Wednesday, October 31, 2012

Incoming PIIE President Gets New Nickname

Here is what The Telegraph says about Peterson Institute for International Economics (PIIE) President-Designate Adam Posen as he winds down his tenure in London:
Diary pulled out all the stops to get its paws on the “ditty” former monetary policy committee member Adam Posen sang in a growling Massachusetts baritone at his leaving party at the Bank of England.
But to no avail – Posen tells me his party piece was meant to be “fun and off-the-record only”.
So over to the economist’s former-line-manager Sir Mervyn King, who made a joke at Adam “quantitative easing” Posen’s expense about how much public money has been spent since the rate-setter joined the MPC in 2009.
The London Evening Standard is reporting that Posen received an odd send-off gift to celebrate his three years on the Bank of England's monetary policy committee.
The Bank of England gave Adam Posen a rousing send-off after three years on the monetary policy committee. The American economist is heading back over the pond to take over as president of the Peterson Institute. So what did his colleagues in Threadneedle Street give him as a leaving present? A bound copy of the minutes of all the MPC meetings he has attended over the last three years. That ought to wake him up.

Here are some other interesting facts/news about Adam Posen:

  • Adam Posen debated Mitt Romney Advisor Glenn Hubbard on the merits of QE on the sidelines of the Fed's Jackson Hole retreat back in August 2012.
  • He has been called by The Telegraph "the gentlest of doves" in terms on monetary policy, preferring stimulus more than other central bankers.
  • On his LinkedIn page, Posen notes that he has been a consultant to numerous government agencies during both the Clinton and Bush Administration.
  • Posen used to work at the liberal-leaning Brookings Institution.  He is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and the Trilateral Commission.
Posen will officially become President of PIIE on January 1, 2013.

Here is a profile of Adam Posen that the New York Times did.

Which Think Tank Holds the Most Events?

DC Linktank recently released a new Top 50 list of think tanks ranked by their Alexa ranking.  Interestingly, the chart also includes a list of the average number of events held per month.

Following are the top five think tanks based on events held.  The Wilson Center dominates the competition, with an average of 58.7 events held per month.
  1. Wilson Center: 58.7
  2. Brookings: 26.1
  3. Heritage: 22.1
  4. CSIS: 22.0
  5. AEI: 17.6
You can view all of the Wilson Center's upcoming events here.

Top 50 DC Think Tanks

(ranked by popularity)
Rank Organization Website Annual Contributions Annual Expenses Average Events/Month Alexa Ranking
1 Heritage Foundation $73,957,186 $80,378,250 22.1 17,105
2 Council on Foreign Relations $47,654,800 $50,731,317 10 45,172
3 Cato Institute $39,253,053 $23,648,195 11.3 58,117
4 Brookings Institution $86,934,790 $88,922,671 26.1 69,560
5 RAND $250,987,982 $266,873,864 1.5 74,123
6 Center for American Progress $36,517,866 $33,727,128 7.2 93,527
7 US Institute of Peace $24,447,975 $30,284,229 16.2 102,152
8 World Resources Institute $47,451,943 $40,533,012 2.7 120,700
9 Center on Budget and Policy Priorities $28,029,778 $26,380,857 0 120,798
10 Center for Strategic and International Studies $39,138,159 $30,114,700 22.0 121,560
11 Urban Institute $73,294,793 $64,700,749 3.9 130,185
12 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace $20,916,398 $28,289,710 9.6 130,791
13 Freedom House $41,448,447 $41,450,257 0.7 140,721
14 American Enterprise Institute $34,577,193 $29,030,559 17.6 147,673
15 New America Foundation $15,836,375 $15,695,563 14.5 160,620
16 Center for Economic and Policy Research $1,661,756 $1,872,717 0.6 182,966
17 Family Research Council $13,064,417 $12,952,734 2.2 201,933
18 Economic Policy Institute $6,573,520 $6,426,906 1.6 211,790
19 Institute for National Strategic Studies N/A N/A 0.2 222,452
20 Pew Charitable Trusts $283,445,062 $278,982,877 0.8 227,455
21 Mercatus Center $11,602,622 $10,770,500
22 Atlantic Council of the United States $7,995,306 $7,416,161 4.4 241,398
23 Center for Global Development $18,457,280 $9,720,926 6.6 241,467
24 Aspen Institute $69,095,692 $66,067,040 4.7 244,165
25 Woodrow Wilson Center $16,452,666 $20,218,504 58.7 262,671
26 Center for a New American Security $5,846,959 $5,237,667 1.1 276,938
27 National Democratic Institute $130,207,368 $130,086,031 1.1 281,883
27* The Washington Institute $$8,646,154 $8,460,571
28 German Marshall Fund $40,856,014 $38,617,770 0.1 385,636
29 National Endowment for Democracy $136,692,723 $136,760,415 4.1 430,951
30 Jamestown Foundation $1,493,626 $1,175,343 0.4 443,154
31 Benton Foundation $786,529 $317,936 4.4 450,397
32 East-West Center $2,371,918 $723,157 1.5 464,555
33 Institute for Policy Studies $2,943,472 $4,080,221 9.1 513,650
34 International Institute for Strategic Studies $1,342,151 $694,724 0.8 538,426
35 German Historical Institute

2.0 541,287
36 Peterson Institute for International Economics $7,460,008 $11,354,424
37 Bipartisan Policy Center $21,798,883 $18,895,309 3.5 632,991
38 Heinrich Boell Foundation N/A N/A 0.4 708,003
39 Institute for the Study of War $1,190,641 $1,674,281 0.2 724,696
40 Competitive Enterprise Institute $4,247,228 $4,332,971 1.3 751,059
41 Demos N/A N/A 1.3 758,381
42 Resources for the Future $11,018,135 $14,061,919 4.5 788,437
43 Hudson Institute $9,804,595 $10,635,441 7.9 805,630
44 Migration Policy Institute $8,140,018 $5,025,840 0.7 829,490
45 Information Technology and Innovation Foundation $2,471,944 $2,205,616 3.5 877,534
46 Al-Hewar Center

1.1 881,945
47 Foreign Policy Research Initiative $1,575,411 $1,483,384 0.8 896,363
48 Century Foundation N/A N/A 0.9 952,913
49 International Foundation for Electoral Systems $94,754,333 $92,489,758 0.7 985,497
50 Middle East Institute $2,482,504 $2,291,776 4.8 1,106,498

Think Tank Attacks on Twitter

A look at Twitter shows lots of people who are skeptical or downright hostile toward think tanks.  Following is a look at some examples:

Tuesday, October 30, 2012

Think Tank Employees Tend to Support Democrats

US News & World Report says that employees at all but the most conservative think tanks give more to liberal candidates.
A U.S. News analysis of data from the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan organization that tracks money in politics, suggests that employees at all but the most conservative organizations gave far more financial support to Democrats than Republicans over the last four election cycles. During this time period (2003 through 2010), Republicans and Democrats each controlled both houses of Congress for four years, and Americans also elected both a Republican and a Democratic president.
Here is their analysis of moderate think tanks:
Employee contributions from some of the top moderate think tanks skew decidedly to the left. For example, the Center for Strategic and International Studies and the RAND Corporation, two of the policy institutes with the most generous employees, have 84 percent and 91 percent Democratic giving records, respectively. The two think tanks with the most bipartisan spread of campaign contributions--the Council on Foreign Relations and the Aspen Institute--still have seen more than two-thirds of their employees' reported contributions going toward Democrats and liberal PACs since 2003. Even employees of the Congressional Research Service, sometimes called "Congress' think tank," have given 100 percent of their donations since 2003 to Democratic candidates and committees.
Here is the chart that they compiled:

Organization Political Orientation 2003-2010 Donations GOP % Dem % 
Brookings Institution Liberal 239,229 1.20% 97.60%
Center for Strategic and International Studies Centrist 169,620 12.30% 83.80%
Center for American Progress Liberal 164,227 0.30% 98.80%
RAND Corporation Centrist 160,525 8.80% 91.20%
Council on Foreign Relations Centrist 146,849 30.20% 69.60%
Hoover Institution Conservative 146,830 88.40% 9.60%
Cato Institute Conservative 127,800 99.60% 0.00%
American Enterprise Institute Conservative 85,495 93.00% 0.60%
Urban Institute Liberal 79,259 0.00% 100.00%
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace Centrist 53,175 0.90% 99.10%
Woodrow Wilson Center for International Scholars Centrist 51,895 14.50% 85.50%
Kaiser Family Foundation Centrist 49,500 0.00% 98.00%
Center for a New American Security Centrist 42,750 5.40% 94.60%
Aspen Institute Centrist 35,000 21.60% 78.40%
U.S. Institute of Peace Centrist 32,661 0.80% 94.20%
Heritage Foundation Conservative 31,646 100.00% 0.00%
New America Foundation Centrist 23,301 5.10% 94.90%
Third Way Liberal 11,850 0.00% 100.00%
Congressional Research Service Centrist 10,422 0.00% 100.00%
Institute for Policy Studies Liberal 5,850 0.00% 100.00%
National Bureau of Economic Research Centrist 1,750 0.00% 100.00%

Think Tank Quickies #22

  • WSJ on CEI's petitioning of the EPA to review the renewable fuels standard.
  • Wellesley's Tanner Conference:  "Think Tanks Across Continents" talk. 
  • On the 2nd China-Africa Think Tanks Forum. 
  • Arizona lobby shop: Those who can, govern.  Those who can't join a think tank
  • Video claim: Koch brothers investing big in "anti-science" think tanks.
  • Project 2049 report: Beijing North Computing Center = source of PLA cyber attacks. 
  • EU holds "strategic planning in think tanks" session for Azerbaijan.

NPR on Political Ideologies of Think Tanks

Last year NPR did a self-assessment of how well it identifies think tanks in terms of political leanings.

Following are some excerpts from the NPR assessment:
Lots of things drive NPR's audience crazy. One I totally agree with is this: NPR often does a lousy job of identifying the background of think tanks or other groups when quoting their experts.
NPR also rarely explains why listeners should pay attention to the experts it chooses to quote.  This matters.
  • If you hear from experts at the Cato Institute, you need to know they market themselves as libertarians.
  • If you hear from the Center for American Progress, NPR needs to make clear that most of its experts represent a liberal or "progressive" point of view.
  • If you hear an expert from the Peter G. Peterson Institute for International Economics, you need to know that it is funded in part by its former chairman, Peter G. Peterson, a former Commerce secretary and Wall Street investor.
  • Peterson is now spending his considerable fortune promoting long-term debt reduction, which is the chief cause of a different organization called the Peter G. Peterson Foundation.
Just to see how well NPR identified experts, my staff looked at how NPR reporters and shows identified think tanks between Jan. 1 and Oct. 31, 2010. It became clear that NPR often cites think tanks and the experts who work for them – but neglects to use more than their names.
  • Cato Institute: 13 total, 9 identified (2 as "fiscally conservative," 7 as "libertarian")
After the publication of the assessment, the Peterson Institute for International Economics (PIIE) contacted NPR and asked them to clarify a few points.  Said PIIE's Steven Weisman:
Contrary to the suggestion of your posting, the Peterson Institute for International Economics has no "political ideology" and is widely recognized as nonpartisan. A 2005 survey of media citations by the magazine The International Economy found us to be one of only three out of the seventeen most influential think tanks labeled as nonpartisan. (The other two were the Center for Strategic and International Studies, or CSIS, and the Council on Foreign Relations.)
In addition a study of media bias published in the highly respected and peer-reviewed Quarterly Journal of Economics (edited by the Economics Department of Harvard University) described our ideological label in 2005 as "not identifiable" or "neutral." (Tim Groseclose and Jeffrey Milyo, "A Measure of Media Bias," Quarterly Journal of Economics , November 2005, pp.1191-1237.) The authors calculated all citations of think-tanks over a ten year period by members of Congress using the Americans for Democratic Action scores of those members. On a scale in which 100 is the most liberal and 1 is the most conservative, we were rated 48.8—almost precisely at the center of the American political spectrum.)
As for Peter G. Peterson, Mr. Peterson helped to establish the institute in 1981 and in 2006 the institute changed its name to the Peterson Institute to recognize his generosity and his pivotal role as our Founding Chairman since 1981. The institute, however, derives its funding from highly diversified sources, of which Mr. Peterson and his foundation are only one part. These sources include many foundations, corporations, governments and individuals, as well as the PIIE endowment. As you correctly noted, the Peter G. Peterson Foundation, based in New York, is an entirely separate entity from PIIE.
Peter G. Peterson has called himself a Republican and has been labeled as a fiscal conservative, but he has also been affiliated with Democrats. He served in the Richard Nixon (R) Administration and was a Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) "bundler" during his 2008 presidential run.  He was also a business advisory board member for Andrew Cuomo's (D) 2010 gubernatorial campaign.  Peterson is said to be an "unofficial advisor" to Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner.  Here is an interesting post which details some of Peter Peterson's Democratic and Republican dealings.  For the record, Fareed Zakaria labels him a Republican. He has given lots of money to both conservative and liberal think tanks.  In other words, it is hard to label Peter Peterson's exact political leanings (let alone the ideology of PIIE).  What we do know is that Peterson has long advocated for deficit reduction.

Atlas Society Gets New CEO & Board

The Atlas Society (TAS), which has been on the hunt for a new leader, has announced that Aaron Day will be its new CEO.

Here is a a biography of Aaron Day:
Day has eighteen years of CEO and startup experience and has been a supporter of Objectivism for over 20 years. Day is chairman and CEO of Tangerine Wellness and was Entrepreneur-in-Residence at Industry Ventures, a technology-focused venture capital firm. He served from 1995 to 2001 as Chairman/Chief Executive Officer of Iconomy, an e-commerce ASP (acquired), where he was responsible for Iconomy's strategy and operations. Prior to Iconomy, Mr. Day helped implement a state of the art software system for the largest privately held managing general underwriter, Stop Loss International (acquired by UnitedHealth Group). Day is currently a member of the advisory committee for the X-Prize Foundation. The Boston Business Journal selected Day in 2004 as one of their 40 Under 40 leading business leaders and innovators. Day has been cited in The Wall Street Journal, Forbes, Huffington Post, Investors Business Daily, The New York Times, The Boston Globe, and many other major media outlets. Day studied mathematics and economics at Duke University and biology at Harvard UES.

David Kelley, the founder of  The Atlas Society, will remain in his role as Chief Intellectual Officer.  Ed Crane, who recently stepped down as President of the Cato Institute, is on the Board of Advisors.

Here is a list of the new Board of Advisors at Atlas:

  • Ed Crane: President (Emeritus), Cato Institute
  • Steve Davis: Director of Advanced Projects, SpaceX
  • R. Paul Drake: Professor of Physics, University of Michigan
  • Marsha Enright: Founder,Reason, Individualism, Freedom Institute
  • Jared Fuller: President, Market Aces
  • Stephen Hicks: Professor of Philosophy, Rockford College
  • Matt Holdridge: Partner, Exchange Marketing Group
  • David N. Mayer: Professor of Law and History, Capital University Law School
  • Alexander McCobin: President, Students for Liberty
  • Tom Palmer: Director, Special Projects, Atlas Economic Research Institute
  • David Ross: Professor of Mathematics, Rochester Institute of Technology
  • William Walsh: Founder, Heckle Sketch 

Here is TAS's description of itself:
Founded in 1991, The Atlas Society (TAS), a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization headquartered in Washington DC, develops and promotes open Objectivism: the philosophy of reason, individualism, achievement and freedom. Objectivism was founded by Ayn Rand (1905-1982), the author of Atlas Shrugged, The Fountainhead, The Virtue of Selfishness, and other works. As the founders of open Objectivism, TAS believes that the philosophy is a body of knowledge open to expansion and revision, through rational inquiry and open discussion and debate. The organization's programs reach a broad audience ranging from the general public to graduate students in philosophy.
The main telephone line to TAS shows how devoted the think tank is to Ayn Rand: 202-296-7263 (i.e., 202-Ayn-Rand).

The think tank is known for its annual Atlas Summit.

Monday, October 29, 2012

RAND Predicts Massive Obama Win

The RAND Corporation is predicting that President Obama will easily win the upcoming presidential election.

Here is more on the poll:
The RAND Continuous 2012 Presidential Election Poll (CPEP) is conducted within the American Life Panel (ALP), which is an internet panel recruited through traditional probability sampling to ensure representativeness. The CPEP differs from other polls in that it asks the same respondents repeatedly about their voting preferences. Thus, it leads to more stable outcomes and changes are due to individuals' changing their minds and not due to random sampling fluctuations. The CPEP is also different because it asks respondents to state their preferences for a candidate and the likelihood that they will vote in probabilistic terms (percent chance), which has been shown to improve forecasts several months before the election. This documents gives a detailed account of the methodology underlying the CPEP.
Here is the full methodology of the poll.

Here is a look at RAND's funding sources for Fiscal Year 2011:


A list of RAND's clients and grantors can be found here.

RAND has been labeled as a "center-right" think tank.  More recently, it has been labeled as a "centrist" think tank.  Rand employees, however, overwhelmingly support Democrats.

Cato Responds to WSJ's "Isolationist" Label

The Cato Institute's Daniel Ikenson, Director of Cato's Herbert A. Stiefel Center for Trade Policy Studies, was not too happy with the Wall Street Journal's (WSJ) recent editorial on former Cato President Ed Crane, which said that the paper disagrees with Cato's "isolationist" foreign policy.

Said the WSJ:
We've disagreed with Cato's isolationist approach to foreign policy, but its ideas and op-eds have regularly informed readers of these pages.
Here is an excerpt from Dan Ikenson's response:
At the risk of appearing to make the perfect the enemy of the good, however, there is one characterization in the editorial that is inaccurate – the characterization of Cato’s foreign policy as “isolationist.” The editorial implies disagreement with Cato’s foreign policy prescriptions, which is presumably a reference to Cato’s opposition to the war in Iraq or Libya or Syria, or to the prospective war in Iran. After “validated,” I would characterize Cato’s positions on those matters as being in lock step with the precepts of limited, constitutional government: “non-interventionist,” in foreign policy parlance, which is a far cry from “isolationist.”
As director of the Herbert A. Stiefel Center for Trade Policy Studies at Cato, I can assure you that our unfettered advocacy of real free trade is the antithesis of isolationism. We in the trade center believe to our cores that Americans should be free to transact (as sellers, buyers, investors, workers, or collaborators in transnational production/supply chains) with whomever we choose, wherever they live. We believe that foreigners who want to work in the United States should be given green cards to do so and that foreign governments’ policies should treat Americans in the same regard. We believe that foreign investment should be welcomed almost unconditionally in the United States (the exception being the rare and narrowly-defined cases of clear threats to national security), and that Americans who want to invest their assets abroad should be free to do so without being punished through taxes and regulations or demonized by politicians for “shipping jobs overseas.”
We advocate person-to-person, business-to-business, mutually beneficial engagement between Americans and people in every country without exception and with minimal roles for governments. That is hardly an isolationist foreign policy. That is a recipe for peace and prosperity. That is part of Ed Crane’s freedom legacy.
Cato has a lot to say about "isolationism," as seen from a few examples below:

Here and here are articles by Cato Senior Fellow Doug Bandow.

Here is an article by Cato's Justin Logan and Christopher Preble.

Here is a blog post by Cato's David Boaz.

Here is Cato's Gene Healy on the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) and isolationism.

A previous Think Tank Watch post on WSJ's editorialization of Ed Crane can be found here.

Ed Crane, the Co-founder of Cato, stepped down as Cato's President on October 1, 2012.  He is now President Emeritus of Cato.

John Allison, former Chairman and CEO of BB&T Corporation, is the new President and CEO of Cato.

Think Tank Quickies #21

  • Heritage Foundation on Hurricane Sandy. 
  • AEI: Could Hurricane Sandy swing the presidential election?
  • Chinese think tank calls for loosening of one-child policy.  Here is AP's report.
  • China, South Korea think tanks beef up cooperation. 
  • Think tanks = trojan horses for policy agendas? 
  • Video: JPMorgan's Jamie Dimon at CFR. 
  • New Brookings report: eDiplomacy @ State.
  • CNAS report urges US to let Japan use military air base for commercial flights.
  • CFR's Micah Zenko on Mother Nature's "Kill List."  Americans killed by Mother Nature per year: 3,168.  By guns: 31,467.  By poor diet + exercise: 2.2 million.

Cato Climate Reports Irks Scientists

Reports the Washington Post:
The high-temperature battle over the science of climate change got even hotter this week. A group of scientists who wrote a landmark, federally commissioned 2009 report are ticked off at the Cato Institute, which recently issued what the scientists say is a flimsy report that the libertarian think tank tried to make look like an extension of their original work.
But the author of the Cato report says the apparent copycat style was meant to be a “tongue-in-cheek” reference to what the think tank believes was left out of the original report.
There’s no intrigue in Washington — or in scientific circles — like a scandal over a report.
The original report was called “Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States,” and it was printed with a blue cover that featured an image of North America. The Cato report, now in draft form, is called “ADDENDUM: Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States,” and its cover is nearly identical to the original report. (Check out the side-by-side images at .)
Hey, they say imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.
Nevertheless, the scientists, whose work was done under the auspices of the U.S. Global Change Research Program, are irked. Pocket protectors are flying.
“We are dismayed that the report of the Cato Institute . . . expropriates the title and style of our report in such a deceptive and misleading way,” they wrote in a joint statement.
“The Cato report is in no way an addendum to our 2009 report. It is not an update, explanation, or supplement by the authors of the original report. Rather, it is a completely separate document lacking rigorous scientific analysis and review.”
“Their conclusions that future climate change will be benign, if not beneficial, and easily adapted to, diverge markedly from our Committee’s view regarding the seriousness of the risks,” the scientists say.
Cato maintains that there’s no conspiracy or attempt to mislead readers afoot. The similarities (and calling the report an “addendum”) were meant to illustrate that they believed the 2009 document was incomplete, says Patrick Michaels, the report’s principal author.
“I’m amused that the authors feel the need to state the obvious, and that many of my colleagues on climate issues are casting this as some kind of attempt at counterfeit,” Michaels says. “The use of the Cato Institute name and logo throughout the product ought to have been a clue.”
Seems this controversy’s not going to cool down anytime soon.
The US Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) coordinates and integrates federal research on changes in the global environment and their implications for society.  USGCRP began as a presidential initiative in 1989 and was mandates by Congress in the Global Change Research Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-606).

Here is what Think Progress had to say about Cato's report.  Think Progress is a "project" (well, more precisely, a blog) of the Center for American Progress Action Fund (CAPAF).  CAPAF is the lobbying arm of the liberal-leaning think tank Center for American Progress (CAP).

Friday, October 26, 2012

No More Secret Carbon Tax Meetings for AEI?

The Hill is reporting that American Enterprise Institute (AEI) will be holding an "open door" carbon tax meeting after a similar meeting the think tank hosted earlier in the year received lots of attention for being a "closed door" event.

Here is what The Hill is saying:
A conservative think tank will host a forum next month on carbon tax proposals — and this time it’s on the record.
The American Enterprise Institute is the venue for the Nov. 13 event on the economics of carbon taxes, which AEI is hosting with two other think tanks — the Brookings Institution and Resources for the Future — and the International Monetary Fund.

Gilbert E. Metcalf, the Treasury Department’s deputy assistant secretary for environment and energy, is scheduled to deliver the keynote address.
AEI in July drew fire from the right for hosting closed-door discussions about carbon taxes with a group of advocates and policy wonks, and November’s conference could prompt fresh criticism. A few of the carbon tax experts who participated in the closed-door panels will speak at the November event.
The forum is separate, however, from the series of private discussions about a carbon tax that have taken place over the last couple years between an ad-hoc, left-right group.
Here is a previous Think Tank Watch post on AEI's "secret" carbon tax meeting held during the summer.

Former Office Depot CEO to Head CED

Former Office Depot CEO Steve Odland is taking over as the President and CEO of the Committee for Economic Development (CED), a Washington, DC-based think tank.

Odland succeeds former White House advisor Charles Kolb who led CED for 15 years.  Kolb stepped down from his position in July 2012.  Michael Petro has been the Acting President since then.

Here is a press release on the annoucement.

According to the most recent publicly available documents, CED had total revenue of $4,137,511 in 2011.  It had total assets of $3,902,641.  Then-President Charles Kolb received an annual salary of $379,384.

Third Way Touted Bogus Porn Study?

From this week's Savage Love:
According to the Today show and the Boston Globe and the American Family Association and most of what pops up when you google "kids and porn," DAD, you're three years late to this pants-shitting party. "The average age a child first views internet pornography is 11," Matt Lauer warned parents on Today seven years ago. "And those kids don't look away."
Somewhere along the line, Third Way, "a Washington think tank that helps Democrats grab on to red-state issues," was seriously pimping the bogus stat to credulous conservative Dems.
Here is a copy of that July 25 report which is titled "The Porn Standard: Children and Pornography on the Internet."

Here is a July 26, 2005 press release about that report.

Here is a Third Way message memo titled "Taking on the Internet Porn Industry."

Based on the latest publicly available information Third Way has total revenue of $7,530,500.  It has total assets of  $14,649,843.

Third Way President and Co-founder Jonathan Cowen received a salary of $210,857.

Third Way is considered a Democratic-leaning think tank.  A look at their Honorary Co-Chairs (and Honorary Co-Chairs Emeriti) shows that all 18 Members of Congress and former Members listed are Democrats.

Thursday, October 25, 2012

WSJ Editorializes Cato's Ed Crane

The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) had this to say in an editorial about outgoing Cato Institute President Ed Crane:
The cause of limited government is enjoying a political resurgence, and it may even prevail on November 6. But if it fails on Election Day, the fault won't lie with Ed Crane, who has stepped down this month after 35 years building the Cato Institute and promoting free people and free markets.
With money from Wichita businessman and libertarian Charles Koch, Mr. Crane founded Cato in San Francisco in 1977 with a budget of $800,000 and a staff of 10. He reluctantly moved the think tank to Washington in 1981 to more effectively communicate the small-government case in the heart of Leviathan. Cato's annual budget is now $21 million with a staff of 127, and its scholars have led the battles for entitlement reform, regulatory restraint, free trade and lower taxes.
Unlike some leaders of the libertarian movement, Mr. Crane is not a dogmatist and allowed his scholars wide latitude. We've disagreed with Cato's isolationist approach to foreign policy, but its ideas and op-eds have regularly informed readers of these pages. Cato's annual conference on monetary policy is especially influential by airing debates over a subject typically ignored by most of the media and think tanks. Under Mr. Crane, Cato held the first conferences on free markets and the rule of law in China (1988) and Russia (1990).
Mr. Crane's final months at Cato were marred by an unfortunate row over control with Charles and David Koch. We're pleased that the battle has been settled with a new governance pact that organizes Cato like a more traditional nonprofit with a self-sustaining board. Mr. Crane is graciously retiring at age 68.
His able successor is the longtime and highly successful former CEO of BB&T bank, John Allison, who has plans for expansion but who will build on the foundation of Mr. Crane's broad shoulders.
Here is a previous Think Tank Watch post on Ed Crane and incoming President John Allison.

Here is a tribute to Ed Crane from the Canada Free Press.

Here is a tribute to Ed Crane from United Liberty.

Wednesday, October 24, 2012

New: Most Popular Think Tanks in Washington

DC Linktank has just released a list of Washington, DC's most popular think tanks based on Alexa web data.  Here is what they say:
Earlier this year, FPRI’s Global Go-To Think Tank provided a report ranking global institutions by influence with The Brookings Institution at the top of their list. From our experience at Linktank, we’ve learned that influence alone doesn’t convey the full extent of an organization’s capacity to affect policy or culture. We wanted a popularity contest.
The Linktank team reviewed our vast database of local organizations and did an analysis based on Alexa web data to determine which think tanks generate the largest interest. We looked only at independent organizations, not affiliated with an academic institution, and with a presence in Greater Washington DC.
The top ten results, in the slideshow below, surprised us. Brookings, decidedly most influential think tank according to the FPRI report, did not reach the top position as the most trafficked institution.
Here is the top 10:
  1. Heritage Foundation
  2. Council on Foreign Relations (CFR)
  3. Cato Institute
  4. Brookings Institution
  5. Rand Corporation
  6. Center for American Progress (CAP)
  7. United States Institute of Peace (USIP)
  8. World Resources Institute (WRI)
  9. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP)
  10. Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS)
A list of the top 50 most popular think tanks, based on the DC Linktank analysis, can be found here.

Penn State Professor Suing Think Tank

The Washington Post is reporting that Penn State University climate science professor Michael Mann is suing the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) for calling his scientific findings fraudulent and comparing him to Jerry Sandusky, the former Penn State football coach convicted of numerous counts of child molestation.  Says the Post:
The lawsuit is based on a July 13 article by Rand Simberg, published on the Competitive Enterprise Institute’s blog, titled “The Other Scandal in Unhappy Valley.” It followed an investigation, released this summer, that said some Penn State officials knew of Sandusky’s sexual abuse of minors before he was arrested and chose not to report them to authorities.
The article compared Sandusky to Mann, accusing the the scientist of “molesting data” about global warming. It was later summarized and linked to by the National Review; in that piece, National Review writer Mark Steyn says, “Not sure I’d have extended that metaphor all the way into the locker-room showers with quite the zeal Mr. Simberg does, but he has a point.”
The Competitive Enterprise Institute has since removed the sentences comparing Mann to Sandusky. An editor’s note says two lines were removed.
The lawsuit also names Simberg, an adjunct scholar with the Competitive Enterprise Institute, and the National Review’s Steyn.
Competitive Enterprise Institute attorney Sam Kazman said he doesn’t believe the lawsuit was based in “either law or fact.” Kazman his Web site later removed two lines from the story that compared Mann to Sandusky, but refused to retract any parts of the story that challenged Mann’s scientific work.
A link to Rand Simberg's CEI bio can be found here.  A previous Think Tank Watch post on CEI dispute can be found here.

Think Tankers Make "25 Women to Watch" List

Center for American Progress (CAP) President Neera Tanden and Center for a New American Security (CNAS) Board of Directors member Michele Flournoy were the only woman from the think tank community to make The Hill's list of "25 Women to Watch."

Tuesday, October 23, 2012

Think Tank Tweet of the Week

This Tweet by Josh Keating of Foreign Policy magazine is referring to the large number of scholars that think tanks have made available to the media for comment regarding yesterday's presidential debate.

Think Tank Quickies #20

  • Heritage Foundation study: Federal workers are overcompensated by 30%-40%.
  • Michael Mazaar in CSIS's Washington Quarterly: US power over-extended.
  • CEIP's 2012 election guide.  And CFR's election guide.
  • GMF study finds European support for Obama at 75% and 8% for Romney. 
  • China's top leaders asking think tanks to draw up most ambitious economic reforms in decades.

Romney to Fund Think Tanks as President?

During last night's third and final presidential debate of the 2012 campaign, Mitt Romney said that he is fine with the US government funding of think tanks.  Here is what he said:
We in this country can — can compete successfully with anyone in the world, and we’re going to. We’re going to have to have a president, however, that doesn’t think that somehow the government investing in — in car companies like Tesla and — and Fisker, making electric battery cars. This is not research, Mr President, these are the government investing in companies. Investing in Solyndra. This is a company, this isn’t basic research. I — I want to invest in research. Research is great. Providing funding to universities and think tanks is great. But investing in companies? Absolutely not.
Since tons of Romney advisors come from think tanks, an embrace of them by Romney is no surprise.

Monday, October 22, 2012

CAP President Apologizes for Obama Comment

Center for American Progress (CAP) President Neera Tanden apologized last week for comments she made about her former boss President Obama.  Here is what Politico says:
Former Obama aide Neera Tanden took to Twitter on Tuesday to apologize for some choice words she uttered about her former boss.
In an interview with New York magazine published on Sunday, Tanden had been trying to explain why Obama didn't call former President Bill Clinton for the first two years of his administration.
“People say the reason Obama wouldn’t call Clinton is because he doesn’t like him,” Tanden said. “The truth is, Obama doesn’t call anyone, and he’s not close to almost anyone. It’s stunning that he’s in politics, because he really doesn’t like people. My analogy is that it’s like becoming Bill Gates without liking computers.”
Tanden, now president of the Center for American Progress, suggested in her mea culpa that it was a poor choice of words.
"I was trying to say how President Obama, who I admire greatly, is a private person, but I deeply regret how I said it. I apologize," she wrote.
There was another revealing part of her interview that she didn't address in her apology. Tanden also suggested that the president's renewing relations with Clinton was not genuine, but rather a calculated political move.
Tanden became the President of CAP in November 2011.  She has previously worked with both Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton, and she was also a Senior Counselor for Health Reform at the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) under President Obama.

Tuesday, October 16, 2012

Think Tank Quickies #19

  • On Republican think tank "spin."
  • Acton Institute gets new Michigan headquarters.
  • Brookings Institution demands servile journalism? 
  • Heritage special report: Federal Spending by the Numbers, 2012 
  • AEI's Eberstadt and Brookings' Galston continue their entitlements debate.
  • CNAS announces next generation national security leaders for 2012-2013. 
  • CNAS national security guide to the 2012 elections.

Fox News Questions AEI Study

Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney has been saying that six independent studies back up his tax plan.

On Sunday (Oct. 14) Romney senior advisor Ed Gillespie was challenged on Fox News by Chris Wallace, who questioned whether the studies are really non-partisan.  Said Wallace:
“Those are very questionable. Some of them are blogs. Some of them are from the AEI [American Enterprise Institute], which is hardly an independent group,” Wallace said. “One of them is from a guy who is — a blog from a guy who was a top adviser to George W. Bush. These are hardly nonpartisan studies.”
The Atlantic has documented all six "studies," as has Bloomberg.  Several of the "studies" in question are from AEI and the Heritage Foundation.

Monday, October 15, 2012

Video: Think Tanks Run the World?

Video from RT America's Abby Martin claiming that Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), Atlantic Council of the United States (ACUS), Trilateral Commission, and the Bilderberg Group essentially run the world.  Skip to 2:03 to begin.

Central Pary School: China's Secretive Think Tank

Here is what the Washington Post has to say about the Central Party School of the Communist Party of China, a think tank for China's top leaders:
For decades, professors at the Central Party School have safeguarded the ideology of China’s Communist Party, indoctrinating each generation of officials in the teachings of Marx, Lenin and Mao.
The school’s work — as a think tank for the party’s top leaders and a training center for its millions of cadres — is largely veiled in secrecy.
More than a dozen current and former professors, researchers, students and party insiders interviewed for this article spoke only on the condition of anonymity, citing a school-wide gag order because of this year’s sensitive leadership change. School administrators turned down multiple requests for comment. And a brief visit to its leafy campus — with tall stone-facade halls, drab beige dorms and gates patrolled by well-armed police officers — was possible only by accompanying a visiting delegation of foreign academics.
The caution comes in part from the school’s proximity to the country’s top leadership. The list of its former presidents reads like a who’s who of modern Chinese history, including Mao Zedong and President Hu Jintao. And the school’s current chief — a largely ceremonial office — is China’s Vice President Xi Jinping, who is slated next month to replace Hu as China’s top leader.
Here is a recent Foreign Policy article on the Central Party School and an excerpt:
Housed in a heavily guarded, unmarked compound far from Tiananmen Square and most of Beijing's government buildings, the Central Party School is both think tank and indoctrination center, "a furnace to foster the spirit of party members," according to a state media report.
Here is a Central Party School "Primer" from the American Foreign Policy Council (AFPC).

Here is a recent Yale Journal of International Affairs article on China's foreign policy research institutes, which discusses, among other things, the Central Party School.

Friday, October 12, 2012

"Think Tank Ryan"

NBC news labeled yesterday's vice presidential debate between Vice President Joe Biden and Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) as "Scranton Joe vs. Think Tank Ryan."

You can view a previous Think Tank Watch post on Rep. Ryan's connections to think tanks here.

AEI-TPC Tax Duel: Fact-Checked has fact-checked all the recent think tank-cited tax claims by the presidential candidates.

Here is what has concluded:
Biden falsely claimed that Romney has “another tax cut coming” that “will, in fact, give … $250,000 a year” to millionaires and “raise taxes” on middle-income families by $2,000 a year. That’s not true. Biden is citing the work of a nonpartisan group that has said the Obama campaign has misinterpreted its study.
For his part, Ryan claimed that “six studies have verified” that Romney’s tax plan is mathematically possible — that it can reduce income tax rates by 20 percent across the board and offset the loss of revenues by reducing or eliminating tax deductions without benefiting the wealthy or increasing the deficit. But Ryan inflates the number of “studies” by including blog items and the work of campaign advisers.
Biden: They’re holding hostage the middle class tax cut to the super wealthy. And on top of that, they’ve got another tax cut coming that’s $5 trillion that all of the studies point out will in fact give another $250 million — yeah, $250,000 a year to those 120,000 families and raise taxes for people who are middle income with a child by $2,000 a year.
Biden is referring to an August study by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. It’s true that the report (page 19) calculates that those in the top 0.1 percent of taxpayers would receive a $246,652 net tax break. It also says on page six that “taxpayers with children who make less than $200,000 would pay, on average, $2,000 more in taxes.”
But it is not a study of Romney’s plan. It is an exercise in trying to determine if a “revenue-neutral individual income tax change that incorporates the features Governor Romney proposed” could be revenue neutral without benefiting the wealthy.
Director Donald Marron disagrees with Biden’s interpretation of the study.
“I don’t interpret this as evidence that Governor Romney wants to increase taxes on the middle class in order to cut taxes for the rich, as an Obama campaign ad claimed,” Marron wrote. “Instead, I view it as showing that his plan can’t accomplish all his stated objectives. One can charitably view his plan as a combination of political signaling and the opening offer in what would, if he gets elected, become a negotiation.”
Ryan seeks to discredit the Tax Policy Center’s study by claiming, falsely, that six studies prove Romney’s tax plan can accomplish all of its goals.
We wrote about this before when Romney and Ryan referred to “five different studies.” At that time, we wrote that one of those “studies” was a blog item (not a study), one was a campaign white paper coauthored by Romney’s chief economic adviser, and one was a newspaper op-ed written by yet another campaign adviser who later updated his calculations in a blog item. Romney and Ryan counted the updated blog item as a “study.”
The fifth study was written by Harvey Rosen, a Princeton economics professor who once served as chairman of President George W. Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers. Rosen assumes Romney’s tax plan would add an extra 3 percent to the economy — an assumption that Rosen calls “reasonable.” But Romney’s plan is designed to be revenue neutral, so it would not reduce the tax burden on the economy and, presumably, would have less of a growth effect. Bush’s large tax cuts in 2001 and 2003, for example, did reduce the overall tax burden and yet the year-to-year changes to the real GDP were just over 2 percent.
The latest study cited by the Romney campaign comes from Alex Brill, a research fellow at the conservative, pro-business American Enterprise Institute. Among Brill’s assumptions: Romney could raise revenue by taxing the interest income from state and local bonds and the investment income of life insurance contracts. Both are currently not subject to federal taxes. But, as the Washington Post points out, “taxing interest on state and local bonds or on the value in life insurance policies, for example, would violate Romney’s preference for preserving low taxes on savings and investment.”
William Gale, a coauthor of the Tax Policy Center’s study, told the Post that Brill proves his point: that Romney’s plan cannot be accomplished unless “you give up on some of the goals.”

AEI vs. TPC: Duel Continues in Veep Debate

In his debate against Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI), Vice Presidnet Joe Biden cited two think tanks, American Enterprise Institute (AEI) and the Tax Policy Center (TPC).

Biden cited the think tanks, saying that their studies show that Romney's tax plan would raise taxes on the middle class.  Said Biden as yesterday's debate:
Now, there’s not enough — the reason why the AEI study, the American Enterprise Institute study, the Tax Policy Center study, the reason they all say it’s going to — taxes will go up on the middle class, the only way you can find $5 trillion in loopholes is cut the mortgage deduction for middle-class people, cut the health care deduction for middle-class people, take away their ability to get a tax break to send their kids to college.
The Washington Free Beacon says that AEI said not such thing.  Here is what they say:
Joe Biden cited an American Enterprise Institute study showing that Mitt Romney’s tax plan would raise taxes on the middle class.
AEI has said no such thing, though.
Alex Brill of the American Enterprise Institute wrote that the Tax Policy Center’s study—the one so heavily cited by the Obama campaign that claims a President Romney would institute tax hikes on the middle class—actually “falls apart.”
Brill found that, in order to keep the budget revenue neutral under the new tax cuts and closed loopholes, the government would actually have to cut, not raise, taxes on the middle class.
Brill also excoriated the TPC for misusing his work, calling their conclusion “a false interpretation of our research.”
Huffington Post questions whether the AEI study that defends Romney's tax plan is truly non-partisan.

Here is a new Romney add that touts the AEI study.

Here is what the Washington Post has to say about the TPC vs. AEI duel.

This article says that the candidates are misleading the public in citing the think tank studies.

Thursday, October 11, 2012

Fmr. Commerce Secretary Bryson Joins Wilson Center

The Wilson Center has announced that former Commerce Secretary John Bryson has joined the think tank as a Distinguished Senior Public Policy Scholar.

He will work on the "strategic and economic nexus" among China, India, and the United States, as well as Japan, Brazil, Energy, and the Environment.

Bryson resigned as Commerce Secretary in June 2012 citing a recent seizure, which reportedly led to at least two car accidents.

Smithsonian to Launch New Think Tank?

Here is what WTOP is reporting:
Globalization has been a hot topic for the past 50 years or so, but some experts believe that it might have actually started 500 years ago following Christopher Columbus' expedition.
That's what author Charles Mann said at a Smithsonian Institution event, "Anthropocene: Planet Earth in the Age of Humans," on Thursday at the Natural History Museum.
Twenty five experts from varying backgrounds gathered for a series of presentations and panel discussions on how humans have affected change on the planet. Topics ranged from the earth's ecology and biology, to literature, art, and education.
"This idea of change is what we thought would link us all together," said John Kress, one of the directors of the Smithsonian's Grand Challenges Consortia, an interdisciplinary collaboration with four branches: Bio-diversity, World Cultures, Mysteries of the Universe, and the American Experience.
Kress and the other directors invited well-known scientists, authors, artists, and anthropologists to discuss their perspectives on how the globe has rapidly changed since humans have existed.
He said he hoped Thursday's event would be the beginning of a think tank of scholars discussing human impact on the globe and reaching out to the public through books and films.
It is worth noting that the Woodrow Wilson Center for  International Scholars was established as part of the Smithsonian Institution.

Wednesday, October 10, 2012

Think Tank Quickies #18

  • Poor record of India' think tanks?
  • Ed Gillespie calls Tax Policy Center (TPC) a "liberal think tank."
  • CFR's interactive Global Governance Monitor.
  • Iranian government reads RAND; CFR wins Emmy for Iran Crisis Guide; ISIS's new Iran nuke report says Iran could have enough uranium for a nuke within 2-4 months.
  • On Heritage's Congressional outreach program.
  • Heritage pushing Libya attack investigation.
  • Spy crisis launched AIPAC's think tank WINEP?
  • Brookings live chat on vice presidential debate.

Wednesday, October 3, 2012

Book Review: Think Tanks in America

Here are some highlights from the new book on think tanks (which Think Tank Watch has previously mentioned) by Thomas Medvetz called "Think Tanks in America."

On the concept on think tanks:
For the scholar who wishes to understand the think tank and its place in American society, the basic problem is that the central concept itself is fuzzy, mutable, and contentious.
On fundraising at think tanks:
To raise money, a think tank must orient itself to the market for donations by tailoring its work to the interests of potential sponsors.
Think Tanks & lobbying:
...There is the image of the think tank as a mercenary organization - or essentially a lobbying firm in disguise.
On think tank existence:
Think tanks exist as such only insofar as they have formed their own relatively stable institutional niche.
On the "space" of think tanks:
Think tanks such as the Hoover Institution and the Institute for International Economics, for example, are known for their close and visible ties to academia, while other are known mainly for their affiliations with political networks and institutions, such as government agencies (e.g., RAND Corporation, Urban Institute), legislative coalitions (Northeast-Midwest Institute), political parties (Progressive Policy Institute), and social movements (Worldwatch Institute).  Still other think tanks exist in close proximity to business firms (Competitive Enterprise Institute) or labor unions (Economic Policy Institute)...Finally, a small number of think tanks sit nearest the field's media pole (e.g., New America Foundation), as revealed by their strategies of cultivating ties with organs of the news media and journalism.
On categorizing think tank "experts":
"Wonks" are those policy experts who derive their authority from their technical proficiency and academic credentials; "hacks" are those who bear more than a passing resemblance to political consultants, lobbyists, and legislative aides; "policy entrepreneurs" are those with the keenest eye for marketing their intellectual wares and raising funds; and "quotemeisters" are policy experts who are more comfortable speaking on television than writing in an empty office.
On think tank intellectualism:
At one level, think tanks use academic capital to perform a kind of ritual of self-purification.  Tarnished by their associations with the government, the market, the media, and the world of lobbying, they must "consecrate" themselves by establishing a connection with the quasi-sacred world of intellectual production and the priestly authority figure of the intellectual."
On think tanks and "deep lobbying"
The most egregious instances of corruption, [Steve] Clemons maintained, involved the practice known as "deep lobbying," in which lobbyists effectively funnel the money of private interest groups through think tanks as a way of skirting federal lobbying regulations...According to Clemons, the corruption of think tanks is enabled by a "lack of IRS resources to investigate the non-profit sector in any serious way," and "the inherent fuzziness in differentiating between 'public education' and lobbying."
On think tanks and political access:
...Many think tanks also turn down certain opportunities to increase their political access.  The Heritage Foundation, for example, has long been careful to maintain a certain distance from the Republican Party...
On the Washington Post's coverage of think tanks:
From 1999 to 2003, the Washington Post ran a weekly column about think tanks called "The Ideas Industry."  The punchy feature, which typically strung together several short items, was soon replaced by "Think Tank Town," a series of columns submitted on a rotating basis by 13 major think tanks.  In 2010, the Post began publishing a blog called "Think Tanked," by Allen McDuffee, a political journalist and ex-think tank fellow.
On think tank "poaching":
A few patterns emerge from the data, such as the tendency of certain think tanks to recruit from others (e.g., Brookings from the Council on Foreign Relations, and the Institute for International Economics and Hoover from Brookings; CSIS from the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies)...The data also suggest the importance of geography in the recruitment patterns of think tanks.  For example, RAND and Hoover (both located in California) share a strong personnel connection, despite their structural dissimilarities, and each is tied more weakly to the main Washington think tanks.

Think Tank Quickies #17

  • Commentary on think tank influence from The Guardian.
  • TPC "Fiscal Cliff" Study: Nearly 90% Face a Tax Increase.  The full study is here.
  • Institute for Policy Studies' (IPS) new "Congressional Report Card for the 99%."
  • AEI's $50,000 "Free Enterprise" video contest.
  • Brookings live web chat on tonight's presidential debate. 
  • Rep. Mike Rogers (R-MI) says think tanks target of "furious wave of cyber-espionage."

Tuesday, October 2, 2012

Heritage Heavily Involved in Presidential Debates

Here is what the Washington Post reports:
As the parties get set for the first presidential debate in Denver on Wednesday, the Heritage Foundation’s Values Bus will roll into town.
The Values Bus, a joint national tour project of the Heritage Foundation and the Family Research Council, has traveled to more than 100 cities to “save the American dream” and “encourage Americans to participate in the electoral process and be informed voters,” according to the Web site.
In the 2012 election season, the Heritage Foundation has taken an agenda-setting role from early in primary season when they co-sponsored a Republican primary debate with the American Enterprise Institute and CNN. More recently, the foundation drove the conversation on the claim that President Obama “gutted welfare reform” when he offered waivers to states on the work requirement of the program.
In addition to the Values Bus stop in Denver, the Heritage Foundation also is co-sponsoring a debate of conservatives against progressives on job creation, economic growth and government dependency in Denver.
Here and here is more on the November 22, 2011 Republican presidential debate on foreign policy and national security that the Heritage Foundation co-sponsored along with CNN and the American Enterprise Institute (AEI).

Here is the website for the Values Bus, which includes a map of planned visits.

On October 3, 2012, the Heritage Foundation, along with the Independence Institute (II), are co-sponsoring a debate in Denver, Colorado between conservatives and progressives called the "Wonks Duke in Denver."

The Independence Institute is a conservative think tank based in Golden, Colorado.  II holds an annual Alcohol, Tabacco and Firearms (ATF) party to promote drinking, smoking, and shooting as a "fundamental right."  It just helds its 10th annual ATF party on August 11, 2012.

Here is a description from the most recent ATF party flyer:
The $150 fee to participate in the ATF event also includes 100 sporting clays, ammunition, lunch, libations, cigars (or smokeless if you prefer) and lunch time entertainment. Past lunch speakers include Steve Moore of the Wall Street Journal, Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform, the Capitalist Pig Jonathon Hoenig, Fred Barnes of the Weekly Standard, internationally renowned columnist Christopher Hitchens and video blogger Mary Katharine Hamm.

Monday, October 1, 2012

Brookings Scholar on CIA Director's Future

There has been some speculation about CIA Director David Petraeus possibly becoming the next President of Princeton.  One Brookings scholar with close connections to Petraeus has some thoughts.

Here is what the Washington Post has to say:
The Brookings Institution’s Michael O’Hanlon, a close friend of the CIA chief, told the paper that he’s had about five chats with Petraeus about the Princeton job. “I don’t think it was a complete throwaway line,” O’Hanlon said.
Alas, the timing could be awkward, O’Hanlon said, and Petraeus is fully committed to his current job. But O’Hanlon added that if Obama loses the election, Petraeus might need new work.
Michael O'Hanlon is a Senior Fellow with the 21st Century Defense Initiative and Director of Research for the Foreign Policy program at Brookings.  He is, among other things, a Visiting Lecturer at Princeton University, and a member of David Petraeus's External Advisory Board at the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).