The recent House vote on stem cell research has been heralded by the media as a great moment in bipartisanship. Really? Just 50 out of 230 Republicans that voted crossed the aisle to vote with the pro-stem cell research faction (Georgia's G7 was unanimously opposed). 14 of 201 Democrats voted against the bill.
I understand that the media have a hard time understanding numbers, especially when the denominator is 435 instead of something easy like 100. But if the Senate were to vote in the same manner as the House, you'd have 12 Republicans voting for, the rest against with 3 Democrats, and the rest of the Democrats for the bill. The grand total would be 54-46 in favor of the bill. So bipartisan, in fact, that Republicans could easily filibuster this legislation to prevent Bush from having to veto it.
I wonder how that great moderate Johnny Isakson will vote on the bill? After all, this is the one issue (abortion politics) that he is sometimes moderate on. My guess is that Isakson has determined that being a conservative Republican is the best and easiest way to stay popular and get re-elected in Georgia. So he'll most likely vote no.
One thing that every Georgian seems to have internalized over the last 12 years is that Johnny Isakson is a moderate. For a long time, being a moderate was the reason he couldn't win statewide office. First, he was unable to inspire Georgia voters against the similarly moderate Zell Miller, and then in 1996 his moderation cost him the Republican nomination for the US Senate to the more conservative Guy Millner. Wannabe Newt Gingrich replacements like Mitchell Kaye warned Isakson to expect a fight if he wanted Newt's old House seat in 1998. Finally, in 2003, Georgia Republicans fretted (and Democrats hoped) that the moderate Isakson (considered a sure thing in a general election) would lose to a conservative challenger in the GOP primary. When it didn't happen, Republicans immediately crowed that because they were the new majority party in Georgia, moderation was no longer a problem (as the moderates no longer voted in Democratic primaries). In actuality, more Georgians voted in the Democratic primary than the Republican one, but that was the story, and the story remained: Johnny Isakson is a moderate.
Well if that is the case, then why wasn't Isakson part of the moderate group of senators from both parties who have forged a compromise on the nuclear option? And why don't we ever hear Johnny's name mentioned alongside that of Lindsay Graham of South Carolina (the Senate's bonafide Southern moderate) or John Warner of Virginia or John McCain or any of the usual Republican moderate compromisers?
Maybe it's because Johnny Isakson is not actually a moderate. I know it's hard for some people on both sides of the aisle to believe, but the media's obsession with defining politicians by the stances they stake out on social issues has so little relevance to how they'll vote on the majority of issues once they are elected.
So Johnny Isakson, who occasionally (but not always) votes against the most extreme anti-choice elements in the Republican party is a "moderate." Meanwhile, Isakson has no problem voting to eliminate the filibuster in order to confirm a judge who has said by taking part in social security and medicare grandparents are cannibalizing their grandchildren. Johnny the moderate -- where have you gone? And did you ever really exist in the first place?
Sen. David Adelman is back to the blogosphere, highlighting a particularly boneheaded part of the session's tort reform law. And no, it has nothing to do with the $350,000 cap. In fact, as Adelman shows, this particular boondoggle of the law can be easily triggered when the award is well less than even $100,000. Check it out.
Earlier this week the AJC released further results from their Zogby poll, the one that showed Perdue and Cathy Cox tied and Perdue about 12 points ahead of Mark Taylor. This poll was very bad news for Perdue, great news for Cathy Cox, but also good news for Taylor. Here's why.
In the poll, only about 5% of Georgia voters claimed they were unaware of Sonny Perdue when asked to rate their personal approval of him. When someone hasn't heard of a figure, pollsters say they "can't rate" that person. Oftentimes you will hear a pollster refer to the number or percentage of voters who "haven't heard/can't rate".
In the same poll, about 23% of voters can't rate Cathy Cox, while a larger 36% can't rate Mark Taylor. We can argue about why Cox's name ID is higher than Taylor's, but as you'll see it isn't important.
Here's the interesting thing that's bad news for Perdue. In a head to head with Taylor, Perdue leads 47-35 with 17% "not sure". Perdue is tied with Cox 43-43 with about 14% "not sure". Remember though that only 64% of voters know who Taylor is, only 77% of voters know who Cox is, but 95% of voters know who Perdue is.
In the poll, Taylor gets 55% of his 64% name id. Cox also gets 55% of her 77% name id. This is very bad news for Perdue. Without true cross tabs we can only make an educated guess like this, but it seems that the more well known Perdue's opponent is, the higher the percentage of people that are ready to vote for them, and that there is a correlation greater than 50%. Once either Taylor or Cox is known by about 90% of the population, they could have a floor of support near 50%.
Like I said, that should give Sonny Perdue pause. By this time next year, both Democratic candidates will be well known, and because of the primary interest should be at a peak. Meanwhile, Georgians seem to have sized up Perdue already and determined that if they get to know a suitable alternative, they'll have no problem sending a do-nothing governor back to Bonaire early. What's that I hear about he's a one termer?
Yesterday, Sonny Perdue ended the worst guessing game in the history of politics by signing the smoking ban. James Salzer, at the AJC, wrote one of the better and more honest stories on Georgia politics I've seen in a while on Perdue's "tortured" decision.
The piece was critical of Perdue, and Sonny deserved it. Immediatally upon taking office, the Governor championed huge tax increases on sales of tobacco products. The reason he called for the tax increase was obvious -- it helped to plug a sizable hole in the budget. However because of outgoing Governor Roy Barnes's stellar tax-cutting record, Perdue didn't want to incur too much of the wrath of the drown it in the bathtub wing of the Republican Party (he was already well on his way driving up his negatives among the banners and emblems wing).
So what happened? Well, all of a sudden it was Dr. Sonny Perdue, MD, specializing in well living. He started a very public weight loss plan for himself (which apparently was cut in a later budget) and told Georgians that he was raising taxes on cigarettes and alcohol for our own good. It had nothing to do with the revenue the new tax would bring (the state has no estimates on the number of people who have since quit) and all to do with public health, namely the dangers of smoking to the individual who smokes.
Now, Perdue reluctantly signs this smoking ban and claims that the state is meddling in civil liberties. But for all practical purposes, smoking won't be harder and Georgians certainly won't be any less free to smoke than they are to walk around outside without any clothes on. In fact, you can make the argument that the civil liberties of Georgians were enhanced -- after all it should be my right to go to a restaurant without breathing in disgusting second hand smoke.
But no, Perdue made a logical U-turn. And Salzer's piece called him on it. And then, something strange happened. Future versions of the piece online (and the one that made it into the print edition) omitted virtually all of the "negative" language of the original piece. What happened? I don't know, but I would guess that Perdue's office pressured the Republican editors of the paper to change it and they acquiesced. And I just happened to cache the original, so here is a side by side comparison. I've highlighted what I consider to be the honest parts that didn't make Perdue look that great that the paper then removed:
| Original | Cop-Out |
| A grim-faced Gov. Sonny Perdue signed a bill banning smoking in most public buildings this afternoon after telling a large crowd of onlookers why he shouldn't.
Perdue warned lawmakers not to meddle in individual liberties in the future, but the governor said he decided this weekend to sign the smoking bill because it could help save lives and cut medical costs. "This is one that was very close to the line," Perdue said. "Asking government to legislate what we can do for ourselves is a dangerous precedent." Backers of the measure, including the American Cancer Society, American Lung Association and others, applauded Perdue's action after he made them wait through a lecture on civics and the importance of protecting liberty. The bill signing was held at the National Museum of Patriotism in Atlanta. "The right of the individual to breath smoke-free air supersedes the rights of smokers," said Senate Health and Human Services Chairman Don Thomas (R-Dalton), a physician who sponsored the bill. Jack Shipkoski, chief executive officer of the American Cancer Society's South Atlantic Division, said, "By signing this bill into law, Governor Perdue has recognized that eliminating smoking can make a huge positive difference in the health of Georgia residents." Advocates had been sweating Perdue's decision for weeks. The governor began hinting he might veto the bill shortly after lawmakers adjourned the 2005 session in March, saying he had problems with state government acting as a "nanny," prying into every nook of the free enterprise system. He also has sent mixed signals to the anti-smoking crowd in the past. When he took office in 2003, he called for a massive increase in cigarette taxes, saying the state needed the money and that higher prices might help reduce teen smoking. However, he's also advocated huge cutbacks in spending on smoking cessation programs. While some of Perdue's fellow Republicans also have expressed concerns about the bill, a recent Atlanta Journal-Constitution poll found that 64 percent of Georgians favor the smoking ban. "I didn't need the Atlanta Journal Constitution to tell me this polls well," the governor said this afternoon. The bill forbids smoking in most enclosed places of work and recreation but allows restaurants and bars to permit smoking if they don't serve or employ people under age 18. It would take effect July 1. Thomas said thousands of people die each year from the impact of secondhand smoke, either from cancer or heart problems. He also said Medicaid — the taxpayer-funded health care program for the poor and disabled — spends $419 million a year in Georgia treating smoking-related illness. Perdue said he never questioned the motives behind the bill, making Georgians healthier. But he worried about the methods lawmakers used to achieve that goal. "I want a Georgia that is healthy, but I want a Georgia that is free as well," he said. In some cases, the governor said, restaurant owners who allow smoking in their facilities were lobbying him to approve the ban so they wouldn't have to take the blame from customers if they couldn't smoke. Of 14 tobacco-growing states surveyed by the National Conference of State Legislatures, only Florida has as broad a ban as the new Georgia law. | Many bars, restaurants and other public places across Georgia will soon be smoke-free zones under a law signed Monday by a conflicted Gov. Sonny Perdue.
The law, which takes effect July 1, will allow smokers to light up only in a handful of public buildings, including bars and restaurants that don't admit people under 18. Violators may be fined $100 to $500. Of 14 tobacco-growing states surveyed by the National Conference of State Legislatures, only Florida has as broad a ban as Georgia's. The smoking ban doesn't alarm Dave Reardon, owner of Shillings on the Square, a popular restaurant and watering hole in Marietta. A former smoker, Reardon has already limited smokers to 14 bar stools and one table near the bar. He plans to ban smokers because families are such a big part of his business. "I don't think the impact will be as big as everyone else does," Reardon said. But smoker Ricky Lee, a regular customer at El Porton, a Mexican restaurant in Ros-well, said the new law will probably force him to curtail restaurant visits. He's not happy about government imposing more restrictions on him. "You do what you want to do," Lee said. "This is America, for heaven's sake." Citing similar concerns about personal liberty, Perdue hinted last month after the Legislature approved the smoking ban that he might veto it. But at a bill-signing ceremony Monday, the governor said he supported the motives of the bill — creating a healthier populace. "There is no doubt smoking is one of the major contributors to the health problems of many Georgians," Perdue said. "Nonsmokers, typically the majority, do not want themselves or their children subjected to secondhand smoke." But Perdue added, "Giving advice on how to be healthy and safe is one thing, but we don't want or need government to mandate for us what we eat or drink or how much exercise we get or whether we engage in dangerous activities, from skydiving to smoking." The governor chose to make his remarks at the National Museum of Patriotism in Atlanta. Sen. Don Thomas (R-Dalton), the bill's main sponsor, is a physician who has been trying to sell the idea for four years. He was gratified by the governor's decision. "The right of the individual to breathe smoke-free air supersedes the rights of smokers," said Thomas, who received a cigarette pack with "Senate Bill 90" written on it from Perdue. Health advocates praised the ban, saying it would save lives and tax money. "It's a great day," said Kathie Cheney of Peachtree City, a former airline flight attendant who often appeared before the Legislature with a large jar depicting the tar and residue of a smoker's lungs, and a sign pleading "My Child Deserves Smoke-Free Air." "[Now] there are a lot of people who will never get cancer, have a heart attack, have a stroke or lung disease from inhaling second-hand smoke," said Cheney, a lifelong nonsmoker who was diagnosed with throat cancer after inhaling airline passengers' smoke for 20 years. "Only smokers should be inhaling smoke and we're one step closer to that being a reality," she said. Restaurateurs will have to make a choice between children and smokers. Some said the choice would be easy. At La Parrilla, a Mexican restaurant in Marietta, service manager Ricardo Martinez is looking forward to the ban. "Personally, I smoke but I don't like it in here," said Martinez. "Now we'll have an excuse [to ban smoking]." But at Cheer's, a Roswell restaurant and bar, owner Peiter Roelofs feared the regulation would drive him out of business. About 75 percent of his nighttime crowd smokes, he says. "In a place like this, if you can't smoke, you're totally done," he said. Brian Maloof, general manager of Manuel's Tavern, an Atlanta bar and restaurant popular among politicians and journalists, said the new law is a "compromise we can live with." An early version of the bill would have prohibited smoking entirely in all bars and restaurants. Maloof estimates about 60 percent of his regular customers smoke. That means children, who sometimes accompanied their parents for lunch, will have to be left at home, he said. Thomas said thousands of people die each year from the impact of secondhand smoke, either from cancer or heart problems. Medicaid — the taxpayer-funded health care program for the poor and disabled — spends $419 million a year in Georgia treating smoking-related illness, he said. Perdue said he never questioned the motives behind the bill. But he worried about the methods lawmakers used to achieve that goal. "I want a Georgia that is healthy, but I want a Georgia that is free as well," he said. -— Staff writers Michael Pearson, Richard Whitt and Patricia Guthrie contributed to this article. |
Who will win the title of worst school board? In one corner you have Gwinnett County, voting to fire a veteran teacher for penalizing a football player who slept in class, and in the other corner we have Muscogee County (Columbus) where adminstrators suspended a military brat who refused to end a phone call during his lunch break from his mother who is serving in Iraq.
It's odd to watch British election coverage, where Blair and Labour won an unprecedented third term (wasn't really that close) and it's considered a huge disapointment. In the run up to the elections, observers predicted that, due to the way the constituencies (districts) were organized, the conservatives would need approximately a 7 point lead in the popular vote in order to win a majority. They lost by about 4 points -- if they'd done a few points better we'd probably be looking at a "hung" parliament. At that point Blair would have certainly been finished. The conventional wisdom is that his days are numbered, but I'm not so sure.
Some notable results: In 1997, openly gay Labour longshot Stephen Twigg defeated Michael Portillo (at that point considered a future Prime Minister) in a constituency that had always been Conservative. Portillo's long face and Twigg's seemingly impossible victory was a metaphor for Labour's incredible victory that year. In 2001 Twigg incrased his majority, but this year his seat went back to the Conservatives, ironically due in most part to Labour's support for the Iraq War.
Due to the nature of how candidates are fielded by the parties, an up and coming politician like Twigg will probably find his way back to the Parliament in a more labour friendly constituency. Interestingly, Portillo won an off year election in a heavily Tory district shortly after the '97 election when a vacancy occured. It's possible that if Blair resigns from Parliament later this year, party leaders could select Twigg to stand for Blair's Sedgefield constituency even though Twigg currently represents a London district.
Another interesting loss for labour occured in Wales, where the party, over the objections of local officials as well as the outgoing member of parliament fielded an all female slate, ostensibly to correct the problem of not enough women being in Parliament. A renegade Labour local elected official (a man) ran as an independent Labour candidate and crushed the official Labour candidate in what is considered probably the fifth safest Labour seat in the nation. I'm told that a few months ago his odds were 1000-1. That would have been a good bet to make.
Finally, if you didn't catch the BBC election coverage on C-Span, you really missed out. Not only does the BBC have amazing graphics, analysis and on-site coverage, but the back and forth between the anchors and the politicians is quite breathtaking if you're only used to the wimpy style of American political journalism. The BBC anchors manage to be provocative without resorting to shouting matches, the politicians are candid and witty without the gimmickry of a John McCain. Try to catch a rerun or something.
Some commentators have a built in bias against the government doing too much or anything at all that takes away the personal economic liberty of its citizens. Andrew Sullivan is more or less in that camp, And so of course he's going to like what the President said in his press conference, because as a well off Tory he doesn't much care for Social Security in the first place and isn't really able to put himself in the place of someone who makes $40,000 / year and is depending on Social Security when they retire and nor does Sullivan really care to put himself in that place either.
If you think what the President proposed was means testing then your idea of well off Americans is a little different than mine. Bush's proposal cuts future benefits for anyone who makes over $20,000 / year. If we do absolutely nothing, and all of the pessimistic assumptions in the trustees report pan out, then after 2041 Social Security cuts benefits across the board for everyone by about 28%. In the Bush proposal, somewhere around $45K/year, your benefits will get cut by more than that percentage. Below that, you won't see quite 28% depending on how little you make.
The entire projected shortfall can be erased by either eliminating or raising the cap on payroll taxes. Currently, you only pay social security taxes (and only receive benefits) on the first $90K of income. Part of the program's success is that it hasn't been means tested in the past...the poorest and wealthiest Americans get more or less an equal return on their investments in the program (whether that return is retirement, disability or survivor's benefits). If, like Andrew Sullivan claims, you truly want to implement means testing, make the wealthy pay their full share of payroll taxes on every dollar of income, and then means test their benefit when they retire. Simple. Program "fixed".
I don't think Bush and Rove quite appreciate the potential for Democrats to weave a great narrative out of this, or maybe they do and don't think Democrats are with it enough to accomplish it (quite possible). Here it is: 10 years ago a Democratic President took the lead on welfare reform. Now, a Republican President is trying to turn the most successful government program in history that rewards hard work into a welfare program. I can't think of a better message to conservative white working class voters that one party honors hard work while the other merely honors wealth. In other words, if you've worked in a factory your whole life making about $40K/year, one party wants to keep it's promise to you in retirement, the other wants to make retirement about 20% more difficult. The culture war only works (as it does now) if lower-middle values voters don't believe there is any economic difference between the parties. Maybe this social security stuff will be as disastrous for the Republicans as Hillarycare and the Assault Weapon Ban was for the Democrats.