Can we please not make Patty Murray the world's second luckiest Senator?

Patty Murray is a mediocre Senator. I don't think anyone disagrees with that honestly. I suspect, among friends, you know, she might even cop to it herself. She reminds me of someone. Oh, that's right. It's the mediocre, stridently partisan senator I was just writing about -- Barbara Boxer. Oh, no their personalities are not much alike. But Boxer is the luckiest person in the Senate (details here) and Murray would like to be the next luckiest!

My previous article (what, you haven't read it? shame on you) pointed out that Barbara Boxer has earned a long career in the Senate by knocking out lightweights. Patty Murray has gone up against the following contenders:
- Rod Chandler
- Linda Smith, who focused unrelistically on the Choice issue, and
- George R. ("I know I have no chance") Nethercutt, Jr.

Who?

Against Chandler in 1992, it was the "year of the woman" in the Senate, the year of Clinton-Gore and the previous senator, Brock Adams, stepped down due to sexual abuse charges. This was the right place, right time for Murray.

In 1998, Linda Smith was not very dynamic and focused on a sure loser issue, abortion.

In 2004, Nethercutt...well, Washington hasn't elected a senator from east of the Cascades since Miles Poindexter in 1916. Yes, Miles Poindexter.So let's leave it at that. 

Murray has faced mediocre challengers generally under favorable circumstances. She could be vulnerable to a strong challenger in 2010.

However, that person has not emerged yet. A lot of nice and well-meaning people have emerged, but no stars. There's Art Coday, a real life doctor who talks too much about the Civil War and abortion (but he did go to Harvard -- go Harvard!). There's a guy who used to play pro-football. There's Chris Widener, a motivational speaker who seems like a nice guy but just, uhmmm not to be rude but, at this stage I don't think has enough heft to make it into the senate. There's a guy named Bob Denton -- oops, I think it's Don Benton -- who has apparently been in the state legislature and who was briefly the head of the state Republican Party before everyone realized he is hard to get along with. On the plus side, Benton is the spitting image of the Mayor of Munchkinland from the 1939 Wizard of Oz. It's really weird. So that's good...

California has recruited Carly Fiorina and Tom Campbell and Meg Whitman to run this year. Those people have heft. They are stars. They have done important things. Where is our star?

One challenge in Washington is that Republicans don't get elected much here, certainly not near Seattle. So Republicans don't have the kind of candidates who often succeed in other states, who, let's say, have been in Congress for ten years and who have some statewide name recognition.

OK so where will our stars come from? I think the strong candidates will have to come from Seattle's business community. Most high tech business people are Dems but if someone with star power and heft is going to give Dems a run for their money in state-wide offices, it is going to have to be, in my opinion, someone from business, like a Mitt Romney or even a Maria Cantwell who was at Real.

Who is that person? Whoever it is, I hope they step forward soon!

Is Barbara Boxer the world's luckiest Senator?

In politics, like life in general, luck can be a factor. For most people it is not the most important factor, but random things happen that can cut for or against people. Hillary Clinton, for instance, has been a bit lucky. Ironically, Monica Lewinsky is the best thing that could have happened to Hillary career-wise. It transformed geeky and strident Hillary into a vulnerable and human person, and she might not have had a political career without it. She was also lucky when Rudy Giuliani pulled out of her first Senate race to leave Rick Lazio as her challenger.

Nita Lowey on the other hand, is unlucky. She probably would have been the Democratic candidate to replace Daniel Patrick Moynihan, rest his soul, in 2000. What are the odds that some random super celebrity from freakin' Arkansas would pop into the state and become the front runner for the Senate seat that was practically already hers?!?!? Well, stuff happens as they say. (Or...what is it they say? I know I'm close...)

Through amazing luck, Barbara Boxer has never faced a high quality opponent in her political career. Boxer has run against:
- Unrealistically conservative, scandal-plagued and ogresque Bruce Herschenson (won by 5)
- Matt "I have no charisma" Fong (won by 10) and
- Former California Secretary of State, Bill "Plain-as-my-name" Jones (won by 20)

You remember them, right??

Well, I suspect her luck has run out. Carly Fiorina has some star power. She ran a major company and she seems human and vulnerable because of her cancer scare. She is formidable. Tom Campbell was a respected congressman, he is politically moderate, he is substantive (a former professor at Stanford Law) and is well-regarded in California. I think against either candidate Boxer's campaigning weaknesses will be exposed and she will lose decisively in 2010. The one way the California Republican Party could keep Boxer's lucky streak going would be by nominating Chuck Devore, who is basically Bruce Herschenson II. He would lose by 10. Fiorina or Campbell, either one, will win by at least five.

Gosh if she's that lucky maybe we should keep her?

Naah...

The Panic! Industry: Why Global Warming skepticism is rational

To the young, all issues and crises are new and unprecedented. To those of us who have been around a bit longer, you do begin to see patterns. One of these patterns is that every few years there comes along a tremendous crisis promoted by the media that threatens the world and demands immediate action. If we do not immediately respond, we will die, many innocents will die, we will all become unhealthy or the world as we know it will cease to be, or all of the above. Often (but not always) there is a moral component to the issue. It is caused by our sinfulness or is ignored only because of our complete moral debasement.

I am referring of course to global warming, global cooling, silicone breast implants, acid rain, Y2K, cancer-causing saccharin, low fat diets, the pandemic of homelessness in the 80s and the nonexistent heterosexual AIDS pandemic.

All of these things and many others I have forgotten or which were before my time, were to have destroyed the world and essentially came to nothing. It is very interesting that we apparently do not learn the lesson that we should be more skeptical.

Why do these things occur? Mostly because everyone we rely on to tell us what is going on is motivated to create a sense of crisis. I am referring of course to the media, the scientists and politicians. The media know that you will buy more papers, look at more web pages and watch more news on the TV if you are alarmed. Politicians know that if they can get on the right side of a crisis and "own the issue," they can raise more money and gain more loyal followers. Scientists are perhaps the most corrupt of all. They have devoted themselves to a certain field of study and by the time they are old enough to have a mortgage they realize that their prestige and finances depend largely on convincing everyone that their field of study is hugely important. Sadly, no one has a vested interest in debunking alarmist theories about the future, plus one feels like a bit of a party pooper to do so at all. People like their apocalyptic crises.

I can recall in the late 80s speaking with certain scientists at Harvard Medical School about the impending AIDs pandemic. If they could have convinced everyone that there was going to be a real pandemic, they would raise a lot of money for their school and for their own labs and projects. That's their bread and butter so they were highly motivated. Of course, as it turns out, AIDs has remained a niche disease with absolutely no relevance to the mainstream heterosexual, reasonably chaste, drug-free American.

Crises that attract fewer than three of the key manipulator groups (media, politicians, scientists) become less popular and have less staying power. Therefore Y2K didn't get quite as famous as Global Warming.

Global Warming is the king of them all because it promises goodness for all three camps, the media, politicians and scientists. It involves apocalyptic consequences, a major dose of moral disapproval and has the potential to direct plenteous grants into the coffers of universities until the very apocalypse it presages. The issue came to the fore at a particularly good time for the Democratic Party as, having abandoned welfare as a theme in the mid-90's and observing the decline of broad support for their pro-organized union message, they were very much looking for an issue to campaign on. Something that would really excite people with a fiery fervor! Global warming came just in time for them. In all it has the potential to be the ultimate corrupt bargain. Recently the proponents of Global Warming have tried to reposition their story around the term "Climate Change" so that they no longer have to stand behind predictions about anything other than the notion that the weather is likely to vary.

People are skeptical about global warming because the people who are promoting global warming have an investment in convincing everyone that it exists. Under those circumstances, it is sensible to be skeptical of any claims in its favor. Being skeptical of course does not mean that one will not under any circumstances believe it. After all, some crises, such as the sub-prime mortgage crisis, actually turn out to be real. But skepticism does require us, when we are told about a new apocalyptic crisis, to require proof and look at who is ringing the alarm before we believe.

The recent embarrassing revelations about data manipulation in Climategate make the case even stronger.

How long does it take for the Dems to adopt GOP policies? About 20 years usually

The GOP's image is divorced from its reality. Many people seem to believe that the GOP is the party of the wealthy, of monied interests plotting in board rooms and country clubs. I don't see it that way at all, voting patterns don't support that and policies don't support that. To understand how Republicans think of the Republican Party, and how I think the Republican Party should be understood, I think you have to look at it as the party of ideas. The Democratic Party certainly seems to think so, since that appears to be where they get all their new ideas. It seems to take about 20 years for the Dems to adopt republican insights.

The Democratic Party for many years has been focused on the set of policies laid out and partially implemented by President Johnson as the Great Society. Their loyalty to forcible wealth redistribution and strengthening unions has been strong. Therefore they haven't been the party of new ideas. They have ideas, but all of them would be entirely recognizable by John Dewey.

Republicans having been out of power for so long became the party of new ideas in the 70s and searched for new ways to accomplish societal goals, orienting themselves toward developing new solutions.

As Obama said in the 2008 campaign, “I think it’s fair to say that the Republicans were the party of ideas for a pretty long chunk of time there over the last 10-15 years in the sense that they were challenging conventional wisdom.” (link)

What are we talking about?

Nuclear power
Republican idea: 1975
Democratic adoption: 2010 (Obama SOTU speech)
Time for Dems to catch up: 35 years

Welfare Reform
Republican Idea: 1975
Democratic adoption: 1996 (Clinton, Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act)
Time for Dems to catch up: 21 years

Teacher incentive pay
Republican idea: 1985
Democratic adoption: 2009 (Arne Duncan)
Time for Dems to catch up: 24 years

It is possible that the Republicans should not be labeled "conservative," as it is the Republicans who appear to be innovating and the Democrats who seem to be the conservative supporters of the old ways.

New GOP entrant bidding to oust Patty Murray

Seattle times story is here. State Senator and former chairman of the state Republican Party Don Benton is entering the race to oppose Patty Murray and try to become the West Coast Scott Brown. Six others have thrown their hat in already.

Early results from the Seattle Republican's four-pronged candidate rating system (all scores from 1-10):
Charisma: 3
Name recognition: 2
Political Experience: 7
Other life story elements: 3

I don't think she's worried yet.

If You Love Nuclear Disarmament: Is It Because You Love War?

As one of the fundamental planks of his foreign policy, Obama has resurrected nuclear disarmament talks with the Russians. As he said in Egypt:

No single nation should pick and choose which nations hold nuclear weapons. That is why I strongly reaffirmed America's commitment to seek a world in which no nations hold nuclear weapons.

I'll keep this short. We haven't been in a major war since we dropped the bomb. Mutual Assured Destruction has kept the peace for 60 years. Nuclear disarmament would greatly increase the temptation for aggressive countries eager to intimidate their neighbors or grab resources (yes, I am talking to you Russia!). It would lead to war.

Nuclear weapons are our friend. This is a perfect example by the way of democrats supporting policies because they feel right, not because they actually produce the right results, which I discussed here.

Green Jobs: LIke an Incinerator for Money

I am actually not a rabid, knee jerk, Obama basher/birther type. Let me disabuse you of that supposition straightaway. I basically have good will toward presidents because when they do well, we do well.

That said, the administration's "green jobs" and small business initiatives are misguided.

First, "green jobs." Green jobs is the kind of economic program someone who has never been in business would devise. Here's how it works. Certain entities (I am thinking of Microsoft, Intel, Apple, Google, Boeing and Amazon.com but you can think of whoever you want) make money. They're innovators. They have mastered the difficult task of investing in new technologies to create products that both please customers and turn a profit. These companies, and the experts who make them work, make the economy stronger by creating lasting businesses that employ people at high wages and at the same time provide for retirements and nest eggs everywhere. The government takes money from those entities, preventing them from reinvesting it. Instead the government spends it to pay people to do things that a rational investor or business manager or homeowner or whatever would ever pay for. Why won't people pay to have these green things done? Because they are not worth it. You wouldn't pay $50 to save $10 in heating bills would you? But if it's "green," then the green jobs program will pay for that. By paying for this green work, the government has turned the $50 it took from the innovating company, that would have gone to fund a new business, and turned it into $10. Like magic! The economy is now smaller and instead of creating jobs for more engineers to start tomorrow's businesses, we have trained more insulation installers...no offense.

I am sure that the green jobs program is very popular in high schools or generally in places where no one is very familiar with business. But it will hurt our economy. We should invest in green jobs when their are green technologies that actually create value.

Second, disproportionate favoritism for small business. Obama has announced lower capital gains taxes for investments in small businesses, plus graduated deductibility for small business investment in plant and equipment, plus $30 billion for community banks to lend to small businesses. I like the idea of reducing capital gains taxes in general, but government should not try to point capital in any particular direction. without government interference, capital where it will generate the most wealth for our economy. if it is going to create more value today to invest in a big business, let's let people do that. And if tomorrow it is time to buy plant and equipment and invest in small business, let them do that. If you mess with that flow, in the immortal words of Ned Beatty (well actually the writer Paddy Chaefsky) in Network, "you have meddled with the primal forces of nature, Mr. Beale." Or more plainly, you have taken money from successful companies and used it to distort make our national investment flow less rational and less effective. We all come out poorer for it.

My advice? Stop. Stop spending. Resist the impulse to come up with increasingly clever ways to pump up this and that. Take a breath. Take a little vacay. Let the people who know how to create value for the long term keep their money so that they can create value and good jobs for the long term. Find something presidential to do that does not involve the economy (or maybe foreign policy, but more on that another time).