OMT

2007-01-02T08:47:00.000-05:00

The Last Post

This marks my final entry at OMT.

Leaving this creaking old platform behind isn't easy. I've published here for well over 4 years and in many ways, these digital pages have become as familiar and comfortable as old friends.

But the time has come to move on.

My thanks go out to those who took the time to read my posts, to comment on- and off-line and especially to those whom I've come to know away from the screen.

I'll pop-up in other places now and then. I still have a shingle out at The Cost Cutting Caucus blog and intend to make more use of it in the future. And there are other writing opportunities waiting in the wings. They will be used as well because, Lord knows, someone has to keep Jeff Schapiro in line.

See y'all down the road.

2006-12-29T10:24:00.000-05:00

Movements of Wise Men

The "secret meetings" between various GOP officeholders has generated some interest in the right side of the blog world. And with good reason -- any time someone attempts to get the factions talking with one another, particularly when those factions have been warring like disgruntled in-laws ever since the elopement, it's worthy of analysis.

I've no problem with Bob McDonnell, Frank Wolf, Tom Davis, Ed Gillespie and others starting a dialogue. I'm not sure, however, that anything will come of it.

That House and Senate Republicans have been at odds over new taxes for roads is old news. But unlike the Senate, the House has at least been willing to consider ideas that would address the root of the transportation problem (something Jim discusses here). I don't believe the Senate has done anything close to this, preferring instead to adopt the role of the most hidebound conservative it their defense of the existing system.

It's been explained to me that, in general, the Senate leadership really and truly believes that major budget items like transportation need dedicated revenue streams so they do not have to compete with one another. On one level, this is perfectly understandable. We would not impose a gas tax to fund education (or would we?). But it assumes that the source of all these streams -- taxpayers -- never runs dry. Anyone who has seen what happens when rivers are tapped, re-tapped and tapped again for various uses knows that, eventually, the main stream becomes a trickle and its dependents all suffer. It also assumes that competition among major budget items is a bad thing.

I don't believe that's the case. If anything, they ought to compete fiercely for every dollar they receive. Does transportation come before education? Make the case. Does education come before law enforcement, the environment, Medicare, mental health, the car tax rebate? Make the case. Make them compete. Dedicated revenue sources allow the most difficult decisions to slide by. That's fine if one's source of funds is infinite. But even the taxpayer's pockets have limits.

I stand by my proposal to give the pro-tax forces all they desire in the way of new monies. Give them all they want in the next session -- but sunset those new revenues after a period of years to assess whether they have made a measurable difference in addressing certain region's transportation issues. If they have, fine. Then I'm wrong, the world really is round and I will recant my ways. But if they aren't -- if, even after several years and several new billions of dollars finds NoVans sitting in traffic contemplating a new career in road rage -- then the pro-tax side must admit that new monies alone are not the solution. They must look elsewhere for solutions.

I'll probably grow older, balder and fatter waiting for anything like this to occur. But I'm willing to take the plunge if they are.

2006-12-29T09:27:00.000-05:00

The Line Forms

Not Buck is looking for contributors to Richmond War Room -- one of the finest blogs to come along in some time.

It's tempting...

2006-12-29T08:54:00.000-05:00

What's This?

A note from Chad at CC.

I agree completely.

2006-12-28T13:39:00.000-05:00

Some Sense at Last

Aside from comments I've left at Waldo's site during the latest unpleasantness, I've tried to stay out of the increasing silliness that's engulfed portions of the Virginia blog world.

Today, Shaun offers an excellent post on the matter that largely squares with my own thinking (I would differ in that I don't believe Waldo deserved any of insults thrown his way).

There was a time when it seemed that people from both sides could disagree without being disagreeable. And those disagreements could be sharp, indeed. It made things interesting. It made things fun. Now, we have a whole lot less of both and that's terribly sad.

The sniping has gotten to the point where folks like Ward may stop blogging entirely. Another loss. And for what? Blogging is not journalism. Nor is it a blood sport. The sooner we remember that, the sooner we might be able to reclaim at least the patina of civility.

2006-12-28T11:37:00.000-05:00

Hobgoblins

At Cafe Hayek, Don Boudreaux remains cool (or sanguine) while the rest of the world heats up over global warming and a series of tax schemes to combat it:

Even if global warming is a reality, another reality -- one with a much more consistent track record throughout history and across different countries -- is the perversity of political incentives. Given these perverse political incentives (not to mention the inevitiable scrawniness of government's access to information and knowledge), I don't trust government to impose and administer a Pigouvian tax with sufficient disinterestness and skill to make such a tax a plausible policy option.

Like the Professor, I'm perfectly willing to accept the reality of global warming and its possible effects. But as the Jeff Jacoby piece Boudreaux links to points out, there is more afoot to global warming/cooling, whatever than first meets the eye:

Still, there is always a market for apocalyptic forebodings. Paul Ehrlich grew rich predicting the imminent deaths of hundreds of millions of human beings from starvation and epidemic disease. "The Limits to Growth," the Club of Rome's 1972 bestseller, warned that humankind was going to experience "a rather sudden and uncontrollable decline" as the world's resources -- everything from gold to petroleum -- ran dry. Jonathan Schell and Carl Sagan forecast a devastating "nuclear winter" unless atomic arsenals were frozen, or better still, abolished. Those doomsday prophesies never came to pass. Neither have the climate-change catastrophes that have been bruited about for a century.

"The whole aim of practical politics," wrote H.L. Mencken in 1920, "is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." Some things never change.

The idea that there is a ready and growing market for doom and gloom is quite real. It's one of the things that keeps environmental/gun/abortion/you name it groups, political parties and TV preachers going strong. That's why, regardless of the supposed crisis (whether it's climate change, transportation, education or any number of topics) I've always found it better to question the conventional wisdom than adopt the latest fashion. That doesn't mean ignoring what's being said - that would be foolish. Rather, let the opinions flow, the data build (on all sides) and then make the decision. Preferably after lunch.

2006-12-28T09:45:00.000-05:00

CrimLaw Closes Its Doors

Ken Lammers is shutting down CrimLaw in favor of his new and very interesting effort, The Direction.

Ken was an early linker to this rattling old blog of mine and for that I will always be grateful. However, "The Direction" is an excellent second act. If you haven't watched it yet, I urge you to do so.

2006-12-28T08:40:00.000-05:00

Charities on the Dole

For the longest time, I've been harping on the General Assembly's practice of funding nonprofits which is does not control from the general fund.

At the blogger conference last August, Bob McDonnell said his office has looked into the practice. Later, Chris Saxman said he had requested the review. I hope that if and when an opinion is available, it will be made public. But until then, consider this WSJ editorial on the effects of government funding on private charities. The conclusions ought to give at least some legislators reason to think:

But the problem with government money goes beyond just its volatility: Studies by economists over the past decade have demonstrated that government spending on nonprofit activities actually lowers private charitable giving. In the case of social welfare services, a dollar in government funding to nonprofits generally suppresses private giving by 25 cents or more. Part of this is due to a lower perception of need among charities when they get public money. There is also evidence, however, that charities spend less effort fundraising after governments give them money.

The bottom line is that there is nothing free about cash from the government. Perhaps this should come as no surprise, given what we know about the effects of public subsidies to individuals, such as welfare recipients. I would not argue that the destabilizing effects of government subsidies and the downward pressure on giving are reasons to eliminate public funding to nonprofits. But these effects do represent serious unintended consequences of nonprofit reliance on the government.

My personal experience with nonprofits who actively seek and receive public funding is that is does make asking for private funds more difficult. In many cases, the public funding is ether downplayed or not mentioned at all -- for the very reason described in the above quote.

Nonprofit fundraising is very competitive and becoming even moreso as the number of nonprofits increases. Turning to local, state or federal funding sources may seem like effective fundraising. But in the long term, I think it weakens the organizations far more than it helps.

2006-12-27T14:16:00.000-05:00

Ford's the One

By now, everyone knows that former President Gerald Ford has died. While I will leave it to others to write more specifically about his legacy, there's one personal moment I'd like to add to the general discussion:

In the 1976 election year, a classmate and I were asked to address the masses at Greenwood Elementary School over the p.a. system. Our topic was "Who are you supporting for president and why?"

I chose Gerald Ford.

I can't remember a lot of what I said, but it largely boiled down to a choice between a man of vast government experience who, in spite of his mistakes (for some reason, I mentioned the cut-off of aid to South Vietnam, and the troubles in Angola, those "WIN" buttons and more...I think) was far better than an untested, one-term Georgia governor who had no foreign affairs experience.

The nation (narrowly) decided otherwise. They promptly corrected this mistake four years later.

I never really lost the affinity for Ford, believing in 1980 that he would have clinched a Reagan victory if he accepted the vice presidential nomination. When that didn't happen, I became a John Anderson kid (after Kennedy lost to Carter in the Democratic primaries, that is).

Ford was a quiet, effective, decent and under-rated man. We could use someone like him today.

2006-12-27T11:25:00.000-05:00

The Pork Lifeline

David Keating points to a New York Times story on how pork -- once and still considered to be an incumbent's strongest lifeline -- failed to rescue a number of congressional Republicans this year.

David points out a number of juicy examples, but this is the item that really made me wonder if the GOP has learned anything from November's losses. Regarding Rep. Jeff Flake's contention that pork actually hurt incumbents, an NRCC spokesmodel said:

“Bringing federal projects home to a district helps an incumbent — period,” said Carl Forti, a spokesman for the National Republican Campaign Committee. “Jeff Flake is totally misreading the results.”

He said Mr. Taylor and another member of the Appropriations Committee, Don Sherwood, Republican of Pennsylvania, had lost because of personal problems. Ms. Northup, he said, “was just in a bad district — it’s always been tight.”

He attributed Indiana’s three losses to poorly run campaigns.

But Mr. Flake cited his own state as proof that pork does not ensure re-election. A fellow Arizona Republican member who had embraced earmarks, Representative J. D. Hayworth, lost his seat.

“In the end, the voters saw through it,” Mr. Flake said.

Mr. Forti attributed Mr. Hayworth’s loss to running a single-issue campaign, against immigration.

To be fair, earmarks alone probably ended no incumbent's political career. But it's also probably fair to say that bringing home the bacon isn't as popular as it once might have been. That someone from the NRCC wouldn't even admit this possibility is stunning. Have the campaign committees really learned nothing from November's results? In some news-proof cubicles, it seems so.

2006-12-27T09:23:00.000-05:00

Demographics as Destiny

Via the Hotline come some census estimates that make for some interesting political discussion. Looking ahead to the post-2010 redistricting, the Hotline cites a Polidata study which estimates that:

...seven states are all but certain to lose at least one seat: Iowa, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Missouri, New York, Ohio and Pennsylvania. Another six states are all but certain to gain at least one seat: Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Nevada, Texas and Utah.

A few other interesting projections from Polidata: Texas could pick up as many as 4 congressional seats; New York and Ohio could lose 2 seats. California, for the first time since statehood, may not pick up any seats.

The political center of gravity continues to shift South and West -- with the intermountain West gaining steam as California stagnates.

Of note in the census numbers are the lists of fastest growing states. Virginia doesn't make the cut in either the "Top Ten Fastest-Growing" or the "Top Ten Numeric Gainers." Those states are either to our south or in the West.

But if demography really is destiny, with political fortunes made and lost in the movement of peoples, then it would seem that the schism between religious Southern Conservatives and the more libertarian Westerners won't be going away and may become deeper.

2006-12-22T08:41:00.000-05:00

Christmas Vacation

Because our employees are our most precious asset, OMT management will be closing early so our beloved staff (yes, they really are...we don't even know what the term "right sizing" means, honestly, so stop looking at us that way when we ask for your stapler and security pass) may spend quality time with their friends, loved ones, hangers on, accountants, analysts, potted plants, wrapping paper, fattening chocolate goodies, overdue library books, unfolded laundry, dust bunnies, leaf blowers and such and such. Merry Christmas to all.

2006-12-21T12:42:00.000-05:00

Breaking Byrd

Not Buck points us to a piece from Garren Shipley outlining the House's transportation proposal:

Essentially, House Republicans want to get counties to stop trying to be cities or towns, Athey said. Growth should be focused around urban centers at higher density and around existing utility service.

NBT is right, the items in the proposed bills would pique Jim Bacon's interest. But they also are a step in the right direction, forcing counties to take more responsibility for their own development decisions while also giving them more tools to maintain the transportation systems they already have.

This probably won't satisfy the pro-tax crowd (only "dedicated revenue streams" will do that). But it does show the House is looking for more than stop-gap solutions.

2006-12-21T10:17:00.000-05:00

Thanks, George

Via Danny Glover comes another piece taking bloggers to task for being...well...bloggers. This time, the lashing comes from the always condescending George Will. His hook is the Time Magazine decision to name "You" the entity of the year:

There are, however, essentially no reins on the Web -- few means of control and direction. That is good, but it vitiates the idea that the Web's chaos of entertainment, solipsism and occasional intellectual seriousness and civic engagement is anything like a polity (a "digital democracy"). Time's bow to the amateurs who are, it strangely suggests, no longer obscure, and in the same game that Time is in, is refuted by a glance -- which is all an adult will want -- at YouTube's most popular videos.

Time's issue includes an unenthralled essay by NBC's Brian Williams, who believes that raptures over the Web's egalitarianism arise from the same impulse that causes today's youth soccer programs to award trophies -- "entire bedrooms full" -- to any child who shows up: "The danger just might be that we miss the next great book or the next great idea, or that we will fail to meet the next great challenge . . . because we are too busy celebrating ourselves and listening to the same tune we already know by heart."

The fact that Stengel included Williams's essay proves that Stengel's Time has what 99.9 percent of the Web's content lacks: seriousness.

There can be little doubt that much of what is posted online is filler. And not very good filler, at that. However, Mr. Williams ought to be more concerned with his disappearing audience than "missing the next great idea."

As for Will's charge that the web lacks "seriousness," I suggest that his understanding of what's online is desperately shallow. It's understandable that with the current size and continued growth of web content, it can seem nearly impossible to sift through the muck and find a gem. But it can be done. Will seems either unable or unwilling to make the attempt. It's his loss. However, I'm sure his research minions find the web an invaluable resource.

If only they could slip him a page devoted to strong, manly handshakes, George might turn out okay.

But there's another thread in Will's argument that I found truly lacking in seriousness:

Richard Stengel, Time's managing editor, says, "Thomas Paine was in effect the first blogger" and "Ben Franklin was essentially loading his persona into the MySpace of the 18th century, 'Poor Richard's Almanack.' " Not exactly.

Franklin's extraordinary persona informed what he wrote but was not the subject of what he wrote. Paine was perhaps history's most consequential pamphleteer. There are expected to be 100 million bloggers worldwide by the middle of 2007, which is why none will be like Franklin or Paine. Both were geniuses; genius is scarce. Both had a revolutionary civic purpose, which they accomplished by amazing exertions. Most bloggers have the private purpose of expressing themselves for their own satisfaction. There is nothing wrong with that, but there is nothing demanding or especially admirable about it, either. They do it successfully because there is nothing singular about it, and each is the judge of his or her own success.

I've argued in the past that bloggers have more in common with 18th century pamphelteers than they do with the modern press. While I'm aware of no blogger who can match his importance, let alone his rhetoric, it's a mistake to dismiss all bloggers as a narcissistic mob. Some offer genuine insight. Even more offer opinions that deserve to be heard because they truly add to public discourse. The greatest value of blogs to date is that they have given these people, who might never have been heard if the old media rules still applied, a platform of their own. While hardly perfect, these platforms and the people who use them are (generally) enriching the discussions we all have about politics and public policy.

And as events have shown, these discussions have real consequences, both in elections and in policy. The online mob made congressional earmarks an issue. This same mob helped defeat Joe Lieberman in Connecticut's Democratic primary and exploited George Allen's gaffes with remarkable skill. And in Richmond, a blog run by just two people managed to thwart the best laid plans of the city's monied and political elite over the Performing Arts Center. How can a mob do this? Because their readers are not just basement dwellers and misanthropes, but reporters, editors and others who bring the news to an even wider audience. And even more, when blogs force those same readers to confront their own failings or omissions, change is not only possible, but likely.

In that way, blogs are almost exactly like their pamphleteer ancestors. Not a bad lineage, even if George Will and a host of others pretend otherwise.

2006-12-21T10:06:00.000-05:00

Let it Snow

Last year, the Leahys traveled to Denver for Christmas so young Jack could spend time with his grandparents. Good thing we didn't do the same this year.

Yup. It's bad. Really bad. My folks say they've got about three feet of snow at the house and will be trying to cut through the drift across the driveway this morning (of course, Dad bought the snowblower after I left home...). The chain law is in effect on the highways north of town and I-25 in closed from just south of town all the way to the New Mexico border. The National Guard has been mobilized to rescue stranded motorists and to bring supplies to the 5,000 or so people stuck at the airport (some of whom have the gall to complain that the airport is closed. it's a blizzard, people. If you want to fly, sprout wings and go for it).

Interestingly, they still have power. If such a storm happened in Virginia, the lights would be off for a week at the very least.

2006-12-21T09:46:00.000-05:00

The Expanded Alliance

Alton has greatly expanded the ODBA, adding new members like crazy.

Now I have to go in a fiddle with the damn template on this creaking old blog again. Long ago, Chad created a snippet of code that would do this automatically. But the chewing gum and bailing wire that holds this site together wouldn't accept it. No matter. I'll put it up on blocks and make the changes soon.

But the sentimentalist in me just doesn't want to let go of Sic Semper.

Anyway, this old member wishes all the new ones the very best.

2006-12-21T09:19:00.000-05:00

New Drift

Jim announces an interesting addition to Bearing Drift -- my one-time Sorensen colleague Brian Kirwin -- and that the next bloggers' conference will be down Virginia Beach way in 2007.

Seems good to me.

2006-12-20T11:01:00.000-05:00

Mark, Not Jim

Jim Gilmore steps into the news void before Christmas, announces a presidential exploratory committee, and a dozen Virginia blog posts bloom.

Well. Settle down, folks. Jim Gilmore will not be the nominee. But if the GOP is still looking for someone who is actually interesting, and (dare I say it?) even a bit of a libertarian, then they ought to consider Mark Sanford:

Unlike most Republican governors who either pushed their state parties to the left or simply acquiesced to tax or spending increases passed by legislatures of either party, Mr. Sanford has battled profligate Republicans at every turn.

When the state House overrode all but one of his 106 spending line-item vetoes in 2004, Mr. Sanford stormed the Capitol the next morning with a piglet under each arm. Red-faced Republicans squealed, but voters loved the bold move. Realizing they couldn't be quite as wasteful as their counterparts, the Senate sustained seven of the vetoes — but still overrode 99.

Mr. Sanford has been rankling fellow Republicans long before arriving in Columbia. As a congressman from 1995-2001, Republican leadership knew that he was beyond their control. In 1999, he and then-Rep. Tom Coburn, Oklahoma Republican, used parliamentary procedures to save taxpayers a fortune. The farm spending bill came to the floor with an "open rule" — meaning any germane amendments could be offered. Messrs. Sanford and Coburn together drafted 121 fat-trimming amendments, and after trudging through just a few dozen of them, House leadership pulled the entire bill. It was only reintroduced after $1 billion had been carved out.

Sanford has a reputation in Columbia as being aloof and arrogant. I found him to be engaging and personable. And even more, he has a quality that the overwhelming majority of the political class lacks: Principles.

Sanford has made it fairly clear he does not wish to run. And if he did, the odds would be stacked firmly against him. However, he's overcome similar obstacles before -- in 1994, when he rose from obscurity to beat the GOP establishment's favorite (and went on to beat a Democrat whose campaign was run by a friend of Mrs. Leahy) and again in 2002, when he won the GOP primary over other establishment candidates and then went on to beat an incumbent Democrat.

Could Sanford be the one? I've always thought so.

2006-12-20T08:42:00.000-05:00

Mob Mentality

Another day brings another pressie slapping around blogs for hastening the end of civilization. Or at least the press.

WSJ assistant editorial features editor Joseph Rago burns a lot of column inches and ten cent words to make this point:

Certainly the MSM, such as it is, collapsed itself. It was once utterly dominant yet made itself vulnerable by playing on its reputed accuracy and disinterest to pursue adversarial agendas. Still, as far from perfect as that system was, it was and is not wholly imperfect. The technology of ink on paper is highly advanced, and has over centuries accumulated a major institutional culture that screens editorially for originality, expertise and seriousness.

Of course, once a technosocial force like the blog is loosed on the world, it does not go away because some find it undesirable. So grieving over the lost establishment is pointless, and kind of sad. But democracy does not work well, so to speak, without checks and balances. And in acceding so easily to the imperatives of the Internet, we've allowed decay to pass for progress.

Blogs, it seems, are just a manifestation of the collapse of the established media. Rago blames conservatives for this, in part, due to their pell-mell search for alternatives to what they perceived to be a dysfunctional and outright hostile medium. Blogs may have given them what they wanted. But the price has been high, indeed -- mediocre content, based upon minutiae, peddled by the mob.

A stark contrast, no doubt, to the all-day, every-day rush of cable news to discover Jon Benet's killer, the O.J. Simpson farce, and Lord knows what other "news" that sacrifices helpless electrons in the pursuit of ratings. And that's merely what's on television. We ought not forget that newspapers, too, have embraced the race for the bottom (witness the RTD's nearly wall-to-wall coverage of Eliot Yamin's "American Idol" experience. Real news, vetted within an inch of its life, we can be sure).

Bashing blogs is nothing new. If anything, it has become an old media trope. But to dismiss blogs as simply the unsettled rumblings of the mob, is to ignore their reality and potential. Ask George Allen if blogs are a sign of decay. Ask Dan Rather if they are the mutterings of the mob. And for that matter, ask Mr. Rago to read a bit more of his own newspaper.

Like this review of "Citizen Marketers," a new book that describes how people use the new media to cut through the marketing pitches and PR campaigns of the largest companies to change the corporate landscape:

The real story of "Citizen Marketers" is the rise of the activist amateur -- "amateur" meaning not only a nonprofessional but also, in the original sense, one who loves. We're seeing a fusion -- a mashup, if you will -- of two formerly distinct spheres, the private and the public. Privately held brands are being defined not by their owners but by unpaid, and often unwanted, public guardians. In an age when most discussion of the public weal can be filed under "commons, tragedy of," this is a remarkable development.

Even more remarkable is the realization that consumers are now able to blow a raspberry heard 'round the world, whether in response to inane corporate spirit-building or customer-service doubletalk. In a perfect world, every business would take note.

Every business should take note. Including Dow Jones and its editors, both great and small.

2006-12-19T08:42:00.000-05:00

More on RPV Blog Outreach

Both Jim and Jerry have noted this Wash Times piece on Ken Cuccinelli's idea to get the RPV involved with blogs.

I think Jim is exactly right when he says:

It seems the GOP right now is reeling from a rash of losses and looking for something, anything, that can bring them a win; today's flavor: the blogosphere.

What they should be looking for is a consistent message that a majority will rally behind. Communicating that message will then take care of itself.

It's an old principle: Supply creates its own demand. Supply a message that's worth discussing and it will be discussed over and over again.

However, Del. Dave Albo simply doesn't really get it:

"The problem is most of the people who monitor these blogs are hobbyists who already know who they are going to vote for," he said. "I don't think the average Joe who doesn't know whom he is going to vote for is monitoring blogs."

So we've all made up our minds and voters don't pay attention to us anyway so why bother. It's the sort of thinking that makes all those stories I've heard about Albo ring true.

While blogs do not and cannot equal the reach of a single television spot, that's not really the point. Blogs reach those who shape the news -- opinion columnists, editorial writers, reporters -- and those who run, work for or closely follow the campaigns. They aren't the mass of undifferentiated, undecided voters. However, they are the very same people Albo and others depend on to reach those same voters.

This does not mean blogs are silver bullets. But politicians ignore blogs at their own peril. So again -- craft a message. Believe in it. Work for it. The blogs will pay attention. And the voters will, too.

2006-12-18T11:37:00.000-05:00

The Electronic Chosen

Ken Cuccinelli's proposal (sent out through his e-newsletter) to have the RPV:

...institutionalize Internet/World Wide Web party participataion as a way to grow the party in new directions and recruit Republicans that can help our campaigns get our message out and fight the political war going on every day in the virtual world...

has generated some chatter. Which shows that, even if such a proposal never comes to pass, Ken at least knows how to stokes the blog world's fires.

Overall, it's an interesting idea that deserves serious discussion within the party. And it does show that at least one more Virginia Republican understands the potential for blogs to reach and engage new audiences. However, this bit left me cold:

Second, by bringing in new, tech-saavy folks, we expand the likelihood that there will be more GOP-focused blogs and bloggers, and as we Republicans know, that will lead to competition among the GOP bloggers to perform better and more effectively. Thus, we are likely to get more quantity and quality from those carrying on the political battle on our behalf on the net.

I can see the point. Competition does tend to bring out...something...in bloggers. But let's never confuse quantity with quality.

And let's also never forget that it is not up to bloggers to carry the fight for anyone online or elsewhere. Just as they must do with voters, it's the RPV's responsibility to earn a blogger's support and work constantly to maintain it. Only then will (most) people be willing to carry the fight online.

2006-12-17T09:21:00.000-05:00

Let's Make a Deal

Not Buck's advice column has gotten me thinking, which is always a dangerous thing.

If the Governor and the Senate are so desperate to raise taxes for transportation, while the House and taxpayers, it seems, are not keen on the idea at all, perhaps there is a way to give both sides something neither wants, but help everyone move a bit closer to a solution.

I suggest that the House give the pro-tax side all the hikes it wants -- every single one of them. In exchange, the pro-tax forces must agree to sunset those hikes after four or five years, at which time the effectiveness of these revenues in addressing the transportation problem, and whether they ought to be renewed for an additional set of years, can be debated.

Failing that, I suggest that any sort of hike to address transportation be offset by the elimination of the food tax and elimination of the BPOL tax or removing the cap on car tax rebates.

No one in the political class really wins and taxpayers, hopefully, get to stay somewhere near even in their tax burden.

2006-12-17T09:06:00.000-05:00

Limping Along, Fed Style

The GOP left DC without passing all the appropriations bills necessary to give the bureaucracy all it wanted in the new fiscal year. The incoming Democratic majority looks like it will not re-open debate, opting instead for an additional CR that will force the Feds to limp along at last year's spending levels.

Some are distraught, but mostly because their earmarks won't be funded. Others are angry, primarily appropriators who blame Bill Frist for failing to bring their bills to a vote.

But the sun will still rise. The Social Security checks will still get mailed. And, somehow, the nation will endure. Fancy that.

2006-12-17T08:57:00.000-05:00

On the Cusp of Worry

Jeff Schapiro tries to take away the Democratic punchbowl this morning, warning that electoral success can breed dissent.

Well of course it does.

Only now, with Democrats making gains and feeling their oats, the feuds that were largely ignored in the press are becoming more interesting...to the delight of anyone dependent upon a stead stream of good copy. We can only hope more of this always entertaining, flying elbow smash fun finds its way into the old-line media in the days ahead.

2006-12-15T11:34:00.000-05:00

Remaking Public Education

This ought to be required reading the next General Assembly session:

Warning that Americans face a grave risk of losing their prosperity and high quality of life to better educated workers overseas, a panel of education, labor and other public policy experts yesterday proposed a far-reaching redesign of the United States education system that would include having schools operated by independent contractors and giving states, rather than local districts, control over school financing.

Among the proposals are:

...starting school for most children at age 3, and requiring all students to pass board exams to graduate from high school, which for many would end after 10th grade. Students could then go to a community or technical college, or spend two years preparing for selective colleges and universities.

The teachers' unions are skeptical, of course. And I would not be surprised if many more with direct or indirect ties to the existing system have reservations as well. However, these ideas are worth discussing.

2006-12-15T11:10:00.000-05:00

Farewell to All That

It seems the Republicans aren't taking the loss of their majority in Congress well at all. At least that's what we learn in this New Republic piece:

There are two ways to leave Washington after an electoral rout: graciously, with emphasis on your accomplishments; or mournfully and in great confusion, as Virgil describes the ruling elites abandoning Troy, wailing angrily and clutching at the doors of their lost palace. This generation of Republicans came here in 1994 claiming they would never be seduced by power; but, after twelve years in Washington, the wailing-and-clutching mood is the prevailing one. New York Representative John Sweeney, who watched his safe seat implode in the weeks leading up to November 7, has not even been able to show up for votes. According to his friend Representative Pete Sessions, he is in shock and has become physically ill from the experience of losing. It's hard not to get the impression that what the Republicans need as they leave the Hill is not fresh leadership or new ideas but a big, long hug.

What they got was a swift kick in the ass. And a well deserved one, at that.

2006-12-15T09:03:00.000-05:00

Advice from the Bunker

Not Buck offers a bit of free advice to Bill Howell and Tim Kaine on the session ahead.

I'd say he's onto something. And for my flat-earth friends, this nugget addressed to Kaine is particularly interesting:

On the second front, start working the middle ground for some kind of compromise that leans in your favor. But do it quietly. There are enough NoVa middle of the road Republicans who will break off and vote for something to build a highway if the deadlock looks like it's going to drag on for a while. Who are they? I could tell you, but you'd have to pay for that kind of advice. But they're out there, and they'll vote for a 60/40 surplus-taxes split in a heartbeat.

I'm sure there are some who would eagerly cut just such a deal, if it meant saving their electoral hides. But do these "middle of the road Republicans" really want to plump for a tax hike going into an election?

And would even that really save them from a possible blue tide? I'm not so sure.

2006-12-15T08:42:00.000-05:00

Whipping Out the Credit Card

Jim Bacon has already noted that the Governor seems more than willing to use the state's credit card for items like upgrading sewage treatment plants. Today, we learn he wants to use the card once more for a new medium-security prison.

Like Jim, I have no real objections to the state using its good credit to build or repair infrastructure. However, these latest examples do tend to undercut the Governor's and the Senate's opposition to using bonds for road construction, favoring new taxes instead.

There may be some logic to this which just escapes me (it wouldn't be the first time). But has anyone considered in all the talk of new, dedicated revenue streams, that all those streams rise from the same source? You can only tap the same wallet so many times before it runs dry. But maybe that's the point. Otherwise, those damned fool taxpayers might spend their money elsewhere on foolish gee-jaws and gimcracks. Or save it (perish the thought).

2006-12-14T09:07:00.000-05:00

The Gilmore Factor

NRO's Jonathan Martin interviews Jim Gilmore and asks about his possible return to electoral politics. Needless to say, the former Governor is keeping a lot of options open, including the White House, the Senate and a return to Richmond. While there's not a lot of new ground covered in this piece, there was this bit of fun:

Third, and perhaps most appealing to a pol with a long memory like Gilmore, another run at the governor’s mansion would offer him a shot to take on the man who ran against his record and denied him that legacy.

“I’d love to run against Mark Warner,” Gilmore admits with the slightest of grins.

I'm sure he would. The question is, would anyone else love it?

2006-12-13T20:25:00.000-05:00

Your Papers, Please

If what Shaun says about the Webb campaign compiling dossiers on bloggers left, right and center is true, I really have to wonder...why go to all that trouble? Good Lord, just about everything anyone could want or need to know about a keyboard jockey can be found in a blog's archives. And failing that, there's always Google.

But it would be nice to see some proof of this. And soon.

2006-12-13T15:59:00.000-05:00

Spreading Macaca

Waldo points us to a post at Wired which says the late, great Allen macaca moment didn't just happen. Like all good viral ads, it was worked pretty hard:

According to Vanden Berg, they chose to post the video on YouTube because it was free (simple enough). But before they tossed it out for the public to see, they'd already pitched the story to a Washington Post reporter, who wrote about it online on Monday. Only after the Post story appeared and the issue had been properly framed did the Webb folks send an email to their supporter list and to friendly bloggers.

The fact that the video was on YouTube made it particularly easy to distribute, since bloggers could insert it directly into their pages, but it was the campaign's promotional work that spread the word.

And as the story developed, they constantly worked reporters and bloggers behind the scenes to shape the public discussion.

That's shrewd marketing. Of course, it helps to have willing messengers. And the WaPo and assorted Webbish bloggers were only too happy to carry said message as often as possible. Meanwhile, the Allen campaign was doing whatever it did...which was only making matters worse.

Interesting, though, is the role of bloggers in all this, and what their talking points may have said. I mentioned some weeks ago that I cringed every time the Allen campaign would send a note out to their list and, soon afterwards, very similar posts would appear on a handful of sites.

Now, it seems, the Webb folks were doing the same. The very great difference, however, is that they did it far earlier, and with greater skill, than the Allen team. And it made a real difference.

If anyone has learned anything at all from this race, it's that bloggers can be useful campaign tools.

Is that what bloggers want themselves to be? I'm sure some do and are happy to be of service.

Which also would mean that blogs are not a new, cutting edge medium at all. Rather, they simply put a new face on old strategies.

2006-12-13T11:19:00.000-05:00

Shaun Answers the Decline

Back online and full of philosophical vinegar, Shaun responds to the post below on the decline of conservatism.

It will take me a couple of days to sort through all of his arguments. But one thing stands out as just dead wrong:

I choose to drive a Ford truck because Chevy trucks break down.

My dear Shaun....remember that Ford stands for "Fix Or Repair Daily."

But who am I to criticize? I choose to drive a Land Rover. But it's a Ford subsidiary. Which would explain the recent transmission replacement.

2006-12-13T08:50:00.000-05:00

If Chesterfield Didn't Exist...

...I not sure you could make it up:

Monacan High School art teacher Stephen Murmer was placed on paid administrative leave recently after school administrators learned of an online video in which he's demonstrating how he paints with his buttocks.

Now that's just plain funny. And it gets even better:

This time, however, the issue involves the video, which shows Murmer -- his face obscured by Groucho-style glasses and mustache -- placing his buttocks on a paint-covered surface and then sitting on a canvas.

His paintings, typically depicting flowers and butterflies, are priced from $480 to $900.

Which begs the question: Who buys this stuff?

2006-12-12T09:51:00.000-05:00

The Decline of Conservatism

A long and challenging article from Bradley Thompson argues that modern conservatism is a dead letter, largely because conservatives have made no attempt to justify their beliefs with an objective, moral philosophy:

In the 1950s and 60s, conservatives could be faulted for lacking the courage to morally defend capitalism and for diluting whatever good principles they had with an admixture of bad or contradictory principles. Today's conservatives, however, have either rejected principles as such, or, as is increasingly the case, have explicitly embraced the moral premises of the Left.

Because they refuse to defend capitalism morally, on the basis of egoism, conservatives have compromised and sold-out the rights of the American people. They have ceded the principled high ground to the Left by accepting the moral rationale for the welfare state -- altruism and its attendant notion that "need" is a legitimate moral claim.

Those who value freedom and capitalism must abandon altruism and the fantasy philosophies that support it (including religion). They must embrace egoism and the factual foundation for individual rights. They must defend capitalism -- not only because it works better than any other social system -- but also, and more fundamentally, because it is the only moral social system.

Reading this piece to the end takes a bit of stamina. But it raises a number of questions that conservatives ought to ask themselves, not the least of which is "Are we really conservatives, dedicated to defend what is right and true...or are we merely shadows of the left?

2006-12-12T09:16:00.000-05:00

"Predator Panic"

Virginia's Bob McDonnell, among others, has been leading a high-profile charge against sexual predators. While there can be no doubt that preventing such crimes and punishing offenders is a genuine concern, are we truly in the grip of a sexual predator epidemic?

Writing in Skeptical Inquiry, Benjamin Radford says no. And the real problem is not so much what kids run into online, as what they must confront in their own homes, from their own families:

The tragic irony is that the panic over sex offenders distracts the public from the real danger, a far greater threat to children than sexual predators: parental abuse and neglect. The vast majority of crimes against children are committed not by released sex offenders but instead by the victim’s own family, church clergy, and family friends. According to a 2003 report by the Department of Human Services, hundreds of thousands of children are abused and neglected each year by their parents and caregivers, and more than 1,500 American children died from that abuse in 2003—most of the victims under four years old. That is more than four children killed per day—not by convicted sexual offenders or Internet predators, but by those entrusted to care for them. According to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, “danger to children is greater from someone they or their family knows than from a stranger.”

It's a contrarian take, to be sure. But it's one worth considering.

2006-12-11T19:37:00.000-05:00

Tom Delay...Blogger

The once and former Hammer now has his own blog.

We can only hope that, one day soon, Jim Trafficant will be blogging, too (can you get broadband in the pokey?).

2006-12-11T19:28:00.000-05:00

Spreading Saxman

Jon Henke guest blogs over at the Club for Growth and, in the process,gives future statewide candidate Chris Saxman some national exposure for his weekend RTD op-ed on education.

Aside from the content of Chris' piece (with which I agree), the fact that it gets placed on the C for G site means it brings him to the attention of some pretty deep national pockets -- who happen to make a point of supporting candidates who support educational choice.

2006-12-11T19:14:00.000-05:00

Down the Hall

Via the festive Alton Foley comes this item, from Tale of the Donkey regarding a possible change in Democratic leadership, thanks in part to the machinations of one of the Virginia blog world's favorite pols, Ward Armstrong:

We hear that Ward Armstrong and Brian Moran are so dissatisfied with Hall's leadership and what one MSM reporter called incompetence as leader that they are ready to oust Hall, move Moran up and Armstrong in.

Hmm. I seem to recall hearing something about this over the weekend. Where was I again? Yeah...that place where everything is off the record. Needless to say, Moran and Armstrong would make for a more formidable Democratic caucus. However, so long as they are in the minority, it won't make a great deal of difference. Unless they happen to be expert RINO herders.

2006-12-11T09:13:00.000-05:00

Boehner Rallies the Troops

Minority Leader John Boehner's memo to the GOP caucus sounds some positive notes and even has flashes of insight. Particularly this one, which the Virginia GOP would be well-advised to read twice and take to heart immediately:

Simply saying “no” to everything won’t cut it; Republicans have to offer ideas of our own. If we want to reclaim our majority, we first have to reclaim our mantle as the party of hope, freedom, and reform. . .the party of Reagan and Lincoln. As our Democratic counterparts may discover the hard way, having a majority is of limited value if you don’t have a vision and a plan for using it.

While "no" is often derided as the last resort of a feeble mind, it's still useful and easy to grasp -- even the most stubborn child gets it after the third of fourth use. But Boehner is right when he says that the GOP needs ideas and a "vision" if it's going to earn the public's trust. You can't win unless you stand for something.

If they hadn't forgotten that in the last few years, the Republicans might still be the majority party in Congress.

2006-12-10T07:42:00.000-05:00

Sorensen's End

Conaway has already written his piece on the recently-ended Sorensen classes. I believe the sentiments he expressed are widely shared.

For myself, the ending was quite different, being as it was spent taking a fellow classmate to the doctor (building social capital, don't you know).

As I told some folks over the weekend, I'm not sure what the experience means, or whether it has or will change the way I approach politics. Maybe it has and I simply don't realize it (yet).

One undeniable and extremely valuable thing I take away from Sorensen is friendship. And perhaps it's on this personal level, and over time, that the real differences will be made.

And on the topic of differences, it's my understanding that a suggestion I made was taken to heart regarding next year's program. To the class of 2007 I have one thing to say: Do the reading.

And to my classmates -- my friends -- my best wishes go with you, always.

2006-12-08T11:17:00.000-05:00

A Conservative Retort to Liberaltarians

NRO's John J. Miller (last seen chasing George Allen down the street with a dress) weighs-in on the "liberaltarian" idea. He's not exactly ready to give up on the shotgun marriage between libertarians and conservatives:

It's been said that each unhappy family is unhappy in its own way, and surely there are tensions in the conservative-libertarian union. Before Lindsey joins hands with the socialists, protectionists, Wal-Mart bashers, and nanny-staters, however, I urge him to think a little harder and deeper about continuing to live with the devil he knows. Or does that make me sound too much like Russell Kirk?

No. More like a cliche factory.

Miller's rejoinder makes some valid points -- many of them having to do with the number of limited government ideas that conservatives and libertarians have championed over the years which became reality.

But looking over the list, some of them seem fairly recent creations -- like welfare reform and school choice -- while others, such as free trade, are much older, but with a far more checkered (conservative) past.

There can be little doubt that most folks who lean libertarian have found themselves more closely aligned with the GOP in recent years. Largely, this has been by default. The Democrats were hardly an alternative. Even now, I believe it's very, very difficult to find reason to make lasting cause with the Democratic Party, particularly as its current incarnation still appears almost reflexively anti-free market and decidely pro-government. No one who believes in limited government can really make a lasting alliance with either party, because neither party believes in limited government.

The best possible tack may be to work with both as necessary. If that sounds fickle, it is. But fickleness has its advantages -- particularly when both parties really only want power.

Make them work for it. And in doing so, make them surrender a portion of the power they seek. If that means casting one side or the other into a minority every so often, so be it.

Of course, this assumes that there are enough libertarian-leaning folks out their to make this happen. I'm not convinced this is so, particularly in Virginia and especially now. But I'm open to argument.

2006-12-08T08:49:00.000-05:00

"I wish I had done better"

George Allen talks with the RTD's Peter Hardin about the late campaign, his future and what might have been.

There's not a great deal of real depth in this piece, perhaps in part because Allen's minions:

But yesterday, a news photo was deemed off-limits; an Allen adviser wouldn't agree to let the Times-Dispatch photograph Allen in such a scene of rejection.

Defeat has taught them very little indeed.

But what of Allen?

He still showed his trademark competitiveness.

He recalled his private remarks to his campaign staff after his concession speech Nov. 9.

"Look, I don't like losing; show me a good loser, and I'll show you a loser," he recounted saying.

Allen then spoke of his own and wife Susan's all-out efforts to serve Virginia, and the "very close loss."

"You learn from your losses, you learn from your mistakes," he said, "and you get back up and you do better in the future."

He will have sufficient time to learn from his loss. However, much the same was said here at this blog and elsewhere after the Kilgore defeat. Some Virginia politicians have learned a few very good lessons -- notably Bill Bolling and Bob McDonnell. They join people like Chris Saxman and Ken Cuccinelli in reaching beyond the traditional campaign methods and engaging the new media early and often. Others have made occasional forays, to their credit.

I would suggest that the looking go far beyond mere mechanics. I and others have said that principles ought to stand higher and far more publicly than tactics. Jim Gilmore (of all people) probably said it best earlier this summer:

Gilmore says the problem with the Republican Party in Virginia is not only the RPV...but the legislature, and all Republicans as well. He believes it's vital for the Party to concentrate on suburbanites -- their concerns, their needs, their wishes. He believes they want low taxes, safe communities and an education system that is effective and accountable (and that education trumps all other concerns -- even taxes and transportation).

Gilmore believes the Republicans in the General Assembly have placed the needs of government ahead of the needs of the people. The GOP, he thinks, is now the party of "big taxation" which he calls "ridiculous."

He challenges the Senate in particular to explain where these "bills in the drawer" come from and why are they there.

He believes it is vital to fight on the suburban turf in Northern and Central Virginia. He took a not-so-subtle swipe at Kilgore, saying that niche issues like the death penalty aren't important, but public safety and law enforcement are. He also believes it's far more important to fight campaigns based upon ideas rather than personalities (perhaps yet another swipe at Kilgore -- hard to say). He wants to see candidates who are qualified, credible, strong, with a conservative message that addresses people's needs.

In many ways, Allen and Gilmore are saying the same thing. Yet no one, at least so far, seems capable of translating these concepts into action.

The one who does is the one who will win.

2006-12-07T15:16:00.000-05:00

More on Liberaltarians and Barry Goldwater

In response to Brink Lindsey's piece on a possible libertarian-liberal fusion, Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum says it ain't gonna happen.

Well, so much for dialogue (at least among the true believers).

Meanwhile, Matt Welch uses Barry Goldwater as a springboard to look at the issue from another, but still doubtful, perspective:

1) There's rarely such a thing as a libertarian in local politics (where most politics are practiced), because it's awful hard to grant favors (or jobs) to either labor or business while cutting the size of government.

2) Self-described libertarians over the age of 40 who don't belong to the Libertarian Party (which is to say, most of them) are overwhelmingly likely to consider the GOP their default home, because of taxes, the memory of anti-communism, and hatred of all things McGovern/Carter (even though Carter was arguably the greatest deregulation president ... though that's a rambling essay for another time).

3) Libertarianism just ain't that popular to begin with.

All more or less true (particularly the last point -- and I'd go even farther by saying that most Libertarians aren't that popular, either. Aside from Dave Barry, that is). But here's the real kicker:

But if you think of the real and imagined presidential candidates for both parties -- especially perceived front-runners Hillary Clinton and John McCain -- there is zero evidence that the spirit of Goldwater as a presidential endeavor lives anywhere beyond the hopeful fantasia of opinion journalists and think-tank wage-slaves.

That seems about right. Whatever Goldwater may have represented, it certainly does not appear in the words, deeds or actions of those who would lead either national ticket.

Maybe it's time to become a Whig.

2006-12-07T10:17:00.000-05:00

A Real Race for Manoli

Jon at RiverCity Rapids has the goods on this RTD story.

I give Will Shewmake, the new entrant in the contest, props for this quote:

"For too long, Chesterfield has been underrepresented in the General Assembly. The county has been carved up and redistricted without concern for Chesterfield," he said. "Republicans need to nominate somebody who understands you don't need a malaria shot and a passport to cross the Huguenot Bridge."

Unlike many politicians, he seems to have a sense of humor. My only concerns about Chesterfield are those I see on the news...you know, the back-scratching pols, the scandals, the perpetual chip on the shoulder.

Come to think of it, Chesterfield's not that different from Richmond.

But early on, Loupassi has the edge both in money, name recognition (certainly so north of the James) and that he appears to have the establishment behind him. Still, a little competition is always a good thing. And this race will be fun to watch.

2006-12-07T10:06:00.000-05:00

Ken's New Site is Up

Ken Cuccinelli, the frequent subject of conversation around the conservative blogs, unveils his campaign website today.

And for those who have wondered where he stands and why, there are a series of links devoted to answering those questions.

As Jim notes, Cuccinelli gets this internet thingie (even if some of the commenters to Jim's post disagree. Honestly, folks, if you want to be included on emails, press releases and whatnot, just ask. It's not difficult).

2006-12-06T19:16:00.000-05:00

But They are Thwarting Our Agenda!

Rob at Raising Kaine has a fun post that chides the GOP for, among other things, refusing to act on the various appropriations bills. This is called "subvert[ing] the will of the American people..."

How droll.

What Rob and the TPM post he cites fail to mention, however, is that in not passing the various appropriations bills, Congress is actually saving the taxpayers billions of dollars. Not willingly, of course. Heaven forbid. The majority of Republicans actually did want to pass the bills -- because they were larded with over 10,000 earmarks. Andrew has the details on how Sens. Tom Coburn and Jim DeMint gummed-up the appropriators' work in the Senate. And earlier today, Sen. Judd Gregg saved us all another few billion through his efforts to block an "emergency" agriculture spending bill.

If the GOP has shown such restraint a few months ago, they might not have lost their majority...and kept faith with their principles.

2006-12-06T18:57:00.000-05:00

Giddy No Growthers

It is rather amusing to read the blogs, particularly those which say they are conservative, that are applauding the decision of Prince William County to just say no to new housing construction.

Usually, such draconian measures against growth are reserved to those localities that have the most Liberal of governing bodies (think Portland, Oregon or Boulder, Colorado). While my fellow bloggers may bemoan the conditions under which they live, and even go so far as to cast dark glances at those rascally RoVa politicians who simply refuse to open the taxpayers' collective veins to pave their corner of the Commonwealth, I would urge them to consider this:

Whenever a commodity is rationed, the market responds accordingly, either through higher prices or low-cost alternatives. Prince William's elected leaders ought to understand this and, surely, conservative bloggers ought to as well. Alas, this is not the case.

The county may do what it pleases (and I am sure they have anticipated the lawsuits which, no doubt, are already being considered. If not, then twice the shame on them). But in attempting to use land as a lever, they will do nothing more than hurt themselves.

Perhaps that is the only way they will learn. I doubt it. Economic illiteracy and incumbency do seem to be two sides of the same coin.

2006-12-06T10:34:00.000-05:00

Same Topic, Different Session

Yawn.

Oh, sorry. It seems transportation will be a hot topic in the next session, with the battle lines drawn between the House and senate over new taxes.

In other words, the arguments are the same, the threats and promises are the same, the reporting is the same and the personalities haven't changed much, either.

Or have they?

A friend of mine says Sen. Marty Williams, one of the solons quoted as very, deeply, utterly committed to higher taxes, may not be running for re-election. Anyone know for sure?

2006-12-06T10:25:00.000-05:00

It Is Alive

Stately Leahy Manor finally has its new, 15kW generator.

Bring on the ice storm!

2006-12-05T14:30:00.000-05:00

"Liberaltarians"

In the New Republic, Cato's Brink Lindsey has a piece in which he argues that Liberals and Libertarians have more in common than one would think (and I believe this is true). However, he cautions Democrats that if they want to make something of the relationship -- bringing the Libertarians who once supported the GOP more firmly inside their camp -- they will have to "up their game." But first, he believes we have to dispense with a few labels:

But the real problem with our politics today is that the prevailing ideological categories are intellectually exhausted. Conservatism has risen to power only to become squalid and corrupt, a Nixonian mélange of pandering to populist prejudices and distributing patronage to well-off cronies and Red Team constituencies. Liberalism, meanwhile, has never recovered from its fall from grace in the mid-'60s. Ever since, it has lacked the vitality to do more than check conservative excesses--and obstruct legitimate, conservative-led progress. As a governing philosophy, liberalism has been moribund: When Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton managed to win the White House, they did so only by successfully avoiding the liberal stigma.

While I wouldn't go so far as to say conservativism has become "squalid," its most recent political incarnation bears only a passing resemblance to its ancestors. The distrust of power and the overarching preference for limited government has fallen to the desire for majorities and the power they bring. Conversely, it does seem that Liberalism is trying very hard to shed its pacholie-drenched past (ironically, by putting forward former Republicans and Democratic conservatives as candidates).

Lindsey believes these two rotting hulks have poisoned politics:

Here, in the first decade of the twenty-first century, the rival ideologies of left and right are both pining for the '50s. The only difference is that liberals want to work there, while conservatives want to go home there.

I nice turn of phrase. The sort that will send both sides scrambling for their keyboards. But how can this "Liberaltarian" fusion take place? By looking closer at, and cultivating, the common ground Liberals and Libertarians share. Like farm policy and corporate welfare, for example:

Let's start with the comparatively easy stuff: farm subsidies and other corporate welfare. Progressive organizations like Oxfam and the Environmental Working Group have already joined with free-market groups in pushing for ag-policy reform. And it's no wonder, since the current subsidy programs act as a regressive tax on low-income families here at home while depressing prices for exporters in poor countries abroad--and, to top it off, the lion's share of the loot goes to big agribusiness, not family farmers. Meanwhile, the president of Cato and the executive director of the Sierra Club have come out together in favor of a zero-subsidy energy policy. A nascent fusionism on these issues already exists; it merely needs encouragement and emphasis.

In everything Cato does, Ed Crane gets his due deference. Some things never change.

Lindsey makes other proposals here -- including tax and entitlement reform -- that ought to generate some thinking on all sides.

And that, really, is one of the best things about this piece and what makes it so different from much of the current fare: It demands thought.

And we certainly could use a lot more of that.

2006-12-05T14:18:00.000-05:00

Closed Primaries and Ol' Russ

Not Buck ponders the possible end of Russ Potts in light of the federal court ruling that almost closes the door to the stratagem that saved Potts in 2003.

I have to agree that if anyone can find a way to get on the ballot and win, it's probably Potts. However, in the 2005 gubernatorial sweepstakes, he did say he would not run for the Senate again in 2007.

Maybe he won't. But this ruling might help solidify that promise, just in case he was having any second thoughts.

2006-12-05T09:01:00.000-05:00

Fix the BCS

My old colleague Chris Obenshain is taking on one of the last, true evils in society: the Bowl Championship Series.

You can check out his proposal to reform this monstrosity here.

2006-12-04T09:26:00.000-05:00

After the "Advance"

Nova Scout has some early thoughts about the recently completed "Advance," as does the Mason Conservative.

Their perspectives on Northern Virginia are well taken. Then again, Doug digs up a nugget from Ken Cuccinelli that boils things down rather clearly:

"If we don't stand for something, then it's just a nice-guy contest," Cuccinelli said. "That's not a consistent path either to governance or to victory."

As an ideologue, I'm deeply sympathetic to this view. But I do not necessarily believe compromise and principle are always mutually exclusive. Republicans can and have stood for things in the past. Yet even the most ardent conservatives have bent principle from time to time (Reagan did so repeatedly, if it also helpadvancence his larger goals). Sometimes my friends on the right forget this.

2006-12-04T09:21:00.000-05:00

A Very Helpful Perspective

Terry at SLANTblog has an excellent post on a real political dogfight from Richmond's past. After reading it, I have to agree with his conclusion:

As a child growing up in Richmond, I heard adventure tales from my grandfather about this bizarre time. He claimed he was told as a boy by his salty old Uncle George (who was a sheriff, among other things) that most men in Richmond carried guns on the street in those wild days, much like what we’ve see in western movies. Duels were not unusual.

All of which makes today’s scandals and imbroglios in the Virginia political landscape over “macaca,” or frosty words at a White House social function, seem rather tame.

Go read it all.

2006-12-03T10:09:00.000-05:00

Democrats Get the Web. Republicans Don't

Evidence that Virginia Democrats understand the potential for online outreach comes from this piece by DPVA Chairman Dick Cranwell. Of particular note:

Finally, Democrats are winning because we are using innovation to engage voters and supporters at the grassroots level. When this decade began, most of the headlines about the Internet's influence on politics focused on its fundraising potential: How much money can be made off the Web? Today, we are using new technologies to bring campaigns back to basics -- engaging voters, one by one, in the democratic process.

Democrats are using the Web to raise money. However, just as important, we are using it to raise awareness, get out our message, attract and organize volunteers, and engage in spirited blog debates activities a lot of people know as "people-powered politics." While online resources are not replacing typical campaign methods of engaging voters, they give us yet another tool to get people involved and give them a voice.

You bet they are. Where is the RPV on this matter? According to Shaun, nowhere at all:

Stunningly, when you ask why Allen lost, no one says "blogs". There is no urgent conversation as to how to tackle the blogosphere at RPV -- at least not yet.

One side gets it. The other doesn't.

2006-12-03T09:39:00.000-05:00

Living in Bubbles

Politicians and orchids share many things in common: both require a great deal of patience and skill to grow; both are largely ornamental; and, of course, neither can long survive outside a carefully controlled environment.

Both Jim Webb and George Allen display these orchid-like characteristics in today's RTD.

Here, Senator-elect Webb dismisses the widely accepted notion that Allen's series of gaffes had little to do with his defeat. And his views are straight out of the greenhouse:

It was a vicious campaign. And quite frankly, from the primary on, I stopped reading all analysis and stopped watching all analysis.

I turned on the TV on Election Day to watch CNN; there was John King . . . saying basically this race is about George Allen screwing up. I think that's totally wrong, having done this from the inside.

I mean, this is an individual [Allen] who, 25 years in government, and I think that he had some of the most sophisticated political advisers in the country working for him.

And I think that we presented a campaign that truly gave people alternatives, and to the best of my ability we ran a positive campaign.

"totally wrong." I suggest that if he has an opportunity, Mr. Webb consult the news clippings from the weeks of his self-imposed media blackout. He might learn that his perceptions don't quite square with reality.

And as for the matter of running a positive campaign...personally, he may have done just that. His surrogates, however (including the willing editorial hands at the WaPo), cannot say the same.

As for George Allen, his missive from the loamy, climate-controlled soil is little better. From Tyler Whitley's reporting of Allen's remarks at the GOP "Advance," we get this:

Allen dwelt only briefly on the recent campaign, blaming "political winds" rather than mistakes for his upset loss. Buoyed by the unpopularity of the war in Iraq and Republican scandals, Democrats gained control of the House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate.

"Political winds." Good Lord.

For a politician -- let alone one of his experience -- to ignore the gravity of his own mistakes and how they undermined his other messaging efforts is dumbfounding.

But that would seem to be the norm for the GOP in recent years.

Meanwhile, Jeff Lashes Jim

In his Sunday Sermon, Jeff Schapiro takes a few choice whacks at Senator-elect Webb's remarks toward the President earlier this week:

Webb's response to news accounts of the dust-up with Dubya was Allen-like. Rather than recognize the damage to his standing and trying to limit it, Webb is retaliating, with slightly paranoiac flourish, by suggesting to The Times-Dispatch's Peter Hardin that the story was leaked by the administration to depict him as a hothead.

Maybe.

But you have got to wonder: Did Webb consider at the time the potential for embarrassment? And once the incident was out, why didn't Webb see it as a chance for a rookie to prove he can play with the pros? Webb was not going to escape unscathed. He could have summoned a smile, said no offense was intended, and apologized for any misunderstanding.

There's some truth to this -- just as there is an excellent case to be made that the President, too, showed a profound lack of manners and understanding.

But the greatest Schapiro dig comes, as it usually does, near the end:

FINALLY, WEBB -- in a single moment -- trivialized himself, providing fodder for many of the same pundits and satirists who giddily feasted on Allen. This will only make it more difficult to take seriously a man who broods over such serious issues as economic dislocation, peace, and security.

I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss Webb's ability to recover from this and serve with distinction over the next six years.

But if he doesn't, then the next few years will provide a gold mine of material for those who make a living off of good copy.

2006-12-02T08:48:00.000-05:00

Common Ground on Transportation

The Governor says he wants it. But actions speak louder than words:

Governor Tim Kaine broke his lockbox pledge by proposing tax hikes only six days after taking office, and he deployed radio ads and robo-calls during the General Assembly session to jawbone Republicans into submitting to his will. Now he gripes that "it's hard to find common ground" in the transportation debate. Maybe such ground would be easier to find if he hadn't deployed scorched-earth tactics.

Yes. It probably would. Except he seems to want take out those flat-earthed Republicans who opposed his mad dash for your wallet in next year's elections. That is his choice. But it also reminds me of the tactics another governor used to weed-out those who wouldn't fall in line with his plans:

Jim Gilmore.

And if memory serves, the scorched-earth approach didn't work for him, either.

2006-12-02T08:33:00.000-05:00

A "2/3 win" for Closed Primaries

The RTD reports that political parties can restrict primaries to registered party members, in some circumstances:

"When an incumbent officeholder chooses to have a primary for their nomination, the party unit in that district may exclude Democrats and independents, which they have not to date been allowed to do," he said.

So, from this report, it appears as though the decisions will be local. Which means they will be political. Which also means they have the potential to provide enormous amounts of unintentional entertainment. It's not a total win for Sen. Cuccinelli (who argued the case), however:

Cuccinelli called the ruling "a two-thirds win." Under the ruling, when there's an open seat, the party "doesn't have the power to have a primary to exclude Democrats or independents." He said he plans to appeal that part of the ruling.

Of course, the limitation works both ways, as Democrats could exclude Republicans and Independents from their primaries, except for open seats.

The political implications of this decision are many, and particularly so for those self-described Republican "moderates" who openly appeal to Democrats and Independents when facing challenges from the right (no, those challengers aren't always conservative, even though the candidates may call themselves such. In some cases, their desire for state intrusion into private life would make even the most ardent Liberal blush).

It's a decision like this that makes me wish the Jaded JD was still around to add his thoughts. Ah well.

Maybe Ken will, instead.

2006-12-01T12:26:00.000-05:00

Bwana Speaks...

...and with anyone with sense in the GOP will pay attention to what he's written here and here.

2006-12-01T12:05:00.000-05:00

Challenging Stosch

Jim Bacon has already written-up the RTD story about a primary challenge to Sen. Walter Stosch.

While I tend to agree with Jim's assessment -- particularly on the lameness of Stosch's response to the challenge from Joseph Blackburn -- I disagree that Blackburn is just another "just say no" to taxes guy.

Let's give him the opportunity to flesh things out first. And while it's true that opposition to taxes it not necessarily a governing philosophy, it would be interesting for me to hear what he has to say about property rights, especially in light of the Senate's refusal last year to pass anything that would have closed the Kelo loopholes.

Stosch and his cohorts (including the ever-oily Ken Stolle) have a lot to answer for in that matter.

2006-11-30T16:32:00.000-05:00

At Least the Consultants Are Beginning to Notice

Via The Corner, is an item about what Republican consultants thought of the 2006 elections. Nuts, bolts and that dreaded 72 hour stuff make appearances, but so does this:

The panelists also were largely in agreement that Republicans are lagging on taking advantage of the internet and bloggers. Newhouse, who polled for Sen. Joe Lieberman after the Dem-turned-Independent lost his primary, recalled how they'd get "daily email updates about what the bloggers were saying." In Republican campaigns, Newhouse said, "we had none of that." Consultant Russ Schreifer noted how some of his clients would ask where the GOP version was of the joint fundraising liberal bloggers did for favored candidates. Schreifer also recognized how the blogs had become not just fundraising outlets, but also unfiltered mediums for oppositiion research. Democrats did a better job, he said, of putting out such oppo online as a way of getting it into the media's bloodstream. And by the time the MSM got it, the DCCC already had the ads cued up.

You bet they did.

The big question, of course, is will the GOP (and the RPV, for that matter) do anything to close this gap any time soon?

In Virginia's case, some Republicans are already making connections. Bob McDonnell has done the most in this area and future statewide candidate Chris Saxman is a past pro. And while he isn't as prominent (yet), Ken Cuccinelli has made various online appearances over the last couple of years. Bill Bolling has made a substantial foray into the blog world as well.

Their peers would be wise to follow them.

2006-11-30T15:48:00.000-05:00

McDonnell Grips and Grins with Bloggers

Bob McDonnell continues his intriguing (and savvy) outreach to bloggers with "...an event solely for bloggers" this Saturday at 4:30 at the GOP "Advance."

I'm not going to be at the event, but I'm looking "forward" to reading the reports.

2006-11-30T14:36:00.000-05:00

The 2008 Races Are Online

This is fun. If you've got some time to kill, and just can't wait for the 2008 election, try plugging in various candidate match-ups to see who wins the White House.

I tried George Allen against Hillary Clinton. It was a landslide that would have made Reagan blush.

A landslide for Hillary, that is.

2006-11-30T09:21:00.000-05:00

The Beat Goes On

Tim Wise notes that the Governor is still beating the drum for higher taxes.

At least he's consistent.

But I wonder...if the Governor criticizes Republicans for a "...rigid ideological principle that we should always reduce taxes ," could he not also be criticized for a rigid, ideological principle that only more taxes can solve problems? Why yes, he can.

2006-11-30T08:50:00.000-05:00

A Fight in Henrico

Style Weekly has an item about a legal battle between a parent and the school system over bullying, reimbursement for private school tuition and what looks like a lying school principal.

I'm not entirely familiar with this case, and I am not exactly sympathetic to the parent's suit for reimbursement for private school tuition. However, this portion of the story doesn't sit well at all:

But in an October 2004 due process hearing, Henck says, school representatives, including Short Pump Elementary principal Ron Odum, provided erroneous information and withheld pertinent information.

The Hencks were determined to make that case. Henrico County Commonwealth’s Attorney Wade Kizer was ready for them to make it elsewhere. “Mr. Henck was unhappy with this office,” says Kizer, “and when I felt like none of our efforts would satisfy him, I requested a special prosecutor.”

Enter New Kent Commonwealth’s Attorney Linwood Gregory, who in November of 2004 took over the case. Principal Odum was charged with perjury shortly thereafter. The case was thrown out after a Henrico County circuit court judge ruled that the oath Odum and others took at the hearing was unnecessary and, therefore, Odum did not lie under oath. On Dec. 9, 2004, the administrative hearing officer issued his opinion denying the Hencks relief.

Laying aside the matter of whether the oath was necessary, the larger question is did the principal lie in an administrative proceeding? It seemed that way to the special prosecutor. And if it happened, what does that say about the trustworthiness of school officials?

2006-11-29T09:23:00.000-05:00

On Insults

So many pixels have perished over the Webb-Bush exchange. The partisans on both sides are in a dither...where will this all lead? Isn't it exciting?

Bah.

As confrontations go, this doesn't even qualify as mildly entertaining. For the real stuff, we have to go back a bit, to a time when insults, rebuffs and cutting remarks had some spice. And who better to spice things up than LBJ?

He is so dumb he can't fart and chew gum at the same time. (Johnson on Gerald Ford)
I may not know much, but I know chicken shit from chicken salad. (Johnson on Nixon)

Or how about Harry Truman on Nixon?

He is a shifty-eyed goddamn liar....He's one of the few in the history of this country to run for high office talking out of both sides of his mouth at the same time and lying out of both sides.

Or Truman on Eisenhower?

Why, this fellow don't know any more about politics than a pig knows about Sunday.

Now there's some good old-fashioned smack.

2006-11-29T08:45:00.000-05:00

A Comeback?

The Mason Conservative wonders whether it's possible George Allen could make a comeback in Virginia politics.

Short answer: No.

Long answer: Absolutely not.

Then again, the same thing was said of Nixon in '62. And we all know how that turned out.

2006-11-28T09:00:00.000-05:00

The FTC and Robo-Calls

Today's Wall Street Journal has a very interesting piece on the Federal Trade Commission's proposed regulations that would ban robo-calls to anyone without written consent.

The public has until Dec. 18 to submit comments on the FTC proposal -- adding to the 14,000-plus comments it already has received. Most are from individual consumers, asking for tougher regulations to strengthen the 130 million-member Do Not Call registry.

If you would like to comment on the proposed rule, you can do so here.

2006-11-28T08:44:00.000-05:00

"Advance" Thoughts

Nova Scout offers some trenchant observations on the state of the RPV in advance of this weekend's "Advance."

I'd add one caveat, though, to the focus on Northern Virginia. As critical as the region is the GOP's long-term political success, there are very troubling signs elsewhere that deserve someone's immediate attention.

This post over at Ben's place succeeded in bringing together a lot of things I've been seeing right here in Central Virginia --you know, one of the regions that is supposed to be somewhat safely in the GOP column. This is no longer true , especially in the case of Henrico County and, eventually I'd guess, Chesterfield County.

Now I know -- Chesterfield is supposed to be reliably Republican and generally is. But like neighboring Henrico, the trend in the last two elections is for far narrower GOP wins than in past years. And as both counties continue to grow, the trends may solidify into realities. If that occurs, Central Virginia will no longer provide any sort of electoral backstop for statewide GOP candidates.

As much as Northern Virginia matters, particularly to Northern Virginians, the problems the GOP faces are not exclusive to that region. Rather, they are spreading. And quickly.

2006-11-27T13:40:00.000-05:00

The People's Tribune

A very interesting New Yorker profile of CNN's quasi-populist business anchor Lou Dobbs. The introduction is just delicious:

Regular viewers of “Lou Dobbs Tonight,” on CNN, might be surprised at the venue that Dobbs chose for lunch not long ago: the Grill Room of the Four Seasons, a midtown bastion of the very same political and business “élites” that he denounces daily on his television program. The Four Seasons is the enduring commissary of the Old Guard, where Henry Kissinger waves to the former Citigroup C.E.O. Sandy Weill, there is limo-lock at the side door, and the regulars have their checks sent to the office. Dobbs’s Town Car left him at the door, on East Fifty-second Street, and the restaurant’s co-owner, Julian Nicolini, embraced him that day as warmly as when he welcomed, among others, Stephen Schwarzman, the chairman and C.E.O. of the Blackstone Group; Nelson Peltz, the C.E.O. of Trian Partners; Edgar Bronfman, Sr., the former chairman and C.E.O. of Seagram; and Mortimer Zuckerman, the real-estate developer and publisher of the News. Nicolini led Dobbs to one of five choice banquettes, and Dobbs settled in, looking very much at home.

The article is worth reading in its entirety. Dobbs is a fascinating character and is increasingly important in some circles (not mine -- I don't have cable). Can a revolution be lead from the Four Seasons? Or from a CNN anchor desk? Lou seems to think so. Or at least, that's what the ratings seem to be telling him.

2006-11-27T11:25:00.000-05:00

Two Against Pork

John Fund writes about two Senators who are doing their damnedest to block 10,000 earmarks tucked into the remaining appropriations bills.

The appropriators are furious. The New York Times worries about the children. But only two solons are worried about the taxpayer?

And to add insult to injury, there's this, from GOP spending machine Don Young:

Last month he appeared to be the only political observer on the planet who didn't think Republicans were in trouble. An Associated Press story of Oct. 31 quoted Mr. Young as saying, "I'm predicting we're not going to lose any seats." He even bet pollster and KBYR talk radio host Ivan Moore a dinner on the outcome of the election. "We will not lose control of the House," the Anchorage Daily News quoted Mr. Young as saying. "It is not going to happen. . . . I'm going to be very happy election night."

I'm sure he was.

2006-11-27T09:11:00.000-05:00

Cleaning Out the Stables

Will the Democrats really put in place tougher ethics rules in the next Congress? That's a question the Wall Street Journal asked over the weekend and the answer is...could be.

Some of the proposals seem worthwhile:

The proposed packages in both the House and Senate would curtail, if not ban, travel paid for by lobbyists and organizations that lobby. House leaders say they would prohibit lawmakers from using corporate planes for official travel. Both chambers are expected to require members to identify hometown projects they insert into spending bills.

House and Senate leaders are mulling creating an office to monitor lobbyists' disclosure reports, or enhancing the powers of existing offices to take on that job.

I'm all for measures that lessen temptation. However, no amount of restrictions, bans, oversight or scolding will ever substitute for something it seems the political class genuinely lacks:

Civic virtue.

2006-11-26T09:36:00.000-05:00

Jeff on Ed

Jeff Schapiro devotes his Sunday sermon to a topic that has engaged the Republican members of Virginia's blog world in recent days -- the rise of Ed Gillespie as state party chairman.

And while I appreciate the online discussion, it's always more informative to get an outsider's opinion on what a Gillespie tenure would mean -- and in Schapiro's case, it's a hostile outside opinion (so it has to good, or at least cheeky).

And we are not disappointed. Gillespie would seem to fit the needs of various GOP constituencies, including the nuts-and-bolts, worker bee faction:

Do Republicans want a party apparatus that effectively and fairly serves candidates and the rank and file, supplying cash and cutting-edge services for winning elections and recruiting activists?

Then Gillespie might be their man.

And the bitter, ballot-stung courtiers:

But maybe Republicans want a party apparatus that seems subservient to a busted politician and his vengeful clique, tilting party rules and procurement to their ambitions.

Then Gillespie might be their man.

Either way, there will be plenty of good copy for everyone concerned, not the least of whom will be the scribes just down the street from Gillespie's new digs.

I can't say whether his new post will make the RPV any more effective. Reading some of the commentary on the matter in recent days might give the impression that the RPV is the rock upon which all future success depends.

This is absurd. In this age of McCain-Feingold campaign "reform," state parties are -- if it's possible -- even more hollow and less useful than in the past.

However, it certainly does not hurt state Republicans to have someone steering the parade float who at least understands messaging, fundraising and outreach. There was something else he's known for...something important...oh, yes. The Contract with America, which Gillespie not only helped write, but helped market as well.

For a party that's been short on ideas, principles and victories lately, Gillespie might be arriving just in time.

2006-11-22T10:56:00.000-05:00

No He Wasn't

Jacob Sullum challenges the notion that Milton Friedman was a conservative.

You don't have to convince me.

2006-11-22T09:18:00.000-05:00

The Return of Disco

A month after it went into the shop, the Disco (that's Land Rover's Discovery II to the uninitiated) has been returned...new transmission and all.

Praise be the warranty.

The dealership's loaner, a red, 2006 LR3, was a fine car. I won't call it a truck because even though it's based on a tough truck frame, it's body design makes it ride like a passenger car (quiet, smooth, luxurious...what's this? A built-in cooler? Moisture sensitive windshield wipers? A doo-hickey that raises and lowers the body? An mp3 hook-up? Four drink holders? Oh my.).

By comparison, the Disco is smaller, lighter (by half a ton), louder and bouncier. There's not enough leg room for passengers in the back seat. The controls look and feel like they were designed by a crazed monk with a cheap plastic fetish. And it eats premium gas like nobody's business.

God, I missed it so.

2006-11-21T08:43:00.000-05:00

On Inequality

Jerry (as is his want) has already commented on this piece from the TD's Bart Hinkle on Jim Webb's foray into economics. Like so much of what Hinkle writes, there are loads of facts and statistics galore, many of which show that Webb's assertions may not have the weight of truth behind them.

But that's the nature of statistics: they will prove almost anything to almost anyone.

However, in today's Wall Street Journal, David Wessel takes long look at the politics behind the economics. He describes the playing field this way:

Today's inequality reflects a confluence of forces. Technology is increasing employers' appetite for some skilled workers, while diminishing it for assembly-line workers in auto and textile factories. Imports and outsourcing are doing the same. Schools aren't graduating enough of the workers in short supply, such as engineers. Immigration is contributing to a glut of others, visible wherever day laborers gather hoping for work. Unions are atrophying. Corporate boards, hedge funds and sports teams are increasingly willing to write super-sized paychecks to a chosen few.

At the extremes, some politicians (not all of them Democrats) believe the benefits of a globalizing, high-tech economy are outweighed by the costs to U.S. workers. They would build a fence around the U.S. to reduce immigration or erect tariff barriers to imports. Even at the Democratic middle -- where the virtues of technology and globalization are prized -- proposals to reduce inequality range widely. They include interceding in the market to raise pay at the bottom or limit it at the top, pushing "Robin Hood" take-from-the-rich tax policies, improving shock absorbers that protect workers when their employers crash, extending health and retirement plans to workers without them and spending more to promote education from pre-K through college.

Even a cursory reading will show that there's not a lot of new thinking here. Expanding existing or creating new social programs, tinkering with the tax code, stuffing more federal money into education...these have been staples of the Democratic playbook for generations. And while the ideas themselves are not exactly revolutionary, neither is the conceit that underlies them, namely, that government -- any government -- can somehow manage outcomes and moderate economic forces.

Wessel looks at one area -- CEO pay -- where the Democrats tried and failed to change private behavior:

Limiting pay at the top has proven tough. A 1993 law that discouraged tax deductions for executive salaries above $1 million is widely regarded as a bust. "Executives responded by rewarding themselves with millions of dollars worth of stock options" instead of big salaries, lament former Clinton aide Bruce Reed and Chicago Rep. Rahm Emanuel, a key strategist in the Democrats' win, in their pre-election book calling for "a new social contract for the 21st century." They go on, "This time we should approach the problem from the other direction and require companies that provide stock options to their executives to provide stock options to every worker."

Actually, stock options were supposed to bind the CEO's interests more closely to that of the average shareholder and, in theory, increase the wealth of managers and owners alike. It's worked sometimes and failed (miserably) in others. Some companies do issue options to everyone. Others provide discount programs for employees to buy shares (which hasn't always worked, either). Is there a way to spread the wealth more equitably? No. Nor should there be. Sooner or later, markets will determine an optimum level of CEO pay. Right now, the tendency is for high pay and perks. But the downside is less job security:

Global turnover of CEOs set another record in 2005, with more than one in seven of the world’s largest companies making a change in leadership — compared with only one in 11 a decade earlier, according to our annual study of chief executive succession at the world’s 2,500 largest public companies. The rate of outright dismissals was also near its peak: Four times as many of the world’s top CEOs were forced out last year as in 1995. Ten years ago, the CEO’s job was all about “stewardship” of the corporation’s assets for stakeholders; today, it’s all about the bottom line for investors.

The Booz Hamilton study is worth reading (if the plight of CEOs is your thing) if for no other reason than to show that life at the top of the corporate pyramid isn't all champagne wishes and caviar dreams.

If anything, among the most stable and well-paying jobs -- jobs that also includes a great health plan, sweet perks, generous retirement benefits and loads of travel -- can be found in Congress. House members serve an average of 9 years and Senators 11.

Not bad work, if you can get it.

2006-11-20T09:29:00.000-05:00

Bloggy Good Copy

Owing to a backlog of real life projects, I wasn't able to write up anything regarding Jeff Schapiro's Sunday column which, wonder of wonders, took a look at Virginia's political blogs.

The main focus was Chad's departure from the daily scene, coupled with Lowell's crankiness and a rare slip-up from Jim (the coverage of which Jim expounds upon here, with an assist from Brian Kirwin).

But the one nugget Jeff unearths that fits into the wider discussion regarding the role of blogs in campaigns here at Q and O and here and Shaun's place is that blogs are a tail that sometimes wag the media dog.

Sometimes they do -- and in the late Senate contest, those short, scruffy tails wagged the daylights out of the media pooch. Whether it was the macaca frenzy, the deer head in the mailbox (yes, they were taking that one seriously) the Jewish Question, Jim Webb's fiction and, if there had only been enough time, the sealed Allen divorce papers, the sticky bits that once fed whisper campaigns were splashed across the blogs and found there way into the press.

Considering the content, it looks like the dog has fleas. Or is that mange?

Looking ahead, there can be little doubt that blogs will continue to have at least some degree of influence on what appears in the press, particularly if campaigns continue to feed bloggers material that pressies would not otherwise touch. From some of the campaign emails I saw during the election, there's a reason why the press wouldn't go near the stuff.

It was downright goofy.

Or worse, it was just B.S. And I cringed every time I saw the stuff in the emails posted on individual sites (not for attribution, of course).

So it really wasn't the blogs that were influencing the press so much as it was the campaigns, using the blogs, that were doing what they have always done.

2006-11-17T13:49:00.000-05:00

Same as the Old Boss

Via the American Spectator blog comes an item from newly-elected Republican Minority Leader John Boehner's political closet. What is a Republican? His answer:

But Republicans also are far from being purely conservative. A conservative would like to see the government shrink; a Republican does too, but -- in acknowledging political realities (a new defensive posture after September 11th for one) and the multitude of stakeholders in government after years of liberal control -- has often had to settle for simply slowing its rate of growth. Republicans have accepted such realities as the burdens of majority governance.

Republicans offer little more than a tap on the breaks when it comes to more government -- one of the reasons why segments of their own base and legions of independents abandoned them this month. If anything, Boehner's views give fresh meaning to Ben Domenech's critique of the leadership elections:

The Republicans have their worst political cycle in 12 years, and conclude that everything's fine, there's no problem, and they should just stay the course.

Stay the course...even after it's taken you right over a cliff.

2006-11-17T11:08:00.000-05:00

What is a Paleoconservative, Anyway?

I've written elsewhere that Jim Webb shares some of the characteristics of a paleoconservative. But what does that term actually mean?

Here is a fairly interesting definition, from the January 2001 issue of Chronicles magazine. It's author, Chilton Williamson, Jr. says in part:

Paleoconservatism is the expression of rootedness: a sense of place and of history, a sense of self derived from forebears, kin, and culture -- an identity that is both collective and personal. This identity is missing from the psychological and emotional makeup of leftists of every stripe --including neoconservatives -- and is now disavowed by mainline conservatives of the Republican variety, seemingly bent on eradicating as much of the primeval stain as they can from their consciousnesses while apologizing for the faint discoloration that remains.

From my reading of Webb so far, and admittedly, it's from a great distance, some of this seems quite close to the mark. Williamson's piece descends from this into a bout of semi-paranoid ranting, but his conclusion comes back with some interesting points:

Flexibility in facing the vicissitudes of life is one thing, unlearning your upbringing another - a thing principled people wouldn't do even if they could. Trinity School, having educated generations of students for life in the Old America, has -- for the past 30 years -- been cooperating enthusiastically in the work of destroying that America and displacing those it once trained to operate and inhabit it. All right: We are becoming strangers in our own country.

What to do? In addition to the foregoing list, I add several further suggestions. Be true to your forebears, and to the culture they created and -- for nearly four centuries -- sustained. Wear a coat and necktie in polite society, even on an airplane. Speak out! Make yourself heard as loud and as strong as your lungs, and the co-opted press and electronic frequencies, permit. Keep your sense of humor, ALWAYS. . . . Go to Church.

In others words, it seems, you were born fighting. Keep it up.

But an even more interesting entry comes from this book review written by Samuel Francis (who, to say the least, is an interesting case study in his own right). Francis laid out three main areas where the paleocons differed from their mainline and neocon brethren. But this one is the most curious as it relates to Jim Webb:

Third, paleoconservatism emerged also as a reaction against what was taking place in American culture itself in the 1980s and '90s, trends that the mainstream Right warmly embraced. Not only the increasing secularism, hedonism, and carnal and material self-indulgence of the dominant culture but also its shallowness and artificiality, its proclivity to being manipulated by media and political elites, its passivity in the face of more and more usurpation of social and civic functions by big government, big business, and big media, and the happy chatter from the contemporary political Right that celebrated this transformation and identified public morality almost exclusively with flag-waving, prayer in schools, invoking saccharine and platitude about "family values," and constant ranting about any and all movies that contained sex.

If that last bit sounds familiar, it is akin to that Webb used in his Journal op-ed:

The politics of the Karl Rove era were designed to distract and divide the very people who would ordinarily be rebelling against the deterioration of their way of life. Working Americans have been repeatedly seduced at the polls by emotional issues such as the predictable mantra of "God, guns, gays, abortion and the flag" while their way of life shifted ineluctably beneath their feet.

Against the backdrop of paleocon thought, I suggest that the politics of the Karl Rove era are not exactly new, but merely the latest version of a trend that began in the 1980s -- when Jim Webb was in the Reagan Administration and, it seems, the currents of conservativism were beginning to diverge in a profound way. They continue to do so, though now the split is between the fiscal and social conservatives that remained behind. And if that split does finally occur, what sort of politicians will it produce in 15 or 20 years?

2006-11-17T09:06:00.000-05:00

A Philippic

My old friend John Taylor has never been a man to mince words. And at last week's TMG meeting (which I was unable to attend), he proved that once again.

Looking over his prepared remarks, there is one thing that stands out from the rest:

It is not our job to support political candidates. It is their job to earn our support. Period.

That flies in the face of just about everything we've all read in the political blogging world during this last election. Partisans from both sides took to their keyboards with a zeal that made the 2005 contest look like a debutante ball. The level of discourse was cartoonish, even for a hard-fought political campaign. And driving most of it was the over-arching desire to puff up one candidate against the other with barely a moment devoted to considering whether it was possible that the other guy might be saying something worthwhile, or even right.

Of course, partisans are supposed to be partisan. And one of the benefits of this is to make the distinctions between the candidates as clear as possible.

But something important has been lost along the road to partisanship: the notion that ideas, character, commitment and trust trump party labels. Neither party has a monopoly on any of these items. It is simply not possible. And it is through this lens that I will look at our new Senator. If he is, indeed, an independent thinker who will seek to do what his conscience and intellect -- coupled with the instruction of the people -- then he will have gone a long way in earning my support. If, however, he becomes a mere cog in the greater partisan machine, then he will have earned my derision. For now, I find Webb a curiosity -- a conservative in some ways, a populist in others. He is hardly cut from the traditional Democratic cloth and I do believe a keen sense of buyer's remorse will come to grip those who voted for him simply because he wasn't George Allen.

But going forward, it's important to keep in mind what John reiterated: It is not our duty to support politicians. It is their duty to earn our support. And in that light, the slate for Jim Webb clean. Let him begin to earn it.

Now as for the General Assembly...that's another matter entirely. Their slate is crammed and almost incomprehensible. I do not hold much hope that any of them will be able to earn my support. But several have gone out of their way to earn a one-way ticket back to private life. And many of them are Republicans.

2006-11-16T13:36:00.000-05:00

R.I.P. Milton Friedman

One of the most influential economists and thinkers of the 20th century has died. And while it's natural for people to believe he was just another apostle of the free market (which is undeniably true), there was more to "Uncle Milty" than supply and demand:

Mr. Friedman had enormous impact on economic policy though he never had a formal job in a government administration after World War Two. His opposition helped lead to the end of the draft. He was an adviser to President Ronald Reagan. He has been closely associated with school vouchers and other applications of free market principles to policy issues.

On a personal note, many years ago, Friedman critiqued a paper I wrote on drug policy. He was complimentary and scathing at the same time (interesting and well written, but too much on the theory and not enough on the human cost of the drug war -- I learned the lesson well).

We shall not see his like again.

More Food for Thought

As expected, the posts on Friedman are mounting quickly and some of them are though provoking indeed. Like this open letter from Friedman to then Drug Czar Bill Bennett:

In Oliver Cromwell's eloquent words, "I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken" about the course you and President Bush urge us to adopt to fight drugs. The path you propose of more police, more jails, use of the military in foreign countries, harsh penalties for drug users, and a whole panoply of repressive measures can only make a bad situation worse. The drug war cannot be won by those tactics without undermining the human liberty and individual freedom that you and I cherish.

Or this snippet of a Friedman interview from 2005 on the War:

“War is a friend of the state,” Friedman said. It is always expensive, requiring higher taxes, and, “In time of war, government will take powers and do things that it would not ordinarily do.”

And on a former hobby-horse of mine, term limits:

I have no magic formula for changing the self-interest of bureaucrats and members of Congress. Constitutional amendments to limit taxes and spending, to rule out monetary manipulation, and to inhibit market distortions would be fine, but we're not going to get them. The only viable thing on the national horizon is the term-limits movement. A six-year term limit for representatives would not change their basic nature, but it would change drastically the kinds of people who would seek election to Congress and the incentives under which they would operate. I believe that those of us who are interested in trying to reverse the allocation of our resources, to shift more and more to the private markets and less and less to the government market, must disabuse ourselves of the notion that all we need to do is elect the right people. At one point we thought electing the right president would do it. We did and it didn't. We have to turn our attention to changing the incentives under which people operate. The movement for term limits is one way of doing that; it's an excellent idea, and it's making real progress. There have to be other movements as well.

There are and will be, thanks in no small part to Milton Friedman.

2006-11-16T10:01:00.000-05:00

NoVa and RoVa, Again

The Washington Post continues to explore the great divide between Northern Virginia and the rest of the Commonwealth (if that term still applies). There is little new ground plowed here -- folks quoted in the story find RoVa's politics "embarrassing," and believe the South is all "debutantes and gun racks."

And I thought Richmond was provincial.

The divide or chasm or fault line is probably real to some extent -- real in that some people on both sides believe it's real and live their lives accordingly. But mainly, it's just a lot of bunk. Northern Virginia may believe itself to be cosmopolitan, forward thinking and progressive, but there are plenty of folks throughout the state who share the same outlook. Charlottesville makes NoVa look positively reactionary. Hampton Roads gives NoVa a run for its money not just in population (native and transplant) but in its problems and amenities, too.

Of course Richmond is still caught between the past and future. But as the region grows, it becomes less and less "Southern" and more homogenized. The strip malls and chock-a-block houses of Chesterfield and Henrico could just as easily be mistaken for those in Prince William and Fairfax (but not as pricey, at least for now).

And really -- if all a person knows of an area is its politics, then their knowledge is shallow, indeed. But it helps explain a lot...mainly about the Washington Post, which still hasn't quite figured out that, yes, there is a great big world south of Route 50.

2006-11-16T09:20:00.000-05:00

Parallel Lines

After considering yesterday's op-ed from Jim Webb in the Wall Street Journal, it seems to me that there are more, and stronger, parallels between Webb's economic outlook and that of the paleoconservatives.

Consider this cover story by Prof. James Kurth in the "American Conservative" -- written, interestingly enough -- a few weeks before Webb's Journal piece. While not perfect matches, the threads are woven from similar cloth. First, Webb's introduction:

The most important -- and unfortunately the least debated -- issue in politics today is our society's steady drift toward a class-based system, the likes of which we have not seen since the 19th century. America's top tier has grown infinitely richer and more removed over the past 25 years. It is not unfair to say that they are literally living in a different country. Few among them send their children to public schools; fewer still send their loved ones to fight our wars. They own most of our stocks, making the stock market an unreliable indicator of the economic health of working people. The top 1% now takes in an astounding 16% of national income, up from 8% in 1980. The tax codes protect them, just as they protect corporate America, through a vast system of loopholes.

And from Prof. Kurth:

In 1914, Henry Ford paid his factory workers $5 a day, twice the going rate, with the aim of creating a broad middle class able to buy the cars they were building. Today, that project isn't faring so well: The Economist reports that in the U.S. "the gap between rich and poor is bigger than in any other advanced country." And it's growing. According to the Congressional Budget Office, from 1979 to 2001, the after-tax income of the top 1 percent of U.S. households soared 139 percent, while the income of the middle fifth rose only 17 percent and the income of the poorest fifth climbed just 9 percent. Last year American CEOs earned 262 times the average wage of their workers -- up tenfold from 1970.

Reading the Webb piece alongside the one from Kurth shows that the similarities -- even down to citing the same survey from the Economist -- shows that Webb and the Buchananites have similar views on the detrimental effects of the current economy.

Well fine. What does that prove? Perhaps nothing. The strain of economic thought that informs both Webb and Kurth is as old as the Republic. It's taken different names over time -- whether it's populist, protectionist, America First or some other title. But in general, it rests on the notion that free markets aren't all they are cracked up to be and that it is in the long term interest of the people and the government to manage the rigors of capitalism lest it destroy the fabric of American life.

In many ways, it's an outlook built upon doubt and fear, two commodities that always find willing buyers in the marketplace and for good reason: Economic dislocation can be sudden and brutal. Its effects can linger for generations. For those who find themselves, or fear they will soon find themselves, at the mercy of impersonal market forces, the idea that someone will ride to their aid (whether it's through high tariffs, free silver, fair trade or industrial planning) is comforting and worth supporting.

But the results can be disastrous -- trade wars, inflation, recession, excessive regulation and even greater dislocation. Whether and how Webb's economic ideas are translated into public policy will bear watching and among those who ought to be watching the closest are those Virginia firms who depend upon trade and the free flow of capital. Do they have a friend in Jim Webb? It doesn't appear that way.

2006-11-15T10:57:00.000-05:00

"...We’d be better off without her in public office"

Thus sprake Manoli regarding the return of Reva Trammell to the Richmond City Council.

As much as I can sympathize with the sentiment, in this case, what seems to have occurred in the city's 8th Ward was an electorate turning to someone who not only campaigned hard for their votes, but actually seems to care about them -- and drops everything to attend to their needs.

As much as Jackie Jackson may have represented a different sort of elected Richmond official -- earnest, intelligent, even clinical -- that's not exactly what brings voters to the polls (irony of ironies, both Reva and Jackson are Sorensen graduates...Trammell from the class of 1999, Jackson from the class of 2002). Old-fashioned politicking does.

And that seems to rub Manoli the wrong way. Of course, his distaste for Trammell may be part personal and part strategic (positioning for the H.O.D. race in 2007). Regardless of the reasons, he ought to spend a little less time bashing Reva and a lot more on studying how she won. There's a lesson or two in there somewhere, and he would be wise to take notes.

2006-11-15T09:34:00.000-05:00

The Political Struggle

Jim Webb publishes an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal that is as revealing as it is problematic.

There are threads in the piece that strike a very populist economic chord -- like "...our society's steady drift toward a class-based system, the likes of which we have not seen since the 19th century." Or, "It should be the first order of business for the new Congress to begin addressing these divisions, and to work to bring true fairness back to economic life."

That hardly sounds like Pat Moynihan, Webb's adopted role model. Rather, it sounds like Huey Long, and, yes, there are Buchanan-esque flourishes as well.

If this is truly what the Senator-elect believes, and I have no reason to doubt it, then Virginia has elected a man whose economic principles run counter to the Commonwealth's economic future.

I'll have more on this later.

2006-11-14T13:52:00.000-05:00

Is That a Grenade on Your Mic?

There was a full page black and white ad (pictured here in color) in this morning's Wall Street Journal touting the return of Dan Rather to the airwaves.

What's that on top of the mic?

A grenade.

What's the tag line?

"Dan Rather Reports."

"Fire in the hole" is more like it. (Via Adrants)

2006-11-13T09:24:00.000-05:00

Revenge of the Stupid Party

Bob Novak bears some very bad news:

The depleted House Republican caucus, a minority in the next Congress, convenes at 8 a.m. in the Capitol Friday on the brink of committing an act of supreme irrationality. The House members blame their leadership for tasting the bitter dregs of defeat. Yet, the consensus so far is that, in secret ballot, they will re-elect some or all of those leaders.

In private conversation, Republican members of Congress blame Majority Leader John Boehner and Majority Whip Roy Blunt in no small part for their midterm election debacle. Yet, either Boehner, Blunt or both are expected to be returned to their leadership posts Friday. For good reason, the GOP often is called "the stupid party."

But surely, surely, Bob, they learned a little something? Anything? It doesn't appear so:

In fact, the voting records of Boehner and Blunt are nearly identical to Pence's and Shadegg's. The difference between them was demonstrated last Thursday when Blunt went to the Heritage Foundation to campaign for his retention as whip. He delivered a defense of earmarking, echoing the House appropriators' claim that the elimination of earmarks would do "nothing but shift funding decisions from one side of Pennsylvania Ave. to the other."

That is the view that led Republicans to earmark a "bridge to nowhere" and hundreds of other projects in competitive districts, hoping it would save them on Election Day. The House has been a place where Rep. Don Young (a notorious Alaska porker) was setting national transportation policy, where the "Cardinals" on the Appropriations Committee established earmarking records, where the pharmaceutical industry had a pipeline to party policy and where even Speaker Hastert was making personal profits on an earmark. Maybe that's what Republicans want to retain, even in the minority.

Stupid Party indeed.

2006-11-13T08:52:00.000-05:00

Looking Ahead (Too Far Ahead)

Not Buck Turgedson provides both major parties with outlines for success in the run-up to 2008. They are worth pondering, in part because they make me wonder if NBT has tapped my phones (or somehow fluoridated my water).

As they are the new minority and bloodlettings are always more entertaining than coronations, I'm interested in NBT's prescription for the GOP.

Some of these ideas are excellent -- abandoning the obsession with earmarks is the one most likely to gain some substantial backing (assuming Don Young and Jerry Lewis are kept in the cloakroom throughout the session). Once upon a time, the GOP paid more than lip service to the idea of fiscal restraint and accountability. They need to return to those ideas and practices -- which means they also need to get behind a Pence/Shadegg leadership team.

And while the ideas of term limits, balanced budgets and the like warm my old, activist heart, trying to achieve them through a convention is a non-starter.

After the Supreme Court's 1995 ruling that struck down state-imposed limits on their congressional delegations, my old employer began to pursue the idea of a single-subject convention. It got nowhere, largely because of the deep-seeded fear among some on the right and left that a convention would run amok, scrap the Constitution and force some fantastically weird beast upon us. No amount of arguing and reassuring will overcome that.

But that does not mean the GOP could not use the traditional method to introduce the amendments NBT suggests and use the discharge petition process to push them along. I don't expect that to happen. But if they do, it would send a signal that they are at least making the attempt to return to the ideas that gained them the majority 12 years ago.

2006-11-10T11:28:00.000-05:00

The "Gnats of Cyberspace"

Next Tuesday evening, the Society of Professional Journalists-Virginia Pro Chapter and the University of Richmond Journalism Program will hear from an array of bloggers on journalism, blogging and how the two get along.

Featured speakers include some top-notch folks: Jim Bacon, Jon Baliles, Conaway Haskins, John Sarvay and the semi-retired Chad Dotson. I'll be there, too (someone has to bring the chips).

Thanks to Style Weekly's Jason Roop for pulling this together.

2006-11-10T08:57:00.000-05:00

The Thinning Ranks

Sic Semper, the Jaded JD, Will and now Chad.

The ranks have grown substantially thinner in the past year and we are left the poorer for it.

Even so, my best wishes and sincere thanks go out to Chad as he gets on with the business of life.

See you next week, though, right big guy?

2006-11-09T12:51:00.000-05:00

Pot, Kettle, Manoli

Out-going Richmond City Council President Manoli Loupassi has a few choice words for Mayor Wilder and his actions on behalf of candidates in the recent council races.

Perhaps "choice words" isn't quite right. Boneheaded. Yeah, that's better:

Wilder's disclosure that he had helped Trammell, meanwhile, drew a sharp response from Council President G. Manoli Loupassi, who did not run for re-election.

"I think it is pathetic," Loupassi said. "He represented that he is for good government, and now he is out there for someone who is the opposite of that. Jackie was a good government person."

Manoli is no dummy. But sometimes, he says the darnedest things. Would it be out of place to point out that he said he would play no role in the choice of his successor, but then went off and performed sundry campaign services for Bruce Tyler?

Nah. Wouldn't be fair. I mean, that would show Manoli is as much of a pol as is Wilder.

And as for bashing Reva...good Lord, man. If nothing else, she will bring a sorely-missed bit of life back to an otherwise moribund council.

But to the other issue of Jackie Jackson being somehow the embodiment of "good government." Well, that is to laugh. In her case, the return trip to private life may allow her to devote more attention to her day job (which, I'm told, flagged substantially during her council tenure).

Manoli's going to have to learn a hard lesson very quickly as he prepares to run for the House of Delegates: the bigger the political stage, the harder and meaner Doug Wilder fights. And the immediate beneficiary of that will be Katherine Waddell.

2006-11-09T08:55:00.000-05:00

The Rout

That's how Dick Armey characterizes Tuesday's results. While historically the numbers are not a rout, but part of a pattern the larger point he makes about why the GOP lost so convincingly remains true. In fact, I think it all comes down to these two sentences:

You can't build a winning constituency based on anger. The American people expect more.

I've said much the same thing here more times than I can count. Absent a compelling, positive reason to vote "FOR" someone, defeat is the likely result. For all of their efforts, the national GOP didn't seem to present this compelling, positive message. Of course, they were running against a fierce negative headwind, which included the War, the President's real, perceived or manufactured failures, and their own, serial blunders. Perhaps no positive message, no matter how well-crafted or how relentlessly pushed could have worked.

But the GOP didn't seem to even grasp the seriousness of its problems until sometime in August. Far too late to undo the impression, if not the reality, that they were merely lite Democrats. Or worse, the sort of arrogant, scandal-plagued Democrats they replaced in 1994.

The challenges for the GOP are self-evident: return to principles, embrace them, live them, fight for them. And while they're at it, tap into some of that Reagan optimism a lot more often.

2006-11-08T16:19:00.000-05:00

A Little Bitter

National Review's John J. Miller wasn't keen on the Allen Senate campaign. While this isn't news (I was, too), his biggest beef was Allen's attack on Webb's stance regarding women in combat. Miller thought it silly, preferring instead to slap the shop-worn "Liberal" label on Webb (as in "too Liberal for Virginia" -- catchy, if you're stuck in 1980).

But today, Miller reaches deep into his rhetorical bag of tricks and presents a real gem...one that is bitter and catty at the same time. In response to a reader's suggestion that Allen run for Senate in 2008 (assuming John Warner retires), Miller states:

If he runs for Senate in 2008, I predict that he will put on a dress and campaign as a woman.

Scintillating.

2006-11-08T14:06:00.000-05:00

Cantor for Minority Leader?

That's the word. And I must admit Erick's sentiment's are correct in regards to Cantor's possible candidacy:

After leaving the distinct impression some weeks ago that he wanted to be Minority Leader, Eric Cantor has decided he does in fact want to do that. He's also pushing for Roy Blunt to remain as Whip. Such a pair would be a vote for the status quo, something voters rejected last night.

While I'd generally be amenable to both Cantor and Blunt for those positions, I think it sends a very bad and strong signal to the base that yesterday sent a very clear message demanding institutional reforms of the GOP in a conservative direction.

Cantor was a part of a leadership team that turned its back on the principles that made the GOP a majority party. He does not deserve to move up.

2006-11-08T09:21:00.000-05:00

Time for a New Tack

John Ellis writes in today's Journal that the political parties could learn from the private sector when it comes to messaging:

Look through the list of the major advertisers in the U.S. and what strikes you is that all of them spend vast sums of money building and strengthening brands. The nation's leading advertiser, Procter & Gamble, spends over $4.5 billion annually doing just that. P&G spends not one dime on negative advertising because they understand that it is ultimately self-destructive.

What makes our politics so sensationally awful is not just the amount of money spent denigrating the category and the profession, but the equally stunning amount of energy that is expended by party apparatchiks to amplify the negative in news-media coverage of politics. And the news media are only to happy to comply. The truth is they can't get enough of it.

The net effect of this constant and unrelenting assault on politicians and the political process is voter resignation and ultimately a kind of doomed acceptance. It must be true. They must all be hypocrites, fools, thieves and scoundrels. They're talking about themselves, after all. It's $1 billion of self-portraiture.

We've seen plenty of this right here. And if anything, the campaigns set lows that have not been reached in decades. While the accepted wisdom is that negative ads work, any advertising person who retains a scrap of a soul will tell you that negatives don't sell products. And if we accept the proposition that politicians are salesmen for a certain product -- whether it's a 10-point platform, a set of personal beliefs or even something as amorphous as change -- the best way to get people to buy (or vote YES) is to make the message positive. The Contract with America was a positive platform. Of course, it was positioned as an antidote to a series of negatives -- corruption, indifference, arrogance -- but it told people what the GOP was for. And more than that, it told voters specifically what the party would do to change things in Washington. Granted, it covered only the first 100 days. And 12 years later, those 10 points seem rather remote, or even quaint. But the overarching theme was positive.

Has there been anything like this put into the public eye during this election? No. We were told to "stay the course," but not in so many words. We were fed a steady diet of fear and loathing (with the occasional deer head tossed in for good measure). We were told there were other solutions to the greatest problems of the day, but the specifics were so threadbare as to be nonexistent. Ellis says that the eventual reaction may be one that neither party will like:

Ultimately, the reaction to this ceaseless negative barrage, if it continues unchecked, will be the rejection of both major political parties. As more and more people are repulsed by the political process, their number will at some point reach a critical mass. Americans share two overriding beliefs: Tomorrow will be a better day and the idea of America is fundamentally important. That critical mass will eventually embrace a party of hope and mission. A new political party that speaks to those beliefs will emerge. The alternative, after all, is a new record every two years -- $2 billion of negative advertising, then $4 billion, then $8 billion. All slander all the time eventually collapses of its own foul weight.

The ironic thing is that all of this nastiness seems to have driven turnout to comparatively high levels for a mid-term election. So for now, the barrage of microtargeting, robo-calls, push polls "72 hour campaigns" and other tactics seems to be the gold standard.

But if Ellis is correct, then these same tactics may eventually lead to a backlash that reshapes the political landscape.

And I suggest it begin in Virginia with the 2007 elections.

2006-11-08T09:00:00.000-05:00

Back to Principles

The GOP got the national drubbing it deserved last night, losing the House and, more likely than not, the Senate as well.

As I've been writing for months, these events should be welcomed. In a single stroke, voters told the GOP that scandal (if the exit polls are to be believed) and profligacy have enormous consequences.

For the Democrats, there will be jubilation and rightly so. However, the hard reality of divided government is that they are now on center stage. Controlling the legislative agenda is fine and good. Repaying one's base is expected. But with majority status comes responsibility and scrutiny. They have had neither for 12 years. How they manage the next two will very likely determine which party controls the Congress for a generation.

As for the Virginia races, the House results show the status quo is firmly in place. The Allen-Webb contest, while still in a bit of flux, will probably fall Mr. Webb's way. If the results hold up, he will make an interesting incumbent, particularly when the buyer's remorse begins to set in among certain circles.

As for George Allen, assuming the results do not change, he is an honorable man who was tarred by one of the most abominable and nasty campaigns we've seen in some time. His defeat would seem to be a ratification of the sort of politics Virginians like to believe don't happen here. But now, they seem to have been ratified. But he cannot escape the cold reality that he fumbled this race away months ago. I said it a couple of days ago, but this campaign made the Kilgore effort look positively Churchillian.

2006-11-07T10:17:00.000-05:00

Push the Button

Mrs. Leahy reports that when she was at the polls, a worker told her there have been problems with the touch screens. What sort of problems?

A number of people, it seems, have forgotten to press the final "VOTE" screen, which registers their choices. She asked the poll worker whether they could press the screen and was told no, all they could do was clear the machine...so the votes are not counted.

Which is somewhat dumbfounding to me, as it's seemed nearly impossible for anyone to miss the very large "VOTE" screen at the end...and that the workers offered their help if anyone had a question. Then again, technology is only as smart as the people who use it. And it appears that in some cases, the intelligence of voters leaves something to be desired.

2006-11-07T08:59:00.000-05:00

Brisk Traffic

I voted at Tuckahoe Elementary School this morning. The parking lot and side streets were full -- but nothing like they were during the 2004 election. The line inside was short and moved briskly, though the person ahead of me had misplaced both her voter registration card and her license and allowed me to go ahead while she rifled through her pocketbook to find some sort of valid identification.

The touch-screen machines that drive Luddites crazy were in use. No problems at all and the staff offered to help with any questions or problems.

Outside, there were poll workers for the Republicans and for the Commonwealth Coalition (I told the very active CC worker that she already had my vote, which seemed to brighten her spirits a bit). The Democrats may have had someone there, but it wasn't obvious. Then again, the competition in the 7th CD is thin and resources were probably deployed elsewhere (one would think).

2006-11-06T09:23:00.000-05:00

Waves

There has been an great deal of chatter regarding what seems to be a GOP resurgence in the generic balloting. Mickey Kaus does as good a job as anyone in cataloguing the changes (in addition to beating on Andrew Sullivan, which is always good sport).

So. Did the Democratic wave crest too early? Is the GOP's GOTV going to save the party's majorities? (I said after the Kilgore debacle in 2005 that I never wanted to hear about the invincible "72 hour campaign" ever again. So much for that.)

Still, there are numerous election watchers who are predicting either a Republican rout or at least a solid knuckle-whacking. I'm not entirely sure the rout will occur, largely because -- even at this very late date -- Democrats have generally not given people a reason to vote "for" their candidates. "Anti" campaigns can generate a lot of votes, but usually not enough to win.

That's not to say Republicans have exactly given people a good reason to pull the lever (or touch the screen) for them. Fear is an excellent motivator and they have used it relentlessly. But is fear enough? No.

My prediction, which is worth only the electrons it consumes on this page, is that divided government will return to Washington.

And I would feel a lot better about that if it were clear to me that the Democrats had learned anything -- anything at all -- during their time in the minority. But they haven't.

Well, except for nominating old-style conservatives who will cause them no small amount of heartburn if elected.

Will the Republicans learn anything if they are swept into the minority? Hopefully yes. Hopefully, they will rediscover the principles that brought them to power 12 years ago. But I'm not exactly optimistic.

And what will happen here in Virginia (both of you really want to know what I think, right?). Well, I don't know. I didn't think it was possible to see a worse-run campaign than Jerry Kilgore's 2005 outing. But George Allen has done just that. Oh sure, the press has seemingly gone out of its way to bash, trash and thrash Allen. But let's be honest -- he brought much of this upon himself. He allowed Webb to dominate the online portion of the campaign until very recently -- a blunder of enormous proportions considering who reads blogs (the press and activists). He performed either very poorly or at best middling in the televised debates. And his campaign ads have been underwhelming. His October Surprise - the snippets from Webb's books - was jaw-droppingly dumb. In sum, Allen's high-priced talent failed him. And he will pay for it long after the election is over.

As for Webb -- well. I've talked to some of his supporters. They range from conservative Democrats to wide-eyed MoveOns. They do not so much believe in Webb as they detest Allen. And the War. And Bush. Their dislike is palpable and it may be enough to carry their candidate to victory in spite of the fact that Webb is a pitiful campaigner, a reluctant fundraiser and a man who has had either to compromise or utterly reject the beliefs he held for decades (the appearances with John Kerry and Bill Clinton sealed it). Webb has been supremely fortunate in this race because George Allen has done so much, so often, to make Webb viable. In many ways, Webb's is the Forrest Gump candidacy -- he finds himself at the center of events through no effort of his own. In Hollywood, that makes for a middling movie. In politics, it creates expectations that far exceed the candidate's ability to meet them.

Who will win? I really don't know. And in many ways, it may not really matter. Two conservatives are on the ballot -- one who casts himself in Reagan's mold, the other who seems to be more Buchanan-like than anything else.

I'm thinking write-in.

2006-11-04T08:42:00.000-05:00

Pining for Santorum

Peggy Noonan devotes her Saturday WSJ column to Sen. Rick Santorum and what she believes will be a national loss if Santorum is denied another term in office.

Mr. Santorum has been at odds with the modernist impulse, or liberalism, or whatever it now and fairly should be called. Most of his own impulses -- protect the unprotected, help the helpless, respect the common man -- have not been conservative in the way conservative is roughly understood, or portrayed, in the national imagination. If this were the JFK era, his politics would not be called "right wing" but "progressive." He is, at heart, a Catholic social reformer. Bobby Kennedy would have loved him.

I sincerely doubt this last assertion, but the larger point Noonan makes, that politicians like Santorum are a rare breed we so desperately need in power strikes me as deeply wrong. It's not just Santorum's desire to insert the state (and himself) into matters that are better left to civil society, but his general view of conservative principles, first discussed here.

Santorum is no conservative, and Noonan says as much by calling him a "progressive." And if we stretch the definition of progressive, stripping it of its more modern baggage, the label gains a sliver of merit.

But is this the sort of impulse conservatives ought to support? Is it in the long-term interest of conservatives to expend blood and treasure on behalf of someone who would expand the size, cost and power of the state to satisfy his own, particular social ends?

I don't think so.

His electoral loss is all but assured next week. But it will be a victory for those of us who still believe in liberty.