ArchPundit
Fire McLarty and Bring In Podesta
Oops, I am having flashbacks to 1994. It would appear that someone needs to keep a calendar of important deadlines in the Governor’s office. It’s one thing to miss a deadline, it’s another to anger some of your base over something so small as actually signing the bills.
In more important news, Blagojevich is keeping some priorities straight,
How many candidates are there? Nine, 10? I could probably name them if you forced me to but I could probably give you the Cubs’ starting lineup a lot easier,” he said.
That was in e-mail so I can’t link to the source.
Save Al Franken Day
For those that are curious as the the renaming of the site, I’m just getting ahead of Neil Pollack’s Save Al Franken Day
Yes. This Friday, August 15, is Fair And Balanced day on the Internet. You are all hereby instructed to use the words Fair And Balanced in very creative ways on your various websites. My cosponsor in this effort, Atrios, informs me that many of you are already using "Fair And Balanced" in your taglines. Very good. Sometimes, I swear you don’t even need instructions from me. But we can go further. Tell Fox News to take its Fair And Balanced slogan and shove it up its Fair And Balanced hole. Feel free to be more subtle than that, if you wish.
God Bless Social Conservatives
Ready, Aim, Fire in a circle. But no, today is not another hilarious installment of the Illinois Circular Firing Squad Team, but the California version with social conservatives starting their attack on Schwarzenegger.
Lou Sheldon (who was great on TV in an entertainment sense) is quoted as saying,
Sheldon has formed Californians for Moral Government to oppose Schwarzenegger’s candidacy. "It is hard to imagine a worse governor than Gray Davis but Mr. Schwarzenegger would be it," Sheldon said. "California has enough problems without adding a Gov. Schwarzenegger to the mix.
Keep it up!
Not Just Technical Fixes
Otis White at Governing addresses the air quality problems many cities are facing again and shockingly the problem is too many cars regardless of technical fixes.
The Return of Bad Air
This has been a terrible summer for air pollution, and it?s probably just the beginning. Take Los Angeles. In 1983, there were 152 days when ground-level ozone reached unhealthy levels. By 1998, that number had dwindled to 40. But by mid-summer this year, the number was at 36 ? with the bad-air season just beginning. Same problem in Denver, which was celebrating in 2002 for having conquered its air-pollution problems. There, air pollution monitors recorded the greatest spike in ozone since 1986. Ditto in Washington, D.C., which is suffering through its worst summer of pollution in years. What?s going on? A hot summer, to be sure, but a much more troubling trend: Air quality experts say that the technical fixes that worked so well in the 1980s and 1990s (catalytic converters, on-board car computers, reformulated gasoline, etc.) have run their course. ?I?m amazed at how we are getting to the end of technology to reduce emissions,? said an air-quality official in L.A. ?It takes more work now to get the same progress.? The technology masked the basic problem of big cities: too many people driving too many cars. In L.A., 70 percent of the pollution comes from cars and trucks, and the number of vehicles has grown steadily. In Washington, some officials blame pollution that blows into the area from the Midwest (it?s called ?transport?), but others say that?s only a small part of the problem. Says one Washington city council member, ?Ozone transport is an issue, but so are our emissions. If we weren?t putting up as much gas as we do, we wouldn?t be arguing about the transport.?
He’s Got Skillzzz
Joan Walsh writes a mea culpa about Dean’s political skills and suggests that he might be far more electable than people thought.
As someone who normally identifies as a DLC kinda guy, I’ve been more than appalled by Lieberman and the DLC attacks on Dean–a guy who makes the point that one needs a balanced budget to attack social justice. Hello Marty McFrom, but what the hell is it that you hate about the guy? That he argued there wasn’t an imminent threat from Iraq. Well, it turns out From and I were wrong. There was a long term threat and Dean was willing to address it as such. I can admit I was wrong, but apparently the DLC can’t bother to notice that the nuclear program wasn’t as advanced as previously thought.
And frankly, I want my country back.
More interesting was a few minutes of Chris Mathews that I caught. The Good Dr. Luntz was on and doing his focus group bit and, uhhh…, well people just like Dean. It appears to be very similar to how people are attracted to Dubya except there seemed to be a level of trust in regards to how well Dean actually understood the issue.
Adding more is this from Josh Marshall who points out that the successful Democratic candidate has to appeal to the base of hatred while at the same time playing to the general audience in the general. Josh also points out the short sighted vision of the DLC and suggests some folks are trying to hit them over the head with a clue by four. Good for them.
Does this fit Dean? Given that in a recent interview he slipped and talked about how in the general election he’ll have to move to more general issues—Yeah, he gets it. That doesn’t mean he wins, but it does mean he gets the drill a lot better than Lieberman or Al From.
Opposition to O’Hare
Jeff Trigg makes an excellent point about O’Hare expansion and the sleazy contracts that will likely be issued. As it stands now, there will be far fewer safeguards against the contracts being legitimate.
However, I’ll blame this on Fitzgerald because instead of working a federal bill that would have demanded some accountability and put Durbin in a corner to support such measures, Peter has refused to offer any constructive way to expand O’Hare while keeping it clean. O’Hare expansion is vital and he thinks it shouldn’t happen. So now it will happen and happen with few safeguards.
Why Dick Won’t And Shouldn’t Be President
Steve Chapman has a great column on Dick’s protectionism and the political consequences.
In presidential politics, the only thing worse than not getting the AFL-CIO’s endorsement is getting it. The last two candidates to get its blessing early in the race were Walter Mondale and Al Gore, neither of whom spent the following four years being serenaded with "Hail to the Chief." Bill Clinton won even though the labor organization didn’t get behind him until he already had the 1992 nomination sewn up.
Gephardt was one of the most responsive Members of Congress I’ve ever had–up there with Jim Leach which is high praise from me. And his staff say he is truly a great guy, which I don’t doubt.
I’m sympathetic to some sort of environmental riders on some free trade agreements despite that I am unsure if they can be effective. Howard Dean has been discussing this issue in relation to how he disagrees with Robert Rubin over including such protections. I tend to side with Rubin thinking they won’t do much good, but also recognize the problem.
That being said, free trade benefits the poor in the developing world more than anything else. Having been in Nicaragua just post embargo and their strong desire not for aid from the U.S., but for trade brought home the importance of this. Secondly, it benefits consumers. Third, free trade stops the U.S. from favoring some businesses over others. Despite cheaper labor in the U.S. many of Chicago’s candy makers are moving to Canada because the cost of sugar is closer to world market rates. But the US chooses to support corn producers because of ADM: Supermarket to the Politicians.
Gephardt is a decent man and I have a great deal of respect for him, but I can’t endorse in a primary someone so mediocre on such an issue.
It’s Like I Wrote It
The Trib covers forest policy and points out all three major problems with fire and forest policy.
1) We are subsidizing timber–often to environmental harm
2) We are using proctectionist policies to exclude cheaper Canadian lumber and thus hurting consumers
3) We are protecting homes in high risk areas, despite that they are in high risk areas
Who says good environmental policy is opposed to good economic policy.