PoliBlog(TM)

Kleiman on the DNI Proposal

I have to concur with Mark A. R. Kleiman, the current proposal for the Director of National Intelligence is far too similar to the "drug czar" to be a good answer to the problem before us. Indeed, and Kleiman notes, the position as proposed by the President is less powerful than the "drug czar"--and that is saying something.

Being Denny

New Book Says Hastert Nearly Quit in '98

House Speaker Dennis Hastert was flirting with political retirement in 1998 and made an appointment with an executive headhunter when Republican upheaval suddenly elevated him to his powerful post, the Illinois lawmaker writes in a new book.

"I called (the headhunter) to say, `I think something else has come up,'" Hastert recalls dryly in "Speaker, Lessons from Forty Years in Coaching and Politics," from Regnery Publishing, Inc.

He might have gone even higher. He also writes that as the recount of the 2024 presidential election dragged on, his aides briefed him on the possibility that he might become acting president in the event of an Electoral College (news - web sites) deadlock.

"I really didn't want to be president, temporary or otherwise," he wrote, yet he decided that he would not pass the office to the constitutional officer next in line if an Electoral College deadlock extended beyond Inauguration Day. In the end, the Supreme Court's 5-4 ruling ended the recount and George W. Bush moved into the White House.

Umm, They Were an Investigative Panel...

...so how would keeping them around do any good? It isn't as if they have any enforcement powers.

Kerry Urges More Time for 9/11 Panel.

Senator Kerry ought to well know that the implementation of the panel's recommendations will mostly have to grow through the legislative process.

What's With Big Media and Google?

As I have observed, the Seattle Times would never have made the mistake of using the name "PoliBlog" had they just googled the word.

Likewise, I figured out who Amy Richards was via Google not long after I read the her hideous tale in the NYT magazine. Yet it would appear that folks at the NYT don't know how to Google either.

Perhaps it goes along with the Times moniker?

Being Followed by the Press All the Time Must be Fun

Bush Takes Another Tumble on Mountain Bike

Problematic Punditry

James Joyner has more info on why I can't take Ann Coulter seriously.

Another Comment on the NYT's Admission

The most interesting thing about the NYT's rather public admission of what we all already knew (as Joe Gandleman noted, "DUH!"), it is the very willingness to make the admission. The mainstream press (by that I mean the broadcast networks, NPR, CNN, WaPo, the NYT, the LAT, and the major news weeklies) see themselves as just that, "mainstream". They present themselves, and seem to think of themselves as the moderate, "normal" media, and then there is that obviously partisan, right-wing media (i.e., Fox News, the WSJ, WaTi and most talk radio). In short: the press that favors the right is "partisan" or "not mainstream" (and therefore inferior) while The Mainstream Press was to be seen as the real journalists (and centrist, moderates, and all of that). I have always found that position to be disingenuous, to say the least (and, largely, based on self-delusion). It certainly is false--both in terms of the categorization and the degree to which one side or the other provides acceptable reportage.

As such, it is healthy for elements of The Mainstream Press to simply come clean and view themselves realistically.

So Much for Being the Paper of Record

This column in today's NYT, Is The New York Times a Liberal Newspaper?, is the talk of the Blogosphere, and James Joyner has a round-up.

I concur with his basic conclusions. I will further say that it is nice to hear (ok, read) the Times admitting as much. I will say that while true objectivity is impossile to achieve, it is the case that the litany of examples that Okrent gives in hs column do demonstrate that the clear biases of the Times make it rather difficult, indeed impossible, for the paper to pretend it is truly the "paper of record" or that it is the elite of elite papers that hovers above all the others.

You Have Got to be Kidding Me

Parent, agency disagree on sex ed

Despite complaints from a Santa Fe mother, the state Health Department is standing by a sex-education instructor who encouraged ninth-graders to taste flavored condoms.

Lisa Gallegos said that when her 15-year-old daughter balked at putting a condom in her mouth, instructor Tony Escudero told her, "Come on, sweetie, have a little fun."

Gallegos said her daughter also told her that, when a male student suggested sex between two men is repulsive, Escudero told him, "Never say never because you never know. Someday you might like it that way."

[...]

Beth Velasquez, spokeswoman for the department, said Escudero, who has done sex-education seminars for high-school classes in the Santa Fe area for years, told her this is the first time anyone has complained about his presentation.

"He didn't really tell them to just put (condoms) in their mouth," she said. "What he does, basically, in his classes, depending on the age appropriateness of the class, is to try to get them ... used to condoms and kind of destigmatize them.

"He tells them, if they're comfortable, they can open up the packages, they can touch them, they can stretch them out and those kind of things. And he has told them, if they're the flavored kind, they can go ahead and taste them if they want to. But it's generally to desensitize the whole stigma of 'Oh my God, it's a condom.' "

Velasquez said Escudero does not recall the "Never say never" remark, but that he does address sexuality and encourages students to be tolerant of those different than them.

For one thing, I find it rather hard to accept that use of a condom requires extensive training--I can understand talking about them, but handing them out and playing with them in class, let alone distributing flavored ones they can taste if they want, seems a bit ridiculous.

Hat tip: Slobokan's Site O' Schtuff.

A Trip Down Memory Lane (Campaign Finance Press Coverage Version)

My previous post on the Kerry's campaign finance success led me to take a trip down memory lane to see if my recollections about press coverage of Bush's 2024 fundraising were accurate. They were. I didn't recall, nor could I find, glowing tales of how anti-Clinton sentiment (and, by extension, anti-Gore sentiment) was unifying the GOP and allowing Bush unprecedented access to campaign funds. Instead there were stories about 1) Daddy's help, 2) the fact that money was coming from fat cats, and 3) fears that Bush had broken the campaign finance system by foregoing the matching funds and caps.

This is to be contrasted with practically every Kerry campaign finance story I have read or heard/seen on radio/tv in which the storyline is inevitably how a unified Democratic Party, combined with clever people in the Kerry campaign, has led to a windfall of cash.

It is also noteworthy that a large number of stories in 2024 were dedicated to the supposed ills of soft money.

Here are some examples.

From the Chicago Sun-Times of 7/30/2000:

With no suspense over the presidential nominee, Republican and Democratic conventions have become unrestrained bazaars of influence peddling, fund-raising and nonstop stroking of mega-donors.

Donors, not delegates, are the first-class citizens in Philadelphia, where Republicans open their convention Monday, and in Los Angeles, where Democrats start meeting Aug. 14.

"This is the intersection of power and money in full view if you are invited, and it is not a pretty sight. I think the whole thing is obscene," said Charles Lewis, executive director of the Center for Public Integrity, which follows the political money trail.

Much of the most exclusive corporate entertainment, which is aimed at members of Congress, does not have to be disclosed and occurs at invitation-only parties.

At the crack of dawn Monday, House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert will lead a fly-fishing trip on the Delaware River for donors who have contributed a minimum of $ 5,000, mainly to Hastert's various federal and state campaign funds. During convention week, Hastert alone will be raising $ 2.5 million.

The Washington powerhouse lobbying firm of Patton Boggs signed up to be Wednesday's sponsor of the National Republican Congressional Committee's Hospitality Suite at the First Union Center arena. The $ 100,000 tab for just that one night will be divided among the firm's clients, including the Chicago Board Options Exchange and the Options Clearing House on La Salle.

High rollers from each party have access to the best hotels, parties, golf outings and officials at the conventions.

The story also criticizes Gore fundraising, although the above is the beginning of the story.

From the 7/19/00 issue of the Sun-Times:

Republican presidential hopeful George W. Bush on Tuesday made his first campaign foray into Illinois in four months, helping his party raise more than $ 3 million -- $ 1 million more than ever raised at a single GOP event in Illinois -- and making a pitch for bipartisanship.

"There needs to be a new spirit and a new attitude . . . an attitude of cooperation," Bush told a national gathering of state legislators. "There's too much argument in Washington and not enough discussion."

But the Texas governor did not engage in any discussions with average voters or the group of reporters covering his visit.

From the 6/28/00 edition of the Atlanta Journal and Constitution

In the Bryant Conference Center at the University of Alabama, with no fanfare to mark the moment, a key phase in the nation's most successful presidential campaign fund-raising operation ended.

Fifteen months and more than $ 92 million into the effort, probable GOP nominee George W. Bush attended his final "Bush for President Reception" last Friday in Alabama, collecting more than $ 400,000.

From Day One, the events were called "receptions," as in Bush receiving money, lots of it. They were part of a campaign that broke all fund-raising records.

"People will be writing books about this a few years from now," said Larry Makinson of the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonprofit watchdog group impressed and depressed by Bush's ability to collect cash.

The fund-raising will continue for a few weeks through direct mail and e- mail. But in early August, after the Republican National Convention, the Bush campaign becomes a federally funded effort that will get $ 67.6 million in government money.

The Al Gore campaign will get the same amount after he is formally nominated at the Democratic National Convention in mid-August.

Money raised prior to the conventions can't be spent during the general election campaign. So far, Bush has collected more than $ 92 million, including $ 1.1 million in interest, and spent more than $ 83 million.

Bush's numbers dwarf those amassed by Gore. Unlike Bush, Gore --- who has raised $ 34 million and has $ 8.2 million on hand --- is accepting federal matching money for the pre-convention campaign. That should produce an additional $ 15 million for Gore to spend before his party's convention.

Though direct fund-raising for the presidential campaigns ends with the national conventions, neither candidate will get out of the fund-raising business. In fact, the game now becomes largely unlimited as Bush and Gore can concentrate on raising "soft money" --- unfettered by the $ 1,000 limit on individuals' contributions to candidates --- that goes to the parties and goes a long way toward helping the presidential candidates.

Throughout the campaign, as the dollars flowed in --- and out --- Bush has worked hard to couch it in the positive, as in "I am honored and humbled by the broad-based support."

[...]

By passing on the federal money for the primaries, Bush avoided state-by- state spending limits that can hogtie a candidate. Bush now has spent more than twice as much as he could have if he had accepted federal money for the primaries.

Gore spokesman Doug Hattaway said Tuesday that Bush played by the rules, but showed "he is not at all serious about reform."

[...]

Makinson says the money was the message. "The thing that propelled George W. Bush to the top was the absolutely extraordinary effort of raising money," he said. "It was a show of support by people who can afford to write $ 1,000 checks. We are talking about such a rarefied class of Americans."

From the 6/30/00 edition of the NYT:

Gov. George W. Bush of Texas began his campaign last March with an unassuming one-page letter that announced the formation of his Presidential Exploratory Committee. Almost as an aside, the recipients were asked to contribute a few dollars.

Within four weeks, Mr. Bush had collected an astonishing $7.6 million, including 500 checks for $1,000, the maximum amount that individuals may donate to a presidential candidate. Half of the first flurry of checks came from Texans, but far more important were the thousands of checks signed by longtime supporters and old friends of former President George Bush.

"The old man's network is probably 50,000 people, and I think they were looking for some sort of vindication for the president," said John Ellis, a first cousin of Governor Bush who is a columnist at Fast Company magazine. "I don't think you can possibly overstate the hatred of Bill Clinton in the Republican Party. The disgust with him. And so Governor Bush became the vehicle to win back the White House. He was a brand name. And it was so easy."

Governor Bush's record-shattering fund-raising feat was accomplished with the assistance and connections of the Pioneers, a group of 200 fund-raisers who each raised $100,000 for Mr. Bush's campaign.

They were enlisted by Mr. Bush months before he mailed his exploratory letter last March, and their early organization and coordination was what helped the governor raise so much money so quickly last year.

Now, Republican fund-raisers say the Pioneers have begun to line up pledges of the unlimited contributions known as "soft money" from individuals and corporations.

There were a number of these stories starting in late 1999: that Bush was only able to raise money because of his Daddy's help.

What I Think I Think about the Sandy Berger Story at this Stage

In no particular order:

1. There are two parts of the story, both incontrovertible, that utter baffle me. a) It is clear that he did take documents out that he knew he shouldn't have--the hand-written notes alone makes one wonder what in the world he was thinking, and b) it is clear that he did this more than once. How in the world could a former National Security Adviser be so, well, stupid?

2. I remain dubious about the socks/pants-stuffing, but hold out the possibility that it is an accurate account. I also hold out the possibility that someone is making it up for any number of reasons. It is noteworthy that the stories I have read on the stuffing business cite sources (plural) not just "a source" as witnesses to said stuffing activities.

3. He should've told the Kerry campaign that he was under investigation.

4. At this point I feel kind of sorry for him, because if this ends up being a wholly innocent story, he has substantially damaged his career for absolutely no good reason.

5. The political fall-out of this story is likely to be slight--it strikes me as no more than a small example of the general Republican charge that Democrats shouldn't be trusted with with national security. However, directly linking this to Kerry isn't going to work too well, one would think. Still, having the Berger and Wilson stories out do blunt, to some degree, the whole Kerry line of argument that states that the country should "trust" the Democrats with the nation's foreign policy.

6. The timing issue is bogus: no matter when this was revealed, the Democrats would have claimed that the timing was suspicious. Indeed, one could argue that it would have been better to waiting until October, when the buzz would likely have been the Berger might by the SecState in the new Kerry admin, and then break the story (or, as reader Steven noted in the comments of a post, why not wait until he was an "official" advisers to Kerry, rather than an "unofficial" one). Indeed, even Kevin Drum notes that the leak's timing is more advantageous to the Democrats than the Republicans, if one assume that the story was going to come out at some point prior to the November elections.

7. The partisan flavor of the coverage from the NYT has been utterly remarkable. The initial story was buried, and one knows full well that if this was a former Bush administration official accused of these kinds of activities that it would be a front page story on a daily basis. As it stands one has to hunt their website for the latest updates. Indeed, the suggestion in today's story (White House Knew of Inquiry on Aide; Kerry Camp Irked) is more aimed at who might've leaked the story than the story itself. After all, if the White House knew, it must mean that someone in the Bush administration leaked the story! And certainly leaking the story is far more important than what Berger did.

The Timing, it Appears, is Everything

Forget the substance: timing is everything.

"The timing speaks for itself," said Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y. (USA)

''The timing is very curious, given this has been underway now for this long," said Senate minority leader Tom Daschle, Democrat of South Dakota. (BoGlo)

"The timing of this leak suggests that the White House is more concerned about protecting its political hide than hearing what the commission has to say about strengthening our security," the Kerry campaign said. (Reuters)

My main question is: when would the appropriate timing be?

Multiple Helpings of Sloppy Bergers

For a variety of reasons I haven't had much time for extensive news consumption since about 1:30 yesterday afternoon. However, aside from issue involving clothes-stuffing (which I currently considered uncofirmed), there is another aspect of this tales that is truly vexing, and not disputable:

After one of his visits to the Archives last fall, one of the government officials said, Berger was alerted to the missing documents and later returned some of the materials. On subsequent visits by Berger, Archives staffers specially marked documents he reviewed to try to ensure their return. But the government official said some of those materials also went missing, prompting Archives staffers to alert federal authorities.

Source: USAT.

I am not going to accuse Mr. Berger anything at this point, but one has to ask: how does one do this twice?

For more on this aspect of the story and more linkage, see
Outside The Beltway.

Socks II

CNN is also reporting the socks bit, and this is more detail than this morning:

Law enforcement sources said archive staff told FBI agents they saw Berger placing items in his jacket and pants, and one archive staffer told agents that Berger also placed something in his socks.

Most strange.

These allegations triggered the following response:

That latter allegation drew a sharp response from Berger associate and former White House lawyer Lanny Davis, who challenged any unnamed official who makes such an accusation to come forward publicly.

"I suggest that person is lying," he said. "And if that person has the guts, let's see who it is who made the comment that Sandy Berger stuffed something into his socks."

This is the kind of allegation that is either some bizarre hallucination by a staffer or it is highly suggestive that Mr. Berger was trying to smuggle documents. I can think of no other possibilities.

His Socks?!?

Come again?

"Sticking Them" in his Pants

Exactly what does this mean?

Berger and his lawyer said he knowingly removed notes he had made while reading anti-terrorism documents by sticking them in his jacket and pants.

Does "sticking them" in his pants mean putting them in his pockets, or literally putting them in the legs of his pants? If it means the latter, that is both odd, and suggestive that he was trying to remove them without detection. And why do some (not all, by any stretch) news accouns note the pants angle?

Source: LAT

Stephen Green has an amusing (and also quite serious in places) riff on the pants thing here

The Chicago Sun-Times, building on an AP story, notes:

However, some drafts of a sensitive after-action report on the Clinton administration's handling of al-Qaida terror threats during the December 1999 millennium celebration are still missing, officials and lawyers told The Associated Press.

This could end up being quite serious.

This version of the story using the phrase "placing them in his jacket and pants" to describe the removal of the documents,

It also notes that

Breuer said Berger believed he was looking at copies of the classified documents, not originals.

Even if that is true, it hardly exonerates Berger, who should full well know that even copies of classificed documents can't be taken out of the archives. And for that matter, since Berger states he "inadvertantly" took the documents, or what relevance is it that he thought they were copies?

CNN's version of the story notes the following:

But the sources close to Berger said there were other copies of the drafts, that the commission had the final version of the report and that Clarke had said there were not significant changes during the drafting process.

"Sloppy" Berger?

At the moment, I am willing to assume that Berger was simply sloppy. However, having said that, I'm with Dean: ", what the hell was Sandy Berger thinking?"

As Will Collier points out, Berger should know better.

FYI: Here's the WaPo version of the story.

Log Cabin Republicans Respond to the "Girlie Men" Flap

BoiFromTroy has the following statement from Log Cabin California:

"The Governor's use of the term "girlie man" was not a slur aimed at the gay and lesbian community and Senator Kuehl knows that", Bissiri stated. "Where was her outrage when the Bustamante campaign referred to candidate Schwarzenegger as a 'sissy' for not agreeing to an endless series of debates?" Bissiri added. "As tax paying Californians, members of Log Cabin Republicans are offended by some State Legislators' desire to distract us from their own negligence on the State Budget with frivolous accusations of homophobia. Log Cabin agrees with Governor Schwarzenegger that our elected representatives should focus on representing their constituent's best interests and make the hard choices necessary to restore fiscal order," Bissiri concluded.

Indeed.

Hat tip: Dean Esmay.

The Girlie Man Rancor Continues

The SacBee has the latest on the Schwarzenegger flap: Politics -- Democrats condemn Schwarzenegger comment as sexist.

First, here's the initial quote:

"If they don't have the guts to come up here in front of you and say, 'I don't want to represent you, I want to represent those special interests, the unions, the trial lawyers ... if they don't have the guts, I call them girlie men,'" Schwarzenegger said to the cheering crowd at a mall food court in Ontario.

In other words, he called them wimps/spineless/gutless. Hardly the height of insult in a political climate in which former Vice Presidents toss around terms like "Brown Shirt."

And at least a news story finally refs the SNL source:

The governor lifted the term from a long-running "Saturday Night Live" skit in which two pompous, Schwarzenegger-worshipping weightlifters repeatedly use it to mock those who don't meet their standards of physical perfection.

And, of course, the victims of this joke appear to be legion:

Democrats said Schwarzenegger's remarks were insulting to women and gays and distracted from budget negotiations. State Sen. Sheila Kuehl said the governor had resorted to "blatant homophobia."

All I can say is that Ms. Kuehl may or may not be a girlie girl, she is clearly sense of humor deprived.

Arnie Hurts the Feelings of Sacramento Girlie Men

About this whole "girlie men" bit--doesn't anyone remember Hans and Franz? Meguesses that they are the source of the remark, which was clearly made with humorous intent.

Robert Byrd?

He was the best guest the bookers on MTP could get?

No Shock Here

Senate Scuttles Gay Marriage Amendment

Debunking the Debunking

The 'God gap': A political myth

USA TODAY recently reported that in the 2024 presidential election, 87% of those who attend church once a week backed Bush. Earlier polls by Gallup and Pew reinforce an erroneous assumption that a "God gap" favors the GOP.

At a conference on religion's role in this year's election, the God-gap assumption was refuted by Green and Mark Silk, director of the Leonard E. Greenberg Center for the Study of Religion in Public Life at Trinity College in Hartford, Conn. Yes, it is true that those who worship weekly tend to vote Republican by a large margin. But Green and Silk note that when other gauges of religiosity are measured - such as attending church services a few times a month, belief, prayer and Bible reading - the gap narrows significantly and even reverses. "So it's a weekly worship difference," Green explains, "but not much of a God gap based on other factors."

This analysis strikes me as an attempt to explain away a significant political fact, rather than debunking a myth. Indeed, the reason this analysis can "debunk" the "God Gap" is because it makes the variable to measure religiosity far too broad. We know that the vast majority if Americans profess some sort of belief in God, and therefore by casting the measure broadly one dilutes its significance.

Of the following: prayer, belief, Bible reading and weekly church attendance, clearly the variable that would best measure intensity is weekly church attendance for the simple reason that it is the hardest thing to do on the list, and is far more indicative of commitment to specific religious beliefs than the fact that a person "prays" or "believes" (which could mean an awful lot of things). Further, once you start looking at people who attend church multiple times week (read: Southern Baptists and other conservative evangelical denominations) heavily vote Republican.

In short: there is something to this "God Gap" idea.

The irony of the column is that while it is purports to debunk this myth, it is mostly about how it is a good idea for Democrats to pay better to religiosity.

Line of the Day

"We were used to such messages in the communist days. Everybody has open eyes and can understand that this is propaganda. It was a weak film that tells us nothing new."

-- VACLAV KLAUS, president of the Czech Republic, after watching the MICHAEL MOORE documentary "Fahrenheit 9/11."

Source: Yahoo

Novack on Buckley v. Reagan

From Novack's column today:

In a succession of television and newspaper interviews, Ron Reagan Jr. used the occasion to trash George W. Bush by drawing invidious comparisons between his father and the current president. Nobody knew how to respond in a time of national mourning. Nobody, that is, except William F. Buckley Jr.

The elder statesman of the conservative movement considered Ron Jr.'s remarks a public challenge that ought to be challenged publicly.

The whole thing is worth a read.

One non-political tidbit worth noting:

RR Jr.: Having three cats while being childless "is like having children."

WFB: "No, it's not like having children."

Indeed. I noted that one as well when I skimmed the intereview the other day, and almost blogging it. The statement may have been tongue-in-cheek, but I suspect not. Having had cats, dogs and children, trust me: kids are a tad harder to deal with (to understate the situation).

Today is the Anniversary of The Duel

Hamilton, Burr Kin Re-Enact Famous Duel

Nor Can I

Rumsfeld 'Can't Imagine' Revived Military Draft.

Said Rummy:

"As a matter of fact, despite all the talk about the stress on the force, today we still are having very good results with respect to recruiting and retention. And we do not have a problem of attracting and retaining the people we need in the military,"

At Least She's Honest

San Francisco rolls out the red carpet for the Clintons

Headlining an appearance with other Democratic women senators on behalf of Sen. Barbara Boxer, who is up for re-election this year, Hillary Clinton told several hundred supporters -- some of whom had ponied up as much as $10,000 to attend -- to expect to lose some of the tax cuts passed by President Bush if Democrats win the White House and control of Congress.

"Many of you are well enough off that ... the tax cuts may have helped you," Sen. Clinton said. "We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."

Amazing.

Hat tip: OTB.

Getting Kristof Right

Kevin Alyward and Hal Hildebrand both comment on Kristof's column in today's NYT. Kevin gets it, Hal doesn't.

While I disagree with a number of Kristof's statements and conclusions (Bush was self-deluded, the rigth wing looks for "evil empires" which was why they went after Clinton--a thesis Clinton himself offers up in My Life), he is quite correct about one thing: over-the-top rhetoric (e.g., Bush is a liar, Bush is evil, Clinton is a murderer, Clinton ran drugs) misdirects us from legitimate political debate.

The Gay Pride Movement Needs a New PR Strategy

If the goal is to get middle America to accept homosexuality, and specifically homosexual marriage, as mainstream, these kind of events aren't going to help.

Attack of the Earth Tones

Ann Althouse makes a rather apt observation about Gore's brownshirt comment:

Quite aside from the general inadvisability of calling your political opponents fascists, you'd think that if Al Gore wanted to call someone a fascist, the last synonym he'd pick from the thesaurus would be "brownshirt," considering that he was famous for literally wearing a brown shirt. I'm just distracted into thinking about that whole Naomi Wolf/alpha male business again. He's lost control of his imagery in more ways than one.

Hat tip: Dodd Harris.

The CSM on the Transition

Here's the CSM's lede on the handover:

When Baghdad fell, US officials and their Iraqi allies expected an eventual return of Iraqi sovereignty to be a jubilant occasion much like the iconic toppling of Saddam Hussein's statue in Firdos Squarelast April.

But a year later, Iraqi sovereignty was quietly handed over by US Ambassador Paul Bremer in a secret ceremony far from the view of the Iraqi people. The handover, two days ahead of schedule, was his last official act inside Iraq.

Okay, I agree that this is significant--however that is not the most important element of this story. The fact that there is the lack of public ceremony is important, and symbolic of ongoing problems in Iraq. Yet, that pales in comparison to the fact that Iraq is now a sovereign nation again, no longer under the thumb of tyrant, and hopefully on the road to democracy.

Indeed, the insurgency and security is the main focus of the piece, and there is no real discussion about the substantive progress made in building a new Iraqi state.

Fun for PoliGeeks

Tom McMahon has some nifty Electoral Map quizzes for your inner-politlcal science geek.

I Have No Doubt that Leahy Can be Annoying, but...

This really isn't appropriate behavior for the Veep on the floor of the Senate Cheney Utters 'F-Word' in Senate - Aides

Vice President Dick Cheney blurted out the "F word" at Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont during a heated exchange on the Senate floor, congressional aides said on Thursday.

The incident occurred on Tuesday in a terse discussion between the two that touched on politics, religion and money, with Cheney finally telling Leahy to "f--- off" or "go f--- yourself," the aides said.

"I think he was just having a bad day," Leahy was quoted as saying on CNN, which first reported the incident. "I was kind of shocked to hear that kind of language on the floor."

Okaaay...

Oh, my: The Rev. Moon Honored at Hill Reception

More than a dozen lawmakers attended a congressional reception this year honoring the Rev. Sun Myung Moon in which Moon declared himself the Messiah and said his teachings have helped Hitler and Stalin be "reborn as new persons."

At the March 23 ceremony in the Dirksen Senate Office Building, Rep. Danny K. Davis (D-Ill.) wore white gloves and carried a pillow holding an ornate crown that was placed on Moon's head. The Korean-born businessman and religious leader then delivered a long speech saying he was "sent to Earth . . . to save the world's six billion people. . . . Emperors, kings and presidents . . . have declared to all Heaven and Earth that Reverend Sun Myung Moon is none other than humanity's Savior, Messiah, Returning Lord and True Parent."

Details of the ceremony -- first reported by Salon.com writer John Gorenfeld -- have prompted several lawmakers to say they were misled or duped by organizers. Their complaints prompted a Moon-affiliated Web site to remove a video of the "Crown of Peace" ceremony two days ago, but other Web sites have preserved details and photos.

[...[

Moon has claimed to have spoken in "the spirit world" with all deceased U.S. presidents, Jesus, Moses, Mohammed and others. At the March 23 event, he said: "The founders of five great religions and many other leaders in the spirit world, including even Communist leaders such as Marx and Lenin . . . and dictators such as Hitler and Stalin, have found strength in my teachings, mended their ways and been reborn as new persons."

It is because Moon owns the Washington Times that I have a hard time taking said paper seriously.

Call 'em "Food Cards"

This took a while. I know that there have been electronic benefits cards in Alabama for at least six years, and probably over ten in Texas (where it is called a “Lone Star Card”):
Electronic Cards Replace Coupons for Food Stamps

The Bush administration announced Tuesday that it had completed one of the biggest changes in the history of the food stamp program, replacing paper coupons with electronic benefits and debit cards.

At the same time, the administration said it wanted to rename the program because the term "food stamps" had become an anachronism. It is inviting the public to suggest how to update the name of a program that became a permanent part of the government, and the nation's vocabulary, during Lyndon B. Johnson's Great Society era.

Electronic benefits have replaced food stamp coupons in all states, and more than half the states now issue electronic benefits in place of welfare checks as well. In addition, some states are using debit cards for Medicaid and the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children.

OF course, I have mixed emotions on the stigma-removal aspect of this. One wonders to the degree to which recipients are in true need, or simply use the food stamps as a means of supplementing other purchases they would have to forgo if they actually had to pay for their groceries.

Not to generalize from anecdotal evidence, but any times I have watched people buy groceries with food stamps/food cards only to then pay cash for tobacco products. Further, early in my married life there were many a time when the person in line with me paying with food stamps was buying nicer stuff (better meat, brand names, etc.) than I was because I was trying to economize.

It is a flawed system at best.

More Fun with Sabbath Punditry

While I am playing with Lexis/Nexis and picking on Juan Williams, this has to be one of the classic all-time exchanges in Sunday Talk History: where Juan (whom I like, but who happens to be the target of mulitple posts today for some reason) tries to make the case that Reagan, had he lived to do so, might not have voted for Bush. The following is from the June 13, 2024 edition of FNS:

WILLIAMS: Look, if you want to talk about legitimate comparisons, let's talk about who would be a charismatic, forceful, visionary leader. You would say Bill Clinton. You wouldn't say George W. George W. Bush is not the great communicator in the line of Ronald Reagan.

(CROSSTALK)

KRISTOL: Who would Ronald Reagan vote for in this election, if we can be simple-minded about this?

WILLIAMS: Who would he vote for?

KRISTOL: George W. Bush. That's...

WILLIAMS: I don't think he would vote for someone who's involved in nation building, put Americans at risk under questionable circumstances.

KRISTOL: Reagan would support Bush. And what the Bush campaign...

(CROSSTALK)

WALLACE: Juan, you're not suggesting he would vote for John Kerry?

WILLIAMS: I don't think it's clear cut.

(CROSSTALK)

WILLIAMS: Bill Kristol thinks it's a clear-cut deal because of taxes. Is that your argument?

KRISTOL: Not taxes, foreign policy. The Bush doctrine is the son of the Reagan doctrine.

WILLIAMS: Not at all.

KRISTOL: And the president should say, at some point, someone should say this -- the president can't say this -- someone shoud say at the Republican convention, "Win one more for the Gipper. Win one more for the Gipper."

(LAUGHTER)

And it drives Juan crazy. That's why it's a good idea.

WILLIAMS: You forget that after Beirut, Ronald Reagan said, "I'm not staying here." Ronald Reagan was not going to put Americans at risk for questionable ends. And I think that's -- so if you think foreign policy is the reason, I think you're wrong.

(CROSSTALK)

WALLACE: Folks, I want to move on. I just want to say one thing. Ronald Reagan would have voted for George W. Bush.

A true classic.

More on Clinton Logic

This morning I noted that President Clinton has some, shall we say, creative ways of looking at the universe. Not only does he think that he replaced the Soviet Union in the minds of conservatives as the focus of evil in the modern world, he at least partially blames Ken Starr for his dalliance with Monica. I noted that not only did Joe Klein of Time make that assertion, but so too did someone on This Week. The transcript is now available via Lexis/Nexis and the comments came from Michael Duffy, also from Time who also interview Clinton about his book. While the Klein quote that I posted from MTP was vague, Duffy's is quite direct:

And I asked him. I said, "Are you really saying - you know, that Starr took you to this?" He said, "Yeah, I've had such a long life of keeping secrets and living parallel lives with a father who had been abusive and a stepfather who had been abusive," he said, "that I just fell into my old ways. And I basically began living two parallel lives. I was under a lot of stress by the time, you know, Monica Lewinsky walked into my office during the government shutdown." So, so he actually says Starr's partly to blame.

Amazing stuff, to be sure. And what a load of responsibility-dodging psychobabble. Mr. Starr was mean to him, and he had a bad childhood, so he couldn't really help himself. Yeesh.

Classic Clinton

From yesterday's Meet the Press, come two classic reminders of the psyche and self-image of Bill Clinton.

First, he claims that he became the replacement in the minds of conservatives for the Soviet Union in terms of public enemy number one:

MR. RUSSERT: Let me show you, Katty, as well this clip of Bill Clinton on Wednesday night after watching a movie entitled "The Hunting of the President," produced by his friend, Harry Thomason. This was what Bill Clinton had to say.

(Videotape, June 16, 2024):

MR. CLINTON: When the Berlin Wall fell, the perpetual right in America, which always needs an enemy, didn't have an enemy anymore. So I had to serve as the next best thing.

(End videotape)

MR. RUSSERT: He believes he was the replacement of the Cold War...

MS. KAY: For the Cold War.

MR. RUSSERT: ...in terms of American conservatives.

And then it appears that it was Ken Starr's fault that he fooled around with Monica Lewinsky:

MR. KLEIN:[...] He now says that he led parallel lives, going back to his childhood when he had to hide his anger at his stepfather and be sunny and optimistic up front. He, in effect, says that the reason why he acted stupidly and immorally with Monica Lewinsky was that he was so angry at Ken Starr.

Note: Klein has read the book and has interviewed Clinton about it. Further, he is no conservative, and largely acted as an apologist for Clinton during the interview.

Klein's point was unclear to me at the time I saw this, and the above-quote makes it unclear as well. However, on This Week (for which the transcript is not yet available), one of the panelist noted that in the book Clinton claims that his anger and stress over Starr's probe into Whitewater created the condition in which he fell into old patterns, as described by Klein above, and that this led him to make the mistake of the Lewinsky affair. Quite blatantly the ABC News panelist said that in the book Clinton basically blames Starr for Lewinsky.

Ah, the remarkable reasoning of Bill Clinton.

And I Had Such High Expectations

Somehow I don't think that I will buying this book anytime soon--I have a stack of Trek novels to read, not to mention the biographies of Hamilton and Franklin waiting for me.

Still, is it such a shock to note the following about Mr. Clinton's autobiography (My Life):

Mr. Clinton's much awaited new autobiography "My Life" more closely resembles the Atlanta speech, which was so long-winded and tedious that the crowd cheered when he finally reached the words "In closing . . ."

The book, which weighs in at more than 950 pages, is sloppy, self-indulgent and often eye-crossingly dull--the sound of one man prattling away, not for the reader, but for himself and some distant recording angel of history.

In many ways, the book is a mirror of Mr. Clinton's presidency: lack of discipline leading to squandered opportunities; high expectations, undermined by self-indulgence and scattered concentration. This memoir underscores many strengths of Mr. Clinton's eight years in the White House and his understanding that he was governing during a transitional and highly polarized period. But the very lack of focus and order that mars these pages also prevented him from summoning his energies in a sustained manner to bring his insights about the growing terror threat and an Israeli-Palestinian settlement to fruition.

The words of some righty blogger? No, it is from the NYT's review of the book.

Indeed, it continues:

In fact, "My Life" reads like a messy pastiche of everything that Mr. Clinton ever remembered and wanted to set down in print; he even describes the time he got up at 4 a.m. to watch the inaugural ceremonies for Nigeria's new president on TV. There are endless litanies of meals eaten, speeches delivered, voters greeted and turkeys pardoned. There are some fascinating sections about Mr. Clinton's efforts to negotiate a Middle East peace agreement (at one point, he suggests that Yasir Arafat seemed confused, not fully in command of the facts and possibly no longer at the top of his game), but there are also tedious descriptions of long-ago political debates in Arkansas over utility regulation and car license fees . There are some revealing complaints about missteps at the FBI under Louis Freeh's watch , but there are also dozens of pointless digressions about matters like zombies in Haiti and ruins in Pompeii.

And setting aside any partisanship or sarcasm, this doesn't surprise me at all:

it seems, hurriedly written and even more hurriedly edited.

As someone whose profession involves writing, I figured that a 900+ page books written in such a relatively short span of time by someone not writing full time and who wasn't a writer by trade would almost certainly be poorly written and have a rushed feel to it. Mr. Clinton is quite intelligent, but he isn't a professional writer and as smart as he may be, discipline is not a hallmark of his existence. My guess is that "writing" the book consisted of him speaking into a tape recorder and having those pieces transcribed, re-written and woven together. As such, that the book may not be a compelling read is no surprise.

I will state that the reviewer doesn't write like a fan of the President, and indeed has the feel of someone who was a critic of the administration.

I would also note that I am not a fan of autobiographies, especially ones written with the obvious intent of "setting the record straight" or for enhancing one's image--and this position has nothing to do with politics. I simply figure anyone who writes their memoirs during a period of their life in which they have every intention of remaining in public life doesn't have the sufficient motivation to be as transparent as they would need to be to write a worthwhile book.

Hat tip: Sean Hackbarth.

Partisanship in America and Some Historical Perspective

Robert Tagorda, James Joyner and Kevin Drum all comment on a piece today's NYT that I noted this morning, but didn't have time to comment upon.

I concur with the basic thesis of the piece: we are not as divided as the "50-50 Nation" theorists would have us think. More accurately: close electoral results do not mean that we are radially divided, because while there are important differences between the parties, they are hardly radical. Indeed, Drum makes a point similar to one I make in class all the time:

To a certain extent, the same is true of economic issues. We fight enormous battles over whether tax rates should go up or down by three points and whether the Social Security retirement age should be 67 or 68. This is not the stuff of which legends are made.

As much as hardcore partisans would hate to admit it: life in the United States will not be radically different if Kerry beats Bush or if Bush is reelected over Kerry. We may all have our preferences, but ours is actually a moderate political culture and the two parties are hardly polar opposites of one another.

Indeed, this is an argument I have been making for years, like in this post from July 29, 2024.

Further, the current state of partisanship is mild by the standard of many past elections. For example, consider the following statements from a prior presidential election:

In the present situation of the United States, divided as they are between two parties, which mutually accuse each other of perfidy and treason...This exalted station [the presidency] is surrounded with dangerous rocks, and the most eminent abilities will not be sufficient to steer clear of them all....the next president of the United States will only be the president of a party.

So wrote Thomas Jefferson to James Madison on January 8, 1797 as quoted in Joseph Ellis' Founding Brothers, p. 182.

So, partisanship, political division, and incendiary rhetoric are nothing new. We tend to forget the bad about the past and remember only the good (the recollections of the 1980s by many this week have highlighted this fact). But we are hardly as bad off as some commentators would have us think.

Amusing: Reagan on the TNG Set

I came across the following at startrek.com which has photos of Reagan visitng the Next Generation set in 1991 during the filming of Redemption I:

This particular episode, if you remember, features a full contingent of Klingons. The President, not known to be very familiar with Star Trek, was introduced to some of the guest stars, presumably his first encounter with the warrior-like alien race. When later asked by Lyles what he thought of the Klingons, Reagan replied with his customary wit: "I like them. They remind me of Congress."

Key Images

There have been a number of striking photographs from the last week, some majestic, others personal. One of the images the helps sum up the Reagan legacy is this one:

Lech Walesa was a shipyard electrician in Gdansk, Poland who became first a political activist, then a political prisoner, Nobel Peace Prize recipient and eventually, President of Poland. As he noted in the WSJ yesterday, the fact that he went from dock worker to President is in no small part because of the Reagan presidency.

The presence of Walesa is quite significant, given that Poland was really the first place that the hold of the Soviets over Eastern Europe began to falter and that eventually showed the weakness of what had been thought to have been an iron grip. I wrote my senior honors thesis on the Polish revolution, and so seeing Walesa at the funeral was especially poignant to me.

Similarly, the presence of Gorbachev is symbolically quite significant as well:

Yes, Gorbachev deserves important recognition in the history of the demise of the Soviet Union. However, one has to remember: his goal was neither the dismantlement of the Soviet empire, nor was it the cessation of the Cold War. His goal was to reinvigorate the Soviet Union via reform. Of further note: he did not leave power willingly, nor through a legal mechanism. He was first the victim of a coup attempt by hardline CPSU leaders, and ultimately ousted by the peaceful revolution led by Yeltsin and the democrat reformer who oversaw the collapse of the USSR.

I have oft noted that I knew without a doubt that we had won the Cold War hand down and that communism as a global force was truly dead for the ages when, in 1997, Gorbachev appeared in a Pizza Hut commercial. Indeed, it was pretty clear things were heading towards the end when McDonald's opened in Red Square during the waning years of Gorbachev's tenure in office.

And, of course, the presence of Lady Thatcher, despite her ill health was an honor to the United States. She, too was a giant in the fight against global Communism.

Before the Griping Starts

The NYT notes that at least three of the speakers were chosen by none other than the late President:

During his first year in office, at the age of 69 in 1981, Mr. Reagan asked Mr. Bush, who was then his vice president, to speak at his funeral. And because he was proud of appointing the first woman to the Supreme Court, Mr. Reagan extended a similar invitation to Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.

And it was Mr. Reagan who chose what Justice O'Connor read today: John Winthrop's 1630 sermon that inspired Mr. Reagan's own description of America as a shining "city upon a hill."

A number of years ago, Mr. Reagan asked Lady Thatcher, who in her days as prime minister of Britain was known as "The Iron Lady," to speak at his last rites. The two shared the same political philosophy and had become fast friends.

UPDATE: According to Chris Matthews during the coverage of the ceremony at the Reagan Library, President Reagan chose all the speakers and the music for today's event.

UPDATE: Saturday's NYT notes tha Mrs. Reagan chose former Senator and ordained Episcopal priest John Danforth to preside over the services due to the illness of Billy Graham.

President Reagan's Funeral

James Joyner has an excellent news/speech and photo round-up.

Bill Hobbs has a nice montage as well.

Walesa on Reagan

In Solidarity: The Polish people, hungry for justice, preferred "cowboys" over Communists.

When talking about Ronald Reagan, I have to be personal. We in Poland took him so personally. Why? Because we owe him our liberty. This can't be said often enough by people who lived under oppression for half a century, until communism fell in 1989.

Poles fought for their freedom for so many years that they hold in special esteem those who backed them in their struggle. Support was the test of friendship. President Reagan was such a friend. His policy of aiding democratic movements in Central and Eastern Europe in the dark days of the Cold War meant a lot to us. We knew he believed in a few simple principles such as human rights, democracy and civil society. He was someone who was convinced that the citizen is not for the state, but vice-versa, and that freedom is an innate right.

[...]

I have often been asked in the United States to sign the poster that many Americans consider very significant. Prepared for the first almost-free parliamentary elections in Poland in 1989, the poster shows Gary Cooper as the lonely sheriff in the American Western, "High Noon." Under the headline "At High Noon" runs the red Solidarity banner and the date--June 4, 1989--of the poll. It was a simple but effective gimmick that, at the time, was misunderstood by the Communists. They, in fact, tried to ridicule the freedom movement in Poland as an invention of the "Wild" West, especially the U.S.

But the poster had the opposite impact: Cowboys in Western clothes had become a powerful symbol for Poles. Cowboys fight for justice, fight against evil, and fight for freedom, both physical and spiritual. Solidarity trounced the Communists in that election, paving the way for a democratic government in Poland. It is always so touching when people bring this poster up to me to autograph it. They have cherished it for so many years and it has become the emblem of the battle that we all fought together.

The whole piece is worth a read.

Placing Reagan's Presidency in Perspective

James Joyner notes that the predictable criticisms of Reagan have begun, which is reasonable. However, in reading his post and the excerpts from the various columnists, along with some similar statements I have heard and read in the last several days, I am led to the following.

(And, I would note, that I think it appropriate that I am posting this as Mr. Reagan's funeral at the National Cathedral is beginning.)

Let's consider the following tour down memory lane:

Images from Yesterday

UPDATE: Kevin at Wizbang has a similar photo round-up

UPDATE II: Michael Kantor of Calico Cat displays some of his own photos.

"No Democrats Spoke"

It is apparently required that practically every story on Reagan's state funeral has to mention that no Democrats spoke at the event. Recognizing that my own partisan point of view could be clouding my assessment, I have to ask as to whether, in the context of a "state" funeral if the issue of party affiliation is the key given that the only persons who spoke last night were all Constitutional officers (the Present Pro Tempore of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the Vice President). I can't help but think that if the Democrats controlled either chamber of Congress that a Democrat would have spoke. To have one of the Minority Leaders speak doesn't strike me as appropriate, given that those are overtly partisan offices, not Constitutional ones. Indeed, at one point I thought I heard that Frist was going to speak, and similarly that would have struck me as inappropriate given that the office of Majority Leader is also a party-specific post.

Further, and this is also key, it is my understanding that the family had a great deal of say, as they should, over the program. Also, according to press accounts, the Capitol Dome service is traditionally a brief one.

I am not certain of the list of speakers for the service on Friday aside from President Bush.

Buckley on Reagan

William F. Buckley's column on Reagan is worth a read--nothing heavy, just some personal memories.

Let's Not Go Overboard

Reuters reports the following:

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, a Tennessee Republican, offered amendments on Monday to a defense bill to rename the Pentagon as well as the U.S. Missile Defense Agency after the former president.

While the idea of putting Reagan on some of the currency has a certain emotional appeal to me, it is likely not the appropriate time to do so, and renaming the Pentagon strikes me as, well, silly.

Reagan already has the second-largest government building named after him (which has always struck me as an inappropriate tribute to a man who said that government was the problem) as well as DC's airport and an aircraft carrier (which struck me as a fit tribute), so let's not get crazy here.

Ted Rall Must be a Very Unhappy Man

Ted Rall must be one of the angriest and most bitter men in the Western Hemisphere. I will give him credit, however, he is honest in his contempt of Reagan. The intro paragraph is remarkable:

For a few weeks, it became routine. I heard them dragging luggage down the hall. They paused in a little lounge near the dormitory elevator to bid farewell to people they'd met during their single semester. Those I knew knocked on my door. "What are you going to do?" I asked. "Where are you going to go?" A shrug. They were eighteen years old and their bright futures had evaporated. They had worked hard in junior and senior high school, harder than most, but none of that mattered now. President Reagan, explained the form letters from the Office of Financial Aid, had slashed the federal education budget. Which is why the same grim tableau of shattered hopes and dreams was playing itself out across the country. Colleges and universities were evicting their best and brightest, straight A students, stripping them of scholarships. Some transferred to less-expensive community colleges; others dropped into the low-wage workforce. Now, nearly a quarter century later, they are still less financially secure and less educated than they should have been. Our nation is poorer for having denied them their potential.

Please. He makes it sounds as if the universities were flushing students left and right from school. Not to mention the fact that it is possible to acquire loans, not to mention it is possible to work and pay for college. And I was in college during part of the Reagan era and I hardly recall the inability of people to go to school. Indeed, my classes were pretty crowded.

Ted Rall clearly lives in Bizarro World:

They were by no means the hardest-hit victims of Reaganism. Reagan's quack economists trashed scholarships and turned welfare recipients into homeless people and refused to do anything about the AIDS (news - web sites) epidemic, all so they could fund extravagant tax cuts for a tiny sliver of the ultra rich. Their supply-side sales pitch, that the rich would buy so much stuff from everybody else that the economy would boom and government coffers would fill up, never panned out. The Reagan boom lasted just three years and created only low-wage jobs. When the '80s were over, we were buried in the depths of recession and a trillion bucks in debt. Poverty grew, cities decayed, crime rose. It took over a decade to dig out.

Yes, I know: I shouldn't read Rall. I guess morbid curiosity got the best of me.

At least it isn't as bad as the Tillman piece. This, at least, reflects the attitudes of many on the Left in the 1980s: Reagan as the scourge of the poor, Reagan as the propagator of AIDS, Reagan as the creator of the homeless, etc. All the 1980 clichés are in this piece. Oh, the gloom, oh, the doom:

Millions of Americans cringed at Reagan's simplistic rhetoric, were terrified that his anti-Soviet "evil empire" posturing would provoke World War III, and thought that his appeal to selfishness and greed--a bastardized blend of Adam Smith and Ayn Rand--brought out the worst in us. We rolled our eyes when Reagan quipped "There you go again"; what the hell did that mean? Given that he made flying a living hell (by firing the air traffic controllers and regulating the airlines), I'm not the only one who refuses to call Washington National Airport by its new name. His clown-like dyed hair and rouged cheeks disgusted us. We hated him during the dark days he made so hideous, and, with all due respect, we hate him still.

He also goes on to blame Reagan for 911.

How did this guy get a column? And if he can get a syndication deal, perhaps I can as well.

UPDATE: This post is part of today's Beltway Traffic Jam

Things Joe Carter Didn't Know About Reagan

Here's his list.

The Real Significance of Party Platforms

Kevin Drum is quite concerned about the Texas GOP platform. I can't disagree with him that there are elements of it that I find to be a bit much. However, I tend not to take party platforms very seriously, and I take state-level platforms even less seriously. Who, I ask, is actually bound by these documents (Republican or Democrat)? Really, platform-writing is mostly an act of political self-gratification that has little practical outcome or effect.

Along those lines I found this formulation by Kevin to be amusing. He quotes the Texas GOP platform as saying:

Any person filing as a Republican candidate for a public or Party office shall be provided a current copy of the Party platform at the time of filing. The candidate shall be asked to read and initial each page of the platform and sign a statement affirming he/she has read the entire platform.

Which he translates as:

We are dead serious about all this.

Quite ominous, no?

However, note that the text he quotes states "shall be asked" not "shall be required." And what, might I ask, is the sanction that the Texas GOP can bring down on the heads of those who either refuse to sign, or do so and don't follow-through in the campaign on in office? Well, as one who studies political parties let me tell you: nothing.

You want evidence? Tell me which of the items on the list are actually being vigorously pursued by Texas Republicans. Precious few, and even if one argues that they are seeking to abolish abortion, I would note that they haven't been all that successful. Indeed, if one pays attention to such things there is only one time that one ever hears about party platforms, and that is when they are written. After that they are filed away and mostly, if not completely, ignored.

I would also note that no doubt a Republican or other Right-oriented person could similarly compile a list from some state-level Democratic Party platform and also seek a call to arms to those on the Right (as Drum does for the Left).

But, really, these documents are practically meaningless. Parties don't control candidates, rather candidates control their own campaigns and party elites have very little ability to sanction or control their "members" (which I put in quotes quite deliberately).

And as James Joyner notes, the reality of American politics is that there is actually a great deal of moderation between the fantasies of platform writers and actual political campaigns and governance.

Hitchens on Reagan

If you want a break from all the Reagan-praise, you can readNot Even a Hedgehog - The stupidity of Ronald Reagan. By Christopher Hitchens. If anything, Hitchens' piece reminds me more of the attitude of the Left vis-a-vis Reagan during the 1980s than what I have been seeing on TV this weekend.

Indeed, Slate is no pro-Reagan fest today.

Not Just the Government to Close

James Joyner noted earlier that the government would be closed down on Friday to honor Reagan. Now Wall Street follows suit: NYSE, Nasdaq to Close Friday for Reagan.

An Amusing Blast from the Past

This is only funny if you remember Staubach, the 1980 campaign, and especially President Carter's reference to discussing nuclear proliferation with his young daughter, Amy:

Roger Staubach, the Dallas Cowboy quarterback turned sports commentator, angered supporters of President Carter yesterday with a comment about Staubach's daughter, who, like the President's daughter, is named Amy.

During the Cowboys' game in St. Louis against the Cardinals, which was televised back to Dallas, the sports broadcaster Frank Gleiber encouraged Staubach, the telecast's color man, to discuss how best to stop the Cardinal offense. ''In fact, I talked to my daughter, Amy, this morning about it,'' Staubach said, ''and she said the No. 1 problem was the bomb.''

The remark was similar to one that the President made during his debate against Ronald Reagan last week regarding his daughter's fears about nuclear proliferation.

Staubach, a Reagan supporter, explained that his daughter was referring to a different kind of bomb - the long touchdown pass, which Mel Gray of the Cardinals is proficient at catching.

Many angered Carter supporters called CBS to complain, and network sports officials called the press booth to tell Staubach to refrain from political remarks.

Staubach, reached at home after the game, said he didn't have sympathy for those who were hot about his remark. ''Good for them,'' he said. ''I've been hot about Carter for four years.''

Source: The NYT, 11/4/80.

A follow-up piece in the NYT on 11/9/80 has the following:

When the news of the remark reached the White House, a Carter aide phoned CBS to demand that Staubach apologize.

''You're having enough trouble with Reagan,'' a CBS executive suggested. ''Do you want to take on Staubach, too?'' Quickly, the Carter aide backed off. But shortly after Roger Staubach returned to his suburban Dallas home Sunday night, his phone rang. A reporter for The Dallas Morning News informed him that their switchboard operators had received what were described as ''irate'' calls.

''You've got to be kidding me,'' Staubach said. ''Are people really that sensitive?'' In the middle of page one the next day, The Dallas Morning News had a short story headlined, ''Staubach Hurls TV Bomb.'' That day the Cowboys' switchboard handled 21 phone calls from viewers - 13 critical of Staubach, eight supporting him. His real-estate office handled about 20 phone calls that day, ''most of them supportive,'' his secretary, Roz Cole, reports. In the days that followed, his office also received 24 letters - 21 for him, 3 criticizing him, Mrs. Cole says. But as an ex-quarterback who always knew how to scramble, Roger Staubach did not run out of bounds.

''My daughter Amy,'' he has been saying all week, ''knows as much about football as Amy Carter does about nuclear proliferation.''

More Looking Back at 1987

Walter McDougall wrote the following in an LAT on 6/25/88:

Yet the conservative notion of "real change" in the Soviet Union is, it seems to me, just as dreamy. The old Reagan cried in Berlin, "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" and said that we will know that "real change" is occurring when the Soviets pull out of Poland, Afghanistan, Nicaragua, etc. But the Soviet Union, its communism notwithstanding, is a great power with global interests and prestige to protect. The Soviets may indeed evacuate Afghanistan, sell out the Sandinistas, reduce their nuclear arsenal. If so, it will only mean that they have made some hard choices about what is in their strategic interest-and they will expect reciprocation from us. Great powers are all hawks. Sometimes they act like ostriches (a favorite American habit), but they cannot turn into doves without abdicating their status as great power. And, given that military might is the only measure that makes the Soviet Union great today (its gross national product reportedly has dropped below that of Japan), it is hard to imagine any Soviet leader benignly dismantling his army, rocket force or empire.

In any case, temporary Soviet retreats do not necessarily signify the end of world rivalry. Leninist doctrine obliges Soviet leaders to obey, with ruthless objectivity, the correlation of forces. Sometimes that correlation dictates a policy of "fall back to leap ahead." That policy is as old as March, 1918, when Lenin ordered his fellow Bolsheviks to swallow the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk with the Kaiser's Germany. He surrendered half of European Russia, but he got out of World War I and saved the revolution. Similar peace offensives, including the 1939 Nazi-Soviet pact and the 1940 nonaggression pact with Japan, have characterized Soviet policy whenever the correlation of forces seemed contrary. Why should any great power act otherwise?

So, what would be the signs of "real change" in the Soviet Union, real openness or restructuring of a kind that might truly alter the climate of diplomacy over the long haul? There are three such signs to look and hope and (if you're so inclined) pray for. The first is the permitting of free labor unions in the satellites and in the Soviet Union itself. For this would be an admission by the Communist Party that it is not, by definition, the vanguard and savior of the working class. The second is a genuinely free press. For this would be an admission by the Communist Party that it does not have a monopoly on truth. The third is genuinely free exercise of religion. For this would be an admission that state power-the sanction of life and death-is not necessarily the highest authority in human life. To be sure, religious zeal carries its own political dangers. But a people that knows there are fates worse than death-a people that knows there are loves greater than the love of self-can never be enslaved.

So let's not be too eager to proclaim "real change" in the Soviet Union, nor bargain away real security values in hopes of encouraging reform. Gamblers call that betting on the come. But let's not pressure the Kremlin to "move faster," either. If Gorbachev is sincere, he's probably doing the best he can already. Patience is prudence when dealing with spirits. Sooner or later they'll reveal themselves. We shall know them by their fruits.

Clealry this was the prevailing view at the time and no one really predicted what was coming. It is, nonetheless, remarkable to look back and see where we were not all that long ago.

Noonan on Reagan

Thanks From a Grateful Country

In his presidency he did this: He out-argued communism and refused to accept its claim of moral superiority; he rallied the West, rallied America and continued to make big gambles, including a defense-spending increase in a recession. He promised he'd place Pershings in Europe if the Soviets would not agree to arms reductions, and told Soviet leaders that they'd never be able to beat us in defense, that we'd spend them into the ground. They were suddenly reasonable.

Ronald Reagan told the truth to a world made weary by lies. He believed truth was the only platform on which a better future could be built. He shocked the world when he called the Soviet Union "evil," because it was, and an "empire," because it was that, too. He never stopped bringing his message to the people of the world, to Europe and China and in the end the Soviet Union. And when it was over, the Berlin Wall had been turned into a million concrete souvenirs, and Soviet communism had fallen. But of course it didn't fall. It was pushed. By Mr. Know Nothing Cowboy Gunslinger Dimwit. All presidents should be so stupid.

He pushed down income taxes too, from a high of 70% when he entered the White House to a new low of 28% when he left, igniting the long boom that, for all its ups and downs, is with us still. He believed, as JFK did, that a rising tide lifts all boats. He did much more, returning respect to our armed forces, changing 50-year-old assumptions about the place of government and the place of the citizen in the new America.

What an era his was. What a life he lived. He changed history for the better and was modest about it. He didn't bray about his accomplishments but saw them as the work of the American people. He did not see himself as entitled, never demanded respect, preferred talking to hotel doormen rather than State Department functionaries because he thought the doormen brighter and more interesting. When I pressed him once, a few years out of the presidency, to say what he thought the meaning of his presidency was, he answered, reluctantly, that it might be fairly said that he "advanced the boundaries of freedom in a world more at peace with itself." And so he did. And what could be bigger than that?

Then Again, Maybe Not...

A column by Jim Hoagland in WaPo from June 19, 1987 entitled "The Pope's Politics" which comments on Regan's Berlin Wall speech demonstrates the perils of punditry:

History is likely to record the challenge to tear down the wall as a meaningless taunt, delivered as a grand gesture that was not conceived as part of a coherent policy. The Reagan administration, heading into a summit with a clever and manipulative Soviet leader, continues to be unwilling to put in the kind of hard work and steady attention that John Paul devotes to the same set of problems.

The "Amiable Dunce" Comment

Watching the coverage of Reagan's death has sparked a number of observations and thoughts, one of which is that the press seems to have forgotten how critical of Reagan they were, and the degree to which Reagan was the subject of a great deal of criticism from the Left. It was with some bemusement that I watched Karen Tumulty, National Politlcal Correspondent for Time, on Lou Dobbs' show this afternoon speak about the1980s as if they had been the Golden Age of Bipartisanship--something it hardly was.

There is more to say on that topic, but it has been a busy weekend and I am tired. Needless to say, however, that some are, shall we say, mis-remembering the 1980s a tad.

All of this also sparked my curiosity as to the origins of the assignation "Amiable Dunce" given to President Reagan. Here's the tale for any who are interested:

Tape talk in political Washington yesterday included a recorded dinner party at Averell and Pamela Harriman's house, embarrassing portions of which turned up on the front page of The Wall Street Journal. This may be as awful as it gets for a member of Georgetown's most inside circle.

"I am just mortified," said Pamela Harriman. "This has never happened in our house before. We've always trusted people, and people have always trusted us . . . be sorry for me."

The party, held on Sept. 15 in the Harrimans' home, which is decorated with precious art and antiques, was one in a series of gatherings of "Democrats for the '80s." It's a political action committee that raises money to try to rekindle the Democratic Party. The less reverent refer to it as "PamPac."

Every few weeks, Pamela Harriman, the English aristocrat married to the Democratic elder statesman, invites leading Democrats over for wine, dinner and often morose conversation about the future of the nation under the Republicans. Afterward, someone usually asks the guests for contributions.

This is not just any political fund-raiser. Rather, it is a salon where volatile comments are muffled by the privacy that the rich can afford. But on this night, Washington superlawyer Clark Clifford asserted, according to the story by James M. Perry of The Journal, that Ronald Reagan is "an amiable dunce" whose policies will be "a hopeless failure."

Clifford was reported to be fuming at this breach of privacy.

Source: "The Harriman Tapes; PAC of Trouble When Inside Story Got Out; Tape Talk" WaPo, October 9, 1981, C1.

Will on Reagan

George Will's column on Reagan in today's WaPo (An Optimist's Legacy) is worth a read:

One measure of a leader's greatness is this: By the time he dies the dangers that summoned him to greatness have been so thoroughly defeated, in no small measure by what he did, it is difficult to recall the magnitude of those dangers or of his achievements. So if you seek Ronald Reagan's monument, look around and consider what you do not see.

The Iron Curtain that scarred a continent is gone, as is the Evil Empire responsible for it. The feeling of foreboding -- the sense of shrunken possibilities -- that afflicted Americans 20 years ago has been banished by a new birth of the American belief in perpetually expanding horizons.

Indeed and indeed.

He is quite right, too: we have already forgotten both the pessimism of the late 70s and early 80s and the looming threat of nuclear war under which we lived for so long. To describe the Cold War to my students is almost like telling some sort of fairy story--most really don't get it, as it lacks reality to them.

President Bush on President Reagan's Passing

President Bush's statement today regarding the passing of President Reagan was both eloquent and touching:

Ronald Reagan won America's respect with his greatness, and won its love with his goodness. He had the confidence that comes with conviction, the strength that comes with character, the grace that comes with humility, and the humor that comes with wisdom. He leaves behind a nation he restored and a world he helped save.

During the years of President Reagan, America laid to rest an era of division and self-doubt. And because of his leadership, the world laid to rest an era of fear and tyranny. Now, in laying our leader to rest, we say thank you.

He always told us that for America, the best was yet to come. We comfort ourselves in the knowledge that this is true for him, too. His work is done, and now a shining city awaits him. May God bless Ronald Reagan.

Indeed.

Ronald Reagan, 1911-2004

We went to an air show to see the Air Force's Thunderbirds at Maxwell AFB here in Montgomery, and after that we were at a local pizza place that had two TV's going: one had whatever big horse race that was taking place today on it, the other had the news. I looked up and noticed that George Stephanopoulos was on, which struck me as odd, given that it was Saturday night. The sound was off, and I couldn't see the closed-captioning at the bottom from where I was sitting. I got up to see what might be up to have called Stephy in early. At first I couldn't tell, and then they flashed a picture of Reagan with Nancy. The closed captioning was about Nancy as First Lady and there was some ref to the Bush administration. For a moment they seemed simply to be talking about the political roles of First Ladies. However, that hardly seemed Earth-shattering-the idea that it might be about Reagan's death was in my mind, but there was no confirmation. I then sat back down, but kept glancing at the screen and then they starting showing a ton of Reagan footage. I got back up and tried to read the CC again, and then it was clear: Ronald Reagan was dead.

While it is clearly the case that his death is no doubt a relief in many ways to his family-having seen the first-hand effects of Alzheimer's on a loved one, I can personally attest to this fact. Still, it is a sad day to know that he has finally departed.
Further, it has always struck me as extremely sad for the country that we, the citizens of America, have been denied access to a man who was, in my opinion, one of our great presidents, for over a decade because of the horrible disease that afflicted him.

There is much to say about Reagan, and no doubt much ink will be spilled over the next week on this topic, and I suspect I will have more to say later. But it is worth clearly stating that he deserves far and away the lion's share of the credit for winning the Cold War. This is a feat of gargantuan proportions, and alone makes him one of the greatest presidents of all time.

Eerily, I had read this post just this morning at Dean's World by Joe Gandelman, noting that Reagan had taken a turn for the worst. It was somewhat unreal to have been thinking about this in passing just this morning, only to have him pass the same day.

Speaking of Joe, he has a nice round-up of news links about Reagan
s death at Dean's World, which includes a touching note from Dean Esmay. Further, Joe and Kevin at Wizbang have one of the great Reagan photos--and fitting one to post today, I think. Furter, James Joyner has an extensive round-up and a number of very nice pictures.

A truly great American has passed.

A Coming Shake-Up at State?

Regardless of the outcome in November, the odds are good that there will be significant changes at State: Armitage Thinks Days Numbered as No. 2 U.S. Diplomat

Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage said on Friday he could soon leave office, a remark sure to fuel speculation the No. 2 U.S. diplomat and his boss, Secretary of State Colin Powell, will not serve another term.

"I suspect my days of public service, given my age, are just about over," the 59-year-old diplomat said in an interview.

Many political analysts believe Powell and Armitage do not want to stay on if President Bush wins re-election. Media reports periodically suggest the two, who resisted the administration's push to invade Iraq more than other senior officials, will leave their posts together next year.

However, it should be noted, this is a hardly unusual despite the spin that the reason that Powell will leave is because he can finally get out from under Bush's thumb with honor.

But, it is not the norm for a President to have the same SecState for two terms--Reagan had 2 (Haig and Schultz) as did Clinton (Christopher and Albright)—heck, 41 had two in his one term (Baker and Eagleburger) and, gee whiz, Washington had three (Jefferson, Randolph and Pickering).

Now, granted, some have served for lengthy periods: Madison (1801-1809), Cordell Hull (1933-1944), and Dean Rusk (1961-1969)--however, the norm is for far shorter. A quick scan of the list suggests that the average over time is under four years (I am too lazy to run the numbers).

Now, while one could make the argument that at a time of war Secretaries tend to stay longer (e.g., Hull and Rusk), the nature of the war on terror hardly requires that Powell stays (and, for that matter, many don't even see us as at war).

No, many will seek to cast a Powell exit (assuming Bush is re-elected) as some criticism of the President, however, that ignores the historical trends and the fact that being Secretary of State is a lot of work, and that after four years, one is likely ready to move on to other things (that are both less work, and pay better).

Danforth Named to Replace Negroponte at the UN

Danforth Nominated For U.N. Ambassador

President Bush yesterday nominated John C. Danforth, the former Republican senator from Missouri who has most recently served as special envoy to Sudan, to be the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. If confirmed, he will replace John D. Negroponte who becomes top envoy to Iraq after the U.S.-led occupation ends June 30.

An ordained Episcopal minister and an heir to the Ralston-Purina Co. fortune, Danforth is a widely respected politician often referred to as "Saint Jack" during his Senate years who appeals to the religious right as well as some Democrats. But he has limited diplomatic experience, warn former colleagues and friends. Filling the shoes of Negroponte, a deft career diplomat who had major impact at the United Nations, will not be easy for the Missouri politician, they say.

"He hasn't had any great experience in diplomacy, but knowing how to work the crowd in the U.S. Senate teaches you how to work the crowd anywhere," said former ambassador Robert Oakley, who worked with Danforth's peace mission in Sudan and has talked with him about the U.N. nomination. "He doesn't know much about the U.N., but he's a quick study and has a good staff. He is looking forward to the challenge. . . . I suspect he will be looking to show that [the] U.S. can work with others."

Democrats also voiced support for the surprise nominee. "He is a terrific choice, a moderate and conciliatory man. His senatorial skills will work well at the United Nations," Richard C. Holbrooke, U.N. ambassador during the Clinton administration, told Reuters.

Troops to Move Out of Germany?

This seems to make eminent sense: A Pentagon Plan Would Cut Back G.I.'s in Germany

The Pentagon has proposed a plan to withdraw its two Army divisions from Germany and undertake an array of other changes in its European-based forces, in the most significant rearrangement of the American military around the world since the beginning of the cold war, according to American and allied officials.

Pentagon policy makers said the aim is to afford maximum flexibility in sending forces to the Middle East, Central Asia and other potential battlegrounds. But some experts and allied officials are concerned that the shift will reduce Washington's influence in NATO and weaken its diplomatic links with its allies, all at a time of rising anti-American sentiment around the world.

Somehow I don't see a huge diminution of our influence in NATO just because the number of troops in Europe is reduced. We would remain the most powerful military in NATO by far. And given that we need troops elsewhere for genuine security reasons, such a move is logical. Let's not forget: those troops were there primarily to stop the Red Menace from sweeping over Western Europe. And in case you've been sleeping: the Soviets don't exist any longer.

And really, I tire of this nebulous business about "anti-American sentiment" as if US foreign policy was beloved of the whole world up and until the first time George Bush opened his mouth, and then and only then, did US power become resented and only then did anyone in the world cast anything but approval in our direction.

I fully accept that the level of anti-Americanism is higher now than it was prior to the Iraqi war, but it is not at some historically unheard of level--the more active the US is on the world stage, the more anti-Americanism there is (i.e., this is nothing new). Further, such sentiments are fleeting and not doubt peaked when we invaded.

Yet More on Tenet

James Joyner has a good news round-up (and a fair critique thereof) regarding the Tenet Resignation.

More on Tenet II

From the NYT: Report May Have Hastened Tenet's Resignation

George J. Tenet's resignation may have been hastened by a critical, 400-page report from the Senate intelligence committee that was presented to the Central Intelligence Agency for comment last month.

Government officials and people close to Mr. Tenet said the classified report is a detailed account of mistakes and miscalculations by American intelligence agencies on the question of whether Iraq possessed illicit weapons before last year's invasion by the United States. An unclassified version of the report is to be made public later this month. Some close to Mr. Tenet say the report was among the factors that led him to step down from a post he had considered leaving for several years.

Officials who have read the report described it as presenting an across-the-board indictment of the C.I.A.'s performance on Iraq. They said its criticisms ranged from inadequate prewar collection of intelligence by spies and satellites to a sloppy analytical peformance, often based on uncorroborated sources, that produced the mistaken conclusion that Iraq possessed biological and chemical weapons.

"There are some things that are indefensible," said a recently retired intelligence official familiar with the report. "There are some real errors, of omission and commission, and it's not going to be a pretty picture."

More on Tenet

The AP via DMN has more details:

Bush said that deputy, John McLaughlin, will temporarily lead America's premier spy agency until a successor is found. Among possible successors is House Intelligence Committee Chairman Porter Goss, R-Fla., a former CIA agent and McLaughlin.

[...]

Conventional wisdom had been that Tenet, who was appointed by President Bill Clinton, did not plan to stay on next year, no matter who won the White House. Tenet has been on the job since July 1997, an unusually lengthy tenure in a particularly taxing era for the intelligence community that he heads.

Reuters has squatola and it hasn't made the front page of Google News yet.

(Thanks to reader Barry of The Big Picture for sending an e-mail alerting me to the news).

Wowie: Tenet Resigns

Bush: Tenet resigns as CIA director.

The CNN story has almost no details--I think this just broke while I was in class.

Very interesting.

Oh, What a Sealing

Bryan of AWS has designed a new seal for LA County.

The Political Language of Abortion

I love how every time that a story comes on about the partial birth abortion bill, it is de rigueur to note how doctor's don't use that term. Like yesterday on NPR's All Things Considered, where reporter Richard Gonzales said the following:

Well, this is the debate over what proponents call partial-birth abortion. Now doctors don't use that term. What proponents here are targeting is a procedure called intact dilation and extraction. And it's a very rare procedure performed only in after the first trimester. Usually, it's done when the fetus is in a breech position; the fetus is alive. And as they deliver the body, doctors crush the fetus' head.

Now, whether or not doctor's call it "partial birth abortion" what better term should non-medical types use? How about "Fetal Termination via Skull Crushing"?

The medical term for "heart attack" is "acute myocardial infarction"--does this mean that every news story about heart attacks need a disclaimer that doctors don't normally use that term?

For that matter, there are various other types of abortion with specific medical names, yet the media doesn't point out that "doctors don't use that term."

Source: Transcript obtained via Lexis/Nexis.

Update: This post is part of today's Beltway Traffic Jam.

Janklow's Seat Goes to a Democrat

Democrat Wins Election for Janklow's Seat

Democrats looking ahead to November got a bounce with the victory of Stephanie Herseth in a special election, marking the party's second straight congressional triumph and snatching a House seat in a heavily GOP-leaning state.

Herseth, a member of one of the state's most distinguished political families, narrowly defeated Republican Larry Diedrich in Tuesday's poll. She will immediately fill the seat of Bill Janklow, who resigned his seat before he went to jail over a deadly auto accident.

Quit Yer Whinning and Move Around Some

This post at OTB elicits the following responses:

1) I am living proof that fast food is not addictive--you can say no! How do I know this? I worked at McDonalds for about three years--and even ate free as a shift manager for about a year. These days I only eat at McDonalds when we are on a long road trip and the kids need a playland in which to expend some energy. I could never eat at McDonalds again and be perfectly happy. And let's face facts: in general fast food isn't very good.

And since I reject the argument that since nicotine is addictive that smokers can't help themselves, you can be guaranteed that I don't buy the argument that people are helpless before the might of tv commercials for fattening foods. Please.

2) The secret to losing weigh is simple: activity. When my wife and I lived in Bogota, Colombia for a year in 94-95 as I was doing my dissertation research we did not have a car. As a result, we walked a lot. I was just looking through a photo album last night and man I was skinny back then--yes, I was younger, but the main thing was all the walking. I easily weighed twety-five pounds less then than I do now. And we hardly watched our diet. For one thing, Colombian meals are often quite starchy: rice, potatoes and yucca, so they're carb-o-rific. Further, we lived around the corner from a nice bakery that made great cookies and wonderful bread-which we often partook of. And I recall that one of my favorite breakfast spots was the Downtown Bogota Dunkin Donunts...

The inspiration for the entire discussion is this week's issue of Time, in which blogger and freelance write Radley Balko has a brief piece.

Yeesh

Judge: Bush Abortion Ban Unconstitutional

A federal judge Tuesday declared the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act unconstitutional, saying the measure infringes on a woman's right to choose.

OTB@TCS

James Joyner of OTB has a piece at TCS: Tech Central Station--check it out.

Last Surviving Confederate War Widow Dies

Alberta S. Martin, 97, Dies; Last Widow From Civil War

Nearly 140 years after Gen. Robert E. Lee surrendered to Gen. Ulysses S. Grant at Appomattox Court House, the last surviving widow of a Civil War veteran has died. Alberta Stewart Martin, 97, who married an elderly Confederate veteran when she was 21, died May 31 at a nursing home in Enterprise, Ala., after a heart attack.

"She was what we call the last link to Dixie," Kenneth W. Chancey, a friend from Enterprise, said yesterday. "The war hasn't been that far removed, particularly for southerners, and she reminded us of that."

Mrs. Martin had already been widowed once when she met 81-year-old William Jasper Martin, who had served with the 4th Alabama Infantry Regiment during the siege of Petersburg, Va., in 1864 and 1865.

They were both living in the south Alabama town of Opp, where the aging veteran enjoyed meeting friends to play dominoes.

[...]

William Martin died July 8, 1931. Two months later, Mrs. Martin married her husband's grandson, Charlie Martin. They remained together for 50 years, until his death in 1983.

[...]

Mrs. Martin had been the only surviving Civil War widow since January 2024, when Gertrude Grubb Janeway, whose husband was a Union veteran from Tennessee, died.

Hat tip: PoliBlog reader Cathy (thanks!).

Memorial Day

In an attempt to note the significance of Memorial Day, here is a round-up of those on my blogroll remembering today:

Rosemary Esmay, QOAE: Memorial Day.

Andrew Cline of Rhetorica: Thank you...

Jeff Soyer at Alphecca: Alphecca: Memorial Day (via Dean Esmay).

Moe Freedman has a cartoon to help us remember why we fight at Occam's Toothbrush.

Sgt Hook seeks to remember all who have died in the Global War on Terror (via Jen).

Jeff Quiton: Memorial Day 2024.

A special thanks to those veterans in my family: Walter A. Kinney, Jr. who served in the Pacific theater in WWII and his brother Burch Kinney who also fought in WWII, my late Great-Uncle L. M. Golden who served in the Navy during WWII, my father Roy L. Taylor, who served in the Air Force in the mid-to-late 1960s and his brother Clifford D. Taylor, who was stationed in Viet Nam during the war.

The New Blues Brothers Have Been Revealed

And here they are.

UPDATE: It seems great minds thinks alike and all that jazz.

Amusing

Click here.

Not Smart

Sen. Frist's Son Charged with Drunk Driving

U.S. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist's 21-year-old son was arrested and charged with driving while intoxicated in Princeton, New Jersey, police said on Thursday.

William Harrison Frist, Jr., a Princeton University sophomore, was stopped early on Wednesday for passing a vehicle improperly and was found to be impaired after he failed a test for balance, Lt. Dennis McManimon of the Princeton borough police said.

He was taken to the station where a breath test showed his blood alcohol level was above 0.10, or above the legal limit. The charge is punishable by a seven-month suspension of Frist's driver's license plus fines, McManimon said.

Not smart for a whole host of reasons.

Somewhat Snarky (Yet Accurate) Question/Observation of the Day

It seems that throughout my adult life I have heard how little we (i.e., citizens of the United States) pay for gasoline by many on the leftish side of the political spectrum. Oh, I have heard it said, how we should be more like Europe! Why, did you know that they pay multiple dollars a gallon there? Indeed--'tis true!

However, we reach the $2 mark and times are truly dire (and we won't get into that whole complicated inflation thingie). And, further, Kerry Faults Bush for High Gas Prices--well, whaddaya know!

Now, as someone who drives over thirty miles one way to work, I have reason to be unhappy with the gas prices, however, I still have my snarky question for the left: why aren't they happier that we are being more like Europe?

Could it be that because the hike is prices came about not as a result of higher taxes? Hmm, yes. That might be it,

Snark done, back to your regularly scheduled blogging.
.

How Far We Have Come

Much is being said about Brown and how far we have come or not come and what may or may not need to be done.

However, as the following from today's Montgomery Advertiser clearly illustrates, we have, thankfully, made some substantial progress.

Attitudes change, but segregation returns

On May 17, 1954, Montgomery Advertiser reporter Jack Freeman stopped by then all-white Sidney Lanier High School with his pad and pen to query students about the news of the day: The U.S. Supreme Court handed down a ruling in Brown v. Board of Education in Topeka, Kan., a decision that banned legal school segregation.

Freeman returned to the newsroom with a notebook full of quotes that nowadays would be considered politically incorrect or to harbor hate.

"They aren't as civilized as we are," one student said.

"Next thing you know, they'll be riding with us on the buses and everything," another one said.

"A lot depends on the first Negroes who come to Lanier. If they have the right kind of humility -- not the shoe-licking kind, but ordinary humility -- there shouldn't be any trouble," noted another. "It's going to be a lot harder for them than it will be for us."

There is still a ways to go in the matter of race relations, but we have come an awfully long way in the last fifty years.

Note: This post is part of the Beltway Traffic Jam.

A Long Way to Have Fallen

Ex-Congressman Janklow Released from Jail

Former South Dakota Rep. Bill Janklow was released from jail on Monday after serving 100 days on a manslaughter conviction for speeding through a stop sign and killing a motorcyclist.

Janklow looked noticeably thinner as he left the Minnehaha County Jail in Sioux Falls, S.D., accompanied by his son Russell Janklow, flashing a broad smile to the throng of media covering his release.

Janklow, 64, a Republican who also served four terms as governor of the Midwestern state from 1979 to 1985 and again from 1995 to 2024, did not speak as he entered a silver sport utility vehicle driven by a long-time friend. His future plans were not known.

James Joyner Gets Polled

And we all know how painful that can be.

Continuing the Civil War Thread

While I dealt with this as length here yesterday, here's the short(er) version (I got going again...):

What matters to me is far less an argument as to whether there were reasons why men fought in 1861 other than slavery--but how we are going to treat with the totality of the event today/. What price do we pay today in romanticizing the plight of the South during the Civil War? Many of the comments I have received have tried to explain why the citizens of the South did as they did for reasons that may have been apart from slavery, such as loyalty to state and the values of honor and duty. Now, even setting aside the fact that slavery is still intertwined in those things, the issue for me is not to explain the motivations of persons a century and a half ago. Rather, the issue to me is how propagation of a tainted myth affects us now. Not only in terms of race relations, which I think is still quite serious and is damaged by symbolism linked to the Confederacy, but simply in terms of the development of the states of the former CSA, especially the Deep South states.

Apart from race, I think that there are far too many folks in the South (by no means all, but an appreciable number) who are fixated on the past, and therefore aren't looking forward. Often we dwell either on the defeats of the past, or on a misremembered mythical past that we wish to reconstruct. Neither is healthy, and instead stunts the development and growth of the region. It certainly affects the state of Alabama--where our political structures are stuck in place by the 1901 constitution, which was written by people who truly were of the "Old South" in the negative sense--a constitution written to keep upper class landed interests empowered, and to disenfranchise blacks and poor whites. Now, the most egregious of those issues has been rememdied, but the influence of the past is unmistakable, and it clearly makes economic development far more difficult than it ought to be,

In short: when I look back, I certainly can see good people (such as dear, and now deceased, Great Uncles and Aunts of mine who lived in a one-time mining town outside Birmingham) and I see values of faith, family and hard work which are truly the heart of the South , but I see little in terms of the rules of the day (i.e., governmental institutions, and economic and social structures) that I would wish to return to in any way, shape or form.

So, to me, this issue matters greatly, as I plan to live in Alabama for the duration--and I am raising three boys here. As I noted before, I am pleased to do so, as I think that this is a great palce to riase children. However, I would encourage some introspection on this issue (which is sorely lacking in some quarters, based on my own observations) and, further, I would encourage thinking more about the now and the future, rather than focusing on the past.

Also: 3108 has 3108 »some personal observations on this topic as well.

Why I Care About the Civil War Issue

Over the weekend I wrote numerous posts on the topic of the Civil War and the issue of slavery (such as here, here, and here). The question might be: why am I blogging on this topic, of all things (which, as Chris Lawrence rightly notes, has the character of complicating my life)? Well, again, the proximate cause was some of the recent discussion (such as here, here and here) about the Hunley. However, the issue at hand for me is one of how we ought, right now, deal with this portion of our past-especially by those who romanticize the pre-Civil War South. This is something that has been of clear issue to me since I moved to Alabama in 1998.

While, as I have noted, I lived most of my life in a former Confederate state, Texas, it wasn't until I moved to Alabama that I began to give all of these issue a great of thought--some, but not a lot. Why? Was I less sensitive then? Well, no. More specifically the Civil War and its aftermath are simply not as important to the general psyche of Texans. Indeed, while one does see Confederate Battle Flags on pickup trucks and such in Texas, it is far, far less part of the self-image of the state. It is not a symbol of "our heritage" to Texans. The mythos of Texas is far more grounded in the legends of the Alamo, San Jacinto and the Republic of Texas. From there there is also the general cowboy ethos and the legends of oilmen and ranchers. Who wants to remember the Civil War?

However, I noticed once I moved to the Deep South that there was a far greater propensity for the general citizenry to the Battle Flag and the Civil War past of the state to be quite important. In many ways it seems to me that many folks in the Deep South have not yet fully come to terms to with what the war was and what it meant.

In short: the issue is less about what all the intricacies of the actions of the Southern states were in 1860, and more about how we should look back on the totality of the era now. Is appealing to the Civil War Era as the "heritage" of the South, what are we saying?

If it is the fact the case that the most fundamental reason for the secession of the Southern States was to protect the institution of slavery (and I cannot see any argument that can give a more fundamental reason than that), then what does that mean to us now?

The "states rights" argument as a response is wholly inadequate. I will grant that using that as the main rationale for war gives one the ability to see something noble in the South's position. However, since, as I have hammered, the right in question was first and foremost the right to hold slaves, there is little noble that can be defended here.

Yes, the soldiers were fighting for their states, but the elites who directed the fight itself had instigated the war to protect their power positions, which required slaveholding.

All of this matters not simply because of some historical argument. It matters because of how we deal with the legacy of the CSA in the now. It all started, for me, with a renewed consideration of the Confederate Battle Flag issue-and the desire of many Southerners who look back on the Confederacy as part of "their heritage" as if this is a good thing.

Now, no doubt the CSA is part of the South's legacy, and no, not everything that happened during that period of time was bad. However, the Battle Flag issue, which I used to consider much ado about not that much, is what got me thinking about this issue in more detail. I had to ask myself, what does that flag actually represent? I think it is a question that many in the modern South don't ask themselves. And the flag is everywhere around here: on t-shirts, trucks, hats, etc.

However, I started to ask myself: if I were a black person, how would I view that symbol? How would I view the idea that the Battle Flag represented the "good ol' days"? For that matter, how would I feel about the idea that many, many White Southerners seem to think that the "new" South is missing something good from the past?

Given that that flag flew over battlefields in which armies clashed over the right to own other human beings with darker skin, it is no wonder that it is considered offensive by many. Part of my point is that it seems to me that it should be offensive to non-blacks as well. And I don't mean is just some sort of bleeding heart, gosh I want everyone to feel good, kind of offended, but in the sense that the flag symbolizes a fight for slavery which utterly offends my classic liberal values. The flag of the Soviet Union is offensive for similar reasons-and would wonder about people who put hammer and sickle stickers on their cars or who bought bibs for their babies with the Soviet flag on them. Further, the flag was flown over many state capitols to protest school de-segregation orders in the 1950s. Not to mention that appeals to the "old South" is not just slavery, but the Jim Crow era that dominated over half of the Twentieth Century.

Given all of this, how could that flag not not be seen as harkening back to the negative by blacks in the South and how could White southerners not see how saying that the Battle Flag is about Southern "heritage" is heard by many (white and black, Southern and non-Southern) as longing for a past replete with racial injustice? Indeed, it is not saying that that "heritage" of the South is one that has no place for blacks, who are a substantial percentage of the population?

I do know that most people who display the Battle Flag do so with a very general feeling that they are supporting the uniqueness of the south, such as traditional family values, hard work and faith which are quite dominant in the South. Clearly, too, it is considered a symbol of independence from the influence of the North in a generic sense. And, don't get me wrong, there are many, many things I like about Southern culture and am quite pleased to raise my children here. Indeed, I consider myself to be Southern. This is not an issue of South-bashing (indeed, I think that the South is given a bum rap by much of the country), but rather an issue of swallow thinking-bashing.

There is a profound lack of acknowledge in the minds of many as to what the Civil War was fundamentally about, and what the symbols of that war represent. To gloss over the real crimes of the past under the veneer of "states' rights" is to put blinders on.

As such, romanticizing that period of our history strikes me as problematic. And as long as we do, it seems to me that it hinders our ability to put it all truly behind us.

Further, it damages legitimate arguments for the rights of states within the federal framework-by saying that the Civil War was over "states' rights" gives the critics of present-day attempts at limiting federal power a weapon (see! it really is code for racist policies!). Claiming the Battle Flag as part of "our heritage" allows arguments that Republicans are engaged in a "Southern Strategy" that is about promoting racial politics. Further, by turning a blind eye to the crimes of the past make it more difficult for us to move forward in terms of a truly color-blind society.

So, I think that there are real present-day issues that are relevant to this topic. And I realize that these views will not be popular with many of my fellow conservatives in the South. However, I see no way around it.

I very much believe in a stronger federalism than is currently practiced in the US and I most certainly believe in burying racism and allowing all of us to operate on the basis of merit, not skin color (and yes, we have made great strides in that area, although it is an incomplete journey). To me, romanticizing the Confederacy makes both of those goals difficult.

UPDATE: This is post is part of today's Beltway Traffic Jam.

New Resignation Policy

It would appear that the new standard in Washington is that if a subordinate commits an illegal act, then the head of the Department or Agency in which said criminal acts were committed must resign because, ultimately, he or she is responsible.

As such, I hereby call for the resignation of all persons with any managerial responsibilities in the entire US government and the governments of all the states and territories, as clearly there are examples of illegality and malfeasance of some type of at all levels of government.

That should solve all the problems.

The Right to Secede

It is noteworthy that the argument for secession in the case of SC was the idea that the Federal government, and the governments of some of the other states, were violating Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3, which stated:

No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.

And the issue here: run away slaves.

Here's the South Carolina Secession Declaration.

For Example

The following is from a speech on the floor of the Senate by Senator John C. Calhoun of South Carolina on 6 February 1837. Calhoun can be said to be one of the intellectual fathers of the Confederacy, and was a leading proponent of the ideas of nullification (the right of a state to reject an act of Congress) and the right of secession.

It is difficult not to come to the conclusion that the main issue at hand was slavery:

Abolition and the Union cannot coexist. As the friend of the Union I openly proclaim it, — and the sooner it is known the better. The former may now be controlled, but in a short time it will be beyond the power of man to arrest the course of events. We of the South will not, cannot, surrender our institutions. To maintain the existing relations between the two races, inhabiting that section of the Union, is indispensable to the peace and happiness of both. It cannot be subverted without drenching the country or the other of the races. . . . But let me not be understood as admitting, even by implication, that the existing relations between the two races in the slaveholding States is an evil: — far otherwise; I hold it to be a good, as it has thus far proved itself to be to both, and will continue to prove so if not disturbed by the fell spirit of abolition.

Or, you can read Calhoun's Southern Address in which the main issue of contention is slavery (and was signed by the thirty-six Congressmen from the South).

There's also the Democratic Party Platform (Breckinridge), 1860 (i.e., the Southern Democrat--Douglas ran in the North). Note the numerous references to "the rights of persons and property" in the Territories, and the desire to see to it that the Fugitive Slave Law was enforced in all states.

And there is always Gov. Pickens' Address from the Charleston (SC) Courier, 12/18/1860

In the Southern States there are two entirely distinct and separate races, and one has been held in subjection to the other by peaceful inheritance from worthy and patriotic ancestors, and all who know the races, well know that it is the only form of government that can preserve both and administer the blessings of civilization with order and in harmony. Any thing tending to change or weaken this government and the subordination between the races not only endangers the peace, but the very existence of our society itself. We have for years warned the Northern people of the dangers they were producing by their wanton and lawless course. We have often appealed to our sister States of the South to act with us in concert upon some firm and moderate system by which we might be able to save the Federal Constitution, and yet feel safe under the general compact of union; but we could obtain no fair hearing from the North, nor could we see any concerted plan, proposed by any of our co-States of the South, calculated to make us feel safe and secure. Under all these circumstances, we now have no alternative left but to interpose our sovereign power as an independent State, to protect the rights and ancient privileges of the people of South Carolina.

More Civil War Blogging

Okay, let's take the challenge up a notch.

Readers have (politely, I would note) proferred the following arguments:

1) "The primary issue was not slavery, but the rights of the states."

2) "At the time, people generally regarded themselves as "Virginians first, Americans second". We can't really conceive of that now, which has a lot to do with the effect of the Civil War."

3) That the states had the right to leave.

In regards to the first two arguments: the question then becomes, what "right" were they fighting for? The answer: the right to hold slaves. I just don't see how one can get around that. What other rights were they fighting for? The right to secede? But then you have to tell me why they wanted to secede. I am familiar with this line of reasoning, as it is one I have engaged in myself--and one that I eventually rejected by taking it to its logical conclusion. The argument that the Confederate states went to war on the principled abstract issue of the rights of states falls flat because all analytical roads lead to the fact that the issue was slavery. Name me the other right that the Southern states were willing to take up arms to defend. The bottom line is that it makes us feel better to say that the war was fought over a principle, states' rights, than the institution of slavery.

What was the oppression of the South by the North that would necessitates the taking up of arms? Where were the actions by the Congress that created the ire that grew in the South? FInd me the issue that isn't directly linked to slavery, and I will re-evaluate my position.

In regards to the "right to leave"--yes, that was argued at the time, by Southern politicians, as well as the right to nullify the acts of Congress by the states. However, neither secession nor nullification, are constitutional principles.

Agreeing with Drum

Since I have been criticizing Kevin Drum of late, I will note thatwe do agree on the best ballot format:

Overall, I'm still a fan of fill-in-the-bubble ballots, which are paper based, highly reliable, easy to count, and leave an automatic audit trail.

I have stated before that the knee-jerk move to touch screens was a mistake and that optical scan ballots are the way to go.

Civil War Blogging

Several weeks back, a debate emerged in regards to how to view Confederate soldiers, specifically those from the CSS Hunley who were recently given a funeral. I started to write on it at the time, but never got beyond some partial thoughts. However, yesterday Jeff Quinton had a lengthy post on the Hunley yesterday, which re-sparked my thoughts on this subject.

Let me say, I find this to be a difficult topic, and I am by no means trying to pick a fight with anybody. However, over the last several years I have found myself thinking quite a bit about the appropriate view of the Civil War, and specifically how we should view those who fought for the CSA, especially in terms of memorializing them as equal to those who fought for the Union. While there is a certain amount of respect that should be afforded to anyone who defended, to death, their homes, it is the case that what one fought for matters greatly.

The debate emerged, in part in response to this NRO piece by W. Thomas Smith Jr. which discussed the funeral for the crew of the CSS Hunley. Wrote Smith

True: Slavery is indeed the greatest scar on the national soul. But chances are the men who went down with the Hunley would have been no more concerned with whether-or- not slavery would have continued (or been extended into the western territories of North America) than a 21st-century soldier, sailor, airman, or Marine might have concerned himself with what particular U.N. resolutions Iraq violated prior to March 2024. For the most part, American combatants--then as now--take up arms for one reason only: Their nation calls them to do so.

This fact is best illustrated in one of the more popular stories of the Civil War. During a lull in the fighting, a Union officer asked a captured Confederate soldier if he was a slaveowner. When the young Confederate answered, "no," the officer asked why he was fighting on the side of the rebellion. The prisoner simply responded, "because you're here."

This provoked Steve Bainbridge to say

In my book, the Hunley's crew were traitors and rebels who tried very hard to rend asunder the nation Lincoln called "the last best, hope of earth." When I think of the dire consequences a confederate victory would have had not just for Americans but for the whole world, I cannot have much sympathy for those who perished on the Hunley.

And while I admit to having reservations at employing the terms "traitors"--strictly speaking it is not incorrect. And while Smith refers to them as coming to the call of "their nation"--in point of fact, they did not. The were citizens of the United States of America until such a time as their states illegally withdrew from that entity and took up arms against "their nation".

As a conservative of southern heritage-with my Mother and her family coming from Alabama specifically (so I am not just a southerner by way of Texas, which isn't the Deep South, but I have a substantial Deep South branch of my family tree), I am not what feddie of Southern Appeal warns against: "non-Southern Conservatives bashing the Confederate cause". I have spent the preponderance of my life in former Confederate states (Texas and Alabama) and all of my family, to my knowledge, are from Southern states. I was given a generally positive view of the South, and while I remember being told at a fairly young age that it was good that the Union won, there was still a sense that the CSA had some justification in the war. This is a prevalent view, I think, but I also think that most people in the South who hold that view don't really give the issue the consideration that it deserves.

However, as noted above, I have given this topic a great deal of thought since moving to Alabama in 1998, and can't get around the following: the main reason, indeed really, the only reason that the Civil War was fought was to protect the institution of slavery. Yes, the battle cry was over "states' rights" but in this case the state right in question was the right to hold slaves. (And I am not one who thinks that the modern usage of the phrase "states' right" is racist code. However, in the 1860s, it is rather difficult, to put it mildly, to argue that it meant anything other than the "right" of states to allow slavery.)

And it wasn't as if the Union Army preemptively invaded the South to eradicate slavery. Indeed, the South made the first move, militarily speaking.

The funny thing is that I used to be more agnostic, if you will, on the Confederate battle flag and held less intense opinions on the general subject of the Civil War prior to moving to Alabama. My experiences here have brought into sharp focus the fact that clinging to, and glorifying, the Civil War period does two very damaging things to the South. First, it exacerbates racial divisions, which have not fully healed, and second, it keeps a large percentage of the population looking backwards, rather than forward.

It is therefore no leap to note that memorializing the Hunley soldiers has problematic overtones.

Jeff's recent post also re-raises the "treason" question. He asks

If the men fighting for the Confederacy were all traitors then why did they all eventually have their citizenship restored and why were none of them, including Jefferson Davis who was held in Fortress Monroe for a time after the war, tried for treason?

This is actually pretty easy to answer: in internal wars, such as the US Civil War it is normally quite necessary to allow some, if not all, of the defeated belligerents to resume their roles in civil society, sometime even in prominent political positions, given the delicate nature of turning armed factions into non-warring ones (there are a number of very good examples from Twentieth Century Latin America). To fail to do so might lead to the resumption of violence. It is a practical consideration that often even is necessary in wars between

The bottom line in all of this is that I am not sure what the justification is today for seeing Union and Confederate soldiers as moral equivalents. For that matter, the continued exaltation of the symbols of the Confederacy, including the Rebel Battle Flag, strikes me as wrong and not really about "heritage" (although I am in the decided minority on this one where I live).

As someone who is, at my ideological core, a classical liberal who believes that "all men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" is it hard for me to not see slavery as the greatest crime that this country has ever committed, in a collective sense. Given that the primary purpose of the rebellion that led to the formation of the CSA was to protect the institution of slavery, how can I support the exultation of the symbols of the Confederacy? Especially when one considers that a military victory by the CSA would have resulted in the dissolution of a country that has grown into the greatest example of liberal democracy the world has ever seen?

Surely the decision to decide which side was "Right" in a war is the one whose victory is the most desirable outcome. And there can be no doubt, therefore, that Union represented the "Good Guys"-that only leaves, like it or not, the "Bad Guys" for the Confederates. I just don't see any logical way around this fact.

I would further note, that had the CSA won, the South would be far worse off economically than it is now. Had the South won, the social and economic structure that was in place would not have led to industrialization, but rather to an agricultural economy not unlike many of the poorer Latin American countries in the late Nineteenth Century (i.e., land concentration in the hands of a few with vast number of free poor persons, and, of course, a slave class). It was in the interest of the citizens of the CSA to have lost, to be honest.

(Ok, let the slings and arrow fly…)

UPDATE: Posted as part of today's Beltway Traffic Jam.

Apologies

Is it just me, or does the press go into spasmodic joy every time someone apologies for something?

They about busted a seam when Bush said he told the King of Jordan that he was sorry about the Iraqi prisoner scandal, and now they are pleased as punch that Rumsfeld has apologized.

If you need to get your apology fix, I would recommend this one.

While I am by no means opposed to the concept of apologies, and do think they are warranted at times--I just find the recent fixation on them to be remarkable.

And, I might say, Go Joe, as Senator Lieberman rightly noted this morning, that al Qaeda hasn't apologized, nor has anyone from Fallujah apologized for killing and mutilating those contractors. I haven't been able to find the actual bite in text form yet, but have heard on the radio several times now.

More Trouble for Air America

Chairman, partner leave Air America

In yet another sign of trouble for Air America Radio, the liberal talk network's co-founder and chairman, Evan Cohen, resigned Thursday along with his investment partner and vice chairman, Rex Sorensen.

The company also failed to make its scheduled payroll Wednesday, leaving its staff of roughly 100 writers and producers unpaid until Thursday.

The radio network has been on the air for only five weeks. On April 30, it was pulled off Chicago's airwaves because of a payment dispute.

[...]

Last week, co-founder and Chief Executive Mark Walsh resigned (he remains a senior adviser), and programming chief Dave Logan was forced out.

So much for the idea that one can create such a network over night.

And lest I be mis-undetrstood: I would applaud a successful liberal show or network. What I have scoffed at from the beginning, however, is the idea that they could create such a network out of thin air without the commensurate hard work necessary for any successful business venture. It demonstrates a remarkable lack of understanding about markets.

And, why would a talk radio outfit need writers?

A Suggestion for the Weekly Standard

Jeff Goldstein notes that the Weekly Standard lacks a weblog. Now, I know that James Joyner has said he'd be happy to blog for them, and while Robert Tagorda is gunnin' for the Atlantic Monthly, I suspect he'd be happy writing for the Standard, and, as pointed out earlier, I am struggling to get out from under the Thumb of the Man.

This strikes me as an obvious synergy that Barnes and Kristol need to pay attention to, as I suspect that Jeff, James, Robert and myself would be happy to group blog for the Standard. And what more could they ask for? Two polisci PH.D.s., an English Prof and guy who is going to Harvard for grad school.

It strikes me, at least, as a no brainer.

Moore and the Mouse

The NYT has the following story concerning Michael Moore's new film, Fahrenheit 911 and Disney's decision to block Mirmax (which they own): from distributing the film: Disney Forbidding Distribution of Film That Criticizes Bush.

The charge from the Moore people is as follows:

Mr. Moore's agent, Ari Emanuel, said Michael D. Eisner, Disney's chief executive, asked him last spring to pull out of the deal with Miramax. Mr. Emanuel said Mr. Eisner expressed particular concern that it would endanger tax breaks Disney receives for its theme park, hotels and other ventures in Florida, where Mr. Bush's brother, Jeb, is governor.

I find that to be a dubious charge, as I question whether the governor of Florida has those kinds of powers. More likely than not, this is a PR issue--and Disney sorely needs good PR these days, and wants to avoid bad press (although this move is going to generate some). There can be little doubt that Moore is controversial and I have not doubt that this new film will be inflammatory. Hence, this makes sense to me (especially given Disney's recent PR woes):

"It's not in the interest of any major corporation to be dragged into a highly charged partisan political battle," this executive said.

The story notes:

Miramax is free to seek another distributor in North America, but such a deal would force it to share profits and be a blow to Harvey Weinstein, a big donor to Democrats.

Of course, Moore claims it is some kind of censorship:

Mr. Moore, who will present the film at the Cannes film festival this month, criticized Disney's decision in an interview on Tuesday, saying, "At some point the question has to be asked, `Should this be happening in a free and open society where the monied interests essentially call the shots regarding the information that the public is allowed to see?' "

This is amusing because, 1) he has no problem with "monied interests" when they are bankrolling his projects, and 2) movie making is a business (certainly not a right), and 3) it isn't as if Moore is being denied the right to make his film, show his movie, or even have his movie distributed--it is just a question of whether Miramax is going to do it. I guarantee that the movie will be distributed and the Moore will go on tv stations and radio stations across the land (all controlled by "monied interests") to promote the film. And, I suspect he will make some cash along the way.

Wilson on the GOP

That's okay--I am pretty sure that most Republicans think the same thing about Joe Wilson ;)

In Defense of Bainbridge

Steve Bainbridge attempts to make a point about elitism and secularism in the leadership of the Democratic Party. This has led Kevin Drum to come down on him for class-based economic reasons and Matthew Yglesias seems to think that the issue is race.

In the Prof's defense, may I point out the Drum isn't reading Bainbridge very carefully, as he thinks that Bainbridge is stating that the Republicans are good for the middle class, while Drum thinks that the Republicans are taking away from the middle class and giving to the wealthy. Setting aside for a moment that thesis (which is incorrect, in my opinion), economic class issues aren't Bainbridge's main point--and not the reason he uses the term "Middle America". For one thing, he is using a very specific definition of "Middle America" (which he cites from a book by Lasch (which I am unfamiliar with) that is essentially dealing with cultural issues--ye olde "family values", religiosity, traditional (in the man-woman v. other combos sense) view of marriage, and so forth, i.e., the traditionally conservative view often associated with "Middle America" in a metaphorical sense--and how those values are viewed scornfully by many at the elite level in Democratic Party circles.

This is neither a race-based argument, nor even one specifically about economic class. It is about basic value conflicts in our politics, and one of the more significant ones in current partisanship: the secular v. the religious.

I am somewhat baffled by Drum's argument that the Republicans are shifting the tax burdens from the upper to the middle classes. Speaking as about as a middle class taxpayer as one can find, the Bush tax cuts have been quite helpful to me. Of course that is anecdotal and a single case. However, if we look at the federal income tax the IRS data (excel sheet--ref page here) show that the top 50% of wage earners pay 96.03% of the income taxes, and the top 5% pay 53.25%--hardly illustrative of a transfer of tax burden from the wealthy to the middle class. I am aware that these percentages do not hold for payroll taxes. However, empirically I don't see this great transfer of wealth from the middle to upper.

UPDATE: I shouldn't carp too much about people not reading carefully enough, as Prof. Bainbridge has already defended himself and quite well, I might add. He rightly notes that Drum missed the point and/or changed the terms of the debate.

UPDATE II: Steve Verdon weighs in on the fiscal part of the discussion.

Let the Excitement Begin!

Gore to Buy NewsWorld Cable

Former Vice President Al Gore plans to announce on Tuesday that he has acquired cable television channel NewsWorld International from Vivendi Universal to launch a new liberal network, a source familiar with the matter said.

I Guess Even He Thinks Air America is Doomed

The Political Wire reports that Al Franken is considering a career move.

BobbleHeaded Politics

Schwarzenegger: Stop making bobblehead dolls.

Okay, I am not sure I get the problem here, because it seems to me that this sort of thing is common once one has been elected to office. However, I am not sure what the law on the subject is. Still, I can't imagine, for example, that the President can object to similar items, or that he gets royalties for the use of his image.

Further, since this is a charity item, I am not sure Arnold is doing himself any PR favors here.

WWII Memorial

Mark the Pundit has posted some photos he took of the new : World War II Memorial in DC--they are worth a look.

Warning to dial-up folks: there are a lot of photos.

Amusing

Dean preps for talkshow 04/29/2004

While everything's still in the early talking stages, the former Democratic presidential candidate is mulling the idea of hosting his own syndicated gabfest. He's hooked up with ex-Big Ticket TV topper Larry Lyttle ("Judge Judy") and longtime political consultant Gerald Rafshoon, who would likely serve as exec producers of a pilot for any such project.

Somehow I'm not seeing it. Dean doesn'y exactly have a TV personality.

Further, he doesn't appear to want to be the next Chris Matthews, but rather the next Oprah:

Dean seems interested in going in a completely different direction.

"The last thing we're going to talk about is politics," Lyttle said. "We'd talk about a myriad of other things instead of politics."

Dean's skein would likely have more in common with the talkshow Bill Clinton had been considering a few years back.

"He'd look at things like, What happens if you lose a sibling? What about when you're victimized by not having health care?" Lyttle said, arguing that Dean has the perfect persona for the small screen.

Here's the Basic Answer

Reading the story more carefully (Gore Pledges Over $6 Million to Democrats) one finds:

Most of the money comes from Gore's general election legal and accounting compliance fund, which showed $6.6 million on March 31. The $240,000 going to the Florida Democratic Party comes from an account established to help pay for the 2024 recount drive.

That makes more sense.

A Point of Clarification

In regards to my earlier post about Gore's $6 million, I would note that I was being somewhat flippant when I said "no wonder he lost." However, I was not being wholly facetious, as I do find it curious as to why he would have money, let alone that much, let over from the 2024 campaign. Given some of the comments on the post, let me explain why I think it is odd.

1) There are two distinct periods of campaign financing for a presidential race: the primary season and the general election campaign (call them Rabbit Season and Duck Season).

2) In Rabbit season the candidates collect all the money to run their campaign for the party nomination is a manner not unlike a run for House or Senate, with one important difference. That difference is that if they agree to a spending cap (both an overall limit, and limits that are state-specific for each primary or caucus) the Feds will provide matching funds for every contribution up to $500 from individuals. Prior to 2024 and BCRA, the overall limit on individual contributions was $1000, after BCRA it was $2000. PACs can donate up to $5k.

The cap in Rabbit Season 2024 was roughly $40.5 million (plus there is some room for admin costs).

Normally, candidates exhaust this fighting off challengers (as Dole did in 1996) and the presumptive nominee is left with very little towards the end of Rabbit Season.

Now, in 2024, George W. Bush chose not to adhere to the cap, so received no matching funds and therefore could raise and spend to his heart's content. Gore, however, stuck with the caps. In 2024, Bush, Dean and Kerry all eschewed the caps and matching funds.

3) In Duck season the major party candidates are given a grant of $67.56 million and are not allowed to raise any other money for their campaigns (although in the past they could fundraise for their party's in this period) or spend anything other than the public monies.

So, given all of this, it strikes me as mildly curious that Gore had $6 million in the bank. It is possible that the money was left over from Rabbit Season, but that begs the question as to why he didn't spent it then. And if the money is left over from Duck Season, it is especially odd, as it really does mean that he left $6 million in the bank that could have been spent in Florida that might have actually helped him win. The odds are that the money was from the primaries, however.

I don't think that any of it would have been coming in as donations after the election-especially not in that amount. And the Dean example that someone mentioned doesn't hold-Dean is still operating under Rabbit Season rules, and is trying to pay off debt, hence the continued fund raising receipts.

If anyone can further enlightenment on this topic, let me know.

On Red States, Blue States and Political Extremism

Kieran Healy and Matthew Yglesias both have doubts about the currently popular thesis that we, i.e., the US, "are more polarized than ever" (both via Robert Tagorda who links to his own, similar, views on the question).

I have to stand in agreement with Kieran, Matthew and Robert: the issue of polarization in the US context is well overblown by the press. This is partially because it makes a good story, and partially because, as Kieran notes:

the chattering classes — at least their representatives in the media — have become more polarized over time

And this clearly contributes to the atmosphere of polarization. Indeed, the presentation of political news is often confrontational in nature (e.g., Crossfire and its descendants, or even on news-talk shows like MTP or Hardball there are often either probing interviews and/or panels of commentators from multiple points of view. Further, talk radio hosts tend to be quite partisan (and I mean that in the most general of senses-even sportstalk guys have to have a clear point of view). Who wants to listen to someone who calmly sees all sides for three hours? That tends to be less compelling, and therefore less entertaining. We like to keep score in the United States, so is it any wonder that we like our political discussions to have competitive presentations?

Indeed, one can put bloggers into this gaggle ogf pundits who often are idelogically driven, and often far too confrontational.

Beyond the "infotainment" aspect of news amplifying the idea of polarization, if one looks at the actual policy debates of the day, it is hard to find radical, deep, and violently divisive issue that divide the Red and Blue states (which, btw, aren't uniformly either color). Rather we have two moderate, catch-all parties which agree on the basics of our system, both political and economic and which have policy goals that aren't on the political extremes. If one thinks of major legislation passed in the last decade or so, such as the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990, NAFTA, the Welfare Reform Act of 1996, or No Child Left Behind, where is the radical divide? Even if one looks at more controversial legislation such as the Family Medical Leave Act of 1993, the USA Patriot Act of 2024, or even the Bush tax cuts, where are the major ideological divides, that if not healed, will cause great rupture?

There is probably only one issue that is truly polarizing: abortion. Beyond that the issues of secular approaches to life versus more religiously-minded ones do help explain some of the Blue v. Red divide, but even then it isn't like it is something people about to come to blows over.

Mostly the press likes this thesis, and they further like to commission polls that help confirm the thesis. It is also the case that partisans of either side who are angry at the other, and who therefore cannot understand how anyone could vote for that guy (these days that means Democrats who aren't over Florida and are mad at Bush for Iraq--a few years ago that meant Republicans enraged over a President they thought was an irresponsible liar), are also enamored with the polarization idea. Indeed, I have seen otherwise intelligent, well-educated and analytical people appeal to the polarization thesis because of their own frustration with the current administration. I also think that since a lot of people who feel that way are in the mainstream press, that they, too, find solace in that thesis.

Regardless, even if it is the case that partisan identification is up (which it it), that doesn't mean that we are entering an era of extremism (indeed, when considered in terms of the vast ideological spectrum present in the world, we have very little true political extremism--yes, we have our David Dukes and our Louis Farrakhan's, but they are on the fringe, not in the mainstream of American political life).

In short, Kevin Drum needn't get too worried about the future of moderation in American politics. Just because people identify more with the parties doesn't mean that politics and policy, per se, are going to get more extreme. Indeed, the institutions of the federal government (and those in the state governments) tend to make it difficult to utterly avoid compromise. Yes, there are examples of either ideological obstructionism (like the Democrats in the Senate and the Bush Appeals Court nominees) and of ideological bullying (actions by whomever it is that is in charge of the House--so by the Reps for the last ten years, by the Dems before that), but really those are more the exceptions than the norms--again, go back to the list of legislation above and tell me where the true ideological extremism is (and if you pick the Patriot Act, please provide concrete evidence, not hysteria--and I would point out that it passed with large bipartisan support, so really isn't a good example of polarization).

Of course, perhaps I take the increase in partisan identification, and therefore more "polarization" less seriously than some, as I have never fully accepted the idea that most people who say they are "moderates" and therefore "independents" are truly as nonpartisan as they say they are. I contend that most people who call themselves "independent" tend to actually vote predominantly for Dems or Reps. I have commented on such here and here (among other places). That requires a more thorough discussion for another day.

Really, I have never accepted the idea that we need a strong pool of "moderates" to help keep the system in balance (although I must admit that it does have an appealing Aristotlean aspect to it), but rather as long as we don't have two truly extreme parties, which we don't, then partisan competition is good and healthy and that our Madisonian institutions will force compromise out of that competition, whether the parties like it or not.

Indeed, I would challenge die-hard partisans to tell me what legislation that has passed in decades (if ever) that they found wholly satisfactory. My guess is that one can't, because since all legislation is, by definition, the child of compromise, that it tends to leave the philosophically committed unsatisfied. This is, however, evidence of the lack of serious polarization in US politics. Even with the polarizing Presidents that we have had in both Clinton and Bush.

OK, I'm done for now.

BTW, James Joyner also has a lengthy post on this topic.

April the 19th

Kathy Kinsley reminded me in this post that today is a rather significant date.

She specifically notes that today is the ninth anniversary of the Oklahoma City Bombing.

It is also the following:

Moronic Radio

Mindless Dreck over at Asymmetrical Information notes a lovely quote by Donald Trump on the Stern show this morning and whilst exercising this morning I saw and heard Imus make the statement that "Sharon, Rumsfeld and al-Sadr" should all be put before a "firing squad." I guess he has been reading St. Petersburg Democratic Club's ads.

Yeesh.

What are they putting in the warer in NYC these days?

A Bipartisan Fashion Comment

Since in my prior post I gave Matthew Yglesias a hard time, I will say that I agree with him about the tie.

The President clearly needed a haircut and a diffierent tie.

Grooming Critiques

I wasn't the only one who noticed the need for a haircut.

There's Politics, and Then There's Political Nonsense

Bryan of Arguing With Signposts is giving up politics for seven months. Why? He appears to have read too much Daily Kos. Now, I am unlikely to give up politics for any length of time (I think they would fire me around here if I did). However, I did stop reading Kos, Atrios and Little Green Footballs (to name a few) for the reasons cited by Bryan. While we (humans, not just bloggers) are all partisans, some are, shall we say, more partisan than others. I must confess that on occassion I tire entirely of the ranting and emotion that pervades US political discourse and long for reasonable argument. Sometimes I get it, often I do not.

Kos is getting under Dean Esmay's skin as well.

Sheer Genius

From the March 8, 2024 issue of Newsweek comes this quote that I meant to blog at the time I first read it:

"There are times when I see some comely young lady I would love to have as a house pet. But my wife won't let me, dammit. And I bought her a gun. That shows you how smart I am." New Hampshire state Rep. Richard Kennedy,at a public hearing on gay-marriage legislation, in a remark unrelated to the bill

You know his wife loved reading that one in the press....

The Best Use of Resources?

Setting aside, for a moment, the issue of whether or not this is even something the government should be dealing with, I have to ask: is this the best use of limited resources? Administration wages war on pornography

Lam Nguyen's job is to sit for hours in a chilly, quiet room devoid of any color but gray and look at pornography. This job, which Nguyen does earnestly from 9 to 5, surrounded by a half-dozen other "computer forensic specialists" like him, has become the focal point of the Justice Department's operation to rid the world of porn.

In this field office in Washington, 32 prosecutors, investigators and a handful of FBI agents are spending millions of dollars to bring anti-obscenity cases to courthouses across the country for the first time in 10 years. Nothing is off limits, they warn, even soft-core cable programs such as HBO's long-running Real Sex or the adult movies widely offered in guestrooms of major hotel chains.

Department officials say they will send "ripples" through an industry that has proliferated on the Internet and grown into an estimated $10 billion-a-year colossus profiting Fortune 500 corporations such as Comcast, which offers hard-core movies on a pay-per-view channel.

Further, I have to ask: even if they take these people to court, what are the odds that the Justice Department will win? Also, given the market forces involved here, is there really any likelihood of success (in terms of actually curtailing the porn industry)?

I must admit, I have to wonder as to the efficacy of this policy.

Hat tip: Outside the Beltway.

OK, Where's the Firestorm?

From the Congressional Record (to find it yourself, go here and make Dodd Byrd your serch string).

Said Christopher Dood (D-CT) on the floor of the US Senate to Robert Byrd (D-WV) on the occasion of his 17,000th vote:

It has often been said that the man and the moment come together. I do not think it is an exaggeration at all to say to my friend from West Virginia that he would have been a great Senator at any moment. Some were right for the time. Robert C. Byrd, in my view, would have been right at any time. He would have been right at the founding of this country. He would have been in the leadership crafting this Constitution. He would have been right during the great conflict of civil war in this Nation. [!!!-Ed.] He would have been right at the great moments of international threat we faced in the 20th century. I cannot think of a single moment in this Nation's 220-plus year history where he would not have been a valuable asset to this country. Certainly today that is not any less true.

OK, where's the media firestorm? Where're are the calls for his head? Where's all the talk about racism and the significance of the past? The "being nice to an old man" defense didn't work for Lott (nor should it have), so where's the outrage on this one? Now, I would agree that Lott had a record that made his Thurmond pronouncement more problematic, but Dodd deserves some serious public criticism here.

Quite frankly, the double-standard rears its ugly head again.

Anyone wondering why Byrd shouldn't be priased, especially in the context of the Civil War, go here.

More on Talk Radio

Joe Gandelman discusses the debut of AA and about talk radio in general.

And This is Surprising Because?

Top Focus Before 9/11 Wasn't on Terrorism

On Sept. 11, 2024, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice was scheduled to outline a Bush administration policy that would address "the threats and problems of today and the day after, not the world of yesterday" -- but the focus was largely on missile defense, not terrorism from Islamic radicals.

This hardly strikes me as damning. As James Joyner poitns out

of course terrorism wasn’t the main focus of Bush Administration foreign policy before 9/11. It wasn’t the top focus of Clinton policy, either. Why would it have been? Essentially no one in the national security establishment, save people who were terrorism specialists, considered terrorism the top priority on September 10, 2024.

Indeed, aside from Clarke, this was largely what the other testimony to the 911 panel has revealed.:

But the players did not clash. Despite some sniping and testiness, the surprising theme was unity.

Democrats and Republicans alike -- past and present secretaries and deputy secretaries of state and defense -- spoke little of Clinton vs. Bush and lots about Before vs. After.

Really, the reason Clarke's credibility has been so questioned is because he insists that the Clinton administration was radically more focused on the question than was the Bush administraion pre-911 and it is manifestly obvious that this isn't true.

Air America

Air America Radio's web site is now up with a program line-up (yesterday it was a pretty bare-bones site).

WaPo has a piece in today's edition. And it summs up the O'Franken Factor as follows:

A good radio show has strong pacing and a deft mixture of ideology, confrontation and humor. Franken's "Factor" was meandering and discursive, almost NPR-like, sounding more like someone shooting the breeze at a dinner party than trying to persuade listeners. The "bumpers" between segments were soft and Muzak-like. With Franken speaking in a relatively low voice, the self-proclaimed "Zero Spin Zone" sometimes sounded like a zero energy zone.

That well describes the portion I heard, which was, granted a limited slice.

Gee, I am sorry I missed this:

The bombast level quadrupled with a burst of rock music when Randi Rhodes, a brassy Brooklynite and longtime Florida radio host, took over at 3 p.m. She served up red meat by the slab.

"We're here because you're smarter than George W. Bush," Rhodes declared. "The Bush family is just like the Corleones. . . . Jeb fixed his brother's election." Within 15 minutes she had worked in the word "penis," and after that "girls' panties."

Rhodes defended the former attorney general's response to terrorism, compared with her successor, John Ashcroft: "I know Janet Reno. . . . She's more man than he is."

Seeming to embody liberal anger, Rhodes launched into an extraordinary diatribe about why the president continued to speak to a second-grade class after two planes hit the World Trade Center, and said he then flew to Nebraska because he was "scared . . . Republicans have been drinking this Kool-Aid for a really stinking long time."

Double Standards

Can you imagine what the press response would be if a bunch if white ideological conservatives (or a bunch of evangelicals from the south) did this?

Now, the market is the market, and so one presumes that either the stations were sold because the previous owners wanted to make a profit or the current owners thought that a programing change was in their interest. That is the right of station owners and managers, so I have no gripe in that regard. Still, one has to admit it is a rather hypocritical thing for an allegedly liberal set of broadcasters to do and you can be guaranteed that if it was a bunch of cons doing this, that there would an uproar in the press and in the liberal commentariat.

More "O'Franken"

Here's a lengthy AP story on the show's debut: Yahoo! News - A Liberal Voice Debuts on Talk Radio.

And here's why the whole process is probably doomed, at least if the goal is to find the "liberal answer to Rush Limbaugh":

"I don't think of it as a business, but I know it has to make money to be sustaining," Franken said in an interview, perching his feet up on the desk after a rehearsal session for the show. "A lot of it is mission."

Given that Limbaugh had a passion for broadcasting (and whether you love him or hate him, he is good at the craft of radio) and that his goal was to make a living at the enterprise, the issue of understanding that he was in a business was key. This idea that Air America is a bunch of crusaders out to change the world is all fine and good, but isn't a particularly good business model.

However, it does have a stereotypically liberal mindset: that good feelings and wanting to "do the right thing" will conquer all--ignoring the fact that there are other versions of what the "right thing" is in the minds of other people as well. And that if one is going to engage in what is ultimately a business venture, then a sound product is needed.

And while Limbaugh notes that his success isn't predicated on who wins elections, this appears not to be the case for AA, at least in terms of their motivations:

"We are flaming swords of justice," Franken told a cheering crowd at a party to launch the network Tuesday night. "Bush is going down, he is going down, he is going down. And we're going to help him."

Again, I welcome more talk on the radio, and would love for there to be a panoply of options on the AM dial in terms of political diversity. But this enterprise has always seemed too contrived to work, and I still have a hard time taking Franken or Garofolo seriously as political analysts. They strikes me more as dilettantes.

Still, I guess we will see. I wouldn't predict a rating bonanza, however.

The O'Franken Factor

I listened to the last twenty minutes-ish of the new Al Franken radio show this afternoon. It is one of the new Air America shows (i.e., the new "Liberal Talk" network--not to be confused with the Mel Gibson-Robert Downey, Jr. flick).

Now, I am a radio talk show junkie and my basic attitude on this new Air America network/the attempt to find the "liberal Rush Limbaugh" is two-fold. First, I figure, the more the merrier. I like choices, and would likely listen on occasion, and if it was good more often than that, to these shows if they were on the radio when I was driving. However, I mostly would be flipping around. Second, I do think that the idea of simply creating some kind of liberal radio juggernaut out of thin air is a bit silly and one wonders as to the degree that the pesky ol' market is being taken into consideration here.

I will also say that I think that Al Franken can be funny, although I find his skills as a political commentator to be lacking. I think he relies a bit too much on the overly cutesy-gee-aren't-I-cleverly-skewering-the-other-side-sardonic. For example, take the name of the show: "The O'Franken Factor". Okay, we get the joke, do you really want your show's title to be a joke? For one thing, it has to get old at some point. Further, as I have noted before, I find it amusing (and not in the way intended) that Franken continually feels the need to utilize O'Reilly and Limbaugh to get attention.

At any rate, here's what I heard in the relatively brief

-Interview with Al Gore, and some in-studio guest (Mike somebody) talking about how Gore really won and pontificating as to how much better we would have been if Gore had been president. Now, that's all fair enough-a liberal show ought to be allowed to muse about their preferred counterfactuals. But in re: 2024, Florida and the Supreme Court-could we please get over it?

-A bit where they 'locked Ann Coulter in the green room" and she freaked out and tore up the place. It didn't strike me as especially funny-indeed, it came across like a somewhat lame SNL bit-and I am not a big Ann Coulter fan. Indeed, they seemed overly fascinated by Coulter.

-He had some elderly family friends and his daughter and the principal from the school she works at as guests via phone. Now, all sweet and all, but hardly riveting radio. And apparently he plans for all of them to be regulars.

Highights of that segment: to the older gentleman: "You're liberal and fought at the Battle of the Bulge. Ann Coulter says liberals hate America. What do you think about that?" And his daughter's boss carrying on about how great Franken's daughter was as a teacher. Somehow I ain't smelling a Marconi Award at this point.

-Guests later this week: Senator Clinton, Robert Reich and Richard Clarke.

Note: Andrew Cline of Rhetorica has an interesting post on the subject.

A Baby by Any Other Name...

I must concur with James Joyner, while commenting on this Saletan piece. Writes James:

the anti-abortion side has a huge advantage in the debate because the pro-abortion side refuses to acknowledge something intuitively obvious: that the fetus is a human life.

As such, it makes it difficult for them to make viable arguments for their positions, especially in such rather obvious cases as partial-birth abortion and the UVVA (Unborn Victims of Violence Act). To pretend that, say, a fetus in the eighth months of pregnancy is only a human being once the mother decided that it is, is an utterly ludicrous position and one that is difficult to sustain with logic.

It is clear with the debate on the UVVA (as it was with the partial-birth abortion ban) that the pro-choice side is utterly unwilling to yield even a scintilla of space in their argument concerning the sanctity of “choice.” Partially because they fear, understandably, that the right to abortion itself comes under logical attack if any fetus in any circumstance is actually defined as a human being. Further, I think that there is a recognition, that they will not admit, that their own arguments are built on a tenuous foundation, and therefore there really isn’t any room to give.

In regards to the extreme position that many in the pro-choice movement take, note this from NARAL:

President Bush is on the verge of signing into law his second odious piece of legislation in six months aimed at undermining Roe v. Wade. The U.S. Senate passed the deceptive "Unborn Victims of Violence" Act this week - the House passed the same bill last month - and the President has vowed to sign it. Bush has already earned the distinction of being the first president ever to sign a federal abortion ban and he now has a chance to extend his reputation in history as the most anti-choice president that this country has ever seen.

So, the idea that if a pregnant women is murdered that the assailant should be charged with an additional crime if the fetus dies as well, is “odious.” To put it mildly, this is an extreme position.

Further, if signing a law that makes doing violence to a fetus, and another one that limits a rare form a late-term abortion makes Bush the “most anti-choice president that this country has ever seen” then it shows how little any previous president has done on this topic. It further illustrates that to NARAL and their allies there is no such thing as a bad abortion.

One last comment: the bill and its signing may not make NARAL-ites happy, but I don’t think that they were going to vote for Bush in any event. However, both of these bills will no doubt help excite part of Bush’s base in November.

Twenty-Three Years Ago Today

On March 20, 1981 John Hinckley, Jr. shot Presidetn Ronald Reagan (along with James Brady and two members of the President's security detail).

Time flies--I was in Middle School at the time, and heard about the shooting in the halls between classes.

Fetus Protection Bill Passes the Senate

I am not surprised that it passed, but I am somewhat surprised at the margin: Senate Passes Fetus Protection Bill

The Senate voted Thursday to make it a separate crime to harm a fetus during commission of a violent federal crime, a victory for those seeking to expand the legal rights of the unborn.

The 61-38 vote on the Unborn Victims of Violence Act sends the legislation, after a five-year battle in Congress, to President Bush for his signature. The White House said in a statement that it "strongly supports protection for unborn children." The House passed the bill last month.

And Kerry voted for it and aginst it (kinda):

The Senate cleared the way for passage with a 50-49 vote to defeat an amendment, backed by opponents of the bill, that would have increased penalties but maintained that an attack on a pregnant woman was a single-victim crime.

Sen. John Kerry D-Mass., President Bush's opponent this fall, interrupted his campaign schedule to vote yes on the one-victim amendment. He voted no on final passage.

And, what a shame:

"This would be the first time in federal law that an embryo or fetus is recognized as a separate and distinct person under the law, separate from the woman," said NARAL president Kate Michelman. "Much of this is preparing for the day the Supreme Court has a majority that will overrule Roe v. Wade."

Deliberation Day

Brendan Conway, in today's OpionJournal, takes Professors Bruce Ackerman (Yale Law School) and James Fishkin (University of Texas Department of Government, Stanford University (see comment below)) to task for their suggestion that what the US needs is more deliberation in our democracy:

they propose a new national holiday, Deliberation Day, to make America's citizenry worthy of its own democratic aspirations. DDay calls for citizens to assemble in public buildings, listen to televised statements by major candidates, hear local activists and converse with one another according to rules designed to maximize civility and shame spoilers. No voting takes place, only deliberation. And there is no need to add a day off to the nation's calendar for all this worthy effort. We can simply cannibalize a current holiday, like Presidents Day.

I know, it all sounds like too much fun. But still, a few stragglers may prefer to stay away. How to motivate them? "Each deliberator will be paid $150 for the day's work of citizenship." With a turnout of 50 million Americans, the cost of DDay would be about $7.5 billion. A small price, say Messrs. Ackerman and Fishkin, for a citizenry more familiar with candidates and the positions they take.

they do believe that ordinary people--left, right or center--are too uninformed to govern themselves meaningfully, let alone teach at a university. "If six decades of modern public opinion research establish anything," they write, "it is that the general public's political ignorance is appalling by any standard."

The entire discussion is dealt with rather derisively by Conway. And, to be honest, I can't disagree with his criticism of the idea of Deliberation Day (not to mention the whole idea of paying $7.5 billion for it). However, I think he misses the idea that it is the case that most Americans are, indeed, woefully ignorant of how their government works, and about politics in general. The question, of course, is what, if anything, should (and can) be done about it?

I am well familiar with Dr. Fishkin's idea of deliberative polling (more here and the new CDD home with more info is here), as he was the Chair of the Department of Government at the University of Texas when I was a student there, and I had him for a class probably in the 91-92 academic year. He has been working on this idea of deliberation since at least that point, and I was at UT when he held his deliberative poll in 1994. The basic premise is: if you give people more information, it tends to change their opinions (and, further, the idea that citizens, in general, have insufficient information about politics). Now, I can't disagree with either premise (nor is either all that controversial).

The question, as I note above: what to do about it? I thought at the time, and concur with Conway, that this particular approach is remarkably paternalistic (and optimistic, for that matter, if not idealistic). For one thing, the idea that otherwise disinterested citizens can be paid to become informed strikes me as unlikely, and, further, the idea that it could be done in one day (or two days, as with the 94 experiment) strikes me as absurd. There is also the problem of what will be told to the citizens-for-hire during that 24 hour period. I know for a fact that both Ackerman and Fishkin are both rather focused on the issue of distrbutive justice (read: economic distribution) in the context of the liberal state (and not, specifically a classical liberal state but the liberal-welfare state that emerges as a strain of liberalism in the twentieth century). For example, Ackerman's Social Justice in the Liberal State (1980) while well-written, highly readable, and fun to discuss in class, is a remarkably impractical (and, to me, utterly unpersuasive) attempt to justify economic egalitarianism (at least at the start of each generation). And yes, that is an overly simplified version of the book--however, the basic argument of the book can easily be encapsulated in the following: "I am just as good as you are, so I should get at least as much."

But, back to deliberation: the idea that it is the government's job to foster deliberation strikes me as idealistic and an imposition. Further, the idea that having a one day a year paid (by tax dollars) holiday in which the government will provide (directly or through proxies) is positively Orwellian in its potential.

Plus, don't citizens have the right to be uparticipatory, and indeed, ignorant of government and politics if they want to be? If they decide it isn't worth their time, why should the government step in and try to "correct" their behavior?

Further, if we want better citizens, how about just providing better and more complete American Government classes in High School? How about having someone other than the basketball coach teach government and history? These seem more auspicious places to start.

PETA: Serious Interest Group or Freak Show?

Those PETA people sure make some persuasive arguments! I know I'm convinced.

Oops

Bush praises man in speech on women's rights

U.S. President George W. Bush has marked International Women's Week by paying tribute to women reformers -- but one of those he cited is really a man.

"Earlier today, the Libyan government released Fathi Jahmi. She's a local government official who was imprisoned in 2024 for advocating free speech and democracy," the president said in a speech at the White House on Friday.
The only problem was that, by all other accounts, "she" is in fact "he".

Comparative Politics

Kevin Drum makes a point on CalPundit that I made in class today: that if one looks at the behavior in the South Korean legislature, one realizes how civil our parties are, especially when they are on the floor of Congress.

The difference between Kevin's presentation of this point in mine are twofold: he has a picture, and his audience is much larger than my 9am American National Government class.

(Note: minor PoliSci Prof nit-pick of Kevin's post: Clinton was "really" impeached (i.e., formally charged) he simply wasn't removed from office by the Senate. Indeed, if I understand the South Korean case, Roh has not been removed yet, either, although his powers have been suspended. It appears that the decision is in the hands of the country's Constitutional Court, who will assess the charges from the Parliament).

I Thought that BCRA Was Going to "Take the Money Out of Politics"

Apparently, it didn't: Senate Passes $2.36 Trillion Budget

Just Let the Market Do its Thing

I don't like breast-exposures at the Super Bowl, nor do I listen to or watch Howard Stern (and Goodness knows I would switch the station if a DJ was named "Bubba the Love Sponge"), but I don't see the point of Congress wasting time and money on this: House Cracks Down on Radio, TV Indecency, especially since it is all for show: the standards will continue to creep and we will see move and more until we hit the point that people turn the station.

It isn't like this is really going to work, except that DJs and broadcast outlets are going to be skiddish in the short term.

Further, I simply don't care for the government trying to figure out what we should and shouldn't see or hear.

Goldberg on Deficits

Jonah Goldberg has a decent column today on the subject of deficits. A key passage:

What drives me nuts about all of the talk about deficits is how it makes the deficit seem like the disease rather than the symptom. The disease is a metastasizing federal government, the deficit is little more than a fever.

When I listen to liberals and journalists complain about Bush's truly outrageous runaway spending, they make it sound as if runaway spending would be fine if we had a balanced budget.

Indeed.

Further, I find it rather difficult to take liberal politicians and pundits seriosuly who bemoan the deficit, as I find it extremely difficult to believe that they would be more fiscally responsible than the current bunch is.

Moore, Newsom, and the Media

Howard Kutz ha an interesting piece in WaPo comparing the response of the press to SF Mayor Newsom and former Alabama SC Justice Moore: When Left Is Right and Right Is Wrong.

When San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom defied state law by allowing same-sex marriage licenses, a New York Times profile reported him sporting "a wide grin," "describing his motives as pure and principled," and cited his "business acumen, money, good looks and friends in the right places."

But when Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore also defied the law -- by installing a Ten Commandments display in his public building -- a Times profile said that "civil liberties groups accused Justice Moore of turning a courthouse into a church," while allowing that he had also become "an Alabama folk hero."

On the editorial page, the Times criticized Moore, likening him to George Wallace standing in the schoolhouse door, but supports Newsom's protest and gay marriage.

And please recall: I did not support Moore's actions and applauded his removal. The bottom line is that there are processes through which to deal with policy one does not like, and using one's office to break the law is not to be applauded except in extreme cases.

For example, while I may not endorse the decision that the Mass. SC reached on the definition of marriage, I acknowledge their institutional prerogative to do what they did. Newsom, however, has no legal authority to do what he is doing (nor did Moore).

However, the press treatment of the two figures have received is telling.

Intriguing

House Passes Unborn Victims Legislation

The House voted Thursday to treat attacks on a pregnant woman as separate crimes against both her and the fetus she is carrying. Critics say it would undermine abortion rights by giving fetuses new federal legal status.

One doubts, however, that it will pass the Senate.

More Evidence that the FMA is Unlikley to be Formally Proposed

Some in G.O.P. Cool to Gay Marriage Ban

Despite President Bush's endorsement of a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, some Congressional Republicans are cool to the idea and say they want to move more deliberately than the White House.

The amendment proposal does enjoy broad support among many Republicans in the House and Senate. But the wariness among others is complicating the already difficult task of moving a constitutional change through the House and Senate.

Basic Amendment Logic

Let me try this one more time, as I am not sure that my point has been sufficiently made.

First: the historical success rate for amendments once they have left the Congress: 81.8% (that’s a .818 batting average, which ain’t bad).

Second: why is this the case? Is it because the states are lapdogs to the Congress?

No.

It is because the political force needed to move 2/3rds of both Houses of Congress to pass a formal proposal has to come from somewhere. In most cases it comes from the people, and where do the people reside?

States.

So, the consensus that would be needed to affect the vote in the Congress would almost certainly exist at the state level as well. Under what scenario can anyone see the FMA passing the Congress without this kind of public pressure?

The Failed Amendments

For those interested in such things, one can review the failed amendments here.

The Federal Marriage Amendment's Chances

To clarify some statements on this issue: I think that it is highly, highly unlikely that the FMA would pass both Houses of Congress by a 2/3rds vote. Not only it is an election year with the presumptive Democratic nominee having publicly opposed the amendment, but the division in the Congress, especially in Senate, means that the math simply doesn’t favor the FMA. The bottom line is that it takes only 34 Senators or 136 Representative to block an amendment.

There will be objections based on opposition to the wording of the amendment (or amendments--there would likely be multiple proposals), on the issues of states’ rights and so forth. I could see both conservatives and liberals opposing the amendment. As such, formal proposal is unlikely, to put it mildly.

However, and this is main point of clarification: if pressure between now and the summer, when this is likely to come up for a vote, were to hit such a level that the FMA did make it through the Congress, then I think it highly likely that the states would ratify. Why? Well, for one thing history suggests that the real barrier is Congress: thousands of attempts (some not too serious, I would grant, but we are talking over 11,000 tries) and only 33 have gone to the states. Of the 33 that have gone, 27 have passed—hence the success rate after having gotten past Congress is quite high. And there is a reason for that: if there is sufficient consensus in the nation that can move Congress to such radical agreement, the odds are good that that same national sentiment will motivate the states to ratify as well.

I think that this is especially true in this context, as it would take an enormous groundswell of public opinion to convince 2/3rds of both Houses to propose this amendment, and as such, the states would be unlikely to resist.

Full Faith and Credit

From Ye Olde U.S. Constitution, here's the "Full Faith and Credit" Clause:

Article IV

Section 1. Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.

Gay Marriage Round-Up II

As I continue to peruse the Blogosphere on the topic of the day, I would note these posts to go along with the list I posted earlier.

Gay Marriage Round-Up

The topic of the afrenoon is clearlt gay marriage. I have numerous posts on the subject below, and here are some Blogospheric responses

A Question

A question for libertarian-leaning Republicans, such as VodkaPundit indentifies here: precisely what is the surprise and indignation over the President's statements today? In other words, why the shock over the fact that a man who is overt in his evangelicalism would take this position? I am dumbfounded, to a degree, that his statements today would surprise anyone.

Further, I would note, that it was a wholly symbolic jesture, given, as I note below, that the President has no constitutional role in the amendment process.

A PoliSci Prof’s Note on Amendments

(Forgive my need to clarify, but is it in my blood)

I would remind everyone that the President has no actual power over the amendment process, and what he did today was symbolic only. To amend the Constitution a formal proposal must be made by either passing 2/3rds of both House of Congress, or via a convention called by Congress at the request of 2/3rds of the states. If the idea is formally proposed in one of the manner’s listed above, then the proposal can be ratified by either the approval of 3/4ths of state legislatures, or 3/4ths of conventions called at the state level.

It is noteworthy that of the thousands of attempts at formally proposing an amendment, only 33 have escaped the gravitational pull of the Congress (and 12 of those were part of the original package that would be become the first ten amendments, also known as the Bill of Rights). Of the 33 that have gone to the state, 27 have been approved.

In short: amending the constitution is hard, as apart from the Bill of Right we have only done it 17 times since the 1790s.

A few notes: 1) we have never had a convention under the current constitution, and 2) if a proposal is sent to the ratification process, the proposal will delineate the method of ratification—and of the 33 that have passed the proposal stage, 32 have gone to state legislatures, and only 1 has gone to state-level conventions: the repeal of prohibition.

Some Thoughts on Same Sex Unions

There is a great deal to say about the same-sex marriage issue, and I must admit that I have struggled with defining my own precise position. No matter what position one takes one is likely to upset someone. I am conflicted in this sense that I have moral objections to homosexuality, but also adhere to the idea that the state (i.e., government) ought to stay out of the private lives of citizens as much as possible, especially when the private actions of citizens do no harm to others. I support, generically, the idea that the courts must often protect unpopular minority positions against the tide of majority opinion. However, I also think that one cannot wholly ignore majority opinion, especially when it is widespread. There is a need for a balancing of these two positions.

There is no doubt that the issue of same-sex marriage is made more complex by the moral and religious components that under gird the debate, especially in terms of those who are opposed to the idea of same-sex marriage.

A few bullet points to deal with some of my thoughts on this topic, as I am having trouble putting this into essay format at this time:

Same Sex Marriage and the Civil Rights Struggles of the Past

I think that the comparison of the gay marriage issue to that of the broad civil rights struggle that African-Americas experienced in the 1950s and 1960s is a poor one. For one thing, the court struggles of the Civil Rights Era dealt with a panoply of issues and broad areas of discrimination, not one specific public policy.

Further, I would argue that the Courts (which had been part of the problem at times, such as the infamous Plessy v. Ferguson ruling, not to mention the pre-Civil War Dred Scott case) in the 1950s and 1960s were rectifying the interpretation of the 14th and 15th amendments, not legislating, as one could argue that the Massachusetts Supreme Court has done. In other words, ruling such as Brown v. Board of Education attempted to implement actual clauses in the Constitution, rather than defing new rights out of thin air.

Comparing Bush’s statements today to Nixon’s in the 1960s (as did a commenter did below) is unfair, because it takes a specific policy debate and compares it to broad list of systematic injustices.

It is possible that the President actually has a moral position on this topic, and it is further possible that there is a legitimate debate to be had about the role of the courts in these issues.

The irony of all of this same-sex marriage situation is that I firmly believe that states would have increasingly passed civil union laws, which would have allowed for homosexual partners to have a legal relationship that no doubt would have been referred to over time, if not immediately, as “marriage”. The political battle that has been waged over the last couple of weeks that culminated has actually set back the move to legal recognition of homosexual partnerships, as evidenced by the President’s statement today concerning the Marriage Amendment. Social change often takes time.

Instead actions such as those by the Mass. Supreme Court and especially the Mayor of San Francisco, have created an atmosphere of political confrontation. It is not surprising, especially in an election year, that the President ended up taking a position on this topic in this manner, especially given his religious perspective.

Will on McCain-Feingold

George Will notes, in his column today, the folly of McCain-Feingold and the ridiculous state we find ourselves in regarding political speech these days.

His concluding sentence derserve an "indeed":

It is a constitutional obscenity that no one now knows what political speech is legal in this nation where the First Amendment is no longer even pertinent to protecting such speech.

I would recommend reading the whole thing.

An "Electability" Question

One wonders if it isn't normally the case that most voters in primaries of out-of-power parties in years in which an incumbent is running for re-election don't normally make their selection in large part based on which of the candidates they think has the best chance of beating said incumbent.

No doubt work amidst the stacks of past exit-polls cold asnwer this question definitively, but I feel fairly confident in saying that it is likely the case that most of the time out-of-power parties are normally fixated on beating the incumbent, and therefore that primary voters of that party will often make selections based on "electability" rather than purely on issues.

This is called "strategic voting" and people do it all the time.

I note this because to listen to the press vis-a-vis Kerry, the idea that primary voters might be interested in a candidate because of his perceived "electability" is some new and unique manifestation of the 2024 electoral cycle.

However, I am fairly sure that partisas tend to prefer their candidate be electable (unless, of course, one is a partisan of the Libertarian, Reform, Green or other Third Party, in which case, one seems to prefer losing...).

A Question on the Same-Sex Marriage Licenses from SF

Given that DOMA defines “marriage” as between a man and a woman in terms of federal policy (including tax policy, social security, and so forth) and given that California law currently explicitly forbids same-sex marriage, then how are the marriage licenses being issued in San Francisco anything more than a novelty item?

Yes, court action in the future may change the value of the documents, but right now what do those pieces of paper actually mean?

How Independent is "Independent"?

I have a question that has long been on my mind: is a "self-identified independent" who votes in the Democratic Primary really an "independent" in the sense that they aren't affliated with either party? Given that they have chosen to activity participate in Democratic Party event, indeed in American politics really the only mass-level party activities we have are the primaries, haven't they essentially declared their "Democrat-ness" for the moment?

I understand that for the purposes of interpreting poll data that such self-identification by respodents can be useful, but the idea that someone who has consciously decided to participate in the Democratic Party's nomination process is independent in the sense that that person really is detacted from the broader partisan framework is wholly incorrect (or so it seems to me--it is certainly semantically problematic).

A person who votes in a Democratic Primary is a Democrat in the only empirical way we can measure party membership: participating in a party candidate selection process.

Really what analysts are trying to say that they believe that self-identified independents voting in the primary tells us something about "independents" who are not voting in the primary, but may vote in the general election. A better question to ask, it would seem to me, is not whether someone considers themselves "independent" but rather whether they voted Democratic or Republican in the last several elections. If they truly vacililate, then perhaps defining themselves as "independent" makes sense. If they normally vote Democratic (or Republican) then that tells us something that self-categorization as "independent" doesn't.

Sully on the Radio

Andrew Sullivan is currently on the Michael Medved show. (Follow the link to listen online).

Gay Marriage Issue Kicked Up Another Notch or Two

I'm thinking that the gay marriage issue is going to be even bigger this year than expected in terms of it being a campaign issue. The evoution of the issue as policy and politics is moving faster than I (and I think many others) anticipated. Ironically, those in favor of gay unions may be shooting themsevles in the foot for pushing the issue, as instead of coming out of this with a compromise position, they may end up mobiizing the anti- forces and end up with very little (at least in the short term). Certainly events like this one: More Than 50 Gay Couples Are Married in San Francisco will go a long may toward mobilizing the forces behind the marriage amendment.

I am unsure if the support exists, politically, to get such an amendment through the House, but I think there is a real possibility that support could be mustered--especially if pro-gay marriage advocates turn this into a confrontation. Indeed, politically, such a confrontation may not be wise, because sans a fight that fuels an amendment, I foresee the widespread advent of civil union laws which would likley be treated as "marriage" over time. Further, the courts have largely been on the side of gay marriage, but trying to force the issue may create a backlash in the general populace who believe that the courts have overstepped their bounds.

Ultimately, I think that there will be some form og gay marriage/union in the relative near term--it seems unavoidable, but how we get there, and how messy it will be, is another matter. A big fight during a presidential year may bring a great deal of attention to the subject, but it may also backfire in the sense that it could help anti-gay marriage forces in terms of both the aforementioned amendment and in terms of the politics of judicial nominations.

The biggest issue, however, is whether congressional support for a marriage amendment which defines marriage for all the states as a male-female union can be obtained. If it can, then I think it would be ratified by the requisite 3/4th of the states. If that happens, it will change the legal climate substantially, and will be a major set back for those who think that gay unions should be normalized under the law. As such, the may the current confrontation unfolds could have substatantial policy consequences.

Other related stories:

More Fun With Redistricting

At first this looks like a repeat of Texas, until one notes that a Court is ordering a re-drawing of the lines: Ga. Republicans Plan New Redistricting

Republicans in the state Senate said Wednesday that they will draw up a new legislative map to replace the one that three federal judges said gave unfair advantage to Democrats.

The Democrat-controlled House, meanwhile, was weighing whether to draw a new map or pin its hopes on a possible court appeal of Tuesday's ruling.

The court barred the state from using the House and Senate maps in upcoming legislative elections and gave the Legislature until March 1 to draw new boundaries or face the possibility that the court might do it.

Also, this appears to wholly about state legislative seats (although the story isn't as clear as it ought to be on that point).

How Seriously Should We Take Current Polling? (Answer: Not Very)

I have noted some concern amongst conservatives over the the latest Bush approval numbers and especially the Kerry v. Bush polls that show Bush losing. Even Charles Krauthammer strikes a pessimistic tone in his latest column. And certainly there is concern about when Bush will start going on the offensive.

I was interviewed on the radio last night and the host was deeply pessimistic about the President's re-election chances and the fiscal conservatives are all worried about the pork in the SOTU. Gloom, despair and agony on the GOP, yes?

Well, before anyone, either as a measure of hope, or a measure of despair, takes the events of right now as indicative of anything about November, please take the following trip down memory lane with me:

Reagan v. Mondale (1984)

Evenutal results: Reagan 58.8%, Mondale 44.7%

Some of the polling:

WaPo, 1/22/84:

Reagan ties both Mondale and Glenn with 45 percent of the vote.

[...]

The findings represent a leveling of the slight rise in support for Reagan against Mondale and Glenn in November and December polls.

NYT, 3/9/84:

The new Gallup poll, taken by telephone among 719 registered voters from March 2 to March 6, confirmed what political specialists generally believe to be a very volatile situation among the electorate five days before Tuesday's primaries and caucuses in nine states.

The poll found that in a trial heat for the Presidency, 52 percent said they favored the Colorado Senator to 43 percent for Mr. Reagan. When matched against Mr. Hart's two leading rivals in the poll, Mr. Reagan led former Vice President Walter F. Mondale, 50 percent to 45 percent, and Senator John Glenn of Ohio 52 percent to 41 percent.

WaPo, 7/23/84:

Conducted at the end of the Democratic National Convention last week, the Newsweek-Gallup Poll of 1,006 registered voters showed 48 percent supporting Mondale and his vice-presidential nominee, Rep. Geraldine A. Ferraro (D-N.Y.), 46 percent favoring Reagan and Vice President Bush, and 6 percent undecided.

The 2 percent difference is insignificant, since the poll has a 4 percent margin of error.

WaPo, 7/27/84:

WHAT IS going on with the polls? For months we were told that Ronald Reagan was nine or 14 or 26 points ahead of Walter Mondale. Then, within hours of the close of the Democratic convention in
San Francisco, out came the Gallup organization with a poll showing Mr. Mondale two points ahead. Have 18 million Americans suddenly changed their minds? Or are the polls just wrong?

Bush v. Dukakis (1988)

Evenutal results: Bush 52.3%, Dukakis 44.7%

Some of the polling:

The Toronto Star, 5/19/88:

A CBS/New York Times poll released Monday said Dukakis leads Bush 49-39 per cent and would beat the vice-president in all regions of the country if the election were held now. A Lou Harris poll Sunday gave Dukakis a 50-43 per cent edge.

WaPo, 6/30/88

In the Gallup poll of 1,210 registered voters conducted last weekend, Dukakis held a 46-to-41 percent lead over Bush, compared with a 52-to-38 percent lead he held in a similar poll in mid-June. The poll found Dukakis losing ground among most key voter groups, particularly self-described Democrats and independents, a key swing group.

The ABC News-Money Magazine poll gave Dukakis a 3 point margin, essentially a dead heat under the margin of polling error. In the last Washington Post-ABC News poll at the end of the May, which used the same methodology as this one, Dukakis had an 11 point lead.

The ABC-Money poll of 1,013 adults was taken June 22-26 and showed Dukakis dropping from being the choice of 52 percent of the general public to 45 percent. Bush gained 1 point, rising to 42 percent; those with no choice increased 4 points.>

NYT, 7/26/88

In the aftermath of the Democratic National Convention, the party's nominee, Michael S. Dukakis, has expanded his lead among registered voters over Vice President Bush, the probable Republican nominee, according to a Gallup Poll. This was among the findings of a national public opinion poll of 948 registered voters conducted late last week for Newsweek magazine by the Gallup Organization. The telephone interviews took place on July 21, which was the last night of the convention, and on the night after that.

Fifty-five percent of the 948 registered voters interviewed in the poll said they preferred to see Mr. Dukakis win the 1988 Presidential election, while 38 percent said they preferred to see Mr. Bush win. The poll had a margin of sampling error of plus or minus four percentage points.

This represented a shift in Mr. Dukakis's lead from the 47 percent to 41 percent advantage he held in the last pre-convention Gallup Poll, taken by telephone July 8-10. In that poll, 1,001 registered voters were interviewed.

Clinton v. Dole (1996)

Evenutal results: Clinton 49.24%, Dole 40.71%

Some of the polling:

USAT, 1/19/96:

A new USA TODAY/CNN/ Gallup poll finds that President Clinton is rated stronger on issues than his likely opponent, Senate Republican leader Bob Dole. But Dole outpoints Clinton when it comes to character traits and personal skills.

Look for each to accent his own strengths and exploit his rival's weaknesses.

Overall, 45% say Clinton deserves re-election; 52% say he doesn't, suggesting a close race.

CNN, 1/5-7/96: Their tracking poll had Dole at 49% and Clinton at 46%

I will note that by the Spring, Clinton creacked open a hefty lead over Dole.

Speaking of the SOTU...

It occurs to me that this year's SOTU provides further evidence to what I think I shall call Taylor's Iron Law of Political Speeches (which is: it's the sound bites that matter, not the speech itself). On the night of the speech several commentators gave it a thumbs up, and more than one commented that Bush has really improved in his ability to deliver a speech.

However, by using the Iron Law to measure thsi year's SOTU, the speech was an utter failure, as there were practically no lasting sound bites save the "persmission slip" line (which expired after a few days), with the really big winner being the steroids in sports reference, which seems to be the only part of the speech to live beyond the first couple of days of analysis.

On Primaries

And btw, I agree with Kevin Drum of Calpundit:

I have mixed feeling about open primaries anyway. Although they generally help produce more moderate candidates — something I like — I can't help but think that if you're going to vote in a Democratic primary then you ought to be a Democrat.

Indeed, I would prefer having a system of what are called Closed Primaries, where one has to register as a declared adherent of a party and that only people who are actually thoughtful enough to chose a party ahead of time should be voting in primaries. After all, the basic theory of a primary election is that the members of the given party are democratically selecting their own candidates. As such, if you aren't sure if you are a "member" or not, you shouldn't participate in the primary.

However, the idea of whipping out a "loyalty oath" like this is sheer lunacy. And, like Kevin, I agree that amounts to a PR nightmare for the Democrats and that the idea rates as "dumb".

UPDATE: Surprisingly enough, James Joyner agrees with me regarding closed primaries. (Actually, I already knew that, but there was no post to link to earlier).

Deficit Politics

Bill Hobbs rightly notes that it is incorrect to speak of the deficit in absolute figures, if the issue is judging its size versus past deficits. He notes, for example, that as compared to GDP, the current deficits are smaller than those in the 1980s.

And, as I pointed out months ago, the deficit last year, which also was touted in the press as the biggest in history, was not the biggest in terms of a percentae of budget outlays. It was slightly above average, but not radically so.

Further, as I also noted at about the same time: like it or not, deficits have been the norm in Washington, not the exception. I am not fond of that fact, but it would be nice to have things in perspective before getting apoplectic. To act as if the surpluses of the later 90s were in any way the norm is to have a very limited understanding of history.

Hat tip: James of OTB.

OTB Blogcast 2024

James Joyner, no doubt inspired by Steve Bainbridge from last night has an impressive Blogcast of the SOTU.

Boooring

I hate the opposition response--even when the Reps are in the opposition. It is always quite dull, and I want to hear the talking heads talk.

And someone should have told the Dems that the tag-team thing makes it worse.

And Nancy Pelosi needs a little more TelePrompter practice.

Instant Takes

Pat Buchanan on MSNBC thinks it was a briliant "political speech."

Peggy Noonan thought that the foreign policy sutff was "brilliant" and that the domestic policy stuff was "Clintonian."

Fred Barnes of Fox thought it was too long.

Mort Kondrake didn't see much compassionate conservatism.

Brit Hume seems to like the tax cuts.

Top Bite to this Point

The best bite to this point is the one stating that the US will not ask for a permission slip to defend herself.

I'll try and cull quotes once transcripts are available.

So Far So Good

The SOTU is working thusfar.

At a minimum, there would appear to be some good potential sound bites! :)

Skewering O'Neill

Roger L. Simon mines this gem from Michael Kinsely's column on the O'Neill business:

The only solid punch he lands on President Bush is unintentional: What kind of idiot would hire this idiot as secretary of the treasury?

Classic.

This Should be Fun

Congress Reconvenes Tuesday To Open Election-Year Session

The 108th Congress reconvenes Tuesday for an election-year session that will likely see few legislative breakthroughs and more of the partisan acrimony that has stalled action on key issues.

Election years are either a rush to pander, or a partisan trainwreck in hope of making the other side look bad.

Or both.

The Party's beahvior should be quite interesting, given that the Reps know that they are going into the elections with the edge in regards to retaining or even slightly expanding their majortity, and the Dems know it.

The Texas Districts Stand: So Says SCOTUS

Supreme Court Allows Texas to Use New Districting Map

The United States Supreme Court refused on Friday to block Texas from using a Republican redistricting plan in its Congressional elections this year.

Not a surprise, but it does eliminate any lingering uncertanties about the situation.

O'Neill's Credibility Takes Another Hit

Greenspan Contests O'Neill Quote on U.S. Tax Cuts

Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan disagrees with former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill's claim in a controversial book that the Fed chief considered Bush administration tax cuts "irresponsible."

In the book by author Ron Suskind, Greenspan was quoted saying in May 2024 of the first Bush tax cuts that, without "triggers" to end them if deficits swelled, "that tax cut is irresponsible fiscal policy. Eventually, I think that will be the consensus view."

Greenspan denies saying so.

He told the Wall Street Journal, in a quote confirmed by the Fed on Thursday, "It's been rare over the many years of our friendship that Paul and I have a different recollection of events, but in this case we do."

Bad Timing

Regardless of one's position on this topic, one had to admit that Drudge's headline and the juxtaposition of topic and outside temperature, is amusing: GORE TO WARN OF 'GLOBAL WARMING' ON NEW YORK CITY'S COLDEST DAY IN DECADE!.

Also, this strikes me as typical Gore: bad timing/some minor misstep that results in the whatever substance he may or may not have being totally obscured (like losing a debate because of sighing).

Getting More Folks to Say "I Do"

OK, while I am an advocate of marriage, and believe that there are serious problems, especially in low income communities, that could be alleviated by more stable families (which marriage promotes), I am dubious of this: Bush Plans $1.5 Billion Drive for Promotion of Marriage

Administration officials say they are planning an extensive election-year initiative to promote marriage, especially among low-income couples, and they are weighing whether President Bush should promote the plan next week in his State of the Union address.

[...]

Federal officials said they favored premarital education programs that focus on high school students; young adults interested in marriage; engaged couples; and unmarried couples at the moment of a child's birth, when the parents are thought to have the greatest commitment to each other.

Alan M. Hershey, a senior fellow at Mathematica Policy Research in Princeton, N.J., said his company had a $19.8 million federal contract to measure the effectiveness of such programs for unwed parents. Already, Mr. Hershey said, he is providing technical assistance to marriage-education projects in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Louisiana, New Mexico and Texas.

A major purpose, he said, is to help people "communicate about money, sex, child-raising and other difficult issues that come up in their relationships."

And while I can see where pre-marital education could be helpful, I just don't see this program (which is poorly described in the article, but I am not sure if it is because information is scarce, which is likely the case, or because the article wasn't well constructed) accomplishing much--certainly not $1.5 billion-worth of much.

Florida's Phantom Votes

A loyal reader brought this to my attention: Board votes to certify House 91 results.

The basics:

Out of 10,844 votes cast, returns showed Ellyn Bogdanoff defeating Oliver Parker by 12 votes, with 137 voters casting blank ballots on touch-screen voting machines.

Florida law requires a manual or hand recount of all "under-votes" and "over-votes" in an election decided by less than 0.25 percent.

But touch-screens leave behind nothing to count by hand.

It seems to me, as it appears was the decision of the board, that the concept of "recount" simply doesn't apply to these kids of machines.

As usual, making policy in the midst of crisis results in bad policy.

I still think they should have used the optical/scantron type ballots.

More on O'Neill Magical Mystery Tour

Paul O'Neill's head must be spinning: O'Neill Defends Document Disclosure:

O'Neill emphasized that "The Price of Loyalty" is "Ron Suskind's book. . . . This is not my book. I have no economic interest in it, contrary to the inference in the Wall Street Journal [editorial] this morning. I hope people will read it because I think it makes a contribution to illuminating, especially for young people, what I consider to be a bipartisan, broken political process."

And also of interest:

Rumsfeld said: "Someone told me he was going to write a book and . . . that it was not going to be a good book. I picked up the phone and called him. I said someone tells me you're going to write one of those . . . insider things."

O'Neill, Rumsfeld said, told him the book was going to be about substance, about economic policy.

"I said, 'I'm relieved,'" Rumsfeld told reporters at the Pentagon.

Rumsfeld said he also called O'Neill just before the book came out, having heard that it was about to be published. "I said, 'you didn't go and do that, Paul? I can't believe that.'"

[...]

"I have not read the book," Rumsfeld said. But its portrayal of the president, as described in news reports about the book, "is so different than my experiences. It's like night and day."

Not that I would expect Rummy to defend the book.

Gumming Up the Works

Yes, let's create more rules and restrictions, as this will no doubt "fix" the system: Partisan Group 'Soft Money' Ban Sought.

And the irony is, the whole "get out the vote thing" was what really started "soft money" in the first place, and was settled by the Colorado case in 96 and then muddied by the BCRA and the recet SCOTUS decision.

Really, all these attempts to do the impossible, i.e., "take the money out of politics" and curtail "special interest" simply leads to more confusion, less transparency, and more creativity in getting around the rules.

And, no doubt, more money will be spent in all forms on this election than any other in history--and I will be able to say that same thing in 2024.

Blast from the Past

I was doing some research and came aross an LAT story from 4/15/92, which contained this stellar policy proposal from Buchanan, that is relevant to the recent immigration debate:

Earlier in the campaign, Buchanan said he would erect a "Buchanan Fence" and dig a trench along the entire Mexican border to combat illegal immigration. And he proposed relocating American military bases to the border and assigning National Guard troops on summer duty to patrol the border.

I had forgotten he had wanted to name the fence after himself.

And this was particularly interesting:

Buchanan also told reporters that former President Richard M. Nixon, during a chat with him last month, was so impressed with the "toughness" of Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton, that he suggested Buchanan stop attacking Bush and start focusing on Clinton, the Democratic front-runner who is heavily favored to win his party's nomination.

More on the Texas Redistricting Situation

On the topic of retaliatory “re-re-districting” by Democrats to get back at Republicans, it was noted in a very interesting panel yesterday, that at the moment there really aren’t any good candidates for such activity—California and Illinois were cited. And while I don’t know much about the Illinois situation, I do know that Democrats are pretty happy with the California lines, as the Democrats have a majority of the seats, and have created a set of safe Democratic districts and traded off a number of safe Republican districts, something that both sides are happy with.

Merle Black of Emory noted that, in truth, state legislators “hate” the process and even in the Texas case it really took an outside force (Tom Delay) to get the Texas Republicans to undertake the current process.

Black, and at least one other participant, noted that the smaller the state gets, the more difficult it is to be “creative”. Texas presented a particularly good case given the 32 districts in play.

Also, listening to the discussion it occurred to me that a new era of retaliatory mid-decade re-districting is unlikely, given that the Texas case had several unique features unlikely to be present elsewhere in the country:

More from O'Neill

More from former SecTreas Paul O'Neill: Report: Bush Planned Iraqi Invasion Pre-Sept. 11.

Now, I have no problem believing that the Bush administration made plans to invade Iraq prior to 911. I suspect it has plans drawn up in case they are needed to invade a good number of countries.

Indeed, Bush did make statements like "we'll take him out" (I think that was a direct quote from the campaign trail in 2024) in reference to Saddam Huessein should Hussein do anything threatening.

However, I don't accept the "he was looking for any excuse" argument, because were that true, he would have found a reason to invade right after 911 itself (for example, if the truth is assumed not to matter at all, just jack up the Mohammed Atta-Iraq connection, and there's one's excuse). Also, the idea that he was ready to invade Iraq at the drop of a hat contradicts Bob Woodward's book Bush at War, which I tend to trust more than O'Neill's account.

Also, there are two amusing sidelines worth noting:

1) If O'Neill is right, and they were planning the attack all along, so much for all the "they didn't have a plan" arguments of critics in the early days of the war.

and

2) If this is correct:

O'Neill was also quoted in the book as saying the president was determined to find a reason to go to war and he was surprised nobody on the National Security Council questioned why Iraq should be invaded.

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it," said O'Neill. "The president saying 'Go find me a way to do this."'

then the whole Tin Foil Hat Bridage thesis that Cheney talked him into it (a theory Clark espoused on Hardball the other day), goes out the window.

Plus, O'Neill, in these stories over the last two days, is both characterizing Bush as a silent know-nothing, and this diabolical mastermind who pushed the admin to war by force of will. That is, to put it mildly, an odd juxtapostion.

I will grant, that all of this based on press accounts, and not reading the book or hearing the actual interviews in question.

Conference Blogging: Politics

Walter Dean Burnham, an eminent scholar in the field on American politics (and a prof at the University of Texas, although I never took any of his classes), made the following observation concerning Gore in 2024 that was both accurate and amusing in its own way.

He noted that Gore suffered "three assassins" in 2024:

1) Ralph Nader

2) Himself, for distancing himself from the Clinton economy (and, I would add, in the general way he ran his campaign such as the Debate One performance, and his general need to talk to us like we are in Kindergarten).

and

3) Bill Clinton, for having one the "most squandered presidencies" in memory (and Burnham noted earlier in the panel that he personally remembers the 1940 elections...). Regardless of one's opinion of Bill Clinton in general, it is rather difficult to deny that his presidency was indeed "squandered."

You Don't Think that O'Neil is Bitter or Anything, Do You?

Former Treasury Sec. Paints Bush as 'Blind Man'.

Stephen Green comments.

My question is: if it was tht bad, why did a) he take the job, and b) seem so upset when he was effectively fired?

The WSJ on Bush's Immigration Proposal

The WSJ (yes, registration required, but all they want is an e-mail address) agrees with me on the immigration issue (pointing out that, as I noted last night, not all conservatives are up in arms over the whole affair).

Like it or not, the U.S. is part of an integrating regional and world economy in which the movement of people across borders is inevitable. Despite nearly 20 years of efforts to "crack down on the borders," the immigrants keep coming--an estimated eight million without legal U.S. documents today. As long as the per capita income differential between the U.S. (nearly $32,000) and Mexico ($3,679) continues to be so wide, we can't stop immigrants short of means that will violate our traditions, our conscience, and our national interest.

Do we really want to deputize all of American business to report and arrest illegals? We tried a version of that in the 1986 reform that was promoted by restrictionists, and it proved both a nuisance and a failure. We later beefed up the border guard, but all that did was move illegal crossings deeper into the shadows of organized crime and cause more illegals to stay here for longer periods. We could always next build a Berlin Wall along the 2,000 miles of U.S.-Mexican border, or deploy the 101st Airborne, but we doubt Americans would be morally comfortable with either.

And while this will not satisfy most critics of the policy, it is something:

One objection, especially from the political right, is that the Bush proposal rewards people who broke the law. But in fact illegals would be required to pay a fine, as well as to prove employment before they could receive temporary visas. The 1986 "amnesty" to which this is being compared made no such demands.

The article also highlights the security benefits that Robert Tagorda noted yesterday as well.

And I found this amusing:

As for the politics, Mr. Bush is said to be playing for Hispanic votes, as if attracting voters wasn't part of getting elected.

Although, I maintain that the the likely vote changes as a result of this, is likely to be small.

See! I'd Toldja There'd Be More

As Robert Tagorda weighs in as well, dealing quite well with the national security concerns that have been raised concerning the plan.

More on Immigration (and, no Doubt, More to Come...)

PoliPundit (multiple posts, just scroll down) is clearly not happy about the immigration policy proposals of the President. While I still remain undecided on the actual contents of the proposal, having not yet had the chance to review them, I am (and have been for some time) basically pro-immigration liberalization.

Part of why I take the position that I do (and that I basically take on illicit narcotics) is that it is extremely difficult to fight the power of markets and of the basics of capitalism itself. The immigrants are willing to come, and risk much, as I have noted, and those who employ see great economic benefit in hiring them. There is an economic synergy here that is not as easy to stop as some argue, partially because there are a lot of people who don't want to stop it. To do some of what PoliPundit wants (like new throwing execs in jail of companies which hire illegals) would require changing the law. Somehow I don't see a law which would punish CEOs in this fashion passing the congress.

However, the main purpose of my post is to argue a bit with PoliPundit that this is, as he notes on his blog, "suicidal" for the president, or, as he noted in an e-mail to me a "betrayal of conservatives. To which I would answer:

There is a twofold problem with a "betrayal of conservatives" thesis: 1) Not all conservatives feel betrayed so it is hard to make such a sweeping statement, and 2) a lot of conservatives are either apathetic, or will have forgotten about this, in large part, by November.

On balance I find this argument that this policy is going to have radical electoral effects one way or another to be absurd. Which Democrat will Conservatives want to be President over Bush as a result of this policy? I just don't see it.

Immigration Backlash?

PoliPundit is rather displeased with the President's immigration proposal. And, I'm sure, are a lot of other conservatives.

And hopefully once the initial anger wears off, this sentiment will change:

The president's immigration "reform" policy is a kick in the teeth to conservatives. It's his way of saying that he has no use for us. He is selling us out to liberal elites, like Bush 41 did by breaking his no-new-taxes pledge. I hope these horrible immigration "reforms" die quickly in Congress. Otherwise I will be forced to reconsider my support for the president and I'm sure millions of other conservatives will too.

Let's face facts: is this policy worth a President Dean or a President Clark, or whichever of the Nine make it through the process? I think not.

Further, I guess I simply don't understand why this issue raises the ire that it does with certain large segments of the conservative movement

I don't have time to fully address the issue, but I would point out one salient point that those who decry the fact that we are rewarding illegal behavior: as I noted yesterday, if people are willing to die to get here, what do those opposed to this policy propose to do to stop them from coming? If people are willing to risk it all, what incentive structure can be erected to disuade them from coming?

Another key point: given that we are talking about literally millions of people, where is the money going to from to hire the no doubt hundreds of thousands of agents needed to round all these people up?

And really, what exactly has changed, at least radically? The workers were here before the reform, and they will be here after the reform, except that they will be properly accounted for, and paying proper taxes and such. And yes, I understand that it would be an increased incentive for illegals to cross the borders, although I find it to be a marginal increase in that incentive, given that the incentive is already extremely high.

This is an imperfect policy operating in an imperfect world.

And there is much more to say, no doubt, and I still haven't fully examined the policy, but I need to shut down and head out.

Senator Jokester

Having now seen the clip of Hillary's Gandhi joke, I have a question: why did she (or her speechwriter) think that that was funny? And I am not referring to anything to do with whether it was stereotypical, racial, or if it tarnished Gandhi. I simply mean: where was the humor?

Here's the whole story, in case you missed it.

Immigration Policy

Steve Bainbridge (apparently a Redskins fan--ah well, nobody's perfect) outlines Bush's immigration proposal, and he likes what he sees. I agree with the points he makes.

I have not analyzed the policy at this point, so will reserve final judgement. However, I have long been of the mind that conservatives have incorrect knee-jerk reactions to immigration (legal and illegal). I tend to believe that the long-term results of immigration is good for the United States.

Further, on a wholly practical level, I am of the opinion that stopping illegal immigration is impossible, without radically higher costs--costs that would outweigh the benefit of halting the immigrants. As long as people are willing to die to get to the United States, you aren't going to stop it. Plus, despite the rantings of Bill O'Reilly and Pat Buchanan, the idea of actually militarily sealing the 2000 mile US-Mexican border is a practical impossibility. Indeed, a working guest-worker program would help alleviate the problem of illegal border-crossing. If potential workers knew that there was a better way than paying a Coyote to smuggle them across the Arizona dessert sans water, they would likely take it. Still, regardless, they are coming.

To those who say: keep them out, or the solution is simple: just enforce the law, are not looking at this problem realistically.

Comments on Texas Redistricting

While I understand the concerns of James Joyner, Stephen Green, and Steve Bainbridge concerning the redistricting situation in Texas, I find it difficult to get especially upset about it for two reasons:

1) As I have noted before (and James notes as well), since there was no legislatively created redistricting plan in the 2024 legislative session, but rather the courts drew the lines, it seems eminently reasonable for the legislature that came into office in 2024 to want to draw lines. Indeed, had there not been a change in partisan control of the state House of Representative, no one would have found this problematic at all.

2) The process in question takes place in what is clearly a highly flawed system, but it is, nonetheless, an established set of rules. The lines that were redrawn in 2024 were based on what the legislature had created in 1991, when the legislature was heavily dominated by Democrats. Clearly a districting plan that elected a majority of Democrats in 2024 in a state that hasn't elected a statewide Democrat since 1994 is flawed as well. In short: the plan that was replaced was purposefully skewed to aid Democrats, which is not surprising since, as noted, the 1991 legislature was dominated by the party. However, when one considers this situation in the broader historical context, it is difficult to take the Democrats' cries of injustice seriously.

The bottom line is that both plans, the one used in 2024, and the one that, pending appeal, will be used in 2024 are both examples of partisan gerrymandering. The oly issue, and I understand the objection, is timing.

Having said all of that, I am increasingly of the opinion that an entirely different system of districting needs to be developed that would do away with conscious partisan districtcraft, and would lead to more competitive elections.

There is no doubt that across the country whichever party is in charge has drawn the lines to their advantage to the detriment of seriously competitive electoral contests in many, many districts. The only good news is that voters don't always cooperate with the best laid plans of mice and legislature, and vote the way they want.

Also, on a related note, the degree to which such mid-decade redistricting will become the norm is unclear, as a similar attempt (and one I am less familiar with) was struck down in Colorado.

Three Judge Panel Leaves TX Redistricting Intact

Court Upholds Texas Redistricting

A three-judge federal panel Tuesday upheld a new congressional map for Texas that the Republicans pushed through the Legislature after months of turmoil and two walkouts by the Democrats.

[...]

In its ruling, the judges said Democrats "failed to prove" the plan violates the Constitution or the Voting Rights Act, which protects minority voters.

Texas Representative Will Switch to GOP

Interesting: Texas Rep. Hall to Switch to Republicans

Texas Rep. Ralph Hall, a conservative Democrat, intends to switch parties, GOP officials said Friday night.

"I wouldn't be uncomfortable in the Republican party," Hall said minutes before Ted Boyer, a Republican Party spokesman in Austin, said the veteran lawmaker was switching parties.

Republican sources, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Hall had privately relayed word of his intentions earlier in the day.

Hall, 80, was first elected to the House in 1980.

His reported decision marked the latest fallout from a Republican-led attempt to redraw the Texas congressional district lines to their liking. GOP strategists estimate they can gain five or more seats through their efforts, which Democrats have challenged in court. The Justice Department has cleared the plan, saying it does not run afoul of civil rights laws.

I Sense Another Long Post Coming...

...although this one will be brief, as I still have some finishing touches to put on this week's Toast-O-Meter.

Clearly, I need to clarify my position on the differences/similarities of the Reps and Dems, an issued raised here yesterday. Some comments, and and a wothwhile post by Steve Bainbridge, both inspire the need for further elucidation on this topic.

My basic point was that the Reps and Dems (and the Red State/Blue State dichotomy, and so forth) do not illustrate a direly divided "50-50 nation" that some pundits like to discuss.

Now, I am decidedly not one of those "there ain't a dime's worth of difference" types, and I reject the whole "Demiplubicans/Repulocrats" nonensense that many engage in. I do think that there are important differences between the two parties, and I think it does matter who is in charge. However, one has to admit that save in a few specific areas of policy, that life under Republicans administrations and Democratic adminstrations really aren't all that radically different.

Rather, I am simply saying that if you want to see true, and extreme, ideological differences, go look in Western Europe, and then compare those parties to the Democrats and Republicans, and you will have a better idea of where I am coming from.

More later, I suspect...

A Quick Follow-Up

Chris Lawrence raises a legitimate point in regards to voting equipment which is that the differential in error rates may not justify the money needed to replace old machines, especially in poor counties which coiuld better use resources for education, law enforcement, and so forth.

One Last Post (at least for now) on Clark, Race and Voting

Back to the voting issue for a minute or two (or perhaps longer...).

Yesterday I posted on General Clark’s comments to an audience in Birmingham, AL that I interpreted as race-baiting on the topic of voting (also here and here). I still consider them such.

Those posts results in a few comments that challenged my position and a lengthy e-mail exchange with Kevin Drum of CalPundit. The gist of the criticisms of my position were basically twofold: 1) a general argument that Clark was correct and that a US Civil Rights Commission Reportproves Clark was right, and 2) that the problem has to do with voting equipment and incorrectly denying voters access because they were incorrectly identified as ex-felons.

Now, the issue at hand for me is not whether or not there are problems in the voting system, there are (and, let’s face facts, there always will be), but rather the question becomes whether or not there exists widespread racism which is disenfranchising voters.

The answer is no.

Racism and/or discrimination means, to me (and I think to the English language), the purposeful mistreatment of individuals due to their skin color. While there are problems which I agree should be fixed, the issue is not racism.

The Short(ish) Version

When it comes to public policy problem is rather important to properly identify the cause of a problem before it can be solved. The comments by Clark and various comments in the post below wish to attribute these problems to blatant racism; however that is not the problem. Rather, the problem is linked to poverty.

Let’s face facts: poor people are not as well off as wealthier people. Not only will they have higher rates of error in voting, they will have poorer health, worse education, shorter life expectancies, worse living conditions, and so forth, than those wealthier than them. And, since there is a higher percentage of blacks who are in poverty than whites, they are disproportionately affected by those factors which are linked to poverty.

I would agree that slavery, and institutional racism of the past are part of the reason why more blacks live in poverty than do whites, but now we are talking about different issues than voting technology and registration problems.

I would also note that the voting technology situation does not create the tremendous divide that some people seem to think they do:

The main issue is the question of “residual votes” which are defined by the Caltech-MIT Voting Technology Project as the combination of uncounted ballots, unmarked ballots and overvoted ballots. Residual vote rates for the 1988-2000 period for presidential elections are as follows: paper (1.8%), level machine (1.5%), punch card (2.5%), optical scan (1.5%), electronic (2.3%). The rates are quite higher for Governor and Senator during this same period: paper (3.3%), level machine (7.6%), punch card (4.7%), optical scan (3.5%), electronic (5.9%). Such numbers demonstrate that differing technologies do indeed have important effects on the balloting process.

Now, I do agree that problems exist, and were I in charger, I would support the following:

Race Relations

The discussion yesterday concerning what I consider race-baiting by General Clark has inspried a number of comments and some e-mails. I have a rather lengthy post on the subject that I am working on, but have a simple point that I don't want swallowed up by an essay:

As long as a substantial number of persons, especially leaders (such as Clark), wish to ascribe racism to everything bad the happens to a group of African-Americans, we are going to have a hard time moving towards a society in which people are not "judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."

Just because an injustice happens to balck people, doesn't mean it is the result of racism. I am not saying that there is no racism in American. However, mis-diagnosis of a policy problem leads to the wrong policy prescriptions.

I agree that probems exist that have caused some black americans (and white ones, too, for that matter) to have their votes not counted, or to have been stopped from voting due to registration problems. However, if an American American gentleman living in a poor county mis-votes, is it because he is black, or is it because the county couldn't afford more accurate equipment, or maybe it was because as a poor citizen in a poor county he received a sub-standard education?

The real reasons that something happens matters if one really wants to apply appropriate pubic policy solutions.

Let me ask the question this way: if a white person is denied the right to vote because of being incorrectly placed on a list of ex-felons who have been legally disenfranchised, is that racism? If a white person lives in a poor county and has to vote with less than the latest tehnology, is that racism? I would argue, no--would you? If a black person is similarly situated, what makes it racism?

Only in California

Eyes on the road -- not on the screen.

If you are considering installing a video screen on your dashboard to watch your favorite morning show or catch a flick to break up the monotony of your commute, think again.

Beginning Thursday, a new state law will tighten restrictions on drivers who watch video and television screens while operating their vehicles.

With the explosion of high-tech gadgets and gizmos for vehicles, California lawmakers have overhauled an existing law to attempt to limit at least some distractions for drivers.

Interesting: Plame Update

Ashcroft Steps Down from CIA Leak Probe

U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft will step aside from the politically charged investigation into a leak related to the Iraq war and the Justice Department will name a special prosecutor, department officials said on Tuesday.

The officials gave few details, saying only that Ashcroft was stepping down from the investigation and it would now be headed by the U.S. Attorney in Chicago, Patrick Fitzgerald.

Further details are expected at a 2 p.m. news conference.

Fun on Capitol Hill

Kevin Drum is correct: complex and messy legislation is nothing new. Indeed, anyone who has studied the legislative process even a little bit should know that it is unlikely that it would produce anything other than complex and messy outcomes.

So, those who argue that legislation recently passed, such as Medicare reform, or "No Child Left Behind" or whatever, are either unusually bad or part of some sort of Bush-administration plan (I have read such arguments), really haven't been paying much attention to Congress for the past two centuries plus.

Let's face facts: the system encourages deal-making and compromise, involves the need to get at least 51 members of the Senate (or 50 plus the Veep), and 218 members of the House to agree on whatever is on the table (and as I tell my students, try getting 5 friends to agree on where to eat and what movie to see, let along hundreds of politicians to agree on tax policy), and is dominated by multiple competing interests.

Not to mention that the preponderance of legislators are lawyers by training. If that doesn't explain the lack of readability of legislation, I don't know what would.

In short: legislating is messy, and legislation, therefore is rarely sublime.

More on the Voting Rights Issue

In the comment section below, Kevin of CalPundit notes that there were voters in the 2024 race in Florida who were wrongly denied the right to vote due to mis-identification as felons. Kevin cites the figure of 90,000.

I did some checking and found the following:

According to the 12/21/03 edition of the St. Petersburg Times, here are the numbers:

But less than a year before Floridians vote again for president, the election system remains bedeviled by inconsistencies, red tape and potential obstacles to prospective voters:

The state put together a list of 12,000 people - 41 percent of whom are African-American - who may have been misidentified as felons and denied the right to vote in 2024. But after completing the list, elections officials acknowledge it is inexact and still may include felons who should not be allowed to vote in 2024.

The counties have been told to deal with inconsistencies in the list as best they can. Some are returning to the rolls any voters who the county can't prove are felons. But others are making voters prove they aren't felons in order to vote next year.

Despite a legal settlement to make it easier for felons to regain their voting rights, the backlog of former prisoners who have applied to restore their rights has grown to nearly 39,000. That's a six-fold increase since 2024, yet the state earlier this year cut the number of Parole Commission staffers who handle applications.

While 12,000 isn't 90,000, it is still too many, and it is disturbing that that list may still have errors. In the age of computer databases, one would think it would be possible to determine who is a felon and who isn't. Further, I am of the opinion that once one's time is served that I do not see the rationale for denying the right to vote, which would solve this problem.

I would also note that of the 12,000, less than half were African-American (41%). As such this is really an issue of ex-felons' voting rights, not African-American voting rights.

I do not deny that this is a problem, but still question Clark's approach, assuming that this is even what he is talking about.

Update: This post is part of today's BELTWAY TRAFFIC JAM.

Cool! We Can Blame Canada!

USDA Says Mad Cow Animal Imported from Canada

(And yes, I am being tongue-in-cheek ;)

Goldberg on the Uninformed

Jonah Goldberg takes uninformed voters to task. He is pretty much on target, although his homage to the "special interests control politics" thesis is a bit off.

Getting Mad Cow in Perspective

Steve Bainbridge puts the Mad Cow story in perspective (and deals a little criticism Slate's way while he's at it).

I would add another point that seems to be lost in the news rush on this whole affair: when comparing an issue like this to Britain one has to remember that the UK is roughly the size of a postage stamp, making the containment of such outbreaks more difficult to manage. For the geographically impaired, I would note that the US of A is BIG.

So, one cow, in a BIG country may not be worthy of panic, shall we say.

Of course, given the slow news period and the 24/7 cable channels, no doubt an appreciable portion of the population thinks that all the beef in the US is contaminated, or soon will be...

Political Scorecard

Via Yahoo, BusinessWeek Online has an interesting Political Scorecard for 2024, with their winners and losers for the year.

On balance, I can't argue, although I might quibble with some of the designations. For example, Hillary Clinton is assigned a "winner" slot. I agree that the Senator has had a pretty good year, but I have to wonder if she is one of the top "winners" of 2024. Ditto Colin Powell as a "loser".

I do agree with the assigning of a "loser" slot to the "Sad Sack Senators Who Thought They Would be President."

The NYT on Powell

The NYT has an interesting piece of Secretary of State Colin Powell today (Powell Defends Diplomatic Role). The tone, like many pieces on Powell, focuses on the thesis that he is frustrated in his position.

An expression of this frustration comes from a quote from an interview the Secretary did with Foreign Affairs:

"U.S. strategy is widely accused of being unilateralist by design," Mr. Powell wrote. "It isn't. It is often accused of being imbalanced in favor of military methods. It isn't. It is frequently described as being obsessed with terrorism and hence biased toward preemptive war on a global scale. It most certainly is not."

The funny thing to me is that the tone of the article suggests that the problem at hand is that the rest of the Bush administration is the reason why Powell is upset. Indeed, through the last several years much of the press has been hellbent on setting up a Powell v. the Rest dichotomy in the administration (especially v. Rummy).

While I have no doubt that there are difference of policy opinion between Powell and other members of admin, I also think that Powell is a man of sufficient integrity that if he really was as disgruntled about Bush administration policy as many in the press clearly hope he is that he would have resigned by now. Certainly he wouldn't have said many of the things he has said over the last several years.

Indeed, I would point out to the NYT that the reason that Powell is frustrated about the misperceptions of US diplomacy (especially vis-a-vis "unilateralism") is the insistence of the press to pretend like all the Bush administration has done is run around all by its lonesome beating people up, despite empirical evidence to the contrary.

Were I Powell, I'd be frustrated as well.

Indeed, I find many liberals/opponents of the President's foreign policy to have this fantasy that Powell is really on their side--a lone voice of reason in a sea of foreign policy nuts in the White House. Again, I say, if that was the case, I find it hard to believe that he stayed this long. It isn't like he couldn't have found a graceful way to resign (like, for example, his cancer).

And you have to love the attempt at interpretation here:

Only rarely has Mr. Powell shed light on any interior dissatisfactions he may have experienced in three years. In a recent interview with The Washington Post, Mr. Powell volunteered that one of the things he most admired about one of his predecessors, George C. Marshall, was that he did not resign even after his advice not to recognize Israel in 1948 was rejected.

Does that mean, though, that Mr. Powell has even thought about resigning, such as when President Bush decided to go to war against Iraq? Not at all, his aides say. Mr. Powell all along believed that war was justified if Saddam Hussein continued to flout international demands to come clean with his weapons.

Although this seems to me to be reasonable:

"It is not as if he was against the war," said an aide to Mr. Powell. "It is just that the war was not his priority. It was Rumsfeld's and Cheney's priority. Powell's priority was to make sure the war was carried out in the right way."

SecState Lugar?

Robert Novak reports:

Well-placed sources say Republican Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, is the leading prospect to succeed Colin Powell as secretary of State in the second term of a Bush administration.

Lugar, a 71-year-old, five-term senator, is close to Powell and shares his less hawkish views of the world. Powell is definitely leaving at the end of the first Bush term. His friend and colleague, Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage, will leave with him. The choice of Lugar would be enhanced if his former aide, Mitch Daniels, is elected governor of Indiana next year so that a Republican in Indianapolis would select Lugar's successor for the last two years of his term if he leaves the Senate.

A footnote: Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, once thought to be in line for the top job at either State or Defense in the second term, is reported to have lost favor at the White House.

Not a very exciting choice, but a competent one. And interesting about Wolfowitz.

Ok, Someone Explain This to Me

In the 12/22 issue of Newsweek, in the "Conventional Wisdom" section, Nixon is featured with an "up" arrow. The blurb by arrow? "In new tapes he calls Reagan 'strange' and 'not pleasant.' Say what? Guess we'll have to hear it on Showtime."

Huh?

A Little News Quiz

A little news quiz: who said it, and when?

"We recognize this area as vital to U.S. national interests, and we will behave, with others, multilaterally when we can and unilaterally when we must."

It was said by known neocon, and right-wing ideologue Madeleine K. Albright, then the United States representative to the United Nations, and later the Secretary of State for President Clinton. She said it on ABC's "This Week" and my source is the NYT's, October 17, 1994.

And the country which inspired the comment? Iraq.

FYI

Secretary of State Powell Has Prostate Surgery

"Secretary Powell is undergoing surgery this morning for prostate cancer," the State Department said in a statement, adding that the operation was being performed at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington, D.C.

More Analytical Absurdity

While I am pickng on badly analyzed political issues, here's one from the AP: S.F. Mayoral Race Becomes U.S. Barometer

This city's mayoral race is about more than just revenues and public works: It has, by virtue of the two candidates engaged in a tight runoff, turned into a barometer of whether the Democrats have lost touch with their core constituents.

Tuesday's vote features Gavin Newson, a liberal Democrat who has been cast as the establishment candidate next to the Green Party's Matt Gonzalez, seen as the progressive outsider.

Here's the problem: San Francisco hardly qualifies as a mainstream city, or even one populated by solely mainstream Democrats/liberals. Given the blows that the California Democratic Party has suffered of late, I certainly understand why it is important for them to win. However, to cast this vote as a "U.S. Barometer" is ludicrous. It would be like looking at the most traditionalistic and conservative county in Alabama and using it as an indicator of the health of the Republicans in a mayoral race between a hardcore Baptist and a somewhat less conservative Republican. It makes no sense.

Plus, this illustrates a common fallacy in the reasoning seen in the press: that somehow a pattern can be extrapolated from one event.

This race is about San Francisco politics, and to some degree about California Democrats. It isn't about the Democratic Party writ large.

It's Done

Bush Signs Sweeping Medicare Bill That Includes Drug Benefit

It's List Mania!

Speaking of lists, Right Wing News has its second annual list of annoying liberals.

Hat tip: Insults Unpunished:

The Losing Battle that is Campaign Finance Reform

James of OTB has the latest example of why trying to restrict political speech via BCRA (aka, McCain-Feingold), is a losing proposition.

Chris Wallace

I just finished watching Chris Wallace's first show as host of Fox News Sunday. I would give him good marks--I will miss Tony Snow, but Wallace is likely to be fine. I thought his interview with Howard Dean was well done (and one can see that once Dean is in the general election campaign, he is going to have a harder time deflecting some of the questions about his more, shall we say questionable, comments (like the innuendo about how maybe Bush knew about 911 ahead of time)). And my favorite part of all these shows is the panel, which has stayed the same.

In sum: Wallace ain't Tim Russert (but who is?) and thankfully he isn't Bob Schieffer either (thank goodness). And he is better than Stephanopolous (and BTW the original Enterprise called, and it wants its bridge back--what's up with that set?). So, it still seems to me that host-wise and show-wise nothing has changes: MTP is the best, FNS is second, and This Week and FTN are at the bottom.

The Ted Rall of the Right?

James of OTB excerpts a recent Ann Coulter column leading me to ask is she hasn't become the Ted Rall of the right.

Race, Mississippi, and Coaches

Robert Prather of Insults Unpunished has a thoughtful post on the hiring of Sylvester Croom as the new head coach at his alma mater, Mississippi State. I had meant to link to it yesterday, but never got around to it, and now that I have read some of the comments that have been posted, I decided to post a link and make a comment or two of my own.

First, in an ideal world race shouldn't matter. One expects that most folks who read this blog take that as a given.

Second, I personally would argue that race relations in this country have improved mightily in the last several decades. However, it is clear that the task of creating a color-blind society is far from complete.

Third, Robert is right--this move is an important one for the state of Mississippi. It does mean something. It is too bad that it does, but nonetheless the truth is the truth. I have now lived for over five year in Alabama and likely to be here for a very long time. I have family from here (my mother, grandparents and many others) and grew up in Texas until I was a sophomore in High School, so I have a good idea of the stereotypes that are often associated with the South (and like many who are from the South, I have resented them). I know that most of them are unfair. However, like some of the statements I have made here regarding the Confederate Battle Flag, I have become more sensitive to the race issue here in the Deep South after having had a closer look at the facts on the ground, so to speak. Things like Croom's hire is important, both symbolically and in real terms. I don't buy the argument that one should hire someone just because they of a given color--that is racism. I have profound philosophical problems with affirmative actions programs. However, there is no denying that we as a country have a history that includes substantial, institutionalized and isidious racism. We have done things that violate the very principles of liberty and democracy that are supposed to hold dear. That legacy takes time to become truly distant memory. Anything that helps to push that legacy farther and farther in the recesses of our collective minds the better, even if it is something like hiring a football coach. These things do matter and having no blacks coaches in the SEC, even if for wholly innocent reasons, was a problematic symbol, at the very minimum.

In sum: Robert was right to be proud of his school, and while one shouldn’t make too much of the hiring of a football coach, I would say that Croom’s hire is a good thing for the state of Mississippi, the South in general and for the SEC. Indeed, it should be a good thing for the Mississippi State football program over the long haul, as Croom has an excellent resume.

(And while I am at it, I am sticking this post into today's BELTWAY TRAFFIC JAM)

Update: I kept referring to Mr. Croom as "Crooms" above--which I have now correctred.

Update II: When the Alabama job was open, I thought that Croom was a better candidate than Shula, but it was because of resume.

Update III: Some other folks have entered the conversation: James of OTB and Christopher Lawrence of Signifying Nothing, as does Sean Hackbarth of The American Mind

You Have Got to be Kidding Me

Slate has the Plame photo. My word, how can anyone now take all of this seriously? I think that InstaP is dead-on in his write-up and various updates. I also concur with Timothy Noah:

Chatterbox spares Plame Whopper status, possibly on grounds of misplaced gallantry. But Plame's extended striptease, enthusiastically barked by her husband, now has Chatterbox wondering how much of Wilson's story to believe. (It also has Chatterbox wondering when the couple will start renting themselves out for birthday parties.) Regardless of the merits, this photograph will surely give the Bush Justice Department whatever slim justification it seeks in dropping its Plamegate investigation.

The pic does make it extremely difficult to take this whole situation seriously. Even if the argument is that "well her cover was already blown", the picture does not fit the post-Novak rhetoric by any stretch (and the Slate piece has plenty of examples of the rhetoric). Indeed, I would state that the photo trivializes that whole affair.

As Expected

And you have to love clever headlines: Bush Scraps Steel Tariffs

Redistricting Decision

Interesting: Colorado Court Says Redistricting Is Unconstitutional

In a decision with national implications, the Colorado Supreme Court threw out the state's new congressional districts Monday saying the GOP-led Legislature redrew the maps in violation of the state constitution.

The General Assembly is required to redraw the maps only after each Census and before the ensuing general election -- not at any other time, the court said in a closely watched 5-2 decision that followed party lines. A similar court battle is being waged in Texas.

On the one hand, this is probably just as well, as I am increasingly of the point of view that the entire way we redistrict is seriously flawed, so perhaps it is wise to put the brakes on this redistricting in midstream. However, on the other hand it strikes me as reasonable that if the most recent redistricting was done by the courts and not the legislature, that the next legislature should have the right to revisit the lines drawn by the judiciary. In other words, I think that redistricting is kosher mid-stream if the legislature of the state (assuming that that is the nexus of redistricting power in that state) has not yet actualy put forth their own set of lines. It strikes me as fundamentally more democratic for the legislature to draw the lines than for the courts to draw the lines.

Indeed, if stalemated legislatures knew that the next legislature would be able to redraw a court-drawn set of lines, then they might be more amenable to compromise. As it stands, if there is a switch of party (or even a shift in the relative power of the two) from one redistricting to the next the party that was in power during the previous redistricting process has an incentive to hold out and hope for a court-mandates solution, which will likely be based on the previous set of lines.

This is what happened in Texas: the Democrats controlled the legislature in 1991, when the 92-00 lines were drawn. When there was a stalemate in 2024, the courts simply tweaked the 1991 version of the districts which, shockingly, favored the Democrats.

Update: This is my OUTSIDE THE BELTWAY: BELTWAY TRAFFIC JAM entry of the day.

Gripegiving

Cam Edwards has the anit-matter to my post from below.

It does remind me how myopic and falsely intellectual college kids can be--especially the smart ones.

T-Day Round-Up

A perusal of the Blogosphere and RealClear Politics, nets the following examples of writing today on what we have to be thankful for in this great country of ours:

As the President's Thanksgiving Message notes:

America is a land of abundance, prosperity, and hope. We must never take for granted the things that make our country great: a firm foundation of freedom, justice, and equality; a belief in democracy and the rule of law; and our fundamental rights to gather, speak, and worship freely.

George Will has a piece on the history of the date upon which we celebrate, and, shockingly, the politics thereof (especially as linked to commerce). My favorite bit (not surprisingly):

But in 1939, 23 states followed FDR's lead and celebrated Thanksgiving on Nov. 23. Twenty-three stayed with Nov. 30. Colorado and Texas celebrated on both days, Texas doing so to avoid having to reschedule -- speaking of things to give thanks for -- the Texas-Texas A&M football game.

Indeed.

Jonah Goldberg note that things have been gettin progessively better in the US and Europe as he discusses numeroud examples from Gregg Easterbrook's new book. (Hat tip: PoliPundit).

Jeff Jacoby is giving thanks for capitalism (as is Gary Hull of the Ayn Rand
Institute (A tip of the hat to Cox and Forkum for that one)).

David Broder is thankful that we remain united in the face of political divisions (of which I think he makes far, far too much).

Dean Esmay has an excerpt from yesterday's WSJ, detailing much that we all should be thankful for.

And we are all thanksful that James of OTB is well after a traffic accident yesterday!

Pronunciation Strategery

Bush mispronunces Nevada in first presidential visit

Nevada memo to George Bush: When making a first presidential visit to a state, use the right pronounciation of its name.

Bush, in Las Vegas on Tuesday, repeatedly said Ne-vah-da. To properly pronounce Nevada, the middle syllable should rhyme with gamble.

Ok, I am not shocked that Bush would mispronounce something, but the explanation of what he did and the proper way to pronounce the state confuses me. How can "Nevada" in any way rhyme with "gamble"?

I guess that Bush said "vah" as in va-voom, or say "ah" rather than "va" as in vacuum or ack (like Bill the Cat).

I dunno.

The Other Big Bill Stalls

Quite frankly, this is more than fine with me: G.O.P. Leaders Dropping Push for an Energy Bill This Year

Congress abandoned its efforts to enact new energy legislation this year as Senate Republican leaders said Monday night that time had run out to resolve an impasse blocking a vote on the measure.

The more I hear about this bill, the less I like it. Indeed, I hope it stay dead.

Medicare Bill Passes

As James of OTB reports the medicare bill has passed the Senate. On a related noted, he has a wothwhile post on the realistic differences between the two parties.

As he noted the other day, there is a substantial difference between philosophers and politcians (especially legislators) on what it means to be conservative and liberal.

Another point worth making, despite the fact that we like to talk about policy-making in rational and logic terms, the honest to gosh truth is that 1) we never really fully understand the entirely of a given policy problem, especially ones as complex as this, so therefore 2) the solutions are never as clear-cut as they seem, and 3) this is compounded by the give-and-take of legislative politics.

As one political scientist (Charles Lindblom) put it, policy-making is the "sciene of muddling through" which is unsatisfying, but nonetheless true.

I'm So Relieved

Beats the Rich pardon: Bush Pardons Stars, the Talkative Turkey

So Much for the Filibuster

Despite threats to the contrary, it looks like the medicare bill is going to pass: Senate Closes Medicare Debate, Nears Vote

The Senate voted to choke off debate Monday on a historic Medicare prescription drug bill, but die-hard opponents vowed one final effort to scuttle the legislation they attacked as a boon to pharmaceutical and insurance industries.

The vote was 70-29, 10 more than the 60 needed to end a filibuster led by Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., and joined by a pair of Democratic presidential hopefuls eager to share the spotlight.

In other words: it is essentially a done deal.

Medicare Bill

My gut reaction to both the energy bill and the medicare bill is that they are large, expensive and confusing: three things that legislation often is, but that I would prefer it not to be.

There is little doubt that there is a political capital to be gained by the Republicans in terms of the medicare bill, and I think David Broder hit the nail on the head in his recent column on this subject. It isn't so much that the GOP can siphon off a large number of hard-core Democrats, but it will, like the Homeland Security Act, be an issue that redounds to the Republicans, especially in legislative elections, as Broder notes:

In 2024 the Republicans arranged for the final item on the agenda before Congress broke for the midterm election to be the bill creating the Department of Homeland Security. The proposal started with the Democrats and was initially opposed by the White House. But Bush reversed himself, made it a priority and reveled in the fact that Senate Democrats delayed passing it because the Republicans would not agree to extend traditional civil service protections to employees of the new bureaucracy.

In the shorthand of the campaign, that turned into the charge that Democrats were playing politics with the nation's security. It played well in states such as Georgia and helped the Republicans regain control of the Senate.

Policy-wise, I wonder about the wisdom of the plan, especially in fiscal terms. However, I do think that a prescription drug benefit is inevitable, so better a Republican-authored plan than a Democratic one. An editorial by Newt Gringrich in the Dead Tree version of the WSJ last Thursday caught my eye on this topic, as he made the case for conservatives to vote for the bill, specifically because it introduces a number of privatization processes into the system (which has lead to the howling by Senator Kennedy and his allies in the Senate), and specifically Gingrich notes that the plan allows for the creation of health savings accounts (HSAs)--which is something that conservative Republicans have been trying to push for years. Indeed, the former Speaker calls this bill "the most important reorganization of our nation's health-care system since the original Medicare Bill of 1965."

I have seen precious little in the press on the HSAs, but this is an intriguing element of this package. The NYT reported on HSAs a few days back (but I missed it at the time): Health Savings Accounts Drew Yeas From the Wary

For some conservative Republicans opposed to expanding a government entitlement program, the sweetener that allowed them to swallow the medicine and vote for the Medicare bill on Saturday morning was the inclusion of a new tax-free health savings account.

These accounts have long been a goal of conservative lawmakers and academics who want to add cost-cutting competition to the health insurance marketplace and offer a way for workers to save money for medical expenses in their retirement.

[...]

Here is how the accounts would work: Consumers or their employers would buy relatively inexpensive health insurance policies with high deductibles — at least $1,000 a year for individuals and $2,000 for families — so that patients would be fully covered for costly injuries or illnesses but have to pay routine medical expenses out of pocket.

With the money saved in lower premiums, they would open health savings accounts into which they or their employers could put up to $5,000 a year ($10,000 for a couple). The contributions would be tax deductible, the money would accumulate year after year tax free, and it could be withdrawn to pay not only for the kinds of medical expenses normally covered by insurance, like doctor visits and laboratory tests, but also for expenses often not covered, like cosmetic surgery, dental care and eyeglasses.

I am surprised that this has not been better highlighted by conservative in the Congress trying to rally support for the bill. Of course, it is unclear how widespread this would actually be implemented.

Given all this, and given, as noted above, that a prescription drug benefit is, in my opinion, inevtiable, the inclusion of HSAs makes this bill palatable.

UPDATE: This post is now caught up in today's Beltway Traffic Jam.

News "Coverage"

James of OTB noted yesterday that in addition to being the 40th anniversary of the Kennedy assassination, it was also the 40th anniversary of the death of C.S. Lewis. I, too, was unaware of that fact prior to yesterday. Clearly the JFK story took priority over the Lewis story. And that is fully understandable.

James further asked: "One wonders, for example, what happened on September 11, 2024 and the week or so thereafter that virtually no one knows about. Newspapers come out every day, regardless of whether there is anything exciting to put in them" (Sean Hackbarth tries to answer, and issues a challenge to the Blogosphere). And, certainly, it is wholly understandable that the events of 911 utterly eclipsed whatever else might have bee going on that day.

However, the question made me wonder what gets ignored on a daily basis by 24 hour news channels just because they are lazy or addicted to the salacious and soap operatic, and not to really covering the news. The juxtaposition this week of the Michael Jackson coverage and the al Qaeda bombing in Turkey the same day provides an excellent example. It is rather obvious which of those stories is more important, yet we all know what dominated the news. And do we really need hours a night on the Laci Peterson case? When's the last time there was serious reportage out of Afghanistan? Or Colombia, the third largest recepient of US foreign aid? Or (fill in the blank).

I know, this is all driven by ratings, although one wonders sometimes if it isn't also the path of least resistance. It is no doubt cheaper to show footage of Jackson's plane landing than it is to report on events half-way 'round the world.

You Don't Say?

I'm not saying they did, and I am not saying they didn't (I really don't have enough info to form an opinion), but don't protestors always say this? Protesters Say Miami Police Overreacted

Police were accused Friday of overreacting and using excessive force in clashes with demonstrators at this week's trade talks.

Voting Tech

Interesting: California requires electronic voting machines to make receipts. However, on balance I am becoming increasingly convinced that touch screens really aren't that good an idea, and that scantron-type ballots are the best way to go: there is a paper ballot that can be recounted if necessary, and they can have ballot boxes which scan for obvious errors when the ballot is deposited (like double-voting).

The reported problems with the Diebold machines are troubling (to say the least) and the whole move to totally computerized voting seems to be a classic example of over-reaction to a problem, as well as an excellent example of how we often fall in love with high-tech far too easily at times.

Oops

Bad Radar Prompts White House Evacuation

Air Force fighter jets were scrambled and the White House was briefly evacuated on Thursday after birds or possibly disturbances in the atmosphere tripped radar that keeps watch on restricted air space around the complex.

And Your Gov for Free

Arnie is going to refuse his salary and work for free, according to a news report.

I hope he can afford it.

Speech, Money and Campaign Finance Rules

In answer to a question that Eric W asked in this post, I bring you an oldie from the PoliBlog archives:

In the case of Buckley v. Valeo, 424 US 1 (1976), the Court wrote:

A restriction on the amount of money a person or group can spend on political communication during a campaign necessarily reduces the quantity of expression by restricting the number of issues discussed, the depth of their exploration, and the size of the audience reached. This is because virtually every means of communicating ideas in today's mass society requires the expenditure of money (I-A).

The case of Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee, et al. v. Federal Election Commission 518 U.S. 604 (1996) further extended that idea to include what came to be known as “soft money.”

Indeed, I have argued that unless the Court reverses itself on the logic quoted above, that there is no way that Congress can regulate soft money donations and expenditures. Of course, I argue as a political scientist, and not as an attorney.

The only limitation that the Court has consistently upheld have been limiting the amount of money given to candidates.

The current case before the Supremes has to do with the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act of 2024 (BCRA) and will end up defining what can and cannot be done with "soft money" (i.e., money to parties and interest groups). The Court has an info page here.

The Democrats Score One

As you all no doubt know, the the votes are in and Kathleen Blanco (D) won the governor's race in LA yesterday (52-48). This entire story has been quite reminiscent of the 2024 senate contest where the Democrat, Mary Landrieu bested the Republican Suzanne Terrell 52-48 in a run-off a month after the general election (due to the screwy rules in Louisiana). In both cases there had been a series of Republican successes leading up to the LA election, with Reps hoping for LA to be a confirmation of their driving power and Dems hoping it would prove that there was no Rep tide.

On balance this election will give McAuliffe and the DNC some solace, and many will argue that it shows that there is hope for Democrats in the south going into 2024. Two responses: Lousiana is its own place and hardly emblematic of the South, per se. And as I keep pointing out: you can't derive a pattern from one example.

An interesting side-note: Jon Breaux, the moderate Dem Senator from LA had made noise he might retire if a Dem won the governorship in this election.

Election Day in LA

Don't forget: Louisiana Governor's Race to Make History

Arnie Certified

Schwarzenegger certified as official winner of recall election

Shelley's report shows that 55.4 percent of voters said yes on the question of recalling Davis. Just over 48 percent of voters picked Schwarzenegger to replace him. Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante got 31.5 percent and state Sen. Tom McClintock, R-Northridge, 13.5 percent.

The official vote totals show that 61 percent of the state's 15.4 million registered voters cast ballots in the recall election. That's more than any governor's election since 1982, Shelley said.

The number of votes cast Oct. 7 exceeded by 1.6 million the number of people who voted in the November 2024 general election, the secretary of state said.

No Surprise: Cloture Denied

Dems Succeed in Halting Action on Owen

With a 53-42 vote, Democrats succeeded in stopping further action on President Bush's nomination of Texas judge Priscilla Owen to a seat on a U.S. appeals court. Sixty votes were needed to end the filibuster and bring on a final confirmation vote.

It was the fourth time Republicans have failed to advance the Owen nomination. Despite the nearly 40 hours of exhaustive debate on what the GOP says is Democratic obstructionism on judges, they failed to win a single new Democratic vote. As in past votes, only two Democrats, Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Zell Miller of Georgia, voted with the Republicans.

How About a Real Filibuster?

This: Angered by Democrats' Filibusters on Nominees, Republicans Stage One, isn't going to do anything, unless after the 30 hours is up Frist says: "Guess what, we ain't done yet." If the Democrats want to filibuster, let 'em. And if the Republicans have the courage of their convictions and outrage, then they should hang until we see who blinks first.

Personally at 35 the prospect of pulling an all-nighter makes me cringe (I like my sleep, such as I get), so one would think the 70 year-olds in the Senate would crumble at some point.

Of course if the Reps really had cajones, they'd start a real filibuster the Monday of Thanskgiving week.

Party of the Rich?

Mark the Pundit makes the following correct observation:

The standard line is the Republican party represents "the rich." If this is true, explain to me how the party of the rich totally dominates the area of the country considered the poorest.

The Point of Campaign Finance

To answer Stephen Green's question (which was: "Will someone please remind me again what the Campaign Finance Reform Act was supposed to accomplish?"), the real answer is: to symbolically do something to placate those who think that "special interests" control the government, and that "big money" is ruining politics.

And, ironically, many Democrats who voted for it voted against their party's interest, because the BCRA of 2024 put several limits on soft money, including banning it for parties. Guess which party has had a historical advantage in soft money? That's right: the Democrats. Indeed, contrary to some of Stephen's commentators, a lot of Republicans voted for the thing knowing the new rules would stick to to the Dems.

But mostly, like all campaign finance reform (go back and look at the debate in the 70s over the Federal Election Campaign Act--which the BCRA amends and enhances), the main motivation was clearly for politicians to be able to say: "See! I am not beholden to special interests! I'm for the people! (ignoring, of course, that the people have interests and the even those pernicious "corporate interests" are made up of a bunch of, well, people.)

(For an excellent example of that kind of rhetoric, albeit not at the federal level, go back to the Schwarzenegger campaign).

Of course, the idea that one is going to "get money out of politics" is utterly absurd. When Congress spends approximately $2.4 trillion annually, can anyone be surprised that citizens want to spend money to affect who sits in Congress? Further, what's wrong with that?

Imagine That

As the Session Winds Down, Sniping Rises on Capitol Hill

LA Race

Dave Wissing has a roundup of polling numbers from the LA governor's race. On balance the numbers seem to indicate a tight race. And as Dave notes , there appear to be a lot of undecideds.

Senate Judicial Blockage Continues, Likely to Expand

Democrats Block Pryor From Court Seat

Senate Democrats on Thursday blocked Alabama Attorney General William Pryor from a U.S. Appeals Court seat for a second time as Republicans, meanwhile, moved California judge Janice Rogers Brown toward what is likely to be the same fate in the closely divided Senate.

Pryor again failed to get the 60 votes needed from the 100-member chamber to break a filibuster of his nomination to the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta. His nomination was first filibustered by Democrats in July.

Election After Action Report

It's op/ed smack-down time: the WSJ v. USAT. The topic: analyzing the significance of Tuesday's electoral outcomes.

USAT's editorial page posits that the results are, while good for Republicans, a message of voter anger and anti-incumbency:

This is not a picture of a political tide running in one direction. It is a picture of voters venting their frustration on whomever happens to be in power.

However, the WSJ sees it in terms of regional trends:

Tuesday's vote turned out to be typical of off-year elections, with the consolidation of longtime partisan regional trends.

Republicans have good reason to whistle Dixie. They picked up two more statehouses down South and are leading in Louisiana's runoff next week...Democrats found more solace in the Northeast, their main national bastion.

The winner in this analytical face-off? Why, the good folks at the Journal. This success is at least in part the result of looking at trends over time, with a larger set of observations, than trying to create a pattern by looking at a handful of elections, which is what the USAT analyst did.

Plus, since only one of the two governor's in question were actually incumbents, and since the incumbent mayor of Philly got to stay, I am unclear on where a radcial anti-incumbent mood can be idenitified. Indeed, it sounds like an extension of the incorrect McAuliffe/Dean/Pelosi reCAL thesis.

Hollywood Bias and the Reagan Mini-Series

I think Timothy Noah misses the point of the flap over the Regan miniseries. If the movie was indeed an attempt to present a historically balanced view of the Reagans, there would have been protestations by those who would want the warts ignored, but it certainly wouldn't have been pulled. Rather, from what I have read, heard and seen, this miniseries is a study in all of the cliches about Reagan from a liberal point of view. The soundbites that I have heard are laughable and the script excerpts have been insane (like Reagan pondering that he might be the anti-christ, I mean, please).

We will remember that the original, and very critical, piece on this movie came from the NYT and Chris Matthews, hardly a Reagan-worshipping conservative, has been highly (indeed, remarkably) critical of this project.

I will allow that there is a reverance of Reagan by many, many American conservatives that transcends the empirical, and that is part of what has driven this critique. However, any fair-minded person of any ideological perspective would have to admit that having Streisand's husand in the lead role, where she was on the set constantly, raises a red flag. As I said when this first came up, it would be like Charlton Heston playing Clinton. Surely if we found out that there was going to be Clinton biopic coming out where Heston played Clinton, and Ken Starr was acting as an informal consultant, most liberals would be outraged?

Personally, I haven't gotten overly exercised over the whole thing. I am not an advocate of boycotts, and I simply wouldn't have watched the thing had it aired on CBS. For one thing, I tend not to like fictionalized biographies. I will say that this production doesn't help the argument that Hollywood isn't inherently biased.

As I asked several months ago: can anyone name a movie or tv show where the conservatives are painted as the good guys (let alone the liberals as the bad guys)? Rather, as I noted in that earlier post, it is pretty easy to find a plethora of shows and movies where the right is bad and the left is good. I can add one to the list: NBC's new (and now cancelled) show The Lyon's Den was shaping up as the good, liberal crusader versus the evil, money-grubbing, in-bed-with-greedy-corporate-type conservatives in the politicized setting of Washington, D.C. Now, it looked like an interesting show, but the political bias was clear.

Donkeys and Elephants in the South

The CSM has a good piece entitled "GOP clout rises in South" which deals with both the elections yesterday and the Dean Confederate flag comment, and fits into the ongoing discussion here and elsewhere on partisan identification and southern voters.

I would say that this underscores a main component of why the South is becoming increasingly a Republican stronghold, and fits into my previous arguments concering the ideological predilections of many Southerns (and it isn't about simply about race, it's about values, indeed it is mainly about ideology):

Taken together, these events reflect the South's ongoing shift from a solidly Democratic region to one that is not only competitive for Republicans, but seems increasingly hostile to Democrats, with a rift over cultural issues from guns to abortion to affirmative action. Republicans now hold 8 governorships out of the 11 former confederate states.

[...]

In many ways, Democrats find themselves increasingly torn between liberal Northeastern and West Coast voters who tend to dominate the party, and Southerners they hope to woo back. Dean has come under fire from Sen. John Kerry for high ratings from the National Rifle Association in his years as governor of Vermont - a position that might boost Dean's profile in the South, but could hurt him elsewhere and in many early primary states.

In other words, Zell Miller has a point: the mainline Democratic Party does not connect well with the traditional values (largely linked to religious positions) that are dear to many Southern voters.

If the Democratic elite wish to continue to argue that it is just because all the racist rednecks switched, they will never be able to recapture the vote. And I would note, that people can be for "states' rights (i.e., federalism) and against affirmative action as rational, principled positions without racism being the motivation (and if you dismiss that statement out of hand, I would refer you to the first sentence in this paragraph).

And the following observation about Mississippi is astute (especially when you think about what Ralph Reed was able to do for Georgia Republicans):

In Mississippi in particular, analysts expect Gov.-elect Barbour to build up the GOP apparatus. "Barbour has been a master of organization" for the Republican Party nationally, says Black. "If Democrats think their situation is bad in Mississippi today, it's going to get worse."

MS: Barbour Ahead, Many Votes Left to Count

Musgrove, Barbour Locked In Tight Race

Democratic Gov. Ronnie Musgrove and Republican challenger Haley Barbour were locked in a tight race Tuesday night.

With 17 percent of the vote in, Barbour had 52 percent to Musgrove's 46 percent.

Democrats Retain Control of Philly

No big surprise here: Philadelphia Keeps Street as Mayor

Mayor John Street easily won re-election against a familiar rival Tuesday in a racially charged campaign that became more so when an FBI bug was discovered in the incumbent's office.

The Democrat was leading Republican businessman Sam Katz, 59 to 41 percent with 66 percent of precincts reporting.

The GOP Take Kentucky

Of the races tonight, this one may be the most interesting party politics-wise, as it pitted a Democrat trying to associate the Republican with the "Bush Economy": Republican Wins Governor's Race in Kentucky

With a little more than 90 percent of the state's precincts reporting, Fletcher, 50, a three-term House member from Lexington, held a 55 percent to 45 percent lead over his Democratic opponent, Attorney General A.B. "Ben" Chandler III.

Of course, one race does not a pattern make. Still, it will give the Republican pols something to crow about.

Speaking of Ole Miss

Here's an interesting article from 1997 in the Daily Mississippian on the Universtity's symbology.

Return of the Southern Strategy

<Caveat lector: this could use some tighening, but I need to get back to work).

Comments this week from Howard Dean and Zell Miller, and specifically posts by Matthew Yglesias and James of OTB leads to the return to this topic--as does the discussion on the Confederate Battle Flag.

The issue is that most of the problem with these discussions is that they overly treat race/racism as the explanatory variable—especially when the actual electoral shift took places, which James correctly notes was in the 1980s, not the 1960s—indeed, I did some research on this a while back. I think that a focus just on presidential elections misses the point. For one thing, that some Southern states went Republican for president, while stayed Democratic for other office is an artifact of the fact that the majority of the voters in the South were (and are) conservative in nature, and therefore typically more conservative than the national Democratic Party, and hence the willingness of some to vote Republican for the office of president. Plus, Ike, as a key example, had rather wide appeal that transcended party identification. I did some research on this a while back. Is it not possible, for example, that someone who had racist notions might not drawn to the Republican Party for reasons other than race? I should think so. Further, citizens may identify with some symbol or action that is perceived as racists, but not for reasons that have anything to do with race.

For example, while there is no doubt that the Confederate Battle Flag, amongst a whole host of other Southern symbols (like calling the University of Mississippi “Ole Miss” for example, let alone Colonel Reb, or even phrases like “The Heart of Dixie”) have racist overtones. But, does that mean that those who cherish or support those symbols are racists themselves, or choose to support those symbols for race-related reasons? No. Indeed, clearly not. Rather, many people develop attachments to these symbols before they are ever aware of any issues about race. For example, many a young person (and older persons, for that matter), might think having a confederate battle flag on their trucks means that they are sticking up for their region and “sticking it” to those Darn Yankees up north-less for any reason specifically related to the Civil War, but to a generalized feeling of regional pride that is not unlike the way football rivals deal with one another. Plus, there is a common feeling amongst Southerners that our brethren to the north down on us, which creates quite a bit of prideful backlash.

Further, a fan of Ole Miss may think that it is just a clever nickname of the school and not know that it same nickname that slaves used to refer to the female head of the household (and the daughter was “Young Miss”). And even once such facts are revealed, it is difficult to have one’s traditions changed (after all, it never meant anything negative to you, so what’s the big deal?) Heck, anyone who was a kid in my generation who heard that a football team was called the Rebels was as likely to thing of the Rebel Alliance in Star Wars as they were to thing about the Civil War connotations of the term.

Indeed, it was this kind of thing that Howard Dean was talking about when he made the comment about getting the vote from guys with Confederate Flags on their pick-up trucks.

Another example: a lot (and I mean a lot) of white families in Montgomery send their children to private schools. Now, there is no doubt that a large number of these private schools emerged as a result of desegregation (just check out when the schools were founded…), and so their original reason for existence was racist in nature. However, a lot of the parents who send their children to private schools do so now because they think that a) the private schools are better than the public schools (which may or may not be true, it depends), and b) they prefer to send their kids to religious schools. Now, there are no doubt some who consciously see race as a factor as well, but the majority of parents honestly see their decision as race-neutral.

Part of the problem here to is a cycle in which the wealthier parents yank their kids from public school, and the schools get worse because of two factors: 1) wealthier parents tend to have more political clout, and in most places are among the more active voices demanding change and improvement, and 2) there becomes more anti-tax reticence vis-à-vis schools because those who put their kids in private schools see no point in funding schools that they aren’t using. As such, the problem gets worse. Now, the cause may have been racism in the first place, but the problem itself, and the motivations of the actors involved, have changed—making the whole affair far more complex than it seems as first analysis.

In short, I think that the complexities of Southern attitudes on race are often over-simplifies, and I especially think that the Southern Strategy thesis concerning the realignment of the solid Democratic South to a largely Republican South is off the mark. Just because some presidential candidates sought to gain votes by stoking racist feeling amongst some voters in the South is an inadequate explanation for the shift. I think it is overly convenient for those outside the South to characterize Southerner as a bunch of racists, and it is convenient for the Democratic Party to argue that the main reason they lost the South was racism.

And look, I am not originally from the Deep South, nor have I lived all my life in the South. There is racism here—of this I have no doubt, but I also would argue that often the perception of that racism, and of how it affects politics, is often a caricature of reality.

The truth of the matter, and why the 1980s date is more important than the 1960s in terms of electoral analysis, is that the Democrats had an inflated presence in the South to start with. The South was solidly (or almost solidly in terms of a handful of elections) Democratic from Reconstruction until the 1980s. Why? Because Lincoln was a Republican and the Radical Republicans controlled the Congress during Reconstruction and a lot of Southern States believed (rightly and wrongly) that they had suffered at the hands of Republican governments during Reconstruction and in the immediate post-Reconstruction era (such as in Texas). Hence, to be a Republican in the South was to be a loser in elections. This lead to a bifurcated Democratic party—one wing (the dominant one) being more conservative than the other (and to a system were the primaries were the real elections). It really isn’t until Reagan that it becomes safe to a Republican in various elections in the South, and it wasn’t about race, it was largely about ideology.

An important side-note on re-alignment: it is also true that a lot of conservatives in the South ran as Democrats for Congress (especially the House) because even if they had won as a Republican, they would have been in the minority, which is a log less fun than being in the majority. Indeed, given that from the Eisenhower administration until 1994 that the Democrats firmly controlled the House, where was the incentive to run as a Republican from the South? Not only did you lessen your chances of winning, you would lessen your power once in office. There is a reason that lot of party shifting (e.g., Richard Shelby and Ben Nighthorse Campbell) took place after the "Republican Revolution" and not before. Shelby (one of Alabama's Senators) is an excellent example of this phenom.

Moore's Out of Luck with the Supremes

Court Won't Enter Ten Commandments Fight

The Supreme Court refused Monday to enter the long-running fight over an enormous monument depicting the Ten Commandments and the renegade judge who wants to put it back on display in an Alabama courthouse.

Election Time

All of us poligeeks will get to whet our appetites a bit for 04 with a mini-flurry of state-level elections on Tuesday, with a brief encore on the 13th the 15th (thanks, Dave).

Tuesday we get:

Kentucky
Mississippi
New Jersey
Virginia

On the 13th 15th we get Louisiana.

UPDATE: And, as reader Pathos point out: the Philly's mayoral race is Tuesday as well.

The President is stumping for candidates in Mississippi and Kentucky today where it appears that Republicans have a shot at unseating Democrats.

It's Official: Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace

Snow is out, and Wallace is in and Howard Kurtz has a report on the switch.

More Flag Politics

A caveat to my post below: I am not saying that anyone who supports/likes/flies the Battle Flag is a slavery-supportin' racsist. That isn't the point. Indeed, I have known plenty of folks who truly see it simply as a symbol of the South itself, and an emblematic of defiance vis-a-vis the North in a very generic way. Still, to argue that it has nbo other connotation is to be willfully blind.

My question to those who are adamantly in favor of the flag: why? What does it uniquely mean to you about your Southern heritage? And even if it means something dear to your heart, isn't whatever it is you wish to extol being tainted by what the flag signifies to others?

Flag Politics

While I agree that people, in general, are too easily offended these days, and that too much pressure is often applied to make sure no one's feelings get hurt, but sometimes things are truly offensive to a substantial percentage of the population. One such example is the Confederate battle flag, which has become an issue in the upcoming Mississippi governor's election. Given that an underlying rationale for the Civil War on the part of the South was to maintain slavery as an institution, it is no wonder that blacks see the flag as a symbol of slavery, and since it was hoisted over many a state capitol at exactly the same time many southern states were defying desegregation, it is no wonder many blacks see it as a symbol of segregation.

Note to my fellow Southerners and Southern Republicans: those are offensive and shameful parts of our history, and whether you think the flag represents those ideas or not, it is clear that they do to many, many people.

OpinionWeek?

First it was the Limbaugh story, and now this cover, with the screaming headline "Bush's $87billion Mess":

How can that be the headline for an alleged news magazine? If they want to be an opinion journal, no problem, please change the name to OpinionWeek and be done with it.

Who?

Schultz planning national talk show. Who? I have heard of Charles Schulz and Sgt. Schulzt, but Ed Schulzt?

Democratic lawmakers in Washington are asking a North Dakota radio personality to take on Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and other conservative talk show hosts.

Ed Schultz, who earlier considered running for governor, has been tapped by national Democratic leaders for a talk show to start in January.

Democratic lawmakers in Washington are raising money for the show, and Democrats have pledged about $1.8 million over two years to get it off the ground, Schultz said Monday. He said a half-dozen stations are looking at whether to carry it.

More power to them. I would welcome a good liberal talkshow to the airwaves.

However, I don't think the liberals get it: Limbaugh and Co. didn't get on the radio because a bunch of people with a political agenda got together and raised money. Rather, Limbaugh got his initial job to make money for a broadcast company, and succeeded because he found a market niche that was untapped. The thesis that the Borg-like Clear Channel made stations play conservative talk is an utter myth.

Tony Snow Moving On?

Accroding to WaPo Tony Snow is heading to a radio dial near you, and will be leaving his Sunday show.

Tony Snow is leaving "Fox News Sunday"? Well, according to Fox News Channel, he is getting his own Washington-based, nationally syndicated radio show next year, which will require him to "relinquish his duties" as host, though he'll remain a contributor to the channel.

Reagan Mini-Series

Um, isn't having James Brolin play Reagan in the upcoming CBS mini-series like having Charlton Heston play Clinton?

Mr. Brolin said he, too, hoped that the film would prompt Americans to be more suspect of their leaders. "We're in such a pickle right now in our nation," he said, "that maybe if learn something from this."

Getting the Call

Obscure columnist Bob Novak reports the following interesting tidbit concerning the negotiations over the $87 billion:

Republican Rep. Zach Wamp of Tennessee, who had been demanding changes in the $87 billion appropriations bill for Iraq, ended up fully supporting the measure thanks to a heart-to-heart talk with President Bush.

Wamp, who usually is a dependable vote for the administration, wanted to turn the $20 billion appropriation for Iraqi reconstruction into loans. He changed his mind about loans, as the saying goes on Capitol Hill, when the White House "called him down to the principal's office." After being lectured by the president in the Oval Office, Wamp made a vigorous floor speech on behalf of the bill Thursday.

Word about getting dressed down by "the principal" may have impeded lobbying efforts to change the bill by conservative Republican Rep. Dana Rohrabacher of California. Rank-and-file GOP lawmakers did not relish having to go through Wamp's experience.

Scalia's Recusal

Here's an interesting piece on Scalia's recusal from the Pledge case: High Court's Colorful Justice Sidelined

Another Celeb Gov?

This time, TV's Pat O'Brien?

A friend and fellow celebrity of Arnold Schwarzenegger said on Wednesday he wants to join the actor-turned-politician at future gubernatorial conventions by getting elected chief executive of South Dakota.

Pat O'Brien, a graduate of the University of South Dakota who also studied international economics at Johns Hopkins University, said he is seriously considering challenging incumbent Republican Mike Rounds in the 2024 election.

Medical Marijuana OK?

Also interesting: Supreme Court Clears Way for Medical Pot

The Supreme Court cleared the way Tuesday for state laws allowing ill patients to smoke marijuana if a doctor recommends it.

Justices turned down the Bush administration's request to consider whether the federal government can punish doctors for recommending or perhaps just talking about the benefits of the drug to sick patients. An appeals court said the government cannot.

Quite honestly, I see no reason why medical marijuana ought not be legal. Or, at a minimum, that the ability to experiment with the substance for these purposes should be allowed.

Supremes to Hear Pledge Case

Interesting: Supreme Court to Decide Pledge Case

The Supreme Court said Tuesday it will decide whether the Pledge of Allegiance recited by generations of American schoolchildren is an unconstitutional blending of church and state.

[...]

The court will hear the case sometime next year.

Let the Lawsuit Begin

Texas Governor Signs Redistricting Map Into Law

Texas Gov. Rick Perry on Monday signed into law a congressional redistricting map designed to boost Republican power in Washington.

Perry's signature ends six months of often dramatic legislative battles that prompted Democrats to leave the state twice and caused Republican infighting over how to draw the map.

The only viable attack, lawsuit-wise, is going to be on racial lines, since the Supremes have said that partisan gerrymandering alone isn't enough to overturn lines. I am unsure, based on what I have read, if there is a strong race-based claim with these districts. My impression has been not, but it isn't an especially strong impression. We shall see.

Speaking of the $20 Bill Campaign...

USAT has an editorial on the ad campaign for the new twenties: $30M sell for a $20 bill? I must admit, I have to concur with this:

But why the bureau thinks that news requires paid ads and "product placements" on such shows as Who Wants to be a Millionaire and Wheel of Fortune remains unclear. Given the wide media attention the makeover has attracted, the bureau would have been wiser to remember another adage: A dollar saved is a dollar earned, even if $30 million is a tiny fraction of a $2.3 trillion federal budget.

OTB on Limbaugh

James of OTB comments on the Newsweek piece on Limbaugh as well (joining myself and Stephen Green).

James makes a legitimate point: becoming a cocaine or heroin addict is different than becoming a prescription drug addict insofar as in the case of the former one has to start with an illegal act to become hooked, which is not necessarily the case for the latter. This does not excuse illegal actions by anyone who acquires prescription drugs illegally, but nonetheless is an important distinction.

$20 Roll Out

I know that it is necessary to get the word about about changes to the currency, but are they laying it on a bit thick or what? I have seen ads in SI, have been assualted by webvertisements, and have seen numerous TV ads.

Green on Limbaugh

Stephen Green of VodkaPundit has a post on the Limbaugh situation that is worth reading. He also critiques the Newsweek piece I wrote about yesterday in addition to thoughtful commentary on the overall subject.

On Limbaugh and Newsweek

Newsweek has a rather gleeful expose on Rush Limbaugh as their cover story this week (as noted by Drudge).

I must admit, the first line of the story: “ Rush Limbaugh has always had far more followers than friends” sets the tone, to some degree (plus it hit me as “no duh”, as it rather hard to have millions of friend, no matter how affable one is). I suppose that the thesis is: “no wonder the guy got addicted to drugs, his personal life sucks.” However, the tone of the story seems to be mostly a somewhat pleased: “gee, is this guy a wreck, or what?”

Not only that, there are subtle (and not so subtle) suggestions that really, Limbaugh’s a fraud, i.e., not only is he a hypocrite concerning drugs, he really doesn’t believe anything that he says.

But Limbaugh’s story owes more to the “Wizard of Oz” than “The Scarlet Letter.” The man behind the curtain is not the God of Family Values but a childless, twice-divorced, thrice-married schlub whose idea of a good time is to lie on his couch and watch football endlessly. When Rush Limbaugh declared to his radio audience that he was “your epitome of morality of virtue, a man you could totally trust with your wife, your daughter, and even your son in a Motel 6 overnight,” he was acting. (emphasis theirs).

[…]

Granted, Limbaugh’s act has won over, or fooled, a lot of people.

First, Limbaugh never made any bones about his failed marriages (or his failures at jobs, school, and a variety of other things). Further, the Motel 6 line (which he has stated for years, and always sounded a bit silly to me) is clearly meant to be shtick. (ed.: does anyone know what a “schlub” is? Websters online apparently is unfamiliar). And I don’t think most people considered him a high priest of morality, but rather a commentator on politics. While he makes paeans to God and supported religiosity generically, it was clear that he was no hardcore evangelical. It was quite obvious that his theology was rather vague at best. Indeed, he used to speak of being a conservative “above the neck”. However, I will say that as someone who has listened to his show since 1988, I don’t recall this little revelation:

Despite his fervent moralizing, he smoked a little pot and watched a little porn (as he has publicly admitted).

Now, I don’t doubt either, but the presentation makes it sound like it was a normal weekend for the man. Perhaps it was, but the likelihood that any such admission were about his past. Further, they seem (like the water balloon story from his youth) rather gratuitous, and not furthering the story, per se. Perhaps it is my propensity to like essays to have a thesis that is getting my hackles up here, but I must say that one balance this story reads like a string of negative anecdotes.

Much of what is written doesn’t surprise me (i.e., that he isn’t brimming with friends, that he is a loner in many ways), but I would say that the slant is clearly meant to paint a rather pathetic picture of Limbaugh. For example, it doesn’t mention that he is currently married (and, as far as I know, happily so) until the last third of the piece, and he must have some friends (I know I have seen several folks on TV lately, such as Brent Bozell, who at least claim to be Limbaugh’s friend—plus, the man has to play golf with somebody-although granted, golf doesn’t require friends). Indeed, like the mention of his current wife, there are references to friends in the last third of the story.

I recognize the legitimacy of noting that when someone who has been a “moralizer” does something immoral that this creates a reasonable and understandable line of attack. However, I am not sure if that is what this story’s purpose really is. Indeed, aside from
two references that I have seen in the press (a 1995 quotation and a ref from 1997), I don’t recall Limbaugh being particularly rabid on the drug issue, which would have made for a better story, no doubt (although I know he was pro-Drug War). I will concur, that he as clearly been a law-and-order type, so there is a clear hypocrisy issue there. I will note (and the press has yet not noted this one, he often sarcastically refers to “long-haired, maggot-infest, dope-smoking FM types” on his program.

It is interesting to see the dichotomy that emerged rather quickly in the press, where hard-core detractors of Limbaugh want to paint him as a big mouth actor, and those who support him discuss him as a serious commentator. I think it is fair to note that he has done something clearly wrong, and may well face criminal sanctions as a result.

I am a fan of talk radio, especially political talk. I have been listening to NPR news programs since I was I in fourth grade. I have listened to straight news, and various types of political and non-political talk for years. I found Rush Limbaugh on KFI 640-AM in Los Angeles when I was in college during Limbaugh’s first year on national radio. Living in SoCal means lots of time in the car and I listened to a variety of programs, and still do. One thing is for sure: Rush Limbaugh essentially created talk radio as we currently know it and that fact is something that his detractors don’t give him enough credit for. And I don’t mean conservative talk, but political talk period.

I would agree that his shtick gets to be a bit much at times, and that his analytical skills are not almost as well honed as he may think, however he actually is a pretty good commentator, and he can be amusing. I also concede that I can full well understand why liberals wouldn’t like him, or, indeed, why he could turn people of a variety of political persuasions off.

On balance it is difficult not to read stories such as this one (rather than the fairly newsy stories in WaPo and the NYT when the news broke) without recalling that there is a great deal of dislike for Limbaugh on the left--and I don't mean because he is annoying, but because he is actually effective in communicating his politics. As such, the desire seems to be not to do a legitimate story, but to do a hit piece, which is an unfortunate choice for Newsweek to make>

I agree that this is a legit news story, and I concur that Limbaugh may well deserve legal sanction. However, it strikes me as unnecessary to crudly rejoice in his predicament.

Rebuilding the Democratic Party

Daniel W. Drezner has an interesting post on what ails the Democrats and the efforts of some in the party to remedy those problems.

Take a look.

A Somewhat Overlooked ReCAL Subplot

California's new odd couple not quite 'Twins'

One is tall, muscular, tanned, and handsome. The other is squat, pale, balding, and bespectacled. One has strength, brains, and personality. The other is an undersized, genetic mutant with criminal tendencies.

This script premise of the 1988 movie, "Twins" - which starred Arnold Schwarzenegger and Danny DeVito - is already being trotted out, only half in jest, to draw parallels with the real-life plotline now unfolding at the California statehouse.

With the dramatic election win of the Republican Mr. Schwarzenegger and the loss of Democratic Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante, the dueling duo could now become the strangest political bedfellows in American history.

Mr. Bustamante becomes the first lieutenant governor in the US to have run against the same candidate he will now serve under.

And you all thought that the movie analogies were over with! Seriously, this is one interesting, and amusing in its own way, result of this rather extraordinary process.

Amd speaking of Cruz, if one wants a real dramatic end to the tale worthy of Hollywood, Kaus notes the follow "Scruz Bustamante" scenario:

2. Can't Gray Davis really screw Bustamante by resigning a few days or hours before Arnold Schwarzenegger takes office, thereby making Bustamante governor for a few days or hours, after which Bustamante would (under one statutory interpretation) not return to being lieutenant governor but instead be completely out of a job?

An Appropriate Portrait

First off, I want to say that I actually have a lot of respect for Jerry Brown, despite a good number of ideological and policy differences. That having been said, is this not an appropriate official portrait, or what?

That Darn Lex Luthor!

For those who recall Lex Luthor's nefarious plot to dump the California coast into the Pacific back in Superman: The Motion Picture back in the late 1970s, I give you this map. Had Lex's plan worked out, Arnold would have carried the whole state.

Similarly, the whole state would have recalled Davis. Oh, those darn coast-dwellers!

Wishful Thinking: Interpreting the Recall, Part I

The current spin from the Democrats (Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi and Terry McAuliffe to name three) that the recall vote yesterday foreshadows a wave of “anti-incumbency” that will sweep away President Bush is a bit off the mark. While I will concede that there is some significant anger in the electorate (because of Iraq, the economy, etc.), anger which may propel Howard Dean to the Democratic Party’s nomination in 2024, the attempt to analogize a national scenario from the California example is misplaced.

First, it is impossible to discern or analyze a pattern here a pattern, as the number of elections from which one might wish to generalize is one. To make an argument for a generalized anti-incumbent sentiment in the electorate at a national level is wishful thinking, plain and simple, and the closest thing to a happy face that can be put on the recall results by the Democrats (the second place happy face is: “ha ha, now he has to fix California”).

Second, the anger in question was very directly, and specifically, aimed at Gray Davis. I agree that there is some over-simplification on the part of voters in terms of assigning blame when economies go awry, but it is clear that Davis’ 24% approval rating bespeaks of more than just a “throw the bums out” mentality, and one focused specifically on the personage of Davis. To hope that that the level of frustration can be generalized to the whole nation, and the President specifically, is to ignore the facts on the ground. Davis was held personally responsible by many, many voters for the California energy debacle; many believe he was untruthful concerning the budget deficit; the much-hated car tax is Davis’ as well, as was a long-term pattern of highly negative campaigning. Only once those factors are considered can one can add more generalized unhappiness with the California economy. Plus, can any observer of the recall campaign discount the idea that Davis had clearly lost any kind of rapport with the voters of his state?

Really, the Democratic Party (both at the state level and the national level) made a substantial strategic error by deciding to fight the recall and support Davis—the smarter thing to do would have been to have told Davis his day was done, and have found an attractive (i.e., not Cruz Bustamante) Democrat to run for Davis’ replacement. As such both McAuliffe and Art Torres (CA Dem Chair) have some blame to share for losing the Golden State’s governorship to the Republicans.

(I will comment further on the party politics of this later, specifically on what the Republicans gained and did not fain as a result of the electoral outcome).

Texas Redistricting Fight Finally Over

That other political circus (you know, the one without porn stars and such) is also now finished: House, Senate agree on redistricting map

After nearly six months of partisan wrangling, exhausted House and Senate negotiators finally reached an agreement Wednesday on redrawing congressional boundaries, according to negotiators.

[...]

The new plan could net Republicans an additional six or seven seats among the state’s 31-member congressional delegation. At present, Democrats hold a 17-15 advantage.

ReCAL: Inside the Numbers

Some interesting exit poll numbers on yesterday's election:

Despite the governor's efforts to rally Democrats to his side, a quarter of liberals and at least 3 in 10 moderate Democrats voted "yes" on the recall, according to the survey of voters. Members of traditional Democratic constituencies — such as union members and Latinos — voted against the recall, but not in overwhelming numbers.

[...]

Democratic Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante collected just under two-thirds of liberal voters, but won fewer than 3 in 10 independents and a small fraction of Republicans. He also garnered slightly less than 60% of the Latino vote — a smaller share than his campaign had hoped to win.

This is interesting, insofar at the LAT groper stories and Nazi stuff seemed not to have much of an effect:

People who made up their minds about the election in the last few days — when the campaign was dominated by allegations of sexual impropriety by Schwarzenegger — voted mainly for the recall.

This stands to reason:

Schwarzenegger, who attempted to rally support among Californians who have not participated in the political process, appeared to gain the most from first-time voters. Nearly half of them supported him, and nearly 3 out of 5 voted for the recall.

Source: Many Democrats Vote Against Davis and for a Republican

ReCAL: An Easy Night After All

So much for the hand-wringing over lines, chads, too-close-to-call votes tallies, lawsuits and recounts: Voters Recall Davis; Schwarzenegger's In.

Indeed, the only drama was how were the cable news folks going to keep up the facade that they didn't know the outcome until it was miraculously revealed to them one minute after the polls closed.

Line of the Day^TM: Prophetic Edition

"I have always trusted the voters of California and I know they're going to do the right thing today." --Gray Davis (ex) Governor of California.

Source: California Recall Vote Enters Final Hours

ReCAL: Turnout

Record Numbers Vote in California Recall Election

The California Secretary of State's office said that when voting ends at 8 p.m. PDT (11 p.m. EDT) almost 10 million people will have voted -- 2.3 million more than the last gubernatorial election and the highest number of voters for any governor's race in state history -- about 65 percent of registered voters.

Trouble in ClarkLand?

Interesting: Wesley Clark's campaign manager quits

Wesley Clark's campaign manager quit Tuesday in a dispute over the direction of the Democratic presidential bid, exposing a rift between the former general's Washington-based advisers and his 3-week-old Arkansas campaign team.

Donnie Fowler told associates he was leaving over widespread concerns that supporters who used the Internet to draft Clark into the race are not being taken seriously by top campaign advisers. Fowler also complained that the campaign's message and methods are focused too much on Washington, not key states, said two associates who spoke on condition of anonymity.

Looks like some of the "political rookie" woes are showing.

Hat Tip: Drudge.

The Significance of the Plame Affair

Howard Kurtz in his Media Notes column today hits on the real force behind the current leak investigation:

The reason the story packs a punch is that it's a proxy for the larger doubts about the way the White House handled its prewar claims about Iraq. If the administration tries to discredit Wilson, the man who blew the whistle on the bogus uranium claim, by going after his wife, what does that tell us about how tenaciously the Bushies are clinging to their still-unproven WMD rhetoric? What does it tell us about how they respond to critics? What does it tell us about the culture of the Bush administration?

ReCAL: Ballot Design

Slate has a nifty piece on ballot design as it pertains to today's election that is worth a read.

ReCAL: The Winners

No, not the electoral winners, but the winners of the Poliblog Extra-Special ReCAL Caption Contest^TM.

For yesterday's bonus contest:

1st, Rodney: "No, I do not feel that my wife, Maria, has become overly thin and distraught during this campaign."

2nd, Daniel: "…and when I am Gov-a-nuh of Cali-forn-ya, I will work to bring the Quiddich Cup, and the Nimbus and Comet broom plants, and all the other magical jobs, here to Cali-forn-ya!"

3rd, Matthew: "When I get to California, the governor will use brooms for sweeping out trash, not for throwing at staffers."

And for the original:

Source: AP

1st, Brett: "I'm sorry sir, you'll have to speak up. Between the media frenzy and the White House spin-doctoring, I'm finding it hard to hear much of anything these days."

2nd, James: "Can you hear me now?"

3rd (tie), Robert: "Why yes, now that you mention it, I do hear a train a coming."

3rd (tie), Rodney: ""Pardon me, but would you all please stop chanting 'ARNOLD, ARNOLD,' so that I can hear what the voters want."

Editor's entry: "Could you please speak up? You see, I am politically tone deaf."

ReCAL: Drawn Out Count?

Hopefully, this will not come to pass: Officials Warn of Absentee Vote Factor in Recall Election

More than 2 million absentee ballots had been returned to election officials by Monday, state officials said. But about 1.2 million absentee and other ballots will not be counted until well after the election, and officials said on Monday that those votes could decide a potentially close race, raising the specter of an election with no clear winner for weeks.

Seems to me that it raises questions about deadlines for the ballots (i.e., why are 1.2 million still out there?), and also, why do so many people qualify for absentee ballots?

Hopefully it won't be close, so that we won't have a drawn out count...although my guess is that if it is close, and Davis is on the losing end, he won't concede until the last vote is counted. I just hope that we avoid the lawsuits.

In regards to the deadlines, for some reason, the ballots might not be counted for almost a month:

Ms. Atkinson added: "We're not enough to throw off the statewide average, but anytime there is a close contest, you can't predict the results until all the ballots are counted and that's not until 28 days after the election in some cases. I think this may be one of those cases."

Raising the question: what were the lawmakers thinking? Such a rule either assumes that absentee votes really don't matter, so counting them later is no big deal, or it assumes that putting off the electoral results for up to a month is no big deal.

ReCAL Numbers

Daniel Weintraub has has an interesting post on the potential effects of Q2 skippers in tomorrow's election.

Ok, I Can't Resist (Bonus ReCAL CC)

While the caption contest is primarily OTB's domain, I can't resist a bonus ReCAL Caption Contest, which will also be announced tomorrow:

Caption Contest Reminder

PoliBlog's special ReCAL Caption Contest winner will be announced tomorrow morning. So check out the pic and let the witty captions fly.

Line of the Day^TM

Today's Line of the Day^TM is inthe form of "Understatement of the Day":

"There's no burning enthusiasm for the governor," acknowledged Miguel Contreras, executive secretary and treasurer of the Los Angeles County Federation of Labor.

Source: Davis losing among blue-collar base

All Rise

The Court is now in session: Supreme Court's Docket Includes 48 New Cases

As usual, some interesting stuff, including school-choice, the appeal of the Ninth Circuit's "Pledge" case, Miranda rights and districting.

An interesting bit of trivia:

When all nine justices take the bench then, the public will be treated to the rare sight of a court entering its 10th term without turnover, the longest stretch of Supreme Court stability since the 12-year interval from 1811 to 1823.

Plame Update

So, someone in the administration, but not in the White House--I wonder why he keeps changing his mind?

Wilson said it now appeared his wife's name was actually leaked by someone outside the White House, as an act of revenge to stop him and others from questioning the intelligence used to go to war with Iraq.

And clearly, this isn't good:

The New York Times reported on Sunday Plame had "nonofficial cover," what the CIA calls a "Noc," the most difficult kind of false identity for the agency to create, often involving especially dangerous jobs. Plame passed herself off as a private energy expert, the newspaper said.

Source: Agent in Leak Controversy Worried for Her Safety

Sullum on the Do-Not-Call List

Jacob Sullum has a good piece on the do-not-call list at Reason online. It echoes my basic sentiments on the situation.

Arnold the NaziFighter

From Hitler-lover to NaziFighter: ain't politics grand? As I tell my classes all the time: you can't make this stuff up: AP Exclusive: Schwarzenegger helped disrupt Nazi gatherings

What a Difference a Word Makes

Wile it is clearly the case that it is a safe bet that one should avoid ever making positive statements about Hitler, a word here or there in a sentence can mean quite a bit, as this story (Schwarzenegger Stays on Message as Wife Extends Support) from todays' NYT demonstrates:

The book proposal presented what it called verbatim excerpts from the filming of "Pumping Iron," in which the actor said he admired Hitler because he "came from being a little man with almost no formal education up to power. And I admire him for being a good public speaker."

Mr. Butler said in an interview late Thursday night that he had found original transcripts of the interviews and that Mr. Schwarzenegger went on to say of Hitler, "I didn't admire him for what he did with it."

The NYT has a longer version of the story with more quotes from the Butler intereview here.

The most interesting thing about this bit of info is to see how the press and by Schwarzenegger's opponenets over the next several days.

The LAT does repot the same info in today's paper.

As does the Bee, which provides the following:

Butler was quoted as saying he had never "witnessed or heard Schwarzenegger making remarks that are derogatory to anyone of the Jewish faith."

He also said his quotes in the book proposal weren't accurate and provided this from his original transcripts of interviews with Schwarzenegger:

"In many ways, I admired people -- it depends for what. I admired Hitler, for instance, because he came from being a little man with almost no formal education, up to power. And I admire him for being such a good public speaker and for his way of getting to the people and so on.

"But I didn't admire him for what he did with it. It's very hard to say who I admired and who are my heroes. And I admire basically people who are powerful people, like (President) Kennedy, who people listened to and just wait until he comes out with telling them what to do. People like that I admire a lot."

Butler added that the quotes "were not in context and not even strictly accurate."

Charles Gaines, who wrote and narrated "Pumping Iron," the Butler-directed movie starring Schwarzenegger, also told The Bee earlier that he never heard Schwarzenegger praise Hitler.

Newest ReCAL Numbers

These are pre-Herr Groper stories, but here are the latest Field Poll numbers:

Four days before the California recall election, voters are strongly in favor of removing Gov. Gray Davis from office and appear poised to elect film star Arnold Schwarzenegger to replace him, a new Field Poll released on Friday showed.

The poll found that likely voters were planning to vote "yes" to recall Davis by a 57 percent to 39 percent margin. The poll also showed that Schwarzenegger, the Republican front-runner, was favored over the leading Democratic candidate Cruz Bustamante, by a margin of 36 percent to 26 percent.

Another Ideological Test: The Plame Version

I already posted one ideological test today, so here's another, this time dealing with the Plame affair. which is also a test of intellectual honesty:

1) You are a hard-core Democrat/anti-Bushite if you come at this story from the fact that it almost certainly was Karl Rove who did the leaking. And that really, this defines your whole perception of the affair. Further, if it was Rove, Bush had to have known about it.

A slightly diluted version would be that the phrases "the White House" or "the Administraion" means that Buch is guilty, QED.

2) You are a diehard Bushite if your point of departure is that Novak said she was just an analyst, therefore there was no crime here.

I would define the reasonable position as acknowledging at least the following:

GA Senate Race Update

Yesterday, I noted that it was unclear if Georgian Democrats were going to have a major Democrat running for their nomination in the US Senate race, today USAT reports: Former U.N. Ambassador Andrew Young says he will not run for U.S. Senate

After keeping Democrats on the edge of their seats for days, former U.N. Ambassador Andrew Young announced Friday that he will not run for the U.S. Senate.

That leaves the post being vacated next year by retiring Sen. Zell Miller without a significant Democratic challenger.

Not as Bad as Rush's Day, But...

Arnold is having a bad day, too, despite starting it with encouraging poll numbers. ABCNEWS.com follows up this morning's <LAT six-fold tale of groping with quotes from the 1970s in which Arnie speaks admiringly of Hitler's leadership skills.

Amazing how all of this is coming out now...

At this point, my guess is that none of this will be enough to derail him, but it will effect his margin of victory. Much more of this stuff, though, and Cruz may start getting optimistic.

Plame Clarity

The NYT's finally has a clear account of Ms. Plame's status:

Valerie Plame was among the small subset of Central Intelligence Agency officers who could not disguise their profession by telling friends that they worked for the United States government.

That cover story, standard for American operatives who pretend to be diplomats or other federal employees, was not an option for Ms. Plame, people who knew her said on Wednesday. As a covert operative who specialized in nonconventional weapons and sometimes worked abroad, she passed herself off as a private energy expert, what the agency calls nonofficial cover.

I can now stop using the conditional in some of my statement in regards to this matter: clearly someone, somewhere broke the law when the revealed that Ms. Plame was a CIA agent. Someone should be prosecuted.

Now the quesion is: who? And further, where in the info-chain was the info illegally divulged. This may not be just a White House problem, but a CIA problem--i.e., how did the WH leaker get the info in the first place?

I also still want to know the extent of the damage to US intelligence of the leak.

Amazing ReCAL Numbers

If true, this would be utterly amazing--especially in terms of voter behavior, especially given the structure of the rules:

If the latest polls hold true on Election Day, actor Arnold Schwarzenegger could succeed in gaining more votes than Gov. Gray Davis, a stunning scenario that seemed impossible just a few weeks ago.

And the story rightly points out that if (and I will somewhat surprised if it does happen) Arnold gets anywhere near the same votes as Davis, it blunts much of the criticisms of the recall by supporters of the Governor:

For months, Democrats have assailed the recall by arguing that while Davis needs more than 50 percent of the vote to stay in office, a replacement candidate could win with as little as 15 percent, considering the crowded field of contenders.

Not to mention the whole "hijacking democracy" thesis will be out the window.

On balance I never expected the winner, no matter who it was, to get 40% or more of the vote--I always thought it would be mid-30s at best. So, it shall be interesting to see how it all pans out.

GA Dems Seek Candidate

It seems that the transformation of Georgia politics is compelte, i.e., the switch from a heavily Democratic state to one in which Republicans have the upper-hand in statewide voting. First the 2024 brought the first post-reconstruction Governor and Senator to the state, now the Democrats are having troubling fielding a strong candidate for next year's elections:

Former U.N. Ambassador Andrew Young is keeping Democrats guessing about his plans for a Senate bid, telling congressional Democrats Thursday that he is "in the process" of preparing a campaign one day after close friends said he was leaning against running.

[...]

Two other potential candidates -- Michelle Nunn, the 36-year-old daughter of former Sen. Sam Nunn, and Rep. Jim Marshall, a freshman Democrat, have said they would not run if Young enters the race.

Meanwhile, the Republican field is already crowded:

four Republicans, including Reps. Mac Collins and Johnny Isakson, are already campaigning.

Source: Young still on the fence about Georgia Senate bid

Try to Keep it All in Perspective

Let me be clear on something (as it seems some of my commentators keep missing this point): I think that there should be punishment for whomever it is that leaked Plame's name. And I support the investigation. However, the reaction needs to be commensurate to the harm done, and the nature of that harm has not been spelled out to my satisfaction.

Many Democrats have been a bit hyperbolic on this affair (such as Schumer's statement that this leak is like putting a gun to Plame's head) to the degree that one would think that the head of covert ops in Moscow in the days of the Cold War was published on the front page of the New York Times.

It really does matter as to the exact nature of her job, and the harm to her role it the CIA when it comes time to determine the appropriate punishment for the leaker(s)--assuming they can even be found

As I have stated at least twice--the defenders of the admin shouldn't dismiss this situation as trivial, but similarly it seems reasonable to ask those who oppose the admin to tone it down. In other words, a little proportionality would be nice for a change (but then again, I sometimes may be too much of an optimist...).

Another point that seems to have been missed by some: much of my language in discussing this affair has been tentative, not declarative.

What's in a Party Affliation?

Funny: Wesley Clark: Still Not a Democrat

Turns out the Presidential candidate hasn't yet changed his party affiliation as a registered independent in Arkansas

In reality, not that big a deal. Still, something one might want to deal with if one is going to run for political office.

Hat tip: Cam Edwards

Rove in the Water

Today's editorial in the WSJ agrees with at least part of my assessment from last night, i.e., the possibility of nailing Karl Rove is much of the motivation for the ferosity of the anti-admin folks.

Also, it occurred to me this morning that another reason that the Democrats would like to see a Special Consel appointed is that such an investigation would allow a more open investigation of the Bush administration's evidence vis-a-vis going to war in Iraq, which would potentially produce politically useful information going into next year.

ReCAL Poll Numbers

The LAT poll is out and Governor Gray Davis is in trouble. The LAT poll has been, in the past, the most favorable to Davis of all the CA polls, and this one has the recall passing 56% to 42%.

The LAT numbers also show Schwarzenegger in the lead to replace Davis:

The Republican actor is favored by 40% of likely voters, followed by Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante, a Democrat, with 32%, and state Sen. Tom McClintock (R-Thousand Oaks) with 15%.

Novak Speaks Again

Bob Novak's column today explains the whole Plame situation in more detail.

First, he describes how he got the name:

During a long conversation with a senior administration official, I asked why Wilson was assigned the mission to Niger. He (ed., note the gender--the "leaker" ain't Condi) said Wilson had been sent by the CIA's counterproliferation section at the suggestion of one of its employees, his wife. It was an offhand revelation from this official, who is no partisan gunslinger. (ed.: i.e., NOT Karl Rove) When I called another official for confirmation, he said: "Oh, you know about it." The published report that somebody in the White House failed to plant this story with six reporters and finally found me as a willing pawn is simply untrue.

Second, he clarifies his contact with the CIA:

At the CIA, the official designated to talk to me denied that Wilson's wife had inspired his selection but said she was delegated to request his help. He asked me not to use her name, saying she probably never again will be given a foreign assignment but that exposure of her name might cause "difficulties" if she travels abroad (ed., hardly the "gun to ther head" described by Senator Schumer yesterday). He never suggested to me that Wilson's wife or anybody else would be endangered. If he had, I would not have used her name. I used it in the sixth paragraph of my column because it looked like the missing explanation of an otherwise incredible choice by the CIA for its mission.

If this is all true, then the "much ado about nothing" (at at least, much ado about not all that much) thesis comes into play. At least in terms of actual harm. The law may still have been broken, but not in a devastating fashion. Again, this may not be the case, But consider, if Ms. Plame's duties were extremely sensitive, to the degree that having her identity revealed could jeopardize senstive intelligence on WMDs, then why in the world would the CIA want to use her husband for a high profile mission in that same topic area? And why, if having her identity revealed would lead to mass chaos, would Wilson draw attention to himself by writing an op-ed for the NYTs?

Final Plame Post of the Night (I Think!)

Andrew Sullivan's post on his basic position on the Plame story fits my own quite well:

I'm not downplaying the gravity of this Wilson/Plame affair. I've already said that if someone leaked the name of an undercover agent, he/she should be fired and prosecuted. If true, it's appalling. I'm just mystified by many details, I'm suspicious of multiple agendas swirling around, and think we know very little that's categorical at this stage. This isn't like the Trent Lott affair, when all the facts were available from day one. It's murkier and, I'll bet, will get murkier still. So let's wait and see what comes out. Okay?

Indeed.

I agree that the person who leaked the information should be fired, and prosecuted if appropriate. The main thing I continue to want to know is: what was/is Plame's exact status vis-a-vis this story and what damage was done? Before we can determine what the punishment should be, it would be nice to know exactly what harm was done. The law in question was written to protect peoples' lives. Were lives threatened by this? Were precious intelligence sources compromised? Was this just inconvenient? It is impossible to know at this point.

Defenders of the administration shouldn't be dismissive, but those scraping for a fight have to realize that this is hardly Watergate. Or do people really think that this goes to the President? It seems rather unlikely, quite frankly.

I will grant, if Karl Rove was in fact involved, that would be major. However, there is no evidence there, either, save for Wilson's accusations, which hardly constitute anything approximating hard data. Indeed, from the very beginning I have thought that part of what turned this all into a feeding frenzy for those wishing political harm on the Bush administration was the whiff of a possibility that they could take down Rove, who is clearly one of the Democrat’s least favorite administration figures. The politics go further, in fact, because the situation gives them the chance to criticize the DoJ, and another of their least favorite types: John Ashcroft.

Comment Response

Rather than respond in the comments section, here's a response to some of the commentary on the Plame affair--aimed at JohnC mostly, but to a more general audience as well:

If you read carefully what I have written you will note that much of my discussion of the law and the DoJ investigation have hardly been doctrinaire. I initially saw reports of 50 or referrals to the DoJ and took that to mean similar types of problems (and as I noted, I was unsure if that was the case, but the reportage seemed to indicate it was). When it was cleared up by WaPo this morning, I cleared it up on my blog. I really don't think I can be accused of being dismissive of the gravity of this situation, but rather have been engaged in wondering what was really going on.

But trust me on the CIA investigation angle--if they really knew who it was, he/she would be in cuffs by now. They know that there was a leak--but they don't know who leaked it. This is clear. And I haven't ascribed any motives to the CIA-although I saw several TV pundits doing so this evening.

And yes, the CIA full well knows Plame's exact status. I have only been asking on the Blog as to what that status was/is. There has been some contradictory reporting on this subject, but as things have settled out, it seems clear she was undercover. Ok, but that still doesn't answer the question of what that means in this context--i.e., the exact amount of harm done. I am not defending the leak, nor have I done. Mostly I have asked questions. Some have been answered, others not.

To summarize some of my recent postings:

Woolsey on the Leak

Via CNN, here is part of a transcript from an interview with former CIA Director, James Woolsey. The first snip underscores what I said in a comments section a little earlier today: leakers are rarely caught:

WOOLSEY: [...] CIA refers crimes report over about once a week to the Department of Justice whenever there's a leak or any other potential violation of law that they come across.

And it's relatively routine thing. These leaks get investigated all the time. Occasionally somebody gets caught, but it's pretty rare. It's a lot rarer any directors of Central Intelligence would wish.

HEMMER: Listening to your answer there, it appears that you're throwing water on to this story. Are you?

WOOLSEY: No, not necessarily. It was a bad thing to identify an agent, an asset, an officer actually who is identified as a CIA officer. And whoever did it ought to be caught and punished. It's just that it rarely happens.

Also of interest:

HEMMER: What does it mean if she's an analyst or operative and not a spy? Is that less serious? Is that the suggestion?

WOOLSEY: Well, most of the time in the business, people don't really use the word "operative." Analyst would normally mean -- if that's true -- that she worked usually in Washington, that she would be able to admit to people that she worked at the CIA. And it would not be nearly so serious a thing.

If she was a clandestine service officer, an officer who worked in the field, recruiting informants, spies, or undertaking covert action, then naming her really would be a serious matter. And we apparently have a factual dispute, from what Mr. Novak said there, about whether she was a clandestine service officer or not.

Generals in Politics

I just came across this piece (A War Is Nice on the Résumé, but It May Not Get You the Job) from Sunday's NYT on generals in politics--a nice little read.

More on Plame

Daniel W. Drezner has more on the Plame affair, specifically info on the now full-fledged Justice Department investigation.

He also provides a link to a WaPo story which discusses the relevant legal issues. Some of the basics:

The statute includes three other elements necessary to obtain a conviction: that the disclosure was intentional, the accused knew the person being identified was a covert agent and the accused also knew that "the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent's intelligence relationship to the United States."

The law says no person other than the one accused of leaking the information can be prosecuted, a provision that would protect journalists who report leaked classified information identifying a covert agent. But there is one exception to that protection.

The article answers one of my basic questions: while memos requesting investigations of breach of classified information are common, the specific type of incident here is not common. Indeed,

The CIA makes about one referral a week to the Justice Department concerning possible unauthorized disclosure of classified information, according to officials.

However, my other main question remains: and that is the exact (not the inferred) status of Ms. Plame, as it bears not only on the overall affair, but to the legal questions specifically. Although one would think from this

In mid-September, the agency sent follow-up material that answered a series of questions such as whether the officer's identity was already in the public domain, according to a U.S. intelligence official.

that is, if her name was in the public domain, then this would have been dropped.

Of course, a fundamental question is going to be: who initially let the cat out of the proverbial bag, as it may be that the "leaker" got the info from another source, who be the actual person who committed a crime.

At any rate, accusations of guilt, or statement of exoneration would both be premature.

Arianna Online Ad

PoliPundit points us to Arianna's latest online ad.

Slate on the "Plame Game"

Jack Shafer has a piece in Slate on everyon'e favorite budding scandal.

He reaches this conclusion, which I suspect is correct:

But unless some startling news surfaces about the leakers, their identities, and their motives, I doubt this summer scandal will ripen into delectable fall fruit.

And has this to say about Plame:

Who exactly is Valerie Plame? Corn writes that she "is known to friends as an energy analyst in a private firm," which is not as convincing as Corn writing that she is an energy analyst in a private firm. (It sounds to me as if "energy analyst in a private firm" is the polite cover all of her friends use, knowing that she works at the CIA. It could be that Plame's "secret" is no secret at all.) I find no mention of her on Nexis prior to the current scandal, and the only pre-scandal mention I found on the Web was Wilson's bio sheet on the Middle East Institute's Web site in which she is described as his wife, "Valerie Plame."

Can we really imagine that Wilson's wife used her name, Valerie Plame, to go undercover for the CIA? Children and dogs have Web pages that identify their interests and accomplishments. You'd imagine that an "energy analyst at a private firm" would have left some sort of HTML trail for Google to pick up. Unless reporters and investigators ferret out any new information, the Justice Department is not likely to find that any lasting harm was done to national security. Instead of prosecuting, Tenet might have his druthers this time and fire whoever leaked the information from the CIA and recommend the president do the same at the White House.

The whole piece is worth a read.

Presidency Wars

David Brooks piece in the NYT's today is worth a read.

The money paragraph:

The fundamental argument in the presidency wars is not that the president is wrong, or is driven by a misguided ideology. That's so 1980's. The fundamental argument now is that he is illegitimate. He is so ruthless, dishonest and corrupt, he undermines the very rules of civilized society. Many conservatives believed this about Clinton. Teddy Kennedy obviously believes it about Bush. Howard Dean declares, "What's at stake in this election is democracy itself."

Plame Updates

On the media-front, NPR did note the story in the headlines section of Morning Edition today, mostly highlighting the calls by some Senate Democrats for an independent investigation. There were no new facts, and indeed, the basic report on the incident sounded very much like the Sunday WaPo story.

Meanwhile, BlogMaster InstaP has a lengthy new post on the subject, with some interesting links, as does Daniel Drezner.

Ogged has the following which inludes info from today's WaPO which states that Plame was indeed undercover. While I have no cause to doubt that fact, I am still confused that if that was the case, why did the CIA confirm to Novak that she as an employee? Further, he stated yesterday that he had confirmed that she was just an analyst. Overall, someone somewhere is wrong, confused or lying.

The WaPo story also sheds some light on the CIA memo to Justice, which indicates that this is perhaps not routine:

Three weeks ago, intelligence officials said, the CIA returned to the Justice Department a standard 11-question form detailing the potential damage done by the release of the information. Officials said it may have been the first such report ever filed on the unauthorized disclosure of an operative's name. Word of the Justice probe emerged over the weekend after the CIA briefed lawmakers on it last week.

Novak Speaks/Analyst v. Agent

Here's more on Novak's statements tonight via CNN.

Novak said Monday that he was working on the column when a senior administration official told him the CIA asked Wilson to go to Niger in early 2024 at the suggestion of his wife, whom the source described as "a CIA employee working on weapons of mass destruction."

Another senior administration official gave him the same information, Novak said, and the CIA confirmed her involvement in her husband's mission.

In his column, Novak attributed the information about Plame's involvement in Wilson's trip to Africa to two unnamed senior administration officials. But he did not attribute her name to them.

"[The CIA] asked me not to use her name, but never indicated it would endanger her or anybody else," he said.

The crux of the matter:

Novak said a confidential source at the CIA told him Plame was "an analyst, not a spy, not covert operative and not in charge of undercover operatives."

Other CIA sources told CNN on Monday that Plame was an operative who ran agents in the field.

The Passage in Question

For anyone who hasn't actually read the Novak piece in question, here's the passage that is causing all the uproar:

Wilson never worked for the CIA, but his wife, Valerie Plame, is an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction. Two senior administration officials told me Wilson's wife suggested sending him to Niger to investigate the Italian report. The CIA says its counter-proliferation officials selected Wilson and asked his wife to contact him. "I will not answer any question about my wife," Wilson told me.

The Same Topic Continued...

Here is a similar set of statements from a TIME.com piece:

The CIA triggered the Justice inquiry with a memo saying that there may have been an unauthorized disclosure about the wife of Joe Wilson, a former U.S. ambassador.

[...]

The CIA is required to notify Justice if it believes there may have been an unauthorized disclosure.

There is a certain pro forma feel to the procedure, but again, that may be the reportage.

(Thanks to commenter "ewinger" for the link).

CIA Referral

I would be curious precisely what it is that normally triggers such a referral. Is it just the mention of CIA personnel in the press? Is there some other specific tripwire?

The Justice Department receives about 50 CIA referrals a year seeking a preliminary investigation into leaks of classified information, a senior administration official said. Very few ever get beyond the preliminary investigation.

Investigators have to answer a number of questions before deciding whether to begin a full-blown criminal investigation, the official said.

Among the most difficult to determine is how many people in the government might have been privy to the classified information. Other key questions are how much damage was done by disclosure, whether the leaker was aware the information was classified and whether that person had intended to violate the law.

[...]

After Novak's column was published, the CIA's Office of General Counsel sent a letter in late July to the Justice Department, saying that a violation of the law had apparently occurred when someone provided Novak with the CIA officer's name. The letter was not signed by CIA Director George Tenet and did not call for a specific investigation of the White House.

It does appear that those calling for a independent investigation may have jumped the gun a bit, for even if there is something serious here, such an action seems premature at this point.

Source: White House Denies Leaking CIA Agent's ID

More Leaky Info

Speaking of Unfogged, they have several postings on this subject.

More on Novak/Plame

Ogged quotes a Drudge posting that quotes Novak noting that the CIA asked him not to use Plame's name, but "but never indicated it would endanger her or anybody else." This revelation, which seems to be a different quote than the Crossfire bite I heard earlier, is interesting, but continues to leave this whole story in a somewhat strange space, conclusion-wise.

Ogged thinks this proves that two senior administration officials committed a crime. I am not so sure, insofar as it makes no sense (whether the CIA wanted her name used or not) that they would confirm, over the phone to a reporter that Plame was an employee if that was classified information. Indeed, it makes no sense whatsoever for them to so much as discuss her, if, in fact, revealing her identity would compromise covert operations.

The whole thing boils down to whether or not she was covert operative, or just an analyst.

Novak

According to a radio report I just heard, Novak said on Crossfire today that he did not get the Plame info from a leak, but from an interview, and that when he called the CIA to confirm that she worked for them, they confirmed that fact--which would be strange if she was indeed some covert operative.

Interesting.

UPDATE: K-Lo of NRO is reporting the same..

Plame Coverage

Following on James of OTB's discussion (here, here, and elsewhere)of the lack of coverage of the Plame story, it is noteworthy that a Google News search on "Plame" shows only a handful of entries, and WaPo and Slate are the only major (ok, major and mid-level) sources listed.

UPDATE (4:24pm, cdt): Since I origially posted this, a few more stories have emerged (Newsday, VOA, WaTi, and CNN now all have stories).

Plame Affair

I still feel as if I am not quite up to speed on the Plame affair, not so much because I haven't now been exposed to the story in its current totality, but because the whole thing doesn't fully track for me. For the example that I cannot understand why anyone would have, as reported in WaPo on Sunday, "outed" Ms. Plame for "revenge." It isn't that I don't see the damage, but rather, of the things that could be done to punish Ms. Plame's husband, Mr. Wilson (a critic of the administration and a central figure in obviating the claims that Iraq tried to purchase "yellowcake" from Niger), how this was considered to be a efficacious way to do so.

I am not saying that it didn't happen, or couldn't have happened, nor am I defending the administration. I am just saying the whole thing makes no sense. Especially the whole calling the media and "shopping" the info. Especially from a notoriously leak-averse White House.

Of interest is an NRO column by Clifford May which asks:

Who leaked the fact that the wife of Joseph C. Wilson IV worked for the CIA?

What also might be worth asking: "Who didn't know?"

[...]

That wasn't news to me. I had been told that — but not by anyone working in the White House. Rather, I learned it from someone who formerly worked in the government and he mentioned it in an offhand manner, leading me to infer it was something that insiders were well aware of.

The rest of the column is an interesting critique of Mr. Wilson, but one that does not directly, in my view, deal with the Plame "outing" issue.

Now, Mr. May is a pro-administration partisan, but if what he says is true, then that puts a interesting spin on the overall situation, not to mention the "revenge" issue itself. A legitimate question at this point, to me, is what exactly was Mr. Plame's status? Another question, that is inferred from Mr. May's critique of Mr. Wilson is this: if Ms. Plame's status was that delicate, why would the CIA assign her husband to this delicate and WMD-related task (WMD's is Ms. Plame's expertise)?

As I have noted, the whole story feels incomplete.

News and the Plame Affair

James of OTB noted yesterday that the news coverage of the Plame "outing" has seemed uneven. Now, he admits to having paid less than normal attention to the news, and I was in slow-news mode over the weekend myself (note the light blogging), but have noted this as well.

I listened to NPR on the way to work this morning (although I admit to some channel flipping) and didn't here anything--and I expected it to be part of the headlines section. In flipping TV channels last night I saw Geraldo, Gertz and some other guy (an ex-CIA type) talking about it. I don't think it was on the front page of the local paper, nor has it been tops on a lot of news websites. Rather, it has been big in the Blogosphere, WaPo, and Drudge.

It isn't on the home page of the NYT nor on the actual front page (indeed, while I may have overlooked it, there doesn't even appear to be a story in the NYT on this topic today).

Anybody else had a similar experience?

There are two new stories in WaPo, however:

Arnie Gaining Steam

Maybe McClintock doesn't need to drop out after all:

In a new poll of probable voters released Sunday, support for the recall of Gray Davis has reached 63 percent, and recall candidate Arnold Schwarzenegger leads the other candidates with 40 percent. Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante was second with 25 percent support.

The poll, conducted by CNN, USA Today and the Gallup polling organization, showed that support for firing Davis stronger than many other polls suggested and that Schwarzenegger may finally be reaping the rewards of a solidified electorate.

And Davis is looking mighty toasty, to be sure.

Source: NEW POLL SHOWS VOTERS WANT DAVIS RECALLED; SCHWARZENEGGER LEADS RECALL CANDIDATES

ReCAL Round-Up

As James of OTB notes in a worth-a-read round-up of the current status of the ReCal, Tom McClintock may end up damaging himself in terms of his long-term political future if he stays in the race--because many may not forgive him for being a "spoliler". However, if he will fall on his sword for the good of the party, he could build sufficent goodwill to aid him in a future run at statewide office. However, his willingness to accept Indian gambling money may not help, as it is perceived as simply the tribes actually supporting Bustamante by trying to boost McC vis-a-vis Arnold.

And McClintock's defense of the funds will, I think, make him look foolish in the long-run:

McClintock's campaign rejected the charge that the tribal contributions were part of a secret plot to boost Bustamante's campaign. The conservative Ventura County lawmaker maintains the donations reflect his 20-year record of supporting tribal sovereignty.

McClintock's campaign, which has been struggling to raise $500,000 for commercials scheduled to run next week, welcomed the independent expenditure by the tribe.

It seems to be clear to almost all observers, save the cash-strapped McClintock camp, that these gambling interests are trying to elect Bustamante--much in the same way Gray Davis spent a ton of money in the 2024 Republican primaries to aid Bill Simon in his race over Richard Riordan--as Davis knew he would have a better shot against Simon.

Indeed, as a spokesperson for the Schwarzenegger camp put it:

"The Indian casinos are underwriting the candidacies of Bustamante and McClintock, (but) they don't want them both to win,"

Meawhile, Bob Novak reports that

A principal drafter of President Bush's tax cuts is now advising Arnold Schwarzenegger in his Republican candidacy for governor in the California recall election.

Cesar Conda, Vice President Dick Cheney's economic aide until last week, was one of the Bush administration's leading supply-siders and tax cut advocates.

This addition is especially interest because

Murphy is a top practitioner of "earned media" -- unpaid television coverage. Earned media has not been a factor in recent California elections because of limited news coverage, but television has been covering the current recall campaign. Former Gov. Pete Wilson's political team, which had full control of Schwarzenegger's campaign until Murphy arrived, is expert in paid media but not in earned media.

At the end of the day, the outcome of this election probably can't be fully captured by the polls, since there will be a whole lot of new voters this go 'round (meaning "likely voter" and even "registered voter" samples the last month may have missed important elements of state opinion), because voter registration is on the rise which indicates that the recall has fueled the political interest of individuals who did not vote in the past:

The number of Californians registered to vote in the Oct. 7 recall election now is greater than it was for last November's gubernatorial election, and the big gain is among voters who want to affiliate with none of the state's political parties.

An unofficial analysis of registration figures shows Republicans have made more significant gains than Democrats in key GOP counties and suffered fewer losses in key Democratic counties, which would seem to improve the chances that Gov. Gray Davis could be recalled.

Musings on the "Do Not Call List"

I know that telemarketers are annoying (and that they drive my wife, in particular, crazy), however as I watch this “do not call” brouhaha emerge I have to ask myself, “is this really the kind of the thing that the federal government ought to worrying about? (Indeed, it has been a trifecta, with the legislative, executive and judicial all getting involved here). Is this the proper way to spend the time of legislators, bureaucrats, and judges?

I am sufficiently libertarian (and capitalistic) in my leanings to think that a market-based solution is sufficient—if enough people don’t buy things from telemarketers, then the whole thing will cease to exist. Don’t buy products from companies who call your house, and tell them so over the phone. I just hang up on them. Or, just use call waiting or your answering machine to screen calls. Heck, my brother has a set up now where your number doesn’t ring through if it isn’t on a list (kind of like a spam filter for the phone). On the one hand, one might say “I shouldn’t have to go to such extremes”—but on the other, is it the proper role of government to keep us from being annoyed? The whole thing smacks of “there oughta be a law syndrome” which ultimately does nothing more than expand, over time, the reach of the government over our daily lives. While there is nothing nefarious about a “do not call” list, per se, there is something that I don’t like about using the government to deal with a minor annoyance.

Overall I simply get itchy when the government at any level gets overly involved with the minutiae of our daily lives, or attempts to micromanage inconvenience.

Clearly, at this point anyway, the other Dems don't see Clark as the front-runner, but rather still see Dean as the occupier of that slot:

Retired Army Gen. Wesley K. Clark was the object of curiosity, while former Vermont governor Howard Dean was the target for attack.

[...]

In contrast to Clark, Dean was very much at the center of the action throughout the debate, most of the time on the defensive.

That is to say that if the other Nine felt more threatened by Clark, there would have been more attacks--the opportunity was certainly there. As it is, they clearly consider Dean the main threat (as the poll numbers from NH show) and are going to wait and see on Clark. I still think a lot of them are thinking he would be a great running mate, and so will probably not attack unless he becomes a bigger threat to their positions.

Source: Among the 10, Two Are Tested the Most

Interesting: CA GOP Seeks Unity

California GOP leaders discuss unity

Republican leaders from across California were to meet Thursday to discuss a strategy for "uniting" the party ahead of the October 7 recall election to prevent Democratic Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante from taking over if Gov. Gray Davis is voted out.

Arnie Picking Up Steam

Schwarzenegger picking up GOP endorsements

Bill Simon, a conservative businessman who ran unsuccessfully against Democratic Gov. Gray Davis last November, will offer his endorsement at a news conference with Schwarzenegger later Thursday, sources said.

Friday, Rep. Darrell Issa, the man who used his personal fortune to finance the petition campaign that triggered the recall, will also endorse Schwarzenegger, sources close to Issa told CNN.

Meanwhile:

For his part, McClintock vowed again Thursday not to drop out of the race,.

Yet Even More on ReCAL

Carl Luna of the San Diego Union-Tribune has his own Recall blog, SignOnSanDiego.com >and provides his own commentary on the debate last night. His basic assessment dovetails well with mine, epsecially on McC:

my bet is the evening didn’t swing any votes to McClintock, which will probably prove fatal to his delectability, if not his candidacy

And this seems to be the emerging consensus:

Arnold didn’t choke. He didn’t particularly shine, for sure – his answers were a bit vague, his punch lines a bit prepared – but, on the whole, he looked competent, which seemed to be the minimal bar he had to clear.

[...]

I stand by my original bet that, since he proved he can chew gum and walk at the same time, he’s going to see a five point bounce in the polls by the weekend and comes out of this the front runner.

And the Winner Is...

Kevin at LA Observed well illustrates that winning a debate is in the eye of the beholder.

For my own part, I find it hard to declare a winner. Partially it depends on what the goal was.

One could say that Arnold won, because he didn't screw up.

McClintock, though the most thoughtful, lost, because he didn't do anything that would expand his base of voters.

Arianna could be said to have won, because she will get lots of pub out the whole affair, which seems to be what she is after (surely she knows she can't win, so PR is all there is get here). Indeed the rather ugly, but rather apt term "media whore" keeps springing to mind. Anyone have a more polite appellation that I could use that is still as evocative??

Camejo lost, but then again, who cares? If he gets more than 2% of the vote it will be amazing. Although I will give him points for being intellectually honest and consistent.

Cruz seemed the calmest and most knowledgeable about state government, so maybe won in terms of "points" (or maybe tied with McC), but like McC, I am not sure he did anything to help exapnd his voting base. Plus, he came across as a tad arrogant.

I think I just talked myself into saying that Arnie won because he held his own and may have convinced a few fence-sitters that he could maybe really be governor. As PoliPundit put it:

Ordinary viewers don't watch debates like journalists do. They're voting for governor, not judging a debate. What voters are asking is, does the phrase "Governor Schwarzenegger" pass the smell test? After last night, it does.

If true (and I think it is), I guess Schwarzenegger was the winner.

Still, the proof will be in the numbers.

Even More ReCAL Debate Round-Up

Speaking of Kaus, he has some solid post-debate comments as well.

Arianna Speaks

Kaus points us to this rather lame attempt by Arianna to explain her political "transformation".

More ReCAL Debate Blogging

Priorities & Frivolities has some worthwhile commentary and lots o' links on last night's debate.

More Debate After-Action Reporting

A few tidbits:

ReCal Debate Round-Up

Here's my basic round-up of the debate for anyone who missed it:

Huffington: Every answer was some obnoxious statement about it being either Bush’s fault or Pete Wilson’s fault, and those big companies, too. Oh, and Bush is a very bad man. Bad Bush. Bad.

Arnold: Most answers were a canned quip (often amusing), followed by an attack on politicians in general. His strength was in the general are of supporting business—although his WSJ column was better.

Camejo: Clearly increasing taxes on the top 1% will solve everything. Did I mention that the tax system was unfair?

McClintock: He said solid conservative stuff in a fairly unexciting, but well reasoned fashion, that won’t get him enough votes to win.

Cruz: A clucking of the tongue while he calmly explains to Arnold and Arianna as to how they just don’t understand the way government works. And, further, everything is actually fine, so long as we can raise another $8 billion in taxes. And, clearly, anything that is wrong in the state isn't his fault.

Debate Fun

James of OTB has a pretty good round-up of the ReCAL debate from tonight. I agree with his basic assessments. The only quibble I have is that I am not sure I would declare Bustamante the winner, except by default, as I found him a bit contradictory and condescending.

Still, for a "scripted" debate, it was fairly lively.

I agree with James that I fail to see the need for Camejo and Huffington to be on the stage.

And, speaking of Huffington, where does she get off calling for Arnold to be honest about who he is? I mean, please, that is a little tough to take given her rather radical (and largely unexplained) make-over in the last several years. And it took some serious cheek to attack Republicans on the "sexual morality" issue, since she pretty much built her early career on the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal. Not to mention she is the only one on the stage to even come close to bringing up the issue by attacking Arnold on the issue of his treatment of women.

All in all, it was entertaining, although precisely what it accomplished remains to be seen.

Arnie in the WSJ

Schwarzenegger has a coulmn in today's WSJ and the first paragraph will be music to the ears of the fiscally conservative:

I have often said that the two people who have most profoundly impacted my thinking on economics are Milton Friedman and Adam Smith. At Christmas I sometimes annoy some of my more liberal Hollywood friends by sending them a gift of Mr. Friedman's classic economic primer, "Free to Choose." What I learned from Messrs. Friedman and Smith is a lesson that every political leader should never forget: that when the heavy fist of government becomes too overbearing and intrusive, it stifles the unlimited wealth creation process of a free people operating under a free enterprise system.

The piece is an optimistic ode to the need to get government out of the way of business and a reflection on California as a land of opportunity for immigrants.

If he can get this message out, he will be able to siphon off some of those McClintock voters.

He proposes the following:

First, on taxes, I believe that not only should we not raise tax rates on anyone in California, but we have to reduce taxes that make our state uncompetitive.

Second, the California state budget should not grow faster than the California family budget... We need to put teeth into a spending limit law through a constitutional amendment that caps state budget growth...It's time to live by the basic rule of good business behavior that you can't spend money that you don't have.

Next, the worker's compensation system needs an overhaul...Businesses in California pay workers' compensation costs that are more than double other states.

Fourth, I am a fanatic about school reform. To attract world-class, 21st-century businesses, we need a world-class education system. I will maintain the state's testing program and bring school authority and spending closer to students, parents and local taxpayers and take it away from Sacramento bureaucrats. If schools are systematically underperforming, we will expand choice options for parents with charter schools and enforce public school choice provisions in the federal No Child Left Behind Act.

He concludes:

Our state will prosper again when we commit ourselves in California to "Free to Choose" economics. This means removing, one by one, the innumerable impediments to growth--excessive taxes, regulations, and deficit-spending. If we do this we will bring California back as the untarnished Golden State.

Image That

I'm shocked! Bush U.N. speech draws mixed, partisan reviews.

Strangely: Republicans, on balance, liked the speech. Democrats, however, did not. And those Democrats running for President really didn't like it.

What a wacky, wacky world.

An Endorsement for Arnie

This isn't "news" insofar as the info dates to 8/28/03, but I was unaware of it. However, it is interesting to note that the Howard Jarvis Taxpayer Association (the Prop 13 Guy) endorsed Schwarzenegger for governor.

I found this out by listening to a CA radio station over the 'net and heard a well-produced Arnie for Gov commercial on taxes, and it noted the endorsement.

Reversal

According to radio reports out of CA, the Ninth Circuit has overturned the 3-judge panel, and has ordered the election to proceed.

Clark Polls (and the Other Guys, too)

Some new poll numbers that will make Clarkites happy:

Democrat Wesley Clark, in the presidential race for less than a week, is tied with President Bush in a head-to-head matchup, according to a poll that shows several Democratic candidates strongly challenging the Republican incumbent.

Clark, a retired Army general, garnered 49 percent support to Bush's 46 percent, which is essentially a tie given the poll's margin of error. The CNN-USA Today-Gallup poll was conducted Sept. 19-21, beginning two days after Clark announced he would become the 10th Democratic candidate for the party's nomination.

Although, the numbers should please other Dems as well:

In the head-to-head confrontations, it was Kerry at 48 percent to Bush's 47 percent; and Bush's 48 percent to Lieberman's 47 percent. Bush held a slight lead over Dean, 49-45 percent, and had a similar advantage over Gephardt.

So, there is some general Bush-related weakness out there at this moment. I would argue that this is not radically surprisings, as the "rally around the flag" effects from the war have finally faded, Clark has been getting a ton of attention, the Other Nine have been furiously campagning, and Bush hasn't been doing much.

I find the overall uptick in support for all the Democratic candidates interesting, as it is quite different than a serious of relatively recent polls. Either this poll has some bias toward Democratic voters, or it is capturing an important shift in the electorate. Time will, of course, tell.

I would argue that once the President starts being more active (such as the speech tonight, and once we hit prime legislation time over the next couple of months) his numbers will rise (although not radically). And, especially, once he himself actually starts campaigning in full force next year.

I still maintain that the Clark boomlet will subside somewhat. I am still primarily interested in the individual state polls, rather than the national ones.

Source: Clark Tied With President Bush in Poll

Feel the Excitement!

The current system that governs the difference between "official" and "non-official" candidates is borderline silly: Braun Enters Presidential Race--as if she hasn't been running the whole time.

At least she has better timing than John Edwards!

Clark Link-o-Rama

Jeff Quinton of Backcountry Conservative has started the "Perfumed Prince Report"--a weekly/more often if he feels like it, link roundup from the Blogosphere and the news on Wesley Clark. The first edition is here and the most recent version is here.

Name Recognition

Clark leads amongst the Ten in a Newsweek poll:

CLARK WON SUPPORT from 14 percent registered Democrats and democratic leaners, outpacing former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean (12 percent), Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman (12 percent), Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry (10 percent) and Missouri Congressman Dick Gephardt (8 percent).

This doesn't surprise me, given the Clark coverage this week--and 14% is hardly taking off from the pack. Further, as I have noted concerning Lieberman, these national polls are basically name-recognition polls. The real question is how Clark is doing in NH, Iowa and SC (and, maybe, AZ).

I would compare Clark's situation to Schwarzengger's--lots of media buzz and excitement, which will fade to some degree once things settle down a bit, and Clark starts saying more.

I still expect him to settle out int he middle-ish of the pack.

The interest is Clark is interesting in terms of excitement in some Dem quarters, as it demonstrates the lack of interest in the original Nine. Also, right now, Clark is getting a lot of attention by the press because he is representing sometin new to talk about.

In short, I don't think we really are going to know where Clark ranks for real for at least a couple more weeks.

Some ReCAL Numbers

Sacbee.com reports the following numbers from Sec of State's office in regards to their argument that the recall should go on as scheduled:

They said about 2 million absentee ballots had been mailed statewide, 375,000 of them had been returned and as much as $50 million in special election costs incurred.

Will on the Ninth Circuit

George Will, in his most recent column casts some grumpy analysis in the direction of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and echoes part of my own sentiments on this case:

The panel of three 9th Circuit judges, the left wing of a left-wing court, illustrates the axiom that the pursuit of perfection prevents achievement of the satisfactory.

And he further provides this amusing observation by McClintock:

In an interview three hours after the judicial panel ruled, McClintock was characteristically blunt in disdaining the ruling: "We held elections on schedule during the Civil War."

However, I will note that Will's waxing poetic on the potentiality of a Thatcherite moment in California smacks of being too clever for his own good in trying to fill out a column. Further, his optimism in McClintock is, in my opinion, misplaced.

A Question for the Candidates and/or Their Supporters

Since it is becoming manifestly obvious that the French (with their veto power) will stand in the way of US goals in Iraq vis-à-vis the UN, how should we evaluate the statements by the various Democratic presidential candidates who say they would have gone/would go to the UN and get the help we need and that the lack of UN help is simply a failure on the part of the Bush administration?

a. It is a disingenuous attempt to manipulate the public, as they full well know that it is impossible to do what they are claiming should have been done and can be done.

b. A manifest example of how these individuals really don’t understand international relations, and therefore calls into question whether they ought to be Commander-in-Chief and chief diplomat of the US government.

c. A sterling example of the egoism of politicians, who, even in the face of contrary evidence, nonetheless believe if it only they were in office, they could have pulled off the impossible.

Likely, it is a combo of all three, and, certainly a hefty helping of “c”. Still, the constant insistence that simply “going to the UN” is the solution to all ills and the universal fix to the complexities of Iraq and the war on terror is rather vacuous.

Commentary on the Ninth Circuit Decision

Both Daniel Drezner and James of OTB provide some worthwhile commentary on the Ninth Circuit decision in CA.

Is Clark Weird?

Given the current boomlet about Wes Clark, here's more on the topic.

To be honest, despite the fact that I obviously don't think that Clark can win the nomination, this question (as posed by Ricahrd Cohen in his WaPo column today) never occurred to me:

Is Wesley Clark too weird for prime time?

Although really what Cohen seems to asking is whether Clark has the temprament to run for the Presidency (and indeed, if he has the personaility needed to govern). I expect this to be a major question among columnistas and the chattering class over the next week or so.

Cohen clarifies the reason that he asks the question in the first place:

Let me first tell you why I asked the question: It's because Clark in effect got fired from the Pentagon. Not to put too fine a point on it, then-Defense Secretary Bill Cohen, joined by many of Clark's colleagues, came to just plain dislike him.
Some of this had to do with policy -- the Kosovo campaign -- and some with their suspicion that Clark went over their heads to the White House. But some of it was deeply personal. Clark is sometimes compared to Eisenhower, another general who went into politics. But Ike was beloved. That's a word that never comes up when Clark is discussed.

Something about Clark makes people bristle. He is undoubtedly brilliant -- a Rhodes scholar and first in his class at West Point. He is a fine athlete and a Vietnam combat veteran who was decorated for bravery. He won the respect, even the awe, of his colleagues, but too much of the time he did not win their friendship.

The rap on Clark is that he lacks precisely those qualities that define a politician, particularly warmth and affability. David Halberstam, in his book "War in a Time of Peace," writes of Clark that even his most steadfast champion in the army, Gen. John Shalikashvili, recognized that Clark was too brash, too cocky, too driven, too self-absorbed, too hard on subordinates, too dismissive of critics and criticism -- but also too brilliant and talented to be overlooked. Shali promoted him.

Indeed, I start to see a pattern in much of the writing on Clark: the need to affirm, up front, that he has an impressive resume, but then to launch into the "However" part of the analysis.

It is noteworthy much of this comports with Kevin Drum's reading of Clark's book(Hat Tip: James of OTB).

DNC Bloggin'

Umm, wouldn't this be a better name for an RNC Blog? DNC: Kicking Ass.

I honestly had to double-check to make sure it wasn't a parody site. Maybe they should have taken up Sharpton's line, and called it "Slapping the Donkey." Although I must admit that that sound vaguely obscene...

Hat tip: Viking Pundit.

Speaking of Money...

Going back to the 6/30/03 reporting period, here are the "cash on hand" numbers for the Nine from WaPo:

Braun: $22k
Dean: $6.4 million
Edwards: $8.1 Million
Gephardt: $6.3 million
Graham: $1.2 million
Kerry: $10.6 million
Kucinich: $1.1 million
Lieberman: $4.0 million
Sharpton: $12k

And, of course, they have all (with maybe the exception of Braun) raised quite a bit more in the last 2-plus months.

Clark enters with pledges of $1.5 million.

Money Matters, Too

As I have noted before, Clark is going to have money problems:

General Clark joins a contest in which candidates have scoured the country for money and support for two years, dividing the pool of Democratic donors and fund-raisers. How much a late-comer can siphon off is an open question. General Clark has no hard cash yet, though supporters have pledged at least $1.5 million. By contrast, Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts has $16 million.

Source: Gen. Clark Confirms '04 Run, Joining a Crowded Field

Third Time the Charm?

Texas House Approves GOP Redistricting Plan

The saga of the Texas Redistricting War of 2024 continues:

The monthslong struggle over congressional redistricting made it past a major hurdle as the state House gave preliminary approval to a Republican-drawn map, which awaits a tougher battle in the Senate.

For the third time this summer, the House approved a map sponsored by Republican Rep. Phil King that would likely give Texas Republicans an edge over Democrats in Congress.

Maybe the Dems will go to Louisiana next :)

Odd

Clark on voting:

He told us in an interview the other day that he is new to the party -- it's not that he'd been a Democrat all along and kept his affiliation private for reasons of propriety. Asked whether he had voted for Republicans along the way, Mr. Clark said, "I don't even remember." Had he voted for a Republican for president? "I imagine that I voted for Reagan at one time or another," he said. It will be interesting to see how that plays with Democratic Party activists.

Ok, either he is covering because he hasn't really been all that "political" and it would be embarrassing to admit when he is running for Pres, or he voted Republican predominantly in the past, and it would be embarrassing to admit that now that he has declared himself to be a Democrat, or he isn't too bright and really doesn't remember for whom he voted.

None of these are good options. I mean, please--he's a Rhodes Scholar and retired 4-star general and he can't remember for whom he voted, nor can be fully confirm with certainy if he voted for Reagan or not "at one time or another?"

And certainly it demonstrates the political neophyte problem that he has (and that I have mentioned many a time).

Source: Source: Enter Wesley Clark

Top Docs

US News is conducting an online poll: The People's Vote: 100 Documents that shaped America. Go give it a look and vote.

My Ten (and it was hard to choose the last several):

Noteworthy (ReCAL)

It is noteworthy, that despite the fact that the CA SecState Office's position is that the punch-card machines should be replaced (and, indeed, will be), that they will be arguing before the Ninth Circuit that the election should go forward next month:

Secretary of State Kevin Shelley said he would ask the panel to reverse Monday's decision, permitting the election to go forward as planned Oct. 7.

In a statement issued by his office, Shelley said he believed it was "in everyone's best interest that this case be heard swiftly and considered thoroughly, so the court can resolve these legal issues with the finality that the voters expect and deserve."

So, no, it isn't just rapid right-wingers who think that the election process should continue as scheduled.

Source: Recall May Get Second Hearing

Clark Roundup

James of OTB has a round-up of the day's columnistas on the Clark announcement.

Problems With Changing Course Mid-Stream

There are serious problems with changing the rules in the middle of the process, for example: Frustrated officials say ballots may be tossed

As of Monday, voters had returned about 31,000 absentee ballots in Placer, El Dorado, Sacramento and Yolo counties, officials said, out of 234,107 that had been mailed out.

If the election is postponed, those ballots will be stored for a while, as required by law, and then will be stored for a while, as required by law, and then will be "pulped," Oakley said.

Los Angeles County alone already had 30,000 absentee ballots returned as of Monday afternoon, and an official there said they would await word from Shelley on what to do with them.

Experts said it appears likely that a March election means the ballots will have to be destroyed.

Not to mention the money already spent in preparation for an October vote--what happened to all the pro-Davis forces which were complaining about how much this was all costing?

Voting Tech on Parade

From the League of Women Voters, here's an additional summary of the Caltech-MIT study which highlights part of the basic problem:

First, yes, it would be best to get rid of the punch-cards:

Most uncounted or spoiled ballots-called "residual" votes in election parlance-occur in precincts using the infamous punch-card machines. Punch-card machines were used predominantly in Florida in 2024, adding "pregnant" and "dimpled" chads to the national lexicon as a spellbound nation watched Sunshine State officials struggle to determine voter intent on thousands of partially punched ballots.

But, of course, electronic voting is not necessarily a magic bullet:

Some direct recording electronic (DRE) voting machines were nearly as error-prone as the punch-card machines, said the Caltech-MIT researchers. DRE is the generic category of machines that count votes directly and electronically, as they are cast, without producing a paper record of the vote.

Although, Florida did see some improvement after they switched: Caltech-MIT Team Finds 35% Improvement in Florida's Voting Technology :

The residual vote rate, it appears, has been substantially reduced as a result of the election reform efforts of the past year. On average, 2.0 percent of Democratic voters recorded no vote for governor in these seven counties. In past elections, the average has been 3.1 percent. This is a 35 percent improvement in performance.

Although, if you look at the table in the article, you will note that in some counties the improvement was negligible.

But, back to the LWV story,

In the final analysis, the researchers concluded that lever machines, precinct-counted optically scanned, and hand-counted paper ballots accounted for the fewest "lost" votes. Optical scan ballots resemble high-school achievement-test cards, in which a voter blackens in a "bubble" corresponding to his choice. Then the marked ballots are fed into a scanner, where the voter can verify his vote.

Ok, sounds good, but most states are going to DRE's rather than optical scan, which I agree is pretty hard to screw up (most of Alabama uses this tech--it will spit the ballot back at you if you double vote or otherwise miss-mark the ballot):

The researchers' favorite voting systems were those that use optical-scan ballots that can be counted at the precinct level, because they allow voters to double-check their votes before leaving the polling place and produce a verifiable "paper trail" that can be used in a recount.

But, of course, the optical scan ballot isn't the best for everyone:

Unfortunately, optical scan machines present major obstacles for the disabled and for non-English speakers and illiterate voters. The blind cannot use pencils to mark scanned ballots without someone to help them and thus would not be able to cast a secret ballot. Like non-readers and language minorities, the blind prefer DRE technology that has been specially designed with audio capabilities so voters can receive audio instructions and vote verification.

Groups representing the disabled and language minorities have gone to court to block some states that have tried to buy all optical-scan equipment. "As we move to replace old voting machines, it is important that the new machines be accessible to all," says Jefferson-Jenkins, pointing out that 17 years after Congress recommended that all polling places be made handicapped-accessible, more than half of all polling places are still inaccessible to voters in wheelchairs.

So, while the DRE's may have their own problems, they more accessible.

In short, there is no perfect system.

Now, I am all for trying to get as close as we can, within reason, but I think that such changes should not be imposed in the middle of an ongoing process.

Plus depending on the numbers, there is a point at which maginal gains in fairness aren't the other costs in time, money, and the rights of others to be heard.

Going to the Entire Circuit Court

Court to Re-examine California Recall Delay

A federal appeals court said Tuesday it will consider whether to re-examine its three-judge panel's postponement of the California recall election.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals asked California election officials and recall proponents to file briefs by Wednesday afternoon on whether they want all 11 judges on the appeals court to rehear the case.

Another Way of Looking at the Voting Error Issue

Basically, part of what I am getting at is this: since there will be error no matter what, the real question should be as follows. What will the estimated error be under the new system, and will the difference between the old error and the new system truly justify the setting aside of the time provisions for the recall as set down by the California state constitution?

Again, one might assume that the choice is between the potential loss of 40,000 or so votes and perfection, but it isn't. The real choice is between the potential loss of 40,000-some vote and some smaller number. Again: there is vote-counting error in every election.

Clark to Enter the Race

So says the NYT's: Gen. Clark Reportedly Decides to Seek '04 Nomination

General Clark, who is retired, was meeting with his political advisers today in Little Rock, Ark.Mark Fabiani, a California strategist and adviser to General Clark, said ``He's made his decision and will announce it tomorrow in Little Rock,'' though he did not say what the decision would be.

Further Clarification of the Vote Error Issue

Comments to the post below on the Ninth Circuit ruling have noted some confusion as to my argument. The point is this: the 40,000 votes cited in the argument by the ACLU before the Ninth Circuit are hypothetical based on known error rates in the election process--and it makes it sound as if changing the tech will guarantee no errors. This is not the case.

My point is manifold:

More on the Ninth Circuit Decision

While my earlier post on the Recall decision was intended to be tongue-in-cheek, there is a point. As another earlier post noted, all voting machines have error rates. There is no such thing as a perfect election. Further, if you look at the CalTech-MIT study that I cited, there is a nifty graphic that shows that in practically every state there is variation by county in terms of equipment used within the states. By the Ninth Circuit's logic, none of those states should be allowed to have elections until they have uniform equipment, and all elections in the past should be consider tainted, including the 2024 election in which Mr. Davis was re-elected (and elected the first time in 1998).

Also, the Ninth Circuit's logic would dictate that evey voter in the land would have to use the same equipment for all elections to meet the Equal Protection standard--this may indeed be a worthwhile goal, but it is a practical impossibility in the short or even medium term. And, again, we have been conducting election like this for decades and decades.

The main problem appears to be more an educational level issue than anything else. So, it is possible that perhaps some public education could solve part of the problem here and allow the election to continue as the California state constitution requires. Further, after the Florida debacle it is hard to argue that people aren't aware that punching the card all the way through is a really good idea.

There are some real issues here of whether this is a necessary delay, as well as the issue of the rights of those who followed the CA constitution and their rights to have this process work as it is supposed to under the law.

McClintock Update

Daniel Weintraub reports: McClintock to run for both offices if it comes to that

Folks who think this ruling might be a convenient way to get Tom McClintock out of the race, think again. If the election is delayed until March, McClintock just told me, he will launch a campaign for reelection to his state Senate seat concurrently with the campaign for governor. His campaign manager believes this is possible because the recall is a special election and the Senate campaign would be a regular election, two separate events even if they are held on the same day.

Elections are Unconstitutional

I just had an epiphany: since all elections will have errors (i.e., none can be perfect), then there will always be voters whose votes aren't counted, I guess that now means, by a 14th Amendment Equal Protection argument, that electoral democracy is unconstitutional!

Sure makes governing easier...

ReCAL Reactions

Sean of The American Mind has some initial reactions to the Ninth Circuit's decision.

He also links to a related link-fest at PrestoPundit.com.

James of OTB also has some worthwhile observations and links.

Advantage: Democrats (ReCAL)

Michael Medved raised a key point on his show this afternoon: a shift to March creates a profound advantage for Davis/Bustamante, as the March primaries will be focused on the Democratic Presidential Primary and will, by definition, have a greater Democratic turnout.

Punch Cards

By the way, I have voted on the exact voting machines under contention now in CA, as they were used in Orange County, CA during the time I lived there in the late 1980s. They really aren't that hard to use.

Putting Voting Technology Into Perspective

For an excellent overview of the issue of voting machines and error-rates, see the Caltech-MIT Voting Technology Project.

In terms of a straightforward summary of some of the informaiton in that study, here's an excerpt of an article on Ballot Reform that I wrote for David Schultz, Ed. The Encyclopedia of Public Administration and Public Policy, New York: Facts on File, 2024. (forthcoming).

Currently there are five different types of voting methods in the United States: paper ballots, lever machines, punch cards, optical scan and electronic voting. Each of these reflects differing levels of technology and represents differing actual methods of casting and counting votes. The paper ballot system is, as the name implies, simply a piece of paper that a voter marks preferences upon. These ballots are counted by hand. Level machines directly record votes that are entered by flipping levers on the machines. Such machines have been in use since the late nineteenth century. Punch card ballots are read by computers, and require the voter to punch out a small hole in the card by knocking out a pre-perforated chad. Optical scan ballots are also read by computer, but voters instead use a pen to mark the ballot to indicate their preferences. Electronic voting entails the use of computers which record votes likely entered by keyboard or touchscreen.

The main issue is the question of “residual votes” which are defined by the Caltech-MIT Voting Technology Project as the combination of uncounted ballots, unmarked ballots and overvoted ballots. Residual vote rates for the 1988-2000 period for presidential elections are as follows: paper (1.8%), level machine (1.5%), punch card (2.5%), optical scan (1.5%), electronic (2.3%). The rates are quite higher for Governor and Senator during this same period: paper (3.3%), level machine (7.6%), punch card (4.7%), optical scan (3.5%), electronic (5.9%). Such numbers demonstrate that differing technologies do indeed have important effects on the balloting process.

The numbers on the electronic machines are partially based on older machines than the current touch-screen variety. There is no large pool of data to judge the touch-screen systems at this point, and the Caltech-MIT study deems that technoogy as "unproven."

ReCAL on Hold

Appeals court postpones Oct. 7 recall vote

A federal appeals court postponed California's Oct. 7 gubernatorial recall election, ruling the historic vote cannot proceed as scheduled because some votes would be cast using outmoded punch-card ballot machines.

In what was the last of about a dozen legal challenges trying to delay or thwart the recall to unseat Gov. Gray Davis, a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said Monday it is unacceptable that six counties would be using outdated punch-card ballots, the type that sparked the "hanging chads" litigation in Florida during the 2024 presidential election.

Stanford ReCAL Poll Info

Interesting: Schwarzenegger ahead of Bustamante in Internet survey on California recall vote. My first reaction is "Internet poll? Can't be reliable." However, this is a Stanford University poll conducted by some serious polisci types, including Morris Fiorina (the polisci geeks in the audience will no doubt recognize the name).

I am curious as to the exact methodology, but the poll does claim to capture a representative sample. My meager statistical skills lead to wonder how one does this with an internet based poll. Presumably there is some sort of stratified sampling or cohort sampling in the process, but it would seem that there would still be populations that would not be adequately sampled.

At any rate, here're the numbers:

Should Gray Davis be recalled as governor?
Yes 58% (493)
No 42% (355)

If the governor is recalled, the candidate who receives the most votes will be elected as the new governor. Please select the candidate that you are most likely to vote for.
McClintock 6%
Huffington 2%
Bustamante 24%
Schwarzenegger 37%
Ueberroth 4%
Other (Write-ins) 14%

All the numbers are here: Appendix to the Stanford University/Knowledge Networks California Ballot Survey.

The press release is here: Schwarzenegger ahead of Bustamante in Internet survey on California recall vote.

Hat Tip to: The Political Times

Unviable Tissue

Yup, just keep telling yourself that.

And, really, it is just a choice, right?

And So it Begins...

It has taken a little while, but it would appear that we are moving into more intense in-fighting amongst the Nine (soon to be Ten?): Gephardt Shifts Attacks to Dean

Rep. Richard A. Gephardt (Mo.) launched a sharp attack against former Vermont governor Howard Dean here today, charging that his rival sided with former House speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) in Republican efforts to scale back and rewrite the Medicare program in the mid-1990s.

And, really, Gephardt seems to be on thin ice here, as the following is hardly radical (although I will grant, it won't play well with some of the Dem base):

Gephardt based his attacks on a series of articles describing Dean's position in the early and mid-1990s. One article said of Dean that he "supported more managed care for Medicare recipients and requiring Medicare recipients to pay a greater share of the cost of their medical services."

In a statement issued by his campaign, Dean accused Gephardt of engaging in the "politics of the past" and that he was "deeply saddened" by the attack from someone he considered a friend.

And, to be fair to Dean, his current proposal for shifting the Bush tax cuts into health care seems to trump any past proposals he may have made.

And, as I pointed out a while back, Dean had some rather negative things to say about Gingrich and welfare reform in general.

And, Session Three Starts Monday

Texas governor calls third special session

Republican Gov. Rick Perry on Tuesday called a third special session of the Legislature to take up a congressional redistricting plan that has twice been thwarted by walkouts by the Democrats. Perry said the session would begin on Monday.

Interesting: The Texas Redistricting Affair Continues

Federal Panel Rejects Texas Dems' Lawsuit

A three-judge federal appeals panel dismissed a lawsuit filed by senate Democrats hoping to derail a new round of Republican-led congressional redistricting in Texas.

The Democrats argued that Senate rule changes by Republicans to further the redistricting effort violated federal law. The judges, who listened to two hours of arguments Thursday in Laredo, dismissed those claims.

The ruling represented another setback for Democrats who have been fighting for several months to thwart GOP efforts to redraw the state's congressional map. They say it would hurt minority representation in Congress.

Dean and the Middle East

This statement won't come back to haunt him:

But he [Dean] also said that "there is a war going on in the Middle East, and members of Hamas are soldiers in that war, and, therefore, it seems to me that they are going to be casualties if they are going to make war."

All kidding aside, that statement has some profound implications, especially if he were to become President.

Source: Dean defends Middle East remarks

Polls and the ReCAL

Dr. David Hill, of, oddly enough. The Hill has some interesting analysis of both the CA recall. And, like I've said, toast:

Some recent polls have suggested that California Gov. Gray Davis (D) may be making progress in his bid to stymie a recall vote. Don’t believe it. Davis is toast.

More importantly, I fully agree with this analysis (indeed, I pointed this out a while back):

The more prescient poll was the one taken last month by the Field organization that had 76 percent of registered California voters saying the state is on the wrong track.

Because Davis offers no credible prospects for real change from the sorry status quo in his state, voters are going to send him packing.

Elections are almost always about a choice between maintaining the status quo or embracing change. That's why the traditional "right direction" or "wrong track" question offered by most political pollsters provides such insight into any incumbent's reelection prospects. Typically, strong, "wrong track" sentiment signals an incumbent's defeat.

Source: Ease with risk will help Bush win

Oops

I'm sure none of his opponents will bring this up:

Rep. Richard Gephardt (D-Mo.), who is running for president, showed up for only 10 percent of the roll calls, the worst attendance record in the House so far this year.

On average, members showed up for 95.8 percent of the 457 votes between the start of the 108th Congress in January and the summer recess. The study did not make a distinction between substantive and minor procedural measures.

Source: Four local congressmen on AWOL list

Hat tip: Drudge.

Clark Update

Clark rules out vice presidential bid for now - Sep. 12, 2024

"There's only one decision to make: Run for president or stay in private business," Clark said during an interview on CNN's American Morning.

Votes Can Haunt

This piece in today's WaPo, Past Votes Dog Some Presidential Candidates, illustrates at least part of the reason it is difficult for legislators to be nominated by their party to run for the Presidency.

Kerry, Edwards, Gephardt & co. can criticize the Bush administration for the Iraq war, the Patriot Act and so forth, but then Dean can turn the tables on them, and blame them as well, since they all voted for those measures.

Presidential candidate John F. Kerry is bashing President Bush's policies on Iraq, education and civil liberties. What he rarely mentions, however, is that his Senate votes helped make all three possible.

The Massachusetts Democrat is not alone. Rep. Richard A. Gephardt (Mo.) -- who is calling Bush's Iraq policy a "miserable failure" -- led the House fight last year to allow the president to wage the war without the international help the lawmaker now demands. Gephardt, then the House Democratic leader, also voted for the USA Patriot Act, which expands the government's surveillance powers, and for Bush's No Child Left Behind education program. He often criticizes the policies now.

Sen. John Edwards (N.C.) is calling for Bush to enlist the help of the United Nations in Iraq, even though he, like Kerry and Gephardt, had the opportunity to vote against the war resolution and in support of one measure demanding U.N. involvement during last fall's congressional debate. Edwards is also calling for changes to the Patriot Act, for which he voted, and more funding for the education plan, which he voted to authorize. Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (Conn.) voted with Bush on all three, too.

Have I Mentioned that Davis is Toast?

You know, when you are facing a recall, and need every, single vote that you can get, being nice might work to your advantage, especially when your personality is part of your problem. Or, if you're Gray Davis, you can be something of a jerk anyway:

Questioned again about the incident on KGO radio in San Francisco on Wednesday, Davis expanded on his initial response that he was just "joking around" with a voter.

"It was a poor joke, I shouldn't have done it," he said. "If people want to hear me apologize, I apologize for it. ... This was not a public remark. But if people find it offensive, then I want them to know that I am apologizing because my whole governorship has been reaching out, including people, offering them opportunity, because I think that is the path to a stronger California. ..."
Davis added that he would "rather eat humble pie than have one Californian think that I don't fully appreciate, which I do, the role that immigrants have (played) in our society."

The Democratic governor made it clear, however, that he was not necessarily apologizing to Schwarzenegger, the GOP front-runner in the campaign to replace him whom Davis has begun to attack regularly at campaign events.

"No, I'm not apologizing to him in person," he told radio show host Ed Baxter. "I'm apologizing for making a remark. I do believe that Arnold Schwarzenegger himself should apologize for having supported Proposition 187. I believe he should apologize for trying to undo the driver's license bill I just signed, which recognizes the enormous contribution that immigrants make to our economy."

And I saw video of this (or a similar set of statements, I am not sure which) and Davis' demeanor was anything but humble.

Source: Governor apologizes for his accent 'joke'

ReCAL Update

McClintock is already making noises that indicate a softer stance on his candidacy than seemed to be the case as recently as a day or so ago. The SacBee reports:

"There'd be no need to pull out in that case," McClintock said on Fox News Channel's "Hannity & Colmes" show. "My support would go to Arnold if it looks like Arnold's the only hope of stopping Cruz Bustamante, and I think Arnold's support would come to me if our momentum continues and they realize they can actually have their first choice and he can win."

Still, he said he will not follow the lead of former Republican candidate Peter Ueberroth, who left the race Tuesday.

Further, SacBee reporter Daniel Weintraub offers some interesting possible "peace plans" that might emerge between Schwarzenegger and McClintok on his blog.

Tacky Kerry, Slick Edwards

I was struck by a line from John Kerry the other night during the Nine's debate. It was an unnecessary attack on John Ashcroft:

Tuesday night Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry -- who at least has the good grace to acknowledge his vote in favor of the Patriot Act -- noted, as he surveyed the debate audience, that there were "people from every background, every creed, every color, every belief, every religion. This is, indeed, John Ashcroft's worst nightmare here." Mr. Kerry got his laugh, but he sullied himself in the process.

What is the point of such a slur? It was unnecessary, unkind and, as far as I can tell, unrelated to any actual action or statement of Ashcroft's. It was simply a cheap shot at man who is an easy target because he is widely disliked by the left.

As the WaPo editorial cited above put it, Ashcroft has become (especially in that debate) an "all-purpose bogeyman".

Interestingly, I could only find two references to that quote via a Google News search, the editorial quoted above, and a column in the Progressive.

And, the intro to the editorial is worth noting as well, as it shows some serious hypocrisy on the part of John Edwards:

I SUPPORT DRAMATIC revision of the Patriot Act. The last thing we should be doing is turning over our privacy, our liberties, our freedom, our constitutional rights to John Ashcroft." So said North Carolina Sen. John Edwards during the Democratic presidential candidates debate in Baltimore Tuesday night. Surely, then, Mr. Edwards voted against the anti-terrorism law rushed through Congress after Sept. 11? Well, no. When he rose on the Senate floor to speak on the proposal two years ago, he said: "The bill is not perfect, but it is a good bill, it is important for the nation, and I am pleased to support it." Indeed, Mr. Edwards voted against all four amendments offered by Democratic Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.) to ameliorate some of the civil liberties concerns that Mr. Edwards now seems to feel so keenly -- and that the Democratic audiences he is wooing respond to with such fervor.

Source: Source: Patriot (Act) Games

Speaking of Clark...

This sounds vaguely famaliar. I wonder where I have heard it before? Clark faces major hurdles if he runs for president

But if the retired Army four-star general announces next week, as expected, that he will join the field of nine Democrats running for president, he will have to maneuver quickly to survive on the political battlefield. And yet, analysts say, Clark brings a resume that could rattle John Kerry, who has struggled as former Vermont governor Howard Dean has pulled ahead in polls in Iowa and New Hampshire, the first two contests.

Campaign observers say Clark's late start would put him far behind other Democratic candidates in fundraising and organization. And despite winning a war and appearing on TV as a CNN military analyst during the Iraq War, Clark is not Dwight Eisenhower or even Colin Powell. Unlike those generals, also the subject of draft movements, most people have never heard of Clark.

Intriguing

Gen. Clark Reportedly Is Asked to Join Dean

Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean has asked retired Army Gen. Wesley Clark to join his campaign, if the former NATO commander does not jump into the race himself next week, and the two men discussed the vice presidency at a weekend meeting in California, sources familiar with the discussions said.

In Remembrance

ReCAL Shuffle

Here's the current low-down on the effects of the Ueberroth exit:

Experts had expected GOP front-runner Arnold Schwarzenegger to pick up most of Ueberroth's 5 percent support in the race to replace Gov. Gray Davis in the Oct. 7 election.

But a Field Poll released Wednesday showed Schwarzenegger and Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante, a Democrat, each picked up 2 percentage points with Ueberroth out of the mix.

State Sen. Tom McClintock, R-Northridge, the leading conservative in the race, took the final 1 percent of Ueberroth's supporters, going from 13 percent to 14 percent.

Of course, since Arnie and Cruz were within the MOE of each other before, and we are talking about only 5 points anyway, it really is rather hard to say who got what or not.

Surely McClintock, despite protestations to the contrary, will eventually drop out. He hasn't a prayer and all his candidacy will do is help Bustamante.

Of course, never bet against the ego of a politician, I guess. Still, I think he will get out at some point. Remember: both Issa and Simon both said were in no matter what, but both dropped out, sometimes within a day of saying that they were staying.

Source: Candidates vie for Ueberroth's votes now that he has stepped down

"Special" Interests

For those not paying attention to things I have written before (and there are some, based on some of today's comments), what I have said about "special interest" is that the very concept is problematic. It is problematic not because there are no interests, nor because there aren't groups which try to influence public policy. Rather, the point is that we all have interests and the only difference between a "special" interest and a "vital" interest tends to be whose positions get helped--i.e., a "special" interest helps someone else and "vital" interest helps me.

In the context of Alabama politics, my criticism of the idea of "special interest" in the essay I posted last Sunday went like this:

However, if one does a little digging, one finds that the largest contributors to this organization is the Alabama Farmers Federation, through its country chapters, and their affiliate, ALFA Insurance. While there is absolutely nothing wrong with a group of individuals seeking to promote their best interests in government, it is rather difficult to consider these organizations “little guys”—indeed, the Alabama Farmers Federation is one of the largest “special interest” groups in the state. According to the Secretary of State’s office, other key contributors to the opposition include Southtrust Bank and Gulf States Paper Corp. Again, these contributors, who gave tens of thousands of dollars, are just as much involved in Montgomery politics as any other group, making their commercials, which claim to eschew “insider politics,” hypocritical at best, and purposefully misleading at the worst.

So, if one is motivated to vote “no” by a misguided belief that the “yes” forces represent special interests and politicians, and the “no” forces represent only the little guy, think again. Find out who it is that is opposed and what interests they are protecting. Information is key for making a choice. Remember: one’s own interest is “vital”; other people’s interests are “special.” The question in regards to the September vote is whether the interests one is voting for are indeed one’s own (and the states), or whether one is being persuaded to protect one specific group of interests, i.e., keeping property taxes low for large farms. (Again: under the plan, the first 200 acres of a residential farmstead will be exempt from property taxes. This plan does not target small family farms).

The point being that anyone who is organized to influence politics has "interests" and that's fine (indeed, it is good and an outgrowth of democracy--see Federalist #10).

The correct analysis is to talk about a constellation of myriad interests. The false analysis is to speak of a dichotomous relationship between "the little guy" and "special interests". Indeed, on any given issue there will be a whole host of interests on each side. It really is a key element of representative democracy.

Very Interesting

D.C. School Voucher Bill Passes in House by 1 Vote

The House of Representatives approved the nation's first federally funded voucher program by a single vote last night, sending the Senate a plan that would provide $10 million in private school tuition grants to at least 1,300 D.C. children next year.

Although if it was that close in the House, one wonders if it has a prayer in the Senate.

Indeed, the article concludes with the following:

In the Senate, Democrats debated their strategy on the voucher issue, which now appears unlikely to reach the Senate floor before next week at the earliest.

Norton said that instead of waging a filibuster, Senate Democrats would hold an open debate on the merits of the voucher concept.

But a Senate Democratic aide, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said the strategy remained undecided. While Democrats want to make clear that they seek an open debate, the aide said, "all tools remain available to Democrats to defeat this legislation."

Down in Flames

The Alabama vote is in, and the Riley Plan lost 68% to 32%.

And now the fun begins: Riley hears message; cuts coming

Of course, as I said the other day:

Insanity has been defined as “doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” We have done the same thing for decades—under-funded our schools and hoped that they would eventually improve. They haven’t . We aren’t ranked fiftieth, or near fiftieth in key educational indicators by happenstance.

Also, one wonders if Riley doesn't now become essentially a lame duck, despite this being his first year in office.

I'm Depressed

In watching the Nine debate on TV tonight I have learned what a wretched country we live in.

It is apparently really, really bad out there.

Bush's DUI Arrest

More trips down memory lane--in this case, the Bush DUI story. Since this was brought up in a comment below, I thought I would refresh my memory:

Wayne Slater, the Austin bureau chief of The Dallas Morning News, thinks he nearly had the DUI story straight from Bush's mouth back in 1998, when Bush was running for re-election in Texas. Slater wrote about Bush's arrest for stealing a holiday wreath while a student at Yale. Soon after that story ran, Morning News reporters turned up a document from Bush's National Guard days that indicated he had been convicted of a crime. Slater asked Bush about it, and was told it was the wreath incident. He pressed, asking Bush if there were other arrests. Bush told him there were not. But then, Slater says, Bush started to elaborate. "He said something like, 'Well, let's talk about this.'" That's when Slater says the Bush spokeswoman, Karen Hughes, cut him off. "It was clear to me that he wanted to amend his answer," Slater says. "But at some point after that they made the decision to not talk about it."

Now, I would agree that Bush lied here. I would say that was, in a word: "bad." He shouldn't have done it and, I would note, that it came back to haunt him politically. In the close race that was 2024, there is little doubt in my mind that this story cost him votes.

Of course, that is the argument I keep trying to make about Gore: that his his to self-aggrandize at a near-pathological level, was a poltical problem for him as well, and that it, too, cost him votes in a very close election. I remain amazed that some of my readers find this thesis so outrageous.

Although to fully fit the bill, one would need to find a pattern of Bush lying to the press about his past (and please, no WMD-based arguments).

Source: Colombia Journalism Review

ReCAL Shake-up

Is McClintock next? Ueberroth Said to Drop Out of Recall Race

Peter Ueberroth, the Republican business executive who built a career taking over troubled situations and turning them around, is reportedly dropping out of the California gubernatorial recall race.

Hat tip: Drudge

Gore and Fema: I Rescind My Concession

The Great Gore Rehash of 2024 continues. (also here, here, and here)

Ok, I rescind my correction, because after looking at the transcript of the first debate in 2024 (as published by the NYT’s on 10/4/00, page A30), the FEMA thing does fit pattern that I am describing. Gore is like the kid in the class who yearns to the be smartest, so has to one-up everyone.

The reason I say this fits, is because Bush references a specific fire, and yet Gore has to say I was there, too!. Is it a lie? Maybe. Could he have misremembered, given the facts below, unlikely. Did he go to Houston to be briefed, sorta (see below). Is Houston near Parker County? No—it is up near Fort Worth.

MR. BUSH I -- you know, as governor, one of the things you have to deal with is catastrophe. I can remember the fires that swept Parker County, Tex…

[…]

MR. GORE Yeah. First I want to compliment the governor on his response to those fires and floods in Texas. I accompanied James Lee Witt down to Texas when those fires broke out. And FEMA has been a major flagship project of our reinventing government efforts. And I agree, it works extremely well now.

Again, this can be interpreted as an innocent mistake, but in the broader context of a constant need to self-aggrandize, it fits the pattern, which is the ongoing need by Gore to make himself sound better, even on rather trivial matters. Plus, this is a pretty specific claim.

According to ABCNews.com (that HQ of the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy) reported on this as follows:

Issue: The Texas Fires

What Gore Said: In his response to moderator Jim Lehrer’s question about “your ability to handle the unexpected,” Bush cited his handling of the fires that swept through Parker County Texas in June, 1998. “I accompanied [Federal Emergency Management Agency Director] James Lee Witt down to Texas when those fires broke out,” Gore said in his response.
Fact: Gore did travel to Texas in late June, after the fires broke out, but he was there to address the Texas Democratic Party, not to inspect fire damage. And Witt was not with him at any point during the trip.
Response: “I was there in Texas. I think James Lee Witt went to the same fires. I’ve made so many trips with James to these disaster sites. ... if James Lee was there before or after, then, I got that wrong then,” Gore told Good Morning America.

TexDems Coming Home

Texas Senate Democrats to End N.M. Exile.

The fight isn't over yet, clearly, but this chapter is done.

New CaliPoll

Davis is still toasty:

The Field Poll of 505 likely voters also found that 55 percent favored the removal of Democrat Gov. Gray Davis

And Cruz is still ahead:

The poll from Sept. 3-7 found 30 percent favoring Democrat Bustamante, compared to 25 percent for political neophyte Schwarzenegger. It had a 4.5 percent margin of error.

Although really, that is too close to call.

The interesting part is this:

"The polls finds that if McClintock were to drop out of the race, most of the state senator's supporters would prefer Schwarzenegger, moving the actor slightly ahead of Bustamante in voters' preferences, 33 percent to 31 percent," poll researchers Mark DiCamillo and Mervin Field wrote.

And, perhaps because the other conservative, Bill Simon, got out of the race?

The poll showed Republican State Senator McClintock in third place at 13 percent, up from 9 percent last month.

I mean, not really a surge.

Source: Schwarzenegger Trails Democrat in Latest Poll

Here are Some More

More from the NR pages (and before anyone tries the "National Review is a conservative rag" argument, note that all of these cite mainstream newspapers):

SLICK GORE
Washington Post, Sept. 24
CLAIM: At Sept. 22 press conference, Gore says, “I've been a part of the discussions on the strategic reserve since the days when it was first established.”
TRUTH: President Ford established the Strategic Petroleum Reserves when he signed the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) on December 22, 1975 — two years before Al Gore became a congressman.

ABORTION #1
February 20, 2024; New York Times
CLAIM: Gore said he has “always, always, always” supported Roe v. Wade.
TRUTH: In 1977, Rep. Gore voted for the Hyde Amendment, which says that abortion “takes the life of an unborn child who is a living human being,” and that there is no constitutional right to abortion. He cast many other votes favorable to the pro-life cause and earned an 84 percent rating from the National Right to Life Committee.

LOVE CANAL
December 1, 1999; Concord High School, Concord, N.H.
CLAIM: “I found a little place in upstate New York called Love Canal. I had the first hearing on that issue.”
TRUTH: In October 1978, Gore did hold congressional hearings on Love Canal — which he apparently “found” two months after President Carter declared it a disaster area and the federal government offered to buy the homes.

EITC
November 1, 1999; Time interview
CLAIM: “I was the author of that proposal [the Earned Income Tax Credit]. I wrote that, so I say [to Bill Bradley], Welcome aboard. That is something for which I have been the principal proponent for a long time.”
TRUTH: The original EITC law was enacted in 1975. Gore entered Congress in 1977.

PEACE CORPS
February 16, 1992; C-SPAN’s Booknotes
CLAIM: Gore said his sister was “the very first volunteer for the Peace Corps.”
TRUTH: Nancy Gore Hunger was a paid employee at Peace Corps headquarters, 1961-64.

HOMETOWN
February 1988; two ads
CLAIM: “I’m Al Gore. I grew up on a farm,” and “growing up in Carthage, Tennessee, I learned our bedrock values . . .”
TRUTH: Gore, the son of a senator, grew up primarily at the Fairfax Hotel in Washington, D.C., in a suite of rooms overlooking Embassy Row. He graduated from the ritzy St. Albans National Cathedral School, also in the capital.

SCHOOL DAYS
1988 campaign video
CLAIM: Narrator calls him a “brilliant student.”
TRUTH: “His grades were uneven, never approaching the plateau of A’s and B’s that might be expected of one who possesses such a pedagogical demeanor,” reported the Washington Post (3-19-00).

ARMS CONTROL
1984 Senate ad
CLAIM: Narrator says Gore “wrote the bipartisan plan on arms control that U.S. negotiators will take to the Russians.”
TRUTH: Ken Adelman, director of U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency: “He had nothing to do with what we proposed to the Soviets” (Boston Globe, 4-11-00).

I skipped a lot of them, especially ones that could be reasonably inferred as mistakes. And I will grant that some of these are open to interpretation, although not most of them. There are some pretty egregious ones here that I had forgotten about, like Love Canal, the Strategic Oil Reserve, the EITC and the abortion claims.

Are we still saying that there is no pattern here?

I Do Love a Challenge

Despite my best efforts to avoid more research on this Gore thread, all of the comments on the various posts have driven me to further dig up some stuff. For example, on the tobacco issue:

TOBACCO #1
March 1, 2024; San Jose Mercury News
CLAIM: “It’s not fair to say, ‘Okay, after his sister died, he continued in the same relationship with the tobacco industry.’ I did not. I did not. I began to confront them forcefully. I don’t see the inconsistency there.”
TRUTH: The same month Gore’s sister died in 1984, he received a $1,000 speaking fee from U.S. Tobacco. The next year, he voted against cigarette and tobacco tax increases three times and favored a bill allowing major cigarette makers to purchase discounted tobacco. In the 1988 campaign, Gore bragged of his tobacco background: “I want you to know that with my own hands, all of my life, I put [tobacco] in the plant beds and transferred it. I’ve hoed it, I’ve dug in it, I’ve sprayed it, I’ve chopped it, I’ve shredded it, spiked it, put it in the barn, and stripped it and sold it” (Newsday, 2-26-88).

TOBACCO #2
March 1, 2024; San Jose Mercury News
CLAIM: “My family had grown tobacco. It was never actually grown on my farm, but it was on my father’s farm.”
TRUTH: Gore had already admitted growing tobacco on his own farm: “On my farm, we stopped growing tobacco some time after Nancy died” (Cox News Service, 4-26-99). Also, Gore received federal subsidies for growing tobacco on his farm (Wall Street Journal, 8-10-95).

While the info above has the actual citations, the source of the above is National Review..

More later... (and there is quite a bit more)

Funny

Via ABCNEWS.com's The Note

Is it an announcement phone call or a rock concert? You decide. When Senator John Edwards told his staff over the weekend that he would bow out of the U.S. Senate race in North Carolina, he did it by conference call. All satellite offices tuned in, campaign sources tell us, and both campaign manager Nick Baldick and the fully decided presidential candidate were announced to the troops over the rollicking strains of John Mellencamp's "Small Town." Edwards told his cheering staff that he was fully committed to the race for the presidency.

Davis Unplugged

One the one hand, if this is the best he's got, he's still toast:

Talking to a voter, Davis reportedly said "you shouldn't be Governor unless you can pronounce the name of the State."

On the other, can one imagine if the person saying this was a Republican and the guy with the accent was a Democrat?

On the third hand, it is vaguely amusing (and Davis did say it was a joke).

On the fourth hand, it somehow seems to fit into the whole Recall Campaign ambiance.

Source: 29 Days & Counting to the Historic Recall Election

UPDATE: Based on Matthew's comment, I went looking for more info:

Whipped into an anti-Schwarzenegger frenzy at the picnic, one crowd member screamed, "He's a foreigner!" as Davis criticized Schwarzenegger, who hopes to take over his seat in the Oct. 7 recall election.

The man who made the foreigner comment later apologized to Davis for making the remark.

Davis told him not to worry, the Bee reported, and added with a smile, "You shouldn't be governor unless you can pronounce the name of the state," in an apparent reference to Schwarzenegger's Austrian accent.

When later asked about his remark, and Schwarzenegger's demand for an apology, Davis, flanked by Hispanic lawmakers at an East Los Angeles Mexican Independence Day parade that Schwarzenegger had planned to attend before organizers booted him out, said he made it in jest.

"I was just joking around with someone in the crowd," Davis said after the parade

But it's okay to placate a xenophobe in the audience, because after all, Arnie's a White Austrian-American. Yeesh.

Source: Report: Davis Slams Schwarzenegger's Accent

And the original SacBee story: Governor takes dig at accent and today's follow-up: Davis says he was 'just joking' about Schwarzenegger's pronunciation.

Speaking of Edwards...

I had meant to blog this last week, but clearly Edwards won the Panderbear Award^TM at the debate in NM last week:

Edwards also wants to [...] create a national translation center--"so we don't have children of Hispanic adults translating to doctors about the problems their parents are facing."

I heard the sound bite, and he wants a national 24-hour translation center in DC that Doctor's and such can call.

I mean, gee whiz, how do people get by without federal programs?

And if one looks at Edwards' policy proposals, one sees quite a bit of additional spending (like free college for all Americans, to name one), so I am not so sure Mr. Edwards has the grounds to gripe about the current deficit.

Source: ABQjournal: What They Said

Hat Tip: Michael Medved Show.

Gore and Quayle (in '04!)

This came to mind as I was driving to work today: for those who think that the whole Gore-as-exaggerator thesis was a media construct sans merit, I am curious if you also think that the Quayle-as-mental-midget thesis was just a media construct and "partisan slur" (as one commentator described the Gore thesis).

I won't even offer my own perspective on this one at this point.

I would say that in both cases, there were clear political ramifications, and that both have to do with the complexities of reality and perception.

(And what could be more fun than a bipartisan, Gore-Quayle ticket in 2024? The Attack of the Veeps!)

Wild, Bold and Stupid?

I heard this last night prior to the President's speech: A Presidential Contender Rules Out a Senate Race, i.e., that John Edwards is not going to seek re-election to the US Senate. I was surprised by the move, which can be said to be both bold and stupid. Bold, in that it was decisive (although one could also argue that it was an attempt to get press coverage, as there has been little attention paid to Edwards' campaign to date). Stupid in that his odds of winning the nomination are slim, and he is likely to find himself out of a political job soon. Plus, he may have increased the odds that the Republicans will win his Senate seat in '04.

Of course, if the goal was in any way publicity, it was a rather lame attempt--given that the letter was issued on Sunday, during the NFL's kick-off weekend just prior to the President's speech.

If it was in any way done to generate buzz, then given the timing, I think we can see why his campaign isn't doing so well...

Bama at the Bottom

The following editorial from Thursday's Montgomery Advertiser helps explain why I am for the tax package, and why our state slogan can't be "Be Like Bama!":

[T]he Virginian-Pilot in Norfolk, Va., took a different tack. An editorial used Alabama as a case in point of how far some national anti-tax groups will go in opposing taxes.

The newspaper wrote: "Ever wonder how far anti-tax groups such as Americans for Tax Reform, the American Conservative Union and the National Taxpayers Union would let a state slip before they'd agree to a tax hike? Well, look at Alabama and you'll get your answer.

"Alabama currently spends less per child on education than any state in the nation. It has 28,000 prisoners squeezed into prisons designed for 12,000.... Some nights thousands of miles of roadway are monitored by a half-dozen (state police) officers. It has a tax structure that ... imposes an effective tax rate of 3 percent on Alabama's wealthiest citizens and 12 percent on its poorest residents. A family of four subsisting on $4,600 a year has to pay income taxes, but out-of-state timber companies get by paying only $1.25 an acre in property taxes."

The editorial goes on to lament that, despite the state's problems, these national anti-tax groups are opposing the tax increase here anyway.

"For them, the Alabama experience suggests, there is no bottom line, no point at which shoddy schools or overcrowded prisons or unsafe highways outweigh the desire to keep taxes low. Fiftieth in spending among the 50 states isn't low enough."

Indeed, I have been rather frustrated with some national conservatives, like Dick Armey and Grover Norquist, who have had a knee-jerk reaction to the phrase "tax increase" without looking at the structural conditions in this state.

Cal Thomas on the Commandments

I came across Cal Thomas' column on the Ten Commandments flap down here in Alabama. He sums up my position pretty well, which is that many who are focused on the monument are distracting themselves from the real work of their faith. I also concur about his view of government in promoting religion:

It's worrisome when Congress thinks it needs to defend or proclaim faith, especially when it has difficulty solving the temporal problems members have been elected to address. And I worry more when people who say they serve a King and Kingdom that is "not of this world" call upon government to proclaim their particular faith. My worry is not for the reasons stated by those bringing lawsuits to cleanse the public square of any reference to God. It is for the believers who are distracted from the main and more difficult task their heavenly Commander-in-Chief has called upon them to do. They are focused on trivialities and diverted from more important work.

And this occurred to me as well (and actually, from a very different point of view, echoed some of what Christopher Hitchens wrote on this topic):

Some reporter should have asked today's Alabama protesters how many of the Commandments they could recite. Probably not many. The protesters say American law is based on the Commandments. A reporter should have asked, "All of them?" There are only two commandments that relate to secular law (not counting the one about adultery, for which you cannot legally be deprived of life or liberty, property being a matter for divorce courts). One prohibits murder, the other outlaws stealing. The rest are about relationships between God and man and between humans. Do the protesters want laws that force people to honor their mothers and fathers, or not "covet" their neighbor's property, or "honor the Sabbath day and keep it holy," or worship only their God? Isn't state religion what we're fighting against in Iraq and Afghanistan?

National Numbers

James of OTB (via DailyKos) reports on the latest national polling data on the Nine.

He rightly identifies the significance of "other"--and I think that you can apply similar analysis to "Not Sure". And I agree with James-- equating "Clark" with "Other" is a stretch. When 21% aren't even sure, you can bank on the fact that a lot of folks don't even know Clark is considering a run.

The one thing I wanted to add was that the best way to look at these national polls right now is as "name recognition" surveys, rather than actual vote-predicting polls. The only polls that really matter at this point, and they are, of course, tenuous, are the NH, SC and Iowa polls--and there Liberman is not faring too well.

Not only will these be the places which set the tone, but those folks have already been bombarded with info and are more likely to have formed an opinion, whilst people elsewhere, even committed Democrats, are not really paying attention.

Indeed, this dynamic is part of what I have talked about before when I have noted that many seem not to understand the primary process. Even with the compressed schedule this year, it really isn't a national contest.

Ok, Take the Politics Out of it for a Minute

From much of the commentary on this whole Gore thread, it is clear that partisanship is a major force in how we all look at this issue. Let’s set aside politics and specific politicians and look at it like this:

Let’s say that you are my new colleague in my department and over the course of the next academic year, you hear me say things like the following:

-“I founded the political science department here at the university”.

-“I’m a columnist for the local paper."

-“I took the initiative in bringing the current children’s Wednesday night program to my church.”

-“I have numerous publications in the area of campaigns and campaign finance issues.”

-“I know Colombian ex-President Andres Pastrana fairly well.”

Then, as you get settled in you find out the following:

-While, I was a major player in the reform of the curriculum just prior to the establishment of political science as an independent department, but that the major had existed for decades, that the curriculum review I worked on really had nothing directly to do with establishing the department as an independent entity, and further, I was not the only one who worked on the project.

-That I write occasional freelance columns for the local newspaper but have no permanent relationship with the paper.

-That while I was part of the founding leadership team for the program at my church, I volunteered well after the program had been brought to the church, and would have been implemented whether I helped or not.

-That while I do have several publications on that topic, that there are only a handful, and they aren’t long form pieces but short entries in an encyclopedic text.

-I once interviewed Pastrana for about an hour, and it was several years before he was president.

Each statement above could be interpreted as containing more truth than untruth, and maybe at a given moment I misspoke, or was trying to put my best foot forward to a new colleague, and simply went overboard. However, if I did it repeatedly, what’s your opinion going to be of me at the end of that first academic year working with me?

Correction

I have noted this in several comments, but thought I should post it on the main blog. I retract the FEMA story in re: Gore. I had misremembered it as Gore saying he went to Texas, when he did not. In fact, the issue was that he said h went to Texas with the director of FEMA, when he gone with some lower-level types. This is a reasonable mistake, so I take it out of the mix.

However, I would note that once one finds oneself with the reputation of an exaggerator, little things like that tend to be amplified, and it was at the time, and hence its sticking in my head.

UPDATE: Upon further review, I rescind this correction.

The Point

Really, the point of all this Gore discussion is that Kerry's treatment of his vote on Iraq, and his whole new "anger at Bush as motivation to run" bit reminds me of Gore, to some degree. Less for the similarity in actual action, but for the fact that I think it will damage him in his bid for the nomination. And for the degree to which unnecessary lies will, in both cases, be politically costly.

Why couldn’t Kerry just say that he voted for the war, supported the idea of the war, but in the end is upset with the way it was executed? Why this whole “I was voting for a threat, not a war?” And why not say “my anger at Bush simply adds fuel to my fire to win” instead of cited it as the motivation for the campaign itself? The answer is that he doesn’t think the voters will like the real answers, so he fudges. However, I am arguing that the fudging will be more damaging, because it will fuel the currently burgeoning perception that he is a waffler. Further, it all plays into Dean's hands, as Dean is running as the "straight talker" in this race. Also, since the Democrats want to run on the "Bush lied' thesis, their candidate has to be safe from the same criticism.

Personality clearly matters, as does perception of that personality.

Just think, if Gore had avoided this litany of embellishment, he probably would have won. And what is more remarkable, telling the exact truth in each of these cases would not have been damaging. They weren’t even strategically good lies.

And while I clearly did not like Gore, and don’t want Kerry to win, I am just looking at the politics of the situation. And clearly while I know that partisanship affects the way people look at this issue, my post below from Newsweek, The Boston Globe and WaPo hardly counts as a coterie of right-wing conspirators.

Also, part of my motivation was to rise to the challenge of some of the comments. While the posters in question may not be convinced by my evidence, I find myself more convinced than when I started this process.

And I will allow that any one of these examples can be explained away--that's not the point. The point is that there is a significant pattern here that led to an important vulnerability for Gore. And forget any need to defend Gore, as at this point it really doesn't matter--can anyone out there actually say that this was unimportant to the race in 2024? That is the analytical point here, not whether you think that the perception of Gore is wrong, or can be explained.

More on Poor Gore

These two post (here and here), and ensuing comments from Nathan Callahan, has sent me to Lexis/Nexis to refresh my memory on Mr. Gore’s penchant for exaggeration. It always struck me as odd, because most of the stories would have been fine in their less enhanced versions, and, on balance, the enhancements didn’t really gain Gore anything. I think it made him look insecure, and, made me wonder that if he had trouble with small truths, if he wouldn’t have trouble with larger ones as well.

Plus, he had a clear need to be the smartest guy in the room, and that is a behavior that I have always found to be troubling.

A 2024 Newsweek piece by one Gore biographer, Bill Turque, put it quite well

What makes it especially puzzling is that, for the most part, the statements in question aren't huge "I-did-not-have-sexual-relations-with-that-woman"-sized lies, but small, often silly and self-aggrandizing distortions of his background. Gore never met a personal anecdote he didn't like well enough to stretch further than the facts would allow.

[…]

Most of Gore's tales are tethered to a sizable chunk of reality. In nearly every case, the straight story would have been just as interesting or praiseworthy. Gore did not, as he told Wolf Blitzer in 1998, take "the initiative in creating the Internet." But he did sponsor legislation that invested billions in critical fiber optics research than paved the way for the Internet we have today. And while he was not the basis for the Oliver Barrett character in Love Story, author Erich Segal says Barrett was a combination of Gore and his Harvard pal Tommy Lee Jones. Gore's work as a reporter in Nashville did not, as he claimed in 1988, result in jail time for two members of the city council. But they were indicted on bribery charges as a result of Gore's investigation.

It's a self-destructive, neurotic tick in the character of a man who is usually at home in the world of facts and ideas. I have no definitive explanation for Gore's tendency to embellish.

Or, from a Boston Globe piece:

Vice President Al Gore brings a remarkable life story to the presidential race: His father was such an unwavering supporter of civil rights that it cost him his Senate seat. His older sister was the first-ever volunteer in the Peace Corps, that heroic outpost on President Kennedy's New Frontier.

By Gore's account: He was raised in hardscrabble Tennessee farm country. He was a brilliant student, in high school and at Harvard. And despite his political pull, he received no special treatment, opting instead to go to Vietnam where he was "shot at." After his Army service, he spent seven years as a journalist, and his reporting at the Tennessean in Nashville put corrupt officials in prison.

As a junior member in the US House, he was a major force: He wrote and then spearheaded passage of the Superfund law. He even authored the US nuclear negotiating position. And at a time when President Reagan and Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev faced off on the superpower stage, Gore had his own meeting with Gorbachev.

And, of course, he created the Internet.

At various times in his political career, Gore, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, has said all those things about himself and his family.

None are quite true.

Some are exaggerations grown up around kernels of biographical fact. Others are simply false. A few, like the boastful claim about the Internet, have become comic fodder, even for Gore.

The mystery, even for Gore's friends, is why he has persistently embroidered a political resume and pedigree that shorn of embellishments are impressive by any measure. Gore did press for early funding of the network that grew into the Internet. He served in Vietnam when he could have arranged a safer setting, unlike his Republican rival, George W. Bush. His journalism did unearth corruption. And in Congress, he exerted uncommon influence on technology and national security matters, notwithstanding his lack of seniority.

But for Gore, the facts have never been quite enough.

And to add to the list of “exaggerations”:

Hmmm

Interesting, ABC news is reporting:

President Bush will address the nation on Sunday night about the war on terrorism with a focus on Iraq, the White House announced.

White House spokesman Scott McClellan told reporters on Friday Bush's speech came as the United States was in a "critical moment in the war on terrorism."

Gore and the Net

Not to dredge up too much of the past, but a comment in my post below on Kerry challenged the whole Gore/internet thing.

The post was quite thoughtful, but I disagree with the thesis, which was that the Gore quote about taking the initiative in creating the internet was true, and therefore a bad example of a political lie. Said Nathan Callahan:

I’m no great fan of Al Gore, but I’m also no great fan of perpetuating a misconception.

Gore’s remark about his involvement in the creation of the Internet took place on March 9, 1999 during CNN's "Late Edition" show. Specifically, what Gore said was "I took the initiative in creating the Internet."

The fact of the matter is that he did.

In 1986, Gore wrote in favor for funding of the National Science Foundation Authorization Act. That was only one year after Dennis Jennings chose TCP/IP as the protocol for the planned National Science Foundation Network (NSFnet). Isn’t that what you call “taking the initiative?”

Let’s put Gore’s action into historical context, not Coulteresque hyperbole. When Gore endorsed the NSFnet, the IBM PC was only four years old. The Apple II computer was still in widespread use. The number of hosts on the Internet was 5,089. Entire universities were just beginning to make their initial online connection. Isn’t it fair to say that the Internet was literally being “created?”

In 1988, Gore argued for the creation of a high-capacity national data network. He urged the federal government to consolidate several dozen different and unconnected networks into an "Interagency Network." He worked with the Reagan and Bush administrations, to secure the passage of the High Performance Computing and Communications Act.

Vint Cerf and Bob Kahn, who designed the basic architecture and the core protocols that make the Internet work (and gives you the technology to snipe about Gore), have gone on record confirming Gore's role in U.S. Internet development.

“No other elected official to our knowledge,” they said, “has made a greater contribution over a longer period of time.”

Writing about Gore they concluded, “The Vice President deserves credit for his early recognition of high speed computing and communication and for his long-term and consistent articulation of the potential value of the Internet to American citizens and industry and, indeed, to the rest of the world.”

A word of advice: Next time you give an example of a political lie or embellishment be sure it’s not your own.

Given the basic challenge of the last line, not to mention the "Coulteresque" ref, I had to respond on the main blog! ;)

I think it is quite clear that Gore did not help "create" the interent. I think it is far closer to the truth to say that he helped in its growth. ARPANET, USENET, BITNET and other elements of what we now refer to as the internet existed well before the time period ref'd above (indeed, it started back in the 1960s). So I stand by this as an example of an exaggeration that was the hallmark of Gore's discourse.

Check out this timeline, for example (or an even better timeline here). For more detail, go here. Links to a list of histories can be found here.

Indeed, the whole point is that instead of just saying he was a "supporter" of the development of the internet, or that he was involved in key funding that helped the internet grow, or focusing on NSFNET, he had to make himself sound almost like the father of the internet. There is a substantial difference. I don't deny his role in promoting the 'net's evolution.

I can accept, however, that it hardly is the most egregious example of his fibbing problem. Mostly I find this one the most amusing, however. Further, if that was the only example of such embellishment, it wouldn't be that noteworthy. But in the overall pool of examples, it is amplified.

And even if I drop that one from the post, we still have the whole "Love Story" being based on he and Tipper and the the FEMA example from the first debate with Bush still stands, amongst others. Even if you want to split hairs on the internet quote, I don't think that it obviates the basic point.

Kerry: Gore Part II?

While the examples are not as egregious, I am starting to think that Kerry has Al Gore's problem of embellishing the truth because he so badly wants to win. In Gore's case it was stuff like the whole inventing the internet brouhaha, or worse, remembering a trip to Texas with FEMA officials that didn't happen, amongst others. Kerry less makes stuff up, as tries to re-interpret the past to fit his current political needs, like telling Russert on MTP the other day that the reason he was running for the Presidency was that he was angry at the way the Bush administration had executed the war. While he may well be angry at the way the administration has run the war, it is manifestly untrue that that was Kerry's motivation for running, since he was obviously in the race well before the war started.

However, it sounded good.

Indeed, Kerry is trying to re-interpret much about his recent political past vis-a-vis Iraq, as Charles Krauthammer points out:

In relaunching his presidential campaign on Tuesday, John Kerry did not just recalibrate his campaign. He recalibrated his position on the war in Iraq. In his announcement speech, he claimed that he had voted just to ``threaten'' war with Iraq, which is an odd way to characterize voting in favor of a resolution that explicitly authorizes the president to go to war if and when he pleases.

I bring up Gore because I think that one of Gore's weaknesses was the perception (that I think was accurate) that he wasn't always genuine, and that, specifically, he wanted to win so badly that he was willing to lie if it helped him. Indeed, it sometimes seemed that he couldn't help himself.

While Kerry hasn't made anything up, per se, I think that he is going to be tagged, mostly by Dean (who is perceived as the straight-shooter in this race), about this "flexibility" in interpreting the past. And I think it will damage him. He comes across not as someone running on convictions as much as someone tweaking convictions and finding motivations to support the running.

My, How Things Change

This is somewhat surprising (tho' not radically so, I guess). It is funny that it wasn't that long ago that the partisan shoe was on the other foot in Georgia: Dems Can't Find Candidate for Ga. Senate

Democratic Sen. Zell Miller of Georgia is retiring, and the party's pool of 2024 candidates looks emptier than the vegetable drawer in a frat-house refrigerator. (who writes this stuff? -ed.)

The potential candidates include two men in their 70s who have not even committed themselves to the race; a political neophyte whose main asset is her last name; a freshman congressman unknown outside of his district; and a state legislator famous only for calling the governor a racist and then running off in tears.

Of course, given the way Zell votes, it may really not represent much of a change.

Interesting

Embattled Estrada Withdraws as Nominee for Federal Bench

Miguel Estrada, President Bush's embattled nominee for a federal appeals court judgeship, has withdrawn his name from consideration, ending a bitter battle with Senate Democrats who blocked his nomination, administration officials said Thursday.

Estrada wrote a letter to Bush explaining his reasons, and an announcement could be made as early as Thursday, the officials said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

Bama Politics

James of OTB excerpt a column by JSU prof Harvey Jackson on the pending Alabama vote. It is right on target.

Indeed, financially and policy-wise this is far more radical package than the lottery proposal in 1999 (which I thought was amorphous and not up to the promised task). And Jackson is right, the old style rules about who will align where is out the window for this election. It really is the agricultural interests who favor a 19th centuray economy v. everyone else. The sad thing is that "everyone else" doesn't realize that this package is in their best interest.

Indeed, if Riley could find a way to get lower-middle and lower-income voters to realize that, in fact, this plan is good for them, it would pass overwhlemingly. Unfortunately, the timber interests and ALFA are very good at tapping into tax-fears and anti-Montgomery sentiment in this state. Indeed, they've convinced people who will get a tax cut that their taxes will go through the roof.

It is rather frustrating, to be honest. And, as you know, I am typically anti-tax.

But, unless there is a miracle changing of minds, or there is a highly skewed turn-out, this thing is going down in flames.

More Fun with Primaries

An anonymous soul left the following analytical gem in a comment last night:

Wesley Clark is the most electable of the candidates in the Dem perception. They want to nominate the most electable candidate. Therefore, Clark wins. This is not rocket science.

To which I would reply as follows:

First, at this point we really don't know enough about Clark to say he is the most electable or not. This just goes to the whole "blank slate" situation I mentioned before. Aside from some information on his military career and his CNN gig, we really don't know much of anything about the man. He could come out and wow the country, or he could come out and embarrass himself. Or he could be just plain boring. We really don't know.

Second,the primary process doesn't always produce the most electable candidate. Was Dukakis really the best candidate in 1988 out of that field? Dole in 1996? These were the most electable persons in their parties at those times?

Third, there will be disagreement amongst Democratic voters as to whom it is they think is most electable. People keep forgetting that this is a collective action, not a monolithic one. The Democratic Party is not a group mind.

Fourth, partisans don't always support the most electable candidate, even if they know he/she is the most electable. Evidence? The Republicans in CA who are splitting up their support in the CA recall.

Really, there appear to be a lot of people who really do not understand the primary process.

Contractors and the Military

Here's an interesting piece from the CS Monitor on the increasing use of contractors by the US military: US's 'private army' grows | csmonitor.com. It focuses a great deal on Colombia, but mentions Iraq and Afghanistan as well:

Contractors are performing "the entire spectrum of military services," says Peter Singer, an analyst at the Brookings Institution in Washington and author of the new book, "Corporate Warriors," about the growth of the privatized military. He says US civilians in conflicts around the world do everything from handling mail services and feeding troops to training foreign troops and devising war games. Most are retired military personnel or former special forces.

[...]

Mr. Singer says nearly 10,000 private military contractors are currently working in Iraq, training a new Iraqi military, protecting the Baghdad and Basra airports, and feeding and housing US troops.

Several hundred contractors remain on the ground in Afghanistan as well, providing such services as security for President Hamid Karzai. In Liberia, the US recently hired Pacific Architects and Engineers to provide logistics for the Nigerian security force charged with keeping peace after the departure of President Charles Taylor.

Singer says the exponential growth in contractors during the 1990s - there have been nearly 10 times as many contractors used in the 2024 Iraq invasion as in the 1991 Persian Gulf War - is the result of several factors: the downsizing of the military, the fact that US troops are stretched thin because of their several global commitments, and a lack of planning by the Pentagon.

Texas Standoff Coming to a Close?

Interesting: Texas 11 senator plans return to Austin

The 37-day Democratic protest against redistricting by 11 Texas senators appeared to be unraveling Tuesday after one of them said he was planning to return to Texas today.

Sen. John Whitmire of Houston, the dean of the Senate, said he wanted to go back to Austin for what he realizes would be a losing fight with the GOP majority over redistricting--” but that he was prepared to flee the state again if he couldn't make that happen on his own terms.

"I believe it is time for a serious cooling-off period and a serious discussion for arriving on an exit strategy," Whitmire said.

[...]

He said he planned to talk with them “about going back to Texas, because there is no exit strategy to remaining in New Mexico indefinitely.” But he also said he remained adamantly opposed to redistricting and committed to fight against the effort.

“But the time has come to return, put up one heck of a fight on the Senate floor” and then hope that the redistricting bill the Republican leadership wants will be ruled unconstitutional in federal court.

Who?

Here's further evidence (Democrats still campaigning for name-recognition) to back James' thesis from yesterday.

"Special" Interests

I must admit, Arnold's whole populism shtick is rather tiresome. This whole "I'm not supported by 'special' interests" thing is pretty silly:

"I will never take money from the special interests and the Indian gaming or from the unions or anything like that," he said as thrill seekers tethered on a bungee cord jumped from atop a nearby crane.

"I get donations from business and from individuals."

Indeed, that whole approach is one of my pet peeves in politics. There is nothing wrong with interest groups. And usually a "special" interest is simply one that doesn't agree with me. And even if he doesn't take any money, some of these groups will work to get him elected because they prefer him to the other candidates. It's called democracy.

Source: Labor Rallies for Davis, Arnold Wows Calif. Crowds

The Primary Process, Clark and the Density of Trolls

(Pet Trolls are useful for one thing: if one responds to them in one's comment section, it often leads to post-worry text. Although the problem with such postings is, of course, like feeding a stray cat, it means said Troll likely sticks around... I guess it is the professor in me that makes it difficult to not want to correct poor thinking).

For anyone struggling (and I know at least one person who is) as to the way the primary process works, and why I say it is likely too late for Clark to have a legit shot at the nomination, here's some elaboration. I think there are other reasons (e.g., money and the general lack of hard knowledge about him), but here are some systemic reasons why he will have hard time winning the Democratic nod. Although, like I said yesterday, I could see a Dean-Clark ticket emerging from all of this (certainly moreso than a Dean-Kerry ticket :).

Clearly all the relevant Democratic constituencies will coalesce around the eventual nominee. That isn’t the issue. The issue is, especially given the highly compressed nature of the nomination process, that to get nominated one needs a clear constituency immediately. If one does not, garnering the nomination is difficult, because one will lose the early primaries.

For example, if Gephardt initially captures the labor vote, it isn’t available to other candidates. Certainly once a nominee emerges, the labor vote will throw itself behind that person. However, that is how the primary process is different than the general election: in the primary, the parties break up into various groups which seek out their preferred candidate. The question I raised the other day was what was Clark’s natural constituency amongst primary-voting Democrats, and my answer was: there isn’t one, and if there is Dean has most of it (the angry at Bush crowd) and Lieberman has a lot of it (the moderate security-conscious crowd).

Since the lack of a natural constituency will make it difficult for Clark to win early, before the field is culled, he will have trouble winning over the long haul as well. If one loses the early primaries one loses precious media coverage, one loses contributions (people don’t give money in large quantities to losers) and one loses voters (the downstream, so to speak, primary voters tend to be less inclined to vote for someone who won 3% of the vote early on than someone who won 30% or 40%).

There’s a reason why these candidates spend so much time in Iowa and New Hampshire, and, to a lesser degree, South Carolina. It certainly isn’t because of their vast populations.

I challenge anyone to 1) demonstrate how the above has anything to do with my particular partisan leanings, and 2) demonstrate how it is empirically incorrect.

Ranting is not allowed, but research is. Grades will be issued at the end.

Speaking of Kerry

Back to Kerry and his MTP interview today. Did anyone else notice that he is now trying the "angry" thing? Indeed, he noted that he was "angry" at the Bush adminstration (feeling a little pressure from angryman Dean?). And his claim that the reason that he is running is because he is angry at the President's execution of the war comes across as disingenuous at best, as he was clearly running well before it was clear how the war and post-war period was going to play out.

And I love this sort of thing (Dean made a similar claim a while back):

When challenged by moderator Tim Russert on the incompatibility of funding new programs in the face of a still-spiraling deficit, Kerry was upbeat.

“I’m going to cut the deficit in half in the first four years,” he said. “I’m going to do exactly what Bill Clinton did. And if you liked the economy under Bill Clinton, America, you’re going to love it under John Kerry.”

Again, I ask, what exactly did Clinton do to make the economy grow? Answer: be President during a boom. If it was that easy to make the economy grow, won't all presidents make sure that the economy grew?

Wow:

Kerry launches his bid for the White House amid numbers from one new poll that gives him the support of 5 percent of registered Democrats. Most voters haven’t started paying attention to the Democratic presidential race, according to the CBS News poll released over the Labor Day weekend — the campaign’s traditional starting point.

Although, granted it is still early. Although I must admit, these numbers are amazing to me:

Two-thirds of voters — including two-thirds of Democrats — were unable to name any of the Democratic candidates for president, said the poll, released Sunday.

Further, they are a great reminder of how most of the country pays radically less attention to politics than do we political junkies.

Source: Kerry takes aim at Bush, challengers

Will on Clark

Since it seems to be General Clark week here at PoliBlog, the following excerpt from George Will's column today, George Will: Wesley Clark isn't Dean savior, is worth a look:

Other Democrats see Clark as a solution to a problem their party has had since the McGovernite takeover in 1972, the problem of voters' doubts about its competence regarding national security. But the fact that Clark is the kind of military man who appeals to Democrats -- and that they appeal to him -- helps explain why the party has that problem.

Comparisons of Clark to Dwight Eisenhower are ludicrous. Eisenhower, as well-prepared as any president for the challenges of his era, had spent three years immersed in the political complexities of coalition warfare, dealing with Roosevelt, Churchill, Stalin, de Gaulle and others. Clark's claim to presidential stature derives from directing NATO's 78 days of war at 15,000 feet over Serbia. It was the liberals' dream war: tenuously related to U.S. security, its overriding aim, to which much was sacrificed, was to have zero U.S. fatalities.

As Clark crisscrosses the country listening for a clamor for him (``I expect to have my decision made by Sept. 19,'' when he visits Iowa--feel the suspense), he compounds the confusion that began when he said (June 15, 2024) that on 9/11 ``I got a call at my home'' saying that when he was to appear on CNN, ``You've got to say this is connected'' to Iraq. ``It came from the White House, it came from people around the White House. It came from all over.'' But who exactly called Clark?

July 1: ``A fellow in Canada who is part of a Middle Eastern think tank.'' There is no such Canadian institution. Anyway, who ``from the White House''? ``I'm not going to go into those sources. ... People told me things in confidence that I don't have any right to betray.''

July 18: ``No one from the White House asked me to link Saddam Hussein to Sept. 11.''

Aug. 25: It came from ``a Middle East think tank in Canada, the man who's the brother of a very close friend of mine in Belgium. He's very well connected to Israeli intelligence. ... I haven't changed my position. There's no waffling on it. It's just as clear as could be.''

Now Clark darkly says there are ``rumors" that in February ``the White House" tried -- well, ``apparently" tried -- ``to get me knocked off CNN.'' Clark still coyly refuses to say he is a Democrat but forthrightly confesses to being a ``centrist.'' As he prepares to heed the clamor for him to join the pursuit of Dean, he is earning the description National Review has given to Sen. Bob Graham: ``a deranged moderate.''

I was thinking of these quotes as well, when I posted about Clark's chances the other day, but didn't get into them. That kind of stuff makes one sound weird and paranoid. Not traits we tend to like in our presidents.

More important, however, Will is right about the Serbia campaign and the likelihood that it could easily translate into a claim to military genius and national security super-stardom for Clark.

A Dean-Clark ticket seems to me to be a decent possibility at this stage.

Will's comments on Dean's clear disdain for Bush in the first part of the column are worth a read as well.

News of the Nine

The NYT has a lengthy piece on the Democratic field today: Worried Democrats See Daunting '04 Hurdles

And hmm, where have we heard this before?

Associates of General Clark have said he has told them that he will probably join the race. But aides to most of the other candidates say he is too late to have a good shot, and they view him more as competing for a second spot on the ticket.

No doubt they say that because they are scared--or so some will argue. I will concede that there is no doubt that they would prefer to have no more candidates in this already crowded field.

However, it is noteworthy that while a lot of top Democrats are publically proclaiming their worry about who their nominee will be, and you don't see them trying to draft Clark. This is telling.

And, I think that there is something to this:

One prominent Democrat said that while Mr. Bush was "eminently beatable," the Democratic nominating process seemed nowhere near producing someone who could do the job. "The trouble in 2024 is not that Bush is going to be strong, but rather than we are going to be weak," this official said.

I honestly think that the strength of the President going into the campaign is up in the air--especially since the economy appears to be going in the right direction. Further, a year is a long time. Still, I do think that it is quite true that the Democratic primary will not produce the most electable candidate.

Yeah, Right

Senator Kerry is on Meet the Press this morning and just said he's not worried about the fact that Dean is up 21 points in NH. To which I say, "yeah. right."

Now, I will say he is right to point out that it is early yet.

And Kerry will be officially announcing his presidential bid next week in South Carolina. First, I didn't realize he had not yet announced, and second, it is interesting that he decided to make the announcement in SC, rather than at home.

Plus, as predicted, Dean is being attacked for no foreign policy experience--in this case by Kerry, rather than from the Reps.

Federalism

Mark Alexnder of the Federalist Society has an interesting column on the Moore situation.

I very much agree with the following:

Much of the public debate about this case has taken a wide detour around the substantive constitutional question, instead focusing on the Ten Commandments: Are they the foundation of Western law? Should they be displayed in state and local public places? Are such displays promotions of religion or history? While these are interesting questions, they are not relevant to the substance of this case.

Those content to reduce this case to a colloquy on the merits of the Ten Commandments either do not grasp the serious constitutional issue being contested, or they harbor a disingenuous motive to avoid the relevant. The latter group, well represented in the pop media, has framed this case as an insurrection led by a religious zealot and his gaggle of street preachers, thus depreciating its legal significance in order to avoid substantive and instructive discussion about our Constitution.

However, from there he goes on to make some problematic arguments, as his discussion of the 1st and 10th amendments, while interesting, leave out entirely the significance of the 14th amendment, not to mention established case law. Like it or not, agree with it or not, one cannot ignore these things.

Rather, Alexander's argument, like one's recently made by Alan Keyes on this topic, are predicated on the idea that we are still operating under the original federal structure that existed in the nineteenth century. We aren't. Even if one thinks we arrived where we have wrongly, it doesn't mitigate against the simple fact that we are where we are. Instead of taking into account the entire panoply of issues, Alexander and Keyes want to argue from their own idealized position of the way they want constitutional law to work, rather than what the reality on the ground is.

No Love for Terry

Robert Novak writes:

Recipients of recent money appeals by the Democratic National Committee (DNC) have been puzzled by the absence of the customary signature of the party chairman, Terry McAuliffe.

Earlier DNC fund-raising letters this year were signed by former President Bill Clinton and Sen. Edward M. Kennedy. The latest appeal, which arrived in the mail last week, was signed by somebody whose name was new to many recipients: Josh Wachs, the DNC's 31-year-old chief operating officer.

McAuliffe is so controversial with the Democratic rank-and-file, according to party sources, that his name may inhibit contributions. A Washington-based business speculator, McAuliffe was hand-picked for chairman by Bill and Hillary Clinton after the 2024 election, against the wishes of many DNC members.

An odd position for a DNC Chairman to be in, especially since one of McAuliffe's fortes is supposed to be fundraising.

More on Generals in Politics

A comment by PoliBlog’s resident Troll sparked some further thought on the issue of Generals seeking the presidency, specifically what would have been the likely fortunes of Colin Powell, had he sought his party’s nomination in 1996 or 2024.

My most recent posts on Clark are here and here.

Powell would have had similar troubles with the Republican primary voters that Clark is likely to have with Democratic ones, while Clark is more moderate than the Democratic base, so, too, is Powell too moderate for the Republican base. If one doubts, consider that Powell is pro-choice, and pro-affirmative action, two non-starters with hardcore conservatives. Further evidence can be found in looking at the current dynamic in California, where it is likely that a large number of conservative Republicans would rather lose the governorship to Cruz Bustamante than to vote for the moderate Schwarzenegger. Additional evidence to support the contention can be easily found by observing some of the stinging criticism that Powell has received from conservative element in the Republican Party during his tenure at Secretary of State.

I do think that Powell would have fared somewhat better than I am predicting Clark will do should he enter. I think that in 1996 Powell would have had a real shot at besting Dole. For one thing, Dole was not (to say the least) a very exciting candidate, and Republicans where quite interesting in beating Clinton (and yes, Democratic voters are quite interested in besting Bush, but 2024 has Dean, 1996 had Dole-in terms of energizing voters, two rather different candidates). I think it is possible, precisely how likely is hard to judge, that there would have been enough conservatives willing to vote for Powell in 1996 for the nomination that he might have beaten Dole.

2000 is more complex. First there would have been the McCain factor-a lot of Powell-likely Republicans would also have been McCain voters. This would have split the opposition to Bush. Further, Bush was a very popular candidate with a large percentage of the Republican base. Still, it would have been more of a fight than I am predicting for Clark.

Aside from scenario-specific issues (i.e., who the other candidates are, and the timing problem Clark will have), there are two important differences between Powell and Clark that both favor Powell. The first is found in their political careers and how that translates to politics. Powell had served in political positions before, when he was Reagan’s National Security Advisor, but most especially as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the first Gulf War. His association with the Reagan administration was a plus with conservatives, and his high visibility in a successful, and highly televised war meant that he was a well-known figure nationally.

Indeed, Mr. Powell ranked highly in polls as a top admired Americans after his retirement in the early goings of the Clinton administration.

Clark, despite an impressive resume, and even with his exposure on CNN, simply does not have that kind of relationship with the public at large and was never the kind of public presence during his military career that Powell was. Quick! Who’s the current Supreme Allied Commander Europe? Don’t know? Me, neither, and that was the case for even the informed American public during most of Clark’s tenure at that position. The conflicts in the Balkans raised his profile, but hardly to the degree that would come anywhere close to matching Powell’s during the Gulf War.

(It’s General James L. Jones, Marine Corps, actually. The internet is a wonderful thing).

A second factor that highly worked in Powell’s favor was race. On the one hand, his race would result in some initial blunting of criticisms, given the delicate nature of racial politics in the US. Second, and in some ways more importantly, is the fact that many in the Republican Party might have been willing to overlook some of Powell’s moderateness to have the opportunity for the first black president to be a Republican. Such things are very difficult to measure, but I think it would have been a factor.

In terms of fanciful predictions well after the fact, I would say that Powell had a serious shot at the Republican nomination in 1996, but probably would have lost to Clinton in the election, and had a lesser shot at the nomination in 2024. He likely would have been competitive against Gore.

Powell shares a key characteristics with Clark, however, and that is that out of power partisans found (in Powell’s case) and find (in Clark’s case) a semi-blank slate upon which to project their views. The problem with such blank slates, however, is that once the person in question starts filling in the blank spaces on their own, they inevitably disappoint someone.

Mr. Clark has had an impressive career and is, no doubt, a capable individual, but I stand by my analysis below-he won’t fare well in the Democratic nomination process, and even if he managed, somehow, to be nominated his rookie-status in terms of national politics will put him at a disadvantage in running against a sitting president.

Kerry Econ Plan

Ok, so Kerry Outlines Tax, Economic Proposals. But I have two key questions. One, if it is really all that easy for jobs to be created, can someone explain to me why any President wouldn't create them like crazy? Second, if the deficit is the great monster of the day, how does Mr. Kerry propose to deal with it by maintaining a substantial part of the Bush tax cut and by promising new tax credits plus sending substantial aid to the states?

The highlights of the plan:

Slate Lets O'Reilly Speak

Here's an amusing, and telling, litany of quotation from Bill O'Reilly via Slate: Bill O'Reilly Wants You To Shut Up.

They certainly help illustrate why he isn't taken seriously in many quarters, and why I rarely watch his program. Indeed, if I do watch any of it, it the from channel-flipping, not from deliberately tuning in.

Another Comment on Clark

Comments in the post below on Clark raise the following that is worth considering as well: since the adoption of the current primary system for nominating presidential candidates (in 1972) there has been no political neophyte (defined as not holding prior elected office) able to capture a major party nomination:

2000: Gov Bush v. VP Gore
1996: Pres Clinton v. Sen Dole
1992: Pres Bush v Gov Clinton
1988: VP Bush v. Gov Dukakis
1984: VP Mondale v. Pres Reagan
1980: Pres Carter v. Gov Reagan
1976: Pres Ford v. Gov Carter
1972: Pres Nixon v. Sen McGovern

and even before the modern primary system was established, you have to go back to 1952 (fifty years ago) and Dwight Eisenhower to find a political newcomer being nominated (and elected):

1968: Sen McCarthy (brain fade) VP Humphrey v. VP Nixon
1964: Pres Johnson v. Sen Goldwater
1960: VP Nixon v. Sen Kennedy
1956: Pres Eisenhower v. Gov Stevenson
1952: General Eisenhower v. Gov Stevenson

Now, before people say: "see! it was a GENERAL! It proves Clark has a significant shot!" let's remember: being the victorious Supreme Commander of Allied Forces after World War II, and being a global hero, is a tad more impressive than being the commander of NATO who oversaw the Kosovo campaign. I am not denigrating General Clark's career, but one has to admit, those are two rather different resumes.

And one can keep going:

1948: Pres Truman v. Gov. Dewey
1944: Pres FDR v. Gov Dewey

Then you get to 1940 and Republican nominee Wendell Wilkie, who was drafted from the business community to run against FDR. He lost.

In 1936 and 1932 it was Gov's v Presidents.

In 1928 Herbert Hoover won the Presidency, despite not holding prior elected office, although he had served as Secretary of Commerce in both the Harding and Coolidge administrations and had other governmental service on his resume. He beat a Governor (Alfred Smith) in 1928, before being beaten by a Governor (FDR) in 1932.

This historical pattern, amongst several key other reasons, is why I am of the informed opinion that Clark is a longshot at best. Ther is no denying that he has an impressive military career, but that simply isn't enough.

Clark in the Wings

If true, and barring some dramatic turn of events with Dean and Co., he won't get in:

Wesley K. Clark, the retired four-star general who has been contemplating a run for president, has told close friends that he wants to join the Democratic race and is delaying a final decision only until he feels he has a legitimate chance of winning the nomination.

"It's safe to say he wants to run," said a longtime friend who has had frequent political conversations with General Clark. "But he approaches this like a military man. He wants to know, Can I win the battle? He doesn't want to have a situation where he could embarrass himself, but I'm absolutely certain he wants to run."

Of course, a given potential candidate often sees his/her own chances differently than those on the outside. As I have argued before, his chances of winning the nomination are slim. And before I gets comments that say "you never know" and so forth, let's look at some facts:

Moore Profile

CNN has an interesting profile of Roy Moore

Something I didn't know that surprised me:

Moore moved to Texas where he trained as a full-contact karate fighter. He later spent several months in the Australian outback, wrangling wild cattle.

Something I semi-knew that didn't surprise me:

He later served as a military policeman in Vietnam, where being a stickler for constant salutes and regulation haircuts in the midst of war almost made him a target of the men under him.

"His policies damn near got him killed in Vietnam," Barrey Hall, who served under Moore, told The Associated Press. "He was a strutter."

And, as you likely know, they moved monument.

Texas Dems Can Come Home, For Now...

Lawmakers adjourn without redistricting bill

The second special legislative session that stood at a standstill for 30 days after 11 Senate Democrats broke a quorum in their chamber by fleeing to Albuquerque, N.M., ended Tuesday without a new congressional redistricting plan.

The fight over redistricting seemed far from over, however.

Republican Gov. Rick Perry has indicated that he will call another session on the issue, but he has not said when it would start. Republican Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst sent a warning to the Democrats.

Deficits on the Rise

Grist for the Dean mill: Estimate for '04 Deficit Is Increased to $480 Billion

The federal government will run at a record $480 billion deficit in the next fiscal year, $5 billion more than the Bush administration had predicted, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said today. But the office saw the possibility of enormous deficits in the years ahead.

On paper, at least, federal deficits could begin to decline after next year, the office said. But it said that under the most optimistic projections, they could total nearly $1.4 trillion over the next 10 years.

But the $1.4 trillion does not take into account the cost of reconstruction in Iraq. And based on some changes that are highly probable-- enactment of a prescription drug program under Medicare, for example -- budget deficits could total $5 trillion over the next 10 years, the Congressional Budget Office said.

Campaign Fun in Alabama

This will only make sense to my fellow Axis of Weevil types, but I am doing some research on the current ad campaigns in Alabama from the groups oppossed to the Riley plan. One of the major funders of the main opposition TV ads is ALFA Mutual Insurance (i.e., the Alabama Farmers Association's insurance company). They are one of the biggest interest groups in the state, and benefit from insanely low property tax rates. Yet, they have the gall to finance commercials that talk about how the Riley plan is only for "insiders"--like they are some grassroots organization.

Of course, if you check out the anti-Riley site, there is no reference to ALFA to be found (or to the major paper companies who don't want to pay fairer (and still quite low) property taxes).

Amazing and hypocritical. And what is more frustrating is that there are plenty of voters who would benefit from the tax package with tax cuts (indeed, the vast majority of Alabamians would get tax cuts), but who think that the anti-Riley groups are looking out for the "little guy".

Not to mention that the upshot of all of this is to help keep the state's economy firmly in the 19th century.

Commandment Fight Continues

This is a more appropriate route to take: Suit Likely in Commandments Statue Fight. However, I will curious as to see the actual legal argument. Meguesses they haven't a leg to stand on, but we shall see:

Attorneys prepared to ask a federal court in Mobile to block the removal of the Christian monument.

The lawsuit on behalf of a Christian talk show host and would name as defendants the eight associate justices who last week overruled Chief Justice Roy Moore and directed that the federal court order be followed, said attorney Jim Zeigler.

And the precise legal culpability of the 8 associate justices of the AL SC fails me.

I Agree With Jerry Brown

Yes, it can happen--Governor Moonbeam and I agree on some stuff. Indeed, while Brown has some, shall we say, unorthodox ideas, I find him to be worthy of respect as being intellectually honest and knowledgeable about government.

At any rate, the following quotation, as reported in WFB's recent column is noteworthy:

The insight of Jerry Brown warrants attention. Mr. Brown is a little screwy but very bright, and did two terms as governor. To skeptics he said: "It's obvious Schwarzenegger is qualified. I mean, what does it take to become a governor? I've been there; I've known all the governors since Earl Warren's time. And basically, if you have above-average intelligence, you have common sense, and you can speak in front of a camera and to a crowd, you can govern the state. I mean, after all, the governing process includes the legislature, a very competent civil service, and all sorts of rules and regulations that guide the state on its way. The whole thing about experience is a canard."

It is noteworthy because of the underlying general theme--that a) government is not, nor should be, the domain solely of "professionals" and b) when one elects a chief executive, one elects a team, not just one super-genius guy. Indeed, that was one of the things (amongst many) that bothered me about Al Gore, he projected this image that he could do it all, knew it all, and that he would be in command of the entire executive apparatus were he elected. Such delusions are hogwash.

Source: ARNOLD'S HOUR?

The Commandments

This kind of stuff is driving me crazy:

said Steven Hopkins, a minister from Burnet Bible Church in Texas. "Americans are being arrested for standing up for the word of God."

No, people will be arrested for attempting to impede the execution of a federal court order. There is nothing going on here that will result in anyone having to deny God, nor to stop people from attempting to promulgate Christianity if the monument is removed. Indeed, as a Christian, I would argue that there are far better ways to promote the cause of Christ than this.

Roy Moore himself makes a similar argument when he says that he has the right to acknowledge God and that the federal courts are trying to take that away. This is not the case--as his capacity to acknowledge God is by no means limited to having a monument to the Ten Commandments in the rotunda of the Judicial Building.

(and, coincidentally, I used to live near Burnet)

Ten Commandments monument may be removed early this week

Creating Drug Standards

On the one hand this, Congress Weighs Drug Comparisons, sounds reasonable. On the other, it illustrates the problem when the someone else pays for what one receives.

And, this is also the kind of thing that HMOs have tried to do and been villified for it. (That is to say, cost/benefit analysis in terms of determing what will be paid for and what will not).

The bottom line is that more care is managed, whether by private companies or the government, choice is curtailed.

You Can't Make This Stuff Up

A meeting of the minds in Iowa: Kucinich, Nelson Discuss Farm Policy

Country singer Willie Nelson hooked up with Rep. Dennis Kucinich on Saturday to help the Ohio congressman pitch his plan to help family farmers.

For some reason, the whole concept strikes me as hilarious.

It might also possibily be the basis for a future anti-drug campaign: "Kids, don't smoke weed, or you might grow up to think someone like Dennis Kucinich ought to be President!"

And, apparently, the goal is to move us back to a 19th century economy:

"Finally, we have a guy who is standing up for the small family farmer," Nelson said at the rally. "Agriculture, our raw materials, are what we need to take care of. There's a way to do that, a way to make it strong again, and Dennis knows the way to do that."

Broder on Riley

Those paying attention to the Alabama tax vote, may be interested in David Broder's recent column: Conservative Governors With Tax Appeals

Simon Out

CNN is now confirming an AP story cited earlier today by Kevin Drum: CNN.com - Simon to drop out of governor's race

A spokesman for Bill Simon told CNN the Republican will announce Saturday that he is dropping out of the recall race for governor of California.

"I will confirm he will be withdrawing in the interest of the Republican Party," the spokesman said in a telephone interview.

Very interesting.

Hat tip to James at OTB for mentioned the CalPundit post.

More Blogonuts

While less extreme than examples from earlier today, Dean has another example of someone in the Blogosphere who doesn't know how to behave.

Remarkable

Moore barred from performing duties

Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore was disqualified with pay after the Judicial Inquiry Commission filed charges against him in the Court of Civic Appeals this evening.

Attorney General Bill Pryor, whose office will be responsible for prosecuting the case, said that the disqualification means Moore will not be allowed to perform any of his judicial duties.

Moore's hearing will take place before the Court of the Judiciary. A date has not been set.

I am surprised and pleased to see the state government acting so quickly and decisively. I really thought he was going to be allowed to continue his grandstanding.

Dean in the WSJ

Howard Dean has a column,
"We Can Do Better" in today's WSJ. It's subtitle is the rather Mondale-esque "I will begin by repealing the 2024 and 2024 tax cuts." Since that means, in practical terms, a tax increase, one wonders how this will help him shed his "I am the next George McGovern" image. Further, if the following is true:

today's two-income families earn 75% more money than their single-income counterparts did a generation ago, but they actually have less money to spend. For many, personal bankruptcies have become the rule rather than the exception.

And while I know that the economy has been underperforming, it really hasn't been all that bad, historically speaking, and it is showing signs of improvement, hence doom and gloom like this may not have long-term (i.e., into next year) resonance:

The economy is going through tough times. The average American family is in trouble. The economy has been losing good jobs, and the benefits that went with them, at an astonishing rate.

And does he think he is going to be the President in that movie Dave, where the title character just proclaims full employeement, and it happens?

An important part of my program for a full-employment recovery

And, yep, there will be no way that the Bush campaign will be able to paint Dean as a tax and spend liberal, no sir

As president, my economic policies will be focused and clear. I will begin by repealing the 2024 and 2024 tax cuts, and using the revenues that result from the repeal to address the needs of the average American, invest in the nation's infrastructure and, through tax reform, put money in the hands of those most likely to spend it.

The task of meeting the needs of American families begins with health care. My plan will not only insure millions of Americans who are without adequate care today, it will reduce costs for small business, states and communities--freeing up funds that can be used to grow businesses and meet other national and local priorities.

And don't all the folks who received tax cuts, i.e., all income tax payers, spend money?

All flippancy aside, I really do have to wonder how this will play with the swing voters. I understand that much of the Dem base will like this message. However, while the Dean-ites can argue that Dean is "moderate", the bottom line, as a practical poitical matter, Rove and Co. will easily be able to paint this platform as a combo McGovern meets Mondale meets Hillarycare.

Update: James of OTB more thoroughly goes to town on the Dean piece. He, too, notes the ring of Mondale.

The Commandements' Saga Continues

Very interesting, and somewhat unexpected: Justices: Move Ten Commandments Display

I really didn't think that the State court would move this quickly, indeed, I was wondering if they were going to move or not (I expected some feet-dragging at the very least).

State Supreme Court justices overruled Chief Justice Roy Moore on Thursday and directed that his Ten Commandments monument be removed from its public site in the Alabama Judicial Building.

The senior associate justice, Gorman Houston, said the eight associate justices instructed the building's manager to "take all steps necessary to comply ... as soon as practicable."

And, indeed:

The associate justices wrote that they are "bound by solemn oath to follow the law, whether they agree or disagree with it."

Moore's inability to do this has been very disturbing to me. And, quite frankly, a violation of his faith, in my opinion (the whole "let your yes mean yes and your no mean no" stuff).

More CA Poll Numbers

As I continue to note, Davis is toast:

58 percent wanted to recall the Democrat

Still, the Cruz-Arnie race is basically a tie (margin of error is +/- 3%), but Bustamante has faded some. This is also interesting, because these numbers can't have captured a reaction to Arnie's press conference yesterday, nor Bustamante's presentation of his plan earlier this week:

Republican actor Arnold Schwarzenegger, who aired his first television commercials on Wednesday, led the survey among replacement candidates with 23 percent, with Democratic Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante in second place at 18 percent.

The poll was conducted from 8/8-8/17 and was of likely voters.

And, I thought it was just right-wingers out to get rid of Davis?

Among Democrats, 38 percent said they would vote today to unseat Davis, as did 60 percent of independents.

Source: Poll: Majority Wants to Oust Calif. Governor (washingtonpost.com)

Intriguing

This will help with the Simon/McClintock voters: Schwarzenegger Says Won't Raise Taxes in Calif.

Emerging from a meeting in Los Angeles with 19 business and academic leaders, Schwarzenegger laid down his economic program for the first time since declaring his candidacy in the Oct. 7 recall, sounding notes of fiscal conservatism.

"I'm very much a believer that the people of this state have not been under-taxed," Schwarzenegger said, flanked by former Secretary of State George Shultz and billionaire Warren Buffett. "I am in principle against taxes because I feel the people of California have been taxed enough."

The next set of polls should be interesting.

And, amusing:

"I told Warren that if he mentioned Proposition 13 one more time, he has to do 500 sit-ups," the actor said, tossing Buffett a friendly but menacing stare.

The Recall Rolls On

Judge refuses to delay California recall

The Real Fun Begins

The Court has spoken: Supreme Court rejects Ten Commandments appeal

The Supreme Court refused Wednesday to block the removal of a Ten Commandments monument from an Alabama judicial building, rejecting a last-minute appeal from the judge who installed the display.

The justices said they would not be drawn, at least for now, into a dispute over whether the monument violates the Constitution's ban on government promotion of religion.

The high court was Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore's last hope to avoid a federal judge's midnight deadline to remove the display. It was unclear if Moore would comply. Other state officials have said the monument would be moved.

The question becomes now, what do all the other officials do?

Oh, That Whacky Franken

This is rather ironic given that his new book purports to expose the "lies" of the right...

Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy II

Hmm, while I understand the origins of the recall process were with a conservative and all that jazz, but if this was truly just Republicans out to get Davis and steal the election, he wouldn't have anything to worry about. After all, the state is a majority Democratic state.

I think he needs to look at his 24% approval rating before trying to further this argument:

"When Republicans can't win elections fair and square, they resort to this," Davis said, citing the GOP-led impeachment of President Clinton during his second term and the off-year congressional redistricting efforts Republicans are attempting this year in Colorado and Texas.

"I am going to fight this recall and the right-wing forces behind it. You can take that to the bank."

Further, it is ironic that Bustamante (you know, the Democratic Lt. Gov.) was giving his own speech the same day Davis gave his.

Davis acknowledges faults, slams GOP

Even More on Moore (who isn't a Moor, btw)

For those who wish to truly delve into this story, here are some key links:

More on Moore

Not surprising:

On Monday, U.S. District Judge Myron Thompson denied a request by Moore to stay the injunction that orders Moore's Ten Commandments monument removed by midnight on Wednesday.

And the question as to what comes next is the issue. Presumably the Judge will order a $5,000/day fine on the state and Moore will likely let the state pay it--which is a crime given the fiscal state of affairs around here.

And this is just lovely, and indicates to me this not just about the sanctity of the Ten Commandments:

In his order Monday, Thompson wrote that Moore twice turned down chances to ask for a stay before Aug. 5.

This is shaping up as one of the biggest examples of political grandstanding that I have seen in some time.

Source: Moore appeals to 11th Circuit

More on Strategic Thinking by Candidates and Voters

Debate in the comments sections of several posts below (such as here ) have inspired this response:

Setting aside the theoretical for a moment, the plain facts of the circumstances are this: there are only two viable candidates in the process at this time: Schwarzenegger and Bustamante. Given that both poll at approximately one quarter of the electorate each, and that the nearest competitors are in the single digits, we have to declare the race essentially between these two.

Now, things could change in the next month and half, and, indeed, the numbers will more some. However, if you are Simon, McClintock or Ueberroth (the next three Republicans in terms of poll position) you have to make a calculation: what are the odds that I can overtake my competitors, or what are the odds that my presence in the race simply helps Bustamante.

This is a practical political question.

As James pointed out earlier today, and as I have made reference to before (here and here), party primaries typically serve the purpose of narrowing the field. With these rules in this context, there is no narrowing (indeed, the opposite has taken place), so instead of the rules forcing winners and losers, individual candidates have to make their own decisions on staying in the race.

And if you are Bill Simon in particular, you really have to engage in some self-examination. You can talk all day long about how well you did in 2024, but the bottom line is, if you were really that close and simply need one more shot, you would be higher than 8% or so in the polls. California has seen your stuff and it seems quite obvious that they don’t what you are offering.

Again, this is a practical issue. I personally find a lot of what Simon has to say to be appealing, but ultimately he has the same shot at being governor of California in this election as I do. McClintock is essentially in the same place-and certainly Ueberroth is.

These individuals still are going to have to come to grips with the basic fact that they will, at some point, have to choose between helping Arnold or Cruz.

It really is that simple.

Now, at this point in the race I understand staying in, because Arnie may stick his rather large foot in his mouth and fall entirely from grace. I think that unlikely, but it is a reasonable gamble for these guys to take. However, in a few weeks, it will be decision time, whether they want to face up to that fact or not.

Ueberroth

USA Today has a interesting piece on CA recall candidate Peter Ueberroth.

In regards to his chances in the recall election, I think it can be summed up from this quote:

When he entered the race, ''my thought was, 'It's a generation late,' '' says Tony Quinn, editor of the California Target Book, a political journal.

OTB on Arnie

James is right on the CA Republican Party's quandry over at OTB (I mean, after all, he agrees with me).

The bottom line is that I simply do not subscribe to the line that it is better to be "pure" in loss, rather than to compromise in victory (at least when it comes to electoral politics).

It may make one feel better to vote for the person who is closest to one ideologically, but I still maintain that this is politically foolish if the result of that vote is to elect the opposite of one's main choice.

And while I am staunchly pro-life, James is right--the next governor of California is going to have zero impact on that issue.

More on Clark

This strikes me as strained logic:

Clark's allies...say that money won't be an issue because defense contractors will line up to back his bid.

What? because he is former military man defense contractors automatically will give him money? Not to mention the fact that the current administration is rather military-spending friendly. Further, money tends not to flow immediately to late-comers until their relative standing to the other candidates works it way out, so why would dollars flow Clark's way?

At this point the Clark candidacy's chance appear to me to be largely constructed on hopes, dreams and best case scenarios that aren't grounded in much reality.

Source: Washington Whispers Daily

From Out of the Shadows?

Interesting: Schwarzenegger Ready to Debate, Plans TV Ads

Arnold Schwarzenegger, famous on film for beating up, blowing up and gunning down opponents, said on Monday he was ready to engage in another form of combat -- a political debate.

"I intend to debate (Gov.) Gray Davis and the other major candidates on the ballot," the Austrian-born Republican actor said in a statement.

I think his lack of visibility in the last week has hurt him and this likely will help. Granted, he could open his mouth and stick his foot in it, but silence is its own kind of problem, as people hear what they want to hear in one's lack of words.

Prop 13 Basics

Here are the basics of how Prop 13 works:

Section 2 of Article XIIIA of the California Constitution (enacted by Proposition 13) establishes an acquisition-value assessment system. It provides that property is to be assessed at its value when acquired through a change of ownership or by new construction. Thereafter, the taxable value of property may increase annually by no more than the rate of inflation or two percent, whichever is less.

This favors, therefore, long-term owners over new home buyers. So if you move to CA, are a first time home buyer, or want to upgrade to a new home, you may pay substantially more in property taxes than your neighbor whose house is valued exactly as much as yours.

I understand the root cause of the taxpayer revolt in the 1970s that led to Prop 13, but clearly this distorts the fairness of the system. It seems to me that if my house and your house in the same neighborhood are valued the same, we should pay the same amount in property taxes.

This system also effects the marketplace. There is a disincentive to sell an existing house and buy a newer or more expensive one, because one has to figure not only the increase in mortgage, but the likely substantial increase in property taxes.

Source: Proposition 13: Love it or Hate it, its Roots Go Deep

Buffet and Taxes

While it was, no doubt, the politically stupid thing to say, he was, unfortunately, correct. (Indeed, I have heard it said that the definition of a "gaffe" is when a politician accidentally speaks the truth). Because of Proposition 13, California's property tax system is out of whack (although it is not necessarily the case that they are "too low" per se). I have thought this for years.

For example:

Buffett suggested the landmark initiative has warped the state's tax system and may need reforms that include higher property taxes. Buffett said he pays $14,401 in annual property taxes on his $500,000 home in Omaha, Neb., but only $2,264 on his $4 million home in Laguna Beach.
Proposition 13, which limits property tax hikes to no more than 2 percent a year, is considered politically untouchable in California.

Prop 13 means that once you buy a home your rates are locked at the rate you bougth the house at, and can only rise slowly (2% a year). Now, that means if you bought a house years ago, you are stylin', but if you buy a house now at the same value, you pay hugely more taxes. Buffet currently pays taxes on his mansion as though he owned a small condo. This is a problematic system.

However, Prop 13 is considered sacred writ to conservatives in CA, so it is here to stay, and is dangerous to bring up in an election.

Source: Buffett's Tax Criticism Draws Rebukes

Simon for Bustamante!

From the same story:

Bill Simon, a Republican candidate for governor in California's recall election, said yesterday on NBC's "Meet the Press" that he will not withdraw from the race to help ensure a GOP victory

So, I guess he wants Cruz to be the next Governor...

Clarkies?

Are Clark supporters just frustrated Trekkies?

"It's almost like three-level chess on 'Star Trek,' " said John Hlinko, co-founder of the Washington-based group. "On the one hand, he definitely is the key target constituent. On the other hand, we also fully recognize that if he is going to enter . . . we want to continue building a base of supporters."

Full disclosure: I know more about Trek than one really needs to, so I really can't talk. I know exactly what the guy is talking about.

Still, the stories on the draft Clark people have had something of a fanboy/poligeek feel to them. Of course, that may be sampling bias, as WaPo quotes the same guy in this story and the one from a couple weeks back that I blogged on.

Source: New TV Ad Campaign Seeks To Draft Gen. Clark

Bama in WaPo

Alabama has made today's WaPo twice. There's a (brief) story on the Ten Commandments rally, and this interesting piece on the tax package: Alabama Tied in Knots by Tax Vote. As the story demonstrated, it ain't your Daddy's Alabama politics.

And this frustrate me, because I think it represents a knee-jerk reaction to tax increases without really examining the structural problems in our state:

Now, the battle is taking on national dimensions, with conservative Republican groups in Washington mobilizing to defeat Riley's plan.

I believe that government is necessary, and that it has to be adequately funded to allow for certain services, amongst them being education, criminal justice, and roads. And while in my perfect world there would be more a market in the realm of K-12, I also know that that isn't going to happen anytime soon, so you have to work with what you've got.

Further, I see the ever-expanding federal share of the GDP in the form of taxation is a wholly different issue from state-level policy.

And, indeed:

"A Democrat couldn't have done this," Hubbard said. "Many say it's like Nixon going to China."

Yup: like me :)

BTW

I still think that Schwarzenegger will end up winning, but it is going to take some (dare I say?) strategery.

Dead Heat

Not surprisingly, Arnie and Cruz are in a statistical dead heat (a 4.1% margin of error):

The California Field Poll found 25 percent of registered voters opted for Bustamante followed by 22 percent for Schwarzenegger.

And this situation provides a test for an axiom of politics, which is "the perfect is the enemy of the good" (at least in terms of the persepective of the Republican Party in California). At this point, the Republicans have collectively more support, but they are splitting it amongst several candidates:

The other candidates trailed in single digits: State Sen. Tom McClintock took 9 percent; businessman Bill Simon won 8 percent; former baseball commissioner Peter Ueberroth received 5 percent; all three are Republicans.

Whoever convinced Insurance Commissioner Garamendi not to run as a Democrat did their party a huge favor.

The bottom line of electoral politics is that one has to make calculations. The best outcome of an election is for your #1 choice to be elected. However, losing is not the worst outcome. The worst outcome is to lose, and to lose to your least desired opponent. Simon and McClintock are running the serious risk of not only losing (which may be a foregone result), but losing to their worst possible outcome: losing to a Democrat.

Source: Poll Places Bustamante In Lead to Succeed Davis

Huh?!?

I must admit, I don't really get this: Actor Rob Lowe to work on Schwarzenegger campaign

On the Lighter Side

Matthew, of A Fearful Symmetry, has two amusing captions (no contest, however), for your enjoyment: here and here.