Lost in the stories of Tuesday’s tight races was the best race Republicans ran: Hoeven for Senate.  In the words of Sun Tzu, “Every battle is won before it is fought.”  The best way to win a Senate race is to win it long before Election Day.  With Jon Bruning’s announcement today, we have the opportunity to line up a Senate pick-up without the nuisance and chance of a campaign.

Nebraska Attorney General Jon Bruning announced the formation of an exploratory committee for a bid to take on Sen. Ben Nelson.  Nelson, you will recall, was going to join Republicans in filibustering the health care bill until he received the Cornhusker Kickback, giving Nebraska 100% funding for Medicaid expansion.  By contrast, AG Bruning was among fourteen Attorneys General to sue the federal government over the constitutionality of the bill.  He has also been a leader in fighting against Medicare fraud.

His top priority as Attorney General was the protection of children.  In 2004, Bruning was a leader in pushing for legislation targeting online sex offenders, making it a crime to lure children online.  He also worked with legislators to enact new laws offering civil remedies to the victims of child pornography.

During his time as a state Senator, Bruning was a leader for pro-life causes.  He has had the backing of Nebraska Right to Life in every election for which he has stood.  He earned that endorsement not only by supporting pro-life legislation, but by actually sponsoring it.  As AG, he helped draft the Abortion Pain Prevention Act, and testified in support of legislation that created civil penalties for causing the death of an unborn child.

Prior to Sen. Chuck Hagel’s retirement, Bruning had announced his campaign for Senate back in 2007.  He would have received the backing of the Club for Growth had it not been for the entry of then-Gov. Mike Johanns, whose record the Club also liked.  If elected, Bruning will be a strong voice for a smaller federal government.

Although other Republicans are eying the race, the highly popular Bruning, who has been unopposed in his last two bids for Attorney General, is likely the strongest candidate now that Gov. Heineman has taken himself out of consideration.  Rather than waiting until later in the campaign season, perhaps after Sen. Nelson has made up his decision, now is the best time to make a contribution to Jon Bruning.  As EMILY’s (Early Money Is Like Yeast) List knows, early contributions weigh more heavily than late ones, as they can both build momentum and scare away opponents.  If we show strong support for Bruning now, there’s a great chance that we can scare Nelson into retirement and chalk up an early ’12 victory without having to fight the battle.

Sorry to break it to you, but our work is not done just because all of the votes in races other than IL-GOV and WA-SEN have been cast and mostly counted (yet to be recounted, miscounted, and challenged).  Celebrate, yes, but don’t let the celebration distract you from the fact that there is at least one more battle to be fought.

It is abundantly clear, or, rather, I would like it to be, that President Obama will have a considerably more difficult job of getting his way over the next two years than in the past two years.  That is, sadly, with one crucial exception.  That exception is central to the reason that many of us fight at all.

For the last two years, the Senate Judiciary Committee has had twelve Democrats and seven Republicans.  Over that time, they have recommended two people to the full Senate for confirmation to the Supreme Court.  Both of those votes were 13-6.  In both cases, Sen. Lindsey Graham was the sole member to break with his party.  In doing so, he aided and abetted in the confirmation of two people who showed utter contempt for the proper role of the judiciary, the legislative branch, and the Constitution itself.  If you don’t believe me, I refer you to Sonia Sotomayor’s comment that the courts are where policy is made.  What’s more, he gave cover to Republicans in the full Senate who otherwise would have a considerably more difficult time supporting those confirmations.

Last night, Americans told Washington that, in spite of what has happened over the last century, the Constitution still means something.  Although ideology is a part of that, the clearer statement is a strong reminder that government derives its authority from the consent of the governed, and the American people do not consent to the government’s repeated usurpation of power.  As Americans, our consent is grounded in the Constitution, which separates and limits the powers of the various branches of government, and, indeed, the government as a whole.  Lindsey Graham, however, failed to do his job to defend the Constitution, and the limitations and divisions it contains, by supporting the Supreme Court confirmation of two people certain to amend, extend, revise, rewrite, or, if necessary, just simply ignore it.

Sadly, though, believers in limited government, separation of powers, and the Constitution did not have the opportunity to punish the Senator for his dereliction of duty in these elections.  Now we do.  I propose that we make it our cause over the next couple of weeks to see to it that the Senate Republicans remove Senator Graham from the Judiciary Committee and replace him with, among others, Senator-elect Mike Lee.  The voters have shown that they are serious about restoring the sorely lacking respect that is shown for the Constitution.  Now it is time for Senate Republicans to demonstrate that they understand that message.

In every election cycle, pundits, political fans, activists, and anyone else paying attention talks about “the undecideds”, “late breakers”, or whatever once awe struck, over the top, deifying term they want to use to describe the people who they believe will determine the outcome of an election.  Sometimes they’re critical, e.g. 2000 and 2002.  Other times, they just determine the margin of victory, e.g. 2006 and 2008.

If you eat, sleep and breathe politics, you might want to sit down for this one: in the eyes of most of those who were undecided until the last minute, there wasn’t much difference between the parties.  Like it or not, there was and is a very prevalent “they all suck” sentiment, and the decisions in those elections, the few Obama sycophants notwithstanding, was a decision on which kind of suck they were willing to live with at the time.  All but a few activists, including if not especially those here, have had “they all suck” moments, and those who haven’t will if they stay involved long enough.  Even so, out of habit, civic duty, indoctrination, coercion (if you live in Philadelphia), or whatever else, many of those identified as undecided likely voters made their decisions and cast their ballots.

Allow me to posit that this year is different.  There is, to be sure, a very palpable “they all suck” mentality.  The majority of voters still don’t like or trust Republicans, though most seem to like or trust Democrats less.  Even those on this site need to keep reminding ourselves why we give a damn when we hear the “we know we have to compromise” comments, or the joke of a Contract with America 2.0.  Individually, there are some candidates we’d really like to see elected.  Speaking for myself, though, I still have to say that on the whole, both parties still suck.

So what’s the difference?

In all those years, the late deciders had an option they could live with.  In none of those cases was the entirety of the federal government, or, in most cases, government at every level, Republican and Democrat, so unpopular.  That’s why this year is unique.  The overwhelming majority of voters who have had it with the Democrats have made up their minds to vote Republican, even if they don’t like it.  Those voters can live with Republicans.  They have made the determined that stopping the Obama agenda is reason enough to compromise with themselves and create some balance in Washington, regardless of whether they like, trust, or agree with Republicans.  Although I’ve never been a late decider, I can say that I certainly don’t like or trust Republicans, and I can’t say whether I agree with them because, while there are individual stars, I’m not sure they stand for anything as a Party.  Similarly, those who are either full-fledged behind the Obama agenda or willing to defeat Republicans at all cost are already voting Democrat.

So what of the undecideds?  There is no likable figure at the top of either ticket, as there was in 2000 and 2008.  There is no rally to the CoC as there was in 2002.  There is a “throw the bums out” mentality, but both Republicans and Democrats are viewed as bums as there was in 2006.  It’s been a long time since Americans have been enamored with their politicians, but it is similarly rare to see both parties struggling to get to 40% approval combined.  So what does this mean for the undecideds?

As I mentioned above, people vote for a variety of reasons.  The gamut of voters runs from people who live and breathe politics 24/7/365 to the casual observer who tunes in once every two or four years.  Obviously, voters who decide at the last minute tend toward the latter.  While members here, and our counterparts on the left, are either gung ho for one lot of candidates or dead set against the other, undecided voters who don’t follow it as much are just fed up with the whole system.  In previous years, they may have decided that one party was marginally better than the other.  At this point, though, I suspect that those people don’t think either party is better, that there is no lesser evil.  As a result, I expect that they will sit out in much, much higher numbers than usual.

If I am correct, this means that last minute swings are unlikely, and that the final results, rather than swinging heavily toward one candidate – usually the challenger, are likely to have results that are very, very nearly proportional to the results of the final polls before the election.  If, and it is a big if, this is correct, candidates in tight races and their allies should at this point more or less stop focusing on undecided voters and concentrate almost exclusively on getting out the vote.  It may seem risky, but I think it’s the best course of action.

Washington, DC has a unique culture unlike any place on the planet (at least that I can think of, correct me if I’m wrong).  Most capital’s are cities.  They have a wide cross-section of people, not necessarily unlike those in the rest of the country.  Government offices are fairly well integrated with the rest of the city.   Members of congresses and parliaments integrate fully into a much larger context.  To be sure, the culture surrounding them is usually biased toward cities, but the overwhelming majority of politicians aren’t separated nearly as cleanly from private citizens as those in the District.

For those who have never been to Washington, the greater DC area is generally divided into three parts: government employees, the political class, and the urban poor.  The district is designed such that there is a clear division between government buildings and the rest of the city.  In particular, the area surrounding the Mall is well-kept, and often bustling with tourists or protesters who are there to feel a part of the District’s history and power.  There are several government buildings in the area, including the White House, the Capitol, several museums, etc.  The area is distinct, and the awe of the power and history is palpable.

Outside of that, there are nice residential areas both in the District itself and in the suburbs of Virginia and Maryland.  These are inhabited mainly by government employees, but also by political-types, i.e. lobbyists, reporters, Congressional staffers, etc.  The friends, neighbors of politicians, and the parents of their childrens’ classmates (in many cases) are those who are employed by the government.  In addition to the natural desire to think highly of the people around them comes the fact that their decisions could lead to the unemployment of the couple next door, their child’s best friend’s father, etc.  Government, in the minds of politicians who go to Washington, doesn’t protect and serve the people who sent them to Washington.  It now provides jobs to their entire communities.

The other group is the impoverished, who live in crime-ridden neighborhoods with massive unemployment and huge drug problems.  These people are largely separated from the two other groups.  Politicians usually don’t encounter them in their daily lives.  They only see enough to know that many of the people in those neighborhoods rely heavily on government support, be it for food, shelter, work, whatever.  Again, government is the savior.

Given this environment, it is not necessarily surprising that politicians change when they get to Washington.  Some change quickly, immediately awed by the power of the place.  They see those who came before them telling them how things work.  They have the importance and power of government impressed upon them.  Others change slowly, as they become further and further removed from the environment whence they came.  Washington culture absorbs them.  Whereas in other world capitals, the government is among the people, in Washington government is separated from them.  All of the people with whom they come into contact, be they other politicians, Congressional staffers, reporters,  government employees, etc. are in Washington, directly or indirectly, because of the power that resides there.

This culture becomes all the more intoxicating in the United States Senate, Washington’s most exclusive club.  The world’s greatest deliberative body, as it’s probably now known only to its members, has a unique awe to it.  Its members have the longest terms of any federal elected officials, and recent years notwithstanding, its turnover is notoriously low.  Outside of dictatorships, where else can people remain in positions of such power for nearly half a century?  Even Presidents, egos though they have, are accountable after four years and know that they are finished after eight.  In many cases, once membership is experienced, the worst possible thing a politician can imagine is losing it.  Indeed, most Senators who hit the three-term mark probably don’t even entertain the notion.

Given the strength of the desire of Senators to maintain their positions, self-preservation, consciously or unconsciously, becomes their guiding force.  Since the status quo is what got them there (often enough) and is certainly what kept them there, the last thing a Senator wants to do is rock the boat.  That is not a small part of the reason that both parties prioritize protecting their own incumbents.  In turn, many members follow the leadership in matters political  – as opposed to policy – hoping to remain in the good graces of the powers that be.  In some cases, this is thanks to a bet that support for that leadership will either go unnoticed by constituents, or, if noticed, be drowned out by the reelection support that stems from that support.  Again, though, consciously or unconsciously, they also desire to maintain the cafe society aura of the Senate.  It would be impolite, if you will, to change things too much.  Just look what happens when people like Jim DeMint and Sen. Trainwreck somehow get invited to the party!

This delicate balance of support for the leadership in exchange for the support of the leadership, however, is in serious jeopardy today.  I need not restate the battles that have been fought this cycle between the establishment and the grassroots.  To this point, McConnell’s candidates have probably won enough races that the perception of the value of his support is strong enough to keep Senators in line.  All things being equal, the default assumption is that it is better to have the current Leadership’s support than to take any risks.  Indeed, it is in every Senator’s interest to vote for the winner in a leadership election.  I will posit that that is why McConnell is correct in his assessment that he has the votes to be reelected as the Republican leader.

The problem for McConnell, though, is that that situation could be changing.  This year’s primary battles have generally been fought on ground where he could afford to lose.  In every case in which a McConnell-backed candidate has lost, Republicans nominated competitive candidates.  Even with the Angle victory in Nevada making that race more difficult, Republicans have not yet turned a toss-up or Republican-leaning race into a Democrat-leaning race.

As such, the Delaware Senate race is unique.  Although it is a small state and it could be problematic to read too much into a race with fewer primary votes than many mayoral primaries have, it could provide a strong indicator of the value of McConnell’s support.  Indeed, his unpopularity with many conservative activists causes association with him to be toxic, though not deadly, to many Senators, especially those who have been in Washington a long time.  To this point, though, the damage inflicted by the poison has seemed less than the alternative.

Should Republican voters in Delaware dispense with Castle, knowing full well that such a move would make the seat much more difficult (impossible?) to hold, just how valuable will McConnell’s support be?  Indeed, if McConnell’s support is used as a fundraiser and rallying cry for insurgent candidates, could it actually be more injurious than helpful?

Just months ago, the prospect of Republicans taking over the Senate was considered laughable.Now, it is clear to all that control of the chamber hangs in the balance.With roughly half of the thirty-seven seats in play, Republicans have a realistic opportunity to snag just enough seats to win the gavel.Even so, Democrats still hold the advantage, as Republicans would need to net ten seats to take over.

According to Charlie Cook’s ratings, only seventeen of the seats up can be considered safe.Not all seats are equal, though, and many of those currently lean Republican, with one leaning very heavily toward the Democrats.Some of those leaners could easily close.Republicans in Colorado , Missouri , New Hampshire , Ohio and Pennsylvania have started to create some daylight in races that had previously been considered too close to call, and Rand Paul, though he has had some recent troubles, continues to lead Jack Conway in Kentucky. Those races are hardly over, but they’re certainly looking good. In West Virginia, Gov. Joe Manchin III leads John Raese and is considered the heavy favorite, though a recent Rasmussen survey suggests that the President’s abysmal approval ratings (29/70 approve/disapprove) in the state could make the race more competitive than previously thought. As far as more marginal races are concerned, Republicans will take over Arkansas and North Dakota and are running strong leads in Delaware and Indiana. Senators David Vitter and Richard Burr, though not out of the water, also have consistently led in their reelection bids.

If West Virginia goes Republican, it probably means that the GOP wave was already big enough to put Republicans back in the Majority, and the Mountain state would give Republicans our fifty-second seat.If any of the Republican-leaning races goes back to pure toss-up status, Republicans will gain seats, but probably not enough to get to fifty-one, or even fifty.With that in mind, let’s take a look at the seven seats that are likely to determine control of the Senate.Republicans would need to win five to take over.

California

Sen. Barbara “Ma’am” Boxer has represented California in the Senate since 1993, but could her reign finally be coming to an end?Although she represents one of the most liberal states in the country, Boxer’s confused priorities may finally render her too out of touch with her constituents.Former HP CEO Carly Fiorina said that extremist environmentalists have “captured her theology” in her support of the Delta Smelt. The Delta Smelt, for those unfamiliar, is protected under the Endangered Species Act. In order to protect it, the government turned off water in the San Joaquin Valley, costing thousands of Californians their jobs. Although her support for the fish may earn her the appreciation of the fish, people tend to outvote our finned friends by large margins. Throw in the fact that Boxer was more interested in discussing whether a Brig. Gen. Michael Walsh should call her “ma’am” or “Senator” during a hearing about Louisiana coastal restoration after Katrina and you have a race made very tight by voters who aren’t sure where the Senator’s priorities are. It’s no surprise, then, that Boxer hasn’t hit 50 in a poll since January. This race will likely turn on whether Californians vote for Senator or Majority Leader.

Connecticut

Most people assumed this race was over the day Sen. Chris Dodd announced that he would not seek reelection.Democrat AG Richard Blumental, who has held his office for a couple of decades, was considered the prohibitive favorite when he entered.Republicans, well, all but Linda McMahon , threw in the towel. Plagued by an early scandal that broke in the New York Times of all papers, Blumenthal took a major hit in the polls and many thought he might have to abandon his campaign. Democrats successfully turned the issue to Republican Illinois candidate Mark Kirk, though, who had a similar problem, and the issue seemed to disappear. Once he weathered the storm, it again appeared that Republicans had little chance.

Recent polls , though, show that Blumenthal, who hasn’t had a serious race in years, is at or under 50%. What’s more, the last two polls of the race show him with two of his three lowest numbers (50% and 47%) and McMahon with two of her strongest (40/40). Democrats early on referred to Blumenthal as Martha Coakley in pants. While his demise has been slower, his numbers are headed in the same direction as hers. At this point, the real question seems to be, “Can Dick Blumenthal run out the clock?” With just over two months to go and his poll numbers slowly but surely eroding, it’s not clear that he can.

Florida

Will voters trust Charlie Crist?That is the big question in what is arguably the most compelling Senate race of the cycle.Early in the Republican primary, many considered Gov. Charlie Crist the prohibitive favorite not just for the primary but for the general election.Enter Marco Rubio . The conservative golden boy of the cycle rose to the challenge and, through a swell of grassroots support, made it abundantly clear to everyone, including Crist, that there was simply no way for the sitting Governor to win the nomination. Rather than concede defeat graciously, Crist abandoned the Party and decided to run as an independent.

Apparently, though, that decision has confused the Governor.He quickly scrapped the pro-life section of his website and hired a Schumer staffer to run his campaign.This week, he has struggled with questions on the caucus he would choose, as well as his evolving developing ever changing positions on health care and gay marriage. Perhaps his statements on health care, though, offer a glimpse of his party of choice, as he channeled John Kerry on healthcare. He was against it before he was for it before he was against it.

This race will come down to one simple question: Will Floridians elect a man who could determine control of the Senate without knowing with which party he would caucus?

Illinois

In a battle of two scandal-plagued candidates, one of them has to win.Democrat Alexi Giannoulias made bad loans at a bank that ultimately collapsed and was taken over by the government.Democrats had talked about his withdrawal from the race when the bank collapsed, but Republican Rep. Mike Kirk provided a lifeline when it was revealed that, like CT Dem Richard Blumenthal, he had embellished his military record.It’s no surprise, then, that in the sixteen polls taken this year, only one candidate in one polls has cracked 45%.It should help Kirk, though, that Republican Bill Brady has opened up a lead on Democrat Pat Quinn in the Governor’s race.If the current margin holds, Giannoulias will have to rely on a lot of ticket-splitting.Given that the financial crisis is a major issue this year, it is difficult to see many people changing over to vote for him.

This dirty campaign will only get dirtier, and the winner will likely be determined based on which scandals with which voters can more easily live.

Nevada

Majority Leader Harry Reid looked dead in the water until he started hammering Republican nominee Sharon Angle . The bad news is that Sen. Reid has closed the gap and is now running even with Angle. The good news is that the Senator seems stuck in the mid-40s. That’s not devastating for the Senator because Nevada does have a “None of these candidates” option on the ballot. Since the primary, it has seemed that Reid is campaigning more for that option than himself. Angle, for her part, has been reminding Nevadans of why Reid is so unpopular, hammering Reid on the housing crisis and unemployment. A political purist might like to think that this will come down to whether voters see Angle as a viable alternative to Reid. In fact, though, Reid’s fate could be determined in large part by his son’s race. Rory Reid trails Gov. Brian Sandoval by high double digits. In a tight race in a bad year for Democrats, can Reid really count on 15% or more of Sandoval voters not supporting Angle?

Washington

Sen. Patty Murray has had competitive races before, winning all three of her races with less than 60%.Republican two-time gubernatorial nominee Dino Rossi , however, is used to closer match-ups, losing two races by less than 2%. Is it third time lucky for Rossi?

Unlike other Democrats in tight races, Murray has flirted with the 50% mark and led in most polls, albeit very narrowly.Indeed, since he declared his candidacy, each candidate has held a seven point lead in one poll, with the other polls not showing more than a 4-point differential.A quick glance at the candidates’ websites offers a clear contrast in the two candidates.Sen. Murray is campaigning on a platform of raising taxes and spending while Dino Rossi is talking about fiscal responsibility . The two candidates offer voters a choice of ideologies in a relatively clean race. With polls suggesting that the race is a toss-up, this race likely hinges on turnout.

Wisconsin

Many analysts wrote this race off the moment former Gov. Tommy Thompsondecided against a bid, but when entrepreneur Ron Johnson entered the race, he was immediately even with Sen. Russ Feingold, arguably the most liberal member of the Senate. All but one poll since May has had the two candidates within the margin of error. Most notably, three term incumbent has been unable to crack 46%. Johnson’s personal fortune will enable him to match Feingold’s spending through the election. Johnson’s recent introductory ad humorously portrayed him as an outsider, an image that provides a stark contrast to someone who has been in elective office since President Reagan’s first term. After decades in office and months of campaigning, Russ Feingold will need half of the undecided against a political newcomer and relative unknown. It’s hard to see how that happens.

Just days ago, President Obama weighed in on what has become a national controversy, the building of a mosque at Ground Zero, voicing his support for the “right” of Muslims to build a mosque at the site.  His subsequent comments notwithstanding, his statement nationalized the issue.  Whether one thinks that it should have been nationalized or not, those in the area deserve to have their elected officials ensure that their voices are heard.

According to a recent Quinnipiac poll, 73% of Staten Island voters oppose construction of the mosque compared with just 14% who support it.  With at least 100 mosques in New York City, the project could hardly be viewed as an attempt to fill a need in the community.  Many local politicians have spoken out on the issue, from gubernatorial candidate Rick Lazio’s firm opposition to Mayor Bloomberg’s strong support.  One politician, however, has been deafeningly silent on the issue: Staten Island Congressman Mike McMahon (D-Staten Island).  Given that 263 islanders were killed in the World Trade Center attacks, one would think that the man they elected to represent them would serve as their voice in the debate.  Those with friends or family who were killed, as well as those who work in lower Manhattan every day, deserve as much.  Sadly, though, Congressman McMahon is nowhere to be found.

By contrast, Michael Grimm, who has the backing of Sarah Palin and John McCain in his race for the Republican nomination, had this to say:

“As a member of the FBI, I worked alongside other first-responders at Ground Zero in the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks,” Grimm said. “I saw the direct consequences of Islamic terrorism in the carnage on the pile, and the desperation on the faces of those seeking word on the whereabouts of their loved ones. For the president of the United States to now say this area should embrace the religious zealots who were behind this cowardly attack is going much too far.”

Grimm, a Republican-Conservative candidate for congress, continued: “The decision to place a mosque and ‘cultural center’ just a stone’s throw from the site of that terrorist attack is an affront to decency and a sign of disrespect to the memory of the nearly 3,000 innocent lives claimed that day.”

This is just the latest dust up surrounding Congressman McMahon, who recently released a statement talking about Grimm’s “Jewish money”.  Said Jennifer Nelson, McMahon’s now former spokesman, “There is a lot of Jewish money, a lot of money from people in Florida and Manhattan, retirees.”  McMahon has since fired the spokesman, but the damage was already done.

Whether members of the press bother to push McMahon to take a stance at this point is irrelevant.  He has already missed the boat and shown that he is oblivious to the concerns of his constituents.  Staten Islanders deserve better.

Even when Sen. Chris Dodd was seeking reelection with his anemic poll numbers, I was less than confident that Republicans had a shot at winning in Connecticut.  When he announced his retirement, shortly followed by the entry of popular Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, I pretty much thought that game was over.  Yes, yes, we won in the Peoples Republic of Massachusetts, but there were extenuating circumstances – a special election, a major debate that we were winning handily, major concerns about the expansion of government, and probably the only Democrat in the state who could’ve lost the race on the ballot.  As such, I really didn’t think much of it when I saw this article last month saying that some Democrats were referring to Blumenthal as “Martha Coakley in pants”.

Why should we have a shot?  Blumenthal is a well liked Attorney General who has gone around for the last two decades showing that he identifies with the people, including the military.  Unlike many Democrats, Blumenthal has not only supported the military, but actually served in Vietnam and paid the price for doing so:

“We have learned something important since the days that I served in Vietnam,” Mr. Blumenthal said to the group gathered in Norwalk in March 2008. “And you exemplify it. Whatever we think about the war, whatever we call it — Afghanistan or Iraq — we owe our military men and women unconditional support.”

Jean Risley, Chairwoman of the Vietnam Veteran’s Memorial Inc. of Connecticut, recalled a speech Mr. Bluementhal gave at a memorial:

“It was a sad moment,” she recalled. “He said, ‘When we came back, we were spat on; we couldn’t wear our uniforms.’ It looked like he was sad to me when he said it.”

Except for one tiny little almost insignificant detail:

Ms. Risley later telephoned the reporter to say she had checked into Mr. Blumenthal’s military background and learned that he had not, in fact, served in Vietnam.

After at least five deferments, he got into the Marine Corps Reserves.

“The Reserves were not being activated for Vietnam and were seen as a shelter for young privileged men,” Mr. Curry said.

So what exactly did the Marine Corps Reserves do?

In the 1970s, the unit’s members were dispatched to undertake projects like refurbishing tent decks and showers at a campground for underprivileged Washington children, as well as collecting and distributing toys and games as part of regular Toys for Tots drives.

Now there’s no problem with people getting deferments from the military, nor a problem with electing officials who haven’t seen combat.  There is, however, a big problem with politicians inventing military records.  He outright lied to veterans, and did so on more than one occassion.  Standing alone, Mr. Blumenthal’s comments should at the very least make any voter think twice about whether he can actually be trusted on anything.  I’ll leave it to the veterans to rip him a new one for saying that he served in a war zone as opposed to a toys for tots zone, though I hear two-year-olds can be vicious.

On top of that, though, is the fact that Blumenthal made these comments, repeatedly I might add, with no need to do so.  These comments were made well after he was first elected AG and he hasn’t had a competitive race since.  He didn’t simply lie, but he did so without even having a reason.  Apparently, his political acumen is such that he thought he could say things without anybody ever check up on them.  Well, as AG, he could.  A US Senate race is a different ball game.

I was doubtful about just how bad of a candidate he was at first.  Now I have a better idea.  The Democrats have their convention this weekend, so they do have a few days to come up with a better candidate.  I hear Martha Coakley might be interested.

It’s certainly encouraging to see the rising crop of conservative/libertarian candidates throughout the country. We’re definitely moving in the right direction, and political victories are slowly but surely piling up. I can’t help but think, though, that many of the politicians in Washington went to Washington for similar reasons and rose to power in similar ways, albeit in more isolated instances. Upon arriving, they found themselves in the Washington echo chamber. At first, they resisted. After a while, though, they had spent so much time with their colleagues and so much time among the pseudo-cognoscenti that they forgot why they went in the first place, and now know only that they want to stay there. (Pay attention, Sen. Cornyn.) Now, some of them are precisely the people we’re working to replace. As we move forward, I think it important that we work to avoid a recurrence of the same problem. Here’s one way that I think we can do that, while also helping to win more elections.

Most of us here agree on some basic principles, best articulated in the Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness,” though George Mason and the Virginia Convention of Delegates also emphasized property. Most on the right view the foundation of these rights as being grounded in the notion of a Creator who endowed us with a Divine Law. A subset of Divine Law, in our view, though, is the Natural Law. The Natural Law is valid in and of itself, and many atheists and agnostics use this as the basis of the notion of rights. Either way, there is a higher claim to these rights than the endowment of them by any government. Indeed, we reject the notion that government has the power to endow rights; it can only secure them.

Many activists, and some candidates, should and do sufficiently reflect on these notions. This is also a good point to mention that those who do give sufficient consideration to these principles recognize quite easily when candidates are only paying them lip service. Most of the rest of the country, though, does not often reflect on these ideas. They recognize the importance of these principles when presented with them, but all too often, we fail to present them. We get caught up in discussions of budgets, deficits, logistics, to some extent monetary policy, etc. We are all subject to this danger because we do need to discuss such things, but we must be ever so careful to keep the principles foremost in the mind and the discussion when doing so. Washington accelerates this process tremendously, as countless bills come up for discussion with interest groups and constituents sometimes discussing but often whining about the practical effects of this or that, and threatening the careers of those who oppose giving them their “fair share” of government handouts or protection. It’s fair to say that elected officials are overwhelmed with competing interests.

That said, I think that candidates would do well to follow this piece of advice: Begin every discussion, every speech, every debate, with principles. Tell people where you’re coming from, because most of them, regardless of how often they think deeply about it, are coming from the same place. Tell them what you recognize as the source of these principles – typically Divine or Natural Law, but that depends on you, not on me. Then apply the principles to the issue before you. Come back to them often. Finish with them. How you apply these principles to a given situation is less important than the conclusion that you reach. Most of us will work with politicians who disagree with us on a particular issue if we understand why they do so. We’d generally rather have politicians who may, in one circumstance or another, disagree on particular policy positions because of a different application of the same principles than a politician who checks all the right boxes but whose only reason for doing so is that they want to be in Congress (or the Governor’s mansion, state legislature, White House, etc.).

What will this do for you?

For starters, you’ll win the activists over quickly and easily. We want candidates who “get it”, who understand the notion that policy shouldn’t be determined by parochial interests but by the application of principles to given situations. Not only will these politicians vote the right way on known issues, but they will also have a consistent approach to new issues that arise and, more importantly, they will publicly articulate positions on all of these to the public at large. They will help us win debates by effectively making our case to the American people.

Second, you’ll win votes. People who have long forgotten such principles as those stated in the Declaration of Independence will be drawn back to them when they finally hear them again from the last person they might expect – a politician. Voters respond to politicians often on the basis of getting this or that because that’s what politicians promise. The Republican says I’ll give you tax cuts, the Democrat says I’ll give you social programs, and both say you won’t have to pay for them. So, voters make that choice. If voters actually hear a politician working from principles, though, in this case TANSTAAFL, the same principles they were taught to recognize in elementary school, they’ll respond to them just as excited fifty year olds do when they see a child with a slinky.

Third, you’ll win issues. Your colleagues may or may not respond when they are reminded of the principles that you espouse. Voters will. If you effectively put forth a principle-based vision and then apply that to the issue of the day, the American people will respond. They will contact their officials and attempt to influence their votes. If they are successful, great. If not, they will replace them in the next election.

Finally, you’ll win yourself. Getting into the habit of starting with principles will remind you every time you open your mouth of why you ran for office in the first place. You’ll remember what was wrong. You’ll remember how the Washington (or Albany, or Jefferson City) echo chamber had changed people, and you will insulate yourself from that by always retaining your own voice, and the voice of those who came before you. You will not fall victim to the same institutional group think that you went there to fix.

I hope that candidates and activists (including me, as I haven’t always done so) will heed this advice. It will help us to restore the America from which we have so far drifted.

In reading some of the early comments about the nomination of Solicitor General Kagan on this site, I have been troubled by the reactions of some.  While I normally respond to such things in the comments, I thought this issue important enough to warrant a diary entry.

For starters, let me be clear that at this point I neither support nor oppose the nomination.  I am necessarily suspect of any of the President’s judicial nominations in light of his campaign comments with regard to how he would select his nominees.  His selection of now-Justice Sonia Sotomayor only served to exacerbate those concerns.  In Sotomayor’s case, though, there was a history of writing and speaking that suggested that she was unfit to serve, most notably her statement that the courts are where policy is made.  Her fundamental misunderstanding of the separation of powers alone was sufficient to disqualify her from the bench.  Alas, it did not.  In this nomination, though, no such history exists, or, more precisely, if there is such a history, it has yet to emerge publicly.

One concern that people have expressed about her nomination is her lack of experience as a judge.  The Supreme Court, they will argue, is not a training ground.  That’s fair enough.  I disagree.  If I had my way, the Supreme Court would be a bunch of average literate Joes applying a two-hundred plus year old document to the facts before them rather than people who have spent years engaging in mental gymnastics to bring about results that should be determined by the political process.  That aside, though, a lack of experience is a legitimate argument against her confirmation.

Another concern that people have expressed is her role in Harvard’s policy that prohibited recruitment by organizations that discriminate based on sexual orientation.  They view this as “anti-military” and have serious questions about whether she may demonstrate such a bias in her rulings and/or  whether she is simply not patriotic enough to serve in the federal government.  Again, I disagree.  I consider those to be social/political opinions, which it is important to remember are entirely separate from judicial philosophy and temperament.  Even so, I can not and will not begrudge people of those concerns.  It’s a reasonable argument against her confirmation.

Beyond that, though, there have been some seriously troubling comments made by people who are making assumptions that may be reasonable but are yet unproven, those who are equating political opinions with judicial ones, and those who are hoping to rewrite the Constitution.  Three examples jump out:

Kagan will be confirmed…

Simply because Republicans such as Orrin Hatch don’t believe in filibustering these people without huge cause. Kagan is ultraliberal…but unless there is something I haven’t seen, she will get the votes needed.

Of course, beware nominating someone without a record…remember Souter and Warren.

http://neoavatara.com/blog/?p=10891

Neoavatara makes two glaring errors here.  First, he (I apologize if I’m mistaken on your sex, Neoavatara) asserts that Kagan is ultraliberal without offering any evidence to support the claim.  While it is reasonable to assume that she is, we don’t know that and can’t prove it.  We risk losing tremendous credibility when we make assertions that we can’t back up.  Second, “ultraliberal” is a term – if used – that is best left to the political spectrum.  An independent judiciary is absolutely essential to our system of separation of powers, and equating political views with judicial philosophy or temperament is dangerous.  If we do so, we run the risk of having a results-oriented judiciary.  It would be much better to have someone with the political views of Ted Kennedy and the judicial philosophy and temperament of Antonin Scalia than someone with the political views of Sen. Tom Coburn manipulating rulings to suit his ends.  I’m not saying Sen. Coburn himself would do that, just illustrating the point.  Strict constructionists can sometimes reach decisions that don’t result in conservative political ends, and may easily be at odds with their own political inclinations.  That is the constitutional structure that we set up, and it is essential to any system that holds dear the rule of law.

A second troubling comment is the following:

prolifers should oppose Kagan

Obama will nominate pro-abortion activist Elena Kagan this morning to become the next Supreme Court justice. Sign the
LifeNews.com/Students for Life petition to tell your U.S. senators you oppose her nomination.

Like Neoavatara, sertelt equates political opinions and judicial ones.  There are plenty of pro-choice lawyers who recognize that Roe was a poor decision and should be overturned.  There are also plenty of pro-lifers who would overturn it mainly because of the moral consequences of the ruling rather than the Constitutional shortcomings.  Our system would be best served by the former in the judiciary and the later in the electoral process.

What’s more sertelt offers no evidence for the assertion.  If I had to guess, I’d say that Kagan is likely pro-choice based on her associates.  I can’t make that assertion definitively, though, because I have seen no direct evidence of it.  90% of my friends are liberals, yet it would be a mistake to assume that I am one.  Let’s stick to assertions that we can back up with facts.

The final quote is the one that I found most disturbing.

First Things First

The Kagan nomination should be pigeon holed, deferred, stuffed into a shoe box, until a Senate that more closely represents the American people is present to vote on her nomination. After the Abomination, the subversion of the Constitution, the legislative travesty that was Obamacare, the American people deserve and demand that much. The inexorable march to a Communist State must stop with Kagan. We’ll talk about your Supreme Court Nominee after the new Congress is sworn in 2011, Mr Obama.

No.  Barack Obama is the President of the United States.  He won.  We lost.  We also lost a majority of Senate seats, meaning that the Democrats, should they stay even reasonably unified, have the right to confirm her, along with whatever Republicans may see fit to do so.  We have every right to fight the nomination, but holding it off until after the new Congress is sworn in is not an option.  That’s what the Constitution requires.

In closing, I’d like to offer a word of caution as to what could have happened, and what still could.  We could have seen someone who has already shown contempt for the Constitution.  We could have seen a redux of the President’s first Supreme Court nominee.  We could have before us someone who would be nearly certain to be a results-oriented Justice.  The Solicitor General may yet prove similar to Justice Sotomayor, and we must watch closely over the next couple of months to see if she is.  It would even be fair to say that the burden of proof is on her to show that she will respect the Constitution and will apply it to the cases before her rather than manipulating or ignoring it to bring about a desired result.  Anyone currently making assertions that they fail to back up, though, will only cost our side credibility as the process moves forward.  In a worst case scenario, it could even end up defeating a nominee who might respect the Constitution and lead to the nomination of someone who would readily set it on fire.

Assumptions:

President Obama will select a nominee with whom none of us will be satisfied. He won. We lost. That’s his prerogative. Further, he is now replacing Stevens, meaning that Senators of all stripes are likely to give him even more deference than they did for now-Justice Sotomayor.

It is a long shot at best to stop one nominee. We can’t stop two. The Democrats still have fifty-nine Senators. Senators Brown, Collins, and Snowe won’t filibuster a nominee, especially when such a filibuster would largely be associated with opposition to Roe. While a filibuster might be justified, we would look like hypocrites for trying, and would surely fail even if we did, expending valuable political capital in the process. . Exposing a single judicial extremist as such, along with some sort of scandal – the kind that would typically end a potential nomination in the vetting process (granted not this White House’s specialty) – might be enough to stop one nominee. Even if it did, the White House would not make the same mistake twice.

A SCOTUS fight could potentially rile up their sleeping base. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has become, in terms of domestic policy, the most important branch of government. Activists on both sides see the Court as a defining issue in Presidential elections even if the electorate writ large does not. Our base is angry and motivated, and will remain so on account of other issues regardless of a Supreme Court fight. A fight, though, might galvanize and organize the opposition in a way that not much else could at this point.

The Case for Biden

Vice President Biden is a liberal Democrat. If each of us came up with a thousand unique names of people we’d like to see on the Supreme Court, he wouldn’t appear on any of them. His time on the Judiciary Committee illustrated that he has little respect for the Constitution and would prefer to engage in mental gymnastics to reach the political conclusions that he wants rather than adhere to the Constitution. Surely, then, he should not sit on the Court, yet any Obama nominee will fit a similar characterization, albeit typically from the bench rather than the legislature.

That said, during his time in the Senate he showed a willingness to buck his party on a variety of votes on issues ranging from abortion to Iraq. While I have major problems with any Catholic who supports legalized abortion, his vote to fund the troops even while fellow Democrats were “taking a principled stand” demonstrated that he is not as blindly partisan as many of his colleagues. Although he would typically side with the liberals of the Court, Biden’s votes might actually depend more on the cases than the litigants. I can’t say that we would get a fair shake from him, but I think he could be considerably more even handed than many of the alternatives.

Sticking on that theme, flawed though I think the Vice President is, there is something decent about him. For those of you who missed it, I would encourage you to take a look back at his eulogy for the late Sen. Strom Thurmond. In his discussion about his relationship with Thurmond, he talked about their deep divisions, reconciliation of some of those divisions, and how that process served to forge a deep friendship. Biden entered politics largely due to his support for civil rights. While I would disagree with many of his policy positions on the issue, it is my view that he, unlike many other elected officials, actually entered politics to serve a purpose greater than stroking his ego. He has a basic appreciation for fairness and decency. He championed a cause that was controversial at the time but is now taken for granted. While his inexcusable position on life is certainly at odds with those facts, I think that that is more the exception than the rule.

Age is another important issue that bodes well for the Vice President. Biden is 67, decades older than some of the others under consideration. It would be extraordinarily difficult to stop any nominee, so why not get one who won’t be there for too long.

If Republicans were to publicly offer the President easy confirmation for Vice President Biden, they would be putting him in an extremely awkward spot. The President has obviously shown great trust in Biden by choosing him as his second in command. Biden has extensive experience in the area, having chaired the Senate Judiciary Committee for eight years and served thereon much longer. If the President nominated Biden, I think we’d end up with the best nominee for the reasons I have stated. If the President did not nominate Biden, we would be in a better position to fight his nominee. We would have demonstrated to the American people that we were willing to compromise but that the President preferred to pick a fight.

I don’t like the sound of Justice Biden any more than anybody else, but politics is often described as the art of the possible. Given the current circumstances, I think that he would be the best we could do. Publicly offering the President an easy confirmation would put him in an awkward position.  He would either nominate a man who is at least remotely palatable to use, or have to explain publicly a) why he wants a fight when a man he trusts was offered to him and b) the inadequacies of his Vice President.

As some of you may have noticed, my participation in the RedState community has dropped significantly since the primaries. Several factors both personal and political contributed to my relative absence, not the least of which was my dissatisfaction with our Presidential nominee. Our grim prospects in Congressional races didn’t help. Those factors, combined with my personal situation and need to focus more on thins non-electronic, brought me to the conclusion that it was time for me to take a break.

Now that the election is over, I think it’s time for me to reintegrate, though perhaps in a reduced capacity. Being a sports fan and liking clear-cut wins and losses, I much prefer dealing with the electoral rather than the policy aspects of politics. To be sure, I understand that policy is much more important, and I have strong views on a variety of subjects, but my talents and my interests lead me to believe that I am more productive when focusing on the former. As such, I was extremely tempted to write my first post-election diary on the 2010 Senate races. Unfortunately for me, though, I think that that approach would only, albeit in a small way, lead us further down the same road we’re on.

Read More →

Like most other observers, I have for some time attributed Sen. Obama’s advantage in the polls largely to outside factors – the military action in Iraq, the financial crisis, America’s falling out with most of the rest of the world, the tarnished Republican brand, etc. The majority of voters want change, and Sen. Obama has assumed the mantle of change, which is a lot easier when you’re not actually in the President’s Party. Bring with that a fresh new face going up against someone who has been in Washington too long and most analysts will tell you that you pretty much see the whole picture of why Obama is all but a lock to win this election. They’re wrong.

The real story of this election – and just about any Presidential election – is that Americans want to vote for the optimist. For decades, Americans have been faced with clear choices in Presidential elections between one candidate who comes off as an optimist and another who, well, doesn’t. I’ll let those who are older than I speak to elections before 1980, but I’ll start with that one.

Americans had an affection for President Carter. He was, to the extent that anyone who becomes President can be, a man of the people. He served in the military and was a peanut farmer, actually engaged in the labor of the business, and a teacher. Those are adult jobs that not many Presidents of late have had. By 1980, though, Americans realized that they had elected a good man for the wrong job. President Carter had simply gotten himself in over his head.

Read More →