A Decade Slips Away

The political winds of this decade started fairly well and then dropped off. 2016 was a travesty. 2018 (including in NY) brought things more in the right direction. Impeachment, flawed as it might be, was a key moment in 2019. Personally, the decade was rather mixed too, but new decade, so you know ... Happy New Years. (Will skip the latest Biden stuff.)

Merry Christmas

Frank Puts Foot In Mouth

He was wrong then and is now on the PPACA. I comment various times here. Also, the pride comment is off. Still, love ya. [On that front, note new book on side panel, an informative graphic novel that should be handed out free by Democrats.]

2010 Elections

The latest debt deal is summarized here. Various commentators on the left blame Obama a lot as if the Republican win in 2010 didn't make something like this predictable especially with a Blue Dog balance in the Senate. I find the whole thing almost tragic myself.

The Whites of Their Eyes: The Tea Party’s Revolution and The Battle over American History

Jill Lepore was on Rachel Maddow some weeks back to put the Tea Party's revisionist view of history in context. This short book does that too, while providing a quick version of the actual too. A bit thin, but still interesting, including this tidbit. Good post-election reading.

Murkowski wins, Still a Weenie

Rachel Maddow fans care about this development because it allowed the executive producer to shave off his beard.  But, when Chris Hayes (filling in for LD) after her show asked Murkowski's position on two matters coming up, she hedged.  You just won ma'am.  Why not?

Not Quite, But You Have A Point There Watch

Saletan is often a tool, but recent columns on how only the Dems are supposed to change and how the Dems lost the battle, won the war, are sort of right. The Dems do need to change / he's right about the hypocrisy.  And, I'm not as gung ho, but yes, there is a bright side.

Someone should satisfy standing

And Also: The 9th Circuit also heard the now infamous Arizona Senate 1070 "papers please" law.  The oral argument suggests the criminal provisions struck down below are toast, the civil provisions partially so.  Meanwhile, a British court overturned an election because a candidate distorted his opponent's views too much!

An important if somewhat technical Arizona voucher case was up for oral argument last week and the below is mostly a post I had in reply to Dahlia Lithwick's color commentary.  Of interest is the Obama Administration getting involved -- which is somewhat curious in a state case of this nature though it is an issue of national significance that touches upon a whole Cabinet department and all -- furthering the restrictive standing policy of the Supreme Court in this and other areas. 

Reference was made to the tax payer standing case HEIN v. FREEDOM FROM RELIGION FOUNDATION and the suggestion was made that it basically gutted an earlier ruling. I'm not so sure. The ruling noted that the funding at issue -- executive spending -- did not arise from an appropriation that "specifically authorize the use of federal funds" for alleged illegitimate religious purposes. I agree with the dissent that this shouldn't have mattered and it can cover a lot of ground.  I do find those who use such things to say the Establishment Clause is "toast" tediously exaggerated.  As I noted more than once, and more than once was ignored, we have a death penalty and so forth, but our Eighth Amendment is not "toast," even though I guess exaggeration man here might think so. 

The law at issue here, however, sounds pretty 'specific" to me though the case might be used to find yet another loophole for religious funding, which someone who would respect Madison's beliefs (not a three pence! ... the reference should be read to link up to a reference in the article that justices appear now to see Madison as a "tenth justice" ... originalism isn't my thing, but he's pretty right on this issue) on the matter (avoiding funding of religious teachers was a key matter in a religious freedom law he helped Jefferson pass in Virginia, a law so important that Jefferson had it referenced on his tombstone). A taste of Madison's opinion on the matter:

We, the subscribers, citizens of the said Commonwealth, having taken into serious consideration, a Bill printed by order of the last Session of General Assembly, entitled "A Bill establishing a provision for Teachers of the Christian Religion," and conceiving that the same, if finally armed with the sanctions of a law, will be a dangerous abuse of power, are bound as faithful members of a free State, to remonstrate against it, and to declare the reasons by which we are determined. We remonstrate against the said Bill,

One concern is of equality -- certain sects and believers do not believe in such a measure or will not have the people to form schools. Thus, the measure will favor certain sects over others, a matter of religious belief not only divisive but not evenhanded. Such is often the problem, even with what appears to be benign mixture. Will a prayer or religious message be neutral enough or too neutral? Will only certain religions get a state authorized display or "day of prayer"?*

A resident of Arizona ["Tax Paying Arizonian"] argues that this is an end around to a state prohibition and deserves to be seen as the problematic 1A issue that it appears to be. Voucher programs have split some people who are usually allies but even then it is important for the individual parent to have control, not some third party like here.  The opposition during oral argument underlined the point, arguing that in practice the parent doesn't have direct control, a third party which often only accepts certain religious believers (as religious schools have every right to do if not restrained by public funds; this is not just about secular ends here) in the process.  Even some fans of vouchers might feel this is a bit hinky. The reference of Kennedy to use of such funds to support discriminatory schools is telling since there too what couldn't be done directly was tried more creatively.  Namely in the 1950s and such.  Madison et. al. didn't/don't find that appealing; if anything, it can be more divisive mixing.

This if the Supreme Court doesn't play it's game of avoidance, some members wanting them to do so because they fear the result otherwise. But, as to standing, since money to schools is involved, I would think that other schools could have standing to challenge the measure. Not taxpayers alone, but the competition, so to speak. The stem cell case in the news recently comes to mind; standing was found by the appellate court because some group's funding was threatened.

In Hein, Justice Kennedy concurred separately to suggest that he would not avoid all taxpayer standing and also ended thusly:

It must be remembered that, even where parties have no standing to sue, members of the Legislative and Executive Branches are not excused from making constitutional determinations in the regular course of their duties. Government officials must make a conscious decision to obey the Constitution whether or not their acts can be challenged in a court of law and then must conform their actions to these principled determinations.

That restraint of limited value in various ways, standing in the courts still is valuable here.

---

* A state just passed a measure banning the use of "Sharia law" in the courts. What will happen when some dispute involving a Islamic house of worship or marriage contract that references Sharia is some way arises? Will it similarly not use Jewish law or Catholic law in comparable situations? The measure appears to be a blatant violation of the 1A, a sectarian abridgment of free exercise that also has establishment problems. And, any number of litigants can be imagined other than taxpayers.

Keith Olbermann

I checked various blogs regarding his suspension and few comments noted that he interviewed or covered the people to whom he donated. I want to know that sort of thing and if he didn't inform his bosses, it's a no no. Even if the "indefinite" suspension business is stupid.

More Post Mortem

Well, I will say a bit more about the election.

First, not too surprisingly with the balance 32-30 and some members of the majority leaving something to be desired, it seems the Democrats will lose control of the NY State Senate. It is still unclear if it will be 31-31 (the lieutenant governor does not have a tiebreaker here) or something like 32-30 the other way. How much this matters is unclear though it can be very important in respect to redistricting of the NY federal congressional districts.

Second, in the U.S. Senate, the Democrats really basically did okay. The Republicans picked up six seats, but they basically came from open seats. Blanche Lincoln (yeah supporting her in the primary made sense, huh Obama/Clinton?) and Russ Feingold, the latter a tragic case, are the only incumbents (Joe Sestak* sort of was one, but not only came in 2007 but would be a newcomer to the Senate) who were defeated there. You will likely figure that in midterm elections, putting aside the times, that some seats would be gained here. And, there were a notable number of open seats, particularly if we include those running for full terms (e.g., Kirsten Gillibrand).

The real turnover was the the House of Representatives. First, it is notable that in both houses, there was transfers of power repeatedly since the 1990s. The margin of difference might be somewhat narrow realistically speaking, but it belies the sentiments of some that incumbents will simply always win. Not true. Second, a guess estimate would be that around half of the pick-ups were defeating those who won in 2008 (e.g., Alan Grayson) or were Blue Dogs, a soft underbelly in the first place. Toss in some open seats, and the breadth of the pick-ups is somewhat less significant than one might thing. Again, midterms and hard times will lead to changes usually, even if the majority party is not that bad.

I also noted last time that some appreciate divided government. I see the value of this but don't really trust the current national Republican Party further than you can throw them. This was not always true and at times individual members show some sanity even on the federal level. I also think someone like Marco Rubio might be credible even if I don't like much of what he stands for. Anyways, putting that aside, if this is a good thing, the election should not mean that Obama and the Democrats should just act like Republicans. [Or more so, some might add.] This will be what some will say. The election after all showed they are all losers. Strong independent candidates, not glorified Blue Dogs, are what the party needs.

They are not all winners, obviously, but going too far here is moronic. The net result of this election, as is often the case, will be a tiresome matter of trying to get the best we can. We see this in respect to Iraq (see Doonesbury today): the sane policy would be not to have gone in; we went in; then we had a decade (ongoing) of unpleasant at best of making the best of a bad situation. The scope of the problem made the debate important as is true in regard to supporting Democrats that support some sanity and good policies. It is fine to criticize them and their leader (Obama) as too mainstream and even malignant in various ways (see Glenn Greenwald), but ignoring that the two sides are not the same (if too similar) is also important. I fear that GG et. al. don't really recognize this at times.

I don't have that much faith (or whatever) that things will go that well over the next few years, especially since the election will be sold not a message to do things better but to do less (or more Republican), but Democrats should stick to their values, compromise less since that is what a minority power in the House should do (the Republicans just took that too far) and show themselves as credible leaders who should be trusted with power. If you think as Greenwald today said that the Republicans are really only "slightly less bad" (really? McCain/Palin would only be "slightly less bad" than Obama/Biden? seriously? this is the path to VOTING REPUBLICAN, since heck, marginal difference), the results are of the "told you so" variety. But, on some level, I agree. I expected more from the rhetoric, realizing in practice it would be watered down. Dawn Johnsen's defeat continues to be a symbol of that.

But, what is the answer? Alan Grayson feels a major part of his defeat is because his base didn't come out this time. Rachel Maddow put out poll results voters support the Democrats, but actual voters did not. This is a shoot yourself in the foot strategy. Staying home doesn't send the message that needs to be sent. The message sent is the winners are right. This has to be underlined and people like those beyond Gay USA (strong critics of Obama's policies in many cases) et. al. understand. You can be totally pissed off, but the the hell is the value of helping Republicans get into power? Primary challenges makes sense. If there was a third party option in some of these states, that would make sense. But, the message sent by staying home in general elections, or voting against Russ Feingold, is poisonous in practice. Hopefully, some valid lessons will be reached. Often they will not!

And, since the midterms were not too surprising (a third less Republicans could have gained seats and still the party would have gained control of the House), it made sense for the Democrats to use the time they had to get stuff done. Even if the critics are right that more should have been done. Some of the complaints are clearly b.s. anyways, including in regard to economic policies the Republicans supported or would have if they were in power at the time. Romneycare also was supported by a majority or a majority either supported it or wanted more. Some of the remainder didn't really know what was in it. Not a bad record of accomplishments, especially if DADT is actually overturned. Overall, taking into consideration the imperfections of governing, the Democrats simply did not do that bad of a job all things considered.

So, you try to be philosophical and not overcompensate. We shall see how it goes.

---

* Since his election was so close, there can be various arguments made regarding why he lost. I just read one person noting that his competitor benefited on the spending front, a lot of the money coming from outside the state. This was not a rarity. The Iowa Supreme Court anti-gay recall election was greatly funded that way. This underlines the importance of some sort of campaign finance reform law or addressing it overall, such as some form of the Disclose Act among other things. Such things, not just "Obama is a loser" should be addressed. Will they be?

Anti-Muslim AND Unconstitutional?

The state that passed a measure against use of Sharia law in the courts seems to be asking for a 1A lawsuit. All "international law" is targeted though it must not include that which falls under federal law now. But, selective targeting of a religion still is a no no. [Accord.]

Post Mortem

And Also: I like the first two new patients on In Treatment and War Bride was a good rental about a Londoner marrying a Canadian during WWII; the lead was particularly good; London scenes also very well done. Surprising bit of full frontal nudity in a bath.

Eric Cantor was on MSNBC last night with a shit eating grin (as Keith suggested, why not?) and was full of shit. This included the "failed policies" of the last few years that led to the new Republican majority in the House. The need for fiscal responsibility really pissed me off. The f-ing Dems are the adults there as Lawrence O'Donnell noted separately. They also legislate:

Asked shortly after Obama's 2008 victory (in an election in which the Democrats' majority in the House expanded to 255 seats) what she wanted to achieve in the next two years, Pelosi identified "growing the economy, expanding healthcare, ending dependence on foreign oil and ending the war in Iraq" as her priorities. And she largely delivered.

The story of the first half of Obama's first term, let's not forget, is one of partial legislative triumph. On issue after issue, Pelosi's House produced for the president. The stimulus was larger before the Senate watered it down. Cap-and-trade made it through the House, before dying in the Senate. A stronger healthcare reform package -- one with a public insurance option -- was pushed through the House, only to be stripped down by the Senate. Ditto for Wall Street reform. And let's not forget the lower-profile legislation, on fair pay, student loan reform, cash-for-clunkers, and credit card reform, that made it through both chambers. The 111th Congress will be remembered for the way it ended, with a seismic Democratic defeat, but that doesn't change the fact that it was one of the most productive -- ever.

Some will be happy because we have divided government though (damn if this wasn't probably familiar to many) the filibuster in effect made that so repeatedly before the election of lots of traditional Republicans, including those who screwed things up a few years back, while newcomer career navy vets (Sestak), independent reformers (Feingold) and gadflies who join with the less asshole R. Paul to targeted the FED (Alan Grayson) lose out to a bunch of losers, including yet another Republican lifer.

The way we do things doesn't help. Republican regulars vote for opposition to the Democrats on Election Day. There was a few surprises in the Republican primaries, some costing them actually, but not too many. So, discontent often meant voting for old timers. That is one thing that depresses me. A balanced dissent, but that is asking too much, would kick out Republican old timers too. Again, that happened a few times -- Murkowski got a second chance it looks like -- but not much. Arkansas by the way is telling -- Blanche Lincoln was a goner but Obama et. al. felt it necessary to help her int he primary. He didn't do that for the Democrat running against independent Lincoln Chafee, did he? The value of new blood was shown in Pennsylvania, where the Sestak lost in a close race. I doubt Specter, the tired old Republican turned Democrat insider would have made it that close. So it goes.

[A bit more: Bad times and discontent led to the voter rebellion with the basically conservative, moderate at best, approach of many Democrats -- again the Senate helped here -- part of the mix. But, we don't live in the 1930s or 1960s. A President didn't just die with a legislative lion in power. There aren't bread lines in the streets. Vietnam led to tens of thousands of deaths, not thousands (Americans that is). So, structural change IS needed, but the Declaration of Independence underlines it is not quite in our blood to risk it, even if we don't like the current reality. I'll stop there. Post mortems now and in the future will be tedious. And, this has probably started to sound that way.]

These times require legislation. We got some but apparently a bad economy that the Dems did some -- if not enough (whatever that is) -- to help requires that we kick out some good people (and dweebs) and bring back into power a party who has not shown itself to be an opposition worth respecting. I realize it is hard for me to look at them with a neutral eye since I oppose what they stand for, but this conclusion did not come haphazardly. It has been years in the making. I'll try to be kind here. I reckon that there are some -- as back in 1996 -- in the new class that actually are serious about change. This includes even a few from NY, even though the Democrats as a whole did pretty well here, down to our two senators.

Under the same leadership of tools like Eric Cantor. Enjoy your mandate. Will the Dems in the Senate suddenly decide that blocking legislation passed by the House would be anti-democratic? Would be a good time for filibuster reform -- Republicans might see it as a way to ease their legislation! And, it took a couple close calls and Tea Party voters going too far for the Dems to retain the Senate. I'd gladly trade two of them for Feingold and Sestak, the two hardest blows, probably worse than Kennedy dying and being replaced by Scott Brown. Obama's seat going to a Republican didn't help. At least, Delaware is safe. And, Connecticut.

Still, there's this. One more depressing act of voters lashing out. Just one bit of bad news on the local front.