Everything I Know Is Wrong

Finaly, someone is challenging McCain-Feingold

McCain-Feingold has, since it was first conceived, been an affront to the Constitution. McCain-Feingold threatens freedom of speech, both literal speech and political-donations-as-speech, as well as providing loopholes such as 527 status for groups like Moveon.org who can, and do, say just about anything about just about anyone, with almost no regulation.

Washington Times
"We will bring two federal suits tomorrow to strengthen the Republican Party," Mr. Duncan told The Washington Times.

Mr. Duncan said one suit will be filed in the District of Columbia to strike down the soft-money ban that is the central tenet of the McCain-Feingold Act — formally known as the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002. "Soft money" is largely unrestricted contributions from wealthy individuals, corporations and labor unions.

The second suit will be in a Louisiana federal court to strike down the limits under the law Mr. McCain co-sponsored with Sen. Russ Feingold, Wisconsin Democrat, that control coordination between parties and their candidates.

The BCRA is the worst of both worlds: restricted political speech for average citizens, and campaigns have virtually no accountability for things said on their behalf. Far from removing big money from elections, the BCRA's dubious initial purpose, it has allowed billionaires to completely dominate the process. McCain Feingold is not salvageable, it must be thrown out in its entirety. Start over.

If you haven't followed the BCRA, or just want to refresh your memory, here are some past posts on the subject.

Campaign Finance Reform a Fraud from Start

Right to Free Speech? Maybe- Maybe Not

Civil disobedience is in our future

He Said No Such Thing

Ninty Days Is Up

FEC chooses minimal regulation of internet/blogs

Finally it's a "Loophole"

Steele to announce bid for RNC Chair

The latest from Fox News has Michael Steele announcing on Thursday that he will run for RNC chair.

Fox News
Michael Steele, former lieutenant governor of Maryland, has decided to run for the chairmanship of the Republican National Committee and is in talks with Newt Gingrich to win the former House speaker's endorsement, FOX News learned Tuesday.

Steele declined to comment, but a source close to the situation said Steele would announce his candidacy as early as Thursday.

The rumored contest between Steel and Gingrich is just that: rumored. Gingrich says he has no interest in the chairmanship. Allahpundit wonders whether "this the surest sign yet that Newt’s thinking of a run in 2012."

Steel running the RNC would good news if it's accurate. Steele is a reliable conservative and an excellent communicator, and that is exactly what the Republicans need if they want to make any headway in 2010 and 2012. Newt would do well to endorse him. He still swings a big axe with Republicans but the RNC definitely does not need Gingrich's strange new "tri-party" approach to building a political coalition.

"My job as an American first is to develop a tri-partisan approach to developing solutions for the challenges we face. I use the word tri-partisan to designate the concept of attracting Democrats, Republicans, and independents to solutions that unify most Americans."

Nope, definitely not.

Lieberman at the Fulcrum

Former Democrat, and now Independent Senator Joe Lieberman has thoroughly ticked off his liberal colleagues. When he actively campaigned for Republican Senator McCain this year many of the Democrats with whom he has caucused for the last few years felt that it was the last straw. Their knee jerk reaction upon winning big on November 4th was to strip him of his committees and simply cut him loose to fend for himself.

Cooler heads among the Democrats have realized that Lieberman could very well be talked into caucusing with the Republicans, who would benefit greatly from his vote. Josh Marshall, at Talking Points Memo, says Lieberman has friends in high places.

A high-level senate Democratic source tells me former President Clinton is making calls on Sen. Lieberman's behalf.

I can also confirm, on the same basis, what Huffington Post has already reported, that President-elect Obama is signaling to Senate leadership and other party officials that he wants Sen. Lieberman to be in the Democratic caucus in the 111th Congress.

Marshall points us to Kos who says he has  "also heard from a Senate staffer" and who offers some uncharacteristically thoughtful analysis. Up to a point. He then summarizes, and ignores, his own analysis.

So Democrats have three choices:

1. Let him keep his committee chairmanship,

2. Offer him a new one, or

3. Strip him of everything.

I suspect with Obama's edict (again, assuming such reports are accurate), #3 is off the table as it looks too much like retribution and for whatever bizarre reason, that's apparently bad. Democrats love playing the "battered spouse" bit. But option #2 is still available.

Sure, Lieberman has argued that if he loses Homeland Security he'll bolt, but he's bluffing. He's still got 2012 to think about, and being in a GOP minority with zero committee chairmanships won't do him any favors, either politically or substantively on policy matters.

So call his bluff. Give him some other committee chairmanship. If he doesn't like it and bolts, it won't be because Democrats pushed him out.

Kos then contradicts himself by providing a big graphic link—"Just Say NO to Joe"— at the bottom of his post, to a form providing an automatic way to advocate stripping Lieberman of all his Homeland Security chairmanship and not giving him another.

Democrats are clearly conflicted. On the one hand they long for revenge, though "that's apparently bad". On the other hand they need Lieberman if they want to push through their agenda with as little opposition as possible. From another point of view, Lieberman can't feel very indebted to the Dems, he won his last contest with the help of large numbers of Republicans who voted for him. All of which puts him at the exact point from which, very carefully, a large amount of leverage could be deployed.

Both liberal Democrats and moderate Republicansfear Sarah Palin

Why, you ask, is their so much cowardly and downright rude criticism of Sarah Palin from liberal Democrats, and even moderate Republicans (not to mention the McCain campaign)? The answer is easy. Fear.

Rasmussen
Sixty-nine percent (69%) of Republican voters say Alaska Governor Sarah Palin helped John McCain’s bid for the presidency, even as news reports surface that some McCain staffers think she was a liability.

Only 20% of GOP voters say Palin hurt the party’s ticket, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey. Six percent (6%) say she had no impact, and five percent (5%) are undecided.

Ninety-one percent (91%) of Republicans have a favorable view of Palin, including 65% who say their view is Very Favorable.
[emphasis mine - Sean]

Sarah Palin represents new energy and new vitality for the conservative movement in America. Conservatives see her as someone who unapologetically stands up for conservative values. She may not be an awe inspiring speaker, her manner may be down-home, but her obvious belief in common-sense conservatism is beyond question. When you are right you shouldn't have to apologize for it—and she doesn't.

Compassionate conservatism is a mistake. Moderate republicanism is a mistake. John McCain failed to rally the base because the base is conservative, and John McCain is not.

The base hungers for an unapologetic conservative. There will be a lot of searching for answers in the next two years. A lot of trying to figure out where the Republican party should go, what it should be. There will be skirmishes between the conservative and moderate factions of the party—maybe even outright war. But the answer is really very simple: stand up for what you believe in.

The Republican party has proven beyond a doubt that they cannot outdo the Democrats at being the bringers of entitlements. Conservatives don't believe in entitlements and can't muster the enthusiasm required to spend other people's money in really creative and wasteful ways. Conservatives would rather find a way to solve a problem without making people dependent on government. And that is what they should do.

Conservatives will never be as good at hiding their true agenda as liberals are. They simply don't have as much practice at dissembling. Americans have never really liked a truly liberal agenda, and because of this liberals are accustomed to masking their purposes in order to get elected; the press aids and abets them. Conservatives on the other hand have not shown any aptitude whatsoever for hiding their motives, and the press shows their plans in the worst possible light in every case.

Conservatives are good at being right. They are good at using reason rather than emotion to guide their actions. They are practical. They stand upon solid moral ground. They should not be afraid to state their true reasons for wanting to pursue a conservative course.

It really is that easy.

No evidence of "Bradley Effect" in this years polling

The "Bradley effect"—named after Tom Bradley—who lead in the polls but did not prevail in the actual 1982 California election for Govenor—has hopefully reared it's ugly head for the last time. The assertion of the Bradley Effect is that white people when polled said that they would be voting for Tom Bradley because they they didn't want to be perceived as racist, but then did not vote for him because they really are racist.

Associated Press
Whether whites supported Barack Obama or not, they don't seem to have lied to pollsters about it.

Obama's election triumph on Tuesday presented no evidence of the so-called Bradley effect, in which whites who oppose a black politician mislead pollsters about whom they will vote for. Instead, national and state pre-election polls were generally accurate in reflecting voters' preferences in the presidential contest.

"I certainly hope this drives a stake through the heart of that demon," Charles Franklin, a University of Wisconsin political scientist and polling authority, said of the Bradley effect.

The Bradley Effect never had any basis if fact. It is just as likely that the results were due to the same over performance that we have seen for Democrats in the presidential polling in 2000 and 2004. The speculation that race was the culprit was a self serving justification. Hopefully we have seen the last of it.

Will Obama Push Back?

Al-Qaida gives President Elect Obama an experimental push.

Charlotte Observer
The self-styled leader of an Iraqi al-Qaida front group is calling on President-elect Obama and other Western leaders to withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan.

The purported leader of the Islamic State of Iraq, Abu Omar al-Baghdadi, makes the call in a speech posted on the Internet.

It was reported Friday by the SITE Intelligence Group, which monitors extremist Web sites.

Al-Baghdadi makes the call "on behalf of my brothers in Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, and Chechnya" and says it's better "for you and us" to "withdraw your forces" and "return to your homes."

These little tests will continue until Obama takes office. Then, as VP Elect Biden so famously predicted, there will be a real test. Will he push back, or try to nuance his way through "negotiating" with al-Qaida? As if that were even possible.

A great deal is riding on what he does.

Franken now down only 237 votes

Star-Tribune:

Just as Secretary of State Mark Ritchie was explaining to reporters the recount process in one of the narrowest elections in Minnesota history, an aide rushed in with news: Pine County's Partridge Township had revised its vote total upward -- another 100 votes for Democratic candidate Al Franken, putting him within .011 percentage points of Republican U.S. Sen. Norm Coleman.

The reason for the change? Exhausted county officials had accidentally entered 24 for Franken instead of 124 when the county's final votes were tallied at 5:25 Wednesday morning.

"That's why we have recounts," Ritchie said, surveying the e-mail sent in from the county auditor. "Human error. People make mistakes."

I find it fascinating that these "accidents" always seem to favor the Democrats. There must be some law of physics I don't know about.

I won't hold my breath while I wait for them to "find" more Coleman votes.

Update: From Powerline.

Hot off the press, the first apparent evidence of fraud. Last night at around 7:30, a precinct in Mountain Iron, St. Louis County, mysteriously updated its vote total to add 100 new votes--all 100 for Barack Obama and Al Franken.

Mountain Iron uses optical scanning, so the Coleman campaign asked for a copy of the tape documenting the ballots cast on election night. St. Louis County responded by providing a tape that includes the newly-added 100 votes, and is dated November 2--the Sunday before the election. St. Louis County reportedly denies being able to produce the genuine tape from election night, even though Minnesota law, as I understand it, requires that tape to be signed by the election judges and publicly displayed.

Maybe there is some legitimate explanation for these events, but I haven't thought of one yet. More to come.

It's no fun being in the minority

Rumor is that Roy Blunt will resign as Whip.

The Hill
Minority Whip Roy Blunt (Mo.) is expected to announce that he will not seek another term as the second highest-ranking Republican in the House, according to several sources familiar with his decision.

It was unclear when Blunt, who has held the position for three terms, will announce his decision publicly.

Blunt’s departure will clear the way for his deputy, Rep. Eric Cantor. The Virginia Republican confirmed his run for the position earlier Wednesday.

It's tough to coral a bunch of undisciplined minority Republicans into a cohesive force. I can't blame him for wanting a break.

Iraqi Prime Minister al-Maliki Claims He Helped Obama Win

The testing of the unknown quantity begins:

Telegraph
A senior Western diplomat in Baghdad said that Mr Maliki told close aides he would hold the new president to an obligation to oversee a rapid withdrawal of US troops, a key Iraqi government demand in recent talks.

"Maliki has said he took the Iraq issue 'off the table' for Obama by endorsing his timetable during his visit to Baghdad in July," the diplomat told The Daily Telegraph.

"Maliki firmly hoped for an Obama victory and has used expectations of such to drive a very hard bargain with the US over its presence in Iraq.

"The prime minister has extracted an unbelievable number of concessions from the Bush administration and thinks Obama will be even more generous in implementing the deal."

Violence in Iraq has been ramping up over the last few weeks. The Russians are being more... well, Russian. President Elect Obama's stated willingness to "talk" will be perceived as weakness by strongmen all over the world. Let's hope he lets go of his naive let's-all-just-get-along foreign policy ideas before reality mug's him. And us. Jimmy Carter, who's failed foreign policy was very similar to Obama's, never did let go of his rose colored glasses.

China's Take on Barack Obama

Concerned about his lack of experience and naivety, but cautiously open to liking him. Whatever that means.