Call It A Comeback
Definition of Rendellism: Blunt honesty about a subject most people aren’t talking about, especially by a party leader.
Example. Rendell gave Clinton more headaches, but they were all dead on. Perhaps he can smack Al over the head some more and it will sink in.
In a typical orgy of self-congragulatory masturbation by law professors, Volokh argues that John Dean is right on the 17th amendment. The argument is based in defending the Supreme Court’s decisions rolling back federalism.
Too bad that the deciding factor for the Court is ideology and not federalism or Volokh and Dean would have a case. But, as usual, neither has done a serious review of the literature with one of the better pieces available in Publius Summer 2000:
Federalism Outcomes and Ideological Preferences: The U.S. Supreme Court and Preemption Cases
William R. Lowry and Brady Baybeck
Law professors are notoriously unable to handle the scientific method so this shouldn’t be a surprise. Or to look outside their narrow fields in the law for evidence. The authors demonstrate that the federalism cases are decided on by right-left ideology and that when one controls for that, federalism as an issue is not significant. Who’d a thunk it?
Volokh also makes the insinuation that moving Senatorial selection back to the state legislatures would solve campaign finance problems is amazingly divorced from reality. States, with a few notable exceptions, are far worse in monitoring campaign cash. The actual effect would be more likely to create insider candidates that are more beholden to organized interests. Peter Fitzgerald could never happen in such a system. Neither could Russ Feingold or John McCain or any other independent thinker in the Senate. If one wants to improve party discipline this is a good idea. However, it wouldn’t necessarily make the system any more friendly to states except in the awarding of pork. Mike Madigan, your US Senator—WOOOOOHOOOOOO!
Of course, given Mississippi has Democratic chambers, it would be a convenient way to dispose of Lott and Cochran.
Now to the core of the argument all one has to consider (which was done in while passing the 17th amendment) is what influences state legislators? Reelection and in achieving that they would seek to please organized interests. What a big improvement that would be! Maybe we can just start sponsoring the Midwestern Senators by ADM and add NASCAR like patches to their suits. Direct election at least provides an election to check the influence of organized interests. We see this rather frequently in Senatorial elections especially. This is why we generally see the Senate also take a middle road more often than the House. Electing Senators in State Legislatures ties them much closer to organized interests.
Much of the argument rests on what the framers originally wanted and little analysis is given to what such an institutional arrangement would produce in today’s environment. This is typical of right wing law professors. They simply don’t have the rigorous training of social scientists and historians. Instead they try and argue about the number angels on the head of a pin when they should be doing serious institutional analysis of reforms. Senators approximate the average of a state and so are center oriented for their state on average. State legislatures would not produce the same result generally, instead choosing candidates from the center of the party in power.
State legislature selection of Senators would also result in greater ties to interest groups because the average person doesn’t have a lobbyist, but the average organized interest does. It is great to argue pluralism will take care of this, but small disorganized groups are less likely to be potential swing votes, and hence less likely to have attention paid to them.
Finally, it is very doubtful that such a change would lead to more respect for federalism. State legislatures aren’t going to choose based on views of federalism, they are going to choose on what gets them reelected and that is how well the Senator is going to bring back pork for his or her supporters.
Going back to this story Talent forgets to mention John Thune’s opposition to much of the Corps work on the Missouri.
Lowell Bergman is reporting on the California energy problems and a judge seems to agree that El Paso violated the law. Has he met Russell in the hotel yet?
But you know price caps were the real problem….
Racicot plays taps for the Illinois Circular Firing Squad Team.
A new web site (at least to me) by Eric Zorn is up. I found it while reading his new column about Birkett’s slowness in indicting a man for the Nicarico murder all the while still trying to insinuate Cruz was responsible. If that is the experience he is bragging about as a prosecutor, hasn’t Illinois had enough prosecutorial abuse?
Jeremy Rifkin was on Diane Rehm today (fortunately he talked a lot so she couldn’t). He is also interviewed in Salon today and has some very intelligent things to say about hydrogen power. For those who haven’t been following this issue, it is a good primer.
He brings up BP/Amocos efforts which is an interesting point. Non-American companies are investing in the future, American are trying to drill in delicate ecosystems. Just who is going to do better in the long run?
Dershowitz writes for the Harvard Crimson today and hits a
home run. I hadn’t commented on Larry Summer’s speech concerning anti-semitism at Harvard.
It was excellent. Taking Israel to task for its abuses is the right thing to do. I think as a special friend of the United States we should give them special attention when they don’t live up to their ideals, just as we should give ourselves special attention when we don’t live up to our ideals. However, putting those abuses in context is critical. Israel is a democracy that respects humans as individuals. It isn’t perfect, but it is a hell of a lot better than any of its neighbors–even the moderate neighbors such as Jordan. Failure to distinguish between the relative levels of oppression is nothing short of stupid.
Perhaps there is another explanation besides anti-semitism, but it is pretty damn hard to imagine what. Suggesting a university should disinvest from Israel before other countries is absurd and I find Dershowitz’s idea quite good. Invest relative to their human rights record and that is fair. Then see how Arab governments come across in comparison. Arabs and Muslims are good people who are saddled with horrible governments for the most part. Comparing those governments to the Israeli government is absurd though.
Given they seem to share at least some of the same sentiments on a war with Iraq, will Chris Matthews be able to say something good about Al Gore? I’m betting not, but let’s watch and see him avoid the issue!
It is bloody obvious that the administration would like to cut health care costs down. Their announcement to cut back on outreach for Veteran’s Affairs Hospitals made that very clear.
However, this story from the NY Times (via Conason) is amazing. The administration must be counting on the war to distract people because this isn’t just grabbing the third rail, it is jumping on it and hugging it. Especially, when your brother is in a tough fight where seniors are the swing voters.
Democrats don’t need much help with running a Mediscare campaign. The above makes one question whether it is even an attempt to scare recipients or an accurate description of the administration’s plan.
ArchPundit