Could conventions get shorter?

CHARLOTTE, N.C. — or shorter -- will become the standard for 2016 and beyond.

Conventions are expensive to put on -- the cost of the Democratic gathering was $52 million -- and their outcomes are preordained.

The broadcast TV networks, which the parties have relied on to give their prime-time speakers a large national audience, have steadily trimmed their coverage. A post-convention lift in the polls, or "bounce," is far from a given.

Democrats shortened their proceedings from four days in favor of a three-day convention preceded by an outdoor festival on Labor Day. Republicans have held two three-day conventions, as both this year's gathering and the 2008 edition were shortened by hurricanes.

The traditional four-day convention "is the equivalent of a political appendix," says Democratic consultant Chris Lehane, who served as spokesman for Al Gore's 2000 campaign. "For us, it's a great three days, it's fun ? but it ultimately was originally created for a specific function that no longer exists."

Democratic convention chairman Antonio Villaraigosa says conventions could be even shorter.

"I don't think a convention needs to be four days long. I don't know if it needs to be three," said Villaraigosa, mayor of Los Angeles.

Some of the calculation depends on how much free airtime the parties can get for their investment in the convention, Villaraigosa said. This year, broadcast networks said they would air only three nights of proceedings, and NBC showed the NFL's opening game Wednesday night.

"That may very well have an impact on these conventions, because part of what you want to have here is to be able to publicly frame the campaign and launch it. And if at some point it's not going to be covered, it's going to be difficult to do that."

At their convention in Tampa, Republicans formed a commission to study the idea of revamped conventions, including holding events in multiple cities instead of a single host city.

Conventions are "very expensive propositions," House Speaker John Boehner said in Tampa. "Given as much news as people get today and the way they get their news, I'm not sure having a four-day convention in the future makes a lot of sense," he said at a Christian Science Monitor event last week.

Delegates here enjoyed the convention too much to want to abandon it. "I can meet people I met in '04 and '08 and reconnect and re-energize," said Bill Dooling, 69, a Massachusetts delegate and retired school teacher.

"Look at what Bill Clinton did (Wednesday) night. That's why you don't have a one-day convention," said Walt Spader, an alternate from Connecticut and chairman of the North Haven, Conn., Democratic Party in line for an Obama-Biden photo booth outside the convention hall. "We can't go back to the Lincoln-Douglas debates. No one's going to listen to that for six hours. But this is the only opportunity for the parties to really talk about policy, to talk about their vision."

The Labor Day festival gave delegates the opportunity to socialize before getting down to business, says Rick Palacio, chair of the Colorado Democrats. "Now that they have the partying out of the way, now they have an opportunity to focus on all of our guest speakers and business at hand. It concentrates the mind.

"Three days seems to be just about a perfect amount of time," says Palacio, whose first convention was the Democrats' four-day gathering in Denver in 2008. Then, he wasn't head of the Democratic Party in a hotly contested swing state.

Copyright 2012 The Arizona Republic|azcentral.com. All rights reserved.For more information about reprints & permissions, visit our FAQ's. To report corrections and clarifications, contact Standards Editor Brent Jones. For publication consideration in the newspaper, send comments to letters@usatoday.com. Include name, phone number, city and state for verification. To view our corrections, go to corrections.usatoday.com.

Posted

View the original article here

Toss-ups could create Dem-majority delegation

Could the red state of Arizona send a blue delegation to Washington?

The Arizona congressional delegation could conceivably swing to a 5-4 Democratic majority this election season. The potential reversal of fortune for Democrats in Arizona stems from a combination of factors tied to redistricting: Two incumbent Republican congressmen switched to safer districts; an open ninth seat was created because of Arizona's population gains; and other districts became more competitive in terms of voter makeup.

If dynamics in the congressional campaigns continue, it's possible that voters could elect five Democrats and four Republicans to the U.S. House of Representatives this November.

Arizona is expected to maintain four reliably Republican House seats and two Democratic strongholds. Three newly drawn competitive districts -- the 1st District in rural eastern Arizona, the 2nd District in southern Arizona and the urban 9th District in the Phoenix metro area -- appear to lean Democratic, according to national political analysts, though the races are far from slam dunks.

A Democratic-majority House delegation would be a rarity in the past several decades of Arizona history.

And while Democrats say it's a sign of the growing independent nature of Arizona's voters, Republicans say that if they lose the majority of the House delegation, it will confirm what they contend was a biased redistricting process.

If the delegation does swing from the current 5-3 GOP majority, it would be the result of a combination of factors tied to redistricting: Two incumbent Republican congressmen switched to safer districts; an open ninth seat was created because of Arizona's population gains; and several districts became more competitive in terms of voter makeup.

The potential for a shake-up in Arizona bucks national expectations. The GOP appears set to keep its majority in the House and possibly even take the Senate.

"Arizona's a critical state for Democrats as they put together how to get to the majority (in the House)," said Jessica Taylor, House editor for the Rothenberg Political Report, a nationwide nonpartisan campaign tracker.

"They see very good opportunities for the state, but ? Arizona is still seen as a state that leans Republican. We're still expecting it to go Republican in the presidential race," she added.

Gerrymandering alleged

Republicans hold the voter- registration edge in Arizona, about 1.2million to 1million Democratic voters. Independents make up roughly another 1.2 million.

If the state's delegation ends up with a Democratic majority despite the larger Republican voter base, it would confirm Republican complaints of gerrymandering, said Cook Political Report analyst David Wasserman. The nonpartisan firm, along with others, forecasts that Democrats could win at least four and possibly five Arizona seats.

Wasserman said the way the political map is drawn, Republicans will waste votes in stacked GOP districts like the 4th, which includes Prescott, Yuma and Lake Havasu City and faithfully elects Republicans.

GOP strategists, meanwhile, point to steep challenges for Democrats to pull off a coup.

Tim LaSota, a Phoenix-based Republican elections attorney who was active in the recent redistricting process, said the last time that Democrats made up a majority of the delegation, it was driven by a national wave in the elections of 2006 and 2008. The gains were short-lived. Two years ago, Republicans won big, and the GOP reclaimed a majority of Arizona's House delegation.

"In a state like Arizona, in high-watermark years, it's possible for Democrats to achieve a majority of the congressional delegation," said LaSota, of Tiffany and Bosco. "Nonetheless, I think with (President Barack) Obama's unpopularity, the Democratic Party isn't particularly strong, and I see a heavy Republican turnout."

LaSota said if Democrats prevail, it will show that the state's independent redistricting commission "put their thumb on the scale heavily for Democrats."

Daniel Scarpinato, spokesman for the National Republican Congressional Committee, also criticized redistricting but said the contested districts are winnable for the GOP. Voters are turning against Democrats and "there are no signs of a rekindling," he said. "Democrats have about as much chance of running the table in Arizona as Tom Cruise has at getting Katie Holmes back."

Scarpinato said Democrats will lose because their slate of candidates is "D-list" and their issues represent a "failed agenda."

Luis Heredia, executive director of the Arizona Democratic Party, said Republicans' bellyaching over redistricting is unfounded. He argued that the district demographics back that up.

"The redistricting commission created competitive districts to give Arizona voters a choice," Heredia said. "There's finally a level-playing field, (and Republicans complain) all of a sudden it's tilted toward the Democrats."

He said chances are just as good that Democrats gain the delegation majority as remain in the minority. But he is cautiously optimistic.

"We have great candidates in all three of these competitive districts that are going to have strong messages of solving problems," Heredia said.

Democrats are on the offensive in Arizona, according to Rep. Steve Israel, a New York Democrat and chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

"A deep sense of buyer's remorse has set in with voters over the extreme Republican agenda that puts millionaires, Big Oil corporations and insurance companies over the middle class," he said. "Arizona voters know they can do better than these out-of-touch Republican plans."

Toss-up in 3 districts

Both parties point to variations in voter registration, voting patterns and candidate matchups to argue how they could win swing Districts 1, 2 and 9.

District 1:

Democrats in this rural northeastern district, which includes Flagstaff, Globe and several tribal reservations, have about 30,000 more active voters than Republicans. Former Democratic Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick was elected here in 2008 but was ousted during the 2010 "tea party" wave by Republican Rep. Paul Gosar.

Gosar left the seat open this year by switching to run in the safer conservative District 4. Democrats believe Kirkpatrick can retake the newly open seat because of an impressive fundraising advantage and an increased Democratic voting edge.

But Republicans point to factors in their favor. The district supported Republican presidential candidates Sen. John McCain and George W. Bush, and the area's large Mormon population could increase this year's Republican turnout for Mitt Romney.

Plus, Kirkpatrick -- if she wins her primary -- will be defending her vote for Obama's health-care program, which was unpopular among many voters and hurt her campaign in the last round. The likely Republican nominee, Jonathan Paton, a former state legislator, lost a previous run for Congress. Republicans contend that his fundraising has increased and that he can beat Kirkpatrick.

District 2:

Republicans in this southern Arizona district, which is anchored by Tucson and runs along the U.S.-Mexican border, have about 6,500 more active voters than Democrats. Voting patterns show the district chose McCain and Bush for president.

But Republicans are more hard-pressed to describe a victory scenario.

Democrats won the past four congressional elections, including the recent special election to fill Rep. Gabrielle Giffords' open seat. She resigned in January to focus on recovery from her injuries in a 2011 shooting.

Giffords' former top aide, Ron Barber, won by a surprising margin in June, drawing a large independent vote as well as Republican support, and will have the advantage of incumbency if he cleans up in the Democratic primary against state Rep. Matt Heinz.

However, Republicans likely have a better chance at giving Barber a run for his money than in the special election. Former Barber opponent Jesse Kelly, who was criticized as being too conservative for the toss-up district, decided not to run again, paving the way for Republican Martha McSally, a charismatic former Air Force pilot who appeals to many independents.

District 9:

Perhaps the greatest wild card in the state, District 9, covers parts of Phoenix, Paradise Valley, Scottsdale, Tempe, Chandler, Mesa and Ahwatukee.

Republicans have about 12,500 more active voters than Democrats. Yet independents make up more votes than either party, the only district in the state with that makeup, adding an extra level of uncertainty. It's the only swing district whose voters went for Obama in 2008 and against Republican Gov. Jan Brewer two years later.

The seat is open after freshman Rep. Ben Quayle chose to switch to a solidly Republican district. The well-funded son of former Vice President Dan Quayle could have given Democrats a pitched battle. Instead, he now is taking on fellow GOP freshman Rep. David Schweikert in the northeast Valley's 6th Congressional District.

Quayle notes that he is justified in running in the new district because it includes about two-thirds of his current constituents. Still, that matchup will ensure that at least one of the state's Republican House incumbents is defeated in the Aug. 28 primary.

Democrats have fielded three strong candidates: state Sen. David Schapira, former Arizona Democratic Party Chairman Andrei Cherny and former state Sen. Kyrsten Sinema. But their attacks on each other are expected to grow even nastier as the election approaches, potentially depleting the Democrats' campaigns of money and momentum. On the Republican side, there's a free-for-all with seven candidates fighting to take a commanding lead.

Democrats cite positives

The last time Arizona had a Democratic majority in its House delegation was actually not long ago. The 2008 election delivered Kirkpatrick into the Republican-held seat in northern Arizona, adding her to the ranks of Giffords, Raúl Grijalva, Harry Mitchell and Ed Pastor. Before that, Arizona's delegation had been split five times and led by Republicans every other cycle since 1967.

Grijalva, who represents one of the states' solidly Democratic districts, said regaining the delegation majority would encourage bipartisanship.

"It happened before. That wasn't an aberration," said Grijalva, a five-term southern Arizona representative. "If you're in the distinct minority in our delegation, like I and Ed Pastor are, there's not much consultation. … A 5-4 split kind of forces the issue that people have to talk. And that's the healthy part."

Pastor, who represents the other solidly Democratic district, predicted a swing would bring Arizona attention: "That would be very unusual for a Republican-leaning state to contribute two Democratic votes in trying to win the majority in the House of Representatives."

Copyright 2012 The Arizona Republic|azcentral.com. All rights reserved.For more information about reprints & permissions, visit our FAQ's. To report corrections and clarifications, contact Standards Editor Brent Jones. For publication consideration in the newspaper, send comments to letters@usatoday.com. Include name, phone number, city and state for verification. To view our corrections, go to corrections.usatoday.com.

Posted

View the original article here

Montana race could tip balance of power in U.S. Senate

BUTTE, Mont. – Facing a competitive re-election battle for his U.S. Senate seat, Democratic Sen. Jon Tester returned for a recent weekend trip home and did what comes naturally: He rode a tractor.

By Walter Hinick, The Montana Standard

Sen. Jon Tester, D-Mont., rides a John Deere tractor in the annual St. Patrick's Day parade in Butte, Mont., on March 17.

By Walter Hinick, The Montana Standard

Sen. Jon Tester, D-Mont., rides a John Deere tractor in the annual St. Patrick's Day parade in Butte, Mont., on March 17.

The first-term senator and organic farmer spent a rainy Saturday afternoon atop a vintage John Deere tractor adorned with his campaign slogan, "Montana Farmer, Montana Values," in a St. Patrick's Day parade here. Unknown to Tester, the Republican trying to defeat him, Rep. Denny Rehberg, trailed several blocks behind, waving to voters in an appearance that caught some Tester supporters by surprise in this union-friendly, Democratic town.

Over the course of the next seven months, Tester and Rehberg will continue to shadow each other as they travel the same turf in a fight that holds national consequences. Tester, Rehberg and independent analysts agree that Montana might dictate which party controls the Senate next year, and thus has greater leverage in pending battles over sweeping debates ranging from the expiring Bush tax cuts to President Obama's health care law.

Montanans realize the implications.

"The majority is absolutely a factor," said Ted Kronebusch, a 60-year-old electrician from Pondera County and a Rehberg supporter. "This is why it is one of the most critical races in the United States."

Democrats are facing an uphill battle to hold on to their 53-seat majority, which includes two independent senators who caucus with Democrats. Of the 33 Senate races this year, 21 are held by Democrats, two by the independents and 10 are held by Republicans.

About a dozen races are considered competitive, where both parties are engaged. Democrats are defending nine seats they control while Republicans are defending just three: Sen. Scott Brown in Massachusetts, Sen. Dean Heller in Nevada, and the Maine seat held by retiring Sen. Olympia Snowe.

Republicans will need either a net gain of four seats to win the majority outright, or three seats and control of the White House to tilt a 50-50 Senate to their control. (When the Senate is evenly split, the vice president is the tiebreaker.) If Obama wins re-election, Democrats can lose no more than three seats to hold on to the chamber.

"There is no path to a majority without North Dakota, Nebraska and Montana," Rehberg told USA TODAY in an interview before a speech at a Lincoln Day dinner in Pondera, a conservative county where he enjoys a strong base of support. "I think the Democrats know that. I clearly know it. I feel the pressure," he said.

Montana has been a dead heat from the start and is expected to remain so right up to the Nov. 6 vote. A March 14-16 poll conducted by The Billings Gazette gave Tester a 46%-45% lead, with 9% undecided.

Both Tester and Rehberg have won statewide races and are well-known. That means the contest will turn on which side can best get out its vote and appeal to the small slice of swing voters — a formula that will be replayed in races across the nation, including the presidential contest. When races run so tight, it puts a greater focus on personality and a candidate's ability to relate to people.

"People tend to like both of them, which is why this going to be so personal," said David Parker, a Montana State University professor who is writing a book, Battle for the Big Sky, on the race. "A key to victory is going to be turning out the base by riling them up which means: negative, negative, negative, attack, attack, attack."

The national picture

For Republicans, the Democratic-held seats in Missouri, Montana, Nebraska and North Dakota are widely viewed as must-wins if the party stands a chance at taking control of the chamber. Democrats are confident they will pick up at least one of the GOP-held seats, which leaves Republicans hoping to pick off a seat in New Mexico, Ohio, Virginia or Wisconsin.

Within the 2012 battleground, election experts broadly agree that four contests are expected to be exceptionally close: Montana, Massachusetts, Nevada and Virginia. "Every one of these races will end in the margin of error unless something unexpected happens between now and November," said Jennifer Duffy, a Senate election expert for the non-partisan Cook Political Report.

Based on the state's political climate, Maine is the ripest target for a Democratic pickup. The leading contender there, former governor Angus King, an independent, has not expressly stated which party he would side with, but his record is more in line with the Democratic Party. Democrats are also hotly contesting GOP-held seats in Massachusetts and Nevada.

Though the Senate contests in Democratic-held Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida don't look good for Republicans today, the races are expected to tighten with the influence of the presidential election. Likewise, races in Nebraska and North Dakota would appear to be ripe for the GOP, but Democrats are not conceding them, believing they have candidates who can win despite the strong conservative leanings in both states.

When elections poll as tightly as Montana's Senate race, the campaigns tend to get personal, which is why the Tester campaign is emphasizing that character matters. First elected in a narrow 2006 victory against scandal-tainted incumbent GOP Sen. Conrad Burns, the plain-spoken Democrat promotes himself as a "citizen-legislator" who regularly returns home to maintain the farm that he operates with his wife.

"I think in Montana, your word is your bond. Your handshake means something. I think that is still out there. I think they still respect people who take this citizen-legislator thing for real as our forefathers wanted," Tester told USA TODAY in an interview. "Montanans appreciate hard work. They did in '06, and I think they still do now."

Tester's burly build, trademark military-style buzz cut, and mangled left hand — he lost three fingers in a childhood meat grinder accident — are physical symbols of a tough persona that resonate with many Montanans.

"He's our guy," said Sean Smith, a third-generation member of the Butte-based Plumbers & Pipefitters Local Union 41, which has endorsed Tester. Smith cited Tester's successful effort to pass legislation expanding incentives for hiring veterans, as well as Tester's support of the $800 billion stimulus bill because it helped purchase mobile trailers for the union to train workers. "I'm for Tester. I'm for what he stands for and believes in," Smith said.

The campaign is trying to create a contrast of character with Rehberg, who Tester called "a guy who really hasn't done anything in the last 35 years he's been in office but sit on the sidelines and complain and throw stones."

Tester's campaign has targeted some of Rehberg's personal issues, including a 2008 lawsuit Rehberg filed against the Billings fire department over alleged negligence concerning a wildfire that burned undeveloped land he owns. Rehberg dropped the suit last year. The Tester campaign has also highlighted a 2009 boat crash involving Rehberg and four others. Rehberg had alcohol in his blood, but he was not driving the boat and not accused of wrongdoing.

The incidents were widely reported, and voters have yet to show dissatisfaction. Since his first election to the U.S. House in 2000, Rehberg has not won re-election with less than 59%, although he has never faced opposition as fierce as the Senate race.

In an interview, Rehberg acknowledged the attacks but dismissed their impact. "The only hope they have of defeating me is to make it personal. The people of Montana don't like personal campaigns and I think they're going to react negatively," he said.

At 56, Rehberg has spent most of his life in political office, having served in the state House and as lieutenant governor before winning his current seat in 2000. Caffeinated and mustachioed, Rehberg also has a distinctive flair. He is well-known across the state and visits every county in every election cycle.

"For all of his foibles that may have come out, he spends a lot of time in the state. People see him around, they know him, and they like him," Parker said. "He's shrewder than people give him credit for."

The Obama factor

One vulnerability that Rehberg's campaign has identified is Tester's links to Obama, who is deeply unpopular in the state. According to Gallup, the president had a 34% approval rating in Montana last year; he only fared worse in five other states.

Rehberg's main advantage is facing an opponent who will have to outperform his party's president by a significant margin. Another Democratic incumbent, Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill, is facing the same challenge, as are Democratic candidates in Florida, Nevada, New Mexico, Ohio and Wisconsin — all states where the president's approval rating was under 50%.

"There's no daylight" between Tester and Obama, Rehberg told USA TODAY. "When the people of Montana see, realize and understand that he votes with Barack Obama 95% of the time … they're not going to vote for him."

At times, Tester has split with Democrats — most recently in his support of construction of the Keystone XL oil pipeline from Canada to the Gulf Coast — but he has voted with Obama on the most critical issues of his presidency: the stimulus, the health care legislation and the Dodd-Frank financial services overhaul.

Tester said he appeals to a broad swath of voters, even those who oppose the president. "Montanans split tickets. They vote for people, not for parties."

Tester, like many Democrats in 2012, is focusing on his support of Medicare and efforts by the GOP to privatize some or all of the popular entitlement program. But Rehberg voted against the House GOP budget that included plans to privatize Medicare in both 2011 and 2012.

Tester and Rehberg's personal jabs exemplify how the Senate has become polarized in ways that affect the chamber's ability to legislate, but the 2012 elections could remake the Senate in a way that would have an immediate and significant impact.

The House of Representatives is not currently so competitive that the 242-to-190-seat GOP majority is in serious doubt, but the Senate could prove to be the buffer or the blocker to the next president, thus amplifying the importance of contests like the spirited one in Montana.

Duffy, of the Cook Political Report, sees a wide open contest in Big Sky Country and beyond.

"The Senate is a jump ball," she said.

For more information about reprints & permissions, visit our FAQ's. To report corrections and clarifications, contact Standards Editor Brent Jones. For publication consideration in the newspaper, send comments to letters@usatoday.com. Include name, phone number, city and state for verification. To view our corrections, go to corrections.usatoday.com.

View the original article here

This Election, Supreme Court Could Rally Democrats

The prospect arises both because of President Obama’s comments this week implicitly warning the court against striking down his signature domestic achievement, the expanded health insurance law, and because of recent court rulings, chiefly the Citizens United campaign finance decision, and looming cases on immigration and affirmative action that incite passions on the left.

“Historically, the court has been a rallying point for the Republican base, and it is now much easier to imagine that it will be a rallying point with the Democratic base just as much if not more, especially if the court overturns the Affordable Care Act,” said Geoff Garin, a Democratic pollster who works with Priorities USA Action, a group supporting the president’s re-election but independent of his campaign.

“My guess,” Mr. Garin added, “is that more voters will think, ‘If they can do that, they can do just about anything — and that includes overturning Roe v. Wade’ ” — the landmark 1973 abortion rights decision.

Though the justices are not expected to rule on the 2010 health care law until June, the public reaction to the three days of arguments last week offered evidence of a potential Democratic backlash. In a poll for The Washington Post and the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, 32 percent of Democrats said they had a less favorable opinion of the Supreme Court after the hearings, compared with 14 percent of Republicans.

“There’s evidence here of a negative reaction from Democrats,” said Michael Dimock, Pew’s associate director for research. The justices “didn’t even decide anything yet, and many people walked away from their hearings feeling more negative about the court. So you can imagine the reaction if they overturn the law.”

Officials at the White House and with the Obama campaign would not comment for the record, though several insisted there was no political strategy to run against the Supreme Court’s conservative majority — at least not unless the court invalidates the health care law. Aides said Mr. Obama, a former Harvard Law Review president and constitutional law instructor at the University of Chicago, had simply been answering the predictable questions about his reaction to the hearings.

And much as Democrats argued in past election seasons, some aides expressed skepticism about how effective the issue could be in the election, given the public’s poll-tested lack of interest in the court.

Republicans, by contrast, have made it an issue since Richard M. Nixon, running in 1968, denounced the Warren-era court for liberal rulings on social issues and criminal procedures, and made phrases like “judicial activism,” “legislating from the bench” and “strict constructionism” presidential-year perennials for conservatives.

The criticisms fit with the broader Republican message against crime, cultural permissiveness and the removal of Christian faith from public policy. In the Republicans’ current contest for the presidential nomination, Newt Gingrich courted conservatives by arguing for elected officials to ignore judicial decisions they oppose. Last week, Rick Santorum joined protesters of the health care law outside the Supreme Court.

“I don’t think there’s a single presidential campaign going back to 1968 upon which the result turned on the Supreme Court generally or a single Supreme Court case,” said Joel Benenson, an Obama pollster.

“To the extent it would be a motivating issue this year,” he added, “it would be for Democratic and independent voters around the Citizens United case.”

That decision, with five Republican-appointed justices forming the majority, overturned precedents and allowed corporations and individuals to give unlimited sums of money to support independent campaigns on behalf of political candidates — a freedom that has helped define the Republican presidential contest.

Mr. Garin said his polling and focus groups showed that Citizens United “is probably the best-known decision since Bush v. Gore” — the 5-to-4 ruling that decided the deadlocked 2000 presidential election for the Republican, George W. Bush.

What makes the Citizens United case resonate with Democrats and some independent voters, party strategists say, is its fit with many Americans’ sense that the political system, including the conservative court, favors corporate and special interests.

“The jurisprudential divide on the Supreme Court regarding high-profile legal issues now appears to map almost perfectly onto the political divide that exists in the larger nation,” said Justin Driver, a law professor at the University of Texas, who was a law clerk to Sandra Day O’Connor, a former Republican appointee, and Justice Stephen G. Breyer, a Democratic appointee. “I do think that this may be a year for the Supreme Court to play a prominent role in the election in a way that we have not seen in a long time, maybe ever.”

Increasingly, Professor Driver said, the court splits 5 to 4, with appointees of one party opposite those of the other. That was true of Monday’s ruling that local officials can strip-search anyone being jailed, no matter how minor the alleged offense and regardless of whether there is reason to suspect contraband.

In contrast, court decisions of past decades that most roiled conservatives often had lopsided majorities or even unanimous votes. Until recently, party affiliation had little bearing. For example, the dissenters in Bush v. Gore included two Republican appointees, while the author of Roe v. Wade was a Republican appointee and its chief dissenter a Democratic appointee.

Noah Feldman, a professor at Harvard Law School, said “the smart money” among legal scholars was on the court’s upholding the health care law. But if the law is overturned, he said, the court is certain to be a major issue in the presidential campaign.

Together with decisions like Citizens United, he said, “that would add up to a real pattern of conservative judicial activism, of a kind that will really be unprecedented since the New Deal.”

Mr. Obama made that argument on Tuesday to a convention of newspaper editors, seeking to clarify his much-criticized comment on Monday that it would be “unprecedented” for the court to strike down a law.

On Tuesday he said he had meant that the court had deferred to Congress on matters affecting interstate commerce — like health care — “at least since Lochner.” That referred to the judicial era before the New Deal, when pro-business courts routinely invalidated laws on minimum wages, child labor and business regulations.

View the original article here

Reagan Democrats’ could decide winner of Michigan primary - Boston Herald

SHELBY TOWNSHIP, Mich. — Mitt Romney has to win Michigan’s Republican primary Tuesday. So does Rick Santorum.

They’re going about it in very different ways.

Romney, the former Massachusetts governor, promotes himself as a "son of Detroit" who left to conquer the business world. His carefully scripted rallies feature not only reminiscences of the old Detroit area neighborhood, but also reminders of his history as a successful corporate turnaround artist.

Santorum, a former U.S. senator from Pennsylvania, offers a different story. He roared into Michigan with strong momentum, having won three contests this month. His freewheeling stump speeches usually are laced with heartfelt reminders of his devotion to God and family.

Polls have shown Santorum and Romney running about even. A Romney loss in a state where, on paper, everything should go his way would be a serious blow. A Santorum defeat would raise new questions about his appeal beyond die-hard conservatives.

A victory by either man would demonstrate appeal in a blue-collar industrial state and give him an important boost in next week’s primary in neighboring Ohio.

Michigan Republicans are torn. Do the residents of this economically ailing state put aside their skepticism about the depth of Romney’s conservatism and choose the businessman who seems best positioned to win in November? Or do they follow their heart sand pick Santorum? And where does Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, who campaigned vigorously over the weekend, fit?

Shelby Township, a Detroit suburb visited by both Santorum and Romney in recent weeks, is in an area known in political circles as the suburbs that made famous "Reagan Democrats," rank-and-file workers who felt Democrats let them down economically and culturally and began voting Republican in the 1980s.

At Biggby Coffee on Van Dyke Avenue, the customers drink the $2 java and tell the state’s still-evolving Republican primary story.

"The jury’s out on who people like most," said franchise owner David Danyko.

Customers Stan Grot, Bo Chapman and Mike Torres have similar views — solidly conservative, eager for lower taxes and less regulation, and wary of President Barack Obama.

Grot supports Romney. Chapman prefers Santorum. Torres likes Newt Gingrich, the former House speaker who’s making virtually no effort in Michigan.

Grot, the township clerk, worked in manufacturing engineering at General Motors. He lost his job in 1980, spent a year on unemployment and left the Democratic Party.

"I listened to Ronald Reagan’s message," he said. "Ronald Reagan spoke to opportunity and personal responsibility. He created an environment so businesses could thrive."

Grot liked how the 1981 tax cuts put more money in consumers’ pockets, and he opened a restaurant in Hamtramck. He ran it for eight years before selling the place; it’s still thriving today.

View the original article here

Democratic Rep. Laura Richardson could face jail time for ethics violations (Daily Caller)

New documents disclosed in a complaint from the watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW)  appear to show California Democrat Rep. Laura Richardson and her staff clearly violating congressional ethics rules and potentially federal law.

The documents show Richardson using official taxpayer resources for political events, including fundraisers. “Rep. Richardson didn’t just violate House rules, she likely committed crimes,” said Melanie Sloan, CREW’s executive director.

In one instance, Richardson’s chief of staff, Shirley Cooks, told all of Richardson’s aides in an email from her official House account, “All staff are required to attend” a fundraiser held Sept. 29, 2010, adding, “Bring spouses and tell interns they have to be there as well. Thanks.”

Another staffer, Daysha Austin, then a district scheduler, told staffers, “The Congresswoman is asking all staff that one has to wear their staff shirt to tomorrow’s event so we can be visible and easily identified.”

The “staff shirt,” pictured in CREW’s complaint, features a logo that says “California’s 37th Congressional District,” the district that Richardson represents.

The demands on staff to attend a fundraiser and use of official email accounts and resources to coordinate political activities clearly violate congressional ethics rules that taxpayer dollars “may not pay for campaign expenses.”

A strict wall separates official congressional office work from political campaigning; lawmakers and their staff may not even make one phone call for campaign purposes from a congressional office phone, for instance.

While it’s not uncommon for lawmakers to stretch these rules to a degree, flagrant rule breaking in written documents is highly unusual.

CREW included the documents in a complaint to the FBI asking for an investigation. The watchdog group says Richardson’s conduct likely violated federal law. One lawyer said if Richardson was found guilty of these allegations the maximum jail time is around 13 years, but given Richardson’s lack of criminal history, she would probably be sentenced to less than five years in jail.

Another email included in the complaint shows Richardson asking staff to prepare her for political events.

Richardson “has an event this Saturday (something along the lines of ‘California Dem Party Endorsement’) and she asked staff prepare a binder for her. She needs a lot of the same information that she needed for her last endorsement event (was it Sunday?). I was hoping you could compile a binder again using the same materials from last weekend,” wrote Lucinda Richard, a legislative assistant to Richardson in a March 17, 2010 email.

Another email shows active involvement by Richardson herself regarding one of her official staffer’s political activities.

When staffer Thorne Maginnis requested vacation time to volunteer in a Tennessee congressional campaign, Richardson expressed umbrage she hadn’t been consulted on where Maginnis would campaign.

(California Democrat Maxine Waters charged with House ethics violations)

“I am disturbed by this. I have never authorized any staff to communicate to the [Democratic Congressional Campaign Committeee (DCCC)]. I certainly never authorized staff to consider a specific seat. Those are my decisions. The direction was if someone was interested to see me and NOT to go and do what he has done,” Richardson wrote from a personal email account.

CREW’s complaint and the newly disclosed documents come on the heels of allegations in March by an outgoing staffer that Richardson required official staffers to work on her reelection campgin.

In a March 3, 2011 resignation letter, Maria Angel Macias also claimed Richardson subjected her to “constant verbal and emotional abuse.”

“My doctor recommended I take time off,” Macias wrote, apparently due to stress. Attached was a note from Macias’ doctor.

Macias told the Contra Costa Times in a March 14 interview Richardson required staffers to work on her campaign, a major violation of congressional ethics rules and potentially federal law.

“She would just ask me to call them and tell them to come to the campaign office,” Marcias told the Times, “She would ask me to schedule people (staff members and drivers to accompany Richardson) for campaign fundraisers for other elected officials.”

A spokeswoman for Richardson denied Marcias’ allegations at the time.

In the CREW complaint, the most explosive email is from Cooks demanding all staff attend a fundraiser.

The subject of the Sept. 27, 2010 email, sent to every staff member at Richardson’s Washington, D.C. Office, was “Wednesday at 5:00pm.”

The full email said, “All staff are required to attend Ms. Richardson’s event. Bring spouses and tell interns they have to be there as well. Thanks.”

The week the email was sent, Richardson was holding a fundraiser on Wednesday at 6:00pm with an “American Idol” theme.

“Please Join Speaker Nancy Pelosi for Congresswoman Laura Richardson’s 1st Ever Democratic Idol Fundraiser,” a flyer for the event says.

Other emails from staffers confirm Cooks’ demand for staffers to attend “Ms. Richardson’s event” at “Wednesday at 5:00pm” was a demand they attend the fundraiser.

For instance, the email from Austin, demanding staff wear their special office shirts to “tomorrow’s event,” has the subject “Rep. Richardson’s Democratic Idol,” the name of the fundraiser.

Additionally, one unidentified staffer threatens to resign from the office because the person felt they were being pressured to attend a political event held the night of Wednesday, Sept. 29.

“Daysha just told me I’ll be taking photos at the event tonight. I explained to her I would be leaving early and she ignored. If this is not somehow rectified I am prepared to tender my resignation effective immediately. I am completely serious about this. In addition, for your information, I will be taking action against this office through House leadership if I am forced to go this route,” the unidentified staffer said.

Cooks told this person to “calm down” and help find a replacement to substitute for him or her.

Richardson spokesman Ray Zaccaro said he would be releasing a statement on the allegations shortly.

Read more stories from The Daily Caller

Democratic Rep. Laura Richardson could face jail time for ethics violations

Club for Growth examines Bachmann's voting record

Mayors Against Illegal Guns group releases terrorist-inspired video

Here is a picture of John Wayne Gacy shaking hands with Rosalynn Carter

Bachmann mistakes John Quincy Adams for a Founding Father

View the original article here

Could Obama ignore Congress if they refuse to raise the debt ceiling? Yes, and he should, some experts say (The Ticket)

Obama brushed off question about whether the debt limit is constitutional at Wednesday press conference (Carolyn …

As both major parties debate their conditions for raising the nation's debt ceiling, some Senate Democrats and constitutional scholars are questioning whether the limit is constitutional in the first place.

Delaware Sen. Chris Coons told The Huffington Post this week that he's part of a group of lawmakers now examining whether, in the case that debt negotiations fail, the Treasury could ignore Congress and continue paying its bills on time.

"This is an issue that's been raised in some private debate between senators as to whether in fact we can default, or whether that provision of the Constitution can be held up as preventing default," Coons told Huffington Post reporters Ryan Grim and Samuel Haass. "[I]t's going to get a pretty strong second look as a way of saying, 'Is there some way to save us from ourselves?' "

Critics of the debt limit cite the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which states: "the validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned." (Emphasis ours)

Of course, the Fourteenth Amendment is open to wide, and varying, interpretation and debate. The most basic question here is, does a limit on debt "question" the "validity" of the debt?

Legal scholar Garrett Epps, writing in The Atlantic in April, said that a case could easily made for simply ignoring the congressionally mandated debt limit.

"This provision makes clear that both the monies our nation owes to bondholders, and the sums promised in legislation to those receiving pensions set by law from the federal government, must be paid regardless of the political whims of the current congressional majority," Epps wrote.

In essence, Epps argues that Obama should stand before Congress and say, Tough luck--the Constitution says we can't default. Epps argued that in the event that Congress does not act, Obama should (and could) instruct the Treasury Department to issue "binding debt instruments on the world market sufficient to cover all the current obligations of the United States government, even in default of Congressional action to meet those obligations."

President Obama's own views on the subject, however, are unclear. During his press conference Wednesday, Obama dodged a question about the debt limit's constitutionality, telling NBC's Chuck Todd: "I'm not a Supreme Court justice, so I'm not going to put my constitutional law professor hat on."

Obama understandably didn't want to show his cards by hashing out a plan for how he would act in the event Congress fails to raise the debt ceiling. But some observers have already outlined how he could--and still get away with it.

Writing in the Financial Times in April, Former Reagan adviser and Treasury official Bruce Bartlett said the Obama administration could justify ignoring Congress to ensure the nation pays its debts.

"The president would be justified in taking extreme actions to protect against a debt default. In the event that congressional irresponsibility makes default impossible to avoid, he should order the secretary of the Treasury to simply disregard the debt limit and sell whatever securities are necessary to raise cash to pay the nation's debts. They are protected by the full faith and credit of the United States and preventing default is no less justified than using American military power to protect against an armed invasion without a congressional declaration of war," Bartlett wrote. "Under those circumstances, when default is the only possible alternative, I believe that the president and the Treasury secretary would be justified in taking extraordinary action to prevent it, even if it means violating the debt limit."

However, if Obama were to follow that route, it's still unclear how the courts would rule.

Grim and Saass point to the 1935 Perry v. U.S Supreme Court ruling, which determined that the language in the Fourteenth Amendment does apply to the national debt. What's more, they observe, according to the majority opinion on the case, no act of Congress can undermine promises of debt payment from the federal government.

"To say that the Congress may withdraw or ignore that pledge is to assume that the Constitution contemplates a vain promise; a pledge having no other sanction than the pleasure and convenience of the pledgor," wrote Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes, who presided over the case.

Even with that precedent, however, the specific debt limit as we know it today has not yet seen its day in court. Should the White House's negotiations with Congress on the debt ceiling fail, it will be up to Obama to decide whether he wants to start that fight, which would no doubt require years-long court battles to settle.

View the original article here

Redistricting could mean trouble for Michigan Dems (Daily Caller)

Elections have consequences. Especially in a redistricting year. And Michigan Democrats are learning that the hard way.

The Republican Party of Michigan has proposed how it would like to see the redistricting process go, Roll Call reports. And unsurprisingly, the party has done what it can to keep as many of Michigan’s seats in the House of Representatives safely in Republican hands.

Due to population loss in the last decade, Michigan will be stripped of a House seat, and Republicans have re-shaped the state’s districts in a way that two districts represented by Democrats will become one. This sets the stage for a tough election between Democrats Sander Levin and Gary Peters.

The two released a join statement calling on Michigan’s state legislature (controlled by Republicans) and Gov. Rick Snyder (a Republican) to reject the proposal. “We’ve talked it over and we both deeply feel that our priority must be to get these maps changed for the betterment of democracy…This is indefensible,” Levin told reporters.

Meanwhile, one Michigan political analyst told Roll Call that the new map was fair. Republicans have been “surprisingly generous,” said Bill Ballenger, “compared to what they might have tried to do.”

(Iowa Gov. Branstad will sign redistricting plan into law)

Under the new plan, five Republican representatives will see more GOP voters moved into their district, while others who already represent solidly Republican areas won’t see much change.

The legislature hopes to vote on the new map soon, getting it to the governor’s desk for a signature before Independence Day.

Read more stories from The Daily Caller

Redistricting could mean trouble for Michigan Dems

Major Garrett critical of 2012 Bachmann bid because 'she can't keep anybody on her staff'

Nazi grandma

'Red Eye' host Greg Gutfeld bids farewell to Anthony Weiner

DeMint has demands for 2012 contenders

View the original article here