To Fox News: Job Well Done
Since November 5, 2008, I have criticized Fox News for jumping off the deep end in its criticisms of the Obama administration and for going from relatively “Fair & Balanced” to unprofessional, over-the-top and reactionary. However, I must now applaud Fox for nailing the Obama administration on its recent no-bid contract with a Democratic campaign contributor. Why? Because the administration has decided to cancel its contract with the donor’s company, and put the contract out to bid. Kudos to Fox for being the first major news network to call out the administration on this- after all, President Obama criticized no-bid contracts on the campaign trail and after being elected as President- but also, most importantly, because such contracts are another symbol of the collusion between government and business that happens far too much in Washington. It was wrong under President Bush, and it is wrong under Obama. As a news source, Fox did its job. Furthermore, as a watchdog of the government (which all press should be), Fox also did its job.
Regarding the cancellation of the contract, though, I have a couple of questions. First, should the administration have canceled this particular contract after signing it? Whether it’s good, ethical business or not, conservatives have rightly gone after the Obama administration for not honoring the rule of law and contracts with General Motors investors. In this case, the contract was already signed. It was unethical for the administration to assign a no-bid contract to this contractor, but it wasn’t illegal. Additionally, the donor and company owner, Vincent V. Checch, told Fox that he did now know it was a no-bid contract until after it was awarded to his company. Since we have no evidence to corroborate or contradict Checch’s statement on the matter, can we assume he did nothing wrong? Or is that naive, considering that sweetheart deals are given as easily as candy in Washington, DC?
Longer-term, what solutions should conservatives offer to prevent no-bid contracts, especially as tit-for-tat campaign and donor trade-offs? Should we allow this breach of ethics this one time, and then try to pass a law limiting how contracts can be handled? Or, better yet, pass a constitutional amendment banning no-bid government contracts? Or, perhaps, shrink the size of government (by getting out of Iraq, for one) so that fewer contracts are signed while passing a constitutional amendment or law banning no-bid government contracts? After all, laws are well and good, but taking away the opportunity for corruption and ethics violations- through transparency and lessening the size and scope of government- would be even more effective.
A Big Yawn
So apparently Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) said yet another racial comment- after comparing Republicans opposed to Democratic health care reform to supporters of slavery- and the political world is hung up on every word. Questions like the following dominate the arena:
1. Should he resign like former Senator Trent Lott did? (No, he shouldn’t.)
2. Are Reid’s remarks similar to Lott’s? (No, they aren’t. Lott’s were insensitive to the public’s eye, but meant to compliment a public servant. Reid’s were analytical but insensitive. Reid’s were definitely about race, Lott’s probably were not.)
3. What does President Obama think? (He doesn’t care.)
4. Will this hurt Reid’s already tough re-election campaign? (Duh.)
5. What does Reverend Al Sharpton (or some other race-baiter) think? (Sharpton defended Reid.)
So, this leads me to two questions, one important and one not so much. The less important one is this: why is Sharpton now coming out against former president Bill Clinton’s remark last year that “A few years ago, this guy [then-Senator Obama] would have been getting us coffee,” when he is defending Reid? After all, let’s say “a few years ago” was a reference to President Obama’s age, not race, and remember that sometimes “a few years ago” can mean as much as a decade, especially to older people such as Clinton and former senator Ted Kennedy (to whom Clinton made the remark). Perhaps the former president was merely remarking on the presidential candidate’s youth and inexperience? If he really wants to help black Americans, Sharpton should ignore these minor, attention-grabbing comments by public figures and concentrate on helping young blacks get a better education. Or, better yat, perhaps he could join Star Parker in helping diminish the number of black abortions.
My second question is more important, however, and more timely than the age-old complaint about Sharpton’s priorities. Namely, it is this: why are Republicans wasting their time on attacking Reid? This issue will have a minimal effect on the health care debate, it won’t help change the public’s view on the party one iota and few outside of politics remember Trent Lott’s comments. Republicans should release a statement or two, let Reid’s general election opponents use this comment and his slavery one to his or her advantage, and concentrate on the larger issues facing America and her citizens. If we are to win past November 2010, conservatives and Republicans must be viewed as the movement and party that can prioritize. The Bush years were incredibly harmful to the Republican and conservative brands, and Democrats have taken full advantage. We have to show the public that we deserve their trust yet again, and hammering Reid over a really stupid and insensitive comment won’t do it. In fact, it may very well hurt us in the long run.
The Party of ?No, But Here?s A Better Idea?
Since the election of President Obama, the Democrats have been very effective at portraying the Republican Party as the ?Party of No.? Depending on your political persuasion, this could be completely true, completely false or somewhere in the middle.
In the last couple of weeks, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has been hammered by Erick Erickson of RedState and Michelle Malkin for not fighting to the very finish on the recent Senate passage of a health care reform bill. On the one hand, these criticisms are of delaying tactics would only have slowed the vote by twelve hours, which would have done nothing in the halls of Congress but would have, as Ed Morrissey points out, given the media less time to cover the vote?s aftermath. On the other hand, if the Republican leadership had held firm on the many opportunities they had to slow things down, for example by following Senator Judd Gregg?s (R-NH) advice, and Senator Tom Coburn?s (R-OK) wish to read every part of the Senate bill, among other tactics to slow the bill, senators would have had to go home for Christmas a) without a bill, and b) to face their constituents, the majority of whom dislike the Democratic versions of health care reform and whom are increasingly against them as time goes on.
Senators Gregg, Coburn and Jim DeMint (R-SC), among many others, have been vilified for their articulate and unyielding opposition to health care reform and other Democratic measures. However, they are also the poster children for what Republicans should be about- namely, being the party of ?No, But Here?s A Better Idea.? All of these senators, along with other Republicans, have jammed the Democrats but also offered their own solutions to the various issues facing America. They have also worked with Democrats in a bipartisan fashion on a case-by-case basis.
When it comes to dispelling the myth that Republicans have been, and are being, merely obstructionists, let’s start with Senator Judd Gregg. On the one hand, Gregg voted for Secretary Geithner?s nomination, nearly accepted a position as President Obama?s Commerce Secretary, offered support for the bipartisan Wyden-Bennett bill and has worked with Democrat Kent Conrad (D-ND) on a debt commission. On the other, Gregg has hammered Obama on debt, passed around a virtual handbook for Republican obstructionism and taken the lead on opposing Democratic reconciliation. Additionally, however, Gregg has offered his own bill as an alternative to the Democratic proposals.
Senator DeMint is probably most famous for his Waterloo statement and his numerous delaying tactics on health care reform (see here and here for examples). However, he has also worked with self-declared socialist Independent Bernie Sanders (I-VT) on halting the Bernanke nomination and bringing transparency to the Federal Reserve. As a representative of the Party of ?No, but here?s a better idea,? he too has put forth a health care alternative to the Democratic proposals.
Lastly, we have Senator Coburn. Coburn has slid in two gun amendments this year to two Democrat-supported bills, halting the DC voting bill in its tracks. He has also held up funding for veterans because he wanted to use unused stimulus funds for the benefits and loudly opposed the stimulus package. He also forced a reading of Senator Sanders? single-payer amendment to the Democratic bill. However, at the same time, he has maintained a friendship with President Obama, pushed a transparency bill with then-Senator Obama (D-IL) into law in 2006 and sponsored a Republican alternative to the Democratic health care bills on, of all places, Huffington Post. In fact, he wrote on Huffington Post not once but twice. This is a guy who clearly wants his message to get out to all Americans, not just his constituents or fellow conservatives.
Other ?No but here?s a better idea? Republicans include Representative Paul Ryan (R-WI), the numerous Republican co-sponsors of the Wyden-Bennett bill and Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC).
The fact is that Republicans are trying to stop a very bad makeover of a massive portion of America in ways that swing from bad policy to unethical to unconstitutional. For an example of the latter, with respect to David Frum?s recent piece supporting the individual mandate?s constitutionality, he is wrong- an individual mandate is clearly unconstitutional. Other bad components include the Senate bill’s abortion funding, the House bill’s public option and the lack of legitimate tort reform in either bill.
Personally, I think Republicans should have fought tooth-and-nail for a post-Christmas vote on the Democratic health care reform bill in the Senate. They should have offered amendments, yes, as Frum has said- but they have a responsibility to stop the bill first and foremost. That is what the minority is supposed to do with a bill as bad as this one, with as little power as Republicans and conservatives have right now- stop the legislation cold and start over with a bill that includes conservative and free market principles and ideas. Some Republicans are just being the Party of No, but sometimes saying?saying?’no’ is necessary, despite what some Democrats may say.
Health Care Updates
Lawsuits galore from at least a dozen states over the individual mandate, says The New York Times. The Times cites a Heritage Foundation legal analysis on the subject that is being used by many mandate opponents, including the Florida Attorney General highlighted in the article, to show how such an individual mandate is unconstitutional.
Other conservatives are attacking the mandate by reminding us that the Congressional Budget Office had multiple issues with the idea during the Clinton health care reform efforts.
Also, good times for Democratic Members of Congress and their trial lawyer buddies. Apparently, the latter worked really hard to make sure their industry wouldn’t get tagged in the health care reform efforts, and Democrats appeased them. Of course, former Vermont Governor Howard Dean made clear this would happen months ago. Unfortunately for Democrats, the CBO used real numbers and evidence to show tort reform would save the public $54 billion over ten years. (Conservatives, this is where we write, call, e-mail and fax our Senate and House Members of Congress to tell them they are not representing us…)
For fun- H/T to Ed Morrissey at Hot Air- here are some lobbying numbers from the law industry. Surprisingly, Republicans have averaged around 25% of lobbying efforts from lawyers since 1990. I didn’t expect it to be that high.
Stimulus Fail, Part 2 (Part 3? 4?)
The Washington Examiner’s Mark Hemingway takes it away with this one:
“A new analysis of the $157 billion distributed by the American Reinvestment and Recovery act, popularly known as the stimulus bill, shows that the funds were distributed without regard for what states were most in need of jobs.”
Later: “The Mercatus Center analysis also found that Democratic congressional districts received on average almost double the funding of Republican congressional districts. Republican congressional districts received on average $232 million in stimulus funds while Democratic districts received $439 million on average.”
Lastly: “Finally, the Mercatus analysis shows that a majority of the funds allocated went to public rather than private entities — nearly $88 billion to $69 billion.”
What a surprise- you mean to tell me the stimulus is failing again? I’m shocked. Really. (Okay, not really.)
This is really bad, for four reasons: first, since a majority of public employees are members of unions, the money is going to sources of voting power for Democrats as opposed to helping all Americans (assuming, of course, it did help, which is doubtful). Secondly, the money was not distributed for efficienty of employment- even though that was its selling point. Thirdly, the money was spread by two departments not Congress, which means either those departments are biased (unlikely) or they are following a formula, as the study Hemingway quotes concludes, and that means the formula is skewed. Fourth, this is almost exactly 20% of the $770 billion approved by Congress, and it’s been ten months or so since it was approved.
George Will called it- “Which suggests that Stimulus II is…primarily designed to save a few dozen jobs — those of Democratic members of the House and Senate.”
Ed Morrissey Asks The Right Question
“Is she ever again going to be north of 50 percent favorable?”
Ed Morrissey of Hot Air asked the above question at the end of a critique of the “news” that former Alaska governor Sarah Palin blacked out Senator John McCain’s (R-AZ) name out of an old campaign hat she wore. *Rolls eyes* Obviously, this isn’t news, and Morrissey makes that clear. (He also pokes fun at himself for using Palin’s name to bring extra viewership, something he critiqued the “Today” show for.)
Morrissey’s question is very important. Sarah Palin is incredibly unpopular among many demographics of Americans, yet many of her supporters think she is the greatest thing since Ronald Reagan and believe she is the answer to President Obama in 2012. Unfortunately, they are incorrect, and the more quickly Palin’s supporters realize this and stop protecting her from every sling and arrow, the more quickly we can move onto better candidates such as Governors Romney and Pawlenty, Representative Mike Pence (R-IN) and pretty much anyone else.
When Democrats and liberals of many affiliations and political backgrounds want Palin to win the nomination- including a number of Democratic and liberal friends and acquaintances- there’s something very bad going on. Either they are all wrong- doubtful, since my friends and acquaintances are politically experienced, intelligent guys (yes, by coincidence they are all guys)- or Palin’s supporters are throwing the party, and by association the country, to President Obama in 2012. Again, abandon ship, Palinites, or the country will be harmed for a long, long time.
