This Week in Political News -- 9/29/11

THIS WEEK IN POLITICAL NEWS -- 9/29/11

PERRY’S TANKING, GOP FLAILING: Last Thursday night there was yet another GOP primary debate. The debate moment that gained the most attention was the audience’s booing of a gay soldier serving in Iraq, along with the failure of any of the candidates to thank the man for his service. (The GOP audiences have become so absurd that Obama has started mentioned them, albeit obliquely, in his speeches. “That’s not reflective of who we are,” he said.) The second-most talked about moment occurred when Rick Perry completely and utterly mangled what must have been a scripted attack on Romney as a flip-flopper. (Really, watch the video. It’s painful. Just a hair’s breadth away from “I personally believe that U.S. Americans...”.) Perry’s terrible debate performance was followed by a dismal showing in last weekend’s Florida straw poll, despite his best efforts to sway the voters. Perry’s tanking, and fast -- and it led to yet another round of fantasizing about New Jersey Governor Chris Christie getting into the race. Do these people know anything about Christie? Part of the GOP’s sudden disaffection with Perry is his apostasy on illegal immigration: He passed a law providing for in-state tuition for undocumented students living in Texas, and told conservatives at last week’s debate that if they don’t support the bill, they “don’t have a heart.” Predictably, this deeply upset the GOP base, and so...they go scurrying to a governor who has stated that “being in this country without proper documentation is not a crime” and urged Congress to create a “path to citizenship” for people here illegally? They are begging a man who has called the Tea Party freakout over “Shariah Law” “crap” pushed by “crazies” to become the new GOP standard bearer? Christie supports gun control, acknowledges the existence of man-made global warming, criticizes the GOP for “overreacting” to the so-called Ground Zero mosque, and refused to join other Republican governors in challenging health reform in court. Oh and he supports tax increases. This is the man conservatives are supposedly desperate to see enter the race as an alternative to Romney and Perry? Do they know themselves at all?

OBAMA TO SCOTUS: PLEASE RULE ON HEALTH REFORM: On Wednesday, the Department of Justice asked the Supreme Court to review the Affordable Care Act (aka “Obamacare”) and resolve the split between the 11th Circuit, which held the individual mandate unconstitutional, and the 6th Circuit, which ruled that the law was clearly within Congress’ power. The request means that the Supreme Court will almost certainly decide a case on health reform next term -- with a decision expected just months before the 2012 election. Of course, the Court may not necessarily decide the case on the merits. It may follow the Fourth Circuit and find that the issue isn’t ripe yet and/or that the plaintiffs who challenged the law lack standing to sue. Perplexed as to why the Obama administration would want to tee up a potentially enormous loss to come just weeks before the election? People smarter than I have offered at some possible reasons why the White House wants this resolved now: The Obama DOJ -- rather than the Romney or Perry DOJ -- gets to control the case and argue forcefully for the law’s constitutionality; it shows confidence rather than delay; and, perhaps counterintuitively, it could provide a political win-win for the Obama campaign, as Rick Hasen explains: “If the Court strikes down the law, Obama makes more of an issue of a Court out of control (think FDR) during the 2012 campaign. ... If the Court upholds the law, this takes some of the wind out of the argument likely to come from the Republican presidential nominee that the health care law is unconstitutional.” But Dahlia Lithwick suggests that a rational Court may not want to get into this political morass at all, or at least not right now. “I remain unsure that there just are five justices at the high court eager to have the court itself become an election-year issue,” she writes. “I don't think Chief Justice John Roberts wants to borrow that kind of partisan trouble again so soon after Citizens United.” Time will tell. But please remember, as Andrew Koppleman explicates, the Affordable Care Act is obviously and undeniably constitutional -- though, as he concludes somewhat distressingly, “the silliness of the constitutional objections may not be enough to stop these Justices from relying on them to strike down the law.”

ALABAMA’S EXTREME ANTI-IMMIGRANT LAW: Today, the toughest anti-immigrant law in the country went into effect, in Alabama, a day after a federal court upheld some of its key provisions. The law allows state police to question and detain without bond anyone they suspect of being in this country illegally. No other underlying criminal offense is needed, just a suspicion that the person is undocumented. The law also required every single public school child to register with the state and provide proof of their citizenship through an elaborate documentation review procedure. All families who don’t pass through this process are presumed to be here illegally -- and, presumably, can automatically be arrested. Employers are required to demand documentation from anyone they suspect to be here illegally, an obvious invitation to racial profiling. So, yeah, this is bad.

THE LEGITIMACY OF THE PRESIDENCY DEPENDS ON SOME REPUBLICANS IN PENNSYLVANIA DOING THE RIGHT THING: In 2010, Republicans took over both houses of the Pennsylvania legislature and captured the governorship. The new governor decided to one-up his peers across the country -- who are enacting systematic changes to voting laws to make it less likely for Democrats to win -- by proposing a change to the state’s allocation of electoral college electors that would throw the entire legitimacy of presidential elections into question. Gov. Corbett has proposed allocating the state’s electors district-by-district, rather than on a statewide level. So in 2008, Obama would have won only 11 of Pennsylvania’s 21 electoral votes, even though he won the state popular vote by 10 points (9 electors for the 9 districts he won, plus 2 for winning the statewide vote -- meaning he and McCain would have come to a draw). This is an assault on our democracy. The electoral college already greatly reduces the power of individual votes in cities and non-swing states. This scheme would enormously elevate the impact of Pennsylvania’s rural (and Republican) voters, who are already overrepresented in Congress -- and it would take the rest of us even farther away from the popular election of the president by vastly increasing the chances of someone winning the electoral college (and the presidency) without winning the popular vote. (Akhil Amar has a good video up explaining why this is such an unprecedented and dangerous move.) The scariest part is there is nothing Democrats can do to stop this plan. Our only hope lies in Republican members of the Pennsylvania legislature doing the right thing. Luckily, the public seems to get it: 52% are against the plan, and 57% understand the move as coming from purely partisan impulses. National Republicans are lukewarm on the plan (although Rick Santorum endorsed it after stating its benefits: “It would turn it from a state Democrats rely on, as part of the base, to a state that they're gonna lose under almost any scenario."), with some state GOPers saying that it would diminish Pennsylvania’s status as a swing state. 11 of the state’s 12 GOP House members apparently are against it, saying it would make their House races more competitive (though, to be honest, I don’t quite see how that would be the case). Hearings begin on this next Tuesday.
The absolute best, most sensible, easiest, and wholly constitutional fix to the problem of the electoral college (which, lest we grow sentimental, we should remember was created to protect the power of slave states) is to enact the National Popular Vote. Under this interstate compact, states pass legislation to allocate their electors to whomever wins the national popular vote (ie, Al Gore in 2000). But those laws wouldn’t go into effect until enough states have passed equivalent laws to equal 270 electoral votes, the number necessary for an electoral victor. This way, no state risks being the first one to give up its own electors; rather, everyone jumps at the same time. New Yorker writer and personal-hero-to-Yours-Truly Hendrik Hertzberg has written lots about this; check it all out here.


Fun Video of the Week: Jon Stewart to dissatisfied GOP voters: Maybe the problem is you. (Scroll down to the video labeled Part 3)
Fact Check of the Week: Did you hear something about how Obama “scolded” the Congressional Black Caucus last week, telling them to “stop whining, stop complaining”? Did you hear how this was yet another example of Obama spitting on his base/hippie-punching, etc etc? Well, that’s really not what it was at all.

This Week in Political News

THIS WEEK IN POLITICAL NEWS -- 9/9/11

OBAMA PRESENTS HIS JOBS PLAN: I just watched the Obama speech. You all should stop what you’re doing and watch it; it’s only 30 minutes. It was exactly what I needed. He was FIRED UP and ready to go -- finally! He announced he’ll be submitting a detailed bill, called the American Jobs Act, that will include payroll tax cuts, tax credits for businesses that hire, funds to repair bridges, roads, and schools, extended unemployment insurance -- all to be paid for by methods he’ll announce next week. The plan is “considerably larger than expected, with an estimated $447 billion in stimulus money.” When was the last time Obama issued something bigger than expected?! He insisted that Congress act, and right away: Obama used the phrase “pass this bill” 12 separate times. And he specifically called out Republicans by reminding them they have supported these exact measures before. One of my favorite lines, calling for a payroll tax cut: “I know some of you have sworn oaths to never raise any taxes on anyone for as long as you live. Now is not the time to carve out an exception and raise middle-class taxes, which is why you should pass this bill right away.” Another great line, which can be seen as a swipe at Rick Perry: “We shouldn’t be in a race to the bottom, where we try to offer the cheapest labor and the worst pollution standards. America should be in a race to the top. And I believe that’s a race we can win.” One more, which only comes across half as good in text: “Should we keep tax loopholes for oil companies? Or should we use that money to give small business owners a tax credit when they hire new workers? Because we can't afford to do both. Should we keep tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires? Or should we put teachers back to work so our kids can graduate ready for college and good jobs? Right now, we can't afford to do both. This isn't political grandstanding. This isn't class warfare. This is simple math. These are real choices that we have to make. And I'm pretty sure I know what most Americans would choose. It's not even close. And it's time for us to do what's right for our future.” And then he ended by declaring that he will “take that message to every corner of this country.” In other words, Repubs, he’s coming for you.

Really, just go watch it. Obama in scrappy mode is really fun.

GOP DEBATE LOWLIGHTS: On Wednesday, the Republicans gathered in the Reagan library in California to try to see who could sound the craziest in the least number of words (winner: Rick Perry by a 10 gallon hat!). Most attention-grabbing moment: Perry defended and reiterated his position that Social Security is a “Ponzi scheme” (ie, a criminal fraud), and that anyone who denies that position is telling a “monstrous lie.” You have to love the political pandering that went right along with his seeming political suicide, when he emphasized that current retirees have nothing to fear and can count on their benefits continuing to flow. You could almost hear him shouting to the Florida grandmas, “Yes, I said Social Security is a criminal monstrosity, but that won’t change anything that you get. See? Nothing to worry about here!” Romney tried to come off looking reasonable by insisting that the GOP nominee “has to be someone who isn’t committed to abolishing Social Security but who is committed to saving Social Security.” But as Rachel Maddow noted last night, Romney has repeatedly endorsed Social Security privatization -- or, in other words, “abolishing” the program as we know it. Other great (meaning terrible) moments:

• Perry explaining that the reason so many Texans are uninsured is because of the federal government (Direct quote: “Well, bottom line is that we would not have that many people uninsured in the state of Texas if you didn't have the federal government.”);
• Santorum reveling in magical thinking about taxes (Direct quote: “We cut the corporate tax from 35 percent to zero, because we want to build the great middle of America again.”);
• Ron Paul insisting that the free market could absolutely replace food safety regulation, air traffic controllers, and drug inspections (Quote excerpts: “I think in theory, if you understood the free market in a free society, you don't need government to do that. … And, I mean, do we need the federal government to tell us whether we buy a safe car? I say the consumers of America are smart enough to decide what kind of car they can buy and whether it's safe or not.”);
• Michele Bachmann flat out lying by saying the CBO said “ObamaCare” “is killing jobs” (In fact, the CBO said impact on jobs would be minimal.);
• Newt “Tiffany” Gingrich insisting that, as president, he would fire Ben Bernanke “tomorrow” -- despite the fact that a president likely has no such authority;
• Perry transitioning from praising the Navy SEALS who killed bin Laden to decrying Keynsian economics, all in one sentence (Direct Quote: “I give more props to those Navy SEALs that did the job, but -- and the other thing this president's done, he has proven for once and for all that government spending will not create one job. Keynesian policy and Keynesian theory is now done. We'll never have to have that experiment on America again.”)

A SIDE NOTE ON SOCIAL SECURITY: With all this Social Security bashing going on (though today Perry’s people tried to insist that he never suggested the program was unconstitutional and that it’s “misinformation” to claim he wants to abolish it), it’s important to make a few facts clear. First, if we do nothing, it remains solvent through 2038. Second, if we raise the cap on taxable income, we could ensure the solvency of Social Security for 75 years. And third, it’s no more a Ponzi scheme, as Matt Yglesias puts it, “than anything else that relies on future economic growth.” Indeed, it strikes me that it’s no different than any government program -- like, say, disability payments for returning vets -- paid for by taxes. Just because my payroll taxes pay for current retirees -- just like my income taxes pay for current veterans’ benefits -- doesn’t make it some sort of fraud. It’s what a nation of young productive people and old non-productive people does; it’s how we support each other. Am I missing something?

A PARTICULARLY DEPRESSING/ENRAGING/ALIENATING MOMENT: There were some serious low points in last night’s debate, obviously. But one moment stood out, not only for how disgusted it made me, but also for how sharply it reminded me of the wide gulf between my and my compatriots’ views. This moment came when host Brian Williams asked Perry about the 234 people -- 234! -- executed by the state of Texas during Perry’s governership. Before he could finish the question, the audience burst into loud, thunderous applause -- just at the fact of these hundreds of executions. And then, when Williams is able to finish his question about whether Perry has ever struggled with or lost sleep over the idea that perhaps even one of those men might have been innocent, Perry unblinkingly declared he never worried about it for one second. “I've never struggled with that at all,” he said. (Watch it here.) Not even after journalists and experts exposed the execution of a man who was almost certainly innocent. In fact, Perry was so unperturbed by that execution that he single-handedly shut down the investigation into the prosecution that led to the most likely wrongful execution. During Perry’s most recent campaign for reelection as governor, one primary voter dismissed concerns over this issue: “It takes balls to execute an innocent man.” Chait put it best: “It is telling that the political culture that has nurtured Perry is so morally demented that demonstrating that he blithely executed an innocent man is not a political liability.” Obama’s protestations to the contrary, there really is a Red America and a Blue America, and it takes moments like this -- seeing Americans leap to their feet to applaud the notion of executing hundreds of their fellow citizens -- to remind me how firmly entrenched in my own Blue world I am.

Good News: A Fourth Circuit panel threw out a pair of lawsuits challenging the Affordable Care Act, holding that the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue. Two of the three judges said they would have affirmed the constitutionality of the law.
Must Read of the Week: This is an old story -- it’s from 2009 -- but it’s the full account of the Texas execution of Cameron Todd Willingham, a man who was almost certainly innocent of the murders for which he was convicted and sentenced to die. It’s an incredible piece of journalism, and with Perry as the GOP front-runner, it’s a must-read.
Must-Watch Video of the Week: A very moving tribute to the workers who dug out the rubble at Ground Zero in the hours and days following the 9/11 attacks.