David Corn

Yesterday, I posted a piece noting that Leon Panetta, Barack Obama's choice as CIA director, could draw opposition from CIA insiders and vets because he has been a fierce foe of waterboarding (a torture tactic used by the CIA), has advocated greater congressional oversight of CIA covert operations, and in the 1990s, as President Clinton's budget chief, pushed for cuts in the CIA's budget. Yet the first important blasts came from Democrats. Both Senator Dianne Feinstein, the incoming chair of the Senate intelligence committee, and Senator Jay Rockefeller, the outgoing chair of the committee, huffed that Panetta was no intelligence professional.

Their knee-jerk response--which seemed to contain a resentful dose of no-one-in-the-Obama-camp-asked-me-about-this--could give cover to those who object to Panetta on policy grounds and to CIA people who don't want an outsider taking control of a troubled agency that screwed the pooch on 9/11 and Iraq WMDs. Remember Curveball?

My CQ blogger colleague Jeff Stein raises a good point:

Quick--name the current (and outgoing) secretary of commerce.

Of course, you can't. It's Carlos Gutierrez. His official bio says he's "a core member of President Bush's economic team." Well, how "core" has he been during the past few months, as the U.S. economy has melted down? I don't recall seeing him much on the tube, explaining policies and proposals that would revive the economy. That bio boasts that he has traveled the world to promote US exports--and also notes that as co-chair of the Commission for Assistance to a Free Cuba, he has been actively working on US-Cuba policy. Hooray for that.

Gutierrez is a reminder that Commerce has been the backwater of the Cabinet. Can you point to a single commerce secretary of distinction in recent years? (Clinton's appointment, Ron Brown, got into trouble for taking big Democratic funders on his trade missions.) But the department does do a lot of important stuff: trade, the census, patents, trademarks, telecommunications policy. It includes the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which is instrumental for developing science and policy relating to global warming. Wouldn't it be swell if it had a top-tier secretary?

I have a list:

1. It will be a helluva year.

2. See No. 1.

I'm away for a few days. See you when all the fun starts next week....

I was a guest on Newshour on Monday night to discuss the full foreign policy plate that awaits Barack Obama on January 20. (You can see the complete transcript here and download the video here.) Just before this segment was taped, the Israeli ambassador to the United States, Sallai Meridor, was interviewed by Margaret Warner regarding the Gaza crisis. What struck me was not his words--he said the expected--but the pin on his lapel.

Look at this picture:

Ambassador Meridor is wearing a double flag pin that has the Israeli flag welded to the American flag. It may be that Israeli diplomats have long worn such a crafty fashion accessory. But this was the first time I noticed it. How cunning. Would the French ambassador be caught dead wearing two flags at once? Would the U.S. ambassador to any country boast a similar accoutrement? He or she could be accused of--yikes!--dual loyalties. But for the Israelis, it's quite natural: a not-very-subliminal message and a reminder why Israel does so well in the PR battle for America.

Not really. But I am away for a few days--in a much less sunny location. Please feel free to peruse my recent postings below.

The Iraq war is not over. Afghanistan is a mess. The economy is a mess. Nothing's been done about climate change. And all around the world people have cheered a guy who threw a shoe at the president of the United States. So what's Bush's legacy? On the foreign policy front, his people are trumpeting his so-called promotion of democracy abroad. And that's how Bushies are talking about the war in Iraq they are bequeathing to the next guy. Here's Condi Rice from Meet the Press this past Sunday:

RICE: This Iraq, at the center of the Middle East, a powerful Arab state that is a friend of the United States and democratic, is going to make the Middle East a fundamentally different place.

DAVID GREGORY: Do you believe that over time, then, the United States will emerge with what will be considered an unambiguous victory in Iraq?

RICE: I believe that it will be, as time goes forward, absolutely clear that Saddam Hussein's Iraq would never have allowed the Middle East to change, and that this Iraq has the potential to anchor a more democrat, a more prosperous, a more peaceful Middle East, and, by the one, one that--by the way, one that is friendly to the United States.

From Iraq, it's just a few skips and a jump to more democratic Middle East, right? Not so. Democracy activists in the region have been complaining about Bush's policies--especially the Iraq war--for years, noting that Bush has set back the cause of democracy in the Middle East.

'Tis the season, so....

I was on Rachel Maddow's show on Friday night, discussing the Rick Warren wrangle. What a surprise, we agreed--mostly. But she seemed to think that the Warren controversy could remain the story of the inauguration from now until January 20. I noted that it was clear to me that the Obama crew had calculated that the current dustup is not nearly as big as the holy war that would ensue should the president-elect rescind his invitation to the super-pastor. Unless the present outrage widens, I observed, the controversy could fade.

But before it does, I'd like to take one more (polite) shot at Warren. I do find him an intriguing fundamentalist, given his interest in climate change and poverty alleviation. And he has certainly tried to oppose gay marriage without appearing like a hate-monger. I suppose that's worth something. But while campaigning fervently against gay marriage, he recently said:

The issue to me is, I'm not opposed to that as much as I'm opposed to the redefinition of a 5,000-year definition of marriage. I'm opposed to having a brother and sister be together and call that marriage. I'm opposed to an older guy marrying a child and calling that a marriage. I'm opposed to one guy having multiple wives and calling that marriage.

Warren's critics have pointed to this quote as evidence that he equates gays and lesbians with incest-lovers and pedophiles. (Indeed, when asked if he thought these other examples are "equivalent to having gays getting married," he said, "Oh, I do.") But I'd like to note Warren's adherence to this 5000-year definition of marriage.

Why doesn't Warren know his Bible better?

I'm no biblical scholar. But I can use Google. And I found BibleGateway.com, a searchable version of the Bible. I plugged "wives" into the search box and came up with the following results:

On Friday morning, I was on the CBS' The Early Show to talk about the Rick Warren controversy. Opposite me (via satellite hookup) was Robert Jeffress, a Baptist pastor from Dallas, who was billed as a friend of Warren.

Asked by Harry Smith to explain why gay and lesbian outfits and progressives were upset by Barack Obama's decision to hand Warren the invocation slot at the presidential inauguration, I noted that it was good that Obama has an inclusive approach toward political and policy debates, that he should make common cause with Warren on issues like poverty and climate change, and that it was wrong for him to grant Warren this high-profile platform because Warren's anti-gay remarks--he recently compared homosexuality to incest and pedophilia--are insulting to a large number of Americans, particularly many who worked long and hard to bring Obama to the White House. It's one thing to sit at the table with Warren and discuss how best to alleviate poverty; it's another to enhance his status.

When Jeffress had his chance, he went on about how it was unfair to slam Warren as a hate-monger because of his fervent opposition to gay marriage.

Gay marriage? Who said anything about gay marriage? Not me. I had pointed out that Warren's big sin had been to equate gays and lesbians with loathsome pedophiles. Is that hate-mongering? Some people might see it that way. But I was not going to judge Warren on that front. His words speak for themselves--and for him.

A week and a half ago, I published an article in the Washington Post in which I reviewed the reasons for progressives to be concerned about Barack Obama's first rounds of appointments (Clinton, Gates, Summers, etc.) and noted that the president-elect seemed to be pursuing a change-by-cooption strategy. He was, I speculated, recruiting centrists and conventional members of the Establishment to advance a left-of-center policy agenda.

That might still be the case. But what to make of Obama's decision to hand over a slice of his inauguration to Rick Warren, the best-selling evangelical leader?

Warren is not your father's fundamentalist. He has talked much about addressing climate change, poverty, and AIDS. But he does share with his fellow fundamentalists a passionate aversion to homosexuality and gay rights (and, of course, opposes abortion). He has fiercely opposed gay marriage. According to People for the American Way, he has compared homosexuality to incest and pedophilia. (Warren also has said that nonbelievers are indeed going straight to H-E-double hockey sticks.) It's no surprise that some progressives are mighty ticked off.

They have a right to be.

I understand the argument against Caroline Kennedy. It's basically this: what makes her so special other than her DNA? She's done good work, raising money for private-public partnerships that benefit public schools. She's written about the Constitution. And she's been classy--at least in the sense of never being an embarrassing celebrity. Is this enough to be a senator?

I am sympathetic to those who decry dynastic politics and who yearn for some semblance of a meritocracy in this nation. After all, this nation was founded in part in opposition to royalty. And is born-to-play much better than pay-to-play?

Still, I can't get that worked up about the possibility that New York Governor David Paterson will tap the daughter of JFK to fill Hillary Clinton's Senate seat. The drift of today's stories seem to indicate that she might be closer to obtaining the position once held by her uncle Bobby. Why no outrage on my part? Maybe because with two wars and a collapsed economy, I'm experiencing outrage exhaustion this holiday season. But my colleague Nick Baumann made a decent case for her: