Klein's Quips

« August 2005 | Main | October 2005 »

September 30, 2005

Krugman Errs Again

In his Sept. 30 column, Krugman writes of Bill Frist, "He sold all his stock in HCA, which his father helped found, just days before the stock plunged." However, according to this AP story, Frist sold the shares on June 13 and the shares tumbled on July 13--about one month later. This timeline is corroborated in a news story from Krugman's employer. A Krugman defender may argue that 30 days could count as "days." But to me, anything in excess of six days no longer can be described as "days," because after that point it becomes at least a week.

See CORRECTION

Posted by Philip Klein at 4:02 PM | Comments (0)

Vulnerable Republicans, Clueless Democrats

Even though the evidence against House Majority Leader Tom Delay seems weak (see below), it certainly looks bad that the Republicans' No. 2 man in the House is under indictment, especially if you couple this with the news that their leader in the Senate, Bill Frist, is being investigated by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Delay and Frist may both get cleared, but in politics perception is more important than reality. As news articles have reminded us repeatedly over the past few days, it was ethics violations by the entrenched Democratic leadership that provided the opening for the Republican triumph in the midterm elections of 1994. A few weeks ago, even before the Delay/Frist news, a poll showed only 36 percent of Americans approved of the job the Republican leaders in Congess were doing, compared to 49 percent who disapproved. Within the Republican base, anger among small-government conservatives has reached a boiling point as Republicans fail to insist on offsets to help finance the more than $200 billion of expected Katrina-related spending. Perhaps this will affect turnout in 2006.

While all of this points to Republicans being vulnerable next year, Democrats still have to make major changes to exploit this vulnerability. No matter how unpopular the Republicans are, Democrats must convince a cynical public that their party can do a better job. Yes, Republicans gained power in 1994 in part because of ethics lapses by Democratic leaders. But Republicans also made a positive case for change, embodied in the Contract With America. Democrats oppose Bush's tax cuts, oppose Social Security reform, oppose the war in Iraq (sometimes), oppose corporate influence, etc. But what are they for? As of now, it doesn't seem as if they have a clue.

Posted by Philip Klein at 12:17 AM | Comments (0)

September 29, 2005

Delay Indictment

Tom Delay gives me no reason to defend him, especially after his recent statements that there was no more fat left to trim in the budget because Republicans had, "pared it down pretty good." But based on what I've read so far, it does not seem like by Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle has much on him. As the Washington Post (no fan of Delay) editorialized today:

Nonetheless, at least on the evidence presented so far, the indictment of Mr. DeLay by a state prosecutor in Texas gives us pause. The charge concerns the activities of Texans for a Republican Majority (TRMPAC), a political action committee created by Mr. DeLay and his aides to orchestrate the GOP's takeover of the Texas legislature in 2002. The issue is whether Mr. DeLay and his political aides illegally used the group to evade the state's ban on corporate contributions to candidates. The indictment alleges that TRMPAC took $155,000 in corporate contributions and then sent a check for $190,000 to the national Republican Party's "soft money" arm. The national committee then wrote $190,000 in checks from its noncorporate accounts to seven Texas candidates. Perhaps most damning, TRMPAC dictated the precise amount and recipients of those donations.

This was an obvious end run around the corporate contribution rule. The more difficult question is whether it was an illegal end run -- or, to be more precise, one so blatantly illegal that it amounts to a criminal felony rather than a civil violation. For Mr. DeLay to be convicted, prosecutors will have to show not only that he took part in the dodge but also that he knew it amounted to a violation of state law -- rather than the kind of clever money-trade that election lawyers engineer all the time.

If more conclusive evidence emerges pointing toward wrongdoing by Delay, I will freely join the chorus of outrage sure to follow. But as of now, I remain unconvinced.

Posted by Philip Klein at 11:12 PM | Comments (0)

Chief Justice John Roberts

I was happy to see Chief Justice John Roberts get confirmed by a wide, 78-22 margin. If this were a different time, the vote probably would have been unanimous. I really enjoyed listening to Roberts during his confirmation hearings. Rhetoric or not, I found his idealistic views on the judiciary and its non-political role refreshing. I look forward to reading his opinions to see what type of chief justice he turns out to be.

Posted by Philip Klein at 11:03 PM | Comments (0)

SCOTUS Quiz

This quiz says my favorite candidate for the Supreme Court is Judge Karen Williams of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. Don't know much about her, though I read that in 1999, Williams ruled that a suspect's confession could be admissible whether or not he was first read his Miranda rights. Anyway, I'm not sure how reliable the quiz is, given that it doesn't ask questions pertaining to judicial philosophy. I've always thought I was more of a Judge Janice Rogers Brown person.

Posted by Philip Klein at 10:28 PM | Comments (0)

The Greatest Candy Bar I'll Never Have

Before I move on to more serious stuff I must report that today I stumbled across a description of the legendary SevenUp bar and it sounds like it was a stroke of confectionary genius. The bar was comprised of seven individual pillows of chocolate, and each section had its own delicious filling. The fillings changed from time to time, but over the course of the bar's run, they included caramel, brazil nut, coconut, jelly, mint cream, nougat, butterscotch, cherry, fudge and buttercream. It was like having an entire box of chocolates in the palm of your hands! Talk about a solution to indecision.

Unfortuantely, according to the book Candy: The Sweet History, the bar went out of production in 1979 because the trademark for the name "SevenUp," which it shared with the soda, expired. Also, it was apparently expensive and labor intensive to make, given that all those fillings had to be injected into each bar.

But it seems as though there's another candy bar out there carrying the torch. Necco's Skybar has the same basic concept as the SevenUp bar, only with four flavors instead of seven. You can order a case of Skybars here. I'm quite tempted, but I've made far too much progress in fighting my sugar addiction over the last two months to become a Skybar junkie. If I ever see them for sale individually, though, I'll definitely treat myself.

So I discussed obesity in my last post and wrote an ode to a candy bar in this one. That's my idea of fair and balanced reporting.

Posted by Philip Klein at 9:37 PM | Comments (0)

September 27, 2005

Obesity, Pollution and Life Expectancy

Radley Balko uses this article about how deaths from breast cancer are declining to declare that:

Somehow, despite the dire headlines about rampant obesity, toxins in the environment, the pollutants in processed food, and the like, we seem to be be getting healthier.

He also points out that, "We also continue to set records for life expectancy, across all demographic groups."

It bugs me when libertarians cite higher life expectancy and improving health conditions to refute people's concerns about issues such as obesity and pollution. I see this argument over and over again. Does it not occur to libertarians that these problems can still be ligitimate, but gains in life expectancy could be occuring in spite of these problems? Medical science has improved drastically over time, so it makes perfect sense that people are living longer now. But it is still perfectly valid to argue that life expectancy could be increasing even more rapidly than it is, were it not for rising obesity and pollution.

On an issue like obesity, I wholeheartedly agree with libertarians when they oppose government attempts to regulate what people eat or lawsuits that attempt to blame obesity on fast food companies. But libertarians often go a step further, getting apoplectic over any attempt to portray obesity as a problem, or any attempt to expose the dangers of fast food. Though I don't agree with everything in it, I think a book such as Fast Food Nation serves a useful purpose because it informs people what's in the food they're eating and it enables them to make informed decisions about what goes into their body. If anything, this is the strongest case imaginable for how a free society can deal with social problems without the need for government interference. But libertarians are quick to dismiss such endevors as alarmism.

I find it ironic that of all things, Balko chooses to point out a study showing that breast cancer rates are declining to illustrate his point about media alarmism. One of the main reasons the American Cancer Society gives for declining breast cancer rates is earlier diagnosis. I would argue that more women have been getting screened for breast cancer precisely because media attention increased awareness of the disease.

Likewise, I think all the media attention on fast food and obesity is a good thing, if it makes people reconsider what they are putting in their bodies.

Posted by Philip Klein at 11:42 PM | Comments (0)

September 21, 2005

Iraq Needs American Troops

So says Iraqi President Jalal Talabani

Posted by Philip Klein at 1:25 AM | Comments (0)

Small Government Giuliani

Political junkies who are speculating about the 2008 presidential election give Rudy Giuliani long odds of capturing the Republican nomination because of his liberal views on abortion and gay rights. Many articles have been written on how he should deal with this potential liability. In a column earlier this year, John Podhoretz suggested that Giuliani simply become pro-life (link unavailable). I think this would be a bad move, because though becoming pro-life may mitigate a potential liability, it would also undermine Giuliani’s greatest political asset: his unwavering conviction. Should Giuliani make an about-face on abortion it would tarnish his image as a strong leader who doesn’t change his views with the wind.

An alternate way for Giuliani to make inroads would be to position himself to the far right on economic issues to court conservatives who are fed up with the runaway spending of the GOP. This would not contradict any prior positions Giuliani held as mayor, where he cut taxes (despite pressure to raise them during a budget crunch) and cut spending as much as he could given the overwhelmingly Democratic city council. He also drastically reduced welfare rolls during his tenure. New York City even ran a surplus at one point when he was mayor.

Social conservatives are often among the most vociferous in their opposition to the way Republicans have abandoned fiscal responsibility. If Giuliani were to unveil a long list of government programs that he would cut, and resurrect the Reaganite rhetoric of small government, it would endear him to many of these conservatives—especially if he combines this with his aura as a no-nonsense leader who gets stuff done. The most ardent social conservatives probably won’t vote for him anyway, but such an approach by Giuliani could at least placate them so they’d oppose him less forcefully. Should he get the nomination, I don’t think running to the right on fiscal issues would hurt him in the general election as much as it might hurt the typical Republican, because Giuliani’s moderate stances on social issues would make it difficult for Democrats to portray him as a complete extremist.

One additional thing to keep in mind is that what happens with the U.S. Supreme Court during the remainder of President Bush’s term could be a factor in 2008. John Paul Stevens is 85. Should he retire in the next few years, that would mean Bush would have gotten three picks. If they all turn out to be reliable conservative votes, social conservatives may become a little more passive in 2008. If, however, (soon to be Chief Justice) Roberts turns out to be too moderate and whoever else Bush nominates turns out to be equally disappointing to social conservatives, the group may be foaming at the mouth come 2008, and more likely to mount a strong opposition to a Giuliani nomination. This is a whole lot of speculation, but that’s what blogs are for.

Posted by Philip Klein at 1:10 AM | Comments (0)

September 20, 2005

North Korean Farce

So it seems that what was hailed as an deal under which North Korea was going to abandon its nuclear weapons programs, really wasn't much of a deal at all, because North Korea already said, "The U.S. should not even dream of asking us to give up the nuclear deterrent we already have before providing a light-water nuclear reactor." The Bush Administration has refused to discuss a light water reactor until North Korea disarms and yet still insists that they will get this deal done.

It seems that in desperation to show progress with North Korea and to appear as though it gave diplomacy a chance, the Bush Administration is signing an agreement that North Korea is no more likely to abide by than the 1994 pact that it secretly violated before formally pulling out of. Furthermore, based on all press accounts I have read, the pact does not make any aid to North Korea contingent upon improvement of the country's atrocious human rights record. Much like the 1994 agreement, the current pact could have the effect of sweeping the North Korean issue under the rug for the time being, while propping up a regime that once made Bush's "axis of evil."

Posted by Philip Klein at 9:08 PM | Comments (0)

September 14, 2005

Smart Weiner

I think it was the smart move by Anthony Weiner to concede the Democratic primary, which should improve his prospects of being elected mayor of New York in 2009. For those of you outside the NY area, the way the Democratic mayoral primary works is that if any candidate fails to get 40 percent of the vote, there is a run-off election between the top two finishers. In the 2001 race for mayor, Fernando Ferrer received the most votes in the initial primary, but then lost a bitter, racially-charged run-off to Mark Green. The primary divided the Democrats for the general election, which helped political novice Michael Bloomberg become mayor. This time around, the chronically unlucky Ferrer received 39.95 percent of the vote in the initial primary. He's right below the threshold with absentee ballots remaining to be counted. But Weiner decided to concede rather than force a run-off which he would probably lose while making many enemies, especially among minority voters. So now Weiner comes off looking like he did the gracious thing to unify the party, which should help the 41 year-old with Democrats four years from now. Ferrer is going to be trounced by the generally popular Mayor Bloomberg in the general election anyway. Ferrer is a completely implausible candidate who, among other idiotic ideas, wants to resurrect a stock transfer tax. Weiner gained momentum in the final weeks of the campaign with a proposal for a middle class tax break and budget cuts. Should Bloomberg go on to win this year as expected, it would mean that Republicans would have won four straight elections in a city where Democrats outnumber Republicans by a five-to-one margin. Even if you take into account that Bloomberg isn't really a Republican, it is still staggering, given that "Republican" is a dirty word in most parts of the city. In fact, never in its history has New York City had 16 straight years of Republican mayors. Once Ferrer loses, it seems that Weiner could make the case that the Democrats need a more reasonable, mainstream, candidate like him to recapture Gracie Mansion. Obviously, a lot can happen in four years (a Bloomberg victory seemed like a long shot even weeks before the election in 2001), but I think I'd give Weiner the early edge in 2009, once Bloomberg is forced out by term limits.

Posted by Philip Klein at 8:17 PM | Comments (0)

September 9, 2005

'They Are All So Wrong'

Mark Helprin has this piece in the Wall Street Journal today that is along the lines of what he has been writing about over the past several years. Namely, that the United States military has not received proper funding, which has forced us to fight the Iraq War on the cheap and leaves us vulnerable to the future threat of a rising China. He concludes:

The war in Iraq has been poorly planned and executed from the beginning, and now, like a hurricane over warm water, the insurgency is in a position to take immense energy from the fundamental divisions in that nation. The rise of Chinese military power, although lately noted, has met with no response. America's borders are open, its cities vulnerable, its civil defense nonexistent, its armies stretched thin. We have taken only deeply inadequate steps to prepare for and forestall a viral pandemic that by the testimony of experts is a high probability and could kill scores of millions in this country alone. That we do not see relatively simple and necessary courses of action, and are not led and inspired to them, represents a catastrophic failure of leadership that bridges party lines.

Perhaps this and previous administrations have had an effective policy just too difficult to comprehend because they have ingeniously sheltered it under the pretense of their incompetence. But failing that, the legacy of this generation's presidents will be promiscuous declarations and alliances, badly defined war aims, opportunities inexplicably forgone, ill-supported troops sent into the field, a country at risk without adequate civil protections, and a military shaped to fight neither the last war nor this one nor the next.

Posted by Philip Klein at 3:22 PM | Comments (0)

September 8, 2005

Correcting Tom Friedman

In his most recent column, Tom Friedman writes:

Mr. Bush got a mandate, almost a blank check, to rule from 9/11 that he never really earned at the polls. Unfortunately, he used that mandate not simply to confront the terrorists but to take a radically uncompassionate conservative agenda - on taxes, stem cells, the environment and foreign treaties - that was going nowhere before 9/11, and drive it into a post-9/11 world.

I guess Friedman decided not to let the facts get in the way of a good story. Whatever you may think of the Bush agenda (on taxes, stem cells, the environment and foreign treaties), the issues had all been addressed prior to 9/11.

Taxes:

Bush signed the first of his major tax cuts on June 7, 2001. His remarks at the signing ceremony can be viewed here.

Stem Cells:

The debate was and has been about whether to expand federal funding for stem cell research. Bush said he would support expanding it on a limited basis, but that was in August of 2001. His position did not change after 9/11, and he effectively shelved the stem cell debate until earlier this year.

The Environment and Foreign Treaties:

I can only assume that by this Friedman means Bush's rejection of the Kyoto Treaty. But that happened in March of 2001.

Furthermore, after 9/11, Bush used his mandate to get the bipartisan No Child Left Behind through Congress, with the support of none other than Sen. Ted Kennedy. The bill was passed in Congress in December 2001 and Bush signed it in January of 2002. And in December of 2003, Bush signed the multi-trillion dollar Medicare prescription drug plan. I happen to have opposed these bills, but even Friedman would be hard pressed to argue that they represent a "a radically uncompassionate conservative agenda."

Posted by Philip Klein at 12:18 AM | Comments (0)

September 6, 2005

Why America Needs Giuliani

My latest article on Rudy Giuliani and Hurricane Katrina is up on Tech Central Station and can be read here.

My conclusion:

Given the events of the early part of this decade, there is a strong likelihood that whoever succeeds President Bush will face at least one national crisis. Handicappers of the 2008 election have been debating whether conservatives would ever allow the Republican Party to nominate Giuliani as their presidential candidate, because he holds liberal views on abortion and gay rights.

But in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, even the most ardent social conservatives should examine whether in the hierarchy of issues it is more important to choose a leader who would best be able to respond to an event such as a biological attack, which would require split-second decision making to save lives. There is simply no politician in the nation who has proven to be a better leader in times of crisis than Giuliani. That's why America needs him.

Posted by Philip Klein at 10:56 PM | Comments (1)

September 1, 2005

The Most Sickening Thing I've Read...

There's a lot of nonsense coming out of the far left in the wake of Katrina, and they'll be more to come. The worst that I've seen comes from The Brad Blog who contemplated starting a crusade to discourage blue staters from giving to hurricane victims because they were in red states. You can read the whole tirade here, but this is the gist:

So why was I thinking of starting a movement against giving aid to the stricken areas?

Because these are red states. They voted for Bush. These ninnies obviously wanted these policies, and they deserve to live with the consequences of their votes.

A large part of me still believes that many of these W-worshipping numbskulls deserve to suffer and to die. They brought it on themselves. Let them look to Jayzuss for aid: It's time they stopped leeching off the more productive blue staters.

(Californians stupidly give much more to the federal government than we receive from it; the money flows in a very different direction in the red states.)

So, at least, I started to write. But then (to paraphrase the old song) I thought I'd better think it out again.

Many of the victims, the ones who have suffered the most, are poor. The hardest hit were the blue state folk living among the red state maniacs. New Orleans, we should note, went heavily for Kerry.

And that's why we must help. Although it was very tempting to say otherwise.

I'm not going to waste my time refuting this absurdity point by point, but it is amazing to me that there are people out there who allow their hatred of Bush to become more powerful than any other emotion or impulse they may have. Liberals are supposed to be the compassionate ones, and yet this Brad fellow has to consider the red-state/blue-state divide in deciding whether it's appropriate to give aid to people whose lives have been shattered and are still at risk.

Posted by Philip Klein at 7:57 PM | Comments (0)