Whither the Libertarian Democrat?

A meditation on a failed affair.

"...in 2006 we have made a match, and will consummate a marriage of convenience between democrats and libertarians. It may be little more than a fling, a star-crossed union that is destined to fall apart in a year or two. But, it'll have plenty of fireworks, and be fun and exciting while it lasts... Libertarians don't need to be looking for "couples porn" right now. Take my word for it, it is a lot more fun with a partner. Libertarians need to pop some viagra, and take a chance on romance with the Dems for the just next four weeks. Then we'll see how they behave. Sure, the marriage won't last. But it does not need to last longer than November, and who knows? - we might even give birth to something new and interesting. A potent libertarian political force."

• Jonah Goldberg says "time will tell" but believes time has run out for this marriage.
• Mark Thompson thinks that libertarians have issues, notably a blind spot regarding ex-spouse Republican faults. The marriage would work better, he claims, if they would just preferentially ignore the Democratic faults instead.
• Will Wilkinson agrees with Mark, noting that libertarians should understand that being seen with the left is cooler than hanging with the right, and who wants an uncool marriage?
• Brink Lindsey, an early "Liberaltarian" matchmaker, brings some "tough love" to the economic apple of the Liberal's eye, expending a few thousand words to show that the "brilliant economist" Paul Krugman is promoting "reactionary fantasies." The Democrats will really like that. Let me know how that works out for you.
• Ross Douthat, having been jilted by libertarians in 2006 while begging them to come home to the GOP, consoles Will and Brink while - oh so gently - reminding them that a one handed relationship is not all that satisfying. Cue Jackson Brown singing Rosie.
• Later, Will admits the "Democrats are screwing it up", but he would still prefer to try to change the Democrats behavior. I think most marriage counselors would identify Will as an enabler in an abusive relationship.
• Ilya Solmin observes that the object of the Liberalitarian's affections, finding the milk free, no longer feel any particular need to buy the cow. I believe that Ilya is concerned that both Will and Brink may run afoul of anti-stalking legislation.
• Robert McCain indulges in some jilted conservative schadenfreude as he observes the end of the affair between the hot liberal aerobic instructor gold digger, and a deluded Libertarian Rotarian. Sure, she took everything that was important to you and destroyed your life. But - live and learn - your plain Republican cloth coat wife will take you back.
• Jonathon Chait magnanimously notes that Mark Thompson's notion of a mixed Liberal/Libertarian marriage will certainly work and work well, if the libertarians will only agree to convert to liberalism.
• Stephen Green reminds us of that time honored relationship advice - There are more fish in the sea. Well - ok - there are two fish. And they both stink, so it is time to get back to the one that stinks less.
• Jacob Lyle nets it out: "I always thought the libertarian-leftist alliance was doomed by the fact that they sort of hate us."

Gaming the Republican Primary
The Republican California primary is not a winner take all proposition. Each congressional district is a separate primary, with three delegates to the Republican convention up for grabs in each district. Consider this chart:

 This chart shows the Republican, Democratic, and Libertarian vote count in California Districts  8,9, and 13 in the 2006 mid-terms (numbers linked to Wikipedia source for chart data). Midterms and primaries tend to get similar participation from registered voters (about 50%), so this is a reasonable proxy for the vote count we can expect in the February 5th primary. My assumption is that with four or five Republicans still in the primary, it will only require about 35% of the Republican vote to secure the delegates for Paul. Further assuming that Paul will get a conservative 6% of the combined Republican/Libertarian vote we've seen in other competitive primaries, we can calculate how many Democratic votes it would take to throw those delegates to Paul. One reason, is that 18,000 Dems could send as many delegates to the Republican convention as Orange County district 48, Duncan Hunters Imperial Valley district 52, and Brian Billbray's North San Diego district 50, representing over 600,000 registered Republicans.

[with apologies to Black Like Me author John Howard Griffin.*]

^{On the left, MW ( D), providing aid and comfort to the enemy. On the right, MW (R), soliciting illegal corporate contributions to lobby corrupt members of congress for political favors.}

For a year the idea had haunted me, and Thursday night it returned more insistently than ever. If a Democrat became a Republican in San Francisco, what adjustments would he have to make? What is it like to experience discrimination based on political belief, something over which one has limited control? This speculation was sparked again by the blog post glowing on the laptop screen in the den of the high rise condominium that served as my office. It was Jon Swift's "Best Blog Posts of 2007" year end round-up, linking my June 23rd screed explaining why I must become Republican in order to preserve divided government. In an overlapping window on the screen, a story from the LA Times showing how new California Republican primary rules might work to Ron Paul's advantage in heavy Democratic districts like San Francisco. As few as 7,000 Ron Paul votes in San Francisco County could garner as many delegates at the Republican convention for Ron Paul as the Republican winner in "Loyal Bushie" territory like Orange County. Another window was open to the December 5th Evans-Novak Report - Money quote: "Republican confidence about winning the presidency actually has declined... We have had several Republicans tell us ... they wondered not only about the outcome of the '08 presidential election but also the long-range future of the GOP."

If it was that bad for Republicans in the rest of the country, what would it be like for Republicans in San Francisco? I feared for local Republicans, despite the assurances of the supposedly "tolerant" Democratic San Francisco Mayor and "Progressive" Democratic Board of Supervisors, who continue to insist they represent a culturally diverse community, committed to tolerance and accepting and embracing people of all colors, creeds, religions, sexual orientation, and belief. "Right." I thought. "They tolerate everyone except Republicans". I lingered on, looking out at the view of Alcatraz and San Francisco Bay. My wife slept in the room next door. I sat there, surrounded by the cool ocean breeze coming through my open window, listening to the sea lions barking in Fisherman's Wharf, unable to leave, unable to sleep.

How else except by becoming a Republican could a Democrat hope to learn the truth? Though we lived virtually side by side throughout the blogosphere, communication between the two political parties had simply ceased to exist. Neither really knew what went on with those of the other party. The Republicans will not tell the Democrats the truth. In 2006 they learned that if unpleasant truth is revealed to Democrats, the Democrats will cause Republicans to lose elections and go to jail.

The only way I could see to bridge the gap between us was to become a Republican. I decided I would do this. I prepared to walk into a life that appeared suddenly mysterious and frightening. With my decision to become a Republican, I realized that I, a political blogger, knew nothing of the Republican's real problem. I knew then that I must enter 2008 as a Republican.

Friday was gray, cold, wet and depressing. I donned my best "Jack Abramoff" trench coat, and walked down the hill to City Hall. The San Francisco Department of Elections is in the basement. It was a short easy form. In a few minutes the painless procedure was over. I was a Republican. I asked the clerk if I was the only Republican in San Francisco. "No." she said as she turned her back and walked away. "There are some others." She didn't seem interested in talking to me, would not meet my eyes, and behaved as if I was not even there. "I am still me..." I thought. "I have not changed." Yet, somehow it seemed things had changed around me. When I got home, I thought back to what the election clerk told me, but found no comfort knowing I was not the only Republican in San Francisco. I refuse to wallow in self-pity. After all, being a Republican in San Francisco could not be any worse than a libertarian lesbian lawyer becoming a Republican in Arizona. I had it easy. But I would need help facing this brave new world. I sat down, poured myself a scotch, and flipped on Fox News.

^{[*NOTE: This post is a paraphrase of John Howard Griffin's seminal work "Black Like Me" and includes direct quotations from the book. It is a reflection of the sad state of American education today that I feel compelled to explain this.] x-posted and excerpted from Divided We Stand United We Fall}

Earlier this week RedState decided to ban the posting of positive comments about Ron Paul while continuing to permit posting of negative commentary. Andrew Sullivan asked if RedState was "Frightened much?" Justin Gardner at Donklephant also had questions:

"So why did they take such heavy handed measures? Were they simply just annoyed? Scared? A little bit of both?"

Here is the answer, courtesy of commenter John Campbell.

This really does say it all (click on graph to enlarge):

Live graph here.

The sad answer, is that this is a textbook case of P.E. (Popularity Envy). While Ron Paul's large growing popularity continues to surge and thrust ever upward, RedState's flaccid popularity seems small, shrunken, perhaps even impotent by comparison. When you look at it, it's really kind of pathetic.

x-posted from Donklephant and "Divided We Stand United We Fall"

Stephen Sliviniski, economist, author of Buck Wild, Director of Budget Analysis for the Cato Institute, and DWSUWF favorite, comments on recently released CBO budget estimates in "Finally, Some Not-So-Bad News on the Budget" posted at Cato@Liberty:

Very good news. Since its inception, the DWSWUF blog has been in the service of promoting the concept of voting for divided government as a way of limiting the growth of federal government spending, among other beneficial effects. After divided government was re-established in the 2006 midterms we outlined assumptions for continuing to support this concept in the 2008 presidential election in the post - "2008 Election Prologue - Check your assumptions":

Looks like the abalone will have to wait.

 x-posted from "Divided We Stand United We Fall."

Libby is sentenced to 30 months in prison. The same night as the sentence is handed down, during the third Republican debate, moderator Wolf Blitzer opens the door for pandering politicians to reanimate the nonsensical, putrefying "there is no underlying crime" meme which rises zombie-like from the grave:

MR. BLITZER: So yes or no, would you pardon him?
MR. GIULIANI:"...and ultimately, there was no underlying crime involved."
MR. ROMNEY: "...in this case, you have a prosecutor who clearly abused prosecutorial discretion by going after somebody when he already knew that the source of the leak was Richard Armitage. "
SEN. BROWNBACK: "Yes. The basic crime here didn’t happen."

What nonsense. Consider these quotes from two special prosecutors in two high profile investigations into high ranking members of the executive branch of government.

"Any lie under oath is serious. Any prosecutor will tell you... we cannot tolerate perjury. The truth is what drives our judicial system. If people do not come forward and tell the truth, we have no hope of making the judicial system work. If someone knowingly tells a lie under oath during any investigation, it is every prosecutor's duty to respond by investigating and proving that if you can. That is a serious matter in any case. It is obvious it is a serious matter here in a case here where there is a national security investigation. The nature of any person telling a lie under oath to a grand jury is a serious problem. Having a high level official do that under oath under a national security investigation is something can never be acceptable. And that just made it mandatory that we pursue it. " -Patrick Fitzgerald - Press Conference after verdict - March 6, 2007

"The whole idea of equal justice under law means that you've got to play by the rules. It has nothing to do with the underlying subject matter. You just tell the truth. "Lying under oath, and encouraging lies under oath, does go to the very heart and soul of what courts do. And if we say we don't care, let's forget about courts and we'll just have other ways of figuring out how to handle disputes," he said. "There is no excuse for perjury -- never, never, never," he said. "There is truth, and the truth demands respect." - Ken Starr -Time Interview - Nov. 25, 1998

I agree with both prosecutors and both prosecutions. I don't care which political party they are in. If a high-ranking official lies under oath, you take that official to the wall. No one is above the law. No one has the option of lying under oath without paying the consequences.

The identical rationale was used for impeaching Bill Clinton and prosecuting Scooter Libby. Clinton lied under oath during an investigation. He was impeached for lying under oath in an investigation into a blowjob. Libby was tried and convicted for lying under oath in an investigation about the leak of the identity of a CIA operative. It is completely irrelevant if the underlying reason for the lie under oath was a crime or not a crime. The blowjob was also not a crime. Clinton was still impeached for the lie about the blowjob. It is true that Cheney authorizing the public identification of Plame as a CIA operative was not a crime. It was not a crime since the President gave Cheney the authorization to disclose any secret information he deemed neccessary. No matter that his reason was to cover his ass politically and hide his role in selling the war to the American public under false pretenses. It was still not illegal. Just like Clinton's blow job was not illegal. But the lies under oath are another matter.

Libby is guilty. He perjured himself. He lied. No one else is going be convicted because Libby is taking the fall for others in the administration. Does he deserve it? Is he really a criminal? I don't think he is a bad guy. He is loyal and he thinks he is being a patriot by protecting Cheney. I feel sorry for him. But he made a choice. He chose to protect the Vice President and probably Karl Rove's political ass, while keeping the American people in the dark about what really happened. You can admire his misguided loyalty to the people he worked for, but he owed that loyalty to the American people. He made that choice.

As a consequence he might spend a year in jail for that choice, before Bush pardons him on the way out of office. So it goes. Judge Reggie Walton said it best as he handed down the sentence (from the Wahington Post):

It's a good thing.

Excerpted from a post on Divided We Stand. United We Fall

I've not posted here in a while, but thought this complemented some of Logan's recent musings.
X-posted from Divided We Stand, United We Fall.

----------------------

I would have loved to have been there to see it. Just to be a fly on the wall and see the reaction. Dick Cheney interrupting his undisclosed schedule, hustling from his limousine into the Capitol from whatever undisclosed location that the Vice President normally executes his undisclosed duties, and preparing to cast a tie-breaking vote in the Senate on the Emergency Funding Bill for the Iraq War. A funding bill with a difference. A funding bill putting limits on the United States military mission in Iraq, and setting a goal of withdrawing troops not involved in that limited mission by March of 2008.

A similar resolution had been defeated in the Senate only a few weeks before. But this time Democratic Senator Ben Nelson would vote for the bill, and that meant it would likely result in a tie. The administration had already threatened to veto any bill with any timetable. But the veto would not be needed, if Cheney cast the deciding vote.

"...the White House freshened the threat a few hours before the vote and again afterward. 'The president is disappointed that the Senate continues down a path with a bill that he will veto and has no chance of becoming law'... Vice President Dick Cheney traveled to the Capitol in case his vote was needed to break a tie, a measure of the importance the administration places on the issue." - Washington Post

 

It looked like this time Dick Cheney would be "The Decider", and cast that vote to defeat the measure. He had prepared a brief, direct and strong statement ready for an impromptu press briefing to be conducted immediately after the vote. Dick Cheney was looking forward to delivering that statement. That is when I would have liked to be that fly on the wall. To be there when Dick Cheney was informed that Chuck Hagel decided to put principle over party and vote for the resolution. So, on this day, Dick Cheney was not "the decider". On this day it was Chuck Hagel who cast the deciding vote.

But this post is not really about Chuck Hagel, or Dick Cheney. This post is about the Republican Party and its continued drift further and further from the main stream of American thought. With this bill the Senate, like the House, was simply conducting the people's business. The bill, with the reduced mission, and goal of redeployment in 2008, accurately reflects the will of the majority of Americans. From the Pew Research Center:

"A solid majority of Americans say they want their congressional representative to support a bill calling for a withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq by August 2008. Nearly six-in-ten (59%) say they would like to see their representative vote for such legislation, compared with just 33% who want their representative to oppose it. "

Now, in truth, this bill deserves a veto. Not because of the Iraq war redeployment timeframe, but because the Democrats stuffed it full of pork to secure enough votes to get it passed. It won't break my heart to see it vetoed for that reason alone. In that regard, the veto is an example of divided government in action, restraining the growth of federal spending. A leaner bill will result from the veto.

My fear is that our happily divided government will be but a mere two year respite from the disaster of single party control, if the administration continues down this path. It will be almost impossible for the Democrats to lose either house of congress in 2008. The only way to maintain a divided government will be to elect a Republican President in 2008. Whether out of arrogance, hubris, delusion, or simple incompetence, this administration is apparently willing to destroy any electoral hope for the Republicans in 2008 as a consequence of it's intransigence on the war.

Ryan Sager wrote in 'The Elephant in the Room" about the fracturing of the historically successful fusion between fiscal and social conservatives in the Republican party. He warns that a widening schism between the libertarian and evangelical wings in the Republican party could doom the parties chances in 2008 and beyond. In the last few days, it became clear to me that while the split he describes is real, it is fracturing on a different fault line. The split is between the traditional Conservative Republican (which includes both evangelicals and libertarians) and Republicans who are best described as "Bushies". I am not using that term as a perjorative, it is exactly how they define themselves. Jon Carroll in the San Francisco Chronicle took notice:

"The other interesting thing is the use by now-resigned Justice Department employee Kyle Sampson of the phrase "loyal Bushies." ...George W. Bush and the Republican Party are not coterminous. It would be hard to describe the belief system of a loyal Bushie, other than unquestioning faith in George W. Bush. Would he be in favor of reduced government spending, increased individual liberties, a conservative and prudent foreign policy? Nope. George W. Bush does not stand for any of those things. Loyal Bushies can be counted on to do the right thing, the Bush thing, whenever a thing needs doing. That's the belief system. "

Now, Jon Carroll is admittedly a San Francisco liberal and easy to dismiss. But, remarkably, his theme is echoed by conservative David Brooks in a column in the New York Times entitled "No U-Turns". In that column Brooks rejects the intellectual foundation of conservatism, and writes what really should be  titled "The Bush-ist Manifesto":

"...President Bush sensed this shift in public consciousness back in 1999. Compassionate conservatism was an attempt to move beyond the “liberty vs. power” paradigm. But because it was never fleshed out and because the Congressional G.O.P. rejected the implant, a new Republican governing philosophy did not emerge. The party is going to have to make another run at it. As it does, it will have to shift mentalities. The “security leads to freedom” paradigm doesn’t end debate between left and right, it just engages on different ground. It is oriented less toward negative liberty (How can I get the government off my back?) and more toward positive liberty (Can I choose how to lead my life?). Goldwater and Reagan were important leaders, but they’re not models for the future."

Both Glen Greenwald (from the left) and Andrew Sullivan (from the right) take Brooks to task.

Greenwald:

"It would maximize clarity in our political discussions if journalists could just ingest Brooks' central point: the dominant right-wing political movement in this country that has spawned and driven the Bush presidency has nothing to do with -- it is in fact overtly hostile to -- the ostensible principles of Goldwater/Reagan small-government conservatism. Though today's so-called "conservatives" exploit the Goldwater/Reagan mythology as a political prop, they don't believe in those principles in any way. That movement is the very antithesis of those principles... Brooks admits what has been crystal clear for some time -- namely, that so-called "conservatives" (meaning the contemporary political "Right") no longer believe (if they ever did) that government power should be restrained in order to maximize freedom. That belief system, says Brooks, is an obsolete relic which arose out of the the 1970s, and has been replaced by the opposite desire -- for expanded government power on every front."

Sullivan:

"... the Brooks experiment in turning the GOP into a religious, statist party for cronies and incompetents has been a disaster for Republicanism and a catastrophe for conservatism. Given no true conservative alternative, voters have gone back to the Dems. Brooks was an intellectual architect of both visions - massive intervention abroad, and warmed-over socialism at home. No wonder the conservative coalition has fallen apart, and people are now backing Democrats... The classic dodge: national greatness conservatism - big spending at home, big wars abroad - wasn't tried and therefore didn't fail. Please. It was tried, David, with bells on, and it has failed so spectacularly you need glasses with neocon thickness not to see it. In fact, its manifest failure may consign conservatism to the political wilderness for a generation - and has deeply increased the security dangers America now faces... Until the GOP thoroughly purges itself of the impulses of the Bush era - impulses enabled and supported by Brooks - they're finished. And they deserve to be."

I have wondered before about the incredible animus toward Chuck Hagel evident from some on the right. It never made sense to me. Chuck Hagel is by any measure a conservative's conservative:

"Look at his record, and you see a bona fide fiscal conservative, a social conservative, a successful entrepreneur, a limited government Republican in the Ronald Reagan and Barry Goldwater tradition and a decorated Vietnam war combat veteran. He is tough on crime, strong on defense, pro-gun with an "A" rating from the NRA, supports low taxes and limited spending, was rated a "Taxpayers Friend" by the NTU, is pro-business with an 87% rating from the US Chamber of Commerce, and even secured a 0% rating from NARAL indicating a perfect pro-life voting record."

Now I finally get it.

Chuck Hagel is not a problem for traditional Republicans in the Goldwater/Reagan tradition. Chuck Hagel is not a problem for limited government, freedom-oriented, libertarian conservatives. Chuck Hagel is a big problem for the "Bushie" statists. I would like to think that the "Bushies" are wildly over-represented in the blogosphere, and there is a much larger plurality of traditional conservative Republicans (both libertarian and evangelical) in the electorate at large. I'd like to think that, but I am not sure. If the traditional conservative Republican base is alive and well, Chuck Hagel may yet lead the party back from the brink of disaster in 2008.

Just saw Logan's predictions so thought I would weigh in with a few of my own.

This is a x-post pulling from a couple of recent posts on Divided We Stand United We Fall (DWSUWF).

I don't have the time, expertise, or inclination to try to decipher the thousands of polls or hundreds of analysts poring over the numbers. I simply assume that all know information about the polls and the elections, is reflected in price of the GOP House and Senate trading contracts. These contracts are a market based mechanism for distilling the collective wisdom of the electorate into a single number. I have been tracking the Tradesports.com US 06 GOP CONTROL Contracts. The betting contracts as of the time of this post, show the probability of the Republicans maintaining their majority in the Senate at 70% (and dropping slowly) and the probability of the Republicans maintaining their majority in the House at 22% and dropping precipitously.

The Senate Contract showed a slight drop in October, but consistenly predicting a 70% to 85% probablility of the GOP keeping the Senate over the last year.

The House Contract, which dropped from a 60% probability of the GOP maintaining control of the House at the end of September (pre-Foley) to a 22% probability with four days go. In a separate contract, the markets are predicting that the Dems will take between 20-24 seats, so I'll stake out my prediction at a net 20 pickup for the Democrats.

So, unless there is major information that is unknown today and is revealed in the next four days, the Republicans will control the Senate and the Democrats will control of the house.

Now there is a problem with this prediciton, that I learned about from Ken Fisher, who is a financial columnist in Forbes and a money manager based in California. He subscribes to the hypothesis that election cycles can have a major effect on markets (among many other factors), and tracks them closely for his readers and clients. As recently as his September column (pre-Foley), he was prediciting that the Republicans would hold on to majorities in the House and Senate, but has since back-pedaled on the House. This is the interesting bit from his column:

"A basic rule of politics and a little-known fact: The Senate changes hands so much more easily than the House that in 100 years the House has never changed hands unless the Senate has, too. For the Democrats to win the House they must win the Senate, which means they must win almost every close race--something that almost never happens."

He expanded on the "100 year rule" in a newsletter to his clients ( BTW - I do not reveal my sources):

"Since the Seventeenth Amendment allowed for direct election of Senators in 1913, the House majority has never changed hands without the Senate also doing so. Therefore we look first to the Senate to determine the outcome of the election, as it is more volatile. Our analysis indicates that there will be no change in the Senate; therefore Republicans will maintain control of the House. The House changing leadership without the Senate also doing so would be unprecedented."

So, the betting contracts are predicting an unprecedented outcome. An outcome that has not happened in 100 years and never happened since the 17th amendment provided for direct election of Senators - the House changing hands, when the Senate does not.

It is a puzzlement. A mystery worthy, perhaps, of the greatest detective the world has ever known:

"When you've eliminated every hypothesis but one, then the remaining hypothesis must be true, however improbable." - Sherlock Holmes (Sir Arthur Conon Doyle)

There is only one outcome, no matter how improbable, that satisfies both the betting markets, and the 100 year rule: The Senate finishes at fifty-fifty, with Dick Cheney casting the controlling vote for Republicans.

There is your answer: 50 - 50 in the Senate.

Now that we know the answer, how do we get there? Two scenarios:

1) Democrats hold NJ, and take PA, RI, OH, MT, VA (or MO). This scenario assumes that Joe Lieberman continues to caucus with the Democrats, final tally 50-50.

2) Democrats hold NJ, and take PA, RI, OH, MT, VA and MO, for a count of 51-49 in favor of the Democrats, but then Lieberman is bribed with a plum committee assignment, agrees to caucus with Republicans, and again we have a final tally of 50-50.

In either scenario, it is great to be Joe Lieberman.

That's my prediction and I'm sticking to it. Actually, I kind of like it.

Divided Government.
Divided Congress.
Divided Senate.

What could be better?

This post is about Denny Hastert, Speaker of the House of Representatives, and third in the line of succession to the presidency of the United States. But before we talk about Denny, I'd like to introduce you to Mr. George Washington Plunkitt. About 100 years ago, he was a New York State Senator, part of the notoriously corrupt and powerful Tammany Hall political machine that ran New York City. In 1905 he gave a series of talks that was serialized in the newspaper, and ultimately compiled into a book. The name of one talk was "Honest Graft and Dishonest Graft",wher he outlines a moral code about exactly what kinds of graft were permitted when you held public office.

He considered "honest graft" to be perfectly acceptable and he defended it publicly and proudly:

"My party's in power in the city, and it's goin' to undertake a lot of public improvements. Well, I'm tipped off, say, that they're going to layout a new park at a certain place. I see my opportunity and I take it. I go to that place and I buy up all the land I can in the neighborhood. Then the board of this or that makes its plan public, and there is a rush to get my land, which nobody cared particular for before. Ain't it perfectly honest to charge a good price and make a profit on my investment and foresight? of course, it is. Well, that's honest graft." If my worst enemy was given the job of writin' my epitaph when I'm gone, he couldn't do more than write: "George W. Plunkitt. He Seen His Opportunities, and He Took 'Em."

Wikipedia helps clarify GWP's distinction between honest graft and dishonest graft:

"Most of his money was made through purchasing land, through his connections, he knew would be needed for public projects. He would buy such parcels, then resell them at an inflated price. (This was "Honest Graft". "Dishonest Graft" according to Plunkitt, would be buying land and then using influence to have a project built on it.)"

Which brings me back to Denny Hastert.

As documented by Citizens for Responsibiity and Ethics in Washington, Denny Hastert has been dabbling in some graft over the last few years. He purchased land near Plano, Illinois in 2002 and 2004 for $2.5 million. In 2005 he earmarked $207 million dollars of your tax dollars to build a highway and interchange that passed within a few miles of his property. Four months after GWB signed the bill into law, Denny Hastert then sold his land for almost $5 million dollars.

It strikes me that this a perfect example of what George Washington Plunkitt called "dishonest graft". The interesting point, is that the 2006 Speaker of the House of the United States of America, the man who is third in line for succession to the presidency of the United States, has engaged in activity that would not meet the moral standards of one of the most corrupt 1906 politicians in one of the most corrupt political organizations in the history of the United States.

That is all I really wanted to say.

I started working on this Hastert video mash-up in response to a phenomena I observed and posted on my blog a few months ago. In that post I was commenting on the growing momentum of a classic Rovian political tactic to make a bogeyman out of Nancy Pelosi to motivate the Republican base for the midterms. I said then that there was an obvious flaw in the strategy, and that flaw was named Denny Hastert.

Along thoses lines, I intended this video to be a short (one or two minute) "I told you so" about our colorful Speaker of the House. But there was just so much material to work with, that it turned into this 10 minute infomercial. Submitted now for your consideration: "Third in Line"

x-posted at Divided We Stand United We Fall