A piece of paper.

UPDATED 24-July-06
Yesterday, at Capitol Hill Blue, Doug Thomas cleansed his journalistic soul by confessing every reporting sin he has ever committed in this post: "In the end, all we have is the truth". While admitting he has posted and pulled a few incorrect stories, he stood by this one:

"Some of our more controversial stories have yet to be proven or disproved. Sources told us last year that President Bush referred to the Constitution as a "goddamned piece of paper." No other publication has confirmed the story but our sources remain firm on it and neither the White House nor members of Congress present at the meeting have denied the story. They simply refuse comment. It remains in our database because we believe the story is true."

The story he references is this Dec 9, 2005 post- Bush: Constitution 'just a goddamn piece of paper'

"Last month, Republican Congressional leaders filed into the Oval Office to meet with President George W. Bush and talk about renewing the controversial USA Patriot Act... GOP leaders told Bush that his hardcore push to renew the more onerous provisions of the act could further alienate conservatives still mad at the President from his botched attempt to nominate White House Counsel Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court.

"I don't give a goddamn," Bush retorted. "I'm the President and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way."

"Mr. President," one aide in the meeting said. "There is a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution."

"Stop throwing the Constitution in my face," Bush screamed back. "It's just a goddamned piece of paper!"

Whether Bush actually said this, I cannot say.

[UPDATE]: 7/24/06 & Fixed Link 01/10/07
Recently, due primarily to the work of Eric at Classical Values, Doug Thompson and CHB has been completely discredited. The "piece of paper" story (on which the intro to this post was based) has subsequently been pulled from the CHB site, and "Doug Thompson" has "retired". Eric's series of posts on Doug and CHB are entertaining and informative. I'll summarize with this link from his most recent post on the subject, but encourage you to read it yourself :

"I'm getting a bit tired of Capitol Hill Blue. It's an unreliable web site which I'd never read before July 16, and I think it's staffed by sock puppets... is it possible that reasonable people might be able to agree that regardless of who or what it is, or how, or why it originated, Capitol Hill Blue has been so thoroughly discredited, that it should not be relied on by anyone, anywhere, ever again?"

Well Eric, I read him for the first time around June 20th, and I got suckered. I used his story in this post because I wanted an attention grabbing introduction to the well documented "Power Surge" article from the Cato Institue linked below. This article represents the real meat and basis for this post. Rather than simply edit or delete this post (as CHB has done), I have decided to leave the original post intact, as a cautionary reminder to myself and other readers. The Thompson quotes above were accurate at the time this was first posted. Subsequently, the first cited article has been changed, and the second has disappeared. In my own defense, I did not represent that the story was true, but stated it was consistent with other actions and pronouncements from the admistration, and also stated that whether he actually said it, was not as important as what the administration does. But - it is what it is. You lie down with dogs, you wake up with fleas. So, I serve notice that everything above this paragraph in this post has fleas. Everything below is clean. - mw

The story is not inconsistent with the (politically corrected and filtered) views of this administration. If you are willing to read between the lines, you can see that former press secretary Ari Flescher said much the same thing in a press briefing shortly after the 9/11 attack (but in a much more politically correct and publicly palatable way).

"The way our nation is set up, and the way the Constitution is written, wartime powers rest fundamentally in the hands of the executive branch,' White House press secretary Ari Fleischer said. 'It's not uncommon in time of war for a nation's eyes to focus on the executive branch and its ability to conduct the war with strength and speed.'..."Every administration resets the balance with Congress as times change..."

Ultimately, what the President did or did not say, is not as important as what the administration actually did. This next excellent article details the abuse of power and the continuing erosion of our Constitutional limitations on executive power during the Bush administration. It was written by Gene Healy (author of "Arrogance of Power Reborn: The Imperial Presidency and Foreign Policy in the Clinton Years") and Timothy Lynch (author of "Dereliction of Duty: The Constitutional Record of President Clinton), both editors at the Cato Institute:

"Power Surge: The Constitutional Record of George W Bush'"
"Unfortunately, far from defending the Constitution, President Bush has repeatedly sought to strip out the limits the document places on federal power. In its official legal briefs and public actions, the Bush administration has advanced a view of federal power that is astonishingly broad, a view that includes:

• a federal government empowered to regulate core political speech, and restrict it greatly when it counts the most: in the days before a federal election;
• a president who cannot be restrained, through validly enacted statutes, from pursuing any tactic he believes to be effective in the war on terror;
• a president who has the inherent constitutional authority to designate American citizens suspected of terrorist activity as "enemy combatants," strip them of any constitutional protection, and lock them up without charges for the duration of the war on terror, in other words, perhaps forever; and
• a federal government with the power to supervise virtually every aspect of American life, from kindergarten, to marriage, to the grave.

President Bush's constitutional vision is, in short, sharply at odds with the text, history, and structure of our Constitution, which authorizes a government of limited powers."

George W Bush believes that his post 9/11 role, as a wartime president, is to defend the country as he sees fit, regardless of legal or constitutional constraints. This is not without historical precedent. It is the rule, not the exception, that wartime presidents have a history of broadly stretching the power and reach of the executive branch. Examples include Lincoln suspending habeas corpus, FDR building detainment camps and relocating Japanese Americans, Truman bypassing Congress and the U.N. with the fictional legalistic construct of a "police action" to fight a war in Korea, and now Bush claiming the power to suspend any American's Constitutional protections if he unilaterally decides they are an "enemy combatant". In the past these presidential abuses have ultimately been rolled back over time, by Congress or the judiciary as the perceived or real crisis abated.

But there is a difference now. We are told that we are embroiled in a "forever" war against terrorism that could last decades. Now what? How many Presidents will wield these ever expanding powers?

Is this what it comes to? Have we finally become so fat and complacent that we are ready to give up our constitutional limitations on government power out of our fear of terrorism? Have we really come to this? Does fear finally trump liberty for today's Americans? Is this the generation that will finally fail to preserve the Constitution for the next generation?

We face a fundamental question about what America is to be, and how we are to be governed.

Our Constitution calls for checks and balances on power between the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government. The legislative branch has abrogated their Constitutional war-making responsibilities by handing the executive branch a blank check on Iraq and the "war on terror". The President has declared provenance over the judicial branch for Americans that he alone can label an "enemy combatant".

What are the prospects for change? We now have a majority of the Supreme Court appointed by Republicans, a Republican majority in the Senate, a Republican majority in the House, and a Republican Executive administration that weilds the reigns of the government based on criteria of personal loyalty, while freely using the whip of partisan fealty, and does not distinguish between political opposition and "aiding the enemy".

The checks and balances on government power as envisioned by the founding fathers of this country are broken.

Regardless of your political party, whether Republican, Democrat, Independent, or 3rd party -

Regardless of your political philosophy, whether Liberal, Conservative, or Libertarian -

Regardless of what you personally think about George W Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld or our pork-barrel pandering Congress -

Regardless of whether you are pessimistic, optimistic, or cynical about the war and our leaders -

If you would like the Constitution to remain something more than "a piece of paper", the time has come for Americans to impose some semblance of check and balance on the federal government by ending the dangerous single party control that we have today.

The time to do this is now in 2006, and not to wait for 2008.

This is not about Republicans vs. Democrats. This is not about whether your incumbent Congressman or Congresswoman is the better candidate than their challenger. This is about creating greater partisan balance in Washington in order to restore Constitutional constraints on government power now, before it is too late.

Ann Coulter Validates Divided Government Voting Strategy!

"The 'Clinton economy' ... only became something to brag about some time after the Republican takeover of Congress in 1994..." - Ann Coulter - "Godless" - Chapter 1 Page 47


Exactly. Thank you Ann, for that strong endorsement of the virtues of Divided Federal Government - where the Executive and Legislative Branches are split between the parties. Clearly, we both now recognize the damage that single party control of the government can do to our liberty and economy, whether it is the Democratic single party dominance of the LBJ administration, the first two years of the Clinton administration, or the worst of all time, the last five plus years of Republican control during the Bush administration. I am sure we can now count on your support to help reign in the continuing wild out-of-control spending, fiscal irresponsibility and rapidly expanding government growth and power by supporting the DWSUWF 2006 Voting strategy and electing Democrats into control of congress.

Thanks again, babe.



Technorati tags: divided government, Bill Clinton,Godless, Republican, Ann Coulter.

Ann "hominem" Coulter - Some Godless notes.

UPDATED: 06/28/07 Onthe occasion of Godless paperback publication.

Ad hominem -

"An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin, literally "argument against the person") or attacking the messenger, involves replying to an argument or assertion by attacking the person presenting the argument or assertion rather than the argument itself. It is usually, though not always, a logical fallacy..." - from Wikipedia

I paid full retail at the airport (you are welcome, Ann). Started reading on the four hour flight back, and finished it in the afternoon at home between naps. I started on the plane while simultaneously listening to the new album by the Dixie Chicks. Bad idea. Almost immediately my nose started to bleed from the contextual conflict and I ripped off the headset. "Focus! Focus!" I thought to myself "One screed at a time." The Dixie Chicks will have to wait.

I enjoyed my first Coulter read much more than I expected, although I would not actually describe "Godless" as a conventional book. It is a collection of essays, with a thin thematic coat of "Church of Liberalism" metaphorically painted across the surface to create the impression of a single coherent theme. The theme does not work. The essays stand on their own, but the attention grabbing title (Godless - The Church of Liberalism) does not come together as a theme, as the case supporting the title is never made. In the first chapter she makes an effort to build the foundation, and her conclusion is explicitly stated at the end of the chapter: "Liberals can believe what they want to believe, but let us not flinch from identifying liberalism as the opposition party to God." Problem being, her only support for the conclusion is a hodge-podge of interesting but disconnected anecdotal anti-liberal diatribes. She then leaps the logical canyon in a single breathtaking bound to this grand but unsupported conclusion. After that chapter, she does not even really try to get back to the theme except as catchy subtitles for the remaining chapters.

Remaining chapters (essays) are on the topics of: Liberal failure to deal with Crime (Chapter 2); Willie Horton and the 1988 Presidential Campaign (Chapter 3); Abortion (Chapter 4); Liberals using victims as spokespersons to deflect debate (Chapter 5); The Failure of Public School Teachers and Education (Chapter 6); Liberals using Science as a Political Football (chapter 7); and an extensive "debunking" of the Darwinian theory of evolution (chapters 8-11).

To be fair, Anne Coulter is not writing a doctoral thesis here. "Godless" is simply a well executed bit of political propaganda, and I mean that in a good way. Coulter has an agenda, she writes in the service of that agenda to entertain and sway opinion to her objective. In that regard, she is one of the top tier of propagandists working in the in political cotton field that is an election year, harvesting the hearts and minds of the American electorate.

She joins her fellow high profile propagandists, Michael Moore, Rush Limbaugh, Al Franken, and "Baghdad Bob"(Remember him? Saddam's Information Minister cracking wise with Arab reporters "Americans? What Americans? There are no Americans here." as the Baghdad airport was being overrun by coalition forces on TV.)

All are/were highly effective entertainer/propagandists that play primarily to their base of supporters/audience, working in different media but always in the service of their propaganda agenda.

A primary tool of all propagandists, is the use of facts - documented, provable carefully groomed and selected facts - to create an impression of overwhelming evidence in support of one's point. Operative word is "selected". It is also useful to ignore inconvenient facts that contradict the agenda. As an example, If I wanted to make the case that Ann Coulter's primary propaganda weapon of choice is the logical fallacy of "Ad Hominem" attack, I would support that agenda by first coming up with a clever title for the blog post, then barrage the reader with a long list of actual quotes from her book where she employs the "Ad Hominem" attack.

It would look something like this:

Chapter 1: Liberals Schemed

• "Ugly feminists... impotently rail against "sexist men" and "sexual harassment" while simultaneously promoting the view that sex has no sacred purpose." page 9
• "Like most people who enjoy talking to strangers about sex, Miss Landophi, to put it as charitably as possible, is physically repulsive in appearance." - page 13
• "... Professors are the most cosseted, pussified, subsidized group of people in the U.S. workforce. - page 14
• "The stupidest of their students become journalists..." - page 15

Chapter 2: The Perp

• "I think Justice Goldberg had a few screws loose." - page 30

Chapter 3: Willie Horton

• "The Greek midget vetoed it. " [referring to Michael Dukakis] page 64
• "This shows what idiots liberals like Michael Dukakis are like." - page 71
• "In the history of nation, there has never been a political party so ridiculous as today's Democrats. It's as if all the brain-damaged people in America got together and formed a voting block." Page 84
• "Dean, being a raving lunatic, said "No doctor is going to do an abortion on a live fetus..."" - Page 87
• "Maybe there's a better committee for Senator Drunkennedy to sit on ..." page 90
• "...Unlike Durbin, Kennedy, and Schumer, she's not a hack, she never drowned anyone, and the Anti-Defamation League isn't trying to put her in a lockbox. " Page 91
• "... in Senator Drunkennedy's famous phrase." - page 94
• "The day before Kerry won the Democrat's Best Fake Patriot contest in Iowa..." - page 97

Chapter 5 "Sobbing Hysterical Women"

• "... all Democratic spokesmen these days are sobbing, hysterical women." - Page 101
• "One wonders how exposing anything about Cindy could discredit her more than the poor imbecile's own words have. - page 102
• "...Cindy Sheehan, with that weird disconnect between the viciousness of her comments and her itsy-bitsy, squeaky voice." - page 103
• "These self-obsessed women seemed genuinely unaware that 9/11 was an attack on our nation ..." page 103
• "These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by grief-arrazzis, I've never seen people enjoying their husbands death so much. The increasingly rabid widows ..." page 103
• "... the Democrats were able to ensure a whitewash of Clintons' utter incompetence, cowardice, and capitulation to enemy regimes ..." page 104
• "Mostly the witches of East Brunsweick wanted George Bush to apologize for not being Bill Clinton. Like Monica Lewinsky before here, Breitweiser found impeached president Clinton "very forthcoming"." - page 112
• "Out of love for his country and an insatiable desire to have some-one notice his worthless existence, Wilson wrote a column ..." - page 115
• "He had been sent by his wife , Valerie Plame., a chair-warmer at the CIA who apparently wanted to get him out of the house." - page 118
• "For the really insane stuff you have to go to bush-league newspapers where reporters have all the venom of the big-city newspapers, combined with retard level IQs." - page 119
• "... the only provable conclusion of which is that Joe Wilson is a nut and a liar." page 119
• "... How does a publisher react to some pompous jerk who wants to call his book The Politics of Truth? - page 151
• "The Democratic Party's became Cindy Sheehan, loon." - page 128
• "The only sort of authority Cindy Sheehan has is the uncanny ability to demonstrate, by example, what body types should avoid wearing shorts in public." - page 128
• "Despite having a screwball for a mother, Casey Sheehan was a great American ..." page 150
• "There is no plausible explanation for the Democrats' behavior other than that they long to see U.S. troops shot, humiliated and driven from the field of battle. They fill the airwaves with treason... These people are not only traitors, they are gutless traitors." page 135
• "... as long as Democrats are going to be jock sniffers for war veteran's, let's at least be equal about it." - page 137
• "I have a right to call Democrats blowhards, moral cowards, and traitors... they are liars and cowards and traitors." - page 141
• "Perhaps liberals will claim Moore is a "covert" agent with the CIA, - assuming a big, sweaty, behemoth like Michael Moore could actually be concealed..." - page 143

Chapter 6: Spoil the Teacher

• "In real life these taxpayer-supported parasites [teachers] are inculcating students in the precepts of the Socialist Party of America - as understood by retarded people." - page 148
• "In 2004 former vice president A Gore gave a speech on Global Warming... this is the philosophy of a madman." - page 190

This list does not include chapters 8-11 which are a pretty good set of essays on the topic of Evolution and Intelligent Design, and include a minimum of Ad Hominem arguments. The section stimulated my curiosity, but I'll need to do a little more research on the subject before commenting further. There is food for thought here, and I hope to revisit this topic at some unspecified time in the future.

The essays I found most interesting and thought provoking were the very essays that Anne Coulter did not broadly utilize the "Ad hominem" attack - Including chapters 2,4,6. and 7.

Hmmmm. You don't suppose that she reserves the "ad hominem" technique to obfuscate and obscure arguments where she actually does not have adequate facts to support her case? I wonder. If so, Chapter 5, buried in the middle of the book, regarding the Jersey Girls, Cindy Sheeehan, Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson is her weakest essay, since it is the chapter where she is completely unrestrained in her vitriolic personal attacks.

Beyond the "ad hominem" fallacies she employs, I have a couple of other nits to pick with "Godless":

"...After the Democrats failed to get a majority of Americans to vote for them in the seventh straight presidential election - since Jimmy Carter won with 50.1 percent of the vote in 1976. - page 20

"Of Course, if most people agreed with People for a Small Slice of the Upper West Side Way, Democrats might have won a majority of votes from the American people more than one time since Lyndon Johnson was president..." page 91

Her language is fuzzy, so I am not sure whether she means a majority of the votes cast, or a majority of voting age Americans. However, giving her the benefit of the doubt, and assuming she means a majority of votes cast, I will grant that these statements are literally true. But, she has selectively used facts to create statement that are wildly misleading while literally true. In the same sense I can make the following statements using the same facts that are just as literally true and just as misleading:

Since 1960:

• There have been 3 Democrats (JFK,LBJ,JEC) and 4 Republicans (RMN,RWR,GHB,GWB) elected President with 50% or more of the popular votes.
• There has been one Democrat (WJC) and two Republicans (RMN,GWB) elected President with 49% or less of the popular vote.
• There has been one Republican (GWB) and no Democrats elected President while losing the popular vote.

Finally, since 1960, there has never been more than 63% of the voting age population that actually cast a vote, so no President in that time has ever been elected by a majority of voting age Americans.

As I said, a nit. I have a much bigger problem with this statement:

"Today's Republican Party stands for life, limited government, and national defense." - page 85

I'll stipulate to "life" and "national defense", but "limited Government"??? Today's Republican Party??? NFW.

Maybe the Republican party of Ronald Reagan can make that claim.

Maybe the Republican party of Newt Gingrich can make that claim.

But today's Republican Party has surrendered the right to make any claim on the Reagan legacy or Libertarian foundation of limited government advocacy. This is a new kind of Republican: Big Spending, Big Deficit, Big Government Republicans. The only argument is whether "Today's Republican" single party control of the federal government over the last five plus years will unambiguously lay claim to being the Biggest Government, Biggest Federal Growth, Biggest Spending and Biggest Deficit party of all time, bar none.

Ann, please make these corrections in your paperback edition. Also, thanks for your support of the Divided Government case. I am saving that quote from your book for my next post... - mw

UPDATE (06/27/07): The paperback was published yesterday. I am not going to buy it. Someone else can tell me if she made any corrections in the book. I am not holding my breath, although she said something that took Howard Kurtz's breath away:

'Give me a moment to catch my breath. I just heard Ann Coulter say something remarkable. It wasn't one of her patented attacks on liberals and other heathens. It was a casually tossed-off line about the president of the United States: "We're all just waiting for this nincompoop to be gone. I think we're all finally on the same page on that." Did I blink and miss something? Is Bush now toast with the entire conservative movement? '

Yeah. Howard. Pretty close.

-----------------------

A selection of additional Godless reviews and reactions:

Lady Jane at a Lady's Ruminations has a Godless review.
Larry at Blame Bush has a Godless review.
Ann Coulter reviews Ann Coulter.
Mrs. Betty Bowers reviews Miss Ann Coulter.
Scoobie has a Godless blog.
Newsmax has a Godless review.
Bloggers Rude Pundit and Truthdig rudely suggest there may be some Godless plagiarism.
Howard Kurtz at the Washington Post thinks the Media is paying too much attention to Ann.
Jill at Feministe has a Godless feminist perspective on Ann Coulter.
Larry Johnson at No Quarter is amused to be called the "leftist Ann Coulter".
Canadian Ian Maclean thinks Ann Coulter make some good Godless points about 9/11 widows.

I still have not had time to wade into Coulter's Evolution/ID screed but these sites have:

William Dembski at Uncommon Descent thinks Godless will advance the ID cause (and his moderator gets testy with my comments)
Ian Musgrave at the Panda's Thumb deconstructs some of Coulter's Godless Darwinian claims (thanks to anonymous commenter for the link)
Daniel Morgan at Get busy livin' or bloggin ' has some thoughts about Coulter, Dembski, and the Death of Godlessness.

------------------------

Technorati tags: divided government, Intelligent Design, Creationism, Evolution, Godless,Global Warming, Ann Coulter.

Stack Ranking V1.1 - Ann Coulter does her part.

I said to expect my '08 contender stack ranking to change frequently, but I didn't think it would change quite this quickly.

While taking shots at Ann Coulter was a bit of a fish barrel shoot, I still have to admire the way "quick draw" Hillary got off the the first shot - good enough to move her up a couple of notches in my book.

DWSUWF 2008 Presidential Candidate
Stack Ranking V 1.1

1. Chuck Hagel (R)
2. Joe Biden (D)
3. John McCain (R)
4. Bill Richardson (D)
5. Rudolf Giuliani (R)
6. John Kerry (D)
7. Hillary Clinton (D) - up two spots.
   
8. Newt Gingrich (R)
9. Wesley Clark (D)
10. Condi Rice (R)

This is a case where the reaction to Coulter is more interesting than her original comments. Anything that puts Olbermann and O'Reilly on the same page is worth a closer look.

In any case, a key element of the DWSUWF Voting Strategy is a balanced and polarized electorate...

"You are voting for Divided Government and the documented benefits of a Divided Government. In 2006, that means you are voting a straight Democratic ticket for Congress. If the Democrats take control of Congress, and it looks like the Democrats will maintain control in 2008, you vote for the Republican candidate for President in 2008. Simple. Easy. Satisfying.

Of course, this only works if we are in a political environment that is highly polarized and evenly split. So, no problem. In fact, a nuance of Dividican [div-eye-di-can] party membership is recognition that a polarized, partisan, evenly divided electorate is a positive good thing for the party and should be encouraged. This means, that when a Dividican party member is not voting, he/she should be actively working to stir the pot by antagonizing partisans of either (or both) sides."

... and Ann Coulter is doing her part. More reaction about La Femme Coulter in the blogosphere:

Jack Cluth at "The Peoples Republic of Seabrook" blogs that Coulter's comments are all about selling books:

"Coulter owes the widows an apology, but that's as unlikely as a thank-you note from her for the additional book sales, talk show bookings and profits the controversy will likely generate... No, Ann Coulter is laughing all the way to the bank, which I imagine is all that is really important to her."

Bob, a self-described Moderate disenfranchised ex-Republican from South Dakota blogs in Conservative Nut But A Marketing Genius? that Coulter's comments are all about selling books.

"This is the last post on the latest case of Ann Coulter mouth diarrhea, I promise. You can say what you will about the right wing conservative nut'’s politics but she knows how to sell books. Coulter'’s new book "Godless: The Church of Liberalism"” is currently number 1 on Amazon and the more outrageous she gets the more books she seems to be able to sell."

Dr. Peter Rost blogs in Dr. Peter Rost: Ann Coulter is Laughing Her Head Off that Coulter's comments are all about selling books.

"Then I read that Hillary Clinton is commenting on Ann Coulter, she said, "Perhaps her book should have been called 'Heartless." Then I read that John Kerry wrote in his Huffington Post blog today, "my first reaction was pretty much unprintable." Then I read a gazillion blogs about how much we all hate Ann Coulter. There's only one problem with all of this vitriol. It is exactly what Ann Coulter wanted. You and I may not agree with her, but she's not stupid. And here's the proof: Coulter's new book was Amazon.com's most popular selection Wednesday night and it was number one when I wrote this. Check it out. And you guys all made that happen. And you all will be writing about her again, which is exactly what she wants, while she laughs her head off checking her latest Amazon.com ranking."

A gazillion??? Hmph. I guess he's right ... based on this and this.

But pandering to her fan base to garner publicity and sell books???

Works for me.

I am returning from a fishing holiday, and "Godless" will be a good lightweight read for the flight back. Since everyone else is blogging about it, I'd be a damn fool not to blog about it myself.

I just think I should read it first. Stay tuned ...

06-06-06 '08 - Stack Ranking the Contenders

Surprisingly, Paul King did not take my advice regarding today's election in CD-50, so while we are waiting to hear the voice of the voters, let us look to the future.

To date this blog has focused exclusively on the '06 mid-term elections. So what better day than 06/06/06 to begin to talk about '08?


I'll preface this by providing a bit more color on my presidential politics voting history.

In my profile I express the hope "that by being complete, forthright, and transparent in my personal political bias and history, I can unload some of the emotional baggage carried in every political conversation, and deflect accusations of harboring a hidden agenda or participating in a conspiracy favoring Democrats (in '06) or Republicans (in '08)." The operative word in that statement is "hope" and not "expect". Springing eternally with that hope, and in the interest of transparency, I offer this additional background to support my identity as a "libertarian leaning independent".

Without additional comment, my complete presidential election voting history:

68 - Too young to vote - but worked for Eugene McCarthy
72 - John Hospers (L) (Nixon v McGovern)
76 - Gerald Ford (R)
80 - Ronald Reagan (R)
84 - David Bergland (L) (Reagan v Mondale)
88 - George H. Bush (R)
92 - Bill Clinton (D)
96 - Bob Dole (R)
00 - George W. Bush (R)
04 - John Kerry (D)

Ok, I lied. Looking over this list I am compelled to make a couple of comments. FWIW, I apparently have a problem maintaining political fidelity to any President for a second term, since I've never actually voted for a second term for anyone. So be it. Regarding my Libertarian votes, the first in '72 was ideologically motivated, as I had just finished reading the complete works of Ayn Rand. The second Libertarian vote in '84 was more of a protest vote, when I became disenchanted with Reagan's massive deficits and Iran-Contra machinations. The Reagan presidency planted the seeds that would eventually grow into the political philosophy articulated on this blog. I recognized then that the massive deficits under the Reagan presidency could never have happened with a Democratic President, for the simple reason that the Republicans in Congress would not stand for it.

As I describe in the DWSUWF voting strategy, my intent is to support a Republican presidential candidate in '08 if the Dems can take control of either house in '06. Or, conversely, a Democratic candidate if the Republicans maintain control of Congress. Depending what happens, just start at the top of the list and work down, and you have my candidate.

So, without further ado, version 1.0 of :

DWSUWF 2008 Presidential Candidate Preference Stack Ranking

1. Chuck Hagel (R)
2. Joe Biden (D)
3. John McCain (R)
4. Bill Richardson (D)
5. Rudolf Giuliani (R)
6. John Kerry (D)
7. Newt Gingrich (R)
8. Wesley Clark (D)
9. Hillary Clinton (D)
10. Condi Rice (R)

I used the MSNBC "Contenders" list as the pool from which to select my top 10 candidates (and I also borrowed their graphic for the top of this post - hopefully the gratuitous link will assuage their feelings)

Some caveats: This list will, of course, change over the next couple of years - and probably over the next couple of months. Beyond the top three picks, the ranking is somewhat random as I have not put a lot of analysis or thought into candidates 4 though 8, but we've got to start somewhere.

Net net: If the Dems take the House in '06, Hagel is my man for '08. The balance of this post will focus exclusively on my top pick.

I don't understand why Hagel does not have a higher profile and visibility with the electorate. Smart, articulate, Vietnam Vet, cripes - he even looks like a president. He was one of the very few Republican Senators to stand up to the President, and call a pig a pig when voting against the Medicare Prescription Bill Plan.

Check out these Hagel quotes from his bio on Wikipedia:

"To question your government is not unpatriotic -- to not question your government is unpatriotic."

"I took an oath of office to the Constitution, I didn't take an oath of office to my party or my president."

"National security is more important than the Republican Party or the Democratic Party."

And if you really want to appreciate the man, read a few of his speeches. I particularly like this well thought out and frighteningly prescient speech on American Foreign Policy from 2003.

Some other links of interest:
Sandhill PAC - Hagel's Political Action Committee
Charlie Hinderliter is unofficially blogging for his candidacy
Hagel's official website.

We truly need a President like Chuck Hagel, but first we need to end single party control of the Federal Government in 2006 and for all time.

California Dreaming.

UPDATE: Appended 06/07/06

I wish I had an enchanted bullhorn that would magically speak directly to anyone or any group. Right now I have a few things to say to the voters of California Congressional District 50. Absent that enchanted bullhorn, I will have to be satisfied with this blog.

Republican Brian Bilbray and Democrat Francine Busby are in a statistical dead heat for the California seat vacated by disgraced Republican Randy "Duke" Cunningham. The election is Tuesday. Conventional wisdom is that Bilbray will eke out a narrow victory in this "safe" Republican district. District 50 is a microcosm of the themes discussed in this blog. There is an evenly divided partisan electorate, which means that a small swing vote like a "Divided Government constituency" (just to think of an example off the top of my head) could swing the election. In CD-50 you also have vocal disgruntled conservatives that are unhappy with the Republican party in general and Republican candidate Bilbray specifically, and you also have third party conservative and Libertarian participation that could affect the outcome. All are topics of posts in this blog. The only thing missing is recognition by CD-50 fiscal conservative and libertarian voters that many of their objectives can be met by simply voting for divided government.

Where is that bullhorn?

====================

John Gizzi, political editor at Human Events, is chronicling the full court press by Republicans to retain the seat as well as the problems Bilbray faces on the right:

"Bush, Rep. Issa Weigh In for Bilbray" by John Gizzi

"In a last-minute move to help Republican chances in the too-close-to call special U.S. House election in California'’s 50th District (San Diego) on June 6, both President Bush and Rep. Darrell Issa (R.-Calif.) weighed in strongly this weekend for GOP nominee Brian Bilbray...

Obviously nervous about the outcome of the race, the RNC has more than 100 volunteers from outside states on the ground to assist in turning out the voter base..."

"Ex-GOP Legislator Blasts Bilbray" by John Gizzi

"With five days to go before the too-close-to-call special U.S. House election in California's 50th District (San Diego), Republicans were rocked last week with a hard-hitting denunciation of their nominee, Brian Bilbray from a fellow Republican...

Baldwin, who served in the state legislature from 1994-2000, cited in his letter reports from Channel 10 (San Diego) of allegations of perjury and voter fraud against Bilbray..."

====================

Fellow Human Events Editor Robert B. Bluey asks the right question:

"Should Conservatives Support Brian Bilbray?"

"Conservatives across the Golden States and those in Washington are anxiously awaiting the results of Tuesday's election - some hoping for victory to retain the GOP seat and others anxious to send establishment Republicans a wake-up call."

====================

But while Bluey asks the right question, he does not quite get around to giving the right answer. Logan Jenkins, a columnist for the San Diego Union-Tribune, gets close to the right answer as he makes the case that third party cross-currents could determine Tuesday's results.

"Griffith could make 50th District race more interesting" by Logan Jenkins

"Unlike more respectable analysts, my sights are no longer trained on Brian Bilbray and Francine Busby, the major party candidates duking it out with TV ads that they sometimes do, but mostly don't, approve.
My own unscientific OK, mystical polling tells me the head-to-head race between these two is virtually over... No, this upcoming election could turn on the surly margins, the twilight zone of scattered protest votes and no votes.
Out on the extreme far right of the political spectrum, the main draw should be William Griffith, the independent "republican" (note lower case) whose rock-ribbed conservatism has earned him the recent endorsements of the local Minutemen and the super-conservative American Independent Party, which has about 7,000 registered voters in the 50th Congressional District... Like Libertarian Paul King, the fourth name on the runoff ballot, Griffith has less than zero chance of winning a ride to Washington. Still, Griffith could be the Ralph Nader or Ross Perot of this race. He could draw Bilbray blood in the zero-sum game of the runoff."

====================

With an election this close, King and Griffith could make a difference by siphoning votes from Bilbray.

- or -

Enlightened fiscal conservatives could make a difference by swallowing hard, putting limited government principles over party politics and voting for Divided Government.

- or -

The most interesting possibility - Libertarian Paul King could potentially determine the election all by himself by asking his supporters to vote for Francine Busby. In 2004, the Libertartian candidate for House Representative drew about 1.2% of the vote. In this election, that could be enough.

With this move King could single-handedly put the Libertarians on the political map as power brokers, and in a single stroke:

• Grab the media spotlight.
• Use the spotlight to promote libertarian principles of limited government.
• Raises awareness of how single party Republican control has unleashed a hell-bound train of advancing state powers and big government spending in the last five years.
• Do the right thing for the country.

Since the Case for Divided Government was made by William Niskanen of the Cato Institute (a Libertarian think-tank), he would be standing on a rock-solid intellectual foundation.

It would be beautiful move, a brilliant move, and it just might make a difference. A difference in District 50, a difference in the Republican Party, a difference in the Libertarian Party, and, most importantly, a difference in the country.

Where is that bullhorn?

************************

UPDATE: 06/07/06

Nevermind.

With 96% of the precincts reporting, Bilbray has 49.48%, Busby 45.28%, Griffith 3.7% and King 1.5%. The third party candidates had no impact, except to depress Bilbray's margin of victory.

To quote the noted political pundit Yogi Berra: “It’s Deja Vu all over again.”

See you at the same time, same station, with the same players, and the same result, next November.

Of course, as long as we as a country keep voting for single party control of the Federal Government, we can also expect the same big government spending and growth, the same pork-barrel feeding at the public trough, the same incompetent cronyism in important agencies, and the same arrogance and bad decision-making in foreign policy.

But perhaps I am wrong. Perhaps things will be diifferent now.

As I am sure all right thinking Americans must agree, that with our soldiers dying in a quagmire in Iraq, wild runaway pork-barrel spending, adding a trillion dollars of new entitlements to a bankrupt system, mind-numbing deficits piled higher every day on the backs of our children, out of control borders, impotence in the face of nukes in the hands of madmen in Iran and North Korea, and incompetent cronies running Homeland security … All brought to us courtesy of five plus years of single party Republican control in Washington … We can all get behind what is truly important now:

An unpassable Constitutional amendment to stop two fifty year old lesbians from getting married in San Francisco.

Single Party Government = Bad Governance.
Divided Government is Better Government.

Disgruntled Republicans

Two examples of the growing and increasingly vocal discontent among Republican fiscal conservatives with this administration and the Republican Congress.

Kate o'Beirne and Richard Lowry in their article "A Congress Gone to Pot" (May 22 issue of National Review) outlines a wide ranging litany of conservative discontent. While they allude to a lack of leadership on the part of GWB, the majority of their criticism is leveled at the Republican Congress, taking dead aim at the reactive vs proactive nature of this Congress, the silly gasoline price rebates, failed immigration policy, playing politics with national security, expanding and creating ineffective new bureaucracies, and - my favorite - complete abandonment of any pretense at limiting government or maintaining fiscal responsiblity.

"Another thing Congress is incapable of doing is making fiscal choices. Spending discipline is honored only in the breach, and with rhetorical flourishes thrown in to the party's base at opportune moments. When ambitious Republican politicians get together for pre-2008 events like the recent straw poll in Memphis, the talk is all of Ronald Reagan and limited government. The kind of governance in Washington that they deliver is exactly the opposite...
Incontinence has become a way of life. When President Bush threatened a veto if the supplemental spending bill for the Iraq War and and Katrina cleanup exceeded $92 billion, the Senate promptly voted to keep in funding for the Mississippi senators' absurd $700 million railway line in a bill that remains $14 billion over the limit set by Bush. Even when it knows that wasteful spending has fundamentally harmed its standing with the public and especially with its core supporters, the GOP Congress just can't help itself...
Overall federal spending is up 33 percent durng the majority's Deterioration phase, with defense and post 9/11 spending on domestic security representing less than half of this new spending."

One does not have to look far to find other conservative voices that feel betrayed by the single party control that grips Washington. One of the most remarkable of these is Dr William Frey's "Republicans for Humility". Like me, he voted for George W. Bush in 2000, and subsequently became disenchanted. His motto of "Country before Party" and powerful intial essay "Confessions of a Repentant Republican" is a must read.

"I supported George W. Bush in the presidential election in 2000, believing then that he best reflected my love for America and for our tradition of liberty. I supported the war in Afghanistan. In March of 2003, I believed that the invasion of Iraq was justified based upon pre-war revelations presented to Congress and to the American people. Accordingly, the indictments contained herein apply, first and foremost, to myself... For me, recognizing that I could no longer support the President for whom I voted, and the occupation of a land we had invaded, remains personally painful. I have learned that while it is difficult to admit being wrong, such recognition is a prerequisite for redemptive action, necessary both for individual growth and for the healing of our nation. It is in this spirit that I submit these reflections." - William Frey M.D.

Years before I started this blog, Dr. Frey found the same Niskanen article and came to the same conclusion regarding divided government.

"Conservatives have observed the paradox of Republican Congresses producing more conservative results under a Democratic president than under a Republican. ... political parties controlling both the presidency and Congress are under intense pressure to produce the appearance of progress, even if the long term consequences are detrimental to future generations of taxpayers. "

Under the second Bush administration, Republicans have combined the rhetoric of fiscal restraint with the reality of fiscal recklessness...

With this in mind, conservatives with consequential differences with President Bush on matters related to foreign policy, the war in Iraq, the conduct of the war on terrorism, issues of civil liberties, the rule of law, and fiscal responsibility, are considering the benefits of divided government."

Dr. Frey focuses on the President as the source of his concerns, while the NR article looks primarily at the Republican Congress. But like most disgruntled conservatives, both tend to see this specifically as a betrayal by the Republican Party. Consequently they see the solution in terms of fixing the Republican Party.

I see this differently. The problem is bigger than the Republicans and focusing exclusively on the GOP will not solve it. The problem is inherent in the nature of the political process in Washington. Simply put, the seduction of power and its inevitable consequence of an overriding imperative to be reelected ultimately swamps all other considerations for the fallible humans holding public office. The perception of incumbents is that: Reelection requires money that only special interests can provide; Reelection requires pandering to polls over principle; Reelection requires cultivating local loyalty by bringing home the pork. I am sure most politicians rationalize the dirty job of securing the money, populist pandering and pork-barrel rolling as a necessary pre-conditon ultimately getting around to doing what is right for the country. The obvious problem is that the continuous reelection inspired compromises do far more damage than whatever good comes later.

Long term these problems may be fixable by electoral reform, campaign reform, and electing better representatives. Operative words being "may be".

There is a solution that disgruntled Republicans and conservatives can seize right now, in 2006, and have an immediate positive impact.

Just vote divided.

Although voting divided requires voting for democrats in 2006, it is not the same as voting for the Democratic party or Democratic party values. It is a way to vote tactically for the values of better governance, limited government and fiscal responsiblity through the well documented mechanism of divided government. It works.

Hand-wringing Libertarians.

"Woe, woe is me! What words, or cries, or lamentations can I utter?"
The Chorus in Hecuba by Euripides

Update appended May 18, 2006
I had a dalliance with the Libertarian party in my youth. She seemed dangerous, but so radiant, so pure, so exciting, so ... so right. As I matured, became more practical and yes, more cynical, we drifted apart. Since then, I have settled into a comfortable long term relationship with the Cato Institute - a Libertarian think-tank. I have tremendous respect for the organization and their product. They generate tons of great research, clear hard-number analysis, and are relentless advocates for libertarian principles. They have done more to "change the debate", to introduce and defend libertarian ideas into mainstream politics any other libertarian organization, including the party. They have earned the highest compliment I can give them - They have made a difference.

Coincident with the start of this blog, Cato Unbound (a monthly single topic interactive blog) launched a dialog on the topic "The Gop and Limited Government - Do they have a future together?".

"The era of big government is alive and well. You might think that after dominating all branches of the federal government for more than a half decade, Republicans, who like to talk big about lean and limited government, might have taken Leviathan down a few notches... Republicans under Bush have tallied up a budget deficit of historic proportions, added an enormous entitlement to an already unsustainable system, created a vast new security bureaucracy, and strengthened Washington's grip on local schools. Are Republicans selling out ..."

The hand-wringing, cries, lamentations and rending of garments in this series are quite remarkable. Some samples from both the initiating essays and responding Libertarian leaning blogs are excerpted and linked below. They are similar in form, with each complaining bitterly about how the Republicans have made things worse, and then offering up a few "straws to grasp at" for the aggrieved and betrayed supporters of limited government.

Great articles all, and well worth the read. Still, the series reminds me of a humorous commercial currently running on television: In the ad, a group of bankers are hiking through the jungle, and one falls into quicksand. The group forms an "emergency" discussion committee to develop alternative responses to the crisis, while the guy sinks out sight.

My contribution and advice to worried libertarians:

Your "limited government" patient is lying unconscious on the ground bleeding to death. Yes, the patient's leg was blown off by a Republican roadside bomb, and we are all angry at the Republicans and feel really bad about what happened. But this might not be the time to discuss where to build a hospital and how to equip a surgical suite to treat the patient. Right now, we really need to apply a tourniquet and stop the bleeding.

Fortunately, there is a tourniquet in easy reach, from William Niskanen, one of Cato's own. The tourniquet is the election of a divided government in the 2006 election. Apply it first, and once the bleeding is managed, we have an opportunity to help the patient with more advanced treatments.

-------------------

Republicans and the Flight of Opportunity by David Frum

"The goddess was Opportunity and conservatives and Republicans today can appreciate the poignancy of the poet’s description of her departure... deficits in the $400 billion range not only preclude future tax cuts but also raise real doubts about the sustainability of the Bush tax cuts... Meanwhile, the pressures for even further expansion of government are gathering... The state is growing again and it is pre-programmed to carry on growing. Health spending will rise, pension spending will rise, and taxes will rise...The second possibility is that conservatism will live on as a tendency within both parties rather than as a compact and self-conscious movement in control of one of them.... Might not the same be true of the small-government conservative beliefs championed by Goldwater, Reagan, and Gingrich? It may not be the future we expected for ourselves but what future is?"

-----------------

The Forecast is Grim - So What Are We Going to Do About It? by Bruce Bartlett

"I am very pessimistic about the prospects for conservative/libertarian reform... my friends must think I have totally thrown in the towel on bigger government. This is not so. What I have discussed thus far is simply a forecast of what I see coming... I would welcome a serious debate among libertarians and small government-types on a realistic political strategy for achieving their goals. Simply damning the existing system and withdrawing from it is just a prescription for accelerating the trend toward bigger government.

------------

Where There Is No Vision, the People Perish by David Boaz

"Republicans used to accuse Democrats of setting up a nanny state, one that would regulate every nook and cranny of our lives. They took control of Congress in 1994 by declaring that Democrats had given us government that is too big, too intrusive, and too easy with the public's money. After 10 years in power, however, the Republicans have seen the Democrats’ intrusiveness and raised them.... Where there is no vision, the people perish. Or at least the party and its principles... The first task for advocates of limited government is to develop and advance that vision. The Founders, the abolitionists, the free-traders, the Progressives, the Reaganites all honed and advocated their ideas long before they saw political victory. And we must translate that vision into policy proposals, organizations, and political movements... We don’t have to resign ourselves to a counsel of despair. "

---------------

The Volokh Conspiracy - George W, Richard Nixon, and Big Government Conservatism - Ilya Somin

"By now, it is no secret that Bush has presided over a massive expansion of government, even if one sets aside the increase in defense spending since 9/11... In the posts cited above, Bartlett and Frum produce some strong arguments showing that Bush's big government policies might prove to be more lasting than Nixon's did (Goldberg is less pessimistic)... Make no mistake - the growth of government is a very powerful trend, and Bush has done a great deal to exacerbate it. But we should not be too quick to assume that the trend is irreversible."

================

Update: 17-May-06

In "The Democrats and Small Government", Ross Douthat adds to the Cato Unbound conversation by explicitly acknowledging the immediate benefit to be derived from Divided Government:

"Divided government, maybe, is a way to rein in spending."..

But then with a bit intellectual sleight of hand, quickly dismisses the notion by saying you can't support Democrats, well, because they are Democrats.

"... as long as the Democrats are the party of unions, minorities, big-government working-class voters, and converted Rockefeller Republicans... they will never offer a plausible home to anyone who cares about reducing the size of the federal budget...."

"...The Cato Institute and the Christian Coalition are never going to see eye to eye on everything, but they still have a lot of common ground —and a common enemy."

By this conclusion I assume that Douthat is advocating libertarian fealty to the Republican party, supported by the "enemy of my enemy" argument. This is nonsense. To support the acknowledged benefit of divided government by voting Democratic in the 2006 election, is not the same as "finding a home" in the Democratic party. It is simply tactical support to obtain an immediate and desireable result: Fiscal restraint and better federal governance through the mechanism of divided government. To continue to support Republican single party control of the Federal Government in the face of what has actually transpired over the last five years can only be read as a naked appeal to "pay attention to what Republicans say, but ignore what they do."

In fact, by achieving the result of divided government through the support of Democratic candidates in 2006, the supporters of limited government will have a stronger foundation for supporting the Republican presidential candidate in 2008, with the enhanced hope that the next Republican President will actually "walk the walk".

For limited government advocates in 2006:

Republican vs. Democrat is a false choice.

The real choice is Divided Government vs. Single Party control.

===============

Update: 18-May-06

Ryan Sager author of The Elephant in the Room almost gets it right in a couple of interesting posts over at RCP. These quotes from "Hot-Tub Libertarians" and "Out of the Hot Tub, Into the Frying Pan":

"As the Republican Party abandons its commitment to small government, how politically impotent are libertarians? ...no one ever said that libertarians were organized -- or that, when it comes to politics, they have much in the way of brains... But what if they did? How powerful a voting bloc could they be? It's a tough question, and one libertarians have spent far too little time effort researching, but there's a quick and dirty answer: somewhere between 9 percent and 20 percent of the electorate.

"Libertarians need to get serious. And getting serious means organizing. And organizing means within one of the two major parties. I believe that can only be done within the GOP, that there is still a natural logic to fusionism. But I'm happy to hear arguments otherwise."

Okay, Ryan - here is an argument otherwise. Let us deconstruct:

"Libertarians need to get serious." Right.

"Serious means organizing." Right again.

"Organizing means within the one of the two major parties" - hmmm - almost right. I'd put it this way: Organizing means within the existing two party structure.

"Only be done within the GOP"? Wrong.

As pointed out in Ryan's article, libertarian organization is going to have to look different than traditional politics, after all, it is something we will have to be able to accomplish while sitting in the hot-tub.

What is needed, is an organizing principle. Ideally, a principle that is so obvious, so logical, and so clear-cut, that no leadership is needed, no parties are needed, no candidates are needed, and no infrastructure is needed. Ideally it is this easy: You think about the principle, and you know how to vote.

That organizing principle exists. It is Divided Government. It is absolutely clear-cut and easy to understand. Divided Government is documented by Niskanen et.al. to work in a practical real-world manner to restrain the growth of the state. As a voting strategy it can be implemented immediately. More importantly, it can collectively be implemented individually as we sit in our hot tubs and ponder the sorry state of the world.

Whatever the percentage of the electorate that libertarians represent, whether it is 9% or 20%, if they vote as a block for Divided Government, they immediately become the brokers of an evenly split partisan electorate. They arguably become the single most most potent voting block in the country, specifically because they are willing to vote either Democratic or Republican as a block. Specifically because they are not fused to one party or the other.

It means, libertarians must ignore what the politicians say and look at what they actually do (Niskanen again). It means ignoring spurious invitations to fuse with a big tent party that no longer stands for anything meaningful. It means voting straight Democratic in 2006, and (if successful in establishing Divided Government) voting Republican for President in 2008. It means the difference between libertarians being a completely impotent political force, and libertarians having the biggest swinging political "hammer" in town.

And it can be done from the hot tub.

And it can be done this year.

Just Vote Divided.

I was wrong. GWB vs. LBJ

Update Appended May 07,2006
It is tough to admit when you've made a mistake. Particularly a factual error. Particularly when I've only been posting about a week on this blog, and already, only four posts in, I find I have to eat my words. But I am committed to the truth and to maintaining intellectual integrity on this site, so - time to face the music.

Here is the problem. In my very first post, in my haste to get this blog started, I cut some corners on my fact checking and made a factual error. In that post, I outline the case that Divided Government is always more fiscally responsible than single party control of the executive and legislative branches in Washington. In that post I made this statement:

"Certainly nothing has transpired in the single party, undivided, non-gridlock, no veto, no filibuster government of the last six years that would counter the conclusions in these articles. In that time we have seen nothing but increasing federal spending, creation of new bureaucracies, breathtaking record deficits, and government growth that rivals LBJ's "Great Society".

The problem in that statement is the word "rivals". I made the assumption that the years of single party control during LBJ's Great Society / Vietnam War spending binge was the penultimate, the "Everest", the "Gold Standard", the "Platonic Ideal" of Bloated Big Government spending. A high water mark that could only be "approached" or "rivaled" but never be exceeded. Then I found this paper from those hard number, rigorous analysis guys at the CATO Institute (excerpted and linked below). Based on this work the word "rivals" in the above sentence should be replaced with the more accurate "blows away". My apologies to the readers of this blog.

We now have a new gold standard for Bloated Big Government Spending.

"Bush Beats LBJ on Spending"
"In Cato Tax and Budget Bulletin no. 26, Stephen Slivinski uses revised data released during the summer by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) to make side-by-side comparisons of the spending habits of each president during the last 40 years. While the data show that all presidents presided over net increases in spending, George W. Bush is shown to be one of the biggest spenders of them all, even outpacing Lyndon B. Johnson in terms of discretionary spending [...]"

Excerpts from the report:

"The increase in discretionary spending - that is, all nonentitlement programs - in Bush's first term was 48.5 percent in nominal terms. That's more than twice as large as the increase in discretionary spending during Clinton's entire two terms (21.6 percent), and just higher than Lyndon Johnson's entire discretionary spending spree (48.3 percent)."

"Bush has expanded federal nonentitlement programs in his first term almost twice as fast each year as Lyndon Johnson did during his entire presidency."

"George W. Bush'’s tenure has so far been a return to the Johnson and Carter philosophy of budgeting that gives increases to all categories of spending."

"Members of President Bush'’s staff argue that much of the growth in discretionary spending is essential to defending the United States against the threat of terrorism here and abroad. However, increased spending on fighting terrorism and for the operations in Iraq and Afghanistan does not explain the increases in the overall defense budget."

"George W. Bush is the biggest spending president of the past 40 years in both the defense and domestic discretionary spending categories by a long shot. "

"The expenses related to cleanup and rebuilding of the Gulf Coast region as a result of Hurricane Katrina'’s destruction have not been fully tallied... If these budget increases are not offset by cuts in other areas of the budget, Bush's spending record will look even worse next year."

===============================

UPDATE: SUNDAY (07-May-06): On Friday (05-May-06), Larry Kudlow broadcast an interview with the President on his daily CNBC show, interspersed with commentary by Robert Reich (former Labor Secretary under Clinton) and Steve Moore of the Wall Street Journal. I am going to have to paraphrase this from memory, because I cannot find a transcript (If I find one I'll update this update). Kudlow asked the President about increasing conservative concerns regarding the out-of-control spending in this administration - saying it was the worst record since LBJ (of course we now know it is even worse than LBJ). Bush responded to Larry with condescending broad generalizations and quoting statistics on discretionary spending that simply did not match the facts. Kudlow looked like a deer in the headlights and could not get to his next question fast enough. A few minutes later Kudlow, Reich, and Moore did an "analysis" of the segment. Reich had his usual "I can't believe I even have to explain this to you" demeanor and was predictable in his anti-Bush response. It was Moore that surprised me and sent me scrambling for the transcript as I could not believe what I was hearing. Understand, Steve Moore's official title at the Wall Street Journal is "Editorial Apologist in Chief for the Bush Administration". His most recent book is "Bullish on Bush: How the Ownership Society Is Making America Richer." Paraphrasing Moore, he said: Larry I have looked that numbers up down and sideways. I don't know where the President is getting those numbers. The President is wrong. The spending in this administration has shown no restraint.

So this leaves us with a distasteful choice. In that interview President Bush was either knowingly misrepresenting the facts regarding spending in this administration, or he was completely ignorant of the facts regarding spending in this administration.

I cannot tell you which alternative is worse.

There is work to do.

Scott Elliott, the "Blogging Caesar" at Election Projection is predicting that the Republicans will retain control of the Senate and the House in his 2006 Edicts #1 and #2 (linked and excerpted blow) .

Now Scott and I both lay claim to the word "conservative", but we clearly mean different things. In his bio, Scott is a self-described "conservative, especially socially". While he limply expresses a flaccid preference that he "would like President Bush to be more fiscally conservative", he nevertheless asserts "I believe he is as good as it gets for America's top job". By this I can only assume that Scott means he does not really care all that much about how single party control under the leadership of this administration has dramatically increased the size and spend of the federal government, has expanded the breadth and depth of the bureaucracy, and has massively increased the debt load being piled on the backs of his children. Nor does it bother him too much how the government has assumed extraordinary new control and power over our lives. Being a social conservative, I guess Scott feels that as long as the administration effectively stops the threat posed by two fifty year old lesbians getting married in San Francisco, they've got his vote.

So this puts Scott Elliott (the Voter), is in the category of PDW (Partisan Dead Weight - as defined in my previous post).

That said, Scott Elliott (the Election Analyst) is very good at what he does at Election Projection. I followed his site during the 2004 Presidential election and found it to be a great resource and remarkably accurate. For the most part, he is able to divorce his personal politics from his analysis. This year he is tracking the 2006 Senate and House races at an impressive level of detail and granularity. I expect to be using Election Projection as a resource throughout this election season.

Since I do respect his work and analysis, I am troubled by his early prediction, but not too troubled. We really only have the one data point of his 2004 election prognostication to attest to his skills as a prophet, his early predictions from the spring of 2004 were not all that accurate, and (as far I know) he is untested in a mid-term election cycle, which is a completely different animal than a presidential election.

But for anyone who longs for the relative fiscal responsibility and limits on government growth that can only come with divided government, his prediction reinforces that we should not be lulled into complacency by the president's low approval ratings, and recognize that there is work to do.

Scott's edicts of last week are as good a baseline as any to start tracking the race, so without further ado - the Caesar Speaks:

=======================

Edict #1: "... I haven't posted such a prediction in a long time, but now that the elections are beginning to heat up, I thought it time to reinitiate The Blogging Caesar's power of the edict. By edict of The Blogging Caesar, it is hereby decreed that the GOP majority in the United States House of Representatives will remain for the next legislative session beginning in 2007. While the Democrats do stand to gain ground, they will not succeed in claiming the necessary number of seats to wrest control away from the Republicans. I do hereby seal and deliver this edict this Monday, the 24th of April, in the year of our Lord, 2006." - Scott Elliott at 6:25pm 04/24/06

Edict #2: "The GOP will maintain a majority in the U.S. Senate" "By edict of The Blogging Caesar, it is hereby decreed that the GOP majority in the United States Senate will remain for the next legislative session beginning in 2007. Moreover, the majority will be at least 51 seats, avoiding the need for vice-presidential intervention on straight party-line votes. I do hereby seal and deliver this edict this Friday, the 28th of April, in the year of our Lord, 2006." - Scott Elliott at 10:55am 04/28/06.

Graphic from Election Projections