North Coast Online

Much Ado About Nothing

George Will highlights a couple days of our do-nothing Congress.

So the Senate took Friday off, wasted Monday in the predictable futility of failing to pass a nonbinding nullity (a resolution expressing constitutionally irrelevant lack of confidence in the attorney general), then debated lowering gasoline prices - or cooling the planet; or something - by spending taxpayers' money to raise food prices. It took up legislation to quintuple the mandated use of mostly corn-based ethanol, which already has increased Americans' food bills $14 billion in the last 12 months. For such silliness, Reid scuttled the bipartisan attempt to improve the eminently improvable immigration status quo.

Not that a Congress which does nothing bothers me particularly.

Everything Would Be Fine If 'We' Were In Charge

Coyote Blog comments on the phenomenon whereby politicians of one party or the other create an institution that seems wonderful to them -- until the other party gains control.

I am reminded of all this because the technocrats that built our regulatory state are starting to see the danger of what they created. A public school system was great as long as it was teaching the right things and its indoctrinational excesses were in a leftish direction. Now, however, we can see the panic.  The left is freaked that some red state school districts may start teaching creationism or intelligent design.  And you can hear the lament - how did we let Bush and these conservative idiots take control of the beautiful machine we built?  My answer is that you shouldn't have built the machine in the first place - it always falls into the wrong hands.  Maybe its time for me to again invite the left to reconsider school choice.

Read the whole thing. He also mentions the FDA decision to disallow over-the-counter sales of the morning-after pill.  The lust for power is too great to convince modern politicians that they'd be better off removing control from these institutions rather than constantly expanding them.

Thank You, Sir. May I Have Another?

Don Boudreaux has a letter in USAToday.

USA TODAY reader Otis Howard complains that "senators who got millions of dollars in contributions from the pharmaceutical companies over the years should be ashamed of themselves" ("Drug bill sham," Letters, Wednesday).

Alas, blaming politicians for taking campaign contributions from parties affected by legislation is akin to blaming polar bears for eating seals. It's in the nature of both beasts to behave in these ways.

Truly shameful people are those who condone open-ended regulation by government. Officials possessing the power to destroy billions of dollars of wealth with the strokes of their pens will inevitably be feted, seduced, bribed and otherwise lobbied by those whose wealth is at stake. Persons who expect otherwise should be ashamed of themselves.

Limiting the power of the politicians would be the surest and most effective means of campaign finance reform.  Less reason for the rest of us to have to beg to be left alone.

Alas, blaming politicians for taking campaign contributions from parties affected by legislation is akin to blaming polar bears for eating seals. It's in the nature of both beasts to behave in these ways.

Truly shameful people are those who condone open-ended regulation by government. Officials possessing the power to destroy billions of dollars of wealth with the strokes of their pens will inevitably be feted, seduced, bribed and otherwise lobbied by those whose wealth is at stake. Persons who expect otherwise should be ashamed of themselves.

Corporate Welfare

Government Industrial Development Agencies (IDA's) waste a lot of money.

MONEY doesn't grow on trees, but that hasn't stopped Dollar Tree Stores from generating forests of revenue. In 2006, sales at the retail chain, where every item costs a buck, were $4 billion. That's up 17 percent from the year before. The company now operates more than 3,200 stores around the country, as compared with just over 2,900 a year ago--an increase of more than one per weekday last year.

So this capitalist success story is an obvious candidate for a taxpayer subsidy, right?

That's what Virginia thinks. On February 12, Democratic governor Tim Kaine announced his plan to award $200,000 in state money to Dollar Tree for an expansion of its corporate headquarters in Chesapeake. The cash comes out of something called the Governor's Opportunity Fund, which spends more than $15 million per year on companies that seek financial help. "We view it as a deal-closing fund," says Christie Miller of the Virginia Economic Development Partnership, a state agency. "It's for attracting business to Virginia and keeping it here, too."

Giveaways to flourishing companies may not sound like a discount-store bargain for taxpayers, but they're standard operating procedure just about everywhere. Even local governments are getting in the act: The city of Chesapeake agreed to inject $200,000 of its own money into Dollar Tree's project. Around the country, this marriage of Big Government and Big Business carries a price tag of $50 billion each year, according to an estimate by Alan Peters and Peter Fisher of the University of Iowa. For the most part, however, these so-called business incentives "don't accomplish much of anything," says Peters.

That's not entirely true. They can accomplish quite a bit for politicians such as Kaine, who wasted no time in issuing a boastful press release about his Dollar Tree deal: "Governor Kaine Announces 100 New Jobs for Chesapeake." Yet these little exercises in industrial policy rarely drive economic growth. And sometimes they aren't so little: Last summer, then-governor George Pataki of New York, a Republican, approved a $1.2 billion package of grants and tax reductions for AMD to build a microchip factory in Saratoga County. The project is supposed to create 1,200 jobs, which works out to a price of $1 million apiece for New York taxpayers--a deal that might make even George Steinbrenner blush.

Perhaps these corporate-welfare schemes would be worth it if they created more jobs, helped depressed areas, or expanded a region's tax base. Evidence suggests that they don't accomplish any of these goals. "After decades of policy experimentation and literally hundreds of scholarly studies, none of these claims is clearly substantiated," wrote Peters and Fisher in their exhaustive analysis. "Indeed ... there is a good chance that all of these claims are false."

IDA's are good for generating favorable headlines for politicians.

The Race

Tony Blankley looks at the front runners for upcoming presidential race and is not reassured.

If it is Rudy and Hillary, and now Bloomberg, we could be looking at a three-way race between three moderately liberal to leftist New Yorkers running for president in a right-of-center country with no even moderately conservative candidate. And should Sen. Obama surprisingly get the Democratic nomination, then we would substitute for the secret leftist publicly centrist Hillary Milhous, a completely inexperienced African-American possibly former Muslim, partially Indonesian-raised, Harvard-trained Kennedyesque candidate.

Therein, lies the three-party freak show that is likely to produce the next president of the United States during this early period of the Age of Islamist Terror in which we live. And yet, we live in hope that ours is a providentially guided country.

Beating A Dead Gonzales

Well, well, well.  After weeks of hemming and hawing, feigning of confusion and general indignation the Buffalo News editorial board has come out with it -- the Bush administration (maybe) fired those U.S. attorneys just because they wanted to help black people.

As members of Congress, the press and just plain Americans are left to fill in the gaps left by Gonzales’ incredible cluelessness, a chilling theory becomes more and more difficult to resist. And that is the concern that at least some of the fired prosecutors were let go because they refused to lower the boom on those guilty of the crime that’s come to be known as VWB — Voting While Black.

Well, welcome to reality -- where the hell have you been, anyway? 

The Bush administration wanted to focus its investigations of voting irregularities on outright fraud and not on what it (and those of us who voted for it) considered to be spurious allegations of attempts to suppress black voter turnout.   But that's a topic near and dear to Democrats' hearts especially since the blue part of Florida proved unable to cast valid ballots for Al Gore lo, those many years ago, so it's not terribly surprising that they'd want to pursue it.

And interestingly enough, the alleged disenfranchisement of black voters always seems to involve Republicans while the type of voter fraud that interests Republicans (usually involving inappropriate bribes or unexplainable extensions of polling hours) tends to be concentrated in large cities run by Democrats.  Is it politics?  Yes, of course it is, by definition.

The firings of the U.S. attorneys were political.  Everyone knows it including the congressional Democrats.  There's nothing illegal or unconstitutional about it and certainly nothing new.  No one expects more or less.  The editorial board should either take a pill or graduate from college and grow up.  One grows weary from the drama.

Must Be Team Player

Sam Brownback learns that sports analogies in politics, aside from being clichéd, are often fraught with danger.

Political Pandering -- Y'all

Arnold Kling on political pandering.

Russ Roberts, in this speech, offers a theory of political pandering. He suggests that politicians know that they are exaggerating problems, because the solutions they offer are so pathetic. If you really thought that all the gains in the economy over the past 30 years had gone to the top 1 percent, Roberts says, then you would advocate something more radical than an increase in the minimum wage or a way to make it easier for workers to form unions.

Or easier rural access to high-speed Internet.

Campaign Finance Deform

Don Boudreaux explains why campaign finance reform is so foolish in a letter to USAToday.

To the Editor:

Drummond Drew writes that "We need to find a way to get money out of politics" (Letters, April 26).  He mistakenly supposes that carts push horses. Money is in politics only because politicians confiscate and control so much of our money.

The only way to free politics from the influence of money is to free our money from the influence of politics.

Sincerely,

Donald J. Boudreaux

He's correct, of course.  We have every right to support candidates who will reflect our own positions on the matters they will debate and pass laws on.  It's our lives and livelihoods they're potentially harming or helping after all.  But campaign finance reform has turned into little more than protecting incumbents against bad publicity from constituents opposed to them.

Have you noticed that campaign finance reform is a lot like lobbyist reform?  It's supposed to help us, but never seems to. When politicians set about to regulate lobbyists, they inevitably impose all sorts of rules on -- the lobbyists!   The lobbyists cannot take a Congressman to dinner and the lobbyists must not give him tickets to a football game.  The lobbyists may not fly her to the Bahamas and the lobbyists dare not . . . you get the idea.

Well, why not just create a rule that members of Congress can't accept anything of monetary value from a lobbyist or they'll be punished?  The reason that John McCain doesn't stand a chance in hell of getting the Republican nomination is his benighted campaign finance reform bill.  It's well-recognized now that it didn't deprive political candidates of a single dime -- it just limited the rights of the rest of us to support whom we wish, when we wish and how we wish without hiring a lawyer and an accountant to do it.

Now Governor Spitzer's proposing campaign finance reform for New York.  Well, when his proposal comes out, take some time and read it.  Decide for yourself whether it will limit the politicians' access to money or just the New York electorate's ability to influence elections.  I'll bet on the latter.

"Regionalism" Is Overrated

Thoughts on regionalism and planning from Pennsylvania.

Bigger government isn't necessarily better government.

For decades, Lehigh Valley regionalists have been promoting their agenda as the solution to our ills. Generally good intentioned people, regionalists look to create valleywide government efficiencies. However, some of them have morphed this idea into an anti-suburban, pro-city agenda.

While we all want to see the Valley cities prosper, pitting urban vs. suburban residents in the regionalism debate is not the way to go. Recently, it was reported that an Allentown official wished the city's crime out to suburbia. This isn't helpful or acceptable as a way of promoting Valley regionalism.

Many regionalists point to a 2003 Brookings Report study as their creed. The report, whose basic premise is that bigger centralized government is better government, blames the problems of the cities on too much suburban growth and too much local control.

But many would argue the opposite, that smaller government is more efficient and responsive to resident needs.

Instead of municipal regionalization, let's first look at better inter-municipal cooperation.

Treating suburbanization as a "problem" that must be fixed isn't particularly constructive.

Gonzales

When Alberto Gonzales's former chief of staff testified last week the Democrats and the media (but I repeat myself) made a big deal over his statement that Gonzales had indeed been involved in U.S. attorney firings -- oddly enough it completely ignored the rest of his testimony.

When this non-scandal broke at the beginning of March, the accusation by some was that Gonzales was guilty of the political equivalent of a felony -- canning federal prosecutors to thwart prosecutions that could have political consequences, and then trying to hide it by lying.

Never happened, Gonzales' ex-chief of staff told the Senate Judiciary Committee last week. When Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., asked D. Kyle Sampson if he was "prepared to swear under oath that no U.S. attorney was asked to resign because the U.S. attorney was pursuing an investigation ... or failing to undertake a prosecution," Sampson answered yes. Later, in response to questioning from Sen. Herb Kohl, D-Wis., Sampson was even more explicit that "no U.S. attorney was asked to resign for the purpose of influencing a particular case for a political reason."

Hence the predicament facing Senate Democrats: They don't want to take Sampson's word that the firings of the U.S. attorneys were justified, and yet they insist that Sampson is credible when he says he doesn't "think the attorney general's statement that he was not involved in any discussions about U.S. attorney removals is accurate."

Whereas Gonzales is accused of having selective memory, Democrats want to attach to Sampson something akin to selective believability.

No one is claiming Gonzales did anything illegal, the worst they can come up with is that he's acting as if he did.  And some Republicans are calling for his resignation because they're embarrassed that through his bumbling responses he's attracted the wrath of the Democrats -- which in their eyes is an inexcusable sin.  Mustn't make the Dems unhappy after all, it causes all sorts of grief.

Inexperienced? Oh, Really

Slate's John Dickerson acts all perplexed that commonsensical Republicans could get excited about a Fred Thompson candidacy.

Authenticity and star power conjure visions of Ronald Reagan. But Reagan had genuine experience running something—namely the state of California. Thompson's résumé is thin—an undistinguished eight years in the Senate, an acting career, and a youthful turn as co-counsel in the Watergate hearings. Supporters try to pump up his résumé by boasting that he shepherded John Roberts through his confirmation hearings—but that was the legal equivalent of walking Michael Jordan onto the court.

Experience? Two terms in the Senate plus time as counsel in the Watergate hearings?  Granted, he doesn't have the of the other three front-running Republicans, but it sure beats Hillary's one Senate term and Obama's part of one. No one seems the least bit perplexed about how little those two bring to the table in that department.

More Of Those Government Benefits Are On The Way

Demolition will begin soon for the new federal courthouse on Niagara Square.  And with each milestone in the building's construction -- right up to the ribbon-cutting -- some bureaucrat or some politician will be obliged to say just what this GSA official said.

“This more than $100 million investment is the largest GSA project in Buffalo’s history, and we are pleased that, as this project moves forward, it will generate many additional benefits for the city, local businesses, and its people,” said Emily Baker, GSA regional administrator.

And every time that's uttered, a smart reporter might ask, "Apart from the construction jobs, can you name those benefits, please -- can you name one?"

More On Those Poverty-Stricken Judges

Another call to remain calm in the face of demands to raise judges' salaries.

I don’t see much value in begrudging anyone fair compensation and raises as appropriate and affordable, even when paid by taxpayers. But presumably these talented attorneys/judges have already earned excellent compensation and are now in a position to give back to their community. What a concept: service over self.

Government work was never intended as a substitute for a private career.  That we've made it so has created a lot of our problems.

No, Really -- This Time It Really Is A Dagger

Murray Light's op-ed today quotes Senator Schumer on Bush's proposed health care cuts.

Schumer, never bashful in his comments, has categorized the president's proposals as "a dagger in the heart of New York health care."

You may not have been keeping track but "dagger in the heart" is one of Schumer's favorite expressions.  In fact, he's used the term so often that last October James Taranto provided a list of the Senator's "dagger to the heart" usages as of that date.

• " I have sat with people who lived by the American dream. They saved their $25 a week for five or ten years, a subway motorman or a clerk in a supermarket. We told them ''play by the rules,' and finally that great day came when they could have their little piece of the rock, a home. And in swoops a predatory lender, and two years later, they have no money, no home, no dreams. That is a dagger in the heart, not only of that family, but to all of us who believe in the American dream for everybody."--testifying before the House Banking Committee, May 24, 2000
• "Until this proposal [McCain-Feingold] becomes law, organized crime, drug lords, and other various bottom crawlers in society unknown to any of us could influence the political process by contributing money and running ads that we all know are, for all practical purposes, political ads. To have no disclosure, let alone no limits, on these kinds of activities puts a dagger in the heart of democracy. Sunlight is the disinfectant we need. Sunlight is the disinfectant provided by this provision."--on the Senate floor, June 28, 2000
• "Mr. President, let me make it clear that without the Schumer amendment this [bankruptcy] bill does not help women. It would be the leading dagger in keeping a woman's right to choose."--on the Senate floor, Dec. 5, 2000
• "You may recall that nearly 20 years ago, another president proposed eliminating this [federal income tax] deduction [for state and local taxes]. Well, let me tell you straight out, even though it would have repercussions across the nation, this is a dagger aimed right at the heart of New York."--Schumer press release, Jan. 19, 2005 (link in Word form)
• "Overall as bad as having, say, that person on the bench is, it would have been worse to have the nuclear option, which would have really just brought the Senate to a grinding halt and been a dagger really right at the heart of what this republic is all about."--on "NewsHour With Jim Lehrer," May 24, 2005
• "Schumer, New York's senior senator . . ., heralded [Tom] Daschle's efforts [to kill the Federal Marriage Amendment], saying that he not only defeated the amendment but 'put a dagger through its heart.' "--Gay City News, June 16, 2005
• "Democratic Senators who had defended [Dick] Durbin [who likened U.S. servicemen to Nazis] immediately attacked [Karl] Rove [for saying Dems were soft on terror]. Senator Schumer raced to the microphones to proclaim that Rove's remarks were "not only a slap at New York and all those who suffered. It's a dagger to the heart of what America is all about."--blogger Jack Mercer, June 24, 2005

Now we can add to the list.

Perspective

Powerline defends Hillary's right to have been an idiot in college as were we all and questions Rudy's assertion that he saved New York single-handedly.  I've been leaning toward Rudy lately but ya gotta love this quote.

George Will introducing Rudy to the audience gave him credit for everything good that had happened in New York over the last 15 years. Someone once said that if you told Rudy Giuliani about a beautiful morning sunrise, he would reply "Thank you very much.

As someone once said, "heh."

Feet Of Clay

I thought that courthouse announcement yesterday sort of came out of nowhere.

Odd Couple

Quite the hagiographic little portrait of two "reform-minded" governors in today's Buffalo News.

Gov. Eliot L. Spitzer entered office two months ago vowing to reform a broken New York State government - which is just what California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger promised when he left Hollywood for Sacramento more than three years ago.

Did you ever think you'd read the words "Schwarzenegger" and "Spitzer" in the same sentence.  Something tells me, though, that if the Governator had stuck true to his original conservative reforms we probably wouldn't be reading this article.  But he's swung left, of course, and that made all the difference.

Last year, Schwarzenegger and the legislators agreed on a landmark plan to cut the state's greenhouse gas emissions. This year, they plan to try to come up with a health care reform plan that will give everyone in the state insurance coverage.

Political observers are generally impressed.

This one isn't.  Schwarzeneggar saw his political career coming to a swift end and decided to move to the left to prop it up.  Anyone can do that.  Pataki hung on in Democrat-heaven for 12 years by abandoning his base -- and ruined his party in the process.  Not exactly what I'd call a profile in courage.

I know, I know.  It only stands to reason that Democrats would be impressed by an ostensible conservative who's embraced their favorite projects.  Hell, I think Zell Miller's a hero for breaking with the Dems -- though I'm reasonably sure that Jerry Zremski wouldn't write an article praising him for  it. 

Skin Of His Teeth

A Mitt Report (all things Romney) exclusive.

Former Governor Mitt Romney Involved In An Automobile Accident

While in Washington DC today, Former Governor Mitt Romney was involved in an automobile accident. After meeting with U2 lead singer Bono, CNN and ABC News, the rented black Dodge Durango carrying the governor backed into a parked car. Initial reports from the scene indicate that no one was hurt. No word yet on the extent of the damage to either cars.

OK, he met with Bono, CNN and ABC News in one morning?  Sheesh, with all that bad karma he's damned lucky he didn't get killed.  What kind of press agent has he got anyway?

Bluff-Calling

David Shribman has discerned a brilliant strategy on the part of President Bush.  He's confronting the Democrats by suggesting that government entitlements for the rich be reduced while leaving them their tax breaks.  This collides nicely with the Democrats' preference for raising their taxes but leaving them their government-provided goodies. 

Excellent detective job -- I haven't read it anywhere else.  But he's right.

Feingold's Hearing

Senator Feingold is exposing the hypocrisy of his anti-war colleagues.

Sen. Russ Feingold held a hearing this week on Congress's constitutional power to shut off funds for the Iraq war, and followed it up a day later with legislation that would do just that. The Wisconsin pacifist might not understand the importance of winning in Iraq--or the cost of losing--but at least there's an element of principle to his actions. He's opposed the war from the start and his proposal to cut off money after six months would certainly end it. It also happens to be Congress's one legitimate means of stopping a war.

Mr. Feingold's reward for honesty was to preside over what might have been the least-attended hearing so far in the Iraq debate. And those of his Senate colleagues who did bother to show up looked like they couldn't wait to hit an exit door. "If Congress doesn't stop this war, it's not because it doesn't have the power. It's because it doesn't have the will," declared Mr. Feingold. Ted Kennedy--one of two Democrats who put in an appearance--could be seen shifting uncomfortably in his seat.

That's because Sen. Feingold is coming uncomfortably close to unmasking the political charade playing on the Senate stage. Critics of President Bush want an unhappy public to see them taking action on the war. So we have the Biden-Warner compromise resolution condemning the plan to increase the forces. There is also talk of capping troops, of requiring redeployments to Afghanistan, of benchmarks and progress reports.

I happen to disagree with Feingold.  I think that cutting off funding for the Iraq War would be a disaster.  But at least he's honest while the rest of the lot whimper and preen and end up doing nothing but projecting the image of a dithering Congress.

Rodin Woud Be Hard-Pressed To Come Up With A Sculpture For This Lot

Don Boudreaux's speculations on the nature of modern politicians strike me as believable.

Call me cynical but I doubt that most politicians who promise to solve (real and imaginary) problems by passing statutes truly believe their own rhetoric. They might not disbelieve what they say, but I'm convinced that politicians don't ponder the complexities of reality deeply enough to convince themselves of the truth of what they proclaim. They say what they say and promise what they promise chiefly as a means of ascending to power and glory.

I suspect that people self-select into politics because they have an unusually large lust for being in the limelight and an unusually small concern for the ethics of the actions they must take to get there. And because enough voters stand ready to blame their own (real and imaginary) misfortunes on the evil doings of "the rich" or "the corporate elite," unprincipled power-seekers are eager to ride this ignorance into office.

What else could be said about some of our own politicians who would legislate our diets and show more concern for allegedly mistreated elephants than they do the chronic unemployment and resultant poverty of their own constituents?  Deep thinking doesn't appear to play much of a role. 

Let The Whitewash Begin

Clinton radiates charm in opening campaign in Iowa

Sorry, but I'd have to see it to believe it.

Obama Exposed!!

A couple weeks ago Insight Magazine printed an article claiming some facts about Barack Obama's life which turned out to false.  Today, though, the London Times weighs in with a much less sensational biography.  Though he never attended a madrassa, Obama's life has been, nonetheless, more, um, exotic than any other American presidential candidate's.

And They're Off!

Roger L. Simon has some thoughts on the just-aborning presidential race.  Yes, it starts too early but given the nature of the office, jumping through hoops for a year or so is only necessary tempering for our eager hopefuls.

As I wrote earlier, the modern presidency has turned into a pressure cooker almost beyond belief. The person who accedes to that semi-throne (heaven help him or her) had better be able to take it. Whoever they are, if they make it through two terms, the electorate is more than likely to be disgusted with them. A fair number were disgusted with Clinton, an even greater number with Bush. Some of this has to do with their policies and proclivities, but just as much may have to do with familiarity breeding the proverbial contempt.

So someone like Obama, an unknown only a few months ago, ought to be forced through more than a few hoops. And so should Hillary, even though we have seen her ability to stand by her man to a degree it is almost hard to fathom. A steel magnolia indeed, even if not strictly fro the South.

In addition to which he alludes to Schwarzeneggar's intentions to move the California primary up to February, which would, in effect, negate all that follow.  An interesting year in store, no doubt.

The Curse Of The Senate

On the presidential candidacies of Obama, Clinton, Brownback, McCain, et. al., we must remember one thing, SENATORS ALMOST NEVER WIN!  It's ironic, actually.  The U.S. Senate is surely the second most difficult office to win in the country.  So it would only stand to reason that the people with the extremely large egos and confidence required to get there would naturally one day want to go for the big one, the presidency.

But it just doesn't seem to work. Only two sitting U.S. Senators have ever been elected president: Warren Harding and John Kennedy -- and he almost a half-century ago.  13 other presidents had once served in the Senate but were elected state governor, vice-president or left government service entirely before running for the presidency, itself.  And the reason's really not that hard to figure out.

A senator doesn't get much chance to lead.  He may become known for championing certain issues, and he certainly figures amongst a powerful elite -- but in the end he's just one of 100 other senators and it's hard to compete against a state governor or a war hero (Eisenhower) who's actually led.  And what's perhaps really unfair for those senators is that their voting records usually prove to be political minefields. 

It isn't hard, for example, to imagine that the very conservative Senator Brownback, while perhaps proudly voting to increase funding for American troops abroad, might also have inadvertently approved some rider tacked on by Ted Kennedy that provided U.S. funding for condoms to 10 year olds in the Congo.  I made that up, but something similar has surely happened during his career and you can be sure his opponents will find it out.

Conversely, Hillary, while supporting abortion rights could just as easily have approved federally-funded Bibles to Muslims in Bosnia.  And we certainly remember, "I voted for it before I voted against it."  As I say, it isn't fair.  At any rate, it's quite interesting to see the number of U.S. Senators still willing to throw their hats in the ring this year and tempt history.

Think of the senators who've run for the presidency just since World War II:

John Kerry, Bob Dole, Walter Mondale, George McGovern, Barry Goldwater and Adlai Stevenson. Good men all and brilliant some, but the curse of the Senate could not be overcome.

At this point in the race, senators have the name recognition to garner plenty of media coverage, but they're in for a long, hard slog and I'd bet my federally-controlled-campaign-finance-money on some still-obscure state governors (or less obscure NYC mayor) to end up winning both parties' nominations.  But, in the meantime let Obamarama roll and McCain-mania prevail.

Intended Consequences

Catch this little clause in the ballyhooed Democrat initiative to "reform" lobbying.

Much of the bill's wording is obtuse. But one section says that certain political bloggers who make or spend $25,000 per quarter and who encourage readers to contact their elected representatives would be forced to register as lobbyists--or face up to 10 years in prison.

"You have a First Amendment right to contact your congressperson and you have a First Amendment right to tell others to do so," said Marv Johnson, legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union. "Now they're saying you have to report to the federal government if you're going to engage in this First Amendment-protected activity."

The bill's supporters will claim that, oh no, this doesn't target average bloggers, it's only meant to curb the ones intentionally trying to influence legislation.  Doesn't matter.  It's there in black and white.

Tell me why Congress can't simply forbid itself to accept gifts and leave the rest of us out of their "reform?"

Sweet Deal

The Congressional Democrats are vowing to reduce "subsidies" to oil companies (read: get more money from them in taxes) in an effort to encourage alternative sources of energy.  It's all a crock of course, it they were really interested in helping our energy independence, they'd target "big sugar."

Unfortunately, the ethanol produced in the U.S. comes from a less-than-ideal source: corn. Corn ethanol’s “net energy balance”—the amount of energy it yields in proportion to how much energy goes into its production—is significantly lower than that of other alternatives, and modern corn farming isn’t easy on the land [it's also not easy on the fish down in the Gulf of Mexico who are killed by fertilizer runoff. -ed.]. By contrast, ethanol distilled from sugarcane is much cheaper to produce and generates far more energy per unit of input—eight times more, by most estimates—than corn does. In the nineteen-seventies, Brazil embarked on a program to substitute sugar ethanol for oil. Today, every gallon of gas in Brazil is blended with at least twenty per cent of ethanol, and many cars run on ethanol alone, at half the price of gasoline.

What’s stopping the U.S. from doing the same? In a word, politics. The favors granted to the sugar industry keep the price of domestic sugar so high that it’s not cost-effective to use it for ethanol. And the tariffs and quotas for imported sugar mean that no one can afford to import foreign sugar and turn it into ethanol, the way that oil refiners import crude from the Middle East to make gasoline. Americans now import eighty per cent less sugar than they did thirty years ago. So the prospects for a domestic-sugar ethanol industry are dim at best

Washington isn't terribly concerned with fixing the sugar mess they've created.  After all, they structured it so that consumers pay the high prices due to tariffs and quotas and the government's not out a single penny. In other words, all that sugar-lobbyist-money still pours in to keep the laws in place but there's not a tax dollar less for the Congress-critters to spend.

Hat tip to Knowledge Problem 

A Tale Of Two GOP Governors

Jeb Bush's legacy.

To size up Jeb Bush's political legacy, look no farther than the punctuation that followed his first name on his trademark campaign bumper sticker: Jeb!

The signature slogan captures the governor's atomic impact on Florida politics, for better or worse. He lifted the Republican Party onto the broad shoulders of his six-foot-four frame and into the stratosphere, sweeping up untold millions of campaign dollars, stacking hundreds of influential boards and courthouse benches, and galvanizing grass-roots activists from Little Havana to Panama City

Contrast that record with George Pataki's.  His twelve years in office destroyed the New York Republican party and returned the state to virtual one-party Democrat rule.  Gee, imagine what he could accomplish as president.

Beats Raising Taxes, I Guess

A small-town Tennessee mayor was acquitted of an alleged, um, unusual revenue-raising proposal.

[Judge] McMillan found that [Mayor] Crosby told officers to target Hispanic workers, soldiers from nearby Fort Campbell, Ky., and nonresidents because they were less likely to contest tickets.

But prosecutors failed to show that officers did anything illegal or that Hispanics and soldiers were ticketed more than other drivers, McMillan said.

The court also agreed that Crosby threatened to sue citizens who had signed an ouster petition against him, and that he asked a police officer to publish scandalous information about a city alderman. The officer never carried out the order.

McMillan had harsh words for Crosby, but said his fate should be left to voters.

Indeed.

Reynolds/Davis

Now, I won't sneer at the Zogby poll numbers showing Reynolds up by 1 point today in the Buffalo News.  The last poll on this race, the Survey USA poll of a week ago (commissioned by WGRZ-TV) showed Reynolds with a larger lead -- 5 points -- that was also out of the margin of error.  The same company's most recent numbers show Reynolds with a 4 point lead.   But, statistically, all three are close enough for government work (a little conservative humor, there.)

I was interested in Zogby's analysis of the race, though.  He blames a big part of Reynold's woes on his tightness with President Bush.

Conversely, Zogby said he cannot help but conclude from his polling across the nation that Reynolds' association with Bush and his support for the war is behind his problems.

"In a typical year, someone in the same party as the president can say, "Look what I can do for you. I know the president,' " he said. "This year is not that kind of year, so Reynolds starts in a hole up to his knees.

But that doesn't square with this result from the same poll.

The poll found that 54 percent of those surveyed viewed Bush favorably, while 45 percent viewed him unfavorably - in a district where Republicans outnumber Democrats by 44,000 voters.

That 54 percent approval rating is really a stunning number, especially when Bush's national approval hovers in the high 30's.  The Buffalo News attempts to minimize it by mentioning the Republicans' numerical advantage in the district, but it's way bigger than that.  Republicans make up only 41% of registered voters in the 26th and Democrats 31%.  So, where'd the 54% figure come from.

OK, I said to myself, "Myself, this is New York, we have all those smaller parties.  Could they explain the high Bush numbers?" And so I lumped the Conservatives, the Right To Lifers, and the Libertarians in with the Repubs -- still only 43.84%.

I then counted the Working Families, the Greens, the Liberals, and -- what the hell -- the Marijuana Reformers as probably more sympathetic to the Dems -- total registration for this group -- 32.75%. And Independents in Reynolds' district are as scarce as hens' teeth on Elmwood Avenue, numbering only 15,285 or just 3.38%.

Nope, there's just one explanation: a lot of Democrats in the 26th District evidently like Bush.  Reynolds' problem (if he has one) isn't his association with the President, indeed, it might be his greatest strength.  Unfortunately for Tom, it's probably too late to count on that Presidential stump call here now.

For once, Karl Rove may have misreckoned.

You Showed The Coffins First. Yeah, But You Were Hypocritical When You Showed The Coffins

In today's now daily wrap-up of the Reynolds-Davis race, the Buffalo News highlights one interesting little tidbit.

The National Republican Congressional Committee, which Reynolds heads, sparked an outcry in Georgia by sponsoring an ad featuring flag-draped coffins of U.S. soldiers in an effort to aid Rep. Max Burns.

Burns asked that the ad be taken off the air, and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee accused Reynolds of hypocrisy, given that Reynolds earlier said it was "despicable" that Democrats had used flag-draped coffins in an ad.

Well, you know, it is hypocritical of the Republicans to use those pictures.  But, dammit, isn't it hypocritical of the Dems, who have been screaming for Americans' "right" to see them for years, to criticize their use now?  We've been led to believe that just the sight of those coffins would have an almost-hypnotic effect on Americans dissuading them of any support for the Iraq War they might have once held.

Won't it work if they're pictured in an ad supporting a Republican? I think I'm ready for this particular election to be over.

You Mean -- There's Another Possible Outcome?

The Associated Press begins to consider the unthinkable, what if the GOP wins?

Should Republicans triumph over considerable odds to hang onto power in the House, they would face other daunting obstacles when they return to Washington to govern.

I'm sure they'll rise to the occasion.

Can One 'Swiftboat' Oneself?

After John Kerry came out yesterday claiming that he wasn't insulting America's soldiers -- he'd only "botched" a joke about President Bush -- a reporter asked him if he needed to go to joke school. I sure hope he doesn't.  I'd like to see him stay out there on the hustings trying till he gets it right.

Start Laying The Foundation -- Now

One recent trend in politics is the attempt to portray a candidate as insufficiently pro-women.  We're seeing that now in the Virginia senatorial race where James Webb's 1970s pronouncements against women in the military have been made an issue as well as his novels which don't contain "enough" strong female characters.

Ann Althouse has advice for future politicians.

And all you guys who are hoping to make it in politics, who are burnishing your credentials right now? Better make sure you show nothing but respect from now on. Better go crawling on your knees to any woman you ever disrespected, lest she dash off a memoir. Bonus political tip: Hire a ghostwriter to write a novel full of upright, feisty females.

Rove's "11th Hour Plan"

The Los Angeles Times has a piece this morning on Karl Rove's plans to win this election -- and Buffalo's little snowstorm of a couple weeks back figures prominently.

During a whirlwind five-hour trip to bolster an endangered GOP congressman's reelection prospects, White House political guru Karl Rove last week delivered a fiery speech to 500 party activists, then shook every available hand and posed for snapshots like a rock star. He toured suburbs recently trashed by a snowstorm. He also found time to huddle with local strategists.

But the most significant element of Rove's effort to help four-term Rep. Thomas M. Reynolds keep his job may have occurred behind closed doors, when the White House strategist met with a federal disaster relief official contemplating how to respond to the storm. Four days later, Reynolds announced that President Bush would authorize millions of dollars in federal disaster aid for the area.

The timing was perfect: Reynolds broke the news hours after testifying before the House Ethics Committee about his role in the Mark Foley sex scandal — knocking reports on the scandal out of the spotlight.

Reynolds' fate Nov. 7 could be a bellwether for Republicans in the Northeast — in the midterm election as well as the long term.

Indeed.

Hat tip to Realclearpolitics.com

Politicans Gone Wild

One of the bellwether races for the U.S. Senate is the one between Republican Senator Allen and new-Democrat (with impeccably Republican credentials) James Webb.  Allen has been in unexpected trouble for his otherwise "safe" Senate seat because he referred to a supporter of his opponent as a "macaca."  Now, no one really knows what that word means, but it was played up in the Washington Post as a racial slur.

Drudge announces tonight that the honorable Mr. Webb is, besides being a Reagan-era conservative hero, also a dabbler in literature.  And his writing may, in the spirit of Mark Foley, have sunk his chances at a Senate seat.

"The man grabbed his young son in his arms, turned him upside down, and put the boy's penis in his mouth."

Well, that's descriptive, isn't it?

I'm only passing along what I've read.  I don't own the book and didn't even know Webb had written one.  If Drudge story's true, I'd feel safe in predicting that the Republicans hold on to their Virginia seat.  Allen's presidential chances may be dead, but he'll likely remain a Senator until he is.

This is by far the nastiest election I've witnessed yet, and I've seen some doozies.  As the Internet records every word ever written, I have to wonder if anyone will ever want to run for office -- or be able to -- ever again.  I mean, think of those "Girls Gone Wild", um, girls.  One or two of them may wake up in 2020 and get serious.  What chance will they have with video of their splayed legs in Google's archives? 

My fear is that some will chance it, and they'll likely be the very ones we should be wary of.

One Last Gasp

Tom Reynolds testimony about his knowledge of and actions pertaining to Mark Foley's dalliances with former pages was bound to spur some local press, but the old oomph seems to have gone out of it.  Len Lenihan did his best to keep things bubbling, though, as he would certainly be expected to.

Erie County Democratic Chairman Leonard R. Lenihan said Reynolds' public statements leave many unanswered questions.

"It's hard to believe that Fordham, Tom Reynolds' chief of staff, would go to Hastert's office and complain about his boss [then Foley] three years ago and never say anything about Foley to Reynolds," Lenihan said. Reynolds hired Fordham a year ago and Reynolds has said he and Fordham never discussed Foley's e-mails.

It's not really that hard to believe, Len.  Fordham, I'm sure, still felt some sense of loyalty to his former boss and is, after all, gay himself.  Assuming that Fordham knew everything about Foley's sex life, why would he blow Foley in to Reynolds for some innocent emails to minors?  As I say, if he knew all the details he might have been aware that the Congressman had eventually "hooked up" with former pages well after they'd reached the age of consent.  But I can't think of a single reason why Fordham would have passed those tidbits along to Reynolds.

Nonetheless, if there's anyone who's struggling for credibility, it's Chairman Hastert (not that I think it matters.) 

Reynolds' recollection of events matches that of Majority Leader John Boehner as well as the timeline during which the emails and Instant Messages are thought to have been exposed.  Nevertheless, you've got to hand it to Doug Turner (who wrote today's piece) for using his full command of the English language to make today's testimony appear a blow to Reynolds.

Reynolds' scheduled appearance before the panel, revealed not by his staff but by the New York Daily News Web site on Monday, raised the issue's profile just as Reynolds seemed to be recovering in the polls from a 15 percent deficit against Democrat Jack Davis earlier this month. [emphasis mine]

"Seemed" to be recovering in the polls?  Past tense?  I'd say that, absent any new polls, Reynolds still "seems" to be recovering in the polls.  And Mr. Turner curiously neglected to mention last night's rather well-timed Presidential declaration of Buffalo as a federal disaster area which might "seem" to help Congressman Reynolds even more. 

After all, the local news today was a virtual handbook for getting disaster relief and many of my co-workers spent the day discussing their strategies for bamboozling the Feds into paying their insurance deductibles. 

Tales of politically-connected teen-agers who didn't have sex with a Congressman faded even further from the voters' minds.

Not Exactly The Swiss Family Reynolds

Karl Rove was in town last night and didn't sound down at all.

Presidential adviser Karl Rove traveled to Buffalo on Friday and predicted that the Republican Party will keep control of the House in this fall's election - and said Rep. Thomas M. Reynolds would deserve a lot of credit.

Speaking at the Erie County Republican Committee's annual black-tie dinner, Rove who's seen as the mastermind behind President Bush's two White House victories said: "Tom Reynolds is going to be a big reason why the Republicans keep the majority in the House of Representatives."

Rove went on to praise the embattled Republican congressman from Clarence not only for his skill at leading the House Republican campaign effort, but also for his efforts on behalf of the Buffalo region.

Gee, Sandy Beach told us that the Republicans had abandoned him.

Mass Hypocrisy?

Michael Kinsley has noticed that not very many people are really that upset over Foley-gate.

Folier than thou

So everyone claims to be terribly distressed. We glare at each other, looking as grim as possible, and the first one to break into a grin or a smirk or a snort loses. Stop it! It's not funny!

But then who are all the people watching David Letterman and Jay Leno, Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert, and laughing -- laughing! -- at Foley's shenanigans? Who are the people cracking jokes on the Internet? They are so distressed that they can't stop giggling, and they find the whole subject so distasteful that they can't get enough of it. This is not a traditional case of politicians' hypocrisy. This is politicians accommodating the hypocrisy of voters.

Perhaps it would be a better world if everybody were as disgusted by the Foley episode as almost everybody claims to be. But the truth is that most people are enjoying this story and can't get enough of it. If you gave them the secret power to wish the whole thing away, they'd say, "Are you nuts? This is terrific!"

Heh.

Follow The Money

Barron's magazine doesn't pay attention to the polls, it bases its political predictions on campaign finances.  Advantage Republicans.

We studied every single race -- all 435 House seats and 33 in the Senate -- and based our predictions about the outcome in almost every race on which candidate had the largest campaign war chest, a sign of superior grass-roots support. We ignore the polls. Thus, our conclusions about individual races often differ from the conventional wisdom. Pollsters, for instance, have upstate New York Republican Rep. Tom Reynolds trailing Democratic challenger Jack Davis, who owns a manufacturing plant. But Reynolds raised $3.3 million in campaign contributions versus $1.6 million for Davis, so we score him the winner.

Likewise, we disagree with pollsters of both parties who see Indiana Republican Rep. Chris Chocola getting whomped by Democratic challenger Joe Donnelly, a lawyer and business owner from South Bend. Chocola has raised $2.7 million, versus $1.1 million for Donnelly. Ditto in North Carolina, where we see Republican Rep. Charles Taylor beating Democrat Heath Shuler, a former NFL quarterback, because of better financing. Analysts from both parties predict a Shuler upset.

Is our method reliable? It certainly has been in the past. Using it in the 2002 and 2004 congressional races, we bucked conventional wisdom and correctly predicted GOP gains both years. Look at House races back to 1972 and you'll find the candidate with the most money has won about 93% of the time. And that's closer to 98% in more recent years, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Polls can be far less reliable. Remember, they all but declared John Kerry president on Election Day 2004.

Interesting.  Not only does more money enable a candidate to out-advertise his opponent, the fact that he's been more successful in raising funds indicates wider support.  The system does have its detractors, though and it doesn't work as well in Senate races as it does for the House (though Senate predictions were still 89% accurate.)

So read the whole thing.

Splitting The Ticket

The Instapundit voted early (that's allowed in Tennessee) though not often -- I trust him on that one.

As I mentioned before, the Republicans don't really deserve my vote -- though as Bob Corker hasn't been in Washington that's not really his fault -- but nonetheless the Democrats have blown it again. Not long ago I was thinking that a Democratic majority in Congress wouldn't be so bad; but the sexual McCarthyism from the pro-outing crowd, coupled with the Dems' steadfast refusal to offer anything useful on national security, has convnced me that they just don't deserve a victory with those tactics. That's not Ford's fault, either, really. But I just don't think the Democrats are ready for a majority right now. We'll see how many other voters agree.

I split my votes, supporting Bredesen for Governor, and -- of course -- I voted against the Tennessee anti-gay-marriage constitutional amendment. In order to pass, that will have to get not just a majority, but a majority of all votes cast in the gubernatorial race, meaning that not voting on it is tantamount to a "no" vote. I hope it won't pass; it's not getting a lot of publicity, though I'm sure that the religious-right crowd is pushing it in direct mail, etc.

While the left considers Instapundit the right-wing equivalent of Kos, they're wrong.  He's by no means a dyed-in-the-wool Republican, he's probably just one of them moderates -- who's voting Republican in an important race.  I think he's much more representative of the national electorate than his detractors would like to suggest. 

Noblesse Oblige

It's almost Buffalo News Editorial Board endorsement time.

Having spent years studying issues and the political and governmental processes, we see a duty to share our observations and conclusions with you. Take them as candidate recommendations, but even more importantly, use them as a tool in reaching your own voting decisions.
Mike Vogel
Editorial Page Editor

I feel the same duty -- it's a burden, of course, but a necessary one.

You'd Think It Was Bad News

I'm talking about the Associated Press article that the Buffalo News cleverly headlined, Dow finally closes above 12,000.  That's sort of like saying dismissively, "Craig finally won the lottery."  I mean, c'mon. 

The mainstream press has a vested interest in trying to make the economy sound bad.  And they've been pointing to the stock market's relatively slow growth for years now as "proof" that Bush's economic policies have been a disaster.  But the stock market is not the only place to invest money.

Americans have been making billions on their investments these last several years (your humble correspondent excepted.)  It's just that they've been buying things:  houses, gold and oil futures among others instead of stocks.  Now that the steam has gone out of housing and the oil panic has subsided for a while, they're moving their investment money back into the stock market.

The American economy is in very good shape and that's the main reason that I just can't see the Democrats gaining all that much ground in the upcoming election.  It's just a gut-feeling, no scientific poll analysis (though as you've noticed, I do keep an eye on them.)  We don't usually vote governments out of power when the economy's as good as it is now.

Citizens who actually turn out to vote will usually tend to keep the devil they know in power while the 401-K's growing and the job seems safe.  Now, it's only fair to point out that when the Republicans swept the House in 1994, the economy was pretty good, too -- not as good as today's but good, nonetheless.  The Democrats lost power because the GOP did a very good job of what we now call "nationalizing" the election.  The Dems are now trying to borrow that same tactic to reverse the tables this year.

I'm not at all sure that they've succeeded.  I understand the Democrats' confidence, it's too easy to sit up here in the liberal recesses of the Northeast and assume that the entire country has finally drunk the blue Kool-Aid.  I just don't think that's the case.  I may have blog-egg all over my face in a few weeks, but I think the Republicans maintain control of both houses of Congress (albeit with tiny majorities) and gridlock will ensue for the balance of Bush's term.

Not, when it comes to government, that there's anything wrong with that.

What Did He Know And When Did He Know It?

Priest admits contact with Foley.

I wonder if Tom Reynolds knew about this; and if he did, would it have been enough to notify the archbishop or should he have just excommunicated the priest then and there?

Foley Who?

Local Democrats should maybe re-cork the champagne bottles, Tom Reynolds is clawing his way back.

Wait A Minute, Reynolds Not Dead Yet; Back Atop Davis In NY26: In an election in New York's uniqely volatile 26th Congressional District today, 10/19/06, Republican incumbent Tom Reynolds comes back off the mat to now recapture a tiny lead against Democratic challenger Jack Davis 49% to 46%, according to a SurveyUSA poll conducted exclusively for WGRZ-TV Buffalo. Since an identical SurveyUSA WGRZ-TV poll 2 weeks ago, Reynolds has gained 4 points and Davis has lost 4 points. This 8 point poll-on-poll movement is not remarkable in and of itself. However, in the context of two other competing polls, released after SurveyUSA's 10/5/06 poll, one of which showed Reynolds trailing by 15 points, and the other of which showed Reynolds trailing by 16 points, today's SurveyUSA results are unexpected, and to a certain extent, breathtaking.

In all fairness, the poll was conducted during a time in which many people in Erie County were without telephone service.  But the demographics are still close enough to the previous poll to give it credibility.

If Polls Were Fair

Polipundit proposes a poll question I'd like to see.

Former Congressman Mark Foley, after resigning from Congress, has admitted being a gay man and to sending tawdry “instant messages” to individuals over the age of sexual consent. Twenty years ago, a member of Congress was only censured for having sexual contact with someone under 18 and th