Wow... this is crazy!

You all know how much I love Montana, what with its rugged individual nature and all. However, what's counting for politics in the state right now is nothing close.

The republican majority leader in the State House flipped out the other day, calling the governor an "S.O.B." and telling him to take his deals and "Stick it up your ass!," using language akin to drunks in the local biker bar at four in the afternoon. Oh yeah, and did I mention he plans to run for the U.S. Senate?

Check this video out!!!

Democratic Primary Debate Reaction

Tonight, April 26, 2006 was the first debate among the Democratic candidates for President. Here's a run down of their performances in one writer's opinion:

Mike Gravel: The former Alaskan Senator who has been out of public office since 1981 (that's 8 years before I was even born) provided some of the wildest entertainment of the night. I felt he unfairly received very few questions, but he was a spectacle when he answered the questions he was offered. I felt Gravel offered observers something that most of the other candidates couldn't offer: candid opinions on current issues he hasn't had to campaign on for more than two decades. His outright belittling of the leading candidates drew laughter from everyone and offered an unexpected element of comedy to the event.

Hillary Clinton: The former First Lady did nothing to debunk the image of Mrs. Establishment that I have of her. Her long drawn responses were only trumped in length by her on-stage neighbor, Barack Obama. She routinely attacked the Bush administration and even referenced the "Clinton administration" (oddly, not "my husband's administration" or something a bit friendlier) a few times as a point of comparison. Ironically, when moderator Brian Williams asked her to react to the fact that she has been voted the most unlikable candidate, or some other unpleasant label like that, she did little to improve her image. As long as the funds keep flowing in, Hillary will be around for quite a while, despite what this writer thought (and thinks) of her.

Dennis Kucinich: This man has got a lot of good things to say, too bad he received near Gravelian (yep, I said it) amounts of questions thrown his way. This lack of questioning often lead him to resort to answering already asked questions despite the question currently being presented to him. Kucinich does not appear physically bold, but he's got a fightin' spirit. In response to "one mistake you have made" was "When I was Mayor of Cleveland, I fired the Police Chief live on the 6 o'clock news" (a nice change of pace from the rest of candidates answering "getting duped by the Bush Administration about Iraq). His other highlight had to be defending his calls to impeach VP Dick Cheney by pulling out a pocket Constitution, which he claims Cheney has no regard for, and holding it at eye level for the entirety of his answer.

Chris Dodd: The "Meh" award was easily captured by Chris Dodd at tonight's debate. The most intriguing thing Dodd presented was the vast color difference between his hair (snowy valley white) and his eyebrows (dark chocolately brown). He also didn't have too many questions to answer, but failed to have any moments that have stuck with me less than 4 hours after the debate ended.

Barack Obama: Recent BU visitor, Barack Obama, may have spoken the most of all candidates at the debate, not only because he received a lot of questions but because his responses often required an intermission because of their length (I will be attempting to watch Lawrence of Arabia [216 minutes] during his responses at the next debate). I felt Obama invoked too many of his accomplishments during responses rather than getting to the core of the questions he was supposed to be answering. I am still very interested in what Barack Obama has to offer but it'll take a little more campaign trail wear and tear before I can get a real feel for this candidate.

Joe Biden: Long ago, I was behind Joe Biden in '08. He hasn't done nearly enough as the other leading candidates to be a realistic possibility, not to mention him calling Obama "clean" and "articulate" as part of his own candidacy announcement. I like Biden's tough delivery on the issues and his air of defiance (displayed when talking about voting against the Roberts and Alito confirmations). But that approach doesn't work on the presidential level (as the Bush administration has demonstrated. I think Biden's best bet is to remain in the Senate as a top notch Senator from the glorious land of Delaware. He has to be given credit for writing his own comedy though, when he simply answered "Yes" to Brian Williams question along the lines of "Do you think your reputation as being boisterous and verbose in many circumstances is accurate?"

Bill Richardson: The Governor of New Mexico has a lot going for him in the credentials department. He is very much a western Democrat as well and expressed his moderation through many of his responses. I felt Richardson doesn't have the charisma it's going to take to win in this incredibly competitive election and his moderation probably won't get him through the primary stages. Brian Williams also pointed out that Richardson is the NRA's favorite candidate, in either party. Oh boy...

John Edwards: Alright, so I did save my favorite for last, despite my "in no particular order" label at the top of this post. I thought John Edwards did the best at answering the questions that were asked of him without being too long winded or bragging of his accomplishments that may or may not be tangentially related to the question content. Edwards offered real solutions for proposals like universal health care and climate change. His responses were not scripted and he was clearly thinking of the answers as he went along. Anyone with a soft spot has to give him credit for citing his wife as one of his three moral role models. Nice job Johnny.

-Michael O'Leary

The Campaign Begins....

As the BU Dems gathered for the final meeting of the year, we watched the beginning of a new era, and possibly the rise of a Democratic President in 2008. While candidates combatted the draining clock with wordy answers, they resisted presenting clear plans for an Iraq exit strategy and energy alternatives. There was no dearth of praise for a woman's right to choose as each candidate cited Ruth Ginsberg as the 'ideal living Supreme Court Justice.' So early in the campaign, the candidates should be more focused on garnering key supporters by hooking the grassroots base with clear plans.



Obama never missed an opportunity to mention religion or defense. In a response to an abortion question, he eagerly noted that the procedure should be a legal but rare decision a woman makes with her family, doctor, and clergy--a clever insertion of faith. Yet when asked about energy alternatives, he jumped the time hurdle for an opportunity to finish his plan for defense. Obama's central stage position was key. He used the position to emphasize his posture and presidential look as he fluidly responded to the fielded questions.



Hillary, predictably, touted her experience in Congress with a Health Care plan.



Kucinich's "pocket Constitution" was simply amazing.



Watch the First Presidential Debate again! Post your thoughts the Alaskan Senator's "crazy grandfater" outbursts, Kucinich's politics of peace, and Biden's explanation of his position on civil unions. http://video.msn.com/v/us/msnbc.htm?f=00&g=&p=hotvideo_m_debate&t=c3628&rf=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18326264/page/2/&fg=




--KZ

Power of the Purse

As my "American Founding" course draws to a close, I can't help but see a parallel between the Federalist arguments and the current bill the Senate is expected to pass on funding for the War in Iraq. Congress is exercising its "power of the purse" by tying war funding to a timetable for withdrawal. I can only imagine Madison and Hamilton waiting to see another test of their separation of powers argument. The timetable reflects the will of the people (who voted in a majority of democrats largely to end the war) while the funding reflects Congress's control of spending. The president has a veto to ensure that Congress does not become a 'vortex' of power. The House bill passed with a vote of 218-208, not even close to the number required for an overturn of Bush's promised veto. The public who voted for Congress to vote against the Iraq War may be outraged, but the checks and balances are imposed to subdue the passions of the supposed less knowledgable public. Is this organization of power still valid?

Energy Follow-Up

Following his lecture to the Dems about energy, Professor Stephen Bird sent this NYT article to highlight the status quo of the problems and potential solutions. It emphasizes three key points for reducing carbon emissions:

1. Acknowledge the costs
2. Let the market work, and
3. Keep the solution simple

Check it out: 

Economix
Earth's Climate Needs the Help of Incentives
By DAVID LEONHARDT

Washington

The politicians who deny that global warming is a problem used to be the
biggest obstacle to a solution. They're not anymore. They have lost the
argument.

When former Vice President Al Gore came back to Capitol Hill to testify
last week, a few of the global-warming holdouts in Congress confronted him
with their usual tactics. They took the actual uncertainties over climate
change - how fast seas and temperatures will rise, how serious the effects
will be - and tried to make them sound like uncertainty over whether human
beings were making the planet hotter. But the skeptics didn't get very far.
In the last few months, this debate has shifted incredibly quickly.

As Representative Ed Whitfield, a Kentucky Republican (lifetime rating from
the American Conservative Union: 90 out of 100), told Mr. Gore, "I think
everyone recognizes - as you have said and the scientific community agrees
- that there is global warming caused by human activity." On Monday, Gallup
released a new poll conducted before the hearings. In it, 86 percent of
respondents said they favored new action to deal with environmental
problems.

No wonder, then, that the political debate now revolves around what that
action should be. In the current Congress, there are six bills to deal with
climate change, and more are on the way. Senator John McCain, a Republican
presidential candidate, helped write one bill, and Senators Hillary Rodham
Clinton and Barack Obama, the leading Democratic hopefuls, are co-sponsors
of it.

This attention certainly qualifies as progress. But it is also creating the
newest big obstacle to a climate solution, an obstacle that's far less
obvious than the efforts to deny scientific reality. The would-be reformers
may be saying all the right things; every last one of them may even be
pursuing the solution she or he honestly believes to be the best one.

But the truth is that some of the ideas now on the table would do very
little to change the situation. And a feckless new law would be worse than
nothing at all right now.

The discussion about climate change can be mind-numbingly complex, filled
as it often is with economic and scientific jargon. But I think there are
three broad principles that help sort out the substantive attempts at
change from the others.

The place to start - the first thing that distinguishes the most serious
reformers - is an acknowledgment that a cooler planet will cost money. It's
extremely tempting to focus instead on the dazzling economic opportunities
that come with alternative energies. President Bush did so during this
year's State of the Union address when he said, "The way forward is through
technology."

Likewise, Mrs. Clinton, when laying out her solution to climate and energy
problems last year, asked: "How will we get there? Two words: innovation
and efficiency." She then recited a list of nifty technologies - wind
power, solar cells, cellulosic ethanol, hybrid plug-ins, clean coal, clean
diesel - that Mr. Bush also likes.

Some of these probably will become major energy sources in the decades
ahead. But in most places they're not yet nearly as cheap as oil, coal or
the other fossil fuels that make the planet hotter by emitting carbon.
Government subsidies cannot make up the gap, and, more to the point, nobody
can accurately predict which alternative energies are the most promising
and most deserving of subsidy. So a hodgepodge of new
research-and-development tax credits just isn't the answer.

The only reliable way to reduce carbon emissions is to make them more
expensive. When you hear somebody talk first about doing this and only then
about the wonderful innovations that will follow - and they will follow -
you know that person is serious.

This is essence of the second principle: the market created this problem,
and the market is going to have to solve it. The issue, says David H.
Festa, director for the oceans program at the advocacy group Environmental
Defense is 'how do we make sure people are given the right economic signals
to do what we need them to do.' "

Later today, Mr. Festa is going to release a fascinating study about the
fishing business that on its face has nothing to do with global warming,
and yet has everything to do with a solution. At dozens of the nation's
fisheries, the fish population is in danger because fishermen have no
incentive not to take everything out of the water that they can. But 10
fisheries, stretching from the halibut fishery off Alaska to the surf clam
industry in New England, have tried a different route.

They have capped their annual catch and then granted fishermen the right to
a certain share of that catch. The fishermen can buy and sell these rights
among themselves, creating a market that rewards the most efficient
companies. The fishermen also have a stake in the long-term health of the
fishery, as it will dictate the value of their fishing rights when they
retire.

The new study is important because it shows that the benefits aren't just
hypothetical. At the 10 fisheries, there are fewer fatal accidents than
elsewhere and the fish populations are healthier. The fact that halibut has
returned to restaurant menus in the last decade is a direct result of these
cap-and-trade programs.

All of the climate bills in Congress revolve around a similar idea. The
government would cap greenhouse-gas emissions and issue tradable permits,
each giving power plants the right to pump out a set amount. The plants
that did the best job of reducing their emissions could then profit by
selling unused permits to inefficient plants. A similar system put in place
during George H. W. Bush's presidency reduced acid rain much more quickly
than economists had predicted.

The successes of the acid rain and fishing programs point to the third
principle: the solution should be clear and straightforward. It should
cover the entire economy, and it shouldn't have escape hatches that
undermine the market mechanisms. Mrs. Clinton, whatever her rhetorical
weaknesses, has signed onto a bill that passes this test.

But at least two of the current Senate bills fail it. The one proposed by
Dianne Feinstein, a California Democrat, covers only the electricity
business, among other problems. The one being prepared by Jeff Bingaman, a
New Mexico Democrat, sets a maximum price on the carbon permits, which
undermines their whole point. It's like asking people to invest in the
stock market and then forbidding them from making more than a 5 percent
return.

These three principles - acknowledge the costs; let the market work; and
keep the solution simple - won't cover everything. But they will go a long
way toward reducing carbon emissions here, in the country that produces
more of them than any other, and then letting us turn to another big
problem: persuading China and India to follow suit.

Seinfeld Strategy in Iraq...

Remember the episode about George's affinity with "The Opposite"? Well, it seems that George W. is pursuing the same strategy as George Costanza in the Iraq War:

The Iraq policy pursued by the Bush administration satisfies the Costanza criterion: it is the opposite of every foreign policy the world has ever met.

Check it out.

Downfall of the GOP

On the annual trip to DC, I found one of the best articles ever in Politico that has me looking ahead to a new period of Democratic dominance. The fog is lifting, and the blue visibility stretches to at least 2014. Here are some highlights (but read the whole article!):

Looks like GOP recruitement and fundraising is down:

Some of the party's top recruits in key races from Colorado to Florida are refusing to run for Congress. Business executives -- the financial backbone of the GOP -- are sending more and more money to Democrats. Overall Republican fundraising is down sharply from the same time frame during the past two presidential elections.

And what about the people of this great country...

Polling data released this month confirm what GOP officials are picking up anecdotally: Swing voters are swinging away from Republicans at high velocity. Most alarming to GOP strategists is a new survey by the nonpartisan Pew Research Center that found 50 percent of those interviewed consider themselves a Democrat or leaning that way; only 35 percent tilt Republican.

So, America's coming to its senses, and Republicans have written off the 2008 race. What ever will their consultants do?

To underscore how tough things are for the GOP, Bill Pascoe, a Chicago-based Republican consultant with Urquhart Media, said "there are Republican consultants scouting state legislators for 2014. That's how far the long-range planning is going."

Why 2014? Because that would be the second midterm of a Democratic president.

THAT'S RIGHT... 2014 is when they think they can hop back on the train. Life feels so much better now than a few years ago when we watched the Kerry-Edwards campaign derail! So is there any saving grace for the Grand Old Party? How about this strategy penned by former Republican chair Ken Mehlman:

"We have to win back the confidence we lost in '06 from swing voters and ticket splitters," said Mehlman. "The way you do that, in part, is by being a party that is less reliant on white guys and expands its support among Hispanics, among African-Americans."

Hmmmm... I think we know how that's going to work for the Republican Party. My response to this is two-fold:
1. Why didn't Mehlman reach out to minorities when he was chairman? And,
2. Maybe they should try an alternative approach: give up and encourage Americans to vote for Democrats.

I'm looking out over the horizon, and the Big Skies are BLUE. To 2014!