Archive for January 2010

Texas Governor’s Debate: Two Secessionists, and Kay Bailey Hutchinson

If you’ve been watching the Texas governor’s race, you’ll know that the Republican primary is, essentially, a clash between a respected stateswoman, and an embarrassing incumbent with “tea party” sympathies. What you may not know — I’m embarrassed to say I didn’t — is that there’s another candidate in the race. Meet Debra Medina:

Activist Debra Medina had to distance herself from statements she made last year that if efforts to promote states’ rights fail, the nation may need a “bloody war” of secession. Medina said she is against secession. She said she wants the state to be able to nullify federal laws, saying Texas usually does not get to keep all the federal gas tax money raised to build highways.

When a candidate has to distance herself from charges of secessionism — well, that’s concerning. But her arguments for nullification, which are a part of her public platform, are equally nefarious, especially for their increasing commonality among members of the far- and mainstream right. Nullification isn’t a way to get around distasteful government policies. It’s a slap in the face to the Founding Fathers, and a rejection of the shared bonds of union. Distorted readings of the Tenth Amendment aside, there’s nothing patriotic about going toe-to-toe with the federal government. The last time this tactic was tried in earnest, it ended poorly.

There’s another reason to be worried about Debra Medina. Bill White, Democrat, hyperpopular mayor, and my commencement speaker, will be the Democrats’ nominee for Governor, and stands a good chance of beating Rick Perry, who has absolutely no appeal with moderates or with the insurgent Texas left. Against Kay Bailey Hutchinson, though… well, I wouldn’t take that bet. If Medina successfully split the far-right, handing KBH the nomination, White’s chances could go up in smoke. As of now, that doesn’t look likely. Perry holds a commanding lead in admittedly suspect polls. For those of us who consider Texas’ redemption a worthy goal, pray it stays that way.

No Post

Just watch. All of it.

Like the Bartlet/Richie debate, there’s no need for further commentary. It wouldn’t be tasteful.

Oh, okay, one comment. When I say we need Prime Minister’s Questions in this country — this is why. A true statesman will stand out for his ability to punch through the politics of distraction, as Obama did yesterday.

Line Item Veto Debate Speaks Volumes

Per “Politico,” house Republicans asked for, and President Obama tentatively supported, a line item veto proposal. Line item veto bills restructure the interplay between the President and the Congress by permitting the President to pass congressional submissions piecemeal, by rejecting individual components. If that sounds revolutionary — well, it is. That’s why the Supreme Court soundly rejected it the first time the power was presented to President Clinton, by a Republican Congress. Clinton v. City of New  York, 524 U.S. 517 (2008).

There may be ways to work around the line item veto’s unconstitutionality. Because the statute’s problem is its elimination of the “presentment” requirement — basically, Congress must have the last word on the text of any whole statute — a procedure giving Congress a limited “second look” may survive judicial review.

But if that’s how the statute would have to function…what’s the point? Rather than an arguably beneficial alteration of the legislative process, a “second-look” line item veto would be little more than a substitute for the informal discourse that should already be happening between Congress and the President. The two political branches should, already, conduct business by identifying notes of disagreement and compromising on them. Admittedly, because congressional Republicans have chosen to frame their disputes with the President as individual apocalypses (“American values or socialism!”), bereft of any middle ground, that form of robust, necessary dialogue is impossible.

Note that the last time the line item veto came up was with a Republican Congress hellbent on destroying a Democratic President at all costs. Then as now, Republicans turned to a crutch to acquit themselves of the need to fight an all-out war over every issue. How sad that that’s their only option. A second-look line item veto could solve this country’s partisanship problem, but are we really ready to give up on good-faith negotiations, and settle for a parliamentary mechanism that forces a bureaucratic substitute?

KSM Trial May Be Moved, Over Federal Funding

NY Daily News reported, late last night, and Fox News confirms: per “senior administration officials,” new locations are being sought for the trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. The trial will still be in federal court, triggering none of the harms I mentioned (read last night’s post).

Also as our source suggested, one possible motivation is a bill (H.R. 4542), posed by Rep. Pete King (R-N.Y.), which would withdraw federal funding from efforts to try Guantánamo detainees in the United States. However, that bill is too broad to pass, and as of yet is drawing only Republican support. Thus, it can’t be the full story. I expect that the near-unity of downtown legislators, and the recommendations of Mayor Bloomberg, were the real factors here.

The battle is joined. To stress the necessity of our victory, I’ll close by quoting last night’s post:

For the Republican Party, the stakes surrounding the KSM trial couldn’t be higher. They’ve spent decades (think Joe McCarthy) building a national security platform on the theory that civilian institutions don’t work in wartime, and that “wartime” includes any national security crisis that occurs on a Republican president’s watch. Should the KSM trial proceed to an orderly conclusion, that entire line of argumentation would, in a single moment, dissipate. If push comes to shove, we, the Democratic Party, will be up against the momentum of fity years of Republican rhetoric. But it’s a fight we have to win, if we’re to trust ourselves and our country once more.

Breaking? Senate May Vote to Block KSM/Manhattan Trial

Over the past few days, an increasing number of New York politicians, to everyone’s shame, have followed Governor Paterson’s cowardly example and called for President Obama to select another site — or a non-Article III court — for the trial of alleged 9/11 mastermind, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM). I’ll cut some slack to Mayor Bloomberg and my State Senator, Daniel Squadron, who appear to be motivated by cost and concern for disruptions to the daily life of their constituents. That’s legitimate: plus, Dan Squadron’s just a great guy.  But woe to Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Diane Feinstein (D-CA) whose concerns are either nakedly political, or, in the case of Graham, outright lazy:

Criminalizing the war, the whole process, I think could bring this administration down because it makes no sense to most Americans.

Then explain it to them. As an elected official, that’s your job.

Unfortunately, I’ve recently heard, thirdhand but through the right channels, that Feinstein and Graham may be dangerously close to getting their way, in the form of a Senate bill somehow blocking the President’s authority to try KSM in New York, or in any civil court. Such a bill would likely take the form of “jurisdiction stripping,” a politically and legally controversial process by which Congress removes federal jurisdiction from the courts. A localized jurisdiction stripping bill — i.e., “New York [Second Circuit?] courts shall lack jurisdiction to…” — may bump up against what law professors call “external limits” on Congress’ control of the federal judiciary, but a total removal of federal jurisdiction would likely square with existing law. Recall that Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. ___ (2008) requires that Guantanamo detainees be afforded the extraordinary remedy of habeas corpus — which provides limited access to federal court, but is by no means a full criminal trial. A jurisdiction stripping bill that left habeas intact could deal President Obama the political blow for which it’s so clearly designed, and dance around existing law. According to my source, they have the votes in the Senate.

Not to oversell the issue, but this is objectively bad for democracy. The notion that civil courts are inappropriate for terror trials may stem from, as conservatives wish to paint it, a surfeit of patriotism, and a conviction that anything but a bullet in the head is too good for terrorists, but lurking in the background is a lack of faith in the American judicial system, and a healthy dose of terror. Most of the rhetoric on this issue is geared towards making KSM into not just a monster, which he surely is, but a monster whose very words would lay low the republic. We should all hope we’re made of sterner stuff than that. More than a few madmen have wound their way through the federal court system, and we’ve lasted this long. What’s one more? He’s just a man.

Sadly, though, we should’ve seen this push coming. For the Republican Party, the stakes surrounding the KSM trial couldn’t be higher. They’ve spent decades (think Joe McCarthy) building a national security platform on the theory that civilian institutions don’t work in wartime, and that “wartime” includes any national security crisis that occurs on a Republican president’s watch. Should the KSM trial proceed to an orderly conclusion, that entire line of argumentation would, in a single moment, dissipate. If push comes to shove, we, the Democratic Party, will be up against the momentum of fity years of Republican rhetoric. But it’s a fight we have to win, if we’re to trust ourselves and our country once more.

By Way of Reminder: Justice Alito

The man who yesterday became a Joe Wilson for “the least dangerous branch” –

Is the hyper-conservative Third Circuit judge against whom, specifically, Justice O’Connor drafted her historic “surprise” opinion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992) (h/t Jeff Toobin) and who, thanks to President Bush, would eventually take her seat on the Supreme Court. It’s like Moriarty getting 221B Baker Street through a tax sale: a final indignity. And he’s the man who, while a Supreme Court justice, would prove to be a pale shadow of Justice Scalia: all of the vitriol, none of the intellect.

Which is to say, there are probably some other reasons not to like the guy.

The Tools We Need to Persevere

Before examining President Obama’s first State of the Union address (transcript), we must acknowledge this: no matter how well he did, and how good immediate poll numbers appear, the goal for last night was not to change the game, but to lay out the rhetorical tools his party needs, and we must use, to turn the tables on the Republican opposition. Yesterday must be the beginning of a hard-fought campaign to capitalize on the event, and win back momentum on health care, and a host of other issues. Viewed properly, I think we got what we needed. Here’s why.

Populism: throughout the speech, we saw  brief mentions of an us/them dichotomy, a tactic geared towards rebranding Obama as, once more, the outsider. The American people “deserve a government that matches their decency,” Washington is “unable or unwilling to solve our problems,” “we all hated the bank bailout” but had to follow through on “the last administration’s program,” etc. Speaking once more in the language of popular need was, to reclaim the momentum it confers, a necessity, and one that was pointedly accomplished. Substantively, the entire front end of Obama’s address stressed tax cuts — not crushingly expensive cuts that benefit only the wealthy, but small-time credits that, combined, benefit the majority. In what could make a pretty good campaign ad, John Boehner (R-OH) sat on his hands, and Obama called him on it:

Framing: campaign finance isn’t about freedom of speech; it’s about corporate control of elections and, more importantly, foreign control of elections.

With all due deference to separation of powers, last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests, including foreign corporations, to spend without limit in our elections.

I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests or, worse, by foreign entities.

Focusing on foreign influence is clever, in that it’s easy to understand, clearly problematic, and avoids opening a needless front in the war against corporate greed. Also, where the transcript says “entities,” I could swear I heard “enemies.” One minor quibble: it’s not clear what, apart from clever changes to corporate law, can be done about Citizens United, and President Obama didn’t really offer an answer. But we now have a way to talk about the decision along valence issue lines.

Similarly, health care isn’t an entitlement program; it’s an “investment in our people” — and his plan is the only game in town:

But if anyone from either party has a better approach that will bring down premiums, bring down the deficit, cover the uninsured, strengthen Medicare for seniors, and stop insurance company abuses, let me know.

That’s not strictly true. But the GOP plan is, to date, a paper tiger (elephant?), one penned to check a box, not as a serious proposal. Don’t believe me? Ask yourself this: when have you heard anyone mention the Republican alternative, except for the fact of its existence? Which leads us into the next note.

Reality checks: Obama “set the record straight” (his words), disabusing his more popular detractors of their myths about finance –

At the beginning of the last decade, the year 2000, America had a budget surplus of over $200 billion. By the time I took office, we had a one-year deficit of over $1 trillion and projected deficits of $8 trillion over the next decade. Most of this was the result of not paying for two wars, two tax cuts, and an expensive prescription drug program. On top of that, the effects of the recession put a $3 trillion hole in our budget. All this was before I walked in the door.

And party control –

And if the Republican leadership is going to insist that 60 votes in the Senate are required to do any business at all in this town, a supermajority, then the responsibility to govern is now yours, as well. Just saying no to everything may be good short-term politics, but it’s not leadership. We were sent here to serve our citizens, not our ambitions.

As indicated by this post’s title, these rhetorical innovations are the tools we need to persevere. But that’s all they are. The best issue articulation in the world, which this speech probably approximated, does nothing if it’s only used for one day. We need to pressure our legislators for the solutions Obama offered, using the cues he provided. And the President needs to remain visible, to ensure that the contours of the debate remain defined by his office, or his allies. King’s to us.

Did You Just Catch That?

Game changer:

President Obama: Let me repeat that. We cut taxes. [. . .] We cut taxes for eight million Americans paying for college. [Applause]

President Obama: [Looking at seated Republicans] I thought I’d get some applause for that.

John Boehner: [Seated. Hands in lap.]

Picture when one’s available.

UPDATE: scattered Republican frontbencher applause for putting taxes from bank fees towards community banks. John Boehner, mouthed: “How are you going to pay for it?” Yes — John Boehner is tonight’s Joe Wilson. Just a cowardly one.

Previewing the Budget: Commercialized Space Travel?

Unsurprising confession: a couple summers during high school, I went to “nerd camps.” One summer, while calculating the speed of light using Penn (we were only off by one order of magnitude!), a friend and I asked a professor why he thought space exploration hadn’t, ahem, “taken off.” His answer was simple: a failure to commercialize. The U.S. government keeps such a tight leash on space travel, he explained, that it’s impossible to see any development other than through preciously limited federal dollars. Sure, we said, but won’t commercializing space, among a parade of other horribles, deprive the space program of its patriotic elegance? “No,” he said. “I just want progress. I don’t care if the damn rockets have #%&ing slogans on them!”

Neither do I — and apparently, neither does President Obama:

The controversial proposal, expected to be included in the Obama administration’s next budget, would open a new chapter in the U.S. space program. The goal is to set up a multiyear, multi-billion-dollar initiative allowing private firms, including some start-ups, to compete to build and operate spacecraft capable of ferrying U.S. astronauts into orbit—and eventually deeper into the solar system.

They’re clearly right. Setting aside alarmism about safety and schlocky corporatism, America has always prospered from a balance of entrepreneurial ingenuity and responsible regulation. Although I must stress the latter point, it’s this strength that powered the 1990s tech boom, and the industrial revolution that knit the country together in a matter of decades. Both created significant fallout, it’s true, including problems that we’re still in the process of solving. But the societal benefits of industrialization and connectivity have far outweighed even the most serious detriments. Imagine if the internet had remained a military project, or Fulton’s steam engine classified. Regulating space travel is a challenge to which we ought to rise, rather than waiting for the federal government to build the requisite money and momentum to make it happen. If Obama does indeed make a private/public space partnership a part of next year’s budget, think of the added space presence and promise of technology as a step towards Starfleet, even if it’s a step away from the Federation.

Our Message Going in to the State of the Union

Yesterday, forty-six Senators (24 Republicans, 22 Democrats) voted down an amendment which, while raising the federal debt ceiling, would have required the creation of a bipartisan task force on deficit reduction. President Obama is expected to force the same by executive order; but he shouldn’t have to. This one event encapsulates, in its various parts, all the failures of the last year: obstructionist Republicans, cowardly Democrats, and the often-fatal effects of the supermajority requirement for cloture or, in this case, amendments on prior agreements.

Admittedly, the task force raises interesting questions of federalism — but let’s address those later. Our Senate, as it stands, isn’t just incapable of solving problems; it’s incapable of talking about solving problems. Enough — break’s over.

More later…