3 November 2010 >> 1992/2008: A charismatic Democrat portraying himself as a centrist is elected President.

1992-1994/2008-2010: Democratic President sheds centrist image by tacking to the left during his first two years.

1993: Democratic President fails at getting his signature healthcare restructuring bill passed. / 2010: Democratic President succeeds at getting his signature healthcare restructuring bill passed.

1994: Republicans take over the House of Representatives, gaining 52 seats. / 2010: Republicans take over the House of Representatives, gaining 60 seats or more.

1994-: Chastened Democratic President moves to the center, works with Republicans in Congress enacting several substantial bills to bipartisan acclaim, and wins re-election.

2010-: ???

25 March 2010 >> When Barack Obama decided to launch his political career in the living room of unrepentant domestic terrorist Bill Ayers, he tacitly endorsed using violence as a political tactic.

And when two staunch allies of the Democratic Party—the SEIU and ACORN—drove busloads of protesters to the private homes of AIG executives, just days later, President Obama told a meeting of bankers that “my administration is the only thing between you and the pitchforks.”

Implicitly, Obama was using the threat of violence to get the bankers to acquiesce.

During his presidential campaign, Barack Obama didn’t shy away from confrontation. In fact, he encouraged it by telling supporters to “argue with” opponents and to “get in their face[s].”

The Obama Administration’s confrontational tone included some violent imagery last August, when one White House official encouraged Obama supporters to “punch back twice as hard” against opponents.

Later that day, at an anti-ObamaCare rally in St. Louis, a black man named Kenneth Gladney was handing out “Don’t Tread on Me” flags when he was approached by pro-ObamaCare SEIU union members. One of the men asked Gladney, “What kind of nigger are you to be giving out this kind of stuff?”

The union thugs then beat him so badly he required overnight hospitalization.

Obama’s supporters got the message. They were getting in people’s faces, and they were punching. And kicking. Repeatedly.

Yet despite the fact that the Kenneth Gladney beating occurred the same day that the Obama Administration recommended supporters “punch back twice as hard,” there was no hyperventilating in the media about political violence or the veiled threats that encouraged it.

Today, however, the Democratic politicians who rammed through ObamaCare over the wishes of the American public are worried about the ugly environment that the Obama Administration spent over a year stoking. And if Obama and the Democrats truly believe that words lead to violence, then they should accept responsibility for the beating of Kenneth Gladney.

I’m certainly not condoning political violence, and would condemn any that actually happens. But there has been no reported violence against any Congressman, Senator or government official, despite the media frenzy of stories describing a crazed American public ready to terrorize politicians.

All politicians receive threats; any moderately trafficked blogger receives threats. So while I would hate for there to be any actual violence, excuse me if I chuckle at the chatter of the chickens in the media and our political class. This media-driven national freakout is a diversion, designed to de-legitimize opposition to ObamaCare and to take your attention away from the illegitimate and unprecedented usurpation of power by the Democrats in Congress and President Obama. They’re banking on you forgetting by November.

If the media is going to report on this atmosphere without discussing the Obama Administration’s words or the SEIU beat-down of Kenneth Gladney, if they are going to spend time breathlessly reporting rumored threats that have not been carried out while ignoring violence that actually occurred but didn’t fit their narrative, then it is yet more proof of the media’s patent bias.

20 January 2010 @ 8:35AM >> Two weeks ago, I wrote, “Democrats losing Ted Kennedy’s seat would be a massive political earthquake.” Well, yesterday, the once-unthinkable happened, and the deep blue state of Massachusetts elected its first Republican senator since 1972.

Today, politicians and pundits on both sides of the aisle will be spinning, assigning blame, and taking credit.

Here’s my not-at-all-scientific breakdown of the factors I think went into Scott Brown’s victory over Democrat Martha Coakley:

• 30% - Opposition to high taxes and out-of-control government spending
• 25% - Backlash at the political hijinks of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid’s “get it done at all costs” tactics
• 20% - Rejection of ObamaCare specifically
• 15% - Martha Coakley being a bad candidate
• 5% - Scott Brown being a charismatic candidate
• 5% - Disappointment in President Obama’s first year
• 0% - Repudiation of Ted Kennedy’s legacy

By this measure, it’s hard to say that President Obama had nothing to do with the defeat, but in my view, his party shares more of the blame than he does personally.

17 August 2009 @ 10:33PM >> Last week, I called the office of Jerrold Nadler, my congressman, to see if he would be holding any constituent meetings on health care.

Today, I got a recorded call from Congressman Nadler inviting me to participate in a “live telephone town hall” at 8PM this evening. The call came in at 7:35PM.

Of course, this timing left constituents with a mere 25 minutes warning. (I didn’t even get a chance to listen to the voicemail until the “town hall” was long over.)

I’m sure the short notice caused many folks to miss the opportunity to question their congressman directly. Perhaps that was by design.

A cynical political observer might conclude that Congressman Nadler wanted as few people calling as possible.

27 July 2009 @ 4:15PM >> Peggy Noonan identifies one of the many reasons that I’m concerned about the government getting more control over our healthcare system:

We are living in a time in which educated people who are at the top of American life feel they have the right to make very public criticisms of . . . let’s call it the private, pleasurable but health-related choices of others. They shame smokers and the overweight. Drinking will be next. Mr. Obama’s own choice for surgeon general has come under criticism as too heavy.

Only a generation ago such criticisms would have been considered rude and unacceptable. But they are part of the ugly, chafing price of having the government in something: Suddenly it can make big and very personal demands on you. Those who live in a way that isn’t sufficiently healthy “cost us money” and “drive up premiums.” Mr. Obama himself said something like it in his press conference, when he spoke of a person who might not buy health insurance. If he gets hit by a bus, “the rest of us have to pay for it.”

Under a national health-care plan we might be hearing that a lot. You don’t exercise, you smoke, you drink, you eat too much, and “the rest of us have to pay for it.”

It is a new opportunity for new class professionals (an old phrase that should make a comeback) to shame others, which appears to be one of their hobbies. (It may even be one of their addictions. Let’s stage an intervention.) Every time I hear Kathleen Sebelius talk about “transitioning” from “treating disease” to “preventing disease,” I start thinking of how they’ll use this as an excuse to judge, shame and intrude.

So this might be an unarticulated public fear: When everyone pays for the same health-care system, the overseers will feel more and more a right to tell you how to live, which simple joys are allowed and which are not.

9 July 2009 @ 6:14PM >> USA Today reports:

Billions of dollars in federal aid delivered directly to the local level to help revive the economy have gone overwhelmingly to places that supported President Obama in last year’s presidential election.

That aid—about $17 billion—is the first piece of the administration’s massive stimulus package that can be tracked locally. Much of it has followed a well-worn path to places that regularly collect a bigger share of federal grants and contracts, guided by formulas that have been in place for decades and leave little room for manipulation.

“There’s no politics at work when it comes to spending for the recovery,” White House spokesman Robert Gibbs says.

Counties that supported Obama last year have reaped twice as much money per person from the administration’s $787 billion economic stimulus package as those that voted for his Republican rival, Sen. John McCain, a USA TODAY analysis of government disclosure and accounting records shows. That money includes aid to repair military bases, improve public housing and help students pay for college.

The reports show the 872 counties that supported Obama received about $69 per person, on average. The 2,234 that supported McCain received about $34.

19 June 2009 @ 8:24AM >> Remember when passing the Obama Administration’s stimulus plan was vital to saving the republic? The administration made all sorts of projections intended to demonstrate the necessity of their plan.

Well, now we’ve got a few months of data, so we can see how their plans panned out.

This chart shows Obama’s unemployment projections without the stimulus (the light blue line) and with the stimulus (dark blue line). Actual unemployment figures are shown as red dots:

(Hat Tip: Innocent Bystanders.)

21 May 2009 @ 7:26PM >> In 21^st century America, the federal government’s solution to every financial problem seems the same: people who are responsible with money are forced to foot the bill for the reckless. Video >>

21 May 2009 @ 8:44AM >> Once again, it seems that the people who follow the rules and pay on time are going to get stuck with the bill for those who don’t:

Credit cards have long been a very good deal for people who pay their bills on time and in full. Even as card companies imposed punitive fees and penalties on those late with their payments, the best customers racked up cash-back rewards, frequent-flier miles and other perks in recent years.

Now Congress is moving to limit the penalties on riskier borrowers, who have become a prime source of billions of dollars in fee revenue for the industry. And to make up for lost income, the card companies are going after those people with sterling credit.

Banks are expected to look at reviving annual fees, curtailing cash-back and other rewards programs and charging interest immediately on a purchase instead of allowing a grace period of weeks, according to bank officials and trade groups.

“It will be a different business,” said Edward L. Yingling, the chief executive of the American Bankers Association, which has been lobbying Congress for more lenient legislation on behalf of the nation’s biggest banks. “Those that manage their credit well will in some degree subsidize those that have credit problems.”

12 May 2009 >> Courtesy of the Associated Press:

The government will have to borrow nearly 50 cents for every dollar it spends this year, exploding the record federal deficit past $1.8 trillion under new White House estimates.

3 March 2009 >> When Barack Obama and his allies in Congress say the current tax laws aren’t fair, they are right. They aren’t fair, but not in the way the Democrats contend.

The Tax Foundation put together a revealing report (PDF) comparing taxes paid to the dollar value of government services received.

As this chart shows, 40% of American households are working to support the other 60%. If you make $65,000 or more per year, you’re effectively a slave for the portion of the year that you spend earning the money that the government takes in taxes.

You may not realize you’re a slave, because you don’t see any shackles around your legs. But if you decide not to pay your taxes, unless you plan on being nominated for a position in the Obama administration in which case taxes seem to be optional, those shackles would become very real. Just ask Wesley Snipes.

What we have now is a tyranny of the majority. Because 60% of America benefits from the labors of the other 40%, it’s a winning electoral formula, one that Democrats exploit at every election cycle when they ramp up the class warfare rhetoric demanding that “the rich” pay their “fair share.”

What is a fair share? Is it fair when a 40% minority is robbed to benefit the 60% majority? Would be more fair if 30% of people were robbed to benefit a 70% majority?

Taxing a smaller share of higher earners even more in order to subsidize the rest of the country is not only economically unworkable, it’s morally repugnant. At what point do people get fed up and say they’re not going to put in that extra effort, those additional hours of work so that their slave masters can reap the benefits of their labor?

Between Rick Santelli’s rant, the skyrocketing sales of Atlas Shrugged, and the tea parties popping up all over the country, I suspect we’re going to reach a tipping point real soon.

9 February 2009 @ 8:51AM >> According to Financial Week, Congressman Barney Frank, the Democrat who serves as the Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, wants to limit executive pay of all companies:

Congress will consider legislation to extend some of the curbs on executive pay that now apply only to those banks receiving federal assistance, House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank said.

“There’s deeply rooted anger on the part of the average American,” the Massachusetts Democrat said at a Washington news conference today.

He said the compensation restrictions would apply to all financial institutions and might be extended to include all U.S. companies.

31 January 2009 @ 10:59AM >> Any time Democrats in Congress opposed one of President George W. Bush’s initiatives, it was taken as evidence that Bush was a divisive president.

Now we’re in an Obama administration, and our new president was unable to persuade a single Republican in the House of Representatives to support the pork-laden sham of an economic stimulus package that he wants passed.

Suddenly, it isn’t the president who’s divisive, it’s his angry opposition in Congress.

It’s nice to have the media in your corner. Probably makes governing a little easier.

19 January 2009 >> Congressman Charles Rangel has been in the news quite a bit lately. He’s having trouble keeping up with his taxes, despite being the chairman of the committee responsible for writing the nation’s tax laws. Video >>

9 September 2008 @ 6:28PM >> An illuminating quote of the day:

Tuition has risen at twice the rate of per capita income and this year it will cost just under $50,000 to attend the average private college. If the cost of milk had risen as fast as the cost of college since 1980, a gallon would be $15.—Congressman Peter Welch (D-Vermont)

When other industries are seen as gouging the consumer, Congress likes to hold showy hearings and investigations. How long until the honchos of higher ed are hauled before some subcomittee or another?

29 July 2008 @ 8:10AM >> Another unbiased, impartial report from the good folks at the Associated Press:

Republicans on Saturday blocked the Senate from considering a bill next week that would nearly double federal aid to help the poor pay heating and air-conditioning bills.

Although a dozen Senate Republicans support the measure, most voted with GOP leaders who would rather spend the time trumpeting their call to expand offshore oil drilling before Congress takes six weeks off for vacation and the presidential nominating conventions.

It doesn’t get much more blatant than that.

Kudos to AP for doing its part to drive the media’s credibility into the ground.

(Hat tip: Kevin D. Williamson)

26 July 2007 >> The so-called John Doe amendment, which would prevent citizens from being sued for reporting suspicious activity to law enforcement officers and transit personnel, is apparently not dead yet.

After coming under heavy criticism when they first killed the provision, Congressional Democrats have wisely re-evaluated their position and will now allow the measure to come up for a vote. Let’s hope it passes, because if it doesn’t, you could wind up in court simply for voicing concerns about potential terrorist activity.

Currently, a number of people are having to defend themselves in court for doing just that.

The John Doe amendment would effectively end that court case and protect people who abide by the recommendation, “if you see something, say something.”

13 June 2007 >> Yesterday, I was a panelist on CNN’s Paula Zahn Now discussing Congressional earmarks and pork-barrel spending.

As is often the case on those prime-time news shows, you go in with enough discussion ideas to fill an entire hour. And then you find yourself in a short segment with enough time to cram in a few sentences in before the music starts getting louder and the producers whisk you off the set.

So I didn’t get a chance to mention Porkbusters and their fight to bring greater transparency to government spending. Porkbusters’ current campaign is to reform the use of legislative amendments called earmarks.

Earmarks allow Congressmen to load up bills with unrelated spending items without revealing to the public who inserted them or why. Politicians use earmarks to steer taxpayer money to special interests and pet projects in their districts. And although it’s not always the case, earmarks all too often waste money on things that are of dubious value or just plain illegal.

Right now, nearly $20 billion dollars in taxpayer money is allocated each year through earmarking. Split that up among all American working-age adults, and your personal share of the earmark bill is over $100. Every year.

Using taxpayer money to do favors for supporters and act like Santa Claus to various voting blocs must be quite a tempting proposition for politicians, especially if they can be sure nobody ever finds out. And that’s exactly why the party in power—whichever it may happen to be—probably won’t be dismantling this incumbency protection racket any time soon.

Most Americans—regardless of party or ideology—understand that the current system is corrupt. So the out-of-power Republicans get a chance to sound noble and score political points even though they had 12 years to fix the problem but didn’t. And Democrats, who made such grand promises when gaining control of Congress last fall, have been reminded of how politically useful earmarks can be. When it comes to preserving the status quo on earmarks, it seems the two parties always disagree. It’s just that their positions keep flipping depending on whether they’re in or out of power.

Congressman David Obey—the Democrat responsible for shepherding earmarks through the House—has decided he’s been so overwhelmed with earmark requests that he won’t be able to make them public for months. Conveniently, he’s pledging to make the earmarks public only after they’ve been attached to bills and can’t be removed, and just before the bill comes up for a final up-or-down vote. With tens of thousands of little earmarks attached to lots of unrelated bills, the public will have no time to debate or even discover the earmarks. If particularly malodorous provisions are found in a bill, by the time enough people become aware of the problem to oppose it in any organized fashion, the voting will have already happened.

Effectively, Congressman Obey’s excuse is that because his colleagues are making so many special spending requests—some 36,000 so far this year, more than double last year’s figure—he can’t get all his work done in time. Congress routinely churns out multi-thousand-page bills without breaking a sweat, but now that taxpayers are asking for a little transparency, it’s too much effort to comply in any meaningful way. But at least Congress has the courtesy to tell us after it no longer matters.

Obey’s feeble rationale for keeping information from voters and taxpayers inspired this novel idea from Porkbusters:

To House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey:

I read with interest news reports that you may only include earmarks in last-minute, un-amendable conference reports, as opposed to amendable House appropriations bills, because you and your staff reportedly need “extra time to evaluate the 36,000-plus earmark requests members have submitted to the Appropriations Committee this year.”

You have also been quoted you as saying: “I think we have a helluva lot more ability [to root out bad earmarks] than the individual working alone.”

Chairman Obey, I share your concern about unworthy projects receiving federal funding due to a lack of careful and thoughtful evaluation, and I agree that one individual working alone would have a very hard time completing this task in a timely manner.

Therefore, I would like to personally volunteer my time to help you and your staff in evaluating this year’s earmark requests.

As you know, Internet technology has made research faster and easier than at any previous time in human history. By releasing your 36,000 earmark requests publicly, I and other taxpayers across the country could work together in a cooperative effort to determine which Members of Congress may have financial conflicts attached to their earmark requests, which local projects may be unworthy of federal funding and which may have value to the taxpayers.

Under the threat of incarceration, we fund Congress’s earmarks whether we like it or not. So it is not unreasonable to demand transparency in government spending. After all, it’s our money to begin with.

And considering that the IRS routinely subjects citizens to rather unpleasant experiences in forced transparency—tax audits—we have to ask: why is our government held to a lower standard than we are?

10 February 2007 @ 5:58PM >> A reader points out that the tax disparity I highlighted in yesterday’s Two Americas post may be more severe than I indicated:

Hi Evan,

I think you understate the problem. You say “Yet today, 14 million Americans are receiving representation without paying any taxes, while 50% of the population pays 97% of the taxes. That means there are 14 million free-riders who have a vote that enables them to call for taxes to be raised on everyone else.” But the article says “about 14 million Americans at lower incomes have been removed from the federal income tax rolls since 2000“.

TaxProf’s Blog gave the percentages a couple years ago: 25.2% of filers reported zero tax liability in 2000, compared to 32.4% in 2004. The underlying report reveals the raw number of the untaxed grew nearly 10 million (from 32.5 million to 42.5 million) in those 4 years. I can’t find the latest numbers, but it’s certainly conceivable that 4 million more free-riders were added in 2005 and 2006. And this is just the number of tax returns filed, not the number of Americans. The report goes on to say “roughly 15 million individuals and families earned some income last year but not enough to be required to file a tax return.... Even 57.5 million is not the actual number of people because one tax return often represents several people. When all of the dependents of these income-producing people are counted, roughly 120 million Americans – 40 percent of the U.S. population – are outside of the federal income tax system.”

To be fair, however, a study of tax liability and propensity to vote is warranted if you’re going to claim tyranny of the majority. The study concludes by breaking down the numbers by several demographics, but “likely voters” isn’t one of them.

Cheers,
Bill

Thanks for the careful reading of the original report, Bill. It seems clear that I did understate the problem.

9 February 2007 @ 9:18AM >> Investor’s Business Daily on the “two Americas”:

As reported by Congress’ Joint Economic Committee, the richer half of the American population pays almost 97% of income taxes. And most of that — 54% — is paid by those in the top 5%. Those ranked in the top 1% — the richest of the rich — pay more than 34% of all personal income taxes collected by Uncle Sam.

What’s more, the Congressional Budget Office last month found that the after-tax income of those “superrich” actually declined after the Bush tax cuts by 8.3% from 2000 to 2004.

Hand in hand with these trends, about 14 million Americans at lower incomes have been removed from the federal income tax rolls since 2000 because of the earned income tax credit and the per-child tax credit.

“John Edwards actually got it right,” Tax Foundation President Scott Hodge told IBD. “There are two Americas: a taxpaying America and a non-taxpaying America.” That means the recent increases in tax burden are actually understated for those still paying income taxes.

Despite this, Democrats in Congress are paving the way to raise taxes yet again. “The rich” need to pay their “fair share,” the argument goes. But I wonder: what exactly is a fair share? If I pay 40% of my income in taxes, is that fair? What about 50% or 75%?

No matter how much “the rich” pay—and according to the tax code, “the rich” includes plenty of middle class people—the taxers never seem satisfied.

This country was founded on the notion that it is immoral to tax people without giving them a say in how the government is run. Yet today, 14 million Americans are receiving representation without paying any taxes, while 50% of the population pays 97% of the taxes. That means there are 14 million free-riders who have a vote that enables them to call for taxes to be raised on everyone else.

There’s an old saying that simple democracy is three wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. That’s why individual liberty is an important component of true freedom; it prevents tyranny of the majority.

The founders rightly decided that taxation without representation is unjust. But is representation without taxation any less unjust?

---

Update: The problem of tax free-riders is worse than the report above indicates.

31 January 2007 >> “[A]t least a dozen Democratic senators who in the past have called for more troops in Iraq,” the Washington Times reports, “now support a resolution condemning President Bush’s plan to do just that.”

If the Democrats win the White House in 2008, what will the party’s foreign policy be? Without President Bush to reflexively oppose, I don’t think they’ll have any way to figure it out.

18 January 2007 @ 9:02AM >> On July 27, 1997, the Senate voted by a margin of 95-0 that the United States would not sign a treaty structured like the Kyoto Protocol. That treaty, which proponents claimed would improve the environment, had harsher economic penalties for the United States than it did for countries like China, even though 16 of the 20 most polluted cities in the world are in China.

As a result of the Senate’s lopsided vote, President Clinton never bothered to submit the Kyoto Protocol for ratification. So it seems a bit strange that the Associated Press would claim:

The United States is no longer bound by Kyoto, which the Bush administration rejected after taking office in 2001.

First of all, the United States was never bound by Kyoto. And the reason the U.S. was never bound by Kyoto is because the treaty was never ratified. President Clinton never even submitted it for ratification. Why didn’t he? Because every Senator—Republican and Democrat alike—who voted on the 1997 resolution made it clear that they would oppose ratifying Kyoto.

All of this took place years before President Bush was in office, but it seems that AP is more concerned with blaming Bush than getting its facts straight.

(Hat tip: Glenn Reynolds.)

6 December 2006 >> Filmmaking cohort Stuart Browning has posted a new short video over at the On The Fence Films. A Short Course in Brain Surgery looks at the plight of Canadians under their “single payer” health care system.

When things don’t work out so well under Canada’s government monopoly, you know what some Canadians do? They come here, to get treated in a matter of days for procedures that they wait months or years for just a few miles further north.

I have no doubt that the new Democratic majority will eventually try to bring Canada’s system here. Before they do, every American should see A Short Course in Brain Surgery and the earlier companion film, Dead Meat.

(Next on the plate for On The Fence Films: a trailer for Indoctrinate U. Finally!)

14 November 2006 @ 8:16AM >> “We are entering an era where when the Speaker instructs you what to do, you do it.“

25 October 2006 @ 9:13AM >> David Zucker, the writer and director of Airplane! and a number of other comedies, has recently been releasing humorous political ads online. Political involvement among Hollywood insiders is nothing new, but what makes Zucker’s recent work a man-bites-dog story is that he’s been doing ads for those evil Republicans, something which is sure to make him an anathema in his industry.

One of his recent ads, a send-up of the Clinton Administration’s foreign policy—complete with a Madeleine Albright stand-in who looks a little too accurate to be flattering—was deemed too hot for establishment Republicans, who declined to air it. No matter; these days, you can reach audiences online without expensive media buys.

Zucker’s latest piece looks at what life might be like if Democrats captured Congress and dictated the nation’s tax policy.

Has David Zucker stumbled onto a new model in political advertising? I think so.

24 October 2006 @ 8:08AM >>

The gavel of the speaker of the House is in the hands of special interests, and now it will be in the hands of America’s children.Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi, the San Francisco Democrat who’s convinced she will soon be Speaker of the House

(Hat tip: Mickey Kaus.)

5 October 2006 >> In response to my piece on Bob Woodward’s admission that higher-ups at the Washington Post claimed an “obligation” to publish State of Denial before the election, reader Matt S. e-mails:

I’m a regular reader and fan, but yesterday’s post titled “A Question for the Washington Post” was, in my opinion, far below your standard.

Setting aside Woodward’s politics, biases, and agendas, it seems perfectly compatible with standards of professional journalism that a journalist would aim to publish a story before an election if that story contained information relevant to the election.

Citizens are supposed to make informed decisions on Election day; it’s the role of a free press to help citizens become informed. I think it follows that citizens should be informed prior to making such consequential decisions.

I’m perfectly happy to read arguments that question the accuracy, veracity, or objectivity of Woodward’s reporting - I think there are legitimate questions there - but to suggest that there’s something wrong with publishing a relevant story before an election is silly.

Matt,

Of course a more informed electorate is preferable. But the subject of Woodward’s book is not on the ballot in this election, which is why I find it curious.

The book discusses the Bush Administration and reportedly casts the president in a harsh light. If President Bush were up for election, I would understand the civic obligation felt by journalists to get the facts out—however they perceive them—so that voters could make up their minds. But since the voters will not get to pull the lever for or against the president, I’d figure the folks at the Post would be relatively neutral about whether the book launched in the home stretch of a midterm election that, unlike most, has the potential for both houses of Congress to switch party control.

Instead, there was a sense of importance placed on the timing. Woodward, the Post people felt, had a “real obligation” to make sure the book dropped before a specific date. Woodward acknowledged that he and the Post sat on these stories. He said he didn’t want “to make a splash” by reporting individual stories when they happened, but instead he wanted “to assemble the whole story,” which required waiting until the assembly was done. A fair argument, but usually, newspapers are in the business of telling us things when they happen, not months later when the political timing is right. Besides, isn’t waiting until six weeks before an election going to cause much more of a political splash than a story reported in, say, the spring of 2005?

I can’t claim to know Woodward’s motivation or that of the folks at the Post. But I do suspect that if he were given a chance rephrase his statement, he wouldn’t pass it up. I think it was an admission he didn’t intend to make.

Thanks for writing,
Evan

3 October 2006 >> Brendan Miniter argues that a cybersex scandal involving a Republican Congressman and an underage male intern is a sign of broader decay within the House Republican leadership:

The larger problem for House Republicans is that they’ve amassed a poor record of policing themselves amid a succession of scandals. Even as Duke Cunningham, Tom DeLay and Bob Ney tarnished the party’s image, no one other than a few “moderates” who don’t have much sway in the caucus took the lead in called for drumming any of them out of the ranks. It’s also notable that none of these three men survived their respective scandals. Cunningham is serving time in the federal pen after pleading guilty to corruption charges late last year. Mr. Ney abandoned plans to run for re-election a few weeks ago after it became clear a federal investigation was heading straight for him.

And then there’s Mr. DeLay. After being indicted on money laundering charges last year, he refused for months to clear the path for the election of a new majority leader. Apparently he was unwilling to give up the possibility of coming back from a politically debilitating legal battle. His legacy now includes preventing Republicans from electing a new, forceful leader in the House just as Republicans were being torn asunder for their response to Hurricane Katrina.

The problem isn’t just that there are a few rotten apples in the Republican Party—every bushel has its share. It’s that Republicans seem comfortable with leaving the bad apples in place, even at the risk of tainting all the others. That Mr. Foley is a Republican isn’t itself the issue. It’s that Republicans were unwilling to take a closer look at something that long ago demanded a much more detailed inspection. If the GOP had uncovered Mr. Foley last year or even this past spring, the party wouldn’t now be facing a full blown sex scandal in October. Heading into this election year, Democrats knew they had a chance to retake the House, if everything broke their way. What no one predicted is that they’d be handed so many breaks by Republicans.

I’ve argued before that the Republicans have done little recently to deserve their continued hold on Congress. Repeatedly ignoring scandals in their own ranks is part of what led to the downfall of the Democrats in 1994. Prior to that, the party enjoyed a half-century lock on the House. The Republican collapse may take much less time.

26 August 2006 @ 1:20PM >> This letter was apparently sent to Maryland Senator Paul Sarbanes by one of his constituents:

The Honorable Paul S. Sarbanes
309 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington DC, 20510

Dear Senator Sarbanes,

As a native Marylander and excellent customer of the Internal Revenue Service, I am writing to ask for your assistance. I have contacted the Immigration and Naturalization Service in an effort to determine the process for becoming an illegal alien and they referred me to you. My reasons for wishing to change my status from U.S. Citizen to illegal alien stem from the bill which was recently passed by the Senate and for which you voted. If my understanding of this bill’s provisions is accurate, as an illegal alien who has been in the United States for five years, what I need to do to become a citizen is to pay a $2,000 fine and income taxes for three of the last five years.

I know a good deal when I see one and I am anxious to get the process started before everyone figures it out. Simply put, those of us who have been here legally have had to pay taxes every year so I’m excited about the prospect of avoiding two years of taxes in return for paying a $2,000 fine. Is there any way that I can apply to be illegal retroactively? This would yield an excellent result for me and my family because we paid heavy taxes in 2004 and 2005.

Another benefit in gaining illegal status would be that my daughter would receive preferential treatment relative to her law school applications. If you would provide me with an outline of the process to become illegal (retroactively if possible) and copies of the necessary forms, I would be most appreciative.

Thank you for your assistance.

Your Loyal Constituent,
Pete McGlaughlin

(Hat tip: Mona Charen.)

26 July 2006 @ 7:45PM >> They say politics is showbusiness for ugly people. However, having just spent the day in a committee room at a House of Representatives office building, I would have to say that this appraisal is grossly inaccurate.

Apparently, the people who put together The Hill (”The newspaper for and about the U.S. Congress”) agree, and they’ve come up with their list of the 50 Most Beautiful People on Capitol Hill. Judging from the crowd that showed up to watch a few clips from Indoctrinate U, I think they’ve left quite a few people off that list.