These Are a Few of My Favorite Scenes-Drama

This may seem like a lazy four-part series, putting up videos of some of my favorite movie scenes, but it actually took a little time to make the selections. I don't necessarily claim these are the greatest scenes ever, just scenes that are very compelling and I could watch over and over, independent of watching the entire movie. You've probably seen them all, but maybe haven't focused on the particular scenes. I'm presenting this as a four part arc. Today is drama, next is musicals, then romantic scenes, finally comedy. I tried to keep it at five apiece, in honor of the Top 5 lists in High Fidelity, but just couldn't. Sorry but the volleyball scene from Top Gun won't be included. So, here we go.

The Godfather, where Michael starts down the path of crime (sorry for the blurbs at the beginning and end-couldn't find one without those).



The Last Picture Show (Ben Johnson, in an Academy Award winning role). This is the greatest movie about Texas ever. This speech is really about the loss of the Texas that was, the one of myth.



Brian's Song. Not technically a movie, but who cares.



Apocalyse Now (I love the smell of napalm in the morning...some day this war's gonna end....)



A Man for All Seasons (one of the best trial scenes ever-sorry for the subtitles). This is the last part.



Casablanca (La Marseillaise scene, still important 65 years later)



Giant (where Jett's well comes in)



Finally, the end of Vertigo



Next-we lighten the mood with musicals. Sadly, Grease will not be featured.

Halloween Night with Westlake and Austin High

This is a bit late in coming, but I wanted to talk about how I spent Halloween night. Photos of both the game and Halloween are on my flickr site.

In the earlier part of the evening, I went to the Austin High vs. Westlake High game at House Park Field in Austin. House Park is in the center of town, and just had a renovation and the installation of a new artificial turf field, so it looked better than I've seen it in years. I hadn't been to a high school football game since the 2000 State 5-A championship game of Midland Lee vs. Westlake, in which Cedric Benson basically ran over Westlake and beat them singlehandedly. I especially remember Club Ced running over Huston Street, who was then an undersized safety but of course now is a multi-millionaire relief pitcher (just traded to the Colorado Rockies). In 1995 and 1996, my cousin Jimmy, who at the time was head coach of Crosby High School, let me watch their games from the sidelines, and ever since then it just hasn't been the same watching games from the stands.

Until a couple of years ago, this had been a long decaying rivalry. Westlake of course has been one of the pre-eminent Texas high school football programs for many years, but Austin High, which has not, had beaten Westlake the last two years in a row. So there was definitely a revenge factor at work. For those not familiar with Austin, this was an interesting matchup for reasons going beyond football. Westlake is one of the power football programs in the power football state. The town of Westlake is a mostly affluent, homogeneous, suburban area just outside of Austin. Although Texas has tried over the past 20 years to even out school district funding, Westlake always seems to have the best facilities, teachers, and resources. Austin High is a little more proletarian. Although by no means an "inner city school," Austin High is the original high school in Austin, going back to 1881. It draws students from diverse areas in the city, and has a more middle to lower-middle class student body. This all was very evident at the game. I spent the first half in the Austin stands, and the second half on the Westlake side. The Austin side had a lot more fans attending, and they seemed to be having a lot more fun. People generally seemed happier than on the Westlake side. They cheered louder for their team, and no one was booing or yelling, despite the fact that Westlake basically blew out Austin. The Westlake fans seemed like Dallas Cowboys fans--nothing was good enough. There weren't a whole lot of proud, contented parents or interested students. Just a lot of white folks upset when their boys got a 15 yard pass completion instead of 25, or gave up a touchdown in the 4th quarter when they were already up by about 3 touchdowns. I even heard the Westlake band director dressing down his kids for some unnoticeable offense. Basically, if I weren't watching the game, I'd have sworn the score was the other way around (i.e. Westlake was losing and Austin was winning). The Austin High side seemed to have a lot of teachers, administrators, and other security types, while the Westlake side seemed more self-regulated. The Westlake side also seemed to have a lot more resources. The band had a lot nicer uniforms, the football team had more and nicer equipment, the Westlake drill team was about three times the size of their Austin counterparts (as was the band), and even the Westlake mascot costume was fancier. I'm sure there's some great socio-economic lesson to be drawn from this game, or to put it another way, perhaps the game was a microcosm of our city and maybe even the state. I leave it for you to ponder.

From the wholesome environment of Texas high school athletics, I went to the decadence that is Halloween on 6th Street in Austin, Texas. I don't have much to add from the last time I wrote about this. Just wanted to restate the three essential truths about Halloween that you need to know. First, Halloween is a chance for otherwise nice girls to skank it up. Roll with it. Second, far too many guys than I'm comfortable with find this a perfect time to pull out their drag wear. If they absolutely insist on doing that, I just wish they wouldn't look so much like Ethel Merman. Finally, for the love of God, can you parents please leave your little children at home when you come to Sixth Street for Halloween? Sixth Street is no place for little kids ever, not at noon on a Wednesday, and certainly not after dark. It certainly isn't somewhere you should take your kid in a stroller at 11 p.m., and really beyond question isn't where you should take them on a Friday Halloween night after 11 when thousands of people hitting bars are jammed into one street.

Next-These Are a Few of My Favorite Scenes

Sweet Videos: Lawyer's Edition

How to interview a client:



You can't spend enough time preparing for trial.



Be careful in representing yourself. Remember, a man who represents himself has a fool for a client.



If you do represent yourself and have weak facts, make sure you carefully develop a sentencing strategy.



Make sure to speak clearly so the judge and jury will understand you.



Not only should you speak clearly, you need to have an organized presentation.



Make sure to keep your focus. Don't let your mind wander.



Don't underestimate your opponent. Looks can be deceiving.

Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer @ Yahoo! Video

Be careful-you may not know your judge as well as you think.



The now-famous "Chewbacca Defense," which I believe is now universally taught in law school



Jackie Chiles knows how to conduct a closing argument.

One More Old Man Thing to Complain About

Today I saw that Central Market has started putting up its Christmas decorations.

People, we've talked about this before.

Is anyone paying attention?

Would one of you please speak with Obama? After he buys our gas and pays our rent, I want him to fix this.

Election Night 2008

Just came back from a little election night reception-crashing in Travis County. Thought it made an interesting contrast. First up was the Democrat celebration at the Driskill Hotel. The Driskill has long been the Democrats' preferred election night headquarters, going back to the Johnson/Connolly days. The place was absolutely packed. I was there primarily to be one of the first to congratulate Woodie Jones, who I fervently hope will be the next Chief Justice of the Austin Court of Appeals, for which I clerked after law school. The crowd was pretty blue collar and middle class looking. Lots of people in jeans, sweat jackets, t-shirts. A good number of younger people as well; people that look like they knocked off work for some computer company a couple of hours ago in time to head downtown. Oh, and the food totally sucked. Teeny, tiny little chicken and cream thingies in crust.

After offering early congratulations to Judge Jones, I then headed over to the Four Seasons for the Republican celebration. It was a lot smaller, as you might expect given the concentration of Democrats in Travis County. It was, however, the place for the John Cornyn Senate race celebration. Here, the crowd was more upscale, better dressed, more professional looking. This crowd clearly didn't have the same energy as the Demos, but it wasn't a morgue either, which I was halfway expecting. It wasn't entirely white either; it was a much more diverse crowd than I expected. Also, it was somewhat on the young side as well. Frankly, I had expected people in their 50s and up, rattling their jewelry (to paraphrase John Lennon). It really wasn't like that though. In fact, it reminded me of Republican meetings I used to attend when I was in law school in the late 1980s, and working in the Texas House. Much better food too-quesadillas and salsa.

The late 1980s is back when I wasn't pretty thoroughly disgusted with politics. We Republicans were still very much in the minority in Texas, and there were even Democrats who viewed Republicans as some sort of different species of humanoid. I guess there still are. Betty King, who was then Secretary of the Senate, used to tell the story about when the first Republican was elected to the Texas Senate back in the late 1960s (from Dallas), and all the Senate staff came out of their offices on the first day of the session to go look at him to see what he would look like-they were actually afraid of him.

With demographic shifts and young people voting in greater numbers, I think we're headed back in the direction of those days. It will never be quite that bad, but Republicans will definitely be in the minority. I'll write about this more at some point, but at times like this, just as in business, you have to go back to your core strengths and give people a real choice. Republicans have to stand for something different than the other party, and have to offer a positive alternative to the other party's policies. For some time now, they have not done so. To paraphrase Sam Donaldson, if you give people a choice between a Democrat and a Democrat, they'll vote for the Democrat every time. That process of reflection and rebuilding can actually be a pretty exciting thing. Out of the 1964 Democratic landslide was born the seeds of the 1980 and 1984 Republican landslides. So it can happen.

The Daily Affirmations Presidential Endorsement (2008)

The last man nearly ruined this place he didn't know what to do with it.

If you think this country's bad off now, just wait till I get through with it!

The country's taxes must be fixed, and I know what to do with it.

If you think you're paying too much now, just wait till I get through with it! '

"Just Wait 'Til I Get Through With It," from Duck Soup

We Freedonians will elect our next Fearless Leader tomorrow, so in keeping with the usual regime of service to the young and the restless on this blog, the Daily Affirmations with Chris Reeder endorsement goes to:

McCain/Palin.

Peace, out.

Seriously, I know most everyone’s already voted, and this is like throwing a pebble at the storm surge, but on balance McCain is the better choice. I will basically ignore the VP candidates. However much of a novice whack job you might think Palin is, Tail Gunner Joe Biden is just flat crazy, and a plagiarist, so at worst it’s a wash.

Upon reviewing the text that follows, its possible I may have gotten a little...carried away. I promise not to revisit politics for at least a year (beginning after January 20, 2009) as punishment for the following.

Obviously your choice for President turns on how you see government and its proper role. Unless you’re one of those idiots who vote for the guy they like better, and there are more of those than there should be. Most of you probably could guess that I subscribe to Ronald Reagan’s view that government isn’t the answer to the problem, government is the problem. Like Adam Smith or John Locke, I believe in the power of markets to distribute wealth in the most efficient and equitable manner. So anything that impairs the natural and perfect functioning of markets should be avoided. That includes not only government redistribution of wealth, but also other acts that attack the fundamental principles of markets-dissemination of information, easy entry and exit, no market power or dominance, and rewards through profit (and penalties through losses). The government exists, as I see it, to defend the nation’s interests against external threat, provide security to its citizens, provide peaceful means to resolve civil disputes, protect the basics that must exist for markets to flourish, build and maintain necessary infrastructure, ensure universal education, protect civil rights (the ones that are actually described in the Constitution, not the ones that five out of nine rich old lawyers sitting in some court in Washington might happen to want and rationalize the Constitution somehow provides), and ensure some minimal “safety net” to prevent those lacking legitimate opportunity or means to care for themselves from suffering physical or mental deprivation. In short, the government should provide for civil order, protect against threats, and ensure a level playing field. It should not level the players on the field.

With this kind of view, I’m normally going to vote against Democrats. The D’s are widely renowned for holding the opposite of my views. No, the D’s are renowned for taking your money and giving it to people who have become the new patron clients of the government state. More and more people pay no taxes whatsoever, and thereby have absolutely no financial stake in governmental programs. Like the crack dealer, D’s want these people to think they cannot succeed without government taking money away from those who risk their personal resources to build business and create useful things for society, and giving it away to those who have little or no interest in doing so. The 20th and 21st Century American Redistributive State has poisoned the wellspring of drive and initiative that created the American economy. It is choking our ability to compete, and to provide for our overall welfare, as government takes an ever-increasing share of our personal resources to keep more and more people dependent on government largess. It will eventually render us an ephemeral shadow of the monolith that became the greatest country in human history. We will become Great Britain-wistfully remembering the days when we could provide for ourselves.

Uh, ok. Back to reality.

Let me first say, its no good that no matter how this turns out, we’re going to elect a legislator as President. Legislators generally make terrible Presidents. They are masters of compromise, of shades of gray, of working out deals. With extremely rare exceptions, they lack the administrative experience needed to run what is without question the largest enterprise in the world, the federal government, while leading the most powerful military force in human history, leading the “free world,” and playing the role of “Head of State.” The greatest Presidents have not been legislators-Washington, Jefferson, Madison, both Roosevelts, Wilson, and Reagan. Lincoln had been a Senator, but only for two years, and by that point was more the head of the new Republican party than a career legislator, and his service in the Illinois State Legislature was at a time when state legislatures met for limited periods. By contrast, some of the worst presidents have been legislators-both Johnsons, Harding, Harrison, and Pierce. These are not times that can brook equivocation and compromise that are the hallmarks of the legislative mind.

My endorsement goes to McCain for four principal reasons.

1. National security. John F. Kennedy once said “It really is true that foreign affairs is the only important issue for a president to handle.” 50 years on, no one remembers much about the New Frontier, but people remember the Cuban Missiles Crisis, the Berlin Crisis, and the beginning of the Vietnam War. Congress makes the law, but the President makes foreign policy. Here, unquestionably, McCain has the edge. McCain has been resolute in the fight against terrorism. While Democrats, including Obama, have bleated about protecting terrorists’ illusory civil rights and kowtowing to criminal-leaning regimes in Syria, Iran, Iraq, and to terrorists hiding under the rubric of the so-called “Palestinian Authority,” McCain has urged that we take the fight to these enemies of America. Democrats led by Bill Clinton were content to stand by and tolerate repeated terrorist attacks against our country, which they viewed as isolated criminal offenses that should be prosecuted in federal court in cases where the “suspects” were given the full panoply of of a Constitutional system they seek to destroy (USS Cole bombing, first WTC bombing, Iraqi assassination plot against former President Bush, NYC landmarks plot, Tanzanian and Kenyan embassy bombings). Clinton’s response-shoot a handful of cruise missiles at Baghdad and abandoned al-Queda training camps in Afghanistan. He declined to target al-Queda training camps in Afghanistan on a wider basis, failed to authorize FBI and CIA cooperation to identify terror suspects in the country, oversaw a ridiculously weak and abandoned intervention in Somalia, and stood by idly in the face of Balkan genocide as Western Europe proved utterly incapable of dealing with the situation. Put simply, terrorism is real, terrorists hate the West, no amount of “peace and understanding” will talk them into laying down their arms, and the only way to deal with this threat is to smash it. Say what you will about the Iraq war, but anyone who believes Saddam would have been content to sit in Baghdad pursuing peace the rest of his days is dreaming. Just like Iran and North Korea have used the time spent “negotiating” to develop nuclear weapons, so would Saddam. American intervention in Iraq, and response in Afghanistan, coupled with a robust development of domestic security capability, has chastened Libya, strengthened Israel’s hand in dealing with Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad, muted Syrian support for al-Queda, and reinforced Pakistani resolve against Muslim extremism. The so-called “surge” in Iraq, which Obama and most Democrat leaders opposed vigorously, unquestionably has worked, and has created a more stable environment that has emboldened Iraqis to reject al-Queda and foreign provocateurs. Most importantly, al-Queda has not attacked this country in seven years. If you can blame Republicans for bad results, you have to give them credit for good results. McCain would continue the fight; the Obama/Pelosi/Reid junta would stop the fight and seek to cut deals with this country's sworn enemies.

2. Foreign affairs. The mantra of the left is that George W. Bush has ruined the nation’s standing in the “eyes of the world.” Let’s not forget that the “world” these folks usually have in mind, Germany, France, Italy, Spain and Russia (and the UN in general) were up to their eyeballs in selling illegal technology and arms to and receiving illegal oil imports from Iraq in blatant violation of UN sanctions. I will write separately about the Iraq war at some point, but why should we worry about what corrupt and weak European regimes who trade with the enemy think of us. Lets never forget, had these nations stood up against Saddam in the days before the war, Saddam has said he would have allowed international inspections at all suspected weapons development sites. It was these other countries’ failures, not ours, that led to that war. Lets also not forget that Great Britain also went to war. Has Great Britain tarnished its standing in the world? No. The “tarnished image" is largely a figment of the Left’s desires. Has no one noticed that Germany turned out its left-leaning government in favor of Angela Merkel’s pro-American Social Democrats? Or that France turned out the slithery Chirac government in favor of pro-American Nicolas Sarkhozy? A solid bloc of newly democratic states in Eastern Europe, to which the economic dynamism of Western Europe has shifted, are solidly behind American policies and clamoring to gain admission to NATO. The UK will likely elect a Conservative Government within the next two years. The so-called “tarnished” Republican foreign policy has kept together an international coalition that continues to fight in Afghanistan, and promoted international development aid and trade with Iraq. With Russia having blatantly invaded a sovereign state (and with apparent impunity), with oil-rich Venezuela threatening American interests in South America, with China and India on the rise economically (and China militarily), the United States needs a President with experience in foreign affairs, who will have good relations with the new center-right European governments and with experience throughout the world. That’s McCain. McCain has seen the world. He has the political and military experience in dealing with international leaders that Obama lacks. Further, McCain will not bow to thug regimes or tacitly approve Iranian or North Korean proliferation. Finally, I am convinced Obama will sell out Israel. Despite significant Jewish voting strength, I have always believed the Democrats would not support Israel if it were truly confronted with a nuclear threat, or other similar grave crisis. Simply put, the Democrats are the new isolationists-eager to curry favor with governments throughout the world, with no desire to engage against those who threaten American interests.

3. Domestic policies. This is already way too long, but while Republicans have been far too enthusiastic about taxing and spending, Democrats will be worse in light of the pent-up liberal demand for spending. Another “stimulus” package of tax hikes will surely follow an Obama victory. Democrats also lack any real vision on energy independence, and will actively work to worsen the crisis by trying to “bankrupt” the coal industry in a fleeting effort to stop global warming (assuming its true, no hope whatsoever exists of stopping it unless China and India agree to similar emissions cuts as the US has enacted). Alternative forms of energy will in no way replace coal or nuclear energy, if for no other reason than that the transmission lines necessary to transmit such energy on such a large scale simply do not exist. I believe McCain will also be a greater friend to policing and domestic security than an Obama-led Democrat Party. The Dems, eager to allow convicted felons to vote throughout the country, are the party that disarms the police and citizenry, turns a blind eye to law enforcement, and is quicker to condemn police and prosecutors than criminals. It is by no means a coincidence that crime has flourished most in cities run by Democrat mayors and city councils. When Republican Rudy Giuliani was elected in historically crime-ridden New York, vigorous law enforcement turned things around. Additionally, though Republicans are by no means innocent on this score, Democrat giveaways to prop up inefficient businesses (like Michigan auto companies, or ethanol manufacturers and Iowa corn farmers, or unionized education and airlines), and strangle our dwindling manufacturing sector and cripple the emerging services sector with unionization will ultimately contribute to economic decline. Finally, the Democrats will assault free speech rights. Across the board, they will enact laws to muzzle talk radio, ownership of radio and TV stations, donations to candidates of our choice (of course, McCain is guilty on this point as well), and harass the nascent conservative media. Democrats talk the language of free speech, but typically act to deprive conservatives of the right.

4. The men. One cannot discount the importance of the personal qualities each man brings to the job. While “he’s the guy I want to have a beer with” is a ridiculous criterion for being elected President, the candidate’s character is highly important. Here I believe Obama is most deficient. McCain’s character is beyond any serious question. He graduated from the Naval Academy, endured five years of Communist torture with honor, declined a chance for early repatriation when offered, and while he clearly has a temper, he has proven capable of achievement and demonstrated leadership in the Senate. What has Obama ever done, really? He was a law professor who never published anything of substance. He was briefly a community organizer, who never seemed to organize anything, and a legislator who never enacted any legislation. He has positioned himself as the candidate of “change,” but what exactly is the change? As Clinton continued to rack up late spring primary victories, a shrill Obama wound up lashing out at voters who opposed him, and fighting to prevent Clinton from continuing her campaign altogether. His wife, who admittedly is not the candidate, seems downright proud to say she was never proud of her country until last year. He joined a prominent black Chicago church with the indisputable motive of furthering his political career, then after first attempting to use charges against its minister as a platform to address "racial healing," Obama dropped him like a hot plate when it became politically expedient. Finally, anyone that the New York Times and the Old Media are so in love with, right there has been disqualified as far as I’m concerned.

So there it is, why Daily Affirmations will vote (actually already has voted) for the McCain/Palin ticket. I know the Keep Austin Weird villagers with torches may hit my door once this goes out, so if you never hear from me again, you know what happened.

Next-a return to frivolity.

Congress is Broken! Call the Doctor!

I guess this is just another lost cause, Mr. Paine. All you people don't know about lost causes. Mr. Paine does. He said once they were the only causes worth fighting for, and he fought for them once, for the only reason that any man ever fights for them. Because of just one plain, simple rule, "Love thy neighbor," and in this world today, full of hatred, a man who knows that one rule has a great trust. You knew that rule, Mr. Paine, and I loved you for it, just as my father did. And you know that you fight for the lost causes harder than for any others. Yes, you'd even die for them,like a man we both know, Mr. Paine. You think I'm licked. You all think I'm licked. Well, I'm not licked and I'm going to stay right here and fight for this lost cause even if this room gets filled with lies like these, and the Taylors and all their armies come marching into this place. Somebody'll listen to me--some--

Jefferson Smith, “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington”

This is part two of my politics series, this one actually being about…politics.

This deals with Congress. Staggering to think that as unpopular as any President might be, Congress is nearly always less popular. Yet, when polled, most people express satisfaction with their own Congressman or woman. Why the disconnect?

And why can't Congress deal with any of the real issues affecting the country? Most people seem to have this idea that we elect people to Congress, who will go to Washington, analyze the issues, deal with other members reasonably, put aside personal interests and support reasonable legislation. But all the bleating calls for bipartisanship during campaigns seems to melt like ice on the driveway in Miami once the members get re-elected and head back to Washington. Because sometimes the “reasonable compromise” is impossible to sell back home. Across a broad range of serious problems affecting our country, such as the need for long-term energy independence, health care coverage, Social Security insolvency, and rampant fraud in a number of industries, Congress’ response generally is meek, late, and costly. The water is coming over the levees, while Congress argues about who should have built them higher (or whether Terri Schiavo should be kept on life support). I believe most of the talking heads, to say nothing of our national leaders on both sides of the aisle, have failed to confront the numerous systemic issues that have crippled the Congress and left it unable to deal with anything but the most dire emergencies.

Why is this important? Article I of the Constitution, the very first thing after the glorious “we the people” preamble, describes the Congress and gives it a long list of duties. The list includes “[t]o make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.” Congress is supposed to be first among equals, and Congress is supposed to make the laws. Not the President. The so-called Imperial Presidency, which began with World War II but, after some setbacks, has revived in the Clinton-Bush era, is an aberration and is inconsistent with the Constitutional framers’ intent. But with Congress unable and unwilling to truly address the nation’s ills, successive Presidents have waded into this vacuum and dominated the legislative process. The President is supposed to execute the laws Congress makes and conduct foreign policy. The Constitution does not intend that the President have the dominant voice in law-making.

Political gerrymandering—This is the main reason, I think, why Congress is systemically incapable of working. The Supreme Court has essentially refused to stop the states from carving up Congressional districts to protect incumbents and create districts that are “guaranteed” for the party that dominates that state. This has given license to the states to make districts that are packed with voters likely to support one party or the other. With refined techniques to determine voter preferences on a very granular level, state legislatures can create districts dominated by voters of one party. To get elected then, the key is winning the primary, not the general election. Many studies have shown that few competitive Congressional races occur during the general election. Primary voters are much different than general election voters. Primary voters prefer that party’s policies, and therefore more uniformly are inclined to more extreme policies (in both parties) than the general electorate. To get elected, a candidate must therefore persuade voters that are more conservative or more liberal than most voters. So these types of districts produce candidates that are more conservative or more liberal than the general electorate. Because one party primary or the other typically is the “real” election, political gerrymandering produces Congressmen and women that are more conservative or liberal than if the districts were drawn in a way that had a more mixed population. So the people that the voters are sending to Congress are therefore more extreme in their views on one side or the other. Also, as I’ll discuss below, because they are beholden to a more hard-line electorate than the average voter, they must pursue and support more extreme policies. Moderates and pragmatists inclined to look at the big picture and work out deals to get 70-80% of what they really want don’t get elected to the Congress anymore. Its the partisan gunslingers who are getting elected.

We know what’s in the sausage—the simple fact is that the legislative process isn’t some quest for truth, and it doesn’t for the most part involve a lot of intellectual rigor. No, the legislative process is messy. A member might vote for something he or she ordinarily would oppose, in a deal to get votes for some other bill the member wants to pass. Or the overall bill will be pretty good, in fact, it may be very good (such as the defense budget), but may contain some stinker of a provision that isn’t enough to warrant voting against the bill but is still pretty bad. Or, you may vote for a bad bill just as a personal favor to some other member you’re hoping to cultivate as an ally on something else you want to promote (such as getting appointed to an important committee). Or you may vote one way on a bill that does something you approve, but you disapprove the way it does it. This sort of thing happens all the time, and indeed, it has to happen to get anything done in a 435-member institution. You couldn’t even get a unanimous vote to go to war after Pearl Harbor, for example. But the average voter, and certainly the partisan voter, just can’t understand this. For example, all the hard-line Republican voter can see is that you voted to fund some entity that sponsors teenage contraception programs, when in reality what you did was vote to for that year’s foreign aid budget. The best example of this sort of thing is the infamous John Kerry “I voted for it before I voted against it” episode. He voted for a bill that provided supplemental Iraq war funding by rescinding some prior tax cuts, but when that failed, he voted against the war funding from the general budget. The problem here is that with the expanded access to Congress and focus on its actions through C-SPAN, blogs, lobbyists, and other media, and better and faster means of communications, people now know about some of these votes and the things being approved. Members are petrified of voting for something that on balance is good, but may contain some poison pill that will be hard to explain back in the district. In the old days, someone would have to read the Congressional Record to know all the details in some of these bills, particularly the budget. Now, all you have to do is open the paper or turn on your computer to find out about some atrocity your Congressman has voted for, which in reality might make good legislative sense, but which the average person just cannot follow. A room full of rabid anti-abortion voters isn't going to buy your explanation that although you don't approve of abortion either, you voted for funding that might wind up going to pro-choice programs because the overall bill was a really important bill.

Greater focus on the process—this is hat in hand with the above. Until the advent of CNN and the 24-hour news cycle, Congress was scrutinized by the New York Times, Washington Post, the three major networks (who each were on air for 30 minutes a day, tops), and the news weeklies. That’s it. Those reporters hung out with the members, traded on their insider status, and by and large understood the process well enough to filter out extraneous or non-relevant details. Today, with the explosion of media, with bloggers, message boards, talk radio, and special interest lobbying groups, they all need content to sell. That means they have to air all the stories they can possibly find. Put it all on the air or on the net, and let God sort it out. So reporters are looking under every rock for some kind of “gotcha” story they can use to promote ratings and sell advertising. This means that more information goes out to people, and with the equal explosion of talking heads trying to sort it out, it becomes easier to demagogue an issue instead of focusing on bigger picture issues.

The rise of the Professional Politician—First Watergate, then Monica Lewinsky. A tidal wave of reporting on the members’ personal lives. The media hones in on scandal like sharks in the water. When they smell blood, they go for the kill. Remember that idiot in California whose intern got killed? He had an affair with her, but otherwise was just minding his own business. Then, she becomes a victim in what was later found to be a random attack while jogging, and all the sudden he’s portrayed as some sort of murderer, hounded out of Washington, and left on the scrap heap. Bob Livingston, Robert Packwood, the Keating Five, Larry Craig, Robert Torricelli, Jim Wright…members guilty of minor improprieties, or in some cases nothing at all, fall into the media spotlight for no good reason and find their careers and reputations in shreds. Any time someone new on the scene appears, their whole life becomes an open book with reporters looking for something to trash. It took them about 30 minutes to go after Sarah Palin and the state trooper firing episode, for example. So anyone with any kind of past life, or mistakes, or anything that could be used against them doesn’t get into politics. That means the people running for office, particularly Congress, aren’t people who’ve achieved something in other walks of life. Instead, they are people with good hair, spotless records, and a short list of actual achievements. St. Barack is an example. He’s for change, he’s for hope, blah, blah, blah. What has he actually done? Even there, he gets trashed for things his minister said. Not something Obama himself said or did—something his minister said. This echoes what Sam Rayburn famously said to Lyndon Johnson about all the intellectuals in the Kennedy Cabinet, “Lyndon, I just wish one of these guys had ever run for sheriff." So people without a lot of real-life experience in business, the military, or other institutions, wind up regulating these things. They have little idea how to deal with the real issues confronting them, so they defer to whichever lobbyists or special interests contribute to their campaigns, or check the polls to see what’s the most popular position to take. Which accounts for the great job they’ve done.

The demise of the parties and the House leadership—what used to keep the legislative wheels moving? The fear of what would happen to you, Junior Member, if you got in the way of what the leadership wanted. The leaders used to exercise an iron fist, controlling the House budget, committee appointments, perks, and appropriations decisions that affected how much federal money went to districts. A member didn’t dare buck the leadership, or he would wind up on some meaningless committee, would never get anything passed, would have a terrible office, and never get money for his district. But after Watergate and Abscam, Congress enacted a number of “reforms” that democratized the place. Perks and committee memberships are assigned by seniority. The leaders have far less power to control the process than before, and consequently, individual members do not have as much to fear in bucking their leadership. Witness the recent bank bailout legislation. The Republican leadership signed onto the Bush bill, but when it came to the floor for a vote, Republicans bailed by the dozens. In older times, any member who dared vote against the leadership, particularly on an important bill that was the result of a deal with the other party, would have been finished on the Hill. Now they can be heroes back in their district. Also, the parties don’t mean as much. Or put another way, the party leadership has given way to the activists. Party reforms, particularly on the Democratic side, after the 1968 Democratic Convention, have severely restricted the power of the party leadership to shape the selection of candidates. Back in the "smoke-filled room" days, the parties basically selected their own candidates, or closely controlled who would run in the primaries. Now, they are largely on the sideline as voters determine who gets nominated. On the Republican side, the “God Squad” took over. The litmus test for them is your position on the incredibly marginal issue of abortion. Something that occupies almost no actual legislative time whatsoever. On the Democrat side, it’s the Move On.org crazies. Over there, its hatred of the Iraq war and the fight against terrorism. Traditionally, a member was very reliant on party support to get elected. The jobs didn’t turn over that much, and having the party behind you was imperative. All those little old ladies that held fundraisers and handed out cards. Now, with the internet and ready access to mass media outlets, its more important to appeal to other types of grass roots organizations like these, who are committed and energetic in support of their candidates. They have eased out the parties’ nominal leaders and have become the true parties. This means that the erstwhile Democrat and Republican “elders” have almost no effect on the process. Would Hillary Clinton have pursued her kamikaze campaign into June back in the 1960s? No. Richard Daley or Walter Reuther would have crushed her. That is no longer a factor. And these organizations aren’t about getting legislation enacted for the greater public good. They’re about their own particular agendas and nothing else.

All these factors feed the basic problem that the people we send to Washington are closer to the political extremes than the days when Congress was able to enact major legislation. Who thinks Congress in its present form is capable of enacting far-reaching reforms in some of our major industries? The last major legislation I can remember Congress passing along those lines was the 2005 Federal Telecommunications Act. That one had all the stars line up, and didn’t involve any of the hot button issues that occupied all the K Street lobbyists. On issue after issue, Congress needs to step in and enact major legislation. But with all these factors stacked on top of one another, I can’t see it happening. The one thing Congress can do, and increasingly, the thing it has to do for its members to have accomplishments to run for re-election on, is spend money. Federal spending is beyond bloated; its scandalous. The faucets are wide open on spending, as members line up for projects for their districts to which they can proudly point when they go back home. While you may like some project in your district that benefits only your district, the cost of that is similar projects in 434 other districts. At this rate, there won't be any money left to tax because it will all go directly to Washington.

Now, the irony is, the Senate can get things done. The Senate isn't supposed to be able to get things done, however. Madison once wrote that the Senate, with its six year member terms, and its great tradition of debate and deliberation, was supposed to be the "anchor of government." Washington told the Constitutional Convention the Senate was to be a "saucer" to cool House legislation. Yet, because Senators are elected on a state-wide basis, and because it takes 60 votes to get anything passed, Senators are not as beholden to highly partisan voters and they have to work with members from the other side of the aisle. So you'll see something like Ted Kennedy sponsoring Bush education legislation, or the deal on judicial appointments with five members from each party adopting filibuster standards, or the Senate approving the bailout bill while the House balks. Its supposed to be the other way around, but the factors that have brought the House to gridlock don't apply with the same force in the Senate.

And as a postscript, I don’t see how Obama is going to wave his magic wand and unloose the locks on the dams holding back all the great legislation that will save mankind. Take health care. Clinton had working legislative majorities in both houses and couldn’t get health care reform passed. Carter had working majorities as well, and does anyone remember anything he passed? Democrats are renowned for internecine fighting. Obama is an empty vessel. All his support for “change” will start to break once people find out what the “change” consists of.

Be sure to vote early and often.

Next-my Presidential endorsements.