Beware Greeks Bearing Gifts

The Politico reports on an 'olive branch' extended by Congressional Democratic leaders -- an offer to meet with the president on a stimulus package before either side is committed to a proposal:

In an [sic] magnanimous move, Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid have sent President Bush a letter asking for a high level meeting so both sides can try to work out a bipartisan economic stimulus package before Democrats and Republicans start bickering about the specifics in public. In the letter, to be released this afternoon, Pelosi and Reid say they want to work with the White House and Republican leadership to "immediately develop a legislative plan."

Rather than pre-empting the president's expected economic proposals in his State of the Union address later this month, Democrats say they want to visit the White House next week and hash out a plan before either side releases its economic ideas.

"We would strongly urge this meeting take place before any economic packages are announced," Reid and Pelosi wrote in their letter.

Why the sudden conciliatory tone from Congressional leaders, who have so far sought to bully the White House at every turn? My guess is that it's because they're committed to new spending, and they want to get to the President before he has a chance to commit to a stimulus package with no new spending.

Last year, Congressional Democrats staked out their position and tried to force the President to come around. Presented with a 'take it or leave it' spending proposal, the president had little problem sticking with fiscal conservatives. They ended up getting rolled, and have been forced to reassess their strategy for the year ahead.

They seem to have decided that they might have better luck if they can get to the president early. If he doesn't take a firm position against them, maybe they can make a deal -- for $20 billion, $50 billion, or $100 billion in 'emergency' spending. It would all be tailored to stimulate the economy (of course), and it would be merely a coincidence that it included all the same spending items that got dropped from the appropriations bills last year.

Conservatives should get to the White House early, and tell them that before agreeing to any summit, they should stake out a position that any stimulus spending should fall within the regular spending caps.

What Happened to those Primary Challenges?

Read it at the Standard.

Democrats' 130% Tax Increase Hits Ethics, Political Problems

Read it at the Standard.

Democrats Consider New Job Set-Asides: Convicted Felons

Read it at the Standard.

Frustration Builds for Democrats

The Wall Street Journal reports on the Left's bittersweet legislative victories:

On questions such as Mr. Mukasey's stance on waterboarding, warrantless wiretapping and the war in Iraq, Democrats have been stymied by Republicans in Congress and the White House. That has sparked frustration among supporters, especially those on the left, who anticipated that last year's congressional takeover would force some policy changes.

These dashed expectations are one reason polls give Congress an approval rating lower than Mr. Bush's. The difficulties faced by Democrats on these issues look certain to complicate the party's bid to expand House and Senate majorities and regain the White House in 2008, a wartime election in which national security will be a major issue.

Polls show that an important reason for the low Congressional approval rating is that Democrats are even more dissatisfied with Congress than are Republicans. That apparently reflects dissatisfaction among core liberals that the Congress has not stopped the war, has given in on FISA, etc. A significant question that will help decide what happens on election day, 2008 is what does that liberal base do if it determines that it has been abandoned by the Democratic nominee?

In 2006, liberals seemed to hold their noses and vote for any Democrat. Is that what they will do in 2008 -- put victory ahead of principle? Or will they decide that Hillary (or whoever) is as bad as the GOP nominee, and cast their votes for Cynthia McKinney, or Ralph Nader, or whomever? Seeing just how those 5-10 percent of Democrats go may decide the presidency.

I say 'may' because it's not clear to me that the Democratic nominee will be close enough to the Republican to make it matter. I have argued before that the Democrats' retain a fundamental weakness on national security, which is not reflected in current polls. I believe that the GOP candidate is likely to have a significant edge on the issue that may be the most important one on election day 2008 -- an edge not reflected in current polls, where Americans respond based on the Bush presidency and the war in Iraq. At this time next year, the picture may be very different.

Why Do Universities Get a Liberal Rep?

All I know is, when I was in school, I was never offered extra credit for burning an American flag:

On the first day of class, associate professor Paul Grosswiler offered the credit to members of his History of Mass Communications class, according to sophomore Rebekah McDade. Disturbed by the comment, McDade dropped the class and intends to take the course again next semester with a different professor.

"I was offended," McDade said Friday. "I come from a family of military men and women, and the flag and Constitution are really important symbols to me because of my family background."

In an e-mail responding to a request for comment from the Bangor Daily News on Friday, Grosswiler said he thought McDade misunderstood the class discussion, which was intended to elicit thought about the First Amendment. He said he has held this same discussion for years without incident.

"I don’t intend for students to burn either the Constitution or the flag, and over the years hundreds of students have understood that," Grosswiler wrote...

When Grosswiler listed the extra-credit opportunities, McDade said the class of approximately 50 students grew very quiet, and some questioned whether he was serious.

At first, student Kathleen Dame said she thought Grosswiler was joking, but then he went on to explain to the class that burning the flag was not illegal. While Grosswiler approached the topic in a serious manner, Dame said she felt he used it as a tool to educate the class on the First Amendment.

"It was pretty outlandish and [he was] trying to prove a point," Dame said Friday.

While McDade said she would not be surprised if students followed through with the flag burning, Dame disagreed.

McDade made other claims about Grosswiler's presentation that are not references in the news article above:

According to McDade, Grosswiler had already claimed that free speech didn’t exist in America anymore because "the Republican administration has made it all but illegal."

"I was trying to listen to what he had to say about the course but he just kept making politically biased comments – all strongly liberal," said McDade.

When McDade left the class she was concerned that as a conservative she would be unable to participate fully in the class because of Grosswiler’s blatant bias. When Grosswiler’s left-wing outbursts continued in the next class, McDade left the class and asked her advisor if she could take the class another semester with an objective professor. The advisor agreed to her request.

As far as I can see, this is just a 'he said/she said' case right now; I see Professor Grosswiler's page lists his scholarly writings, but I don't see them available for review on the web.

Read also Right Wing News, Stop the ACLU, and Daily Pundit.

What is Jack Cafferty's Vote Worth?

I've not posted this yet, even though it's from several days ago -- but it strikes me as significant.

The angry white male vote is important. So is the populist demagogue vote. And they are related -- smarter people than me probably understand it better. But people like Ross Perot, Lou Dobbs, and Jack Cafferty represent an important segment of the voting population, which typically votes Republican.

One reason the GOP got trounced last years is because they appeared out-of-touch, and they lost these folks. The fact that an angry man like Jack Cafferty is again more angry at Democrats than Republicans is an important signal that the tide may have turned:

Reich's Hypocritical Argument on Inequality

Listening to Reich on income inequality is like asking the arsonist for advice on how to put out a fire. Jump to the bottom of the post if you want to see why.

I note that McQ has a great post over at QandO on Robert Reich's misleading piece in support of soaking the rich to pay for costly new government programs. McQ says:

This is easy stuff, folks. Note the premise. The bill, its size or what is on it is not open for discussion. All that is open for discussion is who gets stuck with it. And that is how the Democrats and Reich frame the argument. Imagine going into a restaurant, having a meal delivered to your table which you didn't order and because you look fairly prosperous, finding the bills of 4 other tables added to yours because they're not. Outraged? You bet you would be outraged.

But we hear basically the same argument here and most of us accept the premise because it probably won't be us footing the bill (just like those 4 tables of diners probably were fine with you picking up their tab).

Reich's entire premise for new taxes on the rich is that the current system is unfair. But federal tax data continue to confirm the progressivity of the current system. As Bob Bartlett points out:

Fleischer's main point is that a growing percentage of the population is paying no federal income taxes. He said the figure is 40 percent, based on a recent study by the Congressional Budget Office showing that the bottom two income quintiles (20 percent of households) paid no federal income taxes in the aggregate in 2004. This is because the Earned Income Tax Credit offsets all of the tax liability for those who had incomes below $29,400.

Fleischer was quickly taken to task by liberals like Jared Bernstein of the Economic Policy Institute and Jonathan Chait of The New Republic for ignoring the burden of payroll taxes on those with low incomes. The same CBO data cited by Fleischer show that those in the bottom quintile paid 8.2 percent of their income in payroll taxes and the second quintile paid 9.1 percent.

This is the standard liberal response to data showing that the wealthy are shouldering a greater and greater share of the income tax burden. According to the CBO, those in the top quintile paid 85.3 percent of all such taxes in 2004. In 1979, the first year of the CBO study, this group paid only 64.9 percent.

Inclusion of payroll taxes in the calculation doesn't change the picture that much because the top quintile of households paid 44.2 percent of all payroll taxes in 2004. Overall, this group paid 67.1 percent of all federal taxes -- well above their share of reported income, which was 53.5 percent.

Of course, we have a progressive tax system, and the wealthy are expected to pay more than their proportional share of taxes. The CBO data confirm that our federal tax system is indeed very progressive. Looking at all federal taxes, including payroll taxes, those in the lowest quintile paid 4.5 percent of their income to the federal government in 2004, the second quintile paid 10 percent, the third paid 13.9 percent, the fourth paid 17.2 percent, and the top quintile paid 25.1 percent.

Bartlett is going easy on the critics, too. Liberals have generally been very wary to change the current payroll tax structure. This is because it is easier to argue that Social Security is a pension plan when all contribute equally to their benefits. If you exempt those at the bottom -- or merely give them a lower rate -- you change the program from a pension plan to a welfare plan, and make it easier to cut benefits. For that reason Democrats have generally opposed plans that change the payroll taxes paid by earners at the low end.

And with regard to income inequality overall, is it going up under Bush -- as Reich claims? Not according to the Census Bureau and Congress' Joint Economic Committee:

According to a key Census Bureau measure, income inequality was essentially unchanged between 2001 and 2006. In response to a request by the Republican staff of the Joint Economic Committee, a statistical test performed by the Census Bureau earlier this week confirms that no statistically significant change in the inequality measure occurred between 2001 and 2006...

“Despite all the discussion about income inequality, the fact is that it hasn’t changed in recent years, according to the Census Bureau measure,” ranking Joint Economic Committee member Congressman Jim Saxton said today. “Congress should consider this fact before acting on the assumption that income inequality is surging.

How does Bush's record compare with the record under the Clinton administration -- when Robert Reich served as Labor Secretary?

However, the rise of the income share of the top 1 percent of tax filers ranked by income during the 1990s is very pronounced. For example, between 1992 and 2000, this share jumped from 14.23 percent to 20.81 percent, a huge increase of nearly 7 percentage points. Meanwhile, the income share of the bottom half of tax filers fell from 14.92 percent in 1992 to 12.99 percent in 2000.

Reich in his piece asserts:

The wealthiest 1 percent of Americans earn more than 21 percent of all income. That's a postwar record.

So under the Clinton administration the share earned by the top 1 percent climbed 6.78%, while under President Bush it has climbed less than 0.4%.

Reich's argument is as full of holes as his credibility on the issue.

Update: I note good arguments on this over at Wake Up America, Sister Toldjah and Protein Wisdom as well.

Kos on Islamofacsism: Don't Beat 'Em -- Join 'Em!

Read it at the Standard.

Pete Stark Resorts to Personal Attacks Again

Read it at the Standard.

Thanks Walter, But no Thanks...

Earlier today Jim Geraghty looked at the endorsements some current candidates are getting that they would be better off without:

Door Number One: NARAL’s statement that electing Rudy Giuliani ‘would help’ their movement?

Door Number Two: The Log Cabin Republicans’ ad praising Mitt Romney’s ‘Massachusetts Values’?

Door Number Three: Mike Huckabee’s kudos from Andy Stern's Change to Win union group?

What, no formation of a 527 group called “Hollywood Elites for Fred Thompson”?

Who would have thought the next item on that list would come from the Democratic side?

Mondale to Endorse Clinton

Former Vice President Walter Mondale, the 1984 Democratic presidential nominee, is planning to endorse Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), The Hill has learned.

Mondale’s endorsement could prove especially valuable in Iowa, which borders his home state of Minnesota. Mondale won Iowa overwhelmingly in the ’84 primary.

Remember though, Walter Mondale's last foray into politics was his embarrassing loss to Norm Coleman in the 2002 Senate race in Minnesota -- a race he entered only after the death of Paul Wellstone. Running as a legacy candidate -- and as someone who agreed with just about everything Wellstone stood for -- few thought Mondale could lose -- but he did.

Further, doesn't this serve to reinforce the idea that Hillary is little more than a throwback, tax-raising, big-government-loving liberal in the mold of well, Walter Mondale? And is that a good thing, when it's starting to become clear -- more than a year before the election -- that today's Democratic party is beginning to look a lot like the Mondale/Dukakis party?

It’s obvious from watching congressional Democrats and the party’s presidential candidates that they have decided the political environment has changed dramatically since Bill Clinton told the country that the era of big government was over.

They are again offering spending programs and calling for measures that would lead to tax increases of the type that they began shying away from after the 1994 Republican takeover of Congress.

They changed their ways after 1994 for some time, of course, because voters had made clear that they thought government was doing too many things with too much tax money. It was that realization that led a contrite Clinton to make clear in his annual State of the Union address that he, and his party, understood.

But, clearly, times have changed. Democrats are not only offering up programs that would enlarge the reach of the federal government and collect more money from taxpayers, but they’re doing so enthusiastically, confident the American people are on their side.

It's nice of Hillary to bravely embrace the 1970s style liberalism.

Netroots Strategize Holding on to Power Once Gained

Chris Bowers of OpenLeft pens a post on the legislative reforms and statutory changes that would contribute to the creation of a more progressive society:

...I am referring to those key areas of legislation and Democratic Party behavior that have the potential to build progressivism itself. As Matt as discussed in recent length pieces such as Emergence Politics and Rush Limbaugh, and The Broken Market for Democratic Primaries, what progressives need are the creation and institutionalization of "positive feedback loops" that will make America a more progressive place, and thus make all other progressive policy more likely to be enacted...

* The Employee Free Choice Act...
* Clean Election Laws...
* Reversing Corporate Media Consolidation...
* Progressive Immigration Reform...
* Colonial Reform... [full voting rights for districts and territories -- the Editor]
* Re-locating government spending...
* Voting Reform...

As a conservative, this ought to scare you. I don't know of anyone on the right putting together a corresponding agenda: the reforms that conservatives support for their own sake, which would simultaneously reinforce a conservative direction for government.

Of these reforms, which ones do Democrats back because they're the right thing to do, and which do they support because they promise to cement the progressive hold on power? Does it call into question the legitimacy of a political movement to taint their agenda for the betterment of the human condition, by associating it with tightening the grip on the levers of power?

As a conservative, I think it's good to expand the ownership society. If I point out that expanding the ability of workers to invest for their retirement, also creates more pressure for government policies that promote business generally, is it a 'conflict of interest?'

What other policies would make it onto the corresponding list for free-market advocates?

• School choice: Allows kids trapped in bad schools -- often the poor -- to get a superior education, while simultaneously weakening teachers' unions.
• Contracting out of government services: If the government used more private contractors to deliver services, it would weaken government unions while also saving taxpayer money.
• Restraining federal spending increases to some combination of inflation & population. (Which would prevent the federal government from doing something new, without simultaneously giving up something it currently does).
  

What else would make the list?

See also Riehl World View

Nancy Pelosi: 'Brilliant Political Tactician'

The Hill features a disarming little profile of George Miller (D-CA), and it made me laugh. I had to share it:

“George Miller brings to the Congress enormous intellect, commitment and compassion,” Pelosi said. “He is a stalwart champion for the environment, for the working men and women of our country, and for our children.”

Both are considered brilliant political tacticians...

When Pelosi forcefully backed Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.) for majority leader, Miller spent that damp and chilly Sunday after the Nov. 6 election drumming up support for Murtha from the new Democratic lawmakers at the Capitol Hilton Hotel on New Jersey Avenue.

Throwing her organizational support to Murtha proved to be a gross miscalculation; now-Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) trounced Murtha. Ever the pragmatist, Miller congratulated Hoyer in front of the entire caucus and suggested meeting later to discuss the future and how they would operate in the majority. A cordial and productive meeting eventually took place, Democratic leadership aides said.

Yes. Ms Pelosi is certainly a brilliant political tactician. She appointed Rahm Emanuel chair of the DCCC -- an extremely wise move. She insisted that House Democrats have no agenda beyond '6 in 06,' so that Republicans would have nothing to criticize (but Democrats would have no mandate). She played a game of brinkmanship with the President over Iraq, that seems to be leading to primaries against a number of House Democrats.

And her hand-picked choice for Majority Leader got thrown back in her face by the Democratic conference. She's definitely brilliant. You know, like Forrest Gump.

Limbaugh on Solid Ground on 'Phony Soldiers'

House Democrats are apparently considering a resolution to castigate Rush Limbaugh for having the nerve to allege that there are 'phony soldiers' bragging about their exploits in Iraq. As long as they're at it, perhaps they'll actually denounce the phony soldiers. Fact is, there are thousands of 'phony soldiers' nationwide; the problem is so great that Congress passed legislation to crack down on the epidemic. Jesse MacBeth is just the tip of the iceberg.

Publications like the Army Times and Navy Times have written about phony veterans many times. A sample:

Justice Department officials in Washington state detailed Porter’s story, along with seven other people accused of — or already convicted of — being military frauds, during a news conference Friday on VA fakers.

“We take it seriously because this money is meant for veterans, not for fakers,” James O’Neill, assistant inspector general for the VA’s office of investigations, told Military Times.

“Every dollar that’s lost to a faker is one more dollar that can’t be spent on a veteran,” said O’Neill, whose office is responsible for rooting out those who defraud VA.

More from the same publication:

It’s not unheard of for Marines to embellish their service after leaving active duty or for civilians who’ve never served to pass themselves off as Marines. It’s happening all over the country this very minute...

Posers, in other words, are getting less ambitious. Among the dozen or so cases that have popped up so far this year — including five recent ones in this week’s issue — some are merely claiming to be a Marine, without all the battlefield exploits and mounds of chest candy. Those who do claim valor among their traits aren’t shooting for the Medal of Honor or service crosses. Fake Silver Star cases seem to be en vogue, as are phony Purple Hearts.

Want more? Here's a whole website devoted to the problem. Here's another website with numerous news stories about it.

How serious is the problem of 'phony soldiers?' Congress last year passed legislation to allow prosecution of people who claimed medals that they had not earned. It passed both the House and Senate unanimously. It was introduced by Congressman John Salazar (D-CO), whose press release on the measure lists several phony heroes -- Michael O'Brien, Lawrence Hammer, and Gilbert Velasquez. The stories above mentioned Larry Porter, Merrick Hersey, Michael Heit, Carlos Valle Rios (a registered sex offender, by the way), Preston Garris, Glenn Marshall, Tim DeBusk... the list goes on and on. According to NPR, there are 50 ongoing investigations by the FBI into violations of Salazar's legislation.

When Limbaugh referenced 'phony soldiers,' he specifically cited the case of Jesse MacBeth. Liberal critics have laughably complained that he cited only one case while using the plural. Fact is, there are dozens and dozens on the public record, and it seems highly likely that there are thousands nationwide.

Here's ABC News' recent report on phony heroes and Operation Stolen Valor:



If Congress intends to criticize Limbaugh for talking about people like Jesse MacBeth, what message does that about how seriously the offenses of MacBeth and others like him? It would directly oppose the message they send last December, when they passed the Stolen Valor Act.

What Limbaugh Said

Read it at the Standard.

Corzine Breaks the Law Again

Jon Corzine seems to have escaped the public relations hit associated with his motorcade speeding to meet with Don Imus. Now he's decided to use lawbreaking for political gain. The Wall Street Journal notes that states like New Jersey have been going beyond the guidelines for SCHIP -- the State Children's Health Insurance Program -- to subsidize health insurance for upper middle income families who don't need the help, rather than the lower middle-income families the program was intended to help:

In a tardy response to this trend, the federal Department of Health and Human Services announced in August that before states could further expand their Schip programs beyond 250% of poverty, they would have to enroll 95% of children below 200% of poverty. This limit moves the most disadvantaged children to the head of the line, before subsidizing those who need it less. In practice, it also checks Schip's mission creep. Such directives are a legitimate tool that all Administrations use to shape policy.

The usual liberal precincts claim to be enraged. Governor Corzine declared that New Jersey would unilaterally disregard the HHS rules and "vigorously continue" to enroll at 350% of poverty -- the highest ceiling in the country. And he'd do so even though about 119,000 New Jersey children under 200% of the poverty line remain uninsured -- and although the state spends 43% of its yearly Schip grant insuring adults.

For several years the number of uninsured New Jersey children under 200% has held steady, while New Jersey's Schip rolls have grown by about 10% a year. One major reason is that the state continues to enroll families with incomes up to $72,275. What's more, this public coverage is mostly substituting for the private variety. A recent working paper from the National Bureau of Economic Research estimates the crowd-out for Schip at 60%, meaning that in order to cover four new kids the government is paying for six more who already had private insurance. This effect is even more pronounced at higher income levels: Nationally, 89% of children between 300% and 400% already have private coverage.

Governor Corzine could always tax his own residents to pay for this largesse. Then again, New Jersey already has one of the worst tax burdens in the country, and Trenton has raised taxes five times in the last six years. For the Governor, the political beauty of Schip is that it allows New Jersey to finance its spendthrift ways on the backs of more responsible states...

And soon enough, every state may become New Jersey. As Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus recently noted, "I think the Children's Health Insurance Program is another step to move toward universal coverage. Everyone realizes that the goal of this legislation moves us a giant step further down the road to nationalizing health care." At least Mr. Baucus isn't disguising his socialist goal, unlike Mr. Corzine.

The administration ought to call more attention to what Corzine and New Jersey are doing -- denying assistance to the truly needy in order to make it available to those who already have health insurance. The Democrats in Congress are proposing to spend billions more to expand this trend to other states. They scream about the President's decision to finance a war on terror with deficit spending; but then propose to expand health insurance subsidies for those who already have it by expanding the deficit further. Is that the fiscal rectitude the American people voted for in 2006?

DailyKos: Osama's No More Evil than Reagan

Read it over at the Standard.

Today's Anti-War Movement

If a Congressman refuses to meet with your anti-war group, you mock him for being a coward or a chickenhawk.

If he does meet with you, show up suddenly and vandalize his office:

Shortly before the problems began, three constituents were in the office talking to Smith employees about various issues, but it was also around the time that a group of uninvited anti-war protesters barged into the office and disrupted the work of employees in the office.

The Trentonian found two videos of that meeting posted on YouTube that show the group inside the office...

The videos are entertaining, if you want to see a babbling bunch of modern-day merry pranksters ranting incoherently at a foreign woman wearing a Smith mask.

But what is going on in the background of the video footage may interest investigators because it shows the movements of the anti-war protestors inside the office.

“It’s very suspicious that the computer systems were working without a glitch before the 23 or so people showed up, only to be totally inoperable after they left,” Noonan said.

Smith had previously met with the anti-war protesters in 90 minutes to discuss their differences on the war in Iraq.

“It was a frank and open discussion with Chris and the group,” Noonan said.

There are undoubtedly some honorable opponents to the Iraq war, but they are not much on display. Leaders in Washington say that the war is lost, or isn't worth another drop of American blood, but then refuse to follow through on their convictions. Soldiers and sailors are slandered and mocked in journals like the New Republic. Congressmen who leave Iraq convinced that things are better are seen as traitorous weaklings, and are told to ignore new facts in favor of preconceived conclusions. And now 'anti-war protesters' childishly vandalize the office of a Congressman who was good enough to meet with them.

The next time you hear a complaint about the coarsening of political discourse in this country, remember this story.

Mitchell Can't Explain Stolen House Vote

The Majority Accountability Project calls attention to an interview done by Congressman Harry Mitchell (D-AZ), in which he tries to explain why he switched his vote on an amendment that would have denied food stamps and other benefits to illegal immigrants. Mitchell's answer is that such benefits are already illegal, and to make it 'doubly illegal' was just an attempt to derail the bill.

But that's just untrue. The agriculture appropriations bill is just about the least controversial funding bill Congress considers. Further, the House had adopted a similar amendment (Congressman Garrett's) to the agriculture bill in 2006, and the measure passed by a vote of 378-46. The bill passed by a vote of 408-18 in 2005, 389-31 in 2004... you get the picture. There was no way the adoption of this amendment would have hurt the chance for passage. It was headed toward a comfortable victory until the disputed vote. Furthermore, a provision that changes nothing -- Mitchell's claim -- would not have hurt chances for passage.

And if this was just an effort to derail the bill, or if it was superfluous (Mitchell makes both of these contradictory claims), then why did he wait until pressed by Democratic leaders to change the vote? And even if all of the above is true, it still doesn't excuse his waiting until after the gavel came down and the amendment had passed to make the change.

No, this explanation just doesn't pass the smell test.

Listen to the interview with Mitchell here, and judge for yourself whether he's answering the question, or just trying to distract listeners.

Republican leader Boenher has done a lot of traveling during the August recess, and he's been asked about the stolen vote on a number of radio shows. Listen here, here, here and here. When Congress returns after Labor Day, Boehner is expected to name the three Republicans who will sit on the select committee created by Congress to investigate this embarrassment.

Larry Craig: I Question the Timing

Ace is angry at the timing of Roll Call's expose on Larry Craig:

In this case, the arrest report wasn't leaked earlier when it would have given an Idaho GOP challenger time to suddenly whip up the makings of an insurgent campaign. Instead, it comes far too late for that, making it almost certain Craig will prevail in the primary for lack of a real challenger and then be defeated by a Democratic candidate.

How do these lucky breaks keep accruing to the Democrats?

I have to disagree on this one; it seems to me this was nearly the best time for the GOP.

Think about it this way: rumors about Larry Craig being gay have been pushed to the mainstream media for -- literally -- years. I won't send you to the sites, but there are activists who have been looking for 'proof' so that they could get mainstream outlets to out Craig. The incident in question took place in June, so the earliest it could have been printed was two months ago.

Did this story come too late in the cycle for a challenger to defeat Craig in a primary? The filing deadline is March 8 of next year; the primary itself is in May. If someone wanted to pick off a Senate seat, they would have held off on this story until after the primary filing deadline -- so that Republicans would have been stuck with Craig as a candidate.

And what was the situation before this story broke? Craig had not yet announced whether he would seek re-election, and candidates like Lt. Gov. Jim Risch were eagerly awaiting his decision while laying groundwork for a bid. Now those candidates have effectively received a go ahead to make the race. If anything, they get an earlier start than they otherwise would have.

As it is now, Larry LaRocco is the strongest Democratic candidate. But as Stu Rothenberg points out, neither he nor any other Democrat is likely to be a serious challenge:

Republican Sen. Larry Craig’s status for 2008 has been a question mark, even before Roll Call broke the recent news of his June arrest. Craig had yet to give the NRSC an official, or even unofficial, heads up about whether he would seek a fourth term. And he showed a less than intimidating $549,000 in campaign cash through the end of June. Now, for a senator previously undecided about running again, the recent developments increase the possibility of an open seat in Idaho...

In a potential preview of next November, Risch and LaRocco squared off statewide less than a year ago in the 2006 race for lieutenant governor, with Risch winning convincingly 58%-30%.

The rumors that liberals and Democrats were spreading about Craig before this arrest were disgusting and over the line. But in this case, the timing of this story is helpful to the GOP, not a handicap.

As to the lack of attention to the Peter Paul story, I am in full agreement.