Newsweek editor Jon Meacham's enthusiasm for Dick Cheney is not a new thing. Appearing on MSNBC back in 2004, Meacham praised the Republican National Convention speeches of Cheney and Sen. Zell Miller:

If I taught at the Kennedy School, I would take these two speeches as ur-text of partisan rhetoric. I think it was a brilliant tactical night, one of the most brilliant in the age of television. These were two concise, rather devastating rhetorical hits at John Kerry. And there was just--they did not miss a base. They did not miss anything that they could hit.

The remarkable thing about those two speeches was their breathtaking dishonesty. (See "If Only They Had Invented the Internet," FAIR Media Advisory, 9/3/04.) Those were the speeches in which Miller and Cheney claimed that Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry was opposed to all U.S. weapon systems, had promised to give the U.N. a veto over U.S. military action, and so on--all blatant falsehoods.  If you saw that non-stop parade of lies as "brilliant," then maybe it's not so surprising that you would be looking forward to Dick Cheney running for president.

Newsweek's editor apparently believes this is the way to make a "provocative" argument:

I think we should be taking the possibility of a Dick Cheney bid for the Republican presidential nomination in 2012 more seriously, for a run would be good for the Republicans and good for the country. (The sound you just heard in the background was liberal readers spitting out their lattes.)

Calm down, caffeinated liberals! Meacham explains:

Why? Because Cheney is a man of conviction, has a record on which he can be judged, and whatever the result, there could be no ambiguity about the will of the people. The best way to settle arguments is by having what we used to call full and frank exchanges about the issues, and then voting. A contest between Dick Cheney and Barack Obama would offer us a bracing referendum on competing visions. One of the problems with governance since the election of Bill Clinton has been the resolute refusal of the opposition party (the GOP from 1993 to 2001, the Democrats from 2001 to 2009, and now the GOP again in the Obama years) to concede that the president, by virtue of his victory, has a mandate to take the country in a given direction.

What, exactly, did George W. Bush not get from the Democratic opposition?

More fundamentally, though--is there really a sound argument to be made in favor of Congress relinquishing its constitutional obligations in order to allow the executive branch to "take the country in a given direction"?

Somehow it gets worse:

A campaign would also give us an occasion that history denied us in 2008: an opportunity to adjudicate the George W. Bush years in a direct way. As John McCain pointed out in the fall of 2008, he is not Bush. Nor is Cheney, but the former vice president would make the case for the harder-line elements of the Bush world view.

Two-term presidents do not run for a third term in this country. And the notion that history "denied" us the chance to register our feelings about the Bush presidency is strange, considering that votes in 2006 and 2008 seemed to express that disapproval rather clearly.

As if it weren't bad enough, Meacham closes by arguing that Cheney could pull national politics to the "middle":

Historically the country has tended to muddle through somewhere between the extremes of right and left. There is often much virtue in conducting public life by fits and starts. When things drift too far one way in ideological terms, Americans are pretty good about tugging them back to the middle.

But the middle moves depending on where the poles of right and left are standing at a particular moment. Given Cheney's views, even conservatives who dislike him or think it is time to open a new chapter might give the possibility another thought, for it seems much more likely that Cheney would pull Obama to the right than that Obama would pull Cheney to the left. I think it is safe to say that neither a Huckabee nor a Palin bid would have the same effect.

It's a strange worldview that sees Obama as a left-wing extremist who needs to be pulled to the right--and thinks it would be a bad thing for Cheney to be pulled to the left.

How many times does nuclear power get to have a "comeback"?

At least one more, the Washington Post Anthony Faiola reports today (11/24/09), under the headline "Nuclear Power Regains Support," and the subheads "Tool Against Climate Change" and "Even Green Groups See It as 'Part of the Answer.'"  The "greening of nuclear power" story is a perennial corporate media favorite (Extra!, 1-2/08), and no example of the genre would be complete without the environmentalist-turned-nuclear-lobbyist whose financial ties to the nuclear industry go politely unmentioned.

In this case, it's Stephen Tindale, described as the former head of Greenpeace's British office and not described as former head of communications and public affairs for npower renewables, a subsidiary of the energy company RWE, whose website declares: "Building new nuclear power stations is a key part of our commitment to meet the UK’s energy needs and to reduce carbon dioxide intensity. We have formed a joint venture with E.ON UK to develop at least 6GW of new nuclear capacity in the U.K."

So, aside from people who have been paid by the nuclear power industry, who are the "green groups" that the subhead promises see nuclear power as "part of the answer"? The article cites two groups who support the climate change bill currently before Congress, which includes nuclear subsidies--the Sierra Club and the Environmental Defense Fund. But both groups are still opposed to nuclear power--the Sierra Club's official position is still the one it passed in 1974, declaring that  "The Sierra Club opposes the licensing, construction and operation of new nuclear reactors utilizing the fission process" until safety, waste and proliferation issues are addressed; the group's magazine (1-2/07), addressing the climate change issue, concludes that "virtually every other form of power is cheaper and less risky."

The Environmental Defense Fund, meanwhile, declares in a 2005 statement that "serious questions of safety, security, waste and proliferation surround the issue of nuclear power. Until these questions are resolved satisfactorily, Environmental Defense cannot support an expansion of nuclear generating capacity."

So it doesn't sound like either of the green groups cited by Faiolo actually view nuclear power as "part of the answer." It's safe to say that reporting like the Washington Post's, which always looks for the corporate-friendliest solution to any environmental issue, is part of the problem.

The New York Times' reporter on the climate beat, Andrew Revkin, had a front-page story this weekend (11/20/09) detailing the contents of climate scientists' private emails discussing global warming. Predictably, the emails are being taken out of context by climate change deniers--but more interesting to me is the fact that the focus is on the content of the emails, not on the fact that they were illegally obtained.

That's not the way corporate media handled the illegally taped cell phone call between Newt Gingrich, John Boehner and other Republican congressmembers in which Gingrich violated the terms of a ethics sanction by strategizing about how to minimize the charges against him. In that case, they focused on the illegality of the taping--and the unauthorized leaking of the tape by Rep. Jim McDermott (D.-Wash.).

That's also not how the press handled the case of  Cincinnati Enquirer reporter Michael Gallagher, who illegally listened to voicemails at the Chiquita corporation in pursuit of a series of stories that charged the company with involvement in bribery, fraud and the abuse of workers. Again, the wrongdoing that was considered newsworthy was the reporter's, not the target of his investigation.

It's hard to imagine what ethical code would tell journalists to ignore information about corporate skullduggery or congressional ethics violations if it was obtained through illicit means, but if it concerns the academic politics of climate scientists--dig in!

Claiming that "something needs to be done--and fast" to save Social Security, Parade magazine's Gary Weiss (11/22/09) suggests a downside to the idea of raising the ceiling on taxed income, so that income above the current $106,800 would be subject to the Social Security tax: "Raising the cap is popular among Social Security reformers but would increase the tax burden on the middle class, since more of their income would be subject to the tax. " (By contrast, "Raising the payroll tax rate would disproportionately affect lower-income workers.")

According to the Census Bureau, less than 5 percent of individuals over the age of 15 in the U.S. have incomes exceeding $100,000 a year.  That's a peculiar definition of "the middle class."

If Weiss truly believes that "experts agree that the longer we wait, the more difficult it will be to solve the system’s financial ills," he ought to read Dean Baker and Mark Weisbrot's Social Security: The Phony Crisis.

The New York Times (11/23/09) has an editorial on its front page today disguised as a news story.

Appearing under the headline "Federal Government Faces Balloon in Debt Payments," Times business reporter Edmund Andrews makes an impassioned plea for the neo-Hooverist economics popular in corporate media: Claiming that "the government faces a payment shock similar to those that sent legions of overstretched homeowners in default on their mortgages," Andrews maintains that "there is little doubt that the United States' long-term budget crisis is becoming too big to postpone."

There's not a lot of news in this ostensible news article; it appears to be largely based on the Office of Management and Budget's Mid-Session Review, which came out on August 25. And many of the facts derived therefrom are dubious or misleading; for example, the piece claims that "government debt has almost doubled in the last two years alone"; actually, gross federal debt is estimated at $12.9 trillion in 2009, and was $8.9 trillion in 2007; that's a far cry from almost doubling.

What's not in the piece or in the government forecast is anything to back up the idea that the federal debt situation is akin to an overstretched homeowner about to default on a mortgage; as economist Dean Baker (Beat the Press, 11/23/09) points out, "There is no evidence presented in this article that the rise in interest rates will place the U.S. government in a situation where it will be unable to pay its bills and no one cited in this article makes such a claim."

But Andrews' piece is not really about evidence so much as it about the personal intuition that just as individuals need to tighten their belts in hard times, so too should the federal government.  As Andrews writes:

Americans now have to climb out of two deep holes: as debt-loaded consumers, whose personal wealth sank along with housing and stock prices; and as taxpayers, whose government debt has almost doubled in the last two years alone, just as costs tied to benefits for retiring baby boomers are set to explode.

It's natural to conclude that frugality is the necessary penance to pay for profligacy--even more natural for Edmund Andrews, who wrote a whole book about his family's debt woes.  Applying that intuition to federal fiscal policy, however, is disastrous--that's why Herbert Hoover is supposed to be your model of how not to respond to a financial crisis.

And if you talk to economists, chances are that at least some of them will point out to you that deficit reduction is not what the United States needs right now.  For example, you could talk to economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, who writes in the same edition of the paper (11/23/09), "Most economists I talk to believe that the big risk to recovery comes from the inadequacy of government efforts: The stimulus was too small, and it will fade out next year, while high unemployment is undermining both consumer and business confidence." (Give the Times credit for including some op-ed antidote to its front-page poison.)

But as Andrews' piece is an editorial only appearing by accident on the front page, he doesn't feel obligated to quote anyone who might question his instinct for austerity.  Instead he talks to the Concord Coalition, the vehicle billionaire Pete Peterson uses to express his opposition to government spending, and to a manager of the world's largest bond fund, who warns us against eating our nuts.

The piece closes by quoting the Treasury Borrowing Advisory Committee--IDed by Andrews as a group of "private-sector...market experts"--as saying that inflation ought to be our big worry and "fiscal prudence" our watchword.  Who is this committee, actually? It's chaired by someone from JP Morgan Chase, its vice chair is from Goldman Sachs, and its members include a representative of Peterson's Blackrock group--among other agents of the world's financial elite.

Maybe Andrews thinks these folks have nothing but the best interests of the nation on their mind.  But before he issued a front-page call for deficit-cutting in the midst of the deepest slump since the Great Depression, maybe he could've gotten a second opinion.

Washington Post columnist David Broder rounds up some "non-partisan" budget experts-- one of whom, oddly enough, was John McCain's Social Security adviser during his 2000 campaign -- to agree with him that the Democrats' healthcare bills are too expensive.  He closes with this:

The challenge to Congress -- and to Obama -- remains the same: Make the promised savings real, and don't pass along unfunded programs to our children and grandchildren.

This advice would be easier to take from someone who didn't just write that Obama should escalate the Afghanistan war because of the "urgent necessity is to make a decision -- whether or not it is right." Good thing that war doesn't cost anything-- or that if it does, our grandchildren won't mind paying for it.

The New York Times (11/21/09) describes Japan's elite "press clubs" as

a century-old, cartel-like arrangement in which reporters from major news media outlets are stationed inside government offices and enjoy close, constant access to officials. The system has long been criticized as antidemocratic by both foreign and Japanese analysts, who charge that it has produced a relatively spineless press that feels more accountable to its official sources than to the public. In their apparent reluctance to criticize the government, the critics say, the news media fail to serve as an effective check on authority.

The mind reels.

Sarah Palin's highly anticipated visit to Fox News Channel's O'Reilly Factor saw the famously tough-as-nails host ask the tough questions of the right-wing leader:

O'REILLY: OK. The latest poll has you with a 23 percent favorable, 37 percent don't know. You do the math, OK. And you're up at 60 percent of people who could like you. You are the biggest threat because you are a star, media star, whereas you're the only Republican. There aren't any other Republicans who are media stars but you. Now, that's why they're attacking you so vehemently. Do you know that?

In other words, "You could be really popular some day, and don't know you know how that makes liberals crazy?"

Nothing but the tough questions from that guy.

A headline in today's Los Angeles Times (11/20/09): "Democrats Risk Taxing the Wealthy for Healthcare."

The paper explains:

Embracing the progressive--and sometimes politically risky--principle that the cost of carrying out public policies should fall to the well-off more than the disadvantaged, both the House and Senate bills would place new taxes on the wealthy to help pay for expanded insurance coverage.

Since mostly people aren't "well-off," and raising taxes on the wealthy tends to be rather popular with most people, what exactly is the political risk here? Surely the article will tell us. Oh, here it is:

In a recent Associated Press poll, 57 percent of those surveyed favored taxing people who earn more than $250,000 a year to pay for the healthcare overhaul. Of a variety of financing options tested in the survey, that tax was the only idea supported by a majority.

In other words, the not-very-risky idea of raising taxes on the wealthy.

The remarkable ability to engage in in-depth discussion of lawmakers' opposition to healthcare reform efforts without ever mentioning the massive contributions such lawmakers tend to receive from the healthcare industry is not confined to the Washington Post--as Dan Ward noted in his Extra! piece (11/09).  Another recent example of the phenomenon was provided by the New York Times, which ran a piece (11/18/09) on three Democratic senators --Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana and Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas--who may help filibuster the reform bill to death.

The piece, by Carl Hulse, informs us that the three "have all been skeptical of a public health insurance option," and that all "represent states won handily last year by Sen. John McCain."  An accompanying chart provides more data:  when they each were first elected and when they're next up for re-election; their margin of victory in their last race and their state's presidential results in 2004 and 2008; the population and median income of their states; and what percentage of their constituents are enrolled in Medicare, Medicaid or are uninsured.

The implication is that these figures might help readers better understand these senators' stances on healthcare reform.  But one obvious potential influence goes unmentioned: the money these politicians get from healthcare interests.  For Nelson, the figure $664,000 in the 2005-10 election cycle; for  Landrieu, it's $615,000;  and for Lincoln, $763,000.

By providing readers with information about state residents' income and health insurance status, and leaving out the sums contributed by health interests, the Times is suggesting that the politicians take their voters' interests into account and ignore their own.  If that sounds like the kind of politicians you're familiar with, then you're likely to find the Times' coverage of the politics of healthcare reform highly informative.

One of the odder outbreaks of outrage from conservative pundits is the horror expressed at the idea that people accused of being connected to the September 11 attacks would actually be put on trial.  Here's Washington Post columnist Michael Gerson (11/18/09) on Attorney General Eric Holder's "destructive" decision to prosecute Khalid Mohammed and other 9/11 suspects in an actual court:

There is one serious argument for this course: that a civilian court will provide greater legitimacy for the imposition of the death penalty than a military tribunal. But the guilt of these terrorists is not in question. And it is difficult to imagine that those repulsed or impressed by Khalid Sheik Mohammed's confessed crimes will care much about the procedures surrounding his sentencing.

Gerson seems to be saying in that last sentence that nobody actually cares about the rule of law.  That's not literally true, of course, but from the vitriol expressed toward the idea of  defendants having constitutional rights, you do get the idea that its stock is at a low ebb.

The Washington Post reports its latest polling on the Afghanistan war, and once again have managed to put together a baffling question that seems intended to muddy up the debate over a troop surge. The lead and headline ("Poll Finds Guarded Optimism on Obama's Afghanistan Plan") stress the idea that the public still seems to have faith in the White House. But the strangest part comes when the paper asked people about sending in more troops. As the Post's write-up explains:

Asked to choose between a larger influx of troops to fight Al-Qaeda and the Taliban and train the Afghan military, and a smaller number of new U.S. forces more narrowly focused on training, Americans divide 46 percent for the bigger number, 45 percent for the lower one.

Apparently the Post thinks the debate is between a smaller surge to train the Afghan military, or a larger one to do that plus defeat bad guys. No surprise, then, that a lot of people would find the larger surge option appealing. But does that resemble the actual military debate going on over Afghanistan? And why exclude the option of sending no additional troops, or bringing the ones already there back home?

This is the second time in the last few weeks that the Post's polling on Afghanistan has seemed designed to inflate support for a surge of some sort. As FAIR noted, the paper's October 21 report featured this poll question:

U.S. military commanders have requested approximately 40,000 more U.S. troops for Afghanistan. Do you think Obama should or should not order these additional forces to Afghanistan?

The Post had previously asked the question in a more neutral manner-- i.e., without referring to "U.S. military commanders" or to Obama, which seemed to significantly increase the level of support for a troop surge (from 24 percent to 47 percent).

It seems fairly clear that the Post's editorial page is strongly supportive of a troop surge; is someone trying to make sure the paper's polling helps them make that argument?

The big news out of the Middle East yesterday was the Israeli government's decision to approve an expansion of the Gilo settlement near Jerusalem. The White House's muddled position on settlement expansion has been a key part of Israel-Palestine negotiations. Many headlines framed the news as you'd expect (New York Times: "Plan to Expand Jerusalem Settlement Angers U.S.", for example) .

The Washington Post, though, went with this headline today: "Housing Plan for Jerusalem Neighborhood Spurs Criticism."

The article by Howard Schneider refers to a "disputed neighborhood of Jerusalem," the "Jewish neighborhood of Gilo," a place "annexed to the city in a step not recognized by the international community."

There is also a reference to White House policy, noting that the Obama administration "has vacillated in its stance on Israeli construction in areas claimed by the Palestinians."  This is downright bizarre; the entire discussion about "Israeli construction" concerns illegal Israeli settlements--or, perhaps more accurately, colonies--in the West Bank. Why, then, refuse to label Gilo accurately? It's an old story, actually; as Extra! pointed out in 2002, Gilo was a cause for pro-Israeli media activists, who pressured outlets like CNN to stop referring to Gilo as a settlement and use terms more innocuous like "neighborhood." It's still working, it would seem.

New York Times on the pending trial of Khalid Sheik Mohammed ( 11/15/09--emphasis added):

Mr. Mohammed's initial defiance toward his captors set off an interrogation plan that would turn him into the central figure in the roiling debate over the C.I.A's interrogation methods. He was subjected 183 times to the near-drowning technique called waterboarding, treatment that Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. has called torture. But advocates of the C.I.A's methods, including former Vice President Dick Cheney, have said that the interrogation methods produced a trove of information that helped dismantle Al-Qaeda and disrupt potential terrorism attacks.

Apparently Holder's views need to be balanced by Dick Cheney's.

More to the point, what Eric Holder thinks is torture is mostly irrelevant: If something is torture, then it should be called torture. The Times has failed on this question before; in 2004, the paper's public editor Daniel Okrent wrote this response to a FAIR Action Alert (6/10/04):

But just as a terrorist is sometimes, in fact, a terrorist, torture is inescapably torture. The reader who moved me out of the muddled center on this did it with a simple question: "If the same things [that happened at Abu Ghraib] had been done to American prisoners by Iraqi authorities, would the Times have hesitated to use ‘torture’ over and over again?"

Over the past five years, the paper has used the word to describe the actions of authorities in Iraq, China, Mexico, Turkey, Chad and elsewhere, including a precinct house in Brooklyn, in the Abner Louima case. In each case, I believe, there was a sense that the torturers were characterized, in part, by their otherness--other nationalities, other political systems, or in the Louima instance other, depraved moral codes.

In Iraq, the perpetrators of the prison horrors were our representatives--ordinary Americans whose behavior may have been altered by circumstances, but who in their origins and histories are as familiar to us as our neighbors and co-workers.

[New York Times standards editor Allan] Siegal, who notes that the Times has no policy on the use of "torture," cautioned me in an e-mail that his sense of the word (and of "abuse") was "impressionistic rather than researched," but I buy what he ended up with: "Torture occurs when a prisoner is physically or psychologically maltreated during the process of interrogation, or as punishment for some activity or political position. Abuse occurs when the prisoner’s jailers maltreat her or him separately from the interrogation process."

Siegal also acknowledges that there's a continuum that has to be measured. If, for instance, a man is kept hooded for an hour, is that in itself torture? What about five hours? What about 24? If the headline language has in fact been delicate, maybe that's because the distinctions are delicate. But as good reporting brings us greater knowledge of what has gone in prisons and detention centers in Iraq and Afghanistan, the distinctions become firm enough to be indisputable.