NYT: Lieberman Not Bipartisan

The New York Times chronicles the difficult re-election campaign of Senator Joe Lieberman, and discusses how he was slow to realize the trouble his campaign was in. They note that some worry it may be too late to organize 'a strong turnout operation.'

That seems a well-founded worry, if Kevin Rennie was correct when he wrote a little while ago that Lieberman was unable even to accurately identify his supporters.

Oddly, Republicans have developed a real interest in this race. If Lieberman wins the primary, this contest will go to the back burner and Lieberman will be re-elected in a walk. If Lamont wins however, several scenarios develop in which Republicans gain: either Alan Schlesinger or a replacement Republican candidate wins a 3-way race, Lieberman accepts the Republican nomination and wins, or Lieberman wins as an Independent, but elects not to caucus with Democrats.

Apart from these observations, this piece gives us a reason to read the Times tomorrow. It notes:

[The editorial page of The New York Times on Sunday endorsed Mr. Lamont over Mr. Lieberman, arguing that the senator had offered the nation a “warped version of bipartisanship” in his dealings with Mr. Bush on national security.]

Can you not wait to read how the New York Times will explain to Joe Lieberman how bipartisanship works? Perhaps Paris Hilton may write a piece about avoiding the limelight, and Donald Trump will offer something on humility.

A piece as funny as this is likely to be gives you reason to get up early on a Sunday morning.

Back to the top.

The USS Indianapolis

On this day in 1945, a Japanese sub sank the USS Indianapolis, which had just delivered the Hiroshima bomb to the Island of Tinian:

1945 Japanese sink the USS Indianapolis

On this day in 1945, Japanese warships sink the American cruiser Indianapolis, killing 883 seamen in the worst loss in the history of the U.S. navy.

As a prelude to a proposed invasion of the Japanese mainland, scheduled for November 1, U.S. forces bombed the Japanese home islands from sea and air, as well as blowing Japanese warships out of the water. The end was near for Imperial Japan, but it was determined to go down fighting. Just before midnight of the 29th, the Indianapolis, an American cruiser that was the flagship of the Fifth Fleet, was on its way, unescorted, to Guam, then Okinawa. It never made it. It was torpedoed by a Japanese submarine. Interestingly, the sub was commanded by a lieutenant who had also participated in the Pearl Harbor invasion.

There were 1,196 crewmen onboard the Indianapolis; over 350 died upon impact of the torpedo or went down with the ship. More than 800 fell into the Pacific. Of those, approximately 50 died that first night in the water from injuries suffered in the torpedo explosion; the remaining seamen were left to flounder in the Pacific, fend off sharks, drink sea water (which drove some insane), and wait to be rescued. Because there was no time for a distress signal before the Indianapolis went down, it was 84 hours before help arrived. This was despite the fact that American naval headquarters had intercepted a message on July 30 from the Japanese sub commander responsible for sinking the Indianapolis, describing the type of ship sunk and its location. (The Americans assumed it was an exaggerated boast and didn't bother to follow up.) Only 318 survived; the rest were eaten by sharks or drowned. The Indianapolis's commander, Captain Charles McVay, was the only officer ever to be court-martialed for the loss of a ship during wartime in the history of the U.S. Navy.

Had the attack happened only three days earlier, the Indianapolis would have been sunk carrying special cargo-the atom bomb, which it delivered to Tinian Island, northeast of Guam, for scientists to assemble.

Ths incident was memorably described in Jaws, although Robert Shaw got the date wrong (July 29, not June 29):



You can read more about the Indianapolis here. Be sure to check out the section dealing with the Congressional resolution in 2000, which expressed support for exonerating McVay for the loss of the ship. In 2001, Navy Secretary Gordon R. England ordered McVay's record amended to exonerate him.

Back to the top.

House Vote on Minimum Wage

It looks like the House may pass an increase in the minimum wage. As I have noted before, this is an extraordinary example of one-sided reporting of an issue. The only reason that there has been no increase in the minimum wage for some years is that Democrats have insisted on a 'stand-alone' increase, and have refused to support an increase tied to any business tax incentives. This may prevent a minimum wage increase this year as well.

Passing an increase will enhance the prospects for enacting an immigration bill, if only because few Republicans will want to hit the campaign trail with an increase in the minimum wage as the most noteworthy achievement of this Congressional term.

Update: The House passed the minimum wage increase by a vote of 230-180, at about 1:30 this morning. The measure was married to a cut in the death tax, and Democrats were incensed that they were forced to vote against a minimum wage increase because it was married to something they oppose so stridently. Of course, they've had the chance to 'pick their poison' because they've opposed it before when Republicans have married it to other items.

In the end, only 34 Democrats voted in favor of the measure, and most are either in Red states or otherwise face tough races this year. Here's the list of Democratic yes votes: Neil Abercrombie, John Barrow, Melissa Bean, Shelley Berkley, Marion Berry, Dan Boren, Leonard Boswell, Rick Boucher, Allen Boyd, Sherrod Brown, Ed Case, Ben Chandler, Bud Cramer, Henry Cuellar, Lincoln Davis, Chet Edwards, Harold Ford, Bart Gordon, Stephanie Herseth, William Jefferson, Jim Marshall, Jim Matheson, Mike McIntyre, Charles Melancon, Alan Mollohan, Dennis Moore, Collin Peterson, Nick Rahall, Mike Ross, Bobby Rush, Ted Strickland, John Tanner, Edolphus Towns and David Wu.

Now on the merits, one can make the case for a stand-alone increase in the minimum wage, but Democrats certainly can't be surprised that a Republican majority does not give them exactly the legislation they want. And considering that they've refused to compromise at all on a minimum wage increase, they can't complain that the majority makes the vote painful for them.

As I say, they picked their poison.

Back to the top.

Shootings at Jewish Federation of Seattle

Follow the news with the Blue Crab.

Back to the top.

Close House Race in Georgia

Right now, Tom Reynolds and his team at the NRCC are hoping that every race counts in the battle for control of the House next year. That's because most agree that the likeliest outcomes are that Republicans lose control by a significant margin, or that the outcome is very close. Given this choice, Reynolds will take 'close' every time.

That's why news like this is heartening. The latest poll in Georgia's 12th Congressional district shows a dead heat between incumbent Democrat John Barrow and former Representative Max Burns. A GOP win here will help compensate for likely losses elsewhere.

Back to the top.

McCain vs. Giuliani (& Others)

I'm linking to the poll currently posted at Expose the Left, a great blog that you should check out on a daily basis.

In doing so, I'm particularly interested in the views of conservatives on Giuliani vs. McCain. Obviously, we conservatives don't completely embrace either. And it is commonly and widely assumed that because McCain is closer to the conservative position on gay rights and abortion that conservatives, when forced to choose between the two, will back McCain.

I can see that point. The recent National Review cover featuring Giuliani may cost a lot of votes all by itself.

That said, I have expressed the view that conservatives are more likely to regard Giuliani as a straight talker than McCain. John McCain often presents himself as 'one of us' - on spending, abortion, defense, and many other issues. However, he then happily turns against us on issues like the Federal Marriage Amendment, campaign finance reform, immigration, and the '11th commandment,' (where no one seems happier to highlight his disagreement with other Republicans than McCain).

Giuliani on the other hand, has no real track record with conservatives. So we don't have a grudge against him. Sure we disagree with him, but we regard him as a straight shooter. So if he tells primary voters 'as the Republican nominee for President, and hopefully as President, I'll support the majority of Republicans who oppose abortion, oppose new rights for gays, and oppose rewarding those who break US law,' would you be inclined to believe him and support him?

I would, and most conservatives I know would. If we represent the majority, then Giuliani will have a clear advantage over McCain among conservatives in the primary. Feel free to append your comments, and I'll summarize the results in a later post.

And now, the Expose the Left poll.

Back to the top.

Democrats' Empty Promises to Israel

Many bloggers are commenting today on this piece by Peter Beinart in the Washington Post, regarding the Democrats' pandering to Jewish voters. Read Captain's Quarters or PowerLine for their usual incisive commentary.

Rather than try to improve upon their comments, I'll simply offer my typical pointless political commentary. Specifically, this raises the stakes in Joe Lieberman's race. One of the few trusted defenders of Israel in the Democratic party appears that he's about to be kicked out. There are rumors that Republicans are trying to find a way to offer him their Senate nomination. Even if this doesn't happen, he becomes a powerful symbol of the Democratic opposition to a muscular foreign policy. And should Lieberman become a Republican, or caucus with Republicans in the Senate, they'll make every effort to use him to enhance their appeal among Jewish voters both this year, and in the 2008 Presidential election.

Back to the top.

DePaul Professor Fired for Defending Israel's Right to Exist

ALa has the story here.

Back to the top.

The Palm Leaf of Axanar to Both of You...

For your heroic trivia erudition.

Pakistan Seeks Madrasa Reform

This is not something I know a lot about, but it is interesting - both because it involves Indian-Pakistani cooperation, and because it involves madrasa reform. I'll look around a few other blogs and post more if I come up with anything interesting.

Back to the top.

Pelosi's New Ideas & Nuanced Approach

The oft-quoted definition of insanity is to continue to do the same things and expect different results. By that definition, Nancy Pelosi is insane.

In a Boston Globe piece too rich to be missed, she says that Democrats this year will not repeat the mistakes they made in past campaigns - when they failed to 'stand up to' the President, and did not reach people whose 'personal interests are served by voting Democratic.'

This piece is so full of mistakes it's hard to detail them.

Pelosi complains that Democrats do not have an 'alliterative slogan' like 'God, gays and guns.' Yet 'God, gays and guns' IS the Democratic slogan! Does she think Republican candidates run commercials where they say 'God, gays and guns - vote for me?'

She says that voters are voting against their 'personal interest.' Perhaps she means 'economic interest,' since personal interest also involves cultural, religious, and other questions - a fact which Republicans at least, realize. Regardless, can she not acknowledge that some voters might judge their personal financial economic interest be with low taxes and free markets? Or is your message 'you're too stupid to look out for yourself.' That will go over well, even if it's not alliterative.

In Pelosi's defense, she seems to stumble upon something when she says 'they've not heard a Democratic economic message that addresses their needs.' This is likely to continue, because the only economic point she mentions is a need to help Americans get jobs. With a national unemployment rate under 5%, that is not going to appeal to too many people.

And her overall message? The columnist describes it 'a still-muddy, six-point theme,' dealing with healthcare, gasoline prices, college costs, the minimum wage, Social Security, and the deficit. Well! I'm convinced! Oh, don't get it yet? Let me present the Democratic message for you:

1) The Problem: healthcare, gas, college, wages, Social Security, the deficit;
2) The Democratic response: FIX IT
3) So Vote Democratic!

Who knew it was so easy!

She also says that Democrats need to address Iraq. The author notes the challenge, since polls show that a greater percentage of Americans disapprove of Democratic handling of Iraq than do that of the President.

How does Pelosi prospose to convince people that Democrats will do better than the President? What new idea has she come up with? Shes says that on Iraq, the Bush administration was ``wrong on the premise going in, wrong on the reception we would receive, wrong on the reconstruction and how soon Iraq could pay for it, and wrong on an exit strategy of mission accomplished. Wrong, wrong, wrong, and wrong, and they say `stay the course.' "

How much has Pelosi learned from the mistakes of the last Democratic campaign on Iraq? Is her message much different from Kerry's? He called Iraq "the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time," and said "I would not have done just one thing differently than the president on Iraq, I would have done everything differently than the president on Iraq."

Perhaps I'm missing some subtle nuance, but it looks to me like Pelosi just added some more 'wrongs.' Kerry will be kicking himself when he learns this was the key. "If only I had said that President was wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong-de-dong-flippin-dong, I'd be President today!'

As I often say, the best friend that Republican candidates have is the Democratic leadership. Pelosi has not found a single new thing to say from what Democrats have said before. If Democrats win the majority this year with thes message, it will not be through any effort of their own, but pure luck.

Back to the top.

The Good Side of Communism and Terrorism

According to Galley Slaves and Aintitcool, there's another movie to avoid this summer: the Ant Bully.

Looking for an antidote? Add this to the queue. Guaranteed great entertainment and message for kids.

Back to the top.

House to Vote on Minimum Wage - Tomorrow?

National Journal's Congress Daily (subscription required) reports that the House is likely to vote tomorrow on a mimimum wage increase:

House Leaders Could Bring Up Min. Wage Package Friday

Bowing to pressure from GOP moderates and the political realities of an election year, House Republican leaders are now moving toward bringing a minimum wage increase to the floor Friday, two senior Republican members said today. If a Friday vote is unrealistic, House leaders will commit the House to a floor vote shortly after Congress returns in September. "We've got a package that we've put together, it's not exhaustive but it's significant," according to one senior member. The cornerstone of the package would be to attach a minimum wage increase to legislation on association health plans. AHPs are favored by business groups and have passed the House several times. The package also is expected to include a handful of carve-outs for specific industries and potentially other add-ons that seek to lower small business healthcare costs. House Speaker Hastert told reporters Wednesday that a vote was not likely before the break, but an hourlong House Republican Conference meeting earlier today -- where about 30 members spoke -- appears to have prompted leaders to change course. "It's under consideration," was Majority Leader Boehner's only comment. Hastert and Boehner oppose a wage hike, but a significant portion of the Conference has been pressuring leaders to allow a vote.

One GOP source said the legislation is expected to boost the minimum wage to $7.25 over a three-year period, but that figure has not been finalized. Rep. John Sweeney, R-N.Y., said discussions were continuing on the details, but one option was to index the minimum wage rate to inflation, which could lower the proposed $7.25 target. Negotiators also were weighing carve-outs for small businesses, particularly farms and restaurants, to make the wage rate less onerous. The National Restaurant Association has been particularly vocal in its opposition to a wage hike, and to make it more palatable, Republicans were seeking to include a provision extending a "tip credit" to employers in states where it is not allowed. In states that allow the credit, employers -- largely restaurants -- are required to pay tipped employees $2.13 an hour and apply their tipped earnings to make up the balance of the $5.15 an hour minimum wage. Employers can apply the tip credit only to the extent it covers the entire $3.02 gap between wages and tips.

Rep. Rob Simmons, R-Conn., who is a top Democratic target this cycle, supports the wage hike and is advocating the carve-outs. "I've got a lot of restaurants in my district, so I need a carve-out for tips. I've got a lot of farmers in my district so summer-hire carve-outs are important to consider," he said. Rep. James Walsh, R-N.Y., said that coupling the wage hike with legislation to make it easier for small businesses to provide health insurance was the right approach and would help his constituents who do not have coverage. Not all minimum wage advocates believe a July vote is politically necessary. "My own personal view is that the only people paying attention to campaigns right now are candidates and consultants; most people are not focusing on it," said retiring Rep. Sherwood Boehlert, R-N.Y. "My view is that we should put together a good package and do it in the first part of September."
-- by Susan Davis and Peter Cohn

This package will have a tough time passing. Many Republicans oppose a minimum wage increase, so Democratic votes will be needed to pass the measure. Most Democrats will oppose the bill, holding out for a 'stand-alone' minimum wage increase, and seeing a chance to deal Republicans a defeat. The House leadership will press moderate members to support the bill, to help neutralize this as a political issue.

Still, given the challenging prospects in the House and Democratic grandstanding in the Senate, a minimum wage increase is far from certain.

Back to the top.

Say It Ain't So, Shoeless Floyd!

A little too much vroom in the Tour winner's sample, it would seem. Floyd's gone to ground.

Turkey Won't Invade Iraq

At least, it appears that the Turkish government is satisfied that with US help and support, Kurdish separatists in Iraq and Turkey will remain under control.

Back to the top.

Doha Failure Leads to Push for Farm Subsidies

I talked about how the apparent death of the Doha Round will lead to new pressure for protectionism. How nice of the farm community to provide a quick and ready example.

While farmers' groups previously supported the temporary extension of existing programs until a Doha Round was concluded, they will now push for full reauthorizations of federal farm programs, since ' the farm economy is in a shaky financial situation' due to high energy prices.

No word yet on whether transportation, health care, entertainment, news-gathering, animal welfare, machine tools, mining, home improvement, or other sectors are also impacted by high energy prices. If it turns out that they are, I would imagine they are deserving of federal support as well.

Update: Michael Barone comments on this as well, and notes (as I should have) that farm-state legislators had feared that a Doha agreement would commit the US to dramatically-reduced farm subsidies. 'Fortunately' it seems that there's no longer any such concern.

Back to the top.

House Leaders 'Get It' (Sometimes)

The House Republican leadership is announcing that if a lobbying reform bill is not agreed to and enacted into law (as will probably be the case), then they will reform earmarking independently, through House rules.

This is both good and bad. On the one hand, it makes it tougher to enact meaningful reform in the Senate, and puts more pressure on Tom Coburn, John McCain, and Bill Frist (according to the article) to force action on Senate rules. On the other, it allows the House to avoid any 'least common denominator' approach that the Senate might have pushed on them.

It's likely that the approach adopted in House rules will be the same one included for the House in the ethics and lobbying reform bill. That is, forced disclosure of earmarks, with some hurdles set to the introduction of earmarks at the last minute.

Along with the enhanced rescission bill that the Senate may consider in September, Congressional leadership clearly wants to leave fiscal conservatives with a pleasant taste in their mouths before the election. And in a major victory, there is apparently agreement that any rule change will apply to the transportation committee, limiting the enormous abuse of earmarking that has become standard in transportation authorization legislation.

Don't fool yourself that this will make a big difference in overall spending levels. Any such effect will be negligible, since overall decisions on spending levels are made separate of any considerations of earmarks. Nevertheless, anything that limits the earmarking of federal dollars is probably a good thing.

Back to the top.

AMLO is Losing It

Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador is clearly losing the public opinion battle, in his effort to convince Mexico that he won the Presidential election. Thus, he turns to desparate measures. Mexico City's Reforma reports: "I am the President of Mexico - AMLO," and "AMLO Compares Calderon to Salinas," a reference to the reviled, criminal former President of Mexico.

Associated Press carries the first of those two stories here.

Meanwhile, the legal process continues to churn slowly toward the naming of Calderon as the new President by September 6.

Back to the top.

Scrappleface Nails Kerry

Scott Ott figures out Bush's next move in the Middle East - send Kerry:

Bush Sends Kerry to Solve Israel-Hezbollah War

By Scott Ott, Editor-in-Chief, ScrappleFace.com
News Fairly Unbalanced. We Report. You Decipher.

(2006-07-24) — After learning that the battle between Israel and Hezbollah could have been prevented if Sen. John Kerry, D-MA, had been the U.S. Commander in Chief, President George Bush today dispatched Sen. Kerry to the war-torn region to “get this thing solved.”

Sen. Kerry, a career Vietnam veteran, who told a political gathering in Detroit yesterday that “we must destroy Hezbollah” and that the president “has been absent on diplomacy“, said he would bring his own brand of “diplomatic destruction” to the terrorist group.

“Senator Kerry’s presence and intellect alone should bring a swift end to hostilities,” said Mr. Bush, who admitted that he, and the State Department, had “kind of put the Middle East thing on the back burner” while following televised coverage of the Tour de France bicycle race.

In related news, as hostilities along the Lebanon border approached the two-week mark, the crisis was officially added to the list of “bad things that would not have happened during a John Kerry presidency.”

Back to the top.

Harris in More Trouble in Florida

How can I keep writing headlines about the problems in the Harris campaign? I'm running out of... what's the opposite of 'superlatives?'

Anyway, her poll numbers continue to drop. (Hat tip: Political Wire).

So will Republicans seek to replace her as a candidate, if she manages to win the primary?

Update: By the way, if this rumor advances further, expect a reprise of the hypocritical Democratic attack that once a primary has taken place, Republicans should not change the nominee. While some (even me) might agree with that charge, it's not one that Democrats cared about when they had to replace Bob Torricelli on the ballot. The sole reason they had to replace him was that he was a sure loser - which would represent a perfect parallel to the Harris circumstance.

Remember too, that Republicans are trying to replace Tom DeLay on the ballot, and may try to replace Bob Ney as well. It could wind up being both messy and embarrassing to replace several candidates after the primaries have taken place.

Back to the top.