David Corn is Washington editor of The Nation magazine, the oldest political weekly in America. He writes on a host of subjects, including politics, the White House, Congress, and national security.

He has broken stories on Bob Dole, Newt Gingrich, Oliver North, Colin Powell, Richard Gephardt, Hillary Clinton, Rush Limbaugh, Clarence Thomas, Senator Paul Laxalt, Senator Robert Bennett, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Pentagon, and other Washington players.

Corn has contributed articles, including political satire and book reviews, to The Washington Post, The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times, The Philadelphia Inquirer, The Boston Globe, Newsday, Harper’s, The New Republic, Mother Jones, The Washington Monthly, The Village Voice, The New York Press -- which features his weekly column "Loyal Opposition" -- and many other publications. He also writes for several on-line magazines, including Slate, HotWired, and Salon.

He is the author of Blond Ghost: Ted Shackley and the CIA's Crusades (Simon and Schuster, 1994). The Washington Monthly called Blond Ghost "an amazing compendium of CIA fact and lore." The Washington Post noted that Blond Ghost "deserves a space on that small shelf of worthwhile books about the agency." The New York Times termed it "a scorchingly critical account of an enigmatic figure who for two decades ran some of the agency's most important, and most controversial, covert operations."

Corn was a contributor to Unusual Suspects, an anthology of mystery and crime fiction (Vintage/Black Lizard, 1996). His contribution to the book -- a short story entitled “My Murder” -- was nominated for a 1997 Edgar Allan Poe Award by Mystery Writers of America. The story was republished in The Year's 25 Finest Crime and Mystery Stories (Carroll & Graf, 1997).

Corn frequently is a guest on television and radio talk shows. He has been a panelist on CNN's Capital Gang, and he is a regular on C-SPAN. He has appeared on ABC News, CBS Morning News, Fox Television News, Fox New Cable, Crossfire (CNN), Washington Week in Review (PBS), Equal Time (CNBC), Tim Russert (CNBC), Tribune Television, MSNBC, and other shows and networks.

He was a co-host (with Pat Buchanan) of the nationally-syndicated radio show Buchanan and Company. He has appeared often on the syndicated Diane Rehm radio show, and provided commentary to National Public Radio. He is a featured guest on RadioNation, a nationally-syndicated show. He has contributed political commentary to BBC Radio, CBC Radio, Pacifica Radio, Australian National Radio, and has been a guest on scores of call-in radio programs.

Corn, thirty-nine years old, is a Phi Beta Kappa graduate of Brown University. Before joining The Nation, he worked for Ralph Nader's Center for Study of Responsive Law and Harper’s magazine.

Click here to read more of David Corn's Loyal Opposition.

October 21, 1998

Home Stretch

Who the hell knows?

That's the only honest reply to the question, what's going to happen on election day? As Congress was finishing up patching together a sloppy budget -- when most members were already back in their districts glad-handing and happy-facing -- the political community increased its obsession with what might occur when the electorate, which is expected to be a record low, troops to the polls. These few weeks are like the insufferable period between the conference finals and the Super Bowl -- only there's no kitschy half-time show or Bud Bowl to look forward to.

At least, this year the conventional pre-game analysis is not so firm. The commentators will provide predictions and report their findings with the rock- solid certainty that is obligatory for all pundits. But take comfort -- and perhaps joy -- in the fact that in this endless season of Monica there is a slight nervousness among the pronouncers, who off-camera and away from the keyboards, realize that the political landscape these days is more Picasso than Mondrian. It's hard to be sure you have the right perspective.

On the same day last week, CNN's John King disclosed that Democrats were feeling relieved after concluding electoral disaster was not awaiting their party, Fox News Channel's Carl Cameron informed his audience that worried Democrats were fearful that President Clinton was adopting a fight-every- detail strategy that would cost them at the polls, and CBS's Scott Pelley reported that the Democratic Party was "still wary of whether Mr. Clinton will hurt Democrats nationwide, and The Washington Post's David Broder attempted to have it both ways. "In the end," he punditted, "the environment that's created by the Washington scandal will effect the election....But I think by and large we're looking at a classic midterm election when turnout and the strength and/or weakness of individual candidates will be paramount."

The pros know this is a difficult election to call. A change in turnout by a percentage point or two would alter the results in a dozen House seats, says political analyst Stuart Rothenberg. Look at one recent CNN/Gallup/USA Today poll. Asked whether they will vote for a Democrat or a Republican in the coming congressional elections, people who claim they are likely to vote split 47-46 in favor of the Democrats. (When the pool is wider, the Democrats lead by 4 points -- proof once again that Republicans do better when fewer vote.) That's good news for Clinton's party. But when respondents were asked if they were "extremely" or "very" motivated to vote in November, 59 percent of the Republicans said yes; only 48 percent of the Democrats did the same. Uh-oh, looks bad for the Dems. Let's put it another way: who would you want to have more influence over the direction of the nation in the next two years, Clinton or the Republicans? Half of likely voters picked President; 43 percent chose the GOP. (Among all respondents, the gulf was much wider: 53 percent selected Clinton; 39 percent sided with the Republicans.) Now, this is encouraging for the Democrats.

But...a whopping 68 percent of those polled said their member of Congress deserved to be elected, and only 16 percent said he or she did not. That's got to make an incumbent smile, and there are more Republican incumbents than Democratic incumbents. The old line in politics is that voters usually think every member of Congress is a bum except their own. Yet 58 percent noted that most members of the House ought to be reelected. Only 26 percent were in a toss-the-bums-out mood.

So how do you sort this out? It's obvious: voters like Democrats better than Republicans and have more faith in Clinton than the GOP. Yet Republicans are more eager to vote, and voters overall are inclined to preserve the status quo. Go figure.

By knowing all this are you a more informed voter? The national discourse would be better off if political reporters, instead of handicapping races and searching for trends (this year's hot commodity: waitress moms) and clues of what's to come, were probing and poking at the propaganda, positions, and principles of the combatants. With the campaign running hot, wouldn't it be an appropriate time for journalists to explore in detail how a change in Congress could affect a consumer's relationship with his or her HMO? So much political reporting focuses on charge/countercharge, who's up/who's down. It's like reading the sports section. Sure, some reporters do test the truth of political ads or uncover what interests are financing the campaigns. But there's too much huffing and puffing in search of the Big Picture -- which may not even exist, let alone be discernible. We'll have election results the day after. Who needs them now?

Music and Mines

Ever get queasy when you see celebrities climb on a soap box to push this or that do-gooding cause? It's natural to ask, why should we care what a pampered rock star or a too-good-looking actor has to say about the environment, health care, religious persecution overseas, energy policy or anything else? But their declarations are not really the point. They're useful and legitimate marketing devices. Bobby Muller, president of the Nobel Peace Prize-winning Vietnam Veterans of America Foundation, pointed this out when his outfit held a benefit concert in Washington for its Campaign for a Landmine Free World. Recruited as ammunition for the show were Sheryl Crow, Willie Nelson, Emmylou Harris, Lucinda Williams, and Steve Earle. The campaign has been pushing for Clinton to sign the Ottawa treaty banning antipersonnel landmines (which already has been initialed by over 130 nations) and for an international effort to defuse and collect the tens of millions of mines now buried throughout the world. Clinton, has been slow to sign, allying himself with a Pentagon miffed that civilians would dare write rules for its operations. (By the way, Norman Schwarzkopf and a bunch of other retired military chiefs who have given their blessing to the treaty.)

In talking about why he pulled this show together, Muller, refreshingly, didn't dish out the boilerplate about artists being more sensitive or acting as poet-statesmen for the rest of us. Rather, Muller recalled his trip to Oslo last year, when he picked up the Nobel. There was a solemn ceremony with the King of Norway and Norwegian legislators and plenty of speechifying. "None of that went anywhere," Muller noted. But that night, a celebratory concert that included Boyz II Men, Mariah Carey, Sinead O'Conner, and Youssou N'Dour was beamed to over 200 million people. "I had the chance to go on stage and slip my message in," he said. "People do things not only because they think intellectually it is the right thing to do, but because they also feel about an issue. And it is music that can bring a resonance and emotion into an area."

Pop celebrities dress up an issue, make it sexy, win attention. That's what Princess Di did for landmines. It worked, and that's nothing to get snotty about. It's enough that Willie Nelson showed up on the stage beneath a banner advertising VVAF's web site and plays, even if he said nothing about the landmines throughout his set. But it's more entertaining when these accessories do have something to say beyond the supplied talking points.

At a lunch before the concert, I sat next to Steve Earle, a musician- songwriter-producer based in Nashville who defies easy category. (He can crudely be tagged as a countryish rocker.) Earle was in a mean mood. Two days earlier, he explained, he had been in Huntsville, Texas, to witness an execution. An active opponent of the death penalty, Earle has for years been writing to inmates on death row, and the number came up for one of his correspondents. This fellow requested that his musician pal attend his state- sponsored departure. Earle, who works with an anti-death penalty group called Journey of Hope from Violence to Healing, had never witnessed what he has long assailed, and he didn't want to go. "But how do you say no?" he asked. "Unless you absolutely can't do it, you have to."

He went and watched the execution by lethal injection. "Don't tell me it's not violent," Earle snarled. "It was like watching someone have a concrete block placed on the chest and having the life squeezed out of them. I felt I was in the presence of absolute evil. Jonathan was guilty of a very heinous crime. But the state does not have the right to take a life." And now he was so bummed, he said, he wouldn't play either of his two eloquent ballads that address capital punishment: "Billy Austin" and "Ellis Unit One." (The latter appeared on the album that accompanied the film Dead Man Walking.) Neither have anything to do with landmines, but since each make an unsentimental case for compassion, either would have been an appropriate selection for this show.

Earle also said he was feeling too foul to play "Christmas in Washington," the lead-off on his 1997 album El Corazon. Written in the hallway of music studio on election night 1992, the elegiac song gives us a narrator watching the returns, bemoaning Clinton's concessions, and yearning for genuine leaders. The chorus runs, "So come back Woody Guthrie/Come back to us now/Tear your eyes from paradise/And rise again somehow." No, all Earle wanted to do this day was rock out and detox the bad blood.

Earle, a fast-talking man who's not shy about sharing what's on his mind, was also pissed off for another reason. He had to miss a poor people's summit being held in Philadelphia at the same time as the landmines concert. (This is a guy who has said, only half-jokingly, "I'm to the left of Mao Zedong.") For several years, Earle has worked with the Kensington Welfare Rights Union, an organization that began in a poor neighborhood of Philadelphia. "They fight against a further dismantling of the welfare state," Earle boasted. "This is the real revolution." Welfare rights, opposing the death penalty -- Earle doesn't fit the Nashville stereotype. Hell, he's done more on-the-ground activism than most legislators. Not bad for a guy who five years ago was imbibing $800 worth of coke and heroin a day. (He's been clean for four years.) Earle deserves as much notice, if not more, as your average congressman.

As it turned out, at the concert Earle power-chorded his way through "Christmas in Washington," obliterating its melancholy and drowning out some of its sentiment. But, as he said on stage, "Tonight this is therapy." His. Earlier, Lucinda Williams pumped out a revved-up version of Bob Dylan's "Masters of War." That pre-electric oldie contains several of the most acerbic lines the Bard from Hibbing has ever penned. In attacking arms-makers, he growled, "you ain't worth the blood that runs in your veins," he preached, "even Jesus would never forgive what you do," he warned, "all the money you made will not buy back your soul," and he stated, "I hope that you die and your death will come soon." It was a damn smart pick and made me realize that I'd rather listen to Williams -- or Earle -- discuss landmines than anyone who appears on the McLaughlin Group.

Lamar's Gospel

With its impeachment crusade, the GOP is tossing candy to its religious right kiddies, hoping the sugar rush will send them scurrying to the polls. At the same time, the Christian Coalition is spending $2.7 million for its efforts to identify, register and motivate religious conservative voters. (It has budgeted over $1 million for its "Get-Out-The-Christian-Vote on Election Day" project.) But how important will the Christian conservatives be in the next Republican presidential sweepstakes? Not crucial, suggests Lamar Alexander, a current Republican contender, former Tennessee Governor and 1996 presidential looser. (Remember the guy in the red-flannel shirt?)

During a reporters lunch with Alexander, I asked if he were elected would he appoint Cabinet members who were pro-choice or acknowledged homosexuals. I expected him to squirm, for certainly Pat Robertson and the Christian Coalition cannot abide a Republican who might insert abortion rights believers and gays and lesbians into the government. Can a serious candidate in the Republican primaries dare risk their wrath. Apparently, yes.

"Of course, I would appoint people to office who have different views on abortion than I do," Alexander replied. "I'm pro-life. As governor, I approved limits on abortions. I would approve a federal ban on partial-birth abortion. I have never proposed changing the Constitution in order to restrict abortion, and I don't intend to propose that. As for homosexuality, I've made appointments before of people without regard to sexual orientation and would again."

This doesn't sound like a man preparing to bow before the cross-bearers of his party. (he even used the word "orientation," not "preference." How cosmopolitan.) Doesn't he want to win the support of religious right activists, who in the past have been highly organized in the early state of Iowa? "I need to be myself," Alexander said. "I was, after all, governor of Tennessee, which is not Berkeley. We're the buckle of the Bible Belt. I grew up playing piano at revivals with my father leading the singing. I don't feel any need to compete in an I'm-a-better-Christian-than-you-are contest. I'm glad we have the energy of religious conservatives in our party. Their concerns are my concerns....I would like to earn the respect and support of religious conservatives. But what I have to do is present my own views and not be pulled to the left by one group or to the right by another group. I think people are really looking for something authentic." (From a millionaire in a red flannel shirt?)

How's that for politely saying, I'm not pandering to Robertson? It could be that Alexander has concluded he cannot win the I'm-a-better-Christian-right- candidate-than-you-are contest. Senator John Ashcroft of Missouri is basing his campaign on the assumption that religious rightists will flock to him. Gary Bauer, the never-elected-to-anything head of the Family Research Council, a Christian conservative organization, is fantasizing about running. Steve Forbes, having dissed the Christian right in 1996, is now telling its legions he believes ending abortion is more important than instituting his much- cherished flat tax. (Yeah, right.) And Populist Pat -- Buchanan, that is -- may be hoping to corral religious conservatives into his America First (and Only) constituency. There's not much room at the altar for Alexander.

But he might be trying to position himself as the bridge between the religious right and the country club right. No doubt, the battle between those wings will rage throughout the 2000 contest, and Alexander -- who currently is pushing cultural issues through a group he's dubbed "We The Parents" -- may envision himself straddling the divide. Just like Ronald Reagan. Hey, we can all dream.

Alexander did share a few other interesting comments. He noted that for a Republican presidential candidate to be viable he or she will have to raise $15 million by the end of 1999. (American democracy is wonderful, isn't it?) By his calculations, only three of the wannabes can milk that much moolah: Governor George W. Bush of Texas, House Speaker Newt Gingrich, and -- guess who! -- Lamar Alexander. Jack Kemp. Dan Quayle, John Ashcroft, Elizabeth Dole, Pete Wilson and the rest, forget about it.

The money this time around is going to be even more important, if that's possible. That's because California -- the big prize in the primaries -- has moved its election to early March. So that all-important contest will occur a week after the New Hampshire primary, which will occur a week after the Iowa caucuses. The 2000 primary election will be compressed into two furious weeks. There will be no time for lesser-known or come-from-behind candidates to develop followings. Money will have to be spent by the millions early in the race, even before Iowans bundle up and trundle to their caucus meetings. (Advertising in California is a very expensive proposition.) The campaign, Alexander says, will be like a cannon shot. Iowa will winnow the wide field to three or so. New Hampshire will bring it down to two, and California is likely to settle matters (unless California Governor Pete Wilson is in the race and neuters the California contest).

Which brings us back to the Christian Coalition. Its forces in Iowa, should they coalesce behind one candidate, would have the ability to push that contender into the top tier. In a fast-paced, intensely short campaign, these motivated voters could have a tremendous impact. But they won't be backing Alexander. His faith is in the money.