Month: September 2007

S-CHIP Battle Moves To Vetoland, Population: 3

The Senate passed the expansion of the S-CHIP program yesterday with a veto-proof majority, 67-29, which sets up a standoff between Congress and the White House over the renewal of the politically sensitive program. The Bush administration favored renewing S-CHIP and even expanding it to a small degree, but the large expansion and the cigarette tax it uses has the White House talking veto. If Bush vetoes it, it may set up a standoff between Bush and Republicans looking towards tough re-election fights:

The Senate, with an overwhelming bipartisan vote yesterday, sent President Bush a $35 billion expansion of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, setting up the biggest domestic policy clash of his presidency and launching a fight that will reverberate into the 2008 elections.
Bush has vowed to veto the measure, but he has faced strong criticism from many fellow Republicans reluctant to turn away from a popular measure that would renew and expand an effective program aimed at low-income children. Democratic leaders, while still as many as two dozen votes short in the House, are campaigning hard for the first veto override of Bush’s presidency.
They secured a veto-proof majority last night in the Senate, with the 67 to 29 tally including “yes” votes from 18 of the 49 Republicans, including some of the president’s most stalwart allies, such as Christopher S. Bond (Mo.), Kay Bailey Hutchison (Tex.) and Ted Stevens (Alaska). Democratic leaders are likely to send the measure to the White House next week, giving advocates a few more days to pressure Bush to sign it.
For Republicans, the issue is politically perilous. Every Senate Republican facing a difficult reelection bid bolted from Bush yesterday. Most House Republicans in swing districts abandoned him Tuesday when the House approved the bill 265 to 159. Those Republicans “took the vote that was easiest to explain,” said House Minority Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.).

The legislation that passed the Senate limits the S-CHIP application to households that earn 300% of the federal poverty line. This is an apparent change from earlier versions that had the limit at 400%, and that can be found in Section 110 (a)(8)(a) — except that 110 (a)(8)(b) allows states to make exceptions that could force the government to provide grants to others as well. At 2007 poverty levels, a family of three could make up to $52,000 per year and still be eligible in 2007, and in 2008 that number would likely go to $54,000 or more as the poverty level gets indexed to inflation. In Alaska, that number goes to $64,000.
Even with the reduction in application, this still moves money from primarily poorer people with the sharply regressive cigarette tax and gives it to the middle class. It also undermines the market for private insurance, which has better coverage than the government Medicaid coverage that will crowd out the free-market solutions. The expansion beyond the S-CHIP’s original intent to assist poor children dilutes the program and adds to entitlement programs that are already threatening to bankrupt the nation.
Will the President veto the legislation? He has only issued three vetoes in almost seven years, and two of those protected embryos. He has not vetoed an entitlement expansion, especially not the prescription program for Medicare that he championed. A veto on S-CHIP will put enormous pressure on a handful of Republicans who stuck to fiscal responsibility and who face tough re-election campaigns already in the House. It may also create some pressure on Senators who gave the bill a thin veto-proofing that the House failed to achieve in its bipartisan vote.
I don’t believe the President will veto the bill, although he should. He will probably want to save his political capital for Iraq and the appropriations bills that he will almost certainly veto in the next month or two. Those will require continuing legislation that will create a lot of contentiousness, and the gains from vetoing the S-CHIP expansion will be minimal among his base. His presidency has not been an exemplar of spending control as it is.
If he surprises and follows through on his veto threat, the pressure on Republicans will be enormous. It could set leadership on Republicans from safe seats to reverse their support for the expansion as written, hopefully by presenting the tax-break package that the GOP developed belatedly to combat this version of S-CHIP. That would keep incumbents in tough races from having to explain a vote against the original, while forcing Congress to do the right thing.
UPDATE: Rose asks about illegals using S-CHIP. I know that some have argued that S-CHIP would allow illegals to gain insurance for their children, but the text of the legislation makes it clear that children have to register by Social Security number, and that the state has to verify them with the federal government. Section 301, (dd)(1)(B), states clearly that children whose citizenship or legal residency cannot be verified must be disenrolled for the state to continue receiving S-CHIP grants.
There are good arguments to oppose S-CHIP, but this doesn’t appear to be one of them.

Tyrannies And Information Access

Earler this week, the Institute for Public Dialogue proposed a new method for diplomacy called Public Talks. Nations in conflict would put “challenge documents” on the Internet for their populaces to read, and access to both sides would create enough public pressure for both nations to mediate their disputes. As I pointed out at Heading Right, it sounds great — but since open societies never go to war with each other, their electorates already have access to government positions and much more.
Burma today showed why “challenge documents” won’t work with tyrannies (via Michelle Malkin):

Soldiers in Myanmar pounded down on dissent Friday by swiftly breaking up street gatherings of die-hard activists, occupying key Buddhist monasteries and cutting public Internet access. The moves raised concerns that a crackdown on civilians that has killed at least 10 people this week was set to intensify.
Troops fired warning shots in the air and hit protesters with clubs to break up a demonstration by about 2,000 people, witnesses said. Five of the protesters were seen being dragged into a truck and driven away. The clash in an area near the Sule Pagoda was the most serious of the several sporadic — though smaller — protests that were reported in Myanmar’s biggest city.
By sealing Buddhist monasteries, the government seemed intent on clearing the streets of monks, who have spearheaded the demonstrations and are revered by most of their Myanmar countrymen. This could embolden troops to crack down harder on remaining civilian protesters.
Efforts to squelch the demonstrations appeared to be working. Daily protests drawing tens of thousands of people had grown into the stiffest challenge to the ruling military junta in two decades, a crisis that began Aug. 19 with rallies against a fuel price hike, then escalated dramatically when monks joined in.

Western diplomats in Burma (Myanmar) now believe the military has killed dozens of protestors. The junta that has run Burma for decades has completely ignored the international community, continuing its brutal crackdown on monks without any concern over global outrage over their methods. The non-violent nature of the protests has not moderated the government response to the demonstrations a whit.
This demonstrates the point I made in earlier posts about the nature of negotiations with tyrannies for real change. It applies to Burma, but also applies to Iran, Syria, North Korea, Cuba, and the entire range of oppressive, top-down dictatorships and kleptocracies. These regimes exist in part by tight control of information. When negative information flows into or out of these nations, the dictators simply ensure that the channels for that information either stop transmitting unapproved communications — or get shut down entirely.
The end of Internet access will damage the ability of the activists to get images and stories of brutality out to the world. However, that will probably make little difference, because the world hasn’t exactly rushed to the aid of the Burmese. Oh, the world has issued their own version of “challenge documents” in condemning the actions of the military junta by condemning them in diplomatic terms for their crackdown on peaceful demonstrations — but they have done little to put pressure on Burma to end it. The Washington Post’s Edward Cody is shocked, shocked! to find Burma’s neighbors acting in their own self-interest:

The United States and Europe have fiercely criticized Burma’s military rulers for clinging to power during another round of pro-democracy protests, this time led by unarmed monks. But closer to home, the junta’s Asian neighbors and trading partners — China chief among them — have walked a distinctly more cautious line, expressing distress over the violence and, after long hesitation, renewing calls for reconciliation and eventual transition to democracy.
The discretion by China and Thailand in particular reflects sensitivity over their own political systems. China has been a one-party dictatorship for more than half a century, and its Communist rulers have given no sign they are willing to change anytime soon. In Thailand, a military coup d’etat gave power a year ago to a uniformed junta with different policies but the same origin — the barracks — as the one putting down marchers in Rangoon. …
As a result, neither government can afford to be seen applauding as the Burmese monks cry out for an end to dictatorship. Were they to join the United States and Europe in clearly urging Burma’s generals to step aside for democratic elections, the question in Beijing and Bangkok would be obvious: Why is democracy not also the right path for China and Thailand?
Partly out of these concerns, the main regional grouping, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, or ASEAN, had for two weeks reacted to the crisis by citing its doctrine of noninterference in the affairs of member nations, which include Burma. Like China, ASEAN limited itself to deploring the violence and urging some kind of peaceful settlement.

And that explains why “challenge documents” and international debating societies like the UN and ASEAN matter little to tyrannies. Their associates in these organizations join to broaden economic ties and solidify their own political positions. They don’t support liberty or democracy, because the members of these organizations aren’t liberal democracies or open societies themselves. The only measure of concern from China on Burma has to do with whether the violence will disrupt their economic ties. With China’s suppression of the monks of Tibet, they’re the last nation who will act in defense of Buddhist monks agitating for freedom anywhere in Asia.
One might think that the overwhelming naiveté that afflicted 1930s Europe on handling dictatorships would have taught these lessons to the West permanently. Unfortunately, we continue to learn the hard way that shame doesn’t work with tyrants and kleptocrats.
UPDATE: Tom Shipley asks in the comments, “You say this is not a good idea because tyrannies won’t take part. First of all, you don’t know that for sure. Second of all, what harm would come from trying?” It’s not an unreasonable question, and it deserves an answer. The harm comes from people believing that it will actually result in change — and the focus it shifts from that change to winning a silly debating contest. The point of diplomacy should be to free people from bondage, not essay contests that will have no impact on thugs and tyrants.
This process enables people to change action for rhetoric. We do that often enough already. In the case of Burma, even the testimony of diplomats attesting to dozens dead in the streets hasn’t convinced China, Thailand, or India to cut off Burma and close down trade with them. Are we to believe that a strongly-worded letter from the State Department recapping what everyone already knows about the Burmese military dictatorship will exceed the power of those images?
Reliance on challenge documents just lets everyone off the hook. It seeks to embarrass governments that have no accountability to their people. Shame doesn’t work in that setting, and for those who think that is the ultimate in diplomatic offensives, it keeps other solutions off the table. That’s the harm.

Solution Day Video

It’s been a long day, but a good one, covering the Solution Day conference. Rob Bluey has video of our interview with Newt Gingrich earlier in the day, along with other highlights of the event. Here’s a sample:

Robert did a great job with the video on this interview. Be sure to watch all of it.

Live Blog: Solutions Day Launch

Newt Gingrich will begin speaking at 7 pm CT to officially launch Solutions Day. Rob Bluey and I will live-blog the speech from the media center. The actual ballroom where this speech will take place has filled to capacity. The original room had a capacity for 800 people, and they had to overflow into an adjoining wing. Estimates of the attendance now exceed 1,000.
Keep checking back — and you can webcast this event live from the American Solutions site as well.
6:59 ET – Bipartisanship has officially been seen! Dennis Kucinich’s campaign has a booth here, as do Thompson, Rudy, McCain, Huckabee, Romney, and Paul.
7:00 – We can certainly hear the bass in their overture ….
7:04 – The first speaker is Michael Crowley, the Texas Railroad commissioner. He’s introducing the concept of Solutions Day. We’re getting the audio but not the video in the Media Center, which means we could use a solution here, too.
7:06 – The invocation was delivered by Deacon Joseph Ruberte. That was followed the Mayor of Atlanta, a Democrat who “believes Gingrich is right … The best ideas will come from across the country, from many different voices, from people who want to be real solutions providers.”
7:11 – Saxby Chambliss also joins from video, again underscoring the nonpartisan nature of Solutions Day. “We have gotten way too partisan with our politics.” At least this event puts its money where its mouth is. We have enough representatives from both parties to make the claim. Saxby says he’s applying this idea to agricultural policy, but that’s rather scary — because ag subsidies has been one of the few areas where bipartisanship makes the problem worse, not better.
7:15 – Hey, Georgia Governor Sonny Perdue made it! That’s the real Governor of Georgia, this time …
7:16 – Perdue says that two-year-olds want to solve everything themselves. Mature individuals come together as communities to produce solutions. Interesting analogy ….
7:21 – Newt’s on stage now. “As a general rule, levees should not break, bridges should not fall,” gets a lot of applause, but “English should be the official language of America” gets an ovation.
7:23 – Newt’s talking about the amazing decline of Detroit — and says it’s because of bureaucracies that don’t deliver and governments are incompetent. He uses the FedEx analogy to show how private enterprise delivers (literally) by tracking 23 million packages each day. A FedEx truck has more computing power than an Apollo vehicle. Now, the federal government can’t even track people crossing our borders. That’s obviously touched a nerve here, too.
7:28 – Newt has the audience hooked. He’s sounding out some traditional conservative themes on border security, trial lawyers, and economic power.
7:30 – American Solutions has 135 websites, attempting to harness grassroots power and knowledge. He compares this to Rudy Giuliani’s efforts to use evidence-based systems to make objective judgments on public policy. We need more objective measurements, more evidence-based policy judgments, and less partisanship.
7:32 – “Red vs Blue issues” should be transformed to “Red White & Blue” issues. Gingrich says that AmSol has six polls, and they’re about to announce some of the data. Stay tuned ….
7:34 – Kellyanne Conway introduces the data presentation by quoting Ronald Reagan that “change always happens at the dinner table.” They want to harness the distributed network of American citizens to find solutions from the ground up. Their polling avoided “horse-race” polling.
7:36 – A majority (65%) says the federal government needs major transformational change. They are tired of gridlock, and a large majority prefer the mechanisms of private enterprise.
7:37 – 92% support long-term solutions to big problems like Social Security, border control and immigration, and the like.
7:40 – A large majority support legal immigration. 72% believe that the nation does not enforce its immigration laws, and 88% support deporting felonious illegals. 83%, though, support offering intensive English-language instruction to those who need it.
7:41 – More than 67% believe in defeating America’s enemies, and similar percentages believe that the gridlock in Washington makes it harder to do that.
7:42 – A large majority believes in some Social Security privatization.
7:43 – 72% believe that entrepenuers will solve economic and environmental problems, not government. That’s bad news for certain erstwhile presidential candidates-cum-filmmakers.
7:44 – The announcement that a majority oppose the banishment of God from public discourse gets a standing ovation. 90% say religious values are personally important and 79% say it’s important for the nation.
7:47 – Newt: “you can act with confidence that 70-80% of the people of this nation agree with your values… Only when government becomes stunningly incompetent does this nation become narrowly divided.” (rough quote)
7:49 – Newt didn’t like Ahmadinejad’s appearance at Columbia, either. We should be defending against the Iranian attacks against the US. When an enemy arises to liberty, we have a duty to defeat that enemy.
7:51 – Modern technology makes it possible for the American citizenry to demand change from its governing class.
7:53 – They’re introducing the Solutions Lab, which is a cross between a Wiki, a social network, and a workshop area. It’s quite advanced, using some of the ideas we first saw from Joe Trippi in the Dean campaign, but in a non-partisan sense.
7:55 – At the end of the presentation, I heard someone behind me murmur, “Sweet!” Rob and I went into the main hall, because the video never did get fixed in the Media Center.
7:57 – We want to “liberate the creativity of 300 million Americans.” One key area is education. The failure of math/science education presents more of a threat to our long-term national security than any conceivable conventional war.
7:58 – He’s now introducing former Colorado Governer Roy Romer, a Democrat who also ran the LA school district. Talk about a thankless job! This is part of the “ED in 08” project, which Newt has endorsed as a part of American Solutions.
8:00 “The world is very, very fastly passing us by.” Eesh. Not a great way to introduce educational reform.
8:02 – Romer says we need hard data. We need to know if we’re keeping up with the competition. We’re also having 1.2 million kids drop out of high school a year — an astoundingly high number. Even those who graduate have little preparation; a third or more need remedial education in core areas once they get to college.
8:03 – Our expectations are too low for our kids. I’ve heard this almost all my life. I had a good friend from Brazil, Paulo, who had started algebra in the fifth grade there.
8:05 – We need performance based pay for teachers. Romer, as a Democrat, says he knows that some of his suggestions will rub his party the wrong way, and some will rub us the wrong way. I’m assuming this suggestion is one of the former.
8:08 – Romer was very well received by the crowd here. He gave a bit of a fiery stump speech, and it was appreciated by the audience.
8:10 – Newt has a map up that shows how many field workshops have already been created — and it’s pretty remarkable.
8:11 – Someone tried to stop the entire show by requesting permission to ask a question. Newt suggested he stop by the book-signing table after the presentation.
8:14 – Gingrich tells the story of Valley Forge, a story he includes in many of his speeches. You could hear a pin drop as he related the desperate nature of the Revolution at that point, and how the password for the attack, Victory or Death, represented cruel reality to Washington’s forces. With their backs against the wall, they prevailed — and citizens rallied to their cause by the thousands. If we could do that then, why not now?
8:17 – “Politics is not about cynicism … shallow, cheap tricks; politics is a process in which we come together and help govern this great nation. If we can’t do that, then we can’t lead the world.” An excellent valediction for his launch. He also invited his grandchildren and their friends to the stage, and said, “This is what it’s all about.”
8:22 – Wow — it finished early? When was the last time a politician left the stage early?
I think this was an effective launch. Newt and Romer spoked very effectively, even though both used different styles. I’m back in the Media Center, where the two journalists who covered this noted that Gingrich relied on Republican issues — border security, immigration, entitlement reform, and so on. However, I think they missed the point. Their polling shows that while these issues may get identified with Republicans inside the beltway, a large majority of people believe that these are issues that need priority solutions. The key is to find solutions that can either bridge or bypass the partisan bickering.
I’m glad I came out here today. It’s an ambitious, audacious project, and if Newt can make it work, he will have a huge constituency for significant policy change. That, in the end, may be far more satisfying for Gingrich than a presidential campaign.

Clarence Thomas: I Was Lynched For Abortion

Matt Drudge has a leak that had to come from CBS about their upcoming interview with Clarence Thomas. Airing on Sunday, the Steve Kroft segment coincides with the publication of Thomas’ memoirs, and Thomas doesn’t pull punches. In the book he talks about the “lynching” he received during his confirmation hearing, and he says it damaged everyone and set the stage for the impeachment of Bill Clinton (via Bluey’s Blog):

In his first television interview, in which he discusses his childhood, his race, his rise to Supreme Court Justice and his job on the nation’s highest court, Clarence Thomas says the real issue at his controversial confirmation hearings 16 years ago was abortion. Saying the issue was “the elephant in the room,” Thomas also tells Steve Kroft that the hearings he called at the time a “high tech lynching” harmed the country. The interview will be broadcast on 60 MINUTES, Sunday Sept. 30 (7:30-9:00 PM/ET, 7:00-9:00 PM /PT) on the CBS Television Network.
Thomas, whose Supreme Court positions on abortion issues have been conservative, says the confirmation hearings in which he was accused of sexual harassment by a former employee — allegations he continues to deny — were really about abortion. “That was the elephant in the room… That was the issue. That is the issue that people are apparently so upset about,” he tells Kroft. “[That is the issue] that you determine the composition of your Supreme Court and your entire federal judiciary, it seems now,” says Thomas.
He says the hearings harmed the accuser, Anita Hill, himself, and ultimately the country by setting a precedent manifested in other highly charged, media-infused events such as the impeachment trial of President Bill Clinton. “The process harmed her. It harmed me and we see sort of the precedent of this kind of thing begin to harm even people like President Clinton,” Thomas believes. “Things are out of control. That’s not good for the country. It’s not good for the court,” he continues, “What are we going to look like years from now if we can’t get people confirmed because everybody gets to attack them. They get to draw and quarter them,” he says.

One cannot deny the connection, and it exists on two levels. On the surface, the focus on sexual harrassment in the office pushed by Democrats led to legislation that criminalized caddish behavior. Corporate managers and employees suffered through millions of hours of lectures on power differentials between employment levels and how even flirting between executives and staff should be considered potentially abusive. The significance of this in connection to Monica Lewinsky should not be underestimated.
On a deeper level, it helped amplify a dynamic that had started during the Robert Bork confirmation hearing. Before that, judicial confirmations had largely been non-partisan and non-controversial. After Bork, and especially after Thomas, they became bloody brawls, and both parties made the federal judiciary a Christians vs the Lions forum. That’s not just a consequence of the Thomas “lynching”, but the result of decades of judicial activism, which has given the Supreme Court far too much of a legislative function.
I look forward to reading the Thomas book. He has remained very quiet in the sixteen years since he joined the Supreme Court, even while others wrote his story. His side of the argument should prove an intriguing read.

Ron Paul Supporters Will Like This

I’m back in the session with Sean Hannity, who is now broadcasting the first two hours of his show live. We’re actually in the final hour of the show, and Newt Gingrich has been his guest for most of these two hours. Hannity challenged Gingrich about his kind words for Hillary Clinton this weekend and at other times, saying that Gingrich’s graciousness drives some of his listeners up the wall. Gingrich gave a humorous answer for that, noting that out of her ten-page healthcare proposal, there had to be one page that made some sense, and we should encourage common sense when it occurs.
Earlier, Sean Hannity noticed a Ron Paul supporter in the back of the room while he was on the air. He was easy to spot; he wore a t-shirt that had RON PAUL in large letters. Sean engaged him in a little banter, and in the end complimented him on his willingness to get involved — even if they disagreed on candidates.
At the end of my Heading Right show, I noticed the man walking past me. I flagged him down and asked him to join the last five minutes of my show. Mark Augustine, of the Georgia Libertarian Party, chatted with me about why he thinks Paul is the only Republican candidate who can generate the kind of support that will win the 2008 general election. I amicably disagreed, and you can hear the very friendly exchange at the end of the HRR show. I also promised to link to the Ron Paul campaign site.

Heading Right Radio: Newt Gingrich And Solutions Day (Update: Live Press Conference)

BlogTalkRadio.com
Today on Heading Right Radio (2 pm CT), I’ll play an interview with Newt Gingrich that I will record this morning. I’ve just arrived at the Cobb Galleria (10:45 am ET), and we’re waiting for a blogger interview with the former Speaker. Originally, each of us was to get one-on-one time with Newt, but his schedule got booked up quickly. Rob Bluey, Matt Lewis, and I will do a round-robin interview in the next few minutes. I’ll replay it at the top of the hour, and I may have Rob and Matt join me for the show to discuss the event.
UPDATE: I’ll go live at first with a press conference including fomer Colorado Governor Roy Romer here at the Cobb Galleria. The interview will follow immediately afterward.
Call 646-652-4889 to join the conversation! And don’t forget to join our chat room!
Did you know that you can listen to Heading Right Radio through your TiVo service? Click here for the instructions. Also, you can subscribe to Heading Right Radio through iTunes now by clicking this link:
Add to iTunes
UPDATE II: Roy Romer was Governor of Colorado, not Georgia. Sorry about that – I corrected myself during the broadcast.

Live Blogging Hannity

Sean Hannity has joined Newt Gingrich for a portion of the Solutions Day event, and he’s prerecording the last hour of his show here in front of a live audience. It’s been interesting to watch Sean work the room, live, during his show. Radio tends to be a rather insular pursuit. One does not get a sense of audience while broadcasting, except at live “remotes” like this.
Hannity has been well received by this audience, which may indicate that Solutions Day hasn’t drawn the bipartisan attendees here for the kickoff that Newt Gingrich wanted. He has drawn a number of reporters, including a couple from the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. I met Jim Galloway and Ben Gray from the AJC, which Hannity referred to as the “Atlanta Urinal”, which got a laugh from the audience but not the media bench.
He seems to enjoy the audience. His reactions to callers seems broad and engaging, and the audience remains interested in what shouldn’t really be all that visually fascinating. He did ask the audience whether they wanted another liberal caller (after two in a row), or “a normal American”, which got the most applause. Hannity also paid homage to his partner Alan Colmes, saying “I know fear — I stare down Colmes every night!”
One of his best segments had to do with Iran. He wondered aloud if one day we’d wake up to millions dead and be asking ourselves why we didn’t take Ahmadinejad seriously when he proposed a genocide of the Jews and the triumph of Islam over the West. He wants America to remain strong enough to beat all comers and remain on offense.
Hannity provided the red meat to the Right on Solutions Day. That may allow Gingrich to reach across the aisle, as the event promised, later this evening at the kickoff speech at 7 pm ET.

Quotes From Upcoming Newt Gingrich Interview

I’ve finished the interview with Newt Gingrich, and you won’t want to miss this show. I’ll be playing the interview on my Heading Right show at 3 pm CT, and Newt provides his no-holds-barred commentary on current politics. Here are a few quotes to pique your interest:

On Republican consultants: “Let me be clear. I think Republican consultants are mostly very stupid. I think they have no education. I think they have no sense of history.”
On African-American voters: “No group in America has been served worse by government than the African-American community.”
Also, this: “Other than Huckabee, none of these [Republican] candidates have the gumption to place themselves in the middle of that [African-American] environment …”
On the current crop of candidates: “The most sobering thing about where we are right now is that the most effective candidate in the race is — Hillary Clinton. … Her answers are wrong, [but] she is a serious, competent, formidable person.”

Gingrich still won’t commit on the presidential race. I get the sense that he would be happier in the ideas business, and his animus towards the current political process comes through clearly in this interview. Rob Bluey will have video of a portion of this interview at Bluey’s Blog later this afternoon. In the meantime, I’m going to sit in on Sean Hannity’s recorded broadcast from the Solutions Day ballroom here at the Cobb Galleria.

Kerrey No Hsu-In

The Norman Hsu scandal has affected more than just the Democratic presidential primaries. The Politico reports that Nebraska Republicans have already started talking about Bob Kerrey’s connections to the con man turned Democratic fundraiser, just in case Kerrey decides to run for Chuck Hagel’s open seat in 2008:

If former Nebraska Sen. Bob Kerrey decides to run for the Senate, it’s clear that he will have to address his connections with Hsu, whom he recruited to serve on the board of the New School under his presidency.
The Hsu affair already is being used by Republicans as leverage to try to ward off a run by Kerrey, the Democrats’ favored candidate to compete for the seat of retiring Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel.
Republicans privately acknowledge that Kerrey is a first-tier candidate and hope their attacks dissuade him from jumping in. They would have an easier time retaining the seat if Kerrey didn’t run.
“Bob Kerrey was not only a receiver of contributions [to the New School], he actively recruited [Hsu] to the New School,” said National Republican Senatorial Committee spokeswoman Rebecca Fisher. “Nebraskans need to be aware of that.”

Kerrey arguably had more responsibility to vet Hsu than any of the Democratic politicians that took his contributions. Kerrey essentially hired him to oversee the New School as a member of the Board of Trustees. The fact that Kerrey never even bothered to have a competent background check done on a man connected to a school calls his judgment into question. What if Hsu had other, more sinister convictions on his record?
Nebraska would present a tough challenge for Kerrey in any case. He hasn’t lived there for a while, spending his time in New York in his role as head of the famously liberal New School. His entire family lives there with him, which doesn’t exactly build a case for the more conservative Nebraskans to send him back as their representative. The Hsu case emphasizes Kerrey’s ties to East Coast liberalism as well as the corruption in this cycle’s presidential campaign.
Kerrey and the Democrats will no doubt object to the Republican attacks. However, the echoes of their Jack Abramoff accusations in the 2006 cycle have not yet disappeared, and Abramoff had plenty of ties to Democrats, including Harry Reid. Norman Hsu will be this cycle’s Jack Abramoff, and so far, no Hsu money seems to have graced Republican coffers. Hsu will be sauce for the gander in this season.