HALF-FULL REPORT 09/17/10

Let’s begin this week’s HFR with three cheers for Ovide Lamontagne.  He came from far behind to lose the GOP senate nomination in New Hampshire by a hair’s breadth to Kelly Ayotte.  He immediately eschewed a recount, and warmly endorsed Ms. Ayotte.  Here’s a link to his concession speech.

I think Mr. Lamontagne behaved as he did because he is a gentleman and a patriot who puts the interests of his country and party ahead of his (temporarily frustrated) personal ambitions.  But perhaps in the back of his mind is the fact that a Democrat-held senate seat comes up in New Hampshire in 2014.  Ya think Sen. Ayotte won’t be helpful to him in obtaining it?

Whatever Mr. Lamontagne’s motivation for his classy behavior, I can think of a sore loser in Alaska, a guy in Delaware, and a jerk in Washington state who could profit from his example.

While we’re doing shout-outs, let’s give thanks for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.  As a press conference Wednesday, he described Chris Coons, the Democrat candidate for the senate in Delaware, as his “pet.”

Exurban John has a marvelous photoshop commemorating the remark.

Thanks to Harry, the mountain we have to climb in Delaware now looks less like Mt. Everest and more like Mt. Whitney.

Christine O’Donnell’s only chance to win in this deep blue state is to run as the anti-establishment candidate (which she’s certainly qualified to do).  That tends to be popular in most years, and is especially so in this one.  The ads now write themselves: the choice in November is between someone who wants to return government to the people, and Harry Reid’s lap dog.

Thanks, Harry!

To give you an idea of how high the mountain is for Christine O’Donnell to climb, a PPP poll the morning after had Coons up, 50-34.  A Rasmussen poll Thursday had Coons up, 53-42.

Once a candidate gets over 50 percent, especially this late, he or she is very difficult to beat.  But O’Donnell’s task is neither impossible nor wildly improbable.

I have reservations about Ms. O’Donnell’s character, but not about her attractiveness as a candidate.  She is easy on the eyes and articulate. She’s personable. She was excellent in the morning after interviews on ABC, NBC and CNN, with interviewers who were trying to trip her up. She’ll have all the money she needs, thanks to a money bomb following her upset victory.  If she sticks to the theme of giving government back to the people, and artfully uses the gift Harry Reid just gave her, she could pull this off. 

I would rate the odds of this happening as lower than the odds the GOP candidates win in Connecticut and West Virginia, but still put Delaware among the 14 races it’s not unreasonable to think the GOP can win (15 if, in your wildest dreams, you imagine that Kirsten Gillibrand in New York is vulnerable).

If you think Republicans have been roiled by Christine O’Donnell’s triumph, consider the Democrats. 

Here’s James Carville predicting that if she is elected, the Iranians will stone masturbators.

This is my fourth HFR.  The three previous were Mostly Full Reports, because the news was so good for our side.  This last week has been the most momentous, but it won’t be before the evening of Nov. 2nd that we’ll learn how good or bad it’s been.  We’re either witnessing the birth of a new majority party that could restore constitutional government, or the squandering of a great opportunity, and with it, our republic.

Let’s start with the unalloyed good news.  I noted in my column Wednesday that in the primaries this year (there is still one to go, in Hawaii Saturday), upwards of three million more people voted for Republicans than voted for Democrats, and that this hasn’t happened since 1930.  I want to elaborate on that a little.

First, a three million vote lead is not trivial.  It’s roughly the margin by which George W. Bush beat John Kerry in 2004.

Second, Republicans have won mid-term landslides in 1994 and 1946 in years in which more voted in Democratic primaries than in Republican primaries.  These goat entrails suggest 2010 could be bigger than either of those years.

The primaries Tuesday should have been a blowout for Democrats.  Five – New York, Massachusetts, Maryland, Rhode Island and Delaware – were held in dark blue states.  A sixth, Wisconsin, is a light blue state that had been trending dark blue.  (Obama got 58 percent of the vote in the Badger State.)  The seventh, New Hampshire, is a swing state that lurched left in 2006 and 2008.  New York and Massachusetts, moreover, are very big states, while New Hampshire is small.

But the Republican vote Tuesday was nearly equal to the Democrat vote.  By margins approaching 2-1, Republicans beat out Democrats in Delaware and New Hampshire.  In Wisconsin, the margin was closer to 3-1 than 2-1.  The greater GOP margins in Delaware and New Hampshire could be explained in part because Republicans (especially in Delaware) had hot contests, and Democrats did not.  Still, the disparity was impressive.  But in Wisconsin, there were about equal reasons for Democrats and Republicans to go to the polls.  I said in my column why I think the result there is so significant.

Now let’s consider New York.  The only statewide contest of note for Democrats was for Kirsten Gillibrand’s senate seat, where she had token opposition.  The total Democrat vote was 540,711.  That’s 225,243 votes fewer than were cast in the Democrat senate primary in 2006, when Hillary Clinton faced token opposition.  On the Republican side, only 189,022 votes were cast that year.  This year, 406,813 votes were cast in the GOP primary for governor.  The Democrat turnout was roughly 29 percent less.  The GOP turnout was more than 100 percent greater.

This is unlikely to matter much in the statewide races, where Carl Paladino and Joe Dioguardi are huge underdogs (though it is remotely possible Gillibrand is vulnerable).  But these numbers should put the fear of God in Democrats who represent districts Barack Obama carried by five percentage points or less.

The big one, of course, is Delaware.  I described it in my column Wednesday as a nuclear bomb.  But upon whom is it going to blow up?

I said in that I column that I think, on balance, it is better for the cause that Mike Castle lost, even though Christine O’Donnell’s victory turns a likely Republican pickup into a likely Democrat retention.  I think this because, as I’ve argued earlier, titular control of the senate doesn’t matter very much if the difference is one or two votes, and because having control of the senate depend on the whims of Mike Castle would not be good for Republicans or conservatives.

This represents a slight change in my thinking from last week.  It was prompted by an emailer to Jim Geraghty of National Review who reminded me of the havoc caused by “Jumping Jim” Jeffords of Vermont in 2001, who first tried to hold the GOP hostage to his pet spending plans, and then caucused with the Democrats, giving them a one vote majority in the senate.  Mike Castle is no Jim Jeffords.  There is a difference between a moderate Republican and a liberal Republican.  Castle’s lifetime rating from the American Conservative Union is 52 percent.  At the time of his switch, Jeffords’ was 26 percent.  But I wouldn’t be comfortable having Castle be the balance of power.

I also suggested in my column Wednesday that even if Ms. O’Donnell loses in November, her primary victory may well make the senate more conservative than it would have been if Mike Castle had won the seat, because the shiver of fear that primary victory almost certainly sent down the spines of the ladies from Maine and other moderate Republicans will cause them to vote with the conservatives more often than they have in the past.

But I understand and appreciate the view of those conservatives who think repeal of Obamacare may hinge on taking control of the senate, and that half a loaf is better than none.  Charles Krauthammer makes that case eloquently here.

I’ve been appalled and angered by those O’Donnell supporters who’ve been acting like the moonbats.  If they consider ideological affinity to be the only consideration in supporting a candidate, fine.  But they shouldn’t trash fellow conservatives who think electability, experience and character also matter.

Now that the primary is over, there is no point in discussing further Ms. O’Donnell’s ample personal baggage.  If she doesn’t draw the attention of voters to it by her behavior, neither should any other Republican.  Karl Rove was out of line to talk about it on national television once the votes were cast.

But if conservatives who support Rand Paul in Kentucky and Sharron Angle in Nevada (for whom Karl Rove has raised more than a million dollars), and who supported Joe Miller over Lisa Murkowski in Alaska, Mike Lee over Robert Bennett in Utah, and Joe Buck over Jane Norton in Colorado were reluctant to support Ms. O’Donnell in the primary, there is a good reason why.  Yet we have arrogant jerks rhetorically drumming Charles Krauthammer, Bill Kristol, Michael Barone, Jim Geraghty and others (including, I suppose, me) out of the movement because they have doubts about Ms. O’Donnell.  They remind me of the Crack Suicide Squad of the Judean People’s Liberation Front:

This is how the moment could be lost.  I believe the Republican party must become more conservative for a Republican majority to mean anything.  I also believe the Republican party must become more conservative to obtain that majority.  As Ronald Reagan said, voters respond better to bold colors than to pale pastels.

But if the Republican party becomes again the majority party, it will be as a center-right coalition.  A purely conservative party will be a party perpetually in the minority.  We don’t want squishes driving the train.  But we must have some of them along for the ride, or we’ll never get to our destination.

Success in politics depends on building coalitions, not on driving potential partners away. Some swooning about Ms. O’Donnell would drive away not only the moderates, but also those conservatives who think truth, competence and electability should be considerations in selecting a nominee.

With rare exception, other Republicans are not the enemy.  Some of them need spine transplants, but they are not the enemy.  The Democrats are the enemy.  The fastest way to lose this opportunity is to treat differences of opinion over strategy and tactics as if they were differences over fundamental principle, to shift our fire from the enemy to our allies.

I think what we’re seeing in what journalists describe as and hope is a Republican civil war is the birth pangs of a new majority.  The GOP badly needs new blood and new leadership.  The tea party is providing it.  I think part of the reason for Karl Rove’s meltdown on Hannity is because he realizes the party is slipping from his grasp, and that of others in Washington.  It’s becoming the people’s party.  What we’re seeing, I hope, are growing pains. 

But whether the new majority is born, or stillborn, depends on all of us acting like adults.  Rove and others in what has been the GOP establishment need to adjust to a new reality.  And insurgents need to realize the goal is to build a bigger, stronger house, not to burn it down.

Let’s conclude this segment with Buffalo Springfield’s revolutionary anthem from another time: 

In the schadenfreude department, the Politico reports “Dem aides could face massive layoffs.”

If Republicans sweep the House and win key Senate seats in November, it’s not just elected Democrats who will be unemployed — more than 1,500 Democratic staffers could lose their jobs, with layoffs stretching from low-wage staff assistants to six-figure committee aides.

While turnover and job loss is a fact of life for those who serve in Congress, a change in party control can be dramatic as committee funding is slashed for the party falling out of power and hundreds of high-salary jobs switch hands.

“Democratic aides may get cold shoulder from K street after midterms,” says the Hill newspaper. Democratic congressional aides aiming for a big payday from K Street have seen their value plummet with their party’s declining fortunes, according to corporate headhunters and lobbyists.

And how likely is it that private businesses will want to hire these bastards who are so responsible for the terrible business climate?

I know you feel as sorry for them as I do.

For Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, burning the bible or the American flag is protected “speech,” but if you burn the Koran, the First Amendment must be abridged.

ABC’s George Stephanopoulos said:

Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer told me on "GMA" that he’s not prepared to conclude that — in the internet age — the First Amendment condones Koran burning. It is very, very important that Zero NOT get another Supreme Court nominee.  Which is another reason why Castle’s vote in the senate might turn out to have mattered.

House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) raised some eyebrows and ruffled some feathers when he said on a talk show last Sunday (9/12) that if he had no other choice, he would vote to extend tax cuts for the middle class, but not the rich.

Bill Kristol of the Weekly Standard and many others said the concession was premature, especially since quite a few Democrats are coming out in favor of extending all the Bush tax cuts for at least a year or two (five so far in the senate, 31 in the House).

That could well be correct.  But I’m in the minority who thinks what Mr. Boehner said was wise.  My reasoning is this:

The Democrats – foolishly, in my opinion – are striving to make Mr. Boehner their bogeyman this fall.  The president bashes him at every opportunity.  The Democrat National Committee is running ads attacking him.  The Democrats would like nothing better than to claim their designated bogey man would deny the middle class tax relief unless “the rich” get it too.

Now they can’t.  And Mr. Boehner really gave away nothing.  Because the real battlefield on this issue this fall is the senate.

It would be churlish of Nancy Pelosi to bring to the House floor a bill that would extend only the Bush middle class tax cuts, under a rule that forbade amendments to include the top two brackets, but it is something Democrats have the power to do, and they have abused their power at every opportunity.  So it is entirely possible the only choice House Republicans will have will be to vote for or against extending the tax cuts for the middle class.

But in the senate, any senator can offer any amendment to any bill at (essentially) any time, and 41 senators can filibuster any bill they do not like.  Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is holding firm for the whole shebang, and Democrat Sens. Kent Conrad of North Dakota, Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Jim Webb of Virginia and Evan Bayh of Indiana have said publicly all the tax cuts should be extended.  So we’re in a strong position.  Here’s how the astute Kim Strassel of the Wall Street Journal described the state of play today (9/17).

There comes a point in Washington debates when the losing side has little left but bluff, and here’s a good example. What Democrats know, but won’t say, is that the party has walked itself into a lose-lose-lose tax fight. Their choices now range from bad to worse to problematic.

These Democrats understand that whatever short term gain they may achieve from demagoguing against “the rich” pales into insignificance compared to the risk Democrats run if taxes are raised on the top two brackets, and the economy continues to tank.  “The rich” can also be defined as “the people who can give me a job.”

But all the effort and money Democrats have put into demonizing Mr. Boehner on this issue have come to naught.  They could, I suppose, try to demonize Sen. McConnell, but that would make their already confusing message even more so. 

We don’t normally do book reviews on HFR, but Leon Wolf’s takedown of Meghan McCain’s campaign memoir is too delicious to ignore.

It is impossible to read Dirty, Sexy Politics and come away with the impression that you have read anything other than the completely unedited ramblings of an idiot. This being a professional website for which I have a great deal of respect, I searched for a more eloquent or gentle way to accurately phrase the previous sentence – but could not find one.

It is important to know that I was repeatedly tempted just to put the book down, eat the relatively small price I paid to download it to my Kindle, and silently curse Hyperion for publishing this book. After all, they are the ones taking advantage of this particular idiot’s fifteen minutes of fame by exposing her idiocy for the entire world to see. By all appearances, they didn’t even have the decency to hire someone to edit the book – more on that later.

In the final analysis, however, I determined that most of Meghan’s flaws – such as her unbearable narcissism, delusions of persecution, anti-religious bigotry, and mendacity – couldn’t be chalked up to her manifestly below-average intelligence. These are blameworthy traits born of a malfunctioning moral compass, and they are laid bare in spades on every page of Dirty, Sexy Politics.”

These excerpts capture the flavor, but don’t do the whole review justice.  Read the whole thing.

Randy Barnett makes here an argument I’ve made earlier. I called this a “nullification” amendment.  He calls it a “repeal” amendment:

At present, the only way for states to contest a federal law or regulation is to bring a constitutional challenge in federal court or seek an amendment to the Constitution. A state repeal power provides a targeted way to reverse particular congressional acts and administrative regulations without relying on federal judges or permanently amending the text of the Constitution to correct a specific abuse.

The Repeal Amendment should not be confused with the power to “nullify” unconstitutional laws possessed by federal courts. Unlike nullification, a repeal power allows two-thirds of the states to reject a federal law for policy reasons that are irrelevant to constitutional concerns. In this sense, a state repeal power is more like the president’s veto power.

This amendment reflects confidence in the collective wisdom of the men and women from diverse backgrounds, and elected by diverse constituencies, who comprise the modern legislatures of two-thirds of the states. Put another way, it allows thousands of democratically elected representatives outside the Beltway to check the will of 535 elected representatives in Washington, D.C.

Here’s a recording of DC Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton soliciting a bribe.

Are there ANY members of the Congressional Black Caucus who aren’t crooks?

The vote in Wisconsin was my favorite news of the week.  But this is pretty close.  A member of Rep. Ron Klein’s (D-Fla) former law firm is accused of bilking elderly widows.  Plaintiffs think Klein knew about it.

In the lawsuit, Ricci is also aiming for U.S. Rep. Ron Klein, D-Boca Raton, who oversaw Masanoff’s work when Masanoff worked at Klein’s former firm, Sax, Sachs & Klein. Klein’s former partners Spencer Sax and Peter Sachs are also in Ricci’s sights. All of them, he claims, had to know what Masanoff was up to.

I love this because the guy running against Klein is my absolute favorite Republican candidate this cycle, Allen West.  War hero Allen has just taken a step further toward being Congressman West.  And that makes this report, for me, much more than half full.