By PETER FENN

Sen. Mitch McConnell is so up to his eyeballs in alligators, he’s long since forgot about cleaning the swamp.

No question the senator hears the steady, galloping horses from the tea party extremists closing fast. To be sure, he faces a tough general election against Kentycky Secretary of State Alison Lundergan Grimes – some polls even show him behind.  But before he gets to next November he faces the threat of a challenge from within his own party.  Wealthy tea party candidate Matt Bevin is definitely nipping at his heals.

Maybe that is why McConnell is showing signs of joining the “crazy caucus” – that large band of Republicans who are ready to see a default on the debt, a shutdown of the government, a continuation of the sequester and the defunding of Obamacare – and by virtue of such insane policies, an economic meltdown.

They profess to be worried about the deficit and spending yet their policies so far, and their future plans, would see drastic reductions in tax revenue as they stall the recovery, put more people out of work and send us back into a recession.

[See a collection of political cartoons on the Republican Party.]

Bad politics, bad economics and bad for America’s middle class.

Yesterday, McConnell expressed the need to use the debt for “leverage” against Obama.  “It’s a hostage worth ransoming,” McConnell has said.  He embraced the tea party call for not raising the debt limit and watching America default.  Sorry – been there, done that, didn’t work.

Maybe the Republicans should follow the example of their hero, President Reagan.

Here is what Ronald Reagan wrote to Congress when it came to raising the debt ceiling in 1983:

The full consequences of a default – or even the serious prospect of default – by the United States are impossible to predict and awesome to contemplate. Denigration of the full faith and credit of the United States would have substantial effects on the domestic financial markets and the value of the dollar in exchange markets. The Nation can ill afford to allow such a result. The risks, the costs, the disruptions, and the incalculable damage lead me to but one conclusion: the Senate must pass this legislation before the Congress adjourns.

[See a collection of political cartoons on Congress.]

Reagan, after all, raised the debt ceiling 18 times.

So, let’s play this out. If McConnell is so intent on joining the tea party in their efforts what is he risking if Obama calls the bluff of the “crazy caucus”? The full weight of responsible economists, editorial writers, business leaders, reasonable elected officials would come crashing down on him. As the minority leader in the Senate he would not be the engineer of a compromise but rather the creator of chaos.

The crazy caucus would become the chaos caucus, led by Mitch McConnell.

[See a collection of political cartoons on the budget and deficit.]

In short, he would have drunk the Kool-Aid and end up paying for it at the ballot box. He would be loudly criticized as the man who allowed what Reagan warned against to become a reality. Some legacy.

My guess is that President Obama has had about enough from the threats, the in-your-face tactics of the tea party. He’ll put his foot down, not be intimidated and let the chips fall.

And if I were betting, the Republican “crazy caucus” would morph rather quickly into the “suicide caucus.” And Mitch McConnell would be part of the carnage.

By PETER FENN

Back in the horse and buggy days when I was investigating the National Security Agency as part of the 1975-76 Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (the Church Committee), we were concerned about telegrams, letters and tapping pay phones. The Internet, cell phones, email and all things digital were the furthest things from our minds.

When we traveled to NSA headquarters at Ft Meade, Md., we entered the inner sanctum of techno-nerds, code breakers and an agency focused on collecting foreign intelligence on “the commies,” as many referred to them.

This was an agency basically with a mission separate and apart from the FBI and other domestic law enforcement agencies. It was foreign focused, until Nixon brought them in to the fold.

We found an agency that was politically isolated and super-secret, but not the least bit interested in wiretapping the phones or reading the mail of Americans. NSA had been pulled in, reluctantly focusing on anti-Vietnam War demonstrators and civil rights activists by the Nixon administration.

[See a collection of editorial cartoons on the NSA.]

A group of us on the Church Committee discovered the presence of Americans on the “Watch List” without warrants, a long-term relationship with international communications companies to collect international telegrams to identify spies and the monitoring of mostly overseas communications of communist countries.

When the relationships with companies like Western Union, RCA Global and International Telephone and Telegraph were uncovered and the legality questioned, they ended. The companies had been concerned about legal exposure back in the 1940s and by the time of the Church Committee they were embarrassed by the fact that they were turning over, lock stock and barrel, international telegrams of Americans. The relationship with the government was just too cozy.

Fast forward to 2013. NSA culture seems to have changed. Now, post-9/11, its budgets have mushroomed, staffing has expanded and it is swooping up mountains of data about Americans. Recent disclosures that it was called on the carpet by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court for domestic collection speaks volumes. This court hasn’t exactly been the protector of civil liberties, approving almost 100 percent of the requests for surveillance.

The Snowden revelations and other press stories point to an NSA that has devoted large amounts of time and resources to collecting vast amounts of data on Americans and foreigners, relying on the largest communication companies. This collaboration with companies that are increasingly global is not a great business model. Phone companies, internet companies and social networking sites don’t want their customers, be they domestic or foreign, to suddenly pull out for privacy reasons.

In addition, the Fourth Amendment issues that are raised here at home put the companies in a very precarious position. Much like the old telegram companies, they have come to realize that wholesale turning over of communications to the government isn’t such a great idea.

It is time to take a good hard look at NSA and its culture and its mission. Is the NSA looking inward now? Is it focused on using its “vacuum cleaner” technology and incredibly sophisticated storage and analytic capacity to look at Americans, without sufficient legal authority? Is it setting up an apparatus that constitutes a regularized and constant “unreasonable search?”

[Read the U.S. News Debate: Should Americans Be Worried About the National Security Agency’s Data Collection?]

Will it link with other agencies, including law enforcement, to merge other data? Will the recent Supreme Court decision on collecting DNA at some future date be included in these databases? Where does this go? Is the technology the driving force?

In the end, it is up to a new Congressional Select Committee, similar to the Church Committee, to examine the facts and the future. It should be seriously staffed, with adequate intelligence safeguards, to uncover what was done and to suggest new legislative remedies if necessary. Just as the Church Committee led to the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, a new committee should be tasked to come to terms with the new technology, the new threats and the new realities of the erosion of privacy.

NSA should no longer be the “No Such Agency” it once was and the power of the investigative microscope should be turned up on them for the sake of all Americans.

More on the Republican ‘suicide caucus’

My guess is that many out there are thinking that I am sounding like a broken record (what an anachronism that is).

I have been constantly amazed at the “shoot themselves in the foot” Republican caucus. In the past we have watched as they embarrassed themselves on the Violence Against Women Act, aid to Hurricane Sandy victims, government shutdown efforts, killing the farm bill and then voting to completely gut food stamps for 48 million people.

But, really, this week takes the cake for the Republicans: Not one Republican shows up to speak at the Lincoln Memorial for the 50th anniversary of the 1963 March on Washington; Republican-controlled states continue to introduce and pass legislation to suppress the vote of blacks and Hispanics, making all minorities furious; Republicans in the House are committed to halting progress on immigration legislation; 80 House Republicans sign a letter saying keeping ObamaCare is worse than a government shutdown; John Boehner changes position and states that any increase in the debt limit has to be accompanied by even greater cuts in critical programs. Yes, let’s default, Mr. Speaker.I don’t get it.

Republicans hold confabs and tell us that they are going to actively court the black vote, that they believe Hispanic voters should share their values and that they should be the party of women because they control the checkbook and want lower taxes. Really?

Then they run candidates like Ken Cuccinelli for governor of Virginia, whose record is antithetical to women. The party leadership looks and acts like the cast from “Mad Men.”

No major Republican office holder shows up at the march on Wednesday because they all had scheduling conflicts or weren’t “invited early enough.” And not one Republican agrees to speak. How do you spell “slap in the face”? What, they don’t think people are paying attention?

Republicans say they are too busy to pass immigration reform, there is just too much on the House calendar. Oh, when you engage in 40 votes to defund the healthcare law and stonewall budget deals and are in session all of nine days in September? If the Republicans wanted to pass immigration reform they could do so before Thanksgiving. “Too busy,” please!

This has been another week where Republicans continue to dig their own grave deeper and deeper. The suicide caucus rides again. The trouble is that their intransigence truly harms Americans who simply want to better their lives.

Home > Opinion > Peter Fenn > Amazon’s Jeff Bezos Can Save the Washington Post

A Future the Post Can Believe In

August 9, 2013 RSS Feed Print

• Comment (1)
• inShare

Much has been written this past week about the sales of the Washington Post and the Boston Globe for $250 million and $70 million, respectively.

Just to put this in some kind of perspective, according to BaseballRef.com, Alex Rodriguez has been paid more than $353 million dollars so far, with a possible $114 million to come. And last week we learned that Saks Fifth Avenue has been sold to Hudson’s Bay for $2.9 billion. To be fair, A-Rod brought in fans and Saks has a lot of valuable property, but really?

Of course, the Washington Post Co. still owns, and is trying to sell, its building. It’s still holding fast to its profitable enterprises like Kaplan and TV and cable channels that bring in needed funds. But my guess is that the $80 million that is listed by the D.C. government for that office building is way on the low side. So bricks and mortar and baseball are worth more than storied newspapers.

Part of this is clearly the rapidly changing business model for print:  it’s the advertising stupid! You can’t be losing eyeballs, see serious subscription losses (nearly 50 percent for the Post), go through a bad recession and keep the same old business assumptions in place.

But I have to maintain that a certain amount of this is arrogance and resting on the laurels and accolades of the past. Dorothy, this isn’t Watergate anymore!

I remember talking to my wise friend, Washington Post stalwart and star, Bob Kaiser, when they began their advertising campaign to increase Post subscriptions many years ago. The slogan that they put in place on every ad was and still is: “If you don’t get it, you don’t get it.”

I told Bob I hated it – I thought it was arrogant and condescending and pompous. He told me that it tested well, and since I believe in excellent research and testing, rather than gut reactions, I trusted they knew what they were doing.

But I now believe that slogan was part of a larger problem. The Post exists in an area of tremendous population growth  –  the DC metro area gained a million people over the last decade, now up to 5.8 million. At the same time, the Post’s daily circulation went from about 762,000 in 2000 to about 474,000 today. And this is basically in a one-newspaper town starved for news, especially about government and politics.

The Post didn’t change. They hardly had any competition from other print papers to keep them on their toes; they were not innovative and cutting edge. The move to the web was sloppy and unbelievably hard to navigate. The page kept shutting down, at least on my iPad. The New York Times was much more user-friendly than the Post web site.

And, of course, there was the problem of having to keep cutting staff and operations to meet the bottom line concerns. Maybe having Kaplan and their other media cash cows also did them no favors – it did not force them to innovate and change with the times as fast as they might have.

But, fundamentally, because they were the only game in town after the Washington Star folded, they ceased to believe they had to fight and prove just how good they really were. They engaged the growing populace in the D.C. metro area with a slogan that implied that they would not “get it” unless they subscribed to the Post, when everyone knew that all you had to do was to go to your keyboard. You could “get it” so much easier with each passing day.

It wasn’t about putting down your audience, it was about lifting them up. What was fun and exciting and interesting in the Post that would make you want to subscribe? What could you learn from the Post quickly and easily that you would have to search for online? Why was this such a good value? What made the Post different from the newspapers of the past?

My guess is that Jeff Bezos may be what the Post needs, just as The New Republic has been revitalized and reinvigorated by Facebook billionaire Chris Hughes. Pick up a copy of the New Republic ; check out the graphics, look at the messaging, read the insightful articles. This is a changed magazine and it is truly modern and interesting.

I have been a subscriber to the Post for nearly forty years; I gave my future wife a subscription when she lived in Minnesota as an engagement present during Watergate in 1973-74. She loved getting those papers, even a couple of days late. I couldn’t afford a ring, but I could afford the Washington Post! There is nothing I would like to see more than a strong, vibrant, exciting paper now and in the future. I am hopeful and I am rooting for them.

 

By PETER FENN

USNews & World Report  —  Thomas Jefferson Street Blog

Pope Francis places a ball with the colors of the Brazilian flag at the altar of Saint Mary Major Basilica, in Rome.

So let me get this straight:  the leader of one of the world’s largest and most powerful nations threatens to arrest people, including tourists, who are gay or suspected of being gay, along with a wholesale crack-down on gays and lesbians.  A few days later the leader of one of the largest and most powerful religions opens up in an interview to say “who am I to judge” when it comes to gays.

Who would have thought?

Russian President Vladimir Putin’s horrendous declarations and the possibility of ensuing persecution throughout Russia are reminiscent of Nazi Germany. What’s next, being forced to wear pink triangles? Concentration camps? Clearly, there should be more outrage about Putin’s comments and the prejudice coming from the Russian Orthodox Church.

[See a collection of political cartoons on the Catholic contraception controversy.]

It may be that part of the Pope’s reason for being so forthright in his interview is that he could see the trends in Russia as well as the opening up towards tolerance in the United States and other countries. He understands society – the good, the bad, and the need for forgiveness for all – much better than many thought.

The Vatican has traditionally not been comfortable with press inquiries, even written ones, let alone a free-wheeling press gaggle. But this Pope is different and is willing to engage with a more personal, honest, less controlling style than his predecessors.

In contrast, President Putin seems to be a leader from another era, from another century. His style of governing is more Stalin-like than modern.

Could it be that the Pope, with all the traditions he must uphold, understands modern society a lot better than a macho man who rides horseback with his shirt off?

I will trade this Pope for Putin anytime.

The Cuckoo Caucus

There is a new group in town – that’s ready to take the country over the cliff.

I am not talking about the Tea Party members of the House — the Michele Bachmanns, Steve Kings and Joe Wilsons, and 50 or so others who are members of the Tea Party Caucus. I am talking about the Senate, the greatest deliberative body.

Sens. Mike Lee (R-Utah), Rand Paul (R-Ky.), Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) seem intent on shutting down the government unless ObamaCare is defunded. They also don’t want the nation to pay its bills unless they get radical concessions on spending. In short, they are willing to continue to threaten to push the nation over the fiscal brink.

Obviously, Democrats are rolling their eyes, with a “here we go again” look. They remember the government shutdown of 1995, when then-Speaker Newt Gingrich got his head handed to him. They remember all the cost, political and financial, that occurred when Republicans refused to raise the debt ceiling in 2011. Obstruction and gridlock are not a useful strategy.

Emboldened with Congress’s 15 percent approval rating (pardon the sarcasm), the Republican “Cuckoo Caucus” is intent on standing in the doorway of progress on the economy.

The surprise over these last few days is how strong many Republican members have been in opposing the “Cuckoo Caucus” on both substantive and political grounds.

Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.) called Lee’s threat of blocking a continuing resolution that would keep the government open “the dumbest idea I’ve ever heard of.”

Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) called efforts to defund ObamaCare in this manner “dishonest” and ‘hype.” A noted fiscal hawk, Coburn says he would “love to defund it … but it will not work.”

Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) said it was “foolish” not to fund the government. Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) called it “terror politics.”Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) referred to it as “shenanigans.”

Finally, Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.) said: “The only way Republicans will lose the House is to shut down the government or default on the debt … it makes you look politically irresponsible.”

Could it be that we are beginning to see a small ray of sanity coming from Republicans in response to those who seem intent on taking down the economy through government gridlock and shutdown? Could it be that many conservatives are finally standing up to the extreme elements of the party?

Color me naïve, but my sincere hope is that the “Cuckoo Caucus” will go the way of the dinosaurs and we can return to a Congress with something substantially higher approval rating.

Steve King is what’s wrong with Congress. Where are the Bob Doles?

When it comes to Republican Rep. Steve King (Iowa), civility and common decency are dead and buried.

His latest comment about children as “anchor babies” and “drug mules” crossing the border was universally condemned, even by his fellow Republicans. Speaker Boehner referred to “hateful language,” Eric Cantor called the comments “inexcusable” and right-wing Rep. Raul Labrador (Idaho) said they were “reprehensible and irresponsible.”

His hard-line and extremist views would have made him a one-term member of Congress in years past. Sadly, too many members of his caucus hold similar views that are preventing a vote on the immigration bill and other legislation to improve the plight of middle-class families. The extremism and gridlock of the Steve Kings may be a key reason why Congress is held in such low regard.The latest NBC/Wall Street Journal survey indicates that 83 percent of Americans disapprove of the job Congress is doing; nearly 6 in 10 say that if they could replace every singly member of Congress they would do so.

Right now, 56 percent of Americans believe that Republicans are too inflexible in dealing with President Obama and yet 18 percent believe they are “too quick to give in.” That 18 percent is clearly the Tea Party crowd, the hardcore, far-right Republicans who believe that compromise is a four-letter word.

That is a reflection of a large group of Republicans who would make Ronald Reagan blush yet use his name to justify their positions as naysayers. Reagan would not recognize the Republicans in the Steve King camp; he would not tolerate them. Conservatives of yesteryear like Bob Dole find the tenor and the tone and the issue positions to be out of step. The GOP should be “closed for repairs” Dole said and he wisely stated that both he and Reagan wouldn’t have made it in today’s Republican primaries and caucuses.

Dole celebrated his 90th birthday in the Capitol this week as the Tea Party Caucus was right next door. What an irony. A man who gave nearly three-quarters of a century to his country and worked across the political aisle like a pro to better people’s lives finds himself shoulder to shoulder with those who killed the disability treaty and who mock his ability to compromise and actually accomplish something.

As a Democrat, I do sincerely hope that the future of the Republican Party is much closer to the vision and compassion and capability of a Bob Dole than the cynicism and extremism of a Steve King.