To support this site, please make your purchases through my Amazon link.
Tuesday, November 30, 2004
The Senate Majority Leader can't repay his debts?
Is that the type of example a Congressional Leader should set? I think not.
It appears the root of his problem is the economic "stewardship of the Republican party" (in the words of Kevin Drum, who found the story).
This doesn't appear to be the first time the Frist campaign has had some issues with money.
It appears the root of his problem is the economic "stewardship of the Republican party" (in the words of Kevin Drum, who found the story).
After big losses in the stock market, U.S. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist's campaign committee is short of money to cover a bank loan that was due in August, records show.Link.
The committee's most recent filing shows a little more than $10,000 was paid on the $360,000 loan from U.S. Bank.
Records show Frist's committee had losses in the stock market totaling more than $524,000 since November 2000. After paying other expenses, the committee had $312,807 in its accounts as of Sept. 30, according to records reviewed by the Chattanooga Times Free Press.
This doesn't appear to be the first time the Frist campaign has had some issues with money.
A Federal Election Commission audit approved in September found accounting mistakes and inadequate disclosure with reporting from Frist's political-action committee during 2002.This man is the leader of the Senate? Lovely.
The audit of Frist's Volunteer PAC found several ''misstatements'' in reports of receipts, expenditures and cash balances to the commission, compared with the political-action committee's bank records
Bush decides salmon no longer need protecting
Not that any of them voted for him, but I'm sure that the environmentalist community is not happy about this news. I'll tell you Oregonians--aside from fishermen and ranchers--are none to pleased by this.
The Bush administration Tuesday proposed large cuts in federally designated areas in the Northwest and California meant to aid the recovery of threatened or endangered salmon. Protection would focus instead on rivers where the fish now thrive.Link.
The critical habitat designation originally included rivers accessible to salmon, even if no fish occupied them, and covered most of Washington, Oregon and California and parts of Idaho.
Under the federal plan, critical habitats would be cut by more than 80 percent in the Northwest and 50 percent in California — and more cuts might be ordered based on public comments over the next six months, said Bob Lohn, northwest regional administrator for NOAA Fisheries, the federal agency responsible for saving salmon from extinction.
Large areas could be cut where state and federal habitat protections are already in place, such as national forests and places where the economic benefits of development outweigh the biological benefits of habitat.
Fritz Hollings speaks his mind on John Kerry
I'll certainly miss Senator Ernest "Fritz" Hollings (D-SC) and his unique sayings and astonishing candor after he leaves the Senate next month after 38 years in the chamber. Here's a recent example of his pithy wit from The Hill:
There’s an unwritten rule in politics not to kick somebody when they’re down.Classic.
But Sen. Fritz Hollings (D-S.C.) — who has made a point of speaking his mind during nearly four decades in the Senate — is willing to do just that by criticizing Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) for his failed campaign for president.
“He wasn’t himself,” Hollings told The Hill after delivering his farewell speech Nov. 16. “He had political peripheral vision.”
Hollings, who noted that he himself failed to capture the Democratic presidential nomination in 1984, said Kerry “had no [applause] line” on the stump. “The people were looking at him head-on and couldn’t find him.”
More troops to Iraq soon
So sayeth the last conservative Dem in the Senate:
I can't see how this is good news at all. For those utterly opposed to the war, this will obviously be viewed as an escalation of the war, mirroring the increases in troops sent to Vietnam nearly 40 years ago; for those who support the war, this appears to be too little, too late as attacks have dramatically increased as of late and November proved to be the bloodiest month of the war.
Perhaps the Bushies will figure this thing out, though I wouldn't count on it. General Eric Shinseki, who as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs from 1999-2003 said we would need 200,000-300,000 troops in Iraq and was let go for it, will be speaking at my school in a week, and hopefully he'll adress that issue. I'll certainly let you know what he had to say.
The top U.S. military commander in Iraq assured Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) and two fellow lawmakers during a Thanksgiving-week visit to Baghdad that more American troops soon will be sent to Iraq, the senator said yesterday.Link.
“It’s not my prerogative, but I think you can expect an announcement in the near future that more troops will be going there,” Nelson said in a telephone interview from Omaha, one day after returning from a six-day visit to five nations in the Persian Gulf region.
I can't see how this is good news at all. For those utterly opposed to the war, this will obviously be viewed as an escalation of the war, mirroring the increases in troops sent to Vietnam nearly 40 years ago; for those who support the war, this appears to be too little, too late as attacks have dramatically increased as of late and November proved to be the bloodiest month of the war.
Perhaps the Bushies will figure this thing out, though I wouldn't count on it. General Eric Shinseki, who as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs from 1999-2003 said we would need 200,000-300,000 troops in Iraq and was let go for it, will be speaking at my school in a week, and hopefully he'll adress that issue. I'll certainly let you know what he had to say.
The Senate prepares for all-out warfare
For those interested in high stakes poker between the Republicans and the Democrats, the battles over Supreme Court nominees should provide some of the most entertaining (while disappointing) action seen in Washington in years. The Hill's Alexander Bolton reports:
Senate Republicans are preparing to implement a sophisticated, multipronged plan to confirm President Bush’s expected nomination to replace ailing Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist.Bolton explains the GOP's well-planned strategy:
Well-funded liberal groups are also ramping up their efforts to block any conservative nominee.
Activists working with White House and Senate staffers say the 80-year old Rehnquist’s battle with thyroid cancer has sharply focused attention.
The controversy over comments that Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), incoming Judiciary Committee chairman, made downplaying the chances of anti-abortion-rights nominees being confirmed also accelerated planning.
Republican battle lines are similar to those drawn up in summer 2003, when many believed Rehnquist or Justice Sandra Day O’Connor would announce their retirement. That strategy was drafted by Manuel Miranda, who was Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist’s (R-Tenn.) senior aide on judicial strategy.How are they able to pay for all of this?
Bill Wichterman, who heads coalition outreach for Frist, took on judicial confirmation planning for Frist at the beginning of this year.
Under the Miranda plan, as soon as Bush nominated a justice, Republicans and conservatives would issue press releases pre-emptively to deflect liberal efforts to define the nominee. Conservative groups would issue their own information packets while selected Republican senators would make statements and floor speeches.
The business community would be expected to fund the communications campaign.Of course. It might be a long, hot summer in Washington, but make sure not to miss any of it should a Bush nominee head to the Senate for consideration.
Senate Dems create a "war room"... finally
This is great news, however belated. The Las Vegas Review-Journal's Steve Tetreault explains:
Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., the incoming Senate minority leader, said Monday he is forming a communications "war room" to promote Democrats' messages and respond to Republican criticism.At least they're starting to figure out how parties were supposed to run in the early nineties... I guess they're only about a decade late. Things might begin to improve, however, as the Dems actually communicate with the electorate.
Reid continued to put his stamp on the Senate leadership when he announced creation of a Senate Democratic Communications Center that will aim to keep the party in the public eye. The center will be launched Jan. 4, when the Senate convenes for its 2005 session.
Jim Manley, press secretary for Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., has been hired as staff director for the center, which will be located in the U.S. Capitol.
Phil Singer, a former media adviser to Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., will be communications director, handling "rapid response" as Democrats seek to keep their messages on pace with the White House and Republicans in Congress. Singer also worked as national spokesman for the presidential campaign of Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass.
A 15-member message team will include press aides who will publicize Democratic activities to Internet news organizations and bloggers, Reid said.
[...]
Reid's office also announced he will appear on NBC's "Meet the Press" on Sunday.
Josh Marshall: Get on the government reform bandwagon
I couldn't agree more with Joshua Micah Marshall over at Talking Points Memo more on this issue:
I really think that one of the most potent arguments the Democrats can use in trying to win back Congress and the White House is attacking the questionable tactics of the ruling GOP. I've said it many times, but it may come down to these five words:
A few days ago I said that the Democrats have yet to really understand what it means to be or act like a true party of opposition. I mean many things by this, which I hope to explore in the coming weeks and months. But in this case, for what we're discussing on the site now, I'm referring to how opposition can enable reformism.Link.
Before 1994 and, to a lesser degree, before 2000, Democrats simply weren't in a position to adopt a genuine reform agenda because they were too implicated in the institutional corruption, the money chase, that is modern Washington. They could want change in some abstract way and they push for it at the margins. But their way of doing business on the Hill and in Washington generally was inseparable from it. It's how they ran Congress; it was how they raised their money to win elections; their friends (and that means personal and professional friends) who'd already cycled into the lobbying sector made their money from it; and many or most of them expected eventually to do the same.
[...]
I’ve always been a bit sour and suspicious about that political creature homo goodgovernmentus, and the allure of a politics unconnected to interests or money or patronage. There is such a thing as ‘honest graft’, to use the phrase of the old city machines. Patronage and political machines can and often do help to shape politics in beneficial ways. And to me getting good results in legislation and governance is much more important than the purity of how those results are achieved. At their worst good government or clean government types put the niceties of process and purity over the good legislation. (That's one reason why reformism has often had a hard time escaping an elitist coloration.)
I really think that one of the most potent arguments the Democrats can use in trying to win back Congress and the White House is attacking the questionable tactics of the ruling GOP. I've said it many times, but it may come down to these five words:
Government accountability and fiscal responsibility
Who will replace Ridge at the HSA?
Josh Marshall has some ideas:
Yet again (from Reuters)...
Bush's current homeland security adviser, Frances Townsend, is one of the leading candidates to succeed Ridge. Another possible successor is Undersecretary Asa Hutchinson, analysts said.That, or the guy who installed the alarm system at the ranch.
Ridge gone at Homeland Security Department
Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge has informed the White House and department staff that he has resigned, U.S. officials said Tuesday.Link.
In an e-mail circulated to senior Homeland Security officials, Ridge praised the department as "an extraordinary organization that each day contributes to keeping America safe and free." He also said he was privileged to work with the department's 180,000 employees "who go to work every day dedicated to making our company better and more secure."
Government officials, speaking on grounds of anonymity because a formal announcement was pending, confirmed his resignation. A Washington news conference was scheduled for mid-afternoon.
Again, with much of the news that has been recently trickling out, this is not entirely surprising. Perhaps the next nominee might have the fortitude to stand up to the President and Congress to ensure that we are indeed protected from the many threats that we actually face today.
A look at the 2005 New York Mayoral race
For those interested, Josh Kurtz had an extremely interesting piece in Roll Call yesterday on the New York Mayoral race, and specifically Democratic Congressman Anthony Weiner's chances [link, but paid registration is required]. Here's the crux of the story:
As he edges closer to running for mayor of New York in 2005, Rep. Anthony Weiner (D) says he will use as a model the last Congressman who was elected mayor of Gotham: Ed Koch.An interesting piece, you should definitely check out the rest if you have the subscription or access to the LexisNexis news search.
"My campaign will be evocative of how Ed Koch got elected,"Weiner said in a recent interview. "He didn't win any county [in the city]. But he was the second choice in every county."
Koch also operated largely under the radar as better-known opponents got into the race, eventually winning by appealing to middle-class voters of various ethnicities.
"I'm going to sell myself as a five-borough fighter for New York," Weiner said.
[...]
Because the 40-year-old Congressman doesn't have to sacrifice his House seat, he can keep his job while using this campaign to build name recognition for another try in 2009 if he loses this time - much as Koch, a Democrat who backed President Bush in 2004, built on an aborted run for City Hall in 1973 to win four years later.
Other notable New York mayors, including Fiorello LaGuardia (R) and John Lindsay (R), have also progressed from Capitol Hill to City Hall.
The next Chairman of the DNC?
Word has it that Congressman Martin Frost, a former member of the House Leadership and a Texas Democrat redistricted out of office this year by Tom DeLay, is considering a bid for the Chairmanship of the Democratic National Committee. In theory, he is someone I would be more than willing to support. The AP runs the story:
Defeated Texas Congressman Martin Frost is among potential candidates for chairman of the Democratic National Committee who are telephoning members about the situation, a leading Democrat said Monday.As this race pans out, I will endeavor to cover it as well as possible on Basie!
"The following candidates are making phone calls to DNC members — Howard Dean Donnie Fowler, Martin Frost and Leo Hindery," said Mark Brewer, party chairman in Michigan and president of the Association of State Democratic Chairs.
Frost, a member of the House Democratic leadership team before Texas redistricting cost him his job in the November, would add a high-profile name to the mix of potential candidates. Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack and former Labor Secretary Alexis Herman have said they will not try for the job.
[...]
Frost spokeswoman Susan McAvoy said: "Martin is taking some calls and has placed some calls" but emphasized he was merely exploring possibilities.
Monday, November 29, 2004
GOP chooses pork over science
I would say this is surprising, but really it's not. The New York Times' Robert Pear explains:
Congress has cut the budget for the National Science Foundation, an engine for research in science and technology, just two years after endorsing a plan to double the amount given to the agency.The Republican Party obviously cares more about short-term political gain for it's members than advancing knowledge that could save American lives and provide technology that could improve the quality of life for millions of Americans.
Supporters of scientific research, in government and at universities, noted that the cut came as lawmakers earmarked more money for local projects like the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in Cleveland and the Punxsutawney Weather Museum in Pennsylvania.
David M. Stonner, director of Congressional affairs at the science foundation, said on Monday that the reduction might be just the beginning of a period of austerity. Congress, Mr. Stonner said, told the agency to expect "a series of flat or slightly declining budgets for the next several years."
In renewing the legal authority for science programs in late 2002, Congress voted to double the budget of the science foundation by 2007. The agency finances the work and training of many mathematicians, physicists, chemists, engineers, computer scientists, biologists and environmental experts. [emphasis added]
Will the FDA whistleblower be punished?
When David Graham spoke truthfully to Congressional Committees about the dire state of drug reviews at the FDA, he was willing to risk his job to make the American people safer. Now, despite the efforts of Chuck Grassley, he might lose his job. The Washington Post's Marc Kaufman has the story buried on page A17 of tomorrows paper.
Food and Drug Administration whistle-blower David J. Graham believes he will soon be transferred or fired in retaliation for telling a congressional hearing that the agency is falling short on ensuring drug safety, but his Senate champion is trying to keep that from happening.If Graham is indeed fired for doing his job properly rather than toeing the line for the GOP, it will be a sad day for America. Maybe not Mr. Smith Goes To Washington sad, but disappointing nonetheless.
In a letter sent yesterday to acting FDA Commissioner Lester M. Crawford, Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) formally asked whether Graham was going to be moved, and made clear that he would regard any reassignment as punishment for Graham's public criticism of the agency.
"I understand that retaliatory action against dissident employees can come under many guises," Grassley wrote. "Therefore, I . . . request that you address allegations that administrative action may be taken against Dr. Graham, including that he may be terminated or transferred against his wishes to a job other than conducting scientific research. Please advise me whether there is any truth to these allegations."
An FDA spokesman said that he could not comment on personnel matters because of privacy considerations.
The situation in Iraq... not so good
This is really disheartening:
I'm not sure how this situation is going to be fixed--or even if it can be fixed. I certainly hope things improve, however.
The U.S. military death toll in Iraq rose by at least three Monday and the November total is approaching the highest for any month since the American-led invasion was launched in March 2003.Link.
At least 133 U.S. troops have died in Iraq so far this month — only the second time it has topped 100 in any month. The deadliest month was last April when 135 U.S. troops died as the insurgency flared in Sunni-dominated Fallujah, where dozens of U.S. troops died this month.
The Pentagon's official death toll for Iraq stood at 1,251 on Monday, but that did not include two soldiers killed by a roadside bomb in Baghdad and another killed in a vehicle accident. When the month began, the death toll stood at 1,121, the Pentagon said.
It was not clear whether the bombing deaths of two Marines south of Baghdad on Sunday were included in the overall count the Pentagon published Monday.
Also Monday, Osama bin Laden's top deputy vowed in a videotape aired Monday to keep fighting the United States until Washington changed its policies.
I'm not sure how this situation is going to be fixed--or even if it can be fixed. I certainly hope things improve, however.
Charlie Cook looks at 2008
This is great stuff, especially for historical nuts like me (even if it's a week old now):
The 2008 presidential campaign promises to be the first White House contest since 1928 with neither an incumbent president nor vice president in the running. What's more, neither side has an heir apparent, meaning that we face the truly extraordinary prospect of wide-open contests for both major parties' nominations.Check the link for the rest of this enjoyable piece.
As a result, we are likely to see huge fields of candidates -- truly Cecil B. DeMille productions on both sides of the aisle. On the Republican side, roughly from right to left, we could have Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, Sen. George Allen of Virginia, Gov. Haley Barbour of Mississippi, Gov. Bill Owens of Colorado, Gov. Jeb Bush of Florida, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee, Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, Sen. John McCain of Arizona, Gov. Mitt Romney of Massachusetts, Gov. George Pataki of New York, and former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani. Certainly, not all of these people will run. (We aren't likely to see Hagel and McCain competing against each other. And Gov. Bush has already said once he will not run in 2008, though that hasn't stopped the Great Mentioner from whispering his name.) But half of these possible candidates -- and, very likely, others -- probably will make a bid for the White House.
On the Democratic side, also from right to left, there's Gov. Mark Warner of Virginia, Sen. Evan Bayh of Indiana, Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico, Gov. Tom Vilsack of Iowa, Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina, Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, and, of course, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York.
The Bush Mandate
Kudos to Atrios for finding this:
Does President Bush have a mandate to advance the Republican agenda? Twenty-nine percent of the respondents in this CNN-USA Today-Gallup poll said yes. Sixty-three percent said no.-- Wolf Blitzer, CNN's Late Edition, November 28, 2004
Quote of the Day
ABC's The Note finds this gem from Mike Allen's front page article in today's Washington Post:
One senior administration official said Treasury Secretary John W. Snow can stay as long as he wants, provided it is not very long.Link.
Supreme Court leaves gay marriage legal--for now
At least this is a step in the right direction, I suppose.
My assumption is that the conservatives realize they don't have the votes to overturn the measure with Rehnquist out indefinitely (a 4-4 tie would uphold the lower court's decision without making precedent), so they chose instead to sidestep the issue. Regardless, it is good to see the Court staying out of this issue.
The Supreme Court on Monday sidestepped a dispute over gay marriages, rejecting a challenge to the nation's only law sanctioning such unions.Link.
Justices had been asked by conservative groups to overturn the year-old decision by the Massachusetts Supreme Court legalizing gay marriage. They declined, without comment.
In the past year, at least 3,000 gay Massachusetts couples have wed, although voters may have a chance next year to change the state constitution to permit civil union benefits to same-sex couples, but not the institution of marriage.
Critics of the November 2003 ruling by the highest court in Massachusetts argue that it violated the U.S. Constitution's guarantee of a republican form of government in each state. They lost at the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston.
My assumption is that the conservatives realize they don't have the votes to overturn the measure with Rehnquist out indefinitely (a 4-4 tie would uphold the lower court's decision without making precedent), so they chose instead to sidestep the issue. Regardless, it is good to see the Court staying out of this issue.
Americans say abortion should be legal
Will the President listen, though?
The AP's Will Lester reports:
The AP's Will Lester reports:
A majority of Americans say President Bush's next choice for an opening on the Supreme Court should be willing to uphold the landmark court decision protecting abortion rights, an Associated Press poll found.America is pro-choice, so I certainly hope that the President listens to the majority of this country that is in favor of Roe v. Wade.
The poll found that 59 percent say Bush should choose a nominee who would uphold the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion. About three in 10, 31 percent, said they want a nominee who would overturn the decision, according to the poll conducted for the AP by Ipsos-Public Affairs.
[...]
The preference for Supreme Court nominees who would uphold Roe v. Wade could be found among both men and women, most age groups, most income groups and people living in urban, suburban and rural areas. Fewer than half of Republicans, evangelicals and those over 65 said they favored a nominee who would uphold the abortion ruling.
Will Rice pass the test?
It appears as though it might be a little longer than expected until we know if Condi Rice is confirmed as the next Secretary of State:
This is relatively interesting, if mundane. It'll be fun to watch the confirmation hearings, even if she will undoubtedly be confirmed.
At the White House's request, confirmation hearings for Condoleezza Rice as secretary of state will not begin until Congress reconvenes in January, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee said Sunday.Link.
When President Bush nominated his national security adviser to replace Colin Powell at the State Department, Sen. Richard Lugar said he would try to bring his committee together in the first week of December to begin the Senate confirmation process.
"The White House suggested that that would not be appropriate — that is, in December," Lugar said on "Fox News Sunday." "So we'll not be having hearings in December, but we'll have hearings as soon as possible in January."
This is relatively interesting, if mundane. It'll be fun to watch the confirmation hearings, even if she will undoubtedly be confirmed.
Back in Claremont...
Blogging to commence soon (a little tonight, then back to the grindstone tomorrow). Hope you enjoy.
Sunday, November 28, 2004
Alabama chooses segregation
This is disgusting, really. Manuel Roig-Franzia explains on the front page of today's Washington Post:
On that long-ago day of Alabama's great shame, Gov. George C. Wallace (D) stood in a schoolhouse door and declared that his state's constitution forbade black students to enroll at the University of Alabama.What is wrong with some people in this country?
He was correct.
If Wallace could be brought back to life today to reprise his 1963 moment of infamy outside Foster Auditorium, he would still be correct. Alabama voters made sure of that Nov. 2, refusing to approve a constitutional amendment to erase segregation-era wording requiring separate schools for "white and colored children" and to eliminate references to the poll taxes once imposed to disenfranchise blacks.
The vote was so close -- a margin of 1,850 votes out of 1.38 million -- that an automatic recount will take place Monday. But, with few expecting the results to change, the amendment's saga has dragged Alabama into a confrontation with its segregationist past that illuminates the sometimes uneasy race relations of its present.
Oregon's economy stalling?
So sayeth The Oregonian's Ted Sickinger:
Oregon's economic recovery, accelerating earlier this year, appears to have stalled.There's much more in this interesting article that gives the entire picture of Oregon's economy. It's up, it's down, but it's not really going anywhere.
The question now, heading into holiday retail prime time, is whether the recovery will plow through the doldrums and regain momentum, or whether the state will fall back into stagnation or another string of job losses.
Most regional economists are optimistic.
The tea leaves they read have been telling a positive story for much of the year. Businesses have sold more and exported more, and they have spent more beefing up plants, offices and personnel. Most importantly, since statewide employment bottomed out in June 2003, Oregon has regained two-thirds of the jobs lost during the recession. Along the way, it has registered some of the strongest job growth in the nation, regularly placing in the top 10 among states in year-over-year employment ngingains.
Saturday, November 27, 2004
Iraq WON'T postpone elections
Lovely.
We're losing troops left and right to create a real democracy in the country only to allow the Shi'ites to dominate the Kurds and Sunnis. That's not democracy, that's allowing one religious group to settle old scores.
We're losing troops left and right to create a real democracy in the country only to allow the Shi'ites to dominate the Kurds and Sunnis. That's not democracy, that's allowing one religious group to settle old scores.
A hydrogen-based economy?
It might not be as far off as one might think. Matthew Wald has the scoop in a story in Sunday's Times entitled "Hydrogen Production Method Could Bolster Fuel Supplies":
Researchers at a government nuclear laboratory and a ceramics company in Salt Lake City say they have found a way to produce pure hydrogen with far less energy than other methods, raising the possibility of using nuclear power to indirectly wean the transportation system from its dependence on oil.I'm not such a huge fan of nuclear power (for obvious reasons), but let's read on, shall we?
The development would move the country closer to the Energy Department's goal of a "hydrogen economy," in which hydrogen would be created through a variety of means, and would be consumed by devices called fuel cells, to make electricity to run cars and for other purposes. Experts cite three big roadblocks to a hydrogen economy: manufacturing hydrogen cleanly and at low cost, finding a way to ship it and store it on the vehicles that use it, and reducing the astronomical price of fuel cells.Well, maybe this plan is not the panacea Bush, Schwarzenegger and the Republicans might have you think it is. Nevertheless, we should look into efficient and clean methods of producing hydrogen to help wean us off of traditional fossil fuels. When oil is $200 per barrel, it's not exactly going to be possible for us to be driving Hummers...
"This is a breakthrough in the first part," said J. Stephen Herring, a consulting engineer at the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory, which plans to announce the development on Monday with Cerametec Inc. of Salt Lake City.
The developers also said the hydrogen could be used by oil companies to stretch oil supplies even without solving the fuel cell and transportation problems.
Mr. Herring said the experimental work showed the "highest-known production rate of hydrogen by high-temperature electrolysis."
But the plan requires the building of a new kind of nuclear reactor, at a time when the United States is not even building conventional reactors. And the cost estimates are uncertain.
Republicans ready to permanently bankrupt America
If this weren't so predictable I'd be outraged. The Times' Richard Stevenson writes up the GOP's blind embrace of deficits in Sunday's paper:
The White House and Republicans in Congress are all but certain to embrace large-scale government borrowing to help finance President Bush's plan to create personal investment accounts in Social Security, according to administration officials, members of Congress and independent analysts.A trillion here, a trillion there... it's not like anyone ever has to repay the debt. Oops! I do--that is to say my generation and the following generations will have to pay for the trillions Bush and his cronies in the Congress have added to the national debt, and I can tell you right now I'm none to happy about it. Judging by Bush's awful showing among those under 30, I'm not alone in my anger, either. If there's any way the Democrats can get back into power, these five words may hold the key:
The White House says it has made no decisions about how to pay for establishing the accounts, and among Republicans on Capitol Hill there are divergent opinions about how much borrowing would be prudent at a time when the government is running large budget deficits. Many Democrats say that the costs associated with setting up personal accounts just make Social Security's financial problems worse, and that the United States can scarcely afford to add to its rapidly growing national debt.
But proponents of Mr. Bush's effort to make investment accounts the centerpiece of an overhaul of the retirement system said there were no realistic alternatives to some increases in borrowing, a requirement the White House is beginning to acknowledge.
Government accountability and fiscal responsibility
Senator Jon Corzine running for Governor
Interesting news, to say the least, though not entirely surprising as Corzine has indicated a desire to sit in the New Jersey statehouse for quite some time. Here's the scoop:
If he ends up winning, I really hope he doesn't appoint his child a la Frank Murkowski in Alaska...
U.S. Sen. Jon Corzine has decided to seek the Democratic nomination for governor in 2005 and will announce his plans at a news conference next week, according to seven Democrats with direct knowledge of his intentions.Link.
At the news conference, expected to be held in northern New Jersey on Wednesday or Thursday, Corzine, D-Hoboken, will announce that he is planning to run for governor and will form an exploratory committee. Corzine, New Jersey's senior senator, will then embark on a series of meetings with Democratic leaders to set up a fund-raising organization to lay the groundwork for a formal campaign kickoff early next year.
Corzine, one adviser said, was ready to announce his candidacy last week, but waited out of deference to Richard Codey, the state Senate president who became acting governor on Nov. 16.
Corzine spent Thanksgiving with his mother in Chicago yesterday and was unavailable for comment. His spokesman, David Wald, said he could not confirm Corzine's plans.
Corzine will be the first Democrat to announce his candidacy for the job vacated by James E. McGreevey, who resigned because of a gay sex scandal.
A recent Quinnipiac University poll found that Corzine has high voter approval ratings and holds an early advantage of at least 20 percentage points in head-to-head match-ups with several potential Republican candidates. The poll also said he held a 40-point lead over Codey in a potential Democratic primary match-up.
If he ends up winning, I really hope he doesn't appoint his child a la Frank Murkowski in Alaska...
Ukraine to hold a new election?
This might be the first good news out of the region in some time.
Ukraine's parliament on Saturday declared invalid the disputed presidential election that triggered a week of growing street protests and legal maneuvers, raising the possibility that a new vote could be held in this former Soviet republic.The Bush administration helped get the world into this mess by constantly pandering to Putin, so if they don't fix it (the possibility remains that they do, though), there will be much blood and suffering on their hands.
Parliament's vote came amid a flurry of domestic and international support for the possibility of a revote. A European Union envoy — Dutch Foreign Minister Ben Bot — said new elections were the "ideal outcome" for the standoff between Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovych and Viktor Yushchenko. Asked if new elections were the only solution, Ben Bot answered: "Yes."
The Unian news agency quoted Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman Alexander Yakovenko as saying Friday that Moscow regarded a potential revote favorably — an apparent significant retreat from its earlier insistence that the Nov. 21 elections were fair and valid.
Parliament's move was not legally binding but clearly demonstrated rising dissatisfaction with the announced outcome. The United States and other Western nations contend the vote was marred by massive fraud.
Friday, November 26, 2004
Hastert: Let's make Congress more partisan
I'm so glad House Speaker Denny Hastert wants to unite us, not divide us... no wait, he has now admitted he wants to divide us. Charles Babington has the front page article in Saturday's Washington Post.
In scuttling major intelligence legislation that he, the president and most lawmakers supported, Speaker J. Dennis Hastert last week enunciated a policy in which Congress will pass bills only if most House Republicans back them, regardless of how many Democrats favor them.This is sick, really; it's quite disappointing how the GOP has ruined Washington.
Hastert's position, which is drawing fire from Democrats and some outside groups, is the latest step in a decade-long process of limiting Democrats' influence and running the House virtually as a one-party institution. Republicans earlier barred House Democrats from helping to draft major bills such as the 2003 Medicare revision and this year's intelligence package. Hastert (R-Ill.) now says such bills will reach the House floor, after negotiations with the Senate, only if "the majority of the majority" supports them.
Senators from both parties, leaders of the Sept. 11 commission and others have sharply criticized the policy. The long-debated intelligence bill would now be law, they say, if Hastert and his lieutenants had been humble enough to let a high-profile measure pass with most votes coming from the minority party.
That is what Democrats did in 1993, when most House Democrats opposed the North American Free Trade Agreement. President Bill Clinton backed NAFTA, and leaders of the Democratic-controlled House allowed it to come to a vote. The trade pact passed because of heavy GOP support, with 102 Democrats voting for it and 156 voting against. Newt Gingrich of Georgia, the House GOP leader at the time, declared: "This is a vote for history, larger than politics . . . larger than personal ego."
Such bipartisan spirit in the Capitol now seems a faint echo. Citing the increased marginalization of Democrats as House bills are drafted and brought to the floor, Rep. David E. Price (D-N.C.) said, "It's a set of rules and practices which the Republicans have taken to new extremes."
Huge shocker: Iraqi elections postponed
I'm not sure what it is about constant insurgent attacks and war that would make truly democratic elections difficult, but for some reason, the Iraqis are looking to postpone their elections for a while:
Gosh is this surprising!
Leading Iraqi politicians called Friday for a six-month delay in the Jan. 30 election because of the spiraling violence as U.S. forces uncovered more bodies in the northern city of Mosul, apparent victims of an intimidation campaign by insurgents against Iraq's fledgling security forces.Link.
Asked about their demand for the election to be postponed, President George W. Bush, at his vacation home in Texas, said, "The Iraqi Election Commission has scheduled elections in January, and I would hope they'd go forward in January."
But the country's deputy prime minister told an audience Friday in Wales that sticking to the election timetable would be difficult because of the security crisis.
Gosh is this surprising!
Democrats DO have much to be thankful for
Carl Jeffers editorializing in today's Seattle Times explains why:
[T]he 55 million Americans who voted for John Kerry seem to be going through a self-flagellation process in which they feel sad, angry, hopelessly lost, and pessimistic about the future of the country and the Democratic Party. Thanks to the re-emergence of "red state" moral issues, they also feel somewhat isolated in their own country.How true. Though the Democrats did lose this year, they overlook many of the trends that can help them in the future. This is a great piece and also worth reading on this, the day after Thanksgiving.
Those voters do not need to feel so pessimistic about the future of their party, or of progressive liberal thought. Let's review some facts. In losing, Kerry received more votes than any other previous presidential candidate, including Al Gore and two-time winner Bill Clinton.
And while President Bush's numbers moved up among several important voting groups, particularly Hispanics, here's the reality. Kerry won the Hispanic vote by almost 10 points, he overwhelmingly won the African-American vote with close to 89 percent, he won the Jewish vote and those of gays, liberals and independents, single moms, working moms, and the 18-to-30-year-old group.
Who is the newest US Attorney General?
The LA Times seems to feel Alberto Gonzales is a generally moderate man who is not easily described in ideological terms. Staff writer Richard B. Schmitt reports in "Sizing Up Man Who Would Be Atty. Gen."
In November 2000, the Texas Supreme Court, fast shedding its long-standing reputation as a friend to injured workers and other plaintiffs, did something unexpected.Gonzales, of course, is a man who also called the Geneva Convention "obsolete" and "quaint."
Taking the lead was Alberto R. Gonzales, the court's newest member, who had been appointed by George W. Bush, the governor at the time.
While the presidential election ballots were still being counted in Florida, the staunchly pro-business court in Texas revived a lawsuit that had been filed by the family of a deceased metal pourer. The laborer had died of a lung disease caused by years of exposure to asbestos fibers at the aluminum plant where he had worked for 25 years.
Lower courts had dismissed the suit because the man had brought a previous case over another asbestos-related condition he suffered, and state law barred plaintiffs from filing multiple suits for the same toxic exposure. But the state's high court, in an opinion written by Gonzales, overturned that ruling.
"Permitting limitations to run on terminal injuries before the plaintiff knows of them is unjust," Gonzales wrote. He added that the interests of the asbestos companies "must be balanced against the plaintiff's need of an opportunity to seek redress for the gravest injuries, those culminating in wrongful death."
The opinion by Gonzales, President Bush's nominee to become the next attorney general, suggests he might be less doctrinaire than his work as White House counsel indicates.
But friends and former associates, and even some adversaries, say Gonzales also has shown a balance that has been obscured in his service to Bush over the years.The piece is definitely interesting and worth reading this morning, should you not be at Target rushing to get holiday gifts.
Now, with his presumed ascent to the top of the Justice Department, people are starting to wonder which Gonzales will show up for work: the relative moderate who emphasizes a low-key, fact-based approach to the law, or the ardent advocate who follows the marching orders of his president and friend and his expansive view of presidential power.
Thank you, CNN
This was entirely helpful.
A deck of cards, two computer mice, some salad and two slivers of pie, please.Link.
If you're hoping to keep this Thanksgiving from turning into another gut-busting affair, that's what your plate should look like: a serving of turkey no larger than a deck of playing cards and half a cup each of two starches. (A half-cup is about the size of a computer mouse.)
And that's being generous.
Thursday, November 25, 2004
How did the nation's Hispanics actually vote?
Darryl Fears, a staff writer on Thanksgiving duty, has an interesting article in Friday's Washington Post on the Hispanic vote in the 2004 election. In "Pollsters Debate Hispanics' Presidential Voting", he writes thusly:
In the days before the presidential election, some opinion surveys said Democrats would get as much as 65 percent of the Hispanic vote.Interesting stuff. I always thought it was a bit fishy to believe that Bush picked up that much of the Hispanic vote, but now there is some real data to back up that hunch. Check out the whole article for more details.
But on the morning after the voting, some exit polls held that Democratic nominee John F. Kerry had received about 56 percent of Hispanics' votes and that President Bush had gotten 44 percent.
Now some public opinion researchers are trying to determine the reasons for the discrepancies between the pre- and post-election numbers.
[...]
[Pollster John] Zogby believes the correct percentage for Hispanic Bush supporters is 33 to 38. That view is supported by an exit poll conducted by the William C. Velasquez Institute of San Antonio.
In that exit poll, Hispanics favored Kerry over Bush by 65 percent to 34 percent. Fernando J. Guerra, a political science professor at Loyola Marymount University in Los Angeles, said hundreds of researchers have posted comments that support the institute's survey.
"There's nothing special that Bush did to get a higher turnout," Guerra said, doubting that the president won 44 percent of the Hispanic vote. "What would explain this tremendous amount of Latino support for Bush?"
Fiscal sanity for the Democrats
The New Republic's Clay Risen offers some advice to the Democrats on this Thanksgiving weekend on how to reclaim the national platform: fiscal sanity.
It's a lesson Democrats should take to heart--and place at the center of their congressional agenda over the next two years. To be sure, no one should expect Tom Coburn to become the new best friend of spending-conscious Democrats. But his presence in the Senate, along with the increasing unease of many fiscal conservatives, presents Democrats with an opportunity. The Democrats can remake themselves as the party of fiscal sanity and paint the president's agenda as a waste of the country's future. They can work across the aisle with fiscal conservatives like Coburn to highlight Bush's most egregious proposals, and they can force the GOP leadership to make politically painful decisions about spending cuts for popular programs. They can also begin to frame the deficit in personal--even moral--terms, perhaps by using Bush's rhetoric of an "ownership society" against him. With ownership, after all, comes responsibility, and, thanks to Bush, we all own a piece of America's crushing debt. Such a strategy could be even more effective if U.S. currency began to slip rapidly. If the deficit continues to grow, currency experts say the dollar will plunge, driving up inflation and putting the squeeze on working families. By voting against costly proposals while laying the country's worsening fiscal situation at Bush's feet, Democrats can give lie to the "tax-and-spend liberal" stereotype and set the stage for a candidate who promises to clean house, much as Bill Clinton did in 1992.
Democrats fight back
The GOP almost succeeded in allowing their Appropriations Chairmen to secretly snoop around your tax returns, but the Democrats would have none of it. Now, they're using this issue to quite effectively hammer the Republicans.
About time the Democrats stand up to the GOP. One party rule is not good for America.
A handful of lawmakers voted for spending legislation to keep the government from shutting down as House Democrats resolved to let Republicans twist in the wind a little longer over a provision passed last week that both parties agree was a bad idea.Link.
They'll fix it later, when the Democrats decide to let the Republicans stop sweating. For now, Wednesday's vote by skeleton crews in the House and Senate on a stopgap spending bill keeps the government operating until early December.
The holdup is over language buried in a $388 billion spending bill that could let leaders of Congress' Appropriations committees examine income tax returns.
Both parties favor killing the tax return idea before it becomes law and the Senate has already voted to do so. But Democrats blocked a House vote until Dec. 6.
That delay gave Democrats more time to criticize majority Republicans for letting the provision slip through and for using their muscle to ram bills through Congress with little chance for lawmakers to learn what is in them. The overall bill and accompanying documents stood 3,646 pages tall on lawmakers' desks when they approved it Saturday.
About time the Democrats stand up to the GOP. One party rule is not good for America.
Democrats resurgent in Southern California
San Diego, once a bastion of the right, is trending ever-more Democrat in recent years in a sign that California is becoming less and less welcoming to the GOP. The LA Times' Tony Perry reports in an article entitled "Close Race Reflects a Party Shift":
How did a last-minute write-in candidacy by a Democrat who owns a surf shop come within a few thousand votes of dethroning a Republican mayor in Republican-dominated San Diego?This is positive news, even given the fact that the Democrats don't really need any more votes in California (save for in Congressional races, but even those are gerrymandered to the point that their elections don't even matter).
Answer: This is not your grandfather's San Diego. Maybe it never was.
[...]
[C]onsider these facts: Five of eight members of the City Council are Democrats. That number will soon be six of nine when a vacancy is filled by a special election between two Democrats.
Democrats lead Republicans in voter registration by 39% to 34%. Twenty-two percent of voters decline to state a party affiliation, although many political operatives believe their views on environmental protection make them Democrats in all but name.
City voters backed John Kerry this month, Al Gore in 2000 and Bill Clinton in 1996.
Labor unions have grown in power in recent years, and several council members owe their elections to contributions and campaign manpower provided by union members.
Oregon's gas ONLY $2.04 per gallon
This is good news?
Drivers should find slightly lower gasoline prices during the Thanksgiving weekend.Link.
The average price for a gallon of unleaded in Oregon was down 2 cents to $2.04 in the most recent AAA Oregon/Idaho survey. In Salem, it was down a penny to $2.02.
That still is 38 cents higher than a year ago.
The national average was $1.94. Oregon's average price was tied with Washington's for 10th-highest in the nation.
Wednesday, November 24, 2004
Basie! over Thanksgiving
I'll be up and reporting through the Thanksgiving weekend (though I'm assuming at a somewhat less frequent pace), so make sure to check in often during this period for coverage of politics and other such things.
What's wrong with Massachusetts?
Apparently, they still have a law discriminating against Native Americans on their books, but Boston Mayor Thomas Menino wants that changed.
This news also evokes a cartoon in this week's issue of The New Yorker:
Click to buy a copy of the cartoon
It was a symbolic move, but an important one for a city that prides itself on diversity, according to Mayor Thomas M. Menino: Yesterday, the mayor asked the Legislature to repeal the 1675 Indian Imprisonment Act, the Colonial law authorizing the arrest of American Indians who enter the city of Boston.This is a step in the right direction, even if it's only symbolic.
The law, enacted during the bloody conflict known as King Philip's War, has not been enforced for centuries. Armed guards no longer stand at the outskirts of Boston, as the law has stipulated for nearly 330 years, on the lookout for Native Americans who might seek entry into the city. Indians in Boston are no longer required to be escorted around town by two musketeers. And yet, the Legislature has never gotten around to taking the law off the books.
"The Indian Imprisonment Act was made to discriminate, made to intimidate, and this law has no place in Boston," Menino said. "As long as it remains on the books, this law will tarnish our image." Its repeal, the mayor said, "will send the message that hate and discrimination have no place in our city."
This news also evokes a cartoon in this week's issue of The New Yorker:
Click to buy a copy of the cartoon
One more auditor says Halliburton should be docked
From the Houston Chronicle, of all places:
Another government auditor has added his voice to a call for the Pentagon to impose a 15 percent withholding on Halliburton Co.'s payments for work in Iraq.Link.
from Stuart Bowen, whose staff had scrutinized the Houston contracting firm while he served as auditor for the Iraq's Coalition Provisional Authority, said that based on his work, the Army should be cutting payments until it gets better documentation of spending in Iraq.
Halliburton subsidiary KBR did not provide "sufficiently detailed cost data to evaluate overall project costs or to determine whether specific costs for services performed were reasonable," according to the memo from Bowen.
This supports the recommendation by the Army Materiel Command, which has asked that the payments be reduced.
The CIA: And then there were none
New CIA chief Porter Goss, an extremely partisan Republican appointed by President Bush this fall, is accomplishing his task of overhauling the agency quite successfully. Unfortunately, his success is actually a failure as the only people who he is pressuring to leave are the competent, yet not partisan, analysts. The New York Times Douglas Jehl reports:
Two more senior officials of the Central Intelligence Agency's clandestine service are stepping down, intelligence officials said Wednesday, in the latest sign of upheaval in the agency under its new chief, Porter J. Goss.Goss also recently prepared a memorandum essentially stating that any disagreement with the President would not be tolerated. In my mind, Goss's partisan actions should not be tolerated and he should be removed from office.
As the chiefs of the Europe and Far East divisions, the two officials have headed spying operations in some of the most important regions of the world and were among a group known as the barons in the highest level of clandestine service, the Directorate of Operations.
[...]
A former intelligence official described the two as "very senior guys" who were stepping down because they did not feel comfortable with new management.
In a memorandum to agency employees last week, Mr. Goss warned that more personnel changes were coming as part of what he described as an effort to rebuild the ability of the agency to perform its core mission of stealing secrets.
I'm back in Portland...
Blogging soon to commence.
I'm off to Portland
Blogging will resume soon from the Rose City. Talk to you soon!
FBI finally does its job, investigates Halliburton fraud
The AP's John Solomon gets the story:
This also evokes five important words:
FBI agents recently spent a day interviewing the Army contracting officer who raised concerns that the Pentagon improperly awarded contracts without competition to Halliburton Co., Vice President Dick Cheney's former company.It's time for the media and the Democrats hold this adminsitration accountable for their misdeeds.
The Army Corps of Engineers contract officer, Bunnatine Greenhouse, was interviewed last week and now is gathering documents requested by the FBI and Army criminal investigators, her lawyer said Wednesday.
"They questioned her about all of her concerns, and they asked questions regarding potential involvement of people at higher-level positions," attorney Michael Kohn said in an interview.
The Associated Press reported last month that the FBI had expanded a criminal probe into allegations Halliburton overcharged the government for fuel, adding questions about whether the Bush administration had improperly awarded business without bidding to Halliburton in Iraq and the Balkans.
This also evokes five important words:
Government accountability and fiscal responsibility
Oregon may be hungry, but it's not the hungriest
I don't think this news is cause for celebration, but at least it's nevertheless somewhat good news.
Oregon is no longer the hungriest state in the nation, according to newly released federal statistics, but 12.9 percent of Oregon households still reported having difficulty providing food for all members of the family during at least one point of the year.It appears that this improvement is a result of some hard work.
Still, the percentage of Oregon households reporting occasional hunger declined to eighth in the nation between 2001 and 2003, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
The state held the first-in-the-nation spot from 1995 to 2001, according to previous reports.
Oregon's high hunger rates appear to be the result of high costs of living that are especially hard on its working poor, said Bruce Weber, an economist at Oregon State University who has studied the state's hunger problem.I certainly hope all Oregonians--and indeed all Americans--will have a warm meal tomorrow night (not to mention the rest of the year).
He and others involved with studying and fighting hunger say Oregon's aggressive efforts to extend food stamps to more residents and to stock its food pantries have helped push back hunger in the state, despite high unemployment rates.
During 2001-2003, Oregon increased the number of households receiving food stamps by 34 percent to 135,000 households. The Oregon Food Bank expanded its distribution of emergency food by 22 percent to 647,000 boxes.
They've drafted a Vietnam Vet to go to Iraq now
This is ridiculous!
Unacceptable.
A 53-year-old Vietnam veteran from western Pennsylvania has been called up for active service with the U.S. military in the Iraq war, The Tribune Review of Greensburg, Pennsylvania reported on Wednesday.Link.
Paul Dunlap, a sergeant in the Army National Guard, will join an armored division next month as a telecommunications specialist in Kuwait, and expects to be there for at least a year, the newspaper reported.
Dunlap, who has not been in combat since serving as a 19-year-old Marine in Vietnam, could not be reached for comment. He will leave behind his wife Mary, four children and three grandchildren.
"I don't think any of them want me to go," Dunlap told the paper. "I'm thinking it's a long time since I've been in war."
Unacceptable.
Conservatives to split the 9th Circuit?
Fox News and its viewers certainly hope so:
For many conservatives, the words "9th Circuit" mean more than just a federal appeals court in California. The words embody everything they think is wrong with liberal activism, West Coast politics and the judges who tried to take God out of the Pledge of Allegiance.If this were to occur, one of the last bastions for liberalism in the nation would disappear, and most on the "left coast" would be very disappointed. Is it really going to happen, though?
Those same conservatives think their new clout following President Bush's re-election may help put some weight behind a movement to split up the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, leaving the 9th in California, creating a new 12th Circuit for neighboring Idaho, Arizona, Montana and Nevada; and a new 13th Circuit for Washington, Alaska and Oregon.
By a vote of 205 to 194, the House on Oct. 5 passed an amendment by Rep. Mike Simpson, R-Idaho, to the Bankruptcy Judgeship Act that would divide the 9th Circuit into three parts.If the measure could only get 205 votes in the House, there's no way it would get 50 in the Senate (let alone the 60 to invoke cloture). As a result, I wouldn't worry about this nearly as much as this Fox News story might have me otherwise do.
Republican wants election overturned so he can win
This is priceless:
I wish I had something witty to say about this, but this hypocritical act stands on its own.
State Rep. Talmadge Heflin will ask the state House of Representatives today to overturn the results of his failed re-election bid and either order him returned to the Legislature or call for a new election.Link.
Heflin's attorney, Andy Taylor, said the election results in state House District 149 in southwest Harris County were fraught with voting irregularities and potential fraud, most of which occurred in predominantly Democratic precincts.
"The true outcome of this election was stolen from the voters in House District 149," Taylor said Tuesday. "We will prove that Representative Talmadge Heflin was re-elected."
Heflin, a Republican member of the House since 1983 and chairman of its Appropriations Committee, lost to Democratic businessman Hubert Vo by 32 votes earlier this month. But Heflin's campaign alleges that those election results include at least 248 irregularities that could have altered the outcome.
I wish I had something witty to say about this, but this hypocritical act stands on its own.
Big shocker: Corporations supported the GOP
File this one under not surprising:
The top-giving corporate political action committees didn't hedge their bets in the fall elections despite the narrow division between the GOP and Democrats in Congress. They favored Republican candidates 10-to-1.Link.
Of 268 corporate PACs that donated $100,000 or more to presidential and congressional candidates from January 2003 through the middle of last month, 245 gave the majority of their contributions to GOP hopefuls, according to an analysis released Wednesday by the nonpartisan Political Money Line campaign finance tracking service.
Twenty-three corporate PACs made more than half their donations to Democratic candidates, according to the study, based on the most recent campaign finance reports available.
States do what the feds won't: look out for our safety
While Bush and his FDA have been sleeping on the job, it appears as though a number of states have taken their citizens' health into their own hands and started to review prescription drugs on their own. The AP's Diedtra Henderson reports:
As Congress and others lobby to create an independent board to review the safety of prescription drugs, a dozen states have been doing just that.Oregon has many things to be proud of in this world, and this is one of them.
State officials who manage billions of dollars in annual drug purchases joined together in a project to help them comparison shop, picking the most effective and safest choices from a slew of competing drugs. Their efforts had an unexpected result.
By taking a closer look at a half-dozen existing studies, the project raised safety questions about Vioxx as early as 2002. Two of the earliest member states — Oregon and Washington — used that independent analysis to remove Vioxx from lists of preferred drugs that doctors use when prescribing medication for Medicaid recipients.
Dr. John Santa, medical director of the Drug Effectiveness Review Project, said the project has developed into virtually an independent office of drug safety.John Kitzhaber certainly had a mixed record as Governor of Oregon and leaves a legacy that is in some areas (especially regarding the budget) that is wanting. Nevertheless, if Kitzhaber is remembered for only one thing, it should be for the aforementioned project that's leading the way in analyzing the effectiveness of drugs. Someone has to do it (Bush's FDA is too tied to the Pharmaceutical industry to do anything), and I'm proud that Oregon is the state doing it.
The project provides information to the states about the drugs it studies. It's then up to the states to decide whether to act in response to the material it gets.
[...]
The three-year, $4.2 million undertaking provides its now 12 member states credible, systematic and neutral reviews of drug safety and effectiveness, said Santa, assistant director for health projects at the Center for Evidence-Based Policy in Portland, Ore.
The project's members are the states of Alaska, Arkansas, Idaho, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, North Carolina, Oregon, Washington, Wisconsin and Wyoming and two nonprofit health groups, from California and Canada.
In exchange for annual contributions of $96,600, the states have received a dozen reports, including the early warning on Vioxx and a report this fall that compared new-generation antidepressants.
Oregon's economic situation unfolds
How exactly is the Oregon economy doing? If you read today's Salem Stateman Journal, you'll get somewhat conflicted results.
The paper's Tobey Manthey writes "Oregon economic forecast sours", explaining that the outlook has gone from dour to slightly worse this month. He writes thusly:
Political reporter Peter Wong takes a different look at the forecast, focusing more on its political ramifications. I'm not sure how the paper can run an article with the headline "Forecast for state's economy is mixed" when it also runs an article entitled "Oregon economic forecast sours", but perhaps that's just me. Wong leads with this:
The paper's Tobey Manthey writes "Oregon economic forecast sours", explaining that the outlook has gone from dour to slightly worse this month. He writes thusly:
What had been forecast as a mild economic recovery likely will turn even milder.According to this article, things are turning around--towards the wrong direction.
[...]
The outlook for both jobs and personal-income growth has been downgraded slightly from the September forecast, state economist Tom Potiowsky said.
[...]
Economists still think that the recovery is intact. For 2004, Oregon is expected to see its first year of employment growth after three years of job losses. Job growth for 2004 is expected to be 1.8 percent, down from the previous forecast for 2 percent growth.
Jobs are not expected to reach pre-recession levels until the middle of next year. Employment growth for the next two years is expected to be modest, about 2 percent.
Personal income in Oregon for 2004 now is expected to grow 5.1 percent, down from earlier estimates of 5.6 percent. The decrease came because the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis has revised state personal income figures and has showed substantially lower levels for 2003 and the first half of 2004.
Political reporter Peter Wong takes a different look at the forecast, focusing more on its political ramifications. I'm not sure how the paper can run an article with the headline "Forecast for state's economy is mixed" when it also runs an article entitled "Oregon economic forecast sours", but perhaps that's just me. Wong leads with this:
Santa Claus skipped the Capitol on Tuesday.So from what I gather from these two reports (The Oregonian's front page article today is less analytical than the two Statesman Journal pieces, but you should still check it out if interested), the Oregon economy is doing poorly, but not much worse than expected. Additionally, the statewide economic forecast is getting worse, but not substantially. This is tough stuff to follow (to say the least), but I'll try to parse through it as best I can...
The latest quarterly state economic forecast and income projections offered no unexpected bad news for a governor and legislators who have struggled with budget problems for the past three years.
But they offered no good news, either.
For the next two-year state budget, the report said, lawmakers will have about $11.2 billion from the state's discretionary general fund, which relies mainly on personal and corporate income taxes, and about $800 million from lottery funds.
State economist Tom Potiowsky said that the overall amount is down by about $75 million from the forecast in September, mostly because the amount to be carried over from this budget will be a little less.
"It's a small change, less than 1 percent," he said.
"We've seen a little bit of softness in the Oregon economy relative to the U.S. economy. But for the most part, it's pretty much a nonstory; there is almost no change."
He said that job growth in Oregon has slowed in the past three months, energy prices have soared and high-technology inventories are mounting.
"But the fundamentals of the U.S. economic recovery are still in place," he said.
More on the situation in Ukraine
I seldom agree with Dick Morris, but when he's right, he's right.
I'm very disappointed in (though not surprised by) the fact that Morris neglects to attack President Bush for allowing this coup to take place. Morris, who has long played a roll in trying to help spread Democracy in the region (at least according to the factual Hollywood movie Spinning Boris, which I highly recommend) should get off of his uber-partisan high horse and call a spade a spade. The President messed up this situation by constantly pandering to Putin, and if the people of Ukraine are subjugated by Russia in the years to come, Bush will shoulder a great deal of the blame.
Would-be czar Vladimir Putin has taken a giant step toward reasserting the regional hegemony of the former Soviet Union by stealing the election in Ukraine right under our noses.Link.
As an unpaid, volunteer adviser to Viktor Yushchenko, the democratic candidate for president, I have seen, firsthand, how Viktor Yanukovich, the Putin candidate backed by a coalition of the Russian Mafia, oil barons, former KGB officials and communists stole the election and thwarted the obvious will of the voters.
While the former Soviet Union was composed of many smaller nations, now independent, the key was the combination of Russia and Ukraine. Russia’s 145 million people and Ukraine’s 45 million are the core of what was the Soviet empire.
Reuniting them has to be the primary goal of any aspiring Russian czar. But the Ukrainian people don’t want Russian domination.
I'm very disappointed in (though not surprised by) the fact that Morris neglects to attack President Bush for allowing this coup to take place. Morris, who has long played a roll in trying to help spread Democracy in the region (at least according to the factual Hollywood movie Spinning Boris, which I highly recommend) should get off of his uber-partisan high horse and call a spade a spade. The President messed up this situation by constantly pandering to Putin, and if the people of Ukraine are subjugated by Russia in the years to come, Bush will shoulder a great deal of the blame.
Tuesday, November 23, 2004
Will tax reform actually happen?
Jonathan Weisman and Jeffery H. Birnbaum share page one of the business section in Wednesday's Washington Post in coverage of the illusive issue of tax reform. [For some background on the issue, check out this piece.] The article is great fodder for political junkies like this blogger as it catches up with two politicians long since driven out of Washington. In "Tax Reform Veterans See Hurdles Ahead", they lead thusly:
The two primary architects of Congress's last major tax reform say President Bush so far has failed to lay the groundwork for his ambitious tax agenda and will have to invest a vast amount of political capital to succeed in broadly simplifying the tax code.Whenever you get an article with both Packwood and Rostenkowski, you know it's going to be good. Weisman and Birnbaum delve into the history of the 1986 Tax Reform bill and relate it to the situation faced by the Bush administration today. It's a definite must-read for those interested in that type of stuff [this blogger included].
Former representative Dan Rostenkowski, an Illinois Democrat, who chaired the House Ways and Means Committee during the battle over the 1986 tax reform act, and former senator Robert Packwood, a Republican from Oregon, who headed the Senate Finance Committee, disagree on the ultimate prospects. Rostenkowski gives tax reform little chance while Packwood is more sanguine
[...]
Both Rostenkowski and Packwood left Congress in the 1990s under a cloud, with Rostenkowski under indictment for corruption charges and Packwood immersed in a sex scandal. But they shared a triumph, the 1986 tax reform act, which lowered tax rates, simplified the income tax system and closed a slew of tax loopholes that had been allowing affluent companies and individuals to escape taxation altogether.
Packwood is now a lobbyist in Washington, and Rostenkowski is a corporate consultant. Now that Bush has signaled he will pursue his campaign pledge to simplify the tax code, the two tarnished ex-lawmakers may be back in demand.
How America is handling the Ukraine situation
Glenn Kessler has a very interesting piece tucked well inside the A section of Wednesday's Washington Post regarding the tough decisions America must make regarding the recent election in Ukraine. In "For the U.S., a Balancing Act on Ukraine", Kessler writes as follows:
George W. Bush may have looked into Vladimir Putin's heart and seen good, but that's just not good enough. The safety of America rests on truly functioning Democracies around the world, and if today we allow the Russians to dominate their neighbors we will have no credibility in the world tomorrow (not that we have much today).
If Bush doesn't stand up to Putin, he must be held accountable, and if it's not the Democrats speaking, I surely hope Hagel, McCain or Lugar speaks up.
The Bush administration is seeking to support Ukrainian demonstrators who are challenging official results declaring that a Moscow-backed candidate narrowly won Sunday's presidential election without risking an open break with Russian President Vladimir Putin, administration officials said yesterday.I find it entirely inconceivable that the administration is even considering cowering to the Russians and Putin--a former KGB official--on this issue. Simply put, it is not exceptable for the Russians to continue to strongarm their neighbors, and we cannot allow the region to slip back into the control of a single, unchecked leader.
Even before the count was completed, Putin on Monday congratulated Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovych on his victory over Western-leaning Viktor Yushchenko in an election that international observers said was deeply flawed. Yushchenko declared himself the winner yesterday and took a symbolic oath of office as hundreds of thousands of protesters packed Kiev's downtown streets.
Putin visited Ukraine before the runoff election and an earlier round of voting, in an apparent attempt to influence the results. But administration officials said they are focusing on the need for a democratic outcome and ensuring a result that reflects the will of the voters and is credible to the world -- a message that a top State Department official, A. Elizabeth Jones, delivered to the Russian ambassador Monday.
George W. Bush may have looked into Vladimir Putin's heart and seen good, but that's just not good enough. The safety of America rests on truly functioning Democracies around the world, and if today we allow the Russians to dominate their neighbors we will have no credibility in the world tomorrow (not that we have much today).
If Bush doesn't stand up to Putin, he must be held accountable, and if it's not the Democrats speaking, I surely hope Hagel, McCain or Lugar speaks up.
The President likes pork
We may have our largest deficit in history, but at least this President loves pork (he has yet to veto a single bill in four years). The AP's Sharon Theimer has the story:
There is at least some good news in the article (for Oregonians like me, at least).
Despite soaring deficits, the government spending plan awaiting President Bush's signature is chock-full of special items for industries and communities. Consider $443,000 to develop salmon-fortified baby food, or $350,000 for the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame.Don't forget $2 million for a new yacht for the President.
Lawmakers from both parties who approved the $388 billion package last weekend set aside plenty of money for projects certain to sow good will in their home districts.
The time-honored practice flourished despite the ballooning deficit, less money for federal programs and rising unease about how government will finance the futures of Medicare and Social Security.
For instance, there was $50,000 to control Missouri's wild-hog problem, $1 million for the Norwegian American Foundation in Seattle, $335,000 to protect North Dakota's sunflowers from blackbirds, $4 million for the International Fertilizer Development Center in Alabama.
There is at least some good news in the article (for Oregonians like me, at least).
Within hours of the bill's passage, lawmakers were promoting the projects they had brought home to constituents. In federal budgets, what is derided as pork-barrel spending by one constituency is embraced by another as well-deserved local aid.Good job Gordo. Good job Ronny.
Oregon's senators, Democrat Ron Wyden and Republican Gordon Smith, put out an 11-page news release Sunday sharing credit for several hundred million dollars headed to their state. Projects the money will finance include "wood utilization research," a barley gene-mapping project, remodeling of a cafeteria at Crater Lake National Park and the West Coast Groundfish Observers undertaking.
Was the election this year flawed?
That's what Congress is finally asking.
It at least appears that some Democrats are willing to take a serious look into questions voting irregularities. About time, no?
The Government Accountability Office, the investigating arm of the US Congress, will probe allegations of irregularities in the November 2 US presidential vote, lawmakers said.Link.
"We are pleased that the GAO has reviewed the concerns expressed in our letters and has found them of sufficient merit to warrant further investigation. On its own authority, the GAO will examine the security and accuracy of voting technologies, distribution and allocation of voting machines, and counting of provisional ballots," five Democratic lawmakers, who requested the inquiry, said in a statement.
"We are hopeful that GAO's non-partisan and expert analysis will get to the bottom of the flaws uncovered in the 2004 election," added representatives John Conyers Jr., Jerrold Nadler, Robert Wexler, Robert Scott, and Rush Holt.
The lawmakers said the House of Representatives Judiciary Committee has received some 57,000 complaints of voting irregularities.
It at least appears that some Democrats are willing to take a serious look into questions voting irregularities. About time, no?
Why Portland schools are failing
Todd Murphy of the Portland Tribune runs down the situation in Portland Public Schools, a system that was once one of the best in the nation but is today highly underfunded.
• Spending on programs outside of the classroom has decreased significantly. Spending on instructional support — things such as child development programs, library materials and staff development — has been cut by more than 30 percent since 1990. Spending on building support — items such as student transportation, school administrators, custodians and maintenance workers — has been cut by about 25 percent.If everything has been cut except for administration, that sounds a bit problematic to me. What would I know, though... I was only a student there.
• Spending on central administration is down less than a half a percent from 14 years ago. It now amounts to about 5.8 percent of all district spending.
• Without the temporary Multnomah County income tax and a temporary property tax levy, district spending would be entirely different. Per student spending, adjusted for inflation, would be 20 percent less than it was in 1990.
Dan Rather stepping down
Although we knew he would give up CBS Evening News given his advanced age and the retirements of Peter Jennings and Tom Brokaw, but it is a surpise that Dan Rather is quitting so soon. The AP's David Bauder has the scoop:
Dan Rather, embattled anchor of the "CBS Evening News," announced Tuesday that he will step down in March, on the 24th anniversary of taking over the job from Walter Cronkite.I don't watch network news, but for those who do, I'm sure this will be a shock.
The veteran anchor has been under fire in recent months for his role in a "60 Minutes Wednesday" story that questioned President Bush's service in the National Guard, which turned out to based on allegedly forged documents.
Rather, 73, said he will continue to work for CBS, as a correspondent for both editions of "60 Minutes."
[...]
CBS did not mention a potential successor.
Are we in for an economic catastrophe?
I'm a bear myself on the longterm outlook for the US economy, but this is something:
Stephen Roach, the chief economist at investment banking giant Morgan Stanley, has a public reputation for being bearish.Wow.
But you should hear what he's saying in private.
Roach met select groups of fund managers downtown last week, including a group at Fidelity.
His prediction: America has no better than a 10 percent chance of avoiding economic "armageddon."
Press were not allowed into the meetings. But the Herald has obtained a copy of Roach's presentation. A stunned source who was at one meeting said, "it struck me how extreme he was - much more, it seemed to me, than in public."
Roach sees a 30 percent chance of a slump soon and a 60 percent chance that "we'll muddle through for a while and delay the eventual armageddon."
Jon Stewart speaks on the election
This is in this month's edition of Rolling Stone:
The electoral map looks almost exactly as it did in 2000, and yet you would imagine, from the expert post-election media "analysis," that there was some cataclysmic shift, that somewhere out of the ground in Idaho and Montana a mass of survivalist fundamentalist End of Days Christians appeared from Middle-Earth to vote.Link.
What actually happened was that some of the people who voted for Gore in 2000 this time voted for the other guy. This time Bush got fifty-one percent of the vote -- and it wasn't all crazy people. Nevertheless, you had the press two days before the election saying that college kids were coming out in record numbers and cell-phone users were going to make polling obsolete. So the one truism that emerges from all of this is that there continues to be zero accountability in the press. There is not a profession in the world where you can be that wrong, that consistently, and still continue to practice your job with greater job security than before.
Ed Rendell won't run
Although this is not entirely surprising, popular Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell appears to be turning down a run for the Presidency in 2008. The Intelligencer reports:
This is fine, anyway. I would rather him either run for reelection in 2006 or else challenge uber-conservative Senator Rick Santorum.
As for whether he's interested in running for president in 2008, Rendell said, "Not really. The timing is wrong for me."Link.
This is fine, anyway. I would rather him either run for reelection in 2006 or else challenge uber-conservative Senator Rick Santorum.
Monday, November 22, 2004
Josh Marshall asks the important question
This is in regards to the so-called "Istook Amendment," which would have allowed Appropriations Chairmen to read and divulge any American's IRS tax returns at will--something that civil libertarians on both sides of the aisle screamed at and was subsequently removed from the omnibus spending bill (in which it was secretly inserted at the last moment):
For the moment, set aside the civil liberties and privacy issues raised by the Istook Amendment. What does it say about the majority's management of the legislative process in Congress at present that it's been two and half days since this line item was discovered and no one has been able to determine who wrote it or who put it in the bill?Link.
Ronnie Earle speaks out
The Texas District Attorney who presented the case in which a number of DeLay colleagues were indicted has finally spoken out today. Ronnie Earle, whose investigation's possible lead into dealings of House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX) lead the House Republican Caucus to change its rules to allow an indicted member to still serve as a leader, pens an extremely interesting Op-Ed in Tuesday's New York Times that's a definite must-read.
It's short, so I won't excerpt it here (I know, this is a rarity), but if you have a couple of minutes (that's all it takes to read it), you should check out his piece.
It's short, so I won't excerpt it here (I know, this is a rarity), but if you have a couple of minutes (that's all it takes to read it), you should check out his piece.
November proving a deadly month in Iraq
The President waited six months (from Fallujah in April until after election day) to do anything in Iraq, and as a result we're losing our brave young men and women at a faster rate than any other point in this war. The AP reports:
Three Marines who were wounded in action during the Fallujah offensive later died at American hospitals in Germany and the United States, the Pentagon said Monday, raising the U.S. military death toll in Iraq for November to at least 101.This is really disturbing. I wish I had something optimistic to say about the situation in Iraq, but there's really nothing good to say about the direction in which the country is headed.
Since the initial U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in March 2003, the only other month in which U.S. deaths exceeded 100 was last April, when insurgent violence flared and Marines fought fierce battles in Fallujah and Ramadi.
[...]
The Marines have suffered most of the Fallujah battle casualties. An exact number is not available because the Marines usually do not specify the city in which a casualty happened. Since Nov. 1, the Marines have had at least 69 deaths throughout Iraq mostly in Fallujah. That is by far the deadliest month of the war for the Marines; their previous high was 52 last April.
Bush at 51% approval in latest CBS/NY Times poll
Bush has apparently received no post-election bounce, at least according to the most recent New York Times/CBS News Poll: the President's 51% is exactly the margin he received on election day, indicating the electorate is just as divided on him today as it was before the election. The Times Adam Nagourney and Janet Elder write that there are also other less than positive signs for Bush in the poll. In "Americans Show Clear Concerns on Bush Agenda", they write this:
Americans don't want to burden further generations with immense debt, and that's exactly what this administration has done. It's time for the Democrats to get out there (a la Ross Perot) and scream about fiscal responsibility. If only they could get their act together...
After enduring a brutally fought election campaign, Americans are optimistic about the next four years under President Bush, but have reservations about central elements of the second-term agenda he presented in defeating Senator John Kerry, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News Poll.I still don't understand why the Democrats aren't working night and day to hit Bush and the Republicans for their reckless habits of bankrupting America, because that's one issue on which they can command a strong majority; what is more, it is a salient issue to the American people.
At a time when the White House has portrayed Mr. Bush's 3.5-million-vote victory as a mandate, the poll found that Americans are at best ambivalent about Mr. Bush's plans to reshape Social Security, rewrite the tax code, cut taxes and appoint conservative judges to the bench. There is continuing disapproval of Mr. Bush's handling of the war in Iraq, with a plurality now saying it was a mistake to invade in the first place.
While Democrats, not surprisingly, were the staunchest opponents of many elements of Mr. Bush's second-term agenda, the concerns extended across party lines in some cases. Nearly two-thirds of all respondents - including 51 percent of Republicans - said it was more important to reduce deficits than to cut taxes, a central element of Mr. Bush's economic agenda. [emphasis added]
Americans don't want to burden further generations with immense debt, and that's exactly what this administration has done. It's time for the Democrats to get out there (a la Ross Perot) and scream about fiscal responsibility. If only they could get their act together...
Congress finally says no to Bush's limitless requests
It took long enough.
Frankly, if we really want to fight terrorism, we don't need a new generation of nuclear weapons. No, if this administration actually cared about winning the War on Terrorism, they need to adequately fund our troops and create new special ops forces (like John Kerry supported).
Congress has eliminated the financing of research supported by President Bush into a new generation of nuclear weapons, including investigations into low-yield atomic bombs and an earth-penetrating warhead that could destroy weapons bunkers deep underground.Link.
The Bush administration called in 2002 for exploring new nuclear weapons that could deter a wide range of threats, including possible development of a warhead that could go after hardened, deeply buried targets, or lower-power bombs that could be used to destroy chemical or biological stockpiles without contaminating a wide area.
But research on those programs was dropped from the $388 billion government-wide spending bill adopted Saturday, a rare instance in which the Republican-controlled Congress has gone against the president. The move slowly came to light over the weekend as details of the extensive measure became clear.
Frankly, if we really want to fight terrorism, we don't need a new generation of nuclear weapons. No, if this administration actually cared about winning the War on Terrorism, they need to adequately fund our troops and create new special ops forces (like John Kerry supported).
Bush's Medicare overhaul will do what?!
It looks like Bush's bill, which passed in 2003, will actually raise costs for many Americans. The Washington Post reports:
Roughly 19 million people are expected to reap some savings from Medicare's new prescription drug benefit, according to an independent analysis released yesterday. But 10 million others would pay as much or more for their medicines.Nice.
GOP continues to block intelligence reform
Defying President Bush [yeah right], Reps. Duncan Hunter and James Sensenbrenner — who led opposition dooming legislation based on the Sept. 11 commission's recommendations — said they won't change their minds without Senate concessions.Link.
"It'll be tougher now because the well got even more poisoned by the senators and their supporters thoroughly criticizing Duncan Hunter and myself by name on the talking head shows yesterday," Sensenbrenner told The Associated Press on Monday.
The two men turned back a last-second deal Saturday to pass stalled legislation to create a new national intelligence director and national counterterrorism center. The overhaul was supposed to help the intelligence community track terrorist threats and was one of the biggest legislative priorities of this year.
There was nothing left but recriminations on Monday, with most of Congress heading home for Thanksgiving and Bush still on an overseas trip. No meetings of the bill's negotiators have been planned.
The House and Senate scheduled Dec. 6-7 meetings just in case a deal is reached.
If Bush wanted this done, it would be done. It's that simple. The fact is that he is just using these wingers in the House to help him block the measure without needing to get into the fray... without having to face the political ramifications of blocking intelligence reform.
Make no mistake--Bush is the reason why we haven't fixed our intelligence system.
What's up with the possible DeLay indictment?
Josh Marshall ponders:
No DeLay indictment after all?
CBS's David Paul Kuhn quotes "an official involved in the investigation" as saying he thinks a DeLay indictment is unlikely and that DeLay's lawyers already know that.
Material further down in the article suggests that while DeLay was "kept aware" of illegal activities being committed on his behalf that the investigators have not been able to uncover evidence that DeLay "acted to promote" the illegal activity and they haven't been able to uncover sufficient evidence of that.
This does raise an interesting question. DeLay may be a crook, but he's no fool. If he and his lawyers had any confidence he wasn't going to be indicted I find it hard to believe they would have gone to the trouble of such a self-inflicted black-eye as the DeLay Rule predictably turned out to be.
Vilsack won't run
There has been quite a bit of speculation that Tom Vilsack would run to become the next chairman of the Democratic National Committee as a Kerry supporter. It appears as though that might not end up happening, now.
I suppose this means he's going to try to make a run at the 2008 Democratic Presidential nomination. My hunch is that he will go the way of another Iowan--Tom Harkin--who miserably failed in his 1992 bid.
Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack said Monday that he will not seek the chairmanship of the Democratic Party.Link.
"These challenges and opportunities require more time than I felt I could share," Vilsack said in a statement. "As a result I will not be a candidate for DNC chairman."
Earlier this month, Vilsack, an ally of failed presidential nominee John Kerry, telephoned several Democratic National Committee (news - web sites) members as he traveled in Europe, seeking their advice and asking them to withhold their endorsement of any candidate until he decided whether to seek the job.
The 400-plus DNC membership meets in February to select a replacement for Terry McAuliffe, who is not seeking another term.
I suppose this means he's going to try to make a run at the 2008 Democratic Presidential nomination. My hunch is that he will go the way of another Iowan--Tom Harkin--who miserably failed in his 1992 bid.
About Mr. Istook
For those who would like to know about Rep. Istook, the man who inserted the provision into the omnibus spending bill which would have allowed Appropriations Chairmen to secretly pry into the IRS records of any American, check out today's Midday Update from CQ:
Rep. Ernest Istook, R-Okla., one of 13 Appropriations subcommittee chairmen, is a former radio reporter who helped found the Conservative Action Team in Congress, now known as the Republican Study Committee.Link.
It's tough to be a moderate
At least according to moderate GOP Congressman Chris Shays (CT-4), whom I supported in his tough reelection battle this year. David Lightman writes up Shays' plight in the The Hartford Courant today:
The thing that comes to mind when reading this is that House Democrats have done a lousy job of wooing Shays; whereas Harry Reid over in the Senate was able to help Jim Jeffords defect three years ago, Nancy Pelosi has loused up any chances that Shays might change caucuses.
Perhaps Steny Hoyer or another more moderate Dem in the party's leadership might cajole Shays into becoming a Democratic-leaning Independent (like Bernie Sanders in the House and Jeffords in the Senate, both of Vermont), but they really should reach out to him in the months ahead. The signal that such a move would make--so close to the recent election--might prompt more moderates to jump ship and reduce the power of the ultra-right in Washington.
Chris Shays these days seems like a congressman without a political anchor, a politician without a party.The article is quite thorough and highly interesting, so don't miss it if you're interested in the situation faced by moderates within the GOP.
[...]
Democrats he counted as friends turned on him during the campaign and are still snarling. He's no favorite of many Republicans either, a view he fed last week by publicly bucking powerful House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, who holds life-or-death power over legislation and choice jobs.
Being an independent-minded moderate means a lonelier-than-ever life in Washington where collegiality matters.
"Chris Shays fits in the other Republican Party - a Republican Party that doesn't quite exist anymore," said political analyst Stuart Rothenberg.
The thing that comes to mind when reading this is that House Democrats have done a lousy job of wooing Shays; whereas Harry Reid over in the Senate was able to help Jim Jeffords defect three years ago, Nancy Pelosi has loused up any chances that Shays might change caucuses.
Perhaps Steny Hoyer or another more moderate Dem in the party's leadership might cajole Shays into becoming a Democratic-leaning Independent (like Bernie Sanders in the House and Jeffords in the Senate, both of Vermont), but they really should reach out to him in the months ahead. The signal that such a move would make--so close to the recent election--might prompt more moderates to jump ship and reduce the power of the ultra-right in Washington.
Oregon to move towards Civil Unions
It sounds like a distinct possibility. The AP's Brad Cain reports:
Just a few weeks ago, state Sen. Ben Westlund voted "yes" on Measure 36 to ban gay marriages in Oregon.A lot of this is up to how the Oregon Supreme Court ends up ruling on the constitutionality of Measure 36, but if it does indeed uphold the gay marriage ban, I (and I would imagine most Oregonians) would be in favor of a bill forwarding civil unions.
Now, the Central Oregon lawmaker is hard at work drafting a civil-unions bill for the 2005 Legislature to give gay and lesbian couples some of the rights bestowed on married couples.
"It's just the right thing to do," the Tumalo Republican said. "Nothing in Measure 36 prevents the Legislature from affording equal rights and privileges to same-sex couples."
Not everyone in the Legislature agrees, and Westlund's sponsorship of a civil-unions law will thrust him into the middle of what likely will be one of the thorniest debates of the 2005 session.
Already, battle lines are forming about what action, if any, is needed from the Legislature after voters on Nov. 2 approved a constitutional amendment specifying that marriage can only be between one man and one woman.
A key lawmaker, Rep. Dennis Richardson of Central Point, is urging his fellow House Republicans to resist civil-unions legislation.
"If civil-union status is granted, there will be no turning back. The liberals and the homosexual-lesbian coalition will have won, and the people's vote in favor of traditional marriage will have been effectively nullified," Richardson wrote in an e-mail to other House Republicans.
The situation in Ukraine deteriorates
I'll admit I'm no expert in the goings on of the former Soviet satellite states, but this doesn't sound good. Bloomberg reports:
Because of political expediency in pursuit of reelection, Bush teamed up with these anti-Democratic (and possibly Communist) leaders like Putin to help in the "War on Terror." The real problem is that by buying these nations off and turning a blind eye to the attrocities that some have committed, we are enabling the creation of a problem that could be substantially worse than Iran and Iraq combined.
Ukraine's Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovych took the lead in voting from yesterday's run-off presidential election as his challenger Viktor Yushchenko charged the poll was marred by fraud.The only thing I do know about the situation is that President Bush has become quite cozy with former-KGB official and current Russian Premier Vladimir Putin, a man who has overseen Russia's regression into Communism (or at least the move back towards the Communist apparatchik). Yanukovych embodies this old guard that the current Russian government supports in all of its neighboring states, and it's immensely dangerous for the United States and the entire world for these men to maintain power in the region (especially given the fact that there are thousands of nuclear arms in the area).
With about 74 percent of ballots counted, Yanukovych leads with 48.9 percent while Yushchenko has 47.5 percent, the Central Electoral Committee said in a statement on its Web site
``I don't trust the counting by the committee,'' Yushchenko said in a statement on his official Web site. ``That leads me to a conclusion that a state coup in Ukraine has already started. It has started in Donetsk region, in Yanukovych's camp.''
Exit polls from yesterday's voting said Yushchenko won the election. His supporters said they will begin gathering in Independence Square in the center of the capital, Kiev, from 9 a.m. Ukraine time today.
Yushchenko won 39.9 percent in the first round on Oct. 31, squeezing ahead of Yanukovych's 39.3 percent. The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe criticized the first round for media bias toward Yanukovych. Yushchenko's supporters said there will be street protests across the country of 47 million people if the government delays the election results.
Yushchenko, a former prime minister, said turnout in the Donetsk region, where Yanukovych was a former governor, may soon reach 110 percent.
Yanukovych supporters said they counted 81 percent of the vote in so-called parallel counting and Yanukovych won 50 percent with Yushchenko having 46 percent. Yushchenko supporters said they counted 57.4 percent of votes, with their candidate receiving 52.8 percent and Yanukovych 42.3 percent.
Because of political expediency in pursuit of reelection, Bush teamed up with these anti-Democratic (and possibly Communist) leaders like Putin to help in the "War on Terror." The real problem is that by buying these nations off and turning a blind eye to the attrocities that some have committed, we are enabling the creation of a problem that could be substantially worse than Iran and Iraq combined.
Sunday, November 21, 2004
Taegan Goddard's quote of the day
"I will never be invited back to the State Department."Link.
-- Former Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger, quoted by Washington Whispers, after calling Secretary of State-designate Condoleeza Rice a "paper pusher."
Can Dems reach out to Evangelicals on taxes?
With George W. Bush moving towards an attempt at fundamentally altering America's tax structure, Edmund L. Andrews and David D. Kirkpatrick of The New York Times seem to indicate that the President's coalition might soon begin to break apart over the effort. They pen an article entitled "G.O.P. Constituencies Split on Tax Change."
Even though it will be months before President Bush proposes an overhaul of the income tax, key Republican groups are already divided about how or even whether to proceed. Regardless of which path Mr. Bush pursues, he is likely to be pulled by conflicts between parts of his political base.Although there are very few issues upon which the Democrats and the Religious Right agree, Tax Reform might provide one instance for which the Dems reach out to the Evangelicals. It won't be easy, but presenting facts like this one can't hurt:
[...]
Christian conservatives want to promote charitable deductions and "family values," and may want to defend tax breaks for married couples with children.
"People are not going to give the kind of support necessary for tax reform that leaves the investor class untaxed," said Dr. Land, who is president of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics and Religious Commission. "That is not going to be politically viable."
[President of Americans for Tax Reform Grover] Norquist supports the idea of a stealth tax overhaul, achieving the similar goal as a national sales tax but accomplishing it through backdoor changes like a big expansion of tax-free savings accounts.It will definitely be a difficult road, but if the Democrats are indeed able to form a temporary coalition with the Religious Right over blocking regressive taxation, the GOP will have much less of a shot and maintaining control over federal and state governments in the upcoming elections.
Who's at fault for the stalled intelligence reform bill?
According to the chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, the Bush Administration. This from Reuters:
Government accountability and fiscal responsibility
[Update 7:52 PM Pacific]: The New York Times' reporter Sheryl Gay Stolberg analyzes the story, asking the right question:
The Republican chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee blamed the White House and Pentagon on Sunday for resisting intelligence reform and gave the U.S. Congress a failing grade for not passing legislation.Remind me again, who's in control of Congress right now? The Democrats must hold the GOP's feet over the fire on this issue and push for real change. As I've said before, it comes down to five words:
Sen. Pat Roberts of Kansas also cited turf battles and unwarranted concerns that proposed changes would somehow harm military operations during a time of war.
"There's been a lot of opposition to this from the first," Roberts said on the "Fox News Sunday" program. "Some of it is from the Pentagon. Some of it, quite frankly, is from the White House, despite what the president has said."
[...]
Concern that intelligence reform would endanger military efforts during wartime was "a false claim," Roberts said.
"I don't think it was only House Republicans. I think some of us who have been working for reform perhaps underestimated the strong undertow of opposition to this and support for status quo," he said.
"And so you put all those factors together, and unfortunately intelligence reform went down. And as far as I'm concerned, Congress gets a big fat 'F' in regards to that effort," Roberts said.
Government accountability and fiscal responsibility
[Update 7:52 PM Pacific]: The New York Times' reporter Sheryl Gay Stolberg analyzes the story, asking the right question:
In the afterglow of his re-election, President Bush declared that he had ''earned capital in the campaign, political capital, and now I intend to spend it." But the capital that he put on the line was not enough this weekend, when recalcitrant House conservatives refused to back an intelligence bill for which he had personally lobbied.
The compromise bill unraveled when two influential Republican House committee chairmen, Representatives Duncan Hunter of California and F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. of Wisconsin, would not support it. At a time when Republicans control the White House and both houses of Congress, the outcome raises questions about how much power the president has on Capitol Hill and how he intends to exert it in a second term.
Did Mr. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, who called both chairmen in an attempt to turn them around, press as hard for the measure as they led the public to believe? Or are Mr. Hunter and Mr. Sensenbrenner so powerful that they can embarrass Speaker J. Dennis Hastert of Illinois - who negotiated the bill, then declined to bring it up for a vote when the chairmen balked - and thwart the will of the president?
"I don't think it was only House Republicans," Senator Pat Roberts, Republican of Kansas and head of the Intelligence Committee, told Fox News on Sunday. Mr. Roberts added: "There's been a lot of opposition to this from the first. Some of it is turf, you know, quite frankly. Some of it is from the Pentagon. Some of it, quite frankly, is from the White House, despite what the president has said."
What moral values?
Talk about hypocrisy...
"Desperate Housewives" on ABC is the big new hit of the television season, ranked second over all in the country, behind only "CSI" on CBS. This satire of suburbia and modern relationships features, among other morally challenged characters, a married woman in her 30's having an affair with a high-school-age gardener, and has prompted several advertisers, including Lowe's, to pull their advertisements.Bill Carter, "Many Who Voted for 'Values' Still Like Their Television Sin", The New York Times, November 22, 2004.
In the greater Atlanta market, reaching more than two million households, "Desperate Housewives" is the top-rated show. Nearly 58 percent of the voters in the those counties voted for President Bush.
And in the Salt Lake City market, which takes in the whole state of Utah and parts of Nevada, Idaho and Wyoming, "Desperate Housewives" is fourth, after two editions of "CSI" and NBC's "E.R.;" Mr. Bush rolled up 72.6 percent of the vote there.
A new video game crosses the line
I'm not one who is easily disturbed by the content of video games and I certainly don't believe in curtailing freedom of expression, but isn't this a little over the line?
A new video game to be released on Monday allows players to simulate the assassination of U.S. President John F. Kennedy.Again, I'm no moral crusader, but this is a bit outrageous.
The release of "JFK Reloaded" is timed to coincide with the 41st anniversary of Kennedy's murder in Dallas and was designed to demonstrate a lone gunman was able to kill the president.
"It is despicable," said David Smith, a spokesman for Massachusetts Sen. Edward Kennedy, the late president's brother. He was informed of the game on Friday but declined further comment.
What has the GOP done so far?
Kevin Drum investigates:
Congressional Republicans have now been back in town for five days following their big election victory on the 2nd. So what are they using their newfound mandate for? Let's take a peek:Impressive.
Pretty good work for five days! I wonder what they'll manage to get done when they actually have a full session on their hands next year?
- At the request of Rep. Ernest Istook (R-Oklahoma), passed a law giving Appropriations Committee chairmen the right to look at anyone's tax returns without regard to privacy rights. When caught by Democrats, they said it was all just a big mistake and promised they'd never actually use this authority.
- Overhwelmingly revoked a rule stating that Republican congressional leaders have to step down if indicted of a felony. This was done to protect House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, who appears to be on the verge of being indicted for a felony.
- Approved funding to buy President Bush a yacht.
- Killed long-awaited intelligence reform legislation that was widely supported by both Democrats and Republicans, the president, the 9/11 Commission, and 9/11 victims groups.
McCain running for President? Really!?
File this one under completely unsurprising.
Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said Sunday he is not ruling out a run for the 2008 presidential nomination, but that he is not a candidate now.Shocking, I tell you. Maybe this explains why he bent over backwards during the campaign to help out Bush, a man who ran ads against him claiming he had an illigitimate black baby.
Colorado Dems' pragmatism a model for the nation
Of all the states in the nation, Colorado perhaps provides the most interesting case-study regarding the 2004 election. The Washington Post's T.R. Reid explains:
When Democratic state chairmen gather in Florida next month to lick their wounds from the Nov. 2 election, their agenda will include a careful study of one bright spot in a generally sorry performance: Colorado, a solidly red state that went almost completely blue this year.Pragmatism worked in this election as "solutions, not ideology" triumphed. The Dems need to find such a compelling message across the nation, not just in Colorado, and they can't just let the GOP have exclusive just of vision.
Despite a large Republican advantage in registered voters and the popularity of President Bush, who carried the state easily for the second time, Colorado Democrats picked up a U.S. Senate seat and House seat that had been considered safe for the GOP. They reversed Republican majorities in the state House and Senate to take control of the legislature. And they backed expensive ballot measures that passed by large majorities despite opposition from the GOP.
[...]
Colorado Democrats say their success carries a lesson for the national party. "We campaigned on pragmatism," state Democratic Chairman Christopher Gates said. "We set ourselves up as the problem solvers, while the Republicans were hung up on a bunch of fringe social issues like gay marriage and the Pledge of Allegiance.
"The notion that moral issues won the 2004 election was disproven in Colorado," Gates continued. "We offered solutions, not ideology, and won almost everything."
The GOP slashes student loans for a yacht for Bush
The federal government will be able to require millions of college students to shoulder more of the cost of their education under the new spending bill approved yesterday by the House and Senate.Link.
The government moved to change its formula for college aid last year, but was blocked by Congress. Now, however, no such language appears in the appropriations bill lawmakers are considering, clearing the way for the government to scale back college grants for hundreds of thousands of low-income students.
Nearly 100,000 more students may lose their federal grants entirely, as Congress considers legislation that could place more of the financial burden for college on students and their families.
Why would they need to cut that funding? One reason is that the President wants a yacht.
Republicans whisked a $388 billion spending bill through Congress on Saturday, a mammoth measure that underscores the dominance of deficit politics by curbing dollars for everything from education to environmental cleanups.Start running ads on this. Now. I'm not sure that GOP corruption could be more evident than cutting student loans and buying the President a yacht.
[...]
A potential boon for Bush himself, $2 million for the government to try buying back the former presidential yacht Sequoia. The boat was sold three decades ago, and its current owners say the yacht is assessed at $9.8 million and are distressed by the provision.
The GOP's stealthy moves to control America
To get a full run-down of the Istook Amendment--which was secretly placed in the 1,600 page omnibus spending bill that was only discovered by luck and removed hours before the entire bill passes--check out Talking Points Memo. To give you the gist of it, the measure would have allowed the Senate Appropriations Chairman and any of his designees secretly search any American's tax returns and leak them at will. This is our Democracy?
Bush wants to create jobs
Let's see how he's going to do it:
Hiring is picking up and President Bush is on track to preside over job growth in his second term, shedding the Herbert Hoover label of being the first president since the Great Depression to lose jobs under his watch.Might reality set in at some point?
But don't expect a revival of the booming 1990s.
Bush's prescription for job growth includes extending the tax cuts passed in his first term, overhauling tax laws, limiting jury awards in lawsuits and increasing domestic energy exploration and production.
Economists say the bigger impediments to job creation are soaring health care and energy costs and the swelling trade deficit, especially with China.As the President has indicated that he wants to do nothing about the real institutional problems afflicting the American economy (mainly those listed above, in addition to the massive budgetary deficits he's racked up), I'm not entirely certain how he's going to create jobs. It'll be interesting to watch, at least.
Saturday, November 20, 2004
More on the GOP's move to block intelligence reform
Rebellious Republicans Derail 9/11 ReformThat's the type of reporting I like to hear.
By Jesse Holland
AP - In a defeat for President Bush, rebellious House Republicans on Saturday derailed legislation to overhaul the nation's intelligence agencies along lines recommended by the Sept. 11 commission.
GOP fails on intelligence reform
These guys are ridiculous:
I guess this means it's time to see what the Democrats are actually made of.
Congress on Saturday failed in its attempt to get legislation addressing the Sept. 11 Commission's terror-fighting recommendations to President Bush, but Republican leaders said they would try to press the effort later this year.These people need to be held responsible for blocking any effort to reform our intelligence system to make our country safer. These people believe in bad government and the American people need to be made aware of this.
House Majority Leader Tom Delay said "Our members want us to continue, the speaker wants us to continue to negotiate and so does the Senate, so we're going to continue to negotiate and see if we can get a bill in December."
However chance are unlikely if the House and Senate both leave Washington and end their post-election session.
[...]
Lawmakers thought they had a deal Saturday.
"Give me a cigar," said the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan. He flashed a "V" for victory with his hand after signing off on the deal.
Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, one of the lawmakers involved in the talks, said Bush had been in touch with negotiators by telephone from Chile, where he was attending a meeting of leaders from Asian and Pacific nations. Administration officials also said the president supported the compromise.
I guess this means it's time to see what the Democrats are actually made of.
Civil War in Iraq imminent?
According to the administration, yes.
The fact is that the situation in Iraq is getting worse rather than better and the administration is going to have to do something about it soon or else real pandemonium will break out that makes the current situation look like a tea party.
US army chief General Richard Myers said in an interview that civil war could erupt in Iraq after forthcoming elections.More violence before the elections rather than afterwards. Right. These are the same guys who said that there would be a surge in violence before the "handover of power" at the end of June which would then melt away; we know how that claim panned out.
However, Myers, the chairman of the US joint chiefs of staff, told the daily Publico there was no indication at present this would happen.
"Civil war is still a possibility. We know that there are forces for whom this is an objective," Myers said, adding: "We have not yet any signs that this will happen."
The upcoming elections, pencilled in for January, are seen as a major test of the shattered country's recovery.
Myers predicted there would be more violence before the elections rather than afterwards.
The fact is that the situation in Iraq is getting worse rather than better and the administration is going to have to do something about it soon or else real pandemonium will break out that makes the current situation look like a tea party.
Inflation concerns
The AP's Economics Writer Martin Crutsinger explains that inflation is raising concerns across the country:
Let's see if they try to blame Clinton, though. That would be entirely unsurprising.
After years of relative calm on the inflation front, Americans are being battered by $2-a-gallon gasoline, rising food prices and higher medical bills. And there are fears that price pressures could worsen in 2005.I can't wait to see how the Republicans try to work their way out of this one. You reap what you sow in this world, and at some point the Republicans are going to have to be held accountable for their fiscal mismanagement.
The problem came into sharp focus last week when the government reported that wholesale prices increased in October by the largest amount in more than 14 years, and prices at the retail level recorded the biggest gain since May.
At the same time, energy prices experienced another jump, climbing at an annual rate of 22.5 percent through October. This has contributed to inflation's rising at a 3.9 percent annual rate this year, compared with 1.9 percent in 2003.
Inflationary pressures have led some economists to worry about a possible nightmare scenario: The dollar weakens dramatically, which drives up import prices; as terrorists attack overseas oil production facilities, which drives up energy prices; and like that, America's productivity miracle, a main reason for moderate inflation in recent years, disappears.
Economists acknowledge this is a worst-case scenario. Still, they say some shock is likely.
Let's see if they try to blame Clinton, though. That would be entirely unsurprising.
Bill Schneider's Political Play of the Week
This White House doesn't fool around. Now the strengthened Republican majority in Congress is saying, "Neither do we."Link.
The Political Play of the Week: If the rules get in the way, rewrite them.
First there was this irritating little problem of a House Republican rule requiring any leader indicted for a crime to step down.
With Majority Leader Tom DeLay facing possible indictment in Texas for campaign finance violations, House Republicans found a solution -- change the rule. Shield their leader from, in the words of Rep. Henry Bonilla, R-Texas, "Any partisan crackpot district attorney who might want to indict a member of our leadership."
If the Democrats don't gain some political capital from this GOP move and turn it into at least one victory down in Louisiana (where two US House seats will be decided on December 4), it's going to be a sad day to be a Democrat.
Portland-area economy turning around
The Oregonian's Gail Kinsey Hill passes along the good news:
Portland-Vancouver area businesses added 7,700 jobs in October, a pace not seen since pre-recession 1999, according to employment reports released Friday.Perhaps this means that there will be a job for if and when I move back to Portland in the future. Lovely.
The Oregon Employment Department also revised the job count upwards for September to 7,000 from a prior estimate of 2,600.
"We're doing better than we have for three to four years," said Amy Vander Vliet, an economist with the employment department.
The October unemployment rate edged down one-tenth of a percentage point to 6.4 percent.
The area's total job count stands at 939,100, a 1 percent gain from year-ago levels.
Things fall apart in Baghdad
Baghdad exploded in violence Saturday, as insurgents attacked a U.S. patrol and a police station, assassinated four government employees and detonated several bombs. One American soldier was killed and nine were wounded during clashes that also left three Iraqi troops and a police officer dead.Link.
Some of the heaviest violence came in Azamiyah, a largely Sunni Arab district of Baghdad where a day earlier U.S. troops raided the capital's main Sunni mosque. Shops were in flames, and a U.S. Humvee burned, with the body of what appeared to be its driver inside.
U.S. forces and insurgents also battled in the Sunni Triangle city of Ramadi, where clashes have been seen almost daily. Nine Iraqis were killed and five wounded in Saturday's fighting, hospital officials said.
Friday, November 19, 2004
Goodbye Mr. Daschle
Helen Dewar writes up Daschles waning moments in the Senate on page A4 of Saturday's Washington Post. In "In Farewell, Daschle Puts Emphasis on Cooperation", she writes thusly:
Republicans ought to be ashamed of themselves for letting pride get in the way of what's right. They should have honored Tom Daschle. This is not a political issue--it's a morals issue, and today the GOP proved that its sense of morality is completely out of whack.
With few Republicans in attendance, Senate Minority Leader Thomas A. Daschle bade an emotional farewell to the Senate yesterday, urging his colleagues of the past 18 years to find a new "common ground" for cooperation.Call me old-fashioned or just a sentimentalist, but wasn't there a time in American politics when members of the opposing party would show courtesy to a retiring member of the Senate? Wasn't there a code that stated that partisan differences ended with the vote and politicians could have dinner with their colleagues across the aisle later that night?
The South Dakota Democrat was greeted by a long standing ovation at the end of his speech, including applause from galleries filled by his family and staff. He also was hugged by most of his Democratic colleagues in an outpouring of personal feelings rarely seen on the Senate floor.
Only two Republicans -- Sens. Lamar Alexander (Tenn.) and Peter Fitzgerald (Ill.) -- were in their seats for most of Daschle's speech, although they were later joined by several others, including Majority Whip Mitch McConnell (Ky.). Sen. Norm Coleman (R-Minn.) presided over the Senate during Daschle's speech.
Although he did not come into the chamber until after Daschle finished speaking, Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.), who had campaigned for Daschle's successful Republican challenger, John R. Thune, effusively praised his departing colleague as a man of "integrity" and "true grace."
Republicans ought to be ashamed of themselves for letting pride get in the way of what's right. They should have honored Tom Daschle. This is not a political issue--it's a morals issue, and today the GOP proved that its sense of morality is completely out of whack.
Bonus Quote of the Day
"We've got a way better group of senators. We had...five drunks or six drunks when I came here. There's nobody drunk in the United States Senate. We don't have time to be drunk."Link.
-- Sen. Ernest Hollings, D-S.C., retiring after 38 years in the Senate, poked fun at his unusual Low Country drawl in his farewell speech on Wednesday. He said the institution was in better shape than when he arrived in at least one respect.
How to hit Rick Santorum
If you don't know who Rick Santorum (R-PA) is, let me give you a quick reminder. Pennsylvania's Junior Senator is the number 3 Republican in the Senate as has a voting record that matches his extremely conservative stances. Among our favorite quotes of his is:
In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. That's not to pick on homosexuality. It's not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be.Santorum will be up for reelection in 2006 and it sounds like the Democrats might actually have a shot at defeating him (John Kerry did manage to win Pennsylvania). This breaking story seems to indicate that the Dems chances are getting better and better:
Is Rick Santorum R-Pa. or R-Va.? No one should represent Pennsylvania in the U.S. Senate because he once lived here or because he visits all 67 counties every year. A traveling salesman can do that.One of the most effective issues upon which Tom Daschle was hit this past year regarded the fact that he had just bought a new home in DC and had actually changed his residency to Washington. It would be sensible to think, then, that the Democrats should try to do the exact same thing to Santorum so that Pennsylvania can send a Democrat back to the Senate for the first time since 1995. While the election is obviously very far away, it's already shaping up to be a doozy.
Article I of the U.S. Constitution says, "No person shall be a Senator ... who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen." Rick Santorum last won election in November 2000, when he owned the house at 111 Stephens Lane in Penn Hills plus a house in Virginia. Where he was an "inhabitant" at the time only he can say.
He faces re-election in 2006, but if that election were held today, the two-term Republican would be hard-pressed to convince voters that he inhabits a house on Stephens Lane. Sure, he and his wife pay taxes on the house. They also use the address for voter registration, but so do two other people. When a Post-Gazette reporter visited the house last Friday, a young man came to the door and declined to comment. He wasn't Rick Santorum.
It gets worse. The two-bedroom house that the Santorum children called home for education purposes and that gives Mr. and Mrs. Santorum the right to vote in Pennsylvania lacks an occupancy permit. And the property tax break from the homestead exemption claimed by the Santorums on the Penn Hills house is allowed under law only if the dwelling is their "permanent home."
It's a strange case of political turnabout. In his initial House race against Rep. Doug Walgren in 1990, challenger Santorum attacked the incumbent from Mt. Lebanon for buying a house and raising his children in McLean, Va. Now Rick Santorum of Leesburg, Va., is saying that he is and he isn't a resident of Pennsylvania.
CQ's Quote of the Day
This from CQ Today Midday Update (free email service):
"Access taxes and remote sales tax collections are two separate issues, like apples and oranges. And when you mix apple juice and orange juice in the same concoction, frequently it is not very tasty."Link.
-- Rep. F. James SENSENBRENNER Jr., R-Wis., regarding Internet taxes.
Portland to moves towards good government?
Who would have thought that city insider and incoming Commissioner Sam Adams would be the person to come up with such an idea? The Portland Tribune's Jennifer Anderson reports in "City Hall may look at registering lobbyists" that the former Chief of Staff to outgoing Mayor Vera Katz has proposed a move that could clean up the image of Portland's City Hall.
One of the first things Sam Adams wants to do in office next year is bring more transparency to City Hall.This is great news overall, especially for Adams. Although many were skeptical about his ability to serve given the unpopularity of Katz, this initiative--if passed--will go a long way to improving Portland's image among it's citizens and around the country.
Adams, who beat Nick Fish on Nov. 2 in a surprising race for city commissioner, said he’s planning to propose an ordinance that would require lobbyists to register with the city of Portland.
Currently, there’s no such requirement in Portland, but there is for the regional Metro Council, the state Legislature, and cities including Seattle, San Francisco, San Diego, Los Angeles, New York and Chicago.
[...]
The state of Oregon has required lobbyists to register since 1974 — “part of the Watergate backlash,” according to Pat Hearn, executive director of the Oregon Government Standards and Practices Commission in Salem.
And the Metro Council began requiring disclosure in 1999 for anyone who spends more than five hours lobbying the council in a three-month period. A list of 23 registered lobbyists is posted on Metro’s Web site.
Texas beginning to turn around?
This makes me the slightest bit hopeful:
Democrat Hubert Vo officially defeated veteran Republican state Rep. Talmadge Heflin by 32 votes in the closely watched House District 149 race, the secretary of state's office announced Thursday.Heflin was one of the leaders who helped do Tom DeLay's bidding in the (unconstitutional?) re-redistricting effort last term, so it's great to hear that he got what's coming to him. What's more, there is nothing more heartwarming than the fact that "Vo's victory is the first Democratic gain in the House since 1972"--despite the fact that Bush won the state by 23 points.
The official certification of the Nov. 2 election gave Vo one more vote than the 31-vote margin he had after the final ballot tally last week in Harris County.
[...]
Political newcomer Vo's narrow upset of Heflin, the powerful House Appropriations Committee chairman, surprised many in Austin.
[...]
Vo's victory is the first Democratic gain in the House since 1972, when Democrats still had a strong majority. Republicans won a majority in 2002. [emphasis added]
Nelson turns down Bush and Rove, will stay in Senate
The Omaha World-Herald's Jake Thompson brings us some great news on this Friday morning:
Nebraska Sen. Ben Nelson has told the White House he is not interested in becoming President Bush's agriculture secretary, a congressional source told The World-Herald on Thursday.
Nebraska Sen. Ben Nelson has told the White House he is not interested in becoming President Bush's agriculture secretary, a congressional source told The World-Herald on Thursday.
The source, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said White House political adviser Karl Rove called Nelson last Friday and asked if he would take the job if President Bush offered it. After consideration over the weekend, Nelson said no Wednesday evening, the source said.It appeared for a while that the Democrats would lose Nelson in the Senate and the Republicans would be able to appoint one of their own in his stead. The fact that he is willing to stay, however--even though he is the only remaining conservative Democrat in the Senate and at times crosses the aisle to support GOP measures--is great news.
[...]
Nelson is up for re-election in 2006 and could face a stiff challenge from [Republican Governor Mike] Johanns.
Nebraska Democrats suggested Thursday that Bush's interest in Nelson for a Cabinet post could inoculate Nelson against Bush administration campaigning if he runs for re-election in 2006.
"If President Bush considers someone to be a member of his Cabinet, you can't get any better endorsement than that," Nebraska Democratic Party Chairman Barry Rubin said. "It shows how well-respected Senator Nelson is."
Thursday, November 18, 2004
How did Rep. Walden (R-OR) vote?
Josh Marshall over at Talking Points Memo is trying to find out how each member of the Republican Caucus in the House voted on the rules change to allow their leaders to serve even if they are indicted on felony charges. He and his readers have been successful in finding out how a number of members voted, which is a great service to this country (though it's too bad only a blogger is doing this and not the mainstream media).
As Oregon's only Republican member of the House, Greg Walden (OR-2) seems to be under some pressure to divulge how he voted. Josh explains:
Maybe The Oregonian will look into it... no, knowing them, they probably won't.
As Oregon's only Republican member of the House, Greg Walden (OR-2) seems to be under some pressure to divulge how he voted. Josh explains:
Of all the members of the House Republican caucus, the guy who seems to have heard from the most TPM readers (or at least high on the list) is Greg Walden of Oregon.It'll be interesting to hear how he voted. He's quite partisan, so I would assume he voted to shield Tom DeLay from losing his post should he be indicted soon (the vote indicates to this blogger that he probably will be in the not-too-distant future).
Oregonians who called, but weren't from Walden's district, apparently got a bit of a tongue-lashing. But those who were his constituents got either a 'we don't know how he voted' or some version of 'the person who answers that question is away from their desk', etc. Pretty much all of Walden's constituents got the run-around and none of them got a straight answer. Lots of them got promises of calls back. But nobody seems to have gotten one.
There was apparently at least one rather hard-boiled staffer in one of the Walden offices, though. Because, in at least two cases, callers were told that in the staffer's opinion Walden almost certainly gave DeLay the nod.
Maybe The Oregonian will look into it... no, knowing them, they probably won't.
Republicans bankrupting America
The Washington Post's Jonathan Weisman analyzes the Republican record of running our government and it doesn't look good:
Government accountability and fiscal responsibility
The strict rules that once limited tax cuts and entitlement spending increases lapsed two years ago. Limits on spending lost their teeth. This year, Congress failed to pass a budget altogether.Five words to hit these guys with:
Last night, with the federal government warning that it was on the verge of defaulting on its debts, the House rejected efforts to reimpose restrictions on tax cuts and spending, then joined the Senate to raise the federal debt limit by $800 billion, to $8.18 trillion.
The collapse of statutory restraints on the growing budget deficit has alarmed Wall Street, befuddled the Treasury Department and elicited calls for a rethinking of the way the government handles its authority to tax its citizens and spend those proceeds.
"The fact is, very little [budgetary restraint] is left in any real form or substance," said Robert D. Reischauer, a former director of the Congressional Budget Office, now president of the Urban Institute.
With last night's passage of the debt ceiling increase, the government's borrowing limit has climbed by $2.23 trillion since President Bush took office: by $450 billion in 2002, by a record $984 billion in 2003 and by $800 billion this year. Just the increase in the debt ceiling over the past three years is nearly 2 1/2 times the entire federal debt accumulated between 1776 and 1980. [emphasis added]
Government accountability and fiscal responsibility
President Bush proves graft isn't dead
Definition:
GraftHistorical example:
n.
tr. & intr.v. graft·ed, graft·ing, grafts
- Unscrupulous use of one's position to derive profit or advantages; extortion.
- Money or an advantage gained or yielded by unscrupulous means.
To gain by or practice unscrupulous use of one's position.
Grant, Ulysses Simpson. Originally Hiram Ulysses Grant. 1822-1885.Modern example:
The 18th President of the United States (1869-1877) and a Civil War general. After his victorious Vicksburg campaign (1862-1863), he was made commander in chief of the Union Army (1864) and accepted the surrender of Gen. Robert E. Lee at Appomattox (1865). Grant's two-term presidency was marred by widespread graft and corruption.
AP: One-third of President Bush's top 2000 fund-raisers or their spouses were appointed to positions in his first administration, from ambassadorships in Europe to seats on policy-setting boards, an Associated Press review found.Explanation:
The perks for 246 "pioneers" who raised at least $100,000 also included overnight stays at the White House and Camp David, parties at the White House and Bush's Texas ranch, state dinners with world leaders and overseas travel with U.S. delegations to the Olympics and other events, the review found.
[...]
Three top Bush fund-raisers became Cabinet secretaries: Bush 2000 finance chairman Don Evans at Commerce, Elaine Chao at Labor and Tom Ridge at Homeland Security. At least eight took other high-profile administration jobs, such as State Department chief financial officer Christopher Burnham and Jose Fourquet, U.S. executive director of the Inter-American Development Bank.
During the term of the 42nd President of the United States, William Jefferson Clinton, members of the opposition party (Republicans) often complained of misuse of the White House to benefit donors. It was implied that stays in the Lincoln bedroom could be bought for campaign donations.
During the 2000 Presidential campaign between Albert Gore of Tennessee and George W. Bush of Connecticut, the latter accused the former of such activities. Evidently, Mr. Bush's complaints must have been that the former administration was not efficient enough in selling off influence because he proved that not only can a President offer his top donors stays at the White House, he can also allow them to shape federal policy at will.
Although graft as a term has become passé, President Bush proved that the concept isn't. Congratulations.
American legacy in Afghanistan: Opium
This is lovely:
I don't understand how this administration is able to continually and continuously get away with incompetence. It truly is a "catastrophic success," as this President called it--we knocked out the Taliban (success) but have replaced it with an even worse mob/drug dealer/warlord rule (catastrophe).
Afghanistan is a “narco-” and as such a likely breeding ground for terrorists, Britain admitted on Thursday, after the United Nations reported a 64 per cent increase in opium cultivation.Link.
Three years after US-led forces ousted the Taliban, opium is the mainstay of the Afghan economy, accounting for more than 60 per cent of gross domestic product.
Britain, the lead nation in the anti-narcotics drive in Afghanistan, admitted that there was a risk of the opium boom re-creating the conditions that the “war against terror” was supposed to eliminate.
I don't understand how this administration is able to continually and continuously get away with incompetence. It truly is a "catastrophic success," as this President called it--we knocked out the Taliban (success) but have replaced it with an even worse mob/drug dealer/warlord rule (catastrophe).
Republicans trying to increase their Senate lead?
Ed Henry and John King of CNN report:
Democratic Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska has been approached about becoming agriculture secretary in the Bush administration, according to two sources.Although Nelson is the lone remaining conservative Dem in the Senate (and thus often votes with the Republican majority), I would still rather have him in the Senate as a Democratic vote on most issues rather than in Agriculture where he would have no power. This is all part of Karl Rove's master plan, and let's just hope he isn't able to woo this Democrat.
His appointment could add a second Democrat to Bush's Cabinet, as well as possibly increasing the GOP's Senate majority.
Republican Gov. Mike Johanns would get to choose Nelson's replacement, which could increase the GOP's advantage in the Senate to 56 seats.
FDA can't stop bad drugs
This is comforting. Really.
The Bushies have cut enforcement by 80% at the FDA (according to Rep. Henry Waxman at a committee meeting yesterday on C-SPAN) and seem resigned to let industry do whatever it wants. As a result, the public is less safe. If only the media were willing to do more of an expose on this...
The American public is "virtually defenseless" if another medication such as Vioxx proves to be unsafe after it is approved for sale, a government drug safety reviewer told a congressional committee Thursday.Link.
"I would argue that the FDA as currently configured is incapable of protecting America against another Vioxx," said David Graham, who warned that the arthritis drug had been linked to an increased risk of heart attack and stroke.
He told the Senate Finance Committee that there were at least five other drugs on the market today that should be looked at seriously to see whether they should remain there. He cited the acne drug Accutane, the weight loss drug Meridia, the anti-cholesterol drug Crestor, the pain reliever Bextra, and the asthma drug Serevent.
The Bushies have cut enforcement by 80% at the FDA (according to Rep. Henry Waxman at a committee meeting yesterday on C-SPAN) and seem resigned to let industry do whatever it wants. As a result, the public is less safe. If only the media were willing to do more of an expose on this...
The opening of the Clinton Presidential Library
The program is just starting and boy am I excited. Watching live on CNN of course.
I suppose at my young age I'm not supposed to be whistful, but I am--as Edward Kennedy Ellington wrote--"In a Sentimental Mood."
[Update 9:28 AM Pacific]: I still believe in a man who "still believes in a place called Hope."
I suppose at my young age I'm not supposed to be whistful, but I am--as Edward Kennedy Ellington wrote--"In a Sentimental Mood."
[Update 9:28 AM Pacific]: I still believe in a man who "still believes in a place called Hope."
Bush attempts to gut Oregon's forests
I am no super-environmentalist by any means--I truly believe in balancing environmental concerns with logging interests in the state of Oregon (if that balance can be found--but even this move by the Bush administration seems to me to have crossed the line. The Oregonian's Michael Milstein explains the situation in "Bush ready to reshape federal forests" as such:
President Bush enters his second term poised to refashion the Northwest's public forests, reviving some logging after its near collapse while curtailing environmental reviews that opponents use to restrain cutting.Milstein lays out the litany of policies and regulations the Bush administration will seek to overturn in the effort to allow nearly unrestricted logging in Oregon, something the denizens of the state surely do not want. Although Oregonians have time and again made it clear that they want environmental interests balanced with economic ones, Bush wants no such balance whatsoever, and as a result risks damaging Oregon's landscape for generations to come. I certainly hope newly-reelected Senator Ron Wyden will stand up to the Bush administration on this issue.
His actions over the next four years may fell more old-growth trees, reconsider safeguards for the northern spotted owl and shrink the U.S. Forest Service -- the biggest federal land manager in Oregon and Washington. Together the moves could rebalance federal land use by stressing logging for jobs and revenue -- and as a tool to clear overgrown, flammable stands.
Wednesday, November 17, 2004
The next Governor of Colorado?
The Hill reports:
Their father Morris Udall was a terrific man (read about his 1976 run for the Democratic nomination here), and it's a testament to his legacy that Mark and Tom are doing so much good for the nation.
Democratic Rep. Mark Udall (D-Colo.) is primed to run for governor in 2006, Udall’s chief of staff, Alan Salazar, said yesterday.Udall is a great man and it would be great to see him as the next Governor of Colorado. It would also be wonderful to see his brother Tom Udall become Senator for New Mexico whenever Pete Domenici retires.
Given that Colorado Democrats in 2004 managed to win Senate and House seats previously held by Republicans and capture the state Senate and House, Salazar said, Udall, who has harbored statewide ambitions, would be well-positioned to run.
“These are big victories for Democrats … that would certainly point to a Democrat taking back the governorship in 2006,” Salazar said, adding that “Mark has made no secret of running statewide.”
Earlier this year, Udall, whose 2nd District encompasses Boulder, jumped into the Democratic primary for the Senate seat being vacated by Ben Nighthorse Campbell (R). But 24 hours after announcing his candidacy, Udall exited the race to make way for state Attorney General Ken Salazar (D), who won in the Nov. 2 general election.
Their father Morris Udall was a terrific man (read about his 1976 run for the Democratic nomination here), and it's a testament to his legacy that Mark and Tom are doing so much good for the nation.
Democrats may be out of government...
But they still hold academe:
Conservatism is becoming more visible at the University of California here, where students put out a feisty magazine called The California Patriot and have made the Berkeley Republicans one of the largest groups on campus. But here, as at schools nationwide, the professors seem to be moving in the other direction, as evidenced by their campaign contributions and two studies being published on Nov. 18.Link.
One of the studies, a national survey of more than 1,000 academics, shows that Democratic professors outnumber Republicans by at least seven to one in the humanities and social sciences. That ratio is more than twice as lopsided as it was three decades ago, and it seems quite likely to keep increasing, because the younger faculty members are more consistently Democratic than the ones nearing retirement, said Daniel Klein, an associate professor of economics at Santa Clara University and a co-author of the study.
In a separate study of voter registration records, Professor Klein found a nine-to-one ratio of Democrats to Republicans on the faculties of Berkeley and Stanford. That study, which included professors from the hard sciences, engineering and professional schools as well as the humanities and social sciences, also found the ratio especially lopsided among the younger professors of assistant or associate rank: 183 Democrats versus 6 Republicans.
Paging Mark Warner
Gerald Seib writes in the Wall Street Journal today:
As Democrats ponder that question [of who can lead their revival], they may want to remember that there is a particular kind of leader who in the past has succeeded in shepherding them out of the political wilderness: a moderate Southern governor who knows how to win in those red states, who is able to win over Republicans and who can speak to the middle on social issues.Mark Warner is someone I would be very comfortable with as the 2008 nominee. I just hope the more extreme wing of the party will accept a moderate...
In this hour of their gloom, the good news for Democrats is that they have precisely such a figure within their ranks. He is Mark Warner, the governor of Virginia. In the party's search for fresh faces to guide it now, his may well be the most appealing.
Three years ago, Mr. Warner was comfortably elected the Democratic governor of Virginia, a state that has voted Republican in every presidential election since 1964. Like nearly every governor, he has struggled with a deep budget crisis. In his case, he has had to do so in an essentially conservative state alongside a state legislature solidly in Republican hands.
Yet Mr. Warner succeeded this year in balancing the state's books by signing into law a $1.4 billion tax increase. He was helped enormously by the fact that the Republican chairman of the state senate's finance committee actually pushed for an even larger tax increase to fill the state's budget gap. Still, Mr. Warner emerged with an image as an effective and fiscally responsible Democrat who knows how to work with the other side.
Clinton administration was concerned about Al Qaeda
A year before the Bush presidency began, the Clinton administration was deeply concerned that al-Qaida sleeper cells existed in North America and considered taking swift action in response, according to newly released testimony.Link.
"There were two simultaneous plots, one in Jordan and one in the United States, and they both involved American citizens," Bush administration critic Richard Clarke testified in June 2002 before a congressional inquiry into the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. The plots were of high enough interest that Republican Sen. Richard Shelby, the former chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, requested a briefing.
"The conclusion was that we should ... beef up the counterterrorism task force around the country," said Clarke, whose testimony about the briefing of Shelby in February 2000 was partially blacked out because of national security concerns.
The real question is why this administration was not concerned enough about Al Qaeda.
Goodbye Senator Hollings
It's sad to see you go, Fritz. You're one of the last of a generation of Southern Democrats and we're all going to miss you.
"I know that we can do better," said Hollings, 82, closing a political career that spanned more than half a century as a state legislator, governor and senator from South Carolina.Link.
In a rambling, irreverent speech -- a Hollings trademark -- he rapped Republicans for driving up federal deficits with tax cuts, expressed outrage at the failure to reform Social Security and complained that Washington was giving away jobs, including South Carolina textile jobs, with free trade policies.
He lamented that lawmakers today must spend much of their time raising money for the next election. "The main culprit, the cancer on the body politic, is money," the tall, white-haired lawmaker said in his deep, southern drawl. "We don't have time for each other, we don't have time for constituents except for the givers. ... We're in real, real trouble."
The party of moribund hubris
Josh Marshall reports:
Rep John Dingell (D-MI) on Majority Leader Tom DeLay (TX-R): "These folks talk about values and decency, but then think it’s okay to change the rules once it appears one of their own may have broken them. This amounts to a work release program for the ethically challenged. We should all remember that a decade ago, Mr. DeLay helped to create this rule. Republicans said at the time they were the party of reform and good government. Now they’ve become the party of moribund hubris."Government accountability and fiscal responsibility
More on Linc Chafee
It sounds like Harry Reid tried to flip Chafee to the Dems to no avail:
Reid did get Jim Jeffords to defect, and 1 for 2 ain't bad.
Republican Sen. Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, a moderate often at odds with GOP conservatives, disclosed Wednesday that the leader of Senate Democrats sounded him out about switching parties in the aftermath of President Bush's re-election.Link.
Chafee said he rebuffed the offer from Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada in a follow-up phone conversation the same day, adding that Reid offered "no deal or anything like that" as an incentive to cross the political aisle.
"We had a brief conversation, just hello," Chafee said in an interview. He publicly flirted with leaving the GOP in the days before and immediately after the election, but has since affirmed he will not switch.
Reid did get Jim Jeffords to defect, and 1 for 2 ain't bad.
Charlie Cook: GOP to have tough time in Senate
Charlie Cook explains this week that although there are fewer Democrats in the Senate since 1930, the Republicans won't necessarily have an easy time legislating in the Senate:
The challenges facing Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., are quite obvious. First, he has for all practical purposes five moderate votes that, depending on the issue, can bail out on him in a minute. First in line is Sen. Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, who is a charter member of what conservatives snidely call the "RINO" club: Republicans In Name Only. Then come Sens. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania and Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe, both of Maine. The fifth moderate is actually a hybrid: Sen. George Voinovich of Ohio on tax and budget issues, and Sen. John McCain of Arizona on other issues. Each man is reliably conservative on enough issues that it is inaccurate to describe them as moderates, but each also strays off the reservation enough that their votes cannot often be counted on.To sign up for Cook's Off to the Races column, click here.
Making matters more difficult is the fact that, with the exception of Nebraska Sen. Ben Nelson, there are no true conservative Democrats left in the Senate, and only a handful of moderates: Sens. Max Baucus of Montana, Evan Bayh of Indiana, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut, Blanche Lincoln and Mark Pryor of Arkansas and Bill Nelson of Florida. We must wait to see where Senators-elect Barack Obama of Illinois (who had a passable rating among business interests in the Illinois Legislature) and Ken Salazar of Colorado end up falling on the ideological scale.
More Political Trivia of the Day
This from CQ Today Midday Update (free email service):
Nothing like a good Republican who publishes Pravda. That's too funny.
Rep. Christopher Cox, R-Calif., was a Harvard Law School classmate of Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass. After graduating, Cox clerked with judges on federal appeals courts in San Francisco and Honolulu, practiced law with a Newport Beach firm, and published with his father an English version of the former official Soviet newspaper Pravda. (SOURCE: CQ Politics in America 2004)Link.
Nothing like a good Republican who publishes Pravda. That's too funny.
Scalia proves once again that he's clueless
Antonin Scalia, the controversial United States Supreme Court justice, addressed a packed crowd at the University of Michigan on Tuesday, taking the unusual step of taking questions from the audience and drawing some boos - and some applause - during his answers to those questions.Link.
Scalia, who was at Rackham Auditorium to speak on the philosophy of constitutional interpretation, was asked by a member of the audience whether, if he had the chance, he would revisit his decision in the Gore-Bush 2000 election. Scalia cut off the questioner , saying, "I'm inclined to say it's been four years and an election. Get over it." That drew loud boos from the crowd. Scalia voted with the 5-4 majority in 2000 to cease the recount of disputed votes in Florida.
Scalia continued, "The issue is not whether the decision should have been decided in the Florida or U.S. supreme courts, but that the Constitution had been violated. ... The only decision was to put an end to it after three weeks and looking like fools to the rest of the world. It was too much of a mess." [emphasis added]
Please, someone explain to me how "the Constitution had been violated" by waiting until all of the votes had been counted before assigning electors. It's happened numerous times in the past (1876 the most notable example), so it's clearly ludicrous to say that there was something Constitutionally wrong with counting all of the votes in Florida.
The fact is that Scalia--who calls himself a "strict constructionist"--is always willing to make up reasoning (whether based on a strict reading of the Constitution or not) to suit his needs. He wanted to become Chief Justice, and that wouldn't happen if Al Gore were elected, so he went against the strict reading of the Constitution and made sure George W. Bush won.
We're not going to "get over it." We're going to make sure you never become Chief Justice. Sorry.
George Will wants Condi asked tough questions
Among them:
I don't agree with all of Will's characterizations, but I'm glad to see at least someone is willing to ask the questions (though I wish some Senators would, as well, at the confirmation hearings).
By the way, this reminds me of this Seinfeld gem...
In 1991 the secretary of defense, explaining the lack of wisdom of regime change, said: "Once you've got Baghdad, it's not clear what you do with it. It's not clear what kind of government you would put in place of the one that's currently there now. Is it going to be a Shia regime, a Sunni regime or a Kurdish regime? Or one that tilts toward the Baathists, or one that tilts toward the Islamic fundamentalists? How much credibility is that government going to have if it's set up by the United States military when it's there? How long does the United States military have to stay to protect the people that sign on for that government, and what happens to it once we leave?" Was Dick Cheney right?Link.
In 2000, before becoming George W. Bush's national security adviser, you questioned the use of U.S. military forces in peacekeeping operations: "Carrying out civil administration and police functions is simply going to degrade the American capability to do the things America has to do. We don't need to have the 82nd Airborne escorting kids to kindergarten." Are current noncombat operations in Iraq degrading U.S. military capabilities?
I don't agree with all of Will's characterizations, but I'm glad to see at least someone is willing to ask the questions (though I wish some Senators would, as well, at the confirmation hearings).
By the way, this reminds me of this Seinfeld gem...
Kramer: You know, I'll tell you who's an attractive man: George Will.
Jerry: Really?
Kramer: Yeah. He has a clean look--scrubbed and shampooed.
Elaine: He's smart...
Kramer: No, no. I don't find him all that bright.
Oregon still growing at a steady rate
There might not be any jobs, but the AP is reporting that people are still moving to Oregon at a relatively high rate.
It's a wonderful place to live (anyone can attest to that), but I'm just a little concerned about where these people are going to find employment when the state unemployment rate is 7.3%.
Oregon's population has swelled to 3.6 million, a 4.7 percent increase since 2000, according to new estimates from Portland State University's Population Research Center.
The state's population jumped 1.2 percent from July 2003 to July 2004, reflecting a better economy, according to the estimates. But the size of increase pales next to the 2 percent to 2.5 percent increases of the mid-1990s.
"The economy is picking up a bit, and the statewide population is picking up a bit," said Qian Cai, population estimates manager.
Deschutes County, as expected, ranked as the state's fastest-growing, with "outdoor-minded young people and retirees" leading the charge, Cai said. The county grew by 3.8 percent in the past year and more than 17 percent since 2000. Three of its cities -- Bend, Redmond and Sisters -- are among the state's fastest growing.
It's a wonderful place to live (anyone can attest to that), but I'm just a little concerned about where these people are going to find employment when the state unemployment rate is 7.3%.
And they say the Cold War is over...
President Vladimir Putin said Wednesday that Russia is developing a new form of nuclear missile unlike those held by other countries, news agencies reported.Link.
Speaking at a meeting of the Armed Forces' leadership, Putin reportedly said that Russia is researching and successfully testing new nuclear missile systems.
"I am sure that ... they will be put in service within the next few years and, what is more, they will be developments of the kind that other nuclear powers do not and will not have," Putin was quoted as saying by the ITAR-Tass news agency.
[...]
Earlier this year, a senior Defense Ministry official was quoted as telling news agencies that Russia had developed a weapon that could make the United States' proposed missile-defense system useless. Details were not given, but military analysts said the claimed new weapon could be a hypersonic cruise missile or maneuverable ballistic missile warheads.
I guess withdrawing from the ABM Treaty was worth it. (?)
How about this correction?
From the Los Angeles Times via The Note:
The Inside Politics column in the Nov. 8 California section contained an item about an election night celebration that said several local prosecutors appeared to have made frequent trips to the open bar. It was a cash bar.Brilliant.
Tuesday, November 16, 2004
Interview with 1980 candidate John Anderson
This afternoon I had the opportunity to speak with John Anderson via telephone from his home in Florida. Between 1961 and 1981, Mr. Anderson served ten terms as U.S. Representative to Congress from the 16th District of Illinois. He served on the House Rules Committee and for a decade was Chairman of the House Republican Conference. He received 6 million votes as an Independent candidate in 1980 and has served as chair of the Center for Voting and Democracy since 1996. He is also currently a law professor at Nova Southeastern University.
To begin with, I asked Congressman Anderson the opportunity to talk about his experience in the House.
To begin with, I asked Congressman Anderson the opportunity to talk about his experience in the House.
Jonathan Singer: Congressman Anderson, I truly appreciate you speaking with me.* - I was referring to Wayne Morse whose name I could not recall at the time
John Anderson: You're welcome.
Singer: During your 20 years in the House, you never served in the majority. How difficult was it to constantly be in the opposition?
Anderson: It was difficult. There were times, however, when even being in the minority I could feel that I was having some impact. The most notable example of that was the 8 to 7 vote by which the Open Housing Bill of 1968 came out of the Rules Committee and I joined with the Democratic Majority, from whom, however, the Southern Democrats on the Committee had defected so my vote was needed. And, as a result we adopted the kind of rules on that legislation that allowed the House the next day to take up a Senate version of Open Housing to eliminate discrimination in the sale and leasing of housing that otherwise would have been very much watered down on the House side if it had gone to a committee--a Conference Committee. So that's a notable example where even a Republican serving in a Democratic House (which it was during all of the 20 years that I served there) by forming an alliance on an issue that was of great import to me--a Civil Rights issue. I could accomplish something.
Another example or two would be joining with my very best friend in the House, the late Morris Udall (who, again, was a Democrat), but who believed deeply that we ought to put the great share of pristine beauty of Alaska in the kind of protected areas where it wouldn't fall prey to the developer's blade and get chewed up. And so the Udall-Anderson National Interest Lands Bill, which provided for a great deal of land to be put into parks and forested areas and other areas that were free from development. And that bill passed the House and ultimately passed the Senate and became what is known today as the National Interest Alaska Lands Bill.
Those are a couple of examples when even in the minority you can coalesce with people who have similar interests as you and get something done. Not to say there aren't times when even the minority is right and the majority is wrong, then you can join your own party caucus and at least put on the record--and for the benefit of the press gallery to be reported hopefully elsewhere--your opposition to bill that the Democrats were pushing that I thought were not in the best interests of the country. So the life of a minority member is not entirely futile.
The Current House
Singer: A couple of other issues on which the Republicans were necessary were the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act. I know the Democratic leadership really relied on the centrist and liberal members of the Republican caucus to pass a number of their liberal bills, but today it seems like the Republican majority is more loathe to reach out to their Democratic opposition--
Anderson: I think that's true. I think they've moved farther right.
Singer: So what are your feelings on that--the lack of bipartisanship, especially on the House side?
Anderson: I think it's become quite noticeable and frankly I deplore it. I believe we live in a very dangerous world and there are many issues I think on which we as a nation need to forget our partisan differences and unite. That has no... it's impossible. So I think the climate has changed--it's much more polarized. To that extent I think it would be extremely difficult for an independent-minded person like myself to continue to serve on the Republican side of the aisle. It would be very frustrating.
Singer: When you were in the House, you were elected in 1960 and you joined 174 Republicans. That number was as low as 140 and only as high as 192. What advice might you give to the House Democrats, who have at least 200 members right now, pending a race in New York?
Anderson: I don't know what the agenda is going to be in (what is it going to be) the 109th Congress (I guess) when they meet in January. Personally, I'd have to express it in terms of my own deeply-held views that on matters of foreign policy we should not rush--as the House and the Senate both did--to approve a resolution that introduced Armed Forces into Iraq. I thoroughly disapprove of the doctrine of pre-emptive strike that is now at the very center of the foreign policy and the defense policy of this administration.
If I were there now, I think I would be working as hard as I could on both sides of the aisle to try to nip together a coalition of opposition to the kind of foreign policy that this administration has pursued.
Singer: And which side of the aisle would you be on, or would you be like the Senator from Oregon who just pulled a lawn chair in the middle of the aisle*?
Anderson: I might do like my friend Jim Jeffords--with whom I served when he was in the House before he went to the Senate--and I might just decide to resign my partisan role and to publicly declare that I was going to be an Independent, and then obviously seek reelection as an Independent rather than as a member of either major party.
The 1980 Presidential Contest
Singer: Moving on to your race for President. In 1980 you initially ran for the Republican nomination from what some might call the "Rockefeller" wing of the party. How difficult is a moderate or a centrist to be nominated by either party?
Anderson: I think it's much more difficult in the Republican Party today for the reasons that I just finished describing. They have moved very, very much farther to the right than they were during the days that I was in the House between 1961 and 1981. Even with their nomination of Barry Goldwater--which was kind of a flirtation with the far right in 1964--I still don't think the Republicans of that period were basically the hard right bunch that they have become.
Singer: When you dropped out of contention for the nomination, you ran as an Independent with a Democrat, Patrick Lacey, as your running mate. How important of a signal was it then to run on a bipartisan ticket, and how necessary might such a ticket be now--two national leaders, one from each party?
Anderson: You mean if an Independent were to run again, would he have to seek his running mate from one of the major parties?
Singer: How beneficial would it be to our system to have a leader, a Congressional leader from one party and a Congressional leader from another party [to] run either under one party's nomination or as an Independent ticket?
Anderson: I'd like to see the latter. I think we need multi-party politics in this country. We have a Constitution that Gordon Wood and other students of American history have very aptly described as an anti-party Constitution; it was a Constitution against parties. Madison deplored factions, and faction to Madison was simply synonymous with party. They knew all about parties; they had the Conservatives and the Whigs back in the 18th century.
I think we need to get away from the idea that American politics forever and a day must be dominated by the same two parties that today hold control. I would like--I repeat--to see the growth of a strong multi-party system in this country to introduce new ideas, new energy, and I think bring with it a much broader participation by people of different walks of life that see some futility in the kind of perennial jousting that goes on for advantage between the two old parties.
Electoral Reform
Singer: In the December issue of Playboy, you write of five ways to fix the electoral process, including: instant runoff voting, multi-member districts, public finance for campaigns, open presidential debates, and abolishing the Electoral College. Could you expand on one or some of those?
Anderson: I think of all of them the one that is the most promising at the moment is IRV, the instant runoff voting, because it's just worked very successfully to elect a Board of Supervisors up in San Francisco County, where it was used for the first time after having been adopted earlier by referendum or initiative by the voters of San Francisco. Even though for one of the slots to be filled there were 22 candidates, still instant runoff voting worked.
The idea, of course, is to get someone who ends up with 51% of the vote, and you just keep counting the ballots and dropping from the list in the recount the candidate with the fewest number of votes until you emerge with one of the candidates getting 51%. I think instant runoff voting would introduce the American voter to the idea that we aren't tied inevitably and inextricably and eternally to two parties, and two parties only: the Republicans and the Democrats.
See, when a Third Party or an Independent runs today he is dismissed immediately as a spoiler--he can only detract from the race rather than add anything, and simply cause one of the other two major party candidates to lose by drawing off votes from that candidate. But if voters could rank candidates and say "this is my first choice, I like John Anderson the Independent, but if he doesn't win, I'll take the Democrat as my runoff choice." Then if John Anderson doesn't get the majority in the first count, his ballots are not discarded, they're thrown into the heap that's recounted to see where those votes would go for the two candidates still remaining on the ballot.
I think once that idea got into the minds of the American people, they would some point in voting for that Independent or Third Party candidate even though he might not initially be able to get a majority, because they would not be wasting their vote. Their second place choice would count in the recount that would take place when he failed to get that majority when the votes were first counted.
So I think with that introduction into the political mix of the idea that it is feasible to vote for an Independent or Third Party candidate--I repeat myself, I know, but for emphasis. Once they get the idea that they can do that and still not really throw away a ballot (to cast a vote that really didn't count for anything), then I think the Independent movement, or a Third Party movement, could begin to get a respectable showing. They wouldn't get a majority to begin with, but they would get vastly more support than they're now able to draw in the present two party context that we're locked. As time went on, I think the idea of a multi-party system would become just a very logical thing to advance towards.
Politics Today
Singer: Could I just ask you a couple questions on current politics, then I'll let you go? Your fellow Illinois Republican Congressman Donald Rumsfeld now serves as Secretary of Defense. How would you rate his term given the successes and failures we've seen in Afghanistan and Iraq?
Anderson: I think, of course, Mr. Rumsfeld has been arrogant, to say the least. He thought that his "Shock and Awe"--as he called it--program to conquer Iraq would settle the problem very quickly and he relied on people like Ahmed Chalabi for his information, apparently, that they were going to be waving flowers and palm branches and strewing them in the path of the conquering Americans when they strode into Baghdad back in March of 2003. We all know it turned out far differently.
He's never confessed there. He's never admitted how wrong he was. He didn't plan for the kind of turbulent situation that is ongoing even as we speak. I think he has been a failure in office, and as I watch these members of the present administration taking their leave and departing, I'm sorry to see he's not among them.
Singer: And one final question. When you ran for President, one of your signature plans was the so-called "50-50 Plan", which would have raised gas taxes by 50 cents per gallon and would have cut Social Security taxes by 50%. In June of this year you wrote a letter to The Washington Post saying that one of the candidates should step up with such a plan that would revolutionize our energy policy. Neither did.
What can be done now to reduce our consumption? It's something you worked on 25 years ago but still has not been solved today.
Anderson: Given the facts as you've stated them, and the fact that neither party has been willing to espouse the really initially draconian steps that will have to be taken to curb the average American's appetite for imported oil.
I think we're just going to have to move to a regime of conservation, and the only way to drive a program of conservation is the idea I promoted 24 years ago, and that's to put the kind of heavy energy taxes on the consumption of fossil fuels that will force us first to conservation and secondly to spending the money and the time and the resources to develop alternative sources of energy that we don't have to dig out of the ground or drill from oil wells in the Middle East and elsewhere.
Singer: Thank you very much for your time. I appreciate it.
Anderson: All right.
Singer: Have a good day.
Anderson: Bye.
The next NSA has some real issues
From Glenn Kessler in The Washington Post:
Stephen J. Hadley, who will be elevated to national security adviser after Condoleezza Rice wins Senate confirmation as secretary of state, is a quintessential staff aide who views himself as a "facilitator" -- someone who makes the policy trains run on time.This really gives me great confidence in his ability to serve as National Security Advisor... really.
But Hadley's record on that score is mixed. The Sept. 11 commission report was critical of Hadley's handling of policy development in several areas. Hadley was also thrust in an uncomfortable spotlight when he accepted blame in 2003 for allowing faulty intelligence to appear in the president's State of the Union address.
Interview forthcoming...
I'm just transcribing the interview (which takes some time) but I hope to be done within the next hour or so...
Another Basie! interview imminent
Tonight I will hopefully be interviewing a Congressman who ran for President in the 1980s, so stay tuned for that...
Taegan Goddard's quote of the day
This is telling:
"There were many green tea instances."[Update 11:03 PM Pacific]: There has been some negative feedback to this post, which originated over at the Political Wire. I thought it was funny, but as telling of Candy Crowley as it is of John Kerry. I'm sorry for the confusion.
-- CNN's Candy Crowley, quoted by the Palm Beach Post, saying a breakfast interview with Sen. John Kerry at a Holiday Inn was a good example of what went wrong in the presidential campaign.
"I'd like to start out with some green tea," Kerry told the waitress, who stared at him for a moment before responding, "We have Lipton's."
Inflation creeping back up...
While the Bush administration and its allies in Congress will tell you that towering budgetary and trade deficits as far as the eyes can see don't matter, the financial markets are telling us something else entirely.
I am not looking forward to a period of high inflation like the 1970s. Really.
U.S. producer prices shot up 1.7 percent last month, the biggest gain in nearly 15 years and well above expectations, as energy costs skyrocketed and food prices surged, a government report showed on Tuesday.>Link.
Even outside of food and energy, producer prices climbed a relatively swift 0.3 percent in October, the Labor Department said, well ahead of the 0.1 percent gain Wall Street had expected.
The increase in the overall Producer Price Index, a gauge of prices received by farms, factories and refineries, was the largest since January 1990 and easily outstripped expectations for a 0.5 percent gain.
U.S. bond prices fell and stock futures dipped, pointing to a weak market open, as investors turned nervous on inflation.
[...]
Perhaps more troubling from an inflation perspective, prices outside of food and energy continued a relatively steep march upward in October. Still, the year-on-year gain moved down a notch to 1.8 percent from the 1.9 percent registered in the 12 months through September.
I am not looking forward to a period of high inflation like the 1970s. Really.
How did Oregon's Hispanics vote?
Latino voters cast ballots in record numbers on Election Day with results that surprised some and left politicos realizing that earning this group's support is going to take a lot more than "Se habla español."Link.
Forty-four percent of Latino voters in the United States supported President Bush, according to exit polls, 9 percentage points higher than he received in 2000.
More notably, 50 percent of Latinos who were voting for the first time indicated support for the Republican president.
Although the Latino community in Oregon didn't make a significant showing for Bush (17 percent), Republican Party Chairman Kevin Mannix said the momentum is growing.
Though John Kerry's support in the Hispanic community was disappointing at best, that was not the case in Oregon where George W. Bush garnered only 17% of the community in the state. In Arizona, Nevada and Colorado, Bush's totals were similarly low, so although he did well among New Mexico's and Florida's Hispanics, across the rest of the country he failed to gain much support. Hispanics will surely be a swing constituency in the future, but at least at this juncture, the Democrats still have the upper hand.
Evan Bayh... the right choice for 2008?
Maureen Groppe of Bayh's hometown paper the Indianapolis Star has a must-read article on one of the leading candidates for the Democratic nomination. For the people who only know him as Birch's son, I'd definitely recommend the piece. Groppe has this to write:
Admirers say he has the right attributes for a White House bid, especially a political resume and style that exude moderation. Yet Bayh's shortcomings, including a cautious personality that lacks star power, could be a challenge if he tries to compete on a national stage.One of the problems for this former Indiana Governor and current Senator is that he although he is a maverick on the scope of John McCain, he is not nearly as well known as his Republican counterpart.
"Of all the people who have not run for president before, he's the leading new candidate," said Chuck Todd, editor in chief of The Hotline, an online political newsletter. "The only thing missing from him on paper from being the perfect candidate would be actually being Latino."
The key reason Bayh is being touted is the divide between Democratic -- or "blue" -- states along the coasts and parts of the Midwest and the Republican -- or "red" -- states everywhere else.
While President Bush racked up large margins in the red South and West and made inroads in the blue Midwest, Bayh was easily re-elected in a red state, raking in 62 percent of the vote. That's a higher tally than Bush's 60 percent in Indiana.
"If I were (Bayh), I'd pick out a couple issues in the Senate that matter to him . . . and become a national spokesmen on them," said Richard Harpootlian, a Democratic activist and former chairman of the South Carolina Democratic Party.Groppe writes that two other possible problems also afflict Bayh. The first is that he has not shown an ability to excite crowds like some other candidates. (Truth be told, neither could John Kerry, but more than 57 million people voted for him, but Al Sharpton could and he tanked in the primaries.) Another problem Bayh might face is that moderation does not always work in the primaries. He does not have a perfect record on abortion and has taken moderate stances on a number of issues. Groppe explains that this moderation cuts both ways, though:
Merle Black, a presidential scholar at Emory University in Atlanta, agrees.
"He needs to make himself a lot better-known," Black said. "He's certainly not a household word. . . . At this stage, he would need to sell himself to prominent, influential Democrats in other parts of the country who can be his advocate."
Bayh gets points from political activists and observers for being telegenic and a smooth speaker. But he hasn't shown that he can excite a crowd, some say.
But Joe Andrew, former national and state Democratic party leader, said traditional litmus test issues won't be as important to Democrats during the presidential primaries as will picking a candidate they think can win nationwide.The article continues by laying out a number of other reasons why Bayh might be a good candidate--fundraising prowess, national security credentials, family values, etc.--and generally gives the reader a good impression of Indiana's junior Senator. It's a great piece and I recommend you check it out.
"Bayh trumps virtually any other presidential candidate on the simple test of electability," Andrew said.
House GOP considers defending DeLay
This from The Hill's Hans Nichols and Jonathan E. Kaplan:
The Republicans swept to power in 1994 in a large part due to the corruption of the Congressional Democratic Leadership (it is foolish to think that Clinton's healthcare plan was the only cause), and it is becoming increasingly apparent to this writer that for the Democrats to retake Congress in the near future, they too must grab on to the same issues. As I've written before, it needs to come down to this five word mantra:
Government accountability and fiscal responsibility
House Republicans have until noon today to propose any rules changes to inoculate Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas) from losing his leadership position should he be indicted in a campaign-finance criminal probe back in Texas.I couldn't say it better myself... “We need new leadership which will act because it is right, not because they have been caught in cover-ups and scandals.” Thanks, Tom, for that great line.
Republicans dismiss the investigation by Travis Country District Attorney Ronnie Earle as a politically motivated witch hunt, but GOP internal conference rules are clear that any elected member of the leadership must temporarily relinquish his position if indicted on a felony count that could lead to more than two years in prison.
[...]
The Republican rule requiring any elected leader to take leave of his leadership position pending the outcome of an indictment dates back to 1993, when Republicans sought to draw attention to the ethical problems of then-Ways and Means Chairman Dan Rostenkowski (D-Ill.).
If Republicans did attempt to change the rule, Democrats would accuse them of rank hypocrisy. Republicans must weigh that likely media maelstrom against the potentially more damaging prospect of having their majority leader forced to step down as a result of a campaign-finance indictment.
In the early ’90s, when House Republicans were in the political wilderness, they latched onto a series of ethical scandals in making their claim that the majority power had been corrupted by its years in power.
“We need new leadership which will act because it is right, not because they have been caught in cover-ups and scandals,” DeLay said on the House floor in 1992.
“Once again, what we are pointing out here is that we are outraged at the mismanagement of this House, and it is not just this last year. It has been going on for years. It is the arrogance of power, the lack of follow-through, the ‘Oh, yes, we can push that over in the corner and not address it.’”
The Republicans swept to power in 1994 in a large part due to the corruption of the Congressional Democratic Leadership (it is foolish to think that Clinton's healthcare plan was the only cause), and it is becoming increasingly apparent to this writer that for the Democrats to retake Congress in the near future, they too must grab on to the same issues. As I've written before, it needs to come down to this five word mantra:
Government accountability and fiscal responsibility
President Bush's tax reform dead on arrival?
Josephine Hearn writes in the Tuesday issue of The Hill that President Bush's pledge to fundamentally reform America's tax code--perhaps with a flat tax or a national sales tax--might have hit a snag even before it was laid out to Congress. In "Groups cool on tax reform", Hearn writes that Bush might be lacking one key ally in his push for change: business.
If Bush does indeed want to cut the top rates or even abolish the progressive income tax, given the country's current abysmal fiscal situation, one would tend to think that he would need to be revenue-neutral. This would mean getting rid of precious loopholes for businesses and perhaps even raising marginal rates on corporate taxes, something I cannot imagine industry accepting at this juncture.
Bush has another thing going against him. In the period leading up to the passage of the 1986 bill, Reagan had bipartisan support in the form of Democratic House Ways and Means Chairman Dan Rostenkowski and Republican Senate Finance Chairman Bob Packwood to ensure that the bill would get the requisite votes in each house so that it could indeed pass.
Bush does not have the same benefit of a truly bipartisan Congress. Although the President could certainly get the measure through the Republican House, if the Democrats are not brought on board, their coalition with moderate/fiscal hawk Republicans (Chafee, Snowe, Collins, McCain, Specter [?], Gregg [?], Sununu [?]) could block the GOP from 60 in the Senate, thus effectively killing the measure.
The wrangling over Bush's effort will certainly be one for the history books no matter how it plays out. As I have said before, I highly recommend Showdown at Gucci Gulch as requisite reading on the subject so you can have a better understanding of the ramifications of any attempt to alter the federal tax code, even in the smallest degree.
Business groups are voicing concern that President Bush’s proposed reform of the tax code will do some of them more harm than good.Although Hearn does not mention this, business will also be generally skeptical about any tax reform after their experience during the Reagan administration. As Jeffrey Birnbaum and Alan Murray so thoroughly and interestingly lay out in Showdown at Gucci Gulch, the 1986 Tax Reform Act--while reducing personal income taxes to only two brackets and lowering each group--raised taxes on most businesses and got rid of many loopholes in order to stay revenue-neutral.
Despite a flurry of interest in a sweeping overhaul of the code, such as with a flat tax or a national sales tax, business organizations have yet to voice support for a fundamental change.
Many industries have well-established preferences built into the tax code that a broad reform effort could jeopardize. The real-estate industry and nonprofit groups, for instance, have benefited from tax deductions for mortgage interest and for charitable donations.
If Bush does indeed want to cut the top rates or even abolish the progressive income tax, given the country's current abysmal fiscal situation, one would tend to think that he would need to be revenue-neutral. This would mean getting rid of precious loopholes for businesses and perhaps even raising marginal rates on corporate taxes, something I cannot imagine industry accepting at this juncture.
Bush has another thing going against him. In the period leading up to the passage of the 1986 bill, Reagan had bipartisan support in the form of Democratic House Ways and Means Chairman Dan Rostenkowski and Republican Senate Finance Chairman Bob Packwood to ensure that the bill would get the requisite votes in each house so that it could indeed pass.
Bush does not have the same benefit of a truly bipartisan Congress. Although the President could certainly get the measure through the Republican House, if the Democrats are not brought on board, their coalition with moderate/fiscal hawk Republicans (Chafee, Snowe, Collins, McCain, Specter [?], Gregg [?], Sununu [?]) could block the GOP from 60 in the Senate, thus effectively killing the measure.
The wrangling over Bush's effort will certainly be one for the history books no matter how it plays out. As I have said before, I highly recommend Showdown at Gucci Gulch as requisite reading on the subject so you can have a better understanding of the ramifications of any attempt to alter the federal tax code, even in the smallest degree.
Monday, November 15, 2004
The New Yorker take on Chris Matthews
2 Senate Republicans battle each other
This should be entertaining:
The Democrats have already chosen Chuck Schumer to run their campaign committee (The DSCC), and he should do a fantastic job in that role. It'll be an interesting two years as the Democrats try to make up the lost ground, and although I'm not entirely optimistic about their chances, they do have a shot at picking up a couple of seats and narrowing the GOP's hold on the chamber.
Sens. Norm Coleman and Elizabeth Dole both claimed Monday they have enough votes from their GOP colleagues to take over leadership of the influential National Republican Senatorial Committee.Link.
The dueling assertions came two days before Republican senators and senators-elect vote by secret ballot. The NRSC chairman will be responsible for raising money and recruiting candidates for the party in the 2006 Senate races.
"With the continued support of you and other colleagues who have committed to me, we will be successful," Coleman wrote in a letter to supporters. The letter, obtained by The Associated Press, claimed the Minnesota senator had "at least" 28 votes lined up, or just over half the 55 GOP senators.
Brian Nick, a spokesman for Coleman's North Carolina counterpart, said she "absolutely has more than 28 votes necessary to win."
The Democrats have already chosen Chuck Schumer to run their campaign committee (The DSCC), and he should do a fantastic job in that role. It'll be an interesting two years as the Democrats try to make up the lost ground, and although I'm not entirely optimistic about their chances, they do have a shot at picking up a couple of seats and narrowing the GOP's hold on the chamber.
McCain regaining his independence?
I still cannot fathom how John McCain could continually bend over backwards to suit the Bush campaign throughout the summer and fall (I understand he wants to be President in 2008, but was it really worth it?). It appears as though he might be finding his former self once again. Andrew C. Revkin reports in The New York Times tomorrow that the Arizona Senator has now decided to stand up to the administration on the issue of the environment (of which he is a strong proponent). In "Election Over, McCain Criticizes Bush on Climate Change", Revkin leads thusly:
Wasting no time distancing himself from President Bush on an issue that has long divided them, Senator John McCain yesterday called the White House stance on climate change "terribly disappointing" and said inaction in the face of mounting scientific data was unjustified.If there is one "morals" issue that the Democrats can consistently win on (whether they are centrists or liberals), it is the environment. While it is true that running on an "enviromental" platform could alienate some business interests, if the Democrats indeed want to be able to win a "values" debate, playing the enviroment card would be highly affective. It's no surprise, then, that McCain is going back to his pro-environment stances to try to woo voters for 2008.
Two weeks after the end of a campaign in which he stumped for Mr. Bush's re-election, Mr. McCain, Republican of Arizona, is convening a Senate hearing today on the human effect on climate and what to do about it.
[...]
The focus of today's hearing, the last of Mr. McCain's six-year tenure as chairman of the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, will be rapid warming in the Arctic, the subject of a recent report by a panel of nearly 300 scientists. The report, commissioned by eight nations with Arctic territory, including the United States, found that rising temperatures had already eroded glaciers, sea ice and permafrost and could lead to vast changes in the region's environment and in global sea levels by the end of the 21st century.
The hearing is the latest of more than a dozen on human-caused global warming that Mr. McCain has convened during his chairmanship of the committee. The new chairman is expected to be Senator Ted Stevens, an Alaska Republican who has voted against Mr. McCain's bill [to begin to regulate greenhouse emmissions] but has often said that the warming climate poses a severe challenge to his state and particularly to indigenous Arctic cultures.
Good ole Bobby Byrd
Sounds like he's running again, and this makes me quite happy:
Robert Byrd is perhaps the greatest parliamentarian in Congress since the days of Daniel Webster, and he is certainly a mythical figure on the lines of Henry Clay and others. The Democrats are lucky to have him (even if his past is not perfect).
The Republicans are already suffering growing pains, evidenced in an internal struggle that led to the firing of the party's executive director after the election. But they are confidently looking to challenge [Robert] Byrd in 2006 and take control of the Legislature in 2008, goals that no longer seem impossible.Link.
Kris Warner, chairman of the state Republican Party, said Mr. Byrd was hurt by his harsh attacks against Mr. Bush, both in a book and on the stump. The senator's age may also be an issue; Mr. Byrd will be 88 when he is up for re-election.
"He has lost his edge," Mr. Warner said of Mr. Byrd, who has been in the Senate since 1959.
Aides to Mr. Byrd said he planned to run again in 2006. In an e-mail message, Mr. Byrd pulled no punches on Mr. Bush, calling his administration dangerous. But he also warned that many Democrats had begun to question where the party stood on core issues.
"I have always known where the values of West Virginia lie - patriotism, faith, family, opportunity, a clear sense of right and wrong, and justice," Mr. Byrd said. "The Democratic Party needs to get back to reflecting those core principles."
Robert Byrd is perhaps the greatest parliamentarian in Congress since the days of Daniel Webster, and he is certainly a mythical figure on the lines of Henry Clay and others. The Democrats are lucky to have him (even if his past is not perfect).
Another portrait of the new Democratic Leader
Charles Babington of the Washington Post lands on page A3 with "Reid Tapped to Lead Senate Democrats", a look at Harry Reid (D-NV):
Reid is unlikely to soften his stance on one issue: his strong opposition to the administration's plan to build a huge nuclear waste repository beneath Nevada's Yucca Mountain.This is the type of fighting attitude Democrats need from a leader, even if some liberals don't like his moderation.
Reid declined to grant interviews on his new leadership position until this morning's caucus vote makes it official. But shortly after the election, he hinted to Nevada reporters that Senate Democrats will make few, if any, concessions despite their setbacks.
Reforming Social Security to permit creation of private investment accounts? "I'm not going to do that," Reid told Las Vegas One, a cable news channel. He called Bush's No Child Left Behind program "a disaster." As for the Republican goal of limiting liability for doctors, corporations and others that might be sued for wrongful deaths or injuries, he said, "I know this may not be politically correct, but I believe that people who are injured deserve some [way] of being made whole."
Democrat Gregoire retakes lead in WA Gov race
From the Washington Secretary of State's office:
It's great to see that Gregoire is back ahead after being behind by about 3,000 votes for some time. The lead is tenuous, however, and there will definitely be a recount. Stay tuned folks...
Christine Gregoire (D): 1,360,871; 48.88%Link.
Dino Rossi (R): 1,360,713; 48.87%
Ruth Bennett (L): 62,439; 2.24%
It's great to see that Gregoire is back ahead after being behind by about 3,000 votes for some time. The lead is tenuous, however, and there will definitely be a recount. Stay tuned folks...
Democrats on the attack
Terence Samuel serves this up in The American Prospect:
Government accountability and fiscal responsibility
In a sharp contrast with how they reacted to the close election loss of 2000, Democrats seem more ready than ever for a fight with President George W. Bush and his expanded GOP majorities on Capitol Hill. It may be that they’re just putting on a brave face, because the fact is that the string of losses this past Election Day was mush more devastating than 2000. The Democratic response to the 2000 Florida debacle was appeasement. Fearful that they would be branded as sore losers, Democrats all over, and on the Hill in particular, imposed a unilateral truce. They chose not to criticize the president or question his legitimacy, then stood “shoulder to shoulder” with him after September 11.I'm not sure how successful the Democrats will actually be in holding the Republicans responsible for the messes they created (Iraq, the deficit, etc.), but it is nevertheless important that they try. As I've written before, Democratic victory in the future will all come down to five words:
The self-pitying, depressive mood lasted two years. Then they got Bushwhacked in the 2002 midterms. Then Howard Dean showed up and expressed the joy of showing one's rage. But Bush cleaned their clocks so decisively last week that is seems Democrats have relinquished the usual pity party thrown after a big election loss. While most are still walking around stunned and a little depressed, they seem ready to fight.
[...]
[House Democratic Leader Nancy] Pelosi and her team plotted strategy this week and announced plans that they will hold the Bush administration accountable. It's a polite way of saying that they’re on the attack. Democratic leadership in the Senate has gone from soft-spoken Daschle to even more soft-spoken Harry Reid, who presents a tougher target for the Republicans. He is pro-life and was just reelected to a fourth term with 61 percent of the vote.
Government accountability and fiscal responsibility
Political Trivia of the Day
This from CQ Today Midday Update (free email service):
This man is running for the 2008 GOP presidential nomination already, so it's beneficial to know a little bit about him.
Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., in 1982 sold his seven-year-old Buick and some insurance bonds to raise $5,000, his total net worth, to launch a cellular phone company. The investment ultimately made him a multimillionaire. (SOURCE: CQ Politics in America 2004)Link.
This man is running for the 2008 GOP presidential nomination already, so it's beneficial to know a little bit about him.
More on Condi Rice...
From the New York Daily News so (maybe) take it with a grain of salt:
Should Condoleezza Rice be worried about the memoir that ex- CIA director George Tenet is peddling?Link.
The former spy chief "trashes" the national security adviser in his book proposal, one publishing insider tells us.
"He claims she was incompetent, that she didn't do her job" when it came to protecting the country from terrorists, the source says.
Oregon's budget situation still worrisome
Eugene Register-Guard reporter David Steves writes this in today's paper:
The economy is recovering and tax dollars are coming into the state at a brisker rate than they were a year ago.There is also this nifty chart from Stephanie Barrow:
But the budget crisis that arrived with the 2001 recession is still here. And with the Nov. 2 election behind them and the Jan. 10 start of the legislative session looming, Oregon's political leaders are gearing up for another year of tough decisions as they try to stretch tax and lottery dollars for education, health care and public safety programs.
As they prepare for the rough trip ahead, lawmakers and the governor are trying to bring ordinary Oregonians along for the ride.
Gov. Ted Kulongoski has launched a new section on his Web site (governor.state.or.us), intended to give residents an unfiltered look at the complexities, costs and trade-offs of paying for government services, along with the efforts his administration has made to increase efficiency. The information won't be complete until after the Nov. 23 release of the latest revenue forecast and the Dec. 1 unveiling of the governor's spending proposal for 2005-07.
"When we put the numbers onto the budget, they're going to see the tough choices we're making," Kulongoski said.
It looks like we're out of one time fixes and we're actually going to have to do something about the fiscal mess in Oregon. I'm not optimistic that the Republicans are going to look at this realistically and be willing to raise taxes so I am highly concerned at this juncture. Kulongoski is popular and the Democrats gained three seats in each house of the state legislature, so maybe it will all work out in the end...
Ohio recount?
Evidently yes...
There will be a recount of the presidential vote in Ohio.Link.
On Thursday, David Cobb, the Green Party’s 2004 presidential candidate, announced his intention to seek a recount of the vote in Ohio. Since the required fee for a statewide recount is $113,600, the only question was whether that money could be raised in time to meet the filing deadline. That question has been answered.
Schumer stays in Senate, won't run for NY Gov
Sen. Charles Schumer will become a leader in the Democratic Party's national effort to regain momentum — abandoning a possible run for governor in 2006, his office said Monday.Link.
Schumer, D-N.Y., agreed to head the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and take a seat on the powerful Finance Committee, giving up his anticipated 2006 gubernatorial campaign, a race which could have pitted him in a primary against state Attorney General Eliot Spitzer.
Schumer, fresh off a record-setting re-election win, phoned incoming Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid Sunday night to accept the offer.
"In short, this was an offer that, for the sake of New York, I could not refuse," Schumer said in a statement. "I called Senator Reid last night, telling him I had accepted his offer along with its concomitant commitment that I see the DSCC job through the 2006 election and run for no other office."
Schumer is a great fundraiser (as was Jon Corzine, who was not entirely successful at his post) but is also a good television personality (unlike Corzine). Hopefully he will succeed as head of the DSCC and help the Dems get closer to retaking the Senate in two years.
Rice's career of failures prepares her to be Secy. State?
Now that Condoleezza Rice appears to be on the short list of possible replacements for Colin Powell to run the State Department in the next term, it would behoove us to take a detailed look at her long record in shaping US foreign policy.
During her four years as National Security Advisor in the current administration, we now she has been a general failure. From North Korea's burgeoning nuclear arms program to the debacle in Iraq to the blind dismissal of the ominously titled PDB "Bin Laden determined to strike in US", Rice's record has been consistent at best and incompetent at worst.
Rice's long history of failures does not only extend to this administration. In the previous Bush administration (Bush 41, that is), she was special adviser on Soviet affairs during the time of the collapse of the Soviet Union. Though she had some successes, her term was marred by misstep after misstep. The Economist laid it out perfectly on December 21 2000 as such:
During her four years as National Security Advisor in the current administration, we now she has been a general failure. From North Korea's burgeoning nuclear arms program to the debacle in Iraq to the blind dismissal of the ominously titled PDB "Bin Laden determined to strike in US", Rice's record has been consistent at best and incompetent at worst.
Rice's long history of failures does not only extend to this administration. In the previous Bush administration (Bush 41, that is), she was special adviser on Soviet affairs during the time of the collapse of the Soviet Union. Though she had some successes, her term was marred by misstep after misstep. The Economist laid it out perfectly on December 21 2000 as such:
But if [Rice] deserves credit for [confronting the USSR on East Germany after the fall of the Berlin Wall], she deserves blame for a comparable failure: America’s early underestimation of Boris Yeltsin. During Mr Yeltsin’s first trip to the United States in 1989, she overruled the advice of the American embassy in Moscow on how to treat him. Instead of being ushered in to see the president through the front door of the White House, the Russian leader merely saw Mr Bush senior during a stop-by visit at the National Security Council.Clearly, Rice's blindness to the systematic change brought on by Al Qaeda's pre-9/11 threats is habitual rather than a one time occurence; Rice failed to recognize the gravity of the situation in Russia as the USSR crumbled (either purposefully or negligently) more than a decade before her mishandling of the threat posed by Bin Laden. If this is the person Bush wants as our next Secretary of State, it will surely be a long, hard four years.
This slight culminated in a more fundamental failure: while America was still hoping that Mr Gorbachev could reform the Soviet system, Russia and the rest were declaring independence. Any fool could see the Soviet Union was collapsing. It took the real brainboxes of the Bush White House to get on the wrong side of history. [paid registration required]
Bush cleans house; Powell, others leave
Secretary of State Colin Powell and three other Cabinet members submitted their resignations, a senior administration official said Monday, as President Bush escalated the shake up of his second-term team.Link.
Besides Powell, who had argued Bush's case for ousting Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein before a skeptical U.N. Security Council in February 2003, others whose resignations were confirmed Monday included Agriculture Secretary Ann Veneman, Education Secretary Rod Paige and Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham.
If UN Ambassador and former Missouri Senator John Danforth is the new Secretary of State, I would certainly be highly supportive of the President's choice. If, however, the President nominates Condoleezza Rice (who has proved her incompetence and blind ideology many times over), we will be in for a rough four years.
Sunday, November 14, 2004
Bush approval a whopping 53%
At least according to Gallup (and I'm not entirely certain of my faith in them at the moment). Let's see if that figure stays up in the stratosphere for him (~55%) or drops back to it's natural range of ~45%.
We're winning the war in Iraq?
American forces overran the last center of rebel resistance in Falluja on Sunday after a weeklong invasion that smashed what they called the principal base for the Iraqi insurgency.Dexter Filkins and James Glanz, "Rebels Routed in Falluja; Fighting Spreads Elsewhere", The New York Times, November 15, 2004
But much of the city lay in smoking ruins, isolated bands of rebels still harassed American and Iraqi troops and the military victory appeared to be nearly overshadowed by violence elsewhere, particularly in the northern city of Mosul.
The governor of Mosul's province, saying he had lost faith in local security forces, called in thousands of Kurdish militiamen for the first time to help quell the insurgent uprising there. The American commander in the area, Brig. Gen. Carter Ham, called the situation "tense, but certainly not desperate," and said that the next few days would bring more hard fighting.
The end of any bipartisanship on the hill?
As one of the final generations of conservative southern Democrats prepares to retire in a month, New York Times reporter Robin Toner writes an extremely interesting piece on the ramifications of this major shift in Washington. In "Southern Democrats' Decline Is Eroding the Political Center", Toner explains that one of the main casualties of situation is the semblence (however small) of bipartisanship on the hill.
But the acceleration of this trend is important for the next Congress: some of these Southern Democrats, along with Northeastern Republicans, were among the last remaining lawmakers in the political center of an increasingly polarized House and Senate.The gem of this piece (at least for a history buff like me) is this graf:
Their dwindling numbers, analysts say, could intensify the divisions on Capitol Hill. The retirement of senators like John B. Breaux of Louisiana means "you're losing moderate Democrats who could work across the aisle," said Larry Evans, a professor of government and an expert on Congress at the College of William and Mary. "And what you're left with is a more polarized Senate." That could mean "more partisan conflict, more infighting, the minority being more reliant on the filibuster and the hold," Professor Evans said.
Senator Olympia J. Snowe, the Republican moderate from Maine, said she had found a "natural alliance" with many of the centrist Southern Democrats over the last 20 years in the House and Senate, on issues like the budget and health care. In the Senate, she and Mr. Breaux worked together on Medicare legislation, including last year's overhaul, which created new prescription drug benefits for the elderly.
"It will mean searching out different majorities on some of these issues," Ms. Snowe said.
This could also have important implications for Mr. Bush's domestic agenda. He needs bipartisan support to achieve major changes in Social Security, for example, but two Democrats considered most likely to work across party lines for entitlement "reform" will not be there: Mr. Breaux and Mr. Stenholm. Some Democrats on Capitol Hill said last week that the Republicans, who campaigned hard against Mr. Stenholm, had perversely cost themselves a potential ally.
Mr. Breaux, waxing somewhat nostalgic, noted that his predecessor in the Senate was Senator Russell B. Long, longtime chairman of the Senate Finance Committee and son of Huey Long. "He could get more done in the afternoon, after work over a bottle of bourbon, talking with the other side," Mr. Breaux said. "He could put a deal together, and I would argue the country wasn't any worse off for it."
Why Harry Reid might be a great Democratic leader
Some Democrats looking for a ray of light in the election argued that Mr. Reid's amiability might make it harder for the White House to demonize him.This gem and more in the article in today's New York Times penned by Adam Nagourney and Carl Hulse.
"When the conservative talk show hosts start saying bad things about Harry Reid, it will be like attacking Mr. Rogers," Senator Ben Nelson, Democrat of Nebraska, said of Mr. Reid, who shares Mr. Rogers's affection for a cardigan.
Great writing from Josh Marshall
There's an ugly but resonant line usually attributed to Joseph Goebbels, but apparently written by the Nazi playwright Hanns Johst, which goes, "When I hear the word 'culture', I reach for my revolver." And ugly as it is, I am tempted to say that when I hear Democratic consultants, who made millions spinning and strategizing and rainmaking over the last decade, opining about Red State culture and the need for Democrats to break bread at Applebee's to commune with the zeitgeist I'm overcome with a similar feeling.The rest of the piece is well worth reading.
There is no end of Democrats in Washington and certainly in every state across this country that often eat at Applebee's or Bennigan's or Coco's, and not simply for research purposes.
Nor did they need election disappointment to put them on the case.
31 dead soldiers in Fallujah
Jim Crane has the story for the AP:
The U.S. military's ground and air assault of Fallujah has gone quicker than expected, with the entire city occupied after six days of fighting, the Marine commander who planned the offensive said Sunday. The military said 31 Americans have been killed in the siege.No. The results would not have been the same. Had we don't this in April, we might have lost a few more troops--but we also would have largely nipped the insurgency in the bud before it had a chance to spread across the country to the degree it has today. Instead, the President wanted to delay any action until after November 2 to help him win reelection... is that what we want in a commander in chief?
Marine Maj. Gen. Richard Natonski said he and other commanders learned from April's failed three-week Marine assault on Fallujah, which was called off by the Bush administration after a worldwide outcry over civilians deaths. This time, the military sent in six times as many troops and 20 types of aircraft. Troops also faked attacks before the assault to confuse enemy fighters.
"Maybe we learned from April," Natonski said in an interview with The Associated Press. "We learned we can't do it piecemeal. When we go in, we go all the way through. We had the green light this time and we went all the way.
"Had we done in April what we did now, the results would've been the same." [emphasis added]
Diplomacy rules; Iran drops nuke program
Iran has agreed to fully suspend uranium enrichment and linked activities that Washington asserts are part of a nuclear weapons program, diplomats said Sunday.Link.
The diplomats told The Associated Press the Iranians apparently dropped earlier demands to modify a tentative deal worked out last weekend with European negotiators and had agreed to the conditions.
"Basically it's a full suspension," one of the diplomats said on condition of anonymity.
Maybe we can learn a thing or two from our European allies about the power of diplomacy. You don't always have to invade a country to make them do what you want.
Saturday, November 13, 2004
US now controls Fallujah
U.S. military officials said Saturday that American troops had now "occupied" the entire city of Fallujah and there were no more major concentrations of insurgents still fighting after nearly a week of intense urban combat.Link.
A U.S. officer, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Fallujah was "occupied but not subdued." Artillery and airstrikes also were halted after nightfall to prevent mistaken attacks on U.S. and Iraqi forces who had taken up positions throughout the city.
Iraqi officials declared the operation to free Fallujah of militants was "accomplished" but acknowledged the two most wanted figures in the city — Jordanian terror mastermind Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and Sheik Abdullah al-Janabi — had escaped. [emphasis added]
If only this meant that the insurgency was on the wane...
Is Dick Cheney dying?
Vice President Dick Cheney, who has a history of heart trouble, checked himself into a hospital after experiencing shortness of breath, an aide said.Link.
Cheney, 63, who has had four heart attacks, returned from a hunting trip late this past week with a cold that left him short of breath, spokeswoman Mary Matalin said.
DHinMI over at dKos raises an important question:
So, if Cheney is ill and unable to conduct the duties of his office, will it be like the final months of the Wilson administration, and will Lynne Cheney be in charge?Indeed.
Bush says everything all right in Iraq...
Does this guy really think we're that stupid?
The insurgency is spreading even though we're losing troops left and right. I don't think I'll ever understand how this administration can continue to lie to us about the situation there.
President Bush painted a rosy picture of the situation in Iraq, claiming significant progress Saturday in the U.S. military's battle in an insurgent stronghold.Link.
In his weekly radio address, Bush praised the assault on Fallujah, west of Baghdad. About 80 percent of the city was said to be under U.S. control, with insurgents pushed into a narrow corner. But the battle has claimed at least 24 American lives and wounded about 170 U.S. troops, and violence has now spread to other Sunni Muslim areas of Iraq.
The death toll includes two Marines killed by a homemade bomb Saturday southeast of Fallujah.
The insurgency is spreading even though we're losing troops left and right. I don't think I'll ever understand how this administration can continue to lie to us about the situation there.
$200 George Bush bill?
A case of funny money has ended happily for a woman who had been charged with passing a bogus $200 bill with President Bush's picture on it.Link.
Westmoreland County prosecutors dropped all charges Friday against Deborah L. Trautwine, 51, of Jeannette, after she paid the store in real currency.
Trautwine "wasn't aware that it ... wasn't actual legal tender," said her attorney, Harry Smail Jr.
Trautwine could not be reached for comment. A Fashion Bug clerk also thought the bill was real and gave Trautwine $100.58 in change from her August purchase.
There is no $200 denomination bill, even without Bush's picture on it, and police said its phoniness should have been obvious.
CIA in complete turmoil
This does not sound good:
Sounds like Goss is doing a really great job so far at the CIA. Really.
The deputy director of the CIA resigned yesterday after a series of confrontations over the past week between senior operations officials and CIA Director Porter J. Goss's new chief of staff that have left the agency in turmoil, according to several current and former CIA officials.Dana Priest and Walter Pincus, "Deputy Chief Resigns From CIA", The Washington Post, November 13, 2004
John E. McLaughlin, a 32-year CIA veteran who was acting director for two months this summer until Goss took over, resigned after warning Goss that his top aide, former Capitol Hill staff member Patrick Murray, was treating senior officials disrespectfully and risked widespread resignations, the officials said.
Yesterday, the agency official who oversees foreign operations, Deputy Director of Operations Stephen R. Kappes, tendered his resignation after a confrontation with Murray. Goss and the White House pleaded with Kappes to reconsider and he agreed to delay his decision until Monday, the officials said.
Several other senior clandestine service officers are threatening to leave, current and former agency officials said.
Sounds like Goss is doing a really great job so far at the CIA. Really.
Bush cares about veterans? I think not
From The Washington Post:
They will pay for studies that also look for other reasoning, but this is just one more example of this administration's war on science. It's quite disappointing (though not surprising).
The Department of Veterans Affairs said that it will no longer pay for studies that seek to show stress is the primary cause of mysterious ailments afflicting thousands of veterans of the 1991 Persian Gulf War.Link.
They will pay for studies that also look for other reasoning, but this is just one more example of this administration's war on science. It's quite disappointing (though not surprising).
Oregon's economy still in the dumps
This is quite disconcerting, to say the least. Any yokel who would tell you that this is the best economy our nation has ever seen has taken one too many shots of tequila in his day (if that applies to a certain government leader in Washington, sobeit).
Jonathan Brinckman of The Oregonian writes that at least one state's economy is still in the tanks, even if the current administration would have you think otherwise.
The fact is that Oregon's economy is stagnating, and this administration either does not care about the problem or they don't know how to fix it.
On a broad range of issues, in fact, this explanation holds true. Either Bush and the Republicans don't care about the problem or they don't know how to fix it (if this sounds familiar, I think something similar is said at the end of The American President). Perhaps this might be a good message to pass on to the electorate in the years to come, though.
Jonathan Brinckman of The Oregonian writes that at least one state's economy is still in the tanks, even if the current administration would have you think otherwise.
The state lost 3,200 jobs last month, according to a preliminary estimate by the Oregon Employment Department, despite gaining more manufacturing and trade jobs than expected.For another take on the story, check out Toby Manthey's article in today's Salem Statesman-Journal.
Job levels in most sectors of the economy, including finance and hospitality, were below expectations. The state unemployment rate in October was 7.2 percent, remaining chronically high, according to the Employment Department.
"We're in a soft patch," said state economist Tom Potiowsky. "It's a period of slowness."
In September, the last month for which comparative figures are available, Oregon's seasonally adjusted rate was 7.3 percent, compared with the nation's 5.5 percent. Oregon's September unemployment rate was higher than any other state's, except Alaska's at 7.9 percent.
September marked Oregon's 39th consecutive month with the nation's highest or second-highest unemployment rate, said Art Ayre, the state employment economist.
"We had pretty strong job growth in the first half of 2004, but since July it's pretty much flattened," Ayre said. "Things are pretty stagnant."
The fact is that Oregon's economy is stagnating, and this administration either does not care about the problem or they don't know how to fix it.
On a broad range of issues, in fact, this explanation holds true. Either Bush and the Republicans don't care about the problem or they don't know how to fix it (if this sounds familiar, I think something similar is said at the end of The American President). Perhaps this might be a good message to pass on to the electorate in the years to come, though.
Friday, November 12, 2004
Bush says Palestinian State by 2009
Mike Allen and Glenn Kessler have a front page article in Saturday's Washington Post on Bush's statement:
President Bush set a goal yesterday of ensuring the creation of a peaceful, democratic Palestinian state alongside Israel before he leaves office in 2009. With British Prime Minister Tony Blair at his side, Bush pledged to put the resources of the United States and the prestige of his presidency behind the quest.Coming from a man who said that he would half the deficit in four years, so I'm not exactly sure we can trust him. In fact, I'm pretty sure we can't trust him given his record of broken promises. I do hope that he does follow through with this promise, but I am definitely skeptical.
"I'd like to see it done in four years," Bush said. "I think it is possible."
[...]
"I believe we've got a great chance to establish a Palestinian state, and I intend to use the next four years to spend the capital of the United States on such a state," Bush said in an East Room news conference with Blair, his closest ally. "I believe it is in the interest of the world that a truly free state develop."
Mosul is lost while Fallujah is nearly retaken
I'm not sure who exactly is devising the strategy on the ground in Iraq (or indeed if anyone is), but I can tell you things are not going well. As American forces waited until after the election to go after insurgents in Fallujah (Bush didn't want too many war dead hampering his reelection bid), most of the anti-American forces fled the city areas not to be imminently attacked by the US. One of the consequences of this is that the insurgency appears to be spreading--quickly. This from the AP's Robert Reid:
The Iraqi government rushed reinforcements Friday to the country's third-largest city, Mosul, seeking to quell a deadly militant uprising that U.S. officials suspected may be in support of the resistance in Fallujah — now said to be under 80 percent U.S. control.Things are not looking good across the country. I wish I had something positive to say about the situation, but alas I am not blindly optimistic.
Police in Mosul largely disappeared from the streets, residents reported, and gangs of armed men brandishing automatic weapons and rocket-propelled grenade launchers roamed the city, 225 miles north of Baghdad. Responding to the crisis, Iraqi authorities dismissed Mosul's police chief after local officials reported that officers were abandoning their stations to militants without firing a shot.
Elsewhere, insurgents shot down a U.S. Army UH-60 Black Hawk helicopter near Taji, 12 miles north of Baghdad, wounding three crew members, the military said. It was the third downed helicopter this week after two Marine Super Cobras succumbed to ground fire in the Fallujah operation.
GREAT NEWS: Paige out at Education Dept.
Education Secretary Rod Paige intends to leave his Cabinet position, a Bush administration official told The Associated Press Friday.Link.
"The secretary has been looking at leaving, and he's been in discussion with the White House about the right time to do so," said the official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity.
[...]
Paige has had rocky moments, with none more glaring than when he called the National Education Association a "terrorist organization" in a private meeting with governors.
He apologized but maintained that the NEA, the nation's largest teachers union, uses "obstructionist scare tactics" in opposing the law. The union called for his resignation.
Paige was as inffectual an individual as has ever served this great country, so it's great to hear that he's on his way out. The only troubling part of this news is that Bush will inevitably choose someone even more feckless than the current Education Secretary.
Who says Dems can't win in red states?
Washington Monthly's David Sirota has this very interesting piece on how Democrats can indeed win in some of the reddest areas of the nation:
There aren't too many states in the union redder than Montana. George Bush won the state by more than 20 points in November. The state legislature and governorship in the capital, Helena, have been in GOP hands for 16 years. Sparsely-populated Montana is represented by only one congressman, the far-right Rep. Denny Rehberg, and by two senators, an ultra-conservative Republican (Conrad Burns) and a conservative Democrat (Max Baucus) who often votes with the Republicans. The state's electoral votes are conceded so automatically to the GOP that neither party's candidate campaigns there. Culturally, with the exception of a few rich Hollywood types who weekend in places like Big Sky, the state could hardly be further from the metro-cosmopolitan culture of the coasts. To give but one example, Montana has the highest percentage of hunters of any state in the union.Check out the rest of the article--it's definitely worth reading.
But in November, a Democrat, Brian Schweitzer, won the state's race for governor. Schweitzer not only won, but he also won decisively, beating his opponent Bob Brown, the Republican secretary of state and a two-decade fixture in Montana politics, by a solid four points. His victory was so resounding and provided down-ballot party members such strong coattails that Montana Democrats took the state legislature and four of five statewide offices.
[...]
[In] addition to a winning personality and strong populist convictions, Schweitzer had an innovative, three-part political strategy, one that perfectly fit the current conditions in Montana, but which Democrats across the country could learn from. First, Schweitzer took advantage of public dissatisfaction with two decades of insular one-party rule in the state capital, casting himself as an outsider and a reformer. Second, he rallied small business, usually a solidly GOP constituency, to his side by opposing the deals Republicans had cut in Washington and Helena to favor large or out-of-state corporations over local entrepreneurs. Third, and most interesting of all, Schweitzer figured out how to win over one of the most important, reliably Republican, and symbolically significant groups of voters: hunters and fishermen.
Why Fallujah didn't actually matter
MSNBC's Michael Moran sums up the situation in Fallujah perfectly over at Hardblogger:
A week ago, it all sounded too good to be true: the murderous insurgents of Iraq, fearful of losing their base at Fallujah, were digging in by the thousands for a great confrontation with American troops and their Iraqi allies. But as American forces move in, it quickly became clear that most of the insurgents U.S. commanders were hunting had fled.Perhaps if the administration had not waited until after the election to launch the attack but rather did what it needed to do when it needed to do it, we could have knocked out a large portion of the insurgency. Instead, the insurgents are now across the entire country and there isn't yet much to do to stop them.
This has kept the intensity of the fighting -- and the casualties it generates -- down a bit, it is deeply disappointing to the United States. Rather than fight and die for Fallujah, the insurgency and its leadership have done what smart guerrillas have done throughout history when confronted by a more powerful adversary: they faded away and will fight and kill and maim another day.
I spoke with David Phillips, who spent the past four years as a senior advisor to the Bush administration on Iraq, about this for my Brave New World column this week. He says military officers never really bought the idea that the insurgents would stand and fight. "Why would they?" he asks.
Fallujah, he says, never was going to be the milestone the administration has built it up to be. "The insurgency is not in Fallujah, it is all over Iraq." [emphasis added]
Too much information about Dick Cheney...
Taegan Goddard passes this along:
A newspaper photo of Vice President Dick Cheney at a Wisconsin campaign stop is causing quite a stir. Milwaukee Magazine has seen it: "Let's just say the snugness of Cheney's pants left little to the imagination, and we're not talking about his waistline."That's a thought I really did not need this morning.
"Want to see the picture for yourself? Catch it while you can at your public library’s periodical desk because chagrined Journal Sentinel officials are not in a sharing mood. The paper denied our request to reprint the copyrighted photo, saying it had decided not to release the image to the public."
Gridlock to ensue in Salem?
The prospect of this does not sound appealing to me.
The Salem Statesman-Journal's Steve Law writes today that it looks like the Oregon Legislature might not get its act together and will instead bog down in silly partisan disputes (yes, we've heard this before. Law explains:
The only problem is the obstructionist Republicans in the House seem to be willing to go to any length to bankrupt the state government (this is no different from what President Bush is trying to do to the federal government). The House GOP seems to libe in a fantasy world in which it doesn't matter that they and their allies destroyed Oregon's schools--which were once among the finest in the nation--in addition to many other services (including the police departments and prisons).
I certainly hope that Kulongoski and the Dems get their act together and don't let the ridiculously conservative members of the House derail the state.
The Salem Statesman-Journal's Steve Law writes today that it looks like the Oregon Legislature might not get its act together and will instead bog down in silly partisan disputes (yes, we've heard this before. Law explains:
If news coverage of the 2005 Legislature sounds a bit familiar in the coming months, there will be a good reason.Of course there are real problems making the task of the Legislature more difficult.
The meatiest issues before lawmakers next year are the same ones they have agonized about many times before.
A daunting budget shortfall. Unstable school funding. Gut-wrenching human service cuts. Elusive proposals to raise more money or rein in state spending.
Split control of the 2005 Legislature could make finding solutions to long-running problems even tougher.
Democrats will control the new Senate by an 18-12 margin. In the House, Republicans will have a 32-27 advantage.
The Senate will be controlled by Democrats hailing from large cities, metropolitan suburbs and college towns. The House will be dominated by conservative Republicans from small towns and the countryside.
Proposals from the two chambers will reflect their differing constituents, mirroring the blue vs. red divisions found across the country.
Economists say taxes and other state revenues won't rise enough to cover population growth and inflation for the 2005-07 budget cycle. That means the state could be up to $1 billion shy of what's needed to pay for current state programs, public schools and colleges.So where exactly will the money come from, then? The Democrats, understandably, want to raise some new tax revenue, some of it coming from a cigarette tax, some coming from a corporate minimum tax (that state business leaders agreed to).
One difference this time: Senate Democrats and Democratic Gov. Ted Kulongoski say they will block the use of one-time money and borrowing that Republicans have supported in recent years.
"We have got to do a responsible method of balancing the budget; no gimmicks, no bonding," said Sen. Kate Brown, D-Portland.
The only problem is the obstructionist Republicans in the House seem to be willing to go to any length to bankrupt the state government (this is no different from what President Bush is trying to do to the federal government). The House GOP seems to libe in a fantasy world in which it doesn't matter that they and their allies destroyed Oregon's schools--which were once among the finest in the nation--in addition to many other services (including the police departments and prisons).
I certainly hope that Kulongoski and the Dems get their act together and don't let the ridiculously conservative members of the House derail the state.
Author of 'Imperial Hubris' to resign from CIA
Reuters reports:
A CIA analyst who wrote a book that criticized the U.S. war on terror has resigned from the spy agency after it effectively banned him from publicly discussing his views, his publicist said on Thursday.Scheuer will be on 60 Minutes this week in addition to other media appearances, so watch out for that.
Michael Scheuer, whose book "Imperial Hubris: Why the West Is Losing the War on Terror" was signed as "anonymous" and published this summer, will resign effective Friday after 22 years at the Central Intelligence Agency (news - web sites).
In a statement, Scheuer said the CIA had not forced him to resign, "but I have concluded that there has not been adequate national debate over the nature of the threat posed by Osama bin Laden (news - web sites) and the forces he leads and inspires, and the nature and dimensions of intelligence reform needed to address that threat."
[...]
Scheuer's statement said senior leadership had allowed the intelligence officers working against al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden to be made scapegoats for pre-Sept. 11 failures.
Scheuer was chief of the CIA Counterterrorist Center's unit which focused on bin Laden from 1996 to 1999 and remained a CIA analyst after that.
Thursday, November 11, 2004
Why Dems don't have to move right on "morals"
There has been much talk of late regarding the belief that the Democratic Party must lurch rightward on so-called "moral" issues. This notion is based on the proposition that liberals simply cannot win in the red states across the country. (This of course leaves out the fact that North and South Dakota are represented by 5 Democrats and one Republican, for instance, or that Wyoming has a Democratic governor) The real problem with this discussion is that it completely leaves out the other side of the equation.
Surely if the Dems move rightward on these "moral" issues, there might be a slight shift towards them in conservative areas. Although this seems pressing in the short run, it would be even more dangerous to ignore or deny that there would be serious ramifications and countless votes lost if the will of the base is not sufficiently considered.
E.J. Kessler of Forward--a national Jewish publication--writes of this exact dilemma in this week's issue. In "Dems' Talk of 'Values' Seen as Risk With Jews", he writes this: [free registration required]
The fact is, as the Times Frank Rich so brilliantly writes this week, that "John Kerry's defeat notwithstanding, it's blue America, not red, that is inexorably winning the culture war, and by a landslide." The majority of the nation clearly prefers watching television that does not fit well within the "values" of red America, whether in the form of Paris Hilton's reality show or following the Scott Peterson trial; what is more, the vast majority of "Americans approve of some form of legal status for gay couples, whether civil unions (35 percent) or marriage (27 percent)."
As the Democrats begin mulling over the future of their party, I hope only that they are cognizant of the fact that they can win on "moral" issues, even if they don't become conservatives overnight.
Surely if the Dems move rightward on these "moral" issues, there might be a slight shift towards them in conservative areas. Although this seems pressing in the short run, it would be even more dangerous to ignore or deny that there would be serious ramifications and countless votes lost if the will of the base is not sufficiently considered.
E.J. Kessler of Forward--a national Jewish publication--writes of this exact dilemma in this week's issue. In "Dems' Talk of 'Values' Seen as Risk With Jews", he writes this: [free registration required]
As Democratic leaders scramble to come up with ways to connect to so-called "moral values" voters, they risk alienating one of the fundamental pillars of the party's base: American Jews, 75% of whom backed Democratic candidate John Kerry.Kessler explains that there is indeed a conversation among Jewish Democrats over whether the Democratic Party should be more willing to infuse "morality" and "values" into the campaign, but nevertheless there is a general apprehension against swinging too far in that direction. This is insightful for the Democratic community as a whole as the party--individual candidates and individual voters, to be precise--will have to decide whether it is worth it to try to pander to more conservative voters (some of whom might not ever be willing to support the Dems).
If politics in America have become a culture war, there's no question which side most Jews are on. Polls have repeatedly found that on a host of social issues, including abortion and gay marriage, American Jews fall decidedly to the left of the overall population.
Fighting to feel comfortable in a predominantly Christian society, Jews for two generations have often expressed concern about the infusion of religious rhetoric into the national political discourse and have been at the forefront of Democratic efforts to enforce a strict separation of church and state. As social activists and party cadre, many Jews have agitated for the most liberal of political positions — and generally looked to the Democratic Party as the secular embodiment of their religious liberalism. Yet, with even Jewish lawmakers taking the lead in calling for a new, more values-based Democratic approach to winning centrist and conservative voters, the majority of Jewish voters and many Jewish campaign donors — historically a key source of funding for the Democrats — could find themselves alienated from the party that has been their home since before FDR.
The fact is, as the Times Frank Rich so brilliantly writes this week, that "John Kerry's defeat notwithstanding, it's blue America, not red, that is inexorably winning the culture war, and by a landslide." The majority of the nation clearly prefers watching television that does not fit well within the "values" of red America, whether in the form of Paris Hilton's reality show or following the Scott Peterson trial; what is more, the vast majority of "Americans approve of some form of legal status for gay couples, whether civil unions (35 percent) or marriage (27 percent)."
As the Democrats begin mulling over the future of their party, I hope only that they are cognizant of the fact that they can win on "moral" issues, even if they don't become conservatives overnight.
Bush to have troubles with Supreme Court nominees
It appears as though President Bush might have some trouble getting an ultra-conservative on to the Supreme Court even with a Republican Senate. Just ask Ted Olson.
That sure sounds great, right? We can stop the gridlock if only the Democrats gave in. The only problem is that this issue is not nearly as simple as Frist makes it out to be. Kevin Drum explains:
Despite Republican gains, President Bush's picks for potential vacancies on the Supreme Court will face "political firestorm" in the Senate, the Bush administration's former chief lawyer at the high court said Thursday.Even with the situation as it is, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist is not even trying to win any friends from the other side of the aisle.
Theodore Olson, who resigned in July as solicitor general, predicted that Bush will get to name as many as three justices during his second term. Olson also said he expected that those choices will come under attack by interest groups and Senate Democrats who have already blocked 10 Bush nominees to other courts.
Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist is seriously ill with thyroid cancer. Olson said that people are hopeful the 80-year-old recovers, but "even if he does, actuarial reality tells us there may be vacancies soon."
"Make no mistake about it, any attempted new appointment to the court, especially that of a chief justice, will set off a political firestorm," Olson, 64, told the Federalist Society, a conservative legal group. "The presidential election was merely about the next four years. A Supreme Court justice is for life. It will not be pretty."
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist on Thursday urged Democrats to stop blocking President Bush's federal court nominees and hinted that he may try to change Senate rules to thwart their delaying tactics.Link.
"One way or another, the filibuster of judicial nominees must end," Frist, R-Tenn., said in a speech to the Federalist Society, a conservative legal group.
The Democrats' ability to stall White House picks for the federal bench was one of the most contentious issues of Bush's first term. Despite the GOP majority in the Senate, Democrats used the threat of a filibuster to block 10 of Bush's nominees to federal appeals courts. The Senate did confirm more than 200 of the president's choices. [emphasis added]
[...]
Frist previously has advocated changing Senate rules to make it more difficult to continue a filibuster. While the idea went nowhere in the current Congress, Frist raised it again in his speech, saying that judicial filibusters were "nothing less than a formula for tyranny by the minority."
"The Senate now faces a choice: Either we accept a new and destructive practice or we act to restore constitutional balance," he said.
That sure sounds great, right? We can stop the gridlock if only the Democrats gave in. The only problem is that this issue is not nearly as simple as Frist makes it out to be. Kevin Drum explains:
How have things come to this pass in the self-styled greatest deliberative body in the world? Let's take a trip down memory lane.The fact is that the GOP is attempting to destroy the Senate as the founders intended it: a deliberative body in which even one member can stop the entire process if things are either too quickly or unfairly. This cannot be allowed, and I sincerely hope Frist does not have to go down in American history as the man who destroyed the Senate for momentary ideological gain.
When Democrats were in power and Republicans were in the minority, senatorial courtesy prevailed in judicial nominations. For decades, the rule was this: if both senators from a judge's home state objected to (or "blue slipped") a nominee, he was out. But when Republicans took control of the Senate during the Clinton presidency, these rules no longer looked so good to them:
Nobody even pretended that these changes were guided by any kind of principle. Hatch was simply furious that Democrats dared to object to any of Bush's nominees, and he intended to put a stop to it even if he had to mow down every Senate rule in the process. It was at that point, with all the options they had granted to Republicans for years denied to them, that Democrats turned to the only one left: the filibuster.
- In 1998, for no special reason, Orrin Hatch decided that only one senator needed to object to a nomination. This made it easier for Republicans to obstruct Bill Clinton's nominees.
- In 2001, when one of their own became president, Hatch suddenly reversed course and decided that it should take two objections after all. That made it harder for Democrats to obstruct George Bush's nominees.
- In early 2003, Hatch went even further: senatorial objections were merely advisory, he said. Even if both senators objected to a nomination, it would still go to the floor for a vote.
- A few weeks later, yet another barrier was torn down: Hatch did away with a longtime rule that said at least one member of the minority had to agree in order to end discussion about a nomination and move it out of committee.
18 US troops dead on Veterans Day
This is not the type of news I like to hear on Veterans Day:
My thoughts are with these young men and women and their families.
Eighteen U.S. troops and five Iraqi government soldiers have been killed in action since the start of the assault on Fallujah, the U.S. commander of the operation said Thursday.Link.
Maj. Gen. Richard Natonski, commander of the 1st Marine Division, also said 69 American service members and 34 Iraqi troops had been wounded since the assault began Monday against insurgents in the Sunni Muslim stronghold.
My thoughts are with these young men and women and their families.
Who is winning the culture war?
The Times' commentator Frank Rich jots down some highly insightful observations in today's paper over who is really winning the culture war in this country:
Everything about the election results - and about American culture itself - confirms an inescapable reality: John Kerry's defeat notwithstanding, it's blue America, not red, that is inexorably winning the culture war, and by a landslide. Kerry voters who have been flagellating themselves since Election Day with a vengeance worthy of "The Passion of the Christ" should wake up and smell the Chardonnay.Rich is completely correct in outing the hypocritical elitist leaders of the Christian right as so better than the hypocritical elitist leaders of the left. The piece is well worth reading (as are just about all of his pieces) and reading some quality liberal establishment writing is always a nice way to spend your Thursday .
The blue ascendancy is nearly as strong among Republicans as it is among Democrats. Those whose "moral values" are invested in cultural heroes like the accused loofah fetishist Bill O'Reilly and the self-gratifying drug consumer Rush Limbaugh are surely joking when they turn apoplectic over MTV. William Bennett's name is now as synonymous with Las Vegas as silicone. The Democrats' Ashton Kutcher is trumped by the Republicans' Britney Spears. Excess and vulgarity, as always, enjoy a vast, bipartisan constituency, and in a democracy no political party will ever stamp them out.
If anyone is laughing all the way to the bank this election year, it must be the undisputed king of the red cultural elite, Rupert Murdoch. Fox News is a rising profit center within his News Corporation, and each red-state dollar that it makes can be plowed back into the rest of Fox's very blue entertainment portfolio. The Murdoch cultural stable includes recent books like Jenna Jameson's "How to Make Love Like a Porn Star" and the Vivid Girls' "How to Have a XXX Sex Life," which have both been synergistically, even joyously, promoted on Fox News by willing hosts like Rita Cosby and, needless to say, Mr. O'Reilly. There are "real fun parts and exciting parts," said Ms. Cosby to Ms. Jameson on Fox News's "Big Story Weekend," an encounter broadcast on Saturday at 9 p.m., assuring its maximum exposure to unsupervised kids.
Almost unnoticed in the final weeks of the campaign was the record government indecency fine levied against another prime-time Fox television product, "Married by America." The $1.2 million bill, a mere bagatelle to Murdoch stockholders, was more than twice the punishment inflicted on Viacom for Janet Jackson's "wardrobe malfunction." According to the F.C.C. complaint, one episode in this heterosexual marriage-promoting reality show included scenes in which "partygoers lick whipped cream from strippers' bodies," and two female strippers "playfully spank" a man on all fours in his underwear. "Married by America" is gone now, but Fox remains the go-to network for Paris Hilton ("The Simple Life") and wife-swapping ("Trading Spouses: Meet Your New Mommy").
Wednesday, November 10, 2004
Moderate Dems coming back?
This sounds about right:
As Democrats continue to stagger from last week's election losses, a group of veteran political and policy operatives has started an advocacy group aimed at using moderate Senate Democrats as the front line in a campaign to give the party a more centrist profile.Link.
Third Way is the latest in a series of organizations aimed at rescuing Democrats from the perception that they have lost touch with middle-class voters, particularly in the heartland states that voted overwhelmingly for President Bush over Sen. John F. Kerry.
The group, which has enlisted several senators from Bush-backing "red states" as honorary chairmen, hopes to rebut the notion that Democrats represent an outdated brand of liberalism by producing new policy proposals designed to create a "moderate majority," said Matt Bennett, Third Way's communications director.
"It's one thing to publish op-eds -- that's important," Bennett said, "but to really reach voters, we need to have concrete legislative proposals on the table. Post-election, it's clear that progressive centrists must have a response equal in scale and scope to the tectonic changes that Bush is proposing."
Arafat now actually dead
From the AP:
Yasser Arafat, who triumphantly forced his people's plight into the world spotlight but failed to achieve his lifelong quest for Palestinian statehood, died Thursday at age 75. He was to the end a man of many mysteries and paradoxes — terrorist, statesman, autocrat and peacemaker.
Palestinian Cabinet minister Saeb Erekat confirmed to The Associated Press that Arafat had died. The Palestinian leader spent his final days in a coma at a French military hospital outside Paris.
Tayeb Abdel Rahim, a top Arafat aide, confirmed that Arafat died at 4:30 am Paris time. He spoke to reporters at Arafat's headquarters in the West Bank city of Ramallah.
Why do conservatives hate Specter?
Arlen Specter, a man reviled by many on both the right and the left, caused an uproar last week when he suggested that no jurist who sought to overturn the Roe v. Wade decision ensuring the legality of abortion would ever be accepted by the Senate. Specter, who is one of the few pro-life members of the GOP caucus in the Senate, is slated to be the incoming chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee--but his comments may have put that in peril.
The Times' Sheryl Gay Stolberg penned an article in Thursday's paper entitled "Bork Hearings Resurface as Impediment to Specter" that sheds some light on to the subject. She leads thusly:
Arlen Specter is Jewish. The term "extract a pound of flesh" is best known from Shakespeare's The Merchant of Venice in which the stereotypical Jewish character Shylock heartlessly demands a pound of flesh from one of the Christian characters. This perhaps even leads me to believe that there is something more to conservative Evangelicals' hatred of Specter than just his support of abortion rights.
I don't know. I'm not one to bandy about charges of anti-Semitism, but this is just a bit questionable to me. Am I reading too much into this?
The Times' Sheryl Gay Stolberg penned an article in Thursday's paper entitled "Bork Hearings Resurface as Impediment to Specter" that sheds some light on to the subject. She leads thusly:
Many liberal women have never forgiven Senator Arlen Specter for his pointed questioning of Prof. Anita F. Hill, whose accusations of sexual harassment against Judge Clarence Thomas, then a Supreme Court nominee, riveted the nation. But conservatives have never forgiven him for crossing party lines to defeat another Supreme Court nominee, Judge Robert H. Bork.Perhaphs I'm a bit oversensitive, or maybe I'm just reading too much in this statement, but I'm quite offended by what Viguerie said.
Now, 17 years later, those conservatives are about to exact their revenge. Emboldened by their role in re-electing President Bush, conservatives are making Mr. Specter - whose brusque independence has earned him the nickname Snarlin' Arlen on Capitol Hill - a test case of their political power. As they try to keep Mr. Specter, a centrist Pennsylvania Republican who supports abortion rights, from heading the Senate Judiciary Committee, they are demanding a steep concession: support for changing a century-old Senate rule that permits judicial nominations to be blocked by filibuster.
"I would be shocked if conservatives don't extract a pound of flesh from Senator Specter," said Richard A. Viguerie, the Republican consultant, who is circulating strategy memos on the issue. He added, "Republicans have long memories. We'll never forget what he did to Judge Bork." [emphasis added]
Arlen Specter is Jewish. The term "extract a pound of flesh" is best known from Shakespeare's The Merchant of Venice in which the stereotypical Jewish character Shylock heartlessly demands a pound of flesh from one of the Christian characters. This perhaps even leads me to believe that there is something more to conservative Evangelicals' hatred of Specter than just his support of abortion rights.
I don't know. I'm not one to bandy about charges of anti-Semitism, but this is just a bit questionable to me. Am I reading too much into this?
Mullah Jerry Falwell?
Josh Marshall raises an important question:
Mullah James Dobson, as Andrew Sullivan described him, "the social policy director of the Bush administration."Radical cleric Jerry Falwell... I like it!
And as for this 'mullah' issue, most folks who wrote in didn't seem to catch that I had already tipped my hand when I wrote that I was "mulling" the question. But everyone who wrote in seemed to agree that it wasn't a problem. One interesting suggestion though was that we might prefer the more precise and non-sectarian phrases sometimes used in the media to describe the sundry Dobsonites and Dobsonians of the Middle East.
So for instance, we might say "radical cleric James Dobson." Or since, Dobson is not himself a man of the cloth, we might say 'radical cleric Pat Robertson.'
Halliburton strikes again!
Reuters' Sue Pleming has the scoop:
Government accountability and fiscal responsibility
The U.S. ambassador to Kuwait and other senior U.S. officials put pressure on Halliburton to award a contract to a Kuwaiti company suspected of overcharging to bring fuel into Iraq, according to State Department documents released on Wednesday.It's good to hear that Henry Waxman (one of the few Dems with the fortitude to stand up to the GOP on a regular basis over the course of decades) is on top of this issue. The best (and perhaps only) way to take the Republicans down in the next two/four years is to hit them for their corruption while controlling the whole government. The GOP did this in the late 80s and early 90s and won back the House for the first time in 40 years, so surely it can work for their adversaries across the aisle today.
The documents, portions of which were released by Democratic U.S. Rep. Henry Waxman, also said the State Department received information in the summer of 2003 that Halliburton officials demanded kickbacks and solicited bribes from Altanmia Commercial Marketing Company of Kuwait.
[...]
According to the documents, on Dec. 2, 2003, Richard Jones, the U.S. ambassador to Kuwait, sent an e-mail directing unidentified officials: "Tell KBR to get off their butts and conclude deals with Kuwait NOW! Tell them we want a deal done with Altanmia within 24 hours and don't take any excuses."
The e-mail added: "If Amb. Bremer hears that KBR is still dragging its feet, he will be livid," referring to the U.S. civilian administrator of Iraq, Paul Bremer.
Government accountability and fiscal responsibility
Tanks brought out on protesters in LA
Chris Bowers has this story from la.indymedia.org:
This is certainly disturbing.
click image for download
LOS ANGELES, November 9, 2004 - At 7:50 PM two armored tanks showed up at an anti-war protest in front of the federal building in Westwood. The tanks circled the block twice, the second time parking themselves in the street and directly in front of the area where most of the protesters were gathered. Enraged, some of the people attempted to block the tanks, but police quickly cleared the street. The people continued to protest the presence of the tanks, but about ten minutes the tanks drove off. It is unclear as to why the tanks were deployed to this location. Uploaded here is video from the event.
Portland's own "Rush" Lars Larson in some heat
Local "personality" Lars Larson--a conservative commentator who is Portland's own Sean Hannity--appears to be in a bit of a spat with Portland City Commissioner Randy Leonard. KGW's Abe Estimada writes this:
Pretty clear here that Portland city commissioner Randy Leonard and conservative radio talk show host Lars Larson are no longer friends.Larson got quite mad when Michael Moore announced his personal cell phone number last year, so it's quite hypocritical of him to publish Leonard's email address to harass him. It's not too surprising, though, because Larson is not the most honorable man in the city.
The two engaged in a nasty e-mail battle that was transmitted for all to read in city politicians’ and journalists’ inboxes on Tuesday afternoon.
The gist: Leonard accuses Larson, whose show airs on KXL radio in Portland, of stirring up his listeners and getting them to send harassing, even “inappropriate,” e-mails to the commissioner. Someone also left what Leonard called a “threatening” phone call message at his home.
Leonard said he’s received multiple e-mails on gastric bypass surgery, babies with multiple parents and a solicitation to buy land in Alaska. Leonard also enclosed copies of the e-mails sent by strangers as proof.
“This is an obvious attempt by you to harass me,” Leonard wrote.
It appears official--the new AG is:
Alberto Gonzales
President Bush has chosen White House counsel Alberto Gonzales, a Texas confidant and the most prominent Hispanic in the administration, to succeed Attorney General John Ashcroft, sources close to the White House said Wednesday.This is a man who said Guantanamo Bay was OK and that international law was not relevant. Good to hear he's the type of man Bush wants enforcing our laws.
The White House hinted that formal word from the president could come later Wednesday. "I would not rule out an announcement today," White House spokesman Scott McClellan said.
Massachusetts to consider funding stem-cell research
Former Massachusetts House Speaker Thomas M. Finneran, who opposed embryonic stem cell research while on Beacon Hill, now says state lawmakers should support the research in order for the Bay State to keep up with California.Link.
California passed a law last week creating a $3 billion, 10-year fund to subsidize stem cell research, which some believe could lead to cures for afflictions such as Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's and spinal cord injuries.
''What California has done is it has made a very bold and dramatic statement,'' Finnernan, now president of the Massachusetts Biotechnology Council, told a gathering of pharmaceutical engineers Tuesday.
''With me no longer on the field, the dynamic has definitely changed'' in the state legislature, Finneran said.
I think this is just about right. If the Democrats can lead a state-by-state effort around the country to fund stem-cell research to some avail, the issue will be very beneficial for them in the years to come; not only will they have achieved a major medical breakthrough, but they would have done so on their own without the help of the federal government. Let's see enterprising Democrats across the country do this in the coming years.
The next Attorney General...
From the AP's Scott Lindlaw:
[Update 8:22 AM Pacific]: Bloomberg is indicating that Larry Thompson is also in the mix for the Attorney General job.
President Bush is moving swiftly toward naming a successor to Attorney General John Ashcroft, and White House counsel Alberto Gonzales has emerged as the leading candidate for the job.I guess that settles that.
Two administration officials said Gonzales, a longtime Bush friend who served with him in Texas, was the likely successor to Ashcroft and that the president could act as early as Wednesday. He would be the first Hispanic attorney general. Another leading candidate was Bush's 2004 campaign chairman, former Montana Gov. Marc Racicot.
[Update 8:22 AM Pacific]: Bloomberg is indicating that Larry Thompson is also in the mix for the Attorney General job.