Pundits: Deaf, dumb and blind

By Ellen Ratner
After watching the Democratic presidential debates last week, I saw a side of the media that I would like to pretend I had not seen. Anyone who watched the debates objectively would have said that there was no clear winner – the field is wide open. Wrong. After the one and a half hours of fun, I listened to pundit after pundit talk about what a wonderful job Sens. Clinton and Obama did. What? I wondered if I was watching a different debate.



The next morning ''Camp Clinton'' issued a press release titled, ''The Raves Pour In: Hillary 'Presidential,' 'Confident,' 'The Real Deal.''' The quotes came from a list of who's who in pundithood or perhaps I should say, pundit dumb.

Afterwards, Barack and Clinton spoke to the local crowds and both seemed to immediately invent a southern dialect. One citizen of pundit dumb defended the two senators by saying, ''Well the people here are so charming, and I find myself adopting their intonations as well.'' No, it's actually more like being a chameleon. I'm thinking that famous Woody Allen movie; ''Zelig'' will be must-see TV this fall.

Barack, nicknamed ''Obambi'' by Maureen Dowd of the New York Times in a column several weeks ago, is determined to brand himself as the newest hawk on the block. He spoke recently at the Chicago Council on Global Affairs. As Robert Kagan quoted Sen. Obama in Sunday's Washington Post, he wants the American military to ''stay on the offense, from Djibouti to Kandahar,'' and he believes that ''the ability to put boots on the ground will be critical in eliminating the shawdowy terrorist networks we now face.'' Huh? Did Kagan get the wrong quote? Was he quoting President George W. Bush? Our military has told us that there are no ''military solutions'' in Iraq, or elsewhere. What on earth is Sen. Obama thinking? I know the man is bright, but he seems to have been asleep for the last five years. Our military is an incredible institution when you want to use a blunt object to kill as effectively as possible, but no one, not even the military, thinks that it is wise to put ''boots on the ground,'' in order to accomplish the delicate task of breaking terrorist networks.

As for Sen. Clinton, she was given points by the pundit dumbs for ''not being shrill.'' Yippie! She explained that she made mistakes with her healthcare plan, but the only plan she talked about was that one.

The most refreshing comments of the evening came from Gov. Bill Richardson, the only one on the stage with executive leadership measurable results. He did not apologize for defending the Second Amendment. He did not apologize for being the last to ask for Attorney General Gonzalez to resign. He said he knew him; he knew where he came from and wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt. He didn't jump to universal healthcare because he knows we have to figure out a way to pay for it first.

Rep. Dennis Kucinich was also a breath of fresh air. He said this isn't an "American Idol" contest. Think what you may about Dennis, he's a man of conviction. He doesn't waffle. He lives in the home he bought for $21,000 in the 1970s and he understands what it is to be a working American.

My favorite person in the debates was former Sen. Gravel. I'd marry him. He beat up on the Democrats for their little resolution to withdraw from Iraq. He gave the legislative playbook for how you get out of a war. He should know – he ended the draft. The best line was that the group scared him. He said it wasn't until he had stood on the same stage with them that he realized he wanted to be in the race to win.

America will pick the next president, not the media. The media only wants to play the hits. They want to make the winner. Men like Gov. Richardson are no ''rock stars.'' I would cringe to think what he looks like in a bathing suit. Sen. Clinton has had the benefit of the media spotlight since 1992 when Bill Clinton ran for president. She is media savvy and Obama is the new media darling. I'm saying give the rest of the group a chance. Our nation needs leadership, not politicians who take a wind check before they dispense with their hot air.

Harry Reid and the 'lost' war

By Ellen Ratner
In politics, honesty is never the best policy. If you doubt that, just ask Democrat Sen. Harry Reid. He simply gave voice to what 99 percent of the world and at least 60 percent of Americans already know – Bush's Iraq gambit is lost. For this bit of honest, Reid has been pummeled relentlessly by every armchair patriot, knight of the carpet and drawing-room hero in the country.



If he was willing to go that far – and he wasn't for very long, because he had no sooner made his remarks than he was on the Senate floor, issuing ''clarifications'' – let me, with a lot less to lose, be equally blunt: the war is lost. Bush won't admit it – how can he? – although he has talked of ''mistakes'' being made. Naturally, he hasn't specified, but he has no need to because virtually every observer of this war already knows what those mistakes were – something in the core of President Bush prevents him from recognizing that he is doing a poor job as commander in chief . Not only has he bungled the management of the war, he has done a poor job communicating about the war to both the world and his fellow Americans. You see, he's bungled the message, too. If he has a clue about ''Why We Fight,'' he hasn't been able to convince many even in his own party, let alone the loyal opposition.

So along comes Sen. Reid who declares at last that the emperor has no clothes. Only unlike the story, Reid doesn't wake up his fellow citizens to this fact – he merely articulates what they already know. After all, the Democrats weren't given control of both houses of Congress last November because of Harry Reid's good looks. So an angry electorate that has for years been whining about the fact that all politicians are liars, finally gets one who tells the truth, and voila! – the incoming mail suggests some people would just prefer to be lied to.

I'll be the first to admit Harry Reid should have coupled his absolutely on point observation with a few plans, like, ''the war is lost unless we ...'' Or ''the war is lost, so let's cut our losses and redeploy in such a way that we can win, etc.'' But there is no denying the truth about what he did say. He talks like Gen. Patton and my right-wing friends accuse him of being Casper Milquetoast. People love to complain about how America has changed since 1945 and about how we couldn't win one like we won World War II. I say fiddlesticks. If America's changed, it's because we've become a country in denial – I hate to quote a movie, but as Jack Nicholson said in ''A Few Good Men,'' ''You want the truth? You can't handle the truth!'' This week as a country, we've proved that we can't handle the truth.

We've had no real debate about this war. We've shouted about patriotism, treason, support the troops, cowards and liars, but no real debate about strategy, tactics and whether the Iraqis want the vision of Toledo, Ohio that George Bush is selling. Or whether they're even capable of re-creating Toledo in a place like Sadr City.

The way I figure it, bad policy is like joining AA – first you have to admit there's a problem. Harry Reid, two years late, finally admitted there was a problem – that the old ways couldn't continue and that the war is lost. If we all just face reality, we might be able to climb out of this hole.

Sorry folks, but Harry Reid, thank you.

Failing grade for abstinence education

By Ellen Ratner
Blogs have changed what we get for news and fortunately the website rhrealitycheck.org picked up what otherwise would have been a buried story. This story was not about Iran, Iraq or even the Karl Rove e-mails. This story is about the Bush administration's beloved abstinence education – the very same abstinence education that has cost taxpayers up to $1.5 billion in local, state and federal funds.



The ''report'' in question was released late Friday afternoon and is titled, ''Impacts for Title V. Section 510, Abstinence Education Programs: Final Report.'' It was produced under a government contract for the Department of Health and Human Services and it clearly contains program evaluation information that the Bush administration does not want us to know.

The bottom line: the 10-year-old program that the Republicans passed and funded, the same program that the Bush Administration has touted far and wide, doesn't work. The researchers examined four model abstinence education programs. What they found out about teen sexuality will shock any Baby Boomer.

The evaluation team looked at four abstinence programs in rural Virginia and Mississippi and also in Miami and Milwaukee. According to the rules of the study, abstinence education had to include the notion that marriage was the only expected standard of sexual activity, and abstinence was the only way to avoid pregnancy, and sexually transmitted diseases (STDs). Participants were either interviewed four to six years after enrolling in the abstinence program, or were in the control group. All racial groups were represented in the evaluation study. Students were randomly assigned to get abstinence education or to the control group. Three of the programs were multi-year programs.

The findings: of the 2,057 youths surveyed, (all were under 17), half remained abstinent in both the group receiving education and the ones that did not, (the control group). Twenty-three percent of both groups had sex with a condom, 17 percent sometimes practiced ''safe sex,'' and 4 percent always had unprotected sex. But here is the real shocker: in both groups the average age for sexual intercourse was 14.9 years! One-fourth of the sexually active teens had three or more partners!

By anyone's standards, that is a ton of money spent for a little bit of abstinence and a lot of sex. I did an Internet search on ''abstinence education'' and found all sorts of trinkets and trash to give teens while educating them on the virtues of abstinence. In addition to pens, pencils and the like, you can even get stick-on tattoo's with phrases such as ''worth waiting for.'' A lot of money, taxpayer cash, a lot of promotion, and a ton of hype about morals. Liberals were seen as the bad guys when they resisted pouring money into the abstinence rat hole back in the mid '90s. Democrats were made to seem like they were promoting the summer of free love. It is bad enough to fund a program that doesn't work, the Bush administration wants to throw more money into the rat hole and increase the funding for abstinence education to $141 million. The program began with a $10 million budget in 1997.

The problem is that the Bush administration prefers politics to science. A recent resignation of the man in charge of abstinence education was welcome. Eric Keroack who was appointed right after the November elections was medical director of a clinic that believed that ''commercialization and distribution of birth control is demeaning to women, degrading of human sexuality and adverse to human health and happiness.'' This man is a scientist? The facts and the outcome studies are going to see the light of day as the abstinence education bill sunsets this year. The debate in Congress might be more ''R'' rated then the Clinton impeachment.

Fortunately, five states have rejected the Title V money. Ohio's Democrat Gov. Strickland, who is a psychologist and a minister, doesn't think abstinence education works. Democrat Sen. Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey wants to fund sex education, but believes that the education should be comprehensive and deal with the reality that our youth are sexually active.

Why confuse ourselves or our youth with the facts? Answer: because AIDS and STDs are still a major public health problem – along with teen pregnancy. The reality is that like it or not, teens are having sex. It is it time they got real information that will not only help them make safe choices but that will keep them alive and well. We can't afford abstinence education. It doesn't work.

The tears of a clown

By Ellen Ratner
President Bush gave a short stand-up comedy speech at the Radio TV Dinner last week in Washington, D.C. He delivered funny line after funny line: ''Well, where should I start? A year ago, my approval rating was in the 30s, my nominee for the Supreme Court had just withdrawn, and my vice president had shot someone. Ahhh, those were the good old days.'' His delivery was impeccable. The hard-core Democrats and Republicans I was sitting with were on the floor with laughter. So, how is it that President Bush is both the funny, open guy we saw Wednesday night and the insular president who has a hard time negotiating and listening?



I am not sure I have the answer to that question, but what we continue to learn is disturbing. It isn't good for the country and it certainly is not going to help President Bush's legacy. Yesterday it was reported that Matthew Dowd, an adviser and trusted Bush inner-circle member, had gone public with his criticism of the president. Dowd began his career as a Democrat and became very enamored of then Gov. Bush's ability to work with both sides of the political spectrum and believed the governor was truly a Texas ''uniter not a divider.'' Something happened when he got to the White House said Dowd that raises concerns that have been floating around the Republican Party and the White House Press room for a while.

Dowd brings up the president not holding people accountable. This is not exactly breaking news, but it may be helpful to illuminate a few examples, and there have been glaring issues around accountability. Dowd mentions Secretary Rumsfeld as an example, particularly after Abu Ghraib. The American public knows of many more incidents, from Katrina to Guantanamo to what we are now seeing with the firing of the U.S. attorneys.

It was also revealed this week that Karl Rove's office gave a power point presentation to political appointees at the GSA on what to expect in the 2006 elections. That presentation was completely illegal under the Hatch Act. Has Rove or anyone in his office been held accountable? As I have said before, there is a military expression, ''screw up and move up.'' OK, some of the people in his administration have not moved up, but they certainly have not moved out. Keeping people on the job when they have made glaring mistakes is bad for morale and sends the message that poor management and even illegal acts will be tolerated.

The day-to-day saga of Attorney General Gonzales and the firing of the U.S. attorneys is another example of this ''any thing goes administration.'' The story changes daily with new papers being released. Some of Gonzales' staffers are talking and some staffers are ''pleading the Fifth.'' You can only scratch your head and wonder who is advising the president? Is it that the president is a micromanager and keeps staffers to protect people from revealing the decisions he has made? Has President Bush relied on an inner circle of advisers and refuses to budge from the fact that they are not serving him well?

Holding people accountable is one thing, but withholding information about accountability is quite another. Just this week there were hearings held in Congress about proposed changes to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). There was testimony provided that whenever there is a request for information on a controversial issue, the government purposely slows down the process. Little bureaucratic tricks such as sending notification that there must be a response in fourteen days to keep the request active and sending it via snail mail are just some of many ways to keep Americans from being able to hold their government accountable. Making any information subject to ''national security concerns,'' including the design and costs of a handicap ramp outside a Vermont municipal building is another. (The ramp was from a federal grant.) It is difficult to hold people accountable without information. The Clinton people were not great about FOIA requests either, but the Bush Administration has elevated ''non disclosure'' to an art form using post Sept. 11reasoning to block anything and everything.

Fortunately, there are those souls who have a conscience that gnaws at them. Just this week lawyer and Marine Lt. Col. Stuart Couch spoke out about why he will not continue to prosecute Mohamedou Ould Slahi, a suspected terrorist detained in Gitmo. Why? Couch concluded that he had been tortured. No one has been held accountable for the torture. This torture makes what was a good legal case seem coerced. According to Dowd, it is the president's insular inner circle that keeps him from holding people accountable and making decisions in the war on terror that are going to bring genuine security versus the perception of security.

Matthew Dowd wants the president to be different and so do most Americans. They want that guy who we saw for five minutes on Wednesday night, open, connecting and flexible. We need that President Bush, not the one who is rigid, remote and relates only to a small circle of out of touch advisers.

Gen. Pace deserves the boot

By Ellen Ratner
Donald Rumsfeld left the Pentagon and so far no one has been very sad about it. The new Defense Secretary Robert Gates has been showing that leadership doesn't need the trappings of power that Rumsfeld insisted upon with his countless ''snowflake'' memos – edicts from Rummy the Great that, like snowflakes, fell from heaven and melted away. Now it is time for Secretary Gates to make a few more changes. This time he needs to lobby his boss, the president, for the military's top general officer, Gen. Peter Pace, to tender his resignation.



Gen. Pace has been chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) for 18 months. He logged four years as the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, giving him more than five years in a major power position in the Pentagon. During the course of his tenure as the number one or two man in the military chain of command, the military and nation have suffered tremendously. If he were a CEO, the board of directors would have removed him a long time ago and likely never promoted him to chairman in the first place.

A short look at Peter Pace's Pentagon yields the following:

First, the country was founded on civilian control of the military. Yet, Pace seems to think he serves only one civilian, the commander in chief. He is more of a spokesman or cheerleader for the administration than a thoughtful man of arms. Aside from the non-responsive answers he gives Congress in hearings, Pace was recently asked by the state governors attending the National Governor's Association winter meeting at the White House, ''What is Plan B, what was the Pentagon's backup plan for Iraq?'' Pace's reply? ''I'm a Marine, and Marine's don't talk about failure, they talk about victory.'' This wasn't a press conference designed to get the word of the day out; it was a legitimate question by our top elected administrators who are supplying hundreds of thousands of their men and women in National Guard units to fight and die in this war. Pace should have been prepared and given an answer which reflected real thought and planning. He should have been respectful of the sacrifice made by those the governors are sworn to serve.

Second, General Pace has not taken the action necessary to make sure that our troops are safe and are protected with the best equipment possible. Rep. John Murtha, championed as pro-military before he started questioning the war, has found troop readiness, which was at an all-time high as we entered the war, to be at an all-time low today. Murtha has found that before the war 80 percent of the Army and almost 100 percent of the active combat units were rated at the highest levels of readiness and, ''Now the active-duty combat units at home and all of our Guard units are at the lowest level of readiness.'' Equipment is being borrowed from units stationed within the United States making them less available to respond to any other emergency that may take place. There is still a shortage of body armor. This with a budget that is larger than the entire world's military combined.

Third, the care of our injured soldiers is just one more mismanaged department under Pace's watch. Walter Reed (just a symptom of a sick military medical system) is right under his nose but he was either ignorant or negligent, neither excuse passes the military's test for competence and integrity. The Washington Post has reported with endless detail about the conditions of the buildings at Walter Reed, as well as the problems that injured soldiers have had getting basic coordinated services when they return from Iraq. To make matters worse, injured soldiers were prohibited from speaking to the press without the consent of Walter Reed's press office. Thinkprogress.org questioned Army Spokesman Paul Boyce about this policy. He said it was a government building and if they wanted to talk they could go to Starbucks (across the street). Tell that to a solider who can't get out of bed. Pace succeeded in making the chain of command into a chain of cocoons so no one finds out the truth.

Taking care of wounded soldiers is one Pentagon task, making it safe for soldiers to serve is yet another. Peter Pace's Pentagon has failed at this job as well. As has been documented by a Pentagon report released on Wednesday, reports of sexual assaults increased 24 percent last year. Yes, some of this may be due to encouraging women to come forward, but some is due to conditions of recruitment such as allowing more ''waivers'' for convicted felons. Reports of rapes have increased with women saying they don't report it because they do not expect anything to be done about it (as only approximately 10 percent of the cases ever result in a formal charge). This needs to be addressed from the top, with Pace and the other Joint Chief's making sexual assault and harassment completely unacceptable.

The Sexual Assault Report makes Gen. Pace's remarks about homosexuality a couple of weeks ago even more absurd. While Pace believes that homosexuality is immoral, two soldiers a day are being discharged from the military for being gay. Some gay soldiers have risked all for their country, like Staff Sgt. Eric Alva who lost his leg in Iraq. Most of these discharges are not for gay conduct, but because someone in their unit may suspect them of being gay or have seen them in a public non-military setting with another person of the same sex, or because they refused to lie about their sexual orientation. Pace signs off on the moral waivers and turns a blind eye to the sexual assault of his own troops, but thinks gays should be kept out of the military because they are immoral? This guy runs the military?

It is time for new leadership in the Pentagon. Gen. Pace has had plenty of time to address the military's needs, and instead has chosen to take on the mantel of ''Denial and Divider in Chief.''