Midtopia

Midtopia

Friday, November 03, 2006

Reconstruction auditor gets a stealth pink slip

A recent bill signed by President Bush contains an overlooked provision that fires the auditor charged with overseeing the reconstruction effort in Iraq.

Investigations led by a Republican lawyer named Stuart W. Bowen Jr. in Iraq have sent American occupation officials to jail on bribery and conspiracy charges, exposed disastrously poor construction work by well-connected companies like Halliburton and Parsons, and discovered that the military did not properly track hundreds of thousands of weapons it shipped to Iraqi security forces.

Mr. Bowen’s office has inspected and audited taxpayer-financed projects like this prison in Nasiriya, Iraq.

And tucked away in a huge military authorization bill that President Bush signed two weeks ago is what some of Mr. Bowen’s supporters believe is his reward for repeatedly embarrassing the administration: a pink slip.

During closed-door meetings to reconcile the House and Senate version of the bill, Republican aides working for Rep. Duncan Hunter inserted a clause terminating Bowen's office on Oct. 1, 2007. Neither the House nor Senate versions of the bill contained the provision.

The Republican explanation is that the move allows time to plan a transition to more traditional oversight, through inspectors general in various federal agencies. And the 11-month deadline doesn't exactly cut Bowen off at the knees, although it does mean that by January or so he'll have to start shutting things down, which will hamper his effectiveness for the remainder of his term.

But it does seem to continue a long tradition of hobbling oversight of administration actions. The story notes one such gem:

The criticism came to a head in a hearing a year ago, when Representative Dennis J. Kucinich, an Ohio Democrat, induced the Pentagon’s acting inspector general, Thomas Gimble, to concede that he had no agents deployed in Iraq, more than two years after the invasion.

Given that history, the stealthy way in which the termination was executed doesn't do much to allay such concerns. And even if oversight functions are transferred to other agencies, it's doubtful they will execute the job with as much energy as Bowen has -- which may itself be another reason for the move:

Mr. Bowen’s office has 55 auditors and inspectors in Iraq and about 300 reports and investigations already to its credit, far outstripping any other oversight agency in the country.

On the plus side, revelations about the provision have sparked growing opposition from representatives and senators on both sides of the aisle. But it doesn't excuse the fact that the provision, after being inserted, was agreed to by the conferees. They, at least, should be held accountable for their decision.

I don't have a huge problem with Bowen's office being phased out, although it seems to be a poor idea given how poorly managed our Iraq finances have turned out to be. But the process needs to be conducted in the sunshine, not behind closed doors without telling members what you're doing.

, ,

ACORN voter registration fraud

In Kansas City:

A federal grand jury handed up indictments Wednesday against four people after authorities said they submitted false voter registrations to the Kansas City election board.

The indictments — against Kwaim A. Stenson; Dale D. Franklin; Stephanie L. Davis, also known as Latisha Reed; and Brian Gardner — include two felony counts against each, the U.S. attorney’s office said.

All four defendants worked this year as voter registration recruiters for the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, known as ACORN. They could not be reached for comment.

Conservative bloggers are trying to make political hay with this, and to a certain extent they're justified. Voter fraud, whomever commits it, should be prosecuted to the fullest extent possible.

But it's not like anyone is defending this:

ACORN officials said they no longer work for the group. And, they emphasized, ACORN turned in the names of three of the defendants to authorities last month after learning of the problem....

Democratic party spokesman Jack Cardetti said, “We absolutely support the prosecution of anyone who turns in fraudulent registration cards.”

ACORN workers in other states have been similarly charged and in some cases convicted. And there have been some legitimate questions over whether paying registration workers per registration encourages them to turn in fraudulent applications. So the organization certainly deserves scrutiny. But it's a huge group: at least 200,000 members, never mind the people they hire to help with registration drives. So we should be careful about indicting the entire organization based on the actions of a handful of members.

But definitely investigate. People have enough things that make them worry about the integrity of the voting process; we don't need to give them more. And if it turns out the corruption is organizationwide, the entire organization should be held accountable.

, , ,

Thursday, November 02, 2006

Bush's adobe politics

The previous post on Bush bemoaning mudslinging while engaging in it got me to thinking about his style of rhetoric.

He does one particular thing a lot: He sets up a strawman and then throws mud at it. In past years it was "some people"; this election season he's gotten more specific, aiming at "Democrats" for the most part. It's intellectually lazy, even dishonest. But it lets him look good by defining himself against the worst nightmare caricature of his opposition.

It's such a signature style it deserves a name. And I've got one. Strawman plus mud? Call it adobe politics.

, ,

Bush: Do as I say, not as I do

Bush has always been a hard-knuckle campaigner. But rarely is the contrast so jarring as it has been the last couple of days.

From Think Progress:

On Tuesday, in an interview with Fox News’ Sean Hannity, President Bush said the worst thing about being President was the "tone" in Washington, saying that it "has gotten ugly." Bush said that he had stayed above the fray, noting "I really don’t think it’s fitting for the president to drag the presidency into that kind of a mudslinging."

The day before, President Bush was on the campaign trail in Georgia. His message: his opponents want America to lose and the terrorist to win.

Has Bush himself joined the crowd that no longer believes a word he says?

I take Think Progress with a grain of salt, but in this case they've posted both the video and transcripts to make their point.

, ,

Iraqi men tattoo IDs on their bodies


It's so when they turn up dead, their relatives will be able to identify them even if they've been tortured, mutilated or blown up.

Ali Abbas decided that his upper right thigh was the best place for a tattoo because no one gets tortured there.

He'd seen hundred of bodies in the city morgue and dozens of hospitals during his 18-day search for his missing uncle. He'd seen drill marks in swollen, often unrecognizable heads, slash marks across necks, bullet holes in backs, abdomens and swollen hands. He'd seen bodies that had been thrown into the river, so swollen they'd barely looked human. But by and large, the thighs had been intact.

So that's where he decided to have his name, address and phone number tattooed, in case the day comes when someone is searching for his body.

Tattoos are considered a sin in Islam, which holds that believers shouldn't deface their bodies. And tattoo shops are difficult to find in Baghdad. They're often in the basements of more reputable shops.

But at least some tattoo shops are seeing more and more Iraqis who, like Abbas, are willing to risk offending Islam to ease their families' grief in the event of their deaths. The owner of one tattoo shop in central Baghdad admitted that he'd done such tattoos, but said he didn't want to talk about it for fear that he'd be killed.

Yep, things are going swimmingly. I'm sure the only reason Iraqis are doing this is because Western reporters are underreporting the good news.

,

Racism is dead.... well, not quite.

Out of Miami, another election-eve embarassment for Republicans -- and a reminder that, however much progress we have made, racism remains.

State Rep. Ralph Arza, facing arrest today for participating in expletive-laced threatening phone calls to a Miami Beach lawmaker, resigned his office Wednesday on the steps of Hialeah City Hall and said he would not seek reelection.

Arza made his announcement as prosecutors filed criminal charges of witness interference against both him and his cousin for their calls to Republican Rep. Gus Barreiro on Oct. 21 and 22, just days after Barreiro filed a Florida House rules complaint against Arza for his use of racially disparaging language.

"We had something that usually we find with street criminals, thugs, drug dealers: trying to intimidate a witness," Miami-Dade State Attorney Katherine Fernández Rundle said when she announced the charges Wednesday....

At his news conference hours before, Arza surrounded himself with family and friends, and asked for forgiveness for calling Barreiro a racial slur and "bitch."

How can we measure progress? Well, in the following ways: Arza was widely repudiated and forced to apologize and resign his seat. 50 years ago, that wouldn't have been the case.

But such behavior by an elected official also points up how old attitudes die hard. We'll never eradicate racism, merely ameliorate its effects; but such venom from a position of power suggests we still have a long way to go.

, , , ,

Wednesday, November 01, 2006

Compare and contrast

Herewith I provide, without comment, two links.

President Bush on Rumsfeld and Cheney:

President Bush said Wednesday he wants Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Vice President Dick Cheney to remain with him until the end of his presidency, extending a job guarantee to two of the most-vilified members of his administration.

"Both those men are doing fantastic jobs and I strongly support them," Bush said in an interview with The Associated Press and others.

Meanwhile, in Iraq:

U.S. military commanders assessed two weeks ago that
Iraq was edging toward chaos, according to a classified military chart published in the New York Times on Wednesday.

The chart titled "Index of Civil Conflict" shows a color-coded bar with "peace" marked on the left and "chaos" on the right. An arrow puts the current situation inside the red area on the far right, much closer to chaos than peace.

Draw your own conclusions.

, , , , ,

Coulter case goes to prosecutors

A new development in the Ann Coulter voting fraud case!

Coulter has refused to cooperate with an election board investigation, so the board will turn the matter over to the state attorney's office this week.

Way to go, Ann. Stonewalling the cops always works so well.

Previous posts are here, here, and here.

For new readers: No, I don't think this is important. But it's always enjoyable to see unpleasant people get their comeuppance.

, ,

Who I'm voting for

In case my opinion carries any weight, here's who I will be voting for next week:

Governor: Peter Hutchinson (I)
House: Jim Ramstad (R, incumbent)
Senate: Amy Klobuchar (D)
State Senate: Terri Bonoff (D, incumbent)
State House: John Benson (D)

Hutchinson stands out as the most thoughtful gubernatorial candidate. Pawlenty's performance has not earned him a second term, and Hatch is long on rhetoric but short on substance.

Ramstad is a moderate Republican who has served the district well. His opponent, Wendy Wilde, has impeccable liberal credentials but little practical experience.

Klobuchar is moderate, smart, and talented. Her opponent, Mark Kennedy, is a deeply conservative Bush lapdog who's about as appealing as Mr. Grumpy himself, Rod Grams.

Bonoff has done a good job in her brief stint in the statehouse. She faces the same opponent -- Judy Johnson -- she did the first time around, and Johnson hasn't provided any reason for voters to think they made a mistake.

Benson has the edge in experience, ideas and education over his affable but green opponent, Dave Johnson.

, , ,

Democratic condescension

This particular trope isn't limited to Democrats, but they happen to be the perpetrators in this instance.

In today's Star Tribune, Lynnell Mickelsen calls on supporters of independent Peter Hutchinson to stop deluding themselves and vote for the Democratic candidate for governor, Mike Hatch. Her closing line:

So, my dear friends, on Nov. 7, buck up and get over yourselves. It's not about you this time. It's about all of us.

Mickelsen has a point: independent candidates, if they don't win, tend to ensure that the candidate most despised by the independent voter will get elected.

But in this case, tough. Pawlenty, while not exactly deserving of a second term, has not been a complete disaster. And Hatch is simply not that impressive. I think he'd do fine as governor, but the gap between him and Pawlenty isn't alarmingly large. The risk of seeing Pawlenty re-elected is worth the chance of putting Hutchinson into office.

But my personal strategy is twofold, because Hatch would, indeed, be my second choice. So if he wins, I'm going to write him and say "This race was far closer than it had to be thanks to Hutchinson siphoning off votes. That's why you need to pass a law legalizing instant-runoff voting. Because in this state, it will almost always be the GOP that benefits from a three-way race. Unless you want to keep seeing GOP candidates win with pluralities, you need to allow voters to prioritize their choices."

Logic would suggest that a Democratic state administration would pursue IRV out of self-interest. I intend to put that logic to the test.

If Pawlenty wins, I'll send the same note. But I won't expect any results, because the GOP knows that the current situation benefits them more than the Democrats. It's not perfect, but it's a risk I'm willing to take.

, , , , , ,

Sleaze roundup

As we head into the final days before the election, out come the worst sort of attack ads: the ones that won't stand up to scrutiny, so they are released right before the election so they cannot be rebutted in time.

In Colorado: A GOP mailer accuses Democrat Ed Perlmutter of opposing sex-offender notification laws. The bill in question was killed at the request of law enforcement, and Perlmutter helped pass a more comprehensive notification bill the following year.

In Arizona: In a House race, Republican Randy Graf has accused his opponent, Gabrielle Giffords, of engineering a sweetheart land deal with the city of Tuscon -- a charge that appears to be clearly false.

In Virginia: While Democrats fan rumors that Sen. George Allen is a racist domestic abuser who is hiding a criminal record, Allen's campaign has tried to paint challenger James Webb as a sexual deviant based on passages in Webb's bestselling novels.

In Ohio: Republicans accuse Democratic House candidate John Cranley of wanting to use tasers on 7-year-olds.

There's more. FactCheck.org estimates that 90 percent of Republican ads and 80 percent of Democratic ads are negative.

Separately, we have simple political embarassment:

In Washington: John Kerry finally got around to apologizing for his remarks of a couple of days ago. It seems obvious that he simply screwed up an anti-Bush joke, and shame on the Republicans for cynically pushing the issue. But the gaffe -- and his ridiculous response to having it pointed out -- again highlight why he managed to lose to Bush two years ago, and why no Democrats are eager to see him run again. Most, in fact, just wish he would shut up.

In Nevada: A waitress has accused GOP Rep. Jim Gibbons, who is running for governor, of assaulting her. He says he merely helped her when she tripped.

In New York: The Daily News has released details of a 911 call from 2005, in which the wife of GOP Rep John Sweeney said he was "knocking her around the house."

Only six days until it's over.

, ,

Tuesday, October 31, 2006

Hubble repair mission is a go!

Woo hoo!!

It's scheduled for May 2008. As discussed previously, the repairs will keep it operating until the James Webb telescope comes on line in 2013.

, , , ,

The real battle is in the statehouses

While much attention is focused on the federal elections, a more profound change might be underway in state legislatures across the country.

Controlling the statehouses is important for two reasons. One, that's where the future leaders of both parties cut their teeth. Being in control means being able to point to a track record of legislative achievement. It's better practice for governing on a national level than being a perennial opposition party.

More directly, it's the state legislatures that draw Congressional districts after each census. Whichever party controls the statehouses in 2010-11 will be able to draw those districts to their advantage, cementing a decade-long advantage at the national level.

Right now the parties are almost evenly divided. Republicans control both chambers in 20 states; Democrats have that advantage in 19. They are virtually tied in the number of statehouse seats they hold.

If the Democratic wave at the national level is mirrored in local results, Democrats could be poised to take over a solid majority of statehouses. If they retain that control in 2010, it could redraw the political map in their favor.

To be clear, I think gerrymandering is terrible. I've written before about the need to come up with objective formula for drawing districts, and even discussed some proposals for doing exactly that.

So I'm not celebrating the idea of Democrats being able to gerrymander in 2010. But it's hard to overestimate the long-term significance of the local races.

, ,

Monday, October 30, 2006

Is luck genetic?

I've always thought of myself as a pretty lucky person.

Not lucky in the sense of "being born into a middle-class, well-educated American family", although frankly that's like hitting the jackpot right there. But actually, you know, lucky. I've always seemed to beat the odds more often than most -- winning a raffle, avoiding speeding tickets, winning luck-based games, avoiding random trouble, that sort of thing. Computer errors tend to work in my favor. And despite being a registered voter my entire adult life, I've never once been called for jury duty.

Now I'm beginning to wonder if luck is genetic.

My oldest daughter is 6 years old, and takes after me in most ways (our youngest takes after their mother). A couple of days ago we went to a Halloween party at school. They had the usual array of Halloween activities -- face-painting, trick-or-treating, cookie-decorating, and so on.

But they also had a Bingo table, where five kids played at a time, and you needed to get three numbers in a row to win.

My oldest daughter sat down and won. First time. In three numbers.

Down the hall was a prize room, with a twist: Kids had to stand on squares numbered 1 to 10. If they drew your number, you were allowed to go in and pick a prize. Every time a child went in, their place was taken by a waiting child.

My oldest daughter walked up, stepped on a square, and won. First time.

So in rapid succession, she beat odds of 10 percent and roughly 20 percent. Combined, she beat odds of 2 percent. Less, really, because she won the Bingo game in three draws, an unlikely event in itself.

That's not lottery-winning luck, but it's not bad.

The science-fiction writer Larry Niven wrote several stories set in his Known Space universe that explored the implications of breeding humans for luck. His novel "Ringworld" included one such human, Teela Brown; the short story "Safe at Any Speed" takes the idea into the far future, where generations of breeding have produced extraordinarily lucky people. It's kind of boring.

It was always a neat idea, if not one to be taken seriously. But now I'm beginning to wonder if Niven was right.

, , , ,

Shoe on the other foot?

Speaking of electronic voting machines, Republicans haven't seemed overly concerned at the prospect of them being hackable.

But boy, this seems to have them in a tizzy:

The federal government is investigating the takeover last year of Sequoia Voting Systems of Oakland, a leading American manufacturer of electronic voting systems, by Smartmatic Corp., a small software company that has been linked to the leftist government of President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela.

The federal inquiry is focusing on the Venezuelan owners of the software company, the Smartmatic Corp., and is trying to determine whether the government in Caracas has any control or influence over the firm's operations, government officials and others familiar with the investigation said.

Smartmatic denies any influence, and they may well be telling the truth -- although their connections to the Venezuelan government are more tangled than those of Citgo.

So to recap: A Republican-run company says its machines are secure despite mounds of evidence to the contrary? No problem. A leftist government may have access to our voting machines? Call out the dogs!

Okay, to be fair, the Diebold flap is an issue for state and local election boards, not the federal government, while a Venezuela connection is a federal responsibility. And frankly, I don't care how it happens; any attention or investigation that leads to actually doing something about the integrity of our voting process is a good thing.

But it's still pretty funny.

, , ,

Will voting machines trip up the GOP in Texas?

The race to replace Rep. Tom DeLay has tightened, with GOP write-in candidate Shelley Sekula-Gibbs polling well against Democrat Nick Lampson.

My money's still on Lampson; telling a pollster you don't mind the write-in candidate, and actually writing her name on the ballot, are two different things.

Especially because of this:

The third option on that ballot is "write-in." Voters who make that selection on the electronic voting machines that most will use are directed to an alphabet screen, where they use a wheel to spell out their choice's name a letter at a time.

I think this is terrible; writing in a candidate's name should be a lot easier than that. As it is, I suspect only the most ardent write-in supporters will go to the trouble.

But it's also rather ironic that an electronic-voting machine glitch may end up costing the GOP one of their safest seats.

, , , ,

Friday, October 27, 2006

To the sun (and Hubble)

A couple of days ago, NASA launched a major new scientific mission: the Solar Terrestrial Relations Observatory.

No, it's not a diplomatic effort, though as an aside that is part of the plot of the science fiction novel Cusp, by Robert Metzger. It's a mission to observe the sun and study solar flares.

Scientists hope the $550 million, two-year mission will help them understand why these eruptions occur, how they form and what path they take.

The eruptions _ called solar flares _ typically blow a billion tons of the sun's atmosphere into space at a speed of 1 million mph. The phenomenon is responsible for the Northern Lights, or aurora borealis, the luminous display of lights seen in the upper latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere.

Besides being just plain cool -- the twin spacecraft will send back 3-D images of the sun -- and likely to provide a torrent of scientific data, this mission demonstrates why exploring our solar system is important. Besides causing the Northern Lights, solar flares damage satellites and disrupt communications networks. Learning how and why they develop will have a practical payoff back here on Earth.

With STEREO launched and on its way, NASA is now turning its attention to a more problematic issue: whether to mount one last repair mission to the Hubble telescope. A decision is expected to be announced on Tuesday.

If Griffin says "go," the mission could launch as early as 2008, providing 7,000 astronomers worldwide with five more years of access to the famous telescope — along with better instruments to explore the depths of the universe and its evolution.

But a Hubble mission would also be the only flight before the shuttle's retirement in 2010 that could not reach the International Space Station in case of emergency. That scenario has worried NASA since 2003, when the shuttle Columbia was damaged by debris on liftoff and burned up during reentry. All seven crew members died.

If NASA decides not to save Hubble, astronomers would be without an orbiting telescope until its successor, the James Webb telescope, is launched in 2013.

, , , , ,

Wednesday, October 25, 2006

Gay marriage in New Jersey?

Not quite marriage, no. But New Jersey's Supreme Court has ruled that gay couples have the same legal rights as heterosexual couples.

In a ruling that fell short of what either side wanted or feared, the state Supreme Court declared 4-3 that homosexual couples are entitled to the same rights as heterosexual ones. The justices gave lawmakers 180 days to rewrite the laws.

Here's a nice Q&A on the case.

The justices stopped short of recognizing a right to same-sex marriage, but they concluded -- logically enough -- that benefits made available to straight couples have to be made available to gay couples, too.

And that 4-3 vote? Not what you might think. The three dissenters argued that the court didn't go far enough. They wanted the court to recognize gay marriage as a right.

So now the state Legislature has 180 days to legalize either gay marriage or civil unions. Meanwhile, state Republicans said they would try to pass a constitutional amendment banning same-sex unions. And one, Assemblyman Richard Merkt, said he would try to have all seven justices impeached. What a charmer.

The score so far? Massachusetts allows gay marriage; Vermont and Connecticut allow civil unions. 16 states have amended their constitutions to ban gay marriage, and eight more are considering doing so.

This patchwork will create some interesting situations going forward. The continued existence of same-sex union states will belie the "sky is falling" rhetoric used to oppose it. A growing number of marriages recognized in one state but not another -- and the injustices caused by that -- will put pressure on states to adopt a uniform treatment.

Most promising, civil unions likely will spread as a reasonable compromise, hindered a bit by overly broad constitutional amendments passed too quickly and carelessly. And that may help nudge the nation toward the one solution that could be acceptable to all: getting the government out of the marriage business. The law would then become civil unions for everyone, marriage for those who want it.

Which, by the way, is a near-perfect example of how keeping the government out of religion ends up being the best guarantor of religious liberty. The government can provide legal and tax benefits based on objective criteria, serving its secular purpose. And marriage, its direct connection to those benefits severed, can be freely bestowed or withheld by each church as it sees fit.

I truly believe that in 20 years, people will wonder what all the fuss was about.

, , , ,

Let the mudslinging begin

We take you first to Ohio, where Ken Blackwell has gone completely off the deep end.

With polls showing him so far behind that he could drag the entire Republican ticket down to defeat, Secretary of State Ken Blackwell launched an attack last week that took political discourse in Ohio to unplumbed depths.

In the last of four debates, Blackwell accused his Democratic rival for governor, Rep. Ted Strickland, of covering up for a campaign staff member who exposed himself to children and supporting the platform of NAMBLA, the North American Man/Boy Love Association.

By the week's end, the allegations had become more bizarre and outlandish.

More bizarre and outlandish? Well, yes. Not from Blackwell himself, but from two of his prominent supporters, who for some reason feel it's important to imply (or, indeed, openly speculate) that the married Strickland is gay.

The "coverup" allegation involves a staffer convicted of public indecency -- a misdemeanor -- in 1994 for exposing himself near an elementary school.

Strickland says he received an anonymous letter in 1998 during a heated campaign, asked the man about it and dropped the matter after the staffer denied it. After the campaign, the staffer accompanied Strickland on a trip to Italy. He left Strickland's staff in 1999.

Coverup? Of an incident that occurred four years previously and had nothing to do with Strickland? Criticize him for being incurious, perhaps. But then one might ask how relevant a four-year-old misdemeanor conviction is.

The NAMBLA allegation revolves around this:

But LoParo said Blackwell also questions Strickland's judgment for agreeing with NAMBLA by not supporting a congressional resolution in 1999 that condemned an article about child sexual abuse.

Strickland, a psychologist, said he disagreed with the resolution's assertion that an abused child cannot have healthy relationships as an adult.

Way to go, Blackwell. You've proven that there are still unplumbed depths of political mudslinging.

, , , ,

Tuesday, October 24, 2006

What if the Democrats win?

In what strikes me as a sign of desperation, Republicans have been trying to scare people with the prospect of what the Democrats might do if they take over Congress. Socialized medicine! Tax hikes! Impeachment! The destruction of the country! You just know that a bunch of people are going to go trick-or-treating as Speaker Nancy Pelosi this year, claiming it's the scariest thing they can think of.

I won't get into the silliness of such claims, like the National Review claiming Charlie Rangel would eliminate 529 savings plans or abolish the child tax credit -- all because he said he couldn't think of a single Bush tax cut he liked.

Then there's the little matter of Pelosi specifically ruling out impeachment proceedings.

And I'll content myself with briefly noting that Democrats have been in charge for much of this century and the country is still standing, still a superpower, still the biggest economy on earth, and best I can recall we haven't been invaded and conquered during that time.

Set all that aside. Let's assume the Democrats are in fact Communists in Donkey dress, and if elected they will shed their disguises and put a bust of Lenin in the House chamber.

So what?

Even if the Democrats take both the House and the Senate, they will not command veto-proof majorities. Bush may have to exercise his veto pen for once, but his vetoes will stick unless his own party revolts against him. And the Republican minority will use all the procedural tricks they've decried for the past decade -- filibusters, Senatorial holds, what have you -- to derail Democratic bills they don't like.

The most significant threat, in fact, doesn't involve Pelosi at all; it involves Harry Reid. Because if the Democrats manage to take the Senate, they can block a lot of Bush's judicial appointments. But even that power is limited; they can block, but they can't nominate. And Bush can make recess appointments, or simply make hay out of all the judicial vacancies the Dems are letting pile up.

So the plain fact is that all the nation risks by letting the Democrats take over is a two-year standoff with the White House. That may actually be a good thing; but in any event I'd rather risk that than let the GOP remain in charge after the hash they've made of things in the past six years.

It's time for a change. Republicans had their chance; let's see what the Democrats can come up with.

, , , , ,