This was the other interesting item from November's National Geographic -- an article about how the best way to ensure a healthy environment is to promote capitalism.
Well again, that's not what the article is about nominally, but when you look at a list of the ten most polluted sites on the planet, and the thirty most polluted sites on the planet, it serves as an object lesson about the linkage between environmental protection and wealth:
Note that not one of the thirty sites is within the free-market western world. In fact, there's a staggering correlation between pollution and state-run economies -- down to and including India, whose economy was so largely state-directed for many years.
Lesson: if you want a clean and healthy environment, capitalism is your friend.
More on this story at National Geographic here.
Saturday, November 17, 2007
Dance Class Reading -- Part II
Dance Class Reading
Regular readers of this blog are aware that on Saturday, I tend to post something eclectic. That's because most Saturdays I take my daughter to dance class, and I bring along National Geographic or Smithsonian to read (thanks, Beth). If I see something interesting, I tend to blog it. If my wife happens to take my daughter to class... well, you lose out.
Anyway, I went to class today and found a few things in the November National Geographic. The first is the item below on global warming.
OK -- it's not about global warming per se, but I couldn't help but thinking about the debate as I read the article.
I couldn't find really detailed data about where the photo was taken (although you can read more about this cave system here). But according to the caption, this cave was above water as recently as 18,000 years ago.
Take a look at that photo. It seems to me that sea level is at least a few dozen feet higher today than it was 18,000 years ago. Was that due to man-made global warming?
Friday, November 16, 2007
Lou Dobbs + President = Big Traffic
On Monday I beat the rush and wrote about Lou Dobbs' flirtation with a White House bid. I got a nice link from Instapundit which boosted my traffic. Then John Fund wrote about it, and the story went mainstream.
Today this blog is experiencing something unusual. I am getting more hits from a particular search than I have ever had. People visiting my site after searching for some variation of 'Lou Dobbs president' account for more than half my traffic right now. It's even more surprising because my post on Dobbs does not come up in the first few hits on a google search.
It seems there might be a great deal of interest in Dobbs candidacy.
I wonder if others are experiencing the same spike in traffic?
Update: As I write this Google Trends says that 'Lou Dobbs Running for President' is the 68-th highest rated search. That puts it well behind 'Ali Larter Nip Slip,' but none of the current presidential field rates in the top 100 right now.
Thursday, November 15, 2007
Can Huckabee Win Iowa?
Soren offers an excellent analysis of what's happening in Iowa, and what might happen between now and the caucus. As we enter deeper into the holiday season, caucus-goers might typically be expected to pay less attention to this race. But with the vote so hotly contested, and so many candidates desirous of seeing Romney beaten -- and not really trying to win themselves -- it seems entirely feasible that Huckabee could pull ahead.
That probably isn't the best outcome for Fred Thompson, who is my favored candidate. If Huckabee pulls off an upset, that becomes the major story from Iowa. I believe that Thompson is likely to need Romney to score an unimpressive win (implying a strong finish by Huckabee), then manage to score an impressive third -- or even second -- himself. That seems likely to make him the lead story coming out of Iowa, and give him the boost he needs to get past New Hampshire to South Carolina.
Anyway, here's an excerpt from Soren's commentary -- which you should read in its entirety:
The numbers suggest something more. Huckabee is way out ahead of Mitt Romney on "is a conservative", abortion, and "shares my values." But on "agree on issues", immigration, and "right experience", Huckabee is struggling places.
I suspect that the "issues" thing is really about taxes. There has been a lot of mail going out, phone calls, and people have run ads against Huckabee. Huckabee’s experience number can be moved with some good bio ads.
I am however, struck by Romney’s abortion number. This confirms the word on the street from Iowa. Romney’s voter base is the country-clubbers...
So Huckabee has room to go positive and drive his numbers more. Of course, not just the guys that write happy are reading these polls. I would expect some interest groups or 527s whacking away at Romney in Iowa. NRLC’s endorsement suggests to me that they would do that. But something seems clear. Abortion talk may not drive Romney’s numbers down. Attacking him on immigration and his trustworthiness (flip-flopper?) might work.
Friday Funny
It's almost Friday, right?
I direct your attention to the 1977 JC Penney catalog, which offers some examples of why we should burn clothes when they go out of style, and why the '70s should not be mourned.
Sit down, gather your strength, and click on over to Team Sugar (mild language warning).
I seem to recall my mom dressing me in that...
CAGW: Democrats Cut Earmark Spending by a Third
Never let it be said that I don't give credit where it's due. For all the criticisms I have (deservedly) heaped on Congressional Democrats regarding pork-barrel spending. Citizens Against Government Waste estimates that earmark spending will be down by about a third under the Democratic Congress. This report is from the Politico, because I can't find the information on CAGW's website:
Citizens Against Government Waste, which closely monitors federal spending, is putting the finishing touches on its tally of pork projects in the pending spending bills — and the picture isn’t pretty. The group estimates that there will be at least 8,000 earmarks this year, costing U.S. taxpayers, $18 billion to $20 billion.
Democrats and Republicans alike had promised to curtail the practice of directing money to specific projects.
They have, but not nearly as dramatically as their campaign rhetoric had suggested. In the last fiscal year, when Republicans controlled Congress, there were $29 billion in total earmarks.
So Democrats can rightly claim they are reducing the practice, perhaps by as much as 33 percent, as Congress Daily’s Keith Koffler reported this afternoon.
Now let's take that progress, and do even better.
Some Suggestions for the House GOP
I'm not a huge fan of Norm Ornstein. He's trashed Republicans so often in the last few years, it's become hard at times to read him. Nevertheless, his column today -- offering suggestions to House Democrats on how to reform the institution -- offers some value to House Republicans.
First, let's assume that House Democrats ignore most or all of what Ornstein suggests. It's hard for the team in power to make concessions to the minority. That should not be true however, of the team that's out-of-power. Republicans have a limited set of issues to use against Democrats, and they need to look at everything in the toolbox.
A critical tool in a time of voter anger is the reform agenda. Unencumbered with chairmanships and power, Republicans can and should embrace reform wherever possible -- immigration, spending, health care, national defense, etc. Ornstein offers some ideas on how to sell a reform agenda for the institution:
Democrats are taking comfort from the fact that much of the anger and disappointment people feel is aimed at Republicans. It should be scant comfort. To be sure, a recent ABC-Washington Post poll showed Republicans at 32 percent approval and 63 percent disapproval. But Democrats are not exactly exempt from public disgust; the same survey showed only 36 percent approval for them, with 58 percent disapproval. If Democrats think they can count on the unhappiness with President Bush and the residue of repugnance with the performance in Washington when the Republicans controlled all the levers of power, they are delusional. There is clearly a broader public anger about the performance of most institutions, but especially those in Washington, and it could very, very easily turn into a broader and deeper reaction against the status quo and all incumbents.
Dig a bit deeper, and it is obvious that voters are tired of the partisan bickering and ideologically driven rancor — they want problems solved in Washington, not yelling or posturing or revenge killing that only results in gridlock. The latter is what they see coming out of Congress...
The second thing Democrats should do is to accept the possibility of defeat on the floor as something short of a disaster. The biggest failing of the GOP in the 109th was an unwillingness to lose no matter what. Of course, you don’t want to lose, and can’t afford to lose on some basic important issues and priorities. But in other cases, amendments can be constructive or no great disaster (and in some cases, amendments the majority doesn’t like can be allowed to pass and jettisoned in conference).
The third thing Democrats should do is to move aggressively to more debate, and not only between Democrats and Republicans. Now is a perfect time to revive the idea of regular prime-time debates on important issues. Take one evening a week, in special orders, and structure a lively debate on something of concern to the country. Have two or four Members lead the way in debate, and follow with a free-for-all discussion. In some cases, say global warming or trade, have both majority and minority Members on each side. Add to that a regular process of having real debate on bills that reach the floor whenever possible.
Things like Oxford-style debates make good government types happy, without changing the substance of policy. So go for it. Include this promise in the 'Contract with America II' you release next Summer. They will of course, be ignored a few weeks after they start. But that's not a loss.
Also promise to let the majority in the House have its way on legislation. Offer more open debate and more amendments -- at least on other-than-critical legislation. Promise to refrain from arm-twisting to achieve a pre-determined outcome -- understanding that it will have to be used on must-pass legislation. And when the Republican leadership 'loses' a vote, crow about it and brag how it shows that you've restored fairness in the people's House.
I have other ideas as well, which I'll write about at a later time. But in a presidential election, most attention is focused on the presidential race and the policies laid out by the two candidates. It will be hard to establish a House Republican agenda that can give a boost to your candidates nationwide. While you can attack incumbent Democrats for their votes, it will be hard to win back control of the House going race-by-race. If you can find some issues that can offer traction -- to create some 'wind at the back' for Republican candidates -- your job is that much easier.
House reform -- which goes directly to the critical issue of restoring trust in the responsiveness and effective working of government -- will be important. It also offers a chance to showcase the failings of the Democratic House. EG:
- We won't steal votes after the gavel -- like the Democrats did.
- We won't bottle up popular legislation as the Democrats have done on border security and other bills.
- We will bring up for a vote real earmark reform -- to ensure that Congressmen can't buy re-election with taxpayer-funded pork.
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
The Next Big Thing
In the era of cross-training and extreme sports, it was only a matter of time before some visionary combined two of the world's great spectator sports: chess and boxing.
Chessboxing: in a world where 'competitive eating' is a sport, is it any surprise someone came up with this?
Monday, November 12, 2007
GOP Has Multiple Strong Candidates Against Harry Mitchell
Congressional Quarterly has the story:
As the latest entrant to the GOP field to challenge first-term Democratic Rep. Harry E. Mitchell , former Arizona legislator and Maricopa County Treasurer David Schweikert argues that 2008 will be an obvious chance for his party to regain the Republican-leaning 5th District, and that he’s the strong candidate to do so.Mitchell is another of the Democratic 'majority makers' -- one that analyst Stu Rothenberg puts in the 'opportunity that will not fall easily' catergory. Charlie Cook calls it a district that 'leans Democratic,' which is pretty much the worst rating an incumbent can get from Cook, until the challenger is leading in money and polls just a few months from election day.
Schweikert said longstanding political presence in the area — beginning with his first run for the state Legislature at the age of 26 in 1988 — have helped cement his ties in the district. “I’ve been really lucky but I’ve also been in literally this same area for 20 years in politics. .... I have gained a certain benefit by being a known commodity and that’s helped,” he said.
Sean McCaffrey, executive director of the Arizona Republican Party, said there were now “three very positive, very forward-thinking candidates who have big dreams about what could happen” in Schweikert, lobbyist and former congressional aide Jim Ogsbury, and former state legislator Laura Knaperek.
Mitchell's district has a Republican tilt. If in a presidential year, the state returns to its GOP roots, Mitchell is likely to find himself in a real race.
Just another demonstration that the seats are there for the GOP to retake the House in 2008.
I think it's going to be a great shock when the media at large discovers this in August or September.
Lou Dobbs for President?
Political Insider finds Dobbs using the traditional language of future candidates testing the waters. In this case, it's the 'the American people are looking for [someone like me]' angle:
Is populist CNN broadcast Lou Dobbs mulling a political future? Writing at CNN.com last week, Dobbs said, "One year from now, we will have elected a new president. As eager as I am for that reality, I can't imagine any one of the current candidates for their party's nomination being chosen by the American people to lead this nation for the next four years. I believe the person elected a year from now will be an Independent populist, a man or woman who understands the genius of this country lies in the hearts and minds of its people and not in the prerogatives and power of its elites."
Dobbs continued, "As I travel around the country, my feeling about the lack of true candidates is validated by those I talk with: They are not excited about the candidates seeking their party's nomination." He concluded by saying, "I believe next November's surprise will be the election of a man or woman of great character, vision and accomplishment, a candidate who has not yet entered the race."
Obviously, Dobbs' experience and appeal are too narrow to imagine that he would do be a legitimate candidate for the White House. However, he probably has more potential to affect the race as a third-party candidate than Ron Paul or Ralph Nader -- two other people mentioned as possible third-party candidates.
Would he hurt the Republican or the Democrat more? That's tough to say.
The Democrats are traditionally more protectionist than the Republicans; if the Democratic nominee sees an opening to win support from Wall Street, that could leave room for Dobbs to appeal to labor. His populist rants against the high and mighty might sound more Republican than Democrat right now.
But in the last few years at least, it seems that immigration has been a bigger issue for him than trade. He's had harsh words for Democrats and President Bush, over their support for 'comprehensive reform.' It certainly appears that whoever the nominees are, the 2008 race is likely to see a return to type -- with the GOP standing for tough anti-illegal immigration laws, and the Democrats more supportive of legalization. This might lead Dobbs to focus his criticisms on the Democratic nominee.
But in the end, it would probably be up to Dobbs. His populist repertoire is broad enough to allow him to train his fire on either the Republican or the Democrat. He could wind up being a kingmaker.
What a scary thought.
GOP Recruits Strong Challenger Against Hodes
From CQ:
Steiner said he isn’t “running against anybody” but is focused on running “for” the seat.
He labels himself a “Colin Powell Republican,” in the mold of the retired Army General who served as secretary of State under President Bush and as national security adviser for President Ronald Reagan. Steiner was co-chairman of the 1996 movement to draft Powell to run for the presidency.
Steiner, a graduate of the U.S. Military Academy, admires Powell for his military leadership but added that he also regards Powell as the type of “bipartisan consensus builder” he hopes to be in Congress.
“I do not believe in partisan bickering and partisanship merely to separate Republicans and Democrats,” Steiner said. “When you hear complaints by people across this entire country, the American people are sick and tired of it also and I will simply not be playing that game...”
CQ Politics currently rates Hodes as “favored” to hold his seat, but will be closely monitoring the Republican field as it solidifies.
Democrats Tout Poll Data on Gordon Smith; Won't Release It
From Roll Call:
A poll conducted recently for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee found Sen. Gordon Smith’s (R) electability numbers to be down from earlier this year.
But the DSCC declined to release any head-to-head numbers pitting Smith against his potential Democratic opponents, suggesting that the Republican might still be in good shape heading into his quest for a third term — at least at this point.
A poll conducted late last month for Roll Call showed Smith with a 9-point lead over Oregon Speaker Jeff Merkley, the favorite of national Democratic leaders for the Senate nomination. Merkley is battling attorney and Democratic activist Steve Novick in the primary. Neither has come remotely close to matching Smith’s fundraising numbers, which include a healthy $4 million on hand as of Sept. 30.
So Gordon Smith is ripe to be defeated, it's just that the Democrats' favored nominee trails him so badly, that Democrats refuse to release the polling result.
Sounds like Gordon Smith has solidified his re-election prospects.
Silky Maybe, But Definitely Not Fluffy
Ben & Jerry's co-founder Ben Cohen is surprisingly on-message. The activist businessman, who launched a group dedicated to redirecting federal government spending away from the Pentagon and toward health care, education and other domestic priorities, is backing John Edwards' presidential campaign.
After a news conference today in which a part of that organization, Caucus for Priorities, announced its backing of Edwards, Cohen pontificated on the possibilities his association with the candidate brought up. He denied there were plans for an Edwards-inspired ice cream flavor, even though, as one reporter pointed out, erstwhile presidential hopeful Stephen Colbert enjoys a concoction bearing his name.
Pressed on what an Edwards flavor might be, Cohen stuck to message. "It's not going to be a very fluffy flavor," he predicted. "It's going to be a very solid flavor..."
That's right. When I think 'Edwards;' I think 'tough guy -- hard as nails.' After all, it takes a tough man to look this pretty:
Will George Bush Sink the GOP in 2008
Stu Rothenberg has a column on one of the key questions of the 2008 election. Projections of Democratic victories in 2008 rest on the assumption -- implicit or explicit -- that the GOP nominee will be badly damaged by the Bush legacy. Much of the Republican party's unpopularity and its weakness on key issues -- such as controlling spending -- lay with the perception that George Bush has not been effective on those issues.
When the GOP decides its nominee, that person will have no close association with the current president. He won't be the Vice President, or even a former cabinet official. Whoever the nominee is, he will differ from Bush on key policy matters. Thompson and Giuliani disagree with Bush on abortion and other social issues. Romney will contrast dramatically on management. McCain has differed with Bush on the war, taxes, campaign finance, and pork-barrel spending.
How much of Bush's unpopularity will transfer to the party's nominee? Rothenberg says:
Unfortunately, history isn’t much of a guide, since there is just a single case in the post-war era when the party of a retiring president did not nominate his vice president to succeed him. That happened in 1952, when Democrats chose Adlai Stevenson for president over Vice President Alben Barkley (Stevenson actually was outgoing President Harry Truman’s choice)...
But is it reasonable to believe that voters completely disregard past performance — a party’s past performance — when an unpopular president leaves office? Probably not.
After all, Democrats have plenty of tape of Bush making promises that were not kept and asserting truths that turned out not to be true. And they’ll be running against a party that has been defined for the past few years by its leader, the president of the United States. That means the Republican nominee for president will inevitably be the candidate of continuity rather than dramatic change, no matter how passionately he delivers a message of change.
It’s also true, however, that once the GOP has a presidential nominee, he will start to redefine the public’s image of the Republican Party. George W. Bush will seem less relevant, less important. But he will never disappear. That doesn’t doom the Republican nominee, but it puts him in a hole even before the race has begun.
Rothenberg is a very accomplished analyst, but I think he's flat out wrong here. While the Republican candidate for president will need to defend the party -- and thereby try to burnish parts of Bush's legacy -- he is going to have strong distinctions as well.
Plus, voters will consider the Republican nominee in comparison with the Democrat. And if that person is Hillary Clinton (as I have repeated at length), the Republican will be the candidate of change. Hillary has been in Washington for 14 years. She is taking credit for the achievements of her husband's presidency -- which makes her a de facto 8-year incumbent. Furthermore, the Republican will depict Hillary as the last link of a Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton legacy of polarization. This will link Hillary not just to the failings of her husband's administration, but also those of his predecessor and follower. Republicans will ask whether the American people want more of the same, or a clean break.
There's also the fact that Hillary is increasingly becoming the not-so-proud owner of a terrible Senate legacy. She is arguably the most influential Democrat in the 110th Congress -- one that is establishing a record for lack of meaningful achievement. If she is the nominee, she will have to answer for Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, as well.
Saturday, November 10, 2007
What Happened to the Mary Celeste?
On Saturday mornings, I frequently take my daughter to dance class. While there, I thumb through Smithsonian or National Geographic (thanks Beth). Frequently, I hit upon something worth blogging on. You reap the reward -- except on days where my wife takes her -- then you lose out.
Anyway, the latest (?) Smithsonian has a story on what happened to the Mary Celeste. This might be one of those tales you remember from a grade school library book, or from In Search Of, or from the Arthur Conan Doyle story. It seems investigators have looked at the available evidence, interviews descendants, and arrived at what they regard as a likely conclusion:
The ship's log is believed to have been lost in 1885, so those transcriptions provided the only means for MacGregor and Richardson to plot the course and positions logged for the ship. The two then reconsidered those positions in light of ICOADS data and other information on sea conditions at the time. Their conclusion: Briggs was actually 120 miles west of where he thought he was, probably because of an inaccurate chronometer. By the captain's calculations, he should have sighted land three days earlier than he did.
Solly-Flood's notes yielded one other piece of information that MacGregor and Richardson consider significant: the day before he reached the Azores, Briggs changed course and headed north of Santa Maria Island, perhaps seeking haven.
The night before the last entry in the ship's log, the Mary Celeste again faced rough seas and winds of more than 35 knots. Still, MacGregor reasons, rough seas and a faulty chronometer wouldn't, by themselves, prompt an experienced captain to abandon ship. Was there something else?
MacGregor learned that on its previous voyage, the Mary Celeste had carried coal and that the ship had recently been extensively refitted. Coal dust and construction debris could have fouled the ship's pumps, which would explain the disassembled pump found on the Mary Celeste. With the pump inoperative, Briggs would not have known how much seawater was in his ship's hull, which was too fully packed for him to measure visually.
At that point, says MacGregor, Briggs—having come through rough weather, having finally and belatedly sighted land and having no way of determining whether his ship would sink—might well have issued an order to abandon ship.
You can view a 'sneak peek' of the Smithsonian special on the Mary Celste here.
10 Things You Need to Know About the Presidential Race (so Far)
An interesting summary from Patrick Ruffini of the lessons that can be drawn from the primary campaigns. By and large, I think he's nailed it -- with one minor quibble:
Second Timers Don't Win. This one hasn't always held true, but the new environment of permanent campaigns is writing a new rule for Presidential candidacies: one strike and you're out (unless you get elected VP). The fact that the Johns (Edwards and McCain) have had so much trouble catching on is directly related to the lack of mystique surrounding their candidacies. They're yesterday's news, and were best known for losing.
Edwards and McCain constitute a relatively small sample size for drawing such a conclusion. If Howard Dean had not wound up as DNC Chair, I wonder if the Democratic electorate this year might have chosen him. He'd still represent a past loser, but would argue that the party made a mistake in 'marrying Kerry' adter dating Dean in 2004. As a bona fide anti-war traditional Democrat, I suspect he'd have a strong following.
There's also this piece of wisdom, which is one of the surest bets in politics despite media claims to the contrary:
Nice Guys Finish Last. The polls say that the public despises negative politics. The polls are wrong.
In an 8-second soundbite universe, new information is king and attacks always make the news. So while it's true that the public may not like hearing slashing attacks, new attacks always have more legs than recycled positives.
Barack Obama has tried to stay above the fray, embracing a "politics of hope" and until recently limiting his attacks on Hillary Clinton to the notion that she was too polarizing. The result: he stayed flat while she surged ahead. Politics is about conveying the reasons why voters should vote for you and no one else. (The media loves covering the last part.) Being Miss Congeniality gets you nowhere.
In the abstract, voters don't like 'negative politics.' Sure. I don't like it either. Why do I want to see candidates tear each other down?
What I DO want to see and what WILL affect my vote is a presentation of why one candidate's experience, views, and record are superior to another's. Does Mike Huckabee seem like a good candidate? Sure. Do I want to know that he backed tax increases as Governor? Definitely. That's not the type of candidate I want to support.
So-called 'negative' ads are therefore not only effective, they are essential. A candidate will never broadcast his or her own weaknesses; that's the job of the opponent.
Friday, November 09, 2007
Friday Funny
In New York, the Jedi School is training the next round of heroes:
As my dad frequently points out, the success of ventures like this proves that people have plenty of disposable income.
Thursday, November 08, 2007
An Idea to Use With Your Credit Card Company
How many times can you spend $6 billion you don't have? Congressional Democrats have done it four times (and counting):
In four separate pieces of legislation -- two energy bills, the farm bill and a bill that would fund rural schools and libraries -- lawmakers in the House of Representatives make use of $6 billion in payments from oil companies.
Unfortunately, the same $6 billion gets spent in each bill.
What's more, because of a recent federal court ruling, it's unclear whether that money will ever be collected.
It's an extreme example of the contortions Congress has been going through to comply with pay-as-you-go rules put in place by the Democratic majority, requiring that any spending increases or tax reductions be offset with spending cuts or tax increases.
Don't worry. If the money fails to materialize, it simply gets tacked onto the federal deficit. Then... oh yeah. YOU pay for it.
The Crackdown in Venezuela
Fausta provides a roundup on Hugo Chavez's crushing of dissent, and includes this video from Al Jazeera:
It's appropriate to pay a great deal of attention to what's happening in Pakistan right now, but the loss of democracy here in the Americas is disheartening. How can jokers like Harry Belafonte and Sean Penn continue to associate themselves with a criminal and thug?
Update: Never mind. I see John Hinderaker beat me to the punch.
Democrats Give Up on Ethics Reform
At the start of the 110th Congress, House Democrats instituted a number of rules changes intended to address ethics concerns. At that time, Speaker Pelosi bragged about the achievement:
"House Democrats got straight to work this week by passing the toughest Congressional ethics reform in history. We have broken the link between lobbyists and legislation: banning gifts and travel from lobbyists and organizations that retain or employ them, banning travel on corporate jets, shutting down the K Street project, subjecting all earmarks to the full light of day, and reinstating the strict rules of pay-as-you-go budgeting.
"But these reforms are just our first steps. In the coming months, we will propose legislation to close the revolving door between government officials and lobbying firms and shine a light on lobbyists’ efforts to influence legislation. We will also require a bipartisan task force to report out recommendations on the creation of an outside entity to uphold the highest ethical standards here in the House.
Since then Democrats have bent or broken the rules on pay-go, seen a tremendous increase in the amount of travel paid for by lobbyists, and have more closely linked fundraising and political payoffs. And there's also the matter of the bipartisan task force -- which has yet to report any recommendations.
Roll Call reports today that you shouldn't get your hopes up:
More than six months past their deadline, leaders of a special task force established to overhaul the House ethics process remain coy about the group’s work, even as reform advocates consider attacking a forthcoming proposal as too weak.
Both Rep. Mike Capuano (D-Mass.), the task force’s chairman, and Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), the ranking member, have remained tight-lipped about the panel’s efforts after Members rejected a preliminary proposal — which included the idea of creating a new, outside ethics body to vet complaints — in early summer, prompting the panel to return to negotiations while refusing to discuss the details, other than to acknowledge the panel is actively meeting...
Despite that silence, however, some key conclusions from the task force already are clear, according to outside reform advocates tracking the process: The recommended new ethics body will not have subpoena power, and it will not accept complaints from outside groups — a proposition that raised the ire of Members earlier this year. Filing complaints has been a privilege limited to Members since 1997...
Democratic aides, speaking on the condition of anonymity, have insisted that the task force has not been dismissed in the wake of ethics and lobbying reforms signed into law earlier this year.
“The task force has continued to meet and work on its proposal. The Speaker looks forward to receiving and reviewing their recommendations,” said Pelosi spokesman Nadeam Elshami.
Reform backers said while there is still time for the task force to turn its recommendations around, the likelihood of that happening is quickly diminishing.
“What is clear is that Capuano wants this off his desk, so I think he’s anxious to dump a package out there,” said Craig Holman of Public Citizen. “It’s not going to be controversial, except for the fact that it won’t do anything.”
When Democrats fail to act, it creates an opportunity for Republicans. This is the sort of reform issue that House Republicans ought to seize on.
Voters will be skeptical of any ethics reform enacted by Members of Congress, for Members of Congress. But an independent review panel -- with subpoena authority, and which can accept ethics complaints from outsiders -- might actually get public respect.
I hope that a reform-minded Member of the House Republican conference takes up this cause. We can use every good issue we can get for 2008.
Who Needs Earmark Reform?
Democrats claim that they've enacted earmark reform to curtail abuses. I don't want to say that claim is a joke, but we've gone through the problems with their approach before. My personal favorite: if David Obey inserts the earmark, it doesn't count -- apparently because he's not a Member of the House; he's an institution.
Today we get a pretty clear demonstration that the the Democratic 'reforms' have changed nothing:
House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.), a passionate golf player, sponsored a $3 million earmark in the 2008 military spending bill for a program that attracts disadvantaged and minority children to the game of golf.
Even though Clyburn’s earmark appears minor in the face of a $471 billion defense bill that contains about $5 billion in disclosed member projects, it stands out because it has little to do with the military and was only introduced as part of the conference negotiations between the House and the Senate.
The project is attracting criticism from watchdog organizations such as Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW), which included the earmark as part of its pork alert to the 2008 defense appropriations bill.
In August the City of Columbia Golf Center was renamed the James E. Clyburn Golf Center, complete with a statue of the lawmaker. The golf center was built in 2002 with money that Clyburn helped obtain. The center is also a participant in The First Tee program, initiated by the PGA Tour and the World Golf Foundation in 1997 on the heels of Tiger Woods’ growing success in golf.
Why is it such a big deal that the earmark was 'airdropped' into the conference report, after both the House and Senate completed action on the bill? Because a conference report is non-amendable. The only way to cancel the funds now is to defeat the entire $471 billion bill -- which is not going to happen. This is probably the reason that Clyburn waited until the conference committee to insert this tribute to himself.
Check out this recent column by Jim DeMint over at Captain's Quarters, which chronicles the problems with the Democrats' non-reform.
And note: this neat little Clyburn earmark was inserted in contradiction to the reform called for last year by Democratic Caucus Chair Rahm Emanuel. Go take a look at the Emanuel plan to see how ambitious Democrats were until they took power.
Wednesday, November 07, 2007
New Immigration Bill Exposes Huge Divisions Among Democrats
Steny Hoyer and Rahm Emanuel are the two House Democrats the Netroots hates the most. They are seen as politicians rather than true believers, committed to doing what it takes to get Democrats elected -- even if the liberal base hates them for it. That makes them two of the savvier operators on that side of the aisle.
So it's no surprise that Steny Hoyer is sounding very amenable to tackling border security:
Freshman Rep. Heath Shuler (D-N.C.) proposed a tough new enforcement-only immigration bill Tuesday with 84 co-sponsors, split nearly evenly between the parties...
The bill would set up a new verification system for employees to show that they are here legally, which all businesses would have to use within four years...
The bill also would increase the border patrol by 8,000 agents, boost enforcement of immigration laws by state and local authorities and expedite the removal of illegal immigrants...
Shuler said he spoke to House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) about the bill. “With the support it has, 84 co-sponsors from 26 states, I hope that it gets the opportunity to be voted on on the House floor,” Shuler said.
“We’re looking closely at that,” Hoyer said of the bill Tuesday. “Obviously it has to go through committee, but Congressman Shuler has made a very good effort here trying to put a package together that he hopes will be an effective solution. We’ll have to see what the committee has to say about that...”
But Shuler’s plan raised the ire of Hispanic Democrats, who have been frustrated at the House’s inability to pass immigration legislation.
“I’m always concerned about Democrats imitating Republicans,” said Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.). “Democrats have been running away from some of the most vulnerable workers in this country — the undocumented.”
Gutierrez blamed House Democrats for failing to move immigration bills, which he said left an opening for an “enforcement only” approach...
There's plenty of evidence that the voters are four-square in favor of immigration enforcement first. Mickey and Jim Geraghty are among those who've talked about the votes that can be won -- probably by Republicans, but maybe by Democrats -- on the issue. The second-greatest hope for the GOP is that the Democratic Congress does nothing on the issue. The greatest hope is that conservative Democrats push for Congress to do something, and Democratic liberals prevent them.
This debate is sure to get traction, and it has the potential to cause much greater division in the caucus. Here's hoping.
Update: A writer at the Politico sees the immigration issue as a huge headache for the Democrats as well.
Pelosi On Impeachment: Screw You, Liberals
I believe the quote of the day on yesterday's impeachment kerfuffle goes to Nancy Pelosi's spokesman:
Democratic leaders decried Republican efforts as political gamesmanship.
“For them it’s about politics and scoring cheap political points. In the end, this issue was disposed of,” said Pelosi spokesman Nadeam Elshami, referring to a subsequent vote by the House to refer the bill to the Judiciary Committee, where it is expected to languish.
That's right. Impeachment isn't a question of offenses against the Constitution allegedly committed by the Vice President, it's an issue to be 'disposed of.'
Also noted by Samantha Sault at the Weekly Standard.
Deep Fried Heaven
I like bad foods, but I don't typically go for deep-fried (although I still want to try deep-fried pizza). Nevertheless, even I have to imagine the ingenuity that leads to such a variety of deep-fried treats! This list reads like a death-row prisoner's last meal. It includes:
- Deep-Fried Coca-Cola
- Deep-Fried Cheesecake
- Deep-Fried Cheeseburger
- Deep-Fried Cupcake
- Deep-Fried Chocolate Chip Cookie Dough
- Deep-Fried Chicken Sandwich on a Doughnut
- Deep Fried Mac n' Cheese
- The Hamdog
And what you ask, is a Hamdog?
a hot dog wrapped in a deep fried beef patty, smothered with chili, cheese and onions, served on a hoagie bun and topped with a fried egg and two fistfuls of fries. What else can you say other than 'I'll have a hamdog, please'?
The good news is, being fat isn't so bad anymore.
Curt Schilling Creates Ethical Dilemma
Curt Schilling has agreed to return to the Boston Red Sox for what's likely to be his final season. His one-year contract contains an incentive clause that earns him $1 million if he gets one vote for the Cy Young award -- any vote, even third place. Peter Abraham of the LoHud Yankees blog points out the ethical dilemma this creates:
Every AL city gets two votes for each award. In big markets, the votes are divided up. You might get MVP one year, Manager of the Year the next. But two people who cover the Red Sox will get votes on Cy Young in 2008.
We usually learn sometime in the summer what we’re voting for. In the case of Cy Young, you vote for first, second and third. Let’s say Schilling goes 15-9 with a 3.95 ERA next season. He’s not the Cy Young, but you can make a case he deserves a third-place vote.
Your one vote gets him $1 million. What is keeping some writer from saying, “Hey, Curt, I’ll vote for you. I want $500,000.”
It’s wholly unethical. But every business has unethical people. $500,000 is serious coin for a reporter. People have gambling problems, drug problems, etc. What’s keeping Schilling from agreeing to the deal? He’s gets $500,000 he wasn’t counting on.
On the other hand, let’s say the two people with votes in Boston don’t vote for Schilling and he finds out why they are. What if he resents them and tells his teammates, “Hey, these SOBs cost me $1 million.” How are those people supposed to cover the Red Sox now?
Abraham is right as far as he goes, but he doesn't go far enough. Let's take his example. What if Schilling finishes 15-9 with a 3.95 ERA, and another starter somewhere finishes 16-7 with a 3.85 ERA. Wouldn't a writer who likes Schilling be inclined to toss a vote his way, to ensure he makes an extra million, rather than to a more deserving pitcher?
This type of incentive clause is simply wrong. I think the only appropriate remedy is to take away the Red Sox last two World Series trophies.
And Josh Beckett.
Are Taxes Still a Cutting Political Issue
Some have noted that voters don't seem to be as concerned about taxes as they have been in recent years. A look at a recent district-wide mailer from Representative Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) suggest that she at least, thinks they remain an important voter concern.
She's using taxpayer dollars to make sure constituents see lots of fake headlines about tax cuts, in an attempt to convince voters that Democrats aren't really planning dramatic tax hikes.
Tuesday, November 06, 2007
Pay No Attention to the Man Behind the Curtain
A wholly non-partisan, unaffiliated, disinterested organization called Women's Voices, Women Vote wants to register and bring to the polls millions of single females who've not voted before. They don't care who you back, really. Come out and show your support for Ron Paul, or Chris Dodd, or Bill Richardson, or Mike Huckabee, or whoever! The important thing is that you vote!
Oh -- I just remembered -- if you want, sure -- you can vote for Hillary. I mean, it's sexist and all -- to suggest that just because you're a woman, you automatically must back the woman in the race -- but if you want to be old and cliched, you can definitely vote for Hillary.
I mean, it's whoever you want, really. Single women can vote for anyone they want -- even Hillary.
This message is brought to you by Women's Voices, Women Vote. And yes, our Board of Directors does include former Clinton Chief of Staff John Podesta, and our 'leadership team' does include former Hillary Clinton chief of staff Maggie Williams and former Clinton chief of legislative affairs Pat Griffin. But that doesn't mean we're backing Hillary -- not at all.
You know what? Vote Kucinich.
Hat Tip: NYT
Mondale for President, 2008
Chris Bowers argues that the Democratic agenda today is largely the same as it was in 1984 and is winning because the message 'has simply been repackaged to better conform to the standards of contemporary mass media.' He offers this Mondale/Ferraro campaign video:
It's an interesting question. There's no doubt that the issues remain similar: Social Security, a different approach to international threats, concerns about exporting jobs, etc. Bowers asserts:
Apart from Bill [Clinton], Democrats have not really changed that much in terms of rhetoric, policy, or candidate quality over the past twenty-five years. And yet, despite this, they have moved from regularly being blown out to, in the worst-case scenario, facing very close elections. What has changed has not been the Democratic Party, but rather the country itself. With the contemporary electorate, Dukakis would have probably defeated Bush Sr., Carter would have probably defeated Reagan, and even Mondale would have probably been within single-digits of Reagan.
First, Bowers is getting a little ahead of himself. Democrats haven't won anything on this message -- at least, not yet. It wasn't the message Bill Clinton won on in 1992 (welfare reform, low taxes, economic growth, etc.), and it wasn't the message Democrats won on in 2006 (aren't you angry at George Bush?). We'll see how it flies in 2008 -- if indeed it winds up being the message that Democrats campaign on.
But how much have the messages of either party changed since 1984? Compare the Mondale commercial to this Reagan/Bush commercial from the same campaign:
The messages have changed somewhat, but not much. Reagan harps on the need to keep taxes and regulation low, speaks in favor of a strong defense, and talks about reductions in estate taxes and taxes overall. He also speaks for an 'opportunity society.'
How much has the Republican message changed? Clearly, if Reagan were speaking today, he would have to address immigration, and perhaps speak as well about social issues such as abortion and gay marriage. But -- leaving aside the boosting of his first-term record -- would anything else be different?
Bowers is very smart, but I think he's overthought this. I believe that all that he's demonstrated is that parties change slowly. Is it a surprise that the big themes of the two major parties haven't changed in 20 years? And as for his suggestion that the Democrats will win/are winning with the same message they had in 1984, that has a lot to do with the toxicity of the GOP brand at the end of the Bush administration. How long will it take the GOP to 'fix' that problem? Will it take 12 years -- like it took the Democrats to rebound after Carter? Or will it take two years -- like it took the Republicans after Clinton's 1992 win?
That's just one of many questions that the voters will answer in a year.
Go read the rest of Bowers' post -- I've abbreviated it somewhat to focus solely on what interests me. But I think that all Bowers has proved is that this message can win if you're running against a very unpopular incumbent.
Democrats Pork Up Spending Bill
The House is preparing to vote on a masssive spending bill for the Departments of Labor, HHS, and other agencies. According to CQ, Congressional Democrats assert that they've reduced pork-barrel earmark spending by 40%-50%, but have not provided a tally that supports the claim. CQ meanwhile, finds more than 2,200 earmarks in the legislation:
A Congressional Quarterly analysis of the conference report on the measure, released Monday night, counts more than 2,200 earmarks and special projects totaling more than $1 billion. That is about seven-tenths of one percent of the bill’s total discretionary spending of $150.7 billion. The bill would fund the departments of Labor, Health and Human Services and Education in fiscal 2008, plus several independent agencies, including the Social Security Administration.
The legislation was cleared for public review last night. Republican leader Boehner lists some of the projects funded in the bill:
- Hybrid loaner cars for staffers wishing to run errands or catch a movie during work hours.
- $520,000 (or $10,000 per week) in extra electricity funds to “absolve sins” by purchasing renewable, not traditional, electricity.
- The installation of a private E-85 gas station for Members on the Capitol grounds, lest Members have to drive elsewhere to full up.
- Segway personal transporters.
- $2.7 million to switch fuels for the Capitol power plant from coal to natural gas (even while 63 million American households use natural gas to heat their homes, but get nothing in the Democrats’ “energy” bill to increase supplies and lower prices).
- “Climate neutral” adhesive, sealants, paints, coating, and carpets.
Read also the Club for Growth, which points out that the Democratic leadership won't promise that there have been no new earmarks added into this bill after it passed both the House and Senate.
If this is such a good bill, why can't the American people have more than 24 hours to review it?
As long as we're on the topic of pork, check out the latest Google maps app -- on where pork goes.
Update: Check out Ed Morrissey, who has more of the wonderful ways that Democrats have come up with to spend your money.
Bloomberg for President?
Tech Republican points to a creepy, avant-garde online commercial for Mike Bloomberg's presidential campaign. Since Bloomberg has said he won't run, it appears to be a supporter trying to encourage a draft. Or, it could be a Bloomberg sock puppet.
Who knows.
Monday, November 05, 2007
Will Charlie Wilson's War Hurt Jack Murtha?
Here's the trailer for the upcoming Tom Hanks/Julia Roberts vehicle based on the book by the late George Crile. The movie is scheduled to be released on Christmas Day:
It will be interesting to see how the movie treats John Murtha (D-PA) -- particularly since the presence of Hanks and Roberts means that the movie will be seen by half of America.
According to John Fund, the book depicts a House Ethics Committee investigation closing in on Murtha, over his failure to report a bribery attempt (rather than his apparent interest in accepting the bribe).
But in 1981, the House Ethics Committee became concerned that Mr. Murtha had, at a minimum, violated House rules that required he report any attempt at bribery, which he had not. A special prosecutor, Barrett Prettyman, was appointed to oversee the committee's investigation. He soon expanded his probe beyond the six House members who were directly involved and began moving against Rep. Murtha. He was also rumored to be offering deals in exchange for testimony that would take the scandal inside the office of Speaker O'Neill.
That was the final straw from the irascible O'Neill. He determined to shut the investigation down, and the story of how he did it makes up a fascinating part of Mr. Crile's book, "Charlie Wilson's War" (Atlantic Monthly Press, 2003)...
Crile reported that in early 1981 Speaker O'Neill called Rep. Wilson into his office and told him he wanted him to join the Ethics Committee right away. The Texas congressman had been pestering him for years to get a lifetime seat on the board the Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts. "It's the best perk in town," Mr. Wilson told Crile. "It means that I get the box right next to the president's box for the ballet when I want it. I get to go to all the cast parties, meet all the movie stars, and I get an extra invitation to the White House every season."
O'Neill made it clear he would appoint Mr. Wilson to the board he coveted, but that he would have to join the Ethics Committee to take care of the Murtha matter. "It's a package deal, Chally," O'Neill is said to have told Mr. Wilson.
"The word on Charlie was that he didn't talk," ex-Rep. Tony Coelho, who became majority whip after O'Neill's retirement, told Crile. "From time to time the speaker needed to mount irregular operations, and Wilson was one of those irregulars Tip could count on." Mr. Wilson didn't need any prodding for his task: "He was a happy warrior as he raced to the rescue of his imperiled friend John Murtha," Crile wrote.
Crile reported that prior to Mr. Wilson's arrival on the Ethics Committee, it had largely given Mr. Prettyman, the special counsel, a free hand in his probe. That quickly changed: "Before Prettyman could fully deploy his investigators to move on the Murtha case, he was informed that the committee had concluded there was no justification for an investigation." The Ethics Committee chairman, Rep. Louis Stokes of Ohio, suddenly declared "This matter is closed."
The page for the movie at IMDB does not list anyone playing John Murtha. Is this indicative of the fact that Murtha's Abscam troubles are not referenced in the movie, or that they show the scandal, but attribute it to an unnamed Member of Congress? The only hint I can find -- a review at AICN based on an early screening -- shows no mention either of Murtha, or of any Congressman who sounds similar.
Who would have thought an Aaron Sorkin movie would skate past something like that?
This Is Sparta!
Edwards' Sleazy and Offensive Ad
Just disgusting:
Hat Tip: Dave Weigel, who says:
"And Elizabeth and I decided in the quiet of a hospital room." Subtle. "After 12 hours of tests and after getting very bad news." Even subtler. His wife has cancer. "We're not going to quietly go away. Instead we're going to go out there and fight for what it is we believe."
You know, Mitt Romney's wife has multiple sclerosis. Obviously that's not going to shorten her life the way Elizabeth Edwards' cancer will shorten hers. But it's the kind of thing that could stir up sympathy and handkerchief-clutching out there in Iowa and New Hampshire, and the Romneys only ever talk about it when asked. There's no TV ad pimping her illness. If Romney has no emotions, than Edwards has only the basest ones. There's not enough Lysol on the eastern seaboard to scrub his slime away.
When I think of those I love, and how their lives have been touched by illness and tragedy, I wonder how I would feel if I were a candidate for office and tried to use the pain of others to win sympathy and votes. I don't think I'd sleep well at night.
Unions Will Spend More in 08 than Ever Before
Democrats frequently complain that there is too much money in politics, and that 'special interests' in Washington have undue influence. It seems that Senators Edwards and Obama in particular, have complained that Ms. Clinton is bought and paid for.
But if big money in political campaigns is bad, Democrats should be training their fire on America's labor unions, who have promised to spend more on the 2008 election than they ever have before:
The AFL-CIO, the largest labor federation in the country, last month predicted that its 55-member unions will spend over $200 million in the 2008 campaign, a sum that includes both funds for grass-roots mobilization efforts and contributions directly to candidates through PACs, according to spokesman Steve Smith. The AFL-CIO itself has pledged a budget of $53 million for spending on mobilization for the election, up from $50 million in 2004. It is the federation’s largest election budget ever...
Electoral success doesn’t come cheap, however, and the labor movement appears set to spend more than it ever has before to boost its chosen candidates. That spending is directed to three separate outlets. Under federal election law, unions are prohibited from donating directly to candidates, but can spend unlimited funds from the union treasury to communicate with their own members. These funds are generally derived from member dues. Unions thus spend heavily to mobilize their own members to support labor-friendly candidates.
That is what the AFL-CIO has in mind when it comes to the $53 million it will be spending in 2008. According to Smith, the funds will go toward “a prolonged campaign that moves from issues education to engagement to mobilization to finally get-out-the-vote efforts in late stages of the campaign.”
With more than 10 million workers in unions affiliated with the AFL-CIO, including high concentrations in battleground states such as Michigan, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Wisconsin, effective mobilization efforts could have a pivotal effect in both the Congressional and presidential races.
Unions also can form political action committees and raise funds from their members via voluntary donations. Those PACs can then donate to candidates of their choice...
In the House races, 40 candidates have already received more than $100,000 in union contributions, the vast majority of whom are members facing challenges in what CQ has deemed “races to watch.” Members of the Democratic leadership, notably Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer also received sizable contributions.
On the Senate side, two candidates have received more than $100,000 in labor donations — Democrats Sen. Tim Johnson of South Dakota and Mark Udall , who is running for the open seat in Colorado.
Among presidential contenders, Clinton leads the way with more than $48,000 in labor PAC contributions, followed by New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, D, with $38,000. Two other Democrats who are union favorites — Edwards and Illinois Sen. Barack Obama — do not accept money from PACs.
The sum of contributions made from union PACs has grown steadily in the last ten years, despite the fact that the number of PACs themselves has declined. In the 1996 election cycle, such PACs made $57.6 million in donations to federal candidates. In 2004, that number reached $68 million. PACs affiliated with organized labor donated more than any other single industry sector in the last presidential election cycle.
John Edwards has spoken at length about the corrupting influence of money in politics, and how there are Two Americas because some can buy access and some cannot. He seems to be rather close to labor unions -- who obviously fall into that first category. Since Senators Obama and Edwards have renounced contributions from labor PACs, perhaps they'd be willing to go the whole nine yards and refuse all contributions from labor unions and leaders. Who knows -- maybe they'd start a trend.
GOP Recruits Strong Candidate in Ohio 15 (Pryce Seat)
The team at Red State links to a piece in the Columbus Dispatch. The Dispatch reports that the GOP has at last gotten the candidate it always wanted to attempt to hold the seat of retiring Representative Deborah Pryce:
Doug Preisse, chairman of the Franklin County Republican Party, said late yesterday that he is delighted Stivers has changed his mind about running in the 15th District, which includes most of Columbus, western Franklin County and all of Union and Madison counties.
"The complexion of the campaign has just changed overnight," Preisse said.
Stivers, 42, a member of the state Senate for five years, was the first potential candidate whom U.S. House Minority Leader John Boehner of West Chester called after GOP Rep. Deborah Pryce of Upper Arlington unexpectedly announced in August that she would not seek a ninth two-year term...
But Stivers offers a new challenge, because as a lieutenant colonel in the Ohio Army National Guard, he has led troops in the Iraq war. Stivers and other members of the Columbus-based 237th Personnel Services Battalion returned from a 12-month tour of duty in the Middle East and Africa in December 2005.
It looks like there will be plenty of Republican House candidates next year who are Iraq war veterans.
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.
Can a Novice Cure Cancer?
A wonderful story from the LA Times about radio engineer John Kanzius, who may have discovered a way to target and kill cancer cells with radio waves. It's too early to say, but it could turn out to be a cure for all types of cancer:
Kanzius did not have a medical background, not even a bachelor's degree, but he knew radios. He had built and fixed them since he was a child, collecting transmitters, transceivers, antennas and amplifiers, earning an amateur radio operator license. Kanzius knew how to send radio wave signals around the world. If he could transmit them into cancer cells, he wondered, could he then direct the radio waves to destroy tumors, while leaving healthy cells intact?
It seems the answer might be 'yes.' Read the whole thing.
By the way, I've written about Kanzius before.
Pelosi Promises 'Repetition of the Same' on Iraq; Quietly Prepares to Fund War
Read it at the Standard.
Update: Also read Wake Up Americans, and Sister Toldjah -- who reports on Democrats unaware that Speaker Pelosi has already sold them out:In related Nutroots news, Daily Kos diarist “Media Blades” has started his own personal campaign to stop defunding the war: by pledging to refuse to pay the portion of taxes we pay for our military.
Saturday, November 03, 2007
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.
Hillary Clinton: Wimp, Victim
Mickey Kaus has more on Senator Clinton's attempt to play the victim card:
It's never attractive for a frontrunner, male or female, to complain about "rough treatment," especially if it comes in the form of mere questioning--and Russert's illegal-license question was standard fare. Adding an implicit gender charge to the Hillary response didn't make it any better. (By attempting to get away with something--complaining--that male pols can't get away with, she arguably made it worse: a claim of special privilege.) ... In other words, Hillary's damned if she does complain. But she's not damned if she doesn't complain. Indeed, not complaining seems like an easy way to project toughness without being seen as "harsh and shrill."Barack Obama has criticized Hillary effectively on this point:
In an interview with NBC, Obama scoffed at the New York Democrat's complaint that she was being forced to "compete in the all-boys club" of presidential politics, saying he would never use his race -- Obama is black -- to shield him from political attacks.He could have been more pointed, but it's something.
Obama's comments marked the first time that the undercurrent of identity politics has become an issue of open contention between the two trailblazing candidates.
"I am assuming and I hope that Sen. Clinton wants to be treated like everybody else," Obama said on the "Today" show.
Referring to debates where he has come under attack, Obama said, "I didn't come out and say, 'Look, I'm being hit on because I look different from the rest of the folks on the stage.' "
Edwards' campaign has prepared a very effective ad:
As has the RNC:
And what is the immediate result of all this? Hillary has gained 5 points. I think that's likely to change, but we'll have to watch and see.
Friday, November 02, 2007
Kucinich Puts Pelosi on the Spot on Impeachment?
Dennis Kucinich has filed a privileged resolution to impeach the Vice President.
Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) announced today that he will be offering a privileged resolution on the House floor next week that will bring articles of impeachment against the Vice President, Richard B. Cheney.
“The momentum is building for impeachment,” Kucinich said. “Millions of citizens across the nation are demanding Congress rein in the Vice President’s abuse of power.
“Despite this groundswell of opposition to the unconstitutional conduct of office, Vice President Cheney continues to violate the U.S. Constitution by insisting the power of the executive branch is supreme...
The privileged resolution has priority status for consideration on the House floor. Once introduced, the resolution has to be brought to the floor within two legislative days, although the House could act on it immediately. Kucinich is expected to bring it to the House floor on Tuesday, November 6
Reasonable people might ask themselves 'gee, if it was this easy to force a vote on impeachment, how come it's never happened before?'
The answer is in the House rules.
This excerpt is from 'A Guide to the Rules, Precedents and Procedures of the House.' published by the House of Representatives just a few years ago. Here is what it has to say about privileged resolutions:
Questions of the privileges of the House are brought before the House in the form of a resolution. Under rule IX such a resolution is privileged when called up by any Member. However, its privilege is subject to a two-day notice requirement, which must include an announcement of the form of the resolution. Such announcement may be dispensed with by unanimous consent. The Speaker designates the time for consideration within two legislative days after the announcement, which may include immediate consideration. Under rule IX the Majority and Minority Leaders are excluded from the notice requirement. They may offer the resolution at any time, yielding only to the motion to adjourn. The form of the announcement follows:
FormMember (other than Majority or Minority Leader): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 2(a)(1) of rule IX, I rise to give notice of my intent to raise a question of the privileges of the House. The form of the resolution is as follows: [Note: The Member may read the resolution in full or may ask unanimous consent to dispense with the reading.]
Speaker: Under rule IX, a resolution offered from the floor by a Member other than the Majority Leader or the Minority Leader as a question of the privileges of the House has immediate precedence only at a time designated by the Chair within two legislative days after the resolution is properly noticed. Pending that designation, the form of the resolution noticed by the gentle____ from ______ will appear in the Record at this point. The Chair will not at this point determine whether the resolution constitutes a question of privilege. That determination will be made at the time designated for consideration of the resolution and the gentle____ will be notified.
The form of calling up the resolution follows:
FormMember: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of the privileges of the House, and offer a resolution announced on ______.
Speaker: The gentleman submits a resolution relating to the privileges of the House, which the Clerk will report.
Opponent: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order that the gentleman does not present a question of privilege.
Speaker: The gentleman presents a question of privilege, and is recognized. [Or] The Chair will entertain argument as to whether the resolution constitutes a question of privilege.
Under rule IX, a question of the privileges of the House having been raised, the Speaker initially decides whether the question presented constitutes a question of the privileges of the House, and rules as to the validity of the question raised. He makes this decision at the time the question of privilege is called up, not at the time notice is given. Appeal may be taken from the Chair's ruling, however, because the final determination as to the validity of the question rests with the House.
The question having been properly raised on the floor by a Member, the Speaker must entertain the question and rule on its admissibility. If the matter is not admissible as a question of the privileges of the House, he may refuse recognition.
The resolution must show a prima facie breach of the privileges of the House. The mere statement that the privileges of the House have been violated does not present a question of privilege.
Despite my experience in the House of Representatives, I can claim no expertise on a topic explored so rarely. However, it certainly seems that while Mr. Kucinich may assert that his impeachment resolution is privileged, the Speaker will have to determine that question -- and her ruling may be appealed to the whole of the House.
If she rules in favor, then the debate on Kucinich's impeachment resolution begins. If she rules against and is sustained, then it's over before it begins.
So assuming Kucinich carries through on this -- which seems inevitable -- Speaker Pelosi will likely have to decide whether to deny the Netroots their fondest desire, or whether to allow an impeachment debate. If she rules against him, Mr. Kucinich could appeal her ruling, and potentially all Members of the House to go on record in favor of, or in opposition to, beginning the debate over impeachment. This is exactly the debate and vote that the GOP would force the Democrats to undertake, if they could.
It ought to really help the Congressional approval rating.
Read also: Michelle Malkin, Jules Crittenden, and Blue Crab Boulevard, and at Memeorandum.
House 08: GOP Has Well-Funded Challengers
CQ Politics reports that the five challengers in 2008 who have raised the most money for their races are all Republican. They hold six of the top ten spots:
Jim Ryun, R, Kansas’ 2nd, $880,000 ( Nancy Boyda , D)
Sandy Treadwell, R, New York’s 20th, $822,000 ( Kirsten Gillibrand , D)
Francisco “Quico” Canseco, R, Texas’ 23rd, $819,000 ( Ciro D. Rodriguez , D)
Andrew Saul, R, New York’s 19th, $782,000 ( John Hall , D)
Deborah Honeycutt, R, Georgia’s 13th, $708,000 ( David Scott , D)
Friday Awesome
Sodium explodes when it comes in contact with water. So how do you dispose of it? Ideally, just like this:
Krauthammer Gets it Right
Charles Krauthammer writes on the danger of Bill to Hillary's candidacy:
Any ex-president is a presence in his own right. His stature, unlike, say, Hillary's during Bill's presidency, is independent of his spouse. From day one of Hillary's inauguration, Bill will have had more experience than her at everything she touches. His influence on her presidency would necessarily be immeasurably greater than that of any father on any son.As Hillary's candidacy unfolds, her rivals are certain to turn to this question. How would a Hillary presidency differ from that of Bill on policy? How much influence will he have? We've already seen a return of many of the same advisers who shaped the first Clinton presidency. Is Hillary going to get the band back together? If so, it will allow Republicans to delve into all the failings of Bill's presidency -- most notably on the war on terror. Hillary is not well-served by a close examination of how Bill failed to recognize the threat posed by Al Qaeda, and to take action against Osama bin Laden.
Americans did not like the idea of a co-presidency when, at the 1980 Republican convention, Ronald Reagan briefly considered sharing the office with former President Gerald Ford. (Ford would have been vice president with independent powers.) And they won't like this co-presidency, particularly because the Clinton partnership involves two characters caught in the dynamic of a strained, strange marriage.
The cloud hovering over a Hillary presidency is not Bill padding around the White House in robe and slippers flipping thongs. It's President Clinton, in suit and tie, simply present in the White House when any decision is made. The degree of his involvement in that decision will inevitably become an issue. Do Americans really want a historically unique two-headed presidency constantly buffeted by the dynamics of a highly dysfunctional marriage?
The media are also likely to examine the personal relationship and the personal behavior of Bill again. But Hillary will have to revisit some issues as well -- the health care task force, the firing of the White House travel office staff. And then there's fundraising -- which is a whole different topic.
I have a hard time imagining that Hillary's candidacy can survive if it is a referendum on a third Bill Clinton term. That's why Democrats will try to frame the election as a choice between a third Clinton term or a third Bush term. That's a choice Republicans seem likely to lose. But given their druthers, the American people would prefer a break from both former presidents. The challenge for the Republican candidate will be to present an attractive alternative.
By the way, it's a big problem for the Democrats that their candidates are apparently forbidden from airing this criticism during the primaries. Seeing how the American people respond to such attacks is clearly in the party's interest.
Also writing on this topic: Bits Blog, Dr. Sanity, Ann Althouse.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
