My little sister is going to grad school!

Yea!

Unfortunately, this means that I really, really have to apply, too. Fuck.

Criminals at the Corner

Via Ezra at Pandagon, Jonathan Adler at The Corner:

According to Senate Dems, someone who steals documents that may discredit a Bush nominee¹ is a "whistleblower," but someone² who accesses and discloses unsecured memos³ suggesting improprieties⁴ by Senate Dems is a "thief."

¹ The "documents that may discredit a Bush nominee" are those that show that the Republican Attorneys General Association, whose membership includes the nominee, William Pryor, solicited contributions from donors who were being prosecuted by its members.

² The "someone" is "some number of Republican aides," as well as those present at the meetings where these memos were "read and distributed."

³ The "unsecured memos" are "3,000" memos obtained through "conscious computer hacking" that "spanned more than two years."

⁴ The "improprieties" would be the mere discussion of strategy among Democrats opposed to the nominations and groups, such as People for the American Way, who shared that opposition. Of course, this is only "improper" if you believe that Democrats should simply accept nominees who solicit contributions from donors under threat of prosecution.

The Real World, and the Republican One.

The Republican candidates for Senate debated today. I didn't witness it, but given the reports, I probably wouldn't have been able to; it clearly occured in an alternative reality.

Collins had the first big reaction of the night, getting a loud ovation from his comments regarding a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. He said God intended for married couples to have children.

"I don't know how you can have same-sex marriage and have children unless there is some process I am not familiar with," he said.

Apparently, in the alternative reality, they have yet to discover "adoption." Or any other scenario which might place children in the home of a couple who aren't able to conceive naturally, whether both parties are of the same sex or not.

The candidates backed President Bush's Iraq policy, blasted Democrats for holding up his federal judicial appointments and called for the elimination of so-called "pork spending" from the federal budget.

Also, in the alternative reality, Republican districts, such as those represented by Collins and Isakson, haven't received an average of $612 million more than Democratic districts.

One of the few points of major disagreement was over the issue of extending the Voting Rights Act, which comes up for extension in 2007. Collins and Isakson said they would like to see it retired.

Finally, in the alternative reality, race has no influence on politics, thereby eliminating the need for the Voting Rights Act.

It's too bad these candidates aren't running for election in that reality; I'm sure they'd be a perfect fit. But in this one? Not so much.

Georgia's most uncharitable charity? The Hertiage Foundation.

Georgia Secretary of State Cathy Cox released her annual list of "Uncharitable Charities"on Friday, and the No. 1 charity on the list, the Heritage Foundation, cried foul.

The 11 charities on the list collected more than $9.7 million from Georgians during a 12-month period ending last year but used only a small portion of that for charitable causes, according to the state.

The charities made the list because they collected more than $100,000 and gave 15 percent or less of the total proceeds to charity, according to figures provided to the state by the organizations.

The state said a Washington, D.C.- based conservative think tank, the Heritage Foundation, collected $713,433 from Georgians and retained $678,888 of that sum between Nov. 1, 2002 and Oct. 31, 2003, meaning the organization gave less than 5 percent � $34,545 � to its charitable work.

Cathy Cox wants to be the next governor of Georgia. So far, I want her to be, too.

Criminals at The Corner

The Corner has several lovely posts about how the Republican theft of Democratic documents isn't an outrage; it's the content of the memos themselves. Such is the moral bankruptcy of The Corner: an outright violation of the law is less outrageous than discussion among Senate Democrats of their Constitutional duty to provide "advice and consent."

The example Jonah Goldberg offers is telling:

The complaints of the Clintonites -- like the complaints of Senate Democrats -- are similar to the whines from teenagers who think it's out of bounds for their parents to search their rooms for drugs without permission. "You invaded my privacy!" they shriek as if that might obscure the ounce of dope in the back of the sock drawer.

Of course, this situation is in no way similar. The room is the property of the parents; they commit no crime by searching it. In contrast, the Democratic memos are not the property of the Republicans. When Republicans steal them, they steal them; it's a crime. But perhaps this is how Goldberg sees the government under Republican leadership: a sort of father-state, justified in any intrusion. That would certainly explain a lot.

A better example:

My neighbor, Jonah G., breaks into my home and steals a dildo. I don't notice the intrusion or the theft until I visit his home, whereupon I discover the purloined phallus sitting on his mantle. When I call the police, he objects, claiming that the crime is not that he stole the sextoy, but that I would own such an obscene object at all!

(Unfortunately, in some states, he might very well be right.)

Let's ask the press to print the whole truth.

Scott Lindlaw of the Associated Press writes,

"There are some in Washington that are going to say, 'Let's not make the tax cuts permanent.' That means he's going to raise your taxes," Bush said at a factory. "When you hear people say, 'We're not going to make this permanent,' that means tax increase."

The Democrats running for president say they would repeal all or portions of Bush's tax cuts, and Bush seemed to step more forcefully into his re-election campaign as he defended his tax policies. Some of the cuts are to expire next year, including those for married couples, and Bush is asking that Congress make them permanent.

Under the Pickler standard, Lindlaw fails to mention that the leading Democratic candidates for president - Kerry, Edwards, and Clark - would repeal Bush's tax cuts for those earning more than $200,000, and would enact further cuts for those earning less. He further fails to mention that similar measures are supported by the vast majority Congressional Democrats.

Let's ask the press to print the whole truth. When the press discusses taxes, let's ask them to describe not simply whether they will rise or fall, but who will pay if they do. Under that standard, Lindlaw's article might read as follows: "Several Democrats running for president, including Democratic Senator John Kerry, say they would repeal Bush's tax cuts for those earning more than $200,000, while enacting further tax cuts for those earning less."

It may be a bit of generalization, but less of one than Lindlaw's, which simply states that they would repeal "all or portions," without mentioning who supports what.

I don't believe you can have it both ways.

On May 11, 2001, Wesley Clark spoke before the Pulaski County Republican Party, offering praise for the Bush Administration:

If you look around the world, there's a lot of work to be done. And I'm very glad we've got the great team in office: men like Colin Powell, Don Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Condoleeza Rice, Paul O'Neill - people I know very well - our president, George W. Bush. We need them there, because we've got some tough challenges ahead in Europe.

He further praised the Bush Administration effort to expand the North American Free Trade Agreement:

I was so pleased that President Bush called for a North American Free Trade Agreement, because I think the ultimate answer in South America is to bring prosperity, bring American know-how down there, and let's build one great team in the Americas. I think if we do that, if we tend these security challenges there, it's all going to rebound to our benefit. We're going to find countries in the world responding to us, supporting and reinforcing our own values and interests. We're going to find tremendous prosperity and crossover. We're going to find it in the state of Arkansas and even the city of Little Rock. Maybe even northwest Arkansas will benefit from all this. We've seen it already in NAFTA. We're going to see it tenfold in the years ahead.

(No wonder Clark did so poorly in South Carolina.)

Three days later, on May 14, 2001, John Edwards' "Bipartisan Patient Protection Act," a patient's bill of rights, was first read on the Senate floor. Shortly thereafter, the Republicans introduced a weaker bill supported by the Bush Administration. Edwards described the Bush Administration efforts thusly: "The president has decided to stand with the HMOs instead of patients and doctors. He is working hard to protect special treatment for big insurance companies."

It didn't end there; on June 9th, Edwards gave the weekly Democratic Radio Address, and again, he criticized Bush for protecting insurers, rather than patients:

Today, HMOs and insurance companies are treated differently than just about any other business or person in America. Unlike you and me, unlike doctors, nurses, hospitals, unlike practically everyone else in this country, HMOs and insurance companies that make mistakes � even deadly mistakes � cannot be held accountable in a court of law.

Why in the world are HMOs and insurance companies entitled to special treatment? Why are they entitled to privileged status? HMOs and insurance companies should be treated just like all the rest of us.

I hope the President will work with Senator McCain and me and help pass our bipartisan legislation. A great many of his fellow Republicans in the House and the Senate already support the bill.

Unfortunately, the White House has threatened to veto. The President instead has lent his support to a version that the HMOs like a lot better. Here's why the HMOs like the president's version better: because it helps to maintain their privileged status.

The bill the president likes is not a patient protection bill. It's what a Republican congressman I know called "an HMO protection bill."

Here's the bottom line: The president has a decision to make. He has to decide whether he's on the side of patients and their doctors, or if he's on the side of big insurance companies and HMOs.

To say the least, John Edwards had a different opinion of Bush than the one Wesley Clark held.

Now, Clark wants the presidency for himself. Well, to quote Clark, "I don't believe you can have it both ways. I don't think you can stand with Bush one day and than against him once you decide to run for president."

Unlike Clark, who offered little criticism of Bush before he decided to run for president, Edwards fought the president for years before he chose to run. He fought for the patient's bill of rights, for campaign finance reform, for an independent judiciary. He fought for us, for our rights, and for our beliefs.

Until he decided he wanted the presidency for himself, Clark did not.

Again, to quote Clark, "I don't believe you can have it both ways. I don't think you can stand with Bush one day and than against him once you decide to run for president."

If you meet a Clark supporter

Who tries to tell you how well their candidate did on Tuesday, and how the media has unfairly focused on John Edwards, remind them of this fact:

On Tuesday, John Edwards won 140,000 more votes than Wesley Clark.

Neither did as well as Kerry, but still, second is second, third is third, and if the media report accordingly, it's hardly indicative of a bias for or against either candidate.

Was there a denial in there?

Via The Note, Tucker Eskew's response to questions about Bush's military service:

ESKEW: [The President's record stacks up] extremely well against any Democrat. But let's take the case particularly of John Kerry. This is a man who is right now taking part in a despicable set of attacks on President Bush. The questioning of President Bush's military service in the National Guard -- absolutely reckless. John Kerry seems to be taking his talking points from Michael Moore. If that kind of fringe element is going to be a decisive part of his campaign, a campaign which can't seem to decide whether or not it wants to disavow that sort of approach, and Terry McAuliffe's approach, then I think it portends well for our campaign, it portends poorly for a serious, optimistic and hopeful discussion -- that's where the President it. Here in South Carolina, where I am, we respect service in our military and Sen. Kerry did serve honorably -- so did President Bush, so let's get beyond this kind of despicable attack.

See the title. The "questioning" indicates that Kerry is "absolutely reckless," "taking his talking points from Michael Moore," "kind of a fringe element," and "despicable" - twice! Notably, it doesn't indicate that Kerry is "wrong."

Bailey Griffin won the lottery.

Too bad she's not alive to collect:

One complicated example was Bailey Griffin, born severely brain damaged to a young chicken farmer, Christopher, and his wife, Ashea. A Charlotte jury found the obstetrician negligent and awarded the Griffins $23 million based on arguments by Edwards's expert that Bailey would live 40 years, requiring total care. However, Bailey died at age 6. The Bush administration highlighted the award in a 2002 report denouncing what it called "the litigation lottery." Christopher Griffin responded at the time that he did not feel like a lottery winner. "Every time I go to my daughter's grave, it's hard to feel that way," he told reporters.

George Bush said:

See, you can pretty well blackmail a doctor into settlement if you continue to throw lawsuit after lawsuit, and the system looks like a giant lottery. (Applause.) Thank you. . . .

But we need reasonable caps. We need to make sure that this lottery, this lawsuit lottery doesn't ruin the health care for citizens all across our country.

The "reasonable caps" would ensure that at most, Baily Griffin's life was worth $250,000.

Counter-Intimidation

How sick are they that Republican intimidation tactics have become so common and so effective that Democrats employ campaign workers to fight them?

Voter registration and identification weren't the only mobilization programs that occupied the Republicans in 2003, however. They were involved in a major voter-intimidation program as well. The battleground on which they tested their latest tactics was the Philadelphia mayor's race, where the campaign of the Republican challenger, Sam Katz, grew extremely nervous at the success the Democrats had had at registering minority voters. The Republican response was an attempt to scare black and Hispanic voters away from the polls -- not a new trick in the Republican playbook by any means, but one that the DNC had better be studying and preparing to confront this November.

To begin, according to Democratic consultant Tom Lindenfeld, who ran the counter-intimidation program for the campaign of Democrat John Street, the Republicans assembled a fleet of 300 cars driven by men with clipboards bearing insignias or decals resembling those of such federal agencies as Drug Enforcement Agency and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. Thus arrayed, says Lindenfeld, these pseudo-cops spent election day cruising Philadelphia's African American neighborhoods and asking prospective voters to show them some identification -- an age-old method of voter intimidation. "What occurred in Philadelphia was much more expansive and expensive than anything I'd seen before, and I'd seen a lot," says Lindenfeld, who ran similar programs for the campaigns of Harvey Gantt in North Carolina and other prominent Democrats. In a post-election poll of 1,000 black voters, 7 percent of them said they had encountered these efforts (this being Philadelphia, there were allegations of violence and intimidation against Street supporters as well). Lindenfeld employed 800 people to confront the GOP's faux-agents at polling places.

Lindenfeld's operatives found Republican volunteers from as far away as Missouri, and attorneys from the District of Columbia were discouraging Philadelphia voters from exercising their franchise. That doesn't make the effort an official activity of the RNC, of course. But it does mean that a broad network of Republicans are still honing their techniques for manipulating an election.

Big Endorsements and Little Endorsements

Me, I'm all about synthesis.

John Edwards does not have many big endorsements outside of North Carolina. Dean, on the other hand, has Al Gore, Bill Bradley, and other prominent Democrats. Before the Iowa caucuses, I found this dispiriting: after all, a big endorsement is better than a little one, right? Then the Iowa caucuses happened. Edwards beat Dean. So, endorsements don't matter, right?

Such was my thinking until I read this, this, and this.

The first this refers to New Mexico Attorney General Patricia Madrid's efforts on behalf of John Edwards:

The Edwards campaign has had Madrid on the road frequently, tapping the people who have supported her in her election efforts.

Madrid has her own approach.

"I'm not just concentrating on legislators and statewide elected officials," Madrid said. "I like county commissioners and I especially like to get sheriffs' support. These are elected officials and a lot of people know them."

Madrid also likes to sign up entire extended families by convincing one matriarch or patriarch that Edwards is the right choice.

"A lot of Hispanics in this state vote by word of mouth," Madrid said. "One family is a tremendous network and they can have a lot of people and spread across different counties."

The second this refers to Wyeth of Wyethwire's mention of debate within the South Carolina Democratic Party over the value of media and organization:

EDWARDS VERSUS CLARK: Terry McAulliffe is treating Feb 3rd like the Bowl Championship Series - candidates need a "quality win" in order to continue to Super Tuesday. Edwards and Clark will fight to the death. This ought to be an interesting competition between field versus media. Edwards inherited the Gephardt field campaign, but Clark's commercials are some of the best I've ever seen. There is a big debate in the South Carolina Democratic Party about what strategy works best - an air blitiz or a ground game. Edwards versus Clark may settle that debate.

So, perhaps little endorsements matter after all - especially if they come with the promise of organization. If so, then the final this may make a big difference:

Joined by 35 of his House Colleagues, Minority Leader Rick Johnson announced his endorsement of Democratic presidential candidate Senator John Edwards. The thirty-six Democrats include a majority of the Democratic Caucus', including House Minority Whip Rep. Jeff Harris of Columbia.

Edwards has more South Carolina endorsements than any other candidate, and he has at least 25 endorsements in the Oklahoma state legislature.

On Tuesday, we'll see if Edwards can translate those little endorsements into big wins.

Who will be VP?

If the Republicans want to run Rudy Giuliani, I say the Democrats run Shirley Franklin.

Bait and Switch

John Edwards seems too good to be true - so in the eyes of conservatives, he must be. Such is Jonathan V. Last's conclusion in The Weekly Standard. Unfortunately, the facts he offers don't support the conclusions he draws.

In his article, Last reports on John Edwards' answers to questions at a recent New Hampshire rally:

[O]ne of them is a man asking Edwards where the money in his campaign comes from.

Edwards uses the occasion to boast about how he refuses to take money from PACs or lobbyists. "I raise money from individuals," Edwards says. When the questioner asks Edwards to name the individuals, the candidate promises to provide him with a list.

Note the bait - John Edwards' donors. Under law, candidates are required to disclose donors who contribute more than $200 to their campaigns. John Edwards has complied with that requirement, and as such, his donors are available from the Federal Election Commission. For reference, John Edwards' 2003 Q3 donors, John Edwards' 2003 Q2 donors, John Edwards' 2003 Q1 donors. These are the facts.

But like every conservative, Last does not allow the facts to influence his conclusions. Instead, he points to a recent Washington Post editorial on John Edwards' fundraisers, whose names he's yet to disclose, as evidence that Edwards has not provided such a list.

This morning's Washington Post features an editorial charging that Edwards is "alone among the serious candidates for president" who has declined "to provide a list of his major campaign financiers." (1) Unless Edwards is going to give his questioner more information than he was willing to give the Post, he lied; and (2) His claim about not taking money from lobbyists is deliberately misleading. . . . Eventually, this kind of cuteness catches up with a candidate.

Note the switch - John Edwards' fundraisers. Unlike donors, candidates are not required to disclose their fundraisers. Several have; Edwards is not among them. While that secrecy may be unwise, it does not change the facts: contrary to (1), John Edwards has provided a list of his donors, and contrary to (2), John Edwards' donors do not include Washington lobbyists.

Put simply, Last is a liar. John Edwards is not.

It's unfortunate that this kind of "cuteness" rarely catches up with a reporter.

Black politician too uppity? Ask a monetary policy question!

Peter Jennings and Al Sharpton, 2004:

JENNINGS: Reverend Sharpton, I'd like to ask you a question about domestic policy, if you don't mind.

JENNINGS: If during your term as president, if you become the nominee, and you have the opportunity to nominate someone to be chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, what kind of person would you consider for the job? You can name someone in particular, if you have someone in mind.

And maybe just take a minute or so to give us a little bit about your views on monetary policy.

George Will and Jesse Jackson, 1988:

Take Will's 1988 interview of presidential candidate Rev. Jesse Jackson on ABC's This Week (1/17/88). In a series of questions apparently meant to expose Jackson as unqualified for office, Will asked: "As president, would you support measures such as the G-7 measures of the Louvre Accords?" (These accords were technical agreements employed the previous year to stabilize exchange rates.) As Will sneeringly recapped in a later column (Washington Post, 1/28/88), Jackson's "answer to [that] question was, 'Explain that.'"

Nit Picklering the State of the Union

In his speech, George Bush attacked "Activist judges" which "have begun redefining marriage by court order, without regard for the will of the people and their elected representatives," alluding to the recent decision by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court holding that Massachusetts may not deny the right to marry to same-sex couples while affording the right to different-sex couples.

He neglected to mention that the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court did not redefine marriage in its decision, but rather ordered the Massachusetts legislature to take action consistent with its decision, leaving the action itself for the Massachusetts legislature to decide.

He further failed to mention that it is the duty of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court to interpret the Massachusetts Constitution, and that both are ultimately products of the people of Massachusetts, a majority of whom support same-sex marriage.

Nevertheless, George Bush demanded that the government "respect individuals as we take a principled stand for one of the most fundamental, enduring institutions of our civilization." Although he did not specify which individuals, an administration source stated that meant gays. However, the assertion that the government "respect" the unspecified individuals renders this source highly suspect.