Daily Top Five: February 15, 2007

Sorry for the late posting, had a few modem problems yesterday and connectivity problems at work. Damn interweb thingie!!

1. If you ever needed more proof that musicians and actors should stick to their craft and spout off on political matters, John Mellencamp said this to provide it.

2. the House is debating a meaningless resultion, at least in terms of its effect on policy and on the law. However that doesn't mean the "Non-binding resolution" is without effect. The Wall Street Journal provides some perspective. this is the lead:

Congress has rarely been distinguished by its moral courage. But even grading on a curve, we can only describe this week's House debate on a vote of no-confidence in the mission in Iraq as one of the most shameful moments in the institution's history.

Here is a couple of paragraphs from the middle:

All the more so because if Congress feels so strongly about the troops, it arguably has the power to start removing them from harm's way by voting to cut off the funds they need to operate in Iraq. But that would make Congress responsible for what followed--whether those consequences are Americans killed in retreat, or ethnic cleansing in Baghdad, or the toppling of the elected Maliki government by radical Shiite or military forces. The one result Congress fears above all is being accountable.

We aren't prone to quoting the young John Kerry, but this week's vote reminds us of the comment the antiwar veteran told another cut-and-run Congress in the early 1970s: "How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?" The difference this time is that Speaker Nancy Pelosi and John Murtha expect men and women to keep dying for something they say is a mistake but also don't have the political courage to help end.

And this is the closing paragraph:

History is likely to remember the roll as well. A newly confirmed commander is about to lead 20,000 American soldiers on a dangerous and difficult mission to secure Baghdad, risking their lives for their country. And the message their elected Representatives will send them off to battle with is a vote declaring their inevitable defeat.

All the stuff in between is very good as well.

3. Paul Sherman at the Center for Competitive Politics has a post about reforming the war chests that many candidates build over the course of years, in this case looking at campaign finance reformer Martin Meehan. In his piece Sherman discusses the idea of War Chest Amendment, similar to the millionaire's amendment, allowing underfunded candidates to raise money under higher limits or in the alternative, or in addition, a proposal to require candidates to dispose of their excess campaign funds. I had floated such an idea almost two years ago,here and here.

4. Edspresso is carrying commentary by Checker Finn and Mike Petrelli on the report by the Commission on No Child Left Behind. As Finn and Petrelli put it, "No Idea Left Behind." The two have a pretty tough takedown on the first recommendation:

The worst—ominously listed first—would “require all teachers to produce student learning gains and receive positive principal or teacher peer review evaluations to meet the new definition of a Highly Qualified and Effective Teacher (HQET).” That Orwellian recommendation illustrates the basic flaw in this approach: start with a sound instinct (gauging teachers’ effectiveness by their impact on pupil achievement). Then pretend that the U.S. Department of Education is a National Education Ministry, able to micromanage complicated processes (like vetting teachers) from Washington. Neglect to undo the mistakes of NCLB, so that instructors must also still meet the current law’s paperwork-laden, credential-heavy “highly qualified teachers” requirements (which mostly serve to keep talented people out of the classroom) even if they do prove effective at boosting student achievement. If past is prologue, the U.S. Department of Education will most likely muck up this entire enterprise, setting back a promising idea (evaluating teachers based on their impact on student learning) for a generation.

Many teachers alread chafe under the requirement that they are 100% responsible for student achievement despite the nature of the kids they teach. This would probably lead to an all out revolt.

One question, why is it blue-ribbon panels have to have 200 pages of mediocre or meaningless recommendations. Why not four or five really good recommendations along with suggestions for implementing them.

5. Finally, Philip Mella brings us, as always, a strong piece about the GOP nomination process. In short, the GOP must confront the issue of electability as well has defender of conservative values. Mella points out that Americans are becoming socially moderate, although I would tend to think more socially libertarian, i.e., they are sick of government involving themselves in daily lives in matters not germane to governing. In such, the GOP may have to swallow their social policy anxiety and nominate Rudy Guiliani for the very reason that he can not only beat Democrats, but beat them at their own game.

Therefore, as noted at the outset, conservatives must perform the unpleasant task of political soul searching and deal with the crucial issue of electability. That means confronting the equally disturbing fact that the electorate is evolving towards moderate positions, thanks to their lockstep response to the siren song of our culture which is at once indifferent to moral precepts and the noxious consequences of its collective behavior.

In short, Mr. Guiliani is a made to order presidential foil for the very best the Democrats can muster, one who will be an unflinching supporter of strict constructionist judges, a robust and unapologetic intelligence apparatus, and who would continue President Bush's policy of pre-emption for states that support terrorism.