To support this site, please make your purchases through my Amazon link.
Tuesday, May 31, 2005
Hmm...
I'm a bit confused tonight. I've been watching a bit of the television news, and many of the guests seem to believe that Mark Felt did something dishonorable by leaking information about Watergate to the press. Leaving aside the fact that most of these speakers were officials in the Nixon administration, the question still remains: was Felt wrong for going to Bob Woodward?
Let me step back for a moment. I have always thought Richard Nixon was a good President, perhaps even a very good President. The EPA was created under his watch, and the Clean Water and Clean Air acts -- among other major environmental bills -- were passed while he was in office. On the domestic front, he also wanted to greatly expand Welfare, among other things. Internationally, his policies towards China and Russia undoubtedly helped lead to the end of the Cold War. So even when Watergate is taken into account, I still believe Nixon was a good President.
This all having been said, I cannot fathom how anyone could think Felt was wrong to serve as Deep Throat. For all of the good Nixon was able to accomplish, his criminal acts within the White House threatened the very fiber of the American Democracy. The country was on the line, and in a time of great need, Mark Felt did what he deemed necessary to save the Republic. Even if he also had ulterior motives, it doesn't take away from the fact that he helped save America. It is that black and white. So as I said before, I hope history gives him the honor he deserves for doing as much as any other person in American history to protect and uphold the Constitution.
Let me step back for a moment. I have always thought Richard Nixon was a good President, perhaps even a very good President. The EPA was created under his watch, and the Clean Water and Clean Air acts -- among other major environmental bills -- were passed while he was in office. On the domestic front, he also wanted to greatly expand Welfare, among other things. Internationally, his policies towards China and Russia undoubtedly helped lead to the end of the Cold War. So even when Watergate is taken into account, I still believe Nixon was a good President.
This all having been said, I cannot fathom how anyone could think Felt was wrong to serve as Deep Throat. For all of the good Nixon was able to accomplish, his criminal acts within the White House threatened the very fiber of the American Democracy. The country was on the line, and in a time of great need, Mark Felt did what he deemed necessary to save the Republic. Even if he also had ulterior motives, it doesn't take away from the fact that he helped save America. It is that black and white. So as I said before, I hope history gives him the honor he deserves for doing as much as any other person in American history to protect and uphold the Constitution.
Campaign 2006: Let's Look West
The battle to win federal and statewide campaigns in 2006 could hinge on the West, and there's plenty of news from the region these days. To begin with, CQ Today's Midday Update (free email service) passes on news that Montana Senator Conrad Burns (R) is in a desperate battle for his political life.
The Billings Gazette reports that Sen. Conrad Burns, R-Mont., “leads trial matchups against potential Democratic opponents for the 2006 election.” A May 23-25 telephone survey of 625 likely Montana voters showed Burns leading state Auditor John Morrison “by a 49 to 34 percent margin, with 17 percent undecided.” Burns led Senate President Jon Tester “by a 50 to 26 percent margin, with 24 percent undecided.” He also led former Missoula Mayor and ex-House Speaker Daniel Kemmis by 53-23 percent, with the rest undecided.Any long-time incumbent barely cracking 50% against relatively unknown competition is in some serious trouble. In other interesting data from the poll, the Billings Gazette's Allison Farrell writes,
Montana voters, by a 51 to 31 percent margin with the rest undecided, oppose President Bush's proposal to partially privatize Social Security, a new Gazette State Poll shows.Montana's Republicans are not the only ones in retreat these days. As Kevin Yamamura reports for The Sacramento Bee, trouble is brewing in the Golden state.
The poll results also found that Montana candidates for the U.S. Senate or House might suffer political consequences if they back Bush's plans. Bush visited Great Falls in February to pitch his plan to Montanans.
[...]
Montana voters are also less likely to vote a candidate for the U.S. House or the Senate who supports Bush's Social Security plan, the poll shows. Thirty-nine percent of voters said they would be less likely to vote for a candidate who supports Bush's plan, while 20 percent of voters said they would be more likely to vote a supporter of the president's plan.
Sen. Conrad Burns, R-Mont., and Rep. Denny Rehberg, R-Mont., are both up for re-election in 2006. Burns said Friday he doesn't feel comfortable with the Bush plan, and said he's continuing to work with his colleagues on a solution to Social Security. Rehberg believes Social Security needs to be fixed, but as far as the private accounts he's not convinced, said Rehberg's press secretary Brad Keena on Friday.
Product placement is common in Hollywood. The movie producer puts a certain brand on film and the company kicks in some cash.With Schwarzenegger at 40% in the most recent polling, this news can't make the Schwarzenegger people too happy. Perhaps this will make Warren Beatty begin to think seriously about a run for Governor...
So it's not difficult to understand why a citizen watchdog group cried foul last week when products made by some of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's campaign contributors showed up in a political ad.
The set for a 30-second spot about Schwarzenegger's budget-control initiative resembles a cafeteria and features a Pepsi, a bottle of Arrowhead water, a Dr Pepper and a rack of potato chips.
All are manufactured by companies that have given money to Schwarzenegger political committees, according to the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights. It demanded last week he return nearly $300,000 in contributions.
We Now Know!
In February, we began to hear whisperings about who Deep Throat was. Apparently, it wasn't Ben Stein, as some believed. William Branigin and David Von Drehle have the huge story for The Washington Post:
The Washington Post today confirmed that W. Mark Felt, a former number-two official at the FBI, was "Deep Throat," the secretive source who provided information that helped unravel the Watergate scandal in the early 1970s and contributed to the resignation of president Richard M. Nixon.Hopefully Felt will be given the praise in the historical record that he is due.
The confirmation came from Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, the two Washington Post reporters who broke the Watergate story, and their former top editor, Benjamin C. Bradlee. The three spoke after Felt's family and Vanity Fair magazine identified the 91-year-old Felt, now a retiree in California, as the long-anonymous source who provided crucial guidance for some of the newspaper's groundbreaking Watergate stories.
The Vanity Fair story said Felt had admitted his "historic, anonymous role" following years of denial.
In a statement today, Woodward and Bernstein said, "W. Mark Felt was 'Deep Throat' and helped us immeasurably in our Watergate coverage. However, as the record shows, many other sources and officials assisted us and other reporters for the hundreds of stories that were written in The Washington Post about Watergate."
OK
I think I'm going to get the timing down in the next couple of days to figure out the most efficient way to keep this site constantly updated (pending an OK by my boss, of course). We might move back towards the analytical, rather than the opinionated this summer in an effort to legitimate. In theory, this should not constrain the blog; rather, I think it will improve it.
Anyway, just to give you an idea of my first day working for a DC newspaper, I spent eight hours pouring through Congressional record to find out Hillary's partisanship during the 107th Congress, as measured by the number of GOP bills she co-sponsored and the number of her bills were co-sponsored by GOPers. Heady stuff, I know. Anyway, time for the serious bloggery. Here goes...
Anyway, just to give you an idea of my first day working for a DC newspaper, I spent eight hours pouring through Congressional record to find out Hillary's partisanship during the 107th Congress, as measured by the number of GOP bills she co-sponsored and the number of her bills were co-sponsored by GOPers. Heady stuff, I know. Anyway, time for the serious bloggery. Here goes...
I'm Off to Work
The summer is upon us and so it is time for waves of fresh college students to head off to offices across D.C. and give away their labor for free. Oh, to be an intern!
This summer, I'll be working at The Hill newspaper here in Washington. The paper describes itself as "a non-partisan, non-ideological weekly newspaper that describes the inner workings of Congress, the pressures confronting policy makers and the many ways -- often unpredictable -- in which decisions are made." It is an important paper within the corridors of Congress, and I often cite it here on Basie!
I will primarily be writing and reporting for the paper, though I will also perform a number of other tasks ranging from transcripting (joy of joys) and fact-checking to xeroxing and "couriering."
I will also have to cut back on Basie! during normal business hours. Nevertheless, I will endeavor to deliver high quality content and look for other ways to continue the reporting on this site. I will also search high and low for interesting interviews (which should be easier here within the Beltway). Once again, thank you visiting Basie! and please come back soon and often.
This summer, I'll be working at The Hill newspaper here in Washington. The paper describes itself as "a non-partisan, non-ideological weekly newspaper that describes the inner workings of Congress, the pressures confronting policy makers and the many ways -- often unpredictable -- in which decisions are made." It is an important paper within the corridors of Congress, and I often cite it here on Basie!
I will primarily be writing and reporting for the paper, though I will also perform a number of other tasks ranging from transcripting (joy of joys) and fact-checking to xeroxing and "couriering."
I will also have to cut back on Basie! during normal business hours. Nevertheless, I will endeavor to deliver high quality content and look for other ways to continue the reporting on this site. I will also search high and low for interesting interviews (which should be easier here within the Beltway). Once again, thank you visiting Basie! and please come back soon and often.
Monday, May 30, 2005
Post-Bush, Texas Education System Crumbling
When George W. Bush first ran for President in 2000, he pledged to be the education President. Much of this campaign relied on claims that he had helped fix the Texas education system. Lo and behold, five years after Bush ran for President and a decade after he became Governor of the state, Texas' education system is still in shambles, reports Ralph Blumenthal for The New York Times.
This story underscores an important point, politics aside. The nation's education system is crumbling, and mandating testing without providing necessary funding is not the answer. The simple answer: allocate sufficient money to educate every student. If you want also want testing, so be it, but mone for required standardized tests must be above and beyond the increased money for schools.
This is not just an education issue. This is about economics and national security. Unless American students receive the best education in the world -- not only in colleges and post-graduate programs, but from pre-school on -- we risk falling behind Europe, India and China in my lifetime. The threat is that imminent. So if George Bush actually wants to be known as the education President -- and I believe that he sincerely does -- it's time for him, and the state legislatures across the country, to give our students the money they need to learn.
As they ended their biennial legislative session, Texas lawmakers on Monday earned an "F" from teachers and others for failing a third time in two years to fix a hard-pressed school financing system that a state judge has found unconstitutional.As with many other aspects of the President's record, there is a strong dissonance between rhetoric and reality. Education President is actually an "F" from teachers; WMD in Iraq turns out to be no WMD; tax cuts won't create a deficit becomes tax cuts that in reality bankrupt the country; etc., etc.
Some legislators said Gov. Rick Perry should call another special session, as he did last summer after a failed 2003 effort, for a fourth try. Mr. Perry's predecessor, George W. Bush, met similar setbacks in efforts to restructure school financing.
[...]
Texas [ranks] last among the states in high school graduation rates and faring poorly on other education and social service indexes. [emphasis added]
This story underscores an important point, politics aside. The nation's education system is crumbling, and mandating testing without providing necessary funding is not the answer. The simple answer: allocate sufficient money to educate every student. If you want also want testing, so be it, but mone for required standardized tests must be above and beyond the increased money for schools.
This is not just an education issue. This is about economics and national security. Unless American students receive the best education in the world -- not only in colleges and post-graduate programs, but from pre-school on -- we risk falling behind Europe, India and China in my lifetime. The threat is that imminent. So if George Bush actually wants to be known as the education President -- and I believe that he sincerely does -- it's time for him, and the state legislatures across the country, to give our students the money they need to learn.
The Real Winners and Losers of the Nuclear Deal
In the aftermath of the deal postponing the "nuclear" option, the constant spin of both sides has made it difficult to decipher the winners from the losers. For instance, although extreme right elements were livid becaue the nuclear option was not invoked, three of President Bush's most right wing nominees are on the path to the judiciary without the Republicans being slammed for overturning Senate tradition. Just the same, though many on the left are unhappy that the three nominees will become judges, the Democrats still have the right to filibuster -- in theory.
Today, the Los Angeles Times' political guru Ron Brownstein provides a more nuanced look at the ramifications of the deal that paints a fuller picture of the winners and losers of the battle.
While this trend has yet to fully materialize -- Republicans still have higher party unity scores than the Democrats -- it must be discouraging for diehard conservatives to see their party fracturing just at the apex of its power.
Today, the Los Angeles Times' political guru Ron Brownstein provides a more nuanced look at the ramifications of the deal that paints a fuller picture of the winners and losers of the battle.
Especially since Bush's reelection, Democrats have been divided on electoral strategy. One camp believes the key to revival is courting centrist swing voters (a la Bill Clinton's "third way"). The second says the party must emulate Bush and focus on mobilizing its base by stressing unity.The defection (even temporarily) of seven Republican Senators on the "nuclear" option and 50 House GOPers on the stem cell bill are indeed indicative of the growing concern that 2006 will be a difficult year for conservative Republicans. More and more GOP members of Congress simply do not want to go down with the ship, so they are increasingly willing to abandon their party on key votes.
In different ways, the judicial deal is at least tolerable to both camps. Third-way types applaud it for promoting bipartisan compromise. The party-unity group likes it because it kept Senate Democrats unified against the filibuster ban.
By contrast, the deal threatens the ruling political paradigm among Republicans. Since 2001, energizing the conservative base, even at the price of straining relations with more centrist voters, has been the core of Bush's legislative and political strategy.
That approach has generated undeniable benefits for him. The massive turnout from the GOP base was the largest factor in Bush's reelection. His strength in culturally conservative areas has helped Republicans solidify their dominance of congressional seats in GOP-leaning "red" states.
But last week's deal reflected a fear among some of its GOP participants that the White House had pushed that polarizing approach to the point of dangerously alienating moderate voters. Bush's approval rating has tumbled below 50% and runs lower among independents and moderates. The numbers for Congress have been sinking like Nasdaq after the Internet stock bubble burst. In a CBS poll last week, Congress' approval rating among independents fell to an anemic 26%.
While this trend has yet to fully materialize -- Republicans still have higher party unity scores than the Democrats -- it must be discouraging for diehard conservatives to see their party fracturing just at the apex of its power.
Wal-Mart's Troubles in Conquering Oregon
Whenever I see a commercial for Wal-Mart or the big box store comes up in conversation, I'm become a bit puzzled. If Wal-Mart is the largest retailer in the world, why haven't I ever been to one? Am I missing out on something? Frankly, I don't even know where to find a store in Portland. The Oregonian's team of David R. Anderson and Catherine Trevison provide an answer on the front page of today's paper.
Although my propensity to shop at Costco came long before I knew about Costco's liberal-leanings (which I'll discuss in a moment), undoubtedly one of the reasons why I have frequented the retailer is because of its progressive treatment of its workers. Unlike Wal-Mart -- less than half of whose employees have health benefits and who greatly underpays its workers -- Costco goes to great lengths to ensure the happiness of its workers. By paying its employees fair wages, despite squawking from Wall Street, Costco ensures that its customers are always pleased. And the results are stunning, as Bloomberg reports:
Progressive thinkers have further cause to shirk Wal-Mart in favor of Costco, aside from the great prices and fair treatment of employees. BuyBlue.org, which tracks the political contributions of major corporations, notes that in the 2004 cycle Wal-Mart officials gave only 22% of their donations to Democrats whereas Costco executives gave 99% of their contributions to Dems. What's more, as Bloomberg's Michael Forsythe and Rachel Katz reported last summer,
[Full disclosure: I own stock in Costco, though I don't really think that has influenced my opinion on the subject. Nevertheless, it's important for me to note my potential bias on the subject.]
[T]he Portland area is nearly virgin territory for the Bentonville, Ark., retailer. The company has no stores in Washington County, with a population of nearly 500,000. It has two in Multnomah County, with a population of nearly 700,000.And how have we kept Wal-Mart out of the Beaver state?
[...]
Oregon has 20 discount stores and nine Supercenters -- a combination discount store and full-sized grocery. But Oklahoma, with about 30,000 more people, has nearly four times as many Wal-Marts: 49 Supercenters, 33 discount stores, 14 smaller Neighborhood Markets and 14 Sam's Clubs warehouse stores.
Oregon was one of the first places where big-box developers encountered tighter codes regulating retail design, and many cities here have adopted them, said architect Timothy Huffman of Middough Consulting of Cleveland, which started working with Wal-Mart on urban projects around the country about four years ago.My limited experience with Wal-Mart contrasts starkly with my long-time patronage of the largest U.S. warehouse-club retailer, Costco. Wherever I have lived -- Portland, Claremont, DC -- I have always made it my business to know where to find the nearest Costco. Why the big difference?
Although my propensity to shop at Costco came long before I knew about Costco's liberal-leanings (which I'll discuss in a moment), undoubtedly one of the reasons why I have frequented the retailer is because of its progressive treatment of its workers. Unlike Wal-Mart -- less than half of whose employees have health benefits and who greatly underpays its workers -- Costco goes to great lengths to ensure the happiness of its workers. By paying its employees fair wages, despite squawking from Wall Street, Costco ensures that its customers are always pleased. And the results are stunning, as Bloomberg reports:
Costco Wholesale Corp., the largest U.S. warehouse-club retailer, said third-quarter earnings increased 5.6 percent, helped by sales of home furnishings and electronics.Bloomberg also notes,
Net income rose to $209.8 million, or 43 cents a share, from $198.7 million, or 42 cents, a year earlier. Sales in the quarter ended May 8 rose 10 percent to $11.7 billion, the Issaquah, Washington-based company said today in a statement.
Sales of upscale products, such as $2,250 Denton leather sofas, helped Costco outperform Wal-Mart Stores Inc.'s Sam's Club for 20 straight months. Profit rose the least in six quarters because Costco discounted gasoline to lure customers while its wholesale fuel costs increased. [emphasis added]
- "Costco's membership renewal rate reached a record 86 percent in the quarter."
- "Same-store sales growth at Costco averaged 8.3 percent compared with 6.2 percent at Sam's Club over the last four quarters."
Progressive thinkers have further cause to shirk Wal-Mart in favor of Costco, aside from the great prices and fair treatment of employees. BuyBlue.org, which tracks the political contributions of major corporations, notes that in the 2004 cycle Wal-Mart officials gave only 22% of their donations to Democrats whereas Costco executives gave 99% of their contributions to Dems. What's more, as Bloomberg's Michael Forsythe and Rachel Katz reported last summer,
Costco Chief Executive Officer Jim Sinegal, 68, is a Democrat who says President Bush's $1.7 trillion in tax cuts unfairly benefit the wealthy. He opposed the Iraq war and supports Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts for president. And he's the only chief executive of a company in the Standard & Poor's 500 Index to donate money to independent political groups formed to oust Bush, Internal Revenue Service records show.A compelling argument for shopping at Costco instead of Wal-Mart? The proof will be in the pudding. Anderson and Trevison explain that Wal-Mart is changing the design of its stores in order to further break into the Oregon market, so it will be able to go head-to-head against Costco in my backyard. My hunch is that Oregonians, by and large, will continue to shop at Costco, however. And though Wal-Mart will do well in the state, Costco will continue to grow and flourish.
Wal-Mart, the world's largest retailer and owner of Sam's Club warehouse stores, gives more money to Republican candidates than any other company does. Its top three managers, including Chief Executive H. Lee Scott, donated the individual maximum $2,000 to Bush, and Jay Allen, vice president for corporate affairs, raised at least $100,000 to re-elect the president, earning him the Bush campaign's designation of "Pioneer." [emphasis added]
[Full disclosure: I own stock in Costco, though I don't really think that has influenced my opinion on the subject. Nevertheless, it's important for me to note my potential bias on the subject.]
Sunday, May 29, 2005
Honoring Our Soldiers
Tomorrow we honor the thousands upon thousands who gave their lives to help create and defend this great country in which we live. With tens of thousands of soldiers still in harm's way all across the globe, let us take a day off from meaningless bickering to pray for their swift delivery from danger.
Debunking Kansas
Jason Scorse has a great post up over at Voices of Reason dissecting Thomas Frank's popular treatise, What's the Matter with Kansas. It's an interesting piece that I recommend you check out.
John Edwards for Senate in 2008?
John Edwards seems likely to make another bid for the Democratic Presidential nomination in 2008, but at least one key North Carolina Republican is concerned that the Breck boy is going to mke another bid for the United States Senate. Jim Morrill and Tim Funk have the story for The Charlotte Observer.
There has been much talk that either Rudy Giuliani or George Pataki will challenge Hillary Clinton next year. Aside from the fact that Hillary would be extremely tough to beat, becoming a Senator would do little to advance the presidential aspirations of either Giuliani or Pataki. Likewise in Virginia, it is highly unlikely -- though quite disappointing -- that popular Democratic Governor Mark Warner is unlikely to run against Republican Senator George Allen. The same most likely goes for a Mitt Romney bid for a second term as Massachusetts Governor, where his approval ratings are an anemic 41 percent.
2006 will be a wild year with strong politicians on both sides of the aisle forgoing shots as important offices to keep their options open for 2008. How this will affect the national picture is yet unclear, but if enough incumbents begin to see the writing on the wall (a la 1994, when 50 House members retired), 2006 could bring a whole new generation into Congress and statehouses across the country.
Does Republican Sen. Elizabeth Dole expect a 2008 challenge from Democrat John Edwards? Or Gov. Mike Easley?While Easley might actually make a run for the Senate in 2008 (unless he too would rather run for President), it's highly unlikely that Edwards will. For John Edwards, who clearly aspires to the White House, there simply is no upside to a Senate run in 2008. It would preclude him from running against an open field and not significantly improve his resume for 2008.
That's what she suggests in a new fundraising letter.
[...]
Dole goes on to say that Edwards, who left the Senate in January, "is conducting meetings throughout our state. Edwards is a multimillionaire who put millions of dollars of his personal wealth into his last campaign for the U.S. Senate and defeated a popular incumbent Republican."
There has been much talk that either Rudy Giuliani or George Pataki will challenge Hillary Clinton next year. Aside from the fact that Hillary would be extremely tough to beat, becoming a Senator would do little to advance the presidential aspirations of either Giuliani or Pataki. Likewise in Virginia, it is highly unlikely -- though quite disappointing -- that popular Democratic Governor Mark Warner is unlikely to run against Republican Senator George Allen. The same most likely goes for a Mitt Romney bid for a second term as Massachusetts Governor, where his approval ratings are an anemic 41 percent.
2006 will be a wild year with strong politicians on both sides of the aisle forgoing shots as important offices to keep their options open for 2008. How this will affect the national picture is yet unclear, but if enough incumbents begin to see the writing on the wall (a la 1994, when 50 House members retired), 2006 could bring a whole new generation into Congress and statehouses across the country.
IMF: Private Accounts Raise Debt
There are a number of reasons why President Bush's plan to partially privatize Social Security is not good policy -- it exacerbates, rather than alleviates the problem; it drastically cuts benefits; it is a first step in destroying FDR's signature program. As the AP's Jeannine Aversa reports, the International Monetary Fund proposes yet another reason not to support the proposal.
The centerpiece of the Bush administration's Social Security overhaul — letting workers set up personal investment accounts — would "pose fiscal challenges," International Monetary Fund staff say.The IMF staff are not the only ones concerned about the massive increase in debt that would occur as a result of private accounts.
[...]
While these accounts "hold the potential for raising the return on Social Security contributions, they would also imply a significant increase in federal deficits and debt in coming decades," the IMF staff report said.
Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, who has urged a go-slow approach in setting up the accounts, has expressed concern that the government's increased borrowing needs might boost a variety of interest rates.If the IMF says private accounts are in effect bad policy and Alan Greenspan in effect says they are bad policy, shouldn't the Republicans pay at least a little heed?
Republican Fights Hard Against IVF
Americas have discussed the issue of embryonic stem cell research for months without branching out into related areas. Now, one hard right Republican who has made signals about running for President in 2008 wants not only to block investment in further research but also curtail in vitro fertilizations that has brought life to thousands. The AFP has the story:
A prominent conservative US senator called for restrictions on the number of embryos that could be created during fertility treatments, hoping to lessen the number of unwanted embryos left over when the procedures end.Not only are the Republicans against scientific innovations that could save millions of people's lives, but now some GOPers are against allowing married couples with trouble conceiving having children. Which party stands for the culture of life?
"In a number of countries, they limit the number of these in vitro fertilizations from outside the womb," US Senator Sam Brownback told ABC television's "This Week" program.
"They say you can do this, but you have to do these one or two at a time, so that they're implanted in that basis. And that might be the better way to look at this.
"That's a way that you can look at that, instead of going on this massive scale of what we've done here," Brownback said.
DC Beckons
Well, I'm here in DC. Foggy Bottom, to be exact. Blogging should commence within the next little while.
Quote of the Day
"I think he's running for president."Link.
-- Roberta McCain, 93, on her son Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) to the New Yorker.
Saturday, May 28, 2005
Checking In
Well folks, these are hectic times around these parts. I'm off to DC in just a short few hours, though I hope to catch a few hours of sleep before then. I'll be able to write a little at PDX (which has free Wi-Fi) and perhaps in Chicago as well. As a result, tomorrow's posting might be a bit sparse. Things should be up and back to normal come Memorial Day, and certainly the Tuesday after that. Thanks for bearing with me and I'll talk to you in a few hours.
The Sunday Shows
I'll be flying back to DC for my summer gig (which I'll let you know about in due time) on a 6:00 AM flight, but for those not relegated to cramped seats and excessive yet relatively ineffectual security checks...
NBC's MEET THE PRESS WITH TIM RUSSERTstay tuned...Former Sen. Sam Nunn (D-GA) and Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN); Former NJ Gov. and 9/11 Commission Chair Thomas Kean and former Indiana Rep. and 9/11 Vice Chair Lee Hamilton; and former Sen. and Law and Order DA Fred Thompson (R-TN)ABC's THIS WEEK WITH GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOSSens. Arlen Specter (R-PA) and Sam Brownback (R-KS); Palestinian PM Mahmoud Abbas; Danica Patrick (Indy 500 racer); and the panel of Terry Moran, Linda Douglass and George WillCBS' FACE THE NATION WITH BOB SCHIEFFERRep. Tom Davis (R-VA); sportswriter John Feinstein; and Colbert KingFOX NEWS SUNDAY WITH CHRIS WALLACEGen. Richard Myers (Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff); Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT); and the panel of Brit Hume, Ceci Connolly, Bill Kristol and Juan WilliamsCNN's LATE EDITION WITH WOLF BLITZERIraqis and other denizens of the Middle East[For more, check out Sunday Morning Talk]
The End of Oil
I have a new piece up over at The Moderate Voice on America's impending oil crisis. Check it out if you're interested in the politics and policies of energy in the 21st century.
Bush Rewarding Incompetance
Can President Bush be forgiven for passing along false information about Iraqi WMD to the American people? Many would argue "yes." But should he be allowed to reward those who doctored the intelligence in the first place? This question and others have been raised by this exceptional piece of reporting by The Washington Post's Walter Pincus.
Two Army analysts whose work has been cited as part of a key intelligence failure on Iraq -- the claim that aluminum tubes sought by the Baghdad government were most likely meant for a nuclear weapons program rather than for rockets -- have received job performance awards in each of the past three years, officials said.It is unacceptable not to hold parties responsible for faulty intelligence, but it's something much worse to reward the very people who helped usher America into a war based on untruths. If ever the President had an opportunity to make right by the American people, he could simply fire these individuals. Instead, he's promoted them. So much for personal responsibility...
The civilian analysts, former military men considered experts on foreign and U.S. weaponry, work at the Army's National Ground Intelligence Center (NGIC), one of three U.S. agencies singled out for particular criticism by President Bush's commission that investigated U.S. intelligence.
The Army analysts concluded that it was highly unlikely that the tubes were for use in Iraq's rocket arsenal, a finding that bolstered a CIA contention that they were destined for nuclear centrifuges, which was in turn cited by the Bush administration as proof that Saddam Hussein was reconstituting Iraq's nuclear weapons program.
The problem, according to the commission, which cited the two analysts' work, is that they did not seek or obtain information available from the Energy Department and elsewhere showing that the tubes were indeed the type used for years as rocket-motor cases by Iraq's military. The panel said the finding represented a "serious lapse in analytic tradecraft" because the center's personnel "could and should have conducted a more exhaustive examination of the question."
Pentagon spokesmen said the awards for the analysts were to recognize their overall contributions on the job over the course of each year. But some current and former officials, including those who called attention to the awards, said the episode shows how the administration has failed to hold people accountable for mistakes on prewar intelligence.
Clark, Democrats Call for Improved Military Healthcare
Republicans might believe that they have a monopoly over the support of the military, but Democrats won't give in that easily. A Memorial Day weekend one-two punch from Wes Clark and House Dems hammers the GOP for hypocrisy and a failure to support our troops, reports the Associated Press.
Retired Army Gen. Wesley Clark used the Democrats' radio broadcast Saturday to insist that Reserve and National Guard members and their families should receive the same health insurance as the active force does.Is it pro-military to underfund healthcare for reservists and national guard troops? Does is improve our national defense? Does it strengthen America? Clearly, the answer is no. The sooner the Democrats can show the American people that the Republican are weakening, rather than strengthening the military (and Wes Clark is just the man to deliver such a message), the better shot they will have at a big win in 2006.
"And just as importantly, we have got to keep our promises to veterans and provide them the medical care they need," Clark said. "That means fully funding the Veterans Administration system."
[...]
Also timed for Memorial Day, the House Democratic campaign committee is rolling out an advertising campaign this weekend accusing House Republicans of failing to support National Guard and Reserve troops.
Radio commercials paid for by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee are planned for a dozen House districts.
The ads criticize Congress for rejecting a plan to extend health care coverage permanently to National Guard and Reserve members and their families. It would have given them similar benefits as active-duty troops through TRICARE, the military's health care system.
Friday, May 27, 2005
Massive Ohio GOP Scandal Emerging
The field of rare coin dealing can be fickle, especially when millions in dollars in coins simply disappear. When you combine shady numismatics with politics, though, you get a whopper of a scandal. The AP's Andrew Welsh-Huggins has the scoop.
The director of Ohio's workers' compensation bureau resigned under pressure Friday over the disappearance of at least $10 million worth of rare coins that the agency had bought as an investment.Where's the scandal, you might ask. Sure this was a poor investment that wasted taxpayer money. But how could this possibly have political ramifications? The answer comes in paragraph 14.
Gov. Bob Taft announced the departure of James Conrad, once hailed as state government's "Mr. Fixit" for his ability to overhaul troubled agencies.
[...]
The announcement came a day after it was learned that $10 million to $12 million of the state's $55 million rare coin investment was believed to be missing — dramatically more than the previous estimate of $400,000.
State officials said they plan to sue the man hired to manage the coin investments, coin dealer Tom Noe, and seek criminal charges. Noe has resigned, and a judge has ordered possession of the remaining coins transferred to the state.
Noe, 50, a leading GOP donor who operates a coin shop near Toledo, was hired by the bureau in 1998, the year before Taft took office. Democrats have alleged that he won the job in return for campaign contributions to Republicans, who control most of state government. [emphasis added]This scandal threatens to upend any efforts by second-term GOP Governor Bob Taft, whose approval ratings are an anemic 19%. More importantly, the close ties between Noe and Ken Blackwell -- the leading Republican gubernatorial candidate for 2006 -- could provide six-term Democratic Rep. Ted Strickland with a real shot at winning the statehouse. Should Strickland -- or Jerry Springer or another Democrat -- win in 2006, Ohio would have its first Dem Governor in sixteen years. And who would have ever thought a few coins could make such a large difference?
The Economist: GOP Losers of Nuclear Battle
After the "group of fourteen" hammered out a cease fire in the impending "nuclear" battle between Senate Republicans and Democrats, much discussion was made about which side had gained the upper hand. Although neither side can claim a decisive victory, The Economist opines that the big losers were the Republicans.
Democratic hardliners have lost less than Republican hardliners. In particular, there are three big losers from the peace deal: Bill Frist, the White House and the religious right.I couldn't have said is better myself.
Mr Frist is a much diminished leader. He had argued that he had done everything possible to avert a showdown, only to be frustrated by Democratic intransigence. But a group of mavericks and backbenchers succeeded in cobbling together a peace deal behind his back. He had hoped to present himself as the leader of a united Republican Party against a stonewalling Democratic opposition, an image that would have positioned him as the champion of social conservatives in any future presidential run. But now he is just one of many generals in a disorganised army.
The White House is also deeply frustrated. Mr Bush's political strategy has long depended on using a narrow Republican majority to push through broad changes. This worked well when the Republicans were willing to walk in lockstep behind the president. But the Senate deal is one of a number of indications that lockstep is no longer the height of Republican fashion. Last week, 46 Republican senators defied the threat of a presidential veto to vote in favour of a pork-stuffed highway bill. This week 50 Republicans from the normally pusillanimous House also defied the threat of a presidential veto to vote in favour of a bill to expand federal funding for stem-cell research. Add to this the lagging fortunes of his Social Security reforms even among Republican voters and Mr Bush looks much less formidable.
The religious right has good reason to be apoplectic. For social conservatives the filibuster fight was always a fight about the Supreme Court. Social conservatives calculated that it would be much easier to get one of their own on to the Court if they could deprive the minority of their power to use the filibuster; indeed, they hoped to sneak one or even two Clarence Thomases to the Court by as early as this summer. But the 14 senatorial peacemakers have not only left the Democrats with the filibuster, they have also sent a signal that they might be willing to break ranks with the White House if the fight gets too acrimonious.
Wes Clark Stepping It Up Once Again
An email from the good general...
On Saturday, I will be delivering the Democratic response to the President's weekly radio address. I'll be thanking all of our brave men and women in uniform for their service. And I'll be urging Congress and the White House to honor their service - by providing our soldiers and their families with all of the support they deserve, in and out of battle. It's the least we can do - and it's high time that we do it.I'll look forward to listening to the address and letting you know how it went through later on Saturday afternoon.
I invite you to listen to Saturday's radio address on a local station near you. You can also check back at SecuringAmerica.com Saturday afternoon, where we'll post a link to my remarks online as soon as they become available.
Santorum Trading Legislation for Campaign Cash?
The AP's Kimberly Hefling passes on an extremely troubling piece of news out of Capitol Hill regarding the junior Senator from Pennsylvania. She writes,
With Congress in recess, this will be a tough period for Santorum. Coming home to Pennsylvania -- where a large proportion of his constituents are elderly -- his views on partial privatization are highly unliked. What's more, his failure to protect military bases in the state has not endeared him to many voters. Now, with this scandal hanging over his head, I'd be surprised to see if he didn't just try and lay low for a while. If he does stay out of the limelight, though, his Democratic challenger Bob Casey will have that much more of an opportunity to hammer him in the press. It's a tough time to be in the Republican Congressional leadership...
Two days before Sen. Rick Santorum introduced a bill that critics say would restrict the National Weather Service, his political action committee received a $2,000 donation from the chief executive of AccuWeather Inc., a leading provider of weather data.This news cannot help Santorum, who is engaged in a pitched battle for his political life. Futher, it doesn't come at a particularly good time for the Republican Party as it tries to shrug off charges of hubris and corruption. Lastly, it doesn't help AccuWeather, as buying influence -- or even the perception of an attempt to do so -- is not generally regarded as acceptable business practice in this country (at least when it's publicized).
The disclosure has renewed criticism of the measure, which Santorum, R-Pa., maintains would allow the weather service to better focus on its core mission of getting threatening weather info out in a "timely and speedy basis."
Opponents say the bill would endanger the public by preventing the dissemination of certain weather data, and force taxpayers to pay for the data twice. The bill would prevent the weather service from competing for certain services offered by the private sector.
With Congress in recess, this will be a tough period for Santorum. Coming home to Pennsylvania -- where a large proportion of his constituents are elderly -- his views on partial privatization are highly unliked. What's more, his failure to protect military bases in the state has not endeared him to many voters. Now, with this scandal hanging over his head, I'd be surprised to see if he didn't just try and lay low for a while. If he does stay out of the limelight, though, his Democratic challenger Bob Casey will have that much more of an opportunity to hammer him in the press. It's a tough time to be in the Republican Congressional leadership...
Americans Like Hillary
Hillary Clinton has never been particularly loved by the American people. Her overreach on healthcare in 1993-94 helped the Democrats lose control of Congress, and the ultra-right's hatred of her husband has led to a revulsion, among some, of her. Just the same, Hillary is becoming more and more popular, reports Susan Page of USA Today.
For the first time, a majority of Americans say they are likely to vote for Hillary Rodham Clinton if she runs for president in 2008, according to a USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll taken Friday through Sunday.These number are highly surprising; I would never have thought Hillary capable of garnering the support of a majority of Americans. And though this does little to diminish my apprehensions about her possible candidacy, it is nevertheless enlightening to see that someone can actually rehabilitate her political image in this day in age.
The survey shows that the New York senator and former first lady has broadened her support nationwide over the past two years, though she still provokes powerful feelings from those who oppose her.
Clinton commands as much strong support — but more strong opposition — as George W. Bush did in a Newsweek poll in November 1998, two years before the 2000 election. She is in slightly stronger position than then-vice president Al Gore, the eventual 2000 Democratic nominee, was in 1998.
[...]
Her strong support has risen by 8 percentage points, and her strong opposition has dropped by 5 points since the same question was asked in June 2003.
On Energy
Electricity news abounds in the Northwest these days. The still cash-strapped Enron Corporation is looking to sell the profitable Portland General Electric, two of the largest bidders for which are the city of Portland and the state of Oregon. More recently, billionaire Warren Buffett has made a move to buy out PacifiCorp. And on Thursday, as Felicity Barringer reports for The New York Times, a federal judge in Portland delivered a ruling that could have serious ramifications for the region's power supply.
I am an environmentalist. But on the issue of breaching dams in the Northwest, I find myself diverging from the liberal orthodoxy. Although the lives of the salmon are extremely important -- and the regulations by the Bush administration clearly do not do enough to protect the species -- the environmental consequences of breaching dams in the region would be significantly more disastrous than keeping the dams in place.
Should Oregon, Washington et. al. turn to nuclear power? Coal? Oil? The region needs electricity, and clean hydroelectric power -- though it has its major drawbacks -- is undoubtedly better than the aforementioned alternatives. Should more solar and wind power plants be built? Absolutely. But can the region run on solar and wind power alone? Questionable.
If a number of dams on the Columbia and Snake Rivers were breached, the Trojan nuclear power plant thirty miles or so north of Portland would almost certainly be reopened to meet demand. The biproducts of such a plant would be extremely harmful to the environment, and the specter of a meltdown is simply too much for the region to handle if it is not necessary. Indeed, it's not. So before the die-hard environmentalists call for the destruction of dams throughout the great Northwest, I urge caution and, above all, a little bit of common sense.
A federal judge in Oregon ruled Thursday that the Bush administration had arbitrarily limited and skewed its analysis of the harm that 14 federal dams cause to endangered Columbia and Snake River salmon and steelhead.While this ruling is just a preliminary step in the adjudication process -- the 9th Circuit and the Supreme Court could choose to trump Redden's decision -- it nevertheless raises a number of important issues for the Northwest.
As a result, Judge James A. Redden of Federal District Court ruled, the administration had shirked its duty to ensure that government actions were not likely to jeopardize the survival of the species.
The ruling came in a challenge by environmentalists, fishing groups and Indian tribes to the administration's determination that the harm the hydropower dams were posing to the young salmon and steelhead could be remedied over the next 10 years by $6 billion in improvements to the dams, including spillways designed to get the fish through safely.
I am an environmentalist. But on the issue of breaching dams in the Northwest, I find myself diverging from the liberal orthodoxy. Although the lives of the salmon are extremely important -- and the regulations by the Bush administration clearly do not do enough to protect the species -- the environmental consequences of breaching dams in the region would be significantly more disastrous than keeping the dams in place.
Should Oregon, Washington et. al. turn to nuclear power? Coal? Oil? The region needs electricity, and clean hydroelectric power -- though it has its major drawbacks -- is undoubtedly better than the aforementioned alternatives. Should more solar and wind power plants be built? Absolutely. But can the region run on solar and wind power alone? Questionable.
If a number of dams on the Columbia and Snake Rivers were breached, the Trojan nuclear power plant thirty miles or so north of Portland would almost certainly be reopened to meet demand. The biproducts of such a plant would be extremely harmful to the environment, and the specter of a meltdown is simply too much for the region to handle if it is not necessary. Indeed, it's not. So before the die-hard environmentalists call for the destruction of dams throughout the great Northwest, I urge caution and, above all, a little bit of common sense.
Thursday, May 26, 2005
TX Judge: DeLay's TRMPAC Broke the Law
Tom DeLay's woes never seem to end. One day he raises his profile in fighting stem cells, the next day his statewide political action committee is found to have broke the law. Reuters' Mark Babineck has the story:
A political committee formed by U.S. House of Representatives Majority Leader Tom DeLay broke Texas law by not disclosing more than $600,000 in mostly corporate contributions, a judge ruled in a case that adds to ethics questions swirling around the powerful Republican.Although DeLay was not named in the case, today's news is further proof that he is politically radioactive. As Taegan Goddard notes, a majority of House Republicans would prefer the embattled Majority Leader not campaign for them. These are rough times for the exterminator, indeed.
State District Judge Joe Hart in Austin made the ruling on Thursday in a lawsuit filed by five Democratic candidates defeated in 2002 by Republicans who received money from Texans for a Republican Majority, a political action committee founded by DeLay to help his party capture the Texas Legislature.
Hart awarded the Democrats a total of $196,660 in damages.
Even More May Polling
The newest poll from Quinnipiac University finds that President Bush's approval ratings are tanking.
If you take a look at the trend graph produced by Pollkatz, you can clearly see that President Bush is moving in the wrong direction. One poll, you can write off. Two polls, you can write off. But every poll showing the same trend is almost irrefutable.
There is more cause for concern for Republicans across the polling. The approval ratings for George W. Bush -- like almost every other President in the modern era -- has correlated quite closely to the price of gasoline. Unfortunately for the President, the most recent downturn in his numbers has come at a time when gas prices have actually been falling (as you can see in this other great graph from Pollkatz). This disconnect shows that the President is treading on some fairly this ice these days as a result of his policies, not just outside occurrences.
So there can be no more blaming of gas prices or shoddy methodology for the lagging numbers for Bush in recent polling. He, and the Republican Party, are simply not favored by the American people these days. The Democrats have yet to capitalize on this trend, but if (or when) they do, there could be a real partisan swing.
American voters disapprove of the job President George W. Bush is doing 50 - 44 percent, his lowest approval rating since becoming President. This compares to a 48 - 45 percent disapproval in a March 9 Quinnipiac University poll. [emphasis added]Ouch.
If you take a look at the trend graph produced by Pollkatz, you can clearly see that President Bush is moving in the wrong direction. One poll, you can write off. Two polls, you can write off. But every poll showing the same trend is almost irrefutable.
There is more cause for concern for Republicans across the polling. The approval ratings for George W. Bush -- like almost every other President in the modern era -- has correlated quite closely to the price of gasoline. Unfortunately for the President, the most recent downturn in his numbers has come at a time when gas prices have actually been falling (as you can see in this other great graph from Pollkatz). This disconnect shows that the President is treading on some fairly this ice these days as a result of his policies, not just outside occurrences.
So there can be no more blaming of gas prices or shoddy methodology for the lagging numbers for Bush in recent polling. He, and the Republican Party, are simply not favored by the American people these days. The Democrats have yet to capitalize on this trend, but if (or when) they do, there could be a real partisan swing.
Clark Staying Behind the Scenes; 2008 Ramifications?
Over the past few months, former Democratic presidential candidate cum four-star General Wes Clark has worked hard to maintain his profile in the national media. In March, Clark relaunched his grassroots website, and in April, Clark spoke to me and other bloggers before his testimony before the House Armed Services Committee. And just this last weekend, Clark appeared on CNN's Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer to square off against Richard Perle.
Clark is not just working the media, however. The good General has also begun to cultivate his role as a major Democratic advisor, a move that Roll Call's Chris Cillizza says could have ramifications for the 2008 race [subscription reqd.].
Clark is not just working the media, however. The good General has also begun to cultivate his role as a major Democratic advisor, a move that Roll Call's Chris Cillizza says could have ramifications for the 2008 race [subscription reqd.].
Retired Gen. Wesley Clark has taken a high-profile role, both on and off Capitol Hill, as a Democratic spokesman and foreign policy adviser, stoking speculation that he is planning another national campaign in 2008.Watching the video of Clark's appearance in front of the CA Democratic Convention last month, one gets teh clear impression that the General still harbors aspirations for higher office. But would he accept the number two spot on the Democratic ticket? Said former Clark advisor Chris Lehane:
Clark has emerged as a regular presence on Capitol Hill in the last few months.
His allies paint him as a "go-to guy" for Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (Nev.) and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) on foreign policy matters, pointing out that he has been repeatedly invited by the duo to address their respective caucuses on the handling of current military situations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
[...]
All of this activity has created the impression in Democratic circles that Clark is actively weighing a bid, pending how the field ultimately shakes out.
Erick Mullen, a spokesman for Clark, said it was "ridiculous" to assume that the general was running for president but did little to deny that it is under consideration.
"All options are on the table," Mullen said.
"I've always thought a Clinton-Clark ticket had a nice ring to it."Was I Clark supporter in 2004? Yes. Would I like to see him run in 2008? Yes. Is it a little early for me to throw my support behind any potential candidate? Yes! So although I still consider myself a Clarkie, you'll have to wait some time before I'm willing to tell you who my pick is for the 2008 Democratic nomination.
Schwarzenegger's Numbers Fail to Rebound
Last month, when California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's approval ratings hit an all time low of 40% (with 50% disapproving), there was an assumption that he would quickly be able to turn things around. Apparently, this belief was unfounded, as the Public Policy Institute of California finds.
Governor Schwarzenegger’s approval ratings are considerably higher than the state legislature’s. However, they remain at the low point they reached in April. In the current survey, 40 percent of residents approve of the way he is handling his job, while 49 percent disapprove.It just goes to show that a movie star can run as an outsider, but once he begins to govern just like any politician -- with a real contempt for the truth and a cynicism as black as any Beltway boy -- voters will get tired of the charade.
[...]
Since January, when his original budget plan was released, his overall approval ratings have dropped from 60 percent to 40 percent. They have dropped even lower than a year ago, when 64 percent approved and 26 percent disapproved of his performance as governor.
Quote of the Day
"See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda. (Applause.)"Courtesy of the White House.
-- President George W. Bush
Wednesday, May 25, 2005
Stem Cell Issue to Continue in Months to Come
Despite efforts of the Republican Party to sidestep the issue, the House's passage of a bill securing funding for embryonic stem cell research has only piqued the interest of the millions of supporters of the science and the small minority that stringently opposes it. As The Hill's Peter Savodnik reports, it is an issue that will not likely go away before the next election.
Many members of Congress say staking out a position on embryonic-stem-cell research is a personal issue, often shaped by family tragedy that defies the standard, abortion-rights divide.Groups on the fringe right were not the only ones paying attention yesterday. Savodnik further notes,
But to conservative activists angered by Republicans who backed Tuesday night’s measure to increase federal funding of stem-cell research, voting yes for the bill was little more than betrayal. Democrats, too, suggested the vote could influence tight races in 2006.
“I think it will affect a number of congressmen who previously were thought of as pro-life, and now you’re going to find groups like ours that send out scorecards … and they’re no longer 100 percent,” Tom McClusky, director of government affairs at the Family Research Council, said yesterday.
But a Democratic leadership aide said at least two Republicans — Reps. Dave Reichert of Washington and Mike Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania — could face some trouble for opposing the measure.Though the bill clearly has the votes for passage in the Senate, the Republican leadership has been dragging its feet. As a result, Patrick O'Connor reports for The Hill that conservative Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) -- who actually supports the bill -- went to the floor today to goad his party into action.
“I think at the end of the day it is going to end up being one of the more politically important votes that are taken this Congress,” the aide said.
Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) implored his colleagues yesterday to take up a bill that would expand federal funding for research into embryonic stem cells.As The New York Times' Sheryl Gay Stolberg reports in tomorrow's paper, stem-cell supporters claim to have a margin in the Senate could even override a veto by the President.
[...]
“I respect President Bush’s views on this issue,” Hatch said in his statement. “But I know, as a long-standing pro-life Senator, that it is possible to be both anti-abortion and pro-embryonic stem cell research.”
Senator Arlen Specter, the Pennsylvania Republican and chief sponsor of a bill to expand federal financing for human embryonic stem cell research, issued a stark challenge to President Bush on Wednesday, saying he had enough votes in the Senate to override a presidential veto of the measure.Down the line, this is a winning issue for the Democrats. By defending science that could save millions of lives against a small minority swayed by an orthodox dogma, Democrats can show that they indeed have a strong sense of morality. Come 2006, it will be very interesting to watch the Republican leadership and President Bush try to defend this position.
"I don't like veto threats, and I don't like statements about overriding veto threats," Mr. Specter said, speaking at a news conference where the House backers of the measure presented him the legislation, which passed the House on Tuesday, topped with a red bow.
"But if a veto threat is going to come from the White House, then the response from the Congress is to override the veto, if we can," Mr. Specter added. "Last year we had a letter signed by some 58 senators, and we had about 20 more in the wings. I think if it really comes down to a showdown, we will have enough in the United States Senate to override a veto."
Bonus Quote of the Day
“I’ll compare my life with his any time. [...] I don’t think he knows what a life is.”Link.
-- Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK), age 71, on fellow Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK), who previously asked, "Why would you want to be here when you’re 68 years of age? If you have any type of life, this is the last place you’d want to be.”
Quote of the Day
"Not to have the availability of the best of medical care is simply atrocious."Link.
-- Sen. Arlen Specter, on President Bush's vow to veto future funding for embryonic stem cell research
TN-Sen Kickoff
Two weeks ago, Rep. Harold Ford (D-TN) had dinner with Bill Clinton and Barack Obama over at Bob Rubin's house; now, as the AP's Beth Rucker reports, Ford has made his bid to succeed Bill Frist as Tennessee's Senator in 2006.
That all having been said, Tennessee has a relatively popular Democratic Governor, Phil Bredesen, who will top the ticket in 2006, a Democratic state House and nearly split state Senate (Rs hold a 17-16 advantage this term). So while Harold Ford might have a bit of trouble beating out former Republican Ed Bryant and Van Hilleary and former Chattanooga Mayor Bob Corker to replace Sen. Frist, he's not a long shot by far and could prove to be the surprise of 2006.
Democratic Rep. Harold Ford Jr. filed the federal paperwork Wednesday to run for the Senate seat being vacated by Republican Majority Leader Bill Frist.The polling on the race isn't great these days, but the Democrats must be pleased that they've recruited the strongest possible candidate. What's more, Tennessee is not always the safest place for Democrats seeking federal office. George W. Bush won the state by nearly 15 points in 2004.
The five-term congressman from Memphis is the second Democrat to enter the 2006 race. Frist has said he does not plan to seek a third term.
"I'm excited. I'm ready to go," Ford said in telephone interview from Washington. He said his top issues will be energy reform, national security and education.
Ford, 35, is a member of a Memphis political dynasty. He delivered the keynote address at the Democratic National Convention in 2000, unsuccessfully challenged Rep. Nancy Pelosi for the post of House minority leader in 2002 and served as a national campaign co-chairman for John Kerry's presidential run in 2004.
That all having been said, Tennessee has a relatively popular Democratic Governor, Phil Bredesen, who will top the ticket in 2006, a Democratic state House and nearly split state Senate (Rs hold a 17-16 advantage this term). So while Harold Ford might have a bit of trouble beating out former Republican Ed Bryant and Van Hilleary and former Chattanooga Mayor Bob Corker to replace Sen. Frist, he's not a long shot by far and could prove to be the surprise of 2006.
MT-Sen Kickoff
Three weeks ago, Montana state Senate President Jon Tester began testing the waters for a challenge to incumbent Republican Senator Conrad Burns. The DSCC began polling the race and found Burns to be quite vulnerable. Now, as the Helana Independent Record's Charles S. Johnson reports, Tester is making his candidacy official, greatly strengthening the Democrats' chances in the state.
Driving his tractor-trailer rig to various campaign stops on Tuesday, Democrat Jon Tester, a Big Sandy farmer and state Senate president, launched his candidacy for the U.S. Senate seat held by Republican Conrad Burns.By making this race about state issues, rather than major national trends, Tester could give Burns quite a bit of trouble. And considering Burns' connections to embattled conservative lobbyist Jack Abramoff, this race is quickly turning into one of the few Senate races that's actually competitive.
Joined by his family and Sen. Ken ''Kim'' Hanson, D-Harlem, who helped with the driving, Tester drove to Havre and then to Billings on Tuesday. He plans stops in Bozeman, Butte and Missoula today and in Helena and Great Falls on Thursday.
Tester, 48, said in a cell phone interview from his truck that he is seeking the U.S. Senate seat because he believes many Montanans have been overlooked by the federal government.
''I just feel small business, family farmers, agriculture, working people have been kind of under attack for the last 15 to 20 years,'' Tester said. ''I think the federal government needs top make these people a priority. The middle class has built this country, and we need to make them whole.''
From the Comments
I'm enjoying this exchange:
But Medicare and Medicaid are not the only programs that need a combination of cuts and tax increases. The federal deficit is untenable these days, and it will only get worse in the years to come. Neither party really wants to tackle this fact. But the Republicans control Washington these days, and with great power comes great responsibility.
If the Republicans want Americans to continue to vest a great deal of power in them in future years, they will have to start making some tough decisions. The American people expect their leaders to actually fix the country's problems rather than pass them on to later generations.
This doesn't let the Democrats off of the hook. They, too, will need to come up with some solid plans. But there is no incentive for them to release many details until late summer 2006 (and in fact there are many disincentives to them doing so). My hunch is that the Democrats will come up with some gagly 17-point proposals that don't resonate with voters. But should they actually figure out a way to explain what they believe in and why they believe it in three or four points, the Republicans will be in for a mountain of trouble.
Do you have a solution for Medicare, Medicaid, and SS?In a much less artful answer, Pete, no. But that's not really my job. I can tell you that to fix Medicare and Medicaid, a combination of big cuts and big tax increases will need to be passed to keep the programs alive through the next decade (should the American people want to continue them). Social Security, which already underwent such changes in 1983, only needs minor fixes.
-- pete
Isn't it enough to know that private accounts are not the solution? We don't have a solution for many medical diseases either, but it seems to me that killing the patient to cure the disease is the wrong way to go.
-- Eric Kodesch
But Medicare and Medicaid are not the only programs that need a combination of cuts and tax increases. The federal deficit is untenable these days, and it will only get worse in the years to come. Neither party really wants to tackle this fact. But the Republicans control Washington these days, and with great power comes great responsibility.
If the Republicans want Americans to continue to vest a great deal of power in them in future years, they will have to start making some tough decisions. The American people expect their leaders to actually fix the country's problems rather than pass them on to later generations.
This doesn't let the Democrats off of the hook. They, too, will need to come up with some solid plans. But there is no incentive for them to release many details until late summer 2006 (and in fact there are many disincentives to them doing so). My hunch is that the Democrats will come up with some gagly 17-point proposals that don't resonate with voters. But should they actually figure out a way to explain what they believe in and why they believe it in three or four points, the Republicans will be in for a mountain of trouble.
Great New Blog to Check Out
The Democratic caucus in the Oregon House of Representatives has become the first legislative caucus in the nation (to my knowledge) to participate en masse in a group blog. This is certainly a brave new world in which we live! No longer will constituents be forced to watch a fifteen second segment on the six o'clock news or a watered down article in a local paper. Now, Oregonians can get it all straight from the donkey's mouth. Check it out at OregonHouseDemocrats.com.
More Data from the CBS Poll
Fewer and fewer Americans are approving of the job Congress is doing these days, according to the most recently released data from CBS News.
In the wake of the Senate's filibuster fight, Congress' job approval stands today at just 29 percent, down from the 35 percent measured last month following Congress' dispute over the Terri Schiavo case, and now at its lowest level in this poll since 1996.Less than three in ten Americans approve of Congress? Before the "nuclear" option? I sincerely wonder how low the Republicans can take Congress before moderating just a little.
Today a majority of Americans, 55 percent, disapprove of the way Congress is doing its job. Most of the interviews for this poll were conducted before the filibuster compromise deal was announced Monday night.
Editorial of the Week
Courtesy of the newspaper of the New Hampshire Republican primaries, the Manchester Union Leader:
Frist has again showed that he is no match for Senate Democrats. If he cannot effectively lead 55 Republican senators, how can he be trusted to lead the party and the country three years from now?And the second guessing begins within the GOP...
Tuesday, May 24, 2005
The Gang of Fourteen Turns to Social Security
Now that they have seemingly forced a deal averting the nuclear option upon their colleagues, the Senate's gang of fourteen Senators might soon turn to Social Security. The Hill's team of Jackie Kucinich and Jeffrey Young report.
I am a strong proponent of growing the political center of American politics, but the Bush plan to partially privatize Social Security would not only not help rebuild the middle, it would do much to undercut it.
The Democrats, rightly, maintain very little trust of the Bush administration. Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA) consistently supported the President, then he campaigned against her in 2002. The same has happened to many moderate and conservative Dems throughout the South and the Midwest.
What's more, in the past, President Bush has feigned bipartisanship in order to shephard a bill out of committee before allowing his conservative allies in the House to gut bills in conference. Ted Kennedy surely rues the day he agreed to back Bush on No Child Left Behind.
Every Democrat must continue to stick to the script on Social Security, regardless of ideological belief. The American people don't want private accounts (no matter what the White House calls them), and even more importantly, they're bad policy. Consequently, the Democrats simply must not talk with the Republicans until the accounts are of the table. No ifs, ands or buts about it.
Ben Nelson is a great man, as is Mark Pryor. Joe Lieberman is a great representative of his state, and I've enjoyed my few conversations with him. If one of them -- or any other Democrat -- caves on Social Security, giving President Bush a major boost and penning the obituary for Roosevelt's great legacy, it will be difficult for any serious Democrat to support their bid for reelection.
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) wasted little time in touting the group’s clout. In an interview with Chris Matthews on “Hardball” on Monday night, Graham said, “Watch this group of 14 to come out with some deal for Social Security.”Why any Democrats -- even moderates and institutionalists -- would be willing to bail out the President and the Republicans on the issue of Social Security is beyond me. It simply makes no sense.
“Really?” said Matthews.
Graham responded, “Keep watching.”
[...]
Graham has introduced a Social Security reform bill that has been strongly criticized by conservative groups because it would increase taxes on people making more than $90,000.
Sen. Mark Pryor (D-Ark.) characterized the Graham plan as a blend of the White House principles, including private accounts, with other features designed to entice Democrats to support it.
Pryor said that he has spoken to Graham about Social Security more than once outside of the judicial-nominees negotiations but that he is not ready to sign off on the South Carolina Republican’s approach.
I am a strong proponent of growing the political center of American politics, but the Bush plan to partially privatize Social Security would not only not help rebuild the middle, it would do much to undercut it.
The Democrats, rightly, maintain very little trust of the Bush administration. Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA) consistently supported the President, then he campaigned against her in 2002. The same has happened to many moderate and conservative Dems throughout the South and the Midwest.
What's more, in the past, President Bush has feigned bipartisanship in order to shephard a bill out of committee before allowing his conservative allies in the House to gut bills in conference. Ted Kennedy surely rues the day he agreed to back Bush on No Child Left Behind.
Every Democrat must continue to stick to the script on Social Security, regardless of ideological belief. The American people don't want private accounts (no matter what the White House calls them), and even more importantly, they're bad policy. Consequently, the Democrats simply must not talk with the Republicans until the accounts are of the table. No ifs, ands or buts about it.
Ben Nelson is a great man, as is Mark Pryor. Joe Lieberman is a great representative of his state, and I've enjoyed my few conversations with him. If one of them -- or any other Democrat -- caves on Social Security, giving President Bush a major boost and penning the obituary for Roosevelt's great legacy, it will be difficult for any serious Democrat to support their bid for reelection.
Country Sides with Dems on Nuclear Option, Stem Cells
Although not all Americans are following what Congress has been up to the last few weeks, by and large, those that have are siding with the Democrats on almost every major issue. According to the most recent CBS News poll, Americans not only oppose the "nuclear" option, they also overwhelmingly believe that judicial nominees should have the support of at least three fifths of all Senators to win appointment.
Most Americans think it should take a larger majority of votes in the Senate to move ahead to confirm a federal judge or a Supreme Court judge. For federal judges, 63 percent think it should take 60 Senate votes to move ahead with confirmation, while 35 percent think 51 votes is acceptable. Similarly for Supreme Court judges, 64 percent think it ought to take 60 votes to move ahead, and 31 percent think 51 votes are sufficient.Likewise, on the issue of embryonic stem cell research -- federal funding for which was just approved by the House -- majorities of both parties believe Washington should be providing money for further research.
By a wide margin, the public also wants the two parties to agree on judges, rather than allowing the majority party to decide. 79 percent think both Republicans and Democrats in the Senate have to agree that a person should become a judge, even if that takes a long time. 14 percent think that because Republicans have the most Senators, Republicans should get to decide whether a person should be a judge, even if Democrats disagree.
When party names are omitted from the question, the results are similar. 74 percent think both parties need to agree on judges, while 17 percent think the party with the majority in the Senate gets to decide.
More Democrats would like to see 60 votes needed for judges, while a larger number of Republicans would be satisfied with 51 votes. Majorities of Democrats and Republicans would like to see Senators from both parties agree on judicial nominees.
It simply boggles the mind to consider that conservative Republicans actually believe that their positions on these two issues are politically tenable -- leaving aside the merits of their stances (which I of course question). It is a long way before the 2006 midterm elections, so the complete repercussions of these Republican moves are unclear. Nevertheless, the short-term consequences will become more evident as Republicans try to push forward with CAFTA, the Bolton nomination and other key issues -- the success of which are all still in doubt.
58% of Americans approve of medical research using embryonic stem cells, while 31% disapprove. Approval is higher now than it was last August; then, 50% approved and 31% disapproved, but 19% had no opinion.
Republicans are less likely than Democrats to approve of it, although half do. Approval of stem cell research among Republicans has risen significantly since last year; then, 37% approved of it, now 50% do. Approval has risen among Democrats as well, although less dramatically, from 57% to 65% now.
Bush Rebuffed
The results are in on the House vote on funding embryonic stem cell research, and for the second time in as many days, President Bush, James Dobson and the Republican leadership of the Congress suffered a highly symbolic loss. The AP's Laurie Kellman reports:
If this the way the President believes he will be able to regrow his lagging poll numbers, I'll make no complaints. The more he and the Republican Congress pursue unpopular policies, the better the chances of the Democrats making significant gains come November 2006.
Ignoring President Bush's veto threat, the House voted Tuesday to loosen limits on embryonic stem cell research, approving a measure supporters said could speed cures for diseases but opponents viewed as akin to abortion.Any hope that the fringe right will be able to rebound in the Senate is misplaced.
Bush called the bill a mistake and said he would veto it. The House approved it by a 238-194 vote, well short of the two-thirds majority that would be needed to override a veto.
[...]
Majority Leader Tom DeLay said the embryonic research bill would force taxpayers to finance "the dismemberment of living, distinct human beings."
The rhetoric didn't sway many Democrats.
"I don't need a lecture from the majority leader on moral and ethical leadership," said Rep. Pete Stark, D-Calif., referring to questions that have been raised about DeLay's travel, fundraising and associations with a lobbyist now under federal criminal investigation.
In the Senate, Arlen Specter, R-Pa. and Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, asked Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist to immediately bring the stem cell issue to the Senate floor. Backers of embryonic stem cell research said the measure was supported by 60 senators, enough to break a filibuster by opponents, and could even get a two-thirds majority to that would be enough to overpower a presidential veto.The business interests that make up one of the pillars of the Republican Party are quickly growing tired of the GOP's sharp move to the right on social issues in this Congress, and embrynic stem cell research is supported by a majority of Republicans. Nevertheless, the President seems poised to veto the bill to appease the most Christianist elements of his party.
If this the way the President believes he will be able to regrow his lagging poll numbers, I'll make no complaints. The more he and the Republican Congress pursue unpopular policies, the better the chances of the Democrats making significant gains come November 2006.
A Bonus Quote
The man might be despicable for allegedly taking money from Saddam Hussein, but you can't say he doesn't come up with a good zinger from time to time.
“You’re a drink-soaked former Trotskyist popinjay.”Link.
-- George Galloway to Christopher Hitchens before Galloway’s May 17 Senate appearance.
A Solid Metaphor
This I like:
Since the election, Washington Republicans resemble the German military during World War I, opening new fronts before old battles are resolved, said John E. Silvia, chief economist at Wachovia Corp. and a former top GOP economist for the Senate Banking Committee and the Joint Economic Committee. One week it's Social Security, the next week it's Schiavo, then steroids, then judges, he said.
"It's an unbalanced domestic agenda," Silvia said. "If you're going to go to the wall on one particular issue, you're telling me you're going to sacrifice other issues, and history is full of stories of battles won at the cost of missing issues that have lost the war."
Networks Get to Keep Spectrum Two Extra Years
As a part of the wide reform of telecommunications law in 1996, networks were given a wide swath of spectrum for the development of high definition television. The belief at the time was that if the spectrum were put up for auction at a price range in the tens of billions of dollars, the networks would not be willing to invest the necessary funds into the HD technology.
As a condition of the bill -- which as noted gave the networks billions of dollars worth of spectrum for free -- the networks were given a soft deadline of Dec. 31, 2006 to give back the VHF spectrum, which could potentially be used for cell phone-like high speed internet access. However, they have been fighting tooth and nail to keep both spectra for as long as possible. Apparently, they have been successful, as Drew Clark reports for National Journal's insider update on the telecom act.
As a condition of the bill -- which as noted gave the networks billions of dollars worth of spectrum for free -- the networks were given a soft deadline of Dec. 31, 2006 to give back the VHF spectrum, which could potentially be used for cell phone-like high speed internet access. However, they have been fighting tooth and nail to keep both spectra for as long as possible. Apparently, they have been successful, as Drew Clark reports for National Journal's insider update on the telecom act.
Republicans on the House Energy and Commerce Committee late Friday released draft legislation setting a so-called hard date for the transition to digital TV broadcasts. But committee Democrats said they had not agreed to the bill, which was the subject of bipartisan negotiations in recent weeks.Not only have the Republicans managed to give the networks another two years to sit on this prime real estate of spectrum for free, now they also expect the poorest Americans to dole out $50 for a converter just to be able to watch TV. Why not use some of the $28 billion that "could be generated by the sale of the 60 megahertz" in auction to provide converters for working class Americans? Or does Rupert Murdoch need more pork flowing into his pockets?
The draft legislation includes a cutoff date of Dec. 31, 2008 for analog spectrum broadcasts -- two years later than the Dec. 31, 2006 date that has been pushed by House Energy and Commerce Chairman Joe Barton, R-Texas. But it does not contain any provision to subsidize set-top converter boxes -- which, at a cost of about $50 each, are necessary for over-the-air television viewers with current analog TV sets to receive signals after analog broadcasting ceases.
"If there is no subsidy program, the bill cannot pass," declared Energy and Commerce member Rick Boucher, D-Va. -- who represents the type of rural district where the analog-to-digital transition is expected to be particularly difficult. "There are too many members who would feel a severe political backlash from their constituents if they all had to pay $50 to keep their analog television sets in operation." A DTV bill that does not include subsidies also would be "dead on arrival" in the Senate, according to a Senate Democratic aide.
Noting that there are 73 million analog television sets now in use, Boucher said Monday that adding a subsidy for converter boxes is "inevitable" if the sponsors want to pass their bill. "I'm confident that at some point in the process, when the legislation goes to markup, an amendment will be offered that would contain an adequate subsidy if an agreement is not reached [beforehand]," he said.
Minnesota Watch: May Edition
Tim Pawlenty, Minnesota's wunderkind Republican Governor, has looked to many on the fringe right to be a perfect dark horse candidate for the 2008 GOP Presidential nomination. But as the St. Paul Pioneer-Press' Bill Salisbury reports, the situation is rapidly changing.
A prominent national conservative leader appears ready to scratch Gov. Tim Pawlenty's name off his list of possible 2008 Republican presidential candidates following the governor's proposed 75-cents-a-pack "fee" on cigarettes.The right wing's fetish of constantly cutting taxes and fighting even the most minimal revenue increases borders on the comical. Pawlenty can no longer be supported because of his advocacy of a cigarette tax increase? Please. I'm no fan of Pawlenty, but this is just ridiculous. If the Republicans want to cannibalize their own on a regular basis, far be it from me to complain. Just watch out in 2006, though, because if the anti-taxers do enough damage, they could prevent Pawlenty from serving another term as Governor -- let alone blocking a possible 2008 bid.
Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform and a conservative strategist with close ties to the White House, on Monday said Pawlenty's cigarette proposal "is a tax increase," and national Republicans are looking for potential standard bearers who oppose tax increases.
Just last week, Americans for Tax Reform named Pawlenty "Hero of the Taxpayer" for May because he had promised to veto any tax increases.
While Norquist stopped short of taking Pawlenty off his list of rising stars, he said the emerging 2008 Republican national field consists of about 10 governors and senators who have fought against tax increases.
"Republicans look for some sign that the elected people they run for president or vice president will hold the line against pressure" to increase taxes, he said.
Quote of the Day
"Cannoli is not the same thing as canoodling."Link.
A Senate aide, explaining that an Italian dinner between Senator Maria Cantwell (D-WA) and former Sen. Bob Toricelli (D-NJ) was not a date.
Oy.
From the AP's Omar Sinan:
A car bomb exploded Tuesday near a Baghdad junior high school for girls, killing six people, and eight American soldiers were killed in two days of insurgent attacks in and around Baghdad, the military said.When will this insurgency end?
In the last two days, the military announced that 13 American troops have been killed since Sunday. Those reports came as insurgents carried out a string of explosions, suicide attacks and drive-by shootings around the country that also killed 49 Iraqis.
At least 620 people, including 57 U.S. troops, have been killed since April 28, when Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari announced his new Shiite-dominated government. Washington hopes his government will eventually train police and an army capable of securing Iraq, allowing the withdrawal of coalition troops.
Monday, May 23, 2005
DeLay Fights Stem Cells to Appease Base
House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, still reeling from the many ethics-related scandals surrounding him these days, has once again decided to step into the middle of a debate over the "culture of life." And once again, he's on the opposite side of the issue from the vast majority of Americans. The Hill's Patrick O'Connor reports:
As we've noted here numerous times, Tom DeLay's great quality as leader was that he -- unlike Newt Gingrich -- was unknown to most Americans. Thus, his far right policies would largely go unnoticed. With the ethics scandals finally hitting the national news, DeLay jumped into the middle of the Terri Schiavo case, alienating millions of Americans. Now, by working to block embryonic stem cell research, DeLay is moments away from offending millions more. If he continues these tactics, his party won't just be down eleven points in polling of generic Congressional ballots...
Tom DeLay is back.While these tactics might help DeLay reconnect with the extreme right base of the Republican Party, it's not clear that this move will actually help him in the long run.
After months fending off negative press, the embattled House majority leader will thrust himself back into the national debate today as a vocal opponent of a bill to expand federal funding for embryonic-stem-cell research.
Rep. DeLay (R-Texas) has kept a lower profile since March, when he orchestrated an emergency Sunday vote to reconnect a feeding tube to Terri Schiavo, the brain-damaged Florida woman at the center of a heated ethical and legal debate.
That episode was followed by a steady stream of reports questioning three trips DeLay took abroad and examining his ties to disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff.
As we've noted here numerous times, Tom DeLay's great quality as leader was that he -- unlike Newt Gingrich -- was unknown to most Americans. Thus, his far right policies would largely go unnoticed. With the ethics scandals finally hitting the national news, DeLay jumped into the middle of the Terri Schiavo case, alienating millions of Americans. Now, by working to block embryonic stem cell research, DeLay is moments away from offending millions more. If he continues these tactics, his party won't just be down eleven points in polling of generic Congressional ballots...
A New Post
I have a new piece up over at Western Democrat. Check it out if you're interested.
Nuclear Roundup: Final Update?
Bob Dole was right. This month, the former Senate Majority Leader told me his beliefs on what would happen with the nuclear option, saying, "I think I may be wrong, but I still think there’s going to be some kind of a deal struck where both sides can interpret it the way they want." Indeed, a deal has been struck (and you can read it as a PDF courtesy of Political Wire). (To read about the dealings of the middle 14, check out Sheryl Gay Stolberg's very interesting piece in The New York Times.)
To begin the roundup of the days events, we turn to Geoff Earle of The Hill.
[Update 8:53 PM Pacific]: The Washington Post's Dan Balz calls the deal "an extraordinary moment for the moderates in Congress," but also says that "[a]t best the group produced a cease-fire in the judicial wars."
To begin the roundup of the days events, we turn to Geoff Earle of The Hill.
A group of 14 Republicans and Democrats have reached a deal that will avert the use of the so-called "nuclear option" to end the judicial filibuster - at least for a time.Kevin Drum reports that at least one of the three nominees -- Owen, Brown or Pryor -- will be voted down by a bipartisan majority. The New York Times' Carl Hulse adds this tidbit about the deal.
The deal would "pull this institution back from the precipice," according to Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who helped broker the deal.
The senators - seven from each party, mainly centrists - signed on to the agreement after a meeting in McCain's office Monday evening.
The deal commits the senators to voting for cloture to cut off debate on the three best-known and most-controversial nominees: Priscilla Owen, Janice Rogers Brown, and William Pryor.
[...]
The deal, however, appears to stop short of Frist's demand that all judicial nominees get an up or down vote. Signatories make "no commitment" to vote for or against cloture for two other stalled nominees: William Myers, and Henry Saad.
Democratic officials said an unwritten aspect of the pact is that two nominees not named in the deal - Brett Kavanaugh and William J. Haynes - would not be confirmed and would be turned aside either at the committee level or on the floor.Richard W. Stevenson, also writing for The Times, declares the deal "a modest victory for Bush," but notes that
by explicitly exempting from the agreement two additional judges opposed by Democrats, it did not meet Mr. Bush's oft-stated demand that all his nominees get a vote, and it did not foreclose the possibility that Democrats could block an eventual nominee to the Supreme Court, a matter of intense concern to the White House.Lindsey Graham came out looking great, and John McCain was also a big winner. The Democrats, while not getting everything they wanted, must be pleased by the deal simply for the fact that Frist had backed himself into a corner in which victory could only occur if every judge was confirmed. To get an idea of this, check out Crooks and Liars' roundup oif the response of the right and left blogosphere.
[Update 8:53 PM Pacific]: The Washington Post's Dan Balz calls the deal "an extraordinary moment for the moderates in Congress," but also says that "[a]t best the group produced a cease-fire in the judicial wars."
Bush, GOP Approval Still Sinking
So much for the theory that the Republicans received a mandate to privatize Social Security and further consolidate power at the detriment to America's two-party system. As USA Today's Susan Page reports, as the GOP continues this course of action, more and more Americans are becoming alienated. Page ledes,
George W. Bush and the Republican Congress have a choice to make at this juncture. Clearly, their policies -- from Terri Schiavo and threatening judges to privatizing Social Security to pushing for a free trade with Central America -- are not resonating with the American people. The Republicans can either move further to the right (it would be tough, but nonetheless possible), stay the course, or moderate. My guess is that they won't choose the latter, and a result, they will continue to falter in the polls throughout the summer.
This isn't election season, so the repercussions of their unpopularity are not clear. Nevertheless, for the first time in years, it is evident that the Democrats are on safer political ground than the dominant Republicans. And who would have predicted that just six months ago?
President Bush's approval ratings for handling the economy, Iraq and Social Security have fallen to the lowest levels of his White House tenure, according to a USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll taken Friday through Sunday.More polling data from the survey is available here.
Congress doesn't fare much better. Solid majorities of those surveyed say congressional leaders in both parties, heading toward a Senate showdown today over the confirmation of judicial nominees, are "acting like spoiled children," not responsible adults.
[...]
By 47%-36%, those polled say the country would be better off if Democrats controlled Congress. That's the best showing for Democrats since Republicans won control in 1994.
[...]
Bush's overall job approval rating was 46%, down 4 percentage points since early May but higher than the 45% low he held in March. On specific issues, 40% approved of the job Bush is doing on handling Iraq and the economy; 33% approved of him on Social Security.
George W. Bush and the Republican Congress have a choice to make at this juncture. Clearly, their policies -- from Terri Schiavo and threatening judges to privatizing Social Security to pushing for a free trade with Central America -- are not resonating with the American people. The Republicans can either move further to the right (it would be tough, but nonetheless possible), stay the course, or moderate. My guess is that they won't choose the latter, and a result, they will continue to falter in the polls throughout the summer.
This isn't election season, so the repercussions of their unpopularity are not clear. Nevertheless, for the first time in years, it is evident that the Democrats are on safer political ground than the dominant Republicans. And who would have predicted that just six months ago?
Campaign 2006: A Strong Candidate Emerges in MN
As we've reiterated a number of times, the only way for the Democrats to retake Congress is to run strong candidates in every state and district across the country, especially those that even nominally competitive. In Minnesota, it appears the Democrats are one step closer to filling up the ticket, as the AP's Frederic J. Frommer reports.
A former FBI whistle-blower who urged the agency to investigate terrorism suspect Zacarias Moussaoui in the weeks before Sept. 11, 2001, is considering a race for Congress in Minnesota.Few potential candidates from either party can boast the resume of Rowley. Certainly there's no way of portraying her as soft on defense; she was one of the few who wanted to actively fight terrorism before 9/11. It will be tough for the Democrats to replicate their success in fielding candidates like Rowley in districts across the country, but this is a heck of a start.
Coleen Rowley told The Associated Press on Monday she will make a decision by early next month on whether to run as a Democrat against incumbent GOP Rep. John Kline in next year's election.
[...]
Rowley was named one of Time magazine's people of the year for 2002 after criticizing the agency for ignoring her pleas to investigate Moussaoui more aggressively. He was the only person charged in the United States in the attacks.
Rowley said she would run as an "independent-minded Democrat," focusing on issues such as international security and civil liberties.
Campaign 2008: The GOP Primary
Although the 2008 Presidential election is still far away, two Republicans have recently begun to make noises about bids at the GOP nomination. To begin, US News and World Report's Washington Whispers has news out of Foggy Bottom:
Political associates of Secretary of State Condi Rice are stirring the 2008 presidential pot on her behalf. While she takes the high road, they're pushing her name out there. "She definitely wants to be president," said one. But, the friend added, Rice isn't planning on quitting to run. "She wants to be drafted," he said.Rice isn't the only Republican with friends spreading word of her name. An Arkansas Governor seems poised to make a bid for the White House, according to John Brummett of the Arkansas New Bureau (from Blue State Republican via Political Wire). And he's even from Hope*.
Mike Huckabee really is going to run for president, a person close to him told me matter-of-factly at an accidental lunch meeting the other day.The number of Republicans running for President (or thinking about running for President) is growing by leaps and bounds. They could make the Democrats' gang of 10 from 2004 look like nothing.
For the moment, Huckabee wouldn't be among the top 10 prospects mentioned if you asked a supposed national political expert to assess the likely field of Republican candidates for president in 2008.
You'd hear first about Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, Jeb Bush, Bill Frist, George Allen, Chuck Hagel, Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, George Pataki and Condoleezza Rice.
Huckabee might be next in line only because he's on a book tour and getting interviewed every time he turns around about losing a third of himself and running a marathon.
But even when he's mentioned, it tends to be condescendingly and incorrectly. Charles Cook, a leading political handicapper, wrote the other day that Huckabee would be a potential beneficiary if Santorum, the Pennsylvania senator who is the most polarizing right-winger in the prospective field, didn't run.
America's Slowing Economy
As America's massive trade deficit continues to grow, prospects for GDP growth continue to shrink, as the AP's Jeannine Aversa reports:
Deficits, both budgetary and trade, do matter. And it's time for President Bush and his Republican allies to do something about them. The GOP controls all levers of government these days, so the onus lies squarely on its members. Should the Republicans be unable to restore days of fiscal and trade balance, they should be held to account.
The economy, as measured by gross domestic product, is projected to expand by 3.4 percent in 2005, compared with an earlier estimate of 3.6 percent, according to the latest outlook from the National Association for Business Economics.Despite claims by this Republican administration and some Democratic leaders that completely unregulated free trade is always good for the American economy, this new report shows that this belief is not wholly true. That is not to say that the United States should revert to isolationist business practices to shelter inefficient industries. However, it's clear that by allowing American jobs to be shipped to China and India, the Bush administration is not strengthening America.
The lower forecast mostly reflects economists' beliefs that the trade picture will worsen. The U.S. trade deficit, which ballooned to a record $617 billion last year, is a politically sensitive subject for the Bush administration.
"Virtually the entire reduction in the panel's estimate of GDP growth in 2005 was due to a much deeper projected trade deficit of $662 billion this year," Carl Tannenbaum, who oversaw the survey, said in an interview.
[...]
On the inflation front, consumer prices are expected to rise this year by 2.8 percent, compared with a previous forecast of 2.2 percent.
Deficits, both budgetary and trade, do matter. And it's time for President Bush and his Republican allies to do something about them. The GOP controls all levers of government these days, so the onus lies squarely on its members. Should the Republicans be unable to restore days of fiscal and trade balance, they should be held to account.
Quote of the Day
"Even after 12 years, people still remember you threw up on the prime minister of Japan. It's just not fair."Link.
-- George Herbert Walker Bush, America's 41st President
Sunday, May 22, 2005
Another Key Conservative Caught up in Abramoff Scandal
The scandal surrounding conservative lobbyist Jack Abramoff -- which already threatens to take down House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX), Committee on House Administration Chairman Bob Ney (R-OH), and other key Republicans -- is now widening to the entire conservative movement. The New York Times' crack team of Kate Zernike and Anne E. Kornblut have the big scoop.
The Republican Congress, by and large, has shirked its investigative responsibilities in the past four years. That is not to say that Congress must take an adversarial relationship to the administration; clearly, Republican Congressmen and Senators should not be expected to try to take down a Republican administration. Nevertheless, it is incumbent upon Congress to fulfill its investigative duties. This would entail a full investigation of the Abramoff scandal -- which is much more wide-reaching than we now know -- but also a serious look into pre-war intelligence, the administration's payoffs of journalists, rising energy prices, et. al. Because Republicans will not do this, it's time to elect a new body of legislators who will.
In Republican Washington, Jack Abramoff and Grover Norquist worked all the angles.The subpoena -- a product of the lone Republican Chairman in the Senate willing to buck the party establishment to fully investigate Abramoff: John McCain. While McCain's service in this investigation is extremely honorable -- seldom is a member of either party willing to go against the leadership -- it underscores a larger point.
One was a $750-an-hour lobbyist, the other an antitax activist, and they helped drive the Republican takeover of the capital and cement the party's power. Both had a close ally in the House majority leader, Tom DeLay. And they shared a conservative ideology and a friendship going back to their days in college.
Now, with widening Congressional and criminal inquiries in the capital into Mr. Abramoff's dealings, they are sharing trouble, too.
While Mr. Abramoff has been under scrutiny for more than a year, Mr. Norquist has attracted unwelcome attention in recent weeks. A Congressional committee investigating whether Mr. Abramoff defrauded Indian tribes has subpoenaed records from Mr. Norquist's group, Americans for Tax Reform, after he refused for six months to turn them over voluntarily.
The Justice Department is reviewing records of an advocacy group Mr. Norquist started with Gale A. Norton, now secretary of the interior, after reports that Mr. Abramoff instructed Indian tribes to give it $250,000. And Mr. Norquist's name appears over and over in newly disclosed documents outlining Mr. Abramoff's work in the Northern Marianas Islands, an American protectorate in the Pacific, which Democrats are agitating to investigate.
The Republican Congress, by and large, has shirked its investigative responsibilities in the past four years. That is not to say that Congress must take an adversarial relationship to the administration; clearly, Republican Congressmen and Senators should not be expected to try to take down a Republican administration. Nevertheless, it is incumbent upon Congress to fulfill its investigative duties. This would entail a full investigation of the Abramoff scandal -- which is much more wide-reaching than we now know -- but also a serious look into pre-war intelligence, the administration's payoffs of journalists, rising energy prices, et. al. Because Republicans will not do this, it's time to elect a new body of legislators who will.
Fixing the AMT
The Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) hits millions of families each year with a double burden: raising taxes and complicating the process (two separate taxes have to be calculated). Interestingly, the burden of the AMT tends to fall on the "blue" states. Now, as the AP's Mary Dalrymple reports, a bipartisan group of Senators has set to the task of repealing the excessive tax.
Should Congress choose to repeal the AMT -- or even just fix it so it once again only hits the extremely wealthy -- America's already poor fiscal situation would only get worse. With Medicare close to bankruptcy and the Iraq War continuing to drain tens of billions from the treasury, I'm not certain that it's time to start decreasing revenue.
Congress -- primarily the Republicans, but also many Democrats -- seem to still reside in the land of the late 1990s where surpluses appeared ubiquitous and spendthrift ways were acceptable. Unfortunately, we are now in a period of horrendous deficits, so the billions in pork and tax cuts for the wealthy are actually hurting the country. Where's a deficit buster like Ross Perot when you need him>
It was intended to catch wealthy tax dodgers, but instead has crept closer to the middle class over the years. So a bipartisan group of senators wants to eliminate the alternative minimum tax even though it would deprive the government of billions of dollars in revenue.In principle, something must be done soon to fix the AMT. Clearly, the middle class should not be forced to bear the burden of this tax. There are complications, however.
Four senators — two Republicans and two Democrats, including leaders of the Senate Finance Committee — planned to introduce a $611 billion bill this week that would repeal the tax. The committee scheduled a hearing Monday to examine the uncontrolled expansion of the tax.
"It's become mainstream," said the committee's chairman, Sen. Charles Grassley, who said he paid an extra $75 this year due to the alternative minimum tax.
"If we do nothing, the situation will get worse. It's a mess, and we need to clean it up for good," said Grassley, R-Iowa.
Joining Grassley in the repeal effort are Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., and Democratic Sens. Max Baucus of Montana and Ron Wyden of Oregon. Baucus is the top Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee.
Should Congress choose to repeal the AMT -- or even just fix it so it once again only hits the extremely wealthy -- America's already poor fiscal situation would only get worse. With Medicare close to bankruptcy and the Iraq War continuing to drain tens of billions from the treasury, I'm not certain that it's time to start decreasing revenue.
Congress -- primarily the Republicans, but also many Democrats -- seem to still reside in the land of the late 1990s where surpluses appeared ubiquitous and spendthrift ways were acceptable. Unfortunately, we are now in a period of horrendous deficits, so the billions in pork and tax cuts for the wealthy are actually hurting the country. Where's a deficit buster like Ross Perot when you need him>
Nuclear Roundup: Weekend Edition
The "nuclear" option was the topic of discussion on a number of the Sunday shows this week as Tuesday's historic vote nears. The AP's Laurie Kellman has the story:
Today we also revisit a must-read Op-Ed on the "nuclear" option penned by the Political Animal himself, Kevin Drum, from the January 31 issue of The Washington Post.
As we've opined on this site before, there are some real issues facing this country today -- the massive budgetary deficit, the rapidly increasing trade imbalance, the giant shortfall in Medicare, etc., etc. -- so the choice of Republicans to focus of consolidating their power by changing the Senate rules rather than to work to improve the lives of their constituents should lead the American people to wake up to the real agenda of the GOP. It's not just the "nuclear" option; it's Tom DeLay, Jack Abramoff, Armstrong Williams and the belief that unlimited power is a good thing. Well, it's not, and if just six principled Republicans are willing to stand up to their party's leadership on Tuesday, America will finally be able to move back to the sane middle.
Two senators leading talks among the dozen or so lawmakers who could force a deal spoke of the chance of averting a showdown, with a meeting set for Monday.Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) got it right at a speech before the graduates of The George Washington University Law School today, saying, "We need to withdraw from the precipice and forge a bipartisan compromise to resolve this matter."
But Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Ben Nelson, D-Neb., said an agreement that would protect the rights of the minority party and prevent abuse of the filibuster is proving elusive.
"We're having difficulty coming up with exact language which would portray that desire. It's tough," McCain told "Fox News Sunday."
Nelson, on CNN's "Late Edition," added: "It's very hard to handicap it at this point in time. But we'll certainly know tomorrow evening" after the meeting.
Today we also revisit a must-read Op-Ed on the "nuclear" option penned by the Political Animal himself, Kevin Drum, from the January 31 issue of The Washington Post.
Originally, after Republicans gained control of the Senate in the 1994 elections and Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch assumed control of the Judiciary Committee, the rule regarding judicial nominees was this: If a single senator from a nominee's home state objected to (or "blue-slipped") a nomination, it was dead. This rule made it easy for Republicans to obstruct Clinton's nominees.With these rules, the Republicans were able to block more than 60 of Bill Clinton's judicial nominees. When you consider that the Democrats have thus far blocked 10, it makes you wonder what the Republicans are even complaining about.
But in 2001, when a Republican became president, Hatch suddenly reversed course and decided that it should take objections from both home-state senators to block a nominee. That made it harder for Democrats to obstruct George W. 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 could still go to the floor for a vote.
Finally, a few weeks later, yet another barrier was torn down: Hatch did away with "Rule IV," which states that at least one member of the minority has to agree in order to end discussion about a nomination and move it out of committee.
As we've opined on this site before, there are some real issues facing this country today -- the massive budgetary deficit, the rapidly increasing trade imbalance, the giant shortfall in Medicare, etc., etc. -- so the choice of Republicans to focus of consolidating their power by changing the Senate rules rather than to work to improve the lives of their constituents should lead the American people to wake up to the real agenda of the GOP. It's not just the "nuclear" option; it's Tom DeLay, Jack Abramoff, Armstrong Williams and the belief that unlimited power is a good thing. Well, it's not, and if just six principled Republicans are willing to stand up to their party's leadership on Tuesday, America will finally be able to move back to the sane middle.
Clark v. Perle
Richard Perle, the extreme neocon who helped plan the War in Iraq, squared up against General Wesley Clark today on CNN's Late Edition. If you missed it, try to catch a replay, either on television or somewhere on the internet (most Clark appearances tend to end up on the web after a short delay).
On a wide range of international issues -- from Iraq to North Korea to women's roles in the Armed Forces -- Clark proved once again what made him an attractive Presidential candidate. In short, he ran circles around Perle. Particularly of note was the difference between the two on the issue of North Korea.
Perle indicated that he believed America would have little trouble dispatching the North Korean army with only some losses in Seoul. (This echoed neocon claims that the War in Iraq would be easy and cheap -- neither of which have proved true.) Clark stepped in and took Perle to task for underestimating the strength of enemy armed forces, especially when the bulk of the military force south of the DMZ is South Korean, rather than American. Perle sheepishly backed off his claims.
Overall, General Clark was poised, telegenic and above all charismatic this morning. Why he has yet to take a larger role in Democratic politics is beyond me. Hopefully Democrats will begin to recognize Clark's strong traits as both a leader and a politician (he is much better than he was in the fall of 2003) and embrace him in a major way in 2006 and 2008.
On a wide range of international issues -- from Iraq to North Korea to women's roles in the Armed Forces -- Clark proved once again what made him an attractive Presidential candidate. In short, he ran circles around Perle. Particularly of note was the difference between the two on the issue of North Korea.
Perle indicated that he believed America would have little trouble dispatching the North Korean army with only some losses in Seoul. (This echoed neocon claims that the War in Iraq would be easy and cheap -- neither of which have proved true.) Clark stepped in and took Perle to task for underestimating the strength of enemy armed forces, especially when the bulk of the military force south of the DMZ is South Korean, rather than American. Perle sheepishly backed off his claims.
Overall, General Clark was poised, telegenic and above all charismatic this morning. Why he has yet to take a larger role in Democratic politics is beyond me. Hopefully Democrats will begin to recognize Clark's strong traits as both a leader and a politician (he is much better than he was in the fall of 2003) and embrace him in a major way in 2006 and 2008.
Saturday, May 21, 2005
The Sunday Shows
It's really hard to watch them so early on the West Coast without TiVo, but for those who don't share my predicament...
NBC's MEET THE PRESS WITH TIM RUSSERTI'll be watching Wes Clark face up against Richard Perle on "Late Edition" this week. I'm sure our favorite General will take Perle to task for all of his outlandish claims about Iraq.Democratic Party Chairman Howard Dean (his first TV interview since becoming Chair)ABC's THIS WEEK WITH GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOSSens. George Allen (R-VA) and Joseph Lieberman (D-CT); Shoshana Johnson (former Army Specialist and POW); Dana Reeve (widow of Christopher Reeve) and Anne Graham Lotz (daughter of Billy Graham); and panel: Katrina vanden Heuvel (editor, The Nation), Fareed Zakaria (editor, Newsweek), and George Will (The Washington Post)CBS' FACE THE NATION WITH BOB SCHIEFFERVisit their website for more information.FOX NEWS SUNDAY WITH CHRIS WALLACESen. John McCain (R-AZ); Gov. Mitt Romney (R-MA) and Boomer Esiason (former NFL football player); and panel: Paul Gigot (The Wall Street Journal), Mara Liasson (National Public Radio), Bill Kristol (The Weekly Standard), and Juan Williams (National Public Radio)CNN's LATE EDITION WITH WOLF BLITZERAfghanistan President Hamid Karzai; Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Ben Nelson (D-NE); Iraqi Minister of Planning and Development Barham Salih and Kuwaiti Foreign Minister Dr. Mohammed Sabah Al-Salem Al-Sabah; Former assistant Secretary of Defense Richard Perle and former Democratic Presidential candidate Wesley Clark, former NATO Supreme allied commander; and Terje Roed-Larsen, United Nations Secretary-General's special representative for Lebanon[from Sunday Morning Talk, the one-stop blog for the political shows]
A Real Market-Based Solution to Our Energy Crunch
It will take government internvention to solve America's energy problems in earnest, but for now, it seems the market is finally beginning to correct itself. The New York Times' Danny Hakim has the story.
The Republicans' energy bill does little of this (shocking), so the Democrats should craft a comprehensive policy by the fall of next year to show the American people that they are willing to solve difficult problems with real policies, rather than pork.
But gas prices are a more unconquerable force of nature. With higher prices at the pump sinking in as something more than a blip on the radar, and with several new passenger car models winning back customers, America's love affair with S.U.V.'s is taking a breather.While increasing energy production is clearly important, the only way for America to decrease it's gasoline crisis is to decrease production. Americans' consious effort to slow their buying of S.U.V.'s is a good start, but as I said before, it's incumbent upon Congress and the administration to decrease America's demand for oil. This will entail investment in alternative sources of energy -- most notably natural gas, but also hybrid electric technologies -- but also higher fuel-efficiency standards.
For the first time in 14 years, the passenger car is actually taking sales back at the expense of S.U.V.'s and other trucks, according to an analysis of auto sales data. The renewed interest in cars over the first four months of the year, while modest, is a pause in what has been the trend in auto sales for the last decade and a half: the soaring growth of the sport utility vehicle as America's preferred family vehicle.
Sales of medium and large sport utility vehicles - like the Ford Explorer and Chevrolet Suburban - have stalled, and the torrid sales growth of large pickups has cooled.
While much of the slack is being taken up by smaller and less bulky S.U.V.'s known as crossovers, overall sales of S.U.V.'s are down 1.7 percent while passenger car sales are up 3.1 percent, according to Wards Automotive, which tracks auto sales.
The Republicans' energy bill does little of this (shocking), so the Democrats should craft a comprehensive policy by the fall of next year to show the American people that they are willing to solve difficult problems with real policies, rather than pork.
A New Blog to Check Out
There's a new Oregon-based blog on the market these days called Notorious B.L.O.G. from Notorious J.E.S., a co founder of Blue Oregon and the Oregon Bus Project. It should definitely be worth reading, so make sure to visit it often (I know I will).
Friday, May 20, 2005
Nuclear Roundup: Day 3
(Day 1 and Day 2)
Debate continued today in the Senate as members on both sides of the aisle heated up the rhetoric. At least one Senator called for cooler heads to prevail, as CQ Today's Midday Update (free email service) reports:
Debate continued today in the Senate as members on both sides of the aisle heated up the rhetoric. At least one Senator called for cooler heads to prevail, as CQ Today's Midday Update (free email service) reports:
As Senate Republican leaders prepare to set the clock ticking toward detonation of the “nuclear option” to end filibusters of judicial nominations, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee once again urged caution.As Specter moved to the center, his Republican Party showed its unwillingness to compromise on the "nuclear" option. The New York Times's David D. Kirkpatick has the story.
For the second time this week, Judiciary Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa., today called on party leaders from both sides to step back from the anticipated showdown, release their rank-and-file members from party discipline and allow senators to decide for themselves how to vote on each disputed nomination.
But neither Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., nor Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., seemed inclined to take Specter’s advice.
Negotiations continued among a group of senators seeking a way out of the looming confrontation, and Specter hinted they might prevail. If Frist and Reid continue on a collision course toward a parliamentary showdown, he said, “then a small group of senators will take control of the Senate, and construct a deal.”
Republican senators moved Friday to end debate and call for a vote on the nomination of Justice Priscilla R. Owen to a federal appeals court, starting a four-day countdown to a confrontation over judicial confirmation rules and the constitutional balance of power.Kirkpatrick passes on another piece of useful information: Hthe Democrats are getting closer to their goal of six Republican defectors.
Senator Bill Frist, the majority leader, said in a statement that if "no reasonable arrangement" about the nomination of Justice Owen and other judicial appointees is reached, he will call for a majority vote on Tuesday that would end the requirement for 60 votes to close debate on nominations to appeals courts and the Supreme Court.
It remains unknown whether Dr. Frist has the 50 votes needed to pass the Republican plan to change the rules and end judicial filibusters, and aides to the leaders of both parties said Friday that some deal was still possible. Mr. Reid told journalists Friday that four Republicans had agreed to oppose the rule change, just two short of the number needed to block it. Negotiators expect to talk by phone over the weekend, but no meetings are scheduled until Monday. [emphasis added]As the Republicans continue to move forward with the "nuclear" option, new polling seems to indicate that the American public is not entirely on board with the Republican move. The AP's Will Lester has the scoop.
More than three-quarters of Americans say the Senate should aggressively examine federal judicial nominees and not just approve them because they are the president's choices.To wrap up, The Economist writes on the significance and possible consequences of the nuclear option.
That's one of the few aspects of this divisive issue that gets widespread agreement, according to an Associated Press-Ipsos poll released Friday.
[...]
The poll found 78 percent believe the Senate should take an "assertive role" examining judicial nominees rather than just give the president the benefit of the doubt. There were majorities among each political affiliation — Democrats, Republicans and independents. [the rest of the polling data here]
THIS week the Senate embarked on an epic struggle over the appointment of George Bush's nominees to the federal bench. The struggle will determine not only Mr Bush's ability to reshape the judiciary along more conservative lines, but also the balance of power in Washington, DC, between the Republicans and Democrats and, just possibly, the future of such controversial issues as abortion and the role of religion in public life.On a separate note, we here at Basie! would like to pass on our thoughts and prayers to Arlen Specter as he deals with cancer and related treatment.
[...]
The stakes could hardly be higher for any of the parties involved in this dispute. If the Democrats lose their power to filibuster Supreme Court nominees, they lose control over the last branch of government where liberal America is reasonably powerful. The Democrats have threatened to retaliate by clogging up Senate business. That could backfire—as Newt Gingrich's Republicans discovered when they shut down the government in 1995.
More broadly, Democrats should be nervous about the filibuster debate for two other reasons. First, they may end up looking like obstructionists. Mr Bush, the “reformer with results”, and his party are already more identified with optimism. Second, the Democrats could end up looking like prisoners of coastal liberal interest groups. They desperately need to expand their geographical appeal: by the final weeks of last year's election, John Kerry had written off half the states.
The risks are even higher for the Republicans—and not just because, as the governing party, they are more likely to get the blame for any unpleasant fallout. To begin with, Mr Frist may not even have the 50 votes he needs. Three Republicans—Mr McCain, Lincoln Chafee and Olympia Snowe—have already signalled that they will vote against any rule change. Several others, including Susan Collins, Arlen Specter, Chuck Hagel and, possibly, John Warner, are wavering.
If they win, Republicans risk being depicted as extremists. The Terri Schiavo affair, where Congress intervened to try to save the life of a brain-damaged woman in Florida, was a public-relations disaster: it raised worries that ideological Republicans are willing to trample over constitutional checks and balances (such as states' rights). Ms Rogers Brown has argued that it is right to apply a “higher law” than the constitution. Such a blatant attack on the church-state divide worries even some conservatives.
The Maryland Senate Race
Two months ago, five term Maryland Senator Paul Sarbanes (D) announced that he would not seek another six years in the Senate. This set off a mad dash among Democrats, and almost immediately, a fierce primary battle began to brew (Maryland is a fairly solid blue state).
Former NAACP President/former Rep. Kweisi Mfume was the first Democrat to throw his hat into the ring; soon thereafter, Rep. Albert Wynn (D) announced he was out of the Senate race, but Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger (D) indicated he might be in. Now, as E.J. Kessler reports for Forward (pulling double duty, I might add), the race is down to Mfume and Rep. Ben Cardin (D) -- an African-American and a Jew.
I would tend to support the somewhat moderate Cardin over the more liberal Mfume. To me, it's just good politics and policy to tend to the middle, rather than the extreme. That having been said, the argument among African-Americans that they deserve a statewide nominee in Maryland is also quite sensible. I'm sure the voters in the Old Line State will find the most suitable candidate.
Former NAACP President/former Rep. Kweisi Mfume was the first Democrat to throw his hat into the ring; soon thereafter, Rep. Albert Wynn (D) announced he was out of the Senate race, but Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger (D) indicated he might be in. Now, as E.J. Kessler reports for Forward (pulling double duty, I might add), the race is down to Mfume and Rep. Ben Cardin (D) -- an African-American and a Jew.
Racial tensions are simmering in Maryland's Democratic senatorial primary race, in which a nationally known black leader, former congressman Kweisi Mfume, is squaring off against a white congressman, Ben Cardin, who is Jewish.Excacerbating whatever issues in the race is the fact that Mfume faces serious ethics charges surrounding his relationship with an underling at the NAACP. Should he have to drop out of the race or lose in the primary due to this issue, rather than ethnic or racial tensions, it would be a real shame if Maryland's African-Americans stayed at home on election day, enabling the reelection of the somewhat unpopular Republican Governor Robert Ehrlich and the election of another GOP Senator. Likewise, it would be a catastrophe to nominate Mfume just to see him crumble under allegations during the general campaign.
While the contest is still in its early stages, and other candidates — both black and white — may enter the race, the primary is proving awkward for Maryland Democrats, who are heavily dependent on black votes in state races.
[...]
The Senate race also comes as a Jewish and an African-American communal leader have been at loggerheads over a planned October rally of the Millions More Movement, the 10th anniversary commemoration of Washington's Million Man March. A consortium of African-American groups, including the Rev. Lewis Farrakhan's Nation of Islam, is convening the rally. The national director of the Anti-Defamation League, Abraham Foxman, called on African-American leaders to reconsider their support for the rally because of Farrakhan's involvement, citing the reverend's many antisemitic speeches. But hip-hop mogul Russell Simmons, chairman of The Foundation for Ethnic Understanding and the Hip-Hop Summit Action Network, criticized Foxman for his challenge, saying in a letter that he was "misguided, arrogant, and very disrespectful of African-Americans and most importantly your statements will unintentionally or intentionally lead to a negative impression of Jews in the minds of millions of African-Americans."
In contrast to the debate over the rally, the tension in the Maryland primary race "is not black-Jewish," said University of Maryland political science professor Thomas Schaller, a Cardin supporter. "It's black-white." However, he added that it could take an anti-Jewish turn depending on the dynamics of the campaign. Schaller said he expects Cardin to rack up some African-American endorsements.
Asked if the race was stoking black-Jewish tensions, Howell said: "Too often it's perceived by many people of color that a lot of times ethnic nominees don't get the full support of the Democratic Party. They don't get behind them in resources, finances. If that's the perception, that's something that could manifest if people don't think they're getting a fair shake."
I would tend to support the somewhat moderate Cardin over the more liberal Mfume. To me, it's just good politics and policy to tend to the middle, rather than the extreme. That having been said, the argument among African-Americans that they deserve a statewide nominee in Maryland is also quite sensible. I'm sure the voters in the Old Line State will find the most suitable candidate.
The Orthodox Union Steps into the Stem Cell Debate
Extremist conservatives like to make some issues black and white, no more so than those pertaining to "life." Stem cell research is a prime example, where further discoveries could lead to therapies and drugs that could save millions of lives, but the right still opposes funding because embryos in petri dishes -- that would otherwise be thrown out -- might be harmed.
The issue clearly is not black and white, however. Likewise, there is not one morality -- Evangelical, for instance -- that governs the country. As Forward's E.J. Kessler reports, the Orthodox Union -- who represents the most fundamentalist Jews -- has come out in favor of a new effort to fund stem cell research.
Americans would find it appalling to hear that Nigerian Muslim clerics warned their followers against taking the polio vaccine because they claim it speads AIDS. Dobson's claims about stem cell research are little different. It's time for America to take the moral high ground and invest in the type of reseach that will potentially save millions of lives rather than allow one ideology to hold us back.
The issue clearly is not black and white, however. Likewise, there is not one morality -- Evangelical, for instance -- that governs the country. As Forward's E.J. Kessler reports, the Orthodox Union -- who represents the most fundamentalist Jews -- has come out in favor of a new effort to fund stem cell research.
The Orthodox Union is lending its support to a contentious House bill that would expand federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research.President Bush appears poised to veto the measure should it come to his desk. If this is his course of action, it would be a real shame. Millions of people across the world suffer from debilitating diseases that could potentially be cured by stem cell research, but adhering to the extremist ideology of James Dobson and others is inhibiting America's ability to participate in this worldwide effort.
The bill, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005, sponsored by Rep. Michael Castle, a Delaware Republican, and by Rep. Diana DeGette, a Colorado Democrat, seeks to extend federal funding to research on stem-cell lines derived from excess embryos created in fertility clinics. Currently federal law restricts funding for the research to several stem-cell lines derived before August 9, 2001.
The restrictions were enacted at the urging of Catholic and conservative Christian groups, which opposed the research because they believe embryos to be human beings. Proponents of the research — including most Jewish groups — believe that embryos outside the womb do not constitute human beings and that the benefits of such research outweigh the destruction of the cells.
In a letter to members of the House of Representatives, the union wrote, "By insisting that publicly funded stem-cell research be conducted on cells derived from embryos donated to IVF clinics in excess and were in excess of the clinical need of the individuals seeking IVF treatment, and by requiring prior consultation with and consent of the donors, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act serves to value and venerate the sanctity of life and our responsibilities to our fellow man and woman."
Americans would find it appalling to hear that Nigerian Muslim clerics warned their followers against taking the polio vaccine because they claim it speads AIDS. Dobson's claims about stem cell research are little different. It's time for America to take the moral high ground and invest in the type of reseach that will potentially save millions of lives rather than allow one ideology to hold us back.
Campaign 2006
Will Alabama be competitive come November 2006? At least on the gubernatorial slot on the ballot, the answer is yes. CQ Today's Midday Update (free email service) passes on the story out of Birmingham.
The Birmingham News reports, “Lt. Gov. Lucy Baxley, after hinting at it for months, filed paperwork Thursday officially declaring her candidacy for governor in 2006. If elected, Baxley, a Democrat, would become Alabama’s first female governor since Lurleen Wallace.” Baxley, twice elected state treasurer before winning her current post in 2002, “walks into the 2006 arena with a likable personality, formidable name ID and no real negatives,” the paper said. Former Democratic Gov. Don Siegelman is exploring a 2006 bid; incumbent GOP Gov. Bob Riley and former Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore, “are both considering candidacies in 2006.” [original story here]Alabama has no business being competitive for the Dems. George W. Bush carried the heart of Dixie by more than 25 points in 2004. Nevertheless, as Michael Dukakis noted to me in March, "in the state of Alabama alone, Kerry had in excess of 10,000 contributors. That’s in Alabama." So clearly, there is a base of Democratic activists to support the candidacy of Baxley. What's more, Governor Bob Riley has truly anemic numbers these days -- only 36% of Alabamans approve of his governorship, according to the latest SurveyUSA poll. So for all of the pundits who believe the Democrats should just write off the South, take a gander Alabama way. You might be surprised.
Unacceptable
Congressman David Wu, the Democrat who represents Oregon's first district, has gone to bat this month on behalf of Andrew Wiederhorn. For those national readers unfamiliar with this former wonderboy CEO, Wiederhorn engineered an Enron-like fraud that bilked more than $150 million from pensions during the late 1990s. This is the man Rep. Wu is trying to help out. Now The Oregonian's Jeff Manning reports that Wu is sheepishly trying to back away from this position.
Northwest labor leaders remained cool Thursday to overtures from U.S. Rep. David Wu, who alienated many union members with his efforts on behalf of imprisoned Portland executive Andrew Wiederhorn.It is simply unacceptable for a Congressman -- Republican or Democrat -- to attempt to intercede on the behalf of a man who tried to bilk investors of this much money. Wu has disgraced his position and his district, and will have to go far to win back the respect of this voter.
Wu, D-Ore., backtracked this week from a letter he had written to the U.S. Bureau of Prisons, seeking to avoid Wiederhorn's pending transfer to a Minnesota prison hospital. Wu posted a statement Wednesday in an online union newsletter and apologized directly to at least one Oregon union president.
Union workers were the biggest losers in the investment fraud that led to Wiederhorn's federal prison sentence.
[...]
Wiederhorn, who reported to the minimum-security prison camp at Sheridan in August, suffers from diabetes. He has sought early release from his 18-month prison sentence on the grounds that he wasn't provided adequate health care. Diabetes can be difficult to manage and can cause devastating side effects if not kept under control.
Quote of the Day
I "wouldn't mind giving George Bush a good shaking with my light-saber."Link.
-- Hayden Christiansen (Star Wars' Annakin Skywalker), as quoted by the New York Daily News
Santorum Backs Down From Comments
Yesterday, Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA) had this to say about his Democratic colleagues:
"The audacity of some members to stand up and say 'How dare you break this rule' -- it's the equivalent of Adolf Hitler in 1942 saying 'I'm in Paris, how dare you invade me. How dare you bomb my city. It's mine.' This is no more the rule of the Senate than it was the rule of the Senate before not to filibuster. It was an understanding and agreement, and it has been abused."Apparently, Santorum now understands that calling your opponents Nazis is beyond the pale of reasonable discourse. The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette's Maeve Reston has the story:
Santorum issued his own clarification yesterday evening, stating that the reference to Hitler was "meant to dramatize the principle of an argument, not to characterize my Democratic colleagues."Santorum has a history of making bold comments (he likened gay marriage to men having relations with canines), yet never seems to learn that there he -- as a Senator -- is expected not to embarrass his state on a regular basis. Santorum might learn his lesson soon, however, as he trails Democratic challenger Bob Casey by 14 points in recent polling.
"My point was that it is preposterous for someone to trample a well-established principle, and then accuse his opponents of acting unlawfully when they try to reestablish that principle," Santorum said. "Nevertheless, it was a mistake and I meant no offense."
Thursday, May 19, 2005
Nuclear Roundup: Day 2
(Day one's roundup can be found here)
With all of the hubub going on within the Senate these days, The New York Times Robin Toner notes that at least a few Senators are whistful for days of yore.
While Rick Santorum offended millions of people and disgraced himself and the chamber, about a dozen Senators from both sides of the aisle worked hard to avert crisis. Dan Balz has the story for The Washington Post:
These are not the priorities shared by most Americans. The Republican Party did get a mandate in 2004 to strengthen America. What has the GOP done in six months controlling all levers of government? Defend Tom DeLay against ethical charges. Try to override marital vows to force a woman in a persistent vegitative state to stay alive. Break the Senate rules to further empower the President. Attempt to partially privatize Social Security.
This is not why the Republican Party was given the reins of power last November. And until the GOP actually starts to listen to the American people, it will continue to slide in the polls. Of course they do not believe in polling (or so they say), so this might not bother them. Just the same, they might be surprised come the fall of 2006 that the American people have been paying attention all along and they are not happy with the direction in which the Republicans are leading us.
With all of the hubub going on within the Senate these days, The New York Times Robin Toner notes that at least a few Senators are whistful for days of yore.
The bitter struggle in the Senate over restricting filibusters is the culmination of years of growing partisanship and ideological warfare that have transformed this 18th-century institution. Many senators entered the battle with a grim sense of inevitability, saddened but not surprised that it had come to this.At the root of this trend towards partisanship: Toner suggests an increasing number of former Representatives now occupying seats in the upper chamber.
Older senators talk wistfully of a more civil era that they say has now largely vanished. The few remaining centrists say the fierce partisan currents make it very hard to build the bipartisan coalitions necessary to do something big - like changing Social Security - or to defuse internal disputes like the present one over judges.
Senators in both parties complain about the increasingly aggressive demands of outside advocacy groups on issues like judicial nominations, and their unwillingness to settle for anything less than victory.
Increasingly, Democrats complain (and some Republicans privately agree) that their chamber is taking on the characteristics of the House - where the majority has substantially more power, and where redistricting has driven both parties to their ideological bases.As Toner notes, Santorum is a particularly interesting case, as the former Congressman is now at the forefront of the debate over the attempt to abolish judicial filibusters. As The Raw Story's John Byrne notes in an exclusive, Santorum's blatant partisanship and loose lips were in full force today.
That should not be surprising; more than half of the current Senate has come from the House. Twenty years ago, fewer than a third did. These transplants from the House now account for some of the most powerful, and most partisan, members of the Senate, like Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, the third-ranking Republican in the chamber.
Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) compared Democrats' attempts to keep the filibuster to Hitler's moves in 1942 in a floor speech in the Senate Thursday afternoon, RAW STORY has learned.Oy.
[...]
"What the Democrats are doing is the equivalent of Adolf Hitler in 1942 saying, 'I'm in Paris. How dare you invade me. How dare you bomb my city? It's mine.' This is no more the rule of the senate than it was the rule of the senate before not to filibuster."
While Rick Santorum offended millions of people and disgraced himself and the chamber, about a dozen Senators from both sides of the aisle worked hard to avert crisis. Dan Balz has the story for The Washington Post:
At times they have appeared agonizingly close to a deal. At other times their cause has seemed hopeless. But what is most remarkable about the dozen or so senators working to avert a historic showdown over President Bush's judicial nominees is their potential to control the Senate's destiny without the explicit blessing of their leadership or their party's most important constituencies.Not only are the Senators working long hours to ensure that their desired outcome occurs; dozens of staffers have also gotten into the act. The New York Times Sheryl Gay Stolberg details the actions of two -- Republican Martin B. Gold and Democrat Kevin Kayes -- before offering this choice quote:
In an era of polarized politics, in which party and congressional leaders have been increasingly responsive to their most ideologically driven activists, the bipartisan band of senators has attempted to steer a different course. Behind closed doors, they have tested whether it is possible to find language to codify the principles of trust and goodwill at a time when little of either is left in the political system.
The senators involved have found it difficult to overcome deep-seated differences and suspicions that now govern the relationship between Republicans and Democrats. But they have acted with the knowledge that, if they strike a compromise, they alone have the power to control events from here forward in the battle over judicial nominees and the change in Senate rules that has come to be known as the "nuclear option." That, in the estimation of congressional analysts, has made their efforts almost without precedent in the legislative branch.
"The Senate is three-dimensional chess," said Ron Weich, another of Mr. Reid's strategists. "All of this involves a detailed understanding of not just the rules of the Senate, but also the rhythm and culture of the Senate, an understanding of what needs to be explicit and what members can signal with their body language."All the meanwhile, the Senate is grinding to a halt, as promised by the Democrats. For this story, we turn to Carl Hulse of The New York Times.
As the filibuster fight roiled the Senate for the second day, Republicans lashed out at Democrats on Thursday for disrupting the Senate's legislative business in what both sides acknowledged was a preview of the hostile Senate atmosphere that could follow the looming showdown on judicial nominees.The Republican Party has made a clear decision that destroying Senate rules to approve extreme conservatives to the federal bench is the most important legislative action to take. Not lowering gas prices. Not decreasing the deficit. Not improving homeland security. No. The Republican Party believes that getting rid of protections of the minority is more important than all of these pressing problems.
"Our friends on the other side of the aisle are shutting down the business of the Senate by making it impossible for committees to do the work of the American people on everything from intelligence matters to passing an energy bill when gas prices are at record highs," said Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the No. 2 Republican.
Democrats argued that the magnitude of the filibuster debate merited the full attention of lawmakers. They refused to agree to what is usually a routine request to extend committee work beyond the two hours allotted daily under the rules, contending that work would still get done.
These are not the priorities shared by most Americans. The Republican Party did get a mandate in 2004 to strengthen America. What has the GOP done in six months controlling all levers of government? Defend Tom DeLay against ethical charges. Try to override marital vows to force a woman in a persistent vegitative state to stay alive. Break the Senate rules to further empower the President. Attempt to partially privatize Social Security.
This is not why the Republican Party was given the reins of power last November. And until the GOP actually starts to listen to the American people, it will continue to slide in the polls. Of course they do not believe in polling (or so they say), so this might not bother them. Just the same, they might be surprised come the fall of 2006 that the American people have been paying attention all along and they are not happy with the direction in which the Republicans are leading us.
The White House Coaches Witnesses...
Who'd have ever expected it?! Los Angeles Times' Tom Hamburger has the story.
When the Senate Democratic Policy Committee asked the head of a business organization advocating an overhaul of Social Security to testify at a hearing last week, the members expected him to take the White House line.The hubris of this administration knows no bounds. Apparently, it's not enough for Bush and his cronies to buy reporters off -- on a somewhat regular basis -- now they also have to make sure that anyone who testifies on an issue like Social Security toes the company line. What is this world coming to?
They didn't know he would also take the White House editing.
In e-mailing his testimony to the Democratic panel, the organization's chief, Derrick A. Max, inadvertently included editing comments made by an associate commissioner of Social Security on loan to the White House.
Montana Looking More and More Blue
Earlier this month, I noted that Republican Senator Conrad Burns might have some serious competition in his bid for reelection next year in Montana. Now, as CQ Today's Midday Update (free email service) reports, Montana's Republican Congressman Denny Rehberg might also find himself on the hot seat.
The Billings Gazette reports that Montana state Rep. Monica Lindeen, a Democrat, “said Wednesday she is considering running in the 2006 election for” the nomination to oppose Rep. Denny Rehberg, R-Mont. for the state’s at-large House seat. Lindeen, the first Democrat to express interest in the race, “will travel to Washington, D.C., next month to meet with officials from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.” Rehberg in 2002 and 2004 “coasted to nearly 2-to-1 victories” in November. [original story hereThe only way for the Democrats to turn the widespead disapproval of Republican policies into a big gain in 2006 is by running strong candidates in every district. If Rahm Emanuel and the folks at the DCCC are able to convince Lindeen -- or an even stronger Dem -- to join the race and find sufficient funding to mount a real challenge, Rehberg might have to pack his bags.
Where are your Votes, Dr. Frist?
Last night we noted that there are still more than a handful Republican holdouts on the "nuclear" option, and defections from just three of them would block Bill Frist from changing the rules. Now the New York Daily News' James Gordon Meek goes a step further in reporting that some Republicans fear they won't be able to line up the 50 necessary votes to rid the Senate of judicial filibusters. Meek writes,
[Update 2:01 PM]: One down, seven more to go for Dr. Frist...
Some Republicans at the White House and on Capitol Hill aren't sold that Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) has the 50 senators needed to change the Senate's rules and end filibusters on judges.We are also reminded that as of this week, at least two more Republicans -- Chuck Hagel (NE) and John Sununu (NH) -- have been on the fence on the issue, raising the number of possible fainthearts within the GOP caucus to 10 (plus the three who have already defected). So the question is, where are your votes, Dr. Frist?
"That's what we keep hearing: that Frist doesn't have the votes," said one well-informed GOP aide. "If he doesn't have the votes, then that will force him into some sort of agreement."
[Update 2:01 PM]: One down, seven more to go for Dr. Frist...
Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., for weeks said he was undecided on whether to back a move by Frist, if it comes. Wednesday, he officially rejected signing on to a compromise.Link.
"I believe that all of the president's nominees deserve an up or down vote," Hagel said, quoted by spokesman Mike Buttry. "The agreement that has been proposed calls for three of the president's nominees not to get a vote. I could not agree to that. That is unfair and it's not right."
Pozen Says Private Accounts Aren't Necessary
Robert Pozen, the expert on legalized gambling who devised President Bush's Social Security privatization scheme, has apparently backed away from private accounts. Think Progress has the story from CQ.
Just out from CQ, password req’d:Not quite the bode of confidence the President might hope for from the man who came up with his Social Security plan.[Pozen] said Wednesday that Bush should “back away” from the other half [of his Social Security plans] – the insistence that individual investment accounts be created in the program. …Not only that, Pozen challenged the wider theme that Bush has used to justify private accounts:
“I would advise the president to say that carve-out accounts are no longer required,” Pozen said in an interview after a debate at the American Enterprise Institute with Brookings Institution scholar Peter R. Orszag, a leading critic of Bush’s proposal. Bush, Pozen said, should indicate that he is “willing to have a package that, if otherwise satisfactory, does not have carve-out accounts.”For many conservatives, the philosophical importance of creating accounts from the payroll tax cannot be understated. They believe it would turn many lower-income workers into investors, ushering in a new “ownership society"…
Pozen disagrees. … Talk of an “ownership society,” Pozen said Wednesday, is “a weak basis” for arguing for an overhaul.
More May Polling
The pursuit of unpopular policies has really begun to hamper President Bush's image among the American people. American Research Group has the latest round of polling, with numbers even the first President Bush wouldn't envy.
George W. Bush's job approval ratings have dropped to post-election lows as Americans have become increasingly concerned about their personal finances and the national economy according to the latest survey from the American Research Group. Among all Americans, 43% say they approve of the way Bush is handling his job and 51% disapprove. When it comes to Bush's handling of the economy, 37% of Americans say they approve and 57% say they disapprove.One might scoff off this poll as it covers all Americans, rather than registered voters. OK. What about this, then?
Among Americans registered to vote, 43% approve of the way Bush is handling his job as president and 51% disapprove. As for Bush's handling of the economy, 38% of registered voters approve and 56% disapprove.Will this lead the President and his Republican allies to walk away from the precipice? Probably not. But if the GOP continues to stray from the national consensus on major issues, it might find itself out of power come 2006.
[...]
Among Republicans (37% of adults registered to vote in the survey), 81% approve of the way Bush is handling his job and 12% disapprove. Among Democrats (38% of adults registered to vote in the survey), 11% approve and 84% disapprove of the way Bush is handling his job. Among Independents (25% of adults registered to vote in the survey), 37% approve and 58% disapprove of the way Bush is handling his job as president.
2006: 1994 Redux?
Much time has been spent among America's political minds discussing whether a monumental election -- a la 1994 -- but most seem to write off Democrats' chances at winning back Congress due to the sheer lack of competitive seats. Nevertheless, a new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll indicates the nation is overwhelmingly ready for change. Mark Murray has the story:
That all having been said, no one could have predicted six months ago that President Bush and his increased Congressional majorities would be mired in virtual quicksand, rapidly losing the support of the American people. What's more, with the possibility that the GOP coalition is beginning to fracture over issues like immigration and the ever-expanding deficit, Karl Rove has his work cut out for him.
One thing is certain, however: By continuing to pursue an unpopular agenda -- a majority of Americans disapprove of the nuclear option and Bush's handling of Social Security, for instance -- the Republicans are risking alienating most Americans. And should that happen, 2006 could actually turn out like 1994.
As the Senate marches closer toward a nuclear showdown over President Bush’s judicial nominees, the latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll finds that the American public is dissatisfied — with Congress and its priorities, with Bush’s plan to overhaul Social Security and with the nation’s economy and general direction. Moreover, a majority believes that the Senate should make its own decision about the president’s judicial nominees, rather than just generally confirming them.Again, I'm skeptical that the Democrats will be able to parlay national disconent into a real shot at victory in 2006. What's more, while voters are shunning the Republicans today, it's still nearly 18 months before election day, so the Republicans have a strong opportunity to reverse their fortunes.
And while all of this might suggest bad news for Republicans, since the political party in charge often gets blamed when things aren’t going well, the survey also indicates that the public isn’t quite embracing the Democrats either. “It is just a sense of unhappiness with where we’re at,” said Democratic pollster Peter D. Hart, who conducted this survey with Republican pollster Bill McInturff.
Perhaps the most revealing finding in the poll is the attitude toward Congress. Just 33 percent of the respondents approve of Congress’ job. That’s down 6 points since a poll in April and 8 points since January.
“The public is exceptionally displeased with the Congress,” Hart said. “It is [its] lowest set of numbers since May of 1994,” the year when congressional Republicans defeated their Democratic counterparts in the midterm elections to take control of both the House and Senate. According to this poll, by 47 percent to 40 percent the public says it would prefer Democrats controlling Congress after the 2006 elections.
That all having been said, no one could have predicted six months ago that President Bush and his increased Congressional majorities would be mired in virtual quicksand, rapidly losing the support of the American people. What's more, with the possibility that the GOP coalition is beginning to fracture over issues like immigration and the ever-expanding deficit, Karl Rove has his work cut out for him.
One thing is certain, however: By continuing to pursue an unpopular agenda -- a majority of Americans disapprove of the nuclear option and Bush's handling of Social Security, for instance -- the Republicans are risking alienating most Americans. And should that happen, 2006 could actually turn out like 1994.
Wednesday, May 18, 2005
Nuclear Roundup: Day 1
Today began the process of the procedure Sen. Trent Lott (R-MS) deemed the "nuclear option," an effort to strip the minority of the ability to block judicial nominations. Shailagh Murray and Charles Babington of The Washington Post provide a good wrapup of the story on tomorrow's page 1, focusing on the bipartisan effort to block avert the crisis.
The Senate is still about a week away from holding the actual vote -- the nuclear option -- so America will have to sit back and wait to see how these eight will vote. It's going to be a bumpy ride, but make sure to check in with Basie! for continuing coverage of the politics of judicial nominations and much more.
[I]ntense action took place in small groups and closed meetings, as half a dozen GOP centrists, and an equal number of Democrats, tried to close a deal that would defuse the controversy. Aides familiar with the negotiations said they focused on two issues: the fate of seven pending appellate court nominees who were blocked from an up-or-down vote in Bush's first term and the more difficult issue of agreeing on how Democrats would treat the right to filibuster judicial nominees in coming months, when a Supreme Court vacancy might occur.The New York Times' Carl Hulse waxes historical in his write up of the day's events.
The "six and six" proposal, as it is called, would obligate Democratic signatories to forswear backing a filibuster against future judicial nominees except in extraordinary circumstances. In return, the six GOP signers would agree to vote against efforts to ban judicial filibusters, the aides said.
Such an arrangement would effectively end the crisis because Democrats would not have the votes they need to prevent votes on the nominees in question. At the same time, Frist would not have the 51 votes he needs to disallow filibusters of judicial nominations.
It was a defining moment in the modern-day Senate, recalling another in the Senate's impeachment trial against President Bill Clinton in 1999. In fact, the Democratic leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, referred to the impeachment proceedings when he urged a private meeting of the full Senate in the old chamber, where a rare session had been held to try to hash out deep divisions on a similarly difficult subject. The ensuing floor debate did little to settle the acrid division over the Democratic decision to filibuster President Bush's judicial candidates.The Los Angeles Times' Ronald Brownstein serves up some fine analysis of the showdown in tomorrow's paper.
[...]
Democrats, alternating in speeches on the Senate floor with their Republican counterparts, were quick to note that Dr. Frist had himself voted to filibuster one judicial nominee in Mr. Clinton's administration, and that Republicans had employed procedural tactics of their own to stall as many as 70 candidates put forward by Mr. Clinton.
Senator Arlen Specter, the Pennsylvania Republican who is chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said that both parties were at fault. "These filibusters are the culmination of a power struggle between Republicans and Democrats as to which party can control the judicial selection process through partisan maneuvering," Mr. Specter said, adding that Democrats saw the filibusters as "payback time" for the way the Clinton nominees were treated.
Both political parties opened the historic showdown over judicial nominations that began Wednesday in a weakened position, facing low approval ratings for their performance in Congress that compound the political risks involved.Against this backdrop, Richard W. Stevenson, writing for The New York Times, notes the intense -- yet behind the scenes -- lobbying effort of the Bush administration.
Sen. Bill Frist, R-Tenn., set the confrontation in motion by formally beginning debate on the nomination Texas Supreme Court Justice Priscilla Owen the federal bench. Frist has vowed that unless Democrats permit up-or-down consideration of President Bush's nominees, Republicans will force a vote to ban the use of the filibuster to block judicial confirmations, probably as soon as next week.
Few strategists in either party expect the specific arguments over the GOP's bid to thwart Senate filibusters to sway many voters in the 2006 elections. But many analysts believe the conflict could increase and solidify the public antagonism toward Washington surfacing in polls -- especially if the dispute, as is likely, deepens Capitol Hill's partisan acrimony and impedes action on problems more tangible to voters, from gas prices to Social Security.
The key political question is whether the public disenchantment would hurt the parties equally or the GOP more, since it holds the majority and is seeking the rule change on judges.
At the White House, the official line on the fight over ending filibusters of judicial nominees is that it is a matter for the Senate to decide.And just who are the targets of this lobbying effort by Bush, Frist and company? The Hill, noting that "GOP Sens. McCain, Chafee and Snowe openly oppose the nuclear option," pins down six potential defectors.
But behind the scenes, the White House, directly and through its allies, is playing an active role in keeping up the pressure on the Senate to assure that President Bush's nominees have up-or-down confirmation votes, Republicans involved in the effort said.
So far, administration and Congressional aides said, the White House has avoided any strong-arm lobbying of Republican senators to end the use of filibusters to block nominees to federal judgeships.
The aides said any heavy-handed pressure from the White House could backfire by making the issue seem less about fairness than about the balance of power between the executive and legislative branches, a topic on which senators of any political stripe might be loath to side with the administration.
- Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) -- "[A] late arrival to negotiations, but on Tuesday he joined a Centrist Coalition meeting with Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) and Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.). He also joined a group in Sen. John Warner's (R-Va.) office."
- John Warner (R-Va.) -- "Warner has been extraordinarily tight-lipped about his views over the past weeks, but he let it be known in interviews that he considers himself a 'traditionalist' and was hoping to avert a showdown."
- Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) -- "'I have not rendered a decision because I believe I can be most helpful on brokering a compromise by remaining silent,' Specter said. But many believe he will not support the option if it comes to a vote."
- Susan Collins (R-Maine) -- "Collins is considered more likely to vote with Frist than her Maine GOP colleague, Sen. Olympia Snowe, who is up for reelection and who has publicly called for a compromise. [...] Collins says she has made up her mind on how she will vote on the nuclear option but is hoping a compromise will be reached."
- Mike DeWine (R-Ohio) -- "DeWine has kept his own counsel on the constitutional option. Although he is no maverick, DeWine has been known to go his own way on high-profile issues."
- Gordon Smith (R-Ore.) -- One senator whose position is not in doubt is Smith. He has quietly opposed party positions on a constitutional amendment on gay marriage and other issues. But Smith has decided to vote with Frist out of 'a recognition that the system is broken.'"
The Senate is still about a week away from holding the actual vote -- the nuclear option -- so America will have to sit back and wait to see how these eight will vote. It's going to be a bumpy ride, but make sure to check in with Basie! for continuing coverage of the politics of judicial nominations and much more.
Quote of the Day
"If you're not with me, you're my enemy."Link.
-- Anakin Skywalker, on his way to becoming the evil Darth Vader during Star Wars Episode III, echoing President Bush's ultimatum, "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists."
Thoughts on the Nuclear Option
As Bill Frist moves forward with his plan to rid the Senate of judicial filibusters, it's worthwhile to listen to how a number of former Senators feel about the move. During the past few months, I have spoken to a number of people on the nuclear option. Here are some of their responses.
- Former Vice President Walter Mondale
I'm very much opposed to it and I don't believe it's very good law.
My view is that the Senate can shape its own rules, and the Rule 22 now requires that 60 percent of the -- 60 votes in the Senate are required to impose cloture [...] But I think if we ever went to majority rule it would really undermine the capacity of the Senate [to] advise and consent, and I think the people who voted for it would see that the Senate as a unique institution in the world would rapidly diminish in stature.
The Constitution talks about "advise and consent." A President doesn't appoint judges, he nominates judges. The President only has half the action. The other half [of the] action is the independent discretion of the Senate. If it was just a case of majority rule, they'd be able to jam all the stuff through without the traditional ability of the Senate to ventilate these issues. So I'm very much opposed to it.
A long time ago when I was Vice President I once ruled that a majority could change the rules. I changed my mind while I was in the Senate and a few years ago gave a speech at the Senate Leadership Conference saying that I believe majority rule would undermine the Senate in a profound way. So I'm very much opposed to it. - Former Sen. Dennis DeConcini (D-AZ)
There’s been a lot of Republicans – I’ve talked to many of them – and some are opposed to it on philosophy, though they’re very upset with the Democrats. One of them who is a very influential man, Senator Hatch, he really doesn’t want to do it, but he feels like he’s at the end of his rope with the Democrats. [...]
It will be a big mistake. It will not bring down the Republic, but it will be a big mistake. - Former Sen. Slade Gorton (R-WA)
I regret the necessity of changing Senate rules on extended debate. I hope for a compromise that will retain those rights and allow votes on all Presidential nominees. But in the absence of such an agreement, it would be disastrous to change the processes of two hundred years and begin a system in which confirmation requires sixty votes. The "nuclear option" is a bad idea, but the present position of the Democrats is far worse.
- Former Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole (R-KS)
I’d be sitting with whoever it is – Harry Reid, or whoever he designated – and I would… the seat of your pants gets kind of hard, but I would sit there and sit there and look at every possible alternative before you start tinkering with the rules. Senator Byrd has done that, he’s tinkered with the rules. Sometimes it was a good idea, sometimes maybe not. But the so-called option, whatever you call it, is a last resort. I think I may be wrong, but I still think there’s going to be some kind of a deal struck where both sides can interpret it the way they want.
If I were going to give the Democrats advice, I would say these Appellate judges aren’t as important as a Supreme Court Justice. Why not hold your fire until you get a Supreme Court nominee, because if you do it now and lose, you’re going to be in a weaker position. And it’s hard to get the American people to focus on seven, eight or nine justices around the country, but if you’re talking abut a Supreme Court judge, you’re going to get a lot of focus, a lot of attention, a lot of media coverage, and that’s where the battle ought to be fought in my opinion. Of course my opinion doesn’t count.
Senator Frist's Blatant Hypocrisy
Judd over at Think Progress notes that Sen. Chuck Schumer took Majority Leader Bill Frist to task this morning on the Senate floor for his complete and utter hypocricy.
This morning on the floor of the Senate, Sen. Chuck Schumer asked Majority Leader Bill Frist a simple question:Nice work, Chuck.SEN. SCHUMER: Isn’t it correct that on March 8, 2000, my colleague [Sen. Frist] voted to uphold the filibuster of Judge Richard Paez?Here was Frist’s response:The president, the um, in response, uh, the Paez nomination - we’ll come back and discuss this further. … Actually I’d like to, and it really brings to what I believe - a point - and it really brings to, oddly, a point, what is the issue. The issue is we have leadership-led partisan filibusters that have, um, obstructed, not one nominee, but two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, in a routine way.So, Frist is arguing that one filibuster is OK. His problem is that several Bush nominees have been filibustered. This position completely undercuts Frist’s argument that judicial filibusters are unconstitutional. (Which is, in turn, the justification for the nuclear option.) If judicial filibusters are unconstitutional there is no freebee. [emphasis original]
The Next Mayor of Los Angeles
In the end, it wasn't even close. The LA Times' Michael Finnegan and Mark Z. Barabak report:
California no longer has a majority population, and within my lifetime, the same could occur in the nation as a whole. So for the second largest city in the nation to finally open its doors to a Hispanic mayor is highly important.
Freddie Ferrer is looking less and less likely to follow Villaraigosa's path to become mayor of New York, but a new generation of Hispanic activists across the country can be heartened by the fact that they are no longer shunned from office. So regardless of one's feelings about the immediate future for Los Angeles, one has to be excited by the fact that doors are now beginning to open for millions of Americans.
Antonio Villaraigosa romped past incumbent James K. Hahn to make history Tuesday, winning election as the first Latino mayor of Los Angeles since the city's pioneer days.Will this election spell real change for the city of Los Angeles? The answer is unclear, given the fact that both Hahn and Villaraigosa are Democrats who substanatively agree on most issues. However, as a symbolic move, this could not be larger.
Riding a huge wave of voter discontent, the challenger avenged his 2001 loss to Hahn, who possessed an iconic family name but never connected strongly with voters during a rocky four-year term.
Villaraigosa's landslide represented a crowning symbol of Latinos' growing clout in California, after decades of population gains that failed to produce a commensurate rise in political power. L.A.'s last Latino mayor, Cristobal Aguilar, left office in 1872, when the now-sprawling metropolis was a frontier outpost of barely 6,000 people.
The runoff contest also produced a striking parallel with the city's last breakthrough election in 1973, when Tom Bradley won a rematch against incumbent Sam Yorty to become the first black mayor of Los Angeles. That race also marked the last time a mayor was turned out of City Hall.
California no longer has a majority population, and within my lifetime, the same could occur in the nation as a whole. So for the second largest city in the nation to finally open its doors to a Hispanic mayor is highly important.
Freddie Ferrer is looking less and less likely to follow Villaraigosa's path to become mayor of New York, but a new generation of Hispanic activists across the country can be heartened by the fact that they are no longer shunned from office. So regardless of one's feelings about the immediate future for Los Angeles, one has to be excited by the fact that doors are now beginning to open for millions of Americans.
Tuesday, May 17, 2005
Could America Become the Next Argentina?
While the Senate passed a $295 billion transportation bill, a bipartisan group warned that the rapidly increasing deficit could lead America to real disaster. The Washington Post's Dana Milbank has the story.
While the President and his Republican allies in Congress work endlessly to try to privatize Social Security -- a futile effort -- Medicare will be entirely bankrupt within a few decades. What's more, with every attempt by Republicans to get rid of taxes on the extremely wealthy -- the estate tax, capital gains taxes, etc. -- America will have to come up with billions more down the line.
Last week, California Treasurer/gubernatorial candidate Phil Angelides spoke to me about "the Democratic ideal of investing in the next generation, not piling debt upon them." This gets to the heart of the differences between the Democratic Party and the GOP.
Democrats are serious about the economy and have made it their job over the past 75 years to ensure stable and continuous growth for all Americans. FDR bailed out an economy riddled by 12 years of Republican mismanagement. His policies, coupled with those of LBJ, ensured that poverty would no longer hamper America's elderly. Jimmy Carter appointed Paul Volcker to chair the Federal Reserve, a move that eventually ended the stagflation that had occurred as a result of eight years of failed Republican policies. After three terms of Reagan/Bush deficts led to recession and massive job losses, Bill Clinton balanced the budget and helped lead the country into great prosperity.
Republicans, on the other hand, are not serious about the economy. And there have been dire consequences for their gross mismanagement. The Great Depression. The recession of the late 1950s. The stagflation of the 1970s. The 1992 recession. The failure to rebuild the economy following the 2001 recession.
The fact is it's time to work in earnest to bring down the deficit. The only way to achieve this is to turn to the Democrats. If this doesn't occur soon, deficit might not be the only problem. As Heritage's Butler notes, we could be in for an Argentina-like meltdown.
Stuart Butler, head of domestic policy at the conservative Heritage Foundation, and Isabel Sawhill, director of the left-leaning Brookings Institution's economic studies program, sat down with Comptroller General David M. Walker to bemoan what they jointly called the budget "nightmare."It's time for officials in Washington to start getting serious about the budgetary problems that afflict the country. As impressive as it is to send staffers to a talk like this, it's not enough.
There were no cameras, not a single microphone, and no evidence of a lawmaker or Bush administration official in the room -- just some hungry congressional staffers and boxes of sandwiches from Corner Bakery. But what the three spoke about will have greater consequences than the current fuss over filibusters and Tom DeLay's travel.
With startling unanimity, they agreed that without some combination of big tax increases and major cuts in Medicare, Social Security and most other spending, the country will fall victim to the huge debt and soaring interest rates that collapsed Argentina's economy and caused riots in its streets a few years ago.
"The only thing the United States is able to do a little after 2040 is pay interest on massive and growing federal debt," Walker said. "The model blows up in the mid-2040s. What does that mean? Argentina."
"All true," Sawhill, a budget official in the Clinton administration, concurred.
While the President and his Republican allies in Congress work endlessly to try to privatize Social Security -- a futile effort -- Medicare will be entirely bankrupt within a few decades. What's more, with every attempt by Republicans to get rid of taxes on the extremely wealthy -- the estate tax, capital gains taxes, etc. -- America will have to come up with billions more down the line.
Last week, California Treasurer/gubernatorial candidate Phil Angelides spoke to me about "the Democratic ideal of investing in the next generation, not piling debt upon them." This gets to the heart of the differences between the Democratic Party and the GOP.
Democrats are serious about the economy and have made it their job over the past 75 years to ensure stable and continuous growth for all Americans. FDR bailed out an economy riddled by 12 years of Republican mismanagement. His policies, coupled with those of LBJ, ensured that poverty would no longer hamper America's elderly. Jimmy Carter appointed Paul Volcker to chair the Federal Reserve, a move that eventually ended the stagflation that had occurred as a result of eight years of failed Republican policies. After three terms of Reagan/Bush deficts led to recession and massive job losses, Bill Clinton balanced the budget and helped lead the country into great prosperity.
Republicans, on the other hand, are not serious about the economy. And there have been dire consequences for their gross mismanagement. The Great Depression. The recession of the late 1950s. The stagflation of the 1970s. The 1992 recession. The failure to rebuild the economy following the 2001 recession.
The fact is it's time to work in earnest to bring down the deficit. The only way to achieve this is to turn to the Democrats. If this doesn't occur soon, deficit might not be the only problem. As Heritage's Butler notes, we could be in for an Argentina-like meltdown.
Quote of the Day
“I know of nothing in my 47 years in this body, in my 53 years in this Congress... that has pained me more than this issue.”
-- Senator Robert Byrd on the nuclear option, as quoted by CQ Weekly
Crawford: Immigration Provides an Opening for Dems
CQ Weekly's southern star Craig Crawford opines this week that immigration could provide the Democrats with a shot at electoral success in the near future. He notes, for instance, that while Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) "risked the ire of Hispanic leaders in her party by backing Real ID,"
Most Democrats are not as open as Clinton to irritating their base among Hispanics, whose large and growing numbers make them the most volatile demographic group in the immigration debate.With Hispanics rapidly becoming the largest voting minority in the nation, it might be foolish for Dems to alienate them by turning right on immigration. That having been said, if Hispanics are open to slowing immigration -- as the Gallup poll Crawford cites indicates -- the Democrats might just have a win-win situation.
Yet Clinton is on to something. She tied worries about immigration to the terror threat. This could be the rhetorical basis for Democrats to appeal to voters upset about the influx of illegal workers — without appearing ethnically or racially prejudiced, a frequent charge against those who try to restrict immigration.
Although Hispanic leaders are quick to deride conservative views on immigration, opinion polls of Hispanics suggest that Democrats may not risk as much as they fear in adopting a tougher policy. A Gallup survey last year found that a plurality, 39 percent, of Hispanic voters believed the level of immigration should be decreased.
With Republicans torn by Bush’s moderate stance, Democrats could find fertile hunting ground in Sun Belt states by moving to the right on immigration.
Could Dems and GOPers Back Away from the Nuclear Option?
Charlie Cook seems to think so.
I'm a little more skeptical than Cook that the two sides will be able to reach a deal to avery the nuclear option. Unless Frist were sure he did not have the votes -- which still might occur -- he has no vested interest in giving in to the Democrats (and indeed has much to lose if he allows a deal to occur). I do tend to agree with Cook on one issue, though: the meme that the Republicans' overreaching on DeLay, Schiavo and the judges could trump any legislative success in the future.
The pressure on Republicans will be that they are now well on the way to having a year in which they will get little, if any, credit for any legislative accomplishments and instead will be remembered for controversies over filibusters, Terri Schiavo and House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas. Overhauls of bankruptcy and class-action lawsuits have been overshadowed and progress on the energy bill and other badly needed legislation is being threatened by the Senate's, media's and activists' preoccupation with going nuclear. Republicans need to get the train back on track and focus the spotlight on issues that affect voters' daily lives, instead of on partisan fights over inside baseball and culture wars.[There's more, but you need to have the free subscription to view the rest. To sign up for Cook's Off to the Races column, click here.]
Democrats have seized the higher ground on a number of issues since the Nov. 2 elections and have succeeded in framing Republicans as arrogant and out of touch. But they are coming under pressure to build on those gains rather than run the risk of being labeled obstructionists -- a charge that was a contributing factor in last year's defeat of former Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D. -- by pushing too hard on this one fight.
In the end, the pressure to "do the right thing," and to respect the institution might still prevail, convincing most senators to avoid what lobbyist Billy Moore calls a legislative "nuclear winter" that would certainly follow if the Senate does grind to a halt.
I'm a little more skeptical than Cook that the two sides will be able to reach a deal to avery the nuclear option. Unless Frist were sure he did not have the votes -- which still might occur -- he has no vested interest in giving in to the Democrats (and indeed has much to lose if he allows a deal to occur). I do tend to agree with Cook on one issue, though: the meme that the Republicans' overreaching on DeLay, Schiavo and the judges could trump any legislative success in the future.
Santorum Hit for Base Closings
Last week we noted that Rick Santorum's already lagging reelection bid took a hit when he failed to protect 13 military installations in his state. Now, as The Hill reports, the Democrats are hitting him hard on the issue.
The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) is wasting no time attacking Republicans — especially Sen. Rick Santorum (Pa.) — for the latest round of proposed military-base closures.Never underestimate the power of pork. Santorum's extremist views hurt him in Pennsylvania, especially now that he faces a conservative Dem. But without the cover of pork, he could be in for some real trouble in the next year and a half.
In a statement put out by the DSCC, Pennsylvania’s Democratic Party chairman, state Rep. T.J. Rooney, said the responsibility for the Pentagon’s targeting of Willow Grove Naval Station as one of the bases to be shut down “lies squarely at the feet of Rick Santorum.”
Democrats cite critical comments Santorum has made about Willow Grove, saying it gave the military “political cover” to propose closing the base.
This is Why We're Paying Hundreds of Billions?
It's been almost two months since I've cited a story in The Washington Times, but every once and a while they hit on something worth noting on this site. In this case, we turn to an article written by Stephen Dinan.
The federal government will spend nearly $2 billion in the next decade on male impotence drugs under its Medicare program, according to a new cost estimate from the Congressional Budget Office that is fueling some lawmakers' efforts to end that spending.Funding for Medicare is in shambles. The crisis facing the program is significantly worse than the problems facing Social Security. The prescription drug benefit has only exacerbated the problem. So clearly, it's time to figure out a way to begin restraining the massive deficit in the program. One way is to begin paying fair prices for the prescription drugs instead of allowing the pharmaceutical industry to gouge consumers and the government with excessive surchages. Another might be to cut back on some types of drugs...
Bush Disapproval at an All-Time High
The Pew Research Center for the People & the Press has conducted a new roll on a wide range of political issues, most of which bode poorly for President Bush and his Congressional allies. Among the key numbers in the poll:
While the American people as a whole clearly do not follow action inside the Beltway intently, they are quick to notice when one party begins to overreach -- as happened in 1993 and today. Again, it is much to soon to speculate about possible ramifications. However, it is safe to say that the next year and a half will see some of the most bitterness between the two parties in quite some time.
- By a "37%-28% [margin], the general public opposes changing the Senate rules to stop the use of filibusters against judicial nominees. [...] Among the minority who have followed the story fairly or very closely, a majority (54%) opposes changing the rules on Senate filibusters."
- "President Bush's overall job approval rating stands at 43%, down from 49% in late March. That equals the lowest mark in Bush's presidency (43% in April 2004)." His disapproval rating of 50% is the highest seen in a Pew poll.
- "Although neither party is escaping blame, the damage to the Republican Party's image may be more severe. Just 35% of Americans say they approve of the job Republican leaders in Congress are doing; 50% disapprove, up from 44% in March of this year, and 42% a year ago. Public approval of Democratic leaders is only slightly higher (39% approve, 41% disapprove), but has remained unchanged over the past two years."
These generally unfavorable views may have political ramifications for incumbents seeking reelection in 2006. While by more than two-to-one (49%-23%), more say they approve than disapprove of their own representative in the House, this is comparable to measures of satisfaction in the summer of 1993, a year before the historic midterm elections in 1994 in which the Democratic Party lost its majority in the House.There is no indication that the widespread disapproval of Congress will actually lead to repercussions for Congressional Republicans -- especially in the House, where there simply are not enough competitive seats on either side of the aisle to make change likely -- the resemblence between the situation in Washington today and in the summer of 1993 is stunning.
While the American people as a whole clearly do not follow action inside the Beltway intently, they are quick to notice when one party begins to overreach -- as happened in 1993 and today. Again, it is much to soon to speculate about possible ramifications. However, it is safe to say that the next year and a half will see some of the most bitterness between the two parties in quite some time.
Will Bush Veto Stem Cells?
George W. Bush has yet to veto a single piece of legislation while in the White House, though there are indications that he opposes this year's transportation bill due to excessive costs. Another bill soon to hit the House floor might also draw the President's ire, reports The Hill's Patrick O'Connor:
A fight between centrist and conservative Republicans over a bill to expand federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research has intensified in the past week as the House moves closer to a promised vote.Despite the White House's opposition to further embryonic stem-cell research, it will be very difficult for the President to veto the bill given the support of a majority of Republicans for further investment. Trying to please mainstream Republicans and the conservative Christian base might yet prove an impossible task for even the deft political minds in the Bush administration.
With 199 co-sponsors, supporters of the bill are confident that they have enough votes to pass it when leadership brings it to the floor this month, furthering the possibility that this legislation will become the first veto of President Bush’s tenure in the White House.
Back in Portland
It's a really long drive from Southern California.
Monday, May 16, 2005
I'm Driving Home
My stay in Claremont for the year is up and I'll I'm back off to Portland for a few weeks. It's a long drive, so I'll check back in later tonight. Until then, I hope you enjoy the Dole interview and have a pleasant day.
Bush Approval Stands at 46%
Time has a new polling available on the President and a number of other pressing isses conducted by SRBI from 5/10-12 with a MoE of ± 3. The poll finds:
Bush ApprovalThe most striking news from this poll is that over the past two months, the President has made no mevement whatsoever on the issue of Social Security. If his plan is to ultimately succeed, he will need to begin persuading the American people that he is truly capable of reforming the program.Approve 46Bush Soc. Sec. Approval
Disapprove 47Approve 31Eliminating Filibusters of Judicial Nominations
Disapprove 59Should Be Able To Eliminate 28
Should Not Be Able To Eliminate 59
Interview with Bob Dole
On Friday afternoon, I had the great honor of speaking with former Senator Bob Dole (R-KS), whose recent book One Soldier’s Story has met with critical acclaim.
After receiving two Purple Hearts and the Bronze Star for courageous service during World War II, Dole spent 39 months recovering from his severe injuries. In 1960, Kansas voters sent Dole to the US House of Representatives, and in 1968 promoted him to the Senate. During his five terms in the Senate, Dole served as RNC Chairman from 1971-2, Republican Vice Presidential Candidate in 1976, member of the National Commission on Social Security Reform in 1983, Chairman of the Finance Committee from 1981-5, Majority Leader from 1985-7, Minority Leader from 1987-95, and Majority Leader again from 1995-6. Dole was also the Republican presidential nominee in 1996, when he face President Bill Clinton.
After receiving two Purple Hearts and the Bronze Star for courageous service during World War II, Dole spent 39 months recovering from his severe injuries. In 1960, Kansas voters sent Dole to the US House of Representatives, and in 1968 promoted him to the Senate. During his five terms in the Senate, Dole served as RNC Chairman from 1971-2, Republican Vice Presidential Candidate in 1976, member of the National Commission on Social Security Reform in 1983, Chairman of the Finance Committee from 1981-5, Majority Leader from 1985-7, Minority Leader from 1987-95, and Majority Leader again from 1995-6. Dole was also the Republican presidential nominee in 1996, when he face President Bill Clinton.
Jonathan Singer: Senator Dole, thank you so much for joining me today. You have a new book out called One Soldier’s Story that details your recovery after being severely wounded in World War II. Your generation fought together, you had a generational struggle, so that when you went to Congress and you served with people like Dan Inouye across the aisle with whom you did not always agree, and even someone like Mark Hatfield on your side of the aisle with whom you didn’t always agree. You had a real connection, a shared history. This generation, my generation doesn’t have that same struggle. We haven’t come together. What do you think can be done to bring us together so we have that common experience?[THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.]
Bob Dole: In our case it was a calamity. The whole liberty, freedom, etc. was threatened with Hitler, and if it hadn’t been for the Brits hanging on as long as they could… We got in to the war very late, as you know.But that obviously brings you together. I can remember how I felt having never been on an airplane, never been east of my hometown over a couple hundred miles, getting mixed in with the guys from all over the country. It was a great experience. We learned to appreciate each other’s problems, how their state was different, how their politics might be different. Of course we were only young kids, 19-20 years old, and didn’t really know what the big picture was. But obviously with our parents, grandparents, everybody pushing for the same thing, and that was victory.
We don’t have that challenge now, thank goodness, but we have it on a much smaller scale, where the country is almost divided.
But I’ve always been an optimist. I think the young people today are just as good or better – in fact much better than [we were]. Better educated, they have better global understanding, they’ve got all of this high tech information available that we didn’t have. Sixty years is a long time.
In my book, I’m writing more or less about me, but it’s really about my generation. We were kind of quiet. We didn’t go around talking about what happened to us. We were real proud of our country, proud of President Roosevelt, General Eisenhower. Maybe we lack people of that stature now that help rally young people. But I’m still bullish on America and bullish on your generation.
Singer: Getting specifically into your service in Congress and its connection to World War II. A number of your fellow legislators, as I said on both sides of the aisle, served with you – maybe not in your unit – but served along side you in Europe. How do you think that helped with bipartisan relations?
Dole: I think it helped a lot. We had this camaraderie here. Like me and Dan Inouye is a special case where we end up in the same hospital. We didn’t know each other before. We were wounded about a week apart, about a hill apart, a couple of miles from each other. I was wounded first, Danny was wounded second. Then we go into a hospital in Battle Creek, Michigan, where there’s a guy out there taking care of us who hadn’t been injured too badly named Philip Hart, who was one of the great guys that ever served in the Senate. He was running errands for us and everyone else – bedpans and whatever we wanted. He’d bring us in cigarettes, all that stuff. So it was that kind of relationship.
Then you got back into Congress. You knew who the veterans were, not that they were better than anybody else, but you knew if you had a problem – dealing with something maybe not related to defense at all – you had a lot in common with the Democrat or the Republican you wanted to persuade to be with you.
Singer: Now with the situation on the hill seeming to be as bad as it’s been in decades – with the ethics struggle in the House, with the “nuclear” or “constitutional” option nearing in the Senate – do you think the two parties can walk away from the precipice and just figure out a way to come back together, or do you see worse in the short term?
Dole: We’re not perfect by any means, our form of government. People choose up sides and we vote for President. At least we do it peacefully, and the transition is always very peaceful. Nobody is threatening anybody with conflict.
But I think we go through these little periods where we have this very – I don’t say bitter – but very fierce partisanship where people line up 55-45, 51-49. There are always a few middle of the road type people who really have much more influence than their numbers would suggest.
It’s pretty hard for me to judge. I haven’t been up there for nine years. When I was there, I would sit out there on the floor and try to analyze what are this person’s motives, why are they saying what they’re saying. I wasn’t always right, but after being leader for twelve years I had a pretty good idea what motivated people.
I think we’re right in this little two or three year period where it’s been a very closely divided Congress, the American people are closely divided. It will straighten out. I’m not really worried about it. There have always been heated debates in the Congress, particularly in the Senate.
I think it will come back to the middle. I consider myself a middle of the road Republican. Maybe when I first started I was more to the right. Again, you learn the same thing. You learn about other people’s problems, different problems in different states. Maybe it’s immigration, maybe it’s something else – homeland security. Maybe I’m just rambling on here, but I think it will work out.
Singer: The man who served between your two stints as Majority Leader, George Mitchell, penned an Op-Ed a couple of days ago for The New York Times saying that at the time he was Senate Majority Leader with a similar majority he could have [invoked the “nuclear” option], but he didn’t. Coming from someone who led the Senate as long as you did, what would you be doing today…
Dole: I’d be sitting with whoever it is – Harry Reid, or whoever he designated – and I would… the seat of your pants gets kind of hard, but I would sit there and sit there and look at every possible alternative before you start tinkering with the rules. Senator Byrd has done that, he’s tinkered with the rules. Sometimes it was a good idea, sometimes maybe not. But the so-called option, whatever you call it, is a last resort. I think I may be wrong, but I still think there’s going to be some kind of a deal struck where both sides can interpret it the way they want.
If I were going to give the Democrats advice, I would say these Appellate judges aren’t as important as a Supreme Court Justice. Why not hold your fire until you get a Supreme Court nominee, because if you do it now and lose, you’re going to be in a weaker position. And it’s hard to get the American people to focus on seven, eight or nine justices around the country, but if you’re talking abut a Supreme Court judge, you’re going to get a lot of focus, a lot of attention, a lot of media coverage, and that’s where the battle ought to be fought in my opinion. Of course my opinion doesn’t count.
Singer: One of the last issues you dealt with was the telecommunications reform in 1996, and one of your great concerns was giving away the spectrum for high definition TV, which at the time you said would cost in the tens of billions of dollars.
Dole: I stuck my neck out and almost got it chopped off. It just seemed to me that we had everything, as far as the airwaves were concerned, was free, and people were making big, big profits. And it didn’t seem to me, when we had people in need, when we had a deficit, when people didn’t have enough to eat, didn’t have appropriate healthcare, there was a good place to go – in a very legitimate way – to pick up some revenue.
Singer: You were very prescient about it. In fact the networks have not given back the spectrum that they’re supposed to give back – the lower spectrum. Seeing it come up again, what do you envision happening now to retrieve some of that money for the American people?
Dole: I’m just guessing, because I don’t have any idea what the legislation might look like, but I think with all of the pressure on the budget, I think the members would be hard pressed not to recoup a substantial amount of that.
Singer: I’ll ask one last question because you have to go. You, of course, were in the Senate at the time of the last major overhaul of Social Security in 1983 –
Dole: 1983. People ask me what’s the biggest challenge, I tell them education. They ask me what was your biggest achievement, I say working with Senator Pat Moynihan, a Democrat and me a Republican, to rescue Social Security in 1983.
I’ve always had the view that compromise is a wonderful word if it’s used properly, and bipartisanship is necessary. Any good legislation needs support from both parties. I don’t care who’s the President. It’s going to last longer and be more meaningful. It will have more credibility and be accepted by more American people. If it’s just a one-party solution, maybe it will work, maybe it’s a great thing to do, but the American people like to see Congress working together.
Singer: So should the Republican Party take private accounts off of the table if the Democrats say they won’t deal with it?
Dole: I think it’s too early. What we have now, we have the President’s plan out there – again, unless I’m just totally off base – I think there are going to be some Republicans and Democrats who will come together in the middle with some alternative plans.
The trouble with Social Security is nobody is going to get burned for another, what, how many years? 2018, and then maybe even 2042. You can imagine it’s like backing into a buzz saw, to take on Social Security. We did it because we were about to hit that buzz saw, and there was a lot of pressure on us to do something.
What came up with in ’83 was raising payroll taxes a little, extending the retirement age to 67, a lot of things that people didn’t like. But we were working with – as you know Tip O’Neill was the Speaker, Ronald Reagan was President, Claude Pepper, who was a darling of senior citizens, was on our commission. And so we put it together and had very broad bipartisan support.
Singer: Just one last tag on to that question. With Medicare seeming to be in such larger of a crisis, should Congress start thinking more about Medicare than Social Security?
Dole: I think Congress should think about it and the President should think about it. I’m not sure they can replace it now because they have all of this – I don’t know whether it’s momentum or not – but all of this discussion about Social Security.
Medicare is in more dire straights than Social Security. But if you can fix Social Security, then I think the Medicare thing will be – I don’t want to use George Tenet’s word – but a slam dunk.
Singer: Thank you so much for your time.
Dole: Thank you for what you’re doing. I really appreciate it.
Singer: It was very educational. Thank you so much
Dole: Good luck, Jonathan. Make all ‘A’s.
Singer: I will.
Sunday, May 15, 2005
Republicans Set Their Sights on NPR
Two weeks ago, the Republican chairman of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, Ken Tomlinson, began to make threats against PBS for an alleged liberal bias. Now Tomlinson is setting his scope on NPR, according to The New York Times' Steven Labaton:
Executives at National Public Radio are increasingly at odds with the Bush appointees who lead the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.For the CPB, whose board "is dominated by Republicans named by President Bush," to try to force NPR and PBS to adhere to a conservative Republican political agenda is a total violation of the corporation's purpose. What's more, it's a real danger to the American people. The day the government begins to tell broadcasters what they can and cannot say is the last day that the first amendment has any teeth. Hopefully the inspector general will feel the same way.
In one of several points of conflict in recent months, the chairman of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which allocates federal funds for public radio and television, is considering a plan to monitor Middle East coverage on NPR news programs for evidence of bias, a corporation spokesman said on Friday.
[...]
Mr. Tomlinson has been waging a campaign to correct what he and other conservatives see as a liberal bias in public television programming. That effort has been criticized by leaders of public television who say it poses a threat to their editorial independence. At the request of two senior Democratic members of Congress, the inspector general at the corporation is examining whether Mr. Tomlinson's decision to monitor only one television program, "Now," with Bill Moyers, and his decision to retain a White House official who helped create guidelines for the two ombudsmen may have violated a law that is supposed to insulate public broadcasting from politics.
The "Democrat" Who Created Bush's Soc. Sec. Plan
Much talk has been made about Robert Pozen, a "registered Democrat" whose plan is the basis of the President's scheme to partially privatize Social Security. Who is this guy, exactly? The caption to the AP's stock photo of Pozen says it all.
Robert Pozen addressed a forum on legalized gambling in Massachusetts in this June 11, 2003 file photo in Boston.Privatizing Social Security would be one form of legalized gambling, I would suppose...
Clark Bashes Base Closings
Wes Clark, who is staying in close contact with his grassroots supporters through his new website SecuringAmerica.com, is in the news today talking about an issue he knows intimately: the military. The AP's Caryn Rosseau has the story.
It's an argument that makes good political sense, as well. Voters should understand that this is a Republican plan by a Republican administration to close military bases in small towns across the country and build Wall Mart-esque military complexes staffed by contractors from Halliburton. If Americans believe the military should refect the value of shared sacrifice, perhaps they should pay heed to General Clark and stand up to this move by Bush and Rumsfeld.
Retired Army Gen. Wesley Clark said Saturday that the Pentagon's plan to close military bases around the country and reorganize troops will isolate the military from the American people and the rest of the world.This is a very potent argument coming from a former four-star general. America is less safe when our troops become alienated from the rest of the world and even the rest of America.
Clark said the plan to pull U.S. forces back home from abroad and centralize bases takes jobs away from smaller towns.
"We're losing influence abroad when we bring those troops home, and we lose the interaction with America when we create these super bases," Clark said in a speech to the Arkansas Associated Press Managing Editors Association.
It's an argument that makes good political sense, as well. Voters should understand that this is a Republican plan by a Republican administration to close military bases in small towns across the country and build Wall Mart-esque military complexes staffed by contractors from Halliburton. If Americans believe the military should refect the value of shared sacrifice, perhaps they should pay heed to General Clark and stand up to this move by Bush and Rumsfeld.
Frist Loses Another "Nuclear" Ally
As we've noted earlier, Senator Frist does not have the support of Senators Chafee and McCain in his battle to redraw the Senate rules to get rid of filibusters of judicial nominations. Seven other Senators -- Susan Collins of Maine, Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, John Warner of Virginia, Mike DeWine of Ohio, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and John Sununu of New Hampshire -- have also expressed doubts about the proposed rules change and have not yet made their intentions public. Now, according to David Goldstein and Matt Stearns of The Kansas City Star, you can add one more name to the list of undecideds.
Roberts, of course, has not come out in opposition to the nuclear option, but his concerns about the tactic are indicative of a fast-growing belief among Republicans that getting rid of the nuclear option could do them more harm in the long-term than not getting through a few judges. This political, rather than principled, argument could spell the end for Frist's over-reach as politicians respond better to the real than the abstract. And should conservatives like Roberts, Sununu and Murkowski defect, Bill Frist -- presidential aspirations and all -- will be in for a bumpy ride.
With a showdown over judicial nominees looming, Sen. Pat Roberts of Kansas could be one of several pivotal Republicans to oppose stripping the Senate of its traditional power to filibuster.For Frist, the loss of Roberts -- a staunch partisan who scored a 75.5 conservative rating in 2004 (according to National Journal) -- could spell real trouble. It's one thing to lose a maverick like McCain or a moderate like Chafee or even a Senate veteran like Warner, but it's something entirely different to lose a true conservative like Roberts.
Roberts expressed doubt about the “nuclear option,” which would end a long-running Democratic threat — to filibuster seven of President Bush's nominees for the federal bench — by changing long-standing Senate rules.
“What goes around comes around,” Roberts said in an interview last week, worried that the rule change could someday come back to haunt his party.
Roberts, of course, has not come out in opposition to the nuclear option, but his concerns about the tactic are indicative of a fast-growing belief among Republicans that getting rid of the nuclear option could do them more harm in the long-term than not getting through a few judges. This political, rather than principled, argument could spell the end for Frist's over-reach as politicians respond better to the real than the abstract. And should conservatives like Roberts, Sununu and Murkowski defect, Bill Frist -- presidential aspirations and all -- will be in for a bumpy ride.
Saturday, May 14, 2005
The Sunday Shows
I'll be packing up for Portland and watching a graduation ceremony, but for those who won't...
MEET THE PRESS WITH TIM RUSSERT (NBC)For more, visit SundayMorningTalk.comAhmed Nazif (Egyptian Prime Minister)THIS WEEK WITH GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS (ABC)
Panel: David Broder (Washington Post); Paul Gigot (Wall Street Journal); Eugene Robinson (Washington Post); Katty Kay (BBC)Sen. John McCain (R-AZ)FACE THE NATION WITH BOB SCHIEFFER (CBS)
Governor Mike Huckabee (R-AR)
Panel: Paul Begala, Cokie Roberts and George Will.Sen. Edward Kennedy (Democrat - Massachusetts); Elisabeth Bumiller (The New York Times) and Colbert King (The Washington Post).FOX NEWS SUNDAY WITH CHRIS WALLACE (FOX)Stephen Hadley (National Security Adviser); Sens. Dick Durbin (D-Illinois) and Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky)
An Icy Dinner
As the Senate nears implosion over the nuclear option, Democratic Leader Harry Reid has been invited to Majority Leader Bill Frist's house, report David D. Kirkpatrick and Carl Hulse for The New York Times.
As the pressure reaches new heights, the two leaders plan to sit down to dinner on Sunday night at Dr. Frist's home in Washington. Meanwhile, interest groups on both sides are spoiling for a fight and summoning their forces to the Capitol.Oh, what it would be like to be a fly on the wall Sunday night to catch a glimpse of history...
A Picture that Says 1,000 Words
Josh Marshall has a great photo taken recently of Bill Frist with some friends.
(Click the image to enlarge)
The Nuclear Option is Coming
The battle over judicial nominations in the Senate will finally come to a head in the next two weeks, the outcome of which is still up in the air. Sheilagh Murray and Dana Milbank have the story for The Washington Post:
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) served notice yesterday that he will move next week to bring President Bush's judicial nominees to the full Senate for an up-or-down vote as lawmakers closed in on a last-minute compromise to end the conflict over judges.Who are these possible Republican defectors? The AP's Jesse J. Holland takes a look.
An aide to Frist said Senate Republicans would bring the fight over judges to the Senate floor on Wednesday and have a showdown vote between Friday and May 25 on one of two women Bush has nominated to appellate courts, Priscilla R. Owen and Janice Rogers Brown. Republicans have said they plan to abolish the filibusters that Democrats have used to block confirmation of several judges, inviting retaliation from a minority party that has threatened to disrupt Senate proceedings for months. The proposed change in Senate rules has been called the "nuclear option" by members of both parties.
Despite the brinkmanship, Frist and Senate Democratic leader Harry M. Reid of Nevada are considering different ways to resolve the fate of all seven of the current nominees who had previously been blocked by filibuster. One potential agreement would guarantee that two of the nominees would be confirmed and the other five would be granted votes with no assurance of the outcome. The handling of the other five nominees remains the main sticking point between the GOP and Democratic leaders.
[...]
Though nothing is fixed, negotiators believe they may have the seed of a real solution that allows Frist to bring all the nominees to floor, while leaving the filibuster rule intact -- a crucial demand of the Democrats, who want the option of using the filibuster on future Supreme Court nominees. Democrats are increasingly optimistic that they may be able to attract enough Republican support to kill the rule-change effort outright.
Seven Republican senators will determine the outcome of a showdown this week between the president and Congress — and a minority within it — over who is going to shape the federal courts.Make sure to check in on Monday to find out what former Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole (R-KS) told me about his feelings on the nuclear option, because you might be surprised.
Barring any unforeseen developments, these are the lawmakers in the make-or-break position when it comes to deciding whether to allow a Senate minority to block a president's nominees for the federal bench.
The senators are Susan Collins of Maine, Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, John Warner of Virginia, Mike DeWine of Ohio, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and John Sununu of New Hampshire.
[...]
Some of the seven Republicans, including Collins, have made up their mind but are not saying how they will vote. Warner and others say they have yet to decide — and hope they will not have to.
"I'm always working on the issue," Warner said last week. "I'm hopeful the leaders can reach a compromise. I'm optimistic we can reach a compromise."
So far, only Republican Sens. John McCain of Arizona and Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island have broken party ranks, expressing concern about a change that could permanently reduce minority rights in the Senate. Vote counters in each party say Republican Olympia Snowe of Maine also is likely to side with Democrats.
Friday, May 13, 2005
Another Basie! Interview to Ensue
This afternoon, I had the real honor to speak with the 1996 Republican nominee for President, former Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole (R-KS). Dole and I discussed a number of pressing issues, including possible changes to the filibuster rule, telecommunications reform, Social Security, and of course his well-received new book, One Soldier's Story. Look for the complete transcript of the interview on Monday morning.
In an unrelated development, could any of you with a subsription to National Journal online send me a copy of this page (Basie! was apparently mentioned today). If any of you could email it to me, I would be very thankful.
In an unrelated development, could any of you with a subsription to National Journal online send me a copy of this page (Basie! was apparently mentioned today). If any of you could email it to me, I would be very thankful.
The Military-Political Complex
Opportunities to stick pork into legislation every year, a few million here and a few million there. But seldom is a legislator's ability to ensure the flow of millions of dollars to his district or state more important than in proposed military base closings, as failure to protect key installments -- which bring with them hundreds or thousands of jobs -- can lead to defeat for an incumbent.
Looking at the Pentagon's latest proposal for base cuts, as reported by the AP's Liz Sidoti, it is clear that there will be serious repercussions in 2006 that could harm already weakened Republicans. As Sidoti explains,
For moderates like Simmons and Wilson, who had conservative scores of 49.2 and 50.0 in 2004, respectively (according to National Journal), base closings could prove even more harmful. One of the most potent cases they have made for reelection in the past four years is that as Republicans, they have been able to sidle up to the Republican administration to save the bases. Without this feather in their cap, Democratic voters in their districts might no longer have reason to cross party lines.
[Update 11:37 PM Pacific]: An example of the headlines you'll see --
Looking at the Pentagon's latest proposal for base cuts, as reported by the AP's Liz Sidoti, it is clear that there will be serious repercussions in 2006 that could harm already weakened Republicans. As Sidoti explains,
Base closings represent a high-stakes political fight, because they affect jobs in congressional districts.The Republicans most likely to be hurt by the proposed base closings include:
When a U.S. military installation shuts down, its officers and their families are uprooted and relocated to facilities elsewhere, leaving holes in customer bases of local businesses.
- Rep. Heather Wilson (R-NM), who represents a district that voted for Kerry in 2004: "Among the major closures were Cannon Air Force Base in New Mexico, which would lose more than 2,700 jobs."
- Rep. Rob Simmons (R-CT), who represents an overwhelmingly Democratic district : "Connecticut suffered the biggest loss in terms of jobs with the proposed closure of the U.S. Naval Submarine Base in Groton, Conn. Shuttering the installation would result in the loss of 7,096 military jobs and 952 civilian jobs."
- Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA), who already trails State Treasurer Bob Casey (D) by 14 points: "Pennsylvania would lose 13 facilities, including the Naval Air Station at Willow Grove."
For moderates like Simmons and Wilson, who had conservative scores of 49.2 and 50.0 in 2004, respectively (according to National Journal), base closings could prove even more harmful. One of the most potent cases they have made for reelection in the past four years is that as Republicans, they have been able to sidle up to the Republican administration to save the bases. Without this feather in their cap, Democratic voters in their districts might no longer have reason to cross party lines.
[Update 11:37 PM Pacific]: An example of the headlines you'll see --
Thune Fails to Keep Ellsworth Off ListAnd so it begins...
Republican Divisions Spotlighted
The New York Times and The Washington Post seem to be in unison today, tackling two sides of the apparently divided Republican Party. To begin, The Post's Jonathan Weisman pens an article today on splits within the GOP caucus on the critical issue of Social Security.
In October 2001, with the White House divided over the steps necessary to preserve Social Security, then-economic adviser R. Glenn Hubbard presented President Bush the stark choices that he believed Bush had to make: raise revenue or cut promised benefits.While Weisman looks at the specific case of Bush's bid to privatize Social Security, The Times' Sheryl Gay Stolberg writes yet another installment of the "plight of Republican moderates" meme.
Hubbard prevailed over other White House advisers who argued that large private investment accounts and trillions of dollars in government borrowing could ensure Social Security's long-term solvency with no benefit cuts whatsoever. But 3 1/2 years later, the fissures that once divided the White House continue to split the Republican Party at large. Those fissures were on display anew yesterday when the House Ways and Means Committee convened its first hearing on Social Security restructuring.
[...]
White House aides have been trying to put the public dispute to rest for months, if not years. But their failure to do so has left the GOP looking divided, next to united Democrats, who say they will not negotiate until Bush puts aside his call for private accounts financed through Social Security taxes.
From the fight over Mr. Bolton to the looming blowup over the president's judicial nominees to the debate over the proposal to overhaul Social Security, Republican moderates are caught in the middle as never before. As they look to the near future, to a possible vacancy on the Supreme Court, they realize that the pressures will only intensify.These articles underscore the risks imposed by aiming for too large of a majority. Just as with the Democrats -- who finally lost their dominant coalition in the late 1960s as conservative Southerners and liberal Northerners could no longer stand each other -- the Republicans could find themselves shedding enough moderates to find themselves in the same shoes as their party in 1964: too radical to win more than a handful of states. This might be a long way from happening, but if the four moderates in the Senate continue to be replaced with arch conservatives, there could be a realistic shift of centrist voters away from the GOP in the coming years, leaving the party with a majority only in the reddest of states.
"Bolton is a perfect example of putting the moderates in an impossible situation," said Senator Lincoln Chafee, the Rhode Island Republican who also sits on the Foreign Relations Committee and who agonized publicly over Mr. Bolton for weeks. "It's a no-win. Either we don't support the president or we vote for a very unpopular pick to represent us at the United Nations."
[...]
[H]ere in the Capitol, [moderates] are so few, said Senator Arlen Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania, that they quit having their weekly lunches about a year ago.
"Susan and I were there alone for so much of the time," Mr. Specter he said, referring to Senator Susan Collins of Maine, "we worked through all of our conversation and decided to disband."
As Mr. Voinovich's refusal to support Mr. Bolton's nomination demonstrates, "the vanishing center"-as another centrist Republican, Senator Olympia J. Snowe of Maine, often says - can still play a powerful role. There are just four core centrists in the Senate, Mr. Chafee, Ms. Collins, Ms. Snowe and Mr. Specter. They are joined from time to time by mavericks like Senators John McCain of Arizona, Chuck Hagel of Nebraska and Mr. Voinovich.
Thursday, May 12, 2005
Note
In order to ensure fairness and balance on this site, I have extended Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's office the opportunity to schedule an interview in response to the Angelides interview. I have yet to receive a response.
Basie! Interview with CA Treasurer Phil Angelides
This morning I had the distinct opportunity to speak with Phil Angelides, a leading contender for the California Democratic gubernatorial nomination for 2006. A native Californian of Greek descent, Phil Angelides first became interested in politics as a student at Harvard during the 1972 Presidential election. He worked in California state government from 1975 to 1983, at which point he moved into the private sector and became a highly successful businessman. In 1991, Angelides became the Chair of the California Democratic Party and in 1998 was elected California State Treasurer, a position he still holds today.
Jonathan Singer: There’s a cover story in the Washington Monthly by Mark Barabak called “Is Arnold Losing It?” Barabak’s contention is that Arnold Schwarzenegger is a lot less of a Ronald Reagan figure and a lot more of a Jesse Ventura – cheap gimmicks that work early but peter off later. What do you think of that contention?[THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.]
Phil Angelides: I actually saw the article. In fact, Paul Glastris, the editor of the Washington Monthly, was out recently and gave me a copy of it. I would say the following: if you really look at Arnold, he is increasingly a mix of George Bush and Jesse Ventura. He shares the same agenda as Bush in so many respects, but is beginning to look more and more like Jesse Ventura in the conduct of the office.
Arnold has always tried to pose himself as a different kind of a Republican. He learned to talk the language of moderation like Bush learned to talk the language of compassionate conservatism back in 2000.
But when you look at what Schwarzenegger has done as Governor versus what he’s said, he has had a down the line Republican economic agenda. He’s borrowed massively against our future after promising to tear up the credit card. By next year, the state of California will pay more to retire its deficit borrowing in that year alone than it spends on the entire University of California system. So he’s borrowed massively, which is going to constrain the ability to invest in things that count, like schools and transit and good jobs for our people.
He came in the recall saying he would protect education, but, like Bush who has promised to leave no child behind, he is now proposing to $15,000 out of every classroom and became the first Governor in 40 years to break the covenant with the young people of this state that said if they did their work, if they made their grades, they’d have a place at our state colleges and universities. Last year he proposed to turn away 25,000 young people who are fully eligible and fully qualified. He proposed to turn them away from our state colleges and universities in the richest state in the wealthiest nation in human history.
If you look at Schwarzenegger’s policies, they are very Bush-like: vetoing the minimum wage, siding with the Chamber of Commerce against working people at every turn. So he’s very much like George Bush, but he increasingly has the carnival barker aspects of Jesse Ventura.
Singer: Expanding on the budget issue, another way he is like President Bush is, like you said, running large deficits—
Angelides: Deliberately so.
Singer: When he was running for Governor, he said no more of these magic tricks. We’re going to deal with the deficit. But in fact as you’ve said, the deficit has increased and the debt problem has increased, and you certainly know about this intimately as State Treasurer. What real steps can be taken in the next four years, from 2007 to 2011, to fix the problem?
Angelides: Let me just expound on this a little. I believe President Bush is running deficits in Washington very deliberately. His plan is to finally run up so much debt that it inevitably creates pressure on the funding of things that count, in terms of the long-term strength of the society: educating kids, retirement security for American families. A mini version of that is going on in Sacramento.
When Arnold Schwarzenegger became Governor, the state had already piled up about $18.5 billion in what I’d call “credit card debt,” which is borrowing to cover deficit. And by the way, those were borrowings I opposed as Treasurer. It’s fine to borrow money to build schools and to expand universities and build mass transit systems for the 21st century. It’s not good to use your borrowing to live beyond your means and send the bill to the kids.
So he runs on the platform of ripping up the credit card, and what does he do when he gets into office? He accelerates the borrowing. With the budget he signed last year and the budget he’s proposed this year, the state’s credit card debt will rise to $30 billion, which is about a 67% increase from the day he took office. By next year, the state will have to pay $4 billion, next year alone, to pay that debt – which is more than we spend on the entire University of California system.
What’s clear is you’re never going to balance the budget by continuing to borrow and pile debts onto our kids and future generations. The only way to balance the budget is to do it fairly.
Now this Governor is willing to borrow against the kids. He’s proposed $1 billion worth of tax and fee increases that hit working Californians, students, the elderly and the poor. Big increases in Community College fees, tuition increases at the state colleges and universities. In fact I’m on my way to San Jose right now. I’m doing a press conference because the Governor has proposed to raise $100 million by stripping away property tax relief from the elderly, the blind and disabled who make less than $37,000 a year.
In the end, the budget can only be balanced with fairness. As Governor, I would move to close some of the 55 corporate tax loopholes that have been punched in our tax code in the last ten years. I would ask the wealthiest Californians – those making over $280,000 a year – to pay at least the same taxes they paid under Governor Wilson and Governor Reagan. And if we have some fairness, we have a chance of balancing this budget in a way that makes sense for Californians.
Singer: Moving to another issue, there is a new Pew poll that came out this week of national voters. It said one of the few issues that truly cuts across the partisan divide in America is immigration. The Governor has taken a new tack on immigration, becoming very supportive of the Minutemen project. Some skeptics say that this is more tied to his 40% approval in the SurveyUSA and Public Policy Institute of California polls—
Angelides: Sure. The last refuge of a politician with sinking poll numbers is to attack people of color and to try to divide people over issues of emotional content.
Singer: But there are issues with immigration and the burgeoning population in this state. What type of steps would you take to curtail the problems that a lot of people do see?
Angelides: Look. This is a serious issue. And it is an issue of significance that affects all Californians. But let’s be clear about what the Governor is doing. The Governor is not seriously addressing this issue. If he was serious about addressing the issue, he wouldn’t have gone on the Ken & John radio talk show – which is a right wing talk show in Southern California – to applaud the Minutemen, he would have his job as Governor.
He went last fall to Ohio and stood right next to George Bush and helped him win reelection. If he was serious about trying to deal with the illegal immigration in California, which is a serious issue, he wouldn’t have called Ken & John on their right wing radio talk show, he would have called George Bush and Dick Cheney in the White House.
There are things that a Governor could do to push the federal government to live up to its responsibilities on border control, because after all this is a federal responsibility. I’ll give you a couple of examples.
The state of California will spend this year $750 million to incarcerate undocumented persons – undocumented aliens who are in this state who have committed crimes. That is a federal responsibility, and the federal government is going to completely stiff the state of California this year. President Bush is zeroing out in his budget any reimbursement for the state of California for that $750 million in costs.
In the wake of 9/11, the President signed the intelligence reform bill that authorized 2,000 new border patrol agents per year. In this year’s budget, the President is funding only 210 border patrol agents.
Much of the illegal immigration problem stems from the fact that too many employers hire undocumented persons. And while we have thousands of border patrol agents, there’s only 125 federal employees inspecting work places for illegal hiring of undocumented immigrants.
What the Governor ought to be doing is going to Washington, getting with President Bush and asking him to make sure the federal government does its job to enforce border control and enforce federal laws against the hiring of undocumented immigrants. So there are a Governor can do if they’re serious about addressing the issue versus just trying to prop up falling poll numbers.
Singer: Just a couple of more questions.
Angelides: Sure.
Singer: Another issue that really deals with the balance between federal and state government is energy. There’s a new documentary out—
Angelides: Yeah. I saw it.
Singer: It’s called Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room.
Angelides: Have you seen it, by the way?
Singer: Yeah. I got to see it, luckily. It really lays out a case that the system is completely broken. And the scariest part of it is that it can happen again. What moves would you take as Governor to ensure that it in fact would not happen again?
Angelides: First of all, let just say that when the energy crisis hit California, I was the lone statewide elected official who urged the state to take forceful action from day one to stand up to the energy pirates. I believe from day one we should have moved in and, if necessary, taken over the power plants that were being manipulated to gouge energy consumers in California. I also called for the establishment of a public power authority so the state could control enough of its own energy resources so it would never be subject to energy privateering again.
Of course, when I was doing all that, as the documentary notes, Arnold Schwarzenegger was meeting with Ken Lay and Dick Riordan and Michael Milken in Los Angeles to strategize about how to preserve deregulation.
For decades here, we had a marketplace that protected consumers. When the energy crisis came along, all you need to do is look at the price of electricity before and after, and what you’re struck by is this incredible peak in prices that robbed Californians of $30 billion in a short period of time. In less than a year, California ratepayers were robbed of $30 billion that went into the hands of these energy pirates.
As Governor of the state of California, I would make sure that we would have a regulatory system that would protect businesses and homeowners against that kind of gouging.
Since he’s come into office, Governor Schwarzenegger hasn’t done one thing to shore up California’s protection against that type of manipulation. In fact the only thing he’s done in the energy field is he blue penciled – or eliminated – all of the funding for the California Power Authority that was created by legislation that I sponsored, the authority that was designed to allow the state to begin to build enough energy resources so we could counter a manipulation.
Singer: Just one final question, and this kind of gets to the heart of it. How does a person who to some is only known in jest as the Vice President for Calendars and Fake IDs for Duff Beer—
Both: [Laughter]
Angelides: By the way, that made me very popular among my three daughters. It raised my hip status among all my daughters and their friends.
Singer: How does the Vice President for Calendars and Fake IDs for Duff Beer combat the Terminator and, possibly, Meathead?
Angelides: I believe in the politics of beliefs and actions. I’ve learned over my life that movements can succeed, campaigns prevail when they’re based on core beliefs and when there’s passion around those beliefs and when there’s the discipline to organize around those beliefs.
I entered politics as a student activist back in 1971 in the campaign to defeat Richard Nixon for reelection. I’ve often said it’s the only thing I have in common with our Governor, who said he was inspired to enter politics by Richard Nixon.
I believe that Californians are ready for a different route. This Governor promised to balance the budget, protect education, expand healthcare for kids. If he had run in the recall on the basis that he was going to pile up massive debt, cut education and cut back on healthcare for working families California, he never would have been elected.
From day one when he came into office, I’ve stood up to him – no matter how high his poll numbers are. And I believe Californians are ready for a change from what I call the Bush-Schwarzenegger low road to economic devastation. Schwarzenegger promised to be a moderate, and in the end he’s brought the Bush-Cheney policies of debt and division and diminished opportunity to California.
I believe in the high road. I believe the only way we’re going to succeed in California in the years ahead is if we have the cleanest environment, the most livable communities, the best trained workers and young people in the world so we can compete for the high wage, high skill jobs of the 21st century. And I believe we can make California a progressive model for the rest of the country. So we are building a campaign of beliefs as well as broad energy and organization.
I entered this race at a time when Arnold Schwarzenegger’s poll numbers were at 70%. It’s now clear that this is going to be a contest between the conservative assault on fairness and values and what I believe is the Democratic ideal of giving our people more chances, not fewer, the Democratic ideal of an economy of broad participation, the Democratic ideal of investing in the next generation, not piling debt upon them.
My campaign is co-chaired by Barbara Boxer and Nancy Pelosi. When Barbara Boxer started running for the United States Senate, her poll numbers were at 3%, and she won because she ran a campaign of beliefs and organization, and we’re going to do the same thing. We already have over 150 elected officials in this state who have endorsed my campaign. We have built an email supporter list of 25,000 people, and it’s growing every day. And so I have every belief that we can build a very powerful movement.
There’s a lot of frustration in California. People are frustrated that George Bush was reelected in 2004 – or elected for the first time. They’re frustrated that Arnold Schwarzenegger is the Governor of this state, having broken every promise he made. And I hope to turn that frustration into a movement of hope, and I have every confidence we can do it.
One last comment for you: I took over the California Democratic Party in March of 1991 when we had lost six straight Presidential elections in a row in California, the Democrats had. We had lost three straight gubernatorial elections. The day I took over as party chair, George Bush the first, was at 91% approval. And again we built a campaign of beliefs and organization, and by the time it was all over Bill Clinton had carried California, Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer became the first two women from any state to win election to the US Senate, and we changed the course of this state. And I believe we can do it again in 2006.
Singer: Thank you so much for joining me. Good luck in your responsibilities as State Treasurer, and in your campaign, and as a father and family man.
Angelides: Thanks so much Jonathan.
No Comment
Most political issues deserve a response, but some leave even me speechless. This, from Andrew Metz of Newsday, falls into the latter category.
Was World War II worth it?Some statements are so far beyond the pale of acceptable discourse that they do not deserve a response.
In the inflammatory world view of Pat Buchanan, the short answer is no. The war that stopped the Nazis' global campaign and the mechanistic extermination of European Jewry was actually not worth the effort.
[...]
Buchanan's comments on the Don Imus radio show and in an essay posted on the Web site of his organization, The American Cause, went much further. He suggested that because Germans voted Hitler in, they did not need to be liberated, and that Britain and France drew Germany into the wider conflict.
He did not mention Jews or the Holocaust - the most outrageous omission for Yaffa Eliach, a Holocaust expert and survivor. "For me it is very important to present the truth, to show the murder," Eliach said. "The idea was to kill Jews."
Abraham Foxman, president of the Anti-Defamation League, called Buchanan's comments "immoral" and "bordering on Holocaust denial. "But, you know, he has been there before," Foxman said. "Pat Buchanan in the past has challenged whether or not there were crematoria."
The Economist on Bush's War Against Goldwaterism
The Economist's Lexington columnist takes a very interesting look at the fundamental differences between the small government conservatism of Barry Goldwater and the large government conservatism of George W. Bush. Lexington writes,
Although he went down to a huge defeat in the 1964 presidential election, Goldwater did as much as anybody to launch the modern conservative movement. Yet everywhere you look, the Republican Party is abandoning his principles.Lexington raises a number of important issues here but, to rehash, makes at least two very potent points comparing the Republican Party of today with the Grand Old Party of yesteryear:
The senator's conservatism was rooted in small government. But today's Grand Old Party has morphed into the “Grand Old Spending Party”, as the libertarian Cato Institute dubs it. Total government spending grew by 33% in George Bush's first term. Goldwater's hostility to big government also extended to government meddling in people's private lives. He thundered that social conservatives such as Jerry Falwell deserved “a swift kick in the ass”, and insisted that the decision to have an abortion should be “up to the pregnant woman, not up to the pope or some do-gooders or the religious right”. For Goldwater, abortion was “not a conservative issue at all”. For many Republicans today, it often seems to be the only conservative issue.
[...]
In the 1990s, Mr Bush calculated that small-government conservatism had run its course as an election-winning strategy. So he embraced conservatism with a happy face, expanding the Department of Education, not killing it. Karl Rove summed up this philosophy at a recent meeting of conservative activists as putting “government on the side of progress and reform, modernisation and greater freedom”.
This love affair with big government has been inflamed by the experience of power. Ten years ago, the champions of conservatism were anti-government radicals such as Newt Gingrich and Dick Armey. Today they are patronage-wallahs like Tom DeLay. The congressional Republican Party, once a brake on spending, is now an accelerator. Congress trimmed Mr Clinton's budgets by $57 billion in 1996-2001; in Mr Bush's first term, it added an extra $91 billion of domestic spending.
- "For Goldwater, abortion was “not a conservative issue at all”. For many Republicans today, it often seems to be the only conservative issue."
- "Ten years ago, the champions of conservatism were anti-government radicals such as Newt Gingrich and Dick Armey. Today they are patronage-wallahs like Tom DeLay."
Basie! Interview to Ensue
I just got off of the phone with California State Treasurer Phil Angelides, a leading Democratic contender to challenge Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2006. We spoke at length about the Governor and the 2006 race, in addition to policy issues like the deficit and energy deregulation.
The interview should be transcribed by about 3:00 PM Pacific, or thereabouts, but check in earlier if you're interested.
The interview should be transcribed by about 3:00 PM Pacific, or thereabouts, but check in earlier if you're interested.
Crossfire Will Finally Be Cancelled
More than four months after CNN first indicated it would cancel Crossfire, the network has finally announced a timeline for its exit strategy. Paul J. Gough of Reuters has the story:
CNN will debut a three-hour, late-afternoon show hosted by Wolf Blitzer that will replace "Crossfire" and "Inside Politics" sometime this summer.It's about time. For a classic flashback, check out Jon Stewart's take on the show from October.
The show, which does not yet have a name, will run from 3-6 p.m. ET. Blitzer, who already hosts two hours weekdays (noon-1 p.m. ET and 5-6 p.m. ET) and "Wolf Blitzer Reports" on Sundays, will be the primary host.
Wednesday, May 11, 2005
Bonus Quote of the Day
"Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are [a] few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid."From Sirotablog via Kos
-- President Dwight D. Eisenhower, 11/8/54
NY Times on the Estate Tax
The New York Times' Robert H. Frank presents a compelling thesis in tomorrow's paper in an article entitled "The Estate Tax: Efficient, Fair and Misunderstood." He writes,
Repealing the estate tax would reduce federal revenues by close to $1 trillion from 2012 to 2021, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. This shortfall would require at least one of the following steps: raising income taxes, sales taxes or other taxes; further cuts in government services; or increasing the rate at which we borrow from the Chinese, Japanese and others. Additional borrowing would have to be repaid at market rates of interest, however, so the last option would also entail eventual tax increases or service cuts.Frank proceeds to lay out an affirmative case for the estate tax, explaining its importance and its inherent equality. If you're interested in the debate over Republican attempts to get rid of the estate tax, this is a must-read (at least to hear the liberal side. If you want the conservative angle, I suppose you should visit DeathTax.com).
[...]
Would voters still favor repealing the estate tax if they took these repercussions into account? To find out, I asked the Survey Research Institute at Cornell to administer two versions of a national telephone survey. In the first, respondents were asked simply whether they favored or opposed the Bush administration's proposal. Typical of the findings in other, similar surveys, these respondents favored repeal by almost three to one.
In the second version, respondents were reminded that the revenue shortfall from repealing the estate tax would entail raising other taxes, cutting government services or increasing federal borrowing. Strikingly, these respondents opposed repeal by almost four to one. Although the sample sizes in both surveys were small (only 42 in the first group, 66 in the second), the odds of observing such a sweeping reversal by chance are remote.
Santorum Plays the Part of the Hypocrite
Last month it became apparent that Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) was thinking as much about running for President in 2008 as he was about his fierce battle for reelection in 2006. In an attempt to deflect criticism for his misguided priorities, Santorum and his handlers have accused his opponent of political opportunism, reports Bob Cusack for The Hill:
Republican strategists in Pennsylvania are questioning Democratic Senate candidate Bob Casey Jr.’s commitment to completing a potential six-year term, noting that he has run for five public offices in the past nine years.What's this all really about?
The move is a counterattack to Casey’s recent criticism of Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.). The Hill last month reported that a media firm affiliated with Santorum had bought domain names suggesting that the senator was eyeing a 2008 presidential bid. At the time, a Casey campaign spokesman said, “This is just more evidence that serving the people of Pennsylvania is not Rick Santorum’s top priority.”
A recent Quinnipiac poll found that Casey has a 14-point lead over Santorum.Perhaps it's time for Santorum to think a little bit more about actually representing the voters of his state rather than playing politics on any and every issue. He might actually have a shot at reelection if he ever deviates from the orthodox conservative Republican line on an issue.
The AP: Bush's Trouble is with the Republicans
It's not often that reporters are able to cut through politicians' spin to deliver the real story of what's happening in America. So credit is due for the AP's Tom Raum who finally explains to the American people that Congressional opposition to President Bush is not relegated to the Democratic Party. He ledes,
I don't believe the President is a lame duck yet. On the contrary, he still maintains an almost unanimous level of support among Republicans and controls both houses of Congress. Nevertheless, Raum hits on some important points and I applaud him for raising facts that are too often overlooked in the media.
He can't just blame the Democrats. Some lawmakers in President Bush's own party are giving him an increasingly hard time over everything from Social Security to a free-trade pact for Central America to his plan to ease immigration laws. It may be an early lame-duck warning for his presidency.Raum explains that the President's problems include:
Misgivings by four Republicans on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee triggered a three-week postponement of a vote on the nomination of John Bolton to be U.N. ambassador.Bush is in an extremely difficult spot on a number of issues right now. As Raum notes, the President must woo Democrats without losing conservative Republicans. And bringing the Democrats to the table won't be easy by any stretch of the imagination. As I noted last week, "on Social Security, the President must get the support of about a half a dozen Democrats in the Senate for his privatization plan to have any chance at passage, and strong-arming a bad budget through Congress and invoking the nuclear option certainly has not endeared the President to the opposition. Rather, it has emboldened them to battle to the end on fights they can win."
[...]
Bush's troubles in moving his major proposals through Congress are aggravated by having to do a difficult dance: angling for support from Republican moderates and reaching out to Democrats on initiatives like Social Security without driving away members of his conservative base.
[...]
Bush's proposal for a free-trade pact with six Central American and Caribbean nations is drawing opposition from nearly all Democrats — and from some Republican lawmakers from textile and sugar-producing states, including Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman Saxby Chambliss of Georgia.
Meanwhile, Bush's guest-worker immigration program, first proposed in his first term, continues to draw opposition from the political right, especially Republican lawmakers from Southwestern border states.
I don't believe the President is a lame duck yet. On the contrary, he still maintains an almost unanimous level of support among Republicans and controls both houses of Congress. Nevertheless, Raum hits on some important points and I applaud him for raising facts that are too often overlooked in the media.
Dems' New Social Security Tack
The Democrats appear to be winning the debate over Social Security these days, and a recently breaking news item can only help them advance their cause. CQ Today's Midday Update (free email service) has the story.
Citing pension troubles at United Airlines, Democrats today argued that insecurity in private pension plans heightens the importance of maintaining the guaranteed benefits of the Social Security program.The Republican response...
On Tuesday, a federal bankruptcy court in Chicago ruled that United Airlines could terminate its pension plans, handing responsibility for paying benefits to nearly 120,000 current and future airline employees to the federal Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. The decision, if upheld on appeal, will mean cuts in benefits for many of the employees.
“The issue we have been battling for — saving Social Security and strengthening it — intensifies each and every day in its importance,” said Rep. Bob Menendez of New Jersey, the House Democratic Caucus chairman.
Republicans rejected that argument, contending instead that the United Airlines case “underscores the importance of allowing people to set aside some of their payroll taxes into personal accounts,” said Sen. John E. Sununu, R-N.H.That has got to be the most lame retort I've heard in some time, and Republicans were so timorous about it that they sent a first term Senator to deliver it rather than a member of the leadership. Surely they could have come up with something better than than, no?
A New Piece
I have my first post up over at The Moderate Voice on The Great Bipartisan Majority in this country. It's a little tongue and cheek, but I hope you'll enjoy it anyway.
Beltway Talk
Forward's E.J. Kesler has some:
Rep. Harold Ford of Tennessee had dinner last night with Bill Clinton at Bob Rubin's house. Senator Barack Obama was supposed to be there also. Bet they were talking about races.Hmm.
American Wages Falling Rapidly
So much for the President's contention that this is the strongest economy in American history. Financial Times' Christopher Swann has the story:
Real wages in the US are falling at their fastest rate in 14 years, according to data surveyed by the Financial Times.It's time for Bush and his Republican allies to take some real action to shore up this economy. The trickle down, supply side economics of massive tax cuts for the wealthy has clearly not worked in the past four years, so perhaps it's time to move back to the era of Clintonomics: balanced budgets and a more progressive system of taxation. Remind me why we moved away from it in the first place...
Inflation rose 3.1 per cent in the year to March but salaries climbed just 2.4 per cent, according to the Employment Cost Index. In the final three months of 2004, real wages fell by 0.9 per cent.
The last time salaries fell this steeply was at the start of 1991, when real wages declined by 1.1 per cent.
[...]
Even after last month's bumper gain in employment, there are 22,000 fewer private sector jobs than when the recession began in March 2001, a 0.02 per cent fall. At the same point in the recovery from the recession of the early 1990s, private sector employment was up 4.7 per cent.
More Administration Payola
It was only a matter of time before an enterprising journalist dug up proof of the Bush Administration paying another reporter for favorable coverage. The Washington Post's Christopher Lee has the scoop:
An Agriculture Department agency paid a freelance writer at least $7,500 to write articles touting federal conservation programs and place them in outdoors magazines, according to agency records and interviews.Bribing journalists for positive coverage is one of the lowest forms of corruption as it completely undermines public trust in both the government and the media. The Bush Administration must stop this egregious policy at once the American public can begin to restore its faith that it is not being force fed propaganda from the government.
The Natural Resources Conservation Service hired freelancer Dave Smith in September 2003 to "research and write articles for hunting and fishing magazines describing the benefits of NRCS Farm Bill programs to wildlife habitat and the environment," according to agency procurement documents obtained by The Washington Post through a Freedom of Information Act request.
Smith, contracted to craft five stories for $1,875 each, also was to "contact and work magazine editors to place the articles in targeted publications," the records show.
Quote of the Day
"There were times when some people were really aggressive about raising it, and we said, 'For that?'"Link.
-- Former Secy. of Homeland Security Tom Ridge explaining of the times when he believed "there was only flimsy evidence to justify raising the threat level."
Bolton Nomination in Jeopardy?
John Bolton, George W. Bush's nominee to serve as UN Ambassador, is still quite a ways away from approval by the Senate, as The New York Times' Sheryl Gay Stolberg reports.
The future of John R. Bolton, whose nomination to be ambassador to the United Nations has been caught up in controversy, hinges on four wavering Republicans, all of whom say they will not make up their minds until Thursday, when the Senate Foreign Relations Committee is to vote.As if by cue, the State Department unloaded a new batch of documents that further call into question Bolton's ability to serve as UN Ambassador. Alexander Bolton has the story for The Hill:
The four - Senators Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and George V. Voinovich of Ohio - are among 10 Republicans on the foreign relations panel, and a "no" vote by any one of them would doom Mr. Bolton's nomination.
But Mr. Voinovich - who insisted last month that lawmakers dig deeper into the accusations against Mr. Bolton, a stunning defection - is the one who makes Mr. Bolton's backers the most nervous.
Mr. Voinovich said Tuesday that he was still reviewing documents related to the nomination. Asked if he was feeling pressure not to buck the party, he said: "My people sent me down here to do what's in the best interests of our nation, and that's what the president wants to do. The issue is, he's recommended someone, and I'm giving that recommendation serious consideration. But if I should decide that I'm not going forward and support him, I don't think that's bucking the party."
State Department officials have shared with Senate Democrats the findings of a sensitive State Department inspector general’s report that could further undermine the nomination of John Bolton to be U.S. ambassador to the United Nations.Could this all spell an end to Bolton? The answer most likely lies with Voinovich. If Bolton's nomination is eventually nixed in committee, President Bush's credibility and sway within Congress will be severely diminished, placing his domestic agenda in a much more precarious position.
The inspector general’s report, which is considered sensitive but not classified, is critical of the expansion of a State Department bureau’s role in assessing intelligence under Bolton during his service as the undersecretary of arms control and international security, according to sources who have read the report.
[...]
The expansion of the bureau’s role, Democratic aides say, was intended to counteract skepticism expressed by State’s main intelligence analyst, the Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR), over evidence the Bush administration relied on to argue that Saddam Hussein possessed a viable weapons-of-mass-destruction program.
Several Democrats are comparing the augmentation of the Bureau of Verification and Compliance’s responsibility for assessing intelligence to efforts by Douglas Feith, President Bush’s undersecretary for defense for policy, to create an independent intelligence shop within the Defense Department.
Oy
From the AP's Thomas Wagner:
Using car bombs and a man with explosives strapped to his body, insurgents launched five suicide attacks in northern and central Iraq on Wednesday, killing more than 60 people in three cities, police said.
The attacks occurred as hundreds of U.S. Marines pushed through a lawless region of western Iraq near the Syrian border in a military offensive aimed at supporters of the country's most wanted terrorist, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.
On Tuesday, the more than 1,000 U.S. Marines, soldiers and sailors in Operation Matador battled past well-armed militants who fought from basements, rooftops and sandbag bunkers.
[...]
At least three Marines were reported killed and 20 wounded during the first three days of the offensive — the biggest U.S. operation since Fallujah was taken from extremists six months ago.
Tuesday, May 10, 2005
Americans' Disapproval of Congress at 8-Year High
Americans are increasingly unhappy with the direction in which the Republican Party is leading the country. National Journal has the story:
Congress is mired in partisan bickering over the filibuster, judicial nominees, ethics rules and Social Security, and the latest Gallup poll suggests the public isn't pleased.As I've noted before, it's extremely important for the Democrats to remind the 57% of Americans who disapprove of Congress that the Republicans control both houses of Congress. By nationalizing the issue and constantly referring to the "Republican Congress" -- a la Harry Truman in 1948 -- the Democrats could have a real shot at making big gains next year.
Just 35 percent of respondents approved of the way Congress is doing its job. This marks the lowest approval rating in the Gallup poll since July 1997, according to the poll's analysis, well before the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. After the attacks, support for Congress spiked to an unprecedented 84 percent. Just prior to 9/11, only 49 percent of the public looked favorably on federal lawmakers' work.
The new rating keeps with the steady erosion of confidence in Capitol Hill that Gallup has logged over the past four years -- and matches Gallup's numbers from the mid- to late 1990s. Fifty-seven percent said they disapproved of Congress' job, up three points from last month's rating.
Both figures are consistent with findings of other recent polls. Late last week, for example, an Associated Press/Ipsos Public Affairs poll gave Congress just a 34 percent approval rating; CBS News reported 35 percent approval in mid-April. [link for the poll here]
Democratic Leaders on the Nuclear Option
Former Senator George Mitchell, Majority Leader from 1989 to 1995, pens a very interesting Op-Ed for The New York Times today. The following graf says it all:
During my six years as majority leader of the Senate, Republicans, then in the minority, often used filibusters to achieve their goals. I didn't like the results, but I accepted them because Republicans were acting within the rules; and we were able to work together on many other issues. There were 55 Democratic senators then. We had the power to take the drastic action now being proposed, but we refrained from exercising that power because it was as wrong then as it is now.Harry Reid has also sent out a statement on the nuclear option today, that reads in part:
I still consider this confrontation entirely unnecessary and irresponsible. The White House manufactured this crisis. Since Bush took office, the Senate confirmed 208 of his judicial nominations and turned back only 10, a 95% confirmation rate. Instead of accepting that success and avoiding further divisiveness and partisanship in Washington, the President chose to pick fights instead of judges by resubmitting the names of the rejected nominees.Kos writes, "Ballsy move by Harry Reid. He's either got the votes and he's calling Frist's bluff, or he's playing one heck of a game of chicken." I tend to agree. Even though the Democrats have the support of two thirds of Americans on this issue, by making this offer to the Republicans, Reid proves that he's no obstructionist.
This fight is not about seven radical nominees; it’s about clearing the way for a Supreme Court nominee who only needs 51 votes, instead of 60 votes. They want a Clarence Thomas, not a Sandra Day O’Connor or Anthony Kennedy or David Souter. George Bush wants to turn the Senate into a second House of Representatives, a rubberstamp for his right wing agenda and radical judges. That’s not how America works.
I believe there are two options for avoiding the nuclear showdown, which so many of us believe is bad for the Senate, and bad for America.
But I want to be clear: we are prepared for a vote on the nuclear option. Democrats will join responsible Republicans in a vote to uphold the constitutional principle of checks and balances.
If it does come to a vote, I asked Senator Frist to allow his Republican colleagues to follow their consciences. Senator Specter recently said that Senators should be bound by Senate loyalty rather than party loyalty on a question of this magnitude. But right wing activists are threatening primary challenges against Republicans who vote against the nuclear option. Senators should not face this or any other form of retribution based on their support for the Constitution. In return, I pledge that I will place no such pressure on Democratic Senators and I urge Senator Frist to refrain from placing such pressure on Republican Senators.
I also suggest two reasonable ways to avert this constitutional crisis.
First, allow up or down votes on additional nominees, as I addressed in my proposal to Frist two weeks ago. If this is about getting judges on the courts, let’s get them on the courts.
Second, allow the Senate to consider changing the rules without breaking the rules. Every one of us knows that there is a right way and a wrong way to change the rules of the Senate; the nuclear option is the wrong way. Senator Dodd will go to the floor this afternoon to expand on the way the Senate changes its rules.
I suggest that Senator Frist introduce his proposal as a resolution. If he does, we commit to moving it through the Rules Committee expeditiously and allow for a vote on the floor. It takes 67 votes to change the rules. If Senator Frist can’t achieve 67 votes, then clearly the nuclear option is not in the best interest of the Senate or the nation.
Charlie Cook: DeLay Might Opt Not to Run
Charlie Cook, the nation's preeminent non-partisan political analyst, posits an interesting theory this week in his email column: will Tom DeLay forgo a reelection bid?
[There's more, but you need to have the free subscription to view the rest. To sign up for Cook's Off to the Races column, click here.]
[D]oes DeLay face more formidable opposition if he seeks re-election in 2006 than he did last year, when he beat neophyte Democrat Richard Morrison 55-41 percent, with a Libertarian candidate and an independent each garnering 2 percent? Yes.Clearly, the Democrats would either like to see DeLay go down quickly or stick around through the 2006 elections to use as an example of Republican graft in campaigns across the country. Opting against running for reelection might be the only way DeLay can mitigate against Republican losses in 2006 (and even that might not suffice).
Former Rep. Nick Lampson, who represented about 20 percent of this district before a DeLay-engineered redistricting, is the strong frontrunner for the Democratic nomination. Lampson might face Houston City Councilman Gordon Quan in a March primary.
Given the substantially greater adversity that DeLay faces today, it might be enough to cost him 5 to 9 percentage points and the seat.
While DeLay spent more than $2.7 million to get re-elected in 2004, not counting considerable outside resources that went into the effort, this time it would likely cost upwards of $5 million.
Keep in mind, the 22nd District is not DeLay's old rock-ribbed Republican seat. DeLay was a team player in redistricting, and gave up heavily Republican areas, picking up Democratic territory, as a gesture to urge Republican members also to give up friendly territory.
In retrospect, he really could use that old turf. One Washington insider privately noted that it would be ironic if DeLay ended up being the first GOP casualty of his own redistricting plan.
[...]
Given the incredible expense both financially and personally that this is likely to take on DeLay, it would not be surprising if he decides not to run at all.
[There's more, but you need to have the free subscription to view the rest. To sign up for Cook's Off to the Races column, click here.]
CAFTA Revisited
This morning, I noted that the President's proposal for a free trade zone within Central America was faltering within Congress. Now, as The Oregonian's Jeff Kosseff reports, one more key Democrat has announced his opposition to the plan.
U.S. Rep. Earl Blumenauer [who spoke with us here], D-Ore., on Monday said he will vote against the Dominican Republic-Central American Free Trade Agreement, providing a key vote to opponents of the trade expansion.As interesting as Blumenauer's decision is the fact that Walden -- who had a 70% conservative score on economic issues in 2004, according to National Journal -- has yet to come out in favor of the pact. If Bush can't rally the support of traditional conservatives like Walden, he has little shot of getting CAFTA passed.
Blumenauer was among a few dozen House Democrats that business lobbyists had hoped would join a majority of Republicans and vote for the pact, which would expand trade with Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Nicaragua.
Blumenauer's decision followed months of deliberation and more than 100 meetings about the agreement, known as Cafta. He capped off his decision-making process last week, holding a public forum with Sen. Gordon Smith, R-Ore.
[...]
Blumenauer joins Oregon's three other House Democrats -- Peter DeFazio, Darlene Hooley and David Wu -- in opposing Cafta. Rep. Brian Baird, D-Wash., recently announced his opposition to the pact. Oregon Republican Greg Walden, whose district includes sugar farmers, is undecided, as are Sens. Smith and Ron Wyden, D-Ore.
Stem Cell Research Popular... Among Republicans
George W. Bush and the Republican Congressional leaders have stopped at almost nothing to shift the debate over stem cell research from one of science to one of abortion. Apparently, even their own voters don't buy it, as the AP's David Espo writes.
57 percent of those surveyed in the Republican-only poll said they favored embryonic stem cell research, with 40 percent opposed. On a follow-up question, 54 percent said it was more of a research issue, while 40 percent said it was more of an abortion issue.Castle has a bill that would increase funding for stem cell research that as of a month ago -- well before this poll -- was already gaining steam in Congress. No matter how strongly the extremists within the Republican Party fight against science, the American people continue to be optimists who believe that medical advances can improve humanity. Stem cell research might not promise immediate results, but it does deliver hope to a hopeful people.
"Anytime you see a poll like that, that's a strong preference," said Rep. Mike Castle, R-Del., the leading supporter of stem cell research. "Members of Congress understand polls. I think the other thing that's important is who takes polls."
Hahn Still Down, But Moving Up in LA
Los Angeles Mayor James Hahn is well in the danger zone one week ahead of the municipal election, but he has cut a hole in challenger Antonio Villaraigosa's lead. The Los Angeles Times Michael Finnegan reports:
With the Los Angeles mayoral election a week away, incumbent James K. Hahn has made large gains among major voting blocs, but still trails challenger Antonio Villaraigosa by 11 points, a Los Angeles Times poll has found.While Hahn is still not even close in the race, it could all turn into a nailbiter if the ethical charges leveled at Villaraigosa lead to an anemic turnout. Hahn will not have a clear mandate in this situation, but for an incument sitting at about 40 percent, a victory is a victory.
Hahn's improved standing with such pivotal groups as San Fernando Valley whites and South Los Angeles blacks has cut into the 18-point lead that Villaraigosa held in a Times poll last month.
But the new survey still reflects pervasive trouble for Hahn. Just 24% of likely voters in the May 17 election say that Los Angeles is better off because of his policies and should continue on the same course, while 67% want the city to change direction. His job approval score has sunk to a record low of 38% — from 44% a month ago. Fifty-six percent say they disapprove of his performance as mayor.
If the election were held today, the poll found, the councilman would oust Hahn by 51% to 40%. The survey found 9% of likely voters undecided.
Bernie Looks Solid in Vermont
Independent Congressman Bernie Sanders, a self avowed "Democratic Socialist," appears to be set in his bid to replace Vertmont Senator Jim Jeffords in 2006. A Research 2000 poll conducted for WCAX-TV in Burlington shows Sanders, with 66% favorables, crushing all possible GOP challengers.
Representative Bernie Sanders 62Sanders, who caucuses with the Democrats in the House, is even garnering the support of Vermont's most powerful politician. Evan Lehmann of the Bennington Banner has the story:
Businessman Richard Tarrant 18
Representative Bernie Sanders 59
Liutenant Gov. Brian Dubie 23
Representative Bernie Sanders 61
VT Nat. Guard Maj. Gen. Martha Rainville 18
Breaking party lines, former Gov. Howard Dean said Monday he supports Rep. Bernard Sanders' bid for the U.S. Senate, saying the Independent makes a "strong candidate."The stars just might be lining up for a Socialist Senator. Eugene Debs would be proud.
"A victory for Bernie Sanders is a win for Democrats," Dean said in a telephone interview Monday.
A Defeat for Bush on CAFTA?
President Bush has gotten off to a rather inauspicious start to his economic agenda. For instance, The New York Times' Elizabeth Becker reports that the administration is already beginning to lower expectations for passage of CAFTA.
Social Security is not the administration's only economic initiative that is in trouble in Congress.This administration is loath to admit defeat on any issue, so it is quite a development for officials to intimate that they do not have the votes to pass CAFTA. Perhaps the political momentum is not on their side these days after all...
The current centerpiece of President Bush's trade agenda, the Central American Free Trade Agreement, is facing unusually united Democratic opposition as well as serious problems in overcoming well-entrenched special interest groups like sugar producers and much of the textile industry.
[...]
The administration admits that even in this off-election year, when trade deals have the best chance of passage, it does not have the votes to pass this one. [emphasis added]
Monday, May 09, 2005
Judicial Battle Monday
Although Social Security is apparently in a crisis that gets worse every moment Congress doesn't work on it, the Republican Senate is diverting its attention away from addressing the solvency of the program to deal with other matters, namely ridding their chamber of filibusters on judicial nominations. To start off with, Jim VandeHei and Charles Babington of The Washington Post get to the heart of the issue in the third graf of their A4 story:
This is a battle for the American Democracy here, and anyone who tells you it's anything less is lying. Extremists within the Republican Party are clearly trying to undermine the federal judiciary, and if that doesn't concern you, I'm not sure what would. An independent judiciary is the backbone of our Democracy, and if it goes by the wayside, we will all be in trouble. So regardless of your feelings about the Democrats' dilatory tactics (which have been used by both parties for decades -- just ask Republican Senator Chuck Hagel or the Senate historian), if you believe our Constitution has worked pretty well for the last two hundred years, stand up for it and stop the Republicans from destroying the judicial branch.
The president, who initiated the conflict by renominating judges whom Democrats had blocked during his first term and demanding new votes this year, is essentially guaranteeing a showdown that is as much about the power of the presidency as Democratic obstinacy, according to numerous government scholars. The result could be a more powerful White House, a weakened Congress and the possible erosion, if not end of, the most powerful tool available to the minority party, the filibuster, the scholars said.VandeHei and Babington also deliver with a choice quote from a former conservative Republican Congressman.
"This is being done to . . . help a president achieve what he wants to achieve," said former representative Mickey Edwards (R-Okla.), now a scholar at the Aspen Institute. "It's a total disavowal of the basic framework of the system of government. It's much more efficient [for Bush], but our government was not designed to be efficient."Who are some of these judicial nominees that the President has proposed? The New York Times' Neil A. Lewis and Carl Hulse explain the background of Pricilla Owens as follows:
[...]
Edwards, a former member of the House GOP leadership, said: "Every president grabs for more power. What's different to me is the acquiescence of Congress."
In the nomination of Justice Owen of the Texas Supreme Court, the most controversial issue is her dissents from court rulings that interpret a state law that allows a minor to have an abortion without parental permission in certain circumstances. In one dissent, Justice Owen said the teenager had not demonstrated that she knew that there were religious objections to abortion and that some women who underwent abortions had experienced severe remorse.Despite the obvious extremism of some of President Bush's nominees (it says something when the very conservative Gonzales is willing to call someone in effect a judicial activist on the right), some Senators are still working to render the nuclear option unnecessary. But as The Hill's Geoff Earle reports, the two sides are not even close yet in their negotiations.
Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, a justice on the court at the time, said the dissenters' views were far beyond what the Legislature had enacted and amounted to "an unconscionable act of judicial activism."
Other justices also said Justice Owen and her fellow dissenters were putting their own views ahead of the law.
A long-standing effort to try to resolve the standoff on the judicial filibuster has yet to produce an agreement that negotiators can live with.I'm not certain that Lott or his fellow Republicans understand the concept of negotiations. Each side is supposed to make concessions. So Lott's offer to that the Democrats give in on every judge in return for essentially nothing is somewhat nonsensical. Luckily, Lott is not the only Republican working on this. Earle notes that Judiciary Chairman Arlen Specter took a different tack on the issue.
Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.), who has been holding talks with Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) and other senators on how to avert a showdown on judges, told The Hill, “There’s not a deal.” Lott also said it wouldn’t be accurate to say that a deal is close.
Lott and Nelson have been trading ideas and concrete language that could be the framework of a possible compromise. But substantial differences remain that could be beyond reconciliation. In particular, the two have not figured out a way to deal with seven of President Bush’s circuit-court nominees who have been filibustered.
Under one framework being floated, four of these nominees would go forward and three would not. “How do you pick the three?” Lott asked, arguing that such an arrangement was unfair. He said that any kind of deal that left two female nominees “hanging out there” was unacceptable — a reference to Priscilla Owen and Janice Rogers Brown.
Lott said a better solution was to let all of the judges get an up-or-down vote, adding that there is at least one nominee he would not vote for.
Specter called for conciliatory steps and noted that Democrats were not planning to filibuster the nomination of Thomas Griffith, Bush’s pick for the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.While Specter calls for conciliation, another high ranking Republican moves in the opposite direction. David D. Kirkpatrick has the story for The New York Times:
Representative F. James Sensenbrenner Jr., chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, said Monday that the committee was considering the creation of an "office of inspector general for the federal judiciary" to watch over the courts.The Republican line is clear. Not only do they want to change the rules in the middle of the game by stripping the Senators of their ability to block judicial nominees but they also want to hire Ken Lay-like investigators with unlimited budgets to hound judges that don't toe their extremist line.
[...]
To preserve the independence of the judiciary, Mr. Sensenbrenner said, Congress should not seek "to regulate judicial decision-making through such extreme measures as retroactively removing lifetime appointees through impeachment."
But he continued, "This does not mean that judges should not be punished in some capacity for behavior that does not rise to the level of impeachable conduct."
"The appropriate questions," he added, "are how do we punish and who does the punishing."
This is a battle for the American Democracy here, and anyone who tells you it's anything less is lying. Extremists within the Republican Party are clearly trying to undermine the federal judiciary, and if that doesn't concern you, I'm not sure what would. An independent judiciary is the backbone of our Democracy, and if it goes by the wayside, we will all be in trouble. So regardless of your feelings about the Democrats' dilatory tactics (which have been used by both parties for decades -- just ask Republican Senator Chuck Hagel or the Senate historian), if you believe our Constitution has worked pretty well for the last two hundred years, stand up for it and stop the Republicans from destroying the judicial branch.
Musical Chairs Within Nebraska GOP
There are too many (2) strong Republicans who want to be Governor of Nebraska, so the powers that be want to shuffle one of them aside. CQ Today's Midday Update (free email service) has the story:
According to the Omaha World-Herald, “Some national Republicans would like to convince” Gov. Dave Heineman to forgo a GOP primary contest with Rep. Tom Osborne “and instead challenge” Democratic Sen. Ben Nelson. “ ‘A dream ticket in Nebraska is Osborne for governor and Heineman for U.S. Senate,’ said a national GOP strategist in Washington, speaking on the condition of anonymity.” Heineman isn’t biting, an aide said. “ ‘No one has approached him with what you’re asking, and he said even if they had he would not be interested,’ said Aaron Sanderford, the governor’s spokesman.” [Original Story]Nelson currently faces Republican Don Stenberg, who he beat in 2000. This run should be more difficult for Stenberg, who won't have Bush at the top of the ticket. Heineman might be a stronger opponent for Nelson, but he apparently is not biting at the opportunity. So while Ben Nelson won't get a free pass in 2006 by any means, he has thus far dodged a few bullets.
Republican Congress to Raise Debt Limit by $781 bn
Which party stands for fiscal sanity? Which party believes in balanced budgets? Jonathan Allen's article in this issue of CQ Weekly entitled "Debt Limit Increase Goes Quietly From House to Senate" should give you some idea as to the answer [no link available].
Come election season, when the Democrats shift from their general attacks on Republican excesses to a vision of the future, the Democrats should remind Americans that Bill Clinton balanced the budget whereas George W. Bush and his Republican allies have increased the federal deficit by trillions. It was a potent line of attack in 1992 when Ross Perot received nearly a fifth of the popular vote and it would be a strong claim today, too.
The House sent to the Senate last week legislation that would raise the nation’s statutory debt limit by $781 billion to nearly $9 trillion, and it did so without casting what could have been a politically painful vote.Republicans believe it is OK to increase America's national debt by another three quarters of a trillion dollars while continuing to cut taxes for those worth more than $10,000,000. Clearly, the Republicans want to bankrupt America, and the Democrats should not let them get away with it.
The move was triggered by the adoption in both chambers of the budget resolution (H Con Res 95) the week of April 25. According to House rules, once a final budget is adopted, a separate bill is automatically generated in the House to raise the debt limit by a level specified in the budget resolution and it is “deemed” to have passed the House. The rule was originally named for its creator, former Rep. Richard A. Gephardt, D-Mo. (1977-2005). It has since been renamed the “Hastert rule,” for current Speaker J. Dennis Hastert, R-Ill.
The joint resolution (H J Res 47) was shipped May 2 to the Senate, which was in recess until May 9. But the Senate, in no rush to take up the measure, might opt to try raising the debt limit through a reconciliation bill — as permitted by the budget resolution — which would protect it from filibuster. But any such bill would have to be voted on by the House.
Come election season, when the Democrats shift from their general attacks on Republican excesses to a vision of the future, the Democrats should remind Americans that Bill Clinton balanced the budget whereas George W. Bush and his Republican allies have increased the federal deficit by trillions. It was a potent line of attack in 1992 when Ross Perot received nearly a fifth of the popular vote and it would be a strong claim today, too.
Campaign 2006: Rhode Island Senate Update
Rhode Island's Rockefeller Republican Senator Lincoln Chafee is in serious jeopardy in his bid for reelection. Nevertheless, he still leads his closest Democratic challenger by ten points, according to The Providence Journal:
Chafee's best shot could come if he chooses to forsake both parties and run in the middle as an independent. With an outpouring of Democratic support, while still maintaining the backing of many Republicans, Chafee could ride the center aisle to victory with about 40%, though he is unlikely to take this approach.
The poll showed Chafee with a 10-point lead over his closest Democratic competitor, former Attorney General Sheldon Whitehouse . But Chafee did not break 50 percent in head-to-head matchups with either Whitehouse or Secretary of State Matthew Brown .An incumbent sitting at 41 percent cannot be comfortable. That having been said, I'd like to see the internals to see who the 27% undecided are. If they are disaffected Republicans, Chafee has a slim shot at bringing them back into the fold come election day (that is if he doesn't face a primary challenge or a strong Constitution Party or Libertarian Party challenger on the right). However, if the undecideds are predominantly Democrats, Chafee might be in for a tougher ride as 2006 will likely be a national referendum on conservative Republican policies (which don't sit well in Rhode Island).
If the election were held today, the poll found:
Voters would favor Chafee over Whitehouse, 41 percent to 31 percent, with 27 percent undecided.
They would also favor Chafee over Brown, 44 percent to 27 percent, with 28 percent undecided, and 1 percent refusing an answer to both questions.
Chafee's best shot could come if he chooses to forsake both parties and run in the middle as an independent. With an outpouring of Democratic support, while still maintaining the backing of many Republicans, Chafee could ride the center aisle to victory with about 40%, though he is unlikely to take this approach.
Quote of the Day
"Don't listen to Mary Beth Cahill."Link.
-- John Edwards on the "one lesson he'd learned from the 2004 campaign." Cahill was in the hall at the time.
Sunday, May 08, 2005
Bush's Energy Plan Doesn't Solve Oil Crunch
One of the major tenets of President Bush's energy plan, aside from drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve, is to limit America's dependence on foreign sources of oil by building new nuclear power plants. Can't figure out the logic behind such a move? Perhaps there's a reason why, The New York Times' Matthew L. Wald reports.
President Bush has proposed reducing oil imports by increasing the use of nuclear power, which he said in a recent speech was "one of the most promising sources of energy."As gas prices continue to climb with no peak in sight, Americans' approval of President Bush will continue to fall. The fact is that nuclear power cannot supplant America's rapacious appetite for Middle East oil. Even industry officials tacitly admit this. And as global demand for petroleum increases with the rapid economic growth in India and China, Americans could find themselves paying as much as Europeans for a gallon of gas (i.e. twice as much as they pay now). So it's time for President Bush to get serious about energy reform. Real energy reform, not some giveaway to the nuclear power industry.
There is a problem, though: reactors make electricity, not oil. And oil does not make much electricity.
Nuclear reactors produce about 20 percent of the electricity used in the United States and about 8 percent of the total energy consumed. Oil accounts for 41 percent of energy consumption.
Could a few dozen more reactors, in addition to the 103 running now, cut into oil's share of the energy market?
"Indirectly, but very indirectly," said Lawrence J. Goldstein, president of the Petroleum Industry Research Foundation, a nonprofit group that studies the economics of oil. People who think nuclear power is a way to reduce oil imports are "confusing several issues," he said.
Peter A. Bradford, a former member of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, added, "No one knowledgeable about energy policy would link nuclear power and gasoline prices."
Nuclear Option to Occur within Two Weeks
Charles Babington reports in The Washington Post tomorrow morning that Senate Republicans will likely attempt to get rid of judicial filibusters very soon (over the objections of the Senate parliamentarian).
Senators hope to resolve a major transportation bill and other legislation before the chamber is consumed by what could be a bitterly partisan confrontation. That is why numerous aides say a filibuster showdown is most likely in about two weeks, shortly before the Memorial Day recess. But Frist spokesman Bob Stevenson said Friday the issue "could come up at any time."Not all Republicans are on board yet. Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), for instance, "opposes filibusters of judicial nominees but also opposes an effort to pass a Senate rule that would eliminate them as an option." Similarly, Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE) -- who has not yet staked out an opinion on the issue -- admitted today that the Democrats are doing to Bush exactly what the Republicans did to Clinton, except the GOP blocked more than six times more nominees.
"The Republicans' hands aren't clean on this either. What we did with Bill Clinton's nominees — about 62 of them — we just didn't give them votes in committee or we didn't bring them up."At least some Republicans are willing to be truthful with the American people.
Ethics Troubles Finally Catching up to DeLay
The Washington Post' team of John F. Harris and Mike Allen don't have too much hard news to report on the front page of tomorrow's paper, but they do provide a more than satisfactory look at the plight of Tom DeLay.
Suddenly, the old Texas brio that carried him through years of smaller controversies is on the wane. The leader recognizes -- belatedly, some GOP colleagues say -- that the latest questions about his relationships with lobbyists are a problem threatening his career and the GOP majority he helped to build and sustain since coming to the House 20 years ago. Everywhere there are signs of a politician in retreat.Harris and Allen note that even DeLay's staff have come to the realization that their boss has little shot at victory in the matter (quite a stunning admission, no?).
DeLay's prowess in fundraising, for instance, was always a pillar of his power in the House. Lining up a corporate aircraft to ferry him to an event was usually arranged with a single phone call. These days, Republican officials report that they are having trouble finding available aircraft -- as businesses fret that DeLay may be radioactive.
DeLay, likewise, usually no longer attends joint news conferences of the GOP leadership. His presence, Republicans say, would distract from the party's message about gas prices or other topics of the day.
And through numerous previous controversies, DeLay and his staff always made it a point of pride that once a week when Congress was in session, he would meet reporters in his conference room -- no holds barred. Now, these sessions begin with the leader reciting a preamble about "ground rules" -- all questions not relating to the party's House floor agenda are verboten.
A close adviser, who is involved in damage-control deliberations with DeLay but shared them only on the condition of anonymity, said recent weeks have brought a growing consensus in his inner circle that there is unlikely to be a clear triumph in the Abramoff controversy. [emphasis added]Fred "the beetle" Barnes noted this week that DeLay is in trouble because he can't go anywhere without being hounded by television cameras. Leno jokes about DeLay all of the time, and even Letterman has joined in the act. Perhaps DeLay's advisors are right in their concerns about their boss' lackluster chances at emerging from this scandal unscathed.
Oy.
From the AP:
Three U.S. soldiers were killed in separate attacks Sunday in central Iraq, the military said, as the country's parliament approved six Cabinet nominees.Link.
One soldier was killed and another wounded during an attack on their combat logistics patrol near Samarra, 60 miles north of Baghdad, the military said in a statement. The wounded soldier was evacuated to a military medical facility. Both soldiers were assigned to One Task Force Liberty.
Two soldiers also died during combat operations in an explosion near Khaldiyah, 75 miles west of Baghdad, the military said. The soldiers were assigned to the 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 2nd Marine Division, II Marine Expeditionary Force. The soldiers' names were withheld pending notification of next of kin.
Oregon's Inequitable Education System
In 1990, Oregonians passed Ballot Measure 5, which lowered taxes and "balanced" education spending across the state. While it certainly achieved the former, has it achieved the latter? The Oregonian's Betsy Hammond says no:
Oregon took nearly $200 million last year from taxpayers in Washington and Multnomah counties and shipped it to schools in poorer parts of the state, an analysis of school funding by The Oregonian shows.Is it fair for urban and suburban students to get a substandard education to pay for the expensive education of rural students? Is it fair to gut Portland-area schools to finance Eastern Oregon districts? As a product of Portland Public Schools, where I had great teachers but extremely old textbooks and oversized classes (and the art and music programs were consistently cut), I would wholeheartedly say no to these questions. I have a feeling that many Oregonians agree with me, too. Perhaps it's time to relook at Measure 5 to bring some real equity to the state's education system.The state aims to deliver roughly the same amount of money per student to every district. Its system of funding schools casts state government in the role of Robin Hood, taking money from communities with a hefty tax base to bolster schools elsewhere.
As a result, two-thirds of Oregon students attend districts that spent close to the state average of $7,200 per pupil last year, the newspaper found.
[...]
One-third of Oregon students attend districts that spent well above or below the state average last year. The main exception to equal funding: About 50 small rural districts get hefty subsidies enabling them to spend $10,000 or more per pupil.
Those high per-pupil costs, incurred mainly in rural Eastern Oregon, are paid chiefly by taxpayers in the Portland area, Bend, Corvallis and communities on the north coast.
Quote of the Day
"You can't give up a minority rights tool in the interest of the country, like the filibuster."Link.
-- Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE) on his party's threats to go nuclear in the Senate.
Saturday, May 07, 2005
The Sunday Shows
It looks like Senate Republicans might be going nuclear this week, and though for some reason that doesn't appear to be the topic of any show tomorrow, in case you're still interested...
ABC's "This Week" - Jack Welch, former General Electric CEO; Sens. Carl Levin, D-Mich., and Chuck Hagel, R-Neb.; comedian Jerry Lewis.Link.
CBS' "Face the Nation" - Sens. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., and Joe Biden, D-Del.
NBC's "Meet the Press" - Gary Schroen, former CIA agent; Democratic strategist James Carville; Republican strategist Mary Matalin.
CNN's "Late Edition" - Sens. Pat Roberts, R-Kan., and Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.; Mohamed ElBaradei, director general, International Atomic Energy Agency; former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright; former CIA Deputy Director John McLaughlin; retired Army Gen. George Joulwan, former NATO supreme commander; retired Army Maj. Gen. James A. Marks.
"Fox News Sunday" - Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, R-Calif.; Sens. George Allen, R-Va., and Charles Schumer, D-N.Y.
Who Wears the Pants in the House GOP Caucus?
Anne E. Kornblut of The New York Times has the answer:
Three years later, when Mr. Blunt ran for majority whip, it was widely rumored that Speaker Hastert supported Ray LaHood from his home state delegation of Illinois.Shocking. Just shocking.
But Mr. DeLay backed Mr. Blunt, and Mr. LaHood eventually dropped out of the race, confirming suspicions that it was Mr. DeLay, not Mr. Hastert, who wore the pants among House Republicans. [emphasis added]
Pharmaceuticals Weasel Out of Paying Fair Taxes
The Republican Party has clearly become beholden to the pharmaceutical industry in recent years. In 2003, the GOP passed a trillion dollar giveaway to PhRMA in the form of the poorly-written Medicare Presicription Drug plan. Now, as The New York Times' Alex Berenson reports, it looks like the GOP has enabled these drug companies, who already rake in excorbitant profits, to forgo paying their fair share in taxes.
A new tax break for corporations is allowing the biggest American drug makers to return as much as $75 billion in profits from international havens to the United States while paying a fraction of the normal tax rate.With so much graft going to the the pharmaceutical industry in the form of the so-called "American Jobs Creation Act," it would be safe to assume that these drug companies would be offering more jobs in America, right? Wrong.
The break is part of the American Jobs Creation Act, signed into law by President Bush in October, which allows companies a one-year window to return foreign profits to the United States at a 5.25 percent tax rate, compared with the standard 35 percent rate.
[...]
Already, four of the six drug makers have collectively announced plans to return $56 billion in profits to the United States. Two others say they are still considering but could repatriate an additional $18 billion. Had the six companies faced standard federal taxes on those profits, they would have paid $26 billion to the United States. Instead, they will pay less than $4 billion. Chris Senyek, an accounting analyst at Bear Stearns, said drug companies would probably make up about half of all the money repatriated by publicly traded companies.
Although the act is intended to create jobs, Pfizer said last month that it would cut its annual costs by $4 billion over the next three years. Pfizer, which will repatriate at least $28 billion under the act, did not say how many jobs it planned to eliminate, but analysts expect the company to shrink its work force by thousands of people. Mr. Senyek said the law would create an insignificant number of jobs because companies can easily work around provisions in the law meant to stop them from using the money for dividends to shareholders rather than new hiring.Is it right for corporations making billions of dollars to pay only 5.25% in taxes when even the poorest Americans pay nearly twice that in federal income taxes (to say nothing of state and local taxes)? Is it right for the Republican Party to reward their big donors with massive pork-barrel spending and allow them to pay virtually nothing in taxes? ...? ...?
Bill O'Reilly's Ratings Plummet
Poor Bill. He's lost about one third of his audience in the last seven months, according to TVNEWSER:
In response to this morning's post about Paula Zahn's ratings, a CNN insider says: "FNC should be less concerned with Zahn's performance and more concerned with the fact that O'Reilly continues to hemorrhage viewers month-over-month since October." Here are the monthly averages:That's rough.
October: 3,166,000 / November: 3,080,000 / December: 2,610,000 / January: 2,478,000 / February: 2,391,000 / March: 2,320,000 / April: 2,178,000 / May-to-date: 2,096,000
Sen. Allen Hammered for Ties to Pat Robertson
Senator George Allen (R-VA), who is considered by GOP insiders to be the number one frontrunner for the 2008 Republican nomination, is coming under some heat for his close ties to uber-Evangelist Pat Robertson. Forward's E.J. Kessler has the story:
Even as a noted political tip sheet identified Senator George Allen as the GOP presidential frontrunner for 2008, a Jewish group was taking a swipe at the Virginia Republican for agreeing to speak this weekend at the Rev. Pat Robertson's Regent University in Virginia Beach.Will Allen back down from Robertson's outrageous comments? Most likely not. However, it's good to see the NJDC keeping Allen's feet to the fire this early in the process, because if he is to run in 2008, he should be held accountable for his close ties to the radical fringe.
The National Jewish Democratic Council called on Allen, who emerged as the frontrunner in The Hotline's weekly "insider's poll," to distance himself from remarks made by Robertson on May 1 on ABC's "This Week With George Stephanopoulos." Robertson, a prominent Christian conservative who ran for president in 1988, told ABC he stood by his earlier claim that an "out-of-control judiciary" poses "the most serious threat" in the country's history, greater than the one posed by Al Qaeda today or by Nazi Germany more than half a century ago.
Robertson's remarks brought an immediate condemnation from Democrats, including NJDC Executive Director Ira Forman, who also attempted to turn up the heat on Allen.
Forman stated in a press release, "George Allen has got to decide before he delivers the keynote address at Pat Robertson's college: Does he agree with Robertson's offensive and ridiculous claim that America's judges pose a greater threat than the terrorists who murdered thousands of Americans on American soil?" He added, "The time has finally come for top Republicans like Allen to stop beating a path to the doors of the radical conservatives like Robertson who engage in the most odious and dangerous rhetoric."
Bush Continues to Malign FDR's Legacy
It is not enough for George W. Bush to work tirelessly to phase out Franklin Delano Roosevelt's great domestic legacy, Social Security. Now, the President is also maligning FDR's great gift to humanity: leading the war against the Nazis at all costs -- even aligning with Stalin. The AP's Terence Hunt has the story:
Bush's comments today are completely ahistorical and are above all slander against one of the greatest Americans. Instead of selling out FDR's great legacy to pander to Putin, perhaps Bush should stand firm against Russia's regression away from Democracy.
Second-guessing Franklin D. Roosevelt, President Bush said Saturday the United States played a role in Europe's painful division after World War II — a decision that helped cause "one of the greatest wrongs of history" when the Soviet Union imposed its harsh rule across Central and Eastern Europe.I'm not entirely sure what Bush is suggesting Roosevelt should have done in 1945. Perhaps he believes America should have immediately fought a groud war against the Soviet Union in Central Europe and Japan, maybe even resort to nuclear arms to stop Russian domination of Eastern Europe. Does Bush truly believe the American people would have supported the loss of millions more American soldiers to fight a country that at that time was our ally?
Bush said the lessons of the past will not be forgotten as the United States tries to spread freedom in the Middle East.
"We will not repeat the mistakes of other generations, appeasing or excusing tyranny, and sacrificing freedom in the vain pursuit of stability," the president said. "We have learned our lesson; no one's liberty is expendable. In the long run, our security and true stability depend on the freedom of others."
Bush singled out the 1945 Yalta agreement signed by Roosevelt in a speech opening a four-day trip focused on Monday's celebration in Moscow of the 60th anniversary of Nazi Germany's defeat.
Bush's comments today are completely ahistorical and are above all slander against one of the greatest Americans. Instead of selling out FDR's great legacy to pander to Putin, perhaps Bush should stand firm against Russia's regression away from Democracy.
Friday, May 06, 2005
Interview with former Sen. Slade Gorton
Over the past week, I have corresponded with former Senator Slade Gorton (R-WA) in a series of emails. After serving in the Washington state legislature from 1959 to 1969, Gorton was elected Attorney General, a position he would hold for twelve years. In 1980, Gorton defeated incumbent Democratic Senator Warren Magnuson. After losing his seat in 1986, he was later elected to two more terms, in 1988 and 1994. After leaving the Senate in 2001, Gorton served on the National Commission on Federal Election Reform and the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, where he and his fellow commissioners were charged with preparing "a full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the" September 11, 2001 attacks.
Jonathan Singer: The State Department recently found that terrorist incidents in the world tripled last year to 655 serious attacks. USA Today reports that Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton are concerned that the nation isn't moving quickly enough to protect against terrorism. Are we getting safer or lest safe? What more can be done?
Senator Slade Gorton: We have come a long way; remember that there have been no terrorist incidents in the US since 9/11. Still, reforms in the bureaucracy are slow, and Congress has not reformed its own oversight structure at all. The Markle Foundation has done detailed work on this subject.
Singer: The President has wrapped up the first stage of his sixty day Social Security tour, yet still no Senate Democrat has signed on to personal accounts. What more should the President be doing? Will he be able to succeed?
Gorton: Democrats seem adamantly opposed to any Social Security reform. Presidential success is possible in the House, highly unlikely in the Senate.
Singer: By the forecasts of the SSA, the Social Security trust fund will run out in 2041, but the Medicare trust fund will run out by the end of the next decade. Is Congress dealing with the right issue right now?
Gorton: Medicare is an even greater threat to our fiscal situation, but I see no present willingness to take it on.
Singer: Tax reform is another ticket in the President's domestic platform. You were in the Senate during the passage of the last major tax reform in 1986, which flattened the tax rates and got rid of a number of loopholes. Should Congress follow the model of 1986? What lessons can be taken from that piece of legislation?
Gorton: The President's tax reform task force will report soon; there is, I hope, a somewhat greater chance of at least some changes for the better there, changes that will at least modestly simplify and make more fair what is now a real mess.
Singer: The Senate seems primed to invoke the nuclear or constitutional option. As someone who spent time in the Senate as both a member of the majority and the minority, what's your feeling on the possible move?
Gorton: I regret the necessity of changing Senate rules on extended debate. I hope for a compromise that will retain those rights and allow votes on all Presidential nominees. But in the absence of such an agreement, it would be disastrous to change the processes of two hundred years and begin a system in which confirmation requires sixty votes. The "nuclear option" is a bad idea, but the present position of the Democrats is far worse.
Bush Still Falling in Latest Polling
A new wave of public polling is becoming available for the first time in a few weeks and none of it bodes too well for the President. The AP's Will Lester writes up the latest Ipsos poll as follows:
In other polling news, Marc Humbert reports for the AP that there is new polling available on the race for President 2008. He writes,
President Bush is pushing for dramatic changes to the nation's policy on Social Security at a time the public is grouchy about the nation's direction, skeptical about his proposed solutions and sharply divided along partisan lines, an AP-Ipsos poll found.Further results from the poll can be found here. At first glance, though, it's clear that the President is not doing an adequate job of selling his partial privatization scheme, as a nonpartisan majority of Americans all oppose the plan. What's more, a 47% approval across the board is not high enough to goad Congress into action on the issue either. The American people now know enough about the Bush plan to reject it, so it's not clear to me why the President is still wasting taxpayer money trying to sell privatization...
[...]
Six in 10 disapprove of the president's handling of Social Security after Bush spent the last two months campaigning across the nation for the changes.
[...]
The poll found 56 percent of respondents are not willing to give up some promised benefits, while 40 percent say they are. Majorities of Democrats, Republicans and independents are opposed to that proposal.
[...]
Bush's job approval is at 47 percent with 51 percent disapproving, and his approval on areas like handling Iraq, the economy and assorted domestic issues is in the low 40s.
In other polling news, Marc Humbert reports for the AP that there is new polling available on the race for President 2008. He writes,
While Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton and Republican Rudolph Giuliani are their party's top picks for the 2008 presidential nominations, both remain highly polarizing figures, according to a national poll released Friday.
Forty percent of Democrats polled said they favored Clinton, the New York senator, for the party's nomination while 18 percent opted for Democratic Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, the loser of the 2004 presidential race.
Fourteen percent wanted former Sen. John Edwards, Kerry's 2004 running mate, according to the Marist College Institute for Public Opinion.
Giuliani, the former New York City mayor, was favored by 25 percent of Republican voters for the 2008 GOP