A Litany of Republican Scandal

What are the scandals rocking the Republican-controlled government at the moment?

• Former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX) was indicted for conspiring to violate Texas campaign finance laws, relating to the 2002 elections for members of the Texas State House of Representatives. 3 other individuals, 8 corporations, and 2 PAC's have also been indicted. DeLay has resigned (temporarily) from his leadership post, though he remains in Congress.
• David Safavian, the General Services Administration's chief of staff, was arrested for obstructing a criminal investigation into...
• Jack Abramoff, a powerful Republican lobbyist, who is being investigated for defrauding Indian tribes. Who knows what else might be coming with this guy? And he has ties to many influential Republicans including Maryland Governor Bob Ehrlich, Georgia candidate for Lt. Governor Ralph Reed, Rep. Bob Ney (R-OH), and Sen. Conrad Burns (R-MT). And of course, Tom DeLay.
• Karl Rove, a top aide to the President, and Scooter Libby, a top aide to the Vice President, are targets of a special prosecutor investigating the outing of CIA Agent Valerie Plame.
• Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham (R-CA) has been indicted for selling his house for far more than its value to a lobbyist with business before his committee.
• Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) is under fire for insider trading, making millions by dumping stock in HCA, a company owned and operated by his family.

There may be more, but those are the big ones. And they are big, including investigations into the White House, the Vice President's office, and the House and Senate Majority Leaders.

ND-Sen: Kent Conrad Now Safe

North Dakota Governor John Hoeven (R), one of the most popular state governors in America, has declined to challenge Senator Kent Conrad (D) in 2006. This represents only the latest recruiting failure of the RSC. It would have been a close race, despite Sen. Conrad's own popularity.

Chief Justice John Roberts Confirmed and Sworn In

With a vote of 78-22 in the Senate, John Roberts was confirmed and then sworn in as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. On my own Roberts Prediction, I give myself a B+ -- 88%, comparing against the actual roll call from C-Span. Of course, 55% of that grade was just showing up. As predicted, all Republicans voted to confirm Roberts. I predicted an overall vote of 74-26 to confirm, so I was in the right general area. I got a 73% on my prediction of what the Democrats would do, a C- or D depending what sort of teacher you ask. (The obvious lesson? Republicans are more predictable than Democrats.) On presidential candidates, I got 6 out of 10, or 60%. On Democratic Presidential candidates, I got 1 out of 5, or 20%. Evan Bayh, Hillary Clinton, and Joe Biden proved more interested in what the Democratic base thinks than I thought they would. Russ Feingold, meanwhile, proved more independent than I had thought. Herb Kohl and Patrick Leahy further proved my poor understanding of Judiciary Committee politics. And further bedeviling me were ostensibly liberal Senators Murray, Dodd, Wyden, Levin, and Jeffords, who voted to confirm, and surprisingly daring Senator Tom Harkin of red state Iowa, who voted against Roberts. 88% overall, though. Not bad for an amateur if I do say so myself. And I do.

The War of the Republican Succession

The Washington Post has the recap: (emphasis mine)

As the legal troubles mounted for House Majority Leader Tom DeLay in recent weeks, he and House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert talked repeatedly to craft a detailed strategy for the Republican leadership for the day when a long-feared indictment arrived.

DeLay, according to several GOP sources, knew that House rules would give him no choice but to step down immediately. But he made clear to Hastert, his longtime friend and protege, that he was determined to fight the charges and return to power as soon as possible.

What he and Hastert wanted was a timeserver, someone to hold the job but with no ambitions to stay in it. And they had someone in mind. This week, an aide to the speaker approached Rep. David Dreier about his role in a post-DeLay caucus. Dreier, a congenial Californian who has loyally served the GOP leadership as Rules Committee chairman, expressed interest in helping Hastert.

There was one big problem: When DeLay's indictment was unsealed yesterday, conservatives in the GOP caucus immediately erupted in anger over rumors that the selection of Dreier, whom they regard as too moderate, was being presented as a fait accompli .

"Too moderate"? Could be. Or that could be the polite way of saying "too gay". Or perhaps "too ethical". Or "too weak".

As the conservatives met to vent frustrations and plot options, Hastert was changing course in a separate meeting on the second floor of the Capitol. Rep. Roy Blunt (Mo.), the majority whip, was making a personal appeal for the promotion. Hastert agreed, forestalling a possible revolt by conservatives, who regard Blunt as one of their own.

In other words, Hastert turned his back on DeLay. Do you think Tom DeLay would forget something like that? Do you think Hastert would have done it if Tom DeLay were coming back?

The wild day of maneuvering made clear that beneath the image of lockstep discipline in the House -- which DeLay himself enforced for years -- the GOP caucus is rife with ambitious personalities in not-so-subtle competition. With DeLay sidelined, it will fall largely to Hastert to move President Bush's agenda and to maintain order among an increasingly restless crowd as the 2006 elections approach.

I won't quote any more here. Read the whole article. This, ladies and gentleman, is the politics of power. It underlies all talk of ideology. When politicians tell you they what they believe, it's because it better positions them to be where Roy Blunt was today. Keep in mind here, that what we are talking about is nothing less than the Speakership. Speaker Hastert is rumored to want to retire in 2008. His logical successor would have been DeLay, but now will be Blunt. And it won't be Dreier.

But, back to that last emphasized passage. DeLay enforces discipline in the House -- it's why he was called "The Hammer". He was very good at his job. Without DeLay, division among House Republicans will appear more common, though less so than if Dreier had ended up Majority Leader. When Hastert retires, Blunt will be in a great position to grab the Speakership, but it will probably be contested. And just to keep things interesting, the Majority Whip's job is open now. I'd guess Rep. John Boehner (R-OH) has a good shot at it. And the 12-year committee chairman term limits enacted in 1994 should be coming into effect in, oh, I don't know, 2006. Expect jockeying over that as well. Not to mention restlessness over Bush's and Congress' low approval ratings.

Of course, I have full confidence in the Democrats to squander the opportunity they've just been given. Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi would love to become Speaker too, you see. It would be historic -- the highest office in the country a woman has ever held. But the Democrats are not quite there yet, even with today's environment.

DeLay Indicted

I want to thank my friend Tommy for biggest scoop of the day -- partisan fanatic House Majority Leader Tom Delay (R-TX) has been indicted by a grand jury for conspiracy to violate Texas campaign finance laws. From the Quorum Report, here's the indictment (Word document). So what did he allegedly do? Basically, he allegedly conspired to illegally funnel corporate campaign donations to Republican candidates for the Texas state legislature.

Will he be found guilty? I don't know. Not my area. I have no doubt that he was running a complicated fundraising operation to help Republicans in 2002 take over the Texas House of Representatives so they could execute the unprecedented redistricting scheme (which they did execute) for the 2004 elections that resulted in Republicans picking up 4 seats in Texas. That was a pure power-politics sort of move that had nothing to do with the general welfare. In and of itself, not illegal. Undesirable, yes. It is not a good thing for democracy when elected politicians draw district lines for themselves or each other in order to win. But that's another entry...

A Republican friend of mine told me he thought the indictment wouldn't come to anything. Legally, who knows, he may be right. But in terms of the power structure in the House of Representatives, it has already come to something. Tom DeLay has resigned his leadership office. Rep. Roy Blunt (R-MO) is now House Majority Leader, and Rep. David Dreier is supposed to "help" him with his duties. Why such a strange arrangement? Well, Dreier was Speaker Hastert's choice. But, Blunt was already next in line as House Majority Whip. What I'd guess was the case is that Blunt has too much influence already for DeLay's liking. Since DeLay hopes to come back, he and his ally Hastert wanted relatively weak Dreier in for the meantime. But it turned out Dreier was too weak. (Rumors abound that Dreier is gay, and that upset a lot of Republicans. Go figure.) So Dreier lost and wound up as Blunt's "helper". But that also means Hastert and DeLay lost. So there was a succession struggle... the oldest of politcal tales. And Roy Blunt won. Keep an eye on him, Democrats.

Republicans' line of attack will be that Ronnie Earle, the Democratic district attorney who empaneled the grand jury, is being partisan. For many, the fact the Earle is a Democrat will be proof enough. Others will point to speeches he made or past indictments, particularly that of Kay Bailey Hutchison in 1994. I'd simply point out that Earle is a Democrat. Many elected DA's are. Others are Republicans. Personally, I find it more likely that DeLay's Sugarland DA, who is a Republican, didn't seek an indictment out of partisanship. But, regardless, he may indeed be acting out of partisanship. But he doesn't have a part record indicative of that. His past indictments include more high-profile Democrats than Republicans. And his reputation is one of caution, principle, and not bending the rules. I think we should give Earle the benefit of the doubt.

"Senator Affleck" -- Not So Much

From the Washington Post, the horror, the horror...

If you liked him as Bennifer . . . you'll love him as Benator!

That's the hot new idea being tossed around by Virginia Democrats, who are desperately searching for a big name to challenge the reelection bid of rising GOP star Sen. George Allen next year, now that outgoing Gov. Mark Warner has ducked out.

Why, who should happen to be pondering a move to Thomas Jefferson country but a certain square-jawed media magnet with a taste for liberal politics and millions to spend on it . . . Ben Affleck ! Star of "Gigli" and the J.Lo tab romance, now happily settled with "Alias" star Jennifer Garner .

The couple, expecting their first child, have been shopping for real estate around Charlottesville. British tabloids claim it's a done deal; we will only go so far as to report that they checked out at least one country estate a few weeks ago.

It was about that time that party officials started batting Affleck's name around. "It's spread pretty widely, at least in the political underground," University of Virginia professor Larry Sabato, Virginia's premier pundit, told Michael Shear, The Post's Richmond correspondent.

Now, first let me say I don't know Ben Affleck personally. He could be a nice guy, and he could be a formiddable policy wonk. But his public image, as I see it, is: tabloid-worthy, well-spoken, arrogant, and makes bad movies that make lots of money. This is not the public image that gets you elected Senator from Virginia. In fact, just being an actor running for office is a negative unless you happen to be from California or New York, both of which have sizeable and respected entertainment industries. Running from anywhere else (without any other resume items to rely on), you'll come across as a trust fund baby with a sense of entitlement.

If Affleck really desires a career in public service, he should consider running for Representative. The office is lowly enough that it washes away any "sense of entitlement" stink, assuming he actually lives in the district for a while before running. And even famous actors running for the House don't generate the media circus of the average contested Senate race. The down-ballot nature of House races would also magnify the advantages a famous actor probably brings to the table: name recognition and money.

Now that said, if he does decide to run for Senate, I and many other Democrats will be severely disappointed. There will be a media circus. And it puts the "Hollywood liberal" face of the Democratic party front and center. At just the wrong time, too, since Democrats will be running as faceless national non-Republican opponents of President Bush in 2006. Make the choice between Bush running the country and Ben Affleck, and suddenly a lot of potential Democrats will think twice.

Still More Roberts Prediction Results

Senators I predicted would vote against, but are voting to confirm Roberts:

• Christopher Dodd of Connecticut
• Russ Feingold of Wisconsin
• Herb Kohl of Wisconsin
• Patrick Leahy of Vermont
• Carl Levin of Michigan

Senators I predicted would vote to confirm, but are voting against Roberts:

• Evan Bayh of Indiana
• Joe Biden of Delaware
• Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York

Senators who have yet to announce their vote:

• Daniel Akaka of Hawaii - my prediction: vote against
• Tom Carper of Delaware - my prediction: vote to confirm
• Tom Harkin of Iowa - my prediction: vote to confirm
• Daniel Inouye of Hawaii - my prediction: vote against
• Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas - my prediction: vote to confirm
• Patty Murray of Washington - my prediction: vote against
• Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia - my prediction: vote to confirm
• Ron Wyden of Oregon. - my prediction: vote against
• James Jeffords of Vermont - my prediction: vote against

Senators I got right so far: 55 Republicans voting to confirm + 12 Democrats voting to confirm + 16 Democrats voting against = 83 Senators correctly predicted, 8 Senators incorrectly predicted, and 9 yet to be determined.

This is fun, but kind of mindless now. I'll look again when they actually vote.

"Senator Hackett" -- A Nice Ring To It Indeed

Looks like another recruiting success for Democrats coming up for the 2006 campaign. The blogosphere is abuzz with rumors today that Paul Hackett will run against Sen. Mike DeWine (R-OH) in 2006. I couldn't be happier. Longtime readers will recall Paul Hackett was the first congressional candidate I ever donated to, and that he came within a few percentage points of defeating Republican Jean Schmidt in Ohio's exceedingly Republican second district in a special election earlier this year. Sen DeWine is one of the most vulnerable Senators up for re-election this year, and so far, Rep. Sherrod Brown and Rep. Tim Ryan, the Democrats' two most oft-mentioned possible candidates have both declined to run. Paul Hackett would be a stellar candidate, and would push the Ohio Senate race into top-tier status, where it should be. Sen DeWine is vulnerable because his approval rating is low (42% in August), his party in engulfed in scandal in his state, and his membership in the Gang of 14 has alienated his conservative base. If the Democrats fail to nominate a candidate against him, it will be a tremendous blunder. It looks like a blunder they've avoided now.

Prop 2 Flyers at Central Market?

Ok, so my partner went to Central Market South today, and somone put this flyer on his windshield while he was inside:


Of course, my partner was furious. He told me after he found it, he wandered around the parking lot, trying to determine who was distributing them so he could curse at them, and lambast them for being unwilling to even put their organization's name to their outrageous ad (Anyone know if that's legal?), but was unable to locate them. Probably for the best, since confrontation would probably have been to no one's benefit. But if I had found it I would have set it on fire or something.

This looks to be the same flyer Burnt Orange Report noticed at Barton Creek Mall, and a Chuckie Cheese. (They have the text of the flyer at BOR.) I noticed them downtown myself. It seems to me that papering Austin with flyers accusing Prop 2 opponents of bussing in voters is not designed to convince anybody. Downtown Austin and Central Market are not filled with anti-gay sorts who will vote for the Proposition. I think the goal here is to intimidate the opposition into staying home by shoving their bad grammar and lies down our throats.

Well, I don't think it will work. Why? Because gay rights supporters in Texas are angry, and this will only serve to make them angrier and more determined. After attending a meeting of No Nonsense in November last month, I came away convinced that despite Texas' reputation as anti-gay, we actually stand a chance to defeat this discriminatory amendment. It's all about turnout. This November 8, there is nothing on the ballot but Amendments, so this will be a race between anti-gay activists and gay rights activists to see who can turn out their supporters to the polls in larger numbers. Gay Rights activists are more organized and motivated than ever before. Basically, while anti-gay activists will primarily work to convince parishioners at mega-churches to go out and vote, gay rights activists need to turn out urban voters. Houston has a city council election that will also occur November 8, so Houston voters will probably turn out more heavily than others. And the Houston Chronicle just endorsed a no vote on Proposition 2.

I don't think this will be an easy fight by any means, but I've never seen the energy that gay rights groups have displayed for this before in Texas. It's amazing, and it gives me hope. Please support No Nonsense in November, and vote NO on Proposition 2.

Front Porch Blogging

For the last few days, this cute-as-can-be escaped kitten has been hanging around our front porch. I finally gave in a offered her some food two days ago. At this point, I'm leaning toward taking her to a shelter like the Humane Society.

2006 Governors Summary

2006 won't just be a Congressional election. 36 Governorships will be up for grabs as well. While Democrats' hopes for retaking Congress are somewhat low, their chances to pick up statehouses are much better. First of all, Democrats have fewer seats to defend: 14 to Republicans' 22. Second, only one Democrat is retiring, Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack. Republicans have 6 governors forced to retire because of term limits -- Nevada, Ohio, Colorado, Arkansas, Idaho, and Florida, and Democrats have a reasonable chance to win in all but Idaho. Republican New York Governor George Pataki is retiring as well, and State Attorney General Elliot Spitzer is the odds-on favorite to pick that governorship up for Democrats.

Aside from open seats, Republican Governors Arnold Schwarzenegger of California and Frank Murkowski of Alaska have abysmal approval ratings(32% and 30% according to SurveyUSA). Democrats have a decent chance in Massachusetts, even if Governor Romney decides not to retire, as well as Rhode Island and Maryland. Democrats have an outside chance in Minnesota, and if Judge Roy Moore runs and defeats Alabama Republican Governor Riley in the primary, Democrats will have an slight chance there as well.

Republicans have an small and receding chance in New Hampshire to defeat popular Democratic Governor John Lynch, and although the likely Republican candidate in Michigan, Dick DeVos, is behind in most polls, Governor Jennifer Granholm is moderately unpopular (40%).

So to sum up, Democrats will have at least an outside chance to pick up 13 governorships, while Republicans will have at least an outside chance to pick up 3. That seems a little weighted in the Democrats' favor to me. In an average election year, most close races tilt toward one party or the other. A tilt to the Republicans would leave the situation relatively unchanged. A tilt toward Democrats would result in a net pickup of around 6-8 statehouses. On the other hand, a wave election like 1994, 1982, 1980, or 1974 could go further, resulting in bad candidates winning anyway, and the beneficiary party picking up seemingly hopeless races. It's too early to tell whether 2006 will be a wave election year, of course, but I'm hoping the Democrats can clean up their act and take advantage of the Republicans' current weakness. They're overdue for a good year.

MA-Gov: Romney Sounds Like He's Retiring

How else do you explain this? If you're running for governor, you don't run around making speeches insulting the state. Romney's been behaving lately like he wants the Republican nomination for President in 2008, not the Governorship of Massachusetts, and this is just another piece of evidence in that regard. If he retires and this turns out to be anything but a banner year for Republicans, look for Democrats to pick up this governorship in a deep blue state that they haven't held since 1990.

Fabulous

I really don't know what to make of this. It's hilarious, yet, since it was ostensibly made by Clinton supporters, probably counter-productive. Cross-dressing is not the sort of thing politicians want to be associated with. It will undoubtedly garner attention, and the attention will initially be favorable because, come on, it's hilarious. But a year later, who's going to be running the ads using it? Not Hillary, I assure you.

The Military Suspends Don't Ask Don't Tell in Iraq

The Washington Blade:

Members of the Army Reserves and the National Guard who inform their commanders that they are gay are routinely converted into active duty status and sent to the Iraq war and other high priority military assignments, according to a spokesperson for an Army command charged with deploying troops.

The spokesperson, Kim Waldron, a civilian who works for the U.S. Army Forces Command at Fort McPherson, Ga., said the active duty deployment of Reservists and National Guard troops who say they are gay, or who are accused of being gay, takes place under a Forces Command or “FORSCOM” regulation issued in 1999.

Waldron said the regulation is aimed at preventing Reservists and National Guard members from using their sexual orientation — or from pretending to be gay — to escape combat.

“The bottom line is some people are using sexual orientation to avoid deployment,” Waldron said. “So in this case, with the Reserve and Guard forces, if a soldier ‘tells,’ they still have to go to war and the homosexual issue is postponed until they return to the U.S. and the unit is demobilized.”

Waldron was referring to the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy on gays, which Congress enacted into law in 1993. The policy states that gays may serve in the military as long as they do not disclose their sexual orientation.

The article goes on to talk about the loophole that allows a policy like this to exist.

Bridget Wilson, a San Diego, Calif., attorney who specializes in military law and represents clients for SLDN, said the FORSCOM regulation does not conflict with the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy. She said DOD regulations implementing the policy include a little noticed loophole that has allowed commanders to retain gay service members since 1994.

The DOD regulations, which pre-date the FORSCOM regulation, were intended to address the same issue as the FORSCOM rules, Wilson said: the problem of service members who claim to be gay to avoid wartime deployment or to merely end their service whenever they wish.

According to Wilson, the DOD regulation states, in part, “Nothing [in the homosexual conduct policy] requires that a member be discharged for the purpose of avoiding or terminating military service.”

“It does not say you have to be lying about your sexual orientation,” Wilson said. As long as military officials determine that a service member is invoking the gay conduct policy to avoid service, she said, the DOD regulation gives commanders the discretion to waive the discharge policy — at least until after a service member completes his deployment.

So basically, the US military's policy is to discharge gays summarily in times of peace for "unit cohesion". But in times of war, when unit cohesion is most important, the policy shifts to retaining troops and the units just have to deal with it. It would be interesting to see a study of morale issues that come up because of failure to enforce Don't Ask, Don't Tell in Iraq. I'd be willing to wager there would be few if any issues.

All of this is contributing to a movement to end the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy in Congress. According to a Pew Research Center poll, a healthy 58% majority of Americans would favor such a move. And that poll is on the low end of recent polling. The strength of opposition to it has been declining as well. Demcoratic Rep. Marty Meehan's Military Readiness Enhancement Act, which would repeal the ban, already has 94 co-sponsors in the House. The cities of Chicago, New York, San Francisco, and West Hollywood, as well as the California State Assembly have approved resolutions calling for an end to Don't Ask, Don't Tell. I imagine the policy is not long for this world. Espcially if Democrats retake control of Congress.

I just want to add, also, that this is a turnaround for gays due largely to the increase in visibility in the mid-1990's. That increase actually had to do with a handful of changes in the perception of gays in the 1980's and 1990's. One factor was the AIDS epidemic sweeping the gay community in the 1980's that created sympathy for gay groups among liberals and increased organization among gays. A second was Clinton's failed attempt to lift the ban in 1993. It provoked a debate prominent enough that for the first time in my life, gay rights were discussed in my high school English and Government classes. And the third was the terrible crucifixion of Matthew Shepherd in Wyoming that dominated national news for a few weeks. As gays were in the news more, the entertainment media began to show them more frequently and with a more balanced portrayal. This especially influenced young people, and convinced more young gays and lesbians to come out. Today, many young people know people who are gay, and polls have shown that has a strong correlation to support for gay rights. The military is overwhelmingly young, and the attitudes in the military have changed along with the rest of society.

How to Win at Blogging

Chris Bowers has a great post over at MyDD about how to build a blog audience. His basic points are:

• Most traffic comes from people putting in the URL directly, without reference from another site.
• Web searches generate traffic, so pay attention to search engines.
• Specialize and become a reliable authority on your issues.
• Comment on other blogs to build up authority.
• Build a community and keep in touch with others interested in your issues.
• Write every day.
• Don't just provide one or two lines of commentary about someone else's work.
• Don't worry about blogrolls -- they don't generate much traffic.
• Sporadic linking by A-list blogs creates only a temporary audience.

I certainly appreciate the advice. I have some specific experience with a couple points there. First, I've checked my traffic, and very very little comes from the blogrolls I'm on. Second, I've gotten linked from a couple of other big (or at least bigger) blogs: Burnt Orange Report, Am I Patriotic, and Austin Bloggers and the traffic boost is pretty temporary.

I do try and write every day (even though this is a casual soapbox), because I think it keeps people checking back for new content. Commenting on other blogs also helps a lot, especially when I provide a link to my site and actually say something funny or insightful. And finally, I've noticed as my blog's been up longer and longer, more and more of my traffic comes from search engines.

Anyway I'm trying to build up an audience. So far, most of my traffic I'm pretty sure comes from friends of mine who come directly here, or from Austin Bloggers on days when I write about something Austin-related, or from the search engines. If you're someone else (or not), how about a comment to let me know who you are?

More Roberts Prediction Thoughts

Senators I got right on the John Roberts nomination:

• Stabenow (against)
• Dayton (against)
• Obama (against)
• Baucus (for)
• Feinstein (against)
• Kennedy (against)
• Kerry (against)
• Reid (against)
• Durbin (against)
• Schumer (against)
• Lautenberg (against)
• Corzine (against)
• Nelson (NE) (for)
• Nelson (FL) (for)
• Pryor (for)
• Baucus (for)
• Johnson (for)
• Bingaman (for)
• Byrd (for)
• Conrad (for)

Senators I got wrong:

• Kohl (for)
• Feingold (for)
• Clinton (against)
• Bayh (against)
• Biden (against)
• Leahy (for)

If the Senators who have not yet announced how their plans vote exactly as I predicted, my numbers will still be correct. 74 votes for. 26 votes against. Although I suffered a few early misses, I correctly called the majority of the Senators who have announced their vote. Notably the ones I missed were either on the Judiciary Committee or are running for President.

I suppose I should probably have considered that for Democrats running for President, the opinions of Democratic activists (overwhelmingly against Roberts and spoiling for a fight with Bush) are the most important consideration. They all have an eye on the primaries, and the pre-primaries campaign, during which they'll need a cadre of loyal, excited activists working for them or at least telling their friends who they like. That means opposing Roberts.

Those Democrats on the Judiciary Committee may have another reason for supporting Roberts. That would be the coming fight over the next nominee -- the one that will fill the seat of retiring Justice O'Connor. If Democrats end up blocking that as-yet-unnamed nominee, it will have to be by filibustering. That will spark the nuclear option debate all over again. The nuclear option debate was resolved in a compromise enforced by the Gang of 14 -- 7 Republicans and 7 Democrats. Those 7 Republicans will have to be convinced to not abolish the filibuster, and it strengthens Democrats hand to be able to say they voted for Roberts. It makes it easier to say the next nominee represents extraordinary circumstances because Roberts was not particularly controversial. It's basically one big complicated political dance.

That explains everything but Feingold's vote so far. Feingold is both running for President and on the Judiciary Committee. But so is Biden, and he voted against Roberts. I think Feingold is just a rather unique Senator. He is less beholden to other interests than any other Senator because of the way he runs his campaigns, and probably doesn't plan to change that for his presidential campaign. That means he is hurt less by doing the politically unpopular thing than others and is more free to simply do what he wants. I suppose he simply wanted to vote to approve Roberts. So of all Senators, it is easiest to simply take him at his word:

"Judge Roberts's impeccable legal credentials, his reputation and record as a fair-minded person, and his commitment to modesty and respect for precedent have persuaded me that he will not bring an ideological agenda to the position of Chief Justice of the United States and that he should be confirmed."

Either that, or he's not really running for President.

Blinded In the Muddy Waters

Well, I knew it was a risk to post a prediction. Vote intentions on Roberts are starting to come in now, and while I suspect I got the overall number of Democrats and Republicans who will vote for Roberts approximately right, I messed up on a few prominent ones. Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden are voting against Roberts. Feingold is voting to confirm Roberts. And of course, Leahy and Kohl on the judiciary committee both voted to confirm Roberts as well. Kennedy, Feinstein, Schumer, Durbin and Kerry I got right.

So, how did I come up with my prediction that was at least partially wrong? Well, first I assumed Bush would get all the Republicans. Presidents rarely lose any of their party on Supreme Court nominations unless their nominee is particuarly controversial (like Robert Bork). Among Democrats, I first decided that red state Democrats would vote to confirm, and blue state Democrats would, generally, vote against. Then I picked out a few Democrats, Carper and Lieberman, who are consistently more conservative than should be expected considering the blueness of the states the hail from (Delaware and Connecticut, respectively). And the Democratic leader in the Senate, Harry Reid, is leading the charge against Roberts, even though he is from the red state of Nevada.

Then I looked at the Senators that are probably running for President in 2008: Biden, Bayh, Clinton, Feingold, and Kerry. Kerry and Feingold are generally playing to the left. Biden, Bayh, and Clinton are generally playing to the center. Thus, my predictions. But Biden and Clinton both decided to play against type and play left here. Feingold decided to play against type and play center. (Although he has previously been rather generous to the administration on appointments.) The waters have been muddied. It would have been better for Democrats if the water was clearer and one could easily see 44 Democratic Senators united against Roberts through it. But that wasn't really likely, was it?

Hurricane Rita is Coming

Well, I spent most of my evening at the HEB waiting in line to get sandwich meats, water, and to check out. Parking was difficult, as was navigating the aisles of the store. Everyone was there for the same reason: to prepare for Hurricane Rita, a Category 5 hurricane making its way across the Gulf of Mexico and predicted to make landfall somewhere on the Texas coast.

I intended to get D batteries for my flashlights, but they were out. I nearly missed out on getting drinking water too. As I arrived at the water section, the woman right in front of me took the last case of drinking water bottles. The stockboy hadn't even had a chance to finish unloading the dolly. He announced he had one more dolly full, and left for about 20 minutes. Since I was first in a rapidly lengthening line, I chose to wait until he returned and got some water. Again, the stockboy didn't get a chance to unload the dolly before the water was gone and a new line was forming.

The woman behind me in line at the register was from Houston. We chatted a little, and she told me she was amazed that people as far inland as Austin were so frantic to stock up on supplies. I don't think she realized that Rita had gotten to Category 5 yet.

My partner's relatives and my own have been calling all night trying to get a hold of us. To make sure we were taking all of this seriously. One of my partner's brothers lives in Florida and goes through the hurricane perparations every year. He suggested we fill our tubs with water so we can use it to flush the toilet if need be. My partner's mother suggested we fill large containers with water and put them in the freezer so we'll have ice for an icebox. I think that's a wonderful idea.

My own parents are actually a little further toward the coast than we are. I offered that they could stay with us if they wanted, but at this point I think they're planning on staying at their own place. Travel is a difficult for them, so I understand, but I still worry.

CNN says Hurricane Rita has become the third strongest hurricane on record. And there are still at least 2 days for it to get stronger in the Gulf before coming ashore. Maybe it will get weaker. You never know with hurricanes.

Perry and Sharp Make Nice-Nice

Democrat John Sharp is not running for governor, but instead getting an appointment from Republican Governor Rick Perry to head a tax reform commission. Isn't Texas politics fascinating?

Paying For Katrina

Stan Collender, of National Journal, has a great explanation of why spending cuts will not be how we pay for the reconstruction made necessary by Katrina. Basically, with a cost of $200 billion, reconstruction will require all spending outside of Social Security, Medicare, interest on the national debt, homeland security, Iraq, Afghanistan, and foreign aid to be cut by 40%. Cuts like that would devastate every federal agency. And Bush doesn't have the political capital to do that. The other reason it won't happen is that the process of distributing aid would be slowed down as protestations are registered and deals are brokered for every little pet program of every congressman. And being too slow to distribute aid would significantly hurt the image of the Republican party. Since Republicans control everything, taxes won't be raised either. So, it looks like we'll be borrowing the money.

Some Light Reading

Cook has a good article about the Democrats' chances to retake the House and Senate:

I've consistently been very skeptical that Democrats can retake the House in 2006, given the exceedingly small numbers of competitive districts, vulnerable Republican incumbents, and open seats, and given the dearth of credible Democratic challengers to the few vulnerable GOP incumbents. For Democrats to seize control, they would have to hold all of their own 14 most vulnerable seats while carrying 15 of the 18 most vulnerable Republican seats. That's a daunting task.

The Democrats' difficulties are similarly monumental in the Senate. To take that chamber, they would have to pick up Sen. Bill Frist's open seat in Tennessee, then knock off Lincoln Chafee in Rhode Island and Rick Santorum in Pennsylvania. They would also have to beat three of the following four: Conrad Burns of Montana, Mike DeWine of Ohio, Jon Kyl of Arizona, and Jim Talent of Missouri. At the same time, they would have to hold their own open seats in Maryland, Minnesota, and Vermont, and make sure that endangered Democratic incumbents, such as Maria Cantwell of Washington, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Bill Nelson of Florida, and Debbie Stabenow of Michigan, won.

All of these numbers suggest that if 2006 is an ordinary election year, Democrats will once again fall short in both the House and the Senate. But these numbers aren't the end of the story, because in about one of three elections, the playing field becomes so tilted in one party's favor that the normal political laws of gravity are suspended: Inferior candidates are suddenly capable of beating superior ones, weak campaigns can beat strong ones, and underfunded -- in some cases, almost unfunded -- campaigns can beat ones that are flush with cash.

Eight of the 25 elections over the past 50 years produced an extraordinary shift in the House, the Senate, or both -- in 1958, 1964, 1966, 1974, 1980, 1982, 1986, and 1994. In 1986, significant change was limited to the Senate and was arguably a rebound effect, since several freshman Republicans elected with Reagan in 1980 were not strong enough to swim on their own in 1986. Most conventional micro-political analyses really underestimated how much change would occur in that election.

Roberts Prediction

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has announced his opposition to Judge John Roberts. Senator Max Baucus (D-MT), meanwhile, has undercut his party leader and announced he will vote to confirm Roberts.

My prediction will be as follows:

Justice Roberts will be confirmed. All Republicans will vote to confirm. Hillary Clinton will vote to confirm. As will Evan Bayh and Joe Biden. Russ Feingold and John Kerry will vote against. That covers Democratic Senators running for President I believe.

The following 16 Democrats will also vote to confirm:

Baucus
Bingaman
Salazar
Nelson
Nelson
Landrieu
Pryor
Lincoln
Byrd
Rockefeller
Johnson
Conrad
Dorgan
Harkin
Lieberman
Carper

The following 24 Democrats will vote against Roberts:

Boxer
Feinstein
Wyden
Cantwell
Murray
Inouye
Akaka
Reid
Kennedy
Schumer
Jeffords (technically an independent, not a Democrat)
Leahy
Reed
Dodd
Sarbanes
Mikulski
Corzine
Lautenberg
Stabenow
Levin
Kohl
Dayton
Durbin
Obama

The resulting vote total will be: 74 to confirm, 26 against. Let's see how I do.

Of Governors and Hurricanes

Survey USA came out with its September 50-state poll of Governors' approval ratings. The results are telling about the effect of hurricanes on those numbers. In every state except Louisiana, where we lost the whole city of New Orleans to Katrina, the governor's approval rating skyrocketed since last month:

Barbour (R-MS) 43% => 58% (+15%)
Easley (D-NC) 51% => 64% (+13%)
Riley (R-AL) 46% => 58% (+12%)
Perry (R-TX) 39% => 49% (+10%)

Blanco (D-LA) 50% => 41% (-9%)

While the Bush Administration was hurt by perception of its handling of Katrina, and brought Republicans down with them, at the state level, the opposite is mostly true. In 4 of 5 hurricane-affected states last month, Republicans had a resurgence. This probably takes Gov Perry of Texas and Gov Riley of Alabama out of the danger zone, for now at least. None of the others are up for re-election in 2006.

The State of Gay Marriage in the States

From the Village Voice:

• Most recent anti-gay-marriage amendment approved by both the legislature and voters: Kansas, in April
• The 17 other states where bans exist: Alaska, Arkansas, Georgia, Hawaii, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Utah
• Amendments approved and scheduled for a popular vote: Texas (in November); Alabama, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee (all in 2006)
• Amendments now pending in legislatures: Delaware, Illinois, New Jersey, North Carolina, Wisconsin
• Amendments requiring a second legislative vote: Virginia (in 2006), Indiana (in 2007)
• Amendments that have failed in legislatures this year: Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Idaho, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Washington
• Statutes permitting gay marriages passed by a legislature: California
• Statutes permitting gay marriages pending in a legislature: New York
• Statutes permitting gay marriages that failed in legislatures: Maine, Rhode Island
• Statutes banning gay marriages pending in legislatures: New Jersey, New York
• Statutes banning gay marriages that failed in legislatures: Maryland, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Wyoming
• Lawsuits asking for the right to marry: New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, California, Washington, Maryland
• Lawsuits against some form of anti-gay amendment: Nebraska, Georgia, Ohio, Oregon
• States considering opening marriage laws: New Hampshire, through its Marriage Commission
• States where anti-gay activists are trying to force a referendum: California, Massachusetts, Colorado, Arizona

Lamar Smith Made a Boo-Boo

Looks like Rep. Smith accidentally faxed this memo (meant for Karl Rove) to a Democratic Congressman instead (via Raw Story):



What's the scoop? Not much really. I mean, it's funny that he sent a memo to the wrong place. But what thinking does it reveal? That the Republicans want to look at immigration primarily through the prism of media bias, partisanship, and playing to their own base. Like every other issue. And what strategy does it reveal? Before they do what they want to do, they'll attack liberals. Whoa. Stop the presses.

So why did I post it? Because Lamar Smith is my Congressman. And this is proof of how he thinks and acts. And I don't like it.

Prop 2 Supporters Making Stuff Up

In an article titled "Rumors fan flames in hot battle over amendment", from the Statesman (emphasis mine):

Advocates for a proposed constitutional ban on gay marriage say they fear that foes plan to illegally bus in residents of other states to vote against the proposal.

"That (prospect) is the most ridiculous thing on the planet," said Glen Maxey, who directs No Nonsense in Texas, an Austin-based coalition working against Texas becoming the 17th state to put a same-sex marriage ban into its constitution.

Those who talk of busing in voters are "smoking crack," Maxey said, calling such recruitment immoral and illegal.

Amendment supporters have come up with no proof. Yet simply floating such a specter suggests that campaigns on Proposition 2 — already pitting social conservatives against Texans who back gay rights — could be subject to spells of high anxiety before the Nov. 8 election. In tussling otherwise fueled by Internet pleas, church sermons and voter-by-voter outreach, such vitriol could set a hard-edged tone for the next seven weeks.

So supporters of the Proposition 2 make shit up. They tell the Statesman. And the Statesman writes an article called, "Rumors fan flames in hot battle over amendment". There are no rumors except those the prop 2 supporters just started with this column.

That's the way the right wing operates: propel fantastic and outrageous rumors into the media so they'll become conventional wisdom that agitates their supporters and discourages their opposition. And the media prints it for the sake of "balance".

More at Come and Take It.

Gallup: Bush Approval All-Time Low

CNN/USA Today/Gallup:

Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling his job as president?

Approve: 40%
Disapprove: 58%

40% ties his lowest approval rating ever. 58% is his highest disapproval rating yet. Why did this happen? Well, the one significant thing that's happened public-relations-wise for the President since the previous poll put him at 46% approval was the New Orleans speech.

What was so bad about that speech? My theory is that it failed to convince anyone who was previously skeptical about his ability to manage the Katrina aftermath, but it did anger small-government types who were aghast at the amount of money that was about to be spent on a federal reconstruction project, and big-government conservatives who don't like the idea of cutting other programs to pay for it. I suspect that won't be what happens -- Congress will fail to make any meaningful cuts and end up borrowing to pay for it. If we were to cut spending to pay for the New Orleans reconstruction though, perhaps we could start with the bridges to nowhere in Alaska.

Saxony! Saxony! Saxony!

This looks ominous:

Germany was thrown into political chaos on Sunday evening as the early federal election delivered a hung parliament and both chancellor Gerhard Schröder and Angela Merkel, his conservative challenger, claimed victory and the right to form the next government.

I wonder if Tim Russert already has "Saxony! Saxony Saxony!" written on a whiteboard.

Fareed Goes Postal

Fareed Zakaria is not happy with the federal government:

Whatever his other accomplishments, Bush will go down in history as the most fiscally irresponsible chief executive in American history. Since 2001, government spending has gone up from $1.86 trillion to $2.48 trillion, a 33 percent rise in four years! Defense and Homeland Security are not the only culprits. Domestic spending is actually up 36 percent in the same period. These figures come from the libertarian Cato Institute's excellent report "The Grand Old Spending Party," which explains that "throughout the past 40 years, most presidents have cut or restrained lower-priority spending to make room for higher-priority spending. What is driving George W. Bush's budget bloat is a reversal of that trend." To govern is to choose. And Bush has decided not to choose. He wants guns and butter and tax cuts.

...

Today's Republicans believe in pork, but they don't believe in government. So we have the largest government in history but one that is weak and dysfunctional. Public spending is a cynical game of buying votes or campaign contributions, an utterly corrupt process run by lobbyists and special interests with no concern for the national interest. So we shovel out billions on "Homeland Security" to stave off nonexistent threats to Wisconsin, Wyoming and Montana while New York and Los Angeles remain unprotected. We mismanage crises with a crazy-quilt patchwork of federal, local and state authorities—and sing paeans to federalism to explain our incompetence. We denounce sensible leadership and pragmatism because they mean compromise and loss of ideological purity. Better to be right than to get Iraq right.

Worth a good read.

TX-Gov: Finally, a Matchup Poll

Burnt Orange Report has a Hamilton, Beattie and Staff poll:

Gov Perry's Approval Rating:
52% approve
44% disapprove

Back in July, SurveyUSA had Perry's approval rating at 38% approve/ 53% disapprove. Looks like his good deed (taking in a large number of Katrina victims) has paid off.

The poll also contains matchup, the first I've seen on the Texas Governor's race:
Rick Perry (R) 45%
John Sharp (D) 41%

And in the Republican Primary:
Rick Perry 62%
Carol Strayhorn 26%

And in the Democratic Primary:
John Sharp 32%
Felix Alvarado 13%
Chris Bell 11%
Undecided 43%

And for a Perry v Generic Democrat matchup:
Perry 42%
a Democrat 38%

Damon McCullar points out that Sharp has been on the ballot every election since Reagan, and thinks it doesn't look good that he gets not quite 1/3 of the voters in the Democratic primary. Personally, I'm leaning toward supporting Kinky Friedman at the moment (and he seems not to have been included in the poll by the way), but I'll stop for a moment and pretend I'm not.

Sharp is probably the Democrats' best candidate. He has run statewide successfully before. Although it's been a while since he won an election, it's actually been a while since any Democrat has won a statewide election in Texas, and in both the 2002 and 1998 Lieutenant Governor's races, I believe he came closer than any other Democrat. He hasn't said he's running though. And one more loss, and he becomes "Perennial Candidate John Sharp"...

Anyway, both Republicans and Democrats can take some heart from this poll. Perry's approval rating got a booster shot with his helping the Katrina evacuees. But he remains under 50% in the poll. And 45% is probably about as low as he can afford to be. And by afford I mean $$$. Texas is an expensive state to run in due to its immense size and population. That makes it more difficult to unseat incumbents. Why? Two reasons primarily. Challengers have to spend more money to compete with free media that the incumbent receives, and challengers are less likely to take on a race as the cost of running goes up. I can't find the precise link at the moment, but respected political analyst Charlie Cook has noted that while in the past, 50% is the danger mark for an incumbent, with the rising cost of campaigns, 45% has become the real danger mark. Perry is right there now. It could be a close race in 2006 based on that. But the poll didn't include Kinky.

A Local Abuse of Power

Sarah Roberts, the proprietress of downtown Round Rock coffee shop Saradora's Coffeehouse and Cafe received an improper threat from Round Rock city officials Tuesday. She had just hosted what may have been Round Rock's first ever drag show. From the Austin American Statesman (emphasis mine):

Williamson County's first known drag show generated more controversy Tuesday, as city officials ordered the first fire code inspection of the decade old coffee shop that hosted it and Round Rock Mayor Nyle Maxwell visited the shop's owner to air residents' concerns.

City officials said they were responding to numerous complaints about Friday's show, which attracted an estimated crowd of more than 150 people to Saradora's Coffeehouse & Cafe in downtown Round Rock. The comments centered on the size of the crowd and the nature of the show, Maxwell said.

"The constituents we've heard from are concerned about the immorality of it, that it's promoting homosexuality," said Maxwell, who spoke with coffee shop owner Sarah Roberts on Tuesday morning.

So let me get this straight... Constituents complain about the immorality of an event at the coffeshop, and as a response, city officials order a fire code inspection? Is there anyone out there who doesn't think that's an ridiculous abuse of authority?

I just spoke with Sarah Roberts, and she told me Round Rock Mayor Nyle Maxwell said on live TV the other night that had the event been the Baptists Boys Choir, the inspection would not have been ordered. Simply and utterly outrageous. The fire code is not there to cause problems for shop owners who disagree with the political leadership of the city. It's there to protect people from fires.

Ms. Roberts also told me she did not have a website anymore or I would have provided a link. Please show Ms. Roberts your support by dropping by for a coffee. To get there from Austin, take I-35 north to the 620 exit, take a right on 620 and go east until the first light. Saradora Coffeehouse and Cafe is on the southeast corner of the intersection. I plan on going by this weekend.

MS-Sen Lott Retiring?

Republican Senator Trent Lott of Mississippi, the former Senate Majority Leader who waxed nostalgic for the time of the Dixiecrats, is now openly considering retirement. He lost his home in Hurricane Katrina and his financial situtation is weighing heavily on his mind. Sen. Lott is up for re-election in 2006. If he retires, the seat goes from "Safe Republican" to "Leans Republican".

The John Roberts Google Bomb

So here's dkosopedia's John Roberts entry. If you have a website or blog, when you want to link John Roberts to info about him, use the dkosopedia link. It will rise in Google's search results.

Roberts will still be confirmed though.

Is This Possible?

Thanks again to Wonkette for the image. Accordint to Reuters, this is our President penning a note today to Secretary of State and Hall Monitor Condoleeza Rice. I know, I know, there's a completely innocent and reasonable explanation for this... but gosh darn it, it's funny! Come on. Lighten up.

Today Was a Good Day

Ron Gunzburger of Politics1 puts it succinctly:

GAY RIGHTS: Wednesday was a very good day for supporters of gay rights laws. In DC, the US House unexpectedly passed the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act by a 223-199 vote. The bill explicitly includes sexual orientation as a protected category within the hate crimes law. While this bill has passed before in the US Senate, it always met with failure in the House. Meanwhile, in Massachusetts, the State House defeated a proposed constitutional amendment that would have banned gay marriage by an overwhelming and bipartisan 157-39 vote. The same proposal passed last year by a 105-92 vote. The amendment had to be approved by the legislature in two consecutive years in order to appear on the ballot. "Gay marriage has begun, and life has not changed for the citizens of the Commonwealth, with the exception of those who can now marry. This amendment which was an appropriate measure or compromise a year ago, is no longer, I feel, a [needed] compromise today," said State Senator Brian Lees (R). By contrast, State Representative Phil Travis (D) complained: "The union of two women and two men can never consummate a marriage ... The other 49 states are right and we are wrong."

Shameful

It seems the military has a don't ask, don' tell policy about its don't ask don't tell policy:

Scholars studying military personnel policy have discovered a document halting the discharge of gay soldiers in units that are about to be mobilized.

The document was made public Tuesday by Center for the Study of Sexual Minorities in the Military (CSSMM), a think tank at the University of California, Santa Barbara. It was found during research for a story for the ABC news program Nightline.

The regulation was contained in a 1999 "Reserve Component Unit Commander's Handbook" and is still in effect, according to the Center.

It states that if a discharge for homosexual conduct is requested "prior to the unit's receipt of alert notification, discharge isn't authorized. Member will enter AD [active duty] with the unit."

The document is significant because of longstanding Pentagon denials that the military requires gays to serve during wartime, only to fire them once peacetime returns. According to the "don't ask, don't tell" policy, gays and lesbians must be discharged whether or not the country is at war.

I suspect that the next time the Democrats take control of Congress, Don't Ask Don't Tell goes bye-bye. It's such a charade in so many ways.

The Man With The Screaming Brain!!!!

Roberts shows us just how afraid America should be of his secret right-wing views. (Hat tip to Wonkette for the image.)

Leap of Faith

It seems Judge Roberts and the Bush Administration want us to know nothing about Roberts' views on anything. Senators urge Roberts to remain quiet in response to illegitimate questions. The Bush Administration refuses to turn over papers related to Roberts' tenure as deputy solicitor general. And, although plenty has been released from Roberts' work as an attorney in the Reagan Administration, Roberts himself says those do not reflect his views, but merely the views of his client (the Administration). Roberts has been a judge for 2 years. An analysis of his rulings suggests he's a conservative, but not exceptionally so. But basically there is just not enough data. Stonewalling by Roberts and the Bush Administration, plus glib cotton-candy answers at the hearing virtually ensure we won't know enough about Roberts by the time the Senate votes.

My guess is he will be confirmed. From a strategic perspective, the Democrats would do well to let him through (i.e. not filibuster), but vote unanimously against him. Why? Because Roberts is only one theater of this war.

If the Democrats filibuster Roberts' nomination with the polls against them, the Republicans will return to the nuclear option. And this time, at least 2 members of the Gang of Fourteen, Senators Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Mike DeWine (R-OH) will vote against the Democrats. They will lose the filibuster for the next fight, and guess which fight will be more important? Roberts is replacing Rehnquist. As conservative as I suspect Roberts is, I doubt he is more conservative than Rehnquist who never met a law he didn't like unless it established affirmative action or limited the power of the President. The next vacancy, however, is O'Connor's seat. Replacing a moderate with a conservative would have a far greater effect on the Supreme Court than replacing already conservative Rehnquist with differently conservative Roberts.

The Democrats will need the filibuster for that fight. If they lose it now, when Bush names a nominee, he'll only need to pick a nominee that can get the bare minimum 50 votes needed to ram through a blatant ideologue. Roberts may be conservative, but there were much worse choices (William Pryor, Janice Rogers Brown, etc).

Democrats shouldn't filibuster here. At least not with the current polling on Roberts. But that doesn't mean they should vote for him. Far from it. A unanimous vote against him by Democrats would constrain Bush further for his next choice. If Roberts is too conservative for all Democrats, Republicans would have cover to vote against the next choice if he or she was too extreme. And Democrats would as well.

Of course, Bush's likeliest choice for the next vacancy is Attorney General Torture McGee... The Attorney General has a glaring weakness the Democrats would love to exploit, even if he is ultimately confirmed -- Abu Ghraib. While the Democrats would love to block Bush's nominees to the high court, ultimately, they have only a very tenuous thread to hold onto in the nuclear option compromise from earlier this year. Which means the game we're really playing here is the 2006 election game.

1994 v 2006: Ornstein Compares

Norm Ornstein of the conservative business-oriented American Enterprise Institute has an essay offering a comparison of the political environments of 1993 and 2005. It's worth a read. The goal, of course, is to predict what will happen in 2006 and to compare that prediction with what happened in 1994.

Similarities between 1993 and 2005:

• The President stumbled immediately after the previous election.
• The President faced a divided majority and a united minority.
• The President was denied a major victory on a primary policy initiative. (Health Care v Social Security)
• Official scandal dominates the news. (Tailhook, Packwood, and Whitewater v DeLay and Rove)

Differences:

• An adversarial press in 1993 v a complacent press in 2005.
• A slow buildup of populist anger in 1988-1993 v just the beginning of public anger in 2005.
• A majority party more reluctant to abandon its President due to a more partisan environment.
• A less unified and less disciplined minority party in 2005 than in 1993.
• Less contested seats in 2005 than 1993 due to differing redistricting outcomes.

His final paragraph offers this additional caveat:

To be sure, the consensus among professional election-watchers on Election Eve 1994 was that Republicans would pick up a lot of seats but still fall short of majority status. Most of us misgauged the political weather, seeing a major force gale instead of the tidal wave that ensued, which turned most open seats the GOP's way and caused some incumbents who seemed sure things to be losers. That could happen again. But it would take a multiplying parlay of bad things happening over the next year, at home and abroad, that seem individually plausible but collectively less likely.

Ever since 1994, when I stupidly voted for Republicans for the House and Senate, I've been hoping beyond hope that a reverse of that tidal wave would come. Will this be the year? It's ever so difficult for this Cubs fan to be optimistic... but I try.

Rothenberg Prediction

Stuart Rothenberg, a non-partisan elections analyst over at Roll Call magazine, and his own Rothenberg Political Report, makes the following prediction regarding the 2006 House election (according to Ron Gunzburger at Politics1):

Republicans have few Democratic targets next year, and GOP insiders acknowledge that for them 2006 will largely be a test of whether they can hold what they've already won. They will have a measurable financial advantage for the cycle. Democrats have recruited more top tier challengers than have the Republicans , but they don't now have enough opportunities to net 15 seats and control of the House of Representatives. Still, atmospherics could give Democrats a significant boost next year, handing the party a few seats that they would not win in a neutral political environment. For that reason, we would expect modest but not insignificant Democratic gains in the order of 4-6 seats, or possibly even a bit higher. Democrats would need a major wave to exceed those levels.

Rothenberg has historically been one of the more fair-minded elections analysts, although he is a little harsh on those who disagree with the conventional wisdom. It's nice for me to see someone like him predicting a modest Democratic gain in the House, absent a wave. Now, the question of whether or not there will be a wave is a most interesting question to me. I certainly think there's a case to be made. Especially based on the President's polling.

Tom Coburn: Doctor, Senator, Buffoon

Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK), who once said this:

You know, Josh Burkeen is our rep down here in the southeast area. He lives in Colgate and travels out of Atoka. He was telling me lesbianism is so rampant in some of the schools in southeast Oklahoma that they'll only let one girl go to the bathroom. Now think about it. Think about that issue. How is it that that's happened to us?"

and this:

"The gay community has infiltrated the very centers of power in every area across this country, and they wield extreme power. ... That agenda is the greatest threat to our freedom that we face today. Why do you think we see the rationalization for abortion and multiple sexual partners? That's a gay agenda.'"

had the nerve to start crying at the Senate Confirmation Hearing for Judge Roberts, while saying the following:

"My heart aches for less divisiveness," he said, his voice quavering, "less polarization, less finger-pointing, less bitterness, less partisanship."

Physician, heal thyself.

Oh and judging from this picture of Sen Coburn at the confirmation hearing (Hat tip to Atrios), I gather they were tears of boredom. (That's a crossword puzzle, there.)

About time.

The FEMA Director, Michael "Brownie" Brown resigns. It's about time somebody paid a price for the ineptitude of the federal response to Hurricane Katrina. In my opinion, Homeland Security Secretary Chertoff should resign as well.

50-state poll on Abortion

Survey USA's latest 50-state poll shows there are more pro-choice states than pro-life states. In fact, it's not even close. There are only 13 states where more people are pro-life than pro-choice. Those states are Oklahoma, Missouri, South Dakota, Indiana, Tennessee, Kentucky, West Virginia, Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana, Arkansas, Idaho, and Utah. North Dakota has pro-lifers tied with pro-choicers at 47% each. Every other state has more people who are pro-choice than pro-life. Including Texas -- 52% pro-choice, 43% pro-life! Of blues states, Pennsylvania is the most pro-life at 44%. Among red states, Nevada is the most pro-choice at 64%. Fascinating stuff.

Israel Out of Gaza

Israel has pulled out of Gaza. While the scenes of the settlers being torn from their homes were heartbreaking, this is the right thing to do. The Palestinians need a state, and Israel's long-term safety and interests will be served by not being an occupying power. I always feel terribly conflicted when talking about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict -- I support Israel, and I support self-determination for the Palestinians, but I can understand the fear the Israelis have of giving that to them given the rhetoric and terrorist tactics used by some Palestinians and their organizations. I can also understand the anger the Palestinians must feel at the unfair treatment they receive living in a land beyond the rule of law. It's a big mess, and I hope the Gaza pullout gets things moving back toward peace, security, statehood and prosperity for both sides.

ND Sen: Rove Wants Hoeven to Challenge Conrad

When a poll like this comes out at a time like this, first be a little suspicious:

Hoeven (R) 35%
Conrad (D) 27%
Undecided 27%

There is a concerted effort on the part of the White House to get Gov John Hoeven (R) of North Dakota to challenge Sen. Kent Conrad (D) in 2006. Rove is going to North Dakota later this month to try and convince the governor to get in the race. While Hoeven would be by far the best challenger the Republicans could get to run against Sen. Conrad, the poll's 27% undecided is unusually high, and the poll interviewed only 604 voters. It is generally accepted among pollsters that 1000 voters are needed for a reasonable sample size. And it was probably released at the White House's request, as part of their effort to convince Hoeven to run.

Now with all that said, there is a chance Hoeven might run. If he does, the race would immediately become top tier. Watch to see if Republican recruiting efforts here in North Dakota pay off and Gov Hoeven runs. Along with efforts to recruit Rep. Shelley Moore Capito in West Virginia to run against Sen. Robert Byrd, this effort represents the Republicans attempts to expand their playing field. Pretty much no one else will be able to beat Sen Conrad. Conrad has an approval rating of 69%. It would take someone like Hoeven, who successfully run and gotten elected in the same voting area, and has an approval rating of 71%, to beat him. Of course, with his own approval rating in the high thirties, Bush might do better to have his people just stay out of the way for a while...

Newsweek: How Bush Blew It

Newsweek has an article about the government response to Katrina. It isn't kind to anyone involved. Nagin was clearly in over his head, as was Blanco. Blanco and Bush squabbled over authority. FEMA was completely incompetent. And Bush, out of touch and surrounded by yes men, just didn't get it.

The reality, say several aides who did not wish to be quoted because it might displease the president, did not really sink in until Thursday night. Some White House staffers were watching the evening news and thought the president needed to see the horrific reports coming out of New Orleans. Counselor Bartlett made up a DVD of the newscasts so Bush could see them in their entirety as he flew down to the Gulf Coast the next morning on Air Force One.

How this could be--how the president of the United States could have even less "situational awareness," as they say in the military, than the average American about the worst natural disaster in a century--is one of the more perplexing and troubling chapters in a story that, despite moments of heroism and acts of great generosity, ranks as a national disgrace.

President George W. Bush has always trusted his gut. He prides himself in ignoring the distracting chatter, the caterwauling of the media elites, the Washington political buzz machine. He has boasted that he doesn't read the papers. His doggedness is often admirable. It is easy for presidents to overreact to the noise around them.

But it is not clear what President Bush does read or watch, aside from the occasional biography and an hour or two of ESPN here and there. Bush can be petulant about dissent; he equates disagreement with disloyalty. After five years in office, he is surrounded largely by people who agree with him. ... When Hurricane Katrina struck, it appears there was no one to tell President Bush the plain truth: that the state and local governments had been overwhelmed, that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) was not up to the job and that the military, the only institution with the resources to cope, couldn't act without a declaration from the president overriding all other authority.

Brokeback Mountain

Anyone else looking forward to seeing this movie? It's winning awards...

Newsweek: Bush 38%

A third poll has put Bush below 40%. First was American Research Group -- 36%, Second was AP-Ipsos -- 39%. This time it's Newsweek:

38% Approve
55% Disapprove

For Congress 2006, it looks good for Democrats on the generic ballot question:

38% Republican
50% Democrat

Posting will be light this weekend, but should pick up again on Monday night.

Make Your Own Evacuation Vehicle

Need to get out in a hurry but don't have a bus ticket? No problem! Fafblog shows you how to make your own evacuation vehicle using origami:


Any questions?

New Texas Governor Poll

A new Scripps Howard Texas Poll via the Dallas Morning News:

Republican Primary
Perry (R) 46%
Strayhorn (R) 28%

Democratic Primary
Sharp (D) 16%
Bell (D) 10%
Alvarado (D) 8%
(other) 12%

Note that John Sharp has not yet said whether or not he is running. The poll also puts Perry's approval rating at 39%, "down 12 points from 6 months ago". I guess that's what you get for calling a special session or two where nothing happens.

Shithead of the Day

Tom Tancredo, who voted against sending aid to Louisiana because he's too busy playing the blame game.

The list also includes Texas Republicans Joe Barton and Ron Paul. The only other interesting name on the list to me is John Hostettler, who also happens to be on Cook's list of competetive House races for 2006. Political suicide? Over this?!?

Dedicated Blogger in New Orleans

Kyle Shank, of Am I Patriotic, has joined other bloggers in New Orleans for humanitarian relief and onsite reporting. He's also there as an official correspondent for another rather large site, AMERICABlog. An interview with Kyle, along with pictures from his trip can be found here. What is New Orleans like now? Unreal, says Kyle:

That's the only word I can think of to describe what I've experienced today. The moment you step in it's as if you've entered another reality. Helicopters dart overhead and pound a rhythm into the horrific scene. The stench of death and suffering overwhelm the senses. It's a smell that doesn't make sense until you've seen the filth the victims had to cope with. Try to think about all the worst possible scents combined; I guarantee it's worse. Chairs, clothing, and drinks remain in the same position as if those people just vanished into the air you're breathing in. Your mind goes numb during that brief inhale and you can only try to imagine what these abandoned citizens went through. Being in New Orleans is like soaking yourself in unthinkable despair.

God be with you, Kyle. Stay safe.

California Polls

So Schwarznegger will veto gay marriage. Maybe a new Democratic governor will sign gay marriage into law in California in 2007. A new Field Poll out of California has both Steve Westly and Phil Angelides beating out Gov Schwarzenegger (hat tip to MyDD):

Angelides (D) 43%
Schwarzenegger (R) 40%
Undecided 17%

Westly (D) 42%
Schwarzenegger (R) 39%
Undecided 19%

With polls showing 46% for and 46% against gay marriage in California, it is not unreasonable to think that all it would take would be a Democrat in the governor's mansion. It passed both houses of the state legislature after all.

California looks like one more state where Republicans are in danger of losing their governorship. The governors mansions really look like they will be the big Democratic opportunity of 2006.

Schwarzenegger to Veto Gay Marriage Bill

Looks like Arnold will veto the gay marriage bill. Why? Because gay marriage is properly decided by activist judges. Go figure.

UPDATE: fixed link to Associated Press article that reflects my concern:

The Republican governor, a moderate on social issues, has repeatedly said that while he has no problem with gays winning the right to wed, he thinks the hot-button issue should be decided in the courts or at the ballot box. But he has not yet pledged to veto the bill after Democrats forced him to take a stand.

What kind of Republican argues that judicial activism would be better than representative government for establishing civil rights?

Bree's Houston Update

-- bumped up from comments. I'd like to add that the racism, classism, and blame-the-victim mentality I've heard from some on TV lately especially has sickened me. Thanks for the update and links Bree! And especially for helping to dispel those ugly and untrue rumors. -- Abram

Abram, I second all of your posts on Katrina. I spent part of my weekend directing people to this: http://www.click2houston.com/news/4930621/detail.html - a page on a local news channel's website that dispels the disgusting rumors that started circulating throughout Houston hours after the New Orleanians arrived. These rumors are steeped in racism and classism and I'm ashamed to admit that people I once considered friends are circulating them.

For the most part Houston has responded well. Authorities are turning people away who show up to volunteer b/c so many are already helping, just like in Austin. And the arena shelters are asking that folks not drop off donations b/c they've run out of places to store them. But I guess I'm on the contact list of some scummy people who see our newest residents as potential criminals and welfare cases. Reason #900 why I hate law school (and my classmates).

I'm headed to Reliant Arena tomorrow after class for a 4 hour shift. I hope there will be room for me - like you, I have tried unsuccessfully to get in to volunteer for three days.

If anyone will be in Houston anytime soon (or, let's be honest, in the next few months) this website is sort of the official Houston volunteer info site: http://www.volunteercenter.us/rsvp6.htm
Volunteers are needed around the clock and Ty has agreed to accompany me this coming weekend for an overnight shift - when I think people are probably most needed. I just hope I keep my loud mouth quiet enough to let those people get some sleep.

This blog gives a view from inside the Astrodome - I think the writer is in the employ of the Houston Chronicle (which is not, I soon learned after moving here, like the Austin Chronicle. That would be the Houston Press, but I digress): http://blogs.chron.com/domeblog/

"The way they're treating my people in the South, the government can go to hell"
-Louis Armstrong, New Orleanian, 1957

posted Tuesday, September 06, 2005 2:38:34 AM

California Assembly Passes Gay Marriage

The State Senate passed the bill Thursday. Today, the Assembly passed the bill by one vote, despite having rejected the bill by four votes earlier this year. This is big. This is the first time a state has legalized gay marriage without a court order. If Gov. Schwarzenegger can find it in his heart to sign the bill, the largest state in the union will have just legalized gay marriage. Last year on Leno, Schwarzenegger said it would be "fine with me" if the legislature legalized gay marriage.

The governor's veto will not be the final hurdle. A ballot initiative is collecting signatures that would permanently enshrine a discriminatory ban in the state constitution that would prohibit gay marriage and void the state's domestic partner legislation. But polls offer gays some signs of hope. A poll of California voters by the Public Policy Institute shows 46% for and 46% against gay marriage there.