Capitol Capitalization Failure?

In the wake of SCOTUS's 6/28 decision on TX redistricting, the left was buzzing over opportunities to use Dem control over state legislatures to hobble GOP House delegations in key states (i.e. IL, NJ, and NM now, and possibly CA, PA, and CO after potential '06 wins). But even from their own ranks, lefties have questions about such efforts. Some wonder if constant re-districting is good for democracy, others look at the way Dems would have to draw lines to copy the GOP tactic (by shuffling base voters around) and wonders if Dem efforts to emulate the strategy would run afoul of the Voting Rights Act since the Dem base is often made up of minority voters.

Also, the Blogometer looks at progressive displeasure with Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) over religion, SEN and HOUSE round ups, and finally a quick jab at campaign finance reform.

SCOTUS: Will What's Good For The Goose Be Good For The Gander?

Election Law breaks SCOTUS' 6/28 LULAC v. Perry inot three key holdingd: "1. Partisan gerrymandering claims remain losers, at least for now. ...2. The Court Appears to Close or Be Closing Other Avenues for Challenging Partisan Redistricting, Including Through Mid-decade Redistricting. ...3. Justice Kennedy Is The Swing Voter on Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, and the Result is a Mixed Bag for Supporters of a Strong Reading of the Act." Rick Pildes at SCOUTSblog has in depth analysis on each of the holdings including: "Justice Kennedy concludes, in essence, that the Voting Rights Act does not permit Latinos to be grouped as Latinos, merely because they share Latino identity and vote for Latino candidates, when they otherwise differ in class status and location in this way. Moreover, Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alitohave laid down a major marker on these issues, for in the Chief's separate opinion, he writes: "It is a sordid business, this divvying us up by race."

Many progressives saw opportunity in the court's failure to strike down partisan mid-decade redistricting.

• Seeing The Forest: "Time For Dems To Redraw Some Maps! This sounds bad. It isn't. Why not? Because it means that states with Democrats in control can now do the same thing."
• The Carpetbagger Report: "This very well may turn out to be one of those be-careful-what-you-wish-for moments for the Republican Party. In recent years, Democrats in DC and at the state level, have played it straight and agreed to abide by approved district lines, even if state power control had shifted since the lines were drawn. Republicans, true to form, have played by different rules, and redrawn district boundaries."
• The Democratic Daily: "Republicans might also come to regret this as Democrats control the executive and legislative branches in Illininois, Maine, New Mexico, New Jersey, North Carolina, Louisiana, Washington and West Virginia, and this could be increased by several states in November.
• Chris Bowers at MyDD: "We have a pretty good chance to take the trifecta this year in California, Colorado, Minnesota and Pennsylvania. We already have the trifecta in Illinois. After the 2006 elections, Democrats need the guts to wake up and realize that the public will not revolt in the face of Republican power grabs, and that Republicans will not play nice because we decide to do so. Redrawing the maps in those states will make it all but impossible for Republicans to hold the House after the 2006 elections."

DavidNYC at Swing State Project urged progressive caution, noting that the make-up of the Dem base might hamper their ability to capitilize on partisanship to the same extent GOPers can: "

Those of you looking for a silver lining might point to #2 and say, "Well, at least we can screw the GOP, too." Indeed, some people are already ticking off a list of states where Dems could stick it to the Republicans: Illinois, California, New York, and so forth. Conceviably, if state legislatures show some spine, this kind of thing could happen. But #3 is, perversely, what gets us. ...But at its core, the VRA says that redistricters must try to maximize the number of "majority-minority" districts. ...But the bottom line is that if you have a state with, say, five majority-minority districts, you can't cut that number down to four to spread some of those Dem-voting minorities around. It would be pretty much flat-out unconstitutional."

Others on the left urged local Dem temperance in redistricting along partisan lines. New Donkey: "But no one should forget that the one place in which a DeLay-style GOP partisan re-redistricting foundered was Colorado, for the simple reason that the state's own constitution banned mid-decade redistricting. Looking ahead to the next decade, states should strongly consider emulating Colorado's ban on the practice of overturning congressional and state legislative maps every time partisan control of state government solidifies or flips."

Typical righty reaction included joy that former House maj. leader Tom DeLay's legacy would live on. But a few also noted the importance of the mid-decade portion of the decision. Right Wing Nuthouse: "Also of note is a part of the decision that may have huge ramifications down the road: The Court ruled that states may redraw district boundaries any time they wish rather than waiting for the Census report that comes out once a decade. This could be very troubling for our democracy. As it stands now, most people do not know who their Congressman is. What would happen if people were shuttled all over the map every couple of years as one party or another took control of the statehouse? I am willing to bet that number would decline even further.

Allahpundit at HotAir thought the decision was great news for federalism: "Which means, obviously, that local elections just got a lot more important vis-a-vis national business. Good news for federalism and better news for the GOP if it rolls craps in the Congressional elections this November but holds power at the state level. We'll see how various state legislatures take the news, and which ones move quickly to press the majority party's advantage."

WH'08: Granite Whining

Lefty bloggers were pleased with 6/28 reports that the DNC authorized an additional primary before NH's contest. DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas: "I want to see the primary stranglehold held by Iowa and New Hampshire ended, and will cheer the day that happens (and it will). Iowa and New Hampshire are not representative of the nation. Not in the least. Their exhalted roles will not last for eternity. ...That New Hampshire is freaking out so much will only harm them long-term. Let them move up their primary. The DNC should retaliate by stripping that primary of its delegate-assigning ability."

Under the header "Anti-Democracy New Hampshire Whines About Expanding Democracy" fellow lefty Chris Bowers at MyDD writes: "Is there really any other way to phrase it? ...New Hampshire is simply acting like any other privileged class has acted throughout history when its un-democratic privilege is under threat. Their arguments in defense of why they should have that privilege are always connected either to a sense of elitism where New Hampshire residents are somehow better able to make decisions than people who live outside of New Hampshire, or to the always anti-democratic appeals to "tradition" where the desires of those alive now are considered worthless when compared to the desires of those who lived in the past.

OBAMA: Not The Dreaded L-Word!

Sen. Barack Obama's (D-IL) 6/28 contribution to a Call to Renewal conference call were not well recieved by the progessive blogging community. Some were so upset they invoked the ultimate progressive epithet. Chris Bowers at MyDD tells Obama: "Well done. Your mentor, Joe Lieberman, would be proud." The Agonist chimes in: "See, now, this is a Lieberman moment. Because what Obama is doing is using Republican talking points about Democrats and religion to criticize his own party."

Other lefties saw a different boogeyman at fault. Pachacutec at firedoglake: "But this bull***t from Barack Obama is Bill Clinton's fault. The greatest victory of the radical right wing has been to train Democratic politicians to disrespect, mischaracterize and run against their base in the progressive movement. And that is Bill Clinton's fault." Ezra Klein also suffered a 90's flashback: "This in Clinton territory, where Barack's raw ability makes him something of a political rorsach, and renders it all the more important to apply close scrutiny to the actual content of his speeches."

Lefty Pam's House Blend announced her exit from the Obama band wagon: "The bloom is off the rose, folks; he must be running in '08. Barack Obama doesn't understand what the real problem is." And Atrios tells Obama he's hurting his cause: "Dear Senator Obama, If you think it's important to court evangelicals, then court them. If, on the other hand, you think it's important to confirm and embrace the false idea that Democrats are hostile to religion in order to set yourself apart, then continue doing what you're doing. It won't help the Democrats, and it probably won't even help you, but whatever makes you happy.

Lefty condmenation was not univeral. Ron Chusid at The Democratic Daily blamed the media for mischaracterizing Obama's speech. Nathan Newman at TPM Cafe looks at fellow lefty reaction and believes his cohorts proved Obama's point: "If you read the whole speech, the almost kneejerk response to Obama pretty much illustrates his point of the discomfort by some progressives in any discussion of religion in the public square. This was a speech to other progressive religious people and I really find it hard to believe people are trashing it so hard, given that he upholds almost all progressive principles. DailyKos spinoff Street Prophets also backed Obama: "Liberal bloggers like Atrois - no fan of religion - are up in arms over the senator's speech but I say, Amen! My denomination is fortunate to have Barack Obama as a member and the United States is fortunate to have him in the Senate."

Liberal Buddhist The Republic of T. wants no part of any Dem/evangelical alliance: "But you don't have to look much further than the Republican to find out what happens when a political party gets in bed with evangelicals. You come out of it a different party, with different priorities, and a powerful new constituency that you'll probably have to keep satisfied if you want to stay in power. And, at the end of the day, that's what it's all about anyway. Getting power. Keeping power. Period."

GORE: Bookseller-in-Chief

Martin Peretz at The Plank looks at strong sales of Al Gore's book An Inconvient Truth and asks: "Do I think this should worry Hillary Clinton? Yes. Not because she hasn't written a book that was on the best-seller list. All you have to do is to take a look at her website to see how scattered her steely mind really is. Her only "brave" position is that she favors a law making burning the American flag a federal crime. My God! ...By the way, Mrs. Clinton has not a word in her compendium of cares about the environment."

KERRY: Machines of Character Destruction

Wade Sanders at Military.com reviews Sen. John Kerry's (D-MA) "participation in a winter 1968 skimmer operation, during his brief assignment to Coastal Division Fourteen" as well as Dr. Louis Leston's account of treating a Kerry wound and concludes: "One can only hope, probably without any possibility of realization, that the Kerry destruction machine, fueled by a consuming hate and a philosophy of destruction, distortions, and lies, will take the time to thoroughly review the totality of the available records and the facts. ...There is absolutely nothing wrong with being angry that John Kerry, as well as hundreds of thousands of other veterans, opposed the Vietnam War. It is, however, terribly wrong to manufacture lies and distortions to satisfy that anger and hate. That energy would be better directed towards the steady dismantling and underfunding of the Veterans Administration."

ROMNEY: A Cult Classic?

Righty Ryan Sager at RCP Blog writes: "Mitt Romney is quickly emerging as the only plausible '08 alternative for social conservatives to more socially moderate frontrunners Rudy Giuliani and John McCain (and, yes, I'm putting them in that order for a reason). The elephant in the room, however, to use my new favorite phrase, is Romney's Mormonism." Sager later links to an On Call (go team!) write up of Romney's appearance on Pat Robertson's 700 Club and comments: "One question: What's his response to people who think Mormonism is a cult? ... Not a promising start."

PA-07: Weldon of Arabia

Ex-Iraq contractor Dave Gaubatz approached Rep. Curt Weldon (R-PA 07) for help to get the U.S. military to investigate four sites where he thinks Saddam's WMD is buried. When the military didn't bite, Weldon did, offering to personally go to Iraq with Rep. Pete Hoesktra (R-MI) (ignoring the minor detail of terrorists run amok), personally excavate the sites and take credit for the WMD if were found -- or cover-up his visit if they weren't. The post-partisan Wonkette recapped the madcap plan, "Weldon decides to take secret trip to Iraq with Peter Hoekstra, get equipment and men, 'go digging by the Euphrates,' find weapons personally. Without telling Pentagon, press, or Democrats. Over Memorial Day weekend. Strangely, it doesn't work out. Curt Weldon, we love you." Lefty Kevin Drum at Washington Monthly shut his eyes, rubbed them and let his jaw hang open: "Did you get that? He was going to take a little jaunt to Nasiriyah, break out his shovel, and start digging around himself -- without telling the military what he was doing. Then, when the glorious shells were found, he was going to call in the press and declare himself Weldon of Arabia, Discoverer of WMD. Ho-lee shit. Pennsylvania can do better than this whackjob, can't they?"

Paul Kiel at TPM Muckracker writes that Gaubatz isn't "some reluctant witness to this aborted adventure. He tells the whole tale on his website, which he started out of frustration after Weldon's adventure never happened. 'I then established this website,' he writes, 'and have informed both Congressmen I will keep updating it until the suspected WMD sites in Iraq are inspected.' Gaubatz, remember, says he knows four sites where there are WMD caches."

Lefty Obsidian Wings'Hilzoy thinks Weldon is "completely unprofessional opinion, just the sort of lunatic we do not need in Congress" and that "all good men and women to come to the aid of their country" and donate to Weldon's opponent, Joe Sestak (D).

UT-03: There's No Crying In Politics

On 6/28 Right Wing News wished it could tell everyone that John Jacob's (R) showing was a "moral victory since Rep. Chris Cannon (R) had everything breaking his way except the illegal immigration issue and Jacob still got 44% of the vote, but moral victories in politics are almost always a cop-out. ... In Chris Cannon, you basically had a candidate who the voters in the primary found acceptable in almost every way, except for his position on illegal immigration." Yet immigration was "such a big deal that 44% of the voters were willing to defect to another candidate because of that one issue. That suggests to me that, at least for this election cycle, being for the Senate's immigration plan could be just as deadly for a Republican as being pro-abortion or pro-gun control."

MN SEN: Down The Memory Hole And Back Up Again

The scale-down of refrerences to Pres. Bush on Rep. Mark Kennedy's (R-06) was inititally exaggerated, but it remained fodder for lefties who gleefully used it as evidence of Bush's unpopularity. But righty Kenendy v. The Machine is using the story to knock the Minneapolis Star Tribune and its page designer: "Old teaser line: 'Bush withdrawn from Mark Kennedy's website -- but not completely.' New repolished one that you put up after being caught: 'Bush still appears on Mark Kennedy's website.' Different headline, but same old hatchet job story. Changing the header doesn't change the fact that you got caught running (again) with Democratic talking points. Do the right thing and issue a retraction."

MT SEN: Go West, Lefties

State Senate Pres. Jon Tester (D) is the apple of lefty blogs' eyes after his debate performance last p.m. and tightening-race with Sen. Conrad Burns (R). Kos has "no doubt that the Montana Senate race has become one of the top two in the country." While Tester decided whether to run, "John Morrison jumped in so everyone then assumed that Morrison money and name recognition would carry the day. That was especially the though in DC, with the beltway conventional wisdom confirmed and endorsed by the Hotline. So it's with great satisfaction and respect for Chuck Todd's honesty that I saw this update to his Senate rankings. ... I have to say, his performance in that debate put him at a whole new level. Somewhere along the line, perhaps on primary election night when his underfunded people-powered movement swept him to victory, he made the transition from "citizen legislator" to "senator". I was honestly shocked. Like Todd, I underestimated Tester, and I already had HUGE respect and hopes for him. p.s. I think I'd move to Montana if my wife let me. But she won't.

Jay Antenen at TPM Cafe writes that changes to Burns' own policy positions shows the race tightening up, because when a western GOP senator "announces legislation to limit future gas, oil and mineral leases on federal lands one of two explanations is available. He has gone mad, or he is facing a tough reelection campaign. This is not quite how...Burns (R) is spinning things, but news that he wants to halt future drilling in the Lewis and Clark National Forest has environmentalists cheering him for a change, energy lobbyists scratching their heads, and...Tester (D) not quite sure what to make of it (a campaign spokesperson offered the Great Falls Tribune this pretty pitiful response).

NJ SEN: Isn't Social Security A Dead Issue?

Talking Points Memo says state Sen. Tom Kean Jr. (R) is a "big phase-out supporter" of Social Security. "On Kean's website he says: 'Tom is committed to keeping the promise of Social Security for current recipients and those nearing retirement. At the same time, changes will be required to keep the program solvent for future generations. ... In the U.S. Senate, Tom will work with Republicans and Democrats to find bipartisan solutions to the long-term challenges facing Social Security, so that this important program can continue to provide retirement security for Americans far into the future.' But last year in the New Jersey state senate he apparently twice voted against a bill calling on President Bush to abandon his plan to phase out Social Security and replace it with private accounts.'"

WA SEN: Another "Square-State Candidate" Gains Popularity

Adam C at Redstate is "very impressed" with ex-Safeco CEO Mike McGavick (R) who has "his own campaign blog and a superb website. More importantly, he is following in the footsteps of Sen. [Slade] Gorton and Mr. [ex-State Sen. Dino] Rossi and their successful brand of Washingtonian Republicanism. Importantly, he is selling himself to moderate Democrats and independents, thus growing the pool of potential Republican voters. ... Republicans could use more people like Mr. McGavick who are reaching out and winning over the disaffected middle in purple and left-of-center states."

DEMOCRATS: We're Going Back To The Future

DNC chair Howard Deantold a religious conference that America is "about to enter the '60s again," but then said he was not referring to the Vietnam War or racial strife. Dean said he's looking for "the age of enlightenment led by religious figures who want to greet Americans with a moral, uplifting vision." SisterToldjah thinks "Dean actually made a few good points, if one sifts through the moral and religious pandering. Such as the acknowledgement of the harm that some of the '60s liberal 'feel good' policies did to our nation." Ankle Biting Pundits tells Dean that the rule about speaking "is this - if you make a statement and have to use the next 5 minutes to talk about what you don't mean, you probably shouldn't make the statement in the first place." Blue Crab Boulevard says Dean and his nostalgic ilk "remember the days of their youth with the rose-colored glasses of what they wished for and dreamed rather than the stark reality of what did happen. Rising crime rates, declining cities, alarming drug use rates, divisive politics, riots and a host of other problems. What they remember is youthful enthusiasm and idealism. Which sadly, led nowhere." Ace Of Spades doesn't know "where people get the idea that the Democratic Party is stuck in the 60's, the party of pot, pacifism, and pwife swapping."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: At Least We'll Know Why An Immigration Deal Failed

Crank at RedState wants to know what RedState's readers priorities are when it come to immigration reform: "Here's the interesting question, though, especially for those who want genuine enforcement but are not fans of legalization plans. Which is more important? If it comes to this, would you blow up an enforcement-plus-legalization bill because stopping anything that has an amnesty or amnesty-like component is more important than improving enforcement? Or would you accept a compromise bill that does both?"

"Assume, for the sake of argument, that these ended up being the only choices as we come down to the end of the year. And assume that (1) the bill involves enforcement provisions that are real, tough, and a genuine improvement, and that (2) the legalization plan does impose some costs and consequences, but nonetheless allows current illegal residents to become citizens more easily than if they just left the country and joined the back of the line for legal entry."

Results at 10 AM 6/29:

Legalization is worse than poor enforcement. I'd rather have
the status quo than anything that smells like amnesty. 44%
Better enforcement is a good thing, and it's worth accepting
a legalization plan. 27%
I'm in favor of both better enforcement and legalization. 16%
Legalization is a good thing, and it's worth accepting
a tough enforcement plan. 6%
Forget enforcement, forget legalization - open the borders
and abolish citizenship requirements! 4%
I'm happy with our immigration laws just as they are. 3%

LEST WE FORGET I: Passive Aggressive Narcissists (Not So) Anonymous

The blogosphere is often the ideal forum for deep philosophical debates about the great issues of the day. And sometimes its not. From Instapundit: "

Andrew Sullivan is calling me passive aggressive for linking this post by Jeff Goldstein. I didn't really think it was about Andrew, but it seems that these days, everything is about Andrew. Except Andrew's blog, which seems to devote a disproportionate amount of attention to me. It's funny, though, that Kos called me "passive aggressive" in an email to the Townhouse email list and now Sullivan's repeating the phrase. (Of course, compared to Kos, everyone's passive-aggressive). But then, Jeff Goldstein was announcing Sullivan's transformation into a Kos diarist ages ago. I guess he was just ahead of the curve.

LEST WE FORGET II: But Do They Have The Bloomin' Onion?

The Blogometer could rip an item off of The Onion everyday for a LEST, but we do so as little as possible. This item was just too good to pass up.

McCain, Feingold Co-Sponsor Chain Of Integrity-Themed Eateries

Citing a longstanding need to "restore honor and dignity to the American food-service industry," Sens. John McCain (R-AZ) and Russ Feingold (D-WI) announced the public debut of their joint business venture Monday, a chain of integrity-themed restaurants which opened in 12 locations nationwide. The new Russ and John's chain, which the two senators funded privately via small financial donations of no more than $2,000 per investor, was founded on the idea that "today's customers want quality food without all the lies and exaggerations that all too often accompany it," according to McCain.

In an effort to avoid the "thinly veiled bribery" found in the majority of restaurants, Russ & John's prohibit tips, disparaging them as "the worst kind of soft money," according to the "Message From The Founders" on the restaurant's menu. Instead, management will distribute company-issued "server grants," intended to prevent undue influence on the waitstaff's performance and ensure that every customer receives the same quality service.

"Our servers are not there to just tell you what you want to hear," McCain said. "If a customer asks how the Zesty Three-Cheese Ranch Chicken Platter is, and if it's not particularly good, they're going to be up-front with you and say, 'Frankly, the chicken is not that good.'"

"Their heart is in the right place, but I don't ever see myself eating there, especially when there's a McConnell's Pork Barrel right across the street," said Sen. George Allen (R-VA), referring to the barbecue-style eatery owned and operated by Kentucky Sen. Mitch McConnell, known for its controversial "lawmakers-and-campaign-donors-eat-free" policy. "Who wants to eat at a place that bans complimentary soda refills on ethical grounds?" Allen added.