Steven Maviglio's Rants Are Laughable

Or… Bipartisan means “Democrat Agenda”

It is really kind of funny that every time Governor Schwarzenegger proposes anything that does not emanate from the agenda of the radical left, Democrat flak Steven Maviglio accuses the Governor of trying to play to the “right wing.”

I refer you to two of his recent rants on the Democrats blog.

The first rant, railing against the idea of making those who receive taxpayer funds through government transfer programs (i.e. welfare) actually play by the rules, makes perfect sense to me; when Democrats promote socialism they mean it… and there darn well better be no rules that might make it difficult. Ok, I’m being a little silly here but two things are true: first, the Governor said he would remove people from the program if they are not following the rules of the program (e.g. participating in job training programs); and second, the Democrats always oppose anything that might result in reducing the welfare state and in doing so they accuse Republicans of trying to starve children or the elderly. So, the first rant made sense – after all, it is from the standard Democrat playbook (you remember, when all else fails accuse them of being “mean spirited.”)

The second rant is the one I don’t fully understand. Since when did the idea of building dams become a “right wing” concept? I’m fairly certain that there was a time when Democrats believed in building infrastructure – even dams. For example; Shasta Dam was built between 1938 and 1945 under President Franklin D. Roosevelt (D) and Gov. Frank Merriam (R); Friant Dam 1939-42, President Franklin D. Roosevelt (D), Gov. Culbert Olson (D), Folsom Dam 1948-56, President Harry Truman (D), Gov. Earl Warren (R), Bradbury 1950-53, President Harry Truman (D), Gov. Earl Warren (R); and the New Melones Dam built 1966-79, President Lyndon Johnson (D), Gov. Pat Brown (D) and Gov. Ronald Reagan (R). It all seems pretty bipartisan to me.

But in 2007 building dams is evidently a “right wing” agenda item. Why, one might wonder, is building dams no longer a bipartisan agenda? The answer is actually simple; because the radical environmentalists are a major special interest in control of the leftwing Democrat party. Why do radial environmentalists hate dams? Well, that is a discussion for another day. Suffice it to say – radical environmentalists hate dams, legislative Democrats hate dams.

Make no mistake, when Steven Maviglio talks about bipartisanship he does not mean an agenda that draws support from both parties; he means an agenda that is put forth by leftwing Democrats and embraced by Governor Schwarzenegger. Mr. Maviglio’s rants about Governor Schwarzenegger “veering” right (in the midst of the Governor’s proposal to raise taxes and socialize healthcare) is a bit laughable.

Indulge a little digression and “funning” for a moment…

Perhaps Republicans should accuse Democrats of being “mean spirited” for opposing the construction of dams for several reasons: (1) Democrats are just being mean to retirees who like to fish – fewer dams means fewer reservoirs; (2) Democrats are damaging the environment – all those folks in the city who like water recreation (e.g. water skiing) have to drive excessive miles to reach the current reservoirs – more fossil fuels burned hurts the environment; (3) by preventing the expansion of environmentally friendly hydroelectric power Democrats are driving up the cost of electricity thereby hurting the neediest in California – pretty soon children of single mothers will be homeless and shoeless; and, (4) ultimately, by denying the development of additional water storage, Democrats are trying to dehydrate older people and young children which is a serious health risk – pretty soon dehydrated people will start dropping like flies in Walmart stores all over California.

O.K., I admit, this list is a little over the edge, but I’m just trying to keep the discourse on public policy in the same spirit as promoted by the leftwing Democrats.

The Politics of the Bizarre

Vice Chairman of the Senate Rules Committee Jim Battin posted on Flash Report today making the case for Senate Republicans to stop the appointment Joe Nunez, CTA lobbyist and Arnold Schwarzenegger antagonist, to the State Board of Education. Senator Battin’s post can be read here.

Making the case for Senator Battin is the California Democrat Party who posted the following on their own website:

Arnold's Own Appointee Presses Charges: The Sacramento Bee reports that Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger recently reappointed Joe Nuñez to the State Board of Education. One day later, Nuñez courageously announced that he is "filing a five-page complaint with the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) against Schwarzenegger and the governor's old campaign vehicle, the California Recovery Team." The complain demands that "the FPPC investigate and file a civil suit against Schwarzenegger and the California Recovery Team over what the alliance charged were 'blatant violations' of the Political Reform Act" - violations outlined in the 3rd District Court of Appeal's rulings. Nuñez urged the FPPC "to depose Gov. Schwarzenegger and his political consultants" to find out if there was "an overall plan by his campaign to hide from the press and the public the true nature of his committee's expenditures."

The appointment (actually, reappointment) of Joe Nunez to the State Board of Education by Governor Schwarzenegger caused Dan Weintraub to comment:

This is the equivalent of George Bush appointing Michael Moore as his ambassador to Iraq. Either Schwarzenegger has figured out a very creative way to shore up his relationship with the CTA or he has very strange judgment in appointments. And given the Nunez quote in today's press release, it doesn't look as if the governor's guy is building many bridges. Bizarre.

Chalk this up as just one more example of a rudderless and drifting vessel – in this case it appears to be one completely bereft of any political common sense.

RIP President Gerald Ford

"My family joins me in sharing the difficult news that Gerald Ford, our beloved husband, father, grandfather and great grandfather has passed away at 93 years of age," Mrs. Ford said in a brief statement issued from her husband's office in Rancho Mirage. "His life was filled with love of God, his family and his country."

Read the full story from AP here.

Mr. Mayor's LAUSD Powergrab is Tossed

Judge tosses out mayor's takeover of L.A. schools
A law giving Villaraigosa control over some campuses violates state Constitution, jurist says.
By Howard Blume and Joel Rubin
Times Staff Writers

December 22, 2006

A Superior Court judge Thursday struck down legislation that gave Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa substantial authority over the Los Angeles Unified School District, a stunning setback to his plans for assuming direct control of dozens of Los Angeles schools.

Judge Dzintra Janavs said the law, which would have taken effect Jan. 1, violated multiple provisions of the state Constitution and the Los Angeles City Charter. She ordered public officials "to refrain from enforcing or implementing" any part of Assembly Bill 1381, which codified Villaraigosa's powers.

The full story is here.

The best thing to do at this point would be to break up the LAUSD using a mechanism like AB 2071 proposed by Assemblyman Keith Richman last year. If the Mayor is sincere about wanting to affect schools or implement reforms in a high profile way, he could work with the district to establish charter schools – taking a high school and all of its feeder schools. Such a proposal would not have to mean that unions are “out of luck” because a charter could include a provision to honor the UTLA union contract within all of the charters; having said that, if I were Mayor Villaraigosa I would want my charter to be non-union. Such a plan, however, would not allow the Mayor to control the hiring of the Superintendent and therefore would reduce his influence over $19 billion dollars in school construction contracts.

Dan Walters is a Bigot?

More on the antics of Democrat Assemblyman Mervyn Dymally, the Chairman of the Assembly Health Committee…


Dan Walters: Dymally's epithet an honor
By Dan Walters - Bee Columnist
Published 12:00 am PST Wednesday, December 20, 2006

The official stationery of the U.S. House of Representatives has yellowed with age, but the angry words of the letter still leap from the page.

Then-Congressman Mervyn Dymally sent the missive to this columnist in 1992 in response to a column about those retiring from California political office that year, listing Dymally among those who wouldn't "be found in the political hall of fame."

"I would have thought that time would have tempered your bigotry," Dymally wrote. "But I am told that hatefulness is a sickness, so you are to be forgiven.

The full story is a must read.

Digging Deeper

The first rule in trying to dig out of a hole… stop digging.

Dymally regrets using 'racist' label
The assemblyman was attacking a colleague probing his issuance of badges to supporters.
By Nancy Vogel, Times Staff Writer
December 20, 2006

Five days after he called a fellow lawmaker "the most racist legislator I have encountered in over 40 years," Assemblyman Mervyn Dymally (D-Compton) expressed remorse.In a four-paragraph statement to Assembly Speaker Fabian Nuñez (D-Los Angeles), Dymally, an African American, said, "I have been around long enough to know that you do not mix your personal feelings with public policy. I deeply regret my statement about Assemblyman Hector De La Torre, and it is my hope that this is now behind us."

So, to understand it correctly… personally, Democrat Assemblyman Mervyn Dymally believes Democrat Assemblyman Hector De La Torre is a racist; however, Mr. Dymally regrets having said it out loud and thereby injecting the accusation into "public policy". No where in the story is there any indication that Assemblyman Dymally apologized to Assemblyman De La Torre or that Mr. Dymally retracted his accusation that Mr. De La Torre is a racist.

Assembly Democrats seem to have a real problem on their hands. I wonder why this subject has not been mentioned in the leftwing Democrat blog, The California Majority Report, which regularly comments on internal Republican matters?

A Little Parody...

... always bears a little truth (unfortunately).




Zucker Takes on James Baker
David Zucker's Iraq Study Group ad from CrockettFilms.

This "Diversity Moment" brought to you by Reuters

Groups offer Web festival sacrifice
Tue Dec 19, 2006 9:34 AM ET

KARACHI (Reuters) - Religious organizations in Pakistan are using the Internet to help Muslims in Western countries buy and sacrifice animals for an annual festival. (Full story linked above.)

OAF: I can't wait to see PETA's response to this activity, if they respond. Can the radical left bring itself to criticize Muslims? (You didn't actually think I'd link to the nutcases at People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals did you?)

Merry Christmas

As we all jostle around this year preparing to exchange gifts with those we love and sometimes with others (the white elephant type) let us not forget the reason for exchanging gifts this time of year. With all of the media discussion about “the war on Christmas” and the reports about the success or failure of retail outlets “during the season”, I can’t help but pray that at some point everyone will stop – take a deep breath – and rejoice in the wonder that is Christmas. Christmas - the celebration of the birth of Jesus Christ, son of Mary, Son of God, teacher and Savior.

Below is the historical accounting of the birth of Jesus as told by Luke, the beloved physician. I chose Luke because of his careful historical approach and because he endeavored to present Jesus as the Universal Savior, the compassionate healer and teacher.

This passage is from the New King James Version of the Bible; for anyone interested in reading further (or in another translation) I recommend Biblegateway.com.

Luke Chapter 2

Christ Born of Mary
1 And it came to pass in those days that a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be registered. 2 This census first took place while Quirinius was governing Syria. 3 So all went to be registered, everyone to his own city.4 Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and lineage of David, 5 to be registered with Mary, his betrothed wife, who was with child. 6 So it was, that while they were there, the days were completed for her to be delivered. 7 And she brought forth her firstborn Son, and wrapped Him in swaddling cloths, and laid Him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn.

Glory in the Highest
8 Now there were in the same country shepherds living out in the fields, keeping watch over their flock by night. 9 And behold, an angel of the Lord stood before them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them, and they were greatly afraid. 10 Then the angel said to them, “Do not be afraid, for behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy which will be to all people. 11 For there is born to you this day in the city of David a Savior, who is Christ the Lord. 12 And this will be the sign to you: You will find a Babe wrapped in swaddling cloths, lying in a manger.” 13 And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God and saying:
14 “ Glory to God in the highest, And on earth peace, goodwill toward men!”
15 So it was, when the angels had gone away from them into heaven, that the shepherds said to one another, “Let us now go to Bethlehem and see this thing that has come to pass, which the Lord has made known to us.” 16 And they came with haste and found Mary and Joseph, and the Babe lying in a manger. 17 Now when they had seen Him, they made widely known the saying which was told them concerning this Child. 18 And all those who heard it marveled at those things which were told them by the shepherds. 19 But Mary kept all these things and pondered them in her heart. 20 Then the shepherds returned, glorifying and praising God for all the things that they had heard and seen, as it was told them.

As you hustle around and prepare for all of the worldly celebration of Christmas, take a moment to contemplate the historical birth of Jesus, and give thanks for our savior.

Merry Christmas.

A Glaring Contradiction

Assemblyman Mervyn Dymally is embroiled in a ridiculous controversy over the issuing of “badges” to some of his friends and evidently campaign contributors (see previous post). In reading the stories surrounding this incident and comparing them to another incident from 2004, I couldn’t help but notice a real contradiction between Mr. Dymally’s words, his actions and well… his words. You be the judge.

Mr. Dymally’s response to law enforcement’s objection to the use of a “badge” by Mr. Dymally’s friend in an attempt to get out of a DUI arrest:

"The possession of these badges is not an illegal act," he said. "If it is, then arrest everybody. Arrest some white people too."

Mr. Dymally’s reaction to the call by Speaker Nuñez to investigate the use of "badges":

SACRAMENTO — The assemblyman at the center of a controversy over the issuance of official-looking badges to campaign supporters on Thursday called the fellow lawmaker asked to investigate the practice "the most racist legislator I have encountered in over 40 years."

Assemblyman Mervyn Dymally (D-Compton) made the comment about Assemblyman Hector De La Torre (D-South Gate) in response to a question from a television reporter.

Mr. Dymally’s comment after he cancelled a press conference to call for the resignation of Education Secretary Richard Riordan for bizarre comments Mr. Riordan made about a little girl (the press conference was cancelled after Mr. Dymally learned the little girl was white and not black).

Dymally now says he didn't approve the press conference: "I'm one of those black politicians who doesn't think about race."

So, in your opinion: a glaring contradiction or not?

Shameful!

Head of badge investigation a 'racist,' Dymally says
By Nancy Vogel, Times Staff WriterDecember 15, 2006

SACRAMENTO — The assemblyman at the center of a controversy over the issuance of official-looking badges to campaign supporters on Thursday called the fellow lawmaker asked to investigate the practice "the most racist legislator I have encountered in over 40 years."

Assemblyman Mervyn Dymally (D-Compton) made the comment about Assemblyman Hector De La Torre (D-South Gate) in response to a question from a television reporter.

(I guess Mr. Dymally never "encountered" Democrat Senator Robert Byrd during his tenure in the House of Representatives.)

For more background on this issue, read:

Nuñez wants use of badges probed
The Assembly speaker acts after lawmaker Mervyn Dymally attracts notice by issuing the official-looking shields to supporters.
By Dan Morain and Evelyn Larrubia, Times Staff WritersDecember 13, 2006

Man held in DUI had badge issued by Dymally, police say
By Evelyn Larrubia and Dan Morain, Times Staff Writers December 5, 2006

Schwarzenegger v. Schwarzenegger

Bill Saracino pens an excellent column for the California Political Review proposing a debate between Arnold Schwarzenegger and Arnold Schwarzenegger - the article is a must read.

In his missive Mr. Saracino suggests that he may have been naive by supporting candidate Schwarzenegger (who claimed to be a Milton Friedman fiscal conservative). On the contrary, Mr. Saracino is anything but naive - he is a seasoned and skilled political observer and campaign consultant. His support for candidate Schwarzenegger was not born of naiveté, it was instead based upon the time-honored code of accepting a man at his word (which speaks to the better nature of Bill Saracino). Mr. Saracino underestimated the guile of Arnold Schwarzenegger and for doing that once he cannot be faulted; to do it again would be naiveté.

Reading Mr. Saracino's article reminded me of a commentary posted on OAF Blog a little over one year ago; it is worth reading again: On Governor Schwarzenegger - A Ship Without a Rudder. Interestingly, after Governor Schwarzenegger devastated all of the conservative Republican candidates seeking statewide office the question remains; who will take up the mantle of standard bearer for California Republicans?

Promoting Mediocrity

Citing Stress, School Stops Publishing Honor Roll
December 12, 2006

NEEDHAM, Mass. -- A Massachusetts school's decision has brought about mixed feelings from the community.

Needham High School has abandoned its long-standing practice of publishing the names of students who make the honor roll in the local newspaper.

Principal Paul Richards said a key reason for stopping the practice is its contribution to students' stress level in "this high-expectations-high-achievement culture."

The full story is here.


Why Not Elimitate Winners Altogether?
What next? Will schools no longer award medals to the winner of the track and field event for fear that someone might have hurt feelings? How about a new policy where every wrestler in a weight bracket gets a medal – the same medal – we wouldn’t want anyone to know that one wrester “won” the tournament.

It's Better to Recognize a Diversity of Talents
Perhaps some of the children making the honor roll at Needham High School are scholars and not athletes. Will the school no longer recognize successful athletes in order to make those who are not athletically-inclined feel less pressure to succeed in athletics? Did it ever occur to anyone that having one’s name printed in the newspaper as a member of the honor roll might be the only positive public recognition some of those children receive for their academic success?

A Better Proposal
Needham High School should follow the Loni Hancock model which proposed redefining the level of academic achievemnet neccessary to desginate a student as "proficient" in California in order to allow more students to be; well, "proficient." Under the Hancock model, all students in Needham High School could be "honor students."

A.G.-Elect Leaves Oakland “In the Dust”

From the San Francisco Chronicle’s Mattier & Ross:

Police Dept. dusting dilemma
Oakland fingerprint unit has been closed for 7 months due to lack of funds and staff

Read the full story here.


Perhaps the Oakland police department can send its fingerprint work to the California Attorney General’s office so that Jerry Brown can finally help with the crime epidemic he left behind as Mayor.

Intelligence Problem

Prolific Blogger Bill Bradley, New West Notes, on Speaker-elect Pelosi’s Intelligence Problem:

Incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has an intelligence problem. Her pick for the crucial chairmanship of the House Intelligence Committee, Texas Congressman Silvestre Reyes, turned out not to know basic facts about Al Qaeda, facts that most well-informed newspaper readers would know.

Read Bill Bradley’s full post here.

OAF Blog has already expressed great concern (read: here) that national security might be compromised by Speaker-elect Pelosi's decision to engage in petty personal politics – Bill Bradley seems to confirm those fears.

Political Reformers? Prove It!

Nationally, Democrats are attempting to seize the political high ground as the party of political reform. Given the decadence of Congressional Republicans during their tenure, Democrats have been presented with a magnificent opportunity to make their case. I ultimately would like to see Republicans recapture the majority, but for the sake of the nation I wish Democrats well - if only for the hope that moral integrity returns to Washington. I am not confident that it will (there is too much at stake given the size and scope of the federal government - see more on my thoughts here). But, as an eternal optimist I remain hopeful. (Those who know me are laughing out loud).

True Political Reform – Impartial Redistricting
In California Democrats have been presented with an opportunity to demonstrate that they are committed to ethics and political reform, and they can do this with the help of Republicans. Assembly Republican Leader Mike Villines introduced Assembly Constitutional Amendment 4 on Monday, the opening day of the biennial legislative session. ACA 4 provides for an independent citizens commission to draw the boundaries for California’s Assembly, Senate and Congressional districts thereby taking the process out of the hands of state legislators who, by definition, suffer a conflict of interest when drawing their own district boundaries.

The Governor, with whom Democrats have enjoyed great “bi-partisanship”, held a press conference on Tuesday to call for reform of the redistricting process, and introduce his own impartial redistricting proposal. “We must bring competition back into the political process to guarantee that our elected leaders represent the full diversity of California and the will of the people,” said Gov. Schwarzenegger. “This is exactly the kind of political reform I promised the people of California when I became Governor three years ago. I said that we will bring the trust back to government and make our democracy strong. Last year, we came very close to getting redistricting reform done so this year I know we can do it.”

In a speech three years ago (prior to being elected Governor) Arnold Schwarzenegger said, “reapportionment of state assembly and state senate seats should be done fairly so that no political party uses the process to distort democracy and electoral districts should be drawn for the benefit of the voters, not political intrigue and advantage.”

Political Reformers? Prove It!
Given that legislative Republicans have made impartial redistricting one of their top priorities in California, and given that the “bi-partisan” Governor has advanced a similar proposal, it is time for Democrats to prove that they are truthfully committed to political reform. Redistricting affects state legislative seats and congressional seats. As a Californian, Speaker-elect Pelosi has both a personal interest and a broader political interest in how districts are drawn in the Golden State. Embracing ACA 4 or the Governor’s proposal would demonstrate Representative Pelosi’s commitment to political reform; her commitment to fair elections. It is time for Speaker-elect Pelosi to call Speaker Villaraigosa and insist that impartial redistricting be placed before the voters of California with the full support of Democrats.

To do anything less means that even with all the lip-service about political reform, Speaker-elect Pelosi and California Democrats are no different than former Congressman Tom DeLay.

News on Legislative Republican Infighting

It seems the best place to find internal news and gossip about legislative Republicans in California is from the Democrats at the Majority Report.

Perhaps some Democrat would be kind enough to share their dirty laundry to Republicans so they can then put it on display for the rest of California. Maybe the folks at the California Republican Assembly could spice up their blog with such information.

A Good Op-Ed from Sunny San Diego

The San Diego Union-Tribune published this excellent op-ed today, just two days after OAF Blog wrote on the same subject with a very similar headline. Hmm, I wonder if the editors of the Union-Tribune read OAF Blog?

Reforms must precede windfall for education
UNION-TRIBUNE
December 3, 2006

...Elizabeth Hill, the state's respected, neutral legislative analyst, recently issued a five-year budget forecast. The news for schools was staggering: Taxpayers are about to hand an extra $6 billion to educators.

...Parents should get vouchers to spend at private or public schools, thus ensuring healthy competition that would slash wasteful administration. Good teachers should get bonus pay, mediocre teachers should be reassigned, and bad teachers should find new careers. Districts must stop covering up horrendous drop-out rates.

Voters have decided to invest in their children. Sacramento must not fail them.

School Reform Must Come First – Choice is the Best Answer

The following story from Inside Bay Area.com chronicles the hopes of California Schools Superintendent Jack O’Connell that an independent study carried out by researchers mostly from Stanford University will divine how much “it costs to educate a student.” Mr. O’Connell and other members of the public education spending lobby are hoping that the “Getting Down to Facts” study will be the catalyst by which state legislators are duped into believing that throwing more money into the current public school system will result in better educated students.

Here is an excerpt from the story (please honor the writer by clicking on the headline and reading the full article):

O'Connell searches for the true cost of education
California superintendent hopes $2.6 million study drives funding of state's schools
By Grace Rauh, STAFF WRITER
Inside Bay Area
Article Last Updated:12/01/2006 02:56:56 AM PST

SAN FRANCISCO — For years it has been a rhetorical question. But for the first time this spring, Californians may finally get an answer. Exactly how much does it cost to properly educate a child?

"We actually asked what is the actual cost to educate a student," O'Connell told the crowd. "I hope that (the answer) really drives the discussions in Sacramento."

… The $2.6 million study responsible for uncovering this elusive answer was funded by four foundations and led by Stanford University. O'Connell, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and Democratic legislative leaders commissioned the research and the results should be released in two to three months.

"I hope it's a benchmark," O'Connell said after his speech, from the floor of an education trade show taking place alongside the conference. "I hope it's more than a study that is placed on the shelf. I hope it drives education funding."

… California voters support spending more money on public schools, but only if there is greater accountability over how that funding is dispensed, according to a new statewide poll released Thursday by Children Now, a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization based in Oakland.

… "There's not a big divide in the electorate in terms of making major changes in education," said Ted Lempert, president of Children Now. "They are saying loud and clear that the system is unacceptable and we need major change in California."

For Lempert, the key to the polling results is the realization that voters want education reform and financial accountability. They are saying, "Let's do both. Let's do them together. Let's get them done," he said.


Mr. Lempert is correct, and the polling (some of which I have seen) is correct; voters do want major changes in education and they want the system to improve. The answer, however, cannot be more taxpayer funds coupled with window-dressing reforms to “make finance more transparent” or “hold schools accountable.”

For example, when Proposition 98 was passed, it contained an accountability tool for schools to make taxpayers more aware of how schools use money and how students are performing (that’s one way the spending lobby sold Prop. 98 to voters). The tool contained in Prop. 98 is the School Accountability Report Card (SARC) – you know that all important document you have read and studied to determine the success of schools in your area. If you haven’t read one, you can find it here. Good luck in finding any meaningful accountability. How many failing schools have been shut down due to the imformation on the SARC?

Legislators – and probably this task will fall on Republicans (Democrats are too beholden to the California Teachers Association, the teachers union) - should use the call for additional spending to foster meaningful education reform in California. They should instist that meaningful reform must be enacted before any additional taxpayer funds are dumped into the public school monopoly.

The first and most meaningful reform would be to provide parents with a choice on where they send their child to school. If, as the “Getting Down to Facts” study has been advertised, researchers can determine “the actual cost to educate a student” then quantifying an opportunity scholarship (or school voucher) should be easy. Meaningful reform would attach the “actual cost of educating a student” to each student who would then have the option to take that money and spend it at a traditional public school, a chartered public school, a private school, or even a home school. Any school that receives funds through an opportunity scholarship should agree to be judged through a value-added analysis of student performance on core academic subjects (reading language arts and math) as a means to qualify to receive those funds. Beyond the basics, schools could specialize in classical liberal arts, vocational education, college preparation, fine arts, etc. Schools that succeed in educating students would flourish and those who don’t would be weeded out through analysis of student performance and the marketplace.

Without meaningful reform, more money will not improve education in California.

Pelosi to Harman: Jane you ignorant...

Pelosi chooses Reyes to run intel panel
Speaker passes over committee's senior Democrat Harman

MSNBC posts the story(linked above) of House Speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi’s snubbing of fellow Californian Jane Harman by choosing Texas Representative Silvestre Reyes to Chair the House Intelligence Committee (OK, stop the snickering – I know it’s an oxymoron).

Rep. Harman is too Conservative?
Much of the speculation about why Representative Pelosi chose to dump a fellow Californian and – dare I say – woman from the important assignment of chairing the House Intelligence Committee centers on the idea that Harman is too conservative or too close to the Bush administration on military issues, and specifically Iraq. Is Representative Harman too conservative for Representative Pelosi? Could that be the reason? Let’s compare Representative Harman to Ms. Pelosi's choice, Representative Reyes.

Interest Group Ratings
American Conservative Union lifetime rating:
Harman 30% - Reyes 27%
Americans for Democratic Action (liberal) for 2005:
Harman 70% - Reyes 80%
American Security Council 2003-04 (focus on nat’l security):
Harman 40% - Reyes 50%

109th Congress Key National Security Votes
S. 3930 – Military Commissions Act;
Harman: No / Reyes: No
H.R. 5825 – Electronic Surveillance Modernization Act;
Harman No / Reyes: No
H.R. 6061 – Secure Fence Act;
Harman No / Reyes No
H.Res. 861 – A Resolution pledging support for the war in Iraq;
Harman: No / Reyes No
H.R. 4437 – Border Protection, Antiterrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act;
Harman: No / Reyes: No
H.R. 2863 – Ban on “cruel, inhuman or degrading” treatment of detainees;
Harman: Yes / Reyes: Yes

By interest group and key votes comparisons there appears to be little difference between Ms. Harman and Mr. Reyes. So, if they are evenly aligned on issues of national security and both semi-moderate Democrats why did Ms. Pelosi actually choose Rep. Reyes over Rep. Harman? Probably a more personal issue; some speculate it really boils down to jealousy over the level of recognition Jane Harman has in California over Ms. Pelosi. Democrats won’t talk about this issue because, according to the L.A. times, “…the split is so toxic that Democrats in California and Washington won't go near it.”

Security Should not be Compromised for Petty Reasons
I am not deeply involved in the area of national security and intelligence and therefore I concede that my knowledge is minimal in this area. But, given the similarities in their interest group ratings and key votes I am not confident that national security has been damaged by choosing Representative Reyes over Representative Harman. (The damage was done on Election Day which gave Ms. Pelosi the option to name committee chairs for the 110th Congress).

My concern, more than anything, is that national security should not be held captive by petty matters of personality conflicts or partisan gamesmanship.

For example, the rejection by Democrats to confirm John Bolton as the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations. By all accounts, Ambassador Bolton has been doing a great job; and yet Democrats are still arguing that he is just not warm and fuzzy enough for their taste.

Congress must return to a day when politics stops at the border. A day when Democrats and Republicans joined together to defend America, and they did so without regard to how it might affect their electoral or personal fortunes. As a nation, we need to honor and promote statesmen and reject those who would use their position of power to carry out personal vendettas or allow the prospect of political gain to trump the need to further our nation’s security.

Whatever Ms. Pelosi’s reasons are for snubbing Representative Harman, they should be spelled out for America. We should be reassured that she did not make a decision about our nation’s security based upon petty personal reasons.

In LAUSD… As Much As Things Change, They Stay the Same

I’m a fan of The Who, and have always felt the need to turn up the volume for Won’t Get Fooled Again. When I read the Howard Blume article, L.A. mayor, new schools chief on the same page in the Times today I felt the urge to pick up my guitar and play, just like yesterday… Well, you get the idea.

Howard Blume reports in the article that recently hired LAUSD Superintendent David Brewer and L.A. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa held a press conference after the first of their regularly scheduled weekly meetings – a good idea (the meetings, not the press conference) that could have been accomplished without the Mayor’s LAUSD “takeover” bill, (bearing the lofty title:) The Gloria Romero Educational Reform Act of 2006. Reportedly, the Superintendent and the Mayor are simpatico on their education agenda which includes (long pause for affect) more taxpayer funds for LAUSD, oh yeah… and more accountability for the district (which in California means additional taxpayer funds and the horrible experience of being labeled a “high priority” school).

Will there be any real accountability? According to Howard Blume, Superintendent Brewer tipped his hand on this front by continuing to “soft-pedal earlier remarks about his willingness to fire bad teachers.” In fact, according to the Times reporter the Superintendent, “talked of "embracing" teachers by giving them necessary training, due process and even rewards and community sponsored incentives, such as coupons and free classroom supplies. When pressed several times on how long ineffective teachers would be given to improve, he declined to say.”

I’m not one for firing people for the sake of firing, but there needs to be less coddling and more cajoling if LAUSD is going to change its culture from one of continued failure to one of success. At some point the district will need to use student test data to determine where academic success is occurring and where it isn’t. Where academic failure is systemic, teachers either need to learn how to teach or find a career for which they are better suited. The same level of professional and personal accountability needs to be applied to principals and other administrators. If things do not change, there needs to be accountability for the entire district. Perhaps better options should be explored like breaking LAUSD into smaller more manageable (and more accountable) districts; or better yet, providing parents and students the option to attend better schools by allowing them the choice to escape from the failing government schools.

The modicum of improvement LAUSD has enjoyed in recent years has been most prominently influenced by the adoption of statewide academic standards and standards-aligned testing. Superintendent Romer did a yeoman’s job of implementing policies to improve the delivery of standards-based curriculum, and I suppose Admiral Brewer will do at least as good a job (after all, he is an Admiral). But, anyone who was hoping for a revolution led by Mayor Villaraigosa through the Gloria Romero Educational Reform Act of 2006 – well... just crank up The Who, that rockin’ band who emphatically belted out the lyrics, “I'll tip my hat to the new constitution. Take a bow for the new revolution. Smile and grin at the change all around. Pick up my guitar and play. Just like yesterday. Then I'll get on my knees and pray. We don't get fooled again.”

Honoring a Hero and a Friend

Pacific Research Institute's Lance Izumi suggests How Arnold can honor Milton Friedman. Dr. Friedman wrote eloquently in favor of school choice, and Lance Izumi makes a case for the Governor to honor his self-proclaimed mentor by offering California's students a choice. I could not have said it better.

Unfortunately, I am confident that the Governor will not follow Mr. Izumi's sound advice; it would not comport with Mr. Schwarzenegger's 2006 brand of bipartisanship (i.e. all the Democrats and him). Why wouldn't Democrats favor school choice for students trapped in the state's lowest performing schools? Because unions - specifically the teachers union (the CTA) - abhor school choice. The California Teachers Assocation instead favors propping up the government school monopoly rather than helping students learn. I sincerely hope Governor Schwarzenegger proves my assumption wrong, it would be a wonderful surprise and an incredible opportunity for students stuck in failing government schools.

Declining Enrollment – Government Schools Need to Adjust Accordingly

Government School Monopolies – Insulated from the Marketplace
Today, the Sacramento Bee carried a story by Peter Hecht about declining enrollment in California schools. The way public schools deal with declining enrollment demonstrates just how insulated the government school monopolies are from the reality of the marketplace. Most businesses, when faced with declining customers, adjust and do so quickly or face the reality of going out of business. Government schools, on the other hand, are given a year of “cushion” and then seek other ways to avoid dealing with market realities.

For the uninitiated, to fully understand the year of “cushion;” a quick “primer” in funding might be useful. School districts receive funding based upon average daily attendance (ADA). Their revenue limit (basic funding) is based upon the number of students who actually show up for school each year (some may remember the days before ADA when schools were funded based upon enrollment rather than attendance and they were not nearly so concerned about whether your child actually showed up for school each day). School districts that experience declining enrollment are provided a one year “cushion” by allowing them to choose to accept their revenue limit calculated on the current year ADA or the previous year ADA; this allows the school district one full year to make needed programmatic changes to adjust serving fewer customers.

The declining enrollment “cushion” was originally designed to accommodate school districts that suffered sudden and unanticipated enrollment losses caused, for example, by the closing of a military base in the area served by the school district. When declining enrollment is caused by changing demographics in a community it is supposed to be recognized by the district, anticipated and addressed in long-term planning. Some school districts have done this well, others (like San Juan Unified School District) have instead operated with their proverbial head in a hole. When a business makes such a dramatic error in planning it either makes drastic changes or it goes out of business. When government school monopolies make such errors they declare a “crisis” and appeal to lawmakers for a bailout.

An Opportunity Missed - Or... An Opportunity Enhanced?
This year the Legislature passed SB 1133 (Torlakson) which was the “settlement” of the lawsuit filed by the California Teachers Association (CTA) against Governor Schwarzenegger to “recover” $2.9 billion the CTA argued was owed to schools (based upon an agreement between the CTA and the Governor in 2004). SB 1133 was written by the CTA and spends the entire $2.9 billion on an experiment called the “Quality Education Investment Act of 2006” – in short, the $2.9 billion (ostensibly "taken" from all schools) will be spent over seven years in approximately 600 schools to reduce class sizes and provide professional development. To accommodate the class size reduction approximately 2,500 teachers must be hired – when the one-time funding runs out in seven years there will once again be a “crisis” that requires more money.

It would have been wiser and more equitable to use the $2.9 billion in “settlement” funds to address issues like declining enrollment in all schools rather than establish ongoing, expensive programs for 600 (out of nearly 10,000 schools) with one-time funds. Ironically, SB 1133 creates a need to hire more teachers at a time when overall enrollment is declining – could the government schools have enjoyed a less market-driven reality?

[An aside, SB 1133 represents the “dream child” of the CTA – establishing new jobs through class size reduction which means more dues payers which allows more funding for the CTA to play in political campaigns. The ability of the CTA to be an influential financier of political campaigns ensures that more money will be doled out to mitigate the ravages of declining enrollment and other marketplace inconveniences. While this does not help taxpayers, it is a boon to government school monopolies.]

Questions to Ask
When your school district declares it is a “district in crisis” because it is losing funding based upon declining enrollment ask a couple of questions. First, what caused the declining enrollment? Was it a sudden change or was it due to changing demographics? If the latter is the case, what has the school district done in anticipation of the declining enrollment? How many new schools were built in the district despite projections of declining enrollment? Is the school district acting rationally to anticipate future enrollment growth (for example, leasing out closed facilities rather than selling them)? Ultimately, if the marketplace demands reduced operations; why should the school district be insulated from making needed adjustments?

The Story by Peter Hecht can be read here.

Good Advice from Mr. Speaker

An Open Memorandum to House Republicans
November 16 2006
Newt Gingrich

As we think about the 2006 election and where House Republicans go from here, I want to suggest a few principles and actions that might be helpful.

When I was first elected in 1978, House Republicans had been in the minority for 24 years. Despite our best efforts to win enough seats to gain the majority, it took us 16 more years. If we do not want to return to a possible 40 years in the minority, it is essential that we spend time now thinking about the lessons of 2006 and what has to be done. If we do this, we can accept 2006 as a corrective but necessary interruption in our pursuit of a governing majoritarian party.

In 1946 and 1952, the Democrats found themselves in the minority. On both occasions it only lasted two years. They found the methods to recover, even though in the second case they were operating under a very popular Republican President Eisenhower.

When the Republicans lost their brief majority status in 1954, they could not recover it two years later, despite the fact that Eisenhower was winning a massive re-election. Similarly, they could not regain the majority even in the landslides of 1972 and 1984.

There are some key questions and key principles to keep in mind as we work through the process of earning back the majority.

1. Republicans lost the 2006 election. Do not hide from this. Do not shrug it off. Our team lost. Why did we lose? What do we have to do differently?

2. Are House Republicans electing a leadership team to be an effective minority or a leadership team to regain the majority? These are very different roles and require very different considerations, very different strategies and very different leaders.

3. To regain majority status, we have to focus on the country first and on Washington and the Congress second. If we are responsive to the country, they will support us and return us to power. If we are focused on action in Washington (whether White House action, legislative action or lobbyist and PAC action), we are probably entering a long period in minority status.

4. Are House Republicans electing leaders to represent House Republican values and strategies to the White House or leaders to represent the White House to House Republicans? Over the next two years, House Republicans and the White House will have very different institutional interests and very different time horizons. If we want to regain majority status, we have to focus on the building of a grassroots coalition which supports real change in Washington.

5. From a House Republican standpoint, the center of gravity should be the 54 Blue Dog Democrats. If we and the Blue Dogs can find a handful of key things to work on together, we can almost certainly create a majority on the floor just as the Reagan Republicans and conservative Democrats did in 1981. Bipartisanship can be conservative and back bench rather than liberal and establishment leadership defined. What did the Blue Dogs promise to get elected? What was the nature of their coalition back home? They give us the best opportunity to create grassroots efforts to pass solid legislation. Remember, the liberals will find it very hard to write a budget acceptable to the grassroots that elected the Blue Dogs. We have real opportunities if we are creative.

6. House Republicans should establish new principles for appointing people to the Appropriations Committee. Nothing infuriated the Republican base more than the continued process of earmarks, set asides and incumbent-protection pork. There is no reason for the House Republican conference to reappoint a single appropriator unless they agree to be part of the Republican team. First establish the principles of representing Republican values on appropriations and then ask each appropriator to commit themselves to living by those principles or accept appointment to another committee. There is a legitimate role for set asides in the legislative-executive branch process, but there is no reason to give the executive branch a blank check. There has to be some limits, and those limits should be set by the Conference and not by the committee members.

7. All of this will take time. As rapidly as possible there should be a three-day member-only retreat to discuss issues like this and to set strategies for the next two years. These kinds of decisions should be a key part of thinking through who should lead House Republicans for the next Congress and how they should lead.

One Last Note

Do not underestimate Speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi and her team. She and Rahm Emmanuel finally put together a disciplined recruiting system that allowed a lot of Democrats to run as conservatives, even while they were planning to elect the most liberal Speaker in history. Pelosi is a tough, smart, disciplined professional. She is not going to be easy to beat, and she and her team are going to work hard to keep you in the minority for a decade or more.

This is going to be hard work and will require a lot of dedication and a lot of thought.

With best wishes for a return to majority status as quickly as possible.

Your friend,

Newt Gingrich

Getting it right… and wrong

The Saturday San Diego Union Tribune editorial (below) indicating that Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa was betrayed by the UTLA, the local California Teachers Association affiliate, gets it both right and wrong all at once.

Getting it Right
The Tribune editorial writers are correct in recognizing that the teachers union is just that - a union. Notwithstanding all of the prognostication and consternation about what is “right for the kids” and notwithstanding the grandmotherly radio ads by union boss Barbara Kerr at the beginning of the school year advocating wholesome approaches to preparing children for school – the union is just that a union – a labor union. What is the union all about? Working conditions. How does the union define better working conditions? More pay and less work. There is nothing shocking about this, it’s all about promoting self interest.

A digression
I was reminded of this mentality recently when a colleague who retired several years ago from a long career in public education told me she would no longer encourage young people to enter a career in teaching. She said that she could no longer recommend the career because it is, “no longer fun.” Hmmm, no longer fun? What changed during her tenure? That’s right, the state tired of graduating functional illiterates from high school and the Legislature (in a rare moment of clarity) passed laws to require the adoption of standards, standards aligned testing and even a high school exit exam. Finally, a system of education that relies upon research-based curriculum that is based upon high standards and measures outcomes through aligned testing; a system that produces educated children; a system that returns to taxpayers what they expect when they make their investment. That is precisely the system she declares is “no fun.” Well, I am sorry if educating children is not fun for her… perhaps a different career would have been a better choice in the first place.

Getting it Wrong
Where the Tribune editorialists error is in their assessment of whether the Mayor was duped. Mayor Villaraigosa was a union organizer, the Speaker of the Assembly (the author of the Mayor’s LAUSD bill) worked for UTLA – they knew who and what they were dealing with. It is foolish to think they were duped; they ultimately got exactly what the Mayor wanted: control of over $19 billion in construction contracts and over $9 billion in annual funds / service contracts. The LAUSD legislation affecting district operations grants the Mayor “veto” power over the hiring of the district superintendent; the legislation grants the superintendent the power to negotiate and execute all contracts without any oversight by the elected Board of Education. The Chair of the Assembly Education Committee understood the folly in such an arrangement and during the committee hearing on the bill stated that she hoped the next superintendent was a person of incredible integrity (perhaps that is why she was a candidate for the job).

The Mayor made concessions to the union (concessions he would have voted for as a member of the Assembly). One of those “concessions” the union demanded is that contracts be negotiated with the Board of Education not the Council of Mayors. This allows the Mayor to blame breakdowns in contract negotiations on the Board of Education and appear to be “above it all.” Meanwhile, the ability to influence contracts for construction and services remains in the power of the Mayor’s superintendent. In the end, the union is stronger and the Mayor gets to dole out contracts.

Is it possible that the Mayor was not duped at all, but instead got exactly what he wanted?

Los Angeles lesson
Teachers union betrays ally Villaraigosa

UNION-TRIBUNE
November 18, 2006

California is usually seen as a national trendsetter. But the California Teachers Association's ability to persuade voters each election that it and its favored candidates are devoted to kids couldn't be more retro.

Elsewhere, it long since has been accepted that teachers unions are like other unions: driven by self-interest. This was reflected in a joke for New Yorkers that Woody Allen included in his post-apocalypse 1973 comedy “Sleeper”: The war that destroyed civilization began when “a man by the name of Albert Shanker got hold of a nuclear warhead.” Shanker was a famously contentious New York teachers union leader.

But what's going on in the Los Angeles Unified School District might finally wake up Californians. With the seeming support of United Teachers Los Angeles, Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa persuaded the Legislature this summer to give him considerable authority in running the district. There was a brief sense of excitement – perhaps a new model for reform had emerged, one in which a teachers union would be a willing partner.

No more. It now appears the UTLA was engaged in a ruse to increase its leverage in contract negotiations and will sandbag Villaraigosa's agenda unless teachers are given a 9 percent, one-year raise. Meanwhile, the union is fielding school board candidates dedicated to thwarting any reform that might cost one bad teacher his or her job.

In other words, Villaraigosa – a former union organizer – was betrayed. And so, indirectly, were the millions of Californians who defend teachers unions as positive forces. As L.A. Unified's saga confirms, they are anything but.

Veterans: Thank you!

This is a "re-post" of a previous post on OAF Blog, I thought it appropriate on Veterans Day. I especially want to extend a thank you to my father and my brother - both combat veterans who have served our nation with honor. I hold both men in the highest esteem; and wish to express my love and respect. Thank you!


Never in the history of the world has any soldier sacrificed more for the freedom and liberty of total strangers than the American soldier. And, our soldiers don't just give freedom abroad, they preserve it for us here at home.

For it has been said so truthfully that it is the soldier, not the reporter, who has given us the freedom of the press.

It is the soldier, not the poet, who has given us freedom of speech.

It is the soldier, not the agitator, who has given us the freedom to protest.

It is the soldier who salutes the flag, serves beneath the flag, whose coffin is draped by the flag who gives that protester the freedom to abuse and burn that flag.

- Senator Zell Miller

Take a moment and thank a soldier today.

The Myth of "Cetrism" Debunked

Steve Wiegand debunks the myth of "cetrism" in the Sacramento Bee today, and I couldn't agree more with Mr. Wiegand. Centrism is a misunderstood idea - people believe that centrism is the solution to complex problems - it is not. The "fever swamps" of the political left and the political right tend to be the incubators of ideas - solutions to complex problems. Given the profuound difference in philosophical approaches, the ideas often clash. The clash of ideas is a good thing, it provokes (what should be) a healthy debate; and, as Mr. Wiegand recognizes, when people negotiate in good faith problems get solved. What has been lacking is a civility in the debate - a commitment to integrity in the negotiation. What needs to be changed is not the philosophical beliefs of our representatives; it is the way they behave. We need more statesmen and fewer partisan self-promoters.

The following contains excerpts from Mr. Wiegand's article; I highly recommend reading the entire article here.

Centrism is highly overrated
By Steve Wiegand - Bee Columnist
Published 12:00 am PST Saturday, November 11, 2006

There have been a lot of warm and fuzzy self-congratulations since Tuesday's election about how California voters and candidates -- particularly Arnold Schwarzenegger -- have met in the middle of the political spectrum.

…But before we all join hands and sing 10 or 12 verses of "Kumbaya," let's peer a little harder at reality.

Schwarzenegger won big, and he's a Reep. Whoop-de-do. Six of the last 10 California governors have been Republican. In fact, since 1899, we've had exactly four -- count 'em, four -- Democratic governors.

Plus, let's face it, Skippy the Wonder Possum could have whupped Phil Angelides.

It's true that through "bipartisan cooperation," the Legislature and governor enacted bills that raise the minimum wage, aim to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and make some prescription drugs cheaper for Californians without medical insurance.

That is if you define "bipartisan cooperation" as the governor cutting deals with Democratic lawmakers. And if you ignore the fact that of the 138 Republican legislative votes that could have been cast for those three bills, exactly six were.

Instead of a true centrist "bipartisan" core, what we had was a governor willing to bend to get re-elected, and a majority of Democrats willing to help him to further their own agendas. But the guv becomes a lame duck about five seconds into his inaugural address. And he's bound to be out stumping for the GOP presidential hopeful in 2008.

...The let's-all-be-friends-in-the-middle sentiment notwithstanding, there's nothing wrong with conflicting political ideologies in state politics. In fact, the idea of approaching problems from different perspectives can increase the number and quality of the solutions for them, as long as the parties are willing to negotiate in good faith.

…Besides, centrism is overrated. As the Texas philosopher Jim Hightower once observed, "There's nothing in the middle of the road but yellow stripes and dead armadillos."

I'll take civility and independent thinking over that.

Proof Positive

Carla Marinucci's Spin Cycle: Schwarzenegger praises "new blood" in Congress
posted November 9, 2006

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, emerging from a meeting with Mexican president Vicente Fox, made his first comments about the U.S. midterm elections this week, saying that "this is good that we have new blood coming to Washington."

The governor was asked by Mexican reporters about his reaction to the election in which Democrats took control of the House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate. He said that it was a good thing that "we have new people and new ideas coming to Washington."

"Washington was stuck ... they could not move forward," he said. "Not much was accomplished ... it was terrible." But with the outcome of the election "the people has spoken all over the United States, and I thought they sent a very clear message," he said.
"They want bipartisanship ... what we've done in California."

Schwarzenegger said that he was "very happy" that Rep. Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco, the next Speaker of the House, has been "talking about working together with both parties."

"That's where the future is," he said. The governor's comments set off a flurry, as aides sought to clarify that Schwarzenegger was not specifically praising a Democratic takeover of Congress, but was commenting on the overall call for change he said voters wanted.

Schwarzenegger himself even called a reporter after the event, stressing his comments were not political in nature. The governor's office said he has put in a call to Pelosi, but they have not yet spoken.

OAF: Yeah, the Governor didn't really mean it in a "political way"and he didn't really mean that he's happy about the Democrat takeover of Congress... and John Kerry really meant to tell a joke about the President.

Where's the party?
By Anthony York
posted 11/9/06 - Capitol Weekly

[California GOP State Chairman] Sundheim said that in this Democratic year, it just didn't make sense for Schwarzenegger to embrace other Republicans. "What we saw and felt is that this is not the year you get a bunch of Republicans holding hands on the stage saying, vote for us, we're Republicans, we're a team. Part of Gov. Schwarzenegger's appeal is that he's not part of that team."

As previously stated, proof positive!

Wayward Republicans Need to Return to Core Principles

Philip Klein published a must read for those who are trying to make sense of yesterday's election. Klein identifies what went wrong with Republicans, and why (after losing their way)they lost the House. I argued last year that Democrats could not win becuase they did not have a positive agenda for America - I was wrong on one account and right on another. Democrats never developed much of an agenda, but they didn't need to. Republicans, the party in power, chose to abandon any sense of an agenda at all! Republicans utter lack of any major accomplishment and their lack of articluating a positive agenda left the door wide open - Democrats walked through that door. Democrats successfully positioned themselves as being more fiscally responsible (an easy charge to make given the spending habits of the Republican Congress) and more ethcial (again, with four Republicans resigning due to scandal on the eve of the mid-term elections, an easy case to make). I recommend reading the Klein article, which sheds some light and makes much sense.

Political Hay
Renewing the Contract
By Philip Klein
Published 11/8/2006 12:09:29 AM

... In assessing last night's results it is important to note that it was not a defeat for conservatism; it was a defeat for Republicanism, or at least, what Republicanism has come to represent. In the past 12 years, Republicans went from the party that promised "the end of government that is too big, too intrusive, and too easy with the public's money" to the party of the Bridge to Nowhere; it took control of Congress on a pledge to "end its cycle of scandal and disgrace" and went down in defeat as the party of Tom DeLay and Mark Foley.

Having abandoned its core principles, the Republican Party had nothing to run on this year, so its campaign strategy centered on attacking Nancy Pelosi -- a questionable tactic given that, according to some polls, more than half of the country had never even heard of her. Republican strategists who projected optimism over the past few months cited as reasons for their confidence: fundraising, incumbency advantage, gerrymandering and new innovations such as "microtargeting." But as this election made perfectly clear, none of this can bail out a party that is bereft of ideas. ... (Read the full article here.)

Addendum: The best reform for Congress would be to limit the size and scope of the federal government! I commented on this in February of 2006, you can read the post here.

Arnold Schwarzenegger is no party leader

When Arnold Schwarzenegger criticized Tom McClintock on Thursday it wasn’t the policy disagreement that bothered this conservative (although the Governor is wrong on a policy basis); it was the timing of his proclamation.

OAKLAND — Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger appreciates the Republican lieutenant governor nominee's opinion that the infrastructure bonds on next week's ballot are a mistake but believes he's "totally wrong."

"If you went with his way of thinking, you would never rebuild California," the governor said Thursday of state Sen. Tom McClintock as he visited the Port of Oakland to stump for the $37 billion bond package." (Read the full story here.)

The Governor does little without thorough review and scripting through his handlers, it is not likely that he took a shot at Tom McClintock on the eve of the election without realizing that it would hurt Senator McClintock’s chances of besting his liberal Democrat opponent on Tuesday. Such calculated attacks on GOP candidates are a clear indicator that this Governor is all about “this Governor;” he's not a team player, and certainly he's not a GOP leader.

A party leader would not stifle the electoral hopes of a leading GOP candidate who will be in position to carry the GOP standard as a gubernatorial candidate in 2010.

The Sounds of Silence

That other deafening sound you hear out on the campaign trail is the utter lack of any support for GOP Attorney General candidate Chuck Poochigian by Arnold Schwarzenegger. The importance of the office of the Attorney General is without question. This year in particular, there is no other race for statewide office more important. The election for AG garners the title of “most important” for two reasons. First, the election of Jerry Brown to this office is going to be disastrous for the California business climate – Chuck Poochigian is far better suited for this post. Second, the election of Chuck Poochigian provides Republicans and California a thoughtful and responsible conservative for consideration as Governor in 2010. Despite the need to build the GOP’s bench, Governor Schwarzenegger has done nothing to visibly help Senator Poochigian in his campaign.

What about Coat-Tails?

Perhaps one could argue that Governor Schwarzenegger’s campaign for re-election has provided coat-tails, and that despite his lack of Party-building those coat-tails qualify him to be California’s GOP leader. Not so; if beating one of the mighty Lilliputians by a wide margin somehow translates into GOP victories in California on the down ticket races it will be a nice byproduct of the Schwarzenegger victory, but it will not be the result of anything Governor Schwarzenegger has done to assist those candidates. Party leadership requires that the leader engages affirmatively not just to promote his own self interest, but to also develop and build the bench for the future.

The Governor’s attack on Tom McClintock and his silence on Chuck Poochigian are clear evidence that he is not a leader; he is merely a self-promoter.