« December 2005 | Main | February 2006 »
January 31, 2006
SOTU 2006
Well, another State of the Union speech is in the books. The speech was, on the whole, unremarkable, with a few exceptions. Given the President's weakened political status these days, hitting a rhetorical home run that would resurrect his sagging approval numbers was probably not realistic. We suspect this speech won't change public opinion much one way or the other.
While the speech was billed as heavy on domestic initiatives, the reality was much different. Indeed, the meatiest and most forceful sections of the speech were focused on the war against terrorism and the ongoing conflict in Iraq. Mr. Bush's remarks only confirmed the GOP's midterm election strategy to press national security as the its central issue -- a strategy outlined by White House political guru Karl Rove in a speech last week to the RNC.
Mr. Bush vigorously defended his Iraq policy, and more interestingly, the domestic wiretapping that has recently come under fire. Recent polls show that the American public is, at best, split on supporting such wiretapping. The President asserted that use of these taps is justified to keep us from being hit again by Al Qaeda or other terrorists. This will be an interesting political sell for the President in the coming weeks.
The speech was surprisingly light on domestic policy, making only passing references to health care, the economy and immigration. He proposed appointing a commission to study entitlement programs -- Beltway translation: we're not doing anything about this. Even his much hyped statement about America's "addiction" to oil resulted in recycling a few old ideas (hydrogen cars, ethanol, etc) that have gone nowhere so far.
The President's delivery was relatively smooth, if uninspiring. Orations, it is clear to most Americans, are not his strength. But he certainly wasn't bad. The audience in the chamber was frigidly divided along party lines; not surprising in the current political climate.
In short, the speech was, again, unremarkable. Not what the doctor ordered for a president with the political flu.
Oh, and did anyone notice the conspicuous absence tonight of a certain Sugar Land Congressman? Particularly during Mr. Bush's two sentences devoted to ethics reform, we expected a shot of the smiling former Majority Leader. Wonder if the White House gently asked him to watch from home?
Posted by houtopia at 10:14 PM
The Real State of the Union
Just hours from the President's annual address to the nation, former NATO Supreme Allied Commander and 2004 presidential candidate General Wesley Clark has penned his take on the State of the Union -- a speech delivered yesterday to the New America Foundation.
In contrast to the rose-colored cheerleading and platitudes we are likely to hear tonight, General Clark takes a sober, "reality-based" look at where we are as country. Like most of us not sipping right-wing Kool Aid, Clark is very concerned about where we are headed.
We will have more on the big speech later tonight, but Clark's take strikes us as right on.
Posted by houtopia at 04:24 PM
January 27, 2006
Bigger In Texas
Everything's bigger in Texas, and bigger is better, right? Not so fast.
In today's Chronicle, Polly Ross Hughes looks at a new study on income disparity from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. The top line conclusion: "no state has a wider gap between its richest and middle-income families than Texas", and Texas ranks second only to New York in income disparity between its richest and poorest. Dubious distinctions, to say the least.
One statistic that really jumps out -- from 2001 to 2003, the average annual income of the top 20% of Texas families (about $119,000) was almost three times that of the middle 20% (about $41,000), and eight times that of the poorest 20% (about $15,000). Wow. The study shows growing inequality nationwide, but the trends are more pronounced in Texas.
Hughes goes on that "the study attributes growing income inequality over the past two decades to globalization, long periods of unemployment, the loss of well-paid manufacturing jobs, weaker labor unions, the rise of lower-paid service jobs and a national minimum wage that hasn't risen in eight years."
One dot that is not connected here is the role of education. Texas happens to have the largest number of high school dropouts and the largest number of residents without high school diplomas in the country. Most research shows a pretty strong correlation between education level and economic success. With a large portion of the population uneducated, it stands to reason their economic prosperity will be limited.
If Texas needed any further documentation of the importance of investing in public education to the future economic success of the state, this study is it. Building a quality public education system will cost more money, but it is the key to sustaining (or rebuilding) a large, vibrant middle class.
Globalization, like it or not, is here to stay. It is simply too expensive to manufacture most things in the United States. Hence, many of those high-paying jobs of the past that didn't require so much formal education are gone forever. For Texas (and America as a whole) to be competitive in the global economy of today and tomorrow, we must have a skilled workforce. We don't have it now, and we are only beginning to feel the consequences.
Posted by houtopia at 09:10 AM
January 23, 2006
Svengali Speaks
In Saturday's Washington Post, Dan Balz covered a rare occurrence these days -- a public appearance by White House Deputy Chief of Staff and George W. Bush political guru Karl Rove.
Readers may recall that Mr. Rove has been a bit "underwater" of late, dealing with an ongoing investigation by special prosecutor Fitzgerald into his possible involvement in the Valerie Plame/CIA leak case, in addition to continuing to fulfill his regular White House duties. Mr. Rove has (wisely in our judgment) kept a low public profile in recent months, as his attorneys seek to absolve him of any wrongdoing in the Plame matter. Mr. Fitzgerald has not yet decided whether or not to indict Mr. Rove.
Mr. Rove surfaced last Friday to address the winter meeting of the Republican National Committee, and offered some very interesting comments in making clear he is still very much the mastermind of Republican national strategy. Legal trouble or no, Karl Rove remains a powerful force in American politics.
Mr. Rove highlighted the basic GOP strategy for success in this fall's midterm election -- continuing to press the issues of national security and the war against terrorism to Republican advantage. Democrats dismiss this strategy at their peril.
Despite predictions of GOP slippage in the last two election cycles, Mr. Rove has beaten the odds and expanded Republican advantages in Congress, not to mention getting a president reelected. An effective weapon against Democrats in both cycles was painting them as soft on terrorism and national security. True or not, the tactics yielded results.
To be sure, 2006 is not 2002 or 2004. The American public has grown increasingly weary of, and impatient with the situation in Iraq. Nearly four and a half years have passed since the tragedy of 9/11 -- memories and a sense of urgency fade, it's human nature. But Democrats should be very careful.
It is simply not enough, for example, to condemn illegal wiretapping and spying against American citizens, though such condemnation is appropriate. Democrats must offer solutions to better monitor suspected terrorists on U.S. soil (perhaps by strengthening and streamlining the FISA court's authority), as well as protecting our civil liberties.
Corruption is surely an effective issue for Democrats to run on in 2006, but should be one of many. If Mr. Rove and his team are able to once again put Democrats on their heels on national security and terrorism issues, they are in trouble. Sorry folks, your average person will take a corrupt Congressman if they don't trust the other guy to protect them from Al Qaeda.
Again, Karl Rove certainly has his troubles -- legal, historical (2nd term presidents usually do poorly in the midterm election), and with the overall mood of the electorate. (Witness the shocking result in last week's special election for Texas State House District 48 in Travis County.) But misunderestimate him at your peril.
Posted by houtopia at 05:56 PM
January 22, 2006
On A Certain Poll
This is Keir Murray writing.
I have watched with interest vitriolic response from Congressman Tom DeLay's campaign and his supporters to the Houston Chronicle's recent poll of the 22nd Congressional District. I want to take a moment to clarify a few things.
In today's edition, James Campbell (I think) pretty effectively defends the poll's findings against charges of shoddy methodology or bias.
In the piece, Campbell admits the Chronicle should have disclosed my involvement in Mr. DeLay's opponent's campaign -- I agree. The operative word should be "worked" rather than "works" for the Lampson campaign -- I helped Lampson from May to July 2005 until he was able to hire a campaign manager, and was paid a lump sum for those three months of help (a separate $1,000 payment was strictly reimbursement for buying campaign cell phones, Blackberry, etc.) -- but the overall point is taken.
The idea, however, that any involvement of mine in the Lampson campaign somehow biases the recent poll is simply nonsense. Richard Murray (full disclosure: he's my dad) has been polling in Houston for 30 years. Whatever his own political views, he's been getting it right for a long time, and has built respect for his work from across the political spectrum.
The only two pollsters I've seen criticizing the recent poll are Chris Wilson and Dr. David Hill both of whom are respected partisan Republican pollsters -- since so much has been made about full disclosure in all this, let's disclose fully, shall we? Their criticisms are debatable, but focus in on a couple of very specific details, rather than the overall methodology of the poll. (Note: All polls are open to interpretation and reasonable criticism, and I don't dismiss Mssrs. Wilson and Hill's ability to objectively analyze the results simply because they are partisan, just as I believe two Democrats in this case have produced a valid, legitimate survey.)
But step back and take a deep breath folks, and look at the basics here. Since the Chronicle has made its internal numbers open and available to all, (hardly commonplace -- for example, we are never privy to internal numbers for the Scripps Texas Poll, we must accept its numbers on faith), we can see what's what.
Look at who was polled:
42% of those surveyed identified themselves as Republicans, 27% as Democrats and 23% as Independents; certainly not too many Democrats polled.
The sample was 74% Anglo, 8% African American, 8% Hispanic, 10% Asian/Other; certainly not too many minorities polled.
13% of those surveyed identify themselves as Liberals, 36% as Moderates, and 43% as Conservatives; hardly too many Liberals.
The recalled vote of those sampled in the 2004 22nd Congressional district race was 52% for DeLay, 39% for Morrison; 9% Other; the actual vote ratio was 55% for DeLay, 41% for Morrison; 4% Other; spot on, folks.
But the kicker for me is, if this is a sample so biased against Tom DeLay, then why does President Bush garner a solid 55% approval rating from those surveyed? The President received 63% of the 22nd District's vote in 2004, and his modest erosion of support here absolutely tracks with what's happened in all the national polls.
Now, with regard to the 215 or so certain or likely Republican primary voters asked about who they will support in the upcoming GOP primary, much has been made about the large margin of error due to a small sample size. Only about 40% of this group said they plan to vote for Tom DeLay on March 7th. So, with say, an 8% MOE, his support number could be as high as 48% or as low as 32%. Wherever the number within that range, this is an incumbent Congressman with 100% name ID, who has earned 80% of the vote in recent primaries. Margin of error or not, there is huge erosion here, no matter how you slice it. I suspect Tom DeLay will win his primary without a runoff, but not by much, and that, in and of itself is a big deal.
Putting on my political operative hat, I fully understand why the DeLay folks have yelped so loudly over this poll -- politically, what choice do they have? The numbers are simply devastating, and their only option is to try and discredit the results. Were I in their shoes, I would likely do the same. In such a situation, from a political standpoint, the facts are not nearly so important as perception. So, the campaign generates as much smoke as they can to cloud the results, which hopefully keeps the fundraising dollars coming in, and keeps supporters from jumping ship. That's all you can do.
As for the facts, only time will tell.
Posted by houtopia at 10:51 AM
January 20, 2006
Jack And The Boss
Josh Marshall catches another good one today from the Washingtonian.
In the wake of former super-lobbyist Jack Abramoff's downfall, the White House has steadfastly maintained that Jack had no connections to the Oval Office. In fact, presidential spokesman Scott McClellan has insisted that "the President does not know him, nor does the President recall ever meeting him."
Well... Washingtonian's Kim Eisler is reporting that the magazine has seen five photographs of the President with Abramoff or his family, and that the photos are in safe keeping for prosecutors. Also recall that Abramoff was a Bush Pioneer in 2004, meaning he raised over $100,000 for the President's reelection campaign. And he's never met him?? Come on...
Again per the Washingtonian, for his part Jack is apparently prepared to testify that "not only did he know the President, but that the President knew the names of his children and asked about them during their meetings."
Whoops! Sounds like somebody in the Bush administration may not be telling the truth. We are shocked, shocked.
Posted by houtopia at 02:33 PM
Kos Unplugged
In the latest issue of Washington Monthly, Benjamin Wallace-Wells pens a very interesting profile of the country's (and world's) preeminent political blogger, Markos Moulitsas Zuniga, or "Kos" as he is known in the online world.
The piece, which is far from uncritical of its subject, effectively captures Kos's very large and growing influence in progressive politics, along with the opportunities and challenges that influence presents.
It's a good read. Check it out.
Posted by houtopia at 09:51 AM
January 19, 2006
Mighty Big Of Him
Remember Michael Brown? He, the unfortunate mediocrity who just happened to be head of FEMA when Hurricane Katrina, this nation's worst ever national disaster, struck in late summer. Michael Brown, who was so (in)famously told "you're doing a heck of a job, Brownie" by a reeling President Bush, only to resign under immense pressure a few days later. The same Michael Brown who then proceeded to blame others (all Democrats, conveniently) for his own gross incompetence.
Well, it seems Brownie has discovered self-reflection and even a bit of humility -- two traits, incidentally, his former boss could stand to acquire.
In a speech to a gathering of broadcast and National Weather Service meteorologists at a resort in the Sierra Nevada mountains (we'll get to that), Brownie admitted that "we all made mistakes" and that he "should have demanded the military sooner". Big stuff from the man who's meteoric bureaucratic rise from the Arabian Horse Association to heading our country's national disaster response agency was so abruptly ended just a few months ago.
Why, you may ask was Brownie addressing such a group? It seems Mr. Brown was in fact the keynote speaker at the Operation Sierra Storm 2006 Conference. After leaving FEMA he decided to start his own disaster preparedness consulting firm. While you pick your jaw up off the floor, realize that the man apparently has actual clients.
Wonder if you would hire someone like that to document what not to do during a disaster? We can be sure that at least he is counseling clients to have properly pressed dress shirts at all times (as he always had), and of the importance of taking full meal breaks in the heat of the crisis. How much would you pay to have Brownie enlighten you?
When asked if he felt he had been railroaded out of his post at FEMA, Brownie poignantly replied, "I'm moving on." Wow. Forget disaster preparedness, Oprah, this is the next Dr. Phil! You're doing a heckuva job, Brownie.
Hat tip to Josh Marshall on this one.
Posted by houtopia at 07:44 PM
January 18, 2006
A Disaster In The Making
On January 1st, the much heralded (or pilloried) Medicare prescription drug benefit went into effect -- a big deal for millions of American seniors. Remember this one? It's the $400 billion drug company bonanza that was shoved through the Congress by GOP leadership over two years ago.
Guess what? There are big problems. Apparently, many low-income beneficiaries are being overcharged, or even turned away when their enrollment cannot be confirmed. In some 20 states, state government has had to step in and pay drug claims supposed to be covered by the feds.
In California, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger stated that the new federal drug program is operating with an error rate of 20% -- high, even by government standards. His state has already had to pay some 34,000 claims the feds failed to cover.
The private insurance companies, who actually administer the new benefit for the federal government, say they're open to reimbursing state governments for the payouts they have had to make, but foresee disputes because states apparently cover more than the insurers would.
More bloated, government incompetence, ladies and gentlemen, brought to you by today's Republican Party. These guys have dramatically increased the size of government (can you say Homeland Security?), run up historic deficits, and just aren't getting the job done.
Once again, Democrats are presented with a real political opportunity. Seniors tend to notice when they can't get their medicines, or if the out of pocket costs skyrocket; oh, and they vote. Competence should be a major theme for Democrats in this fall's midterm election. Will they seize the day?
Posted by houtopia at 12:57 PM
January 11, 2006
Reality Check
Today the Pew Research Center released the findings of its latest national poll, and there are some very interesting results.
Perhaps most interesting is that most of the issues dominating political shouting head shows and the "insider" crowd are not being followed closely at all by the American public. Fewer than 20% of respondents said they've closely followed the Abramoff scandal (18%) or the Alito nomination (14%), and only a third (32%) have closely watched the controversy over President Bush's unauthorized wiretapping of Americans.
Equally interesting is that, despite media reports a few weeks back of Mr. Bush's recovery in the realm of public opinion, Pew's Bush approval ratings remain unchanged from December -- 38% approve/54% disapprove in both month's polls. Now beginning his sixth year in office, which is historically the last effective one for American presidents, Mr. Bush is limping in. What's that strange quacking sound we hear?
Perhaps unsurprisingly, the 1,500 Americans surveyed were far more interested in the recent West Virginia mine tragedy than doings in Washington, with nearly half those surveyed (47%) having followed it very closely. 40% of respondents said they are following Iraq closely, which may explain President Bush's continued political slump.
Also in the poll is Americans' belief (81%) that lobbyists bribing Members of Congress is common behavior, which suggests that the GOP's defense of "everybody does it" has been at least somewhat effective, and that this issue may bear limited fruit for Democrats on the campaign trail this year. Note to Dem candidates: it can't just be about ethics, it's everything, stupid.
Good news for Democrats is that, while the public views both parties rather dimly these days -- Congressional Ds at 34% approval and Rs at 33% -- respondents said by a large margin (41% to 27%) that Democrats can do a better job of handling the nation's top problem, a major change from a year ago.
The poll shows a big public disconnect on the government snooping issue. While those surveyed are overwhelmingly opposed to government monitoring of their own phone, email and credit card records, folks are evenly split on whether such surveillance of suspected terrorists should be allowed. Sadly, also not a surprising finding.
The poll contains some excellent information and is well worth perusing.
Posted by houtopia at 07:38 PM
January 10, 2006
How the Mighty Fall
Today's New York Times glimpses the now disgraced, and newly convicted former Washington mover and shaker Jack Abramoff. Apparently, Mr. Abramoff has now figured out who his real friends are, and there aren't many to be counted.
Despite Jack's public contrition and remorse at his recent plea hearing, today's article intimates that he's told people privately his outrageous conduct was nothing more than business as usual in Washington. What is frightening is he may be right. Apparently Abramoff still feverishly churns out messages from his Blackberry, suggesting he may not have learned as much as he should from his recent ordeal.
But beyond the damage Abramoff has done to himself, his real impact on Washington is yet to be felt. He has been talking to the Justice Department for 18 months now, and may have implicated as many as a dozen Republican Congressmen. Few know for sure what he has said or is saying, but the Beltway is frozen with anticipation or dread, depending on one's point of view.
For a certain troubled local Congressman, Abramoff's turning state's evidence cannot be good news. Mr. DeLay has now relinquished any future claim to his former post as Majority Leader, and his GOP caucus appears to be moving on. But what has DeLay's former "dear friend" told the feds? Unofficial word on the DC street is that DeLay has been told he is now a target of the Public Integrity Unit. Politically, the hits just keep on coming, not to mention the very expensive proposition of hiring a second team of defense lawyers.
The other question is to what extent Abramoff will implicate members of the Bush administration. It is difficult to imagine someone of Abramoff's reach and influence simply ignoring that behemoth, the executive branch. Indeed, a former administration chief procurement officer has already gone down because of Trader Jack.
Abramoff's appearance at court last week (fedora and trech coat) suggested a mobster who has flipped against the family, in this case the Republican Party. Sing Jack, sing! It will be an interesting year.
Posted by houtopia at 03:14 PM
January 05, 2006
Draft Vince Young
Basking in the glow of the University of Texas' incredible national championship victory last night, rampant speculation has begun regarding the future of Vincent Young, UT's phenom-quarterback, a Houstonian and Madison High School graduate, who was head and shoulders the best player on the field last night.
Young, who prior to last night's victory insisted he would return to Austin for his senior season, fueled the speculation by waffling a bit on the go-pro question during postgame interviews, saying he will sit down with his family and coaches before making a decision by January 15th.
Like many Texas alumns, Houtopia selfishly hopes Mr. Young will stay in Austin for his senior year. He would be the clear leader in the Heisman Trophy race (an award everyone outside of Texas is now realizing Young should have won this year), and the team would certainly be a strong favorite to repeat as national champions.
However, should Vince Young decide to enter the NFL draft, we would understand. If he does, the Houston Texans must select him with the number one pick.
Due respect to USC star and Heisman winner Reggie Bush, Young is simply better. And due respect to David Carr, who can still become a success in the NFL, if Young is available, it's time to go in a new direction.
Vince Young was simply amazing last night, and if he's in the NFL draft, the Texans just can't afford to pass him up.
Posted by houtopia at 02:35 PM
January 03, 2006
Abramoff Rolls
There was big, but not unexpected news out of Washington today -- fallen super-lobbyist Jack Abramoff cut a deal.
Under immense pressure once Michael Scanlon, his former business partner and Tom DeLay's former staffer, turned state's evidence, Abramoff today agreed to serve up to 10 years in prison in exchange for information which will likely spell doom for a number of Washington lawmakers, staffers and lobbyists.
One Member of Congress clearly in the Justice Department's crosshairs is Ohio Republican Bob Ney, referred to as "Representative 1" in case documents. Though Ney denies any wrongdoing, even these preliminary documents suggest he's finished.
Of great interest, and as of yet unclear, is what information Abramoff may provide about the former House Majority Leader, his former close friend Tom DeLay. A lengthy article in last weekend's Washington Post detailed the use of a phony advocacy group -- U.S. Family Network -- to funnel millions of corporate dollars, including from Russian oil and gas companies, to DeLay and other GOP lawmakers. Ouch.
Abramoff, who once brazenly boasted of his large influence and touted the morality of his cause, today was surprisingly contrite and remorseful, telling the judge of "tremendous sadness and regret for my conduct." The reality of lengthy prison does funny things to people, doesn't it?
Abramoff and Scanlon may prove a two-man wrecking crew in the nation's capitol. We do not yet know what they know, but Washington has been on collective pins and needles for months in anticipation (and fear) of what they might reveal.
The story simultaneously gets better and better, and worse and worse.
UPDATE: Wonkette provides the juicy scoop on how Scanlon, Abramoff, et al, took the fall.
Posted by houtopia at 06:01 PM