This Is Not News

For some anecdotal evidence that we 1) need to find some alternate sources of energy and 2) might want to continue being cautious about the whole idea of drilling in ANWR, check out this article on BP and the Prudhoe Bay pipeline. Apparently BP had not been particularly diligent in its upkeep of the pipeline, failing to regularly perform a procedure known as “pgging” (check out the article for a fuller explanation) in favor of cheaper means of checking on the pipeline. Federal regulators finally forced BP to do the more thorough check after they had a spill elsewhere that left hundreds of thousands of gallons of oil on the tundra. They discovered that there was significant corrosion i nthe line – in two places, the steel was only seven hundredths of an inch thick.

That’s a big reason to be concerned about the push for more drilling. You have to take the possibility – maybe even the probability – of an accident into account. One solution might be to have stricter environmental regulations and a rigorous inspection scheme as a safeguard – but then, most of the folks arguing for more drilling are the ones arguing against tougher regulations and enforcement. Doesn’t exactly fill me with confidence.

I noticed that the first sentence of the Reuters story on the potential terrorist plot revealed in the UK today is:

British police foiled a plot by would-be suicide bombers to simultaneously blow up several planes flying to the United States, arresting 24 people days before they could attack, officials said on Thursday.

British police foiled a terrorist plot, eh? I can’t help but recall that a certain vice president said a few years ago that

an intelligence-gathering, law-enforcement . . . approach has been tried before and proved entirely inadequate to protect the American people from the terrorists who are quite certain they’re at war with us.

I discussed this in a Policy piece a few years ago, but it definitely looks like there’s another piece of support for the potential effectiveness of intelligence and law enforcement.

As Josh Marshall said at Talking Points Memo today:

President Bush just said the events in London are “a stark reminder that this nation is at war with Islamic fascists.”

Also a pretty stark reminder that President Bush’s War on Terror, the way he’s chosen to fight it, is at best irrelevant to combatting this sort of danger. These are homegrown Brits apparently trying to blow up planes over the Atlantic. Good thing we’ve got a 150,000 or so troops in Iraq to take the fight to them.

I would say that Joe Lieberman is making an ass of himself one day into his run as an independent candidate for the Senate, but then again, the reason Lieberman has to run as an independent is that he wasn’t enough of an ass in the first place.

(As in donkey. As in Democrat. As in, yes, I’ve been working on that joke all day.)

Now, after seeing Lieberman talk the last 24 hours, I’m more sure than ever that I want Ned Lamont to win this Senate seat. And I’m more sure than ever that Lieberman is failing as a leader of the Democratic Party by making this run. One thing that is interesting to me is how this story is intersecting with two other stories that are big in the news this week to highlight something I hadn’t really thought a lot about before, the idea of “sore loser� laws – laws that prohibit a loser in a primary from running for the office on another ticket in the general election. Connecticut doesn’t have one, but other states do.

In Ohio, Congressman Bob Ney says he’s abandoning his re-election campaign. The idea was for the Republican committee to appoint Joy Padgett to replace him. But Padgett ran for lt. governor in the primary, and Ohio has a law that prohibits people who ran for an office in the primary from running in the general. There’s some speculation about whether this disqualifies Padgett from running for a different office in the general. (And there’s a second Ohio law that prohibits anyone from running for a state office and a federal office in the same year.)

In Texas, courts have ruled that the state Republican Party can not declare Tom DeLay ineligible to run for Congress based on his declared change of residency (because the only residency requirement applies to the day of the election and there’s no conclusive evidence that DeLay won’t be eligible that day). DeLay can withdraw, but if he does, the Republican line on the ballot will stay blank. DeLay has said he will withdraw anyway so that the Republicans can back a write-in candidate. But the write-in candidate can’t be anyone who ran in the primary for the seat.

I’m trying to figure out if I think these laws are a good idea. There’s something that doesn’t seem right about getting to take a second bite at the apple. On the other hand, if a candidate is able to get enough signatures for an independent run, or mobilize support for a write-in bid, why shouldn’t that option be presented to the total electorate in the general election? In a primary, all you’re running for is the right to represent the party, to have their ballot line and access to their resources. Just because the party voters say they want to give those resources to someone else, I don’t think that makes a loser ineligible for office.

Now, most of the time, if you try to run in the general, that shows a disloyalty to your party. And I certainly think party officials and voters should try to punish the sore losers in those cases. But the Ohio and Texas cases demonstrate how sore loser laws can actually prevent a party from picking a candidate it may want to pick. You gotta love the irony.