| Sep 29 | Party Like It's 1994 |
| Sep 28 | Not in my Backyard |
| Sep 27 | Glug Glug |
| Sep 27 | Spoke Too Soon |
| Sep 26 | Win or Go Home |
| Sep 24 | Get 'Em When They're Young |
| Sep 23 | Anti-Government Liberalism |
| Sep 20 | Vote! |
| Sep 19 | Stasis |
| Sep 16 | Friday Shuffle! |
| Sep 15 | Where Have You Gone, Dino Rossi? |
| Sep 13 | Drinking Liberally Moves This Week |
| Sep 8 | Friday Shuffle! |
| Sep 8 | 2006 Prospects |
| Sep 6 | Once Again |
| Sep 6 | Glug Glug |
| Sep 5 | Age Ain't Nuthin but a Number |
| Sep 3 | Reservoir Blogs |
| Sep 2 | Friday Chinchilla Blogging & Shuffle! |
| Sep 1 | Lie Back and Think of the Vatican |
| Sep 1 | What's Next |
So I hear there's a guy named Tom DeLay, and he's an important figure of sorts, and he's been indicted on charges of conspiracy to commit election fraud in the state of Texas.
I believe the word for the feeling I'm experience is Schadenfreude.
Of course, the basic corruption of GOP policy and politics doesn't end with DeLay, it starts there. His replacement, Roy Blunt (D-MO), is just as beholden to the demands of big business, just as intolerant of debate on the House floor, and just as interested in building narrow, partisan interest over broad, national interest. The face of the House may have changed, but its business has changed very little.
While we're on the subject of ethics and quasi-corruption (via kos), the Supreme Court is ready to hear challenges to Buckley v. Valeo, the landmark "money is speech" ruling that outlaws spending limits (one can enact de-facto limits by providing candidates with matching funds if they agree to spending limits, which is what the Presidential Primary system used to do, before George W. Bush, Howard Dean, and John Kerry all decided not to abide by spending limits).
Of course, spending limits are quite often counter productive. If I'm running for Congress, and I'm not allowed to spend any more money, I'm going to go find my friends, tell them to form a shadowy 527, pump money into that organization, and run "issue ads" there. Or, worse, someone who's not directly affiliated with my campaign, like the teachers' union or a small business organization, is going to run "issue ads" on my behalf but without my knowledge. What if I didn't want their support?
Before Mayor Nickels starts handing out candy, and City Council candidates start promising to use our budget surplus on different flavors of candy, we really need to take a step back and understand the origins our good luck. Why did end up with more money than we thought we'd have? Did we use a conservative revenue estimate rather than an aggressive estimate? Is it all Boeing? Did lots of seattlites sell or refinance their homes? Are we likely to continue to see sustained revenue increases, or will revenues return to expected levels next year?
Spending the money on one-time projects like school renovations and road paving sounds like a good plan. Spending it on new hires for the city government, without knowing if the surplus is due to a one-time surge in the economy or part of a continuing boom, doesn't.
Seattle Mayoral candidate Al Runte stopped by last night and regaled us with tales of neighborhood associations going ballistic over the prospect of Southwest Airlines' proposed move to Boeing Field, residents upset at plans to increase density in their part of town, and a whole lot of folks generally ticked off with Mayor Greg Nickels for promoting development. I've got mixed feelings about some of Nickels' specific ideas for the city (South Lake Union streetcar, anyone?), but putting the brakes on all in-fill strikes me as a bad idea.
How 'bout them Braves, eh? This year's edition of the team isn't one of the greatest, but the fact that they won the division while relying slew of rookies makes it one of the more impressive teams in recent years.
I don't need to be bribed with free trips to a buzz-generating preview screening. Go watch Serenity. Firefly was an excellent if explicit portrayal of the space-as-wild-west metaphor.
Stirling Newberry is on the money again:
The lesson of American politics since Korea has been "win or go home." Truman and Eisenhower knew that they couldn't win, so they went home. LBJ tried to win, Nixon realized he had to go home. Reagan, Bush and Clinton fought very short wars, where they either won, or went home quickly.
This is more or less the political restatement of the Powell Doctrine. Hopping in the wayback machine, from my vantage point only the first and fifth criteria are were met as of March 2003. Yes, preventing Saddam Hussein from acquiring chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons is a vital US interest. And the second point is sort of met ... but only if the objectives for the US Armed Forces do not include occupation.
Thinking about the Powell Doctrine in the context of the anti-war movement's relative success, it would seem as if the US simply doesn't have the stomach for sustained military conflict. But this is the result of the result not of the public's weak stomach, but our rational understanding that there simply aren't any problems that require sustained military conflict. If such a problem arose -- most likely that Iran or North Korea used nuclear weapons -- the public would likely continue to support combat in the face of large casualties. Informal polls of military officials showed that their estimate of "maximum acceptable casualties" of a land invasion of Iraq was much lower than that of elected officials, which was even lower than that of the public at large. That's because the public figures out that if you're invading a country, there's a darn good reason for it and you're going to end up with a lot of bloodshed.
But today, the good reasons behind the Iraq war have disappeared, and with it so has public support. Let's be thankful that it took only three years to unmask the sham arguments for war.
Weekend Content:
Via many people, I forget whom (thank you blogsearch), this captivating account of the College Republicans National Convention is an absolute must read. Anyone who thinks Democrats lose elections because they think they're a snarky, petty, infighting, vindictive bunch while the GOP spends all its time thinking about winning should think twice after reading this article. The current chair of the national CR organization raised 200 large for his campaign, oversaw $9 million worth of fraudelent scamming of mostly senior citizens, started a whispering campaign that his opponent was gay, probably cheated to win his election, and still garners Establishment support.
Note that the College Republicans are bred to play The Game as a contact sport, and figure out how to get away with it later. Young Dems learn to play nice and fight for campaign finance and redistricting reform. And we wonder why we keep losing.
Hurricane Katrina has revived a sentiment long dormant on the national level: anti-government liberalism. For the last twenty-fove or thirty years, as Democrats controlled either the House or the Presidency and conservative victimization continued, it was the province of the out-of-power Republicans to rail against a mythical cabal of federal bureaucrats and the pile of red tape they built. Every failure of government was magnified and blamed on a large, unwieldy, intrusive government. But today, the shoe is on the other foot. The federal governemnt is controlled by the Republican party, soup-to-nuts. Instead of command-and-control regulation getting in the way (oh, wait, the good people of Creekstone Farms remind us that still happens), our government's failings now stem from a return to the nineteenth century spoils system. "FEMA" will become a new Democratic code word for conservative incompetence the way "the VA" was for or "House post office" described liberal incompetence, and will take a place next to "the CIA" in politically-tinged hip-hop.
This sort of opposition to government-for-government's-sake had been subordinated to Clinton's build-trust-in-government agenda. Anti-government liberalism remained restricted to urban liberal detest of the po-lice and anti-corporate lefties. Clinton was a tough-on-crime, pro-business Democrat, so you didn't hear much on the subject. But now it's out in full force, and it's time for the country's center-left party to tap into that force.
Update: See my King County & City of Seattle General Election endorsements for more.
It's primary day for city & county elections in Washington today. More information can be found at the King County elections home page. Voter guides can be found at King County's web page; P-I endorsements (which are the ones you want) can be found, well, in the P-I.
Stop by Drinking Liberally tonight; we'll be watching election returns. It's good wholesome fun for the whole family!
For the very curious here is my ballot:
The President's Must-See-TV seems to have done very little to improve his job approval rating, at least in the short term. We've now completed a full polling cycle since Thursday's photo-op, and there hasn't been any movement one way or another in the daily approval tracking. The frame appears to be set, that government hasn't been particularly competent in handling the aftermath, and Bush is just trying to throw money at the problem. Which, of course, happens to be particularly true.
I owe everyone a longer post on "anti-government liberalism", an important but ill-understood political sentiment.
"Here Lies Limited Government 1964-2005" Edition:
Chinchilla Blogging after work.
Apropos Goldy & Carl Ballard, there really ought to be a series A1, above-the-fold articles telling us what Dino Rossi thinks about the nihilist I-912. Where's that press release?
Colorado, which also has a large contingent of anti-investment nutjobs, is showing us how it's done. The state has a pair of ballot initiatives to reform the "one-way ratchet" caused by the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights to Bankrupt the State. Seeking to restore arithmetic to the state budget without making Colorado University a private school, the State Legislature and Governor have launched a bi-partisan campaign to reform TABOR that prominently attacks the flat-earth society members who oppose to the bill. That's the kind of campaign that Keep Washington Rolling really needs.
So, Mr. Rossi, it's time to put your mouth where the money is, so to speak.
This evening, Drinking Liberally will relocate to the Seattle Town Hall for a talk and book signing with Chris Mooney, author of the must-read The Republican War on Science. He'll be there from 7:30 on, and afterwards we'll all head over to Tango for tapas and mojitos. Admission is $10, $5 for students.
I'll be there with buttons for easy identification. See you there.
"You gotta know what a crumpet is to get cricket" edition. And no, I can't read a f***ing cricket scorecard either. [Special bonus prize for guessing the movie reference.]*
No Chinchillas today; they're being punished for escaping Tuesday night.
Mark Kleiman asked his friend to look into his 2006 crystal ball, where he [his friend] sees Democratic gains but not enough to take back either the House or Senate. I largely agree with his observations. Key among them, the fact that the Democratic party has not seen a gain in favorable ratings is not a problem; discontent with government is almost always taken out on the ruling party, and there isn't a particularly strong media campaign to change the image of the Democratic party at the moment (which is fine; there's not much such a campaign would accomplish right now).
At the moment, the only news events that could change this calculus are the DR-CAFTA vote and the war in Iraq. Democratic candidates have an easy hammer to use against representatives from anti-free trade districts (basically, any district with lots of small manufacturing towns) who were forced to vote Yea on CAFTA. And a district that has flipped from pro-war to anti-war will have a good reason to vote Democratic.
The Senate is much less friendly territory. In order to reach a majority, Democrats must retain seats held by retiring Senators in Minnesota and Maryland (the Maryland seat may be especially tough to keep), win Pennsylvania, Montana, Rhode Island, Ohio, Missouri, and hope Mark Warner changes his mind and decides to run for Senate. "Outcome unlikely".
With the announcement that John G. Roberts will succeed William H. Rehnquist as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, I think it's time to reconsider my favorite pet procedural change to The Way Things Work; a constitutional amendment setting minimum ages (probably fifty-five) and/or mandatory retirement ages (somewhere between seventy-five and eighty) for Supreme Court Justices. This would have the primary effect of forcing judicial nominees to build a record long enough to withstand some scruitiny, and the secondary effect of halting the conservative practice of packing the Court with Young Turks subservient to the Republican party line. (See Scalia, Antonio; Thomas, Clarence; and additional lower court appointments).
From the end of the Civil War until today, the average Justice served 14-15 years on the Supreme Court, if you eliminate FDR's liberal court-packing during the New Deal (the closest analogy to the modern conservative practice). Today, seven of nine members of the Court have lasted at least that long, and the two who haven't -- Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Steven Breyer -- will reach that mark by the end of the Bush Presidency.
Roberts, should he be confirmed, will be fifty or fifty-one years old when he takes a seat on the Court. Scalia was nominated at age 50; Clarence Thomas at age 43. Under the Clinton administration, Ginsburg was 60 when she was appointed to the Court, while Breyer was 56. That's an extra twenty-five person-years of conservative jurisprudence. I know the judicial branch is supposed to be the slowest moving branch of government (and generally that's a good thing), but medical advances, the politicization of the judiciary, and the rise of a stronger clerk system have made it much more likely for Justices to serve twenty and twenty-five year terms.
I'm at Ezra's for the weekend. head on over!
Update: Also, over at TPMCafe I have some choice libertarian-bashing, and more tacit endorsement of Huckabee '08.
"No Really, Deaths due to Electrocution By Hair Dryer are Declining" edition:
If you live within, oh, say, five hundred miles of New Orleans, and have room to spare, take a look at hurricanehousing.org, and get in touch with your local chapter of the American Red Cross to either volunteer at a housing shelter or to offer housing. And now, your weekly does of chinchilla.
In large crises such as Katrina, the best thing most people can do is throw money at the problem. Shipping individual items to New Orleans is not effective from a logistical standpoint, so unless you have a truckload (literally) of sleeping bags, diesel generators, or other much-needed supplies, you're better off just writing a check. I know, it doesn't feel the same as giving your time or specific goods, but for the people responding directly in the crises, it's the best thing they can ask for. Going forward, though, you can find other ways to contribute besides your checkbook.
The best way to offer your labor rather than your money is to become a trained disaster volunteer. Check with your local American Red Cross for details on training sessions.
Also, fax your Senators and ask them to pay closer attention to upper level FEMA appointments more seriously. Former Bush FEMA Director Joe Allbaugh's primary job qualification seems to be ... that he was Chief-of-Staff to then Governor Bush and Campaign Manager for Bush-Cheney '00. (Note: in the Clinton White House, political hacks were given jobs that ... well, ought to go to political hacks; communications staff, speech writing, political direction, etc. They were not given real nuts-and-bolts, da-job-of-da-FEMA-director-is-ta-take-out-da-gaaahbage positions. Advantage: Clinton). Explain the risk of major disasters in your state or district ... floods, hurricanes, earthquakes, nuclear meltdowns, whatever ... then point out that this job, while seemingly really basic stuff, is something that requires an experienced professional to steer the ship.
Update: It appears that the current FEMA director ... was once an assistant city manager with emergency oversight responsibilities somewhere in Oklahoma. Also, he was once general counsel for the International Arabian Horse Association. I swear to God I'm not making this up. Meanwhile, former FEMA director James Lee Witt is doing what he does best. Advantage: Clinton. Again. The Job of the FEMA Director is to manage emergencies. So far, Mike Brown has been in front of cameras talking about how FEMA didn't expect this many people to "choose" to stick around in the event of a hurricane. Has anyone noticed the income distribution of the folks left.
Update II: The Mayor of New Orleans has had enough. I suppose there was no chance we could authorize money to rent every bus Greyhound had within two hundred miles by this point in time?
Last
updated by Nicholas Beaudrot on 06:15 20 September 2005
