So I'm browsing the NYT this morning and an Abramoff op-ed catches my eye. Then I look at the byline and its none other than Ana Marie Cox of Wonkette fame

Ana Marie was always the soul of brevity, so it interesting to read something a little more extensive. I find that I largely agree with her.

Despite the desperate glee of the editorializers and the almost-as-desperate rinsing of Abramoff funds from Republican coffers, the smell in the air is panic, not blood. In order to cast their net beyond Diamond Bob Ney, the feds would have to, as one Republican source told the Times, "pursue a different definition of bribery" - that is, prove that "if somebody were to give a gift or a campaign contribution in the same time period as a member took an official action, that in and of itself would constitute bribery." And you thought Patrick Fitzgerald was criminalizing politics.

Sad to admit it, but most of what Jack Abramoff did with politicians (as opposed to his outright fraud with Indian tribes) wasn't criminal so much as extreme. The Hollywood arc would have a chain-gang of Congressmen breaking rocks by the final reel, but we are unlikely to get such satisfaction outside of celluloid.

The difference between panic and blood in this case is that one if for the political while the other is for the legal. Not surprisingly, Democrats are trying hard to tar Republicans as corrupt with the theme of "pay to play". I can't say I blame them, but neither do I expect that it will be too effective.

When it gets right down to it, most Americans have some sort of lobbying representation in Washington, whether its the NRA, the NEA, or some group trying to prevent Congress from taxing your timeshare or closing your off-road trails. That Congress solicits "contributions" is nothing shocking, and thats what Democrats would need to engineer an electoral upset--something shocking.

Let's just pull back a second and look at the big picture here--Your Congressman makes a low six figure income for his efforts in Washington, which doesn't go very far in maintaining a residence in the home state and in D.C. (where realestate has been going through the roof...). It takes millions of dollars to run for office. Furthermore, even a freshman representative or Senator has a say in the disposition of millions and even billions of dollars, directly or otherwise. Should they happen to be in the majority and have seniority, their influence is exponentially greater.

What you have here is a situation very much like college football--an extremely lucrative franchise where the rainmakers don't get paid--a recipe for corruption, either formal or informal.

Just as there is very little point in blaming a kid from the ghetto for signing a letter of intent in exchange for a house for his Mom, we are engaging in vile hypocrisy to complain about the fact that Congresspersons take money from lobbyists.

Frankly, I'm surprised there aren't more problems than there are. The system we have works pretty well because it avoids naive beliefs about human nature. Politicians will take money because they have to, but they live in what are essentially two economies--money and politics. You can't just sell you're vote because that has political ramifications and on the other hand, you can't ignore the economic interests of the nation either. Successful politicians learn how to balance economic and political interests while those who don't get retired, or if they step out of line, go to jail.

Collectively, the economic and political interests of the nation (yes, I know that I am making too hard a distinction here...) find balance between the parties.

We take separation of powers for granted, but its a unique paradigm in the world. Other democracies, say our neighbor to the North, have no such tensions in their system and consequently all the payoffs happen out of the public eye. As the poor man said to the rich man after listening to his complaints about taxes--"I wish I had those problems..."

BuzzMachine: "Ana is looking a little worse for wear." I think this qualifies as a sexist comment. Does Jeff want to read Ms. Cox or date her?

Ann Althouse doesn't like her imagery. She's right, but its a petty complaint.

Instapundit

ShushPile

Let’s recap…

Monday: Quits her day job

Tuesday: Gets reviewed in the New York Times

Wednesday: Signs a mid-six-figure book deal

Thursday: Gets profiled in the New York Times

I suspect this is the main reason we are getting so many snide comments about her. The dirty little secret in the blogosphere is that many of us are NOT doing this for love. Ana Marie Cox has accomplished what many others hoped blogging would do for them--get them a slot on a cable news channel, a book deal or a regular column, but more basically--get paid big bucks for writing and/or talking. In retrospect, Ana Marie was positioned for this kind of success in almost every respect--she's young, attractive, liberal and salacious and she apparently sleeps with the right people. Its not the only way to be successful, but its probably the best way...

Redstate has endorsed John Shadegg (R-AZ) for the Republican House leadership post with the explanation that the two front runners, Blunt and Boehner are tainted by special interest money.

This is not an unreasonable position to take--Republicans staged a coup in the House largely on the basis of the Contract with America in which ethics were a significant part, yet I have some concerns about this.

Orrin Hatch made the comment recently that Democrats don't know how to act like a minority party, and the Republicans don't yet know how to act as the governing party. Acting as the governing party is a key concept here.

When you are in opposition, politics predominates, but we aren't and so it shouldn't. The most important element to consider in who would make a good House leader are the practical skills. In this respect, Tom Delay was inarguably very effective and the House Republicans need to find someone similarly capable.

Let's consider the Senate leadership as an example of what I am talking about. Trent Lott had his problems, but he was a canny leader in the Senate. Bill Frist was far more politically acceptable, but his subsequent performance has been disappointing. Harry Reid has been walking all over him and I doubt that he could have managed the same feat with Lott.

My point and recommendation is that no candidate for the House leadership should be supported simply on the basis that they have clean hands. They had also better be canny and effective managers as well. In the long term, poor leadership will negate any temporary political advantage that comes with the "right" image.

Shadegg in the running

Shadegg's letter to fellow Republican House members. . It concerns me that his letter only focuses on the reform requirements and fails to enumerate the practicals skills that would make him a good leader. Its a safe bet that anyone who ascends to the leadership is going to enact reform rules. We need more than clean hands on this issue.

Washington Post article on the leadership race.

Pajamas Media

We are bloggers with boatloads of opinions, and none of us come close to agreeing with any other one of us all of the time. But we do agree on this: The new leadership in the House of Representatives needs to be thoroughly and transparently free of the taint of the Jack Abramoff scandals, and beyond that, of undue influence of K Street.

We are not naive about lobbying, and we know it can and has in fact advanced crucial issues and has often served to inform rather than simply influence Members.

But we are certain that the public is disgusted with excess and with privilege. We hope the Hastert-Dreier effort leads to sweeping reforms including the end of subsidized travel and other obvious influence operations. Just as importantly, we call for major changes to increase openness, transparency and accountability in Congressional operations and in the appropriations process.

As for the Republican leadership elections, we hope to see more candidates who will support these goals, and we therefore welcome the entry of Congressman John Shadegg to the race for Majority Leader. We hope every Congressman who is committed to ethical and transparent conduct supports a reform agenda and a reform candidate. And we hope all would-be members of the leadership make themselves available to new media to answer questions now and on a regular basis in the future.

Signed,

N.Z. Bear, The Truth Laid Bear
Hugh Hewitt, HughHewitt.com
Glenn Reynolds, Instapundit.com
Kevin Aylward, Wizbang!
La Shawn Barber, La Shawn Barber's Corner
Lorie Byrd / DJ Drummond , Polipundit
Beth Cleaver, MY Vast Right Wing Conspiracy
Jeff Goldstein, Protein Wisdom
Stephen Green, Vodkapundit
John Hawkins, Right Wing News
John Hinderaker, Power Line
Jon Henke / McQ / Dale Franks, QandO
James Joyner, Outside The Beltway
Mike Krempasky, Redstate.org
Michelle Malkin, MichelleMalkin.com
Ed Morrissey, Captain's Quarters
Scott Ott, Scrappleface
The Anchoress, The Anchoress
John Donovan / Bill Tuttle, Castle Argghhh!!!
Mick Stockinger /UNCoRRELATED

I watched an interesting installment of Tim Russert this afternoon that dealt with Jack Abramoff where he held a round table discussion with three elite media reporters that have covered the story.

There was actually a lot of useful information brought forth, particularly about the nature of Indian Casino operations in the U.S.

All of the panel members, Susan Schmidt of the Washington Post, Evan Thomas of Newsweek and Karen Tumlty of Time, agreed that Abramoff's crime was ripping off his clients. That elevated my expectations of the program immediately since I fully expected this to be a "culture of corruption" program judging by its title It was precisely the kind of stuff I eat up--the players, the motivations and the deals.

Abramoff was involved with the college Republicans in college, where he came to know and befriend Ralph Reed, but unlike Ralph who became a political operative, Abramoff went to Hollywood to make movies with the liberals and learned to do business the Hollywood way. When the Republicans wrested power from the Democrats, Abramoff dumped the movie business and became a lobbyist.

Evan Thomas had a great comment about lobbyists--they are great at getting paid for doing nothing.

From this perspective, its hard to swallow the accusation that he was ripping off his clients--he's a lobbyist, its a given. Yet Abramoff was taking it to new heights. Abramoff used Ralph Reed (who is anti-gambling) to help him kill an Indian casino in Texas, but not surprisingly, it was the Lousiana tribes that were paying Abramoff to do it (the mark's greed makes the con possible...). Next he turns to the dispossed tribe and says, "Hey, pay me 'x' dollars and I'll get your casino opened again..."

Nice work if you can get it, but business as usual for mercenary lobbyists.

By playing off anti-gambling forces against the Indians, Abramoff cleaned up on both sides, supporting the aphorism that fear is a better motivator than profit. There are no innocents here.

On the other side of this question was the Congressional dynamic--Abramoff's end game was to become the ultimate powerbroker in Washington D.C. You get that by spending money, and his connections with the Indian tribes provided money on an unprecented scale. What becomes clear from the conversation is that calling it a Republican scandal really misses the scope of what Abramoff was doing--he cultivated people everywhere--Repubicans, Democrats, and most importantly-bureaucrats. That Republicans were the largest beneficiaries of Abramoff largesse is no surprise since they have the lion's share of federal power, but the main criteria to become a friend of Jack was your power to get something done for him, which is why Robert Kennedy and Harry Reid were getting the big bucks.

The money was even going to congressional spouses; usually to charities they supported. Its as if Washington was covered with liquid money to the depth of six feet--the money found its way into every possible nook and cranny it could go.

I've said this before, but when you have guys handling billions of dollars surrounded by guys making millions of dollars and get paid $162,000.00 a year, you have a problematic dynamic. Occasionally squeezing out the sponge gets rid of the problem temporarily, but the sponge can help but absorb the available "moisture".

Small government anyone?

The political effects are up in the air. The Republicans are taking it seriously, but lurking is the prospect of some possible high-profile prosecutions. A recent poll demonstrates the problem--65% of respondents thought Congress routinely took bribes. Now that is certainly not an accurate view of the matter, and the Crats should consider that its inevitable that they are going to get tarred with the same brush. There are a lot of comparison with the Repubicans in the 90s, but the Republicans had clean hands back then. Distinctions without a difference like, "I didn't get it from Abramoff directly" are no shield against public disapproval anymore than "no controlling authority" was for Gore.

If the prosecutions end up fruitless, or simply nail a bad actor or two, it won't have a significant affect on this electoral cycle (especially considering how much Iran will be weighing on all our minds...). Nevertheless, the Republicans have to conscientously clean up the mess if they want to keep the revolution on track. Frankly I doubt there are two many conservatives who are unhappy about the Abramoff scandal--it appears to be just the thing we needed to get the party on track with small government conservatism.

The other day I posted the Justice Departments explanation of the legal powers of the president to conduct warrantless eavesdropping of terrorists.

The liberal response has been along the lines of "why not use the FISA courts?" I didn't cover that, but Gen. Michael Hayden did:

Gen. Michael Hayden said the NSA program was more effective than the FISA system because investigators were able to target suspected communications if they had "reason to believe" that someone is connected to Al Qaeda, rather than the "probable cause" standard required by the FISA court. The difference, he said, is that the detection methods don't target individuals but trap communications. The probable cause standard, on the other hand, relates to individuals.

Hayden made clear NSA has often used FISA, especially after Sept. 11, but that in some cases, it is not as effective.

"The purpose of all of this is not to collect reams of intelligence, but to detect and prevent attacks. The intelligence community has neither the time, the resources nor the legal authority to read communications that aren't likely to protect us. And NSA has no interest in doing so. These are communications that we have reason to believe are Al Qaeda communications," Hayden said.

He also noted that in addition to numerous Justice Department lawyers having said the new program was legal, three senior lawyers at NSA were separately asked about the legality of it before it began. They all said that it was legal and he noted these were people who had rejected some techniques in the past and were not people in the habit of "giving hall passes."

Hayden argued that had the NSA program been in place before the Sept. 11 attacks, the government may had been able to identify the hijackers before they struck.

"You know, I actually find this a little odd. After all the findings of the 9/11 commission and other bodies about the failure to share intelligence, I'm up here feeling like I have to explain pushing data to those who might be able to use it," he said.

Someone should explain the concept of restrain to the Crat leadership. There are generally plenty of things any administration does that merit genuine criticism, and those are the ones you can get the best traction on. On the other hand, indiscriminate criticism is highly problematic, particularly when you get shot down so easily.

Two recent examples of indiscriminate criticism are the entire Alito hearing and of course this NSA leak. The Crats end up looking like losers and worse, fools. On the other hand, the Abramoff scandal is something you can and should work with, unfortunately the final answer to this question is not something the Crats can really deal with--reducing the size of the federal government and moving responsibilities and revenues to the states.

Predictably, Harry Reid was asked about his receipt of $66,000.00 in donations from Abramoff clients. In at least one case, Reid wrote a letter to the Secretary of the Interior supporting a tribes position and then receiving a $5,000.00 check from that tribe the next day. (Denver Post, 11/21/2005)

Many lawmakers followed up the donation with letters urging Interior Secretary Gale Norton to reject a casino that would have been harmful to Abramoff's clients.

Typically, the lawmakers said the timing of donations was a coincidence and that they wrote letters because they opposed the expansion of tribal gambling. A spokesman for House Speaker Dennis Hastert, who received more than $100,000 in donations from 2001 to 2004, told AP, "We've always opposed these things, in our back yard, in our state, someplace else."

Sen. Harry Reid's office has a similar explanation. Reid, D-Nev., and Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., sent a letter to Norton and Reid received a donation a day later.

Howard Dean, on FNS yesterday, stated that any Democrat who "did anything" of this sort was "in trouble".

There is an odor around Harry Reid that just can't be dispelled by weak statements that he has done "nothing wrong" and insistence that the Abramoff affair is a "Republican scandal"

While Democrats claim to be morally superior to the Republicans on this issue, its worth noting that Bob Ney resigned with very little resistance when his involvement with Abramoff suggest an "appearance of evil" Tom Delay, realizing that his own situation was a distraction, withdrew from reclaiming his leadership in spite of considerable support from his colleagues.

This is called "doing the right thing."

If Reid were serious about irreprochable Democrat ethics, he would also resign and ask for an investigation of his activities for good measure. As it is, Reid and the Democrats simply have no standing to claim moral superiority.

UPDATE: A reader who declines to be named, has written his Democrat congressman the following letter

Congressman Matheson:

In the wake of the Abramoff indictment, the public has become concerned about issues of corruption in Washington. While politically, the Democrats have sought to label this a "Republican problem", I find myself increasingly dissatisfied with Senator Harry Reid's explanation of his own actions in writing letters on behalf of Abramoff clients and receiving an apparently quid pro quo donation the next day.

While Tom Delay has withdrawn from reclaiming the House leadership and Bob Ney has resigned from his chairmanship, Reid stubbornly engages in a litany that he has done nothing wrong and that this is a Republican scandal, thus ceding the moral high ground.

Will you support the standard that DNC Chairman Howard Dean espoused on Fox News Sunday (1/29/2006)that any Democrat who engaged in quid pro quo activities for donations should find themselves "in trouble"?

Will you call for Senator Reid to step down--temporarily or otherwise?

That seems like a good idea. If Democrats are serious about cleaning up Washington, then an election year is no better time to get them on record.

Gateway Pundit names other Democrats who wrote letters on behalf of Abramoff clients and got quid pro quo donations.

And, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) is leading the pack: "Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid Of Nevada Sent A Letter To [Interior Secretary Gale] Norton On March 5, 2002 ... The Next Day, The Coushattas [An Indian Tribe Represented By Abramoff] Issued A $5,000 Check To Reid's Tax-Exempt Political Group, The Searchlight Leadership Fund."

Along with Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) : "Harkin Wrote At Least Three Letters In 2003 Pressing The Government To Release Federal Money To Help The Sac & Fox Tribe In His State Cope With The Temporary Closing Of Its Casino Due To A Tribal Dispute, According To Interior Department Documents Obtained By The Associated Press And Records Provided By Harkin's Office."

The esteemed Senator Mary Landrieu, (D-La) joins them: "Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., Who Was Engaged In A Tight Re-Election Race In 2002, Sent Her Letter March 6, 2002. That Same Day, The Coushattas Sent $2,000 To Her Campaign And She Received $5,000 More By The End Of That Month. By Year's End, The Total Had Grown To At Least $24,000."

As does Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-MI): "[There Were] Half-Dozen Letters Written Or Signed By 14 Lawmakers On Behalf Of The Tribes. One Was Written Jan. 23, 2003 By [Democrat Sen.] ... Debbie Stabenow ... On The Saginaw's Behalf."

And, don't forget Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI): "[There Were] Half-Dozen Letters Written Or Signed By 14 Lawmakers On Behalf Of The Tribes. One Was Written Jan. 23, 2003 By [Democrat Sen.] Carl Levin ... On The Saginaw's Behalf."

Most people already knew that Dean was crazy, but apparently he's stupid too. Declaring publicly that the Democrats "are clean" on the issue of Abramoff-related pay-for-play was a monumental error. Even CNN isn't buying (Ed Henry)

"I Want To Underline Again, There Are Democrats Implicated In [The Abramoff Scandal] As Well. So [Democrats'] Argument About A Culture Of Corruption May Not Resonate With People Across The Country." (CNN's "CNN Live Today," 1/3/06)

Law-enforcement authorities and others said the investigation's opening phase is scrutinizing Sens. Conrad Burns, Montana Republican; Byron L. Dorgan, North Dakota Democrat; and Minority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, along with Reps. J.D. Hayworth, Arizona Republican, and Bob Ney, Ohio Republican.

Ironically perhaps, Tom Delay was not a target for investigation. Yet Democrats unleashed the guilt-by-association beast and it may well turn around to bite Harry in the ass.

Now, Congressional Quarterly reports that Reid's former legislative counsel, Edward Ayoob, joined Abramoff’s then-law firm, Greenberg Traurig, in March 2002, and that some of Ayoob’s clients at the firm were Indian tribes. "Democrats have taken a special interest in Ayoob's clients," reported CQ. "Of the eight tribes Ayoob represented when he was with Greenberg Traurig, Reid acted in behalf of or moved legislation benefiting six." One case involved a casino controversy. "He [Reid] intervened, for example, to block other Democrats from opening a casino in Michigan, noting that other tribes in the state -- Ayoob's clients -- would suffer," CQ noted. "Ayoob gave $51,333 to Democrats since 2002, including $4,000 to Reid in 2003, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Tribes represented by Abramoff or Ayoob also gave Reid $30,500 since 1999, according to the Center." Announcing a Democratic ethics reform package last week, Reid told reporters, "This is a Republican scandal and they can try to spin-doctor it. … Eddie Ayoob didn’t work for Jack Abramoff, he worked for a 1,000-member law firm."

Harry Reid, like Ralph Reed, were Abramoff's glass breakers. Every so often some Autoglass company gets the bright idea that if they send some people around to break some windshields, they can create some business for themselves. Abramoff used his glassbreakers to oppose Indian casino gambling and then offered to "fix the problem" for a considerable fee. The fact that Reid has been doing this for years and getting big bucks for his trouble suggests that its way more than a coincidence.

Regardless of Reid's innocence or guilt, the smart thing to do would be to resign the leadership post and avoid tainting the party.

Captain's Quarters has more dirt on the Culture of Corruption.

Underneath the elegant conference room table in her House office, the California Democrat clenched her hands in her lap. She bit her lower lip. But Milling pressed on, and soon Pelosi was accepting a box of bonbons and an invitation for a 36-hour, expense-paid trip to New Orleans. "I'll be there," she said before the women walked out.

Would you be surprised that New Orleans residents are having to bribe members of Congress will all-expenses-paid trips to visit the devastation? Only 55 House members and 30 Senators have made the trip. Thes rest are holding out for a private jet.

The AP have cued the Darth Vader leit-motif on John Boehner:

The Ohio congressman, who won an upset victory for the House GOP's No. 2 post, has distributed roughly $2.9 million to Republicans from his political action committee since 1979, according to the campaign finance Web site Political Money Line. Some of the recipients this week returned the favor in voting for him.

Boehner (pronounced BAY-nur) is an avid golfer with a perpetual tan, and, like DeLay, he has played host at many fundraising golf outings. Some of his staff members, following the career path of those who worked for DeLay, have become Washington lobbyists.

ooooh. Scary.

Why am I not reading about Harry Reid's son's lobbying activities? Harry Reid's quid pro quo letter writing activities for bucks? Harry Reid's mendacities concerning his activities on behalf on Indian tribes "all along"--meaning of course all along the time that the Indian tribes who gave him money were also Abramoff clients?

Instead I am reading that Boehner likes golf and contributes the to the political campaigns of fellow Congress members.

One more reason to read blogs instead of elite media...

The Gonzalez hearing sounds like a Monty Python sketch.

The left is just incensed at the unfair "smear" of Harry Reid as an Abramoff stooge. A Kos post generated dozens of comments condeming the "right-wing" press for not absolving their champion.

Not surprisingly, Moonbat criticial reading skills suffer when they panic. The following are comments on the AP article detailing Reid's extensive contacts with Abramoff lobbying associate Ronald Platt over legislation dealing with a minimum wage issue in the Marianas islands.

Conclusion, by any reasonable person, there was no quid pro quo by Reid on this issue. But has AP contacted Senator Reid's office to find out his position on this legislation? Have they looked at his floor statements on it, easily available in the Congressional Record? If they have, they're leaving that key information out.

Is this hard to understand? When investigating an influence peddling and bribery scandal, it's kind of critical to actually look at the results of those efforts. You might have quid, but in this case no quo.

Meanwhile, three more members of Congress have been linked to Abramoff. And guess what? They are all Republicans.

Actually, a reasonable person would note that there is no accusation of quid pro quo on the Marianas issue--the quid pro quo has so far been confined to the writing of letters to Gale Norton on behalf of interested tribes and then receiving large checks the next day. What the two dozen Platt contacts suggest is that Reid is stonewalling when he suggests that he had no contact with Abramoff.

Reid has been around the block a few times--he knows he could have made this a one day story and smelled like a rose if he had called a press conference and laid it all out, but instead he is engaged in a pattern of stonewalling that he has got to know will only end badly for him. Of course the reason you stonewall when you know its a bad thing to do is because you feel you have to...

What's rather hilarious though, is that while complaining about a smear on Reid, the post author immediately turns around and points out that "three more Republicans have been linked to Abramoff." Smears are apparently only bad if they are directed at your own party.

To further emphasize that point, consider Time's "expose" on Bush's Abramoff links. Time publishes a series of pictures

The man Bush is shaking hands with--not Abramoff. Abramoff is the guy in the background whose head is visible just over the President's shoulder. Obviously Time magazine is hoping you'll infer that Bush and Abramoff were having sex because they were clearly in the same room.

Moonbats can't have it both ways--either guilt-by-association applies to everyone, or it applies to no one. If Bush is obviously a crook because he's in the same room as Abramoff, then Reid must be Saddam Hussein for quid pro quo letter-writing and two dozen contacts with an Abramoff lobbyist.

UPDATE: Reading through the comments on the Kos post, I came across this predictable absolution by a Noam Chomsky fan:

proof? We have to prove a neqative for you? (none / 1)

Lawyer/Lobbiest calls senator twice a month so he can include it on his hourly billing in time to go in with his firms payment schedual (sic).

Its seems to me that if a lobbyist can demonstrate that he meets with a Senator or his staff twice a month, then he has a legitimate reason to bill his client for those contacts. Don't believe me? Call up your Senator and try to get an appointment. Pretty tough eh? Now try getting an appointment every two weeks for a year. The question arises as to why this particular lobbyist gets such preferential access? I'm not a Senator, but the only people that get this kind of time from me are either on my payroll or I'm on their payroll.

How many essays have you read lately defending Congressional earmarks?

Not many I assume. Well Jay Cost produced one at Real Clear Politics and its not as controversial as it might appear at first glance.

So, as the title indicates, I am to be counted as one of the few defenders of pork. Is it a good in itself? No, of course not. It is, however, a consequence, an unfortunate side effect, of an otherwise very excellent system of government. As getting rid of pork requires one to tinker around with the system, I prefer pork.

Cost explains the motivations for earmarks very well, and for seasoned political wonks, none of this will be very surprising--objectionable perhaps, but not surprising. Its a long article, but one example serves to provide a crystal-clear insight into the nature of the problem.

Why did Shelly Moore Capito decide not to run against the 88-year old Robert Byrd in West Virginia, a state that, by many measures, is one of the most conservative in America? There are a number of reasons, and you can see a good many of them on the drive down I-79 from Morgantown to Charleston. His name is on every third road sign. This is a symbol of Byrd's extensive work for the state. Ask the average West Virginian Bush voter what he thinks of Byrd, and he will tell you that Robert Byrd is good for West Virginia. He cares about West Virginians and he is doing what he can to help them - the proof is in the pork. Byrd is a Democrat, but this logic transcends party lines. And its pull is more powerful than any member's desire to limit the size and scope of the federal government: limiting government requires members to be in government, which in turn requires them to expand government.

We've met the enemy, and he is us.

Cost's explanation is right on the money, but I don't think its the real issue. neurotoxins in small doses can be medicinal, but beyond that we call it a poison. Political rhetoric tends to polarize, demanding all-or-nothing solutions for problems that would be better treated by "correct dosage". A glass of wine everyday allegedly improves your health, but a couple of daily bottles makes you an alcoholic. As Cost demonstrates, a lttle pork is good for the system, but we aren't talking about a little pork here--we're talking about a herd of hogs. The growth of spending is if not unprecedented, pretty impressive, and it needs to be reined-in hard.

When Dick Cheney accidental peppers a friend with birdshot, its a story that has the media's hair on fire for at least a couple of weeks.

When Cynthia McKinney punches a cop, we get this:

Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi on Thursday labeled it "a mistake, an unfortunate lack of recognition of a member of Congress." She added that the police officer was not at fault.

"I would not make a big deal of this," said Pelosi, D-Calif.

I'm sure she wouldn't. I suppose its no big deal to punch cops within the Democrat caucus.

McKinney has refused to apologize (what a surprise...).

UPDATE: U.S. Capitol Police are allegedly filing an arrest warrant for McKinney. The charges could range from simple assault to felony assault.

UPDATE II: Cynthia McKinney is in the middle of her press conference and stated that she couldn't talk about the incident because of possible prosecution, but that it was the cop's fault for being a racist misogynist.

McKinney has just raised the stakes and pretty much forces the U.S. Capitol police to go ahead and charge her, if for no other reason that to maintain their authority and challenge their representation as a bunch of red-necks.

Ranking Democrat on the House Ethnics committee, Allan Mollohan (D-WV), saw his net worth increase by 1115% between 2000 and 2004, from $565,000 to $6.3 million.

Actually that's conservative--his net worth may have increased to nearly 25 million.

A closer examination revealed that Mollohan and his wife had more than $2,000,000 in real estate investments with a former staffer, Laura Kuhns, and her husband. Kuhns ran a nonprofit, Vandalia Heritage Foundation, which had received more than $28 million in appropriations earmarks with Mollohan’s help from 2000 through 2005. She was also on the board of other nonprofit groups which had received over $100 million in earmarks of federal funds during the same period with Mollohan’s help.

Mollohan’s 2000 Financial Disclosure Report listed his income-producing assets as being worth from $179,012 to $562,000 with liabilities of $170,000 to $465,000. Among the liabilities was Visa credit card debt listed as $45,003 to $150,000.

Just four years later, Mollohan’s 2004 Financial Disclosure Report showed him with assets worth $6,313,025 to $24,947,000 offset by liabilities in the $3,665,011 to $13,500,000 range. It also showed him owning an oceanfront beach house on Bald Head Island, NC which was valued at $1,000,000 to $5,000,000. NLPC found that Mollohan was renting the beach house during the summer of 2005 for $11,975 a week.

In a Wallstreet Journal story (subscriber only), Mollohan of course defends his investments as "above board" and all of his earmarks as of the highest quality.

The irony here, is that Bob Ney, Republican chairman of the committee, was asked to step down for the mere appearance of impropriety involving disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff (accepting dinners, golf and campaign contributions from Abramoff), yet Nancy Pelosi says "no problem".

"I have the highest regard for Mr. Mollohan. I named him to that position [on the ethics cmte] because of his independence and the high respect he commands in this Congress."

Pelosi has come back with a litany of alleged "Republican ethics" problems, but hoping that the mainstream media will only look at Republican ethics problems seems a slender reed to lean on, particularly when guys like Mollohan are raking in millions for their personal use and diverting further millions in earmarks to their buddies.

From Human Events:

Currently, the three congressmen who appear most likely to be indicted are Cynthia McKinney (D-Ga.), William Jefferson (D-La.), and Bob Ney (R-Ohio). Add Mollohan to that list, and it could become difficult for Democrats to campaign on the "Republican Culture of Corruption" that has laced their rhetoric for months now.

Patrick Leahy's recent harangue on the NSA's use of telephone records would be amusing if you didn't know this guy is one of 100 Senators affecting this country's laws.

Only through the press, we begin to learn the truth. The secret collection of phone call records tens of millions of Americans. Now, are you telling me that tens of millions of Americans are involved with al-Qaida? If that's the case, we've really failed in any kind of a war on terror.

Now Leahy is not an idiot, no real, objectively simple-minded folk get elected to Congress, which might tell you a lot about how we overvalue intelligence and undervalue wisdom. What he is is old. 66 years old to be exact.

Now that's not very old in the grand scheme of things, but considering the massive changes our society has experienced in the last 10 years, 66 might as well be 106--Leahy is from a generation as different from that of my son as he is from that of George Washington.

There is a remarkable cultural chasm between people under and over 40 years of age with some bleed over of course. I started using what we then called "microcomputers" in my early twenties, and because I had an interest in technology, it was something that I evolved with as the technology evolved, but most people my age, not in an engineering major, had little or no exposure to computers until their late thirties and even early forties. I have friends who don't use computers--ever and they are only in their middle forties.

What looked like just another toy back in the early 80s, has turned out to be a total paradigm shift, as those who are comfortable with computers have intuitively grasped the implications and possibilities of the digital world. Those who haven't wonder what you mean by "right-click" and panic at every dialog box that comes up. But the implications go far beyond how to use a computer, but how to function in a digital society. We have a generation of seniors so befuddled by the modern world that they can't function without the help of their children. There is no one to call, no one to see for help, only a recorded message inviting you to visit the website. Seniors represent a rich vein of naivete for digital predators who exploit the computer illiteracy of the "elderly" (and not so elderly) through various identity theft schemes like phishing.

The divide is stark and it has significant implications for Congress where the average age is 59.5 in the Senate and 53.9 in the House, putting the entire Congress on the other side of the cultural canyon.

Generally, having the elder generations running the show is not a bad thing--they act like a governor on society's engine of social change, but the digital revolution has already happened, its a done deal. What we are faced with is having a bunch of clueless (largely) men writing legislation for a world that they fundamentally don't understand.

That's scary stuff.

We simply may not have time to wait for Congress to renew itself with a younger, digitally-aware cohort. For example, the major advantage the U.S. military has over just about everyone else is its use of digital technologies as a force-multiplier. Yet we have hide-bound institutions that can't keep illegals out of the country or run our ports properly. Our failure to allow our society to fully cross over the digital divide has security and economic reprecussions and the "old farts" in Congress are directly responsible.

Harry Reid accused the Senate leadership with "gamesmanship" by calling for a vote on a John Kerry proposal to withdraw troops from Iraq by the end of the year.

While there is undoubtedly some political benefit to calling Democrats on their bluff, its isn't as completely cynical as Reid would have you believe.

While Democrats were again, quick to call Bush's surprise visit to Baghdad a "stunt", the reality was that it was a calculated affirmation of confidence in the new Iraqi government and a symbol of American committment to Iraqi democracy. The Senate vote serves much the same purpose, with the added benefit of putting Democrats back on their heels.

As it turned out, only six Democrats voted for the proposition:

Kerry called the vote "fictitious" and promised further debate next week on the issue. He and five other Democrats were in the minority on the vote — Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, Barbara Boxer of California, Robert Byrd of West Virginia, Tom Harkin of Iowa and Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts.

No surprises there, but their votes are irrelevant--cut and run is dead as an issue. We will stay in Iraq until we win.

The irony is that we probably will see troops start coming back, perhaps by the end of the year, but for the right reasons--because they aren't needed in Iraq.

Trent Lott is back in the Senate leadership, which is controversial because the guy is both a porker AND a closet segregationist. (Apparently its only Democrats who are allowed to have racists in the party...)

No doubt Glenn Reynolds is going to be groaning over this...oh, look, here he is now.

Back in the early nineties, I worked with a guy who, well there is no other way of putting it, was a pig. He looked like pig, talked like a pig and acted like a pig. I found the guy hard to be around--but he was for reasons I never quite fathomed, a hell of a successful salesman. We put up with his piggish behavior because frankly, we needed him.

Trent Lott, for all of his faults, is a guy you want on your team when procedural maneuver is going to be a key skill set in the Senate. The Democrats have some savvy guys in the form of Schumer and Reid and Republicans are going to have to match them blow for blow.

So stop whining and get ready to slug it out with the Crat street fighters.

A few days ago, I read in Greg Prince's blog that the Bull Moose was going on Hiatus. Greg introduced me to the Moose and I've been a consistent if infrequent visitor for at least a couple of years now.

Now I hear through TMV that Marshall Whitman is going to work for Joe Lieberman.

Thank makes a kind of peculiar sense, since Whitman reflects the same unusual combination of liberal and conservative thought.

"He's been a Trotskyite, a union organizer, a lobbyist, a government bureaucrat, a think tank cogitator, an aide to Sen. John McCain and -- despite the fact that he's Jewish -- the official spokesman for the Christian Coalition," Peter Carlson wrote for the Post. "Which raises a perplexing question: Why the hell would anybody listen to the political thoughts of a guy knuckleheaded enough to get mixed up in movements formed by both Leon Trotsky and Pat Robertson?"

Wittmann explained at the time that he may possess "an extra contrarian gene."

I think that sounds like an unbelievably entertaining job, but is it also the prelude to something more ambitious?

UPDATE: Apparently that question is occurring to a lot of other people too.

Nancy Pelosi's tenure as Speaker has been marked by stupidity even before she's officially takes office.

Overt support for corrupt AND stupid Jack Murtha over Steny Hoyer.

The Alcee Hasting debacle which became the Silvestre Reyes debacle.

Now a four day celebration of her "ascension".

Four days.

Did Mitch McConnell reach down between his legs and realize that he had a set?

The resolution needed 60 votes before the 100-member Senate could begin debate, but it got 49, with 47 voting against. Although it would not have been binding on the president, the measure was the first serious effort in Congress to confront Bush over the unpopular Iraq war.

I am still in a state of unbelief that the U.S. Senate would actually place their narrow political goals ahead of the national interests.

Its disgusting almost beyond belief.

In the liberal media world, black is white, up is down and keeping debate open is in fact "stalling debate".

The Washington Post headline for the news that Democrats lacked the votes to impose cloture (close debate and force a vote) on the non-binding resolution to demoralize US troops was as follows:

GOP Stalls Debate On Troop Increase

The LA Tiimes: GOP bats down resolution debate

The NY Times: G.O.P. Senators Block Debate on Iraq Policy

You'd have to read to the end of the article to understand that the Democrats want to prevent the Republicans from offering amendments and alternate resolutions.

The Democratic leadership gave Republicans a choice: Allow all four versions to come to a vote, with a simple majority needed for passing any of them, or debate and vote on the Warner and McCain resolutions, with both needing 60 votes to pass.

McConnell wanted all four resolutions to meet a 60-vote threshold, for a simple reason: Both Democrats and Republicans think the only measure that could attract 60 votes is Gregg's, because Democrats would be concerned about the political ramifications of appearing to take action that might harm troops in battle.

I really can't think of a better piece of legislation for the Republicans to get a spine on and establish the ground rules for this session of the legislature. Democrats have essentially tried to set the terms of the debate by giving Republicans their choice of repudiation, which is like saying, "how would you like to be executed?" The Crats are operating under the illusion that they have a mandate to get us out of Iraq and that is just an egregious lie. They didn't have the guts to run as the anti-war party during the election so there is no political reason to accord them more authority than they have.

Sen. John Cornyn, a Texas Republican who helped to rally his colleagues against moving ahead, said the vote was partly symbolic. "This is more of the principle that we're going to be a relevant minority and assert our rights to a fair process," he said. "They were either going to establish that they could roll us or that we'd be relevant in the process."

The low esteem in which the Democrats and their media accomplices hold the American public is demonstrated by the following quote.

But Democrats believe Republicans may be losing politically, by defying what they perceive as a growing public desire for a robust war debate. Some Democratic senators were surprised that two Republican allies of Warner -- Collins and Coleman -- parted ways with their caucus and with Warner himself on the procedural vote.

If that was truly the case, would they be offering a non-binding resolution? They got nothing--let's crush their heads.