Scott Packer's Midwest Democrat

2009-09-06T12:29:00.000-07:00

The picture is not so much a criticism of myself as much as it is a parody. Posts have been few and far between this summer. This isn’t to say that there hasn’t been interesting things to talk about politically, there have been, but I can tell that I am and have been stretching myself a little thin over the past year and a half, basically since I started MWD. And so I have decided that I need to take a break from the world of political blogging.

There are a variety of reasons for this, and I don’t want to dwell too much on any particular part, but my responsibilities are in more need of my attention at this point than politics. I was in a car accident last march which left me without a vehicle. After buying a new one my monthly car payments have gone up, which means I am working more to make up the difference. The website doesn’t pay my bills, so I had to take one step back this summer. I had to take another step back last spring when I realized that my classes weren’t going to come as easily to me as they once have. It turns out those university professors lean pretty hard on their upper division students, so I have needed to take more time out of my day for reading and studying. I am also seriously considering applying to different graduate schools this winter, and that means that I have the Graduate Record Exams to study for, I have to write an application paper, and I need to carry as much favor as possible with my professors so that I may glean letters of recommendations out of them. This all, as you might expect, takes quite a bit of time.

When I think about how I spent most of the 2008 election cycle, I realize that my “contribution” came from behind the computer screen. While I am the first to acknowledge the strength of the pen (keyboard?), I decided that I would like to get out some more. With all of the above circling in my mind, it was no real surprise that I would want to take some mental health time for myself. I’m spending more time with my girlfriend Liz, and am planning on taking more trips to visit my brother Jeff who goes to school in Lincoln.

The website itself hasn’t performed up to the standards of my initial expectations either. At its height last fall, MWD was getting one hundred hits a day, primarily from Nebraska, Iowa, and Kansas. But in order to get those numbers, I had to work very, very hard. Multiple posts a day, each one longer and more detailed than the last is a tough pace to keep up. I was hoping to, at one point, sign other people up to write for MWD, thereby expanding it, but that never really materialized.

That said, do not consider MidWest Democrat dead yet, simply in a coma. Eventually I would like to re-launch the website with a new look, but that is probably way down the road. I don’t know when I’m going to create all the time that I would like for this project, but for now, I need to focus on other things.

For everyone else, keep on fighting the good fight.

Healthcare News Bits

2009-08-20T12:32:00.001-07:00

The final days of summer approach, and September promises to be an important month for Democrats if they hope to maintain their majority in both houses. The President of the SEIU says that if Democrats lose the fight for healthcare, that it is a very real possibility. The party of the newly elected President has always lost seats in that President’s first midterm, dating back to World War II. He also drops this little gem:

“Since lawmakers have already decided not to pursue strict regulations on insurance premium increases, Stern said that a public option is the only real cost control mechanism on the table. Without the cost control provided by a public plan, Stern says it would be difficult for SEIU to support an individual mandate which would require all adults to purchase health insurance.”

Senator Ted Kennedy, who was a champion of healthcare reform, but has recently suffered from cancer, is asking the state of Massachusetts to change the law dealing with how vacant seats are dealt with so that Governor Duval Patrick could appoint a successor immediately. Currently, if Kennedy were to leave his seat, a special election would be held 140 days later. Naturally, the Republican Senatorial Committee was not as wild about the idea:

Brian Walsh, a spokesman for the National Republican Senatorial Committee, said Democrats are at risk if they play “partisan politics,” though he said the Senate succession process should be up to the people of Massachusetts to decide.
“The NRSC believes this should ultimately be up to the people of Massachusetts to decide, however, it is hard to see how the Democrats wouldn’t pay a political price for changing their Senate succession law again to meet a new political purpose. The integrity of this process already took a hit when the Democrats made the blatant power play to take this authority away from Governor Romney, and it’s hard to see how they would have the credibility to reverse themselves simply because it’s now politically inconvenient. This should not be about partisan politics – it should be about ensuring the integrity and credibility of the Senate selection process."

Walsh didn’t comment on the irony of a Republican from Washington DC telling the people of Massachusetts that they shouldn’t change the law on how a vacant seat is filled because how the seat is filled should be left up to the people of Massachusetts.

In any event, thanks to the obstinate GOP, Democrats appear prepared to go it alone on healthcare reform, which would either involve circling the wagons to ensure that every Democrat in the Senate votes for the package, or invoking a little known budgetary procedure which would limit debate on the proposed legislation (that budgetary procedure was actually enacted by Republicans, so what goes around comes around I guess). Still, reform seems to be a long way off thanks to the August recess which will be coming to an end in a little over a week.

News Bits and Quick Hits

2009-07-21T08:19:00.001-07:00

White House aides have already begun to back off a previous commitment to an August deadline for a healthcare vote in the Senate, the President had wanted a vote before the August recess. The timetable was ambitious, considering the scale and scope of the legislation in question, the President is now setting a more realistic goal, “Lets pass reform by the end of this year.” Well, if the White House is trying to win over Nelson and his group of five other Senators currently on the fence concerning healthcare, then the President has already put things into motion. This shows that the President is actively trying to win over those Senators by giving them more time, and following their own proposed timetable (Remember, in the letter Nelson drafted, he said “we are firmly committed to enactment of comprehensive reform this year.”

It also looks like the White House has finally found a bad guy in all of this. And no, it’s not Bill Kristol (though it could have been), instead, its South Carolina Republican, Senator Jim DeMint. DeMint’s “Waterloo” comments could potentially be a turning point in the healthcare debate because, as Chuck Todd points out, the President does better on any issue when he has someone to run against. What did the President say about DeMint’s comments? “Think about that. This isn’t about me. This isn’t about politics. This is about a health-care system that is breaking America’s families.” The President is expected to use that quote to “rally the troops” so to speak, refocusing his own party to battle GOP attacks and eliminate infighting.

Now for some quick news bits on healthcare and others:

If you are ready for a lot of numbers, you should read this piece by Timothy Noah from Slate, where he makes a case for affordable healthcare.

Howard Fineman thinks not. But then again, what else is new? The Newsweek politics reporter today talks about the President’s ability surf political waves and how he may be wiping out this time because of ill-conceived timing.

Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank has apparently caught Michael Steele’s puppeteer, Alex Castellanos. But as with all political strategists, they do not prepare you well for policy positions. When asked a question about the legislation, Steele replies “I don’t do policy.”

Brad Delong makes a convincing argument for the recession being over, the stimulus being the prime reason why it wasn’t worse. Now all he asks is “when do the jobs return?”

Healthcare Reform: Where Are We At?

2009-07-20T08:59:00.000-07:00

I’ve been busy. I haven’t been here a lot, I know, but I’ve been busy.

So, is the President’s healthcare proposal on the ropes? It depends on who you ask. William Kristol seems to think so. Kristol was the chief architect of the demise of the Clinton healthcare proposals back in the early nineties, and he is pleading with his allies to “pull no punches” in trying to knock Obama’s plan out of the sky. Specifically, he is afraid that anti-healthcare advocates may begin laying off their attacks and begin being, you know, responsible. From his article:

With Obamacare on the ropes, there will be a temptation for opponents to let up on their criticism, and to try to appear constructive, or at least responsible. There will be a tendency to want to let the Democrats' plans sink of their own weight, to emphasize that the critics have been pushing sound reform ideas all along and suggest it's not too late for a bipartisan compromise over the next couple of weeks or months.

My advice, for what it's worth: Resist the temptation. This is no time to pull punches. Go for the kill.

How practical. Kristol doesn’t try to hide his contempt for even a constructive or responsible piece of legislation. Well, if Kristol wants to keep the criticism up, he does have some other anti-healthcare allies to help him with it. Bobby Jindal, who introduced himself to the country earlier this year in rocky fashion will try do so again this week, but this time on paper, and not TV (where hopefully he won’t make a mockery out of himself – again). He plans to release a couple of op-eds chiming in on the healthcare debate. Embattled RNC chairman Michael Steele says that if the GOP can defeat Obama on this one issue, then this will be “his Waterloo.”

But there is plenty of evidence to suggest that pro healthcare advocates may be on the cusp of a breakthrough as well. There were whispers last week that a compromise may soon be reached which would deliver a number of Senators who are on the fence. Many of these same Senators were the targets of a campaign style advertisement delivered by Organizing for America:

The ad is being released in markets which would affect Ben Nelson (D-NE), Susan Collins (R-NH), Olympia Snowe (R-NH), Mary Landrieu (D-LA) and Blanche Lincoln (D-AR), Kent Conrad (D-ND) as well as retiring Republicans Mel Martinez (R-FL), and George Voinovich (R-OH).

For their part, Nelson, Collins, Snowe, Landrieu, along with Ron Wyden (R-OR), and Joe Lieberman (I-CN), sent a letter to the Party leaders in the Senate urging them to slow down on the healthcare vote, but still emphasizing that a bill needs to be passed this year. From the letter, which was drafted by Nelson:

In the current debate about our health care system, we are firmly committed to enactment of comprehensive reform this year. That reform must reduce premiums and administrative costs, expand choices, and increase coverage for all Americans. We are eager to work constructively with Senate leadership and agree that this is an historic opportunity which makes it imperative to proceed thoughtfully and responsibly. Our efforts will affect virtually every American.

The American people expect us to adopt comprehensive health reform that addresses the priorities we have outlined without detrimentally affecting those who have health insurance or increasing the national debt. This week, Congressional Budget Office Director Doug Elmendorf testified that the currently introduced health reform bills will not reduce costs. We are faced with the dual challenges of pressing ahead to pass legislation by the end of the year and to produce the reform the American people need.

We appreciate the work that has been done by Senators on the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions and Finance committees, but in view of the Budget Director's statement, there is much heavy lifting ahead. We support the efforts of Finance Committee members to produce a bipartisan bill, despite calls from both sides of the aisle to rush forward or delay indefinitely. While we are committed to providing relief for American families as quickly as possible, we believe taking additional time to achieve a bipartisan result is critical for legislation that affects 17 percent of our economy and every individual in the U.S.

We look forward to working with you to develop legislation that is vital to the well-being of the American people and urge you to resist timelines which prevent us from achieving the best result. This opportunity is rare and the impact will last for generations.

As you can tell from the parts that I have added emphasis to, The group of Senators recognize that this is an important opportunity, that a clear majority of Americans expect healthcare reform, and that they are not promising to block that reform, as has been suggested, but simply want time to analyze its potential impact.

The letter suggests that their votes may come as a bloc. It would be very important to both sides of the debate to win their support seeing as the Democrats cannot possibly win a cloture motion without Democrats like Nelson, Independents like Lieberman, and backup support from Republicans like Collins and Snowe. If these six pledge to vote for the reform package, then it passes.

Another ad is running in another nine states, with an $800,000 ad buy made by Healthcare for America Now:

Ben Smith suggests that the President is now well into his first post-honeymoon engagement of his Presidency. He is right. The President is going to have to push a lot harder this time to get his legislative victory, but it looks like the President is well prepared, and is already fighting hard. I expect to see the healthcare legislation being debated into the fall. I also expect to see it passed by the time the fall is over.

Fourth of July News Hit (HAPPY BIRTHDAY AMERICA)

2009-07-03T23:45:00.001-07:00

Obviously, there are some huge news stories to be discussed below, and I will get there in good time, but first, on the lighter side:

That is the textbook definition of “historical accuracy.” At least it’s not the complete bastardization of history that you see nowadays.

So, Sarah Palin announced her impending resignation today. So far, the number one question I’ve gotten from everyone that I’ve talked to about it, political novice or experienced old hand alike, is somewhere along the line of “why would she do it?” Why would the woman widely considered to be the lone frontrunner, if not than at least one of the frontrunners to become the next GOP nominee for President in 2012 decide that she wants out of politics?

Let’s assume for the moment that all the whispers we’ve heard about her wanting out of politics are false, and there is some ulterior motive to her resignation. What are the possibilities? Well, she could be setting herself up for a run at the Presidency not in 2012, but 2016. That would give her time to sit out President Obama’s re-election run, and allow half of her potential opponents to waste their own viability in another doomed campaign against a popular Democrat. It also allows her take a couple years out of the spotlight before announcing her run for the Senate, not against Lisa Murkowski as previously ventured, but against Mark Begich when he runs for re-election. This way, she regains her public popularity just two years before running for the White House in a year where there will be no incumbent running (presumably).

Or, maybe she is looking at running in 2012. The GOP field certainly is narrowing with two popular dark horse candidates in Ensign and Sanford both being effectively removed from any serious Presidential discussion thanks to their extramarital affairs. Jindal took a hit back in February when he tried his hand at responding to the President’s first address to Congress. Most observers, including yours truly, viewed the attempt as a swing and a miss. Jindal may not have struck out of the 2012 race yet, but his shaky performance can certainly raise some legitimate questions about his ability to sell himself to voters nationwide. Ron Paul is a joke. That leaves Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, and Newt Gingrich, all popular among conservatives, but none are currently holding an elected office, and therefore all will find it more difficult than their elected counterparts to find media attention. The only other threat to Palin would be Tim Pawlenty, who will be leaving the Governor’s office in Minnesota in 2010, just in time for the invisible primary to start in Iowa and New Hampshire.

The last possibility, and the one that may be all too likely, may be that a skeleton could be in Governor Palin’s closet, and that skeleton could be finding its way towards a camera soon. Consider this, if Palin is planning on running in 2012, then her move to step down now is still puzzling for multiple reasons. First, the extra year out of the public eye will hurt her. The old saying “out of sight, out of mind” comes to me here. Even if Alaska is not an industrial or populous state, being Governor, if only until 2010, will keep her in the public eye and keep her fundraising numbers up. Now she just forfeited that advantage. Also, read the announcement itself. It is rambling, often times off message, and just seems poorly judged. The press conference itself was hastily thrown together, with reporters getting little warning as to its subject material beforehand. Also, consider the timing of the announcement. On the Friday of the holiday weekend, would there be a better time to make such a declaration than a weekend when hardly anyone will read their newspapers or watch the news? It was timed to draw as little attention as possible. And if the decision has “been in the works for a while,” like she claims, then why was she just earlier this week playing political games by challenging the President to a foot race? Something isn’t right about this, and I’m guessing we will be hearing a lot more about it soon.

Sex Scandals Galore

2009-06-24T20:13:00.001-07:00

Sex scandals are an amazing thing. Rising GOP star Senator John Ensign (NV) was forced to apologize to the Senate yesterday for his affair with a former staffer. That scandal simply added another bruise to a party which has been knocked around like a piñata the last three years. There were whispers surrounding Ensign as a potential nominee for President. His promise lay in the fact that he would be a conservative alternative to the already-rans who are more or less already running (Palin, Romney, Huckabee, etc) That star has already faded. Ensign’s career may not be over, but he will have to keep his head down for so long that there is little chance of him seeking a higher office anytime soon.

Is that all? No.

South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford (also a Republican) went missing last Thursday. He left the governor’s office, turned off his cell phone and pager, and went for a drive. His staff didn’t know where he went. His family didn’t know where he went. He just went. It was originally reported by his staff that these short disappearances weren’t that unusual. His wife said that he sometimes would just go off somewhere quiet to work on journal articles or editorials that he has fallen behind on. When he got back, he said originally that he had taken a hike on the Appalachian trail, then quickly admitted that he had actually taken a vacation to Argentina.

Then he dropped another bombshell on the GOP. He admitted in a press conference this afternoon that he has had an affair with “a dear, dear friend” who lives in Argentina.

Sanford’s name was also getting a lot of play as a possible Anti-Obama for his steadfast rejection of stimulus funds to his state. Sanford could have run on the fiscal conservative tag and revitalized the GOP all by himself. Instead, his career will likely end in disgrace. Former South Carolina GOP Chair Katon Dawson is already talking about whether the Governor should resign or not.

If either the Senator or the Governor decides they want to take a look back to their comments they made during the Monica Lewinsky scandal, then they may rediscover what their own moral standards are concerning illicit affairs and officeholders. Said Sanford of Clinton, “Very damaging stuff. This one’s pretty cut and dried… I think it would be much better for the country and for him personally [to resign]." What did Ensign say? "The honorable thing for him to do is to resign and not put the country through this."

But then again, these men have already proven themselves to be hypocrites once. Why would it bother them to be proven that again?

Quick News Bits

2009-06-18T09:40:00.000-07:00

Politics in Minnesota is reporting from two sources on each side of the Coleman-Franken Senate recount epic that the Minnesota Supreme Court is expected to release its final decision sometime today. Rumors have been swirling that if the court sides decidedly with Franken that Coleman will call off the dogs and allow Franken to be seated, much to the dismay of the RNC. So is this the light at the end of the tunnel? It seems almost too much to think so, but I really think it is. It may be too late for Coleman to save his name and make a run at the Governor’s office, but then again, maybe he is thinking he still has a shot at that office. Expect to see Harry Reid doing a jig in some Capital hallway later today.

The theme of the week out of Washington (or more specifically, the Washington press corps) is that the President’s honeymoon is coming to an end. Honeymoon’s don’t last forever, but this isn’t the first time that different pundits have taken this story out for a spin. You may remember during the stimulus vote that quite a lot of writers were openly wondering if the President may even get a honeymoon at all, and that was at the beginning of February.

There are two indicators that show the honeymoon that was supposed to have ended in February may actually be coming to an end now. The first is a set of polls, one by the Wall Street Journal and the other by the New York Times which show that public attitudes towards the President’s policies may be faltering. Both polls cite public concerns about the rising deficit as well as government intervention in the economy. But both polls still give the President high public approval ratings.

The other indicator may just well be the mouth of George W. Bush. It was too much to hope that he would keep his thoughts to himself forever, the former President made his first sharp criticisms of the current administration earlier this week while speaking in Pennsylvania. It is significant if for no other reason than his defense of his own policies could serve as a potential rallying point for the GOP.

The administration is already responding to both problems. Secretary Geithner is out and about defending the administration’s economic oversight, as has the President who disparaged Wall Street’s “short memory” concerning how a lack of oversight led to this crisis in the first place. As far as the ex-President Bush is concerned, the Administration will likely continue to use him as a political punching bag because the more Bush tries to defend his various failed policies, the deeper a hole he digs himself.

The Iranian Election Fraud and American Policy

2009-06-15T10:35:00.000-07:00

It is not very often I intermingle my dueling interests in international relations and domestic policy making, but this week’s ~~election~~ farce in Iran begs to be put under the microscope for a few reasons.

First, to bring anyone up to speed who isn’t already there; An election was held in Iran on Saturday. Incumbent President Mahmoud Ahmedinijad won in a landslide, a landslide that should not have happened. Among hundreds of reports of irregularities at polling places, such as polls running out of paper, voters being turned away, and polls closing with long lines still outside, final vote tallies began pouring in hours early, and the returns showed Ahmedinijad winning re-election with 62.6% of the vote. His nearest rival, Hussein Moussavi, received only 34% of the vote, odd considering he was the odds on favorite to win only a week ago.

Moussavi, who campaigned on women’s rights and promised a more amenable relationship with the west, has denounced the election results as a fraud. People have taken to the streets in protest. The government has shut down access to cellular text messaging services, and internet networking sites such as twitter, and facebook.

Ayatollah Kahmenei, the real supreme leader in Iran, has closed the door on any possibility of a re-count, endorsing Ahmedinijad as the winner, and has asked the nation to unite behind the incumbent President. Ahmedinijad, for his part, has began threatening protesters for questioning the election results, and has even put reformist activists and moderate clerics under house arrest. The Interior Ministry, responsible for counting the votes, issued a statement that police were being stationed around their building, and if anyone approached, the police would have authority to open fire.

Reports from Iran seem to indicate that Tehran is quickly becoming a powder keg. Ahmedenijad may not be afraid of the protesters, but is afraid of Moussavi, and his political connections. Moussavi may even seek to try and dislodge Kahmenei as well as Ahmedinjaid.

For anyone who doesn’t quite understand just how volatile the situation is, look at these short videos:

These videos, along with dozens of pictures, have been put up on Revolutionary Road, a blog put together by an Iranian student calling for, you guessed it, a revolution. Things could get out of hand quickly there.

Meanwhile, back in DC, the Obama administration has been anxiously watching the results. Their hopes of dealing with a more moderate leader appear to be dashed, though they are being careful not to out and say that the election was completely fraudulent. Vice President Biden gave an interview on Meet the Press where he spoke about how skeptical the administration is of the election results.

The President proposed an openness policy in Dealing with America’s enemies during last year’s election. That proposed policy is part of the reason he won so much support from foreign policy analysts and intellectuals throughout 2008. But the Obama administration was anticipating a regime change in Iran when it began outlining that policy in January. Even if Ahmedinijad was replaced with another conservative puppet to be manipulated by the Ayatollah, he would have been easier to deal with than the inherently inflammatory Ahmedinijad. The administration will likely have to continue to seek a new line of dialogue with Iran, but it will be much more difficult now that Iran is in the game of flagrantly manipulating elections and arresting opposition.

In America, Obama’s openness policy will be an even tougher sell than it was before. Ahmedinijad gave tons of ammo to Obama’s critics, who will point to the election as even more evidence of anti-democratic principles taking hold in Tehran. While that may not stop the President from still dealing with Ahmedinijad (It’s not like the US doesn’t engage itself in talks with illegitimate dictatorships around the world on basically a daily basis or anything), it will make life more difficult for Obama at home.

Of course, the President’s recent speech in Cairo, Egypt makes things even more complicated than they were before. The picture presenting itself currently suggests that the people of the middle east are listening to Obama’s comments and can see the olive branch being extended from the US. But fundamentalists and dictators like the Ayatollah and Ahmedinijad, in firm control of state apparatus, continue to try and pull their state away. But it could potentially come to a head in Tehran. Actually, of all the people I’ve heard link the Cairo speech and the election in Iran together, Joe Scarburough of all people makes the most sense:

“You know, the law of unintended consequences came in again. I suspect that Cairo speech really scared the grand ayatollahs in Iran. If they were going to fix an election, this was a time to fix it, because the last thing they wanted to do was Barack Obama to take credit for reformers winning in Iran, like they already have in Lebanon. And, and by the way, in the short-term that's bad news for us. I think in the long-term, though, if ayatollahs are seen stealing an election as a result from what Barack Obama did in Cairo, I actually think that's a positive for the United States and Iran in the long run.”

The Reality Based Community states it best, “Barack Obama has consistently displayed one of the politician's supreme gifts: the capacity to induce his opponents to self-destruct.” With the Iranian government and religious leadership no longer even acknowledging the people’s voice in elections, the outpouring of frustration could quickly tear Iran apart. The conservatives, engaging in erratic economic policy, repressive domestic policy, and antagonistic foreign policy could easily be ousted in favor of the more moderate (though not necessarily progressive) opposition.

There are two possible outcomes; either the Ayatollah holds steadfast, Ahmedinijad puts down the opposition, and nothing changes, or the Ayatollah is forced to give in, Ahmedinijad is forced from office or even arrested. Both scenarios have dramatically different effects on American foreign policy with regards to Iran, and even with regard to Iraq and Israel. But we may not know what will happen for weeks.

On Right Win Extremism

2009-06-11T12:40:00.000-07:00

When the Obama administration released a report earlier this year on the dangers of right wing extremism, Republicans (and specifically conservatives) were outraged. Furious that the President would liken even the most extreme fringes of their ideology to domestic terrorists, they argued that the Democratic administration was simply trying to reduce conservative opposition to Democratic policies to terrorism in order to crush dissenting opinion. Right-wing terrorism seemed too farfetched to be seriously considered. Consider this video put together by Media Matters:

After the execution in of Dr. George Tiller two weeks ago in the lobby of his Kansas church, along with today’s news that a guard at a Holocaust museum was also brutally murdered by a white supremacist, I think that we should revisit the question.

I feel for the community and the friends and family of the deceased, and I hope they find a way through these difficult times. But my blood has been boiling ever since I first heard the story. And I’m tired of waiting for the politically correct time to begin talking about these tragedies, which some people on the right haven’t had the decency to do. Anti-abortion activists have voiced concerns over the political fallout that such a murder can create for their cause. Reprehensible. They are concerned that their opponents will use the murder to expose the entire anti-abortion movement as extremist.

That shouldn’t be hard for me to accomplish. Kansas Jackass has provided excellent coverage of the tragedy that has occurred in their own back yard, including this collection of Twitter comments

Doctor George Tiller was aborted today in his 204th trimester - aren't paybacks a bitch - Punch

George Tiller the baby killer was shot dead this morning. God bless the gunmen who hopefully won't be caught. - readnwatchchris, Creedmor. NC

The person who shot Tiller the baby killer simply exercised a man's right to choose. - Sami Shamieh, Walnut Creek, CA

Guy shoots a Dr. to death in Church. Me I'm willing to bet that Jesus was his co-pilot. - jeremyawhitman

These are only a few of the comments collected in the link above. The last one gets me the most. Was the person purposefully invoking a 9-11 reference with the “co-pilot” talk? Right wing groups have been quick to dismiss such comments as not indicative of their movement as a whole. But the sheer volume of this type of reaction from the right has left me unsure. It’s not one or two people, but rather dozens and even hundreds making similar comments.

So it’s time to take these threats seriously. This is not the first time that someone has carried out a violent action against someone working in a clinic in the name of the “Pro-Life” movement. Nor is this the first time that someone has carried out similar action out of anti-Semitic motivations. And until we recognize that it won’t be the last, they are just going to keep on happening. The FBI needs to begin paying more attention to the guy making threats on the message boards and forums on the internet from the conservative spectrum. They can be just as dangerous to the peace and stability of our nation as any terrorist half way around the world.

President Names Supreme Court Nominee

2009-05-26T08:41:00.000-07:00

President Barack Obama confirmed weeks of speculation in naming Judge Sonia Sotomayor his first selection to the Supreme Court. The consensus opinion from Democrats is that she is a level headed juror who considers the implications of the decisions she makes, Republicans will call her “liberal,” “activist,” and will question her temperament. But I’m most concerned with the opinions of the legal scholars and intellectuals who think her opinions are not as strong as the opinions of past liberal thinkers like John Marshall Harlan, or William Brennan.

Supreme Court nominations are much more complicated than they were even just twenty five years ago. Then, a nominee would be named, and the Senate would simply look over their credentials, and vote. There could be rocky nomination processes, but it was relatively easy to get a pick on the court compared to today. Activists, lobbyists, and of course the opposing party in the Senate will all throw roadblocks in the Presidents general direction to try and trip up the nomination process. Getting a nominee on the court now is a lot like running an election. The President will appeal to the public in order to pressure their Senators into voting for the nominee. Expect to see the President making trips to various parts of the county to sell the pick to the public. Also, just as the President became the first candidate to make truly effective use of the internet as a campaign tool, you can expect the White House to use tools like Facebook, MySpace, and YouTube to try and sell the pick.

I said a few weeks ago that the GOP would try to use this vacancy to knock the President once in the jaw just because they need the political victory. I still believe that. This could be a case where the Republicans could pick themselves up off the mat so to speak. But in order for that to happen, the GOP will have to truly band together in opposition, and I just do not know if that can happen this time around. There are the usual suspects like Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins whom Democrats will try to pick off in order to defeat the filibuster, and you better believe the White House will be putting pressure on the newest Democrat in the Senate, Arlen Specter, to do what he is supposed to.

That would give Democrats more than enough votes to defeat a filibuster. But will the GOP go that far? They have to balance their need to defeat the Obama administration at least once before the 2010 midterms on major legislation with their equally important need of not angering a certain key constituency any more than they already have: Hispanic Americans. Ever since former President Bush embarked on one of the two most ill-informed policy crusades of his Presidency, his illegal-immigration reform package in spring 2006, Hispanics have been none too pleased with the GOP. Obama won Hispanics with almost 70% of the vote last fall. Hispanic activist groups will push hard for Sotomayor, and the GOP may crumble under the pressure and concede the President’s choice.

They may. I don’t think they will. After all, the GOP has already shown that they believe every demographic group is expendable as long as they hold on the Christian conservatives. So where will the conservative activist groups fall on Sotomayor? Guess.

Ironically, the GOP may not be able to use their favorite SCOTUS issue against Sotomayor. In the Federal Appeals Court, she actually voted against a pro choice group in the only case she heard concerning the issue of abortion. In any case, while most pundits are predicting an easy confirmation, I’m not going to hold my breath. After all, no one thought the GOP would be as united as it was against the Stimulus package.

Correspondents Dinner Speech

2009-05-11T08:13:00.000-07:00

And thusly, I end my prolonged absence from the internet political community. I know updates have been sparse, and it has been a stressful spring, but now it’s back to business. New Congressional Power Rankings tomorrow. But for now, how about that Correspondents Dinner speech by the President?

“For the last time, the Republican Party does not qualify for a bailout. Rush Limbaugh does not count as a troubled asset.” Nice.

I loved the teleprompter joke at the beginning. Not a lot of people realize that the President does use a teleprompter at basically every event. It’s one of the reasons he speaks so well when he speaks, he doesn’t need to constantly look down to see where he is on the page or what his next line is. Previous Presidents have either leaned too heavily on the teleprompter so that they actually seemed disengaged from the audience he is speaking to, (George W. Bush) or have refused to use the thing at all, but the President has mastered the use of the machine so that he looks like he really is “speaking off the cuff” even at major speeches like his inaugural. The President has been known to drop a few funny one liners before minor speeches and events. But the only other truly satirical speech he has ever given was at the Al Smith dinner last fall during the campaign:

Correspondents Dinners have a history for funny speeches by the press as well, but I couldn’t get through a post on the Correspondents Dinner without mentioning the man himself, Stephen Colbert roasting W in 2006.

On Specter and Bunning's Chances

2009-05-05T10:40:00.001-07:00

If Arlen Specter thought he might have a honeymoon with the Democratic Party following his abrupt party switch last week, he was clearly mistaken. His race for re-election will not be any easier on the Democratic side then it was on the Republican side after his comments on his supposed loyalty to the Democratic Party, “My change in party affiliation does not mean that I will be a party-line voter any more for the Democrats that I have been for the Republicans …I did not say I would be a loyal Democrat. I did not say that.”

Never mind that you did, Specter (the exact quote was “I'm a loyal Democrat. I support your agenda.”), but the point here is that Joe Torsella is still planning to run in the Democratic primary. Specter may be able to dispose of him fairly easily, but not without spending some cash. And even if he could dispose of Torsella easily, I doubt he could do the same with Congressman Joe Sestak, who last I checked was considered a possibility for a Democratic nominee when Specter was still a Republican. If Sestak runs, I’m not all that convinced that the Specter who made the “I did not say I would be a loyal Democrat” comments actually wins a Dem primary.

Even if Specter gets through the Democratic primary unscathed, which he could, he then will be dealing with the possibility of a GOP challenge from Tom Ridge, who will make a decision if he wants to run in the next two weeks. Commentators have been projecting that the only way the GOP wins against Specter now is if they find a candidate who is equally strong in the big cities as he is in the suburbs and rural areas of Pennsylvania, and Ridge would be that man.

My guess is that Specter made his comments thinking that he will not get a serious primary challenge, and is looking to hold the center long before any winner of the GOP primary can hope to do so. It’s not a bad strategy, but by pledging to still vote against Card Check, he is ruining his chances at a good endorsement from the AFL-CIO which would be immensely useful in putting down a primary opponent and mobilizing support for the general. He is also ruining his chances with potential fundraising from a new core of important contributors in the Democratic Party; the liberal blogosphere.

So the Pennsylvania Senate seat may be slipping from our collective Democratic grasp sooner than anticipated. The same could be happening in Kentucky where rumors have been swirling recently with unusual frequency about the possibility of a Jim Bunning retirement. First, he was apperantly sending a thinly veiled signal about his impending retirement when he decided to stay in Washington DC instead of attending the Kentucky Derby on Saturday. Then he was supposed to announce his retirement at a GOP dinner Saturday night. He did not. What he did do was issue a scathing statement about his courageous leader in the Senate, Mitch McConnell:

“Do you realize that under our dynamic leadership of our leader, we have gone from 55 and probably to 40 (Senate seats) in two election cycles, and if the tea leaves that I read are correct, we will wind up with about 36 after this election cycle. So if leadership means anything, it means you don’t lose … approximately 19 seats in three election cycles with good leadership.”

eesh. That’s a stinger. The most recent whispers surrounding Bunnings’s so called “impending” retirement had to do with his admittedly anemic fundraising numbers. He issued a typical non-denial denial in which he said that he has no plans on retiring and would only consider retirement if his fundraising numbers are down. Well they are, so he didn’t really say anything much there did he?

You might have guessed that I remain skeptical about anything to do with Bunning’s future plans. My most reasonable guess is that he will announce his retirement at the end of the next fundraising quarter when a new round of rumors starts up. But then again, Bunning has shown himself to be fundamentally unreasonable when trying to stick it to his own party, so I seriously can’t issue a forecast as to what will happen.

Justice David Souter Will Retire at End of Term

2009-05-01T16:10:00.000-07:00

Associate Justice David Souter will leave the Supreme Court later this year, possibly even before the Court’s new term begins in October. Souter’s retirement surprised just about everyone outside the beltway. I personally thought that if anyone would retire this year, it would be Justice Ginsberg, not Souter, who is in relatively good health. Souter’s retirement was apperantly the worst kept secret in Washington, with Souter sending signals, subliminal signals, that he may be planning on retiring. The secret was confirmed last night by NPR.

I’m not going to engage in the traditional conjecture surrounding who the President will pick to fill the open seat. Instead, I will offer a word of warning. This is a political instance which could provide the GOP with an opportunity to crawl back into the game, so to speak. Obama will pick a liberal to replace the reliably liberal Souter, which means that every pro-life conservative will have ample opportunity to kick and scream over the nominee. If the GOP could defeat the Obama administration in the nomination process, it would go a long way to winning back influence before the 2010 election.

Obama’s First 100 Days Press Conference

2009-04-29T16:28:00.001-07:00

The President will be giving another prime time press conference tonight. So far, he has already given more press conferences than any President since Harry Truman, and if he continues on this pace, then he will surly equal Truman, who enjoyed a lap dog press as opposed to the attack dog media that Obama faces on a day to day basis. Speaking of hostile media, Fox has announced their intention to stick to their original programming, allowing the President’s press conferene to be aired only on their cable networks, Fox News, and Fox News Financial.

The conference is set to being in less than an hour, below is the embed via hulu for the conference, in the event you turn on Fox and are shocked by a clear lack of progress.

What topics will dominate the press conference? Expect Arlen Specter to be a hot topic. You can also count on the budget, the stimulus package, health care reform, torture memos, the swine flu, and possibly questions on Iraq, and the never ending Coleman-Franken debacle.

Arlen Specter to Switch Parties

2009-04-28T12:02:00.000-07:00

News Bits on the Quick Switch:

Senator Arlen Specter announced today that he will officially be a Democrat from now on, and will run as a Democrat for re-election in 2010. The possibility of a party switch for Arlen Specter has been floating around for over a month now. The switch was announced today as polling made it increasingly clear that he would lose a GOP primary against Pat Toomy, a much more conservative Republican. Polling information on the Democratic side, on the other hand, shows him with a 71% approval rating.

President Obama spoke with Specter this morning at 10:30, telling Specter that the Democrats are “thrilled to have” him in the party. The President also pledged Specter his full support. Said Specter to the President, “I'm a loyal Democrat. I support your agenda.”

Specter apparently made the decision unilaterally, without any incentive being provided by Democrats. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid was only told of the decision yesterday, after the decision was already made. Vice President Joe Biden may have been involved in bringing Specter into the Democratic party, instead of remaining an independent a la Joe Lieberman. Tom Harkin of Iowa also seems to have been involved.

Republican leaders received little or no warning that Specter was planning a switch. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell called an emergency meeting in his office at noon today, and barred other Senator’s staff from entering. Senators John Cornyn, Jon Kyle, John Thune, Lisa Murkowski, and Judd Gregg were all in attendance, and were all ignorant of the Specter developments as they entered McConnell’s office.

Senator John McCain, who embraced Joe Lieberman when he left the Democratic Party in 2006 to run as an independent, said of Specter’s switch, “I regret his decision.”

It has been a popularly observed trend that the constant rancor emanating from the conservative wing of the Republican Party would lead to an isolation, and eventually schism, between these conservatives and the GOP moderates. Specter’s switch is just the physical embodiment of the hemorrhaging that the GOP has suffered over the last three years, and I’m not the only one who thinks so. Said Senator Snowe, “We are headed towards the smallest political tent in history.”

GOP Chairman Michael Steel said that the switch was “not based on principles of any kind.” I am personally wondering what the Republican leadership really thinks is happening here. This is not an isolated instance of one person bucking the party. The GOP is facing fully fledged revolt from its moderate voters. I wonder if John Cornyn or Mitch McConnell will have the strength to stand up in front of Republican voters and call them unprincipled if they have ever voted for anyone other than a Republican.

So what does this do to the “Card Check” legislation which had to be put on hold? Specter had announced his plans to vote against it, but only after he began getting serious threats from Republicans for a primary challenge. Now that he doesn’t have to worry about that Primary challenge, what are the odds he votes against the legislation that at one time he co-sponsored?

Republicans will step up their resistance in the Minnesota Senate ~~campaign~~ ~~recount~~ drawn out appeals process in order to keep Al Franken from being seated. If the Minnesota Supreme Court fails to issue a ruling until July, then the Supreme Court would not likely hear arguments on that appeal until September at the earliest, meaning a final decision could not be handed down until November. This is no longer a matter of keeping Democrats from getting close to the filibuster prove majority, it is about keeping them from attaining it period.

This is going to be the dominating political story for the rest of the week, and I’m sure the White House couldn’t be any more pleased. The GOP is looking as beleaguered as it ever has. The GOP leadership is being reduced to a stuttering group of ideologues who have neither the power nor the capacity to execute basic political plans. In short, they are getting steamrolled by Obama, Reid, and Nancy Pelosi, and there is nothing they can do about it.

Last week, I said that Specter was vulnerable in his race for re-election. I’m not sure anything has changed. Neither of the Democrats who had already announced their intention to run for the Senate have since announced that they will be dropping out of the race now that Specter is a Democrat. Either Toomy or Murphy would still be strong Republican opponents in the general election for Specter to handle. And Specter’s switch just put a bulls eye the size of Pittsburg on Specter’s back for John Cornyn and the NRSC to shoot at. And you better believe that Cornyn will be gunning for Specter after Cornyn went out on a political limb in pledging his support to Specter for re-election a month ago.

2010 Senate Watch Part Three

2009-04-23T11:21:00.000-07:00

Time for the final part of my three day installment on what to expect from the 2010 midterm Senate races. If you think that the races I’ve analyzed the last few days have painted a rosy picture for Democrats, well, it has. A Pew research poll released today says the President has a 73% favorability rating. That is astronomical. If those kinds of numbers hold steady for the next year and a half, and if everything, and I mean everything, goes right, then Dems can hope to pick off these seats in a close contest. These are the Perfect Storm races:

•Tom Coburn- R- OK; Coburn recently said that he is flirting with retirement, but remains undecided as to whether he plans to run for re-election in 2010. I think it is telling, especially if fundraising figures are anything to go off of, that Coburn has only raised $17,000 for his re-election campaign this year, and has only a paltry $57,000 in his campaign account total. One would expect a Senator to have at least a couple million dollars saved up by the time primary season rolls around, Coburn would have a lot of work to do to catch up to that total. Still, Oklahoma is one of the most conservative states in the country. If any Democrat, even a well funded one with excellent name recognition, wanted to win this race, he would have to do so against an incumbent Coburn who has very little money on hand.

•Lisa Murkowski- R-AK- Murkowski was appointed to the Senate by the Governor, who just happened to be her father. This led to a scandal which promptly ended his career, but she won re-election on her own skills and is still the incumbent. That is unless the current Governor Sarah “I wanna be President someday” Palin decides to run against Murkowski in the primary. Murkowski has been threatening up a storm against Palin, who would likely have to abandon her seat in the Governor’s office to make the run (Alaska is also set for a Governors election in 2010), and it would be a tough primary for Palin to win. But if Palin did win the primary, then Democrats would put a target on her back so big that we would be able to see it from…well…Russia.

On a not wholly unrelated note, PPP just came out with a poll today that says that 20% of Republicans would rather vote for President Obama than for Sarah Palin if she became the GOP nominee in 2012. Obama would beat her in a head to head matchup 53-41%. Obama similarly beats other potential GOP nominees, Mike Huckabee, 49-42%, Newt Gingrich, 52-39%, and Mitt Romney, 50%-39%.

•Kansas (R)- Yay! Another Republican retirement. Sam Brownback was never under any serious threat to lose to any Democrat, but he will be vacating the seat to run for Governor. The Republicans are putting together a pretty tough field which includes two sitting Congressmen (Tom Tiahrt and Jerry Moran). Democrats were hoping that Kathleen Sebelius would run, but she decided to join the Obama cabinet instead. That means the next best possibility would be Nancy Boyda, who has never run for statewide office. Nonetheless, Boyda is the closes to a national presence that Kansas Democrats have following her unlikely upset in her 2006 House campaign against Jim Ryun, so she might have decent fundraising. But then again, she did lose her seat in the House after just one term, so maybe not. If everything went right for Democrats, then this seat could conceivably be possible to switch.

Ed: I’m out of town tomorrow, going to Independence Missouri to visit the archives at the President Truman Library. Should be fun.

2010 Senate Watch Part Two

2009-04-22T11:29:00.000-07:00

Yesterday, I looked at the seats in the Senate which are most likely to switch parties, and could lead to heavy competition. Today, I want to switch it up and look at the vulnerable candidates. This is the second part of my three day analysis of the upcoming 2010 Senate races.

These are Vulnerable candidates that the opposing party will surly target in an effort to pick up seats, but may have difficulty winning due to other factors. They may be vulnerable in primaries, but not the general.

•Chris Dodd- D-CT; Despite decent fundraising ($1.4 million in the bank so far) and his incumbency based in what would normally be considered a safe blue state, Chris Dodd has one major disadvantage. As chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, he is in part responsible for, well, everything bad that has happened to the economy. From the uninhibited predatory lending, to the fiasco surrounding the first bailout, Dodd’s complacency has put him in the company of men who have been vilified for almost a year now concerning the state of America’s economy. About seven Republicans have so far raised the possibility of running against Dodd, and four of them have already organized campaign structures. Unless the economy turns around quickly, Dodd could be the sole Democratic loss in 2010. So why only call him “vulnerable” and not a straight toss up? His fundraising and lack of primary opponent gives him an advantage, as does being from a blue state. Also, the President just today pledged his support to Dodd in his campaign for re-election.

•Roland Burris- D-IL; Appointed to the Senate by disgraced former Governor Rod Blagojevich, Burris has been haunted by pay to play rumors ever since he assumed President Obama’s old seat. Those rumors intensified when he told the press about a fundraiser he tried to put on for the former Governor in November of 2008. Burris’ fundraising has been anemic. He raised a grand total of $843 in the first quarter of the year (alongside $111,032 in debt to legal aid). If he somehow makes it through a primary challenge, then Republicans have a real shot at picking Burris’ seat off. But he has to have enough juice to win a primary campaign. I don’t think he does. If any other Democrat wins the primary, then the seat stays blue.

•Arlen Specter- R-PA- Specter has been endlessly criticized by Republicans for agreeing to vote for the President’s stimulus package, and that criticism has been strong enough for several conservatives to begin campaigns to mount primary challenges against him, such as Larry Murphy and former Congressman Pat Toomey. If that weren’t bad enough for Specter, he is also looking at a litany of Democrats who see Pennsylvania slipping to the left, and view Specter as vulnerable. These Democrats include the state’s AG, Josh Shapiro, and former NFL player, and Steelers star Franco Harris, who seems to be a legitimate Democratic activist. All this adds up to an expensive campaign for a moderate Republican suffering the ire of the NRSC. But even so, if Specter can pull out of the primary on top, and if Democrats are unable to find better candidates then the ones they currently have, then Specter should be ok.

•Michael Bennet- D-CO; Colorado has been tilting left for the past couple elections, but the question remains, as in Missouri, is that pendulum prepared to swing back to the right? Bennet has never run for public office before, and his fundraising has not been spectacular. Add to that a clear lack of popular support (a PPP poll released today states that 41% of voters disapprove of Bennet's performance so far, with just 34% saying they approve) and Bennet seems clearly vulnerable. If a well funded, experienced Republican runs against him, Bennet could have a tough time winning re-election. Republicans are lining up to take him on, including two former congressmen, and a popular Colorado radio personality. If Tom Tancredo is able to with the Republican primary, this race goes straight to the toss up bin.

•Harry Ried- D-NV; Reid is not the strongest majority leader the Democrats have ever had, but he is strong enough to bring home massive amounts of money for his campaign war chest. Reid has $5 million in the bank already, so he could stop fundraising now if he wanted, and he would be ok until the last few weeks of the campaign. The Republican bench in Nevada isn’t incredibly deep, but it is deep enough that some strong candidates could be had, such as the Lt. Governor Brian Krolicki or ex-congressman Jon Porter who lost his seat to Dina Titus in 2008.

2010 Senate Watch, Part One

2009-04-21T12:00:00.000-07:00

A few months ago, I looked at the upcoming 2010 Senate races, and did a brief capsule on the races I thought would be important to watch. That list has doubled in the weeks since then, and as such, I decided to put together all the races that Democrats need to keep an eye on.

Democrats are looking to target a lot of Republican seats. We have to remember after all, the GOP has essentially pinned themselves to the idea that none of the Democratic responses to the recession would work, and have become the steadfast opposition to the economic policies of the Obama administration. If the economy has recovered by fall 2010, then there is little reason to believe that Democrats won’t dismantle the Republicans even worse than they did in 2008.

On the other hand, if the economy tumbles again, then the GOP could gain as many as five seats in an effort to eliminate the threat of a Democratic filibuster proof majority.

Or, the economy could recover too quickly, which would allow people’s attention to wander, or the economy could recover just enough to ease fears from the market, but not enough to make consumers feel truly confident. In either of those cases, then everything likely stays the same.

Today, we will be looking at the targets. These are the incumbents in the weakest position. If they win their party’s nomination, they are still in dire straits.

· Florida (R)- Republican Mel Martinez has announced his retirement, and given Florida’s status as a swing state, you better believe that both parties are going to be going after the seat pretty aggressively. On the Republican side, both Jeb Bush and Charlie Crist have been rumored as possibilities to replace Mel, though Jeb might pass if the Bush family name is still too torn, and Crist has been sending mixed signals. No Democrat with equal name recognition has stepped forward.

· Ohio (R)- George Voinovich will be retiring at the end of his current term, and Ohio is a huge swing state, so both parties will be targeting the seat. Between the two parties and independents, there are already fifteen candidates who have intentions on running. The most likely Republican to win GOP primary is Mike DeWine, a former Senator who lost his bid for re-election in the Democratic wave of 2006. The Democratic side is slightly better stacked. The Dem primary will come down to Congressman Zach Space, State Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner, or the Lt. Governor Lee Fischer. DeWine lost by 12% in 2006, and didn’t have the support of Conservative Republicans, and there isn’t much to make me think that any of the other declared Republicans are any more serious. This seat is likely to switch to the Democrats.

· Missouri (R)- If you are starting to catch a trend here, its because there is one. For the third election in a row, Republicans are dealing with massive defections via retirement. Kit Bond’s departure from the Senate could prove especially harmful because it would give momentum to a state Democratic party in Missouri which already has tons of momentum, electing Claire McCaskill in 2006, and sending 11 electoral votes to Barack Obama in 2008. Robin Carnahan, the state Secretary of State is the odds on favorite to win the Democratic primary, and a seat in the Senate. Roy Blunt, who lost to McCaskill, is the favorite to win the GOP nomination, but he is already looking at three other primary opponents, including Congressman Sam Graves (CD-6).

· New Hampshire (R)- Another GOP retirement in a state in which the Democrats can easily field a winner, Obama won NH in 2008, and despite its conservative nature, NH is still a blue state. Paul Hodes, a Democratic Congressman, is the favorite to win the Democratic nomination, while there are eight names which could possibly show up on the GOP side. If Democrats press their recourses hard enough, they will win this race.

· David Vitter- R-LA. Vitter is about a sure to lose his seat in the Senate as anyone could be. After getting caught up with a D.C. area call girl, Vitter’s conservative credentials have been under constant criticism. He is looking a primary challenge dead in the eye from state Secretary of State, and possibly even Bobby Jindal, who is trying to find a way onto the national stage to make his run at the White House more effective. Swear to god, there is even a female adult film star named, I kid you not, Stormy Daniels who is contemplating a run as a Republican She is from Louisiana. Why in the world would you make the subtitle of your draft website, “A Tsunami in the Making”? I would say that it is all a big joke, but she does not seem to think it is. Even if Bunning is able to win his primary, which he might not given his possible competition, then he still has the prospects of facing stiff competition from one of eight Democrats planning a run, including a prominent businessman, a sitting Congressman, a couple of other ex-congressmen, a former Governor, the Lt. Governor (who just happens to be the brother of the other Senator from LA) and a State Senator.

· Jim Bunning- R-KY- Bunning must be incensed that the Cook Political Report has him listed as a possible retirement, a rumor that he has more than firmly denied ever since it first reared its ugly little head months ago. Kentucky’s senior Senator, Mitch McConnell, wants him out, and for obvious reasons. In 2004, Bush won the state by 20 points, but Bunning only won re-election by two points. His job approval is tanking. He has virtually no fundraising. Big name Democrats from the state are lining up to oppose him. If Bunning wins his primary, then he almost surly loses the general.

Perry's Secession Comments and the State of the GOP

2009-04-20T08:28:00.000-07:00

When I first heard that Governor Rick Perry of Texas had supposedly, in response to the growing national debt, put secession on the table as a possible Texan response to the stimulus, I first thought “I hope this is just a bunch of loony bloggers trying to turn nothing into something.” I was wrong. Since I first heard the story, I have seen it covered and discussed by multiple sources, all of which I respect.

At question here is the following quote, offered by Perry at a news conference during yesterday’s tea parties:

“There’s a lot of different scenarios. We’ve got a great union. There’s absolutely no reason to dissolve it. But if Washington continues to thumb their nose at the American people, you know, who knows what might come out of that. But Texas is a very unique place, and we’re a pretty independent lot to boot.”

First things first, let’s set aside some alternative explanations, because let’s face it, he could have just made a mistake. Was he misquoted? No, the camera’s present clearly recorded the message. Perhaps he wasn’t addressing reporters, but making a joke to a member of his staff? Surly not, the comment was offered in response to a question posed directly to the Governor from a journalist. Was it a flippant comment, not intended to be taken seriously? Not likely, given the context. Was it vacuous? Yes.

So what do we do? Charge him with treason? Chalk it up to typical Texas pretentiousness and let it go? It was a casual suggestion, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t matter. It is representative of the typical Republican line on Obama policies. The GOP isn’t getting it their way, so they kick and scream to get attention. In Perry’s case, it is about his rejection of part of the stimulus funds intended to go to his state, a rejection which has put him in the line of fire of Kay Hutchison, who is challenging Perry for the Governor’s office. Perry wants to look cool and tough. Instead he looks like a fool. Perry has still refused to back away from the comments.

Why is it significant? It’s not like Texas is actually going to split from the union any time soon. Perry may be encouraging political extremists, but most of the population of Texas still prefers being American. Those small band of Texas “Revolutionaries” if that’s what I may call them, are an extreme minority, and could not possibly hope to keep Texas out of the union. What are they going to do, start a war with the US military? Please.

No, it’s significant because in symbolizes the problems that the GOP is having. They lack a clear leader, a prominent man or woman that the party can coalesce around. They lack any real policy options. Their alternative stimulus was just tax cuts, nothing else. Their alternative budget was a joke. And finally, there is the omnipresent problem of a shrinking political base. More and more independents are identifying themselves as Democratic, and more and more Republicans are identifying themselves as independents. That leaves only the most conservative members of the old GOP as still members of the party, and as Perry’s comments suggest, the GOP would rather cater to those conservatives than attract moderates.

Sarah Palin could have been that transformative figure to bring back moderates to the GOP. People would vote for a woman to become President. The problem is that she also decided to accommodate the right, and it has scared off even more moderate Republicans who reluctantly allow their party to become obsolete.

And so now the GOP is the party of “NO.” All Rick Perry has done is to take it to the logical extreme of saying “NO” and “WE QUIT” all at the same time.

Perspective is Priceless

2009-04-15T15:04:00.000-07:00

As the media begins aggressivly reporting on the dozens of government protests (I refuse to call them "tea parties), I think that we need to keep things in perspective a little bit as to just how many people are actually taking part in this nonsense.

From the Washington DC protest:

From the President's Inaguration:

Who do you think has more popular support? Right wing nutjobs like these guys, or the President?

Funny News Bits for the Busy Busy

2009-04-13T20:49:00.000-07:00

I have so much to do, and yet so little time to do it, that I cannot write the full essays that I have been planning on. I have several half written, and another which is fully written, but dated, so I likely won’t print it. Nonetheless, I bring you the important clippings of the day. Satire ensues…

A three judge panel in Minnesota has declared Al Franken the winner of last November’s Senate race in a decision which seems to leave little room for interpretation – or appeal. Coleman continues to argue that the equal protection of over 4,000 voters has been violated, but the court seems to feel otherwise. Coleman can, and likely will, appeal to the State Supreme court within the next ten days, which will lengthen the process even further. It remains possible that the seat could still be vacant in six months, a thought that is no doubt reassuring to the NRSC.

What the NRSC surly doth not find reassuring is the fact that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has raised a total of five million dollars already for his re-election campaign, a campaign where most strategists would consider him vulnerable – that is if the Nevada GOP can actually find someone to run against him. See my list of vulnerable Senators later this week.

A CNN poll release earlier today said that 72% of the public disagree with former Vice President Dick Cheney’s remarks that President Obama’s early foreign policy has made the county less safe. When asked about the public’s reaction, Dick Cheney tersely responded “So?”

After all, how could Cheney think Obama weak on national security after his recent actions to secure American vessels from pirates? Indeed, the President is clearly stronger on this issue than former President Bush ever was. In fact, President Obama has the strongest stand against pirates of any modern President. Compare the number of Pirates the sitting President has ordered executed versus other Presidents:

Point.

Eminem comes out with a new album. Bill O’reilly doesn’t like it. The world continues to spin. Bill-0 was specifically upset with Eminem’s music video, which is heavy on the Sarah Palin side. I’m not embedding to the Eminem video on this page because I’m not particularly wild about his tunes either, but that’s just because I prefer a different brand of music (Dave Matthews is closer to my tastes). But the video makes light of Sarah Palin and her political ambitions in a way that the Fox News anchor finds...displeasing. For your viewing pleasure, here is a list of things that Bill O’Reilly is disgusted by (not every item has a link, but the ones that do sure are fun):

New!: Eminem
Ludacris
Pepsi
David Letterman
Media Matters
Keith Olbermann
Richard Dawkins
Stephen Colbert
Jon Stewart
Anything to do with Comedy Central really.
Obama Staffers
The first, fourth, fifth, sixth, eighth, fourteenth, fifteenth, sixteenth, and nineteenth amendments.
Democrats
RealJournalists
Reason
Irony
Letting guests answer questions
Being silent for two consecutive minutes
And last, but certainly not least, Teleprompters.

Tuesday News Bits (UPDATED)

2009-04-07T14:12:00.000-07:00

So it goes. Steve King has been talking for weeks about possibly challenging Iowa Governor Chet Culver who is seeking re-election in 2010. Now King is saying that if Culver doesn’t “properly handle” the Supreme Court decision before the end of the session, then King will be more likely to run. By the way, I’m pretty sure that when King says “properly handle” that he doesn’t mean “uphold your constitutional duty as chief executive of the state and respect separation of powers, checks and balances, and basic democratic principles by enforcing the decision handed down by the courts.”

Not that King’s ultimatum wasn’t flimsy enough. Usually when you say “do this or else” the “or else” part is supposed to be truly spine tingling. Instead, King says “do what I say, or I will continue to merely consider running against you.”

If I were Chet Culver, I would issue a statement right now that says the following:

“Hello my fellow Iowans. Yesterday, the Iowa Supreme Court handed down a landmark decision that will affect Iowa in what I perceive to be a positive manner in the years to come. The court’s decision, based on common sense and principles of civil liberties and democracy in general, though controversial, deserves our support. And by the way King, I dare you, I double dare - nay – I triple dog dare you to run against me. I welcome the challenge. By the way, if you do choose to run against me, you are a sucker, because you’ll be giving up your cushy seat in the House of Representatives from a district where you will always win, to instead run against, and lose to, me.”

I’m not the only one who has this opinion either. There seem to be scores of Democrats in Iowa who have trouble restraining themselves from launching into full song and dance over the idea of Steve King running for statewide office. Apparently, he is as disliked in his home state as he is, well, everywhere else. Aside from King’s weak reaction, it’s hard to understand exactly why there was so much surprise coming from the Iowa conservatives after the ruling was handed down. The ruling seemed to be expected by almost everyone who had paid attention to the oral arguments.

The larger reason that Democrats in Iowa like the idea of running against a social conservative is the economy. A more moderate Republican will bring up Iowa’s economic hard times and try to hit Culver on the issue. King will talk Gay Marriage until he is blue in the face. Everyone gets what they want. King gets to continue making outlandish and offensive remarks, Democrats in Iowa get their Governor back.

UPDATED: Governor Culver issued a statement reflecting some of the principles I espoused in the column I posted on friday:

“Yet, the Supreme Court of Iowa, in a unanimous decision, has clearly stated that the Constitution of our state, which guarantees equal protection of the law to all Iowans, requires the State of Iowa to recognize the civil marriage contract of two people of the same gender. The Court also concluded that the denial of this right constitutes discrimination. Therefore, after careful consideration and a thorough reading of the Court’s decision, I am reluctant to support amending the Iowa Constitution to add a provision that our Supreme Court has said is unlawful and discriminatory."

“As Governor, I must respect the authority of the Iowa Supreme Court, and have a duty to uphold the Constitution of the State of Iowa. I also fully respect the right of all Iowans to live under the full protection of Iowa’s Constitution.”

And he concluded “Congressman King, the gauntlet has been thrown. Bring it.”

…Ok, no. He didn’t actually end it that way. I wish he did though.

Just days after the landmark Iowa Supreme Court decision, Vermont overrode the veto of its Governor, allowing it to become the fourth state in the country to allow Gay Marriage. Vermont is the first state to allow Gay Marriage via state legislation, as opposed to court decisions striking down unconstitutional laws.

Democrat Al Franken has extended his vote lead over Republican Norm Coleman in Minnesota after a three judge panel admitted new votes yesterday. 350 rejected absentee ballots were counted, with Franken taking 198 of them, and Coleman only taking 111 of them. The result is a net gain of 87 votes for Franken, extending his lead to 312. According to Congressional Quarterly Politics, it is now statistically impossible for Coleman to win. The only question now; will Governor Pawlenty play partisan politics and refuse to sign the election certificate, or will he do the right thing, and allow Franken to be seated?

As long as we are talking about the Senate, A PPP poll was leaked to the public by the Political Wire which shows that Kentucky Senator Jim Bunning has just a 28% approval rating, and loses reelection against any of the declared Democratic candidates for Senate.

It is municipal primary day here in Omaha. I’m voting for Jim Suttle for mayor. I feel like I may have done some of my local visitors a disservice by not commenting on the Mayor’s race ~~a little more~~ at all. Part of the reason for that is I simply have not been getting the kind of information I would like in order to start throwing around ideas on who should do what, where, and how. I think all three candidates are qualified, and I would seriously consider voting for at least one of the other candidates. But Suttle is my man. I just hope there is a high enough Democratic turnout to carry him past the primary.

The other two candidates, Vokal (whom I would consider) and Daub (who I would, under no circumstances, ever vote for) are both qualified for the job. From an electioneering standpoint, Vokal began defining himself as the viable Republican alternative to Daub, and he started the election season strong, but as his fundraising numbers have dwindled, so has his ability to reach large numbers of voters. Vokal used pension spiking as an issue to try and eat into Daub’s base, but the Police union has been hammering away at Vokal for weeks, and who knows how negative an effect it could have. Suttle, on the other hand, started with a weaker hand than Daub and Vokal, but has garnered a nice little war chest for himself, perhaps in anticipation of Vokal’s end. In any case, I predict that Daub and Suttle will be fighting for the Mayor’s office in the General, and Vokal will be on the outside looking in.

Iowa Supreme Court Strikes Down Anti-Gay Marriage Law

2009-04-03T11:08:00.001-07:00

In a unanimous decision released this morning, the Iowa Supreme Court struck down a law mandating that recognized marriage in the state be limited to one man and one woman. The Court ruled that the statute violated the equal protection clause of the Iowa Constitution. The court applied its own intermediate scrutiny test, which declares that the statute in question must be of substantive governmental interest. The arguments applied by the defendants suggested that regulating a child’s environment was related to a government interest, but the court decided against that argument, summed up here by the Iowa Independent:

“The court agreed with Polk County’s argument that government has an important interest in promoting an “optimal environment to raise children,” but they concluded that Iowa’s definition of marriage was both “under-inclusive” and “over-inclusive” as it relates to that goal, because the statute disqualifies couples who would be good parents, and it allows two people who would be bad parents to marry, so long as they are not of the same sex. The Iowa law is therefore not “substantially related” to the government’s interest in raising children, the court determined.”

The issue of court action against anti-gay legislation holds special need for attention from me given my own experience in the issue. Nebraska’s courts laid aside a gay marriage ban in 2005 using similar reasoning, but using the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment to the Constitution instead, as Nebraska’s gay marriage ban was an amendment to the state constitution, and note a mere state statute as in Iowa. That ruling was overturned just a little over a year later. I was in high school when that first ruling was overturned, and I remember arguing against the conservatives all around me who condemned the decision as “activist judges.” I could fire off the same kind of arguments against judges using judicial restraint, but I would digress.

Representative Steve King (CD-5) has already voiced his displeasure:

“This is an unconstitutional ruling and another example of activist judges molding the Constitution to achieve their personal political ends. … If judges believe the Iowa legislature should grant same sex marriage, they should resign from their positions and run for office, not legislate from the bench…Along with a constitutional amendment, the legislature must also enact marriage license residency requirements so that Iowa does not become the gay marriage Mecca due to the Supreme Court’s latest experiment in social engineering.”

It has already been established that Steve King is one of the craziest wing nuts in the House, but I shall attempt to answer back some of his arguments in a calm and rational manner. First, he notes that it is an “unconstitutional ruling,” but cites no reasoning for which to support this charge. The court’s decision on the other hand (available here) that was handed down very clearly explains its reasoning, which we shall approach in a moment. Second, it is a popular attack against the judge that if they want to see gay marriage allowed, they ought to run for legislature. It is a nonsensical argument given that it refuses to acknowledge the judge’s decision, which should be taken all the more seriously in this case given that it was a unanimous decision from the Iowa Supreme Court. Bottom line is that King cannot prove that the judges used their own motivations to overturn the law, especially when the law has proven to be unconstitutional.

Then, King takes an unnecessary and dare I say racist jab at Muslim Americans, saying that Iowa will become a “gay marriage Mecca” thanks to the court’s decision. Given King’s past rants against Muslims, we can safely assume that he is more or less comparing gays and lesbians with Muslims as a means of drawing public opinion against both groups. It is shameful, to say the least.

But the Iowa Supreme Court seemed to pre-empt the King statement, and answered it back fairly well in its decision (from pages 12 and 13):

"The Iowa Constitution is the cornerstone of governing in Iowa... It establishes three separate, but equal, branches of government and delineates the limited roles and powers of each branch... Among other basic principles essential to our form of government, the constitution defines certain individual rights upon which the government may not infringe. See Iowa Const. art. I (“Bill of Rights”). Equal protection of the law is one of the guaranteed rights. All these rights and principles are declared and undeniably accepted as the supreme law of this state, against which no contrary law can stand… This case, as with most other civil rights actions before it, implicates these broad constitutional principles of governing. These Iowans, believing that the law is inconsistent with certain constitutional mandates, exercised their constitutional right to petition the courts for redress of their grievance. This court, consistent with its role to interpret the law and resolve disputes, now has the responsibility to determine if the law enacted by the legislative branch and enforced by the executive branch violates the Iowa Constitution."

The possibility of a constitutional amendment may not be much of a possibility at all. Democrats in Iowa are already moving to shut out any possibility of an amendment. And as the New York Times article at the top of the page pointed out, in order for an amendment to pass in Iowa, both houses of the Legislature need to approve the amendment in succeeding sessions, and then the voters have to move to approve it as well. All in all, there are a great many hurdles for the social conservatives to overcome.

There are many broader implications of the decision besides its immediate impact on Gays and Lesbians living in Iowa. But that is for another day. Lets first sit back and bask in the glory of another progressive victory in the Midwest.

Fun With the News

2009-04-03T09:22:00.000-07:00

I really wish that the GOP in Alaska had come out with this story on March 30th, I would have had a nice April Fool’s day joke ready.

The Justice Department decided to drop charges against former Senator Ted Stevens earlier this week because of concern over the conduct of several prosecutors working the case. The Alaska GOP promptly issued a statement calling for Democratic Senator Mark Begich to resign from his seat and run in a special election (presumably against Stevens).

I could just imagine the fun I could have had with that story If I had seen it before April:

JOHN McCAIN CALLS FOR PRESIDENT TO RESIGN: ASKS FOR DO-OVER

Washington-AP Senator John McCain issued a declaration today calling for the immediate resignation of President Barack Obama and his entire executive staff, and proceeded to ask the Congress to enact legislation allowing for a nationwide special election.

“The President won the election based on false pretenses. He said he was going to fix the economy. He said he was going to be bipartisan. Based on the stimulus and the budget votes, I can most defiantly say that he has failed,” said McCain in an exclusive interview with Midwest Democrat from his office in the Capital. “Given that these were the reasons people voted for him, It is only logical that he resign and give me a second chance.”

McCain also noted, whilst sipping on prune juice, that he would not take public financing this time around.

In all seriousness, this is ridiculous. One cannot rationally assume that ever person who voted for Begich did so exclusively because of Stevens’ corruption charges. Even if you could cherry pick enough people who did (Begich won by about 4,000 votes) you can’t assume that they are unhappy enough with his performance now to warrant any kind of recall.

Of course, Ted Stevens hasn’t issued a public statement about the GOP’s line or the Governor’s response. One would expect him to come out and say “If Begich resigned, I would run in the special election.” But he hasn’t. And I don’t think that he would. I have an inkling that the Alaska GOP is trying to pull a bait and switch of their own. Administer public pressure to force a special election, and then use a candidate other than Stevens.

Then, Sarah Palin decided to support the statement. That Governor Palin has decided to wade further into the issue is a reflection not of her leadership, but of her partisanship. Dr. Steven Taylor put it best on Poliblog:

“This type of position by Governor Palin reinforces the notion that she isn’t a statesman or a leader, but rather focused very specifically on partisan success to the exclusion of reasonable behavior. She isn’t concerned about the dubious nature of such a move, the cost of a special election, nor the temporary denial of her state of a Senator. No, she is worried that a corrupt member of her party, who lucked out of seven convictions it would seem, should have an opportunity to return to office. Or, if we assume that Stevens wouldn’t run, she wants to give a member of her party a shot at winning back the seat.
The only logic to support such a position is partisan logic, and while I fully understand that there is a very real role for party competition for office and in party behavior in office, there does come a time when the focus should be governing.”

One explaination for the partisanship is that she is still looking desperately for some way into the Senate. In December, it looked like her only way in would be to challenge Lisa Murkowski in the GOP primary. Since then polling information has come out which would make a challenge’s success unlikely. So now she is clinging to a last ditch hope of possibly getting into the Senate before 2010 so she can more easily run for President in 2012. Even Next Right is suspicious of the Governor’s leadership:

A lot of people wonder who the next leaders of the Republican Party should be. I don't know. But you know who it shouldn't be? Anybody who thinks the current elected Senator from Alaska should resign so that the corrupt former Senator Ted Stevens can be brought back to the Senate.
Forewarned is forearmed.

Indeed.

On Public Financing…

2009-04-01T17:11:00.000-07:00

John McCain has declared that public financing for Presidential contests is dead. And apparently, Bob Bauer hates him for it. Leaving Bauer alone for the moment, we might all take to remember that McCain, whose efforts in the McCain-Feingold aka Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act were directed at resurrecting and supporting campaign finance accepted financing over the summer. McCain tried to make Obama’s refusal of financing a campaign story, but largely failed as election reform wasn’t a high priority issue for most voters (it rarely is). I tend to agree with McCain, and I even cited it after the election as the preeminent reason why he lost:

The Biggest Mi$take of Them All
When Obama decided to not take public financing for the campaign, McCain thought he could make himself look good by taking the public financing, while calling Obama a liar for pledging to take the financing, and then deciding not to. I thought back in June that it was a bad idea for McCain to do that, and the resulting chaos of his campaign only confirmed that. Obama raised almost twice as much money in September than McCain was allowed for the entirety of fall campaigning. McCain could have raised as much as Obama, if not more thanks to the GOP’s corporate links, but they didn’t.
The mistake looms even larger when you consider the Obama head fake that made the McCain campaign bite on Pennsylvania. Going into October, McCain had just $37 million to spend. Governor Rendell does some interviews with the press in which he said he was worried about how the (Obama) campaign was doing in Pennsylvania. Obama begins pouring money into the state, and McCain follows suit, thinking that the state in which public polling found him down eight to twelve points he might have a chance. He didn’t. McCain ended up losing there when he should have been focusing on Ohio and Florida. He could have done all three at the same time, like Obama did, but he didn’t have the money.

In the Washington Times piece, McCain says that no candidate will ever take financing again. I have to agree. The Obama campaign showed that there are millions of people who will donate money to the campaign, which allowed him to raise $750 million in under a year. That’s three quarters of a billion dollars in essentially nine months. Why would any Presidential candidate take financing with that kind of money to be had. I mean seriously, Obama was advertising in video games. That’s almost too much money.

Now, back to Bauer, who goes off on a largely bitter rant against McCain’s statements:

"The personal dimension to the comment was the familiar one: he had decided to take public funding, lost the election, and therefore demonstrated for all time that public financing was a botched choice. If it was mistake for John McCain to take it, then it would be mistake for all others, at all times, to do the same. He says nothing about reform: about the structural problems with the system that even its proponents concede and have proposed to fix. It did not work for him in 2008: end of a story. He showed, in the most personal of ways, that it is a foolish to accept the money. This is how he feels."

I don’t know who Bauer is. But I can tell he is somewhat delusional. It was a mistake for McCain to take it. If a candidate figures that they can raise more than the $85 million that public financing puts on the table for fall campaigning, and most any major party candidate would be able to do that, then it would be a mistake for them as well. Reform is almost an impossibility. Let’s say that for Obama to take public financing in 2012, he would want an amount of money equal to that which he raised in 2008. The GOP would then get the same money. You would be talking about a $1.5 billion campaign fund, just for the two major party candidates alone. The public would be outraged at such a proposal, it would simply never pass either house of Congress, and even if it did, I am not convinced that any President would sign it, because doing so would mean lifting their opponents to the same tactical field that the incumbent would play from.

Also, I thought this was an ironic bit; Bauer pointed out that McCain never even mentioned any reform options, but then Bauer failed to cite any of his own.

At the end of the day, McCain is right. It is also a chilling thought though. It means that the kind of influence that McCain wanted to keep out of elections just found its way back in…