Walking Backwards In Indian Wells

In 2006, the Schwarzenegger campaign uncorked an ad almost immediately after the primaries showing Phil Angelides walking backwards, the assumption being that he would take the state backwards as well. One of the ads liberally quoted Angelides' rival for the Democratic nomination, Steve Westly, using the bruising primary against the winner. “What if Steve Westly was right?” the announcer says, after citing Westly's rhetoric in claiming that Angelides favored $10 billion in new taxes. Steve Westly wrote most of Arnold Schwarzenegger's early strategy and even his campaign spots, as Angelides was defined by his opponent swiftly.

Steve Poizner basically bestowed the same gift on eMeg Whitman over the weekend. The ads about Whitman's failure to register to vote for 28 years write themselves, but Poizner took the liberty of making the ad. If Republicans know how to do one thing well, it's go hard negative, and this ad will probably be very effective to the GOP primary audience. It will also be effective as a "here's what Republicans say about Meg Whitman" ad next year, should see prevail in the primary. Poizner actually reiterated his call for Whitman to drop out of the race "for the good of the party" over the weekend at the Republican convention in Indian Wells. The issue received major pickup throughout the media.



And Whitman did herself no favors at all with some of the worst damage control you'll see in politics, as she repeated like a mantra this line about how "there is no excuse for my voting record," completely avoiding any specifics about why. If she manages to win the primary, expect to hear this audio right through to next November. It's cringe-worthy.

I'm guessing the Republican Governor's Association just tried to pull back their invitation to Meg Whitman to come to any of their gala events.

This is terrible crisis management, of course. And it suggests that the general election would be no kinder on eMeg. But it's not like the split in the US Senate race, with serial non-voter Carlyfornia going up against wingnut conservative Chuck DeVore (The LA Times gets this wrong by trying to impose a blanket comparison). The Yacht Party grassroots has figured out that they have no candidate in the Republican primary, and regardless of who wins they probably won't be all that excited to work for the top of the ticket.

For activists such as Mike Spence, past president of the conservative California Republican Assembly, such centrist talk inspires unease following what they said was Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's betrayal of the Republican base.

Spence called the Republican governor a failure and blasted him for breaking his promises to conservatives by, among other things, approving the biggest tax increase in state history earlier this year. Schwarzenegger has also championed traditionally liberal causes such as Assembly Bill 32, which requires the state to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions by about 25 percent by 2020.

"After the governor, people are cautious about who they support," Spence said.

Of course, this could be true of the Democratic grassroots as well, depending on circumstances. I think the only certainty in next year's elections will be the low turnout, as a slice of both sides stay home for their own reasons. But the Yacht Party's cast of characters look particularly uninspiring.

No More Taxation Without Representation?

The DC Voting Rights Act passed today in the Senate by a vote of 61-37. It moves to the House, where it will be virtually assured of passage, and then in all likelihood to the US Supreme Court, where a ruling will be made on the constitutionality of offering voting rights to a member of Congress who is not from a state. Jonathan Turley says it's plainly unconstitutional, but others differ:

Judge Kenneth Starr, during congressional testimony in 2004, asserted the constitutionality of Congress using the District Clause to confer voting representation:

"The use of the word ‘state’ [in the Constitution] cannot bar Congress from exercising its plenary authority [under the District Clause] to extend the franchise to District residents."

Professor Viet Dinh concluded in a 2004 memorandum that the framers of the Constitution did not intend to deprive citizens of the most basic right of democracy – the right to have a voting representative in Congress:

“There are no indications, textual or otherwise, to suggest that the framers intended that Congressional authority under the District Clause, extraordinary and plenary in all other respects, would not extend also to grant District residents representation in Congress.”

In a letter to the House Judiciary Committee this month, the American Bar Association concurred with the analysis of Starr and Dinh:

“Enactment of the proposed [bill] would be an exercise of this constitutional authority conferred by the “District Clause”.... Not only is there a moral obligation for Congress to restore such rights, there is also a constitutional obligation for Congress to ensure the right of D.C. residents to the equal protection of the laws...”

Ultimately, the arguments don't matter as much as the numbers on the Supreme Court, and once again Anthony Kennedy will be the likely swing vote. Even if the court battle fails, however, Jerome Armstrong sees a road to statehood for the District:

"We will certainly be celebrating once the DC Voting Rights Act is passed," Zherka emphasized. "It will be a momentous win. But then, it's on to the business of defending any legal challenges to the legislation and looking towards future victories such as Senate representation and broader, local autonomy for the District."

The 'solution' is sorta a cut-the-baby-in-half one. DC gets a single Rep in the House, and one more is added, which goes to Utah and the GOP. But the issue of whether this is constitutional is a pretty big one-- since when do places that are not states have Congressional representation?

It will go to the courts, and I would not be shocked to see it reversed; because its not really that great of a precedent, and it doesn't really entirely solve the problem. If that happens, then it will go back to Congress, and force the issue of statehood-- which it should.

That's down the road. For the moment, 500,00 American citizens are closer to representation in their government.

...Also, the Senate had to take away the rights of the district to set their own gun control laws as a condition of representation, which sure sounds like the conservative mantra of "local control" to me! The Ensign Amendment passed (I'm not sure why it needed to, after Heller). Here's Clay Risen:

And Republicans wonder why D.C. votes overwhelmingly Democratic. Maybe it's because for all their talk of states' rights and federalism, when it comes to Washington the GOP is aggressively paternalistic, to the point where a senator from Nevada can, with a straight face, presume to tell Washingtonians the best way to run their city.

Senate Two-Fer

Good news from the world's most deliberative body. First, Hilda Solis will be confirmed tonight, after unanimous consent was achieved to proceed to a full vote without the need for cloture. This is a great progressive victory for President Obama's cabinet. It will be a new day to have a Secretary of Labor who cares about Labor again.

Also, the Senate advanced the DC Voting Rights Act, which would add two seats to the House of Representatives, one for DC (which has more residents than Wyoming and no representation) and one (for now) for Utah, which just missed out on an extra seat after the last Census. These things are commonly done by compromise, but getting DC residents a voting member is crucially important. There could be a final vote as early as tonight.

Harry Reid gets a pat on the head.

Country First

The lack of representation for the nearly 600,000 residents of Washington, DC is an enduring scandal and shame, a very real betrayal of the principles that led to the American Revolution. Yesterday, the Congress moved closer to erasing this blot when a Senate Committee approved the compromise plan that would give a voting member to DC and an extra voting member to Utah until the next apportionment after the 2010 Census. The vote had only one dissenter - John McCain.

McCain was the only one of them who voted nay, and he gave two reasons. The first was that the proposed compromise that would give D.C. voting rights while giving Utah a fourth seat in Congress was unfair to other fast-growing states. The second was that McCain didn’t want to pass a bill that constitutional scholars are still tussling over “and then have the Supreme Court decide whether or not it’s constitutional.”

This is a problem. What would happen if — a totally random example here — a senator introduced a campaign finance law that, according to many constitutional scholars and the president of the United States, violated the First Amendment? What if the Supreme Court had to decide whether or not the law was constitutional? That would be crazy.

Dave Weigel is a libertarian and I don't necessarily agree with him about McCain-Feingold, but the core idea that Congress can't make a law because the Supreme Court might overturn it would essentially end all lawmaking entirely, wouldn't it?

Because of this technical and entirely bullshitty reason, John McCain told the residents of DC, people he's walked among for 26 years, to go stuff it. What a man of the people.