Novak: Could Arnold give GOP a Cali lock? Reality: No.

Robert Novak in his Sun-Times column wonders whether Governor Schwarzenegger could hand the Republican Party a permanent presidential lock by delivering California into the Red State small-state quilt. The column is here and also in the nifty link feature above.

Novak writes that Arnold has a 65% popularity rating, and if he campaigned in California with President Bush, then maybe, just maybe, Bush could beat Kerry in California. And if that happened, then Bush gets re-elected no matter what happens in Ohio, Florida and/or Pennsylvania.

Man, I hope the Bush campaign takes the bait and wastes all that money and time campaigning in California. Because there's no way that a pro-life, pro-oil, pro-empire and pro-gun Texas president could come close to a majority of the vote in California, no matter how much Arnold pumps him up. There's no Maria Shriver to tell nervous California voters that Bush is OK (as she did for her husband in the recall election, which helped to seal the deal).

Novak writes that Karl Rove and the Bush campaign were criticized for investing in California in 2000 since the Dems dominated the race. I hope they do it again.

Also, on a technical note, I put up a google ad on the side. Now. . .I'll be rich!

And also, congratulations to frequent commenter Vasyl Markus for landing a Crain's op-ed on Keyes' domicile issues with his ballot status. The article is here, but you've got to be a subscriber to read it. (If you can afford it, it's a great paper and worth the buck-an-issue).

Guest blogger Dave Moody on the shock to come: Bush-McCain ticket

This is my first guest blogger, Dave Moody. The only reason this ridiculous prediction is going on my blog is so that I don't have to hear it anymore. So, Moody, take it away:

A friend mentioned to me yesterday that there was a buzz about John McCain being selected as Bush's vice president. This is starting to make more and more sense for team Bush. From McCain's point of view, he becomes heir apparent in 2008 as the incumbent VP. All while staying loyal to his party. From Bush's point of view, he gets rid of creepy, reclusive (in the pubic eye) Cheney, who they can then make out as a scape goat for all that's wrong with the administration. Though I think Cheney was an asset to Bush in 2000 as an intellectual balance, I think many now see him as a liability. With McCain on the ticket, the crucial swing voters who need only a small nudge in one direction or another would be drawn to his moderation and common sense. This could give legitimacy (to them) to another Bush administration. McCain could even further dip into the Kerry-voting-but-not-totally-sure demographic for people who don't like Bush and his administration, but are hesitant to change things during what they may see as an internationlly volatile time. Could it really happen? In spite of Bush having made his decision to stick with Cheney and being loathe to be portrayed as a flip-flopper himself, all that really needs to happen is for Cheney to be persuaded to drop out "for reasons of health." It just makes sense for the Republicans on many levels.

State Board of Elections doing their job to question whether ILGOP can replace Ryan with Keyes

Yesterday the State Board of Elections did their job. Instead of just allowing the Republican State Central Committee to fill the vacancy in the U.S. Senate nomination when Jack Ryan withdrew, the Board had a good debate on the point as state law is silent as to whether the State Central Committee has the authority to do so.

As it turned out, the four Dem-appointed members thought the silence in state law should be interpreted as meaning the RSCC had no authority and the ballot ought not include Keyes while the four GOP-appointed members thought the explicit authority granted to the RSCC to fill almost every other vacancy should trump the silence on whether U.S. Senate vacancies may be filled by the RSCC.

But that vote doesn't mean that Dems are "playing politics" with the decision or that the Obama campaign or Speaker Madigan is trying to hurt the Keyes campaign. Far from it. Any rational political decision by the Democratic Party of Illinois or the Obama campaign is to let Keyes get on the ballot, state law ambiguity or not, as the state's electorate is firmly behind Obama to a degree unmatched by any other Senate campaign in memory.

If the four Dem-appointed members of the State Board of Elections had followed the smart political advice and ignored the real legal question here, then they would have been "playing politics." Instead, they did the right thing and had a real debate on the issue. Good for them.

The Trib article is here and the Sun-Times article is here. Dan Proft's spin that they are "playing games with the law" is totally wrong. So is the Obama aide for calling it "outrageously stupid." And the headline writers are wrong too. This isn't "wacky."

If there are any huffy editorials about this, any blame should be cast at the General Assembly for not clarifying this state law when everyone knew there was a problem. (Yeah, I'm a little bitter, since the omnibus bill that would have cleared this up included the 14-day grace period voter registration reform that I worked on to make it easier for people to register to vote).

Steinberg's great line on Bush

From his column in the Sun-Times a few days ago:

Bush hid behind the privilege that was to eventually deposit him, blinking and amazed, into the White House.

The column is here.

Now, I don't like Neil Steinberg (never having met him, I say that I don't like 'him' when I talk about the voice of his columns. The voice of the columnist is a jerk. He, in 'real life', is probably a nice person). He is, however, a very clear writer, so I keep going back and reading these columns that I don't enjoy, because they are written so well.

Gov signs Health Care Justice Act into law. Let the debate begin!

On Monday, Governor Blagojevich signed into law the Health Care Justice Act. This gives us the chance (as I wrote about in my column here) to develop an actual plan for health care for everyone in the state.

I suspect we liberals are going to have to focus on those aspects of the health insurance industry that seem like a waste of resources where a universal government program makes more sense -- and then be comfortable with letting the other parts of the industry remain private. For example, I think catastrophic health insurance (hit by a bus, rare disease) should be provided to every citizen by the government. These risks can't be controlled or mitigated (largely), and the costs of those who are *not* insured to everyone else are far greater than just insuring everyone in the first place. That's insuring against medical bankruptcy. And if we had some harder figures on the costs of a previously productive person going bankrupt, losing their job, etc. because of an insurable health condition, and all this calamity would not have occurred if the government had provided catastrophic health insurance, that would help make our case. Anyone care to do a research paper on the topic?

(Speaking of which, I'm trying to help get some good research papers done with ideas for topics. Check out that page on my site, and please contribute your papers or ideas for topics. It's here.)

Another health insurance program I think the government should run is birthing. Why should women or their employers have to pay extra to cover the cost of birthing insurance? That's discrimination.

But some areas where private, for-profit companies should run the market (both in services and in insurance) include cosmetic surgery and 'alternative' care. I'm not sure where the draw the line (based solely on pragmatic assessments of the greatest good for the greatest number). Should regular check-ups be covered by a government program or should we require people to buy their own insurance -- or pay out of pocket -- for those regular recurring expenses? That's one odd thing about health insurance for regular check-ups: you're not really insuring yourself against anything, since everyone is supposed to go and spend the money for a regular check-up anyway. So what's the point of playing games? If everyone is supposed to spend the $250 to see a doctor once a year, then maybe that should just be an out-of-pocket expense, and we shouldn't encourage people to pay for that $250 by paying some insurance company a monthly premium and then having the company pay the doctor. Seems like a waste of time. Insurance should be limited to those big items, like a hospital stay or chemotherapy. I guess there's an incentive to actually go for a check-up if 'it's free' since the insurance company is covering that cost, but that treats us like children who are incapable of going to the doctor for a check-up if we have to write a check instead of pretending that the only cost is the $20 co-pay. Paying for regular, recurring, reasonable expenses (like fees for check-ups) muddies the question as to the real value of health insurance, and gets people into the game of trying to see if the cost of the premiums is more or less than what their out-of-pocket expenses were for the year. I hope we learn a ton about the real costs of the industry from the Health Care Justice Act -- and that they get started soon.

Idle gossip and speculation

One good thing about showing up to endorsement interviews in IVI-IPO: you get to chat with the electeds. So what are some of the potential scenarios to make the 2006 primary elections interesting? Somebody has got to give up their statewide slot or it could be a status quo primary. Well. . . what if Kerry wins and appoints Durbin to his Cabinet? Then what if Rod (I think the governor gets to fill the vacancy) slots Lisa Madigan to go to D.C.? Now things open up. Maybe Dan Hynes runs for A-G which opens up Comptroller. Maybe Jesse White decides to retire and the motherlode of old school statewide positions opens up. Maybe Paul Vallas runs for governor. Now that would be an awesome race. Can anyone beat Blago's $25 million? Maybe Paul Vallas if he campaigns Downstate and all the angry Dems actually break with Rod and formally endorse Paul. And if all the good-government women vote in the Democratic primary. Remember a big reason Vallas lost is because Corinne Wood pulled a lot of reform voters to the GOP primary in 2002. I hope we get some good races.

Congrats to Paul Froehlich for his Trib LTE and Zorn link

Paul published a letter calling for each state's 'house' electoral votes to be allocated to the plurality winner of eah congressional district while the two 'senate' votes allocated to the statewide plurality winner. That's a good Republican move because the GOP has done a better job gerrymandering the congressional map than the Dems. That's how we have a GOP majority Congress even though 500,000 more people voted for Gore than Bush. Just look at the Illinois map: 10 Republicans and 9 Dems in one of the bluest states in the nation. Why won't Madigan redraw the map? And why won't Larry of ArchPundit agree that we can't tolerate this GOP map anymore? Anyway, smart move by Paul so congratulations!

Kerry opponents driven by his stance as a citizen, not a soldier

I had a chance to talk with one of the people in the anti-Kerry group Swift Boat Veterans for Truth on Beyond the Beltway last night. His name is Bill Elder and he said that he thought Kerry was unfit to be president because of his service in Vietnam. But when Bruce DuMont asked him why he was so mad at John Kerry, Mr. Elder said it was because when Kerry came back, he testified before Congress about the horrible, ugly side of war. That, to Elder and lots of the people backing him, borders on the treasonous, as it 'gives aid and comfort to the enemy.'

I was appalled.

It is noble for a someone in the armed forces to tell their civilian commanders -- and that includes Congress who runs and funds the military -- what is really going on, so that the civilian commanders can make an informed decision whether to continue to wage war. Mr. Elder (and some other 'support the troops' people I've spoken with) believe that once a war begins, debating the policy only serves to hurt morale and is to be avoided at all costs. That's stifling dissent, under the guise of supporting the troops. (And what a condescending view of active duty servicemen and women! It's as if we can train young men and women to kill other people in horribly difficult conditions, but if they hear that there is a debate over whether the war is a bad idea or not, they just won't be able to continue to do their job. Give me a break. Troops can handle democracy.)

John Kerry's decision to actively work to end the Vietman War is what fuels the perceived 'betrayal' of these pro-war partisans, not any B.S. story about faking combat to get a metal. All that is just another ruthless lie from the win-at-all-costs national Republicans. (Why can't northern Republicans be running that party again?)

Beyond the Beltway tomorrow; why conservatives like Keyes and why IL Dems should root out corruption

Just got the word from Bruce DuMont that I'll be on Beyond the Beltway (radio only) this Sunday (in Chicago on WLS 890 am from 6 pm to 8 pm). Tune in if you're free.

Thomas Roeser's column on Alan Keyes in the Sun-Times here helps explain to me why conservatives are happy to pick him. He is their Barry Goldwater. He is the one who can purge the state party of their corrupt machine ties and give conservatives (or fundamentalists) a happy home.

Roeser's a good writer, so here is a choice paragraph:

Then why am I an optimist? Because before victory comes, a party must change. Just as Barry Goldwater by losing changed the Republican Party from an eastern seaboard entity to a Southern party that got elected adhering to traditional values, Keyes can transform the moribund Republicrat party from boardrooms and country clubs into a vibrant entity: composed on one level of working class and entrepreneurs, ethnics and blue-collar suburbs, and churches -- tons of them: Catholic, Evangelical.

First, that's a really insightful comment on the change from Eisenhower Republicans to Reagan Republicans (and how Northern Republicans like the Chicago Tribune and, for that matter, pre-1980 John Anderson) have been pushed out of the party over the last few decades.

Second, transformations don't happen all that often, and it's interesting to see such wishful thinking infect a major party. Raising the living standards of regular people is the core definition of the Democratic Party. Republicans have to fight against that by framing government as the problem. That's easier to do with the federal government. The state government (which basically funds schools, health care, transportation and those too infirm or old to care for themselves and has a low tax burden) is a much more difficult target for Republicans to paint as the obstacle toward a higher living standard. Most people get that more money for education raises living standards. The state tax burden is rather light (especially the state income tax, which at 3% is too low). There isn't much of a bogeyman for Republicans to rally swing voters around, so I don't really see where a state GOP party purged of 'moderates' can't build a majority.

The only weak spot for Democrats is corruption. Governor Blagojevich seems to sense that weak spot, so he constantly calls himself a reformer to disassociate himself from the widespread perception of government tolerance for low-level corruption. That, I suspect, is the 'traditional value' that Roeser and John Kass and conservatives would like Republicans to crusade on, and they can't do it when Bob Kjellander and other deal-makers perceived to be as corrupt as anyone else are running the state GOP.

I think the lesson for Illinois Democrats is that it is in their interest to root out any tolerance of corruption. It's an intriguing puzzle why Mayor Daley hasn't led that charge. To their credit (though in real fits and starts), the Illinois Ethics Act of 2003 has cleaned up a lot of the state problems. And the fact that there isn't any money in the state budget means that there hasn't been much Democratic patronage for the Governor to control, which is also good.

It will be harder as the incumbent party in 2006 for Democrats to hold onto the mantle of the anti-corruption party -- and eliminate their biggest potential source of weakness from a 'clean sweep' GOP message -- if they aren't perceived to be cleaning up state government. There ought to be another push in 2005 for ethical government in Springfield, and some sacred cows (how do you spell O'Hare) really ought to get gored. That's in every Democrats' interest, including Mayor Daley's.

Great report on progressive policies in states in 2004

The Center for Policy Alternatives is a very neat organization that focuses on state legislators and their legislative victories.

They have a report out here on 2004 successes.

One great bill out of Massachusetts that I'll be trying to replicate in Illinois (from the Center's email):

Massachusetts Passes Corporate Accountability Legislation
The Massachusetts legislature last month became the first in the nation to require its state government to compile an annual list of which companies' employees and their dependents use state health benefits the most, and what it costs taxpayers. The requirement, included in the state budget, applies to employers with more than 50 workers.