Fascinating George Will column today citing data that destroy two of the most common political assumptions: 1) Conservatives are rich; liberals are poor, and 2) Liberals are more compassionate than conservatives. There are a lot of good stats to discredit these assumptions, but to cite one factoid that stands out:

Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).

There are two phenomena at work here. The first is that, on average, conservatives tend to be more religious (or, to express it conversely, atheists are more likely to be liberal), and most religions require some form of tithing. (Tellingly, the least charitable group of Americans is secular conservatives -- i.e., Country Club Republicans.)

The second, related phenomenon is ideological: While both liberals and conservatives, by and large, recognize a need to help the disadvantaged, liberals tend to view government as the primary vehicle for doing so, whereas conservatives put their stock (and money) in private charity. To quote Will:

People who reject the idea that "government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality" give an average of four times more than people who accept that proposition....

While conservatives tend to regard giving as a personal rather than governmental responsibility, some liberals consider private charity a retrograde phenomenon -- a poor palliative for an inadequate welfare state and a distraction from achieving adequacy by force, by increasing taxes.

This explains not only why liberals are less likely to give to charity, but also why they're more willing to pay higher taxes. They see ponying up more money to the state as the price to pay for living in a more just and compassionate society. Conservatives, on the other hand, don't trust the government to do the job, and having already made generous charitable donations on their own, resent the implication that the government thinks they should be doing more.

These are two radically different world views, but one shouldn't assume -- as politicians and partisans often do -- that the other is intrinsically selfish.

Since societal compassion requires some level of both private and public efforts, perhaps we should see our differences here as a blessing -- a necessary system of checks and balances -- rather than as one more cause for political sanctimony and partisan outrage.

Posted by Chris Weinkopf at 12:23 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

Thankfully someone stepped in and told Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to keep her mouth shut and butt out of the battle between Obama and Clinton over the superdelegates. That came from a group of top Clinton backers in a letter in which they demanded that Pelosi retract her hector of superdelegates to back Obama. The only thing wrong with their letter is that they took so long to write it. Pelosi popped off a week ago and sternly warned the superdelegates that they risked a palace revolt at the Democratic convention if they defied “the will of the people” and handpicked a nominee.

Pelosi’s silly saber rattle had to rank as one of the most asinine lapses of judgment, common sense, not to mention political ethics by a top Democrat in recent memory. The rationale, if it can be called such, is this. Obama leads Clinton in the number of pledged delegates he’s netted. Therefore, the superdelegates should slavishly fall in line and nominate him.

The checklist of things wrong with this would fill up a thick political primer. Here’s just a few of them. There are still a half dozen primaries left and that includes the big, crucial and must win Pennsylvania primary April 22. The vote there won’t even be close. Polls, surveys, and voter statements show that Obama will go down to a crushing defeat and if Clinton as expected picks up the bulk of the 128 delegate votes from her primary victory there she’ll be in a virtual statistical dead heat with Obama in the number of pledged delegates.

Even without the Pennsylvania win and despite the shrill drum beat calls from the rabid Hillary haters for her to stand down, their empty shout at her that it’s impossible for her to win, and their slander that she’s wrecking the party with her obstinate refusal to bow to Obama, she’s less than five percentage points behind Obama in the number of pledged delegates. That’s hardly a resounding mandate from the majority of delegates for Obama.

Here’s another. Many of the superdelegates had committed or pledged to back Clinton before Obama’s magical appearance on the national political scene. Pelosi almost certainly sans Obama would have been one of them.

Here’s another. The superdelegates have the responsibility not just too blindly cheer lead a candidate because of his fleeting momentary, and always ephemeral popularity but to make a hard headed political assessment of which Democrat has the best chance to beat the GOP guy. Clinton’s vote demographics among core Democrats are rock solid. She’s backed by older women, Latinos, blue collar workers, and party regulars. Recent polls even show that she even has the backing of nearly one fourth of African-American voters.

She has won both the big states and the crucial swing states of Ohio and Florida, and soon Pennsylvania. Without them, no Democrat has a prayer of winning the White House. Polls show that in a head-to head face off with McCain, Clinton is in a statistical dead heat with him while Obama slightly trails him.

Here’s yet another. The superdelegates are supposed to be the firewall to insure electability. Though Pelosi apparently confused that with Obama’s media celebrity and his popular aura, it’s anything but. The superdelegates, even if Pelosi can’t, are supposed to be able to tell the difference between the two.

Then there’s Pelosi herself. She is a superdelegate and she has not publicly committed to back either Obama or Clinton. That’s fine so far. She’s also the House majority leader and that means that she’s supposed to be a neutral and impartial political arbiter and broker for the Democratic Party’s interests in Congress. That also entails working with and unifying the discordant factions among the Democrats. In her naked Obama tilt badger of the super delegates she forgot all of that and became a partisan political hatchet woman for Obama.

The hard headed and strong willed Pelosi will probably do the wrong thing and ignore the demand that she recant her biased admonition to the superdelegates to get on board the Obama train. However, if she’s got any political sense, or sense period, she’ll at least zip it up, stop trying to massage things for Obama and let the superdelegates do their job and that’s to pick the candidate that has the best chance to beat McCain. Right now, neither Pelosi, nor any other top Democrat, can say with certainty which one that is.

Posted by Earl Ofari Hutchinson at 5:46 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

So I've heard the argument all day on TV: If politicians had to resign for being unable to control their sexual urges, we'd have no politicians left. Yeah, no great debate there. But Eliot Spitzer paid for sex, thus breaking local law, and paid to transport his call girl from N.Y. to D.C., thus breaking federal law. Break the law, step down. It's not a "personal" matter.

Plus, the affair should call into question his money-managing skills as governor, too. Five grand for an hour or two? Potentially $80,000 spent over his career as a high-class john? That averages out to about 16 moments of, er, sexual satisfaction for the price of the first house my parents bought. Undoubtedly, he thought the money was buying his anonymity (though he used a friend/donor's name without the guy's knowledge -- nice!) and buying his secrecy (yeah, that worked really well).

So Spitzer should wipe the Gumby look off his face and call it a day.

Incidentally, I was at the Mayflower hotel a little over a year ago, but all I got was an omelet from a book publisher who wanted to yap about ways to stick it to the left. She should have left the cafe, gotten in the elevator, went about eight floors up, and gotten the story, evidently...

Posted by Bridget Johnson at 1:27 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Guess who wins the civility challenge?

Here's a letter from astute reader Ian Freeman in Thousand Oaks:

Re “The Ralphster won’t be a factor in ‘08” (Viewpoint, March 2):
Bill O’Reilly’s column about Ralph Nader did not contain any hatred, distortions, falsifications, smears or racial slurs. It is sad that this warrants comment.
This was never, however, the case for the late conservative pundit William F. Buckley. His intelligence, decency and integrity were of the highest order.

Posted by Mariel Garza at 2:14 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

One of the more insidious tactics of the Clinton presidential campaign has been to get surrogates to say outrageous things about Barack Obama -- that way, the noxious ideas can make it into circulation, but Hillary bears no direct responsibility for them. Remember when Jean Shaheen brought up the specter of Obama's past drug use, or any of Bill Clinton's nasty-grams from a few weeks ago?

Now comes the latest cheap shot by way of Pennsylvania's Democratic Gov. Ed Rendell, a longtime and prominent Clinton backer. His comment: Obama can't win because he's black.

Oh, Rendell has the good sense not to word things quite that bluntly. According to the governor, the problem isn't that Obama's black, but that, well, so many Americans are white. Closet racists, most every one of them. "You've got conservative whites here, and I think there are some whites who are probably not ready to vote for an African American candidate," Rendell told the editorial board of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.

See, most white folks, especially the "conservative" ones, aren't enlightened like Rendell; they'd never elect a black man. Which is why, if you follow the logic, Democrats need to elect Hillary -- because a black Democratic candidate would produce a Republican president.

Nice, huh? We get to discredit Obama on the basis of his race, while impugning white voters at the same time.

Rendell's not the first to come up with this theory. I've had multiple white Democratic friends tell me the same thing. They like Obama -- really, they do -- but they can't vote for him because so many other white people are racists.

And who knows, they could be right. But so far, the only people I've met who say they wouldn't vote for Obama on the account of his race are white liberals who claim that they could vote for a black man, but won't, because so many other whites can't.

I don't for a moment think these white liberals are racist, but unwittingly, they're perpetuating racism if -- even for what may seem like noble reasons -- they vote against Obama because of his race.

And for all their concerns about rampant American bigotry, they may be creating a self-fulfilling prophecy. If Obama loses because white liberals who thought he couldn't win refuse to vote for him, they will later on, no doubt, point to his defeat as proof that the country is too racist to elect a black man. When in reality, the only whites who weren't ready to elect a black man were the very liberals who claim to be the most racially tolerant.

Rendell is, predictably, already backpedaling from his comments, and if the usual pattern holds up, the Clinton campaign will never even acknowledge them. But that's OK, they've served their purpose: Putting the thought into the heads of many a Democratic voter that casting a ballot for a black man would be a huge mistake.

Here's a crazy idea: What if people just voted for the candidate they liked the most, regardless of race or political calculation? After all, from the looks of things, that's what most people are already doing -- Hillary Clinton be damned.

Posted by Chris Weinkopf at 12:17 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

The above quote comes by way of Deal Hudson, in a thought-provoking essay about how movement conservatives are doing to the conservative brand what movement liberals did to liberalism some three decades ago.

The Coulter-Rush-Hannity-Dobson crowd ought to pause for a moment to reflect: They did all they could to get out the message that John McCain "is not conservative," and what happened? The voters in the Republican primaries chose John McCain anyway. This suggests that the movement's influence isn't what it once was, that the word "conservative" has lost much of its cachet, or both.

Hudson suspects this is, in part, because the c-word has been used as a cudgel, and this is no doubt part of problem. He also cites the immigration battles of the last few years, when a noisy, hateful minority became the image of "conservatism" -- a minority, by the way, that was soundly defeated in the Republican primaries. Mark Shea says that, for him, the word "conservative" became tainted when it became associated with supporting torture -- although here, too, the McCain victory suggests that the pro-torture crowd is less powerful politically than it may seem in the right-wing media.

What's also worth noting is that -- contrary to what the mainstream media have been telling us for years -- "moderate" Republicanism does not equal pro-abortion. There was one pro-abortion candidate in this race, and he got his head handed to him on a platter. The four Republicans who out-performed Rudy Giuliani -- John McCain, Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney and Ron Paul -- are all opposed to abortion. And if you look back at the Congressional sweep of 2006, many of those wins came in the form of pro-life Democrats. Elections have proven, time and again and regardless of what the media think, that the pro-life cause is not the GOP's albatross.

Yet interestingly, the pro-life cause is the one "conservative" issue that movement conservatives were willing to jettison in this primary, telling pro-lifers for months that they had to accept Giuliani because he was the only Republican "who can win." (That statement alone ought to discredit the movement analysis.)

American culture naturally, and rightly, has a preference for the underdog, the little guy. A conservatism that embraces this truism of our society and stands uniformly for human dignity -- whether it's the unborn, the terminally ill, immigrants, terror suspects, or the middle class -- is one that will have far more resonance with the American public than some tainted "conservatism" that's true to one principle alone: Might makes Right. (Pun fully intended.)

Posted by Chris Weinkopf at 10:44 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

"I have just the feeling that, with conservatives, this moment is one in which pique cancels out reason -- a time for slamming doors and kicking the cat across the room -- just because here at the end of the Bush presidency, dreams of a conservative era flicker low."

Posted by Chris Weinkopf at 10:51 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

As the lone conservative in the room (where are ye, Bridget and Robert?) let me try to shed some light on the right-wing civil war that's so delighting Mariel and Jonathan.

Like my liberal friends on this blog, I, am aghast at the unfathomable hatred that the GOP/conservative establishment harbors for John McCain. Yes, the Arizona senator has his problems: McCain-Feingold was an abomination, and Mac has an irritating way of posturing as the most honorable man on the stage, when he can be nasty and dirty, too. He carries on with this "straight talk" charade, when he is a talented spinner in his own right (see immigration or Samuel Alito). He has defied right-wing orthodoxy on immigration (a plus in my book) and torture (a big plus, IMO), and sometimes works with (horrors!) Democrats. But his biggest liability, as far as I'm concerned, is his past (and possibly current -- he sends mixed messages on this one) support of grossly unethical and medically unnecessary embryonic stem-cell research.

But does any of this really make him worse than Obama and Hillary, who both pledge disastrous early withdrawals from Iraq, and who try to outdo each other in their unfettered zeal for abortion?

And forget the Democrats, does any of this even make McCain worse than Romney? Romney might be parroting the conservative line for the moment, but he has shown time and again that he will shed whatever principles he claims to hold dear as soon as it's politically advantageous to do so. Do conservatives really think he'll be different this time? Do they really believe he would gamble his political capital to support solid Supreme Court justices when he doesn't really care one way or the other?

So what explains the anti-McCain hysteria? There are numerous factors, I think. Among them:

• Inebriation. Many prominent right-wingers are caught up in the excitement of the moment. They're drunk with the fight. When they wake up in the morning with hangovers, they will regret what they said the night before.
• Bad blood. Too many conservatives have stood on opposing sides of McCain in political battles before, during which he has often made unkind and unseemly insinuations. The result is a personal animosity that trumps political calculations. ("Mitt may be a weasel, but he's never said my mom wears combat boots!")
• Torture. This issue has -- to my great distress -- become something of a litmus test on the old-guard right. Never mind that it is a gross affront to human dignity and an obvious violation of basic pro-life principles. And never mind that McCain, who would know better than anyone, has repeatedly and eloquently made the case that torture is not only wicked, but unnecessary. But just as the Democratic Party sold its soul on abortion, the GOP establishment is following its lead on torture -- showing that calling evil good in the name of ideology and self-interest is a wholly bipartisan venture.
• Immigration. While I wouldn't go so far as Mariel and suggest that opposition to immigration is intrinsically racist, there can be no denying that illegal immigration has become a convenient whipping boy for much (though not all) of the Right. Few issues rile up the faithful so effectively. This is a powerful (if short-sided) wedge issue for Republicans, and a money-maker for conservative media. And so breaking with the ideologues on this subject is more unforgivable to them than, oh, Rudy Giuliani's affinity for abortion.
• Protecting the coalition: The right-wing old guard is scared to death of fracturing the strange-bedfellow coalition of cultural/social/economic conservatives that has fueled GOP victories for the last few decades. Movement conservatives worry that McCain -- or for that matter, Mike Huckabee -- might alienate some faction of that alliance, never mind that both could attract far more new voters to the fold. So they prefer the paint-by-numbers Republican candidate, Romney, even though his platform is a phony, and it's plainly not 1980 any more.

Moreover, the GOP race is turning out well. Republican voters are breaking with the old guard and updating their positions and coalitions for the times. The GOP that comes out of this campaign promises to be far more viable and appealing than the one that preceded it. The party is growing, and with that comes growing pains. But that's far better than not to grow at all.

Posted by Chris Weinkopf at 4:11 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

You knew it had to happen. Someone was eventually going to trot out the "C" word against Hillary. And one of the O.G. GOP dirty trickers, Roger Stone, finally did with a brand new 527 called "Citizens United Not Timid." I'll let you figure out the acronym. Mainly they seem to exist to sell nasty t-shirts.

From the TPMuckraker blog:

In addition to this website being blast-emailed to hundreds of thousands of addresses that Stone and [another GOP operative] have accumulated over the years (working off over 170 different email lists of everyone from opinion-makers to political activists to industry associations), Stone is counting on T-shirt sales to further serve as "billboard education." He figures the whole thing will end up taking on a viral nature, thanks to the yuks factor....

"The more people go to the site, the more people buy the T-shirts," Stone explains.... "The more people buy the T-shirts, the more people wear the T-shirts. The more people wear the T-shirts, the more people are educated. Consequently, our mission has been achieved." Though neither the word itself nor even the acronym is ever mentioned, "it's one-word education. That's our mission. No issues. No policy groups. No position papers. This is a simple committee with an unfortunate acronym...."

The optimist side of me that believes that people are basically decent hopes that such naked misogyny will turn off Republican voters. But the cynical side of me, the side that has been the subject of lots of nasty comments from (mostly conservative) men who denigrate me on the basis of my gender rather than my crazy ideas and call me all sorts of names including the C word above, wonders if it's not just exposing a base sentiment shared by a good many of my fellow Americans. That would make me sad.

Posted by Mariel Garza at 11:19 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

What's most amazing about the current blood-letting within the parties (the GOP establishment goes ballistic on McCain and Huckabee; Hillary and Obama trade innumerable shots under the belt) is how all the animosity will somehow disappear in just a few months.

Mark my words, if McCain or Huckabee is running against Clinton in November, Rush Limbaugh, Hugh Hewitt, and the rest will forget all the awful things they said about these two heterodox Republicans. And, of course, should Hillary win the nomination, Obama will give a glowing speech at her convention -- minus the charges that she's a vicious, soulless liar, which are currently part of his daily talking points.

In politics, no conviction is set in stone -- and apparently, no hatred is, either.

Posted by Chris Weinkopf at 10:24 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Remember the way certain Democrats screamed bloody murder about "disenfranchisement" in Florida because a somewhat complicated ballot design may have befuddled the easily confused? Or how about Democratic protests of laws that require voters to show ID, or bar felons from voting, which, the party insists, somehow discriminate against minorities? Remember all the Democratic post-2000 sloganeering about making sure "every vote counts"?

Well, fast forward to 2008, and the Democratic Party is denying voters in Michigan (home of 1.5 million of African-Americans) and Florida (home of 3.6 million Latinos) a role in choosing its nominee. And its leading candidate just lost a lawsuit trying to make it harder for unionized casino workers to vote in Nevada.

The Democrats: Making sure every vote counts -- except when it doesn't. (Somebody call Dennis Kucinich ...)

Posted by Chris Weinkopf at 10:06 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

If primary pressure is cracking up the GOP, it's also taking its toll on the Dems. David Brooks (second plug today) has a great column about how the Democrats have been falling prey to the very identity-politics attacks they have for so long used so skillfully against Republicans:

Both Clinton and Obama have eagerly donned the mantle of identity politics. A Clinton victory wouldn’t just be a victory for one woman, it would be a victory for little girls everywhere. An Obama victory would be about completing the dream, keeping the dream alive, and so on.

Fair enough. The problem is that both the feminist movement Clinton rides and the civil rights rhetoric Obama uses were constructed at a time when the enemy was the reactionary white male establishment. Today, they are not facing the white male establishment. They are facing each other.

All the rhetorical devices that have been a staple of identity politics are now being exploited by the Clinton and Obama campaigns against each other. They are competing to play the victim. They are both accusing each other of insensitivity. They are both deliberately misinterpreting each other’s comments in order to somehow imply that the other is morally retrograde....

Clinton’s fallback position is that neither she nor Obama should be judged as representatives of their out-groups. They should be judged as individuals.

But the entire theory of identity politics was that we are not mere individuals. We carry the perspectives of our group consciousness. Our social roles and loyalties are defined by race and gender. It’s a black or female thing. You wouldn’t understand.

Even in this moment of stress, Clinton wants to have it both ways. She wants to be emblematic of her gender and liberated from race and gender politics. As she told Tim Russert on Sunday: “You have a woman running to break the highest and hardest glass ceiling. I don’t think either of us wants to inject race or gender in this campaign. We’re running as individuals.”

Huh?

As they say, go read the whole thing. As Rob points out, these unusually competitive primaries are causing some partisans to start treating their own the way they usually only treat each other. It ain't pretty, but if we're lucky, maybe it will bring some more civility to our politics.

Wishful thinking, I know ...

Posted by Chris Weinkopf at 2:05 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Rob rightly notes that the old GOP coalition is coming up apart at the seams, in an increasingly ugly fashion. Count Rush Limbaugh among the Hugh Hewitt ABM (Anyone But McCain -- or Huckabee) crowd. As David Brooks reports:

Mitt Romney’s win pretty much guarantees a bitter fight for the nomination. If you doubt that, here is what Rush Limbaugh said about McCain and Huckabee on his program today: “I’m here to tell you, if either of these two guys get the nomination, it’s going to destroy the Republican Party, it’s going to change it forever, be the end of it.”

Wow, once again I find myself amazed at a GOP/conservative establishment that would be more at peace with a pro-abortion candidate (Giuliani) or pro-torture candidates (Giuliani and Romney) than with John McCain or Mike Huckabee because the two have the temerity to say comforting things to middle-class families.

As Ross Douthat observes, it's not even free-market ideology that fuels the anti-McCain, anti-Huck ire. After all, Romney's Michigan-winning pitch -- to send Washington into Detroit to turn the Big Three automakers around -- suggests far more government intervention into the economy than anything Mac or Huck has to say.

But that's different, apparently, because Mitt wants to take care of corporations -- while McCain and Huck want to take care of, shudder, people. And any deviation from corporatism, it turns out, seems to be the single unpardonable offense among the GOP's top dogs.

We can only hope Rush is right when he says a Huck or McCain victory would change the GOP forever -- because the party needs it.

Posted by Chris Weinkopf at 12:58 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Those backward Pakistanis! Here they are, turning over control of a major political party to someone with no experience just because he's related to a former prime minister! Why, that's almost as pathetic as ... turning control of a major political party to someone with little experience just because she's related to a former president!

Or, one could add, electing someone as president just because his dad held the job before him ...

As America enters its 19th year of uninterrupted Bush-Clinton presidencies -- with no end in sight any time soon -- it's worth questioning the soundness of our own democratic sensibilities. The monarchic impulse runs deep ...

Posted by Chris Weinkopf at 10:08 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

I'm so grateful to have been able to write a political column that disses the lame eHarmony commercials at the same time -- as I did last week for Pajamas Media. Read on:

"...A man and a woman are lackadaisically standing in front of a camera, arms around each other like limp noodles. The guy proclaims that, with eHarmony’s '29 dimensions of compatibility' matching system, he found a woman who has everything he was looking for: 'Pretty … a great smile…,' he trails off as the bouncy music tries to convince us that they’re desperately in love as they dance like fumbling eighth-graders.

It’s like the courtship of low expectations that’s become a hallmark of Campaign 2008.

What’s missing is the passion, the oomph, the can’t-live-without-you factor. The poll swings have shown that each romance with a fresh new face fizzles quickly at best, and can spell a fiery death for the GOP at worst. Candidates try to convince us they’re a perfect fit on their eHarmony-esqe dimensions of conservative street cred, true compatibility that apparently can best be determined by checking off boxes..."

And that, I theorize, brings us back to the tried-and-true when deciding who gets our electoral affection. Read the whole thing!

Posted by Bridget Johnson at 4:46 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I realize that Ron Paul appeals to the Libertarian in many voters. I realize that his grass-roots band of supports have roved around Los Angeles in a little pack, last seen by yours truly waving signs at 405 Freeway drivers from the Sunset Boulevard overpass. And I also understand that said supporters have taken great pride in becoming the worst spammers on Earth and raising moula for their main man.

But come on, folks: Keeping a campaign donation from a white supremacist is disgusting. Really.

"Republican presidential hopeful Ron Paul has received a $500 campaign donation from a white supremacist, and the Texas congressman doesn't plan to return it, an aide said Wednesday.

Don Black, of West Palm Beach, recently made the donation, according to campaign filings. He runs a website called Stormfront with the motto, 'White Pride World Wide.' The site welcomes postings to the 'Stormfront White Nationalist Community.'

'Dr. Paul stands for freedom, peace, prosperity and inalienable rights. If someone with small ideologies happens to contribute money to Ron, thinking he can influence Ron in any way, he's wasted his money,' Paul spokesman Jesse Benton said. 'Ron is going to take the money and try to spread the message of freedom.'

...Black said he supports Paul's stance on ending the war in Iraq, securing America's borders and his opposition to amnesty for illegal immigrants."

Oh, please. There's no way to spin this into anything admirable or acceptable. Paul's just being a greedy lil' bastard. And you know I'm not playing favorites with this because just this past week I knocked Giuliani and Romney for accepting endorsements from unsavory religious "leaders."

The Paul Posse claim they're at the forefront of a "revolution" with Ron Paul's candidacy. How about this for a revolutionary political idea -- putting principles of basic human decency before political profit?

Posted by Bridget Johnson at 3:41 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

For the slightest of moments, before his poll surge, I thought that Mike Huckabee could be the one for the GOP nod. The affection has faded, though. From watching him get mired in these religious back-and-forths to demonstrating a shallow grasp in the field of foreign policy (where Mitt Romney has yet to prove himself an expert, either, and Barack Obama's understanding makes one want to cry), there's something that rubbing me the wrong way. One Jewish Republican friend confided in me weeks ago that he's still nervous about Huckabee's preacher past, and how that would play into future power of the evangelical bloc in the Republican Party. And now that the race is turning into Baptist vs. Mormon, it's getting really annoying.

I feel myself more and more going back to the tried, true, and tested -- and the man who can snag moderates without being so Rudy. Months and months ago, when it was clearly the politically unpopular thing to do, John McCain unequivocally backed the surge in Iraq, even if it would cost him the campaign -- which, for a while, it looked like it would. He turned out to be right. But his surge support never seemed like a political gamble, yet a stand taken out of firm conviction and good understanding of foreign policy. And that's what we need in the White House.

Posted by Bridget Johnson at 3:08 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

My column today is one that I had to write. In light of all the recent arguments about how much a candidate's religion should figure into Campaign 2008, I've been thinking more about the endorsements from questionable religious leaders. Like Pat Robertson endorsing Giuliani, and Giuliani standing on a stage beaming with, accepting the endorsement of, a man who's said some pretty unsavory things in the guise of religious leadership.

Giuliani is hardly singled out here: Mitt Romney had previously courted Robertson's endorsement with appearances at Regent University, one in which he suggested that the single life was selfish. 'You cross into the deep waters by marrying and raising good children,' Romney said to Regent graduates this spring.

Romney got the endorsement of Catholic-bashing Bob Jones III, who as president of the school in 2000 only dropped its ban on interracial dating under heavy media scrutiny. 'We have the same things we want to fight for on issue after issue, so I'm happy to have his support,' Romney said in October.

Lifting the ban on interracial dating came with a caveat that parents give written consent. 'When you date interracially or marry interracially, it cuts you off from people,' Jones reportedly said in March 2000.

Haven't we moved past the point of endorsements from folks like this mattering anymore?

At some point, wouldn't a candidate of character stand up and say, 'Sorry, endorsement not needed'?

Now, there's another thing about Romney that I looked into over the weekend. The name of Gary Jarmin, a conservative activist who ran a distasteful senior scare scam and described from the horse's mouth as operating in the service of Sun Myung Moon, originally appeared on the roster of Romney's National Faith and Values Steering Committee. It was removed there, but still appears on this follow-up press release about additions to the committee. So I contacted the Romney campaign and asked if Jarmin was still on the committee, and received this response: "He had to resign because of other commitments."

Is "other commitments" code for "you're a liability, see ya"? Rumor has it that the WaPo has been probing Jarmin. 'Twas only a matter of time before the Romney connection came up.

Posted by Bridget Johnson at 2:48 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

That should be the nickname for the duo of Sens. John McCain and Joe Lieberman, the latter of whom (a Democrat) endorsed the former (a Republican) for president today -- in matching sweaters! Generally I think that endorsements do little to win support for a candidate, but this one may be different.

Usually, a high-profile endorsement is treacherous because, for all the people it can woo, it can also alienate others (i.e., Pat Robertson's backing Rudy Giuliani, or Jim Gilchrist's support of Mike Huckabee). But the only people who don't like Lieberman are the hard-core lefties, and they're not going to support a GOP candidate anyway. So a Lieberman endorsement costs McCain exactly zero votes, while possibly making him more attractive to moderate Democrats in the general election, as well as to national-security-first Republicans who might otherwise lean toward Giuliani in the primary.

If nothing else, should McCain win the GOP nomination (doubtful), expect a rockin' Lieberman speech at the GOP convention next summer.

And a prediction: If McCain is president (doubly doubtful) and the Democrats control the Senate by only one vote (triply doubtful), expect to see Lieberman bolt parties and return the Senate to the GOP ...

Posted by Chris Weinkopf at 12:23 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

From our Washington reporter, Lisa Friedman, in Sunday's paper:

"Rep. Howard Berman, D-Van Nuys, who said one of the earliest causes he embraced while in college at UCLA was the abolishment of the House Un-American Activities Committee, said the era underscores the importance of being vigilant against curtailing civil liberties in the name of national security.

Berman said he finds some parallels in what he described as today's 'very radical concerns about radical jihadists.' That, he argued, has led to 'overreaches' in the Patriot Act and other tools Congress passed as part of the War on Terror.

...Victor Navasky, publisher emeritus of The Nation magazine, said he thinks a similar blacklisting would be unlikely today, both because the media would not keep the story silent as they did in the 1950s and because of the new strength of independent filmmakers and the Internet.

'There's such a profusion of ways to distribute ideas,' agreed Berman, whose district includes most of the major studios. 'The days when four or five top executives could get together and stop people from working because of their political views are over, hopefully.'"

Well, congressman, these are the days when four or five top executives can get together and stop people from working because of their political views -- if those views are conservative. I can't tell you how many people I've met in the industry who've a) lost out on work because of their right-of-center politics, b) have had to put up with workplace harassment because of their right-of-center politics, or c) are scared stiff that any of their Hollywood co-workers or bosses will learn that they vote right-of-center, because they fear the repercussions it will have on their careers.

I once heard director/producer David Zucker -- who became Republican after 9/11, is right on national security issues and a big environmentalist -- speaking at a wrap party for an anti-John Kerry commercial he shot. He hailed all the friends he'd made in the local GOP community -- "especially since I've lost all my old friends," he deadpanned. Let's just say you have to be a star that big to survive a political outing to the elephant side in Tinseltown.

Posted by Bridget Johnson at 2:25 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

It's campaign time -- for the title of Grande Conservative Blogress Diva 2008, that is!! Yes, I'm on the ballot over at Gay Patriot, where the Blogress Diva is sort of the political equivalent of Cher. So I'm humbly asking -- as is P.Diddy, though in a less subtle manner -- for your vote. My platform:

• Being a uniter of all the political divas, not a diva divider
  
• Flat tax/fair tax? Pshaw -- how about no tax?
  
• Continuing to piss off Chavez and Ahmadinejad
  
• Showing the world that L.A. is about more than Lohan/Spears drama -- represent!

Posted by Bridget Johnson at 3:42 PM | Permalink | Comments (3)

Earl Ofari Hutchinson asks a couple of really good questions concerning the enmity directed at Hillary. I’d like to take a swing at them, but I’m not exactly qualified. I am not an impassioned Hillary hater. True, I am not enamored of her, but neither do I hate her. I do, however, have some insight on part of his question.

For the real haters, there are no really good answers or explanations. They have hated both Bill and Hillary from the start. They dogged them, seeing them as a team, and fought them at every turn. Personally, I don’t understand the depth of their animus. One theory holds that this is a cultural left-over from Vietnam and the social issues around drugs, sex and the war that rent this nation 40 years ago. This explanation I do not believe fully explains the venom on the right, but it does fit into why many liberals have moved on to Obama in order both to change the generational context and nostalgically to look for another Robert, not John, Kennedy.

I have a clearer idea however why she is not broadly loved. Despite her obvious intelligence, her growing skill in public speaking, her ability both to take a punch and give one, there is a certain magic that is missing. The idea of her plays better than the reality. Her negatives are high, not simply with the right-wingers who hate her but also with Democrats. Her support has been wide but not deep. In Iowa when the likely caucus goers are asked to name their first, second and third choices, she comes in third. (Okay, you may need to be a political junkie to know that this indicates very fragile support)

Her chief flaw is pandering—a trait she may have picked up from Bill. Unfairly, she lacks his charm. She shares with Romney the impression that she will say anything, do anything or seem to believe anything to get a vote. It is not one critical sin or transgression but an accretion of shifting that undermines a sense of authenticity. She supported anti-flag burning legislation, we must think not so much out of conviction as political convenience. While I do no to sit in judgment of her faith, the cross around her neck seems to have appeared only after announcing herself as a candidate. Her shifting stands on both the war and immigration do not seem principled but political.

I believe this will sink her and her Republican doppelganger, Mitt Romney. He too believed passionately in core values on the liberal side when running in Massachusetts and did a series of 180s when presenting for national office. To have had an epiphany on one issue is, well, one thing, but to have changed on a panoply of defining issues bespeaks a certain inuathenticity.

I believe this election will be about authenticity. I believe that we want to have some idea of what our next president believes and not simply measure rhetorical skills, spin and slick advertising. Many otherwise liberal folks voted for Reagan because he seemed real. I know liberals who opposed McCain on many core issues but were drawn to his focus and sense of mission. Huckabee is catching Romney not just because the Evangelical values voters are drawn to him, and not because there are Mormon haters (though sadly there are) but because he seems to believe something.

With Republicans searching for the next Reagan and Dems for the next Bobbie, I believe that both want someone to believe in more than they want ideology. It is instructive that after RFK’s assassination some of his followers—counter intuitively to the naïve experts—went to arch populist and bigot George Wallace. RFK’s popularity, as Reagan’s, transcended party-line and struck people as both passionate and genuine.

A Hillary v Romney election would be about money, spin and shape shifting. Whether or not they are, by dint of experience or platform, the best choices to be president, a Huckabee v Obama election would actually be about something: at least it would contain elements of substance.

Posted by Jonathan Dobrer at 6:08 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

Thinking back to last night's Hatton-Mayweather fight in Vegas, which the British press practically billed as a do-over of the American Revolution -- and which, ha-ha, ended with the same result, with a knockout of the Brit Hatton by Michigan man Mayweather in the tenth round. Wouldn't it be nice if they got Campaign 2008 over with so quickly? Brangelina, David Beckham and the rest of the celeb contingent could grab their choice seats, Don King could lead the GOP cheering section with his American flags, then the two top candidates could go in the ring and duke it out. May not be very civilized, you might say. But below-the-belt hits and all, the boxing ring is not too far removed from the political arena:

Posted by Bridget Johnson at 5:48 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

At the recommendation of a friend, I went over to the Washington Post's Web site the other day to take their Choose Your Candidate quiz. There are left and right editions, and the lengthy test gauges which statements you agree with most, thus picking your perfect candidate on each issue and overall. I took the GOP version and came up with John McCain in first, and Mitt Romney coming in last.

But all this test really shows is how you like someone's rhetoric. Many of the candidates agree on various issues (and on some pages, Ron Paul's statements, though anonymous, stick out like a sore thumb), so all you're choosing is the candidate who says it best. Since action matters more than words, it's not exactly a good way to pick a candidate. It's a way to pick the candidate who spouts your favorite spin.

Posted by Bridget Johnson at 4:04 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I must admit that when I first began reading Jonathan's post about fellow Democrats' benign neglect of the Hamas-loving Mike Gravel, I thought, "So they ignored the yahoo in the room. Big deal, politicians do that all the time." But then Jonathan got me with the line, "Had he made analogous charges or observations as starkly offensive to Blacks, Hispanics, Asians or gays, can you imagine the other Democrats remaining silent? Don’t you think that someone would have challenged him?"

Jonathan is absolutely right. The silence here is damning. And so is this press release, which appeared in my inbox late yesterday afternoon:

DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE MIKE GRAVEL
TO SPEAK AT MPAC CONVENTION ON DEC. 15

(Los Angeles - 11/30/07) -- The Muslim Public Affairs Council today announced that Democratic Presidential candidate Mike Gravel will be a keynote speaker at its seventh annual convention on December 15 in Long Beach, CA.

A two-term U.S. Senator from Alaska, Gravel is best known for his blunt, no-nonsense approach in the Democratic Presidential debates where he's known to rail against the war in Iraq with the same outrage he used to condemn the one in Vietnam. In 1971, Gravel ordered the top-secret "Pentagon Papers" - a series of secret government reports that chronicled United States failures in Vietnam - into the Congressional Record and then went on to lead a one-man filibuster in the Senate that led to the end the military draft in 1973.

SEE: Mike Gravel's Comments During the 3rd Democratic Presidential Debate

SEE: "Mike Gravel, An Anti-War Crusader for Two Generations" (Kansas City Star, 11/21/07)

Gravel has been written off by media commentators as unelectable and has little money to finance his White House bid, but he has been able to keep his hopes alive through YouTube and the Internet. Low in the polls, he was blocked from the two most recent Democratic debates in October and November. His primary reason for running for the presidency is to advance his agenda for direct national elections on issues, called the "National Initiative."

SEE ALSO: Interview with Mike Gravel on "This is America with Dennis Wholey"

"The whole reason I am running is to empower the people," Gravel told AFP. "What the people need to be able to do is to be put in position so they can vote on the policies issues that affect their lives."

MPAC invited all of the Presidential candidates from both parties to address the Muslim American community at the annual convention. To date, Gravel is the only candidate who has accepted....

This is just a bad, bad move on MPAC's part. Fine -- the organization invited all the candidates, and only Gravel said yes. Sure, it should let Gravel, and any other candidate who wants to speak, get a spot at its convention. But to issue a gushing press release extolling the virtues of a candidate who just so happens to be an apologist for two Muslim terrorist organizations ... well, let's just say that's going to do very little to debunk the pernicious stereotypes that MPAC ostensibly exists to counter.

Posted by Chris Weinkopf at 9:33 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Reading a variety of recent OpEds, letters and editorials in various publications, including the DN, it has become clear that campaign financing is an issue that lurks just under the surface of the 2008 elections.

I think it is a matter that should be easily resolved.

The reason campaign donations are so important is that it they are defacto votes. More money = more ads = more votes, in a crude calculus.

Which is to say, everyone who donates votes. Every PAC. Every corporation. Every party. Everyone from out of state. They all dictate who gets elected in your jurisdictions.

So, I say: ban them. Do away with most donations.

It's a remarkably simple concept, if you think about it. Just ban most donations. Why should a farmer from Kansas or Fortune 500 CEO effect who runs for congress in my district?

Candidates should be limited to accepting donations from United States Citizens who reside in their district. Period. We can make a reasonable limit on the size of donations - say, $2500. That's more than most folks (certainly I) could afford. But it is small enough overall that candidates will still appreciate every $20 from every old lady who takes the time to write a check.

Corporations and unions and special interests could still have their input. But, they would be limited to endorsing candidates and advising their members, customers and share holders for whom to vote and donate. No more dispensing $10,000 to both presidential candidates. No more presenting one face to the public but spreading largesse in another.

The endorsement of the NRA or ACLU would probably become even more valuable. But the money would no longer come from dues or PAC contributions. It would eminate from voters' belief in the candidate.

A shift to this system would require battling back all kinds of special interests. They will line up to preserve their monopoly on politicians' attention. The political campaign industry, with highly paid, high gloss consultants will also run around screaming. They will argue that "it takes $2 million to run for the State Assembly, there's no way you can raise that in small increments."

Yes, that's right. Well, half right. There's no way to raise that kind of money in small increments, but it doesn't take $ 2 million to run for the Assembly.

When the free flow of money dries up, politicians will be forced toi campaign within their means.

This would be excellent practice for them before they head to City Hall, Sacramento or DC. Spend only what you got, and be careful about squeezing for more.

The legendary Jess Unruh coined the axiom that "money is the mothers' milk of politics."

It's time that candidates were reminded just who momma is.

Posted by Robert C.J. Parry at 5:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Americans ought to be delighted that Rep. Jack Murtha -- a strong opponent of President Bush's policies in Iraq -- reports that we're (finally) making some progress over there. Unlike administration officials, who have so discredited themselves in recent years as to make their own rosy assessments suspect, if Murtha says things are improving, they probably are.

So when Murtha says the "surge is working," we should all cheer -- this is a hopeful sign. But not, according to The Politico, in House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's office:

But Pelosi, who is scheduled to speak to a Democratic National Committee event in Virginia on Friday, will surely face tough questions from reporters regarding Murtha's statement on the surge.

"This could be a real headache for us," said one top House Democratic aide, speaking on the condition of anonymity. "Pelosi is going to be furious."

What would she be furious about? That our troops are making some headway? That Murtha spoke plainly about what he saw in Iraq? That this could theoretically undermine a strong Democratic 2008 campaign issue?

Let's hope these are only the words of some young political hack, and not a reflection of what the Speaker really thinks. But it's not a good sign that Murtha has gone on to issue a clarification (read: flip-flop) on his remarks ...

Posted by Chris Weinkopf at 10:56 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Vice President Cheney is in the hospital suffering from cardiac arrhythmia. The good health of the Vice President, who has already suffered four heart attacks and several episodes of arrhythmia, is of concern to all. Democrats in particular, and not necessarily for humanitarian reasons of, uh, bleeding-heart liberalism, are worried.

Were the Vice President to resign for health reasons (more plausible than to spend more time with his family) this would create a great opportunity for mischief and distraction. Right now we are enjoying the mud-wrestling that comes from having no incumbent president or vice president running. A vacancy in the office of the vice president would create some real distractions and captivating sideshows.

President Bush could try to appoint one of the leading Republican candidates to fill in. The nominee would need Senate confirmation. Easy confirmation of an active candidate would be problematic. Bush could get great mileage over the Democrats filibustering an issue of true national concern—the absence of a vice president. He could say that the Democrats put partisan political advantage over the interests of our nation.

President Bush could also play it another way—and nominate someone not in the race. Then once this person takes office he, or she, (Condi Rice?) could then step in to rescue the party from its already mixed up and incoherent flock of candidates.

All of this is exceedingly unlikely, but speculation is fun stuff in an election year.

Posted by Jonathan Dobrer at 1:14 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

It is both interesting and telling in terms of Mitt Romney’s character that he disapproves of Obama talking about past drug use. I could understand it if Romney thought that past drug use should disqualify Obama from seeking higher office, but that is not what he did. His objection was to the disclosure, to Obama telling the truth.

This goes straight to the perception and suspicion that Romney, if he has a moral core, is not willing to share it. It goes to the fear that Romney will say anything to be liked, accepted and to get votes. If you need a liberal to run in Massachusetts, why Mitt is your man. He ran to the left of Teddy Kennedy on gay rights when he unsuccessfully ran for the Senate. He was elected governor running as a strong pro-choice. He actually delivered a statewide healthcare plan that today he renounces. Through an amazing set of politically convenient epiphanies, Romney has reversed all of these views.

Strange world that Romney criticizes Obama for admitting his legal/moral transgressions with apparent candor while Romney runs away from his own accomplishments. Romney clearly believes it is better to lie or cover up and not tell the truth if the truth would be difficult, painful or controversial. This is not a conclusion of mine based on scant evidence. Here are Mitt’s own words: “It’s just not a good idea for people running for President of the United States who potentially could be the role model for a lot of people to talk about their personal failings while they were kids because it opens the doorway to other kids thinking, ‘well I can do that too and become President of the United States.’ I think that was a huge error by Barack Obama…it is just the wrong way for people who want to be the leader of the free world.”

Romney obviously thinks that admitting the truth sets a bad example for the youth of this country, and it is better to spare them our histories. (Note to George Washington: Deny cutting down that cherry tree. Claim it was a dirty trick played by Adam’s supporters.)

This is not an abstract issue. It is important. Do we have honest conversations with our own children and grandchildren about our past? Do we admit to our follies, our failings our humanity in the hope that we can teach them something, or do we sanitize our lives and set ourselves up as false and hypocritical paragons of rectitude?

Yes, I know I have not presented this even-handedly. By using the word “hypocrisy,” I’ve indicated my own perspective. Still, I do think we are better off not presenting ourselves as perfect and so are our families. If we claim perfection, they won’t believe us, and as we try to teach the young that credibility is an important asset for them, to model otherwise would not be wise.

Any parent or politician who claims never to have tried a controlled substance creates a credibility problem for me. Maybe such creatures exist. I’m not saying that it’s impossible—just highly unlikely. So, the question is how to respond when the subject comes up either for a public person or a parent. It is morally permissible to respond with no response, or to claim a zone of privacy. This, however, lets the questioner infer a positive. I do think there are legitimate privacy issues but they go to extent and details, not denial.

When asked about either sex or drugs, we are not obligated to go into details. Generalizations are just fine. Lying seems to me not to be okay.

Obama told a group of students, “I made some bad decisions that I’ve written about. There were times when I got into drinking and experimented with drugs.”

While I find his candor to be both refreshing and commendable, the euphemism in current use “ experimented,” I find problematic. Experimented has such a clinical sound. It implies that I had controlled substances under controlled circumstances. “Ah yes, there I was in the school’s medical lab and, while under a research doctor’s supervision, I smoked weed, I mean, er, experimented with cannabis.” Let’s knock off the cleaned up clinical circumlocutions and admit or not “trying, dabbling, using, enjoying or being totally bummed by a bad trip.” I can accept that it was a “phase.” It was not, however, a science project.

We are not electing saints. This much we know. Our electoral choices will be based on personality, philosophy, policy and character. Our sense of all these traits will derive from credibility. We must believe that we know our candidates. When one tells you that he will not tell you the truth, believe him.

Posted by Jonathan Dobrer at 2:15 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

... when she writes:

These days, you can forget that old-style GOP rhetoric about "values," "human dignity" and the "culture of life." Because the GOP has a new litmus test for its nominees: Will you or will you not protect U.S. officials who order the torture of prisoners?

But I increasingly fear she's right. Especially when she cites examples like this:

As Scott Horton reports in his Harper's Magazine blog: "Several days before his first meeting with the Senate Judiciary Committee, Michael Mukasey's Justice Department handlers arranged a private meeting for him with a number of 'movement conservatives.'... They pushed aggressively on the torture question. They wanted Mukasey to pledge that he would toe the administration's line" by not criticizing the administration's approval of waterboarding and similar interrogation techniques, and they wanted him to "protect those who authored the [interrogation] program" by issuing opinions that would keep those responsible for the program from facing criminal prosecution.

There's a lot at stake in next year's election, includuing the very soul of the GOP.

Posted by Chris Weinkopf at 2:45 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Ahhh, so California:

"Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger learned the art of political negotiation in a setting that's oh so California — soaking in his backyard hot tub. Keynoting a gathering of Silicon Valley business leaders Friday, the Republican governor explained how his wife — former television news anchor Maria Shriver — came to support his 2003 gubernatorial bid.

'We were sitting in the Jacuzzi. I said, "Maria, here's an idea. What do you think about this, me running for governor?"' Schwarzenegger said to peals of laughter. 'I said, "There's a recall, there's only a 2-month campaign. I think we can work our way through this two months and then I'm governor — isn't that great?'"

After the laughter died down, Schwarzenegger turned solemn.

'In all seriousness, she had tears in her eyes. I had to work on her for 14 days,' Schwarzenegger said. 'That's where I learned to negotiate — bringing Democrats and Republicans together right there in the Jacuzzi.'"

Hot tub negotiations, of course, can be taken a few steps further beyond the bubbly water to solve all sorts of problems:

NEGOTIATING HEALTH CARE REFORM: Add a nice pinot noir and some fresh fruit.

BALANCING THE STATE BUDGET: Add some candles and Barry White music.

IMMIGRATION REFORM: A nice toe-tingling massage should do the trick.

Posted by Bridget Johnson at 8:41 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

As if things weren't already bad enough for W, what with his approval rating in the tank and all, now even dead people are making fun of him.

Posted by Chris Weinkopf at 4:15 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Once upon a time, the GOP was seen as the party of fiscal responsibility, of fighting deficits and unchecked spending. Unfortunately, that all went out the window in the era of Bush-Republican rule in Washington. (Likewise, it's nowhere to be seen in Arnold's California, either.) And the results are devastating, not only for future generations that will be saddled with debt, but also for the GOP.

David Lightman of McClatchy Newspapers has broken down the numbers to show that George W. Bush is the biggest of all big spenders -- bigger, even, than LBJ.

When adjusted for inflation, discretionary spending — or budget items that Congress and the president can control, including defense and domestic programs, but not entitlements such as Social Security and Medicare — shot up at an average annual rate of 5.3 percent during Bush’s first six years, Slivinski calculates.

That tops the 4.6 percent annual rate Johnson logged during his 1963-69 presidency...

Discretionary spending went up in Bush's first term by 48.5 percent, not adjusted for inflation, more than twice as much as Bill Clinton did (21.6 percent) in two full terms, Slivinski reports.

And it's not just war and homeland security -- costly as those are -- that are driving up the government's bills. Spending in all areas has exploded under Bush, which makes the GOP's claims to fiscal responsibility -- as well as Democrats' prattling about "cuts to vital services" -- fatuous:

Brian Riedl, a budget analyst at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative research group, points to education spending. Adjusted for inflation, it's up 18 percent annually since 2001, thanks largely to Bush’s No Child Left Behind act.

The 2002 farm bill, he said, caused agriculture spending to double its 1990s levels.

Then there was the 2003 Medicare prescription drug benefit — the biggest single expansion in the program’s history — whose 10-year costs are estimated at more than $700 billion.

And the 2005 highway bill, which included thousands of “earmarks,” or special local projects stuck into the legislation by individual lawmakers without review, cost $295 billion.

“He has presided over massive increases in almost every category … a dramatic change of pace from most previous presidents,” said Slivinski.

Politically, this recklessness has undermined Republicans' onetime electoral advantage on tax-and-spend issues. Now, when Republicans, say, oppose SCHIP expansion as needless and expensive, they have no credibility. After all, when has that ever stopped them from spending before?

Rampant spending is a great short-term political strategy, as it buys votes for the next election. But eventually, the bills come due.

Posted by Chris Weinkopf at 5:14 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

See if you can follow this: As governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney enacted a universal health-care plan, the centerpiece of which was mandatory coverage for those who can afford it and subsidies for those who can't. Later, Sen. Hillary Clinton offered a national health-care plan based on the same model -- and Romney denounced it as "socialized medicine."

Meanwhile, here in California, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has crafted a plan based on the same general idea. But the unions that have been supportive of Clinton are fighting Schwarzenegger's health-care efforts. They've even hired Chris Lehane -- a former (Bill) Clinton aide -- to lead their anti-Arnold battle.

I now find myself almost hoping for a Romney-Clinton general election, just for the sport of watching both sides twist themselves into knots trying to explain why one is evil and the other heroic for endorsing the same thing.

Posted by Chris Weinkopf at 3:23 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

This is refreshing. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has publicly chided fellow Democrat and California Rep. Pete Stark for his outrageous remark on the House floor last week. Here's the comment in full, in case you missed it:

"You don't have money to fund the war or children. But you're going to spend it to blow up innocent people if we can get enough kids to grow old enough for you to send to Iraq to get their heads blown off for the president's amusement."

Pelosi has called the comment "inappropriate" and said it "distracted from the seriousness of the subject at hand." Good for her.

Typically, the way things work in Washington, politicians love to denounce offensive remarks made by the "other side," while giving a pass to their own partisans. It's nice to see Pelosi break with that tradition, and judge someone's words by the words themselves, and not by the party affiliation of the person who uttered them.

Consider it one giant leap for civility ...

Posted by Chris Weinkopf at 1:23 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

My favorite headline of the days comes from The Washington Post: Bush Declares That He Remains Relevant.

I dunno ... In my experience, if you have to declare you're relevant, you're probably not -- other, that is, than "relevant" in the sense of being able to annihilate the world at the push of a button.

Posted by Chris Weinkopf at 2:54 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Bridget has cited The World's Smallest Political Quiz to refute Mariel's claim that she's a "conservative." OK -- people can call themselves whatever they want as far as I'm concerned.

That said, I'd like to offer my two cents on "The World's Smallest Political Quiz," which was a favorite of mine back during my early college years. You see, back then, I considered myself a libertarian, and I used to love breaking out the quiz. The problem, though, is that the quiz is put out by Libertarians, and as such, it's rigged to tag most respondents as Libertarians, too.

Even during my libertarian days, I used to joke that the quiz asked questions like, "Do you love your mother? Then you must be a Libertarian!" And while it's not obviously that loaded, it's still pretty skewed. So it asks if you oppose "corporate welfare" -- something everyone, even recipients of corporate welfare, will claim to oppose. But it doesn't ask, oh, do you oppose farm subsidies, preferential government contracts for minority-owned businesses, or federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research -- all glaring examples of corporate welfare, but all of which are much more popular than the concept of "corporate welfare" in the abstract.

Likewise, it asks if you oppose laws against sex between consenting adults -- in the abstract, most people, I suspect, would say yes. But try the particular: "Should pimps and prostitutes be allowed to openly do business in your neighborhood or outside your children's school?" -- and I'm sure you'd get markedly different results.

And because the quiz is at least 15 years old (maybe a lot older for all I know; although it does seem to have undergone some minor updating), it's horribly anachronistic. There are no questions about terrorism and civil liberties, torture, global warming or immigration -- all hot issues where public sentiment couldn't be further from the Libertarian position.

If you need any more proof that this test is tilted, I've posted my result to the right, and wow, look at that, I'm a Libertarian! Trust me, I'm not. Admittedly, I may be sympathetic to legalizing drugs and banning the death penalty, but I'm also solidly pro-life, pro-conservation, anti-consumerist, pro-family, and no isolationist on matters of foreign policy. Call me what you like, but "Libertarian" is a definite misnomer.

In truth, none of the labels is very accurate for anyone. I call myself a "conservative" because it is the label that most closely fits my beliefs, but it is far more a representation of a general philosophy than a rigid ideology. Take any prominent "conservative" institution -- the GOP, National Review, Rush Limbaugh, etc -- and you'll find no shortage of disagreements I have with each.

I suspect this is true of Bridget, too, whether one calls her a conservative, a libertarian, or a smart, fun-loving gal with strange taste in men. Which is why it's better when debating politics to focus on the issues, not the labels.

Posted by Chris Weinkopf at 8:58 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Just so that you know that I’m not playing a one-note samba and just spewing anti-Bush vitriol, let me say: President Bush did something good, right, fair, commendable and brave today. He announced that he would attend the presentation of the Congressional Gold Medal to the Dalai Lama.

This really makes China mad and that is probably a good thing. Their record on civil rights, on human rights and on religious rights is deplorable. Their lies and cover-ups on lead, poisons, bird flu and all issues of health and environment are despicable. Their threats to other countries that dare receive someone of whom they do not approve are bellicose bullying, and we should not kowtow to it—as we have in the past.

China claims that any sentiment of support for human rights—even in Tibet—is interfering with their domestic policies. Well, telling us whom to honor or receive is damn well messing with our internal affairs. Butt out!

They tell us it will be bad for bi-lateral relations. What? They’ll cut down on the lead-poisoned toys they allow us to buy, or stop shipping toxic toothpaste, or clean the ponds where they raise their “farm-raised fish.” Boy, that will teach us to give them some respect. NOT!

So, as hard as it is for me, here goes: Left-leaning liberal props for W.

Posted by Jonathan Dobrer at 9:24 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

This afternoon I attended the Wednesday Morning Club at the Four Seasons, where Laura Ingraham was the featured speaker. Ingraham was on her "Power to the People" tour, driving a bus emblazoned with the same slogan while pitching and signing her current book of the same name.

Now, let me start by noting that I am far more libertarian than Ingraham (I've been on her show before), so I wasn't apt to agree with some of her presentation in the first place. I don't believe that some folks not being modest spells the end of it all, and I have never been able to find the distinction between "family values" and regular ol' values -- which exist in people who come from good families and screwed-up families alike. And though Ingraham is a very talented public speaker, she wasted no time launching into the tired conservative refrain that goes something like this: L.A. has no values. The middle of the U.S. is America. Middle America gets the heebie-jeebies just thinking about L.A. Angelenos (and, as she specifically included, folks from Santa Barbara on south) live in a "bubble" mentality whereby we just cruise down Sunset in convertibles and thus can't top the good ol' American values of the Heartland.

I've been to about half the states in this union, and lived in Texas and Colorado. I once road-tripped it to South Dakota (long story) and was surprised to not find the welcoming hospitality so often associated with the Midwest -- rather, I encountered a clique mentality hesitant to welcome outsiders, and a very homogeneous population. I like our diversity, and, in addition, I like diversity of thought. In the last election, L.A. County went for Kerry, and the surrounding counties went for Bush. We really aren't that easy to define, and are beyond sweeping generalizations. Frankly, L.A. is not the end of humanity as we know it.

But is it just the celebs in La-La Land perpetuating this reputation to Middle America (those same Middle Americans who can't wait to come spend their tourist dollars here and buy maps to the stars' homes), or is it conservative talk-show hosts who fail to make the distinction to their Heartland audiences that L.A. is composed of a lot more than Lindsay Lohan and Barbra Streisand?

Posted by Bridget Johnson at 4:25 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

I'm continually amazed at how much time Democrats spend trying to hype up bogus White House scandals -- i.e., Valerie Plame or the attorney firings -- and how they all but ignore this, the clearest example of plainly illegal, brazenly immoral conduct in this administration:

The Bush administration had entered uncharted legal territory beginning in 2002, holding prisoners outside the scrutiny of the International Red Cross and subjecting them to harrowing pressure tactics. They included slaps to the head; hours held naked in a frigid cell; days and nights without sleep while battered by thundering rock music; long periods manacled in stress positions; or the ultimate, waterboarding.

Never in history had the United States authorized such tactics....

With virtually no experience in interrogations, the C.I.A. had constructed its program in a few harried months by consulting Egyptian and Saudi intelligence officials and copying Soviet interrogation methods long used in training American servicemen to withstand capture.

(Source: New York Times).

The two phrases that stand out to me here are, "Never in history had the United States authorized such tactics" and "copying Soviet interrogation methods." Yes, I know "9-11 changed everything," but it didn't rewrite basic morality, and this is not the only time the country has ever faced grievous threat. For 50 years we lived with the very real specter of nuclear annihilation, yet our government never descended to aping KGB tactics -- as it does now.

This is the shame of the Bush administration, but it is also the shame of the whole political class -- Democrat and Republican -- which has decided to let it slide, for fear that doing what is right could be perceived as being weak. So rather than investigating real scandals, we gin up a lot of fury over phony ones, because those test better with the focus groups.

Someone wise once called this sort of politicking Dangerous Distractions by Cynical Pols. I couldn't imagine a more apt description.

Posted by Chris Weinkopf at 9:21 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

"Let’s Change the Subject" is the game currently being played by both political parties for their own partisan advantage. As a technique it works distressingly well. But it is also an unconscionable and cynical ploy.

Whether you believe that the war in Iraq was a good idea gone wrong through faulty planning and execution or a bad idea gone tragically wrong, we all know that our young, and not so young, men and women are dying and being badly injured. Our motives should be discussable. Our strategy is clearly questionable. Still, I hope we all agree that the suffering, the cost in blood and treasure are important and should be on our national table—particularly when the coming election is likely to determine our direction for years to come.

Therefore, I am revolted by the political gamesmanship. The Republicans don’t want to talk about parts of the war—and the mistakes in planning and execution, so they attack Moveon.org and their pun between “Petraeus” and “betray us.” I know everyone hisses at puns, but bad puns should not provoke the official attention of the Congress and Senate. This is too serious an issue to deflect towards one relatively small segment of Democratic war criticism. Instead of the war, the Republicans, understandably, want to talk about the ad in the New York Times and how much the ad costs.

Unable to either get on the moral high ground or effectively parry the Republican attack, the Democrats, in impotent rage, slash at Rush Limbaugh and Anne Coulter. Coulter says outrageously provocative and tasteless things for a living and Rush can call people names with the best and worst of them. On the other side, Keith Olbermann goes after Bush and the administration with great gusto and vitriol. Do we want the government discussing this in official sessions?

This week, Michael Savage, a nationally syndicated radio talk show host based in San Francisco of all places, is being condemned by SF’s Board of Supervisors. He regularly spews invective at gays, lesbians and immigrants—legal or not. That is his stick. What are the Supes doing wasting time and official indignation on this?

Whatever the breaches in taste, fact or even decency on the parts of Keith, Moveon.org, Coulter, Limbaugh or Savage, the government needs to get out of the business of discussing, arguing and voting meaningless gotcha resolutions about these people.

By “gotcha resolutions” I mean non-binding resolutions that resolve nothing and just put the other side in the awkward bind of voting for or against these naked political ploys.

Dear Elected Officials, people are dying. Talk, argue, debate issues of substance not symbols. Make decisions that decide something. Put forward resolutions that resolve problems.

I don’t care what you think of Rush or Ann. I don’t need your condemnation of Keith or Moveon.org. Please get serious about the people who have killed us and threaten to kill more of our children. Leave the reviews of the pundits, activists and comedians to us in the media, who don’t have better things to do. You do have better and more important things to do.

Maybe you want to invade Iran. Okay, let’s talk about it. Maybe you want to get out of Iraq. Fine. Let’s hear your plan. Stop attacking each other; stop identifying each other’s fringe surrogates to attack. Stop making so literally true the old line from Walt Kelly’s classic cartoon Pogo, “We have met the enemy and it is us.”

This world is far too dangerous for these games and distractions. We are becoming too divided and fragile to allow politicians cynically to make each other targets of opportunity. We have real people who want us dead. Let us turn our attention towards them. The Great Seal of our nation shows an eagle holding a bundle of arrows in one talon and an olive branch in the other. Which is it to be? Let’s talk about it.

Posted by Jonathan Dobrer at 10:14 PM | Permalink | Comments (4)