Valerie Plame and the Risen Principle

As National Review’s Rich Lowry points out, the investigation of the Valerie Plame leak was obstructed by bureaucrats – a cabal if you will – who had motives different from carrying out the policies set by the elected President...

The Armitage revelation and way he and Colin Powell handled it—in the most self-serving way possible, with maximum damage inflicted on the administration—demonstrates what the real cabal in the first Bush administration was. It was Powell and Armitage, and their minions like Lawrence Wilkerson and Carl Ford. These people spent countless hours sitting around and figuring out how they could leak and use anonymously sourced hits within the press to undermine Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Rove (and, later, when he was up for the UN job, John Bolton). Powell was always very shrewd about it and left no fingerprints. Since Powell and Armitage didn't have strong policy motivations, they turned everything into a personal turf war, which went a long way to embittering and making dysfunctional the first administration.

Yes, Bush and Rice should have stopped it, but a lot of the blame goes to Powell and Armitage for engaging in this kind of bureaucratic tribal warfare in the first place. Of course, the story in the press was always that Powell and Co. were the embattled, innocent victims—but that was partly because they were feeding so many of the reporters. It's outrageous that because this small group was so adept at leaking and so adept at working the press that they managed to get the administration's "neo-cons" portrayed in the media as an out-of-control cabal, when these officials were just supporting the policy of the administration that Powell and Armitage and their small group of allies so disdained and did so much to undermine.

There is certainly an element of anti-Bush bias in how the Plame story has been covered (and non-covered since Armitage's role has become known). But the coverage of the Plame story is also another clear example of the Risen principle in action…

• The Risen Principle: The journalistic assumption that what happens within government bureaucracy, below the level of the leadership, is either beyond reproach or not worth reporting on and that failures within government departments are always failures of the leadership to set proper policies and never poor execution or active obstruction of otherwise effective policies.

Doesn't that perfectly describe how the MSM approached the Plame story? They assumed it had to be someone at the top acting in concert with the President and refused to take interest in the possibility that someone in the middle could be pursuing his own agenda.

Unfortunately, emboldened by the realization that mainstream journalists are incurious about bureaucratic obstructionism, current and future bureaucrats will be encouraged to pursue private agendas, knowing they will never be called to account.

Laffey, Centracchio Lead in Latest RIC Poll

Ian Donnis, prognosticating from a local perspective, picks Senator Lincoln Chafee in the Rhode Island Republican Senate primary. Robert Novak, prognosticating from the national level, gives the edge to Mayor Steve Laffey.

Rather than merely prognosticating, Victor Profughi of Rhode Island College has been asking Rhode Island voters what they think (OK, that is his job). The most recent RIC poll conducted between August 28 and August 30 has Mayor Laffey leading Senator Chafee, 51%-34% (15% undecided).

The sample size is 363 “likely Republican voters”, 63% Republicans, 37% Independents. The press release I received said that independents split, 43% for Senator Chafee, 41% for Mayor Laffey, but didn’t explicitly state the Republican breakdown.

The RIC poll also has Reginald Centracchio leading Kerry King in the Republican Lieutenant Governor primary, 31%-18% but with 51% undecided.

UPDATE:

Dan Yorke is reporting that the NRSC has released an internal poll that shows Senator Chafee leading 53%-39%. Victor Profughi and Dan Ronayne of the NRSC both discussed their polls on Yorke's show. The major difference in methodology is in identifying likely voters. The NRSC applies a screening question of "do you know what day primary day is", while RIC screens by asking "do you plan to vote in the primary or to wait until November".

UPDATE 2:

According to Jim Baron of the Pawtucket Times, the NRSC isn't saying what percentage of their sample was Republican versus Independent...

Chafee campaign spokesman Ian Lang cast doubt on the survey conducted by RIC Professor Victor Profughi. He said that 63 percent of the respondents identified themselves as Republicans while 37 percent said they were Independent, which is more heavily weighted toward party members than recent primary election statistics would indicate is a representative sample.

But Lang and Dan Ronayne, spokesman for the NRSC, refused to say what percentage of the respondents to their poll were Republican....

Isn't that the first thing the public needs to know in order to compare the two results?

A Neutral Education Investment Strategy (or something)

Within the past week, my wife had to drop my niece off at Tiverton High School (of which town both we and my brother-in-law are relatively new residents), and she returned with this commentary: "That school is a dump. I hope they improve it before our children have to go there."

It is with that recent context that I read National Education Association Executive Director Bob Walsh's simple and direct comment to one of Andrew's recent posts:

National average Math SAT: 518
Rhode Island average Math SAT: 494
Barrington average math SAT: 580
East Greenwich average math SAT: 575
...
Central Falls average math SAT: 383

Working on the issues related to poverty will help teachers help students. It is as simple as that. And yes, it costs money, and to the extent you wish schools to be a partner in addressing the impact of poverty on students, it will require more money for schools. If you care about kids, or the future of our country (hopefully both), you will agree.

At first look, even the most free-market anti-unionists among us would have to admit a complex argument — which is not to say that resolution of the complexity would be amicable to the NEA. (N.B. — If Bob, or anybody else, has better data for what follows, I welcome it.) Comparing SAT scores and median household income for selected towns might, indeed, lead one to agree with Mr. Walsh:





Assuming, then, that the matter is "as simple as that" — that household income correlates with SAT scores — the ensuing question must be, "Is the impact of income the same as the 'impact of poverty'?" Well, considering that Tiverton (PDF) and Barrington (PDF) have pretty much identical percentages of families living below the poverty level (2.9% and 3.0%, respectively), the answer appears to be "no." In other words, "working on the issues related to poverty" would have to actually imply an effort to make everybody equally wealthy.

However, wealth being relative (and the market tracking to its scale), even a simplistic understanding of economic reality ought to be sufficient background for one to conclude that such leveling is simply impossible, least of all when forced through government policy. To the extent that government can affect household income at the middle-class range and above, it is mainly through the fostering of a healthy business environment that encourages entrepreneurship and the importation of existing businesses (e.g., by means of reasonable taxes, respect for businesses' freedom and rights, and a light hand when it comes to employment regulations).

Whatever the strategy, of course, towns must work with finite resources. Subsidizing one area of the town's affairs requires a decrease elsewhere. Granting exemptions and aid to businesses requires that money be redirected from some other area of municiple investment. So, since we're dealing with Bob Walsh, the NEA, and SAT scores, let's throw a specific municiple invesment — that devoted to teachers' salaries — onto the same chart:





The first thing to note is that, if it's class strife that Walsh seeks to foment, honesty should compel him to admit that step-10 teachers — most of whom need only to have been teaching for just 10 years, as I understand — make more than Tiverton's median household income. With even a modest spousal contribution, their households would easily surpass Barrington's.

More importantly (and less contentiously), note that teacher salaries do not appear to correlate with either median income or SAT scores. In fact, the salaries vary only negligibly from town to town. While median income may in fact be a measure worth considering when devising strategies to raise SAT scores, teachers' salaries appear not to make a difference whatsoever. On the limited basis of these statistics, therefore, a town such as Central Falls (or Tiverton, for that matter) would be well advised to lower teachers' salaries and redirect the savings toward such improvements as will increase average household income — and with the emphasis not on welfare-style poverty programs, but on working/middle-class economic activity programs.

Not to be flippant, but the most effective way to ensure that "schools [are] a partner in addressing the impact of poverty on students" might just be to decrease the degree to which they — as costly departments of the public corporation — contribute to the circumstances that perpetuate poverty. That, if one were to ask my wife, might involve investments to make the facilities encouraging to students, comforting to parents, and inviting to potential residents.

A Study Where it’s Good that Rhode Island is at the Bottom

Continuing the day-of-lists theme that seems to have developed, according to a study by the Trust for America’s Health, Rhode Island is the 48th most obese state in the nation (but still only second best in New England [h/t 7-to-7])...

• Massachusetts 17.9% (49th)
  
• Rhode Island 18.6% (48th)
  
• Connecticut 18.9% (47th)
  
• Vermont 19.1% (45th)
  
• New Hampshire 19.9% (43rd)
  
• Maine 21.3% (32nd)

Is it a coincidence that in an area where the government has little control, Rhode Island is virtually identical to its neighbors Massachusetts and Connecticut, yet in areas where government plays a more substantial role (like poverty or education), our performance is significantly worse?

Whatever the answer, I think the obvious way to celebrate Rhode Island's excellent rating in the obesity study is with a piece of “The Giving Cake” served by Gregg’s Restaurants. Part of the purchase price of every slice of Giving Cake is donated to Hasbro Children’s Hospital.

Rhode Island's Poor Regional and National Performance in Education

Jennifer D. Jordan of the Projo reports on yet another study showing Rhode Island not doing so well, the College Board's yearly analysis of SAT Scores.

Here are the New England states ranked by math scores...

• Massachusetts 524
• New Hampshire 524
• Vermont 519
• National Average 518
• Connecticut 516
• Rhode Island 502
• Maine 501

...and by reading scores...

• New Hampshire 520
• Massachusetts 513
• Vermont 513
• Connecticut 512
• National Average 503
• Maine 501
• Rhode Island 495

UPDATE:

I have to take a step back from using SAT scores as an indicator of Rhode Island's educational performance relative to the nation. Take a comparison of Rhode Island to Illinois as an example. At first, the Illinois numbers look fantastic (609 math, 591 reading). But then look at how many students took the test in each state: 8,130 in Rhode Island versus 12,694 in Illinois, even though Illinois has about 12 times the population of Rhode Island (Chicago by itself is almost 3 times as large as RI).

I suspect that the cause is that there are still regions of the country (like Illinois) where the American College Test (ACT) is more common than the SAT, and that in those regions the only students who take the SATs are those planning to attend some hi-falutin' Ivy League or west coast university, skewing the SAT median upward.

However, the regional comparison is still valid, as all 6 New England states have a high percentage of students taking SATs.

GOP Closing the Gap Because of Security and ....Pork?

A recent USA Today/Gallup Poll showed that the gap between support for a generic Democrat and generic Republicans had narrowed to 2% (47%-45%, respectively). As the related USA Today story pithily explained:

The arrest of terror suspects in London has helped buoy President Bush to his highest approval rating in six months and dampen Democratic congressional prospects to their lowest in a year.

In short, as security issues came back to the forefront, the general public re-assessed their priorities and--as has historically been the case--tend to look more favorably upon the GOP with regards to the future of Iraq and the War on Terror. Don Lambro agrees with "security" angle, but also adds this:

Another factor behind the Republicans' end-of-summer rise in the polls: They have spent the past month reminding voters, particularly their party's base, what they have done for their states and districts. Despite all the justified criticism about wasteful pork-barrel spending, the fact remains that most voters like their tax dollars coming back to them in bridge, road and other public-works projects and members aren't shy about reminding them about the bacon they've brought home.

We've certainly seen this born out as one of the central pillars of Senator Chafee's reelection strategy. It's a tried and true strategy and is effective in garnering support from most average voters (like RI Independents), as Lambro's analysis of the poll seems to bear out . It also is in stark contrast to Mayor Laffey's "no pork" approach, which is appealing to the more conservative GOP base (the Porkbusters crowd). Two different messages that appeal to two different sections of the GOP primary electorate. Which message will ultimately take hold? As with all else in this crazy race, it all depends on turnout.

Rhode Island's Poor Regional Performance on Income and Poverty

A just released Census Bureau report (pdf format) ranks that median household income of the fifty states plus the District of Columbia over past 12 months. Most of New England is at or above the national average ($46,242)...

• Connecticut $60,941 (3rd)
• Massachusetts $57,184 (5th)
• New Hampshire $56,768 (6th)
• Rhode Island $51,458 (12th)
• Vermont $45,686 (23rd)
• Maine $42,801 (33rd)

The report also provides data on the percentage of people living in poverty over the past 12 months...

• New Hampshire 7.5% (1st)
• Connecticut 8.3% (3rd)
• Massachusetts 10.3% (11th)
• Vermont 11.5% (19th)
• Rhode Island 12.3% (25th)
• Maine 12.6% (26th)

One grain of salt to take with the poverty data; the report says that "poverty thresholds do not vary geographically" which probably skews the numbers one way or another.

With that qualification, here are two questions worth considering...

• Why does Rhode Island always do so much worse than Massachusetts and Connecticut on these kinds of lists, when we are all subject to the same regional economic trends?

Plausible factors: Connecticut data is skewed by the part of the state close to New York City. The Boston area is a sufficiently large metropolitan area to make comparisons to less densely populated remainder of New England difficult. But if the higher income numbers in Massachusetts and Connecticut are related to higher costs-of-living in Boston and New York City, doesn't it make their lower-than-Rhode Island poverty rates all the more impressive? And, on top of that...

• Why then does New Hampshire, about the same size as Rhode Island in terms of population and at about the same proximity to Boston, do so much better than RI in this survey?

New Chafee Add: It's All About Style Now

The new Chafee add is up (called "People") and it looks like the time for policy debate is over. It's all personality politics, now. Here's the transcript:

Elderly Man: “Laffey is running for Senate here in the State of Rhode Island but his ego is the size of the State of Texas.”

Soccer Mom1: “He talks down to you…like he’s better than everyone.”

Regular Guy1: ‘Laffey’s a polarizing figure.”

Elderly Woman: “And he started hurting some of the people in Cranston, especially the elderly people.”

Older Woman: “Steve Laffey is a total different personality than Linc Chafee. And I really like Linc Chafee’s personality.”

War Veteran:”Keep Lincoln Chafee.”

Soccer Mom2:”Linc Chafee is a well-informed decision maker.”

Regular Guy2: “The Senator gets the job done.”

This seems to be a clear sign that Chafee feels he has to directly go negative (vice via his NRSC surrogates). I wonder if Laffey will take the bait.

(Tip via Dan Yorke).

Chafee to Benefit From Nat'l GOP "Draft"

Via a tip supplied by AuH2ORepublican in a comment to Andrew's most recent post, the Hotline's Kevin Rennie reports:

Democrats were right in 2004: the Republicans have adopted a draft. It only applies, however, to party workers employed by state victory committees in the east of the Mississippi. For many it will be worse than boot camp. They are to be sent to Rhode Island to try to rescue Republican Sen. Lincoln Chafee’s re-election campaign in the September 12th primary.

Workers start arriving Friday and will be charged with sorting out the mess that Washington operatives believe is the Chafee campaign. First task may be to get Republican voters to forget Chafee’s erratic performance in the last two of the four broadcast debates between the incumbent and his lively challenger, Cranston mayor Stephen Laffey.

Scores of GOP workers will begin arriving this week and stay through the open primary as they search for and then try to persuade some of the 70,000 registered Republicans and several hundred thousand independent voters eligible to participate in the open primary to support Chaffee. Draftees, many of whom may be more compatible with Laffey, will be paid by their home-state committees. Food and lodging expenses will be picked up by Republican National Committee. Some of the faithful, however, may prefer to go AWOL than work for a Republican who opposes mangers on public property and calls the Club for Growth one of most notorious special interest groups in Washington.

Party pros may be hoping that the influx of energetic workers will inspire Chafee to put some heat under what they see as his lethargic performance in the day-to-day grind of campaigning in the Ocean State.

Yes, this piece is full of rumor and conjecture, but the fact is that the ground troops are indeed on their way to help Senator Chafee {Add this to the $180,000 in direct mailing support for Chafee--ed.}. I wonder if the Club For Growth has a similar ground force (to go along with its mailing support)? (No, I'm not volunteering).

Your Kerry King/Reginald Centracchio Voter Information Clearinghouse

Scott Mayerowitz has dueling articles about Republican Lieutenant Governor candidates Kerry King and Reginald Centracchio in this week’s Projo.

The article on Kerry King ran on Monday. For those seeking further information on Mr. King…

• Here is Anchor Rising’s interview with Kerry King.
• Here is a description of his anti-corruption plan
• And here is the link to his StopRICorruption website.

The article on Reginald Centracchio ran today. For those seeking further information on General Centracchio…

• Here is Part 1 of Anchor Rising’s interview with Reginald Centracchio (healthcare)
• Here is Part 2 of the interview (emergency management)
• And here is Part 3 of the interview (small business).

State Senator asks Chafee Campaign to Renounce NRSC Commercial

The Associated Press reports that State Senator Juan Pichardo has asked the Chafee campaign to renounce the National Republican Senatorial Committee’s latest anti-Laffey ad (available here on YouTube)…

State Sen. Juan Pichardo (D-Providence) sent Chafee a letter dated Friday asking him to renounce the spot.

"The ad's script and imagery are clearly meant to engender fear that, as a group, Hispanic immigrants present a threat to the security of Rhode Island and the nation," wrote Pichardo, a naturalized citizen who emigrated from the Dominican Republic. "I am deeply concerned that as a result, the ad will unfairly create feelings of prejudice and suspicion toward the Hispanic community as a whole."

Chafee described the ad as accurate during a Saturday night debate with Laffey.

But his spokesman Ian Lang referred questions to the NRSC after Pichardo's letter appeared yesterday on a Democratic Web site.

"This is not our ad, we have nothing to do with it," Lang said.

Remember that Mr. Lang’s response is motivated as much by campaign finance anti-coordination regulations as it is by traditional political considerations.

Current campaign law exempts the NRSC’s negative ad from counting as a contribution to the Chafee campaign since it never says "vote for Senator Chafee". If, however, the NRSC had sat down with Senator Chafee to develop a positive ad to help his campaign, the result would have been considered a “coordinated” ad subject to contribution limits. In other words, there’s no limit on how much bad stuff you can throw around about a candidate you oppose, but the resources that you can expend working with a candidate you support are strictly rationed.

That’s our ridiculous system of campaign finance reform. (Of course, since Senator Chafee did vote to implement this system, he probably shouldn’t complain about it too loudly.)

The Source of the Valerie Plame Leak

If anyone is still interested (probably not, because it looks like it won’t hurt Dick Cheney or Karl Rove), the world apparently now knows the source of the Valerie Plame leak. National Review’s Byron York reports…

According to Hubris, the new book by the Nation’s David Corn and Newsweek’s Michael Isikoff, [Secretary of State Colin Powell] had been told by his top deputy and close friend Richard Armitage that he, Armitage, leaked the identity of CIA employee Valerie Plame to columnist Robert Novak. Armitage had, in other words, set off the CIA-leak affair.

Apparently, the Justice Department has been aware that Armitage was the original leaker since October of 2003, but went ahead with a full investigation, including special prosecutor, anyway.

Here’s a bare bones timeline of Armitage's involvement compiled from York’s article …

1. On at least two separate occasions in 2003, Armitage discusses CIA employee Valerie Plame's role in helping her husband obtain an assignment investigating Iraqi uranium purches in Africa, once with the Chicago Sun-Times' Robert Novak and once with the Washington Post's Bob Woodward. Novak uses this fact in a July 2003 column.
2. In October 2003, during the very early stages of the investigation to determine who revealed Plame's connection to the CIA, Armitage admits to being Novak's source, but does not disclose the separate Woodward leak.
3. Armitage eventually discloses the Woodward leak in November 2005.

York speculates that Lewis Libby, the only person indicted in this matter, was targeted by the prosecution because his story was inconsistent with the stories being told by the people who had received their information via the Novak leak while the prosecution was unaware of the existence of the Woodward leak. (The implication, I think, is that Libby learned of the Plame-Wilson connection from someone in the Woodward channel, if not Woodward himself).

But, as York points out, why Armitage’s initial incomplete testimony was treated as an oversight while problems with Libby’s story have been treated as criminal activity is unknown to anyone but the special prosecutor.

The Case for Wiretapping

Mark Steyn makes the argument for warrantless wiretapping when one-half of the call is outside of the US as well as can be done in two sentences...

If Judge Taylor's ruling stands, if the U.S. government intercepts a call from Islamabad to London about a plot to blow up Big Ben, it can alert the Brits. But, if the U.S. government intercepts a call from Islamabad to New York about a plot to blow up the Chrysler Building, that's entirely unconstitutional and all record of it should be erased.

Chafee-Laffey IV: Third Panel Round

Republican Senate candidates Lincoln Chafee and Steve Laffey debated on television on WJAR-TV Channel 10 this past Saturday. Here are the notes I jotted down during the panel's third round of questioning...

Bill Rappleye asks how exactly the US should free itself from dependency on foreign oil.
Senator Lincoln Chafee discusses the increasing demand for oil created by increased consumption by China’s huge population.
Rappleye: But what do we do in this country?
Chafee says that 60% of US consumption is from transportation, so we need to raise CAFE standards. Chafee notes that he drives a hybrid, but it was made in Japan. Government should force industry in the direction of 50 mpg cars, so the US can become a leader in hybrid vehicles.
Mayor Steve Laffey touts his specific plan to get America off of foreign oil (available at electlaffey.com). The US needs to raise CAFÉ standards from 27 mpg to 40 mpg, pass tax credits for hybrids, and offer 20 year producer and consumer credits. We need to get off foreign oil to win the War on Terror, and we won’t unless we create program on the scale of putting a man on the Moon.
Chafee says he’s worked in the Senate on raising CAFE standards, so Laffey should be endorsing his candidacy.

Michelle Johnson asks if America needs to build a fence on its southern border.
Laffey says yes for reasons of national security and stopping illegal immigration. Also, it’s not humane to have people walking days through the desert in hopes of getting to America.
Chafee says he voted in favor of a bill that had strict border security and a path to legality for currently illegal immigrants. We also need to address poverty in other countries to stop illegal immigration at the source.
Johnson asks Chafee how working illegally in Canada influenced his position on this issue.
Chafee tells an anecdote about contact with the RCMP at the racetrack where he worked that led him to obtaining landed immigrant status.
Gene Valicenti asks Chafee how old he was at the time.
Chafee: About 23.
Laffey volunteers that he’s never worked illegally in any other country. Also notes his campaign won’t run an ad about Chafee’s youthful indiscretion.
Johnson asks Laffey about Chafee’s experience as an example of how countries sometimes need people from outside to do work.
Laffey answers that Chafee going to Canada is not quite the same as poor people crossing into America and then reiterates his opposition to the “Kennedy” bill.
Chafee asks Laffey if he supports the Sensenbrenner bill (the House’s enforcement-only immigration bill).
Laffey says he hasn’t read the specific House bill, but he supports securing the border first. Then second step is then to enforce law against employers. Laffey goes on to criticize Chafee’s support for the provision of the Senate bill that he says gives foreign workers 4-5 times as much money as domestic workers at the same job site.
Chafee: “You’re a one man filibuster” who doesn’t offer solutions. What bill do you support?
Laffey says he would support a bill that would secure the borders first.
Chafee asks Laffey if he would oppose the House bill.
Laffey reiterates that he has not read the House bill, but would support it if it is a bill that secures the borders first.

Jim Taricani asks how much aid the government should give to people to get out of poverty and if that aid should come with restricitions.
Chafee says that America is at the top of the world because of our great social programs. Welfare re-authorization is just coming up now and the goal is to build the middle class.
Taricani asks about the role of individual responsibility in people getting themselves out of poverty.
Chafee responds that the Clinton compromise which got people to work for there welfare was a good thing, but you have to pay attention to day-care when you consider this issue.
Laffey says that the ’96 welfare reform, with 5-year limit on benefits, was good policy. But America is not great because of its social programs, it’s great because it’s a place where everyone has a chance to get ahead. Unless the financial direction of the country changes, this won’t continue to be true.
Taricani asks Laffey how tax cuts benefit poor people.
Laffey invokes the multiplier effect, attributing it to JFK. When small businesses get tax cuts, they can afford to hire more employees, and everyone does better.
Chafee says that JFK’s financial plan is not something to brag about, because we had Vietnam, and then got deeper and deeper into debt. The country didn’t get out until 1999, when Democrats and Republicans worked on revenues and expenditures together.
Laffey says he won’t criticize John or Bobby Kennedy
Chafee says he’s talking about financials, not people.

Chafee-Laffey IV: Second Panel Round

Republican Senate candidates Lincoln Chafee and Steve Laffey debated on television on WJAR-TV Channel 10 this past Saturday. Here are the notes I jotted down during the panel's second round of questioning...

Michelle Johnson asks Mayor Steve Laffey about being quoted or perhaps misquoted as saying God told him to run for mayor. What does he think the role of faith in politics is?
Laffey: I pray, I go to church, but when I get involved, it is all about public policy and what it is the best decision for the people I serve.
Gene Valicenti asks Laffey if God told him to run.
Laffey: No, but I’ve remarked something to the effect of “I guess the man upstairs wanted me to run”.
Senator Lincoln Chafee says that Rhode Island was founded on the separation of church and state by Roger Williams fleeing Puritan persecution and that RI wouldn’t join the US until that principle was included in the Federal constitution. Laffey put a charade of a crèche at City Hall, and was sued by ACLU.
Laffey responds that the people of Cranston put different displays at City Hall and their right to do so was upheld by the Supreme Court.
Valicenti notes that Laffey did lead the fight on the issue.
Laffey says it all started with a man who wanted to place a Menorah at City Hall, so he called a lawyer and learned that public holiday displays are OK as long as they are diverse; there’s tremendous public support for this.
Valicenti agrees that the public approves and asks Chafee if that’s wrong.
Chafee says he point is that there is a separation of church and state and we don’t want state sponsored religion.
Laffey says what we want is the Federal courts to make these decisions, not Chafee.

Jim Taricani asks Chafee why Republicans should vote for him when his positions differ from the Republican mainstream on issues like tax cuts, war on Iraq, abortion and stem cells.
Chafee says he considers himself a “traditional Republican” who favors fiscal responsibility, the environment, personal freedoms (keep governmentt out of our bedroom) and opposes foreign entanglements.
Taricani asks Laffey what Republicanism means to him.
Laffey says he refers to himself as reformer and a populist, in the mold of Teddy Roosevelet. TR saw unequal power, and he worked to set it right for people. In Cranston, I saw unequal power, and I set out to change it. Both great Democrats like JFK and great Republicans like RWR have favored tax cuts. Recent tax cuts have generated 500 billion dollars in extra revenue.
Taricani asks Chafee why he doesn’t believe in tax cuts?
Chafee: Deficits! We have to have the resources to fund special education, prepare for wars and natural disasters, and invest in infrastructure.
Taricani asks Chafee why people should think the guy with the Harvard MBA is wrong on this.
Chafee says the tax cuts were too deep. We’re still in deficits and they’re like an addiction, easy to get into but hard to get out of.

Bill Rappleye asks about college students graduating with an average debt of $20,000. What is the role of government in making college affordable and what about Pell grants?
Laffey says he supports maintaining Pell grants at the current level. Education at the college level is very successful in this country, the real education problem is at the primary and secondary level.
Rappleye: My question is about paying for college.
Laffey says the existing system is appropriate.
Chafee warns to watch what Laffey says, not what he does; Laffey supports deep tax cuts, even though Pell grants are not keeping up with college tuitions. An investment in education that gives everyone a chance to go to college is what makes America great.
Laffey says we should cut the $27B in pork, cut the $125-$150B in corporate welfare, and freeze discretionary non-defense spending to pay for existing programs without increasing the deficit or raising taxes.
Rappleye tries to get back to his original question. Is it OK for kids to graduate with a $20,000 debt?
Laffey says education loans at current rates are a good investment. Students and parents have to put some money in the game.
Chafee says that Laffey offers lots of sound bytes but no real solutions.

Chafee-Laffey IV: First Panel Round

Senator Lincoln Chafee and Mayor Steve Laffey debated on television on WJAR-TV Channel 10 this past Saturday. Here are the notes I jotted down during the panel's first round of questioning...

Bill Rappleye begins by telling Mayor Steve Laffey that he’s not interested in how he felt about Boy George 20 years ago, but will ask about his current campaign commercial where he mentions that his brother died of aids. Why bring up the cause of death?
Laffey says he understands how families go through struggles. The way he grew help helps him have empathy for the problems people face.
Senator Lincoln Chafee agrees with Rappleye’s premise that how candidates feel today is what’s important, then details his own gay rights record; he supports employment non-discrimination rights, opposes the Federal marriage amendment and supports hate crimes legislation. Chafee then brings up the Jackvony pixelation...
Gene Valicenti asks how the Jackovny pixelation is pertinent.
Chafee says it shows a vindictiveness on the part of Laffey.
Laffey says becoming a public official shouldn’t mean losing a sense of humor and he thought it was funny when he got pixelated by Chafee at the Rhode Island follies. This is not an issue for US Senate race.
Chafee, after acknowledging that people can’t be held accountable for things they did as college students, says neither the Boy George column or the pixelation were funny.
Rappleye asks Chafee if his campaign had anything to do with Boy George column finding its way to the Projo.
Chafee: ”Not that I know of.”

Jim Taricani asks if prosecutors should ask for the death penalty for Osama Bin Laden, if he’s found guilty.
Chafee says he opposes the death penalty because Rhode Island executed innocent people in the 19th century.
Laffey says the death penalty is inappropriate in many situations, but someone responsible for 3000 deaths should pay the ultimate penalty.
Taricani asks Chafee if his opposition to the death penalty is on moral/religious grounds.
Chafee cites a 19th-century example of mob violence and says that we have to be careful, plus the deterrent effect has not been shown to be strong.
Laffey says there’s no possibility of a mistake in a case involving Osama Bin Laden, because he openly takes credit for mass murder.
Chafee: Once you oppose the death penalty, you can’t make exceptions.

Michelle Johnson (For those unfamiliar with this name, note that many of the unbylined Associated Press stories on Rhode Island politics are written by Ms. Johnson) asks about Chafee’s previous statement that “A bad peace is better than a good war”. When is the use of military force appropriate?
Chafee cites the “religious parameters” of a just war. It must be a last resort, authorized by a legitimate authority, redress a wrong suffered, have a reasonable chance of success, have the ultimate goal of re-establishing peace, be proportional to the injury suffered, and avoid civilian targets.
Johnson asks if Afghanistan and Iraq met the criteria.
Chafee says no to Iraq and that he voted to authorize force in Afganistan. There have been shifting rationales for Iraq, first it was WMD, the bringing democracy, then remaking the Middle East, and now it’s a war on “Islamic fundamentalism”.
Johnson asks Laffey when he thinks the use of military force is appropriate.
Laffey: When the national interest or the people of the United States are at risk. Bad peaces lead to other wars.
Johnson asks Laffey how much diplomacy we should try in Iran.
Laffey answers we’ve already been working on diplomacy for past 3 years. Unfortunately, Russia & China won’t cooperate because of the price of oil. We need to move to economic sanctions against Iran, but they have to be sanctions that will really hurt.
Chafee: We have to be smart in our decisions or else “sometimes we incite the extremists”, leading to things likes the elections of Hamas and the Islamic brotherhood. Pakistan has nuclear weapons.

Chafee-Laffey IV: The Lightning Round

In the opening “lightning round” of Saturday night’s Laffey-Chafee debate, moderator Gene Valicenti got concise answers from Republican Senate Candidates Lincoln Chafee and Steve Laffey on several important issues. Here’s a summary. Complete video of the original is available on the WJAR-TV Channel 10 website…

Gene Valicenti asks why gasoline costs 3 bucks a gallon.
Senator Lincoln Chafee cites demand created by China and hurricane Katrina.
Mayor Steve Laffey says because of the lack of a national energy policy.

Valicenti asks for a quick-fix for stopping prices from rising to 4 bucks a gallon.
Chafee says reduce consumption by improving mileage standards on cars.
Laffey says there is no quick fix. Increasing the use of solar power and increasing CAFÉ standards are a start.

Valicenti says the Iranians opening a nuclear power plant. Do we need to consider military action?
Laffey says economics sanctions are now necessary, because diplomacy has failed.
Chafee says we need to open an embassy in Iran and start a bi-lateral dialogue.

Valicenti asks if a military draft needs to be instituted.
Both candidates say no.

Valicenti asks the candidates if they believe global warming exists.
Laffey says he’s heard good arguments on both sides, and we should act as if it’s true.
Chafee says even the Bush administration acknowledges that climate change is occurring because of human activity.

Valicenti asks if the candidates support gay marriage.
Chafee says yes.
Laffey says he supports civil unions, but not marriage.

Valicenti asks if the President can order wiretaps without a warrant.
Laffey says there are circumstances where it is necessary, but special Judges should be notified as quickly as possible.
Chafee says the Fourth Amendment is clear, no warrantless wiretapping.

Satire? Hit Piece?

I'd like a specific answer, from Mayor Laffey, whether this (PDF) is satire:

There are many people who are too weak to live by any moral principles; they decide what is best by their own irrational whims and desires. These cowards attempt to justify their actions in two ways. Firstly, they try to bring others down to their way of life by exhorting them to compromise their values. Secondly, these moral milksops say that no one can be wholly good so please don't accuse me of being all bad. It is these same ingrates who belittle people who have clear, simple answers to the world's problems. They accuse others of seeing things in black and white, as if that was bad, impossible, or somehow wrong. What these poltroons are really saying is "Please don't discriminate between right and wrong."

Now, I'd be the first to express pretend astonishment that the Providence Journal would offer this particular college-age Laffey column as "a sample of a humor column by Stephen Laffey in a campus newspaper," rather than, say, the column from which Scott MacKay has drawn his first example, from which the headline was drawn, and on which Laffey was specifically using the humor defense. If the Providence Journal intended to prove that its pretense toward journalistic neutrality is merely a cover for aspirations toward status as a political force in this state, it could have comported itself no better.

That doesn't, however, excuse Laffey for taking the politically expedient route of disavowing all of his writing at the time. How refreshing it would be if the mayor would quickly put a larger sampling of his college columns on his Web site and explain what principles expressed therein were legitimately held and which were "over the top." Doing so might (one can only surmise) help to resolve some of the ambiguity that Rhode Island conservatives find in his persona.

Chafee-Laffey IV: Open Thread

Anchor Rising readers are invited to use the comments section of this post to give their own real time reactions to tonight's Republican Senate debate between Lincoln Chafee and Steve Laffey (WJAR-TV Channel 10 @ 7:30 pm). Also, Channel 10 political reporter Bill Rappleye will hold a pre-debate discussion with Robert Weygand, Susan Farmer and Jennifer Duffy beginning at 7:00 pm.

Insightful comments, witty comments, and even comments that spin like Lynda Carter in an old episode of Wonder Woman are all welcome, but personally insulting or crude posts will be deleted as soon as I see them.

The comments will open at 7:30 are open now!

Laffey's College Columns

Scott MacKay has an article in today’s Projo discussing several columns that Steve Laffey wrote as an undergraduate student for a college newspaper in 1983…

In one column in the Bowdoin Patriot, the paper published by campus Republicans, Laffey wrote, "I have never once seen a happy homosexual. This is not to say there aren't any; I simply haven't seen one in my lifetime. Maybe they are all in the closet. All the homosexuals I've seen are sickly and decrepit, their eyes devoid of life."

Laffey, who is challenging incumbent Sen. Lincoln D. Chafee for the Republican U.S. Senate nomination, said he regrets writing that and other articles denigrating gays. But he chalks it up to undergraduate hijinks, saying, "In college we engaged in sophomoric political satire."

Asked if any of the columns represented his views, Laffey said in an interview at his Cranston home yesterday, "No. Not now, nor then, or ever . . . Do I regret writing some of these things? Sure. But at the time, we were just having fun. We thought it was funny."

Whether you believe that a candidate's college writings are a vaild subject in a campaign or you believe that this is an example of gotcha politics (MacKay reports that the Projo was made aware of the columns by an anonymous delivery), please keep the discussion civil.

First District Republican Congressional Candidates: Let’s Win the War on Terror, Not Learn to Live with Terrorism

Last week, the Cumberland Valley Breeze ran an op-ed by Anna Quindlen on America’s attitude towards terrorism. If Ms. Quindlen believes that there is anything more important in responding to terrorism than learning to accept its permanence, she doesn’t mention it…

Living with ever-present danger is scarcely new, although we like to make it sound that way…The great shock to the American system is realizing that no fortress is inviolate, no wall tall enough and no place really safe. Metal detectors, random searches. No toothpaste in that carry-on. Safety is a useful illusion, as modern - and as vulnerable - as a skyscraper.

Fortunately, many Valley Breeze readers live in Rhode Island’s first Congressional district, where they will have the opportunity to vote for a Congressional candidates who do not share Ms. Quindlen’s dour view.

Republican Congressional candidate Jon Scott believes that America should aggressively confront terrorists before they launch attacks…

Jon is a strong supporter of the War on Terror and understands that the best defense against Homeland Security threats is an offense that seeks out terrorists and confronts them before they reach our shores. He supports any legislation that increases the resources available to our men and women in uniform as they carry out this global mission and believes that their success depends not only on our commitment to their welfare but to the welfare of the families that remain behind in the US.

Republican Congressional candidate Ed Leather is also clear that the goal of the United States should be to destroy terrorism, not to learn to live with it…

If you stay the course on the fight against terrorism, you will destroy it. We have to support the destruction of terrorism, 100%. We have the means to do it, but victory requires the political will of every citizen....

We need the political will to destroy terrorism, but only the voters can provide the political will by electing officials who will carry on this battle. Only you can provide the power to fight for a safer and more peaceful world for ourselves, our children, and our grandchildren. It may be a lengthy process, but we have no choice. We must stay the course on the fight against terrorism and we will win.

Incumbent Patrick Kennedy alludes to the War on Terror on his campaign website, in an expression of general support for a strong defense, but is unclear on whether he believes the goal of America’s anti-terror policy should be a simple truce or true victory…

Following the tragedies of September 11, 2001, Congressman Kennedy joined with his colleagues in committing resources to improving our national security and to ensuring that our Armed Services are stronger and more effective than ever. Congressman Kennedy has long supported efforts to strengthen our military, to improve U.S. military readiness to a higher sustainable level of response, to maintain our nation's strategic depth, and to modernize our military through the use of the newest and most advanced technologies and capabilities.

Both Republican candidates are very clear on this issue. Shouldn’t voters expect their incumbent to be equally as clear?

Bringing a New Strategic Focus to the Education Debate

Four recent postings by Justin and Andrew (here, here, here, and here) have brought us back to the important education policy debate.

Many reader comments on their postings have raised a number of issues related to education in Rhode Island and beyond, including: teacher salaries, automatic salary step increases, merit pay, accountability, union contract terms, pension retirement benefits, healthcare benefits, politician/bureaucrat/union behaviors, corruption, political power, union bashing, Governor Carcieri bashing, Mayor Laffey bashing, and the effect of poverty on educational outcomes.

Yet, however relevant some of these comments may be, they are reflective of the non-strategic nature of the current public debate on education. Dwelling on these largely granular or tactical issues alone has the unintended consequence of playing into the hands of those who defend the failed status quo. Alternatively, inspiring a passionate commitment to change across our society will only occur if certain core strategic questions finally become central to the public debate on education.

There are four such strategic questions:

1. Do we believe a quality education is the gateway to the American Dream for all children?

2. Whom do we trust to make better educational decisions for children: their parents or the government?

3. Within each neighborhood school, who is in the position to make the best decisions regarding individual students, individual teachers, and the curriculum: federal bureaucrats, state bureaucrats, unions or the school's principal and teachers?

4. What incentives will ensure accountability to taxpayers and parents as well as reward behaviors which lead to improved educational performance outcomes?

Answers to these four strategic questions lead us to one overarching question:

Can the failed status quo be made to work by minor adjustments at the margin or will high-quality performance only come from a completely different structural approach to delivering educational services?

Let's work diligently to alter the education debate so it focuses on these core strategic issues. With the proper focus, we can unite rich and poor, liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans as well as people of all colors in a common mission dedicated to finally making a quality education available to every child in America.

Bringing a New Strategic Focus to the Education Debate

Four recent postings by Justin and Andrew (here, here, here, and here) have brought us back to the important education policy debate.

Many reader comments on their postings have raised a number of issues related to education in Rhode Island and beyond, including: teacher salaries, automatic salary step increases, merit pay, accountability, union contract terms, pension retirement benefits, healthcare benefits, politician/bureaucrat/union behaviors, corruption, political power, union bashing, Governor Carcieri bashing, Mayor Laffey bashing, and the effect of poverty on educational outcomes.

Yet, however relevant some of these comments may be, they are reflective of the non-strategic nature of the current public debate on education. Dwelling on these largely granular or tactical issues alone has the unintended consequence of playing into the hands of those who defend the failed status quo. Alternatively, inspiring a passionate commitment to change across our society will only occur if certain core strategic questions finally become central to the public debate on education.

There are four such strategic questions:

1. Do we believe a quality education is the gateway to the American Dream for all children?

2. Whom do we trust to make better educational decisions for children: their parents or the government?

3. Within each neighborhood school, who is in the position to make the best decisions regarding individual students, individual teachers, and the curriculum: federal bureaucrats, state bureaucrats, unions or the school's principal and teachers?

4. What incentives will ensure accountability to taxpayers and parents as well as reward behaviors which lead to improved educational performance outcomes?

Answers to these four strategic questions lead us to one overarching question:

Can the failed status quo be made to work by minor adjustments at the margin or will high-quality performance only come from a completely different structural approach to delivering educational services?

Let's work diligently to alter the education debate so it focuses on these core strategic issues. With the proper focus, we can unite rich and poor, liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans as well as people of all colors in a common mission dedicated to finally making a quality education available to every child in America.

Laffey-Chafee III: Debating Foreign Policy

In the second radio debate, Senator Lincoln Chafee was asked if he really believed that weapons of mass destruction were the sole reason for invading Iraq. Senator Chafee answered that if there was a wider purpose to the war, it should have been put forth by the President and debated in public before a decision was made. I believe that Senator Chafee was spot-on with this answer. When history looks back on the conduct of the War in Iraq, President George W. Bush’s decision to not rally America around a greater cause than WMD in making the case for invading Iraq and deposing Saddam Husein will be viewed as the primary failure from which the other problems have grown.

It is in a spirit that recognizes the importance of public debate when setting America's direction in the world -- the spirit expressed by Senator Chafee himself, at a moment where he well-represented the ideal of New England Republicanism -- that I offer the criticism that follows.

In three debates, Senator Chafee has offered three different views of foreign policy. In the first debate, Senator Chafee flirted dangerously with pacifism (“a bad peace is better than a good war”). In the second debate, the Senator presented a pre-World War II-style isolationism as true Republicanism (“avoid foreign entanglements”). Then, in Wednesday’s debate, Senator Chafee expressed a preference for a view that goes by the inelegant name of benevolent global hegemonism (“America should be the strongest country in a peaceful world”).

The dreaded neoconservatives also begin from the premise that America should be the strongest country in a peaceful world. But they go further, adding the idea that the only way the world will stay peaceful is if America is the nation that enforces the peace. Another group of foreign policy thinkers share the goal of a dominant America in a peaceful world, but believe that America is sufficiently powerful to creatively work through international institutions to reach that goal (no one has come up with a good name for this group yet). Then there are the realists who believe it is impossible for any country to maintain its status as most powerful, because everybody else inevitably gangs up to take down number one. There are many other possibilities, outside of and in between these views.

Given the diversity of choices available, Senator Chafee’s statement in the third debate that America should be the strongest country in a peaceful world was much more than a platitude. It was a very bold statement of American foreign policy. It was, however, entirely incompatible with his positions from the first two debates. It is not reasonable to believe that the world will stay peaceful if the U.S. disengages out of a desire to “avoid foreign entanglements”. With the US on the sidelines, who will stop a Slobodan Milosevic or a Saddam Husein from ending the peace in full scale military actions that swallow up neighboring states? And a stated willingness to accept a “bad peace” makes any hope of any peace less likely by neutralizing deterrence as a strategic option. Dictators and tyrants who believe they can be bully other nations into accepting disadvantageous truces will continually use violence or the threat of violence to take what they want.

I believe that Senator Chafee is sincere in what he has said about his beliefs, foreign policy or otherwise, but because of the contradictions, I am not yet convinced that he has expressed his core foreign policy beliefs during this series of debates.

Mayor Steve Laffey has approached foreign policy from a more operational direction, placing national energy policy at the center of his foreign policy platform. Not to be pedantic here, but this also is a way of avoiding foreign entanglements -- not all foreign entanglements, but a particular foreign entanglement, dependence on foreign oil, that is unduly controlled by other nations.

What makes the goal of energy independence more than the 21st century version of isolationism is that pursuing energy independence treats reduced entanglements as a means while traditional isolationism treats reduced entanglements as the end. In conventional foreign policy terms, the energy-policy-as-foreign-policy position is the belief that the constraints on America created by dependence on foreign oil have become so burdensome, they impair the ability of the United States to pursue whatever degree of foreign engagement the American polity chooses to be in its best interest.

Chafee-Laffey IV Moved to Saturday

The final debate in the Republican Senate series, originally scheduled for tonight, has been moved to Saturday at 7:00 on WJAR-TV Channel 10.

Laffey-Chafee III: Debating Immigration

During Wednesday’s debate, when discussing illegal immigration, Senator Lincoln Chafee said “the most important thing on any issue is to be consistent”, then contrasted Mayor Steve Laffey's opposition to the amnesty-based immigration reform passed by the Senate to his support for using consular ID cards in the City of Cranston. The Senator believes the two positions reflect a politically motivaed flip-flop. Mayor Laffey's decision to allow Cranston to accept consular IDs is also the subject of the National Republican Senatorial Committee's latest anti-Laffey ad.

1. Senator Chafee supports the “John McCain” bill (also known as the pick-any-combination-of-names from McCain-Kennedy-Martinez-Hagel-Frist-and-Reid bill). The key component of the bill is the so-called Martinez-Hagel compromise. Matinez-Hagel divides illegal immigrants currently within the United States into three groups. Illegal immigrants who have been in the US for more than 5 years are immediately eligible to pay for permanent amnesty with back taxes and fines. Illegal immigrants who have been in the US for between 2 and 5 years are eligible for a temporary amnesty if they return to a valid point of entry into the US. Illegal immigrants who have been in the US for less than 2 years are required to leave, but may be allowed to re-enter as "guest workers". The defining characteristic of "guest workers" versus other categories of non-citizens legally in America is that "guest workers" are only allowed to stay in the US for as long as they are employed.

Support for the Martinez-Hagel compromise is the basis of Senator Chafee’s claim that he would support deporting illegal immigrants who have been in the country for less than two years. Yet, Senator Chafee also voted for Dianne Feinstein’s “orange card” amendment, which would have given permanent amnesty to illegal immigrants in the United States on or before January 1, 2006.

How is this consistent?

2. Steve Laffey has also criticized Senator Chafee for making illegal immigrants eligible for social security benefits and allowing foreign guest workers to be paid more than American citizens.

Here’s John McCain as quoted in the Washington Times describing how the current immigration bill deals with the issue of social security…

"We all know that millions of undocumented immigrants pay Social Security and Medicare taxes for years and sometimes decades while they work to contribute to our economy," said Sen. John McCain, Arizona Republican.

"The Ensign amendment would undermine the work of these people by preventing lawfully present immigrant workers from claiming Social Security benefits that they earned before they were authorized to work in our community," he said. "If this amendment were enacted, the nest egg that these immigrants have worked hard for would be taken from them and their families."

The "Ensign amendment" (which failed by one vote) would have prevented work done by someone in the country illegally from counting towards Social Security. Senator Chafee is technically correct when he says that no illegal immigrant will ever collect social security under a measure he has voted for, but work done by illegal immigrants, even by those using someone else’s identity, will count towards an amnesty recipient's Social Security benefits.

3. And, bizarre as it sounds, a provision in the immigration bill allowing foreign guest workers to be paid more than American citizens does exist. It has to do with the arcana of labor law. Kate O’Beirne from National Review explains the mechanics…

The bill extends Davis-Bacon “prevailing wage” provisions—typically the area’s union wage that applies only to construction on federal projects under current law—to all occupations (e.g. roofers, carpenters, electricians, etc.) covered by Davis-Bacon. So guest-workers (but not citizen workers) must be paid Davis-Bacon wage rates for jobs in the private sector if their occupation is covered by Davis-Bacon. Presumably because Senate Democrats’ union bosses thought this provision too modest, an amendment by Senator Barack Obama, approved by voice vote, extended Davis-Bacon wages rates to all private work performed by guest workers, even if their occupations are not covered by Davis-Bacon,

...while Mickey Kaus tries to explan what legislators who supported this measure might have been thinking…

First take is that this provision will effectively price many guest workers out of the market, not only because it raises the legal guest-worker wage, but also because it makes them a magnet for wage-related litigation from annoyed construction unions who will claim that the guest-worker wages don't meet Davis-Bacon's government-set "prevailing wage" standards....

4. Finally, Senator Chafee voted against requiring the Secretary of Homeland Security to certify that the border is secure before any guest worker or amnesty program can be implemented.

So in sum, the current NRSC ad says that Rhode Island voters concerned about illegal immigration should vote for the candidate who has favored the broadest amnesty that has been proposed to date, who has supported allowing work done by illegal immigrants to count towards social security benefits, who has voted to extend American labor law to foreign citizens (but not simliarly employed Americans), and who voted against securing the border before implementing any amensty, all because of a decision by that candidate's opponent about consular ID cards.

The 4 Things I Took Away from Laffey/Chafee 3

After the third Laffey/Chafee debate, I went "black" and avoided all punditry. Thus, here are the four (uninfluenced) items that stuck with me after the debate last night.

First: Chafee's labeling of Federal tax dollars to local/state government--what Laffey calls "pork"--as "property tax relief" was pretty clever. Never heard that one before. And though Laffey tried to pooh-pooh it by saying he's never heard a voter praise Chafee for tax relief, I think it was a rather ingenius attempt to blunt the "pork" argument. I'm not sure if it worked, but it was at least original.

Second: Laffey's explanation about why he called for Donald Rumsfeld's resignation. To paraphrase, "The administration went to war based on the worst case scenario and fought it based on a best case scenario." Simply put, a good sound bite. It was clearly aimed at the independents in both the primary and the general election. Whether or not they view it as a genuine feeling or political gamesmanship is an open question.

Third: Laffey won the debate, both on style and on the substantive issues. I suspect that this is especially true in the eyes of most GOP members. However, while Laffey scored some points amongst the independents, Chafee probably did enough to keep a hold of most of them. If this were a debate prior to the general election, Chafee would have come out looking better. But it's not.

Fourth: Because this was on C-SPAN, I couldn't help but wondering what the average conservative Republicans across the land must have been thinking while watching the debate. Perhaps something like, "Those are what they call Republicans in Rhode Island?"

Most national political junkies--those most likely to watch a GOP debate in tiny, Democrat dominated RI on C-SPAN in the summer--probably knew that Lincoln Chafee is a moderate Republican who seems to enjoy being the far outlier of the GOP. However, I don't think that the idealized "typical GOP" member was aware of Steve Laffey's populist bent. He called for Rumsfeld's resignation, accused the GOP run Federal government of corruption, and railed against "Big Oil", to give a few examples.

Whether we in Rhode Island realize it or not, President Bush still has strong support in the GOP base across the country. What that base saw were two "Republicans" doing their damndest to distance themselves from a President of their own party (Glenn Reynolds makes a good point about this tactic. MAC); a President that most national GOP members agree with on most of the issues (Believe it, it's true!). I don't think they are envious of the choice that RI Republicans have to make in September. When viewed through the lens of what a "typical" conservative Republican might be, neither Laffey nor Chafee fits the bill.

But this isn't Kansas: this is a uniquely Rhode Island race. Those of us who have been following it understand that both of these candidates are trying to do two things at once. They have to run against each other in the GOP primary and keep an eye on the Independent-dominated general electorate. That's something that probably can't be fully appreciated in other parts of the country. After all, what other state's largest voting block doesn't identify itself with either political party? Rhode Islanders like to take their cue from the Independent Man standing atop the State House. It would seem that--regardless of who they elect in the GOP primary--they'll have that Man, in one form or another, to support in the general election.

Laffey-Chafee III: Debating the Budget

Lots of budget numbers were thrown around in Wednesday’s debate. Let’s put them in one place and try to sort out how everything fits together…

1. How much is the overall Federal budget?

As Senator Chafee noted, the overall budget is in the vicinity of 2.5 trillion -- that’s $2,500,000,000,000 – and growing.

2. What’s the basic breakdown of that spending?

Using the Office of Management and the Budget’s 2005 numbers...

Entitlement Spending	$1,300,000,000,000	53%
Defense Spending	$490,000,000,000	20%
Discretionary Non-Defense Spending	$470,000,000,000	19%
Interest on the Debt	$180,000,000,000	7%.

3. How much of a dent can you make by cutting out pork?

Mayor Laffey quoted a figure of $27 billion dollars. That figure, I suspect, comes from the Citizens Against Government Waste numbers. That’s not chump change, but neither will it cancel out the growth in entitlements. Note also that about half of the CAGW number is defense related.

4. What about corporate welfare?

There seems to be less agreement on what exactly constitutes corportate welfare. Mayor Laffey claimed there was $125-$150 billion of corporate welfare that could be cut. That’s an estimate towards the high end. Here’s three others I found…

• Ed Feulner (Chairman of the Heritage Foundation): $60 billion
• Cato Institute (America’s favorite Libertarian think-tank): $93 billion
• Public Citizen (“Nader’s Raiders”): $125 billion

Cato breaks their estimate down by category, showing the defense spending accounts for only a small percentage. My hunch is that the Public Citizen figure includes a bunch of defense spending as “corporate welfare” that the others don’t.

5. Isn’t this all dwarfed by the cost of the Iraq war?

No. Senator Chafee has used the figure of a billion dollars a week, roughly $50 billion per year. That seems a reasonable estimate, maybe even a little bit low, since the entire Defense budget is about $150 billion per-year higher now than it was in 2002. $50 billion is certainly larger than most pork estimates, but not an order of magnitude larger. And it’s still just about 4% of entitlement spending.

6. What about the revenue side?

Since the Bush tax-cuts, revenues have grown to about $300 billion more per year (consistent with the 12-15% increase in revenue that Mayor Laffey quotes, on top of a base of just under $2T) compared to before the tax cuts. I know that some people have a hard time accepting that revenues could go up after a tax cut, but 'dose is 'da numbahs. $300 billion is big money, enough to pay for a year’s worth of pork, corporate welfare, and the Iraq war and leave plenty left over but still only about 1/4 of the entitlement budget. That's how big the entitlements problem is. It’s not clear that even if we became a country of vegetarian (i.e. non-pork eating) pacifists (i.e. no defense budget) that tax cuts can grow revenues faster than entitlement obligations will eat them under the current structure.

The points here are…

1. Senator Chafee can’t dismiss $27 billion in pork as being fiscally irrelevant while saying he thinks the cost of the Iraq war is a consideration so big that it prohibits considering tax cuts (even under flawed static assumptions).
2. Cutting everything that Mayor Laffey has included as pork or corporate welfare would likely involve some cutting of defense programs.
3. You can see significant revenue increases after a tax cut.
4. Entitlement spending dwarfs everything else in the budget.
5. (Most important point) We have to reconsider the fundamental design of a system that demands that people forever be paying higher and higher taxes for stagnant or declining benefits. There is a design flaw in such a system that needs to be remedied.

Laffey-Chafee III: Open Thread

I’m going to try a different coverage format for tonight’s Republican Senate debate (WPRI-TV Channel 12 @ 8:00 pm, live Internet video also available) than I used in the radio debates. Instead of summarizing the debate blow-by-blow, I’ll try to provide details that usefully supplement what the candidates say about specific policies, past votes, past statements, etc.

Meanwhile, Anchor Rising readers are invited to use the comments section of this post to give their own real time reactions to the debate. Insightful comments, witty comments, and even comments that spin like a U-235 atom in an Iranian centrifuge are all welcome, but personally insulting or crude posts will be deleted as soon as I see them.

The comments will open at 8:00 are open now!

Sheldon Whitehouse Agrees with Bush Energy Policy

Sheldon Whitehouse continues his "Picnicing Across the Ocean State" campaign. He recently brought his basket to Tiverton and Little Compton. One of his big issues continues to be the price of gas, for which he blames President Bush's energy policy:

“George Bush and this Republican Congress have left us with a truly bad energy policy that’s dictated by the oil companies,” Whitehouse said. “I’ve met so many people here in Rhode Island who depend on gas to get by – and with these skyrocketing prices, they’ve got no way out. For our national security, our economy, and our environment, we urgently need a new energy strategy.”

Predictably, Whitehouse offers his own alternative energy plan, which is characterized like this in the aforelinked press release:

Earlier this month, Whitehouse unveiled a major new plan aiming to make America the world’s leader in energy innovation and achieve energy independence by 2020. The plan includes raising Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards to an average of 40 mpg to improve fuel efficiency, and major new federal investments in development, production, and commercialization of new cellulosic biofuels made from sugar, wood waste, and switchgrass.

These are good ideas and it certainly in marked contrast to current energy policy.......or NOT!! Here are two related points from the President's Advanced Energy Initiative first outlined (hint: this is the short version) in his State of the Union speech this year. On increasing CAFE standards (excerpted from the AEI website):

The Administration increased CAFE standards for light trucks and SUVs for the first time in a decade, raising the standard from 20.7 mpg to 22.2 mpg for the current model year 2007 vehicles. We have proposed additional increases in the fuel economy of light trucks and SUVs produced in model years 2008-2011, which would save 10 billion gallons of fuel over the lifetime of those vehicles.

On Biofuels:

To achieve greater use of “homegrown” renewable fuels, we will need advanced technologies that will allow competitively priced ethanol to be made from cellulosic biomass, such as agricultural and forestry residues, material in municipal solid waste, trees, and grasses. Advanced technology can break those cellulosic materials down into their component sugars and then ferment them to make fuel ethanol.

To help reduce the costs of producing these advanced biofuels, and ready these technologies for commercialization, the President’s 2007 Budget increases DOE’s biomass research funding by 65%, to a total of $150 million. The President’s goal is to make cellulosic ethanol cost-competitive with corn-based ethanol by 2012, enabling greater use of this alternative fuel to help reduce future U.S. oil consumption.

I'm sure that the Whitehouse campaign's response will be something like, "Yeah, but we want to do more and faster....", which of course is easy to do when you're working off of someone elses proposal. Thus, given that Whitehouse's "new plan" is 8 months older than the President's current energy plan, it's pretty clear that Whitehouse agrees with the White House on an important aspect of energy policy.

Dole Giving up on Chafee?

According to the Winston-Salem Journal:

[Senator Elizabeth] Dole won't be campaigning any more for Sen. Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, who is considered the most vulnerable incumbent Republican.

Chafee, a moderate Republican who publicly announced that he would not vote for Bush's re-election - he instead wrote in Bush's father's name - is facing a strong primary challenge from the right.

The Almanac of American Politics describes Rhode Island as "almost always one of the most Democratic states in presidential elections." Even if Chafee wins his primary, he faces a strong challenge from the state's former attorney general.

Nick said that Dole has no plans to go to Rhode Island between now and November. She did visit the state earlier this year.

Darrell West, a professor of political science at Brown University in Providence, said that is probably a good thing.

"Elizabeth Dole has good credibility on the right, (but) Chafee is pursuing independent voters now more than Republican voters," West said.

Is Elizabeth Dole giving up on Lincoln Chafee, or is she being politically pragmatic, as implied by Darryl West?

Who Really Could Be RI's Lamont?

2nd Congressional District Democrat challenger Jennifer Lawless has recently taken to likening herself to fellow New England Dem upstart Ned Lamont (as Andrew wrote about earlier this month). However, Time magazine's Joel Klein (via Patrick Casey) wonders if it may be Steve Laffey that most resembles Lamont.

Laffey is all adrenaline, the metabolic opposite of Chafee. And despite espousing the usual grab bag of social and economic conservative positions, he seems to most enjoy populist tirades against corporate special interests (especially the oil companies: he favors a robust alternative-energy plan for national-security reasons) and also against federal spending. "If you want big checks like the $150 million Chafee brought back from the $27 billion highway bill, vote for him. Rhode Island gets the short end of the stick when it comes to earmarks. I mean, the bridge to nowhere alone was $223 million," he says, referring to the famed Alaskan boondoggle. "I'm going to vote against all that."

If he gets the chance. Both Laffey and Chafee trail Democrat Sheldon Whitehouse, another Protestant aristocrat, in the polls. Rhode Island voted overwhelmingly for John Kerry in 2004; it probably hasn't grown any fonder of George W. Bush since then. Laffey doesn't care. He's running on a different wavelength, against the big shots in both parties. "Have you ever seen a campaign like this?" he exclaims, jogging to the next house. No and, sort of, yes. A fellow named Ned Lamont just overturned the Establishment next door, in Connecticut.

Reginald Centracchio For Lieutenant Governor, Part 3: Plans for Small Business in a Red, White and Blue State

Anchor Rising completes its interview with Reginald Centracchio, candidate for Liuetenant Governor of Rhode Island...

Anchor Rising: In the first part of this interview, you mentioned small business as an area you would focus on. What are your plans there?
Reginald Centracchio: Small business is the backbone of the state. We need to be competitive with the region, certainly with Massachusetts and Connecticut. First and foremost is tax-reform. We need to be able to demonstrate that we are sincere and genuine in asking businesses to come to this state.

I have asked several small businesses to be part of a panel to help us understand the needs of small businesses in Rhode Island. I’ve also asked several businesses who have left the state to come back in and talk to us. I’ve asked business who have been here for four to five years to participate. I’m asking the Economic Development Corporation, specifically under the Every Business Counts program that they have, to participate.

We need ask two simple questions to businesses: what caused you to come to Rhode Island and what will it take to keep you here? Rhode Island is in competition with the region and the entire nation. We need to address basic reasons, and not just the symptoms, that lead to businesses to come and to stay here. We must be competitive. That’s who we are as a country. No one is going to be able keep businesses in a place where they can’t make a net profit.

Affordable healthcare is a very important part of why a business will or will not stay in Rhode Island, so we need to ask why we don’t we have affordable healthcare for small business. There are numerous ways we could provide it, with different systems that would allow participation at different levels, rather than throwing everyone into a big pot with all of the big companies. We need to be sure we have ways for small business to be able to say “this is what I need in order to stay here” and then develop something that satisfies that need. I know we can’t do that for every single company out there, but we can certainly categorize them and ensure that companies with similar requirements can come together and access reasonable healthcare.

The same thing is true is with the confidence level that businesses have in our ability to deal with natural disasters and any sort of terrorist scenario. We need to involve individual businesses just like we need to involve individual people in emergency management planning. Businesses must have continuing operation plans. They must be able to sustain a natural disaster, or any other public safety disruption, and go back to work as soon as they can and still be viable. They need to have an internal plan as to how they ensure their employees know what’s going on. They need to have tested and excercised their plans.

These are very real requirements that are not paid much attention to. As the Lieutenant Governor, I can bring that to the table. I’ve seen many businesses. I probably have the closest ties to small business of anyone in this state over the last ten years. The National Guard consists of membership from those businesses. I’ve asked firsthand about their areas of concern. What does a business need to continue to support its employees as a member of the Guard? Healthcare -- the ability of a company to sustain healthcare for a member when he or she is deployed and what happens when they come home -- always comes up. The state is in the same scenario, where they need to take care of their employees when they are deployed.

What I’m saying is that when someone suggests that there is no analogy between the military and the civilian environment they are absolutely wrong…

AR (rudely interrupting): Do you have a certain someone in mind here?
RC: Someone who doesn’t understand the system. My membership in the Guard has helped me understand what the needs of small business are. I do believe I can help create a healthier environment for small business in Rhode Island.

These are all areas I have an expertise in, 10 years dealing with these challenges. I will bring to the office leadership, experience, and certainly a lifetime of service to the state. I’ve served with seven different Governors. I’ve been in the Executive branch for 10 years. I know what Governors do. I know what Lieutenant Governors do. I understand, especially under separation of powers, that the executive branch must stand alone as a strong branch, helped by the Lieutenant Governor. The General Assembly must be in concert with that. We must work together.

I truly believe we need to migrate away from the concept that there are red states and blue states. My campaign is based on the idea that we are a red, white and blue state. We are all Americans. We’re all in this together. We all have a similar stake.

There are different opinions about how to do things, I respect all those who know that something needs to be done, and I think I have a plan to do it. That’s how I want to approach this. We’re all Americans. Rhode Island is in a position to be a focal point, and if it can’t happen in Rhode Island, it can’t happen anywhere.

We have in our hands a jewel called Narragansett Bay. That jewel is unlike any other place anywhere in the United States. We have the capability of developing a center of excellence related to port security and underwater considerations for detecting ships miles out. We have the Naval War College. We have the Naval Underwater Warfare Center. We have all the ingredients to establish a platform for underwater technology. We can be competitive across the entire nation and, most importantly, be transparent to Narragansett Bay. It would not destroy the bay to develop the kind of technologies that are clearly in demand across this entire nation.

We also need to leverage our position within New England between Boston and New York. We have an excellent highway system. We have a rail system. We have a port. All those things are necessary ingredients to be able to draw business, because businesses all ask the same question: what is your infrastructure like. But we have to be smart as to how we offer it up. I don’t believe we’ll have the large tracts of land available for large world-scale business. Clearly, we need to have world business in Rhode Island. We have to have headquarters in Rhode Island, such as Fidelity, Amgen and GTECH, which are all extremely important to the economy of the state.

But we need to never, ever forget that small business is the backbone of this state. We need to continually set a favorable environment. Have you seen the movie “Field of Dreams”? I think if we build it, they will come. That’s the focus I have to offer. We need to look at those niches that fit this state and develop them and then they will come. Once they’re here, we need to make sure we’re competitive at keeping them. I’m convinced we can do this. Rhode Island is a wonderful state, but we need to ensure that confidence in its government is addressed on a continuing basis.

When I talk about accountability in this office, I’m talking about not only an end-product. What I’m saying is that I’m asking personally for people's votes. In return, I will give the voters accountability -- and I think that’s rare. I want all of our voters to understand they will get back accountability, integrity, and honesty if they elect me. They will get a sixteen hour day, if not more. They won’t have to worry about integrity or ethics. I have a track record of 48 years, 10 years as adjutant general of the state, and I would put that reputation, that performance and that track record up as evidence that I can make what I am saying now happen over the next four years.

Ethics Commission: No Problem if the Attorney General Takes Campaign Contributions from Lawyers He is Negotiating With

According to the Projo’s 7-to-7 blog, the state ethics commission has decided not to investigate the complaint against Attorney General Patrick Lynch filed by William Harsch regarding AG Lynch’s acceptance of campaign contributions from a lawyer representing DuPont around the same time that the lawyer was negotiating DuPont’s release from the state’s lead paint lawsuit.

Mike Stanton had a comprehensive history of the DuPont deal in Sunday’s Projo. Stanton’s reporting again raises the question of what exactly DuPont chief litigation counsel Thomas Sager was trying to get across in his letter-to-the-editor in Friday’s Projo. According to Mr. Sager, DuPont was released from the suit “on the basis of the facts produced in discovery”. However, Stanton’s article tells a very different story…

One of the people [Attorney General Patrick Lynch] heard from was Bernard Nash, a Washington lawyer who has cultivated relationships with attorneys general around the country.

As the head of the State Government and Litigation practice at Dickstein Shapiro, Nash is skilled in finding "creative non-litigation solutions" for corporate clients facing scrutiny from the nation's attorneys general, according to his law firm's Web site. Dickstein Shapiro's lawyers boast "remarkable success" in helping corporate clients "avoid or minimize the impact of investigations and litigation."

Lynch testified in January that he may have first met Nash at a Florida conference of newly elected attorneys general, followed by phone conversations early in 2003.

At first, Lynch said in his deposition, "there was nothing substantive, but more of an introduction . . . and obviously, you know, do I have any inclination or desire to sit down and talk about, you know, any understandings that could be reached, short of having to go back to a second trial."

Nash's pitch on behalf of DuPont, recalled Lynch, was, "We're not as bad as the other guys."

Later in 2003, Lynch asked his chief of staff, Leonard L. Lopes, to serve as a witness to the DuPont negotiations. On Nov. 15, Nash called Lopes.

According to Lopes, Nash asked, "What is it going to take to get out of this?"

A second detail that doesn’t square with Mr. Sager’s claim that DuPont was released on the basis of merit is Attorney General Lynch's claim that the other defendants in the suit could have made a similar deal...

The biggest break occurred in June 2005, when DuPont agreed to donate $12.5 million to several nonprofit organizations; in exchange, Mr. Lynch dropped the company from the lawsuit.

Mr. Lynch said the other paint companies could have reached a similar conclusion, an assertion disputed by Philip H. Curtis, a partner at Arnold & Porter representing Atlantic Richfield.

If both AG Lynch and Mr. Sager have provided accurate information, then all of the lead-paint defendants should have been dropped from the case on the basis of the facts (thus ending the suit) meaning that one or both of the lawyers has not been accurate. The ramifications of this discrepancy are unclear at the moment.

Internal Polls Show Laffey Over Chafee

Republican Sen. Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island is trailing Cranston, R.I., Mayor Stephen Laffey in a bitterly divisive primary contest that offers Democrats their best shot at picking up a seat in one of the nation's bluest states.

Internal campaign polls show the conservative mayor's campaign attacks on Mr. Chafee's liberal voting record -- including the incumbent's opposition to President Bush's tax cuts and to Supreme Court Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr.'s nomination -- have struck a responsive chord among Republican voters.

So sayeth Don Lambro of the Washington Times. The question is, whose poll? And is this just counting Republicans or does it include independents?

(Tip via Dan Yorke, who'll have Mr. Lambro on later this afternoon.)

UPDATE: Lambro told Yorke he interviewed people on both sides, but he can't tell you who exactly gave him the info. He said Washington GOP folks tell him it's "really close", which means (based on his experience) that Chafee is in trouble. He's also not sure of the type of sample of the internal polls, apparently meaning that he doesn't know if they included independents.

Lambro said that when he talke to Ian Lang, Lang didn't argue with the point that conservatives are definitely leaning against Chafee. He also pointed out that the primary race was "competitive" and then Lang always steers the discussion to Laffey's purported gap against Whitehouse.

Yorke brought up the the GOP Senatorial bunch have really beaten up Laffey and also that the purported 20-30 point gap between Laffey and Whitehouse isn't that realistic. Yorke asked what the Washington GOP would do if Laffey won?

Lambro said they'd support him, but the depth of that support will be interesting. Given the controversy over tacit GOP support for Lieberman in CT, he doesn't think they'd be to keen on NOT supporting Laffey. In short, he thinks the national GOP would support Laffey if he should win the primary.

Yorke also asked what the Beltway take on this race was. Lambro said that the feeling is that the Dems could pick up 4-6 seats, which is why Elizabeth Dole is focusing on RI and her committee is going to help Chafee as much as they can.

A Republican Strategist Discusses the Northeast

Last week, the Wall Street Journal’s Kimberly Strassel hinted at the national Republican Party's willingness to totally give up on the Northeast…

Laffey supporters are betting that if he wins the primary, the GOP establishment will offer its support....It's still a long shot, although at least some Republican strategists are nonplussed. They've long argued the party should write off the Northeast, and focus on consolidating its gains in the South and Midwest.

Now, I don’t know that Rod Martin lists “Republican Strategist” on his resume, but he is the Executive Vice-President of the National Federation of Republican Assemblies and the founder of the TheVanguard.org, a national-level “online community of Americans who believe in conservative values, the free market and limited government as the best means to bring hope and ever-increasing opportunity to everyone, especially the poorest among us”. Mr. Martin has thought long-term about both the policy ends the conservative movement should be focusing its energies on and about the best political strategy for achieving them.

I asked Mr. Martin to comment on Ms. Strassel's article, asking specifically if he believed that Republican strategists were ready to write off the Northeast and, if so, was it a smart thing for them to be doing. Here is his reply on the challenge of and the hope for Northeastern conservatism…

Rod Martin: The problem is complicated. Conservatives outside the Northeast see the Northeast as the biggest single problem within the Party: liberal, establishment, looking down on and working to thwart conservatives (and particularly Christians). Rightly or wrongly, the faces of Northeast Republicanism they see are Christie Whitman, Arlen Specter, and Lincoln Chafee.

And that's not the worst of it. Conservative officeholders in Washington feel compe