Yeah, I know, it’s silly and not a little suspicious that such a thing would become a news story at all. Still…
Cranston Mayor Stephen P. Laffey has apparently been making some revisionist history — digitally removing a one-time political ally turned foe from all images on his Web site.
The photos remain, but the space where former City Councilman Randall A. Jackvony once stood has been replaced by rainbow-colored pixels.
Call it the case of the missing politician.
Laffey, who is running for U.S. Senate, denies responsibility for Jackvony’s disappearance, suggesting that “hackers and perhaps even space invaders or extraterrestrials” altered the photos.
“What can you say? It’s so ludicrous it’s funny,” Jackvony said. “A mature adult would just remove pictures from their Web site.
“It gives you the sort of mindset of his whole campaign — which is, there’s one way to do things and people that may disagree with him are not treated in a respectful manner,” Jackvony added. “I would question if the people of Rhode Island want that type of person representing them in the United States Senate.” …
A third photo of Jackvony, his wife, his sister and her three children at a campaign event, is completely blurred out. The caption reads: “Many families were out in force for the big day.” …
“Please Note: Like many things in life image files can become corrupt over time,” the disclaimer reads. “Several files from our original archive that depicted people and events from the 2002 Mayoral campaign may have become corrupt or damaged. Hackers and perhaps even space invaders or extraterrestrials may also have gotten past our rigid security firewall and tampered with some files.”
Perhaps one could make the case that politics, particularly Rhode Island politics, need some “regular guy” lightening up. When it comes to the interpersonal and marketing sides of campaigning, a quasiparody could be an effective and, moreover, meaningful strategy.
But there’s just something creepy — menacing — in the image of a campaign aid’s taking the time to blur out the wife and children of an erstwhile political ally. Even abducting aliens don’t go back for the families.
James Taranto’s Best of the Web Today is an entertaining read, but Taranto is off today and in his place is a sampling of the Wall Street Journals “Political Diary” (no permalink, unfortunately). Included in this sampler is a bit by Brendan Miniter about our own Chafee/Laffey contest. After noting that Laffey has gotten the support of The Club for Growth, “a political action committee with a reputation for backing conservative challengers against liberal Republicans,” Miniter outlines the challenge facing Mayor Laffey:
. . . if Mr. Laffey hopes to win the hearts of conservatives nationwide by unseating Senator Chafee, he’ll first have to explain a few things about his own record. As mayor of Cranston for the past three years, Mr. Laffey has increased taxes three times. The city now has one of the highest property tax rates in the state, and Mr. Laffey has said Cranston may “need” an additional tax hike in 2007. And while living in Tennessee in the 1990s, he gave money to Democratic senatorial candidates who ran against former Republican Sen. Fred Thompson and the current Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist. He even made a campaign contribution to Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr.
Such donations can probably be chalked up to the pragmatic doings of businessman seeking to play his cards right for political/business reasons. However, such pragmatism will lead some to question Mayor Laffey’s committment to the conservative ideals he so often proclaims.
[Open full post]It seems that Hugo Chavez’s Public Relations campaign–“Petrol Populism“–is making some headway here in RI.
Rhode Island’s senators will meet today with officials of Venezuela and its state-controlled oil company to discuss what may be an imminent deal to sell discounted heating oil to the state’s poor people.
Citgo, a Houston-based business owned by Venezuela’s government oil concern, has already agreed to distribute 12 million gallons of heating oil at below-market prices to needy households in Boston and 8 million gallons to residents of the Bronx in New York City.
Those agreements, which stem from a pledge last summer by Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, emerged last month after discussions between Rep. William Delahunt, D-Mass., and representatives of the Chavez government and of Citgo.
The deals have generated controversy because of the contention between the U.S. and Venezuelan governments. Chavez has reportedly accused the Bush administration of seeking to assassinate him or topple his government. The Bush administration has criticized Chavez’s support for Colombian guerrillas and his declaration that the United States brought the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, upon itself.
Sen. Jack Reed has minimized the controversy, saying that the first associaton many people have with Citgo is the company’s sign near Fenway Park in Boston.
Boy, that’s clever. That Sen. Reed sidestepped the real issues of Chavez’s questionable democratic bona fides, his desire to become South America’s leading military power and his various strong arm tactics shouldn’t be surprise. Oil-from-Chavez offers a double-bonus: cheap oil for a valued constituency and a poke in the eye of the Bush Administration. How could he resist? For that matter, how could Senator Chafee?
Sen. Lincoln D. Chafee said he can understand why Chavez believes he has not been accorded respect by the Bush administration. Chafee said Mr. Bush should invite Chavez to the Oval Office for a meeting. Noting that Chavez has ties to Cuban President Fidel Castro, Chafee partly attributed the bad blood between the two governments to Mr. Bush’s desire to pander to Cuban-Amercans in Florida before the 2004 election. . .
Chafee, who has a separate meeting with Venezuelan and Citgo officials, said the “dynamic” of the deal under negotiation is that “President Chavez wants to embarrass President Bush because we don’t have good relations with Venezuela.” Chafee said, “It’s not hypocritical for me to explore this initiative” because he has twice visited with Chavez in Venezuela and said that “we need to repair our relations” with that nation.
Chafee, who is chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee panel with responsibility over South America, held out former President Richard M. Nixon’s overtures to communist China as an example for Mr. Bush to follow with Venezuela.
Look, I can appreciate the realpolitik that seems to be motivating our Senators: sometimes you have to deal with the devil (so to speak). And it is a worthy effort to try to find cheap heating oil for the disadvantaged. Besides, as Senator Chafee’s allusion to China indicates, we’ve been dealing with authoritarian’s for a long, long time. But this is taking things to a particularly acute and intimate level, isn’t it?
[Open full post]Shortly after 2:00 p.m. today, I’ll be discussing Israel’s recent euthanasia law with Howie Barte on WHJJ, 920 on the AM radio dial.
[Open full post]We all know that the RI Board of Elections gave Cranston Mayor Steve Laffey a hard time by asserting that he was taking an “in kind” contribution by hosting a radio show on WPRO. For the record, I don’t support campaign finance laws and think they are an abridgement of free speech. We in RI have followed the national current and instituted campaign finance reform that is little more than an incumbent protection scheme.
Nonetheless, prompted by Hugh Hewitt, I now wonder if the RI Board of Elections could apply the “Laffey Standard” to a candidate who blogs? For example, RI Secretary of State (and declared 2006 Senate candidate) Matthew Brown is a contributor to the Huffington Post, which is both hosted out-of-state (I believe), is supported (at least partially) by advertising revenue, and has a national audience. Do the campaign finance laws cover such “in kind,” out-of-state campaign contributions if it is done via a blog? If not, why not? A forum is a forum, isn’t it? As Hewitt points out:
Matt Brown is a candidate in an FEC regulated race. The Huffington Post is giving him valuable blog space. Is this a contribution? If Brown was running editorials on a television station, would that be an in-kind contribution? If a newspaper allowed [Brown] to run daily op-eds, would that be a contribution?
I along with most other bloggers absolutely reject the idea that anything a blogger writes or says on blog is a contribution to a candidate’s campaign, but I haven’t thought through the situation where the blogger is a candidate for office blogging on another’s website. This is a much more troublesome and thus inviting target for the overactive regualtors at the FEC. I’d welcome the opinion of experienced campaign counsel.
I would too.
[Open full post]JA Davis at RedState has a thought provoking post that both champions partisanship and refers to our own RI Senate Race.
How many times have you heard someone say they were “independent” and voted “on the issues” or “for the person?” Doesn’t it always seem like those people have a very uppity attitude about their enlightened and pensive political choices? I assert that they are neither wise nor admirable.
Reflexive partisanship is always cast as the villian in our political stories and it shouldn’t be. Humans are unique, thinking creatures that like to associate with other like-minded individuals. However, if everyone demanded strict compliance to their own personal beliefs by their representatives, there would be no effective government possible. This seems to be what independents believe. Because no party has a platform that corresponds perfectly to their unique opinions, there is nothing to do but chose between the lesser of two evils or sit on the sidelines and boo.
I think those independents have trouble prioritizing and compromising their opinions accordingly. For example, an independent who is pro-life would never vote for Lincoln Chafee, but a pro-life Republican could do so in good conscious because he knows Sen. Chafee’s presence protects the GOP majority in the Senate, which in turn, advances the pro-life cause because most Republican senators are pro-life. The partisan Republican can feel a greater sense of accomplishment from voting because they are supporting their team and their own personal beliefs as well. This promotes greater civic involvement and a more vibrant body politic, whereas for an independent who votes according to their own personal ideology, voting will always be a torturous exercise in blasphemy and betrayal.
Davis has more thoughts on the role of ideology in politics which are worth reading, too.
[Open full post]NB: I changed the original title of this post to reflect that Sen. Chafee has garnered funds for more than just the Narragansett school.
It’s tempting to classify a lot of Federal spending as “pork,” and we at Anchor Rising have certainly done our part to call it like it is. However, not all Federal money is “pork” and small amounts–strategically placed–can do much good. In my opinion, an example of this is the $50,000 that Senator Chafee helped to garner for the Nuweetooun School.
The Nuweetooun School is a private, nonprofit school in Exeter serving about 40 students from kindergarten through eighth grade.
It’s the first school created and administered by the Narragansetts since Europeans settled Rhode Island. Senator Lincoln Chafee is expected to visit the school this morning to announce 50-thousand dollars in funding to help develop curriculum, purchase supplies and pay operating expenses.
The money is from the U.S. Department of Education. The Nuweetooun School’s core curriculum is Native American culture and history, with a focus on experimental learning.
Here is more on the impetus for founding the school and on the theory of “cultured learning” and the curriculum that is taught. Some may cast a cynical eye on this approach, but the Narragansetts are to be applauded for taking the initiative in starting a school that suits the needs of their people.
UPDATE: Commenter John B. has alerted me to the fact that Sen. Chafee has also obtained $150,000 in funding for Sophia Academy, which is a ” nondenominational, private, non-profit gender-specific middle school for girls, grades 5-8, from low-income families in Providence, Rhode Island.” We have written a lot about how important school choice is for the future of both Rhode Island students and the state itself. These programs are worthy of support and Sen. Chafee should be commended for helping them. I would add, however, that Senator Chafee has been opposed to “school choice” (vouchers) in the past. This begs the question: if such private enterprises are advantageous for the groups–Native Americans and “low-income girls”–that they were targeted to help, why aren’t similar entities that seek to appeal to the broader public likewise not worthy of such support?
In Sure, EB is laying off…but we’ve got more slots!, I contrasted two headlines that seemed to sum up the current state of RI economic development. It was more of an attempt at saracasm than substance. Well, ProJo columnist Edward Achorn also noticed the contrast and has written on the topic.
Last Wednesday, two fairly depressing headlines dominated The Journal’s front page: “Electric Boat to cut 2,400 jobs” and “State OKs expansion in Newport Grand slots.”
It is hard not to see a link: Good jobs (mostly at Groton, Conn., but 500 to 600 at Quonset Point) are leaving, and Rhode Island officials keep hoping that ever-expanding gambling can paper over a deficit of tax revenue. That’s a prescription for disaster.
Gambling revenue is fool’s gold. Gambling preys on weak people, fuels crime, inflicts terrible damage on families, and takes money out of the economy — and straight out of the state to the home offices of the gambling companies — that could be spent much more fruitfully in other ways. For some reason, Rhode Island’s elected officials seem slow to grasp this point.
Achorn takes RI politicians–including the Governor–to task and also offers some prescriptions for the future. I encourage you to read the whole piece.
[Open full post]Club For Growth President Pat Toomey–who knows a little something about taking on a moderate Republican incumbent–has an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal in which he reveals that his organization has officially endorsed Steve Laffey for the RI GOP Senate primary.
[Ronald] Reagan helped define the mission of the Republican Party. By re-establishing limited government as the central principle of the GOP, he laid the groundwork for the political revolution that bears his name. Almost 30 years later, the Republican Party is at a similar defining moment. Once again, challengers to certain Republican incumbents are needed to help restore limited government to its rightful place at the center of the Republican agenda.
Today, the Club for Growth PAC will endorse Steve Laffey, the Republican Mayor of Cranston, R.I., in his primary challenge against Sen. Lincoln Chafee. Steve Laffey is a pro-growth, Reagan Republican. Sen. Chafee epitomizes the GOP’s waning commitment to limited government and economic freedom.
Toomey proceeds to explain why the Club for Growth is against Senator Chafee:
Sen. Chafee has consistently opposed tax cuts. Citing the federal deficit, he opposed the Bush tax cuts that have generated our powerful economic expansion. But his concerns about deficits don’t extend to government spending. Bills he has sponsored would add nearly a half-trillion dollars in new spending over 10 years. The National Taxpayers Union gave him a dismal 49% rating for his profligacy with taxpayer money. A close ally of organized labor, he opposes school choice, and just last month voted for a minimum-wage increase. A recent Boston Globe profile describes his ideology as “well-suited for a centrist Democrat.”
Despite his liberal record, Sen. Chafee is warmly embraced by the Republican Party establishment which dutifully enforces an unprincipled, though ironclad, mutual-defense agreement that ignores ideology.
Sounds familiar. After explaining why the Club for Growth is philosophically opposed to Sen. Chafee, Toomey explains why they have chosen to endorse Mayor Laffey.
Steve Laffey makes a stark contrast. After an inspiring climb from rags to riches, he returned to his hometown to run for mayor and rescue the city of Cranston from impending insolvency. As mayor, Mr. Laffey ruthlessly attacked the mismanagement that had caused Cranston’s problems. He cut costs, established financial controls, rooted out waste and took on bloated union contracts in the courts–as well as in the court of Rhode Island public opinion. Today, Cranston has recovered its investment-grade credit rating and the voters there have re-elected him twice. This in a city where only 14% of voters are Republicans!
As a senator, Mr. Laffey would cut wasteful spending, especially corporate welfare; make the Bush tax cuts permanent; expand international trade; reform insolvent entitlements and fix broken tort laws. In short, he’s precisely the kind of pro-growth, limited-government Republican the Senate badly needs more of.
According to Toomey, the RI Senate GOP Primary is only part of a larger battle for the heart and soul of the Republican Party.
After 10 years of controlling Congress, Washington Republicans have an identity crisis. It was Republicans who gave us a farm bill that only a Soviet central planner could love; a campaign-finance reform bill that expands government’s unconstitutional restrictions on speech; a prescription-drug entitlement program that Lyndon Johnson could only have dreamed of; and a transportation bill with more than 40-times as many pork projects it took to earn Reagan’s veto. So, we ask a fair question: Is Reagan’s vision of limited government–the fundamental principle that brought Republicans to power–still part of the Republican identity, or has it been abandoned in favor of the seductive power of controlling unlimited government?
UPDATE: This endorsement has prompted me to scrounge around for other endorsements. I had forgotten that NARAL had endorsed Senator Chafee in May in hopes that the early endorsement would “help the senator sink a potential primary fight from Cranston Mayor Stephen Laffey.” (Guess that didn’t work) More from the story:
Chafee expressed pleasure with the endorsement and said he will try to stress to NARAL members today that the Senate should not cut back the ability of Democrats to filibuster President Bush’s judicial nominees, many of them conservative opponents of abortion.
Keenan said NARAL opted to give Chafeee its first endorsement of the 2006 campaign for several reasons. One is that NARAL supports incumbents and “we stand by our friends,” such as Chafee, who have amassed what NARAL considers to be good records on the issue.
NARAL gave Chafee a 100-percent rating on its review of how senators voted last year on legislation the group considers important.
Keenan also emphasized NARAL’s devotion to helping Republicans who support abortion rights. “We need Lincoln Chafee’s sensible, moderate, Republican voice” in the Senate, Keenan said.
Keenan was asked why NARAL did not prefer [Secretary of State Matthew] Brown, a candidate who has pledged to apply a “litmus test” to all judicial nominees — opposing any who do not show support for abortion rights.
She answered that Chafee has a record of tough votes, while Brown has no congressional voting record.
Some Democrats are now pointing to NARAL’s strategy as flawed.
I’ll keep my eyes peeled for more endorsements as they occur.
Tim Graham noticed that the Washington Post seems to have a policy of “Good Economic News on D-1, Bad Economic News on A-1” and Brian Wesbury commented last week about the ominipresent pessimism that seems to surround any and all economic news, noting:
During a quarter century of analyzing and forecasting the economy, I have never seen anything like this. No matter what happens, no matter what data are released, no matter which way markets move, a pall of pessimism hangs over the economy.
It is amazing. Everything is negative. When bond yields rise, it is considered bad for the housing market and the consumer. But if bond yields fall and the yield curve narrows toward inversion, that is bad too, because an inverted yield curve could signal a recession.
If housing data weaken, as they did on Monday when existing home sales fell, well that is a sign of a bursting housing bubble. If housing data strengthen, as they did on Tuesday when new home sales rose, that is negative because the Fed may raise rates further. If foreigners buy our bonds, we are not saving for ourselves. If foreigners do not buy our bonds, interest rates could rise. If wages go up, inflation is coming. If wages go down, the economy is in trouble.
This sort of spin–along with the negativity of the reporting of the Iraq War–has led to a lot of unwarranted public pessimism. Perhaps these two charts will help cheer people up.
First, Treasury Secretary John Snow released the below chart (via Taxprof), which shows the increase in government revenue that has occurred since the Jobs and Growth Act of 2003:
Second, Angry Bear has charted spending growth over the last 35 years:
For “supply-siders,” the first graph really needs no explanation. As far as the second, Angry Bear explains:
What strikes me about this chart is that while spending on Defense and Homeland Security (the red line) has indeed risen quite sharply under the Bush administration, other types of discretionary spending (the green line) have risen only quite modestly, and are still slightly below where they were in 1995. While Bush 43’s budgets have clearly benefited from low interest payments (thanks in part to the low deficits and surpluses of the late 1990s, and in part to the very low interest rates of the past few years), the one other category of spending that has grown rapidly during his presidency is government-provided health insurance.
So perhaps Bush is indeed no Reagan when it comes to non-defense-related discretionary spending. But neither has such federal spending grown dramatically in the past few years.
No, the only category where it seems clear that Bush has deliberately let the money flow freely is in defense. So if you think that the federal government’s spending has grown too fast in recent years, turn your attention to defense spending and health care. That’s where the money has been going.
UPDATE: Don notes that the Powerline guys had a post on Angry Bear’s chart, saying:
This chart tends to undermine the stereotype of the free-spending, money-hemorrhaging Bush administration. If the numbers are correct, only defense and medical care have risen significantly during the present administration, measured as a percentage of GDP. The increase in defense spending is good, and the increase in medical costs is bad, but typical of what has happened at all levels of government under current law.
Another way of looking at the data, of course, is to say that everything has risen as a percentage of GDP except interest and Social Security, the latter of which, at least, has nothing to do with the administration’s policies.
They, in turn, got a heads up that In the Agora has a more negative takeaway from the numbers:
[The] analysis is short-sighted. It fails to account for the fact that Bush’s massive $400 billion increase in Medicare spending has yet to take place; it phases into place over the next 10 years. The devastating effects of Republican spending will be like the slow impaling of a dagger, not a swift jab that we can see in a real time graph.
Finally, Angry Bear appears to assume that because something costs X% of the economy to function properly, it must always cost X%. Why must that always be the case? With efficiencies and economies of scale, some government costs should actually decline as a percentage, not necessarily stay the same.
Either way, looking at government spending as a percentage of the GDP in the status quo tells us very little about the long term budget decisions of a government.
In the Agora is conceptually right concerning the economies of scale and government efficiency, but the simple fact is that the government is always expanding. Agora is also correct regarding the usefulness of the graph as far as a projection tool, but simply because history doesn’t necessarily repeat, doesn’t mean it is not useful.
[Open full post]
