Odds and Ends

In 1998 writer Toni Morrison declared Bill Clinton to be America's first Black President, so I suppose its no great stretch for my colleague Professor Schaff to anoint President Bush as America's first Catholic President.  All I know for sure that is that Bush is in no danger of being declared our first Mayan President.  From the Washington Post:

Mayan priests will purify a sacred archaeological site to eliminate "bad spirits" after President Bush visits next week, an official with close ties to the group said Thursday.

"That a person like (Bush), with the persecution of our migrant brothers in the United States, with the wars he has provoked, is going to walk in our sacred lands, is an offense for the Mayan people and their culture," Juan Tiney, the director of a Mayan nongovernmental organization with close ties to Mayan religious and political leaders, said Thursday.

Rumor has it that the Mayan Priest brought the affair to a stand still when he accidently conjured up candidate Dennis Kucinich, who is competing to be America's first Mayan Diety President. 

Nor is Bush in any danger of being declared America's first Latin American Socialist President.

Above are fans of Bush in Brazil.  That, or a bunch of Daily KOS regulars.  It's hard to tell which. 

Is George W. Bush Our First Authentic Catholic President?

Joe Knippenberg thinks so.  I have long thought that after reading Bush's 2001 speeches at Notre Dame and the John Paul II Cultural Center that Bush has a Catholic soul, so to speak.  Unfortunately, September 11 took Bush off of this intriguing course of action that I think was his real passion and made him into a war president, a role he was ill prepared to play. 

Less Than Meets The Eye

Lawyer Epp jumps on the bandwagon, attempting to make hay out of a recent story regarding FBI actions under the aegis of the Patriot Act.  But my colleague Mr. Heppler is on the case.  I wish the average person would appreciate just how much power the permanent bureaucracy has and just how danged inefficient it is.  These stories regarding FBI misuse of Patriot Act powers almost certainly stem from career officials being sloppy in record keeping rather than an attempt to fool Congress or undermine civil liberties.  This kind of incompetence is something no administration could possibly ferret out.  We have around two million civilian federal employees spending around $2.8 trillion dollars with enormous amounts of red tape and duplication and then we wonder why, for example, veterans get bad health care from the government or why the FBI is so sloppy in its use of the Patriot Act. 

Very Deep Underground

Mike Rounds and crew wooed the NSF folks against yesterday attempting to get Homestake Mine approved as a new underground research lab.  Didn't we spend less time and effort planning the Normandy invasion than picking the site of this danged laboratory? 

Taking The Leap

I have joined the photo bloggers over at SD Photo Repository.  Check out the cool new site. 

SD Blogosphere Photo Repository

PP of SDWC has put together a new blog entitled the South Dakota Blogosphere Photo Repository.  Head over, check it out, and contribute often.

Shifting Political Winds

Power Line:  "Political Winds Shifting On Iraq?"

FBI

Instapundit:

MY EARLY WARNINGS about the Patriot Act seem to have borne at least some fruit, though I'll confess that things don't seem to have been as bad as I feared. Still, this is troubling:

The FBI improperly and, in some cases, illegally used the USA Patriot Act to secretly obtain personal information about people in the United States, a Justice Department audit concluded Friday.

And for three years the FBI has underreported to Congress how often it forced businesses to turn over the customer data, the audit found.

FBI agents sometimes demanded the data without proper authorization, according to the 126-page audit by Justice Department Inspector General Glenn A. Fine. At other times, the audit found, the FBI improperly obtained telephone records in non-emergency circumstances.

The audit blames agent error and shoddy record-keeping for the bulk of the problems and did not find any indication of criminal misconduct.

Still, "we believe the improper or illegal uses we found involve serious misuses of national security letter authorities," the audit concludes.

Read the whole thing.

UPDATE:  At the Counterterrorism Blog, this is called "troubling and inexcusable," but there's also this:

The problems identified by the IG are problems of process in terms of recordkeeping and reporting, which are administrative. The process in terms of operation and use of the information has not been problematic. The IG found no deliberate or intentional misuse of authority, meaning there were no infringements on privacy rights or civil liberties. Even though recordkeeping and reporting was inadequate, actual use of information was appropriate.

That's an important point.

The Unbearable Lightness of John Edwards

Hat tip to Powerline: Daily KOS orders Democratic contenders to skip a debate co-hosted by Fox News, and John Edwards says Sir! Yes Sir! 

Here is a KOSack memo to ABCNews:

In an email to ABC News, Markos Moulitsas explained the reason for his campaign:

"Rank and file Democrats have spent the past decade fighting Fox News' lies and distortions, with increasing success. The network is the Republican Party's premiere propaganda arm, and already we've seen it, this presidential cycle, fuel smears against Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama while providing Ann Coulter with sanctuary after her hateful remarks against John Edwards.

"Fox News doesn't deserve any validation as a "serious" news outlet because it's not an unbiased network. Any Democrat that goes on the network validates every single smear it launches against Democrats.

Fox News leans conservative, to be sure, just as the AP and pretty much every other news outlet leans liberal.  But Fox bias is moderate at worst, and it is ludicrous to argue that they are not a "serious" outlet.  Moulitsas' position in fact amounts to this: any news outlet that we do not approve of is therefore not legitimate.  It is not wonder that Edwards endorsed this position.  It remains to be seen whether the rest of the Democratic field will do likewise.

 

Michael Yon

Check out Michael Yon's latest dispatch from Iraq.

Libby

Charles Krauthammer expresses my sentiments exactly: Pardon him.  "Him" is Scooter Libby, former Chief of Staff to VPOTUS Dick Cheney.  Libby, as you no doubt know, was convicted this week of obstructing justice in prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald's attempt to find out who leaked Valarie Plame's name to the press.  But early in the investigation, Fitzgerald concluded it was not a crime to reveal Plame's status as a CIA employee as she did not have covert status.  Yet even though there was no crime, Fitzgerald kept investigating.  Of course we all know now that it was Richard Armigtage who first leaked the name.  But Scooter Libby got his dates wrong when talking to the prosecutor, so now he faces jail time.  I think Krauthammer puts it well:

There are lies and there are memory lapses. Bill Clinton denied under oath having sex with Monica Lewinsky. Unless you're Wilt Chamberlain, sex is not the kind of thing that you forget easily. Sandy Berger denied stuffing classified documents in his pants, an act not quite as elaborate as sex, but still involving a lot of muscle memory, and unlikely to have been honestly forgotten.

Scooter Libby has just been convicted for four felonies that could theoretically give him 25 years in jail for ... what? Misstating when he first heard a certain piece of information, namely the identity of Joe Wilson's wife.

As they say, read the whole thing. 

Media Whore Alert

I will be on KBHB, 810 on your AM dial, tomorrow at Noon Central Time, 11:00am Mountain Time.  KBHB emanates out of Sturgis.  I am talking about global warming and carbon taxation.

Update: My appearance has been scheduled for 12:40 Central.  Tune it if you are bored by the college basketball tournaments. 

Give Me Land, Lots Of Land

Having just returned from a trip out west, I can say this: Anyone who thinks overpopulation in a problem has never driven across Idaho, Montana, North Dakota and South Dakota.  Montana reminds me of what Willa Cather once wrote about Nebraska, "All day long, it was still Nebraska." 

Political Discourse

Peggy Noonan:  "Fifty years ago, no one speaking at a respected political gathering would say, would even think of saying that Adlai Stevenson is a faggot. Nor would Arthur Godfrey or Jack Paar have declared on their television shows that we'd be better off if Eisenhower died. Is our discourse deteriorating? Yes, it is."

Six Degrees of Tom Daschle

From the Washington Post:

Follow the WaPo link or click to enlarge.

Missing Man Turns Up

As the Aussies would say, he went walkabout.  From the American News:

The Grenville man who has been missing for two weeks was located out-of-state late Wednesday night, Day County Sheriff Barry Hillestad said.

Hillestad said Patrick Kulesa, 41, contacted his family at about 9:48 p.m. Wednesday by telephone. Hillestad confirmed the man who contacted the family was Kulesa at about 10 p.m. He did so by calling and speaking to Kulesa himself, Hillestad said.

"Patrick Kulesa is safe and is currently undergoing a medical evaluation," Hillestad said.  Hillestad said it appears Kulesa left under his own power.

I have to say I am not surprised.  When you can't find someone's ass and elbows, well, he's probably face down in water or in a shallow grave.  When you can't find his car either, he's probably in California. 

Hearing "Voices"

South Dakota War College, by far the better blog on South Dakota politics, draws our attention to the Argus Leader blog, "Voices."  I am immediately inclined to a favorable opinion of this blog, on the grounds that they include SDP in their blogroll.  My initial impression is that it is a pretty good blog on regional politics.  It is a good mix of specific comments with vivid images, a lot like SDP.  Welcome to the regional blogosphere, I say. 

SDWC notes the most recent Voices post, where Patrick Lalley explains why Sibby isn't included on the Argus blogroll.  Here is Lalley's explanation:

Sibby went on at length the other day about me personally. Having grown up in the North End, that kind of thing doesn’t bother me much.

The blogosphere is a rough and tumble place and I often see things on both sides that I believe the author should rethink. And perhaps people think that of me as well, I don’t know.

But calling three moderate Republicans “Satan’s gift to the Democrat Party” – and mean it – steps over the line and reinforces why, beyond the link above, Sibby will get no credit here.

Now I have nothing against Sibson's blog.  It's tone is quite different from SDP, but the whole point of the blogosphere is to allow the full range of political expression.  But it is perfectly reasonable for Voices to exclude from its roll those blogs that its administrators find outside the bounds of civilized discourse.  I notice that the Northern Valley Beacon is not included on their blogroll either.  So one cheer for consistency. 

The SDP blogroll is notoriously unattended.  I think Todd Epp's site should be on it, but I have been too lazy to insist.  We have paid a lot of attention to NVB, and if we have not given Sibby his due, its because we figure that's Chad Shulte's business. 

Hagel for President?

The Washington Post:

Speculation ran rampant today about just what Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) will announce during a planned news conference early next week.

Hagel's options include a bid for the 2008 presidential nomination as either a Republican or an independent, a re-election race to the seat he has held since 1996 or retirement from elected office.

Most Republican observers believe that Hagel will announce a bid for the Republican presidential nomination on Monday in Omaha, but warn that he largely keeps his own counsel, making it difficult to predict his plans.

House Liberals Cause Problems for Herseth

This AP report discusses how House liberals are giving Rep. Herseth problems:

Billions of dollars in agricultural disaster aid are tangled up in House legislation that would withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq by next year, creating a dilemma for some farm-state members of Congress.

House Democratic leaders said Thursday that they will push legislation to set a deadline of Sept. 1, 2008, for the withdrawal of U.S. combat troops from Iraq. That is expected to be part of a larger war spending bill that also would include about $4 billion for farmers who have suffered weather-related losses.

...

Rep. Stephanie Herseth, D-S.D., was less forthcoming about the Iraq resolution but has long supported the disaster relief. She said she has not yet decided how she will vote, but told reporters Thursday that Democratic leadership is "on the right path to effectively threading this needle."

Some liberal Democrats are reluctant to vote for more war funding. And President Bush has said he will veto House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's plan if it doesn't significantly change.

Hildebrand

The Hill discusses "Steve Hildebrand, the famed political operative" in a new article about the Obama campaign's financial woes.  Hildebrand, remember, was Daschle's campaign manager in 2004.  Also recall that several former Daschle staffers are working for Obama.

Reinforcements

Iraq the Model notes this OpinionJournal piece about signs of progress, while slow, that are emerging in Baghdad:

The new strategy to secure Baghdad has been dubbed by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki as “Operation Imposing the Law.” After weeks of waiting and anxiety it is finally under way, and early signs are encouraging.

One difference between this and earlier–failed–attempts to secure Baghdad is the willingness of the Iraqi and U.S. governments to commit enough resources for enough time to make it work. Another important point is the insistence of the Iraqi government that political factions not interfere with the progress of military action. The commanders and the prime minister have made it clear that no one will be above the law, and that even places of worship and the offices of politicians will be subject to searches and raids if evidence of involvement in violence is found.

The Iraqi commanders are also trying to give the operation a national stamp by including troops from across the country–even from Kurdistan and far provinces like Basra, where politicians and officers have been long opposed to being involved in Baghdad. Yet another aspect that makes “Imposing Law” unique is its ascending intensity. Unlike other operations that always started from a peak and soon lost momentum, this plan is becoming stricter and gaining momentum by the day as more troops pour into the city, allowing for a better implementation of the “clear and hold” strategy. People here always want the “hold” part to materialize, and feel safe when they go out and find the Army and police maintaining their posts–the bad guys can’t intimidate as long as the troops are staying.

The Iraqi people themselves are playing their role in the plan. Recent figures from U.S. officers in Baghdad show that the joint forces have been receiving an average of 250 security tips from civilians since the beginning of the operation, about twice previous figures. With help from a government-appointed committee, people in some Baghdad neighborhoods are returning occupied mosques to their original keepers and worshippers, and holding joint prayers between the two sects in mixed neighborhoods.

So after only a couple weeks we can feel, despite the continuing violence, that much has been accomplished. Many Baghdadis feel hopeful again about the future, and the fear of civil war is slowly being replaced by optimism that peace might one day return to this city. This change in mood is something huge by itself.

Our people want to see this effort succeed. We know it’s not going to be an easy fight. Rescuing all of Baghdad’s districts from the grip of militants and terrorists will require sacrifice and hard work. We hope the troops and the governments in Baghdad and America do not lose their resolve.

Of course, we should remain cautiously optimistic about the surge, but you cannot ignore the early signs.  John Hinderaker of Power Line has noted the sharp decline of victims to sectarian violence.  Iraqi security forces are taking tactical control of the Baghdad surge, known as Operation Fard al-Qanun.  This development will make the local population more inclined to cooperate in the efforts against terrorists.  Finally, U.S. forces have initiated "clearing operations" in Sadr City, the stronghold of the Shia militias, and have met no resistance by the residents.

Meanwhile, the Democrats are busy trying to get us out of Iraq.  They want to add a requirement to the upcoming appropriation bill for Iraq and Afghanistan that all combat troops be removed from Iraq by September 2008.  Looking at their plan, I don't see how it will be any more effective that the two other plans they've floated (the meaningless resolution and the slow-bleed strategy) and had blow up in their faces.  Republicans are too solidly against plans to pull out and Democrats too split within their ranks for this to really go anywhere.  And even if it managed to make its way through the Senate, the White House has threatened to veto it.

UPDATE:  Related thoughts from Ed Morrissey.

Car Seats and Moderation Make the Rounds

My friend Chad and I agree on something, I think.  Governor Round's veto of the mandatory child seat bill.  Here is the story, from the Argus Leader:

Gov. Mike Rounds vetoed a bill Wednesday that would have required some older children to be in booster seats while riding in vehicles.

Rounds said the bill "proposes to criminalize the failure to place children between 5 and 8 weighing less than 80 pounds in a booster seat."

He said he has an initiative that encourages parents to use booster seats for "appropriate children," but he told lawmakers in his veto message, "I do not believe mandating and criminalizing their conduct is good public policy."

He said compliance with the law might be nearly impossible in some instances.

"Parents with large families and neighbors dropping children off at school come immediately to mind," Rounds wrote. "I will not force South Dakota citizens to weigh their passengers before deciding whether to transport them to the movies. How can a law enforcement officer enforce this law? Are we going to provide scales to law enforcement to weigh each child before writing a warning ticket? Are we going to require children to carry identification or a birth certificate to prove their age?"

His message ended, "Sometimes, good advice does not make good law."

That last line is a piece of rhetoric.  I raised two children.  From birth until they were too large to fit, neither of them ever rode in our car without being in a car seat.  When I was in Lamaze classes, I heard a story about a couple of woman who were in a wreck in Germany.  I believe they were military wives.  As they were putting them into an ambulance, one of them came to enough to whisper: "where is my baby."  The rescuers returned to search the vehicle, but there was no sign of the child.  They found the car seat about a hundred yards from the wreck.  It was upside down.  The baby was comfortably nestled in her web of belts and blankets, fast asleep.  That was good enough for me.

But just because the booster seat is a good idea, doesn't mean it's a good idea to make them mandatory.  There are too many exceptions, as the Governor points out, and besides, this is still a judgment call.  Booster seats, like seat belts, increase marginal safety.  On questions like this,  maybe we should let parents raise their own children.

The Libby Verdict and Double Standards

A general consensus has formed among conservatives about the Lewis "Scouter" Libby verdict.  It consists of the following propositions:

1.  Libby almost certainly did lie to a Federal grand jury and others investigating the Valerie Plame matter; and

2.  That investigation ought never have been authorized in the first place. 

Both seem to me to be correct.  The only debatable matter on the right is whether the second proposition mitigates the first.  If Libby was the victim of an investigation without a crime, and if the investigators knew there was no crime and were merely using the investigation as a fishing expedition (which they did and they were), is Libby really guilty of anything?

Here is Mark Davis at Real Clear Politics:

For nearly a decade, I have delivered a stern lecture to anyone whining about the 1990s quest to determine whether President Bill Clinton and his wife were criminals.

Impeachment "was all about the sex," their protectors would cry - and still do. In the Whitewater matter, questions lingered for years over whether James and Susan McDougal received favorable regulatory treatment in a business deal with the Clintons in Arkansas.

"So what?" came the reply from those willing to forgive in advance when their heroes were questioned.

 

Here's the "so what." As I've said for all of the intervening years, lying matters. Even if one was not impressed by the gravity of the Paula Jones lawsuit or an Arkansas land deal, good citizenship requires us to care when people lie to investigating authorities, even if it means facing some unpleasantness about those we admire [my emphasis].

Yes.  I thought that the Supreme Court was wrong to overrule Federal District Court Judge Susan Webber Wright.  Judge Wright had determined that a trial could not be held while Bill Clinton was in office, though she did say that discovery could go ahead.  That seemed to me to strike the right balance between the rights of Ms. Jones and the national importance of the office of the Presidency.  But she was overruled, and the consequences were that most of President Clinton's second term was taken up with the most sordid distractions. 

I also think that Judge Wright was right to dismiss Ms. Jones lawsuit  in 1998 (that sentence sounds like an e. e. cummings poem!).  I never thought that it had much substance.  But none of this excuses Bill Clinton's lies before a grand jury.  Lying under oath matters. 

Roll Call on Johnson

From today's edition of Roll Call:

Sen. Tim Johnson's (D-S.D.) slow but steady recovery from a stroke has done no apparent political damage to his 2008 re-election hopes. But it has hamstrung Republican efforts to recruit a top-tier challenger and put a severe damper on GOP fundraising for what was expected to be one of the marquee races of the 2008 cycle.

Republicans have been leery of launching even the mildest rhetorical attack against Johnson since he was hospitalized Dec. 13, and they acknowledge that his illness temporarily has frozen any effort to oust him. Meanwhile, Johnson, with the help of fellow Senate Democrats, has continued to build his war chest, and in light of a healthy prognosis by doctors, recently reignited his campaign operation.

"Make no mistake, it does handicap Republican candidates," said potential Johnson challenger Dusty Johnson (R), the elected chairman of the South Dakota Public Utilities Commission, who is not related to the Senator. "Politically, things are very much on hold."

Dusty Johnson's dilemma is a near perfect example of the uncomfortable situation Sen. Johnson's illness has put Republicans in as they try to prepare for what should be one of their best Senate pickup opportunities of the 2008 cycle.

After popular Gov. Mike Rounds (R), Dusty Johnson is one of the first individuals mentioned when Republican operatives list potential candidates who could give Sen. Johnson a serious challenge. But Dusty Johnson is deferring to Rounds, who, in turn, appears to be holding off a formal decision on running pending a clearer picture of Sen. Johnson's plans.

Both Democratic and Republican observers of South Dakota politics believe Rounds, elected to a second term in November, would run only if Johnson retires.

National Republican Senatorial Committee Chairman John Ensign (Nev.), referring to Rounds as his first choice to either challenge Sen. Johnson or run for an open seat, acknowledged that Sen. Johnson's illness momentarily has disabled Republican plans to target him. Meanwhile, Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) recently formed a joint fundraising committee with Sen. Johnson, with the Senator's other colleagues also pitching in on that front.

"That was one of our top chances for a pickup and still remains one of our top chances for a pickup," Ensign said, before adding: "It's delicate. It's delicate right now, and so you have to be sensitive to, you know, the personal needs of that family."

Sen. Johnson, 60, is now out of the hospital and in a private rehabilitation facility. He is meeting regularly with his chief of staff and hiring campaign aides. Johnson spokeswoman Julianne Fisher, who stated in January that the Senator's political future is on hold, said Tuesday that his re-election effort is now moving forward.

But for Republicans, the waiting game continues, in large part because it still remains politically unseemly to target the Democratic incumbent, particularly in South Dakota.

South Dakota is a small state, where everybody tends to know everybody and civility in political campaigns still reigns despite the hard-fought nature of Senate races in 2002 and 2004, respectively, that saw now-Sen. John Thune (R) barely lose to Sen. Johnson before beating then-Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D) by a hair two years later.

In fact, Dusty Johnson, 30, though clearly a partisan Republican who served in the Rounds administration and credits the governor for being an invaluable supporter, described himself as a former classmate and personal friend of Sen. Johnson's son, Brendan. These kinds of cross-party personal relationships exist throughout the state and have motivated many Republicans to stay silent on next year's race, other than to highlight their wish that Sen. Johnson make a full recovery.

"I'm always more than a little uncomfortable thinking about my political future when the future health of Sen. Johnson is still in question," Dusty Johnson said. "We all respect him a great deal. Whether Republicans or Democrats, most South Dakotans have probably voted for him at some point, at least once or twice."

South Dakota leans Republican -- even more so in presidential years, giving the Senate GOP a rare opportunity to go on the offensive in a year that finds the party defending 21 seats, compared with just 12 for the Democrats. But Johnson, who is relatively popular and closed 2006 with $629,000 in cash on hand, already was well positioned to wage a tough re-election race before his illness indefinitely delayed the Republican effort.

Ensign, though acknowledging that major moves to target Johnson remain grounded, insisted in an interview late last week that Republicans are doing as much as they can within the bounds of what is acceptable politically. To prepare for Johnson's presumed recovery, the NRSC is trying to woo Rounds into the race, while talking with other candidates seen as viable challengers.

But while Ensign emphasized that the NRSC is doing what it can, South Dakota Republicans stressed that there is little appetite to engage in any political activity for the Senate race absent a full recovery by Johnson or a decision by him to forgo re-election.

"It puts us in an awkward position," said one Republican operative in South Dakota. "It's hard to pick on the sick guy."

Besides Rounds and Dusty Johnson, potential candidates on the NRSC's radar include Sioux Falls businessman and former Lt. Gov. Steve Kirby, who is close to Thune and seen as someone who potentially could bankroll his own campaign; state Senate Majority Leader Dave Knudson; and current Lt. Gov. Dennis Daugaard.

Should Johnson retire, Rep. Stephanie Herseth, who runs statewide as South Dakota's lone House Member, is seen as likely to replace him as the Democratic Senate candidate, although her office continues to decline to comment on the matter other than to say she looks forward to helping the Senator win in 2008.

Some Republicans believe they may not be able to launch an aggressive campaign for Johnson's seat until late this year but say that does not automatically spell disaster for them in 2008.

These Republicans note that President Bush garnered 60 percent of the vote in South Dakota in 2000 and 2004, giving the GOP a natural advantage there. It is the Democratic candidate, whether Johnson, Herseth or another individual, who stands to suffer in November 2008 by not being able to begin a concerted campaign for the seat early in the cycle, some GOP strategists argue.

"I don't think it's dire yet for Republicans," said one GOP operative with South Dakota experience.

US Attorney

SDWC notes a Slate story about how the current US Attorney controversy in Washington began in South Dakota.

Coulterism on the Left

Patterico:  "A certain intellectual fraud who goes by the name of Glenn Greenwald (as well as a few other names) recently said that leftist hate speech is not uttered by prominent leftist figures, but rather only by anonymous blog comments and e-mailers. . . . This post puts the lie to Greenwald’s ridiculous assertion."

Read the whole thing.

Primaries

This Boston Globe article discusses the plans by various states to move their primaries forward and the impact it has on the electoral process.  Excerpt:

States with more than half the nation's population are zeroing in on Feb. 5 next year to stage their presidential primaries, creating a single day that could determine the major party nominees at a historically early point in the process.

At least 19 states have moved or are considering moving their primaries to the first Tuesday in February -- contests that would follow earlier ones in Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina. If only the 10 largest of the 19 states move their primaries to Feb. 5, more than half the American population will have a chance to go to the polls on the same day, creating a one-day election that would become the prime focus of the campaign.

The trend would mark the biggest change in the presidential nominating process in decades. It would mean that presidential candidates would need to raise massive amounts of money -- at least $100 million before the first vote is cast, according to analysts in both parties -- and may see their chances of success evaporate at a stage when the contenders in past presidential contests were still introducing themselves to American voters.

"It's insane. It's going to be a de facto national primary," said Rich Bond , a GOP consultant and former chairman of the Republican National Committee. "It's going to mean that the candidates with the highest name recognition and the most cash on hand are going to have a huge advantage over the rest of the field."

Both political parties are trying to keep the states from front loading the primary schedule. Republicans in 2004 approved rules to penalize states that hold primaries before Feb. 5 or after July 28, 2008. Democrats have both incentives and punishments to keep states in line.

But state legislatures don't want to be what California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger deemed an "afterthought" in the presidential campaigns, with their primaries held long after the nominees are determined for both parties.

"For the larger states, particularly California and Texas, the primary process has been pretty much over by the time they held their primaries -- it really has made them much less of a player," said Bruce Merrill , a pollster at Arizona State University. "Now, all of a sudden, other states are saying, 'Why shouldn't we get a piece of the action?' "

It's a good article, so be sure to read the whole thing.

Unions

The Economist:

IT IS not a happy time to be a union boss in America. Membership dwindled to 12% of the workforce in 2006, down from 12.5% just a year earlier. Private-sector union jobs made up just 7.4% of the total compared with 7.8% in 2005. The strain has told on the labour movement. In 2005 four big unions tried to ease the pain by leaving the AFL-CIO, the unions’ umbrella body, to search for a new, more effective model for organising.

The new Democratic House of Representatives has its answer to the labour movement’s problems: HR 800, the Employee Free Choice Act. The bill, which got through the House at the beginning of March, will amend the procedures for unionising new facilities. Currently, certifying a union involves a secret ballot after a lengthy campaign period, overseen by the National Labour Relations Board (NLRB). Labour organisers say this is too cumbersome, and gives companies the chance to intimidate workers. If HR 800 becomes law, it would allow for a union to be formed after a sufficient number of workers sign cards opting for it—a method known as “card check”.

Doing away with the secret ballot is a bad way to correct existing abuses. Allowing union organisers to demand that workers choose sides in public opens up numerous possibilities for intimidation. Pro-union employees can use peer pressure to coerce reluctant workers; foot-draggers can be threatened with reprisals if the union is certified. Such tactics are illegal as are those that business uses to hamper unions such as firing organisers or threatening to close a plant, which union organisers allege are rife.

Recall that Rep. Herseth voted for this bill.

The Gore Effect II

I have frequently argued at this site that little can be done about global warming because it will be a cold day in Hawaii before India and China reduce their carbon footprint.  To that list of incorrigible  environmental offenders, add Al "Save the Earth" Gore.  From Real Clear Politics:

Al Gore's movie, "An Inconvenient Truth," was billed as "a passionate and inspirational look at one man's fervent crusade to halt global warming's deadly progress in its tracks by exposing the myths and misconceptions that surround it." But right after the movie won an Oscar for best documentary, America learned that Gore's crusade ends at his front door.

A conservative think-tank, the Tennessee Center for Policy Research, released a press release that showed the Gores spent $30,000 a year on energy for their suburban Nashville home -- and burned 221,000 kilowatt-hours last year, or 20 times the national average. The reaction of Gore's spokesperson is instructive. Kalee Kreider told ABC News' Jake Tapper, "I think what you're seeing here is the last gasp of the global warming skeptics. They've completely lost the debate on the issue, so now they're just attacking their most effective opponent."

Kreider is right, in a way. Gore is the most effective global-warming advocate in America. Yet somehow Gore has little problem doing a lot of the very thing he tells the rest of the country not to do -- that is, burning more energy than is necessary.

If Al ain't cuttin' back, China ain't neither.  But hey, I suppose you gotta keep that oscar warm. 

 

The Liberal Democrat Revolt

John Bresnahan writes on The Politico blog about the coming revolt Speaker Pelosi will have to deal with.  Excerpt:

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) is facing a full-blown revolt from liberal House Democrats over the $98 billion Iraq supplemental bill, according to Democratic insiders. Anywhere between 50 to 75 Democrats are now threatening to vote against the bill because it doesn't go far enough toward ending the war, including setting a date certain for withdrawal of U.S. combat forces from Iraq, said the sources. Pelosi and Democratic leaders are expected to postpone markup of the Iraq bill in the House Appropriations Committee by at least a week in order to buy time to resolve the matter.

Liberals are unhappy with the current proposal being discussed by Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.) and the Democratic leadership, which would prevent President Bush from sending more troops to Iraq unless they are certified as being properly equipped, trained and rested to take on combat missions. After weeks of political attacks from Republicans, Murtha softened his original proposal so that Bush can waive the requirements, although the White House would have to report to Congress why they are issuing such waivers. The Blue Dog Coalition, a group of moderate and conservative Democrats from swing districts, also wanted Murtha to revise his proposal.

But as happens so often in politics, if you move too far in appeasing one group, you then alienate another, which is what's happening here. Liberals Dems now don't want to vote for the Iraq supplemental, with many pointing out to Pelosi and party leaders that they never have voted for one before and aren't about to start doing so now just because Democrats are in the majority. These Democrats also want to offer their own alternative proposal to cut off Iraq funding immediately as an amendment to the supplemental on the House floor, said Democratic leadership aides.

The House Democratic Caucus meets today at noon and Iraq will top the agenda.

Jesus, Mary, and Joseph

Jay Cost at Real Clear Politics has a pretty convincing demolition of the "bones of Jesus" story. 

In 1980 an ancient tomb was found in Talpiot, a Jerusalem neighborhood. It contained 10 ossuaries (bone boxes) dated roughly to the time of Jesus of Nazareth. One was inscribed "Jesus son of Joseph," two were inscribed with slightly different versions of "Mary," one with a slightly different version of "Joseph," one with "Matthew," and one with "Judah son of Jesus." Four bore no inscriptions and which went missing. Last night , Simcha Jacobovici, Charles Pellegrino, and James Cameron presented a Discovery Channel documentary that argues that this tomb belongs to Jesus of Nazareth (henceforth just Jesus), whom Christians believe is the resurrected Son of God.

The documentarians' claim is not valid.  The Cameron-sponsored Jesus Family Tomb proffers a specious claim based upon bad theory, bad statistics, and bad history. A careful examination of their evidence demands that their claim be rejected.

Coulter

Ed Morrissey has "An Open Letter To The ACU And CPAC Sponsors" that has been posted on several conservative blogs involved in drafting the letter.  This is in response to Coulter's idiotic remark over the weekend at CPAC.

Presidential Straw Poll

You no doubt have noticed the new feature on our blog: the Pajamas Media Presidential Straw Poll.  Votes are accepted once a week, and all data is collected for both our "precinct" and blog-wide.  Simply click the "Click to Open Voting Booth" to get started.

Geffen Gave Money to Daschle

See this story from today's LA Times:

As the Clinton presidency neared its end, Geffen also pressed for a favor. He had become a supporter of a campaign to win a presidential pardon for Leonard Peltier, a Native American activist serving a life sentence in the shooting deaths of two FBI agents in 1975 at the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation in South Dakota. Peltier's advocates say he was wrongly convicted.

A pardon was a long shot. Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) was opposed, and more than 500 federal agents and their families protested outside the White House.

According to Geffen associates, DreamWorks corporate spokesman Andy Spahn contacted the White House three times on Peltier's behalf, and Geffen spoke to Clinton about it. Clinton associates recalled only that there were "general contacts." Clinton was "noncommittal," a Geffen intimate said.

When Clinton denied Peltier's petition, Geffen told an aide, "This guy's a politician; you know what they're like."

Geffen's disappointment turned to ire when he learned who did win pardons. They included Marc Rich, a wealthy commodities trader who had fled to Switzerland after he was indicted in 1983 for tax evasion, and convicted Los Angeles drug dealer Carlos Vignali, whose case was pressed by Hugh Rodham, Hillary Clinton's brother.

Several Geffen intimates say he was most angered by a Time magazine article quoting Clinton as telling friends that his denial of the Peltier pardon showed he had not traded pardons for money. "David Geffen will barely talk to me!" Clinton reportedly said.

"That sent him up the wall," an associate said of Geffen. "He had a thing about people who used him to prop themselves up."

Their friendship dissolved overnight. The DreamWorks executive sent a final $800,000 to honor his pledge to the Clinton library, but that was his last stipend. Geffen remained a loyal benefactor to other Democrats, even donating $5,000 to a PAC that aided Daschle, despite his opposition to the Peltier pardon.

Anna Mae Aquash Trial Update

From the Associated Press:

A Canadian man charged with killing American Indian Movement activist Anna Mae Pictou Aquash can remain free at least another few months because his lawyer met a filing deadline.

John Graham is on house arrest in Vancouver, British Columbia, and fighting extradition to South Dakota to stand trial for the 1975 slaying on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation.

At a court hearing in early January, a judge with the British Columbia Court of Appeal granted a request from Graham's lawyer to postpone a hearing on his appeal until May 17.

However, the judge did require Graham's attorney to file paperwork by the end of February outlining why he wants a judicial review of an earlier decision by a judge who ordered him to be committed for extradition.

The document was filed on time, so Graham's freedom will continue until the May hearing, said Lyse Cantin, spokeswoman for Department of Justice in Vancouver.

Had Graham's lawyer not submitted the factum - the U.S. equivalent of a written brief - Graham would have been ordered to turn himself in and had his bail revoked, she said.

After the May hearing, a judge will decide whether the court's decision to extradite Graham will stand, though he could then appeal to the full Canadian Supreme Court, Cantin said.

See this for background information.

Thomas Eagleton

The Washington Post reports that Thomas Eagleton, who was originally chosen by George McGovern as his vice presidential candidate, has passed away.  Excerpt:

Former U.S. Sen. Thomas Eagleton, who resigned as a vice presidential nominee in 1972 after it was revealed he had been hospitalized for depression, died Sunday, according to the office of Sen. Claire McCaskill.

The cause of death was not disclosed. Eagleton, 77, had suffered from a variety of illnesses and ailments in recent years.

"Today Missouri has a hole in its heart," McCaskill said in a statement. "Tom Eagleton managed to be a statesman, an intellectual and a man of the people all at the same time."

Eagleton served in the Senate representing Missouri from December 1968 through January 1987.

He was George McGovern's vice presidential nominee in 1972, but dropped out after it was revealed that he had been hospitalized for psychiatric treatment and had twice undergone electroshock therapy for depression. McGovern chose Sargent Shriver to replace Eagleton and lost to Richard Nixon in the general election.

The Eagleton affair would put immense pressure on McGovern and eventually tarnish his image.  My colleague, Professor Schaff, wrote about the affair in the book George McGovern: A Political Life, a Political Legacy:

McGovern's handling of the Eagleton affair would doom his candidacy.  Soon after he declared himself squarely in Eagleton's corner, opinion polls suggested that Eagleton was dead weight on the ticket.  A Newsweek poll indicated that 17 percent of Democrats and 33 percent of independents were feeling "less friendly" towards the McGovern candidacy because of Eagleton's past illnesses.  As time progressed, it became clear that the subject of Eagleton's competency had immobilized the campaign.  Major newspapers, including the Washington Post and New York Times, editorialized that Eagleton should step down.  Belying his own 1000-percent support statement, McGovern tried to send signals through the press that Eagleton should bow out on his own.  Often "sources close to McGovern" were McGovern himself.  The cadidate now suggested that he would listen to the people on the issue.  With Eagleton away on a campaign swing, McGovern stated, "I'm with Senator Eagleton all the way--until he and I have a chance to talk."  Fund raising at a halt and a majority of his staff in favor of dumping Eagleton, McGovern finally bowed to pressure.  In a meeting in Washington, Eagleton agreed to leave the ticket on 31 July 1972. (pp. 125-126)

McGovern would replace his running mate with Sargent Shriver.  McGovern, who had staked his claim on truth and honesty in politics, was tarnished by the Eagleton affair.  The affair cast the McGovern campaign as unprepared to head the highest office in the United States and, as Prof. Schaff noted, doomed his candidacy.

Giuliani

Instapundit notes a Washington Post story today about the surprising viability of Rudy Giuliani among Republicans, which is surprising to some observers considering his not-so-conservative social views.  Excerpt:

The man who was named Time magazine's "Person of the Year" for his response to the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks is now leading in a slew of national polls. He is testing whether cultural and religious conservatives in the GOP will support a candidate who offers strong leadership on security and terrorism rather than ideological purity on social issues.

"This is the first Republican presidential primary since Sept. 11," said Ed Gillespie, a former Republican National Committee chairman who is neutral in the nominating battle. "Rudy Giuliani is a candidate who can clearly test the proposition that a Republican who is more moderate on social issues can capture the nomination. He's testing it now."

Whit Ayres, a Georgia-based Republican pollster, said he has been struck by the number of conservatives he has encountered who disagree with Giuliani on abortion or gay rights but are still attracted to him as a possible Republican nominee. The issue is whether that appeal can survive a long campaign in which Giuliani's New York record, his position on issues, his three marriages and his complex business dealings will be subjected to withering scrutiny.

"It truly is the question in Republican presidential politics at the moment," Ayres said. "There are a lot of people with a more traditional view who think that his leading in the polls is just a mirage and that he has no real chance. I don't believe that. I think there's more to this than simply name ID. "

Many GOP strategists still question whether Giuliani can survive the scrutiny and develop a message that appeals to voters across the spectrum of Republican conservatism. Based on his speech Friday at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, there are good reasons for doubt. Giuliani highlighted his record as a tax cutter, crime fighter and welfare reformer. But he offered little resembling a traditional conservative agenda for the future, other than saying the United States must remain on offense against terrorism. The speech won a polite but hardly enthusiastic response from the audience of activists.

Still, the former mayor's decision to show up at a conference that the other leading candidate for the nomination, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), skipped may earn some goodwill with an audience not predisposed to support him.

His strength in recent national polls and some state polls has already prompted many strategists, including some in rival camps, to reexamine their long-held assumptions about a party that is approaching not only its first nomination battle since the terrorist attacks but also the first since the 2006 midterm elections, which put Democrats back into power in Washington. With President Bush's approval ratings still low, Republicans are looking for a winner.

He apparently received a warm welcome at CPAC this weekend, also.