,
casually doling out her personal cell-
phone number to activists and raising
her profile as the lone potential female
Republican contender.
She’s leaving an impression. Her speech
at a conservative Iowa rally last month
turned heads for its aggressiveness toward
Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton.
When tempted by the herculean challenge of
seeking the presidency, it’s natural for even
the most ambitious politician to ask: Why
run? The more suitable question in the mod-
ern era might be: Why not?
The downsides of mounting a White House bid are
few. Simply flirting with the possibility garners attention,
notoriety and relevance with the media and the general
public. The process fosters otherwise elusive relation-
ships and elite connections, and the payoff is usually a
heightened status as an expert, pundit or pseudo-celeb-
rity. It can produce a bigger book deal, a larger talk show
contract or simply a higher-profile gig afterward.
That’s not to say that all candidates don’t possess some
drive to win. But the harsh reality is almost all of them
won’t, and most don’t really have much of a chance at the
starting gate. And they know it.
Why They Really Run These candidates don’t have much of a shot to win the presidency
By David Catanese
Carly Fiorina could be a good vice presidential candidate.
SCOTT OLSON – GETTY IMAGES
THIS WEEK IN WASHINGTON
9 U.S.NEWS WEEKLY | FEBRUARY 27, 2015 « PREVIOUS PAGE | NEXT PAGE »CONTENTSPRINT
But she’s also making a case for herself in
private one-on-one conversations.
Ovide Lamontagne, a former U.S. Sen-
ate and gubernatorial candidate in New
Hampshire who has strong ties to con-
servative activists, walked away from his
meeting with Fiorina impressed. “I think
she could be a dark horse in this race. She’s
a really solid conservative. Pro-business,
traditional values,” he says.
If, as expected, Clinton is the Demo-
cratic nominee, there will be considerable
pressure for the Republican standard-
bearer to close what’s likely to be a gap-
ing female gender gap. Several women
will have to be seriously considered for
the vice president’s slot. If Fiorina is the
only woman on the stage, that puts her
in a distinct position.
It’s even more advantageous because
there are not that many high-profile GOP
women to choose from. The primary pro-
cess is the grandest tryout stage one can
find, and Fiorina seems poised to seize it.
Rick PerryWhat He Could Really Win: Reputation Recovery
Almost every news organization worth its
salt has written the story in some vari-
ant: Rick Perry, the former governor of
Texas who self-destructed midsentence
in 2011, has learned from
his mistakes and is back
as a better prepared, high-
er-octane version of him-
self. True.
But liking Perry – which
is difficult not to do – and
casting a ballot for him
are two very different ac-
tions. Hence, he has a
Sarah Palin problem: He’s
a candidate who exudes
contagious charisma and
wields natural charm, but
doesn’t quite meet the vi-
ability threshold for the
presidency. With so many other palatable
options on the stage, it will be difficult for
Perry to become the first or second choice
of GOP primary voters.
But this campaign is as much about
Perry cleaning up the damage he did to
his name during his last run as it is about
anything else. Perry’s expectations are now
demonstrably lower than they were when
he brashly rode into the race in the sum-
mer of 2011. If he strings together a couple
solid, error-free debates, commentators
will toss roses at his feet. “Imagine if this
Rick Perry ran the first time,” they’ll coo.
Perry’s bar for success isn’t a win in
Iowa or South Carolina; it’s becoming a
serious, substantive presence while on-
stage with his peers and maybe even mas-
tering a moment that’s all his own. It’s a
restoration project.
Once that’s complete, he can ride back
into the sunset in Texas as the titan ex-gov-
ernor he always yearned to be. And it may
even nab him a Cabinet slot in a Republi-
can administration – just not in one of the
three agencies he vowed to eliminate.
Ben CarsonWhat He Could Really Win: A Talk Show
Ben Carson is a neurologist from Mary-
land who grabbed fame by having the au-
dacity to rip into President Barack Obama
while he was seated just a few feet away at
the National Prayer Breakfast.
Carson’s brand is that he doesn’t do
political correctness. He won’t adhere to
the traditional laws of politics by biting
his tongue or framing his statements so
they don’t offend.
The Islamic State group reminds him
of the American revolutionaries fight-
ing for independence. Obamacare is like
slavery. These are some of his greatest
hits. And when he’s skewered for it, mak-
ing the media the foil as the PC-police is
almost too easy.
Carson doesn’t seem as interested in
building an organization for president as
he does in leading a rabble-rousing move-
ment. As a rare GOP African-American
provocateur, he’s carved out a special
place for himself in a party pining for any
signs of diversity.
Carson won’t be the nominee, but the
draft movement attempting to lure him
into the race is evidence of the following he
could create. His greatest talent is his abil-
ity to pick the pressure points that arouse
the most passion – and that’s a perfect fit
for the television or radio talk show circuit.
The timing also may be perfect: Mike
Huckabee just abandoned his Fox News
show, leaving a vacuum waiting to be
filled. l
THIS WEEK IN WASHINGTON
Ben Carson could end up with a TV show.
CLAY JACKSON – THE ADVOCATE MESSENGER / AP
10 U.S.NEWS WEEKLY | FEBRUARY 27, 2015 « PREVIOUS PAGE | NEXT PAGE »CONTENTSPRINT
The Presidency
The Likability Factor
By Kenneth T. Walsh
His tough-guy exterior was initially considered a plus by
his fans. They billed it as evidence that he could effec-
tively take on special interests and political adversaries
at home and antagonists abroad. But Christie went too
far. He has regularly gotten into dustups with reporters
and citizens who challenge him, sometimes in a rude
and dismissive way. He seems eternally strident. He is
flunking the likability primary.
Former Gov. Jeb Bush of Florida, another Republi-
can, seems too diffident and retiring. This makes him
appear bloodless, which runs counter to likability. He
also faces a difficult problem in trying to deal with
the baggage he carries as the son of former President
There will be many phases in the 2016
presidential race, including the contests
for raising money, framing themes, re-
cruiting strategists, building field organi-
zations, and establishing credibility with
the media. But one phase isn’t getting the
attention it deserves: the likability test. And this could
be the most important of all.
Likability isn’t the only factor in determining who
wins the presidency. The candidates’ stands on issues,
their experience and their records will make a big dif-
ference. But presidents play such a big part in our lives,
and Americans are so enamored of positive personalities
in public figures that being likable has become an indis-
pensable quality for a candidate to have.
Ever since I started covering national presidential
campaigns for U.S. News in 1988, the more likable can-
didate has won. It was Barack Obama over Mitt Romney
in 2012; Obama over John McCain in 2008; George W.
Bush over John Kerry in 2004; Bush over Al Gore in
2000; Bill Clinton over Bob Dole in 1996; Clinton over
George H.W. Bush in 1992, and George H.W. Bush over
Michael Dukakis in 1988. Before that, Ronald Reagan was
more likable than Walter Mondale in 1984 and Jimmy
Carter in 1980, and Reagan won both times.
In the current cycle, even though it’s early, some po-
tential candidates are already coming up short regard-
ing the Likability Factor. Gov. Chris Christie of New
Jersey, a Republican, is emerging as probably the least
likable potential candidate of all. He is widely seen as
a bully and an intimidator, whether that’s fair or not.
George W. Bush was more likable than both Al Gore and John Kerry .
PABLO MARTINEZ MONSIVAIS – AP
11 U.S.NEWS WEEKLY | FEBRUARY 27, 2015 « PREVIOUS PAGE | NEXT PAGE »CONTENTSPRINT
George H.W. Bush and the brother of
President George W. Bush. Dubya’s re-
cord is a particular problem because
he remains so unpopular. Jeb Bush
so far has not set forth his differences
with his father and brother. He doesn’t
want to seem disloyal but also says he
is his own man. It’s a mine field, and
his calculated approach so far hasn’t
been very appealing.
Hillary Clinton, an ex-secretary
of state, former Democratic senator
from New York and former first lady,
has problems in the likability depart-
ment. Obama gave her a backhanded
compliment during their battle for the
2008 Democratic nomination when he
said she was “likable enough.” Yet in
her current incarnation as an expected
candidate and the Democratic front
runner in the polls, she can appear re-
mote and tone-deaf. She has allowed
her family foundation to raise millions
of dollars from foreign sources, raising
conflict-of-interest questions. And this
week she called again for pay equity
for women even though a highly-pub-
licized study by the Washington Free
Beacon found that she paid women
substantially less than men while she
was in the Senate. Unless she finds a
more appealing approach, she may not
be “likable enough” in 2016. A recent
University of New Hampshire poll
found that only 32 percent of voters in
the first primary state say Clinton is
the “most likable” Democratic candi-
date in the race. And while 58 percent
of New Hampshire Democrats support
her for the nomination, her trouble in
the likability department is cause for
concern among her backers. Adding
to her potential problems, the media
are starting to zero in on her efforts to
refresh her image.
Most of the other candidates aren’t
known well enough and haven’t suffi-
ciently displayed their personas on the
national stage for Americans to assess
their likability. But some, like Christie,
come across as too combative and al-
ways itching for a fight. Republican Gov.
Scott Walker of Wisconsin and Republi-
can Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas also may fall
into this pugnacious category.
In the end, likability counts, and can-
didates who ignore or downplay this fac-
tor do so at their peril. l
THE PRESIDENCY
A Long and Storied HistoryQUIZ OF THE WEEK
1. What year did the House of Represen-
tatives have its first electronic vote?
A. 1965
B. 1973
C. 1980
D. 1994
2. Since 1904, the House of
Representatives’ cafeterias have
served which food every day?
A. Butternut squash soup
B. Carrot cake
C. Peach cobbler
D. Bean soup
3. How many women have served as
speaker of the House?
A. 0
B. 1
C. 2
D. 3
4. Congress has met in all of the
following cities except:
A. Boston
B. New York City
C. Philadelphia
D. Washington, D.C.
5. Which state has the most
representatives?
A. New York
B. Texas
C. Florida
D. California
6. What is the minimum age
requirement for a House member?
A. 20
B. 25
C. 30
D. 35
7. The first speaker of the House
was from which state?
A. New York
B. Massachusetts
C. Connecticut
D. Pennsylvania
8. True or False: Individuals have
to live in the district and state
in which they represent.
True
False
9. Who was the first former president to
serve as a representative?
A. James Madison
B. John Quincy Adams
C. Thomas Jefferson
D. Andrew Jackson
By Casey Leins
Unless Hillary Clinton finds a more appealing
approach, she may not be “likable enough” in 2016.
ANSWERS ON PAGE 18 »
12 U.S.NEWS WEEKLY | FEBRUARY 27, 2015 « PREVIOUS PAGE | NEXT PAGE »CONTENTSPRINT
Barack Obama has become a path-
breaker in an unexpected way. He
realizes that Americans today ex-
pect their president not only to be
inspirational, educational, managerial and
empathetic but also to be a part of popular
culture. And he continues to find new ways
to play the role of celebrity in chief.
In some respects he is following the
lead of previous presidents who achieved
superstar status, notably Theodore Roos-
evelt, Franklin D. Roosevelt, John F.
Kennedy, Ronald Reagan and Bill Clin-
ton. These earlier commanders in chief
had charisma, as all true celebrities do –
an aura that made people want to know
what they were like and what their ideas
were. Each mastered the media of their
day and deftly used their notoriety not
just to maintain their fame but also to sell
their agendas. These skills have become
even more necessary in today’s celebrity-
driven culture, and future presidents will
have to adopt some of President Obama’s
media strategies to succeed.
The first true celebrity president –
able to command attention at will and
to capture the nation’s imagination –
SPECIAL REPORT
A Celebrity in the Oval Office President Obama and other presidents before him have become a part of popular culture
By Kenneth T. Walsh
OLIVIER DOULIERY – POOL / GETTY IMAGES
President Obama at the 2014 White House Correspondent’s Association gala
13 U.S.NEWS WEEKLY | FEBRUARY 27, 2015 « PREVIOUS PAGE | NEXT PAGE »CONTENTSPRINT
SPECIAL REPORT
was Theodore Roosevelt. He became
known for leading “the strenuous life,”
his memorable phrase for staying as ac-
tive as possible and excelling at every-
thing he did. Using what he called the
White House “bully pulpit,” he captivated
America with his sparkling and outsized
personality – even inspiring the creation
and popularization of the “teddy bear,”
named after a young animal he famously
spared during a hunting expedition. And
he used his fame to popularize his mus-
cular foreign and domestic policies, such
as his attack on abusive corporations and
greedy millionaires whom he called “the
malefactors of great wealth.”
Franklin D. Roosevelt achieved celeb-
rity status as a leader who empathized
with fellow citizens suffering from the
Depression and, later, became perhaps
the most trusted American commander in
chief ever, during World War II. Everyday
people came to recognize his smooth and
soothing voice on the radio, the dominant
mass medium of the Roosevelt era. And he
used his “fireside chats” to enter America’s
living rooms and to inspire confidence
that the nation would eventually escape
from its economic calamity and win the
war. FDR was the first president to culti-
vate the stars of the entertainment indus-
try, and he built up a huge base of support
among actors and actresses from film and
the stage, which added to his own luster.
John F. Kennedy was America’s lead-
ing man, with looks worthy of a cinema
star and a wife, Jacqueline, whose attrac-
tiveness and charm rivaled her husband’s.
They had style and grace, and the country
loved it. He also was one of the best presi-
dents at promoting himself in the media,
especially on television, which was becom-
ing a huge force in the country.
Kennedy and his advisers encouraged
perceptions of the president as a devoted
family man even though, privately, JFK
was a womanizer who had trouble in
his marriage and lived somewhat reck-
lessly. But Kennedy’s White House team
disseminated stories and striking photo-
graphs illustrating his commitment to his
young children, such as a famous picture
of his son John, Jr. hiding under his fa-
ther’s big desk. Even when JFK skated
close to the edge, it benefited him. Hav-
ing sex symbol Marilyn Monroe sing
“Happy Birthday” at a huge party given
in the president’s honor in 1962 height-
ened his allure as a matinee idol.
Kennedy’s assassination in 1963 added
to his mystique as the noble young scion
John F. Kennedy Jr. playing under his father’s desk in the Oval Office
GETTY IMAGES
14 U.S.NEWS WEEKLY | FEBRUARY 27, 2015 « PREVIOUS PAGE | NEXT PAGE »CONTENTSPRINT
SPECIAL REPORT
of Camelot, where all things seemed pos-
sible, until this brilliant leader was struck
before he could reach his full potential.
Ronald Reagan was unique – the only
president to have been a movie and TV
star. He had performed in a string of
films and hosted the popular “General
Electric Theater” and “Death Valley
Days” on television before he entered
politics and won the governorship of
California. His show business image was
that of a decent and genial Everyman
determined to overcome adversity and
projecting perpetual optimism. This is
what he did as president, and his skills as
a TV performer were second to none. His
speeches were some of the best ever de-
livered by a president, such as his mov-
ing “Boys of Pointe du Hoc” address on
the 40th anniversary of D-Day in 1984
when he paid tribute to the men who had
scaled the cliffs at Normandy and started
the military campaign that freed Europe
from the Nazis in World War II.
Bill Clinton was the perfect represen-
tative of his baby boomer generation in
all its positive and negative aspects. He
had a brilliant mind and kept in con-
stant contact with popular culture, from
movies and television shows to music
and books. Clinton could speak moving-
ly about the needs and strivings of the
middle class and the poor, but he was
also self-indulgent. His affair with for-
mer White House intern Monica Lewin-
sky almost brought down his presidency,
but he survived by successfully making
the case that even if he seemed to be a
rogue in his personal life, he was actu-
ally a good leader. He knew that what the
country wanted most from government
was peace and prosperity, and that’s what
he managed to provide. Because of the
Lewinsky scandal – for which the House
impeached him and the Senate acquit-
ted him – Clinton’s presidency had the
air of a soap opera, adding to his image
as the central figure in a compelling and
suspense-filled real-life drama.
For his part, President Obama has
been a celebrity from day one. He al-
ready made history as the first African-
American president, and the country and
much of the world had extremely high
hopes for him as an agent of change. His
reputation as a potentially transformative
leader resulted in his winning the Nobel
Peace Prize during his first year in office,
even though he hadn’t achieved anything
at that point to match his inspirational
rhetoric from the 2008 campaign. His su-
perstar status held firm during his first
term, and it kept his public approval from
sinking to dangerously low levels even
when the popularity of his policies faded
during his second term.
Obama’s experience showed that ce-
lebrity can be perishable. Americans’
attention spans can be short and their
patience can abruptly evaporate with a
president who fails to deliver on his prom-
ises or to meet expectations. But Obama’s
GETTY IMAGES
Ronald Reagan’s show business image was of a genial Everyman determined to overcome adversity
and projecting perpetual optimism.
Ronald Reagan with his wife Nancy at a premiere party for the film “Moby Dick” in 1956
15 U.S.NEWS WEEKLY | FEBRUARY 27, 2015 « PREVIOUS PAGE | NEXT PAGE »CONTENTSPRINT
SPECIAL REPORT
experience also shows that a president
who deftly manages his celebrity status
can eventually bounce back.
Though Obama’s policies contributed
to the Democratic Party’s losses during
the 2014 midterm elections, resulting
in the Democrats losing control of the
Senate and additional seats in the GOP-
controlled House of Representatives, the
president has since reversed his slide.
To the surprise of many observers, the
president has used his celebrity-in-chief
status to remind people why they liked
him in the first place. He showed that he
was a devoted husband and father, which
added to his likability. He persistently
made the case that he had the middle
class’s interests at heart while opposition
Republicans seemed intent on promoting
the rich and powerful. And he showed
that paying close attention to popular
culture can give a president important
opportunities to promote their agendas
and enhance their personal popularity by
connecting to contemporary lifestyles,
trends, fads and public sentiments.
Just before the Super Bowl earlier
this month, Obama placed himself in the
middle of one of the biggest TV viewing
moments of the year when he gave an
interview to NBC, which was broadcast-
ing the game. This has become an annual
tradition, and Obama made the most of
it. He and interviewer Savannah Guthrie
sampled a honey ale brewed at the White
House with honey from the first lady’s
garden, connecting Obama with the mil-
lions of Americans who gather around
their televisions and consume oceans of
beer on Super Bowl Sunday. He also used
the occasion to make a pitch for his budget
priorities, such as more spending for roads
and education.
In late January, first lady Michelle
Obama, a celebrity in her own right for her
work promoting good nutrition and sup-
porting military families, abruptly jumped
into the culture wars when she praised the
controversial movie “American Sniper.”
Breaking with show-business liberals who
criticized the movie for its positive portray-
al of the late U.S. sniper Chris Kyle, she
said the film could help Americans better
understand the challenges and sacrifices
of military life. “More often than not, this
film touches on many of the emotions and
experiences I have heard firsthand from
military families over [these] past few
years,” she told a conference.
A major objective of both Obamas has
been to enter popular culture more ex-
tensively than any of their predecessors.
And a big part of their strategy has been
to bypass the “mainstream news media,”
such as the broadcast networks and the
major newspapers, and to take their mes-
sage to the country and as many different
segments of the population as possible.
President Obama recently told Vox, a news
site described by the president as “for the
brainiac-nerd types,” that his White House
successor will need to follow his lead and
circumvent the MSM , as he has done, to
speak directly to as many different seg-
ments of the population as possible.
“The balkanization of the media means
that we just don’t have a common place
where we get common facts and a com-
mon worldview the way we did 20, 30
years ago,” Obama said. He added: “My
advice to a future president is increas-
ingly try to bypass the traditional venues
that create divisions and try to find new
venues within this new media that are
quirkier, less predictable.”
To Obama, this means giving inter-
views to late-night comedy show hosts
such as Jimmy Fallon; daytime entertain-
ment shows such as “The View”; niche
shows such as “Between Two Ferns” with
Zack Galifianakis and YouTube celebrities
such as GloZell. It also means communi-
cating through the White House website
and social media such as Twitter.
Overall, the lesson from Obama’s expe-
rience has been that being the celebrity in
chief and participating in popular culture
can help to improve a president’s effective-
ness and build goodwill. Capitalizing on
stardom has become a vital tool that oc-
cupants of the Oval Office will need to use
as much as possible in the future. l
Adapted from Kenneth T. Walsh’s “Celebrity in Chief: A History of the Presidents and the Culture of Stardom”
(Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers, 2013). Permission courtesy of Paradigm Publishers.
Obama showed that paying close attention to popular culture can give presidents important
opportunities to promote their agendas.
16 U.S.NEWS WEEKLY | FEBRUARY 27, 2015 « PREVIOUS PAGE | NEXT PAGE »CONTENTSPRINT
King v. Burwell, the Obamacare-
related case which the Supreme
Court will hear on Wednesday,
represents a critical test of politi-
cal legitimacy and viability – not for the
Affordable Care Act but for the court.
The decision the justices hand down will
speak to their intellectual honesty and ul-
timately the body’s integrity.
The case hinges on the section of the
law dealing with the tax subsidies that
help people pay for health insurance; it
says people who are enrolled in a health
care “Exchange established by the state”
are eligible. The plaintiffs in the case as-
sert that this should be interpreted to
exclude people on federal exchanges (es-
tablished in the 34 states which refused
to set up their own such marketplaces).
The subsidies are a critical underpinning
of the law; their getting knocked out of
federal exchanges would result in “mas-
sive damage,” as Secretary of Health and
Human Services Sylvia Burwell put it in
a letter to lawmakers this week. It could
trigger a death spiral in the exchanges as
people who could no longer afford health
insurance drop it, especially the young
and healthy, leaving a smaller, sicker risk
pool and thus skyrocketing rates. A RAND
Corporation study released earlier this
month estimated that an adverse ruling
would cause 8 million people to lose their
coverage and the health insurance premi-
ums of those who hadn’t been getting tax
subsidies to rise by 47 percent. In addi-
tion, the insurance companies themselves
could face insolvency, according to a letter
the American Academy of Actuaries sent
to Burwell this week.
So the stakes are huge. But the case
itself is, quite honestly, absurd.
Start with the question of legislative in-
tent. The plaintiffs argue that the phrasing
was the residue of a Democratic plan to use
the denial of subsidies as a stick to force
states to set up exchanges. Not only do the
law’s sponsors and the staffers who han-
dled it say that’s flat wrong but there’s no
evidence that anyone, the law’s critics or its
proponents, held this novel view while the
law was being debated and passed. If any-
thing, the contemporaneous reporting and
commentary indicate an expectation that
the subsidies would apply to every state.
Indeed, the Congressional Budget Office
and the Joint Committee on Taxation both
issued estimates about the law with that
assumption – estimates that Republicans
cited without qualification. So too the GOP
failed to ever decry this impending federal
extortion of the states. Further, while a
half-dozen state attorneys general filed an
amicus brief now claiming that their states
opted not to set up exchanges in order to
avoid the tax subsidies regime, George-
town University’s Center on Health Insur-
ance Reforms studied the public reasons
for states not setting up exchanges; they
“found no evidence that states weighed
the possibility that premium tax credits
would not be available in federally run
exchanges.” Moreover 23 other attorneys
general filed a brief on the government’s
behalf arguing that no state “had reason to
believe that choosing a federally-facilitat-
ed Exchange would alter so fundamental
a feature of the ACA as the availability of
tax credits.” Hell, as Yale Law professor
Abbe Gluck noted, even the justices who
dissented from the Obamacare-preserving
2012 decision in NFIB v. Sebelius thought
the tax supports applied to all states, as
did the anti-Obamacare state governments
which weighed in.
All this recalls the scene from “Dr.
Strangelove” when the Russian ambassa-
No, Democrats didn’t deliberately design
Obamacare to not work the way they wanted it to.
The Silliest Obamacare Challenge Yet
CAPITAL NOTIONS By Robert Schlesinger
17 U.S.NEWS WEEKLY | FEBRUARY 27, 2015 « PREVIOUS PAGE | NEXT PAGE »CONTENTSPRINT
dor reveals the doomsday device. As the
titular scientist points out, “The whole
point of a doomsday machine is lost if
you keep it a secret. Why didn’t you tell
the world, eh?” We’re supposed to believe
that Democrats thought this doomsday
clause could compel recalcitrant states
… but never told anyone about it? And
having abandoned the scheme, the presi-
dent, members of Congress and their
respective sprawling staffs kept it an
absolute secret – unmentioned in the
myriad articles or books about the law’s
contentious enactment – until years later
conservatives divined it through deduc-
tive inference when they were fishing for
a court case?
Of course intent may prove irrelevant.
Textualists on the court – led by Antonin
Scalia – profess to believe that the law
says what it says and what it was meant
to say is beside the point. So as Gluck
argued, this is a textualist test because
their theory isn’t meant to cherry-pick
individual phrases but to look at a law
as a whole. And in the broader context
of the act, interpreting Obamacare to
deny subsidies to those on federal ex-
changes doesn’t make any sense. The act
is “slashed to pieces under the challeng-
ers’ reading,” she writes. Indeed a recent
article in the University of Miami Law
School’s Business Law Review tallied no
less than 50 provisions in the law that
“would be made anomalous, if not ab-
surd” under that reading. One example:
Only “qualified individuals” may buy in-
surance on an exchange; but such people
are deemed qualified only mif they live in
the “State that established the Exchange.”
But if the federal exchanges don’t count as
being state-established, then no one could
qualify to buy insurance on them. Huh?
The question then is whether the
court’s conservatives are textualists, will-
ing to read the law as a logical whole, or
Moops-ists, to borrow an analogy from
New York Magazine’s Jonathan Chait,
ready to fit their philosophy to the parti-
san demands of the moment. “Seinfeld”
fans will recall the famous episode in-
volved George Costanza getting in a fight
with a “Bubble Boy” over a misprinted
Trivial Pursuit answer to the question of
who invaded Spain in the 8th century.
Are the high court’s conservatives ready
to say, in effect, that they’re sorry but the
law says “Moops”? l
In many nations today, corruption pervades every
level of society. When people in these countries fi-
nally rebel out of frustration, their response often
takes extreme forms. According to Sarah Chayes,
senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for In-
ternational Peace and author of “Thieves of State:
Why Corruption Threatens Global Security,” this kind
of malfeasance often is mischaracterized as a conse-
quence of internal security crises when it is really the
cause. Chayes, who was inspired to write the book after
spending 10 years in Afghanistan during the Taliban
insurgency, shows how corruption has been destabi-
lizing countries for centuries and how it consistently
undermines international efforts to achieve long-term
global stability. Excerpts:
Why did you decide to write the book?
Corruption became the focus of my work in Afghani-
stan, but what drove me ultimately to write the book
was a speech that I gave in early 2010 to an audience
of about 250 counternarcotics officers from 45 coun-
tries. The talk was on the opium economy in southern
Afghanistan, but I couldn’t resist including two slides
that diagrammed how the Afghan government was
functioning as a vertically integrated criminal organi-
zation. I expected those to be throwaway slides but, to
my amazement, people lined up to tell me that I had
just described their own country. In every one of these
countries , there was a violent, religious insurgency. I
thought: There’s a cause and effect here that everyone
is missing, and I need to explore it more deeply.
Robbing Their People BlindBy Maura Hohman
BOOK CLUBThe WashingtonCAPITAL NOTIONS
Will the GOP pay a price if Obamacare is gutted? Weigh in at [email protected].
18 U.S.NEWS WEEKLY | FEBRUARY 27, 2015 « PREVIOUS PAGE | NEXT PAGE »CONTENTSPRINT
You suggest corruption has risen in many
nations since the 1990s. What caused this?
My hypothesis is that it’s connected to the
collapse of communism. This change in
political ethics took the brakes off leaders
who had been constrained in their public
behavior by the communist ethos. It also
linked excessive wealth to virtue.
What are the different forms of corruption?
One type is petty corruption, which re-
fers to shakedowns of regular people by
government officials. Another is pub-
lic procurement theft, or siphoning off
public money via padded contracts.
There’s also the use of bureaucracy as
an enforcement arm for the kleptocratic
elite. The equivalent of the IRS in Tuni-
sia often would allow businesspeople not
to pay their taxes so long as they gave a
cut of their profits to the ruling family.
Then there’s high-level corruption – the
siphoning off of revenues at the top. But
these aren’t separate activities. Corrup-
tion at the bottom and in the middle
feeds the guys at the top.
What is the connection between government
corruption and religious extremism?
For a decade, I watched how the in-
creasingly abusive and flagrant cor-
ruption of [former Afghan President
Hamid] Karzai’s regime (and the U.S.
role in enabling that) drove people into
the arms of the Taliban. Think of how
you feel after three wasted hours in the
DMV, when you’ve got no recourse,
when you’ve been insulted, when you
know the money taken from you will go
in someone [else’s] pocket, and when
this happens for the fifth time. You want
to shoot someone, and the Taliban are
there with a gun. Corruption isn’t the
only driver of religious extremism and
revolution, but it’s an accelerant.
What kind of corruption is in the U.S.?
Look at the inordinate role that Wall
Street and the energy, health and mili-
tary-contracting industries have had in
determining U.S. public policy. Look at
the financial meltdown of 2008 and the
incredibly little [amount of] personal
accountability that has been imposed
on the individuals whose decisions led to
that meltdown. We’re on the continuum.
How should the U.S. engage with corrupt
governments?
People need to demand better from their
own governing elite, but the U.S. can do
more to support their efforts. It [could
use] visa denials, asset forfeiture, the
Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and con-
straints on military assistance [to pres-
sure individual] countries. Ordinary peo-
ple can boycott banks serving as money
launderers for criminals and kleptocrats,
as well as law firms defending corrupt
government officials.
Will corruption ever cease to be a political
or security issue?
I don’t think it ever will because humans
have conflicting instincts behind their
behavior. One is greed; another is a de-
sire for justice. As long as we have greed
plus ingenuity, we’ll be corrupt.
What do you hope readers will take away
from the book?
The issue of corruption is urgent and
immediate. If we care about our secu-
rity, we need to reduce how our govern-
ment enables corruption abroad. We
also need to look at the subtle ways our
political process is being corrupted in
America. If we don’t want to lose our
republic, then we better get indignant
and do something about it. l
Ordinary people can boycott banks serving as
money launderers for criminals and kleptocrats.
1. B. 1973
2. D. Bean soup
3. B. 1
4. A. Boston
5. D. California
6. B. 25
7. D. Pennsylvania
8. False
9. B. John Quincy Adams
Answers to Quiz
« BACK TO PAGE 11Does corruption pose a threat to America’s future? Weigh in at [email protected].
THE WASHINGTON BOOK CLUB
LOG IN TO YOUR ACCOUNTwww.usnews.com/usnewsweekly
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR E-mail: [email protected]
SPECIAL EDITIONS Best Colleges and more
www.usnews.com/store
REPRINTS AND PERMISSIONS Custom reprints:
[email protected] All other permissions:
ADVERTISING AND CORPORATE http://mediakit.usnews.com
Copyright @ 2015 by U.S.News & World Report Inc. All rights reserved. U.S.News Weekly is currently published weekly by U.S.News
& World Report Inc., 4 New York Plaza, New York, NY 10004. Double issues, when published, count as two issues.
19 U.S.NEWS WEEKLY | FEBRUARY 27, 2015 « PREVIOUS PAGE | NEXT PAGE »CONTENTSPRINT
Recent chatter from the Thomas Jefferson Street bloggers, who weigh in on current events at usnews.com
The political – not scientific – definition that pregnancy begins at fer-
tilization was also the core of the Hobby Lobby case in which five male
justices decided belief, not science, was sufficient reason for employers
to deny birth control coverage to their female employees. According to a
friend of the court brief filed in the Hobby Lobby case by Physicians for Reproduc-
tive Health, which includes the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecolo-
gists, Hobby Lobby et al “fail to cite any scientific authority for their assertions that
any FDA-approved contraceptives are abortifacients ... there is no scientific evi-
dence that emergency contraceptives available in the United States and approved
by the FDA effect an existing pregnancy. None, therefore are properly classified
as abortifacients.” As reproductive health advocates have pointed out, if you take
emergency contraception while you’re pregnant, you’re still pregnant.
Is a deal with Iran, which is probably the largest sponsor of terror groups
anywhere on the globe, at the expense of the security of Israel, America’s
strongest ally in the Middle East, worth it? What does the United States
get out of that? And can we really trust the religious fanatics who actu-
ally run Iran to behave responsibly with nuclear weapons should they ever acquire
the ability to manufacture them? These are the questions we should be asking. This
should be the topic of the national conversation about the president, not whether
he loves his country. America is not perfect because human beings are not perfect.
We expect, rightfully, that all our leaders will have flaws of one sort or another.
Whether those flaws affect their ability to preserve, protect and defend the Consti-
tution of the United States and the nation they lead is another subject entirely, and
one that it is never out of bounds to discuss.
The perpetually low ratings at MSNBC have long been a source of merri-
ment for conservatives, who point to it as evidence of the failure not just of
a liberal network but of liberal ideas. But MSNBC’s shortcomings are not a
function of ideology but of format. Lay that at the feet of folks like Jon Stew-
art and Stephen Colbert. As the fake newsmen wrap up their popular shows, they leave
a legacy of liberal skepticism not just toward right-wing media but toward political
media more broadly. Skewering the staples of cable-news punditry, Stewart and Col-
bert laid bare its inanity: the endless shouting, the meaningless talking points, the in-
escapable echo chamber. True, conservative media were most often in the comedians’
crosshairs, but viewers couldn’t help coming away with a distrust of all cable news.
In the history of feel-good and soon-to-be forgotten feminist hashtags,
#AskHerMore’s moment in the viral spotlight at Sunday’s Oscars surely
ranks among the more ridiculous. The campaign, an initiative of the Rep-
resentation Project, encouraged red carpet interviewers at the Academy
Awards to focus less on what designers the starlets happened to be hawking (err,
wearing) and more on, well, the great depths of non-sartorial wisdom of which said
focus had presumably denied us. As Reese Witherspoon, a key champion of the ef-
fort, declared on the red carpet: “We are more than just our dresses.” That may very
well be the case the other 364 days of the year. But on this night of all nights, the femi-
nist push – much like Patricia Arquette’s plea for pay equality during her acceptance
speech for winning best supporting actress – came off as more than a little ham-fisted.
BLOG BUZZ LAURA CHAPIN
Reproductively Illiterate
PETER ROFF
The Conversation America Should Be Having
NICOLE HEMMER
Blame Jon Stewart for MSNBC’s Problems
BREE HOCKING
It’s Not About the Dress?
More wit and insight from Thomas Jefferson Street are at www.usnews.com/opinion.
20 U.S.NEWS WEEKLY | FEBRUARY 27, 2015 « PREVIOUS PAGE | NEXT PAGE »CONTENTSPRINT
Avoiding a TermPresident Barack Obama’s unwilling-
ness to call terrorists “Islamic” is sound
despite the fact that these extremist fac-
tions consistently invoke Islam to justify
their bloody deeds [Editor’s Note, Feb.
20]. But publicly acknowledging them as
Islamic, even accurately as fanatical ones,
plays into their hands by legitimizing
them, thereby allowing them to promote
their “clash of civilizations” objective
– Islam vs. the West (the Crusaders all
over again) – which serves as a terrorist
recruitment tool. Obama is right to em-
phasize that we’re not at war with Islam
but with perverters of Islam because ul-
timately, only until and unless moderate
Muslims actively take up the fight against
such radicals, can this scourge be defeat-
ed. The extremists’ depraved ideology
must be irradicated, and that’s not going
to be accomplished by Western ideology
or by Western force, which, even if suc-
cessful in the short run, would be coun-
terproductive. Moderate Muslims must
be not just our allies but in the forefront.
After all, it’s their religion that’s being
denigrated – and that should be sufficient
motivation for them to act. Who wants
their religion held up as an example of
such God/Allah-awful brutality?
Richard Palzer
Clarendon Hills, Illinois
Too Much Power?I do not think that [the Authorization
for Use of Military Force] would give the
president too much power [“A Battle Over
Force,” Feb. 13]. I believe he is showing the
right initiative in doing something about
[the Islamic State group]. There is clearly
a determined passivity to do nothing more,
because of what seems like another bloody
battle, but the president is clearly taking
responsibility for a conflict, not brought
on by allies and is standing up for human
rights. Somebody must stand up to [the
Islamic State group] for their crimes, and
the president is just doing the right thing.
Mike Finnerty Markham, Ontario
Correction: “Hitting a Legal Roadblock,”
Feb. 20 incorrectly identified Andrew
Hanen and included an incorrect date.
Hanen is a district court judge and part
of President Barack Obama’s immigration
order would have begun on Feb. 18.
[email protected] CAROLYN KASTER – AP
Rudy Giuliani ac-
cused President
Barack Obama of
not loving his coun-
try, but the story
became one about Scott Walker.
The Wisconsin governor and
currently trending presidential
prospect was on stage when the
former New York mayor made
his remarks, which provoked
media calls for him to repudiate
Rudy. One commentator even
called Walker a coward. He was
archly asked if he thought Obama
was a Christian. Walker smacked
back saying he had no place in
such discussions, adding that the
media was one-sidedly baiting
Republicans. Does Walker have a
point? Is he the victim of “gotcha”
questioning? Or, as a leading pos-
sibility for a presidential nomina-
tion, should he be grilled on his
views about the sitting president?
We’d like to hear your thoughts at
By Brian Kelly EDITOR’S NOTE
21 U.S.NEWS WEEKLY | FEBRUARY 27, 2015 « PREVIOUS PAGE | NEXT PAGE »CONTENTSPRINT
Something’s wrong with this pic-
ture. A man fearing for his life
calls 911. He is roundly rebuked,
told to call again because he didn’t
say ‘please’ nicely. Absurd of course, but
it is roughly where we are in the serial
denunciation of Israeli Prime Minister
Benjamin Netanyahu for daring to speak
to a joint session of Congress next week
about the mortal threat he sees looming
for his country.
Actually, he did inform the White
House of his intent, despite the admin-
istration’s spin, and despite erroneous re-
ports to the contrary for which the New
York Times, for one, had the decency to
admit its mistake. But it didn’t stop Sec-
retary John Kerry’s abrasive attack on
Netanyahu’s “judgment” and National
Security Advisor Susan Rice deploring
the prime minister for damaging the fab-
ric of the U.S. relationship. Wait a min-
ute. Isn’t a prime minister right to be very
concerned about a sworn enemy dedi-
cated, given half a chance, to destroying
the fabric of the nation he has a sacred
duty to protect? As for his judgment, is
he not exercising elementary prudence
to be alarmed by what normally well-
informed people are seeing through the
sieve of secrecy? Survival, not protocol, is
the issue of the hour. “The U.S. has gone
a long way” toward accepting Iran’s posi-
tion on nuclear negotiations, David Al-
bright, head of the Institute for Science
and International Security told the Wall
Street Journal.
The U.S. had wanted to restrain Teh-
ran’s nuclear activities for 20 years, but
Tehran called for no more than a 10-
year freeze. A shorter freeze would per-
mit Iran then to increase its capacity
to enrich uranium and get dangerously
close – a year or less – to bomb-making
capabilities.
Sen. Bob Corker of Tennessee, chair-
man of the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee, told the Wall Street Journal
that a 10-year time frame wasn’t long
enough to truly curb Iran’s nuclear am-
bition. “If you are going to do all of this,”
he said, “and then just end up with a 10-
year agreement, you just really haven’t
accomplished near what people had
hoped.” That time frame would be “very
concerning,” Corker said. “About the
time they’re beginning to do what they
should be doing, they’d be out from under
the regime” of sanctions imposed by the
major powers.
At a security conference in Munich,
Israeli Intelligence Minister Yuval
Steinitz said that the U.S. has given Iran
too much ground on central issues: the
number of centrifuges it would be per-
mitted to continue operating; research
into more advanced centrifuges; and the
storage and dismantling of mothballed
centrifuge arrays. According to the Fi-
nancial Times, Steinitz said that with-
out a comprehensive ban on centrifuge
research, Iran could completely and le-
gally undermine any deal.
The agreement, if indeed it is signed,
would allow Iran to become a thresh-
old nuclear state and with the consent
of the major powers. Iran, which open-
ly declares its intention to destroy the
state of Israel, will receive a license to
develop the production of bombs, Ne-
tanyahu said according to the Jerusa-
lem Post. After the period expires, the
Islamic Republic would be allowed to
gradually resume its activities.
One alternative would be to bridge
the differences between the two sides
over how long an agreement should last.
Netanyahu’s Mandate
EDITORIAL By Mortimer B. Zuckerman
The agreement, if indeed it is signed, would
allow Iran to become a threshold nuclear state.
22 U.S.NEWS WEEKLY | FEBRUARY 27, 2015 « PREVIOUS PAGE | NEXT PAGE »CONTENTSPRINT
For example, there should be strict con-
straints on the number of centrifuges
for the first 10 years of a potential 15-
year agreement. That would allow the
Iranians to say the tough constraints
would last only 10 years and the Amer-
icans to say they have a 15-year agree-
ment, according to the New York Times.
It would give the U.S. and Israel time
to do something if Iran races for the
bomb. But of course, this and any other
deal would have to find a way to cut off
any other alternative for Iran to get to
a nuclear weapon by covert means. And
a key imperative would be highly intru-
sive inspections.
Inspections! The history of the nucle-
ar talks is a history of sudden surpris-
es. The deputy director of the National
Council of Resistance of Iran, Alireza
Jafarzadeh, had this to say about Iran’s
claim it has been transparent about its
enrichment activities, according to the
Jerusalem Post: “Since 2008 the Iranian
regime has secretly engaged in research
and uranium enrichment with advanced
... centrifuge machines at” a military base
on the northeastern suburbs of Tehran
called Lavizan-3.
No wonder the Israelis are alarmed to
see the U.S. come so far from its promises
that Iran would never be allowed a bomb,
and nowhere near the conduct President
Barack Obama envisaged in his heady
Nowruz vision in 2013 of Iran rejoining
the community of nations. Steinitz con-
cedes Iran has made “substantial conces-
sions” on delivering abroad most of its
stockpile but he sees clearly the threat
remaining: “For a 10-year delay [in Iran’s
nuclear program] you are sacrificing the
future of Israel and the U.S., and the fu-
ture of the world.”
One dimension of this is the nature
of the absolute ruler of Iran, the Ayatol-
lah Khamenei. Read what he has said. He
has called for the destruction of Israel,
saying the “barbaric” Jewish state “has
no cure but to be annihilated.” Indeed a
plan last year entitled “9 Key Questions
About Elimination of Israel” was posted
on his Twitter account using the hashtag
#HandsOffAlAqsa, in reference to recent
tensions on the Temple Mount. Here is
Khamenei’s rationale for replacing Israel
with a Palestinian state: First he stated
that “the fake Zionist regime has tried to
realize its goals by means of infanticide,
homicide, violence & iron fist while boast
about it blatantly.” Therefore, Khamenei
argues “The only means of bringing Is-
raeli crimes to an end is the elimination
of this regime.” His solution to destroying
Israel without such a massacre, what he
calls the proper way of eliminating Israel,
is “a public and organized referendum”
for all the “original people of Palestine
including Muslims, Christians, and Jews
wherever they are.” However, “the Jew-
ish immigrants who have been persuaded
into emigration to Palestine do not have
the right to take part.” The resulting gov-
ernment would then decide if the “non-
Palestine emigrants” can remain in the
country or should “return to their home
countries.” Until the referendum, Israel
should be confronted with “resolute and
armed resistance.” He rejected “arbitra-
tion by U.N. or other international orga-
nizations.” But, he wrote, “this barbaric,
wolf-like & infanticidal regime of #Israel,
which spares no crime, has no cure but
to be annihilated.”
The Iranian Supreme Leader also
called for the arming of Palestinians in
the West Bank in July, and in late August
Iran said it was stepping up efforts to arm
West Bank Palestinians for battle against
Israel with the Basij militia chief Moham-
mad Reza Naqdi saying the move would
lead to Israel’s annihilation, according to
Iran’s Fars news agency. “The Zionists
should know that the next war won’t be
confined to the present borders and the
Mujahadeen will push them back,” said
Naqdi, who claimed that much of the ter-
ror group Hamas’ arsenal, training and
technical knowhow in the recent conflict
with Israel was supplied by Iran, accord-
ing The Times of Israel.
Is this a leader we can trust not to put
a nuclear warhead on intercontinental
missiles with a range reaching even be-
yond Europe? Is this a leader who would
never use nuclear blackmail?
Even the Obama administration has
described Iran as the greatest threat to
world peace and has made many prom-
ises over the last six years on Iran, not to
mention pledges to Israel, which stands
to lose the most. Unfortunately too
many of these statements have taken on
a hollow ring, leaving Netanyahu alone
to make his country’s case to Congress
and, if regretfully necessary, to defend it
against Iran. l
EDITORIAL
Is Israel alone in defending itself against Iran? Weigh in at [email protected].
There should be strict constraints on the number
of centrifuges for the first 10 years of an agreement.
23 U.S.NEWS WEEKLY | FEBRUARY 27, 2015 « PREVIOUS PAGECONTENTSPRINT
BRETT ZIEGLER FOR USN&WR
Chinatown
THE BIG PICTURE