PSoTD

I bet some Republicans read with glee this little piece from the Benton Courier of Benton, Arkansas:

Huckabee: Not ready for prime time?

Gov. Mike Huckabee's presidential campaign may hit the rocks when national reporters get the word out that his Healthy Arkansas program goes so far as to require children to "keep moving" even if they want to read during a school recess.

...

Of course, Huckabee isn't going to take this one lying down. He'll have media representative Alice Stewart come out and rip into me and the Courier for a while before she starts blaming the teacher or the kid or even the Benton School District for the way it “interprets” his mandate. The man is very thin-skinned. He and his media representatives like to use Rovian methods of “attack the messenger” because he doesn't like being held accountable himself. He likes to be able to control the spin on any issue.

I've been writing opinion columns for most of 35 years and never have I been asked to "correct" my opinion as often as I have here under the Huckabee Regime.

Remember, this is the same guy who went on a national cable television show and blamed the Democrats for running a “banana republic” in his state, even though he was the governor. Not only does that not say much for his administrative skills, but it doesn't do a whole lot for Arkansas tourism, either. Apparently, Huckabee's “thinking on his feet” skills could stand improvement. I would like to see such abilities well-developed before I hand him or anyone else the nuclear button. Dealing with a recovering drug addict like Don Imus on his early-morning radio/cable TV show should be manageable before someone starts handling the national press. Granted, that group has slumbered the past few years, but the members seem to be snapping out of it in recent months.

Howard Kaloogian story followers, prepare to laugh.

From ClickZ:

Political campaigns are exempt from CAN-SPAM regulations. But did Congress intend to give them permission to harvest e-mail addresses and knowingly send to lists built via harvesting, both of which are "aggregated violations" under CAN-SPAM?

I asked Trevor Hughes, executive director of the Email Sender & Provider Coalition and an attorney specializing in spam issues. He confirmed the harvesting section of the CAN-SPAM act was directed specifically at commercial e-mails and added, "There are strong protections on political speech, which extend to use of e-mail. This doesn't seem like an FTC issue, as they only regulate commercial e-mail. It's more a question of political speech."

White House chief of staff Andy Card has resigned and will be replaced by budget director Josh Bolten, an administration official said Tuesday.

Funny. The story briefly adds that:

The move comes amid a sharp decline in Bush's approval ratings and calls from Republicans for the president to bring in new aides with fresh ideas and new energy.

Typical Bush Administration. I don't know what Card's popularity is with the general population, probably most folks don't really know who he is, but he's not what is dragging Bush's approval ratings down. So keep the people who are (Rumsfeld, Cheney, Rove) and get rid of Card. Make sense to you?

It does if they want to "appear" like they're shaking things up without actually changing any policy.

Gotta wonder how the Secret Service sees these folks in term of threat... after all, they are calling for a day of reckoning.

The good citizens of the United States of America with the help of the patriotic media will be in Crawford Texas to lawfully and peacefully demonstrate against George W. Bush's lack of enforcement of immigration law. For calling the Minutemen and other border watchers "vigilantes", for not directing ICE to round up illegal aliens in our cities, for willfully failing to put our miltary on the border, For being a Mexican president and the best friend an illegal alien can have, for putting American citizens last. We, the American people will be in Crawford Texas May 6 2006 , for a reckoning. Join us! God Bless America.

They even think there may be a possible car caravan to President Bush's ranch.

Why do candidates run for Congress on the main plank of being for "smaller government"? Is there anything in our history that indicates that winning a Congressional seat gives one the power to create smaller government? I don't see anything. It doesn't happen. It's like a vegetarian being the head cook at Ruth Chris Steak House - yes, I'm sure the person can do the job, but is it really a fit for them? Is it really the way for success for either the cook or the restaurant?

I don't think so. I don't think the restaurant would think so. And yet, in politics, it's an accepted plank, to hire someone who claims to strongly support a philosophy that really doesn't have much bearing with what the job requires. Like this dude. Okay, he's been an eye technician and a special education assistant. For some reason, he thinks it's more important that Scott is for a smaller government.

What in his experience should lead anyone to think he could do anything to make government smaller? What in our nation's history should lead anyone to think that one member of Congress can make government smaller? In the past 5 years, hasn't the majority of Congress been for "smaller government"? Yes. Has it gotten smaller? No.

Wouldn't he have a better chance at success at making government smaller at... a smaller level? Especially when you've had no experience doing such? How about city council, county supervisor, school district... something realistic.

It's time to drop the term "smaller government" from Congressional campaigns. Smart Congressional candidates ought to be saying "efficient government", and saying it often, and saying it loud, and drowning out the boobs that throw terms like "smaller government" at the voters like so many empty beer bottles.

And it's time for the electorate to realize that Congressional candidates that commonly use the phrase "smaller government" are boobs not worth hiring.

President Bush will throw out the ceremonial first pitch for the Cincinnati Reds' home opener April 3 against the Chicago Cubs.

Of course, that area of Ohio is pretty conservative...

The human body, of course.

Why do voters re-elect a Congressman who comes back to the district and responds to a town hall meeting in the following fashion:

When asked about about legislation concerning undocumented illegal aliens, one of the biggest issues in the district, he says he is not familiar with every piece of legislation in Congress.

When asked to express his opinion about homosexuals in the military, he responds:

"I think it's a sad situation, and my heart goes out to every single person who has (homosexual) inclinations."

When asked whether he would support going to war with Iran, he answered:

"Whatever we need to do to prevent Iran from getting a bomb or putting the whole world at war, I'm willing to do."

Yes, those are really the kinds of quality answers that Wally Herger gives the residents of the 2nd Congressional District in Northern California.

To sum up: I don't know. It's tough. Whatever seems right.

Why wouldn't the citizens of the district give Bill Falzett a chance over Herger? Admittedly, Falzett doesn't have the 1997 cool idea of candidate wallpaper on his website like Herger has on his, but then who else does?

When I'm around other parents, and the kids are elsewhere, eventually the subject of the discussion will be the kids, anyway. As parents, they are too much of the focus, too much of the time, too much of the energy for them NOT to be a major and popular topic of discussion.

But it's all real time, or close to it, as frame for the discussion. And it's mostly personal - what sport Billy is playing, what musical instrument Tanya wants to learn, the bug going around the school, what summer camps have the kids tried, etc. We rarely discuss the future - the real future, the expected future, the desired future for our kids. Not what we want for ourselves, but what we want for our kids, and for their future. How we should handoff the planet, so to speak. That's a discussion families may have, but not often shared much amongst friends, and almost never amongst acquaintances.

It seems to me that's a discussion our country sorely needs. I don't know why a national politician doesn't tap into it, and quite easily ask the questions: What kind of America do you want for your kids? How should America operate when they become adults? How should America prepare for their generation? Are we leaving America better or worse off for our kids than our parents left for us? Are there greater sacrifices that we should make for the next generation? What is reasonable to expect for American in the next generation? Have you discussed with your friends that have kids these kinds of questions? What do they think? Will you sit around a dinner table with your friends, and talk about it as friends? Won't you do that for your kids?

In fact, I'm not sure why there isn't a group, something like "Parents for the Future", that provide bandwidth and venue for such talk, locally and nationally. It is, after all, a humungous topic, one that can't be talked out in one or three or fifteen hours, but could be (and should be) a lifetime of discussion and action as we raise our kids. It shouldn't be a partisan thing, that will only rot the future value of such an effort. It could be an idea sharing and discussing and developing process, open to thoughts from both liberal and conservative, and synthesized into something that eventually became policy or practice over generation.

I know, I know - parents don't have much time for things, since they're so busy parenting. But is it responsible to not do this? These will be our kids living in this world we build 50 years from now. Shouldn't we be thinking ahead for them since they're too young to do it now?

Obviously, we should. But it sure seems to me that we need to be more effective in results. The first step is to talk with each other and figure out how.

One year after smoking ban, Thayer Street sees business as usual

One year after the Rhode Island General Assembly passed a statewide smoking ban, local restaurant and bar owners say a feared loss of business has not materialized.

The ban, officially known as the Rhode Island Workers' Safety Act, went into effect over a year ago, on March 1, 2005. It prohibits indoor smoking in public facilities.

On Thayer Street, Andreas Restaurant co-owner and managing partner Nicholas Mackris said the smoking ban has not affected business at all.

"Our initial fear was that it would negatively affect business, but fortunately our fears were not realized," Mackris said. Because of the ban, he said, he has noticed more people smoking outside the restaurant than before. But, he added, it has not posed a problem.

Thel Spiridas, manager of Paragon, said the smoking ban has not affected business, but agreed there are now more smokers outside than before the ban went into effect.

...

The experiences of local business seem to be part of a statewide trend - despite fears that the ban would hurt businesses, the smoking ban has possibly helped to stimulate them.

David Gifford, director of the state Department of Health and associate professor of medicine, told the Associated Press last October that tax revenues generated by restaurants and bars increased by 21 percent in the first four months after the law went into effect.

What - smoking bans are good for business? Who would have thought? Oh yeah - nonsmokers.

Who is writing Bush's Presidential Proclamations? Check out how USA-centric the Bush Administration couches the declaration of March 25, 2006, as Greek Independence Day. We can't even leave it as that - Bush declared it as Greek Independence Day: A National Day of Celebration of Greek and American Democracy.

From the Stamford Advocate:

While U.S. Sen. Joseph Lieberman pushes reforms that could curb the practice of politicians accepting rides on private corporate jets, the Connecticut Democrat is ranked 13th on a list that tracks such flights.

The list ranks spending by 192 federal elected officials who used aircraft owned by corporations to travel to political engagements and other events.

But as ranking member of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, Lieberman is co-sponsoring a lobbying reform bill that could put a stop to such flights.

It is too bad that Joe Lieberman needs legislation to stop him from doing what he is doing. Apparently his free will is now gone.

Paul Tagliabue is leaving the NFL, and he's leaving it both peaceful and prosperous.

Roger Goodell, the NFL's chief operating officer, and Atlanta general manager Rich McKay are the two leading candidates to succeed Tagliabue. Baltimore Ravens president Dick Cass also is considered to have an outside chance and Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice has said she would like the job.

"Ask her," Tagliabue said when quizzed about Rice's candidacy.

Seriously. Just think how different - and better - the world would have been if one George W. Bush had been made baseball commissioner in 1992. And would baseball have really suffered?

I don't take any particular enjoyment out of the article today called "How to spot a baby conservative". I think this kind of "study" is pretty much unhelpful - it's just another step towards taking the personal responsibility out of one's belief system. Oh, I was born a conservative or a liberal. Bleh. What we need are articles about the personal responsibility required - and public standards expected - to actually speak intelligently about one's viewpoint. Somebody can be a conservative or a liberal, and have good reasons for being such. The explanation that someone was born that way, or raised that way, shouldn't be thought highly of as a reason. They were also born naked and uneducated. Society doesn't accept those as standards of development, either.

Was just watching a bit of Bush's rerun speech in Cleveland about Iraq. Looks like he is reading from an 8.5 by 11 inch binder. Based on how he's flipping the pages, it looks like there's somewhere between 40-50 words per page. I'll admit, he's using some big words, but that's either one monster sized font or he has a ton of white space.

USA Today reminds us that Congressional lawmakers will make $165,200 this year. Leaders earn more.

That's without benefits. That's not including office expenses. That's not including any freebies they may get from organizations because they are members of Congress. That's just pay.

Seem high to you? Compare it to your area's average per capita personal income. It's not cost effective, that's for sure. Where are all those members of Congress that advocate running government like a business? Because we're overpaying the market price...

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities put out a report on states and sales tax on food last week.

Something stood out:

Five states tax groceries at lower rates than other goods; they are Illinois, Missouri, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia. A sixth state, Utah, will reduce its sales tax on groceries effective January 1, 2007.[1]

Six states — Hawaii, Idaho, Kansas, Oklahoma, South Dakota, and Wyoming — tax groceries fully but offer credits or rebates offsetting some of the taxes paid on food by some portions of the population. These credits or rebates usually are set at a flat amount per family member. The amounts and eligibility rules vary, but may be too narrow and/or insufficient to give eligible households full relief from sales taxes paid on food purchases.

Five states continue to apply their sales tax fully to food purchased for home consumption without providing any offsetting relief for low- and moderate-income families. They are Alabama, Arkansas, Mississippi, South Carolina, and (until January 1, 2007) Utah.

Why is it that a considerable number of Southern states tax food purchased for home consumption? What is the thinking behind that?

From the Sioux Falls Argus Leader:

Florida has Disney. Idaho has potatoes. And now, for many, South Dakota has abortion.

A state's image is often a perception forged by a combination of stereotype and marketing. Whether the association with abortion becomes permanent for South Dakota hinges on the fate of a recently passed law banning almost all abortions in the state.

...

Sam Min, an assistant professor of marketing at the University of South Dakota, said negative word of mouth about the state is spreading, particularly among young people, traditionally a heavily liberal segment of the population.

Long term, though, Min thinks the notoriety the state has gained could be advantageous, regardless of which way the political wind blows. Awareness of the state's name will increase with exposure, he said, and eventually the association with abortion will fade. South Dakota could instead become unconsciously associated with vague concepts such as taking bold action and breaking new ground.

Well, that's certainly one optimistic way to look at it. Of course, look how well the concept of Intelligent Design did for the community of Dover, Pennsylvania. Do you unconsciously associate Dover with bold action and breaking new ground? Or do you associate it with religious zealotry?

BTW, I'm pretty sure that publishing these kinds of "theories" aren't doing much for the reputation of the University of South Dakota, either.

I usually don't read Power Line at all, but yesterday he discussed the monsters that are out picketing and protesting funerals of fallen soldiers because they hate homosexuals. Power Line doesn't really deal with the idiocy of the whole protest, which is fine, but complains that Minnesota is taking the drastic step of limiting how close to funerals such protests can be. Power Line's comment:

This strikes me as one of many examples of our culture's obsession with legal remedies. As a lawyer, I suppose I shouldn't complain; but as a citizen, I think it's ridiculous. If a bunch of crazies show up waving signs at a funeral, the appropriate course is for an able-bodied man--there should be at least one at any funeral--to take a sign and break it over the ringleader's head. One of the basic problems in our society is that nearly all informal sanctions have been forfeited, so that there is hardly any middle ground between passive acceptance of antisocial behavior and a felony prosecution. Legislation and criminal prosecution are blunt instruments that cannot be brought to bear against every deviancy that may arise.

Advocating the rule of violent force over the rule of law. Goon.

A retired naval officer says it:

Only in fascist countries is the military held to a higher level of respect or position than a citizen.

We are all supposed to be equals in the eyes of the law. There's a moral reason why that standard exists. It is a big problem that politicians, and the public, can't remember what that reason is.

I'm convinced this situation puts our national political parties in full display.

One party won't act to censure Bush because it will damage their reputation even further.

The other party is completely afraid of even having a reputation.

Of course, neither party has a clue what Americans see in this costume minuet.

Vote them all out. Except Feingold.

Addition: And Tom Harkin.

Can you name which U.S. Senator can claim the following on his/her official web site?

On the front page alone, the word bipartisan appears a total of 4 times in three different articles.

Three of 15 press releases listed for 2006 use the term bipartisan in the headline.

I wonder who the staff leader is for pushing the bi message for "Bipartisan" John McCain. Is it Communications Director Eileen McMenamin (didn't she used to be a CNN Political Producer? Isn't she married to LA Times Reporter Ron Brownstein?) Or is it Press Secretary Andrea Jones?

That's about the only reasonable solution.

The wife of a Tampa soldier serving in Iraq is locked in an emotional dispute with her homeowner's association that wants her to remove a "Support Our Troops" sign from the front yard.

Stacey Kelley says her husband, Private David Kelley, bought the 2-foot-high sign before he went to Iraq. For her, it's a constant reminder of the sacrifice her husband and other soldiers are making.

But deed restrictions in her gated Westchase neighborhood northwest of Tampa prohibit all signs except "for sale" and "for rent" notices. The association sent Stacey Kelley a letter last month threatening to fine her $100 a day unless she removes her patriotic placard.

Caught in the middle is homeowners association President Daryl Manning, an Army reservist who has served in Iraq. He says he's sympathetic, but if Kelley is allowed to display the sign, nothing could prevent others from putting up signs with negative messages about the troops.

Stacey Kelley says she'll follow the advice her husband gave during their last conversation: not to take it down even if it comes down to paying the fines.

Normally I have very, very little sympathy for gated communities - I believe they are too restrictive, too forbidding of communities, and I sure wouldn't want to live in one. But if you choose to live in one, you choose to live by their rules. If you sign up for rules, then follow those rules. Or pay the fines.

From Pesky'Apostrophe:

The Internal Revenue Service has proposed a new rule that would let tax preparers sell or share a client’s tax-return information with third parties, as long as they got the client’s consent.

...

Considering how easy it’s been to sucker seniors into the confusing and just plain bad Medicare Part D plan, you just know that thousands and thousands will accidentally sign the right to financial privacy away.

And that is the point. This Administration is one medicine show after another.

From the New York Times:

The drive for a tighter lobbying law, just two months ago a major priority on Capitol Hill, is losing momentum, a victim of shifting political interests, infighting among House Republicans and a growing sense among lawmakers of both parties that wholesale change may not be needed after all.

In the Senate, debate on a lobbying bill was derailed this week by the fracas over port security, and it is unclear when the measure will return. A chief architect of the legislation, Senator Susan Collins, Republican of Maine, said Friday that the bill was "way off track" and that she feared its chances had been jeopardized.

"People have turned to other issues," Ms. Collins said in a telephone interview from Maine. "This was our window, and I'm afraid it will be slammed shut."

There was no window. Susan Collins is playing games, just like John McCain plays games, on this subject. They don't plan to do much about the "problem", because the only real problem they see is the public perception of them when scandals hit.

In this case, Congress was playing for time, waiting for the flavor of the day story to arrive, knock Abramoff out of the headlines, and leave them to their little shell games. As always, it worked.

Of course, the New York Times could recommend that every incumbent member of Congress be voted out of office until lobbying reform is enacted. But... they won't. Why? Because the New York Times doesn't give a damn about lobbying reform, either.

so for more emphasis: Double No.

No.

I have. How about you?

If I had my druthers, I would require that the ballots around the country not indicate the party of candidates.

I sometimes wonder at the political horsesense of America's political parties not known as Democratic or Republican. To me, this is the quickest way for them to shore up the power difference in the playing field of the voting booth. Does a Libertarian have a chance at being elected a member of Congress? Very very unlikely, as long as that person is competing against the major ballot labels of (R) and (D). Same for Green Party, same for Peace and Freedom, same for every other party.

So why not work together on an initiative program in states where the initiative is available to remove the Party Designation from the ballot? At some point, you have to wonder why anyone would ever donate money to any of these lesser parties, other than from some personal obligation due to relationship. Are they running to win? Are they even running to change the governing dynamic? Or are they just running because they have an ego that needs satiated, and a lesser political party provides an easier hierarchy to vault for a run at political office?

If the smaller political parties are serious about wanting to govern, they should focus on ways to change the election process to provide themselves some opportunities. Otherwise, they're just wasting time and resources.

The entire NSA spy scandal boils down to personal questions that each American ought to be asking themselves and their members of Congress:

I won't be following HillaryNow.com today, nor is it likely I will ever. At this point, it would be an extreme longshot that I would ever vote for Hillary Clinton.

An editorial from the Herald-Journal in Spartanburg, SC:

Solution to earmark problem is more congressional responsibility, not more presidential power

In pushing for a line-item veto, President Bush is trying to resurrect a failed idea that is unlikely to solve the problem he wants to address. Bush proposed legislation Monday that would give him the power to veto individual spending items in appropriations bills. The president said it would allow him to strip out pork-barrel spending.

...

More presidential power is not what's needed.

The answer is more responsibility in Congress. Representatives and senators have to change their budget system to disallow special projects and focus on national priorities.

Frankly, if newspapers believe that the issue lies with Congress, then they should understand that one of the biggest problems is that these members of Congress treat the budget deficit as if it has no repercussion on their ability to be re-elected. Why? Because it doesn't. They keep getting re-elected. And they almost always keep getting recommended for re-election by... their local newspapers.

So why do newspapers act like they care about balancing the budget? Where is the proof, beyond the lip service, that they care? Do newspapers take hard positions - vote for a balanced budget or face our opposition at election time? Do newspapers complain when pork comes to town? Why would anyone really expect a newspaper to oppose pork in the first place - after all, chances are that some of that money might end up in their pocket.

So why do newspaper corporations pretend like they care about the deficit and porkbarrel spending? Why the act?

From Rutherford B. Hayes

Disunion and civil war are at hand; and yet I fear disunion and war less than compromise. We can recover from them. The free States alone, if we must go on alone, will make a glorious nation. Twenty millions in the temperate zone, stretching from the Atlantic to the Pacific, full of vigor, industry, inventive genius, educated, and moral; increasing by immigration rapidly, and, above all, free—all free—will form a confederacy of twenty States scarcely inferior in real power to the unfortunate Union of thirty-three States which we had on the first of November.

NFIB's viewpoint of the Bush budget:

Secretary of Treasury John Snow emphasized the value of small businesses to the American economy in his Feb. 15 testimony before the House Committee on Ways and Means regarding the president’s fiscal year 2007 budget.

From NewYorkBusiness.com

Bush budget would gut small business programs

President George W. Bush’s budget proposal would cut deeply into the pockets of New York small businesses by eliminating or trimming 27 programs, according to Rep. Nydia M. Velázquez.

Seventy-five percent of government-sponsored small business programs were cut in the president’s budget request, said Ms. Velázquez, who represents Brooklyn and is the most senior Democrat on the House Small Business Committee.

I run a small business. There's no way in hell I would ever waste business money on a membership in the National Federation of Independent Business. And I certainly wouldn't pay them any money to advance their pet causes, because many of them are contrary to the interests of small business.

Can you define America in a short paragraph, say no more than 50 words? I'm not talking about America the geographical location, I'm talking about America the concept. America the future. America the desired. America the good. I'm not sure I can. But the Democratic Party sure needs to find somebody that can do it, can do it well, and can do it constantly, and get that message out, over and over and over and over and over and over and over. Because until we can quickly and calmly and popularly declare what America is, the slow people and the evil people and the lost people in this country aren't going to grasp the choice between what we have and what we could have.

We can't just go around saying that this Bush action or that federal government activity "isn't American". Slow people don't understand why. Evil people see that as an attack on themselves. Lost people don't know an alternative. The alternative needs to be defined, every day, loudly, proudly, affirmatively, so that the lost and the slow can find their way, and the evil can finally witness their exposure.

A modern finely-tuned reworking of this would probably suffice:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

A few days ago, the Edmond Sun, in Edmond, Oklahoma, ran what I think is an important piece for people to remember:

Look at what we get for our tax dollars

I enjoy preparing my tax returns because I am reminded of all I get for the taxes I pay. The government services bought by the money are large. They include not only the obvious ones such as national defense and national police protection, but also ones that are not so obvious to everyone, such as management of public lands.

Tax dollars provide the money that supports scholars striving to become our next generation of scientists, and much of the money that universities spend on scientific research comes from government coffers. The public sees the big projects, like NASA sending robot explorers to the moon. The public doesn’t see much of the research activity that goes on, smaller projects carried out by small laboratories headed by a single faculty member at a university. But those projects are important, both for the results they produce, and for the scientists they train as graduate students and postdoctoral researchers.

And so on. It's a good piece, and more importantly, it's a piece and a voice that you almost never see in the news. We see plenty of the bitching about taxes. We rarely see any of the excitement or appreciation about the benefits of government activity.

We're coming up on April 15th, as the closer we get, the louder the news bitching will be about taxes. And, as we all know, it's coordinated news bitching from the Republican Party. As April gets closer, it seems like a good project for each of us to write an essay about the results of government that we appreciate, and craft a piece to send to our local newspapers. Do you appreciate something that your taxes pay for? Then don't be quiet about it - publicly voice your approval.

Update: I'm a bit... disappointed in how some folks at DailyKos responded to this idea. They didn't, just took the opportunity to spew opinion about how government is wasting money. That is the kind of tax-bitching I'm sick of...

Ross Schriftman should be elected just for this idea:

Ross Schriftman, candidate for the Democratic nomination in the 152nd Legislative District (Portions of Eastern Montgomery County and Northeast Philadelphia) has proposed that all legislators be required to attend an annual class to review Pennsylvania and U.S. Constitutional Law. Speaking before a crowd of 70 Upper Dublin Democrats on Sunday, Schriftman said "All professions require continuing education for their members. We should expect no less from those whose primary job it is to make the laws."

I want to see more candidates stumping on this idea.

But Bill Frist acts like they do.

If you had the opportunity (and if you're a blogger, why not take that opportunity)...

What question would you ask every candidate for election for a seat in your State Legislature this year?

Cup O' Joe Vecchio has a great post: Has The Blogosphere Reached A Crossroads?

So my question is, where do we go from here? We have huge numbers of people gathering at these sites, but except for a few excellent examples of fundraising and otherwise helping candidates, it all seems to be one big circle jerk. There are too many cliques and too many people more concerned with their own pet issues or egos to see any kind of a big picture. If we want to be the kind of political force many of us would like us to become, then we can't continue doing what we're doing.

And so we stand at a crossroads, and I don't know where we're going. Five years ago, I don't think anyone even used the word "blogosphere". Will it even exist five years from now? We have a tremendous tool at our disposal, and I get the impression that we've only scratched the surface of its potential: not just in terms of making a quick buck, but in bringing the world together by showing the things we all have in common as humans, not just Americans or Germans or Iraqis. Maybe it's time we started acting towards that.

For political bloggers, I think 2006 ought to be - and will be - a direction pointing year. Many bloggers have been through an election or two now, and with the 2006 elections looming, it seems to be too big of an event for bloggers to settle for blogging as they have done before. Snark and gotchas are fun, but there's got to be more to it.

It isn't just a generation of bloggers we ought to be considering, but also a generation of candidates - and elected officials - that have to contend with bloggers. And I'm starting to think that this is what bloggers ought to focus on in the equation this year. There should not be a candidate for office at the state legislature level or higher that does not receive some review and consideration by bloggers this year. And, wherever possible, bloggers ought to use their blogs to publish positions and statements by candidates, including doing the interviews themselves and providing original content. If bloggers want to change the quality of governance, we'll have to start by focusing on those who represent us in government, and the issues and stances that we want to see represented there. The smaller the representation, the more likely a single blogger can make a difference.

I've started to interview Pennsylvania candidates for the state General Assembly concerning their thoughts about lobbyist regulation and reform. It's a small subject, and limited to statewide interest at best - in this election cycle. But candidates and discussion can push the viewpoints of an issue, and the Internet can push the boundaries - both of space and of time - for consideration of those viewpoints. So I look at these email interviews as a step in a long-term process of expanding the discussion.

As bloggers look at what they do this year in the same light - a step in the longterm evolution - we'll see some amazing changes in blogging this year. Blogging is a flowering process. What are you going to plant?

Saddest report of Presidential information sourcing ever:

According to Newsweek's Richard Wolffe, President Bush learned about the Dubai port controversy from Michael Savage. In the March 6th issue of Newsweek, Wolffe writes that the President's inner circle was alerted to the supposed Arab takeover of America's ports when one of the President's aides tuned in to 'The Savage Nation' just before Valentine's Day.

Yep, Paul Kiel at Talking Points Memo is right. If the Democrats want to be the party of reform, quit dicking around and be the party of reform. Quit talking about it and in the same meeting doing something quite different - that's Bushlike.