Hank Kalet

McCain, the Times and the issue of ethics

The response to the John McCain story in today’s New York Times on the right has been one of shock, of high moral outrage that unnamed sources would be used to sully the reputation of a war hero, to insinuate that he’d had an affair.

Forget for a minute the whispering campaigns regularly waged by what Hillary Clinton has rightly called the “vast right-wing conspiracy,” innuendo that not only has targeted the Clintons, John Kerry, Al Gore and most of the Democratic Party, but John McCain himself.

Forget the expected attack on the Times as a bastion of liberal bias.

What is important about the response is its focus on the sex scandal angle and the way in which it sidetracks the real debate. The Times, in focusing on what unnamed sources say was more than a friendly relationship with a female lobbyist, has taken the focus off the real issues in the story — a somewhat muddled presentation that rehashes a lot of what we already knew about McCain.

The basic question the Times story raises is legitimate and must be addressed: Has John McCain, who has staked his reputation on being a clean-government reformer, engaged in the kind of influence peddling he has regularly decried?

The story offers an interesting and believable narrative in this regard, but leaves this issue up in the air, with questions raised about the nonprofit he had formed and his connections to a variety of lobbyists with business before his Senate committee.

These are issues that need to be explored. McCain attempted to answer them during his press conference today — defending his honor and credibility, but also taking a cheap shot at the Times designed to play to the GOP base.

Should his responses be taken at face value? No more than the comments from unnamed sources in the Times story.

My opinion on unnamed sources remains the same: that they should only be used sparingly in special circumstances to get information of vital importance that can be gotten in no other way or to protect the safety or privacy of sources — a whistleblower, for instance, or someone getting help from the local food pantry. I’m not sure that the use of unnamed sources here rises to this standard, though I will say they were not used frivilously.

So, what should we take from this? There remain a lot of questions that need to be asked about a candidate who has made honor, integrity and straight talk his calling cards, but has shown a disturbing willingness to pander, pander and pander again.

Let’s hope the media continues to probe deeply into McCain’s background, to press him on his flip-flops and conflicts, real or apparent, and that the eventual Democratic nominee also is held to this standard.

South Brunswick Post, The Cranbury Press
The Blog of South Brunswick

E-mail me by clicking here.

Quote of the day: on accountability

Juan Cole offers this (from yesterday’s post on his Informed Comment blog):

And I think there is good reason to ask whether McCain helped create al-Qaeda and the mess in Pakistan to begin with. It is time for someone to start holding the Cold Warriors who deployed a militant Muslim covert army against their leftist enemies accountable for the blow-back they created.

It has not been fashionable in the Post-9/11 era to raise this kind of question — to do so is to court criticism as an America-hater — but shouldn’t the people who created the conditions that led to the spread militant Islam be held to account?

South Brunswick Post, The Cranbury Press
The Blog of South Brunswick

E-mail me by clicking here.

Dispatches: Corzine’s losing bet

There are a lot of flaws with the governor’s toll-hike plan, as I point out in my Dispatches column and Charles Stiles points out in this column, but I have to wonder whether Gov. Jon Corzine is really ready to listen.

He has asked for alternatives, but how willing is he to consider them?

The Tri-State Transportation Committee offers a way to cut down on the transportation costs — basically, by rethinking the state’s approach to what it spends its cash on. Most interesting to me is this:

Include a fix-it-first mandate in the asset monetization legislation. To ensure that New Jersey continues to reduce its backlog of roads and bridges in poor condition, fix-it-first legislation should be included within the asset monetization plan. The legislation could require that 4% or less of transportation dollars raised by the plan go to expanding roadways, for example. Currently, less than 3% of NJDOT’s transportation program is spent on expansion, a trend that should extend to the other transportation agencies in the state.

The state has a woeful record of keeping its roads, bridges and rail lines up to day — as the governor has acknowledged — so it needs to make this a priority and enshrine this priority in state law.

The governor also should follow the prescription offered by New Jersey Policy Perspective and include a gas tax increase in the plan. As I’ve said, the state may need to raise tolls to cover rising costs, do some needed maintenance and even pay down some of the toll road debt, but a mix of other options — gas tax, income tax, budget cuts, consolidation, etc. — has to be on the table. Solely relying on tolls is foolish politically and generally unfair.

South Brunswick Post, The Cranbury Press
The Blog of South Brunswick

E-mail me by clicking here.

Healthy debate

An interesting piece on the somewhat minor distinctions between the Clinton and Obama healthcare plans in Salon. As I’ve written before, the mandates included in the Clinton plan make it more comprehensive, though as Paul Krugman points out, it is likely that Obama will have to add the mandates at a later date. This, and Clinton’s repeated response that much of her plan would have to be hashed out in Congress, make them almost indistinguishable.

In any case, both are leaps and bounds better than the plan that John McCain is pushing.

South Brunswick Post, The Cranbury Press
The Blog of South Brunswick

E-mail me by clicking here.

I hope the governor is not surprised

Poll numbers released today by Quinnipiac University show in statistical black and white that the governor’s toll hike plan is unpopular and that its unpopularity has voters in an ornery mood. The governor’s disapproval raiting is strikingly high — 52 percent, the highest of his term in office. (That said, he remains far more popular than President George W. Bush. But then most people are these days, with the possible exception of Roger Clemens.)

I can understand the numbers, though I do think they are a bit unfair. But that is politics. The governor is making a good-faith effort to fix a problem that has been growing for a dozen years, a problem that presents no easy or painless solutions. So he catches grief.

I agree that his toll plan is the wrong approach, but I also think he is being far more realistic than most of the elected officials in this state — and more realistic than most voters.

I keep having this same conversation with people. They complain about the plan, but offer the same cliched response — eliminate waste and corruption. I say, “great,” but how much of the budget do you think that accounts for?” No answer. Once you back out the debt, pension and other fixed payments, you’re left with maybe $15 billion in spending to tackle, maybe not even that much. If waste and corruption account for 10 percent — an absurdly generous assumption — you still manage to trim just $1.5 billion, about 40 percent of what would be needed to plug what has been a recurring hole. And it still leaves you dealing with future budgets.

I’ve said it before. We need to be realistic and we need to be comprehensive. Everything has to be on the table — streamlining government at all levels, cutting spending, redirecting money to where it is most necessary (antipoverty programs, for instance), reducing the local portion of the school tax bill by increasing school aid, cutting corruption, controlling debt. The list is endless, so we better get started.

South Brunswick Post, The Cranbury Press
The Blog of South Brunswick

E-mail me by clicking here.