Moderate Musings

Saturday, February 18, 2006

Yeah, I've Moved

Well, I am officially done with this blog. I currently do not and in the future will not have time to maintain a blog on my own. I have now signed on as a contributor to Austin Centrist, which has just gotten under way. I invite you to check it out. Adios!

2:07 AM | Permalink | | links to this post

Saturday, January 21, 2006

Week in Review Out; Local Report In

I've been trying my new weekly format for a little while now, and I like it. That is, except for "Week in Review". Too much time to prepare, and I would rather spend more of my free weekend hours researching for and writing better "In Depth" posts for Sunday.

That is why I am scratching "Week in Review" and replacing it with "Local Report", in which I will briefly comment on an Austin-specific political or social issue from the past week. Check out the first "Local Report" next Saturday!

11:55 PM | Permalink | | links to this post

From the Blogosphere: The Moderate Voice's "Centrist blogs: A Sign Of De-Alignment?"

This week's post comes from Joe Gandelman at The Moderate Voice, titled "Centrist blogs: A Sign Of De-Alignment?". The feature is not Gandelman's thoughts but rather a rerunning of a New York Sun column written by John Avlon, author of The Independent Nation, about centrist blogs.

The column is available by paid subscription only and Gandelman received permission from Avlon to display it. For this reason I will not copy the entire post as I usually do. Instead, I will only provide the link. Enjoy!

1:51 AM | Permalink | | links to this post

Friday, January 20, 2006

Spotlight: Strayhorn Ad Without "Republican" Label

Before I get into the story, let me highlight a section from a post I made on Texas gubernatorial candidate Carole Keeton Strayhorn's firt televised ad:
Strayhorn has made clear that she is a Republican running as an independent. This brings some confusion. How can one run for office free of party affiliation yet still claim loyalty to a party? Strayhorn claims she is distraught by the direction of the Texas GOP. If this is the case, then I believe she should assert complete rejection of the party label. By doing so can she become a more comfortable choice for those tired of the bitter partisanship between both parties.

Strayhorn has released a second ad, and, as pointed out by the Houston Chronicle, it contained one noticeable difference from it's predecessor:
In an apparent effort to boost her "independent" image, Carole Keeton Strayhorn has dropped the "Republican" title from her latest television commercial...

She omits the word, "Republican,"... [and] ...calls herself instead an "independent Texan" who wants to put "principle above politics" and "cut property taxes and fix our schools.

I applaud Strayhorn on the move, and hope that she will continue to run simply as an "independent Texan." Independent minds now have more motivation to support her candidacy. Moreover, moderate and centrist Democrats seeking viable opposition to Governor Rick Perry may well find it less painful to vote for a Strayhorn without the "Republican" label.

Speaking of Democrats, the Chronicle also reports that Strayhorn is seeking to gain the endorsement of the donkey's most dedicated supporter, organized labor:
Strayhorn also met last week with the Texas AFL-CIO's executive committee, which made no recommendations in any statewide races, said AFL-CIO spokesman Ed Sills. Endorsements, if any, will be made at the Committee on Political Education convention in May.

Strayhorn knows that some Democrats must be part of her coalition of supporters in order to be victorious in November. The AFL-CIO lacks the sway it once had to mobilize voters, yet its endorsement and still sizeable manpower could bring a lot to the Strayhorn campaign. One wonders, however, if the organized labor group can 1) tear themselves away from the Democrats, and 2) endorse a fiscal conservative. We shall see in May.

The full Houston Chronicle report can be found here.

1:24 AM | Permalink | | links to this post

Wednesday, January 18, 2006

Mid Week Topic: The House Immigration Bill

Last Friday the House passed a major immigration reform bill. As the Oxford Press explains:
The bill would require businesses to verify the legal status of their workers, stiffen sentences for human smugglers, add new grounds for deporting illegal immigrants, and authorize a process through which sheriffs in 29 counties along the Southern border could enforce federal immigration laws. The border barrier would include two-layer fences fortified with cameras, lighting and sensors at key crossings along the U.S.-Mexico border including at El Paso, Brownsville and Laredo in Texas.

The bill would also make illegal presence in the United States a felony instead of a civil offense, and would make it a criminal offense for anyone to aid an immigrant while knowing that the person crossed the border illegally.

There are a number of problems with this legislation. Granted, it has the right idea along the border. Security needs to be tightened and upgraded, and and human taffickers need to punished for taking advantage of desperate people. Nonetheless, this bill contains the wrong solutions to immigrant issues beyond the border.

Requiring businesses to verify immigrants' legal status will only cripple small businesses and encourage larger employers to relocate out of the country. In both instances more people than just illegals lose out.
With the number of illegal immigrants in the country and their underestimated ability to blend into society, tracking down and deporting them will be a momentous burden on immigration officials. And treating them as felons will only further bloat our already overstuffed prisons.
The provision criminalizing aid to immigrants makes no exemption for religious ministries, whose social tenets include "aiding those in need" and "never discriminating when giving aid." Their goal is not to encourage illegal immigration but rather to help people, all people, and they should not be punished for it.

The House bill is far from certain to become law. The Senate has a number far different versions, many of which have some variation of a temporary worker program. In a post last year I argued in favor of the McCain-Kennedy bill. I still stand behind the legislation, as it is the only sensible immigration reform proposed. The House bill, despite a few positive answers, is not.

11:42 PM | Permalink | | links to this post

Tuesday, January 17, 2006

Spotlight: Olmert Seeks Negotiation

Acting Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert is attempting to prove his leadership abilities and commitment to his party's principles. Olmert has expressed interest in opening talks with Palestinian leader Mahmud Abbas after both sides hold their elections. This News24.com:

"I hope that after the results of both our elections I can start negotiations with Abu Mazen (Abbas) with a view to a solution, on condition that he fulfils the commitments he has made," Olmert said.

The internationally drafted roadmap peace plan calls for an end to violence, Palestinian security reform, a freeze in Jewish settlement activity and the creation of an independent Palestinian state.

Olmert's desire to negotiate comes with the usual condition: the Palestinian Authority must disarm radical factions. But with Abbas' Fatah party's record of inefficiency and corruption, there is a strong possibility that militant Hamas, arguably the only other significant voice in Palestinian politics, will fair well in the coming elections. Disarmament was never to be an easy task for Abbas, but after the elections, he may be far too weak to stabilize his own territory. Substantive talks may remain just wishful thinking.

Polls show that Israelis support Olmert, Kadima, and its message of peace and compromise. But with a perceived absence of strong and capable leadership, Palestine may well give extremism a dangerous amount of political power.

The full News24.com article can be found here.

11:16 PM | Permalink | | links to this post

Monday, January 16, 2006

Spotlight: DeLay Falling, Shadegg Rising

I knew Tom DeLay was not the most well-liked individual in the country, but I assumed he still held substantial support within his district. Which is why I was surprised to read this:

Barely one of every five of former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay's constituents would vote for him if the election were held now, according to a newspaper poll released Saturday.

The Republican congressman, who lost his leadership post because of felony money laundering charges against him, trailed Democratic rival and former congressman Nick Lampson in his southeastern Texas district, according to the poll of 560 registered voters conducted for the Houston Chronicle.

In polling conducted Tuesday through Thursday, 22 percent of respondents said they would vote for DeLay, 30 percent chose Lampson and 11 percent favored Republican-turned-independent former congressman Steve Stockman.

Lampson hails from Beaumont and is a victim of the 2003 DeLay-designed redistricting plan. DeLay has already bid farewell to regaining the Majority Leader post; now he may also have to say goodbye to Congress. Of course, one should not read too much into this poll. The events and conclusion of the money laundering investigation will ultimately decide DeLay's fate. A positive swing or exoneration in DeLay's favor could give him enough of a boost to keep his job. And A negative turn or conviction could almost certainly spell the end of DeLay's political career.

Meanwhile, three men are vying to succeed DeLay as Majority Leader, and one man, John Shadegg, is gaining favor among those seeking substantive reform. According to the Washington Post:

He grew up around Barry Goldwater, arrived in Washington with the "Contract With America" crowd, boycotted one of President Bill Clinton's State of the Union speeches and is more conservative on some issues than President Bush.

Now John Shadegg, a six-term Republican congressman from Arizona, has jumped into the race for House majority leader, trying to position himself as the reform candidate in challenging two more established members of the GOP leadership, Missouri's Roy Blunt and Ohio's John A. Boehner.

In arguing that the Republicans have "lost sight of our ideals," Shadegg, 56, is espousing not only tighter ethics rules, but also a return to the smaller-government ethos that has been lost in an era of ballooning budgets and pork-barrel spending.

Granted, Shadegg is not the ideal candidate for moderates. Nevertheless, he is an economic conservative with a strong distaste for pork, and he has the least ties of the three to Abramoff. And most importantly, he is a strong advocate against the big-government conservatism that infests the GOP. Shadegg as Majority Leader provides the best chance for real reform.

6:12 PM | Permalink | | links to this post