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.

Makeover

It's back-to-school time in Washington, and there's a touch of chaos in the classroom. The Mutual-Commiseration Summit is over, having done little more than to provide President Clinton the opportunity to lecture a whole country on their excesses. (Too bad it didn't lead to a presidential exchange. Bill Clinton could try to whip the Russian economy into the shape desired by the Western markets, and Boris Yeltsin could do battle with the imperial Kenneth Starr.) Congress is back in town, loaded with budget bills long behind schedule and, thanks to the GOP, weighed down with anti-environmental provisions and cheap shots at decent education and social programs, like heating assistance for the elderly and low-income citizens. Attorney General Janet Reno is being forcibly marched toward the realization that she must appoint an independent counsel for some sort of inquiry into Clinton's 1996 fundraising. Full-of-themselves Democratic Senators, led by Joseph Lieberman, are wailing against Clinton--keeping the scandal on the front-pages and rendering it harder for their Democratic comrades in congressional races to change the subject. (The day Lieberman unleashed his hot air, House minority leader Dick Gephardt was in New Hampshire, saying, "Can we get our message across? I believe we can." He may as well have added, "I have a dream.") Clinton continues his agonizingly slow 12-step apology program. Starr is still hoovering all details about Monica Lewinsky's frank exchanges with Clinton. (You have to wonder just how much the man enjoys his work.) And the sex-bombs are starting to fall on Capitol Hill, as one prescient columnist in this magazine predicted last week. (In an effort to diffuse a grenade coming his way, Representative Dan Burton, the inept Republican leading the Clinton chase in the House, last week confirmed that he once had an extra-marital affair that produced a child.) But here's good news, campaign season is upon us. That always brings out the best in our national politics.

A year ago, political handicappers in Washington were warning Senator Alfonse D'Amato that he was about to be involuntarily cashed out. His negative numbers were the worst among all members of that august body. He had looked silly throughout his stewardship of the Senate Whitewater hearings. He needed a forklift to carry all his ethics baggage. (When the Senate ethics committee investigated a multiple-count complaint against D'Amato several years ago--the centerpiece of which was the allegation that he had used the Department of Housing, Urban and Development as a spoils system for his cronies--half of the potential witnesses pleaded the fifth. The committee ended up not being able to fully investigate a central charge against D'Amato, but chastised him on other fronts. D'Amato never released his testimony before the committee.) In 1992, this Republican barely won reelection against Robert Abrams, and since then the Democrats have been gunning for him.

These days, a bet on D'Amato is much safer. He has won plenty of positive ink and TV-time by blasting the Swiss for ripping off Holocaust survivors. He has decried his fellow Republicans' attempt to block the appointment of an openly gay ambassadorial nominee. He has squawked about drive-by mastectomies, thus endearing himself to women health advocates. Jews, gays and women--D'Amato has morphed into Barbra Streisand! He has even said privately that he will support practically any liberal measure that makes it to the Senate floor in order to deny his opponent in the general election an issue. He's a scoundrel so shameless that his craven actions do not shock.

He also is blessed by the inability of the other side to mount an effective attack. This year--as in 1992--a fierce primary fight among Democratic hopefuls has bolstered D'Amato futures. Having worked for public advocate Mark Green during his campaign against D'Amato in 1986, I am partial to him. He is a strong, reform-minded progressive who has traded little of his beliefs for the moderate political success he has achieved. In his current job and during his stint as consumer affairs commissioner, he proved he was more than a smart-boy policy wonk by delivering on bread-and-butter consumer issues. And no one has been a more passionate and consistent advocate for cleaning up special-interest corruption in Washington that Green. He is the anti- D'Amato--principled and clean. The clearest-cut choice to Boss D'Amato. He's entitled to think he deserves a second shot at D'Amato.

It's hard to say that Representative Charles Schumer should not be in the Democratic field. The guy is an irritating publicity hound who did not have the nerve to stick with his original plan to challenge Governor George Pataki. And the fundraising prowess that Schumer touts as a key credential indicates he is a member in good standing in the corrupt political system of Washington. A few weeks ago, the Daily News noted that D'Amato and Schumer each have received millions of dollars in campaign contributions from the same set of donors in the financial community. Two hundred and thirty contributors, in fact, slipped money to both men. Praise the two-party system--and pass the collection plate. When it comes to challenging corporate special interests, there's not much difference between D'Amato and Schumer. He is not a true alternative to D'Amato. But at least, Schumer's been slogging away in Congress on gun control, and he's an occasional foe to the Newtites. To be fair, he cannot be dismissed out of hand.

Geraldine Ferraro--now, she deserves complete disregard. Her entry into the race was a mistake and a painful reminder that too many pols are driven by 100-percent ego not public good. What is astounding is her hubris. She acted as if she expected a royal acclamation, and she has campaigned as if the nomination was owed to her. She apparently calculated that she had one asset that would trump Green and Schumer: celebrity. What chutzpah. With her past record of ethics problems and her previous experience as a lobbyist for health insurance interests, she is utterly unsuitable to make the case against D'Amato. It's not unfair to remind voters that her record in the House of Representatives was completely unimpressive. She is remembered more for being a toady for House Speaker Tip O'Neill than for any legislative accomplishment during her forgettable years in office. She did manage to win an invitation from Walter Mondale to be his running mate in 1984--and performed miserably on that sinking ship. As one Washingtonian--a woman--who knows Ferraro well puts it, "Gerry thinks that since she was picked by a man for a job because she's a woman she deserves to be a U.S. Senator."

As with D'Amato, one has to almost admire her shamelessness. She puts herself in the glare of public scrutiny, even though her past is stained by serious allegations of improper behavior. Before anyone casts a vote for Ferraro, they ought to dig up and read the epic piece the Voice ran in 1992 on her ties to the mob. (Note to the publisher of New York Press: sorry for plugging the competition.) Wayne Barrett and William Bastone documented 24 mob associations of Ferraro's, in a piece that should have exiled her to Elba. Her start in politics was aided by mobsters, who contributed to her early congressional campaigns. For example, of the 74 people listed on the invitation for a 1979 fundraiser, nine had OC-connections. In her professional and private lives, usually through her husband, real estate entrepreneur John Zaccaro, Ferraro was much closer to mobsters than you would like a lawmaker to be. For instance, in the 1970s she was a lawyer for the fellow who managed the Ravenite Social Club, which was John Gotti's headquarters--a fact the Ferraro vice-presidential campaign tried to diminish when her past hit the fan in 1984

Ferraro-philes can try to brush this all aside as old news or sleaze that was much raked over in the 1984 campaign and then in the 1992 campaign, when New York Democrats had the good sense to deny her. But the documented record remains, and her response has never gone beyond stonewalling. No acknowledgment, no apology. (Sound familiar?) If Ferraro were to triumph in the September 15 primary and were, by some miracle, to beat D'Amato--a.k.a. the Twelve Million Dollar Man--New York would just be trading one embarrassment for another.

In 1992, D'Amato and his gang seemed eager to run against Ferraro. They must be licking their chops again.

Stepford Candidates

If during the campaign season there is any space in the national political dialogue for non-Monica matter, a memo sent by the Republican House leadership to GOP congressional candidates indicates just how dumb the debate is going to be--at least from the GOP side.

This "communications playbook" suggests canned phrases and answers for candidates. It is full of meaningless drivel: "We need a renewal of spirit in this country, a return to selfless concern for others, for duty, and for country." (Hmmm, how does axing heating assistance for the poor fit in with that?) But what was most interesting was the section in which the GOP anticipated what stinging attacks would be hurled at its legislators by Democrats and offered suggested retorts. When Democrats assert that "the Republicans' reckless budget slashes funding for education, health care, housing and the environment," GOPsters are supposed to say, "We'll protect the surplus from those who would spend it, and we'll continue to cut taxes." That's almost a non sequitur. Seems as if the Republican strategy is to change the subject, not address legitimate criticism.

When Democrats attack Republicans for trying to overturn the ban on assault weapons and for opposing the Clinton plan to fund 100,000 cops, Republicans are advised to say, "Until President Clinton took over the White House, America was winning the war on drugs. Now, juvenile violent crime has gone up and teenage drug use has skyrocketed." Who thought we were "winning" the war in the early 1990s. Notice there is no mention in the GOP response of the party's stand on guns and funding for police.

The memo covers a host of topics. Should the Democrats argue that "Republicans are more committed to tax cuts for their rich contributors, and they're spending the Social Security surplus to pay for it," Republicans ought to say, "The Democrats' budget raises taxes on families and economic growth to pay for bigger government." Should Democrats assault Republicans for taking money from tobacco and insurance companies and then doing their bidding on legislation, Republicans are told to point out that "Democrats accepted foreign contributions to their campaigns, rented out the Lincoln Bedroom, and may have traded national security decisions for campaign contributions." (*May have traded*?) Should the Democrats jab Republicans for not passing a toxic site clean-up legislation, Republicans can simply claim that they have "an impressive record of environmental achievement." (Quick, name three GOP achievements in protecting the environment!) And should Democrats hail Clinton for showing leadership regarding U.S. policy on Ireland, Haiti, Bosnia, and Iraq--not bloody likely these days--the Republican retort is, "The President acts only when there's a crisis. And under his leadership, we have had far too many."

This is schoolyard politics. Nah-na-na-na-nah. What an insult. If you're going to engage in soundbite politics, the dollops ought to at least be responsive to the matter at hand. The Republicans are not even throwing red meat to the voters. They're going to be offering meat by-products, when not trying to surf the Monica wave. They're certainly lucky that most people don't bother with elections, that Monicagate might discourage even more potential voters, and that sage political observers, Before Monica, were predicting that the November elections will set a record for low turn-out. Which is what the GOP hopes, for historically it's the party that does better when fewer vote. (How's that for an endorsement?) Consequently, the Republicans have an interest in doling out pablum. True political discourse might catch the attention of the public. And few Republicans want that.

There Goes Beginning Poetry

Gay-bashers never tire. One of the shrill voices in the crusade against homosexuals has been the innocuously-named Oregon Citizens Alliance. The group sponsored anti-gay ballot measures in 1992 and 1994, losing both times. This year, it spent $172,000 trying to qualify ballot measures that prohibited gay marriages and abortions after the first trimester. Both failed. Now it has a new idea. The group, according to The Oregonian, has filed an initiative for the 2000 general election that would prohibit public schools from discussing homosexuality and bisexuality "in a manner which encourages, promotes or sanctions such behavior." Slamming gays in the classroom, the group's leaders believe, is a winner. Does this mean if a high school teacher is to teach Allen Ginsberg, he or she cannot note the man's sexual proclivity without exclaiming, "and that's yucky"? Talk about social engineering in the schools.

David Corn's Loyal Opposition is published weekly in New York Press.