PFA fires back

Remember how I said Social Security Reform is dead? Well the anti-tax/pro-business wing of GOP isn't giving up as easily as say, Bill Frist. PFA (for progress for America) a 527 that the GOP launched to boost Bush last fall, have put up ads on CNN (and possibly others, but this is the one I saw) giving viewers ten seconds to name the reform proposals of the Democrats and then saying the Democrats have no solution they are only blocking progress.

Actually, in those 10 seconds I was able to rattle off a few things that Democrats have proposed: removing or raising the ceiling on Social Security payroll taxes, making "personal accounts" on top of social security, a combo of both, linking benefits to need (aka cutting benefits for those seniors who are wealthy pre-Social Security benefits)... So basically, if you are informed, this message doesn't stick, but then again, when you are informed, no spin works on you.

Even if you haven't been paying attention and agree with the ads sentiment--that Democrats are just saying no and have no solutions-- most people think that is a good idea. The vast majority of Americans like social security and see a problem down the road, but no immediate crisis. No bit of slandering the AARP or Democrats will change that.

Why would Congress listen to Bush these days anyway, his approval rating is a stellar 43 percent. I think Americans are having some buyers remorse (but they still aren't sad they didn't buy Kerry). Hopefully, this administration will go the way of their idols, the Nixon Administration, and be forced to resign in shame soon. The parallels are starting to emerge.

Cooking on TV and death threats

So we were flipping the channels this morning and low and behold on KBYU (the LDS-run PBS station, not the U of U-run PBS station) our Caterer, Mary Crafts [of culinary crafts]is cooking Easter foods.

In fact, she is showing how to cook a ginger-orange pork loin that will be one of our entries. Looks like it will be good but our meal may be pretty buttery. Still, she does the classic cooking show fallacy of time lapse. That is what we like about 30 minute meals by Rachel Ray, because she is cooking the whole time, even while she goes to commercial. Crafts' show looks like it was filmed several years ago but still a hoot. [update filmed in 1997]

On more serious note, an insane set of people advocating, and even ransoming, the murders of Michael Schiavo and FL Judge Greer. As my fiancee pointed out, it is extremely hypocritical to on the one hand condemn the judicial rulings as "murder" yet on the other hand to simultaneously call for other's deaths. As others have so wisely stated, this is in inevitable result of the GOP leadership's stoking of their extreme right-to-life base.

Utahns aren't in this group. Sure, they are overwhelmingly pro-life, but they don't think about abortion 10 times a day like some of these wackos in TX, MI, NJ, FL, and other places do. The only time they get relied up about abortion is when they get a mailer or see an ad on TV.

DKos doesn't get Utah and Schaivo consequences

The headline is "DeLay and Schiavo: How's it Playing in Utah?" and cites a Salt Lake Tribune Op-Ed.

While the Trib has recently decided to kiss up to the right wing, they have always prided themselves as Utah's First Independent Newspaper. Despite their resent court battles regarding ownership, it still is true that they are not owned by the LDS church, unlike the Deseret News. If the Des News had condemned DeLay, I would sit up and notice. Still good for the Trib to stick to principles.

Speaking of principles, Schaivo has completely backfired for the GOP except those trying to run for president and want to appease the powerbrokers in the GOP primary (especially in SC) because everyone saw it as a political move and not principles.

So Frist looked like a fool as did the rest of Congress, but the biggest loser in all this is Bush. Not because he signed that unconstitutional law, but because for the past two weeks the media have covered this non-stop and no one is talking about social security. If he hadn't lost already, it is deader than dead now. Plus, I love how he took vacation while Cheney still went through the motions around the country.

The end?

Well this week, and it seems the Schunder's legal avenues of appeal are over. FindLaw does a nice job of collecting all the major opinions, motions, and lawyers beyond this whole business.

Today was pretty light for me because two teachers canceled their classes so I shot a few hoops and worked on my paper (and sat through another dreadfully dull Property class). I am going to celebrate Maudy Thursday this year, let's see how depressing it all is. After Episcopalian practice is the most Catholic of all the protestant religions.

Thank goodness the NCAAs are on and the weekend is nigh. Have a good night.

One less stop on the Terri-Go-Round

Now Terri Schiavo's parents' only options are the US Supreme Court, which has previously declined to hear the case, or more unconstitutional wrangling by the political branches of Florida state government (Jeb and the GOP-controlled legislature). [Since the 11th circuit ruled 2-1 for Michael Schiavo]

In a way, I hope that the Supreme Court comes out strong to lay the smack down on Congress and Florida to tell them that what they are doing violates the Constitution and that the parents need to admit to themselves that they have lost their daughter.

TRO denied, round 21

That's right this morning's opinion (in PDF, thanks to How Appealing)was the 21st written opinion on the case, almost all of which have ruled against Terri's grieving parents.

It is kinda fun to hear on CNN them describing the criteria for a temporary restraining order or to read this opinion and know exactly what they are talking about, like you are some member a secret club-- the club of lawyers. I know, I am a dork.

Now the appeals court has to rule the same way, and the US Supreme Court has to lay the smack down on Congress and the President, and we can all go home and Terri's parents can come to the realization that their daughter has been lost to them for about 15 years, oh and by the way they lost their son-in-law too over all this.

Lacking resolution

For tomorrow's Criminal Law Class with the famous and controversal Judge Paul G. Cassell, he has assigned us to read two chapters out of the book entitled "Debating the Death Penalty" (thanks google print) that he co-edited with a oponent of the death penalty Prof. Hugo Bedau (Cassell is a whole hearted supporter)-- one pro, one con, each by the co-editors.

I have to say that I am disappointed in both sides. I was waiting for these two law professors, one of whom is a federal judge, to convince me that they were right and the other was wrong. Yet all they managed was to make me disbelieve both men and keep to my position that there are a ton of problems with the death penalty, but I still feel that certain truly guilty people who did horrific things deserve a terrible punishment, worse than other "regular" murders.

It seems there is not an out-and-out discrimination/racism in giving the death penalty, but like the SAT, the criteria are stacked against them. Killing a cop is a aggravating factor, and rightfully so. But of course there are more white cops than black cops, there is more likely to be interracial killing that leads to death. It is also more likely that prosecutors elect to go for the death penalty against black defendants than white who commit the same crime. Still the fact that more whites are on death row is an improvement, but more needs to be done to rid ourselves of the racism hidden within our system and in our minds.

Both seem to forget that there are people on death row who have been there for decades and that current fixes do nothing for them unless there is de novo review of their cases, which the 1996 Federal Habeas statute of limitations prohibits. Both have good points for why the death penalty is unnecessary or why it prevents the death of future innocents, but they fail to make the next leap as to why we should wholeheartedly support or oppose the death penalty.

Like Education policy, the statistics used by both sides is specious and both also rely on anecdotal evidence yet critique the other for doing so. Both use emotional arguments but then chastise the other for having no proof other than table pounding.

In short, I now have more things to say about the issue as a result of reading these polemics, but I have not been moved from my "middle position" nor do I think either side was persuasive to those few people who are undecided, let alone ardent pro or con people.

Perhaps this is because Prof. Bedau admits that with each reform to the death penalty to make it fairer-- no mentally ill, no children, extensive appeals, no automatic death penalty, not all murderers, high standards of evidence, competent defense teams, fair judges, unbiased juries, DNA post-conviction statutes, judicious use of executive clemency, etc.-- the window of abolition of the death penalty gets narrower and narrower. The death penalty, he forthrightly reports, is further "entrenched" with each progressive reform.

Likewise, supporters admit that they are deeply troubled and experience anguish with each capital case they try. Yet they still plow forward full steam ahead, confident that it deters, incapacitates, and that every convict on death row got his just deserts.

I implore people from every side to give me their best arguments and to read this book which is now available online via Google Print and Oxford Press. Maybe you can put me over the hump either way.

Terri-able

Those who read my blog probably read other blogs too; so I don't have to tell you the Bush signed a law as Governor of Texas that pulls the plug on people like Schiavo, or that GOP congressmen that are grandstanding also voted to cut Medicare which goes to people in Terri's situation, or other such hypocrisies. I don't have to tell you that the bill they are voting on clearly is a bill of retainer and prohibited by the US Constitution.

So I will just go with my favorite angle of this story: the psychoanalysis of Terri's parents. And there the New York Times as an excellent article that I actually read in print today because I was house sitting for my parents. It feels wired to fold and hold a newspaper nowadays.

...the heightened hope of open eyes, combined with memories of the patient when fully aware, can act to infuse any motion at all with meaning, psychologists say. A limp mouth may look like a concerned frown. A movement of the eyes may make a visitor gasp. Still alive in memory, and still living and breathing in body, vegetative patients seem sometimes to be on the verge of re-inhabiting themselves, like an old actor coming out of retirement to reprise a familiar role.

It is so very sad that their daughter is in a permanent vegetative state, and truly feel sorry for those parents. But I equally feel bad for the husband, whose spat with his mother- and father-in-law have been dragged out on an international stage, and whose wife's wishes are being denied so that extreme Christian conservative groups can talk about the "sanctity of life."

Terri Schiavo as Conversative Prop

Suddenly, GOPers in Congress are asking a woman who can't move or talk (or anything really) to "testify" so that they thwart a Federal Judge's ruling that Terri Schiavo's feeding tube should be pulled.

All these appeals and advocacy campaigns to keep Terri alive costs lots of money, so Attorney Jon Eisenberg wrote an article in the SF Recorder discovering that "many of the attorneys, activists and organizations working to keep Schiavo on life support all these years have been funded by members of the Philanthropy Roundtable."

The Philanthropy Roundtable, he explains "is a collection of foundations that have funded conservative causes ranging from abolition of Social Security to anti-tax crusades and United Nations conspiracy theories. The Roundtable members' founders include scions of America's wealthiest families, including Richard Mellon Scaife (heir to the Mellon industrial, oil and banking fortune), Harry Bradley (electronics), Joseph Coors (beer), and the Smith Richardson family (pharmaceutical products)." All the usual suspects. Terri's parents lawyer Pat Anderson "'was paid directly' by the anti-abortion Life Legal Defense Foundation, which 'has already spent over $300,000 on this case,'"

So why do they care? Is the life of a fetus the same as a comatose woman in their eyes? Why are they trying to bleed Terri's husband dry?

This seems like another thing Conservative activists found that can rile up people to vote GOP against their interest and all logic-- like Gay Marriage, or the Confederate Flag.

Meanwhile, they seem to have forgotten that Terri told 5 different people that she didn't want to be kept alive like this. Her parents can't let go, I can understand that, but these people are taking advantage of their grief and funding this legal grudge match against Michael Schiavo. These conservatives have also forgotten that they care about state's rights, after passing a bill allowing people to sue in federal court if any judge does order to remove life support for such people.

Back in 1996, when my cancer stricken grandfather fell and went unconscious, he had previously asked not to be kept alive by machine. So that is what my family did, after everyone around could say goodbye. I wish that is what Terri's family would do. I wish these super conversative power brokers would stay out of it.

my first job

I would like to write about my spring break, or how my Utes just barely pulled off a victory yesterday, or how I am currently leading in my NCAA pool (its just for bragging rights) with my fellow 1Ls. But it seems the only time I get traffic here is when I talk about Gay Marriage when I shouldn't or defend the DLC. Since I don't know enough about the developments in CA, I think I will go back to DLC talk.

Paperwight and other bloggers of a liberal pursuasion are upset at the DLC once again, this time for "trying to claim Obama as one of their own" when he asked not to be named on the list. And they are also tired on Al From and Bruce Reed pening their annual "secret memo" attacking liberals which gets leaked conviently to all the major MSM outlets and perhaps leads to an editorial on the WSJ. I don't know why it is ever news. Every time I read people's whining about the memo, I already know what the memo says, the same damn thing it always says: Democrats need to get tough and get back in the majority; listening to the far left and kissing up to them won't work etc.

The DLC was founded after a string of blowouts on the Presidential level (not including Carter, who got in basically because of Watergate) they were seeking despirately for a way to make the Democratic party palatable to the majority of the voting public. What they learned is that the far left annoyed/upset/worried those people a lot more than the far right, or at least there were more far right that voted than far left. Thus they sought to make their politicans tough and competitive by having "Sista Soldier" moments, but more importantly by expressing the same Democratic policies and principles in Values-language.

Of course, they also sought to change some policy and certain policy stereotypes, like "Tax-and-Spend Democrats" were to become "Fiscally Responsible Democrats" and Democrats became agents of reform and cutting government "The era of Big Government is over" "Ending Welfare as we know it."

Many bloggers point out that while this strategy worked well for a talented, once in a lifetime politican like Bill Clinton, it resulted in the loss of Congress and teh Democrats have not been able to hold on to the White House since Bubba left the building. As for Congress, there needed to be a house cleaning and some Congressional Dems still need to go. They are what makes it so hard for Democrats to retake control, these corrupt, me-first politicans who haven't had a real race since their first primary. As for Gore and Kerry, both were not charming and bad public speakers, yet they raised tons of money and won about 48% of the vote each time-- and Gore actually had more votes than Bush.

Also, let's be honest with ourselves, Bush is an amazing politican. Who else could have done such a crappy job as president, and had so many things go wrong on their watch and yet get 51% of the vote? Of course he used underhanded techniques and lies to do it, but he still has the keys to the Executive Mansion for another 4 years.

My first real job out of College was working for the DLC and my only regret is that I would have liked to have been given more responsibility. Staffers there of my generation doubted that the War in Iraq was necessary, that there were even WMDs, we pushed our bosses away from Joe Liberman and towards Edwards, Kerry and later Clark (I talked him up but people had trouble listening until he entered). We were a fairly diverse, left-center, bunch that had fun at our jobs.

As I said in the comment section, the DLC is more than just Al From and Bruce Reed memos, as much as they would like to think to the contrary. It is about the idea that Democrats need find a way to make their platform appeal to the majority of people that actually vote, and not just people like Sean Penn or the editoral board of the New York Times or The Nation. About 50-75 people work at the DLC, off the top of my head, there about 4 people I know that actually do the Dem-bashing that gets them the media attention, the rest of the employees work hard to expand the network of elected officials, develop policies and language that will pursuade voters that Democrats can keep them safe and be good stewards of their tax dollars etc. Most of the members of the DLC, the electeds, the interested citizens, yes even the lobbyists, don't sit around bashing Democrats. The only one I can think who does that regularly is Joe Liberman, and everyone who reads this blog regularly should know what a low opinion I hold of him.

The bloggosphere seems to have a need for a boogeyman to vent their frustrations out about the futility of the Democratic party since 2000, but I think the MSM seems to be all you really need and all there really is. If it weren't for the MSM trumpting those stupid memos and ignoring all the great slams against Bush, we wouldn't be having this conversation. If people like Bob Novak weren't considered "journalists" instead of horrible political hacks with no concept of truth and honor, then we wouldn't be in this mess. Why are these people given equal standing with a real writer of stories? Why do we read about California murder trials of famous people while we ignore torture, corruption, ethics violations, and propaganda?

Keep your eyes on the prize folks. The DCCC is starting to base its 2006 campaign around corruption and reform, they are finally listening to us. Focus on things like this, and stories that fall through the cracks, not some insider memo crap that From and Reed write.

the noose is tighening

around Tom DeLay's neck. I think he can feel those stray strands of rope scretching at his jugular.

After being admonished three times by the old Ethics Committee, DeLay has instructed his staff to help the Committee "get to the bottom of this." "We want to work with the ethics committee..." he said. Why the sudden change? Well he got rid of the chairman who admonished him and another Republican replacing them with two guys who got $50,000 from DeLay-associated PACs, so I am sure they will be unbaised and neural.

DeLay, a former bug exterminator, came to DC to get Washington off the backs of small businessmen and to make the federal government smaller. Yet a few years ago, when asked to smoke his Cubans outside a resturant, he refused. The waitress politely pointed out that smoking there was against Federal Law. In response, he said "Lady, I am the Federal Government," forgetting of course, the other members of the House, the Senate, and oh yeah the President of the United States.

The Washington Post has been following up on the latest scandals that have DeLay in hot water, let's look at the handy chart:



If the man was ever pure in his motives when he first left for Washington, DC and the lure of power has corrupted him beyond recognition. Those crooks that the GOP rallied against in 1994 are now themselves. It's time to throw these bums out too.

Greenspan: dishonest political hack

My quote of the day: "I look back and I would say to you, if confronted with the same evidence we had back then, I would recommend exactly what I recommended them," he continued. "It turns out we were all wrong."--Alan, on supporting Bush's 2001 tax cuts (via the Times).

Actually, lots of people pointed out that these tax cuts were a bad idea that that they wouldn't help the budget let alone the economy.

First that, then he supports the privitization of Social Security. I wonder if he even hears what he is saying to ensure that it passes the laugh test.

I can't wait til Greenspan is put out to pasture. Its time for a Fed Chief who is non-partisan. Its too bad Clinton fell for the guy.

bloggers v. DLC, round who cares

Liberal bloggers, reacting to the dumb pro-Lieberman move of Marshall Wittman on BullMoose Blog and the Nation's silly slam on DLC, have decided to renew their attack on the organization based on the New Dem Directory.

As someone who helped make the 2003 New Dem Directory and "100 to watch," I have to say both have it all wrong. This lists are consist of people who either 1) do everything with the DLC and agree with them on almost everything or 2) have attended DLC events and seem receptive to the DLC message but haven't necessarily enacted DLC ideas or supported DLC positions or 3) are rising stars at the state and local level whom the DLC would like to have join the organization while they are still state senators instead of when they are US senators (like Obama). In fact, if you look at the 2003 100 to watch, you will see that other IL 2004 candidates besides Obama were listed on there, so that the DLC could have a future senator on their list and play it safe.

Any political organization tries to spread its influence and increase its membership. If you can get state and local politicians to call themselves New Democrats before they join Congress or become a Governor, so much the better for the organization. Plus, it is usually easier to rope in lower level politicians who are looking for the connections on the national level that the DLC provides. The political department tries to reward loyalty, punish straying from the organization's core principles (pro-trade, pro-charter school, etc.), increase turnout at events, increase perceived power and influence, and influence the next round of political leaders.

After naming people to these lists, it is often times good local press for these folks but it doesn't automatically mean the people from category 3 will join; in fact, the results are mixed. It isn't that the DLC "needs him" it is just that they would like to have Obama, like any Democratic group would.

Obama may be playing to both sides here. Once in Washington, he has done much to disappoint liberal bloggers, who expected him for some reason (he was endorsed by Howard Dean, he had some liberal code language) to be one of their own. According to the DLC, he is a member of the Senate NDC. Look at that list, and see if, other than Obama, any other Senator's name seems out of place. So either some one at the DLC forgot to update the New Dem Directory (which happens, I have made that mistake), or he is a member of the Senate NDC. Under Graham's reign, the organization in the senate was a disaster, with people claiming to be on it but no real group action. I don't know if that has changed, but I doubt it has improved.

Likely what has happened is that Obama wants to be moderate on some issues, more liberal in others, and doesn't really fit into either the DLC or the Wellstone box. So he does what any good politician does, and plays it both ways.

Sure the DLC needs to avoid bashing democrats until it is very inside baseball, but I am sure it is tempting to get all that attention. Trust me though, they hate it. During the DLC's 2002 National Conversation, Lieberman hogged the media coverage of the event by bashing Al Gore's 2000 campaign strategy, prompting editorial wars and glossing over the fact that we had many of the 2004 and 2008 candidates show up and speak to DLC members (Kerry, Hillary, Edwards, Gephardt, Lieberman, Daschle, and Bayh) and that Hillary got the biggest applause of all of them (most of her speech was Bush bashing). It is only Al From and Bruce Reed that seem to ocationally enjoy the bashing of lefties (and Marshall Wittman as well, but I don't really consider him a Democrat as much as a reformed GOPer).

Brr

so I got so excited about my spring break and the last few days of warm weather that I packed up all my wool sweaters and parkas, like I said before, but today is was pretty windy and cold.

This morning I researched post-conviction statutes for Wyoming and Nevada for the Rocky Mountain Innocence Center. We are trying to come up with ideas for how to get around their lack of DNA statutes. On our week off, 3 of us still came and I was glad for it because our supervising attorney is a great guy and we have lots of fun while we are doing this.

At the law school, I got out my giant Constitutional law textbook which weighs like 20 lbs. to fix up my outline and read for next tuesday. Sometime I have set aside 3 hours to take this practice test that ex-boss from Rep. Matheson's office (now a 2L) cooked up. Fun stuff. Maybe tomorrow, and add the fun of doing property, the hardest class for me.

For my friend Thomas, it is just the opposite: Con Law to him seems boring and hard, while Property is interesting. Then again, he wants to do Tax law and was an accounting major (while I was International Relations). Plus, he is Clarence Thomas conservative and I am definately a member of the Bush v. Gore minority.

I should turn on the heat in here, its freezing.

ring shopping

So today we went to O.C. Tanner and looked at wedding rings. I used to like my hands, but they looked so long and pasty against the rings. I really need some vitamen D and sunshine. I got so excited about my spring break and the warm weather this week, putting away all my sweaters and parkas into the storage bin and getting out my shorts and polos, but it looks like next week won't get above 50 degrees. So much for that.

It sure is scary these days to be a judge, now I know why the guards in the Matheson Courthouse made me take my leatherman off my keychain and leave it outside. The more one reads about this Nichols in Atlanta, the scarier he sounds. Since yesterday, he killed 3 people (a FBI agent, a state judge, and a court stenographer), severely injured another (court officer), held a woman hostage, stole 2 cars, and was on trail for rape before that (he took his girlfriend hostage for 2 days, threating to kill her and her family if she told anyone about the rape). This guy's going to get the death penalty, and I am sure Bush is going to fight to be the one to kill him rather than Georgia, where the case rightly belongs.

Hatch afraid of Matheson?

National Journal's "On The Trail" ranked Orrin's seat as 33rd out of 33 in terms of endangerment. The reaction? Sen. Hatch's campaign manager Dave Hansen: "I just hope Congressman (Jim) Matheson (D-02) takes a look at this and gets the idea that staying in the House where he will most likely be re-elected is much preferable to running against a 'sure winner' and ending his political career."

Like LaVarr Webb, I seriously doubt that Jim will run against Hatch or Bennett. Even in 1992 when Bennett's seat was open, then-nominee/ex-Rep. Wayne Owens (D) did not win. "That may be a long wait, but he's young and patient." The other money quote? "Matheson is a terrific campaigner, but it would be foolish for him to take on Hatch." I don't know if I would say foolish, but highly risky and unlikely.

Has Dave Hansen being hearing things I haven't? Why go yap to the press about this?


And then there's Paul Sarbanes, who after finally getting a important piece of legislation passed, is retiring. I hope Duncan and O'Malley reach a gentleman's agreement on who runs for Governor and who runs for Senate. That way, there won't be a clash of the titans. It seems like Ex-NAACP pres./ex-Rep. Kweisi Mfume will battle out the black vote with Rep. Al Wynn (04), who tried to block campaign finance reform and who's own wife campaigned against him along with CBC chair Rep. Elijah Cummings (07). Ambitious little twerps like Rep. Chris Van Hollen (08) will run and it will be like the 2004 Democratic Presidential Primary.

MIA

sorry for the long gap in posting. My laptop's harddrive suffered a mortal blow yesterday, I have been working with techies from the Law School, the bookstore, and Dell to try to fix it. It seems like a new one will need to be shipped out soon to replace it.

Unfortunately, there is almost no way of recovering the data in a timely matter. So all of last week's work is gone. Word to the wise: backup as much as you can as many places as you can, esepecially if you use a laptop. So yesterday I spent rereading all of last weeks stuff for 2-3 classes and retyping my notes. Worse yet are my outlines, Property, and my Methods paper which I had just reworked over the weekend into something to be proud of. Oh well. Good thing also Spring Break is coming up so I won't get too far behind. I wonder if I will get dumped on like I did for Fall break. So far so good.

Last night was our first basketball playoff game but the other team was a bunch of stoners so we just ended up playing against ourselves since they didn't show. Tonight we face another team, then if we win this, the number 1 seed. But I think we have a good shot to win the whole thing this year.

believing it wholesale

The mainstream press is so pathetic sometimes. They don't even bother to read the crap the GOP gives them, or even a critcal eye. There is an article today in the Knight-Ridder news service, which means hundreds of local papers (which are read a lot more than LAT NYT WP WSJ etc.) have picked this up off their wires and placed it somewhere in the A section.

Here's the telling graph:

A poll released Wednesday found that those ages 18-29 — the only age group that solidly supports Bush's idea of using their tax money to fund private retirement accounts — is also the only group whose support for the idea has increased in recent months, although by a statistically insignificant margin.

A statistically insigificant margin is all Bush can hang his hat on these days, yet the article goes to great length about how the GOP sees this as a way of ensuring a majority politically for decades to come through their "support" among young people, who by the way voted overwhelmingly for Kerry if they showed up at all last November. Why would people my age support such an initiative? Because we have been told over and over again that it won't be around when we turn 65, so why would we care what Bush does with it? We might just come out ahead, the thinking goes, something is better than nothing.

But I bet if you asked young people who voted for Bush why they did so, they might talk about terrorism, about taxes, about moral values and character, but never would the words "Social Security" pass their lips. Sure, it sounds like a good idea to them and other young people, but it is not something that will ensure GOP dominance for decades to come.

I think Bush needs to look himself in the mirror and admit that 1) there was no mandate and 2) his social security privatization plan won't even come up for a vote this year or next year.

Huntsman focused on problems real and fake

Scanning the headlines from today's Salt Lake Tribune, I see a mixed bag from Gov. Huntsman. First the good: the state recognizes reality and the best way to save money: stick it to Big Pharma's profits.


Utah will be joining Maine's bulk purchasing program and creating a list of "preferred drug list" saving the the Beehive State $1.4 billion.
"It won't be a fixed list, like a formulary. So if an individual needs a certain medication, we can grant an exception. But we believe a lot of expensive drugs are prescribed unnecessarily," said state Health Department Director David Sundwall.

With ex-Governor Mike Leavitt heading HHS, I doubt the feds will interfere.

On to the bad: The governor is enjoining a suit to reopen a road in Canyonlands National Park that weaves around one of the biggest sources of water in that parched part of te state.

Of course, the Bush administration is for it too. Anything so that fat people can drive their Hummers up to Angel arch.

A federal judge ordered Salt Creek closed to traffic in 1998 in a ruling in a lawsuit brought by Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, which pointed to damage caused by vehicles. But the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in 2000 ordered the court to reexamine the record. Then last June the Park Service closed the road because of damage.

The next day, San Juan county found an obscure 1866 rule to claim broad rights-of-way across unreserved federal lands, arguing that the road predated the area's designation as a national park. The entire state of Maryland used to belong to the Earl of Baltimore, but you don't see his relatives trying to claim the right of there do you?

Now I like the idea of the feds working more closely with the states and local community when it comes to land and land use, and I don't think locking land up forever is a good idea everywhere. But this is a national park, not some random BLM land out in the boonies.

If the state offered money to make it a real, paved road to protect the surrounding environment and kept off-roaders on the asphault, then I would feel a bit differently. I love the land down in Southern Utah, I have been 4-wheeling on slickrock and dunes before and it is fun, but I don't think those things should be done in national parks.

Congress has designated these lands as protected and the President and the states don't have the right to undermine the will of the legislature through stuff like this.

The abortion fight that never was

According to PoliticsPA, ex-Treasurer and ex-GOPer Barbara Hafer has decided not to run for Senate in 2006, nixing an all out fight over reproductive rights in the keystone state.

According to his press release current Treasurer and son of popular ex-governor Bob Casey Jr. (D) "said today that he will run" for the seat, and "will make a formal announcement of his candidacy at a later date." Citing trade and health care policies, Casey said DC GOPers "views the results of the November election as a mandate to increase the speed and severity of their push to undermine policies that protect middle-income working families. Their actions since the election played a large part in my decision to enter the Senate race. ... As Senator, I will fight everyday to put middle-class families first. ... I will fight to protect and strengthen Social Security and will oppose any privatization plan that cuts benefits, requires massive borrowing from foreign countries or does nothing to improve the solvency of the Social Security system"

Notice no talk of Abortion, as Casey is pro-life. To Rendell and co, this would be primary battle would have been a nasty one. EMILY's list had already sent up operatives to PA and about to raise money and have staff for Hafer. The one thing I really dislike about EMILY's list is that it effectively makes all their candidates seemingly one-dimensional. They are good at raising money for democratic women who otherwise went ignored pre-blogs, but I think women candidates should be considered much more than being just pro-choice and/or democrats.

Lest we forget, longshot ex-campaign strategist current-Professor Chuck Pennacchio is running in the primary as well. He is running a grassroots/netroots campaign, AKA he is kissing up to MyDD and others hoping to get some cash and recognition. Best of luck.

I wonder what Barbara got in return for not running against Casey? The promise of appointment to the Treasurer's job if Casey wins? A spot on the ticket as LG?

Meanwhile, the pro-choice zealots will now move on to their next intramural battle for 2006 senate race: Rhode Island and Providence Plantations. Rep. Jim Langivin is being recruited by Sen. Schumer to run against Sen. Chaffee. The other Congressman from RI, Patrick Kennedy (son of Teddy) realizing he was too young and too dumb, decided to pass up this race. RI is 80 something percent Catholic, who are at least nominally pro-life. Personally, I believe in challenging incumbents with the best your side can offer.

If Democrats regain control of the Senate, their won't be votes on Abortion to worry about how these guys stand. Bush may nominate anti-Roe judges in his last two years, but Democrats can quash these nominees in the judiciary Committee and keep Jim and Bob off those committees. So cool your jets EMILY's listers.