Politics, Government & Public Policy: August 2004 Archives

Some readers didn't believe me when I wrote last week that John Kerry is getting desperate, but maybe they'll believe someone with more insider knowledge.

Dispirited Democrats -- prominent senators, top fundraisers, even a few Kerry confidants -- have told the candidate, who is in Nantucket, that high-level changes are imperative. A few very well-connected Democrats report something will occur in the next few days. One person who might assume more control is Joe Lockhart, a former press secretary to Bill Clinton and a respected public-relations figure, but one who has almost no experience in the high-stakes world of presidential campaigns. Another possibility: veteran Democratic politico John Sasso, currently at the Democratic National Committee.

If there is a change -- Sen. Kerry privately is said to be "bouncing off the walls" in frustration -- it has to be imminent as the eight-week campaign is in full swing by Labor Day. "We have 48 hours," acknowledges an insider.

Further, it appears that lack of network coverage (as opposed to cable news coverage) is reducing the conventions' visibility (as I suggested):

The decision by the major television networks to trim their convention coverage is sharply reducing the number of viewers who see these political events, Harvard's Shorenstein Center reports. A survey during the Democratic convention noted that millions of potential viewers were lost, and the same is likely this week.

None of the three biggest networks, for example, aired any of last night's coverage.

In 1976, each network carried more than 20 hours of convention coverage for both parties, but that has steadily declined to about three hours this year.

ABC, CBS and NBC argue the former comprehensive coverage isn't necessary because cable TV fills that void. But the Shorenstein Center points out one-fifth of households don't have cable. And particularly critical is that "inadvertent" viewers -- those who channel surf -- do so much more on broadcast networks than cable channels. Even many cable viewers, the study found "habitually monitor the network channels but do routinely check to see what's being telecast on CNN, Fox or MSNBC."

Yeah so, I sometimes know what I'm talking about.

(HT: kf.)

Based on the awesome transcripts I've perused of the RNC convention speeches so far, I'm not surprised they weren't carried on television. Had they been, everyone would now be a Republican. Check out Rudy's:

I don't believe we're right about everything and Democrats are wrong about everything.

Neither party has a monopoly on virtue.

But I do believe that there are times in our history when our ideas are more necessary and important for what we are facing.

There are times when leadership is the most important.

On September 11, this city and our nation faced the worst attack in our history.

On that day, we had to confront reality. For me, standing below the north tower and looking up and seeing the flames of hell and then realizing that I was actually seeing a man a human being jumping from the 101st or 102nd floor drove home to me that we were facing something beyond anything we had ever faced before.

We had to concentrate all of our energy, faith and hope to get through those first hours and days.

And I will always remember that moment as we escaped the building we were trapped in at 75 Barclay Street and realized that things outside might be even worse than they were inside the building.

We did the best we could to communicate a message of calm and hope, as we stood on the pavement seeing a massive cloud rushing through the cavernous streets of lower Manhattan.

Our people were so brave in their response.

At the time, we believed we would be attacked many more times that day and in the days that followed. Spontaneously, I grabbed the arm of then Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik and said to Bernie, "Thank God George Bush is our President."

And I say it again tonight, "Thank God George Bush is our President."

On September 11, George W. Bush had been President less than eight months. This new President, Vice President, and new administration were faced with the worst crisis in our history.

President Bush's response in keeping us unified and in turning the ship of state around from being solely on defense against terrorism to being on offense as well and for his holding us together.

For that and then his determined effort to defeat global terrorism, no matter what happens in this election, President George W. Bush already has earned a place in our history as a great American President.

Imagine any Democrat (ok, just about any) being even half as conciliatory towards Republicans.

And Senator McCain's:

My friends, we are again met on the field of political competition with our fellow countrymen. It is more than appropriate, it is necessary that even in times of crisis we have these contests, and engage in spirited disagreement over the shape and course of our government.

We have nothing to fear from each other. We are arguing over the means to better secure our freedom, and promote the general welfare. But it should remain an argument among friends who share an unshaken belief in our great cause, and in the goodness of each other.

We are Americans first, Americans last, Americans always. Let us argue our differences.

But remember we are not enemies, but comrades in a war against a real enemy, and take courage from the knowledge that our military superiority is matched only by the superiority of our ideals, and our unconquerable love for them.

Our adversaries are weaker than us in arms and men, but weaker still in causes. They fight to express a hatred for all that is good in humanity.

We fight for love of freedom and justice, a love that is invincible. Keep that faith. Keep your courage. Stick together. Stay strong.

Do not yield. Do not flinch. Stand up. Stand up with our President and fight.

We're Americans.

We're Americans, and we'll never surrender.

They will.

These were some powerful exhortations, and it's sad that very few people got to see them.

John Kerry should take note of President Bush's finesse.

TROY, Ohio — President Bush said opponent John Kerry's (search) service was "more heroic" than his during Vietnam, in an interview shown Saturday on NBC News.

"I think him going to Vietnam was more heroic than my flying fighter jets," said Bush, who served in the Texas Air National Guard (search). "He was in harm's way and I wasn't. On the other hand, I served my country. Had my unit been called up, I would have gone."

Is there any better possible position to take? Of course, flying fighter jets is pretty dangerous, and Bush's unit was actively fighting in Vietnam when he signed up even though it wasn't by the time he began flying.

You people disgust me. Grow up. You claim to be about peace and equality, but then you gleefully pull these kinds of shenanigans? If Bush really were Hitler you would've faced soldiers with machine guns, not cops with plastic handcuffs and Polaroid cameras. You're pathetic brutes. You're nothing more than thugs masquerading "patriotic dissidents". Your ideas are morally bankrupt and you know you can't win through honest debate so you resort to vandalism and intimidation. You're going to lose, and I'm going to love it.

In general, I reject the idea that there are "men's issues" and "women's issues" -- as if some topics are off-limits to one gender or the other. Typically, modernly, it's men who are barred from topics that we can't possibly have an intelligent opinion on, but historically the discrimination has worked both ways. Actually, let me rephrase: I do believe there are certain areas of life that can best be handled by people of a certain gender, but since we're just talking about politics here and people of both genders get to vote, I don't think either gender should attempt to reserve certain domains as their own territory. Attempts at such labeling are generally intended to shut down debate by undermining the legitimacy of those with opposing views.

But let's look at some so-called "women's issues" and see how they may influence female voters.

"If President Bush or Senator Kerry wants to move more undecided women voters and bond more deeply with them, they have to start paying a little more attention to the issues that matter in these women's daily lives," said Meredith Wagner, executive vice president of public affairs at Lifetime Television.

According to Wagner, the prevention of violence against women and the promotion of equal pay and women's health are the issues likely to impact the female vote in the presidential election.

So there we have three things that are supposedly (according to this "expert") important to women, and by even naming these issues the expert entirely sidesteps the question of whether or not the government should be meddling in these areas at all.

First is "the prevention of violence against women", but is this a federal issue at all? Aren't the vast majority of violent crimes handled at the state level? Shouldn't states be concerned with preventing violence against everyone, not just women? The only real way I see for the federal government to get involved here is to more vigorously protect our Second Amendment rights, but I get the feeling that isn't what Meredith Wagner means.

Second is "the promotion of equal pay", which many would argue isn't a proper function of government at any level. Being a capitalist nation, why should the government get involved in what people are paid? As long as workers (male and female) are free to accept and reject jobs and negotiate for their wages, any action by the government will end up reducing liberty, not enhancing it.

Third is "women's health", which is generally a euphemism for abortion. Again, this may properly be an issue for the states, but if people want the federal government involved there's no guarantee that the majority (even the majority of women (except maybe old women)) would agree with those women who would use this euphemism. Those who tout "women's issues" probably wouldn't see the widespread banning of abortions-of-convenience as "women's health".

So really, what have we got? These "women's issues" look pretty irrelevant and insubstantial to me. Are these really the concepts that motivate female voters? I certainly hope not.

If anyone can think of some politlcal "men's issues" (irrelevant and insubstantial or not) I'd be very curious to see them.

John Kerry's campaign must be getting desperate; that's the only reason I can think of for why they'd perform a publicity stunt like this built around exploiting the grievous wounds of a real war hero.

The furor over John Kerry's Vietnam war record isn't going away. Press reports say former U.S. Sen. Max Cleland (D-Ga.) will try to hand-deliver a message to President Bush in Crawford, Tex., on Wednesday -- asking Bush to specifically denounce TV ads run by anti-Kerry Vietnam veterans.

Cleland, a political ally of Sen. John F. Kerry, reportedly is going to Bush's ranch with former Army Green Beret Jim Rassmann, who credits Kerry with saving his life.

Cleland lost both legs and his right arm in the Vietnam War, and it wouldn't look very good to leave him waiting outside the ranch gate -- in full view of the TV cameras.

Next up, Senator Kerry challenges President Bush to a spider-eating contest -- perhaps a more comfortable endeavor than answering a direct question about Cambodia. Nevertheless, we won't know for certain that the Kerry campaign is doomed until they introduce a cute, tow-haired little boy in a futile attempt to boost ratings.

Alan Keyes has an idea for "slavery reparations" for modern descendents of slaves. (Eugene Volokh and Paul Caron comment.) Basically, Ambassador Keyes wants to exempt blacks from paying income tax for 50 to 60 years. I think this would be a bad idea for all sorts of reasons, but that's not what I'm writing about.

In a previous post on interracial marriages I noted that:

African-American men had white wives 2.65 times more often than black women had white husbands. In other words, in 73 percent of black-white couples, the husband was black. For every 1,000 black women who were married, there were 1,059 black married men.

But consider that Keyes' plan would create a financial incentive for men of all non-black races to marry black women! Assets and income could be transferred to the wife's name, and the children would all be tax-exempt!

It seems incredibly disingenuous to me for leftists to criticise the right's complaints about media bias as mere "whining". In American politics the media is generally seen as the referee and scorekeeper, and if they're biased in a particular direction that would appear to be a highly relevant factor in how the game is played.

So the question really is whether or not the media is biased, right? If it is, then complaints about the bias are legitimate and substantial, not mere whining. And all the evidence suggests that not only is the mainstream media incredibly tilted towards left-favorable coverage, but they know it and intend for their coverage to help "their side".

Here's a shoddy interview by Deborah Solomon with a professor of economics at Yale named Ray C. Fair whose models predict that Bush will win in a landslide. More interesting even than the econometrics and the research is the unescapable bias of the New York Times interviewer. The first thing to notice is the headline (admittedly not written by the interviewer).

Bush Landslide (in Theory)!

Whew, only in theory! What a relief! [Upon reflection, it may be that since the "!" is outside the "()" it applies more directly to the "Bush Landslide" than to the "in Theory".]

Ms. Solomon's statements are in italics.

As a professor of economics at Yale, you are known for creating an econometric equation that has predicted presidential elections with relative accuracy.

My latest prediction shows that Bush will receive 57.5 percent of the two-party votes.

The polls are suggesting a much closer race.

Polls are notoriously flaky this far ahead of the election, and there is a limit to how much you want to trust polls.

Fine and good so far, and quite interesting.

Why should we trust your equation, which seems unusually reductive?

It has done well historically. The average mistake of the equation is about 2.5 percentage points.

As if the simplicity/complexity of the model is in any way related to its accuracy. Professor Fair responds to the question Ms. Solomon would have asked, if she knew what she was talking about.

In your book ''Predicting Presidential Elections and Other Things,'' you claim that economic growth and inflation are the only variables that matter in a presidential race. Are you saying that the war in Iraq will have no influence on the election?

Historically, issues like war haven't swamped the economics. If the equation is correctly specified, then the chances that Bush loses are very small.

But the country hasn't been this polarized since the 60's, and voters seem genuinely engaged by social issues like gay marriage and the overall question of a more just society.

We throw all those into what we call the error term. In the past, all that stuff that you think should count averages about 2.5 percent, and that is pretty small.

I can imagine that Ms. Solomon is getting quite frustrated by this point. Professor Fair keeps returning to the data despite her efforts to convince him that his methods aren't aesthetically pleasing.

It saddens me that you teach this to students at Yale, who could be thinking about society in complex and meaningful ways.

I will be teaching econometrics next year to undergraduates. Econometrics is a huge deal, because it is applied to all kinds of things.

Ms. Solomon doesn't seem to understand that the accuracy of the data demonstrates that the model is meaningful, regardless of whether or not it seems "complex" enough for her satisfaction. In reality, her frustration illustrates that the model is mathematically simple but conceptually complex -- she refuses to comprehend it because her intuition tells her that other things should be more important than they apparently are.

Professor Fair's next response is classic.

[Snip some divergence.]

Are you a Republican?

I can't credibly answer that question. Using game theory in economics, you are not going to believe me when I tell you my political affiliation because I know that you know that I could be behaving strategically. If I tell you I am a Kerry supporter, how do you know that I am not lying or behaving strategically to try to put more weight on the predictions and help the Republicans?

I don't want to do game theory. I just want to know if you are a Kerry supporter.

Backing away from game theory, which is kind of cute, I am a Kerry supporter.

I believe you entirely, although I'm a little surprised, because your predictions implicitly lend support to Bush.

I am not attempting to be an advocate for one party or another. I am attempting to be a social scientist trying to explain voting behavior.

This is sure to be another stumper for a journalist -- someone saying something just because it's true, despite it's potential political implications? Unfathomable.

But in the process you are shaping opinion. Predictions can be self-confirming, because wishy-washy voters might go with the candidate who is perceived to be more successful.

And there, my friends, you have the essence of the journalistic bias against reporting Bush-favorable news, in black and white.

(HT: tjic and Clayton Cramer.)

In a piece about how John Kerry's four months in Vietnam have driven a two-year presidential campaign, Mark Steyn echos a point I made in my previous post on this topic. He writes:

The one thing the Democratic Party owed America this campaign season was a candidate credible on the current war. The Democrats needed their own Tony Blair, a bloke who's a big socialist pantywaist when it comes to health and education and the other nanny-state hooey but believes in robust projection of military force in the national interest.

John Kerry fails that test. If you wanted to pick a candidate on the wrong side of every major defense and foreign policy question of the last two decades, you would be hard put to find anyone with judgment as comprehensively poor as Mr. Kerry: total up his votes and statements on everything from Grenada to the Gulf war, Saddam to the Sandinistas, the Cold War to missile defense to every major weapons system of the 1980s and '90s. He called them all wrong.

There's a reason John Kerry talks more about his four months in Vietnam than his twenty years in the Senate. If only the American left could field a man with Tony Blair's capabilities -- actually, I'm sure such men exist, but they'd never be able to win in the primaries.

But that's not how the Democratic Party muscle saw John Kerry. Since the notion of a credible war president wasn't important to them, they looked at the war on terror merely as a Bush wedge issue to be neutralized. And they figured their best shot at neutralizing it was Lt. Kerry on a Swift boat.

Well put. The Democrats aren't actually concerned with winning the War on Terror, they're just interested in making sure that a Democrat gets elected president. Everything else is just details.

(HT: Donald Sensing.)

The reaction from many on the left to accusations by some of John Kerry's former fellow-soldiers is quite instructive. Most leftists seem to think it's no big deal if 10%/50%/90% (whatever) of the people you served with think you're a lying traitor (which is essentially what the charges amount to). In my opinion, it's quite significant that so many of Kerry's former associates think he's unfit to be President -- these people knew him well, and saw how he behaved under pressure and without interference from campaign handlers. Compare that to the reactions of the same people to the possibility that George Bush didn't show up for some training exercises, and their derision for the rest of Bush's service record.

The idea that "it's a wash" (as one commenter wrote) just because it's he-said/they-said is nearly delusional. It seems to me that many leftists are in a state of total denial, bolstered by polls and media coverage, and I'm sticking to my prediction that George Bush will win in a landslide in November. This attack by Swiftboat Veterans for Truth is devestating, and now that Kerry has the official Democratic nomination watch for more ruinous revelations from his past of this same sort. There's plenty of material, from his 20 year Senate career to the recent Democratic primaries, and we're going to see and hear it all. Leftists hoping for similar revelations about Bush are likely to be disappointed; all those cards were played in 2000, including the most devestating: his DUI.

Never forget that the Clintons are manuvering the DNC towards a meltdown of monumental proportions. Kerry has, tellingly, kept Terry McAuliffe at the helm of the organization, and McAuliffe is wholly owned by the Clintons, who want nothing more than for Hillary to run in 2008. They're likely stoking the flames by building up the hopes of the Democratic faithful, but watch for later positioning that will allow the Clintons to pick up the pieces after November 2nd and remake the party in their own image. Frankly, I think this will be a good thing, for the Democrats and for the country.

The expected response by leftists is, of course, that I'm the one being delusional. Well, there's no way to know for sure for a few months, so I'll just say "we'll see". Maybe I'm wrong, but I think the Democrats are due for the kind of fundamental realignment the Republican party went through in the early 1990s -- but of a much larger magnitude because the Dems have been stagnant for more than six decades. It's exciting to watch, and once the dust settles I expect the left to be more (more, but I don't know to what degree) libertarian than what is considered "modern liberal". I can envision a future in which I'm torn between the parties because the left actually has rational positions on important issues and isn't held hostage by the loons.

I'm assuming I'll write more on this topic: men who served with John Kerry in Vietnam say he's unfit for command.

A veterans group seeking to deeply discredit Democrat John Kerry's military service will charge in the new bombshell book UNFIT FOR COMMAND:

"Kerry earned his Silver Star by killing a lone, fleeing, teenage Viet Cong in a loincloth."

"And if Kerry's superiors had known the truth at the time, they would never have recommended him for the medal."

The book also claims to detail how Kerry personally ordered the slaughter of small animals at a small hamlet along the Song Bo De River. ...

George Bates, an officer in Coastal Division 11, participated in numerous operations with Kerry. In UNFIT FOR COMMAND, Bates recalls a particular patrol with Kerry on the Song Bo De River. He is still "haunted" by the incident:

With Kerry in the lead, the boats approached a small hamlet with three or four grass huts. Pigs and chickens were milling around peacefully. As the boats drew closer, the villagers fled. There were no political symbols or flags in evidence in the tiny village. It was obvious to Bates that existing policies, decency, and good sense required the boats to simply move on.

Instead, Kerry beached his boat directly in the small settlement. Upon his command, the numerous small animals were slaughtered by heavy-caliber machine guns. Acting more like a pirate than a naval officer, Kerry disembarked and ran around with a Zippo lighter, burning up the entire hamlet.

Sounds pretty damning, and I can see why they waited until after the convention to start hitting Kerry with this stuff. Does the Kerry campaign deny any of the claims? Nah, they'd rather complain about the process.

"They hired a goddamn private investigator to dig up trash!" charged a top Kerry adviser traveling with the senator late Tuesday. "This is pay for play... How low can they go?"

Kerry supporters are comparing the effort by the veterans to the Arkansas State troopers tell-all against Bill Clinton.

Maybe so, but the troopers were telling the truth, and so may be these Vietnam vets.

The book, set for release next week, hit #1 on the AMAZON hitparade after the DRUDGE REPORT revealed details of the book -- a book the Kerry camapign believes is the"the dirtiest of all dirty tricks ever played on a candidate for the presidency."

The Kerry campaign is planning to vigorously counter the charges and will accuse the veteran's groups of being well-financed by a top Bush donor from Texas.

From what I can determine, the "top Bush donor from Texas" is a guy named Perry, and he gave $100,000 towards this effort. Sure, that's a lot of money, but it's nothing compared to the $15 - $20 million given to the Democrats by George Soros. Pay-for-play indeed.

I say 2028. Whoever will be elected in 2028 is probably between 25 and 30 right now, which are prime blogging ages. Maybe my estimate is overly optimistic though, since I suspect younger age cohorts have an even higher rate of blogging.

Of course, it may be that blogging becomes so powerful that present-day presidential hopefuls start blogging to improve their political chances, in which case the date may be even earlier -- say 2020, although that seems awfully aggressive to me. I doubt it will be much before then, however, because the older crop of aspiring presidents are already in office somewhere and locked into the current way of doing business.

Some readers have criticised the attention I drew to John Kerry's miserable Senate attendance record earlier this year, but it's looking more and more relevant all the time.

Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry has criticized President Bush's response to the 9/11 Commission report, insisting that he would do a better job of fighting the war against terror.

But according to the Republican National Committee, Kerry missed most of the public hearings when he sat on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence between 1993 and 2000.

One of those hearings, the RNC indicated, happened about a year before the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks against the United States and focused on warnings of possible terrorist strikes and how those warning should be handled. In all, the RNC researchers discovered, Kerry missed 38 of 49 public hearings during the eight years he served on the intelligence panel.

John Kerry's complaints about President Bush's decisions regarding intelligence ring a little hollow.

(I think this is #2, anyway.)

First off, I love how public financing of elections is considered to be "clean", as if people spending their own money is somehow "dirty". The whole notion that there's even a problem with campaign spending is absurd, considering that Americans spend about as much on federal elections each election cycle as we do on Barbie dolls. As Edward H. Crane of the Cato Institute argued before the Senate in 1997,

Why is it that Donald Graham, publisher of the Washington Post, Rush Limbaugh, the conservative radio talk show host, or Gary Trudeau, the liberal cartoonist, can lavish virtually millions of dollars of support toward a candidate they support or against a candidate they oppose? And is it bad that they can do so? Of course not. They are part of a healthy open democracy, whether one agrees with them or not. If the answer is that it is because they are in the media and are therefore protected by the First Amendment that they can employ massive resources for and against candidates, then we are misreading the First Amendment. The First Amendment applies to everyone in this room and, indeed, everyone in this country. The media do not have rights that the rest of us don't have.

More importantly, the so-called solutions that are being proposed by advocates of campaign finance reform address essentially nonexistent problems. Yesterday USA Today, a great champion (as is most of the major media) of campaign finance reform, breathlessly reported that $260 million had been raised through "soft dollar" contributions in 1996. Let's see, isn't that about $1 per American? For this we want to infringe our rights to spend money as we see fit to promote political views we hold? Americans spend about as much on Barbie dolls each election cycle as we do on federal elections. Who are the self-appointed arbiters of American politics to say what is too little, enough, or too much to be spent on politics?

Limits on monetary expenditures are limits on speech. Pure and simple. Spin it any way you like, but by prohibiting a person from spending money to support a candidate you are severely limiting their ability to speak on behalf of their candidate -- speech requires spending money -- and no speech is more important than political speech.

Bubba at Southpaw gets to the heart of the matter:

I realize there are cogent arguments against such public funding, but I think we all admit that the root of problems in politics is political favors. Common sense and human nature makes it naive for anyone to think that a politician won't feel beholden to his or her campaign donors.

But he misses the correct solution. Rather than limiting speech, why not limit the power of the government to perform political favors? And how could that be accomplished? By limiting the power of government, period.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: as long as the government has the power to take money from one person and give it to someone else, people are going to find ways to influence politicians and get special favors. The only way to eliminate corruption in government is to drastically reduce the power of the government. No one will want to bribe an official who doesn't have the power to pay back the bribe with political favors.

What's particularly disturbing is that some groups, like Democracy Matters, are trying to change election laws with the express purpose of influencing the results of elections.

Advocates of public financing of elections have also argued that such a system would increase the number and diversity of candidates for office. And indeed that is precisely what has happened in Arizona. The Clean Elections Institute data show that there are more candidates running for office than before the implementation of the new system, and among these candidates are increased numbers of women and minorities.

With all of this true, it is hard to believe that in a few years time the substance of Arizona politics will not change as well. On one hand traditionally under-represented groups will possess a stronger voice in the legislature and in the executive branch. On the other hand the influence of private money on the political process will be reduced. It is too early to claim victory, but the evidence to date strong suggests that the Democracy Matters tag line - Change Elections, Change America - may well correspond to what happens when elections are publicly funded.

I don't care how many people of any particular group run for office or get elected to office, and changing election laws to give advantages to certain groups over others is, frankly, outrageous. Affirmative action was a bad idea for business and education, and it's certainly a bad idea for the democratic process. Absent public financing no one is locked out from an election because of their race, gender, religion, or anything else (except age for the young, and nation of birth for Presidential campaigns). If we truly want a nondiscriminatory society we need to realize that inequalities are inevitable when people are allowed to exercise their own free will.

Some readers have wondered why I hate light rail in California, and I've come across an article in the LA Times that perfectly illustrates the reasons for my revulsion. Unfortunately I can't find the article online, but it's titled "Panel Derails Vote on Rail Line", and it's found in the August 2nd, 2004, edition of the California section, Orange County edition.

Transportation officials rejected a proposal Friday to let Orange County voters have a say on whether to move forward with the controversial CenterLine project -- a $1-billion light-rail system that would connect neighboring towns. ...

Board member Miguel A. Pulido, a supporter of the rail line, led the opposition, arguing that a ballot measure would be an unwise gamble because voters would probably reject the project.

"It would be a terrible mistake... by voting to put it on the ballot, we kill the project," said Pulido, who is mayor of Santa Ana.

He suggested that voters who would not benefit from CenterLine -- a rail line that would connect downtown Santa Ana to John Wayne Airport -- might not appreciate its value, and vote against it.

Honestly, I can hardly believe the arrogance of some of our elected officials. Here's a guy actually coming out and saying that he's against the democratic process because he predicts that he won't like the results of the vote. Why even bother running for mayor next year, Mr. Pulido? If you don't think people will vote for you, why not just declare yourself dictator-for-life?

So the Orange County Transportation Authority is going to go forward with a project they know isn't popular with the majority of the people paying for it. Obviously the voters who won't benefit from the rail line will vote against it, and why shouldn't they? Why should they pay for something that benefits someone else? Screw you, you arrogant prick.

Is it true that politicians really can't admit making mistakes without disasterous results? Does anyone have any examples of a politician actually admitting a mistake -- either in a legislative vote or an executive decision -- and then being forgiven or castigated?

I obviously think it would be a good idea, and I bet the majority of Americans agree. The Fair Tax Act of 2003 got a fairly good reception from the people who heard of it, and maybe the time is now ripe to actually get it passed. Eliminating our income tax structure would be a bold move, just the sort of fundamental reform that could launch America (and President Bush's popularity) into the stratosphere.

A domestic centerpiece of the Bush/GOP agenda for a second Bush term is getting rid of the Internal Revenue Service, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.

The Speaker of the House will push for replacing the nation's current tax system with a national sales tax or a value added tax, Hill sources tell DRUDGE. ...

“If you own property, stock, or, say, one hundred acres of farmland and tax time is approaching, you don’t want to make a mistake, so you’re almost obliged to go to a certified public accountant, tax preparer, or tax attorney to help you file a correct return. That costs a lot of money. Now multiply the amount you have to pay by the total number of people who are in the same boat. You can’t. No one can because precise numbers don’t exist. But we can stipulate that we’re talking about a huge amount. Now consider that a flat tax, national sales tax, or VAT would not only eliminate the need to do this, it could also eliminate the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) itself and make the process of paying taxes much easier."

Iraq has a flat tax system, as do many of Eastern Europe's fastest growing economies. I say it's time for America to join them in the 21st century.