Awesome New Things

I would argue that what weve gotten is a trade-off, and the jury is still out on whether what weve lost is worth more than what weve gained in the process.

So before I go about the process of destroying my companys business model, lets talk about what weve gained with social media.

The Web and social media have created a level of transparency that never before existed in our country.

People sitting at home can research complicated issues with a few clicks of a mouse. Online campaign disclosure databases make pay-for-play politics far more difficult to obfuscate. Instantaneous tweeting of shady government practices — and the resulting uproar — means that public bodies are more responsive than ever.

But theres an unintended consequence, too, of over-democratization.

Wait, you ask, how can we have too much democracy?

Well for starters, we dont live in a democracy. We never have, nor should we. We live in a republic, where we elect people to take the tough votes and make the tough decisions for us. And quite honestly, politicians should have some level of flexibility to cast votes that — gasp — we might not like, without their every action becoming a referendum via Twitter and Facebook.

A quote sometimes attributed incorrectly to Alexis de Toqueville goes, The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the publics money. Today the same sentiment could be said about the danger of shutting naysayers up on Twitter and Facebook.

Too many politicians arent voting their conscience, theyre voting to placate blog commenters, and thats no way to run government.

Secondly, its one thing to see the sausage get made. Its another thing entirely to watch the pig get slaughtered.

Theres a domino effect when it comes to transparency. In policy making, lots of ideas are thrown out in order to set the good apart from the bad, and in order to stake out a position for compromise.

Cynics would refer to it as backroom deal-making in a smoke-filled room. But heres the harsh reality — thats how bills get passed. And its how every important collaborative effort since the dawn of the written word has been achieved.

After all, do you think the Constitution would have ever been written if Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton had Twitter accounts?

Third, government by social media leads to an environment where in every setting a politician has to be on.

When politicians are hashing out ideas, those ideas can range somewhere between politically untenable and electorally suicidal.

Once theyre tweeted — be it by a journalist or a rival politician — they become TV ad, direct mail, and attack e-mail fodder.

During the discussion, an idea is thrown out about What would be the implication of zeroing out funding for popular program X?

Suddenly, that politician is facing hundreds of thousands of dollars in negative ads back home, telling his constituents that he considered or proposed eliminating X.

Two weeks ago, Mitt Romney made a passing reference to eliminating HUD. It wont be long before President Obamas team is cutting ads about Romney proposing that we leave millions of Americans homeless.

Factually accurate? Sure, but misleading as hell.

The result is a political discourse that is becoming devoid of real ideas, and instead pared down to the safest of talking points.

And because most politicians draw their own districts to shield against a viable challenge from the opposite party, they are far more susceptible to electoral defeat in the summer than they are in the fall.

Their audience in everything they do is the primary voter, not the swing voter. So the rhetoric throughout the year from both parties is increasingly divisive, increasingly partisan, and increasingly destructive to any kind of progress.

Is any of this a product of social media? No, absolutely not. American politics have been trending this way for decades. But technology has expedited our descent toward a political system devoid of real ideas and bold, controversial thought.

As the use of social media accelerates, its incumbent upon everyone involved in the political process to make sure its power is used to harness everything good about the American political system, rather than to hasten political trends that are hurting our republic.

Follow us on Twitter: @CNNOpinion

Join us at Facebook/CNNOpinion

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Wesley Donehue.

Grassley said he wants the inspector general at the Department of Homeland Security to investigate the White House staff members possible involvement in the controversy that has embarrassed the Secret Service and raised questions about a possible security breach before President Barack Obamas trip to Cartagena, Colombia, for the Summit of the Americans this month.

Acknowledging that the inquiry would be outside the inspector generals jurisdiction and require Obamas invitation, Grassley said the president should do it to keep his promise to maintain unprecedented openness and transparency in his administration.

On Monday, White House spokesman Jay Carney said White House Counsel Kathryn Ruemmler conducted an internal review over the weekend and found no wrongdoing by members of the Obama advance team in Colombia ahead of the presidents trip.

Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vermont, scoffed at the idea of an outside inquiry Tuesday, saying Grassleys request was political.

Im a little frustrated when anybody tries to make politics out of this, Leahy said, repeating the words politics and political multiple times.

The fact of the matter is, theyre being totally transparent on this, Leahy said of the White House.

Based on what he has been told in private briefings, Leahy said, he saw no evidence that Obama staffers who traveled to Colombia ahead of the presidents arrival behaved inappropriately.

There are probably some who are disappointed that the White House is not involved, but having more investigations is not going to find somebody who was involved when nobody was involved, Leahy said. Lets get this out of politics. Were talking about the president of the United States. It is a matter of security; dont play politics.

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano will appear before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday at the first congressional hearing since the scandal erupted.

Obama commented on the scandal in an interview Tuesday for broadcast on NBCs Late Night With Jimmy Fallon, saying 99.9% of Secret Service agents do great work and put their lives on the line.

So a couple of knuckleheads shouldnt detract from what they do, but what these guys were thinking, I dont know, Obama said. Thats why theyre not there anymore.

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said Tuesday that he has no tolerance for the kind of behavior alleged in Cartagena, noting that Marines involved in an altercation with prostitutes in Brazil last year were demoted and punished.

Panetta was asked about the December incident at a news conference in Brazil, according to a TV pool report.

Three Marines and a State Department employee were involved in an altercation over payment with dancers and prostitutes from a Brazilian club. One woman allegedly started a fight inside a Marines vehicle and was injured when she was kicked out of the vehicle and tried to get back in.

A spokesman for the Joint Chiefs of Staff said Tuesday that officials including Vice Admiral William Gortney, the director of the Joint Staff, will brief senators on the Armed Services Committee on Thursday about the military investigation of the scandal.

Grassley, meanwhile, is demanding that the White House counsel make public details of her internal inquiry in addition to an independent investigation of White House staffers.

On Monday night, Grassley sent a letter to Ruemmler, asking about how the inquiry was conducted and how the conclusion was reached. Asked about Grassleys letter Tuesday, Carney said he had not seen it.

In his letter, Grassley noted that he had asked Secret Service Director Mark Sullivan whether any White House advance staffers had been involved but hadnt received an answer by Monday.

Grassley asked for answers to 14 questions, including details of how the White House review was conducted, whether any White House staffers had overnight guests and whether any additional room charges were incurred.

Until now, the aftershocks and outrage about the Secret Service scandal were largely bipartisan. Grassleys demands and Leahys reaction were the first major signs of a party-line division on the controversy.

Senate Homeland Security Chairman Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, an independent who caucuses with Democrats but often differs with them, said he was satisfied with the White House Counsels internal inquiry.

I think there is so much on the line here that this is one of those cases where, if the White House counsel says nobody from the White House staff was involved in this behavior, then Im prepared to accept that, Lieberman said. And if we find out that isnt true, then were going to find out about it, and its going to be a big mistake by the White House, but I have no reason to doubt what they say.

Lieberman said he intends to hold a committee hearing focusing on potential misconduct inside the Secret Service beyond what happened in Colombia.

Its going to be what happened before: whether there was other evidence of misconduct by agents of the Secret Service, Lieberman said. Whether therefore there should have been preventative action taken by the administration of the Secret Service and, finally, what are they going to do now to make sure it doesnt happen again?

Since the scandal broke, several whistle-blowers have called his committee with what he called credible reports of other incidents similar to Colombia, Lieberman said. He would not provide additional details.

After he spoke, however, Senate Homeland Security Committee spokeswoman Leslie Phillips said Lieberman had misspoke. The committee has received a call from just one person who claimed to have information on possible misconduct, but committee staff have yet to talk to that person to determine whether that information is relevant, she said.

House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa said Tuesday that his committee has heard allegations of similar misconduct by Secret Service agents dating back years. Like Lieberman, he offered no specifics.

On Monday, officials said a member of the US military assigned to the White House Communications Agency was under investigation in connection with alleged misconduct in Colombia, bringing to 12 the total number of military personnel being reviewed.

One Defense Department official said the military member admitted to his leadership that he was involved in misconduct of some kind while in Colombia.

The agency is a non-White House office that provides the president with secure communications while he travels. It is staffed by members of the military who report through the Defense Information Systems Agency.

While the 11 other military members are being investigated by the US Southern Command, it was unclear who would investigate the White House Communications Agency staffer, who has been relieved of his duty with the agency and reassigned to the Military District of Washington, Pentagon spokesman Capt. John Kirby said.

According to sources, the alleged prostitutes — the youngest of whom were in their early 20s — signed in at Hotel Caribe in Cartagena, where Secret Service members apparently stayed, flashing their local ID cards. One of these women allegedly was later involved in a dispute about how much she was to be paid for the night, which brought the entire incident to light and sparked controversy in the United States and Colombia.

That woman has been identified as Dania Suarez, whose neighbors described her as a 24-year-old single mother who studies English. Suarez hasnt been seen in the neighborhood since the controversy erupted, though a visitor took suitcases from the house recently, they said.

While soliciting prostitution is in most cases legal for adults in Colombia, military law bars service members from patronizing prostitutes, engaging in conduct unbecoming an officer or, for enlisted personnel, conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline. It is also considered a breach of the Secret Services conduct code, government sources said.

CNNs Tom Cohen and Deirdre Walsh contributed to this report.

CAIRO (Reuters) – To mark the day Egypt regained control of the Sinai peninsula from Israel, a group of protesters pledged they would this week cover a memorial to Israelis killed in the war with an Egyptian flag bearing the words: Sinai – the invaders graveyard.

The gesture will be one of the most public expressions of anger against Israel since the fall of President Hosni Mubarak, marking the emergence of a long-repressed hostility among many ordinary Egyptians.

But while some of the new breed of politicians who emerged after the revolution are only too happy to exploit such defiance, there are still powerful reasons why mainstream leaders are not ready to burn their boats with Israel.

Calls for such a public act of protest would have been unthinkable under Mubarak, for whom the 1979 peace treaty with Israel was a cornerstone of regional policy.

Under him, public antipathy towards Israel – a nation with which Egypt has fought four wars – was kept in check, often brutally. It changed when the anti-Mubarak uprising erupted on January 25 last year. Egyptians now openly voice frustrations and are demanding Egypts new political class listen.

After the January 25 revolution, the regime fell and with it everything linked to treaties and protocols, said Saeed al-Qasas, head of the Revolutionaries of Sinai, which vowed to cover on Wednesday the Dayan Rock memorial, a large stone erected in the desert with names of fallen air force personnel.

Egypts transition to democracy from autocratic rule is transforming the political landscape at home but also promises to shift foreign policy of the Arab worlds most populous nation which was the first Arab state to sign a peace deal with Israel.

None of the mainstream politicians emerging in Egypt have said they would abandon the treaty, but the new order promises to make what was often described as a cold peace colder still, raising tensions on a sensitive border if mishandled.

Yet, even after handing over power to a new president by July 1, the generals who have ruled since Mubaraks fall are likely to act as guardians of a deal that brings them $1.3 billion US military aid a year.

Egypt, its economy in tatters, also cant afford to alienate the United States or other Western states whose governments and investors are likely to be vital in reviving growth and creating jobs, crucial points to any Egyptian political career.

But Israeli politicians are already fretting over the political changes in Egypt and worry about the rise of Islamists, who swept the parliamentary election and are strong contenders in the presidential vote that starts on May 23-24.

One senior Western diplomat said the army, mainstream Islamists and other leading politicians recognized the benefits of maintaining a deal that kept the border peaceful for three decades.

But there is zero traction in broader society, the diplomat said, adding that this could encourage Islamists to test how far the boundaries of ties could be pushed.

PUBLIC SENTIMENT

Islamists and their rivals in Egypts presidential race, the final stage of a turbulent political transition, are already using Israel as a political punch bag to chase votes. They are vowing no repeat of Mubaraks cosy ties with Israel.

Democracy is about responding to public sentiment and public sentiment has little interest in maintaining a real relationship with Israel, said Shadi Hamid of the Brookings Doha Center.

He suggested Egypt could follow Turkeys example where once-close ties with Israel had worsened sharply after Israeli naval commandos killed nine Turks in May 2010 in a raid on a ship carrying aid to the Gaza Strip.

What people should be focusing on is how domestic developments in Egypt will alter its foreign policy. I think the model here is probably something resembling Turkeys approach to Israel, that you maintain diplomatic cooperation but there is a lot of anti-Israel bluster and symbolic gestures, he said.

One such gesture may have been a decision this week to scrap a 20-year deal reached in 2005 to export Egyptian gas to Israel. It drew applause among the Egypt public, although both sides said commercial differences not politics were behind the move.

Professor Uzi Rabi at Tel Aviv University said that gas deal decision pointed to a region more attuned to the street.

We are in (the midst of) a continuing deterioration in Israel-Egypt relations. One must hope that the interests will overcome the inflammatory direction, he added.

The gas deal had long been criticized in Egypts opposition media and by the public even when Mubarak was in office. They said the gas was sold too cheaply and benefits were pocketed by Mubaraks associates. The pipeline was sporadically attacked.

But the number of attacks has soared since the anti-Mubarak uprising. The line has been blown up 14 times in that period, halting the flow for much of the time. Officials and former Mubarak associates behind the deal have also been put on trial for corruption.

Islamists were swift to laud the gas deals cancellation and have been among the most critical of Israel, although such criticism crosses the broad spectrum of Egypts politicians.

There is no doubt the peace treaty is unfair to the Egyptian side, Mahmoud Ghozlan, spokesman and a senior figure in Egypts biggest Islamist group the Muslim Brotherhood, told Reuters, although he said all treaties would be respected.

He pointed to limitations on troop numbers allowed in Sinai since Israeli completed the pull back in the 1980s from the peninsula it occupied in the 1967 war. He also complained that Israelis were allowed into that area of Egypt with no visa.

DIGNITY

The outspokenness of politicians taps a deep vein of anger against Israel but also reflects a desire since Mubarak was ousted to be more assertive and end what many saw as Mubaraks subservience to policies of the United States and the West. Restoring Egypts dignity is a common refrain in speeches.

Egypts next president cant be like his predecessor, he cant be a follower who executes policies put to him from outside, Mohamed Mursi told his first news conference as the Brotherhoods presidential candidate.

The challenge for Egypts new politicians, keen to win over the public, will be putting the genie back in the bottle as they respond to the popular mood and test the boundaries of how far they challenge ties with Israel.

A miscalculation risks riling US politicians, quick to rally to Israels defense, and alienating a major donor with the might to sway international investment and support.

It is not about explicit policies or some kind of master plan the Brotherhood has, but how misperception breeds misperception, said Brookings Hamid, adding there was a chance that Egypt, Israel or the United States could misjudge events.

Some Israeli officials have shown increasing signs of worry as they have watched Egypts political drama unfold.

Amos Gilad, a top aide to Defense Minister Ehud Barak, said this month he was concerned about future relations with Egypt and said he was not so sure the Brotherhood was committed to peace, a break with the usually cautiously optimistic line.

An Israeli newspaper cited Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman saying Egypt was more dangerous to Israel than Iran, a country Israelis accuse of building nuclear weapons. Lieberman would not confirm those comments when asked later.

One of Israels biggest worries is the security vacuum in Sinai where Islamic radicals, some blamed for blowing up the gas pipeline, have gained a foothold as policing of the area collapsed after Mubaraks fall. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu described it as a kind of Wild West.

Yet, the Brotherhood, the dominant group in Egypts emerging democracy for now, may share Israels concern for the rise of extremism on its border. The Brotherhood has long been branded too pragmatic by more radical Salafis.

So I think there is potential for a kind of understanding in the Sinai, said Brookings Hamid, pointing to Gaza nearby where the Brotherhood-inspired Palestinian group Hamas cracked down on hardline Salafi Islamists.

And even the more hostile voices to Israel in Egypt seem to know the red lines that shouldnt be crossed over a peace deal that won back the Sinai, which is now scattered with popular Red Sea tourist resorts where Israelis mingle with other visitors.

The Revolutionaries of Sinai had originally wanted to Dayan Rock memorial destroyed, but now said covering it in a flag would suffice. We will make do with this, said Qasas. Though we call for its removal.

(Additional reporting by Maayan Lubell and Jeffrey Heller in Jerusalem and Tom Perry in Cairo; Writing by Edmund Blair; Editing by Giles Elgood)

Capitol reporters Mary Spicuzza and Clay Barbour bring you their takes on state and Madison-area politics.

Follow @MSpicuzzaWSJ

Follow @claybowsj

When George Galloway won last months Bradford West byelection, two reactions sounded an unlikely note of agreement. One was from Galloway: This is a rejection of the mainstream parties with their Tweedledee, Tweedledum, Tweedledee-and-a-half approach. It was people saying they want political leaders they can believe in, who say what they mean, do what they say and dont lie to people. The other was voiced by that well-known leftwinger John Redwood MP: The old-fashioned virtues of beliefs, passion and consistency have powered Mr Galloway to an amazing victory. He has shown all the established parties that people can vote them out if they are fed up enough with them.

In the following days, there was a burst of excitement about yet another sign of a crisis in mainstream politics and the growth of new parties. The consensus was: yes, parts of the electorate are certainly volatile, and capable of giving Westminster a shock. But those on the supposed fringes of politics are likely to remain there – merchants of protest politics rather than anything with a meaningful future.

Yet something is definitely happening. At the last general election, even faced with a titanically unpopular Gordon Brown government, the Tories couldnt win a majority. Having entered the coalition, the Liberal Democrats have removed mainstream politics usual receptacle for protest votes, with consequences that have yet to become clear. In a run of opinion polls leading up to next weeks local and mayoral elections, the UK Independence Party has been either neck-and-neck with the Lib Dems, or in front of them. We now learn that Labour is sufficiently rattled by the Bradford West result to be considering barring its MPs from standing as mayors or police commissioners, in case further byelections cause similar upsets.

Meanwhile, Scottish politics has been transformed by the dominance of the SNP – set for yet more gains in the local elections on 3 May – and the prospect of the referendum on independence, whose result could have huge repercussions for England and Wales. One very pronounced long-term trend is obvious: combined support for the Tories and Labour peaked in the 1950s, and reached its lowest ever figure at the last general election. And in Europe, politics is being shaken up on what feels like a monthly basis: the National Fronts strong showing in the first round of the French presidential election, the rise of the Pirate Party in Germany, the fact that the hard left is proving to be a lot more resilient than some people would like to think.

As becomes clear when you talk to people involved in non-Westminster politics, dry numbers only tell you so much. Particularly on the left, most truly radical, interesting voices are from outside the usual circles – in new protest movements, or the Greens, or the UKs two nationalist parties. The people responsible tend to have a lot in common: dim views of the Labour party hardened when Tony Blair was in Downing Street, watershed experiences at the time of the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, a keen sense that the fracturing of the UK has profound political consequences – and a common understanding that the political legacy of the 2008 crash has only just started to reveal itself.

Moreover, two questions increasingly spring to mind. Does it feel like the Westminster way of doing things is working? And if not, who has any better ideas?

8 Comments

Tweet

Share

• Digg
• Yahoo! Buzz
• MySpace
• del.icio.us
• Reddit

• LinkedIn
• Fark
• StumbleUpon
• Newsvine

new
Portfolio RelevanceLEARN MORE

Want to see how this story relates to your portfolio?

Just add items to create a portfolio now:

• XAddUSD/EUR (EURUSD)
• XAddFR 10Y Govt Bond Benchmark (10YR_FRA)
• XAddDE 10Y Govt Bond Benchmark (10YR_GER)

Create Portfolio or Cancel
Already have a portfolio? Log In

By William L. Watts, MarketWatch

FRANKFURT (MarketWatch) — If investors didn’t have enough to worry about as they watch France’s presidential election and the budget-related collapse of the Dutch government, a closely watched gauge showed Monday that business activity across the 17-nation euro area shrank at a faster pace in April.

The euro-zone preliminary composite purchasing managers’ index, or PMI, compiled by data provider Markit, fell to a five-month low of 47.4 in April from 49.1 in March, defying forecasts for a rise to 49.3. The manufacturing PMI gauge dropped to a 34-month low, while the services gauge posted its lowest reading in five months.
See more on euro-zone PMI.

A reading of less than 50 signals contraction. PMI data are seen as timely and relatively reliable indicators of economic growth.

Click to Play

Sarkozy, Hollande fight for top job

President Nicolas Sarkozy is in a fight for political survival after he lost to François Hollande in the first round of the presidential election. Grainne McCarthy discusses their likely strategies to lure swing voters. (Photo: Getty Images)

The figures put added pressure on European stocks, which finished broadly lower. Wall Street also came under pressure.
Read more about Europe Markets.

The euro

/quotes/zigman/4867933/sampled EURUSD
+0.0932%

fell to $1.3134 versus the dollar, down from $1.3219 in North American activity late Friday. 

German government bonds, known as bunds, rallied on safe-haven demand, pushing yields lower. The premium demanded by investors to hold peripheral and other so-called core government bonds (including French and Dutch debt) over Germany rose.

“The flash PMI signaled a faster rate of economic contraction in the euro zone during April, extending what appears to be a double-dip recession into a third consecutive quarter, said Chris Williamson, chief economist at Markit.

The preliminary data showed that German business activity slowed to near-stagnation, while French activity posted a steep downturn potentially tied to uncertainty surrounding the country’s presidential election, Williamson added.

Hollande and Holland

France’s yield

/quotes/zigman/4869091/delayed FR:10YR_FRA
+0.13%

premium over Germany

/quotes/zigman/4869083/delayed DE:10YR_GER
+0.23%

at the 10-year level jumped 0.09 percentage points to a three-month high of 1.53 percentage points, according to data provider Tradeweb.

The spread between AAA-rated Dutch

/quotes/zigman/4869103/delayed NL:10YR_NET
+0.18%

and German 10-year bond yields widened dramatically by 0.17 percentage point to 0.86 percentage points, its widest since 2008.

Reuters

François Hollande, the Socialist candidate for France’s presidency, arrives at his campaign headquarters in Paris early Monday.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy on Sunday became the first incumbent to fail to top a first-round presidential contest, coming in second behind Socialist challenger François Hollande out of a field of 10 candidates. Sarkozy and Hollande face each other in a May 6 runoff, with polls showing Hollande with a lead.

Sarkozy is fighting to survive amid backlash against fiscal austerity, according to Jane Foley, senior currency strategist at Rabobank International in London. He has promised to force a renegotiation of the fiscal pact agreed by euro-zone leaders at the behest of German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Sarkozy to include growth-oriented measures.

“While the lack of growth in the euro-zone region clearly does need to be addressed, [investors fear] fiscal reform could be watered down, which could open the path for a longer and potentially deeper bout of contagion in the debt markets,” Foley wrote in emailed comments.

/quotes/zigman/4867933/sampled

Add to portfolio

EURUSD

USD/EUR

US

: ICAP Currencies

1.3237

+0.0012
+0.0932%

Volume: 0.0000
April 27, 2012 4:08p

/quotes/zigman/4869091/delayed

Add to portfolio

FR:10YR_FRA

FR 10Y Govt Bond Benchmark

FR

: ICAP Sovereign Debt

2.99

+0.0040
+0.13%

Volume: 0.00
April 27, 2012 1:00p

/quotes/zigman/4869083/delayed

Add to portfolio

DE:10YR_GER

DE 10Y Govt Bond Benchmark

DE

: ICAP Sovereign Debt

1.70

+0.0039
+0.23%

Volume: 0.00
April 27, 2012 1:00p

/quotes/zigman/4869103/delayed

Add to portfolio

NL:10YR_NET

NL 10Y Govt Bond Benchmark

NL

: ICAP Sovereign Debt

2.22

+0.0040
+0.18%

Volume: 0.00
April 27, 2012 1:00p

Financial Glossary

Words used in this article:

Page 1
Page 2

Watch The OReilly Factor weeknights at 8 pm and 11 pm ET!

BILL OREILLY, HOST:In the Weekdays with Bernie segment tonight it seems every few weeks we get another dose of racial politics at the presidential level.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CHRIS MATTHEWS, MSNBC ANCHOR:Barack Obama is the first African- American president. OK. Is there going to be a reluctance on the part of the voters and the political community that talks politics as we get into November about dumping the first African president — African-American president? Is that going to be something that just ratchets to Wait a minute here. This guy is going to knock out the first guy who ever got aboard?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

OREILLY:Joining us now from Miami, the purveyor of BernardGoldberg.com, Mr. Goldberg.

All right. So I dont know. I just — I thought Barack Obama ran a very worthy campaign in 2008. He didnt get into the racial stuff at all, wanted to stay away from it. McCain respected that. And its like, you know, Michael Corleone: Just when I thought I was out, they drag me back in. Why? Why are they doing it?

BERNARD GOLDBERG, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR:Right. So you want to know why…

OREILLY:Yes.

Goldberg:… and the answer really, Bill, is pretty simple. Its because hes a liberal, and like many liberals, hes obsessed with race.

Ann Coulter was right when she said the two groups in America that are obsessed with race, that see everything through a racial filter, are skinheads and liberals. I mean, its true.

Now let me give you a little background on Chris Matthews and why I say that hes obsessed with race.

In 2010 after Barack Obama delivered the State of the Union message, Chris Matthews went on the air and said — this is a verbatim quote — I forgot he was black tonight for an hour. He forgot Barack Obama was black.

About the Tea Party he said — and again, a verbatim quote — Theyre all White. All of them. Every single one of them is White.: Never mind that thats factually incorrect. What if it were true? Theres no crime about being White.

Then, when Barack Obama ran for president in 2008, Chris Matthews said, quote, This gets very ethnic, but the fact that Barack Obama is good at basketball doesnt surprise anybody. Thank God, Bill, you didnt say that.

Now, heres the point:actually the question he raised — Will there be reluctance to toss Barack Obama out because hes black? — its not a bad question. And you and I could have that discussion.

But when someone who is obsessed with race, like Chris Matthews apparently is, when he brings that question up, Im wondering if hes really saying that Barack Obama should not be tossed out precisely because hes the first black president. I dont know if he means that, but I would have to wonder if he means that.

OREILLY:I wouldnt have the discussion with you about the question of whether Barack Obama should lose his job because of race, because its a speculative question and nobody can know.

We know that there are certain people who vote for Barack Obama because hes black, and there are certain Americans who vote against him because hes black. I think those numbers are small, but we know theyre there. And otherwise, it really doesnt matter.

And you made an interesting point. If I had said about the basketball — when I asked Barack Obama in the Super Bowl interview, I said, Are you a football guy? Do you follow football? I was immediately branded a racist by Media Matters, because I was saying — I was asking him whether he followed football or not. How am I supposed to know? That was a racist question.

But its so — I dont know why, why this conversation has to center around a mans color at all, ever. I dont think it should. He should be elected or defeated based on his record. Thats it!

GOLDBERG:I — every reasonable person agrees with that, but you asked the question, why is he bringing it up?

Liberals, many of them, not all of them, but many of them are obsessed with race. They see everything through a filter of race. So in 2008 there were articles that said, if Barack Obama loses, there is only one reason: racism in America. Now theres a suggestion if hes not reelected, it could be — right — because of racism in America.

OREILLY:I guess. I just think its insane.

All right. Last week Bernie and I, you know, we were talking about media bias in organizations that are in business not to inform anymore. Theyre just pushing an agenda. And the Washington Post weighed in on their blog, and you want to say something about that?

GOLDBERG:Well, yes. Eric Wemple wrote — he — you made the point that, since nobody trusts the media anymore, they wont have much of an effect on the election. I said I think youre absolutely right.

So this fellow ended his piece by saying, If the impact of media bias is so trivial, why do these guys — you and me — why do these guys harp on it each week?

Well, first of all, we dont harp on it. We talk about it.

Secondly, there are many smart, thoughtful, serious people who write about the media, but Eric Wemple, sadly, is not one of them.

So, let me try to explain to Eric and everybody else why media bias does matter. Not because it affects an election, but because we all know that you cant live in a free country without a free press. We all know that.

But you know what else? You cant live in a free country for long without a fair press. We need a strong mainstream media. Thats why you and I criticize it, because we know we need in a flee country a strong mainstream media.

And that means when the media sounds the alarm about something, when they tell us theres a problem out there, we need to trust them. We need to believe them. We need to — if we dont believe them, were not going to pay attention when they sound the alarm.

The Founding Fathers gave the media a lot of power, and they put it in the First Amendment. Not the Eighth Amendment or the 13th Amendment. The First Amendment. And they gave — they put no restraints on that power. When you have that much power, you have a lot of responsibility.

So, Eric Wemple of the Washington Post, you ought to know this, but since you dont, lets just make clear: its not about whether the media affects the next election or not. Thats not what were talking about. Were talking about, in a free country, you need a fair and honest media, and thats why we talk about it each week.

OREILLY:Right. And we dont have that right now. We dont have that right now.

GOLDBERG:Not right now.

OREILLY:Its getting way, way out of control.

The hiring of Richard Grenell by Romney signals a shift in the GOPs openness to gays and gives the party its first out presidential campaign spokesman.

The recent hiring of Richard Grenell, Mitt Romneys openly gay foreign-policy spokesman, represents a breakthrough in the world of Republican presidential campaigns.

Grenell isnt the first out gay person to serve as a high-level staffer to a GOP nominee, but as far as I can tell, he is the first such press spokesman — the first to serve as the public face of the all-but-certain Republican nominee — and on the historically sensitive issue of national security, no less. As an openly gay Republican in presidential politics, Grenell joins a small fraternity of out GOP staffers, instantly becoming the highest-profile of the band. His rise signals a remarkable new openness in a party often castigated for its social conservatism; in addition to being out, Grenell has waged some public battles for gay rights that contradict his new bosss own positions.

While Republican presidential campaigns have had staffers who were known to be gay before, these staffers, like the scores of gay GOPers working on Capitol Hill, have generally sought to avoid public notice, or even worked to stay hush-hush in the face of widespread social speculation about any single man of a certain age who is powerful but neither married nor a ladies man. Many — like Ken Mehlman, Bushs 2004 campaign manager and from 2005 to 2007 the chairman of the Republican National Committee — didnt come out until they were safely out of politics. (Mehlman came out in an interview with The Atlantics Marc Ambinder in 2010, confirming rumors that had been circulating in the city for years.)

Grenell, a former United Nations mission spokesman in the George W. Bush administration, has taken a different route. He has been publicly, outspokenly gay for years. He waged a public battle with the State Department to add his longtime partner to a diplomatic registry in 2008, only to be told it would violate the Defense of Marriage Act. Hes also on the record as a supporter of gay marriage, something Romney opposes.

Hes certainly not the first gay person to have worked in a Republican campaign or administration, but theyve often kept it quieter, said gay activist and journalist Michelangelo Signorile. This is somebody who actually has opinions on gay issues, versus somebody who just happens to be gay.

As Grenell told the gay magazine The Advocate of his unsuccessful attempt to get his partner listed in the UNs Blue Book of diplomatic personnel and their spouses: Some people are going to yell at me, because its been a quiet fight. I think a lot of peoples style is to do a quiet fight. Not, by implication, his.

That Grenells public homosexuality and advocacy on gay issues appear to have been no impediment to his hiring as a high-level campaign staffer seems a clear sign of how times have changed in conservative American politics since Mehlmans day.

There have been known gay staffers in Republican presidential administrations since at least 1991, when Signorile outed Pete Williams, a spokesman for then-Defense Secretary Dick Cheneys Pentagon. But Williams didnt come out voluntarily. And theres a difference between serving in an administration and serving on a campaign, where partisan combat is the name of the game and the support of family-values groups can be critical.

In campaigns, the precedents for Grenell are few if any. The gay Republican presidential campaign staffers of the past largely worked in capacities other than press spokesperson — a position of unique prominence for the way it puts a staffers name in the paper and face on television, serving as a representative and stand-in for the candidate. Others worked only for primary campaigns, not the nominee, or werent as outspoken as Grenell has been.

I was told about a gay top staffer to Bob Doles 1996 campaign, but a former aide told me the person in question was only rumored to be gay, and never publicly confirmed it. Mary Cheney, Dick Cheneys openly gay daughter, worked on his vice presidential campaign in 2004. Trevor Potter, a campaign-finance lawyer and former FEC chairman who served as John McCains general counsel in 2008, is openly gay and has served on the board of the Human Rights Campaign; he also held top legal posts in the 1988 campaign of George HW Bush and McCains 2000 campaign. McCain also had a gay chief of staff in his Senate office, Mark Buse, but he seems to be a typical example of that classic Hill phenomenon — a man who is out to his friends and colleagues, but not the wider world. Revelations that he was gay were treated as an outing during the 2008 campaign.

Rick Santorum, during his just-concluded presidential campaign, touted the fact that he had a gay press secretary in his Senate office as a means of rebutting accusations of intolerance. That in itself seems remarkable: The Republican primarys most socially conservative candidate was proud of having had an out gay man on his staff. The staffer, Robert Traynham, has also worked in presidential politics, serving as a communications adviser to George W. Bush in 2004 and failed primary candidate Fred Thompson in 2008.

In the 2012 Republican primaries, former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman had an openly gay spokesman, Tim Miller, who is now deputy communications director for the Republican National Committee. Texas Gov. Rick Perry employed a gay pollster, Tony Fabrizio, who was out in his personal life, but his orientation wasnt publicly known until it was revealed during the campaign.

On the Democratic side, the first openly gay presidential campaign spokesman is thought to have been Doug Hattaway, spokesman for Al Gores 2000 campaign. His orientation was known but uncontroversial in the world of Democratic politics, where there had long been an out gay member of Congress. The politics of gay rights are different on the left, of course, but Democrats have also seen gay political staffers gradually become more open as society and the rough-and-tumble world of campaigns have become more accepting. Today, President Obamas campaign has a gay press secretary, Ben LaBolt, and director of surrogate communications, Ellen Qualls, as well as numerous gay non-communications staff, including the finance director, Rufus Gifford.

Romneys hiring of Grenell has stirred more controversy for the staffers history of catty, sometimes sexist tweets about women political figures than for his being gay. But news that Romney hired an out gay man didnt pass wholly without backlash, even if the objections came from the far fringes of the evangelical right; the most prominent critic, Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association, is someone Romney had already publicly condemned for his intolerant rhetoric on Mormons.

Romneys campaign wouldnt say whether Grenells sexual orientation was considered prior to his hiring, but implied it was not considered relevant. We hired Ric Grenell because he was the best qualified person for the job and has extensive experience representing the US Mission to the UN, Romney spokeswoman Andrea Saul said in an email. Romney has spoken up during the campaign on behalf of gay dignity, if not the contemporary gay-rights agenda. In a January debate, he said, If people are looking for someone who will discriminate against gays or will in any way try and suggest that people that have different sexual orientations dont have full rights in this country, they wont find that in me. Saul also passed along a supportive statement from former UN Ambassador John Bolton, the neoconservative on whose behalf Grenell developed a reputation as an aggressive, combative advocate.

Mehlman, in coming out, cited the politics of the time — the Bush administration pursued an aggressive anti-gay-rights agenda — as well as his own long road to self-acceptance as reasons he waited until stepping away from the helm of the Republican Party. Several gay Republican advocates I spoke to noted that coming out is a personal journey involving factors above and beyond the level of tolerance in the wider society or the political world. But theres no question that the GOP is more open to gay people now than it was just a few years ago. This year, there is even an openly gay Republican candidate running for Congress, Massachusetts Richard Tisei, who has been endorsed by the Gay amp; Lesbian Victory Fund.

Were living in a different time now. Gay people are living their lives openly and honestly like never before, said Jimmy LaSalvia, executive director of the gay Republican group GOProud. All Americans have gay people in their lives now, and so do all campaigns. This is just another step in the process weve seen in the past 20 to 30 years — a dramatic change in the way all Americans view gay people, including Republicans.

Some activists cautioned that Romney shouldnt be given too much credit — he has, after all, taken a stand against gay marriage and in favor of a federal constitutional amendment to ban it. Signorile wondered if the Grenell hire would have more political value to Romney as a signal to tolerant non-gay moderates than to the gay community, which would continue to judge the candidate on his policy stances.

Chuck Wolfe, president and CEO of the Victory Fund, said the more openly gay people are in politics — from elected office to the staff and appointee level — the more role models there are, and the more sensitive the internal debate is likely to be.

The more lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people are willing to serve and live their lives openly and honestly, the better off the country is, in my opinion, he said.

Gordon Johndroe worked on the Bush campaign in 2000 and served in the Bush administration for all eight years, ending his tenure as spokesman for the National Security Council. He didnt come out publicly until after he left politics, and now works in the private sector for the consulting firm APCO Worldwide.

In an interview, Johndroe declined to comment on whether the politics of the time influenced his decision to keep his sexual orientation private. But he praised his friend Grenell for blazing a trail.

I look at it as the ongoing evolution of our entire society, not just the Republican Party, Johndroe said. But a lot of that is because of people who have been pushing for change. Its been a lot of hard work by a lot of people to help force change. That cant be discounted in any discussion.

Leanne Wood is a 40-year-old mother of one, and a former probation officer. Her Twitter feed comes with a neat summary of her politics: Welsh Socialist and Republican. Environmentalist. Anti-racist. Feminist. Valleys.

When she won her partys leadership contest back in March, you could sense two conflicting reactions rippling through the Welsh nationalists collective psyche: excitement about such a radical politician taking the top job; and from more conservative quarters, a real trepidation about what she might do with her new role. During the leadership campaign, one of her senior colleagues had issued a thinly veiled warning about the dangers of what he called Fisher-Price politics. But enough Plaid members decided to ignore this rather patronising advice, and give Wood her chance, something she traces to our turbulent times: People are radical, and they want radical solutions to the situation were in, she says.

Before becoming Plaids leader, Wood was chiefly famed for an episode in 2004, when she upset some members of the Welsh Assembly by referring to the Queen as Mrs Windsor, and found herself temporarily excluded from proceedings. Passionate and prone to shoot from the hip, she doesnt seem to fit any of the usual political stereotypes – even when it comes to her own party.

Plaids traditional heartlands are north and west Wales, and the party has usually expected its leaders to be fluent Welsh speakers. Wood is still learning the language, and hails from the post-industrial heart of Labour-dominated south Wales. Her nationalism is solidly pragmatic rather than romantic: She believes in Welsh independence not primarily as a matter of national identity, but the best way of pulling her country away from a system in which government puts all its effort into promoting London and the south-east, and neglects the periphery.

As with so many people who have found a home on British politics outside-left, Wood links some of her convictions to Labours failures and shortcomings, and the way it has long behaved in its rock-solid heartlands. She grew up in the Rhondda Valley in a Labour-voting family, but any sense of loyalty to the party soon palled. I looked at local politics, and I didnt like what I saw, she says. I saw mainly older men, with rightwing politics, and a real sense of entitlement – that they just deserved to get peoples support, regardless of their politics, and how they operated.

I meet Wood on a Thursday morning in the town of Cwmbran, near Newport – way outside Plaids usual stamping grounds, where there are only two Welsh nationalists on the local council. We talk in the back room of a local community centre, where one Plaid councillor has been energetically promoting a self-help group for people who have suffered strokes: an example, Wood tells me, of the kind of community activism that might open up new opportunities.

Her party faces a steep climb, to say the least – support for Welsh independence has long held steady at around 10%, and after four years of sharing power in Cardiff with Labour, Plaid finished third in the last Welsh assembly elections, behind the Conservatives. But Wood insists that the SNPs success in Scotland proves that politics is now in flux as never before.

I think the context has changed, massively, she says. Since 2008, lots of things have been turned on their heads for people: old certainties are not certainties any more. And thats opened up the space for radical politics. I may not have won the leadership election had the banking crisis not happened. She goes on: If you can offer some hope of a different kind of structure to base our society around, and a different set of values in opposition to the ones that drove the crisis, then maybe weve got some light at the end of the tunnel. I think people are open to different ideas.

Even if youre being generous, Woods vision of an alternative can feel like a utopian work in progress. She talks me through the essentials: changing the most basic structures of the economy by encouraging co-operatives and employee participation, pushing for Wales to become a specialist in green technologies, and aiming at national self-sufficiency in food and fuel. I dont think that Plaid Cymru can overturn world capitalism, she says, with a wry smile. Im not saying that. But what I think we can do is, if people are up for this, then we could transform our communities, and create work for people.

Her ideas definitely represent a position well clear of the Westminster consensus. I wonder, though: given that her focus is on Wales alone, what does she think people in England ought to do? Move to Wales, she laughs, before mentioning the leftwing voices who are beginning to advocate an English parliament, and then correcting herself. Its got to be down to people in England to find the solution, she says, a little apologetically. I wouldnt be very happy if people in England starting telling us how to do our politics, so Im not going to do it back.

One last question: given her new job as party leader, shell presumably have to turn out at the kind of official occasions when shell meet the Queen, and be expected to bow, at least. Whats she going to do?

She looks mildly horrified. Well, I wont be doing that. I question this whole thing about deference. I just think in 2012, that we should all strive for equality as human beings, really. And the idea that you bow to someone, to me, is anathema.

o To comment on this or any other article in the New Radicals report, please go here

Op-Ed

The anti-immigrant game

Laws such as Arizonas SB 1070 are not natural responses to undue hardship but are products of partisan politics.