Friday, September 20, 2002
VILSACK THE SHAMELESS
This article in the Quad City Times notes that the unemployment rate in Iowa, which has dropped slightly in the last month, has become a hot political issue. Look at this quote from our illustrious Governor:
“Our efforts to lay a new economic foundation for working families are paying off, and more Iowans are returning to the work force,” Gov. Tom Vilsack said.
What efforts Governor?
. . .
UNDER CONTRACT
Eric Olsen has this piece at Salon on the rather Draconian contract the contestants in American Idol had to sign. While the contract is disturbing, isn’t there some responsibility on the part the contestants to actually read it before they affix their John Hancock?
. . .
GLENN REYNOLDS, SPACE CADET
Instapundit has two recent columns on space, one at FoxNews, the other at Tech Central Station.
. . .
IDEOLOGICAL DIVERSITY?
Clarkson Kelly may become another one of my heroes. He’s regent for the University of Iowa who is involved in the search for a new UI president. According to a story in the Cedar Rapids Gazette, he argued that conservatives should not be left out as potential candidates for the presidency of UI:
“I understand this is a multi-cultural country and we talk so much about diversity, but what we've left out, the one thing that's missing, is diversity of ideas,” Kelly said as he assessed criteria developed by a UI campus committee of faculty, staff and students that the regents were being asked to approve.
“We talk about gender and ethnicity, but we're boycotting a whole wide range of ideas, particularly conservative ideas.”
But before we get too excited:
In the end, however, Kelly joined the other regents unanimously approving 25 criteria to be used when evaluating candidates to succeed Mary Sue Coleman, who resigned in May to become president of the University of Michigan.
Aw shucks. Well, he’s not my hero just yet.
. . .
LARRY SUMMERS
It’s for reasons like this one that Larry Summers is fast becoming one of my heroes. Yes, I know he worked for the Clinton Administration. His unwillingness to put up with left-wing nonsense since assuming the reigns at Harvard more than make up for it. (Thanks to Croooow Blog.)
. . .
DAILY DIATRIBE: LET'S PUSH SOME BUTTONS!
I was planning on critiquing this post by Will Vehrs today, but then I read this one by Tony Adragna which concluded:
Would y'all stop pushing my buttons!
That set me off like Pavlov’s dog, and thus I had no choice in the matter. Must get at Tony. Must get at Tony. Must…..
Anyway, Tony is perplexed that a number of pundits are claiming that the Democratic ‘04 hopefuls are now coming around to Bush’s position on war with Iraq:
Somebody wanna answer me why everybody seems to think that the Dem '04 hopefuls have of a sudden come around to Mr. Bush's side? And why have we suddenly stopped hearing 'bout GOP Members [of Congress] who have been just as skeptical as the Dem skeptics...
He notes—correctly, in my opinion—that Senators Joe Lieberman and John Edwards have expressed support of an invasion at least since late last year. But what about ‘04 hopefuls Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and Al Gore? In an interview on Hannity and Colmes back in December, Daschle strongly hinted that he might be opposed to action against Iraq. Since Bush's speech he’s been in favor of Bush’s desire to have a congressional vote on the matter before the election.
In the July 31 MSNBC article that Tony cites, both John Kerry and Al Gore are quoted in what could be charitably described as “having doubts” about Bush’s Iraq policy. Here is Kerry’s remarks:
So far, the Democrat who has gone the furthest in criticizing Bush on Iraq is Massachusetts Democrat Kerry.
While saying he agrees with Bush’s goal of a regime change in Iraq, Kerry told an audience at a Democratic Leadership Council gathering in New York on Monday that “the administration’s rhetoric has far exceeded their plans or their groundwork. In fact, their single-mindedness, secrecy and high-blown rhetoric has alienated our allies and threatened to unravel the stability of the region.”
Kerry complained that “this administration has offered no plan for what happens after we topple Saddam’s regime.”
He implied that if he were president he’d be more concerned than Bush has been about an attack’s effect on other countries in the Middle East and Central Asia.
“No one disagrees that even if we go it alone in Iraq, we will win and we will replace Saddam, but what this administration has failed to do is make their case on the international stage or to the American people for the rationale of starting the war or the means of ending it,” he said. “We cannot afford to put the security of our allies, the region and ultimately our own at risk for the vague offerings we have heard to date.”
Here’s Gore:
Bush’s former opponent, Gore, has also opened fire on the president’s Iraq policy.
“I certainly question why we would be publicly blustering and announcing an invasion a year or two years in advance,” Gore told a Capitol Hill Democratic gathering last week.
Gore also faulted Bush for not assembling the kind of coalition of nations to oppose Saddam that Bush’s father put together in 1990. He suggested that if the United States acts alone or with only a few partners, other nations would resent it.
“If the rest of the world does not see what it regards as a sufficient provocation to justify an invasion by the United States, then the diplomatic cost would be extremely high,” Gore said.
With regard to Kerry and Gore, here’s the key paragraph in Howard Kurt’z Washington Post article from yesterday in which he quotes a Ron Brownstein article:
"Sources close to former Vice President Al Gore, the 2000 Democratic presidential nominee, say he will shortly endorse the prospect of military action. Even Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), who has consistently raised questions about a potential strike against Iraq, appears to be moving toward supporting force, sources close to him say.
Thus, some ‘04 hopefuls were at least hinting at opposition prior to Bush’s September 12 speech. Given their recent actions, it is fair to say they are now “coming around to Bush’s side.”
Finally, let me push one more of Tony’s buttons (heh, heh, heh.) While Lieberman has expressed support for an invasion of Iraq, he was singing a slightly different tune back in August:
U.S. Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., said Bush has mismanaged the effort to win the nation's confidence in expanding the war, shown by invasion and airstrike plans leaked to the press in July.
“There’s not been a clarity of leadership,” said Lieberman, who was in Iowa campaigning for Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack and other Democrats on Wednesday and Thursday.
I think it is fair to say that Lieberman was hedging a bit in late summer, but is fully supporting Bush now. To put a finer point on it: Lieberman moved a few inches away from Bush, and has since moved a few inches back toward him. To be fair, Howard Kurtz was inaccurate to say Lieberman "coming around to Bush's side." But given Lieberman's summer behavior, Kurtz's remark isn't way off the reservation.
Okay, Tony, enough pushing your buttons. If I lived in D.C., I’d offer to buy you a drink for your troubles. Maybe next time I visit the Beltway….
. . .
NATURAL SELECTION AT WORK?
Did you see the two skinny guys who attacked Royals’ coach Tom Gamboa? They charged on to the field of New Comiskey, an area that had over 50 athletes on it. In other words, they start a fight in the proximity of lots of big, strong men. What are the odds these clowns will some day win a Darwin Award?
UPDATE: It just occurred to me: big, strong men with easy access to baseball bats.
. . .
DON’T GO TO WAR, PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE!
Upset that their opposition to a war with Iraq has fallen flat, the Des Moines Register has this sore-loser editorial today. Bush is going to get an authorization of force. Barring a major turn around by Saddam Hussein, the U.S. is going to invade Iraq. Get over it!
. . .
HIGH CEO PAY
The Des Moines Register doesn’t like high CEO pay. You’re stunned, I’m sure. The editorial exaines fromer General Electorc Ceo Jack Welch’s compensation package and then states:
Welch at least has the excuse of being regarded as a business genius who guided GE to huge growth. He said he took the lifetime perks in lieu of a multimillion-dollar retention bonus.
An ‘excuse’? He raises the worth of GE by how many billions? I’d call it a pretty damn good reason.
Then there’s this paragraph:
Reforms of corporate governance need to include getting boards of directors with the guts to hold executives accountable and to regard them as employees, not gods.
Yeah, and if that doesn’t work, Congress should pass a law, you can almost hear the editorial writers say.
. . .
Thursday, September 19, 2002
DAILY DIATRIBE: WILL DETERRENCE WORK?
Hesiod responded to my Tuesday post by posting a comment. I reprint it here, interspersed with my own thoughts:
A legitimate point [on the weakening of resolve].
However, that doesn’t address the deterrence argument, which says that even if HE HAS weapons of mass destruction (WMD) he can be deterred from using them.
Fair enough, so let me address it. First, deterrence depends on having an enemy that is reasonably sane. It is highly doubtful that Hussein has all of his marbles. The recent revelations of his mistress are but one example (yes, yes, I know, a woman scorned.) But what she says is just one part of the picture. When Hussein consolidated his power in 1979, he personally killed many leaders in Iraq. In 1995 two of his sons-in-law briefly defected to Jordan. They later returned to Iraq, upon which Hussein had them executed. If having family members killed is not evidence of being severely off-kilter, what is? If Hussein is not sane, then deterrence is not a viable strategy.
Second, has our war on terrorism deterred Saddam from supporting terrorism? After seeing us rout Afghanistan, surely he knows we mean business. Why doesn't he arrest all the terrorists that he harbors and hand them over to the U.S.? Rather, he still supports them. The point here is that our war on terrorism hasn’t deterred him from aiding and abetting terrorists. Why would a “threatened” war against Iraq deter him from using WMD against us at some point?
Inspections would set back his programs 10-15 years, giving the US more time to find other ways to get rid of him.
The last inspections barely set him back half that long. For example, weapons inspectors estimate that when they were given the boot in 1998, Hussein had at least 41 sites capable of producing VX gas. I see no reason why another round of inspections would set him back longer this time.
In fact, there is very good reason to think that they won’t. Primarily, a lot of former weapons inspectors have said their efforts were ineffective. Here are some links: (1, 2).
One suggestion would be to set up a defended enclave in either Northern or Southern Iraq and encourage Iraqi military officer and units to defect to those enclaves. Thus, you have a ready made proxy army to fight an eventual war with Saddam, if necessary.
Actually, we already have defended enclaves in the Northern and Southern Iraq. So far, we haven't seen a whole bunch of Iraqi military personnel defect to those areas. Is there any reason to think that it would be different in the future? I can't think of any. Given the grip that Hussein has on Iraq via his secret police, I imagine that military defections are very dangerous, likely resulting in death if not successful. Thus, I wouldn't count on enough members of the Iraqi military defecting to create a viable proxy army.
Let me just conclude by saying that I would prefer to see some of the above options succeed at removing Hussein from power. At the very least, it would mean we'd be less likely to put American military lives at risk. The problem, as I see it, is that it is highly improbable that the above options will work. Thus, invasion may be the only viable alternative.
. . .
FOGHORN, LEGHORN
A certain Senator from South Carolina needs to keep his mouth shut. (It's the 2:12 am post. Sorry, Blogger's links aren't working properly, surprise, surprise.)
UPDATE: The link is fixed now.
. . .
MORE POLLS
Take a look at questions 15, 16 and 17 in this USA Today poll. Thanks to Croooow Blog.
. . .
YEPSEN COLUMN
Yepsen has an interesting column on state university tuition costs.
. . .
THAT LITTLE, UNIMPORTANT THING CALLED FRAUD
The Des Moines Register editorial page wants Congress to pass legislation on election reform:
Congress started out with the best of intentions, passing legislation by overwhelming margins in both the House and Senate shortly after the 2000 election. Since then, it has become bogged down in a joint committee working out differences between the two chambers over things such as motor-voter registration provisions, requiring voters to produce photo identification and absentee ballots.
Those are irrelevant to the problems Florida has twice experienced, and they should be dealt with at the state level. What the states need is money, and they need it soon. With a financial incentive, Congress would kick-start reform measures by the states that would not happen otherwise.
Irrelevant to Florida, but not Missouri, where someone’s dog was registered to vote. Things like motor-voter registration have increased the amount of election fraud and need to be dealt with. If the register wants election reform to get through Congress, perhaps they ought to criticize Democrats—who are opposing the anti-fraud measures—rather than "Congress" in general.
. . .
Wednesday, September 18, 2002
TWO FROM MAX
Max Sawicky has some second thoughts on Cynthia McKinney. He also has an excellent post on the costs of a war with Iraq. I'm sure I don't agree, but anyone who is in favor of the war will have to address his concerns.
. . .
I BET YOU DO!
Governor Vilsack wants the next debate to focus on health-care issues. That way, he can boast about how much he has done for Iowa health-care and protray himself as a compassionate, loving guy who takes care of sick children. I just hope that if Vilsack gets his way, Gross doesn't shy away from pointing out that Vilsack's health-care policies have helped bust the budget.
. . .
DON'T COUNT YOUR CHICKENS....
John Van Dyk has some pretty stupid roosters.
. . .
GET WELL, GEITNER
Mr. Simmons isn't feeling so well. Here's a question that is sure to make me look stupid: What is tranya?
. . .
THOSE GUTLESS REPUBLICANS
Stephen Moore and Thomas Rhodes have it right on Social Security reform. Republicans should be embracing reform and figuring out ways (see Moore and Rhodes suggestions) to put Democrats on the defensive. Instead, they are running scared. Surprise, surprise.
. . .
MAKING THE CASE
Thanks again to Croooow Blog for sending me the link to more polling data. This poll, by Gallup, suggests that Americans are accepting the case Bush is making on Iraq.
. . .
DAILY DIATRIBE: TEACH OUR KIDS CAPITALISM
In an editorial from yesterday’s Des Moines Register, an editorial writer described the method by which his/her child raises funds for school. The child must sell items from a catalogue. The school gets a cut of the proceeds. The child gets a reward based on the number of items he or she sells. The editorial writer lamented this way of raising school funds:
But there's something unsettling about the entire experience. The incentive to sell is based on rewards. Rather than teaching kids to do work to help the school and ultimately help everyone, the fund-raiser focuses on a colorful catalog of "prizes." There's no lesson about volunteering or altruism. School kids compete against each other to sell the most and get something for themselves.
I hate to spring this on the editorial writer (actually, no I don’t; I shouldn’t lie) but "incentive based on rewards" is one of the major premises of the capitalist system. As Adam Smith wrote "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from regard to their own interest."
For better or worse—much to the better, in my opinion—we live in a capitalist culture. Many parents teach their kids early on that to acquire something, you have to earn it. To earn it, you have to work for it. And working usually means pleasing other people. It’s why during the summer months parents encourage their young children to set up lemonade stands and their teenage children to get summer jobs.
Indeed, the editorial seems to derive the wrong lesson from the school fundraising project:
In the end, maybe you close the catalog, write a check directly to the school PTO, and sort through your child's pile of toys with him or her. You take the ones selected to the local shelter for kids who don't have any toys. Or you take a family trip to the park to pick up trash.
Everyone is better off. The school collects more money. You're not stuck with another ceramic figurine. And your child learns a lesson about helping others.
What kind of lesson does that teach? That you should just hand over money whenever someone asks for it? Surely, children must learn the importance of giving. But combine that with lessons that earning money is bad, and you have a recipe for dependence. You teach them that they are entitled to things that belong to others, that they can go around life with their hand out. In such a situation, everyone is not "better off."
The vast majority of things that make our life better did not come from "altruism," but self-interest. Cars, computers, super-markets, department stores, modern medicine: all these things we have because someone was able to make a profit off of providing them. Indeed, profit is arguably the greatest invention of mankind.
Children need to be taught that it’s good to get a "reward" from providing things for others. Although schools often teach the wrong lessons these days, they’ve got this one right.
. . .
A SHIFT IN THE POLLS?
Croooow Blog sent me this link which shows that Republicans appear to be getting an edge on the generic congressional ballot.
. . .
WEAPONS INSPECTORS, YAY!
The Des Moines Register is hyperventilating over Iraq’s offer to allow weapons inspectors to return:
The administration's hard line will help keep the pressure on Iraq. Still, the United States has little choice now but allow the United Nations to send in new inspection teams and see what happens. Many in Congress like the wait-and-see approach, and a common stance among Democrats is to favor delaying any military decisions until after the November elections.
That makes sense. Last week, President Bush laid the problem of Iraq squarely at the feet of the United Nations. Now he must allow ample time for the U.N. to follow through.
The outcome could be desirable for everyone. If the U.N. inspectors accomplish their mission, disarmament would follow, and the fear of Iraq developing weapons of mass destruction would be assuaged. The United States wouldn't need to become the initiator of a preemptive and costly military campaign.
If Iraq doesn't comply, the United Nations, as well as the United States, would likely gain more global support for any further action. President Bush has said he is a patient man and America is a patient country. Now is the moment to demonstrate it.
It is unwise to get that excited about weapons inspectors. First, it’s pretty clear that the Iraqi offer comes with strings attached. Second, quite a few weapons inspectors have said that their previous efforts in Iraq were rather ineffective.
Further, the offer of weapons inspectors does not require Bush to be "patient." The speech he gave at the United Nations laid out at four other conditions for Iraq, including cessation of involvement with terrorism and the persecution of its own people. Thus, a lot more is required of Iraq before the Register can reasonably ask Bush to be "patient."
. . .
DID THEY WATCH THE DEBATE?
The Des Moines Register has come out against the "matrix," a system used by the state to determine if a county can approve new livestock facilities.
The editorial page has just endorsed a position held by Doug Gross. That’s right: During Monday’s debate, Gross opposed the matrix, and Vilsack supported it. Funny, though, that little tidbit of info didn’t make it into the editorial. Wonder why?
. . .
IOWA MAKES FOX NEWS
The Iowa Governor's race was just profiled on Brit Hume's Special Report on the Fox News Channel. Here is the accompanying article on the Fox website.
. . .
Tuesday, September 17, 2002
WHAT ARE THE RULES?
Over at Talking Points Memo, Josh Marshall has an interesting perspective on what the capture of Ramzi Binalshibh menas for trying terror suspects.
. . .
KRUGMAN TAKEDOWN 2
Jay Caruso has weighed in.
. . .
OUR ‘OTHER’ WORRIES
Scott Cawelti is at it again in the Waterloo-Cedar Falls Courier. He runs through a litany of what we have learned since September 11, and then says:
Besides, we now have new worries: A saber-rattling president, a shaky economy, a rash of child abductions, crooked CEOs and accountants, lost jobs and savings.
First of all, it is dubious that we are in the midst of “rash of child abductions.” It is likely a lot of media hype.
Also, notice how “a tyrant hell bent on acquiring weapons of mass destruction” does not make his list. But then that might discredit his “saber-rattling president” comment.
. . .
MORE DETAILS, PLEASE
Both the Quad City Times and the Cedar Rapids Gazette want President Bush to provide more details about his war plans.
The QC Times states:
We want to see you deliver, in person, your argument for waging war in Iraq.
We have questions.
We’re listening.
The Gazette states:
Bush wants Congress, within the next month, to vote on a resolution authorizing war. He should say more about the sort of regime that should replace Saddam. He also needs to say more about what the United States knows about Saddam and the threat he poses to U.S. interests and to world security. We may have to go it alone, but that shouldn't mean going solely on faith.
Frankly, I’m getting a little tired of all these vague statements about how the President needs to provide more information. Editorial pages should spell out what questions they have, not pitch some blanket request for information.
. . .
I DIDN’T INHALE, I THINK
The Quad City Times reports that Democratic candidate for Illinois Governor, Rod Blagojevich, admits he smoked marijuana, but isn’t sure he inhaled:
Asked whether he inhaled the smoke, as former President Bill Clinton famously denied, Blagojevich said he was unsure because “I was inept at it.”
.
“I did it twice and I’m a nonsmoker. I don’t like it. I run. So I don’t know if I did or not. I never liked the smell of it. But it was a smell that we of our generation are very familiar with, and I’m sure I’m not the only one in this room that can recognize it,” he said.
Uh, Rod, how’d you feel about two or three minutes after you took a puff? That should tell you whether or not you inhaled.
UPDATE: Oh crap, Croooow already got to it before me. Nice catch, Henry.
. . .
WHERE’S OSAMA?
Indepundit speculates that we are making progress against al-Qaeda because “someone, somewhere is singing like a canary.”
He also provides a link to this website that gives bin Laden the “Where’s Waldo” treatment.
. . .
AND EVEN MORE ON WEAPONS INSPECTIONS
Thanks to Croooow Blog for providing the link to this article which reports that Iraq might only allow inspectors to visit military sites.
UPDATE: 'Might' nothing! It's official. Thanks, again, to Croooow Blog.
. . .
MORE ON WEAPONS INSPECTIONS
Geitner Simmons has this post on why weapons inspectors are ineffective. He cites an excellent bit by Charles Duelfer.
. . .
WHOSE HOUSE?
At NRO, Kate O'Beirne has a very comprehensive analysis of the race for control of the House of Representatives.
. . .
FIRST KRUGMAN TAKEDOWN
Hoystory is having another go at the Mike Tyson of the Blogosphere. Nothing yet at the Daily Rant.
. . .
A CONFUSING EDITORIAL
The Des Moines Register has this editorial today about the tax-exempt status of a church that ran an newspaper ad criticizing Bill Clinton:
In 1995, the Internal Revenue Service revoked the tax-exempt status of a church in Binghamton, N.Y., after the church placed a full-page ad in USA Today and the Washington Times that stated, "Bill Clinton is promoting policies that are in rebellion to God's laws." At the bottom of the page was a statement, "Tax-deductible donations for this advertisement gladly accepted" with the name of the church where checks could be sent.
Courts supported the IRS decision to take away the tax exemption. Now that case is being cited to justify legislation proposed by Congressman Walter Jones of North Carolina. His bill would would allow churches to endorse political candidates while retaining their tax-exempt status.
Here's where it gets confusing:
....it's not an issue of free speech. All non-profit organizations, churches included, can endorse specific candidates if they simply give up their tax-exempt status. Plus, religious leaders routinely espouse certain ideologies and talk about their stands on issues. Non-profit organizations should not, however, be allowed to retain that status while working to directly help elect or defeat specific political candidates.
My question is, Did the church actually call for the electoral defeat of Bill Clinton in the advertisement? If so, then the Register is correct. But if it only criticized his policies, it is dubious whether that constitutes an endorsement of any sort. Why didn't the Register include that crucial piece of information in its editorial?
. . .
WHAT FIRST AMENDMENT?
Nicholas Kristof has a rather creepy column in the New York Times today. Stephen Green has the takedown. (Thanks to Instapundit.)
. . .
DAILY DIATRIBE: RESOLVE WILL WEAKEN
A while back, I got into a bit of a row with Hesiod from CounterSpin Central when I suggested that Bush could make the war with Iraq an election issue by "making the case." (Guess I was way off on that one, huh?)
Anyway, one of the points Hesiod made was in response to my claim that weapons inspections would not work because they had not worked before. Hesiod responded that during the 1990s Hussein did not cooperate because there was no threat of an invasion. He argued that they would work this time because we were threatening an invasion. Given a choice between being toppled by the U.S. or weapons inspectors, Hussein would choose the latter:
If the choice is DEATH, or to give up his weapons of mass destruction [which are NOT the source of his domestic power in Iraq], Saddam will choose to give up his WMD. If we keep a permanent inspections regime in place, with the threat of military action if he does not comply, it will prevent him from rebuilding his program in any significant way.
If the recent news is any indication Hesdiod may be correct. (Although Hussein may just be up to his old cat-and-mouse games.)
Either way, it’s an interesting point. Unfortunately, it’s also a shortsighted one. A weapons inspection regime might be effective if backed up by a threat of invasion—but not in the long-term. A threat of invasion is only good if the U.S. is willing to follow through on it. Right now, we are. But over time, resolve weakens. The current resolve to invade may last for a year or two. But four or five years from now, the resolve will have dissipated. That’s no put down on the American people. The willingness to engage in a specific war atrophies over time, as people get on with their lives. Nevertheless, it is only a matter of time before the threat to invade becomes a fairly empty one.
Eventually, Hussein will test our resolve. He will begin with some small test, by refusing to let the weapons inspectors into a certain area. He will wait to see what the reaction is from the U.S. Will we start to mobilize the troops, or not? If we do, he’ll likely back down. He’ll wait, and then test us again. Sooner or later, he’ll do it when our resolve has weakened. He’ll grow more bold, further restricting the access of the weapons inspectors, eventually giving them the boot. Haven’t we been here before?
So weapons inspections backed up by the threat of an invasion may work for a while. But it’s not a long-term solution. The only real solution is to see Hussein leave power and democratic government established in Iraq.
. . .
YOU GO HANK!
A Democratic candidate officially opposes the war.
. . .
MORE ON THE DEBATE
Yepsen has a column on the debate this morning, arguing that Vilsack and Gross fought to a tie. There is also this interesting article in the Des Moines Register.
There are two other things about the debate that I neglected to mention in my post last night. First, my favorite moment came when the candidates were discussing tax cuts, and either Vilsack or one of the panelists referred to such cuts as "tax expenditures." Gross responded to the effect that the term "tax expenditures" suggests it is the government’s money. It’s not, he claimed. It belongs to the people. Yes, Mr. Gross. That’s exactly right.
Second, the most disturbing moment came when Vilsack discussed the sales tax. He said that the sales tax is "not set for the internet age." Does that mean that he wants to tax the internet? It sure seems that he’s hinting at it.
. . .
Monday, September 16, 2002
WE SHALL SEE....
Reportedly Hussein is going to let the inspectors back in.
Steven Den Beste is skeptical, with good reason.
. . .
WHOA!
Croooow is working overtime.
. . .
FIRST IOWA GUBERNATORIAL DEBATE
How many times did Governor Vilsack say “corporate tax breaks” or some variation thereof? I lost count. Well, I guess we know which phrase tested well with the focus groups.
On a serious note, I think both candidates fought to a draw at their little encounter at Coe College. Neither had a clear edge at the end. Clearly, both are policy wonks. Yet Gross had a much cleaner delivery than Vilsack. He has a better ability to communicate policy ideas to the average voter than does Vilsack. (Word of advice to the Vilsack campaign: Phrases like “phosphorous index,” “regionalize our approach,” and “virtual academies,” probably aren’t going to do much for the independent voter.) Gross also hammered away at Vilsack’s major weakness, the state budget. When Vilsack urged Gross to give up the $1 billion deficit claim, Gross threw it right back at him.
Yet, Vilsack landed two hard punches that, I think, enabled him to parry to a draw. First, he mentioned Gross’s involvement with hog lots at least three times, once at some length. Gross never had a really good response to that charge; perhaps there isn’t one. Also, he nailed Gross pretty hard on state employee salaries, noting that it was hypocritical for Gross to complain about state employee salaries when his own salary as chief-of-staff had increase 600%. Gross said he wanted to respond, but couldn’t at the time due to the format. But when a rebuttal period occurred, Gross did not respond to it. If Gross wants to win the next debate, he needs to have a response to zingers like that one.
One last thing: Early in the debate Vilsack claimed that the General Fund portion of the budget was $60 million lower than it was when he first came to office. Baloney. Despite all the budget cuts of the last 18 months, it is still $40 million higher.
. . .
WELCOME IOWANS!
Via Jason Steffans at Antioch Road, I have discovered two more Iowa bloggers. The first is Gary Petersen's Country Keepers. It appears to be focused on politics and religion. The only drawback I can see is that Gary is a Cylcones fan. But hey, that's forgivable.
The other is called View from an Iowa Homestead, by John Van Dyk. It appears to also have a very heavy religious focus, although he gets off a good shot at the political scene now and then.
Nice to have you gentlemen in the Blogosphere. A few more, and Iowa will no doubt rule this realm.
UPDATE: Gary has posted a comment to say that his blog is more about his faith than religion in general. Fair enough.
. . .
HA HA, INDEED
Croooow Blog has this bit about Ramzi Binalshibh, one of financiers of September 11.
He also has this link about Jesse Jackson’s continued slide into irrelevancy.
. . .
GUNS IN THE COCKPIT? NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO!
That might as well be the headline to this editorial in the Daily Nonpareil. The Nonpareil has been consistently against the idea of arming pilots; today they have veered off into the realm of the silly. Consider this passage:
Most terrorists would be unable to get onto a plane with a gun, so if the cockpit crew were armed, they would have a distinct advantage over a lesser-armed opponent, wouldn't they?
The problem with this logic is that it makes too many assumptions. It seems straight forward. All the pieces fit. Bigger weapons defeat smaller weapons.
But the terrorists of 9/11 only had box cutters on their side when they hijacked the four planes that crashed into the World Trade Center Towers, the Pentagon and a field in Pennsylvania. The cockpit crews of those flights had crash axes and were still unable to maintain control of their planes.
What?!?! Crash axes?!?! You mean a crash axe is as easy to get to and wield as a handgun? I did not know that! Wow! You learn something new everyday!
Then consider this:
Pilots may wear uniforms, but they are not security guards. They are no more qualified to carry guns than the flight attendants who serve your drinks and fluff your pillows.
Actually, many pilots have military training, so they are, indeed, more qualified than flight attendants. And the legislation currently before Congress requires all pilots to take firearms training before they can be armed.
And finally:
As harsh as it may seem, pilots confronted by terrorism today will have few options available to them that guns could improve.
The folks who wrote that have obviously never held and handgun. So let me educate them. You see, when you have a handgun, you can take someone out from much greater distance than just about any other firearm. You just point the gun at your friendly-neighborhood terrorist, pull the trigger, and the bullet does the rest. Kind of neat, huh?
. . .
SUPPORT FOR IRAQ INVASION ON THE REBOUND
New poll by Newsweek shows nearly two-thirds of Americans support an invasion.
. . .
FOR FREE TRADE
Over at Mud On My Shoes, Lance Cummings has this nice defense of NAFTA.
. . .
DAILY DIATRIBE: JUDICIAL APPOINTMENTS AND THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
From Byron York's column in National Review Online last Friday:
Just one week after Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee killed the federal-appeals-court nomination of Priscilla Owen, Republicans are bracing for a fight over another so-called "controversial" White House judicial choice.
This time the candidate is Michael McConnell, a University of Utah law professor selected for a place on the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. McConnell was one of the president's first nominees, chosen on May 9, 2001. Democrats failed to act on the nomination for more than 15 months until this week, when Judiciary Committee chairman Patrick Leahy abruptly scheduled McConnell's hearing for next Wednesday.
I read that, and I remember June 26, and I think are Republicans blind, deaf, and stupid? On June 26 of this year God rained down manna from Heaven for Republicans, at least for those on the Senate Judiciary Committee. That was the day that Judges Alfred T. Goodwin and Stephen Reinhardt of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Pledge of Allegiance violated the establishment clause of the First Amendment.
This should be the prefect issue for Republicans to use against Democrats in fights over Bush’s judicial nominees. But, to my knowledge, not one on the Senate Judiciary Committee has brought it up. If they have brought it up, they certainly haven’t made much of it. That they haven’t is perplexing.
Think about the effect that would have been created had even one Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee asked "Ms. Owens, do you think the phrase ‘under God’ in the Pledge of Allegiance violates the establishment clause?" When Owens answered "no," as she undoubtedly would have, the Republicans would have had a very potent weapon.
First, Republicans would have been able to argue that Owens was a nominee that would eschew the judicial activism displayed by the Ninth Circuit. As it was, Republicans found themselves in the perverse situation of having to stave off charges that Owens was a judicial activist based on her rulings on parental notification.
Second, and most important, Republicans could have charged that Democrats wanted to defeat the nomination of judges who would uphold the Pledge of Allegiance. Given the saliency of the Pledge issue, it would have focused more of the public’s attention on Bush’s judicial nominees. That would have put the Democrats on the defensive, and put enormous pressure on at least some members of the Judiciary Committee to vote in favor of Owens. If Republicans had employed such a strategy, Owens might be sitting on the Fifth Circuit Court today. If, if, if.
But it doesn’t have to be an "if." Should Democrats forge ahead with opposition to Michael McConnell, Republicans could bring up the Pledge issue. Should they ever realize what a weapon the Ninth Circuit had given them.
Yes, on June 26 manna rained down from Heaven and hit Republicans over the head. Perhaps the problem is that manna doesn’t weigh enough.
. . .
NOT TOO BIG ON MR. RITTER
Tony Adragna over at Quasipundit doesn't think too much of Scott Ritter.
. . .
MORE LEACH VS. THOMAS
Thanks again to John Ferguson for emailing me this article in the New York Times about the Leach-Thomas race. Very informative, and confirms that Leach is in a real fight.
. . .
HI PEV!
Two interesting articles in the Des Moines Register. The first is about the House race between Jim Nussle and Ann Hutchinson. The second is about the Vilsack-Gross debate tonight. What’s most interesting about these articles is that they quote Peverill Squire, a professor of political science at the University of Iowa. Professor Squire is the chair of my dissertation committee. And an all-around great guy.
. . .
WHO'S TO BLAME?
The Des Moines Register laments the 20% rise in tuition at the three public universities this year. Look at who, according to the editorial, bears responsibility:
Are you angry that tuition and fees are poised to soar another 20 percent at Iowa's universities? You should be, but not at the Board of Regents' staff for recommending the hike. All blame belongs to the Legislature, which has slashed state support for the schools.
All blame belongs with the Legislature? Doesn't the Governor have something to do with it? Oh, that's right, the Register wants Vilsack to win reelection. Can't blame him.
The Register also views the funding cuts in near apocalyptic terms:
Iowa's three state universities are gems. Besides the doors they open for young Iowans, they are regarded as strong overall and excellent in some areas. They are key to Iowa's reputation as a good place to live and do business.
The Legislature somehow must restore the support the schools need, or Iowa will surely lose that reputation built so paintakingly over generations.
Back in the early 90s when I was attending California State University, Sacramento, the California State Government cut funding for state universities to fix a budget shortfall. The result? A 40% jump in tuition. Last time I checked, those universities had kept their reputations. I suspect Iowa's will too.
. . .
Sunday, September 15, 2002
YEPSEN HAS ANOTHER GOOD ONE
David Yepsen has an outstanding column in the Register, calling on both Vilsack and Gross to start advertising their agendas. On Vilsack, Yepsen states:
Yes, Vilsack has offered a few specific proposals, but he sure doesn't put any of them in his advertising where they might educate voters and build support. No, he reserves his paid media for attacks and counterattacks of Gross.
Vilsack has probably avoided advertising about his agenda because it, in a word, sucks.
As for Gross, Yepsen says:
Gross doesn't have as many specific proposals, and he needs some. It's not enough for him just to say "I'm the non-Vilsack" in this race. (In fairness, we shouldn't expect as much from Gross as from Vilsack. Gross is a conservative, and conservatives, by definition, don't go around with a lot of activist plans for government. They are for lower taxes, less regulation, more personal freedom. But what are his plans for accomplishing those things? Iowa doesn't need a do-nothing, mossback conservative as governor; we'll have plenty of those in the Legislature.)
Gross needs more "specific proposals"? Now who has been saying that?
. . .
LEACH VS. THOMAS
I watched the discussion/debate between Representative Jim Leach and his Democrat challenger, Dr. Julie Thomas on Iowa Public Television. The most interesting part of the debate for me occurred when Thomas responded to Leach’s charge that she was too liberal for the district. Thomas responded that she was a "moderate."
Now correct me if I’m wrong, but if you’re a "moderate" member of your party don’t you move away from your party on at least a few issues? If you’re a moderate Republican, you tack to the left on some issues, and if you’re a moderate Democrat you tack to the right.
Assuming the above definition is correct, on which issues does Julie Thomas tack to the right? War with Iraq? Opposes it. Social Security privatization? Opposes it. The Bush Tax Cut? Take a guess.
In addition to those issue positions, she also wants more environmental restrictions on free-trade agreements like NAFTA, and favors the more expensive prescription-drug benefit currently before Congress.
It seems that it’s accurate to call Thomas a liberal. Then again, perhaps it depends on what the meaning of "moderate" is.
. . .
I GOT YOUR POPULATION RIGHT HERE
In what must be an attempt to rub we Iowa bloggers’ (Jason and me) nose in it, Geitner Simmons links to the list of the 50 most populous cities in the United States. And what city comes in at 44? Omaha, Nebraska. And where is Des Moines, Iowa? It’s not there! In fact, it barely makes the top 100, coming in at a lame 95.
I know that post was intended for me, Geitner. I just know it! Yours is coming!
. . .
ISU 36, IOWA 31
Yes, Jason, I agree. Something still isn't right. But at least it is looking better than the basketball program.
. . .
STATE LEGISLATIVE RACES
A good article in the Des Moines Register about the races for the Iowa State Legislature. It probably overstates the Democrats chances of retaking the Iowa House or Senate—they’d need to pick up 7 seats in the House and 5 in the Senate. That’s a big task, even if it were a year that was going to bode well for Democrats. Still the article is quite informative.
. . .
|
. . .
|
