Deferring to the Conspiracy
By Scott Lewis
Voice of San Diego
Jan. 31, 2008
Click HERE for original article.
Of the complaints that San Diego City Attorney Mike Aguirre must parry or absorb in coming months if he is to keep his job, the most damaging is clearly that the man has no motor control of his accusation muscle...
So it was with a bit of surprise last week that I learned that Aguirre's most prominent declared rival to his seat might have a similar proclivity toward the unsubstantiated accusation.
Former Poway Mayor Jan Goldsmith, the chosen one of the local Republican Party, got himself all fired up about the surprising news that City Councilman Brian Maienschein, a fellow Republican with much the same base of support, was entering the race...
It was really Maienschein's money that so upset Goldsmith.
The city councilman had the good fortune to run for re-election to his post in 2004 against no one in particular. People like giving money to politicians and so, like most incumbents, he was able to raise a ton of money for the non-existent race. That money -- $250,000 -- sits now waiting for Maienschein's call.
The city had, in 2004, passed a law that prohibited people from raising money to run for office more than a year before the election for the office they aspired to occupy.
...the director of the Ethics Commission responded to my inquiry about it with a statement that the law seemed pretty clear that money from previous campaigns could be transferred into new ones.
That Maienschein could use that money in the race for city attorney infuriated Goldsmith. And with that came the conspiracy theory and the accusation.
"I would request that the Ethics Commission be fair and impartial in addressing this issue. The appearance is that the Commission is stretching to find ways to allow an incumbent Councilman to do something that is unavailable to other candidates," Goldsmith wrote to Fulhorst and then sent to me.
I had a chance to ask Goldsmith about this.
He was accusing the Ethics Commission of working in collusion with Maienschein to further his political goals. Is this a window into the future? Would he, as city attorney, also defer to the conspiracy theory to make his points?
He said he never wrote that it was an actual conspiracy.
It just looked that way...
And then he got to the other angle about this that bothered him. How had this potential wrinkle in the election law not been ironed out before? This offered Goldsmith another justification for his candidacy -- he could spot things like this.
The City Council didn't know what it was doing passing the law... about the 12-month limit for raising funds.
"Why didn't anyone, in 2004 when this was passed, not ask the question that this doesn't provide an exception or clarity about transfers for money from previous campaigns? There were three lawyers on the council and they couldn't see this?" Goldsmith asked.
He said had he been city attorney, he would have made sure to tie that loose end.
What he didn't realize is that the issue had in fact been brought up. Not by a lawyer on the council, but by the only person who at times seems to be able to ask questions like one: City Councilwoman Donna Frye.
Former City Attorney Casey Gwinn actually issued an opinion about the matter.
Could the city keep people like Maienschein from transferring money from a previous campaign to a new one?
Nope, Gwinn's deputy determined...
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Monday, January 28, 2008
Lobbyists and lawmakers party in D.C.
From The Times-Picayune
D.C. Mardi Gras puts a mask on ethics codes
Lawmakers, lobbyists celebrate Louisiana traditions together
January 24, 2008
By Bill Walsh
http://www.nola.com/news/t-p/frontpage/index.ssf?/base/news-2/1201155718191680.xml&coll=1
WASHINGTON -- New ethics rules were supposed to have "broken the link" between special interests and Congress, but the changes won't stop lobbyists and lawmakers from donning masks and celebrating together as they have for decades at the Washington Mardi Gras.
The parties, meals and receptions starting today are arguably the most intimate gatherings of businesspeople, politicians and lobbyists left in Washington, where a spate of influence-peddling scandals has put a damper on corporate-sponsored schmoozing.
But Washington Mardi Gras, which is in many ways a throwback to the days when politicians and lobbyists socialized regularly outside the glare of the public spotlight, appears largely immune to the new ethics standards.
"I don't think there will be much difference at all," said Ted Jones, a recently retired lobbyist who, as a longtime organizer of the three-day celebration, bears the title of senior lieutenant in the Mystick Krewe of Louisianians.
Jones says the Mardi Gras has survived periodic attempts to clamp down on congressional ethics because it is less business than pleasure. Each year, about 2,000 Louisianians trek to the nation's capital and turn the Washington Hilton into a bustling party headquarters. The bar at the hotel is so thick with Louisiana politicos, especially in an election year, that it has been dubbed the state's 65th parish.
"For most of these people, it's their one trip to Washington a year," said former Louisiana Sen. John Breaux, a one-time captain of the Mystick Krewe. Breaux retired from the Senate in 2005 to become a lobbyist and now carries the title of senior lieutenant emeritus.
Jones puts it this way: "There is no big deal about this. It's just like you'd invite people to your house for a party and you bring your own bottle."
For the first night anyway, the bottles -- and food and music -- are free. They are paid for by the corporations, labor unions and lobbying firms sponsoring the "Louisiana Alive!" party that kicks off the Mardi Gras.
Be there or be square
The event is one of the most sought-after tickets in any season in Washington. Dixieland and zydeco bands are flown up from Louisiana along with a seemingly endless supply of fresh shrimp and gumbo. The bars are open. Contortionists in spandex outfits entertain on pedestals throughout the ballroom, and members of Louisiana's congressional delegation mix freely with the other guests. One year, Breaux was carried into the party in a coffin held aloft by revelers...
D.C. Mardi Gras puts a mask on ethics codes
Lawmakers, lobbyists celebrate Louisiana traditions together
January 24, 2008
By Bill Walsh
http://www.nola.com/news/t-p/frontpage/index.ssf?/base/news-2/1201155718191680.xml&coll=1
WASHINGTON -- New ethics rules were supposed to have "broken the link" between special interests and Congress, but the changes won't stop lobbyists and lawmakers from donning masks and celebrating together as they have for decades at the Washington Mardi Gras.
The parties, meals and receptions starting today are arguably the most intimate gatherings of businesspeople, politicians and lobbyists left in Washington, where a spate of influence-peddling scandals has put a damper on corporate-sponsored schmoozing.
But Washington Mardi Gras, which is in many ways a throwback to the days when politicians and lobbyists socialized regularly outside the glare of the public spotlight, appears largely immune to the new ethics standards.
"I don't think there will be much difference at all," said Ted Jones, a recently retired lobbyist who, as a longtime organizer of the three-day celebration, bears the title of senior lieutenant in the Mystick Krewe of Louisianians.
Jones says the Mardi Gras has survived periodic attempts to clamp down on congressional ethics because it is less business than pleasure. Each year, about 2,000 Louisianians trek to the nation's capital and turn the Washington Hilton into a bustling party headquarters. The bar at the hotel is so thick with Louisiana politicos, especially in an election year, that it has been dubbed the state's 65th parish.
"For most of these people, it's their one trip to Washington a year," said former Louisiana Sen. John Breaux, a one-time captain of the Mystick Krewe. Breaux retired from the Senate in 2005 to become a lobbyist and now carries the title of senior lieutenant emeritus.
Jones puts it this way: "There is no big deal about this. It's just like you'd invite people to your house for a party and you bring your own bottle."
For the first night anyway, the bottles -- and food and music -- are free. They are paid for by the corporations, labor unions and lobbying firms sponsoring the "Louisiana Alive!" party that kicks off the Mardi Gras.
Be there or be square
The event is one of the most sought-after tickets in any season in Washington. Dixieland and zydeco bands are flown up from Louisiana along with a seemingly endless supply of fresh shrimp and gumbo. The bars are open. Contortionists in spandex outfits entertain on pedestals throughout the ballroom, and members of Louisiana's congressional delegation mix freely with the other guests. One year, Breaux was carried into the party in a coffin held aloft by revelers...
Monday, January 21, 2008
Cox Communications really means it when it says it cares
Found at http://www.coxcares.com:
"Cox cares...Cox Communications is constantly striving to improve our customer experience. Your ideas and opinions are very important to us..."
"Cox cares...Cox Communications is constantly striving to improve our customer experience. Your ideas and opinions are very important to us..."
Is Cox Communications too cheap to follow government regulations?
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .)
Cox Communications, Inc. . . . . . . . . . .) File No. EB-04-SD-051
Facility ID #s 002295 & 004818 . . . . .)
Community Unit ID #s AZ0109 . . . . . . )
AZ0110, AZ0148, AZ0176, . . . . . . . . . .)
AZ0273 and AZ0878 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .) NOV No. V20043294001
Maricopa County, Arizona . . . . . . . . . . .)
NOTICE OF VIOLATION
Released: September
13, 2004
By the District Director, San Diego Office, Western Region,
Enforcement Bureau:
1. This is a Notice of Violation ("Notice") issued
pursuant to Section 1.89 of the Commission's Rules,1 to Cox
Communications, Inc., the operator of a cable television
system in Maricopa County, Arizona.
2. From February 10 through 13, 2004, an agent from the
Commission's San Diego Office inspected the Emergency Alert
System (``EAS'') equipment and logs at the following cable
system headend locations operated by Cox Communications,
Inc.:
Site Address
Bell 1550 W. Deer Valley Rd.,
Phoenix, AZ
East Mesa 4437 E. Holmes Ave., Mesa, AZ
Fowler 6610 Van Buren St., Phoenix,
AZ
McDowell 3008 E. McDowell Rd., Phoenix,
AZ
Peoria 9534 W. Peoria Ave., Peoria,
AZ
Scottsdale North 28213 N. 64th St., Scottsdale,
AZ
The agent observed the following violation:
47 C.F.R. § 11.52(d): ``Broadcast stations and
cable systems and wireless cable systems must
monitor two EAS sources. The monitoring
assignments of each broadcast station, cable system
and wireless cable system are specified in the State
EAS Plan and FCC Mapbook. They are developed in
accordance with FCC monitoring priorities.'' Cox
Communications, Inc. had the capability to monitor
two EAS sources but failed to monitor the local LP-1
station. According to the local EAS plan for the
Phoenix, AZ area (Maricopa County, Arizona), the
designated LP-1 station is KTAR(AM), Phoenix,
Arizona.
3. Pursuant to Section 308(b) of the Communications Act of
1934, as amended,2 and Section 1.89 of the Commission's
Rules, Cox Communications, Inc., must submit a written
statement concerning this matter within 20 days of release
of this Notice. The response must fully explain each
violation, must contain a statement of the specific
action(s) taken to correct each violation and preclude
recurrence, and should include a time line for completion of
pending corrective action(s). The response must be complete
in itself and signed by a principal or officer of the
licensee. All replies and documentation sent in response to
this Notice should be marked with the File No. and NOV No.
specified above, and mailed to the following address:
Federal Communications Commission
San Diego Office
4542 Ruffner Street, Suite 370
San Diego, California 92111
4. This Notice shall be sent to Cox Communications, Inc.,
1550 Deer Valley Road, Phoenix, Arizona 85027.
5. The Privacy Act of 19743 requires that we advise you
that the Commission will use all relevant material
information before it, including any information disclosed
in your reply, to determine what, if any, enforcement action
is required to ensure compliance. Any false statement made
knowingly and willfully in reply to this Notice is
punishable by fine or imprisonment under Title 18 of the
U.S. Code.4
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
William R. Zears Jr.
District Director
San Diego Office
Western Region
Enforcement Bureau
_________________________
147 C.F.R. § 1.89.
247 U.S.C. § 308(b).
3P.L. 93-579, 5 U.S.C. § 552a(e)(3).
418 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq.
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .)
Cox Communications, Inc. . . . . . . . . . .) File No. EB-04-SD-051
Facility ID #s 002295 & 004818 . . . . .)
Community Unit ID #s AZ0109 . . . . . . )
AZ0110, AZ0148, AZ0176, . . . . . . . . . .)
AZ0273 and AZ0878 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .) NOV No. V20043294001
Maricopa County, Arizona . . . . . . . . . . .)
NOTICE OF VIOLATION
Released: September
13, 2004
By the District Director, San Diego Office, Western Region,
Enforcement Bureau:
1. This is a Notice of Violation ("Notice") issued
pursuant to Section 1.89 of the Commission's Rules,1 to Cox
Communications, Inc., the operator of a cable television
system in Maricopa County, Arizona.
2. From February 10 through 13, 2004, an agent from the
Commission's San Diego Office inspected the Emergency Alert
System (``EAS'') equipment and logs at the following cable
system headend locations operated by Cox Communications,
Inc.:
Site Address
Bell 1550 W. Deer Valley Rd.,
Phoenix, AZ
East Mesa 4437 E. Holmes Ave., Mesa, AZ
Fowler 6610 Van Buren St., Phoenix,
AZ
McDowell 3008 E. McDowell Rd., Phoenix,
AZ
Peoria 9534 W. Peoria Ave., Peoria,
AZ
Scottsdale North 28213 N. 64th St., Scottsdale,
AZ
The agent observed the following violation:
47 C.F.R. § 11.52(d): ``Broadcast stations and
cable systems and wireless cable systems must
monitor two EAS sources. The monitoring
assignments of each broadcast station, cable system
and wireless cable system are specified in the State
EAS Plan and FCC Mapbook. They are developed in
accordance with FCC monitoring priorities.'' Cox
Communications, Inc. had the capability to monitor
two EAS sources but failed to monitor the local LP-1
station. According to the local EAS plan for the
Phoenix, AZ area (Maricopa County, Arizona), the
designated LP-1 station is KTAR(AM), Phoenix,
Arizona.
3. Pursuant to Section 308(b) of the Communications Act of
1934, as amended,2 and Section 1.89 of the Commission's
Rules, Cox Communications, Inc., must submit a written
statement concerning this matter within 20 days of release
of this Notice. The response must fully explain each
violation, must contain a statement of the specific
action(s) taken to correct each violation and preclude
recurrence, and should include a time line for completion of
pending corrective action(s). The response must be complete
in itself and signed by a principal or officer of the
licensee. All replies and documentation sent in response to
this Notice should be marked with the File No. and NOV No.
specified above, and mailed to the following address:
Federal Communications Commission
San Diego Office
4542 Ruffner Street, Suite 370
San Diego, California 92111
4. This Notice shall be sent to Cox Communications, Inc.,
1550 Deer Valley Road, Phoenix, Arizona 85027.
5. The Privacy Act of 19743 requires that we advise you
that the Commission will use all relevant material
information before it, including any information disclosed
in your reply, to determine what, if any, enforcement action
is required to ensure compliance. Any false statement made
knowingly and willfully in reply to this Notice is
punishable by fine or imprisonment under Title 18 of the
U.S. Code.4
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
William R. Zears Jr.
District Director
San Diego Office
Western Region
Enforcement Bureau
_________________________
147 C.F.R. § 1.89.
247 U.S.C. § 308(b).
3P.L. 93-579, 5 U.S.C. § 552a(e)(3).
418 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq.
Cox Communications FCC violation--poaching on government wavelengths
http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-259163A1.html
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of )
)
Cox Communications, Inc. ) File No. EB-05-SD-
101
)
Physical System ID # 006623 )
)
Casa Grande, Arizona ) NOV No.
V20053294005
)
)
NOTICE OF VIOLATION
Released: June 2,
2005
By the District Director, San Diego Office, Western Region,
Enforcement Bureau:
1. This is a Notice of Violation ("Notice") issued
pursuant to Section 1.89 of the Commission's Rules,1 to Cox
Communications, Inc., the operator of a cable television
system in Casa Grande, Arizona.
2. On May 12, 2005, an agent from the Commission's San
Diego Office inspected the cable system operated by Cox
Communications, Inc. in Casa Grande, Arizona, and observed
the following violation:
a. 47 C.F.R. § 76.612(a): ``All cable television
systems which operate in
the frequency bands 108-137 and 225-400 MHz ...
must operate at frequencies offset from certain
frequencies which may be used by aeronautical
radio services operated by Commission licensees or
by the United States Government.'' In this
instance, the visual carrier frequency of cable
channel 45 measured 349.2971 MHz. The nearest
permitted offset channel is 349.2875 MHz. This
cable channel was measured with a difference of
9.6 kHz from the nearest permitted offset channel,
which exceeds the allowable tolerance by 4.6 kHz.
Also, the visual carrier frequency of cable
channel 51 measured 385.3008 MHz. The nearest
permitted offset channel is 385.3125 MHz. This
cable channel was measured with a difference of
11.7 kHz from the nearest permitted offset
channel, which exceeds the allowable tolerance by
6.7 kHz.
3. Pursuant to Section 308(b) of the Communications Act of
1934, as amended,2 and Section 1.89 of the Commission's
Rules, Cox Communications, Inc., must submit a written
statement concerning this matter within 20 days of release
of this Notice. The response must fully explain each
violation, must contain a statement of the specific
action(s) taken to correct each violation and preclude
recurrence, and should include a time line for completion of
pending corrective action(s). The response must be complete
in itself and signed by a principal or officer of Cox
Communications, Inc. All replies and documentation sent in
response to this Notice should be marked with the File No.
and NOV No. specified above, and mailed to the following
address:
Federal Communications Commission
San Diego Office
4542 Ruffner Street, Suite 370
San Diego, California 92111
4. This Notice shall be sent to Cox Communications, Inc.
of Casa Grande, Arizona at its address of record.
5. The Privacy Act of 19743 requires that we advise you
that the Commission will use all relevant material
information before it, including any information disclosed
in your reply, to determine what, if any, enforcement action
is required to ensure compliance. Any false statement made
knowingly and willfully in reply to this Notice is
punishable by fine or imprisonment under Title 18 of the
U.S. Code.4
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
William R. Zears Jr.
District Director
San Diego Office
Western Region
Enforcement Bureau
_________________________
147 C.F.R. § 1.89.
247 U.S.C. § 308(b).
3P.L. 93-579, 5 U.S.C. § 552a(e)(3).
418 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq.
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of )
)
Cox Communications, Inc. ) File No. EB-05-SD-
101
)
Physical System ID # 006623 )
)
Casa Grande, Arizona ) NOV No.
V20053294005
)
)
NOTICE OF VIOLATION
Released: June 2,
2005
By the District Director, San Diego Office, Western Region,
Enforcement Bureau:
1. This is a Notice of Violation ("Notice") issued
pursuant to Section 1.89 of the Commission's Rules,1 to Cox
Communications, Inc., the operator of a cable television
system in Casa Grande, Arizona.
2. On May 12, 2005, an agent from the Commission's San
Diego Office inspected the cable system operated by Cox
Communications, Inc. in Casa Grande, Arizona, and observed
the following violation:
a. 47 C.F.R. § 76.612(a): ``All cable television
systems which operate in
the frequency bands 108-137 and 225-400 MHz ...
must operate at frequencies offset from certain
frequencies which may be used by aeronautical
radio services operated by Commission licensees or
by the United States Government.'' In this
instance, the visual carrier frequency of cable
channel 45 measured 349.2971 MHz. The nearest
permitted offset channel is 349.2875 MHz. This
cable channel was measured with a difference of
9.6 kHz from the nearest permitted offset channel,
which exceeds the allowable tolerance by 4.6 kHz.
Also, the visual carrier frequency of cable
channel 51 measured 385.3008 MHz. The nearest
permitted offset channel is 385.3125 MHz. This
cable channel was measured with a difference of
11.7 kHz from the nearest permitted offset
channel, which exceeds the allowable tolerance by
6.7 kHz.
3. Pursuant to Section 308(b) of the Communications Act of
1934, as amended,2 and Section 1.89 of the Commission's
Rules, Cox Communications, Inc., must submit a written
statement concerning this matter within 20 days of release
of this Notice. The response must fully explain each
violation, must contain a statement of the specific
action(s) taken to correct each violation and preclude
recurrence, and should include a time line for completion of
pending corrective action(s). The response must be complete
in itself and signed by a principal or officer of Cox
Communications, Inc. All replies and documentation sent in
response to this Notice should be marked with the File No.
and NOV No. specified above, and mailed to the following
address:
Federal Communications Commission
San Diego Office
4542 Ruffner Street, Suite 370
San Diego, California 92111
4. This Notice shall be sent to Cox Communications, Inc.
of Casa Grande, Arizona at its address of record.
5. The Privacy Act of 19743 requires that we advise you
that the Commission will use all relevant material
information before it, including any information disclosed
in your reply, to determine what, if any, enforcement action
is required to ensure compliance. Any false statement made
knowingly and willfully in reply to this Notice is
punishable by fine or imprisonment under Title 18 of the
U.S. Code.4
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
William R. Zears Jr.
District Director
San Diego Office
Western Region
Enforcement Bureau
_________________________
147 C.F.R. § 1.89.
247 U.S.C. § 308(b).
3P.L. 93-579, 5 U.S.C. § 552a(e)(3).
418 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq.
Who is Cox Communications, Inc.?
To read the information about Cox Communications provided by San Diego Source, the online version of the Daily Transcript, you really only need to know one thing:
"wnd" means "would not disclose."
Cox Communications Inc.
Contact Information Business Information
Executives
William K. Geppert, VP/General Manager
Lindsay Burroughs, VP, Cox Business Services
5159 Federal Blvd.
San Diego, CA 92105
Phone
(619) 262-1122 or (619) 269-2000
Fax
(619) 266-5313 or (619) 269-2496
E-mail
customerinquiries@cox.com
Parent Company
n/a
Year Established
1961
Headquarters
San Diego, CA
Number of Offices Companywide
n/a
Number of Local Offices
n/a
Number of Employees Local
2,300
Number of Employees Companywide
23,000
Number of Subscribers
534,000
Local Gross Revenue 2004 YTD
wnd
Gross Revenue 2004 YTD
wnd
Annual Operating Budget
n/a
Capital Budget
n/a
Number of Offices Nationwide
n/a
Number of Part-Time Employees
n/a
Number of San Diego Locations
8
Number of Full-Time Employees
n/a
Partial Client List
n/a
Other Products
Pay per view services, digital video recorder, high-speed definition
Authorized Dealer For
n/a
Number of Systems Installations Local
wnd
Gross Sales 2004
wnd
Local Gross Revenue 2004
wnd
Local Gross Revenue 2005
wnd
Gross Sales 2005, Local
wnd
Gross Sales 2005 Companywide
wnd
Gross Revenue, Companywide
wnd
Assets
wnd
Mission Statement
To be the premier telecommunications provider in San Diego County.
http://sourcebook.sddt.com/source/company.cfm?BusinessCategory_ID=64&Company_ID=6921
"wnd" means "would not disclose."
Cox Communications Inc.
Contact Information Business Information
Executives
William K. Geppert, VP/General Manager
Lindsay Burroughs, VP, Cox Business Services
5159 Federal Blvd.
San Diego, CA 92105
Phone
(619) 262-1122 or (619) 269-2000
Fax
(619) 266-5313 or (619) 269-2496
customerinquiries@cox.com
Parent Company
n/a
Year Established
1961
Headquarters
San Diego, CA
Number of Offices Companywide
n/a
Number of Local Offices
n/a
Number of Employees Local
2,300
Number of Employees Companywide
23,000
Number of Subscribers
534,000
Local Gross Revenue 2004 YTD
wnd
Gross Revenue 2004 YTD
wnd
Annual Operating Budget
n/a
Capital Budget
n/a
Number of Offices Nationwide
n/a
Number of Part-Time Employees
n/a
Number of San Diego Locations
8
Number of Full-Time Employees
n/a
Partial Client List
n/a
Other Products
Pay per view services, digital video recorder, high-speed definition
Authorized Dealer For
n/a
Number of Systems Installations Local
wnd
Gross Sales 2004
wnd
Local Gross Revenue 2004
wnd
Local Gross Revenue 2005
wnd
Gross Sales 2005, Local
wnd
Gross Sales 2005 Companywide
wnd
Gross Revenue, Companywide
wnd
Assets
wnd
Mission Statement
To be the premier telecommunications provider in San Diego County.
http://sourcebook.sddt.com/source/company.cfm?BusinessCategory_ID=64&Company_ID=6921
Thursday, January 17, 2008
What fools these Democrats be
By NICK GILLESPIE
Published: September 2, 2007
With the possible exception of the Republicans, is there a major political party more stupefyingly brain-dead than the Democrats? That’s the ultimate takeaway from “The Argument,” Matt Bai’s sharply written, exhaustively reported and thoroughly depressing account of “billionaires, bloggers, and the battle to remake Democratic politics” along unabashedly “progressive” (read: New Deal and Great Society) lines. Well-financed and influential groups ranging from the Democracy Alliance to the New Democrat Network to MoveOn.org may be taking over the Democratic Party, he says, but they are not doing the heavy thinking that will fundamentally transform politics — unlike the free-market, small-government groups formed in the wake of Barry Goldwater’s historic loss in the 1964 presidential race.
THE ARGUMENT
Billionaires, Bloggers, and the Battle to Remake Democratic Politics.
By Matt Bai.
316 pp. The Penguin Press. $25.95.
Bai has the grim job of covering national politics for The New York Times Magazine, which means his livelihood depends on following closely whether the Tennessee actor-turned-politician-turned-actor-again Fred Thompson will actually run for president (a decision reportedly put off until after Labor Day, allowing an anxious nation to savor the last days of summer) and taking seriously the White House fantasies of Senator Joseph Biden (at least in Biden’s presence). While sympathetic to the new progressives, Bai describes a movement long on anger and short on thought.
In detailing the machinations of superrich Democratic activists like George Soros, who blew through close to $30 million of his wealth in an unsuccessful attempt to unelect George W. Bush in 2004, and barricade-bashing cyberpunks like Markos Moulitsas Zúniga, founder of the popular Daily Kos Web site, whose participant-readers attack all things Republican with the same fervor they showed when championing the already forgotten Ned Lamont in his unsuccessful attempt to unseat Senator Joseph Lieberman in 2006, Bai reluctantly and repeatedly owns up to a hard truth: “There’s not much reason to think that the Democratic Party has suddenly overcome its confusion about the passing of the industrial economy and the cold war, events that left the party, over the last few decades, groping for some new philosophical framework.”
To be sure, these are giddy times for the Dems. Since last year’s elections, they’re back in control of the Congress they’ve dominated most of the time since Franklin D. Roosevelt’s first term. According to a July 27-30 poll conducted for NBC News and The Wall Street Journal, the general public thinks Democrats will do a much better job than Republicans not just on global warming, health care and education but also on traditional Republican bailiwicks like controlling federal spending, dealing with taxes and protecting America’s interest in trade. The front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination, Hillary Rodham Clinton, continues to lead her Republican counterpart, Rudy Giuliani, in most polls, and a generic Democrat beats a generic Republican in 2008 too.
But as John Kerry might tell you, never write off the Democrats’ ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. The recent farm bill passed by the House — and pushed by Speaker Nancy Pelosi — maintains subsidies to already prospering farmers, angering not just conservative budget cutters but liberal environmentalists. House and Senate Democrats allowed a revision of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act that broadens the scope of warrantless wiretaps just after holding hearings denouncing the man who would issue them, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, for routinely abusing his power. Although the misconceived and misprosecuted war in Iraq was the issue most responsible for their return to power, Congressional Democrats have yet to put forth a coherent or convincing program to end American military involvement there.
Little wonder, then, that the NBC/Wall Street Journal poll found that only 24 percent of American adults approve of the job the Democratic Congress is doing. That’s a decline of seven points from March. There are longer-lived trends that should worry the Democrats. In 1970, according to the Harris Poll, 49 percent of Americans considered themselves Democrats (31 percent considered themselves Republicans). In 2006, the last year for which full data are available, affiliation with the Democrats stood at 36 percent (the silver lining is that the Republicans pulled just 27 percent). If the Democrats are in fact the party of Great Society liberals, the problems run even deeper. The percentage of Americans who define their political philosophy as “liberal” has been consistently stuck around 18 percent since the 1970s, and the Democratic presidential candidate has failed to crack 50 percent of the popular vote in each of the past seven elections.
“The Argument” provides plenty of reasons to think that the Democrats, owing to an off-putting mix of elitism toward the little people and glibness toward actual policy ideas, are unlikely to go over the top anytime soon. Or, almost the same thing, to make the most of any majority they hold. The book describes Soros, after Bush’s victory in 2004, coming to the realization that (in Bai’s words) “it was the American people, and not their figurehead, who were misguided. ... Decadence ... had led to a society that seemed incapable of conjuring up any outrage at deceptive policies that made the rich richer and the world less safe.” Rob Reiner, the Hollywood heavyweight who has contributed significantly to progressive causes and who pushed a hugely expensive universal preschool ballot initiative in California that lost by a resounding 3-to-2 ratio, interrupts a discussion by announcing: “I’ve got to take a leak. Talk amongst yourselves.” Bai never stints on such telling and unattractive details, whether describing a poorly attended and heavily scripted MoveOn.org house party or a celebrity-soaked soiree in which the host, the billionaire Lynda Resnick, declared from the top of her Sunset Boulevard mansion’s spiral staircase, “We are so tired of being disenfranchised!”
Moulitsas, the Prince Hal of the left-liberal blogosphere, comes off as an intellectual lightweight, boasting to Bai that his next book will be called “The Libertarian Democrat” but admitting that he has never read Friedrich Hayek, the Nobel Prize-winning economist and social theorist, who is arguably most responsible for the contemporary libertarian movement. Moulitsas’ co-author (of “Crashing the Gate: Netroots, Grassroots, and the Rise of People-Powered Politics”), Jerome Armstrong, talks a grand game about revolutionary change, but signed on as a paid consultant to former Gov. Mark Warner of Virginia, an archetypal centrist Democrat whose vapid presidential campaign ended almost as quickly as it began. When MoveOn — the Web-based “colossus” whose e-mail appeals, Bai says, have always centered on the same message: “Republicans were evil, arrogant and corrupt” — devised its member-generated agenda, it came up with a low-calorie three-point plan: “health care for all”; “energy independence through clean, renewable sources”; and “democracy restored.”
Recalling a meeting of leading progressives — including Armstrong, Representative Adam Smith of Washington and Simon Rosenberg of the New Democrat Network — just after the 2006 midterm elections, Bai writes: “Seventy years ago ... visionary Democrats had distinguished their party with the force of their intellect. Now the inheritors of that party stood on the threshold of a new economic moment, when the nation seemed likely to rise or fall on the strength of its intellectual capital, and the only thing that seemed to interest them was the machinery of politics.” The argument at the heart of “The Argument” is less about vision and more about strategy.
That’s bad news, even or especially for those of us who don’t see large differences between Republicans and Democrats. Our political system works best — or is at least more interesting — when big ideas are being bandied about, both within parties and between them. The lack of depth among the Democrats may not hurt them in the 2008 elections — the Republicans, whose would-be presidential candidates have mostly publicly rejected evolution, are not exactly bursting with new ideas either. But it remains profoundly disappointing.
Nick Gillespie is the editor in chief of Reason magazine.
More Articles in Books »
Published: September 2, 2007
With the possible exception of the Republicans, is there a major political party more stupefyingly brain-dead than the Democrats? That’s the ultimate takeaway from “The Argument,” Matt Bai’s sharply written, exhaustively reported and thoroughly depressing account of “billionaires, bloggers, and the battle to remake Democratic politics” along unabashedly “progressive” (read: New Deal and Great Society) lines. Well-financed and influential groups ranging from the Democracy Alliance to the New Democrat Network to MoveOn.org may be taking over the Democratic Party, he says, but they are not doing the heavy thinking that will fundamentally transform politics — unlike the free-market, small-government groups formed in the wake of Barry Goldwater’s historic loss in the 1964 presidential race.
THE ARGUMENT
Billionaires, Bloggers, and the Battle to Remake Democratic Politics.
By Matt Bai.
316 pp. The Penguin Press. $25.95.
Bai has the grim job of covering national politics for The New York Times Magazine, which means his livelihood depends on following closely whether the Tennessee actor-turned-politician-turned-actor-again Fred Thompson will actually run for president (a decision reportedly put off until after Labor Day, allowing an anxious nation to savor the last days of summer) and taking seriously the White House fantasies of Senator Joseph Biden (at least in Biden’s presence). While sympathetic to the new progressives, Bai describes a movement long on anger and short on thought.
In detailing the machinations of superrich Democratic activists like George Soros, who blew through close to $30 million of his wealth in an unsuccessful attempt to unelect George W. Bush in 2004, and barricade-bashing cyberpunks like Markos Moulitsas Zúniga, founder of the popular Daily Kos Web site, whose participant-readers attack all things Republican with the same fervor they showed when championing the already forgotten Ned Lamont in his unsuccessful attempt to unseat Senator Joseph Lieberman in 2006, Bai reluctantly and repeatedly owns up to a hard truth: “There’s not much reason to think that the Democratic Party has suddenly overcome its confusion about the passing of the industrial economy and the cold war, events that left the party, over the last few decades, groping for some new philosophical framework.”
To be sure, these are giddy times for the Dems. Since last year’s elections, they’re back in control of the Congress they’ve dominated most of the time since Franklin D. Roosevelt’s first term. According to a July 27-30 poll conducted for NBC News and The Wall Street Journal, the general public thinks Democrats will do a much better job than Republicans not just on global warming, health care and education but also on traditional Republican bailiwicks like controlling federal spending, dealing with taxes and protecting America’s interest in trade. The front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination, Hillary Rodham Clinton, continues to lead her Republican counterpart, Rudy Giuliani, in most polls, and a generic Democrat beats a generic Republican in 2008 too.
But as John Kerry might tell you, never write off the Democrats’ ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. The recent farm bill passed by the House — and pushed by Speaker Nancy Pelosi — maintains subsidies to already prospering farmers, angering not just conservative budget cutters but liberal environmentalists. House and Senate Democrats allowed a revision of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act that broadens the scope of warrantless wiretaps just after holding hearings denouncing the man who would issue them, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, for routinely abusing his power. Although the misconceived and misprosecuted war in Iraq was the issue most responsible for their return to power, Congressional Democrats have yet to put forth a coherent or convincing program to end American military involvement there.
Little wonder, then, that the NBC/Wall Street Journal poll found that only 24 percent of American adults approve of the job the Democratic Congress is doing. That’s a decline of seven points from March. There are longer-lived trends that should worry the Democrats. In 1970, according to the Harris Poll, 49 percent of Americans considered themselves Democrats (31 percent considered themselves Republicans). In 2006, the last year for which full data are available, affiliation with the Democrats stood at 36 percent (the silver lining is that the Republicans pulled just 27 percent). If the Democrats are in fact the party of Great Society liberals, the problems run even deeper. The percentage of Americans who define their political philosophy as “liberal” has been consistently stuck around 18 percent since the 1970s, and the Democratic presidential candidate has failed to crack 50 percent of the popular vote in each of the past seven elections.
“The Argument” provides plenty of reasons to think that the Democrats, owing to an off-putting mix of elitism toward the little people and glibness toward actual policy ideas, are unlikely to go over the top anytime soon. Or, almost the same thing, to make the most of any majority they hold. The book describes Soros, after Bush’s victory in 2004, coming to the realization that (in Bai’s words) “it was the American people, and not their figurehead, who were misguided. ... Decadence ... had led to a society that seemed incapable of conjuring up any outrage at deceptive policies that made the rich richer and the world less safe.” Rob Reiner, the Hollywood heavyweight who has contributed significantly to progressive causes and who pushed a hugely expensive universal preschool ballot initiative in California that lost by a resounding 3-to-2 ratio, interrupts a discussion by announcing: “I’ve got to take a leak. Talk amongst yourselves.” Bai never stints on such telling and unattractive details, whether describing a poorly attended and heavily scripted MoveOn.org house party or a celebrity-soaked soiree in which the host, the billionaire Lynda Resnick, declared from the top of her Sunset Boulevard mansion’s spiral staircase, “We are so tired of being disenfranchised!”
Moulitsas, the Prince Hal of the left-liberal blogosphere, comes off as an intellectual lightweight, boasting to Bai that his next book will be called “The Libertarian Democrat” but admitting that he has never read Friedrich Hayek, the Nobel Prize-winning economist and social theorist, who is arguably most responsible for the contemporary libertarian movement. Moulitsas’ co-author (of “Crashing the Gate: Netroots, Grassroots, and the Rise of People-Powered Politics”), Jerome Armstrong, talks a grand game about revolutionary change, but signed on as a paid consultant to former Gov. Mark Warner of Virginia, an archetypal centrist Democrat whose vapid presidential campaign ended almost as quickly as it began. When MoveOn — the Web-based “colossus” whose e-mail appeals, Bai says, have always centered on the same message: “Republicans were evil, arrogant and corrupt” — devised its member-generated agenda, it came up with a low-calorie three-point plan: “health care for all”; “energy independence through clean, renewable sources”; and “democracy restored.”
Recalling a meeting of leading progressives — including Armstrong, Representative Adam Smith of Washington and Simon Rosenberg of the New Democrat Network — just after the 2006 midterm elections, Bai writes: “Seventy years ago ... visionary Democrats had distinguished their party with the force of their intellect. Now the inheritors of that party stood on the threshold of a new economic moment, when the nation seemed likely to rise or fall on the strength of its intellectual capital, and the only thing that seemed to interest them was the machinery of politics.” The argument at the heart of “The Argument” is less about vision and more about strategy.
That’s bad news, even or especially for those of us who don’t see large differences between Republicans and Democrats. Our political system works best — or is at least more interesting — when big ideas are being bandied about, both within parties and between them. The lack of depth among the Democrats may not hurt them in the 2008 elections — the Republicans, whose would-be presidential candidates have mostly publicly rejected evolution, are not exactly bursting with new ideas either. But it remains profoundly disappointing.
Nick Gillespie is the editor in chief of Reason magazine.
More Articles in Books »
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)