We can not underestimate the level of ardent resistance Barack Obama and his “New New Deal” will come under from the GOP. The field marshals are already warning the troops for the battle ahead, at CATO they predict that any passage of a form of universal health care, could mean the end of the GOP. CATO quotes Norman Markowitz who says:

The best way to win over the the portion of the working class in the South or the West that supported McCain and the Republicans is to create important new public programs and improve the social safety net. National health care [and other measures] will bring reluctant voters into the Obama coalition. That is how progress works.

The GOP of course has been down this road before. After the successful FDR administration Republicans were forced to support what had become national institutions like Social Security. Recall that even Bush, nearly a half century later, could do nothing to change the basics of the program. At all levels of government Republicans became the usual minority. With the exception of Eisenhower, Democrats would dominate the White House until Nixon’s election, and the House until 1995 with only 2 terms being controlled by Republicans 1947 and 1953. We have lived in a time where Republicans have come out of the desert. Starting with Reagan in 1980 the GOP made significant electoral gains, reestablished themselves as a national party, and a pro-business, pro-opportunity party. Voters in 1992 chose Clinton, in large part because of the failure of the GOP to turn the economy around.

It was at this moment that a Democratic revival should have began, it was here that an opportunity similar, though all together separate, from where we find ourselves now, emerged. Had Clinton been able to pass universal health care, and other prominent big government supported programs, a new generation of solid Democrats could have emerged. The 1992 Electoral Map bears a striking similarity to Obama’s. Though they won in some different places, the facts were the same as Markowitz alludes to: passage of national programs could have turned voters in places like Missouri into Democratic voters for years to come.

Of course, Clinton squandered this opportunity in the first two years, and then hamstrung with a newly energized GOP in control of Congress, worked in incremental steps to advance small pieces of what was once a larger agenda of reform.

The battles to start in January over the Obama Stimulus plan are battles for whether or not the GOP will survive for the next 20-30 years, or whether they will remain a minority party once more. Failure to institute meaningful and fundamental change like universal health care, will create another opportunity for the GOP to return.

They will return like they did the last time. It’s no wonder that some conservatives believe the key is to return to heavy conservatism and religiosity: those were bedrocks to their strategy of return in the 80s and 90s. I don’t believe that the Obama win was necessarily a refutation of these tactics, after all dirty campaigning and fear, uncertainty, and doubt have been campaign staples for as long as democracy has existed. Instead I believe that a unique electoral climate, created by the failures of the modern conservative movement that are now killing our economy, created an opportunity for Democrats to get a second chance. This began with the midterms in 2006, and culminated on November 4th.

The question now is can we deliver. At every turn they will try to block large-scale reform, sounding the calls for compromise and bipartisanship. Giving into their demands and instituting anything less than a fundamental shift in how government helps its people is failure. The American people will suffer, the promises of change will be unrealized, and the American voter makes no distinction between the party to blame, only who was in charge when things stayed the same.

The London terror plot and the Scotland car bomb attack of the past few days are clearly the top stories for the weekend, as the media plays on the fear of Americans and reminds us that terrorism is still a threat in the US. But that’s not all. Fox News and top Republican presidential candidates have reminded us what UK terror is really about: immigration.

The self-proclaimed terrorism expert Rudy Giuliani has already jumped on the UK incidents as an indication of the need for tighter national security in the US, including the obligatory pouring of even more resources into the patrol efforts on the US-Mexico border. One might recall the days when Giuliani enjoyed the contributions of undocumented immigrants in NYC, and prohibited police officers from questioning about immigration status.

This morning on Fox & Friends, a fair and balanced debate was held about the UK terror plot/attack. When a political analyst suggested that both Giuliani and Hillary Clinton could use these incidents to their political advantage, the other guest, a Newsday columnist, quickly responded that Hillary and her fellow proponents of amnesty, multilingualism, and multiculturalism, are essentially the reason why terror happens, a very misguided argument in my view.

At this point, the Republicans will do just about anything to conflate immigration with terrorism. Perhaps the most irrational of these arguments thus far has come from likely Republican candidate Fred Thompson, who has even found a way to bring a Latino group under the banner of potential terrorists.

Thompson spoke about undocumented immigration through the Mexican border at a campaign stop last week, strangely focusing on Cuban exiles as cause for alarm, despite the fact that Cubans who arrive in the United States, under the law, are not undocumented. He said,

If they’re coming from Cuba, where else are they coming from? And I don’t imagine they’re coming here to bring greetings from Castro. We’re living in the era of the suitcase bomb. We can’t be talking seriously about national security while that’s going on. (Watch here.)

Who is next? Under this view, Venezuelan immigrants would surely be viewed in the same way. What about Chinese immigrants? Or will migrants from any left-learning, Islamic or otherwise enemy nation be viewed as spies and terrorists before they are treated as refugees?

The assumption that Cuban exiles are coming to attack the United States, rather than to flee Castro’s rule is actually counterproductive to the Republican ideology regarding Cuba, which first generation Cuban Americans overwhelmingly support.

Hillary smartly condemned his comments. Let’s hope Miami does as well. Although Cuban Americans have a history of rejecting new arrivals from the island, let alone from elsewhere in Latin America, hopefully they will recognize the systematic efforts by Republicans to bring a criminal and now even terrorist association with being a Latino immigrant in the United States.

Orin S. Kerr in a post published at the Volokh Conspiracy Law Blog has pointed to a previous Supreme Court Case, which sheds light on the mendacity of Cheney’s assertion that he is not a part of the Bush Administration. The case is the 2004 Supreme Court Case, Cheney v. United States District Court For The District Of Columbia, and it is in the Brief for the Petitioners (Cheney), where the incongruity lies.

In the Brief for the Petitioners can be found some strong claims that the Vice President is indeed a member of the Executive Branch:

• This case presents fundamental separation-of-powers questions arising from the district court’s orders compelling the Vice President and other close presidential advisors to comply with broad discovery requests by private parties seeking information about the process by which the President received advice on important national policy matters from his closest official advisors.
• The President established the NEPDG to obtain from his most senior advisors, including numerous heads of departments, their advice regarding legislation that he should propose to Congress and administrative actions that the Executive Branch should take.
• Any attempt by Congress to regulate the President’s ability to obtain advice from officials in the Executive Branch would unconstitutionally interfere with powers expressly reserved to the President by the Constitution.
• During the Constitutional Convention of 1787, the Framers considered several times whether to provide the President with some form of advisory council that included representatives of the Legislature or Judiciary. See James Madison, Notes of Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787, at 487-488, 509-510, 569, 598-602 (W.W. Norton & Co. 1966) (debates of Aug. 20, 22, and 31 and Sept. 7, 1787). Each such proposal was rejected. The Framers chose instead to enshrine in Article II the President’s power to seek advice from those under his direct control. As Alexander Hamilton subsequently explained, the unity of the Executive would be destroyed if the President were “subject[ed] in whole or in part to the controul and co-operation of others, in the capacity of counsellors to him.” The Federalist, No. 70, at 472-473 (Alexander Hamilton) (Jacob E. Cooke ed., Wesleyan Univ. Press 1961) . The Opinion Clause thus explicitly confirms the President’s authority to gather information and opinions from his subordinates. The history of that provision, the structure of Article II, and the obvious constraints of the separation of powers make it clear that the President’s authority to receive opinions from Executive officers is not subject to interference from or control by the other Branches. The President may, of course, enlist the Vice President in the process of obtaining those opinions, as Congress has explicitly recognized. See 3 U.S.C. 106.

Justice Kennedy wrote the opinion which was joined wholly by Rehnquist, Stevens, O’Connor, and Breyer. Parts I, II, III, and IV were also joined by Scalia and Thomas. Stevens wrote a concurring opinion. Only Ginsburg dissented. In the opinion, Kennedy wrote:

Were the Vice President not a party in the case, the argument that the Court of Appeals should have entertained an action in mandamus, notwithstanding the District Court’s denial of the motion for certification, might present different considerations. Here, however, the Vice President and his comembers on the NEPDG are the subjects of the discovery orders. The mandamus petition alleges that the orders threaten “substantial intrusions on the process by which those in closest operational proximity to the President advise the President.” App. 343. These facts and allegations remove this case from the category of ordinary discovery orders where interlocutory appellate review is unavailable, through mandamus or otherwise. It is well established that “a President’s communications and activities encompass a vastly wider range of sensitive material than would be true of any ‘ordinary individual.’” United States v. Nixon, 418 U. S., at 715. Chief Justice Marshall, sitting as a trial judge, recognized the unique position of the Executive Branch when he stated that “[i]n no case . . . would a court be required to proceed against the president as against an ordinary individual.” United States v. Burr, 25 F. Cas. 187, 192 (No. 14,694) (CC Va. 1807). See also Clinton v. Jones, 520 U. S. 681, 698.699 (1997) (“We have, in short, long recognized the ‘unique position in the constitutional scheme’ that [the Office of the President] occupies” (quoting Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U. S. 731, 749 (1982))); 520 U. S., at 710.724 (BREYER, J., concurring in judgment). As United States v. Nixon explained, these principles do not mean that the “President is above the law.” 418 U. S., at 715. Rather, they simply acknowledge that the public interest requires that a coequal branch of Government “afford Presidential confidentiality the greatest protection consistent with the fair administration of justice,” ibid., and give recognition to the paramount necessity of protecting the Executive Branch from vexatious litigation that might distract it from the energetic performance of its constitutional duties.

There was never any doubt that Cheney has wanted it both ways, depending on the circumstances. It’s funny that the brief doesn’t establish that the VP is an executive official but rather just assumes it. That was enough back then. Those were the days.

Dana Milbank has read the same brief that Prof. Kerr has, and also relays this little gem:

The explanatory task fell to White House spokeswoman Dana Perino, whose skin reddened around her neck and collar as she pleaded ignorance during the daily briefing: “I’m not a legal scholar. . . . I’m not opining on his argument that his office is making. . . . I don’t know why he made the arguments that he did.”

“It’s a little surreal,” remarked Keith Koffler of Congress Daily.

You’re telling me,” Perino agreed.

“You can’t give an opinion about whether the vice president is part of the executive branch or not?” Koffler pressed.

“It’s a little bit like somebody saying, ‘I don’t know if this is my wife or not.’”

Gary mentions Rahm Emanuel has introducing a bill to delete spending for Cheney’s ofice due to Cheney’s claims, when convenient. I understand the desire for action — any action — from the Democrats on this issue. But I keep thinking this is a mistake. Maybe you can help me see otherwise…

If the bill doesn’t pass (which is most likely), then it is merely a publicity stunt that attempts to embarrass the VP, administration and any Republicans who are forced to argue against it. In such a case, all sides seem a bit silly. Although I understand that the point is to force members of Congress to take a public position on his authoritarianism

If, by some stroke, the bill actually passes, it would be disastrous. You can’t pass legislation that targets a single individual, so this would be a lasting statement about the office of the VP. It would be taken to support Cheney’s perverse argument that he is not part of the executive.

The braver (and more appropriate) action here would seem to be to introduce articles of impeachment. The list of abuses is already long, and the refusal to obey an executive order in the handling of classified documents in the smoking gun. For those who say it would never succeed, Rahm’s attempt to defund the VP’s office is proof that this isn’t the prime consideration.

Despite where I stand on immigration, the President today suggested compromise and that his opponents should tone down their rhetoric. I find those suggestions coming from this president to be, well, hypocrisy.

Without going in to great detail, I mostly agree with the President and the Senate bill on this matter despite my above issue.

John Faso just defied the expectations of many Republicans and got 61.2% of of the vote by delegates at the party convention for the New York State Governor’s race. That means that he will be the party’s designee on the Sept. 12 primary ballot. Being the party designee is usually a nominal honor, but it could be consequential this year. This might bring Faso more money, media attention and endorsements, all of which is likely to fracture the Republicans before November. Spitzer had some $19 million dollars to spend as opposed to a combined $3 million by both Weld and Faso in January.

Story on Democratic Convention
Story on Republican Convention

Also, later today there will be an interesting battle for the nomination on who will oppose Hiliary.

DailyKos has Ken Salazar reading George Washington’s farewell address on the Senate floor, in a rebuke to those who apparently think that separation of powers is secondary to what Ben Franklin referred to as ‘temporary security’.

Not much else to say, there. On a related note, though–our administration apparently thinks that the Constitution ought to mean today exactly what it did at its creation. How come they think the Geneva Conventions can change their meaning over time, or through outdatedness? Are these two different theories of the rule of law, or do they actually have a coherent theory?

Sen. Lincoln Chafee (R-RI) has promised to vote “no” on the Alito nomination, according to the Washington Times today. He’ll vote today to end the Democratic filibuster and eventually won’t support Alito’s nomination in the up-or-down vote. This is probably a safe bet for Chafee given the outrage in (blue) Rhode Island that could erupt if he voted yes… but it will only prove safe if he can make it through the GOP primaries this fall.

His GOP challenger, former mayer of Cranston, RI, Steve Laffey, and Dem challenger Matt Brown, have each levied attacks on Linc for being a “flip-flopper”: Laffey said that Linc has an “inability to make a firm decision, which once again made him irrelevant to the process in the Senate.” As a very conservative Republican, Laffey’s future prospects in the Senate seem especially irrelevant. On the other hand, if Laffey can wrest the GOP nomination away from Chafee because of local Republican disillusionment with Chafee’s moderate voting record (National Journal says his social policy votes are more liberal than 60% of Senators).

If the “no” vote against Alito does hand Laffey the GOP nod this fall, it “could kill the GOP’s chance of holding a seat in liberal Rhode Island,” because a Laffey candidacy would almost certainly be too conservative to win in Rhode Island.

Today’s Washington Post article and poll results show that 76% of Americans think “Bush should disclose all contacts between disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff and White House staffers.” The Abramoff scandal was a tough enough when it just implicated the GOP House leadership and threatened the 2006 midterms. Throw in the White House and some calls for accountability and you have a real stew going. Refusing to answer to the Press Corps not only makes them look guilty, but also is bad for transparent democracy. (Not that this White House has ever been called “transparent” with a straight face…)

What’s the red line beyond which the White House realizes it is politically untenable (for both the midterms, and for their policy initiatives) to continue to obfuscate about the Abramoff-Bush meetings? 76%? 85%?

Do 100% of Americans need to call for disclosure before they’ll comply?

Rep. Bob Ney from Ohio has been asked by the Speaker of the House, Dennis Hastert, to resign his chairmanship. Ney of course has been a likely target of further investigation into the Abramoff affair. From the AP:

Ney’s committee has jurisdiction over the Republican reform agenda in the wake of the Abramoff scandal, and Hastert believes it is inappropriate to let Ney run it, said a GOP leadership aide, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the negotiations between Ney and the speaker.

Things just look worse and worse.

If you don’t believe Dean when he explains that the Abramoff scandal is a Republican scandal, than perhaps we should turn to the National Review’s Rich Lowry on the subject:

The GOP now craves such bipartisan cover in the Jack Abramoff scandal. Republicans trumpet every Democratic connection to Abramoff in the hope that something resonates. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.), took more than $60,000 from Abramoff clients! North Dakota Democratic Sen. Byron Dorgan used Abramoff’s skybox! It is true that any Washington influence peddler is going to spread cash and favors as widely as possible, and 210 members of Congress have received Abramoff-connected dollars. But this is, in its essence, a Republican scandal, and any attempt to portray it otherwise is a misdirection.

Thanks, Rich! Of course, that doesn’t mean they’re going to stop trying to pawn this off, but it does mean they’re probably going to fail.

I got to thinking to myself, what would happen if Alito confirmed and installed upon the bench joins a majority to overturn Roe v. Wade? Immediately state legislatures would have to act and decide what their statutes on abortion would read. Women in many parts of the country would be denied the ability to seek safe abortions by medical professionals, and we’d return of course to underground and unsanitary medical practices, or perhaps secret doctors making house calls only to be exposed in what one would assume would be the many witch hunts to follow.

Then that particularly crass and calculating side of me kicks into gear. Is Roe being overturned really in the best interests of the conservative movement? Abortion, and now to a certain degree gay bashing are the tools of the right wing to hold in the religious right and bring them out election after election. But what happens if they get what they want? Do the religious stay at home in greater numbers thinking that their war has been won? If Roe is overturned then activists must then turn their attention to the states, why waste their time on federal elections that will have little affect?

I’d argue that for the conservative movement, at least the component of which includes the electoral support of a religious entity who they frequently ignored in past administrations–Bush is of course the exception–that winning the “war against the baby killers” would be the worst thing to happen. Immediately they would lose a major magnet to attract these voters, after all Supreme Court precedent doesn’t change over night, not even in an election. Without Roe states decide, and so it seems logical to me that these activists, the Robertsons of the world, would turn their wrath to such renegade states like New Jersey and California who continue this murderous campaign outlawed by our Supreme Court, blessed of course by God.

Yet, then would come the outrage from the majority of Americans who support the right to choose. The preceding elections would almost assuredly be windfalls for Democrats. Without even saying it or campaigning for it they would gain a monstrous share of the women’s vote and urban and women voters would come out in record numbers as never before, probably handing majorities to the Democratic party for their long and brave support for a woman’s right to choose. It could usher in a premature realignment, one that may not take hold, but one that would almost assuredly give the Democrats a chance to reshape Washington and with justices growing older perhaps the court with younger justices who will assuredly benefit from advances in modern medicine to live longer and healthier lives.

Now of course all of this is to suggest that the plight of women in states that would outlaw abortion would be an acceptable casualty in our fight. This of course I would not subscribe to and would not encourage. However, there does remain the question, are republicans really dumb enough to overturn Roe, or do they realize that Roe is their major calling card to reach the religious right they so depended on in 2004.

Or so the White House thinks. First Bush admits that we had bad intel for Iraq, but that it was a good invasion anyway. Now, he admits that he authroized the spying on of Americans.

I can’t be the only person who just shakes his head at this. Just because you admit something doesn’t make it right, you actually have to do something to fix it, you know retribution. I mean last time I checked a murderer didn’t go free by simply saying “yeah, well I did it.”

Also, finals are over so more posting.