I'm just the guy that can't stand cant. ___________

 
DESPERATE IN MINNESOTA: A new poll in the Minnesota Senate race validates the Self Made Pundit’s view that the Republicans’ unseemly and mendacious attacks on Walter Mondale within 48 hours of Senator Paul Wellstone’s death in a plane crash were a sign of desperation.

While the Republicans had high hopes of capturing Wellstone’s Senate seat earlier in the campaign – and had run a harshly negative campaign against Wellstone to defeat him – Wellstone had pulled into the lead shortly before his death. In a poll two weeks ago, Wellstone led the Republican candidate, Norm Coleman, by 47 to 41 percent.

In the new poll, the Republican has continued to slip, with Mondale leading Coleman by a solid 47 to 39 percent. The poll also has more bad news for Republicans hoping to turn the race around by attacking Mondale. The poll indicates that Mondale’s strength with the voters has a stable base, with 98 percent of Minnesotans recognizing his name and 66 percent having a favorable image of him.

While more Republican attacks on Mondale are probable, such negative campaigning is more likely to tarnish Coleman’s image than Mondale’s.
posted by Gary at 9:45 AM

 
HAS RETIREMENT MADE NEWT GINGRICH LAZY?: It turns out that the Republican strategy of going negative on Walter Mondale (the Democrats’ likely replacement on the ballot for the late Senator Paul Wellstone) in the midst of memorial services for Wellstone is even stupider than I discussed in yesterday’s post.

You might think that Newt Gingrich has enough experience dealing in half-truths and distortions not to launch the Republican campaign against Mondale with an easily disproved lie. Perhaps Gingrich has gotten lazy since his resignation from the House, but that is just what he did on NBC’s Meet The Press Sunday.

Gingrich claimed that Mondale favors privatization and raising the retirement age for Social Security, citing Mondale’s participation on a commission that recommended such changes for social security systems in countries around the globe. What makes Gingrich’s charge a clumsy lie, however, is that Mondale co-wrote a dissent from the commission’s report, opposing such changes for Social Security in the United States. (Link via Talking Points Memo.)

It’s always risky to launch a negative campaign against a well-known and admired candidate. It’s even riskier if a state is in mourning and the candidate has not even begun campaigning. But it’s practically off the charts of rational behavior to launch such an offensive campaign with an easily disproved lie.

Engaging in such risky behavior smacks of desperation. I doubt the Republicans believe their own propaganda that they stand a chance of beating Mondale.
posted by Gary at 10:39 AM

 
STUPID COP, BAD COP: While more fainthearted politicians might have hesitated to resume negative campaigning within 48 hours of Senator Paul Wellstone’s death in a plane crash, the Washington Post reports that Republicans are already attacking former Vice President Mondale, the Democrats’ likely replacement in the Minnesota Senate race.

Showing that he has lost none of his touch for unintentional irony, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA.) told NBC’s Meet The Press yesterday:

"I think that what you'll see on the Republican side is an issue-oriented campaign that says, you know, if you want to raise your retirement age dramatically and privatize Social Security, Walter Mondale is a terrifically courageous guy to say that," Gingrich said.

Launching negative attacks on Mondale before Wellstone is even buried is not only offensive, it is downright stupid politically. Republican Senate candidate Norm Coleman obviously hopes he can avoid responsibility for these attacks. As the Post notes:

Political operatives said they expect Coleman to use a good-cop, bad-cop strategy, with state and national GOP leaders picking apart Mondale's record while Coleman focuses mostly on a more positive campaign centered on his agenda.

I think Coleman’s approach is more likely to turn out to be a stupid-cop, bad -cop strategy since in this compressed one-week campaign, voters are likely to view all Republican attacks against Mondale as coming out of the Coleman campaign. Attacks against Wellstone’s likely replacement will probably remind voters of the harshly negative campaign Coleman had been running against Wellstone, even if the assaults have now been delegated to surrogates. Voters are more likely to be offended than persuaded by new assaults that are practically interrupting memorial services for Wellstone.

Since Republicans seem to be handling this tragic situation with all the finesse they showed when Senator Robert Torricelli dropped out of the Senate race in New Jersey and they fought in court to effectively give voters a one-party election, the Democrats now seem assured of retaining both the Minnesota Senate seat and control of the Senate.
posted by Gary at 10:19 AM

 
CITIZEN WELLSTONE: I was very sad to hear that Senator Wellstone his wife, their daughter and five others died in a plane crash on Friday. I think Wellstone was probably the most principled person in the Senate.

While Wellstone was often described as an ideologue, I think that description missed the mark. Although he was certainly a strong liberal and partisan, Wellstone’s most distinguishing trait was that he was a true man of principle.

Other politicians of both the left and the right all too often tailor their principles to fit the popular passions of the day, supposedly so they can fight battles that are winnable. In contrast, Wellstone was willing to fight for his beliefs even when outnumbered, as he showed in his opposition to the resolution giving Bush a blank check to act against Iraq.

Wellstone showed it was possible to remain true to your convictions and still be a successful politician. Wellstone’s civic life – which proved the possibility of such integrity – was both an inspiration and a great public service in itself.

In a time when so much of our political discourse is infected with mendacity and hypocrisy, a man of such honest spirit will be sorely missed.
posted by Gary at 12:18 AM

 
THE NEW TONE IN WASHINGTON: Today’s Washington Post has good news and bad news about President Bush’s keeping of his campaign promises.

The good news is that Bush is keeping his promise to bring a “new tone” to Washington. The bad news is that Bush is breaking his promise to make that “new tone” a tone of “bipartisanship.”

As the Post reports, Bush is pressuring federal government employees to work on Republican campaigns for the midterm elections, making his presidency probably the most partisan since Herbert Hoover’s. (As reflected by Bush’s economic policies, there’s something about Hoover that makes Bush just love to emulate him.)

President Bush has harnessed the broad resources of the federal government to promote Republicans in next month's elections. ....

More than 330 administration appointees, some of whom were told by White House officials that they needed to show their Republican credentials, have taken vacation time and are being flown by the party to House and Senate campaigns in states where control of Congress will be decided.

....

Scholars called Bush's partisan use of the government unprecedented for a midterm election, and said the aggressiveness and thoroughness of his politicking approached that of a presidential reelection campaign.

Although the Hatch Act is designed to protect federal workers from pressure to work on political campaigns, the Bush administration is twisting that act for just the opposite effect. In a creative skirting of the edges of the Hatch Act that would have made Enron’s accountants blush, the administration is using the words of the act to flout its spirit:

A recent e-mail to the 6,100 full-time headquarters employees of the Environmental Protection Agency reminded them of the provisions of the Hatch Act, which was designed to protect federal employees from political pressure. But some employees said they were surprised by its emphasis on participating in, not abstaining from, campaign activities. The memo said they “are permitted to take an active part in partisan political management and campaigns,” subject to limitations, and reminded them they are free to “express support for the president and his program” when they are off-duty.

If Bush had been savvy enough only to pressure federal employees into campaigning for Republicans – without himself getting deeply involved in campaigning – his politicalization of the government might have paid off. As discussed in yesterday’s Self Made Pundit, however, I believe that Bush’s heavy politicking at a time when he claims Iraq is an imminent threat is likely to backfire. As the Post notes:

Undeterred by preparations for possible war with Iraq, Bush embarks today on 12 days of barnstorming in battleground states and districts, with a break Friday and Saturday for meetings with world leaders in Texas and Mexico.

I’m glad to see that Bush is going to take a few hours to broaden his horizons on the weekend, when he is taking a break from his job as Republican Party leader. It’s now clear why President Bush practices foreign policy as if it were a hobby, making idle reamarks such as his comment that if a regime changes its policies, that’s regime change. To Bush, foreign policy is a hobby. Watch him at his real job on the campaign trail these next 12 days.
posted by Gary at 9:42 AM

 
ROPE-A-DOPE: President Bush could be making a classic blunder by spending the last two weeks before the midterm elections on the campaign trail rather than staying above the fray and focusing on his duties as Commander in Chief.

The party controlling the White House has won House seats in a midterm election only twice in the past century. In 1934, the Democrats gained seats while FDR stayed in the White House fighting the Great Depression. In 1998, the Democrats gained seats while Bill Clinton stayed in the White House tending to presidential duties and fighting off a Republican-led impeachment drive that was unpopular with the voters. By contrast, Bush’s decision to get into the electoral mud of campaigning is likely to squander the Republicans’ chances to keep the House and regain the Senate.

Recent polls have shown Democrats with a slight lead in the overall congressional vote nationwide, due to voters’ preference for Democrats on economic and other domestic issues. Republicans have been able to stay close mainly due to Americans’ rallying round Bush as a war-time leader. This impression of Bush as Commander in Chief has been buttressed in recent weeks by Bush’s focusing on Iraq as an imminent threat to America.

The message that Iraq is an imminent threat, however, is made far less compelling by Bush’s leaving the Iraq problem to be debated by U.N. diplomats while he spends his days on the important tasks of campaigning for Republican congressional candidates state senator Jim Gerlach and former Congressional aide Kevin L. Raye.

Bush’s presence on the campaign trail stumping for obscure Republicans also presents a target for the Democrats who have largely feared to criticize Bush as a war-time leader. Democrats are now free to nationalize the election by asking why Bush is on the campaign trail instead of tending to the faltering economy.

If Bush thought he had the Democrats on the ropes, he may yet discover that on Social Security, the economy and other domestic issues, they can still sting like a bee.
posted by Gary at 11:20 AM

 
THOSE GIDDY REPUBLICANS: Paul Krugman takes a whack at Republicans giddy over the prospect of victory in the midterm elections – the subject of yesterday’s Self Made Pundit – in today’s New York Times. The admirable Krugman, who does not suffer fools, hypocrites, and crony capitalists gladly, notes that the giddiness stops at the Oval Office (though only after making Bush lightheaded with malevolent joy):

The White House also apparently expects Christmas in November. In fact, it is so confident that it has already given business lobbyists the gift they want most: an end to all this nonsense about corporate reform. Back in July George W. Bush declared, "Corporate misdeeds will be found and will be punished," touting a new law that "authorizes new funding for investigators and technology at the Securities and Exchange Commission to uncover wrongdoing." But that was then; don't you know there's a war on?

....

.... But now the administration wants to cancel most of the "new funding" Mr. Bush boasted about.

....

In retrospect, it's hard to see why anyone believed that our current leadership was serious about corporate reform. To an extent unprecedented in recent history, this is a government of, by and for corporate insiders. I'm not just talking about influence, I'm talking about personal career experience. The Bush administration contains more former C.E.O.'s than any previous administration, but as James Surowiecki put it in The New Yorker, "Almost none of the C.E.O.'s on the Bush team headed competitive, entrepreneurial businesses." Instead they come out of a world of "crony capitalism, in which whom you know is more important than what you do and how you do it." Why would they turn their backs on that world?

While Krugman is generally right on the money in his criticisms of the Bush administration’s right-wing policies, perhaps he is being a bit too harsh here since the rapacious instincts of the administration’s crony capitalists are surely reined in by Bush himself, who attained corporate success and wealth as a result of his ability at ... I mean his mastery of ... I mean his knowledge of .... On second thought, never mind.
posted by Gary at 8:45 AM

 
HUBRIS ALERT: Republicans apparently have begun to believe their own propaganda and are rubbing their hands at the prospect of winning both houses of Congress in the midterm elections in 15 days.

It appears that Republicans are overjoyed at the prospect that they can stop pretending (at least until the next election) that they care about corporate responsibility and go back to doing their jobs of serving the interests of the forgotten American (corporation):

WITH POLLS SHOWING many crucial races are too close to call, Republicans are drawing up plans that would aid a broad range of industries, after hammering business during the corporate responsibility debate touched off by this year’s accounting scandals.

Business lobbyists said their wish lists include substantial nationwide limits on the amount of damages that can be awarded in medical malpractice cases, plus a major overhaul of the tax code to reduce the burden on corporations. Both measures have been part of President Bush’’s agenda and would have a better chance of becoming law if the GOP retook control of the Senate and kept a House majority in the Nov. 5 elections.

With the elections 16 days away, Michael G. Franc, the Heritage Foundation’s vice president of government relations, said the mood among business lobbyists and economic conservatives is “guarded optimism, bordering on giddiness.” He said they are laying plans to take swift advantage if Republicans complete the triple crown of the White House, the House and the Senate. “It’’s the domestic equivalent of planning for postwar Iraq,” Franc said.

This phenomenon of the Republicans being gullible enough to believe themselves also occurred in 2000, when Bush fell for his own campaign spin in the waning days of the presidential campaign. Back then, Bush believed Karl Rove’s boasts that Bush was doing so well that he had a chance of carrying California and New Jersey and wasted precious time in the final days of the campaign visiting both states, which went for Gore by landslide margins. The theory behind the spin is that if victory is seen as inevitable, press coverage will be more positive and undecided voters may vote Republican just to go with the winner.

Just as Bush believed Rove’s spin two years ago, the more naive Republicans are falling for the line that Republicans will carry both houses of Congress. However, the chances of Republicans carrying both houses of Congress are certainly too slim for the Republicans to be chortling to the press about what they really plan to do if the win.

Despite the Republican propaganda, the Democrats are likely to recapture the House of Representatives and sightly expand their margin of control in the Senate. While the midterm elections currently look close, the Democrats are likely to gain in the next two weeks.

The Republicans are not likely to get much more political mileage out of Iraq in the next 15 days. Regardless of it ultimate plans, it is clear the Bush administration is committed to playing its next moves in the U.N., which forecloses the possibility of any military action before election day. With Iraq becoming the subject of diplomatic maneuvers for the rest of the campaign, voters are more likely to turn their attention to the economy and other issues that favor the Democrats.

Another ominous sign for the Republicans is that the latest Gallup poll has Bush’s job approval dropping five points to 62 percent. Other recent polls have Bush’s job approval at between 55 and 62 percent.

With Bush’s popularity waning and voters focusing more on the economy, Democrats are more likely to have the stronger finish. Given the number of close races, a last-minute swing to the Democrats – even of modest proportions – would ensure Democratic control of both houses of Congress.

Those giddy Republicans have forgotten the old adage not to count your right-wing judges before the Senate Judiciary Committee has been Hatched.
posted by Gary at 10:23 AM

 
BALLISTIC PROFILE IN COURAGE: The Bush Administration is displaying its usual courage to take principled -- yet unpopular -- stands on domestic issues. Unfortunately, the principle is that Bush should be free to pander to right-wing interests while pretending to be undecided.

This particular profile in courage played out yesterday when presidential press secretary Ari Fleischer indicated that Bush – following the lead of the NRA – was dismissive of the idea of creating a national database of ballistic fingerprints. Officials at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms have previously voiced support of creating such a database as an effective crime-fighting tool. As The New York Times explains:

Proponents of national ballistic fingerprinting say it would be a more effective method of curtailing crime. Under such a system, manufacturers would have to test-fire new guns before they were sold. The spent bullet and shell casing would be sent to law enforcement authorities, who would record the pattern of nicks and scratches on them that is unique to each gun.

The markings would then be entered into a national computer database. In ideal circumstances, if investigators found a bullet or shell casing at a crime scene, as they have with the Washington sniper, they would be able to feed the characteristics into the database. This could tell them of a match with a gun, which could then be traced to its buyer.

When pressed about whether such a database could have helped police track down the Washington, D.C. area sniper, Fleischer once again showed that he is paid to spout nonsense when asked questions embarrassing to Bush:

“These are acts of a depraved killer who has broken and will continue to break laws. And so the question is not new laws; the question is the actions here represent values in our society.”

Perhaps realizing that voters would prefer their elected leaders to be a bit more proactive about catching serial killers, the White House reversed course by the end of the day and announced that it was really undecided and had asked federal law enforcement experts to study whether creating such a computerized database would be an effective crime-fighting tool.

The Times article does not make clear whether the main purpose of the study will be to determine whether police investigating a murder would find it helpful to know the name of the person that owns the murder weapon or to determine whether the NRA would mind terribly if the Bush administration took this small step to protect the America people.
posted by Gary at 10:18 AM

 
THE BUSH OVERSIMPLIFICATION DOCTRINE: President Bush made some good points about the need to defang Saddam Hussein in his speech on Iraq Monday night. Unfortunately, Bush also repeatedly relied on oversimplification -- his administration's default approach to complex problems -- to discuss the life and death issues at hand.

Bush grossly oversimplified the options for dealing with Iraq by acting as if the only alternative to granting Bush a blank check to act in Iraq is to do nothing:

Some believe we can address this danger by simply resuming the old approach to inspections, and applying diplomatic and economic pressure. Yet this is precisely what the world has tried to do since 1991.

....

There is no easy or risk-free course of action. Some have argued we should wait -- and that is an option. In my view, it is the riskiest of all options -- because the longer we wait, the stronger and bolder Saddam Hussein will become. We could wait and hope that Saddam does not give weapons to terrorists, or develop a nuclear weapon to blackmail the world. But I am convinced that is a hope against all evidence. As Americans, we want peace - we work and sacrifice for peace - but there can be no peace if our security depends on the will and whims of a ruthless and aggressive dictator. I am not willing to stake one American life on trusting Saddam Hussein.

Bush might also have noted that some believe we can liberate Iraq by putting a hex on Saddam. Then again, Bush might also have addressed some more persuasive critics of his policies, such as Gore, who have argued that making greater efforts with other nations to forge a multilateral approach to dealing with Iraq would be a more effective way of combating both terrorism and Iraq.

Bush again revealed an oversimplified worldview when he considered the possible consequences of an invasion of Iraq and pronounced that a world without Saddam would be the best of all possible worlds:

Some worry that a change of leadership in Iraq could create instability and make the situation worse. The situation could hardly get worse, for world security, and for the people of Iraq.

Bush simply ignores the reality that unless the United States -- either alone or with other nations -- is prepared to devote significant resources to rebuilding and policing a post-Saddam Iraq, there is a risk that Iraq will descend into chaos as Afghanistan did after Soviet troops pulled out. Imagine a scenario in which Baghdad and Iraq's oil fields were controlled by a United States backed government and the rest of Iraq was a battleground among that government, an Iranian backed warlord, a Saudi backed warlord and an Al Qaeda backed guerilla force -- each with a cache of weapons of mass destruction. Such a situation would be worse, for world security, for the people of Iraq, and for the security of the United States.

The problem of what to do with a post-Saddam Iraq is, of course, another reason for the United States to make greater efforts at building an international coalition before resorting to a mostly unilateral approach to Iraq. The Bush administration seems to have the mistaken view that the best solution is always the quickest solution. In fact, such an approach is just another oversimplification.
posted by Gary at 10:30 AM

 
WHAT'S THAT SMELL?: As predicted by the Self Made Pundit last week, the United States Supreme Court refused to accept New Jersey Republicans' appeal seeking to block former Senator Frank Lautenberg from replacing Senator Robert Torricelli on the ballot. The Supreme Court disposed of the appeal -- which proudly espoused the "principles" of the shameful Bush v. Gore decision -- as one would discard a stinking fish. The Court undoubtedly had no interest in rekindling criticisms that it is a partisan court that will interfere with state supreme court decisions interpreting state law in order to help the Republican cause.

Even after losing the appeal, however, the campaign of Republican Senatorial candidate Douglas Forrester continues to emit a curious odor as he tries to actually run a campaign against a viable candidate. In the words of Talking Points Memo, Forrester is "campaigning with all the grace and pizzazz of a live fish on a hot griddle." On his first day of reintroducing himself to the voters in his campaign against a new Democratic candidate, Forrester managed to dissemble about his plans to privatize Social Security and insult the elderly with snide comments about whether the 78-year old Lautenberg would be capable of debating him in Forrester-imagined debates of three hours a day for 21 days.

If Forrester is open to some helpful advice, I would recommend that he close his eyes real tight and pretend that he won his appeal to the United States Supreme Court and is now running virtually unopposed. While such a self delusion will not get him elected, neither will his current delusion that he has a chance of being elected Senator. With this new self delusion, Forrester would probably embarass himself less and have a much more pleasant month mouthing platitudes and picking furniture for his imaginary office in Washington.
posted by Gary at 9:14 AM

 
DOG BITES REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE: Perhaps there is little news value in finding Republican hypocrisy in electoral battles in the courts, but I think the New York Times buried the lead in its report on New Jersey Democrats' argument opposing the Republican appeal that asks the United States Supreme Court to block Frank Lautenberg from replacing Senator Robert Torricelli on the ballot.

The New York Times waits until the seventh paragraph to reveal that the position of Republican Senatorial candidate Douglas Forrester is even more hypocritical than the Self Made Pundit thought:

Mr. Genova [the Democrats' lawyer] also uncovered a legal memorandum from Mr. Forrester's lawyer written in April, when State Senator Diane Allen, one of Mr. Forrester's opponents in the Republican primary, was trying to block him from taking the ballot position of James W. Treffinger. Mr. Treffinger, the Essex County executive, had resigned from the race because of scandal three days earlier, or 40 days before the primary.

Senator Allen maintained that moving Mr. Forrester's name to Mr. Treffinger's place on the ballot would come too late under Title 19 of the state election law, which sets a deadline of 51 days before an election for ballot substitutions. It is the same argument that Mr. Forrester's lawyer, Peter G. Sheridan, made before the State Supreme Court on Wednesday, opposing Mr. Lautenberg's placement on the ballot. The Democrats said that the deadline was merely a guideline.

In April, Mr. Sheridan read the law the way the Democrats do today.

"Strict compliance to statutory requirements and deadlines within Title 19," Mr. Sheridan wrote, "are set aside where such rights may be accommodated without significantly impinging upon the election process."

The Times should have led with Forrester's previous embrace of liberal construction of the same electoral provision he now finds to be one of the sacred texts of democracy that must be strictly construed. The Republicans' hypocrisy is newsworthy (despite the DOG BITES MAN aspect of the story) because Forrester's lawsuit is based on a supposedly noble and self-effacing dedication to principle -- even if it does deprive voters of a choice. Indeed, Forrester's campaign is still peddling this particular mendacity. According to Forrester's campaign manager:

"Politically, it would make sense for us to accept the ruling by the New Jersey Supreme Court and engage in a campaign against Frank Lautenberg right now. But Doug [Forrester] is unwilling to allow a horrible precedent to stand without taking it to the highest court in the land."

Perhaps Forrester's flaw as a candidate is that he is just too pure. Pure baloney, that is.
posted by Gary at 10:18 AM

 
I MET A MAN WHO WASN'T THERE: There is a simple explanation why the New Jersey Republicans are desperate enough to risk alienating voters by depriving them of a choice with a long-shot appeal that asks the U.S. Supreme Court to disgrace itself again with a second Bush v. Gore decision. That simple explanation is named Douglas Forrester, the hapless Republican candidate for Senator.

Forrester has been criticized by some commentators for running a campaign that is based on nothing more than the fact that he is not Senator Robert Torricelli. He proved their criticisms justified in his performance in the hours leading up to the New Jersey Supreme Court's decision to permit the Democrats to replace Torricelli with former Senator Frank Lautenberg on the ballot.

With the Democrats' efforts to replace Torricelli on the ballot creating a media frenzy on Wednesday, Forrester had the opportunity to reintroduce himself to the voters as a man of substance who was more than just the Anti-Torricelli. However, without Torricelli to kick around anymore, the poor man was at a loss for words:

[A]s he left the church, he walked directly past a phalanx of more than a dozen reporters and offered "no comment" several times to reporters who trailed him as he walked briskly to his car.

"I really don't have any comment at this point," he said when asked about the campaign. "I just enjoyed very much being here to worship."

Someone asked what he thought of the selection of former Senator Frank R. Lautenberg to fill Mr. Torricelli's place on the ticket.

"No comment at this time," he replied, still walking.

Were there any new issues that he would like to focus on during the campaign?

"I just enjoyed the time I had worshiping," he said.

What did he think of the Republican effort to keep Senator Torricelli's name [on] the ballot?

"I'm not really in a position to comment," he said as he increased his pace. "I just enjoyed a tremendous time of worship and that's what I'd like to, you know, think about."

By the end of the day, Forrester had composed himself enough to meet with a Washington Post reporter, who asked him what he did that day. Forrester's reply showed that he had decided to let the chips fall where they may and just run as himself -- the Anti-Torricelli:

In the course of his brief answer, Forrester mentions the name "Bob Torricelli" four times.

He clings to his former opponent as a toddler would to a security blanket. Previously, Forrester says, he had framed his campaign as "I'm not Bob Torricelli." New Jersey voters haven't had a chance to get to know Forrester "because of the distractions that Mr. Torricelli's conduct brought" to the race. "When I say I'm not Bob Torricelli, I mean that in a lot of ways," Forrester says, citing his experience, voting record and ethics.

"In other words, when I say I'm not Bob Torricelli, it has a context to it."

Yes, the context is that Forrester has little else to say. No wonder that the Republicans are desperate in New Jersey.
posted by Gary at 8:46 AM

 
CHUTZPAH OR CLUELESS?: While I expected the Republicans to run whining to the U.S. Supreme Court at the prospect of having to face competition in the New Jersey Senate race, I was surprised to see them citing Bush v. Gore as authority. As political weblogger MyDD reports, Bill Baroni, the attorney for the Republican Senatorial candidate Douglas Forrester, actually thinks that rancid decision will be Forrester's trump card:

"It is the case of Bush vs. Gore where the United States Supreme Court first told the country, first told New Jersey, that our legislatures make the decisions about our elections, not state supreme courts," Baroni told reporters late on Wednesday.

"The fact that two years later we're going to have the same discussion again, we're going to make the same point again, is outrageous," he added.

Yes, it is outrageous, only not in the sense intended by Baroni. The Supreme Court's decision in Bush v. Gore ranks among the most shameful decisions the Court has ever rendered. Even its defenders sound apologetic and embarrassed when they discuss it. I strongly doubt the Court will want to resurrect criticism that it is a partisan Republican court, especially when ruling for Forrester will merely give the Republicans a chance to win the Senate -- as opposed to guaranteeing a Presidential win in Bush v. Gore. The stakes are simply not high enough for the Court to disgrace itself again so soon.

Moreover, since Justices O'Connor and Kennedy reportedly harbor hopes of replacing Rehnquist as Chief Justice, they are less likely to join Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas in a partisan decision that would be guaranteed to enrage Senate Democrats -- who may well retain control of the confirmation process even if the Supremes effectively cancel the New Jersey election. By citing Bush v. Gore, the Republicans are likely making the Justices even more gun shy about pulling this Republican trigger. While the Republicans did show some chutzpah in citing that embarrassing decision, they primarily showed that they are clueless.
posted by Gary at 10:05 PM

 
DON'T EXPECT BUSH v. GORE II: As anticipated by the Self Made Pundit in yesterday's post, the New Jersey Supreme Court -- four Democrats, two Republicans and one Independent -- embraced small "d" democracy and unanimously ruled that the Democratic Party can replace Senator Torricelli on the ballot. The New York Times reports that the Court held that:

"It is in the public interest and the general interest of the election laws to preserve the two-party system and to submit to the electorate ballot bearing the names of candidates of both major political parties as well as of all qualifying parties and groups."

While the Court was faced with a messy situation, it did the right thing since the right of the people to choose their representatives should be of paramount importance in a democracy and certainly should be given priority in close calls. Preferring the orderliness of the old one-candidate Soviet elections, the Republicans are threatening to appeal this decision to the U.S. Supreme Court.

If the Republicans do appeal, let's see if they have the chutzpah to cite the authority for the proposition that the U.S. Supreme Court can interfere with a state supreme court's interpretation of its own election laws: Bush v. Gore. Don't expect to see that citation, however, since many Republicans -- despite their public defense of Bush v. Gore -- seem to realize that it was a shameful decision that the Supreme Court would prefer to be forgotten. In fact, I doubt the Court would even grant an appeal here since the Justices are not likely to risk rekindling the criticism that would be generated by a second decision in less than two years overturning state election law to effectively deprive voters of the vote and hand an election to the Republican. While the stakes are high -- with control of the Senate possibly turning on this litigation -- this time the Presidency is not at stake.

If the Republicans do appeal, I think they will not only lose the appeal, but they will also alienate New Jersey voters by their efforts to deprive the voters of a choice in the election. But since the new Democratic candidate, former Senator Frank Lautenberg, is likely to defeat the right-wing Republican, Douglas Forrester, if there actually is a meaningful election, don't be surprised if the Republicans do run to the Supremes (though without citing Bush v. Gore).
posted by Gary at 9:12 PM

 
THE HAIL MARY PASSING OF THE TORCH: Pundits seem unable to make up their minds whether Senator Torricelli's quitting the N.J. Senate race helps or hurts the Democrats' chances of retaining the Senate. The answer is it helps. While the legal issue of whether the Torch can be replaced on the ballot clouds this issue, the Democrats are now in a far better position.

The main reason that the Democrats are now better off is that even the mere possibility of a replacement candidate ups the Democrats' chances of keeping this Senate seat. The Torch has been in a meltdown and all indications were that voters would continue to desert him over his ethical problems. While the legal case for replacing a candidate on the ballot at this late date is problematic under New Jersey law, the equities clearly favor the Democrats. In a democracy, voters should be given a choice. I think the New Jersey Supreme Court is likely to bend over backwards to give the voters more than one major party candidate on the ballot.

Given the equities of giving voters a choice, the Republicans' efforts to prevent a Democratic candidate from making it on the ballot is likely to hurt them if the New Jersey Supreme Court does choose the democratic (with a small "d") option. The "high-minded" position of Republican Senatorial candidate Douglas Forrester that "We don't want the political process to be manipulated so badly" reeks of hypocrisy and desperation. While there is no guarantee that a new Democratic candidate will make it on the ballot, if he or she does, there should be some momentum from the legal victory over Republican efforts to give New Jersey voters an old Soviet style election with no choice.

If the Democrats succeed in getting a new candidate on the ballot, the combination of New Jersey voters' Democratic leanings, Forrester's right-wing views and the Republicans' efforts to deprive voters of a real election could complete this Hail Mary pass.
posted by Gary at 6:45 PM