ethics

Well, Chris Dodd found someone to buy his story that even though he knew he was getting "enhanced customer service" that he did not violate Senate ethics rules on gifts.

The Senate Ethics Committee, chaired by that exemplar of even-handedness Barbara Boxer, declared the Senator had not violated those rules in a ruling Friday.

The Dodd camp argues this is an "exoneration".  Hardly. 

Exoneration occurs when a person who has been convicted of a crime is later proved to have been innocent of that crime

No, what we have here is an "acquittal" . Much as the Bronco owner of Brentwood managed to be tried by a sympathetic jury who applied the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard, it appears Dodd's fellow senators were unwilling to pass judgment on Dodd and his buddy Kent Conrad.

The basis for the Committee's conclusion that Dodd did not receive an illegal gift appears to be it concluded the evidence supporting the charge was not credible.  We can presume that the committee determined that Robert Feinberg, the Countrywide whistleblower, was not fully truthful. But unlike a public trial, the reason for their conclusion herein is a mystery.  Certaintly many in the press found Feinberg credible.  One is left to surmise why the Senate ethics committee didn't. 

One way to resolve this would be to release the 18,000 pages of evidence presented in defense of Dodd so voters could reach their own conclusion.The Dodd camp has rejected this transparency out of hand.

Perhaps the real reason Dodd and Conrad skated is it appears the Committee defined "improper gift" as applying only to those gratuities offered exclusively to Senators. The "safety in numbers" defense applied. Since the "Friends of Angelo" program greased cabinet members, bureaucrats, local officials and bankers far and wide, the Committee could say with a somewhat straight face "the same terms were offered to many other borrowers".  Wonderful. If you comp everyone no one gets in trouble.

Many observers have noted that the federal investigation into Countrywide is far from over and the DOJ may be less apt to cut politicians slack than an ethics committee.  The voters may not the Ethics Committee pointedly called out Dodd for poor judgment in creating an appearance of impropriety--noting he ignored "red flags".. Or maybe we can go back to exactly how Dodd bought that Irish cottage.

Then again, perhaps we might solve the mystery of how the Senate Banking Committee was asleep at the switch when the global financial markets collapsed in a heap in 2008. Now that he has the ethics investigation behind him, I'm sure Senator Dodd will work very hard to find the "real killers " of  our economy.     

I am a big fan of a transparency agenda, but I wonder who is supposed to be held responsible for violations. My view of transparency is that we use it to force light on the bad actors. But the bad actors are the government officials, elected or otherwise, not the lobbyists. They are the ones who violate the the public trust. And, furthermore, if they are getting bribed, they should be accountable for that.

A couple of recent posts on the subject seem to miss this point.

In a series of posts at the Sunlight Foundation's blog, Paul Blumenthal and John Wonderlich discuss the limitations on lobbying in the stimulus and bailout bills. Paul summarizes part of John's post with:

The justification being given by the administration for these rules is that they do not want the stimulus funding process to be mucked up by lobbyists seeking bits and pieces of the $700+ billion bill for unworthy projects. However, as John notes, we are seeing unregistered influencers go to lobby for stimulus funds. We are also seeing this happen in other large pots of money. Take for example the $700+ billion bailout handled by the Treasury Department:

If something gets "mucked up" by someone ... aren't government officials doing the mucking? In Congress, lobbyists don't write bills, Congressmen do. In the executive branch, either politcal appointees or civil servants write legislation. It seems to me that the incidence of accountability has to rest on the government official. Right? I mean, if someone is passing out the goodies inappropriately ... they are.

For an executive branch official, lobbying mostly means educating the official and making an argument. Perhaps grassroots pressure is brought on, but that is ultimately the problem of the politicals. If there is a quid pro quo, whether an expensive gift, cash, or whatever, it is a crime and should be dealt with, very harshly and expeditiously, through the criminal system.

For Congress, there are political contributions also and political pressure from interest groups. That's why we disclose contributions, and that's why all the contributions should be disclosed immediately and for all contribution levels, especially online contributions. And interest groups apply pressure. That's what they are there for. The unions are doing that on card-check. The business groups are fighting it.

IPDI's Julie Germany writes up GWU professor Jonathan Turley (no conservative) on this point. Turley offers a much more pointed set of reforms:

Turley’s suggests that we:

• Put 75% of the responsibility of the current political crisis on the members of Congress.

• Go back to core principles of what we are trying to achieve in order to fix the system. Go back to Madison’s idea of democracy. Force the factions that divide us into the open. Create systems that prevent back room dealing and special deals that are hidden from the public. Part of the solution is to reform Congress, instead of trying to reform lobbyists.  

• Force Congress to get rid of the things that cause temptation. Get rid of all gifts, other than symbolic gifts donated to the office they serve. Get rid of earmarks. Require total disclosure of all family members who work for lobbyists.

• Address the fact that the system is too detached from its constituents and that incumbents have all the power. This city loves the fact that Congress doesn’t change, but it’s killing this country. This includes allowing other parties to rise in the political system, changing the electoral college, and reforming the way primaries are held.  

The best summary is "reform Congress"  not "reform lobbyists". Let us make Members accountable for their decisions. After all, that's who we vote for. That is who bears the brunt of the criticism. Or should.

If someone does something wrong, we should have the information to wrap it around their necks and hang them in the public's eye. We should be able to help their electorates destroy their careers. Ultimately, I don't see what lobbyists really have to do with that.

When progressives get angry on Congress for doing things they don't like, like David Sirota and the cramdown legislation, Sirota cites a BusinessWeek piece about lobbyists targetting moderate Dems:

Industry lobbyists are organizing home state bankers to pressure moderate Democrats they hope will be receptive to limiting the kinds of loans eligible for cramdown. One target: Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana.

What did these lobbyists do that was so bad? Have a bunch of constituents (bankers) call him and meet with him? Did they explain the logic of this (insane) legislation and how it hurt them? Did Bayh ultimately buy that logic? If so, what is wrong with that?

Or is he alleging that Bayh took bribes, either through contributions or gifts or whatever? If so, what are they?

Or are these lefties just whining because Bayh ultimately thought it was a bad idea, and they couldn't muster arguments that were good enough? In that case, their problem is that they should be electing "Better Democrats", that is people who share their ideas.  Some of them get that idea.

But again, what does that have to do with lobbyists?

And isn't a transparency agenda -- like Obama's -- that focuses on lobbyists, not government officials, basically intellectually bankrupt?

Kris Van Meteren (left) interacts with Attorney Ryan Kriegshauser (right) before $7500 fine was announced

The Kansas Governmental Ethics Commission adjourned without a decision in the civil fine hearing against Kris Van Meteren in January.  See the Meadowlark article, First Amendment Defense Thorny Issue for Ethics Commission, for details.

Briefly, Mr. Van Meteren brought a complaint to the Ethics Commission’s attention several months ago, and then talked to the the press about his complaint.

Today, when the public hearing was re-opened, Chairwoman Sabrina Standifer explained that at the last meeting, the Commission took the exhibits, memo and motion to dismiss from Mr. Van Meteren’s attorney, Mr. Ryan Kriegshauser, under advisement.  Earlier in the afternoon,  Ms. Standifer re-opened the deliberations of the complaint in a secret Executive Session.  After these additional secret deliberations, the Commission issued their findings of fact and conclusions of law in this case.   Read the rest of this article.

During the campaign, Barack Obama promised to post all non-emergency legislation on the White House website for public comment: 

Sunlight Before Signing: Too often bills are rushed through Congress and to the president before the public has the opportunity to review them. As president, Obama will not sign any non-emergency bill without giving the American public an opportunity to review and comment on the White House website for five days.

He has already broken that promise: 

When President Obama signed his first bill without posting it to the Web for five days of public comment, we gave him his first Promise Broken.

For his second bill, Obama signed an expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Fund, which provides health coverage for low-income children. He signed it on Feb. 4, 2009, just hours after it was finalized in Congress.

The compromise "stimulus" package runs 778 pages and the public has only been given 24 hours to review it before a final vote. Obama's promise was meant to address precisely this scenario, though frankly, the 5 days would be a more useful buffer before final passage. Still, the question remains: Will the Obama White House fulfill the President's commitment and post the stimulus bill for five days before the President signs it? 

The White House has tried to weasel out of the promise thusly:

The President remains committed to bringing more transparency to government, and in this spirit the White House will continue to publish legislation expected to come to his desk online for public comment as it moves through Congress.

Nice try, but the commitment here was for a five day buffer between final passage and the President's signature. If the White House can post the text of a bill before it is passed, surely it can do the same after passage as well. Instead, they've decided, for political reasons, to dispense with the five day buffer entirely. 

Whereas founded as a diplomatic forum to prevent armed conflict between states, the UN as yet has failed to define terror or terrorism, the primary means used by insurgents in asymmetrical warfare that now seems to be the defining mode of conflict of our time. The failure is illustrative of the political schisms that divide the world today. Even in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 the UN failed to produce objective definitions on which there was agreement.

The impasse has prevented the adoption of a Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism. The prime reason is the standoff with the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), who seek to define terrorism in terms that are sympathetic to armed campaigns waged by the Palestinians against Israel.

Such insurrections, say the OIC, represent legitimate resistance against occupation and should not be classed as terrorism. The report of the Chairman of the Working Group on terrorism dating October 24, 2008 gives no hope that the OIC's stonewalling of a comprehensive convention against terrorism will come to an end any time soon.

Meanwhile, countries like the US and the UK have been calling for a definition which includes that “deliberate and unlawful targeting and killing cannot be justified or legitimized by any cause or grievance.”

Terrorism is primarily a tactic - a means of conflict. Defining it as a means (IEDs, suicide killings, car bombs) makes terrorism appear less legitimate than as an end (such as insurgency, revolution, or uprising). Ends always depend on subjective interpretations, while means do not.

Generally speaking, terrorism is widely viewed as violence towards a political end. But this perspective is not universally accepted. Some scholars associate it with the deliberate evocation of terror. Others argue that motivations are irrelevant. Such readings, as also including violence against or by the military, risk so generalizing the term terrorism, making it practically meaningless.

The word "terrorism" itself compounds the difficulty of the 'international community' agreeing on a definition. A 2003 study by the US Army counted 109 definitions, covering a total of 22 different definitional elements. During the 1970s and 1980s, a UN attempt foundered mainly due to differences of opinion between various members about the use of violence in the context of conflicts over national liberation and self-determination.

The problem is not new. The definition dispute between states rages since the laws of war were first codified in 1899. There are entities like francs-tireurs, unlawful combatants, armed conflicts in which peoples are fighting against colonial domination and alien occupation, and racist regimes. That resistance movements may or may not be labeled terrorist, are considered lawful or unlawful combatants, and their right to resist occupation is recognized, is seen as a political judgment rather than one of ethics - or even an objective description.

What it comes down to is that to a number of UN member states, terrorism is seen as a legitimate means, in which the distinction between civilians and armed forces is immaterial. To a collectivist, no sole individual is ever completely innocent.

It is astonishing in the light of history that in a civilized world we do not differentiate between ends. Over 100 million dead in order to realize totalitarian 'paradises' of various hue have failed to discredit collectivism in the eyes of the international community; the cultural and moral relativism of political correctness has failed to denounce these systems as anti-human and evil.

Democratization doesn't make a collective less evil. On the contrary, it legitimizes it to outsiders, leaves dissenters in the lurch and it rationalizes it in the eyes of the leadership, indeed emboldens them even further.

In the course of its bloody history only National Socialism, Fascism and Cambodian egalitarian agrarianism have drawn enough outrage to be condemned, as if its ideological siblings of Communism, Arab Nationalism and Islamofascism are not affected by the same anti-human tribalism. But on the contrary, these ideologies have made it to the ranks of unofficially recognized forms of government.

We know from experience that collectives subordinate human beings to ideologies and the whims of the ones in power, usually in the name of an imaginary 'common will'. The notion has killed more people world-wide than the bubonic plague ever will.

Scowering down a list of ongoing cataclysms, save one notable exception, we are unable to produce a legitimate struggle for freedom in the sense that it actually aims at bringing liberty to its people, whether it be the Marxist IRA, or the Basque question, Sri Lanka, Colombia, or the Islamofascist varieties in Bangladesh, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Lebanon, Israel, Thailand, Indonesia, Nepal or Chechnya. Even the Kurdish (PKK) struggle is Marxist in nature. The jury is still out on the regions of the former Yugoslavia.

The exception is telling the true story: the Tibetan struggle is largely peaceful in its execution, and respects the lives of the people. All others have no qualms of sacrificing individuals to the collective cause.

The terror tool subordinates everything and everyone. Honest people understand that only criminal sociopaths use that sort of unconscionable methods. Greek intelligence analyst Ioannis Michaletos has concluded there's a relation between terrorism and organized crime: where there are IEDs and chopped heads, armed robberies and trafficking are usually not very far off.

Criminality may be described in terms of taking shortcuts, either to money, goods or some other value. Terrorists could be seen as political criminals in that they seek a shortcut to power by subordinating all to their 'cause'. Where they succeed, we see the outcome. Instead of a liberation of the people, the result is a den of crime and oppression, often a failed state, from Taliban Afghanistan to the pirate ridden seas off the coast of Somalia.

The UN, egged on by the relativist world view that every intent goes to self-determination, ignore the reality that entire populations are enslaved to evil and the whims of power-hungry collectivists. In the end, surprised and caught off guard they can but stand by helplessly and condemn the latest instance of mass human rights violations, waiving their deontological 'get-out-of-jail' cards to absolve themselves from the bad consequences despite the good intentions. But on the contrary ... by their fruits you shall know them.

"One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" is relativist bromide that plasters over all distinctions in intent. The fallacy is a mental enemy which prevents us from making moral distinctions, prevents us from defending against such evils. The good has nothing to gain from evil, evil has everything to gain from the good.

The UN is the primary global platform for diplomatic relativism. In the ethical vacuum that ensues, the wannabe world government cannot be entrusted to pass judgment even on the most basic of questions, the condemnation of human sacrifice to the gods of tribalistic ideology.

- Caption: photo by David Paul Ohmer- a visit comes highly recommended -

- Filed on Articles in "Transnational Bankruptcy" -

John McCain is back to his old mavericky ways, throwing the RNC under the bus for playing up Obama's Blagojevich ties. 

Without agreeing too much with Senator McCain, it's fair to say that any residual connections Obama may have with Gov. Blagojevich as a result of being an Illinois Senator are not the strongest part of our argument. I can understand the desire to go at Obama. But with Obama at 76% approval for the transition, our hits against him have to be clean hits, or they will blow up in our face. I find myself agreeing with Phil Singer that any attacks have to conform to existing public narratives of Obama. I don't think that Obama the corruptocrat is a particularly promising meme, but I do think that Obama as lethargic and passive (which was Obama's whole strength during the economic crisis because of McCain's erratic-ness) could have potential if, say, it was found that Obama's staff knew something shady was going on, and did not immediately report it to Patrick Fitzgerald.

Meanwhile, the GOP should be focused on the following:

1. Play the Special Election to the Hilt. Dick Durbin opened a door that Mark Kirk or Peter Roskam may well walk through. At a minimum, the DNC will be forced to spend  millions of dollars defending a hugely symbolic Senate seat in the middle of Obama's first 100 days. The desire for a clean break from the political establishment, which is probably even more noxious than it was in the Jindal/Cao victories in Louisiana, is a huge wildcard that leaves the door open for a clean Republican. Jesse Jackson, Jr. is probably toast at this point; Jan Schakowsky is a shrill liberal and not a good fit statewide; I don't have a read on how Lisa Madigan's antics are playing in-state but have a feeling that the Madigan family's good cop-bad cop routine on the special could hurt.
    
2. Tell a Story About Democratic Corruption. Let's use this opportunity to lay the groundwork for a narrative about the Democrats as a party. And let's not hesitate to separate Obama from Congressional Democrats, as this commenter suggested. This has long-term utility to the extent we can infuse the Obama-Congressional relationship with distrust and jealousy so they're at war with each other. Blagojevich, Jefferson, Rangel, and Dodd should be painted as part of a pattern. It took years of Republicans being in power for the Abramoff stuff to happen. These guys aren't even in yet, and just look.
    
3. Keep Up Calls for Transparency and Openness from the Obama Team. Adopt Soren's transparency agenda and hold Obama's feet to the fire on disclosing everything -- in a "trust but verify" kind of way. We need to find ways to turn Democratic screw ups into positive Republican alternatives that rebuild our trust with voters. While I think there has to be a nod to the reality that Obama was not directly involved in any of Blago's dealings, we need to be ready to call out any slippage or dissembling in the disclosure timeline. The transition has laudably posted documents from its meetings with outside interest groups. Will it do the same for its internal deliberations and its contacts with Blago and other prospective supplicants?

Mark Tapscott notes my post on ethics and proposes some more ideas that would involve real pain for legislators and their staff:

First, apply the Freedom of Information Act to Congress. Most Americans resent that Congress passes laws it expects the rest of us to abide by but exempts itself. Ending the 42-year-old congressional FOIA exemption would be a major step in the right direction and one that would call the Democrats bluff on the transparency issue.

Second, require Members and their key personal and committee staff members (chiefs of staff, legislative directors, committee staff directors, legal counsels, possibly others) to maintain online daily calendars recording names and titles of all participants in meetings concerning any proposed legislation or expenditure of federal funds.

Third, abolish the absurd categorical values in the annual financial disclosures required of Members. Show us the money, the shares, the property, the consideration, Congressman. Require the same level of disclosure for key staff members included in the second suggestion.

I have also heard the idea of limiting lobbying by spouses or family of members, an issue that is coming up in Barack Obama's transition.

With Rod Blagojevich and Charlie Rangel in the news and under pressure from the media, now is the time for the House and Senate GOP caucuses to push a real transparency and ethics agenda. On January 6th, both Houses will meet and begin the work of passing rules. We need to have some specific proposals, and this is not something that I follow well. Furthermore, the GOP ought to shoot big here. Frankly, we aren't going to run Congress for a while, so let's max this out.

Imagine some proposals:

First, in both bodies, allow individuals to submit ethics complaints and require the various ethics committees to officially reject complaints.

Second, faster and more complete campaign finance proposals. All contributions down to $5, or even just all contributions, should be disclosed. Electronic contributions should be disclosed within 72 hours, and checks should be disclosed within 72 hours of deposit. These would be real-time disclosed on the FEC website. This would solve the problem that the Sunlight Foundation and others have tried to address with S. 223.

Third, put video of all publicly accessible business meetings online. I am sure that C-SPAN and Google would be happy to help. I know that many committees keep video of markups, but release neither the video nor transcripts.

Fourth, I am sure that there are things that are specific to disclosure of financial interests that we have learned out of the Rangel affair. Throw that in.

Only the second item needs to be implemented in law. If it got to Barack Obama's desk, he would have to sign it, and it would be embarassing.

The others can be the basis of a rules fight at the beginning of the session. Make these new Democrats who ran on ethics vote against transparency and for their leadership or against their leadership.

Furthermore, let's seperate Obama from the Demcratic Congress. Let's praise his transparency measures, like disclosing meetings of his transition teams, while smacking the Congressional majorities around.

10 in 2010
Republican Senate Pickup opportunities -- 2010.
by Adam Cahn

    Conservatives disheartened by Nov. 4th's "thumping" can take heart; we're only 691 short days away from election day 2010.  Much like Democrats following their 2004 debacle, Republicans now face their best political opportunity in at least five years.  Democrats, who no longer have George W. Bush to kick around, must now govern.  Most of the lingering congressional corruption scandals now feature Democrats (Don Young's fate in Alaska notwithstanding).  Republicans, free from the responsibility of governance, have the luxury of principled obstruction for the first time in sixteen years.  With a focus on conservative reform, impeccable ethics, the right leadership, and a couple lucky breaks Democrats will face political peril in just 691 short days.

While the country is split roughly evenly on the issue of protecting the unborn, Barack Obama will be the most pro-Abortion President to enter office in American history.  In addition, pro-Abortion Democrats in Congress will know their time as a 16 to 20 seat majority in the Senate will be inherently limited.  Given the reality of a near supermajority in congress along with holding the white house, pro-abortion Democrats must strike during this Congress.  The only question is what mechanism Democrats will use.  They have many options; either a frontal legislative attack (which I doubt) or more subtle parlementary manuvers.  Potential Democrat targets include: the 2003 ban on partial birth abortion, laws making it illegal to transport minors across state lines for abortions, or a dramatic expansion of taxpayer funded abortion.  However the public feels about abortion more broadly, the moderate restrictions listed above all enjoy 85% support in the country.

The second major issue that will harm Democrats is land use and economic development on Federally Owned lands in the Western States.  When Democrats put the Green Mafia in charge of the Interior Department and the EPA, they will inevitably put environmental restrictions on economic and recreational activity.  If the history of the Clinton and Carter administrations are a guide, these issues will cost Democrats Senate seats.  In 1992, Democrats had 8 seats in the Interior West; in 2000, they had 3.

The third major issue Republicans will have is ethics and corruption.  With Ted Stevens' defeat, there aren't many corrupt Republicans left.  Democrats, on the other hand, have many members under ethical clouds, including prominent committee chairmen like Charlie Rangel, Chris Dodd, and Barney Frank.  Democrats could see a steady stream of members with ethical issues in the next few years.

The following ten senate races are winnable with the right candidate:

1) Evan Bayh (IN) - While popular among Republicans and a good fit for Dan Quayle's old seat, the former DLC chair is loathed among the Democrat party's activist base.  Controversial votes like (FISA, Partial Birth Abortion, & Z) leave Bayh's left flank vulnerable and other votes (Affirmative Action, ANWR, &  Nuisance Lawsuits against Gun Manufacturers) will allow Republicans to tie Bayh to Obama, Pelosi, and Reid and to brand him as out of touch with Indiana's values.  As a member of the Armed Services committee, he is also vulnerable if Democrats attempt serious cuts in Defense Spending.

Potential Candidate: Mike Pence.  Conservatives have known and loved the 2005 Human Events Man of the year for a long time.  Pence, a National Security Hawk, fierce critic of Bloated Budgets, and devout Christian unites the conservative coalition in a way few politicians who happen to be Republicans can.  Additionally, Pence's leadership in the successful "Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less" insurgency of 2008 can only help when Gas Prices inevitably rise.

2) Barbara Boxer (CA) - This race, while a longshot, is winnable.  California, remember, was Ronald Reagan's home state.  As the 2003 re-call election proved, a Confident Republican can go on offense with a message of unapologetic Conservatism and win (Schwarzenegger's subsequent governance is a separate topic).  Ms. Boxer, while wildly popular in Berkeley and Bel Air, has always had trouble in Bakersfield and Barstow.  Additionally, Boxer's longstanding support for economically catastrophic cap and trade legislation  make her especially vulnerable if the Obama administration makes Global Warming legislation a top priority.  Finally, voter rejection of Prop 8 proves California near as liberal as it is commonly charicatured.

Potential Candidate: Hugh Hewitt.  The telegenic radio host's impeccable conservative credentials will inspire the Republican base to turn out like Crazy while his outstanding communication skills can move the state's recalcitrant independent voters rightward.  Additionally, his nationally syndacated radio audience gives him a built in fundraising network for a seat that will probably require $125 million to capture.  Finally, Hewitt might be the only potential candidate who can successfully thread the immigration needle in the GOP primary.

3) Chris Dodd (CT) - Under normal circumstances, Dodd would be one of the safest  Democrats in the country.  Fortunately for Republicans, and to the detriment of the incumbent, Connecticut's senior Senator faces far from normal circumstances.  Senator Dodd is the U.S. Senator most responsible for the current financial crisis.  In 2003 DOdd recieved a loan from subprime mortgage giant Countrywide Financial's elite "Friends of [Countrywide CEO] Angelo [Mozillo]" program.  Sen Dodd received a combined $781,042 in two mortgages at below market interest rates.  Coincidentally, Dodd blocked Republican efforts to crack down on corruption at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, whose mortgage securitization process disproportionately benefitted Countrywide.  If current economic difficulties continue or worsen (the latter of which will probably occur), Dodd's personal role in creating the financial crisis will leave him vulnerable in what is otherwise a deep blue state.

Potential Candidate: Larry Kudlow.  If, in economically challenging times, you still believe that free market capitalism is the best path to prosperity, then the popular CNBC host is the strongest potential candidate to take on Dodd.  The former Reagan economic advisor and supply side guru has owned a weekend property in the state for many years, which he could  make his primary residence in about five minutes of paperwork.  Kudlow has been erudite and relentless in explaining how the current financial crisis resulted from Government social engineering, not free-market capitalism.  While Kudlow has previously made terrible lifestyle choices, his subsequent 14 year recovery is a quintessentially American tale of redemption.  Finally, Kudlow's long history on Wall Street would allow him to raise ample funds in what would be an extraordinarily expensive race.

4) Byron Dorgan (ND) - Senator Dorgan faces a many potential pitfalls.  To begin, the incoming majority will be far more liberal on social issues than Senator Dorgan's state.  This leaves Dorgan vulnerable on any far left abortion agenda advocated by democrats.  With the recent discovery of a major oil shale deposit in the state, environmentalist control of the federal government might not resonate either.  With his party in unified Control of government, Senator Dorgan will be unable to distance himself from his party's liberal leadership. 

Potential Candidate: Gov. John Hoeven.  While unknown nationally, the popular governor was overwhelmingly re-elected this year with 74"% of the vote.  The successful governor is a solid, across-the-board conservative with impeccable pro-life credentials.  Given the state's conservatism, the majority party's lurch to the left and the incumbants ties to the Green mafia and the subprime mess, Gov. Hoeven is positioned to win this seat should he choose to run.

5) Russ Feingold (WI) - Despite his unassuming demeanor, the Gentleman from Wisconsin has established a voting record better suited for the Berkeley City Council than a midwestern senator.  In 2001, Feingold irresponsibly voted against the PATRIOT ACT, an essential counterterrorism tool that has prevented a repeat of 9/11.  In 2002, Feingold, along with Senator John McCain (R-AZ), led the greatest assault on the first amendment since the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 under the guise of "bi-partisan campaign finance reform."  During his 2004 re-election, Senator Feingold used the afore mentioned act to muzzle the political speech of Wisconsin right to life; Feingold's target in this case leaves him vulnerable to any far left abortion  agenda pursued by the majority party.  While Senator Feingold's Phish concert liberalism goes over well in the MSNBC newsroom, it leaves Feingold dramatically out of step with midwestern values.

Potential Candidate: Rep. Paul Ryan.  Much like Congressman Pence, Congressman Ryan stayed true to conservatism even when the Hastert-led Republican Congress abandoned it.  Articulate and telegenic, Congressman Ryan was just re-elected in a district that went for Obama with a message of unapologetic conservative reform.  Ryan has advanced conservative solutions to middle class economic anxieties on issues such as education, medical care, and retirement security.  Running against an incumbent whose views are to the left of most Madison drum circles, Congressman Ryan's conservative reformism will resonate with voters.

6) Blanche Lincoln (AR) - Another potential casualty of the liberal social policies of the Obama administration is the Senior Senator from Arkansas.  A moderate in the mold of former Governor Bill Clinton, Ms. Lincoln nontheless hails from a socially conservative state that could serve as ground zero in a backlash against liberal social policies of the Obama administration.  Any attempt to pack the federal judiciary with liberal judges could give Arkansans pause about unfettered Democrat control of government in a state that in 2004 voted overwhelmingly against homosexual marriage.

Potential Candidate: Mike Huckabee.  The popular former Governor and Presidential Candidate is the natural selection (evolution pun intended) in this culturally conservative and economically nervous state.  The Baptist Minister could appeal to voters as a check on President Obama's judicial appointments.  Additionally, as a former Presidential candidate, Gov. Huckabee would have access to a national fundraising network among evangelical Christians.  Finally, his national profile would increase dramatically interest in this race.

7) Patty Murray (WA) - Where abortion threatens Democrats in the midwest, Federal Land use policies threaten Democrats in the west.  If the Obama administration, like the Clinton and Carter administrations before it, impose environmental regulations that significantly impede economic activity on Federal Lands, a severe voter backlash could topple the Gentlelady.  Finally, Ms. Murray's support for cap and trade legislation could cost her support in economically troubled times.

Potential Candidate: Congressman Dave Reichart.  The tenacious former Sheriff of King County, perennial Democrat target, has consistently won narrow victories in his Seattle area district that voted for Al Gore, John Kerry, and Barack Obama.  While Congressman Reichart's tactical brilliance is unquestioned, his appeal to conservatives lies in the fact that he consistently wins in a majority Democrat district without grandstanding against his own party.  Reichart's libertarian style conservatism allows him to compete in socially liberal Washington while also allowing his to oppose taxpayer funded abortion for budgetary reasons.

8) Barbara Mikulski (MD) - As a very liberal Democrat from a very liberal state, Mikulski should be heavily favored for re-election.  Unfortunately for the incumbent, she is left vulnerable by a speaking style and public persona that can charitably be described as boring, leaving her vulnerable to a charismatic challenger.

Potential Candidate: Michael Steele is the only reason Republicans have a shot at this seat.  Given this reality, Steele should run for the Senate, not the RNC chair.  The former Lieutenant Governor and current head of GOPAC gave a rousing address at this year's Republican National Convention where he spoke movingly about how conservative reforms like school choice benefit lower and middle income families, especially minorities.  Steele gives Republicans the opportunity to craft a reformist economic message that resonates across racial and ethnic lines.  Steele also is the only opportunity Republicans have to neutralize the racial issue heading into 2012.  Steele is a special talent and Republicans should do everything they can to keep him in the national spotlight.

9) Harry Reid (NV) - Republicans have a history of successfully targeting Democrat congressional leadership.  As Reid has become an increasingly partisan national figure, his home state approval ratings have plummeted.  While an influx of liberals  from California moved the state to Obama in 2008, Reid's tenure as majority leader has provided his opponents with plenty of ammunition to use against him.  In addition, given his leadership role in the Washington D.C.'s majority party, Reid is especially vulnerable to the land use issues that will threaten all Western Democrats.  95% of the land in Nevada is owned by the Federal Government.

Potential Candidate: Melody "Mimi Miyagi" Damayo.  The lack of another standout conservative reformer in the state paves the way for Damayo, who placed third in the Republican Primary for Governor in 2006.  While her previous work as an actress in the adult entertainment industry will give many conservatives pause, no one can deny that she was a wildly successful entreprenneur in an intensely competitive industry.  Besides, having a Porn Star on the ticket can only help a party that just lost among 18-29 year old men.

10) Ken Salazar (CO) - Much like his fellow Western Democrats, Federal Land Use issues pose a deep threat to the re-election effort of Colorado's senior senator.  Coloradans have never liked Federal Bureaucrats telling them how to use resources found in their own communities.  Additionally, Obama's fiscal policies threaten Salazar in this historically tax-o-phobic state.

Potential Candidate: Anyone but Tancredo.  Given that this race will probably turn on either national or regional concerns, any Republican with a pulse should make this race competitive.  That said, Tom Tancredo is a lunatic with a massive ego who will lose this seat if nominated.

Keeping a majority coalition together is one of the most difficult feats to accomplish in politics.  Republicans learned this lesson in 2005; Democrats could easily learn it next year.  As issues change, so do the desires of voters.  The fact that issues and times change puts structural limits on any political majority.  Additionally, given that Democrats now control the executive branch, certain issues Republicans used successfully in the 1990's become relevant again.  If Republican are smart, recruit good candidates, and expand the electoral playing field, 2010 can be a very good year.
 

Say what you will, call him names! A lame duck, yes mistakes have been made, the rules of laissez-faire capitalism were violated, but right now it is he who stands between prosperity through free market principles, and the forces of Statism, who wish to reduce the financial sector to a tragic shadow of its former self, a mere government utility!

Here are two opinions: one by the most underestimated US President in history, George W. Bush - and an article by Objectivists Yaron Brook and Don Watkins on the Op-Ed page of the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights: a urgent plea for the separation of Economy and State. Europeans are urged to take note of a field virtually unknown to them. But first, the news:

CNN: "Bush ready to defend free-market principles during summit" (...) President Bush signaled that he's ready to defend Western-style capitalism and free-market principles during what will be one of his last appearances on the world stage. (...) As leaders of the world's 20 largest economies, dubbed the G-20, gather in Washington, some European leaders are pushing for global financial regulation. (...) >>>

Wall Street Journal: "The Surest Path Back to Prosperity - 'If you seek economic growth, social justice and human dignity, the free-market system is the way to go'," by George W. Bush As we have seen in recent months, financial turmoil anywhere in the world affects economies everywhere in the world. And so this weekend I'm going to host a Summit on Financial Markets and the World Economy with leaders from developed and developing nations that account for nearly 90% of the world economy. The leaders attending this weekend's meeting agree on a clear purpose -- to address the current crisis, and to lay the foundation for reforms that will help prevent a similar crisis in the future. (...) the actions taken by the U.S. and other nations are having an impact. Credit markets are beginning to thaw. Businesses are gaining access to essential short-term financing. A measure of stability is returning to financial systems.

(...) we must recognize that government intervention is not a cure-all. For example, some blame the crisis on insufficient regulation of the American mortgage market. But many European countries had much more extensive regulations, and still experienced problems almost identical to our own. History has shown that the greater threat to economic prosperity is not too little government involvement in the market, it is too much government involvement in the market.

We saw this in the case of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Because these firms were chartered by the U.S. Congress, many believed they were backed by the full faith and credit of the U. S. government. Investors put huge amounts of money into Fannie and Freddie, which they used to build up irresponsibly large portfolios of mortgage-backed securities. When the housing market declined, these securities, of course, plummeted in value. It took a taxpayer-funded rescue to keep Fannie and Freddie from collapsing in a way that would have devastated the global financial system.

There is a clear lesson: Our aim should not be more government -- it should be smarter government. All this leads to the most important principle that should guide our work: While reforms in the financial sector are essential, the long-term solution to today's problems is sustained economic growth. And the surest path to that growth is free markets and free people.

In the wake of the financial crisis, voices from the left and right equate the free-enterprise system with greed and exploitation and failure. It's true this crisis included failures -- by lenders and borrowers and financial firms, and by governments and independent regulators. But the crisis was not a failure of the free-market system. And the answer is not to try to reinvent that system. It is to fix the problems, make reforms, and move forward with the free-market principles that have delivered prosperity and hope to people all across the globe. (...)

Nations that pursued other models have experienced devastating results. Soviet communism starved millions, bankrupted an empire, and collapsed as decisively as the Berlin Wall. Cuba, once known for its vast fields of cane, is now forced to ration sugar. While Iran sits atop giant oil reserves, its people cannot put enough gasoline in their cars.

The record is unmistakable: If you seek economic growth, social justice and human dignity, the free-market system is the way to go. It would be a terrible mistake to allow a few months of crisis to undermine 60 years of success. (...) >>> Give Bush a buzz z

- Caption: "The Anchorage" by Bryan Larsen -

Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights: "Stop Blaming Capitalism for Government Failures", by Yaron Brook and Don Watkins

Speaking of the financial crisis, French president Nicolas Sarkozy recently said, “Laissez-faire is finished. The all-powerful market that always knows best is finished.” Sarkozy was echoing the views of many, including president-elect Obama, who assume that the financial crisis was caused by free markets--by “unbridled greed” unleashed by decades of deregulation and a “hands off” approach to the economy. And given this premise, the solution, they say, is obvious. To solve this crisis and prevent another one, we need a heavy dose of Uncle Sam’s elixir: government intervention. (...)

But while capitalism may be a convenient scapegoat, it did not cause any of these problems. Indeed, whatever one wishes to call the unruly mixture of freedom and government controls that made up our economic and political system during the last three decades, one cannot call it capitalism. (...) Take a step back.

In the lead up to the “Reagan Revolution,” the explosive growth of government during the ’60s and ’70s had left the American economy in disarray. A crushing tax burden, runaway inflation, brutal unemployment, and economic stagnation had Americans looking for an alternative. That’s what Reagan offered, denouncing big government and promising a new “morning in America.” (...) Bush Jr., often laughably called a champion of free markets, presided over massive new governmental controls like Sarbanes-Oxley and massive new welfare programs like the prescription drug benefit.

None of this is consistent with capitalism. (...) The government’s job under capitalism is single but crucial: to protect individual rights from violation by force or fraud. America came closest to this system in the latter half of the nineteenth century. The result was an unprecedented explosion of wealth creation and consequent rise in the standard of living. Even now, when the fading remnants of capitalism are badly crippled by endless controls, we see that the freest countries--those which retain the most capitalist elements--have the highest standard of living.

Why then should capitalism take the blame today--when capitalism doesn’t even exist? (...) Consider the current crisis (...) the driving force is clearly government intervention: the Fed keeping interest rates below the rate of inflation, thus encouraging people to borrow and providing the impetus for a housing bubble; the Community Reinvestment Act, which forces banks to lend money to low-income and poor-credit households; the creation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac with government-guaranteed debt leading to artificially low mortgage rates and the illusion that the financial instruments created by bundling them are low risk; government-licensed rating agencies, which gave AAA ratings to mortgage-backed securities, creating a false sense of confidence; deposit insurance and the “too big to fail” doctrine, whose bailout promises have created huge distortions in incentives and risk-taking throughout the financial system; and so on. In the face of this long list, who can say with a straight face that the housing and financial markets were frontiers of “cowboy capitalism”? (...)

This is just the latest example of a pattern that has been going on since the rise of capitalism: capitalism is blamed for the ills of government intervention--and then even more government intervention is proposed as the cure. The Great Depression? Despite massive evidence that the Federal Reserve’s and other government policies were responsible for the crash and the inability of the economy to recover, it was laissez-faire that was blamed. Consequently, in the aftermath, the government’s power over the economy was not curtailed but dramatically expanded. Or what about the energy crisis of the 1970s? (...)It’s time to stop blaming capitalism for the sins of government intervention, and give true laissez-faire a chance. Now that would be a change we could believe in. >>>

Wall Street Journal have a touching short documentary on the Great Depression up on their video archive ...

Art in this post by the Quent Cordair Fine Art Gallery for Romantic Realism