Big Sky Cairn

Whether we are currently experiencing a technical recession or not isn’t really the point. The point is, it feels like we are, and when it comes to the economy, feelings are often more important that cold data. Feelings dictate actions and actions determine the economy - not the other way around. The fact of the matter is, the solution to economic downturn is rarely some tax stimulus or grand government plan, but it’s the restoration of confidence (sometimes sparked by a stimulus or government action) which leads to the willingness to spend money which restarts the grinding of economic gears.

Of interest to me, however, is the question over which party, Republican or Democrat, a struggling economy benefits in November. The Helena Independent Record weighs in on this question while reporting “more bad news” on Montana’s economy.

The poor economy, perhaps even more than the record of the current president on the war, the response to Katrina, and so on, may turn the tide to Obama, even in Montana. It surely doesn’t help Republican John McCain to have an important economic advisor — Phil Gramm — who insists the economy is fine and people should just get over it. Now, that is stupid.

But why? Read the rest of this entry »

For off-shore drilling to happen, three things have to happen.

1) The Executive Moratorium has to be lifted.
2) The Congressional Moratorium has to be lifted.
3) States have to allow exploration.

Read the rest of this entry »

It’s old news that Republicans, as a group, are happier than Democrats or Independents. There’s a lot that goes into that - money, marriage, religion - all the vices that Democrats want to free us from. I also found it interesting that Republicans have been happier for decades, even when Democrats controlled Congress and the White House.

My personal take on this is that dissatisfaction with the status quo leads to an anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.

And speaking of happiness, reading George Ochenski’s tirade against the fresh new majority he worked so hard to install increased my happiness by quite a bit. He seems to hate Pelosi more than I do. And hate, of course, leads to suffering.

This is a shameful legacy for the Democrats, who promised us change, then gave us more domestic spying and war. Their betrayal may well backfire, however. Americans are hard pressed right now and looking for relief. But if this is what Democrats call “change,” why would we ever want to vote for more?

I don’t know George. Empirically, it looks like you’re not going to be much happier if you manage to elect a Democrat to the White House, so maybe it’s time to look to other sources of happiness.

Like Laser Quest. Spokane is only three hours away and they’ve got a sweet 3-story Laser Quest course. It’s one of my favorite things to do in the whole world!

At the same time that Montana Democrats are going after Republicans for a lack of unity, Democrats are dealing with a split personality of their own resulting from a long, drawn out primary between two powerful candidates.

As their presumptive nominee shifts into General Election mode, he’s also going to be moving to the political center, which will alienate a lot of the wing-nuts who gave him the edge over Clinton. That’s going to create even more rifts within the Democrat Party.

Now, I’m not one to claim that McCain is a perfect conservative candidate either. In fact, I think there are plenty of Conservatives in Montana who frankly don’t like him. So I find myself agreeing with something that Wulfgar wrote:

It is my opinion that it is well passed the time for Democrats to wake up to few realities. No candidate will embody everything you want and more. The realities of politics are not such that each person gets what they want. Seemingly since Ronald Reagan, Americans have carried a national delusion that our President needs to be just like us, and give us everything that we ask for, or that person is unworthy of our support. Our sense of individualism appears to overridden our reason, at which point all we have to hang onto is our idealism. That is a national zeitgeist custom made for Republican victory and service to those most well heeled to manipulate that idealism. The reality is that we are not special little snowflakes. We won’t get everything we want, and our desires for ourselves cannot trump the good of the country as carried out by the candidates we elect. Speaking personally, I don’t want politicians who ‘feel my pain’. I want politicians who will do something about it … for all of us. Those are the people to whom I will give my whole hearted support.

Wulfgar hits the nail on the head, but he describes a bipartisan problem. Republicans are just as guilty of expecting their candidates to agree with everything they believe and unforgiving when necessary differentiation occurs.

The trouble is, the reality that we are not all beautiful or unique snowflakes (thank you Tyler Durdan) flies directly in the face of the GOTV efforts that are aimed at convincing every single voter that their vote and their vote alone is the most important in a given election. That’s one of the great fetishes of Democracy - the delusional belief that each vote matters against the sheer mathematics of a large-scale election.

The lesson to learn is that if one’s political ideologies are outside of the main stream, one must accept the fact that short of shifting the populous as a whole, no candidate can match those ideologies and get elected at the same time. That’s advice that I can use, and it’s also advice that Wulfgar should heed himself.

During the 2004 Governor’s race, my lefty friends took great pride in the fact that John Bohlinger, Schweitzer’s chosen Lieutenant, was a Republican. They lauded his five terms as a Republican state legislator. They emphasized his ties to the business community and his conservative positions on taxes and the economy. And did they mention he was a Republican?

In their minds, Bohlinger’s conservative street-cred should have been enough to ensure my vote. They believed his place on the ticket proved that Schweitzer was a bi-partisan moderate whose administration would transcend party politics and unify the state. “Brian doesn’t believe in red or blue,” one of his staffer’s told me over an M&M garbage omelette, “he just believes in Montana.”

Well, isn’t that just precious?

Schweitzer’s decision to choose Bohlinger was pure political genius. He had lost his 2000 Senate race by a small margin, and most agreed that choosing a Republican LT would move enough undecideds into the yes column to ensure a victory.  The problem would be finding a Republican who would switch sides.

Bohlinger’s career in the state legislature was admirable, but not stellar.  His name recognition wasn’t terribly high, and certainly there were Democrats who had similar if not better connections to Montana’s business community.  So despite all the rhetoric, John Bohlinger’s only unique qualifications were his party affiliation and his sweet bow ties.  Perhaps, that’s why he lists his party affiliation and not his legislative experience first on his bio.

Read the rest of this entry »

Future Democrat: Man, I’m so sick of my parents telling me what do to. I want some independence, but every time I try to do my own thing, they hold my allowance over my head.

Future Republican: I agree. You and I are way too dependent on our parent’s allowance. Let’s do something about it.

Future Democrat: I have a plan. First, we can make our parent’s allowance go further by finding different suppliers for the things we like to do. We’ll have to go on the internet to find the best prices from around the world and - yeah, they might take some time to get here, but at least we’ll be saving money. More importantly though, we need to try to completely ween ourselves from our parent’s money. To do this, we need to invent a brand new economic system based around a currency that doesn’t exist yet. Of course to make this work, we’ll have to develop the currency itself, figure out how to distribute it and convince enough people to actually use it so that we can spend it at all the stores we like to shop at.

Future Republican: Heh. That’s a good plan for the long-term, but don’t you think it’s a little slow and complicated? I mean we should definitely do those things, but in the mean time, since I have plenty of time to myself - I’m just going to get a job and earn my own money. That way I’ll be less dependent on my parents.

Future Democrat: Um, you can’t earn your way out of this problem.

Future Republican: Actually… you can.

As a general rule, when an elected official introduces legislation, they almost never call it something bad. If they could get away with it, I’m sure every bill would be called the “Happiness, Puppies and Children Act.” Of course, the devil is always in the thousands of pages of actionable legislation behind the frou-frou title.

Now, Democrats have gotten really good at using bill nomenclature to set up Heisman Votes. Sometimes, they even trick themselves. And here are three examples from recent history.

Read the rest of this entry »

Jay Stevens claims that Republicans booed “zero-to-partisan in five seconds flat” Jackie Speier during her opening remarks on the House Floor. Here’s the transcript:

SPEIER: Recently, I was introduced as having been elected to replace Tom Lantos. I had to laugh. I was elected to succeed Congressman Lantos. No one will ever replace him. […]

Madam Speaker, I was struck with something while campaigning for this seat. A public servant is never more in tune with her constituents than when she is first running for the office. While holding over 60 community meetings across my district this year, the most common question was — when will we get out of iraq?

It was asked by voters across the spectrum, veterans, students, parents, the prosperous, middle class, those still working towards their piece of the American dream. The process to bring the troops home must begin immediately.

The President wants to stay the course, and a man who wants to replace him suggests we could be in Iraq for 100 years.

But, Madam Speaker, history —

(BOOS)

PELOSI: The House will be in order.

SPEIER: — will not judge us kindly if we sacrifice four generations of Americans because of the folly of one. And, Madam Speaker, as a passionate as people are of getting out of Iraq, they’re also worried.

PELOSI: The house is not in order. Will the gentlemen please take their conversations outside the chamber.

The C-SPAN video does not leave Rep. Speier so there’s no evidence as to who was doing the booing. Considering when the booing occurred though - right after she described the statements McCain made about how long the US might have a presence in Iraq - it’s not unreasonable to suspect that it was actually Democrats who were booing the McCain policy she was explaining.

At that point in her speech, it doesn’t really make sense for Republicans to boo. I think these boos came from the left instead of the right and were directed at the policy instead of the speaker.

Of course, it’s impossible to tell from the evidence we can see. I don’t know and neither does Jay.

Democrats had a great time with the “Do Nothing Congress” label during the 109th Congress. Not to be outdone, the new majorities of the 110th Congress have been overwhelmed with partisan bickering and oversight campaigns aimed at the Bush Administration. “Do Nothing Congress” is rearing its rhetorical head once again.

But it turns out that “Do Nothing” isn’t exactly accurate. These Congresses are doing one thing predominantly: They are using parliamentary procedure to gain a political advantage in the next election cycle. Forcing the other side to take ugly votes - at the expense of accomplishing anything - for sensationalized headlines about children or the middle class or veterans or body armor or whatever.

Well hold onto your butts because we are in for a treat this year. If you thought the the vitriol was counterproductive to the process before, just wait until the ante is raised to the American Presidency. For the first time ever, the Presidential Election will be between two sitting United States Senators.

Largely because of its volatile political environment, The United States Senate is a very difficult platform from which to run for President. Unique to the Senate is the parity of power between the majority and minority and the ability of either to make life hell for the other. Consequently, only two sitting US Senators have ever won the Presidency - Harding in 1920 and Kennedy in 1960. Eight others have lost (remember how that pesky voting record burned Kerry in 2004?).

As the Second Session of the 110th Congress plows ever-so-tentatively forward, it looks like the Democrat majorities in the Senate and House don’t expect to and won’t try to accomplish much until they have a friendly ear in the White House. The First Session - an off-election year - was disappointing for them, and this year is a much higher hurdle. The Second Session of the 110th Congress is going to be about political posturing, and with two of their own going head-to-head, the Senate is going to be a bloodbath of difficult votes. Ultimately, it is Congressional Leadership that will play the most important Role in the 2008 Election.

From the relative safety of the minority Reid and Pelosi were quite adept at this game - running circles around Frist and DeLay. The result contributed to the dramatic election of 2006. But both have proven ineffective as majority leaders and the new Republican leadership has adapted quickly. Even in the House, where the minority has virtually no standing, Boehner has stymied Pelosi at every turn. In the Senate, where the minority has a real power, a years worth of blunders by Majority Leader Reid have taken their toll.

So here’s the scenario. Two college football teams with decent records. No BCS Bowl this year, but each team has a Heisman favorite on the roster. With a National Championship out of the question, the goal of the program centers around winning that trophy. And the two teams are suiting up against each other in the final game before the Heisman ballots are cast.

Reid is a quarterback coming off a season of interceptions, fumbles and field goal attempts on drives that should have been touchdowns. Even so, he’s the quarterback and the Democrats are playing offense. Reid has structural power to determine the agenda - to call the plays and to run audibles. Reid will call his game to run right over the top of John McCain and he’ll get the ball into his nominee’s hands as often as he can.

On the other side of the ball, McConnell is fielding a technically proficient defense with a killer game plan. When they’re not intercepting the ball or forcing fumbles, they are driving the offense into long-yardage situations and forcing punts. McConnell and the Republicans have to play a reactive game, but they can sustain a filibuster and force votes on germane amendments. Used wisely - and in conjunction with the self-imposed PayGo rules that force Democrats to curb their spending addiction or support tax increases - amendments can steal the rhetorical thunder from a policy. McConnell is going to spy the Democrat nominee is while sending McCain wherever the action is to boost his stats.

2008 in the Senate won’t be about winning any games; there’s always next season for that. This year is about winning a Heisman. So now you’ll know what I’m talking about when I identify a “Heisman Vote”

Heisman Vote (n): a politically motivated vote forced upon the opposing party not intended to achieve implement of the policy. ex: The Democrats called a Heisman Vote on the SCHIP Veto Override.