Virginia - Allinternal

http://www.filesonic.com/file/4051489674

http://www.fileserve.com/file/J5QtAMs

Virginia judge rules individual mandate unconstitutional, but Obamacare will prevail

By Michael J.W. Stickings

As you may have heard, a federal judge in Virginia ruled today that a key component of "Obamacare," the individual mandate, is unconstitutional.

As the Times explains, the judge, Henry Hudson (a George W. Bush appointee), determined that "the law's requirement that most Americans obtain insurance exceeded the regulatory authority granted to Congress under the Commerce Clause." (However, he "declined the plaintiff's request to suspend the act's implementation pending appeal, meaning there should be no immediate effect on its rollout.")

I wrote about this case back in August, when Hudson ruled against the Obama Administration's request that it be dismissed.

A few thoughts:

 

-- Republicans, needless to say, are celebrating the ruling and reiterating their call for repeal of the Affordable Care Act. As Steve Benen notes, however, the individual mandate was a Republican idea:

The record here may be inconvenient for the right, but it's also unambiguous: the mandate Republicans currently hate was their idea. It was championed by the Heritage Foundation. [Bob Dole incorporated the individual mandate into his reform plan in '94.] Nixon embraced it in the 1970s, and George H.W. Bush kept it going in the 1980s.

For years, it was touted by the likes of John McCain, Mitt Romney, Scott Brown, Chuck Grassley, Bob Bennett, Tommy Thompson, Lamar Alexander, Lindsey Graham, John Thune, Judd Gregg, and many others all notable GOP officials.

As late as last year, Sen. Chuck Grassley stated publicly that "there [was] a bipartisan consensus to have an individual mandate."

This is about cheap politics. Republican pollsters no doubt told GOP officials that the mandate is a potential vulnerability to the signature Democratic polity priority, so that's where the party is focusing its attention, hoping that the public simply doesn't pay attention to the fact that they're attacking their own idea.

-- Simply put, the individual mandate is essential if health-care costs are to be kept down. If there is no requirement that people buy insurance, only those who are sick (or otherwise at risk) will buy it, driving costs ever higher. You need healthy people (including young adults), people less likely to make claims, to buy into group coverage to make that coverage affordable for those who otherwise can't afford it. I realize that this is separate from the question of the constitutionality of the individual mandate, but it's obvious why the mandate is necessary and why both parties have promoted it as a core and essential component of reform.

-- This would appear to be a significant defeat for Obamacare, but we need to remember that two previous rulings (in Virginia and Michigan) found the individual mandate constitutional. This was a partisan judge ruling against it. As the Times reports, Hudson "has a long history in Republican politics in Northern Virginia." The two judges who ruled in favour of the mandate are Clinton appointees -- perhaps more partisanship, though it's hardly clear, and not necessarily the case, that Democratic appointees ruling for the mandate were acting in a partisan way (that is, perhaps they were ruling on the merits of the case).

Moreover, this case -- Cuccinelli v. Sebelius -- was initiated by a crazy Republican, Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli. 

-- As Ezra Klein writes, Hudson "refused to overrule anything but the individual mandate itself," leaving the rest of the law intact (again, while allowing enactment to proceed in full):

The real danger to health-care reform is not that the individual mandate will be struck down by the courts. That'd be a problem, but there are a variety of ways to restructure the individual mandate such that it doesn't penalize anyone for deciding not to do something (which is the core of the conservative's legal argument against the provision)... The danger is that, in striking down the individual mandate, the court would also strike down the rest of the bill. In fact, that's exactly what the plaintiff has asked Hudson to do.

Hudson pointedly refused.

In other words, even a Republican judge (who owns part of a Republican consulting firm that worked against reform) only went so far -- and, at that, not very far at all. And so:

[R]ight now, the range of opinions stretch from "the law is fine" to "the individual mandate is not fine, but the rest of the law is." That could create problems for the legislation if the mandate is repealed and Republicans block any attempts at a fix, but it's a far cry from a world in which the Supreme Court strikes down the whole of the health-care law.

Of course, the Supreme Court is rather conservative and hardly likely to be friendly to Obamacare. Still, there is reason to be optimistic even after this decision.

-- I do not pretend to be a constitutional expert, but it does seem to me that Hudson's ruling was erroneous. The Roberts Court may uphold it, but a sensible, non-partisan court, I suspect, would reject it altogether. As Jonathan Cohn put it back in October (via Benen), "the only way to throw out the mandate would be to reexamine conventional assumptions about the Commerce Clause. That would be a fairly radical move."

For more on this (right-wing) radicalism, see Nick Baumann's excellent post at Mother Jones: "Most legal scholars agree with the Obama administration on this. They believe the commerce clause allows Congress to regulate economic decisions, not just economic activity... Drastically limiting the scope of the Constitution's commerce clause (as Hudson would do) is the slippery slope to the libertarian paradise."

-- As I wrote back on August:

Republicans, whipping up blood-curdling public fury with their lies, like the ridiculous claim that there would be "death panels," drew their battle lines early on. In Congress, they were unanimously against reform, even this modest reform package that for the most part they themselves had promoted back in the '90s as an alternative to Hillarycare and that a Republican governor, Mitt Romney, had implemented in Massachusetts. They required Democrats to fight their way through all sorts of legislative hoops, denying clear majority rule. And once the bill passed, they continued to fight, pledging to repeal it if they took back Congress. But they know better, don't they? Or some of them do. They know that it's a losing issue for them, which is why they fought so hard against passage in the first place. Their electoral success, on this issue as on others, depends on public ignorance, but the public can't be kept in the dark forever.

And so these challenges will go forward, in Virginia and elsewhere, but the law will only become more and more a part of the lives of Americans, like Social Security and civil rights. You never know how SCOTUS will rule, of course, and there's a chance part of the law, if certainly not all of it, could be struck down, but I tend to doubt it. Having lost, Republicans are just flailing about, mired in the stink of their own political and ideological extremism, desperate for validation. One judge may have given them what they wanted, but they won't find any lasting success fighting health-care reform.

Judge Hudson's ruling may be a setback for reform, and perhaps even a fairly significant one, but winning a battle here and there does not mean winning the war.

Obamacare is here to stay.

Craziest Republican of the Day: Eugene Delgaudio

By Michael J.W. Stickings

I've been quite busy the past couple of days, so I'm only now getting to a few stories that I've been wanting to blog about. Like this one -- which takes our CRD series to a whole new level (until you remember that they're crazy like this a lot). Via Jonathan Chait, Virginia's WTOP reported on Wednesday on a local Republican who would appear to be as ignorantly bigoted as they come:

A conservative Loudoun County lawmaker says controversial airport pat-downs by the Transportation Security Administration are part of a "wide-scale homosexual agenda."

Eugene Delgaudio, a Republican representing Sterling on the Loudoun County Board of Supervisors, made the comments in a widely distributed e-mail sent in his capacity as president of the conservative nonprofit Public Advocate of the United States.

In the e-mail -- reported by WUSA9 -- Delgaudio also says the TSA's non-discrimination hiring policy is "the federal employee's version of the Gay Bill of Special rights."

"That means the next TSA official that gives you an enhanced pat-down could be a practicing homosexual secretly getting pleasure from your submission," he wrote.

That's right, this guy thinks the TSA's enhanced airport security is all one big gay conspiracy to get action. It's hard to know where to begin, but, really, why bother? If you honestly believe this, you're not just an ignorant bigot but a complete and utter moron.

I'm no fan of all this enhanced security (or whatever you want to call it), much of it supposedly justified through trumped up (if not outright manufactured) threats and promoted through government- and industry-sponsored fearmongering, scaring Americans into a state of terrified submission, accepting ever more authoritarianism and to give up their freedom to a creeping police state, but this, needless to say, is ridiculous.

It is, of course, incredibly insulting to gays and deeply ignorant of their sexuality (and all of our sexuality). As if this is how they get off. As if they're incapable of having meaningful sexual relations.

But, again, why bother? Delgaudio and the many who think like him are stupid, crazy, hateful people.

But maybe this is just the usual homophobia of the self-loathing right-wing bigot. Maybe he gets turned on by these pat-downs and is lashing out. And maybe he needs not just a pat-down but a full-body erotic massage, to set him, er, straight. (Yes, it would move.) The TSA wouldn't do it, but I'm sure he can find someone who would.

Federal judge allows Virginia health-care challenge to go forward, but will anything come of it?

By Michael J.W. Stickings

As you may have heard, a federal district judge yesterday ruled that the Commonwealth of Virginia's challenge to the new federal health-care law, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, may go forward:

The administration had asked the judge, Henry E. Hudson of Federal District Court, to dismiss the challenge by Virginia's attorney general, Ken T. Cuccinelli II.

Mr. Cuccinelli had argued that Congress, in passing a measure that requires people to buy insurance or face a penalty, exceeded its limits under the Constitution's Commerce Clause and tax powers. Mr. Cuccinelli had also argued that the federal law violated a state law, the Virginia Health Care Freedom Act, which declares that residents cannot be forced to buy health insurance.

Mr. Cuccinelli is one of 21 state officials fighting the health care law, and this is the first ruling by a federal court on the important question of whether states have the standing to sue.

Monday's opinion does not address the merits of the health care law. It has no direct effect on the other state challenges, but it may influence the other judges. 

The challenge focuses specifically on the individual mandate, the requirement to buy insurance, but this ruling does not address the law itself and is effectively meaningless. As Jack Balkin notes, "[w]hat Judge Hudson has done, in short, is to put off the day when he will have to write a decision on the merits." Hudson's ruling indicates that he "clearly sympathizes with the state of Virginia" -- that is, I might add, with the Republican attorney general (and, presumably, Republican governor) of Virginia -- but it is really "only the beginning of many years of litigation over the constitutionality of the individual mandate in many different courts around the country." (For more on the technicalities of the case, see Lyle Denniston at SCOTUSblog.)

In other words, as Steve Benen puts it, the ruling is "a procedural victory" for the opponents of the law and "not a measure of success on the merits," even if the judge's legal/partisan inclinations are fairly clear. And so there's really no need to get "too excited about this." There's a long way to go, and, from what Steve says, it looks like the law will stand:

Most legal experts, including many conservatives, find the case to be pretty frivolous -- a former Bush/Cheney U.S. attorney said the litigation not only lacks merit, but should be "seen as a political exercise" -- and Cuccinelli has struggled to explain why this isn't a waste of taxpayer money.

Furthermore, the judge isn't exactly neutral:

Regrettably, Judge Hudson's objectivity is already in doubt. He's a Bush/Cheney appointee, and more importantly, the Huffington Post noted that the judge "has financial ties to both the attorney general who is challenging the law and to a powerhouse conservative law firm whose clients include prominent Republican officials and critics of reform."

Surprise, surprise.

Steve goes on to note, rightly, that the individual mandate is actually a Republican idea that once had a good deal of support from Republican senators -- not back in the '90s but just a year ago.

Regardless, and hypocrisy notwithstanding, Republicans will keep pushing these mostly frivolous and utterly partisan challenges -- and of course the concern going forward is that the Supreme Court is still 4-4-1, with Kennedy the unreliable swing vote.

I suspect the law will ultimately stand, and, as a political issue, it looks to me like a loser for Republicans. As the repellent ugliness of Congressional partisanship and legislative sausage-making recedes further and further into history, and as the American people come to see more and more that the fearmongering of Republicans was unfounded, that the Republic still stands and that they themselves are still free, that hordes of fascists and socialists didn't topple democracy and destroy the Constitution, and that, actually, health-care reform brought a lot of good to a system that was (and that in many ways remains) deeply unfair and unjust, costly and cruel, the law will become more popular -- and we are already seeing this.

Republicans -- or, rather, the few sensible ones among them -- know that repeal isn't really a viable option, at least not if they seek electoral success. (Do Republicans really want to face the voters, and to go down in history, having overturned a law that extended health care to tens of millions and that blocked the insurance industry from denying coverage for pre-existing conditions?) As the White House explained, "[h]aving failed in the legislative arena, opponents of reform are now turning to the courts in an attempt to overturn the work of the democratically elected branches of government." And this seems to be what Republicans want -- judges to do their work for them, to throw out a law that they know is far more popular than their propaganda would suggest, whereupon they can avoid a major political hit by pointing out that they had nothing to do with it. But of course they would have had everything to do with it. Judges won't be ruling in a vacuum, after all, they'll be ruling on challenges brought by Republicans, as in Virginia.

Republicans, whipping up blood-curdling public fury with their lies, like the ridiculous claim that there would be "death panels," drew their battle lines early on. In Congress, they were unanimously against reform, even this modest reform package that for the most part they themselves had promoted back in the '90s as an alternative to Hillarycare and that a Republican governor, Mitt Romney, had implemented in Massachusetts. They required Democrats to fight their way through all sorts of legislative hoops, denying clear majority rule. And once the bill passed, they continued to fight, pledging to repeal it if they took back Congress. But they know better, don't they? Or some of them do. They know that it's a losing issue for them, which is why they fought so hard against passage in the first place. Their electoral success, on this issue as on others, depends on public ignorance, but the public can't be kept in the dark forever.

And so these challenges will go forward, in Virginia and elsewhere, but the law will only become more and more a part of the lives of Americans, like Social Security and civil rights. You never know how SCOTUS will rule, of course, and there's a chance part of the law, if certainly not all of it, could be struck down, but I tend to doubt it. Having lost, Republicans are just flailing about, mired in the stink of their own political and ideological extremism, desperate for validation. One judge may have given them what they wanted, but they won't find any lasting success fighting health-care reform.

Craziest Republican of the Day: Ken Cuccinelli

By Michael J.W. Stickings

That would be Virginia's AG, who has pulled a John Ashcroft:

Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli apparently isn't fond of wardrobe malfunctions, even when Virginia's state seal is involved.

The seal depicts the Roman goddess Virtus, or virtue, wearing a blue tunic draped over one shoulder, her left breast exposed. But on the new lapel pins Cuccinelli recently handed out to his staff, Virtus' bosom is covered by an armored breastplate.

When the new design came up at a staff meeting, workers in attendance said Cuccinelli joked that it converts a risqué image into a PG one.

Ha-ha... ha-ha... how hilarious.

Cuccinelli hasn't formally changed the state seal. This is just his interpretation of the seal, paid for by his PAC. Still, as UVA political scientist Larry Sabato puts it, "[w]hen you ask to be ridiculed, it usually happens. And it will happen here, nationally. This is classical art, for goodness' sake."

Indeed it is, but what do Republicans like the oft-ridiculed Cuccinelli care about art? As Skippy asks, "what is it about portrayals of a woman's bare breast that bothers you right-wing theocratic attorneys general so? it's a friggin' mammary gland, dude. how come that's a problem, but it's okay for governor mcdonnell to sign a bill allowing people to bring loaded guns into places that sell alcohol?"

Good question. Perhaps we could also ask whether an exposed breast is worse than the Confederacy. Slavery? Whatever. Boobs? Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Haley's vomit

By Mustang Bobby

Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour (R) defended the original Virginia Confederacy History Month proclamation -- the one that omitted the mention of slavery -- and said that the whole kerfuffle about it didn't "amount to diddly."

"I don't know what you would say about slavery, but anybody that thinks that you have to explain to people that slavery is a bad thing--I think that goes without saying," he said, adding "Maybe they should talk to my Democratic legislature, which has done the exactly same thing in Mississippi for years...I'm unaware of them being criticized for it." 

As for the criticism McDonnell faced, including from President Obama, Barbour said: "It's sort of feeling that it's a nit, that it is not significant, it's trying to make a big deal out of something that doesn't amount to diddly," he also said.

The problem for McDonnell, of course: He's been saying for several days now exactly the opposite, apologizing repeatedly for leaving slavery out of the proclamation and calling it a "major omission."

A few points here. First, a Democratic legislature in Mississippi is not to be confused with the same in a place like Massachusetts or Minnesota. Southern Democrats are a wholly different breed, and when the right-wing pipes up and says that Democrats in the South stood in the way of desegregation and it was the Republicans who voted for Civil Rights over the filibusters of Sen. John Stennis and Richard Russell, that's who they're talking about; they may be fewer in numbers after Nixon's Southern Strategy and Reagan Democrats, but they're still there.

Second, as mentioned in the article, Mr. Barbour is doing Mr. McDonnell no favors here by standing up for the original resolution, especially since the Virginia governor practically broke the three-minute walk-back last week when he admitted that leaving out slavery was a "major omission." The best thing that Mr. McDonnell can do now is distance himself from Mr. Barbour and tell him, "Stop helping me."

Third, and this is purely based on a personal reaction, Mr. Barbour's style of delivery -- a combination of televangelist and Boss Hogg -- sounds like all of the good ole boys who used to tell us about "outside agitators" and people who "don't know their place" back in the days of the Civil Rights movement. I know that bigotry can be expressed in any style -- I've heard people who speak in the best manner of the Queen's English spout racist and bigoted crap, too -- but if the Republicans hope to reach out to minorities and independents who think that slavery does amount to more than just "diddly," they need to get a better spokesman.

(Cross-posted from Bark Bark Woof Woof.)

More on McDonnell and Confederate Virginia

By Michael J.W. Stickings

I blogged a couple of days ago about Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell's reprehensible decision to declare April 2010 Confederate History Month in that state:

-- Slavery? Check.

-- Rebellion? Check.

-- A bitter, divisive legacy? Check.

-- The antithesis of progress, enlightenment, and America's purported ideals? Check.

Well, the story is gaining national attention, and rightly so, given that it sheds a great deal of light not just on McDonnell himself but on Republicans generally, and on Virginia Republicans in particular, as well as on all those conservatives who seem to sympathize with the Confederacy (and all that it was about).

McDonnell's proclamation asks Virginians to "understand the sacrifices of the Confederate leaders, soldiers and citizens during the period of the Civil War." This goes well beyond asking them to remember the fallen, which perhaps wouldn't have been quite so bad. As the chairman of the Legislative Black Caucus, Kenneth Cooper Alexander, a Democrat, put it, the "proclamation was offensive and offered a disturbing revision of the Civil War and the brutal era that followed. Virginia has worked hard to move beyond the very things for which Governor McDonnell seems nostalgic."

McDonnell has since backtracked a bit, trying to rationalize his decision: "I felt just as I've issued dozens and dozens of other commemorations, that it was something that was worthy of doing so people can at least study and understand that period of Virginia history and how it impacts us today," he said on Tuesday. Sorry, but it won't work. The organization behind the proclamation is the Sons of Confederate Veterans, apologists of the Confederacy, not a reputable academic group with an interest in advancing the study of U.S. history. Indeed, it was that very organization that was behind fellow Republican Gov. George Allen's proclamation calling the Civil War "a four-year struggle for [Southern] independence and sovereign rights." 

The Atlantic's Ta-Nehisi Coates puts McDonnell's decision in its proper Republican context:

The GOP is, effectively, the party of willfully unlettered Utopians. It is the party of choice for those who believe global warming is a hoax, that humans roamed the earth with dinosaurs, and that homosexuals should work harder at not being gay.

That the party of unadulterated quackery also believes that Birth Of A Nation is more true to the Civil War than Battle Cry Of Freedom, is to be expected.

*****

This is who they are -- the proud and ignorant. If you believe that if we still had segregation we wouldn't "have had all these problems," this is the movement for you. If you believe that your president is a Muslim sleeper agent, this is the movement for you. If you honor a flag raised explicitly to destroy this country then this is the movement for you. If you flirt with secession, even now, then this movement is for you. If you are a "Real American" with no demonstrable interest in "Real America" then, by God, this movement of alchemists and creationists, of anti-science and hair tonic, is for you.

McDonnell continues to backtrack, and to spin -- he has apologized for not mentioning slavery:

The abomination of slavery divided our nation, deprived people of their God-given inalienable rights, and led to the Civil War. Slavery was an evil, vicious and inhumane practice which degraded human beings to property, and it has left a stain on the soul of this state and nation.

Well, yes, of course. But he's still either a panderer to his right-wing base or a Confederate sympathizer, or both, and he can't just talk his way out of his proclamation. He deserves all the heat he's been taking. And the American people, it seems to me, should once again take a long, hard look at the Republican Party, and what really drives it.

Republican Gov. Bob McDonnell looks to take Virginia back to its Confederate past

By Michael J.W. Stickings

It's always great when Republicans show their true colours, isn't it? Take what Gov. Bob McDonnell is doing in Virginia:

Gov. Bob McDonnell (R) has quietly declared April 2010 Confederate History Month, bringing back a designation in Virginia that his two Democratic predecessors -- Mark Warner and Tim Kaine -- refused to do.

Republican governors George Allen and Jim Gilmore issued similar proclamations. But in 2002, Warner broke with their action, calling such proclamations, a "lightning rod" that does not help bridge divisions between whites and blacks in Virginia.

This year's proclamation was requested by the Sons of Confederate Veterans.

I get that a great many Confederate soldiers died in the Civil War, and they ought to be remembered in some way. But Confederate history? Let's see...

-- Slavery? Check.

-- Rebellion? Check.

-- A bitter, divisive legacy? Check.

-- The antithesis of progress, enlightenment, and America's purported ideals? Check.

Does McDonnell really need to appease his pro-Confederate constituency? Won't the Sons of Confederate Veterans vote for him, and any Republican, regardless?

Or does he just happen to have a real soft spot for the Confederacy, for what it stood (and went to war for), and for all that it continues to represent?

Whatever the case, it's a terrible, terrible decision, a big gubernatorial middle finger to every black person in Virginia, to every person who would have been deemed sub-human by the Confederacy, as well as to every good and decent person in that state and beyond.

But what a truly Republican decision, too -- especially in a state where there is a clear dividing line between the two parties on this issue. At least we know, quite clearly, that Virginia Republicans are pro-Confederacy while Virginia Democrats are trying to bring their state past its ugly past.

Virginians, it seems to me, along with Americans around the country, should consider that when they head to the polls.

Virginia governor rescinds protections for gays and lesbians

By Michael J.W. Stickings

TPM:

Gay and lesbian state workers in Virginia are no longer specifically protected against discrimination, thanks to a little-noticed change made by new Gov. Bob McDonnell.

McDonnell (R) on Feb. 5 signed an executive order that prohibits discrimination "on the basis of race, sex, color, national origin, religion, age, political affiliation, or against otherwise qualified persons with disabilities," as well as veterans.

It rescinds the order that Gov. Tim Kaine signed Jan. 14, 2006 as one of his first actions. After promising a "fair and inclusive" administration in his inaugural address, Kaine (D) added veterans to the non-discrimination policy -- and sexual orientation.

I think Kaine's spokesperson, Hari Sevugan, is absolutely right:

It says a lot about the Republican party that they would anoint as their "rising star" someone who in 2010 is actually stripping away from Americans legal protections against discrimination. Bob McDonnell is proving his critics right. He said he'd focus on creating jobs, not social issues. But, one of his first acts as Governor was to make it easier for a fellow citizen to be denied a job and he did so as an adherent to a right-wing ideology that allows for such discriminatory behavior. McDonnell's decision is just plain wrong in any context, but especially so in this economic climate.

With a Republican in the Virginia governor's mansion, bigotry, unsurprisingly, is back with a vengeance.

The good, the bad, and the upsets

By J. Kingston Pierce

Much hand-wringing and tea-leaf-reading is destined to follow yesterday’s U.S. elections. Most of those exercises are probably meaningless. Although the GOP would like to spin the capture of the governor’s mansions in New Jersey and Virginia as indicative of its comeback from Southern regional partyhood, such prognostications are more than a bit of a reach.

Virginia has not only demonstrated a habit over the last three decades of electing governors from the party that does not hold the White House, but the governor’s seat there has switched back and forth between the two major parties on a pretty regular basis ever since 1970. Former State Attorney General Bob McDonnell campaigned as a moderate Republican, and despite a brouhaha over his 20-year-old graduate thesis -- in which he “described working women as ‘detrimental’ to the traditional family ... criticized a U.S. Supreme Court decision legalizing contraception for unmarried couples, and decried the ‘purging’ of religion from schools” -- he managed to duck the tarring his Democratic opponent, state Senator R. Creigh Deeds, tried to give him. McDonnell outpolled Deeds during most of that contest, and even the White House was heard recently grumbling about how poorly Deeds had followed the successful campaign examples provided by the commonwealth’s two most recent governors, Democrats Mark Warner and Tim Kaine. Deeds’ willingness to curry favor with right-learning Independents by criticizing President Barack Obama -- who last year became the first Democratic presidential candidate to win Virginia in 44 years -- and his disinterest in promoting progressive reforms probably didn’t help him drum up Democratic support, either.

The dynamics in New Jersey were rather different. Former U.S. Senator and first-term Governor Jon Corzine was down in the polling early on against his GOP challenger, ex-U.S. Attorney Chris Christie. And despite a seesawing between the two for front-runner status, Corzine was never able to pull far enough head to guarantee a hold on his job. It didn’t help any that he labored under the burden of being a former Goldman Sachs CEO, at a time when Wall Streeters aren’t exactly popular.

In both Virginia and New Jersey, exit polls showed that voters made their decisions based in some part on anxiety over the state of the U.S. economy, but in little or no part on the basis of what they think about President Obama. Republicans who want to paint yesterday’s results as some kind of referendum on Obama are definitely barking up the wrong tree.

More interesting than either of those contests, though, was the upset in New York’s northernmost congressional district, the 23rd, which has been a Republican stronghold ever since the mid-19th century. That race to fill the seat left vacant after GOP congressman John M. McHugh left to become Obama’s secretary of the Army, began as a face-off between Republican Assemblywoman Dierdre Scozzafava and attorney Bill Owens, the Democrat, but turned into a testing ground for right-wing Tea Party insurgents. Despite having been blessed with the GOP’s endorsement, Scozzafava was harshly criticized for being even more liberal than Owens, and finally dropped out of the race after a third-party candidate, accountant Doug Hoffman--who didn’t even live in the district he hoped to represent--won the endorsements of such limelight-loving right-wing pols as half-term Alaska Governor Sarah Palin and ex-U.S. Senator Fred Thompson. Even disgraced former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich -- who can dampen his finger and hold it in the political winds as well as the next schmuck -- switched his endorsement to Hoffman after it became obvious that Scozzafava didn’t stand a chance against someone who called Glenn Beck his “mentor.”

The supposition was that free-floating right-wing anger, coupled with the 23rd district’s history of electing Republicans, would catapult Hoffman into McHugh’s former seat; this, despite efforts by the White House on Owens’ behalf and Scozzafava’s last-minute endorsement of her erstwhile opponent. And some surveys did make a Hoffman victory appear inevitable. However, in the end Owens won with 49 percent of the vote; Hoffman trailed with 45 percent. Regardless of post-game struggles to paint Hoffman’s loss as a win -- with the supposition that it will compel the GOP establishment to tap more “ideologically pure” conservative candidates in the future -- the prospect of more Doug Hoffmans running in the future, and thus driving the already beleaguered and out-of-favor Republican Party farther and farther from the American mainstream, seems like a losing strategy. That may be especially true north of the Pennsylvania border, where, as The Washington Monthly’s Steve Benen notes today, there are “51 congressional districts representing 34 million people” and “Republicans have a whopping two seats.”

Local contests here in Seattle and across Washington state offer favorable tidings, as well. Longtime anti-tax zealot Tim Eyman’s latest ballot initiative, which would have placed a cap on public funds available to city, county, and state governments -- and thereby driven budget deficits skyward -- is going down to defeat. A referendum to expand Washington’s domestic-partnership law appears to be headed for a win, despite opposition from voters living in the state’s more conservative eastern counties. (This victory won’t make up for Maine voters repealing a state law that would make same-sex marriage legal there, but it’s a small sign of hope for equal rights supporters -- and one step toward what is likely to the nation’s eventual legalization of so-called gay marriage.) And Democratic King County Council chair Dow Constantine, angling for the county executive seat vacated earlier this year by Ron Sims (who’s now the Deputy Secretary of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development), declared “overwhelming victory” over his opponent, ex-TV news talking head and closet Republican Susan Hutchison. Political newcomer Hutchison’s refusal to concede the race, even though she’s behind by 13 percent or more, just demonstrates why she hasn’t the class or temperament to hold public office.

So, as President Obama today celebrates a full year since his historic winning of the White House, he can look around the country with some confidence that favorable changes are taking place, even though there’s still considerable work to be accomplished. And the rest of us can go back to our normal lives -- until the mid-term elections next year, of course.

(Cross-posted to Limbo.)

Not a bad day at all

By Carl

What to make of the off-year elections that people were focusing on?

Well, on balance, while not a stellar performance, one has to believe Obama actually gained a little ground yesterday.

Huh? Wha?

You heard me. Here's why:

1) Governor of Virginia - Virginia went 53-46 for Obama last year. However, of the last five elected governors (including McDonnell now) three were Republicans, all elected with a Democrat in the White House. Add to that fact that Creigh Deeds was a nearly unknown state senator and ran a campaign so egregiously bad that even the White House wrote him off weeks before the election, a landslide was all but inevitable.

2) Governor of New Jersey - Chris Christie barely held onto a lead going into the voting booth, and many polls had this as a toss-up. Over the past thirty years, there have been six elected governors: three Republicans, three Democrats. To call New Jersey a Democratic stronghold at the state-wide level is ludicrous. Now, Obama did put in some energy into campaigning for Corzine, but the billionaire lost to the multimillionaire largely because of outside assistance from the right wing of the Republican party.

This was no slam dunk election that was Corzine's to lose, in other words. The entrance of Chris Dagget probably hurt Corzine more than Christie, altho his vote total probably would not have changed the outcome.

IN NEITHER OF THESE TWO ELECTIONS WAS OBAMA A FACTOR! Voters chose based almost strictly on local and statewide issues, not the national scene and in no way should either of these elections be considered as part of a larger "Republican Rescusitation"

3) The key race for Obama's fortunes, however, was NY State's 23rd. There, in a stunning reversal of Republican fortunes, Democrat Bill Owens stunned the right wing of America by kicking the ass of Neoconservative darling, Doug Hoffman.

Hoffman held a significant four point lead in polling over the weekend, so he lost seven points in support in the blink of an eye.

Hoffman was heavily touted by Sarah Palin, Tim Pawlenty, Rush Limbaugh and the rest of the Fucking Republican Loons. This has to strike terror into Sarah Palin's heart, because she so closely tied her Presidential fortunes to the outcome here. It makes her look like a loser who can't even get a Congressman elected in a heavily Republican, very conservative district that is filled with military types!

Pawlenty at least had the smarts to be a little on the QT when he endorsed Hoffman! But Palin?

Ooo-la-la! She shot her chances in the foot with this boo-boo! She pissed off the Republican leadership and still lost the fucking election!

Too bad, so sad, it's ours, Mooseburger...

(Cross-posted to Simply Left Behind.)

Election Day 2009: A good day for the GOP, but don't make too much of it

By Michael J.W. Stickings

UPDATED BELOW.

It is expected to be a good day for Republicans, notably in several key races across the country, including the gubernatorial elections in New Jersey (my former homestate -- I went to high school in Mendham) and Virginia and the special election in New York's 23rd Congressional District. In another high-profile race, independent Michael Bloomberg is expected to win re-election easily as mayor of New York.

My sense is not to make too much of Republican victories today. If Republicans win, it won't be because of a resurgent GOP, or because of voter opposition to Obama, it'll be because of local factors that have little to do with national politics. Referendums on Obama, Congressional Democrats, the economic stimulus package, the bank and auto bailouts, and health-care reform these elections are not, even if voters emphasize the economy.

We all know what the Republican spin will be. Don't let it fool you.

Republicans have done very well in Virginia, where Bob McDonnell has defeated Democrat Creigh Deeds. It would seem that the "nice guy" lost, a nice guy who was also, from what I can tell, a terrible candidate despite a solid record in state government. Yes, Republicans will herald this as a major victory in a state that went for Obama last year and that, in general, has been trending purple, but Virginia has a long history of voting for the out-of power party and, in this case, it also voted for the better candidate.

In NY-23, there seem to have been disruptions at the polls, notably by pro-Hoffman teabaggers.

By the way, there's also a same-sex marriage vote in Maine, where turnout is high, and a domestic partnership vote in Washington. We'll be keeping an eye on those, too.

More later. (As I flip between CNN, the Lakers-Thunder (Zombie Sonics, as Bill Simmons calls them) game, and the Leafs-Lightning game, with one of my favourite cooking shows, Good Eats, coming on at 10 pm.)

**********

By the way, CNN has some of the key results here.

At 9:23 pm, Chris Christie (R) is leading indumbent Gov. Jon Corzine (D) in New Jersey, 50-44, with 44% of precincts reporting. (I expect a narrow Christie victory.)

**********

11:55 pm - Hilarious takedown of the media by Jon Stewart tonight. They do blow everything so ridiculously out of proportion, as if every vote is endowed with meaning well beyond the reality of the situation. Of course, they're in the business of pumping up "the news," and of ratcheting up the drama, we know that, but whatever "analysis" they offer is so typically inane that they just end up undermining whatever minute traces of credibility they have left.

As I say above, the few votes that were held today do not either individually or collectively add up to a referendum on anything. Yes, there is division in the GOP. Yes, what happened in NY-23, where the far right triumphed yet again in its ongoing effort to take over the party, is meaningful, part of a larger historical trend, but it was pretty much inevitable that the Conservative and, in recent days, Republican candidate would do well in a historically Republican district. All a Hoffman victory would mean is no change in the House (the GOP holding a GOP seat) and a more conservative Republican House caucus.

And that's really the story tonight. These races were all local, even NY-23, which had captured broader national attention. Virginia, a red-purple state, went Republican. New Jersey, a blue-leaning swing state that frequently elects Republicans to high state office, kicked out a relatively unpopular Democratic governor and replaced him with a moderate. There isn't much more to say.

********** 

12:19 am - Okay, here's what's going on in ten key races.

In brief:

-- Bloomberg narrowly won re-election in New York City. I didn't follow this race closely, but I was expecting a wider margin of victory, not least because of all the money he spent on himself. Of course, it's not terribly surprising that his opponent, a Democrat, did well in what is overwhelmingly a Democratic city.

-- With 87 percent of precincts reporting, Owens is up 49-45 over Hoffman in NY-23. I'm surprised.

-- In New Jersey, Christie beat Corzine 49-45. More or less as expected.

-- In Boston, Thomas Menino won a record fifth term as mayor, beating Councilor Michael Flaherty 57-42. Menino won for the first time on November 2, 1993. I was a junior at Tufts.

-- In Maine, it looks like the the same-sex marriage law signed by Gov. John Baldacci earlier this year might go down to defeat. 

12:36 pm - CNN has just declared Owens the winner in NY-23! I figured the vote would be close, but this is, I admit, stunning.

Will this shut the right up? No, of course not. It's more emboldened than ever, and it will attribute this defeat to a corrupt and inadequately conservative Republican establishment that picked Scozzafava and was too slow to back Hoffman. And it'll write it off just as it writes off blue states generally.

But what will Glenn Beck do without such a willing protégé in the House? Yeah, he'll move on and apply his madness elsewhere.

I would have liked Corzine to win in New Jersey, but, honestly, I never much cared for him, and I figured the Republicans would sweep Virginia. But Owens' victory in NY-23 makes up for those losses, and more. It's a fantastic outcome.

********** 

12:49 am - More good news: the Leafs lost!

Good night.

Pity poor Virginia

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Terry McAuliffe wants to be your governor. He's got the money, the ego, and the Clinton connections, and he'll be a formidable candidate. And maybe, just maybe, he has what it takes to be a successful governor of a purple state, and maybe he'd be able to turn it blue. Then again, maybe he'll just end up tripping around in his own spin, as usual, unable to distinguish the truth from what passes through his lips in a continuous stream of partisan happy talk.

Sorry, I just don't much like the guy, loyal Democrat though he be.

**********

For an especially critical take, make sure to read Booman on McAuliffe: "He's a glorified bagman... the nuts-and-bolts-guy of the DLC's corporatocracy. If he holds a progressive idea anywhere in his head, it is merely a branding decision that makes him distinct from George Allen-Republicanism."