Ken Silverstein at Harper's Wednesday delivers a deeply satisfying one-two punch against David Broder, the so-called "dean" of Washington political reporters.

Broder was on-line with readers when this exchange occurred:

Re: Speaking Fees: A few weeks ago, the paper's ombudsman, Deborah Howell, wrote a critical piece about your acceptance of speaking fees and the fact that you have spoken before groups that lobby Congress on several occasions. How much do think this revelation hurts your credibility? Personally, I find it difficult to take you seriously on any of the issues (like health care) where you accepted fees and accomodations from advocacy groups in the area.

David S. Broder: You are certainly entitled to judge my work by whatever standard you wish. I iwould simply point out to you that I have never accepted a speaking fee from a health care or medical group since I started covering that policy area 16 years ago.

In fact, Howell was spurred to write her piece by Silverstein's digging in June.

What he found, and what Broder admitted to when Howell pressed him, was that he had broken the Washington Post's rules regarding accepting speaking engagements without advance permission from an editor. While he didn't accept a fee from Western Conference of Prepaid Medical Service Plans (mostly Blue Cross and Blue Shield plans) when he spoke at their event last October, they did cover travel and hotel accommodations for him, Silverstein discovered, noting that "at minimum he is parsing words." And Broder did at the same time write a column sympathetic to a health care plan Blue Cross likes.

That's not all. Silverstein writes:

...Broder has apparently spoken at least three other times before health care groups:

   At the Association for Community Health Improvement in 2005, at the Hyatt Regency in Tampa, Florida. The group is a coalition of for-profit and non-profit hospitals, government health officials, community health centers.
   
   At the American College of Physicians, during a lobbying visit the group paid to Washington in the summer of 2005.
   
   At the American Academy of Family Physicians in 1999, in Orlando, Florida.

Was Broder paid for these speeches, or did he accept travel and accommodations for the trips to Florida? Maybe the Post should find out.

Silverstein chose kindness in saying that what Broder did in another instance was to "flagrantly mislead" readers, when "lied to" would have been just as accurate. The columnist had told Howell when she was writing her column critiquing him that he had attended an American Council for Capital Formation event, "but did not give a speech" to the group, as Silverstein reported. But, in fact, an ACCF publication reported on Broder’s speech to the group and included a photograph of him addressing the crowd.

A question worth investigating for some individual with time on her hands, or of a collaborative group, is how many columnists are paid for speaking engagements and subsequently, without disclosing their financial interests, write favorably about the groups who paid them. The only difference between this kind of behavior and what Armstrong Williams did is that former Tribune Media Services/Los Angeles Times Syndicate columnist took taxpayer money for his shillery.

+ + +

The Overnight News Digest is posted, including the story, A quarter of all home sales result in loss.

I've been a big fan of Harper's Index since forever. Footnoted statistics, often grouped in pairs, triplets or foursomes, guaranteed to spark a chuckle or a discussion. Like, for instance, this item from back in January:

Percentage of NYU students who say they would "permanently forfeit" their vote for $1 million: 50

Or from March 1994:

Chances that a fatal accident involving a Corvette will involve no other vehicle: 4 in 5

Or from June 1986:

Amount the Reagan Administration has budgeted for military bands in 1987: $154,200,000

Amount it has budgeted for the National Endowment for the Arts:$144,900,000

The current (June) issue has this relevant grouping:

Portion of Barack Obama supporters who said in April they would not vote for Hillary Clinton if she became the nominee: 1 in 5

Portion of Clinton supporters who said this about Obama: 1/4

Percentage of John McCain supporters in March 2000 who said they would not vote for George W. Bush: 51

Percentage who still said this in October 2000: 39

The Overnight News Digest is posted and includes this item from Eric Schmitt and Tim Golden in Saturday's The New York Times: U.S. Planning Big New Prison in Afghanistan.

via MAL Contends

Update: Debt Rattle, Fire and Iceland; Central Banks Signal Deepening Concern at Outlook as G-7 Meets

In the Harper's May issue (not available online yet), Kevin Phillips has a vital piece discussing why the American economy is in worse shape than is acknowledged by bipartisan elites who have been participating not in some "grand conspiracy, just accumulating opportunisms."

Scott Horton writes in Harper's:

The Past Is Not Past. Or Is It? What do two short stories by William Faulkner published by Harper’s in the fall of 1940 have to do with the 2008 presidential campaign? Faulkner finalized them in the midst of a presidential election campaign, as Franklin Roosevelt sought his third term, a fact which breaks through in a few spots. These stories seem to be a simple narrative of life in the rural South, one is a rite of passage story and the other a strange tragi-comedy. But these stories are indeed intensely political, and their message was one that the readership would hardly have been prepared to cope with, in those dark days as the specter of war loomed over America. It seems we have to go forward seventeen presidential elections to come to the day when they become a matter of public discussion. Last Tuesday, Senator Barack Obama, facing a withering assault over his relationship with his former pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, delivered a carefully measured and thoughtful speech on race relations in America. The speech was by almost every measure something extraordinary. It was delivered against the advice of Obama’s advisors, who felt—probably correctly—that any discussion of the race issue would only be used to isolate him in public debate. But more significantly, the language of the speech was not measured and shaped by focus groups. It proceeded assuming an educated and intelligent audience. As Reagan speechwriter Peggy Noonan reminded us in the pages of the Wall Street Journal, no political advisor would ever hear of such a thing. She points to two give-aways: the use of the word "endemic" and a quotation from Faulkner. The words quoted were: ‘The past isn’t dead and buried. In fact, it isn’t even past.’ But actually the language is just off. The actual words are "The past is never dead. It’s not even past." They come from Requiem for a Nun. But the meaning and use that Obama takes is taken straight from an earlier Faulkner novel, Go Down, Moses, a brave and profound work about race relations in America. Being bound to, but struggling to overcome the past is a key message of that work. In fact these words could be taken as a sort of moral test that he has put to a focal character: will he remain a servant to the past, or will he succeed in shaking those chains free? The protagonist fails that test, with his very Southern attitudes and bigotries. In fact, Faulkner did himself at least once–in an outburst in an interview in the fifties, which Faulkner later attributed to too much alcohol. But Faulkner left a transcendent message: Some day, he tells us, some day the people will rise above these divisions and will recognize the ties that bind all. They will recognize the fundamental lie of racism. This was not, of course, a message which could be easily delivered to an American audience in 1940. Today, however, the message finds people ready to listen and to believe.

As with any essay, you can't get the full flavor no matter how tasty the excerpt, so click on through.

Days since Mission Accomplished in Iraq: 1791

Number of "coalition" members dead because of the invasion and occupation: 4308

Number of Iraqis dead for the same reason: 150,000 to 1.45 million, depending on the source.

Cheney-Bush Administration's response to the situation: So?

The Overnight News Digest is posted.

Here's a reassuring bit of news. The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel reports that US Atty Stephen Biskupic stands ready to investigate any cases arising from casting votes in tommorow's presidential primary, if someone complains and the Milwaukee Co DA begs out from investigating.

Writes John Diedrich:

U.S. Attorney Steven Biskupic said his prosecutors and the FBI will be available to investigate cases if citizens are dissatisfied with the response they get from the city Election Commission, police or local prosecutors.

- See Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel

Via http://malcontends.blogspot.com/...

The conduct of Stephen Biskupic, United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Wisconsin (2002 - present) has generated two prominent reactions.

As arguably the most controversial U.S. Atty in Wisconsin history, Biskupic has drawn both praise and angry denunciation for his prosecutions of:

- The proven-innocent Wisconsin state worker Georgia Thompson

- Several subsequently overturned "voter fraud" cases

- Wisconsin Navy veteran Keith Roberts

Via Mal Contends - Journalists are breaking new ground in the GOP scheme to use the DOJ as a Republican machine to target a major tier of Democratic campaign money: Trial Attorneys.

If sufficiently flushed out and advanced over the next several months, the story, a pattern of at best questionable prosecutions, can be expected to become a major corruption scandal just in time for 2008 elections.

Follow the prosecutions. As in if you know of prosecutions that smell in your area by U.S. Attys, send tips to: scott@harpers.org.

In Disaster Capitalism The New Economy of Catastrophe in Harper's Magazine http://www.harpers.org/... Naomi Klien defines the direction of unregulated government contracts at home and in Iraq.  In Iraq, she tells of the two different worlds existing in one place.  On one hand, the 'Green Zone' for the wealthy few (and mostly American) with swimming pools, spas, and guards.  On the other hand are the people existing in the 'Red Zone' who are less valued with no protection and often not even clean water.

What does this have to do with the next election?  Read on after the bump

Anyone who has read my previous thirty-odd posts over the past two months - and anyone who has not, for that matter - is begged forgiveness for the uncustomary brevity of this post, brevity necessary for the sake of having you, dear reader, click the link provided below to this month's issue of Harper's Magazine, out this week, primarily for its monthly Notebook feature, long written by the incomparable Lewis Lapham but this month authored by Contributing Editor Garret Keizer.

Oh, there are also plenty of the usual wonderful feature articles that makes one light up when, once a month, the mailkey is turned and the opened box reveals a new issue of Harper's. This month's issue, in fact, also features a fantastic article written by Naomi Klein, a must read while you're over there at Harpers.org.

But it is Mr. Keizer's piece, entitled Specific Suggestion: General Strike, that demands the attention of every Kossack, indeed every American. If you need further enticement, make the jump below for a few excerpts. But I hope that you won't bother, that you'll instead just click the link here.

Though almost a month old now, I can't let a fascinating commentary by Luke Mitchell over at Harper's go unremarked. Mitchell's curiosity was piqued when he watched the performance of National Security Director Michael McConnell on Meet the Press back on July 22. (McConnell is also a former director of the National Security Agency, a retired vice-admiral, and was Intelligence Officer to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during Bush I's Operation Desert Storm -- no small-time player he!)

McConnell was talking with Tim Russert about Bush II's executive order on CIA interrogation practices, signed only two days previously, which reiterated the Bush Administrations contention that "unlawful enemy combatants" don't deserve Geneva Convention protections. The E.O. also banned certain interrogation techniques that even an uninformed U.S. citizen could recognize as torture:

Ken Silverstein, Washington editor of Harper's magazine, has a piece in the July edition that exposes the corruption and prostitution of Washington lobbying firms willing to polish the image of the sleaziest clients if the money is good enough.

He posed as a businessman looking to hire a lobbying firm to make the neo-Stalinist government of Turkmenistan look good. He found takers willing to plant stories in the media, arrange for think-tank produced articles, etc. for a hefty fee.

Did the Washington press corps rush in to write about these hired-gun lobbyists? Au contraire. Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post fretted about Silverstein posing as someone he was not, as Silverstein detailed over the weekend in an LA Times op-ed piece.

Harper's has an excellent article titled Justice in Alabama by Scott Horton. It's been mentioned in this diary but the diary didn't get much attention. This article comments on the politicization of the DoJ pursuing Democrats over Republicans (7:1) and includes details in the case against former Alabama Democratic governor, Don Siegelman.

Ken Silverstein has just written an important piece for Harper's Magazine titled Their men in Washington: Undercover with D.C.'s lobbyists for hire. Bill Moyers talked to Silverstein this week on Bill Moyers Journal. From Moyers' web site:

Ken Silverstein, HARPER'S Magazine's Washington Editor, has for years been reporting on the questionable lobbying practices of certain Washington firms that advocate in Congress on behalf of corrupt foreign regimes.

For his latest article, he decided to pose as the representative of a fictitious investment group with business interests in Turkmenistan, and approached several prominent Washington lobbying firms to see how they might bolster the image of Turkmenistan as a viable international economic and diplomatic partner.

The still-as-yet-uncontroverted sworn affidavit of Republican attorney Dana Jill Simpson set the alarm bells clanging even louder over another AUSA scandal. Simpson testified that the prosecution of Don Seligman was engineered by Karl Rove for political purposes. The matter has been hanging fire lately, with Democrats hanging back from making a big deal about it because of questions about Seligman's guilt.

So here's something new: Scott Horton of Harper's Magazine argues that the conviction of Seligman, the former Democratic governor of Alabama, was in Horton's words based on evidence that is  "bizarrely thin." Horton, an attorney, writes with the same penetrating clarity as Glenn Greenwald.

Horton sets it all out here.

This is a short diary... I apologize but hey, it’s late!

It’s possible that NPR host Diane Rehm scored a direct, debilitating hit on the Bush administration modus operandi in rushing the deployment of the 21, 500 troops to Baghdad and al-Anbar province in western Iraq.

While talking on air with Republican strategist Vin Weber and former chief of staff to President Bill Clinton John Podesta, the longtime NPR host made a startling claim:

Think Progress:

It’s my understanding that the National Intelligence Estimate...is going to suggest that adding troops is the wrong way to go, that it’s not going to improve the situation.

More below:

I am writing this diary to encourage Kossacks to read the front-page essay in Harper's by Jeff Sharlet. The view advanced in the essay differs in illuminating ways from that which might be gleaned from reading Frederick Clarkson diaries. In particular Sharlet believes that Rushdoony is most important for proposing the view that there is a Christian view of history which promotes the right-wing causes of capitalism being Christian and the importance of Christians being prepared for war. Rushdoony is also important because Francis Schaeffer was his student (I didn't know this before).
Sharlet starts the article with a bang: we cannot assume that fundamentalists are the fundamentalists of the past. For two points, they are middle class and not willing to believe that heterosexual sex is intrinsically sinful. The view of history being peddled by influential fundamentalist sources is a clue to the relationship between fundamentalists and secular society. Please continue on the flip.

John Kerry was just on Wolf Blitzer's Late Edition on CNN, and gave a comprehensive view of the dynamics in the Middle East and Iraq and what needs to be done, which will be of a political and diplomatic nature.  He also reiterated that getting Iraq right involves bringing our troops home by setting a date.  But I was particularly struck when he responded to a question about John McCain's preposterous idea of sending more troops into Iraq.

More at the flip

If you haven't read Lapham's droll "Going by the Book" in the November Harper's, you might want to get hold of a copy and read his essay mocking the War on Terror.  Lapham begins by explaining that "In concert with the fifth-anniversary festivities celebrating the 9/11 day of doom," he attended a conference in New York City on Sept. 8, a four-hour program of risk analysis hosted by the Council on Foreign Relations. The former editor of Harper's was not impressed.