National Review’s new political reporter Jonathan Martin has an article on “the GOP and its Northeast problem” in the print edition of this week’s magazine. Students of conservative history, as well as history buffs in general, may find this summary of some analysis from Dante Scala, a professor of political science at St Anslem’s College in New Hampshire, of particular interest…
There are those who belong to what [Scala] calls the party’s liberal Rockefeller wing, as embodied most recently by [Senator Lincoln Chafee]. They probably won’t ever come back to the GOP, but their numbers are small enough that they won’t be missed. Then there are those who belong to what Scala calls the Goldwater wing. These are traditional Republican voters who have been turned off not just by the party’s cultural conservatism, but also by its mismanagement of crises from Baghdad to New Orleans, and have abandoned the GOP even though it is more in synch with their small-government convictions. With the right message, and the right messenger, and a bit of Democratic over-reaching to remind them why they used to pull the Republican lever, these lapsed libertarians can be brought back into the fold.
Ponder this point for a moment before moving on.
And then…
Only in Rhode Island, right? That the incoming Secretary of State, Ralph Mollis–you know, the general officer who is responsible for running clean elections–and one of his flunkies have been fined for violating campaign laws is quite an accomplishment, even in the RI political theater in which caricature has become reality.
The Ethics Commission yesterday fined North Providence Mayor A. Ralph Mollis $3,000 for violating the state ethics code during his successful campaign for secretary of state.
The commission also fined John E. Fleming Jr., Mollis’ longtime chief of staff and campaign chairman, $500. Both settlements, negotiated with the commission staff, stemmed from a mailed solicitation for campaign contributions that went to some North Providence town employees…
The charges against Mollis, who takes office in January, and Fleming stemmed from a campaign fundraising mailing in June that went to 1,468 persons, including 132 municipal employees, according to the settlement documents.
After the commission approved the settlement, Mollis said that “I wanted to put this behind me” and not dispute a complaint before the commission while in office.
Mollis said that the mailing was “obviously in violation” of the ethics rules. He said the fundraising letter was read to him before it was mailed. “I said, ‘Great idea — send it,’ ” Mollis said. “I should have known that list included town employees.”
And these are just the violations of the letter of the law. In case you forgot, it was Mollis’s name that appeared so prominently on those fake ballot campaign fliers that were handed out (often within 50 feet of) at polling places on election day. Then there was the RIPTA employee who emailed campaign info for Mollis from a RIPTA computer. Or how about the campaign contributions from a known mobster? Or possibly using political connections to intimidate a local business owner to remove a campaign sign supportive of a Mollis political opponent? I think there’s a pattern…
[Open full post]Musicians have been opposed to media consolidation and, as the recent firing of Arlene Violet shows, local on-air talk-show talent may have cause for concern, too. And while the personal concerns of those who are directly affected would seem understandable, what about those of us who are the consumers of the resulting “watered down” product?
I don’t like the idea of all radio stations playing the same 40 songs by Britney or Christina or 50 Cent or of all talk radio becoming national. Instead of formulaic diva ballads, 120 beats/sec synthpop or gangsta rap (with conspicuous bleeping!) assaulting my ears no matter where I turn my radio dial, I’d like a little variety. I think that most over-18 Americans feel the same. But let me back up.
Country music icon George Jones echoes my pattern of thinking on this:
“I’m not against companies making money,” said country music great George Jones, who said he and his fans have suffered under tighter radio playlists that he says are often determined by a relative few with little knowledge of country music history.
But there are those that say that consolidation actually keeps smaller stations viable:
Bayard Walters, past chairman of the Tennessee Association of Broadcasters, said many small-town radio stations are operating and viable today because of consolidation.
Many of those stations provide opportunities for new and local artists, as well as local content like news, weather and traffic, he said.
Walters argued that there are 11,000-plus commercial radio stations nationwide. The biggest five companies own 2,000 of those, while the next 20 only own 1,000 stations. There are a greater number of licensees today than there were in 1972, he said.
“There are those that say broadcasters don’t do enough, but what is the balance in presenting local and new music versus what the public seems to indicate what it wants to hear through ratings and purchases?” he said. “It does not seem to me that the license says, ‘Market for free the music of whomever wants to be on the radio.'”
According to this political typology test, I come out as an “Enterpriser,” so it would seem that I’d be all for unfettered capitalism, including consolidation. I’m willing to concede that there is a chance that the concerns about it are over-blown. Today’s technology–like iTunes or Yahoo Music and the like–enables the end-user to discover alternative music from almost every genre. (Some of these, such as Yahoo, even make suggestions based on individual listening tendencies–smart technology that certainly enhances the consumers listening experience by offering more variety). So maybe media consolidation isn’t so much of a concern when it comes to the music we listen to. But what about talk radio?
As I mentioned, Arlene Violet comes to mind immediately, but what about the affect that consolidation has on competition within a local market? For instance, for a few years, 790 The Score (WSKO) was the only sports talk station in town. But through consolidation, the owners of Boston powerhouse sports talk station WEEI was able to convert one of its stations in the Providence market and bring Boston sports talk to Rhode Island.
In one aspect, this is good for the consumer. As the #1 rated sports talk station in the nation (if we’re to believe WEEI’s promos), WEEI brings a high quality product to the market. The deeper pockets helps the station provide fans with regular access (via interviews) to high profile sports peronalities like the coaches and players of the Patriots and the Red Sox. This is something a smaller station, like WSKO, can’t do.
However, where WSKO does shine is in it’s coverage of local sports, specifically college athletics (PC, URI and Brown). Sports talk on WEEI is almost totally dominated by the Big Two (Red Sox and Patriots), a reflection of the Professional Sports mentality that permeates the Boston sports culture. While The Score does a good job of covering pro sports, it’s willingness and ability to cover the teams of Rhode Island’s colleges sets it apart and gives its “brand” a quality different than WEEI. Nonetheless, the jury is still out as to whether this is enough to keep it viable.
Which brings me back to Arlene. Just like WSKO can cover local college sports better than a Boston station, local talk show hosts are familiar–and can deal more intelligently–with local issues. This is something (almost by definition) that national hosts can’t and won’t do. I guess the question is whether markets the size of Providence (and smaller) can have more than one viable, local option. Dan Yorke has obviously won the ratings war, or WHJJ wouldn’t have made the move to fire Arlene. (While Yorke is certainly a good local host, WHJJ also has themselves to blame for making the disastrous turn to Air America, which killed their ratings across the board. Ironically, Violet had the most successful show throughout the Air America experiment.) I think Yorke is popular enough locally so that he doesn’t have to worry about WPRO making a similar move as WHJJ and, as the only remaining local option at 3 PM, he stands to benefit from WHJJ’s move. (Rhode Islanders–like most New Englanders–are notoriously provincial, after all!)
In the end, I understand the economic benefits that media consolidation generates for station owners. I’m also willing to concede that there may be some benefits acrued by the consumer of media, but I still have doubts that “it’s all good.” Maybe I’m being pretentious about aesthetics or maybe my concerns are a manifestation of my left-handedness/right-brain, artsy-fartsy sympathetic side coming through, but I can’t help but think that more options would be better all around. Of course, maybe I don’t know what the hell I’m writing about, either. I’m sure you’ll let me know.
Apparently, the newly-elected Democrat controlled Congress is putting a kibosh on earmarks (via The Insider). So sayeth Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) and Rep. David Obey (D-Wis.), soon-to-be-chairmen of the Senate and House appropriations committees:
There will be no Congressional earmarks in the joint funding resolution that we will pass. We will place a moratorium on all earmarks until a reformed process is put in place. Earmarks included in this year’s House and Senate bills will be eligible for consideration in the 2008 process, subject to new standards for transparency and accountability. We will work to restore an accountable, above-board, transparent process for funding decisions and put an end to the abuses that have harmed the credibility of Congress.
Though I must confess to being a bit skeptical that Robert “King-o-Pork” Byrd is behind this proclamation, it is a good sign, nonetheless. We’ll have to see whether or not this moratorium on “invisible” pork will dampen the overall pork spending or if the pork will still be there, just out in the open. Regardless, no earmarks is a good start.
UPDATE: Jordan J. Ballor at Acton confirms my “pessimistic hopefulness” (to coin a non-sensical phrase) that it isn’t all about earmarks. According to Citizens Against Government Waste:
“There are three parties in Washington: Democrats; Republicans; and appropriators,” CAGW President Tom Schatz said. “Democrats should expect any serious reform efforts to meet stiff opposition from appropriators who have no qualms about breaking party lines, or the bank, to keep their pork.”
Based largely on CAGW’s annual Congressional Pig Book, the pork profiles chronicle members’ exploits with pork totals, examples, quotes, and voting record.
“It remains to be seen whether Democrats will be better behaved than the Republicans, who presided over an explosion of earmarks and spending. One fact is certain: A suspension or reduction of pork-barrel spending would constitute a remarkable break from tradition for either party,” Schatz concluded.
The aforementioned “Pork Profiles” include these numbers on Byrd (whom CAGW calls “The King of Pork”) and Obey. Like I said, ending earmarks is good. But it doesn’t look like these fellas are too concerned about porking it out in the open.
[Open full post]Today’s Projo includes an unsigned op-ed on the Iraq Study Group report. The op-ed praises consensus, largely for its own sake…
The commission, with no particular political axes to grind, declared that U.S. policy is not working and the situation is grave and deteriorating….
In any event, we hope that the commission’s rigorous report will act as a catalyst for rapid improvements on the ground in Iraq, and a rough consensus on Iraq policy in Washington.
However, writing at OpinionJournal, Eliot Cohen, Professor of Strategic Studies at Johns Hopkins’ School of Advanced International Studies, argues that consensus arrived at for its own sake means largely nothing…
[The Iraq Study Group] is a group composed, for the most part, of retired eminent public officials, most with limited or no expertise in the waging or study of war. It consists of individuals carefully selected with an eye to diverse partisan and other irrelevant personal characteristics. These worthies, with not one chairman but two (for balance, of course), turned to several score experts known to disagree vehemently with one another about the best course of action to be pursued in Iraq.
Some of the commission members and their advisers cordially detest the president and his administration and opposed him and his war from the outset; others were equally passionate in their defense of both the man and the conflict. And yet this diverse group [the Iraq Study Group] had an overwhelming mandate, from the beginning, to produce a consensus document…There is something of farce in all this, an invocation of wisdom from a cohesive Washington elite that does not exist, a desperate wish to believe in the gravitas and the statecraft of grave men (and women) who can sort out the mess in which the country finds itself.
The are also some interesting substantive contrasts between the two articles…
[Open full post]Hm. I thought the RI State government was losing money this year. According to this ProJo piece, I’m left to conclude that the General Assembly believes in deficit spending (H/T Dan Yorke for reminding me!) :
At a time when financial constraints have forced other arms of state government to talk about widespread layoffs, the closing of group homes and the release of hundreds of prisoners, General Assembly leaders are proposing a 14-percent increase in their own spending.
The lawmakers are planning to hire at least nine more staff and raise their own spending ceiling from $32.2 million this year to $36.8 million during the year that begins next July 1, according to a spending plan submitted to the governor last month.
The increase reflects the same 3-percent raises for Assembly staff that most other state workers expect next year. But the lawmakers do not pay a share of their health insurance premiums, as others state workers do. And they do not need state Budget Office approval to spend what they want.
Exactly what the lawmakers plan to do with that extra $4.5 million is not clear from the filing signed by House Speaker William J. Murphy, chairman of the five-member Joint Committee on Legislative Services.
But here’s a hint.
In a Nov. 9 letter apprising Governor Carcieri of the Assembly’s plans, Murphy acknowledged that the lawmakers are still rolling multimillion-dollar surpluses forward from one year to the next.
In addition to the $32.2 million they budgeted for themselves this year, he indicated, they expect to have an additional $2.9 million actually available for spending.
As he explained it, a big chunk of that money — $2.2 million — was earmarked a year earlier for legislative grants “that were not processed” before that year ended.
Late Friday, House spokesman Larry Berman released this statement from Marisa White, director of the Joint Committee on Legislative Services: “The budget request reflects the legislature’s projected needs for the 2008 fiscal year. It remains to be seen what the ultimate budget will be after the Finance Committee conducts its review process.”
Well, lookee here! Didn’t get around to “processing” those grants last year? Why not…those palms didn’t need anymore greasing? So the solution is to spend those grants instead of putting that money toward the shortfall?!!
UPDATE: Yorke asks: What other $13,000/year position entitles you to free health care? First caller was a Teamster who said he got free healthcare. As a former member of an AFL-CIO affiliated union, I received “free” health care, too. It was provided by the union to which I belonged, not my employer, which I believe is S.O.P. Did I mention that I also paid some pretty significant dues for the “privilege” of being in said union? I wonder how much of that money went to my “free” healthcare?
Jim Baron writes:
…when I heard there was a [MoveOn.org] meeting scheduled at a home in Barrington last week, I thought I would sit in and see what it was all about.
The meeting, replicated in living rooms all over the country on the same night — the national MoveOn organization claims 7,000 people at meetings in 350 cities, which divides into about 20 people each, which was about the number of folks at Sam and Pat Smith’s house on Tuesday — was billed as a “Mandate for Change.”
The idea, Sam Smith explained, was to “remind Congress members why they were elected.” MoveOn likes to take at least a little credit for nationwide Democratic sweep in November and, Sam noted, “the progressives we sent to D.C. need support to carry out the agenda.”
Ideology and issues aside — I was there to observe these folks clinically, as a lab technician observes subjects of an experiment, and the content of their discussions were not as important to me as the fact that the discussions were happening — I was pretty impressed and heartened that meetings like this could be taking place in living rooms across America in 2006. If there were another group, nationwide or local, similar to this one espousing conservative values and issues, that would be equally exciting.
Um…Mr. Baron….over here! (Now, to continue…)
This was a working meeting of individuals — not a pre-existing group with an agenda, like a labor union, a parent-teacher organization or a religious group — people who came together with the express purpose of participating in the political process. It was not a cocktail or dinner party where a political discussion happened to break out.
Yikes…that’s being a bit naive. “[N]ot a pre-existing group with an agenda”? Before a bunch of people get together to make a labor union, are they a pre-existing group? Howsabout a group of parents in a nascent PTO? In fact, Baron’s last comparison, a religious group, may come the closest to describing what they are. These folks worship at the altar of liberal progressivism (and some at a sub-altar of anti-Bushism). In reality, they are nothing more than a grassroots PAC for the Democrat Party. That is their agenda: first, elect Democrats, second make sure that said Democrats act appropriately liberal and progressive. They are as ideological–and thus have an agenda–as any labor union or PTO or religion.
But Baron was apparently emotionally MovedOn:
Covering state government in general, and the General Assembly in particular, you can get a little bit jaded about the way politics works. Watching these sincere people gather in a living room in Barrington to try to convince their public officials to pay attention to people rather than lobbyists or contributors can restore your sense of the possible in politics.
My first thought: We need these people, or some like them, to keep an eye on the Statehouse.
I’d venture to bet that most of those “sincere people” uniformly voted Democrat last election, putting back in power all of those in the RI Statehouse whom Baron seems to think need their feet held to a fire. In actuality, the watchdogs for whom Mr. Baron yearns are to be found hereabouts and in places like Common Cause and Operation Clean Government. Those are also groups of like-minded citizens.
The folks who make up MoveOn are to be congratulated for their participation. But they neither represent anything new nor anything particularly unique in the history of this country. Abolition, the temperance movement, labor organization: all came about because individuals sought change via a grassroots movement. These small, localized efforts morphed into larger efforts driven by larger groups. Eventually, someone was bright enough to bring these disparately led groups together. That’s what the founder’s of MoveOn did.
Baron’s MoveOn meetup group is just an example of a local chapter of a larger national organization getting together. Like a Cub Scout pack meeting–nothing more, nothing less. Let’s not deify them just yet, OK?
Federal terrorism officials and Rhode Island authorities converged this week to arrest an Indian citizen enrolled in a Smithfield tractor-trailer training school who was trying to obtain a commercial driver’s license and permit to haul hazardous materials.
The man, Mohammed Yusef Mullawala, of Jamaica, N.Y., is being held in federal custody for overstaying his student visa. State police Maj. Steven O’Donnell said that after two days of truck-driving classes, Mullawala’s behavior was suspicious enough to prompt school officials to contact the Department of Homeland Security late last month.
“His behavior was consistent with terrorist-type activity,” O’Donnell said. “He showed no interest in learning the fine art of driving a tractor-trailer. He had no interest in learning how to back up.”
Kudos to the people at the Nationwide Tractor Trailer Driving School in Smithfield for their vigilance. They may have averted a tragedy and, at the least, they took a person here illegally off of our highways.
[Open full post]And while we’re on the subject of Christmas-themed posts, Jim Baron of the Pawtucket Times says if you’re going to put a Christmas tree up at the statehouse, then call it a Christmas tree. I couldn’t possbily add anything to Mr. Baron’s final line…
It was quite a sight watching the lighting of the official Statehouse Christmas tree last Frid…[Open full post]
Oops, no, it wasn’t the official Statehouse Christmas tree, according to the governor’s office. It wasn’t a Christmas tree at all. It was a holiday tree.
A holiday tree? What the hell is a holiday tree?
A holiday tree is a bit of yuletide political correctness designed to let one eat one’s cake and have it, too.
We get into this silly folderol every year, squabbling about Christmas and its secular versus religious connotations, so there is no need to rehash the whole argument here….
But golly gosh, if you are going to have a big decorated tree in the middle of the building at Christmas, you should at least have the gumption to call it a Christmas tree.
Then again, denying the obvious is something governments do all the time. Chalk it up to force of habit.
