Updated: Yesterday’s Elections

It was Election Day yesterday.  People went to the polls to elect governors in New Jersey and Virginia, and members of Congress in New York and California.  Voters in Maine also decided a ballot measure on same-sex marriage.

I mostly want to talk about the referendum in Maine, but first a word or two about the votes in New Jersey and Virginia.  I disagree with the notion that these votes were somehow a report card on President Obama’s performance.  That, of course, isn’t to say that no lessons should be drawn from this election, just that the media are making mountains out of mole hills (or at least small hills), as they are wont to do. 

Let’s take Virginia:  Virginia voters have, for the past five gubernatorial elections, elected the opposite of the party controlling the White House.  If a Democrat won the White House, the Virginia Governor’s Mansion always went to a Republican, and vice-versa.  And that isn’t even mentioning the absolutely dismal campaign that Creigh Deeds ran.  In New Jersey, voters rejected the status quo and the corruption under Jon Corzine.

Now to Maine.  Same-sex marriage was repealed in Maine by a vote of 53 to 47 percent.  That margin is nearly the same as the margin on Proposition 8 in California last year.  A same-sex marriage law had been passed by the legislature and signed by the governor earlier this year.  The law had been suspended pending the outcome of the election.  This means, of course, that supporters of same-sex marriage have never won at the ballot box.

I think it shows that voters are still too easily swayed by what amounts to propaganda about same-sex marriage and that people are still caught up in traditional definitions of what makes a marriage.  People still can’t seem to separate religious and civil marriage, which are two distinct and separate things.  Until people see that distinction — which is blurry to many — we’re going to have these defeats at the ballot box.  I’m heartened, though, that same-sex marriage continues to win in court.  I think that the real victory will come in the legal system, just as the anti-miscegenation laws were struck down by Loving v. Virginia.

Just as I was disgusted by the proponents of Yes on 8 (the no same-sex marriage crowd), I am similarly disgusted by the absolute disregard for people’s families that is being shown by the Yes on 1 campaign in Maine.  Take a look at some comments from Matt Barber.  They’re not pretty, but they show exactly what the anti-gay referenda are really about — homophobia, pure and simple (Hat Tip:  Pam’s House Blend – emphasis in Pam’s post).

Matt Barber, Director of Cultural Affairs with both Liberty Counsel and Liberty Alliance Action, issued the following statement on news that the voters of Maine have rejected counterfeit “same-sex marriage” by 53% – 47%:”There’s good news and bad news here,” said Barber. “The good news is that even in one of the most liberal States in the Union, Maine, the people have once again rejected the ridiculous and oxymoronic notion of ’same sex marriage.’ The momentum has again shifted – hopefully for good this time – in favor of protecting legitimate marriage. A counterfeit is a counterfeit. An orange is an orange no matter how much you want it to be a turnip. This isn’t about ‘marriage.’ It’s about hurting and broken people desperately seeking affirmation of an objectively deviant lifestyle. One that, even in their heart of hearts, they know to be a dead end. As for the militant ‘No on 1′ homosexual activists? I’m reminded of spoiled children dressing up and playing house, refusing to come in when mom calls for dinner.

“Here’s the bad news. The margin of victory could have been greater. Many behind the ‘Yes on 1′ campaign, rather than simply telling the truth, chose the Neville Chamberlain approach. They merely circled the wagons around the word ‘marriage,’ even suggesting that ‘domestic partnerships’ (‘gay marriages’ by another name) are acceptable. This makes no sense. If that’s a viable compromise, then why not simply allow ‘gay’ duos the word ‘marriage’? It’s an incongruity that demands an explanation. This is an historic battle for the minds and souls of our children – for our very culture. The mealy-mouthed approach must end. This is not just about ‘marriage.’ It has everything to do with forced affirmation of homosexuality – under penalty of law. Indeed everyone who fought hard to defend marriage in Maine is to be congratulated, but if it weren’t for a brave group of truth tellers – Paul Madore, Peter LaBarbera and Brian Camenker – who came to Maine in the final hour to hold a press conference and address the pink elephant in the room – homosexual deviancy and the radical ‘gay’ agenda – counterfeit marriage might have prevailed.”

I don’t know how else his comments can be construed.  They’re simply homophobic and show what the anti-gay referenda are really about.  It seems to me that they’re about hate.  They hate gays and any perceived (even if it’s not true) invasion of the little boxes into which they want to put people.  As Pam notes in her post:

The fact is that it was, yet again, not yet time to test equality when put to a popular vote. It is proof, yet again, that civil rights should never be decided by mob rule — but the hateful people behind Yes on 1 capitalize on spreading fear — suckling pigs at the teat of dying, mud-covered sow of homophobia.  The hog is going to die.  Hate alone cannot sustain that beast.

We should find solace in the fact that the children and grandchildren of those who voted to rollback the rights of fellow Mainers will be embarrassed that their relatives were so short-sighted, duped by entities that exist solely to discriminate using the ballot box as a weapon — and making money off of the hate with great gusto.

Pam’s right.  People are going to look back in a few decades and wonder what all the fuss was about.  They’re going to look askance at their grandparents and wonder why they were so bigoted.  It’s going to be the same thing as what happened with inter-racial marriage a few decades ago.  Most of us wonder what the fuss was about.

So this is a major disappointment.  But we’ll get over it, learn from it, and keep advancing the cause of equal rights for LGBT people in America.  I still think the major victory is going to come in the courts, maybe even the Olson/Boies case now pending in federal court.  But whichever way it happens, it will happen.  It’s as inevitable now as it was when Gavin Newsom stupidly opened his fat mouth in 2004 and declared it so.

UPDATE: I just read David Mixner’s excellent post on yesterday’s election results in Maine.  He called the campaign against gay rights “gay apartheid.”  I agree.  I also agree that it is reprehensible for President Obama to sit on the sidelines.  I’ve been worried all year that maybe we have lost a major opportunity to repeal DOMA and DADT.  We’ve gotten some legislation, but DADT and DOMA are the big, consequential pieces of legislation that have to be repealed.  What is going to make Obama work on our behalf now?  I’m tired of half measures and getting patted on the head and told to go away.  I’m tired of politicians who do that.  I’m beginning to be sorry I worked for and voted for Obama last fall.  I’m beginning to be sorry I thought that he was different.

Obama’s Apparent Sexism

Am I the only woman in the world who thinks that President Obama should be able to play basketball with whomever he wishes to play?  We have a New York Times story breaking the news about President Obama’s White House frat house feel:

Does the White House feel like a frat house?

The suspicion flared in recent weeks — and not for the first time — after President Obama was criticized by women’s advocates and liberal bloggers for hosting a high-level basketball game with no female players.

[snip]

The technical foul over the all-male game has become a nagging concern for a White House that has battled an impression dating to the presidential campaign that Mr. Obama’s closest advisers form a boys’ club and that he is too frequently in the company of only men — not just when playing sports, but also when making big decisions.

While the senior adviser Valerie Jarrett is undeniably one of the president’s closest White House confidantes, some women inside or close to the administration complain that Mr. Obama’s female advisers are not as visible as their male colleagues or, they suspect, as influential.

“Women are Obama’s base, and they don’t seem to have enough people who look like the base inside of their own inner circle,” said Dee Dee Myers, a former press secretary in the Clinton administration whose sister, Betsy, served as the Obama campaign’s chief operating officer.

Ms. Myers said women have high expectations of the president. “Obama has a personal style that appeals to women,” she said. “He is seen as a consensus builder; he is not a towel snapper and does not tell crude jokes.”

I find myself agreeing with Kathleen Parker in today’s Washington Post.  This is all one big yawn.  I mean, can you see Senator Barbara Mikulski playing basketball with the president as Obama drives to the basket?  Well, it would be comedic.  Basketball is, after all, a contact sport.

 We in the United States have enough problems (two wars, health care reform, gay rights, global warming, to name just a few) without being so over-sensitive to non-issues.  Obama has, as Valerie Jarrett pointed out, appointed women to many high-level posts inside the White House.  To me, this is what matters.  I get that this is about access to the president.  But I think that Obama should be able to play ball with whoever he wants to play ball with.  And the rest of America needs to grow up.

Beck: Obama is a Racist

Surprise, surprise.  Fox News is again making news as one of its commentators calls President Obama a racist.  It’s more of the same from a tired conservative “movement.”

Fox News Channel commentator Glenn Beck said he believes President Barack Obama is a racist. Beck made the statement during a guest appearance Tuesday on the “Fox & Friends” morning show. He said Obama has exposed himself as a person with “a deep-seated hatred for white people or the white culture.”

[snip]

Beck’s statement was challenged on the air by Fox host Brian Kilmeade, who noted that most of the people who work for the nation’s first black president are white.

“I’m not saying he doesn’t like white people,” Beck said. “He has a problem. This guy is, I believe, a racist.”

Beck wondered, during the discussion, what other president would immediately jump on the police for their actions in the case.

[snip]

Bill Shine, Fox News senior vice president of programming, told the TVNewswer Web site that Beck had “expressed a personal opinion which represented his own views, not those of the Fox News Channel. And as with all commentators in the cable news arena, he is given the freedom to express his opinions.

Who cares what else he wondered.  People like Glenn Beck spout off and make controversial comments all the time.  The more controversial the better, it seems, because that drives people to watch which drives ratings and advertising money.  But you don’t get to call our mixed-race president a racist and then try to justify it as weakly as Beck did.  It’s a specious comment.

As for Mr. Shine, I know – as I mentioned above — how the television business works.  But these commentators add nothing to any civilized debate.  I think that as the Republican Party becomes more and more a party of the Deep South, and as long as Fox News remains that party’s mouthpiece, we’re going to see more racial attacks on Obama.  It feeds the Republican meme of stoke fears, obstruct, obfuscate and detract from any civilized debate.

I’ve said over and over that we absolutely need a strong, viable opposition party in America.  It’s vital to our country that policy is debated by voices from both sides of the aisle and that compromise is a part of the legislative and governing process.  But the Republicans, for about the last six years or so (and maybe even since 2001, when Bush/Cheney started stoking fears), have shown themselves to be anything but strong.  They’re out of ideas and they’re showing it by launching specious ad hominem attacks on Obama, such as calling him a racist.

If the Republicans can’t be the strong loyal opposition that we need, perhaps it’s time for a conservative third party to step up.  Perhaps its constituency could be all those Republicans who feel that the Republican Party left them as it sunk further and further into the gutter and started courting “values voters” and attacking individuals and groups of people for their inherent characteristics instead of providing real ideas and real alternatives.  I guarantee you that if a party like that came out — or if the Republicans finally remember who they’re supposed to be — I’d listen to that party’s platform and would give it a real look.  So would many, many others.

So what’s it going to be, Republicans?  More of the same idiotic stuff we’ve seen the last few years, or something meaningful?  I suspect I know the answer already.

Obama’s Birth Certificate

I really wonder how much longer this is going to go on.  The so-called “birthers” are still making noise about Barack Obama’s birth certificate and whether it’s real.  They say that he was born in Kenya, It’s tiresome.  It’s idiotic.

A couple of facts about Obama’s birth certificate:

• The State of Hawaii has declared — again, after answering this question before the election – that Obama’s birth certificate is real.
• The McCain campaign looked into the veracity of the birth certificate and decided that there was no evidence that it was a fake.

It’s clear that this is a non-issue that has been ginned up and points out that some people don’t like Barack Obama as our president and want to undermine him in any way possible.  The question is why.  Why are they so irritated by Obama’s presence in the White House?  Are some of them still mad that Hillary Clinton didn’t win the nomination? (News flash — even Hillary Clinton has moved on.)  Are some of them irritated because an African American man is president?  What is the reason? 

The “birthers” are really straining credulity.  (And people like Lou Dobbs of CNN need to stop giving this non-issue play.)  Do they really think that Stanley Ann Dunham smuggled a mixed-race baby into Hawaii and then faked his birth certificate so that he could be president?  In 1961?  Really?  If you believe that, I have a question for you:  Tell me, what color is the sky on your world?

Dan Froomkin — White House Watched

Today was Dan Froomkin’s last column (go read it; it’s an excellent valedictory) on his White House Watch blog on Washington Post.com.  When the news broke, I said that this was not a bright decision of the Post’s; they’re losing a strong voice for accountability in government.  I still think that.  The Post will miss him (even if it doesn’t know it yet), but his readers will follow where he lands and his voice won’t be lost.  It’s sorely needed these days.

When I last checked, the journalists’ jobs were supposed to be about holding government accountable, holding government’s actions up to the light so that the people could see what the government was doing in their name, and decide whether they liked those actions.  All too often, though, we see members of the media acting basically as stenographers for those in power, writing busily about facts without having taken a second to think that those facts might not actually be facts after all.  Then they give us an opposing viewpoint in the name of balance without stopping to think if those talking points are facts.  It’s a world of spin and reporters allow themselves to be spun too often.

And that’s only one part of what’s wrong with the media these days.  The celebrity news culture detracts from coverage of stories that actually matter.  Michael Jackson’s death — not that his death isn’t news — pushed any coverage of the unrest in Iran (for example) off the cable channels.  The media seem to be more interested in covering stories about people who are famous for nothing other than being famous and those missing white woman (or child) stories wall-to-wall.  There’s room for that kind of stuff; but it’s more important that the accountability news not be the filler as it too often is right now.

The problem, apparently, is that holding government accountable isn’t sexy, doesn’t sell newspapers and doesn’t drive television ratings.  So how do we get past that and get back to covering the stories that really matter?  Would a Watergate-type story break today?  That was a couple of reporters digging, filing story after story.  I don’t think it would, and that’s a shame.

That’s the kind of work that Froomkin did, and will do when he lands at his next gig.  But he shouldn’t be one of the few doing it.

Froomkin Let Go by Washington Post

Dan Froomkin’s White House Watch blog has been terminated by the Washington Post.  It was announced yesterday that the blog will end in early July.

Froomkin’s statement on his blog today:

As Washington Post ombudsman Andy Alexander and others reported yesterday, The Washington Post has terminated my contract. So sometime in late June or early July, I’ll be writing my last blog post here.

I’ll have more to add later on, when I actually say goodbye and let you know where you can find me. But in the meantime, I would like to express my heartfelt thanks to all the readers who have e-mailed, blogged, commented, tweeted and left notes on my Facebook page. Your kind words and support mean the world to me.

Andy Alexander’s Post Ombudsman Blog:

After five and a half years as a regular feature on the Web site, Dan Froomkin’s White House Watch column is being axed.

Froomkin was quietly passing the word today that he was told by The Post that his contract will be terminated in early July.

Post spokeswoman Kris Coratti confirmed it with this response to a query:

“Editors and our research teams are constantly reviewing our online content to ensure we bring readers the most value when they are on our Web site while balancing the need to make the most of our resources. Regrettably, this means that sometimes features must be eliminated, and this time it was the blog that Dan Froomkin freelanced” to The Post’s Web site.

“I’m terribly disappointed. I was told that it had been determined that my White House Watch blog wasn’t ‘working’ anymore. But from what I could tell, it was still working very well,” Froomkin said. “I also thought White House Watch was a great fit with The Washington Post brand, and what its readers reasonably expect from the Post online.”

“I think that the future success of our business depends on journalists enthusiastically pursuing accountability and calling it like they see it. That’s what I tried to do every day,” he continued. “I’m not sure at this point what I’m going to do next. I may take White House Watch elsewhere, or may try something different.”

Froomkin bills his often-irreverent online column as a “pugnacious daily anthology of White House-related items from news Web sites, blogs and other sources.” He does not operate as a White House reporter. Rather, he compiles material about the White House and offers his own commentary, often with a liberal bent.

That slant seemed to attract a large and loyal audience during the Bush administration, but it may have suffered when Barack Obama became president.

Editorial Page Editor Fred Hiatt, whose stable of contributors includes Froomkin, said late Thursday: “With the end of the Bush administration, interest in the blog also diminished. His political orientation was not a factor in our decision.”

When it began, the column was called “White house Briefing.” But the name was changed after concerns by some at The Post newspaper that readers might believe Froomkin was a White House reporter, working alongside those offering objective news reporters.

Froomkin has been associated with The Post’s Web site since 1997, when he was a senior producer for political news. He held a number of other positions at the web site before writing his column on contract beginning in early 2004.

I have to say that this is a travesty and is a very short-sighted decision.  I even called it “idiotic” in a comment on the Washington Post’s Web site.  Froomkin — like him or not — has been the one consistent voice holding the president to account for his actions.  He started that during the Bush administration and has continued that under the Obama administration.

Recently, he had an exchange with Charles Krauthammer on torture, a debate in which Froomkin made a lot of sense.  For my money, he won that debate.  But Fred Hiatt (the Post’s editorial page editor) seems to be taking Krauthammer’s side in this debate and axing Froomkin.

I find Hiatt’s comment on the matter highly disingenuous.  Of course this was about Froomkin’s politics.  Froomkin’s hits might have gone down, but he was still widely read and linked to quite a bit. 

He is an independent thinker, with a left wing perspective.  I don’t see any lessening in his skepticism or scrutiny of Obama.  He seriously furthered conversations and thought on issues from torture to transparency and many other issues.  He is a journalist, a columnist, who I am sure will land on his feet in a matter of days.  And I’ll be there to read his work.

Biden on Swine Flu

Can Joe Biden just please shut up?  He fades from the picture — I haven’t heard anythng about or from him in weeks, it seems — and then pops up with something like this:

I would tell members of my family, and I have, I wouldn’t go anywhere in confined places now. It’s not that it’s going to Mexico, it’s you’re in a confined aircraft when one person sneezes it goes all the way through the aircraft. That’s me. I would not be, at this point, if they had another way of transportation suggesting they ride the subway.

This, right after President Obama said all the sensible things last night.  Avoid the subways?  President Obama said that we should be calm about this — concerned, but not alarmed.  Has Biden gone ’round the bend?

People in this country are just looking for a reason to panic.  And this is a story that the media are hyping beyond belief already.  Can’t he see that he just adds to that with comments like these?  Mr. Vice President, please, close your mouth.

We’ve already been told how to deal with this.  Wash hands.  Stay home if you’re sick.  Don’t go to work for a couple of days if you’ve been exposed.  Make business contingency plans to keep the business going if someone important gets sick. 

It’s the flu.  It’s not a joke, but people get the flu all the time.  People die from the flu all the time, too — about 30,000 a year.  The government seems to be on top of it and seems to be taking sensible measures in dealing with a potentially widespread flu. 

The point is that we don’t need — or want — the hype.  The media need to tone it down a bit.  Spending ten or so minutes of airtime in am hour-long local broadcast and front page stories with huge headlines does not try to tone down the hype.  Take some sensible precautions, and we’ll be fine.

Two States Threaten Secession

What’s with the secession talk during the past few days?  Have we really come back to this?

First Rick Perry, Governor of Texas, threatened yesterday to secede from the Union.

Texas Gov. Rick Perry fired up an anti-tax “tea party” Wednesday with his stance against the federal government and for states’ rights as some in his U.S. flag-waving audience shouted, “Secede!”

An animated Perry told the crowd at Austin City Hall — one of three tea parties he was attending across the state — that officials in Washington have abandoned the country’s founding principles of limited government. He said the federal government is strangling Americans with taxation, spending and debt.

Perry repeated his running theme that Texas’ economy is in relatively good shape compared with other states and with the “federal budget mess.”

Perhaps it is.  But last I noticed, you didn’t have an army, or an air force, or a border patrol.

More from Perry:

Perry called his supporters patriots. Later, answering news reporters’ questions, Perry suggested Texans might at some point get so fed up they would want to secede from the union, though he said he sees no reason why Texas should do that.

Governor, these “supporters” are not patriots.  They are exactly the opposite of that, if they are advocating seceding from the United States.  Also, last I heard, plotting to overthrow the government — or inciting rebellion — was not legal in the United States.  Nice try, too, on the attempt to spin the previous comments.  Shouting “Secede!” sounds like plotting sedition.

Now this morning, I read that the Georgia Senate is threatening secession, too.  (Hat tip: AmericaBlog)

It wasn’t quite the firing on Fort Sumter that launched the Civil War. But on April 1, your Georgia Senate did threaten by a vote of 43-1 to secede from and even disband the United States.

It was not an April Fool’s joke.

In fact, Senate Resolution 632 did a lot more than merely threaten to end this country. It stated that under the Constitution, the only crimes the federal government could prosecute were treason, piracy and slavery.

Notice the title of this Senate Resolution — Jeffersonian Principles; affirming state’s rights.  The last time we talked about “states’ rights” it was a code word for keeping Jim Crow laws if the states wanted.  Notice also that they voted 43-1 to secede.  43-1!

“Therefore, all acts of Congress which assume to create, define or punish [other] crimes … are altogether void, and of no force,” the Georgia Senate declared.

In other words, in the infinite, almost unanimous wisdom of the Georgia Senate, Michael Vick is being imprisoned illegally, Bernie Madoff should serve no time for stealing $60 billion and the Unabomber must go free. In fact, the federal penitentiary in Atlanta should be emptied of its inmates.

And there’s more, too.  Read the blog post from the AJC linked above.

Are the grapes really so sour that the Republicans — or the Right — want to endorse overthrowing the United States government and breaking up the Union?  Have we learned nothing since the Civil War?  Did all those people die for nothing?  Do Governor Perry and the Georgia Senate really want another Civil War?

I’m willing to believe that Perry’s little “Secede!” shout was all for show, that he doesn’t really mean it.  I hope that’s the case, anyway.  But we have a legislative body voting to secede from the Union.  That is quite serious, in my estimation.  Someone needs to explain this.  (And, by the way, why was this not reported in The Washington Post or The New York Times?  They should be all over this story.)

Ebert: Thoughts on Bill O’Reilly and Squeaky the Chicago Mouse

This really is fantastic.  Nothing more needs to be said, except that you have to read it to the end (and that I agree about Krauthammer, although I rarely agree with Krauthammer).  (Hat tip: Gene Weingarten)

——————–

Thoughts on Bill O’Reilly and Squeaky the Chicago Mouse

By Roger Ebert/April 7, 2009 

To: Bill O’Reilly
From: Roger Ebert

Dear Bill: Thanks for including the Chicago Sun-Times on your exclusive list of newspapers on your “Hall of Shame.” To be in an O’Reilly Hall of Fame would be a cruel blow to any newspaper. It would place us in the favor of a man who turns red and starts screaming when anyone disagrees with him. My grade-school teacher, wise Sister Nathan, would have called in your parents and recommended counseling with Father Hogben.

Yes, the Sun-Times is liberal, having recently endorsed our first Democrat for President since LBJ. We were founded by Marshall Field one week before Pearl Harbor to provide a liberal voice in Chicago to counter the Tribune, which opposed an American war against Hitler. I’m sure you would have sided with the Trib at the time.

I understand you believe one of the Sun-Times misdemeanors was dropping your syndicated column. My editor informs me that “very few” readers complained about the disappearance of your column, adding, “many more complained about Nancy.” I know I did. That was the famous Ernie Bushmiller comic strip in which Sluggo explained that “wow” was “mom” spelled upside-down.

Your column ran in our paper while it was owned by the right-wing polemicists Conrad Black (Baron Black of Coldharbour) and David Radler. We dropped it to save a little money after they looted the paper of millions. Now you call for an advertising boycott. It is unusual to observe a journalist cheering for a newspaper to fail. At present the Sun-Times has no bank debt, but labors under the weight of millions of dollars in tax penalties incurred by Lord Black, who is serving an eight-year stretch for mail fraud and obstruction of justice. We also had to pay for his legal expenses.

There is a major difference between Conrad Black and you: Lord Black is a much better writer and thinker, and authored a respected biography about Roosevelt, who we were founded to defend. That newspapers continue to run your column is a mystery to me, since it is composed of knee-jerk frothings and ravings. If I were an editor searching for a conservative, I wouldn’t choose a mad dog. My recommendation: The admirable Charles Krauthammer.

Bill, I am concerned that you have been losing touch with reality recently. Did you really say you are more powerful than any politician?

That reminds me of the famous story about Squeaky the Chicago Mouse. It seems that Squeaky was floating on his back along the Chicago River one day. Approaching the Michigan Avenue lift bridge, he called out: Raise the bridge! I have an erection!

AIG Bonus Flap Fallout

The fallout from the knee-jerk reactions to the AIG bonuses has begun.  Employees are now resigning.  I’m sure some believe that this is a good thing — AIG has caused a huge mess and its employees should suffer.  The only problem with that is that the employees who actually caused the company’s problems are long gone and the ones who are left — the ones getting the bonus payment — are the ones trying to clean up the mess.

The resignation letter from Jake DeSantis to Edward Liddy that appeared on today’s New York Times op-ed page is a must read.  DeSantis lays out the internal problems in AIG, including one of the biggest: Mr. Liddy does not have his employees’ backs.  He will hang them out to dry at the first sign of a piqued elected official.  That’s no way to run a company.  Why didn’t Liddy stand up and forthrightly explain why the bonuses had to be paid?  The bonus flap was handled poorly as a matter of public relations and was handled poorly as a employee relations.

Some choice bits from DeSantis’s letter (but do read the whole thing):

I am proud of everything I have done for the commodity and equity divisions of A.I.G.-F.P. I was in no way involved in — or responsible for — the credit default swap transactions that have hamstrung A.I.G. Nor were more than a handful of the 400 current employees of A.I.G.-F.P. Most of those responsible have left the company and have conspicuously escaped the public outrage.

After 12 months of hard work dismantling the company — during which A.I.G. reassured us many times we would be rewarded in March 2009 — we in the financial products unit have been betrayed by A.I.G. and are being unfairly persecuted by elected officials.

It’s absolutely a betrayal by Liddy of his employees.  I’m sure it would have been much more difficult to back them before an angry Congressional committee, but that’s what he needed to do.

I take this action after 11 years of dedicated, honorable service to A.I.G. I can no longer effectively perform my duties in this dysfunctional environment, nor am I being paid to do so. Like you, I was asked to work for an annual salary of $1, and I agreed out of a sense of duty to the company and to the public officials who have come to its aid. Having now been let down by both, I can no longer justify spending 10, 12, 14 hours a day away from my family for the benefit of those who have let me down.

The public was not told that people like DeSantis were also basically working for free.  We were simply told that these “best and brightest” traders were going to be making huge bonuses.  The implication, of course, is that the fat cats were getting fatter and the rest of the American economy was still spiraling with more people losing their jobs.  Is it any wonder that so many people were so angry?

I have the utmost respect for the civic duty that you are now performing at A.I.G. You are as blameless for these credit default swap losses as I am. You answered your country’s call and you are taking a tremendous beating for it.

Liddy is indeed being wrongly pilloried for the job he’s trying to do.  He should answer, though, for the way he threw his employees under the bus.

But you also are aware that most of the employees of your financial products unit had nothing to do with the large losses. And I am disappointed and frustrated over your lack of support for us. I and many others in the unit feel betrayed that you failed to stand up for us in the face of untrue and unfair accusations from certain members of Congress last Wednesday and from the press over our retention payments, and that you didn’t defend us against the baseless and reckless comments made by the attorneys general of New York and Connecticut.

My guess is that in October, when you learned of these retention contracts, you realized that the employees of the financial products unit needed some incentive to stay and that the contracts, being both ethical and useful, should be left to stand. That’s probably why A.I.G. management assured us on three occasions during that month that the company would “live up to its commitment” to honor the contract guarantees.

That may be why you decided to accelerate by three months more than a quarter of the amounts due under the contracts. That action signified to us your support, and was hardly something that one would do if he truly found the contracts “distasteful.”

That may also be why you authorized the balance of the payments on March 13.

At no time during the past six months that you have been leading A.I.G. did you ask us to revise, renegotiate or break these contracts — until several hours before your appearance last week before Congress.

I think your initial decision to honor the contracts was both ethical and financially astute, but it seems to have been politically unwise. It’s now apparent that you either misunderstood the agreements that you had made — tacit or otherwise — with the Federal Reserve, the Treasury, various members of Congress and Attorney General Andrew Cuomo of New York, or were not strong enough to withstand the shifting political winds.

You’ve now asked the current employees of A.I.G.-F.P. to repay these earnings. As you can imagine, there has been a tremendous amount of serious thought and heated discussion about how we should respond to this breach of trust.

This is the crux of the matter.  Liddy has breached his employees’ trust.

We can debate all day about whether the bonuses should have been promised — much less paid.  (I believe they should have been.)  It seems to me, though, that there wasn’t anything wrong with the bonuses themselves, except that they were called “bonuses” instead of something more in line with what they really were.  Something, perhaps, like “deferred salary”, which may have been more accurate.

What was wrong was the way that they were initially explained — as retention bonuses.  The public was not told what these payments actually were, and went to the garage for pitchforks and torches.  Politicians, of course, got wind of this and immediately began fanning the flames and began debating a bill of attainder designed to punitively use the tax code to exact a pound of flesh.

My initial reaction was also anger.  That anger was misplaced.  I still think some righteous populist anger can be a very good thing.  But in this case, people need to put the torches and pitchforks away and save them for the politicians who cravenly fanned these flames, and save them for the news media that didn’t report the whole story.