A friend of mine directed my attention to Governing: Blogs/July 2005this article in Governing Magazine entitled, “Instant Influence: A new generation of web scribes is shaking up state capitol politics.” The article focuses on a couple of blogs on Texas politics in particular. Personally, I was particularly struck by the interviewed blogger’s comments about partisanship.

Smith insists that In The Pink is nonpartisan. “I was trained in journalism and do have a code I stand by,” she says. “I’m not a party puppet.” You don’t have to read her blog too closely, however, to deduce Smith’s politics. She rips hardest at social conservatives for their efforts to ban gay marriage and crack down on late-term abortions.

In The Pink dresses down Democrats, too. But it slams Republicans more. Smith contends that has less to do with personal bias than with the fact that Republicans control the House, Senate and all statewide offices in Texas. Reading her blog, you get the sense that Smith doesn’t so much want to stoke partisan hatred as simply to poke fun at the daily carnival that is a legislature in session, filled with powerful people, egomaniacs and social climbers.

The article goes on to suggest, “Most of the current blogs come at politics from the left. That’s probably to be expected — not because bloggers tend to be Democrats but because those first drawn to blogging tend to be dissenters.” (Incidentally, there is more to the article than just the partisanship angle — check it out if you’re interested in blogs & state politics.)

I was glad to see that the Governing article described the blogger’s self-described non-partisanship versus her actual articles which came across as anti-Republican. That tracks my political experience pretty closely. On the federal level, I am partisan. I think that the Bush administration and the national GOP is and has been horrible for our country. From the Clinton impeachment, to the runaway deficits of the last 30 years, to the War in Iraq, to the USA PATRIOT Act, to the Schiavo debacle, the national GOP is almost antithetical to what I believe in. I regard myself as fiscally conservative and socially libertarian. Which is to say, I think the federal government should balance the budget, confine itself as much as possible to necessary expenditures (I’ll grant you that the question of what is ‘necessary’ is a very problematic question), and stay out of our private lives (if it doesn’t pick my pocket or break my leg, it should probably be legal.)

On the state level, I suppose I’m basically a muckraker. I come across as anti-GOP mostly because I like taking shots at those in power. I’m seriously at odds, ideologically, with the socially conservative Republicans at the state level. But I think I probably have a lot in common with the business conservative wing of the party — having problems with procedure and proper balances, but nothing particularly fundamental. In any event, taking jabs at the state Democrats at this point just seems pointless since they aren’t much in control of anything. At the local level, I think the Republicans in my neck of the woods just flat out do a good job by and large. To me, successful local government seems to be more of an issue of individual competence than party politics.

Update – As if on cue, My DD has an entry discussing Dean’s speeches in western states which offer up sentiments consistent with my political worldview:

“We will promise you a balanced budget, and we will get government out of people’s lives,” Dean said.

“Republicans say that they are a party of small government, just small enough to fit inside Terri Schiavo’s bedroom,” Dean said. “Republicans say they’re in favor of small government, but they don’t mind telling women what they can or cannot do with their health care.

“Whatever happened to the rugged individualism in the Republican Party?” Dean asked. “It is very much alive and well in the Democratic Party.”

“Only Democrats balance the budget,” Dean said. “You cannot trust Republicans with your taxpayer money. Borrow and spend. Borrow and waste. That’s what the Republican Party stands for. We will do better.”
—————–
“I’m tired of Republicans telling us we’re pro-abortion. I served on the board of Planned Parenthood for five years. I don’t know anybody who’s pro-abortion,” he said. “Most people in this country would like to see the abortion rate go down. That includes Democrats and Republicans. The difference between the parties is that we believe a woman makes that decision about her health care — and they believe Tom Delay makes it.”
——————

Dean’s Montana speech

Dean’s Utah speech

MyDD’s analysis

In an editorial entitled Changing Souder’s law the Fort Wayne Journal Gazette says that it’s time for Congress to undo the damage done by U.S. Rep. Mark Souder’s poorly written legislation that prohibits students with prior convictions for marijuana violations (and more serious offenses) from receiving student aid. Souder has apparently tried to change the law to apply only to offenses committed while receiving student aid, which he says was his original intent, but he has been unsuccessful.

Glad he is trying, but it would have been better for all if he’d taken a more sober look at his legislation before playing his part as soldier in the War on (Some) Drugs. Oddly, I have heard a lot less about the drug war since the War on Terror(ism/ists) got rolling. And, of course, I guess the War on (Some) Drugs supplanted the War on Poverty. Maybe we should confine our wars to battling nation-states and come up with other solutions for other sorts of problems.

The Indy Star has an article entitled Join the military? Some parents say no:

A Gallup poll last month found that barely half of Americans surveyed, or 51 percent, would support their child’s decision to join the service — down from 66 percent in 1999.

That’s not a reflection on the military itself, which remains the most positively rated institution in the country, according to Gallup.

“A more likely explanation probably lies in the realization that military service is more dangerous today, given the ongoing war in Iraq,” Gallup researcher Jeffrey M. Jones reported in his analysis of the poll results.

That makes sense. A lot of people are willing to die to protect their country. Far fewer people are willing to die to further policy goals of their country absent a direct and imminent threat.

It also explains why the Iraq/Yellowcake/State of the Union/Wilson/Rove/Plame affair is erupting. You’ll hear defenders of Rove focus very narrowly on whether he committed a crime. But, politically speaking, whether Rove is in technical violation of a law is not the issue here.

The story is that it looks like Wilson went to Africa and found no evidence of Iraq trying to get yellowcake from Niger. It looks like he reported that back to the CIA. Bush had a claim about Nigerian yellowcake yanked from a speech he gave in Cincinnati, apparently because his fact checkers found it to be too weak a claim for the President to make. Some how, the same claim made its way back into the President’s State of the Union address. Wilson then went public calling the President’s assertions bullshit. That’s when Rove comes into the story, trying to retaliate against Wilson by going after his wife, outing a CIA agent in the process. Then the White House spends two years calling assertions of Roves’ involvement “ridiculous.”

It’s all of this stuff that has the White House in hot water. They’re getting caught behaving badly in several ways, almost the least of which is whether Rove is in technical violation of a law.

None of the Wilson/Plame/Rove stuff would be causing as a big of a fuss if Bush administration claims about Iraq’s WMDs as well as its nuclear ambitions had been born out by post-invasion evidence. The post-invasion evidence is that Iraq posed no direct, imminent threat to the U.S. There is also a creeping suspicion, increased by the Wilson/Plame affair, that the Bush administration didn’t play it straight with the American people about how much of a threat Iraq was. And, as we see from that Gallup poll, America’s trust that its military forces will be used wisely is critical to the willingness of Americans to sign up for a military obligation that might put their life on the line.

I’m sort of tired of the all-Rove, all-the-time commentary going on in the blogosphere. But not so tired that I won’t add to it.

The Republican efforts to duck the Rove scandal remind me of the old sea god Nereus. To perform his 11th task, Hercules had to find the garden of the Hesperides. Only Nereus seemed to know its location. Hercules began to wrestle Nereus to compel the information only to have Nereus turn from an old man into a young man then no longer a man, but a huge and slippery seal, which all but succeeded in plunging into the sea.

Hercules held on until the seal also was exhausted. Then the seal changed into a gigantic crab, the crab into a crocodile, the crocodile into a mermaid, the mermaid into a sea-serpent, the sea-serpent into an albatross, the albatross into an octopus, the octopus into a mass of sea-weed, which was the hardest to hold of all. But the sea-weed turned back into the old man again. All of his shapes exhausted, Nereus told Hercules where the garden of the Hesperides were.

Efforts to explain why Rove isn’t a bad guy, and why Bush shouldn’t show him the door shift almost as quickly as rationales for invading Iraq. It’s probably too much to ask that we keep the pressure on long enough to wear them down to the point of simply telling the truth.

According to this SUSA Governor popularity survey, Ohio Governor Bob Taft is not at all popular. Approval: 17%. Disapproval: 76%. That’s remarkable. Here in Indiana? Our Man Mitch is somewhere in the middle, 31st most popular Governor, at 47% approve, 45% disapprove. Continuing on down I-70, Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich is at #41 with 38% for and 55% against. The Dakotas really dig their Governors. North Dakota Gov, John Hoeven is #1 at 74%/20% while South Dakota’s Mike Rounds is tied for #2 (with Connecticut’s Jodi Rell) at 73%/18%.

Party-wise, it’s a pretty even split. 13 of the top 25 are Republicans versus 12 Democrats.

The Journal and Courier has an editorial about the upcoming Supreme Court nomination to replace Justice O’Connor. They urge Lugar and Bayh to put aside politics and ask simply, “Is this a judge who understands the Constitution and can interpret it fairly?” I’d go one step further and ask not only can the judge interpret the Constitution fairly but will the judge interepret it fairly.

The opinion goes on to ask Sen. Bayh to put his presidential aspirations and party affiliation on hold and simply look at the judge’s qualifications. Fair enough, but I’d also ask for Sen. Lugar to look at judicial qualifications. One gets the feeling that he just might endorse a pro-life, ham-sandwich if it was nominated by President Bush. (See Bolton, John.)

For all of the talk of political fireworks, wouldn’t it be neat if President Bush consulted with Sens. Leahy and Reid to see if maybe there was a judge they could both agree was competent and reasonable. Then the nominee would sail through. Mind you, I’m not talking about Sens. Leahy or Reid’s first choice; just someone they can live with.

I suppose just for thinking that, I’m as optimistic and gullible as that lab puppy who consistently goes for the pump fake.

I came across this bill in the U.S. House that I thought was interesting. Take it with a huge grain of salt since I don’t know much about tax law and didn’t give this anything but the most cursory of reviews. But, if it does what it purports to do, it makes wages paid to illegal aliens non-deductible under the tax code. So, theoretically, an employer who hires a number of illegals could be subject to enormous tax liability. I guess I’d be in favor of that. I’m not sure we’ve got the most rational immigration law, but if you’re going to have the law, and you’re going to enforce it against the immigrants, you should also enforce it against businesses that provide the illegals with an incentive to come over here and who profit from their labor.

The Indianapolis Star wants everyone to play nice when it comes to the upcoming nomination battle to replace Justice O’Connor.

The Star mentions that the Senate confirmed Ginsburg 96-3. It doesn’t mention that President Clinton sought the advice of Republican Judiciary Committee leader Orrin Hatch before submitting Justice Ginsburg’s nomination. If President Bush seeks the advice of Senator Lehey before submitting the next nomination, I’m sure there would be a similar result. But that’s not going to happen.

The Star essentially asks the Left to tie its hands behind its back. No heated rhetoric. No litmus tests. No filibusters. Only “judicial qualifications” but no indication of what to use as a standard. I posted the following over at a few of the blogs I frequent, but I’m already tired of the nomination process.

We’ll hear a lot about “activist judges,” but as the estimable Mr. Brayton has pointed out, that combination of words has basically become meaningless.

The left will cherry-pick all of the worst bits from the nominee’s background such that I won’t really be able to trust their assessment of whether this guy (or gal) is a loon or merely a person of sound jurisprudence with some poorly turned phrases in his or her opinions. By the same token, the right would loudly proclaim that a pro-life ham sandwich was the second coming of Blackstone, Marshall, Hand, and Holmes all rolled into one if it was nominated by George Bush.

Television “news” will treat me to an endless array of “experts” determined not to provide any substantive analysis but who merely throw buzzwords at each other between Pepsi ads.

So, I’m already tired.

John Cole (not a Democrat, btw) gets it when it comes to Brother Dobson’s wing of the Republican Party and he provides this inspired rant. Here’s a taste:

If anyone really thinks Dobson and Tony Perkins care about the Constitution, they need to reassess their faculties. They care about the Constitution in the context that they think liberal activist judges are robbing them from what is rightfully theirs (and in fairness, sometimes they are right). They really care about displaying the Ten Commandments wherever and whenever because we are a “Christian Nation.”

They care about inserting themselves into family matters of life and death. They care about keeping drugs out of your hands, even if they ease pain caused by illness. They care about treating homosexuals like second-class citizens. They care about prayer in school and keeping “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance. They care about ending abortion. They care about making divorces really difficult to obtain. They care about inserting religion into schools and ending the teaching of evolution. They care about a whole host of things, but Constitutional deference is not one of them.

President Bush’s Speech About Iraq – New York Times.

Ouch:

We did not expect Mr. Bush would apologize for the misinformation that helped lead us into this war, or for the catastrophic mistakes his team made in running the military operation. But we had hoped he would resist the temptation to raise the bloody flag of 9/11 over and over again to justify a war in a country that had nothing whatsoever to do with the terrorist attacks. We had hoped that he would seize the moment to tell the nation how he will define victory, and to give Americans a specific sense of how he intends to reach that goal – beyond repeating the same wishful scenario that he has been describing since the invasion.
. . .
No one wants a disaster in Iraq, and Mr. Bush’s critics can put aside, at least temporarily, their anger at the administration for its hubris, its terrible planning and its inept conduct of the war in return for a frank discussion of where to go from here. The president, who is going to be in office for another three and a half years, cannot continue to obsess about self-justification and the need to color Iraq with the memory of 9/11. The nation does not want it and cannot afford it.

“Listen, man – What part of ‘Democracy Freedom Stay the Course Terror Terror’ don’t you understand?”