KUDLOW PREACHES THE GOSPEL OF MARKETS

From my favorite tv economist - Larry Kudlow

"Permit me to take a contrarian view on the oil price shock. I say three cheers for higher energy prices. Why? Because I believe in markets. When the price of something goes up, demand falls off (call it conservation) and supply increases (call it new production). We're seeing a tectonic shift.

As Dan Yergin has advised us, energy supplies in the next few years will explode. Now the public is even favoring nuclear power. And the government is stepping out of the way by giving FERC the authority to override localities who oppose nuclear power, liquefied natural gas or other forms of energy.

Meanwhile the impact on the economy has been negligible, at least so far. And the Fed has prevented oil inflation from spreading to the rest of the economy. So much so that I think they should quit raising rates while they're ahead.

Meanwhile the spread of global capitalism to places like China, India, eastern Europe and elsewhere (which is a very good thing for world prosperity) is the main cause of the spike in energy.

So supply will rise exponentially in the years ahead, demand will slow a bit and we'll all live happily ever after. The moral of this story: markets work if you let them."

WSJ ED PAGE ON TAIWAN

Taiwan Fiddles
August 24, 2005

Taiwan spends a small fortune lobbying Washington so the U.S. will ride to its rescue in case of a Chinese attack. Yet more than four years after the U.S. offered a package of advanced defense weapons, politicians in Taipei still haven't decided to buy them. This isn't helping Taiwan's cause in Washington.

In April 2001, the Bush administration reversed the Clinton policy and offered Patriot anti-missile batteries, anti-submarine aircraft and diesel submarines. It did so at some diplomatic risk, since China has objected to the sale. But Taiwan clearly needs a stronger deterrent given China's military buildup, which includes more missiles targeting the island and aggressive submarine activity. China passed an anti-secession law in March, mandating force if Taiwan rejects "peaceful reunification."

But legislators in Taiwan have blocked any purchase plan proposed by President Chen Shui-bian. Some opposition politicians have even accused the U.S. of using the arms sales as a pretext to pursue a hidden agenda of demonizing China. Lien Chan, until last week chairman of the main opposition party, has argued the country can't afford the $15 billion price tag. But this doesn't wash for an island with per-capita income of $13,000 a year.

Mr. Lien, as it happens, was given red-carpet treatment during a high-profile visit to Beijing in April. A month later, he rebuffed a plea from 33 U.S. Congressmen to end his party's obstruction of the bill now before Taiwan's legislature and approve special funding for the arms purchases. Mr. Lien instead blamed President Chen for waiting three years before submitting the funding request in June 2004. Opposition parties, which run the legislature, have used procedural tactics to block the funding bill at least 26 times.

The good news is that the recent Pentagon report on China's military has put opponents on the defensive by highlighting how Taiwan risks "being quickly overwhelmed" by Beijing's rapidly modernizing forces. And Mr. Lien has been succeeded as KMT chairman by Taipei Mayor Ma Ying-jeou, who seems to understand the urgency of the arms purchases.

The problem is that while Taiwan dawdles, China keeps modernizing its military. The 2001 U.S. offer, while still useful, may require upgrading if Taiwan truly wants the capability to hold off an invading force long enough to allow the U.S. to intervene. Given Taiwan's half-hearted response to the current arms offer, there's little point in considering a fresh one now. But if Taiwan wants the U.S. to risk its blood and treasure in the event of an attack, paying for an adequate defense would seem to be a minimum prerequisite.

WSJ ED PAGE ON CHINA

The Wall Street Journal Editorial page gets it right 98% of the time. However, when it comes to China and illegal aliens, they're slightly off the mark. Today, they have an editorial about China. While I see that and jump for joy, they see it and look to help them out of it... ehh, nobody's perfect.

China Does Carternomics
August 19, 2005; Page A12

We don't know if the Chinese have suddenly appointed Jimmy Carter as their energy czar, or whether it just seems that way. The two- and three-hour long gas lines now stretching down city blocks in many provinces in China are certainly an unwelcome reminder of the 1970s when U.S. policies caused a similar energy panic.

So let's think of this as a teaching moment. In China today, many of the same Carter-era policy prescriptions for high energy prices have incited the unprecedented gas lines. The government has imposed price controls on oil and gas in an effort to fight inflation, just as the U.S. did back then, and in the last few weeks it has even resurrected another Carter-era gem, a "windfall petroleum profits tax" on oil and gas producers. Perhaps Chinese President Hu Jintao will soon deliver a televised speech to the nation wearing a cardigan.

By holding domestic prices to about $10 a barrel below the world price, according to the International Energy Agency, Chinese oil firms have discovered they can make more money selling energy abroad than at home, thus lengthening the gas lines.

Gasoline shortages in recent days have become so severe that Hong Kong's South China Morning Post reports that the waiting lines have infuriated "everyone from taxi drivers to farmers across the country, and could threaten social stability." Two other Asian nations, Indonesia and the Philippines, have also been toying with oil price controls and gasoline rationing -- so they might want to watch and learn from the Chinese mistake.

Price controls that are set below the market price always exacerbate shortages, because the artificially low price causes demand to rise and supply to fall. With the price no longer permitted to equilibrate supply and demand, consumers wind up paying not with dollars, but worse, through waiting lines and lost hours in the day. That's what beleaguered Russians learned many times over when they waited in grocery lines for price-controlled bread and chicken and chocolates during the Soviet era.

And it is what enraged Americans learned when parked in gas service station lines at 7 a.m. during the 1970s, which, since it included both the Nixon and Carter years, was arguably the worst period for U.S. economic policy during the last century, Herbert Hoover excluded. A windfall profits tax only discourages increases in supply by disincentivizing further production. High profits are precisely the desirable signal that a market sends to firms to find and produce more oil and gas.

The good news for the Chinese is that they can look to history for a way out. When Ronald Reagan became President in 1981, two of his first official acts were to immediately repeal all Carter-era oil and gas price controls and to repeal the oil windfall profits tax. Oil prices soon rose to their natural market level, and through the invisible hand of the market, production rose, consumption fell and prices began a steady decade-long decline. The U.S. energy "crisis" was over

FORBES PENS OP-ED FOR WSJ

One Simple Rate

By STEVE FORBES
August 15, 2005; Page A12

A major domestic battle looms this fall, when tax reform -- a centerpiece of the president's bold domestic agenda -- will finally be on the table. The President's Advisory Panel on Federal Tax Reform is expected to release its findings by the end of September. After the political shellacking the White House took on Social Security, the administration will be strongly tempted to take a conciliatory path that supports only superficial reforms, essentially preserving the status quo of our hideous income tax code.

Such a course would have perilous consequences, economically and politically. In fact, the administration has an opportunity here to boldly retake the initiative, to recover lost political support and thrust an already decent economy into high gear and, at the same time, make America better able to meet intensifying competition from China, India and others. How? By junking the entire federal income tax code and starting over with a flat tax. A growing number of countries are doing this -- and so should we.

The current system is beyond redemption, a beast whose complexity, confusion and outright unfairness have corrupted our economy and society. Americans waste more than $200 billion and over six billion hours each year filling out tax forms. They engage in all kinds of useless economic activity intended to take advantage of the code's complicated maze of deductions and to reduce taxes -- from deducting donations of old socks to making unwanted investments. The waste of brainpower -- at a time of increasing global competition -- is incalculable.

The code corrupts our system of government by encouraging the crassest political conduct and by creating a massive, intrusive federal bureaucracy. One-sixth of the private-sector employees in Washington are employed by the lobbying industry. One-half of their efforts are directed at wrangling changes in the tax code. Few people realize that our health-care system, with its runaway costs, is, in fact, the ultimate product of the tax-code distortion in our economy. And last, but most definitely not least, we simply pay too much in tax. When you take into account all the taxes, fees and tolls paid to the government, the typical American pays somewhere around half or more of his income in taxes. Why do we the people accept this?

My flat tax plan has one simple rate, on the federal level: 17% on personal income; and 17% on corporate profits. There would be generous exemptions for individuals: $13,200 for each adult; $4,000 for each child or dependent and a refundable tax credit of $1,000 per child age 16 or younger. A family of four would pay no federal income tax on its first $46,165 of income. Exemptions for a family of six -- mom, dad, four kids -- would be $65,930. No anti-risktaking capital gains levy; the capital gains tax would go to 0%. The abusive Alternative Minimum (really maximum) Tax would be abolished. No more death tax: You'd leave the world unmolested by the IRS. No taxation without respiration!

Corporate profits would be taxed at a rate of 17%. Companies could expense all investments at once: no more depreciation schedules. If these instant write-offs produce a loss, that can be carried forward to use against future profits for as many years as necessary to use it up. And businesses would be taxed only on income made in the U.S.

The economic boom the flat tax would unleash would be stupendous, ushering in a long-term, non-inflationary expansion of historic proportions. The current expansion would pale in comparison. Once again, we would be the clear global leader in high-tech and medical innovations -- unlike today, when our lead, thanks in no small part to the tax code, is now under increasing assault.

How would a flat tax do this? What so many "experts" can't grasp is that taxes are not only a means of raising revenue for governments but also a price and a burden. The tax you pay on income is the price you pay for working; the tax on profits is the price you pay for being successful, and the levy on capital gains is the price you pay for taking risks that work out. When you lower the price of good things, such as productive work, success and risktaking, you get more of them. The flat tax does that dramatically.

Experience demonstrates time and time again -- the Harding-Coolidge tax cuts of the 1920s, the Kennedy cuts of the '60s, the Reagan cuts of the '80s and the Bush reductions of 2003 -- that lower tax rates lead to more economic activity, which leads to more government revenue. Fiscal Associates of Alexandria, Va., an economic consulting firm, did an analysis of the flat tax. Its findings: between 2005 and 2015, the Forbes Flat Tax Plan would generate $56 billion more in new government revenue than the current income tax. More important, an estimated $6 trillion in additional assets would be created, an immense boost to our nation's balance sheet. This study also predicts that that flat tax would lead to nearly 3.5 million new jobs by 2011 -- jobs that otherwise would not exist.

To avoid puerile and divisive debate about who would gain and who would lose, my flat tax is designed to be a tax cut for all. Because some people will only focus on what they lose in the way of deductions under the flat tax -- ignoring the fact that their income tax payments would go down -- my plan gives you a choice: When the flat tax is implemented, you can file your postcard return under this new, simple system, or continue to file your tax returns, with all of their mind-numbing complexity, under the old system. See for yourself which is better. I think most would conclude that the flat tax is best.

Other countries are getting the message, even if we have yet to. Hong Kong has successfully had a variation of the flat tax for 60 years. Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia enacted flat taxes in the '90s that have been hugely successful. Russia put in a flat tax four years ago, and revenues have more than doubled in real terms. Ukraine, Slovakia, Romania, Georgia and Serbia have also successfully enacted flat taxes. How ironic that one-time Communist nations have been reaping the benefits of a flat tax before that bastion of free enterprise, the U.S.

President Bush should understand that trying to tinker with the tax beast won't work. In 1986, Ronald Reagan simplified the tax code somewhat: A number of tax shelters were eliminated and the number of tax brackets were cut to two: 28% and 15%. But the code remained intact. No sooner was the ink of Reagan's signature dry than Washington politicians slid back into their bad, old habits. Since his day, the federal income tax code has been amended 14,000 times. The tax system today is 60% larger than it was after the Reagan reforms. The flat tax's very simplicity makes such backsliding difficult: Any change would trigger a national debate. For insurance, the Forbes Flat Tax also contains a supermajority provision -- taxes can't be raised unless approved by a 60% vote in both the House and Senate. Few tax boosts in recent decades have surmounted such a barrier. The usual objections to the flat tax don't hold up. The flat tax will help housing -- personal incomes would go up and interest rates would go down -- and boost charitable giving. Experience demonstrates that when people earn more they give more.

* * *
What about a national retail sales tax? The most prominent plan encompassing this idea proposes a sales tax of 30% to replace the income tax and payroll tax. This 30% tax poses many challenges, among them repealing the 16th Amendment, which allows Washington to impose the income tax -- a lengthy, onerous process. Otherwise, we would likely end up with both an income tax and a sales tax.

The national sales tax would dramatically raise prices of many goods and services. Imagine a couple buying a new house costing, say, $200,000, coughing up an extra $60,000 in sales taxes. A new dedicated bureaucracy would be necessary to collect the tax and to disburse rebates (which the plan's advocates propose) from Uncle Sam to tens of millions of Americans every month to repay them for a portion of the sales tax they pay on food and clothing. Under the circumstances, the flat tax seems the best alternative to the current abomination.

That's why George Bush should pull a Ronald Reagan -- he should demand that Congress destroy this hideous tax system, the way Reagan demanded that Mikhail Gorbachev tear down the Berlin Wall. Should the president make such a plea, the American people would surprise the Washington cynics and give him a grateful, full-throated cry of support.

Mr. Forbes, editor in chief of Forbes Magazine and president & CEO of Forbes Inc., is the author of "Flat Tax Revolution: Using a Postcard to Abolish the IRS" (Regnery, 2005).

The moral case for reform

John Kurzweil is editor of California Political Review.
Posted: August 8, 2005


Peter Schweizer, in his book Reagan’s War, says Ronald Reagan’s guiding insight was that for all its bluster and destructiveness, communism was not a tower of strength to be feared, but a quivering mass of weakness ripe for defeat. Reagan knew its very reliance on lies and violence betrayed its weakness, and so was able to proceed against it with a confidence in final victory shared by few other men.

Visits to websites run by a major opponent of the state’s November reform initiatives — the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) — conveyed a similar impression of weakness, and reminded me of a comment from Albert Speer’s Inside the Third Reich:

It remains one of the oddities of this war that Hitler demanded far less from his people than Churchill and Roosevelt did from their respective nations. The discrepancy between the total mobilization of labor forces in democratic England and the casual treatment of this question in authoritarian Germany is proof of the regime’s anxiety not to risk any shift in the popular mood .... Whereas Churchill promised his people only blood, sweat, and tears, all we heard during the various phases and various crises of the war was Hitler’s slogan: “The final victory is certain.” This was a confession of political weakness. It betrayed great concern over a loss of popularity that might develop into an insurrectionary mood.

This, of course, is the weakness of materialism: by definition unable to draw upon the virtually limitless reservoirs of strength in the human spirit, it must make do with the shallowest of appeals, those of worldly self- interest and the tawdry emotions that accompany it — anger at one’s enemies, real or perceived; festering resentment over life’s difficulties and disappointments; continuous fear of “running out” of life’s necessities; shallow lust after the appearances of personal success — and envy for anyone who seems to have found it — but without the seriousness of purpose that motivates genuine striving for greatness. As Midge Decter says of left-wing feminists in another part of this issue, they appeared on the scene “militant, angry, and in the grip of a curious but lethal combination of galloping self-pity and driving ambition.”

No doubt I will be accused of saying California’s labor unions are run by Nazis and communists. No, I am not saying that. I do say the role those controlling California’s public employee unions have chosen to play in this election betrays weakness, showing the same signs of weakness — reliance on empty slogans and stimulation of low emotions — that tyrannies do.

In “Winning Big, Going Global,” for instance, a short pep talk signed by SEIU President Andrew L. Stern at http://www.seiu.org/who/2003_annual_report/ stern_letter.cfm, Stern asks: “Who could have imagined that this union of working people who often feel individually powerless could become recognized by public officials and corporate executives as one of the most powerful organizations in the country?” (emphasis added)

I know this is standard liberal rhetoric, but why should that excuse it? Where, after all, is this load of stuffing coming from? Stern makes 21st century America sound like feudal England, with peasants and serfs and lords of the manor. In worldly terms — the terms Mr. Stern is concerned with here — the American middle class workers that make up his union are among the most “powerful” people ever to walk the earth. They dispose of income qualifying them as rich in almost any society in other parts of the world today and anywhere at all throughout history up to the most recent past. They have fewer worries about disease, accidental injury, war, famine, crime, poverty, ignorance, repression, racism — you name it — even boredom, than at least nine-tenths of all the men who ever lived. They enjoy technological advancements and the freedom of choice they bring that make the greatest holders of wealth and power of past ages (and still much of the world today) paupers by comparison. And as for California government employees specifically, almost no one can match, much less beat, the pay/benefit/retirement packages they enjoy, thanks to SEIU’s and other unions’ lavish political donations to grateful Democrats who return the favor by agreeing to every demand for more that state government receives from the very same unions.

But still they feel “powerless”? Perhaps it is merely convenient for Mr. Stern to encourage them to feel that way, or else they might begin to doubt the necessity of supporting his bureaucratic union structure and vast left-wing political operations with their involuntarily paid dues.

Here’s a standard articulation of the political issues California faces, presented by SEIU’s Sacramento-based Local 1000 on its website: “Public workers, teachers, firefighters, nurses, police, and the people from our communities who desperately need our services stood up May 25 to protest Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s $70 million special election and his cruel budget cuts.” And here are some lines from a new TV spot union bosses are airing: “Off camera announcer: ‘Papers report the governor has a secret plan to create a “phenomenon of anger” against teachers and other public workers, blaming them for what’s wrong with California.’” This slam reportedly comes from an LA Times article that quoted Schwarzenegger media adviser Don Sipple in a conference call with supporters in which, presumably, Mr. Sipple made the major gaffe of suggesting voters be invited to consider the motivations and tactics of the state spending lobby. He should have remembered that no one supports budget- busting state spending except “people who desperately need our [union] services” and that only Republicans may be called “cruel.”

The key issues on this ballot are, one, ending the self-interested drawing of legislative and congressional district lines to insure the Parties that hold a district never need worry about losing it and, two, requiring union political machines to receive permission from public employees before taking their money for politics. Where is the left’s consideration of the serious issues of democratic government here raised? Where is its honest dealing with the ancillary issues arising from the phenomenon not of anger, but of taxpayers — virtually all the people — sacrificing for the comfort of the pampered few who work in state government?

Where is the honest analysis — in the interests of those “who desperately need our services” — of the actual efficacy of state programs? Accountability is not only unknown in Sacramento, it is considered a vile topic raised only by people of low motives and corrupt nature. We have “entitlements” to social welfare programs and “baseline budgeting” that begins with last year’s spending as the absolute floor on which to build this year’s increases — but no accountability. A few year’s ago, a newspaper reported that legislative hearings uncovered the truth that no one, literally not anyone, knows how the budget for California’s vast prison system is spent. The money — billions of dollars — goes, but we can’t say where, or couldn’t, at least as of the date of those hearings. I would be grateful to any reader who can show me the state has done anything substantial to change things.

In CPR’s most recent issue, Ray Haynes (“A terrible thing to waste,” May/June) cataloged the decade-long crusade propelled mainly by teachers union honchos to head off the setting of academic standards for state public school instruction and of all testing to determine the quality of their teaching along with any talk of merit awards to encourage good teachers. Accountability, in a word, would not be established. The people “who desperately need our services,” not to mention that they also pay the bills, would not be permitted to learn how well their schools are teaching the kids who actually do desperately need to learn. Listen to the voice of the unions, talking either to their own members or to the people of the state. All you hear are demands for more money, never any calls for accountability.

Finally, when do these people consider the larger, more generous concerns for the overall direction of our state or the long-term fate of its people? What is becoming of our freedom? How will it all be sustained? What will become of our children? — questions asked seriously only by men and women confident of the moral strength of their positions, people willing to pledge blood, tears, and sweat, knowing that the justice of their cause demands and justifies it. But weak people are too busy scrambling for survival, too hag-ridden by their own small dreams, by their “feelings of powerlessness,” by envy and anger, to consider these selfless questions.

The moral cause of this election is to break the cycle of despair afflicting California government. We can be free people: self-reliant, prepared to work hard, ready to endure disappointment, to persevere, to live. We need no Nanny State to protect us — it is, indeed, the state bureaucracy that is strangling us, depriving us of our confidence. The end of the gerrymander and of forced political contributions won’t leave us orphans; it will liberate us and make us strong, because the cause it serves is just.

Assemblyman Dennis Mountjoy Endorses Harry Scolinos

FROM THE DESK OF ASSEMBLYMAN DENNIS MOUNTJOY


For five years, I have had the honor of representing the 59th Assembly District. Due to term limits, my time in the State Assembly will come to an end next year.

For the last few months, I have reviewed the names of potential candidates who wish to succeed me in the Legislature. Between my father and myself, for almost thirty years, my family has proudly represented solid conservative values in the California Legislature. After taking a close look at the candidates, I am convinced that Harry Scolinos would be the best choice to continue representing those values and the people of the 59th Assembly District.

Harry Scolinos is an impressive man of faith who has a strong record of accomplishment and a proven ability to raise the funds needed to compete and win the 59th Assembly District.

Harry is committed to securing our borders and continuing the battle to stop the billions of dollars our state spends on illegal aliens every year. Harry is passionate about holding the line on taxes and he has the will power to stand up to the spending lobby in Sacramento.

As owner and CEO of US Fingerprinting, Harry is already working to make our world more secure by helping identify those who would endanger our safety and that of our children. In the State Assembly, Harry would continue his fight for a more secure California while also protecting our tax dollars from the liberal spending machine that drove our state to the verge of bankruptcy.

Harry is a decorated veteran who won a bronze star for his service in Vietnam. He has the kind of character and business background that we need in Sacramento.

Harry Scolinos is a quality conservative who shares our values on traditional family issues. He will stand up for the unborn and fight for the protection of marriage between a man and a woman.

I hope you will take the time to look at Harry’s candidacy and his stand on the issues and I am confident you will find him worthy of your support.

Sincerely,

DENNIS MOUNTJOY, Assemblyman
59th Assembly District

UPDATE Attorney General Race 2006

TO: FRIENDS AND SUPPORTERS OF CHUCK POOCHIGIAN

FROM: KEN KHACHIGIAN, CAMPAIGN STRATEGIST


A CAMPAIGN UPDATE

Campaign finance reports covering the past six months were made public last week. Because of committed friends and supporters like you, Chuck’s campaign slightly exceeded its goal of having $2 million in the bank in preparation for next year’s very challenging election.

Sure, that goal was ambitious, but with a general election campaign that could cost upwards of $12 million, we could not spare any effort in building a war chest. Due to hard work by Chuck, his campaign staff, and folks like you, we achieved the first critical benchmark in the campaign.

In fact, some of the reporters covering the race were surprised. The Oakland Tribune – in Jerry Brown’s backyard – conceded that Senator Poochigian “has shown he’s no slouch in the money department either.” Several papers noted that Chuck’s campaign actually raised more than Brown in the past six months. On the other hand, L.A. City Attorney, Rockard Delgadillo, also raised more than Brown in that period, making clear that he will be running an aggressive, well-funded campaign.

The good news is that Brown and Delgadillo have already begun to take pot shots at one another. Brown accused his opponent of being AWOL on last fall’s initiative to weaken the Three Strikes law, and Delgadillo claims Brown represents the past while he represents the future.

Delgadillo is very likely to bring up some of Brown’s liabilities like his proposal to make Jesse Jackson his vice-presidential running mate in 1992 or the fact that Brown hasn’t won a statewide general election in 27 years. And Brown will surely point out that Delgadillo’s knowledge of statewide issues is slim to none.

In the meantime, we have a continuing challenge – and that is to marshal our financial resources so that Chuck will be fully funded when the primary campaigns end. It is critically important that we move aggressively forward to meet the goal of having $6 million on hand when the general election begins. That will give Chuck enormous momentum towards victory next November.

Make no mistake, this will be a tough campaign. But we have the superior candidate, the more disciplined, skilled and motivated campaign team, and issues that resonate directly with voters who want a tough, fair, common sense Attorney General to enforce the law.

Do you wonder how you can help? Start by sending this memo to your entire email list or make copies to hand out. Ask all of your friends to go to our website, POOCHIGIAN4AG.COM to sign up as supporters and volunteers. We will need to double and re-double our efforts at building financial strength and grass roots support across California. Every contribution, no matter how small or large, will put Senator Poochigian that much closer to being California’s next Attorney General.

Thanks so much for your continued support and encouragement.

PIRRO VS. CLINTON: A REAL FIGHT FOR HILL

By DICK MORRIS

August 9, 2005 -- Westchester DA Jeanine Pirro is about to formally announce her candidacy for Senate from New York, which will pit her against Hillary in a battle royal. This is just the kind of fight that Sen. Clinton would have hoped to avoid.

While Hillary would have no problem dispatching an opponent like Nixon son-in-law Edward Cox or Yonkers Mayor John Spencer (the two other possible GOP contenders), Pirro presents a real problem.

Jeanine Pirro is pro-choice, pro-gun control, pro-affirmative action, pro-gay-civil unions and pro-immigration. And, of course, she's a woman.

In a sense, Hillary will have to end up running against someone who is quite like herself in her public positions: Except, of course, Pirro is a good old-fashioned anti-tax, anti-crime, tough-on-terror Republican from the suburbs.

Hillary would love to cloak her Senate re-election as a necessity in the face of a determined GOP effort to overturn Roe vs. Wade and to roll back the clock on gun controls. But against Pirro, she will be disarmed of all her best issues. She will have to run on her own record, which is limited at best.

Pirro, on the other hand, can point out that Hillary refuses to say that she will serve out her term if elected -- since we all know that the day the returns are in she will start her campaign for president. (Hillary has her own twist on the famous line of Gen. Sherman: "If elected, I refuse to serve").

The Quinnipiac Poll recently found that Hillary beat Pirro by more than 30 percentage points -- but in the same poll, 60 percent of the state's voters said that Mrs. Clinton should pledge to serve out her full term if she runs for the Senate.

Jeanine looks weak in the polls right now because she only has about a 30 percent level of real name recognition statewide. But the fact that about one Hillary voter in three says that Mrs. Clinton should promise not to run for president if she seeks re-election to the Senate is an indication that all will not be well for her as she seeks a second term.

If Hillary faced a right-wing opponent, voters would overlook her refusal to promise to serve if elected -- but with Pirro, they may come to feel that they have a choice. Recently, Pirro indicated, for example, that she would join the bi-partisan group of 14 senators who promised to save the Senate from destruction by pledging to support reasonable judicial nominees and to refrain from unreasonable filibusters.

And Pirro doesn't need to beat Hillary to wound her. If she finishes less than the 12 points behind Clinton that Rick Lazio managed in the 2000 election, it will be a victory of sorts. Hillary will have some explaining to do to tell why fewer New Yorkers wanted her to be re-elected than voted for her in the first place.

And, at some point, Mrs. Clinton may feel Pirro gaining on them and wonder if it is worth the battle.

It's worth remembering that Hillary did not want Bill to run for re-election for governor of Arkansas in 1990 as he contemplated a race for president in 1992. (Back then she had a better idea: She would run in his place!)

Hillary almost has a lock on the Democratic nomination in 2008 and can build up a massive financial and political lead over all possible rivals. But if she is engaged in a nip-and-tuck battle in New York to keep what she already has, she will have to divert $30 million or $40 million from her presidential race and spend her time in Rochester, rather than in Iowa.

If Pirro posts some early gains, particularly upstate, where it is cheap to do early advertising, Hillary and Bill may read the handwriting on the wall and she may pull out of the race.

DELEGATION LOSES A SOLID YOKE



With a Caucus filled with the likes of David Dreier – the guy who never met an illegal alien he didn’t pander to, Jerry Lewis – who never found pork he didn’t like, and Bill Thomas – who’s never met a baby killer he didn’t try to run for office, the California Republican Congressional Delegation is already filled with lots of questionable characters. However, we’ve never needed to worry about what’s come out of the 48th – Chris Cox was as solid as they got.



However, Cox’s departure from Congress to the SEC leaves a gaping hole in the Delegation, and all indications are that rather than having a solid movement conservative filling the seat, Dreier, Lewis, and Thomas will instead get a new playmate.



The two main candidates for this seat are Senator John Campbell (worse) and former Assemblywoman Marilyn Brewer (worser). There is some hope that Minuteman Project PAC founder Jim Gilchrist will run, but as he’s registered American Independent, it remains to be seen how effective he can be as a candidate.



To keep up on this very important election, check up regularly at OC Blogand at the OC Courant.



Lastly, as Cox is leaving, his look back at his career in Congress is quite an interesting read. Enjoy…



The changes I've seen

I've watched the march of freedom in Washington and the world



By Chris Cox



This evening, my time in the House of Representatives will come to an end. I'm deeply grateful to the people of Orange County for the opportunity to have served you and our country in Congress since 1988.



Today, Orange County's values are dominating the debate in Washington. It wasn't at all like that back in the 1980s, when I first came to Washington to work as a lawyer in the Reagan White House. But that's certainly when the trend started.



By 1989, when I was in the House of Representatives and President Reagan came to the House floor just before leaving office for a private valediction with our Republican members, all the pieces were in place: Where once the economy had suffered years of "stagflation," over-regulation and punitive taxation, now it was strong. And where once the Soviet Union had been on the march, waging proxy wars across the globe and threatening the world with nuclear annihilation, now it was in retreat.



At the Pope John Paul II Polish Center in Yorba Linda in 1988, I remember telling a gathering with great certitude that "Poland will be free in my lifetime." That turned out to be an excessively cautious prediction. The following year, as a newly minted representative in Congress, I served as a U.S. election observer in Poland. Solidarity swept the nation's first free elections - and the communists were swept out.



The march of freedom in our own hemisphere has been just as exhilarating. With a State Department delegation that included my friend and colleague from the White House and Congress, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, I monitored the first post-civil war elections in El Salvador. We wore bullet-proof vests, and our hotel was blown up. Just this week, nearly two decades later, the Congress voted to approve a free trade agreement with Central America. Instead of guns and body armor, we're now sending computers and breakfast cereal.



Here at home, too, we have come to recognize that "as government expands, liberty contracts." One of my purposes in running for Congress was to eliminate waste and bureaucracy in government. Over the years, I've occasionally been able to take a nip here and a tuck there out of the federal behemoth. For example, we eliminated the oldest government regulatory agency, the Interstate Commerce Commission; and my closure of the wasteful National Helium Reserve was the third largest privatization in American history, yielding $2 billion for taxpayers.



But I am also leaving Congress with some unfinished business. I may have overestimated the time it would take for Eastern Europe to be free, but I confess that I also underestimated the time it would take for communism to fall in China. But if I've learned anything over my career in Congress, it is that we must never underestimate the power of freedom. While their governments may be repressive, people everywhere yearn to be free. And across the globe, the trend is toward free markets and free speech, and away from the statist ideologies of the past.



And finally, with 9/11, our focus has shifted to what we now call homeland security - an organized effort to share information in new ways, in order to stop terrorism before it happens. For the last three years, this has been my main calling. If we give up our freedom to suit the exigencies of the war on terror, we will give al-Qaida the victory. That must never happen.



To the wonderful people who for nine terms gave me the support that made it possible for me to serve our country: thank you. It has been a privilege to represent you.

65% Solution

We here in California are no strangers to losing the PR battle over education. When Democrats are backed into a corner, they just focus the debate on education and come out swinging, connecting with shot after shot. It seems we might finally have the right stuff with which to counter.

Patrick Byrne, the founder of Overstock.com has proposed what he calls the “65% Solution.” The idea is pretty simple. Currently, across the country, only 61.5 cents for every dollar allocated to education makes it to the classroom. If we were to up that to 65%, we could put an extra $14 billion into education, enough to buy every student in the country a laptop computer.

Where’s the money being wasted, then? One word, “educrats.” These people are just like the bureaucrats that plague every governmental agency, but who just work in the world of academia.

If we can focus the debate of “bloated budgets” onto bureaucrats raking in 6-figures, we can easily demonstrate the seeming ease of finding another 3.5% to put into the classrooms, updating textbooks, modernizing classrooms, and giving teachers a raise.

Of course, the unions representing these educrats are going to scream bloody murder, but so what? If they’re left defending $60,000 salaries for toilet cleaners, and $80,000 to the assistant to the deputy superintendent, we’ll have carried the day!

George Will takes a look at this issue in the Jewish World Review, and the man himself, Patrick Byrnes makes the case at NRO.

Big Labor's Secrets
April 25, 2005; Page A14

Among the endless piles of paper that make up Washington, a new stack has been rising in a corner of the Department of Labor. But these forms, known as LM-2 disclosure reports, are actually news, especially if you're a dues-paying union member.

The first George W. Bush Administration took a fresh look at the LM-2, which is supposed to reveal how unions spend member dues. The form had remained virtually unchanged since 1959, and today's union leaders were required to provide only the barest details. So in 2004 the Labor Department began to require expanded forms and, while the filing requirement doesn't officially kick in until this summer, a few early birds have started shipping their information.

Talk about eye-openers. Consider a LM-2 filed by a California local of the Communication Workers of America. While the union's spending is fairly routine, its dues base certainly isn't; 47% of its members are "agency fee payers." In plain English, these are members who, exercising their right under the Supreme Court's 1988 Beck decision, have withheld any dues that go to political or non-bargaining-related activity.

This suggests either that the members disagree with their leaders' agenda, or resent their forced enrollment in the union in the first place. It is especially notable because a vote of only 50% of a union's participants can oust the current leadership, or more drastically decertify the union altogether. Evidence of such disgruntlement in the ranks is exactly the sort of information that union chiefs would prefer to keep quiet.

The rank and file are also beginning to see a precise breakdown of how their money is spent. Prior to the new form, unions could lump millions into vague categories such as "overhead," or the ever-favorite "other disbursements." Unions must now account for dollars spent on anything from the grievance process to organizing to politics. This will help to keep leaders accountable and perhaps reduce such fraud as the officials of a Washington, D.C., teachers union who apparently bought mink coats and alligator shoes with dues money.

The forms will also shine a light on one of labor's darkest, dampest, corners: trusts. These affiliates are barely regulated slush funds into which unions funnel dues and then spend at will. The Detroit Free Press ran articles in 2001 detailing three such funds that the United Auto Workers ostensibly set up to finance worker training but in fact were also used by the top brass to sponsor Nascar racing, host political parties and underwrite trips to Palm Springs. Under the new rules, unions will have to account for this trust spending.

The AFL-CIO has branded the new rule "anti-union" but it's hard to see how. Unions exist to benefit their members, not their leaders. It's especially odd to see AFL-CIO chief John Sweeney, who stumps for greater corporate disclosure, demanding that labor chieftains be exempt from comparable transparency. As it is, the new disclosure rules apply only to the largest unions, those with annual receipts over $250,000 (about 5,000 of 30,000 unions).

None of this has stopped the AFL-CIO from attempting to block the regulation in court on grounds that Secretary of Labor Elaine Chao lacks the authority to order such disclosure; a panel of appellate judges will rule on the case soon. Assuming Ms. Chao prevails, unions will begin delivering their first required reckonings this summer.

URL for this article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB111438772677015598,00.html

Capitol Whispers
By Anthony York

What if?

Gov. Schwarzenegger has labeled 2005 the "year of reform." He says so in his speeches. The backdrops when he gives those speeches are dotted with "Year of Reform" logos. But as of this writing, 2005 seems to be the year of confusion and political uncertainty.

No longer is the debate in Sacramento about this year’s budget. It has devolved into a titanic political struggle between interests who support the governor, mostly business groups, and those who oppose him, namely the state’s largest labor unions. But after days of lucrative fundraising, and some bad headlines for the governor, questions about the special election — and whether the governor will actually call a November election — are more prevalent than ever.

Schwarzenegger himself has sent mixed messages about whether or not he is committed to a special election this year. He says he would rather see a compromise worked out in the Legislature on issues like changing the state’s political map-making process, education policy and changing the state’s pension system, even as he takes to the streets to rally support of ballot initiatives dealing with all three issues.

The confusion and uncertainty among the governor’s allies and foes alike is palpable. Just walk through the Capitol, and ask a random sample of people whether they think there is going to be a special election this year. You’re liable to get a majority of shoulder shrugs to go along with about an even number of Ayes and Nays, with Democrats and Republicans split among all three responses.

By flirting with a special election, the governor has set some colossal political forces in motion. First and foremost is the formidable campaign funding apparatus at his disposal. Led by the Citizens to Save California Committee and two committees under the governor’s personal control, Californians for Schwarzenegger and the California Recovery Team, the governor has already earned millions toward a final goal of at least $50 million.

Other contingency groups which may or may not be part of the direct package have also ginned up, including massive fundraising efforts by major drug companies. As our story on Page 1 of this newsletter notes, drug companies have already raised millions in support of three initiatives for the potential special election ballot, and they show no signs of slowing down.

On the other side, the service employees unions, the California Teachers Association and prison guards have ramped up their own fundraising and political operation. Many Democrats feel emboldened by the last week’s headlines. They feel that teachers, nurses and firefighters protesting the governor at every political stop are beginning to score political points, and help diminish the Schwarzenegger mystique.

Sacramento political types, being the impetuous Nervous Nellies that we are, have taken this week’s news as a sign that the governor may not want a special election after all.

It is times like this where a deep breath, and some perspective, become important. Are the governor’s protesters only scoring points among state political junkies inside the Business Loop, or is the real world beginning to take notice as well? Recent polls show that Democrats are beginning to sour on the governor, but he still enjoys the highest popularity rating of any politician in the state.

The governor is nothing if not unpredictable, and that’s what makes this special election drama so intriguing. With tales of back-stabbing, finger-pointing and discord among Democrats and Republicans alike, it begs the question: Is this all part of a masterful political chess game deliberately set into motion by the governor, or has the concept of a special election become a political Frankenstein on the verge of careening out of control?

Imagine for a moment that there is no special election. What if the governor and unions are able to come to agreement on some easy pension reform components — like putting an end to one-year pension spiking, and placing some curbs on disability benefits for people who continue to work? Imagine also they come to a deal on redistricting that puts it off until sometime after 2006, and a deal on education policy is also struck.

In that scenario, the governor would run the risk of alienating many legislative Republicans, something he has shown a willingness to do in the past. But he would also pull the rug out from under the auxiliary interests, like drug companies, fiscal conservatives who want a real limit on state budget spending, and others who want to limit the political influence of labor unions. Could the governor simply put the genie back in the bottle?

Maybe, and maybe not.

On the other side, Democrats see this potential special election as an opportunity to damage the governor before his reelection in 2006. Imagine that he goes ahead with the proposals, and they’re all defeated at the polls. How do you still claim to be the people’s governor if the people have rejected your reform agenda? And what would such a defeat do to the governor’s reelection hopes? If that is the case, do they have an incentive to cut a deal with the governor?

Schwarzenegger is coming under increasing criticism for his record-breaking fundraising. Much of the money he has raised comes from interests who have business before the state Legislature. Many of those interests are pining for this special election, and are ponying up big bucks in hopes that the governor goes ahead.

But what if the governor banked all that cash, and decided not to go ahead with the election after all? He could cut a deal with Democrats, move back to the center by alienating his fellow Republicans, and many of the big business groups that have funded him up until now.

In such a scenario, Schwarzenegger would once again become the bipartisan dealmaker, and be perfectly positioned for 2006, allowing him to show the people of California that, while he took big bucks from big business, he truly is a politician that can’t be bought. Of course, he’d have all their money in the bank, ready to go for 2006. He’s already locked up the state party’s endorsement. Republicans have nowhere else to go.

That scenario is far-fetched, perhaps, and it would anger many of the governor’s closest political allies.

It would also be vintage Schwarzenegger.

LA Mayor's Race: Hertzberg's Got the "Mo"


As we move to less than a week from the L.A. Mayor’s race, I figured it might be time to provide some brief insight on how this race is breaking down.

The big news here is that current Mayor Jim Hahn is struggling. While losing the Primary 4 years ago to Antonio Villaraigosa (30%-25%), only to come back and defeat him in the run-off, Hahn seems vulnerable to not even making it to the runoff this year.

The other big story in the race has been the surge of former Assembly Speaker Bob Hertzberg, who despite being a Democrat, is trying to reassemble the old Riordan coalition: Republicans, Westside voters, Valley voters, Senior citizens, whites and Jews. While just a month ago, he was only an “also-ran,” some risky early money being poured into a tv buy to air a great spot has propelled him into 2nd place according to the new LA Times poll, out this week.

Despite still being behind Antonio Villaraigosa by 3 points, Hertzberg has to be encouraged by these numbers.

Working for Hertzberg is the fact that despite being in 2nd place, he is still unknown to 41% of the voters (as opposed to Villaraigosa, whose name id is 88%). When the field is narrowed to two, that surely will change. If you were to balance out their respective name-id, Hertzberg would have a 7-point lead (31-24).

That aside, Hertzberg also is losing votes he’ll get back from Parks and Hahn among Republicans. Hahn greatly played to the Republicans in 2001 and has done a fair job on crime as Mayor, bringing in former NYC top-cop William Bratton as LA’s new Police Chief. Parks too is making a strong play for Republican votes, even hiring Republican consulting firm Blair/Biggs to handle his GOP outreach – touting his decent stances on business issues and his record as being tough on crime.

Not only do the numbers seem good for Hertzberg at this juncture, Villaraigosa’s numbers seem soft. Currently he enjoys a similar 3:1 favorable/unfavorable rating, with 88% name-id, and so for him to be at only 24% must be disheartening. That said, in all fairness, for the primary more Antonio voters are certain they’ll vote for him than any other candidate’s supporters. However, if you look inside the numbers at the 3:1 (66:22) favorable rating, a few things pop out.

Despite campaigning as a liberal, and having an extraordinarily liberal record as an Assemblyman and as a Councilman, Villaraigosa has a 43% approval rating among Republicans, a number that is sure to drop in the run-off. Additionally, he has an 80% approval among young voters (ie, those least likely to make it to the polls, especially in a low-turnout municipal race). While no one else is giving Villaraigosa much of a challenge for the votes of self-described “liberals,” he’ll have his work cut out for him to keep the votes of many Republicans.

Perhaps most damaging to Villaraigosa is the drop in support among Hispanic voters from his 2001 campaign against Hahn. In 2001, 62% of Latino voters supported Antonio, while just 45% do now. Even more interestingly, according to the LA Times poll of February 4, “Most voters in Los Angeles (83%) say having a mayor of their own ethnicity is relatively unimportant, including almost 7 in 10 who say it was not important at all.” This was evident in 2001 among black voters, as Hahn received 71% of the black vote. If Hertzberg is able to come close to adding any sizable chunk of this powerful minority to his vote totals, it could be lights out for Antonio.

Overall, Bob Hertzberg is very well positioned to make a strong shot at becoming the next Mayor of Los Angeles in the run-off. My only concern for him is whether he can get there. While the latest Times poll has him in 2nd, it is only by a single point – 21% for Hertzberg / 20% for Hahn. While that showed a 9-point bump for Hertzberg in the month of February and a 1-point drop for Hahn, that margin is well within the poll’s margin of error of +/- 4%. Additionally, if it is that close, Hahn is well positioned with his army of union employees operating his turnout machine, compared to what has seemed to me as a lackluster turnout effort for the Hertzberg campaign. So, while Hertz has most certainly got the “Mo” on his side, it wouldn’t shock me if Hahn were able to steal the primary and force a sequel to the 2001 campaign.

In less than a week, we’ll find out what happens. Stay Tuned.

ARNOLD IS ALREADY SQUISHING

Big shock - Arnold's already backing away from his plans, that at least rhetorically had conservatives all excited. This is to be expected. Last year, his proposed budget was *in his mind* reasonable, and because of the legislative make-up, got yanked to the left. So, this year he throws out all sorts of red meat that makes conservatives scream, "he's one of us, look he's one of us!" NO HE'S NOT! This is just a bargaining point, so he can get back to his *reasonable* budget, nothing else. Arnold is still squishy.

Governor to ditch board cuts
He concedes his plan to eliminate 88 regulatory panels needs more work.
By Gary Delsohn -- Bee Capitol Bureau
Published 2:15 am PST Thursday, February 17, 2005

Abandoning one of his most far-reaching and controversial proposals since taking office, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has decided to withdraw his plan to eliminate 88 regulatory and policy-setting boards and commissions, sources close to the governor said Wednesday.

In a letter the administration plans to deliver to the state's Little Hoover Commission today, Schwarzenegger concedes the proposal needs further review.

Members of the commission, which has held hearings on Schwarzenegger's proposal and plans to release a highly critical assessment at its meeting next Thursday, have already recommended that the government reorganization be scaled back substantially.

Included on Schwarzenegger's hit list were boards that license and regulate doctors and nurses, set rules for accountants, administer seismic safety regulations, promote recycling and oversee building contractors, architects and engineers.

Although Schwarzenegger still plans to proceed with a reorganization of the umbrella agency that runs California's prison and parole system, his about-face on the larger reorganization signals a big win for consumer activists, unions and Democrats.

Those critics and others have called his plan an executive branch "power grab" that would harm consumers without saving the state much money.

"My initial reaction is that this thing was so clearly political and poorly thought out that this is a tactical retreat from a battle that the governor would look like a fool if he pursued," said Richard Holober, executive director of the Consumer Federation of California.

"He's gotten the accounting industry mad at him, the dentists mad at him. He's gotten all kinds of groups mad at him that otherwise wouldn't have a beef with the governor."

Robert Fellmeth, executive director of the Center for Public Interest Law at the University of San Diego and another staunch critic of Schwarzenegger's initial proposal, applauded the reversal.

"It's a good sign," he said. "One of the things you have to do when you're a public official is, after something is vetted, reconsider and change your mind if it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Not every idea is a good one."

Ashley Snee, a Schwarzenegger spokeswoman, said the Republican governor is looking forward to getting the Little Hoover Commission's report next week.

"We've had eight hearings. He's heard from members of his Cabinet. We await the recommendations from Little Hoover," Snee said.

Under state law, a government reorganization such as the one Schwarzenegger was proposing must go to the commission for review.

The governor could then submit the plan to the Legislature and it would become law unless the Senate or the Assembly rejects it within 60 days.

Sources close to the governor said Schwarzenegger decided to pull back because witnesses at last month's Little Hoover hearings - both Holober and Fellmeth testified - raised some valid concerns.

Critics in the hearings said abolishing such regulatory and licensing entities as the California Medical Board, the Board of Registered Nursing and the Board of Accountancy would make it harder for consumers to get grievances investigated.

The move would also compromise public safety and make government more secretive, they argued.

Many of the 88 boards and commissions slated for elimination would have been folded into the governor's State and Consumer Services Agency, which is run by a governor's Cabinet appointee. Boards and commissions also have members appointed by legislators and are subject to state open-meetings laws that wouldn't apply to regulatory functions of the agency.

Schwarzenegger's proposed government reorganization was one of the first agenda items he identified in his initial State of the State speech a year ago. The move almost immediately set off political sparks.

"Every governor proposes moving boxes around to reorganize government," Schwarzenegger said at the time. "I don't want to move boxes around; I want to blow them up."

State government, he added, was a "mastodon frozen in time and about as responsive."

He soon created the California Performance Review Commission, a panel of 275 state workers who spent more than six months reviewing California government and issued a 2,500-page document with more than 1,000 recommendations.

The CPR, as it came to be called, predicted savings of up to $32 billion over five years, but the Legislature's budget analyst put the potential benefit at less than half that amount. The administration later backed away from the projection.

Critics complained that the commission's work was done largely in secret, without input from some of the targeted boards and commissions but with direction from business interests objecting to what they say are regulatory excesses.

Schwarzenegger, while praising the commission's work in public, privately said it took on too much. In January, he called on the Legislature to implement just two aspects of the sweeping report - the prison system restructuring and the closing of boards and commissions.

Holober of the Consumer Federation said he is convinced that Schwarzenegger retreated in the face of criticism because he is already embroiled in controversy over his proposals to revamp education funding, overhaul employee pensions, redraw legislative districts and impose new spending controls.

"He doesn't want to get into all those fights over boards and commissions at the same time he's taking on a fight with organized labor, teachers, schoolchildren, retirees and others," he said. "I guess he's making a tactical retreat in hopes of restricting the numbers of enemies he has to make at one time."

WHAT W WOULD SAY IF HE WEREN'T SUCH A "COMPASSIONATE" CONSERVATIVE


If only PJ O'Rourke were Bush's speechwriter

MY FELLOW AMERICANS, I had intended to reach out to all of you and bring a divided nation together. But I changed my mind. America isn't divided by political ethos or ethnic origin. America isn't divided by region or religion. America is divided by jerks. Who wants to bring a bunch of jerks together with the rest of us? Let them stew in Berkeley, Boston, and Ann Arbor.

The media say that I won the election on the strength of moral values. If the other fellow had become president, would the media have said that he won the election on the strength of immoral values? For once the media would have been right.

We are all sinners. But jerks revel in their sins. You can tell by their reaction to the Ten Commandments. Post those Ten Commandments in a courthouse or a statehouse, in a public school or a public park, and the jerks go crazy. Why is that? Christians believe in the Ten Commandments. So do Muslims. Jews, too, obviously. Show the Ten Commandments to Hindus, Buddhists, Confucians, or to people with just good will and common sense and nobody says, "Whoa! That's all wrong!"

But jerks take issue with every one of the Ten Commandments. Jerks are particularly offended by the first two Commandments. Of course people of faith, decent people, differ on interpretations of the first two Commandments. For example, we don't all agree about the meaning of "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image." However, we do all agree about "Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them" when them is Freud, Marx, and Dan Rather.

"Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain." How many times, over the last few months, have we heard, "Ohmigod, ohmigod, ohmigod, I can't believe George Bush won"?

"Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy." Let's be fair about this. We did see a lot of white, non-Hispanic Democrats in churches in 2004. But they were all running for president. And the churches were inner-city black churches. I happen to know that there are churches in the white, non-Hispanic suburbs where these Democrats live. Apparently jerks can't find them.

"Honor thy father and thy mother." Are telling lies about a bankrupt Social Security system and trying to block its privatization reform ways to do this?

"Thou shalt not kill." Why, in the opinion of jerks, is it wrong to kill a baby but all right to kill a baby that's so little he hasn't been born yet? And why do the same jerks who favor abortion oppose the death penalty? We can imagine people so full of loving kindness that they can accept neither the abortionist nor the executioner. We can even imagine people so cold-hearted that they embrace them both. But it takes a real jerk to argue in favor of killing perfect innocents and letting Terry Nichols live.

"Thou shalt not commit adultery." The jerks have begun praising marriage lately. But only if the bride and groom each have a beard.

"Thou shalt not steal." In 2004 the United States government spent $2,318,800,000,000. Thus every American benefited from $7,919.37 worth of federal services. Let me ask the jerks something. Say you're average jerks, a "blended family" of four. Did you pay $31,677.48 in taxes last year? If you didn't, you took things from other Americans. What did you give in return?

"Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor." Especially not in return for vast wealth, abundant prizes, and lavish praise from fellow jerks. I'm talking to you, Michael Moore.

And then there is the Tenth Commandment. "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor anything that is thy neighbor's." The Ten Commandments are God's basic rules about how we should live--a brief list of sacred obligations and solemn moral precepts. The first nine Commandments concern theological principles and social law. But then, right at the end, is "Don't envy your buddy's cow." How did that make the top ten? What's it doing there? Why would God, with just ten things to tell Moses, choose as one of those things jealousy about the starter mansion with in-ground pool next door?

Yet think how important the Tenth Commandment is to a community, to a nation, indeed to a presidential election. If you want a mule, if you want a pot roast, if you want a cleaning lady, don't be a jerk and whine about what the people across the street have--go get your own.

The Tenth Commandment sends a message to all the jerks who want redistribution of wealth, higher taxes, more government programs, more government regulation, more government, less free enterprise, and less freedom. And the message is clear and concise: Go to hell.

Senator in the shadows as his agenda moves ahead

By Daniel Weintraub -- Bee Columnist
Sunday, January 9, 2005

Amid all the hoopla that went along with Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's second State of the State speech, and all the talk of the governor's bold plan to attack some of the Capitol's most sacred cows, state Sen. Tom McClintock went almost unnoticed.

But as the recall election that ousted former Gov. Gray Davis finally seems to be bearing serious fruit, maybe this is a good time to give McClintock his due.

The steely economic conservative from the northern San Fernando Valley was present at the creation of the recall. One of his longtime aides - John Stoos - helped nurture the idea, his friend Ted Costa was the official sponsor, and McClintock himself attended the recall group's first press conference, before anyone was taking the thing seriously.

Then, as the campaign unfolded in the summer of 2003, McClintock entered the fray as a candidate for governor, offering a pointed, no-nonsense appraisal of the state's condition, and strong medicine to cure it.

As other Republicans dropped out of the race, clearing the way for actor Arnold Schwarzenegger, some urged McClintock to do the same. Political consultants and pundits warned that he was risking his political future by endangering Schwarzenegger's candidacy, but McClintock simply said he trusted the voters to decide whether he was a viable candidate, and not to waste their votes on him if he was not.

At the one and only debate featuring all the candidates, McClintock shined. More than once, he almost seemed to be offering Schwarzenegger a lifeline, and his novice opponent grabbed it, echoing the senator's comments. McClintock emerged as a sentimental favorite, with Republicans and Democrats both saying they admired his principled stands.

But principles or not, he lacked Schwarzenegger's movie-star credentials, and he could not budge the leader's numbers among a mass audience. McClintock faded down the stretch, finishing third behind Schwarzenegger and Democrat Cruz Bustamante, with 13 percent of the vote.

For the next year, McClintock watched from the Senate as Schwarzenegger learned the ropes in the Capitol, compromised with Democrats, avoided confrontation and, in the end, made little progress on the fundamental problems that bedeviled the state. The senator offered muted criticism when appropriate, support where he could.

Then, Wednesday night, suddenly everything changed. It was if the flashy governor were channeling his straight-laced colleague. Schwarzenegger's speech sounded almost as if McClintock had written it.

"Maybe I should have copyrighted some of my ideas," McClintock said with a laugh when I asked him later about the resemblance.

McClintock, some might remember, was one of only a handful of lawmakers to vote against a pension bill in 1999 that boosted state retirement benefits and paved the way for a wave of local pension increases that have threatened the financial solvency of some cities and counties. Three years later, McClintock was the only legislator to vote against a lavish new contract for the state's correctional officers, or prison guards. And all along he warned that the state's spending growth could not be sustained.

Now Schwarzenegger was saying that pension bloat, the guards union and other ills McClintock has spotlighted over the years were the heart of the state's problems. And with no apparent bitterness, McClintock endorsed the Schwarzenegger agenda.

Merit pay for excellent teachers? "I've always maintained that the public schools would work a lot better if we paid the best and the brightest more than the dullest and the laziest."

Pension reform? "It has to be done." McClintock voted for a similar plan almost 15 years ago that was undone by the 1999 bill he opposed. "Had it been left alone I doubt we would be facing the spiraling costs we are now."

Removing from legislators the power to draw their own political boundaries? "People with a direct stake in a decision should not be the ones making that decision. It's not fair to them, and they make lousy decisions."

Budget reform? McClintock might go further than the standby, across-the-board cuts Schwarzenegger has proposed, but he says the governor's plan will do the job. "It's a helluva lot better than what we have now," he said.

McClintock predicts that Schwarzenegger, if he stays the course, will prevail. But it won't be easy.

"I don't think he is doing this because he wants to, but because he has to," McClintock said of the governor. "He made it very clear that this is going to be a nasty fight and he's probably going to emerge from it less popular than when he went in. But it has to be done. Because these problems can't be ignored, and time has run out. That's what leadership is all about."

McClintock ought to know.

IS ARNIE CHANGING HIS (LIBERAL) TUNE???





“You can judge a man by the quality of his enemies,” a wise political mentor of mine once told me – the theory being that an even better barometer of someone’s worth than if the good guy’s like him, is if the bad guys are after him…because if the bad guys are in hot pursuit, that means they’re really doing something right.

If judged by that and that alone – my tune about our fair Stalinist Governor might be changing a bit.

*****

Last week, Arnie delivered his State of the State address. I expected to hear a few nuggets of mild-conservatism out of his mouth, laced heavily with things so wacky they’d make Ted Kennedy blush.

Much to my surprise though, the Governator declared war on union-thuggery up and down the state. He pissed off the CSEA by announcing pension reform. He irritated the CCPOA by announcing reform of the prison system. He infuriated the CTA by using the two little magic words, “merit pay,” and announcing his distaste with the tenure system. He didn’t get any applause from a good number of Assembly and Senate Democrats by coming out in favor of a mid-decade redistricting plan, and while he verbally placaded them, he upset some tree huggers by talking about the need to build more power plants and transmission lines throughout the state.

If you really can judge someone by the quality of their enemies – well, Arnold’s looking better all the time.

*****

But that’s not it. In his speech, he “borrowed” text from some great conservative heroes, as well.

He “borrowed” language from Reagan, announcing that California’s fiscal crossroads was “a time for choosing,” echoing Reagan’s legendary Goldwater speech.

He “borrowed” language from Tom McClintock, making it clear that “we don’t have a revenue problem. We have a spending problem.”

This even brought someone, and I’m guessing it was Tom, to shout “Here! Here!” from the back of the Assembly chambers.

*****

Arnold’s speech was also a stroke in political savvy. Figuring presumably that some voters may be tiring of his broken-record pleas that if the Legislature won’t pass his bills, he’ll take them to the people, instead he turned that concept on its head. In announcing a Special Session of the Legislature, Arnold basically said that instead of taking his ideas to the people, if the Legislature (ie, the Democrats) fail to act on his ideas…THE PEOPLE will rise up to put those ideas on the ballot, and he’ll be there standing right beside them…cute imagery, smart politics. I’m sure Frommer and Perata were thrilled!

*****

After hearing his speech, it’s not like I’m saying Arnold is all of a sudden one of us. Far from it. Socially, he’s still a commie. But, if the saying is true and you can judge a man by the quality of his enemies, then I might be willing to move Arnold from the “Bolshevik” column to the “Jacobin” column…he’s getting better, day by day!

Tomorrow's MUST READ: The WSJ Editorial Page

Tomorrow’s WSJ Editorial Page has two great pieces – an editorial on the immiediate impact Proposition 64 is having, and the other by the “Father of Supply-Side Economics,” Dr. Art Laffer on the unseen strength of the US economy.

Ive said before, and will never tire of saying that the WSJ Ed page is the one-stop shop for keeping abreast of politics, providing the most consistent source of quality opinions.

Not a bad start for a new year!

So Long to Shakedowns
January 3, 2005

What policy wonks call "tort reform" can sometimes seem to be a mere abstraction, but the difference it makes in the real world can be remarkable. Consider the experience of California, where an initiative voters passed on November 2 is already yielding benefits to consumers, businesses and the broader economy.

Much of California's tort problem stemmed from its Unfair Competition Law, enacted in the 1930s to curb allegedly unfair business practices. Over the years the law morphed into an income redistribution tool for lawyers, who filed shakedown lawsuits against companies for anything they claimed was unfair to consumers. Most crazy was that the law allowed any party to sue, regardless of whether the plaintiff had been directly affected.

Lawyers were actually able to file lawsuits "on behalf" of the entire citizenry of California, for example. Yet since there were very few genuine plaintiffs, average Californians never really stood to gain anything. The plaintiffs bar, however, could win huge legal fees ordered by judges who decided their cases. Many defendent businesses settled out of court to avoid the cost of going to trial. Consumers ultimately financed this extortion via higher prices for goods and services.

Californians put a stop to all this in the recent election, with 59% voting to amend the law. Citizens can still file lawsuits, only now the plaintiffs must show they personally suffered physical harm or property damage. Credit for this bit of sanity goes to the Civil Justice Association of California, a nonprofit group that's been urging change for nearly a decade, as well as to Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, who gave vocal support to the initiative as part of his strategy to make California more hospitable to job creation.

And in only a few weeks the difference has been tangible. The trial bar is still waging a last-ditch battle to have the suits (potentially hundreds) filed before the election remain in court. But a number of judges have already decided the new law applies retroactively and are throwing out the sillier suits.

In the past few weeks alone, a judge dismissed a suit against Bayer for including certain products in its "One a Day" vitamin brand that called for more than one tablet a day. The suing lawyers admitted that their "plaintiff" had never bought or used any of the products in question. Another judge dismissed a lawsuit against AT&T filed by one Daniel Banales, in which he claimed the company charged a "hidden" fee when upgrading to a new phone. Mr. Banales was not an AT&T customer.

The disputed cases also offer a window into just how much cash lawyers were siphoning under the old law. A California appellate court will soon decide whether to dismiss a suit originally brought by such infamous tort lawyers as Bill Lerach against Black & Decker and Target, Wal-Mart and other retailers. Their crime? Selling Kwikset locks advertised as "Made in U.S.A." when the lock contained six screws made in Taiwan. The lower court awarded the sole "plaintiff" in the case costs plus legal fees -- or $3 million that went straight to the attorneys.

Our hope is that these courts and others abide by the will of the people, who made it clear in November they want a stop to all of this. Meanwhile, everyone can take satisfaction in knowing that future shakedowns have been outlawed. California businesses, taxpayers and consumers are the better for it.

* * * * * * *

Destination U.S.A.
By ARTHUR B. LAFFER
January 3, 2005

Just because the United States has its largest trade deficit ever doesn't mean that we're living beyond our means. Far from it. In fact, the characterization of the U.S. as a land of chronic overspenders, hellbent on selling themselves into global servitude doesn't make sense at all. And once the over-consumption model is put into question every policy remedy based on the presumption of squander looks pretty weak.

In an era of floating exchange rates the trade deficit (or more appropriately, the current account deficit) is one and the same as the capital surplus. The only way the U.S. can have a trade deficit amounting to 5.6% of GDP is if foreigners invest that amount of their capital in the U.S. It's a matter of simple accounting. But once you realize that the trade deficit is, in fact, the capital surplus you would clearly rather have capital lined up on our borders trying to get into our country than trying to get out. Growth countries, like growth companies, borrow money, and the U.S. is the only growth country of all the developed countries. As a result, we're a capital magnet.

Take a look around. Germany hasn't had a growth spurt since the 1960s when Ludwig Erhard was Bundeskanzler. France still has a mandated maximum workweek of 35 hours, a maximum income tax rate of 58%, a 1.8% annual wealth tax and government spending as a share of GDP greater than 50%. Finland, for goodness sakes, fines speeders a percentage of the speeder's income. Sweden, Denmark and Germany also fine speeders a percentage of their income, only with caps. Japan has had a stock market down by over 70% from its high in 1989 and both company and government unfunded liabilities in Japan are out of sight. Canada's economic policies are kooky and investments in Latin America, the Middle East, Russia, Southeast Asia and Africa are about as safe as running drunk blindfolded across the "I-5" freeway at rush hour.

So what's not to like about the U.S.? Whether you're an American or a foreigner the U.S. is the choice destination for capital. That's why we have such a large trade deficit.

The only way foreigners can guarantee a dollar cash flow to invest in the U.S. is if they sell more goods to the U.S. and buy less goods from the U.S. Our trade deficit is not a sign of a structural flaw in the fabric of the U.S. economy but is instead a stark reminder of our privileged status as the most pro-growth, free market, rule of law economy the world has ever known. Why on earth any American would want to change our policies to emulate foreign policies is beyond me.

China has realized the pre-eminence of the U.S. model and since 1979 has reduced the percentage of GDP flowing through its government from about 82% to today's level of about 30%. That is a supply-side tax cut par excellence. China also realizes that the U.S. has the best monetary policy ever. By fixing the value of its currency, the yuan, to the U.S. dollar, it has literally imported Alan Greenspan to China. Talk about outsourcing!

To guarantee the dollar value of the yuan requires that China hold over $500 billion of liquid dollar assets. China doesn't hold those dollars as a favor to us: it holds those dollars to benefit itself. One needs only glance at the financial disaster that ensued when former Argentine President Fernando De la Rúa broke the peso currency bond to the U.S. dollar to understand why China won't break its currency's link to the dollar. It's elementary, my dear Watson.

Now, within this framework of global capital mobility and U.S. pre-eminence there are significant variations in the relative capital attractiveness of the various nations of this world. When foreign economic policies improve, and the foreign attractiveness to capital increases as a result, the first impact is a weakening of the U.S. terms-of-trade (the real exchange rate) followed much later by a fall in the U.S. capital surplus, i.e., trade deficit.

As of late, foreign economic policies have improved. France is a lot better today than it was three years ago. And -- shock of shocks! -- Germany is even considering a real tax cut. Jean- Claude Trichet has shown himself to be a world-class governor of the European Central Bank, following on the heels of the incompetent Wim Duisenberg. Five new entrants to the EU -- Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta and Slovakia -- have low-rate flat taxes. Junichiro Koizumi of Japan is a lot better than the former prime minister, Yoshiro Mori. Investors on the margin should look more favorably to investments abroad.

But even changes in exchange rates have limits. The dollar under current circumstances can't go to zero or infinity. Without a corresponding rise in domestic dollar prices, U.S. goods and assets become relatively more attractive to foreigners and Americans alike when there is a fall in the foreign-exchange value of the dollar. Sooner or later the dollar would be such a bargain that there would be more buyers than sellers, therefore limiting the dollar's fall. Today, the dollar's value in the foreign exchanges fits nicely within its historical range.

On Jan. 1, 1999, the euro was born and was worth $1.17. In fact, if we look at the synthetic euro prior to 1999, the dollar's low was in 1992 when each euro could buy $1.47. The large dollar appreciation from 1992 to early 2002 saw the dollar peak at 83 cents per euro and our capital surplus (the trade deficit) go from less than 1% of GDP to almost 4% of GDP (and continue on to today's 5.6%). Well, the global economic environment is changing once again as are investors' perceptions of relative attractiveness.

There have been times in the past when the dollar depreciation of the magnitude we've experienced over the last two-plus years would have been a clear harbinger of much higher inflation and interest rates. But such is not the case today. It is true that products which are freely traded in global markets will experience dollar price increases relative to foreign prices by the percentage depreciation of the dollar. But to have these exchange-rate induced price increases lead to higher U.S. inflation would require the Fed to accommodate the higher inflation with faster monetary-base growth. The Fed has not accommodated any higher inflation and as a result markets do not anticipate higher inflation. Nor should they.

* * *

Back in the late 1960s and '70s, currency depreciation was associated with domestic monetary creation and a horrendous bout of global inflation. Then, as opposed to now, currency depreciation was directly responsible for inflation, high interest rates, and low growth. We even coined a new word for low growth and high inflation -- stagflation. Aren't you glad we've had an epiphany of Fed policies under the leadership of both Paul Volcker and Alan Greenspan?

The most natural, proper, and economically correct response of the foreign exchange markets is for the U.S. terms of trade to have declined and that's exactly what has happened. As far as I can tell, the decline in the dollar is about over; soon we will see the U.S. capital surplus falling back to more normal levels. When a global economic system works as well as ours does, we should just leave it alone.

Eastern Europe...ya, They Like Freedom Too

There isn’t really a single pollster for whom I listen more closely to than Frank Luntz. When liberals talk about the vast right-wing conspiracy, and say the Republican Party is on the same page, in many ways they are correct – they mean the pages of just about anything Frank writes.

Like many, I’ve been watching as the husband of a former Reagan aide has gone through all the drama of being elected the new Ukrainian President. Today, in the LA Times, Frank Luntz – along with Demo pollster Doug Schoen – break down the electorate of the Ukraine.


Uncovering Ukraine's True Colors
The orange and the blue largely agree on where the nation should go.
By Douglas E. Schoen and Frank I. Luntz

December 28, 2004

In Ukraine, two colors took on a new significance over the last few months. Supporters of opposition presidential candidate Viktor Yushchenko — now the all-but-official president-elect — donned orange as the symbol of their pro- democracy campaign. Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovich and his team sported blue to signal their support for continuing on the path set by pro-Russia President Leonid Kuchma.

This has led to inevitable comparisons to the United States' own red and blue, Republican and Democratic, divide. Given that political differences in Ukraine run along regional lines, observers see the danger of Ukraine dividing into two or more countries.

Our consulting firms, representing a bipartisan partnership of Democratic and Republican pollsters, conducted a national exit poll during the rerun of the presidential runoff election on Sunday. On behalf of the Kiev-based television station ICTV, we interviewed more than 10,000 Ukrainians as they left polling stations across the country, and by 8 p.m. Kiev time, just as the polls closed, we knew that Yushchenko, the man in orange, had won definitively. Although the results aren't official, the votes that have been counted show a victory margin of nearly 10 points and — despite posturing on the part of Yanukovich — Ukraine appears to have succeeded in electing a new president and in running a fair election.

But what about the mix of orange and blue, the divide between Ukraine's western and eastern halves? The polling confirmed that some areas voted almost entirely for one candidate. In Donetsk, an eastern industrial province, more than 90% of voters cast their ballot for Yanukovich. Such results indicate that regional division remains a threat, but there is also reason for optimism.

In addition to our 10,000 exit interviews, we also interviewed 1,200 voters from Ukraine's four major provinces, representing the main regions of the country The provinces demonstrate the country's polarization. Just as Donetsk in the east voted 90% for Yanukovich, the western provinces of Kiev and Lviv voted approximately 90% for Yushchenko; Odessa in the south voted approximately 60% for Yanukovich. Even with nearly half of our sample for these interviews constituting blue voters, 81% overall said all sides should work together for consensus and cooperation to strengthen Ukraine after the vote.

In addition, 67% said they supported Ukraine working to integrate itself into the European Union and into Europe in general. This was one of the key differences between the candidates, with Yushchenko calling for stronger relations with Europe; this result shows there is less division in the country than the conventional wisdom would suggest.

In terms of the economy, there is virtually no disagreement: About 84% said they wanted a market-based economy. And perhaps most important, 93% said Ukraine should chart its own course and pursue its own interests in the world — not Russian or Western interests, but its own interests.

None of this is to say that uniting the country will be easy. Some blue voters clearly are not ready to lower their colors yet: About 53% of voters in Donetsk said they would support a referendum on secession from Ukraine (only 19% overall wanted such a referendum). These voters fear that their Russian language, their culture and their industrial economy will be put at risk in a new Ukraine.

Yushchenko, who over the last few weeks emphasized a "One Ukraine" theme, will have his work cut out for him in the east. Still, the same data that showed him to be the winner points the way to making "One Ukraine" a reality: Ukrainians are united in their weariness over divisive politics, generally eager for consensus and looking forward to a time when their country is integrated with Europe economically, but independent of both East and West politically. The presidential vote, this time around, sends a clear message: A united and democratic Ukraine is well within Yushchenko's grasp.

KUDLOW FOR CEC


Ok, yayaya, I’ve been gone for a while. Well, after the elections ended, the last thing I wanted to think about was the day-to-day, hustle-bustle of politics. But fear not, being the addict I am, things are back to system-normal, and while it might take me a little while to sort out some of the arguments floating around in my head, I’ll be doing so in the very near future...

First up though is Bush’ economic team. The second term seems set to be filled with the sort of things that make me salivate in anticipation – tort reform, social security reform, tax simplification. But, to use a football analogy, as the administration readies to employ the Run ‘n’ Shoot offense, they lack a quarterback with the arm strength to make all the throws.

If Bush is serious about making these free-market reforms, I’m sorry but John Snow isn’t the best guy to send to the Sunday morning talk shows and sell the administration policies. The Bush team woefully lacks anyone who can get the Wall Street-ers, let alone the American people behind these kind of ambitious policies.

However, the power brokers of the supply-side world have been coalescing around Larry Kudlow to take point on this mission. Larry obviously is known as a unabashed free-marketer, having cut his teeth in the Reagan White House, working with the likes of Dr. Art Laffer. Laffer, as a matter of fact, was on TV touting Larry for either the post of Chair of the Council of Economic Advisors, or to replace Greenspan in 2006.

I’m impatient, I’d like to see Bush give his nod Larry’s direction and get the ball rolling.

While lots of “I wish” ideas permanently stay in that arena of “if wishing made it so,” this one seems like it could possibly have legs. The latest issue of National Review has an editorial promoting Mr. Kudlow. Additionally, Steve Moore of the Club for Growth penned this piece for NRO...I think it makes the case very effectively...

President Bush has had a series of supremely talented economists advising him over the past four years, including Larry Lindsey and Glenn Hubbard, but he has never had a gifted communicator of the White House economic message. That deficiency caused Bush severe heartburn in both marketing his first-term domestic legislative priorities and in educating American voters about how those policies are working.

In the year before the November elections, for example, the economy soared — with low interest rates, low inflation, respectable job growth, increasing worker productivity, and a rapid rate of growth for the gross domestic product. Bush’s policies were working swimmingly, particularly the 2003 tax cut. Yet, the media portrayed economic conditions as if we were in a mini-depression with many voters buying into this pessimistic viewpoint. The chasm between economic reality and perception almost cost Bush the election.

All of this is to say that what George W. Bush needs an economic communicator — someone who is telegenic, charismatic, and credible. Of course, it goes without saying that this person must also be a gold-plated supply-sider who has an unshakable conviction that the Bush second-term agenda is right for the country. After all, the Bush administration has an incredibly audacious economic game plan: a tax overhaul, Social Security reform, expansion of free-trade agreements, tort reform, and budget control. If Bush can accomplish even half these priorities, he will leave behind a scintillating legacy of achievement.

For all these reasons, the open position of director of the National Economic Council should be filled by NR’s own financial wizard, Larry Kudlow. I recently joined up with a growing band of conservative leaders to try to make this appointment a reality.

This choice makes so much common sense, it’s amazing the White House hasn’t already pounced on it. Kudlow’s credentials to be the president’s chief economic spokesman and adviser are impeccable:

-Kudlow is regarded on Wall Street as one of the nation’s premier financial economists.

-He is TV savvy (obviously, given that he has his own show on CNBC).

-He is right in line with the Bush administration’s thinking on tax cuts, entitlement reform, trade, and monetary policy.

-He has advised President Bush and Vice President Cheney on economics over the years.

-He has a unique power of persuasion that can convert people in the media, in Congress, and on Main Street of the rightness of his and Bush’s positions.

-He has a national (even an international) following.

-He is highly regarded among Republicans and many Democrats in Congress.

Larry Kudlow has a pure Reaganite pedigree. He worked for the Gipper between 1981 and 1984 as the chief economist at the Office of Management and Budget. He has worked as senior economic strategist for some of the most prominent investment-banking firms on Wall Street, including two stints with Bear Stearns. He has had the fine sense to write a brilliant bi-weekly column for NRO and also writes frequently for National Review magazine.

It is well known that a number of years ago Kudlow had a near career-ending substance-abuse problem. It is also well known that he has had a blessed and remarkable recovery in his personal/spiritual life as well as his professional life. His only remaining vice is tobacco. (If the White House is a no-smoking zone, that, alas, may be a deal-killer.) Should his past problems be a disqualification? In this age of redemption, the answer surely is no. After all, President Bush, earlier in his life, struggled with his own substance-abuse demons, and he fully conquered them in admirable fashion.

My White House contacts tell me that for four years President Bush has been trying in vain to find for his administration a “Robert Rubin of the right.” Good news: He exists, and his name is Larry Kudlow. Appointing him would be a masterstroke by the White House and would win universal applause — particularly from his conservative friends. This would be President Bush’s most daring and exhilarating Cabinet selection.

What is he waiting for?

Why we need a new Supreme Court...

A lot’s been said recently about judges, and how Bush is going to get to appoint a whole bunch of them...Before anyone really starts to question why – take a look at this exchange...

Randy Barnett was arguing before the Supreme Court in the Medical Marijuana case, and Justice Stevens was quizzing him about pricing...C’mon Stevens, I know you’re old, but if you lose even this basic a grasp of economics, perhaps it’s time to step down...Just stunning how stupid and arrogant this man could be...

Stevens: If you reduce demand, then you will reduce prices? Wouldn’t it increase prices?

Barnett: No, if you reduce demand, you reduce price.

Stevens: Are you sure?

Barnett: Yes.

WOW...is all I can say...WOW!

SPORTSMAN OF THE YEAR

Every year Sports Illustrated conducts a poll about who should be named the Sportsman of the Year. Like sports or, in the case of Mr. Timus, detest them, I think we can all agree that this year Pat Tillman should be given every award available - and in many cases, new ones should be just made up and awarded to him anyways...

So...Go here, sroll thru the people, and vote for Pat Tillman!

SCALIA FOR CHIEF!!!

...And it comes, no less, than from newly crowned Democrat Senate Leader Harry Reid!

Read it, believe it!

IMHO: She rocks!!!
Round I: Condi on the 2nd Amendment

I'm really glad Condi is now the Secretary of State. I liked Powell, so I'm glad he is leaving on a high note. He loyally went to bat for the team, probably when he wasn't 100% sure about it. I like that. That being said, I think Condi is best part of the Bush administration. I think, say early '06, Cheney will step down for "health issues" or something and Condi will (should) take his spot. That puts her in line for '08, and not only do I think she would do a good job, but she's very electable. The only criticism I can think of is that she has never held elected office, but that's a moot point, next to everything else about her. In order to convince others of my opinion, you'll be able to find evidence here of how much she rocks. So, here is Round I, via Dave Kopel of the VC.

HOW THE MOVEMENT ALL STARTED...



Goldwater's 1964 RNC Convention Speech



Reagan's "A Time for Choosing" Speech on Goldwater's behalf

Go Team!!

This is real dedication for the GOP and Bush.

Bush Won!

This is the best attack ad I've seen. I'm not sure who it attacks, but I think it does a nice job.

LONG AWAITED - FLYING MONKEYS' PICKS

I’m generally a pretty pessimistic guy when it comes to predicting political outcomes. For whatever reason, it’s just usually easier for me to digest the impact of the bad things that happen, than the good things. That said, I think tomorrow’s going to be a good day for freedom.

That said, here are my fearless predictions…


President – BUSH!
Though my gut tells me 307, what the hell, I’m shooting the moon and calling 327.

Senate-

AK – Murkowski (R retain) in a squeaker. After seeing the Presidential polls back east, Democrats in Alaska decide against fighting the elements.

CO – Salazar (D Pickup). I wish it weren’t so, but unless Bush slaughters Kerry in CO, I don’t see the Beer Man taking this seat!

FL – Martinez (R Pickup). Close race at the Prez level, combined with increased Hispanic support for Martinez add up to Mel taking the seat.

GA – Isakson (R Pickup). Easy win.

IL – Obama (D Pickup). Too bad Alan’s crazy.

LA – Vitter (R Pickup). I hope he gets to 50% this time around, but I doubt it.

NC – Burr (R Pickup). Here’s to you John Edwards.

OK – Coburn (R Retain). This was close, but Coburn’s been pulling away. A 20+ Bush win doesn’t hurt either.

SC – DeMint (R Pickup). The South becomes solid RED country, as it should. On Bush’s cattails, Jim wins.

SD – Daschle (D Retain). This is REALLY close. But at the end of the day, small state voters like to stick it to the big states, and having Daschle in the leadership lets SD tell big states like CA what to do. The power and the pork bring it home for Tom.

TOTALS: Republicans pick up 3 seats, making the Senate 55-44-1. We pickup another 3 seats in the House.


CALIFORNIA:

I don’t think things are as rosy in California though.

Boxer wins BIG!

I think both Props 60 and 62 fail, as they are too complex for people to embrace, saving the state for a few more years.

It’s too bad, but Prop 64 fails.

Though originally polling well, I think No on 66 comes out of nowhere to win – keeping criminals behind bars.

71 passes, 72 doesn’t.

Republicans pick up one seat each in the Assembly and the Senate.


Those are my picks and I’m stickin too em…for now!

The One Man Conspiracy

I've said this before here, but I'm saying it again. It is friggin' lame that any quasi-intelligent person is taken seriously as long as they attribute any political phenomena to Karl Rove. Anything and everything can be explained by Karl Rove; it's not even necessary to implicate the CIA, the masons, or wicked multi-national corporations. Something weird happen? Some voter turnout abnormality? Kerry's breakfast gave him diarrhea? Terrorists making home movies? Must've been that evil genius Rove.

269-269



From California GOP Consultant Dave Gilliard's blog...



With one week to go, George Bush and John Kerry are in a virtual dead heat in both popular and electoral votes. It is very possible that the electoral count could finish at 269 to 269, throwing the race to the House of Representatives!



Here is my analysis of where its stands:



Iowa 7 Leans Bush

Colorado 9 Leans Bush

Michigan 17 Leans Kerry

Pennsylvania 21 Leans Kerry

West Virginia 5 Leans Bush

Missouri 11 Leans Bush

Nevada 5 Leans Bush

Arkansas 6 Leans Bush



If these states hold, Bush has 234 Electoral votes and Kerry has 228. That leaves six states that could go either way:



Florida 27

New Mexico 5

Ohio 20

Wisconsin 10

Minnesota 10

New Hampshire 4



Right now, I'd say that New Mexico and Wisconsin are leaning slightly to Bush and Minnesota and New Hampshire are leaning slightly to Kerry. That puts the electoral count at 249 Bush to 242 Kerry.



Florida and Ohio are too close to call. If all my other assumptions are correct, Ohio, with 20 votes, is not relevant. This election, like 2000, will be decided in the Sunshine State.



If Bush wins Florida and loses Ohio, he finishes with 276 Electoral votes to Kerry's 262 If Kerry wins Florida and loses Ohio, he finishes with 269 Electoral votes - one short.



That means Kerry has to win Florida and Ohio, while Bush just needs Florida, if all the other assumptions hold.



Now the fun part. If Bush wins Ohio and Kerry wins Florida, the Electoral College will finish at 269 for each candidate.



More later on what fun it would be to be a presidential elector in a tied race...

SHAWN STEEL SAYS "VOTE NO ON 62 OR THE PARTY'S OVER"



By Shawn Steel
Immediate Past Chair CRP
Director California Club for Growth

In a few days the California political world may erupt. A key purpose of Prop 62 is to reduce the conservative influence in the Republican Party. Moreover, Californians face the permanent destruction all minor parties, marginalization of the major parties and an evisceration on political activists.

In November, California voters will decide whether to adopt a radical scheme to fundamentally change our electoral system in this state.

Prop 62 financed by Dick Riordan and a host of super rich power brokers who are seeking to end the contest of ideas in political primaries. Originally promoted as an "open primary" election initiative, fortunately that that deceptive language was taken off the ballot by Judge Judy Hersher. In reality it would impose a "Louisiana-style" non-partisan voting process in California.

The Louisiana primary election law was devised by former Governor Edwin Edwards, a Democrat, in 1975 as a means of throttling the growth of a then-emerging Louisiana Republican Party. The notorious Edwards went on to beat corruption charges in 1987, but was convicted in 2001 of racketeering, extortion, and fraud and sentenced to ten years in prison.


To use Edwards' Louisiana system as a model for elections in California is outrageous. Louisiana has long had a reputation for corrupt "Banana Republic" politics and the state's primary election law permitted extremists like David Duke and Edwin Edwards to be finalists for governor in 1991. Louisiana voters were forced to choose between the Klansman and the crook.

Some 10 billionaires individuals helped pay for signatures to qualify this Louisiana-style primary to be on the California November ballot. They include Haim Saban [Mighty Morphine Power Rangers], Eli Board [Broad & Kaufman major developers], Don Bren CEO Irvine Co. and John Chambers CEO of Cisco Systems.

This ballot proposition is not an "open primary" or even the "blanket primary" proposal adopted by Californians as Proposition 198 in March 1996. It is a radical scheme that will destroy the role of political parties in our state.

If this initiative is adopted there will be no official party nominees for any office. Primaries are literally abolished. There would be no official Democratic candidate and no Republican candidate, or any other party candidate.

This will allow wealthy self financed candidates to dominate elections for generations. Inevitably this will create on going personality cults. Instead of facing party activists, wealthy candidates will massage the public with pabulum messages.

In this radical system, candidates' names would appear on a primary ballot randomly placed. Listing party affiliation would be up to the parties. All voters, including those not affiliated with a political party, would receive the same ballot and would be allowed to vote for any candidate regardless of the candidate's party affiliation. The two candidates receiving the highest number of votes regardless of their political party would appear on the November election ballot.

To a large extent, the two candidates qualifying for the November election will depend on the field of candidates running in the primary. In statewide races, if the primary field consists of three or more Republicans and two Democrats, the November general election would likely be between two Democrats. Similarly, if the field consisted of three or more Democrats and two Republicans, the run-off would likely be between two Republicans. These whimsical outcomes are anti-democratic.

Former Congressman Tom Campbell, author of Prop 198, observes that in his 1992 senate race, the two candidates qualifying for the November run-off both would have been Democrats, if this Louisiana-style primary had been in effect.

Adoption of the Louisiana plan will have a devastating effect on small parties. With run-off elections involving only the two top vote-getters, it will be a very rare instance when a Green Party or Libertarian candidate's name would appear on the November ballot.

This system will result in perpetual internal warfare where two members of the same party vie for election in November legislative run-offs. How is a political party run "ground game" for their all their candidates if the party is at war with itself? How can there be genuine diversity of ideas if all partier are effectively disenfranchised?

In many coastal urban counties, Republicans and other parties will no longer compete. The same is true for Democrats in suburban and rural areas. Political diversity will suffer when parties will be totally eliminated from the November ballot.

There is probably no more important political proposition in the last
10 years than Prop 62. If passed it will marginalize all parties, reduce introduction of new ideas in the political process and allow wealthy personality cults to dominate California politics for decades to come. Its unfair to minor parties, its anti democratic and will have huge unintended consequences.

Thankfully we also have Proposition 60 which will provide constitutional protection for the right of political parties to have their candidate on the November ballot. Prop 60 trumps Prop 62.

The solution is clear: Vote No on Prop 62 and Yes on Prop 60.

KERRY LEAD US TO WAR UNDER FALSE PRETENSES!

So, a friend of mine (I won't mention names here!) and I have been having a friendly back-and-forth about the Presidential election, now just 11 days away! She's backing Kerry, and I obviously am supporting El Presidente! She's pushed Kerry thus far based on a woman's "right to choose" and on the grounds that she thinks gays should be able to wed.

Today's dig on W was a little different. It went like this, "W started a war under FALSE PRETENSES." I disagree, and so attempted to lay out my point. See if you agree...

--

False pretenses? Is that what this is all about, not “The wrong war at the wrong time,” but false pretenses? Make up your mind already!!!

See, there have been two fundamentally different critiques of the War. The first being that the war was unjust, and the second being that ultimately it was just, but that Bush led us in there for unjust reasons. Though you give rhetoric to imply the second argument, I’ll assume you mean that the war was wrong in general. However, since you’re mi amiga, I’ll touch on both.

To work backwards, as most of you Democrats think we Republicans do anyway, the assertion that Bush lied about the rationale for war factually just isn’t so. Exhibit A being Bush’s March 19 primetime speech from his desk in the Oval Office, announcing the beginning of American Forces going into Iraq:

Right up front, Bush began, “…at this hour, American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, TO FREE ITS PEOPLE and to defend the world from grave danger.” He ended his address, “We will BRING FREEDOM TO OTHERS and we will prevail.” His premise and his conclusion both hit on the dual purpose of the invasion.

I could go do a search of all his speeches leading up to the war, and they’ll all show the same thing, that his argument was always that there were two reasons for the Invasion: the benefits of liberating an oppressed people, and the assurance of the safety of the American people.

But where did these arguments, these justifications - these “pretenses” if you will – come from? Were they strategies developed from W’s ranch in Texas, as some have suggested?

Well, actually no. Long before Bush even began his campaign for President, while he was still a lowly Governor from Texas, regime change in Iraq was the official policy of the United States Government.

Bill Clinton called Saddam, “the greatest threat to our security in the 21st Century.”

Sandy Berger, Clinton’s National Security Advisor – quoting Clinton – said, “the best way to address the challenge Iraq poses is ‘through a government in Baghdad—a new government—that is committed to represent and respect its people, not repress them; that is committed to peace in the region.’”

Even Congress got into the action during the Clinton years, passing the Iraq Liberation Act, which read, “It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime.”

As the Weekly Standard put it, “Clinton and Berger had suggested [regime change] might someday be necessary. For all the reasons that Berger had outlined, Saddam's regime itself was the problem, above and beyond his weapons capabilities. It was an obstacle to progress in the Middle East and the Arab world. It was a threat to the Iraqi people and to Iraq's neighbors. But a big part of the threat involved Saddam's absolute determination to arm himself with both conventional and unconventional weapons.”

Think about that – Bill Clinton agreed with President Bush.

And that was before September 11, which changed everything, and pushed all of this to the front burner. Things that before were to be considered necessary “someday,” suddenly became necessary sooner rather than later.

The Bush Doctrine stated clearly that the fight not only would be taken to the terrorists, but to nations that provide safe harbor to them as well.

Even just based on that, going into Iraq was justified, both rhetorically and as the next front of the War on Terror. The documentation of Saddam’s involvement with terror organizations is extensive. He provided them funding, gave them safe harbor, and met with leaders of various terror networks frequently. One of the Al-Qaeda leaders even was kept on Saddam’s payroll and lived in Baghdad.

But the reason for prioritizing Iraq as the second front of the War on Terror was different. Yes, there was a serious humanitarian benefit to freeing the Iraqi people. Yes, Saddam helped those who were plotting against us. But also, Saddam himself was a threat.

Before throwing mud at the President, keep in mind the evolving argument those of you on the left have used against the war. Based on the intelligence everyone at the time was using, the argument was that Bush was “rushing to war,” and that he should instead allow Hans Blix and his crew more time for inspections. Everyone agreed that they thought WMD existed, but argued about whether the war needed to be “rushed” into. The argument was expediency, not justification.

David Kay, who led an extensive investigation into Iraq’s WMD testified before Congress that, "All I can say is that among an extensive body of Iraqi scientists who are talking to us, they have said: The U.N. interviewed us; we did not tell them the truth, we did not show them this equipment, we did not talk about these programs; we couldn't do it as long as Saddam was in power. I suspect regardless of how long they had stayed, that attitude would have been the same."

In other words, Hans Blix could’ve built a house in Baghdad and stayed there searching for a dozen years, but while Saddam was in power, the truth was never going to come out.

And just what was that truth? That while the weapons may have been destroyed (or just have yet to be found); Saddam was in fact, actively maintaining the infrastructure to resume production of WMD as soon as he was free to do so. In the words of David Kay, “they maintained programs and activities, and they certainly had the intentions at a point to resume their programs. So there was a lot they wanted to hide because it showed what they were doing was illegal."

He went on to say that Iraq, "was in the early stages of renovating the [nuclear] program, building new buildings."

Kay concluded that, "they maintained programs and activities, and they certainly had the intentions at a point to resume their programs."

As Senate Democrat Leader Tom Daschle said, "The threat posed by Saddam Hussein may not be imminent, but it is real, it is growing and it cannot be ignored."


Mi amiga, you’ve got to realize that before this campaign heated up – it was one of the few things both Democrats and Republicans agreed on, that Saddam had to go. John Kerry and John Edwards believed that liberating an oppressed people, combined with ridding America of a serious threat, were damned good reasons to go to war. They both voted as such.

But when Howard Dean started to kick both of their butts in the Primaries, their votes and their rhetoric both fundamentally changed. Edwards even went a step further than the President to say that Saddam posed an “imminent” threat to the United States. Bush on the other hand, when asked by Tim Russert if the war was “necessary,” paused for a minute and asked Russert to elaborate.

Bush’s thoughtfulness showed that he believed that the war may not have been necessary, but that it was justifiable, and in the interest of the United States to conduct. Bush was and is correct that necessity isn’t a prerequisite for justifiability. Was WWI necessary? Was the European aspect of WWII necessary? Was the Korean War? For that matter was the first Gulf War? Wars are based on a judgment of whether the benefit of action outweighs the costs of inaction, and in this case the benefits clearly were superior.

What you have to realize is that the Democrats agreed with the President’s goal, but disagreed with the speed with which he sought out to accomplish that goal…that is; they agreed right up until campaign season began…

At that point, both of the Johns took an anti-war stance, Kerry more so than Edwards. That fundamental change is what propelled Kerry to victory in the Primaries. It wasn’t a principled reason, as you can trace his arguments supporting the war right up until the time Dean looked like he was running away with the Primary. That’s one of many reasons that Kerry scares me. With something as serious as war and peace, Kerry is willing throw off a dozen years of voting and saying one thing, in order to win an election. That behavior is not befitting any politician, especially the Leader of the Free World.


Bush’s rhetoric and his execution of the War have remained constant. There has been very little change of his justification of the war that hasn’t been brought about by developments of the war itself. Kerry and Edwards however, go every which way based on what that morning’s polling shows them. If you believe what the Johns are saying today about Iraq being the WRONG WAR AT THE WRONG TIME, you should be blaming THEM for leading us into a war based on FALSE PRETENSES, not the President!

Awesomely Hilarious!!

This is friggin' hilariously fantastic! Check it out because there is no way you can disagree with that description. The only trouble is knowing which one is your favorite (mine is Hillary/The Bride of the Monster, but Al Sharpton is a close second).

JOE TRIPPI ON POSSIBLE UNDER-REPRESENTATION IN POLLING

The cellphone brigade and why the polls may be wrong

In the last few weeks, I have been on college and high school campuses all over the country—from the University of Miami for the first Presidential debate, to the two high schools I’m visiting today in Ann Arbor, Michigan. I keep seeing the same thing— young people energized in a way that I have not seen in my entire 30 years of politics.

Yet most of the polling I have seen doe not reflect any expectation of a higher turnout than usual among these younger voters. I suspect that cell phones are the reason for this.
Pollsters have not come up with an effective means to conduct or even contact survey respondents who only use cell phones. But think of the explosive growth in cell phone usage (particularly among the young) over the past four years.

So if we are seeing, as I think we are, an increase in energy and commitment to vote among young people than at any other time in my lifetime— and at the same time pollsters lack the ability to reach young people and measure this rise in civic participation— then we have the ingredients for a big surprise on election day.

I can’t wait for tomorrow night’s debate and if there is any further movement in the polls afterwards—but I am becoming convinced that John Kerry is doing far better than the pollsters are findings these days.

If Kerry wins in November, and the election is not as close as it now seems, the surprise may come at the hands of young people armed with cell phones the experts could not measure.

PJ DOES IT AGAIN
Putting Words in the President's Mouth
Sixteen obvious points that George W. Bush should make during the Wednesday night debate.
by P.J. O'Rourke

(1) My opponent, Massachusetts senator John Kerry--or, as I like to think of him, Teddy Kennedy with a designated driver . . .

(2) There are two organizations pushing for change in November--al Qaeda and the Democratic party. And they both have the same message: "We're going to fix you, America." On the whole, the terrorists have a more straightforward plan for fixing things. They're going to blow themselves up. Although, come to think of it, Howard Dean did that.

(3) Senator Kerry, what do you mean my administration "lost" 1.6 million jobs? Did Dick Cheney accidentally leave 1.6 million jobs in the Senate men's room or something? Did you find them? Have you got 1.6 million jobs that you're hiding, Senator Kerry? And if you're elected, are you going to give them back?

(4) Speaking of jobs, Senator, how come every illegal immigrant who wades the Rio is able to find one in about 10 minutes? Meanwhile, your Democratic core constituency has been unemployed for years. Are your supporters lazy, Senator Kerry? Or are they stupid? Back when Clinton was president, did your supporters think they got their jobs at Burger King because Bill was sleeping with the cow?

(5) You say health care costs are soaring? Well, I'm not the one with a personal injury lawyer on my ticket. I loved the billboards that John Edwards used to have all over North Carolina: "Y'ALL MIGHT HAVE GOT HURT AT WORK AND NOT EVEN KNOWN IT" and "FEELIN' POORLY? LEMME SUE YER DOCTOR!"

(6) Yeah, we're running a deficit. Like Democrats never did that. But at least we're borrowing the money when interest rates are low. It's the same as refinancing your home loan. Not that you'd know, Senator Kerry, since your rich wife paid off your mortgage.

(7) You say that we won the war, but we're losing the peace because Iraq is so unstable. When Iraq was stable, it attacked Israel in the 1967 and 1973 wars. It attacked Iran. It attacked Kuwait. It gassed the Kurds. It butchered the Shiites. It fostered terrorism in the Middle East. Who wants a stable Iraq?

(8) No, it turns out Saddam Hussein didn't have weapons of mass destruction. And how crazy does that make Saddam? All he had to do was tell Hans Blix, "Look anywhere you want. Look under the bed. Look beneath the couch. Look behind the toilet tank in the third presidential palace on the left, but keep your mitts off my copies of Maxim." And Saddam could have gone on dictatoring away until Donald Rumsfeld gets elected head of the World Council of Churches. But no . . .

(9) You say I didn't have the answers in Iraq? Well, what were the questions? Was there this bad man? Was he running a bad country? That did bad things? Did it have a lot of oil money to do bad things with? Was it going to do more bad things? If those were the questions, was the answer "more time to let international sanctions and U.N. weapons inspections do their job"? No, the answer was blow the place to bits.

(10) You say I didn't have a plan for the post-war problem of Iraq? I say we blew the place to bits--what's the problem?

(11) Yes, blowing a place to bits leaves a mess behind. But it's a mess without a military to fight aggressive wars. A mess without the facilities to develop dangerous weapons. A mess that can't systematically kill, torture, and oppress millions of its own citizens. It's a mess with a message--don't mess with us!

(12) Saddam Hussein was reduced to the Unabomber--Ted Kaczynski--a nutcase hiding in the sticks. Sure, the terrorism by his supporters is frightening. Hence, its name, "terrorism." Killing innocent people by surprise is not called "a thousand points of light." But, as frightening as terrorism is, it's the weapon of losers. The minute somebody sets off a suicide bomb, you can be sure that person doesn't have "career prospects." And no matter how horrendous a terrorist attack is, it's still conducted by losers. Winners don't need to hijack airplanes. Winners have an Air Force.

(13) You say you're going to get our friends and allies to take a bigger role in Iraq. Senator Kerry, what friends and allies? You're a sophisticated fellow. You're well-traveled and speak French. Are there some countries out there that you know about and the rest of us have never heard of?

(14) Let me tell you something, Senator Kerry. I don't blame the U.N. for not supporting me in Iraq. The world is full of loathsome governments run by criminals, thugs, and beasts. When I mentioned "regime-change," hairy little ears pricked up all over the earth. Beads of sweat broke out on low, sloping brows. Blood-stained, grasping hands began to tremble. I had to put poor Colin Powell on the phone to various hyenas in high office and have him explain that America itself needed regime-change from 1992 to 2000. And we didn't bomb the fellow responsible, and we only impeached him a little. Secretary Powell had to tell Kim Jung Il, Robert Mugabe, and Jacques Chirac to quit worrying and look at Bill Clinton and realize the fate that awaits them is a lucrative lecture tour, a best-selling book, and many willing, plump young women.

(15) Senator Kerry, you say you were in favor of threatening to use force on Saddam Hussein, but that actually using force was wrong. The technical term for this in political science is "bullshit."

(16) What are you going to do, Senator, give Saddam Hussein a mulligan and let him take his tee shot over?

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/770chlec.asp

http://www.nationalreview.com/goldberg/goldberg200410080941.asp
October 08, 2004, 9:41 a.m.

Shame, Shame, Shame

Many of you just don’t care about this war.
by Jonah Goldberg

We should have let sanctions work longer. We should have given inspections another try. The WMDs weren't there so we shouldn't have gone to war. It's a mistake. A grand diversion. The wrong war, the wrong place, at the wrong time.

Shame on all you people.

I don't mean those of you who opposed the war at the time and I don't mean those of you who think Bush bungled the job after the fact. I mean you and you and you — and most especially John Kerry and John Edwards. Shame on you both.

You voted for this war but you voted against the peace you say is so important to win merely because you decided that toppling the tyranny of Howard Dean's high poll numbers was worth paying any price, bearing any burden.

But forget all that. I just watched John Kerry preen in front of the cameras about how "good diplomacy" would have prevented the mistake he voted for. "Good diplomacy" in John Kerry's world would have let French and Russian politicians continue to line their pockets in the name of keeping Saddam in power so he could rape and murder and torture until "good diplomacy" welcomed him back into the "international community" and gave him the weapons he sought. I suppose in John Kerry's world good diplomacy lets the boys in the back of the bar finish raping the girl for fear of causing a fuss.

Okay, that was unfair. It just seems everything old is new again. Bush "lied" because he believed the same intelligence John Kerry believed. Bush "lied" even though John Edwards called the threat from Iraq "imminent" — something Bush never did. No one bothers to ask how it could be possible that Bush lied. How could he have known there were no WMDs? No one bothers to wonder why Tony Blair isn't a liar. Indeed, no one bothers to ask whether the Great Diplomat and Alliance Builder believes our oldest and truest allies Great Britain and Australia are lead by equally contemptible liars. Of course, they can't be liars — they are merely part of the coalition of the bribed. In John Kerry's world, it's a defense to say your oldest friends aren't dishonest, they're merely whores.

Oh, one more thing no one asks. How could Bush think he could pull this thing off? I mean, knowing as he did that there were no WMDs in Iraq, how could he invade the country and think no one would notice? And if he's capable of lying to send Americans to their deaths for some nebulous petro-oedipal conspiracy no intelligent person has bothered to make even credible, why on earth didn't he just plant some WMDs on the victim after the fact? If you're willing to kill Americans for a lie, surely you'd be willing to plant some anthrax to keep your job.

And speaking of the victim, if it's in fact true that Bush offered no rationale for the war other than WMDs, why shouldn't we simply let Saddam out of his cage and put him back in office? We can even use some of the extra money from the Oil-for-Food program to compensate him for the damage to his palaces and prisons. Heck, if John Edwards weren't busy, he could represent him.

I'm serious. If this whole war was such a mistake, such a colossal blunder, based on a lie and all that, not only should John Kerry show the courage to ask once again "How do you tell the last man to die for a mistake?" but he should also promise to rectify the error. And what better, or more logically consistent, way to solve the problem Bush created? Kerry insists it was wrong to topple Saddam. Well, let's make him a Weeble instead. Bush and Saddam can walk out to the podiums and explain that his good friend merely wobbled, he didn't fall down. That would end the chaos John Kerry considers so much worse than the status quo ante. And if the murderer needs help getting back in the game, maybe the Marines can cut off a few tongues and slaughter a couple thousand Shia and Kurds until Saddam's ready for the big league again. That will calm the chaos; that will erase the crime.

Yes, yes, these are all cheap shots, low blows, unfair criticisms. I know. Good and nice liberals don't want Saddam back in power. Sweet and decent Democrats shed no tears for Uday and Qusay. These folks just care about the troops who were sent to die based on a lie. I care about the troops too. But despite John Kerry's insistence that he speaks for the American Fighting Man, some of you might consider that a sizable majority of Americans in uniform will vote for Bush, according to surveys and polls. And since the Kedwards campaign continues to tell us that men who fight and serve cannot have their judgment questioned, that should mean something. Oh, wait, I'm sorry. I forgot. Only fighting men who served for four months on the same boat with John Kerry are above reproach or recrimination. Even if you served in the next boat over, you're just a liar.

Damn, that was another cheap shot, another low blow — one more Dick Cheneyesque distortion. We soulless warmongers sometimes forget ourselves. I realize now that you forces of truth and light are nothing like me. If only Bush had justified this war in the high-flown language of liberty and justice he uses now, then you better angels of the American nature would have supported the toppling of Saddam.

Of course, Bush did exactly that. He spoke of the lantern of liberty lighting the Middle East long before the Iraqi Statue of Tyranny fell down in that Baghdad square. But he was lying then, of course. He only said that stuff to please those bloodlusting neocons who didn't care about Bush's vendetta to avenge his father and were too rich from their access to Zionist coffers to care about the Texas oil man's plot to capture the Iraqi oil fields and earn Halliburton the worst publicity any corporation has received in American history. Of course these neocons knew Bush was lying about democracy and WMDs alike, but they too didn't care that they would be found out. After all, that's a small price to pay for Mother Israel, where Jewish-American loyalties check in but don't check out.

Damn. Once again the gravity of Bush's villainy has pulled me off the trajectory of honest debate. I'm not making any sense. I'm not consistent in my "rationales." Indeed, John Kerry said it so eloquently when he noted that George W. Bush has offered 23 rationales for the war. Heaven forbid the International Grandmaster of Nuance contemplate that there could be more than a single reason to do something so simple as go to war. Let's not even contemplate that the ticket that says this administration hasn't "leveled" with the American people should have to grasp that sometimes leveling with the public requires offering more than one dumbed-down reason to do something very difficult and important.

Ah, I know. The problem isn't that Bush has offered more than one reason, it's that he's changed his reasons. That is the complaint of those who would otherwise support the war. Alas, that's not true, he's merely changed the emphasis. After all, what is he to do when he discovers there are no WMDs? Violate the "Pottery Barn rule" and simply leave a broken Iraq to fester? But let's imagine for a moment that he has "changed the rationale." Isn't that what Lincoln did when he changed the war to preserve the Union into the war to free the slaves? Isn't that what the Cold War liberals did when they changed a value-neutral stand-off into a twilight struggle between the human bondage and the last best hope of mankind?

Ah, but in the Cold War we never fought the Soviets, we merely leveled sanctions. Couldn't we have done the same to Iraq, since Saddam was no threat to America? I'm sure all of the people asking this asked it already of Bill Clinton when we toppled Slobodan Milosevic, a man who killed fewer people, threatened America less, and violated fewer U.N. sanctions than Saddam ever did.

I'm tired now. But the sad news is I could go on.

I'm not saying there are no good arguments against the war. I am saying that many of you don't care about the war. If Bill Clinton or Al Gore had conducted this war, you would be weeping joyously about Iraqi children going to school and women registering to vote. If this war had been successful rather than hard, John Kerry would be boasting today about how he supported it — much as he did every time it looked like the polls were moving in that direction. You may have forgotten Kerry's anti-Dean gloating when Saddam was captured, but many of us haven't. He would be saying the lack of WMDs are irrelevant and that Bush's lies were mistakes. And that's the point. I don't care if you hate George W. Bush; it's not like I love the guy. And I don't care if you opposed the war from day one. What disgusts me are those people who say toppling Saddam and fighting the terror war on their turf rather than ours is a mistake, not because these are bad ideas, but merely because your vanity cannot tolerate the notion that George W. Bush is right or that George W. Bush's rightness might cost John Kerry the election.

I get e-mails from you people every day and I see your candidate on TV every night. Shame on you all.

Tomorrow’s Wall St Journal is another one of those days that make their editorial page so damned important. Yah, they’ve got some cool ed’s on the Afghan and Aussie elections, and a great comparison of job numbers right now, versus 1996. But they also run two awesome op-eds. The first by super-genius Steve Moore about how John Kerry is a hypocrite of unbelievable proportions when it comes to taxes. The second, by another Cato guy, Roger Pilon deals with how importation of drugs from Canada would ruin the drug industry in America, taking away incentive for the companies to continue the R&D that allows them to pump out all the cool drugs they do… And guess what, if you weren’t reading it here, you could go grab today’s Journal from a newsstand for a single, solitary BUCK!

A Wild and Crazy Guy

By STEPHEN MOORE

October 11, 2004; Page A18

Remember the classic 1970s comic routine from Steve Martin? You can make a million dollars and pay no taxes. First, find a million dollars. Then when the IRS comes knocking on your door demanding to know why you didn't pay your taxes, you just simply tell them you forgot. And then you say: "Well excuse me."

Well, John Kerry has his own version. It goes like this. You can make a billion dollars and pay almost no taxes. First, marry a billionaire. Second, hire a gaggle of tax accountants and lawyers to bring your tax rate down to about half what many middle-income families pay. Except for John Kerry, this is no gag; it's reality. According to the Kerrys' own tax records, and they have not released all of them, the couple had a combined income of $6.8 million in income last year and paid $725,000 in income taxes. That means their effective tax rate was a whopping 12.8%. And it was all (presumably) done legally.

Now don't get me wrong: I'm not against people paying a 12.8% tax rate. Far from it. I just believe that all Americans -- even those who can't afford to hire tax attorneys to set up complicated trusts and find legal ways to stash income in other tax-sheltered investments like municipal bonds -- should have a shot at that kind of non-confiscatory tax rate.

Under the current tax system the middle class pays far more than the Kerry tax rate. In fact, the average federal tax rate -- combined payroll and income tax -- for a middle-class family is closer to 20% or more. George W. and Laura Bush, who had an income one-tenth of the Kerrys', paid a tax rate of 30%.

Of course, there is delicious irony in the Kerry family tax-return data. Here is the man who finds clever ways to reduce his own tax liability while voting for higher taxes on the middle class dozens of times in his Senate career. He even voted against the Bush tax cut that saves each middle-class family about $1,000.

The Kerrys have unwittingly made the case for what George W. Bush says he wants to do: radically simplify and flatten out the tax code. Dick Armey and Steve Forbes have persuasively argued over the years that America should have a flat tax with a rate of 17% to 19%. John Kerry has consistently opposed a flat tax, because he says it would be a tax break for the rich. But the truth is with a 19% flat tax, some rich people with lavish tax shelters, like John Kerry, would pay more taxes. I calculate that the Kerrys would pay another $500,000 of taxes if we had a flat tax.

So before John Kerry is given the opportunity to raise taxes again on American workers, shouldn't he and Teresa at least pay their fair share?

Mr. Moore is president of the Club for Growth.

The Reimportation Blues

By ROGER PILON

October 11, 2004; Page A18

It seems the issue of drug reimportation is finally ready for prime time. In Friday night's debate, John Kerry reaffirmed his support for drug reimportation while President Bush said he would consider supporting it if he could be certain it was "done in a safe way." A bill lifting the federal ban on reimporting prescription drugs passed the House last year, overwhelmingly. Three such bills now sit in the Senate. Several state and local officials, defying federal law, have begun their own reimportation programs.

If this is the direction of things, it's time to look seriously at the issue, because it's not as simple as many seem to think. Right now the issue is being staged as a morality play. Greedy drug companies are gouging seniors, only to sell drugs cheaply abroad. If they can make a profit there, at lower prices, they can do it here, critics say. Let's lift the ban and buy drugs at foreign prices. If it were that simple, the deed would have been done long ago. Yes, the federal ban should be lifted, but then the market should be allowed to work. If a bipartisan Senate bill succeeds, however, that second step won't happen.

* * *

International price comparisons are difficult to make. Still, Canada's review board recently reported that Americans pay on average 67% more than Canadians for patented drugs. The European differential is also substantial. To average Americans, however, what matters is the price of their drugs. They go online or they board buses to Canada and they're shocked by the difference. So they ask why.

Here's why, in a nutshell. Modern "miracle drugs" don't come cheaply. Given onerous FDA safety and efficacy standards, it takes on average 12 to 15 years and $800 million before a company can bring a new drug to market. Before the first dollar of profit comes back, those R&D costs have to be recovered, of course. But a company looks at the world and sees essentially one free market, America. Socialized medical systems abroad impose price controls. Seeing that, companies charge market prices here (half the world market) and take what they're offered abroad. Foreigners are classic "free riders" as Americans pay most of the R&D costs.

That part of the story portrays Americans and companies alike as victims of foreign price controls. There's another part, however: the economic rationale that puts companies in the driver's seat. When they look at the world, companies see different levels of demand. To maximize profits, therefore, they segment markets and price differentially. Nothing's wrong with that: airlines and theaters do it. Pricing too high excludes too many buyers. Pricing below what buyers are willing to pay yields too little profit.

Probably both scenarios are in play, but on either, companies have to guard against "parallel markets" -- drugs being resold by local vendors from low-price to high-price markets. If they don't, all their drugs will eventually go to the low-price markets, where companies don't recover true costs, only to be resold to high-price markets, thus undercutting the companies' profit-making venues.

Companies have two basic ways to preserve market segmentation: no-resale contracts, and supply limits. Both are consistent with free market principles. Back in 1987, however, drug companies took a short cut: they asked Congress to ban drug reimports. They won a statutory, public law solution to a private law problem, and therein lie difficulties.

In effect, third-party Americans were told they couldn't buy from willing foreign sellers. (In fact, Canadian provincial officials are actually encouraging local pharmacies to resell to Americans.) Thus, by opposing reimportation, the administration comes off as anti-free trade. Americans resent the price differences and the interference -- especially those who understand the free-rider issue.

What's to be done, then? Clearly, the situation today is politically unsustainable, as events are proving. The ban should be lifted, therefore, not to encourage reimportation, which isn't likely to happen, but simply to allow market practices to surface. Today, with their high-profit American market protected, companies don't have to bargain hard abroad. The ban shields them, allowing them to claim they have to accept foreign price controls. Practically, Americans are subsidizing socialized medical systems abroad.

But with the ban lifted, and the threat of underpriced drugs flooding the American market, companies would be "forced" to adjust. They could still try to maximize profits by segmenting markets. But they'd have to guard against parallel markets the right way, through no-resale contracts or supply limits. They could offer a country lower prices, but the country would have to police its exports, since America would no longer be policing imports. That places the incentive where it belongs, on the country benefiting from the bargain. And if that failed, companies could limit supplies, as they're doing now with Canada.

In Europe, however, no-resale contracts are illegal -- from a mistaken belief that they're anti-free trade. That's why there's a thriving parallel market there. If that's the way Europeans want it, companies will have no choice but to limit supplies or raise prices. That's how markets work. Companies should be free to segment markets. But if it doesn't work, international prices will move toward equality. And if that happens -- as is likely, given enforcement difficulties -- there'll be no reimportation, which moots the safety issue as well.

With the ban lifted, no one knows whether prices will rise abroad and fall here, or just rise abroad. That's for markets to decide. The last thing we want, however, is the bipartisan Dorgan-Snowe Senate bill, which would lift the ban and then prohibit companies from "gaming the system" -- limiting supplies or raising prices abroad. In effect, the sponsors want to freeze the current situation, then import below-cost drugs from abroad -- at those prices. The sponsors seem not to appreciate that the only reason a company can sell a drug for $20 in Germany is because it's sold for $100 in America. The bill would actually import foreign price controls, and that would be the end of future R&D and the miracle drugs it produces.

Opponents of lifting the ban say that if we "forced" market practices on the world, countries would balk at paying those prices and would steal American patents. But a close reading of the WTO Trips Agreement, protecting intellectual property, should allay those fears. The administration needs to watch the issue, however; and in treaty negotiations it should encourage a clear separation of commercial and charitable undertakings. In particular, the "compulsory licensing" arrangements designed to help poor countries with their drug needs should be scrapped in favor of a more market-oriented approach to this problem.

Drug reimportation is thus more complex than at first it seems, but as with so many other issues on the public's plate today, a healthy dose of market principles is the right prescription.

Mr. Pilon is vice president for legal affairs at the Cato Institute.

Something For That Sweet Girl You Know

I've been MIA for awhile due to the usual circumstances in my life. My apologies. Saw this today and I thought I'd pass it along. I ordered one for my chicky, shouldn't you?

Also, RCP has a dead on analysis on the electoral college math here. (hat tip to Peter Schramm)

A Friend Of Mine Makes An Interesting Observation...

John Kerry says the 'W' in George W. Bush stands for 'Wrong.' But he still can't explain what John Kerry stands for.

McClintock on the Propositions

It's no secret to anyone reading this that I'm a big fan of Tom McClintock's. Hell, I worked for the guy. Here are his reccomendations for this November's Propositions. I have to say I agree with him on pretty much everything but 70, I just can't support making the Indian Tribes the largest political force in the state, even if it would mean helping Tom...



I've been getting a lot of calls about the various ballot propositions.
Here's how I see them:

1A. Watered Down Protection for Local Governments. YES, I suppose. Extends limited protection to local governments against future raids by the state AFTER the state finishes ripping off another $2.6 billion over the next two years. I support it because the protections are a slight improvement over
existing law, but if you really want to protect local governments, Prop. 65
is the ticket.

59. Public Records, Open Meetings. YES. Louis Brandeis said it best:
"Sunlight is the best of disinfectants." Public business should
be public.Period.

60. The Right to the Party of Your Choice. YES. This measure guarantees
all parties access to the general election ballot, and was written to knock
out Prop. 62.

60A. Selling Long-term Assets for Short-term Spending. NO. Sounds good on
the surface - sell surplus state property to pay for general fund spending.
Here's my problem: when surplus assets are sold - and they should be - the
funds should be used for the purpose for which they were raised. For
example, Caltrans land was paid for by highway taxes. When it's sold, it
should be used to build highways, not pay for this year's welfare increase.

61. Children's Hospitals Bond. NO. Our borrowing is out of control -
general fund supported debt is up 54 percent in 14 months. No matter how
appealing the purpose, California needs to stop borrowing until it has
brought its credit card binge under control.

62. Election Primaries. NO. They call it an "Open Primary," but what this
really does is to trade California's primary election system for a two-step
general election. The result: the power to determine the official party
nominee is taken away from the voters in the primary and returned to
backroom political bosses. A giant step backward from clean and open
elections.

63. Soak the Rich - And Then Us. NO. An extra tax on those making over $1
million might sound good to the rest of us - but beware. California's taxes
are already so disproportionate that the top 1Ú4 of 1 percent of income
taxpayers pays nearly one third of all income taxes. It doesn't take many
of them re-arranging their affairs to claim residency in Nevada (where there
is NO income tax), before there's a dramatic reduction in tax revenues. And
guess who they'll tax then?

64. Honest Work for Lawyers. YES. Puts an end to predatory law firms
that extort money by filing huge lawsuits against employers for technical
violations of law. About time.

65. Real Local Government Protection. YES. A lost cause - the proponents
have abandoned this measure in favor of Prop. 1A - but if you believe in
protecting local government funds from continued raids by the state, this is
the measure that will do so.

66. Weakens Three Strikes Law. NO. Under current law, in order to qualify
for a third strike, you have to be convicted TWICE before for VIOLENT
felonies. This bill requires the THIRD strike also be a violent felony.
Call me prudish, but after a thug has been twice convicted of raping,
assaulting and murdered his fellow citizens, I'm out of patience.
California's Three Strikes Law works. Don't weaken it.

67. Phone Tax. NO. A half-billion tax increase - about $60 a year for an
average family in both direct taxes and tax-driven price increases. Who
says talk is cheap?

68. Casino Grande. NO. I don't believe it's any of government's business
how grown-ups chose to spend their time and money as long as they're not
hurting anyone. But I object to the extortionate provisions of the measure
that would force Indian tribes to accept outlandish conditions or face
financial ruin.

69. DNA Samples. YES. Requires DNA samples to be taken from all felons and criminal suspects. It means that violent crimes will become much easier to solve - and with far greater certainty than ever before. It will give "Cold
Case Files" lots of new material.

70. De-politicize Tribal Gaming. YES. Provides a standard gaming compact
for any legitimate Indian tribe that asks for it, assessing the corporate
tax rate while restoring a free market to operations on Indian land. It
would remove gaming from the tortured political environment that now has
pitted tribe against tribe in winning monopoly franchises. A standardized
system is the best protection against the unjust political favoritism that
we're seeing today.

71. Stem Cell Research. NO. Stem cell research is a promising field, but
why are California taxpayers suddenly responsible for funding research for
the rest of the world? Worse, any discussion of research data when making
research grants is exempt from the Open Meetings Act and the Open Records Act. Want to know what your $3 billion has bought? Sorry, that's
confidential.

72. Health Care Coverage. NO. Here's a great idea. Require every
business with more than 20 employees to provide health insurance.

My guess:
a lot of businesses with between 20 and 40 employees will suddenly
have 19 -and an awful lot of folks will be without health care OR jobs. We're from the government and we're here to help.


Worth printing and taking with you to the polls. Better than any slate you're gonna see

The Alan Jackson Strategy for California Republicans

As this election cycle has played out, it has proven to be not only a battle between the political parties, but a battle among celebrities, moonlighting as politicians, as well. In the Left Corner, we’ve got the Hollywood elite – the George Clooneys, the Alec Baldwins, the Martin Sheens, and the Michael Moores. In the Right Corner are the Nashville Country Music stars – your Toby Keiths, your Clint Blacks, and your Alan Jacksons. While in past years, the role of celebrities in campaigns has been largely ceremonial, this year it is much more profound.

Michael Moore has largely shaped the message for John Kerry and the Democrats – focusing their efforts on spewing hatred at President Bush, rather than bothering to spend any time developing any actual ideas of their own.

Toby Keith’s song, “Courtesy of the Red, White, and Blue” is a largely symbolic, but by-and-large accurate portrayal of the feelings of many Americans, especially those in Bush Country.

Now this nation that I love has fallen under attack.
A mighty sucker punch came flying in from somewhere in the back.
Soon as we could see clearly through our big black eye,
Man we lit up your world like the Fourth of July.

Hey Uncle Sam put your name at the top of his list,
And the Statue of Liberty started shaking her fist.
And the eagle will fly,
And there's gonna be Hell,
When you hear Mother Freedom start ringing her bell!
It's gonna feel like the whole wide world is raining down on you...
Brought to you courtesy of the Red, White and Blue!

Oh, Justice will be served and the battle will rage.
This big dog will fight when you rattle his cage
You'll be sorry that you messed with the US of A
'Cuz we'll put a boot in your ass
It's the American way.

Out here in California, the influence of country music may take on an even larger role, and California Republicans may prove the beneficiaries of Alan Jackson’s hit, “It’s 5 O’clock Somewhere,” provided of course we can learn from our past mistakes, and take be prepared to take advantage of situations should they arise.


Despite the media’s instance to keep calling the Presidential election a “horserace,” it’s starting to look more and more like Clinton/Dole in 1996. The President is starting to pull away in some key Battleground States. Since early August, the President has gone from down 7, to up 3 in Florida. He’s gone from down 6, to up 6 in Ohio. He’s gone from down 12, to a dead-heat in Pennsylvania. Missouri, Arizona, Wisconsin, Iowa, and Nevada are all showing a dark reddish hue.

So, what if this trend continues? What if by election day, Kerry’s only support comes from New England, New York, and California – though each of them by a much smaller margin than once thought? What happens to California if as the first returns come in from the East Coast at 5PM Pacific, the Eastern Seabord is a long red streak?

If we are ready, it could mean a big swing back towards balance in Sacramento.

Think back to 1996. Clinton was routing Dole. Throughout the day, tv and radio reports in California made clear that all the exits showed Clinton ahead. Then, as 5 o’clock came around, and the first results started coming in, it was clear – Clinton was going to be re-elected.

GOP turnout plummeted. Those who usually vote after work, those who live in commuter districts, those Republicans in rural California who we count on to complete the fishhook – they didn’t make it to the polls.

And why should they have? Dole was our top of the ticket guy, the reason that most Republicans bothered to go vote in the first place. And if he was getting his butt kicked, the motivation to make it to the polls became nearly nonexistent. And while Dole didn’t exactly have a stellar shot at taking California in the first place, the repercussions of that depressed GOP turnout were dramatically felt down-ticket.

That year we lost 4 seats by less than 1000 votes. In AD26, Dennis Cardoza (D) beat Thomas Berryhill by 86 votes! In AD43, Scott Wildman (D) beat John Geranios by 192 votes. The awful Loretta Sanchez beat conservative hero Bob Dornan by 984 votes in the most notable race that year. Just up the road from there, George Brown (D) beat Linda Wilde by 996 votes. It was a depressing year for Republicans. 3 more seats were lost by the GOP by less than 7,000 votes. Republicans barely held onto 3 other seats by less than 4,000 votes.

Fast-forward to the present. There is ample reason to speculate that history could repeat itself, and the California GOP could stand to benefit in a big way by a Bush blowout – that is, if we have our act together.

Lets assume that the returns in the Eastern Time Zone Battleground states all have the President winning. Democrat turnout is hurt throughout the day. Then, at 8:00 EST (5 Pacific), the returns from Florida, Pennsylvania, and New Hampshire all have the President winning. As work lets out, and rush hour begins, voters will hear about nothing but the Bush blowout. This will excite Republicans and depress the Democrats. After an hour of hearing this, Dem turnout will have spiraled downward into oblivion.

If this scenario, or anything remotely resembling it plays out, the onus then is on Republicans to get every last Republican, no matter how low-propensity, out to the polls. If we’re ready with phone calls, precinct walkers, and knock and drag efforts – we could push Republican turnout in key areas around the state. Robo-calls from the Governor and other GOP celebrities urging them to make it to the polls and help be a part of history re-electing the President could be made every 15 or 30 minutes to GOP homes who’d yet to vote. This has nothing to do with swing voters or with convincing Independents to cast their ballot for a Republican. We wouldn’t be fighting against opposing values; at this point we’d be fighting apathy.

In 1996, we lost control of the legislature because we weren’t ready at 5 o’clock. If we’re ever going to take this state back, this November will be key. And when the returns start coming in at 8 PM back east, showing the President cruising to re-election – we need to keep in mind that “It’s 5 o’clock somewhere.”

SCALIA: KING OR MERE INTERPRETER OF WORDS?

I love some of the egghead blogs around. There’s nothing like elevated discussion to make one feel downright elitist. Well, recently a coupla pretty smart hombres (if I do say so myself) went toe-to-toe over the judicial style of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. What follows is a reprinting of that debate, starting with the article and the comment that set it off…


From the San Francisco Chronicle…

Justice Antonin Scalia on Monday bemoaned the Supreme Court's willingness to decide political questions such as the death penalty and abortion and predicted as a result a tough confirmation fight for the next nominee.

Scalia, who made no mention of possible retirements on the court, said judicial appointments are becoming increasingly bitter because justices are improperly deciding morally charged questions that are best left to elected legislatures.

"Each year, the confirmation of judicial appointments grows more intense. One shudders to think what sort of turmoil will greet the next appointment to the Supreme Court," Scalia told an audience of 60 at the conservative Ethics and Public Policy Center.

"The lesson is: One way or another, people will have their say on significant issues of social policy ... and judges will be made politically accountable," he said.

In the coming term that begins Oct. 4, the high court will hear several cases involving the death penalty, such as whether states can execute juvenile killers. Several constitutional challenges to the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act are also expected to make their way up to the Supreme Court.

Scalia, who was appointed to the court in 1986 by President Reagan, outlined his judicial philosophy of interpreting the Constitution according to its text, as understood at the time it was adopted. He said unelected justices too often choose to read new rights into the Constitution, at the expense of the democratic process.

President Bush has said if he is re-elected he would appoint justices, such as Scalia or fellow conservative Clarence Thomas, who strictly interpret the Constitution. Scalia also has been mentioned as a possible candidate for chief justice should William Rehnquist, who turns 80 on Oct. 1, retire.

"You want the death penalty? Persuade your fellow citizens" to pass legislation or a constitutional amendment, Scalia said. "You don't want abortion? Persuade them the other way. ... Judges have no more capacity than the rest of us to determine what is moral."

Scalia, however, declined to comment on a House bill that would strip the Supreme Court's authority to hear cases involving the Pledge of Allegiance and whether the words "under God" violate the separation of church and state. The bill, which is expected to be voted on this week, would give that review only to state courts.

Earlier this year, Scalia was forced to recuse himself from a pledge case after complaining in a public speech that courts had gone overboard in keeping God out of government.

"If they're moving through Congress, I probably shouldn't comment on them, and I won't," he said of the legislation.

Dennis - See, this shows exactly, yet again, the problem with Scalia. He thinks that morality is constructed by the democratic process, which is to say there are no intrinsic moral laws to guide all of humanity, including supreme court justices. I find that quite troubling.

Barry - Scalia's point was not that there are no intrinsic moral laws, only that judges are no better than the common folk at understanding those laws. Accordingly, democratic votes on issues of morality are preferable to a judicial dictatorship, of either the left (see Ginsburg) or the right (what you, apparently, want).

Scalia's point, once again, is that, simply because he wears a black robe does not make him more apt to judge morals than anyone else. As such, it is immoral for him as a judge to impose his vision upon those other people.

Dennis - Actually, the point is that none of us human beings determine what is moral. Morality is what it is, and it's not subject to anyone's opinion, whether Supreme Court Justice or Joe Sixpack. Scalia has a long trail of espousing this "whole theory of democracy" misconception.

You're skirting with moral relativism with this "impose his vision" thing of yours. Scalia's constitution, unfortunately, is an empty vessel not secured by a moral foundation. It's not a question of imposing a vision, but of applying the constitution in a way consistent with the rights it secures and the powers it enumerates. Justice Thomas, on the other hand, understands that the rights the constitution secures are inherent to all mankind, as expressed in the Declaration of Independence.

By rejecting natural right, Scalia fundamentally misunderstands republican government and its proper role in securing our rights.

Well, at least he is on the right side in the vast majority of cases....

I love you conservatives who accuse us Straussians of wishing for a tyranny of the judiciary! This is fun stuff!

Barry - Morality may be, but the point remains that a judge still has no better a claim to know what it is, rather than that it exists, than anyone else.

Accordingly, the best approximation is, in fact, a general societal consensus- and not of the "emerging standards" so often cited with no actual evidence, but of actual consensus, as espoused at the ballot box.

The Declaration of Independence, while an important historical document, is not law in the United States, or anywhere else in the world, for that matter. All rights due a citizen of the United States must be found within either the Constitution or the general laws of the nation. Even liberals recognize this, which is why Roe v. Wade is allegedly a 14th Amendment case, rather than some amorphous "natural right."

The Constitution, when you read it for itself, is a radically amoral document. Rights are not conferred out of the dignity of man, but rather as part of the status of the individuals as citizens of the United States, hence the ease with which it excludes slaves and Indians not Taxed. It is not a declaration of rights, but rather of privileges of citizenship, unique to the American people.

In fact, it rejects any notion of natural rights- if you notice, even in the Preamble (also not legally binding), the rights inhere and flow from "We the People of the United States," not from our status as members of the human race or from God or any other higher power. Also, the Constitution was by the people of the United States for themselves and their Posterity. It is not, and never was, a document expressing the worldwide rights of man- if you want that, consider the UN Charter. It is a fundamentally nationalist, rather than humanist or internationalist, document.

The Constitution is not a moral document- rather, it is a framework for the functioning of a government and a citizen body which is, itself, entrusted to make moral decisions, based on whatever ideals it desires. Scalia simply states the obvious.

Dennis - Sure, a judge has no better claim than anyone else to know absolutely what is moral and what is not. But isn't any decision a judge or anyone else makes is a judgment on moral questions? Doesn't every decision rest on what is good and what is bad?

The constitution does not explain every single conceivable question under the sun. Our founding law does not dictate what is right in every circumstance, and we thus necessarily do not have simply a government of law, we to a great extent have a government of men. As Publius famously wrote:

"If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to government men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself."

Scalia would have all questions not expressly decided through the constitution decided democratically. Hence, he does not concern himself with the fact that there was a high degree of wisdom, intelligence, virtue, etc. that produced our constitution that makes it great, that the constitution is secured by certain principles understood by sober and prudent minds that are the basis for the powers enumerated. He would have any amendment rightly voted on by the people to be as legitimate as those critical rights placed into the document by prudent and wise men.

Right, the Declaration is not binding positive law. Rather, it expresses the rights of mankind that are from the laws of nature and nature's god, true and just everywhere and always. This is the essence of what separates the United States from every country this planet has ever known, and what makes us great. One is not conferred certain rights because one is a citizen of the United States, one has those rights as a human being, but they will be secured by the condition of being subject to the laws of our great nation.

Roe v. Wade doesn't even rest on the language of the 14th amendment. It's complete rubbish for its rejection of the equal natural rights of all human beings, which is covered by its ridiculous speculative ruminations on "emanations" and that nonsense.

Our constitution is not perfect; it was crafted out of compromise. The acknowledgment of a temporary inequality between races was for the greater long-term good that our political system would bring. Political prudence often requires such compromises.

I submit that your understanding of the preamble is completely false. In no way does it reject any notion of natural rights. To the contrary, states that the constitution establishes "Justice," and that it secures the "Blessings of Liberty." This is an explicit acknowledgment that what Justice is, is set prior to any particular political construct. I don't see the constitution define "justice" anywhere. How could this have any meaning whatsoever if not by an understanding of natural right? And who confers "Blessings of Liberty"? Are we blessed by the people who gave us our laws, or by nature and nature's god? Our constitution does not attempt to secure the rights of mankind, so, sure, it's not idiotic like a world government that UN boosters would envision. However, that has no bearing whatsoever on the question of whether those things that it does secure are good and true, everywhere and always.

At least I believe there's hope for you and Justice Scalia, Mr. Barry. I could never have a discussion like this with a flaming liberal, which is why I and other “elitists” relish the opportunities to attempt to enlighten our fellow conservatives.


Barry - No, it doesn't.

Most judging has nothing to do with what is right, but rather simply what is. That's why, after all, the first step in statutory analysis is "plain meaning" rather than the policy implications of it. Also, what's moral about determining whether one party owes money to another on an insurance contract? These are the vast majority of judges' work.

You're exactly correct that the Constitution doesn't address every question under the sun- it doesn't address most, even. That's why the remainder of the questions are left up to laws. These laws are not created by judges, but by the people, through the legislature, as Scalia correctly notes.

Further, it is rather interesting that you're unwilling to accept modern democratic judgments in favor of prior ones, simply because they are prior to our own time. Sure, you include some empty praise of the Founders, but your actual beliefs come through in the statement that "[Scalia] would have any amendment rightly voted on by the people to be as legitimate as those critical rights placed into the document by prudent and wise men."

This is such a glaring dismissal of our own body politic and constitutional scheme that I can barely begin to comment.

You're missing my point on the Declaration- my point was that, while Jefferson and those who signed it expressed those ideals, those ideals have never been an explicit part of American law sufficient to justify your demand for judicial invention of nonexistent rights. The rest of your paragraph is an appeal to human rights, much like the pabulum that comes from the United Nations.

While you might believe that all humans have rights, that these need to be secured by a government betrays that notion. If these rights cannot exist without the protection of a nation, they are dependent upon that nation, and cannot exist beyond it.

Roe v. Wade paid lip service to "substantive due process," a right, much like your supposed natural rights, nonexistent under the Constitution.

I'm not sure what style of English you speak, but "establish" is a word of foundation- where there was not before, now there is. And it is quite clear from the language that the government being established (that is, the social contract among the citizens, you know, the ones you don't trust to govern themselves, instead instituting moral Archons) is what confers the Blessings of Liberty, not nature, which is notoriously brutal and unfair.

Generally, you're blinded by the secular paganism that worships "nature and nature's god." You might want to consider Hobbes' observation that life is nasty, brutish and short when you think about whether anything from nature is desirable. In fact, I submit, government, and civilization in general, is an explicit rejection of the natural in favor of the artificial, of the natural law of the jungle for the laws of men, of chaos for order.

In such a system, men most rule themselves, as Scalia says. He does not want to be a king, as you would crown him.

CLUB FOR GROWTH SENATE RECCOMENDATIONS

The Club for Growth maintains about as high a batting average as any group around. Not only are they lethally precise with their targets, but when you back a Club candidate, you know they are REAL, true, actual, no-nonsense, RINO bashing, Goldwater/Reagan Conservatives! That said, here's an update from Club Honcho Steve Moore on the Club's Senate targets...

As you well know, the GOP controls the Senate by just one vote. A
review of all the polls in all the Senate races shows that if the election
were held today, the Republicans would win just 50 seats in the Senate.
Clearly we must do everything we can to prevent Sen. Tom Daschle and
the Democrats from seizing control of the Senate again.

Even with today’s margin, the GOP doesn’t have effective control of the
agenda as the Democrats use the filibuster to kill pro-growth reform or
crucial judicial appointments. The next Senate could confirm two U.S.
Supreme Court justices. All in all, control of the Senate could be
equal to control of two of the three branches of government, and that’s a
key reason the Club has become so active in key Senate races this year.

The thought that Daschle may return as Majority Leader next year is a
frightening prospect, but it’s a very real one. Even more horrifying is
the possibility of Daschle working with a Kerry Administration. But if
this makes you feel more than a little queasy, don’t despair -- we’ve
also got a decent chance of not only adding to the Republican’s razor
thin one-seat majority, but improving the quality of Republicans and
ridding the Senate of Mr. Daschle once and for all. Wouldn’t that be fun!

If the Republicans do manage to pick up a few extra seats in the
Senate, there could also be an ideological shift toward pro-growth issues.
Right now, the balance of power is in the hands of the RINO Republicans
like Olympia Snowe and Arlen Specter. With a 2 or 3 seat pick-up for
the GOP, plus the addition of GOP superstars, Olympia and Arlen would no
longer be deciding votes. We could move away from watered-down
Republicanism toward a genuine pro-growth agenda on taxes, trade, Social
Security, and budget reform.

One issue that will instantly be impacted by a Republican pick-up in
the Senate is permanent repeal of the Death Tax. We need 60 Senate votes
to win full and immediate repeal. We are now 4 votes away from
breaking that impasse.

So the stakes are mighty high in the Senate elections. That’s why
we’re providing you now with our outlook for every competitive Senate race
and a list of our top tier choices. Please be as generous as always by
donating to as many of these “A” and “B” candidates as you can, and
since the election is just a few weeks away, donate as soon as you can.


“A” List Candidates

Candidates make this list because their races are competitive and they
are the very best on economic issues.

Tom Coburn, Oklahoma Race Rating:
Toss up.

We sent an email out last week reminding you of why we think Coburn
would be an absolute superstar in the Senate. If you haven’t already
donated to Tom’s campaign, please consider it – his race is our TOP
PRIORITY.

To donate to this campaign right now, click on the link below to make
your contribution online, fax in the form below, or call us toll-free at
800-687-2582:

https://www.clubforgrowth.org/c-d/index.php?m_id=12538&ea=bjpo&cs=8,11,20,23,24,25,27


Jim DeMint, South Carolina Race Rating:
Leans Republican.

Jim DeMint is running for the open seat being vacated by the retiring
Senator Fritz Hollings. He’s going up against tax-hiking liberal Inez
Tenenbaum.

Jim is one of the most free-market and principled men in Congress.
Here’s a quick recap of Jim’s outstanding record:

Earlier this year, Jim received the prestigious lifetime “Taxpayer
Hero” citation from Citizens Against Government Waste. He has earned “A”
grades from the National Taxpayers Union in four of the five years he
has served in Congress. Among all the Republicans running for Senate
nationwide, we strongly believe that Jim is the cream of the crop. A man
of his word, DeMint promised to serve three terms in the House and he
did.

He was one of the 25 Republican heroes who voted AGAINST the fiscally
irresponsible Medicare expansion bill last year, even though he was told
that it would hurt his chances of winning the Senate seat. He is the
author of the most comprehensive proposal for Social Security personal
accounts in the U.S. House.

To donate to this campaign right now, click on the link below:
https://www.clubforgrowth.org/c-d/index.php?m_id=12538&ea=bjpo&cs=8,11,20,23,24,25,27


Pete Coors, Colorado Race Rating:
Toss up.

The former CEO of Coors Brewing Company solidly supports free markets,
lower taxes, and smaller government.

In a Congress filled with too many career politicians and lawyers, Pete
Coors would bring much-needed perspective from someone who has spent
years in the private sector creating jobs, meeting a payroll, and
delivering profits for investors.

While many Republican candidates know the economic theory, he has the
experience of dealing with complicated tax laws and regulations and the
stifling effects these burdens create on the free market system.

Pete favors making the Bush tax cuts permanent, creating Social
Security personal accounts, enacting tort reform, and controlling federal
spending. In short, he is rock solid on all the key economic growth issues
that will confront the next Congress.

The polls have this race very tight. The Democrats have nominated a
popular Hispanic state attorney general, Ken Salazar, who is masquerading
as a centrist. In reality, Salazar is a Kerry Democrat who wants to
repeal the Bush tax cuts, renew the death tax, and prevent meaningful
tort reform.

To donate to this campaign right now, click on the link below:
https://www.clubforgrowth.org/c-d/index.php?m_id=12538&ea=bjpo&cs=8,11,20,23,24,25,27


“B” List Candidates

Candidates on this list are all in hotly contested races too, but they
are not as rock solid on economic growth issues.

John Thune, South Dakota Race Rating: Toss
up.

This race is all about Tom Daschle. It’s about ridding the Senate of
its most obnoxious and persistent adversary of pro-growth legislation.
The good news is that Daschle is the Democrat senator most likely to be
defeated in November. If we beat Daschle, we cut the Left off from its
central nervous system.

Former Congressman Thune ran away from some key pro-growth issues in
his loss to Sen. Tim Johnson two years ago. He also compiled only an
average voting record for a Republican during his time in the House.

Thune lost his Senate race in 2002 by only 524 votes out of 334,000
cast. This time we want to make sure that he’s on the winning side of
that margin, especially since George W. Bush stands to win with more than
60% of the vote in South Dakota this year.

To donate to this campaign right now, click on the link below:
https://www.clubforgrowth.org/c-d/index.php?m_id=12538&ea=bjpo&cs=8,11,20,23,24,25,27


David Vitter, Louisiana Race Rating:
Toss up.

Congressman Vitter currently has a strong lead in this race to replace
the retiring Sen. John Breaux (D). However, Louisiana’s unique “jungle
primary” means there is a good chance the next Senator won’t be decided
until December. Anyone who qualified to run is on the November ballot.
If none of the candidates gets over 50%, there is a December runoff
with the top two candidates. Vitter may have a better chance of winning
the “primary” outright than winning a runoff.

Vitter is running on a pro-growth platform and he was a big hit at our
candidate forum in Florida last February. He compiled a
better-than-average voting record for a Republican congressman in the last four years
-- though he is no Pat Toomey or Jeff Flake.

Louisiana has not elected a Republican to the Senate in 125 years!
Vitter has a great chance of breaking that century long lock down in Bayou
country. That is why we make this race a priority and believe that our
members should donate to David Vitter.

To donate to this campaign right now, click on the link below:
https://www.clubforgrowth.org/c-d/index.php?m_id=12538&ea=bjpo&cs=8,11,20,23,24,25,27


Mel Martinez, Florida Race Rating:
Toss up.

We tend to play down this race for Club members simply because the race
will be so expensive that it’s hard for us to have a major impact.
Then again, it is Florida, and who can forget how close the presidential
race was last time?

It’s also hard to predict whether Martinez would be a totally reliable
pro-growth vote in the Senate.

He performed reasonably well at our New York candidate forum in August.
He also returned a strong pro-taxpayer candidate survey to the National
Taxpayers Union. We like the fact that he escaped from communist Cuba
and knows first hand the importance of limited government -- something
that too few members of Congress seem to appreciate. He also compiled
an admirable record as Secretary of HUD for President George W. Bush,
often showing a backbone. He says that having overseen the agency, he
would like to cut many of the corrupt programs at HUD. Amen, to that.
How about getting rid of the whole agency?

One worry about Martinez is his trial lawyer background. However, he
says that he favors tort reform.

His opponent is awful. Betty Castor is about as left wing as they come
on economics, which explains why she has the enthusiastic backing of a
who’s who of the nation’s liberal groups, including Emily’s List and
MoveOn.Org. We don’t need another Hillary Clinton or Barbara Boxer in
the Senate—which is exactly what she would be.

To donate to this campaign right now, click on the link below:
https://www.clubforgrowth.org/c-d/index.php?m_id=12538&ea=bjpo&cs=8,11,20,23,24,25,27


Richard Burr, North Carolina Race Rating: Toss up.

Congressman Richard Burr is running for this open seat created by the
vice presidential run of Sen. John Edwards. He faces former Clinton
chief of staff, Erskine Bowles, who lost two years ago to Elizabeth Dole.

Burr has compiled an average record for a House Republican. He is
solid on tax cutting, making the Bush tax cuts permanent, and advocates a
flat tax or consumption tax along with Social Security personal
accounts.

The problem is that Erskine Bowles is pumping millions of dollars into
this race and current polls show him with a lead, but in recent weeks
that lead has been shrinking. The race leans slightly Democrat, but
Burr definitely has a shot of picking up an extra seat for the GOP.

To donate to this campaign right now, click on the link below:
https://www.clubforgrowth.org/c-d/index.php?m_id=12538&ea=bjpo&cs=8,11,20,23,24,25,27


The Other Senate Races…

If you’d like to read about our “C” candidates, and be kept abreast on
ALL of our endorsements (including House races), log into the MEMBERS
ONLY section of the Club’s website, www.ClubForGrowth.org. We will be
making updates right up until Election Day on November 2:


Best,

Steve

QUOTE OF THE WEEK

“When your opponent is in the middle of committing suicide, don’t interfere.” - GOP Supergenius Lee Atwater


Seems also applicable as the BC04 official motto

WITH CUNNING INSIGHT & HUMOROUS PROSE - BROOKS NAILS IT

Kerry's Cast of Thousands
By DAVID BROOKS
September 18, 2004
dabrooks@nytimes.com


Across the wine-dark sea they come, honing Kerry's message. They come from Harvard, K Street and the studios of CNN. "Once more into the breach!" they cry, as they join the conference call of thousands.

Look at them, these great, unhuddled masses, yearning to wear White House badges. They are consultants, flacks, spinners, strategists, Knights of the Palm lunch table. And yet they come as one, from all corners of the Democratic world, to figure out what John Kerry, age 60, should believe and say.

Into the valley of hope ride the 600, the inner ring of Kerry confidants. A year ago, there was just a small and hearty band. There was the campaign manager Jim Jordan. There was Gibbs, Cherny and Mellman. But under their reign, the message was not honed. The candidate did flounder. The quest for a Kerry conviction was not fulfilled.

And so the great accretion began. The call went out to pollsters, wonks and wandering wordsmiths to come gather and fill the void of Kerry's core. Brave souls emerged from the Land of Ted - the Kennedy brigades led by Cahill and Cutter are now abetting the mighty Shrum.

Boldly they rode and well, into the morass of Kerry's mind. Through the thicket of equivocations they ventured, across the paradoxical plains of Kerry's prose - all in the quest for a conviction.

Policy committees gathered. Of domestic policy councils there were 37. Of foreign policy councils, 27.

And in each of these councils resided faculties and think-tankers by the score. On the justice policy task force there were 195 members, lawyers brave and strong. On the economic council, more than 200 economists did search for a conclusion. When these groups did meet, so long was the line of approaching Volvos that it was visible from outer space.

Yet still the message was not honed. King Kerry still did equivocate, hedge and reverse. Of flip-flops there were more than a few. He still did Velcro his principles upon the cathedral door, and change them by the hour.

The apparatus grew again. Elmendorf from the Land of Gephardt was hired, along with Lackey from the House of Edwards. Teams of de-equivocators gathered. And still the fog spread.

And so the age of nymphomottomania did begin. Suddenly it was realized what was missing. A theme! A slogan! The muses were mobilized to find that motto, which would give shape and precision to the cause. Over the weeks "A Better Set of Choices" begat "Safer, Stronger and More Secure," which begat "The Real Deal," which begat "Change Starts Here," which begat "Let America Be America Again," which begat "Hope Is on the Way."

Night and day the serial sloganators did work. And the seasons did turn and the conventions did come and go. Kerry's speeches were shortened, and parts of his life were edited out of his story (adulthood, for example). And yet there was still wailing in the House of Kerry for the message was still unhoned.

Kerry himself pinpointed the problem. Of advisers, there were not enough! So this month yet more were brought in, mostly from the camp of Clinton. There is McCurry, Lockhart, Carville and Begala. There is Greenberg and Wolfson.

And so it came to pass there are no swing voters left, because they've all been hired by campaign Kerry. They form a great and mighty leviathan, dedicated to the proposition that John Kerry should believe in something. The flow chart is as clear as can be. Sasso reports to Lockhart, Devine, Sosnick, Cutter and Cahill, while Cutter reports to Devine, Mellman, McCurry, Shrum and herself - except on weekends, when Devine reports to Mellman and Sosnick and Cahill reports to McCurry and Sasso. Lockhart handles strategic response, McCurry daily response, Cutter tactical response and Cahill metaresponse.

Vast is the empire crafting Kerry's creed. Immense is the army of Michelangelos trying to sculpture the melted marshmallow of Kerry's core. And the seasons do turn and the polls do shift and the rending of garments gives way to the sunshine of hope and back again.

And tumultuous is the cry of the strategists, and loud are the furies of the campaign, but in the center there is a silence. For in the beginning all was vacuum and a void, and while all the king's horses and all the king's men do build this grand and mighty structure, the sound of their hammers echoes limitlessly in the hollow within.

NOBODY LIKES HIM

By DICK MORRIS

September 15, 2004 -- JOHN Kerry is in deeper trouble than the polls indicate. While the Fox News survey taken last week after the Republican convention shows Bush with a small lead over Kerry, the internal data indicates big shifts against the Democrat.

For example, Kerry is now seen unfavorably by a record 44 percent of the voters (his personal worst), giving him a slightly higher unfavorable ratio than Bush — whom 43 percent dislike. (Bush's edge comes from the fact that he gets 51 percent to rate him favorably, while Kerry has only a 46 percent favorable rating.)

But worse, the poll shows that Kerry must face a basic problem: His own voters don't like him very much.

The Fox News poll asked Kerry supporters if their vote for the Democrat could best be described as motivated by support for Kerry (41 percent) or by opposition to Bush (51 percent). By contrast, Bush voters emphatically say, by 82-13, that they are voting for the president rather than against the challenger.

This puts Kerry in a tough position in the coming debates. He has no real base of support and any attenuation of the dislike his voters feel for Bush will weaken him substantially. All Bush has to do is to persuade a few Kerry voters to stop disliking him, and he can get their votes. There is no residual affection for the Democrat to get in the way of their switching to the president.

The polls already have shown how Kerry's own voters break almost evenly on the issues, with half supporting the war in Iraq and half opposing it, and almost equal numbers saying we must stay the course as say we should bring the troops home.

So Kerry can't use issues to hold his own in the debates: Whatever he says will antagonize some of his base. And now it's plain that he can't rely on personal popularity to hold them, since most are just voting against Bush.

If the president gives an even moderately effective presentation and comes across as even somewhat likeable, he can cut deeply into Kerry's vote.

In addition, the poll shows that there has been a shift in the issues on which voters are focused. Those who identify terrorism or homeland security as key issues has risen from 7 percent before the convention to 22 percent afterward, and issues such as taxes and gay marriage, which did not make the polls before, now draw 4 percent each who feel they are the most important issue before the nation.

Asked which is more important in their votes, national security or the nation's economy, voters split 45-38 for security — a clear Bush win.

The electorate remains sharply divided in its loyalties based on voters' perception of the most important issue. Of those who see security as key, Bush wins by 68-28, while Kerry triumphs among those who focus most on the economy by 56-19.

Underscoring Kerry's popularity problems, voters rate Bush better on a host of adjectives. Who is the stronger leader? Bush, by 51-37. Who is more honest and trustworthy? Bush, 42-37. Who will make the United States a stronger country? Bush, 46-40. Who takes strong stands and sticks with them? Bush, 56-27.

Kerry only wins "Who understands the average American better?" — and by only 43-36.

Kerry never had time to make America like him. He won the nomination before anyone really got to know him and has coasted on anti-Bush campaigning ever since. Even now, he relies on the old National Guard records of Bush to animate his campaign, as if we are about to form our judgment of how Bush would be as a commander based on 30-year- old, possibly forged records rather than on our own observation of how he has done the job. But Kerry has got to close the most fundamental gap of his candidacy: Voters don't like him very much.

If Morris is right, ya, Kerry's done!

John Kerry, Lazy Diner-Waiter

Everytime Kerry opens his mouth and spews out something about multilateralism and the war in Iraq, I can't help but think of a really lazy waiter. Kerry is the lazy waiter who doesn't know the house special, maybe a special entree that is somehow different from the normal house variety, but didn't bother to learn what's different about it. Despite not bothering to learn the difference, he is still going to recommend it because somewhere inside of him he thinks that is his job. Kerry's vagueness in interview questions on Iraq ( and as he will surely respond in the debates) are the lazy waiter's responses to questions from me, the happy diner.

This post was going to contain some sample dialogue, but then I decided that everyone knows what a lazy waiter is and will think of it next time Kerry speaks. He just states over and over again that he will do a better job and will not alienate the world. This is great for staying on message, but it's scary because he doesn't have a clue how he is going to kill terrorists. I follow the news fairly well, yet have not heard a concrete policy difference or strategy Kerry would embrace to win the peace in Iraq. Like the lazy waiter, he pushes the concept but is lost on the details. (BTW, feel free to use this simile yourself sometime soon)

MR TIMUS - FORESEER OF EVENTS

From John Fund's Political Diary



When in Doubt, Blame Karl Rove

The widow and son of the late Lt. Col Jerry Killian both say they don't believe the documents CBS News used to claim George W. Bush failed to meet performance standards during his Vietnam-era service in the Texas Air National Guard are genuine.

For now, CBS is standing by its claim that the documents are from Lt. Col. Killian's files and that it consulted "a handwriting analyst and document expert who believes the material is authentic." But CBS won't reveal the name of the expert and the network's claims are challenged by several other experts who say it is almost certain the documents were generated by a computer that wouldn't have been in use in 1972.

But CBS has begun an internal investigation after reports surfaced from inside CBS that the documents may have been brought to the network's attention by Democratic National Committee opposition researchers. Today, the network also trimmed back its statements to rival news organizations about how "convinced" CBS is of the documents' authenticity. If the documents indeed turn out to be fakes, it won't be the first time CBS has been snookered by partisans in a presidential race.

In 1992, Bill Clinton's presidential campaign was nearly ended when tapes between the Arkansas governor and cabaret singer Gennifer Flowers were released. At the time, KCBS, the network's owned-and-operated affiliate in Los Angeles, took the tape and submitted it to private detective and forensic tape expert Anthony Pellicano for analysis. Mr. Pellicano's conclusions that the tapes were "misleading" and "not credible" played a role in Mr. Clinton surviving the controversy.

Only later was it learned that Mr. Pellicano had no formal training in evaluating tapes and was at the time being paid by Democratic sources to squelch "bimbo eruptions" surrounding Mr. Clinton. In other words, Mr. Clinton's own private eye was able to discredit one of the most damaging eruptions that preceded Monica Lewinsky. In his own memoirs published this year, Mr. Clinton confessed to the Flowers affair, contradicting his fierce denials at the time.

Years later, Mr. Pellicano did demonstrate facility with tapes when police investigating threats made against Los Angeles Times reporter Anita Busch uncovered evidence that Mr. Pellicano had been involved and had also illegally wiretapped her conversations. Mr. Pellicano is now serving a 2 1/2 year federal prison term for possessing firearms and explosives. A federal grand jury is still investigating allegations that he wiretapped Hollywood celebrities. CBS would be wise to conclude its internal investigation quickly. If it results in bad news, it should cut its losses immediately.

Meanwhile, former Clinton and Gore operative Chris Lehane, an acknowledged master of the black arts of opposition research, is already making the rounds on television hinting that Karl Rove could have planted fake National Guard documents to embarrass Democrats. If CBS is offered that scoop, my advice is simple: Don't take it, no matter how many documents with Karl Rove's signature you are shown.

LET THE SLIMING BEGIN!

This is the time of year that slime starts to get slung at candidates…it’ll start as a trickle, and as we get closer to election day, and as more and more voters begin paying attention to things other than forgeries, swift boats, flip-flops, and society ownership, the slime at the lower levels will be slung in larger and larger amounts.

This year, in California, the new fad is low-budget websites.

Within just the past week, we’ve seen the creation and launch of:

Nicoleparra.com

Whoisdeangardner.com

And

Youjudgewapner.com

From an effectiveness level, these sites only work when they get reported on. The Parra people were smart to link whoisdeangardner on rtumble.com. The average voter probably wont see the site, but if the research is good, and the site is properly leaked to the press, the dissemination of oppo can be done without a campaign’s fingerprints being directly attached.

This is kind of scary though because as accountability diminishes, outlandishness increases. Evidence the anti-Wapner site, where nothing but personal attacks are leveled. It is no secret that Wapner has a sizable oppo file on him, filled with not-so-good stuff, but when largely-anonymous charges can be leveled, and no one is held responsible, you can expect that they will continue and slowly be the home of all the personal charges an oppo firm can find.

I’ll keep on this – as I’m sure 3 sites I a week don’t pop up out of coincidence.

MassDebate

It would be awesome to see Cheney, Edwards and Camejo debate on primetime. I'd be less excited to see Bush, Kerry and Nader debate, mostly because I don't think any of them make for interesting t.v. But I like Cheney's style and Edwards would look childish next to him. And Camejo would be there to steal hippie votes from Kerry and to say ridiculous things that make good t.v. This would be a very watchable event and would benefit the Bush Cheney camp enormously.