Politics Blog

George Will has more on the tax cut sunsets:

The sunset provisions serve the transparent fiction that the new cuts will deprive the government of no more than $350 billion over 10 years, the number that several deficit-phobic Republican senators insisted on. But given the success of Republican rhetoric - a success deriving from the public’s common sense - in arguing that allowing a tax cut to lapse is equivalent to increasing taxes, the sun will set on few, if any, of these cuts.

So the 10-year cost to the government may exceed even the president’s original goal of $726 billion, which he supposedly “compromised” in half. Democrats, noting that Bush has achieved all this with almost no help from congressional Democrats and with little enthusiasm from the public, are probably muttering to themselves, as they have been muttering since election night 2000: It is a good thing George W. Bush is dumb as a stump or we’d really be in trouble.

Dick Morris makes the same points in his NY Post column today that he made on Hannity and Colmes last night.

I do have a word of caution, though. The only Democrat who will really count in 2004 is John Kerry, who, as I’ve been saying for several months, will likely be the Democratic presidential nominee. In his typical, mealy-mouthed, cowardly fashion, Kerry has criticized the tax cuts, but not said what he’d do instead. I suspect that, when pressed, he’ll duck the issue and say something vague along the lines of “We need to ‘invest’ in education and homeland security.”

Will such a tangibly cynical strategy work? Hey, Kerry’s been getting away with it all his life, starting with the Vietnam War, which he fought in and then protested. And never forget that Bill Clinton, that ultimate, cynical, mealy-mouthed, coward, won two terms as president.

Up & Coming magazine says that, contrary to conventional wisdom, John Edwards’ presidential bid could be helping his chances of re-election to the Senate in 2004:

But there is another side to the story. It is this: John Edwards’ best chance to retain his senate seat is by running for President. Why? Money and publicity - the two most important assets for a senate candidate these days, and the hardest to come by.

On the money side, even a senator as wealthy as John Edwards cannot afford to pay the enormous cost of a reelection campaign by himself. But fund-raising is a tough business. Most Democratic senate candidates can look for substantial help from a group of moderate and liberal political action committees (PACs). But not John Edwards. He has promised never to accept contributions from PACs.

Therefore, even if he secured generous financial support from individuals in North Carolina, it might not be enough to compete with a well-financed Republican candidate like Burr. To raise enough money for another senate campaign without PAC help, Edwards needed to follow the example of former Senator Jesse Helms by building a broad based group of national financial supporters.

With very impressive early fundraising success in his presidential campaign, Edwards is on his way to achieving this goal. Of course, not all of his presidential contributors will help again in a senate race. But many will, and some will help over and over again. In the meantime, their money is paying for an up-and-running Edwards organization that can be converted to the senate campaign when he gives the word.

Then, there is the publicity. An ordinary first-term senator has a hard time keeping his name before the public at home. Edwards’ presidential campaign, however, gets his name on the front page of every North Carolina newspaper almost every day, it seems. In a very short time he has built a bank of name recognition that every other politician would envy.

So, the next time you run into a loyal Democrat who insists that Edwards is “risking” a Senate seat by running for President, just remember these two words: money and publicity.

They are the most critical assets for a senate campaign, and Edwards is putting them in the bank every day.

I disagree, of course. Money and publicity are good tactical assets; but they only truly matter if you can hopelessly outspend your opponent. The polls show that Edwards is in trouble back home and it’s going to be very difficult to fix that with money and publicity. My full 2004 Senate analysis is here.

As I predicted, Republicans plan to use the tax cut’s “sunset” provisions as a powerful political weapon in 2004:

Most House Republicans appear to believe an ongoing tax cut fight will be useful as the 2004 elections approach.

“We won the battle, but not the war,” said Rep. Jack Kingston (R-Ga.). “Now, I have the unfinished business of saying: ‘We

Zev Chafets doesn’t want the president to risk his life by visiting the Middle East:

President Bush is said to be pondering a peacemaking trip to the Middle East. I have two words of advice: Don’t go.

Let’s start with the most pressing reason: If Bush gets anywhere near the Middle East right now, there’s an excellent chance that someone will kill him.

Saddam Hussein is still on the loose, armed and dangerous. The deposed Iraqi dictator tried to whack Bush’s father, and he’s got an even better reason to go after the son. Saddam also has several billion dollars in cash. In the Middle East, you can hire an assassin for $50. Saddam can send an army.

Unless somebody beats him to it. Osama Bin Laden’s guys would love to kill Bush. So would Hamas or Islamic Jihad or Yasser Arafat’s Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades. Not to mention Iran’s Hezbollah proxies or the Egyptian Muslim underground that murdered their nation’s President Anwar Sadat.

Bush is a macho guy. Nobody doubts his personal courage. But this isn’t throwing out the first pitch at Yankee Stadium. Right now, the Middle East is full of men and women who would be honored to martyr themselves in the blood of the Satan from Crawford, Tex.

The trip might be worth the risk if there were any chance that personal diplomacy could accomplish something. But it can’t. A trip to the Middle East right now is a recipe for failure. To see that, all Bush needs to do is take a look at the crowd cheering him on. British Prime Minister Tony Blair is the only one who could plausibly be considered a friend. All the others - French President Jacques Chirac, UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, the heads of the Arab League and aspiring Democratic candidates - want to see Bush fall flat on his face.

He will, too. Given the state of enmity between Israel and the Arabs, the nature of the international road map for peace and Bush’s own inclinations, failure is inevitable. And it would be Bush’s fault.

A Fox News story says that Republicans have had difficulty in recruiting strong candidates for key 2004 Senate races.

I disagree with the story.In 2002, the GOP was able to recruit superb candidates in most Senate races, even though it wasn’t able to recruit some strong candidates, like former Montana Governor Marc Racicot and Louisiana Governor Mike Foster. 2004 will see more of the same.

Contrary to what the Fox News story says, the GOP already has strong candidates almost certain to run for current Democratic Senate seats in Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina and Nevada. Recruitment is proceeding apace in Arkansas, South Dakota and Florida. It’s only in Washington state and Illinois that the GOP has largely failed to recruit its preferred candidates. You can get more information about all these races from my 2004 Senate analysis, which I’m keeping updated with relevant news.

More on 9/11’s impact: Byron York notes rising support for the death penalty since 9/11:

In a new Gallup poll, 74 percent of those surveyed say they favor the death penalty for people convicted of murder. Just two years ago, in May 2001, support stood at 65 percent, its lowest point in more than two decades.
The latest increase has been slow but steady. In October 2001, 68 percent favored capital punishment. That rose to 72 percent by May 2002, and dipped slightly to 70 percent in October 2002 before rising to 74 percent.

…

Why the new support for the death penalty?

It’s possible that Americans have assessed the “innocence” argument and found it wanting. More important, they’ve seen it in action.

For example, could anyone say that former Illinois Gov. George Ryan’s (R.) blanket commutation of death sentences in his state helped the abolitionist cause? Ryan spared the lives of some brutal and indisputably guilty killers and in so doing created so much publicity that the victims’ families felt compelled to speak out in the press. The result was no help for the abolitionists.

Ryan’s blunder surely played a part in the death-penalty turnaround, but by far the most important event has been the arrival of terrorism in America. If you chart the nation’s support for capital punishment, you’ll see it falling in the period before Sept. 11, 2001, and rising afterward.

As capital-punishment opponent Richard Dieter, head of the Death Penalty Information Center, sees it, the terrorist attacks took attention away from the “innocence” movement, which had been gaining momentum before Sept. 11.

“I think what was creating concern about the death penalty was that people were hearing so much about the errors, wrongful convictions and unfairness in the process, and to some extent that’s been muted now with coverage of other issues,” says Dieter. “The problems that plague the death penalty system are still out there, but they’re not on the front page.”

Perhaps. But it seems more likely that the terrorist attacks had a far more profound effect. “After 9-11, the country has come to grips with something that lies behind a good deal of support for the death penalty,” says death-penalty supporter Bill Otis, a former federal prosecutor who is an adjunct professor of law at George Mason University. “And that is that there is actually evil in this world, that there are people out there who will blow you to bits because they hate you, or for amusement, or to advance some bizarre view of the world, and that the only thing that represents proportionate justice in those cases is the death penalty.”

Suspended NY Times reporter Rick Bragg says he’ll quit. If this were any other institution, Howell Raines would be calling for the CEO’s resignation.

Texas’ Democratic state legislators may have temporarily preserved their state’s gerrymandered congressional districts by fleeing town; but David Guenthner says it’s a temporary victory:

Longer-term, though, the walkout could work to the Republicans’ advantage. The state is struggling to close a $9.9 billion budget shortfall and it will be touch-and-go whether the lawmakers can patch together enough revenue and budget savings to completely close it by next Monday. There are also sharp differences between the house and senate on medical liability, insurance regulation, and transportation.

Failure to reach agreement on any of those fronts could prompt Gov. Rick Perry to call a special session this summer, to which Perry would probably add redistricting to the agenda. This would hurt Democrats because they would have another issue to keep them in Austin, the Republicans would have time to get the redistricting process and plan right, and the Democrats would lose their biggest stopper - the senate’s two-thirds rule. In a regular session, two-thirds of the senate must agree to bring a bill to the floor, meaning that even if the Republicans all voted together, they would have to pick up at least two Democrats. In a special, that drops to a simple majority, which allows the Republicans to pass a plan even if they lose every Democrat - and three Republicans.

Initial polling shows Texans reacting very negatively to the walkout. Add in some of the bills that died from the walkout - tougher penalties on child pornographers, allowing students who are victims of violence to change schools, automatic expulsion of students who assault teachers, increasing the school property-tax exemption for the elderly and disabled, the creation of “Choose Life” license plates - and all of a sudden Republican challengers to the rural Democrats have some hot-button campaign ads. With Bush atop the ticket, Republicans could bolster their majority by several seats - and make future Democratic walkouts vastly more difficult to pull off.

The president signed a bill today to provide $15 Billion for AIDS treatment and prevention in Africa.This money will provide treatment to 2 millions AIDS sufferers and potentially prevent another 7 million cases.

Are “AIDS activists” grateful for this money, which amounts to $50 from every man, woman and child in the US? Of course not!

“Everyone needs to watch the president and make sure that he gets that funding to implement this bill, or else it’s a lot of empty rhetoric,” said Paul Zeitz, executive director of the Global AIDS Alliance.

There’s a lesson here that the president is already well aware of: Leftists, especially African-American leftists, are not going to give this president credit, no matter how much of their agenda he implements. Ditto the Euro-Socialists and other America-haters who try to tie the US down with their Lilliputian ropes. The president should ignore their bleating and simply do what he thinks is right.