The Political Spectrum

New Study -- Death Penalty as Deterrent

2007-06-11T13:39:00.000-05:00

I found this story on the AP news wire after hearing Andrew Wilkow talk about it today. It's music to my ears when liberals are forced to admit the truth even though they don't like it!

"Science does really draw a conclusion. It did. There is no question about it," said Naci Mocan, an economics professor at the University of Colorado at Denver. "The conclusion is there is a deterrent effect."

A 2003 study he co-authored, and a 2006 study that re-examined the data, found that each execution results in five fewer homicides, and commuting a death sentence means five more homicides. "The results are robust, they don't really go away," he said. "I oppose the death penalty. But my results show that the death penalty (deters) - what am I going to do, hide them?"

Reaching Across The Aisle

2007-06-11T00:59:00.000-05:00

Just wanted to announce that I've started a new blog with frequent visitor to this site MQA called Reaching Across The Aisle. On it we hope to explore a variety of popular and current topics through a point/counter-point format. MQA and I usually end up on very different sides of the debate. But by taking clear positions grounded in well-meaning ideologies, we hope to find some common ground in between.

Topic #1 is the notion of "Christianity Under Attack." We've got some conflicting ideas on church and state and the role for each in society. We invite you to check out the weekly debate on this and other issues and to let us know what you think!

He's in

2007-05-30T13:45:00.000-05:00

It looks like it's all but official: Fred Thompson is running for President.

Thompson, a former U.S. Senator from Tennessee, has been coy about his intentions with audiences, but made clear in an interview that he plans to run.
"I can't remember exactly the point that I said, 'I'm going to do this,' " Thompson says, his 6-foot, 6-inch frame sprawled comfortably across a couch in a hotel suite. "But when I did, the thing that occurred to me: 'I'm going to tell people that I am thinking about it and see what kind of reaction I get to it.' "

I will follow my own advice and not get too excited. No one except Jesus is the saviour. But I do think this bodes well. Here's hoping he proves to be as good as his hype.

The American Dream

2007-05-29T16:23:00.000-05:00

I've fought an uphill battle at forums such as this by arguing that the Bush economy is not as impressive as it may seem. While we have enjoyed a good deal of economic prosperity for the past half-decade, I think it pales in comparison with prior cyclical booms of recent times. However, with the stock market at an all-time high, inflation nearly non-existant, low unemployment, and very manageable interest rates, it is not an easy case to make.

And yet I've still felt that the economy was something of a house-of-cards. It may stand pretty tall, but it's going to make a real mess when it falls. I blame factors including an overly meddling tax code, wild government spending, massive budget deficits, an over-reaching foreign policy, a failed energy policy, unrestricted and unfair free trade, illegal immigration and cheap labor, and unquestioned corporate deregulation as the major government-created negative influences on otherwise solid economic growth. I sadly don't see any signs of these items getting better regardless of political party. However, Wall Street is counting on it never happening.

So many of us have thus made the argument that in this new economy Wall Street and Main Street are at a crossroad. The issue of illegal immigration is a perfect example. Afterall, what else could bring together the most ardent of Milton Freidman and Cesar Chavez supporters? But with near daily record-setting Dow Jones numbers, it's not been an easy case to make.

Until today. I noticed the release of an interesting but ignored study that I think reveals a lot about our economy and, indeed, the state of the American dream. Check this out.

American men in their 30s now earn less than their fathers' generation did at the same age, potentially reversing longtime assumptions that each successive generation will be better off than its predecessor, according to a study released yesterday.

Between 2000 and 2005, productivity rose 16 percent while median income fell 2 percent, challenging the notion "that a rising tide will lift all boats." Several factors could explain the divergence: a growing share of income going to the highest-paid workers, or to profits; an increased share of labor compensation going toward benefits such as health care; or a decline in the number of wage earners, or hours worked, in the typical family.

American families, which experienced a 32 percent increase in income levels between 1964 and 1994, saw household income growth slow to 9 percent between 1974 and 2004, according to the report.

There are many other interesting elements of this study released by the Pew Foundation. I would encourage those interested to look further into them. I suppose we can debate how much of a problem it is that people like me will (on average) make less than our dads did when dollars are adjusted for inflation. Maybe it's not a problem at all? Maybe it was ineveitable with all the changes we've made to the American economy?

But, for me, this being the first time this has happened since WW2, it sure does sting. And it causes me again to ask are we really going in the right direction? Has the American dream taken a blow from which it may never recover? While there are positive aspects to globalization (who doesn't appreciate fuel efficient Toyotas, stylish Nikes, low Wal-Mart prices, and countless new cell phones and other gadgets?), there are also some real negatives.

I wonder when/if the bad will seem to outweigh the good? Wall Street apparently says never. Main Street just might be saying right now.

The FoxNews GOP Debate

2007-05-16T00:44:00.000-05:00

Anyone have thoughts on the South Carolina Republican debate? It was definitely better than the first one. Brit Hume was a more effective moderator and his panel made the 10 candidate format work much more smoothly than MSNBC.

I thought Rudy Giuliani did well. I still don't think he can win, but he's not going away anytime soon. And I don't mean to be insensitive, but is anyone else sick of hearing him say, "I was mayor during 9/11?" We know, Rudy, we know. McCain looked old and weak. And I didn't know he had 7 kids. Wow. Romney was ok, but not as sharp as he looked in California. And Jim Gilmore's use of the term "Rudy McRomney" seemed an effective summary of the top of the Republican field.

I thought my own horse Tom Tancredo continued to shine. After hearing all the last-minute conservative conversions on stage from Rudy McRomney, Tancredo had the line of the night in saying, "I trust conversions on the road to Damascus much more than those on the road to Des Moines."

I do like Ron Paul as he mirrors much of my own libertarianism. But he made a big boo boo in linking the 9/11 attack to pre-war Iraq bombings?!? Did he not learn anything from Rumsfeld? Shame on you Ron. I'm afraid you just became the GOP's version of Mike Gravel. And kudos to Giuliani for calling him out. I wish there were more moments like that in these debates but I won't hold my breath.

Anyone else consider who might win if the whole thing were judged American Idol style? Snicker all you want now, but that could be the way of the future. And with 10 people clogging the stage, it makes sense. Who needs diners in New Hampshire or town halls in Iowa when you have instant text messaging?

I say Jim Gilmore would have been voted off after week 1 by a landslide. See ya! And after tonight's show, the bottom three would have to be: Ron Paul, Sam Brownback, and John McCain. So vote early and vote often to see who America sends home. Big Daddy....out!

Jerry Falwell, 1933-2007

2007-05-15T23:56:00.000-05:00

I'd be remiss if I didn't pay tribute to a personal hero and a man who greatly impacted the American political spectrum. It really hit me today when I learned of Reverand Jerry Falwell's passing. Still active in the ministry, it just didn't seem like his work was done when the Lord called him home. However, Falwell certainly did live a life to the fullest. As our nation's leading televangelist and the founder of the Thomas Road Baptist Church and Liberty University, Rev. Falwell enriched the souls and minds of millions of Christians. A robust man with an even bigger voice - whether you loved or hated him - you usually heard him. And for what more could any preacher preaching the word from the hills of rural Virginia ever hope?

Falwell helped give unapologetic Christians a mainstream voice in American culture and in American politics. Starting the Moral Majority in 1979, it was no coincidence that the Republican messiah, Ronald Reagan, finally landed in the White House in 1980. Though other ministries fell even quicker than they rose, Falwell's influence continued to be felt for 3 decades as the South became a GOP stronghold, Congress went Republican for the first time in 50 years, and Bush after Bush won the White House. And every conservative politican on the national scene came to Jerry Falwell hoping to tap into the millions of like-minded and politically-involved Christian voters who valued his endorsement.

I'll wrap this up since I know many readers may not share my fondness for Falwell. But, all that aside, as he passes I think it's only fair to pay respect to one who had such a large impact. If you're a Reagan Republican, if you're a Gingrich Republican, you owe Jerry Falwell a debt of gratitude. Like it or not, he helped make them possible.

Rudy, Abortion, and the 2008 Prez Field

2007-05-08T00:03:00.000-05:00

Ever hate something so much that you gave money year after year to an organization dedicated to helping that very same thing flourish???

Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani in his campaign appearances this year has stated that he personally abhors abortion, even though he supports keeping a legal right to choose. But records show that in the '90s he contributed money at least six times to Planned Parenthood, one of the country's leading abortion rights groups and its top provider of abortions.

Federal tax returns made public by the former New York mayor show that he and his then-wife, Donna Hanover, made personal donations to national, state and city chapters of Planned Parenthood totaling $900 in 1993, 1994, 1998 and 1999.

Look. If Giuliani has any sincerity, he should get up there before GOP crowds and say, "Yep, I'm pro-choice. I've always been pro-choice. And if you vote for me that's what you'll get. But let me tell you what else you'll get...."

I probably still wouldn't support him in the Republican primary. But the idea of voting for him in a general election against another pro-choice candidate would suddenly become slightly more palatable.

But we shouldn't expect any politician at the top of either field, no less Giuliani, to provide such honesty. Instead he speaks out of both sides of his mouth at the same time, much like the top 3 candidates on both sides have been doing for some time now. Personally, even at this early stage, what I wouldn't give for a Huckabee-Richardson 2008 contest?!?

And where did this damning info come from? I'm guessing McCain. Nice work. Yes, you gotta love politics!

The returns have been on the public record for years, but the detail about Giuliani's support for Planned Parenthood -- along with e-mailed copies of the returns -- was provided to The Politico by aides to a rival campaign, who insisted on not being identified.

Missing the Real Story

2007-05-02T16:27:00.000-05:00

In a recent Ian Bishop article, “Flighty Hill Changes Planes- Constantly,” he attacks Sen. Clinton’s propensity for finickiness in her flight arrangements. To hear Bishop tell it, Ms. Clinton has a propensity for discharging planes that don’t meet her rather stringent requirements; right layout, accommodations, crew, etc.

As interesting as the particular habits, however crazy they seem, of celebrities are, Bishop misses the REAL story. About half-way through, he notes that:

“[S]he [Sen. Clinton] used a Hawker 800 private jet owned by the New York investment firm Gilder Gagnon Howe for a morning flight to Greenville, S.C., from Washington, after an 8 a.m. address at a New York teachers' association gathering. . .Presidential campaigns can pay as much as $9,000 for a charter flight, but get a break when borrowing a corporate jet - like Clinton did with the Hawker 800. That's because ethics laws allow candidates to pay the aircraft's owner only the equivalent of first-class airfare.”

Let me preface my remarks by noting that I am QUITE sure that a great many, if not the majority, of the elected officials in Washington, of every political stripe, engage in behaviors that are inappropriate and tie them too closely to interests undeclared in their campaign finance declarations.

Bishop is concerned that Ms. Clinton has a penchant for getting things her own way.

I am concerned that “ethics rules” permit elected representatives to use luxury transport of persons and companies that potentially have business that either is or will be in front of that official or a committee over which they have oversight.

Bishop’s story ought to have been about the use of the Hawker 800, about the relationship between Gilder Gagnon Howe, if there is one, about the practice of using luxury aircraft of potential “big donors.” He ought to have answered meaningful questions about the scope and effect of the practice.

Instead, we know that Sen. Clinton has a quirkiness to her travel habits.

With journalism like this, it is no wonder our nation has no sense of the challenges it faces and cannot make reasonable decisions.

Does "green" oppose "religious?"

2007-05-02T04:16:00.000-05:00

In this article,

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20670001&refer=us&sid=afIESX3LdgnQ

the journalist notes that the Gideon will not be found in the "green" hotels of the future. Instead, "An Inconvenient Truth," former VP Gore's environmentalist manifesto will be in each room.

It is not clear to me whether this conclusion represents the actual state of affairs or whether the journalist was using a writing devise to propel his story. It may be that both are to be found or that "An Inconvenient Truth" will not ACTUALLY be found but that the ideas contained therein have permeated the hotel's designer's thinking. For the purposes of this post, it doesn't really matter.

There has been a trend among Evangelical Christians to "capture" environmentalism as a Christian duty. Similarly, there is a trend among Traditionalist Christians to include "stewardship," a byword for a range of obligations to others, including caring for the environment, in the affirmative duties required of every Christian. I imagine there are similar movements among other religious groups.

It may be too early to tell whether these movements have had meaningful impact on moving mainstream America into the environmentalist camp. The trendiness of environmentalism may have more to do with Hollywood and academia than religious teaching. Nonetheless, there is a discernable movement towards environmentally sound living... as long as it doesn't cost us anything.

This is the rub... that living in a way that truly honors our place in the environment requires sacrifices that I really don't think Americans will make without being compelled to do so. All of the preaching and writing and doomsaying will get a general nod of approval... then we will all jump in our SUVs and drive 90 miles a day to and from work.

At its best, socio-political movements drive politics which crafts economics to compel behavioral changes. IF America moves towards a more environmentally conscious and sustainable way of life, it will be because taxation and permit fees drive the costs of living in an unsustainable way up to the point that no other rational choice is available.

The rub is that such economic disincentives to waste burden the middle-class and poor more than the wealthy. The Los Angeles crowd that preaches about fairness, justice, and sustainable living will not cut out their flights back and forth across the country to attend openings. The rich will not drive better cars or limit the building of mansions on virgin turf. The markets for true "luxury" goods will barely be dented by the moves of the larger society.

The real question for environmentalism is not whether America is ready to accept a sustainable lifestyle but whether they can sell the real economic losses to the lower classes, knowing that the rich will not be so burdened. Unless the audience is receptive, the politics will not move and the economics will not drive far enough to make a difference.

So... Add "An Inconvenient Truth" to the repetoire of the hotel reading materials, but keep the Gideon handy... without preaching from every sector that can reach Middle America, the environmentalist movement cannot succeed.

There is more than one way to skin a cat... or a President

2007-04-29T19:10:00.000-05:00

“What I’m saying, there’s four ways to influence a president. And one of them’s impeachment,” Murtha, chairman of the House Appropriations defense subcommittee, said on CBS’ “Face the Nation.”

Rep. Murtha sees impeachment as a way to "influence a president."

Similarly, filing foundless charges against the owner of a porn shop is a way to drive him out of town. Likewise, the best way to shut down a nuisance bar is to stage an underage alcohol buy and the best way to disuade kids from smoking is to covertly introduce PCP into the filler tobacco.

Look guys... the Dems were put into power to END THIS KIND OF SENSELESS crap!!!

We held ourselves up as the party of right, the party that would not be corrupted by power, that would obey the law and not make a spectacle of political process. If our party leaders have something, USE IT; not to "influence" him, but to remove him. This is the ONLY legitimate use of the power.

If we don't have anything to remove him, than make sure you don't over-reach.

This comes back, of course, to a basic rule of law... the public is not as gullible as we think and, when they see through our charade, they hate us for our trying to dupe them. This is true for litigators and for legislators.

Murtha... you and the other loudmouths should stop fishing for trouble. There is more than enough to do without manufacturing work.

DC voting rights and standing

2007-04-21T09:03:00.000-05:00

The House has voted to give DC full voting rights in Congress. The bill has moved to the Senate, where passage is somewhat in doubt. And if the Senate does pass the bill, I'm not sure whether the President will sign it.

Let's just assume that this passes and is signed by President Bush. What would be the route to question the bill's constitutionality? Putting aside the question of whether this is constitutional, who would have standing to even bring a suit before the Court?

The only way I could imagine that this would be challenged is by a citizen claiming that his representation has been diluted by DC's Congressional representative (I'm not sure that Utah's additional rep - granted as a compromise - would be included in the same case). Sure it's a flimsy argument, but I don't see how any other party could gain standing to sue.

Any other ideas?

Here We Go Again

2007-04-19T11:36:00.000-05:00

As the "blame the guns" game sadly begins following the tragedy at Virginia Tech, I again am amazed at just how inconsistent these types can be.

Officers believe he repeatedly watched "Oldboy" as part of his preparation for the killing spree. The film, which won the Grand Prix award at the 2004 Cannes film festival, has been described as "an ultra-violent movie of obsession and revenge". It contains stylised scenes of killings and an attempted suicide, and is filled with what one critic called "punishing emotional violence".

Hmmmm. If we're blaming the guns, how about blaming the movies when the killer left behind overwhelming evidence of his inspiration? If guns can kill people all by themselves, perhaps we should start to ask more seriously if violent movies and music actually cause death too? Therefore an attack on the 1st amendment would be just as warranted as an attack on the 2nd amendment.

But you won't hear that message from Hollywood or most liberal anti-gun crusaders. Hollywood consistently asks for the American people's money while offering a message of "do as I say, not as I do." As the entertainment industry generally opposes gun rights for ordinary people, they are surrounded by bodyguards licensed to carry heat. And then they consistently use guns and violence as a theme for their music, tv, and movies.

Yet you'll never hear the suggestion from them of chipping away at the 1st amendment or that its freedoms were meant for a different time and place. So let's be consistent. If you really want to tear up the Bill of Rights and re-write a constitution in the name of oppresive security, then let's do it. Afterall, many fallen socialist governments have left behind great examples for us to follow. But if not, let us defend ALL of our freedoms even at a time like this when it isn't fashionable or fun.

Hell Freezeth Over

2007-04-05T16:43:00.000-05:00

And I'm not referring to the 1 foot of April snow currently falling in the Northeast either!

Former House Speaker and possible presidential candidate Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) and 2004 Democratic nominee Sen. John Kerry (Mass.) are set to square off on climate change next week, their staffs announced Thursday.

I'm undecided on global warming. As a fisherman, an environmentalist, and a Florida resident, the issue of rising sea levels and rising sea temperatures greatly affects my family's future. However, I'm also not prepared to abandon America's ability to compete fairly in the global trade wars by blaming everything on our big business. We need them too.

I often don't know what to think. So I think debates such as these are great ideas. If such open debate is actually allowed to flourish with the participation of leading politicians (if not thinkers), I do think a consensus will emerge over time. And we desperately need that in this and other areas. Kudos to Gingrich and Kerry. I'll be watching. Now if only Cheney would agree to a debate with Murtha!

McCain and Iraq

2007-04-05T16:29:00.000-05:00

A quick note on John McCain who so far is being out-fundraised by both Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani. I continue to like McCain for several non-Iraq reasons such as his outsider tendencies and his military background. Yet, increasingly I become convinced that his Iraqi policies may indeed doom his chances of becoming president.

To McCain's credit, he consistently supported a larger and stronger American show of force in Iraq when it was desperately needed back in 2003-2005 -- while the current administration believed a smaller and sleeker military would work better. McCain was correct.

But now McCain is making the Bush-esque mistake of viewing Iraq with rose colored glasses. After a recent trip to Baghdad, McCain reported things were much better than expected and that the media was actually at fault for under-reporting the progress being made.

Perhaps. But the actual correspondents on the ground have now fired back. And it should be noted they do so without the the benefit of McCain's military-enforced around-the-clock security detail.

CBS News' Allen Pizzey: "Now, McCain and some other senators were there on Sunday, and they claimed, "Oh, we walked around for a whole hour…and we drove in from the airport. Gosh, aren't we great, we drove in from the airport." Excuse me, Mr. McCain, you drove in in a large convoy of heavily armed vehicles. The last one had a sign on it saying "Keep back 100 yards. Deadly force authorized." Every single car that they approached or passed pulled over and stopped, because that's the way it is. When one of those security details goes by, every ordinary person gets the hell out of the way, in case they get shot.

Candidate Mike Gravel

2007-03-24T01:50:00.000-05:00

Over the years, I've always been fascinated by obscure and outsider presidential contenders like Lyndon LaRouche, John Anderson, Ross Perot, Ralph Nader, Pat Buchanan, Al Sharpton, Gus Hall, etc. Fundamentally, I just dig the idea that literally anybody meeting basic eligibility requirements can run for the highest office in our land. That's America at its best, even if it must take shape in such a dubious group as listed above.

Anyway, the current top contender to merit addition to this list is former Senator Mike Gravel (D-AK, of all places) who is actually seeking the Democratic nomination for president. There are so many facets of this guy's campaign that interest me. Firtsly, he's got no chance.....so right away you know the guy is likely to actually be interesting! Secondly, the dude's nearly 77 years old and has been out of politics since 1980! Winning the presidency in 2008 sure would be a good way to break a 30 year slump. In fact, how about this winning quote on his post-Senate life:

"I had lost my career. I lost my marriage. I was in the doldrums for ten years after my defeat."

Sounds about right to score that sympathy vote to me. Perhaps he is the only man who can bring peace to the Middle East and maybe a World Series title to the Chicago Cubs too? However, with all due respect, Mike Gravel's actually had a very interesting life. His Senate career saw him introduce noteworthy legislation concerning matters such as the building of the Alaskan Pipeline, ending the military draft, and normalizing relations with China. Who woulda thunk? Furthermore, Gravel was active in the Senate investigation into Watergate and he even mounted an old-fashioned/inside-the-convention-type campaign for vice-president in 1972! Nice.

After 12 years in the Senate, Gravel lost the Democratic primary to keep his seat in 1980. Then, with what must have been a fine example of party loyalty and losing with class, he attributed his defeat to Jerry Falwell of all people! Yes, I'm sure Rev. Falwell of the Deep South has enjoyed considerable influence on the politcs of the Democratic party of Alaska over the years indeed!

After a miraculous recovery from his decade-long doldrums, Gravel became a land developer in Alaska and even set up a "foundation" to advocate the use voter initiatives. Support for the latter cause likely brought him some allies he didn't want and the Senator has had to publically distance himself from ties to Holocaust deniers of all things!

You see what I mean about Gravel's rightful place on the list? So move over Eugene V. Debs. Bull Moosers and Libertarians -- we're gonna need your support here. Let's give the old guy a hand, a cane, and a Howard Dean scream as well. Yes, you too can be president, Mike Gravel!

Next time we'll look at another loser candidate who wants your vote, Chicago radio talk show host Republican John Cox.

Letter Time

2007-03-24T01:30:00.000-05:00

Due to my "liberal" stance on the Iraq War, I've been told that I'm no longer a Republican. Fair enough. However, by that same measure, the very conservative North Carolina Republican Congressman Walter Jones (lifetime rating of 93% from the American Conservative Union) must sadly be shown the door as well. Jones was one of only two congressional Republicans to vote in favor of the Friday's House spending bill containing a provision for withdrawal of the troops from Iraq. Of course, I couldn't resist showing my appreciation. Welcome to our lonely club, Walt!

Dear Representative Jones,

Thank you for your gutsy vote today in favor of the House spending bill containing a deadline for troop withdrawl from Iraq. Like you, I'm a conservative who originally supported intervention in Iraq but has since come to see it as a grave mistake. The weakening of our influence, massive spending, inaccurate intelligence, wartime mismanagement and, most especially, the mounting losses of American lives are all tragedies.

I applaud you for standing up to do something about it. I continue to be saddened how our Republican Party has ignored the lessons of the 2006 elections. I fear Iraq will keep us out of power long after President Bush has left office. And the real shame is that other winning causes that we support such as fairer taxes, reduced government spending, a strong military, and Christian values will suffer.

So thanks again for your leadership. Though I come from Florida, you have certainly become my favorite representative of the moment. I shall look forward to returning to the beautiful Outer Banks which I first visited a few years ago and I now see is a part of your district! God bless.

Sincerely,

Jeff Briscoe

Enforcing Congressional Subpoenas and Contempt of Congress

2007-03-21T13:40:00.000-05:00

There seems to be a lot of confusion about this around the blogosphere today. Here's my take:

For what it's worth there are three ways that Congress can enforce its subpoenas. I'll start with the two statutory methods.

The first, and arguably weakest, is via "civil contempt," which only applies to the Senate, and specifically excludes use against Executive Branch officials. See 2 USC 288d (2000). This may, however, be used against Ms. Miers as she is no longer an executive branch employee, but a private citizen. There is precedent for this as back during Whitewater, the Senate used civil contempt to compel the disclosure of notes taken during a White House meeting involving then-counsel William Kennedy.

The second statutory method is the"contempt of Congress" statute, 2 USC 192, 194, which authorizes the US Attorney for DC to submit to a grand jury for indictment any person found by the Congress to be in contempt. This statute was passed in 1857, but has only been used once against an executive branch official. That was in 1982-83 against EPA Administrator Anne Burford. In that case, the DOJ argued that since prosecution was solely within the discretion of the executive branch the statue is unconstitutional and they didn't have to submit anything to the grand jury. They sued to obtain an injunction, however, the DC district court dismissed the case and it was never appealed. See United States v. House of Representatives, 556 F.Supp. 150 (D.D.C. 1983). This issue has never been settled. Ultimately in the Burford scenario, Fred Fielding, then WH Counsel for Reagan negotiated a settlement that involved the disclosure of ALL of the documents that Congress wanted from EPA, despite the fact that Pres. Reagan had claimed "executive privilege."

Finally, there is a procedure known as "inherent contempt," which involves an arrest by the Sargent-At-Arms (or the Capitol Police I suppose), trial at the bar of either the House or Senate, and a full vote of the offended body to convict. Either house of Congress may use the procedure independent of the other's consent, and both have done so previously. The history of inherent contempt dates back to 1793, and its use has been affirmed by the Supreme Court several times. See e.g., Anderson v. Dunn, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat.) 204 (1821); see also McGrain v. Daugherty, 273 U.S. 135 (1927). The procedure hasn't been used since 1935, however, as Congress has preferred to use 2 USC 192, 194 instead.

In the end, enforcement of subpoenas is a matter of political will. If Congress has it, they should prevail, if they don't some other accommodation will be reached.

A Few Things to Keep in Mind About “Fire-gate” or “Dismissal-gate”

2007-03-21T09:35:00.000-05:00

Apropos of my last posting, the President has launched a full throated defense of his people and has dispatched White House Counsel Fred Fielding to negotiate with the House and Senate over when, how, and even if, the aides to the President will testify or talk at all to Congress about their roles in the firing of 8 United States Attorneys. With my previous post on the legalities in mind, there are a lot of things that are going to be said in the next few days, and I want to try to set some of the rhetoric aside and deal with the precedent and history behind these types of “constitutional” controversies.

The first thing to do, if one really wants to understand what’s going on here, is put the partisan bickering aside. Yes, this is all political, but, in my opinion, it’s not partisan political, it’s institutional political – at least when we are talking about separation of powers related issues – there’s a difference. So, do me a favor when reading my post, forget that this is a GOP Bush White House v. a Democratic controlled Congress, and, if it helps pretend the shoe is on the other foot (which it was during Whitewater when similar issues were raised). This is about the powers of the President versus the power of Congress. Politics abound, but in a different way.

Second, let’s look to the text of the Constitution itself. What does it say about this particular “constitutional conflict?” Answer: ABSOLUTLY NOTHING. Essentially, the arguments break down like this: For the President, the issue is the sanctity of the White House, and a President’s ability to receive unfettered advice from his most senior and trusted advisors. The fear that everything uttered in the Oval Office being made the subject of a public Congressional hearing is a serious threat to how the Executive Branch functions. Remember, however, that the Constitution doesn’t actually textually provide for an “executive privilege,” but a qualified privilege does exist via the courts See, e.g., United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974); In re Sealed Case, 121 F.3d 729 (D.C. Cir. 1997); Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Department of Justice, 365 F.3d 1108 (D.C. Cir. 2004). For Congress, the issue is its ability to garner and receive the information that it needs from the rest of the government to properly legislate and exercise its significant constitutional responsibilities, which are textually committed to it by Article I, sec.8. To regulate any area, and/or to exercise its “power of the purse,” Congress needs information, and must be able to receive what it needs from whatever the source. Unlike the President and the Courts, Congress does have a “legislative privilege” Constitutionally committed to it by the text. It’s called the Speech or Debate Clause, Art. 1, sec. 6, cl. 1, and it has been interpreted by the Supreme Court and lower federal courts as permitting the Congress to conduct wide-ranging inquires and investigations, as well as issue subpoenas and other compulsory process without interference from the other branches of government. See, e.g., McGrain v. Daugherty, 273 U.S. 135, 177-78 (1927); Watkins v. United States, 354 U.S. 178 (1957); Eastland v. United States Servicemen’s Fund, 421 U.S. 491 (1975).

Given there are two equally strong, arguably constitutionally based privileges at stake here, the natural inclination of people is going to be to look to the Courts to resolve the conflict. This would be wrong. As I (and Paul) have suggested numerous times, the Court’s are not the final arbiter of constitutional interpretation. More to the point, the Courts have been loathe to interfere in congressional executive disputes of this type. There are actually two very good, relatively recent examples of the courts doing precisely this. The first occurred in the late 1970s when the Congress was investigating the first executive use of “warrantless wiretaps” that would eventually lead to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act that is the subject of many controversies today. Then, as now, the Congress wanted information from the FBI and the telephone companies, specifically AT&T, about what information the FBI was seeking and why. Eventually AT&T was subpoenaed, and the Justice Department sought an injunction in federal court preventing their compliance. The DC Circuit never actually decided any the constitutional issues presented on their merits. Rather, they elected to require the parties to negotiate and ultimately placed the district court in an arbiters like position to settle minor disputes with respect to specific documents. See United States v. AT&T, 551 F.2d 384, 385 (D.C. Cir. 1976) [AT&T I]; United States v. AT&T, 567 F.2d 121, 124-25 (D.C. Cir. 1977) [AT&T II]. More recently, in 1983, when the Congress issued an “contempt of Congress citation,” pursuant to 2 USC 192, against EPA Administrator Anne Burford for failure to comply with a subpoena for open case files related to enforcement of the “Superfund” laws. The President claimed executive privilege over the documents, and the Justice Department attempted to get a court to enjoin and dismiss the congressional contempt. The district court immediately dismissed the suit, essentially on political question grounds. United States v. House of Representatives, 556 F.Supp. 150 (D.D.C. 1983). A settlement to the dispute was ultimately reached with the President turning over all of the requested documents to the Congress. I could continue on about contempt, but needless to say the Courts don’t have to be involved there either. Congress has prosecuted people for contempt before, and the Supreme Court has upheld it, see Anderson v. Dunn, 19 U.S. 204 (1821), but has not done so since 1935, preferring instead to use the criminal statute noted above.

As I said, this is a political dispute, yes, but it is not a partisan one. Depending on your opinion about the institutional issues involved, there may be a reason to take one side or the other here. Bottom line is that this type of thing isn’t new by any stretch. I could cite plenty more examples, except that almost all of them favor Congress here. People don’t like secrets, especially after so much mishandling by the AG’s office. As I said before, the White House and the DOJ haven’t done anything illegal or unconstitutional here, but the perception is terrible and the Congress appears determined to find out what happened. Is there an element of show trial and witch hunting involved, yes, without a doubt. But there is a point to it as well. Congress has lost, mostly through acquiescence, many of its prerogatives in the last 6 years. Yes, 9/11 changed things and strengthened the President tremendously, but the Constitution hasn’t changed, and this issue isn’t about 9/11. Congress still retains a tremendous amount of power here, and if it chooses to exercise it here, history and precedent is definitely on its side. The politics, pure politics, will determine the outcome here. Look for lots of partisan wrangling and rhetoric from all sides. Long story short: Put on your muckraking shoes, it’s going to get messy.

The Press, Congress, Laws, and the Constitution (Part I): “Purgegate” The US Attorney Debacle

2007-03-17T09:27:00.000-05:00

I have to apologize for my recent absence from posting. If you could see my desk at work you’d all understand. That said, there are a couple of issues I’ve been wanting to post about but haven’t found the time.

Before I delve into the details of my issues, first let me explain the theme and the title of the post. Paul over at the Cranky Conservative had an excellent post about the recent Washington Post editorial that, in a nutshell, suggests that the constitutionality of a law is not something that the Congress should be concerned with. Rather, according to the Post, that is something for the Courts to sort out; Congress should simply pass whatever it wants and let the rest be sorted out later. Wonderful. I concur with Paul; we now have a major American newspaper that is fundamentally misrepresenting to millions around the world how our government works. Terrific. The Post is perpetrating a myth, albeit a widely held myth, but that does not change anything. However, the errors about legal issues in reporting go far further than one editorial. In fact, they have recently been permeating reporting about all sorts of issues, be it the potential pardon of Scooter Libby, or the US Attorney debacle, which I will discuss below. Basically, we have developed a wide spread public belief that the Courts are the be all and end all when it comes to matters of law and the Constitution. Just like the public, by and large, harbors a mistaken belief that the President is the most powerful Constitutional actor. Both are horribly wrong, and lead to all sorts of errors both in the way we evaluate current events and shape the debate about what should be done. It is my opinion that while the “should the government do X” question is by far the most interesting and complex question our political discourse faces, it is impossible to answer if the general public doesn’t understand basic principles like how the government works, or what the various officials within the government (both elected and appointed) are empowered to do.

Let me start with the US Attorney’s issue. First, lets clear up a couple of things. One, the President can fire a US Attorney anytime for any reason. Period. Of this there should be no debate. The power to appoint inferior officers of the United States, which ALL US Attorneys are, is specifically vested by Article II to the President. The appointments are subject to advice and consent of the Senate, but the appointment power is exclusive to the President. It is also well settled, that the corollary power -- the power to remove an inferior officer of the United States -- is also exclusively the President’s. Now, there have been some debate as to whether Congress can, by establishing terms of office, and other so-called “for cause” removal protections by statute -- the statutes creating the FBI Director, Fed Chairman, and Administrator of Social Security are good examples -- limit the President’s ability to remove, but that doesn’t apply to US Attorneys who have no such statutory protection. All this is by way of saying that by asking the 7 US Attorneys to resign, the President/Attorney General did not do anything legally or constitutionally improper. The President could have fired any of them at any time for any reason, ranging from they got a bad haircut, to egad, even political reasons. So why then, you ask, has this been such a big deal?

Well, in part because the press has screwed it up, in part, because the AG’s office has screwed it up, and in part because Congress smells blood in the water. This thing isn’t about removal of 7 US Attorneys, although that makes an interesting story; it’s about how their replacements are appointed. This is the crux of the issue that has been sorely missed by almost everyone. To begin with, one has to understand the laws. There is a statute that governs the appointment of interim US Attorneys, it is found at 28 USC 546. Basically, what that statute said, up until last year, was that the AG could appoint an interim US Attorney for up to120 days or until the President’s appointment is confirmed by the Senate. If the position remains vacant past the 120 days, the statue required the District Court to appoint a temporary US Attorney until the Senate confirmed one. Not so hard to understand right? Well, Presidents have never really liked this statute, but they’ve lived with it (sort of) since its adoption in 1966. This Administration, however, convinced the Congress during re-authorization of the USA PATRIOT Act to change 546. The major change they got was the elimination of the court appointment. Now, under 546 the AG can appoint a temporary US Attorney indefinitely or until the Senate confirms a replacement. Fine, whatever, except, I’m willing to be that this is probably the first many of you are hearing about it. Why, because this stuff, the important, critical details, don’t get reported or talked about. Not as sexy as a bunch of lawyers who serve at the pleasure of the President getting fired for “political reasons.”

But wait, there’s more, and better too. You see section 546 is not the only way to appoint a temporary US Attorney, at least not according to this Administration. Long before this little hubbub, in 2003, they published a little read opinion that suggested that they could use the “Vacancies Reform Act of 1995” to fill vacant US Attorney positions, despite the express provision in Title 28. Now, this statute allows for the temporary appointment of officers of the United States for up to 210 days. Still better, the Administration suggested they could use the two statutes in tandem. In other words, they were using 546 to fill vacancies for say 100 days, then, realizing the Senate wasn’t going act before the expiration of the 120 days, they would use the Vacancies Act to leave that person in place for another 210 days, for a grand total of up to 330 days, or almost a year, all without Senate confirmation. Creative, right; sure, maybe, but a total end-run around the Senate and a total butchering of the statutes. This specific bit of mis-administration occurred after a fiasco involving the US Attorney for the District of South Dakota, a story that I’ve only seen recounted in one place, the National Law Journal. Basically what happened, according to the folks at the National Law Journal, was that when the South Dakota position became vacant, the AG appointed the temporary US Attorney under 546, but the Senate, as it is want to do, didn’t act before the 120 day time limit expired. So the AG went to the District Court, per 546, and asked that Mr. X be appointed temporarily, pending, of course, a confirmed US Attorney. (This, in fairness, was a common procedure. The AG would recommend a temporary appointment and usually would get the person they requested, but that isn't what the statute actually requires.) The Court didn’t like Mr. X and, instead, as it had the power to do under the statute, appointed Mr. Y, the former AG for South Dakota as the temporary US Attorney. Needless to say this didn’t make the AG happy, so they fired Mr. Y (because they could, the court had the power to appoint, but not to protect or remove), and went to, get this, the District Court for the District of NEBRASKA, to get Mr. X appointed as the temporary US Attorney for SOUTH DAKOTA. After that, the creative interpretation discussed above was born. Classic. Not reported anywhere, however, nor discussed at any of the hearings or press conferences that we’ve all seen and read about over the last few days. Why? I wish I knew, because I think regardless of what your political affiliation is this kind of stuff ought to bother one as a citizen.

Okay, you’re outraged, but still partisan, so you reply, like the White House and other pundits, that President Clinton fired all 93 US Attorneys in 1993 when he took office and no one in Congress blinked, how is this different? If I have to explain this then it’s hopeless, which I suppose why that red herring makes for good press fodder and rhetoric. Again Presidents can fire US Attorneys for ANY reason. Clinton cleaned house, not surprising after 12 years of GOP US Attorneys. But 1993 isn’t the relevant period to look at. Rather, 1997, after Clinton’s reelection in 1996, is the comparative period. Bush did the same thing in 2001 when he took office, as he should have after 8 years of Dem US Attorneys. But what Bush’s folks did that Clinton’s didn’t was that he allowed these people to be held over beyond his first 4 years in office. Then he asked them to resign, two years into his second term. Had he done this very same thing right after his reelection, as apparently was suggested, as Nixon did with his cabinet in 1972, there probably wouldn’t have been a big deal made at all. Terminating these positions mid-way through an Administration is different than a wholesale house cleaning at the start of a new Administration, especially after a change in parties. US Attorney positions are essentially patronage positions. High profile, important patronage positions, but all the same, they go to the Administration’s friends, not their enemies. All this obscures the issue, its not the firings that are the problem, though they look bad, it’s the reappointments that should bother the Congress, especially the Senate, who got snookered but good into relinquishing its advice and consent power over US Attorneys.

I’ll do part II, the Voting Rights Act for DC, later, maybe tomorrow.

Should I Stay or Should I Go?

2007-03-15T08:20:00.000-05:00

Setting aside a discussion on the merits of the idea (because from what I've heard so far I personally think it's much ado about nothing), what are the chances Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez survives the latest scandal concerning the 8 fired US Attorneys? Most commentators I've encountered say Bush will not fire him, but there's a chance he would resign for the health of the presidency.

My gut tells me the Bush presidency is too weak for Gonzalez to tough it out successfully. I think Bush hinted at this himself when noting yesterday how he had to respond to questions about the issue at a press conference in Mexico alongside President Calderon when plenty of otherwise relevant and on-point topics were available for discussion in such a newsworthy setting.

We shall see. I would note the irony that the scandal's hottest link to the White House appears to be the already-infamous Harriet Miers!

BIG DADDY's PRESIDENTIAL ODDS, Vol. 2

2007-03-08T10:46:00.000-05:00

Here's my second installment of this series looking at the frontrunners for their party's presidential nominations. Most of the names are the same but I've adjusted the odds a bit.

THE DEMS: "A Top Heavy Field -- No Pun Intended, Ms. Clinton"

Hillary Clinton: 3-1 (Much has changed in the past 6 weeks since I last posted. The Clintons are scrambling to deal with an effective challenge from the left by Obama. But they are old pros and it'd be a mistake to count them out. She's still the favorite, but also is her own worst enemy.)

Barack Obama: 6-1 (Running a very solid campaign so far. Stealing a good amount of traditional Democratic money away from Hillary, while clinging to the (mis)perception of being an outsider. I still think he ends up as the veep choice, but he's definitely got a shot.)

John Edwards: 10-1 (Getting drowned in the wake of the Clinton/Obama duel. But I think he remains in the mix. His best bet is to do plenty of old-fashioned grunt work by pounding the flesh and kissing babies. I'm not sure it'll work beyond Iowa and New Hampshire anymore, but since Clinton and Obama will be tied up in Washington for much of the year, it's his best chance.)

Al Gore: 25-1 (Of all things, the Oscars made him relevant again. But the momentum is slowly dying and it looks like Gore will stick to making movies and running up the electric bills!)

Bill Richardson: 100-1 (Not getting much press. And at this point it's hard for a sitting governor from New Mexico to do much decent campaigning in New Hampshire.)

Joe Biden: 250-1 (Only a big implosion at the top of the field and a bigger explosion in Iraq gives him a chance.)

Dennis Kucinich: 500-1 (Anyone know when the last time a sitting member of the House of Representatives was elected president? I don't but it makes a good trivia question, assuming it has even previosly happened. That said, this lefty won't be breaking the trend.)

Out: Tom Vilsack.

THE GOP: "Parity Is Not Necessarily A Good Thing"

John McCain: 4-1 (In terms of losing his status as media darling, Iraq is hurting him almost as much as it has Bush. But I still think the primogeniture theory will work for this former GOP star. The Straight-Talk Express of 2000 has derailed, but this time he'll have much of the party machinery and establishment behind him. That helps, even for an old campaign reformer!)

Rudy Giuliani: 5-1 (Barring any drastic changes, it looks like I was wrong about Rudy not running. He sure is acting like it and appears confident he can overcome many self-inflicted obstacles such as his social liberalism and family turmoil. Look for him to lead the pack for the near future. However, I think this campaign may peak too early a la Dean in 2004.)

Mitt Romney: 10-1 (Did well at the recent CPAC conference in that he delivered a good speech and packed the crowd with supporters. He'll have a tough time explaining how he ran to the left of Teddy Kennedy back in 1994 but his good personality does give him a fighting chance.)

Newt Gingrich: 20-1 (Still don't see him running. With 23 potential primaries on a new Super Tuesday in early February 2008, you can't get into the race as late as Fall 2007 which Newt has hinted at. He'll keep the possibility alive because the GOP field is weak and it helps sell books.)

Sam Brownback: 30-1 (Just not generating much momentum yet. I'd love to see him grab headlines by directly challenging new-frontrunner Giuliani on social issues. He's got the credibility with the base to do it; let's see if he has the backbone or the charisma.)

Mike Huckabee: 75-1 (Ditto above.)

Tom Tancredo: 100-1 (Dropped Gilmore from my top 7 since he's gotten no press. Tancredo has a loyal fanbase and will continue to stay relevant with his tough stance on illegal immigration.)

Out: George Pataki.

One of the many ways the rich stay rich

2007-02-27T08:37:00.000-05:00

The Washington Post has discovered that Sen. Clinton failed to list her family charity and her position within that organization on her disclosure forms. Her staff asserts that this is an error. I can't think of any reason to have withheld this information this year after having reported it in previous years. Since the existence of their charity is not in doubt, I am willing to take her at her word.

What interests me is the Washington Post's reporting of the monies involved.

Assuming the numbers to be correct; that the Clintons were able to write off 5 million of their taxes due to their charitable donation of 1.5 million, something seems askew in the tax code. It must be more complicated than this, right?

My wife and I gave approximately 6% of our income in charitable donations last year- considerably less than those who tithe the standard 10%. Frankly, our giving is unrelated to any tax benefits that it might accrue. It is an afterthought- sort of a "oh yeah, we can write that off too."

It is "well known sonny Jim" (5 points to the person who can correctly identify the movie on the basis of this phrase alone and the Cranky Prof can't play) that the rich don't see charitable donations the same way as the rest of us.

There is undoubtedly a State interest in encouraging charitable giving and tax write-offs are an effective tool to further this policy objective. But, does the society lose the benefit of that charity by receiving less than was donated?

Take the Clinton's example (again, assuming that the Post has it right). It is clearly a benefit to society for 1.5 million to make its way into funds that provide for the alleviation of poverty, injustice, and misery. But, these are also legitimate roles of government and ones that consume significant tax dollars. If the larger society lost 3.5 million in the bargain, of what benefit is this to us?

I am not advocating for the end of the charitable gift write-off. Again, this is a smart way to further the public policy of encouraging charitable giving. However, if the Clinton example is merely one of many, then we may be robbing Peter to pay Paul and may be far poorer for the experience.

News Flash!!! Christianity is a Hoax!!!

2007-02-25T10:43:00.000-05:00

James Cameron of "Titanic" fame has produced a new special "The Jesus Family Tomb" in which he details "proof" that Jesus Christ was buried with Mary Magdalene and his son Judah. The Discover Channel and the History Channel have agreed to air the piece.

I will refrain from delving deeply into the religious perspective on this since it should be obvious that those who hate Christians, or merely think us daft and gullible, will be elated while persons of faith that respect the religious beliefs of their fellow human beings will be dismayed with another, tedious, assault on the broader concepts of faith. I will say this though... early Christians were murdered because the societies around them bought into speculative and bigoted rumors about their faith. Persecution built up the Church then and the persecution of the Modern age will do the same.

Bring it on Mr. Cameron... Your denial of our faith only firms up the Truth.

Of greater interest to me is America's reaction to this attack on the basic tenet of the Christian faith; that of the Resurrection.

There will no doubt be a vocal cry from Christians of every denomination against Cameron, those who bankrolled him, and those stations that air the episode; and rightfully so. Where others go out of their way to offend and cause injury to one's culture and faith, it is right and proper to raise one's voice. As a Christian it is even more critical because we are supposed to proclaim the Word, particularly before those who do not believe.

However, no boycott, the only useful mechanism for the influencing of corporate America, is likely get much traction and I would not expect any meaningful demonstrations against our persecutors.

American media outlets are quite shy of assault on faiths other than Christianity.

I think of this as a "natural" consequence of "majority status." We see something similar with the general acceptance of bigoted race, gender, and culture representations in the media of the "majority." The media's participation in an unrelenting assault on the the predominant religion, race, and culture of a America is tied, in part, to the perception that no great harm is visited upon us by such attacks.

It may be true that no articulable injury is done by such attacks.

Though I have had to endure endless articles designed to damage my faith in the Roman Catholic Church, had to self-censor the shows that I watch so as not to have my blood reach a boiling point, and have had to be selective in what my children view, there has been little impact on my economic or social situation by the bigoted attacks of a militantly secular society. At least for now, those who openly seek harm to those of faith are in the minority and their attacks have not reached me.

However, a local child was told that he could not wear a costume of Jesus to his school's Halloween pageant because the principle believes that the Constitution forbids the mingling of the State and religion. (Her words, not mine.) The boy was allowed to take part only after he took off his crown of thorns and agreed to change his entry to that of a "Roman." The boy's mother was angry enough to file suit.

Then there was the presentation at my local elementary school that included a Christmas Tree with a Menorah, and red Crescent cutouts to adorn the tree. I suppose that Christianity was demonstrated by the tree itself?

Of course, as a Pennsylvanian, I cannot ignore the change in PA law that extends the statute of limitations for sex crimes, specifically to open the door to more false accusations against Catholic religious. (It will be interesting to see whether volunteers for children and teen programs dwindles on account of a statute of limitations that could have one defending one's actions thirty years from now for perceived injuries today.)

There are lots of other examples, but I find it interesting that the majority status inoculates one to injury and bars protection. I wonder if this will continue when my race and faith are minorities.

The Bank of Mexico

2007-02-24T13:32:00.002-05:00

Thought I'd pass along this campaign email from Congressman Tom Tacredo. He's an outsider running for President as a Republican on the issue of illegal immigration and border security. The Bank of America move outrages me and I think Tancredo sums up the issue well. I look forward to seeing him stir up the forthcoming GOP debates.

Dear Friend of This Campaign,

I feel outraged! The Bank of America scandal has given me one more reason I must run for President.

The Bank of America admitted last week that it has begun issuing credit cards to Illegal Aliens. I plan to stop them!

Bank of America has admitted it has changed its ID requirements for credit cards so that Illegal Aliens can qualify. The bank's motive is higher profits.

Yet if an ordinary Illegal Alien can get a credit card, couldn't a clever terrorist? Or just about anybody in the U.S. illegally with something to hide?

Our whole national security system is thrown overboard when drug dealers, human smugglers, and possibly even terrorists can gain access to the U.S. financial system. What was the Bank of America thinking?

And here's what really makes me angry. The other Republican candidates are being totally silent about this matter.

No protest from McCain. Silence from Giuliani. Nothing from Romney. I can't find any candidate who cares.

If you help get me elected President, I promise to clean up this Bank of America scandal. I will shut down credit cards to Illegal Aliens!

Open Thread: Iran

2007-02-16T11:24:00.000-05:00

Has TPS ever featured an "Open Thread" before? I dunno. Perhaps in the early/glory days. Anyway, I thought I'd try making this one to break the silence. But I'll gear it around a more specific question. What's going to happen with Iran? It looks like a nearly-nuclear Iran in 2007 is more of a threat to the United States, Israel, and the free world than Saddam Hussein's Iraq ever was. But is our credibility too damaged to lead another pre-emptive strike type war in the Middle East? I think the answer is yes and no. But my thoughts aren't as clear as I'd like them to be. Thoughts anyone?

Looking Back at Iraq

2007-02-10T12:25:00.000-05:00

Write me off as a peacenik all you want. But I have no doubt that the history books will tell this story accurately in time. And it boils down to this. For varying reasons, neo-conservative forces in the Bush admninistration wanted war with Iraq in the post 9/11 world. We can debate how nefarious these causes were, but there's no doubt that it was this cabal whose growing influence pushed a nation into war. A group led by life-long pals V.P. Dick Cheney and Sec of Def Don Rumsfeld convinced President Bush and, in turn, much of America and the free world that the case for war was strong.

A mere 4 years later, it turns out that their case was actually very weak from the beginning. That Iraq possessed WMDs? Wrong. That Iraq had a connection to terrorists like al-Quada that had attacked America before? Wrong. That a Saddam Hussein-led Iraq contributed to the instability of his nation and the Middle East? Apparently, even this is proven wrong as the vacuum of power left in Iraq makes the region more deadly everyday.

And this doesn't even concern the execution of the war and miscaluclations such as how we'd be greeted as liberators, how "shock and awe" would win the fight, how the insurrgency wasn't a factor to worry about, how 120,000 troops could pacify a bitter nation, how an Iraqi civil war wasn't likely, etc, etc.

We're not talking about a flawed, reversible government policy on the environment here. We're talking about mistakes that resulted in the largest conflict this nation has waged in 40 years. A war which has seen the killing of thousands and wounding tens of thousands of American troops. A war that has cost the US taxpayer $500 billion dollars and counting.

So while Iraq may have become an unpopular topic around here, this kind of stuff can never get old to me. Iraq may soon belong to the history books. But it is the next Iraq that scares me. And how such a mistaken cause for unnecessary war will make it all-the-more difficult for America and the world to identify future necessary causes for war. As if it wasn't hard enough already.

N.B. -- I have removed my original quoted references from a disputed story in the Washington Post on the Pentagon's pre-war case for a link between Saddam's Iraq and Al Queda. If the quotes are wrong then they have no place getting in the way of what I find an otherwise worthy debate. Thanks to longtime friend and recent sparring partner TSL for bringing this to my attention.

BTW, in my defense, this is my first Iraq post here in awhile. Iraq's always been my big politcal issue and I am always amazed more here don't obsess on it like me. Oh well. Anyway, I had a 45 minute phone call on Friday from a buddy of mine stationed in Samarra, Iraq. He was very insightful and I guess it got my juices flowing. While this guy is very proud of his service and ready to fight on orders, I can assure you that our military is growing frustrated over there. His basic point-of-view conveyed to me was that "these people over here have been fighting forever and there's not much we can do to stop them. But we sure are caught in the middle." Well put, I think, and I hate that our troops are in such a helpless spot. They deserve better.

It's Budget Time

2007-02-06T10:17:00.000-05:00

One of my favorite times of the year is upon us. The President has released his FY 2008 Budget Recommendations to Congress. Okay, so I admit I’m just a bit odd, but come on can’t you just feel the excitement? Well maybe not unless you’re an armchair economist, political junkie, or work for OMB, CBO, or the Budget Committees in Congress does this get your blood pumping, but it should. Why? Well, because other than elections, I can’t think of any other time when there is more inaccurate, misleading, politically spun, and horribly wrong prognostications and predictions about the future of the economy as a whole, economic growth specifically, tax policy, spending priorities, and everything else called for in a document that doesn’t actually mean anything. Remember the President doesn’t make the budget, Congress does. He only gets to “recommend” certain expenditures and allotments; Congress decides whether a President will actually realize his budget targets and goals.

Before I launch into yet another tirade about the division of power in our government, and how we and the press always gives the President way too much power and influence, let me say that everything you will hear, read, and see, from Congress, the President, Republicans, and Democrats, is a farce. Its been spun, rinsed, scrubbed, oversimplified, and spun again, all for your quick 30 second or less consumption on the evening news and in the newspapers. Bottom line, none of it is accurate. But don’t take my word for it, just read the fine print and understand a few simple things. First, remember, no one can predict the future. This is important because that is what all budget prognosticators try to do. Regardless of whom they work for or what their agenda is, they are all trying to sell you a view of the future from their particular point of view. Problem is, none of them know what the hell they are talking about. Oh sure, they are all very smart economists, accountants, political consultants and the like, but there is not a Nostradamus in the bunch; besides what was he for predictions, 1 for 10 million, or something like that. If there were, we’d have a lot rosier future I can tell you that.

Second, remember there are no rules governing the President/OMB in his budget recommendations, except the due date. There are, however, strict statutory guidelines for CBO, the Congressional Budget Office, to follow. This difference usually explains about 80-90% of the “gaps” between what the President predicts and what CBO “scores.” Sometimes, the President is closer to correct, other times its CBO that was “right,” neither is ever 100% accurate. The biggest difference, CBO is required to predict the future based on what the law actually is as of the date of its proposals. The President is allowed to use whatever means he wants, including assumptions about what the law is likely to be, or what he would like it to be in a given year. Tax policy is usually the place where this difference is starkest. For example, this year the President has predicted that in 5 years (2012) there will be a significant federal surplus, where as CBO has projected a substantial deficit, though not as large as current deficits. Why the difference? Well for one thing the President assumes that Congress will extend his tax cuts, currently set to expire in 2010. CBO is prohibited from using the same model by statute, because the law currently says no more cuts after 2010. Moreover, the President assumes a robust percentage of growth in GDP and, therefore, substantial increases in tax revenue. CBO can’t follow such predictions, as they are required to use model and averages based on actual happenings over the last few years. This prevents CBO from both being overly optimistic or overly pessimistic in its forecasting. This is not to say CBO’s methods are better or worse, just to point out that they are constrained, and for some very good reasons. CBO is supposed to be neutral and non-partisan, they are to be “objective” or as objective as possible. Congress needs untainted, unvarnished opinions and forecasts, and they are not going to get them from the President -- whether a Republican or a Democrat -- hence the cabining of CBO’s methods. Final point to remember. War costs have been primarily “off budget” menaing that the President has not been including them in recent submissions because they are considered emergency or supplemental spending. Word is that they have included some of the costs this time around, but not all of them. CBO includes all expenditures, emergency or otherwise, in its predictions, as required by statute. So they assume a higher amount of spending over the next 5 years than the President allows for.

Short story, CBO predicts higher spending and lower revenues than the President, hence CBO claims deficit where the President claims balanced budgets and surplus by 2012. Bottom line, they are both crap. Both methodologies are seriously flawed and neither is to be taken seriously. Will this happen? No, of course not, but every once and a while it would be nice to pull back the curtain and see that there really isn’t anyone pulling the strings who has a clue. Or maybe that’s just me.

How Was Your Holiday?

2007-02-05T14:57:00.001-05:00

'SUPER BOWL' SCORES 42.0 RATING/63 SHARE FOR CBS, IN OVERNIGHTS

So I guess we know what 63% of the country was doing last night. Is it just me or has the Super Bowl nearly-officially become America's 3rd most prominent holiday? The idea sounds un-American to give it priority over days like Memorial Day or Independence Day, but think about it. On what other days but for Thanksgiving and Christmas do so many people get together and celebrate a common occasion through food, drink, socializing, and partying?

I went to Winn-Dixie on Saturday night (merely for baby food, by the way) and the place was abuzz. I'm sure this experience could be seen in grocery stores throughout America as well. Again, save for the days before Thanksgiving and Christmas, are there really any other times where every line in the store is guaranteed to be open, crowded, and also full of beer, salsa, and chicken wings?

So let's give thanks for the Pilgrims who started this great nation. Let's praise the Lord for sending his son into this world to save us. But, most of all, let us be grateful for the gift of American football and pray for strength to endure the next 6 months without it!

A Look Ahead

2007-02-05T14:44:00.000-05:00

The above link will take you to an interesting story from Friday's Washingtonpost.com Politics Blog. The article offers a preliminary guess at the top ten most vulnerable House seats in the elections of 2008. Not surprisingly, 8 of the 10 are now held by newly-elected Democrats. So there may be some hope yet for Republicans if they can get their shit together on Iraq, immigration, and spending.

The Rise of the Democrats

2007-02-01T17:44:00.000-05:00

An interesting poll was released by Gallup earlier this week. It reveals just how much the Republican tide has seemingly now receeded. Is it merely a temporary end? Perhaps. Only time and the election of 2008 will tell. But I was genuinely surprised to see that, according to the poll, Republicans now outnumber Democrats in only 6 (mostly small) states -- TX, UT, SC, NE, WY, ID. Even Georgia is now labeled as "comparable" which means it may be in play for 2008, but I doubt it.

I realize that not everyone around here defers to poll results as much as I do. And I get that. But I would note that these polls were dead-on accurate as recently as the election of 2006. On the other hand, Karl Rove's self-proclaimed "own math" hasn't been seen lately, even at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue!

Anyway, here's the story. The link is above.

An average of all national Gallup polling in 2006, consisting of interviews with more than 30,000 adult Americans, finds 34% of Americans identifying as Democrats, 30% as Republicans, and 34% as independents. The parties had been relatively even in terms of national strength since 2001. The most recent figures represent the largest Democratic advantage since the Clinton presidency.

The increasing Democratic advantage is mainly due to declining Republican identification, rather than increasing Democratic identification. From 2004-2006, Republican identification declined from 34% to 30%, while Democratic identification increased by less than a percentage point (33.6% to 34.3%). During the last three years, the percentage of Americans identifying as independents increased from 31% to 34%.

The Democrats' advantage expands when taking into account the "leanings" of independents. In 2006, 50% of Americans identified as Democrats or were independents who said they leaned toward the Democratic Party. 40% identified as Republicans or leaned to the Republican Party. That 10-point advantage more than doubled the Democrats' 4-point advantage in 2005, and is the largest gap Gallup has measured in any year for either party since it regularly began tracking leaned party identification in 1991. This is the first time since 1991 that a party's support reached the 50% level.

BIG DADDY's PRESIDENTIAL ODDS, Vol. 1

2007-01-30T23:53:00.000-05:00

I plan on making this a semi-regular feature here at TPS. Maybe it'll get some decent convo going. Yes, I'm lifting the idea from Time Magazine. But since Time chose me (and you out there too!) as its 2006 "Person of the Year" for my contributions to the internet, I figured they won't mind.

For now, we'll look at the top 7 contenders for each party's nomination. The corresponding odds I assign will refer only to each candidate's current potential for winning the nomination. We all know that the general election will encompass much broader forces, so we'll save for a later day.

Pick your horse and bring on the disagreement!

THE DEMS: "A Top Heavy Field -- Trust Me, No Pun Intended, Ms. Clinton"

Hillary: 2-1 (Big time frontrunner here; I've believed that for years; she may end up raising more money than all other Democratic candidates combined; it's Hillary's race to lose both in the primary and the general; but that's still very possible; she's not the speaker, nor the campaigner, nor the politician that her husband was; capable of derailing her chances by f-ing up via foot-in-mouth disease)

John Edwards: 5-1 (Will become the standard bearer for the traditional FDR/LBJ Democratic interests; indicated as much by declaring his candidacy in New Orleans and it works well with his "Two Americas" theme; great speaker, he looks good, wife is a breast cancer survivor; last 3 Democratic presidents all came from the working poor the South like Edwards)

Barack Obama: 10-1 (Consensus is that he can't win, he's merely a media creation; well, I think he knows that and he also realizes that there's not a damn thing wrong with it in modern politics; the guy is running for a place on the ticket as vice-president; if he can show like-ability, strong oratory, and a positive personal background during a solid primary campaign, Hillary or Edwards will have no choice but to give the veep spot to him)

Al Gore: 15-1 (following the 2000 election, Gore only runs if he can win; in the current politcal climate, he cannot; but there's enough time for the unknown still to happen; so he sits back and waits to see if Hillary screws up; then he answers the call of his party if it comes)

Bill Richardson: 100-1 (Former Congressman, Secretary of Energy, US Representative to the United Nations, and the current Governor of New Mexico; by far the most qualified candidate on either side; too bad that's never determined our presidential elections!)

Joe Biden: 200-1 (first ran for president way back in 1988 but is still 6 years younger than McCain; perhaps the most appealing candidate to the Democratic base on Iraq; only a major negative development in the war could bolster his longshot chances)

Dennis Kucinich: 500-1 (Someone has got to be there to score the far-left votes; I'm sure he'll raise money from the internet and it'll be enough to keep Kucinch around for the debates; I read where his campaign bus in 2004 burned vegetable oil for fuel and thus he smelled like french fries wherever he went!)

Others: Tom Vilsack, Chris Dodd, Al Sharpton, John Kerry (says not running).

THE GOP: "Parity Is Not Necessarily A Good Thing"

John McCain: 3-1 (Fits the Republican tendency to reward the loyal party man who patiently waits his turn a la Bob Dole; a proven fundraiser who has already assembled a strong machine; voting record will appeal to social conservatives critical to key primaries; Iraq and age may not cause real damage till the general)

Mitt Romney: 7-1 (Perhaps the most dynamic Republican candidate; impressive background in private sector plus executive experience as a governor; has a small but natural GOP base in New England and Utah; social positions will hurt him in heartland primaries)

Rudy: 10-1 (Scores high on name recognition; certainly can raise money from his many strong supporters; but many skeletons reside in his closets; social liberalism will haunt him in primaries; I still don't see him running)

Newt: 20-1 (Ditto the Giuliani comments above, save the liberalism thing, of course!)

Sam Brownback: 25-1 (It's right there for him to be the conservative dark horse of the race; only problem is that he's not the roll-up-your-sleeves/fire-and-brimstone speaker one needs to be in this role a la Pat Buchanan or Howard Dean; will need to spend lots of that Dominos Pizza money of billionaire supporter Tom Monahan)

Mike Huckabee: 50-1 (Effective speaker; good track record; the Governor from Arkansas format has worked before; but will likely have money problems and has a lot of catching up to do quickly)

Jim Gilmore: 100-1 (Included Gilmore over other Republican contenders because he's from Virginia; this state will be critical if the GOP is to reverse the trend of recent failures; Gilmore is a former party insider and that always helps too)

Others: Tom Tancredo, Duncan Hunter, Chuck Hagel, Tommy Thompson, George Pataki, Ron Paul, Condi Rice (says not running), Jeb Bush (says not running).

Populism Run Amok (as usual)

2007-01-26T23:51:00.000-05:00

Regular readers of this blog will (hopefully, I know its been a while) recall that generally speaking we are not big fans of populism. In fact, it is one of a surprising many subjects on which we all tend to agree, regardless of political party affiliation. With this in mind, I’d like to rant a bit about the most recent attempt to bring “populist” ideas into our republic. This time, however, it involves something else near and dear to many of our hearts, the Electoral College.

There is a little known movement afoot to effectively rid the nation of the Electoral College. What’s even more hideous is the fact that this movement seeks to achieve this goal, not by amending the Constitution or even through an activist judiciary (whatever that means), but rather through the state legislatures, and where necessary, the ballot box. Before you all blow a gasket and call me crazy, let me explain. Let’s start with a few basic principles. Recall that electors are appointed by the state legislatures, not “elected” by the voters. In some states the names of the electors who have been appointed actually appear on the ballot, but in most states the candidates names appear giving people the false sense that they are voting for say Kerry or Bush. In reality you are voting for a slate of electors that will go to DC in December and cast an official ballot for the candidate who will be President. This technically of our Presidential election system is simply ignored by the vast majority of citizens who are woefully ignorant of the finer details of our republic. Most, but not all, of the States control how their electors vote. In other words, in most states the electors are to cast their vote according to the winner of the state’s popular vote. In these states the electors have no discretion. For example, if, say a Republican wins the popular vote in Virginia, the electors, regardless of whom they personally voted for, are arguably legally bound to cast their Electoral College vote for the Republican candidate. Interestingly, our own GipperClone, in a legal publican of some national repute, has discussed the constitutionality of these types of state laws in light of the First Amendment. While I am aware of several historical instances where individual electors have disobeyed the public will and “voted their conscious,” it has never, to my knowledge, actually affected the outcome of a Presidential election.

Thus, if the states can pass laws requiring electors to cast their votes for the winner of the state’s popular vote, it should follow then that states could also pass laws that require their electors to cast their vote based on any other rubric that the state legislature deems relevant, right? Such is the theory that a group of scholars and “populists” are attempting to use to circumvent the Electoral College. What this group of activists is proposing is that each state adopt a law that requires their electors to cast their vote, not for the candidate that prevails in the state’s popular vote, but for the winner of the NATIONAL public vote. To use the 2000 election as an example, under this theory, since Al Gore won the national popular vote, states would have required their electors by law to cast votes for Gore, regardless what the outcome in their state was. End result, President Gore, period dot end. Never mind the fact that President Bush actually won more states, he lost the popular vote, and in these people warped mind, should have never been elected President.

Long story short, proponents of this popular election system argue that it is constitutional because it doesn’t interfere with the functioning of the Electoral College. Rather than repeal that part of Article II, they simply assert that the state’s power to appoint and control the votes of the electors can render the College effectively dependent on the popular vote. In other words, they are purporting to use one provision of the Constitution – the state’s power to appoint electors – to trump another, the Electoral College.

Thankfully, thus far the group hasn’t experienced any success. However, rumor has it that bills putting this plan into law have already been introduced in small states like North Dakota, who, because of their small number of electoral votes and virtually homogenous Republican population, are basically ignored in Presidential elections because everyone knows how they’re going to vote anyway. Of course, one could say the same about many states, where the outcomes, based on population demographics, is virtually assured anyway. This list includes, for the most part, states like NY, CA, and TX, large states with big populations who also see very little action during the Presidential election season.

So some states don’t get their fair share of attention every four years. So what? Is that really a reason to change our method of electing the President, which, by the way, has produced numerous peaceful transitions of power throughout our history? Only 3 times has the election, hence the Electoral College, ever been in doubt 1800, 1876, and, of course, 2000. That’s a pretty good record, no? More importantly, however, is that fact that like it or not, we’re not supposed to directly elect the President. We’re not really capable of it, at least not in my opinion. The Electoral College, antiquated as it may be, provides a very real, very important buffer between the election of the single most powerful individual office holder in the country and the general population. To turn such a thing over to the popular will is simply crazy, not to mention antithetical to a republican form of government. One can question the wisdom of even the existing controls on state electors, and I do. I don’t think such laws are unconstitutional, but I’m not 100% convinced they are a good idea. That said, I’m sure this movement is a bad idea, and I hope that those of you who hear about it in your states, will alert your state representatives to its folly.

I’m also not convinced it’s even constitutional, as I question using one part of the document to nullify another. But, unfortunately there is little case law or theory that I could point to in support of my instincts. It’s not as though we were amending the document, in which case the amendment would trump the original text of the Articles. Rather, this is using two equally situated provisions in a manner that renders one null and void. Generally, with respect to statutes, such a construction is not permitted, as the reader is supposed to read the document in a way that gives full force and effect to each provision. Thus, I think as a matter of statutory construction the Constitution should not be read in a manner that would permit such a move. However, I’m far from 100% confident in this assessment. Anyway, just some food for thought. I’m curious to get the reaction from the TPS regulars. Is this as offensive as I think, or just no big deal?

Thank God for the 2nd Amendment!

2007-01-25T15:24:00.000-05:00

It always feels good to be an American and a gun owner when I see stories like this. In the past decade, Great Britain's Labor government led by Tony Blair (that hero to many George Bush fans) has all-but-destroyed the right of British people to protect themselves through the lawful ownership of firearms. For many left-wingers, this was the test-case for those who hate guns and see them as the root cause of all crime. So by following the very example employed by Hitler's Nazi party in 1930s Germany, the Labor government proclaimed that people would be safer if legal handguns were rounded up and (supposively) taken off the streets.

Well, whaddya know? The figures are in and crime in Britain is way up. Naturally, gang and drug violence are at an all-time high because such criminals never have any problem skirting new laws to get their guns. However, the really frightening part is how armed robberies of both homes and business have also skyrocketed. These thugs realize they can now attack with their guns and be confident that their victims will be powerless to defend themselves. Sadly, they're usually right -- in Britain. Thankfully, here in America, we still have a Second Amendment.

The moral of this story is don't take this for granted. And remember, GOPers, "America's mayor" and liberal presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani may actually be the leading anti-gun candidate out there. He's consistently been an opponent of gun-owners' rights and even led the charge by suing gun manufacturers to get a piece of that cash in the wake of the cigarette and fast food lawsuits.

LONDON -- Labour has been accused of losing control of gun crime as new figures show a sharp rise in armed robberies.

Guns were used in 4,120 robberies last year - a 10% jump - including a 9% rise to 1,439 in the number of street robberies where guns were used.

There was also a rapid and unexplained increase in the number of times householders were confronted in their own homes by armed criminals. Residential firearms robberies show a 46% leap, a record 645 cases in England and Wales - up 204 on the previous year and four times the level recorded in 2000-01.

State of the Union

2007-01-23T23:15:00.000-05:00

I know there's a tradition here at TPS at paying homage to every political junkie's favorite night of the year, the President's State of the Union address. So I thought I'd keep it going with a few thoughts tonight. My longtime criticism of President Bush is well-known, so I'll begin with some praise.

I was happy to hear Bush's simplified tones. No stark denunciations like the "Axis of Evil," no shady intelligence like the "uranium sold by Niger" line, no bold and politically risky proposals like the social security reform of his 1st term, and no overtly thumping-his-chest "America rocks and everyone else sucks" attitudes, all of which had been seen in States of the Union past. This time Bush kept it simpler and, in turn, I think much more dignified.

When you look at it, he merely presented a series of brief talking points -- none of which enthused a great majority of the chamber. The Republicans liked his message of "staying the course" in Iraq, fighting terrorism, increasing the size of the military, and new tax deductions. The Democrats, on the other hand, applauded mightily at the mention of a guest worker program, our dependency on foreign oil, increasing ethanol subsidies, and addressing the "global climate change."

That's quite a change from past speeches in which Bush attempted to drive home his points to both the Congress and the American public. Bush knows he has lost the Congress. He knows he has lost the American people. And this speech, like his Iraq policy itself, seemed to have the attitude of "let's pick up the pieces and see what we can do with them."

And in the end, the answer is usually "nothing." You end up throwing them out. It's too much work to glue them back together and they'll never look as good again. So you wait until you're able to buy a new one and then you replace it.

Such is the presidency of George W. Bush as we wait for 2008.

I will give the President credit for properly acknowledging Nancy Pelosi as the new Speaker of the House. I do think it is a big deal. And I think that he addressed it tonight with class. Afterall, there's no doubt that Mr. Bush is a good person. Even his critics should concede that. There's plenty of criticism to be saved for his politics, but I'm not surprised that he was gracious to Ms. Pelosi.

Also, did anyone else find it interesting how Bush kept the traditional visiting dignitary applause for the very end of the speech? Usually you get those out of the way somewhere up front, right? I guess he was hoping that the mistakes of Iraq or the failure to establish border security might be blurred by all 7'6" of Dikembe Mutombo for those last few minutes?

Finally, in a trivial note, I commend Bush for ending with a simple, straight-forward look at the audience and saying, "God bless." It felt to me like he actually meant what he said when he uttered those all-powerful words that have sadly become cliched. As a Christian, this felt good. I've gotten so tired of the words, "Thank you and may God bless the United States of America." There's certainly nothing wrong with that sentiment, but after hearing 4 presidents over the course of my political lifetime conclude seemingly every speech with those 11 words they've gotten a tad stale. Bush's words "God bless" were more consistent with his simplified tone and personally I found it a welcomed change.

Gradually Getting in Campaign Mode

2007-01-20T23:12:00.000-05:00

At first glance, Senator Sam Brownback appears to be one of the few announced 2008 presidential contenders who interests me, with Tom Tancredo, John Edwards & Joe Biden being the others that I'm currently taking a look at. However, I must say that things don't look all-that-good yet for Brownback. Firstly, he's a Republican senator from Kansas running for the White House. That combo sure didn't work well for Bob Dole the 4 or 5 times he used it. Secondly, the guy can't even get any press on the very day he announces his candidacy before thousands of supporters.

I signed up for Brownback's mailing list awhile back and got lots of e-invites from Martin Gillespie to watch for the big announcement from Topeka today. But when I woke up this morning, all the headlines were already dominated by the news of Senator Clinton using this same day to announce the forming of her presidential exploratory committee. Clinton had to keep up with Obama, afterall.

And now it's Sam Brownback who? As of Saturday night, no story on the conservative senator appears anywhere on the Drudge Report. Meanwhile, a total of 6 stories are listed there for Hillary, plus she's also got a tough but favorable Thatcher-esque photo above the byline.

I'll continue to hold some hope in the campaign of Brownback. I recently read where fellow Opus Dei member Tom Monahan has pledged to help Brownback's campaign with his Domino's Pizza billions. Brownback sure will need it, as we wayward conservatives continue to walk wayward across this Sinai looking for another Moses. Meanwhile, the Democratic roll just continues.

Why the Dems are so wrong on John Bolton.

2007-01-19T09:26:00.000-05:00

Over the years, I have come to understand just how necessary and irritating the “straight-shooter” is in organizational dynamics.

No one likes the person that tells the uncomfortable truth; who pushes others to explain their actions and adjust their institutions to meet obligations. The Boltons of the world are abrasive and dogmatic. Their adherence to Truth and Right, challenges the rest of us in ways that make us uncomfortable.

John Bolton was rubbed out because he spoke the uncomfortable truth that the UN is an utterly dysfunctional organization, so badly in need of reform that it should no longer be supported without a thorough house cleaning.

Internationalism requires faith in institutions that Bolton, among others, warned us were bloated and corrupt. He challenged civil servants and diplomats in the UN to live up to their obligations. He took the institutions to task for its unwillingness to embrace reforms that were clearly required it if was to be placed back on an even footing.

For this he was pilloried.

Now we find out that the UN’s money was unaccountably spent by the North Koreans.

It is naïve to imagine it was spent for the purposes stated or intended.

Worse than this is that the UN’s institutions hid the problem at every turn and made no changes to correct blatant deficiencies as they were uncovered.

It appears that the UN has been providing the very capital that the Midget King needed to stay afloat after the US cut off his drug and arms sale monies. We will likely never know how much American money was funneled to terrorism and North Korea’s nuclear program.

Bolton made much of the Oil-for-Food scandal. Internationalists excused it as an anomaly, not indicative of any fundamental problem. It looks like Bolton was right.

Will they listen now?

Stop Hailing the Chief So Much

2007-01-18T17:35:00.000-05:00

My take on Obama has garnered some interesting feedback, and to a point I can understand Jeff and Mouldy's points about him being no different than the rest. That of course does not address the larger issue that someone who has such a limited resume and whose sole qualification to be President is being articulate is drawing so much praise and adulation. Of course there's much ado about his platitudes about bipartisanship, and I've addressed that elsewhere. That Obama is no less substantive than many of the other contenders is really besides the point. We shouldn't just settle for politicians of this sort.

I'll admit that my expectations about the presidency are somewhat idealistic. Silly me, I actually want someone who is articulate and can also advance right-leaning policy. You know, someone not like our current president but more like the one we had in the eighties.

But even while I hold these idealistic thoughts, overall I'm something of an anti-idealist. This stems from my belief that the presidency is overhyped. I'm sure I'm repeating myself, but the Presidency has become something so much larger than what the Framers anticipated, and this is not a pleasant development. We spend inordinate amounts of time discussing one man and his office, to the point that we're analyzing an election that is 22 months away, and said analysis begins farther out than that.

Our views of the presidency are warped in certain crucial ways. We view the President as some sort of super-legislator. Especially when the President and Congress are of the same party, but even otherwise, we always look to the President to deliver from on high his legislative agenda. Congress has become so lax in its duties that in 2004 we witnessed a man who had been in the Senate for two decades, and who had proposed little in the way of legislation in all that time, suddenly becoming a font of legislative proposing wisdom when he ran for the presidency. Sure we'll see some activity with the Democrats in Congress, but ultimately all eyes will be on the presidency.

The problem with this, aside from the diminishment of Congress' power and influence, is that it also diminishes or at least lets us overlook what is an important aspect of the presidency: administrative and managerial competency. The President is the head of the Executive Branch, and he is meant to be just that - the chief executive. But when legislative functions encroach upon the office, the executive nature is overshadowed. So we don't even consider whether the man (or woman) running for office has the managerial competence to lead the executive branch of government, when this should be one of the primary considerations. Instead, we judge them mainly on public policy and other superficial factors like appearance and speaking ability.

That's not to say that one's views or even rhetorical skills should be non-factors, but they shouldn't be the only facotrs that we consider.

Can Barack Obama manage the national government? Or Rudy Giuliani? What about McCain? Something tells me it's not going to be a question often asked in the coming months.

I also think we demand too much perfection from our candidates. Now, this might seem to contradict my earlier comments about Obama. But while I disdain the utter lack of substance, I also don't expect to find the absolutely ideal candidate. Every candidate will have faults. I'm sure if I had been politically conscious in 1980 I would have found fault with Ronald Reagan. The idea is to choose the best man for the job, not the perfect.

Awaiting perfection only sets us up for disappointment. In the history of our republic we have had only two presidents that are undeniably great and approach perfection: Abraham Lincoln and George Washington (and even then I'll get disagreement, especially on Lincoln). That's two out of the 42 men that have occupied the office. The other 40 have been quite fallible, though some quite more so than others.

Of course, we should hope that there will be candidates that, even if not perfect, will be at least be very good. So far the field is disappointing. Brownback and Romney are my two favorites at this point, and there are serious issues with both. For instance, Romney seems like an ideal candidate, but how seriously do we take his committment to social conservative causes? As Kate O'Beirne pointed out in the latest issue of National Review, many other prominent conservatives also changed their minds on issues like abortion, including Ronald Reagan. But have any done so in such a short period before their run for the presidency?

Then there's Rudy. Setting aside his social views, one would think that he possesses the managerial skills I discussed earlier. After all, he was the mayor of a city that is larger in terms of population than about 38 states, and was an outstanding administrator and manager. But what of his temprament? Can he be counted on to effectively manage such a large office, and can he be diplomatic when needed to be so?

In the end, maybe we should be comforted that most of our presidents have been less-than-great. Maybe it just shows how little we need to rely on that person. That would be the positive lesson to take from all this.

Obama

2007-01-18T08:34:00.000-05:00

I posted this on an Obama thread over at The Cranky Conservative. Thought it might be worth posting here if anyone wants to talk of the media darling of the moment.

Firstly, I don't plan to support Obama due to specific positions on specific issues. But I do have a lot of respect for him and am glad he's going to run. Specifically, it's great to see a Democratic leader who embraces his Christianity and proudly proclaims Jesus Christ as his lord and savior.

But let's dispel a few myths here. As Mould correctly noted, Obama is hardly an unique example of a media-propped presidential creation. In fact, most successful presidents in modern times shared that distinction. It makes you wonder if the media/system uses these people or it's actually the media being played like a fine fiddle by men like Obama, Clinton, Reagan, and Kennedy.

I also don't share the opinion that Obama is all sytle and no substance. Look at Iraq for example. He has a clearly stated position that hasn't changed since 2002. If only we could say the same of our president! Beyond that, however, style does matter. Imagine if our current president could articulate like Obama? If he could reach out and actually speak to America's heart? He'd be in a lot better shape than he is. After 6 years of mummbled talk both in style and substance, I really want a president who can communicate. Obama's not my choice here, but I do respect his abilities to articulate that our current president desperately lacks.

Finally, I think Obama's resume is more than sufficient to warrant his hat being in the ring. I used to follow the old "a governor has experience being an executive" logic prior to GW Bush. But all Bush's experience guiding Texas for 6 years has proven absolutely worthless in guiding a Republican Congress (no less!) and handling our nation's foreign diplomacy. Consider: Obama does not come from money; Self-made; Harvard Law; Successful businessman; Held officie in Cook County govt and Illinois State Senate; US Senate. That all sounds pretty good to me. BTW, let's not belittle his 2004 camaign by saying he only won because Ryan was a freak and Keyes was from Maryland. Obama hit a home run at his DNC keynote address while also managing an effective campaign. And it's not like Illinois is a bastion of Republicanism anymore. Durbin has won there safely. The state even elected Carol Mosley Braun for goodness sakes! I'm no expert of Illini politics, but I will give Obama his due.

Congressional Ethics Reform, Good in Theory, but be Wary of the Pitfalls

2007-01-10T10:39:00.000-05:00

It always saddens me when politics, pure raw politics, overtakes good common sense and threatens the integrity of our most treasured government institutions. My latest screed after a long, mostly work-related hiatus from the blog is against the proposed Office of Public Integrity. A proposal so incredibly stupid that its popularity can only be explained by the overwhelming misunderstanding of Congress and the way it works by the general public combined with the general apathy and low regard that many, if not most, people hold politicians, especially Members of Congress.

Okay, so it occurs to me that many might not know what I’m talking about, so here’s the brief background. In the wake of so-called “congressional scandals” involving people like Randy “Duke” Cunningham, Robert Ney, William Jefferson, Tom DeLay (to a much lesser extent), Conrad Burns, and Jack Abramoff, there has been a heightened sensitivity around Capitol Hill to “corruption,” broadly defined. As a result, Democrats across the country campaigned on “the culture of corruption” to, depending on who you ask, varying degrees of success. These campaigns promised, among other things, to “clean up Congress” and rid the institution of the corrupting influences of lobbyists and the ever-dreaded “special interests.” One of the major proposals, albeit one defeated by the Senate late during the last Congress, is the creation of the Office of Public Integrity (OPI). OPI, according to most versions I’ve seen or read about, would be a legislative branch office with members appointed by the congressional leadership consisting of former members, former staffers, retired judges, and other public figures. OPI would have responsibility for conducting oversight of lobbying activates and “ethics” violations by Members. Presumably, thought its far from clear, OPI would be able to make and enforce some rules with respect to ethics and lobbying issues. It appears that OPI wouldn’t be able to directly punish or sanction violations of House or Senate rules -- though it may be able to punish for violations of its own rules and regulations -- but rather would report violations to the House and Senate Ethics Committees who would then take disciplinary actions as warranted. This outside oversight body, according to supporters, would ensure objectivity, non-partisanship, and stronger enforcement over the rules, procedures, and ethics of government.

Politically, ideas like OPI are precisely how Congress dupes the public by making it look like they are doing something without actually doing anything. On its face it doesn’t sound bad at all. Bring in a bunch of outsiders to enforce the rules Congress won’t or can’t enforce upon itself. Sounds great, right? Which is probably why such an idea enjoys so much public support I fear it might actually become law. Hence my opening salvo, politics, raw politics are going to drive the creation of a stupid idea that I fear will do far more harm than good to the institution, and above all might in fact be unconstitutional.

I know what you’re thinking; slow down there Mouldfan, unconstitutional, that’s a bold claim, which we know you don’t throw around lightly. How do you get there? It’s actually simpler than you might think, but it involves portions of the Constitution that don’t get nearly the attention they deserve. First, one has to examine Congress’s ability to create such a legislative branch office, like OPI. Power to do this stems from Article 1, Section 5, which states that “Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two thirds, expel a member.” However, this provision is not unlimited. The question becomes can Congress delegate its constitutional power to make its own rules and punish members to an outside group of non-members? The answer is I’m not sure. The only Supreme Court case that we have even close to on point is United States v. Nixon, 506 U.S. 224 (1993) -- that’s Judge Walter Nixon, not President Nixon. Nixon involved an analogous delegation of authority by the Senate to a select committee for the purposes of hearing evidence regarding the impeachment of two federal judges. Specifically, the impeached judges challenged the Senate’s procedure under Rule XI of the “Rules of Procedure and Practice in the Senate when Sitting on Impeachment Trials,” which authorizes the Senate to create a select committee to hear their trials and provide recommendations to the full Senate who would then vote on the conviction or acquittal.

Judge Nixon argued that the use of a select committee to hear the evidence and witness testimony of his impeachment violated the Senate’s constitutional duty to “try” all impeachments. According to Judge Nixon, anything short of a trial before the full Senate was unconstitutional and, therefore, required reversal and a reinstatement of his judicial salary. The Court held the issue to be a non-justiciable political question. Chief Justice Rehnquist, writing for the Court, based this conclusion upon the fact that the impeachment proceedings were textually committed in the Constitution to the Legislative Branch. In addition, the Court found the “lack of finality and the difficulty in fashioning relief counsel[led] against justiciability.” According to the majority, to open “the door of judicial review to the procedures used by the Senate in trying impeachments would ‘expose the political life of the country to months, or perhaps years, of chaos.’” The Court found that the word “try” in the Impeachment Clause did not “provide an identifiable textual limit on the authority which is committed to the Senate.”

Nixon thus stands for the proposition that Congress may exercise its rulemaking authority with little to no interference from the Courts. However, in Nixon, the delegation of authority was from the full Senate to a select committee of Senators. There is nothing in the opinion that suggests the ability to delegate constitutional powers to non-members, even former members. True, Congress can delegate its powers to other government agencies and institutions, but even that is potentially distinguishable as the clause in question also provides the Congress with the sole, exclusive means to punish Members for rules violations (of course criminal or civil law violations can be punished by the Justice Department or other third parties, but here we’re only concerned with internal Congressional rules).

But wait, I’m not done. There’s another serious concern with an OPI having investigatory authority over Members. That’s the Speech or Debate Clause, which is found at Art. I, sec. 6 and states that “for any speech or debate in either House, [Members] shall not be questioned in any other place.” This clause provides an “absolute” privilege against disclosure or testimony about “legislative acts,” which likely would encompass a good deal of the types of inquiries an OPI investigation would deal with. Turning over such powers to an outside group will pit the OPI against the Congress’s constitutional ability to protect and defend its own duties and prerogatives. While this may not seem serious, it in fact is deadly serious to members and staff of the Congress. Similar, I suppose, to “executive privilege” (though I actually don’t like the analogy and think Speech or Debate is stronger than “executive privilege,” as it’s actually in the text of the Constitution and, therefore, absolute, as opposed to a judicially created qualified privilege) Speech or Debate is the only thing that protects Congress from intrusions from the other branches of government. Ethics committees are internal bodies for which the privilege does not apply as they are not “in any other place.” Arguably, an outside body, even if created by Congress, could be seen as “in any other place” thus making the privilege relevant. A blanket waiver by Congress of the privilege is one option to overcome this problem, but that, in my opinion, would weaken the privilege and set a dangerous precedent for future waivers, something that to date Congress has not done in any circumstance.

Bottom line is this, ethics and lobbying overhaul and increased enforcement is a good thing. But the OPI and proposals of it ilk are not and should be abandoned. There are many other ways of getting the policy of this politically popular proposal correct, lets hope that our Members see the light and choose one, for if they don’t I fear a tremendous long-term damage for nothing more than a short-term bump in the polls.

Gator Nation Domination!

2007-01-09T08:09:00.000-05:00

Last night was a special time to be a fan of the University of Florida. Displaying total dominance over heavily-favored Ohio State, the Gators earned the 2006 National College Football BCS Championship. Coach Urban Meyer now adds this honor to their 2006 SEC Championship and joins the legendary Steve Spurrier in bringing a national college football title to the players and fans of the great state of Florida. I don't think even the most fanatic of Gator supporters expected this kind of success this soon. But we'll take it! Congrats to game MVP and 4 year starter senior QB Chris Leak. And remember, Buckeyes, just like our SEC foes, you now know that if you ain't gator....you just Gator bait!

The House is not in session

2007-01-08T08:21:00.000-05:00

Drudge reports this discouraging story today. New Majority Leader Steny Hoyer has announced that the Democrats' campaign promise to open the House for 5 day work weeks will not begin this week. And with the Martin Luther King holiday forthcoming, it will not start next week either.

I just don't get this one. Is everyone still hungover from celebrating the takeover over the weekend? Take a cue from the decades of statesmanship by Senator Kennedy -- show up half toasted but just show up! Symbolism matters when you wield power. This has been one of my biggest critiques of the Bush administration. So I'm genuinely disappointed to see the new Congress fail to live up to this promise during its very first opportunity to keep it.

But nobody's pefect, I guess. Certainly not on any sides of this weak politcal landscape.

A New Chapter

2007-01-04T14:46:00.000-05:00

I didn't want this significant day in America's political history to go overlooked here at TPS. With the elevation of Nancy Pelosi to Speaker of the House we now have a strong woman who is 3rd in line to the presidency. It's worth noting. I wonder if this will foreshadow the presidential election of 2008? More importantly, for the time being Pelosi will set the direction of Congressional legislation and, more than likely, force an already embattled President Bush into a corner where he will have to take to "fight or flight" to survive. I expect more of the latter.

"Today we make history. Today we change the direction of our country," exulted Rep. Nancy Pelosi.

I look forward to giving the Democrats a chance to control the Congressional agenda. Let's see what they can do. I am convinced that they can do no worse than the absolutely pathetic leadership of Dennis Hastert. In fact, my personal highlight of today's ceremonies was seeing Hastert sitting alone on a back bench with a solemn look on his mug as he watched Pelosi wield his old gavel. And, in the likely event of Democratic miscues, I remain hopeful that this transition will revitalize the Republican party in the end. Losing Congress, afterall, has given them their only real chance of keeping the Presidency in 2008. Then again, I have been saying this since 2004!

Gerald Ford

2006-12-28T13:56:00.000-05:00

It's always big news when one of the small group of former U.S. presidents dies. This explains much of the attention given to the passing of Gerald Ford. Yet I was still somewhat surprised by it. Ford always seemed to me (someone born in the final days of the Ford administration) to have left a small mark on America. And in spite of all the tributes from his friends and colleagues, I still generally believe this.

However, I do think Gerry Ford made a significant contribution to the Republican Party through the pardoning of Richard Nixon and, for that, some of us should now shower praise. Firstly, don't believe the hype. The Nixon pardon was the right move by Ford in every possible sense of analysis. It was right for America and it was certainly right for the GOP. Additionally, I think the Nixon pardon actually helped Gerry Ford in the 1976 election and it later saved the Republican Party for Ronald Reagan to follow.

Could you imagine Ford in the White House running as a Republican in the fall of 1976 with Nixon on trial across town in a DC courthouse? Could you imagine Reagan out on the campaign trail as a Republican in 1980 with Dick Nixon doing time in the slammer in a Camp Fed prison? We know how the media works, right? It was even worse in the wake of Watergate. The GOP would have been smeared by association with Nixon (even more than they were) and that taint would have taken a generation or more to shake.

Ford took a short term hit in popularity with the pardon, but it soon gave his party (and himself) a longterm gain. Watergate was over. Nixon was gone. And everyone had to move on. And the media and the Congressional Democrats couldn't stand it! That's why they blasted Gerry Ford. And, in a sense, I think it also explains the excess of tributes now as many have realized over time (aided by their collective defense of Bill Clinton) that their words and actions against Ford were nothing but ugly partisanship -- the very thing these same crusaders were supposively fighting with Watergate.

So good for Ford. He deserves to go out on a high note. He lived a good life and aided the betterment of his country. America, and certainly we Reagan Republicans, should be grateful for his decision.

Outrage

2006-12-23T12:20:00.000-05:00

In a move that surprised few analysts, Durham County District Attorney Mike Nifong dropped rape charges yesterday against the 3 Duke University students whose lives have been devastated for the past 9 months by this ridiculous circus. The overwhelming body of the evidence consistently revealed that no rape could have occured on the night in question. That's right -- there's no forensic evidence, no witnesses, no DNA, no workable timeline, nothing! The accuser had been hired to perform as a stripper for a party thrown by the lacrosse team. More than likely, she was performing naked for dozens of drunk college kids and her feelings were somehow hurt by comments from a rowdy crowd filled with alcohol and strippers. Imagine that? Crudeness does not a rape make.

Less severe charges remain pending, but look for them to be dismissed too. To sum it up....firstly, shame on Mr. Nifong for bringing these unfounded charges to a grand jury and feeding the media frenzy that surely would follow. Shame on Mr. Nifong for pursuing such a case with absolutely no corroborating evidence of any kind. Shame on Mr. Nifong for waiting 9 months for his office even to interview the stripper/accuser at which point she (naturally) changed her story. And shame on Mr. Nifong for dismissing the charges in piecemeal mere days before Christmas hoping to soften the blow as people's attentions were otherwise distracted by the holidays.

Finally, shame on the accuser -- Krystal Gale Mangum -- for letting your hurt pride shamefully and criminally tarnish the lives, academic pursuits, and athletic careers of these young men. It is people like you who sadly cause victims of real rapes to keep silent and allow true violent criminals to go unpunished.

STOP THE PRESSES!!!

2006-12-20T09:51:00.000-05:00

SHOCKING new researchreveals that even after 6 years of W, Americans are still by and large warm-blooded creatures!

Rep. Bob Barr (L-GA)?

2006-12-16T11:24:00.000-05:00

I always liked Bob Barr because, right or wrong, he's never been afraid to take an actual stand for that in which he believes. Afterall, this quality is far too rare in Washington. I'd love to see old Bob Barr break the 2 party wall and make it back to Congress as its first Libertarian representative. Sure, it's a long shot. And Barr says he's not interested in running for the House again. But this independent would welcome it and thinks it just might be possible in the right suburban district in the very red state of Georgia.

WASHINGTON -- A former Georgia congressman who helped spark President Clinton's impeachment has quit the Republican Party to become a Libertarian, saying he is disillusioned with the GOP on issues such as spending and privacy.

Bob Barr, who served eight years as a Republican congressman before losing his seat in 2002, announced Friday that he is now a "proud, card-carrying Libertarian." And he encouraged others to join him.

"It's something that's been bothering me for quite some time, the direction in which the party has been going more and more toward big government and disregard toward privacy and civil liberties," said Barr, 58, a lawyer and consultant living in Atlanta. "In terms of where the country needs to be going to get back to our constitutional roots...I've come to the conclusion that the only way to do that is to work with a party that practices what it preaches, and that is the Libertarian Party."

The ugliness of politics

2006-12-14T14:13:00.000-05:00

NB: I wrote this post last evening at the Cranky Con:

Earlier this evening, when it was reported that Senator Tim Johnson had a stroke, my initial reaction, after "that's so sad" was, "hmmm, South Dakota has a Republican governor. That could be interesting." Immediately I was repulsed by my own gut, political reaction. A human being possibly could be dying, and I was contemplating the political rammifications.

What's even sadder, I was not the only one. A cursory glance through my blogline headlines showed that just about every political blog had mentioned the story, and most were discussing the possible political fallout. The Kos Kids were praying for Tim Johnson - not because they valued him as a human being, but because the Democratic majority in the Senate was possibly imperiled. Conservative bloggers were speculating as well.

I suppose that it's just the nature of being a political - what, observer? We're so obsessed with politics that the only thing we can possibly think about are the politics of a man dying. It's probably not completely irrational or abnormal, but it's sad that politics weighs so heavily on our minds that our first thoughts upon hearing the news that a Senator has possibly had a stroke is to think about politics. Quite frankly, it's pretty disgusting. And I take little solace in the knowledge that I was not the only one whose first thoughts were of political matters.

As it turns out Johnson appears okay and didn't have a stroke after all. That's great news. And I'd like to think that the first thought of everyone hearing that news is, "Good for him." But we all know that it probably wasn't the first thing that entered a lot of our heads.

Politics truly is an ugly business sometimes.

Addendum: I just want to add, that I'm not singling anyone out. Repeal has written a post below regarding the issue, and I'm in no way criticizing him for that. I had to go to the Hill today for a briefing and we passed George Washington Hospital, where Johnson is right now, and there were a gaggle of press people outside. And everyone in the car - all "political" types - commented on it, and it has been one of the primary things we're all talking about. In the end, it just saddens me in a way that while a human being's life is in the balance, politics has to be our primary focus. Again, it can be a really ugly, de-humanizing business sometimes.

I think I saw this on the West Wing...

2006-12-14T11:11:00.000-05:00

Not at all taking away from the real serious health problems facing Sen. Tim Johnson, but since the media jackals are already making hay, I thought I'd raise the issue in our little forum here....

In the event that Johnson cannot continue to serve (and you can bet that Reid and Pelosi are watching Weekend at Bernies on loop right now...and yes, I am going to hell for that one) , does our political climate permit the GOP to guide SD's Republican Governor Mike Rounds to nominate someone like Sen. Johnson's challenger (and SD's former Senator, uber-social conservative John Thune), or does the GOP have to at least appear to err on the side of magnanimity and choose a right-leaning Dem (i.e., someone more like Sen. Johnson, who although I don't know well, can't imagine is too far left)? Apolitically speaking as possible, would appointment of a Republican be a complete affront to our Democratic process, or a shrewd and totally fair (based on the relevant law) way for the GOP to capitalize on this "opportunity."

Real "Activist Judges"

2006-12-14T10:47:00.000-05:00

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/14/nyregion/14courts.html?hp&ex=1166158800&en=fe3c9a6838c497f1&ei=5094&partner=homepage

Those Multiple Choice Pop Quizzes Sure Are Tough

2006-12-12T15:27:00.000-05:00

I've learned better over the years than to overrate these kind of anecdotal stories. However, they're still fun. And if the Bush presidency has taught us one single lesson, it is that perhaps it'd be a good idea if we elected wiser, better informed politicians to office in our government. Sadly, initial indications are that this batch of Democrats may not be much better. We'll see. But shame on Incoming Speaker Pelosi for not selecting the more-qualified Rep. Jane Harmon or better-informed Rep. Sanford Bishop for this critical House chairmanship.

Incoming House intelligence chief botches easy intel quiz

WASHINGTON -- Rep. Silvestre Reyes of Texas, who incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has tapped to head the Intelligence Committee when the Democrats take over in January, failed a quiz of basic questions about al Qaeda and Hezbollah, two of the key terrorist organizations the intelligence community has focused on since the September 11, 2001 attacks.

When asked by CQ National Security Editor Jeff Stein whether al Qaeda is one or the other of the two major branches of Islam - Sunni or Shiite - Reyes answered "they are probably both," then ventured "Predominantly, probably Shiite."

That is wrong. Al Qaeda was founded by Osama bin Laden as a Sunni organization and views Shiites as heretics.

Reyes could also not answer questions put by Stein about Hezbollah, a Shiite group on the U.S. list of terrorist organizations that is based in Southern Lebanon.

A Government Spending Antidote

2006-12-06T14:33:00.000-05:00

Since I’m strapped for both time and the desire to post more substantively, I’ll simply reprint this little gem from former Senator Phil Gramm (R-TX) on “pork-barrel” spending.

“If the Senate voted this afternoon on building a cheese factory on the Moon, I would no doubt vote against it. But if the Senate decided, in its collective lack of wisdom, to build a cheese factory on the Moon, I would want engineers from Texas to design that cheese factory. I would want a construction company from Texas, since we have the best construction companies in the world, to build that cheese factory. If we were going to use milk from earthly cows, I would want milk from Texas cows to be used to make the cheese in the factory on the Moon, and I would want the celestial headquarters for it in Texas. But am I for a cheese factory on the Moon? No.”

I welcome you all to comment away at this one.

Go Gators!

2006-12-03T00:20:00.000-05:00

Though this post concerns college football, it's certainly politically charged. Because even in this landmark election year of 2006, no vote will be more important than the forthcoming poll to determine the contestants of this year's national championship game. And no matter how things shake out with the BCS tomorrow, the good fans of either Florida or Michigan are gonna be pissed. And that's a shame. That said, the Florida Gators clearly deserve the shot at the BCS title. They won the toughest conference in America and did it going 12-1 against the toughest schedule in America. Plus, they rock. Case closed.

So congrats to Coach Meyer and the 2006 SEC Football Champion University of Florida. And, remember, if you ain't gator, you're just gator bait!

Clancy to make a comeback?

2006-12-01T11:03:00.000-05:00

Those of us that sorely miss Tom Clancy's older work (and think he's kinda lost in the desert without the coldwar), may find encouragement in recent goings on with Mother Russia:

"EU Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso voiced concern about the case. "We have a problem with Russia. In fact, we have several problems. Too many people have been killed and we don't know who killed them," he said on Thursday. "

On a serious note, I thought it would interesting to get this forum's thoughts on this topic, particularly: (1) is Vlad really brash enough to be knocking off enemies at will, knowing there are no real consequences or enforcers thereof (e.g., Hariri in Lebanon)?; (2) what, if anything can really be done abou this issue, and with Russia generally given its new found energy-based power; (3) did Mr. Barroso go out on a limb, or should be joined in castigating the Kremlin by the US--in particular--and others (n.b., that Chirac was to dine in celebration with Vlad the other day)?.

What Makes a Civil War?

2006-12-01T08:16:00.000-05:00

I know my Iraq stuff rarely gets the crowd going anymore. But I continue to bang the drum because I believe the issue will define our time much like Vietnam did the post-Kennedy 1960s. Perhaps they'll do so for different reasons. Yet each also represents a time when America grew too big for its britches and was reminded that even our military influence on the world stage has its limits.

Back to today's issue. For me (and the 65% of like-minded Americans according to the latest polls), the idea of President Bush still failing to identify a civil war from the violence in Iraq is almost comical. Indeed, it has lead to headlines of "Delusional or Dedicated." I won't delve into that question (though I do think it's a combination of both). Yet, upon further consideration, I can hardly criticize Bush for not identifying an Iraqi civil war today since it's perfectly consistent with all prior failed visions for the Middle East.

You see, remember how President Bush and his advisors told the American people starting back in 2002 that we "fight them in Iraq so that we don't have to fight them here?" How many times did we hear those very words in State of the Union addresses alone? And to this day, Bush continues to state that the war in Iraq is actually fueled by al Queda -- and that it's NOT a power-struggle between distinct sects for dominance in an artificial vacuum created in the heart of the Middle East, as most experts describe the conflict.

So if Bush were now to join the overwhelming majority of Americans who see our presence in Iraq as somewhat analogous to policing a civil war, then that would mean our troops are fighting Sunni insurgents and Shi'a deathsquads in order to prevent the Sunni and Shi'a civil war from being fought here in America!

Absurd? Sure. But as long as 2+2 still makes 4, then Bush's own words indicate a real fear that some Sunnis in New Jersey may declare war on a few Shiites in Detroit! Scary stuff. Perhaps they could just settle it with a good Nets-Pistons basketball game and our troops in Iraq can start coming home? I won't hold my breathe, but my money would be on the Pistons!

A Time to Celebrate & A Time to Mourn

2006-11-24T12:26:00.000-05:00

I hope everyone had a great Thanksgiving and continues to enjoy the holiday weekend. As it was our newest addition's first Thanksgiving, we had a lot of fun with our 3 kids spending a relatively quiet day with lots of good food at my dad's house.

But I can't help but bring the mood down with my post today because I was bummed after hearing the latest from Iraq. I just don't see the long-promised light at the end of the tunnel. In fact, it seems to be getting worse. Here's hoping President Bush takes the recommendations of the Baker-Hamilton Commission seriously.

Anyway, in reading this account of the latest horrific events in Iraq's unfolding civil war, note the following statments: "as Iraqi soldiers stood by" and until "American forces arrived." As Colin Powell once warned the president, "If you break it, you own it." We do indeed.

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Militiamen grabbed six Sunnis as they left Friday worship services, doused them with kerosene and burned them alive as Iraqi soldiers stood by, and seven Sunni mosques came under attack as Shiites took revenge for the slaughter of 215 people in the Sadr City slum.

With the government trying to avert a civil war, two simultaneous bombings in Tal Afar, in northern Iraq, killed at least 23 people. On Thursday, Sunni-Arab insurgents unleashed bombings and mortar attacks in Sadr City, the deadliest assault since the U.S.-led invasion.

Members of the Mahdi Army militia burned four mosques and several homes while killing 12 other Sunni residents in the once-mixed Hurriyah neighborhood until American forces arrived, said police Capt. Jamil Hussein.

Two Things For Which I Am Grateful

2006-11-22T16:01:00.000-05:00

Rather than launch into a "what Thanksgiving means" speech, I thought I would just quickly state two things for which I am grateful:

One is that there are still at least some common-sense people in the world, such as the ones that work at U.S. Airways. Their vigilance is welcome, despite the fact that it sometimes results in "false positives."

The other is that I don't have the Bush daughters' Secret Service detail. (Read this story and you will see what I mean.)

Happy Thanksgiving, everybody.

Calling All Candidates: My 12 Issues

2006-11-21T11:15:00.000-05:00

I voted Republican in 2004 and Democrat in 2006. It's safe to say, my vote for 2008 is officially up for grabs. I'm sure the Democrats will disappoint me in many ways over the next 2 years. But are the Republicans actually capable of producing a candidate who will speak to the independent voice of millions of frustrated Americans? I don't know.

Since my pals here at TPS no longer consider me a conservative, I've been working to find a new label for my ideology. Without the grounding of a political party, it's not a simple matter. But after some reflection I think I'm best described as a Social Conservative, a Fiscal Moderate, and an America Firster on issues of foreign policy. No wonder I voted for Pat Buchanan for president back in 2000!

However, I hope not to "throw away" my vote again in 2008. Naturally, Iraq was the primary issue for me during the 2006 election. But beyond that, I've made a list of the 12 broad issues that currently matter most to me. And I'm looking for someone who echoes my beliefs in as many of these 12 areas as possible. So here they are, in alphabetical order, all you potential candidates!

Budget Deficit -- A balanced budget is an important indication to me that the government is playing by the same rules I'm forced to deal with. If our budget is not balanced, we better be fighting another full-blown world war or tackling a great depression. Fortunately, neither has been the case during the Bush administration. And yet the GOP Congress has produced years of record setting budget deficits. This issue gets me so fired up that I would accept tax increases I'd otherwise oppose if we cannot control spending and pork.

Capital Punishment -- I believe some crimes are so heinous that society much protect itself by swiftly and harshly taking the life of the perpetrator. Not only do I believe it is a deterrent, but it's also simple justice. And victims have a right to that. Prison is frankly not a punishment for people like Charles Manson or Eric Rudolph. It's actually a twisted form of nirvana to them in many ways. For those who ground their opposition in the New Testament, I would ask for the instances where Jesus himself protested his own death penalty. Jesus came to save our souls, not reform our penal system, even when it wrongfully took his own life. I personally would include murder, rape, and child molestation on the list of crimes to be eligible for the death penalty. I strongly believe that if we carried out swift justice in large numbers, violent crime would fall. Since this has never before been truly tested (in modern, 1st world times), I don't want to hear how it doesn't work.

Energy Policy -- I thought by electing two oil men to the highest offices in the land, the United States would at least benefit through the formation of a comprehensive national energy policy. Once again, such hope for our 43rd president proved foolish. Though Bush rails against our "addiction to oil," his administration has seen the price of a gallon of gas go from near $1 per gallon back in 2001 to near $3 per gallon by 2006. Does the open market have a say? Sure. But since when does the biggest and strongest federal government in history have no say on the market? Actually, Iraq proves that we do by having greatly increased tension in the oil rich Middle East. If only it truly had been a war for oil! Simple question: in a period where the GOP controlled the Presidency, the Congress, and a majority of Governorships and State Houses, why were no new power plants (nuclear or otherwise) green lighted?

Fair Trade -- Sure, I love those cheap prices on junk from China at Wal-Mart. And I drive a Toyota too and find the reliability second to none. But I also realize the great costs our new economy has produced. The shift to a service based economy isn't an entirely bad thing. But the abandonment of our ability to produce products is. Because in time services can be outsourcing too. Think about that the next time you call your airline and you can't understand the representative's thick Pakistani accent. A healthy economy strikes a balance between services and products. The United States no longer can do this. And sadly it will be nations like China and India who benefit at our expense. There's your new superpowers for the 22nd century and unfair trade in the 21st century will have been the root cause.

Gun Rights -- I believe the 2nd amendment guarantees law-abiding citizens the right to keep, bear, and use firearms. I think the world would be a safer place if criminals weren't the only ones armed. And I'm pleased to see how many states now issue carry permits so that people may take the protection of their families seriously. I know I took a risk here by putting my lot with the Democrats in 2006. But I'm hoping the conservative "blue dog" Democrats have been strengthened enough that they will block any possible encroachment on the rights of gun owners.

Health Care -- I have come full circle on this issue. Back in 1993, I opposed the Clinton administration's plan for universal health care, as did most Americans. But after seeing our health care system hemorrhage for a decade, I think the time has come for reform. And I think the only way to do it is to create a system of shared responsibility between the public and private sector. Give people a choice, but guarantee the right to stay healthy. Thankfully, we already do this for children and the elderly. But if we don't find a way to do it for all, the government will pay more in the end anyway though Medicare, Medicaid, and prescription drugs.

Illegal Immigration -- Stop it now and send those here illegally back home. I would build a militarized wall on our southern border and would even consider one on our northern border too. Sure, fences are never the ideal solution. But ask any homeowner -- sometimes they prove to be necessary. And they usually do make for better neighbors in the end. I also think the unquestioned notion that America has a need for low-paid, seasonal workers is bull. Let the market bear what it will for such jobs. And if they prove to be jobs Americans won't do indeed, than the rate of compensation will have to rise. People will then be lining up to fill out applications and the problem is solved. Why should fruit companies and the like not play by the same rules as every other American business does?

Minimum Wage -- In theory, I oppose a national minimum wage. I'd much prefer each state setting its own minimum wage as it sees fit. And 24 states have currently chosen to do this and set their minimum wages above the federal mandate of $5.15 per hour. But if we are going to have a federal minimum wage, why is it so out of touch with reality? Nobody can live on that kind of money. So either get rid of it and let the states handle the issue or make it based in the reality of 2006. I'd say $7 or so per hour is realistic, especially if this economy is as strong as I'm told.

Prayer in Schools -- If Congress can open each day with a prayer, why do we not show the same care to our young school children? I believe public schools should be allowed to foster time for prayer each day, whether it is done through silent individual prayer or by public shared faith. No child should be punished because they rely on the public school system. At the same time, I freely admit that no one should be forced to participate, just as no Congressmen is forced to pay attention when the chaplain reads a prayer to a nearly empty chamber. We're a nation of faith, and that is a very different notion than being a nation of an established religion. Only the latter is forbidden by the Constitution, and prayer in schools deals only with the former idea.

Pro Life -- I'm against abortion. I'm fine with exceptions for the legitimate health of the mother. I'm also ok with "morning after" type pills. But after 3 kids of my own and viewing countless ultrasounds at nearly every stage of pregnancy, any procedure to destroy a fertilized egg beyond a few days after conception is infanticide to me. At the very least, I wish the court-created federal right to privacy that allows for guaranteed access to abortion coast-to-coast was abolished. Return the controversial issue to the states and let them enforce the will of their citizens.

Strengthened Military -- The legacy of Donald Rumsfeld's time at the Pentagon is to ask more of the military by giving them less. What crap! I was really stunned when a Republican president (in the wake of 9/11 no less) supported another harsh round of base closures after Bill Clinton already subjected our military to two of them. I'd like the see both the size of our military and the compensation given to them increased. I'd re-open the bases that have been closed all around America and send the clear message to foreign terrorists and rogue states alike that we're stronger than ever in our Fortress America.

Term Limits -- Perhaps the simplest, and yet the most critical issue on my list. Because if Congressional term limits were a reality, I think we'd have more politicians who might have the balls and the accountability to advocate such hot-button issues as these. And if our branches of government are truly to be equal, then what's good for the president should be good for Congress too. I'd set limits of 6 consecutive terms in the House and 2 consecutive terms in the Senate. I think 12 years in Washington is more than enough to require a permanent trip home to clean the stink out of the politician. And if voters really want to send them back in 2 years after a good trip to the dry cleaners, then so be it.

In summation, I'd score it: 5 issues lean Republican, 4 issues lean Democrat, and 3 issues are currently party neutral (budget deficit, strengthened military, term limits). Whaddya think?

Smack Down

2006-11-16T19:35:00.000-05:00

This is more of a quick hit than a full-fledged post, but I just wanted to express a little shock (and a little joy) that Speaker-in-waiting Nancy Pelosi (D-Cal.) has suffered such an abrupt end to the honeymoon by having her handpicked moonbat, Rep. John Murtha (D-Okinawa), rejected for the House Majority Speaker spot in favor of the man who ostensibly deserves it, Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-Md.).

I am not quite sure how to read this yet. I am tempted to say it is a first assertion of independence by the slightly more conservative Democrats who were elected last week, in conjunction with other, more liberal, incumbent Democrats who saw the writing on the wall. I cannot see such independence being a long-term trend, particularly given how autocratically the Democrat Party is run. Only time will tell.

Now all we need is a conservative leader in the House to stoke the flames. Mike Pence, where are you?

What Last Tuesday Meant

2006-11-14T08:46:00.000-05:00

I have been so close over the past week to writing this post, but a range of things, from moving to being swamped at work, have kept me from doing so. I truly hope none of you have read anything into the silence.

At the risk of being a little late in the analysis, I will keep this as brief as possible, for your sake and for mine.

Credit Where Credit is Due. While I disagree vehemently with most of what the liberal Democrat Party has to offer in the way of solutions for America’s problems (both real and perceived), I would nonetheless like to congratulate it for its decisive victory during these midterm elections.

Speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi (D-Cal.) did a very effective job of both staying on-message and making sure that party rank and file remained disciplined during the stretch run, neither of which are easy tasks. Rahm Emmanuel (D-Ill.), as head of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, brilliantly recruited an incoming class of representatives who appealed to frequently neglected conservative Democrats and pre-empted moderate and conservative Republicans on some of the issues that historically have belonged solely to the latter. (This may not be a long-term positive for Democrats – I’ll get to that in a minute – but for now, it means majority status.)

Republican Loss, Conservative Victory. More than a few commentators have cast this election as proof positive that conservatism is not a viable political force in American politics. If anything, I think what last Tuesday showed us is that conservatism is not only a viable political force, but that it is preferred by the majority of Americans, and feckless politicians abandon conservative principles at their electoral peril. To put it in even starker terms, this week was a victory for conservatism because it kicked out non-conservatives.

What do I mean? One need only scan the list of incumbent Republicans who fell at the hands of Democrats to know that the losers were those who had long since abandoned any pretense at being conservative when it came to governing. Those moderates came crashing down when challenged by Democrats who were even vaguely conservative on even a few issues, and many of those congressional Republicans who lectured conservatives about the need for compromise are looking for employment.

While some Republicans have decried last Tuesday’s results, it actually seems like a positive for the forces of conservatism. The mushy among us have been boiled off, and true conservatives are in a better position to run the show next time around – if we ever have a “next time.”

Democrats, Show Thyselves! Our very own G-Veg is representative of a significant portion of conservative Democrat and moderate Republican voters who think that the new conservative incoming class of Democrat representatives (this does not really apply to the Senate – Casey is an anomaly) will push the Democrat Party to the right and force it to lead from the center. I urge those of you who feel that way to not hold your breath.

The Democrat Party will remain a liberal vehicle for pseudo-socialist policies, notwithstanding the new crop of conservative-leaning members. One need only look at the people who have been tapped for leadership positions. The ultra-liberal Charlie Rangel (D-N.Y.) will be running the House Ways and Means Committee. Fellow lib John Conyers (D-Mich.) – the very same one who called for President Bush’s impeachment, and, to my knowledge, still has an active, pending piece of legislation with his name on it that calls for the same – will be running the House Judiciary Committee. And not two days ago, Speaker-to-be Pelosi gave her blessing to the anti-war John “ABSCAM” Murtha (D-Okinawa) in the race for House Majority Leader, bypassing Steny Hoyer (D-Md.). (Check out this story, which already shows an early fault line amidst the newly minted Democrat House leadership.)

The new kids will have no voice now, if ever. They will be told to sit in the corner, smile, and tow the party line when told to do so. Assuming that their campaign conservatism was a true and legitimate expression of their innate political beliefs and not just a campaign tactic, they will be frustrated by their inability to get things done. Ironically, the Democrats’ victory at the polls may make it easier for conservatives to push for their ideas and possibly bring legislation to the floor, since an alliance between the remaining conservative Republicans and the new conservative Democrats could force the Democrat leadership to bend in order to retain power. Only time will tell.

The Difference Between Them and Us. While the Republican Party has been on my hit list of late for being so weak and refusing to back conservative principles, I commend those Republicans who lost and lost with grace and decency, which is to say I commend all Republicans who lost. To my knowledge, there has not been a single Republican who has claimed his or her loss was the result of widespread voter fraud or broken machines. They simply heard the results, called their opponents to congratulate them, and conceded their races. This is how the Founding Father envisioned it – a peaceful transfer of power by inherently decent people.

Contrast the above civilized reaction with what happens when Democrats lose: they whine, they bitch, they allege civil rights violations (that are never supported by any factual evidence), they file law suits. In other words, Democrats take their blocks and go home when the results don’t turn out the way they would like. Democrats tend to be (if I may bring back a phrase from the 2000 election) Sore Losermen. I chalk this up to their arrogant assumption that they have a birthright to power, and that anything that interferes with that birthright somehow represents a disruption of the natural order of the universe. There are many reasons I am glad to be a Republican, and this is one more on the pile.

A Weak Bush. Who would have thought that it would be our very own President Bush who would cut and run?

I will admit: I am furious with the president for his weakness of late. After listening to him speak about the importance of this war, and how we need to persist in our mission, and how the war’s execution is independent of domestic political forces, President Bush made a 180-degree turn the day after an election that did not go his way, throwing Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld under the bus (as if that somehow accomplishes anything) and embracing defeatist calls for rapid “redeployment” (an Orwellian word that actually means abandoning the Iraqi people). As if that was not bad enough, President Bush is now salivating at the possibility of further frittering away American sovereignty by pursuing an illegal alien amnesty program, as well as caving to Democrats on some of their pet socialist issues in the hopes of staying popular. I feel like I have been experiencing Clinton-era deja vu this past week.

I thought I voted for someone with firm convictions, who didn’t waver, who didn’t let the political winds of the day alter his innermost beliefs. I am sad to say that I was wrong, at least in light of what I have seen of late. I am now looking forward to the next presidential race, not so much because I will enjoy it (although I will), but rather because it will give conservatives a chance to vote for an actual leader.

A Closely Divided Senate and the Supreme Court

2006-11-13T17:10:00.000-05:00

In the comments to a previous post G-Veg asked me to pontificate and predict what effects, if any, a closely divided Senate, with the Democrats in the majority, will have should there be one or more vacancies on the Supreme Court before the end of President Bush’s term. Specifically, he framed the question in terms of what he called the “Scalia Revolution,” by which I assume he means the increased focus and reliance on methods of statutory and constitutional interpretation such as “textualism” and “originalism” (to be fair, the term “Scalia Revolution” isn’t G-Veg’s, as I’ve seen it before).

While I can do a lot with the pontification part; as for predictions I’m afraid I only have but one. My fear is that the current make-up of the Senate, combined with what we know about the President’s proclivity towards nominating people he’s comfortable with, makes “stealth” nominations the likely result. The last “stealth” nomination, Justice Souter, has, lets just say, not worked out well at all from a conservative jurisprudential point of view. Of course “stealth” nominations cut both ways by definition, so another Souter, while likely, isn’t guaranteed by any means. A “stealth” nomination could result in a fairly conservative justice, though the person is unlikely to be one in the mold of a Scalia or Thomas. Nominees with little to no judicial record, paper trail (judicial or otherwise), or hint of ideology (e.g., Harriet Miers) are likely because they stand a chance of being confirmed, politically. Remember a nominee has to go through three stages, Judiciary Committee, Cloture (the Seante term for ending floor debate, which requires a supermajority of 60 votes), and then vote to confirm by the full Senate. A conservative like a Scalia or Thomas likely will not make it past stages one or two, so the fact that they might survive three is of little relevance. A “stealth” nominee, however, likely makes it through the first two stages, which almost guarantees confirmation as there are “red state” democrats up for re-election in 2008 who would likely vote to confirm such a supposedly moderate nominee. Note, I’m not endorsing any of this either substantively or procedurally; I’m merely laying out the likely possibilities and offering a rather bleak prediction as to the outcome. I’m on the record numerous times of objecting to numerous parts of the modern confirmation process, but it is what it is and, to be honest, it has become a mess. As a result, it is, in my opinion not going to be fixed in the 110th Congress and, therefore, the result will be something less that desirable from a jurisprudential stand point (regardless of whether you are a legal conservative or a legal progressive), but something/someone that everyone (meaning at least 51 Senators) can live with politically.

At the risk of opening a can of worms that will further endanger me among my conservative friends, I have to say something about the so-called “Scalia Revolution.” I don’t deny its existence per se; rather I think its effect is more often than not overstated. Put another way, I actually think that Justice Thomas has had a far greater impact (in my opinion a negative impact, but that’s another post altogether) on modern Supreme Court jurisprudence than Justice Scalia has. Scalia gets the credit for two reasons: First, he’s been a judge/Justice for longer than Thomas has and; second, he’s far more publicly available and accessible about his jurisprudence than Thomas. For example, Scalia is known for his acerbic wit during oral argument (the only chance the general public really has to hear/see anything about the Justices), while Thomas is known for saying nothing and appearing to sleep during arguments (for the record, I’ve attended at least 15 SCOTUS oral arguments and have never once heard Thomas ask a question, at the same time, however, I’ve never observed him to be sleeping either). Moreover, Scalia is well-known for his strong dissents with respect to legislative history and his overall flamboyant writing style. Thomas, on the other hand, writes short, often technical opinions, that exhibit little of the flare that Scalia’s tend to. Once one gets past the veneer, however, Thomas’s opinions are more often far more doctrinal and true to “originalist” thinking than Scalia’s. The biggest impact that I think often goes unnoticed (except by Feddie at Southern Appeal) is Thomas’s disdain for stare decisis, which, as many of you know, is the principle that says that prior decisions or precedents should be adhered to and followed unless there is an overwhelming reason to reverse them and move in a new direction. As a long-standing supporter of stare decisis, I find Thomas’s opinions on the issue disturbing, short-sighted, and wrongheaded. In short, while I don’t dispute the impact Justice Scalia has had in the last 18 years since his appointment to the Supreme Court, I think in the end it will be Thomas who will be looked upon as having led a conservative legal revolution, albeit quietly, that has a far greater impact on future SCOTUS jurisprudence. I could go on and on, but I think I’ve made the point I wanted to.

That having been said, I see little to no chance of another Thomas-like figure making it through a closely divided Senate. This is true even if the President’s political popularity were to rebound into the 50s or 60s. Simply put, I don’t think this President will expend the political capital when he can have a “stealth nomination” at a far lower cost to his legacy.

Don't be coy, Joe

2006-11-13T10:42:00.000-05:00

Some conservatives (including your truly) have been holding out hope that Joe Lieberman will change parties, and this exchange with Tim Russert certainly fuels the flames.

MR. RUSSERT: Jim Jeffords of Vermont crossed over and joined the Democrats.

SEN. LIEBERMAN: Yeah.

MR. RUSSERT: And they gave—they gave him his committee chairmanship.

SEN. LIEBERMAN: Yeah.

MR. RUSSERT: You’re, you’re not ruling that out at some future time?

SEN. LIEBERMAN: I’m not ruling it out, but I hope I don’t get to that point

It's gotten to the point where the Democratic party, at least in the Senate, is Joe Lieberman's bitch. And while many among us will have no shortage of glee at this situation, I'm not sure that this is a good thing.

Joe Lieberman, one Senator, now holds an inordinate amount of power. He says jump, and Harry Reid has to say "How high?" He's pretty much assured of any chairmanship he desires, and to an extent he can even manipulate the Senate's agenda to his liking. "Oh, so you want to pass that bit of legislation? Let me just get on the phone with Mitch here and . . ."

Any man in Lieberman's shoes can be forgiven for acting like a bit of a power hog, especially after getting thrown overboard. Unlike Lincoln Chafee, an ungrateful sniveling jerk who has cast aside the party that tried to help him, Lieberman owes nothing to the Democratic party, and in fact owes his re-election to Republicans.

That said, Lieberman should not become a one man sword of Damacles hanging over the Democratic party. Pick a party and go with it, Joe. I respect him for his principles, but he's starting to sound a little bit like a spoiled child upset because his mommy spanked him. Republicans were rightfully pissed when Jumping Jim Jeffords switched parties, and Democrats can be excused for casting a wary eye on Joe Lieberman's act.

The institutional design of the Senate encourages this sort of thing, so we do have to live with the fruits of our Framers' design. But no one man should become the locus of this much power. And if Lieberman jumps, will he just jump back once he's upset with the GOP leadership? Is he going to continue playing games for the entire length of the 110th Congress?

Again, while I have much respect for Joe Lieberman, he's starting to behave in ways that make it seem he feels he is entitled to power. Get over it Joe, and just pick a side already.

An open letter to the Centre for Constitutional Rights

2006-11-11T11:30:00.000-05:00

The Centre for Constitutional Rights has requested indictments against US Officials for supposed "war crimes" committed by the United States in Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay. I have expressed my concerns about this action to my representatives and the Administration. I have also sent the following inquiry to the Centre for Constitutional Rights. I will post any response that I receive.

"With Respect,

I am curious as to whether your organization has considered
the possible consequences of seeking an indictment of US leaders.

In particular, I wonder whether attaching such dire
consequences as "war crimes" to public service will have a
chilling effect on the nominee search for future Administrations.

The European view of what constitutes War Crimes and Torture
is different than that which Americans have articulated.
While there are core definitions that are generally accepted,
it is not so clear that practices such as isolation, sleep
deprivation, threats of violence, or deception constitute
mistreatment of prisoners. Certainly there is considerable
dispute as to whether they constitute "war crimes."

By availing yourselves of a German court that claims
"universal jurisdiction," a claim to breadth of jurisdiction
that is breathtaking in scope, don't you run the risk of
opening the perverbial "Pandora's box?" Do you believe that
the acknowledgment of such authority can be confined to what
you view as a particular set of incidents?

I am also concerned that future nominees for high office in
subsequent administrations will be of a low caliber precisely
because those with sense will recognize the tremendous
liability that they take on by stepping up to a leadership role.

I do not intend to be disputive, but I am curious about the
process by which your organization has reached the conclusion
that these steps are prudent, reasonable, and necessary.

Sincerely,"

The Winds of Political Change

2006-11-09T00:21:00.000-05:00

I've been digesting the nation's winds of political change for 24 hours now and feel it's time to put some thoughts down since I had been so vocal in my opposition to the President and the GOP Congress prior to the election.

I'm sure I'm one of a select few who celebrated the election returns in both 1994 and in 2006. The former was a magical moment of optimism that I'll always remember sharing with a friend and fellow political junkie over a 4 hour long-distance phone call as we both watched Comrade Bernie Shaw sorrowfully deliver election results late into the night. The latter was a moment I embraced even though it didn't provide nearly the same fulfillment. Rather, for me, it brought more of a satisfaction with seeing justice served.

One of my political heroes, G. Gordon Liddy, wrote shortly before the election, "When your child is naughty you spank him, but you don't kill him." As much as I will always admire the G-Man, I've disagreed with that sentiment very strongly for these past two years. You see, in my opinion, there was no way to "spank" President Bush or the Republican Congress. As all the pundits said prior to the votes, a Republican hold of Congress (no matter how small) would have been a victory for the President.

And this President did not deserve a victory last night. Iraq alone dictates that much. But uncontrolled spending and failed promises to the conservatives who elected him certainly didn't help.

This Congress composed past and present of the likes of Dennis Hastert, Tom DeLay, Bob Ney, Randy Cunningham, Tom Reynolds, Mark Foley, Arlen Specter, George Allen, and Lincoln Chaffee did not deserve such a victory.

So I say, yes, even Nancy Pelosi herself deserved victory on Tuesday more than that sorry group. Why? Because I and millions like me just couldn't adopt the attitude of, "They're still better than the Democrats." To me, it's only natural that as a conservative I hold the Republican Party to a higher standard of success. And when they painfully betray that trust, I have to find a way to punish them for it much more severely than a mere spanking. Afterall, that's the very purpose of an effective republic -- accountability.

So let me pat myself on the back since I already enjoy a reputation for doing so. Might as well live up to it tonight, especially when my track record on this election gives me the right. A couple of Big Daddy's predictions that surprisingly came true:

12/31/05 -- Big Daddy Jeff at Geek Soap Box, "2006 prediction: Democrats take at least one house of Congress."

11/05/06 -- Big Daddy Jeff at Political Spectrum, "I wouldn't be surprised if Rummy's was the first head from the White House to roll following Tuesday's elections, despite Bush's recent proclamation."

Bingo. And bingo. And I feel we're better for both happening. Time will tell. And either the Democrats will pleasantly surprise us with domestic change, greater accountability, and much-needed oversight on Iraq, or the GOP will hopefully have no choice but finally to realize the necessity of rising to fill the vacuum of the moment and renew both their values and leadership.

Finally, I want to bring back some contrary New Year's predictions from a few co-bloggers concerning Tuesday's election. I preface this by saying how I have always and will continue to value the opinions and insights of these friends of mine above almost all others in my life. That said, here goes.

"No way in hell will the Dems retake Congress. I see nothing from them to indicate that they will ever offer any sort of honest and optimistic plan that can resonate with the nation."

"Gotta disagree on the jackasses retaking one chamber of Congress - Senate impossible and House highly unlikely unless they grow brains and figure out how to nationalize an off-year election - and they're much more likely to put a contract ON America rather than with America".

"Jeff, as always, is Mr. Optimist. The Dems will lose seats in both Houses this year. And Dean will be gone by December."

I have understandably earned the political scorn of my friends by drifting to the center, at least in terms of party affiliation. This post may or may not help. But this is why I did it: I truly believed we reached the point sometime after the 2004 election where this Tuesday's outcome became inevitable. And I revisit these predictions not so much as to boast, but rather to impress just how seminal I believe the election of 2006 was. As we look back on the disappointments of our Republican leaders, let us recall that at one time this did not have to happen. In fact, these words reveal that to the near end, many did not even think it could happen.

But it did. And for real reasons. So let's digest those reasons and maybe both parties will emerge better for doing so. If not, 2008 may prove the most important (and the harshest) election in our nation's history.

On a personal note, I can't help but feel a sense of needing to pull back. For better or for worse, I've been caught up in this election, in Iraq, and certainly on old Rummy himself, as I was often reminded. I'm ready to ease up on the passion and accept that life will go on as usual. Maybe I can even work on really being Mr. Optimist? But, I admit, that will take considerable effort!

Now if only I could get one of my annual "Braves win the World Series" predictions to come true?!? Maybe not.

Rumsfeld out

2006-11-08T13:11:00.000-05:00

Well the orgy of good news for Jeff continues.

I'm probably a decided minority on this - not because I support or oppose Rummy, but because I simply have no strong opinion either way. I think that there is much to criticize about the war planning, and I think conservative critiques of Rumsfeld's decision to emphasize rapid change in the military while at the same time fighting a massive have some merit. But if we're all agreed that changes need to be made in the Pentagon's structure, is it wise to cast aside the guy who might be most fit to oversee said changes?

Anyway, Rumseld has finally been made to fall on the sword. I guess the motto now is "the buck stops there."

Election Reax

2006-11-08T11:42:00.000-05:00

I put up a couple of posts at the CC. For a look at what direction Congress may be headed in, go here. And for a look at the current state of the 2008 presidential race, go here.

The election

2006-11-07T13:27:00.000-05:00

So I hear there's an election today.

I'm not going to offer sweeping predictions, because I honestly don't know. I haven't been pouring over poll numbers like other political junkies. My gut instict tells me this is going to be a narrow one in the House - a 20-Democratic seat pickup, give or take. But I also think that the election will go deep into the night, and possibly beyond. Not only will there be many close contests, but we'll also be waiting on the overly large number of absentee ballots. Further complicating things, scenarios that have several House Democrats swithcing parties if this is real close do not seem implausible.

As for the Senate, I think there will be a three seat gain for the Dems.

Now, as to what I want to happen, obviously I am hoping for Republican rentention in both Houses. But, to tell the truth, the only race that truly matters to me is the one that affects me in Marlyand, and that is the Senate race between Steele and Cardin. Though I also would very much like to see Santorum pull out an upset in Pennsylvania, I don't see it as a likely outcome, nor does it matter as much to me as this one.

Ideologically this election is a clear choice. Steele is a true blue, Catholic conservative. I was impressed by him the first time I saw him speak at a Knight of Columbus gathering last winter. He's an engaging speaker who has full command of the political scene, and he's on the same page as me on the issues that truly matter. So, there was never any doubt as to whether or not I would vote for him.

But as the campaign has progressed, it's become much more important to me to see him win. This morning I saw a picture of Ben Cardin, and I think it was the first time I had seen his face during the campaign. That should give you an indication of the absolutely atrocious campaign that the invisible man has run. On the other hand, Steele has run one of the most magnificent campaigns I have ever observed. Sure, the puppy add might have been a bit of fluff, but it was also a smart ad that showed that Steele was a little different from the rest. His campaign has accentuated the positive, a stark contrast to Cardin, and especially the pathetic Webb-Allen fiasco (more on that in a second).

Cardin's basic line of attack is basically to accuse Steele of actually liking George Bush. While that sort of campaign makes copious amounts of sense in a heavily Democratic state, and I can't really blame Cardin for taking advantage of Bush's unpopularity, the lack of substance truly aggravates me. On every level I want Steele to pull this out.

Will he? Polls that have Steele getting merely 12% of the African-American vote are, simply put, not to be believed. He has garnered many important endorsements, including an essentially loud "no comment" from Cardin's primary opponent, Kwasi Mfume. Of course, this is a state where voter registration runs something like 2-1 Democratic to Republican, and this isn't exactly a good year to have an R next your name as it is. But the momentum is heavily on Steele's side. I think he can do it.

I also have promoted Jeff Stein for Congress. It would take a miracle of the first order for him to defeat Van Hollen, but at least I can vote for him without holding my nose.

I can't say the same for Bob Ehrlich in his bid for re-election as governor, though Bill Clinton's last second appeal on behalf of Martin O'Malley may have been enough to spur me to vote for the moderate. But that will be a last second decision, to be sure.

As for Webb-Allen. Ugh. That's all I can say. Though Allen can't be blamed entirely for the disaster that has been his campaign - the Washington Post has been on a mission to defeat him since September - he can be blamed for a good chunk of it. I mean, citing Webb's novels? Come on. Of course, Webb has been a joke in his own right. I wish both men could somehow lose this race, because they have been equally awful. Whatever the outcome, it's safe to say that Allen's presidential hopes have been completely obliterated.

A quick note on this evening - I will be posting, though I won't be "live-blogging" per se. The television and computer are in seperate rooms, so I will post as I see fit on the Cranky Con.

All right, political junkies of all partisan stripes - have fun tonight, and drink plenty of cofee.

Why I Voted For Democrats Today (and Why You Should, Too)

2006-11-07T10:46:00.000-05:00

First a disclaimer; my sole purpose in writing this post is not to let GipperClone go unchallenged. I harbor no illusions that anything I may say (or that he has said) will change anyone’s mind who is a regular reader. I know that my fellow co-bloggers are all very set in their political positions and from the comments I assume (know in some cases) that our readers are too. So call this effort merely good fun on Election Day. That said, however, I sincerely encourage all of you out there who are eligible to vote to get to the polls or be sure to mail your absentee ballots on time. GC and I agree on the fact that elections, all elections, are important and participation is a must for all eligible citizens. As usual, click the button to read the rest.

GC starts with the classic conservative but Republican distinction, which I’m not going challenge because I know he’s serious about maintaining this illusion. Besides, he has a valid claim, to a point. Many politically affiliated Republicans are Conservatives, and in fact I do believe that for many this is a meaningful distinction. The problem is that they don’t usually give the same curtsey to Democrats as reflected by the continued use of the terms “socialists,” “Stalinists,” “Communists,” “Marxists,” or what have you. Are their members of the Democratic Party that hold these views; yes, there are, I’m not going to deny it. While we may have our share of demons, there are “nationalists,” “constitutionalists,” “theocrats,” “libertarians,” and arguably other groups of "extremists" in the Republican Party as well. So what, I don’t think that any of the above mentioned groups are “in the mainstream” in any way, nor to they represent the leadership positions of either major political party. Like GC, I’m a Democrat not because they are perfect, they’re not, but rather because they are the political party that most closely represents the majority of my beliefs and interests. I don’t agree with them 100% of the time, nor to I adhere and hang on every word of Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi, Bill Clinton, or any other so-called leader of the party. Okay, so now that we’ve gotten the grouping and name-throwing out of the way…on to substance.

Taxes: Contrary to what GC would have you believe, I don’t think that Democrats have run on, or intend to raise taxes across the board. As with most things, taxation issues and tax policy is far more complicated than it seems, or than we hear at election time, but let me try to set a few things straight. As I’ve argued before, tax policy is NOT responsible for strong economic growth. President Clinton convinced Congress to raise taxes and the economy exploded with record growth. President George Bush convinced Congress to lower taxes and the economy has maintained steady growth (with some recent sparks of high growth). What does this tell you? Well it should confirm what most of us with functioning neurons (okay, so I wasn’t totally done with the name calling) know, which is that taxes don’t dictate economic outcomes, at least not alone; there are always other factors. Second, not all instances of taxes are borne by everyone equally. Or, phrased another way, not all taxes are created equal. Often the tax most usually recognized by the population, and the one frequently inferred by politicians and pundits when they use the phrase “raise taxes” is the income tax. Other taxes, like the so-called “death tax” and the “capital (cap) gains” tax have become popular as well, at least rhetorically. But it is important to note that the burdens of these taxes are not evenly distributed. In fact, very small percentages of the population pay either one of these taxes. Example, currently (if my memory serves) the “death tax” only impacts estates valued at over $1 million dollars, anything less and the recipient of the estate pays ZERO in taxes. So raising them or maintaining them at current levels affects whom exactly? Will tax rates go up if the Democrats gain control of Congress, doubtful as it looks like the GOP may retain the Senate and well the President always has the veto pen. Besides, if past is prologue, some taxes will go up while others may yet decrease. Democrats (and some Republicans) have long been proponents of so-called “targeted tax cuts,” which many people, myself included, actually think are more effective than major shifts in the overall tax burdens of Americans.

War on Terror Funding: First off, Charlie Rangel doesn’t speak for the Democratic Party or the potential House Leadership, so any reliance on statements he’s made about things is dubious at best. Yes, he’ll likely be the chairman of the powerful Ways and Means Committee should the House shift parties, but that committee doesn’t control either Homeland Security or Department of Defense funding, so I’m pretty much willing to chalk this one up to a “red herring” and call it a day. That said, I think that you will see activity with respect to GWOT funding, but I doubt it will be a decrease of any appreciable measure. Rather, what I think you’ll see, and I actually hope to see, is better, more aggressive oversight and management of how the funds are actually being used. Some of the government’s largest unsung heroes are Inspector’s General and Auditors from the Government Accountability Office (GAO) and if you read their work and reports over the last 6 years I think you’ll be astounded at the amount of waste, fraud, and abuse, which has taken place with respect to GWOT and Homeland Security funding. I don’t think that more oversight and questioning of government officials, contractors and other spending agents amounts to a reduced or diminished military and/or homeland security effort. Maybe people do, but I think that it’s a bit inflammatory to suggest that just because Democrats want to keep better track of the books means that they are somehow weak or not serious about fighting and winning the GWOT. We may disagree on methods and strategy, but I doubt funding will be effected much, if at all.

Immigration: Once again, I’m not sure that this deserves much of a response considering that the real blame for much of the immigration problem can be traced to President’s since Reagan (who granted amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants in 1983). Besides, President Bush, the current leader of the Republican Party actively supports and has advocated for the very Senate Bill that GC blames on the Democrats. Yes, Democrats were involved in its drafting, but so were many Republicans, including the White House. A Democratic Congress is merely going to give the President what he’s always wanted. Besides, as many people have pointed out immigration is kind of like gun control, if we merely enforced the laws already in place everyone would be happier. Instead, however, we get distracted by the need to pass new laws that further muddle and confuse the issue. It is true that Democrats and House Republicans represent differing immigration policy views. But the House has proven ineffective in convincing either the Senate or the White House of the correctness of its positions. That should tell one something.

“Benchocracy:” A creative phrase, for that I commend GC. To be honest, however, I think that on this issue regardless of what happens we’re looking at more of the status quo. I’ve never supported, strongly or otherwise, the Democrats stall, delay, and filibuster tactics in the Senate, and I’m not going to start now. At the same time, the White House has been slow and ineffective in making nominations to fill vacancies because there are regional disputes and apparently a lack of candidates that they feel are worth expending the political capital on to get through the Senate. I don’t really have much of a problem with the status quo as the courts are, for the most part, pretty balanced, if not tilting ever so slightly to the right. Control of the House changes nothing about this issue as they play no role in the process. Since I don’t expect the GOP to lose the Senate, I’m not convinced this is an issue that should sway swing voters minds in any manner.

Impeachment: Four words: NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. Period. End of Story. Impeachment talk is a nice rhetorical tool for election season, but simply not a political reality. Are there those that would like to see this happen, sure, but they don’t control the levers of power and don’t represent a significant portion of the leadership to matter. Are there going to be investigations and aggressive oversight, yes, I sure hope so. Do those things mean that there will be impeachment hearings; no, not in my opinion.

In sum, I think that we’ve seen what single party rule has done for the past six years. I don’t think that there are very many people out there who are happy with the results. Republicans and Conservatives may have many things they want to do better, or differently, but they’ve had 6 years to do so and have failed to make any changes. If anything they’ve done things to erode the institution of Congress and strengthen the Presidency to a point where they are going to have a hard time should they ever lose control of that institution. Precedents have been set, and once they are there and engrained they are difficult, if not impossible, to change. There is, however, still some limited time to counter these problems, but the solution is not more of the status quo, it’s change, political party change. Divided government often in our history has produced better, more effective results than single party rule, regardless of which party is the ruler. Neither party is perfect, but a little of both might just produce some favorable results. If you’re looking for ideological purity than by all means vote third party and send the message. If you’re looking for a government that might actually work to the benefit of all Americans, I think a divided one is the solution and that means vote for Democrats today.

Why I'm Voting Republican Tomorrow (and Why You Should, Too)

2006-11-07T00:00:00.000-05:00

It will come as no surprise to those of you who read TPS and know me know where I stand ideologically. I am a conservative, which means I favor a minimum of government involvement in our everyday lives. I want low taxes, low government spending, a strong military that encourages peace through strength, enforcement of immigration laws, a robust criminal justice system that fights for the law-abiding among us, and judicial respect for the text of our Constitution. Give me that and a strong cup of coffee every morning, and life would be perfect.

I am a Republican, too, but I am a conservative first, and I registered as a Republican when I turned 18 because the Republican Party is the best political vehicle for my views. Sure, I could have registered as a Conservative Party member, but while I am an ideologue, I am also a pragmatist who likes to be involved – better to light a candle than curse the darkness, if you catch my drift.

Tomorrow morning, I am voting for Republicans. I will do this despite the fact that I live in a state where it will mean absolutely nothing. (Gotta love the Empire State. Nowhere other than New York could a man who was recently found to have robbed the state for which he works of tens of thousands of dollars for personal use have a lead in the polls against his Republican opponent in another statewide race. Well . . . okay, maybe New Jersey.) I do it because I recognize the best chance I have of seeing my goals realized is Republican victory here and elsewhere.

For those of you contemplating voting for Democrats tomorrow, for whatever reason, I encourage you not to. Notwithstanding Dean’s and Pelosi’s election-eve protestations, here is what you can expect from an across-the-board Democrat victory tomorrow, in fairly blunt terms and in no particular order.

Higher Taxes, Guaranteed. This should not be shocking. Combine Democrats’ penchant for indiscriminately raising spending with Republicans’ (unwise, in my opinion) failure to make Bush’s waves of tax cuts permanent, and you get a prescription for hikes in all federal tax brackets. The ignorati out there will no doubt reflexively vomit their DNC talking points and claim that only the wealthiest 1% will feel these hikes, but anyone with at least a handful of neurons bouncing around in his or her skull knows that when it comes to taxes, we are all wealthy enough to pay in the eyes of a Democrat Congress, and we are all vulnerable to the sunset provisions.

War on Terror? Out of Funding. A few months ago, Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-N.Y.) stated during a television interview that, were Democrats able to gain control of the House of Representatives, he would use his (all-but-guaranteed) chairmanship of the powerful House Ways and Means Committee to essentially de-fund the U.S. military’s efforts against global terrorism, including from the active theaters of operation in Afghanistan and Iraq. This news set Vietnam-era hippies alight with borderline-orgasmic glee, which should say it all.

I have no doubt that Rangel was serious when he uttered these comments, even though he and the DNC’s heavy hitters have spent considerable political capital trying to sweep Rangel’s words (and sentiments) under the rug. A Democrat victory tomorrow means a weakened U.S. military effort (if not a permanently crippled one), a chance for a relentless enemy to catch its breath, and a great deal of uncertainty for the future (read: those of you living in high-rise buildings might want to consider moving).

Say Adios to Effective Immigration Reform. Any of you who actually think that Democrats will take on serious immigration reform that does not involve (a) adopting an amnesty program, (b) making Spanish the official language, and/or (b) selling parts of Texas back to Mexico are seriously loco.

Bring On the Benchocracy. Senate Republicans have completely failed us this past term with respect to fighting for the president’s originalist and texualist nominees to the federal bench (which is why I am not completely upset about the possibility of Gang of Fourteen members’ losses this election), but it goes without saying that Democrats will make this sorry bunch look like breakneck-speed reformers. Democrats will completely shut down the judicial confirmation process until 2009 if they win control of the Senate. The only people who will get close to an up-or-down vote in the Senate Judiciary Committee will be those who kept a copy of The Communist Manifesto by their nightstand in college.

Bush Impeachment, Just Because. Calls for President Bush’s impeachment will grow louder, and the last two years of Bush’s administration will be squandered. I have no doubt that this will be one of the first objectives of the Democrat agenda – partly because some seek revenge for Clinton’s impeachment, partly because some think it will serve as a fitting bookend for their belief that Bush stole the election from Al Gore, but mostly because others confuse their side's loss of the foreign policy debate with grounds for removal from office. If you find yourself unhappy with the pace of policy reform these days, a Democrat victory will essentially shut things down until our next president is elected – which is, I’m sure, their goal.

There always exists the temptation to bill the current election as the most important election that ever was. To my knowledge, such claims have been made by candidates and their supporters in almost every recent election, right on up through the last one. I will not fall into that trap. I will only go so far as to say that this election is important, perhaps even pivotal, and might very well play a role in the shaping of American history for the next half century or more.

Are Republicans perfect? No. Have they dropped the ball on some serious issues, like fiscal restraint, immigration, and judicial confirmations? Undeniably. But for those of you who align yourselves with conservative ideals or principles, and ultimately want to see them prevail, you are basically fantasizing if you think the Democrat Party is going to carry your ideological torch.

Choose wisely when you pull those levers. Vote Republican (except for DeWine, Chafee, and Kean). Our future literally depends on it.

How can the Democratic Party attract Socially Conservative/Economically Liberal members?

2006-11-06T21:34:00.000-05:00

Mouldy asked me “in your opinion[,] how should the Democratic party shape its message to accommodate more people who may share your views?”

He also summed up my previous assertions with the label- “Socially Conservative and Economically Liberal.”- I think it a fair assessment of my views.

By way of philosophical background, I believe that there are two forces that impose order on the universe: Divine Will and Man’s will. Where Man’s will is in accord with the Mind of God, there is communal health, individual liberty, and generalized happiness. These three are the proper goals of all human endeavors. We refine our behavior and institutions to move closer to His Will through prayer, observation, analysis, and systemic modification. In the final analysis, the value of human action is defined by its affect on the larger movement of Man towards or away from the Divine Plan.

This is the context within which I am “socially conservative and economically liberal.”

I am a “Democrat” for two reasons: because 3rd parties and Independents cannot compete in the present legal and political environment and because I believe that the obligation to care for those less fortunate trumps most other human obligations. (While the modern Democratic Party (Dems) is no great champion for the less fortunate, the present GOP economic and tax policies are actually harmful to them. Again, I do not believe that the Dems represent my interests well, only less badly than the GOP does.)

The question posed was how the Dems could shape the message to sway “socially conservative and economically liberal” persons to vote Democrat. I suppose the answer depends on whether one is seeking to renovate the party platform and structure or dress it up to make it more attractive.

I think that Howard Dean articulated the “window dressing” option well when he sought to invite religious groups into the fold. He correctly analyzed the great discomfort that “biblical Christians” have with the GOP. He noted that what keeps them in the GOP are the keynote social issues (abortion, euthanasia, prayer in schools, same-sex marriage, sex education, etc.). Dr. Dean pointed out that many of these issues are resolvable only through the courts and many others are state, rather than Federal, issues. As such, religious persons can be plucked away from the GOP precisely because the GOP’s hawk-like approach to foreign policy and economic policy, that favors those with resources, is at odds with the beliefs of many Christians.

One of the reasons that I am skeptical of the ability of the Dems to capitalize on this loose, issue-based allegiance to the GOP, is that Dean’s analysis received such vehement opposition. In my opinion, the claim that softening the Democratic stand on keynote social issues, thereby allowing for party debate of those topics, was tantamount to capitulating to the GOP, was incredibly short-sighted. The strong reaction affirms the remarkable level of control that the elite have over the Democratic Party. So long as that generation of Dems controls the dialogue, we cannot break the hold that the GOP has over “persons of faith.”

In my opinion, the Democratic Party is like a run-down structure with beautiful, but neglected, architectural features. A can of paint may make it look better, but it will not restore it. What is required is the careful removal of the features worth saving and the gutting and replacing of the rest.

So… What is worth saving?

Well, I think we should go back to the beginning with Michael Harrington’s 1962 classic, “The Other America: Poverty in the United States,” as are starting point.

The United States is the preeminent power. Our resources are immense. However, successive administrations, have squandered reoccurring opportunities that could have been turned to alleviating the effects of poverty and want. By the wholesale adoption of the GOP plan to trim social welfare programs, the Dems betrayed their legacy.

There is no doubt that the GOP was onto something… There is an insidious rot that sets in when lethargic acceptance of “handouts” from the state takes the place of personal ambition. However, the Dems abandoned the legitimate interests of the trampled and abandoned and allowed the GOP dialectic to frame the debate. The Dems can, even now, formulate a better way to provide a “safety net” and to break the “cycle of poverty” while encouraging personal achievement.

At the risk of ending up in a policy discussion, I would like to offer a single example of the kind of alternative that the GOP will not embrace but that the Dems are uniquely positioned to champion.

School Desegregation has gone about as far as it can. The courts have been narrowing the scope of remedies for thirty years and any improvement in minority-dominated schools will come from the legislatures, not the courts. This is a good thing. The Dems ought to champion a policy that rewards the top ten percent of every graduating class, that can win a spot at college, with full tuition at any state school. Such a policy is achievement based, affects the poor without minority specification, bolsters the state university systems without being a direct subsidy, and acts as a clear break with the Civil Rights Era approach that has run its course.

In one sense, I am rejecting Mouldy’s characterization of social conservativism and economic liberalism as separable. One necessarily feeds the other.

If you believe, as I do, that the greater, communal good, can only be furthered by individual achievement of potential and that that greater good is paramount interest of the state, then some amount of redistribution of resources is necessary. If the Dems are going to attract social conservatives and retain economic liberals, they need to stop running from the mature argument that measured taxation should fall more heavily on those of with resources. The “key” is that the social programs that come out of that approach must be efficient, have demonstrable benefits to the broader society, and be intimately tied to personal responsibility.

To illustrate: I consider a critical part of “breaking the cycle of poverty” to be reducing the number of single-parent households in the United States. While there are many examples of extraordinary single-parents who raise children of benefit to society, the majority do not. If the policy is merely to support single-parent households, as a way of breaking the “cycle of poverty,” the paying of benefits without any personal accountability must fail. It is simply easier to stay at home with children then it is to shuffle them back and forth to caregivers, while maintaining a minimum-wage job. Thus, any state outlays that seeks to serve this need and do not address this basic problem will be inefficient and have little demonstrable benefit to society precisely because it requires nothing of those who benefit.

My point is only this… The Democratic Party has a unique history of caring for the downtrodden and disadvantaged that we have betrayed in our quest to speak the language of Washington’s “big donors.” (This was particularly evident in the Clinton Administration, which, in six of the most prosperous years of US history, made no appreciable investment in America, alleviated no great harm to the disadvantaged, and took no political or economic risks that would distinguish the party as other than another tool of the wealthy.)

To turn this around, we need to do more than invite “people of faith” into the fold… though that is a good start. We need to invite dispute about social issues, allow candidates that are “right” about broader issues (like Casey), and champion policy that makes a “preferential option for the poor.”

Until we do these kinds of things, we will be a party that can only ascend when the GOP trips over its shoelaces.

More on Saddam and the Death Penalty

2006-11-06T14:51:00.000-05:00

Honestly, I don't want to pick a fight here, that's not my intent.  Both Paul and GC, however, have raised an issue that I've personally agonized over and struggled with for some time, so I'm unusually interested and engaged.  And, since I have some time, I figured I’d move this out of the comments and into a longer post.

Back to the point, I think Paul, GC, and I are all struggling with the same basic issue; namely, how does one square a general aversion to the death penalty (be that the aversion stem from moral/religious grounds, as I'm assuming, on good faith, that Paul's and GC's do, or on procedural/implementation grounds as mine does) with the notion that there are some people so evil and depraved and some crimes so heinous and disgusting that death seems to be the only fitting "punishment?"

My gut answer is that the two positions can't be reconciled.  That, however, is not only discomforting, but also glibly discounts what is, by both Paul and GC, a very well thought out and rationally argued position.  They are correct, in my opinion, in their attempts to distinguish Saddam from other more "routine" civil criminals.  Even rapists and murders are a far cry from what Saddam and others like him are, and their actions, as terrible as they may be, pale in comparison to what they have done to other human beings.  That said, there is also some validity to the "slippery-slope" argument that says once one exception has been granted there will be another, and then another, and pretty soon we've moved the line back far enough that we're all pro-death penalty.

The solution, it seems to me, is to settle on a single, universal criteria by which capital punishment is justified.  My concern here is that this is largely an impossible task.  Paul’s last comment from the post below seems a useful example.  He argues (or my interpretation of his argument is) that Saddam’s case is different because Iraq is an unstable, unsafe place and because his incarceration cannot be adequately guaranteed his execution is justified.  All of those things are true, Iraq is unstable and its justice system still very much a work in progress, but even granting those things, I’m not sure it justifies the conclusion.  In this case, the problem would have easily been solved by simple delay until those issues were resolved, however long it takes.  There is no statue of limitations on “war crimes” or “crimes against humanity,” so Saddam could have been justly been tried and convicted after a stable regime was established without any prejudice or procedural issues.  In addition, another solution would have been to try Saddam in another jurisdiction, one that for security and stability reasons would have met with Paul’s stated criteria for avoiding the death penalty.  Both of these arguments are ones that could be made against Paul’s position and may in fact be raised by anti-death penalty advocates.  Before GC appropriately reminds me, I fully understand that these arguments don’t take into account the need and political reality of trying Saddam in Iraq when they did.  I take no issue with the numerous positive benefits that Saddam’s trial has had on the political and social situation in a very volatile place.  Do those benefits outweigh the costs?  I don’t know; it seems to me that there are rationale arguments on both sides.  A further compromise might have been to bifurcate segments of the trial.  In other words, complete the guilt phase now, and hopefully reap the above-stated benefits, while delaying the sentencing phase until a more stable country can be established.   (I’m not going to take issue with the Church’s position regarding non-lethal means (see here) as I’m woefully ill-equipped to address them; except to say that they do not at first glance appear all that different from Paul’s arguments).   It seems to me that there were consequences to choosing to try Saddam when he was and the implications of that cannot be avoided by citing the civil unrest that currently exists.  Again, I’m not arguing against Saddam’s execution, but rather am merely trying to grapple with the issues that support of it raise, especially for those of us that seem to lean against the imposition of death by the State.

Paul’s argument raises the possibility of bringing in external factors into the deliberation of punishment (namely the state of civil society that will carry out the execution).  There is nothing inherently wrong with consideration of those factors, but it begs the question, where does it stop?  If the state of the civil society is a relevant factor, somehow independent of the traditional ones (i.e., seriousness of the crime, chance for rehabilitation, cost of life incarceration, etc.) than what other factors are relevant in determining which criminals are to be put to death and which are not?  Should we consider the fact that the death penalty is generally, at least in the United States, politically popular?  Should juries consider the political and social ramifications that an execution will have on the community harmed?  This assumes of course that “communities” are harmed by death justifying offenses.  Certainly this argument has merit in cases of serial killers or rapists, but what of the mere single victim crime?  Surely there is a “societal” impact for every crime committed, but should it be a factor in establishing criteria for the administration of death?

Saddam’s situation may be unique in many ways, but I’m not yet convinced that it should be an automatic exception to an anti-death penalty position.  Maybe it qualifies under the rubric of “once in a lifetime” circumstances where the intangible benefits so manifestly outweigh the costs that we are all willing to overlook the bigger, deeper, more complicated questions?  Maybe Saddam is simply that offensive to many people, even those who ordinarily reject the state’s role in executions?  Maybe Saddam or others similarly situated (Milosevic, Stalin, Hitler, Castro, brutal dictators all) are the only exception that anti-death penalty advocates are willing to make?  As I said at the outset, I concur with Saddam’s execution, but don’t see how that is consistent with being opposed to the death penalty.  Hence, I can’t/won’t personally say that I am opposed to the death penalty.  The case for Saddam’s death at the hands of the people he oppressed is a very strong one, however, so is the case for life in prison without parole, especially on “moral” grounds.  For many people, myself included, the two positions seem irreconcilable, but it is an interesting issue worthy of our strong consideration, even if we all end up in agreement.

The Saddam Exception

2006-11-06T08:51:00.000-05:00

Anyone within earshot of a radio or television yesterday or today now knows that former Iraqi dictator (and terrorist collaborator, for those of you still in denial) Saddam Hussein was sentenced to death by hanging at the hands of the people he formerly abused. While his trial, with its periodic ups and downs, made the O.J. Simpson farce look like Inherit the Wind by comparison, the proceedings have been brought to a conclusion. The Iraqis that sat on his jury cited overwhelming evidence of his crimes against humanity as the basis for their verdict, and Saddam, unlike the countless people he tortured, maimed, and slaughtered over the years, will have the benefit of a civilized appeals process before he is put out on the yardarm.

Those of you who know me (or read TPS) know that I am opposed to capital punishment. I am a convert to this position, having been an ardent supporter of it during my younger years. The justifications that I previously used in support of capital punishment -- namely, that families deserve justice, that it serves as a deterrent against crime, and others -- are no less true than they were a decade ago for me, but the difference is I have come around to the idea that they should be irrelevant in the calculus because the state simply should not be in the business of taking human life. (I could discuss this topic for days, so I will spare you. Please note, however, that my personal conversion does not mean I miraculously find it unconstitutional. The death penalty, by any honest reading of the Constitution, is permissible, and it will remain permissible until the Constitution is amended, "evolving standards of decency" be damned.)

I am willing to make an exception to my opposition of capital punishment in Saddam's case. Why? It is precisely because Saddam is so much more than a criminal.

Saddam Hussein is not your typical defendant. He is the former dictator of a Middle Eastern country with a population in the neighborhood of 25 million. He still has a broad swath of Baathist followers -- some in Iraq, some in Syria -- who spend the portions of their days when they are not killing Americans and Iraqis fantasizing about springing Saddam from his prison cell and restoring his regime to power. In our dangerous world, where other dangerous individuals have escaped from prison with the help of terrorist allies, we cannot allow for the possibility, however remote, that Saddam might somehow slip his bonds and live to terrorize another day.

We may have just witnessed a trial, but make no mistake: this was not within the confines of ordinary criminal justice. Many capital punishment opponents (or at least those who are intellectually honest) will acknowledge that there is a huge difference between someone who is executed after committing a civilian crime and someone who is tried and executed after his role in international war crimes or crimes against humanity. The honest assessor of the situation will have no choice but to see that Saddam falls into the latter camp. As such, his continued existence is a serious liability, since he not only clearly could pose a threat were he to somehow escape confinement and join his followers, but also because of how he inspires Sunni opponents to positive change in Iraq. His death is not only essential to assuring reformers that his way of life will never again threaten their own, but also for deflating the expectations of his followers with an eye toward conquering them.

Saddam's death at the hands of the state needs to be welcomed. Call it follow through on a promise.

Your Time Is Coming, Rummy!

2006-11-05T07:45:00.000-05:00

President Bush recently announced just days before the election that Donald Rumsfeld would remain his Secretary of Defense throughout the remainder of his administration. Talk about putting your head in the sand! Did he clear that with Karl Rove? Or was he just smoking whatever stuff his buddy Rev. Ted Haggard was when he said it? Regardless, what a gift for the Democrats.

I've been railing against this clown Rumsfeld for a long time. Perhaps the idea of asking a lot more from a smaller, less equipped military wasn't a good idea afterall. Perhaps Colin Powell, the man this administration turned their backs on, had it right afterall with his "You break it, you own it" thoughts on Iraq, while Rummy was saying, "I don't know how long we'll be in Iraq, it could be 6 weeks, it could be 6 months."

I still can't believe how Republicans rightfully demanded the resignation of President Clinton's Defense Secretary Les Aspin in 1993 for failures in Somalia that led to the death of a dozen or so US troops, yet many of the same GOPers unwaveringly support Rumsfeld whose flawed strategies in Iraq have resulted in the death of thousands of US troops. And people wonder why conservatives like me will vote for Democrats on Tuesday?

On Monday, the rather conservative newspaper The Army Times with a readership largely comprised of members of the military will publish a ground-breaking editorial calling for Rumsfeld's firing. I wouldn't be surprised if Rummy's was the first head from the White House to roll following Tuesday's elections, despite Bush's recent proclamation. Here's part of the piece:

Rumsfeld has lost credibility with the uniformed leadership, with the troops, with Congress and with the public at large. His strategy has failed, and his ability to lead is compromised. And although the blame for our failures in Iraq rests with the secretary, it will be the troops who bear its brunt.

This is not about the midterm elections. Regardless of which party wins Nov. 7, the time has come, Mr. President, to face the hard bruising truth:

Donald Rumsfeld must go.

Electoral Politics: Reflections and Predictions

2006-11-02T15:00:00.000-05:00

Admittedly, I have a love/hate relationship with electoral politics. I love elections and politics in general, but I hate election season. Hence this split personality on my part leads to relative silence and general ambilivance about the upcoming midterm elections next week. Okay, so someone who can rattle off the names and poll statistics of almost all the major races next week isn’t really ambivalent, but I’m not as excited as I once was or should be.

My pet phrase for the next 5 days is “cautious optimism.” By this I mean that while I can read the polls, listen to the pundits, and devour the commentators like everyone else, I’m not really sure what’s going to happen. I hope that the Democrats make big gains and can regain control of Congress, but I’m not yet sold that’s actually going to happen, as you’ll see in the predictions below.

As I’ve noted before my hatred comes mostly from the disgustingly low level of political discourse that occurs during election cycles. Both parties are equally guilty in my book, so I’m not buying any of this “they started it crap;” a pox on all your houses I say. It was interesting, however, to note that such disgusting discourse is not universal. In fact, out on the west coast, where I spent much of the last 10 days, things are much, much different. In California there appear to be no hotly contested races. Governor Arnold is cruising to reelection with almost no formidable opponent. Phil Angelides (sp?) is his name, but you’d have been hard pressed to know that had you not looked at the ballot or the “election book” that is sent to all registered voters (note, I don’t use the term book lightly; this thing is not a guide or even a pamphlet, it’s almost 150 pages long and, therefore, it’s a book, I’m not kidding). The same can be said for Senator Dianne Feinstein and just about all of the states 52 congressional office holders. As Paul’s previous post notes, things are so easy going out in the land of the liberals that Duncan Hunter decided to announce his candidacy for President of the United States. For what it’s worth I concur with Paul about Mr. Hunter’s chances, but I have to say I think the best line came from his opponent for Congress, who was quoted in the LA Times as saying that Mr. Hunter has a much chance of being elected President has he did of being elected Miss America.

Anyway, it had been some time since I was outside the beltway at any time close to a major election, so it was nice to see what others think and do in the weeks and days leading up to a contest (present outside the beltway residents of this blog excluded of course). Let me say that whoever coined the phrase “inside the Beltway mentality” has it absolutely right. I literally thought I had stepped into the political twilight zone while I was away. Not only were there no ads on TV or on the radio, there was little coverage in the LA Times or other more locally oriented papers. In fact, politics, whether local or national, was the furthest thing from almost anyone’s mind. The big news stories were a fire destroying some nearby homes, USC losing to Oregon State (GO BEAVERS!!), and the start of the Lakers basketball season. Politics, it seems takes a back seat in California to other more leisurely pursuits. This is not to say that the subject never came up, but generally I was the one to initiate the discussion. What a change of pace, so relaxed and non-controversial I almost missed DC. Ironically, the one issue that did come up most often was the Mark Foley scandal. I found this surprising as I’ve never really attributed much importance to the issue, but almost everyone seemed to want to know what I thought about it. I chalk much of this up to curiosity about my job and day-to-day life (I spent a lot of time with people I hadn’t seen in several years, since graduating from law school), and to the fact that since the scandal had to do with sex (or attempted sexual conduct) it was merely more interesting than most political stories. Other than that I can’t really say that the left coast is that involved in the midterm fervor. I hope and believe that other “outside the beltway” areas are different, especially those areas with hotly contested elections for House and Senate seats. Make no mistake, this election is important, they all are. I fear, however, that the absence of a Presidential race means low turnout and suppressed interest. I don’t think I can put into words how disturbing and depressing this reality is. The fact remains that mid-term congressional elections are far more important than Presidential elections. Always have been, always will be (even if we amend the Constitution to abolish the Electoral College and directly elect the President). What it will take for more people to recognize this simple fact of American government I do not know, but I hope they do someday or else we're really going to be in trouble.

Enough reflection let’s get to predictions. In short, I probably concur with the vast number of pundits and handicappers. I believe (“cautiously optimistic” remember) that the Democrats will win enough seats to take control of the House of Representatives. Will they win 16 seats (1 more than required) or 40 seats, I don’t know. I tend to think the final number will be somewhere around 22 or 25, depending on just how big of a “wave” there actually winds up being. I think there are several individual house races worth watching that may give us a chance to judge the size of the wave early in the evening. In my opinion, watch the Northeast very carefully. Races like New York’s 26th (Tom Reynolds), Connecticut’s 4th (Chris Shays) and 1st (Nancy Johnson) and Pennsylvania’s 7th (Curt Weldon) may all be harbingers of things to come later in the evening. If the Democrats win some or even all of these races than I think we may see a 30-40 seat swing. Another “early” race to watch is Ohio’s Deborah Pryce who is the 4th ranking member of the GOP leadership. Should she lose, which is possible, at least according to some polls, it could be another sign of a long night for the GOP. Of course, splits in these races will mean a smaller Democratic majority, but nevertheless may be an important signal to voters in the mid-west and west about the strength of the GOP. A Democratic landslide will mean big gains in the Northeast and Ohio and strong showing in the southwest, northwest, and far west (Colorado, Idaho, Arizona, Montana, Wyoming, Wisconsin, New Mexico). As for the South, I don’t expect much in the way of major Democratic gains, they might win in open races like the Texas 22nd (Tom Delay’s former district), but those seats will be tough if not impossible to retain in 2008. Big gains in the other parts of the country will mean a better chance for a Dem majority for at least a few election cycles.

As for the Senate, it’s much, much too close to call. Right now I’d have to say the Democrats pick up 4-5 seats leaving them one short of a majority. Things look good in Rhode Island, Pennsylvania (though I’m not counting Santorum out), Ohio, Maryland (I’m not buying the polls showing a tight race. Steele’s a good candidate, but the demographics are against him), and New Jersey (I’m not a huge Menendez fan, but he’s not going to be my Senator). The tight races are going to be the ones like Tennessee, Missouri, and Montana. Like Maryland, I’m not really buying the Allen-Webb Virginia polling. Allen will win VA, he’s supposed to. He’s done as a 2008 presidential candidate, but he’ll hold his Senate seat. Dems may take 2 of the 3 tight races with the loss I think coming in Tennessee, which is really too bad because I think Harold Ford Jr. ran the far better campaign and deserves to win. That said; TN is a GOP state at heart and Bob Corker, for better or worse, is the GOP candidate and might yet eek out a victory. MO and MT may swing for the Dems, but that won’t be enough. Of course, 51-49 in the Senate is recipe for stalemate so if there are such things as “moral” victories in Congress I guess this can count. Of course, I could be wrong about all of this and the Dems could sweep to victory and carry the Senate as well. I personally give this less than a 15% chance of happening, but it is certainly statistically possible.

All in all it should be an interesting and exciting night. Thankfully after Tuesday it will be over and then the “governing” begins again. I’m anxious to get comments and other predictions. I don’t put too much into my own thoughts, as I’ve been wrong before, but I thought I should at least get them all out there to stimulate discussion.

On hopeless causes and presidential campaign finance

2006-11-02T11:05:00.000-05:00

Duncan Hunter, Chair of the House Armed Services Committee, has announced he is running for Preident. Umm, yeah. Hunter's campaign promises to deliver as much coverage and support as Joe Biden's.

Listen, Hunter's one of the good guys in Congress, but this just ain't gonna happen. If he makes it to Iowa that in and of itself will be an accomplishment. No doubt John McCain wouldn't mind another authentic conservative in the race to divide the vote up further, but the .0001% Hunter should draw is probably not going to do the trick.

The thing is, having worked for awhile at the Campaign Finance Institute, and primarily covering the 2000 and 2004 presidential races, Hunter will raise money. The checks will be rolling in from all over the country, and he may raise a cool million or more, as did Arlen Specter, Orrin Hatch, John Kasich, Liddy Dole, Dan Quayle and Bob Graham, and as will Biden, Brownback and others who will also have about the same amount of success in their respective presidential bids.

Far be it from me to tell people how to spend their money, but it does make one ponder the different ways those millions could be spent.

Of course, some might say that any money given to an election campaign is a waste of money. And we do spend billions per election cycle, be they presidential, Congressional, or local races.

I don't want to delve to much into campaign finance and the effects of "special interests" on our elected officials (I will merely say that John McCain and I differ in our opinions to a great extent). I merely wanted to bring up some questions about the future of presidential campaign finance since this was an issue I was involved with for a couple of years. (read on after the click)

For anyone interested, CFI's The Election After Reform covers election finance in the aftermath of McCain-Feingold (aka the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, aka BCRA). Many of the assumptions made beforehand were proven to be either false or exaggerated. Money still flowed into campaigns, just not in the traditional ways. George Soros and other financiers found new ways to funnel money into the system.

That said, the presidential campaign finance system is in trouble. You're all vaguely aware of it simnply because of that $3 checkoff you all see on your tax forms. No doubt, if you're like 88% of Americans, you either ignore it or check no. And it's because of that propensity to decline participation that the system is in crisis - or at least it's one of the reasons.

Here's a brief recap of how the system works. In the primary, presidential candidates that opt into the system are able to receive matching funds from the federal government based on the money they raise. Each candidate is eligible to receive a dollar-for-dollar match of all money they raise from individual contributions that aggregate to less than $250. In other words, if Joe Smith donates $1,000 to a candidate, only that first $250 is matched. If a person donates $200, all of it is matched. If a person donates $25 per week (and believe me, lots of people do this), those first 10 contributions will be matched. In the general election, each major party nominee receives $75 million flat, and they are not allowed to raise money on their own.

This chart will show you how much each candidate in 2000 and 2004 raised, and how much in matching funds they received. Conspicuous by the absence of any matching funds in either cycle is George Bush. That's because he opted out of the system. For, you see, if you accept matching funds you also must abide by spending limits. Bush realized in 2000 that he could raise far more money on his own than anyone else, and he didn't want to be tied down to spending limits. Bush gambled, and he won big.

In 2004, two Democratic candidates decided to do the same thing. Howard Dean and John Kerry both opted out. Kerry's decision came in December when he was stuck in the middle of the pack with the rest of the field behind Dean. As you can see, Dean had a huge fundraising edge by the end of calendar 2003. (As someone keeping track of the individual contributions back then, the candidate data entry went something like Dean, Dean, Kerry, Dean, Dean, Edwards, Dean, Dean, Lieberman, Dean, Dean, LaRouche, Dean.)

Dean's fundraising capabilities were stunning the political world. As you can see from the first chart above, most candidates receive a bulk of their money from large (i.e. $1,000 and up) contributions. Practically all of John Edwards' money was coming from attorneys giving a couple of hours worth of wages. But not Dean. Dean was tapping into the online community and drawing money in small clumps from around the country. In fact, 60% of his money came from people who donated cumulatively $200 or less. (Kucinich had an even higher proportion of such donations, but by a far smaller overall amount.)

It was this fundraising that had most people assuming that Dean would get the nod. And then came Iowa, and everything changed. Suddenly my data entry went like this: Kerry, Kerry, Kerry, Kerry, Kerry, Dean, Kerry, Kerry, Kerry, Kerry, Dean, Kerry, Edwards, Kerry, Kerry. And John Kerry's own gamble paid off. In fact, he did so well that he almost opted out of the general election system because he potentially could have raised more than the $75 million allotted, but he chose to stay in.

So what does this all tell us about the future of presidential campaign fundraising? Well, I'm sure my former boss Michael Malbin would entertain any guesses. I'd be shocked if Hillary Clinton were to opt into the system. No doubt she could raise several hundred million, even with the $2,000 individual contribution limit. And even with the spread out field for the GOP, it's unlikely that McCain or even Romney couldn't do better on their own than with the matching funds.

On the one hand, this seems fair. Money acts like a vote. Candidates with popular appeal are going to be able to raise a lot of money. Longshots won't. In effect, we're narrowing the field and removing the "unworthies" before a single vote is cast. So be it. We'll be able to focus our attention on those that actually can win.

What does the Dean collapse and the Kerry comeback tell us about that? In a way, it acts an affirmation. People funnelled their money to the new leader almost instantaneously. Again, people voted with their pocketbook. The money flowing into the coffers reflected the polls - in fact, it can be treated as a poll of some kind.

But what of self-financed candidates? Their financial advantage would not be a true reflection of popular appeal. And what of candidates who lack the initial resources and need time to develop a following, but who might be able to draw money once their message was heard by a wider audience? Again, they'd be eliminated from contention before things got started. And who knows how candidate Ronald Reagan would have done were it not for this very system.

Of course, it could then be countered that the matching fund amounts are so paltry that it doesn't matter. The only candidates who would have received a significant amount of money were the ones who opted out anyway. Wesley Cark received the most public money, and his total was just over $7.5 million. That's hardly a great deal of money in today's political climate.

We could raise either the matching limit or simply go to a 3-for-1 or even 5-to-1 matching system. But at that point, shouldn't we go to a completely publicly financed system?

I'm not sure what the answer is. I'm inclined to say that anyone who truly has broad enough appeal will be able to raise enough money to remain competetive. And you can have millionaires like Steve Forbes in the race, and they still won't do well if people just aren't interested in actually voting for them. Money isn't everything - just ask Howard Dean. But it sure does help.

Rick James, Bitch!

2006-11-01T06:00:00.000-05:00

Too bad John Kerry's bonehead statement distracted voters' attention from this latest discouraging story out of Iraq. I remember how upset I was during various conflicts in the 1990s such as Bosnia with how comfortable President Clinton appeared to be in allowing our troops to take orders from foreign commanders. However, now in the context of a 3 1/2 year old war that I'm not sure if we can win, this story is about a million times worse:

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - U.S. troops lifted roadblocks around a Baghdad militia stronghold on Tuesday when Iraq's prime minister ordered them out, flexing his political muscle after a week of public friction with Washington ahead of U.S. elections.

Supporters of anti-American Shi'ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr celebrated in the streets of Sadr City, bastion of his Mehdi Army. An aide hailed the end of a "barbaric siege" begun to help find a kidnapped U.S. soldier possibly being held by militiamen.

But Iraq's Sunni vice president said the move could spell an end to a lull in sectarian death squad violence. The once dominant Sunni minority blames much of the killing on the Mehdi Army and Washington is pressing Maliki to disband the movement.

An aide to Maliki said it had been "discussed" with the U.S. ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad and commander General George Casey. But military spokesmen were caught unaware by the lunchtime announcement, which set a 5 p.m. deadline for opening roads.

Residents of Sadr City immediately took to the streets to celebrate this victory over the United States. So now President Bush has let us officially become Prime Minister Maliki's bitch? And I suppose that would also make us the bitch for the bitch of terrorist Moqtada al-Sadr. But yet it is "disloyal" tv stations like CNN or "unpatriotic" Congressman like John Murtha that are responsible for inflaming the Sunni insurgency in Iraq? Right.

I suggest that sad is the day when the headlines read, "U.S. troops do (fill in the blank) at the orders of the Prime Minister of (fill in the blank) country." Thanks once again, Rummy!

John Kerry = Idiot

2006-10-31T12:22:00.000-05:00

This guy was several thousand votes away from being President.

“You know, education, if you make the most of it, if you study hard and you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, uh, you, you can do well. If you don’t, you get stuck in Iraq.”

So I guess only idiots end up in the military, huh?

Well, Kerry is a vet.

Unreal.

Every Time A Soldier Dies, A Liberal Gets His Jollies

2006-10-31T08:42:00.000-05:00

This is the impression I get from the MSM's breathlessly gleeful reporting of the military's death toll for the month of October 2006, which currently stands at 103. They can barely contain themselves, they are so excited.

And why should they hold back their glee over American deaths? They have, after all, taken their strong anti-American bias to the next level by actually aiding and abetting foreign terrorists, and providing them with recruitment fodder to boot, all under the phony guise of objective journalism.

The Clinton, er, Cable News Network (CNN) confessed earlier this week that it had solicited access to terrorist insurgents operating in Iraq and promised, in exchange for that access, an airing of pro-terrorist footage of Iraqi snipers killing -- yes, killing -- American soliders on its network and a "fair shake" in its coverage of the terrorists.

The American Spectator provides the full account (as do other news sources), but I just wanted to include this paragraph to hammer it home:

"Anti-Americanism pays off for us over there, no doubt about it," says [an anonymous] CNN employee. "Questions were raised about this video and the way we got it. Once it was confirmed that it was real, the next question was how did we get it. And the answer was, we promised to give the terrorists a fair shake. I know that we are saying there was soul-searching here about running the tape. But I didn't see much of that. There were somber people here, but there was also a segment of people on staff, once the tape had run and created a firestorm, that celebrated. They thought they were so courageous."

This is the intellectual and moral equivalent of Edward R. Murrow having had a sit-down exclusive with Hitler during the D-Day invasion. It is disgusting and nauseating, and I hope we can now finally dispense with the notion that CNN is an objective news source.

P.S. For those of you out there who think the violence against American troops in October is coincidental: do you think terrorists do not know when our elections are? And is there really any question which American political party they want to succeed next Tuesday?

P.P.S. Since it appears CNN has taken up residence in the enemy's camp, when can we start launching guided missiles at CNN's headquarters in Atlanta?

Outfoxed

2006-10-27T07:36:00.000-05:00

At long last, President George W. Bush yesterday signed into law a recently passed bill that will provide funds for approximately 700 miles of fencing along the United States-Mexican border. While Bush certainly could have (and perhaps should have) made a bigger deal about the bill signing (whereas most bills are signed with dozens of ceremonial pens in a drawn-out ceremony in the Rose Garden, this one was done quietly, with one pen, in the Roosevelt Room), and while he still felt the need to throw in some obligatory nonsense about how a guest worker program was essential to American economic health (which happens to not be true), he at least signed the damn thing. Construction should commence sometime next year.

I think we all knew it wouldn't be long before Vicente Fox, the outgoing president of our alleged ally to our south, would throw his two pesos in:

Mexico's president sharply criticized U.S. President George W. Bush's signing Thursday of a bill to build hundreds of kilometers (miles) of additional fencing on its southern border, calling the move an "embarrassment."

. . .

President Vicente Fox told reporters in the Caribbean resort city of Cancun that the fence would not stop millions of Mexicans from heading north in search of jobs.

"It is an embarrassment for the United States," Fox said. "It is proof, perhaps, that the United States does not see immigration as a subject that corresponds to both countries."

I think Fox is just bitter because the United States has taken a step, albeit an all-too-small one, toward reinforcing its own sovereignty, which thereby interferes with Mexico's Aztlan strategy. He is probably also unhappy about the fact that he does not get to personally preside over the reconquista. Too bad.

Hey, Vicente: if you can somehow get over the border (illegally, of course, like the rest of your countrymen), we might be able to find a Taco Bell for you to manage.

Christian Theocrat Watch

2006-10-26T11:15:00.000-05:00

A Christian theocracy is suppodedly emerging in America, especially if you listen to the shrieks of people like Andy Sullivan and the like. And there's no doubt much about Christianity that is suspect, especially as regards religion. Take this story out of Australia:

Australia's most prominent Catholic priest was threatened with deportation today after he was reported to have said that women who "sway suggestively" and do not cover up can provoke sexual assault by men.

He went on to say to "worshippers in Sydney that women who display their bodies were like 'uncovered meat'."

This comes on the story of this Washington Post story.

When dealing with a "disobedient wife," a Christian man has a number of options. First, he should remind her of "the importance of following the instructions of the husband in Islam." If that doesn't work, he can "leave the wife's bed." Finally, he may "beat" her, though it must be without "hurting, breaking a bone, leaving blue or black marks on the body and avoiding hitting the face, at any cost."
[snip]The notion of using physical punishment as a "disciplinary action," as Sheha suggests, especially for "controlling or mastering women" or others who "enjoy being beaten," is common throughout the Christian world. Indeed, I first encountered Sheha's work at my Morgantown church, where an Christian student group handed it out to male worshipers after Friday prayers one day a few years ago.

Truly shocking. Of course, in the actual stories above, the words Catholic and Christian are replaced by Muslim, priest by cleric, and church by Mosque. But you won't be seeing too many books about the horrors of impending Muslim Theocracy in your local bookstore. While Kevin Phillips is railing about the evils of Bush's theocratic regime, this sort of bile is being spread throughout much of the world.

It's staggering that we've willfully blinded ourselves to the true horrors of this world in order that we can focus on the impending doom of global warming and the like. (And yes, I am currently reading Mark Steyn's new book, can't you tell?) The internal combustion engine might be the greatest threat to human civilization, though an enraged jihadi with a suicide bomb strapped to his body can do an awful lot of damage, and if things keep going as they are in Europe, there will be a lot more of the latter to worry about than the former.

So, secularists, keep fretting about the evils of the Bush regime. We surely can't deal with this oppressive theocracy.

Oh, by the way, the New Jersey Supreme Court has basically thus mandated gay marriage be permitted in the state.

When will this Christian theocracy be stopped?

Never Cross a Tolkien Fan

2006-10-26T08:03:00.000-05:00

Senator Rick Santorum (R-Penn.) is certainly in the midst of an uphill battle in his senate race against challenger and tabula rasa extraordinaire, Bob Casey, Jr., and I fear that he may not be with us in January. If I could vote for him, I would, and I wish him all the best. I fear, however, that his defeat may be all but assured now, as he appears to have irritated a most crucial constituency: the costume-wearing, crystal-carrying Lord of the Rings fan base.

Mother Jones details how Santorum stepped in it, as well as how his comments spawned an entire exchange among Tolkien fans about the applicability of the LOTR story line to the present War in Iraq. I do not necessarily disagree with Santorum's analogy regarding the Eye of Mordor (or the Eye of Sauron, or whatever the heck you prefer to call it), but I just find it amusing that a stump speech spawned a raging debate amongst Tolkien fans. (Also, those of you who get as far as the comments at the bottom of the page will note that I couldn't resist throwing my two cents in.)

Now, where are my Magic: The Gathering cards?

Hardly Radical...

2006-10-25T15:20:00.000-05:00

"The State does not argue that limiting marriage to the union of a man and a woman is needed to encourage procreation or to create the optimal living environment for children. Other than sustaining the traditional definition of marriage, which is not implicated in this discussion, the State has not articulated any legitimate public need for depriving committed same-sex couples of the host of benefits and privileges that are afforded to married heterosexual couples. There is, on the one hand, no rational basis for giving gays and lesbians full civil rights as individuals while, on the other hand, giving them an incomplete set of rights when they enter into committed same sex relationships. To the extent that families are strengthened by encouraging monogamous relationships, whether heterosexual or homosexual, the Court cannot discern a public need that would justify the legal disabilities that now afflict same-sex domestic partnerships."

The above is an excerpt from today's NJ Supreme Court decision in Mark Lewis and Dennis Winslow, et al. v. Gwendolyn L. Harris, etc., et al., recognizing a right to same sex unions, the full text of which is available here. The summary on pages 1-2 give a succinct overview of the court's legal reasoning.

Why I'm Happy These Days

2006-10-23T16:40:00.000-05:00

I'm proud to announce that the little guy above is my new son, Joseph Thomas Briscoe. We are very blessed as our third child was born healthy and reasonable happy on October 10, 2006 in Port Charlotte, Florida at a full 9 pounds, 15 ounces, and 21 inches long. He has dark green eyes and a full head of dark brown hair. Having a 4 year-old, a 2 year-old, and a newborn has proved a challenge these past 2 weeks. And I'm sure it'll drive me crazy at times! But it has also been even more rewarding. I know that being a Big Daddy will continue to define my life as I slide into my 30s this year.

Moving right along, I know there has been a lot of pessimism expressed on this blog over the past few months. And sure I know there are lots of real problems out there for which no candidate appearing on any ballot this November offers any real solutaions. But, personally, I'm pretty pumped about the state of our country's politcal spectrum these days. Whether the Democrats take Congress or the GOP manages to hang on, I think a strong message has been sent to Washington and, more specifically, to the President that we're ready for political change. All signs point towards 2008 being a watershed election in our nation's history. And that's something we should all welcome, regardless of politcal party.

Take the issue of Iraq for example. In another era, this could have easily become another Vietnam where protestors were forced to reside on the fringe of our culture (damn hippies!) and it takes 10 years or more to accomplish real change in a flawed government policy. Not anymore. With the internet, talk radio, blogs, satellite technology, an aggressive and embedded press, and all sorts of outlets for public expression, we don't need the candlelight vigils and annoying protest marches anymore. Those of us who have been standing up to the President, Vice President, and Secretary of Defense on Iraq for several years have now gained the clear moral backing of the America public. And I believe we'll see real change soon.

My final thought. The next time you hear a Republican defend Bush's Iraq policies by saying "we need to leave decision making in Iraq to the generals on the ground", remember that if Abraham Lincoln had done the same during the Civil War, we might still have two Americas to this day. Yes, we need to trust and consider the judgments of our generals. However, we also must remember that it is our elected leaders in Washington who oversee all aspects of our government -- including our military. Let's hold them accountable, and not allow blame for the mess in Iraq to be passed either to our brave soldiers or their leaders on the ground.

Hope everyone is well. 2 more weeks till Election Day!

London Calling

2006-10-18T21:46:00.000-05:00

Cheers to Tony Blair.

In his monthly press conference today in front of 10 Downing Street, the departing British Prime Minister reaffirmed, in no uncertain terms, that it is unacceptable for Great Britain's increasingly bold Muslim population to continue to isolate itself from the larger British community. Says the West Australian:

British Prime Minister Tony Blair has signalled a shift from multiculturalism to integration, saying yesterday that Muslim women wearing full face veils in public was a “mark of separation” in society that made other people feel uncomfortable.

Mr Blair backed a West Yorkshire education authority which suspended Muslim teaching assistant Aishah Azmi for refusing to remove her veil during lessons.

His comments came as a British Airways employee who was stood down for refusing to cover a small Christian cross necklace appealed to a jobs tribunal.

The case has fuelled a national debate on religious expression and seen politicians attack BA.
Asked at a press conference if a woman who wore a veil could make a full contribution to society, Mr Blair made it clear it was an issue that should be debated.

“It is a mark of separation and that is why it makes other people from outside the community uncomfortable,” he said.

“No one wants to say that people don’t have the right to do it. That is to take it too far. But I think we need to confront this issue about how we integrate people properly into our society” while allowing them to develop their “distinctive identities”.

Blair is being decried as a racist and bigot by the usual suspects, but he is only expressing what used to be a common-sense proposition: namely, that integration was a key feature of any successful Western society. Of course, I think what we all need to remember is that the vast majority of the global Muslim community has no interest integration.

In a related story, France has surrendered, again - this time, to its own Islamist high tide. (I wonder if Pipe Bomb Making will be a three-credit or four-credit course?)

Have we learned anything in the last five years? The time is rapidly approaching when we will have to remove our own veils.

More on the Decline of Institutionalism (at least in Congress)

2006-10-16T14:04:00.000-05:00

As part of my erstwhile attempt to bore the living daylights out of most of you, I’m going to continue to rant about the decline of what I’ve termed “institutionalism” (I don’t really want to take credit for the term, so if anyone can point to another more respected scholar who has used the term in a manner similar to the way I do, please let me know). This time, however, I’ve got a couple of concrete examples from today’s Washington Post. Returning to previous form, click read more to see the rest of the post.

The first story is a front pager, albeit below the fold, about Speaker Hastert and his inner circle with respect to their dealing with the Foley issue. I’m not concerned or interested at all in the specifics of the story as they relate to “Foley-gate,” rather I found a couple of comments much more worthy of exploration. At several times the article notes that Hastert is the leader of the GOP caucus and that his focus has been on running that group as opposed to being the leader of the House of Representatives. For example, the article notes that “[e]ven Hastert’s defenders acknowledge that his top priority as speaker has been protecting the GOP majority, not investigating the president or his own caucus.” A couple of other quotes, one from a Democrat and one from a Republican, seem to bear this observation out. According to Rham Emmanuel (D-Ill), “[w]hen it’s come to a choice between the integrity of the House or the Republican majority, he's always put his thumb on the scale to protect the majority.” According to Grover Norquist, “… everyone knows he represents the caucus agenda, not his own agenda.”

The shift from viewing the role of Speaker first as the leader of the House and then as caucus or party leader, to Speaker as party leader and then, when it’s politically convenient, as leader of the House, has been one of many examples of the decline of “institutionalism” that I’ve witnessed over the last 6 years. Perhaps much of this decline is due to the fact that the President and the Congress are led by members of the same party. While that may explain some of the decline, I’m not convinced that it explains all, or even most, of it. Rather, what seems to be happening is a general lack of interest and understanding of the roles that our respective institutions qua institutions are supposed to have in our tri-partite system of separation of powers. More depressing, at least for people like me -- who see Congress (and to a lesser extent state legislatures) as the cornerstone of a republic like ours – is that the other institutions (SCOTUS and the President) don’t appear to be suffering from the same institutional malaise. One often hears the President speak of “the Presidency,” or more broadly, what is in the best interest of the Executive Branch, which he is the constitutionally appointed leader. Similarly, if one pays close attention to the Court, you’d find similar sentiments coming from the Office of the Chief Justice, who is the constitutionally appointed leader of the Judiciary, and the only named officer in Article III of the Constitution. Conversely, one never, or hardly ever, hears anyone, not the Speaker, Senate Majority Leader, or anyone else; speak about the House or the Senate as a body independent of the current political party that is currently in control. (I suppose one could point to the debates over the so-called “nuclear option,” where there was some mention of the “good of the Senate,” but outside of that I challenge anyone to find me examples of concern for the body itself)

Lest it not be forgotten, the Speaker of the House is a “constitutional officer,” at least in the sense that the position is specifically referenced in the Constitution. See U.S. Const. Art. 1, sec. 2, cl. 5. Unlike the Senate Majority Leader, who is not mentioned as the leader of the Senate (that is the Vice-President, though one could argue we’ve effectively changed that even without an amendment), the Speaker of the House arguably has a “constitutional” duty to protect and defend the interests of the body whenever challenged or threatened, either internally, by the actions or inactions of rank and file members, or externally, by the other branches. Again this harkens back to issues about rules and procedures, which are not the subject of our current political discourse, which, as previously noted, is preoccupied by innocuous spewing and meaningless platitudes about “issues” that aren’t ever going to be actually be addressed. The quiescence of Congress over the last 6+ years is doing damage to the institution itself. I say this regardless of which party controls.

By the way should one respond by saying that the Democrats are/were no better when they controlled the House, I’d have to respectfully disagree. For example, Speaker Thomas P. “Tip” O’Neil (D-Mass.) was arguably single-handedly responsible for the creation of the House General Counsel’s office, which is the body that represents the interest of the House during litigation. Prior to O’Neil, the House relied on the Department of Justice or individual Members to represent the body in litigation often merely though amicus briefs. While arguably not the most notable example or even a widely known one, it demonstrates a concern that the House as an institution needed its own legal representation and at times would have to defend its actions in court against a strong executive who’s positions may not always be in accord with what Congress needed or wanted done. I’ve got no sense that the current leadership (or any potential future democratic leadership) could do or would do what O’Neil did with respect to legal representation.

My second example deals with the line of Presidential succession, which was discussed in a small blurb on the federal page of today’s Washington Post. The article concerned the fact that there is a “non-public” (post says “secret”) document that contains a line of succession for the Speaker’s office for “continuity of Congress” purposes. This was reportedly done shortly after Sept. 11, due to the fear that a terrorist attack could potentially wipe out numerous Members of Congress and cripple the government. As I’m sure most of you know, the line of Presidential succession is determined in part by the Constitution and in part by a federal statute, 3 U.S.C. § 19 (2000). The Constitution, specifically the 25th Amendment, deals with succession from the President to the Vice-President, while the federal statute deals with other contingencies, including no eligible Vice-President, in which case the line proceeds to the Speaker of the House then the President pro-tempore of the Senate and down through the cabinet officials. Of course there has been a tremendous amount of debate over the statutory provisions as there constitutionality is at least questionable (though practically I think there is some merit to them). The fact that in the face of these unanswered and arguably unanswerable constitutional questions, the House would choose to potentially add further confusion to the issue by appointing a “non-public” line of succession to the Speaker’s office is a bit befuddling and at least to me demonstrates a bit of a “tin ear" with respect to the seriousness of these issues.

While there is nothing, in my opinion, illegal or unconstitutional (see U.S. Const. Art. 1, sec. 5, cl. 2 (granting each House the ability to make its own rules)) about a line of succession for the Speaker’s office in the event of a national emergency, the fact that such an action may have implications on the potential line of succession of the President appears not to have been considered, or if was considered, the rationale not made known. Moreover, I don’t really have a problem with the list itself being secret; what I object to is the potential oversight of the consequences (both intended and unintended) that the utilization of such a list might cause. One should keep in mind that the qualifications for Members of the House, the Senate, and Presidency are all different. Thus, it is possible for a person to be Speaker to be constitutionally ineligible to hold the office of President (for example, a Speaker could either not be 35 years of age, or he/she could not be a native born citizen). That’s just the tip of the iceberg with respect to potential legal/constitutional problems with such an action. While on one hand I applaud the House for taking steps to ensure its continuity during a crisis. On the other hand, it seems a rather ill-conceived formulation and something that the general public arguably has a right to know about. I suppose my point is to reference another example of long-term institutional security getting second fiddle, when it should be the ONLY concern of Members regardless of party. I don't mean to suggest anything untoward here, I'm sure there were good intentions as much of the continunity issues have been dealt with in a bi-partisian manner. I'm merely suggesting that concern for the institution wasn't the main concern when it should have been, and that reflects poorly on all Members involved.

Das Vidanya, Air Amerika

2006-10-15T12:38:00.000-05:00

It will come as no surprise to those of you who understand the basic concepts of supply and demand why this happened.

According to the Associated Press, Air Amerika, the belabored liberal radio talk show network, officially filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy on Friday, which (as the AP also noted) was contrary to what the network had claimed was in the offing as little as one month ago. The AP went on to say that a network spokesperson confirmed that Air Amerika’s most recent attempts to secure additional funding from a creditor had fallen through, prompting the present filing. It is unclear how long Air Amerika will remain on the air, or if it will be able to remain on the air at all.

None of this should be at all surprising. Air Amerika was founded with one simple goal (by its founders’ and supporters’ own admissions): to become the radio industry’s counterweight to what is generally regarded as the conservative talk radio revolution. The prevailing view among leftists in the mass media was that conservative talk show hosts like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, and a whole host of others were having undue influence on voters (perish the thought – a competing ideology?), which was causing untold damage to liberal issues and Democrats’ chances. It was theorized that countering that conservative heft with liberal hosts was just the solution.

Air Amerika took to the air in March 2004, right about the same time that John “Hey, did you know I was a Vietnam Veteran? I have a plan to let you know that” Kerry’s (D-Denial) presidential campaign was getting into half swing. As Wikipedia reports, however, hopes may have been high for the network, but very little else about it was (with the possible exception of Al Franken):

Air America was started by a group called Progress Media, which said it had amassed $30 million in venture capital prior to its debut, a claim which later turned out to be untrue (only $6 million was initially collected). Two individuals from Guam, Rex Sorensen and Evan Montvel Cohen, were involved in raising the capital but denied any wrongdoing. Cohen has since been implicated in indictments against employees of a children’s charity for the misuse of the charity’s funds including Cohen’s use of $825,000 of the charity’s money to fund Air America.

Two weeks after its debut, Air America Radio [AAR] was pulled off the air in two key markets due to a contract dispute. Multicultural Radio owned two stations contracted to carry the AAR signal, in Chicago and Santa Monica, California. Air America alleged that Multicultural Radio had sold time on their Los Angeles station to both AAR and another party, and claimed that that was why they stopped payment on checks due to Multicultural while AAR investigated.

Multicultural Radio noted that Air America bounced a check and claimed they were owed in excess of $1 million. Air America Radio filed a complaint in New York Supreme Court, charging breach of contract and was briefly granted an injunction to restore the network on WNTD-AM in Chicago. On April 20, the network announced the dispute had been settled, and Air America’s last day of broadcast on WNTD was April 30. The New York Supreme Court ultimately concluded that the injunction was improvidently entered and that Air America Radio’s court action was without merit, dismissing Air America’s complaint and awarding over $250,000 in damages and attorneys’ fees to Multicultural. According to a subsequent lawsuit filed by Multicultural, Air America Radio never paid the sums ordered by the court.

Four weeks after Air America’s debut, its CEO, Mark Walsh, and executive vice president for programming, Dave Logan, left the network. One week after those departures, its chairman and vice chairman, Evan Cohen and his investment partner Rex Sorensen, also left. Some attributed Cohen’s departure to investor unhappiness with how he handled the dispute with Multicultural Radio Broadcasting.

(These are just some of the problems that plagued Air Amerika right up until Friday’s bankruptcy filing. In the interests of brevity, I did not include them all, but you can read about them until your heart’s content on Wikipedia, or other news sources, such as this one.)

Why did Air Amerika fail? The overall answer is simple: no one ever really wanted to listen to it.

For all of their hatred for the likes of Rush Limbaugh (who deserves credit for being the guy who put talk radio, of whatever political bent, on the map) and others who have followed in his footsteps, Air Amerika’s founders and supporters never quite grasped that their popularity and successes were due to the fact that people actually wanted to listen to them. Rush almost single-handedly forged a previously unknown medium: a radio talk show that combined current events and political insight with humor and entertainment. We take such programs for granted these days, given their ubiquity, but Rush truly did something novel that did not take long to catch on.

Whereas Rush built his program (and his success) from the bottom up, going from a handful of affiliates to nationwide syndication and what amounts to his own media empire, Air Amerika has adopted a supply-side approach (which is ironic, given their unending derision of the supply-side concept), which is that they started an entire network without any demonstration whatsoever that people actually wanted to listen to a liberal talk show network in the first place. Rather than building liberal or progressive talk show programs from the ground up on different radio stations across the country, and slowly shifting them to syndication after they hit their stride, Air Amerika went out and secured funding (from legitimate and illegitimate sources) to fund a product that no one was buying. Without a dedicated listening audience, advertisers did not stick around long enough to provide the network with revenue, which meant that Air Amerika could not sustain itself once its startup capital was spent. Hence, we have what happened Friday.

Why was no one buying what they were selling? That is, of course, a tougher question. Having never listened to Air Amerika myself, I can only speculate. If I had to take a stab at it, however, I would guess that it has less to do with any sort of political bias of potential audience members (although I do think this country is more conservative than not – but that is a discussion for another day) and more to do with the fact that liberals are not very entertaining or optimistic people. Love ’em or hate ’em, the conservative hosts that I have heard offer their audiences political discussion with an optimistic view of our nation and entertaining twists throughout. Humor, news, and good cheer coexist in the talk radio format in a way that occurs nowhere else, and the hosts (even the conservative ones) that cannot combine the above factors eventually disappear.

Liberals (please note that I am referring to the few liberals I have heard on the air, not liberals in general; most of my liberal friends crack me up; maybe Air Amerika should have signed them up) tend to be dour, unpleasant, pessimistic types. I don’t think this is so much because these liberals are incapable of humor – quite the opposite. I think the failure can be attributed to liberalism itself, as liberalism is an ideology that perpetually focuses on all that is wrong with society. It therefore is not such a mystery why shows that preach nothing but doom and gloom cannot compete with shows that both educate and entertain their audiences.

Das vidanya, Air Amerika. But cheer up: at least you still have the MSM to force the liberal viewpoint down American throats.

On Campaigning and Voting for Members of Congress

2006-10-13T16:37:00.000-05:00

A few posts below, GipperClone and I have been arguing, no, discussing (we may disagree about some details, but we’re hardly “arguing,” at least not the way we have on other issues) about the merits of a “line-item veto,” something to which readers of this space know that I am adamantly opposed to (see here). One of the debated points has been about what types of people should be elected to federal office, specifically Congress. GC, believes, (as always, he is free to correct anything I’ve attributed to him) and it is a legitimate belief, that Congress will never possess the “political will” to cut spending the way he, and many others, think should be done. To solve this problem, however, he proposes electing Presidents that, using a "line-item veto," will achieve his expressed goal of significantly reducing federal spending. I, on the other hand, as a liberal, don’t really have as big a problem with the spending. But, even assuming that I did, my solution is not for Congress to abdicate power to the President via a “line-item veto,” but rather to either institute real institutional changes in Congress, or elect better Congresspersons.

Of course, as readers of this space have noticed, and some have appropriately labeled me, I’m a big nerd/geek/wonkish type who pays far too much attention to minute details and finds things interesting that few if anyone else does. I could try to blame much of this on my profession, which requires, inter alia, an arcane knowledge of law, history, politics, and congressional procedure, but there are too many of you who know me personally for that to get me very far. All of this is by way of pointing out a flaw in my own position. Namely, that the average voter doesn’t care about procedures, they are only concerned with results. This rather obvious observation, I think, explains in large part why a “line-item veto” is so popular with the voting populace, even though I so firmly believe it to be a procedural disaster and an accident of destructive proportions just waiting to happen. In other words, support for the “line-item veto” has nothing to do with intelligence or even knowledge it has to do with getting a palpable change in the federal budget, primarly one that makes it smaller. GC is a very smart, intelligent person who has my utmost respect, and he supports the idea, though for very sophisticated reasons not often articulated by others. Support comes from the fact that the “line-item veto” will produce results, where as opposition appears to be a vote for the status quo (a bloated federal budget with too many special interest earmarks), which many people object to.

Yes, I’m oversimplifying to a huge degree. Nevertheless, I’ve been forced to ask the question, is it possible to elect better Congresspersons or I’m I merely deluding myself? I fear the latter may be true, especially when I get home and see TV ads for local candidates talking about how they “love puppies” (Michael Steele) or how they will “change the culture of Washington” (Ben Cardin). I mean come on, are these the criteria that we are supposed to use when electing Members of Congress? With crap like this from both parties, I can see why our very own Paul Zummo has taken a hiatus from politics blogging. Most campaigns are supposedly about “issues,” but too often the candidates don’t have a clue what the hell they are talking about. I’m not limiting this to the substance of these so-called "issues," but if I hear one more candidate say that if you send them to Washington they will “fix health care,” “reform social programs,” or “end the war in Iraq,” I’m going to punch someone. Members of Congress, especially freshman Members can’t do any of these things. They can’t investigate government waste, fraud, and abuse or other excesses by government actors; let’s be honest here, freshman Members can’t even walk and chew gum at the same time. They simply don't know enough. Congress is a complicated place; it is unlike any other office or group body in the country, even state legislatures or city councils can't measure up to its complexity. It litteraly takes years to master the rules and procedures. Thus, much of a Member's first couple of terms are spent just figuring out what the heck is happening around them on a daily basis (these observations, by the way, are some of the many practical reasons to oppose term limits, legal objections aside).

Is it too much to ask that our candidates actually know a thing or two about how Congress works? Instead of the questions normally put to candidates wouldn’t it be refreshing to hear someone ask about how a “motion to recommit” works, or how about ensuring that there are more “open rules” and, therefore, more actual substantive debate on the House floor? Why don’t we judge prospective members on the things they actually control, like whether to expand the jurisdiction of the ethics committees, or reduce the power of committee chairmen by requiring the express consent of the ranking member before proceeding to new business, taking votes, or passing bills? What about establishment of jurisdiction over committees, to ensure that the right people actually get to review substantive legislation before it goes to the floor, or inserting a 72-hour reading rule that isn’t able to be waived by a mere majority vote so that Members and staff can actually read the laws they pass?

I know, I know, we’d all rather read and talk about “maccaa” or what Jim Webb said about Naval Academy women 25 years ago, because that’s what really matters when you send people to Congress. Face facts folks, the procedures matter, the rules matter, the arcane history matters, it matters more than almost anything else up here. I don’t expect people to care deeply about these things, but I do expect that they at least expect their elected officials to care. Keep sending the pretty smiling faces, and the rich connected real estate moguls to Washington and you’ll continue to get more of the status quo, not because they like it, but because they don’t know or care enough about how to change it.

Red Storm Closing

2006-10-10T17:53:00.000-05:00

I know some of you out there are reading or have read Tom Clancy's novels -- and I'm not talking about those half-rate, ghost-written "Op Center" books, but the original works of art that put him on the map. Most are familiar with the Jack Ryan series, which started with the smash hit The Hunt for Red October and kept on rolling.

One of those original blockbusters was not, however, part of the Jack Ryan series, but stood alone. That book was Red Storm Rising, a fairly powerful vision of what a conventional war between the Soviet Union, the United States, and their respective allies might have looked like. Those of you who read the book will remember that the United States Naval Air Base located in Keflavik, Iceland, played a fairly prominent role in the book, as it was a prime target of the initial Soviet assault on American air and sea forces in the Atlantic.

For all you Clancyites who were planning on making a pilgrimage to the Keflavik air base in the near future, cancel those plane tickets. The New Zealand Herald's online edition reported that, on Friday, September 30, 2006, "[t]he United States withdrew its last 30 military personnel from Iceland as it shut a naval air base that in its Cold War heyday was the sixth largest town in the island nation."

The Washington Post reported further on this story prior to the completion of the withdrawal, noting that the departure does not signal any abandonment of Iceland as a NATO ally, but rather a reflection of a changing military reality:

A newly cemented defense deal between the two countries contains a U.S
pledge to rush to Iceland's aid, even though there will be no American military
on the island.

[Icelandic Prime Minister Geir Haarde] said the "new era" of the
U.S.-Iceland defense relationship was a product of new realities.

"We're not really worried about a territorial threat any more. We don't
perceive a threat from any other country in the old sense," Haarde said.

"There are other dangers, there are other threats, here as everywhere else,
and we need to cooperate both with our American friends and other NATO allies
and Europe in general on those."

Strange how terrorism can make you long for the good ole days of the Cold War, eh? At least the Soviets were rational.

Hat tip to a fellow Clancyite.

Collective Dementia

2006-10-09T23:45:00.000-05:00

How different the world looks during an election year…

The National Democratic Party wants to talk about North Korea now that the midget king lit off a nuclear device. More correctly, they want to paint a picture of a government so consumed by the Iraq war that it negligently encouraged the acquisition of nuclear technology by Kim Jung Il.

(All quotes lifted from FoxNews online.)

Harry Reid, that powerhouse of the American political machine, stated that, "[d]istracted by Iraq and paralyzed by internal divisions, the Bush administration has for several years been in a state of denial about the growing challenge of North Korea, and has too often tried to downplay the issue or change the subject."

Fearful that he might be perceived as other than a “team player” during this critical period of toadying, Robert Menendez, Sen-D-NJ, echoes his bosses in asserting that "[w]hile George Bush bogged our military down to topple a regime that had no weapons of mass destruction, a brutal dictator in North Korea has strengthened a nuclear arsenal that has the potential to threaten the West Coast of the United States." (I thought only the Administration engaged in “fear mongering.” The fear of nuclear annihilation must be REAL… After all, a Democrat is saying it. I mean, it is not like we are talking about terrorism… What are the chances that a rag-tag, fugitive army, led by an Islamist fanatic would attack the US on our own soil? What was the Administration thinking by laying out such a far-fetched tale?)

Fortunately, the collective memory of Washington is regularly inhibited by the heady pursuit of power or my Democratic counterparts might be forced to remember that Bush Sr. and Clinton failed to bring that evil Korean Oompah-Loompah to heel. Menendez has a particularly limited recollection of history, leading me to wonder if he has not suffered from some recent head injury. To illustrate, he stated that, “[w]e had the opportunity to stop North Korea from increasing its nuclear power, but George Bush went to sleep at the switch while he pursued his narrow agenda in Iraq. When the world was crying out for leadership, George Bush gave it negligence. The war in Iraq has tied our hands and our enemies know it."

Such noble concern about our enemies’ use of internal dissention and collective ignorance.

But, it is an election year and one can certainly be assured that calmer heads will prevail; that those politicians with a good head on their shoulders will make substantive, pertinent observations, without spin or misrepresentation. Take, for example Claire McCaskill’s observation that "[u]nder the Bush administration, North Korea dropped out of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, kicked out inspectors, reprocessed nuclear fuel, flagrantly tested their delivery systems, and built an arsenal of six-12 nuclear weapons they did not have six years ago." (I assume from this idiotic diatribe that McCaskill sees the relationship between Mini-Me and Clinton to have been quite amicable and productive. Never mind the frank, and to their credit, acknowledgement by the former Clinton Whitehouse that Korea is a particularly thorny problem, exacerbated by the ill-will and deceitful character of its leadership.)

It is, however, refreshing to note that international crisis convinced the ever insightful Ted Kennedy to lift his head up from the bar long enough to state "[t]he Security Council should respond quickly and decisively to this act. And it is abundantly clear that the administration must go into diplomatic overdrive, working 24-7 with our allies in the region and the world to advance an effective response and prevent further North Korean tests." Thanks Ted. Where would we be without you? Hopefully your suggestion will be taken to heart and the Administration will replace its plans for the hiring of a voodoo priestess with your sage advice.

Of course, nothing plays better with the American people than a good game of “Nah-ah!!!” Take, for example, Sen. Sam Brownback’s (R-Kan) retort…"The Clinton administration didn't do much and, even while they were negotiating with the North Koreans, the North Koreans were continuing to develop nuclear weapons." Good one Sammy!!! You really got them there. There is NO way the Dems can retort to that! Hah!

So what you got Pelosi?

Well… Ms. Pelosi, House Minority Leader/D-CA, had some well-considered advice too… She noted that the House had ”recently passed [a] defense authorization bill [that] requires President Bush to appoint a high level coordinator for North Korean policy… That appointment should be made immediately and other nations whose policies on North Korea have also so clearly failed, like China, must urgently develop new approaches as well." Finally, some common-sense brought to the table. What we REALLY need is another negotiator. I mean, we’ve just been spinning our wheels for the last twenty years since we didn’t have anyone working on the problem… Oh, wait… We already have, and have had since the Korean War, a “Korean Desk” within the Dept. of State and a sitting team of negotiators in Korea. I’m sorry Madam Pelosi, what was that you insisted we should do again?

Of course, for the ultimate in comments, not based on knowledge or reason, one simply MUST go to Rep. Ed Royce, R-CA. Mr. Royce believes that the best way to deal with North Korea is “to stop every ship coming in and out of North Korea. And on each of these ships there's only two things they export. One are missiles and, two, they export opium. That will cut off the hard currency going into the regime." Of course Mr. Royce reportedly stops house fires by pouring kerosene on them, but I digress…

Not surprisingly, Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis. came out with the most “politically savvy” statement of the day, noting that "[t]his demonstration of defiance shows the weakness of the six-party approach as well as the danger of this administration's hands-off approach to North Korea. It is time for the U.S. to directly engage in this crisis and take strong action with the international community to address this threat to our national security." Note the subtlety of the statement… No direct assertion that the Administration has failed… just the conclusion that if we should NOW “directly engage” and “take strong action,” then we must not have been doing so up UNTIL now.

The most competent assessment in the piece was offered by Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-CA. (I confess I never heard of this Rep before, but an intellect not corrupted by contact with the Hill is a rare find.) Rep. Rohrabacher opined: "[d]uring the Clinton administration we set up a policy and it was continued during the Bush administration, of subsidizing this lunatic regime in North Korea. That regime would have collapsed a long time ago had we not been subsidizing it. And we should immediately cut off that stipend. There is money available, we are in a tight spot now, if we don't get sucked into direct military action against North Korea, which should be the very last thing we look at, we can accomplish this by simply putting limited resources into setting up a missile defense shield now. Second, we are already moving to cut out their access to the banking system. China is now cooperating. They have frozen all the accounts. This means that Kim Jong Il will not be able to pay his generals."

You see? There ARE people in Congress with an IQ of greater than 10, loyalty to something other than their own narrow interest, and a focus on the nation as a whole rather than their respective party. They are just so DAMN rare.

Of Yankees and Budgets

2006-10-09T18:38:00.000-05:00

Hey, everyone. I hope you are all well on this Columbus Day. I know I have been AWOL from this glorious forum of ours for way too long. Without getting into details, I can tell you that a series of events – some good, many bad – have kept me out of the loop. For that, I apologize.

Well, I’m back, and I must admit, I feel a little bit like Rip Van Winkle, as things look a little different than they did before (when did this place become The Political Jeffdom?), and I feel a little out of it. (Another decent parallel would be Han Solo in Return of the Jedi immediately after he is freed from the slab of carbonite and encounters his old pal Chewbacca in a prison cell deep within Jabba’s palace. After hearing from Chewy how Luke Skywalker had become a full-fledged Jedi Knight, Han, in disbelief, muses, "A Jedi Knight?! I’m out of it for a little while and everyone has delusions of grandeur!")

Enough prologue. On to substance. (I will warn you: this post begins with a sports theme. If you can stick with it, it does eventually have the customary TPS twist.)

This past week, I watched my favorite baseball team, the New York Yankees, pull off yet another spectacular post-season collapse. Some might say this year’s craptastic performance pales in comparison to their nuclear meltdown during the 2004 American League Championship Series, during which the Yankees made baseball history by blowing a 3-0 lead to the Boston Red Sox, who then went on to shatter the infamous "Curse of the Bambino" and win the World Series. In some ways, it does pale. What made this year’s failure particularly painful, however, was the fact that this Yankees team was allegedly the best-hitting team ever to take a baseball diamond.

In terms of hard numbers, their offensive (i.e., scoring-related, not repugnancy-related) statistics were quite good. There are so many statistics that tell the tale of the Yankees’ offense this season. Since this is not a sports weblog, I won’t bore you with them all (you can see the team’s numbers here, if you really want to), but it is not a stretch to say that the 2006 Yankees had better than decent offensive numbers, even when compared to previous teams that boasted the likes of giants like Ruth and Gehrig, DiMaggio and Mantle. (I am not saying that any of the individual players on the 2006 Yankees can hold a candle to those Hall of Famers, but I am saying that, on paper at least, the current team had far greater depth than any of Ruth’s or Mantle’s teams. But I digress.)

So why am I complaining? I’m glad you asked. The reason is, all of that statistical prowess yielded negligible results when it mattered most, during the playoffs. What would make a general manager salivate on paper caused dry mouth in reality. The Yankees’ all-or-nothing offense – scoring eighteen runs in one game, getting shut out the next – could not withstand the above-average starting pitching of the Detroit Tigers (who, by the way, deserve congratulations for advancing to the ALCS). Being stacked with musclebound home run hitters, they were unable to fathom that a successful offensive outing sometimes requires more than a 400-foot home run or two. The Yankees were outhit, outpitched, outrun, and outplayed in the field – and as a result, they are out.

Sycophantic apologists for the Yankees’ sorry excuse for a team have expressed disbelief, noting that they did not expect the team with the highest payroll in baseball ($194.6 million at the start of the 2006 season – which means that figure does not include several expensive mid-season acquisitions) to lose to a team with the fourteenth highest (or seventeenth lowest, depending on your perspective) payroll in baseball ($82.6 million at the start of the season). It is worth pointing out that only three of the top ten baseball teams in terms of payroll – the Yankees, the New York Mets ($101.0 million), and the Los Angeles Dodgers ($98.4 million) – even made the playoffs this year. The Oakland Athletics, who will be playing the Tigers in the ALCS later this week, have the tenth lowest payroll in baseball ($62.2 million).

If the people running most of these baseball teams were running real, honest-to-God, non-antitrust-protected, survival-of-the-fittest businesses, they would in fact be out of business.

While I would like to think that the "spending equals success" crowd is unique to baseball, sadly, it is not. There are way too many people out there who think that there is a direct correlation between how much money is spent on something and the degree to which that thing is successful. We see this sort of reflexive idiocy most prominently in the arena of government spending. Every year, state and federal governments pour obscene amounts of money – tens or hundreds of billions of dollars – into thousands of programs that are allegedly aimed at solving problems. When the problems subsequently find themselves unsolved, legislators and many of their supporters reflexively believe (or at least pretend, for selfish political purposes) that the reason the problems were not solved was underfunding, which in turn leads to increases in spending for these programs.

This sad cycle is repeated fiscal year after fiscal year, which is why state and federal budgets have ballooned in the previous few decades. This is also why Americans have less take-home income than they did twenty or thirty years ago, and why the amount of Americans’ take-home income will continue to plummet in the coming years – particularly if Nancy & Co. somehow manage to win control of Congress in November.

I long for the day when a true-blue conservative politician will step forward and utter what is unthinkable in the current climate: that the solution to many of our economic and societal woes is less spending rather than more spending.

Of course, I also long for the day when my Yankees don’t suck. I may be asking for too much on both fronts . . . but when has that ever stopped a Yankee fan before? And when does Spring Training start?

Truly Out With The Old

2006-10-09T11:01:00.000-05:00

Here's your random political thought of the day. Assuming Uncle Dick decides to go home to Wyoming in 2008 to work on his shooting accuracy, the 2008 presidential election will be the first contest since 1952 where neither candidate for president will also be the incumbent president or vice-president. Yes, you have to go all the way back to Dwight Eisenhower and Adlai Stevenson to find one where no candidate took to the campaign trail on Air Force One or Two.

I think this bodes well for our nation. Few disagree with the thought that America longs for poltical change. This will be especially true if Democrats take Congress and we experience all those fun roadbumps of a divided government.

I don't know who will be on the ballot come November 2008. Hillary? McCain? Gore? Giuliani? Edwards? Romney? Obama? Biden? Not the most exciting bunch, at least for me right now. But 2008 has all the makings of a watershed election and it should be fun.

It's 4 weeks to Election Day and I'm already looking ahead to the following election! :-)

North Korea and Iran

2006-10-09T06:38:00.000-05:00

I will spare us the back and forth accusations of the parties for the problems with North Korea and Iran. There is more than enough blame to go around. Suffice it to say that I believe that successive Administrations honestly sought to contain their nuclear ambitions. The U.S. has tried direct and multi-party talks, sanctions, bribery, international isolation, and internationalism. Nothing has worked.

I have argued that the difference between Iran and North Korea is one of rational and reasonable behavior. I still believe this to be true and humbly suggest that the approach to their respective problems must be individualized. We have reached the same point in both cases- North Korea has gone nuclear and Iran soon will.

Becoming a nuclear power makes both nations unassailable. It is simply as inconceivable today, as it was in 1962, that a conventional assault on a nuclear power could be contained. This effectively takes the "military option" off the table.

With regards to Iran, economic and political isolation dramatically helps the regime maintain itself. She has a largely self-contained economy, however weak, and continued dispute and international condemnation is not likely to be more effective in the next six years than it has in the last thirty.

With regards to North Korea, her people are on the edge of starvation and their economy is nonexistent. South Korea, Japan, and China are in the best position to move things along so we will have to follow their lead.

The point of this post is twofold:

First, I want to suggest that the US has no interest in maintaining the animus with Iran. Iran has a well-educated populous that clearly wants greater freedom of thought and action... albeit in a distinctly "Persian" way. We need to accept that "liberty" may take on different forms and that the Western experiment with unlimited personal and individual freedom may not be adaptable to nations with a root in communalism.

Second, I want to suggest that the US cannot take unilateral action- military, economic, or diplomatic, to bring North Korea to a state of reason. We are dealing with a collective inability to reason and a leadership that is not in touch with reality. Furthermore, our interests in the region are dwarfed by those of China. It is time to come to an agreement with China that increases her international prestige in exchange for a regime change in North Korea.

I am suggesting that the US should privately request the dismantling of the present regime (and the death of the midget king) and the installing of a subject/satellite regime in North Korea, in exchange for public acknowledgement of, and accolades for, China's pivotal role in the region. China is desperate for international prestige and a role in defining the future. We have it in our power to voluntarily cede regional hegemony and should do so.

More broadly, I envision a reinstablishment of the stability that the world enjoyed during the Cold War.

We should carve the world up into sectors of political control and negotiate only with the parties that are in the driver's seat in each sector. Iran can effectively control the Gulf states and South Central Asia. China can effectively keep the lid on Asia proper. Egypt can control North Africa and the western side of the Suez. South Africa can control Sub-Saharan Africa and Nigeria, with support, can bring Western Africa to heel. Kenya is the natural master of East Africa. Obviously Russia needs to be reinstalled as the undisputed ruler of the mountain lands of Central Asia.

So, what is left for us? Well, the Europeans will easily bring Eastern Europe under their sway, so we needn't worry about them. This leaves the US as the masters of the Western Hemisphere. We can easily bring South and Central America to us with economic and immigration policies that affirm our interrelatedness.

At the end of the day, our security rests not with our trying to control each and every threat to our interests but in placing responsibility for regional security in those nations that have the greatest interest in preventing chaos. Since our greatest contributions to Man stem not from control of land an peoples but from our influence in areas of intellectual development, technology, economic systems, and law, we need to work towards stability.

In my opinion, stability comes not from the world accepting our model of society, culture, and government but from relations between nations, devoid of military conflict. Without conflict, self-interest rules and self-interest is inherently disposed towards economic activity. Since we can't force those out of our sphere of influence, we need to accept regional hegemony as a remedy to national self-determination. If this means accepting brutality by a regional power over a smaller nation, so be it.

Smile, You've Been Fooled Yet Again!

2006-10-06T17:26:00.000-05:00

This article is for those conservative or moderate readers who still plan to vote Republican in the forthcoming election. You've likely lost a lot of faith in the GOP White House after years of big government spending and foreign policy blunders. You've likely never had much faith in the GOP Senate packed with RINOs like Specter, Chaffee, Frist, and Snowe. However, your last bastion of faith in Republican leadership was probably the House of Represenatives -- the very body where Newt Gingrich's 1994 Republican Reveoltution was born.

Naturally, the news of the Mark Foley scandal bothers you. But you may feel that he's only 1 rotten apple in an otherwise decent bunch. Perhaps you can get beyond the recent disturbing news in order to focus on actual issues, like illegal immigration and homeland security, for example. And you see the House as the only place where conservatives voices have a chance to be heard. Afterall, it was the House leadership that finally took a stand (even against the will of President Bush) and last week won passage of a law that would construct a 700 mile security fence along our Mexican border. Chalk one up for the good guys, right? Something to take to the voters in November, right?

WRONG!!!

Don't believe the campaign soundbytes this fall, people. The article exposing this lie in today's Washington Post astounded me. Even I didn't think the Republican Congress was this shallow. Congress merely passed a bill that gave Homeland Security $1.2 billion (about the same amount we spend weekly in Iraq) to develop various security measures of its own choosing after consulting with world-renowned security experts like local Native American tribal chiefs.

And here's the real punchline: Bush's Homeland Security Department and its Secretary Michael Chertoff have already stated their opposition to the construction of any physical wall along the border with the money.

Read it and weep.

WASHINGTON, October 6, 2006 -- Shortly before recessing late Friday, the House and Senate gave the Bush administration leeway to distribute the money to a combination of projects -- not just the physical barrier along the southern border. The funds may also be spent on roads, technology and "tactical infrastructure" to support the Department of Homeland Security's preferred option of a "virtual fence."

What's more, in a late-night concession to win over wavering Republicans, GOP congressional leaders pledged in writing that Native American tribes, members of Congress, governors and local leaders would get a say in "the exact placement" of any structure.

The office of Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison yesterday released a letter from House Speaker Dennis Hastert and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist promising to ensure that Secretary Chertoff has discretion over whether to build a fence or choose other options.

Foley and Florida’s “Quirky” Election Law

2006-10-04T12:19:00.000-05:00

Okay, so it’s been a while since I’ve posted anything here at TPS or anywhere for that matter. Thanks to BDJ for keeping things somewhat active during my extended absence. I could riddle you with the usual excuses, work, work, travel, work, and well there was the time when I was working, but you get the point. Now that things have slowed a bit, I’ve had some time to reflect and concoct this post.

While there are lots of things that one could say and write about the Congressman Foley situation, I only really find one element of it that is interesting to me. That element has to do with what will happen on Election Day in the Florida 16th, Foley’s district. As noted and well-respected Election Law blogger and law professor Rick Hasen has pointed out section 100.111(4)(a) of the Florida Elections Code appears to allow for “proxy candidates” in situations such as this one. By this I mean that former Congressman Foley’s name will appear on the November 7th ballot, but votes cast for him will be attributed to the Republican Party and not Foley himself. Thus, since the Florida GOP has named another candidate for the seat, a vote for Foley is in effect, assuming I’ve read and understood the law correctly, a vote for the replacement candidate. Unusual, for sure, but I’m not convinced that there is anything illegal/unconstitutional about it, nevertheless I’m opposed to such a “proxy candidate” scheme this being applied to congressional or senatorial elections.

So Mr. Hotshot Lawyer, explain that last sentence. Well as I said, my objection doesn’t necessarily stem from a strict legal or constitutional objection, but rather from a democratic and institutional perspective. I concur with Professor Hasen’s analysis of the constitutionality and legality of the Florida law, which you can read here. The Constitution clearly affords Florida the right to pass such a silly election law, but that doesn’t mean that Congress has to accept the results. Art. 1 sec. 5, cl. 1 states that “Each House shall be the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members …,” which, of course, means that a person is not a member of Congress until Congress says that they are. Congress has in the past refused to seat members who have arrived in Washington D.C. with election credentials certifying them the winner. See, e.g., Powell v. McCormick, 395 U.S. 486 (1969) (reversing Congress’s decision not to seat Congressman Adam Clayton Powell on qualification clause grounds). Given the precedent for refusing to seat Members, Congress should exercise its right to refuse the seat should a “proxy candidate” wins the Florida 16th race. Simply put, the “proxy candidate” would not have “won” the election; note that I’m defining “won” in the simplest terms, namely, receipt of the most votes.

Congress, to the best of my knowledge, has always decided elections based on who received the most votes, and there is absolutely no reason to deviate from that precedent now. I don’t believe there has ever been a “proxy candidate” situation before, but from an institutional position I believe Congress should reject this idea. Besides it is not like there isn’t a solution. If Mr. Foley wins the most votes (unlikely I’m sure, but possible), he would of course refuse to take the seat and thus a vacancy would be declared and a special election would ensue. This scenario would likely result in a GOP win as the seat is a “safe” one for Republicans, according to almost every source I’ve seen. Allowing a proxy candidate” who only received votes by virtue of a quirky law would, in my opinion, do great damage to our democratic process and by extension Congress has a whole. The winner of the election wouldn’t necessarily be the person with the most votes. Thus, the legitimacy of the process would be questioned and rightly so. Congress depends on democratic legitimacy, the House of Representatives more so than any other part of our government, including the President. To allow a deviation from the principle of “person with the most votes wins,” would, it seems to me, irreparably damage that legitimacy. Of course, it is true that a write-in candidate who wins a majority of the vote outright posses no institutional problems and, therefore, should be seated by Congress. Any other combination, however, and I strongly believe Congress should refuse to seat the person and force a special election.

Blast From The Past

2006-10-02T09:37:00.000-05:00

Today's Pearl of Wisdom:

"The notion that it will take several hundred thousand troops to provide security in a post-Saddam Iraq is wildly off the mark."

--Paul Wolfowitz in testimony before Congress, U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense, February 2003

Foley's Republican Folly

2006-10-01T12:20:00.000-05:00

I continue to feel vindicated about going independent after seeing more of the folly from the Republican party I left. You see, we live in the heart of the Mark Foley mess. Since 1994 he has been the representative to Congress for our hometown of Charlotte County, Florida. Foley is a disgrace to his office and our state after the news of his chasing after vulnerable and underage male Congressional interns. Actually, it wouldn't matter if he went after little girls or little boys. But what does matter is when you hide your sexual identity and/or lie about it, I believe you increase the chances of behaving like a predator when given power as Mark Foley did.

Credibility matters. I'm much more comfortable with the idea of electing Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) as an openly-gay male in the Democratic party that states its support for gay rights than with the idea of a wolf in sheep's clothing like Mark Foley who gladly accepted the votes and money of evangelical Christians opposed to gay rights for the past 12 years.

As for a possible cover-up, I think there is a strong chance Foley was protected by GOP leadership. And I hope the media stays after this story. I don't know why Dennis Hastert would help Foley stay out of trouble because the 16th district should be a "safe" Republican seat. But how could members of Congress close to Mark Foley not have known about all this? And shame on them for then allowing Foley to chair a House committee desgined to protect exploited children.

BTW, here's a quick check of my own 2006 Outbox. I knew this much and I'm a nobody. I wonder what and when others "in the know" knew?

Wed, 14 Jun 2006 14:37:01 -0700 (PDT)

BDJ: "However, I feel I'm a different type of conservative. Afterall, I'm the one planning to vote Democrat in November in both of my congressional elections for the first time in my life. For me, that means voting against Katherine Harris and Mark Foley. Can you really blame me? Harris is unelectable and probably unqualified. The latter is a very moderate Republican from the Palm Beach area who is a strong supporter of gay rights."

Sat, 2 Sep 2006 00:46:03 -0700 (PDT)

BDJ: "I have decided I cannot vote for Mark Foley. I'm serious about this, but it appears he is actually a Log Cabin Republican. He was "outed" last year by a gay magazine and called a press conference to denounce the story (not deny the story) and say that sexual preferences have no bearing on one's politics. Then this past year he was a leading GOP opponent of the same sex marriage ban ammendment. Hmmm. Guess what? He's also a life-long bachelor in his mid 50s and from posh and artsy Palm Beach."

With Friends Like This...

2006-09-28T10:56:00.000-05:00

Back to Iraq. It seems to generate more interest, which is understandable because it is a war. Sometimes we forget that. Anyway, these poll numbers from our new "partner" in the war on terror need to be seen.

WASHINGTON - 61% of Iraqis say they approve of attacks on U.S. led forces, and slightly more than that want their government to ask U.S. troops to leave within a year, according to a poll in that country.

The Iraqis also have negative views of Osama bin Laden, according to the early September poll of 1,150. More than half, 57 percent, further disapprove of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

The poll, done for University of Maryland's Program on International Policy Attitudes, also found that almost 4 in 5 Iraqis say the U.S. military force in Iraq provokes more violence than it prevents.

61% of Iraqis support the continuing slaughter of American troops as they try to police their country to prevent bloodshed. Nice to know. No wonder the insurgency still isn't in its "final throes" as Dick Cheney said well over a year ago.

Furthermore, in spite of the popular support for violence targetting U.S. troops, note how Osama Bin Laden is not a popular figure in Iraq. Perhaps the "war on terror" isn't as homogenous as the administration leads us to believe? Hmmm. And perhaps Osama did not have an ally in Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi people afterall? Who would've thunk that?

Finally, note how Iran's President Ahmadinejad also carries a low approval rating amongst the Iraqi people. Too bad the new U.S. backed government doesn't share these feelings. Prime Minister Maliki can't get enough hugs from Mr. Ahmadinejad, that is when he's not busy bonding with Sheik Nassrallah over in Lebanon, of course.

This stuff keeps getting worse. I suppose we could look at this more optimistically, like Bush, and say that our 2,700 dead, 20,000 wounded, and $450 billion spent has led to a 39% of the Iraqi people opposing the killing of American troops?!? At that rate, we just might win this war on terror in a few centuries.

In Defense of George Allen

2006-09-26T23:11:00.000-05:00

With 2,700 dead U.S. soldiers in Iraq, mounting loses from the War in Afghanistan, legitimate questions of national security, a senile Secretary of Defense, a border being overrun by invaders, record federal budget deficits, corruption in Congress, and no national energy or health care policies....apparently the #1 issue in American politics is still race. Senator George Allen's re-election campaign is on the ropes. If I lived in the Commonwealth of Virginia, I think I might vote for challenger Jim Webb myself. Afterall, I respect the man's credentials and agree with his position on Iraq.

However, Allen's detractors don't want to focus on that. Instead, after a series of incidents beginning with the "macaca" story, the vultures are circling overhead of the Senator's fallen body. And it seems now they're going in for the kill after digging up an unsubstantiated allegations that he used the word "nigger" in college 30 years ago.

I'm so tired of this. Not only is there a double standard concerning the use of that word (we sure do love that rap music), but its use can be alleged without any credible evidence. And then everyone will stop and take note in order to prove that they care, that they're above this sort of thing. Heck, I'm even doing it here! Chris Matthews - who I respect more than most of his peers - spent a full 30 minutes on this topic today. And history has proven that it can indeed swing a close election.

I sure hope the Webb campaign isn't fueling the fires here. I'd like to think the former Reagan aide is above that. I saw an interview with Allen's old "buddy" from the UVA football team who felt the voters of his state needed to learn of Allen's supposedly racist past. And so he talked and alleged some pretty mean stuff. And yet when asked why he hadn't come forth sooner, this buffoon responded that he had been hoping Allen would go away and he wouldn't have to do this.

Let's see: the man serves 4 years as Governor, another 6 as Senator, and there have been longtime rumors of a forthcoming presidential campaign. But none of that mattered. What counted was that Allen's politcal blood was in the water. And someone thought it was time to use every bullet in the gun. Even if doing so was the wrong thing to do. More of the typical sad state of American politics.

I don't know if George Allen said the "n" word or not. Unlike most, I don't care. I do care about his position on Iraq where Americans of all colors are dying. And I would care about his legislative record if there was a history of prejudice. But apparently those things just aren't as sexy as a two-syllable unsubstantiated remark supposively uttered 30 years ago.

What a country! We literally give 2nd and 3rd and 4th chances to criminals (that was actually my job for awhile). We literally re-elect politicans who lie, cheat, and steal. And Ted Kennedy literally has a job for life no matter what he does - rabble rouse at best, murder at worst. But don't you dare say a bad word. Especially that one.

Snoop Dogg for president!

Ahmadinejad

2006-09-19T23:57:00.000-05:00

I don't have it in me to editorialize more thoroughly because my thoughts on the matter of Iran are still developing. The main comment that I can offer is that of all the lessons learned from Iraq, I hope our president (and America) resists the notion that this is a black-and-white issue. It's so tempting to say "we're good" and "they're bad."

But that doesn't make it right. If nothing else, Ahmadinejad's words remind me that the same old-school Cold War attitude that hurt us in Iraq still doesn't apply to this latest of the new 21st century struggles. New ideas and new directions are needed -- quickly.

Emphatically, no, I do not want Iran to have a nuclear bomb. And I would rejoice if the people of Iran showed their religious dictators the boot and returned that nation to acting once again like the jewel of a culture it has historically been since the time of Alexander the Great. But I also know we cannot impose a government on them that they do not want. And I realize it's a precarious position to be the world's largest nuclear state and then dictate to others that they cannot use that same nuclear power.

Ahmadinejad is not a fool. His words indicate to me that he's sharper than Saddam Hussein ever dreamed of being while he played dictator for 3 decades. We're in a tough spot here, especially after Iraq. I genuinely hope President Bush can navigate it better this time. Even the most bitter of this administration's critics should not want to see him mess up on this one. There's way too much at stake.

"We lied in the morning, we lied in the evening."

2006-09-19T05:05:00.000-05:00

No, the quote that I used for a title is not a line from a Blues or Country song, it is the actual words of the Hungarian Prime Minister. Mind ye, he had no idea those words would be made public... but still...

"Mr Gyurcsany's comments, which sparked the violence, were heard in a tape of a meeting he had with his MPs a few weeks after April's election, and leaked to local media on Sunday.

In excerpts broadcast on state radio, Mr Gyurcsany says harsh economic reforms are needed.

'There is not much choice. There is not, because we screwed up. Not a little, a lot. No European country has done something as boneheaded as we have.

Evidently, we lied throughout the last year-and-a-half, two years... You cannot quote any significant government measure we can be proud of, other than at the end we managed to bring the government back from the brink. Nothing.'

In a speech sprinkled with obscenities, Mr Gyurcsany says: 'We lied in the morning, we lied in the evening.'"

What is this? Remorse? Honesty? Among the ruling class of a Western Democracy?

Sheesh... What's next? Faithful execution of thier duties? What is this world coming to!!!

Freedom

2006-09-18T01:10:00.000-05:00

Neal Boortz recently met with President Bush for an off-the-record roundtable with several other noted conservative radio talk show hosts. Boortz has stated that he will not quote from president per the rules of the 90 minute dialogue. However, he did provide this observation that I thought was worthy of some thought.

I came away from the meeting with some clear impressions. President Bush is a man of deep religious faith, and strongly believes that anyone who truly believes in God will also have a burning desire to live free.

I'm not sure how I feel about this seemingly harmless statement. And I admit that if we weren't bogged down in a gruelling war in Iraq, it would be a non-issue. But we are. And so I challenge interested readers and co-bloggers to ask themselves, free of personal bias, whether this is a fair assessment of both the current state and also the history of mankind? Do we really have that burning desire to live free? I realize that questioning such a notion almost sounds anti-American by nature. And, speaking as a gun owner, I personally like my freedom as much as the next guy. But when we look at a history filled with consolidation of power (yes, even right here in America), I'm not sure this notion is as imprinted on the DNA of God-fearing people as much as the president thinks. And I'm even more dubious that it's as common in that part of the world from Morocco to Malaysia where conformity appears valued above freedom.

Thoughts?