Everything Old is New Again

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

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

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

Why is vinyl so popular? The superior sound quality:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Argument Huckabee Hasn't Made Yet

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It Was Only a Matter of Time

There are green weddings, why not green funerals?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It does make scenes like this one easier to imagine:

Internet Can't Keep Up with Demand for Bandwidth

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

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

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

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

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

Cool Site of the Day

Sky-Map.Org

It's like Google Maps for the sky.

Building a Better Peanut

Good news on a way to get healthier peanuts:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Good stuff...

Iraqi Army Donates for San Diego Fire Victims

Via Wizbang:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

RELEASE No. 20071026-01
October 26, 2007

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

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

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

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

How much things have changed.

Reich's Hypocritical Argument on Inequality

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reich in his piece asserts:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Photo IDs for Cattle

You have to read it to believe it.

Ethanol vs. Joe Sixpack

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



Make mine an IPA, thanks.

US-Turkey Relationship Back on Even Keel

Read it at the Standard.

Dino Rossi Sets up Rematch with Gregoire

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kucinich to Force Pelosi's Hand on Impeachment Debate

Read it at the Standard.

McNulty (D-NY) Announces Retirement

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read it at the Standard.

Huckabee's Fundraising On the Rise

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

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

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

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

Can anyone say 'virtuous cycle?'

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

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

The Hill has the story:

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

We Happy Few, We Band of Brothers...

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

Rangel Proposes Largest Tax Increase in American History

Read it at the Standard.

Democrats Better Gain Seats in 2008

Read it at the Standard.

MoveOn Hopes Iran Can be Trusted With Nukes

Read it at the Standard.

Code Pink Threatens Rice, Promises to Escalate Protests

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mike Huckabee: The Real Threat to the Republican Coalition

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hat Tip: Soren

Giuliani's Shrewd Campaign to Mollify Social Conservatives

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

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

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

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

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

Read it at the Standard.

Blue Dog Democrats Withhold Support from Liberal Colleagues

Read it at the Standard.

Charlie Cook: Foreign Policy Errors May Cost Democrats White House

Read it at the Standard.

Democrats Searching for Direction on FISA

Read it at the Standard.

GOP Victorious on the Bayou

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

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

Barone: It's Not 2006 Anymore

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

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

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

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

I Got the Sopranos Story Wrong -- Tony Died

OK, so earlier today I excerpted a NY Post article that says the following:

AFTER ONION RINGS
TONY LIVES: CHASE

..For months, Chase has said he had nothing in mind - and certainly not Tony's death, as many fans speculated - when he decided to fade the series to black without resolution after eight years and 84 episodes.

In the book, he lets on that he has indeed thought deeply about how his famous characters ended up, after all.

Chase says he wasn't surprised by the angry reaction of "Sopranos" fans who complained the show's finale didn't give them "closure."

"There was so much more to say than could have been conveyed by an image of Tony facedown in a bowl of onion rings with a bullet in his head. Or, on the other side, taking over the New York Mob," he says.

"The way I see it is that Tony Soprano had been people's alter ego. They had gleefully watched him rob, kill, pillage, lie and cheat. They had cheered him on.

"And then, all of a sudden, they want to see him punished for all that.

"They wanted to see his brains splattered on the wall. I thought that was disgusting, frankly.

Can you see why I inferred that Chase was saying that Tony lived?

A commenter in the earlier post pointed me directly to the Entertainment Weekly interview in question:

You know there were many people who thought the end was brilliant.
Sure. But I must say that even people who liked it misinterpreted it, to a certain extent. This wasn't really about ''leaving the door open.'' There was nothing definite about what happened, but there was a clean trend on view — a definite sense of what Tony and Carmela's future looks like. Whether it happened that night or some other night doesn't really matter...

Are they wasting their time? Is there a puzzle to be solved?
There are no esoteric clues in there. No Da Vinci Code. Everything that pertains to that episode was in that episode. And it was in the episode before that and the one before that and seasons before this one and so on. There had been indications of what the end is like. Remember when Jerry Toricano was killed? Silvio was not aware that the gun had been fired until after Jerry was on his way down to the floor. That's the way things happen: It's already going on by the time you even notice it.

Are you saying...?
I'm not saying anything. And I'm not trying to be coy. It's just that I think that to explain it would diminish it.

So there you have it. David Chase still wanted us to use our imagination, but at least he validates what most imagined: Tony Soprano died.

Can Chris Dodd Block a FISA Extension?

Read it at the Standard.

Senate Democrats Block Vote on Permanent Internet Tax Ban

Read it at the Standard.

Pete Stark Stands by His Vitriol

Read it at the Standard.

Larry Craig's Latest Music Video

Is this old? It's the first time I've seen it. Mild content warning (surprise):



Do I need a news angle to justify posting this? Ok -- Charlie Cook has moved Craig's Senate seat from 'likely Republican' to 'solid Republican.'

Ben Stein Has Some Explaining to Do

I have tremendous respect for Ben Stein -- the conservative actor/economist son of Herb Stein, and former columnist for the American Spectator. But whatever Norm Coleman may say, this is inexcusable:

Liberal Al Franken is good enough and smart enough to win some of conservative Ben Stein's money -- and doggone it, Stein likes him.

Stein, an actor, writer, economist and former Nixon speechwriter, has contributed $2,000 to Franken's U.S. Senate campaign. The two men have known each other for about 30 years...

"Friendship trumps ideology, by the way, as it should," said U.S. Sen Norm Coleman, whom Franken hopes to unseat in 2008. "Was he in 'Ferris Bueller'? I think it was a good movie. I don't get a lot of Ben Stein."

Then again, maybe Stein is playing the game a step ahead of everyone else:

Republican Senator Norm Coleman sports 45% job approval rating. He also has a +17 net favorable/unfavorable rating (52/35), while his possible opponent, comedian Al Franken, has a -7 net fav/unfav rating (27/34). Attorney Mike Ciresi, Franken's challenger in the DFL primary, scored a +5 net fav/unfav rating (20/15) with a majority (51%) saying they did not know enough about him to have an opinion.

There certainly is a strong body of opinion that Ciresi would be a superior candidate to Franken. Perhaps Stein is trying to set Coleman up with an easy opponent.

Yeah... that's the ticket.

Anti-War Veteran Quits Anti-War Organization

Read it at the Standard.

The Fruits of Protectionism

As a pro-free-trade Republican, I will frequently disagree with 'fair traders' -- both Republican and Democrat. Therefore it's no surprise that I disagree with representatives English (R-PA), Altmire (D-PA), Visclosky (D-IN), and Hayes (R-NC) on the use of Chinese steel in the border fence:

House members allied with the domestic steel industry blasted the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) on Thursday for building a fence on the Mexican border with steel products from China.

“By allowing the use of Chinese pipe, DHS is allowing the U.S. taxpayer to subsidize Chinese production at the expense of the American workers,” Rep. Phil English (R-Pa.) said at a press conference. “This is completely unacceptable.”

“This is outrageous, it’s offensive and it’s unacceptable,” charged Rep. Jason Altmire (D-Pa.).

“It is beyond outrageous that we’re using Chinese steel to build a border fence to protect us against illegal immigration,” said Rep. Robin Hayes (R-N.C.), who also joined the press conference...

DHS’s Office of Congressional Affairs indicated to English’s office that it had waived so-called Buy American rules, which normally require the use of U.S. steel in such projects, in order to use the Chinese pipe and tube, English said.

This is the funniest part of the piece:

Rep. Pete Visclosky (D-Ind.) said he was concerned about the safety of Chinese steel. However, when pressed, he and other lawmakers could not cite any specific safety problems that might result from the use of foreign pipe in a fence. Visclosky did note other safety issues that have recently come up with toys from China, while English said the use of Chinese inputs in U.S. infrastructure prompts broader concerns.

The safety of the steel? Can someone describe the potential safety concerns with a steel fencepost? Are they afraid it might explode? Or is the concern that it will collapse without warning -- potentially... bruising the head of the illegal immigrant attempting to bring down that section of fence?

Does the American steel industry need the help? It's enjoyed an unprecedented run of success since 2004 -- partly because the federal government helped bail the industry out of its overly generous pensions. US steel companies enjoyed record revenues and profits in 2006. Why aren't we treating steel like oil -- and imposing windfall profit taxes on the industry, to punish it for taking advantage of a highly-regulated market to gouge domestic consumers? After all, high steel prices damage the competitiveness of American industries that depend on steel -- such as autos. Aren't we trying to help the American auto industry?

More importantly, isn't there a strong public interest in ensuring that American taxpayers get the most 'bang for the buck' when it comes to spending their hard-earned tax dollars? Don't we want to buy the most border fence we can with limited revenues? Democrats are livid about deficit spending to fund the war in Iraq; why do they want us to add to the federal deficit to purchase more expensive steel from producers enjoying record profits?

I better not see any of these Members of Congress issuing press releases complaining that federal agencies are wasting taxpayer dollars, given that they favor wasting it here.

Chase Ruins the Ending of the Sopranos

David Chase is writing a book about the Sopranos, and like any good huckster he's got a hook to make you plunk down your money. He tells you how the series ended.

I include myself among the many who were frustrated with the last episode. As all America is aware, the episode did not so much conclude as it simply stopped.



Rather than wrap everything up, Chase left viewers with an ambiguous coda, filled with hints that something terrible had happened to Tony -- and perhaps to his family. Was Tony killed by the brother of a rival? Did his family die with him?

Left to read the clues, many saw a strong suggestion that the mob life had finally come back to haunt him. Like so many others, he died a violent death.

I was frustrated with the ending for many reasons. Chase apparently wanted viewers to use their imaginations. But even with a conventional ending, we still would. Further, we watched because we liked Chase's vision of the characters. As their creator, he knew them better -- and we wanted him -- as the storyteller -- to let us know how everything ended. Lastlyr, there's the lure of movies -- which might lead Chase later to get specific about what happened. If Chase returned to the world of the Sopranos, he would reveal it anyway. Little did we expect it would come just a few months later, in a book:

'SOPRANOS" creator David Chase has a pretty good idea what happens to Tony and family after the famous black-out finale.

"People have said that the Soprano family's whole life goes in the toilet in the last episode. That the parents' whole twisted lifestyle is visited on the children," Chase says in a new, defintive book about the mob opera.

"And that's true - to a certain extent," he says in The Sopranos: The Complete Book," which is excerpted in the upcoming edition of Entertainment Weekly magazine...

For months, Chase has said he had nothing in mind - and certainly not Tony's death, as many fans speculated - when he decided to fade the series to black without resolution after eight years and 84 episodes.

In the book, he lets on that he has indeed thought deeply about how his famous characters ended up, after all.

Chase says he wasn't surprised by the angry reaction of "Sopranos" fans who complained the show's finale didn't give them "closure."

"There was so much more to say than could have been conveyed by an image of Tony facedown in a bowl of onion rings with a bullet in his head. Or, on the other side, taking over the New York Mob," he says.

"The way I see it is that Tony Soprano had been people's alter ego. They had gleefully watched him rob, kill, pillage, lie and cheat. They had cheered him on.

"And then, all of a sudden, they want to see him punished for all that.

"They wanted to see his brains splattered on the wall. I thought that was disgusting, frankly.

"The pathetic thing - to me - was how much they wanted his blood, after cheering him on for eight years."

Chase 'certainly' didn't have in mind Tony's death? He scripted an ending which made that a reasonable -- even likely -- outcome. He must have realized many would envision it. If it was important to him -- important enough to throw cold water on it later -- why did he leave it hanging that way? If he didn't want us to ruminate on Tony's demise, why didn't Chase write an ending?

Hasn't Chase now given us the worst of all possible worlds? He invited us to craft our own endings, then told millions that their conclusion is wrong. What's the point in that? This is especially true since he seems to want to use the 'his' ending to sell a book. That's shameless.

After inviting us to imagine the conclusion -- and implicitly telling us that our imagination was as valid as his -- I've got bad news for Chase. His ending is wrong. Tony got killed.

How Can Obama Take Down Hillary

Jim Geraghty and Quin Hillyer debate what Obama can do to cut into Hillary's poll lead. This is my proposal:

I've thought for a while that Hillary is VERY vulnerable in a general election. The mood is for change and she's been in DC for 35 years (her claim). Plus, I would hammer the 28 years of Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton in the White House. Add to that her failure to excite the base, her tone-deafness on health care reform, fundraising scandals, and other issues. Then toss in the attacks that Republicans will bring on (Bill) Clinton's inattention to AQ, and the personal peccadilloes -- including Hillary's involvement in Whitewater, the White House travel office, all of that. I think she can be beaten badly.

Of course, Obama can't run that campaign. No Democrat could run it in the primary and win. But I think Edwards could say that while he knows there's nothing to this, the party faithful need to think about how she will get opened up like a soft-shelled peanut (Kerrey), by the GOP attack machine. If I were Obama, I would make a deal with Edwards that would turn him into an attack dog on electability. Obama would be the above-the-fray, electable alternative.

I don't know if it would work, but I think it's the only shot they have at taking Hillary down.

Thoughts?

Polling Shows Increased Support for Surge

Read it at the Standard.

Tax Fix Tests Democratic Campaign Promises

Read it at the Standard.

Democrats Quietly Looking for Support for War Tax

Just proof that as far as House Democrats go, a good idea never goes away:

Rep. John Murtha (Pa.) opposed House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) on two major issues this week, repeating a pattern of alternating agreement and disagreement between the two influential Democrats.

Murtha renewed his call for a surtax to fund the Iraq war, an idea Pelosi has shot down, and he cautioned against bringing up legislation to condemn the Armenian genocide, a measure Pelosi supports...

Despite being rebuffed by Pelosi on the war surtax earlier, Murtha and Reps. Dave Obey (Wis.) and Jim McGovern (Mass.) wrote their colleagues Tuesday to gather support for the idea.

Meanwhile, Charlie Rangel is planning to propose a tax increase of about a trillion dollars. And at the same time, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that the budget will be balanced by 2012 -- if Democrats don't bust the budget with new spending.

So why do we need another new tax, exactly?

Pete Stark Resorts to Personal Attacks Again

Read it at the Standard.

Bear Grylls Doesn't Know When to Apologize

Put Bear Grylls with Larry Craig, Al Sharpton, and scads of others in modern life today: people who don't realize they've done something wrong and need to apologize. Doesn't he realize that whether it was his decision or someone else's, his show deceived viewers about the risks he was taking. That was wrong.

Yet instead of the apology, we get the next stage -- the period where he gets complimented for keeping a stiff upper lip in the face of embarrassment about what his show did wrong:

Grylls now says the fallout from the revelation has been difficult to deal with.

"It's been hard," he told Outside magazine in an interview out this week. "I'm not that bulletproof underneath it all! But I just want to say thanks for so much support and encouragement. I will keep giving 'Man vs. Wild' my absolute everything."

Grylls stood out because in "Man vs. Wild" he seemed to do anything to survive, including eating loads of creepy things and spending time in the cold.

But earlier this year, it was revealed that during some scenes where viewers were led to believe he was in the woods, he was actually sleeping inside.

There was never any indication in Grylls's show that anything was staged. There was clearly a conscious effort to mislead viewers. That was wrong -- particularly when it would have been a cool show without the deception.

Just say 'I'm sorry,' for heaven's sake.

Democrats' Corrupt Process Leads to Failure on FISA

Read it at the Standard.

NYT: Surprisingly, Voters Associate Iraq with War on Terror

Read it at the Standard.

Democrats Back Away from FISA Vote

Read it at the Standard.

Tom Davis Rethinking Senate Run

It was regarded as a given that Tom Davis would leave the House of Representatives to seek the Senate seat being vacated by John Warner. But he's now reconsidering, as it would be a major challenge for a moderate such as he to be nominated at a convention dominated by conservatives, then lead a divided party against Warner:

Since Sen. John Warner (R) announced his retirement last month and even before, Davis has been expected to enter the race to replace him.

But Davis said at a breakfast at the National Press Club on Tuesday that both recent developments factor into his decision and suggested that he might instead run for freshman Sen. Jim Webb’s (D-Va.) seat in 2012, or not run for Senate at all.

Davis is also a strong candidate on K Street and could be drawn to a lobbying job.

“There are other races; this isn’t the only shot,” Davis said. “You’ve got a very vulnerable guy sitting there in the other Senate seat right now who may or may not run in four years. And you know what? If you don’t go to the Senate, so what? I’ve been a committee chairman in the House. I’ve got my portrait hanging on a wall. I’ve been pretty productive legislatively.”

There have been rumblings of late that Davis is having second thoughts about running, but he insists his mind was never made up.

While Davis is more liberal than many Republicans both in the House and in Virginia, he's widely respected as a bright team player, with great political skills. Whenever Republicans regain the majority, Davis will have an influential role. He'll also win friends by seeking re-election, which would take away another prime takeover opportunity from House Democrats.

Jim DeMint Wins an Important Victory on Earmarks

When Republicans in the last Congress, and Democrats in the current Congress, began taking up proposals to shed light on the earmark process, appropriators began to turn to the 'phonemark.' Simply put, that's when a Congressman or Senator calls an agency official to inform him or her that even though the Appropriations Committee hasn't said it, x dollars from a particular account are intended to go to this or that project.

As long as the Appropriations Committee stands behind the claim (or makes the call), it's no more or less binding than an earmark in the committee report. To address this end-run around earmark rules, Jim DeMint has gotten the Senate to agree to prohibit the practice:

The Senate on Tuesday backed a prohibition on federal agencies covered under the Commerce, Justice and science appropriations bill from using letters, phone calls or other communications from lawmakers in determining how to spend federal funds.

The amendment, offered by Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) and approved by voice vote, is the latest in a series of provisions DeMint and other Members have proposed to strengthen the key provisions of the ethics and earmark reform package passed by Congress earlier this year.

With increasing public scrutiny of earmarks, many Members of the House and Senate in recent years have used “phonemarks” to direct federal funding to specific recipients or regions.

Although the White House Office of Management and Budget issued a memorandum earlier this year directing federal agencies to disregard these phonemarks, lawmakers have continued to contact executive branch officials over a variety of projects, according to data collected by the Sunlight Foundation. Additionally, federal officials previously have warned that given the power many of the Members have — particularly those who serve on authorizing or appropriations committees for their agencies — there is enormous pressure on them to comply with these requests.

DeMint argued the changes were needed in large part because of changes to the ethics package eliminating much of the law’s transparency provisions. Congress “pretty much gutted the transparency provisions. We’ve made some progress” in reversing those changes, DeMint said.

While the amendment will only apply to these agencies, and will only apply if it is preserved in conference, this is a valuable step forward. If the Senate votes to apply it to one appropriations bill, there's no reason to think they won't do so across the board. And as long as OMB is willing to assist in enforcing it -- by disclosing attempts by Members of the Senate to get around it -- it should be enforceable.

Another good move by Senator DeMint.

NRCC to Turn Lemons into Lemonade?

The surge of retirements for House Republicans poses a challenge in the effort to retake the majority next year, but it also poses a surprising opportunity. Those retirees tend to be more senior, and in many cases they've built up large war chests that they won't need. Federal law allows those funds to be used for a variety of different purposes. One permissible use is a transfer to party committees.

The National Republican Congressional Committee is actively working to tap the campaign war chests of retiring GOP Members who are collectively sitting on nearly $5 million — more than double what the cash-strapped NRCC last reported having in the bank.

Nine of the Republicans who have announced they are leaving at the end of next year and not running for other office in total hold $4.67 million in their re-election accounts — money that they are legally able to transfer to the NRCC.

Sources said NRCC Chairman Tom Cole (Okla.) has been aggressively reaching out to Members who are leaving to discuss options for how their campaign funds could benefit the party’s 2008 efforts...

But this cycle the NRCC has lagged far behind its Democratic counterpart when it comes to available funds for the 2008 elections, as Cole has worked to pay down a large debt leftover from the 2006 cycle. As of Aug. 31, the NRCC had less than $2 million in its coffers while the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee had more than $22 million.

Behind Hobson, GOP Reps. Jim Ramstad (Minn.), Terry Everett (Ala.) and Chip Pickering (Miss.) have the largest campaign war chests among the retiring Members. Their three campaign committees have a total of $2.4 million.

Pickering said he had been in close consultation with Cole about how he could use a portion of his funds to help the NRCC and GOP candidates.

“He’s recommended some good uses,” Pickering said...

Retiring Rep. Deborah Pryce (Ohio), a former House GOP Conference chairwoman, said she is more than happy to use her $367,000 to help out the party.

“It will go to support House Republicans and central Ohio races,” she said when asked what she planned to do with her campaign money.

Members of Congress can be extremely reluctant to part with hard-earned campaign dollars. Some retirees -- like Pickering -- will want to save cash for future campaigns for other office. It's clear however, that some of the House GOP retirees will not seek elective office again. They might help winnow down the Democratic cash advantage.

House Democrats Shut Down Debate to Preserve Terrorist Loophole

Read it at the Standard.

Tsongas Win Sends Warning to Democrats

So in the only special election of 2007 that figured to be anywhere near close, Niki Tsongas has defeated Republican Jim Ogonowski by a margin of around 51%-45%. In a district that went for John Kerry by 17 points, in a seat where Marty Meehan regularly won with more than 60 percent of the vote, Democrats should be concerned.

Yes, Niki Tsongas was clearly not a great campaigner, but she has great name identification, in a solid Democratic district. Furthermore, special elections are frequently decided by the party organizations, which must turn out their voters. How much of an organizational edge did the Democrats have in a district that hasn't elected a Republican in nearly 40 years?

And with all that edge, Democrats managed a 6 point win.

This is a clear sign that the 2006 Democratic wave is gone. Chris Bowers at OpenLeft typifies the response from Democrats; he argues not to read too much into this:

As with the OH-02, much of the problem rests in the ossified local machine of the favored party nominating a weak candidate. Tsongas isn't as bad on the trial as Jean Schimdt, but she is close.

But in November 2006, Democrats would have ridden an ossified machine and a bad candidate to a 20 or 30 point margin of victory. Today it yielded them only a 6 point win, even with appearances by Bill Clinton, Ted Kennedy and other national Democratic leaders, against a candidate they heavily outspent.

Why is this so significant? Because Ogonowski ran a race against Congress, against illegal immigration, and against corruption. According to Democrats in Washington, he should have been defeated badly. After all, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid argue that Congress' low ratings are due to dissatisfaction with President Bush's war, and the American people are with them on the issues. Pelosi and Reid say that when people come out to vote, they'll vote with the Democrats -- whom they allegedly agree with on the issues.

That's not what happened today in the bluest state in the union. Why would anyone expect it to happen next November? Today's outcome shows that Congress' low approval ratings aren't just collateral damage from those of President Bush; Reid & Pelosi own those terrible ratings. Even in Masschusetts, the voters are telling them they're doing a terrible job. Are they likely to be more forgiving in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Georgia, New Mexico, or any of a host of other states with targeted races?

Judging by today's results, voters are likely to turn out ineffective incumbents in both parties to demonstrate their dissatisfaction with the inability of Congress to move forward on health care reform, tax reform, national security priorities, and other matters. And it is the Democrats who will be fielding far more incumbents in GOP-leaning districts.

They'd better study this race.

Update: We can only hope that Rahm Emanuel is as nonplussed about this as Oliver Willis. Our job gets much easier if Democrats don't notice that something went seriously awry.

Armenian Genocide Resolution Splits House Democrats

Read it at the Standard.

Earmarks Buy Melting T-Shirts

Representative John Campbell points to another wasteful pork-barrel project recently approved by Congress:

According to the Oregonian, Rep. David Wu (D-OR) directed more than $ 2 million dollars in T-shirt contracts to InSport International, a clothing manufacturer in Mr. Wu’s district. Unfortunately, these shirts are prone to melting and burning in high heat, thus rendering them dangerous and useless to soldiers in combat.

According to Captain Lynn Welling, the head surgeon of the 1st Marine Logistic Group, the polyester in these “melting shirts” adheres to the skin in intense heat, essentially creating a second skin which leads to horrific disfiguring burns.

Rep. Wu earmarked the contract into the 2006 Defense Appropriations Bill. Due to the design flaw, the Marines shortly thereafter banned the use of polyester shirts for use in combat, or anywhere outside the protected “Green Zone” bases. However, because of Mr. Wu’s earmark the Marines were forced to buy 87,000 of the banned shirts.

While the idea of a more comfortable shirt for our troops is commendable, the flaws of the shirts’ design were left uninvestigated. This is the purpose for process of competitively bidding contracts… to get the best product possible.

By the way, shortly after his earmarks passed in the Defense Appropriations Bill, Rep. Wu received nearly $15,000 in campaign contributions from InSport executives.

To show I'm an equal opportunity basher, I'll point out that the earmark was approved during a Republican Congress. Perhaps both parties can learn a lesson.

SCHIP Polling Should Worry Democrats

Go read the story over at Rob Bluey's site:

• 52% agree with Bush that most benefits should go to children in families earning less than 200% of the federal poverty level — about $41,000 for a family of four. Only 40% say benefits should go to such families earning up to $62,000, as the bill written by Democrats and some Republicans would allow.

• 55% are very or somewhat concerned that the program would create an incentive for families to drop private insurance. Bush and Republican opponents have called that a step toward government-run health care.

As the House and Senate prepare to vote on a veto override -- one that's certain to fail -- it's worth noting that Americans are closer to the president's position on this. It's enough to make you wish he was not so weak as a spokesman; he might otherwise be able to challenge the expansion more effectively.

More broadly, the lack of support for an expansion of health care that would help needy children -- the Democratic line -- should worry the Democrats. The Democratic campaigns are operating that the era when big government was over has concluded. They saw themselves as free to advocate bigger spending and higher taxes. But if even this program can't get a majority in support -- before the question of how to pay for it is even broached -- what does that suggest about the proposals of Democratic candidates for president? Maybe America isn't ready for a return to the Carter era.

Pelosi Shreds Campaign Promises; Blocks Tax Cut Favored by Majority of House

Read it at the Standard.

Why is Harry Reid So Unpopular?

John Feehery -- a former spokesperson for Speaker Hastert -- has some ideas:

Perhaps it was the senator’s refusal to negotiate with the White House on the children’s healthcare bill. The system as envisioned by the Founders requires negotiation when the branches of government deadlock, which they have with the SCHIP bill. But Reid says that his door is not open to the White House, whatever the kids may think.

Perhaps it was when the senator said that the war in Iraq was lost and that the surge was a waste of time, well before there was time to give the surge a chance. Premature surrender is a bad trait for a political leader.

Perhaps it was when the senator turned his back on the United Mine Workers when he said that he opposed the building of any coal-fired power plants. Picking green activists over hardworking union workers is a sign that the senator has gone native in Washington.

Indeed.

Handwriting on the Wall for Congressman Doolittle?

Roll Call reports that House Republican leaders are pushing California's John Doolittle to decide not to seek re-election:

With polls showing his presumed Democratic opponent beating him in 2008, embattled Rep. John Doolittle (R-Calif.) is under pressure from House Republican leaders to retire at the end of this term.

House GOP leadership held its fire until some time after Labor Day, hoping Doolittle would see the political writing on the wall over the summer and voluntarily choose retirement. But with the Congressman digging in and promising to run for re-election, the leadership of his Conference — urged on by some rank-and-file Members — has held private discussions with Doolittle in an effort to convince him to retire.

Leadership “is telling him that the financial resources are not going to be there, at least from Members, and that he should step aside,” said one Republican House Member. “Everybody likes John. He’s a very likable guy, and there’s no animosity toward him whatsoever. But he’s not — rightly or wrongly — going to be able to win...”

A survey conducted over the summer by Republican pollster Chris Wilson found Brown with a 20-point lead over Doolittle, 51 percent to 31 percent. Doolittle’s favorable-to-unfavorable was 28 percent to 56 percent, with 50 percent of respondents saying the Congressman should either retire or resign. Only 33 percent of those polled thought Doolittle should run for re-election...

Some Republican Members believe Doolittle might do more than jeopardize what should be a safe GOP seat. They worry that the ongoing federal investigation into his dealings as a Congressman could drag down the party by reminding voters of the unethical behavior that helped defeat several of their colleagues last year.

“I went to leadership and said you have to send message, and they said they did,” a second Republican House Member said.

This individual added that Doolittle’s appeals for donations to his legal defense fund have gone largely unanswered while GOP Members wait to see if the Congressman will follow through with his pledge to run for re-election.

The Republicans interviewed for this story say the grumbling over Doolittle, both on Capitol Hill and in California, is likely to remain private until sometime in January.

Not only is there pressure from Capitol Hill for Mr. Doolittle to step aside, but one of his primary opponents has outraised him so far -- a very rare thing for a challenger:

Doolittle raised only $50,308.00 with more than half of that coming from PACs. He now has cash on hand of $37,995.10.

Compare that to Eric Egland.

With our help, Eric raised $79,000.00 and he now has cash on hand of $70,000.00!

Without help from DC Republicans, that's not likely to get a lot better for Doolittle.

Harry Reid Ponders Retirement in 2010

Congressional leaders can never forecast their retirement too far ahead of time. As soon as they confirm their departure, they lose some of their authority -- and they kick off the succession race, which can lead to dissension and division.

Therefore, you should take it with a grain of salt when Reid's spokesman denies that he's thinking of hanging it up:

Although Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) is sending all the right signals that he will run for re-election in 2010, the possibility that he might choose to retire has fueled speculation that a three-way race to succeed him atop the party could ensue among his top two lieutenants — Sens. Dick Durbin (Ill.) and Charles Schumer (N.Y.) — and Sen. Chris Dodd (Conn.).

Sources both on and off Capitol Hill say while neither Durbin, Schumer nor Dodd openly is discussing a future leadership bid, they are emerging as the most obvious Majority Leader candidates among powerful lobbyists, donors and Democratic lawmakers. Talk of a rivalry among the prominent trio is growing even as Reid appears poised to run for another six-year term, a move that, if successful, would give the Nevada Democrat a chance to hold the party’s top leadership slot for more than a decade.

“Get in line and get used to waiting because Sen. Reid isn’t going anywhere anytime soon,” said the Majority Leader’s spokesman, Jim Manley, dismissing any chatter to the contrary as “inside the Beltway parlor games.”

Roll Call then goes on to say that at least one lobbyist close to the situation says the succession race is 'active.' Are you as surprised as I am that Chris Dodd is hedging his bets in case he doesn't get elected President?

A three-way race among Dodd, Durbin, and Schumer would be interesting. First off, any one of those leaders would give the Senate Democrats a leader who was unlikely to face re-election trouble at home (in contrast to Tom Dasche and Senator Reid). It would also ensure that the next Democratic leader would be from a 'big' state. Traditionally leaders come from smaller states (Nevada, South Dakota, Maine...), partly out of concern of giving undue influence to a populous Democratic state.

Further, the political climate in 2009 will factor in as well. Will Democrats gain a large number of seats in 2008? Will there be an unpopular Democratic president to defend in 2010? Will Reid's re-election prospects remain poor, or improve?

All worth watching down the road.

JibJab: Night of the Living Dead Democrats

Hat Tip: Glenn

Barone: Is the Tax Issue Back?

A very interesting piece from Michael Barone. He points out the parallels between politics in the US and the UK, and notes that unexpectedly, taxes have re-emerged as an issue in Great Britain:

Now, his call for tax cuts seems to have boosted the Conservative total. Four polls taken since the party conferences showed Labor with a statistically insignificant 39 percent to 38 percent lead. Even worse news for Labor: A News of the World poll of 83 marginal seats showed the Conservatives ahead by 44 percent to 38 percent. That suggested Labor might win less than an absolute majority, which would force it to govern with the support of the Lib. Dems.

It's unusual to see such a sudden shift of opinion in British politics. (You seldom see it in America, either, except sometimes during the parties' national conventions.)

Does this augur well for the plan of some House Republicans to simplify and reduce taxes -- a plan which has attracted some positive attention already?

Hillary: I'll Trade Blood for Oil

No one likes the idea that the US should surrender blood for oil. Liberal protesters loathe the idea, and conservatives go to great lengths to avoid characterizing their policies that way. Put more elegantly, US foreign policy ought to recognize that at some level, energy means life. We need energy for heat in winter and cool in summer. We need it for hospitals, movement of food, and a host of other things. In extreme circumstances, the United States must be willing to use force to protect our energy supply, and that of our allies.

Congratulations to Hillary for recognizing that:

Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton advocated talks to settle differences with Iran but said Saturday that Tehran would invite U.S. action if it were to disrupt oil supplies.

"I will make it very clear to the Iranians that there are very serious consequences attached to their actions," Clinton said. The presidential candidate spoke at a town hall meeting with 300 people at a high school in a Democratic stronghold in early voting South Carolina.

The New York senator, responding to a question, said blocking oil shipments "would be devastating to the world economy."

If a Republican explicitly considered the use of force to protect our supply of oil, he or she would be savaged by the Left. So far, Hillary seems to have skated past -- taking a position worthy of Dick Cheney, but still enjoying the support of the anti-war fever swamp.

Who said the Left wouldn't sell its collective soul for the White House?

Influence Peddler on XM

I'll be appearing again tomorrow morning at 7:30AM on XM Radio's POTUS 08 channel -- talking about the presidential race. I'm betting the topic of the day will be the fight among the Republican candidates about who's the real conservative.

Hopefully I'll get a chance to talk about the surprising report from Bob Novak that churchgoing protestants and Catholics like Rudy Giuliani -- more than any other candidate:

But the situation is not a simple confrontation between the Christian right and Giuliani. The Gallup data suggest that Dobson and the Salt Lake City group may be out of touch with rank-and-file churchgoers. A well-known social conservative, who asked that his name not be used, is disturbed by Dobson's statement he could not vote for Giuliani under any circumstances. Instead of being considered the lesser of two evils in a possible race against Sen. Hillary Clinton, Giuliani seems to be the positive choice of millions of religious Americans.

In an aggregation of 1,690 interviews with Republicans and Republican-leaning independents in four Gallup surveys during August and September, Giuliani led with 27 percent (to Fred Thompson's 24 percent) among those who said they attended church at least once a week. Even more startling was the result of interviews with voters without regard to party preference. Among churchgoing Catholics, Giuliani led with a plus-38 favorable rating (trailed by Sen. John McCain at plus-29, with Clinton bringing up the rear at minus-9).

Just as a point of reference, Georgetown University has found that 63 percent of all Catholics voted in 2004, with 52 percent of those supporting Bush and 47 percent backing Kerry. One has to imagine that the bulk of the 'churchgoing Catholics' voted for Bush.

If Giuliani really has a 38 point net favorable rating among a cohort of Catholics that would tend to be more conservative -- far more conservative than he is -- that would be stunning. Is it because these Catholics tend to be more receptive to Giuliani's message of security and effective government, or is it because they share a cultural touchstone with Rudy? Recall that in 2000, George W. Bush went to great lengths to speak the same language as Roman Catholics; he recognized the importance of embracing the Catholic culture by adopting its language. Is it possible that Rudy already has that -- even as he supports abortion rights, and has favored other liberal positions?

It also suggests a real challenge for Giuliani's primary challengers. How will Romney, Thompson, and McCain break Giuliani's strong lead in this important primary voting bloc?

Larry Craig Channels Bill Clinton

You have got to be kidding:

During the NBC interview, Craig slammed Romney.

"I was very proud of my association with Mitt Romney,” Craig said. “I'd worked hard for him here in the state. I was a co-chair of his campaign on Capitol Hill. And he not only threw me under his campaign bus, he backed up and ran over me again."

Does Craig not understand that when a person in a position of trust -- such as US Senator or campaign co-chair -- engages in embarrassing and self-destructive behavior, it's that person who betrays a trust? It was not Romney who created a difficult and embarrassing situation for Craig; it's Craig who did that to Romney. Romney was the one who should have been angry -- that someone he trusted put him in an embarrassing situation.

Craig reminds me of Bill Clinton, promising not to hold a grudge against those in Congress who had voted to impeach him. I wonder if he realizes how off-putting it is to see someone demand respect, who would be better off asking forgiveness.

Vote on Armenian Genocide Suggests Intent to Undercut Iraq Mission

Read it at the Standard.

Ron Paul's Supporters -- Not Republican

Ron Paul ran for president as a libertarian in 1988. Soren Dayton notes that he's appealing to non-Republicans in this presidential race, as well:


There's more over at Soren's site; go check it out.

Man vs. Wild Comes Clean

I loved the Bear Grylls show 'Man vs. Wild,' until I learned that Grylls was receiving help without acknowledging it. When that fact became known a few months ago, Discover Channel announced that they would review the show to ensure that viewers are not misled. Although I missed it, they apparently came to a resolution a few weeks ago:

Discovery Channel has finally begun airing re-edited versions of "Man vs. Wild," that acknowledge parts of the unscripted series were faked.

A disclaimer was added last week to at least four episodes from the first season along with other clarifications that came in the form of new voiceovers from "Wild" star Bear Grylls.

"Bear Grylls is trained in extreme survival techniques. He and the crew receive support when they are in potentially life-threatening situations, as required by health and safety regulations," the disclaimer reads. "Professional advice should be always be sought before entering any dangerous environment."

In some cases, footage has been cut from the show, including scenes from an episode showing Grylls going to sleep in a forest when he actually slept indoors that night.

Other episodes will feature Grylls admitting he was helped by producers in some situations, including finding food and building rafts and bridges that he originally appeared to have crafted on his own.

Well, honesty is the best policy.

A New Way to Commit Suicide

Some BASE jumpers have apparently grown bored with just leaping off of buildings and spans, and have decided to make it more challenging by skimming as close to the objects as they can.



Flying Human TricksPRO.com - Wingsuite - video powered by Metacafe


It won't be long before you read the first obituary of a BASE jumper who got just a little bit too daring.