Wake up and smell the Kaine

A. Barton Hinkle is at it again:

Come November, Virginians will face a tough choice in the gubernatorial race: whether to vote for a pro-life, pro-gun tax-cutter who opposes homosexual adoption and who will enforce the death penalty - or the Republican, Jerry Kilgore.

Read the whole article here.

The big secret is that Dems-in-the-know are disappointed with Kaine - for solid reasons - but they're too darn cowardly to risk a Kilgore victory on a vote for Potts.

A recent Mason-Dixon poll suggests that Republicans are providing most of Russ Potts' gains. If Democrats were paying attention to what Kaine is saying, perhaps they'd be supporting Potts too.

A $5 Billion Toy Rocket

So, the space shuttle Discovery launched successfully this morning. As much as I'm happy that it got off safely, I'm having a hard time understanding why a space program is a priority for this country considering all of the other problems we're currently facing. To me, a space program is a "want" and not a "need." For example, I may want to have a hi-def TV with digital cable, but I have a lot of other bills to pay, other needs to address first. I did a quick search in Wikipedia and came up with some astonishing figures on how much the space shuttle program has cost over the years. First of all, NASA has budgeted about $5 Billion for space shuttle operations for 2005. By the time the shuttle is retired in 2010, it will have cost $174 Billion!! Thinking of all the impoverished and starving people in this country (let alone the world), all of those struggling with health care expenses and prescription drug costs, those living in deplorable conditions the world over--how can we justify this extraordinary amount of money for a space program? $174 Billion sure could feed a lot of starving children. Is it just me who feels this way? Help me out here people...

The Ten Most Harmful Books of the 19th and 20th Century

Thanks to our friends at Human Events Online, we can all avoid The Ten Most Harmful Books of the 19th and 20th Century. I feel sorry for the folks on the Far Right: they seem to have so much pent up fear and uncertainty about those who don't think like they do... about ideas that are threatening. If anything, ideas -- and their free expression -- are at the very heart of the American experiment.

"Free Lunch" and "Magic Beans"

Interesting Op-Ed in the Washington Post today ("Kilgore's Free Lunch") regarding Republican gubernatorial candidate Jerry Kilgore's plans for spending increases on health care, education, and transportation--all things any Virginian could get behind. The trouble is he has no plans for how to pay for it all. In fact, Kilgore would roll back Gov. Warner's tax hike (which generates about $700 million/year), he'd phase out the car tax (costing the state about $500 million/year), and he'd cap real estate assessment increases at 5%--cutting off a major source of school funding for communities across the commonwealth. Instead, Kilgore seems to think that he can pay for everything with the state's economic surplus--generated in part by Warner's tax increase. But, as is noted in the Post's editorial, this is presupposing we're going to continue having a surplus--a dangerous assumption, just ask Jim Gilmore.

Democratic candidate Tim Kaine has been trying his best to point out the holes in Kilgore's proposed fiscal policies:

"There's no such thing as magic beans," he said. "We are not going to strike gold or strike an oil well." He demanded to know how the Republican would compensate for the $700 million a year he would slash by eliminating Warner's tax increase. Would he cut deputy sheriffs' positions? Schools? Health care?

Kilgore was mum. He opposed Warner's tax increase, but he loves spending the money it's produced.

Unfortunately for Kaine, it's awfully hard to get people to look past the smoke and mirrors of Kilgore's plans and get behind someone who wants to keep Warner's tax increases. Even if he has no way to pay for everything, Kilgore's platform is a lot more inviting and poses a formidable obstacle for Kaine to overcome this November.

John G. Roberts, Jr.

What's most extraordinary about Bush's much-anticipated announcement of his Supreme Court nominee has been the non-story it has so quickly become. It's been just 2 days since Bush gave the nod to John Roberts, but already it seems as though the nation has turned its collective attention to other things. With little fight coming from the Democrats so far, has the Bush team hit upon the perfect Supreme Court nominee--conservative enough to please Republicans, not ultra-conservative enough to prompt the Dems to all out war, and with a limited record that should grease his confirmation?

Here's what the Washington Post had to say about him:

Roberts is simultaneously skeptical of federal power over the states and supportive of executive-branch power in foreign and military affairs, and his sparse judicial record resembles the conservatism of a man he once worked for at the Supreme Court, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist.

"I would say that what unites a lot of positions he's taken publicly is that he would be more deferential to the executive branch than a lot of other judges would be," said Richard A. Samp, chief counsel of the conservative Washington Legal Foundation, which represented the ex-POWs. "The fact that he clerked for Rehnquist, who is perhaps of all the justices the most deferential to elected branches of government, may mean that to an extent he follows in the same mold."

Some left-leaning groups have mobilized a campaign against Roberts, but it doesn't appear that they've gotten much traction as of yet. Again the Post:

NARAL Pro-Choice America, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, and MoveOn.org said they will oppose Roberts because of his views on abortion, school prayer and other issues.

So, is this the non-story of the year? Are we already looking at our next Supreme Court Justice?

Follow the uranium

Click here to read this weekend's Frank Rich column.

Let's talk about The Architect for a moment...

For anyone who didn't already know that Karl Rove was the infamous source for the outing of Valerie Plame, now it is official. Because Rove didn't mention her by name, but referred to her as former Ambassador Wilson's wife, he is probably not criminally responsible. And, although some believe (myself included) that the leak was orchestrated to intimidate Wilson, and any other would-be administration critics, there is no evidence to back that up, yet. But, it really doesn't matter what the intention was. Whether it was deliberate, or just incompetence is irrelevant. Rove is the one who pointed the reporters to her, saying that she was an operative who works on WMD issues. In July of last year, the White House spokesman had this to say about the leak: "If anyone in this administration was involved in [the leak], they would no longer be in this administration.." Let's see if Bush follows through on his "pledge" to the American people.

Gunplay in the Capital City

There is no end to Congressional intrusion in the lives of the residents of Washington, DC. Article is here.

The Green Oil Man

My sources at the G8 provided me with this article presented to the delegates in Gleneagles, Scotland this week. It is written by Sir John Browne, a geologist and CEO of BP, described by some as one who loves rocks and the earth, and the man who took a nearly bankrupt British Petroleum and made it BP, the 3rd largest corporation in the world today.

....'tonnes' of candor for an 'oil man'.

I pasted it here in its entirety.

Judge Jails NY Times Reporter

A federal judge on Wednesday jailed New York Times reporter Judith Miller for refusing to divulge her source to a grand jury investigating who in the Bush administration leaked an undercover CIA operative's name. You can read more here. The Supreme Court recently refused to hear the case, leaving it up to the lower courts to decide.

The case involves the nearly two-year criminal probe into a possibly illegal exposure of a covert CIA operative named Valerie Plame. Plame's husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, was asked in 2002 by the Bush administration to investigate reports that Saddam Hussein sought uranium in West Africa.

In July 2003, Wilson publicly disputed White House claims about the subject of his mission and what he found or didn't find. Shortly thereafter, Plame's name surfaced in a column by Robert Novak, alleging she had interceded to send Wilson on the weapons mission.

In response, Wilson charged that in an effort to intimidate him, White House officials knowingly exposed his wife's identity, which is a federal offense. Robert Novak has steadfastly refused to comment on his central involvement in the case.

Two other journalists -- New York Times reporter Judith Miller, who researched the story, and Time Magazine's Matthew Cooper, who wrote an article -- refused to name their confidential sources before a grand jury convened by special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald. Lower courts held them in contempt, and Monday the Supreme Court declined to intervene.

The NewsHour article I've quoted from, above, can be found here.

Sandra Day O'Connor Retires from Supreme Court

The Wahington Post article is here.

My prediction: Bush appoints a judicial activist of the conservative flavor. Democrats revolt. Stalmate-ity, I mean hilarity, ensues.

On the Future of Public Media/News

According to the Seattle Times, National Public Radio (NPR) and the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) (and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, or CPB) and their most recent controversy over the "secret consultant's report", is an overtly political one:

[A] consultant, Frederick Mann, was secretly hired last year by Kenneth Tomlinson, chairman of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the agency that disburses about $400 million in federal tax money to public broadcasters. In recent months, Tomlinson has criticized National Public Radio and the Public Broadcasting Service for an allegedly liberal bias and has pushed PBS to add programs with a more conservative tone.

There have been counter-accusations that Mr. Mann's report itself was politically motivated and biased.

Kenneth Tomlinson is the Chairman of CPB and a central figure in this controversy. He was nominated in 2000 by President Bill Clinton to become a member of the CPB, and then in 2003 was named chairman by President George W. Bush. He is a controversial figure because of his campaign to fight a perceived liberal bias in public media, at PBS and NPR. Interestingly, he was born in Galax, Virginia.

I believe the implication that publicly-funded news could ever be "bias free" is fallacious. Could it be less "left-leaning"? Maybe. Who or what is going to define and identify that bias? Who or what is going to quantify and alter that bias on an ongoing basis? Is it the Bush Administration? If so, what happens when a different executive team occupies the White House? Will they need and want to reshape public media to their political tastes? Should there be public funding of media in any form? Why and why not?

I'll go on the record as saying liberal bias or not, PBS and NPR provide a better and more thorough and thoughtful journalistic product than any for-profit, private media outlet of which I am aware, including the Big Three, CNN, FOXNEWS, MSNBC, CNBC, etc.

Discuss, people!