Kuff's World

Some 45% of all Republicans report being very happy, compared with just 30% of Democrats and 29% of independents. This finding has also been around a long time; Republicans have been happier than Democrats every year since the General Social Survey began taking its measurements in 1972. Pew surveys since 1991 also show a partisan gap on happiness; the current 16 percentage point gap is among the largest in Pew surveys, rivaled only by a 17 point gap in February 2003.

Could it be that Republicans are so much happier now because their party controls all the levers of federal power? Not likely. Since 1972, the GOP happiness edge over Democrats has ebbed and flowed in a pattern that appears unrelated to which party is in political power.

For example, Republicans had up to a 10 and 11 percentage point happiness edge over Democrats in various years of both the Carter and Clinton presidencies, and as small as a three and five percentage point edge in various years of the Reagan and first Bush presidencies. Also, we should explain here a bit about how our survey questionnaire was constructed. The question about happiness was posed at the very beginning of the interview, while the question about political affiliation was posed at the back end, along with questions about demographic traits. So respondents were not cued to consider their happiness through the frame of partisan politics. This question is about happiness; it is not a question about happiness with partisan outcomes.

Of course, there's a more obvious explanation for the Republicans' happiness edge. Republicans tend to have more money than Democrats, and -- as we've already discovered -- people who have more money tend to be happier.

But even this explanation only goes so far. If one controls for household income, Republicans still hold a significant edge: that is, poor Republicans are happier than poor Democrats; middle-income Republicans are happier than middle-income Democrats, and rich Republicans are happier than rich Democrats.

Might ideology be the key? It's true that conservatives, who are more likely to be Republican, are happier than liberals, who are more likely to be Democrats. But even controlling for this ideological factor, a significant partisan gap remains. Conservative Republicans are happier than conservative Democrats, and moderate/liberal Republicans are happier than liberal Democrats.

Much of legislators' work turned back the clock on laws passed in 2003 when Republicans first took over the Legislature. Lawmakers reversed cuts to the Children's Health Insurance Program for working families and put a two-year moratorium on most private toll roads.

Sen. Robert Duncan, R-Lubbock, said Monday that a dozen senators are lined up to vote against considering House Bill 2017, the early primary measure that sailed through the House last month. By tradition, it takes a two-thirds vote of the 31-member body to take up measures.

"There seem to be a lot more problems with doing it than not doing it," Duncan said.

In reaction, the Texas Democratic Party and the Republican Party of Texas warned against keeping Texas primaries on the first Tuesday of March in even-numbered years. Voters in other states, the parties said, will end up choosing more than 60 percent of the parties' presidential delegates before Texas voters act.

[...]

Sen. Craig Estes, R-Wichita Falls, turned against the proposal Monday after what he called several weeks of reflection.

"It's not broken, so we don't need to fix it," he said. "Who knows? Texas could be the decisive factor by going to a later primary."

Duncan, skeptical of the primary measure all along, said factors slowing its progress include concerns from local election officials about shifting the political calendar.

Also, he said, senators doubt Texas would gain much by joining California, New York, Florida and other states flocking to earlier primaries.

The last four Presidents have filled seats at the Court essentially in pairs: Reagan second term (Scalia 1986; Kennedy 1988); George H. Bush (Souter 1990; Thomas 1991); Clinton first term (Ginsburg 1993; Breyer 1994); and George W. Bush (Roberts 2006; Alito 2007). (Reagan of course also elevated Rehnquist in his second term and nominated O'Connor in his first.)

But those nominees generally have not differed dramatically in their views from the Justice they replaced. Appointments have moved the Court some to the right (Alito for O'Connor; Breyer for Blackmun; Souter for Brennan; Kennedy for Powell; Scalia for Burger); some to the left (Ginsburg for White); or not much at all (Roberts for Rehnquist (chief)). (Note that of course the Breyer and Souter appointments weren't "conservative"; my point is just the relative direction of the Court.) The only truly dramatic change was Justice Thomas, who replaced Justice Marshall.

The next President similarly will have two appointments immediately (replacing Stevens and Souter), and there also is a very substantial prospect that a Democrat would quickly be in a position to appoint a third (replacing Ginsburg). In fact, if a Democrat wins, there will be something of a race for the exits.

Justice Stevens is 87. He seems in great health, but it is not reasonable to expect him to extend his tenure to age 93 (i.e., past the 2012 elections). Justice Souter is only 67. But he seems the most enthusiastic about leaving; he never embraced the job (or Washington, DC) as a lifetime commitment. Justice Ginsburg is 74. Many people say that she is in poor health, but I just don't see that; it is easy to mistake her somewhat timid physical demeanor for broader health problems and she is certainly intellectually in top form. Nonetheless, one does get the strong sense that, having served 16 years by the time the next President takes office and facing the prospect of serving in the current environment until she reaches 80, Justice Ginsburg would very seriously consider allowing a Democratic President to nominate a replacement to be confirmed by a Democratic Senate.

Even a Justice on the left who is planning on leaving and would prefer to have his or her successor appointed by a Democrat will likely retire relatively early in a Republican presidency. The Senate will probably remain in Democratic hands in 2009, limiting the prospect of a very conservative replacement. So, I would be very surprised if Justices Stevens or Souter would stay. But the dilemma of leaving under a Republican President would be substantial for Justice Ginsburg, and I expect she would stay so long as her health permitted.

By contrast, I don't see any prospect of any conservative Justice retiring under a Democratic president. The Chief Justice and Justice Alito are of course new to the job and young. Justice Kennedy (at 70) is thriving. Rumors abound about Justice Scalia retiring - most often, it is said, for money - all of which are absurd so far as I can tell; he is at the top of his game at age 71.

1. RUDY GIULIANI

Pro: Unifying force after 9/11; articulate speaker.

Con: The whole "pro-choice, pro-gun-control, New Yorker, used to live with gay dudes, adultery" thing might hurt him with conservatives. A bit.

2. JOHN MCCAIN

Pro: Comforting resemblance to character actor Gavin MacLeod.

Con: Murray from The Mary Tyler Moore Show lacked leadership qualities and Captain Stubing from Love Boat got a little goofy whenever Charo was a guest star, leaving executive branch vulnerable to Charo impersonators who are actually Al Qaeda operatives.

[...]

10. DUNCAN HUNTER

Pro: Appears to be some sort of politician who wants to be president, I guess. That's all anyone in the entire nation knows about him, including himself and his family.

Con: Born with two last names, though this liability could be mitigated by teaming with Texas Representative Ron Paul, who is also running.

[...]

14. OHIO STATE CENTER GREG ODEN

Pro: Size; soft hands; positive attitude; high basketball IQ; given America's recent losses abroad, nation is automatically eligible for first pick in upcoming draft, so he will be available.

Con: Once his rookie contract is up, Oden would be free to sign with any other nation on the planet for bigger money.

15. KENNY LOGGINS

Pro: Is all right; therefore, no one needs to worry about him.

Con: Gonna take you right into the danger zone.

My Fellow Houstonians,

As a registered Independent and a candidate for City Council during the current Special Election cycle, I have been granted a truly unique vantage point from which to assess fellow competitors and their messages of change for the City of Houston. It's from that perspective that I feel compelled to endorse candidate Melissa Noreiga for the vacant At-Large position 3 seat in the upcoming runoff.

Melissa Noriega has earned my admiration and respect with her compassion, sincerity, and firm grasp of the complex issues that affect our citizens on a daily basis. Specifically I share Melissa's vision of Houston that addresses the following concerns:

Sincerely,

Andy Neill

Former Houston City Council candidate Noel Freeman has officially endorsed Melissa Noriega for the June 16 runoff for the Council seat vacated by Shelley Sekula-Gibbs last November. Noriega received the most votes in Saturday's special election.

Freeman, a moderate Republican, endorsed Noriega due to her ability to provide stronger influence in Austin on behalf of Houstonians and a personal relationship that has grown during the campaign.

"While Melissa and I may disagree ideologically on several issues, we agree on a number of issues that are very important to me, and her relationships with state legislators of both parties will serve Houstonians well," Freeman said. "We have also had the chance to get to know each other better over the course of the campaign, and I believe she is the candidate who really has Houston's best interests at heart."

By endorsing Noriega, Freeman seeks to reinforce the need for a stronger non-partisan environment on Houston's City Council. "I wish we could truly embrace the non-partisan nature of Council that was intended when our City Charter was written." he said. "After all, political affiliation doesn't determine whether or not your trash gets picked up or if your house is going to flood when it rains."

Has your perspective on these issues changed in the last few years?

Yes, when I realized that rich people will always be rich and the poor people are like crabs in a barrel. They are going to fight with each other, but they are really in the same boat. They want you to argue about gay marriage. They want you to argue about the war in Iraq. There is not a single person in this country in good conscience who can say the war in Iraq is going well. But then when you see someone criticize it ... some other guy from the other party says he is badmouthing the troops. And I am like, "No he's not." We are able to disagree, and saying that the war in Iraq is not going well is not treason. Some of these guys want to try people for treason. The war in Iraq is not going well.

When did you stop considering yourself a Republican?

I never was a Republican. I said this when I was playing. I was doing some interview talking about politics, and my grandmother was there, and the reporter said, "Are we Republicans or are we Democrats?" My grandmother said that Republicans were only for rich people, and I said, "Well, I'm rich."

[...]

In terms of this rap thing, you were famous for saying that you didn't want to be a role model. Do you think that rappers who might be role models to kids have a responsibility to--have you changed your opinion on this subject at all?

We are really struggling in the black community because all our kids want to play sports or be rappers. And they don't even think about being doctors or lawyers or engineers or teachers or firemen or policemen. That is what I tried to do. And everyone is figuring this [stuff] out now. I figured it out when I made that commercial back then. Our kids are getting washed. They are confused. When I go to speak at these schools, 99 percent of these kids want to play sports. They aren't gonna play sports. And that's when I went to Nike about making that commercial. Now as far as the rap thing, I am not sure how I feel about that. ... I used to say it is just music. Don't these people have any common sense? But now I am starting to think, maybe they don't have common sense.

Watts, a Corpus Christi native and plaintiffs' lawyer who made his name in legal circles suing Firestone, Chrysler and other big companies, could decide by June whether to declare his 2008 candidacy for the seat that Cornyn, a former Texas attorney general, won in 2002.

Watts, 39, ranks among a handful of Democrats who might leap in. They include former state Comptroller John Sharp, U.S. Rep. Nick Lampson of Houston and state Rep. Rick Noriega of Houston, who has said he is flattered by such speculation.

Watts, whose law firm has won verdicts and negotiated settlements exceeding $1 billion since its founding in 1997, said that if he runs, he won't bankroll the campaign, but he'll have resources to "finish the deal."

He's proved a big donor, giving more than $2 million personally or through his law firm to state candidates or groups since 2002, according to an online search of filings at the Texas Ethics Commission. He has given more than $114,000 to candidates for federal office since 2004, according to Political Money Line.

Last month, Watts hosted a fundraiser at his home that yielded $1.1 million for the Democratic Senate Campaign Committee.

In addressing the funding issue, it is important to point out that Mikal Watts is a man of means. Anyone familiar with Democratic politics in Corpus Christi, or in and around South Texas, knows that he regularly contributes to campaigns, often a great deal. In 2006, he was instrumental in enabling freshman State Representative Juan Garcia's field operation.

A three-member House Administration Committee task force agreed by voice vote Wednesday to embark on a formal investigation.

The task force will examine what Jennings contends is a glitch in touchscreen voting machines that resulted in the disappearance of 18,000 votes in the congressional race.

The only Republican on the task force, Kevin McCarthy of California, argued that Florida officials already looked into the 18,000 ballots in which votes were recorded for other races but not for Congress. The state's audit found no evidence to suggest an inaccurate count.

Some in the GOP argue that ballot design could have confused voters who then skipped voting in the congressional race; Buchanan has said he believes voters may have chosen not to vote in that selection.

The House task force, also by voice vote, agreed to use
Government Accountability Office experts to design a method to test the reliability of the voting machines.

[...]

Republicans on the full committee, including Vernon J. Ehlers of Michigan, the ranking minority member, have argued that Congress should defer to the Florida court system. Democrats said such deference is not necessary.

"It's not a precedential requirement that we wait forever for the courts to act," said Democrat Zoe Lofgren of California, one of the members of the task force, which is headed by Democrat Charlie Gonzalez of Texas.

CNN announced that it plans to release all debate footage it broadcasts in their upcoming presidential debates under a Creative Commons type license Saturday.

"Due to the historical nature of presidential debates and the significance of these forums to the American public," CNN said in a statement, "CNN debate coverage will be made available without restrictions at the conclusion of each live debate."

"We believe this is good for the country and good for the electoral process. This decision will apply to all of CNN's presidential debates, beginning with the upcoming New Hampshire debates in June," continued in the media advisory sent to other news organizations and posted online.

Several prominent liberal and conservative bloggers had joined together to endorse a proposal by Stanford law professor Lawrence Lessig in April requesting that all television debates during the 2008 Presidential election cycle be released without restriction for internet usage.

Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) was the first candidate to endorse Lessig's proposal, saying that "As you know, the Internet has enabled an extraordinary range of citizens to participate in the political dialogue around this election."

"Much of that participation will take the form of citizen generated content. We, as a Party, should do everything that we can to encourage this participation," Obama continued, later saying he believed that the legal principle of fair use should apply to presidential debates.

Fellow Democratic presidential hopeful and former North Carolina Senator John Edwards joined the call shortly afterwards, saying that the debates should be released specifically under a Creative Commons license and noting that "Much of the content on my own campaign web site is available under just such a license." Senator Obama's website is also published under Creative Commons.

So far, no Republican candidates have called for their debates to make their debates freely available, however several prominent conservative bloggers and the former internet director of the Republican National Committee have called on the RNC to pressure the news organizations it has partnered with for the debates to make them available freely.

I think that's ridiculous and so I sought to find out why they would do this. I called Joe Alicastro, producer of the debate for MSNBC, who was on site. I asked him why they were restricting use of the material on the internet. He twice didn't answer and said "that's our policy." I said I know that's their policy. I asked why. He would not answer.

I asked whether he thought the Amerian people had a right to this debate since it is our election. He said that "the American people have ample opportunity to view the debate on MCNBC and two North Carolina stations."

Shameful. What makes NBC think it has the right to own the democratic discussion in this country?

It's the wearying time of a legislative session and Sen. Kyle Janek, R-Houston, has thought about quitting his post to devote more time to his family (he's got sons aged 8, 6 and 2).

And yes, Janek is house-hunting in Austin.

But the senator said this morning he's making no decisions about his future until the end of summer. Resignation "is a possibility. It's not my plan; it's not my intent."

"I am not resigning at the end of the session" May 28, Janek said. "I love my job. It's not my intent" to become a lobbyist.

Janek, 49, whose term runs through 2010, said he plans to continue living and working as an anesthesiologist in Houston, treating the house he and his family are seeking in Austin as a second pad; he's had weekend homes in the area dating back to 1991.

"I'm always thinking about what next," Janek said, adding that a fatigue factor invariably kicks in when May comes around during the 140-day biennial sessions. "I do need to spend more time with my family."

If Janek resigns, GOP Gov. Rick Perry would be left to call a special election for voters to choose someone to serve out his term. Prospects for the job could include Reps. Dennis Bonnen, R-Angleton, and Charlie Howard, R-Sugar Land.

Bonnen said today he doesn't see an open seat at this time. Howard said he'd like to run for the seat if Janek moves on -- and he's been encouraging Janek to run for the U.S. House seat held by Rep. Nick Lampson, D-Houston.

Not gonna happen, Janek said. "I am not going to run for Congress," he said.

The Bush administration is planning to withdraw most United States combat forces from Iraq over the next several months and wants to shrink the American military presence to less than two divisions by the fall, senior allied officials said today.

The United States currently has more than five divisions in Iraq, troops that fought their way into the country and units that were added in an attempt to stabilize it. But the Bush administration is trying to establish a new military structure in which American troops would continue to secure Baghdad while the majority of the forces in Iraq would be from other nations.

Under current planning, there would be three sectors in postwar Iraq. The Americans would keep a division in and around Baghdad; Britain would command a multinational division in the south near Basra; and Poland would command a third division of troops from a variety of nations.

President Bush used his veto pen for only the second time Tuesday after Congress sent him a war spending bill that would impose timelines to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq, which he called a "prescription for chaos."

The bill is unacceptable because it "substitutes the opinions of politicians for the judgments of our military commanders," the president said in a nationally televised address to explain why he was vetoing a bill that would also provide more than $100 billion in emergency spending for the war.

"This is a prescription for chaos and confusion, and we must not impose it on our troops," Bush said. "... It makes no sense to tell the enemy when you plan to start withdrawing."