Centerfield

As I also said in an earlier thread, it's positively amazing how quickly sober, responsible seamen turn into drunken sailors once they're given the keys to the spirit room, and told to mount guard.

For Democrats, therefore, the challenge is, how to convert GOP hubris into Democratic Congressmen, the way that Gingrich was able to convert Demcoratic hubris into GOP Congressmen with the Contract With America.

Absolutely! Gingrich did it with ideas and agenda, though he had some serious help from the "House Bank" scandals that hit Democrats harder simply because they had been in the majority for a while, and from backlash against the Clinton Health Care fiasco. Watching the smarter politicans running to the middle is going to be wonderful entertainment over the next year-plus, and the show's already begun.

I think Gingrich is a bit off base about the 2nd Ohio, though. The "energy" thing certainly had something to do with it--turnout was abysmal, so an energized Dem base versus an utterly somnolent GOP base in the district almost made it an actual contest. But it was an off-year off-schedule election featuring a very strong centrist veteran Dem against a very weak Republican who didn't really have any message at all. I don't read too much into that.

Absolutely! Gingrich did it with ideas and agenda, though he had some serious help from the "House Bank" scandals

I'll tell you how they aren't going to retake the initiative: collapsing into civil war (hat tip: Andrew Sullivan). I warned my democratic friends back in Spring '04 that the Democratic leadership had staked everything on a Kerry victory by so blatantly setting out to shipwreck Howard Dean, and that should Kerry fail, the democratic party would descend into a bitter round of recriminations at best, or civil war at worst. Daily Kos represents the other party's equivalent of the Fox News / Free Republic type of Republican (the hardcore, in other words), so I suppose we'll see whether its a palace coup or a damp squib in a few weeks.

Why has congress of both parties been porkaholics for decades?

You could blame voters, who reward congress for "bringing home the bacon" far more than they reward fiscal restraint. Or you could just say it is systemic to our form of government, with people naturally eager to vote for the person who seizes more money from the public treasury.

In the worst case, a politician slips in provisions that get an interest group campaign contributor incredible returns on their quid-pro-quo investment.

Even a politician vocal about restraint at the macro level strives for "their share" for their district at the feeding trough. The cumulative effect of every politician doing this results in fiscal mayhem. The only reason it hasn't been much worse, is a veto threat hanging over them.

As Arnold Schwartzenegger has found in his role as governor, sometimes doing the fiscally sensible thing is political suicide. Nationally, voters are clamoring for politicians to drastically increase spending on health care entitlements. Domestic anti-terrorism spending has turned into a pork barrel, with jealousy over which districts get more money.

Reform seems difficult in this environment.

Tully's theory about the congressional election in Ohio would hold water only if the vote wasn't so close. Should be noted that 'centrist' Hackett tore into Bush and his policies heavily. He didn't pussyfoot around. Nevertheless this may be more of a bellweather for Ohio than the US as a whole.
Good discussion by the Cook Report.
http://www.cookpolitical.com/column/2004/080205.php

But even assuming a GOP win tonight, the margin of victory can give us some insight into just how radioactive the governor's troubles and the "time for a change" sentiment in the state will be for other Republicans in the Buckeye State next year. If Schmidt's victory margin is in double digits, this tells us that there is not much of an anti-GOP wind in Ohio right now. If the margin is say six to nine points for Schmidt, then there is a wind, but certainly no hurricane. A Schmidt win of less than five points should be a very serious warning sign for Ohio Republicans that something is very, very wrong, while a Hackett victory would be a devastating blow to the Ohio GOP

As far as Arnold...the moron has put us billions more in the hole, first by cutting the 'car tax' and then by using his line item veto power with a touch so light you'd think you were riding in a Rolls Royce. With the millions he's raised by corporate interests he is nothing but business as usual.

Marcus,

Everything I've heard about the race suggests that, far from attacking Bush, Hackett ran almost a pro-Bush campaign, including ads showing pictures of himself with the President. It was only on sites like dKos that he revealed his anti-Bush attitudes. Am I wrong on that?

Pat, my friend,

you may not be wrong, but you may not be reading the Washington Post either, where Newt gives the post mortum. (pun intended). Hackett is described as "a strong critic of President Bush." Where do you find him listed as a staunch ally?

Hackett mostly kept his fiercest flame-throwing to Dem venues, where the audience was more receptive. Schmidt was not a terribly appealing candidate. Martha Stewart on Xian motherhood...without the charisma (as iF Stewart has any). God, Mom, apple pie, and ethanol subsidies...and she sounded just like a stereotypical oh-my-goodness "church lady." Frankly, I found her quite annoying in a soft-voiced sanctimonious whiny way. I watched their campaign commercials a couple of weeks ago and wondered how she could possibly win.

Answer: a 60% GOP district. And she still struggled to become the first woman elected to Congress from the 2nd Ohio, "achieving" less than half the GOP turnout than the 2004 election produced, where Hackett managed around 70% of the Dem turnout.

Of course, Hackett managed to get some extraordinary national funding for a special election, and he did indeed publicly wrap himself in the flag and use Bush images extensively in his "I'm a decorated veteran" commercials--which didn't mention that he was a Democrat. Schmidt avoided "attack" ads and tried "positive message," which also helped keep Hackett's Democrat status low-key as she kept talking about herself rather than attacking him. When the campaigns finally did reach "attack zone" Hackett managed to plaster Schmidt with the ongoing scandals of GOP Governor Taft, whose approval rating is literally approaching single digits. All Schmidt had in return was the usual "liberal spender" crap, against a rookie with no record to point at. Hackett had all the advantages and then some that any Dem could ever expect in the 2nd Ohio, and it still wasn't enough.

As a national bellwether, forget it. "All politics is local." As a local effort, it was quite impressive for Hackett. He should look at local office. But painting it as some kind of national "victory" for the Dems is hyperbole at best (Hackett lost) and painting it as a national bellwether is supremely wishful thinking.

Reform seems difficult in this environment.

Sometimes I feel that way as well - we can talk all day about fiscal discipline, but if we were in Congress we would also be doing all we could to "bring home the bacon."

But here's the thing - in my mind, this is exactly the type of thing that our forefathers had in mind when providing for a Presidential veto. The President has no local constituency to placate and has a Constitutional duty to keep federal spending under control.

According to the National Taxpayers Union, the highway bill has

nearly 6,500 member-requested projects worth more than $24 billion, nearly nine percent of the total spending. President Reagan vetoed a transportation bill in 1987 because there were 152 such earmarks.

It's time for President Bush to show what he's made of. Is he a gutsy fiscal conservative in the mold of Reagan? Or will he continue the trend of irresponsible fiscal liberalism that has marked his presidency? Bank on the latter.

I found an interesting interview with one of the few congressmen who voted against the bill. At the end he proposes a solution to the pork problem.

With the millions he's raised by corporate interests he is nothing but business as usual.

That in a nutshell is the GOP's achilles heel. They talk about spending less, but they're addicted to corporate $$$ and vote accordingly.

That's not to say that Dems aren't also addicted to special interest $$$. The difference is that Republican play a game of "do as we say, not as we do" which seems to me to be pretty darn dishonest.

I lauded and supported the so-called Republican Revolution in the 90's. Primarily because I wanted reform! I will laud and support a Dem backlash revolution in this decade if it offers even the slim hope of real reform. It probably won't. But, what other choice do I have? Meekly accepting pork barrel politics because "it's just the way things are done" would make me a party to the problem. And I refuse to condone it, however passively.

So... like many in the American Middle, I bounce back and forth between voting for Dems and voting for GOPers... hoping that by denying either side any sort of blind loyalty is somehow constructive.

I'm skeptical that my strategy will prove effective in the long run. But, that just brings me back to a key reason why I believe that the two-party system is part of the problem rather than part of any solution. Their own twin track records are rife with arrogant presumption upon the stupidity of the American voter...

by fair means or foul, reign in the federal deficit

Pssst, Simon...hate to be a Punctuation Panda here, but take it from a 4-H kid--it's easy to reign in debt, but 'tis far better to rein in debt.

Debt is a beautiful, albeit fiendishly difficult, horse to ride...

Someone said (I forgot who)...

Both parties want to spend too much. Only one party is willing to raise the revenue to (come close to) paying for it.

If you care so little about the bottom line that you are willing to propose more huge tax cuts, you obviously don't care enough to restrain your own spending.

The only way to balance the budget is for people to voluntarily restrain from busting it. You have to believe the sacrifices will be shared somewhat fairly. You have to ask your own constituents to accept less than they could be getting.

Until tax increases are on the table, spending restraint will never happen. As long as the Rove/Norquist faction is in charge, this in turn will never happen.

Liberals have to accept that this is their burden. The GOP is too corrupt, they must be removed from power ASAP.

I am with Susan here. The budget deficit problem is practically the political version of the tragedy of the commons.

I think another balanced budget law with built in penalties and circuit breakers is a great place to start. Unfortunately, It seems to me that very few Americans are keen to face up to the problem of spending way more than the government collects in the face of the growth of healthcare costs and powerful demographic trends towards graying.

I have a bad feeling about where we are headed. Too many people are willing to whistle through the graveyard. And those who aren't are willing to think that they can set aside enough and find high ground that will allow them to be spared should things get really bad. This latter is a suspect notion in a democracy.

CSPAN's Washington Journal had a very distinguished looking lawyer on the show recently, and he very kindly explained that really, the deficit doesn't matter. When you think about it as investment, if you see an investment opportunity that's good, you go for it.

The thing that struck me about this was how familiar it sounds. It sounds like the self-righteous cry of the gambler on the losing streak: "I know I'm behind, but this hand/horse is too good not to bet on".

The key to it is spending. Tax rises sound all well and good, but I support them only in very limited and defined circumstances; the best thing government can do is get out of the way. I'm not a Grover Norquist about it; I can envisage circumstances in which raising taxes would be entirely appropriate. But they are few, and limited. The bottom line is that the Federal Government needs to spend less money. The idea evinced above, that the Democrats would be the party to do that, seems very far-detatched from reality.

Perhaps it's time for the GOP to spend a Congress - one Congress - in the minority in the House again.

But now we're back to term limits and redistricting reform. ;)

Simon, thanks for the great example of graveyard whistling! :-). I agree with the notion that a budget need not be entirely balanced. However, the annual amount of deficit must bear a significant relationship to expected future revenue growth.

If you run a 2% annual deficit but revenue grows 1.5 to 2.5, at least you're in the ballpark. But if you keep spending way more than you can grow into affording any time soon, then that calls into question the very idea of "being a good investment." This joker you cited is just blind faithing his way based on the idea that people will continue to keep loaning us money regardless of the scope of our imbalances." Which is moronic, IMO. (Not suggesting we're disagreeing here, BTW)

Lately I have been suffering from insomnia: - Chicago hotels -> http://www.hotels-all-over-the-world.com/illinois-chicago-hotels.html -
- Spain car rental -> http://www.car-rental-all-over-the-world.com/spain-car-rental.html - New York car rental -> http://www.car-rental-all-over-the-world.com/new-york-car-rental.html -

Good info on facility
management
and http://www.facilitymanagementinfo.com