February 27, 2009
Watching more videos and live-streaming of the ongoing CPAC conference (and waiting for the 4:30 announcement of the Conservative Journalism Award -- do you think I have a chance?), I have some news for you: the Republican Party is going to re-gain power by explaining to the American people that the economy would have been just fine if the United States Government had never offered to back GNMA mortgage securities with its full faith and credit. So, you know, watch out.
Senator Jim DeMint of South Carolina -- high on my list of potential '12 Pres. nominees -- was among many who have made this point at CPAC. DeMint also specifically blamed the entire economic problem on "the government and political greed" and said that the only solution is to completely de-regulate the financial industry. (Of course, I could be a totalitarianist; I went to public school, and DeMint said today that the US is in trouble because "A nation that raises its children in government schools cannot expect its people to stand for the principles of freedom.")
BTW, has anyone ever seen any poll that suggests that conservatives and/or Republicans become more attractive to Americans every time they call the Democrats socialists? Because I've never seen any such poll, and yet they use the term as if Frank Luntz has issued some sort of directive. Scott Garrett, the super-conservative congressman from New Jersey -- speaking on a panel specifically addressing the new American socialism -- warned that we've moved from the "honest socialism of the past," ie, socialism, to "dishonest socialism," by which he means whatever the Democrats are doing, which, is socialism that Democrats are sneakily slipping past the people by not being, you know, socialism.
Also: Ronald Reagan is more conservative than Gerald Ford; Reagan defeated Jimmy Carter; Ford lost to Carter; ergo the more conservative a Republican is, the more electable he is. QED. Also, the last time the people had an up-or-down vote on liberalism versus conservativism was in 1994, and they chose conservativism. That last one comes from John Shadegg of Arizona, who was elected with that GOP Class of '94; he says that
Oh, and Wayne LaPierre of the NRA, who is always good for a laugh, said that "our Founding Fathers knew that the guys with the guns make the rules." So, I guess they really screwed up in drafting our American Constitutional system, putting the military leaders under civilian command and all.
February 26, 2009
The annual CPAC conference is underway; I've only been able to watch some of today's speeches so far. The biggest issue, from what I can tell, is the so-called "Fairness Doctrine," which as you may know is the Democrats' secret plan to rid the airwaves of all conservative and Christian broadcasting. Never mind that Barack Obama has stated that he opposes bringing back the doctrine, and the US Senate -- including Democrats -- just voted overwhelmingly for a silly amendment opposing the doctrine. Among the conservatives at CPAC, it's a major talking point and huge applause line. Also, abortion. And homosexuals.
Congressman Mike Pence -- my dark horse candidate for 2012 GOP Presidential nomination -- got a good speaking slot; he said that the US is joining Europe in "an avalanche of socialism." Van Hipp of American Defense International said that securing the borders against illegal immigrants "has to be the top priority of any commander in chief." Cliff Kincaid of Accuracy In Media called George W. Bush a "pseudo-socialist," and -- for those of you who love this particular undying canard -- said that "At least back in the 1980s we had a President who was born in the United States." Janice Crouse of the Beverly LaHaye Institute said of the Oscars: "The whole broadcast was an insult to mainstream Americans." How so? Well, Bill Maher said something about godlessness, the Best Actor award went to Sean Penn, who insulted everyone who opposes gay marriage, and "Kay Winslet won Best Actress for playing a Nazi pedophile." Huh?
On a related note: about six weeks ago I told you that Louisiana Senator David "serious sin" Vitter might get a 2010 primary challenge from Tony "sinners suck" Perkins of the Family Research Council. Now Perkins tells Politico that he is indeed considering such a run.
February 25, 2009
In this week's issue of the Boston Phoenix -- in print tomorrow, online now -- I have an article suggesting that Congressman Michael Capuano might find himself pulled into a controversy that's brewing down in DC. John Murtha, who like Capuano is one of Speaker Nancy Pelosi's lieutenants, is reportedly the target of a federal investigation involving a lobbying firm. There is no suggestion that Capuano has done anything illegal. Nevertheless, any muck that emerges from this scandal is likely to come his way as well -- not only is he close to Murtha, and has received a lot of money from the lobbyists in question, but Capuano was the head of the Democrats' ethics reform effort. Read the article here:
Capuano Cornered? Could a developing Washington probe hurt the Somerville congressman, and derail his Senate hopes?
February 24, 2009
--Obama: "I've done more in 30 days than most Presidents do in a full term, and I'm going to do a million more things in the next few months." Jindal: "Remember how incompetent Republicans were when we were in charge?"
--I know we're all angry at fat-cat financial execs, but that's no excuse for someone stealing Mitt Romney's wife's jewelry.
--Speaking of the Mittster, quick question: if he was governor of Massachusetts today, would he refuse the federal stimulus money?
--Oh, by the way Bobby J, you were one of those Republican congressmen who you say pissed away the party's goodwill.
--RNC chair Michael Steele: civil unions is crazy-talk. Also, might have called homosexuals pigs. As in, putting lipstick on one.
--And speaking of Steele: was Jindal's response part of this new 'hip-hop' GOP you've been talking about? 'Cause I wasn't really feeling it.
--Update to my earlier post: House Republicans split today on the Captive Primate Safety Act; 93 voted against, but 76 voted yes with the Democrats.
--Conservative blogosphere in wide agreement tonight: Pelosi's outfit was unattractive. VERY unattractive.
February 24, 2009
As you know, Congressional Republicans held firm against the stimulus bill, voting unanimously against it. On a number of other bills the discipline has been pretty good: only three of the 178 GOP House members crossed over to vote with the Democrats on the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act; eight did on the Paycheck Fairness Act; 18 on TARP authorization; 23 on delaying DTV implementation; and 40 on S-CHIP expansion.
In fact, they've been as likely to lose votes on the right -- for instance, 25 conservative Republicans voted against the Elder Abuse Victims Act, a bipartisan effort that passed with 397 votes. 31 of them voted against the bipartisan Presidential Library Donation Reform Act. And so on.
Yesterday, however, two votes came up on which a majority of house Republicans, following their leadership, voted no -- but more than 60 of their caucus crossed to vote Yes with the Democrats.
The first was a bill to improve oversight of child abuse in residential programs for teens. 101 Republicans voted no, but 64 Republicans voted yes, and 13 didn't vote. The second was a bill to provide compensation for Guam residents who were victimized by Japanese occupation in World War II. 97 Republicans voted no, 68 yes, 13 no vote. Only 38 voted no on both bills, meaning that 94 Republicans -- more than half the caucus -- defected from leadership at least once yesterday to join the Democrats.
I suppose, depending on your perspective (and your opinion of the bills), you could see this either as a large number of moderates willing to break with their rigid leadership; or a larger number of conservatives standing fast against bad legislation.
One way or another, it's a sign of significant splitting -- at least on the little, largely unnoticed votes.
February 24, 2009
More than three years ago, I wrote a lengthy story about a large group of lawsuits being brought by former inmates at the Suffolk County House of Correction, alleging mistreatment by guards in the late 1990s under the administration of Sheriff Richard Rouse. The cases had been together as a class-action suit, which the county settled by agreeing to a number of reforms -- a development I had reported earlier. The individual lawsuits, however, would proceed, with each former inmate getting a chance to convince a jury that his civil rights were violated -- and that damages should be awarded.
It's been very slow going, with the cases crawling toward trial; in the two or three that have gotten to trial, either no violation was found or no damges were awarded.
Today, however, the Globe reports that one of those former inmates won a $900,000 award. That's an awful lot of money, and should put a huge scare into authorities who are on the hook for all the money that might be awarded to the dozens of others still awaiting trial. (The state and Boston's city government split the sheriff's costs, usually including court payments.) One telling detail: this case involved two correction officers -- Torres and Basile -- who show up in many of the complaints.
I wrote in that article:
[I]f juries do start awarding cash settlements in those trials, the
Commonwealth will most likely step in and settle the remaining cases. Those
involved in the litigation believe that the state is using the first handful of
trials to test the mood of the juries. If the juries side with the inmates,
expect the state to negotiate a group payment — without acknowledging any
wrongdoing, or allowing the public to find out what really happened.
The department's approach has been to fight these cases vigorously, rather than acknowledge the sins of a past administration and offer some form of compensation. It may have been a smart strategy, for exactly the same reason that it is an injust strategy: justice delayed really is often justice denied, as the years go by, the costs pile up, and the defendants and their witnesses scatter.
Now that a case has been won -- and with such a large jury award -- the dynamic changes. The cost of settling the remaining suits goes way up; the incentive will be to cause further delays by appealling, rather than settling the remaining cases at this worst possible bargaining point. Meanwhile, the men who were so badly mistreated have already waited a decade for their justice.
February 19, 2009
Dot Reporter gets the scoop that Tomas Gonzalez has changed his mind and will run for an at-large seat on the Boston City Council. Gonzalez has been probably the single most-mentioned name since Council '09 rumor-mongering kicked off, and he'll be a major player. Gonzalez who lives in Menino's own Hyde Park, has served with the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services and Commission on Affairs of the Elderly -- both superb opportunities to become known to voting residents. He currently works for BU's Medical Campus.
By my current count, Gonzalez is the 876th male candidate in the race, and not one woman. Not one. None. Zero. Noooooo women.
February 19, 2009
In this week's issue of the Boston Phoenix -- out today -- I note that the elevation to Speaker of yet another aging white man, 58-year-old Robert DeLeo, has paradoxically hastened the fall from power of the aging white men in the House. Angelo Scaccia, David Flynn, Dan Bosley, Tom Golden, Jim Fagan, Jim Miceli, Geoff Hall, Stephen Tobin, David Nangle, Joe Wagner... Not a good day for the over-45 white guys.
Moving up were a number of young, black, Hispanic, and/or female reps, including quite a few from right in and around Boston.
I don't want to make it sound like the old white guys' days are done in the House -- they still hold a lot of key positions -- but it's a trend worth noting.
I also look at concerns that environmental advocates have about the new assignments in both chambers -- including the unexpected appointment of East Boston's Anthony Petruccelli to chair the senate environment committee.
The article is here:
February 18, 2009
"Rob" asks:
Who are your unsung heroes in Massachusetts politics that do a lot of good work but do not get enough public acclaim?
An excellent question. If we're talking about elected officials, I think maybe someone like Marc Pacheco, Cynthia Creem, Stan Rosenberg, Kevin Honan, Michael Costello.. .I'm kind of pulling names out of thin air here, but they kind of stay out of the limelight but seem serious about getting things done.
Beyond the names on the ballot, I'm generally a fan of good legislative staffers -- they are the few people around who actually dig in and learn about policy, and how laws can make people's lives better and avoid making their lives worse. Of course, none of it becomes law without first being hacked into porridge for political reasons. Similarly, many of the policy people at local advocacy groups are really on the ball and realistic. A lot of people know Arline Isaacson, for instance, who played a huge role in defeating the gay-marriage ban. She's terrific, and there are people like her toiling anonymously at non-profits and, yes, even lobbying firms.
I'll have to give this question more thought. I promise to return to it later.
February 18, 2009
In our only question so far on this merry Ask Me Anything Wednesday, "Bruce" asks:
When will Nancy Pelosi finally get around to "draining the swamp", as she promised she would more then two years ago?
To refresh people's memories, after the 2006 elections that made her Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi promised quick action on ethics reform. Sayeth Pelosi:
'Drain the swamp' means to turn this Congress into the most honest and open
Congress in history. That is my pledge. That is what I intend to do."
The swamp, needless to say, remains fetid. There has been some reform action, mostly around the edges, but nothing that makes good-government and open-windows types jump for joy. I would expect more occasional small measures, allowing Pelosi to claim ongoing action without dramatically affecting the business at hand.
The chummy lobbying relationships continue -- although there doesn't seem to be anything as gross as the DeLay "K Street Project" going on. And to this point, there haven't been a lot of clear signs of actual corruption since the House Democrats took power. That could change, depending on where the Murtha investigation goes -- it has the potential to be very bad, but so far that's just potential. The Charlie Rangel fiasco, still under investigation, has embarrassment potential, but thus far doesn't look like a big blow-up scandal to me. And of course Louisiana voters thankfully spared us further eye-rolling Democratic embraces of Rep. Jefferson.
February 18, 2009
Our last Ask Me Anything day was great -- I got a lot of terrific questions, and at least some of my answers were not immediately proven wrong. Score!
Since then, much has happened: a federal stimulus bill, a complete change of leadership at the Mass. House of Representatives, a Boston mayoral race (although not yet including the incumbent, Mayor McChicken), an about-face from Sen. Gregg, and a million-and-one other items of interest.
Feel free to ask me anything you'd like about these or anything else on your mind, and I will do my best to provide an answer, a guess, an opinion, an analysis, a rumor, or a wild speculative hunch. Leave your questions as comments to this post, and I will answer in separate posts throughout the day. (If you're having trouble leaving a comment, you can email me at dbernstein@thephoenix.com) Thanks!
February 16, 2009
In December 2006, Jeff Jacoby was perhaps feeling a bit lazy, and he wrote one of a series of uninspired, weakly-grounded anti-global-warming-alarmism columns. He had apparently just gotten hold of a ridiculous "report" put out seven months earlier by right-wing hucksters at the Business & Media Institute, which is part of the Media Research Center; the report documented how the "media" had hyped crazy, incorrect climate change stories in the past, and ergo must be doing so again now.
Today, George F. Will writes the same basic column, using -- as far as I can tell -- material from that same BMI report, although he doesn't mention it.
I gently mocked Jacoby for the column at the time. So, if it was worth gentle mockery then, what does it merit more than two years later? Sigh, I suppose I'll have to do the right thing, and rip George apart.
Will trots out the BMI-report's examples of supposed media global-cooling obsession from the 1970s, as a response to Energy Secretary Steven Chu's recent dire warnings about the potential devastating effects of climate change on California's agriculture, in a worst-case scenario, looking forward about a century.
As far as I know, Chu's claim is pretty uncontroversial, scientifically speaking. The only debate I've noticed over his statements, since he made them two weeks ago, has been not over the legitimacy of the claim, but over the PR strategy of using it. Chu makes clear that he thinks it's necessary to issue these worst-case warnings, so that "American people will wake up" to the need for action; some others fear that it is counterproductive, causing people to tune it out as science-fiction.
This is where Will steps in, to demonstrate the latter point. Ignoring mountainous reams of scientific evidence and information, Will is able to focus laser-like on Chu's one single remark, setting it up as the essence of climate-change kookery, so as to knock it down and show the whole enterprise to be bunk.
Of course, he can't actually knock it down; Will offers not a single person, fact, or argument against Chu's claim. However, Will does provide those handy-dandy reminders that we've been warned of such weirdness before, and the predictions (at least, these carefully selected ones) have always been wrong. And thus, surely, must all predictions be met with fingers in ears and shouting of NAHNAHNAHNAHICANTHEARYOUDOCTORCHU!
Will's column does not stop there, however. Will next presumes to debunk climate-change theory with the single datum that global sea ice levels are the same as they were in 1979 -- which, as it is a falsehood, strikes me as a particularly unconvincing bit of debunkery.
But Will is not done; he then ventures forth into territory that I usually encounter only on rabidly conservative blog sites. To wit: that only an "eco-pessimist," to use Will's term, would be so vain as to think of our current environmental conditions -- ie, the ones that support human life -- as "optimal," and worth going to a lot of trouble to preserve.
Since he started squarely on Chu's California example, I take it that Will is saying that, even if Chu is right, only freakos would prefer the current, fertile California. It is "weirdly optimistic," Will writes, to think that "[t]hese optimal conditions must and can be preserved or restored."
Speak for yourself, Georgie. But George assures us that he speaks for the masses, pointing out that polls show the American public super-concerned about the "real" economic crisis, and uninterested in the "hypothetical" climate crisis. I think that Chu would argue that such polling -- as well as fatuous articles like Will's -- only proves his point about the need to wake America up to the problem.
February 13, 2009
It's a site that lists shovel-ready projects that will be eligible for potential grants under the federal economic stimulus package -- including 266 in Massachusetts totalling $1 billion in estimated costs.
It's Wiki, so you can add to the project descriptions. (Which, to date, are sadly lacking for many local projects.)
And, you can vote on whether the project is critical or not.
For 99% of the world, this is perhaps the least interesting web site they can possibly imagine.
For the other 1% of you -- prepare to get sucked in.
Here's the page of Massachusetts projects for you to start on. Enjoy!
February 12, 2009
I'll be on NECN NewsNight w/ Jim Braude tonight, bragging about my award and being all pundit-like on various topics -- beginning with Judd Gregg's withdrawal as Obama's Commerce nominee.
Which reminds me -- On January 13 I blogged:
Now that four GOP Senators have announced that they won't run for re-election
in 2010, the betting can begin on who's next. My money would be on Judd Gregg of
New Hampshire.
Now that Gregg is not getting the appointment, and said today that he will not run for re-election in 2010, I'm claiming a prognositcatory victory on this one!
February 12, 2009
New Speaker Bob DeLeo announced his leadership team and committee assignments today, and Therese Murray came out with her new assignments. I don't have time to say much about it right now, but a few quick observations:
--The NEXT Speaker fight shapes up to be Charley Murphy vs. Jim Vallee (assuming DeLeo lasts a few years at least); anyone else who wants a piece of it better start plotting now.
--Sweet of DeLeo to let Petrolati keep his pro tem postion. Sweet but dumb. If Petrolati gets sucked further into the ACE Ticket scandal, you've got "DeLeo's first big misstep" stories.
--Young blood leading some big House committees. Look around, there aren't that many Dem reps under age 45 with a couple of terms under their belt to choose from, and DeLeo's got them running Ways & Means, Econ Development, Judiciary, Third Reading, Higher Ed, Telecom, and others; plus the new majority leader and two division chairs.
--Funny how quick yesterday's freshmen move up, when six new senators get elected at once. Boston's own Anthony Petruccelli has a nice get, chairing the Environment Committee, and Anthony Galluccio of Cambridge will chair higher ed.
--I'm not sure that Tourism Chair is the platform for Sonia Chang-Diaz to make things up with Roxbury's disgruntled.
