To rival the WWF

The two Democratic candidates for Governor of California met in a third and final debate Wednesday night. Phil Angelides and Steve Westly traded accusations for a little less than an hour at the studios of CBS-5 in San Francisco.

Based on the LA Times report it seems the affair was typical of primary elections. Lots of accusations with little illumination. Some excerpts to give you a flavor:

-State Treasurer Angelides portrayed his rival as a Republican in a Democrat's navy blue suit who is attempting to use his dot-com fortune to buy his way into the governor's office. "Steve, I've got to tell you something," Angelides said at one point. "If you think you can just put $22.5 million of your own money to try to buy the governorship without examining your record, you're wrong."

-State Controller Westly retorted: "Once again, a complete falsehood from our treasurer."

-Much of the discussion revolved around Angelides' call to raise taxes on the well-to-do and corporations. He suggested it was the only serious plan from either candidate that would fund the state's education needs.

Westly repeatedly called it a $10-billion tax increase that would directly affect working-class Californians. Angelides said that figure was a fabrication, and scolded Westly, saying his criticism was reminiscent of the attack conservatives leveled on President Clinton's tax plan.

"You know, Steve, those charges were phony then, and they're phony now, and you ought to be ashamed of recycling those Fox News smears," Angelides said.

On a point of substance, such an argument from Westly does give me pause and is probably the only reason I can think of to this point to keep from writing him off completely.

For all it's un-remarkable back-and-forth though, the debate did have it's moments. The exchange included this most blog-a-licious of quotes from Angelides:

Steve, you stood up to Arnold Schwarzenegger like Ed McMahon stood up to Johnny Carson."

What a difference a week makes

We awoke in north-central Phoenix last Friday to picture-perfect spring weather that the local Vistor's Bureau can only dream of. Well, one week later and the city finds itself assaulted by the first of this year's 100+ degree heat waves.

I miss many things about the Valley. I must say however, that sitting on a patio yesterday enjoying lunch with co-workers while basking in the 70-something degree sunshine, tempered by the mild on-shore breeze made for a wonderful afternoon.

How do you say "Loony"...?

One nomination for you here:

No one thinks twice about grown men who collect Star Wars figures or cults of fans that argue about the merits of this James Bond vs. that James Bond. But tell people you're a die-hard fan of the 1972 epic The Poseidon Adventure? Talk about a potential disaster.

"Some people find it a little strange," acknowledges Paul Wilson, a Phoenix artist who estimates he watches at least a few minutes of the film twice a week. "But I just love it."

That could be an understatement. Wilson has re-created the ship's grand ballroom in his carport. His backyard porch resembles a ship's deck, complete with Poseidon life preserver.

LOL of the day

I know, we swore off this kind of thing...but this was too good to pass up. From the place that shall never be named:

I could eat a bowl of alphabet soup and crap out a better conversation than you.

With all the appropriate apologies to the family-audience for such off-color humor.

Impeach Him Now!

The residents of Hanover, New Hampshire need to get over themselves. Blogger Joe Malchow at Joe's Dartblog has the appropriately snide and cynical take.

Hardly surprising

Congress is up in arms--at least the usual suspects--over a report today that the NSA is collecting information from the likes of ATT and Verizon in compiling a huge database of phone calls in hopes of analyzing any kind of terrorism-related calling patterns. Why is this surprising?

Pajamas Media has a roundup of today's reaction.

Explosion

We arrived home to an explosion of color in the back yard. Didn't get this kind of stuff back in Arizona...

"An unsafe World"

Lompoc's resident world expert, William, weighs in on the state of the world in yesterday's letter to the editor. I respect the passion, but the letter weaves all over the place, with only one--no, make that two--real points: Bush sucks and we're stuck in a Vietnam redux.

In the past few weeks, several retired American generals have come forward to insist that Donald Rumsfeld be replaced with the clear indication that the Commander in Chief doesn't have command of this situation. What do we tell the boys in the field when this sort of feeling prevails at the command level. Isn't it time for action on the question, “How do you ask an American boy to be the last to die in a meaningless war?”

How to say this without seeming a jerk...this country will be better served when people have, once and for all, moved beyond the Vietnam Comparison. We are not living in the 1960's, we are not fighting that war a second time but rather we're fighting a different fight. One that, according to some, we're winning.

Sadly, the only thing that is in fact similar is the attitude of many Democrats and media opinion-shapers. Do us all a favor William, turn your head around and start looking forward rather than back.

Sister kissing

Congress agreed to an extension of President Bush's tax cuts worth $70 billion dollars yesterday:

House and Senate Republican negotiators gave final approval Tuesday to a five-year, nearly $70 billion tax package that extends President Bush's deep cuts to tax rates on dividends and capital gains, while sparing about 15 million middle-income Americans from the alternative minimum tax.

Though my wife doesn't believe me, in my old age I've become a half-full kind of guy. I welcome the extension because I think it is wise in the long-term interests of the US economy to keep the tax burden lower rather than higher, so I welcomed news that taxes wouldn't be going up anytime soon.

Yet I couldn't escape the notion that nothing was really accomplished here. Yeah, we got a kiss but kissing your sister has never been seen as any kind of great prize.

Make the cuts permanent!

Obsess more

If you think you can...

Happy Birthday

One of the staff writers turned 25 today. I was kind of surprised at that, as she strikes me as being somewhat older. But I digress...

It got me thinking about 1991, the year I turned 25 and Bush was in the White House fighting a war in Iraq.

The Unspoken Promise

Steve Westly is a Democratic nominee for Governor in California where he is currently serving as the State Controller. He has been all over the TV leading up to the June primary. There are no ads running on the Republican side of this race, while on the Democratic side it appears to boil down to Westly and Phil Angelides.

The ad airing here on the Central Coast right now focuses on Westly's position as defender of the Environment. It includes a promise to "...stand up to George Bush and the oil companies to stop any new offshore drilling."

Hardly surprising rhetoric when you consider the nature of a Democratic primary race. What of course goes unsaid is the unintended consequence of Westly's environmental puritanism. Should such policies be implemented, he consigns his citizenry to high gas prices into the forseeable future. No attempt at easing supply crunches in oil and natural gas while moving towards a future of alternative fuels.

Meanwhile, late today it was announced that the House Appropriations Committee in D.C. had voted 37-25 to exempt the US Outer Continental Shelf from natural gas drilling. There has been a moratorium on such drilling since 1981.

The move is forward-looking, it has no immediate consequences but begins the process--maybe--of opening up potential supplies to drilling in the near future. In a report that I could not find to link, I read that Governor Schwarzenegger was committed to seeing that no such drilling occurs off the California coast.

Conventional wisdom says that elections are won in the center. Such--and this is just my observation, take it for what it's worth (may not be much)--I think in California is not necessarily so. The state leans far to the left now and has moved ever more so since the late 1980's.

Steve Westly's environmental stand borders on extreme, though he is a very middle-of-the-road looking guy. To get elected here, he doesn't really need to worry about tacking too far to the center.

Meanwhile the erstwhile Republican Governor shares his opponent's stance on the issue of offshore drilling, to the point that there's hardly a discernable difference. Why vote for Westly when you can get the same thing without making any changes?

Not wondering

The Brookings Institution has released new data on Iraq. It includes some good news, as detailed here.

Glenn Reynolds wonders aloud: I wonder why these numbers don't get more attention? I don't.

The "If it bleeds, it lede's" mentality that permeates most newsrooms is simply too strong. It's not that there's no market for good news like this, it simply is far less easy to market so Big Media doesn't see the point.

"Hi, I am completely out of my mind."

Click here for the proof.

Flowers, pants and the Hair Club for Men!

Only James Lileks can work these all into a seamless, illuminating fake-rant in under 1000 words.

Hey Santa Maria!

Chime in. Inquiring minds want to know.

What do you think?

Richard and the Moonbats

No, not a rock band. Would be entertaining I have no doubt, but not nearly as entertaining as the reality that Richard Cohen ran smack into, face first.

It's discussed in detail lots of other places, so I have nothing to add on that front. Only to say that, if this is Mr. Cohen's first look into the mind of the Democrat base...he needs to get out more often. The rest of us have been observing this behavior for years.

Running in opposite directions

The California Franchise Tax board sent us a notice this week letting us know that they intend on assessing an additional $1100 in taxes for "unreported income" that we didn't include on our '05 return. Would have been nice had they also included some explanation as to what this unreported income was as well as it's source. I have a hard time swallowing this given that we only worked in the state for barely half the year.

And yet the people in charge of well, everything in Sacramento wonder why the outflow is bigger than the inflow.

What to think?

I was on my way to dinner in Ahwutukee Friday night when I heard that Porter Goss had resigned at CIA. Hugh spent an hour on the subject, and I sat and listened intently as I re-aquainted myself with Phoenix's evening traffic.

His guests didn't have much favorable to say about the story. I was struck by their agreement however on the need for a strong Secretary of Defense and Pentagon intelligence:

HH: Let me give you both about 30 seconds. How important, with the turnover there, does stability in the office of the Secretary of Defense become, Jed Babbin?

JB: It is absolutely essential. The Secretary of Defense is the only one now who has a steady hand on the intelligence function. Rumsfeld through the quadrennial defense review is doing a lot of good things to increase the DOD Humint capability, bring all of the other assets into play, and I think if all things were not equal, that the Senate could get involved and change some things around. It might be better at this point to transfer more functions into CIA.

HH: And Frank, the three names being circulated to AP tonight for CIA are Frances Townsend, David Shedd, or Mary Margaret Graham. Do you have a reaction to any of those?

FG: I don't. The only one I know personally is Fran Townsend. She's I think a capable woman who is doing a good job as the homeland security adviser to the President. Probably would do a better job there than in, as I say, a euchred position at the CIA.

HH: And Frank, you share Jed's assessment on the importance of the stability at the Pentagon now?

FG: Well, it's not just stability, of course. It's that we've got a very good man who is doing a great job at a critically important time, and I think all of that's even more true today as a result of this change at the CIA.

Fast forward to the early part of this week and we have the announcement of a new DCI appointee, General Michael Hayden. The criticism to this point is that putting a military-man at the head of the only civilian intelligence agency sends a bad message, namely that intelligence is now under the control of the Pentagon. Sound like an argument you might have heard before?

In the meantime, now the WaPo reports that Hayden's appointment would be part of a tag-team deal: In a highly unorthodox move, the White House disclosed the plan shortly after President Bush's formal announcement of Hayden's nomination in the Oval Office, in hopes of reassuring those worried about too much military influence over the intelligence community.

Under the plan, Vice Adm. Albert M. Calland III would be replaced as deputy director by retired CIA official Stephen R. Kappes, who quit in November 2004 in a dispute with then-Director Porter J. Goss.

The moves are part of a concerted effort by the president's team to recover ground after several key Republicans expressed reservations about Hayden's nomination over the weekend, citing his military background and involvement in warrantless domestic surveillance. Most damaging to the White House was criticism by Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich.), the House intelligence committee chairman, who called Hayden "the wrong man at the wrong place at the wrong time."

Hugh on yet the other hand, lauds the nomination of Michael Hayden (odd given the discussion about John Negroponte's contribution to the mess at CIA on Friday night):

A very good choice by President Bush, and not just because of General Hayden's obvious competence, but also because the selection again proudly asserts that the NSA program to conduct surveillance of al Qaeda abroad contacting its operatives in this country was not only the right thing to do, it was completely within the law. President Bush is not afraid of this debate. He welcomes it, and he should.

Here's the AP's opening take:

President Bush on Monday chose Air Force Gen. Michael Hayden to lead the embattled CIA, re-igniting a debate over the domestic surveillance program that he once ran.

But Russ Feingold plus the fever swamp plus old media does not "a debate" make. Thirty tenured law profs, a few angry bloggers and Barbara Boxer can't "re-ignite" anything. In fact, the confirmation of General Hayden will again affirm that the NSA program was not only legal but necessary, even as the debate over the nomination once again alerts the American people to the fact that there is a serious party and a silly party when it comes to the war.

I am Chickenhawk...

Hear me roar!