6/30: SCOTUS Water To GOP Wine?

Many throughout the blogosphere played SCOTUS' 6/29 Hamdan v. Rumsfeld decision as a stinging rebuke for Pres. Bush's war on terror. No doubt the majority opinion bristles with contempt for Bush's detainee policies, but blogger reading of the decision demonstrates the decision's practical effect is more of a congressional call to action than an administration loss. With the fate of prisoners now moving to Congress righty bloggers believe GOP brand strength on national security can wallop Dems through Nov. while lefty bloggers express both outrage at coming GOP tactics and advice to Dems on how to counteract. All that plus '06 and '08 round ups as well as an appearance from lefty blogger favorite Stephen Colbert.

The best blog summary of SCOTUS' 6/29 Hamdan v. Rumsfeld can be found at left leaning Balkinization: "The key to understanding Hamdan is that the Court did not tell the President that he could under no circumstances create military tribunals with very limited procedural guarantees. ... Rather, the Court told the President that under Article 36 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, he could not do so. ... The reason why the President is bound by these requirements is because Congress passed the UCMJ and because the UCMJ uses the laws of war - which include the Geneva Conventions - as a benchmark for procedures in military commissions."

Righty Orin Kerr concurs and adds some history: "As Jack Balkin notes, the opinion just says that Congress needs to be on board if the President wants to deviate from a court-martial-like trial for the Gitmo detainees. ...If the 2004 decisions rejected the concept of a law-free zone, Hamdan rejects the concept of a Congress-free zone. On the other hand, the Court has upped the ante only a notch. It has avoided a grand confrontation between the Executive and the Judiciary, at least for now."

Right Wing News immediately saw GOP '06 opportunity in the decision: "if the reasoning here is supposed to be that Congress hasn't approved of military tribunals, then let's put it up for a vote. ... Basically, we'll have the Democrats who'll be so concerned about the terrorists rights that they'd favor letting them beat the system and get loose to kill more Americans. On the other hand, the Republicans won't be very concerned about the right of foreign terrorists and their first priority will be protecting America. Protecting the rights of Al-Qaeda or protecting America?"

Andre Cochran at Counterterrorism Blog had a similar reaction: "The decision is actually a huge political gift to President Bush, and the detainees will not be released that easily. The President and GOP leaders will propose a bill to override the decision and keep the terrorists in jail until they are securely transferred to host countries for permanent punishment. ... They will challenge the "judicial interference with national security" and challenge dissenting Congressmen and civil libertarians to either stand with the terrorists or the American people."

Lefty Balloon Juice was incensed at that the GOP would make a political issue out of something SCOTUS just ruled ought to be a political issue: "Let's put aside the inherent nihilism in this response - and there is still something even more offensive about this passage: "They will challenge the 'judicial interference with national security' and challenge dissenting Congressmen and civil libertarians to either stand with the terrorists or the American people." ... It never gets old, being told you are a traitor and in league with the terrorists because you disagree with current administration policy. Let me be the first to tell Andrew Cochran, whoever that is, to go [use your imagination] himself. Twice."

Fellow lefty (but no Dem lover) Middle Earth Journal hopes the issue will fade quickly: "I'm not sure this needs to be a "huge political gift to President Bush" but it will turn out that way. With the Democrats in congress made up of folks that are either spineless or just as hawkish as the neocons a law will be passed easily that legalizes the military tribunals. If congress tries to put lipstick on the pig to make themselves look important Bush will simply ignore the portions of the law he doesn't like."

Also from the left Reed Hundt at TPM Cafe has advice for Dems to head of Rovain machinations: "Look for the brilliant mastermind of November victories to use the Supreme Court's pro-prisoner decision to the R's advantage this fall. Add to "cut and run" as an epithet for Democrats the potent message that D's stand for releasing murderers and terrorists. To thwart this tactic, Democrats need to clamor for legislation calling for no bail, confidential reports to Congress on the danger to the country from these prisoners (conducted by the 911 Commission), trials starting no later than in the fall, and harsh penalties."

DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas says the argument that NH voters "force candidates to do retail politics" and that they are "good at vetting the candidates by listening to them up close" is "bulls**t." Kos wants us to "look at the before and after of the Franklin Piece College Poll. First line is 1/20-22, 2004 [IA caucus was on 1/20/04], with the trend line in parenthesis from 12/1-4, 2003." Kerry 30 (14) Dean 16 (39). "In 2004, Iowa picked our nominee, and New Hampshire did nothing more than rubberstamp Iowa's decision. No amount of 'retail politics' on the ground in New Hampshire could overcome what Granite State voters saw in the Iowa results and Dean's 'scream.'"

Later Kos wrote it was "established earlier that New Hampshire rubber stamped the Iowa results in 2004, laying waste to the claim that Granite Staters were somehow better able to make decisions based on their up-close access to candidates, the so-called 'retail politics' that romantics think drive decisions" in IA and NH. "But only 124,331 participated" in the '04 IA Dem caucuses. "Six percent. Six. And we're supposed to trust Iowa with this decision because they are 'more engaged' and have 'experience' vetting candidates? Six percent seems to be the opposite of 'engaged'. Those arguments are utter bunk. Iowa didn't decide our nominee. Six percent of registered voters in Iowa decided our nominee, a decision then rubberstamped by New Hampshire. Put another way, 124,000 people in Iowa decided" for 60M Dems "who the nominee would be. That's not a fair system. It's not a democratic system. And even though the DNC is just tinkering around the edges for 2008, it's a system that needs to be changed in subsequent cycles."

Moderate Raymond Learsy at Huffington Post writes that Al Gore's film "has crystallized" the global warming issue "me in a very personal way. But where I part ways with Mr. Gore is in his reluctance to give adequate consideration to nuclear energy. In a recent interview, Gore dismissed nuclear power, saying he doubted it would "play a much larger role than it does now." His main concern against nuclear power revolved around the risk of weapons proliferation, an issue that cannot and must not be dismissed."

Right-leaning RCP Blog's Tom Bevan doesn't personally "favor a federal marriage amendment," but "I find Romney to be among its most eloquent defenders. He made a reasonable and persuasive case for the FMA in a recent letter to the Senate, and I've also seen him make the same case on the stump. Obviously, the issue appeals greatly to many Republican base voters, but I suspect the tone and tenor with which Romney approaches the subject will resonate with a broader audience as well."

Tim Tagaris at the official Ned Lamont Blog introduces cable co. exec. Ned Lamont's latest TV ad: "The war, the war, Ned's campaign is only about the war!" The war is a pretty big deal-there is no more important issue our government tackles than war and peace. But it's not just about the war. Did you know that in addition to being a successful businessman, Ned is a volunteer teacher in an inner-city public school?" Jane Hamsher at firedoglake and Maura at My Left Nutmeg both gush over the effort.

Not all lefties got the "this race is about more than Iraq" memo. John Amato at Crooks and Liars claims an 'exclusive' from Arianna Huffington: "Jack Murtha would not support Joe Lieberman for the Senate unless he changes his position on the Iraq war."

Christy Hardin Smith at firedoglake explains the significance: "elected members of Congress don't normally speak out about other elected members of Congress unless there is a problem...and Jack Murtha clearly has a problem with Holy Joe. Maybe it was the leading off of the Republican side of the debate on the Iraq issue last week."

Meanwhile TAPPED's Michael Tomasky looks at CT registration numbers and reluctantly finds himself agreeing with a Dick Morris column concluding Sen. Joe Lieberman (D) "would win overwhelmingly" as an indie: "Consider: First, voter enrollment in Connecticut looks like this. You have roughly 700,000 Democrats, 450,000 Republicans, and 930,000 unaffiliateds. Assume also a fairly weak Republican, as seems to be the case -- a bloke named Alan Schlesinger, the "two-term mayor of the city of Derby," according to his Web site. ... Assume that, running as an Independent, Lieberman would get the lion's share of unaffiliateds, and probably not an insignificant number of Republicans. He would be very tough to beat."

Righty PoliPundit acknowledges that Rep. Katherine Harris' (R) numbers have actually decreased against Sen. Bill Nelson (D) but also thinks its high time the GOP closed ranks: "I do wish the GOP powers that be would just shut the hell up about Harris and support her the best they can. It's time to close ranks and fight the good fight for the Florida Senate seat with the army we have not the army we wish we had."

RedState still wants to debate the matter: "So, given that Nelson has less than a 50% favorable and 38% undecided, should the GOP finally rally around Harris and her money, or at least shut up and let her fight? Chime in below." A terribly unscientific sampling of commenters shows opinion divided. Sample against from Adam C: "She's polling in the 20s last I saw. There are more important, cheaper races that will matter more. May I recommend MD, MN, WA, OH, NJ and MO as places where the probability that a $20 [donation] will change an outcome is greater. If we are looking at races where the R is done by over 30 points, then I'd prefer NE, WV, and MN get some notice before FL. They all have strong challengers polling higher than Harris is." Sample for from A Faurot: "Rep. Harris was on 1270 WFLA this morning talking to the early morning guy and I was impressed."

Under the header "Santorum Begs for Debates" righty Ryan Sager at RCP Blog beats up on Sen. Rick Santorum: "Wow. This is embarrassing. Usually it's the long-shot challenger who has to hound the aloof incumbent for debates. But, down by 52-34, Santorum is the one who's started a Web petition to get Bob Casey to debate him."

From the right NRO's Jim Geraghty looks at the recent Sen. George Allen (R) campaign manager Dick Wadhams and ex-Navy Sec. James Webb (D) aide Steve Jarding spitball fight and shares his personal Jarding experience: "I have something in common with Steve Jarding - we have the same editor on our books at Simon and Schuster. ... Jarding ... well, we're seeing the same tone in his press statements for Webb that turned me off from "Foxes in the Henhouse." It will be interesting to see if Virginia voters share his taste for rage."

Lefty Matt Stoller at MyDD explains that Sen. Maria Cantwell (D) "is not liked among progressives for a variety of reasons" (read Iraq) but that "now she's making net neutrality a campaign issue against her opponent, Mike McGavick. ... Cantwell ... was absolutely with us on this vote. Not only did she vote for net neutrality, she voted against the underlying bill. In other words, having Democrats in the Senate really matters. I've thought since the beginning that this is a voting issue, at least for a certain slice of the electorate. Americans of all parties love their internet, and hate their phone/cable company."

Lefty Talking Points Memo is all over McGavick on social security: "As I noted yesterday, we hear that in private conversations, McGavick is a die-hard phase-out man...only he won't come clean about it in his election campaign. ...Anyway, it seems pretty clear he's a diehard supporter of phase-out but won't come clean about it with the public, which brings us to our contest. So here's the deal. We're holding a contest to see who can get a straight answer out of Mike McGavick on Social Security - against phase out or in favor of it."

DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas asks readers to support ex-cong. aide/businessman Dan Seals: "Seals has lit the locals on fire, and is one of those rare candidates that has widespread local grassroots support, as well as great respect from the DCCC. The 10th is a Democratic district, with a partisan performance index of D+3.6. ... He's been referred to as the "next Obama", and some close observers of the race...cringe at that comparison. But the comparison, whether accurate or not, does hint at the level of excitement Seals is building in the area.

Power Line notes that Jesse Jackson is coming to town to support State Rep. Keith Ellison (D) and takes the opportunity to highlight Ellison's past defense of his connections to the Nation of Islam. PL notes that DFL Party chair Brian Melendez describes any questioning of Ellison's past as "swift-boating" and concludes: "When the press gets around to asking the DFL candidates for governor (Mike Hatch) and Senate (Amy Klobuchar) whether they support Ellison, I anticipate that Melendez will describe the questions as a sign of Swift-boating bigotry."

The fundraising push at lefty MyDD continued with Matt Stoller singing the praises of textile worker turned social studies teacher Larry Kissell: "As a dedicated progressive running in North Carolina's eighth district, he's captured the hearts of the local blogs and local progressive activists. ...NC-08...been heavily hit by corporate trade agreements, with lots of textile factories being closed and heavy job losses. The key issues are gas prices, health care, education, etc, the same ones resonating nationally. The district itself has a Democratic Performance Index of 50.5, and North Carolina Democrats have been looking for a good candidate to challenge incumbent Robin Hayes for years."

The House GOP Conference reached out to sympathetic right bloggers 6/29 14 members including House Whip Roy Blunt (R-MO) and House GOP Conf. Chair Deborah Pryce (R-OH). HumanEvents Online and ShopFloor.org have great roundups of the action including:

• Roy Blunt and Deb Pryce on Medicare Rx Program
• Rep. John Doolittle (CA-04) and Jeb Hensarling (TX-05) on Taxes and Spending
• Rep. Katherine Harris (FL-13) on Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL) and Offshore Drilling
• Scott Garrett (NJ-05) on Bilingual Ballots and N.J. Senate Race
• Cliff Stearns (FL-06) on Bilingual Ballots, UN Waste and Offshore Drilling
• Rep. Pete Hoekstra (MI-2), Rep. Ed Royce (CA-40), Rep. Eric Cantor (VA-07), Rep. Marsha Blackburn (TN-07), Rep. Randy Neugebauer (TX-19), Rep. John Carter (TX-31), and Rep. Todd Akin (MO-02)

If the Blogometer couldn't work for The Hotline, we'd want to work for Rep. Jack Kingston (GA-01). Is there a more fun office on the Hill? For those of you who haven't seen it already here is Kingston and Stephen Colbert on "Journeys With Jack."