What's a Journalist's Responsibility?

Now that Bob Novak has said, “Nobody in the Bush administration called me to leak this,” the basis for suspicion of the White House is this: “An administration official told The Washington Post on Saturday that two White House officials leaked the information to several journalists in an effort to discredit Wilson.”

I guess I don’t understand journalistic ethics. Yes, you must protect your sources. But what responsibility does a reporter have to protect the identity of an unsolicited leak? Why should I think that I can call a reporter with any lie about somebody else, or any confidential information that could endanger an individual or the entire country, and feel that my identity must be protected?

This doesn’t strike me as First Amendment stuff. Sounds like a business decision to me – a reporter decides not to divulge the identity of the leaker for fear that some future juicy leaks may dry up. What’s the civic responsibility of these journalists? Are we going to put the entire country through the agony of an independent counsel so that reporters can protect their ability to get leaks, no matter how scurrilous?

I'm not suggesting that the reporters be forced to divulge this information (we don't even know if these reporters exist, much less who they are), but that they volunteer the information. That's within their rights - and the leaker doesn't have any right to keep his or her identity secret.

It’s all reminiscent of one of the most egregious breaches of journalist ethics I’ve ever seen. During the Democratic National Convention in 2000, word leaked out of a federal courthouse of pending action related to the Monica Lewinsky saga (I don’t remember the exact details). The assumption that this came from a Republican leak galvanized Democrats at exactly the right moment and surely contributed to Al Gore’s blast-off in the polls.

As I recall, the AP reporter who broke the story was Pete Yost. He continued to file stories the next day quoting Democrats speculating on Republican leaks and dirty tricks to upset their convention. Yet, he knew throughout this time that the source of the information was a Democratic judge – who eventually came forward. Did the reporter even think the ask the judge whether he would mind having his identity revealed? Did he ever ask himself whether it was honest to file stories about a Republican leak when he knew otherwise?

If there is any truth to the information from the “administration official,” there are “several journalists” who should be asking themselves some questions right now.

When Did Karl Rove Stop Beating Wilson's Wife?

A few points on the Wilson/Plame case:

Here’s what Novak said on “Crossfire” today: “According to a confidential source at the CIA, Mrs. Wilson was an analyst, not a spy, not a covert operative, and not in charge of undercover operatives.”

This is an issue I can relate to. My wife was a CIA analyst. It was not a secret then, and it is not a secret now.

There are reports that the CIA status of Mrs. Wilson/Ms. Plame was indeed confidential, but Novak doesn’t seem to have realized that he was outing a covert agent.

Here’s what the original Novak report said (from Townhall via RealClearPolitics):

“[Joe] Wilson never worked for the CIA, but his wife, Valerie Plame, is an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction. Two senior administration officials told me Wilson's wife suggested sending him to Niger to investigate the Italian report.”

Novak mentions Plame’s CIA connection only to explain how her husband wound up in Niger. If her CIA status was such a bombshell, why was it in the SIXTH paragraph of the column?

Moreover, as I read Novak’s column, he is not even claiming that the “senior administration officials” were the source of the information that Ms. Plame works for the CIA. He mentions it almost as if it is common knowledge – which reinforces Cliff May’s take on the situation – THEN cites administration officials on her involvement in the Niger decision.

Yet today we have headlines like this: “White House Denies Rove Leaked Secret Information.” Karl Rove?! How did we get from “administration” or even “White House” officials to Rove? I thought there were quite a few people working there.

Well, the source – the only source – is Mr. Wilson, a virulent opponent of the Bush administration. Here’s the Washington Post story: “Wilson has publicly blamed Rove, although Wilson did say Monday he did not know whether Rove personally was the source of the information, only that he thought Rove had ‘condoned it.’” According to The Best of the Web, “Wilson himself has said he would like ‘to see whether or not we can get Karl Rove frog-marched out of the White House in handcuffs.’”

Now we have people raising suspicions that the White House hasn’t responded as strongly as they would expect – must be guilty! (The alternative interpretation is that they don’t know any more than anybody else about what’s going on or why this is a big deal.) Or that Scott McClellan didn’t respond directly enough when asked whether Rove had assured him that he wasn’t involved – maybe he just didn’t want headlines that said “Rove denies…”

This looks like a SMEAR to me - and I don't mean a smear of Mrs. Wilson. Now Mr. Wilson is saying, basically, "Oh, did I say Karl Rove? Sorry. I didn't mean to suggest that he was responsible..." Certainly not!

One more theory: The “White House officials” who did this were the same ones who called Wesley Clark after 9/11.

California - What's Predictable

PoliPundit and others have noted that polls in California have to be considered virtually meaningless. And really, I have only my gut to tell me that Schwarzenneger is going to be Governor - I've grown more comfortable with his candidacy, and I'm supposing that other conservatives have, too. (Although the fact that Davis is calling for a one-on-one debate with Arnold is one strong objective indicator of where things stand.)

Still, there are two predictable developments that favor Davis:

First, we know that every public employee in the State of California, along with families and acquaintances, will be voting against the recall. In an election where turnout is a key wild card, strong turnout among Davis's dependents should not be overlooked.

Second, we can safely predict that we will hear something very negative about Arnold Schwarzenegger this Thursday or Friday. Whether it will be as effective as the dirty trick against Bruce Herschensohn cannot be predicted, but one would hope that Republicans are prepared for these last-minute hit jobs (like the DUI story in 2000).

California - Energy on the Right

Every analysis I've seen following the candidate debate in California said that the best performances were turned in by Schwarzenegger and McClintock. But nobody mentioned the obvious implication - all the ideas, all the energy can be found on the right side of the spectrum. The focus has been on whether Republicans/conservatives will split their vote. But the real story is that it's Republicans/conservatives who are having the lively debate about what's essential to their vision, and what's the best way to advance their ideas. All you hear from the other side of the spectrum is pandering, fear-mongering, and whining. Come to think of it, that's what's going on at the national level, too.

Wictory Wednesday Blogroll

Here's the full list of blogs participating in Wictory Wednesday. (see next post for details)


Algol
Bowling for Howard
Dean
BushBlog.us (unofficial blog)
Bush-Cheney 2004 (unofficial
blog)
ExPostFacto
The Hedgehog Report
Jeremy Kissel
Left Coast
Conservative
Mark Kilmer
Matt Margolis
PoliPundit
Southern Conservatives
Viking Pundit

Wictory Wednesday

While I don't put too much credence in recent polls - especially the howler that Wesley Clark is leading George W. Bush - they are a sobering reminder that W's re-election is going to be fiercely, viciously contested. ExPostFacto has joined PoliPundit in observing Wictory Wednesdays to support George W. Bush in his bid for re-election in 2004. Each Wednesday, we’re asking readers to volunteer and/or donate (even if it's just $25) to the Bush campaign. Just take a moment to remember how you felt the morning after the 2000 election, then hit one of the links above to help make sure W wins a clear mandate in 2004. For more information on Wictory Wednesdays, go to PoliPundit.

Ken Blackwell - In a Class by Himself

Ken Blackwell, Ohio's Secretary of State, is the rarest of Ohio Republicans. Blackwell's most distinctive attribute is not his race - though he is one of the nation's highest-ranking black office holders - but that he's a true conservative in a state where wobbly Republicans dominate statewide races.

Blackwell has launched a petition drive aimed at the repeal of the recently enacted increase in the state's sales tax. His campaign website points out that Ohio's rate of growth in revenues and spending is higher than inflation and that of most other states. And this is under long-time Republican rule -- the likes of George Voinovich and Bob Taft, now in his second term.

Needless to say, this does not make Blackwell beloved among establishment Republicans. Though he is far more nationally prominent and impressive than Taft (who admittedly benefits from a great last name) or any other Republican in statewide office, Blackwell has been forced to wait his turn for the governorship - and he's still going to have to play musical chairs with the other statewide Republican officeholders. The bigger problem is, if Republicans continue to drive the state's economy south, getting the Republican nomination for governor next time round may not be that good a deal.

One last note about Blackwell. Like Jerry Springer, he's a former Mayor of Cincinnati (both from the days when Cincinnati had a "weak mayor" - the highest vote getter in City Council elections). Too bad the wrong guy gets all the press.

Wesley Clark - Give Me a Break!

Here's the end of David Brooks' op-ed in today's New York Times: "...Which is why so many Republicans are quietly gleeful over Dean's continued momentum. It is only the dark cloud of Wesley Clark, looming on the horizon, that keeps their happiness from being complete. "

Wesley Clark wasn't even the most impressive armchair general on the cable stations during the battle in Iraq. Quite apart from the fact that he was dead wrong, he was no more compelling a figure than any of the other commentators. And Republicans are supposed to be quivering in their boots at the thought of his candidacy?

It's Tax Day - Again

Today, September 15, is the day that estimated taxes are due to the federal government. This is the day that self-employed people like me see what they owe for three full months, and write out one big, fat check for the full amount. And, by the way, that amount includes your “self-employment tax” – the full bill for Social Security and Medicare (minus the effect of deducting half from taxable income).

No sneaking the money to the IRS through withholding. No hiding half of your Social Security taxes in your employer’s payment.

Withholding is money you never see, but this is money you have in your account and sign away (or worse, it’s money you have to borrow because the IRS has more leverage over late payers than you have with your clients/customers). Withholding can seem like the price of having a job, a kickback for the privilege of employment. But it’s obvious that estimated tax payments come right out of your own hide.

All of which is why there’s every reason to expect the growth in self-employment to coincide with growing resistance to tax increases.

Frank O'Bannon

The death of Gov. Frank O'Bannon of Indiana reminds us that politics doesn't have to be the total war of recent years. Gov. O'Bannon was a partisan Democrat and an effective politician who beat the pants off the Republicans time and again. I say all of this as a compliment, because he was also universally respected as a good guy. And people who honestly questioned his performance as governor could still acknowledge his personal qualities. I'm all for a good partisan fight, but I'm getting a little tired of politicians and their crazed followers who can't just claim the other guy is wrong - he has to be monstrously evil, too.

Unemployment Misinformation
Alan Reynolds, whom I liked and respected when I worked at Hudson Institute, clears up the misinformation on unemployment statistics in today’s Washington Times. While the Democrats continue to harp on “2.7 million jobs lost” under President Bush, household surveys – the data used to determine the unemployment rate – show total employment nearly steady. There is not a single person alive today who has not grown up with the unemployment rate as the key statistic on this issue. Yet suddenly today, we hear that the payroll data – which show the large loss of jobs – are more “reliable.” Even Bush’s own Labor Department so testified.

It has long been recognized that the payroll survey is of dubious accuracy at turning points in the business cycle … you know, like right now. Companies that have been surveyed have gone out of business during the downturn, and the Labor Dept. has to guess at how many new businesses have begun hiring. Today a larger structural issue appears to be driving the growing gap between the payroll and household surveys, as Reynolds points out: “If more people are working at home as self-employed consultants, or working through temp agencies, they would not show up as payroll employees.”

Here I am working at home. Until 1997, I was on a payroll. Since then I’ve been making as much or more income. If I were asked, I’d say I’m employed, but I’m not on anybody’s payroll. Are government statistics keeping up with the shift to work situations like mine?

One last point: Reynolds mentions that “the median duration of unemployment dropped from 12.3 weeks in June to 9.6 in August.” This seems pretty significant – why haven’t I seen this anywhere else?

"Our Resolve Must Not Pass"

From President Bush's Address to Congress and the American People, Thursday, Sept. 20, 2001

"Tonight we are a country awakened to danger and called to defend freedom. Our grief has turned to anger, and anger to resolution. Whether we bring our enemies to justice, or bring justice to our enemies, justice will be done. …

"On September the 11th, enemies of freedom committed an act of war against our country. Americans have known wars – but for the past 136 years, they have been wars on foreign soil, except for one Sunday in 1941. Americans have known the casualties of war – but not at the center of a great city on a peaceful morning. Americans have known surprise attacks – but never before on thousands of civilians. All of this was brought upon us in a single day – and night fell on a different world, a world where freedom itself is under attack. …

"Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated. …

"These terrorists kill not merely to end lives, but to disrupt and end a way of life. With every atrocity, they hope that America grows fearful, retreating from the world and forsaking our friends. They stand against us, because we stand in their way. …

"This war will not be like the war against Iraq a decade ago, with a decisive liberation of territory and a swift conclusion. It will not look like the air war above Kosovo two years ago, where no ground troops were used and not a single American was lost in combat.

"Our response involves far more than instant retaliation and isolated strikes. Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign, unlike any other we have ever seen. It may include dramatic strikes, visible on TV, and covert operations, secret even in success. We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place to place, until there is no refuge or no rest. And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism.

"Our nation has been put on notice: We are not immune from attack. We will take defensive measures against terrorism to protect Americans. … These measures are essential. But the only way to defeat terrorism as a threat to our way of life is to stop it, eliminate it, and destroy it where it grows.

"After all that has just passed – all the lives taken, and all the possibilities and hopes that died with them – it is natural to wonder if America's future is one of fear. Some speak of an age of terror. I know there are struggles ahead, and dangers to face. But this country will define our times, not be defined by them. As long as the United States of America is determined and strong, this will not be an age of terror; this will be an age of liberty, here and across the world.

"Great harm has been done to us. We have suffered great loss. And in our grief and anger we have found our mission and our moment. Freedom and fear are at war. The advance of human freedom – the great achievement of our time, and the great hope of every time – now depends on us. Our nation – this generation – will lift a dark threat of violence from our people and our future. We will rally the world to this cause by our efforts, by our courage. We will not tire, we will not falter, and we will not fail.

"It is my hope that in the months and years ahead, life will return almost to normal. We'll go back to our lives and routines, and that is good. Even grief recedes with time and grace. But our resolve must not pass. …

"Fellow citizens, we'll meet violence with patient justice – assured of the rightness of our cause, and confident of the victories to come. In all that lies before us, may God grant us wisdom, and may He watch over the United States of America."

It’s Wictory Wednesday

ExPostFacto has joined PoliPundit in observing Wictory Wednesdays to support George W. Bush in his bid for re-election in 2004. Each Wednesday, we’ll ask readers to volunteer and/or donate (even if it's just $25) to the Bush campaign if you haven't done so already (or maybe even if you have). The stakes are far too high to be complacent. Talking (or blogging) about politics is fun, but elections are not entertainment – they’re for real. We need George W. Bush to stay the course in the war on terror and to defend conservative principles here at home. For more information on Wictory Wednesdays, go to PoliPundit.

Be Specific

So the Democrats want specifics from Bush on Iraq. Well, I want specifics, too. Sen. Tom Harkin questions how we can have $87 million for Iraq and Afghanistan when we’re 'underfunding education.' OK, Sen. Harkin, tell me exactly how much we should be spending on education, and what it’s for. No more just saying we need “more.” Be specific – how much will it take to end the whining that we’re not spending enough on education?

And, by the way, tell us exactly what the minimum wage should be. Don’t come back every year and complain that Republicans are stingy because they won’t raise the minimum wage another $1. Tell us exactly what it should be – at what level would you quit complaining that the minimum wage is too low. Is it $10? $20? Be specific.

Exit Strategy

I see that Ted Kennedy is demanding an exit strategy from Iraq. In every meeting I’ve attended on some corporate plan, some guy who wants to look smart pipes up on the need for an exit strategy. OK, sometimes it’s necessary. But in this case the idea of stating an exit strategy is incredibly stupid.

Let’s tell our enemies exactly how long and under what conditions we intend to stay in Iraq! That should assist in their planning if not ours. Here’s a better idea: Let’s make clear to our enemies, as Bush has done, that we will spend “whatever is necessary” and stay “as long as it takes.”

There have been several articles lately on the similarities between Iraq today and the Tet Offensive. The Vietnam War is a subject I actually researched in grad school, and I came to the conclusion that the war was winnable – was in fact being won – but the goofy strategy under Johnson and McNamara allowed too much opposition to build up. (Like the “slow squeeze” on the North – talk about catch phrases that substitute for rational thought!)

So now we have the same people who snatched defeat from the jaws of victory in Vietnam – and doomed the people of the South, who valiantly fought for their freedom, to generations of suffering and oppression – telling us to do the same thing in Iraq. The abandonment of the South Vietnamese in the 1970s was at best a horrible mistake, and at worst a disgrace. (A similar statement could be made about leaving the Iraqis in 1991.)

The War on Terror is the main reason to keep fighting in Iraq for as long as it takes, but we must never again waste American lives to defend freedom, only to pull out and leave our allies to be torn apart by the jackals. That is an immoral exit strategy.

Hillary Off the Cliff
Best of the Web reported on Friday about an analysis of Social Security lists of most popular baby names, showing that the name Hillary is the most “poisoned” name of the past century. The analysis by blogger Matt Evans showed that Hillary dropped precipitously from No. 136 in 1992, falling off the list of 1000 top girls’ names 10 years later. The analysis claimed that no other name had fallen so far so fast, with Adolph and Ebenezer being the next most poisoned names – and Adolph didn’t fall off the top-1000 list until the 1970s.

The decline in popularity for the name Hillary is truly astounding. Think of any name you might consider possibly “poisoned” (even the boy’s name Clinton) – you won’t find anything like the way Hillary fell off the cliff after 1992. Matt Evans doesn’t hazard an explanation, but we all have an idea. To imagine how widespread this kind of feeling must be about Hillary (and nobody has to ask “Hillary who?”), look at some of the girls’ names that made the top-1000 list in 2002: Reagan (#201), Penelope (#710), Unique (#932), and Baby (#986).

On Saturday, I was talking with another parent at a soccer game. She was saying how confusing it is to have so many relatives named Ed. I said we have a similar situation, and were going to name our child Edward and call him Ted (“he” turned out to be Maureen) but my family couldn’t stand it – “you mean, like Ted Kennedy?” She said she had wanted to call her son Ted, too, and her husband said exactly the same thing. We're looking at a similar phenomenon here.

The complete poisoning of the name Hillary exposes a sentiment that is not subject to the biases of public opinion polls. Rush Limbaugh has been saying that there is no way Hillary Clinton can be elected President, because, he says, "you haven't seen negative voting like you'd see against her." But Rush also said for months that Hillary would never really run for the Senate. So this Social Security data is some very comforting corroboration.

Update: Downplaying the Good News

As we continue the longest stretch without a US military death in Operation Iraqi Freedom since March (see post below), this is the AP lead:

"Insurgents broke a period of relative calm with a bomb attack Monday that wounded two U.S. soldiers in Baghdad ...

The story notes that
"There have been no reports of U.S. combat deaths in the last few days [that's five days, to be exact, the longest period of time with no such reports], and on Sunday afternoon, military spokesman, Lt. Col. George Krivo, said the U.S. military had completed a 24-hour period in which no American soldiers had been killed or wounded. The near-daily attacks on American troops have become a serious problem for the Bush administration, and it has called for help from other countries to restore security." [Let's mmake sure we maintain the negative spin to counter any positive facts on the ground.]

Update Update: The AP story has been revised: The title is “No U.S. Casualties in Iraq for 7 Days” and the lede “The U.S. military has not lost a soldier in combat for seven days, and despite a bomb attack on a convoy in Baghdad Monday, the country has witnessed a rare period of relative calm.”

Good News, If the Press Will Notice

It’s now nightime in Iraq on Sunday, September 7. If no US soldier is killed in Iraq today, this will mark the longest stretch of Operation Iraqi Freedom without a US military death – five days – since the war began in March. Based on the chronolgical listing at Faces of Valor, previously the longest period without a US military death was April 18-21. (The death on April 17 occurred in Kuwait, but like other casualties in Kuwait, it is included in the numbers we hear for the Iraq war.) I’ll be interested to see whether the news outlets that have kept up the daily drumbeat of war deaths will take note of this milestone.

Looking at the number of deaths over the past 30 days (August 9-September7) and comparing it with the monthly statistics at Lunaville suggests that the rate of US military deaths may be coming down (Lunaville counts both US and UK troops). Of course, this would be good news, so the Washington Post ran a story on September 2, highlighting a rise in wounded. I don’t know if that’s still true, since September 2 was also the day of the last US military death in Iraq. (There’s also no analysis of the severity of the injuries.) Like everyone who comments on this subject, let me make clear that I’m not making light of any death or injury sustained by US soldiers serving in Iraq. But it does seem like some people are looking for anything that proves we’re losing, and moving the goal posts.

Good News, If True

Tonight on Fox News Channel's "Special Report," Sen. Orin Hatch told Tony Snow that the Senate Republicans will have to use the so-called "nuclear option" - he said he preferred to call it the "Constitutional alternative" - to get an up-or-down vote on filibustered court nominees. Hatch, the Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman, was unequivocal. He said it would have to be done to uphold the Senate's Constitutional responsibility for "advice and consent."

Under Hatch's "Constitutional alternative," a Republican would ask the chair to rule that a simple majority could bring the nomination to a vote. The chair would rule in favor, Democrats would object, the chair would overrule their objection, and the vote would take place. At this point, the Republicans would have to have 51 votes willing to take this approach - the only escape "hatch" the Senator admitted in his conversation with Tony Snow. And it is surely possible that there are a few Republicans who just couldn't bring themselves to such an undainty maneuver.

Hatch said that when Sen. Robert Byrd was Senate Majority Leader, Democrats used this option more than once. He also noted that Democrats have threatened to "blow up the Senate" if Republicans take this route, but argued that they are already doing that - slowing things down, determined to prevent the President from being successful. By the way, Hatch also said, in answer to a general question about whether Miguel Estrada might be nominated again, that he would support Estrada for the Supreme Court.

I totally agree with Sen. Hatch, but I must say that I have seen him talk tough before. I hope this time he really means it, and that he has the Senate Republicans with him.

Second Thoughts - Sort Of

I was thinking I may have been a bit overwrought in comparing the Senate Republicans' failure to secure confirmation for Miguel Estrada to the impeachment trial that wasn't. The political and procedural issues on confirmation are complicated and daunting. Then I read this

"There's going to be a lot of blame going around, saying the Republican senators should have done more," says one insider. "But there are many factors to be weighed in the balance. The leadership realizes there's an agenda to get through, and it's our agenda — we've got the president in the White House right now — and what do you sacrifice to make Miguel Estrada a federal judge?"

I'd be willing to "sacrifice" a lot of what the Senate has done for the past 18 months. Should we forgo Estrada to get prescription drugs?

The simple fact remains - having a slim Republican majority in the Senate has not been decisive in getting judges confirmed. We've only moved the Democratic roadblock from the Judiciary Committee to the Senate floor. A slightly larger majority after 2004, if it falls short of 60 working votes, won't change anything (and remember that at least one prime Republican target is the seat of Zell Miller - already a vote for cloture). If we still face that roadblock on the floor AND have a Judiciary Committee chaired by Arlen Specter, conservatives are not going to be happy.

In fact, the argument could be made that it is MORE important for conservatives to knock off Specter than to maintain Republican control of the Senate. So let me make that argument.

Estrada and Specter - Judge for Yourself
Two articles on the Wall Street Journal editorial page today: An editorial on the withdrawal of Miguel Estrada’s nomination for a federal judgeship, and an op-ed on Arlen Specter’s likely ascension to chairmanship of the Senate Judiciary Committee if he is re-elected next year. The obvious conclusion: Conservatives should support Pat Toomey in his primary battle against Specter.

The only reason for conservatives to support Specter is to retain Republican control of the Senate. But the Estrada defeat shows how little value that has for conservatives. Senate Republicans have once again shown (as in the impeachment “trial”) that they are unable or unwilling to fight for Constitutional principles, and Democrats have successfully raised the bar for federal judges.

I contributed to Republican Senate candidates in 2002 precisely because of the Senate’s role in judicial nominations. I have been bitterly disappointed. It would be foolhardy to think that a bigger Republican majority after 2004 will help – especially if it means Specter chairs Judiciary.

California - Recalling Davis Is What's Most Important

California Democrats have been ridiculed for opposing the recall of Gov. Gray Davis while simultaneously supporting Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante to replace Davis should the recall succeed. I don’t see a contradiction. I wish Republicans could be as clear about the purposes of the recall. Too many are saying that if Bustamante ends up as governor, the exercise was a failure. Not so. Republicans need to separate the importance of calling Davis to account from the potential bonus of benefiting their own party.

Davis is what happens when Democratic interest-group politics reaches its logical conclusion. He has prostituted himself to every available group, handing over whatever state funds or regulation were necessary to secure their financial support. He clearly misled voters in last year’s election (with the help of a supportive press and ineffective Republican campaign) about the state’s fiscal crisis.

This is what recall elections are for. The people of California have a chance to enforce minimum standards in the democratic process. Whether Republicans end up stronger is up to them. But just because they can’t earn voters’ support shouldn’t mean anyone should let Davis off the hook.

If Bustamante wins, Democrats and the press will undoubtedly mock Republicans for a “failed coup.” So, what? As bad as Bustamante seems to be, recalling Davis is still necessary to enforce basic standards of honesty and fair play in democracy. So Republicans shouldn’t feel pressured to vote for Schwarzenegger to avoid an embarrassing loss. I like Arnold (though I’ve never seen any of his movies) – his story and his style. But his policy positions? – Well, at best you could say the jury is still out.

So, I say, play it straight. Focus on recalling Davis, vote for the best replacement – and let the chips fall where they may.

What Was Campaign Finance Reform All About?

The Hill (via Lucianne.com) reports today that

“Democrats are poised to reap the benefits of soft-money contributions next year, even though the new campaign finance law bans candidates for federal office from raising such unlimited money directly. …

“A survey of groups that have raised at least $50,000 for this election cycle showed that pro-Democratic forces have set up 28 soft-money funds and raised close to $12 million through them. By contrast, Republican allies set up 18 such groups and raised less than $5 million. …

“Groups that don’t have to disclose their fundraising activities, such as the Sierra Club or the National Rifle Association, will also spend much soft money. …

“On the hard-money front, Republicans, who control the White House and both houses of Congress, continue to dominate. Federal Election Commission records show that the Republican national-party committees have $42.6 million in the bank after the first six months of the year. The Democratic national-party committees have $22.2 million.”

So instead of the nearly 2-1 edge for Republicans that has been widely reported, the ratio of known funding is more like 3-2, not counting the groups that don’t have to report, and in-kind contributions, most notably from unions.

I’ve seen the argument made that Democrats supported Campaign Finance Reform on principle, but when they saw that it would hurt them, they abandoned their principle. That’s unfair to the Democrats, who I think genuinely believe that they have a responsbility to hold on to power – for the future of the children, the planet, or whatever. In this light, it would be selfish and immoral to let excessive legal fastidiousness prevent them from taking the fight to their foes. So I am quite sure that no Democrat who supported CFR ever had the slightest concern that it would impair the party’s ability to conduct campaigns. And while they may or may not have figured out the exact strategy to raise money under the new regulations, Democrats never doubted they could come up with one. The real question is, what was CFR all about, anyway?