Is It Now the Best Election Money Can Buy?

Trevor Potter advises his SuperPac client Stephen Colbert

Trevor Potter has been called by the American Bar Association "hands-down one of the top lawyers in the country on the delicate intersection of politics, law and money".  He has served as chairman of the Federal Election Commission and twice as general counsel to GOP presidential candidate John McCain. But today he is probably best known as the legal adviser to TV political satirist Stephen Colbert and Colbert's SuperPac Making a Better Tomorrow Tomorrow.

As is completely in line with Colbert's satirical outlook, Potter also happens to be one of the nation's most articulate critics of the Supreme Court's 5-4 decision equating corporations with people and allowing the creation of SuperPacs, which can use unlimited sums of money to campaign for political candidates of their choosing.

Potter was joined recently by Time magazine White House correspondent Michael Scherrer and Mark Schmitt, senior research fellow for the New America Foundation, for a panel discussion entitled Beyond Sticker Shock: How Is Big Money Changing Politics in 2012 sponsored by the New America Foundation.

The essential question posed by the Citizens United ruling Potter says is "who gets to determine who our leaders are?"

"We want a Congress and a president who represent the will of the people," Potter said. "You don't want the Senator of Standard Oil; you want the Senator who represents New Jersey."

Potter said one of his greatest concerns is that the huge flow of money the SuperPacs can produce allows them to air a plethora of skewed, misleading, and sometimes blatantly false political ads that can determine an election. "You want an engaged electorate. What you don't want are voters dazed by the war of the airways," he contended.

Scherrer, who has been reporting on the financial part of the 2012 campaign, said the unleashed SuperPacs are definitely affecting this year's races around the country. "What does this mean for politics? Outside money makes easier access to the airways right before an election," Scherrer said. "I think the peak of the power was in the primaries. It really transformed the Republican primaries. They were much more prolonged than expected. Gingrich and Santorum couldn't have stayed in as long without a millionaire or a billionaire backing them."

He said that with an incumbent in President Obama, the Democrats didn't see that same effect since they didn't hold primaries. "But in 2016, it will be a concern for their primaries. It is difficult to see how any candidate can get into the race without a few wealthy friends," Sherrer said.

Even though the reliance on SuperPacs appears to lead to an increasing control of the political process by wealthy individuals and corporations with their own agendas, Sherrer said that there may be some drawbacks to relying too heavily on such funding in a presidential race..

"They have been shown to have clear weaknesses," Sherrer said. "Since the ads can't be coordinated with the campaigns, early on the Romney ads didn't follow a single narrative like the Obama campaign did. The FCC also charges SuperPacs more for ads, which means they are spending up to 6 times as much as a  (regular) campaign for the same amount of time. And small donors are giving more now as we get closer to the end."

But Schmitt, who has been studying the political financial picture for the New America Foundation, said that if the Citizens United ruling isn't changed by Congress, the Supreme Court, or a Constitutional amendment, then our political process of equal weights on votes is in jeopardy. "We're creating a system where a candidate can be wholly or largely dependent on a single donor," Schmitt said.

Tales, Tidbits, and Tips
If you want to read more about what Potter has to say on campaign finance, here are links to 3 articles where he addresses the issue:

• a transcript of an NPR intereview with Potter
• a transcript of a Bill Moyers interview with Potter
• an article Potter wrote for the BloombergView.

Justice Scalia Speaks

When Scalia speaks, the legal world listens

In his quarter-century on the Supreme Court, Justice Antonin Scalia has consistently demonstrated a conservative ideology in his opinions, advocating textualism in statutory interpretation and originalism in constitutional interpretation.

"What legitimacy is there for the Supreme Court to revise the Constitution? We should not be making or inventing the law," Judge Scalia says. "We need to rule by the text. What did it mean at the time it was written?"

Recently, Justice Scalia, one of Washington's most interesting speakers, addressed a standing-room-only crowd at the American Enterprise Institute.

The 76-year-old Scalia, in remarks often punctuated with humor and simple, clear examples and anecdotes, indicated that he felt comfortable with his decisional underpinnings. "I will stipulate that originalism is not perfect," Scalia said. "But it is better than anything else. It's the only game in town. What did they (the laws) mean when they were adopted"

To solidify his point, Scalia told the joke about 2 hunters who encountered an angry grizzly bear which  began chasing them. One of the hunters turned to the other and asked, "Do you really think we can outrun that bear?"

"I don't have to outrun the bear, I just have to outrun you," the second hunter responded.

Justice Scalia said he was deeply troubled by those who believe the Constitution is a living document that should be interpreted according to the vagaries of any current time. "Of course, you have to take into account new phenomena. But a system of whatever you think the Constitution means, that's what it means, that's not a prescription for Democracy," Scalia contended.

But what if a law is wrong?  Should justices set out to place a new law in its place. "I am a textualist. I am an originalist. I am not a nut," Justice Scalia said with a laugh. "Water over the dam is water over the dam. Let's go on to the next mistake. We don't go looking for cases. We get involved when the Courts of Appeals are in disagreement. We are a government of laws, not legislators' intentions. We have to govern by the text. What did it mean at the time? Even if all the legislators were falling down drunk at the time when they passed it, the law is the law. You (as a judge) can't go around revising laws because they are stupid or the wrong law."

Judge Scalia said that while the process is arduous and the debate intellectually challenging, a Supreme Court justice's main task is "to look at the argument made on both sides and decide which is the better argument."

For almost 45 minutes, Scalia answered questions from the audience. A sampling of the questions and his responses include:

What do you think is the biggest misconception of the Supreme Court?
"People think we are spending most of our time up there contemplating our navels. We do all sorts of incredibly dull stuff, but we do work."

Should cameras and video equipment be allowed in the Supreme Court?
"I have always opposed cameras. They would convey a misconception. Everything we said would be outnumbered 10,000 to 12 by a 20 or 30-second takeout on the nightly news."

What would you change to make the Constitution better?
"I would probably alter the Amendment provisions (to make an amendment easier to get made into law). Less than 2 percent of the people can prevent a Constitutional amendment."

What should students read to make them better citizens?
"The Federalist. And the Constitution. That is a damned disgrace that  students should get out of high school or college without reading the Constitution."

Do the justices argue and fight over rulings? 
"Do not believe anything you read about the inner workings of the court. The justices won't reply and so you are left with unreliable sources. It's nonsense that Justice Roberts and I had a heated exchange (over the Obama Health Care ruling). We didn't have angry words. We can disagree without getting angry. We're all good friends. You probably know that Ruth (Ginsberg, a liberal judge) is my best friend on the court. And she doesn't always exactly rule the way I do."

Will you retire any time soon?
"I could have retired 11 years ago. Actually, I've been working for nothing for that time. That probably makes me too stupid for the job. But my wife wouldn't want me around the house all the time. I love this job. It is an important job and I enjoy doing it."

How do you stay hopeful?
"Who says I'm hopeful. I feel like I'm Frodo in The Lord of Rings. I soldier on."

Tales, Tidbits, and Tips
Obviously, given his judicial philosophy, Justice Scalia is a great admirer of the Founding Fathers. But, who of that great group, does he believe the greatest? The justice hesitates only slightly before answering: "George Washington - it wouldn't have happened without him. It just shows that smart isn't everything. He was surrounded by geniuses. But he was the indispensable man."

The Dr. Lonnie Smith Trio Jazzes It Up

Dr. Lonnie Smith

For me, the Hammond B-3 organ has always been the most magnificent jazz instrument. And in the hands of a master like Down Beat magazine Top Organist Dr. Lonnie Smith, the bulky B-3 and the swirling sounds from its Leslie speaker provide a magical jazz experience for both the veteran and the neophyte live listener.

Smith, joined by guitar virtuoso Jonathan Kreisberg and drummer extraordinaire Jaimire Williams, filled the intimate KC Jazz Club at the Kennedy Center last weekend with modern and more traditional jazz pieces with inspired solos from all 3 instrumentalists.

Most of the 90-minute set came from the Trio's latest CD The Healer. Smith opened with "Backtrack," which is also the 1st song on the CD. He followed with a revamped, uptempo version of his "Mellow Mood." In the middle of the set, the Trio jammed on "Beehive," which features Smith on the synth trading riffs with Kreisberg.  As he always does, Smith also employed scat singing on most of the numbers.

The highlights of the night were a reworked "These Are a Few of My Favorite Things," which jazz legend John Coltrane appropriated from the showtune world and a 10-minute funky jam, which would have done the funkiest soul band proud.

Throughout the set, Smith and Kreisberg engaged in swapping swift licks and intricate solos that prompted outburst after outburst from the sold-out late-night show. The Dr. Lonnie Smith Trio performance was the latest scheduled in the club, which is located on the Terrace level of the Kennedy Center. For a list of upcoming shows, click here.

Tales, Tidbits, and Tips
Jazz is meant to be heard, not to be read about. So, for your listening pleasure here is:

• Mellow Mood

• Beehive

Washington and the War of 1812

The British burn the White House in 1814

If you learned about the War of 1812 in history class, you were probably told that the United States went to war with England because the British were illegally taking sailors from American ships. And while that is true, it is only part of the story. For the complete picture, you need to look at the Americans at the time who wanted to eliminate British influence, conquer Canada, expand the U.S. borders westward, and handle problems with the land's 1st citizens, the Indians.

At least that is the way National Parks ranger Lowell Fry, who has been leading free War of 1812-themed trips in D.C. this summer, sees it. Last week, we accompanied the energetic Fry on one of his last informative, engaging trips of the season to see what new details about the period we could discover.

The almost 3-hour walking tour covers 4 main elements: the war's causes, some of its major battles, the burning of Washington by the British, and the end of the war and its aftermath.

Some historians believe that the War of 1812, often termed the 2nd Revolution, was inevitable considering the aftermath of the initial Revolution that created the new country. "There wasn't a clean break; it was kind of jagged," Fry said. "It was sort of like the old westerns - this place isn't big enough for the both of us." For example, the British were supposed to give up western forts. They didn't. The Americans were supposed to pay renumeration to the British. They didn't. Americans on the western frontier (Kentucky, Indiana etc.) blamed the British for egging on Indians to attack  settlers. "They wanted to make the war a war to obliterate the Indian threat," Fry said.

However, the 1st official call for war in history by Congress was by a bitterly divided vote. The Federalists, mostly merchants from New England, were opposed, wanting trade with the British to continue and immigration to America severely limited. The other major party the Democratic Republicans supported any immigrants as long as they weren't blacks or Indians and thought a complete break with Britain was needed.

In the years leading up to the conflict, the Democrats were led by then President Thomas Jefferson, an enthusiastic Francophile and an equally avowed Anglophobe.  Jefferson also favored taking over British Canada to expand American territory. As for the Indians, Jefferson favored turning them into docile farmers, a position the tribes strongly opposed. Culturally, Indian women did any farming and the men were warriors, a system the Indians saw no reason to change. "Jefferson was really trying to make these people into something they were not," Fry said

Once the war was declared, the fate of 3 largest minorities in America was greatly affected. Indians fought on both sides. But when the war ended, those fighting for Americans suffered the same relocation fate as those who sided with the British. In the South, black slaves fled and joined the British. At the end of the war, they were abandoned and returned to slavery. Those fighting on the American side suffered a similar fate; their promised freedom never materialized. "Both the blacks and the Indians really got a raw deal," Fry said.

The 3rd group, the British-hating Irish, fared better. Many fought in the war and after the conflict, the group began its ascendency to political power, especially in New York and other large cities.

Early British victories in the north kept the Americans from capturing Canada. The lowest point of the war for Americans came in 1814 when British troops routed the Americans just outside Washington, marched unopposed into the city, and burned both the White House and the Capitol. But America rallied, successfully defending Fort McHenry and thereby giving the country a new national anthem. There were several  significant American victories in sea battles. Finally, England, still battling France, decided to negotiate with the Americans, talks which produced the war-ending Treaty of Ghent. As part of the tour, our group visited the Octagon House, which still contains the original table where President James Madison signed the treaty. Ironically, America's greatest victory in the war at the Battle of New Orleans came after the Ghent treaty was signed.

Tales, Tidbits, and Tips
This was second tour led by Fry we have taken. You can read about the 1st, the intriguingly named How World War I Birthed Monty Python, by clicking here. If you are in the DC area when Fry is giving a tour and have free time, I highly urge you to participate. You can get a complete list of Ranger-led DC tours by clicking here.

A Look at JFK

President Kennedy greets Dr. King

History often hinges on small, at the time seemingly insignificant, moments. Former President John Kennedy's adviser and U.S. Senator from Pennsylvania Harris Wofford believes that a phone call that then-candidate Kennedy made in a few weeks before the 1960 election qualifies as such a pivotal instance.

In 1960, Martin Luther King was in a Georgia prison, facing 6 months of hard labor for supposedly violating a parole law. His wife, Coretta, who was 6 months pregnant at the time, was terrified for her husband and reaching out for help. Wofford, who prior to joining the Kennedy campaign, had been an advisor to King, came up with an idea. Kennedy should call Mrs. King and convey his sympathy and concern.

Wofford knew that many of Kennedy's people would be opposed, so when he finally found himself alone with the candidate, he broached the proposal. Kennedy pondered for about 30 seconds, then smiled. "That's a very good idea. Do you have her number?" Kennedy asked. Wofford gave him Mrs. King's private phone number and Kennedy went to make the call.

As expected, many members of the campaign were furious, believing such a call in the racially divisive times would doom Kennedy, who was engaged in an extremely close contest with Republican candidate and vice president Richard Nixon. "It certainly didn't facilitate my relations with Robert Kennedy (Kennedy's passionate brother who was in charge of the campaign). The anger he showed that night still lingers in my mind," Wofford says.

But the call had a different outcome than feared. Earlier, King's father Martin L."Daddy' King Sr., one of America's most powerful black preachers, had announced that he was supporting Nixon because Kennedy was a Catholic. However, immediately after the call, King Sr. announced that he was throwing his full support behind Kennedy. "If he has the courage to wipe the tears from my daughter-in-law's eyes, then I have the courage to vote for a Catholic," King Sr. said. Based on the King endorsement, the black vote flocked to Kennedy and political historians believe that meant the difference in several states in one of the closest presidential contests in American history.

Wofford's recounting of the insider's tale came at a recent National Archives program John Kennedy 1917-1963. The program featured a showing of a restored 33-minute documentary released in 1979 by filmmaker Charles Guggenheim, which was commissioned to be shown as an introduction to the Kennedy Library museum in Boston. After the showing, Wofford, Kennedy scholar and a director of the Richard Nixon Library in Yorba Linda, California Timothy Naftall, and Kennedy documentary editor Jay Lash Cassidy, discussed the film and the Kennedy legacy.

Cassidy said the biggest problem in making the film was the time constraint. "We needed to create an emotional life for John F. Kennedy knowing of the short period of time (so the film could serve as an introduction) along with a long list of accomplsihments," he explained.

Cassidy said that after fierce discussion, many events important to the Kennedy story couldn't make the final cut. ""You're not making definitive history so you have to pick your themes," the award-winning editor said.

Wofford praised the production, claiming it "brings Kennedy alive. There's a living sense of him. It's brevity reminds us of how short his life was."

Kennedy held a belief that an individual can make a difference and government can be a force for good in the world, Wofford maintained. "Maybe those ideas need to be replanted today," he said.

Wofford said he was always impressed with Kennedy's "coolness" under pressure, his keen intellect, and his desire to take on difficult problems. "He picked me up one day on a Georgetown street corner and gave me a ride in his convertible," Wofford said. "He said 'in 10 minutes tell me the 6 or so things that I need to do to clean up this Civil Rights mess.'"  Later, when the president found it difficult to end decades of segregation with a stroke of a pen, he would tell his aides "send them (the complaining parties) over to Wofford. He's the one who said that."

Tales, Tidbits, and Tips
It is one of the great what-ifs in American history - what would have happened if JFK had not been assassinated in 1963 in Dallas and had been elected to a 2nd term?  Well, Wofford, one of the few close Kennedy associates still alive, has his beliefs. "He would have found a way to get us out of Vietnam," Wofford contends. " Kennedy would have pushed through some sort of Civil Rights package, but it might not have been as strong as the one his successor Lyndon Johnson was able to produce as a tribute to the slain leader. John Kennedy was always interested in the world. Our foreign policy would have been much closer to the one of Barack Obama's (now)," Wofford concluded.

Debating the Debates

While experts debate the actual importance of presidential debates, there is no question that those match-ups over the years have produced memorable moments. In the very 1st televised presidential debate in history in 1960, a tanned, made-up John Kennedy was widely believed to have fared better on TV than his opponent Richard Nixon, who declined to wear makeup and appeared to have beads of sweat on his upper lip. Then there are the famous lines. Ronald Reagan's "There you go again" dismissal to Jimmy Carter. Bill Clinton's "I feel your pain." George H.W. Bush's glancing at his watch. Michael Dukakis' impassionate handling of a question asking if he would favor the death penalty if his wife was raped and murdered. Al Gore looking smug and bored.

And in the next few weeks beginning tomorrow night, we will see the latest in the series of face-to-face confrontations between presidential candidates - 3 debates between incumbent Barack Obama and GOP hopeful Mitt Romney.

So, as citizens and voters, what exactly should we be looking for? To help answer that question, the First Amendment Center and the National Communication Association jointly sponsored a Beyond Wins & Losses: A Citizens' Guide to the 2012 Presidential Debates forum at the Newseum. Five panelists participated. They were:

• Annie Groer, a PoliticsDaily.com columnist, who when she covered politics for the Orlando Sentinel was a panelist on the 1988 presidentail debate between George H. W. Bush and Michael Dukakis
• J. Michael Hogan, a professor of Communications Arts and Sciences at Penn State
• Charlton McIlwain, associate professor of Media, Culture, and Communications at NYU
• Kathryn Olson. Communications professor at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee and
• Sander Vanocur, a veteran of more than 40 years in print, radio, and televisison who is the only survivoring participant in the very 1st televised presidential debate in 1960 between John Kennedy and Richard Nixon

In the days leading up to the latest debates, both the Obama and the Romney campaigns have been trying to lower expectations for their candidates. The Daily Show correspondents hilarious spoofed that process by contending that Romney's people would consider it a victory if their candidate did not fall asleep during the 90 minutes, while Obama's people said the president could claim victory if he didn't expose himself on national TV.

The GOP campaign is already on record as saying they would not let their campaign be dictated to by fact-checkers.  Then there is Romney's own telling quote about answering questions: "You get to ask the questions you want," Romney told an interviewer "And I get to give the answers I want."

In light of such a political climate, all 5 panelists agreed that we should not expect to witness anything too daring during the debates. "Now, not losing is more important than winning," McIlwain said. "If neither candidate does anything or says anything outrageous, then the little things will be what we will be talking about in the days to come."

Olson said the 2 candidates each have an important task in the debates. She said the American people are always looking for "a delicate balance" in their president between a masterful, powerful leader and a man of  the people. "For Obama, the question is where is the leadership. For Romney, he has to show he's like the rest of us, especially after the 47% comment disparaging half the American people," Olson said.

But the panelists agreed that the debates still have importance.

"It's like a job interview," Groer said. "And in this age of reality TV, the people want to make the decision who goes off the island. Any kind of window we do get into their (the candidates') thought processes does help us to understand them."

Vanocur said he believed that televised debates are good for Democracy. "The TV camera is neutral. It shows the good and the bad and the indifferent," he said. He firmly believes the debates do matter to the eventual outcome. Referring to Reagan's "there you go again" comment to Carter, Vanocur said. "You don't know whether it was spontaneous or if it was programmed. You only know it was devastating."

Recently, there has much debate about the formats of the debates themselves. Critics say that calling the current debates actual debates demeans the word. "I'm not sure we want a real debate. Today, competitive debaters talk 360 words a minute. Some people like to cite the Lincoln-Douglas debates. But they were 3-hour debates on a single issue. I don't think we can tolerate that," Hogan said.

But whatever value we place on the debates, the panel agreed that despite the rhetoric to opposite, the candidates worry greatly about the debates and the outcome. "In this age in which image matters, it becomes a question of how these 2 candidates come across when they are actually standing across from one another," McIlwain said.

Tales, Tidbits, and Tips
Here are some tips from the panel about maximizing your debate watching experience.
Annie Groer
Look for something you don't already know about the candidates. Do some homework first so you don't have to take whatever they say as the truth. Also, don't watch the debate with people you agree with; watch with people of the other party. That way you'll hear them groan I don't believe he just did that or I can't believe he just said that. 
McIlwain
Says he is going to go in the other room and listen, but not watch the debate on TV. You should try to focus on what is being said, not just on what is being seen.
Olson
Watch for that balance between the democratic idea (of man of power and man of the people). Ask yourself - who is the person that is going to be best for the unimaginable moments that will come.
Hogan
At Penn State, we bring 300 students in to watch the debates and then turn the TV off so they can't rely on the spin doctors. They have to make up their own minds. Don't put the emphasis on who won or who lost. That is the wrong question. Instead ask what did you learn or not learn from the debate.
Vanocur
Take a drink and do all of the above.

A Supreme Preview

Last year, the Supreme Court had what could be termed a blockbuster year, ruling on the Obama health-care law and controversial immigration restrictions. But according to UCLA Professor of Law Adam Winkler, who has served as an attorney for such noted figures as Michael Jordan and O.J. Simpson, this year's docket could rival last year's in high stakes cases.

The court is definitely scheduled to decide a Civil Rights affirmative action case which asks if special accommodations and protections for minorities have reached their limit. The 9 justices are also expected to be asked to decide on same-sex marriage issues and voter ID laws.

With Winkler as moderator, a panel of 5 high-profile attorneys discussed the court's new term which began as part of an annual Supreme Court preview program sponsored by the American Constitution Society for Law and Policy. The panel included:

• Lisa Blatt, who holds the record for a female with 30 cases argued before the Supreme Court
• Elise Boddie, acting director of litigation for the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund
• Thomas Goldstein, the founder of  SCOTUSblog who has argued 23 cases before the court
• Ilya Shapiro, legal commentator and editor-in-chief of Cato Supreme Court Review
• Kenji Yoshino, New York University law professor and a specialist in anti-discrimination law

Legal scholars agree that the most important case currently scheduled is Fisher v. University of Texas. The case, brought by white undergraduate Abigail Fisher in 2008, asks that the court either declare the admissions policy of the University of Texas inconsistent with, or entirely overrule Grutter v. Bollinger,  a 2003 case in which the Supreme Court ruled that race could play a limited role in the admissions policies of universities. An overruling of Grutter could end affirmative action at American universities.

"We do have a view that the University of Texas is right," Boddie said. "Numbers matter to alleviate the sense of tokenism and racial isolation. Will the doors close to racial minorities?"

Yoshino said that while no same-sex cases are yet on the docket, such cases could be argued this term. "In 32 states, traditional defense of  marriage has prevailed. The question is which sexual orientation will get heightened scrutiny. Sooner or later, the Supreme Court will have to grant reviews of same sex cases," he said.

Many cases seek to guarantee federal benefits for legally married same-sex couples. A provision of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act deprives same-sex couples of a range of federal benefits available to heterosexual couples. Several cases seek to guarantee federal benefits for legally married same-sex couples. Several federal courts have agreed that the provision of the law is unconstitutional, a situation that practically ensures that the high court will step in.

A separate appeal asks the justices to sustain California's Proposition 8, the amendment to the state constitution that outlawed gay marriage in the nations largest state. Federal courts in California have struck down the amendment.  The court itself has largely been absent as an issue on the campaign trail. But the justices could become enmeshed in election disputes, even before the ballots are counted. Suits in Ohio over early voting and provisional ballots appear the most likely to find their way to the justices before the Nov. 6 election.

Although there are no groundbreaking Miranda warning type cases scheduled for this session, Goldstein said 1 of the more interesting criminal cases the Court will hear involves drug-sniffing dogs. "It's the doggie Mensa case," Goldstein said. "It asks what does it take to be a drug-sniffing dog? Fittingly, the case is scheduled for Halloween."

Goldstein prompted much laughter from the standing-roon only crowd at the National Press Club as he described the reasoning in one pending case by saying "the flaw in that analysis is that it's crazy" and another as "pathologically insane."

Tales, Tidbits, and Tips
Although many legal commentators were shocked when Chief Justice John Roberts joined the courts liberals in sustaining the health care law, drawing liberals' praise and conservatives' anger, the panel agreed that lone decision did not represent any major shift in the Chief Justice's conservative leanings. This term's big cases seem likely to have Roberts in his more accustomed role of voting with his fellow conservatives and leave Justice Anthony Kennedy with his typically decisive vote in cases that otherwise split the court's liberals and conservatives. However, Roberts will be watched closely for additional signs that he is becoming less ideologically predictable.

Shooting the President and the First Lady

It was one of Charles Dharapak's rare days off from his dream job, so he decided to do some shopping for his family. Instead of going to his regular Target, he traveled to the Target on Route 1 in Alexandria. After completing his shopping, he sat down in the food area in the front of the store.

He saw the group of buffed men and women enter. One of that group recognized him from previous dealings.

"What are you doing here?" the man asked

"Just waiting for someone," Dharapak responded.

The man left, joining the group which was carefully surveiling all parts of the store.

A short time later, Dharapak saw a woman entering. She was wearing a fashionable, brightly colored blouse. Her eyes were concealed by sunglasses and she wore a grey, Nike baseball cap. She was the reason why he was there.

Dharapak remained seated; he did not follow the woman as she shopped. He looked at the checkout lines, making sure he could see all of them clearly. He knew he would have to act quickly. Finally, the woman finished her shopping. She checked out and headed toward the exit.. Dharapak moved into position. As unobtrusively as he could, he aimed his camera and began clicking. He followed the woman out of the store, his camera at the ready. He watched as she and the entourage loaded up her possessions in a pair of SUVs and drove off. Finally, Dharapak smiled.  He knew he had an exclusive. He alone had captured pictures of First Lady Michelle Obama shopping at a DC-area Target.

But how had Dharapak, the Associated Press pool photographer for the White House, know to be at that Target at that time? Ask that question and he responds, "I like to think of myself as a journalist before I am a photographer. And journalists have sources."

Dharapak, who has been named this year's Still Photographer of the Year, appeared at an Inside Media program at the Newseum to describe in detail what it is like recording the official comings and goings of President Barack Obama and his wife Michelle on a daily basis.

As one of a group of  about a dozen photographers who are assigned regularly to the White House,   Dharapak travels with the President in motocades and on Air Force One. Those doing the job have a name for their situation - they call it life in "the bubble."

While the photographers relish their duty of capturing photos to document history, they are always looking for something a little more. "Sometimes, you'll get some real moments when you just don't get the president or the candidate, you get a glimpse of a real person," Dharapak said.

One of his favorite shots is one of President Obama reacting as he dropped his Blackberry phone on the tarmac after exiting Air Force One. "If I told you that was the 1st time I had seen him drop it, I would be lying," Dharapak said with a chuckle. "But this was serendipity. I was looking at the president and I saw his expression. I saw something (the falling phone) out of the corner on my eye and I began shooting. That's the type of image I really enjoy. It happens to all us."

How would Dharapak describe his work in the simplest terms? "You have to keep your eyes on the president at all times. My job is to keep my eyes on the president," Dharpak says.

Of course, while there is a sense of comraderie among the news photographers assigned to the White House, there is a sense of competition, too. "You have to be respectful of your colleagues, but you have to be mindful of the game. We have our favorite spots to shoot from. We say it's a game of inches. You don't want to be the guy that at the end of the day is the one who didn't get the photograph," he added.

Dharapak accompanied his talk with a series of photographs which he explained. One of the most interesting was a shot of Obama hugging and paying homage to noted writer Maya Angelou after he bestowed the American Medal of Freedom upon her. Dharapak credited the fact that he keeps a 5-foot ladder handy for just such instances for being able to capture that moving shot. "I anticipated the moment that was going to happen. I knew it would be hard to shoot straight on because of all the people taking pictures with their  iPhones and iPads. I got the picture because I had the altitude," he said with a laugh.

While there are great perks to working as a White House photographer, such as flying on Air Force One (and no, taxpayers don't pay that tab; news organizations pick up the costs), there are some down sides. Of course, there is the pressure to accurately record history daily. Then there is the actual press room in the White House. "If I had to describe it, it's like working in a submarine," Dharapak said. "We coined the phrase Still Country for our space." Then there is the constant need to keep abreast of the news and the people who make it. "We're not just taking pictures," he noted. "You have to learn the players and you have to keep up with the news."

Tales, Tidbits, and Tips
Dharapak's talk served as an official kickoff to the Newseum's new exhibition entitled The Eyes of History 2012 which opened Sept. 28. Many of Dharaback's pictures are included. It will remain on view until March 29.

Voter Fraud: How Much Is There?

With all the clamor around the country for voter IDs, you might think that voting fraud is a huge problem. But you would be wrong. Since 2000, when 146 million were registered to vote, a nonpartisan News21 investigation has found only 10 cases of in-person voter fraud, the only kind of act that an ID would prevent, in all 50 states. That works out to be about one case for every 15 million voters.

Overall, the probe uncovered 2,068 reported voter fraud cases since 2000, almost all of them the result of unintentional voter mistakes or election worker error.

The findings of the News21 study were unveiled at a special New America Foundation program entitled How Much Voter Fraud Is There: A State-by-State Analysis Reveals the Answer - Almost None.

The series of articles and videos detailing months of reporting were produced by 24 college journalists under the direction of professional media advisers as part of the offerings at the Cronkite School of Journalism. Len Downey, former editor of The Washington Post, oversaw the project and introduced the findings.

"Voter registration is a mess. It's state by state and county by county," Downey said. "It's shocking that since the 2000 Bush/Gore election so little has changed. The system is riddled with complexity and ambiguity There is hypocrisy on all different (political) sides."

"Mostly we found mistakes by voters or election workers. Mistakes account for more than fraud," he added.

Critics of the push for tougher voter registration rules claim that it is an orchestrated effort by Republicans to make it more difficult for several groups - minorities, the poor, the elderly, and the young, all of whom often favor Democratic candidates at the polls - to vote. Supporters counter that since IDs are required for many other activities, they should be part of the voting procedure. There are currently 62 photo ID laws and bills in 37 states.

Joe Heinke was one of two young reporters involved in the project who appeared with Downey to discuss the group's work. Heinke's reporting focused on the role state secretaries of state, who are in charge of statewide voting, are playing in the controversy. "They're not being as quiet as we have seen them before. Pretty much, they're falling in line with their party views," Heinke said.

"This could be quite a scruffy election night depending on how people behave," Downey said. "We will continue to follow this through the election and the fallout because we think it is so important"

Tales, Tidbits, and Tips
The other young journalist attending the New America program was Maryann Battle, whose specialty was the controversial issue of allowing felons to vote.  Battle said there are 5.85 million convicted felons in America, most of whom are prohibited from casting ballots. There is no national policy on what constitutes a felony, or on which felons, if any, can vote. "There is a difference state by state and the spectrum is pretty wide," Battle said. "These people want to have a say in their community and they are told they can't."  Supporters of allowing freed felons who have repaid their debt to society to vote, contend that not allowing them to be involved in that process:

• creates a negative effect on recidivism 
• minimizes the position of the ex-felon in his or her community
• and does not only effect the individual, but also reduces the political impact of communities where large groups of former felons live.

To read Battle's interesting findings, click here.

The President's Czars

When you think of czars, you probably think of pre-Communist Russia. Well, there are a growing number of czars in Washington, D.C. too, most all of them based at the White House. There's the Auto Recovery Czar, not to be confused with the Car Czar. Then there's the Food Czar and the Healthy Food Initiative Czar. There's the Cyber Security Czar, the Health Reform Czar, and the Climate Czar. And that's just a small part of the list

Why would presidents appoint these czars? Basically, they are used to facilitate and coordinate attacks on problems and issues that go beyond the scope of one department of the Federal government to handle such as the Gulf Coast oil spill or the auto industry bailout. Reporting only to the White House, they also demonstrate that a president is taking serious action.

But there is a problem with this approach, says George Mason University professor and noted Constitutional scholar on executive privilege Mark Rozell. The position of a czar not vetted and confirmed by the Senate is not specified anywhere in the Constitution, making such appointments unconstitutional.

"They represent a growth of presidential powers far, far greater that the Constitutional framers would ever have considered or approved of. The framers were  suspicious of executive power and placed strong restraints on the president," Rozell contends. "These czars do not fit anywhere in the Constitution. They are individuals acting alone without any Congressional oversight. Presidents may find utility in having czars, but they are a Constitutional aberration. Merely because a position has utility, that doesn't make it Constitutional."

As part of a continuing series of lectures marking the 225th Anniversary of the U.S. Constitution, Rozell appeared at the National Archives today to discuss the new book he co-authored entitled The President's Czars: Undermining Congress and the Constitution. 

The idea of powerful presidential appointed problem solvers, which proponents say is simply a way to use Constitutionally approved presidential discretion to act in the national interest, is nothing new  There are scattered instances from the 19th Century. But the process really came into its own during  World War I and II, when America had to quickly mobilize and gear up to defeat its enemies. But the idea of czars seems to have exploded with the complex problems faced by the 21st Century presidents George W. Bush and Barrack Obama. "These presidents selected a number of people who are making significant policy, regulatory, and budgetary decisions with no power or (Congressional) balance," Rozell said.

So if these positions are unconstitutional, why hasn't there been more of an outcry? As with so many issues in Washington, the problem is partisanship. Rozell said outspoken right-wing commentator Glenn Beck has regularly attacked Obama for his czar appointments, but that issue has been lost in the constant tirades Beck levels against Obama and anyone else who doesn't agree with him. Senator and Obama opponent in the 2008 election, John McCain has been quoted as saying "Obama has more czars than the Romanoffs." But so far, all efforts originating in Congress to eliminate the presidential practice have fallen short.

Rozell said he is not surprised that presidents want to name czars. "Presidents are quite adept at taking advantage of crises to expand their power and Obama is acting according to type," he said. 

Tales, Tips, and Tidbits
The Archives will continue offering special programs on the Constitution, but October will mark a one-month series on the Cuban Missile Crisis, which put America on the brink of nuclear war 50 years ago. To see a list of special programs for the month of October, click here.

A Cartoon View of Campaign 2012

Unlike reporters who are supposed to remain objective in their writing, political cartoonists are expected to take a position on the issues they explore in their creations. But while they may have a political bent, they still have to find issues to write about. And where do those ideas come from?

"Sometimes it's a bolt out of the blue and sometimes Chris Rock writes them," says Lalo Alcaraz, the cartoonist for Pocho.Com who admits that one of his most popular cartoons originated as a Rock comedy routine.

Alcaraz was joined recently at the Newseum by fellow cartoonists Steve Kelley, formerly of the New Orleans Times-Picayune, and Scott Stantis of the Chicago Tribune for an Inside Media edition entitled A Cartoon View of Campaign 2012.

From the mind of Alcaraz

From the mind of Kelley

From the mind of Stantis

Although it would be relatively easy to determine their leanings from the cartoons they draw, each of the cartoonists revealed their position on the political spectrum at the beginning of their talk. Alcaraz said he is a Chicano leftist liberal, while Kelley described himself as a conservative centrist, with Stantis labeling himself as a uber-conservative Republican.

But, despite their political stances, Stantis said that many times politicians who are supposed to be politically compatible with cartoonists often make out worse than opposing representatives. "We kind of expect Democrats to be silly and goofy, but when our guys do it we're much harsher," Stantis said with a laugh.

"Humor is a great way to express your opinion," he added "I just got back from the Republican Convention where the average age of the delegates was almost-dead. And that's not good for a party moving forward."

Kelley, who lost his job when his own paper downsized to a 3-times-a-week only publishing schedule, said he is concerned about the fate of news reporting and opinion in the digital age. "News is such a critical  part of our democracy. I work in New Orleans. It's bad now, but can you imagine what it would be like if no press existed to keep an eye on the S.O.B.'s?" Kelley said.

"Also, there's such a surreal news cycle" he added. "I mean Chick-fil-A; is that really what it's come to."

All 3 cartoonists agreed that they and the other members of their craft  are struggling to find a place in this new technological world of blogs, videos, and Twitter tweets. "We don't know where all this is going, so we're going in a zillion directions until we can come up with a new paradigm. I often have people reading a newspaper in my cartoons. Sadly, that's one of the last places you see people reading a newspaper," Stantis said.

Tales, Tidbits, and Tips
Not only are Alcaraz, Kelley, and Stantis editorial cartoonists, they also each create and publish their own comic strips. Alcaraz has La Cucaracha, Kelley draws Dustin, and Stantis produces Prickly City.

Fishing for Hidden Treasure

Every great tourist city like Washington D.C. has some marvelous places that, for one reason or another, remain pretty much for locals only. For example, nature lovers in the DC area know that they can find plenty of natural serenity on the usually deserted Theodore Roosevelt Memorial Island in the middle of the Potomac River.

And then there's the Maine Avenue Fish Market, also known as Fisherman's Wharf or just the Wharf.

Located in the southwestern section of the city, the market is situated just under the shadow of Interstate 395 and can lay claim to be the oldest continuously operating fish market in America. Opened in 1805, the local market is 17 years older than the famed Fulton Fish Market in New York City. And although it is located within sight of the Washington and Jefferson monuments and walking distance of 2 Metro stations, it is one of the few historic sites in the city where locals can browse without encountering mobs of tourists.

Now this is choice

The market, which features 10 different stores, is open 7 days a week, but the largest selection of fish is available on the weekends. As you stroll, you will find rows of crab, shrimp, clams, and mussels in a variety of sizes and shades. There are all kinds of local fish, as well as several more exotic varieties to appeal to DC's multi-ethnic population.

You can select seafood to take home with you in large paper bags. Or you can have your seafood prepared on site. But fancy isn't the way here. With the exception of a few tables, you will be required to eat your lunch or dinner standing up at high tables. And if you order crabs, it helps to be handy with a wooden mallet. Metal nutcrackers are a no-no.

Cleaning our crabs for dinner

The taste and quality of the Fish Market has been documented by no less of an authority than food writer and Travel Channel commentator Anthony Bourdain. You can check out Bourdain's take by clicking here.

But even though this a not a tourist designation, like other DC landmarks, the Fish Market has been a setting for some major Hollywood films. The most recent was the 2009 political thriller State of Play starring Russell Crowe, Rachel McAdams, and Ben Affleck. To read a blog to find out what it is a like to eat crab balls with Russell Crowe, click here.
  
Tales, Tips, and Tidbits

Oriental lunch is served

While we enjoyed the floating docks of the Fish Market and strolling along the walkways to check out all kinds of private vessels from small speedboats to large houseboats, we did have one problem. We were planning on buying a couple dozen crabs for dinner. But we came at lunchtime. We were hungry, but we didn't want to have America-style seafood for lunch and dinner. Fortunately, there was a solution. Right next to the market area is Jenny's Asian Fusion restaurant, which received 4 stars from both Urban Spoon and Trip Adviser. So what did we have? I had Jenny's special lo mein noodle soup with seafood and fresh vegetables. Judy had miso soup. We split the sampler plate which included spring rolls, cream cheese wontons, Oriental baked mussels, Chinese stuffed clams, crab pearls, and spicy salt and pepper calamari. So how was it? We both agreed 4 stars was about right.

A Day for Books, the Sequel

As I concluded the final day of the 12th annual National Book Festival sponsored by the Library of Congress, I realized that like so many of the books featured, my 2nd day had an identifiable theme. And that theme was - all 3 of the talks I attended focused on isolated outsiders and alienated misfits trying to cope in their society.  

My 1st stop was at the Fiction and Mystery tent to listen to Charlaine Harris. Haris saw her popularity skyrocket when her 12 steamy fantasy novels about a telepathic southern Louisiana waitress named Sookie Stackhouse (and her encounters with vampires, werewolves, shape shifters and other supernatural beings) was chosen to form the basis of the popular HBO show True Blood.

As expected, Harris, who with her gentle, affable manner and friendly southern drawl, seems to be the last person who would conjure up such deadly, other worldly characters, was asked how she feels about HBO changing her characters and story lines to better fit the creative considerations of television.

"Actually, when I look at my checkbook, I feel pretty good," Harris said, her answer prompting waves of laughter from the hundreds of fervent fans who packed the tent.  Harris told her followers that the next Sookie Stackhouse novel would end the series, an announcement that brought shouts of "no" from the audience. However, despite the best efforts of her questioners, Harris declined to reveal how the series will end. "It will end the way I always saw the ending when I began writing," Harris said with a smile. After her 45-minute talk, many of her fans rushed to the signing area to get Harris to sign the copies of the dog-eared books they had brought with them..

Next up, I headed to the Contemporary Life tent to hear novelist Christopher Bram discuss his latest nonfiction book, Eminent Outlaws: The Gay Writers Who Changed America. Before answering questions, Bram read a fascinating portion of his book detailing a televised 1968 confrontation between conservative mastermind William F. Buckley and his liberal nemesis, Gore Vidal. Buckley, frustrated and upset by Vidal's remarks, finally shouted "you queer," a term that was simply not used in public discourse then.

My 3rd and final stop presented the biggest dilemma of my 2 days on the National Mall. In the Contemporary Life tent, Eric Weiner was scheduled to speak.  I had just started reading Weiner's latest book Man Seeks God: My Flirtations with the Divine and I had missed him when he spoke at Politics and Prose earlier this year.

But Weiner inevitably lost out to a special discussion of the 1962 Newberry award winner by Madeline L'Engle, A Wrinkle in Time. That book has remained in my top 10 list since I 1st read it as a 10-year-old in 1962. The story features 3 young misfits who challenge the ultimate evil (The Black Thing - IT) in an ultimately successful attempt to restore a family and save the universe.

The panel, which extolled the virtues and legacy of the beloved classic, was led by Anita Silvey, the author of 100 Best Books for Children. She was joined by author Hope Larson, who was chosen to create a graphic version of the novel and Leonard Marcus, whose series of interviews with people who knew L'Engle well will be published this year.

"Many a book begins a journey but few continue it for 50 years," Silvey said. "I think A Wrinkle in Time is so revered because it shows that no matter who you are, you, as a young person, can make a huge difference in the battle of good and evil."

Tales, Tidbits, and Tips
Just as it was yesterday, my final day at the National Book Festival really featured 3 related stories. First, were the authors I saw. Second, there were the authors that I passed over because I had heard them speak elsewhere. Today, that stellar list included David Maraniss, Thomas Mallon, John Lewis, and Bob Woodward. Finally, there were the authors that I couldn't see, either because of scheduling conflicts or the fact that I had to leave the festival 2 hours early to resume my volunteer work with the Obama campaign. Those authors included Avi, Junot Diaz, and Mario Vargas Llosa. Of course, the best thing about an annual festival is that there is always next year. Hey, if you love books the way I do, maybe I'll see you next September. I'll be the 61-year-old with a goofy grin of poor joy on his face and a schedule in his hand, trying to decide where I should go next..

A Day for the Books

Standing on the platform at the Crystal City Metro station, waiting for the Blue line train to the National Mall, I thought yet again about what would be my 1st day ever at the annual National Book Festival sponsored by the Library of Congress. Two days. 20 tents. 125 authors. Thousands and thousands of book lovers. Having recently attended the Bonaroo Music Festival in Tennessee with my son and the Jazz and Heritage Festival in New Orleans with my wife, I knew 2 things. I would need a plan and I was sure I would deviate from that plan. I had made a tentative schedule. I had studied the map and knew the locations where I wanted to be. I had the information I needed on my iPhone. I was ready.

On the train, I figured the woman sitting across from me was heading to the same place I was. The giveaway was the bag she was carrying. Inside the bag were 10 neatly arranged books she planned to have authors sign. I learned she was a middle-school librarian from Atlanta. Five of the books were hers; 5 were those of her 17-year-old son, who had just posted on his Facebook page: "My mom is headed to the National Book Festival and she didn't take me. Boo"

When the train arrived at the Smithsonian stop at the National Mall, all 6 of the cars emptied rapidly. Seeing that the line of festival-goers wanting to use the escalator for the main exit stretched along the entire platform, I opted for the alternate Constitution Avenue exit.

I arrived at the site about 5 minutes before the 10 a.m. event was to start. I headed directly to the Contemporary Life tent and found one of the last available seats. For the next 45 minutes I listened to Thomas Friedman and Michael Mandlebaum discuss their most recent book That Used to Be Us: How America Fell Behind in the World It Invented and How We Can Come Back. (A Prices Do DC teaser: I will be writing separate blog posts on all the authors I mention here in the coming days).

I checked the program book I had picked up when I entered. We were only 45 minutes into the day and I was already making my 1st change. Despite weeks of careful scrutiny, somehow I missed that Mike Lupica, my favorite sports reporter and the best-selling author of sports tales for young adult readers, was next up at the Teens and Children Tent. So it was goodbye Paul Hendrickson and Hemingway's Boat: Everything He Loved in Life, and Lost and hello Lupica..

On my way to the tent, I dodged hundreds of enthusiastic young readers dashing to the author signing area to meet their favorite authors and get them to sign the books or the festival posters they were clutching in their hands. For his part, Lupica delighted the mostly young male crowd with the story of how he came to write his stories involving young heroes and heroines who encounter big challenges they must overcome, not so much to win, but to become better people.

Now while I love books, I also love to eat. Initially, I had feared that I would have to fore-go food from 10 to 6 p.m. (And, to any of my smart-mouthed friends, while it might be extremely challenging, I could do that if I absolutely had to). But thankfully, the food gods interceded on my behalf. As I had previously seen all 4 writers I was interested in at the 11:45 time slot, I could take an hour for lunch. My wife Judy likes books, but she hates the sun. Therefore, she had planned an alternate Saturday of activities. She was going to the American Indian Museum to see a new totem pole installation and a performance by a group of Whirling Dervish dancers from Turkey, part of a day-long celebration of Searching for the Divine through the Arts. She was then going to the Newseum to hear a talk by President Obama's White House videographer. Finally, she would return and try to fill the Book Festival 2012 big bag that C-Span 2 was giving away with free stuff for our grandchildren before joining me for the day's final book talk. We agreed to meet at the Mitsiam Cafe at the American Indian Museum for a quick lunch. (For the sake of full disclosure, I had the Plate of Color,  consisting of 4 side dishes from the South American section of the cafe selected personally by Chef Ken. I have no idea what I ate, but it was really good).

On my way back to the Festival, I struggled with the only author dilemma I had been unable to resolve. I wanted to see Jewel, the songstress who also writes books for young children, and poet Philip Levine, who had just completed a year as the Poet Laureate of the United States.  Again, fate decided for me. I couldn't get anywhere near the packed Jewel tent, but I was able to find a tiny space in the back of the Levine tent where I could see and hear. There, I heard Levine read from his common-man poems, a reading on the level of a solo Bruce Springsteen concert without the music. At the end of 45 fascinating, moving minutes, I had found a new favorite contemporary American poet.

Next up was the event I was most looking forward to - 45 minutes in the Fiction and Mystery tent with best-selling police/crime fiction writer Michael Connelly, the creator of both Harry Bosch and the Lincoln Lawyer. To the delight of his cheering crowd of fans (every seat was taken and I joined a large group of people who sat on the grass at the side of the stage) Connelly went into great detail about his forthcoming book, The Black Box, where the upstanding Detective Bosch will continue his struggle through the darkened tunnel of his life toward a light he eventually hopes to find.

After Connelly, I headed to the Contemporary Life tent to check out veteran Supreme Court analyst Jeffrey Toobin, whose recently released book is entitled The Oath: The Obama White House and the Supreme Court. In a talk featuring equal measure of revealing detail and humor, Toobin spent his 45 minutes explaining the complex inner workings of the court to the highly political crowd there to hear his views.

From there I headed back to the Fiction and Mystery tent to hear Sandra Cisneros, whose modern classic The House on Mango Street I had taught many times during my teaching career. There were no available chairs, so I again grabbed a grassy spot near the stage and prepared to be entertained and enlightened. Cisneros, who had just completed a book tour celebrating the 25th anniversary of Mango Street, read dramatically from a new book coming out in a few weeks Where Is Marie? While ostensibly about the search for a missing cat, it is really a tale about many of the different losses we have to deal with during various stages of our lives.  Followng her reading, which received a standing ovation from her legion of fans, Cisneros spent the rest of her time answering questions from teachers asking how they could get their young students to read more.

At the end of the Cisneros' talk, Judy met me, her bag packed with reading treasures and activities for our grandchildren Audrey and Owen. Together, we headed to the Poetry and Prose tent to hear my favorite contemporary American fiction writer, T. C. Boyle. Boyle, who always makes himself one of the most interesting looking authors writing today, showed up in a bright red jacket, a black and silver intricately designed shirt, and tight black pants that would be appropriate for an on-stage swirling Mick Jagger. To complete the rebel image, Boyle said he was going to ignore his publishing company's order to discuss his just released novel San Miguel and instead read a short story, "The Lie" in its entirety. Boyle briefly introduced the story by saying "This story is for everyone who has had a job you're not really crazy about and told a fib to get out of it. It's called 'The Lie' and believe me, there are personal consequences for that lie." For more than half an hour, Boyle, with his amazing prose, kept the crowd riveted with the story of 26-year-old Lonnie, his wife Clover, their infant daughter, and Lonnie's Slovakian boss Ratko and a sampling of Lonnie's fellow California production studio workers. Even with the introductory warning, given the rich humor which is Boyle's trademark, the abrupt, completely unanticipated  "tragic" ending caught the audience by silent surprise. But, in a second, they unleashed applause befitting a rock star. Boyle waved, exited the stage, and my 1st day at the National Book Festival was over.

Tales, Tidbits, and Tips
Obviously, I was captivated by the authors I got to see. But, at a festival this large, there are many  authors you don't get to see. I divided them into 2 groups - a group I had already seen at previous DC book talks and a group I was disappointed to miss. The 1st group included:

• Walter Isaacson
• Tony Horwitz
• Elizabeth Dowling Taylor
• Stephen L. Carter
• Linda Greenhouse
• Colson Whitehead
• Walter Dean Myers 
• Douglas Brinkley

In addition to Jewel and Hendrickson, my disappointed-to-miss group included Robert Caro, Patricia Cornwell, Lois Lowry, and R. L Stine.

Who Stole the American Dream?

When he began researching his new book about money and the American Dream, Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Hedrick Smith quickly discovered that the income disparity between the rich and the poor in the U.S. was beyond astonishing. It was greater than the gap in 16th century Spain. It was bigger than the divide in 17th century Holland. In fact, some social scientists were claiming that the world "has never seen such concentration of wealth since the Pharaohs of Egypt."

And Smith uncovered much compelling evidence that this enormously lopsided distribution of wealth was no random economic happenstance. "I found it hadn't happened to the middle class; it had been done to the middle class," Smith says.

The author appeared recently at Politics and Prose to speak to a large crowd about the details revealed in his latest work The Death of the American Dream.  

Smith said the new book he produced was not the book he originally planned to write. That book was tentatively called The Dream at Risk. As a reporter, he said, he, like his colleagues, tell "history by the salami slice on the fly. We don't have the time to fill in the gaps. I wanted to go back and take a look at these (economic) events, fit them together and show the big picture."

And the completed picture Smith portrays is discouraging, dispiriting and downright disturbing.

"When I came to find out that middle class families had suffered a 6 trillion (collective) loss in their homes before the bubble burst, the Dream at Risk was no longer an adequate title," Smith said. "This wasn't a trickle. This was a geyser."

Smith said that while Ronald Reagan often gets blame for beginning the rise of the rich, the most significant event actually occured in 1978, 2 years before Reagan took residency in the White House.

In that year, Supreme Court Justice Lewis Powell wrote a memo that American business was under attack and in extreme danger from the AFL-CIO union, Ralph Nader's consumer advocates, and environmental and safety regulations. "He took his task seriously. He was in fact, a Paul Revere,"  Smith said. Alerted and energized by Powell's call, business and industrial powers banded  together to have a Consumer Protection bill then being considered in the Democratically-controlled Congress killed. 

"That was a pivotal moment, a watershed of American history" Smith said. "Business found they could get what they wanted. They tasted power and they knew the things they could get." Capital gains tax was reduced from 48% to 28%, meaning that the wealthy paid substantially less tax on their investment income. The bankruptcy laws were changed. A "disgrace to the human race" tax system was created and subsequently and regularly strengthened. The race for unlimited wealth was on.  And that race is still raging today. At the time of Justice Powell's memo, there were 175 registered lobbyists in Washington. Today, there are 17,000 lobbyists and public relations specialists in DC. "This is Powell's army," Smith said. And one result - the aggregate wealth of the 1 percent is greater than that of  Canada, of France, or of  Italy.

But what about the middle class and the poor during this time period? "With wedge economics to divide people, that dynamic has been taken apart," Smith says. "They're not getting their share. Everybody does not share equally. For them, it's been 3 decades of getting nowhere."

Tales, Tidbits, Tips
So for those who believe that the economic picture Smith draws in his book is as real as the environmental dangers and violence that threaten the very existence of our country, the question becomes - what do we do?  "Folks, we've got to get up off our seats," Smith answers. "We have to create pressure from the bottom. Lobbying is one of the great growth industries. It's very unrealistic to think that it is going to happen on Capitol Hill. There are fundamental things wrong. What's happening is not just not fair, it's not smart economics. It's altered and decimated the American Dream.  We need people working together rather than working at cross-purposes."

Covering America

History is concerned with the past. For the most part, journalism focuses on the present. So what would happen if you combined the 2 subjects? Well, you would probably come up with something like the new book by former Washington Post reporter and Boston University Professor Christopher Daly.

Daly appeared at the Library of Congress to discuss his engaging, comprehensive work entitled Covering America: A Narrative History of a Nation's Journalism.

According to Daly, the history of American journalism can be divided into 5 periods, each of them signaled by a change in the business model for the dissemination of news. "It's important to understand news as a business," Daly said. "A change in the business model forces a change in journalism."

The five eras in Daly's breakdown are:

• 1704 - 1830.   News becomes political
• 1830 - 1900.   News becomes commercial
• 1900 - 1970.   News becomes professional
• 1970 - 2000.   News becomes conglomerate
• 2000 - until ?  News becomes digital     

For the first 75 years or so of colonial existence, America really didn't have its own papers as such. However, Ben Franklin in Philadelphia and others from the printing field began producing broad sheets and pamphlets in the 1700s. "Franklin pissed some people off. They thought he was knocking the local clergy. So he came up with a defense of his trade Apologies for a Printer," Daly said. In his credo Franklin wrote that when "truth and error have free play, the former is always an over-match for the latter."

"Publishers thought they could serve the public by opening their pages to opposing arguments. This became the bedrock statement of philosophy for  American journalism," Daly said.

The lead up to the Revolutionary War created a wave of writers such as Thomas Paine who "were at the center of the idea of self-government." However, after the British were defeated, the idea of political attacks in papers only intensified. "Sadly, they went a little crazy. There was politics of personal destruction we haven't really seen again," Daly said.

As an example, Daly cited writer James Callendar who launched a series of vicious personal attacks on Founding Father Alexander Hamilton and his Federalist ideas. He accused Hamilton of abscounding with money for personal gain. However, Hamilton said that actually he was having an affair with the wife of the man he was accused of  supporting financially, so the money was being used for blackmail, not personal gain. "I am a rake and therefore cannot be a swindler," Hamilton postulated. However, the damage had been done and Hamilton's bright political future was ruined by Callendar's written onslaught.

In 1833, New York publisher Benjamin Day, with his penny-paper The Sun, began redefining the meaning of newspaper success. "It became how many newspapers are you selling and how much money are you making doing that? Daly said.

"Day said his Sun shines for all, not just the literate, the elite, or a political party. Its goal was to reach everyone," Daly said. Of course, that meant his 1-cent a day product had to be interesting every day. Day is credited with hiring the 1st reporter George Wizner to find stories in New York and write about them. "Day proved that the oridnary life of ordinary people could be interesting to others.  He used sex, violence, and crime, of which there was no shortage in New York. It was a right idea, right place, right time," Daly said.

The Civil War propelled interest in news which became faster to deliver because of the telegraph and more visual because of the efforts of photographers like Matthew Brady. Later in the century, the battle for subscription supremacy between the papers of  Joseph Pulitzer and William Randolph fostered Yellow Journalism (translation - fabricated news) and arguably to America's involvement in the Spanish-American War (War is tragic, but it is interesting). But it also brought many changes to newspapers which are still viewable today such as cartoons , women's pages, sports, and puzzles. "They tried all kinds of things. It was the test of the marketplace. If they (the new items) sold papers, they could stay. If not, they were out."

Between 1900 and the early 1970s, there was another shift as the news became more professional.  "News now served the public by presenting timely and useful information which had been verified. It became more responsible and serious, but sometimes it was duller," Daly said. "There was a move to elevate the position of journalism in the U.S."

Daly cited World War II correspondent Ernie Pyle's writing as "a masterpiece of the power of being there and the power of being a trained observer. News organizations (by now radio was involved and TV was soon to follow) began using their resources to raise their standards. They began to employ specialists. The high-water mark of this period came with the printing of the Pentagon Papers, the coverage of the Vietnam War, and the reporting on the Watergate  scandal.

Interestingly enough, the new success of newspapers made them attractive to bigger businesses. "There was a move from family-run operations to being part of larger and ever larger corporations," Daly said..

Today, Daly says news and related media are trying to find a business model that works in the digital age. "Not a lot of time has gone by and it's difficult to see with clarity. Everything has changed about our business. It will need to reinvent and adapt itself to changing times," he noted.

"I have better (reporting) tools in my pocket right now than at any time in history"' Daly said, showing his smart phone. "In the time I have been talking, you could have built your own website and been online by now. Indeed there is a future for journalism. It's just it's now online."

Tales, Tidbits, and Tips
If you want to see the future of journalism being practiced right now in the present, you might want to check out these 2 websites. The 1st is The Huffington Post., the internet only newspaper with news, blogs, video, and community. Then there is News 21, a journalism project prepared through the Cronkite School of Journalism at Arizona State University.