The amount of student debt in the US is massive; over a trillion dollars currently.  Americans currently owe more in student loan debt than they do on credit cards.  The Stafford Loan, for instance, allows students to borrow up to $57,500 as an independent (with no parental support).  Students often compound commercial and federal loans into enormous sums of money – often under the assumption that they’ll be able to find work upon graduation.

Now before you suggest that’s the problem, look again.  The Labor Department for September of 2011 shows an unemployment rate of only 4.5% for those with a college degree.  So an inability to find jobs doesn’t seem to be the norm for graduates.

So we have people investing in their education, and rightly finding work after graduation.  Should be no problem, right?

No.  The problem is two-fold.  The average student debt for 2011 graduates is $22,900.  Since many graduates will have less or even no debt, the numbers among those who took loans is likely significantly higher.

The average salary of 2011 graduates entering the workforce is only $36,866.  Payscale.com provides a handy list of the average annual salary by degree.  It shows the salary for history, sociology, anthropology and others typically starting in the mid-30s and topping out ‘mid-career’ around $60,000.  Based on regional differences, in reality, you have students graduating who may have more debt that they can possibly make – even at Payscale’s “mid-career” salary level.

If we’re going to make changes to how that debt is repaid, we should also make changes to how it is accumulated.  The entire practice of student loans should be reformed in two significant ways.

Capping Student Loans

First, student loans should be subject to the same earnings litmus test that applies to other credit, but more strictly.

Credit cards, home loans, and other consumer debt limits are typically predicated on your ability to repay that debt.  Amex doesn’t hand out black cards to college kids with no income for good reason – they have little ability to repay.  Home loans, at least in theory if not in practice, require you to prove income before you can qualify for more home than you can afford.

Student loans have none of that. Student loans rarely take into account the potential future earnings of the student.  As mentioned, students frequently compound loans.  The problem is it becomes very easy to accumulate more debt than your future earnings will accommodate.

Student loans should be capped at no more than the average annual salary for a student with that degree.  If a student is likely to make no more than $32,000 with a degree in social work, they shouldn’t be allowed to accumulate loans of $57,500 or more.  By capping total student loans for that degree at $32,000 (combining both direct federal and commercial) and applying the administration’s 10% annual limit for repayment, most student loans should be paid off in significantly less than the twenty years proposed for forgiveness (low-interest rates being assumed).

It is inexcusable that students are allowed to graduate carrying debt nearly as high as, or higher than, their ‘mid-career’ earnings.

Restrictions on Student Loan Usage

Often students take out more loan than they need for tuition and books in order to cover living expenses and other incidentals.  Any credit expert will tell you that putting meals and perishables on a credit card is a terrible idea as the interest increases the cost of those items many times over by the time it is paid off.  Student loans have no such restrictions, and unless things have changed dramatically, there are no caveats against using loans this way.

Stafford Loans, as just one example, carry restrictions that the money is too be used for tuition, books, room, board, or “other education related expenses.”  So what qualifies, exactly?  It’s hard to say.  A search for “Stafford Loan Eligible Expenses” turns up absolutely nothing from the Department of Education on the subject, and the FAQs many schools host have that vague “other” language.  Apparently a used car is an education related expense, as are sneakers, iPods, or anything else.

Since the schools typically hand you a check or direct deposit the funds, there is really no telling what those expenses might be.

If we want to help students who are looking at debt based on future earnings, the least we should do is bring these restrictions in line with sound financial advice.  Allowing students to rack up debt on things Big Macs and tennis shoes is ridiculous.  The education system should limit the way these funds are expended so they cover actual school expenses.  The school should not be in the business of doling out excess funds to 18 year-olds for discretionary spending.

Just recalling my own college experience, I can tell you the day loan excess was disbursed was like a Roman orgy.  The only thing “school related” about the spending were the excuses for why you couldn’t make it to that 8 a.m. class the next morning.

By making these two simple changes, student loan debt might actually be used in accordance with the goal of getting an education.  It would, at the very least, ensure that degree in social work doesn’t come with a debt you’ll never be able to repay.

As for the content, let me expand on what I told Sam.

I have no idea what Scott did or did not experience in the White House and have no way of knowing whether his specific accusations are true or false.

My point to Sam, and the point to my Twitter comment last night, was that Scott has written a book about the nastiness of politics in general and the notion of the permanent campaign specifically, that is right on the money. The excerpts I have read of the book make a very salient and very meaningful point – this town and the culture of constant political battle, do great harm to the process of actually governing.

When you are unwilling to admit a mistake for fear of creating an opening your opposition can exploit for partisan gain, you create a cycle where bad choices become compounded upon one another. I think that is a syndrome that we saw emerge from the Clinton years and grow worse during the Bush years. There is simply no room for honest discussion anymore. There is merely partisan scorekeeping and score settling.

I also believe, as Matthew Dowd noted in the New York Times, that Bush has squandered the second term that 62 million people gave him.

He criticized the president as failing to call the nation to a shared sense of sacrifice at a time of war, failing to reach across the political divide to build consensus and ignoring the will of the people on Iraq. He said he believed the president had not moved aggressively enough to hold anyone accountable for the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, and that Mr. Bush still approached governing with a “my way or the highway” mentality reinforced by a shrinking circle of trusted aides.

Believe it or not, there are more than a handful of people who work in politics and become involved because they fundamentally believe that we can change the world we live in. Matt referred to the idea in his NYT interview.

“I’m a big believer that in part what we’re called to do — to me, by God; other people call it karma — is to restore balance when things didn’t turn out the way they should have,” Mr. Dowd said. “Just being quiet is not an option when I was so publicly advocating an election.”

I think McClellan’s interview on Today this morning echoed much of that same sentiment. These are people who worked tirelessly to elect a President in which they saw so much more than what was to come. McClellan says they got caught up playing the Washington game. I believe that is true, and I believe almost everyone recognizes that is true.

As I told Sam, I think McClellan’s book should be viewed through that prism. The media and the Administration may portray this as a gotcha perpetrated by Scott, but I think that discounts the larger message. It is that message that I agree with. For that reason, I fear the typical Washington response to discredit the messenger will force us to lose sight of the message.

I am a believer. I think people can change their world by getting involved. Unfortunately, this town tests my faith in that idea every day. Watching Scott being savaged for fighting for that ideal is testing it again today.

In one corner we have the libertarian wing – the get government off my back and out of my life crowd. They want nothing more than an exceedingly limited federal government with the bulk of important decisions made by the branch of government closest to them.

In the other corner, we have the religious wing of the party. They claim the title “conservative” but there is nothing restrained in their pursuit of public policy based on their theology. They say they want government out of their lives, but then they use the power of the fed in an attempt to legislate everything from government mandated a la carte television to right to die issues dragged up from lower courts simply because the original verdict offended some religious sensibility.

These two factions have been clashing of late because the former holds the latter somewhat to blame for the party’s losses in 2006. The rabid pursuit of a gay marriage amendment and the circus that was the Terri Schiavo case, the argument goes, drew negative attention to the party in a way unseen since Pat Buchanan’s bigoted speech at the 1992 convention. Not in 14 years had the religious right done so much to harm the GOP.

The religious wing fires back that it was the heathens among the GOP (Mark Foley being one) that cost us the election. They believe (despite polling to the contrary) that the country yearns for the same sort of theologically pure government not seen since the Taliban was routed in 2001.

Now the debate is playing out in the politics of the Presidential contest. This morning, Joe Carter at the Evangelical Outpost took aim at Fred Thompson for his support of Federalism.

Now I’m not so certain. His views of the federal marriage amendment, the Schiavo case, and his general position on federalism are troubling. For me, conservatism trumps federalism, while the position Thompson endorses seem to reverse that order…

Federalism also can disappoint those who believe that justice trumps ideological concerns. One of the most disheartening and shameful scenes of the last decade was to see so-called conservatives claim that the Terri Schiavo case should have been left solely to the state of Florida. The charitable view is to assume that had they known that a woman was being killed by the state without due process of law, they would have sided with justice over judicially mandated involuntary euthanasia. The less generous opinion is that they simply haven’t considered how federalism relates to conservative principles.

For if conservatives are willing to give the state the power to kill an innocent woman, willing to let adherence to procedure trump our dedication to justice, willing to put the rights of the government ahead of the rights of the individual, then we have lost all sense of what it means to be conservatives.

Federalism can be useful in drawing legitimate lines of Constitutional authority. But when it is allowed to transfer power to the states from other societal spheres, the philosophy merely creates 50 separate laboratories of liberalism.

A Fundamental Question

Carter makes an argument that Federalism is not a conservative position. It raises an interesting topic of debate. He gets into theoretical discussions about various interpretations of the ideologies that shape society, but suffice it to say he does not adopt a Federalist viewpoint. The basics of his argument are the government of Massachusetts could, if it wanted, assume a totalitarian position and define all aspects of society. They could enforce not only their own views of religion, definitions of marriage, etc, but they could prohibit all others.

Well, yes. Exactly. That’s essentially the theory of Federalism. If the majority of the people of Massachusetts, who elect the governing bodies of the state, felt that was acceptable, they could do just that. His argument is rather simplistic as he describes a more dictatorial regime, and seems to ignore that Federalism still begins and ends with the role of the people being governed in setting the course of their life. If you include that, he’s pretty much right on. People can, if they choose, set their own rules and live by them.

So which is the conservative position? Should Conservatives resist the encroachment of the Federal Government into the most private decisions of our lives?

To explore that, let’s return to the Schiavo case. What we see in her situation is exactly that. A state, based on the laws enacted by the duly elected representatives and the adjudication performed by its judiciary, made a decision to let a woman die. States do this routinely. States choose not to admit evidence in cases that could exonerate innocent people wrongly convicted and slowly dying in an 8×8 metal cage. We acknowledge the injustice, but there it is. The fact is the rule of law, for all its power to manage society, is an imperfect machine that is occasionally greased with the blood of the innocent.

Does that justify the federal government forcing its nose into the tent and demanding a different set of laws (laws of its choosing) be applied because the citizens of California, Washington, DC, or Illinois were bothered by the rules set forth in Florida? Does it justify the expansion of the federal government’s role to interfere with the laws of a state?

Occasionally, we see a murder case where the outcome of the trial is so horrific it appalls us as a people. Take a look at O.J. The overwhelming majority of this nation was horrified that these two lives were taken. The country watched in shock as the joke that is the California judicial system let the killer walk free.

Yet nobody demanded that the federal government intercede on behalf of “the innocent”. Nobody staged protests to demand that the rights of Nicole and Ron be heard and the murderer be dragged to Washington for justice. We understood that there was an imperfect trial, in a flawed court system, and a travesty occurred.

If you really want to see this argument on display, suggest to someone who is pro-life that a Constitutional amendment banning abortion is completely contrary to Conservative beliefs. Abortion is murder! They will claim. We need to protect life at the federal level!

But this ignores the fact that murder is tried as a local crime. It is left to the local courts to determine whether a murder was premeditated or a crime of passion. It is left to the states to decide which homicides can be justified and which cannot. It is left to the states to decide what level of punishment is applied to a crime. Why then, is abortion, or right to die not afforded the same level of local discretion?

Federalism and Marriage

Now I can jump on my other favorite “federalist” soapbox, again. If you consider yourself Conservative, the idea of a federal amendment “protecting” marriage should make your skin crawl.

The debate over marriage, as I have often been known to rant about, is not about the “definition” of marriage. It is not a question of whether marriage is one man and one woman, two men, two women, or a human being and a goat. The real debate over this issue must, and I believe eventually will, come down to what is the basis for marriage.

Is marriage a contract between two people and God? Or is a marriage a contract between two people and the state? In computer security terms, who, in this arrangement, is the certificate authority? Who ultimately sanctions the marriage?

If marriage is a contract between the united and their God, then the government has absolutely nothing to say about it. The Constitution is quite specific on that point. Churches, then, should be the ultimate arbiters of what “defines” marriage for their parishioners.

If marriage is a document legally binding two parties for the purpose of legal assets and legal protections, then the contract should be gender neutral as is every other contract drawn between consenting parties. I can sell my car to a man or a woman. Homosexuals can trade real estate under the same rules that govern such transactions for heterosexuals. Marriage, if it is a contract with the state, should be no different.

It is that debate, and that question, that must ultimately be decided before any law to define marriage can be written.

So Who Is Conservative?

Now I have been called a “squishy” Republican because I pursue the principles of my party before the principles of my faith. I have had my conservatism challenged by those, like Carter, who ignore the very meaning of Conservatism. Conservatives adhere to tradition and the continuance of trusted methods. The very word conservative implies that change to the existing structure of society should be measured and tempered.

By comparison, liberal ideology stresses the rapid adoption of new laws and the imposition of the federal government’s authority to address any perceived situation. Think there might someday be a problem with discrimination on the Internet? Legislate the solution before you have ever seen a problem. That’s the liberal way.

I am terrified because it seems, increasingly, to be the way adopted by the religious wing of the GOP. It is a disturbing trend, and one that threatens to rip the very fabric of the GOP coalition. If religious conservatives abandon the detente that exists with fiscal conservatives in pursuit of their ideology, they are threatening the ability of either of us to be successful.

However, a rift between the two factions of the GOP could be a good thing. It may bring about a fundamental realignment of electoral politics. The religious right and the tax-and-spend liberal left would unite in pursuit of a federal government that not only mandated the “right” way to live (be it through edicts on smoking or worship), but they could enforce it through taxation.

On the other side, the fiscally conservative Democrats, the libertarians in the GOP, and the moderate centrists, fearful of an all-powerful government and distrustful that it’s one-size-fits-all solutions would be either cost-effective or successful, would stand in opposition.

If anyone thinks that a Federal government empowered to weigh in on religious decisions will always weigh in on the side of the religious, they are sorely mistaken. If anyone believes that a government big enough to tell you what to do with your womb, your choice of mate, or your right to die will practice restraint in telling you what to do with your wallet, you’re high as a kite.

The first case involves the issue of ‚Äúpreemption.‚Äù Congress routinely passes laws and resulting regulations which are in conflict with state laws and regulations. These federal laws do not state whether or not they are intended to preempt the state regulations. Clearly, members of Congress don‚Äôt want their constituents back home asking why their state authority has been stripped. But Congress can have it both ways. They leave the legislation ambiguous, knowing that the federal courts will more often than not interpret the statute as preempting state law, allowing elected officials in Washington ‚Äúthe federal court did it, I didn‚Äôt‚Äù excuse. This allows for no debate on the issue in Congress, just a decision by that source of so much conservative affection: the federal judiciary…

Not only was [the principle of federalism] what our founding fathers created – a federal government with limited, enumerated powers with respect for other levels of government, it also provided a basis for a proper analysis of most issues: “Is this something government should be doing? If so, at what level of government?”

As I understood it, states were supposed to be laboratories that would compete with each other, conducting civic experiments according to the wishes of their citizens. The model for federal welfare reform was the result of that process. States also allow for of diverse viewpoints that exist across the country. There is no reason that Tennesseans and New Yorkers should have to agree on everything (and they don’t).

Those who are in charge of applying the conservative litmus test should wonder why some of their brethren continue to try to federalize more things ‚Äì especially at a time of embarrassing federal mismanagement and a growing federal bureaucracy. I am afraid that such a test is often based more upon who is favored between two self-serving litigants than upon legal and constitutional principles…

Adhering to the principles of Federalism is not easy… However, if conservatives abandon this valued principle that limits the federal government, or if we selectively use it as a tool with which to reward our friends and strike our enemies, then we will be doing a disservice to our country as well as the cause of conservatism.

Answers like that, and adherence to his principles, will carry Thompson far if he decides to run. Ponnuru, in a subsequent post, argues their differences are largely definitional with contrary ideas on the extent to which the Commerce clause can be applied.

I believe that the Founders‚Äô design requires the federal government to keep states from interfering with interstate commerce… Large areas of federal law ‚Äî see, for instance, telecom, securities, health insurance, and airline law are devoted precisely to this purpose. On Senator Thompson‚Äôs professed principles, however, we should have dueling state regulations to govern these industries and called it ‚Äúfederalism.‚Äù

Extending Ponnuru’s argument, those same industries (specifically telecom, airlines, and securities) increasingly have global, rather than state and local implications. Should we, in the cause of expediency, implement global solutions and allow the UN to regulate such industries? I assume Ponnuru would say no. However, to argue that the cause of commerce is impeded because different governmental jurisdictions apply different legal frameworks is laughable if you say that doesn’t hold true at a higher level as well. Why can different nations apply different rules to those industries with no adverse impact?

Thompson is right. Conservatives have, for far too long, conceded the value of federalism in the pursuit of political and economic expediency. We have sold our soul for a fast buck, or a fleeting political victory. If Thompson runs, maybe he can begin the process of helping us reclaim it.

Unlike a lot of people who see Thompson as the Law & Order guy, I always tend to think of him as CIA Director Marshall in the 1987 Kevin Costner flick No Way Out. It was a role that always seemed to suit him, and he reprised essentially that same role – sort of the gruff, no bullshit straight talking politician – in movies like In The Line Of Fire, Thunderheart, The Hunt For Red October, Born Yesterday, Flight of the Intruder, etc., etc. It’s basically the same role he plays on Law & Order, but he mastered it in other places.

Based on the conversation, I decided to go digging last night to see what I might learn about Thompson’s positions. It has been a fascinating exploration. In the short time I have spent looking at his past speeches, floor statements, and releases (a great deal of which are available via the Wayback Machine if you search for “thompson.senate.gov”), I find myself really appreciating Thompson’s view of our nation, the problems we face, and our obligations to the Constitution. Especially telling are his remarks about public corruption as related to the CATO Institute in a speech on the campaign finance scandal of the late 1990s.

[L]eaders, I believe, still have the responsibility of reminding the American people of what is at stake. We now have peace and prosperity, and people prefer not to be bothered by Washington, which has been so disappointing to them in many ways. However, the pendulum swings, and when our nation faces its next crisis, and when we need leadership, and we need direction, and we need inspiration, who in government are the people going to be willing to listen to if their leaders have so abused our most cherished institutions, including the rule of law.

That to me is the most important issue facing us today, and how we resolve it will play a large part in determining our destiny as a nation.

While I have not yet found any public statements by Thompson on the Cunningham case, Mark Foley, William Jefferson, the constitutional questions raised by the raid on Jefferson’s office, and the myriad other scandals of the past few years, I’ll keep digging to be sure his CATO speech is consistent with his position on investigations of both Democrats and Republicans.

On Social Security

Thompson’s position, while not dramatically different from Bush’s, recognizes a specific need for the President to lead. Bush never led this discussion. He said he wanted reform, then largely walked away from the table to leave partisans in Congress to debate the issue on Hardball. Thompson seems to possess a real commitment to reforming Social Security with a bipartisan panel, and real leadership from the White House.

A lot of people, including myself, think we have to have some system whereby the worker can invest some of that money in those FICA taxes for something that will have a much greater return than they are getting today.

We were hoping that before the President left office, there would be some leadership from the President in making some of the hard choices we all know are going to have to be made. Any one of those choices I have just described is not an easy political choice to make. It will never be made unless we get some leadership from the President, at which point I think a lot of people will fall in line.

We have, on a bipartisan basis in the Senate, already been trying to work toward that end. Frankly, I don’t think the political risks are as great as a lot of people think. I think we should tell the people the truth and do something, go ahead and do it. There is not a lot of risk to that. Most people believe otherwise. But we will have to have Presidential leadership under any circumstances.

On National Security

The video of Thompson speaking after the 9/11 attacks has been circulating on YouTube, his remarks on September 12, 2001, however, are perhaps more revealing of his position on military strength. It sounds very Reagan-esque.

Part of a great nation’s responsibility for keeping peace in the world is the threat it must pose to those who would upset that peace. Therefore, we must act as a deterrent to outrageous activity when our interests are involved. And America’s response in this matter should set a lasting example of what happens to those who unleash bloody attacks especially on our own soil.

The time for carefully measured pinprick responses to terrorists activities has passed. But we in this Body, and in the House, do not have the luxury of simply expressing our outrage or demanding retribution. We, along with the President, set policy and we must quickly reconcile ourselves to some of the things that we must do.

The John Fund piece in the Wall Street Journal confirms his belief in America’s strength while conceding the problems we face as a result of failed policy in Iraq.

On Iraq, he admits “we are left with nothing but bad choices.” However, he says the “worst choice” would be to have Osama bin Laden proven right when he predicted America wouldn’t have the stomach for a tough fight.

That is probably the best one-sentence summary of the situation I have heard. Democrats, while understandably upset about the direction the Iraq conflict has taken, have instead run to the opposite side and want to hand America’s enemies a great gift, and a tremendous propaganda victory. Their claims that Iraq is a recruiting ground are largely correct, but would you rather they recruit people to fight our troops based on our strength, or should they recruit covert agents to fly into buildings based on our weakness?

On Federalism

The Fund piece also articulates Thompson’s federalist tendencies.

Mr. Thompson has also been criticized for failing to back some comprehensive tort-reform bills because of his background as a trial lawyer. Here he insists his stance was based on grounds of federalism. “I’m consistent. I address Federalist Society meetings,” he says, noting that more issues should be left to the states. For example, he cast the lonely “nay” in 99-1 votes against a national 0.8% blood alcohol level for drivers, a federal law banning guns in schools, and a measure limiting the tort liability of Good Samaritans. “Washington overreaches, and by doing so ends up not doing well the basics people really care about.”

Thompson made the point more eloquently in speaking for the Federalism Accountability Act in June of 1999.

Federalism raises two fundamental questions that policy makers should answer: What should government be doing? And what level of government should do it? Everything else flows from them. That’s why federalism is at the heart of our Democracy…

We need to face the fact that Congress and the Executive Branch too often have acted as if they have a general police power to engage in any issue, no matter how local. Both Congress and the Executive Branch have neglected to consider prudential and constitutional limits on their powers. We should not forget that even where the Federal Government has the constitutional authority to act, state governments may be better suited to address certain matters. Congress has a habit of preempting State and local law on a large scale, with little thought to the consequences. Congress and the White House are ever eager to pass federal criminal laws to appear responsive to highly publicized events. We are now finding that this often is not only unnecessary and unwise, but it also has harmful implications for crime control.

[U]nless we really understand that federalism is the foundation of our governmental system, these bright achievements will fade. As we cross into the 21st century, federalism must constantly illuminate our path. Our governmental structure is based on an optimistic belief in the power of people and their communities. I share that view.

On Campaign Finance Reform

One of the few organized thoughts I have ever had about Fred Thompson’s policy positions was based on his support for McCain-Feingold. That law was, and continues to be, an unmitigated disaster. Looking at the amount of money reported by candidates for President this week, you cannot, for one moment, believe that the law is working as intended. Thompson, though a supporter of the Bill, clearly recognized the problem we all see with campaign finance. From Thompson’s floor statement in favor of increasing hard money limits and indexing them to inflation:

We have gone from basically a small donor system in this country where the average person believed they had a stake, believed they had a voice, to one of extremely large amounts of money, where you are not a player unless you are in the $100,000 or $200,000 range, many contributions in the $500,000 range, occasionally you get a $1 million contribution. That is not what we had in mind when we created this system. It has grown up around us without Congress really doing anything to promote it or to stop it.

Whether you were in favor of or opposed to McCain-Feingold, most would agree with that assessment. In the rest of his statement, Thompson makes an argument full of recognition that what you want, and what you can get through Congress, are clearly separate and distinct. He pushed for higher individual contribution limits to at least begin to counter the role of big money interests. Ultimately, he was forced to accept less in order to get anything.

He also recognizes the problems BCRA has created. Again, from Fund:

Conceding that McCain-Feingold hasn’t worked as intended, and is being riddled with new loopholes, he throws his hands open in exasperation. “I’m not prepared to go there yet, but I wonder if we shouldn’t just take off the limits and have full disclosure with harsh penalties for not reporting everything on the Internet immediately.”

It’s a proposal that many have made in coffee shop discussions, but few have made on the floor of Congress. Thompson indicates he would, as a candidate, engage in a level of ‘truthiness’ that would make most consultants nervous. Perhaps comments like this are his indication that a Thompson campaign would move more of the these “what-if-we scenarios” from the Barbershop to the White House and Congress.

Thompson for President?

Having spent some time digesting all of this, and knowing that I will spend more time looking at his past, I had to ask myself if this is the guy I could support for President. I have made no secret of the fact that I’m not thrilled with our current field. I am not aligned with any of the current crop not because I am opposed to any of them (except maybe Romney, who comes across to me as a pandering fool), but simply because I have been given so little reason to support them.

Thompson, if nothing else, connects with a sense of Federalism that runs deep in me. I still fundamentally believe that the political discourse in our nation must ultimately come down to the size and scope of the Fed. I do not believe the Fed has the power, or the instincts to address many of our most urgent issues. On that front, the more I read of Thompson’s past positions, the more I like.

Should he run, would he be the candidate I support in the race? I’m not sure yet. If he does jump into the race, however, I am willing to say he may well be the only real Republican in the top tier. Given our field, that may be enough for me.

Today the Washington Post called her out on this ill-advised trip.

Mr. Bush said that thanks to the speaker’s freelancing Mr. Assad was getting mixed messages from the United States. Ms. Pelosi responded by pointing out that Republican congressmen had visited Syria without drawing presidential censure. That’s true enough — but those other congressmen didn’t try to introduce a new U.S. diplomatic initiative in the Middle East…

The really striking development here is the attempt by a Democratic congressional leader to substitute her own foreign policy for that of a sitting Republican president… We have found much to criticize in Mr. Bush’s military strategy and regional diplomacy. But Ms. Pelosi’s attempt to establish a shadow presidency is not only counterproductive, it is foolish.

I’m not sure at what point the Democrats in Congress lost all sense of reason, but this one really takes the cake. If Newt Gingrich had taken it upon himself to resolve the situation in Haiti, or negotiate a peace in Northern Ireland, or meet with Somali warlords during the Clinton administration, the howls from Democrats would be deafening.

The precedent that Pelosi has set is dangerous for our Union. Should the Democrats reclaim the White House, I would suggest every Republican with some frequent flyer miles to burn should start globe trotting as a self-appointed Deputy Secretary of State. The Democrats in Congress truly believe, despite clear Constitutional direction to the contrary, it is their prerogative to micromanage American policy – both foreign and domestic.

I was raised in New Mexico and lived there until I was 29. I served as the Communications Director, Deputy Director and Executive Director of the New Mexico GOP at various times between 1995 and 2003. I’ve worked closely with just about everyone involved in this case with the exception of the current Chairman, and I like all of them. However, the stunning lack of judgment that is on display has made me speak out.

Unlike a lot of bloggers, I’m squarely on the side of David Iglesias. He’s a good guy. He was a lazy candidate, but he’s a decent person.

The public relations disaster in which the Administration finds itself is entirely of its own making. The Justice Department screwed this up terribly. The minute that they alleged the firings (universally) were due to performance problems, they should have seen this going down in exactly this way.

If you are asked to leave a company, for whatever reason, and you come to a deal with your former employer to make the transition smooth, you expect them to honor that. The last thing you would expect to see is the guys you just left trashing you in the media, and making you sound incompetent.

According to both his internal performance reviews and the White House’s own list of poor performing USAs, Iglesias was doing a good job. His firing, based on news reports, seems to be entirely a function of his refusal to rush an investigation and issue indictments simply so his party would benefit at the polls.

Sampson sent an e-mail to Miers in March 2005 that ranked all 93 U.S. attorneys. Strong performers “exhibited loyalty” to the administration; low performers were “weak U.S. attorneys who have been ineffectual managers and prosecutors, chafed against Administration initiatives, etc.” A third group merited no opinion.

At least a dozen prosecutors were on a “target list” to be fired at one time or another, the e-mails show.

Only three of those eventually fired were given low rankings… Two were given strong evaluations: [including] David C. Iglesias in Albuquerque, who has alleged political interference from GOP lawmakers…

In September, Sampson produced another list of firing candidates…

Iglesias, the New Mexico prosecutor, was not on that list. Justice officials said Sampson added him in October… [emphasis mine]

In other words, Iglesias was doing a good job, had been loyal to the Administration, was pushing the Bush agenda. All that good came to an end when he refused to issue bogus indictments.

Now I don’t believe for a minute that Domenici intended to pressure Iglesias. His style is sometimes rough, but I have always known him to be a good guy. I have been on the receiving end of a couple of calls from him and I know the feeling Iglesias describes as a pit in the stomach. It’s more a reaction to his position than it is to him. I think he may sometimes lose sight of the position he holds in the eyes of others.

That said, I believe the blame for this debacle rests solely on the shoulders of the Justice Department. They screwed this up, and screwed it up badly. There were about a dozen ways they could have handled this better. None of them involved a public proclamation challenging the competence of people who otherwise had been party loyalists for years.

I am pleased to see Sampson resign, but I do not believe his head should be the last to roll.

I don’t want a US Attorney who will misuse the power of his office just to ensure Republican electoral victory. If we truly believe, as Ken Mehlman, Newt Gingrich, and Karl Rove have all said, that our party is built on the strength of our ideas, then why do we need to fast track indictments against Democrats to win? And why do we feel the need to punish and slander those who follow the law?

Anyone in the Department of Justice or the White House who has willingly misused the power of law to pursue political goals should be run out as well. When they’re fired, by the American people, they’ll truly know what it means to lose your job for poor performance.

So your field includes 2004 loser John Kerry, 1988 plagiarist-in-chief Joe Biden, 2004 joke Dennis Kucinich, and 2004 double loser (POTUS and Veep) John Edwards. Al Gore could jump in. You just know Al Sharpton wants 15 more minutes of attention, though Jesse Jackson might have to arm wrestle Sharpton for the right to be this years token wacko. All we need is Dick Gephardt to come out of obscurity and form a dream ticket with Geraldine Ferraro.

I look at the GOP field and yawn, but I look at the Dem field and cringe.

Ahh… the power of the majority…

I’d be interested in your thoughts on MittTV and the site Рin general.

I started to reply about MittTV in the comments, but it became long enough to make a post… so here it is…

————————————–

The one issue I have with MittTV is the fact that it looks like a PBS documentary. Republicans put together stuff like this, expect it to go viral, and act surprised when it doesn’t (unless you count 10k forwards as viral, which I don’t).

People don’t watch video online to look at stuff that looks like smaller versions of the same stuff they watch on TV. How much of the stuff you see on YouTube looks like TV? Almost none of it. The selling point to YouTube is the fact that these are real people doing real things. Mostly…

LonelyGirl15 didn’t reach her degree of notoriety because she put together some mock PBS documentary with cut shots of her friends offering testimonials. Even the fact that there is nothing at all real about her videos, doesn’t change the appeal it had. The production value wasn’t bad. The lighting was decent, the set was sparsely decorated. Most importantly though, it felt real.

Most of the stuff Republicans do online has none of that. It may have a flashy set, and an anchor straight out of Central Casting, and be professionally edited and polished, but it comes across like a used car salesman. I will say the only videos I have seen in GOP politics that I felt differently about were the stuff Justin did for the Bush campaign and the RNC’s Off the Record series with Mindy and Katie (before it was pulled).

Justin’s videos were great because they didn’t focus on selling the President. They focused on his interaction with real people. They focused on the President’s tours and the things he did on the road and the crowd enthusiasm. They captured the near total lack of reality about Presidential campaigns by demonstrating these ridiculous amounts of staging he has to endure to be a candidate, but the fact that the people still warmed to him.

Justin was given creative freedom to express what he saw and experienced on those trips. He wasn’t told to stay on message and make sure everything presented the President in the best light. He was given the freedom to experiment. Occasionally he produced something that looked like Andy Warhol’s nightmares, but they almost always were very, very good.

Mindy and Katie did a phenomenal job given the set we had. They demonstrated the power of video. They made the media take notice of the fact that the RNC was doing something new, different, bold, and yes, a little odd. They proved a video series featuring two unknown staffers interviewing elected officials could get attention and get people chattering.

Unfortunately, the studio was dilapidated (it was left over from the days of GOPTV back in the mid 90s), the lighting was poor and the equipment was old. Oddly, when viewed on RNC PCs, or tape, the videos looked fine. When viewed online, however, they were dark and dingy. But they still got attention in a way that nothing else the RNC did in the last two years was really able to do. Mindy and Katie were recognized in airports and the open rates on those e-mails were as high as the open rates on notes from the President.

Of course, the plug was pulled because the series wasn’t “Presidential”. The professional communicators felt the media attention it received reflected negatively on them. They said it needed to be more sophisticated, look less like Wayne’s World and more like Meet The Press. The RNC invested a bunch of money to upgrade the studio, hired a former news anchor and professionally created an almost completely unwatchable propaganda series.

The other thing the GOP likes to do is the webmercial. They create what would be a sketchy spot if it ran on TV, and promote it online. It’s like a cross between an ad and a press release. They’re done to generate media, not to attract viewers. It’s really sort of a cynical tactic because it assumes people can be spoken to only in sound bites and will regurgitate on cue.

That’s the one thing the Democrats are doing better online. They are embracing technology and trying different things. They’re willing to take a chance at doing something goofy. Would any GOP Congressman ever consent to giving a press conference in Second Life? Absolutely not!

The GOP tends to look at online trends like vlogging or Second Life and make comments that, “I’ll look cartoonish. I won’t be taken seriously.”

Well a lot of people said the same thing about Presidential candidates going on late night TV until Clinton played the sax on Arsenio. People were watching late night TV. The Clinton team tapped into a world that people related to and connected in a real way. What was “Presidential” didn’t factor into the equation.

Did it matter that Arsenio was cancelled? No. Should it matter if Second Life is a fad? Probably not. The fact is people are responding to it. Suddenly the concept of what may or may not be “Presidential” is shifting. Should Mitt Romney or John McCain do a press conference in Second Life. Hell no! But they should be willing to have fun with online media.

One thing I wanted to do on the Bush campaign, that was rejected every time I brought it up, was to do a series about life in the campaign. How does a major event like a rally for 100,000 people come together? How does a TV ad go from concept to buy? We had a videographer in house to do the shooting, we would do all the editing in house, so our exposure was nil. We could make sure that nothing sensitive was released (unlike inviting the media to follow us around all day).

The upside is you create something people respond to because they see how hard the staff is working, how creative they are, how much fun they are having while working 20 hour days. The downside is nobody has done it before.

How great would it be to see life inside a major Presidential campaign as it unfolds? To see the process for creating a new ad at the same time the ad is released? To see the work that goes into creating a rally and playing the video that shows that as the teaser for a live webcast of that same rally? To ride on the bus with the candidate as they role through middle America.

We need to adjust our concept of “Presidential” behavior because the public, while respecting the office, responds well to people that appear to be “one of the guys.” That’s why Bush always won in polls of “which candidate would you like to have a beer with?”

As long as we hold the President to a fundamentally different standard than the general public, and let that standard dissuade us from being innovative and force us to produce uninteresting uninspiring pabulum, we’ll continue to be behind.

In answer to David’s question, MittTV is only as good as the idea behind it. If the idea is to use video to put up otherwise stale issue material, I say they’re right on track. If the idea is to get people to connect with the candidate and the campaign, they need to rethink their approach.

One example would have been a video featuring their big call-a-thon the other day. Show what it took to make that happen, the excitement of the people there, the tireless hours the candidate, his campaign, and his friends worked to make it happen. That will resonate with more people and get passed around more than a video telling my why Mitt’s health care program is a great thing.