Updates

Sorry for the long delay in blogging. I'll be putting up some more things over the weekend and we're soon going to move this blog to our own website, so stay tuned!

But in the meantime, I just wanted to let you all know the following.

The awful detainee bill has passed the Senate and the House; while the majority of Democrats voted against it and while several made excellent speeches, including Sen. Clinton, Sen. Feingold, Sen. Kerry, Sen. Obama, Rep. Skelton of Missouri and others, the bill unfortunately passed both Houses. Unfortunately, 12 Senate Democrats and 34 House Democrats voted for the bill, including some shocking ones like Rep. Sherrod Brown of Ohio. Brown, who is running for the Ohio Senate seat and is winning right now, has one of the most liberal records in the House. On this he's wrong, and so are the other Democrats who voted for the bill. The one consolation is that the majority of the Senate and House Democrats ARE against this bill and there's a very good chance that the Supreme Court will rule this unconstitutional.

Really, if you want to be enlightened on the detainee bill, I can urge nothing else but to watch this brilliant clip by Stephen Colbert, who explains it probably better than anybody else.

Elsewhere, I'll turn to some happier news. Democratic prospects in Congress are looking up! (That's the happy part.) Rep. Mark Foley (R-Fla.) resigned suddenly today following the release yesterday of emails and instant message communications (some sexually explicit) he had sent to a 16-year old boy.

Foley's resignation instantly and unexpectedly practically gives the Democrats another pickup; Foley's name will remain on the ballot and the Democrat, who was a no-hoper yesterday morning, is now the likely winner.

This means that we will need to pick up only 12 seats in the House to take control!

In the Senate, our prospects are going in two directions. We are still in a dead-heat here in Missouri, but we're entering a dead-heat in Tennessee and Virginia looks set to be a dead-heat as well, following a host of allegations of racism against Sen. George Allen (R). On the other hand, New Jersey Democratic Sen. Robert Menendez is running behind and is coming under fire for ethical concerns, which may mean a loss of one seat.

Bill Clinton Smacks Down Chris Wallace of Fox News

AP Photo/Fox News Sunday, Michael Simon

Many of you may already have heard about or seen former President William Jefferson Clinton's smackdown of Fox News' Chris Wallace. Wallace asked Clinton why he didn't do more to kill or capture Osama bin Laden while in office, prompting a furious and unexpected flare-up from Clinton. Clinton lashed out at his right-wing critics and accused Wallace of trying to perform a "little right-wing hit-job."

I think one can credibly argue that Clinton's reaction may have been a bit over-the-top, but given the right-wing smearing of his terrorism efforts, I think it's understandable. For the past several years, the Republicans have been repeatedly trying to blame Clinton for 9/11 (in fact, they try to blame Clinton on everything). The effort appeared to peak with ABC's broadcast some weeks back of an ABC docudrama called The Path to 9/11 (written by an out-and-out conservative filmmaker and friend of Rush Limbaugh's). The film fabricated several scenes that baldly stated that the Clinton White House hampered anti-terrorism efforts.

None of this is to say that the Clinton White House didn't make some mistakes in fighting Al Qaeda, but the charge that they were negligent of Al Qaeda during their administration was debunked both by the 9/11 Commission Report and by former Counter-terrorism czar Richard Clarke's Against All Enemies.

I'll let the Big Dawg speak for himself. You really MUST watch this clip, generously hosted by crooksandliars.com. The file is about 1 MB and is about 20 minutes long, so if you don't have space or bandwith and would prefer to stream it, you can do so at ThinkProgress.org, which displays a slightly shorter clip of the same exchange (the only part that is lost is the first question, which is on a different topic).

A Sham Compromise on Torture

Allow me to rant for a few paragraphs on the media lovefest with Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.). John McCain is a good man who I respect. I certainly think he would have been a better president these last six years than President Bush and he's certainly better than many of the other people Republicans have to offer. But he is not some knight in shining armor; not only is he very solidly conservative on most issues, he is, in the end, a politician. That doesn't make him a bad person, but it does mean that he does not deserve immunity from criticism due to a carefully-cultivated image as a "maverick". And just because he has a knack for forging compromises doesn't mean those compromises are inherently desirable.

For much of the Washington punditry, any "compromise" is Solomonic in its wisdom, bestowed upon weary, American subjects by our saintly "moderates" and "mavericks" in Congress. This facile view of policymaking relies on the implicit assumption that the "right" answer is always halfway between points A and B.

Let me be clear - I am not arguing against moderation. I am not arguing against pragmatically cutting a deal. What I am against are compromises that cede ground on core principles such as human rights. And what I am also against are compromises that claim to be upholding fairness and common-sense but which in fact grant one side 90% of what they seek and 10% of what the other side seeks.

The bold "compromise" on torture that was announced yesterday by Sens. John McCain, Lindsey Graham, and John Warner fit both those criteria. While the Republican moderates' heart may have been in the right place, the end result of their bargaining is a near-total capitulation on torture; while it is worded to sound high-minded, it leaves near-total discretion to the White House.

And thankfully, in spite of their usual fawning, much of the mainstream press is seeing it in the same way.

The NY Times: A Bad Bargain

Published: September 22,
2006

Here is a way to measure how seriously President Bush was willing to compromise on the military tribunals bill: Less than an hour after an agreement was announced yesterday with three leading Republican senators, the White House was already laying a path to wiggle out of its one real concession.

About the only thing that Senators John Warner, John McCain and Lindsey Graham had to show for their defiance was Mr. Bush’s agreement to drop his insistence on allowing prosecutors of suspected terrorists to introduce classified evidence kept secret from the defendant. The White House agreed to abide by the rules of courts-martial, which bar secret evidence. (Although the administration’s supporters continually claim this means giving classified information to terrorists, the rules actually provide for reviewing, editing and summarizing classified material. Evidence that cannot be safely declassified cannot be introduced.)

This is a critical point. As Senator Graham keeps noting, the United States would never stand for any other country’s convicting an American citizen with undisclosed, secret evidence. So it seemed like a significant concession — until Stephen Hadley, the national security adviser, briefed reporters yesterday evening. He said that while the White House wants to honor this deal, the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, Duncan Hunter, still wants to permit secret evidence and should certainly have his say. To accept this spin requires believing that Mr. Hunter, who railroaded Mr. Bush’s original bill through his committee, is going to take any action not blessed by the White House.

On other issues, the three rebel senators achieved only modest improvements on the White House’s original positions. They wanted to bar evidence obtained through coercion. Now, they have agreed to allow it if a judge finds it reliable (which coerced evidence hardly can be) and relevant to guilt or innocence. The way coercion is measured in the bill, even those protections would not apply to the prisoners at Guantánamo Bay.

The deal does next to nothing to stop the president from reinterpreting the Geneva Conventions. While the White House agreed to a list of “grave breaches” of the conventions that could be prosecuted as war crimes, it stipulated that the president could decide on his own what actions might be a lesser breach of the Geneva Conventions and what interrogation techniques he considered permissible. It’s not clear how much the public will ultimately learn about those decisions. They will be contained in an executive order that is supposed to be made public, but Mr. Hadley reiterated that specific interrogation techniques will remain secret.

Georgetown Law Professor, Marty Lederman also harshly criticized the so-called "compromise" from his blog, Balkinization. The bill was also criticized by the Washington Post.

Simply put, the Republican moderates in the Senate caved. Their bill essentially relies on the goodwill of the administration and stops well short of the high-minded goals they set out to achieve. Perhaps an anonymous Bush Administration source put it best:

A senior administration official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said in an interview that Bush essentially got what he asked for in a different formulation that allows both sides to maintain that their concerns were addressed. "We kind of take the scenic route, but we get there," the official said.

Sadly, the Democrats largely ceded this issue to the Republicans and have uttered nary a peep over the bill. The Democrats MUST confront this and call it out for what it is. Let's hope that a Democratic Senate and/or House will aggressively confront the White House on this. God knows how effective those Republican moderates have been on this.

McCaskill and Talent Debate

Last Friday, Claire McCaskill and Jim Talent met in the first of five debates for their Senate race. They were joined by the nominees of the Libertarian and Progressive Parties. A recap of the debate, which was not televised, can be read here.

Voter ID Update

Sorry for the delay in posting, folks. It has been a busy week. But let's get to business.

Let's first update everybody on the Voter ID Law. Last week, a local judge ruled against the law.

Missouri's new voter ID law was found unconstitutional Thursday by Cole County Circuit Judge Richard Callahan.

Senate Bill 1014, signed into law June 14 by Gov. Matt Blunt, required Missourians to show a valid federal or state-issued photo ID to vote this November.

Callahan had combined two lawsuits challenging the law: One claimed the voter ID rule violates the Hancock Amendment against unfunded mandates, the other claiming that the law placed an unconstitutional burden on thousands of Missourians without photo identification. The case is expected to eventually go to the state Supreme Court.

In a statement late Thursday, Missouri Secretary of State Robin Carnahan said, "I am pleased with Judge Callahan's ruling to stop the photo ID law, signed in June by Governor Blunt, from going into effect for the November election. This ruling affirms my concern that the law clearly
jeopardizes the constitutional voting rights of many Missourians."

IF the judge's decision stands, student voters will not be required to show a state-issued photo ID in order to vote. Nevertheless, we along with the Democratic campaigns are staying cautious. The ruling is being appealed to the Missouri Supreme Court and it is possible it will be reinstated before the election. We are still advising all students to obtain a state-issued ID if possible. Requirements include a birth certificate and a social security card or some other form of proof of residency. For detailed information, please contact the elections division of office of the MO Secretary of State.

Please note, however, that in the event the law is reinstated and you are unable to obtain a state-issued ID, you can still vote with a provisional ballot, provided you have some type of photo ID. We are told that the ballots have a 90% chance of being counted, so don't be discouraged to go and vote. Additionally, should you be unable to vote in person on election day, due to legitimate commitments that prevent you from voting, you may request to vote absentee from the local elections office. Absentee voting does not require a state-issued ID.

Nationally, voter ID laws are also making the news due to the efforts of the Republican House of Representatives to pass such legislation nationally. Luckily, the legislation would still have to get past the Senate and the White House and would not go into effect until 2010.

But while such requirements certainly pose an obstacle, we do want to reiterate that students can and should vote in November. If you are not registered in Missouri and would like to vote in-state (provided, of course, that you are a Wash U. student) you can download the forms here.

Bill Clinton on The Daily Show Tonight, 10 PM

Our illustrious 42nd President, William Jefferson Clinton, will be gracing Jon Stewart's presence tonight on the Daily Show.

Don't miss it!

Poll: McCaskill Leads by 3

Most recent polls have shown Jim Talent with a narrow lead within the margin of error. Rasmussen (a firm that correctly called every state in the 2004 electoral college vote) today announced a poll that shows McCaskill leading Talent 45% to 42%.

The actual announcement is premium content, so I don't unfortunately have the opportunity to give you the other numbers (sample size, margin of error, registered voters vs. likely voters). Take this with a grain of salt; it's close, quite probably within the margin of error and it may be an outlier. But it's very encouraging nevertheless.

Oh, and on the topic of good news for Claire, Bill Clinton raised $1 million for her campaign. Given that Talent currently has $6.9 million on hand while Claire currently has $2.7 million, money is clearly Claire's Achilles' heel. Although I know we're all college students with limited cash, consider giving to her campaign if you have some spare change. The campaign could really use it.

And while still on the subject, here are some new ads from Claire's campaign. Enjoy!

McCaskill Gets the Rams on TV

I missed this on Sunday; savvy move on Claire's part

The St. Louis Rams' season opener against the Denver Broncos is a sellout, ensuring that it will be televised on KMOV-TV, Channel 4, in the St. Louis region, beginning at noon.

The Rams had about 500 tickets left unsold Thursday, but all those tickets were purchased a couple of hours before the deadline of noon Friday.

Missouri Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Claire McCaskill purchased 100 of the remaining tickets, her office said Friday.

In turn, McCaskill gave 90 of the tickets to students at Clyde C. Miller Career Academy, a St. Louis high school. The remaining 10 went to the George Washington Carver House, which provides crisis intervention for youths and their families.

Under the NFL's blackout rule, teams normally have until 72 hours before kickoff to sell out games or they'll be blacked out locally.

She bought herself some free media and the goodwill of lots of Rams fans. While intuitively one doubts this kind of thing counts, given the margins in this race, just maybe it will.

The Missouri Senate Race: Why is it So Important?

Why, exactly, is the Missouri Senate race so important? The reason is this race may well be the decisive one in determining control of the Senate.

Let's take a look at the numbers. At present, the Republicans control 55 seats, the Democrats 45 (Jim Jeffords of Vermont, a registered independent and former Republican, caucuses with the Democrats). To take control, Democrats need to win SIX seats. Five seats would yield another 50-50 senate (which we had in 2001 for a few months) in which Republicans would still be in control due to Vice President Cheney's tie-braking vote.

Six seats is a tall order, and due to the state-by-state breakdown of this year, it is harder than usual. That's why most analysts still think we have less than a 50-50 chance to regain the Senate. Given the national anti-Republican mood, however, a six-seat takeover is possible. Only, that is, if we win virtually every major race.

The most competitive Senate races this year are in Minnesota, Maryland, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Ohio, Missouri, Montana, Tennessee, Connecticut, and maybe Virginia.

Democrats currently hold the Minnesota, Maryland, and New Jersey seats. Both Minnesota and Maryland are open seats in which Democratic incumbents are retiring. Currently, the Democratic nominees in both states are ahead in the polls. We have a strong likelihood of holding these seats.

In New Jersey, recently-appointed Sen. Robert Menendez is facing a tough reelection campaign from State Sen. Tom Kean, Jr. (the son of popular former NJ Governor Tom Kean, Sr.) Polls have shown the two roughly tied, Menendez being weighed down by allegations of corruption in a state well known for it. On election night, Menendez will be slightly favored barring anything dramatic. If the national mood stays this anti-Republican, New Jersey, a blue state, will stay in the blue column. Still, this is our most endangered seat and is the most likely pick-up opportunity for the Republicans.

The other Dem-held seat that is undergoing a competitive race is Connecticut. Former Vice Presidential candidate and prominent centrist Democrat, Joe Lieberman, was defeated in the primary by challenger Ned Lamont who ran an anti-Iraq War campaign. Lieberman is now running an independent campaign under the ballot line "Connecticut for Lieberman." Lieberman nevertheless remains a registered Democrat and has pledged that he will caucus with the Democrats if reelected. With the Republican nominee registering in the single-digits, Democrats will hold this seat regardless of whether Lieberman or Lamont wins.

That takes us to the Republican-held seats. To recap, Republicans hold the following seats in competitive races: Pennyslvania, Rhode Island, Ohio, Montana, Missouri, with Tennessee and Virginia following behind. Only Tennessee features an open seat (Bill Frist is retiring to run a no-hope campaign for president).

Democrats are favored in Pennsylvania, a center-left state being represented by arch-conservative Rick Santorum. Democratic nominee, Bob Casey, Jr. has led consistently in the polls and although recent polls indicated the race has tightened, it will be extraordinary if Casey loses.

Current polls also indicate that, at present, Democratic challengers lead narrowly in Rhode Island (discussed previously), Montana, and Ohio. Rhode Island and Pennsylvania are blue states. And although Ohio and Montana are red states, both states feature unpopular incumbents and electorates that are extremely angry at the state-level Republicans.

Assuming that Democrats hold all three of their competitive seats (Minnesota, Maryland, and New Jersey) and assuming that we pick up all four of the just-mentioned states (Ohio, Montana, Rhode Island, and Pennsylvania) that leaves Missouri, Tennessee, and Virginia.

To win control of the Senate under the aforementioned conditions, Democrats must win two out of these three races. Out of these, Missouri's is the most competitive. Missouri is also the least Republican state out of all three, with Tennessee the most. It is highly unlikely that Democrats will pick up Tennessee and Virginia without picking up Missouri. It is highly unlikely that Democrats will even be able to pick up both Tennessee and Virginia, regardless of what happens in Missouri. There is very little margin of error. Simply put, if McCaskill doesn't win in Missouri, we will not pick up the Senate.

***

Competitive Democratic-Held Senate Races:

1. Minnesota
Amy Klobuchar (D) vs. Mark Kennedy (R)

2. Maryland
Ben Cardin (D) vs. Michael Steele (R)

3. New Jersey
Robert Menendez (D) inc. vs. Tom Kean, Jr. (R)

4. Connecticut
Joe Lieberman (D) inc. vs. Ned Lamont (D)

Competitive Republican-Held Senate Races:

1. Pennsylvania
Bob Casey, Jr. (D) vs. Rick Santorum (R) inc.

2. Rhode Island
Sheldon Whitehouse (D) vs. Lincoln Chafee (R) inc.

3. Montana
Jon Tester (D) vs. Conrad Burns (R) inc.

4. Ohio
Sherrod Brown (D) vs. Mike DeWine (R) inc.

5. Missouri
Claire McCaskill (D) vs. Jim Talent (R) inc.

6. Tennessee
Harold E. Ford, Jr. (D) vs. Bob Corker (R)

7. Virginia
Jim Webb (D) vs. George Allen (R) inc.

RI-Sen: Primary Results

Looks like liberal Republican senator, Lincoln Chafee (RI), will hold onto his party's nomination. Chafee was challenged in the Republican primary by archconservative Stephen Laffey. Given Rhode Island's bright blue, election-map hue, a win by Laffey would have virtually guaranteed the Rhode Island seat for Democrats.

As is, the Democratic challenger, the auspiciously-named Sheldon Whitehouse, has been tied or narrowly leading Chafee in the polls. We still have a very decent chance at taking this seat, only we will have to fight for it. Had Laffey won the Republican nod, the Republicans had already said they would abandon the seat (polls showed him losing to Whitehouse by 30 points).

Chafee is a liberal on most issues - he is an Iraq War opponent (only Republican in the Senate to vote against the Iraq War Resolution in 2002) and didn't even vote for this President Bush in 2004 (he wrote-in George Herbert Walker Bush). Unfortunately, his state's Democrats view him as ineffectual. He has no positive impact in his caucus and, as such, the biggest vote that matters is his vote for Senate leadership. And here Chafee votes lockstep. It's unfortunate that someone like Chafee is being squeezed out, but in the current political climate, there is little choice. There are very few Republican moderates left in Congress and, like Chafee, most that are present are thoroughly ineffectual.

Chafee's Democratic challenger, Sheldon Whitehouse, will vote as liberal as Chafee (probably more so) AND will vote for Democratic leadership in the Senate. Majority leadership in the Senate is extremely important. Without it, a party's ability to introduce legislation, launch inquiries, and steer committees is extremely limited. It may seem harsh, but that's the reality of today's politics - a reality that Democrats didn't want but have seen forced upon them by the lockstep Republican Caucus.

UPDATE (9/15): The center-left (in truth, a little uncomfortably neo-Conish) opinion journal The New Republic has an editorial up calling for the ouster of Moderate Republicans from Congress. The article is available with free registration, but I'll post a few choice bits here:

When GOP moderates appeal to the spirit of bipartisanship or claim they can influence their leadership, they are recalling a bygone era. For the longest time, U.S. parties lacked ideological
coherence. Northern liberals voted Republican and Southern conservatives voted Democrat, with the result that party affiliation meant less in the United States than in nearly any other democracy. In this world, it made sense to evaluate your senator or representative less on party affiliation than philosophical convictions.

...

From the moment they took power in 1995, Republicans made it clear that they would act differently. Those Republicans who wanted to head committees had to pledge their loyalty to the
party agenda. Republicans saw themselves less as a traditional U.S. political party--with diffuse power and independent personalities--than a parliamentary majority working in unison. From a standpoint of effectiveness, the GOP's record of winning floor votes and clinging to a majority in support of an often-unpopular agenda is impressive.

Of course, maintaining that majority has required Republicans to win the votes of many Americans who don't support their agenda. That's where the GOP moderates come in. Unlike the
moderate wing of the old Democratic majority, they seldom do anything without the tacit consent of the leadership. GOP moderates are allowed-- indeed, encouraged--to publicly scold their party leaders, because that's how they hold onto their districts.

But these displays of independence are a sham. Republicans have invented, or perfected, numerous methods of projecting the fake image of intraparty dissent. One trick is something they privately call "catch and release," whereby they let members from vulnerable districts vote against the leadership--unless their vote is decisive, in which case they are pressured to recant. Last year, for instance, Pennsylvania Representative Jim Gerlach reversed himself and provided the decisive vote for a refinery bill.

...

At best, moderate Republicans have been hapless dupes. At worst, they've been co-conspirators. In either case, they have done almost nothing to alleviate the radical or corrupt tendencies of Republican Washington. Extinguishing the moderates at the polls this November is not a vote for mindless partisanship. It is simply a vote for transparency.

MO-Sen: Republicans Assail McCaskill for Comments on Hurricane Katrina

Claire McCaskill has ruffled some feathers today with comments made at a meeting of St. Louis city officials, including Mayor Francis Slay. Said McCaskill:

“George Bush let people die on rooftops in New Orleans because they were poor and because they were black.”

Sens. Elizabeth Dole (R-NC), the head of the Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee, and Bill Frist (R-TN), the Senate Majority Leader, have predictably attacked McCaskill for her comments. The St. Louis Post-Dispatch has written about the brouhaha here.

Nevertheless, we at the Wash U. College Democrats feel Claire's comments, while a little abrasive, are basically true. President Bush is hardly a racist, but there was clearly callousness and indifference to the suffering of the victims. The Bush-Cheney federal government response (or lack thereof) ignored the plight of those less fortunate both before and after the storm. Katrina illustrated better than anything else the criminal incompetence and uncaring detachment that lies at the heart of this administration.

That is why it is imperative that we take back at least one house of Congress. Undivided Republican rule has to cease. Why not this November?