Hewitt Blog

Ragamuffin Soul. (HT: Rich Kirkpatrick via Rhett Smith.)

And congrats to Kevin Carey on his graduation and his music. (Try "Good To Be With You.")

Froggy reports from Blackfive.

After you have read Arnold post #1 and the transcript from which it flowed, absorb the front page story on intra-Demo fueding in CA and Bill Bradley's always timely take on the Golden State's unusually complicated politics of '06.

The Arnold-Antonio Alliance is up against the Angelides-Newsom-CTA Coalition. What is very interesting about this is that the conservatives have no stake in either camp. Arnold's capitulation after last November's drubbing drained the enthusiasm from their ranks, and the appointment of Susan Kennedy stunned the regular activists and the hard left nature of much of his team across the agencies, and especially within the environmental bureaucracies, put farmers and builders at odds with him as well. The money that the CTA, the tribes and trial lawyers can muster between now and November will be huge. Though Westley would have posed a much more serious problem to Arnold, Mr. Peepers has resources, and a willingess to play as dirty as anyone in the history of California politics. Bob Mulholland isn't hanging around HQ for no reason.

So Arnold has to worry that the base will stay home, or that even if it grudgingly shows up to vote for Tom McClintock or to keep the Congressional majority, that it will collectively register its dismay at Arnold's glass jaw by leaving the lever unpulled at the top of the ticket. The Arnold-McCain partnership isn't exactly the way to overcome that danger either.

So what's he to do? Sure, he brought in some key Bush folks like Steve Schmidt and Matthew Dowd, and his vetoes of the more aggressive of the left's attempts at social engineering remind the base they have something to lose if Arnold goes down to defeat.

But gnawing away at that on advantage is the suspicion that --re-elected and termed-out-- Arnold will sign the sorts of bills that he once vetoed, and thus legitimize with a Republican signature the wilder expressions of the Legislature's hard left leadership.

Arnold fumbled the chance to put a thorough-going conservative on the state's Supreme Court as a means of providing conservatives some lasting benefit from his tenure.

And his appointees have done much to undermine the only real new infrastructure projects worth the name --the completion of the Orange County toll road system, to name one prominent project from the heart of the red county he must carry decisively.

He's also failed to do much for the GOP outside the borders of California, other than a nice speech at the 2004 convention and a barnstorming trip to Ohio with President Bush.

So, how to get the party loyalists and the conservative activists back in the game?

A few obvious suggestions.

First, bring Jim Rogan or some similarly credentialed conservative into the inner circle. Put him or her in charge of judicial screening and explicitly promise to keep them there for the entire term. The promise of some serious appellate appointments would give conservatives a reason to work. And get a commitment from the White House to clean up the absurd process that has given control of federal judicial appointments for the state to Senators Boxer and Feinstein.

Second, reorganize the California Department of Fish and Game and put people in charge who command the respect of both conservationists and landowners.

Third, two serious problems are on the horizon, at least one of which is going to happen. Even if you can't fix it, at least alert the public to the public pension sinkhole that is going to appear in the near future. And move beyond talking to actual preparation on the H5N1 virus. Waiting for appropriations to get the necessary stockpiles in palce is crazy.

Fourth, and most important, get out of California and into the states of some GOP candidates who could use the star power that Arnold still packs. Team up with Pennsylvannia's Lynn Swann and Ohio's Ken Blackwell. Get down to Florida and help Attorney General Charlie Christ succeed Jeb Bush. Look at the list of "The Big Ten" Senate races. Lift a finger.

My guess is that none of these things will come to pass. Carol Platt Liebau thought she heard "petulance" in Arnold's answers to my questions yesterday, while I was just hearing fatigue at the prospect of actually having to persuade conservatives that he's a better choice than Angelides.

Whatever he was thinking --and it was probably just a simple "Who is this guy again"-- he really can't expect to simply receive the support of party activists and conservatives. If he does, or if he resents having to ask, that's trouble.

From Churchill's portrait of The Earl of Rosebery, in "Great Contemporaries":

One had to face the caucus, the wire-puller and the soap-box; one had to stand on platforms built of planks of all descriptions. He did not like it. He could not do it. He would not try. He knew what was wise and fair and true. He would not go through the laborious, vexatious and at times humiliating processes necessary under modern conditions to bring about those great ends. He would not stoop; he did not conquer."

On yesterday's program, Larry Kudlow ripped into "net neutrality" as one would expect a vigorous free marketeer like LK to do. "Net neutrality" does indeed mean Congressional intervention into the operation of the internet.

Here's a roundtable/primer on the subject, courtesy of the Wharton School. (HT: Blinq.)

My concern: How are the telecos and their power over the net different from the railroads and their power over the tracks in the 19th century when it comes to their pricing power and their ability to impact commerce via pricing?

My suggestion: Someone ask James Q. Wilson what he thinks.

Now the MSM will get very interested. From the WSJ.com "Avian Flu News Tracker":

10:45 a.m.: Two journalists are suspected of having H5N1. A reporter for the Indonesian newspaper Tempo was thought to be infected with H5N1 after covering a mass cull of flu-infected poultry, Indonesian officials told the Jakarta Post. A second journalist, working for Indonesian daily publication RES, was thought to have H5N1 after attending a bird-flu victim's funeral, the state Antara news agency reported.

And from my conversation with Arnold today:

HH: All right. Let me get to one key issue. I think California is fundamentally unprepared for the Bird Flu if it gets here. I do a lot of work on that down in Orange County on our Prop. 10 Commission. I know you've held a couple of forums with Mike Leavitt, and you've got Mark Horton up there. He's doing a good job. But I mean Governor, if it gets here, we're not ready.

AS: Well, what are you doing about it?

HH: We are stockpiling Tamaflu in Orange County. We've appropriated money, run some drills. But I mean, the state's not ready. I mean, L.A., Sacramento, no one else is doing anything.

AS: Well, we are working on it. As a matter of fact, we have been working with the federal government very effectively, and we are working with local governments very effectively. I think there's a very good communication. As a matter of fact, I also put in my budget $400 million dollars to make sure that we have enough of the vaccine, and that we also have enough beds available, enough ventilators available, enough nurses, and so on. So we have really taken this seriously. As a matter of fact, there's no one that takes it more seriously than me. When I was back at the National Governor's Conference, it was actually me that brought it up, and we had a debate over it to see and find ways where all the states could work together to make sure that we are protecting the people, because it's our number one priority. And it is my top priority, also, and our responsibility to protect the people of California, and to do everything we can, if there is a problem like that with the Bird Flu, that we have enough of the medication and enough beds, and all of those things.

HH: So you think the Tamiflu and the ventilators would be here before any outbreak occurred?

AS: Oh, yeah. We have put in the money into the budget that we can buy all of those things, and be ready for it.

Unfortunately, "money into the budget" and preparation are very, very different things.

Governor Schwarzenegger was a guest today, and he is clearly uncomfortable answering the question "Why should conservatives support you?" The transcript is up at Radioblogger.com.

He needs to work on the answer to that question, which means, of course, some actual conservative initiatives and appointments. key excerpt:

HH: And you get credit...you repealed the car tax, you got rid of the driver's licenses for illegals, you did veto same sex marriage, you vetoed the rewrite of the textbooks. There are a lot of things out there. But after November, it seems like you just said to the conservatives, I don't need you, but you need me, and you've got to vote for me. Is that true?

AS: Well, it's your interpretation, and I think it's a terrible interpretation, because I always make it clear that I need everybody. I always said that the conservatives are as much on the table as anyone else, and it is very important that we move forward in that way. I mean, you cannot say that I've said...that I'm not any more conservative when I have supported, for instance, right afterwards, after the special election, the death penalty. And remember, Tookie Williams, and there was the big battle there, when everyone said no, spare his life, and I went ahead with the death penalty anyway? Because I believe that people that are criminals, that create this kind of incredible agony for people and kill people, they should be punished. And so I set the same philosophy I've had ten years ago, and it's the same that I have today. Not raising taxes, the same philosophy I have today than I had ten years ago. You know, being tough on Border Patrol and securing our borders. I was tough there ten years ago, and I'm tough on it today. So the list goes on and on and on. Nothing has changed. What I did say was that it was a mistake not to be as inclusive last year as I should have been in order to be successful. I think it's more important to bring everyone on board, because you're dealing in a capitol where you have 120 legislators, Democrats and Republicans, and you have to be more inclusive to bring everyone on board, so that you can get the votes, and get initiatives passed.

HH: Governor, are there any high-profile conservatives in your administration who really have authority and sort of represent the Herschensohn wing of the party?

AS: Well, I run the state, and then everything trickles down from there. And everyone that works in my office, are people that represent me and people that are adopting my philosophy, even though maybe their original philosophy has been different. But they're all implementing the things that I want to do in this state.

HH: But are there any high-profile conservatives that people say yeah, you know, there's the conservative voice being heard by the governor as he comes to grips with a bunch of different problems?

AS: We have in the Capitol legislators, and also in my office, people that are very conservative, and people that are very liberal. And I always listen to both voices, because I'm the governor of both Democrats and Republicans. But remember that I always have been fiscally conservative, and moderate on social issues.

HH: Yeah, but Governor, I'm just asking. I really don't know of any conservatives in your inner circle, or in your cabinet.

AS: Well, then you have to come up to the Capitol, and then just meet all the people.

HH: (laughing)

AS: Then you will see that maybe you haven't been hanging around enough.

HH: I've been in Republican politics in California since 1989, Governor. I mean, where's Rogan? Where's Herschensohn? Where's Kachigian? Where are all these people? How come they're on the out?

AS: Well, no one is on the out. I mean, if you think that Dan Dunmoyer is not a conservative, then I don't know who is. Or a Fred Aguire is not a conservative, I don't know then what you are talking about. But we have a good mixture of conservative people and a good mixture of also moderate people in my office, because I like to hear both point of views.

The State of Ohio Blogger Alliance is helping to paint the Buckeye State red.

Take a look and you decide.

Take a look and you decide.

House Resolution 861 passed by a vote of 256 in favor, 153 opposed. here is the text of the resolution that three-quarters of House Democrats opposed:

RESOLUTION

Declaring that the United States will prevail in the Global War on Terror, the struggle to protect freedom from the terrorist adversary.

Whereas the United States and its allies are engaged in a Global War on Terror, a long and demanding struggle against an adversary that is driven by hatred of American values and that is committed to imposing, by the use of terror, its repressive ideology throughout the world;

Whereas for the past two decades, terrorists have used violence in a futile attempt to intimidate the United States;

Whereas it is essential to the security of the American people and to world security that the United States, together with its allies, take the battle to the terrorists and to those who provide them assistance;

Whereas the Taliban, Al Qaeda, and other terrorists failed to stop free elections in Afghanistan and the first popularly-elected President in that nation's history has taken office;

Whereas the continued determination of Afghanistan, the United States, and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization will be required to sustain a sovereign, free, and secure Afghanistan;

Whereas the steadfast resolve of the United States and its partners since September 11, 2001, helped persuade the government of Libya to surrender its weapons of mass destruction;

Whereas by early 2003 Saddam Hussein and his criminal, Ba'athist regime in Iraq, which had supported terrorists, constituted a threat against global peace and security and was in violation of mandatory United Nations Security Council Resolutions;

Whereas the mission of the United States and its Coalition partners, having removed Saddam Hussein and his regime from power, is to establish a sovereign, free, secure, and united Iraq at peace with its neighbors;

Whereas the terrorists have declared Iraq to be the central front in their war against all who oppose their ideology;

Whereas the Iraqi people, with the help of the United States and other Coalition partners, have formed a permanent, representative government under a newly ratified constitution;

Whereas the terrorists seek to destroy the new unity government because it threatens the terrorists' aspirations for Iraq and the broader Middle East;

Whereas United States Armed Forces, in coordination with Iraqi security forces and Coalition and other friendly forces, have scored impressive victories in Iraq including finding and killing the terrorist leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi;

Whereas Iraqi security forces are, over time, taking over from United States and Coalition forces a growing proportion of independent operations and increasingly lead the fight to secure Iraq;

Whereas the United States and Coalition servicemembers and civilians and the members of the Iraqi security forces and those assisting them who have made the ultimate sacrifice or been wounded in Iraq have done so nobly, in the cause of freedom; and

Whereas the United States and its Coalition partners will continue to support Iraq as part of the Global War on Terror: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
(1) honors all those Americans who have taken an active part in the Global War on Terror, whether as first responders protecting the homeland, as servicemembers overseas, as diplomats and intelligence officers, or in other roles;
(2) honors the sacrifices of the United States Armed Forces and of partners in the Coalition, and of the Iraqis and Afghans who fight alongside them, especially those who have fallen or been wounded in the struggle, and honors as well the sacrifices of their families and of others who risk their lives to help defend freedom;
(3) declares that it is not in the national security interest of the United States to set an arbitrary date for the withdrawal or redeployment of United States Armed Forces from Iraq;
(4) declares that the United States is committed to the completion of the mission to create a sovereign, free, secure, and united Iraq;
(5) congratulates Prime Minister Nuri Al-Maliki and the Iraqi people on the courage they have shown by participating, in increasing millions, in the elections of 2005 and on the formation of the first government under Iraq's new constitution;
(6) calls upon the nations of the world to promote global peace and security by standing with the United States and other Coalition partners to support the efforts of the Iraqi and Afghan people to live in freedom; and
(7) declares that the United States will prevail in the Global War on Terror, the noble struggle to protect freedom from the terrorist adversary.

Please copy the resolution text and the vote specifics on to an e-mail and send to everyone you know. When the vast majority of House Democrats vote against victory in the war, the American people should know.

UPDATE: Some reactions to the most important vote of 2006:

DailyPundit:

[T]he Donks would love to cut and run from Iraq - and everywhere else - by late this afternoon. But they are just barely smart enough to be frightened that America would view them as a pack of cowardly traitors brewing another Vietnam (their all-time favorite war) defeat. The Republicans would like to cut and walk from Iraq by the 2008 election season, but they're worried about the same thing - although they don't rememeber Vietnam as the high point of American history.

The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum:

The problem isn't that Democrats are unwilling to craft a compelling message, the problem is that there are deep and genuine divisions among Democrats that are simply not going to go away. Even if there were a compelling message just waiting to be crafted — about which I have my doubts — what possible message would satisfy Joe Biden, John Murtha, Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Howard Dean, and Joe Lieberman? It doesn't exist. At the very top levels, senior Democrats disagree strongly and deeply about what we should do in Iraq.

This is why 42 Democrats supported today's Republican-sponsored war resolution. It's why the DLC's book With All Our Might doesn't even have a single chapter about Iraq. It's why the "Real Security" plan offered up by Democrats a couple of months ago could only come up with a feeble suggestion that we should make sure 2006 is "a year of significant transition to full Iraqi sovereignty."

There's no question that Democrats ought to get their act together and put up a united front on Iraq. But how can they do that when no one agrees on what that front should be?

Flopping Aces:

More important to the Democratic party is that 42 of their own ran from their side and voted for the resolution. Whether they did this only because of a tough re-election campaign coming up or because they really believe the words to be true remains to be seen but you can be sure the KOSkiddies will be burning them at the stake by this evening.

TalkLeft:

The House of Representatives copped out again.

In a vote charged with election-year politics, the U.S. House of Representatives on Friday passed a symbolic resolution that wrapped the Iraq conflict into the war on terrorism and rejected a deadline for U.S. troop withdrawal.

The war on terror is not the war in Iraq. 2,500 American troops have died. Instead of instilling the fear of terrorism in the heart of every American, it's time to instill grief at the loss of life and the failure of our misguided U.S. policy in Iraq.

Here's the roll call vote. Set a deadline and bring the troops home.

Now read this. Key excerpts:

There is abundant evidence that Saddam's regime, at the very least, tolerated Zarqawi's existence in regime-controlled areas of Iraq prior to the war. Moreover, at least three high-level al Qaeda associates have testified to Saddam's warm welcome for Zarqawi and his associates.

Consider what a top al Qaeda operative, Abu Zubaydah, told his CIA interrogators after his capture in March 2002. According to the Senate Intelligence Report, Zubaydah said "he was not aware of a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda." But, he added that "any relationship would be highly compartmented and went on to name al Qaeda members who he thought had good contacts with the Iraqis." Zubaydah "indicated that he heard that an important al-Qaida associate, Abu Mus'ab al-Zarqawi, and others had good relationships with Iraqi intelligence."

Zubaydah's testimony has since been further corroborated by a known al Qaeda ideologue, Dr. Muhammad al-Masari. Al-Masari operated the Committee for the Defense of Legitimate Rights, a Saudi oppositionist group and al Qaeda front, out of London for more than decade. He told the editor-in-chief of Al-Quds Al-Arabi that Saddam "established contact with the 'Afghan Arabs' as early as 2001, believing he would be targeted by the US once the Taliban was routed." Furthermore, "Saddam funded Al-Qaeda operatives to move into Iraq with the proviso that they would not undermine his regime."

The vast majority of Democratic Congressmen refuse to endorse victory and they refuse to face facts.

Which is why a Democratic majority in either the House or the Senate will cripple the war effort.