A Winning Strategy

 

Click on image to enlarge

 

Ted Rall is at it again and he absolutely nails it with this cartoon and comments from his blog:

 

 

Republican Andy Vidak won an upset victory in last year’s special election for a state senate seat representing the San Joaquin Valley, prevailing despite the Democrats’ 22-point advantage in voter registration.

How’d he do it? His explanation: “Our message was that common sense has no party lines.” But as The Times’ Patrick McGreevy writes, his common sense might also have a lot to do with knowing when to shut up. “He sidestepped gay marriage and some other divisive issues — while taking a moderate approach to immigration,” writes McGreevy. ...

A February piece in the right-leaning Examiner lays out “Five things Republicans should just stop talking about already.” Number 3 is social issues. “Republicans should deemphasize social issues. Voters are split on issues like gay marriage and abortion, but they are much more united on the twin issues of the economy and Obamacare.” Number 4 is immigration. “In contrast to the economy, immigration is an issue where many Republicans are at odds with a strong majority of voters.”

The old question is, should a party stick to its long-standing convictions, even if it means losing elections? Or should it accommodate its positions to reflect the changing opinions of voters?

What’s new here is the suggested tactical compromise: maintain your platform as is, do whatever you can to promote your ideals — in this case, opposition to gay marriage and illegal immigration — after you win enough elections to be in a position to do so. But don’t talk about those issues to voters. Because if they knew what you were all about, they’d vote against you.

Count on people’s ignorance. Bait and switch. Your future relies on lies of omission.   [Emphasis added]

If nothing else, Mr. Vidak got California Democrats' attention.  Maybe they will finally start taking elections more seriously and start doling out money to candidates even in "safe" seats. 

And he did run a good campaign.  He avoided discussing the hot-button issues of gay marriage and immigration, and he came across as a man with common sense willing to use logic in the solution of problems.  Who knows?  He might even be such a man...you know, a moderate Republican.  Lord knows we certainly need such a person and for several reasons.

First of all, I like the two-party system (or three-party, etc.) because it keeps the parties in check and on their toes.  Debates, formal or otherwise, are healthy in a democracy, but only if differing views are presented for voters to choose among.

Second, I think a Republican Party with an open moderate wing unafraid to compromise for the good of the state and nation would mean that things would finally get done!

Third, if the "center" of the political spectrum shifts because the Republicans become less Tea Party-ish, then perhaps the Democrats will see fit to shift a little bit to left of center.  If the Democrats hope to maintain their majority in the Senate and to win the House, they have to stop running like centrists ("Republican-lite").  We need Roosevelt Democrats, not Eisenhower Democrats, you know?  The "Third-Way" Dems and the DLC didn't do their party or the nation any good.  None.  Zip.  I keep waiting for the party leaders to notice that.

So perhaps Mr. Vidak's election isn't quite the disaster folks, including Ted Rall, think.  At least I hope not.








Better Democrats, Please

Gail Collins has a delightfully snarky column up today on the state of the Democratic party with respect to the upcoming elections. This is the crux of her argument:

...If the Democrats are looking for a wake-up call from Massachusetts, the big rooster in the room is the plethora of underwhelming candidates they are fielding.

She's right.

Let's start with Collins' primary target: Arlen Specter. You remember Arlen, he was a Republican until this year when he switched teams after recognizing that he would be facing a tough primary challenge by a more conservative Republican. Always ready to help out a fellow Senate Country Club member, Harry Reid brokered a deal. Arlen would change parties, thereby giving Harry the 60th vote he needed, and the party and the White House would campaign for him in November. Sweet, eh?

Of course, Harry and the White House didn't bother checking with Pennsylvania voters or with members of that state's Democratic Party. Harry needed that 60th vote to accomplish all the miracles promised during the 2000 election. It didn't matter that Arlen always talked a good fight but never actually followed through when crunch time came. He would be the 60th vote (or the 59th vote if one considers Joe Lieberman, the independent who invented a new party after he lost the Democratic primary in 2008).

After the special election in Massachusetts this past week in which a Republican won Ted Kennedy's seat, Harry has lost that 60th vote, but that won't matter. Democratic leaders and the White House will still campaign for Arlen, which just goes to show that there is at least one promise those folks won't break.

Now that's a shame, because there is a perfectly good real Democrat who is running for Arlen's seat, Congressman Joe Sestak. Mr. Sestak now not only has to fight Arlen, but his own party's leadership. That's a tough road, as we learned when Democratic senators campaigned for Joe Lieberman even after he lost the primary.

It's not just Arlen Specter, however. The party leadership is locking out other progressive candidates in primary races. In California, Jane Harman is up for re-election. Jane, who has been seated on the House Intelligence Committee for what seems like decades, cheerfully went along with all of the illegal domestic intelligence gathering by the Bush administration. Then, one day when she learned that some of her communications had been monitored she was outraged, OUTRAGED. Of course, we haven't heard anything from the good congresswoman on the issue in months, so I guess somebody smoothed those ruffled feathers.

She is being challenged by Marcy Winograd, who has some pretty impressive and realistic ideas for how to meet the problems the nation is facing. Ms. Winograd, however, is not getting any party support. Even the "progressive" caucus has come out for Jane, which I find astounding. Apparently Ms. Winograd is just too progressive for those comfortable incumbents, or the party leaders has made it clear who they want supported. Or both, which is even worse.

Those of us who have been sickened by the last year's performance by Congress and the White House are now facing a choice. We can either sit back, cut off the flow of donations and volunteer hours, stay home in November, and let the Democrats get their faces beaten in, or we can start identifying the "upstarts" and "rebels" and direct our dollars and time to those campaigns. If we defeat a number of the entrenched members of the Republican-Lite brigade, the party leadership just might get a clue.

Reality Based Financing

While it is diverting to listen to born-again fiscally responsible wingnuts piping up on the floor of the House to insist social programs are going to break the bank, it's actually happening among the leaders. Working its way through obscure official channels rather than in the dog and pony shows the freakish right wing keeps throwing, Pay-Go legislation is being put in place to give actual underpinnings to our national government.

After the 'throw money at rich folks' approach the wingers employed over eight years in total power over spending, this works back toward sound finances. Soundness is much needed, as those burned by our catastrophic behavior in world finance are beginning to look at replacing the almighty dollar with a currency not subject to winger whimsy.

A bipartisan group of lawmakers grilled White House Budget Director Peter Orszag at a hearing Thursday over the administration’s flexibility on a new pay-as-you-go law that would allow for trillions of dollars in exemptions.

The administration is asking lawmakers to pass legislation that would require any new federal program to be paid for either by cutting spending or raising taxes. But the White House has agreed to exempt a few big-ticket items that have added to the nation’s budget deficit.

During the House Budget Committee hearing, Rep. Xavier Becerra (D-Calif.) noted the exemptions will cost more than $3 trillion over 10 years. Policies that won’t be subject to pay-go restrictions under Obama’s bill include the extension of middle-class tax cuts enacted during the Bush administration, funds to keep the Alternative Minimum Tax from hitting middle-income Americans and Medicare payments to physicians.

“If we don’t extend a number of these [exemptions], we could see an increase in the reduction of the deficit,” said Becerra, the vice chairman of the House Democratic Caucus.

Orszag said items were exempted because neither lawmakers nor the White House have come up with ways to pay for them. Those policies also have broad support from both Democrats and Republicans in Congress.

But Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-Texas) suggested lawmakers consider letting more of the tax cuts, championed by President George W. Bush, expire, and not just the ones for those Americans making more than $200,000.
(snip)
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), who has called on the House to take up the bill in July, said the pay-go law is necessary to stem the increase in debt.

“By reducing the amount of money spent on interest payments on the debt, we will be better able to make investments in areas that make our economy strong, such as healthcare, energy and education,” he said.

The measure has less support in the Senate; though Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has backed it, Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), whose Senate Budget Committee would mark up any pay-go bill, has criticized the measure for exempting expensive items.

But Hoyer and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) have pledged not to consider any new tax bills from the Senate unless the upper chamber takes up pay-go legislation. The House leaders’ pay-go promise came in response to the $3.6 trillion budget resolution, which called for discretionary spending levels higher than Blue Dog Democrats wanted.

Reality won't get much attention in the media, but reality bites when the actual practice is profligacy. Returning to sound finances is overdue. When our society suffers real losses as it has in school spending, infrastructure, and collapse of our health system, we are required to get hold of the process of spending again.

The slow, steady progress of return to sanity is being accomplished by leadership while the opposition scurries about trying to light the fires faster than they can be put out.

Not So Fast, Harry

Roland Burriss, Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich's defiant selection to fill President Elect Obama's senate seat, is traveling to Washington to be sworn in as the junior senator from Illinois. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has made it clear that he considers the appointment tainted by the governor's corruption charges and that Mr. Burriss will not be seated. Senator Reid claims the US Constitution allows the Senate the right to refuse Mr. Burriss's appointment.

At least one legal scholar, Erwin Chemerinsky (Dean of UC-Irvine's law school), disagrees. In an op-ed column in today's Los Angeles Times, Dean Chemerinsky provides a clear and persuasive argument that Senator Reid is in fact on shaky grounds in trying to block Mr. Burriss's appointment.

Like it or not, Illinois Gov. Rod R. Blagojevich has the legal authority to appoint Roland Burris to the U.S. Senate, and Burris, the state's former attorney general, should be allowed to take the seat vacated by President-elect Barack Obama. Senate Democrats are on weak constitutional ground in trying to deny a seat to a properly selected individual. Their claim to the power to exclude a lawfully chosen senator could create a dangerous precedent.

The relevant provision of the Constitution is found in Article I, Section 5. It says: "Each house shall be the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members." But the Supreme Court has been clear that these words do not bestow on the House or the Senate unfettered discretion in deciding whom to seat.

The Supreme Court case to which Dean Chemerinski refers is Powell v McCormack, brought by Adam Clayton Powell against then Speaker of the House John McCormack when the House sought to keep Mr. Powell from taking his seat on grounds that he had been found to have falsified records concerning travel expenses, and there were allegations that he had made illegal payments to his wife. The Supreme Court held "[t]he Constitution leaves the House without authority to exclude any person, duly elected by his constituents, who meets the requirements for membership expressly provided in the Constitution."

Dean Chemerinsky makes it clear that Roland Burriss does meet those requirements.

Further, he dismisses the argument that Gov. Blagojevich's appointment was flawed. The Constitution allows for such an appointment to fill a vacant seat by a state's executive authority. In Illinois, that would be the governor, and, at the time of the appointment, that would be Blagojevich. Like it or not (and the governor's appointment was a clear extension of his middle finger to the rest of the world), Blagojevich had the legal power to make that appointment.

For the Senate to refuse to seat Mr. Burriss, then, is clearly unconstitutional, according to this line of reasoning.

Allowing the Senate to exclude Burris on any except the narrowest of grounds would create a dangerous precedent. It could open the door to the Senate or the House overturning the will of the people and excluding representatives under one or another pretext. If Burris -- whose appointment meets the legal test, no matter what you think of Blagojevich -- is not seated, other properly elected (or appointed) representatives also are at risk.

The Supreme Court's conclusion [in Powell v McCormack] could not be clearer or more on point: "In short, both the intention of the framers, to the extent that it can be determined, and an examination of basic principles of our democratic system persuade us that the Constitution does not vest in the Congress a discretionary power to deny membership by a majority vote." [Emphasis added]

Dean Chemerinsky's conclusion contains within it an irony that bites deeply:

...the taint of Blagojevich's alleged crimes does not justify ignoring the Constitution. For the last eight years, the Bush administration has ignored or twisted the Constitution to serve what it believed were higher ends. It would be an enormous mistake, as a new administration prepares to take charge, for Democrats to send the Senate down that same path.

After eight years of giving away the powers of Congress to the Bush administration, the Senate's Democratic leaders now want to engage in a power-grab of its own in defiance of the Constitution it had pretty much forgotten about during the Bush era. And this sudden exercise of spine is being directed against a fellow Democratic.

There is something dreadfully wrong and terribly disheartening in this picture.