Expecting substantive commentary from Komo's Ken Schram is, generally, as foolish as expecting nutrition from bubble gum. The purpose of Schram's commentary is the same as that of bubble gum: Both are used to make a spectacle and a loud noise. But this latest Schram pratfall is so bad that I have to say something about it, though I do so in the same spirit that I might correct a nasty little boy who insisted on loudly chewing bubble gum during a church service. Someone has to do it, but the intellectual challenge is not great.
Schram seems to think that neoconservatives, or "neo-cons", as he prefers to call them, have little to please them except the recent court defeat for Seattle Congressman Jim McDermott.
Anyway, McDermott could end up paying about $700,000 in fines for letting the American people in on Newt's plot to put one over on the House Ethics Committee.
Weird, huh: McDermott getting hammered for standing on the principal that people have a right to know what's going on in government?
Instead of being rewarded, he's being penalized.
And that is why neo-cons are so darn giddy.
Let me take these mistakes one by one. First, there was no plot to "put one over on the House Ethics Committee". Then Speaker Gingrich met with the the rest of the Republican leadership in January, 1997, after he had been reprimanded by the ethics committee. (John Boehner participated by cell phone.) Here's what the authoritative Almanac of American Politics said about the meeting in their 2000 edition:
Amidst all this, on January 10 The New York Times printed an excerpt of a tape made by Florida Democratic activists John and Alice Martin of a December 1996 phone conversation between Gingrich and Republican leaders and advisors. It was presented as evidence that Gingrich was violating an agreement not to orchestrate a response to the committee's action, but much of it was taken up by discussions as to how to comply with the agreement. In any case, it soon became apparent that taping the call was a felony.
(Emphasis added.) McDermott compounded the felony by passing on the illegal tape to the New York Times, and then lied about doing so.
Let me summarize, using very short words so that even Schram can understand: Gingrich and the other Republican leaders did nothing wrong in the meeting. The activists and McDermott broke the law, and then, for a time, concealed their law breaking.
Now what about the "principal that people have the right to know what's going on in the government"? That's true, but there are limits on how they can obtain that knowledge. Suppose, for instance, that I have reason to believe that Congressman McDermott is cheating on his expense accounts. Without a court order, I can not tap his phone. Apparently Schram believes such constitutional protections are unjustified — at least for Republicans.
Are "neo-cons" giddy? Speaking as a neoconservative, I am saddened by McDermott's law breaking, and continuing failure to admit that what he did was wrong, just as I am always saddened whenever an elected official fails. (Well, almost always. Sometimes the failure is so funny that I can't helped being amused, instead.) The principle is a simple one, though it seems beyond Schram: Our elected officials belong to all of us, whether we voted for them or not. When they fail, as McDermott has, we all fail a little with them. A person with even a little public spirit will see that point at once; a pure partisan will never see it.
Schram uses "neo-con" as a curse word, without ever defining it. A full definition is far beyond the scope of this post, though I may do one some time on my own site, but there is a short way to explain neoconservatives to most Washington voters. A neoconservative is a Jackson supporter, specifically, a "Scoop" Jackson supporter who moved to the Republican party, after the Democratic party was taken over by McGovernites.
Jackson believed that one confronted evil with power. His support for civil rights and equality at home, married to his opposition to detente, his support for human rights and democratic allies, and his firm belief that the United States could be a force for good in the world inspired a legion of loyal aides who went on to propound Jackson's philosophy as part of neoconservatism. In addition to Perle, neoconservatives Paul Wolfowitz, Elliott Abrams, Charles Horner, and Douglas Feith were former Democratic aides to Jackson who joined the Reagan administration in 1981, and are now prominent foreign policy makers in the 21st-century Bush administration. Wolfowitz has called himself a "Scoop Jackson Republican."[1].
Finally, Schram seems to think that we Jackson supporters are depressed. In fact, as polls show, like other Republicans, we are more optimistic than Democrats, optimistic enough to be delighted by this song, which you can buy here. Someone should buy a copy and send it to Schram. I am sure it will cheer him up.
(Oh, and two corrections for this highly paid commentator: The $700,000 is not "fines" but a settlement of a civil suit, consisting mostly of court costs. The word you want, Mr. Schram, is "principle", not "principal".)
Posted by Jim Miller at April 04, 2006 05:44 PM | Email ThisRead 1984 and meditate on the phrase, "some pigs are more equal than others."
Democrats don't need to follow the same election laws, the same campaign finance laws, the same illegal telephone interception laws, the same income tax, or the same laws about wearing pins if they want to walk around metal detectors in the US Congress building. Don't you remember that Democrats can't be guilty of sexual harrasment of an intern and that they cann't be found guilty for perjury.
Have you no understanding of history?
Posted by: Bob on April 4, 2006 06:07 PMI mean, if they have to obey the law, how will they ever send right-wingers to the extermination camps?
Posted by: ScottM on April 4, 2006 06:52 PMAnd Me, why the heck aren't you listening to Limbaugh like everyone else? Moving Carlson to the a.m. (partially) has got to be the most boneheaded move Fisher Radio has made since the canned Medved.
Posted by: Reporterward on April 4, 2006 09:09 PM(1) Domestic call: Any call between someone in the country and someone outside of the country. (International call: Any call between two people NOT in the US.)
(2) Wire tapping: Any action by the Bush administration to protect the people of the US by tracking down the enemy in our own country. (Enemies in our country are not the target of any war action, and should be treated like illegal immigrants. In other words, roll out the red carpet.)
(3) Good: By definition, anything a leftist communist American-hating democrat does is Good. Everything else is bad. (Compare this with the religious right's definition: Only God is good.)
(4) Open Government: The policy that the political right must disclose every conversation they have with anyone, including private conversations, with the public. Even after disclosing all evidence openly and frankly, they are still subjected to false and unverifiable accusations and grand juries and good (see "good" above) prosecutors bent on destroying them. Meanwhile, any action good government officials (see "good" above) don't have to disclose any of their operations, even if they are plainly fraudulent and corrupt.
Now you can plainly see what really happened. Some good people in Florida happened to listen in to the evil Newt Gingrinch and they forwarded the tapes (out of the goodness of their hearts) that they happened to record of the conversation to the good representative from the city of Seattle. He, again, out of the goodness of his heart, forwarded the tapes to the New York Times, which, out of their innate goodness (because all corporations are evil, except good ones) published them in the paper. The evil republicans thwarted the plot by using the law unfairly to punish them for wire-tapping, when what they were doing was plainly not wire-tapping because the call was neither domestic nor between enemies of America. How can we have open government without being able to listen in on private conversations of our elected conservative officials?
It all makes sense now, right?
Posted by: Jonathan Gardner on April 4, 2006 09:31 PMBut no. We have a bunch of partisan lunatics being lead around by the Howard Deans, Michael Moores and George Soroses of the world - with their constituency labeling the opposition facists, nazis, stupid neo-kkkons and other childish names which have lost their meaning. And we have Republicans in charge of Congress simply because the Democrats have nothing to offer to run this country but hatred of the President.
And Ken Schram? Isn't he the guy who used to host Town Meeting some 10-20 years ago? He's still around?
Who knew? Who cares?
Posted by: jimg on April 5, 2006 12:16 AM"Neocon" seems to be the compliment to "liberal." I guess all those years of hearing right wing talk radio use the word "liberal" in a deragatory way to define any of those with left leaning views has taken its toll. "Neocon" seems to be their collective retort. On left leaning blogs "neocon" is everywhere and it's seems to be even more of generalization than "liberal." Contrary to what those on the left believe, conservatives come in many more flavors than liberals.
To me Schram seems to be very angry with the world, himself, or both. Couple that with the smoking, and you have a very bad combo. I hope he visits his doctor regularly.
Posted by: Jeff B. on April 5, 2006 01:09 AMYou gotta have a nanosecond of sympathy for someone this blatantly misguided and miserable. I mean, who could even be his "friend" when you're naturally compelled to ignore the cretin.
Cretin: a stupid, vulgar, or insensitive person
Posted by: Pbs7mm on April 5, 2006 07:01 AMYou gotta have a nanosecond of sympathy for someone this blatantly misguided and miserable. I mean, who could even be his "friend" when you're naturally compelled to ignore the cretin.
Cretin: a stupid, vulgar, or insensitive person
Posted by: Pbs7mm on April 5, 2006 07:01 AMWhy in the world did Carlson sell out and get a show with him on the radio? Surely, the next step in Carlson's evolution/promotion could have been better orchestrated.
Posted by: swatter on April 5, 2006 07:47 AM"but they share the blame about virtually everything wrong. I believe that in a today's world - where greed too often takes precedent, one party in control over a long period of time invariably leads to corruption. Just look at this state !"
I'm not enamored with anyone's plan for immigration, although Frists' sounds like it makes the most sense, and doesn't include a guest worker or any kind of amnesty.
Posted by: Palouse on April 5, 2006 10:15 AMMy point was not to agree or disagree with McCains positions. It's my wonderment over Carlsons excitement over a candidate whose positions are widely different from his own expressed views. Carlson has in the past hyperventilated over the immigration issue calling Bush's proposals, which are similar to McCains, an amensty. Irregardless of McCains professed positons over government spending, his past votes on tax cuts and low marginal tax rates so necessary for a robust economy would certaintly never be extended in a McCain administration. As far as judges, McCains gang of fourteen simply fumbled the filibuster issue and many Bush nominees still languish without a vote. Do I need to bring up McCain/Fiengold and Carlsons recent experience with KVI's court battle.
I'm not so much opposed to McCain as mistified over Carlson's embrace of someone I would characterize as a political opposite, if Carlsons past political views are still operable.
Posted by: Gary B on April 5, 2006 10:42 AMI think his tax cuts were better than what Bush passed. And he would have done it without breaking the budget and ballooning the size of the federal government. That's fiscal conservatism, and I support it. I don't speak for Carlson and could really care less what his position on issues were before or now, but I don't write off McCain simply because he has not voted with Republicans on every issue.
Posted by: Palouse on April 5, 2006 11:14 AM
He voted against the Bush tax cuts and only recently signed on for extending the soon to sunset tax cuts. I'm not familiar with McCains 2000 proposals to conclude they would be superior to what Bush passed, but you get what you can in the political environment in play and to oppose the Bush plan in a faltering economy because it wasn't McCains own or more perfect sounds like petualance rather than leadership and would embrace economic folly.
I'm too am disappointed with the level of Federal spending under the Bush watch but to conclude the deficit wouldn't exist under the McCain tax cuts is simply wishful thinking. Federal receipts began falling in 2001 and McCains proposed tax cuts in the 2000 campaign were offered during a period of Federal surplus. Mix in the imediate need to increase military spending after the attacks of 9/11 and McCains tax cuts would have been withdrawn in a New York minute. I seem to remember McCain opposing the Bush tax cuts because of the then probable higher imediate deficits rather than the appropriate supply side kick in the pants the economy desperately demanded. McCain's instincts to obsess over deficits (not that their's anything wrong with that) make me believe the marginal tax rate cuts would have been taken off the table and the economy wouldn't be performing at the level it is today.
I'm convinced McCain is a principled pol on many issues but I fear he hasn't a clue when it comes to understanding how we make our economy stronger. His Republican creds remind me more of Bush 41's similar lack of an economic vision, even while sitting at the feet of the master, RR.
It's only with a strong economy that other goals related to security or the proper role of government become possible.
Posted by: Gary B on April 5, 2006 12:55 PMFor instance, you'd say "Fife You!"
My favorite, and it was the punchline of the skit, was "Schram!!!" and I still use it as a vulgarity today.
Posted by: Reporterward on April 5, 2006 01:22 PMYes, I am a conservative and people can call me what they want. Most of the time the names they call us are just labels with fuzzy, unclear definitions that vary from person to person.
What it comes down to is that I am not defined by what other people think about me or call me. I am defined by what God thinks about me and by what I think about me.
Posted by: Gary on April 5, 2006 01:50 PMGary, I'm not sure what "reliable tax cutter" really means, and since McCain was not President we have no idea whether his tax cuts would have been repealed after 9/11. He was cautious in 2000 about spending surpluses that were not guaranteed to be there, and he was right. That said, McCain's tax cuts could have helped spur the economy into recovery and not run up huge fiscal deficits. I believe he would have increased military spending as well, as he was supportive of both military efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq. It was not just those military efforts that ballooned the federal budget.
McCain has supported bills or amendments to require supermajorities to raise taxes. He's also favored a flat tax. Favored eliminating marriage penalties and inheritance taxes. Overall I think his tax cuts would have achieved favorable economic results and would not have created a huge bill for future generations because he would have balanced tax and spending cuts.
The Republican party used to be one screaming to balance budgets. I don't know what happened. But if they don't get back to that, the Republican party can look forwarrd to being in the minority again.
Posted by: Palouse on April 5, 2006 01:59 PMMcCain would make the tax system even more progressive than it was and more progressive than the passed Bush taxs. Bush's passed tax cuts embrace the classic Laffer curve effects which tell us high marginal tax rates equal lower economic activity with lower Federal receipts and lower marginal tax rates equal higher economic activity and higher levels of Federal tax receipts. We have already seen this happen as Federal revenues are much higher than 2001 and higher than anything collected under the Clinton administration.
McCains tax proposal would put more money in the hands of lower income taxpayers which they would likely spend but would do little for investments at the margin, the big driver of economic activity levels.
That is at the heart of most of McCains tax proposals. His proposals make taxes more progressive and ignore the powerful incentives that accompany changes at the margins.
This is why I believe McCain understanding of the drivers of a robost economy are seriously wanting.
I do believe Federal spending is excessive, but no president will ever be able to able to seriously cut programs or make much of a dent. Our only politically feasible option, maintain low marginal tax rates and reap the ever increasing levels of Federal tax receipts and slow the growth of spending. We will steadily see lower deficits and finally balance. We have already done it in the past. After the Republican cut in the capital gains taxes after a takeover in the House and the modest increases in Federal spending in the late 90's, we had a Federal budget surplus.
We can do this again.
Posted by: Gary Bezowsky on April 5, 2006 02:46 PMThis was from an analysis of his tax cuts:
-More than half of McCain's proposed tax cuts would go to taxpayers making between $65,000 and $130,000 a year, a group that includes 15% of all taxpayers.
-Most of the rest of McCain's tax cuts would be divided between the 20 percent of taxpayers making between $39,000 and $65,000 (who get 21% of the cuts) and the 4 percent of taxpayers making from $130,000 to $319,000 (who get 19%).
-Overall, the McCain plan would cut taxes by about $500 billion over ten years.
Since small business is the primary driver of growth in this country and the largest supplier of jobs, a large majority of these entrepreneurs fall into the income levels of one of these categories. Couple that with some tax incentives on capital equipment and plant investment and you have a recipe for growth without breaking the budget. That is, as long as you don't have a Congress on a spending spree and a President who is allergic to a veto pen.
I am not saying a McCain presidency would have completely avoided deficits, but I do not believe it would nearly as bad a fiscal house as we have right now. If the Democrats were not so inept at presenting a coherent message, they could have scored some major points with independent voters who are actually concerned about the spending of this government. Problem is that voters like me believe they would have spent even more, and with little or no tax relief. Bill Richardson is a Democrat who has his act together - too bad the rest of his party doesn't.
I hope whoever gets the nominations in '08 starts paying real attention to the size of government and to balancing the budget. Because growing our way out of deficits isn't going to fly. I can't believe conservatives are advocating this. But it is a reflection of alot of America, that with ballooning amounts of debt and zero savings, hoping that their equity will bail them out or some future earnings increases.
Posted by: Palouse on April 5, 2006 03:11 PMIt was not only the cutting of capital gains taxes that resulted in economic growth. In the contract with America, they also pledged fiscal responsibility and actually did something about it by making federal agencies provide a cost benefit analysis of ANY regulation costing $50 million or more. Couple that with Clinton not getting in the way by creating new huge government programs or subsidies, and then balancing the budget, there was the recipe for growth.
It can happen again, but only if we have a Congress like the one who swept into power in 1994 with that contract, and a President who believes in balanced budgets.
Posted by: Palouse on April 5, 2006 03:36 PMActually that was Animal Farm. Same author, different book. But the point's well taken.
Posted by: RBW on April 5, 2006 03:47 PMSchram is the closest thing we've got to Howard Beale. Enjoy him while you can.
Posted by: Organization Man on April 5, 2006 07:20 PMHe brings credibility to the commentators on KOMO with Carlson, they are entertaining and have more substance than virtually all talk shows on KIRO. He is as outspoken as almost any talk show except for Michael Savage.
I don't think Schram has been back to
Enumclaw since that unfortunate incident.
Madeline Albright (*shudder*)
Posted by: ERNurse on April 5, 2006 08:41 PMI think things when to pot when my candidate for president was John Kasich, the budget wonk. High energy, but with a squeaky voice (not presidential, you know). He left office about the time (his decision) the budget got out of whack. I think people are going to finally realize how valuable he was in balancing the budget. I recall first seeing him in the early 90s running around with the budget document (about 18 inches thick) under his arm.
John Kasich was a true fiscal conservative. Squeaky voice cost him in the McCain/Bush drama.
Posted by: swatter on April 6, 2006 07:22 AMSomething needs to change in the other Washington, and the R's might just get that wakeup call this fall. I'll still vote for McGavick and Reichert, by default I guess. It's disheartening.
I am not sure if McCain will get the nomination in '08, but I would certainly favor him over the likely Democrat nominee, or over Guiliani. I wish someone like Tom McClintock (who ran against Arnold in California) could get some traction nationally.
Posted by: Palouse on April 6, 2006 08:41 AMAccidentally -- right. I replied back saying,
If you can't tell the difference between the government deliberately tapping phones and a couple accidently hooking into a cell phone conversation (McDermott only accepted a tape made by the couple. He didn't do the actually eavesdropping), then there's no sense in my trying to explain it to you.
If you can't tell the difference between a pair of Democratic activists who knew better and knowingly committed a felony and the NSA tapping the phones of suspected terrorists or terrorist supporters, then YOU don't have any business explaining it to anybody.Posted by: Sid on April 6, 2006 12:42 PM
And what's the big "scandal" that they uncovered in that tape that the public is dying to know about? That Gingrich was preparing a response to an Ethics committee ruling, despite his promise not to respond. Whooop-teee-friggin-do. Apparently Democratic moc's have never broken promises or something.
This would be like Republicans in the Nixon administration trying to use whatever dirt they might have uncovered in that little Watergate break in against Democrats, and then after it was revealed that they actually broke the law in getting that information trying to claim, "but, but the PUBLIC had a right to know!"
Posted by: Palouse on April 6, 2006 04:21 PM