Reno and Its Discontents

Ensign, C Street, and The Fellowship (Family)

Myrna the Minx — Sat, 11 Jul 2009 22:24:47 +0000

For those of you who don’t know, I wrote about Ensign and The Fellowship way way back in 2006. At the time, I couldn’t confirm that Ensign lived in the C Street house, but it’s clear now that he has been a resident for some time now. For a quick overview of what The Fellowship of Family as some call it, Jeff Sharlet made two appearances on Rachel Maddow’s show to discuss their theological approach which Sharlet noted fetishizes strength and cruelty:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Pick up his book “The Family: The Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power.” And here is Sharlet’s post on his recent media popularity and what he believes my be the death knell for the careers of Ensign and Coburn.

Here’s a long excerpt from my original post: “Senator Ensign and The Bonds of Fellowship” published on TaylorMarsh.com:

“But any cursory look at Ensign’s background brings up some pretty interesting associations with groups front and center in the culture ware between those who think Christian ideology should play a central role in governmentâ€”groups on the far right like the Promise Keepers, the Christian Coalition, the Family Research Council, and the Fellowship. Ensign’s constituents are barely aware of how he votes on the issuesâ€”they’re either bamboozled by his game show host good looks or deceived by ring general Harry Reid’s protective order.

But you’ve never heard of the Fellowship have you? That, my friends, is completely by design. You’re probably familiar with the National Prayer breakfast they sponsor once a year and attended by the President and other influential people, but the rest of their operation is a mystery to us lay folks who don’t see a place for religion in politics. When its members are asked about the Fellowship, they either deny its existence or decline to answer questions. In 2002, The Los Angeles Times published an article called “Showing Faith in Discretion” by Lisa Getter, that gives us an inside glimpse into this secretive group:

“The Fellowship is a collection of public officials, business leaders and religious ministries that defies easy description. Sometimes known as the prayer group movement, its members espouse a common devotion to the teachings of Jesus and a belief that peace and justice can come about through quiet efforts to change individuals, particularly those in positions of power. Personal outreach is paramount. â€¦.They also share a vow of silence about Fellowship activities.”

Based in Arlington, Virginia, the Fellowship’s official name is the Fellowship Foundation, but it does business as the nonprofit International Foundation and has an annual budget of $10 million. The Fellowship does not solicit moneyâ€”a handful of individuals support the Fellowship with personal contributions. Founded by Abraham Vereide, “a Methodist evangelist who feared that Socialists were corrupting municipal government in Seattle in the mid-1930s,” Vereide wanted to effect change by organizing prayer groups with local business and government leaders. Eventually, he took his prayer group model to Washington D.C. and began expanding its mission to international diplomacy. Getter outlines some of what we know about the Fellowship’s involvement in the political arena:

“The Fellowship was a behind-the-scenes player at the Camp David Middle East accords in 1978, working with President Jimmy Carter to issue a worldwide call to prayer with Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin and Egyptian President Anwar Sadat. During the Cold War, it helped finance an anti-communism propaganda film endorsed by the CIA and used by the Pentagon overseas.Last year, the Fellowship helped arrange a secret meeting at Cedars between two warring leaders, Democratic Republic of Congo President Joseph Kabila and Rwandan President Paul Kagame–one of the first of a series of discreet meetings between the two African leaders that eventually led to the signing of a peace accord in July.

Then-Sen. David Durenberger retreated to the mansion in 1986 when he began having marital problems. GOP strategist Lee Atwater came seeking spiritual guidance in 1990 when he learned he was dying. Jackson and his children stayed in October, while in town for a benefit concert for victims of last year’s terrorist attacks.”

Clearly we can forget about the separation of church and state here. Although the Fellowship maintains its rule of working in silence is purely a religious insistence on humility, its pretty clear they remain silence to prevent the public from learning about influence they have and how they use it.

I was unable to confirm whether this is still the case, but in 2002, who do you think was living in a house owned by the Fellowship on Capital Hill that just happens to be registered as a church? Why, our own Senator Ensign along with fellow soldiers of the culture war Sam Brownback and Tom Coburn (who proposed the death penalty for doctors who performed abortions, which I guess means he also believes in suicide since he has been exposed as a doctor who performed abortions). Reportedly, Tom Delay is another famous member. According to Jeff Sharlet in the January 2006 article for Rolling Stone magazine, Brownback was brought into the Fellowship fold by Frank Carlson, a former Republican senator from Kansas. Sharlet points out that at a 1955 meeting of the Fellowship, Carlson declared the group’s mission to be “’Worldwide Spiritual Offensive,’ a vision of manly Christianity dedicated to the expansion of American power as a means of spreading the gospel.”

No church and state conflict there. More on the Fellowship’s god peddling from Jeff Sharlet for Rolling Stone:

“They were striving, ultimately, for what Coe calls ‘Jesus plus nothing’ — a government led by Christ’s will alone. In the future envisioned by Coe, everything — sex and taxes, war and the price of oil — will be decided upon not according to democracy or the church or even Scripture. The Bible itself is for the masses; in the Fellowship, Christ reveals a higher set of commands to the anointed few. It’s a good old boy’s club blessed by God. Brownback even lived with other cell members in a million-dollar, red-brick former convent at 133 C Street that was subsidized and operated by the Fellowship. Monthly rent was $600 per man — enough of a deal by Hill standards that some said it bordered on an ethical violation, but no charges were ever brought.Brownback and Ensign also lived with Fellowship brother Sen. Tom Coburn, an Oklahoma doctor who has advocated the death penalty for abortion providers. The men in Brownback’s cell talk about politics, but the senator insists it’s not political. ‘It’s about faith and action,’ he says. According to ‘Thoughts on a Core Group,’ the primary purpose of the cell is to become an ‘invisible “believing” group.’ Any action the cell takes is an outgrowth of belief, a natural extension of ‘agreements reached in faith and in prayer.’ Deals emerge not from a smoke-filled room but from a prayer-filled room. ‘Typically,’ says Brownback, ‘one person grows desirous of pursuing an action’ — a piece of legislation, a diplomatic strategy — ‘and the others pull in behind.’

In 1999, Brownback worked with Rep. Joe Pitts, a Fellowship brother, to pass the Silk Road Strategy Act, designed to block the growth of Islam in Central Asian nations by bribing them with lucrative trade deals. That same year, he teamed up with two Fellowship associates — former Sen. Don Nickles and the late Sen. Strom Thurmond — to demand a criminal investigation of a liberal group called Americans United for Separation of Church and State. Last year, several Fellowship brothers, including Sen. John Ensign, another resident of the C Street house, supported Brownback’s broadcast decency bill. And Pitts and Coburn joined Brownback in stumping for the Houses of Worship Act to allow tax-free churches to endorse candidates.

The most bluntly theocratic effort, however, is the Constitution Restoration Act, which Brownback co-sponsored with Jim DeMint, another former C Streeter who was then a congressman from South Carolina. If passed, it will strip the Supreme Court of the ability to even hear cases in which citizens protest faith-based abuses of power. Say the mayor of your town decides to declare Jesus lord and fire anyone who refuses to do so; or the principal of your local high school decides to read a fundamentalist prayer over the PA every morning; or the president declares the United States a Christian nation. Under the Constitution Restoration Act, that’ll all be just fine.”

We can be thankful that Senator Ensign and his Fellowship brothers have been unsuccessful passing legislation like the Constitution Restoration Act–so far. However, they are not about to stop trying. They are part of the “Worldwide Spiritual Offensive” that hopes to use their patriarchal Christian faith to expand American power in order to further spread their anti-choice (government enforced pregnancy for all) and anti-science beliefs as widely as possible.

Jeff Sharlet also went undercover in the Fellowship to write “Jesus Plus Nothing” for Harper’s Magazine in March of 2003. It’s a fascinating read.”Similar Posts:

Participatory Journalism, Democratic and Flawed

Myrna the Minx — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 03:39:15 +0000

Participatory journalism is extremely democratic in nature and that kind of freedom comes with flaws. The journalistic model of HuffingtonPost leverages the democratic nature of participatory journalism more successfully than any other online media outlet out there. If you’re willing to put in some work, a commenter can become a blogger, and a blogger can get their posts on the front page where it will be seen by millions of visitors if enough HuffingtonPost readers like it. And HuffingtonPost gets thousands of pages of content for free. What’s not to like (if you don’t mind not being paid for your original blogging content)?

By leveraging the work of citizen journalists, HuffingtonPost takes the chance that the writing from their corps of bloggers might cross editorial lines. That’s what happened today when HuffingtonPost blogger Erik Sean Nelson posted a blog called: “Palin Will Run in ‘12 on More Retardation Platform.” The text of the post was saved and posted on Free Republic an example of “Liberal Media Bias” before it was deleted by editors at HuffingtonPost. Here is the opening paragraph:

“In Sarah Palin’s resignation announcement she complained about the treatment of her son Trig who always teaches her life lessons. She said that the “world needs more Trigs, not fewer.” That’s a presidential campaign promise we can all get behind. She will be the first politician to actually try to increase the population of retarded people. To me, it’s kinda like saying the world needs more cancer patients because they teach us such personal lessons.

Reasonable people can agree that the above is tasteless and offensive to most people, and HuffingtonPost editors removed the post as soon as their attention was called to it. However, many conservatives quickly reacted to the post as evidence of the now tired claim of “liberal media bias.” The HuffingtonPost is not the Washington Post or The New York Times for which we have different expectations. HuffingtonPost is a self-proclaimed liberal news outlet just as The Drudge Report is a self-proclaimed conservative media outlet. None of this is really important because study after study has shown that there is no liberal media bias and conservatives who continue to believe such a thing exists are misguided and ideologically narrow.

While the controversy around the Palin post blew up on Twitter, I and several colleagues were dismayed to see none other than the trend setting conservative Meghan McCain attributing the post to “liberal media bias” in a tweet that has since been deleted. To which I replied:

“yo @McCainBlogette about HuffPo post, that’s participatory journalism, not liberal media bias. Extremely democratic and often flawed” (link)

Nicole Belle also responded to McCain’s deleted tweet:

(link)

I think some liberals like Nicole and I keep hoping that conservatives will let go of the liberal media bias meme. But if forward thinking conservatives like Meghan McCain buy into it, there doesn’t seem to be much hope that establishment conservatives will ever let it go–facts be damned.

Especially in this case, when it’s clear an independent blogger posted something inappropriate and HuffingtonPost editors took the proper action, calling “liberal media bias” is just silly. What happened with the Palin post is what will become a common complication of participatory journalism. As Clay Shirky has noted, outlets like HuffingtonPost and RedState encourage democratic citizen engagement and that’s a positive result. But it’s a positive result that carries some hazards we have to account for if we believe in the value of participatory journalism.

In the end, it’s clear that Meghan McCain rethought her initial impulse to attribute an errant post on HuffingtonPost to the “liberal media bias” or she wouldn’t have deleted her tweet in which she made that assertion. We are in an interesting time in terms or journalism experiments. Those of us in favor or democratizing the media can only hope that McCain and other conservatives continue expanding their views as far as assessing the impact and value of participatory journalism.Similar Posts:

Ensign Comes Out Swinging

Myrna the Minx — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 03:16:13 +0000

Ensign was the topic of conversation every where I went this weekend. It’s been my thinking since his initial refusal to resign that:

Ensign won’t resign. To resign would be admitting wrong doing and he can’t afford to do that now. Ensign would rather weather a Senate Ethics Committee investigation than resign and go away looking guilty. The Ethics Committee isn’t exactly known for being all that tough so his odds are good of getting off with a slap on the hands from his colleagues.
Ensign had to take the offensive soon. The Hamptons aren’t exactly innocent victims here and there’s a chance for Ensign to paint them as equal players in this sordid affair of extra-marital sex, political favors, and perhaps payoffs using taxpayer monies. What Ensign is hoping for now is an investigation to show that he did nothing illegal–not to be mistaken for doing something or many things that are improper and unseemly.

And so it begins.

Politico reports that the Hampton’s lawyer made “exorbitant demands for cash and other financial benefits on behalf of his client,” meanwhile, an Ensign aid stated that Fox News did not tip off Ensign’s office to the Hampton’s threat to go public with the affair but stopped short of revealing how Ensign found out the Hamptons sent the email to Fox News. Understandably, Ensign’s approval rating has plummeted. The good news for Ensign right now is that 62 percent of respondents said Ensign should not resign. The bad news for Ensign is that 59 percent said they would either vote for someone else or consider voting for someone else in 2012. And Shelly Berkley would be happy to run for Ensign’s seat in 2012.

And of course, this is death blow to the state Republican party–Ensign, Gibbons, Kroliki……

Similar Posts:

Ensign’s Cozy Relationship With The Hampton Family

Myrna the Minx — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 23:45:23 +0000

So now the nation knows that Ensign had an affair with Cynthia Hampton, wife of Douglas Hampton–both former employees of Ensign at some point during the already infamous affair. But Brandon Hampton, the son of Douglas and Cynthia Brandon, was also employed by the National Republican Senatorial Committee, which is headed up by Senator Ensign. Things are getting a little bit complicated. Politico reported on the details of the salaries paid to the Hampton’s by Ensign:

“Douglas Hampton was paid about $101,000 in 2008 and $144,000 in 2007 as Ensign’s administrative assistant. But a financial disclosure form he filed in 2007 and 2008 – required for senior congressional staffers - showed only checking and savings account worth a maximum $30,000 combined.

A review of public records shows that the Hamptons in 2006 took out a $1.2 million mortgage on their Las Vegas home, at an interest rate of 8 percent.”

Based on the salary information published by Politico, there are a few things that merit scrutiny according to Paul Blumenthal at the Sunlight Foundation:

“Now, you might immediately think that $144,000 for an administrative assistant is an absurd amount, but administrative assistant is often synonymous with chief of staff on the Hill. However, if you look to the reporting period of 4/1/2008 to 5/1/08:

Hampton was paid approximately $20,000 over this one month period. At the same time, Ensign hired a chief of staff, John Lopez, ostensibly to replace Hampton. If we are to assume that Hampton’s annual salary is around $144,000 — the cap on staffer salaries is around $160,000 — then the $20,000 for one month ($240,000 in a year) would be far higher than his normal rate of pay. Over the four months of 2008 Hampton received $101,000, far more than his rate of pay for all of 2007.

There are a few points to be made here:

1) Staff salary reporting is often not aligned with the dates shown. If you look at Legistorm, you will see dates aligned with amounts. This is often not accurate, or includes bonuses with attribution.

2) Hampton could have collected his vacation pay, sick leave and a bonus at his termination, which would make his salary appear inflated.

3) Hampton could have stayed on to train Lopez in his new job. This would explain the overlap of two employees holding the same job.”

However, it just doesn’t look or seem right does it? It’s not public knowledge that Cynthia Hampton saw her salary double in a very short time. And the employment of Brandon Hampton by the National Republican Senatorial Committee looks really bad in light of what we’ve learned about Ensign’s relationship with the Hampton family. It’s too cozy by half and could point to a misuse of public funds. I’m afraid Ensign is in for a bumpy ride–this scandal is not going away fast–especially now that the Hamptons have “lawyered up” as the Gleaner says.

Update

TMPMuckraker has more on the very lucrative connection the Hamptons had with Ensign.

“But it’s Ensign’s ties to Cynthia’s husband Doug that may be more interesting. According to the Las Vegas Review-Journal, Ensign and Hampton are old friends. When the senator gave Hampton a top staff position in 2006, “it was as if Ensign had put his brother on staff,” a former Ensign staffer told the paper. “[Hampton] had a lot of sway with the senator.” Hampton’s formal title was “administrative assistant,” the former staffer described the job as a sort of “co-chief of staff.” Hampton’s financial disclosure form shows that he made around $101,000 in 2008 and $144,000 in 2007.”

Similar Posts:

Should Senator Ensign Resign over Extra-marital Affair?

Myrna the Minx — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 05:35:10 +0000

You might not believe this, but I don’t think we should stop automatically be calling for Senator Ensign to resign. Our knee jerk reaction to politicians caught with their hand in the adultery cookie jar should not be to call for their resignation. But for conservatives who find themselves defending Senator Ensign’s right to keep his Senate seat, you have to remember something–the incredible power hypocrisy yields. And remember President Bill Clinton.

I know, I can sense your automatic protest: “Clinton lied under oath!” But how about being honest for a change? Clinton’s lie provided convenient cover after the fact for all the sex talk the nation could possibly imagine and more. The Starr investigation and the Clinton impeachment trial was the closest thing to a live pornography show this nation will ever see–the public discourse was literally consumed by media coverage of blow jobs. It was SO about the sex.

But as we have discovered over the years through the hypocrisy of Newt Gingrich, Henry Hyde, Larry Craig, Rudy Giuliani–the list goes on and on. Did Gingrich and Hyde try and hide their own affairs by persecuting Clinton? A short read about Freudian Projection should take care of any doubts in that regard Can you say “classic?” It’s not that Democrats don’t ever cheat, it’s that, for the most part, they don’t believe we should be all up in each other’s business and they don’t believe in legislation morality.

What Senator Ensign needs to think about are his own sanctimonious words and actions he willingly directed towards others. He called for and voted for Clinton’s impeachment. He pushed Larry Craig to resign (but not David Vitter?). He is the one is in favor of banning gay marriage in order to “protect marriage.” But who will protect marriage from Ensign?

Here’s what I think (most realists think this way too). Married people have been having extra-marital affairs since time began and politicians are only different in that they cheat more. Power breeds hubris and sycophants–a heady mix for anyone with a pulse. It’s time for all of us to stop being so sanctimonious about “family values” and “the protection of marriage” and just admit that we’re all human. We all want to be loved and we all make mistakes. If conservatives would stop holding themselves up as paragons of virtue, liberals might stop laughing about them.

And also, as a Nevadan, this is just becoming too embarrassing. I’m not convinced this kills Ensign’s career but I’m sure a few of our lovable state Republicans are sensing an opening in the upcoming election. Unfortunately, this probably makes it impossible for Ensign to run for president so maybe he’ll do something crazy like run for governor.

At least Ensign did not make his wife stand beside him.Similar Posts: