How Powerful is the Netroots?

There's an interesting symmetry right now in the blogosphere, in the cases of Albert Wynn (D-MD) and John Doolittle (R-CA). This is a post yesterday over at FireDogLake:

So I have to ask — if we’re to accept Pelosi and Reid’s assertions to the effect that they can’t get anything done because they don’t have the votes, why is Pelosi sticking her nose into a primary to help get reactionary Al Wynn re-elected?

We’re going to try and raise money for Donna Edwards like we did for Darcy Burner before her...

So it’s up to you. Donna is a fantastic candidate. If you want to mitigate the effect that people like Pelosi and Reid have on keeping Bush Dogs like Al Wynn in office and in power, please consider giving to her campaign.

It’s a nice way to tell Nancy Pelosi to stop abusing her position to give reactionary incumbents an unfair advantage.

This is from a somewhat-dated post from RedState:

Meet Eric Egland. You might know him already. He started TroopsNeedYou.com to deliver resources to our troops in harm's way. He's been on CNN talking about his book, The Blog of War. He's been interviewed by Michelle Malkin. And most importantly, Eric Egland has fought in both Afghanistan and Iraq.

He's a pro-life conservative in a very Republican, conservative district. In fact, he's running against a Republican and we want you to help us help Eric Egland.

Eric is running against the corrupt, embattled John Doolittle, the national face of Republican scandal. Doolittle had to step down from the House Appropriations Committee because of the pending investigation against him. The FBI has already raided his home. But Doolittle won't retire because if he gets re-elected one more time he can get his full congressional pension.

This is a seat that will stay Republican. But, should Doolittle stay in it, it's a seat that could drag down other Republicans because of Doolittle's scandal. In 2004, Bush won it with over 60% of the vote.

Eric Egland is a stellar candidate, a small government conservative, and our choice for CA-04.

For all the attention to the Democratic Netroots -- the teams at DailyKos, FireDogLake, MyDD, OpenLeft, and elsewhere -- it's not at all clear to me that they have any more influence over the policies of their party in Washington than do the blogs of the Right. As righty bloggers seek to grow our influence inside the beltway, it's important to keep expectations reasonable. It's probably also important that bloggers attempt to continue to grow hand-in-hand with existing conservative institutions -- such as Heritage, Club for Growth, as well as business associations such as NAM, the Chamber, NFIB, and other right-leaning lobbies.

To the extent that conservative blogs can stay on the same page as existing powers in the party, it increases our ability to wield influence effectively.

Menendez (D-NJ) Under Federal Investigation

TPM Muckraker reports on a Democrat -- good for them:

LiCausi started work for Menendez back when he was in the House in 1998. She was 26. Four years later she left with the title of chief of staff of his New Jersey office, a position that the Times called "midlevel" -- she supervised six people. But immediately she began raking in some hefty contracts, not only as a lobbyist, but also as a fundraiser for Menendez and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. Menendez admitted to the Times that he'd "encouraged" the DCCC to hire her for the $10,000 a month spot. And no doubt he was responsible for the work on his political committees, where she was also making another $10,000 a month fundraising for both his political action committee and his campaign. And then there were the lobbying contracts which also rolled in.

The subpoenas issued in the past few months have been to two of LiCausi's clients. One, to Jersey City Medical Center, was originally reported by The Star-Ledger in late August. The other, to the Stevens Institute of Technology in Hoboken, was reported two weeks ago. The hospital signed up LiCausi in January, 2003, shortly after she left Menendez's office; the contract paid $280,000 through February of this year. An exec from the hospital has also testified before a grand jury.

This is not all that unusual in Washington -- it's only the romantic link between Senator and staffer that makes this stand out. But certainly it's not unusual for a business seeking federal cash to hire a favored staffer of a key official to represent them. Sometimes that hire is made with the recommendation of the official, though usually not. The staffer then gets credit for the grants that follow.

DC lawyer extraordinaire Stan Brand gets this right:

Criminal defense lawyer Stan Brand told me that generally such a case could be very hard to prosecute. "There's no magical statute," he said. "Unless you have some proof or evidence of personal financial gain by a public official, it’s very hard to make a case.... The typical political give and take isn't going to be enough."

There's not really a need to make things explicit -- to have a Duke Cunningham-style price list, for example. If Hospital A wants grants from Senator Menendez, they don't need to he told to hire his former Chief of Staff. And they certainly don't need to have Menendez explicitly make it a condition of his helping them. Perhaps investigators will find something unusual and prosecutable in all this, perhaps not.

And as far as partisan advantage goes, it's probably better for Democrats if Menendez is quickly found guilty. The state has demonstrated over and over again that they're willing to keep electing crooked Democrats, no matter how many are indicted. If Menendez stays in office despite these rumors and allegations, at least the GOP gets to cite him as an embarrassment to New Jersey and the Senate -- a la Bob Torricelli.

Hat Tip: Insty

Will Congressional Democrats Hike Taxes... By Procrastinating?

Read it at the Standard.

Is America Safe From Terror?

Heh.

Has the Democratic Congress Worked for You?

The production values of the NRCC are getting better and better:



The NRCC wants you to create an ad that expresses the slogan 'Has the Democratic Congress Worked for You.' Go to yourdirectioncontest.com for information on how to enter.

General Odierno Discusses Trends in Iraq

Read it at the Standard. The graphs tell the story.

Huckabee's Green October

Patrick Ruffini tells me that Mike Huckabee raised $1.1 million online in October -- more than he raised in the entire third quarter. This is what his team predicted a few days ago.

Combined with glowing reviews in Iowa, and improved polls in the state that kicks off the nominating process, does this mean that Huck has broken into the top tier?

Update: Corrected to clarify that Huck earned $1.1 million ONLINE, rather than overall in October. I don't have the data on other candidates, but I have to think this will mean more media attention.

Hillary Clinton is a Wimp

Chris Cillizza today:

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y) was under attack throughout Tuesday night's Democratic debate in Philadelphia, valiantly fighting off some of the hits landed by her opponents, but also getting knocked off her balance by a few. It's easy to get lost in the weeds of the various attacks and counterattacks, but the broader picture is almost always the more important one.

That broad picture: Six men regularly ganging up on the lone woman on the stage. As stated here before, Clinton's male competitors must be careful not to look as though they are bullying her during these forums. For what it's worth, the Clinton campaign did everything they could today to make that case, even posting a video on YouTube called "The Politics of Pile On."

Associated Press:

Hillary Rodham Clinton, the pinata of Tuesday's Democratic debate, is turning the tables on her rivals, accusing them of ganging up against her.

Taylor Marsh:

Clinton's opponents did everything to break Clinton down, including call her "unelectable." They insinuated she couldn't be trusted and was not fit for the presidency. Her opponents got personal, but the worst offender was someone who forget his job. Tim Russert's play last night was not only nakedly sexist, but showed his immaturity and lack of respect for any woman standing up to be commander in chief.

Jane Hamsher:

The hammering she took from her competitors last night in the debate is not available to her as a means of fighting back. The Mighty Wurlitzer would instantly seize the opportunity to cast her as “cold” and “hostile,” it would leap into the main stream media and that would be that. Her opponents took advantage of that fact. As scarecrow noted this morning, it wasn’t a particularly high water mark in the race.

Boo-frickin-hoo!

Senator Clinton, get ready for the backlash. You want to be leader of the free world, but can't handle criticism from Dennis Kucinich and Chris Dodd? It goes with the territory.

Does George Bush complain that everyone's all negative about him? Or do Hillary's backers imagine that people won't disagree with her when she's President?

And Hillary's campaign has already produced a video to feed the fire? Guess what: Americans don't want to elect a victim. We want to elect a leader. And if you can't stand the heat, just stay in the Senate.

John Edwards' next line about Hillary might go something like this:

I see that Senator Clinton is upset because now that she's leading in the polls, her rivals are starting to point out how often she's out of the mainstream with her party. Well, I'm sorry Senator, but this is a primary and not a coronation. And there's still free speech in this country.

Update: Fred Barnes captures this better than I can.

Real Reform for Congress, GOP?

Update: Putting this update at the top so people find it. The WSJ blogs on Reagan 21 here. They link to the group's policy paper. (Hat Tip: Club for Growth). Also check out Michelle.

Update II: Patrick Ruffini looks at the Reagan 21 website and spells out how the organizers are missing out on a great opportunity.

As one who worked in the House of Representatives for years, I have been skeptical about efforts by Members of the House to change the institution. While Republicans have aggressively and sincerely been pushing for more transparency about earmarks for example (which is good), they have continued to secure millions of dollars in earmarks, and to oppose amendments to eliminate them from spending bills. I guess that's half-a-loaf, but if we're going to tackle earmarks, I'd like to ensure that it actually reduces spending.

My skepticism notwithstanding, I see signs that Members of the House and Senate are pushing real change. The first comes in the form of a new caucus called 'Reagan 21:'

Frustrated by what they see as a party gone astray, a group of House and Senate conservatives led by Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) and Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas) today will announce a new bicameral caucus aimed at returning fiscal restraint, ethics and national defense to the fore of the GOP’s philosophical and policy platforms.

The group — which in addition to DeMint and Hensarling is made up of Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), Rep. John Shadegg (R-Ariz.), Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.) and Rep. John Campbell (R-Calif.) — will officially announce the creation of their new caucus — dubbed Reagan21. They also will unveil their “statement of policy commitment,” which includes 10 key positions on issues ranging from Congressional earmarks to health care reform...

Although members of the group declined to comment on the caucus on the record, one Member involved said the lawmakers believe the GOP’s elected leaders have strayed from the party’s traditional fiscal conservative roots.

“A few of us here are trying to change the culture” of the GOP, the lawmaker said, adding that “the core values of the Republican Party are not being adhered to by the party inside Congress. But there’s a yearning for it outside the Beltway.”

According to Republicans familiar with the effort, it arose from meetings between DeMint, who chairs the Republican Steering Committee in the Senate, and Hensarling, who chairs the Republican Study Committee in the House. Both organizations are the hub for conservative efforts in the chambers, and following the disastrous 2006 election, DeMint and Hensarling began holding meetings in an effort to better coordinate their efforts...

More on Reagan 21 here.

And while it might turn out to be a rear-guard action designed to protect existing privileges, even the appropriators are talking about reform -- at least, House Republican appropriators are:

A small group of Republican appropriators is working to restructure the earmarking system from within. The effort is part of an uncoordinated series of attempts to re-examine how special projects are doled out.

The group was initially organized by Rep. Frank R. Wolf , R-Va., and dubbed the “Wolf Pack” by one member. It is made up of seven of the 29 Republican appropriators and has been quietly meeting on a weekly basis.

The members say they want to come up with a recipe for change that appropriators can accept...

While those talks have proceeded for the last three weeks, several other ad hoc groups of lawmakers have spoken separately about how to change the earmark system:

• A different group of House and Senate members say they will not seek “new” earmarks. They call themselves “Reagan 21” and say they want to show conservatives that they share tight-fisted principles.
• Conservative Republican Rep. Phil Gingrey of Georgia introduced legislation (HR 3738) that would cap appropriations earmarks and divide the dollars equally among members of the House and Senate.
• The Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) appointed a five-member task force, including two appropriators, to look into disparities in earmarking.

CBC members said they felt compelled to act after a Congressional Quarterly study of data compiled by Taxpayers for Common Sense revealed wide disparities in earmark distribution. Party leaders, appropriators and politically endangered members of both parties get more earmarked funds than their rank-and-file colleagues; the average black Democrat got half as much money in the House-passed fiscal 2008 spending bills as the average white Democrat; and Latino lawmakers did even worse, on average...

I regard these efforts as extremely hopeful signs. Democrats in Congress have seen their approval ratings plummet, creating a real opportunity for the GOP. Regrettably, the approval ratings of Republicans are even worse. Since the Republicans hold the White House, it's unlikely that the GOP can do what the Democrats did in 2006: act as an empty vessel, without an agenda, and benefit from voter anger at the party in power.

Instead, it's critical that the GOP rehabilitate itself so it offers a superior vision than that of Democrats. By being serious about changing the institution -- including changing the way that Republicans have done business -- these reformists offer a better way forward.

TSA: Kicking A** & Taking Names

You have to sit through about two minutes of a hot blonde in a bikini, but eventually you get around to the video of a TSA guard shooting a man in a long white robe, reportedly for the offense of not 'hugging a Jewish guy.'



It's amazing what people think up in order to produce a few million YouTube hits.

And here I am helping! I hate myself!

If you like this, check out the sequel -- which explains new TSA screening, done by a Jihad Elimination Worker (JEW).

Thursday Funny

What? You mean it's WRONG to push the glass instead of the handle?

Lots of Good News from Iraq

Read it at the Standard.

Charlie Cook: Hillary Is Grinding the Electorate Down

Political analyst Charlie Cook has an interesting take on Hillary:

The pattern from the polls is clear: Clinton never wins big, generally holding a lead of 2 to 8 points over Giuliani and 10 to 13 points over Romney. But her leads are consistent. She has a high floor and a low ceiling, like a stock with a fairly narrow trading range. She doesn't trail, but she doesn't ever blow the Republican opposition away, either.

What seems to be happening is that Hillary Clinton is not really becoming more likable, she is becoming less unacceptable. She doesn't seem to convert people so much as wear down their opposition to her...

Rather than wearing thin, Clinton seems to be wearing better. She has moved up impressively in the polls for both the nomination and the general election. Some suggested early on that voters would tire of her, but instead they almost seem resigned to her winning the Democratic nomination, and the early pattern in her general election polling seems to be following the same trajectory, at least for now.

The key thing, though, is that narrow trading range. Unless Clinton becomes dramatically less polarizing, which seems improbable, she is likely to maintain her slim but consistent advantage. But will it ever widen to the point where a misstep or a bit of misfortune wouldn't give her Republican opponent the lead? That's the key question. She seems to be putting the Democratic nomination away, but can she ever put the general election away? Or will she always have no better than a narrow lead in the polls, never quite beyond striking distance from her GOP rival?

I've written before about a session I was at where Mr. Cook argued that the importance of Hillary's high negatives were overblown. He argued that while 48 percent of Americans (or whatever) would never vote for Hillary, 45 percent would never vote for any Democrat -- it's just that they wouldn't say so. For that reason Cook said, her ceiling was only a little lower than that of other Democrats.

It seems safe to infer that Cook doesn't currently believe that Hillary's ceiling is below 50 percent -- the question which I think is suggested by the Rasmussen poll that many wrote on the other day. Rather, Cook seems to think that 3-yards-and-a-cloud-of-dust Hillary can grind out a 51 percent win, or so.

We shall see.

Nick Lampson (D-TX) Takes Dirty Money

It seems that while other Texas Democrats are returning money they received from a big donor under investigation for theft, impersonating a peace officer, and practicing law without a license, Lampson has not. His likely Republican opponent -- former John Cornyn staffer Pete Olson -- is calling for him to follow suit:

Earlier this month, Mauricio Celis, of Corpus Christi, TX, was sued by the Texas Attorney General for illegally operating a law firm as a non-lawyer.

On September 27, 2007, Lampson received two contributions, totaling $4,600, from Celis. As of today, three Democrat State Representatives from Texas: Abel Herrero, Solomon Ortiz Jr. and Juan Garcia have all donated Celis' tainted money to local charities.

"Questionable money from questionable sources, I urge Mr. Lampson to follow the lead of his fellow democrats by donating this money to a charity who can better use these funds," commented Pete Olson. "I expect Nick Lampson will practice the ethics that he preaches by immediately distancing himself from Mauricio Celis and giving this money to a worthy cause."

According to news reports, Mauricio Celis was ranked as the 51st most prolific Texas Democrat donor in 2004, having donated more than $160,000 to candidates and political action committees (PACs) designed to support Democrats. Celis has also donated tens of thousands of dollars to PACs set up by former Democrat Senate candidate Mikal Watts with the purpose of fighting medical malpractice reforms here in Texas.

After the Republican sweep of 1994, Democrats knocked off 12 of the GOP's freshmen in 1996. In general, those candidates occupied Democratic seats which Republicans had taken only because of their wave. Nick Lampson sits in a GOP seat, and will be heavily targeted in 2008. Is that reality leading him to scramble for every dollar he can get?

House Democrats Delay FISA Re-Vote; Waiting for Senate to Take the Lead?

Read it at the Standard.

Nader Sues Kerry & the DNC

Interstingly, he's suing them for keeping him from competing fairly for the presidency in 2004:

The lawsuit also alleges that the Democratic National Committee conspired to force Nader off the ballot in several states.

"The Democratic Party is going after anyone who presents a credible challenge to their monopoly over their perceived voters," Nader said in a statement. "This lawsuit was filed to help advance a free and open electoral process for all candidates and voters. Candidate rights and voter rights nourish each other for more voices, choices, and a more open and competitive democracy."

Among other things, the lawsuit alleges that the DNC tried to bankrupt Nader's campaign by suing to keep him off the ballot in 18 states. It also suggests the DNC sent Kerry supporters to crash a Nader petition drive in Portland, Ore., in June 2004, preventing him from collecting enough signatures to get on the ballot...

"This is a case designed to make sure other independent and third party candidates will not be subject to the same kind of conspiracy in the future," Afran said.

I wonder if there's any particular third-party candidate whose viability Nader is trying to protect for the future.

Is Hillary Helped by the Attacks?

I don't expect to post on the Democratic debate last night. It seemed to me that Hillary was
a man among boys -- so to speak -- and that no one on the stage was able to hit the robo-candidate in a meaningful way. I was not able to hang around until the end, so I missed the exchange over driver's licenses for illegal aliens.

Democratic strategist Peter Fenn makes a valid point however, in a piece he wrote before the debate about the likely barrage of attacks against Hillary -- they might help:

As for the Democrats’ strategy of all going after Hillary, one has to wonder how smart this really is for them. It seems to me that if Obama or Edwards is going to win Iowa, they are going to have to take votes away from the other Democrats. Their likelihood of pulling votes away from Hillary with an all-out attack is pretty slim. And by being strictly attack dogs, they risk losing some of their own support — witness John Edwards’s latest standing in the Iowa polls. Plus, there is nothing unique or different about joining in on the gang-up against Clinton. One might argue that if she handles these attacks deftly, she may, in fact, be helped by the perception of unfair piling-on...

My guess is that Hillary as the piñata these next two months will actually strengthen her candidacy, not weaken it, and that “desperation Democrats” will be left by the wayside.

Fenn makes some important points -- notably that it helps no one to appear to be 'ganging up' on Hillary.

That said, I think that much of Hillary's support -- the part that clearly CAN be peeled away -- is due to a twin perception:

1. That her candidacy is inevitable; and,
2. That she is the most electable Democrat.
   

With that in mind, were I a rival of Hillary, I would attack her on not on policy, but on electability. I would argue that someone whose ceiling of support is so low, and whose association with the past so great, that she cannot win against a fresh-faced Republican in a change election. Further, I would try not to take on the attacks myself, I would try to get another candidate to act as proxy.

I'm sure that Joe Biden would like to be Secretary of State, Chris Dodd Secretary of the Treasury, and Bill Richardson Vice President. If you're Barack Obama or John Edwards, why not tell those candidates that the positions will be open in your administration -- to allies who've helped you get to the White House.

Such scenarios always work a lot better on paper than in real life, but if I wanted to beat Hillary for the Democratic nomination, that's the way I would go.

Update: Strong evidence from a leading liberal blog that the attacks on Hillary make her stronger:

If one of the cardinal rules of progressive politics is that you never repeat the talking points by which your opponents beat up on your own party, then what are we to think of last night’s Democratic debate, in which a principal tactic used by some of the non-Clintons was to repeat Republican talking points about Hillary Clinton?...

But the argument that Clinton in unelectable because her “negatives” are too high — that she’s so disliked Americans won’t vote for her — has always seemed one of those unproven Republican talking points that I suspect they only wish were true...

It seems silly to me that the Left would have a 'cardinal rule' which forbids candidates in a primary from dry-running the attacks that the nominee will likely face in the general. After all, if it's possible that Hillary is vulnerable to a criticism, wouldn't you like to know ahead of time? Still, if the Left wants to make sure that the nominee's first serious test comes in the general, when it's too late to change -- fine by me.

Regrettably for me, this post also suggests that attacking Hillary on electability -- the route I recommend for her Democratic challengers -- is the one most likely to increase her support.

Shows you what I know about liberal politics.

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:

Two Georgia Democrats Prime GOP Targets in 2008

I've argued against the assumption on the part of many that Democrats will gain House seats in 2008. With 61 House Democrats sitting in seats won by George Bush in 2004, there are plenty of targets -- as long the political climate gives the GOP a relatively even playing field. With George Bush off the ticket and Iraq unlikely to be a major issue again, politics should be more 'normal' next year. Congressional Quarterly looks at two Georgia Democrats who barely squeaked by last year and who will be bigger targets the next time out:

Most Democratic House incumbents took advantage of the anti-Republican political atmosphere of 2006 to easily win re-election, as their party gained control of the chamber. So the cliffhanger contests endured by Jim Marshall and John Barrow , a pair of neighboring Georgia congressmen, really stood out — and have earned them both unwanted places among the most potentially vulnerable Democratic members running for re-election in 2008.

Both held on last year to defeat Republicans who had formerly served in the House, enabling the Democrats to pull off the unusual feat of capturing 30 Republican-held seats while losing none of their own. But theirs were the closest elections among all of the victorious Democratic incumbents: Barrow won the 12th District race by just 864 votes of more than 142,000 cast, and Marshall secured the 8th District seat by only 1,752 votes of nearly 160,000 cast.

Marshall and Barrow both will face less politically experienced challengers in their races next year, but they still will have to overcome an obstacle that caused big problems for them in 2006: A rare mid-decade redistricting plan, enacted after the Republicans gained complete control of the state legislature in the 2004 elections, made significant changes to both Democrats’ districts, costing them thousands of familiar constituents and casting them into parts of the state where the lawmakers still are working hard to make themselves better known.

Tired of Losing Votes, House Dems Plan Rule Change

If you can't beat 'em, change the rules:

Exasperated over Republicans’ continued efforts — and occasional success — in thwarting the House floor schedule, Democratic leaders acknowledged Tuesday they are reviewing the chamber’s rules to determine how to curb the minority’s ability to put up roadblocks at critical moments in the legislative process.

House Rules Chairwoman Louise Slaughter (D) said the committee’s Democrats have begun meeting with both current and former Parliamentarians to discuss the chamber’s rules and potential changes.

The New York lawmaker said those discussions have focused in part on the motion to recommit — one of the few procedural items in the minority party’s toolbox that allows them to offer legislative alternatives when a bill hits the floor, and that Republicans have used to force difficult votes on Democrats or prompted legislation to be pulled from the floor — as well as other procedures, which she declined to detail.

Slaughter said no timeline exists for the review or potential alterations, however. “Nothing is imminent. We want to take our time and do it right,” she said.

But one Democratic lawmaker, who asked not to be identified, said the majority is considering neutering the motion-to-recommit process and converting it to little more than a last-chance amendment for the minority party.

This is another hit to the Democrats' promise to let the majority prevail in House votes. Recall Nancy Pelosi's promise last year that the most important thing was an open process, and allowing the House to work its will. Apparently she's decided it's more important to push a 'capital-D' Democratic agenda than a government-by-the-people democratic agenda.

It's not a surprise that Democrats are returning to this. They've talked about changing the rules before, but got stung by media attention to the anti-democratic move. Ms. Slaughter's comment that 'nothing is imminent' shouldn't be taken at all seriously; Democrats will give no warning before taking away the rights of the minority in the House. They've learned from experience that signaling their intent to change the rules will only make it harder.

Expect this to be one of the last votes the House takes, early on a Saturday or Sunday morning, in the midst of votes on major legislation, right before a recess. It could be before Thanksgiving, or the last votes before adjourning for Christmas and Hanukkah. Such a strategy will be necessary to avoid press attention.

Code Pink is Lame

Read it at the Standard.

The Dysfunctional Congress

Read it at the Standard.

Murtha: Hasn't Pennsylvania Had Enough?

Read it at the Standard.

Candidates Who Are Trying Too Hard

Jim Geraghty mentions John Edwards:

Is there some sort of template the Edwards campaign uses? Something like a Mad Lib? "John Edwards has never taken a dime from __ lobbyists and America deserves a President who isn't in the pocket of __ special interests"?

I'll also add Chris Dodd:

Somehow, it doesn't seem likely that any tykes in New Hampshire will take him up on his offer for Halloween.

Still, Chris Dodd did lay out step-by-step instructions today for kids to dress up like him in hopes of bagging lots of candy:

• Use coloring to turn your [sic -- hair? -- the Editor] white (representing the Democratic presidential candidate's 26 years on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee).
• Carry a copy of the Constitution (demonstrating Dodd's vow to restore what he calls the Bush administrations assaults on civil liberties).
• Wield a folder of Dodd's campaign proposals (showing his "bold ideas" for a corporate carbon tax, free community college, and a comprehensive national service plan).
  

"Every year, parents and their children struggle to find that perfect Halloween costume," Dodd spokesman Bryan DeAngelis said in a statement. "We wanted to do our part to help by providing them with the option of going as the one candidate who has the proven leadership, record of results, and bold ideas that we need in our next president -- Chris Dodd."

The Logic of S-CHIP

This video captures extremely well what Congressional Democrats claim to be doing on S-CHIP:



The thing is, it's not actually true.

In funding S-CHIP, Democrats project that 22 million people will take up smoking and pay the taxes needed to fund the expansion. In reality though, they know that won't happen. It's just a paperwork gimmick to make it look like the program is paid for, so they can pass the measure under Congress' pay-go rules. Instead, the additional cost will simply be tacked on to the national debt -- to be paid for down the road by higher income taxes on all Americans.

Now do you feel better?

Update: Rob points out:

Good point, but don't forget it was Heritage that did the research about the 22 million.

True. Point taken.

Proof Democrats Haven't Changed Washington

Congress has sent President Bush a water projects bill which he's promised to veto because it's porked up. This is a little ironic; water projects bills are intended to be all porked up. Even though the veto seems likely to be overridden, this bill is worth noting because of the back-story:

The Water Resources Development Act would authorize $23.2 billion for flood control, navigation and environmental restoration projects by the Army Corps of Engineers. The administration has threatened a veto, saying the cost is excessive.

White House spokesman Scott Stanzel confirmed that the president still intends to veto the bill. The final version is far more expensive than either the original Senate-passed bill, which authorized around $14 billion, or the House-passed version, which authorized about $15 billion.

That's a neat way to do business: the House votes $15 billion; the Senate votes $14 billion. In the normal world, the compromise would be $14.5; in Congress, it's $23.

When I worked on Capitol Hill, the general rule for handling earmarks in conference was that all earmarks in dispute were halved. That way conferees didn't have to fiddle around with changing overall spending levels.

In this case, it seems that the compromise was to fully fund everything on both House and Senate lists -- and apparently some other items as well.

Ramesh Ponnuru Echoes My Idea for McCain

I'm sure I must have been the first person on the planet to think of it, right? It's not as if anyone had ever considered seeking the presidency with a promise to serve just one term -- right?

Ramesh:

I think he should do something dramatic: Renounce ambition for a second term. He should say that he intends not just to win the presidency but to win a mandate for the few big things he really wants to accomplish: fixing entitlements and beating terrorists. A one-term limit would instantly separate McCain from the pack, making the other Republican contenders look self-interested by comparison. Concentrating on issues such as terrorism and entitlements would also play to his strengths with conservatives, and distract attention from his weaknesses...

Making a one-term pledge would make it possible for McCain to win a mandate for the mission of his presidency. And it would be important for him to have one, since he will almost certainly be facing a Democratic Congress.

From my list of suggestions for McCain in April:

Promise to serve only one term
It seems that nearly every Presidential election, there is some candidate who kicks around the idea of promising to serve only one term - to address concerns about age, or demonstrate a willingness to tackle controversial issues with politically-difficult solutions. This works for you for both reasons. So tell voters that you are on a mission - to win the war in Iraq, lay the groundwork for victory in the War on Terror (which will last for many years) and address critical challenges. And serving only one term will free you from concerns about re-election that might impair your ability to act decisively.

The downside of this move is that it will call some attention to your age. I think that's surmountable however.

Go look at the rest of my ideas; I think they hold up. The only shame of it is that Thompson is no longer likely to accept the VP nod.

Why I Don't Like Mike Huckabee

How did Mike Huckabee emerge to draw such attention on this blog?

Oh well -- the reason why is over here.

What's the Meaning of 1,000 Votes

Rob Bluey suggests that House Democrats who are proud of taking votes might want to rethink whether it's a serious measure of effectiveness.

The American Spectator reports that not all Democrats were proud that Speaker Pelosi chose to highlight this 'achievement:'

Last week the House held its one-thousandth roll call vote this year, the first time Congress had reached that level since the ratification of the Constitution. Pelosi's office demanded that Democrats mark the event as a victory for the party, against the advice of Hoyer and other party leaders.

"It only served to highlight just how little we've actually achieved compared to what we promised," says the House aide. "Out of those thousand votes, about ten percent were bills that became law and half of those were namings of federal buildings and such. Fifty bills in a year doesn't compare to what we promised, and she wanted to put a spotlight on it. She just doesn't get it sometimes."

Rangel's Tax Bill: Rob from the Rich, Give to the Less Rich

Read it at the Standard.

Is Hillary a Sure Loser?

Jim Geraghty has a significant post on Hillary's floor and ceiling:

Pollster Scott Rasmussen just shared this fascinating observation in an interview: When you average the head-to-head matchups with Hillary Clinton vs. any of the Republicans, she's always getting 46 to 49 percent against any of them.

"When we polled her against Ron Paul, she got 48 percent of the vote. When we polled on Ron Paul among people who knew who Ron Paul is, she got 48 percent of the vote. When we polled among people who didn’t know who Ron Paul is, she got 48 percent percent of the vote."

Paul got 38 percent against Hillary.

"In individual head-to-heads with Giuliani it's essentially a toss up, Thompson trails a little, but they’re all close," Rasmussen continued. "Clinton and Giuliani, in 11 polls, were within two points of 45 percent - basically ranging from 43 to 47 percent. It reminded me of Election 2004, where after Kerry won the nomination, for more than 60 days," Kerry and Bush remained quite close to each other.

"She’s becoming like the incumbent... Republicans are talking about Clinton a lot, partially because they would rather talk about her than the incumbent president, but also because now part of being a conservative is challenging Hillary Clinton."

The actual Rasmussen release on this point is here:

A look at the crosstabs demonstrates that it is attitudes towards Clinton that are driving the numbers in this polling match-up. Among all voters, Clinton attracts 48% support. Among the voters who have never heard of Ron Paul or don’t know enough to have an opinion, guess what. Clinton attracts the exact same total--48% of the vote. So whether or not people have heard of Ron Paul as the challenger, support for Clinton doesn’t change.

Among the 51% who have heard of Ron Paul but don’t have a Very Favorable opinion of him, Clinton attracts 49% of the vote...

So, outside of a small group of avid Ron Paul fans, support for Senator Clinton is unchanged whether or not the survey respondent has ever heard of Ron Paul.

Hillary has nearly universal name identification. Nearly every American has an opinion of her. And regardless of what Americans know or don't know about her potential opponents, a majority refuses to vote for her -- even against the weakest and most obscure candidate in the GOP field.

These are [ie, look like -- the Editor] the polls of an unpopular incumbent, destined to be defeated for re-election: name ID is huge, voters' opinions are set. When these are the last few polls that you see before election day, you recall that undecideds break against the incumbent by a huge margin. You conclude that it will take a miracle to pull through on election day.

You don't quite draw such a conclusion this far out of course; election day is simply too far off and too much can change. The Republican opponent could be savaged in advertising, so much that he is unelectable. There might be a 3rd party candidate who reduces the threshold for victory. It's even conceivable that you might be able to 'reintroduce' the candidate, and move some of the voters who seem so firmly against you. But a candidate forced to resort to one of these strategies is someone already in trouble.

I've said before that Hillary is the closest thing to a 'status quo' candidate there is among either Republicans or Democrats. In a change election, any Republican trumps her as the candidate of change. Now it's gotten so bad for her that she's starting to be viewed as almost the incumbent -- a terrible place to be when the electorate is looking for something different.

Hillary is starting to seem like the least electable Democrat.

Update: Donna Brazile thinks that the electability argument is the way to go after Hillary as well:

"I want to see if John Edwards will say to Hillary Clinton in front of everyone: 'You're not electable, and you know it, and you're going to hurt people down the ballot,' " said Brazile, who hasn't endorsed anyone. "It's time to stop whispering. It's getting to be midnight."

Thompson Alone Tackles Entitlements

The headline in the Christian Science Monitor is the sort any candidate would dream of.

As baby boomers enter the starting gate into retirement, the cost of America's entitlement programs – foremost, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid – is projected to balloon to levels that are unsustainable.

Already, those three programs make up 40 percent of the federal budget. If reforms are not enacted, Social Security will eventually go bust; in 40 years, on the current path, the two medical programs alone could equal the size of today's entire federal budget according to the US Government Accountability Office...

"The one thing that all the experts agree on … is that we're in an unsustainable position economically with regard to these programs," he recently told the anti-tax Club for Growth. "You'd think that would be the biggest thing we could talk about, other than national security. So we've got to talk about it."

Thompson intends to unveil a plan for entitlement reform in the coming weeks, according to his spokesman, but he has already been floating ideas, such as slowing the rate of Social Security benefit increases – a move that would, in effect, cut benefits. On Medicare, he suggests increasing fees for upper-income beneficiaries. To imply such moves puts Thompson in danger of touching the so-called "third rail" of politics – and he acknowledged that risk in a speech last month he gave to The Club For Growth.

But he gets credit, at least, from deficit hawks, who have been touring the country trying to educate the public on the structural problems in Social Security and Medicare. "There is an opportunity for leadership on this issue, because people are not expecting politicians to tell them the truth on this," says Bob Bixby, executive director of the anti-deficit Concord Coalition. "And while you would certainly catch fire from your opponents by putting forth specifics, I think the public would respect that person as a leader for taking a position."

Much as I admire Senator Thompson for his stand on the issue, I would disagree with him on the usefulness of a commission. I believe that a bipartisan fix for runaway entitlement spending is essential, since neither party will take the political blame for a fix that is bound to leave some voters angry. While it's possible that Democrats would vote for President Thompson's plan, it's far more likely that the product of a bipartisan commission would get their endorsement. Thus a commission can serve a valuable role in increasing support for the fix.

Still, Senator Thompson deserves credit for stepping up on this issue. It will endear him to fiscal conservatives.

Democrats Plan Rerun of Iraq Supplemental Fight

Read it at the Standard.

Barone: Both Republicans and Democrats Lack a Narrative

Barone is right, but I don't think much needs to be made of this -- at least not yet.

Neither party is presenting a narrative, as the Roosevelts and Reagan did, that takes due note of America's great strengths and achievements. Each seems to take the course, easier in a time of polarized politics, of lambasting the opposition. The Democrats suggest that all our troubles can be laid at the door of George W. Bush. The Republicans, noting Bush's low job ratings, complain about the disasters that will ensue if Hillary Clinton is elected. All these may be defensible as campaign tactics. But it is not a pudding that can successfully govern.

This is what campaigns are about -- developing the message and deciding on the plan that each party will bring to the voters. Republicans are engaged in the soul-searching and navel gazing that follows a spent presidency and an unpopular president. We're trying to determine how much of the failure was the man, and how much was the message. Which parts of the Bush agenda get tossed aside, and which get a fresh coat of paint. Ultimately the nominee will reflect the party's verdict.

The Democrats seem to be foregoing the debate however, in an effort to protect their presumed nominee from getting damaged in the primary. Oddly enough, the Left is closing ranks around Hillary to de facto make it easier for her to turn right in the general election -- since that's the result of allowing her to not spell out her positions in the primaries.

Which party will produce the winning formula? The one that offers a smarter war on terror, a restrained but effective federal government, and a change from the current tenor of debate. Oddly, it seems to be clear that that's what voters want; it's just a question of how to convince them that you're best prepared to bring that.

Everything Old is New Again

Stunningly, vinyl is back. And according to industry analysts, it's killing CDs.

As counterintuitive as it may seem in this age of iPods and digital downloads, vinyl -- the favorite physical format of indie music collectors and audiophiles -- is poised to re-enter the mainstream, or at least become a major tributary.

Talk to almost anyone in the music business' vital indie and DJ scenes and you'll encounter a uniformly optimistic picture of the vinyl market.

Why is vinyl so popular? The superior sound quality:

Although CDs have a wider dynamic range, mastering houses are often encouraged to compress the audio on CDs to make it as loud as possible: It's the so-called loudness war. Since the audio on vinyl can't be compressed to such extremes, records generally offer a more nuanced sound.

Another reason for vinyl's sonic superiority is that no matter how high a sampling rate is, it can never contain all of the data present in an analog groove, Nyquist's theorem to the contrary.

"The digital world will never get there," said Chris Ashworth, owner of United Record Pressing, the country's largest record pressing plant.

And since CDs are neither as portable as MP3 files, nor do they have the sound quality of vinyl, they may be on the way out:

And the vinyl-MP3 tag team might just hasten the long-predicted death of the CD.

San Francisco indie band The Society of Rockets, for example, plans to release its next album strictly on vinyl and as MP3 files.

"Having just gone through the process of mastering our new album for digital and for vinyl, I can say it is completely amazing how different they really sound," said lead singer and guitarist Joshua Babcock in an e-mail interview. "The way the vinyl is so much better and warmer and more interesting to listen to is a wonder."

So welcome back to vinyl, world. I never left. Does this mean there's hope for my betamax, as well?

The Argument Huckabee Hasn't Made Yet

I was wondering the other day whether Mike Huckabee -- of whom I am not a fan -- had a demonstrated ability to win African American votes. As a Dobbs-ian economic populist with a preacher's background and strength among Evangelicals, he would seem to be the sort of Republican that might be able to bridge the gap between Republicans and African Americans. If so, one would expect that Huckabee would make a forceful argument during the primaries that he is the candidate who can 'change the game,' and bring new voters to the GOP fold.

And indeed, Huckabee has had success in Arkansas with black voters, but the degree of that success is disputed:

Huckabee maintains he drew 48 percent of the black vote in his 1998 gubernatorial bid and made key appointments of blacks to state boards and commissions.

While experts acknowledge Huckabee reached out to minorities like few other Republicans during his decade as the state’s governor, they say he may be overstating his support among black voters.

Jay Barth, a political science professor at Hendrix College, openly questions Huckabee’s 48 percent claim.

Barth said in a book he co-authored that the exit polling used to substantiate the percentage was a small sample not validated by precinct-by-precinct data...

“I stand by the fact that Huckabee did well among African-Americans,” Streb said. “Did he actually do 48 percent, which is what the exit polls show? That’s questionable.”

Barth said it’s more likely Huckabee gained 20 percent of the black vote in 1998, his first try for a full term against Democrat Bill Bristow.

Streb said Bristow was not a strong candidate, which may have contributed to Huckabee’s success among blacks.

In Huckabee’s 2002 re-election bid against Jimmie Lou Fisher, Barth said the governor’s efforts to draw black voters gave him “breathing room” in a close race...

A Southern Baptist minister, Huckabee used his religious background to build support in the black community.

Stacy Williams, a Little Rock-based political consultant, said Huckabee could easily duplicate his statewide success on a national scale.

“He breaks the traditional mold of the Republican in trying to persuade African-Americans to vote for him, and that’s what he did in Arkansas,” Williams said. “African-Americans are pretty much like anybody else; if you advertise them or target them and solicit their support, you’re going to be successful.”

According to this article, Huckabee makes the claim 'frequently.' Perhaps I'm not paying enough attention to him then, as I haven't heard it. Nevertheless, this is significant stuff. Bush got 11 percent of the African-American vote in 2004; doubling that would add about one percent to the Republican candidate's total vote. If Huckabee was the nominee, and was able to win 40 percent, it would be impossible for a Democrat to win the White House.

I'm surprised Huckabee hasn't worked harder to bring attention to this. It's the sort of 'electability' argument that could help him in the primaries.

It Was Only a Matter of Time

There are green weddings, why not green funerals?

Klara Tammany's mother didn't want a typical American funeral. No embalming, no metal casket, not even a funeral home.

When she died after a long illness a couple of years ago, family members and friends washed and dressed her body and put it in a homemade wooden casket, which was laid across two sawhorses in the dining room of her condo in Brunswick.

Then, for two days, friends and family visited, brought cut flowers, wrote messages on the casket's lid and said goodbye.

"We had this wake, and it was wonderful," Tammany said...

Another alternative that is just emerging in Maine is natural burial in a green cemetery: wooded graveyards that ban chemicals and caskets that won't easily decompose.

Two such cemeteries are now preparing to do natural burials in Maine, in Limington and in Orrington. There are only about six operating green cemeteries in the United States, but many more are planned, according to those tracking the trend.

"I think it's a tidal wave that's coming," Tammany said. "The cultural way of dying and taking care of the dead is changing."

Next weekend, green funerals will be the subject of the annual meeting of the Funeral Consumers Alliance of Maine, a nonprofit group that provides information about alternatives to modern funerals.

The 'Funeral Consumers Alliance?' It sounds like a demographic we all join eventually, but we're probably beyond caring when the day arrives.

It does make scenes like this one easier to imagine:

Internet Can't Keep Up with Demand for Bandwidth

There's nothing really notable in this story. It's interesting merely because they speak to the people who created the Internet, and Al Gore's name doesn't even come up:

Some warn that this rush will overwhelm service providers if they don't prepare for it. And the forecast for an ever-rising flood of data has some asking, is the Internet outdated?

"That's one way to put it," says Larry Roberts, who, in 1969, managed the Pentagon's APRAnet, the precursor to the Internet. "Another is that it's insufficient for the new kinds and new scale of today's transfers."

While some disagree with Roberts's characterization, the connection speeds reaching American homes are certainly behind those enjoyed by Japan, South Korea, and Sweden and could potentially limit Americans' online entertainment choices.

The Internet is perfectly tuned for e-mail, says Roberts. But 40 years ago, he and the many others who helped nurture today's commercial Web never imagined, nor planned for, streaming high-definition television shows to travel through the wires.

Cool Site of the Day

Sky-Map.Org

It's like Google Maps for the sky.

Building a Better Peanut

Good news on a way to get healthier peanuts:

For lovers of boiled peanuts, there's some good news from the health front. A new study by a group of Huntsville researchers found that boiled peanuts bring out up to four times more chemicals that help protect against disease than raw, dry or oil-roasted nuts.

Lloyd Walker, chair of Alabama A&M University's Department of Food and Animal Sciences who co-authored the study, said these phytochemicals have antioxidant qualities that protect cells against the risk of degenerative diseases, including cancers, diabetes and heart disease.

"Boiling is a better method of preparing peanuts in order to preserve these phytochemicals," Walker said.

This brings to mind of course, Eddie Murphy's Black History Minute about George Washington Carver:

Meanwhile, one night, he's having a few friends over to his house for dinner. And one of them leans over and says to Dr. Carver, "Excuse me, George? What's that your putting on your bread?" Carver says, "Oh, that's nothing but a butter substitute that I made from peanuts. I can't digest all that animal fat, you know." So the other fellow tasted it, and he says, "Hmm.. this pastes pretty.. this tastes.." [ the audience again laughs at Murphy's blooper, causing him to break character again ] Yeah? Keep on smiling. [ back in character ] "This tastes pretty good, man. Mind if we take a peek at the recipe?" And Dr. Carver says, "Take a peek? Man, you can have it. Who's gonna eat butter made out of peanuts? No, I'm working on a method to compress peanuts into phonograph needles."

So, Professor Carver's two dinner guests.. [ Murphy removes his shades for better cue card reading ] ..Edward "Skippy" Williamson and Frederick "Jif" Armstrong - two white men - stole George Washington Carver's recipe for peanut butter, copyrighted it, and reaped untold fortunes from it. While Dr. Carver died penniless and insane, still trying to play a phonograph record with a peanut.

Good stuff...

Iraqi Army Donates for San Diego Fire Victims

Via Wizbang:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

RELEASE No. 20071026-01
October 26, 2007

Iraqi Army at Besmaya Installation Support San Diego Fire Victims
By U.S. Army Sgt 1st Class Charlene Sipperly
Multi-National Security Transition Command - Iraq Public Affairs

BAGHDAD, Iraq -- Members of the Iraqi Army in Besmaya collected a donation for the San Diego, Calif., fire victims Thursday night at the Besmaya Range Complex in a moving ceremony to support Besmaya's San Diego residents.

Iraqi Army Col. Abbass, the commander of the complex, presented a gift of $1,000 to U.S. Army Col. Darel Maxfield, Besmaya Range Complex officer in charge, Multi-National Security Transition Command Iraq, to send to the fire victims in California.

The money was collected from Iraqi officers and enlisted soldiers in Besmaya. In a speech given during the presentation, Col. Abbass stated that he and the Iraqi soldiers were connected with the American people in many ways, and they will not forget the help that the American government has given the Iraqi people. Abbass was honored to participate by sending a simple fund of $1,000 to the American people in San Diego, to lower the suffering felt by the tragedy.

How much things have changed.

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.

Will Congress Punish Yahoo, Google, Others for their Actions in China?

There's a very interesting dispute brewing between the House Foreign Affairs Committee and some of the world's leading technology companies. Let's start with legislation introduced by Congressman Chris Smith, which was recently approved by the committee. From Congressional Quarterly:

A House panel Tuesday approved legislation to punish U.S. Internet companies for sharing information with foreign governments that restrict access to the Internet.

The House Foreign Affairs Committee approved the measure by voice vote. The bill would make it illegal for U.S. companies hosting Internet content such as Web pages or e-mail to give users’ personal information to governments that restrict Internet access or cooperate in efforts to restrict access to U.S. government-supported Web content. Violators would be fined up to $2 million for businesses and up to $100,000 for individuals.

Countries restricting Internet freedom would be identified in an annual report to Congress from the president.

The bill is aimed at the actions of leading technology companies in China, including Google, Yahoo, Cisco and Microsoft. The firms have been criticized for sharing information with the Chinese government about the online activities of dissidents, as well as revising their search engines to censor some content for searches originating in China. In particular, Smith and the committee are angry with Yahoo, for allegedly having lied about their company's role in helping China develop evidence to jail dissident Shi Tao:

...At a 2006 hearing on the case, the company had assured Congress that it did not know about “the nature of the investigation” when it handed over the information.

Earlier this year, however, the San Francisco-based Dui Hua Foundation released documents disputing that assertion.

“Our committee has established that Yahoo! provided false information to Congress in early 2006,” Committee Chairman Tom Lantos (D-Calif.) said. “We want to clarify how that happened, and to hold the company to account for its actions both before and after its testimony proved untrue. And we want to examine what steps the company has taken since then to protect the privacy rights of its users in China.”

Yahoo spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler said the committee’s decision to single out the company was “grossly unfair and mischaracterizes the nature and intent of our past testimony.”

The hearing, to which Yahoo’s chief executive, Jerry Yang, and the company’s senior vice president and general counsel, Michael Callahan, have been summoned, is scheduled for Nov. 6.

“Last year, in sworn testimony before my subcommittee, a Yahoo! official testified that the company knew nothing ‘about the nature of the investigation’ into Shi Tao, a pro-democracy activist who is now serving 10 years on trumped-up charges,” Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.) said.

“We have now learned there is much more to the story than Yahoo let on, and a Chinese government document that Yahoo had in their possession at the time of the hearing left little doubt of the government’s intentions," Smith said. "U.S. companies must hold the line and not work hand in glove with the secret police.”

The companies also face an extremely challenging business climate in China, where they apparently confront anti-competitive practices in their efforts to gain market share against Chinese companies -- notably Baidu.com.

If American companies are forced to limit their operations in China, it will hurt the effort to promote western values there. At the same time, the idea that these companies would assist in government efforts to jail people for practicing what we recognize as free speech is distasteful -- even offensive. I think it's undeniable that Yahoo, Google, Microsoft and others must walk a very narrow line.

This debate is likely to get a lot more attention at the scheduled hearing on November 6. It could also wind up being another serious test of Speaker Pelosi's ability to navigate foreign policy debates. While the Chinese hasn't waded into this debate in any serious way before, they didn't have to as long as the bill wasn't going anywhere. If it looks like the House might actually vote on it, that could change. Given the way Pelosi mishandled her trip to Syria, and the debate over the Armenian genocide, she needs to get this one right.

Photo IDs for Cattle

You have to read it to believe it.

Ethanol vs. Joe Sixpack

For years Republicans and Democrats who wanted to become president have been forced to go to Iowa to swear allegiance to the corn industry. John McCain says that he has a glass of ethanol with breakfast each morning.

Free marketeers have looked for some political counterweight -- some way to ensure that politicians lose more than they gain from the pandering. It may have arrived:

Fans of Snipes Mountain Brewery's cloudy Hefeweizen relish the subtle wheat flavor of the bright, summery brew, and like beer drinkers everywhere, they know when their favorite brew tastes a little too hoppy or bitter.

Connoisseurs could be in for a surprise this year, and they may not be alone.

Small brewers from Australia to Oregon face the daunting prospect of tweaking their recipes or experimenting less with new brews thanks to a worldwide shortage of one key beer ingredient and rising prices for others.

Oh, and one other thing: Beer prices are likely to climb. How high is anybody's guess. Craft brewers don't have the means to hedge against rising prices, like their industrial rivals.

"I'm guessing, at a minimum, at least a 10 per cent jump in beer prices for the average consumer before the end of the year," said Terry Butler, brewmaster at central Washington's Snipes Mountain...

Now the bright spot in the brewing industry is facing mounting costs on nearly every front. Fuel, aluminum and glass prices have been going up quickly over a period of several years. Barley and wheat prices have skyrocketed as more farmers plant corn to meet increasing demand for ethanol, while others plant feed crops to replace acres lost to corn.

Can we get the Beer Institute to run television ads apologizing to beer drinkers for the increased price of their favorite brew -- and telling them to call their congressmen?



Make mine an IPA, thanks.

US-Turkey Relationship Back on Even Keel

Read it at the Standard.

Dino Rossi Sets up Rematch with Gregoire

Dino Rossi was defeated in the 2004 Washington gubernatorial race only after a bitter dispute over absentee ballots:

In the November 2 election, over 2.8 million votes were cast for Governor. After the initial vote count, Rossi led Democrat Christine Gregoire by 261 votes.

A series of recounts and legal battles ensued. Rossi led by an even smaller margin after the first recount.

After a second recount, done by hand, gave Gregoire a very slim lead.

Along the way it was discovered that hundreds of disputed votes, including votes by suspected felons, deceased voters, and double voters, were included in the canvas. King County's election department (the greater Seattle area) came under fire for how it handled its ballots, including untracked use of a "ballot-on-demand" printing machine. Also, ballots in six counties were discovered after the initial count and included in the recounts, the most being from King County, a heavy supporter of Gregoire. Even before the election date, the U.S. Department of Justice threatened to sue Washington state for failing to mail military ballots overseas, generally assumed to be Republican votes.

Washington Republican leaders claimed there were enough disputed votes to change the outcome of the election and sued. On May 25, 2005 the judge hearing the lawsuit ruled that the Party did not provide enough evidence that the disputed votes were ineligible votes, or for whom they were cast, to enable the court to overturn the election.

Rossi has declared that he will seek the governorship again in 2008:

Former state Sen. Dino Rossi announced Thursday that he will challenge Washington Democratic Gov. Christine Gregoire in a rematch of their extraordinary close and controversial 2004 contest.

“The state government we set out to change four years ago is more expensive and less effective at solving our problems... It’s going to take new leadership in Olympia.” Rossi said in his announcement speech from his hometown of Issaquah, an outer suburb of Seattle.

Rossi’s entry, which was widely expected, solidifies CQPolitics.com’s rating of the Washington governor’s race as No Clear Favorite...

Yet the Democrats’ statistical advantage in the state is not overwhelming, and Republican statewide candidates can compete strongly under the right circumstances — as Rossi showed in losing to Gregoire last time by a razor-thin and heavily disputed margin.

The race is sure to be one of the closest of 2008 -- heavily targeted by both sides.

The local blog SoundPolitics did a great job of covering the race and recount in 2004; it looks like they will be following it closely again in 2008. They report that at the outset, enthusiasm is high for the candidate that a majority believes actually won in 2004.

Kucinich to Force Pelosi's Hand on Impeachment Debate

Read it at the Standard.

McNulty (D-NY) Announces Retirement

Congressman Mike McNulty (D-NY) is announcing that he won't seek re-election in 2008. This is according to both the New York Daily News and the Albany Times Union, which paints the district as competitive for the right Republican:

On the Republican side, newly elected Assemblyman George Amedore's name has come up, as has Assembly Minority Leader James Tedisco of Schenectady...

Of the Republicans whose names have surfaced, Amedore, a home builder, drew lots of publicity, first for his appearance in the Extreme Makeover TV show, and then for running a savvy and energetic campaign in a traditionally Democratic district.

Tedisco, already recognized among Republicans, does well in Democratic Schenectady, and has been making a name for himself lately for taking on Democratic Gov. Eliot Spitzer over a controversial plan to give drivers licenses to illegal immigrants.

The district reportedly has a partisan vote index of +8.7 Democratic, so a generic Republican would be a clear underdog. If Hillary is the Democratic nominee, there's the potential for her to have heavy coattails that could wipe out any chance for Republican gains.

Still, the partisan bent is not as great as that of the Massachusetts district where Jim Ogonowski recently over-performed, so it could be competitive.

Update: CQ Politics does not see this as a competitive race:

McNulty has never has faced a serious challenge in his district, which encompasses the largely blue-collar and union-friendly cities of Schenectady, Troy and Albany and is considered safe for Democrats.

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

Read it at the Standard.

Huckabee's Fundraising On the Rise

Mike Huckabee's campaign has reportedly informed supporters via E-mail that he's on pace to top his entire fundraising for the third quarter, in just the month of October:

Those who have been waiting in vain for a fundraising surge to match former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee’s (R) upwardly mobile campaign need wait no longer: Huckabee is on pace to top his third-quarter haul in the month of October alone, and that’s only counting online contributions.

The campaign said in a message to supporters Thursday that it had raised $330,000 online over the previous five days and $700,000 online for the month of October. Its new goal is to top its total third-quarter receipts, which include events and direct-mail contributions, by raising $1,034,487 online by the end of the month.

One would imagine that many of the campaigns are likely to improve their fundraising in the last quarter before polling begins. Huckabee might be announcing this now to ensure his improved numbers get noticed early.

Can anyone say 'virtuous cycle?'

Regular readers of the blog know that I'm not a fan of Mr. Huckabee's, but at least any increase in attention to the Huckabee campaign is likely to come at the expense of Ron Paul.

Why Are Congress' Ratings So Low? Dem Answer: Messaging

The Hill has the story:

Democrats are losing the battle for voters’ hearts because the party’s message lacks emotional appeal, according to a widely circulated critique of House Democratic communications strategy.

“Our message sounds like an audit report on defense logistics,” wrote Dave Helfert, a former Appropriations spokesman who now works for Rep. Neil Abercrombie (D-Hawaii). “Why are we defending [the State Children’s Health Insurance Program] instead of advocating a ‘Healthy Kids’ plan?”

Helfert sent the memo this week to an e-mail list of all Democratic press secretaries and communications directors after staffers met on Monday to discuss rolling out the Democrats’ latest message.

Helfert thinks that Democrats don't work hard enough at appealing to emotion? Is this the sort of dry, clinical argument that Democrats need to avoid -- in favor of more emotional connections?



Appeals to emotion are all that Democrats offer. The whole of their argument about Iraq and the War on Terror -- the pre-eminent issue of the day -- consists of 'the war is lost; let's support our troops by bringing them home.' SCHIP is painted as an effort to do something for America's poor children -- never mind that that's a fiction, which Democrats ignore by refusing to debate the merits of the competing proposals.

Democrats would do well to take policy seriously, and attempt to offer real solutions. It would be a refreshing change, and it's the sort of unexpected approach that might actually fool the voters into taking them seriously.

If that doesn't work, well -- it could just be because the American people don't agree with you.

We Happy Few, We Band of Brothers...

Happy St. Crispin's Day. On this day the English defeated the much larger French army at the Battle of Agincourt, an event superbly memorialized (if somewhat fictionalized) in Shakespeare's Henry V:

Rangel Proposes Largest Tax Increase in American History

Read it at the Standard.

Democrats Better Gain Seats in 2008

Read it at the Standard.

MoveOn Hopes Iran Can be Trusted With Nukes

Read it at the Standard.

Code Pink Threatens Rice, Promises to Escalate Protests

Roll Call reports on the Code Pink protester who nearly grabbed Secretary Rice at a House committee hearing:

CODEPINKers upped the ante Wednesday at a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing when one of them attempted to rush Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. Protester Desiree Ali-Fairooz, whose hands were covered in red goo, screamed, “war criminal!” and got within a foot of Rice before being pulled out of the room by Capitol Police. The near-assault prompted Chairman Tom Lantos (D-Calif.) to demand that the women in pink be removed from the room. They didn’t go quietly — five were arrested, with Ali-Fairooz getting charged with not only the usual charge of disorderly conduct (a ho-hum for the frequently cuffed ladies) but for serious charges of defacing government property and (gulp) assaulting a federal officer.

CODEPINK spokeswoman Dana Balacki insists that her compatriot never intended to actually touch Rice, just make the point that the group feels Rice has blood on her hands. Still, she acknowledges that the group is turning to more dramatic tactics than ever before.

“I think at this point there are some bolder actions,” Balacki said of Ali-Farooz’s stunt. “We feel like there was an understanding with a lot of the Capitol Police, chairs of various committees, but some of that has gone out the window.” The rules haven’t changed, according to Capitol Police spokeswoman Sgt. Kimberly Schneider. “If you break the law you’ll be charged accordingly,” she tells HOH.

So CodePink threatens to do more? What will they say when someone actually does violence to one of the intended targets of their demonstrations?

The Capitol Police better reassess their policies on allowing known troublemakers easy access to sensitive areas.

CodePink posts the protest video (Hat Tip: Bryan). Note the theatrics. All that's missing is 'Don't Tase me, Bro!'

Mike Huckabee: The Real Threat to the Republican Coalition

Important catch by Erick regarding the candidates' appearance at the Values Voters Summit:

The social conservatives do not want to rally around Huckabee because he is as distasteful to fiscalcons as Rudy is to socons. Even Tony Perkins, the head of FRC, said he hoped the social conservative candidate would be palatable to the fiscal conservatives out there. Huckabee is not.

And here we arrive at the conundrum for the GOP and the Press. While the media has been filled with stories about the socons ready to bolt from the GOP if Rudy is the nominee, the real story and the untold story is that the business community is even more ready to bolt from the GOP. For the last eight years they've watched as the socons have scored every significant win on the right — stem cells, judges, etc. Only against Labor have the fiscal guys scored wins. But there have been no budget cuts, no culling of pork, steel subsidies, etc.

The fiscal guys see the writing on the wall. They see Hillary's position. And they are just about ready to cut a deal. And then you have the Republican libertarians who are just about ready to really vote for Ron Paul, doing to the GOP in 2008 what Ralph Nader voters did for the Democrats in 2000.

Huckabee breaks the coalition more than Giuliani because the socons fear Hillary more than the fiscalcons do. And that is why we won't see too many of the socon leaders rallying to the clear favorite of the socon base.

As a social and fiscal conservative, I distrust Mike Huckabee more than I do Rudy Giuliani.

Partly, it's because a Giuliani presidency won't move the party to the Left on abortion and gay marriage. For one thing, Giulani is trimming his sails on these issues to win the nomination. For another, one man -- even a Republican President -- cannot move the party's base from the south to the northeast. So after 8 years of a Giuliani presidency, the party would still be a socially conservative one -- albeit with more northeastern moderates and liberals.

But Mike Huckabee would not need to change the party to move it to the left on economic issues. There is already a significant strain of anti-Wall Street populism in the party. The candidacies of Pat Buchanan and Ross Perot tapped into it; Lou Dobbs reaches it each evening. It's one reason that trade votes are painful even for many Republican Members of Congress. A Huckabee presidency could move the populist faction in the party to dominance over the free-marketeers.

Further, I want to see the results of Huckabee's gubernatorial races in Arkansas. Specifically, I wonder if his social conservative populist message didn't bring in more low-income voters -- especially African-Americans. It strikes me that Huckabee might be able to bring African-Americans to the Republican line more than any other candidate of recent vintage. If that happened, it would strengthen the hand of 'fair-trade,' bleeding-heart conservatives -- weakening the hand of Republicans who would cut taxes and reduce the size of government.

That's not a risk I can take lightly, and it's why I fear Huckabee's candidacy.

Hat Tip: Soren

Giuliani's Shrewd Campaign to Mollify Social Conservatives

Ramesh Ponnuru hits on what I think is one of the more important events in the 2008 presidential campaign over the last week:

What was good was that Giuliani has now pledged to veto any attempt to weaken current anti-abortion policies, and in particular any attempt to expand federal funding for abortion. He has also said that he would support "reasonable" ideas to reduce abortion, which sounds like a promise to sign any restrictions that Congress could actually pass. These pledges are very good news. The pro-lifers who have criticized Giuliani so strongly over the past few months can take some credit for prompting them.

The last time I blogged about Giuliani's statements on abortion was May. That marked the end of a disastrous stretch where Giuliani could say nothing about abortion that helped his campaign, and little that seemed thought-out. At that time, his public statements left it an open question as to whether he would work to block expansion of abortion, or merely not encourage it. He had said for example, that he would not seek to revise or repeal the Hyde amendment barring public funding of abortions, but did not say whether he would veto such a measure.

Give him credit for staying away from the issue for months. And give him credit for now quietly reassuring people like myself that he will support measures to limit abortion. This promise is likely to help mitigate some of the agitation on the social right for a more conservative candidate, and it's likely to undercut the support for a third-party candidacy.

USA Today: Democrats' Ethics Reforms Lead to MORE Lobbyist-Paid Travel

Read it at the Standard.

Blue Dog Democrats Withhold Support from Liberal Colleagues

Read it at the Standard.

Charlie Cook: Foreign Policy Errors May Cost Democrats White House

Read it at the Standard.

Democrats Searching for Direction on FISA

Read it at the Standard.

GOP Victorious on the Bayou

Bobby Jindal's future's so bright...

I'm inclined to back him for President in 2012 regardless of who wins in 2008.

Barone: It's Not 2006 Anymore

Michael Barone summarizes how the political climate has changed since 2006:

Democrats are coming face to face with the fact that there's a war on -- and that Americans prefer success to failure. If the choice is between stalemate and withdrawal, as it seemed to be in November 2006, they may favor withdrawal; but if the choice is between victory and withdrawal, they don't want to quit -- or to undermine the effort.

Last week, Democrat Niki Tsongas won a special election with only 51 percent of the vote, in a Massachusetts district where John Kerry won 57 percent in 2004 and would have run much better in 2006. History doesn't stand still -- we're not in 2006 anymore.

Barone makes the same point Patrick Ruffini made after Niki Tsongas' victory in Massachusetts last week: 2006 is history and politics has changed. This should not be a surprise. Political commentators said after the 2006 election that the loss of the House and Senate was a blessing for Republicans -- one that would break the rise of anti-Republican sentiment to ensure that 2008 was not a catastrophic anti-GOP tidal wave. That's now happened. By controlling one end of Pennsylvania Avenue, Democrats have reminded voters that it's not just Republicans they don't like.