The Agenda Gap

THE AGENDAGAP IS MOVING

2006-02-20T01:11:00.000-05:00

Starting Monday morning, we are moving to our new site: http://www.agendagap.com/

Please update your bookmarks. This site will remain online as an archive.

Thank you for your readership and we hope you enjoy the new site.

Weekend News Recap

2006-02-19T21:11:00.000-05:00

McDonald's has revealed that its famous french fries contain more fat than originally disclosed. They also now admit that the fries contain diary and wheat products, though McDonald's claims that these ingredients would not cause allergic reactions. At least three law suits were filed after this disclosure.

Bill Clinton finally weighed in on Cheney's hunting accident, pretty much repeating Adam's point that the strong reaction to the accident among the white house press corp was due to the Bush administration's tendency to keep pertinent information from the press. Clinton said: "I think that it's gotten a little more light than it would have because the administration has an enormous penchant for secrecy for not telling anybody anything about anything."

Some congressmembers have begun to question the takeover of operations of six major American ports by a company based in the United Arab Emirates. At least one company has filed suit claiming that this takeover is a national security risk.

The Martis Gras celebration has begun in New Orleans and the AP reports that the annual parade has been greeted by "small but celebratory crowds."

Harvard's undergraduate faculty have planned their second no-confidence vote of President Lawrence Summers for February 28. He would be the first university president to be twice-censored by its faculty, though only the Harvard Corporation has the power to remove Summers.

Finally, in international news, Amsterdam's red light district held an "open day" on Saturday, in which its peep shows and brothels gave visiters free entry in an attempt, according to the Reuters, to "shed the area's increasingly negative reputation." I'd bet that worked too.

Come Meet the New Boss, Same As the Old Boss: Boehner, K Street and the New GOP

2006-02-18T20:31:00.000-05:00

On February 2nd, Rep. John Boehner (R-OH) was elected House Majority Leader. He defeated Rep. Roy Blunt (R-MO), who was unable to overcome his ties to outgoing Leader Tom Delay (R-TX) and all of the attendant lobbying scandals. Boehner campaigned as a reformer, but is he really so clean of the taint of K Street that he will be able to lead his party to a brighter, Jack Abramoff-free future? I have my doubts.

Boehner's strongest reform credential was his opposion to earmarking. In his first round of talk-show visits, however, he seemed to back down from that position. From the Washington Post:

He said he would favor more disclosure of dealings with lobbyists but would not seek complete bans on travel or "earmark" provisions. "Bringing more transparency to this relationship, I think, is the best way to control it. But taking actions to ban this and ban that, when there's no appearance of a problem, there's no foundation of a problem, I think, in fact, does not serve the institution well."

There's no appearance of a problem? Really. From Newsweek:

"The current system of earmarks breeds corruption," says a Republican member of the Ways and Means Committee, who asked to go unnamed so he could speak freely about his colleagues. "There's so much horse trading that it borders on legalized bribery. 'Vote for my bill and you can have a bridge to nowhere'."

There are other disturbing trends. Remember the pipeline from his office to K Street that was so damning to Tom Delay? Well, more than twenty of Boehner's former staffers have moved on to lobbying organizations. Also, Boehner has taken full advantage of rules that allow Congressman to take trips funded by private organizations; since 2000, he has accepted over $150,000 worth of these jaunts, which puts him among the top ten in Congress. Maybe he's just looking for the best beach on which to perfect his trademark tan. And maybe this is why he was so quick to deride Speaker Hastert's plan to ban these types of trips altogether.

It might be unfair to look so closely at only Rep. Boehner's record; everybody in Washington participates in the influence peddling game. But Boehner certainly doesn't seem to be cleaner than the median Congressman, which will impede his ability to get any sincere reform done.

People are cynical enough about Washington; the last thing we need is a government that is unable to assuage the public's suspicions. Frankly, I can't see any partisan advantage in hoping that Boehner fails to reform his party; these corruption scandals, though mostly focused on the Republican side, hurt both parties. Unless Congress can fix this lobbying problem, expect more disengagment and apathy from the public. That's not good for anyone in either party, or for the country as a whole.

Don't Want the Government to Eavesdrop on You? Use Skype.

2006-02-17T00:35:00.000-05:00

According to MSNBC's website, the Internet phone service Skype uses complex mathematic encryptions that render their phone calls virtually immune to eavesdropping.

Skype takes advantage of VoIP technology to offer its users free computer-to-computer phone calls anywhere in the world. It's a pretty remarkable system. Monty Bannerman, chief executive of Verso Technologies Inc, an Internet security firm, sums up this article well:

It is a pretty secure form of communication, which if you're talking to your mistress you really appreciate, but if Al Qaida is talking over Skype you have probably a different view.

House Report on Katrina: "US Still Not Ready for Prime Time"

2006-02-16T23:42:00.000-05:00

The House of Representatives released its report on the Katrina response yesterday. Unfortunately buried underneath the "Dick Cheney Shot A Guy" newsfrenzy, the report is a pretty damning indictment of FEMA, the Department of Homeland Security and the administration in general. The major conclusion, from CNN.com:

The failure of initiative cost lives, prolonged suffering and left all Americans justifiably concerned our government is no better prepared to protect its people than it was before 9/11, even if we are. The preparation for and response to Hurricane Katrina should disturb all Americans.

But hey, who needs boring old recrimination:

Rather than a dry bureaucratic paper, the report is written in a lively style and is generously sprinkled with photographs of the disaster-hit area and colorful quotes, including many from past figures in history and literature.

Government oversight sure can be fun. All joking aside, the report was written by a Republican dominated Homeland Security Committee, showing that everyone can recognize a screw-up when they see one. Potential fall-out? Homeland Security Head Michael Chertoff still has support from the Administration and performed well during the hearings, accepting some responsibility for the failed response, but managing to deflect much of the blame onto FEMA Head Michael Brown. So it seems unlikely that there will be any high-level shake-ups at DHS. Chertoff has been talking sincerely about how to fix the agency, but one hopes that the reforms actually fix what's broken as opposed to those of the more cosmetic type. Hurricane season starts in May, and the clock is ticking.

More on NY-20

2006-02-16T06:50:00.000-05:00

After yesterday's post on the Kirsten Gillibrand's campaign for Congress in New York's 20th District, I was informed by a Gillibrand Staffer that the campaign, while not listed as a competitive seat by CQ, is in fact mentioned in Charlie Cook's Political Report. The February 3, 2006 Cook Political Report (warning, PDF document) classifies that seat as 'competitive', though they do mention that it is 'likely Republican'.

Cheney: I Didn't Mean To, Honest

2006-02-16T06:25:00.000-05:00

Last night Vice President Dick Cheney responded to a series of questions regarding his hunting accident from FOX News anchor Brit Hume. The New York Times provides an accurate and fairly unbiased account of the interiew. The points are worth noting:

(1) Cheney took full responsibility for his actions, stating "I'm the guy who pulled the trigger",
(2) Cheney expressed no regret for the way in which he handled the incident with the press
(3) Cheney mentioned that he had consumed one beer at lunch, which is contrary to what ranch owner Katharine Armstrong told the Corpus-Cristi Caller, "No one was drinking".

The first point was a given. Cheney had to admit his guilt in the incident in order to save face, and he did so in a sincere manner.

The second point is a bit trickier. Cheney stated that the news story was complicated and that his concerns rested with the Whittington family in the aftermath of the accident, which is why he made no press statement. But then he goes on to say that the Press is angry about the incident because a minor newspaper like the Corpus Cristi Caller broke the story first. I'm not sure that I buy this account. The Washington Post has an excellent timeline of the event, and it is clear that the President found out about the event on 7:30 PM on Saturday evening (the shooting took place at 6:30 PM). So the White House Press Corps theoretically could have been informed that a shooting took place on Saturday evening - but they weren't. Why? Possibly concern for the Whittington family. Even so, the White House could have respected the family's privacy and not released their name but instead told the Press that an accidental shooting had occured. I do suspect, however, that there was conscious decision made on the part of the White House, probably by Karl Rove, to have the story leaked to the Caller (reported the story at 2:48 PM on Sunday) in order to reduce its impact in the news, which totally backfired.

The final point is noteworthy simply because of the discrepancy between Armstrong's account of the shooting and Cheney's account. It looks bad that Cheney was drinking in the first place, but at least Cheney was forthright.

As I mentioned yesterday, this news story is really not about Cheney or the shooting. It's about a White House Press Corps that has been consistently denied access to information about White House activity.

A House Race To Watch

2006-02-15T06:37:00.000-05:00

While CQ may dismiss New York's 20th Congressional District as a safe Republican seat held by incumbent Rep. John Sweeney, I would advise that readers pay attention to this race in the coming months. On February 2nd, Kirsten Gillibrand, an Albany native and a Dartmouth Graduate (two very good qualities in a politician), announced her formal intention to run as the Democratic nominee against Rep. Sweeney. In the first four months of the campaign Gillibrand raised over S370,000, an impressive sum for a challenger in a 'safe' Republican district.

Several prominent New York Democrats are standing behind this woman. Atty. Gen. Eliot Spitzer, Democratic gubernatorial candidate, stood beside Gillibrand at her campaign kickoff. Sen. Hillary Clinton has helped Gillibrand fundraise.

Prospects are certainly promising for this candidate. Again, keep your eyes on NY-20...

V-Day at the White House, Michael Feinstein Style

2006-02-15T06:25:00.000-05:00

According to the Associated Press, President Bush and the First Lady celebrated Valentine's Day with approximately 100 friends and government officials at the White House, including Broadway singer Michael Feinstein. Feinstein serenaded the crowd, dazzling Mrs. Bush with his rendition of Johnny Mercer's "Laura" (I've never heard of this song).

The Press notes that "Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, actor Chuck Norris..., singer Wayne Newton and Sens. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and Joe Lieberman, D-Conn." were present in attendence.

Norris I can understand, but Lieberman? Very suspicious...

Commentary on Paul Hackett's Departure from Politics

2006-02-15T06:07:00.000-05:00

Joseph Hughes of MyDD.com writes an informative and anecdotal piece on the meaning of Hackett's departure from the 2006 Ohio Democratic Senate Primary, largely due to pressure from Democratic leaders in favor of Rep. Sherrod Brown's candidacy. While Hughes regrets Hackett's decision and deeply admires the passion and fight that Hackett brought to his Senate campaign, he also seems to realize the necessity of Hackett's resignation. Hughes states:

Hackett faced an uphill battle in May. The apparatus he relied upon in last year's special election was composed, in large part, of individuals no longer with him or who are working directly with Brown. His chances slim, could one man's pressure be another man's suggestion to fight the more logical fight? We'll never know exactly what was said, or done, but the bottom line is that it appears we've lost a magnetic candidate for the time being. And that's a shame.

The important point here is that Hackett's chances really were slim. Brown has outfinanced Hackett nearly 10 to 1 and, as the primary begins to enter its crucial stages, Democrats could ill afford internal disunity and discord. The question was not which candidate was more noble or honest or outspoken, but rather which candidate could beat Mike DeWine? And, from the fundraising and poll numbers, Brown is the guy most likely to do it.

However, I do share Hughes' disappointment. Paul Hackett spoke to me and proved that Democrats didn't have to fear the aggression and hostility of the Republican power base. Though Hackett will leave politics, his legacy will remain a force with the Democratic Party.

Cheney Hunting Accident Triggers GOP Anxiety

2006-02-15T05:40:00.000-05:00

While some political observers (myself included) care little for the buzz surrounding Vice President Cheney's accidental shooting of Texas-lawyer Harry Whittington, it appears that high-ups within the GOP are beginning to express serious concern over Cheney's reaction to the incident. In today's Washington Post, Jeff VandeHei and Jim Baker author a surprisingly cynical article intended to convey the mood in Washington that the Vice President handled himself poorly in the days following the incident. The article states:

The episode is turning into a defining moment for Cheney, a vice president who has operated with enormous clout to shape White House policy while avoiding public scrutiny over the past five years...

...Some current and former White House officials said Cheney's refusal to address the issue or accept any blame has the potential to become a political problem for Bush because it reinforces the image of a secretive and above-the-law White House. Top White House aides are pressuring Cheney to discuss the incident as early as today, according to people familiar with the matter.

This is absurd. That the Vice President did not intentionally fire a weapon at an innocent civilian seems to be a settled given. Instead, the debate has shifted to how the Vice Preisdent conducted himself in the aftermath of the event - in particular, that neither he nor his office informed the White House Press Corps of the incident all together. A Corpus Cristi newspaper (the Corpus Cristi Caller, I believe) was first to run the story, and only after it was reported did the Press Corps become informed on the matter.

Still, I fail to see how this accident is (1) relevant and (2) necessary for disclosure to the White House Press Corps. As far as point (1) goes, accidents happen and I am confident that the Vice President was apologetic and remorseful once he realized that the mishap had taken place. Even so, there is no connection between this accident and the Vice President's ability to participate in governance and to excercise the powers afforded to him as the Vice President. With respect to point (2), the White House Press Corps should have been informed that the incident had taken place either the Saturday evening or Sunday morning (the accident took place on Saturday afternoon) - that's indisputable. But even so, the news was going to break eventually (through the Corpus Cristi Caller) and it seems odd to me that the White House Press Corps is up in arms about such a minor issue.

I think this event is emblematic of the frustrated and disgruntled attitude that exists among members of the White House Press Corps due to the high level of secrecy and confidentiality under which the Bush Administration operates . The Press are angry, and this Cheney shooting accident, regardless of its merits, has invoked the fury of the Press.

South Datoka Passes Bill to Ban Abortions in State

2006-02-15T01:45:00.000-05:00

In hopes of challenging Roe v. Wade, the S.D. House has passed a bill to ban virtually all abortions in its state. The bill passed by a vote of 47-22 and will now go to the Senate where the vote is expected to be closer.

I seriously doubt that Roe will be overturned even in the more conservative Roberts court. As with the increase in underage liquor punishments, a total ban on abortion will not stop the practice. Joe Malchow is correct that perhaps all hell won't break lose if Roe is overturned, but the inevitable state bans would not limit the number of abortions and would humiliate and injure women and children.

Hunting Accident Exposes White House Tensions

2006-02-15T00:40:00.000-05:00

Evidently, the White House is not one big, happy family. VP Cheney's staff failed to communicate with the President's staff, hanging Scott McClellan out to dry and leaving egos bruised.
From today's New York Times:

The tension between President Bush's staff and Mr. Cheney's has been palpable, with White House officials whispering to reporters about how they tried to handle the news of the shooting differently...[the] message was clear: There was a procedure for conveying this kind of news, and it was not followed in this case.

What's most interesting is how this has exposed the VP's autonomy within the administration, even on the level of policy issues such as national security. Again, the Times:

In the past five years, Mr. Cheney has grown accustomed to having a power center of his own, with his own miniature version of a national security council staff. It conducts policy debates that often happen parallel those among Mr. Bush's staff.

While the "power behind the throne" or puppet-master jokes have long been a standby of the anti-Bush crowd, it is interesting to see the basis of those fears laid so bare, as they were by this event.

Why YOU Should Care About Minnesota Politics - Part 2

2006-02-14T22:46:00.000-05:00

Why has the Democratic Party lost the American working class? While this question was prominent during the 2004 election cycle, it remains important. Without a concrete answer, and without a concrete plan, the Democrats hold little hope of returning to power in 2006. Well, I humbly propose that my little state could provide an answer.

Both Democrats and Republicans have identified with values. The problem nowadays is that the Republican party has done such an effective job in framing its policies as values issues that the Democrats have essentially fled from any values characterizations at all. They’ve retreated so far that they actively scorn values voters. They say they've been duped by conniving Republicans; they stereotype the socially conservative working class as obese "Bubbas" who get their politics from the pulpit of their evangelical Protestant church. In fact, people vote Republican because President Bush and others have convinced them that their economic policies (the free market, tax cuts, less corporate oversight) reflect their values.

How can Democrats win back these voters? By returning to the field of values. Democrats have always been the party of social justice, of protecting the weak from the strong, the minority from the majority. All of these are clear values concepts. Imagine a values-driven Democratic attack on Republican policy; they could say that it rewards the greedy, rich minority while harming the hardworking blue-collar majority. Make working-class Americans realize that Democratic economics are in line with their values, and they'll forgive you for your support of Roe v. Wade.

So where does Minnesota politics come into this? Well, to engage in a little old fashioned populism, the east- and west-coast elites and the Democratic Party leadership are out of touch. John Kerry, Patrick Leahy, Ted Kennedy, Barbara Boxer; they've been out of the values debate for so long that any re-entry now seems disingenuous. Minnesota politics, however, have always revolved around what was best for the people. Hard work, compassion, honesty--these values, translated into policy, are what once gave Minnesota the best education system, the best labor conditions and the best standard of living in the country. Minnesotans like Matt Entenza, Amy Klobuchar and especially the late Paul Wellstone embody these ideals.

The Democratic Party has made some abortive attempts to return to the values arena. Harry Reid is pro-life; Tim Kaine is a religious Catholic. But what the Democrats need to realize is that it isn't the specific stance on "values issues" that matters, it’s the conviction that lies behind any issue. Minnesotans have that conviction.

Late Night Comedians on Cheney Hunting Incident: Letterman Wins

2006-02-14T02:37:00.000-05:00

MSNBC compiles a list of jokes spouted by comedians David Letterman, Jay Leno, and John Stewert tonight concerning Dick Cheney's hunting accident.

While I did not see any of these shows in person, from the transcript, Letterman delivered by far the funniest jokes:

“Good news, ladies and gentlemen, we have finally located weapons of mass destruction: It’s Dick Cheney.”

“But here is the sad part — before the trip Donald Rumsfeld had denied the guy’s request for body armor.”

“We can’t get Bin Laden, but we nailed a 78-year-old attorney.”

Brilliant.

News Coverage of Cheney Hunting Incident Curiously Delayed for 18 Hours

2006-02-13T13:38:00.000-05:00

The journal Editor & Publisher covers this development. I don't think there was anything nefarious going on, but the delay is curious.

Judge Allows Government to Stop Paying Hotel Bills for 12,000 Evacuees

2006-02-13T13:29:00.000-05:00

A Judge ruled today that FEMA can drop 12,000 people made homeless due to Hurricane Katrina from a program that pays for their hotel bills. Evacuees can still receive federal funds if they use it towards rebuilding their homes or hotel stays but the agency will no longer pay the hotels directly.

While I recognize that the government should not be paying for hotel bills for these evacuees indefinitely, FEMA should have done more to ensure that the thousands of evacuees have the resources to get their lives back together. Evacuees must now fill out a tedious application in order to get reimbursed for hotel funds. FEMA should continue payments until they can ensure that these people are properly taken care of.

Are Congressional Republicans Giving up on Bush?

2006-02-13T11:41:00.000-05:00

For the first five years of his presidency, President George W. Bush pretty much had his way with Congress. The Republican majority in Congress, so eager to have a Republican president, simply rubber stamped all of Bush's proposals from the Patriot act to the War in Iraq to the irresponsible tax cuts and more. I'm not arguing that the Democrats presented a formidible opposition to any of these bills -- they didn't -- but what is important now is that Congressional Republicans are beginning to deviate from their unquestioned support of the Bush administration.

Two specific incidents highlight this shift. Robert Novack comments upon Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist's wide-reaching criticism of the administration from its handling of the war in Iraq to its response to Hurricane Katrina and even to Bush's new budget. According to the article:

On NBC's "Meet the Press" Jan. 29, Frist said, "I would have probably put more troops in [Iraq] if the decision had been up to me." He said the White House is not cooperating with Hurricane Katrina investigations by Congress. As for the Bush budget, he said: "We are spending too much in Washington, D.C." He suggested his and the White House's position in the Terri Schiavo case was wrong. On NBC's "Today" program the next day, when asked about the administration's National Guard policy, Frist replied: "I am opposed to cutting the Guard myself."

Novack surmises that Frist is criticizing Bush in an attempt to bolster his candidacy for president in 2008, an election in which candidates from both parties are expected to run against many of Bush policies.

In a related development, the New York Times reports that an 11-member all-Republican congressional committee is set to issue a "blistering" report on Wednesday that accuses the administration of mismanagement and ineptitude in its response to Hurricane Katrina. Of particular significance is that the report finds that the administration knew that New Orleans' levees had been breached on the day that the hurricane hit. That contradicts earlier administration statements that they did not know the condition of the levees until the next day. The report indicated that the city should have been completely evacuated once the levees broke and the administration's delay hurt efforts to complete the evacuation.

For more see the Times archive of Katrina documents.

Congress had allowed more power than ever to be consolidated into the executive branch. It is heartening to know that they are beginning to reassert themselves, even if they are primarily doing so to distance themselves from an increasingly unpopular president.

Al Franken Fundraising for a Possible 2008 Senate Run: That's Just What We Need

2006-02-12T23:49:00.000-05:00

The blog Political Wire is reporting that Al Franken is raising money with a possible 2008 challenge to Norm Coleman (R-MN) in mind.

Said Franken: "I think that’s a fair inference to draw. Obviously if I’m going to run in 2008 I will have to have done certain kinds of things but if I don’t, I might as well do something good. This is really about getting people ... a progressive infrastructure built.”

Great. Why not, Al? You're really good at making fun of Ann Coulter, why not lawmaking? Novelty candidates (The Governator, Jesse "The Body" Ventura. Heck, even Lynn Swann is running for Governor of Pennsylvania); everbody loves them when they run, but look how they do once they're in office. Ventura spent more time moonlighting and appearing on Letterman than governing Minnesota; Schwartzenegger has dodged his way through various scandals and expended his political capital fighting gay marriage and having his proposals crushed in statewide referendum.

People love to see novelty candidates; they want "fresh faces" in government. What they forget, of course, is that governing is hard. Sometimes outsiders have the talent for politicking, but often they don't.

Minnesotans made this mistake once with Jesse Ventura; they won't do it again. This means that the Democrats need to go out and find a real candidate to oppose Coleman or risk gauranteeing his reelection through their own poor choices.

Passing The Buck--Now Working Upwards!

2006-02-12T23:11:00.000-05:00

The Scooter Libby testimony touched on already by Michael capped off a week where various shady characters attempted to deflect culpability for their screw-ups by connecting themselves to various "higher ups" in the Bush Administration. Before Libby's insinuations of VP Cheney's involvement in Plamegate came former FEMA chief Michael Brown's testimony that both officials in the Department of Homeland security and the White House knew about the seriousness of the Katrina tragedy on the same day as the hurricane made landfall. Also, we have Jack Abramoff claiming that he had met the President "dozens of times" in a number of emails, something the President has denied. Both men's statements have a plaintive air. To wit:

Mr. Brown appeared rueful about what he called "my demise." At one point, discussing what a good working relationship he had with Mr. Bush, he joked about Mr. Bush's praise — "heckuva job, Brownie" — during the president's first visit to New Orleans, a line that has been endlessly lampooned.
"Unfortunately he called me Brownie at the wrong time; thanks a lot, sir," Mr. Brown said, to laughter.

And:

Mr. Abramoff is reported as saying that Mr. Bush had "one of the best memories of any politician I have ever met" and that he "saw me in almost a dozen settings and joked with me about a bunch of things, including details of my kids." It added: "Perhaps he has forgotten everything. Who knows."

These can't be what the White House was hoping for. The less likely these men seem to be to "take one for the team" the more likely one of these three scandals is to mutating into the big issue of the 2006 campaigns and beyond.

Libby: Cheney Told Me to

2006-02-10T13:14:00.000-05:00

In case you haven't forgotten about the Plamegate scandal: indicted ex-chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney testified that Cheney told him to disclose the name of CIA agent Valerie Plame. According to the New York Time's article:

The prosecutor, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, said in a letter to Mr. Libby's lawyers last month that Mr. Libby had testified before the grand jury that "he had contacts with reporters in which he disclosed the content of the National Intelligence Estimate ('NIE')," that discussed Iraq's nuclear weapons capability. "We also note that it is our understanding that Mr. Libby testified that he was authorized to disclose information about the NIE to the press by his superiors."

Reports have indicated that one of his "superiors" has been identified as Cheney. I had a feeling this scandal wouldn't go away.

Dartmouth Alumni Constitutional Amendment to be Voted on Sunday

2006-02-10T12:41:00.000-05:00

On Sunday those alumni in Hanover will be able to vote on an amendment dubbed the "Internet voting amendment," which would allow internet voting for the adoption of the Alumni Governance Task Force's constitution.

As always, Joe's Dartblog has extended analysis here and here.

EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW WITH CONGRESSIONAL CANDIDATE LES ROBERTS

2006-02-09T15:22:00.000-05:00

The Agenda Gap caught up with Les Roberts, Democratic candidate for Congress in New York 24th District, this afternoon.

We initially asked Dr. Roberts about a recent study that he did concerning civilian deaths in Iraq. Dr. Roberts had performed similar analysis for a number of wars and in those wars the vast majority of civilian deaths were due to disease and not "bombs and bullets." His study of Iraqi civilian deaths, however, revealed that the majority of civilians were killed by the continuing violence and 80% died from coalition forces.

In a random sampling of 1,000 homes, Dr. Roberts and his team found that there had been 61 civilian deaths resulting from coalition troops.

On the Motivation for Running: "I've had unbelievable luck in being able to see the federal government on all levels." Dr. Roberts worked for the CDC, briefed Congress on a number of occassions, and trained disaster relief workers. "I've seen our government at its best and at its worst. I never even thought about running until Katrina struck. When it struck I was so appalled. I decided I desparately needed to do something. My congressman [Sherwood Boehlert] had been an architect for the Homeland Security department. He needed to go."

On the Failures of FEMA's Response to Katrina: "There were teams of doctors ready to go down to the gulf region to help out. They weren't allowed to go for six days" Why not? "The Homeland Security department has a military mentality. They wanted soldiers there first to secure the area, which is crazy."

On the Relationship between Scientists and the Bush Administration: "The relationship between the CDC and the Secretary of Health and Human Services and the President is bad -- there is outright hostility between them. Until this administration it has never happened that the White House has reached into the scientific community to try to control it, to use it as a political tool."

On the 24th District of New York: "It's brilliantly gerrymandered. That helps the incumbant. If Boehlert decides not to run, then it would works against both parties equally."

On Obstacles Facing Him: "The biggest obstacle facing me is that as a scientist, fundraising is very hard. I thought it was an obstacle that I'm not a politician: I don't have the skills to speak with ambiguity. Now, being a boring scientist might be good."

On His Experience in Public Health: "As a public health official I've been trained to assess costs and benefits, and produce results -- and we definitely need a Congress that gets results."

On His Race: "I am consciously running to put a check on the White House."

'Agenda Gap' Interviews Les Roberts

2006-02-09T15:07:00.000-05:00

Michael and I just sat down with Les Roberts, a former Public Health official and University professor turned Democratic congressional candidate for New York's 24th District, for nearly 45 minutes to discuss his race and his campaign's message. While we will post the full interview shortly, I have a few immediate thoughts.

First, Roberts impressed me not only with his knowledge and grasp of the issues surrounding his congressional race but also with the passion and dedication he puts forth in his campaign. When Roberts spoke about his visceral disgust with the Bush Administration's reaction to Hurricane Katrina, I couldn't help but feel the deep emotions that drive this man. Certainly he does not lack a sentient presence - something refreshing for political addicts.

Second, I was surprised, though maybe I shouldn't be, that the thrust of Roberts's platform is in direct response to President Bush's agenda. Whether Roberts is an anomaly or not is unclear. Still, it seemed to me that Roberts was running a campaign against the President, not the Republican opponent (currently incumbent Sherwood Boehlert) - a wise idea.

Again, the interview was a success and Michael and I thorougly enjoying spending time with such an admirable man.

Pictures and interview to come...

'Agenda Gap' to Interview Les Roberts

2006-02-08T16:54:00.000-05:00

The Agenda Gap will have exclusive interview and discussion with Les Roberts, Democratic Candidate for Congress (New York's 24th District), tomorrow afternoon. Stay connected for more...

To Lawmakers: Change the Drinking Age

2006-02-08T15:53:00.000-05:00

My colleague (and brother) commented today on overdue media coverage of New Hampshire's "insidious" drinking laws. He concludes with what anybody who has been to college recently already knows: banning drinking by people between the ages of 18 and 21 leads only to irresponsible drinking, not to less drinking.

In September 2004, college professor and recently retired president of Middlebury College John M. McCardell Jr., had this to say in the New York Times about the 21-year-old drinking age:

[T]he 21-year-old drinking age is bad social policy and terrible law. It is astonishing that college students have thus far acquiesced in so egregious an abridgment of the age of majority. Unfortunately, this acquiescence has taken the form of binge drinking. Campuses have become, depending on the enthusiasm of local law enforcement, either arms of the law or havens from the law.

Neither state is desirable. State legislators, many of whom will admit the law is bad, are held hostage by the denial of federal highway funds if they reduce the drinking age. Our latter-day prohibitionists have driven drinking behind closed doors and underground. This is the hard lesson of prohibition that each generation must relearn. No college president will say that drinking has become less of a problem in the years since the age was raised. Would we expect a student who has been denied access to oil paint to graduate with an ability to paint a portrait in oil? Colleges should be given the chance to educate students, who in all other respects are adults, in the appropriate use of alcohol, within campus boundaries and out in the open.

And please - hold your fire about drunken driving. I am a charter member of Presidents Against Drunk Driving. This has nothing to do with drunken driving. If it did, we'd raise the driving age to 21. That would surely solve the problem.

The 21 drinking age rests on the fallacious assumption, also made in other areas of policy, that the best way to have less of something is to prohibit it by law. Instead, as Americans learned during prohibition, and as Portugal learned when it banned abortion, oftentimes prohibiting something just makes it clandestine and dangerous.

College students unable to drink legally in bars will drink in frat houses and basements, where drinking is cheap, tasteless, and utterly unsafe. It would be better to have them drink in bars and clubs, where drinking is more expensive, interesting, and often supervised by adults. Because of tight student budgets, and becaues they are actually enjoying what they are drinking, those students will drink less - not more.

Virtually anyone who has been to college recently, or worked among college students, knows that this is true. It is time for lawmakers to get over their political cowardice (for it is just that - cowardice) and enact law that reflects sound policy judgments.

Insidious N.H. Drinking Rule Finally Gets Some News Coverage

2006-02-08T14:38:00.000-05:00

Over the weekend, the Washington Post covered the insidious and flagrantly over-the-top new drinking regulations to supposedly "combat" the underage drinking problem in New Hampshire.

This new regulation, which first sprang up in New Hampshire and has spread to a handful of other states, provides as one of its definitions for unlawful possession of alcohol by a person under the age of 21 as being "intoxicated by consumption." This law, dubbed "internal possession," also defines intoxication for underage people as having a Blood Alcohol Level (BAC) of 0.02, which is generally the equivalent of one drink.

By contrast, in the state of New York, someone over the age of 21 can drive a car without penalty with a BAC as high as 0.05.

As a preliminary point, there is a question as to whether this kind of regulation is constitutional. Richard J. Bonnie, a law professor at the University of Virginia was quoted as saying: "When the law makes the offense simply a biological fact, of simply having a certain chemical in one's body, that steps over a line in the law that has been traditionally accepted."

Even more serious, however, is that this law does little to reduce alcohol consumption by minors and helps create an atmosphere in which law enforcement officers can abuse the law in order to meet arrest targets. The increase in the legal drinking age from 18 to 21 was an attempt to reduce the incidents of drunk driving. This new law does absolutely nothing to address drunk driving. Instead it increases the likelihood that underage drinking takes place in more clandestine ways that will only make unsupervised binge drinking more likely.

Finally, this law allows for police officers to bait underage people in order to rack up more arrests. As reported in the Washington Post article, 19 year old Julia Zukerman was walking down the street when a police officer came up to her and asked her to "blow a kiss in my face." He then smelled alcohol on her breath and arrested her. The new law also allows officers to simply round up everyone at a party and determine who has actually drank anything later at the police station.

When will people realize that the way to combat irresponsible drinking is not to increase the severity of the laws? That will have the opposite effect. Underage drinking is a fact of life but responsible drinking is something that we should aim for through more education and less punitive punishment.

Is using Facebook.com for Political Purposes Wrong?

2006-02-07T16:17:00.000-05:00

My collegue recently commented on the increasing number of politicians (and not law enforcement officials) who are using Facebook.com for opposition research, particularly research related to the actions of the sons or daughters of politicians. It seems that sons or daughters of prominent public figures, not unlike the vast majority of other young adults, not only engage in illicit activity, such as underage drinking, lewd dancing, or nudity, but also take photographic evidence of their behavior. Political operatives use these photos in order to taint either the reputation or the character of the public figure in question.

Two questions emerge from this situation.

1.) Can this evidence be used in political campaigns?
2.) Should this evidence have any bearing on voter attitudes?

The answer to the first question is clear. Since any information on facebook.com is part of the public domain and since no reasonable individual is under the impression that his or her information on the website is private, then such information can not be prohibited from being used in the political arena. Facebook.com has various privacy options that users can manage in order to filter who can or can not view a user profile. Users whose family members are public figures or are public figures themselves (college sports stars like J.J. Redick or Matt Leinhart come to mind) ought to be conscious of their information and ought to exert caution when uploading information of their profiles.

The second question is more difficult to answer. An argument can be made in favor of taking this evidence seriously - perhaps the behavior of sons or daughters indicates a character flaw within a politician, which is important for voters when considering who to elect to represent them. If anything, the information could reveal deep family problems, which may leave voters uncomfortable. Proponents of this line of thought would claim that, ultimately, character is a legitimate issue for voters to consider and photographic evidence of illicit, unethical, or illegal activity involving children of the politician up for election does demostrate character.

I would argue otherwise - on two important points.

1.) Character is an important issue, but the behavior or a son or daughter has nothing to do with the character of a politician. Facebook.com is a website used by college-aged individuals, presumably individuals who are old enough and mature enough to make decisions on their own and to form a set of values with which to direct their actions. Although these individuals, are related to politician A, their actions don't reflect on politician A.

2.) These photos reveal nothing about the behavior of the son or daughter in question but are merely meant to be inflammatory. The photos only show one snapshot of an event without covering the whole of the behavior involved - they're incomplete and no behavioral traits can be inferred. Though a 'picture can tell a thousand words', pictures are also misleading.

Still, political operatives will only use negative opposition research if there is a market for it. Voters tend to take this stuff seriously (swift boat veterans...), despite its irrelevancy.

Facebook.com as a Political Tool

2006-02-07T14:09:00.000-05:00

While the story that the Hanover Police Department uses the popular online social network facebook.com to spy on students was completely fabricated, Hotline on Call and MyDD report about a different use for the online network.

According to Hotline, pictures posted from the facebook profile of Tim Russert's son Luke were circulated online. These pictures featured Luke lying in a hot tub surrounded by beer bottles and bikini-clad women. Hotline also notes that Samuel Alito's son Philip took down his profile after his father was nominated to the Supreme Court.

MyDD reports that a facebook contraversy has emerged in the ultracompetitive Indiana's eighth Congressional District between Republican John Hostettler and Democrat Brad Ellsworth. According to MyDD, three days after Ellsworth entered the race, a law student and conservative blogger Joshua Claybourn approached the Courier-Journal with photos of Ellsworth's daughter drinking alcohol that he obtained from her facebook profile. She is underage. While one would think this incident would not merit much attention, Hotline reports that the eighth district is a culturally conservative part of Indiana and the Ellsworth pictures could have an impact.

A quick facebook search can reveal the profiles of many children of political candidates and current politicians. As Hotline asks, "will candidates tell their college-aged kids to stop posting for fear of public embarrassment?"

Why YOU Should Care About Minnesota Politics - Part 1

2006-02-06T23:20:00.000-05:00

You might remember us from 2004. A state with a long and rich Democratic tradition, Minnesota became a battleground in the most recent election cycle. Buoyed by our recent election of a Republican Governor and Senator (Tim Pawlenty and Norm Coleman) Minnesota was inundated with GOP campaign money and VIPs. We've had 18 visits from President Bush alone--including last Thursday's post-SOTU stop to discuss "competitiveness." Kerry took the state, but by the smallest margin a Democrat had seen in 20 years. But at the same time, state Democrats captured 13 seats in the House. So who controls the new Minnesota? The 2006 elections will presumably answer that question. And it starts at the top. Senator Mark Dayton, after a largely anonymous and uninspiring six years in Washington, decided last year not to run for re-election. His announcement touched off a heated frenzy of campaigning which shows no signs of cooling before November.

On the Republican side, Mark Kennedy, a two-term Representative from the MN sixth district, has stepped up, attempting fufill a long-held (and highly transparent) ambition to become a U.S. Senator. His sixth district stretches from the northern suburbs of Minneapolis and St. Paul across central Minnesota, and encompasses much of the most conservative voters in the state. An anti-abortion conservative who votes consistently with the White House, he is emblematic of the new generation of Minnesota Republicans.

A half-dozen Democrats are arrayed to oppose him. But with the withdrawal of Patty Wetterling, only one serious candidate remains: Amy Klobuchar, the Hennepin County Attorney and a traditional Minnesota Democrat.

Why you should care: first of all, the Democratic campaign to reclaim the Senate must begin at home. Gaining six seats will be tough enough; gaining seven (and losing Minnesota for a net gain of six) will be well-nigh impossible. Rep. Kennedy is a strong campaigner and has won both on the issues (against Wetterling in 2004) and in campaigns dominated by negative attacks (over Janet Robert in 2002). The GOP is certainly taking his campaign seriously; President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have both appeared at his fundraising events.

Secondly, and perhaps most ironically, Kennedy’s devotion to the Bush agenda and ties to the President could end up hurting him. President Bush’s approval rating fluctuated between an abysmal 35% and 45% in Minnesota in January, and he may be dragging down the Kennedy campaign. Kennedy trailed Klobuchar by seven points in polling done in December before Wetterling withdrew from the race. Will Bush finally reverse his trend of leading his party to gains in Congress even as his own numbers slip, as he did in 2004? I think Kennedy will stick with Bush until the bitter end, and the decision will prevent him from connecting with Minnesota's still sizable population of moderate Republicans, who are sick of the war in Iraq and suspicious of the President's attmpts to "reform" Social Security. There aren't enough conservative Republicans in the state to elect him, and the state House-level trends exhibited in 2004 will continue with a Klobuchar victory in 2006.

An Introduction

2006-02-06T21:04:00.000-05:00

Hi everyone. I'm Max Schwartz, and I'll be guestblogging this week. My (possibly futile) goals: to both counter some of the rabid east-coast bias evident here and to secure myself a permanent spot on this blog. Hope everyone's as excited about political updates from fly-over land as I am.

New Guest Blogger

2006-02-06T20:48:00.000-05:00

Dartmouth junior Max Schwartz will be guest blogging this week. He'll address local, national, and Minnesota-based politics.

Can Radical Israelis Accept Palestine's Right to Exist?

2006-02-06T19:54:00.000-05:00

The New York Times published four letters to the editor today under the heading "Can Hamas Accept Israel's Right to Exist?" I have previously wondered about that question. I think that while many extreme elements might not, the Hamas-led government will have to.

But here's what I want to know: Can radical Israelis accept Palestine's right to exist?

Peace Now, an Israeli non-profit organization, reports that the number of Israeli settlers occupying illegal outposts in the West Bank increased in the year 2005, despite the Israeli Government's policy of disengagement, according to an article in the Israeli newspaper Haaretz. Haaretz reports that "the Jewish population in the territories continues to increase at an average annual rate of 5.5 percent - compared to a 1.8 percent growth rate for the overall Israeli population."

Most disturbing, however, is to read some of the reader responses posted on the Haaretz webpage. Here are some samples:

Sample 1:

I entirely support the building drive in Yesha. After all, the Arabs don`t accept us in any borders. Therefore, why give the enemy a state? We might as well go for the biblical borders of our heritage.

Sample 2:

Please G-d we will settle all Biblical Israel as Hashem commanded us!AMEN.

Sample 3:

Long live the settlers. To hell with the left. Olmert won't be prime minister for long.

From a Biblical standpoint, these are all defensible positions. But I need to ask: how are these statements different from radical Palestinian statements that Israel should be driven into the sea?

If radical Israelis won't accept Palestine's right to exist, why should they expect radical Palestinians to accept Israel's right to exist?

Both peoples, after all, claim a mandate from God.

The End of Journalistic Integrity at The Dartmouth

2006-02-06T13:02:00.000-05:00

I used to write for The Dartmouth, Dartmouth College's daily student-run newspaper. I quit halfway through my freshmen year because at the time, instead of covering the news, the paper tried to make the news. The final article that I wrote for the newspaper concerned the apparent dearth of Foreign Study Programs (FSPs) that Dartmouth offers in non-Western countries. My job was to find out why. The features editor at the time told me the probable reason was that the off-campus program director, John Tansey, didn't want to spend the time and effort needed to create these new programs that Dartmouth students supposedly craved.

When I interviewed Mr. Tansey, I found that the opposite was true. Over one-third of Dartmouth's FSPs take place outside of Europe and the United States. While I considered that to be a fairly substantial percentage, I still asked Mr. Tansey why there weren't more programs to non-Western countries. He replied that, not surprisingly, most Dartmouth students and faculty members prefer programs in Western Europe. These programs are preferred because they offer greater security, are more culturally similar to us, and they speak languages with which we are familiar. I then wrote the article based on this and other similar interviews.

Certainly I would expect the printed article to reflect the facts discerned from the interview. That, however, was not the case. The article was completely rewritten so that it would fit into the pre-conceived thesis that Dartmouth should be blamed for the supposed lack of non-Western programs. The new lead was "At this rate, Dartmouth students may be going nowhere fast" and flagrantly false statements were inserted into the article, such as the assertion that there are so few non-Western programs "despite what may be rising student interest in traveling to non-Western countries." No correction was ever issued.

While my experience on The Dartmouth showed their penchant to alter articles to conform to their preconceived hypotheses, an article in Friday's issue shows that they are also in the business of printing completely fabricated stories.

The article in question was originally titled "Police use Facebook to make arrests" and has since been redacted. The original article can be found here (layed out form here: page 1, page 2,). The article alleged that the Hanover Police Department uses the popular social network facebook.com "as a tool for tacking down suspected lawbreakers in the undergraduate student body." Hanover Police Chief Nicholas Giaccone was paraphrased as stating that the police are able to gain access to the network because they "purchase e-mail accounts from the College for the purpose of creating Facebook profiles."

Today, The Dartmouth redacted that article after an embarrassingly inadequate correction on the bottom of page two of the paper. The correction stated that they "incorrectly attributed Facebook.com as a source used by Hanover police to track undergraduate suspects." Giaccone was actually referring to the Green Book, a compilation of photographs and information given out to freshmen students. The correction further claims that Giaccone refers to the Green Book as a "facebook" and was unaware of the existence of Facebook.com.

This largely ineffectual correction does not explain how The Dartmouth made up the fabricated allegation that Hanover police purchases e-mail addresses from Dartmouth in order to track students on Facebook.com. How could they have printed such a clearly false statement without being predisposed to print the conclusion that Hanover police spies on students using the online network? Either that or the interview was completely botched and the paper didn't bother to do even cursory fact-checking.

Either way, the paper's actions appear either malicious or negligent to me and the page 2 correction should not remove The Dartmouth from a libel accusation. Printed corrections are not meant to absolve blame from clear and possible malicious disregard for the truth.

The Dartmouth should have reprinted the new article on the front page of today's paper. As it is now, the paper has sacrificed its journalistic integrity for a little sensationalism.

For more, see analysis at Little Green Blog and Dartblog.

Let the Mudslinging Begin!

2006-02-06T08:26:00.000-05:00

On ABC's "This Week", RNC Chair Ken Mehlman attacked Sen. Hillary Clinton as an 'angry', far-left leaning politician. The New York Times reports:

Mr. Mehlman disputed the suggestion that Mrs. Clinton, a former first lady, had moved to the center of her party. And while he declined to say, in response to a question, if he thought Mrs. Clinton would be the Republicans' "dream candidate or the Democrat you most dread," he left little doubt that Republicans had settled on new lines of attack on one of the leading Democratic contenders for the 2008 presidential nomination.

Referring to Mrs. Clinton's assertion that Republicans were running Congress like a plantation, he said, "Whether it's the comments about the plantation or the worst administration in history, Hillary Clinton seems to have a lot of anger."
"There's a lot of talk about a new Hillary Clinton, but if you look at the record, it's a very left-wing record," Mr. Mehlman said, adding that her record did not reflect the values of most Americans.

Why Boehner Won

2006-02-06T08:10:00.000-05:00

In a revealing article on last week's House Republican Leadership elections, Robert Novack writes:

When Roy Blunt entered the Caucus Room of the Cannon House Office Building at noon last Thursday, he was sure he had enough votes from fellow Republican House members to be elected majority leader. He probably would have won had it not been for what was said by two dissimilar congressmen: Bill Thomas of California and Mark Souder of Indiana.

Novack then goes on to state that although neither Thomas and Souder have many friends within the Republican caucus, the two congressman raised the most powerful arguments against Blunt, citing in particular his strong ties to K street (no surprise).

Clash of Civilizations?

2006-02-06T07:46:00.000-05:00

Protests among Muslims over offensive depictions of Mohammed that began in Europe and spread to Syria this weekend intensified yesterday, as thousands of Muslims sacked the Danish Embassy and looted several Christian neighborhoods in Beirut, Lebanon. According to The Washington Post:

The unrest, which involved as many as 20,000 protesters, was some of the worst in Lebanon in years, and leaders from across the political and religious spectrums appealed for calm. In vain, some Muslim clerics tried to step into the hours-long fray to end the clashes, which news agencies said left at least one demonstrator dead and 30 wounded.

I have yet to form some strong opinions on this particular piece of news, but for the time being I have mixed feelings. European newspapers have the freedom to publish whatever political cartoons they want; that's a right which ought not to be in question. However, I find it very irresponsible that these papers chose to publish such offensive and degrading cartoons, especially considering the likely reaction among its readership.

The rioting among Muslims can not be justified. Likewise, I doubt anyone would have predicted the scope and magnitude of the rioting that occured. That Muslims are targetting Danish embassies and other European and Christian sites as opposed to sources of free media shows that Muslims view the latest cartoon as a manifestation of European animosity not just toward the Muslim world but toward Islam itself.

On a positive note, it appears that several governments are neither condoning nor encouraging these violent acts. And the rioting is being met with criticism from other Muslims as well. Still, it is a very bothersome development that the European community and the United States must pay attention to.

Section of IAEA Report Directed at Israel?

2006-02-04T14:00:00.000-05:00

The International Atomic Energy Agency issued its final report on Iran today. The resolution, passed with overwhelming support, referred Iran's nuclear case to the United Nations Security Council for possible sanctions against the country.

One section of the report purports to broaden Iran's nuclear case as a greater goal of producing a nuclear-free Middle East. The report says:

(m) Recognising that a solution to the Iranian issue would contribute to global nonproliferation efforts and to realising the objective of a Middle East free of weapons of mass destruction, including their means of delivery.

It is widely believed that Israel possesses nuclear weapons, though the country has never admitted it. Israel also never signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.

Will this resolution be the first step toward actions against Israel to destroy its nuclear arsenal?

Muslim Anger on Muhammad Cartoons

2006-02-03T16:01:00.000-05:00

This past week cartoons depicting the Muslim profit Muhammad in a negative light appeared in several Danish newspaper and were then syndicated in a number of French and Italian papers. The publications of these cartoons has caused widespread anger and demonstrations throughout the Muslim world. Islam forbids any depiction of Muhammad.

While these cartoons are certainly offensive to Islam, it is troubling to hear the reaction of the Muslim protesters.

In the West Bank city of Ramallah, one protester was quoted as saying "Whoever defames our prophet should be executed." Others chanted "Bin Laden our beloved, Denmark must be blown up!"
In Gaza City, one imam told 9,000 warshippers that those behind the cartoons should be decapitated.
In Islamabad, Pakistan, warshippers chanted "Death to Denmark. Death to France."
In Malaysia, protesters chanted "Long live Islam, destroy our enemies."
Even in London, protesters surrounded the Danish embassy and chanted "Kill the one who insults the profit."

The spread of Muslim fundamentalism appears to have so permeated the Muslim world that there can be no legitimate protest that does not involve calls for the killing of other people. While these cartoons are certainly offensive, why do they provoke such calls for war?

Update: Check out this photographic ensemble of protesters in London, yes, London. Signs include "Be prepared for the real holocaust" and "Europe you will pay. Your 9/11 is on its way!"

Boehner Elected as Majority Leader

2006-02-02T14:12:00.000-05:00

House Republicans elected Rep. John Boehner to succeed Tom DeLay as majority leader. Boehner upset frontrunner Roy Blunt by a vote of 122-109 on the second ballot, who was seen as being too close to DeLay. Rep. John Shadegg of Arizona finished third in the balloting.

Josh Marshall analyzes what happened.

Reflections on the State of the Union

2006-02-01T15:50:00.000-05:00

Overall, I was disappointed by the State of the Union address. George W. Bush used to be a president who could connect to the average person as a trustworthy straight-talker. His speech last night, howver, was fulled with rhetoric what sounded like less than heartfelt committments to sound policies.

The section of his speech that gained the most media attention was the 2 minute and 15 seconds in which he referred to American society as "addicted to oil" and announced that he would cut American dependence on Middle East oil by 75% by 2025. That is a noble goal but Bush did not say enough to convince me that he's actually committed to this proposal.

Bush has consistently advocated policies that have increased U.S. dependence on foreign oil. He pulled us out of the Kyoto agreement, has not pushed for increased mileage efficiencies for U.S. cars, and has relaxed numerous environmental protections. It's quite simple: both Bush and Cheney were formerly in the oil industry. It natural that they would support policies that assist that industry, which has enjoyed unprecedented profits under this administration.

A reduction in oil consumption, especially from the Middle East, is not just an environmental issue. It is a national security problem, especially with the rise of Islamic fundamentalists in almost all of the oil-exporting countries. These are not people we want to enrich with oil profits.

STATE OF THE UNION

2006-01-31T20:47:00.000-05:00

My collegue Michael Herman and I are currently watching the State of the Union and will proceed to blog the event live over the course of the next hour. Nothing happening as of yet - Representatives and Senators are assembling into the House Chamber- CNN is reporting that Cindy Sheehan has been arrested at the Capitol despite having been invited by Rep. Lynn Woolsey of California to view the event. More to come....

AS (8:50 PM): Preliminary reporting from excerpts released by the White House Press Office seems to show that Bush's speech will be geared toward new programs for the future - particularly in energy policy, education, and health care. David Stout, of the New York Times, has some good insight here.

MRH (8:55 PM): CNN is now reporting that Sheehan was arrested because she attempted to unfold a banner while in her seat in the House chamber. That is against House rules.

AS (8:59 PM): Laura Bush looks good in pink...Hastert and Cheney look horrible in right and white...

AS (9:08 PM): Mr. Speaker....President looks good - like the dark blue tie....

MRH (9:15 PM): Bush begins his speech by acknowledging the death of Coretta Scott King, Dr. Martin Luther King's wife, and of pushing Congress to discuss its "differences" without resorting to anger. It is odd that Bush -- the disuniter -- is urging Congress to act more civilly because it is his policies that are the primary cause of the disunity and partisanship in Congress.

AS (9:18 PM): Lofty rhetoric about the liberating power that democratization can bring...Bush's discussion of radical islamic fundamentalism is nothing new. Get to the point!

MRH: (9:20 PM): Bush said: "America rejects the false assumptions of isolationism." Is there really a debate right now about isolationism in this country? Where is he going with this? Is this another defense of the war in Iraq?

AS (9:25): Bush to America: Stop criticizing the War in Iraq - its going poorly, but we can't leave now...My question to Bush, "When will the War end? At what point is victory reached?"

AS (9:34): David Stout has more reporting on the speech, which include several programs that Bush has yet to outline.

MRH (9:40 PM): Bush used his discussion of our "preeminent" economy to call for Congress to make his tax policies permanent. The best presidential speeches are those that urge the American people to take a part in the stake of our country, to make sacrifices for society's good. John Kennedy's inaugural address in which he said, "Ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your coutnry" encouraged Americans to have a stake in our country. Instead, Bush is saying that people should not sacrifice, but rather we should have a couple hundred dollars in tax relief while increasing the immense deficits that will impoverish the future of our country.

MRH: (9:45 PM): Unfortunately Adam and I must leave for another commitment. Enjoy (if you can) the rest of the speech.

State of the Union Tonight

2006-01-31T12:25:00.000-05:00

Stayed tuned to The Agenda Gap tonight...we'll be live-blogging the annual State of the Union Address. Blogging begins at 9 PM.

Evaluating our Anti-Terrorism Strategy: Is Democratization Working?

2006-01-30T14:03:00.000-05:00

The recent landslide victory by Hamas in the Palestinian election should give the Bush administration pause as it shapes its anti-terrorism foreign policy. The current strategy in this self-described "war on terror" is essential two-pronged: (1) destroy terrorists wherever they exist and work to dismantle those governemnts that support terrorists, and (2) proactively seek to create democracies in the Muslim world on the theory that democracies rarely engage in war against each other. Recent events have undermined the second prong.

The landslide victory election of the terrorist organization Hamas in Palestine is not an isolated incident. After cheering the withdrawal of the pro-Syrian government in Lebanon, Lebanese voted the terrorist organization Hezbollah into their government. In Iraq, the pro-Iran religious Shiite party swept the election. The islamic fundamentalist organization, the Muslim Brotherhood, made strong gains in the Egyptian election last month. Finally, Islamic fundamentalist groups have made strong gains in both Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia. Most, if not all of these elections have been considered fair and open elections by international observers.

Should we therefore continue to push for, and fund, democratic elections if they will bring about leaders who are fundamental enemies of the United States? Why has this process of democratization not brought about more moderate leaders in these countries?

Some, including myself, hope that bringing fundamentalist elements into the government will be a moderating force on them since they will now have the responsibility to govern a country. It is difficult, however, for a group like Hamas to moderate, given its beliefs. Here is an example from its charter:

The time will not come until Muslims will fight the Jews (and kill them); until the Jews hide behind rocks and trees, which will cry: O Muslim! there is a Jew hiding behind me, come on and kill him!
...
Israel, by virtue of its being Jewish and of having a Jewish population, defies Islam and the Muslims.

That is the charter of the organization that is now running the Palestinian Authority. It's going to be quite difficult for moderation to emerge from this document.

While I am not calling for us to abandon our goal of creating democratic governments in the Muslim world, I believe that more emphasis needs to be placed on creating local infrastructure that will defeat the fundamentalist ideology. Only when that is achieved can we truly be happy with these democracies.

Harsh Criticism of Dartmouth's Academic Policies

2006-01-30T08:22:00.000-05:00

Robert Butts, member of the Dartmouth Class of 2006, writes the following in today's issue of The Dartmouth:

A pattern is emerging, and it ought to be a disturbing one for people who believe that -- shock of shocks! -- educating students ought to be the College's top priority. Through their actions, Dartmouth's administrators have made it clear that, when it comes to their list of priorities, education is not at the top. Not by a long shot.

How else can you explain the repeated decisions to kill programs that were producing real results for students, while costing little compared to so many of the other peripheral pet projects that the College cannot seem to stop shoveling money at? I'll be damned if I can come up with a better explanation, and if the leaders of this College have one, I would sure love to hear it. Any reason would be better than the same lame excuse they have trotted-out time and time again: money.

Butts is refering to the recent dissolution of the Human Biology program, the Speech Department, and the Dartmouth Editing Program (DEP), which provides writing assistance to students who struggle with basic writing skills.

On this note, I have to agree with Mr. Butts. The college has invested (or at least it seems that way) too little into academic programs that, though utilized by a minority of students, are still essential in a liberal arts education. Instead, too much funding has been allocated toward administrative offices, particularly to the class Deans, who do little more than provide "support", which really amounts to nothing more than a smiling face and some 'can-do' rhetoric, to students who are too lazy to answer academic questions on their own.

The sheer number of layers to this totally unnecessary "support" system astounds me. Nevertheless, not to deviate from the subject of this post, I think Dartmouth, as of late, needs to do a better job at justifying the academic cuts that it has made. What surprises me most is that despite a range of professors who have left Dartmouth within the past three years, the college found room in their budget last year to hire ex-Stanford football coach, Buddy Teevans, to lead Dartmouth's pathetic football squad. Where are the college's priorities?

Bush's State of the Union Address

2006-01-30T08:09:00.000-05:00

Bush's State of the Union Address, to be delivered Tuesday evening (at 9 PM I believe), has caused a tide of speculation regarding the proposals and messages that the President will likely highlight. In an surprisingly insightful article, the AP reports:

Unlike predecessor Bill Clinton, this president is hardly one to be caught scribbling in the margins while riding to the Capitol to deliver the speech.

"There is never any of that last-minute activity," said Matthew Scully, a Bush speechwriter from the 2000 election campaign until August 2004.

When Bush goes before a joint session of Congress and a national television audience Tuesday night for his fifth State of the Union, what he says will largely dictate his and the Republican Party's 2006 agenda. His proposals will have the added heft of helping drive the debate in this fall's congressional campaign.

The Agenda Gap plans to blog live during the State of the Union Address, with analysis and reaction during the speech.

Big election for House GOP

2006-01-30T07:49:00.000-05:00

From Today's New York Times:

House Republicans will choose a leader to replace Tom DeLay this week in a private election that holds major significance for their party's public image as they head uneasily toward crucial midterm elections.

In light of the Abramoff scandal, a Republican House member's admission of bribery, and inquiries into the conduct of other lawmakers and former aides, an internal fight that would typically turn on legislative skills, fund-raising power and political savvy has centered on whether the contenders can help dispel an impression that Republicans are too cozy with special interests.

The Washington Post reports that:

...Supporters of Blunt's opponents say the acting majority leader has stumbled badly in recent days, as Boehner and Shadegg push to turn the leadership contest into a referendum on how seriously the party is taking a corruption scandal that has already led to the conviction of one Republican House member and former GOP lobbyist Jack Abramoff. A vote for Blunt to succeed the indicted DeLay and, for that matter, Cantor to succeed Blunt as whip, would send precisely the wrong message, supporters of Boehner and Shadegg say.

This is a tough race to predict because, like any vote where secret ballots are administered, it is difficult to measure the level of electoral apprehension among House Republicans. Boehner and Shadegg are running on the theme that electing Blunt would signal no change to the American public - more so Shadegg than Boehner.

This is certainly true - besides DeLay, no lawmaker has more connections to K Street than Roy Blunt.

However, I think Blunt's fundraising power over several years and his relationship with nearly every House GOP member elected since 1994 will give him an edge. Likewise, electing Blunt gives the House a sort of continuity that may be appealing to members who believe that electing Boehner or Shadegg would be an admission of guilt.

Google Does Evil

2006-01-27T15:37:00.000-05:00

Apparently forsaking its famous motto "Do No Evil," Google has announced that it will agree to censor the results from its Chinese language search engine http://google.cn/ Joe's Dartblog invites readers to do an image search for "tiananmen" on google.cn and then compare it to the same search on google.com. The results are quite astounding.

Google defended its decision by arguing that gaining an increased share of the Chinese market will help to open up the country to the Internet and that can only be a good thing. Google's motto, however, is not "Do More Good than Evil" or "Do Some Evil and Maybe Some Good Too." It is "Do No Evil."

Google's clout in the search engine market should have allowed it to push the Chinese government to relax censorship regulations instead of bowing to their wishes. It would have been a fight but in the end, Google would have upheld it's motto and might have furthered an even better one: "Do No Evil and Do Good Too"

Well, Which One is it?

2006-01-27T15:29:00.000-05:00

Two headlines from the AP today:

U.S. Capitol Staircase to Be Repaired

U.S. Capitol Staircase to Be Dismantled

Either fix it or get rid of it. Just don't report that both are happening.

Memo to Kerry: Do Not Filibuster Alito!

2006-01-27T07:55:00.000-05:00

This morning in my mailbox I received a message from Senator John Kerry...or at least someone affiliated with the Senator. The message, with subject title "Filibuster", stated:

Yesterday, Senator Ted Kennedy and I told our colleagues that we supported a filibuster of Judge Alito's nomination for the Supreme Court. And we weren't alone. But the bottom line is that it takes more than two or three people to filibuster successfully. It's not "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington." If you want to stop Judge Alito from becoming Justice Alito, use your own email list and organize. We can't just preach to our own choir. We need to prove to everyone - from our friends and neighbors to our fellow Senators - that the American people know Judge Alito will take our country in the wrong direction, and they expect something to be done about it.

Several things are wrong with this email. While email lists and petitions are important in raising awareness of issues that rest outside the public's vision, they are totally irrelevant when a filibuster is at stake. It doesn't matter how many people want Kerry or other Democrats to filibuster - the point of a filibuster is that it gives a minority the right to speak and the right to halt legislation, no matter how large or small that minority is. So while a petition may illustrate widespread support for a filibuster, the filibuster should not invoke depending on the number of people who endorse it.

That being said, a filibuster would undoubtedly fail in the Senate. A handful of Senate Democrats have either supported Alito (Byrd, Nelson, and Johnson) or have indicated that they do not support a filibuster.

So what would result from such a filibuster, should Democrats be inept enough to try it out? Republicans will vote it down in unison and Democrats will split on the issue - Democrats will split. Keep in mind that the whole point of opposing Alito is that the Democrats are supposed to display cohesion and agreement! This issue was supposed to bring Democrats together, though if the filibuster is invoked, they will be pulled apart.

Bottom line: Neither Kerry nor Kennedy (both from Massachusetts - certainly not an ideologically middle-of-the-road state) should filibuster Alito's nomination.

It's all about framing

2006-01-27T07:37:00.000-05:00

A New York Times/CBS News Poll reveals that most Americans base their opinions on President Bush's domestic surveillance program depending on how questions about the program are phrased. From the New York Times article:

The results suggest that Americans' view of the program depends in large part on whether they perceive it as a bulwark in the fight against terrorism, as Mr. Bush has sought to cast it, or as an unnecessary and unwarranted infringement on civil liberties, as critics have said.

In one striking finding, respondents overwhelmingly supported e-mail and telephone monitoring directed at "Americans that the government is suspicious of;" they overwhelmingly opposed the same kind of surveillance if it was aimed at "ordinary Americans."

The poll found that 53 percent of Americans approved of Mr. Bush's authorizing eavesdropping without prior court approval "in order to reduce the threat of terrorism"; 46 percent disapproved. When the question was asked stripped of any mention of terrorism, 46 percent of those respondents approved, and 50 percent said they disapproved.

These results suggest several things. First, many American, probably a majority, are unaware of the details of the surveillance program and have yet to form an opinion on the matter. Americans are disturbed whenever their civil liberties, particularly their privacy, are threatened. But, however, Americans are willing to sacrifice such liberty if they feel that they (i.e. 'ordinary Americans') will not be targetted - if the program only eavesdrops on suspected foreigners and people communicating with Al-Qaeda, Americans are comfortable with such surveillance.

Second, this issue is not bound in Democratic terrain. If President Bush is able to convince Americans that they are not at risk of being surveilled, that only highly suspected individuals can have their phones, computers, etc. tapped, and that the program is saving livings by preventing catastrophic terrorist attacks (which I, for one, believe it may have done given Bush's willingness to defend the program), then Republicans may own the issue.

Still, with Bush's approval ratings in the tank (42% last I saw in a FOX News Poll), I think Americans are getting tired of this President. Luckily for him, however, Democrats are so weak and empty of ideas that the issue may dissolve without his full justification of it (sort of like how no one ever talks about Karl Rove/Libby/Plamegate anymore....).

Is a Hamas-Dominated Government Really a Bad Thing?

2006-01-26T14:03:00.000-05:00

I alluded to this question in a previous post. It's obvious that the Fatah-led government was marred with corruption and ineffectiveness and so it is not surprising that Hamas fared so well. The question becomes, will a Palestinian government led by a group that calls for the destruction of Israel really be a bad thing?

I think supporters of Israel can be optimistic for two reasons: (1) the realization that unilaterial disengagement is the best course of action for Israel to take regardless of who runs the PA, and (2) Hamas now has the responsibility of running a state and effective leadership might require a moderation of Hamas's extreme position towards Israel.

A continuation of Ariel Sharon's policy of unilateral disengagement would not only preserve the security of a Jewish-majority in Israel, but it would also pave the way for a Palestinian state. It is possible that negotiations between Palestinians and Israelis will come to a standstill now but that does not mean there will be an escalation of violence. Furthermore, Hamas is bound to realize that their policy of calling for the destruction of Israel is not in the interest of the Palestinian people and is not something that will be realized. Hopefully the responsibilities of government will mediate Hamas's extreme positions.

HAMAS WINS PALESTINIAN ELECTION

2006-01-26T12:46:00.000-05:00

Hamas has won 76 seats, with Fatah claiming only 43. Hamas can now form a majority government. Analysis to come soon...

Palestinians Vote Today

2006-01-25T11:17:00.000-05:00

Why do people think that it's such a monumentally bad thing that Hamas is posed to win a significant percentage of the Palestinian parliamentary seats? The faction currently in power -- the remnants of Yassir Arafat's Fatah Movement -- has been universally corrupt and ineffectual. Fatah has done nothing to stop terrorist attacks to the extent that they are either incompetent, powerless, or even covertly supporting the terrorists.

What's wrong with having a terrorist organization in power? Israel knows that they gain nothing from negotiations with Fatah, so now they don't even have to pretend to be allies with a Hamas-dominated Palestinian government. By continuing Ariel Sharon's policy of disengagement, Israel can assure its security no matter who's in charge of the Palestinian government.

Acting Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has indicated that he supports the creation of a Palestinian state and that he would authorize the dismantling of many West Bank settlements. This unilateral decision had absolutely nothing to do with conversations with Palestinians. Instead, Olmert said:

The choice between allowing Jews to live in all parts of the land of Israel and living in a state with a Jewish majority mandates giving up parts of the land of Israel. We will not be able to continue ruling over the territories in which the majority of the Palestinian population lives.

Israel should continue the realistic policy of unilateral disengagement and not worry itself with whoever wins the election today.

DH Adds: I am not sure I agree that it shouldn't matter to Israel who is in charge in the Palestinian government or that Israel has gained nothing from negotiations with Fatah. But I will say this: there is precedent to support the idea that assimilating hardline extremists into the government might not be a bad thing.

The best example: Ariel Sharon.

Before he was Prime Minister, I wager few would have ever thought he'd be the one to unite the supermajority of Israelis behind a two-state solution and begin the process of disengagement. After all, he was one of the founders of the right-wing Likud party and, prior to becoming Prime Minister, had opposed scores of peace proposals, including the Oslo agreement of 1993. He was also a major supporter of the settlement movement, using his position as Minister of Agriculture to double the number of Jewish settlements in the West Bank and Gaza.

But once Sharon became prime minister, he realized that he had responsibility to ensure security and stability for all Israelis, not just to push the radical agenda of a few. He transformed from the patron of the settlers' movement to the champion of withdrawal and disengagement. He even broke with Likud to form his own party.

Maybe if Hamas had a hand in government, some of its members, too, would realize that with official power comes the responsibility to ensure order and security, not to generate fanatical chaos. Perhaps that is what Mahmoud Abbas is hoping will happen here.

Let's just hope he's right.

The Meaning of a Scandal

2006-01-24T09:24:00.000-05:00

Compare and contrast these two editorials, one by John McIntyre and the other by Dick Morris (both known conservatives). From Realclearpolitics.doc, McIntyre writes:

While the Abramoff mess is indicative of much of what is wrong in Washington, it is not the earth shattering political typhoon that is going to wipe out the Republican majority in Congress...Why the Democrats continue to focus their attacks on national security related issues (Iraq, wire-tapping, Gitmo, and torture) is beyond me. I suspect a big reason is the Howard Dean/Moveon.org/DailyKos influence that is becoming increasingly more mainstream in the Democratic Party. And while this influence may bring increased grass roots energy to the Democratic side, it also leads to Democratic politicians in Washington losing touch with where the average American is on these fundamental national security issues.

On January 18th, writing for The Hill, Dick Morris remarked:

...this scandal is different. With Republicans so completely in control of the government, this scandal is theirs. ..Because this scandal is both partisan and local it will have a searing political impact. Nor should the recipients of Abramoff’s dubious generosity dismiss their acceptance of his donations by saying it doesn’t matter because everybody took his money...

So for McIntyre the Republican position is hardly anything to worry about, but for Morris Republicans should be weary. Who's right? I'm not entirely sure as of yet. I think either prediction can come to fruition and that each depends on how the Democrats 1.) react to these scandals and 2.) present a viable, clear alternative. Democrats need to be aggressive, hostile, and raw with Republicans - now is not the time of conciliatory measures, that time has past. Likewise, the Democrats need to put forth some sort of unified and simple media package together that conveys their agenda and their willingness to govern. McIntyre is right, a 'culture of corruption' is not going to do it. Democrats need a 'contract', a tangible, workable agenda they can go home to their constituents and speak about. I also think that the Democrats ought to nationalize the House elections in 2006 - standardizing the rhetoric and platforms that each congressional candidate will run on. In doing so, the Democrats will show that their party speaks with one voice and has one vision.

But I doubt Democrats will do this. I fear that 2006 offers the Dems an once-in-a-decade opportunity for making enormous gains in the House, but without strong leadership and a strong message, Democrats will mess it up.

Conservative Canucks Victorious

2006-01-24T09:16:00.000-05:00

From today's Washington Post:

Returns in the national election gave a strong victory to Conservative leader Stephen Harper, 46, a political strategist from western Canada who jokes about being dull. He shrugged off Martin's accusations that he is too cozy with U.S. conservatives for liberal-leaning Canada, the same accusations that crippled his candidacy in 2004.

A step to the political right will be a change for Canada, which has grown increasingly more liberal on social and political issues than its southern neighbor, to the point that Martin attacked Harper as being "pro-American" in the campaign.

Being as uninformed about Canadian Politics as the average American, I have trouble inferring the meaning of these results. If anything, it seems that Canada is politically deadlocked - while Harper won the national election his party failed to gain a majority in the Canadian House of Commons. With regards to relations with the United States, I can't imagine any substantial change taking place besides more vocal support for US actions abroad, which is somewhat inconsequential. It is reassuring to know that liberal rhetoric against the United States designed to galvanize feelings of anti-Americanism did not work as a political tool. From the few sources I read prior to the election, it seemed like Martin's strategy was to associate Harper with President Bush and the American Right. Clearly, that was ineffective.

New Blog

2006-01-24T00:38:00.000-05:00

This term at Dartmouth, I am a chairman of the Daniel Webster Legal Society, a weekly discussion group in which we debate pertinent legal issues.

We also operate a blog: http://danielwebster.blog.com/. Feel free to check it out.

Spitzer Picks Paterson as Running Mate

2006-01-23T20:24:00.000-05:00

Democratic gubornatorial candidate Eliot Spitzer announced that he has chosen New York State Senator David A. Paterson (D-30) as his running mate. Paterson is a popular tactician and is the highest ranking African-American in state government. He is also legally blind.

According to the Politcker, many African-American politicans are actually upset by the Paterson choice. Many, including Rep. Charles Rangel had preferred Leecia Eve. Eve has impeccable credentials: a graduate of Harvard Law School and and the John F. Kennedy School of Government, a clerk for the New York State Court of Appeals, and counsel to both Senators Joseph Biden and Hillary Clinton.

One would expect, then, that the Harlem leaders are upset at Spitzer because they feel that Eve is more qualified than Paterson for the job. Wrong. Hazel Dukes, head of the New York State NAACP told The Politicker, "I'm hurt ... "[Paterson] has every right [to run], but he knows that Leecia Eve has been to the community for the last five months talking to people, getting commitments to support her." So it's not that Eve is more qualified than Paterson, it's that she's been to more cocktail parties with party elites.

This attitude is exactly what is wrong with the Democratic political machine. As we have posted before (here and here), qualifications are taking a back seat to who's "turn" it is to win the party's backing based on the frequency with which the candidate appears at political clubs and cocktail parties.

Eve certainly is eminently qualified for the position of Lt. Governor, but describing her qualfications as being in "the community for the last five months [and] talking to people" creates a mockery of what should be a meritocratic process.

Does Roe Really Matter?

2006-01-23T15:25:00.000-05:00

(Addendum to Michael R. Herman's post below.)

In the New York Times' blog, Judith Warner writes an excellent column in which she suggests that (1) The Roberts/Alito court will not overturn Roe, (2) it is not in the Republican Party's interest to have Roe overturned, and (3) Roe doesn't actually matter.

I am inclined substantially to agree with her on all three points. I recommend reading her column.

I also think that pro-choice activists have been "galloping in the wrong direction" (to quote Justice Scalia). While hammering on abortion as a woman's right is useful for motivating a political base, there are many people in this country who, no matter how many times they hear it, just can't think of abortion as a right. They may not think of it as "murder," either, but they do think of it as something bad.

What really might motivate those people to oppose restrictions on abortion, however, is evidence that restrictions on abortion (a) do not lead to significantly fewer abortions, and (b) have serious health consequences for women and children.

Portugal's experience is a good example (Last year Nicholas Kristof reported: ''Forbidding abortion doesn't save anyone or anything,'' said Sonia Fertuzinhos, a member of the Portuguese Parliament. ''It just gets women arrested and humiliated in the public arena.'') For years, Portuguese women who have wanted abortions have either travelled to Spain, or had them performed illegally (and unsafely).

Pro-choice groups might be more effective if they focused on practical consequences rather than the abstract language of rights. An overturn of Roe might not be such a bad thing because it would require pro-choice groups to take these issues to the legislature.

This approach might shift the debate from (1) "abortion is a right" vs. "abortion is murder" to (2) "we should have fewer abortions by keeping it legal and teaching people about contraception" vs. "we should have fewer abortions by outlawing it and teaching people only to engage in abstinence."

If the second debate dominated public attention instead of the first, I think the pro-choice folks would win. Real evidence shows that outlawing abortion and teaching only abstinence education just doesn't work. A majority of the electorate would support that idea.

With the debate over "rights" dominating, Republians can use Roe as a flashpoint for motivating extreme elements of the party and shifting public attention away from the real consequences of a ban.

Opposing Sam Alito

2006-01-23T09:39:00.000-05:00

Today the New York Times came out with its editorial calling for U.S. Senators to vote against confirming Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court. Rather than offer a serious criticism of Alito, the Times merely restates many of the failed Democratic talking points, which partly explain why Americans do not seem to care about this nomination process (though, thankfully, the Times leaves out Alito's former membership in CAP).

The Times argues that Alito should not be confirmed for two reasons: (1) he would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade and (2) he has supported the so-called "unitary executive" theory, which calls for a broad view of presidential power and a narrow view of congressional power.

As I have argued before, the right to an abortion is not the major issue facing the U.S. Supreme Court. How many abortion cases has the Court decided in the last five years? Just one. It was decided last week. Finally, even if Alito would vote to overturn Roe and Chief Justice John Roberts does the same, Roe would still have a five-vote majority to uphold it (Souter, Breyer, Ginsburg, Kennedy, and Stevens). Furthermore, the Times's assertion that certain pro-choice Republicans should not vote for Alito solely because he apparently would vote to overturn Roe would reinforce the sorry abortion litmus test that pervades the Senate chamber.

Alito's view of executive power is troubling, in light of the Bush administration's established results-oriented trend to nominate judges who had served for Republican administrations. One wonders what Alito's view on executive power would be if a Democrat were president.

We should not oppose Alito singularly because of his anti-Abortion stances or his supposed reverence for executive power, but rather because he has all the makings of a judge who, along with Scalia, Thomas, and Roberts, will work to uphold laws passed by Republicans, and invalidate laws passed by Democrats - just as we saw with the Oregan assisted suicide case.

Klein Bashes Hackett

2006-01-23T08:22:00.000-05:00

Writing about the upcoming 2006 Ohio Democratic Senate Primary between Rep. Sherrod Brown and Paul Hackett for TIME, Klein states:

There was a real intimacy with the candidate, whom they called Sherrod. It was the most basic sort of politics—an unintended reproach to political professionals who tend to fall for flashy war heroes, and to flashy war heroes who insult the public by thinking they can run for office without taking the issues seriously in a dead-serious time.

The article is well-written and revealing. Through its entirety, Klein demonstrates that Hackett has an inadequate grasp of major issues while Brown commands a presence and state of mind worthy of a Senate candidate. I happen to disagree with Klein, I think Hackett is a fantastic candidate for the Democrats at this time, but I still think the article is worth reading.

Framing Bush's Spying Program

2006-01-23T08:07:00.000-05:00

Adam Nagourney, a political columnist for the New York Times, writes an insightful piece in today's paper about efforts made by Republicans and Democrats to successfully frame Bush's spying program in order to garner support from the public. From the article:

Polls suggest that Americans are divided over whether Mr. Bush has the authority to order the searches without warrants that critics say violate the law and that the president says are legal and critical to the nation's security.

But as the White House and Democrats are well aware, the issue can draw very different reactions depending on how it is presented. These next few days could prove critical, as both Mr. Bush and Congressional Democrats move aggressively to define what is at stake.

I think this issue could go either way, and I'm inclined to say that in light of the new Osama Bin Laden tape and Bush's forthcoming State of the Union Address, Bush has a distinct communication advantage. If Bush can connect America's fight against terrorism with his spying program and convince Americans that the program has saved lives, I think he would regain ground on the issue. Conversely, Democrats may be able to stir up apprehensions over Bush's failed war in Iraq and corruption scandals at home, causing Americans to distrust the President and his pleas for the program. I would be very surprised, however, if Democrats are able to do this. The Republican media machine is so powerful and the Democratic leadership is pathetically weak that it seems unlikely that Democrats will be able to persuade the public on almost anything.

Why is Dissent Unamerican?

2006-01-21T14:30:00.000-05:00

Glenn Greenwald over at Crooks and Liars discusses the current trend to "equate opposition to George Bush with subversiveness, treason, and support for Al Qaeda." Greenwald makes a particularly timely observation since Chris Matthews compared what Osama bin Laden said in his recent audiotape to Michael Moore.

Consevative talk show host and bowtie wearing pundit Tucker Carlson also compared bin Laden's comments to those coming from Democrats. On his show "The Situation" Carlson defended Matthews comments, telling Rachel Maddow from Air America Radio, "It‘s not a political attack on Democrats. It‘s merely an acknowledgement that Osama is stealing all your best lines. Time to take a new one."

Republicans have been successfully frightening Americans for years by telling them that the terrorists are rooting for the Democrats. Let's not forget that a large number of Republicans including House Speaker Dennis Hastert said that Al Qaeda was rooting for John Kerry to win the 2004 election.

The conservative Cybercast News Service began questioning Rep. John Murtha (D-PA)'s Vietnam war record almost immediately after he criticized the war in Iraq. According to the Washington Post the news service questioned whether Murtha deserved the purple hearts that he received for his dedicated service in Vietnam.

That's the Republican strategy right now: attack the messenger and people will forget the message. The more personal the attacks, the better.

Transit Workers Reject Contract

2006-01-20T15:41:00.000-05:00

Exactly one month after their illegal three-day strike, the Transit Workers Union voted today to reject their new three-year contract by a mere seven votes. The rejection emphasizes real division within the union. President Roger Toussaint blamed "downright lies" by rogue members of the union for the members failure to ratify the contract. The union must now go back to the negotiating table with the MTA.

Could this be the end of the TWU? That is surely a possibility. This rejection is a clear vote of no confidence in Toussaint and he had been the only person holding together this union.

The New York Times has more.

Nonsense from Charlie Cook

2006-01-20T08:13:00.000-05:00

Charlie Cook, a slightly right-leaning political analyst and author of The Cook Report, makes an erroneous claim regarding the origins of the caustic nature of political debate in Washington. From an editorial today in National Journal:

An unreasonable share of today’s political conversation is venomous and lacking any effort at accuracy or fairness. I blame this problem first on the rise of political food-fight shows on cable television, on radio talk shows, and most recently on the Internet, where political discourse has become the Wild West...The Internet has simply taken the hostilities to new heights...Libelous accusations can be posted anonymously. And information that is inaccurate or taken totally out of context can get widely disseminated instantaneously.

Although 'food-fight shows' and partisan-driven blogs may intensify the 'venomous' political debate in Washington, I think the origin is rooted in an inability for parties (mostly the Republican Party) to compromise on issues of national concern. Politics is now a zero-sum game where the party in power ignores proposals made by the opposition party and excludes the opposition from policy making. Especially at a time when the governing majority rests on a slim margin, Republicans' dismissal of everything that is remotely associate with the Democratic Party forces Democrats to react vehemently against Republicans. Lawmakers are the leaders of policy and political debate.

"Profound" Advice from The Dartmouth

2006-01-20T07:53:00.000-05:00

Today, the Dartmouth College daily student-run newspaper, The Dartmouth, published an editorial criticizing the College for not sponsoring more activities that reduce the tendency for ethnic and racial groups to segregate from mainstream student life. The editorial states:

While we realize that self-segregation is a complex issue to address, we believe that the College can do more to encourage interaction among various selective campus organizations...However, we find the degree to which Dartmouth indirectly fosters the divisions within the student body highly problematic. Whatever the College's rhetoric, in reality many groups stand as virtually isolated entities pursuing their own agendas outside the whole.

The statement is unusally combative for this traditionally administrative-friendly newspaper. And while I agree with the assertion that the College does 'indirectly foster' racial divisions on campus, I think such divisions are unavoidable at any institution. Furthermore, I doubt the college could itself take an active effort at rectifying the problem -- the solution must come from the student body. That being said, there are several organizations that DO indirectly foster cross-cultural relations. Sports teams, fraternities (despite low minority participation), and various clubs on campus do allow for friendships to be made between black students, latino studnets, white students, etc.

Another Harry Reid Blunder

2006-01-20T07:35:00.000-05:00

Two days ago I commented on a press conference led by Democrats, notably Sen. Harry Reid and Rep. Nancy Pelosi, where several members of Congress blasts the Republican Conference for its close ties to K street and special interest lobbyists. The press conference, largely a failure besides a rousing speech by Rep. Louise Slaughter, was painful to watch. Not only was Nancy Pelosi embarassingly inarticulate, but Harry Reid was also as sedate and uninspiring as a Senate Minority Leader shouldn't be. I concluded that Reid in particular was a prime example of a Democratic leader who needed to be replaced by a more audacious member of the Senate.

Well if that wasn't enough, today I found this story in the Washington Post. From the story:

Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) apologized to 33 Republican senators yesterday for a hard-hitting news release that accused them of ethical and legislative lapses, in an awkward about-face that tripped up Democrats' effort to keep the GOP majority on the defensive over alleged corruption...The document, he wrote, "went too far, and I want to convey to you my personal regrets. . . . No one cares more about the Senate and its tradition of collegiality than I do.

If there's one thing a Minority Leader should NOT be doing right now, as Republicans are mired in lobbying scandals that threaten their governing majority, it is to apologize for 'going too far'. The Republicans never apologized for 'going too far' when they ordered Terry Schiavo's eating tube to remain inside her dying body. They never apologized either for the conduct of Lewis Libby, Tom DeLay, or anyone else who resigned amidst public pressure. It took nearly a week and intense public pressure for Jean Schmidt to apologize for her calling Rep. John Murtha a 'coward', and even then she insisted that her statements were misinterpreted.

Bottom line is this: when the Democrats start apologizing it makes them look powerless, weak, and wrong. Whether the document at the press conference went 'too far' is irrelevant - Reid must act and speak with conviction and certitude that convinces that American people that Democrats are the party for governing. He has done the opposite. It's time to oust Reid and bring a real fighter to the table.

Truce with al-Qaeda?

2006-01-19T16:23:00.000-05:00

In an audio tape released today on Al Jazeera, Osama bin Laden offered the United States a "long-term truce." According to the Washington Post, White House spokesman Scott McClellan replied: "We do not negotiate with terrorists."

My question: Why not?

What if the terms of the truce were reasonable? What if the truce would save New York or Washington from another 9/11 without sacrificing our major objectives abroad? Should we reject such an offer out of hand without first hearing the terms, and the proposed means of ensuring that the truce is honored? All this in support of a slogan?

Al Jazeera's English-language website has excellent coverage and analysis of the bin Laden tape, found here.

In the tape, among other things, bin Laden said:

In response to the substance of the polls in the US, which indicate that Americans do not want to fight Muslims on Muslim land, nor do they want Muslims to fight them on their land, we do not mind offering a long-term truce based on just conditions that we will stick to.

We are a nation that God banned from lying and stabbing others in the back, hence both parties of the truce will enjoy stability and security to rebuild Iraq and Afghanistan, which were destroyed by war.

If this statement had come not from a group labeled as a "terrorist organization," but from a traditional adversary in war, I submit that it would sound eminently reasonable. It sounds like an offer of peace.

The President claims that we are "at war" with "the enemy." If the "enemy" is anybody in particular, it is surely al-Qaeda. If this is a war, and al-Qaeda is the enemy, how does the President expect that the war will end, unless it is by an agreement like the one proposed?

In war, if all peace treaties are categorically rejected, the war goes on until one side is utterly vanquished and the other victorious.

Which one will we be?

The "Right" to Nominate Extremist Judges

2006-01-19T12:40:00.000-05:00

A letter in the New York Times today recognizes "that as president of the United States, [George W. Bush] has the right to nominate extremists like Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr., and the burden is on the Senate and the American people to reject them."

We hear this a lot: that the President, having been duly elected by a majority of the electoral college, has a "right" to nominate whom he pleases. But what exactly do people mean by that?

In the most literal sense, the statement is a truism. The Constitution confers on the President the power to nominate whom he chooses. He has, by virtue of his elected office, the unqualified "right" to nominate Donald Duck to the bench, should he so choose.

But not everything the President has a "right" to do constitutes a responsible discharge of Presidential power.

In another sense, the statement seems to imply not that the President has a right to appoint an extremist to the bench, but that he has a mandate to do so by virtue of his having been elected by a majority of the voters. The President himself seems to use this sense of the word.

Presumably, by that logic, when a Democratic is elected president he will have a mandate to appoint an extreme liberal to the bench. And so we will have a bench composed entirely of extremists on the right and left, and nobody who actually reflects the worldview of the vast majority of the country.

Presidents, on the right and on the left, have the "right" to do this. But, like nominating Donald Duck to be Secretary of State, it would not - and does not - constitute a responsible discharge of Presidential power.

The letter author, by stating that "the burden is on the Senate and the American people to reject" extremists, seems to think that, despite the fact that (1) the President has the right to nominate Donald Duck, (2) the Senate has a right to confirm him, and (3) the American People have a right to accept that confirmation, the burden is on the Senate - and not the President - to act responsibly.

This is wrong. The President also has the burden of acting responsibly, not just of acting within his rights. We should - but have failed to - hold the President to that standard.

Purported bin Laden Tape Airs on Al Jazeera

2006-01-19T11:23:00.000-05:00

The broadcasted audiotape offers a truce in Afghanistan and Iraq but warns the United States that more attacks are planned. Said the terrorist leader:

The delay in similar operations happening in America has not been because of failure to break through your security measures. But the operations are happening in Baghdad and you will see them here at home the minute they are through (with preparations), with God's permission.

The AP has more.

Update: The CIA confirms that the voice on the audiotape is bin Laden's.

Casey Connects Santorum, DeLay, and Abramoff by Showing them All Making The Face

2006-01-18T15:17:00.000-05:00

Senatorial candidate Bob Casey (D-PA) has released an online petition, demanding that Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA) stop the so-called "K-Street Project." This organization, purportedly created by Tom DeLay (R-TX) and Jack Abramoff, allows "loyal Republicans to jump back and forth from congressional offices to powerful positions in lobbying firms and trade associations." The petition also demands that Santorum step aside from his leadership position in crafting ethics reforms.

It is clear from Casey's banner that Santorum, DeLay and Abramoff are intimately involved. Afterall, he managed to find pictures of them all making The Face:

Cringing As I Watch Harry Reid

2006-01-18T14:19:00.000-05:00

Currently on CSPAN (and I believe MSNBC and CNN), the Democrats are holding a conference led by Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi to criticize the 'culture of corruption' in Congress and to put forth legal and ethical reforms.

I can't stand Reid. What bothers me about him and most of the current Democratic leadership is that they not only lack leadership (ironically) but they lack fight. Unlike Gingrich and his coterie in the early 1990s, the Democrats lack a persuasive purpose and cause when they vociferously attack their opposition. In order to attack successfully the Democrats need to be clear about the alternative they can offer, which they aren't. It's so frustrating for someone who knows that the Republican government has failed the country to witness an alternative that is so weak and empty. Democrats need new leaders, plain and simple.

The other Pirro has more Money than Jeanine

2006-01-18T11:56:00.000-05:00

I have already touched on the disasterous campaign that Jeanine Pirro is running, this time for Attorney General. Courtesy of The Politcker, it appears that Jeanine Pirro is being out-fundraised by the unrelated Onondaga County Executive candidate Nicholas Pirro. Some telling statistics:

Jeanine Pirro for Attorney General, $36,400
Jeanine Pirro for Attorney General (Independence Primary), $5,400
Jeanine Pirro for Attorney General (Conservative Primary), $5,400
Jeanine Pirro for Attorney General (Republican Primary), $14,627
Pirro '07, $76,769.99

Pirro '07, which raised more money than all of Jeanine Pirro's committees put together, is the committee raising money for Nicholas Pirro. Can Jeanine's campaign get any worse?

Unanimous Ruling in First Abortion Case in Five Years

2006-01-18T11:36:00.000-05:00

The Supreme Court unanimously overruled the judgment of the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in which the appeals court invalidated a New Hampshire law that required a parent to be informed 48 hours before a minor has an abortion (AP article, opinion). The law did not provide an exception for a medical emergency that threatens the health of the mother.

In an opinion written by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, in what will likely be her last opinion, the Court ruled:

In the case that is before us ... the lower courts need not have invalidated the law wholesale ... Only a few applications of New Hampshire's parental notification statute would present a constitutional problem. So long as they are faithful to legislative intent, then, in this case, the lower courts can issue a declaratory judgment and an injunction prohibiting the statute's unconstitutional application.

While reversing the lower court's ruling, O'Connor made it clear that "Under our cases it would be unconstitutional to apply the act in a manner that subjects minors to significant health risks." It is likely, then, that the lower court will simply invalidate that portion of the law that does not provide an exception in cases of harm to the health of the mother.

This is an excellent ruling. Not only does it avoid blunt remedies that unnecessary invalidate legislatively enacted laws, but also it provides the lower court with real guidence in order to save the constitutional aspects of the law, while invalidating those aspects that violate the "undue burden" standard from Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

High Court Upholds Oregon Assisted Suicide Law; Roberts Joins Dissenters

2006-01-17T16:12:00.000-05:00

In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court today upheld Oregon's assisted-suicide law (litigation documents found here). The Court ruled that the Bush administration exceeded its authority by punishing doctors with the loss of federal prescription privileges if they prescribed lethal doses of medication for patients. (See reporting in the Washington Post)

Putting the merits of the case aside for the moment, what is significant about this ruling is that Chief Justice John Roberts joined the dissent, which was written by Justice Antonin Scalia and joined by Justice Clarence Thomas. It was the first time that Justice Roberts dissented from an opinion of the Court, and likely the first of many, many times that Roberts will join with Scalia and Thomas in a case involving questions of "political and moral debate" and executive power.

I suspect that an honest reader will find the following three statements to be true:

A judge who spent much of his career representing triangles is likely to rule for triangles over squares.
A judge who spent much of his career representing labor organizations is likely to rule for labor over corporations.
A judge who spent much of his career representing Republican presidential administrations is likely to rule for Republican presidential administrations over some other litigant.

It should not surprise us, therefore, that all three of George W. Bush's Supreme Court nominees have spent large portions of their career representing Republican presidential administrations at the highest level. In particular, Bush likes to draw from the Solicitor General's office, which is the office responsible for representing the Government's position before the Supreme Court. Here is a summary:

John G. Roberts, Jr.:

Special Assistant to the Attorney General under President Reagan(1981-1982);
Associate White House Counsel under President Reagan (1982-1986);
Principal Deputy Solicitor General under President Bush (1989-1993).

In 1993, just before leaving office, President Bush nominated Roberts (for the last four years, essentially his own lawyer) to the federal bench.

Harriet Miers:

Counsel to the President (since February 2005)
Assistant to the President and Deputy Chief of Staff (2003-2005), which is a top domestic policy advisor position in the administration.
Assistant to the President and Staff Secretary (January 20, 2001 - 2003), which supervises over 60 employees in four executive departments.

Last year, President bush nominated Miers (still his own lawyer) to the Supreme Court.

Samuel Alito:

United States Attorney under Reagan (1987-1989)
Deputy Assistant Attorney General (1985-1987)
Assistant to the Solicitor General (1981-1985)

This discussion reveals a pattern: President Bush wants Supreme Court Justices that see the world from the perspective of a lawyer who spent his or her career representing Republican Presidential administrations. Such a person is likely to see a close case from the same point of view that he has been advocating for his entire life.

The point: President Bush wants his administration, and future Republican administrations, to have free reign over things like social policy, domestic surveillance, detentions, and "values" legislation. Judges like these, who spent their careers defending (and creating) such programs, will deliver to him those results.

The Senate should safeguard our system of checks and balances by rejecting Judge Alito and demanding a nominee who is not predisposed to rule in favor of the executive branch.

Fuss Over Clinton's 'Plantation' Statement

2006-01-17T14:57:00.000-05:00

This morning I was reading over my usual roll of blogs when, on Politicalwire, I noticed that Hillary Clinton was quoted as comparing the current House of Representatives to a 'plantation'. The quote is as follows:

When you look at the way the House of Representatives has been run, it has been run like a plantation and you know what I'm talking about...

In the early afternoon I noticed that MSNBC had already picked up on the story and, in response, their afternoon anchor, Chris Jansen, posed the network's "Question of the Day": "Did Hillary Clinton's comment go too far?" Scott McClellan, in his press briefing today, commented that "the political season has started early" when asked about Clinton's quote.

Now although I wouldn't have used the same phrasing that Senator Clinton did at the Martin Luther King Jr. celebration in Harlem, I think pundits are seriously misrepresenting what Clinton meant. No, the House isn't like a slave plantation in that it flogs members who disagree with leadership, but, like any system of power that marginalizes a certain group of individuals, House leadership and Senate leadership has consistently sought to quell opposition criticism and stifle debate. I'm glad that Clinton's press secretary defended her remarks. It's a shame that some Republicans can get away with cursing at members of the United States Senate (a la Dick Cheney shouting "f*ck you" at Sen. Patrick Leahy in 2004) while Democrats are pounded for speaking out against a system that has been abused by Republican lawmakers. That being said, I still contend that it would have been much wiser for Sen. Clinton to have simply not used the analogy at the occasion.

Michael Adds: Let's not forget that in 1994 Newt Gingrich made some astonishingly similar comments. On October 20, 1994 Gingrich told the Washington Post: "Since [the Democrats] think it is their job to run the plantation, it shocks them that I'm actually willing to lead the slave rebellion." (Hat tip: Politicker).

The Status of New York Politics

2006-01-17T12:05:00.000-05:00

Our interviews with Rev. H. Carl McCall and Rev. Al Sharpton shed light on the nature of New York politics.

McCall alerted us to a pending deal between New York State Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno (R-43) and billionaire independent-turned-Republican Tom Golisano. McCall said that Bruno fears that the Democrats will sweep statewide elections in 2006 and he is desperately trying to hold onto the Senate. As a result, he said that the Republicans will support Golisano for governor if Golisano finances the Senate campaign. This potential deal emphasizes the disarray in the New York State Republican Party's recruiting.

Let us recap. First, they convinced Golisano to switch party affiliations from independent to Republican in order to run for governor. Then, former Massachusetts Governor William Weld decided to explore running for governor, and so the Republican established declined to support Golisano, and instead threw their support to Weld. When revelations emerged that Weld's failed business venture - Decker College - is embroiled by allegations of fraud and is being investigated by the state of Kentucky and the U.S. Department of Justice, the Republican establishment withdraw their initial support of Weld. They then flirted with the possibility of convincing Donald Trump to run for governor, but that did not pan out. In apparent desperation, they asked Democrat Tom Suozzi to change parties and run for governor as a Republican. As of yet, they still do not have a candidate for governor. And, of course, we cannot forget the Jeanine Pirro debacle, which effectively ruined their chances of both challenging Hillary Clinton (they still don't have a Senate challenger) and of gaining control of the Attorney General's office. The New York State Republican Party obviously is in serious disarray.

Speaking of disarray, as David commented before, the New York City Democratic Party has been unable to win the mayoralty for the past four elections, despite the city being two-thirds registered Democrats.

David argued that the main reason Republicans keep winning the mayoralty is that they simply put up better candidates than the Democrats because the Democratic political machine inhibits qualified candidates from emerging. In interviews with The Agenda Gap, both McCall and Sharpton, however, argued that Rudy Giuliani won because he portrayed himself as tough of crime, and Michael Bloomberg won simply because he had a lot of money.

I believe that both the McCall and Sharpton and David speak the truth. It is true that during David Dinkin's administration crime was high and the economy was down, though the mayor really has very little to do with the economy. As a prosecutor, Giuliani was able to run a law and order campaign and win his first term. The Democratic political establishment did not fail to produce a competent candidate. They failed in the next campaign when the wholly unqualified Ruth Messenger was able to gain the Democratic nomination. While Giuliani's second term would have been considered a failure if not for 9-11, he was considerably more qualified for the job than Messenger. Her only experience was as the Manhattan Borough President, which deals with land use and giving out a small discretionary budget. Certainly not the experience necessary for running the multi-billion dollar city budget.

In 2001, Michael Bloomberg - a lifelong Democrat - switched parties and ran as a Republican because he knew he could not win the Democratic primary. He ran against Mark Green, who I believe would have been an excellent mayor. Still, it is hard to say that Green was more qualified than Bloomberg. Green, while devoting much of his life to public service, was the Public Advocate at the time, which only has 20-something employees. Bloomberg, as we know, amassed millions of dollars as the founder and CEO of his gigantic company. Bloomberg's money (he outspent Green 16-1), and a few political gaffes by Green, were the reasons why he was able to win in 2001, not because the Democratic political machine chose a poor candidate.

David is right that the Democratic machine failed the electorate in 2005 by choosing Freddy Ferrer, whose only real political experience was being the Bronx Borough President and running a fair amount of losing campaigns. As David wrote, Ferrer got the nomination because he had "gone to enough cocktail parties for the party leadership to decide that [he had] been loyal and patient enough to earn their nomination."

Regardless of Ferrer's lack of qualifications, Bloomberg spent even more money on the 2005 campaign than he did in 2001 (over $84 million). Not only was that completely unnecessary, but also it was offensive. He ran the campaign as if he was trying to break the record for the largest landslide in history, rather than engaging in an actual political discussion.

Yes, the Democratic political machine must change. But we must also find a way to lessen the incredible influence that money has on our elections.

Ouch...Someone's in Trouble

2006-01-17T10:08:00.000-05:00

Check out this botched headline from the AP:

"ALCU Sues to to Stop Domestic Spy Program"

UPDATE #1: Joe Malchow, of Dartblog, informed me of another problem with this headline -- the use of the qualifier 'domestic'.

UPDATE #2: The AP has since changed the headline to read "ACLU..."

Michael adds: Apparently still confused, the AP has changed their headline once again, this time to read "Groups Sue to Stop Domestic Spying Program"

Another One Bites the Dust...

2006-01-17T08:43:00.000-05:00

As reported by The Hill, Rep. Bob Ney of Ohio will step down as Chairman of the House Administration Committee after it was revealed that Ney was connected to the now notorious lobbyist Jack Abramoff. I met Ney personally this past Spring while I was working for the Rules Committee and was immediately impressed by Ney's wit and personability. Despite these attributes, Ney may or may not have had a ethical lapse in conducting business with Abramoff - the details of the case are murky. One thing that I do like about Ney is that, unlike several other Congressmen, Ney is neither a political crony nor a party hack. In 2001 he was one of three members of the House of Representatives to vote against the Patriot Act, something that is rarely mentioned in media depictions of him. Unlike DeLay, Ney does not exude an arrogance and disregard for the law.

Still, we must wait until all facts of the case have been disclosed in order to make an informed judgment on this case. Even so, it seems that in some sense Ney has already been convicted as guilty in the eyes of public opinion.

Gonzales Responds to Gore

2006-01-17T08:34:00.000-05:00

True to the Republican mantra of re-direction and personal vilification, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales responded to former Vice President Al Gore's criticism's of Bush's wiretapping programs not by defending the programs but by attacking Gore for hypocrisy. On "Larry King Live", the Attorney General stated:

It's my understanding that during the Clinton administration there was activity regarding physical searches without warrants

That doesn't make much sense. First of all, Gonzales does not specify what type of activity he his identifying - was it a widespread, covert domestic wiretapping program or was the activity as part of a different program where warrentless searches were justified? Second, Gonzales never takes a stand on the issue itself. Instead of defending the executive power, Gonzales states that a Clinton Administration official testified that the executive has the power to conduct warrentless searches. This statement is neither probative nor does it say anything about Gonzales' own personal beliefs. It bothers me that the right wing continues to combat ideas with insults. As ideologically driven as it may be, the conservative movement today refuses to acknowledge criticism from the left and refuses to compromise on any of its principles, no matter how unsound they are.

Gore Bashes Bush on Wiretappings

2006-01-17T08:19:00.000-05:00

In an address to the American Constitution Society, former Vice President Al Gore strongly denounced President Bush's domestic wiretapping program, calling it a "shameful exercise of power", according to the Washington Post. Gore also stated the following:

The disrespect embodied in these apparent mass violations of the law is part of a larger pattern of seeming indifference to the Constitution that is deeply troubling to Americans in both political parties

It seems to me that 5 years of a failed Bush Administration has, in part, vindicated Gore. As Bush's troubles continue to mount, Gore is seen as a venerable statesman of yester-year who provides refreshing wisdom and insight on the current political situation. Conversely, I'm sure individuals who are more conservative than I am view Gore as a Democratic demagogue, a loser, and a has-been. Nevertheless, I respect the former Vice President and believe that his power lies not in the accuracy of his assertions but in his consistent and forceful denunciations of what he believes is wrong. Unlike some former Presidential candidates who move into the private sector after their loss (cough...Bob Dole...cough...Viagra...cough), Gore has remained true to his heart, speaking out against issues ranging from the freedom of the media to global warming.

MLK Day Recap

2006-01-17T08:12:00.000-05:00

Yesterday I had the pleasure of attending a ceremony honoring Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. where the Reverand James Forbes, pastor at the Riverside Church in Manhattan, delivered the keynote address. The Reverand spoke passionately about Dr. King and related several important current political issues to Dr. King's struggles. What has struck me about all the speakers I've seen and met this weekend is the constant reiteration and criticism regarding Hurricane Katrina. The Black Community in America will not soon forget what happened in New Orleans and its leaders will not free President Bush from blame. As the Republicans across the country are attempting a major outreach strategy directed at black voters, led by RNC Chair Ken Mehlman, Hurricane Katrina will present the most difficult challenge to winning over the confidence and support of Black America.

Carl McCall Delivers Powerful Speech in Praise of MLK

2006-01-15T17:33:00.000-05:00

The Honorable Reverand H. Carl McCall, former Democratic Candidate for Governor of New York, spoke today at Dartmouth College as part of the College's weekend-long commemoration of the life of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. McCall delivered an inspiring speech - calling our nation to action against the injustices and troubles that still exist in America. The speech was optimistic and McCall cited several statistics that present a promising picture of Black America. McCall defended and lauded King's criticism of the Vietnam War.

Read our exclusive interview with Rev. McCall below.

The Agenda Gap's Interview with Rev. H. Carl McCall

2006-01-15T17:28:00.000-05:00

Rev. H. Carl McCall '58 was the keynote speaker at Dartmouth's Martin Luther King Jr. Community service today. He spoke about religion, politics, and about Dr. King's message during the final years of his life. Afterwards, Rev. McCall sat down with Adam and I for an interview in which he spoke about religion, New York politics, and made some predictions for 2006 and 2008.

On Republican New York City Mayoral Victories: "[Rudy] Giuliani became mayor because he portrayed himself as the guy against crime. Finances are controlled by Wall Street and [David] Dinkins was mayor during a time in which the economy was down and crime was rising. Giuliani said he could fix all that... For [Michael] Bloomberg, it was all about money. [In 2001], he knew he couldn't win the Democratic primary but he had money so the Republicans embraced him. He knew that was the best way for him to get on the ballot. But Bloomberg has enacted many programs that we as Democrats support."

On Republican Statewide Victories: "Mario Cuomo was there too long and [George] Pataki was able to beat him. Pataki had so much money and the state-wide economy was good so voters thought 'why change?'"

On Who He'll Support for the New York State Attorney General Campaign: "I'll tell you who I won't support: Andrew Cuomo. Both Cuomo and [Mark] Green have a lot of baggage. I think it's going to come down to Green or [Richard] Brodsky."

On Democratic Prospects for State-wide Elections: "Chances are good. The Republicans are going to end up with [Tom] Golisano [for governor.] They think that they're going to lose everything but must hold onto the Senate. Joseph Bruno is going to make a deal with Golisano. The Republicans will support him if he finances the Senate races."

On the Republican Monopoly of Religion in National Politics: "That's going to backfire. These people are corrupt. They use religion as a cover - it's going to fall apart. Just look at the [Jack] Abramoff scandal."

National Politics: "Hilary Clinton has the Democratic nomination sown up. The problem with having someone wrapping it up so early is that they tend to spend more time moving to the middle instead of holding onto all the Democratic votes. We got to have a candidate who has every possible Democratic vote. There is some uncertainty because we don't know who the Republican candidate will be." What about Giuliani? "Who knows." Pataki? "That's a joke. For this guy to think about being president - that's a joke."

See also our interview with Rev. Al Sharpton, our coverage of his speech at Dartmouth, and our subsequent analysis.

See also our further analysis of New York State politics.

Comment on the Sharpton Interview

2006-01-14T15:12:00.000-05:00

I agree with substantially everything that Rev. Sharpton said, except for his contention that Republicans keep winning the NYC mayoralty because of Giuliani's fear tactics and Bloomberg's money.

The Republicans keep winning the mayoralty because they put up more qualified candidates.

Bloomberg's millions surely helped him to win reelection. But the main reason he won was that none of the Democratic candidates were remotely qualified for office. What preparation did any of them have for supervising numerous city agencies and large numbers of people? What experience for managing a budget the size of New York's? What training for ensuring the safety of millions of people? Very little, with the arguable exception of Anthony Weiner's experience in a Congress concerned with a security agenda.

So why do Republicans put up stronger candidates for mayor in a city dominated by Democrats? The reason lies in the structure of each party's candidate selection.

Democratic candidates, both for mayor and for local offices, are selected by the party machinery and the neighborhood political clubs on the basis of who's "turn" it seems to be, not on the basis of their qualifications for office. Professional politicians jump from office to office, hoping to climb the ladder, waiting for the party leadership to decide that it's their turn for higher office. In the meantime, they spend their time going to cocktail parties and club meetings, at which candidates support each other through force of habit and political necessity, giving little or no thought to whether the candidate whom they are supporting at each event even possesses the baseline qualifications for office.

The Republican Party in New York City has no such mechanism. All it wants is a qualified candidate to put up who has a shot at winning, and it is willing to look outside of its minions - even to people, such as Bloomberg, who are actually Democrats - in order to find such a person.

As Rev. Sharpton pointed out, Bloomberg switched parties in order to avoid running in a Democratic primary. And why shouldn't he? An outsider has no prayer of winning nomination in a system where candidacy is dependent, not upon qualifications for office, but upon having gone to enough cocktail parties for the party leadership to decide that you have been loyal and patient enough to earn their nomination.

If the Democratic party ever wants to retake the mayoralty, this system needs to change.

Until that happens, in mayoral elections, this life-long Democrat (and many, many others) will continue voting Republican.

The Agenda Gap's Interview with Al Sharpton

2006-01-12T16:16:00.000-05:00

Adam and I sat down with Rev. Al Sharpton to ask him a few questions. Our interview got delayed for 25 minutes while he talked to Jesse Jackson on his cellphone but Sharpton did have some important things to say about blogs, Republican successes in New York City, race, and Democratic prospects for the future.

On Blogs: "Blogs can have a good role in American politics. They help disperse information that is not controlled by the corporate media - information that is stifled or censored by main steam media."

On NYC politics: "Giuliani played on racial and crime fears in order to win. For Bloomberg, it was just money. Bloomberg switched party affiliations [in 2001] because he knew he could not win the primary."

On Race: "A candidate's race is irrelevent. A voter should not vote for someone of their race but someone who benefits their race and the human race."

On Democrats' chances for '06 and beyond: "The chances of success are likely but we've messed up before. We need stronger leadership across the board. State chairs need to be more active and we need stronger voter registration."

On Dean: "Chairman Dean has set up a good framework going into the '06. We'll see if his boot camp will work."

Read our liveblogging of Sharpton's speech here.

Click here for some analysis.

Al Sharpton at Dartmouth

2006-01-12T13:45:00.000-05:00

Rev. Al Sharpton is speaking today at Dartmouth on Civil Rights and the Future of Democracy one of Dartmouth's Martin Luther King Jr. events. Adam and I will be liveblogging this event. Stay tuned...

Michael: Sharpton attempted to draw a connection between the issues that Martin Luther King Jr. fought for and the issues now facing Americans. Sharpton said, "Much of what King stood for has now come back in the center of American discourse." He related the problems of poverty and continued racism that were exposed by Hurricane Katrina and called attention to the warrantless wiretapping that the Bush administration has been conducting. He reminded the audience that the CIA illegally wiretapped Dr. King himself. He blamed the problems of poverty, continued racism, and attacks of individual liberties on President Bush. Sharpton said, "He is probably the most renowned Dr. King Dream Buster that we've seen in the past 20 years."

Michael: Sharpton accused the Bush Administration of negligence during Hurricane Katrina. He argued that the government knew the New Orleans levies would not withstand a category 3 hurricane, yet the government did not provide the funds to reinforce them. Said Sharpton, "The fact that they were poor and were mostly black made it easier for them to be ignored." It his typical rhetorical elegance, Sharpton said: "Isn't it a blatant disgrace that the president can see weapons of mass destruction that are not there and not a hurricane that is there?"

Michael: Sharpton derided Bush for using Iraq to distract American from the real focus to American security: finding Osama bin Laden, who still remains at large, except to come out with a few videos every couple of months. Said Sharpton, "Bin Laden got out more Videos than Mary J. Blidge ... The video man can find him. The dialysis man can find him. But George Bush cannot find him."

Adam: Sharpton doing a fantastic job at rousing the crowd. Typically polemicism - very inspiring though. Packed room with several students, members of the community, and members of the Dartmouth faculty. More from Michael...

Michael: Sharpton challenged students to get involved in changing this country. He remarked that Dr. King did not have the vast communication technologies like the Internet and email that we can now use to "answer the call of our time." Said Sharpton, "Imagine those who did so much with so much less. ... What are you going to do with the world that you inherited?"

Michael: On Condoleeza Rice, Sharpton said: "I'm proud to have a black secretary of state. I'm not proud of the way that Condoleeza Rice is acting as secretary of state. It's not about what race you are, it's about what side you're on."

Michael: In a profound exchange Sharpton referred to rights issues of other minorities and African-American's stances towards those people.. He said, "There's far too much homophobia in the African-American community. There's far too much misogyny in the African-American community. You can't participate in bigotry and at the same time participate in your own emancipation."

Republicans Ask Tom Suozzi to Switch Parties

2006-01-12T10:23:00.000-05:00

The New York Post is reporting that New York State Republican leaders have met with Nassau County Executive Tom Suozzi (D) about switching parties and running for governor as a Republican. Suozzi had been expected to announce tomorrow that he is running against Democratic front-running Eliot Spitzer for the Democratic nomination for governor.

These latest revelations indicate that the Republicans simply have no idea what to do with this race. First, they endorsed former Massachusetts governor William Weld. Then they convinced billionaire Tom Golisano to switch parties from Independent to Republican in order to run on that ticket. Soon after Golisano became a Republican, party leaders again announced that they would endorse Weld. Now, apparently they have no confidence in either Republican candidate and are willing to put a Democrat on their ticket, simply because he has already decided to challenge Spitzer.

Republicans still face major recruiting problems in finding a candidate to run against Sen. Hilary Clinton after the Jeanine Pirro debacle. And there is continued speculation that the Democrats could win back the traditionally Republican State Senate. This game of musical chairs is certainly comical but it highlights the sorry nature of New York politics right now.

Does Israel Need an Arab Sharon?

2006-01-11T12:03:00.000-05:00

Thomas L. Friedman today posits the argument that the security of Israel will be greatly improved, in not depend upon, the emergence of what he calls an "Arab Sharon." Friedman explains:

So when I ask whether there is an Arab Sharon, I am really asking whether among the Palestinians, Syrians, Lebanese and Saudis - the key Middle East nations that have still not reconciled with Israel - there are leaders who are also ready to acknowledge that their lifelong efforts to keep their societies in a state of hostility against Israel, and to demand the right of return of Palestinian refugees to Israel, has been a huge waste and, if not reversed, poses a dire threat to the future of their own societies?

In other words, Friedman hopes for an Arab leader who will finally realize that seeking an end of the Israeli state is not feasible just like Ariel Sharon realized that the hope of a "Greater Israel" that encompassed the West Bank and Gaza is not feasible.

While a so-called Arab Sharon would certainly help ease tensions in the Middle East I do not think such a leader will emerge, nor do I believe that Israeli secruty will depend upon negotiations with Arab leaders. Israeli security will instead depend on whether the Israeli government is willing to continue Sharon's policy of unilaterial disengagement from Palestinian-dominated territories, or whether it will revert to the infeasible dream of Greater Israel propagated by Bibi Netanyahu and the current Likud leadership.

Nukes in Iran

2006-01-11T08:22:00.000-05:00

From the AP:

Iran broke U.N. seals on its nuclear enrichment facility Tuesday, pledging only to conduct research, but the international nuclear watchdog said Tehran also planned small-scale enrichment of uranium - a process that can produce fuel for nuclear weapons

This is not good news for anyone - not for America, not for Britain, not for Israel, and especially not for Iran. It's bad enough that North Korea (1/3 of Bush's 'Axis of Evil' -- now really 1/2 since Iraq has been invaded) acquired nukes under Bush's watch - but for Iran to do the same would be outright dangerous for the international community. A nuclear Iran would pose an immediate danger to Israel and would destabilize the balance of power within the Middle East.

It's a shame that America can not take a leadership position on this issue. With it reputation tarred after Iraq, America under Bush can not confront Iran in the same bellicose manner as he did Iraq circa January - March 2003, the International Community will not allow for it. Moreover, with a recent string of political missteps, Bush is unlikely to concentrate a great deal of time on the issue - foreign affairs doesn't capture the attention of the America people, it's not that sexy.

The IAEA and UN ought to put more pressure on Iran, whether in the form of sanctions or other means. Something needs to be done quickly.

Kadima Promotes Perez; Still Strong in Public Opnion Polls

2006-01-10T20:56:00.000-05:00

Acting Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert promoted former prime minister and labor party leader Shimon Peres to be second on the Kadima list when Israel convenes new elections in March.

Despite the absence of Ariel Sharon, a new polls shows that the party will still claim a plurality of the seats in the Knesset, the Israeli parliament. A Kadima victory in the elections will ensure that Israel will continue Sharon's realist vision for the country and prevent the region from descending into increased strife.

With the Palestinians in complete disarray and with Hamas posed to sweep the January "elections," it is more important than ever for Israel to pursue it's policy of unilaterial disengagement that was started by Sharon. The best way to ensure that Israel will remain secure in the future will be to completely separate itself from the Palestinian-dominated lands.

Assembling the Troops

2006-01-10T08:16:00.000-05:00

In an attempt to win the war on public opinion over the Alito hearings, it appears that several prominent conservative bloggers have been summoned to Washington by Republicans to unleash a frontal assault throughout the internet in favor of Alito. From Powerline:

I'm in Washington at the invitation of the Senate Republican Conference to report on the Alito confirmation hearings today and tomorrow. I'll be at the hearings this morning and hope to meet up with Senators Cornyn and Kyl, who are scheduled to speak with the other bloggers attending the hearings today. My skills on a laptop are such that any updates I'm able to post will be abbreviated, but I ask to stay tuned.

Smart strategy. Very smart strategy. On a slightly related note, the Rev. Al Sharpton will be in the area on Thursday and Michael and I will be live-blogging from the event, scheduled to being at 2 PM. At the moment the two of us are trying to get an interview with the former Presidential Candidate.

Public Tuning Out of Alito Hearings

2006-01-10T07:53:00.000-05:00

From Today's Washington Post, concerning the Alito nomination:

"...There has been a clear disconnect between the zeal of activists and the detachment of the general public. Tim Hibbits, an Oregon-based pollster, said the Alito nomination falls low on the public's list of priorities. "With the exception of highly energized base voters, it's not something that's engaged people," he said.

...One reason may be because the public considers these nominees differently than do the ideologues on both sides, looking at experience and demeanor more than at ideology. Or it may be because Alito's nomination has been overshadowed by more compelling issues, such as Iraq, the cost of home heating oil and natural gas or lobbyist Jack Abramoff's plea bargain. Whatever the reason, the public has been slow to engage."

While external forces have contributed to the public's blase attitude about Alito, I would place even more blame on the Democrats. Harry Reid and others, from day one, have been unable to construct a coherent and comprehensive plan of attack against the nominee. Instead of focusing on one or two issues and repeating the danger of Alito's confirmation over and over again in a Bush-esque media blitz, the Democrats have not devoted enough time and resources in combating Alito. True, other issues have dominated the political landscape since the time Alito was first nominated -- DeLay has been indicted, Libby has resigned, secret CIA torture chambers were discovered, and a secret wire-tapping plan revealed. Nevertheless, the Democrats failed to connect these scandals to Alito. The Democrats are solely responsible for bungling this nomination and I would put money (hey Mike, up for a bet?) on Alito's being confirmed.

Some Thoughts on Day One of Alito Hearings

2006-01-10T07:28:00.000-05:00

I had a very busy day yesterday and only at lunchtime caught of glimpse of the Alito Hearings (Russ Feingold's opening statement). Still, I am more than willing to pontificate on this matter, as I have been wholly disappointment by the Democratic strategy against the nominee.

As this New York Times article points out, it is clear that the issue of executive power in the wake of Bush's newest semi-scandal over unwarranted wire-tappings will take centerstage at the hearings this week. Delineating the limits of executive power is critical in establishing a unified judicial philosophy, but concentration by the Democrats on this issue will dominant far too much of hearing time and will get nowhere. What can Alito really say? Certainly, as he implied in his opening statements, he will claim that 'no one is above the law', not even the president, and that the precedent established by Justice Jackson in the Youngstown case is settled law. If prodded about specifics, Alito will pull a Roberts and decline to address any hypotheticals that have yet to be before the Court. Democrats will whine that Alito is evading necessary questions while Republicans laud Alito for his experience and intelligence. Bottom line: this issue, though politically relevant, will get nowhere. Instead, as I see it, in bringing up the issue in several lines of questioning the Democrats have already conceded defeat. Knowing that 51 votes against the nominee do not exist, the Democrats are capitalizing on the attention of the nation and using the hearings as a medium of political gain. This strategy is both hapless and ignoble. It denigrates the original intention of a hearing in the process of confirmation and it lays the groudwork for future abuses of judicial confirmation hearings. Moreover, it adds flames to the already lit political tinder that is the federal judiciary.

Originally, the Democrats established a strategy of attacking Alito on Roe in an attempt to rally public opinion in their favor since the overwhelming majority of Americans are against overturning the case. Though this is an important issue, and Alito has expressed ambiguous and contradictory views through time on the matter, I think, like executive privilege, questioning will get nowhere.

So what should the Democrats do? Ask Alito questions he will answer. Ask him questions on issues that average Americans are concerned about and demand forthright answers. Demand the Alito establish a clear judicial philosophy that will guide his decision making process if confirmed. Demand transparency and demand explanations. The Democrats need to convince the American people precisely why Alito is so dangerous for the court and the nation.

Alito Hearings Begin Today

2006-01-09T11:54:00.000-05:00

The confirmation hearings of Samuel Alito begin today before the Senate Judiciary Commmittee, in what promises to be one of the most rancorous confirmation hearings ever.

I have previously voiced my opposition to the Alito nomination. I opposed him not because of his likely disapproval of expanded abortion rights, but because of his dangerously narrow view of Federal power, particularly with regard to employment relations and environmental cases.

David also made a strong point that while Alito may be qualified, he is certainly not the best possible candidate for the job.

Alito has some tough questions to answer. Many will be put forth by Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY), who will highlight his position in his opening statement. The New York Times also expressed important reservations about this nomination.

In the end, while the confirmation of Alito is not guaranteed, it is definite long shot that his nomination will be defeated. He was rated well-qualified by the American Bar Association and I don't envision many Republicans voting against him.

Sharon Taken out of Coma

2006-01-09T11:49:00.000-05:00

Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has been taken out of his medically-induced coma, according to the New York Times. He has shown some movement in his limbs and he's breathing on his own. It is still too early to ascertain the extent of the brain damage that Sharon suffered but his ability to breathe and move is a good sign, his doctors said. He is expected to regain consciousness over the next several days.

See extended coverage in the Jerusalem Post.

NYTimes Journalist Killed in Robbery

2006-01-09T00:00:00.000-05:00

Dartmouth Graduate and veteran New York Times reporter David E. Rosenbaum '62 was died today from injuries suffered from a street robbery while he was walking near his home two nights ago.

The AP has more.

U.S. Soldiers Question Pentagon Body Armor Report

2006-01-07T16:38:00.000-05:00

According to the New York Times:

A secret Pentagon study has found that as many as 80 percent of the marines who have been killed in Iraq from wounds to the upper body could have survived if they had had extra body armor. Such armor has been available since 2003, but until recently the Pentagon has largely declined to supply it to troops despite calls from the field for additional protection, according to military officials.

The study examined 93 fatal wounds and determined that at least 74 of those wounds would not have been fatal had the soldiers worn the increased body armor.

An AP report today interviews American troops in Iraq who dispute the findings of the study. Many troops complain that the extra body armor greatly inhibits their movement and the extra armor would only increase their chances of being killed. Said one platoon leader: "You can slap body armor on all you want, but it's not going to help anything. When it's your time, it's your time. I'd go out with less body armor if I could." Nonetheless, other soldiers were unhappy that the additional armor was available but not offered to them.

It's hard to say if the additional armor would have actually prevented lives as the mobility restrictions could cause deaths on their own. Still, the armor should have been offered to the soldiers if they wanted to wear it.

DeLay Steps Down as Majority Leader

2006-01-07T16:25:00.000-05:00

Apparently his legal troubles and his connections with guilty lobbyist Jack Abramoff have become too much for Tom DeLay. DeLay sent the following letter to House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-IL):

Dear Mr. Speaker,

I am writing to inform you of my decision to permanently step aside as majority leader, and of my belief that the best interests of the conference would be served by the election of a new leader as soon as possible.

The job of majority leader and the mandate of the Republican majority are too important to be hamstrung, even for a few months, by personal distractions.

I will continue to serve my constituents and seek re-election to a 12th term representing Texas' 22nd district while I work to clear my name of the baseless charges leveled against me. I will also be reclaiming my seat on the Appropriations Committee when the second session of the 109th Congress convenes later this month.

Sincerely,

Tom DeLay

DeLay's resignation also comes at a time in which a number of moderate Republicans have been calling for him to step aside. An AP writer believes that the new majority leader will be either Roy Blunt of Missouri or Joe Boehner of Ohio. Blunt has been the acting majority leader and is considered to be one of the more conservative members of Congress. Boehner, while also amassing a conservative record, has shown an ability to work in a bipartisan fashion.

My bet is that the Republicans will choose Blunt. He has the advantage of being the acting leader and I feel like they're going to try to close ranks to try to invigorate the conservative base before the elections in November.

More on Life After Sharon

2006-01-06T15:33:00.000-05:00

While Prime Minister Ariel Sharon was not running Israel as a one-man show, his charisma and vision have spearheaded the recent realistic Israeli policy towards the Palestinians, that has been embodied in Sharon's new party, Kadima.

This new vision, which has been called centrist by some, is really a realistic third way to the misguided visions of Likud and Labor. Likud, the party that Sharon helped found in the 1970s, had been long supporters of promoting Israeli settlements in Palestinian dominated lands and of refusing to recognize the possibility of a Palestinian state. Labor, on the other hand, had relied on ineffective negotiations with Palestinians towards the creation of an independent Palestinian state, in the hope that such a state would lead to greater security for the Israelis.

Sharon's vision, epitomized by the Gaza disengagement and the barrier wall around Israel, and absorbed into Kadima can be described as a policy of disengagement. He realized that the only way for Israel to remain a Jewish state and enjoy some relative security would be to totally remove Israel from contact with Palestinians. Disengagement is necessary since Palestinian politics is becoming increasingly dominated by ineffective Fatah leaders and the growing influence of Hamas.

With Sharon at the helm, Kadima was set to win the majority of the seats in the Knesset, the Israeli Parliament. I hope that Sharon's departure does not also mean a departure of the Kadima vision.

See additional commentary in The Jerusalem Post. According to the Post's editorial, Sharon was one of Israel's "greatest leaders" and called his accomplishments "unmatched since his mentor David Ben-Gurion's day."