David Corn

Washington Bureau Chief

Corn has broken stories on presidents, politicians, and other Washington players. He's written for numerous publications and is a talk show regular. His best-selling books include Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the Iraq War.

Get my RSS | Follow me on Twitter

Romney Backer: He Does "Beautifully" Around Rich People

| Fri Feb. 3, 2012 7:17 AM PST

Now he's a quote from a supporter that may not help Mitt Romney that much:

It's kind of hard for Romney to come across being a regular Joe. But put him in a room full of 400 business guys that are all successful, that relate to him, he comes off beautifully.

So said Daniel Staton, chair of the FriendFinder Networks, who attended a ritzy Romney fundraiser in Boca Raton. From Bloomberg:

One evening in late September, Mitt Romney supporters gathered at the $3 million Boca Raton, Florida, home of Marc Leder, the Sun Capital Partners Inc. co- founder behind the takeovers of retailers Friendly Ice Cream Corp., Limited stores and ShopKo Stores Inc.

Waiters served brie-stuffed French toast and short-rib tartlets as guests including Daniel Staton, chairman of social- networking company FriendFinder Networks Inc. (FFN), lingered about the 10,657 square-foot (990 square-meter), 6-bedroom waterfront home. Then they gathered inside for a half-hour speech by Romney, whose years of buying and selling companies for Bain Capital LLC left him with a worth of as much as $250 million and a natural rapport with the crowd.

It was after being impressed by that 30-minute-long speech that Staton made his comment about Romney. He may as well have said, "Romney really feels our pain."

Advertise on MotherJones.com

The Real Reason Mitt Romney Is Accepting Donald Trump's Endorsement

| Thu Feb. 2, 2012 10:21 AM PST
mitt romney donald trumpMitt Romney (left) and Donald Trump

A day after Mitt Romney was slammed from all sides for declaring he's not "concerned with the very poor" (because they enjoy such a swell safety net), why would he accept an endorsement from celebrity-birther, .001-percenter Donald Trump and appear at the magnate's Las Vegas casino to do so?

The first words that come to mind are: too soon. Such a move will only reinforce the meta-narrative that Romney is far removed from the 99-percenters. It will also associate him with a fellow who was humiliated by Barack Obama last spring, when the president at the White House Correspondents' Association Dinner eviscerated Trump with humor the same weekend he was secretly overseeing the raid that killed Osama bin Laden. Trump's unfavorable rating last spring—before his birther crusade crashed and burned—was 47 percent.

But Romney may not have had a choice. This morning, several media outfits—Politico, the New York Times, and the Atlanta Journal-Constitution—were reporting that Trump was going to endorse Newt Gingrich. This suggests The Donald was talking to both camps to boost his leverage as he was negotiating a deal. (Quelle surprise!)

Bob Dole Slams Gingrich for Carrying Around an Ice Bucket

| Thu Jan. 26, 2012 1:32 PM PST
newt gingrich ice bucket

It was one of the oddest lines of the already plenty-odd 2012 campaign. On Thursday, the Mitt Romney HQ zapped out a statement from former Republican Senator Bob Dole blasting Newt Gingrich for being erratic, arrogant, and a liability to his party. This was hardly a shocker, given that Dole can partly (but only partly) blame Gingrich for his loss to Bill Clinton in the 1996 contest. But the Dole statement did contain a weird sentence referencing that campaign:

Newt would show up at the campaign headquarters with an empty ice-bucket in his hand—that was a symbol of some sort for him—and I never did know what he was doing or why he was doing it.

Gingrich and an ice bucket? Sounds surrealistic. But last week, my colleague Tim Murphy explained the connection between the then-House speaker and his bucket:

Leading up to the 1996 election, Gingrich criss-crossed the country brandishing a white bucket, as a symbol of how Gingrich had cut bureaucratic waste by eliminating an anachronistic ice delivery service to congressional offices. Dating back to before the advent of refrigeration, ice had been delivered via white buckets to each office twice a day at no cost. Gingrich boasted that the program had cut $400,000 per year from the federal budget by eliminating 23 paid staff positions. "If there was any one symbol I wish we could be remembered by, I believe it should be an ice bucket," Gingrich said at the time. "We didn't authorize a study, we didn't phase it out, we didn't call for a training program, we just went cold turkey."

There was, of course, a catch:

Gingrich didn't actually end the free ice service at the Capitol; he just created a new system. Under Gingrich's watchful eye, Congress set up five ice distribution centers around the Capitol complex, so that staffers could haul their daily load of ice back to the offices. The ice was still free, in other words, and it was still being distributed. According to Roll Call at the time, Gingrich was himself taking advantage of the free ice entitlement he derided, dispatching a staffer to the ice distribution center twice a day to fill a bucket.

No wonder Bob Dole remains mystified to this very day.

How Newt Stopped Marianne From Revealing Secrets the First Time

| Thu Jan. 19, 2012 1:31 PM PST
newt gingrichFormer Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich

The Ghost of Wife No. 2 hit the stage of the Republican presidential campaign on Thursday, when hours before the final debate in South Carolina, ABC News reported that Marianne Gingrich had said that Gingrich, while having an affair with Wife No. 3-to-be, asked her for an "open marriage," in which Marianne would share Gingrich with his then-mistress.

Gingrich's six-year-long extramarital tryst with Callista Bisek, a congressional aide at the time, is not news. But his alleged effort to define his own marriage as a union between a man and a woman and a woman had not been previously reported.

It's not much of a surprise that Marianne would lob this bombshell at this point. She and Newt went through an acrimonious divorce in 1999. Back then, as a recovering Newt-watcher, I covered some of those proceedings and on occasion spoke to Marianne. What was striking at the time was that Gingrich seemed to be the one acting vindictively in the proceedings. Marianne appeared to just want a clean exit (with the right amount of compensation). Here's part of a dispatch I wrote for Salon:

“We don’t know. We just don’t know. If you find out, let me know. It’s a mystery.” So said Marianne Gingrich, the soon-to-be ex-wife of former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, when asked why she thought Newt was being a hard-ass in the divorce proceedings he initiated against her.

We were talking Tuesday morning in a courtroom in the Superior Court of Washington, minutes before the latest hearing in the case, and I remarked that it was hard to make sense of Newt’s scorched-earth approach to the divorce, which has already revealed his six-year-long extramarital affair with congressional aide Calista Bisek and tainted whatever was left of his image as a family-values Republican.

If he’s pocketing $50,000 per speech, as reported, why wouldn’t he just strike a deal and avoid all the negative publicity? His strategy of all-out fighting — and dragging his new love into the mess — seems irrational to an outsider, I commented.

“It looks that way to an insider,” Marianne said with a sad smile.

Her smile was broader an hour and a half later, after Judge Brook Hedge had ruled that Bisek had to turn over most of the records that Marianne Gingrich’s attorneys had sought from her — including telephone bills,
credit card bills, bank statements, correspondence between her and the ex-speaker, appointment books, gifts from Newt and other materials dating back five years. (Neither Newt nor Bisek attended the hearing.)

Bisek’s attorney, Pamela Bresnahan, had argued that the request was an invasion of Bisek’s privacy and that most of the material was not relevant to the divorce proceedings. But Judge Hedge shot her down, noting that Bisek is “not just a bystander” in Gingrich vs. Gingrich. Consequently, Marianne Gingrich’s lawyers — John Mayoue, an Atlanta attorney, and Victoria Toensing, the Republican talking head and lawyer who once counted Newt as an ally — will have the opportunity to comb Bisek’s papers and seek out information about the secret affair Gingrich maintained while he was rising to power.

They also will get the chance to question Bisek directly. After some legal squabbling, Bisek agreed to submit to a deposition in December....

In the meantime, Newt has his own problems brewing with his wife’s attorneys. In August, Mayoue sent the former speaker a list of questions, a standard procedure in the discovery process of a divorce case. Lawyers customarily try to obtain answers to interrogatories before they hold depositions.

Mayoue’s questions covered all the obvious territory. Newt Gingrich was asked to identify all persons who had any knowledge regarding his break from Marianne. He was probed about his finances, since Marianne suspects he has hidden assets from her. He was asked to list all his bank accounts and to note all transfers of money or property in excess of $1,000 that he has made since Jan. 1, 1997. He was asked if he had received any treatment or counseling from a pastor or mental health professional in the past five years.

He was asked to identify “any and all persons, other than your wife, with whom you’ve had sexual relations during this marriage” and to provide the “dates, times and places in which said sexual relations occurred.” He also was asked to identify anyone who knew of these affairs. Question No. 25 inquired, “Do you believe that you have conducted your private life in this marriage in accordance with the concept of ‘family values’ you have espoused politically and professionally?”

At the time, Newt Gingrich's legal strategy did not make any sense. It looked as if a stream of sewage was about to pour forth. I wrote:

Why isn’t Newt trying to head this ugly divorce trial off at the pass? Why are there no settlement talks occurring?

“My hunch is that he doesn’t care about his public image any longer,” says one of Newt Gingrich’s associates. “He’s enjoying being in the private sector, and that means not having to worry about bad press."

This may be a sign that Newt has given up on politics. (Although talk of his political rehabilitation has always seemed far-fetched, he did refuse to rule out future runs when he announced his resignation a year ago.)

Newt-haters theoretically could have feared a Nixon-like return from the near-dead — but given how Newt is handling this case, they need not fret any longer.

Actually, a few weeks later, Newt did settle the divorce. That was before he or Callista had to turn over records and be deposed. Marianne received a decent deal (I was told), and the details of Newt's private life would remain private. Yet as he now attempts a Nixon-like comeback, Marianne is speaking out and placing in public view some of what she did not squeeze out of Newt during their time in court, demonstrating that it's never too late for a bitter divorce to get worse.
 

Advertise on MotherJones.com

Huntsman on Obama: "A Pathology Emerges Here."

| Tue Jan. 10, 2012 5:07 PM PST

On Tuesday evening, a peppy Jon Huntsman strolled through Radio Row at the Radisson Hotel in downtown Manchester to do several radio interviews. He appeared quite pleased. His aides were noting they were confident of a strong showing that night in the New Hampshire Republican primary, looking toward possibly hurdling over Ron Paul into second place. (As it turned out, Huntsman would fall far short of leapfrogging Paul.)

On his way toward a microphone, I asked if he had time for a question. "Sure thing, David," he said. The following exchange occurred. Please pay attention to the sentence in bold.

Corn: I'm intrigued by the argument you are making about restoring trust which runs counter to the emotional narrative that the other candidates are talking about. But in what way do you think the current occupant in the White House has failed on the trust level?

Huntsman: Well, an example would be that when given the first two years to lead out on the economy, he failed to do so. When given a chance to address Afghanistan--drawing down troops when we've done everything we can do—he has failed to do so. When he had an opportunity to embrace a bipartisan deficit spending proposal called Simpson-Bowles, it hit the garbage can. You get enough of these, and a kind of a pathology emerges here. People say, there's no more trust in the executive branch. There was an opportunity to lead, and it wasn't taken.

Corn: But are these trust issues, or are these policy differences? There was the stimulus. Afghanistan was a long [policy] review--whether you agree or not—

Huntsman: They're all corrosive on the overall trust issue. When you run against crony capitalism and you have the Solyndras of the world pop up. There's enough there to raise the issue of trust.

Was the former Utah governor calling Obama pathological—as in pathological liar (the common usage)? It sure seems close. Though he has repeatedly maintained that the nation's political discourse has gone off the rails in terms of nastiness and divisiveness, Huntsman, in his mild-mannered way, was twisting policy disputes into a question of character and suggesting that Obama, for whom he once worked, was fundamentally dishonest. That's an odd way to improve the debate and boost civility.
 

Tue Jan. 10, 2012 5:07 PM PST
Mon Jan. 9, 2012 1:31 PM PST
Fri Jan. 6, 2012 10:01 AM PST
Fri Jan. 6, 2012 8:03 AM PST
Fri Jan. 6, 2012 6:40 AM PST
Thu Jan. 5, 2012 2:39 PM PST
Tue Oct. 18, 2011 6:47 PM PDT
Fri Sep. 30, 2011 7:43 AM PDT
Wed Aug. 31, 2011 6:28 AM PDT
Mon Jul. 25, 2011 6:31 AM PDT
Mon Jul. 11, 2011 11:27 AM PDT
Wed Jul. 6, 2011 9:10 AM PDT
Tue Jul. 5, 2011 10:58 AM PDT
Wed Jun. 29, 2011 7:24 AM PDT
Tue Jun. 28, 2011 6:23 AM PDT
Wed Jun. 22, 2011 5:05 PM PDT
Thu Jun. 16, 2011 5:40 AM PDT
Fri Jun. 10, 2011 1:06 PM PDT
Mon Jun. 6, 2011 11:46 AM PDT
Tue May. 31, 2011 5:22 AM PDT
Thu May. 26, 2011 7:11 AM PDT
Wed May. 25, 2011 5:42 AM PDT
Fri May. 20, 2011 6:07 AM PDT
Wed May. 11, 2011 7:22 AM PDT
Fri May. 6, 2011 11:30 AM PDT
Thu Apr. 28, 2011 7:00 AM PDT
Mon Apr. 11, 2011 12:00 PM PDT
Mon Mar. 28, 2011 12:23 PM PDT
Wed Mar. 23, 2011 10:17 AM PDT
Mon Mar. 14, 2011 6:22 AM PDT
Thu Mar. 10, 2011 7:47 AM PST
Wed Mar. 9, 2011 3:00 AM PST
Thu Mar. 3, 2011 2:38 PM PST
Thu Feb. 24, 2011 1:54 PM PST
Mon Feb. 14, 2011 11:59 AM PST
Wed Feb. 9, 2011 7:00 AM PST