Category: Uncategorized

Labor’s Love Lost

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Organized labor may be struggling to attract members, but it apparently has abundant cash to spend on a counterproductive campaign to impose ideological conformity on the Democratic Party.

A coalition of unions has targeted Sen. Blanche Lincoln, who stands accused of excessive moderation. Lincoln’s campaign says the unions have spent $10 million to defeat her in tomorrow’s Democratic primary in Arkansas. As Chris Cillizza reports in today’s Washington Post:

Ostensibly, Lincoln’s opponent is Lt. Gov. Bill Halter. But the practical reality is that she is running against a handful of major labor unions — the Service Employees International Union and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, to name two.

Labor accuses Lincoln of deviating from the party line on two key issues. She opposed the “public option” in health care and doesn’t support the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA), labor’s top legislative priority. EFCA, aka “card check,” would make it easier for unions to organize.

It seems odd to make the public option a retroactive litmus test, especially since Lincoln joined with all the Senate Democrats to vote for the landmark health care reform bill. (She was a “no” on the “fixes” to the bill passed via reconciliation, but health reform was by then already law of the land.) And President Obama himself was less than passionate about the public option, making it clear that he wouldn’t let it get in the way of passing the bill.

As for EFCA, unions are incensed that the bill won’t move, despite endorsements from the president and Democratic congressional leaders. But Lincoln is hardly the only moderate Senate Democrat who has qualms about the bill, which is why it remains snagged. If progressives are honest with themselves, they will admit that EFCA’s provisions for card check elections and for binding arbitration will need tweaking to get through the Senate.

The unimpeachably liberal Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA) has signaled his willingness to negotiate changes aimed at winning moderates’ support. But so far, labor seems more interested in having an issue than in having a bill.

Fine, but is labor’s pique with Lincoln over the public option and card check really worth the risk of whittling down the Democrats’ majority in the Senate, one likely to become even more precarious after the midterm elections?

According to the Post, some labor officials don’t really care if Lincoln loses – the very threat that she and other moderates can be “primaried” for ideological offenses is sufficient to keep them in line. This flexing of labor’s political muscles to intimidate friends may be gratifying, but it’s politically dumb. It ignores the reality that the progressive coalition needs both liberals and moderates to sustain a governing majority, and that if you target moderate Democrats running in moderate-to-conservative states, you’ll enhance the odds of getting a Republican.

Former President Bill Clinton gets it. He’s made several appearances for Lincoln, urging Arkansas Democrats not to get swept up in crusades by outside pressure groups to purge moderates. The curious role played by Halter in this Razorback saga also deserves attention. A card-carrying centrist who worked in the Clinton administration, Halter is no Joe Hill. In allowing himself to be labor’s instrument for punishing a fellow pragmatist, he’s raised questions about his own authenticity, even as he attacks Lincoln for being a captive of Washington.

Even if Halter wins and goes to the Senate, the public option will still be history, EFCA will still be stalled and Democrats will still need moderates from red states to hold onto a majority. Labor also has to operate within the broader progressive coalition, and it can surely find better ways to invest its money than in fomenting dissension within the ranks.

Photo credit: USDAgov’s Photostream

Israel Must Learn to Eat Soup with a Knife

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

I love Israel. From the golden light that falls across the stones of Jerusalem to the banh mi sandwiches made by Vietnamese refugees welcomed by an empathetic Prime Minister Begin, Israel has a beauty and history I hold dear. Keeping this state, and this liberal tradition, safe is why it is so important that Israel understand the depth – and the cause – of its failure last week.

Israel’s leaders lack a fundamental understanding of the threats of the 21st century, or the type of power it takes to quell them. And by misunderstanding, they are endangering their country’s very existence.

Power matters – particularly for a small state like Israel, with an array of real enemies. For many years, Israel has used two primary levers of power. Its immense military might gives it the power to physically destroy its enemies, from bombing Iraq’s nuclear reactor to routing the armies of attacking Arab states. Meanwhile, its friendship with the U.S. augments its armed prowess with the power of an alliance that provides crucial financial support and contains potential threats from countries like Egypt and Saudi Arabia.

But in the 21st century, military power isn’t what it once was. Israel is rarely going to face “clean fights” against armies of clearly identified enemies marching across the desert. Instead, it is going to confront the messy realities of modern, non-state-based warfare. The Turkish organization that sponsored last week’s flotilla had ties to al-Qaeda. A number of individuals aboard were connected to Hamas and other violent organizations. But the boat was also full of peace activists, international diplomats and other well-intentioned individuals who served as (perhaps unwitting) human shields for these more nefarious groups. The smorgasbord of causes on that flotilla was not accidental: it is de rigueur among smart insurgent groups worldwide.

Insurgents know what Israel, apparently, does not. Using military means against unarmed opponents is not only wrong, it also strengthens the insurgents’ cause, inflames their supporters, motivates donors and garners great press.

A flotilla of cell-phone-carrying, Twitter- and Facebook-posting activists can ignite the 24-hour news cycle and get their version of events in front of world public opinion long before any country can muster its sclerotic bureaucratic organs. By the time the state responds, the narrative has already been set. Israel becomes the British fighting Gandhi, or the National Guard turning their hoses on Southern civil rights protesters. We know who won those battles.

Fine, many might snort. Israel may lose the weak-kneed support of the so-called “international community” but it is more important to stop real threats decisively. After all, Israel has had to put up with some international hand-wringing for its military actions in the past. But by bombing Iraq’s Osirik reactor, Syria’s blossoming nuclear reactor or the grounded Egyptian Air Force in 1967, it averted real threats that otherwise could have knocked it out of existence.

Force is still a useful, necessary deterrent against military threats from other countries. Threats from terrorist organizations like Hamas, Hezbollah and others that mix humanitarianism and populist appeals with violence are no less real, but as Israel learned in its ill-conceived 2006 war in Lebanon, force doesn’t work as well against them. As America’s own counterinsurgency manual states, insurgents met with force alone simply melt back into the population, their ranks augmented by new converts and their bank accounts brimming with funds from new supporters. The insurgents then live to fight long wars of attrition that sap their enemies physically, mentally and spiritually.

It is that last category that Israel must pay particular attention to, because it risks losing its other lever of power. As Peter Beinart pointed out in a much-quoted story in the New York Review of Books, young American Jews identify with Israel insofar as it lives up to its founding values. They want to support the state that took in the Vietnamese boat people, not the state that mines Palestinian olive groves. Fighting insurgent wars largely through force necessarily leads Israel to violate the spirit of its own humanitarian founding – and to alienate the supporters in America it needs for its survival.

Victory against insurgents requires a new perspective and new tools. As T.E. Lawrence explained, one must “learn to eat soup with a knife.” George W. Bush didn’t understand counterinsurgency, and his failure allowed the insurgent threat in Iraq and Afghanistan to grow and metastasize. Now, Israel’s leaders must master the signature threat of the 21st century. Its hammer worked well against the state-based threats it faced during the first 50 years of its existence. But Israel had better find other options in its toolkit if it is to quell the threats it faces today.

Photo credit: Lilachd’s Photostream

Cutting the Tether Webcast

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Cutting the Tether: Enhancing the U.S. Military’s Energy Performance

Event Webcast – May 13, 2010

Watch live streaming video from progressivepolicyinstitute at livestream.com

Featured Speakers:

Sen. John Warner (R-VA), Ret.
Rep. Tom Perriello (D-VA)

Panelists:

Vice Admiral Dennis McGinn, Ret., CEO, RemoteReality
Colonoel Paul E. Roege, Army Capabilities Integration Center
Richard Goffi, Principal, Booz Allen Hamilton
Chris Myers, Vice President of Government and Energy Programs, Lockheed Martin

Moderator:

James Morin, Esq., author, “Cutting the Tether”

California, Iowa, Nevada Among the States to Watch Next Tuesday

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Next Tuesday 10 states (including California, Iowa and Nevada) will hold primaries, and Arkansas and Georgia will hold runoffs for the U.S. Senate and a congressional special election respectively.

There’s something interesting going on in every one of these states, but national attention has mainly focused on California, Iowa, Nevada, South Carolina and Arkansas.

The marquee California races, the GOP nomination battles for governor and U.S. senator, have become a bit anticlimactic, with Meg Whitman appearing to run away with the former and Carly Fiorina with the latter, according to a whole battery of recent polls (see the trendlines here and here). Total spending in the GOP governor’s race has now gone over $100 million, but Steve Poizner’s stretch-drive efforts to make the primary revolve entirely around Meg Whitman’s refusal to endorse Arizona’s new immigration law don’t seem to be striking much gold. Whitman, at some peril to her general election standing, has continued round-the-clock aerial pounding of Poizner for alleged liberalism on abortion and spending.

Fiorina has been the only Senate candidate recently on the air, though at vastly smaller levels than the gubernatorial candidates, but may also be benefitting from a consolidation of the conservative vote against pro-gay-rights, pro-choice early front-runner Tom Campbell, at the expense of the other conservative candidate, Tea Party favorite Chuck DeVore.

While political junkies might hope for late drama in these races, it’s worth noting that roughly half the vote in California will be cast early by mail.

In both contests, the Democrats (Jerry Brown and Barbara Boxer) awaiting the ultimate victor in November have enjoyed the intra-Republican slugfest as an opportunity to raise money, and both have been moving up to solid leads in general election polls.

As always, the California primary ballot has a number of initiatives, but the only one of national significance this time around would create a Louisiana-style “jungle primary” system that abolishes party primaries altogether and sends the top two performers (if no one wins a majority) into a runoff. In the current California atmosphere of deep hostility to the status quo, the initiative has a good chance of passage despite strong opposition from both major parties.

Iowa’s Republican primary is interesting mainly as a barometer of that very influential state’s conservative movement, currently obsessed with overturning last year’s state court decision legalizing same-sex marriage, and its potential impact on the 2012 presidential campaign. In the gubernatorial primary, former four-term governor Terry Branstad (who has been endorsed by Mitt Romney) is the far-and-away front-runner, but the one recent public poll shows hard-core cultural conservative Bob Vander Plaats (Mike Huckabee’s 2008 campaign chairman in the state) within theoretical striking distance. An upset would be very bad news for Romney, and very good news for embattled Democratic incumbent Chet Culver. But Branstad got a late break yesterday when Sarah Palin surprisingly (given the less-than-warm feelings of her close right-to-life allies toward the former governor) endorsed his candidacy. There are also a couple of very competitive Republican House primaries, particularly the contest to choose an opponent for Democratic Rep. Leonard Boswell, in which former Iowa State University wrestling coach Jim Gibbons in the favorite.

In Nevada, the big development has been the steady decline in support for the longtime front-runner in the Republican Senate race, Sue Lowden, and a surge in support for Tea Party stalwart Sharron Angle, who has also benefitted from Club for Growth backing. Two polls this week have shown Angle running significantly ahead of both Lowden and Las Vegas businessman Danny Tarkanian. But Angle presently appears to be the weakest candidate against incumbent Harry Reid, who has been slowly rising in general election polls. Reid will have a big financial advantage over the winner of the GOP primary. Meanwhile, in the governor’s race, scandal-plagued incumbent Republican Jim Gibbons looks almost certain to lose to former Attorney General Brian Sandoval, who will face Harry Reid’s son Rory (who is Clark County Commission Chairman).

The South Carolina Republican gubernatorial primary has turned into a circus of late with all attention focused on allegations of marital infidelity against state Rep. Nikki Haley, the hard-core conservative “reformer” (and Mark Sanford protégé) who took a lead over three rivals right before the allegations broke. If no further proof of the allegations emerges before next Tuesday, Haley will make it into a runoff, though it’s unclear whether Attorney General Henry McMaster (the early favorite), U.S. Rep. Gresham Barrett (who’s been struggling to defend his vote for TARP), or Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer (who has high unfavorable ratings and has been accused by Haley of feeding the allegations against her) will survive with her. In the overshadowed Democratic primary, state Rep. Vincent Sheheen is a slight favorite over state school superintendent Jim Rex, with a runoff possible.

And in Arkansas’ Democratic Senate runoff, there hasn’t been any credible public polling of the Bill Halter/Blanche Lincoln battle, but the shape of the race as a war of labor and business surrogates hasn’t changed since the primary, with unions spending well over $2 million in the runoff for Halter, and business groups running ads attacking Halter on Lincoln’s behalf. Lincoln is mostly relying, however, on personal campaigning with Bill Clinton. And for all the TV ads in this race, it will largely come down to turnout, with Lincoln focusing on African-American voters and Halter trying to get southern Arkansas voters to return to the polls. As the challenger in an anti-incumbent year who exceeded expectations in the primary, Halter is the assumed favorite, but anything could happen if turnout’s low.

Ed Kilgore’s PPI Political Memo runs every Tuesday and Friday.

Prices, Wages, Food and Inequality

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Mike Konczal’s inequality post as a guest blogger for Ezra is getting a bit of attention in the blogosphere. Konczal jumps off of an interesting post by Jamelle Bouie to argue that contrary to those who argue that “inequality isn’t so bad,” the unhealthy nature of the cheaper food that is purchased by the poor negates the fact that the poor face a lower inflation rate. Since he suggests I (and Will Wilkinson) think that “inequality isn’t so bad,” I wanted to correct a misconception that Konczal has about the argument of economist Christian Broda that he is responding to. Broda’s actual argument really doesn’t have anything to do with how healthy the things purchased by the poor are.

Here’s Konczal:

One argument that has become popular recently is that the increase in income inequality isn’t quite as bad because both the rich and the poor have different ‘inflation’ rates — the prices at which goods increase for the rich have been increasing much faster than the prices at which goods have been increasing for the poor. So even though the poor or median person hasn’t had any wage growth, he has much more purchasing power because of this effect.

This isn’t quite the argument that has become popular recently. What fans of the Broda research argue (i.e., what Broda and his colleagues argue) is that the apparent increase in income inequality may overstate the actual increase in inequality because the poor appear to have a lower inflation rate than the rich. If true, then it’s not that “the poor or median person hasn’t had any wage growth,” it’s that they have had wage growth because of their lower inflation rate — and the wage growth has been big enough that it has kept the ratio of rich-to-poor incomes roughly constant.

Think of it this way. Broda and his colleagues find that the prices of what the poor buy (that is, “price” when the satisfaction derived, or utility, is held constant) have risen less than the prices of what the rich buy. That’s because when prices of related goods change, the poor are more likely to switch to cheaper goods, all the while maintaining their overall level of satisfaction with their purchases. If it becomes cheaper to maintain a constant level of satisfaction, then one’s wages have effectively grown. So poor consumers may switch from Green Giant frozen veggies to generics when the latter go on sale, or they might buy their frozen veggies at the chain a couple of neighborhoods over rather than the local grocery store when the latter’s prices go up. Rich consumers, on the other hand, may be relatively unlikely to stop buying Whole Foods vegetables when the plebian chain’s prices are cut. They may not switch to generics as those products become cheaper relative to those on offer at the farmer’s market.

It’s not that we should be excited about how great the generic frozen veggies bought by the poor are compared with the Whole Foods produce. It’s that we should be excited that the poor are either more willing or more able to economize to maintain a constant lifestyle than the rich are, and so inflation eats into their quality of life to a lesser extent than it does among the rich, holding in check other forces that would increase inequality.

Now, Broda’s research is based on purchases of a limited number of commodities and over a limited number of years, but if his findings extend to other goods and services and to earlier periods (which he believes they do), then the implication is that inequality between the poor and the well-off — though not necessarily the richest of the rich — has not grown. We can still worry about the quality of the food purchased by the poor and their health outcomes, but that’s a story about poverty and deprivation, not about inequality or growth in inequality.

Stop the Spill, Pass the Bill

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

As diligently as cloistered monks, the commentariat is working hard to calibrate the exact amount of political damage the Deepwater Horizon oil spill is doing to the Obama presidency. Woeful analogies come fast and furious: the spill is Obama’s Katrina, or Obama’s hostage crisis, his Jimmy Carter moment.

All this would be comical if not for the media’s undoubted power to warp public perceptions by converting complex realities into political melodramas. What’s false about this one is its premise: President Obama could find a way to stop the leak if only he would “take charge” of the crisis.

Meanwhile, in the real world, the public doesn’t share the media’s apparently bottomless faith in the federal government’s problem-solving capacities. According to a recent Wall Street Journal/NBC News survey, only 25 percent of Americans trust the government to do the right thing most of the time. Nearly a third say they “almost never” trust the government to do the right thing.

But what’s really odd, as Jonathan Chait notes today, is the “assumption of presidential omnipotence” that informs the media’s assessment of Obama’s handling of the spill.

Today presidents are expected to take ultimate responsibility for every problem, natural or man-made, and to voice the nation’s emotional solidarity with victims of every disaster. In this vein, James Carville recently blasted Obama for failing to show up and emote in Louisiana as the oil spill threatens its shores.

Obama, always the calmest head in the room, has pointed out that since government doesn’t drill oil wells, it’s not likely to have superior experience and technical expertise when it comes to plugging oil leaks. What the administration can do is what it is doing: keeping pressure on BP to improvise a solution. Facing mounting clean-up costs and plummeting stock prices, the company has every incentive to do so.

The president’s proper role is not to play superhero or therapist-in-chief, but to draw from the crisis the right lessons for national policy. He did so yesterday, underscoring the need to pass energy/climate legislation that’s bogged down in the Senate. The bill, he said, would “accelerate the transition” to a clean energy economy. Crucially, it would for the first time put a price on carbon emissions, which would provide markets with a powerful signal to invest in alternative fuels.

If the spill galvanizes Obama into going all-in for a clean energy bill, as he did for health care, it could yet be turned to the nation’s advantage. But if the disaster leads progressives to vote against the bill, because it also contains incentives for more U.S. oil and gas exploration, the result will be a cruel irony: Congress’ failure to act on clean energy would leave America as addicted to oil as ever.

Photo credit: Deepwater Horizon Response’s Photostream

Progressives: Own the National Security Debate! Please!

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

If you read the conclusion of today’s Democracy Corps/Third Way poll analysis, one thing becomes abundantly clear: Democrats remain disturbingly not confident talking about national security.

[M]any Democrats seem relatively silent about the accomplishments of the Obama administration and their party on national security. Though a few are stressing the administration’s efforts on the new START treaty and nuclear proliferation, fewer still seem to be stressing the administration’s accomplishments regarding the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, efforts to strengthen the military, and steps to combat terrorism. The survey strongly suggests progressives should speak out forcefully on these issues, and remind voters of the contrasts between those relative successes and the failures the country witnessed under eight years of Bush-Cheney. [emphasis added]

When the president scores 53 percent approval even after two significant domestic terrorist attempts in the last six months, that’s a strong statement. Even the last few months have seen a significant 10-point shift — moderates have changed allegiances and now trust Democrats more than Republicans on national security by six points.

Progressives need to own the national security narrative, a message I’ve tried to hammer home repeatedly over the last several months. Here’s an excerpt from a piece I wrote back in April for Roll Call:

[T]he Obama administration has quietly put together a sterling record on national security. So why are Democrats so down in the dumps? As one party strategist put it, Democrats “are behaving like the president has a 30 percent approval rating. On these [security] issues, Democrats inherently believe that no one will believe our arguments.”
There’s plenty for progressives to cheer. … Progressives stand for strong, smart security policy. Obama has terrorists in retreat and American prestige on the rise. Democrats need to begin owning their successes if the American public is to give credit where it’s due.

The Democracy Corps/Third Way analysis offers solid, straightforward recommendations. These are hardly liberal fantasy — they’re pragmatic, progressive ways to emphasize what has been a successful beginning on national security that will translate into electoral gains.

  • Speak in stronger terms about anti-terror efforts.
  • Stress efforts to support and strengthen the military.
  • Emphasize successful attempts toward greater international cooperation.
  • Emphasize domestic and economic renewal as an element of national strength.
  • Provide a contrast to the Bush-Cheney administration.

Two quick comments on the specifics of the recommendations. First, on the economy “as an element of national strength,” we’re now wondering less why the White House put such a strong emphasis on precisely that point in last week’s National Security Strategy. And on that final point, John Boehner’s been going around claiming that the administration’s counterterrorism successes have been “lucky,” an argument that the survey says falls flat with voters. I’d offer my evisceration of Boehner here (it was fun to write, so please check it out).

Bored Press Finds Reason to Live

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

That sound you heard was a bored Washington press corps letting out a collective whoop at the sign of the Obama administration’s first scandal: the alleged improprieties involving Pennsylvania Democratic Senate candidate Rep. Joe Sestak (D-PA) and Colorado Democratic Senate candidate Andrew Romanoff, who were both approached by the White House for possible jobs to convince them to drop out of primaries against incumbent Democrats.

But this kerfuffle is more a case of a D.C. media establishment eager for something – anything! – to shake up the dull routine of covering a relatively smooth first term.

First, the Sestak case. Earlier this year, Sestak claimed that the White House had offered him a “high-ranking” federal job if he stepped down from his primary challenge against Sen. Arlen Specter. Last week, the White House and Sestak filled in the details of the story: it turns out that the White House had dispatched Bill Clinton to reach out to Sestak and discuss an unpaid, part-time position on an advisory board, a suggestion that Sestak dismissed.

Republicans, led by Rep. Darrell Issa (CA), have pushed the story as nothing less than the death of the republic. But Melanie Sloan of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington said there’s nothing to it – as the position was unpaid, it couldn’t be bribery. Washington sage Norm Ornstein has called it a “non-story,” noting that “to any veteran of the political process, such offers are nearly routine across every administration.”

The Romanoff case is potentially more serious – but still much ado about not much. Romanoff revealed that the White House suggested three jobs that he might be interested in if he dropped out of his primary race against incumbent Sen. Michael Bennet. Last night’s Politico headline oozed muckraking gusto: “Andrew Romanoff: W.H. offered three jobs.”

The only problem is that the headline wasn’t true. Where did I find this out? From the same Politico story:

In Romanoff’s case, [White House Deputy Chief of Staff Jim] Messina apparently suggested paid jobs in the administration, a difference from the Sestak overture. But unlike the unpaid position offered to Sestak, both the White House and Romanoff said Romanoff was never guaranteed a job.

“At no time was I promised a job, nor did I request Mr. Messina’s assistance in obtaining one,” Romanoff said in his statement.

[…]

“Mr. Messina also suggested three positions that might be available to me were I not pursuing the Senate race. He added that he could not guarantee my appointment to any of these positions.” [emphases added]

It gets better. It turns out Romanoff had applied for a job at the U.S. Agency for International Development during the transition, even following up by phone. Last September, Messina contacted Romanoff asking if he was still interested in a USAID position or if he would continue his run for the Senate. Romanoff said he was no longer interested in the job. End of story.

Or not. As Politico’s coverage suggests, the media, denied a feeding frenzy for so long, is just getting warmed up. Mark Halperin, as reliable an index of C.W. there is, linked excitedly to the Politico story, also falsely using the word “offered” in his post.

This morning, Politico served up the big-picture slam you know it’s been waiting months to publish: “White House political team stumbles, bumbles.” (Posted at 4:46 a.m., the story won the dawn handily.) In their Romanoff piece from last night, there was this priceless nugget as well: “The White House, which remained silent for hours after Romanoff’s statement…” Hours! What is this White House hiding?!

Unfortunately, we live in a political culture where non-stories routinely become headline stories. No actual wrongdoing may have occurred, but this is all bad news for the White House anyway. When you’re spending time explaining why something you did was not improper, you’ve already lost the image battle. If this refuses to die down, it may take a frank and unequivocal statement by the president to turn the page on this faux scandal.

And so begin the dog days of D.C. summer.

Photo credit: Colorado House Democrats

Washington Independent: Outdated Tariff Systems Means the Poor Pay More

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

In the Washington Independent, Will Marshall explains how tariffs on low-cost goods are ineffective in the globalized marketplace:

[…] the argument that lowering or abolishing tariffs on low-cost products will cost jobs speaks more to the need to invest in training programs for low-skilled American workers. “It’s a challenge to protectionists. It does redistribute the pattern of job creation,” he acknowledged. But the genie is already out of the bottle when it comes to globalization, he said, and companies have already moved the bulk of their labor-intensive production offshore. Leaving high tariffs on cheap imported goods isn’t going to stop them from appearing on discount and dollar-store shelves, it’s just going to penalize the consumers who buy them.

“It’s easy to overlook, easy to ignore because people without political voice or power are the most affected,” he said.

Read the full article.

Long Night in Alabama

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

I didn’t actually go to Alabama last night, but I felt like it after staring at county returns half the night trying to understand the capricious will of that state’s electorate — or rather the 30 percent or so of them who voted in statewide primaries.

The shocker of the evening, of course, was Ron Sparks’ landslide 62-38 victory over Rep. Artur Davis in the Democratic gubernatorial race. Davis was the prohibitive front-runner for many months, and though there was sparse public polling in the race, he did have an eight-point lead in an R2K/DKos poll done less than two weeks out.

Now some people will look at the phenomenom of a black candidate unexpectedly losing a primary in Alabama and assume it’s all about race. And some progressives who think Artur Davis is a sell-out pseudo-Republican will assume it’s all about ideology. But I think Davis simply deployed a mistaken strategy, and that Sparks ran a smart campaign. Davis clearly tried to position himself for a general election far too early, and in keeping his distance from traditional Democratic groups, he managed to convey the sense that he wasn’t interested in their votes any more than in their public support. In a low-turnout primary, that was fatal.

It also shouldn’t be completely ignored that in an otherwise largely issues-free environment, Sparks had an issue — support for greatly expanded and regulated public gaming — that’s a proven vote-winner among Alabama Democrats.

In any event, Davis managed to lose upwards of half the African-American vote — which is why you can’t chalk up his defeat to some sort of southern-fried Bradley Effect- – while getting crushed in heavily-white northern Alabama. It was truly shocking to see the first viable African-American statewide candidate in Alabama lose majority-black counties in his own congressional district like Dallas (Selma), Hale, Marengo, Perry and Wilcox. But it’s possible to overinterpret this election: with the exception of Mobile, Artur Davis didn’t do well much of anywhere. And so, ironically, Ron Sparks enters the general election with the kind of biracial coalition behind him that Davis sought to create, in all the wrong ways.

The Republican gubernatorial primary is going to a recount because only 208 votes separate the second- and third-place finishers, Dr. Robert Bentley and Tim James. Bentley’s performance was nearly as surprising as that of Sparks; he was in single digits in the R2K/DKos poll, while James spent $4.4 million — nearly half of that his own money — and made his constant feuding with Bradley Byrne the central focus of the entire race. And it appears Bentley’s impressive showing was at least partly attributable to voters tired of the Byrne-James slugfest.

Meanwhile, Parker Griffith became the latest and no-so-greatest of party-switchers to go down to ignominous defeat, in his case losing a multi-candidate Republican primary without even making it to a runoff. At the end of a long evening, his fate brought a smile to the face of even the weariest of Democrats.

This item is cross-posted at The Democratic Strategist.

Photo credit: Larry Miller’s Photostream

Texas Textbook Massacre: Can the Courts Do Anything?

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Two weeks ago, the Texas School Board voted to ratify, 9-5, drastic textbook changes in their state primary education curriculum after a month of “open commentary” from the public. The changes revisit basic understandings of American history, social studies and economic thought in unprecedented ways.

In a purported attempt to neutralize the pervasive “liberal bias” supposedly present in public education, the Texas School Board approved the insertion and inflation of conservative ideals, values and historical icons (Jefferson Davis, Phyllis Schlafly, Joe McCarthy) in textbooks. The modifications also seek to downplay the intentional separation of church and state by emphasizing the Judeo-Christian faith of the nation’s founders.

At the time the changes were originally proposed, the 15-member Texas School Board boasted 10 Republicans, 7 of which were far-right conservatives. These conservatives undertook a concerted campaign to rewrite the textbook curriculum late last year. Ironically, as Jeremy Binckes notes, three board members who voted for the changes don’t even use the Texas public school system, opting instead for private or home schooling.

What’s most disconcerting about these alterations is the impact they may have on the national education system. As one of the nation’s largest purchasers of public textbooks, Texas’ revisions could alter the content of textbooks distributed nationwide.

What recourse do progressives have to beat back the encroaching, fanatic know-nothingism of the fringe right? Unfortunately, judicial mechanisms may prove unhelpful. Most courts have historically recognized the right of local education boards to create a standard curriculum of its own accord. These local boards are also granted broad discretion in adopting uniform textbooks for their respective public schools. Anyone seeking to judicially contest Texas’s revisions must make the case that the modifications infringe their constitutional rights. This isn’t an easy task.

In 1980, Indiana students brought a case in the 7th Circuit claiming that the removal of books from the school library and ensuing changes to the English curriculum violated their First Amendment protections of “freedom of speech” and the corresponding “freedom to hear.” The court dismissed these claims as failing to meet the constitutional threshold, and reminded the plaintiffs that the Constitution does not permit courts to interfere with the discretion of local authorities unless some really overt indoctrination is happening.

Two years later, the Supreme Court took up the issue of teachers banning books from school libraries. In a 5-4 vote, the majority concluded that banning of books did violate a student’s First Amendment rights. Justice Brennan warned school officials they could not remove books in an effort to restrict general access to political or social ideas that they disagreed with. However, in the same opinion, Justice Brennan also recognized that local boards have “absolute discretion in matters of curriculum.”

The Texas School Board’s amendments walk a fine line between these distinctions. Will their absolute authority over curriculum legally outweigh their obvious intent to revise history on the basis of their political views?

The jury’s still out. Consequently, states and progressives seeking to protect themselves from Texas’ influence will have to use other means. The New York Times reports that California legislators have drafted a bill requiring their state school boards ensure their own textbooks don’t show remnants of the Texas changes. In the same article, NAACP President Benjamin Jealous expressed an intention to fend off the Texas changes — although he doesn’t mention how.

As for Texas, the past month of public commentary has revealed the community’s outrage and concern. Despite their final ratification vote, there are early indications that progressives can take back the Texas School Board of Education from the hard right voting bloc. The former head of the textbook revision movement, Don McLeroy, lost his re-election bid to a more moderate Republican, and is no longer part of the school board. Fellow revisionist enthusiast, Cynthia Dunbar, is not seeking re-election. Absent any clear judicial recourse, Texan progressives will have to further capitalize on the backlash generated by the national spotlight and continue their efforts to overturn the instituted reforms.

Photo credit: Wohnai’s Photostream

After Comcast, What’s Next for Net Neutrality?

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Congress is gearing up to reopen the Communications Act of 1934 in order to come up with what it hopes will be a better way to make sure as much information flows through the Internet as possible and in a manner fair to consumers, service providers and other stakeholders. During a panel discussion co-sponsored by the Free State Foundation and the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, it was clear that the coming debate on the future of America’s Internet policy in general and its net neutrality policy in particular will continue to be a lively one.

Congress has effectively advised the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) not to reclassify Internet edge networks –- cable, DSL, FTTx and wireless –- under Title II of the Communications Act. A majority of House members signed letters last week to that effect, and while these letters don’t have the force of law, they’re certainly significant statements of congressional sentiment. The FCC is, after all, a creature of Congress that isn’t entitled to operate outside the scope of its statutory authority, regardless of how noble its motives may be or how urgent the problems it seeks to address are.

The paramount questions for the immediate future concern the shape of Internet policy, and most of the answers must come from Congress. Jim Cicconi of AT&T and moderator Rob Atkinson of ITIF pointed out that the net neutrality debate has sucked the oxygen out of the room on Internet policy for the past five years. Instead of developing plans for national purposes of the Internet and ensuring that it reaches all Americans at reasonable speeds and prices, the policy community has struggled with questions about packet discrimination and “reasonable network management.” While we’ve been obsessing over how to differentiate good network operator behavior from bad, other nations have leapt ahead of us in broadband speed, adoption, or both. Even after the unveiling of a National Broadband Plan, the public debate continues to focus too much on hypothetical anti-consumer behavior by network operators and service providers.

Five years ago, panelist Randy May of the Free State Foundation developed a model law for the Internet called the “Digital Age Communications Act” (DACA) that sought to update the 1934 Communications Act that governs the FCC. Under the DACA framework, regulators can only take action on incidents in which a broadband provider was enforcing policies harmful to consumers in non-competitive markets. The virtue of DACA is its simplicity – it forswears technical prejudgment of particular management practices – but it has attracted criticism from those who find it too strict as well as from those who find it too permissive; it’s not clear why a market power test is relevant once a given practice has been found to harm consumers, for example. Questions of this sort must ultimately be addressed by Congress, as they pertain to the policy space and aren’t simply matters of regulation.

Professor James Speta of Northwestern warned that the “Title II with forbearance” approach to Internet regulation proposed by FCC chairman Julius Genachowski is inherently unstable. (Under this idea, Title II would apply to the Internet, except for the parts of Title II that don’t.) Obviously, the reclassification itself raises troubling legal issues, and is certain to cause litigation. As the outcome of the litigation is uncertain, it would likely take years to resolve its status. The forbearance process is a second source of instability, because regulations can be imposed and withdrawn so easily as matters of forbearance. While the FCC’s proposed “Third Way” built on reclassification and forbearance appears to offer a short cut to an Internet regulation framework, its expeditious character is probably more an illusion than a reality.

A number of panelists addressed the question of what to do while we’re waiting for Congress to draft an Internet policy. Eric Klinker, CEO of BitTorrent, Inc., pointed out that industry deals with questions of Internet management through self-regulatory and other cooperative efforts. BitTorrent, Inc. was not a party to the complaint against Comcast dealt with by the previous FCC – its competitor Vuze, Inc. filed the petition. BitTorrent took a very different approach, meeting with the Comcast network operations team to determine the nature of the problem that motivated them to actively manage parts of the network as they did and to map out a better solution. Rather than seeking regulatory relief, BitTorrent developed a better protocol, uTP, which yields to interactive applications but saturates network links when no other applications are active. BitTorrent improved the Internet in a way that no regulatory action can.

The self-regulatory systems that have emerged from the broadband and Internet markets organically have been largely effective, but they may need to be supplemented with more active government involvement in the future. Whether this happens, and if so, how it happens, are likely to be the subject of debate in the near future — but that debate should take place in the Congress, not at the FCC.

Avoiding a Rush to Judgment on the Israeli Flotilla Attack

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Much of the world has reacted harshly against Israel in the wake of the tragic loss of life in this weekend’s flotilla incident. While the optics certainly look terrible for Tel Aviv, it’s critical that we avoid a rush to judgment. Two things need to take place first: one, an inquiry insuring that we have all the information we need about the incident; and two, a full consideration of the geopolitical issues in play.

Open questions remain about what led up to the horrific results, questions that need to be answered before any fair evaluation can be made. A partial list includes: Did the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) follow standard procedures to attempt to divert the flotilla as it had others? Was the flotilla given proper warning of the impending boarding? Were other non-lethal diversionary methods (such as water cannons, sound blasts, attempts to escort the ship out of the immediate area) deployed? Once the decision was made to board the ship, did IDF members on board first use non-lethal methods? Were there specific acts that caused the IDF to switch to live ammunition?

A thorough investigation may well prove that the IDF’s use of deadly force was indeed disproportionate. But learning the answers to these questions is critical before establishing that judgment.

A discussion should also take place on the legal and moral justifications for Israel’s blockade of the Gaza Strip. The blockade has been going on for approximately two years, and Israel has justified it on grounds that Hamas could get the weapons via international shipping.

Israel’s right to defend itself is not in question. And though Gaza is not a sovereign state, Israel claims that the blockade is justified because it is at war with Hamas, the group that controls Gaza.

But the effect of the blockade on civilians in Gaza has been severe. UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon has condemned the blockade not on security grounds but humanitarian ones, saying it has caused “unacceptable suffering.” And the Gladstone Report, the UN’s analysis that followed the late-2008 Israeli invasion of Gaza, found that Israel’s blockade exacerbated humanitarian needs, particularly food, economic recovery and public heath.

Israel claims that it was prepared to take the flotilla’s humanitarian goods, inspect them and send them on to Gaza. But regardless of the shipment’s fate, Gaza’s citizens desperately need more, and Israel should reorient the blockade to focus on weapons while proactively facilitating humanitarian assistance. Besides, the incident has already prompted Egypt to open its border with Gaza, demonstrating that there is a limit to Israel’s ability to rope the region off.

It’s important to understand why the flotilla was out there in the first place: not to deliver aid to Gaza, but to make a political point about the blockade’s existence. It’s equally important to note that the flotilla had to provoke Israel in order to make the political point resonate with a wider audience. Israel has to learn not to play into its opponents’ hands.

Any loss of life is tragic, and whatever the investigation turns up will not change the fact that nine individuals have been needlessly killed. But we must understand the specific circumstances that led up to the incident, as well as its wider geopolitical context, before levying judgment.

Photo credit: freegazaorg’s Photostream

Alabama Primaries Take Center Stage Today

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

We’re now into the heart of primary season, with next Tuesday’s 11-state (10 primaries plus the Arkansas runoff) extravaganza being the big show. But today Alabama, Mississippi and New Mexico are holding primaries, with the breadth and craziness of the contests in Alabama making that state the focus of attention.

With Alabama’s Republican Gov. Bob Riley being termed-limited, there are competitive primaries in both parties to succeed him. The race between U.S. Rep. Artur Davis and state Agriculture Commissioner Ron Sparks for the Democratic nomination has recently tightened, with R2K/DKos showing the front-runner with a 41-33 lead (there are no other candidates).

Davis, considered a leader in the House New Democrat Coalition, is also a close friend of President Obama, if not always a reliable supporter in Congress. He’s been preparing for this race for years, and may, in fact, have begun positioning himself for a tough general election a bit too early. Sparks jumped into the race after several other prominent Democrats demurred, and has benefitted from national and local unhappiness with Davis’s voting record (particularly his conspicuous votes against health care reform) and campaign.

Though his election would be a historic event for Alabama’s African-Americans, Davis refused to seek the endorsements of several major African-American Democratic organizations, which went by default to Sparks (who is white); the underdog has also won labor endorsements, and has received strong financial backing from the NEA affiliate in the state, a major power in Democratic politics. Combined with Sparks’ support from gaming interests (he favors a state lottery and casino gambling), he’s been able to keep close to Davis in fundraising (Davis has raised $2.6 million, Sparks $1.9 million).

The Democratic race was relatively civil until the home stretch, when Sparks accused Davis of campaign finance irregularities and Davis accused Sparks of discriminatory practices at the state Ag Department. The R2K/DKos poll showed Davis, despite his spurning of African-American group endorsements, beating Sparks handily among black voters (especially in his own congressional district), with the two running even among white voters. It will likely come down to turnout patterns, with the Davis campaign’s main fear being exceptionally low African-American turnout.

The Republican gubernatorial primary has been much livelier than the Democratic contest, with a runoff certain. The front-runner all along has been former state legislator and state community college chancellor Bradley Byrne, a favorite of Alabama’s powerful business community. The battle for a runoff spot opposite Byrne has revolved around efforts of other candidates to get past “Ten Commandments Judge” Roy Moore, a Christian Right icon with close Tea Party ties, who came into the race with universal name ID and an immovable share of the electorate. Fortunately for his rivals, Moore refuses to take PAC contributions and has run a low-budget race.

That’s certainly not true of wealthy businessman (and son of former party-switching Gov. Fob James) Tim James, who’s running second or third in most polls, and who has spent $4.1 million on the race, near Byrne’s $4.7 million. James’ campaign lit up when the viral ad-master Fred Davis crafted an ad for him (just days after Arizona’s immigration law was enacted) called “Language,” ostensibly focused on demands that Alabama stop offering driver’s tests in languages other than English, which concluded with these lines: “This is Alabama. We speak English here. If you want to live here, learn it.” Mockery of the ad nationally clearly helped James among Alabama Republicans, though Byrne accused him of endangering Alabama’s heavily foreign-investment-based economic development strategy.

Though still another candidate, Dr. Robert Bentley of Tuscaloosa, made a bit of a splash by exploiting the increasingly poisonous Byrne-James competition with an upbeat message, most observers think the real game remains whether James can get past Moore. Another late development in the campaign involved reports that James (an Auburn grad whose father was an all-American football player at Auburn) was bragging that as governor he’d fire or cut the salary of Alabama Crimson Tide football coach Nick Saban, an act of sacrilege the candidate was quick to deny. Meanwhile, Byrne has been accusing James of complicity with the Alabama Education Association’s attacks on the front-runner, including (in a twist that reflects the state’s largely unregulated campaign finance system) heavy AEA contributions to a shadowy group called the True Republican PAC that’s run ads savaging Byrne for allegedly believing in evolution and doubting the literal truth of the Bible (allegations Byrne has been quick to deny).

Despite all the fireworks, early turnout in Alabama today has been notably light, but we’ll have to wait and see if that benefits well-known underdogs like Sparks and Moore.

Meanwhile, Republicans are holding highly competitive primaries in two House districts, one involving party-switcher Parker Griffith, who is in danger of being knocked into a runoff, and the other to choose an opponent for conservative Democrat Bobby Bright. Democrats are holding a barnburner in Davis’ district, with one candidate likely to make a runoff being Earl Hilliard, Jr., the son of the man Davis beat to win the seat in 2002.

The big action over in Mississippi (where state elections are held off-year) is in Republican primaries to choose opponents for vulnerable Democratic House members Travis Childers and Gene Taylor. And in New Mexico, there’s a very competitive GOP primary for Governor, with local D.A. Susana Martinez currently favored over former state party chair Allen Weh for the right to take on Democratic Lt. Gov. Diane Denish.

Ed Kilgore’s PPI Political Memo runs every Tuesday and Friday.

Time for a One-Two Punch for Campaign Reform

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

In its recent Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that corporations and unions are entitled to the same First Amendment freedoms as flesh-and-blood human beings, thereby overturning decades of settled law limiting corporate influence in elections. With political analysts predicting a torrent of new spending by special interest groups in the fall elections, congressional leaders are advancing new legislation aimed at blunting the worst effects of the Supreme Court ruling.

Introduced by Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Reps. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) and Mike Castle (R-DE), the DISCLOSE Act would place commonsense limits on corporate independent expenditures and require CEOs and major funders to take credit for the political ads they make. The legislation rightly restricts electioneering expenditures by corporations with a significant foreign ownership stake, as well as those that benefit from large-scale government contracts or bailouts. In addition, the legislation would greatly increase transparency and disclosure requirements on corporations, unions, trade associations and other incorporated entities, bipartisan measures that are in accordance with our long tradition of constitutionally protected disclosure.

While the design of specific provisions, including the appropriate threshold for government contractor restrictions, is open to debate, the DISCLOSE Act represents a necessary first step to stem the anticipated flood of special interest money post-Citizens United. Democratic leaders have promised swift action and a House vote on the legislation after the Memorial Day recess.

But Congress cannot content itself with incremental fixes to a system of special interest funding that’s rotten at the core. Fundamental reform of the nation’s pay-to-play system will not come by imposing new limits on private campaign spending, but by changing the very source of money that funds campaigns. Bipartisan legislation to establish a new system of citizen-funded elections has already gained the support of 175 members of Congress and dozens of grassroots organizations representing millions of concerned citizens from across the political spectrum.

Under the proposed Fair Elections Now Act, congressional candidates who attract a broad base of public support would be eligible to receive matching federal dollars if they agree to forego special interest money and raise only small donations from their constituents. A four-to-one match on in-state donations of $100 or less would ensure that serious, hardworking candidates have the funds they need to mount a competitive campaign, even when opposed by wealthy individuals or groups.

Indeed, academic analysis of the relationship between congressional campaign spending and election outcomes has consistently found a competitive spending threshold below which candidates are unable to effectively compete and above which additional spending produces negligible returns. Candidates running for the U.S. House between 1992 and 2006 required between $1 million and $1.5 million (in 2006 dollars) to mount competitive campaigns, while spending beyond that threshold did not measurably increase the likelihood of success.

By giving small donors an incentive to invest in political campaigns and rewarding candidates who demonstrate broad public support — regardless of wealth — such a reform has the potential to rein in undue influence by special interest groups and restore the public’s trust. And far from imposing new limits on political speech, the Fair Elections Now Act would expand free speech by enabling new voices to enter the political debate regardless of wealth.

Congress is presented with an historic opportunity to right the wrongs of an activist Supreme Court with a one-two punch for reform: by passing an evenhanded DISCLOSE Act to increase transparency and accountability on the part of corporate funders of political speech, and by passing the Fair Elections Now Act to ensure that elections for public office are owned by the American people, not wealthy special interests. Let’s hope they’re up for the fight.

Photo credit: Dbking’s Photostream

In Idaho, a Palin Pick Goes Down; Contentious Primaries May Be Hurting GOP

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

The country remains largely focused on the Gulf oil spill going into the Memorial Day weekend, but the large batch of upcoming primary elections will keep candidates on the campaign trail and on every available communications medium.

One notable primary, Idaho’s, was held since our last update, and in the GOP competition to take on Democratic Rep. Walt Minnick, front-runner and national Republican wunderkind Vaughn Ward was beaten by state Rep. Raul Labrador, despite late personal appearances with Ward by Sarah Palin. Ward damaged himself with several gaffes, including incidents of apparent plagiarism in his speeches and a boneheaded debate statement suggesting that Puerto Rico is a foreign country. Meanwhile, Labrador (who was actually born in Puerto Rico) benefited from Tea Party support.

Next Tuesday primaries will be held in Alabama, Mississippi (whose state elections are in off-years) and New Mexico. The marquee contests then are the Democratic and Republican gubernatorial primaries in Alabama. Among Democrats, long-time front-runner Rep. Artur Davis is trying to hold off a late upswing in support for state Agriculture Commissioner Ron Sparks. Davis, an African-American, has ceded endorsements by four major African-American groups in the state to Sparks, who is white. That, along with Davis’ vote against health reform in Congress, seems to be fueling Sparks’ campaign, and the competition is getting a bit nasty down the stretch, with Sparks accusing Davis of breaking campaign finance laws and Davis running an ad accusing Sparks of discrimination at his agency.

The Alabama Republican gubernatorial contest looks to be boiling down to a question of whether Judge Roy Moore or Tim James joins state community college chancellor Bradley Byrne in a runoff. Byrne has strong business support, and is the closest thing to a moderate (by Alabama GOP standards) in the race. Moore is, of course, a Christian Right icon, and James, the son of a former party-switching governor, has sought to horn in on Moore’s political turf, helped by his own substantial financial resources. Byrne and James have been accusing each other, somewhat implausibly, of secret ties to the Alabama Education Association. And Byrne has gone after James’ famous “English-only” viral ad for threatening the foreign investment on which Alabama disproportionately depends. Believe it or not, James has had to deal with a rumor that he’s said he would cut the salary of Alabama football coach Nick Saban.

Campaigns are approaching red-hot status in many of the June 8 primary states. The hottest, and certainly the strangest, has been in South Carolina, whose Republican gubernatorial campaign was roiled this week by a conservative blogger’s claim that he had an “inappropriate physical relationship” with front-running candidate state Rep. Nikki Haley. She’s denied it categorically, and the blogger and Haley’s campaign have engaged in a cat-and-mouse game where the former has slowly released highly circumstantial “evidence” based on text message and cell phones records, and the latter has challenged the former to come forward with real evidence or shut up. Haley seems to be winning the p.r. battle the state so far, and today, the saga could take a new turn as RedState blogger Erick Erickson, one of Haley’s legion of national conservative supporters, is promising to release evidence that the accuser was paid to make the allegations (possibly by someone connected with a rival campaign). Interestingly, the whole story broke as Haley surged into the lead in polls; her most likely runoff opponent is Attorney General Henry McMaster.

In California’s torrid Republican primaries, it’s becoming reasonably clear that Meg Whitman is finally putting away Steve Poizner in the governor’s race (though Poizner is now staking everything on attacking Whitman’s opposition to the Arizona immigration law), and Carly Fiorina seems to be suddenly pulling away from Tom Campbell and Chuck DeVore in the Senate race.

In Nevada, the Republican primary to choose an opponent for highly vulnerable Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has turned into an unpredictable three-way fight, with long-time front-runner Sue (“Chickens for Checkups”) Lowden trying to hold off Tea Party favorite Sharron Angle, with Danny Tarkanian not far back.

But in both California and Nevada, there are growing signs that Republican primary infighting could damage the GOP in close general election battles. In CA, the vicious and incredibly expensive Whitman-Poizner contest has been accompanied by a steady rise in the polls by Democrat Jerry Brown. The focus on immigration in the GOP race probably won’t help the party’s already fragile relationship with Latino voters, either.

And in Nevada, Harry Reid, once left for dead by most observers, is creeping back into close contention with his potential GOP opponents, actually leading the rapidly surging Sharron Angle.

UPDATE: Another strange turn in the Nikki Haley saga in South Carolina, as RedState’s Erick Erickson finally released a post following up his promise yesterday that he had the goods on someone paying big money to blogger Will Folks to smear Haley, and would “name names.” In what was apparently an attempted send-up of Folks’ own methodology, Erickson offered no evidence of a payoff at all, but instead simply expressed his own weakly documented suspicions that Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer might have had something to do with it. Hilarious, eh?