Posted by WLS: 

Now that there is a presumptive Dimocrit nominee for the general election, I’m going to start a recurring series of postings commenting on non-answers given by Obama to direct questions posed to him by the media and others. 

The problem I expect to see develop in the very near term is the dramatic curtailment of Obama’s availability to answer questions in a format that provides for any level of candidness.  He is clearly an effective speaker when working with a teleprompter and a script, but his impromptu responses to media questions are largely void of substance.  When they do have substance they often amount to a dodge of the issue, but sometimes they contain some nugget of information about the stealth candidate that is illuminating with respect to his real beliefs.  As these more revealing comments appear I’m going to highlight them, and the implications of those comments in future policy issues.

Yesterday Obama appeared on Wolf Blitzer’s show on CNN.  As an initial entry in this series, I present the following “answer” on a simple question about whether he might advocate an increase in the capital gains tax rate:

[Blitzer]   Because they’re arguing already that you want to increase capital gains taxes, for example, on investments, and stocks, and things like that.

(CROSSTALK)

BLITZER: A lot of middle-class people have those kinds of accounts. If they’re…

OBAMA: If they have, — Wolf, if they have a 401(k), then they are going to see those taxes deferred, and they’re going to pay ordinary income when they finally cash out. So, that’s a phony argument. And this is something that you have seen the Republicans consistently do, is they try to make this broad- based argument about, he’s going to raise your taxes as a cover for them eliminating taxes for people like myself and you, who can afford to pay a little bit more…

Now this was a pretty straight-forward question — whether he’s suspectible to GOP claims that he will raise the capital gains tax rate, and what that means for middle class Americans.   

Rather than address the question — by saying, for example, that the capital gains tax rate it too low and should be raised, or that  it is fine where it is and will be left alone — he answers with a complete obfuscation. 

401(k) plans have nothing to do with capital gains taxes.  Contributions to 401(k) plans are made with pre-tax earnings, and the withdrawals upon eligibility are taken as ordinary income and taxed accordingly at the tax rate applicable to the retiree — including that part of the plan’s funds the constitute appreciation/ capital gains.    

Wolf Blitzer is too much of an idiot to follow-up by pointing out that Obama hadn’t answered the question, and the issue of raising the capital gains tax rate extends far beyond simply raising taxes on the “rich”.  

To suggest that American households only own stocks in their 401(k) plan — and to ignore completely the issue of capital gains taxes on investment accounts, college savings accounts, on the sale of homes, farms, or other real property –  reflects either ignorance of basic tax issues, or an unwillingness by Obama to state his positions honestly.

Frankly, I think its more of the former than the latter. 

Obama would be only the most recent example in my life of a Harvard Law School egghead who lacked a basic comprehension of day-to-day issues facing ordinary Americans.  Some of the dumbest people I’ve ever met — including some of the worst lawyers I’ve ever encountered — were graduates of elite East Coast academic institutions.   

[posted by Justin Levine]

DRJ has already posted about the story. Michelle Malkin now supplies just a small fraction of the appropriate amount of outrage.

How can such total and complete corruption exist in our government? I continue to be astonished by what utter scumbags our so-called leaders have proven themselves to be time and time again.

- Justin Levine

Arianna reaches back a decade to bring back a column about the new Clinton Campaign Pooh-Baah — Maggie Williams.

Its a column on the thoroughly entertaining congressional testimony of a younger Ms. Williams defending her solicitous treament of one Johnny Chung — the 90’s version of Norman Hsu.

Who else knew that Maggie Williams gave Mr. Chung permission to dine in the WH mess on her tab as often as he wanted?  Her explanation?  She felt bad about the way he was treated by the power structure and understood how he felt as a minority in a white man’s world.

The fact that he gave $360,000 to various Dem. political groups didn’t influence her at all.

Posted by WLS

[This is supposed to be an imbedded video — first time I’ve tried it. ** First effort was a failure, so how about a little instruction from the masses for properly embedding a video. I simply left-clicked on the “embed” button on the site where I found the YouTube video of Romney’s new ad. What more need I do?]

[WLS, I deleted everything but the embedded link (no codes) and that seemed to work. — DRJ]

Manufacturing meth is a huge crime issue in midwestern states — and Iowa was one of the earliest and hardest hit states.

If Romney has some hard facts to follow this up with, I suspect some of Huckabee’s newly won supporters may be left scratching their heads over the fact that he lowered penalties for meth manufacturing.

Posted by WLS

There  Campaign Standard blog links to an New Yorker article by Ryan Lizza which concerns the idea that the illegal immigration issue is, to some degree, being driven by a few small states that have suffered an unusually high level of illegal hispanic immigration, and that fact has created a political environment on that subject which is out of proportion to the way the large majority of American’s view the problem.  Here’s a passage taken from the article by the blog post:

Anti-immigrant passion also owes much to the disproportionate influence of a few small states in the nominating process. National polls show that, as an issue, immigration is far behind the Iraq war, terrorism, the economy, and health care as a concern to most Americans; a recent Pew poll shows that, nationally, only six per cent of voters offer immigration as the most important issue facing the country. But in Iowa and South Carolina, two of the three most important early states, it is a top concern for the Republicans who are most likely to vote. “It’s the influx of illegals into places where they’ve never seen a Hispanic influence before,” McCain told me. “You probably see more emotion in Iowa than you do in Arizona on this issue. I was in a town in Iowa, and twenty years ago there were no Hispanics in the town. Then a meatpacking facility was opened up. Now twenty per cent of their population is Hispanic. There were senior citizens there who were—‘concerned’ is not the word. They see this as an assault on their culture, what they view as an impact on what have been their traditions in Iowa, in the small towns in Iowa. So you get questions like ‘Why do I have to punch 1 for English?’ ‘Why can’t they speak English?’ It’s become larger than just the fact that we need to enforce our borders.”

(more…)

[Guest post by DRJ]

There is growing criticism of the recent NIE report that claims Iran stopped its nuclear program in 2003. One criticism is that the report may have been based on a single source, a retired Iranian Guard General who may have been part of an Iranian disinformation campaign:

“Recent reports, by Kenneth Timmerman and others, indicate that a single human source may be responsible for the conclusions of the NIE. This would probably be a former aide to the Iranian defense minister and a retired general with long service in the Islamic Revolutionary Guard (recently categorized as a terrorist entity) who disappeared in Europe earlier in the year.

One should recall the notorious Curveball — also a human source — whose “stories” led the CIA to conclude that Iraq had an active WMD program. Curveball lied and our use of him for intelligence has been widely castigated. Are we relying now on an Iranian with a long history of service to the Iran Revolutionary Guard for our intelligence? Could he be a plant to distort our intelligence? Has history repeated itself as a farce and as a tragedy?”

The report has also been criticized because its apparent authors are three former State Department officials who reportedly advocate anti-Bush and anti-war agendas:

“The three main authors of this report are former State Department officials with previous reputations that should lead one to doubt their conclusions. All three are ex-bureaucrats who, as is generally true of State Department types, favor endless rounds of negotiation and “diplomacy” and oppose confrontation. These three officials, according to the Wall Street Journal, have “reputations as hyper-partisan anti-Bush officials”.

They are Tom Fingar, formerly of the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research; Vann Van Diepen, the National Intelligence Officer for WMD; and Kenneth Brill, the former U.S. Ambassador to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)

Tom Fingar was a State Department employee who was an expert on China and Germany — he has no notable experience, according to his bio in the Middle East and its geopolitics.

Vann Van Diepen is also a career State Department bureaucrat who, according to the New York Sun, is one of the State Department bureaucrats who want “revenge” for having their views regarding Iran ignored by the Bush Administration. He is now seeking to further his own agenda. As the Sun wrote in their editorial yesterday:

Vann Van Diepen, one of the estimate’s main authors, has spent the last five years trying to get America to accept Iran’s right to enrich uranium. Mr. Van Diepen no doubt reckons that in helping push the estimate through the system, he has succeeded in influencing the policy debate in Washington. The bureaucrats may even think they are stopping another war.

Vann Diepen also shares a lack of experience in dealing with Iran or the region.

The third main author comes in for particular criticism in the Wall Street Journal editorial. Kenneth Brill served as the US Ambassador to the International Atomic Energy Agency (the IAEA). This is an agency that has served to enable Iranian’s quest for nuclear weapons. The head of the IAEA, Mohammed ElBaradei, has even been called a friend by the Iranian regime. As he should be, for he has been an enabler of its nuclear weapons program and has stiff-armed European Union diplomats who have worked to restrain Iran.

Elbaredei and the IAEA have over-reached and now seek to control diplomatic negotiations with Iran — a function that is beyond its mandate. Brill was apparently unwilling to stop this mission creep and put an end to Elbaradei’s efforts to help Iran. Or, as the Wall Street Journal hints, maybe he was just incompetent. This hint comes from former US Ambassador to the UN John Bolton’s (who headed counter-proliferation efforts in the State Department previous to his UN posting) new book:

For a flavor of their political outlook, former Bush Administration antiproliferation official John Bolton recalls in his recent memoir that then-Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage “described Brill’s efforts in Vienna, or lack thereof, as ‘bull — .’” Mr. Brill was “retired” from the State Department by Colin Powell before being rehired, over considerable internal and public protest, as head of the National Counter-Proliferation Center by then-National Intelligence Director John Negroponte.

Brill also has no previous history of experience dealing with Iran. (He graduated from Business School at Berkeley in 1973!).”

Dafyyd at Big Lizards adds more information and his thoughts in this excellent post that analyzes a recent LA Times’ article on the subject.

– DRJ

[Posted By WLS]

In trying to read the tea leaves from yesterday’s argument, there are several subtle points that are critical to understanding yesterday’s hearing on the latest GITMO cases, and where the Court is likely headed.

First, it must be understood that these particular cases were first rejected by the Court before it later reversed course and decided to accept them for this term. In the first instance it takes only 4 votes among the justices to accept a case. But Justices understand that if they vote to take a case with the intention of reversing the lower court, its generally a meaningless effort and waste of time if there isn’t a likely 5th vote to be found. The Justices not voting to review a case are generally satisfied with the lower court decision. So, when the Court first rejected these cases, it meant that in the view of the 4 Justices who have opposed the Administration in the prior GITMO cases, there wasn’t a likely 5th vote to reverse the DC Cir. which had dismissed the detainees’ cases after Congress stripped the lower courts of jurisdiction to entertain the claims.

But the Court reversed itself later and decided to hear the cases after all. Such a decision to reverse its earlier denial would require not 4 Justices, but it would take 5 Justices. So, the general consensus is that for some reason Justice Kennedy reconsidered his earlier decision to deny a hearing, and let it be known to the 4 Justices who have opposed the Administration that he would vote to hear the cases. That presented 5 votes to reconsider the prior denial, and hope for the 4 liberals that Kennedy might vote with them.

But, as with most things involving Kennedy, it’s not that simple.

(more…)

[posted by Justin Levine]

This is admittedly a ‘he said, he said’ allegation, but I tend to believe it.

[Most major news outlets are reporting on this story from the Idaho Statesman, but amazingly, they all managed to leave out the best quotes. What the hell are these editors smoking? If you are going to report on dirt, then GIVE US THE DIRT!]

[Guest post by DRJ]

Here’s a good news/bad news story:

“Two stowaways from the Republic of Djibouti were detained for immigration violations after being discovered hiding aboard a military cargo ship.

The two men were found three weeks ago on a ship carrying military equipment to the Port of Beaumont, U.S. Coast Guard officials said. The stowaways were detected after they asked crew members for food and water.

The ship, owned by Alaska-based Tote, was headed toward the 842nd Transportation Battalion, said U.S. Navy Lt. Cmdr. James E. Walters. The incident did not affect operations at the port, officials said. The ship was boarded offshore and the men were taken into custody before the vessel entered the Sabine-Neches waterway.”

The Good News:

US port security successfully detained illegal immigrant stowaways on a military cargo ship before they entered the US …

The Bad News:

… apparently the stowaways were not found for days/weeks until they turned themselves in because they were hungry and thirsty.

(Sigh.)

– DRJ

[Guest post by DRJ]

Trent Lott, the senior Senator from Mississippi and GOP Whip, announced today he will resign at the end of the year or in early January:

“Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.) announced Monday that he will retire from the Senate effective late next month or early January, stunning Republicans who had only last year reinstated Lott to their leadership ranks.

“It’s time for us to do something else,” he said at a press conference in his hometown of Pascagoula, Miss.

Lott, 66, made the decision over the Thanksgiving weekend at home with his family, saying that his state’s recovery from Hurricane Katrina had improved sufficiently so that he felt he could pass “the flag” to a younger generation of Mississippians. Lott’s move shocked Republicans on Capitol Hill, who have seen a wave of veterans announce their decision to retire next year as the GOP looks increasingly certain to remain in the minority.

But Lott is the most senior Republican to announce he is leaving office, and his decision comes barely a year after he won re-election to a six-year term.”

I’m a cynic when it comes to Lott. I think he’s ready to move into a lobbyist position and wants to avoid the 2-year waiting period:

“Lott’s departure is equally stunning because, after cruising to his re-election last year, he completed a political rehabilitation from allegations of racial insensitivity because of remarks he made at a 100th birthday party for Strom Thurmond in December 2002, which led to his banishment from GOP leadership. Last November, after four years as a back-bench Republican who burnished his image as a deal-maker, Lott won a narrow race to become GOP whip, the No. 2 post in leadership.

Lott said that he was going to move into the private sector after 35 years in Congress, but denied that he was getting out before a new two-year “cooling-off” restriction takes effect on Jan. 1. The restriction bars lawmakers from taking lobbying jobs for two years after they leave public service. Lott also denied that health issues were the cause. “Let me make it clear: There are no problems, I feel fine,” he said.”

Lott was an effective GOP Whip and he brought many skills to the Senate that benefited Republicans and Mississippians. But he’s an old-style, earmark-entrenched politician and I’m glad to see him move on.

– DRJ

[Guest post by DRJ]

Governor-elect Bobby Jindal’s first goal when he takes office is to overhaul Louisiana’s ethics laws and improve transparency in government:

“By promising an overhaul of Louisiana’s ethics laws as his first act as governor, Bobby Jindal is joining a recent national trend that experts attribute to public revulsion at political scandals and a declining overall trust in government.

From Alaska to Ohio and points in between, states have been revising their ethics laws in recent years to improve transparency and put new restrictions on interactions between legislators and lobbyists.”

Forty-seven states have strengthened their ethics laws in the past 2 years in response to scandals like the ones surrounding Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff:

“Peggy Kerns, director of the Center for Ethics in Government, traces the recent uptick in ethics-related legislation to public disgust with the Jack Abramoff scandal in Washington. Abramoff, a high-flying Republican lobbyist, is currently serving a prison sentence after pleading guilty to multiple corruption charges.

“I think the big push definitely started with Abramoff at the national level,” Kerns said. “States do tend to pass ethics reforms when there are scandals, either at the national or at the state level.”

While recent ethics changes in Alaska and Ohio came about partly as a reaction to scandals in previous administrations, Jindal takes over a state government that has been relatively scandal-free in the past 12 years. Nevertheless, civic leaders say the state still suffers from the battering its image took during the Edwin Edwards years, and the guilt by association that occurs any time a New Orleans politician is brought down by legal problems.”

Kentucky’s Republican Governor Ernie Fletcher learned the hard way when he lost his re-election campaign that talking ethics talk isn’t good enough. You have to walk the walk, too. Jindal plans to do this by focusing on transparency and disclosure:

“So far, Jindal’s main focus has been on requiring greater financial disclosure from legislators, where Louisiana ranks 44th nationally, according to the Center for Public Integrity. But reaching the top of national lists compiled by good-government groups could mean changing the after-hours culture of meals and entertainment that lobbyists routinely provide for legislators during the annual spring sessions.

Although most states have laws restricting the gifts that legislators can receive from lobbyists, only four have so-called “no-cup-of-coffee” rules that limit virtually all gifts from those who seek to influence the legislative process.

Louisiana’s law makes an exception for meals and drinks, plus lobbyist-financed travel and tickets to sporting events and concerts. State law does require lobbyists to disclose what they spend to entertain legislators, though such disclosure is often spotty.”

Like Jindal, I think the best solution is transparency. If that doesn’t work, then the answer may be a “no-cup-of-coffee” rule for lobbyists and politicians. The IRS and similar government agencies already follow that rule so politicians can certainly manage. They may not think they can, but they can.

– DRJ

[Guest post by DRJ]

There are many reasons Republicans have a steep hill to climb to gain control of Congress and the White House in 2008. One of the biggest problems that faces the GOP is its members’ fondness for earmarks. Remember the “Bridge to Nowhere” and it’s companion bridge dubbed “Don Young’s Way?”

Now Alaska’s Rep. Don Young has another, smaller earmark that illustrates why many voters don’t trust Republicans to be good stewards of public funds:

“Some of the toughest money in America is made fishing for king and snow crab in the tempestuous Bering Sea. But some crab boat owners also do well on the opposite coast in Washington, D.C.

A case in point is an arcane section written into a bill Congress passed in December, just hours before adjourning for the year. President Bush signed the bill into law about a month later. Section 122 of the act, an updated version of the nation’s main ocean fisheries law, gives three fishing companies — and only three — the right to exchange certain rights to catch and process Bering Sea crab for a new and potentially more profitable kind of right. The change could lower the costs of running crab boats and hauling catches to an onshore processing plant.

The three companies — Yardarm Knot, Blue Dutch and Trident Seafoods — are all headed by people who have made substantial political contributions to U.S. Rep. Don Young, the Alaska Republican who inserted Section 122 into the legislation. Two of the companies, Yardarm Knot and Trident, also have long-standing ties with Young and U.S. Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, employing firms with lobbyists who used to work as aides to the two lawmakers. Yardarm also has paid the senator’s son, Ben Stevens, for consulting and business services while he was a state legislator.

Some competing seafood companies fought the section, but their managers declined to discuss their complaints publicly.”

The Anchorage Daily News’ article describes how Young’s earmark benefits these three Alaskan companies:

“According to a NMFS analysis, the law qualifies just three seafood companies to convert their existing crab fishery shares into a new type — one that will allow them to catch as well as process crab aboard boats equipped to do both jobs. Such a consolidated operation could save the three crab producers sizable costs. For instance, they don’t need to run separate boats to catch crab and haul them to port for processing in a packing house.

Crab rights also can be sold or leased, and the combo catch and processing quota created under Section 122 likely would be worth up to 25 percent more than straight catch quota, said Jeff Osborn of Dock Street Brokers in Seattle.”

The biggest complaints about Young’s earmark involve the way it was inserted at the last minute without oversight or comment:

“Craig Holman, of the congressional watchdog group Public Citizen, said Section 122 is the same kind of earmarking tactic that has stirred lots of trouble recently for Young on bills that benefited associates or campaign contributors elsewhere in the country.

The provision smacks of political favoritism, sidestepped the normal process for changing federal fishery rules, wasn’t subject to a public debate or hearing, and was inserted into a major bill at the last minute, he said. “This section is typical of Don Young-style legislating,” Holman said. “He appears to view his role on Capitol Hill as protecting the interests of those who will give him campaign contributions.”
***
Normally, the Anchorage-based North Pacific Fishery Management Council helps make changes in federal fisheries management off Alaska. But Young’s Section 122, amounting to about a page and a half in a 91-page act, never got a council review.

That troubles Kodiak fisherman Terry Haines, who said vessel crewmen often have been ignored or disadvantaged when corporate fishing companies lobby policy-makers for changes in fishing rules. The Young provision, he said, should have been subject to a public review “simply to avoid any appearance of impropriety and to give other stakeholders a chance to be involved.”

The companies say they did not lobby for the change in the law and one noted the change “helped everyone.” I’m sure it’s a complicated issue and it may be that the change is a good idea, but it’s not my idea of the way government should work.

– DRJ