It means they're not likely to obey the law. As in, if New Jersey requires all guns sold in the state to be personalized - so they can only be fired by the owner - criminals might actually break the law. That is, while they're in the process of shooting someone, they might use a gun that's illegal.
Stupid, stupid, stupid...
Back to the top.
Friday, May 26, 2006
Do You Know What "Criminal" Means?
Europeans Didn't Kill the Aztecs
One of those things that 'everybody knows' appears to be coming under attack.
As readers may know, I a sucker for history and have an affinity for Mexico, so my interest here is no surprise. When the Spaniards came to Mexico and conquered the Aztecs, millions upon millions of natives died. Obviously, troops don't kill that many; it was disease. And perhaps because of the coincidence of timing (Spanish arrive, millions die), it's always been accepted that the killer was European diseases such as smallpox. Well, now a Mexican epidemiologist thinks that it may have been an indigenous hemorrhagic fever which killed in waves, and that could conceivably recur:
When Hernando Cortés and his Spanish army of fewer than a thousand men stormed into Mexico in 1519, the native population numbered about 22 million. By the end of the century, following a series of devastating epidemics, only 2 million people remained. Even compared with the casualties of the Black Death, the mortality rate was extraordinarily high. Mexican epidemiologist Rodolfo Acuña-Soto refers to it as the time of "megadeath." The toll forever altered the culture of Mesoamerica and branded the Spanish as the worst kind of conquerors, those from foreign lands who kill with their microbes as well as their swords.
...Spanish colonists wrote at the time that outbreaks of zahuatl [the Aztec word for smallpox] occurred in 1520 and 1531 and, typical of smallpox, lasted about a year. As many as 8 million people died from those outbreaks. But the epidemic that appeared in 1545, followed by another in 1576, seemed to be another disease altogether. The Aztecs called those outbreaks by a separate name, cocolitzli. "For them, cocolitzli was something completely different and far more virulent," Acuña-Soto says. "Cocolitzli brought incomparable devastation that passed readily from one region to the next and killed quickly."
...The fevers were contagious, burning, and continuous, all of them pestilential, in most part lethal. The tongue was dry and black. Enormous thirst. Urine of the colors of sea-green, vegetal green, and black, sometimes passing from the greenish color to the pale. Pulse was frequent, fast, small, and weak—sometimes even null. The eyes and the whole body were yellow. This stage was followed by delirium and seizures. Then, hard and painful nodules appeared behind one or both ears along with heartache, chest pain, abdominal pain, tremor, great anxiety, and dysentery. The blood that flowed when cutting a vein had a green color or was very pale, dry, and without serosity. . . . Blood flowed from the ears and in many cases blood truly gushed from the nose. . . . This epidemic attacked mainly young people and seldom the elder ones.
"This was certainly not smallpox," Acuña-Soto says. "If they described something real, then it appeared to be a hemorrhagic fever."
Hemorrhagic fevers are viral diseases with names that evoke justifiable dread—Ebola, Marburg, Lassa. They strike with sudden intensity, rarely respond to treatment, kill at high rates, then vanish as mysteriously as they came. They are called hemorrhagic because victims bleed, hemorrhaging in their capillaries, beneath the skin, often from the mouth, nose, and ears. The bleeding doesn't kill, but the breakdown of the nervous system does. At first there is fever, fatigue, and dizziness, but within a few days the person falls into delirium and finally a coma.
...With the climate data in place, Acuña-Soto could piece together a convincing explanation of those epidemic years. Cocolitzli had been caused by a hemorrhagic fever virus that had lain dormant in its animal hosts, most likely rodents. Severe drought would have contained the population of rodents, forcing them to hole up wherever they could find water. Initially, only a small percentage may have been infected, but when forced into close quarters the virus was transmitted during bloody fights. Infected mother rodents then passed the virus to their young during pregnancy. When the rains returned, the rodents bred quickly and spread the virus—through their urine and feces—as they came into contact with humans in fields and homes. Once infected, humans transmitted the virus to one another through contact with blood, sweat, and saliva.
Well, I find it interesting. And whose blog is this, anyway?
Back to the top.
House to Debate Iraq
The Chicago Tribune reports that the House of Representatives will soon hold a debate on the Iraq war. Apart from that, I think they get it all wrong. The debate is not by choice; it's been forced. And it probably poses as much of a challenge for Democrats as it does for Republicans. I covered this a while ago, and explained why it will make Democrats very uncomfortable.
Here's the Trib's take:
GOP to put war up for debate
House leaders gamble forum will aid election
By Jill Zuckman
Washington Bureau
Published May 25, 2006
WASHINGTON -- House Republican leaders, in a significant political gamble, are planning to hold a free-flowing debate over the Iraq war on the House floor in coming weeks, facing head-on what may be the most difficult issue to threaten pro-war incumbents in the fall election.
"We are the people's house, and serious issues of the day ought to be debated here in the House," said House Majority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio). "And a lot of members on both sides of the aisle have concerns about where we are, what is going on. Others have concerns that the whole story in Iraq isn't being told in terms of all the good things that are happening there."
The decision to hold a public debate on an issue that has sent President Bush's approval ratings tumbling and put Democrats within striking distance of recapturing the House reflects the growing pressure facing Republicans from bad news about the war. GOP leaders hope the forum will give their endangered incumbents a chance to distance themselves from the war, argue that it is going better than most recognize, or both.
Back to the top.
Thursday, May 25, 2006
Boehner Summarizes GOP Achievements
This is the recess memo that John Boehner has sent to House Republicans:
M E M O
To: House GOP Members
From: House Majority Leader John Boehner (R-OH)
Re: What Americans Should Know about the Republican Agenda for Prosperity & Security
Date: 25 May 06
Over the last five weeks, House Republicans have come together as a team and taken significant steps forward in advancing an ambitious agenda for the American people. we are on the right side of the issues that the American people care about.
For all of the Democrats' angry, divisive rhetoric that is designed to drive us apart and take the focus off their lack of an agenda, we have steadied ourselves and focused on the issues at hand: a commitment to fiscal discipline on behalf of taxpayers; strengthening our economy that is providing robust job creation; securing our borders and addressing illegal immigration; offering real solutions to help drive down gasoline prices; and responding to the ever-present threat posed by terrorism and the forces behind it seeking to do our nation harm.
After months of work and input from our members, we adopted a common "vision statement" that draws a clear contrast between the values that unite us as Republicans and those of the Democrats. It says:
For the Next American Century:
We will promote the dignity and future of every individual by building a free society under a limited, accountable government that protects our liberty, security, and prosperity for a brighter American Dream.
Consistent with our principles and our vision, we will move forward on our agenda. As we head back to our districts for the Memorial Day district work period, I wanted to share some thoughts about what Americans should know about our agenda and our accomplishments.
Fiscal Discipline and Our Growing Economy
As Republicans, we must continue to remind our constituents about our party's stewardship of economic growth in this country that has resulted in nearly 5.3 million new jobs since August 2003, 32 consecutive months of job creation, and a low 4.7 percent unemployment rate that is below the average of the 1970s, 80s, and 90s.
This didn't just happen by chance, and Americans should know that. We have delivered tax relief to working families, seniors, and small businesses that have helped expand our economy to open the door for more Americans to enjoy economic prosperity and join the growing ownership society. Keeping taxes low, coupled with fiscal restraint and economic growth, is providing greater-than-expected tax revenues to the federal government and making real progress in driving down our deficit.
Americans should know that Nancy Pelosi and her tax-and-spend Democrats on Capitol Hill fought us every step of the way. When we prevented a massive Democrat tax hike and ensured working Americans could continue to keep more of their own money, the Democrats said "No, that money belongs in Washington, DC." When we passed a fiscally-responsible budget that spends taxpayer dollars wisely, Democrats demanded more reckless spending. While we exercise fiscal restraint in the appropriations process, Democrats have requested $26.1 billion in new spending so far this year above and beyond what is fiscally responsible, putting them squarely at odds with the interests of taxpayers. This is a fundamental difference between Republicans and Democrats. We want to protect the taxpayer's wallet; Democrats want to raid it.
We must always remember that protecting American taxpayers from the disastrous and just plain wrong Big Government philosophies of Nancy Pelosi and her Democrat friends on Capitol Hill is an important part of our jobs as we represent the interests of working families.
Border Security: Stopping Illegal Immigration and Open Border Policies
Americans should know that Republicans in Congress are serious about securing America's borders and shutting down the flow of illegal immigration into our cities and states. We've responded to the concerns of the American people by passing a tough border security bill that delivers resources where they are needed to make our borders safe and prevent sanctuaries for illegal immigrations in our border states and beyond.
The contrast between the two parties could not be greater on this issue. Democrats have constantly advocated troubling policies that encourage open borders and invite more and more illegal immigrants in addition to the estimated 10-12 million illegal immigrants that are already here. Nancy Pelosi and her Democrat friends in Washington, D.C. opposed the strong border security bill passed by the House in December and fought common-sense REAL ID legislation to prevent illegal immigrants and terrorists from obtaining state ID cards that would allow them to travel freely throughout the U.S.
With the Senate on the verge of passing a bill, it's important that we seek areas of common ground, while always stressing the most important priority for the American people is to secure our borders and stop illegal immigration. We can't underestimate the challenges that lie ahead of us. The American people want action, and we should be committed to working with our members of the Conference to see if we can find agreement on a responsible bill.
National Security: A Choice Between Resolve or Retreat
Americans should know that on the issue of national security, they have a choice between a Republican Party that understands the stakes and is dedicated to victory, and a Democrat Party with a non-existent national security policy that sheepishly dismisses the challenges of a post- 9/11 world and is all too willing to concede defeat on the battlefield in Iraq.
The American people are understandably concerned about our mission in a post-Saddam Iraq. As a nation, we have faced many challenges in Iraq since its liberation and transition to a sovereign democracy. But while Democrats are all too eager to seize upon the challenges we face as their rationale or motivation for retreat, as Republicans who understand the diplomatic and national security hazards of such a move, we must echo the American public's understanding of just how great the stakes are in Iraq to our long term efforts to win the War on Terrorism.
Building a democracy in a part of the world that has known nothing but tyranny and despotism is a hard thing to do. But achieving victory there and gaining a democratic ally in democracy in the region will be the best gift of security we can give to future generations of Americans.
Republican Action Vs. Democrat Negligence on Gas Prices
Americans should know just how much work Republicans have done to build a stronger energy future for America restructure our nation's energy policy so that we're no longer held hostage to foreign sources of energy production. We are on the verge of acting to authorize environmentally-safe energy production in ANWR, and we have supported expanding refinery capacity, banning price gouging, and establishing incentives to encourage development of breakthrough hydrogen technologies - all efforts that build on the Energy Policy Act signed into law last year.
Americans should also know about the chronic negligence of Nancy Pelosi and her Democrat colleagues in responding to the concerns of the American people. Democrats have opposed every responsible effort to increase America's energy supplies are directly responsible for the higher gasoline prices that working families are faced with today.
The choice between the two parties is clear: While House Republicans have a comprehensive energy strategy to help protect the pocketbooks of American consumers, the Democrat Party has been hijacked by left-wing environmentalists and stonewalled every responsible and common-sense proposal to help secure America's energy needs.
Our Republican Agenda: Looking Forward
From a fiscally-responsible budget to preventing a massive Democrat tax increase, from spending restraint to lobbying and earmark reform, from securing our ports to strengthening our intelligence capabilities, from supporting our troops with the funding, armor, and equipment to get the job done to honoring our veterans and assisting the victims of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, House Republicans have accomplished a lot on behalf of the American people over the last five weeks.
In the coming weeks and months, we have much more to accomplish. We'll continue our work to hold the line on spending, we'll work on border security and pension security, and providing affordable health care to working families, and we'll work to help lower energy prices for working Americans. And that's just a start.
We have a tremendous opportunity ahead of us. United together behind a common vision that reflects our principles and values as Republicans, we will be successful in moving our ambitious agenda and responding to the concerns of the American people.
Politically, there's some useful stuff here for the House GOP. Undoubtedly, they need to focus on how strong the economy is, and how tax increases could damage the recovery.
I can't help but laugh though, at the statement that "Democrats have requested $26.1 billion in new spending so far this year above and beyond what is fiscally responsible." The President's budget calls for spending in 2007 of $2.77 trillion. So the additional funds requested by the Democrats amount to less than 1 percent of the total federal expenditure. How many conservatives are content that the 'fundamental difference' between the two parties is a grand total of 1 percent of federal spending?
Apart from that, the other problem I see is that no one perceives the House GOP to have been doing these things over the last few weeks. They need to focus on legislation to match the rhetoric, and a better focus on these issues.
Back to the top.
Marijuana Doesn't Cause Cancer
So smoking pot is better than smoking tobacco cigarettes? Can I call shenanigans?
Back to the top.
Wonder if There's a Military Application
Just kidding. The research team says that the cloaking device they're working on definitely could. And it could be ready in 18 months.
Maybe this is just the kick in the pants that those slowpokes working on the transporter need. Come on guys! Eighteen months, ok?
Hat tip Ace.
Back to the top.
Without Tom Davis...
Great catch by Rich Lowry over at National Review. You can bet the farm that whatever decision House Republicans ultimately make on immigration, Tom Davis will be on the 'winning' side. He is a bellwether Member among the 'moderately conservative,' and his views on Congressional campaigns are seen as gospel.
Look at it this way. There are 30-50 House Republicans who are guaranteed to vote against any amnesty bill. Probably all the rest of the House Republicans are people who could vote either way, depending on circumstance. Among those, Tom Davis is a major figure - one whose instinct is to be with the leadership, and to help the leadership look good - he is not a bomb thrower.
The upshot is that he will be looked to for counsel, and he will make every effort to back the decision of the leadership team. As negative as he sounds about an amnesty, it will be hard to swing a large group of GOP Members to back one. I can't imagine more than 50 Republicans would back an amnesty bill that Tom Davis opposes.
Back to the top.
WH Bails out House GOP
What do you suppose motivated the White House to seal the documents taken from Congressman Jefferson's office?
Glenn speculates that there might be something more here than meets the eye, but I don't think so. I think Captain Ed is probably right here.
I doubt there's anything mysterious about it. I just think that the White House saw that the House GOP had gone out on a limb, and risked political suicide. If there was no resolution now, then we would have spent the next few months watching the back-and-forth, and hearing about the lawsuit brought by the House to protect the documents of a criminal. (BTW, weren't these the same folks that wanted to take the teeth out of the exclusionary rule)?
Dennis Hastert and the House GOP were doing an homage to Cleavon Little in "Blazing Saddles;" they had essentially put a gun to their own heads, and threated to kill themselves. The White House figured it was better to save them from themselves, and help to preserve a Republican majority.
The sealing of the records will allow the House and the White House to negotiate something that saves face for the Congress - probably a bunch of House lawyers going to the Justice Department to review the documents with DoJ lawyers, make sure that they are all responsive to the subpoena, and that the search was not too far-ranging. I bet that will happen inside of 45 days, and the House will be able to say that no precedent was established for the Executive to execute lawful search warrants in the offices of the Legislative Branch.
Back to the top.
More Bipartisanship in the House
Roll Call (subscription required) reports that both Pete Hoekstra and Jane Harman - the Chairman and Ranking Democrat of the House Intelligence Committee - are unhappy with the desire of the FBI to interview lawmakers about leaks of NSA activities:
Hill Targeted on Leaks
May 25, 2006
By John Bresnahan and Paul Kane,
Roll Call Staff
The FBI is seeking interviews with top House Members from both parties to determine whether they leaked details of the National Security Agency’s domestic surveillance program to The New York Times, further fanning the flames of an already tense relationship between Capitol Hill and the Bush administration.
Those being targeted for interviews include GOP and Democratic leaders, as well as the chairmen and ranking member of the Intelligence committee. Altogether, 15 senior Members and Senators were briefed about the existence of the NSA program before the Times first disclosed it in a Dec. 16 article, according to briefing records released last week by John Negroponte, director of the Office of National Intelligence.
It is unclear what level of interest the FBI has at this time in speaking with Senators who were briefed about the NSA program, although one senior Senate Republican said he expects that the FBI will interview current and former Senators about the leak as well.
The request for FBI interviews has angered some in Congress who see it as yet another example of the increasingly aggressive tactics being used by the Justice Department and federal investigators in their dealings with lawmakers. Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) has vehemently denounced an FBI raid last weekend on Rep. William Jefferson’s (D-La.) office, and three House committees have objected to a request for documents and staffer interviews by the U.S. Attorney’s office in San Diego as part of the criminal probe into former Rep. Duke Cunningham’s (R-Calif.) activities.
When asked about her knowledge of the FBI inquiry into lawmakers’ contacts with the Times, Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.), the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, would only say, “There is no credible claim that anyone in Congress leaked anything.”
“So far as I know, there has been no request in writing,” Harman added. “I urge the Justice Department to carefully consider separation-of-powers issues and the appearance of intimidation before proceeding any further.”
House Intelligence Chairman Pete Hoekstra (R-Mich.), who has retained his own personal lawyer in the case, said he was aware that the FBI wanted to talk to him about the NSA leak, but added he has not yet met with agents conducting the probe. Whether the interviews with lawmakers will actually occur, and what the ground rules for those sessions would be, is the subject of ongoing negotiations between the Justice Department and Congressional lawyers, said Hoekstra.
While acknowledging his support for rooting out those who leak classified information, Hoekstra expressed concerns over whether having the FBI question the lawmakers who oversee their agency would upset the balance of power between Congress and the administration.
“I am passionate about finding out who leaked what and who is breaking the law,” the Michigan Republican said. “With that in mind, we need to be very careful in protecting the prerogatives of the House.”
To their credit, both Mr. Hoekstra and Nancy Pelosi seem willing to be interviewed:
...“I’ve been interviewed before by [the FBI] on leak cases, so it’s not unprecedented,” said Hoekstra, who served on the 9/11 committee. “We have to make sure what is done now is in agreement with the privileges of the House.”
Hoekstra’s committee is scheduled to hold a hearing Thursday on the “on the role and responsibilities of the media in national security reporting.”
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), who was one of the first lawmakers briefed on the existence of the NSA surveillance program back in October 2001, did not object to being interviewed by FBI agents.
“It’s not unusual that the investigation would extend to all who were aware of the [NSA] program,” Pelosi said in a statement from her office. “If an interview is requested, I intend to be interviewed.”
Whenever details of intelligence and national security programs appear in the papers, there is a hue and cry on the conservative side that the Justice Department should seek to enforce the laws against leaking. Now that they are trying to do that, I hope that the House will cooperate fully.
Back to the top.
Political Play of the Week
Goes to the first bipartisan pair of House Members to introduce a resolution calling upon the House not to fight the FBI over the raid on Congressman Jefferson's office.
Back to the top.
Paging Mr. Perot. Paging Mr. Ross Perot...
Everyone agrees that 2006 is starting to look like one of those big elections - a wave. We're all debating how BIG the wave will be. Will it be a wave that knocks off 10 Republicans, or 40?
Well, I've wondered before whether we've ever had a wave that knocks off both Republicans and Democrats. And I'm starting to think that this could be the year. I think if both parties continue the way they're headed, the only thing we're missing is a catalyst. And we may just have gotten that.
It's obvious that there is an anti-incumbent mood in the electorate. It appears to be more Republican than Democrat, but there are Democrats with weak numbers for re-election, and the overall numbers for Congressional Democrats are almost as abysmal as those of Congressional Republicans. Dennis Hastert, Bill Frist, and George Bush are being vilified by conservatives, and Nancy Pelosi is given terrible ratings by the Democratic base, and has apparently ignited a war with the Congressional Black Caucus by asking for Bill Jefferson's resignation. (Please read that article from the Hill; it includes the comment of a senior aide that Ms. Pelosi's actions guarantee the Democrats Minority status in the House). The Left seems to stand with Pelosi and against the CBC when she disciplines Jefferson, but at the same time those same folks think she's doing a terrible job. Oh, and at the same time she's opening herself to great criticism for trying to protect Jefferson from the FBI.
Why are voters so angry? And what will it lead to?
Well, I'll be very interested to hear the tone of folks like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, DailyKos, and Air America over the next few weeks. I think that both parties' bases are in near revolt - over ethics, spending, immigration, Iraq, 'standing up to the President,' etc. The opening is there for the media to focus on the arrogance and corruption of both parties in Washington. It won't take much before voters start to ask 'what's wrong in Congress?'
The only thing then missing is a large figure who can be 'above the fray' to call attention to the problem - the Ross Perot of this election year. A little national advertising, a few appearances on Larry King, and a short list of 'crooks' (real or imagined) on both sides, and voters could turn out 20-40 incumbents. If Pelosi and Hastert continue to stand united in defense of one apparent crook and dozens of others presumed crooks, I don't think it's that farfetched.
Back to the top.
House GOP Gives Rove an Earful on Immigration
As I noted yesterday, Karl Rove came to Capitol Hill yesterday largely to talk about immigration. Dennis Hastert's announcement of House Republican self-immolation to protect Bill Jefferson drowned out any reporting on the substance of the immigration debate, however.
The Hill clues us in to how it went. The short answer? Not much new to report. There is still a strong and vocal number of House Republicans willing to complain to the White House about an amnesty.
I'm not willing to bet whether Congress will pass a border security and amnesty bill before the elections, but this might wind up much like the DHS legislation in 2002. At that time, lawmakers could not agree prior to the election whether to extend labor protections to employees of the new DHS, and so the issue went unresolved before election day. When Democrats suffered surprising losses, they returned in the lame-duck session and passed the bill the President had wanted.
If no agreement is reached prior to the election, an immigration bill may be completed in December, in a lame-duck session. The substance of the bill could reflect the conventional wisdom established on election day. For example, if House Republicans suffer losses while Senate Republicans maintain their numbers, it might be seen as a defeat for a hard-line stance, and the immigration bill could contain an amnesty (or a more generous amnesty). If Democrats retake the House, then there might not be any bill, because an incoming Democratic majority might insist upon re-writing the bill to its own liking. Other outcomes are obviously possible as well.
Back to the top.
More News to Depress Republicans
Stu Rothenberg - not an analyst noted for exaggeration or piling on - sees a fall in polling for incumbents across the board - but Republicans especially. This is from Roll Call (subscription required):
Evidence Grows of Incumbent Vulnerability in House Races
May 25, 2006
By Stuart Rothenberg,
Roll Call Contributing Writer
While there is plenty of evidence that voters are dissatisfied with the president, Congress and the direction of the nation, I am finally seeing a significant amount of evidence at the local level — in polling data and in recent primary election results — that the national mood is having an impact on incumbents.
The anger has hit incumbents of both parties, but it hasn’t been distributed evenly between Republicans and Democrats. Incumbent GOPers are taking more of the heat, and they are likely to suffer far more in November.
Last week, voters in Oregon and Pennsylvania sent messages of dissatisfaction to incumbents. In Oregon, incumbent Gov. Ted Kulongoski (D) won renomination with just more than 54 percent of the votes in a three-way contest. While his 25-point win over former state Treasurer Jim Hill may seem substantial, it is a sign of weakness, not strength.
In Pennsylvania, state legislators who supported a pay raise for the three branches of state government, including themselves, fell like flies in the state’s May 16 primary. But the federal race that raised eyebrows involved the 10th Congressional district, where veteran Republican Rep. Don Sherwood (who admittedly has unique problems of a personal nature) squeezed out a 56 percent to 44 percent primary win over a prohibitive underdog.
A number of early polls now suggest greater vulnerability among Republican incumbents this cycle than I had previously assumed. (Even if you don’t accept all of the numbers in all of the polls, the surveys as a whole confirm that something is going on.)
Democratic polls in Republican-held districts such as California’s 11th (Richard Pombo), Indiana’s 8th and 9th (John Hostettler and Mike Sodrel), Pennsylvania’s 10th (Sherwood), Kentucky’s 4th (Geoff Davis), and North Carolina’s 8th and 11th (Robin Hayes and Charles Taylor) show Democrats running better against GOP incumbents than they should if this were a “normal” election cycle. In some of these districts, the Democrat is essentially unknown but running well ahead of his or her name identification.
...Anzalone, who is polling for Democratic House candidates in a number of states this cycle — including Pennsylvania, Ohio, Florida, New Jersey and Illinois — says that what is happening in North Carolina isn’t unique.
“It’s all about the environment, not the challenger,” he says. “Every Congressional poll that we have done for months has been good for Democrats and bad for Republican incumbents. Now, merely because of the environment, Democratic candidates can be at 10 percent in name ID and still be sitting in the mid-30s in [ballot tests]. That’s a huge difference from past years.”
And that’s why Republicans in 2006 are starting to look like the Democrats in 1994.
Rothenberg looks in particular at the race between lousy Redskins QB Heath Shuler and GOP incumbent Charlie Taylor. He tracks a number of polls over a period of months, showing a drop in the President's generic favorability numbers, coincident with a fall for Taylor and a rise for Shuler. There's been no campaigning and no advertising so far, so Taylor's fall seems closely tied to that of the President.
Wow! Good thing that Hastert found a great cause like protecting Bill Jefferson to boost GOP prospects, huh?
Back to the top.
Wednesday, May 24, 2006
Hastert Target of Investigation
According to ABC News. Or do they say that he's not?
I tend to doubt Dennis has done anything wrong here. It really doesn't sound like him. I think his protection of Congressional privilege in the Jefferson case is just that.
At the same time, it doesn't help in the PR department, and probably fuels anger at both parties in DC.
Back to the top.
Gephardt Endorses Minority Leader Pelosi
IE, he seems skeptical that she'll be promoted to Speaker.
There's not really any surprise here. It's still no better than an even bet that the Democrats retake control of the House. There are a number of reasons. First, there are ebbs and flows in politics. And House Republicans and the President are at more or less historic lows. Pure random chance is likely to see their numbers a little better by Novemeber. Second, there are very few competitive races - so Democrats have to draw the political equivalent of an inside straight to win the seats they need. There are other reasons as well. Third, it's already clear that Nancy Pelosi, Howard Dean, the MoveOn crowd et al, and the rest of the Democrats pushing for a House majority, are not the most skilled campaign strategists.
Gephardt is only stating the obvious. But still, it's nice to hear.
Back to the top.
With Friends Like This...
Hey look! Someone agrees with my skepticism about the value of a wall!
Can I pick a different ally?
Back to the top.
Modern Day High Noon
I'm fascinated at the drama playing out behind the scenes between Howard Dean and Joe Lieberman. It strikes me as something out of an old movie.
Joe Lieberman is in the race of his life, challenged from the left by a rich unknown named Ned Lamont. Lamont's roots are in the hard left, and one of his most prominent supporters is Jim Dean, head of Democracy for America, and brother of the DNC Chairman. And (Jim) Dean is not a late-comer, or someone who likes Lieberman but happens to prefer Lamont. Rather, he searched for months to find a challenger to Joe Lieberman, and was one of the people who drew Lamont into the race. Now, Democracy for America has endorsed Lamont.
Now obviously, Jim Dean would not be fighting with such determination to knock off Lieberman, if his brother Howard really thought it was a terrible idea. Howard realizes how important it is to preserve every Democratic Senate seat if they want to win the majority, and ought to be willing to pull out all the stops to prevent a serious challenge to a good incumbent like Joe Lieberman. So you know that the DNC Chairman must really not care for Senator Lieberman.
So you figure, 'well, as long as Howard Dean is doing a great job as DNC Chair, he can afford the luxury of sanctioning challenges to incumbents.' Let's look at that - because Howard Dean has critics of his own. In today's Roll Call (subscription required), there are some Congressional Democrats who are apparently very unhappy with the way Mr. Dean is running the DNC:
Dean: Mayors to Provide Boost
May 24, 2006
By David M. Drucker,
Roll Call Staff
As concerned Congressional strategists continue to question the ability of the Democratic National Committee to help their candidates financially, DNC Chairman Howard Dean today is hosting a series of meetings with the party’s mayors and leaders on Capitol Hill as part of his continuing effort to make Democrats competitive in all 50 states — both in this year’s midterm elections and beyond.
Dean wants to create a direct link between grass-roots voter sentiment on the ground and Democratic policy and political players in Washington, D.C., so that the party’s message is consistent and its organizational reach goes directly to the precinct level.
“We really are trying to create one Democratic Party,” Dean said Tuesday in a telephone interview. “We’re trying to create a seamless relationship between not just the DNC and the state parties, but between mayors, governors and Congress-folks.”
But Dean appeared to concede that his plan for supplementing the Democratic Congressional committees’ efforts in key House and Senate races did not include a financial boost as a part of what he envisions from the DNC.
The chairman talked of assisting the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee with mail and ground wars in select districts and states.
Dean’s long-term strategy — and the national committee’s inability to financially boost Democratic Congressional candidates this year — continue to be a sore point with certain Congressional Democrats.
Earlier Tuesday, DCCC Chairman Rahm Emanuel (Ill.) said in a sit-down interview that he doesn’t expect much help from the national committee — monetary or otherwise. At least, Emanuel said, he doesn’t expect the help from the DNC to approach anything the Republican Congressional committees will receive from the Republican National Committee.
“The Republicans have been clear. The Republicans have said basically that they’re going to flood the system with cash,” he said. “Our contingency plan is to work harder. There is no cavalry financially for us.”
The DNC trailed the RNC in cash on hand at the close of April by $35.3 million ($44.7 million to $9.4 million). Accordingly, Emanuel said the Democrats would have to work harder and smarter to take advantage of their opportunities for seat gains in November.
...The RNC is clearly gleeful over Emanuel’s and DSCC Chairman Charles Schumer’s (N.Y.) dissatisfaction with Dean, and is buoyed by its significant edge in fundraising and cash on hand. That advantage in particular is one the committee plans to exploit.
“The RNC is working more closely than ever with the NRCC, NRSC, state committees and targeted campaigns to ensure resources are invested effectively and efficiently,” said RNC spokesman Danny Diaz. “This is in direct contrast to the Democrats, where Rahm Emanuel and Chuck Schumer are questioning Howard Dean’s national strategy.”
Today, Dean is scheduled to host meetings with Democratic mayors and Congressional Democratic leaders — including House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.), Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (Nev.) and Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin (Ill.).
The discussions are part of a DNC-organized conference of Democratic mayors being held this week in Washington.
Dean believes mayors are about as close to voters and their everyday concerns as an elected official gets, and he wants to use their knowledge to help inform political strategy and messaging. The chairman also wants to take advantage of mayors’ local political networks and put them to work for Democratic Congressional and presidential candidates.
I really want to read a serious reporter's look at what is going on behind the scenes here. You have Howard Dean, who Congressional Democrats believe is running the party into the ground. Meanwhile, Howard Dean's brother is spending scarce resources trying to take out one of their own, and giving Republicans hope in a seat where they would otherwise have no prayer.
You have to figure that if things continue this way, war is going to break out between Congressional Democrats and the Dean boys. Who will go down first? And will Howard last long enough for Jim to take out Joe? Or will Joe rally his townsfolk, and string the Dean brothers up from the nearest tree? And where will the liberal lions in the Democratic caucus come in? Will they back good old Joe, or will they stand aside and let Dean take him down? And what will Doc Holliday do?
You see what I mean? It's like a classic western.
It's a good thing that Howard Dean is popular with the grassroots, because he's starting to look like the Isaiah Thomas of the Democratic Party.
Back to the top.
Hastert Raises the Stakes
Well, I've commented that the White House and the Congressional GOP need to improve their working relationship to help themselves in the midterm elections. And I've noted that Rove was coming to Capitol Hill to meet with the House GOP and talk about immigration (I surmised). So how do these two trends come together? House Speaker Hastert has come out of the Rove meeting and held an improptu press conference where he insisted that the DoJ return the documents seized from William Jefferson's office, and that those involved in the raid be 'frozen out' of the process from here forward.
Back to the top.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
