Rand Paul

Kentucky held a primary yesterday that received national attention thanks to the participation and victory of "tea party"-backed Senate candidate Rand Paul, son of libertarian Representative Ron Paul of Texas. The seat is currently held by Republican Jim Bunning, a Hall of Fame former baseball pitcher. The race was noteworthy because Mitch McConnell's preferred (and groomed) candidate, Secretary of State Trey Greyson lost the race.

Meanwhile, on the Democratic ballot, state Attorney General Jack Conway defeated Lt. Governor Dan Mongiardo and won his party's nomination for the same Senate race. Rob Farley declared this "Good news from Kentucky... Conway is more progressive than Mongiardo and polls better; against the Randernaut he might have a chance."

Frankly, I suspect most Kentuckians know little about Rand Paul. I'm also betting that Conway will make sure that voters learn a lot more before November.

What's to know?

Like his better-known father, Rand opposed the Iraq war -- and he thinks the "murky" Afghan war needs to be formally declared by Congress. Those are defensible positions, but they are clearly not reflective of Republican policy in the last decade.

Many of the policies Rand and Ron Paul reject were proposed and implemented by Republicans in power during the Bush era: bank bailouts, deficit spending, war without end, etc. This is likely why Dick Cheney supported Greyson in the primary and why neoconservatives are alleged to be upset by his prospects for success.

Indeed, Paul himself says that he typically agrees with his father on policy issues:

Washington Wire: Are there any areas where you disagree with your father’s views on issues?

Paul: There are some minor areas where we disagree.

He then notes that his father will sometimes introduce an earmark, while he thinks "the whole system is broken down, and it’s my opinion that we shouldn’t put earmarks on bills."

He thinks drugs should be a state issue, which is an evasive way of saying that the federal government shouldn't make them illegal. Right?

Libertarians oppose drug laws, but what about health and safety issues? How much should the federal government do to help save lives? The New York Times Magazine asked him this question in April:

But in light of your distrust of the federal government, where are you on an issue like seat belts? Federal legislation requiring people to wear seat belts could obviously save lives.

I think the federal government shouldn’t be involved. I don’t want to live in a nanny state where people are telling me where I can go and what I can do.

The "nanny state" is a line used by people who don't think the government should try to limit tobacco consumption, promote better nutrition, etc. However, these examples may also mask antipathy towards environmental regulations, occupational safety and health standards, minimum wage laws, etc.

Paul has a somewhat dystopian view of the economy and is fairly cynical about the culture as well:

I see us in the latter stages of the Roman empire, when you have bread and circuses to placate the mob... I think there’s a danger that we could destroy our currency and be like 1923 in Germany, with the Weimar currency, with money in wheelbarrows. Germany was a civilized country in Europe, and they destroyed their currency and then elected Hitler, so things have happened before and they could happen again.

Paul certainly isn't a Keynesian as he favors a constitutional amendment to balance the budget. He is "worried that the deficit will consume our nation."

The bipartisan Keynesian economics we witnessed in 2008-2009 reflected legitimate concerns that the banking and credit system would collapse without emergency assistance, thus destroying the economy and provoking another Great Depression.

I cannot wait to hear what Paul has to say about that topic, as well as aid to Israel, farm subsidies, Social Security (!), public education, etc.

Helpfully, Trey Greyson's campaign maintained a website of "randpaulstrangeideas.com." It seems to have been taken down, but the google cache of the central issues is still available for now. Here's an idea of what it used to look like.


Visit this blog's homepage.

Republican Fratricide

For months, Kentuckians have been hearing rumors that Republican Senator Mitch Mcconnell wants his colleague Jim Bunning to retire and abandon his quest for reelection. McConnell apparently worries that Bunning will lose the seat to a Democrat in the next home state election.

This week, Bunning popped off about McConnell:

"Do you realize that under our dynamic leadership of our leader (McConnell), we have gone from 55 and probably to 40 (seats) in two election cycles," Bunning said in a conference call with reporters. "And if the tea leaves that I read are correct, we will wind up with about 36 after this election cycle.

"So if leadership means anything, it means you don't lose … approximately 19 seats in three election cycles with good leadership."

Apparently, McConnell forgot that Hall of Famer Bunning was once notorious for hitting opposing players with pitches.


Visit this blog's homepage.

Senate update

In the U.S. Senate, Democrats currently have 55 seats. Independents Joe Lieberman (a former Democratic Senator) and Bernie Sanders caucused with the Democrats in the latest Congress, so many analysts think that the Dems currently have control of 57 votes. Lieberman is a bit of a wild card since he campaigned for John McCain and he has been recruited by the Republican caucus.

After the 1994 Republican wave, a number of congressional Democrats became Republicans. They joined the new majority. However, it is harder to imagine Lieberman wanting to switch to the minority party after it took some serious losses at the polls. Plus, Barack Obama has expressed no hard feelings and welcomes Lieberman into the Democratic caucus.

So, it's at least possible that the Dems have 57 of 97 votes in the new Senate. What about the other 3 races?

In the ongoing Alaska count, Democrat Mark Begich has inched ahead of convicted felon Ted Stevens by a bit more than 800 votes. There are still 1000s of early and absentee votes to be counted, but these are reportedly from blue areas of the state.

In Minnesota, Democrat Al Franken trails Norm Coleman by just over 200 votes and the state will have an automatic recount. Over 437,000 people voted for the third party candidate, Dean Barkley. According to Nate Silver, there are enough undervotes in Minnesota to believe that Franken has a 50-50 chance (or better) of winning this race. Apparently, however, the recount won't finish until mid-December.

In sum, Democrats have good reason to be optimistic that they will have 59 seats in the next U.S. Senate that meets in January, 2009.

Can they get to a filibuster-proof 60 votes?

In Georgia, Republican incumbent Saxby Chambliss and opponent Jim Martin are scheduled to have a runoff election on December 2. Typically, runoff election turnout is light compared to the general election November vote. The winner of the runoff might well earn thousands of fewer votes in December than his opponent got in November.

Enthusiasm and turnout are viewed as critical in runoff elections. Obama campaign workers are apparently flooding into Georgia and John McCain campaigned in the state today.

In short, both political parties realize that Democrats could achieve a filibuster-proof 60 seat Senate majority with a victory in Georgia.

The long 2008 election cycle likely still has a month to go.


Visit this blog's homepage.

Gas prices and Kentucky politics

With his first political ad of this election year, Senator Mitch McConnell has thrown a softball to his Democratic opponent -- Bruce Lunsford.

McConnell's ad, which is airing statewide and first ran in Lexington during the early morning news shows Friday, criticizes Lunsford for pushing for a provision 28 years ago that automatically raises Kentucky's gas tax each year if the wholesale price of gasoline shoots up.

”Bruce Lunsford: automatic tax increases, more expensive gas,“ the ad's announcer says to conclude the 30-second spot.

Lunsford worked for Governor John Y. Brown back in those days, so the attack is a bit of a stretch. Moreover, the automatic tax provision was first triggered in 2004. Since that date, the law has cost Kentuckians about a nickel a gallon.

Given that gas has been priced at or above $4 per gallon for some months, it seems unlikely that McConnell can blame his opponent for current high gas prices.

If he wants to, Lunsford can point out that the law was designed to assure road funds during periods of escalating prices. People drive less when prices surge. The road fund has collected an extra $340 million in taxes since 2004 thanks to the extra nickel. Lunsford can campaign on pork -- something McConnell the incumbent wants to do.

More importantly, McConnell's ad set the stage for the obvious response:

”McConnell raised $3 million from big oil while voting to give them billions in tax breaks,“ the female announcer says in Lunsford's 30-second spot that began airing Friday.

Last week, Lunsford also announced an 8 point plan to expand energy supply and reduce gas prices:

The plan Lunsford unveiled yesterday includes withdrawing 50 million barrels of oil from the nation's Strategic Petroleum Reserve; stopping speculators who drive up the cost of oil; requiring oil companies to drill on land they currently lease; promoting clean coal and renewable energy technologies; and prosecuting price gougers.

Lunsford is running to the right of Barack Obama and other Democrats nationwide, so he spoke in favor of drilling in ANWR (only after other sources have been exploited) and off-shore.

Still, it is difficult to believe that this is a strong line of attack for McConnell.


Visit this blog's homepage.

Gordon Smith

Republican Senator Gordon Smith of Oregon voted with the overwhelming majority of Democrats Thursday in an effort to set a timetable to withdraw American troops from Iraq. His side lost 50-48, but he had the pithy quote for the press:

“Setting specific dates for withdrawal is unwise, but what is worse is remaining mired in the quicksand of the Sunni-Shia civil war.”

How will Karen Hughes spin that one for the rest of the world?

Here's an idea: does Smith look French to you?


Visit this blog's homepage.

Zinni, Clancy and Lugar

I've already blogged about General Anthony Zinni on several occasions. So I have little to add to his latest entry into the news cycle, except to note: (a) the coauthor of Battle Ready is a registered Republican who voted for Bush in 2000 and worked for the administation from 2001 to 2003; (b) Zinni coauthored his book with popular writer Tom Clancy, who now also argues against the war in Iraq; and (c) Zinni was former chief of the Central Command, so he should have some credibility on this issue.

Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN) also received a lot of attention for his commencement remarks at Tufts University, Saturday May 22. If you read the speech on his website , someone has put the key "quote-worthy" points in italics and/or boldface. Much of it is clear criticism of US foreign policy (and the implementation of the "war on terror") under the Bush administration.

Lugar strongly implies that the US has been over-valuing military solutions at the expense of diplomatic and economic tools:

To win the war against terrorism, the United States must assign U.S. economic and diplomatic capabilities the same strategic priority that we assign to military capabilities. There are no shortcuts to victory.

Lugar sounds like a peacenik.

Or a retired foreign service officer:

We have yet to alter the status of foreign affairs as the neglected sibling of national security policy. The Defense Budget is more than 13 times larger than the Foreign Affairs Budget. As a percentage of gross domestic product, foreign affairs programs are still about 40 percent below their average levels of the 1980s.

The neocons, of course, are much more worried about the impoverished defense budget.

Lugar says that this over-valuing the military at the expense of diplomacy has very serious implications:

The September 11 attacks may have jarred the United States out of its complacency toward foreign threats. But our ability and will to exert U.S. leadership outside the confines of military action have been eroded by inattention, budget incrementalism, and an increasing partisanship that afflicts foreign policy decision-making. As a result, we are conducting diplomacy without sufficient funding and sometimes without public support in an era when we are depending on diplomats to build alliances, reconstruct nations, and explain the United States worldwide.

That should wake some people up in the White House. Heck it sounds like it could readily fit within a Kerry speech.

Lugar is not fond of renewed American unilateralism. He sees great danger in such an approach:

Unless the United States commits itself to a sustained program of repairing and building alliances, expanding trade, pursuing resolutions to regional conflicts, supporting democracy and development worldwide, and controlling weapons of mass destruction, we are likely to experience acts of catastrophic terrorism that would undermine our economy, damage our society, and kill hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people.

The United States, as a nation, simply has not made this commitment.

This quote appears above the speech in italics and then in bold within the body of the address.

I guess he really means it.

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee is now a bipartisan "who's who" of critics of Bush foreign policy. These Republicans have made news recently: Lugar (IN), Hagel (NE), and Voinovich (OH). Chafee, of course, voted against the war, and recently pointed out "there's never been any connection between Osama bin Laden and Iraq. They're very, very different issues. And Afghanistan is [interrupted] a long way from Iraq."

Recess appointment

Larry Solum just posted his thoughts on the recess appointment of Charles Pickering to the federal appellate bench.

On this blog, I tend to follow US foreign policy and the election, so I'm not quite sure what to make of this apparently major (and unprecedented?) political move. Pickering was filibustered by the Democrats in the Senate, so they are not going to be happy about this. Yet, I cannot see them filibustering all Bush's judicial appointments (that would be an open war with no winners). However, I can see them lowering the bar some and filibustering a few less controversial candidates.

Why would Pickering want the job for a year?

As someone with a sabbatical forthcoming next year, I have thought long and hard about how willing I'd be to uproot my family and move somewhere for an academic term or two. There are lots of social costs for my family, who now have many deep roots in the community, and a year is not a long time to accomplish much when moving and adjustment are factored into the equation.

I'd think that even an appellate judge would face adjustment issues. Would a recess appointed judge be kind of like a strike-breaking umpire? In baseball, those guys were never fully accepted by their cohorts on the diamonds.

In any case, after weighing everything, I've concluded that it would probably be worthwhile to leave town for a year -- or even for a semester, plus a summer.

So...if anyone knows of something good, let me know. That means I want time to research and write -- not teach.

This is a filibuster?

OK, I don't have much of substance to contribute to the blogger thread about the Senate judicial filibuster. Larry Solum (who alerted me) has the complete run down.

However, I do think Jon Stewart on The Daily Show had the absolute funniest one-liner. Stewart played a tape from Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum, who apparently quoted Shakespeare's Hamlet during the filibuster: "Me thinks thou doth protest too much."

Stewart then faced the camera and said something like this, "For a guy who once equated homosexuality and beastiality, the Senator sure seems to know a lot about the theater." The end of that sentence featured a change in Stewart's vocal pitch and a great twirl of the finger.

Aside: I'm guessing Santorum doesn't want Pittsburgh to pursue the "creative class."

While I'm on the subject, The Daily Show is genuine "must see" TV in my book. It can be difficult to watch when he has celebrity guests, rather than political ones, but I'm really looking forward to the 2004 election year coverage.

Tonight's bit about the US accidentally bombing the dye factory was also very funny.

For the first time in six months, the U.S. resumed air attacks in Baghdad Wednesday. In the first of two bombings, a U.S. gunship destroyed an Iraqi dye factory that the U.S. claimed was a base for militants opposed to the U.S. occupation.

Stewart turned to the camera, noted the bombing was partly in response to recent attacks against US Apache helicopters, and said, "take that Iraqi tie-dye" artisans.