The Journal of Left of Center Thinking :: December 07, 2003 - December 13, 2003

Soft money in Elections

I don't understand why so many people seem up in arms over the recent SCOTUS up holding parts of the McCain Feingold law.

The fact is, the M-F, for the most part, just added the same regualtions for 'soft money', as existed for 'hard money' donations. See, we've been through this dance before. In the 70s, the Federal Election Campaign act was written, aimed at reducing the influenmce money had on campaigns. It too was challenged, and it too was partially upheld, partially struck down. The problem is that people found a way to violate the intention of the law, while repsecting the letter of the law. We call it 'Soft Money'. It's basically a non-donation, donation. The 1971 FEC act restricts hard money donations - so groups that before the 1971 law would have given the money to Candidate A, now run ads either supportive of A or critical of A' opponents, generally with an understanding from 'A' that it's a donation, even though it's not.

There are, of course, some new wrinkles. Such as the banning of candidate specific ads by 'groups' within 60 days of an election. This, it seems, is a major issue with some. Why? Well, one of the larget cries is that is stifles 'political speech', but this is one of those 'partial' truths. The ACLU, NRA, PTA - whoever can still run issue ads during elections. M-F DOES limit their ability to name a candidate in the last 60 days. Which means, the ACLU can't criticize Bush for Ascroft during th last 60 days before an election, but can run ads about the curtailing of freedoms by the government.

Another argument seems to be that it will help incumbents, but I don't buy this, either. In fact, I feel the other way. I think incumbents tend to have more access to soft money than the challengers - so this would actually work against incumbents.

Is M-F perfect? Nope. And, the sad fact is, it will most likely have little effect. Candidates and groups are already trying to find ways around M-F, just as they found ways around the 'Hard Money' regulations of 1971 act.

Is it a good step? I think so.

Shock and Awe

I'm shocked, of course, SHOCKED, that an audit done by the pentagon has found evidence of overcharging by Halliburton.

And they seem like such a respectable, non-politically connected company. How do these things happen? It's not like we just handed them the contract ....oh wait. Yes it is.

Bush not working and playing well with others.

Okay, admittedly, I'm of two mind sets about the decision to block companies from countries who don't give troops to from bidding on reconstruction contracts.

Well, kind of. Certainly, I understand since the US is footing most of the bill, we'd like US companies to benefit from it. While we're still spending the $$, ideally it will help our economy, ect. (That is assuming, of course, that they don't just hand the whole damn thing to Haliburton).

That said, politically, this was a very dumb thing to do. Especially while we're still hoping to get troops and funds from additional countries. And the administration 'spin' on this that it's not punishment is insincere at best. This is the US sticking it's tongue out at other countries, pure and simple. Why? Because, they specifically included the ability to let those countries play, if they decide to offer troops. So, it's not just about keeping US dollars in the US. It's about leverage. And the whole world knows it.

There will also be other fall-out on this, I'm sure. It's a relatively short-sighted decision, on the grand scheme of things.

Some Free Advice

No one said it was easy, and Arnold is learning that first hand.

Honestly, though, I thought I would offer up some advice to the new governor. I voted for him (though against the recall), and do hope that he manages to succeed. I also recognize that he's new to politics, and has only been working for a little while.

Still, there are some things I would offer as suggestions:

1) Recalls aside, you'res not the only big fish. Threatening the legislature with 'going to the people' on issue (IE referendums) only serves to piss them off, and make them less willing to work with you. And you need them, whether you likes it or not. Also, the whole 'referendum' thing seems weak when, in the same breath, you speak of suspending a proposition, which was passed by referendum. (I'm not a CA native, but legislation by voting box as a standard form of government seems to be a poor idea in general.)

2) Don't expect Dems to give up their political 'vices' if you're not willing to give up your own. By now you've realized, or started to, what most of us knew before you were elected - which is that it's going to take compromise on ALL sides to fix the budget. I'd be willing to allow a suspension of 98 if you'd be willing to step back from your 'no new taxes' promise. (You've already broken a bunch of campaign promises anyway, and lets face it it's not the just the republicans you have to worry about if you want to get re-elected).

3) Slow down, sit down, and take a breath. Right now, you look like a frantic cat trying to climb a hill with rollerblades on. Lots of effort and energy, little thought. It's better to wait a little bit and offer a comprehensive, will thought-out plan than this ala-cart list of things you'd like to cut. Cutting spending is absolutely going to be part of the plan - but there needs to BE a plan. And if you have a plan, share it. We'd love to know.

If you use any of these ideas, and they work, I am available for a position within your government. Email me for a resume.

It's a good thing he has broad shoulders...

It's not been a banner week for the new CA Governor.

I'm not sure which was dumber, announcing an investigation into yourself, to find the truth about your own 'groping' habits, or ending the investigation just after the elections, and on the same day you're getting sued by someone who alleges groping. (As an aside, is Gloria Allred the only lawyer in the state?)

The budget talks are in a stalemate, in part because of his 'You will bow before me' style, in part because he offers up random budget decisions, but no coherent overall plan.

He wasted no time in keeping his promise to repeal the car tax which, coupled with the budget talk woes and the increase in the deficit it caused, resulted in CA's bond rating being downgraded. He floated the idea of suspending Prop 98, again as a stand alone concept, as opposed to an overall budget plan. Then, his press secretary (who should shut-up),incoherently tried to imply suspending 98 would not necessarily mean a cut to schools.

More on all this later.

Dumb Dems

In an effort to show that I give equal time to dumb things Democrats due (It's not true, mind you, I tend to milk the political advantage of the Republican dumb things), I have an entry into this weeks 'Doesn't get the concept' category. No link, as I heard the quote on San Francisco's KGO radio.

I'm attributing this to, Senate President John Burton, (D) but as I was in my car and didn't have a pen ready, I'll concede that it may have been someone else (I've looked for a link with the quote, but have had no luck). Definitely a Democrat, though.

The Setting: Schwarzenegger's' press secretary reported that Arnold may seek an end run around their refusal to approve the Governor's suggested spending cap. Tucked into the response, was this little gem:

I think Press Secretaries should shut-up.

Which, while we all may support the idea, is not really the purpose of a press secretary.

NRO: All Dean, All the Time

NRO is a buzz with Dean-Talk after Gore's support announcement. Let's take a quick spin around the NRO take.

Ramesh Ponnuru does not seem to be too impressed. He thinks that the war, gay rights, taxes and other things will fell Dean. The interesting thing about the article, is that he seems to think Dean's support of repealing the 'Patriot Act' will cause problems.

Dean's proposal to repeal the Patriot Act has not gotten much attention as a potential Dean vulnerability, partly because there are so many other vulnerabilities and partly because opponents of the act, both on the left and on the right, have been more vocal than supporters. But it could be a serious problem. Bush will be able to list various law-enforcement powers that Dean wants to eliminate, and that sound like common-sense measures to the public.

At the risk of being wrong, I can't imagine that this will be an issue. In fact, I think the GOP would be wise not to make it much of an issue. There are a lot on the right, as well as many libertarians who tend to vote GOP, who aren't thrilled with it. There's a pretty easy response to it - raising the specter of Ashcroft misusing the granted powers, as has been evident as Justice has been using the rules more and more for non terror related investigations. Nobody like the 1984 specter - which will be an easy one for Dems to raise.

At least his post was thoughtful, there are two others which see Gore's support as being Gore trying to wrench power of the party away from the Clintons.

That's what Cliff May seems to be suggesting.

It's come to this: Either Al Gore will be asked to be secretary of state in 2004, or Hillary Clinton will be asked to be the Democratic presidential nominee in 2008. It's one or the other, it can't be both. Did you notice that Gore said this morning that he wants to "remake the Democratic party"? Well, he's taken the first step: The Democratic nominee next year will be his boy, not the Clinton's.

He does, however, seem to think the election may be tighter than some GOPers think.

Finally, the ever incomprehensible David Frum falls into the 'Dean will be crushed' camp. He also sees all of this as a Gore Power Play, setting himself (Gore) up to run again in '08.

Think about it. Does Gore still wish to be president? Pretty clearly, he does: Otherwise he would have found himself a real job and moved to LA, rather than dabbling in business while maintaining a theoretical domicile in Carthage, Tennessee. ...

Of course, should another Democrat win in 2004, there will be no contest in 2008 for Gore to join. So Gore has to wish for defeat this year.

And not for mere defeat, but for catastrophic defeat. A Democratic wipeout in 2004 would make Gore's performance in 2000 - 51 million votes, 266 electoral votes - look retrospectively much more impressive.

When Republicans do the right thing

Nothing annoys me more than when the Republicans do the 'right thing', when it's clear they have no real desire too. Case in point, their decision to 'abandon ship' on their idea to park a cruise ship in NY Harbor for the convention, saving the GOP from having to spend money in NY.

Somebody dope-slapped DeLay and he thought better of it. This would have been a huge Boon to Dems, and given a good tool since it's clear the GOP chose NY purely to raise the images of 9/11 and terrorism during the convention.

I'm not sure if this can still be clubbed over their heads, but I'm all in favor of trying.

Brett said (at December 9, 2003 01:40 AM):

Henry said (at December 9, 2003 02:14 AM):

Brett said (at December 9, 2003 03:41 AM):

Henry said (at December 9, 2003 04:14 AM):

Dean and ....?

So, Al Gore tossed his support behind Dean today (apparently not bothering to let Lieberman know ahead of time). While this is not necessarily a 'death knoll' for the other campaigns (I wonder what's in those files....), it's certainly a feather in Dean's hat.

Now, while I doubt (though could be surprised) that any of the main players will drop out before any votes are cast, the game people are playing is which of the candidates will Dean grab as VP (if any), assuming he gets the nomination.

The obvious seems Dean and Clark. Clark can help in the south, and will balance off Dean's anti-war stance. And, there's a secondary benefit to this. We'd get to watch a Clark / Cheney debate - which should be a PPV event!

Another interesting choice would be Dean/ Edwards. I've always been sort of an Edwards fan, though I'm not sure why his candidacy hasn't done better than it has. He's smart, articulate, again from the south. No too much help on the 'war' issue, but I think that would be an acceptable loss.

None of the other choices seem very likely to me. Kucinich, while maybe able to help in the Mid West, doesn't offer much in terms of complementing Dean. I've never been a huge fan of Gephardt, and doubt he would be willing to play second fiddle to Dean. Same goes with Lieberman - I don't see him accepting a VP nod, even if it were offered, which it wouldn't be.

***************Update

Kevin at CalPundit, who is way smarter than me, came up with the same top 2. Which, if anything, only means that I'm not completely out to lunch.

Pack it up, we're going home....

Via Kevin at Leanleft, who got it from Atrios, who got it from....anyway, we have an article by on Slate, by William Saletan who finally takes on Gore for disenfranchising the entire United States. Did I lose you? Let's try again.

By supporting Dean, Gore has decided the primaries - which means you don't get a say. So don't bother voting. Honest - it's not worth your time. Says William:

Who decided Dean was the strongest candidate? Not the voters: They haven't voted. Not the polls, either: They've shown Dick Gephardt, John Kerry, and Wesley Clark scoring better than Dean in hypothetical match-ups with President Bush. The person who anointed Dean the strongest candidate is the same intervening politician who complained three years ago about intervening politicians [FYI He Means Gore].

Dumbest. Article. Ever.