Energy

Most of the meeting was devoted to the energy issue. Blunt hammered home the GOP position on energy, emphasizing the need for expanded domestic production of all forms of energy, including offshore drilling and oil shale. He repeated three times the point that the United States is the only country in the world that views its natural resources as “an environmental hazard rather than an economic asset.” The rest of the world, Blunt said, is enthusiastically developing their domestic energy sources — from Scandinavia to Nigeria to Brazil — while the United States is alone in refusing to do the same.

He said that in mid-2006 it seemed that most Americans had “turned the switch off” in terms of listening to what Republicans had to say, but now the energy issue had caused them to “turn the switch back on.”

While acknowledging that the pro-drilling, pro-domestic production stance was a very good one politically for the Republicans, Blunt contended that it wasn’t just a case of poll-watching or political opportunism — he noted that in the past, most of the GOP had consistently advocated expanded drilling, even when it wasn’t as popular a position as it is today.

Blunt went on to emphasize that conservation was an important part of federal energy policy — not just an issue of “personal virtue” (as Vice President Cheney infamously stated during the 2004 debates). He mentioned tax credits and financial incentives for individuals and businesses to improve fuel efficiency and encourage Americans to “use less.”

The congressman also made a prediction: the “gas crisis” would turn into a full-blown “energy crisis” within the next six months, due to the fact that consumers are going to be hit harder than ever before by skyrocketing utility bills this winter. Blunt also argued that the presidential candidate with the better energy policy will have a huge advantage in November.

When asked about the criticism that oil from proposed drilling could take at least 10 years to reach the market, Blunt countered that such a number was misleading — yes, some oil is 10 years away, but other oil sources could be developed much quicker and reach the market in as little as two or three years. His main point was that since the fact remains that we will still be using oil in 10 years — no matter how much progress is made with alternative energy — it makes sense to start ramping up domestic production now.

Blunt lauded the benefits of oil shale, which he said experts have told him could provide the U.S. with 815 billion barrels of recoverable oil — twice Saudi Arabia’s proven reserves. He maintained that new technology would lessen the impact on the environment from recovery of this resource, and reminded the board that the Canadians have been successfully producing oil from shale (which the United States imports) for many years.

Healthcare

Rep. Blunt acknowledged that healthcare was one of the biggest challenges facing America today, and said that reform of the system should be a top priority. He argued that in his view, “the government should organize a new national healthcare system — not operate it.” He said that a single-payer insurance system was unworkable, and that a new system should ensure that everyone has access; that health insurance can be portable between jobs; that the system should be voluntary and allow anyone to opt out if they found a better plan.

When the editorial board pointed out that this was — oddly — very similar to the plan that Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) had laid out when he met with the editorial board earlier this week, Blunt seemed surprised (”We must just get lost in the fine print,” he offered jokingly), but said that he’d be willing to work with Durbin or anyone else from either side of the aisle on this issue.

Election-year politics

When asked about his thoughts on McCain’s potential VP pick, Blunt said that the top priority should be to a candidate with lots of experience, so as not to negate the major campaign message that Obama isn’t ready to lead the country. In Blunt’s view, the make-or-break standard for the McCain campaign in selecting a VP should be: “Is this nominee unquestionably more ready to be president than Sen. Obama?”

He said he wouldn’t necessarily mention anyone by name that didn’t meet that standard (the young Govs. Pawlenty or Jindal, for example), but said that in his mind, top choices would be former congressman and White House budget director Rob Portman or Mitt Romney, who have plenty of executive experience and are strong on economic issues.

He said that while all the indicators this year point to what should be a huge lead for Obama, the close polling shows that just hasn’t happened. Blunt believed Obama will have a hard time “closing the deal” with voters in November, citing his problems wrapping up the Democratic nomination, allowing the primary battle with Hillary Clinton to drag out “much, much longer than it should have been.”

When offered that Obama’s race might play a significant part in the Democrat’s problems “sealing the deal” in cruising to an easy victory, Blunt disagreed. “If [Obama] was a 46-year old, four-year Senator from anywhere else, he would still be facing the same problems” with voters due to questions about inexperience, values, and doubt that he was ready to lead the country.

Blunt concluded: “You know, after November, either way the outcome will seem very obvious. Either we’ll look back and say, ‘well, obviously the young, energetic candidate was going to beat the old grouchy guy’ or we’ll be saying ‘well, obviously in uncertain times like these, voters were going to choose the seasoned, experienced candidate over the risky newcomer.’”

Photo cr: Eddie Roth

For background, read yesterday’s post here.

(Pictured: U.S. Rep. Steve Cohen, D-Tenn., left, celebrates with his co-campaign manager Randy Wade, center, in front of supporters as Cohen appeared headed for a decisive victory over challenger, Nikki Tinker, in Tennessee’s 9th Congressional District race. (AP Photo/The Commercial Appeal, Mark Weber) )

Featured guests, billed as an All Star Panel on Contemporary Election Law Issues, were big time GOP operative Randy Evans of Georgia, as well as Asheesh Agarwal and Hans Von Spakovsky, both of whom were senior lawyers in the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department during a time of controversy over the enforcement of Federal voters rights laws.

All are in town for a sold out election law seminar sponsored by the Republican National Lawyers Association. It will be held in Clayton, Friday and Saturday.

I was invited to cover last night’s program by the Federalist Society, and was welcomed by local chapter president and attorney Jennifer Wolsing and her colleagues.

On hand were two long tables of Federalist Society members and friends, including that icon of the American political scene, Phyllis Schlafly.

The panelists covered a wide range of hot button elections issues. They made a lot of claims about the current electoral system being fraught with, or at serious risk of, widespread voter fraud. I am skeptical about many of these claims — but require more time to consider and evaluate what the panelists had to say.

Which I will do and follow up with a Part 2 to this post.

Also I wondered why no mention was made about the still unresolved scandal involving politicization of federal prosecutors over election law matters, including the apparent firings of U.S. Attorneys for refusing to bring what they thought were unmeritorious voter fraud cases.

It’s hard to see how any serious discussion about the integrity of the system could ignore that development.

Meanwhile, here are a couple of items of interest. Click on the link below to hear Mr. Agarwal’s analysis of a recent Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals decision in a case brought by the Justice Department over the state of Missouri’s voter registration rolls:

agarwal080708.mp3

I would like to hear from others with informed points of view on this case.

Then click on this link to hear what I thought was an odd response from Mr. Von Spakovsky  to a question from the audience about whether registering voters in veterans health care facilities might violate the Hatch Act:

VonSpakovsky 080708

What is that about? Has Code Pink gotten into the voter registration business?

More later. Probably next week

(Pictured: Hans Von Spakovsky and Phyllis Schlafly at Cardwell’s Restaurant in Clayton. Post-Dispatch/Eddie Roth)

The details are spelled out in a Government Accountability Office report that was issued this week. By the end of this year, the GAO says, Iraq will have accumulated surpluses totaling between $67 billion and $79 billion, depending on the price of oil.
Meanwhile, its people have no electricity for most of the day, water systems are polluted, unemployment is sky high and Iraq’s government is doing next to nothing about it. Since the invasion five and a half years ago, the United States has spent $42 billion on reconstruction. Of that, $23 billion went for critical security, oil, electricity and water programs. The Iraqi government has spent only $4 billion on those things since 2005.
“It is inexcusable for U.S. taxpayers to continue to foot the bill for projects the Iraqis are fully capable of funding themselves,” says Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich.
Why isn’t the Iraqi government investing in its own country? Incompetence is a big part of it, and so is corruption.
The GAO says that the Iraqi government lacks a staff trained to budget and spend money without losing much of it to rampant corruption. That’s not surprising, considering that much of the middle class has fled the country. Sectarian strife and violence also hamper the Iraqi government’s efforts.

Then again, why would Iraqis spend their own money to rebuild their country when the Bush administration and Congress have been so willing to spend ours? Why would Iraqis work to develop competent government operations when they’ve seen the examples of the Halliburton Co. and our failed Coalition Provisional Authority?
Our military and our money postpone the day when Iraqi politicians must face the reality that they must compromise across sectarian lines or they will ultimately destroy each other. If they need help in building an effective governmental infrastructure, we can offer it to them — at a fair price.
There’s been some progress. Violence is down sharply. Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki lately has shown some gumption in taking on militias run by his fellow Shiites. The largest Sunni bloc recently rejoined the Iraqi parliament after a year-long boycott. But parliament still can’t agree on rules for the October elections.
It’s time for America to remove the crutches so that Iraqis can stand on their own.

(Caption for the picture above:A Baghdad resident inspects wires used for connecting houses and private generators,)

America is suffering from inter-related meltdowns in the real estate, banking and credit industries, topped off by growing inflation. Banks and investment funds could lose more than $400 billion on their subprime mortgage investments. As a result, banks have cut back sharply on lending. Fewer buyers can get mortgages today, so housing prices keep falling. They’re down 18 percent over two years, according to the S&P/Case-Shiller index, and no one is sure where the bottom is.
In business, even credit-worthy corporations are finding it hard to borrow, further slowing the pace of the economy.
Meanwhile, high oil prices are causing a jolting transition in the auto industry and airlines. The result is rising unemployment. Jobs have declined for seven months in a row. The jobless rate, 5.7 percent, is up a full point over the past year.
No two recessions are alike. In some ways, the factors behind this one resemble those that brought on the slump of 1991. At that time, savings-and-loan institutions were collapsing by the hundreds. Commercial real estate was tanking. Junk bonds — the subprime mortgages of the corporate world — were cratering. This brought on a credit crunch, even as the Persian Gulf War sent oil prices soaring.
Officially, that recession lasted eight months, but it was followed by a recovery so slow that voters rejected incumbent President George H.W. Bush in 1992 and installed Bill Clinton in office.

The Federal Reserve has staved off panic by lending billions to the banking system. But the Fed’s standard anti-recession medicine — cutting short-term interest rates — hasn’t worked his time. The Fed has cut short-term interest rates from 5.25 percent to 2 percent. When money gets cheap, people are supposed to start borrowing and spending again.
But people can’t borrow if banks won’t lend. And the Fed dares not cut rates further for fear of fueling inflation. Consumer prices are up 5 percent over the past year, the highest rate in 17 years.
Government stimulus checks helped a little this spring, keeping consumer spending positive. The recently passed housing bill will save a few hundred thousand families faced with foreclosure, but many more will lose their homes.
Although some additional tactics may help ease the situation, the only real cure is time. It will take many months for the credit system to heal, raise new capital and resume lending. Clearly the credit industry doesn’t believe that housing prices have fallen far enough yet to match true value. The auto industry must retool to make smaller cars, and some firms may dip into bankruptcy along the way. The nation is for a long, dreary slog.

(Caption for picture above: A Dodge Ram pickup has it bumpers attached and wired as it makes it’s way down the line at the DaimlerChrysler North Assembly Center last year.)

Using George Carlin’s “seven dirty words” as a guide, Sheffield used Google to search the content of the top 10-most popular (in terms of web traffic) liberal and conservative blogs. (Note: he ruled out blogs that do not allow comments by readers):

Searching for Mr. Carlin’s seven words and some popular variants at the top 10 conservative Web communities yields about 70,000 results. That is dwarfed in comparison to the 1.9 million instances of profanity on liberal sites.

Things aren’t quite that clear-cut, however, since some Web sites have more pages than others. According to Google, the top 10 conservative sites have about 6 million pages, while the top 10 liberal sites have about 13 million.

Dividing the number of instances of profanity by the number of pages of the sites on which they appear, then multiplying the result by 100 yields what might be called a “profanity quotient.”

The top 10 liberal sites (Daily Kos, Huffington Post, Democratic Underground, Talking Points Memo, Crooks and Liars, Think Progress, Atrios, Greenwald, MyDD and Firedoglake) have a profanity quotient of 14.6.

The top 10 conservative sites (Free Republic, Hot Air, Little Green Footballs, Townhall, NewsBusters, Lucianne.com, Wizbang, Ace of Spades, Red State and Volokh Conspiracy) have a quotient of 1.17.

Conservatives, of course, would point to such findings as evidence of their superior level of intellectual discourse. Liberals would counter that it simply reflects the intensity of their justified anger at the Bush administration.

Sheffield contends that the “chasm” of profanity usage is probably due to the religious leanings of conservatives versus liberals:

More than likely, it is a reflection of how things are offline. Conservatives, especially those who are more religious, are less likely to use profanity in their daily conversation.

To me, this seems to be pure speculation — while it may seem like “common sense,” Sheffield offered no evidence to back up his conclusion. So I decided to put his thesis to the test by checking out the data.

I decided that the best way to determine the religiosity of liberals and conservatives was to check the exit polling from this year’s presidential primaries (most of which ask voters about frequency of church attendance). Since the primaries are known to be dominated by each party’s base (ideological liberals for the Democrats and ideological conservatives for the Republicans), the responses to exit polling would seem to be a good indicator of the liberal-vs.-conservative divide on religion.

Therefore, let’s take a look at seven “very red” (conservative Republican) states that had exit polling (Alabama, Texas, Utah, Mississippi, Georgia, South Carolina, and Tennessee) and compare the results with seven “very blue” (liberal Democratic) states that had exit polling (Massachusetts, California, Vermont, New York, Maryland, New Jersey, and Connecticut).

In the seven “very red” states (avg. 69.5 percent identified themselves as “conservative”) an average of just 4.9 percent of GOP primary voters said they “never” attended church. 67.8 percent said they attended services “weekly.”

By contrast, in the bluest states (avg. 55.2 percent self-identified as “liberal”), 25.6 percent of Democratic primary voters said they “never” attended church. 28.3 percent said they attended “weekly.”

Pretty much what one might expect.

But it’s not that simple, of course. It is important to note that polling shows Catholics — who traditionally tend to vote Democratic — are more likely to use profanity than their Protestant counterparts, even though they may not necessarily be any less religious.

Sure enough, the Catholic-vs.-Protestant numbers are reflected in the exit polls as you might expect: An average of just 9 percent of GOP voters in the reddest states identified themselves as “Catholic,” dwarfed by 72 percent who identified as “Protestant.” (The Protestant average would be even higher if not affected by the 90-percent Mormon Utah vote — only 3 percent of GOP voters in Utah are Protestants).

In the bluest states, Catholic voters narrowly outpaced their Protestant counterparts in the Democratic primaries: 34 percent identified as Catholic, while 32.7 said they were Protestants.

[For easier viewing, here’s a PDF of the data in a spreadsheet.]

So, while the numbers on church attendance do seem to back up Sheffield’s religiosity-based explanation for the profanity gap, the significant Catholic-vs.-Protestant gap between Democratic and Republican primary voters may also account for a large part of the religious equation in explaining the foul-language disparity.

Then again, perhaps religion has nothing to do with it at all. Unfortunately, the other possible explanations — like “Conservatives have more sophisticated arguments” or “Liberals have more reason to be angry” can’t really be quantified or examined empirically.

Or maybe, as some prominent bloggers at the national liberal blog conference Netroots Nation recently argued, the incidence of profanity in the blogosphere is actually already declining:

Digby Parton, who writes on Hullabaloo.com, said she initially thought of her blog as an ephemeral form of conversation among friends and used vulgarities freely. But now she is read by a substantially wider circle and has cleaned up her language.

“I don’t use the same amount of profanity,” she said. “We’re taken much more seriously as a political force,” and she has a stronger sense that her words are “out there for posterity.”

Others disagreed, saying profanity was a justifiable response to the Bush administration’s policies:

Mr. Papa said his impulse toward vulgarity, including references to rape, was a reaction to that climate of suppression [under the Bush administration]. Besides, he said, “I curse a lot in my daily life.”

…Next on the panel was Duncan Black, aka Atrios of the blog Eschaton and a fellow at Media Matters, who questioned why certain words were perceived as bad when they were describing policies that were truly horrific.

“I’ve toned it down a little bit over the years,” he said, but he added that if he wants to use a certain word, he does.

…Using obscenities acts like a relief valve, [Papa] said, and “that’s the kind of thing that keeps a movement together.”

At a fundraiser, Hillary Clinton answered a question about allowing her delegates to vote for her at the Democratic Convention (echoing the goal of The Denver Group, the grassroots pro-Hillary organization responsible for the video in my previous post) by saying she believed that entering her name for consideration and allowing delegates to vote their conscience — instead of holding a simple roll-call voice vote — would actually help party unity.

“”I happen to believe that we will come out stronger if people feel that their voices were heard and their views were respected,” … “I think that is a very big part of how we actually come out unified.

“I know from just what I’m hearing that there’s incredible pent-up desire, and I think that, you know, people want to feel like, ‘OK, it’s a catharsis, we’re here, we did it, and then everybody get behind Sen. Obama.”’ Clinton told the California crowd. “That is what most people believe is the best way to go.”

In the video, Sen. Clinton also goes on to emphatically refute one supporter’s hopeful “what if” question of a possible surprise nomination for Clinton if some delegates change their minds, laughing and saying “That’s not going to happen.”

However, ABC News is reporting that Sen. Clinton’s people are still locked in a heated battle with the DNC and Obama’s campaign over Clinton’s visibility at the convention. Another ABC story notes that Clinton’s refusal to rule out letting her delegates vote may be a potential “bargaining chip” that she is holding over party officials to get a more prominent role.

David Axelrod, Obama’s chief campaign strategist, insists that “we’re gonna work this out.”

**UPDATE: Time’s Karen Tumulty also examines lingering resentment from the Clintons and Hillary supporters:

“For so many of my supporters, just like so many of Barack’s supporters, this was a first-time investment of heart and soul and money and effort and sleepless nights and miles of travel,” Clinton said. “You just don’t turn it off like that.”

Those comments — now playing in clips on YouTube—speak to not only the bruised feelings of Clinton’s many supporters. Embedded in those remarks, say friends and advisers, are hints of Clinton’s own feelings in the aftermath of a race in which she fought so hard and still fell short….

…But behind the united front, says an adviser, “it’s not a great relationship, and it’s probably not going to become one.” In private conversations, associates say, Clinton remains skeptical that Obama can win in the fall. That’s a sentiment some other Democrats believe is not just a prediction but a wish, because it would prove her right about his weaknesses as a general-election candidate and possibly pave the way for her to run again in 2012.

**UPDATE 2: And speaking of controversy over a former candidate’s role at the convention…Hillary isn’t alone: “Tabloid’s claims threaten Edwards’ role at party’s convention.”

(Updated 1 p.m.)

Ugly, ugly, ugly though it is — this story about race, religion, and politics offers some redemption.

There is a primary election today for Democratic nomination in Tennessee’s 9th Congressional District, a Memphis district (formerly represented by Harold Ford, Jr.) a majority of whose voters are black but that is represented by Steve Cohen, a white Jewish man who has represented the district since 2007 and who served 24 years in the state Senate before that, and has a long history of community service and accomplishment.

He is opposed in the primary by Nikki Tinker, an African American woman who is a labor lawyer for an airline.

Tinker has appealed directly to the African American community to support her candidacy.

Nothing wrong with that.

But she ran a television ad that falsely suggests her opponent is sympathetic to white supremacists. She was slow to condemn the blatantly anti-semitic flier (shown here) that was circulated in behalf of her candidacy. And more recently she ran an ad (posted on YouTube and then removed) described by the Nashville Post political blog thus:

In the ad, a child’s voice is heard praying while the narrator, clearly meant to be a black woman but not Tinker, wonders who “the real Steve Cohen is anyway” while questioning one of Cohen votes on school prayer while in the state Senate.

While he’s is OUR churches clapping his hands and tapping his feet, he was the only Senator who thought OUR kids shouldn’t be allowed to pray in school.

The good news in all this is that, across racial lines, there has been an impressive response from leaders in community who have stood up strong and been outspoken against these tactics.

So, we will see what happens today at the polls.

Updated: Politico has video of the second Tinker ad, and reports that Barack Obama has issued the following statement:

“These incendiary and personal attacks have no place in our politics, and will do nothing to help the good people of Tennessee. It’s time to turn the page on a politics driven by negativity and division so that we can come together to lift up our communities and our country.”

Welcome to the Games of the XXIX Olympiad, which begin officially on Friday morning (St. Louis time) but, in fact, already are underway. And scheduling problems are the least of the difficulties these games present.

For only the second time in Olympic history, the site of the games is a bigger story than the fact of the games. The first time was Berlin in 1936 when Adolf Hitler used the Olympics as a coming-out party for National Socialism. The world can only hope the Beijing games don’t have the kind of sequel the Berlin games did.

Still, the walk-up to the Beijing games dealt far more with China’s problems than with athletes bidding for glory. Yes, Michael Phelps of Baltimore may turn out to be the greatest Olympic swimmer ever, and Shawn Johnson of Des Moines may be this Olympiad’s gymnastics sweetheart, and coach Mike Krzyzewski of Duke University finally could end the nightmare for the American men’s basketball “Dream Team.”

But what about China’s human rights record, its crushing of dissent in Tibet, its support for outlaw regimes in Africa and Asia, its air pollution, its censorship of what turns out to be a not-quite-World Wide Web?

President George W. Bush, who is scheduled to attend the opening ceremonies, is ignoring all of that. Sadly, that’s the correct decision. It’s better to deal with China than not. Besides, the U.S. Treasury reports that as of the end of May, China held $506 billion in U.S. Treasury securities. If the banker holding your mortgage invites you to a picnic, you almost have to go.

China first bid for the Olympics in the early 1990s and was bitterly disappointed that the 2000 games went to Sydney, Australia. By July 2001, the government was ready with new pledges of openness and partnership, and Beijing easily outpointed Toronto in the International Olympic Committee voting for the 2008 games.

Indeed, the coming of the Olympics has been a source of immense national pride for most of China’s 1.3 billion people and, particularly, for its new middle class. Look at us, they say: We’re no longer wearing Mao suits and bicycling through the streets. We’re wearing jeans and Italian fashions, talking on our cell phones and burning gasoline. Just like you.

We’ve built a new airport and Olympic facilities that are architectural masterpieces. See our new cities and subways and highways. We’re no longer merely producers; we’re consumers. We can spend $40 billion on the Olympics and not bat an eye. Try that in any other country in the world.

George Orwell said “Serious sport is war without the killing.” America knows the truth of that better than most nations, having invented the now universal practice of waving flags and chanting the nation’s name to celebrate international athletic triumphs. The Olympics are supposed to be about individual athletic achievement, but that disappeared long ago in the U.S. medal race with the Soviet Union.

So who can blame the Chinese for shrewdly analyzing the Olympics schedule and focusing their efforts on sports in which the most medals are available, such as rowing? The Chinese intend to not only host the Olympics, but also to “win” them. Rowing alone offers 14 chances for gold medals, and when they tally the medals, a gold in quadruple sculls counts just as much as a gold in soccer.

The Chinese have built a sports training program that rivals that of East Germany during the Cold War. Children as young as three are plucked from their homes and inserted into national sports training centers. They don’t have the pushy parents and sports agents of the United States. They have sports as an instrument of nationalism.

That’s at once good news and bad news. It means the government will do everything it can to ensure the Olympics are a success. But when the Olympics are over, that new nationalistic pride will need other outlets. That’s when the hard work begins.

He was joined by Bill Siedhoff, director of St. Louis’ Department of Human Services.

Mangano was an advocate for the homeless in Massachusetts who took a radical approach to dealing with homelessness — he proposed ending it rather than managing it.

He was recruited by the Bush administration to run the Interagency Council on Homelessness and is a leading figure in the national movement to end homelessness in ten years — mainly through helping local communities develop their own 10 year plans that include strategies of prevention, quick provision of housing for those who suddenly find themselves homeless, and supportive housing for the chronic homeless.

Click on the link below to hear just one question to Philip Mangano on ending homelessness:

Just one question on ending homelessness

Update: Here’s Jake Wagman’s take on Mangano on the Political Fix.