The Nationalization of Elections

The idea of a representative democracy is that in contrast to a President who elected nationally, there will be Senators elected from the various states, and representing the interests of their states, and representatives who will likewise be elected from only a part of a state, and represent and look out for the interests of that part of their state.

Throughout the history of the Republic, this has worked pretty well. Critics may argue that at times it has led to the funding of projects of limited value (such as a highway interchange that will serve a town of a few hundred people or a research project on a topic of dubious importance but directs funding to a particular college where the research will be carried out,) but in fact this has always been as conventional wisdom had it, an important part of government. Standard wisdom in an earlier day was that "Political hacks used to say pork was the political grease that lubricated legislative deals."

This meant that it was possible to get enough votes for key legislation by including yes, some pet projects (though one man's 'pet project' may be another man's lifeline to the outside world; hardly any of the infamous 'pork' legislation did not in fact provide at least some benefit even if it was to a relatively small part of America; there are frankly a lot of towns that could be benefited by a new post office, a road paving or some other investment in infrastructure.

What we see today, instead of members of Congress who are able to effectively represent their district and in the process get the necessary funding for improvements, are members of Congress who may not even be beholden to their districts at all. Big money has (especially since Citizens United) moved into the political arena in a major way, to where even members who raise millions of dollars on their own, may have it matched by groups that have one or two anonymous donors. In 2010, these groups were almost entirely working on behalf of the GOP, but by now there are a few working on behalf of Democratic candidates as well.

Ironically, most of the members of Congress that these groups target are those in the middle. By now there are very few northeastern Republicans left (none at all from New England states in the House of Representatives) and only a couple of southern Democrats who come from districts that are not majority African-American. In particular, the northeastern Republicans have been replaced by Democrats who are almost all very liberal (so among the least likely Democrats to vote against the party line) and the southern Democrats have been replaced by very conservative Republicans who are similarly likely to march in lockstep. Since it was northeastern Republicans and Southern Democrats who traditionally were those most likely to vote for compromise or provide the key votes in moving legislation forward that might be of a bipartisan nature, what this means is that Congress is very polarized. To exacerbate this, most of the money is spent in 'swing districts' that are more likely to elect moderates to Congress. To cite one example, the district I live in changed partisan hands in 2008, 2010 and 2012. That makes it among the swingiest district in the country, and not surprisingly we see a great deal of political ad spending (almost all negative.) Members elected in a district like this, who might not be all that ideological otherwise, are pushed to toe their own party line because the attack ads will come regardless so in accordance with the old saying that 'if you will call me the devil whether I am or not, then I might as well be the devil' often they find the best path to re-election is to fire up their base (since the other side will turn out against them anyway) so therefore they are more likely to swing to that side.

In the short term this favors Republicans, if only because Republicans controlled redistricting so well after the 2010 election that they were able to draw a map that elected a Republican majority in 2012 even though Democrats got more votes FOR CONGRESS in 2012. In 2020, it will be a Presidential election year though so it is unlikely that Republicans will be able to maintain the kind of control over legislatures that they had after 2010, so their control of the House, if unlikely to be broken before then, may well be broken after 2020. In the long term however, the change is likely to simply harm communities across most of America. That is because the people who donate to the large Super-PACs are mainly national donors (even if we don't know all of what who donated, we do know that they are people with a national, rather than a local, agenda.) Since pork is also now banned, there is virtually nothing that a member of Congress can do that will win more votes in their district than making sure they are in the good graces of the Super-PACs who are running ads in their districts. As they will be attacked by the other side's PAC's, their main goal will be to give their own financial backers what they are asking for. In such a scenario, individual voters are less and less important, and that is the real tragedy of what we have come to.

CD-1 analysis.

One of the benefits of the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission is that it has produced a much higher number of competitive districts, both at the congressional and legislative level, than what we see in other states where one party has been able to produce a partisan gerrymander (such as Democrats in Illinois or Republicans in Pennsylvania.) The result is that there are a number of legislative districts, and three congressional districts, which are classified as 'competitive,' meaning that it is realistic to imagine a scenario that has either party winning.

I live in one such congressional district, Arizona CD-1. The district is somewhat different than the old CD-1, which was also a competitive district. It is also an open seat. In 2010 Paul Gosar rode the Republican wave (and a $2 million ad buy by a GOP Super-PAC) to an upset of incumbent Democrat Ann Kirkpatrick. However this year, Gosar, a Flagstaff resident who resides in CD-1, ran away from a rematch with Kirkpatrick and jumped into a district that is more friendly to Republicans.

The result is that Kirkpatrick is now in a very good position to be elected to the seat again. She has already raised over $1.1 million, including from small donors throughout the district. In fact, the Rothenburg Political Report and Larry Sabato's Crystal Ball have rated the race as 'Lean D.' If that prediction holds then it would be one of the 25 seats that are presently occupied by Republicans and that Democrats need to retake to reclaim the House. Redistricting has also helped Democrats, adding the Hopi reservation and removing most of Yavapai county, a Republican stronghold, from the district. Some areas north of Tucson were added, and they do lean Republican but overall the district is still more Democratic. Even more than that, a poll on Tea Party 'favorability' in the district has shown a 17% decline since 2010.

Kirkpatrick does have a primary race against Wenona Benally Baldenegro, a progressive Democrat with a degree from Harvard. Past results however suggest that Kirkpatrick should be strongly favored in the race; in 2006, progressive candidates Susan Friedman and Mike Cacciopoli combined for 28% of the vote in a five way Democratic primary. In 2008, when Kirkpatrick was first elected, progressive candidate Howard Shanker worked the district very hard (in fact virtually everyplace I went that year I ran into either Howard Shanker or someone representing him) but then finished third with only 14% of the vote in the Democratic primary (second place went to Mary Kim Titla, who ran to the right of Kirkpatrick.) It could be a measure of how well progressives are getting their message out to see whether Benally Baldenegro exceeds Shanker's share of the vote in the primary. This is also a district where Hillary Clinton won handily over Barack Obama in the primaries in 2008, and while overall I may wish the district (and the Democrats living here) were more progressive, in fact by and large they are not.

On the Republican side, it appears that history may be repeating itself. For the first six years the district was in existence, it was represented by Rick Renzi, a Virginian who continued to live in that state while he was serving in Congress and only visited Arizona for campaign events. Renzi was a fixture on the non-partisan watchdog group CREW (Center for Responsiveness and Ethics in Washington)'s list of the 'dirty dozen' most corrupt members of congress. Renzi eventually declined to run again in 2008 after being indicted on multiple counts of bribery, extortion and money laundering. The case is now winding its way slowly through the courts.

With Renzi's history of 'representing' northern Arizona from the comfort of his Virginia home, and his ethical troubles reflecting so poorly on the district and on our collective judgment, you'd think the Republicans here would make a point of trying to find someone who actually lived in the old or the new CD-1 to run for 'representing' us and would look for someone without a past history of ethical problems. I mean, that's such a low standard that even Paul Gosar (the guy who abandoned the district because he was afraid of a rematch with Kirkpatrick) could clear that bar.

It seems though that they couldn't find a candidate who met either standard. Instead the leading candidate is Jonathan Paton, a paid lobbyist for the Payday Lending industry. Paton took thousands of dollars (not in campaign contributions either, but in the form of a check to him for 'services rendered' as a lobbyist) to represent this industry WHILE he was simultaneously serving in the legislature. This helped earn him the nickname, "Payday Paton." When asked directly about his roles with the discredited industry (remember that in 2008 voters rejected keeping Payday lenders in the state by a 2-1 margin) Paton tries to dodge the question. If he wants to represent Arizona in Congress, then he should answer forthrightly and candidly that question.

While serving in the legislature, Paton also was key to funnelling almost a quarter of a billion dollars in state money into a Tucson shopping project called Rio Nuevo. The project has turned out to be an expensive boondoggle and a waste of taxpayer money. It did help buy Paton something though-- he got a seat on the Board of Directors of the trust which oversees Rio Nuevo.

Similarly to what failed him in 2010, Paton is running a Republican Primary campaign centered on extremism and pandering to the tea party. Paton's position in terms of the Ryan budget alone is enough reason to vote against him if you care about Medicare and don't want to see it privatized, as Ryan has proposed and which Paton has stated his support for both in 2010 and 2012. Paton lost in 2010 to Jesse Kelly in a GOP primary, in his bid to beat Congresswoman Giffords. But one thing Paton could say, is that he was from the district. He can't even say that this time.

Perhaps that's why he jumped into CD-1 in order to run. He's unknown to most of the voters here, because the voters who know him have already proven they don't support him. But the truth is, Paton has already shown he's a lousy candidate, raising only $197,000 in Q1, less than he raised in a corresponding period in his failed 2010 campaign.

Yes, history appears to be repeating itself with Jonathan Paton setting himself up as the next Rick Renzi. But we don't have to elect him. And fortunately it appears that the voters are not likely to do that.

GOP recruiting class just the same old retreads

It seems as though Republicans are recruiting some candidates for Congress-- many of whom are the same old retreads who were part of the problem before.

Not anything new, but a bunch of former members of Congress who they claim are supposed to be something new. Mostly the same ones who were in Congress during the 1990's and early 2000's and helped put the roots of the present crisis in place.

Epitomatically they are trumpeting former Senator Dan Coats of Indiana, who will challenge his successor, Sen. Evan Bayh. Recall that Senator Coats is the Senator who said the day after Bill Clinton launched missile strikes in an attempt to get Osama bin Laden on August 18, 1998 (eleven days after the African embassy bombings and a day when we had some intelligence about where bin Laden was holding a meeting,)

"I think we fear that we may have a President that is desperately seeking to hold onto his job in the face of a firestorm of criticism and calls for him to step down.”

Senator Dan Coats, R-IN August 19, 1998.

The full context of the statement is that also on August 18, 1998 Monica Lewinsky was giving a deposition in Manhattan and Coats and other Republicans were apparently upset that the all-important Monica scandal didn't get the headline for that day (though taking a headline from the Monica scandal would have been what would happen if Bill Clinton launched the missile strike against bin Laden on pretty much any day during 1998.)

I'm sure that Coats' statement calling on the President to resign for attacking Osama bin Laden must have been received with comfort and great mirth by bin Laden.

I'm sure that there are some opportunities out there for Republicans, especially given Democrats' failure to pass health care legislation and other items on their agenda that have caused a lot of voters to decide that not much has changed. But the idea that running candidates against them who themselves were part of the last crop of failures, even up to and including a candidate who once said the President should resign for attacking Osama bin Laden, is hardly a recruiting class designed to benefit from voter discontent.

Health Care Reform is not about being popular, it's about doing the right thing

Now that it looks like health care reform is on its way to passing the Senate, the next hurdle down the road, Republicans are claiming that Democrats are ignoring the will of the people, citing polls saying that a majority don't like the Senate bill. NRC chairman Michael Steele even came out today and accused Democrats of 'throwing the finger at the American people.'

This is ridiculous. First, the polls simply ask whether people support the current Senate health care plan. Well, the truth is, I don't like it a bit in that I support a robust public option like the one that is in the house bill. So if you asked me if I support the Senate plan I'd say 'no.' But that's not to say I agree with Republicans who don't want to do anything. Further, as a number of people who were around in 1994 said this week, 'don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.' In 1994 a number of liberals opposed HillaryCare because they felt it didn't go far enough, and in the end we got nothing. So this time around liberals held their noses at some of the more odious aspects of the bill and voted for universal coverage.

And for that matter if you insist on looking at polls, the most recent poll by CNN indicates that support for reform is now gaining again.

This bill does, even if through mechanisms I may not like seek to achieve universal coverage. That has been a big problem for years, as we have a two tier health system, of the insured versus the uninsured. I don't like mandates, much prefering a single payer system up front but at least the mandates are backed by large government subsidies that will make the premiums affordable to people who are uninsured and living on a limited income.

And this is huge. Simply put, universal coverage is something that we've been striving for, for a long, long time. Maybe how we get there isn't perfect but it is undeniably going to be a very good thing. And the United States will no longer stand out as the only industrialized country in the world that fails to make health care coverage available to everyone. Other countries, such as Japan, have systems similar to that which we are now on the verge of passing, in that the insurance itself is offered through private companies even while premiums are heavily subsidized by the government.

Further, as one supporter of the bill pointed out, this is a foundation. It can be added onto in the future if problems are found wanting.

But most importantly, this represents a fundamental change for America, and a change for the better. It ranks with programs such as Social Security as representing the finest in America, the idea that we can provide for all of our citizens. And at this historic moment, if only Democrats will vote for this, then so be it.

Let me play off the 'let not the perfect be the enemy of the good' statement. Let me say also, 'let not the popular be the enemy of the right.' Often doing what is right is not popular. But it is still right, and for that the Senate Democrats (and yes, grudgingly even Joe Lieberman) should be commended for last night's vote.

An army of Won.

Barack Obama had a meeting earlier today with a group of House Republican leaders to discuss the proposed stimulus bill.

He did as he had pledged in the campaign, and listened to them and tried to work something out with them. He's already cut down some of the infrastructure spending and as much as one third of the stimulus is likely to be tax cuts. He's spent some of his political capital taking on his own speaker over the issue of whether to repeal the Bush tax cuts or not (she wants to repeal them immediately, Obama in seeking Republican support has said he's not ready to just yet.) But the Republican leaders kept on pushing and pushing and pushing, wanting to change more and more things in the bill and simultaneously hinting that no matter what the bill says they might play hardball in the house and marshall Republicans to oppose it. Finally, Obama could see that unless he practically let them write the bill themselves they wouldn't accept or agree to support whatever he gave them, so he got up, looked directly at them and said, "I won."

It was not a sign of frustration at all. He's reminding them of a simple fact. The American people voted in November and gave him a mandate to change course. His share of the vote and winning margin were both the most any Presidential candidate in twenty years (in fact his share of the vote was the highest for any non-incumbent candidate and non-sitting Vice President running for the top job, in over sixty years.) Add to that the fact that in addition to Obama they voted in seven or eight new Senators (depending on what happens in Minnesota) and twenty-one house members, for a net gain of 54 house seats over the past two election cycles. Republicans put their ideas and candidates out there, and they lost. Pure and simple.

Under the circumstances, President Obama is being very generous and doing something he doesn't have to do, and offering the house Republicans a seat at the table and some input into writing this bill. But the party which not so long ago believed they had a 'permanent majority,' and even over the past two years could usually count on a Presidential veto to back them up in Congress, now has neither.

They need to get used to being the minority party because they lost. We won ('we' instead of 'I' is the only change I believe Obama should have made.) The President has reached out to them and offered them something that quite frankly, President Bush never did anything like that. They can choose between accepting what he gives them or opposing everything. But they no longer have the power and influence to insist on anything.

Republicans shoot themselves in the shorts.

When things are going well, even when you appear to lose, they end up going the way you wanted. Hence the situation for Democrats on Capitol Hill and the auto industry bailout.

A couple of weeks ago, Democrats in Congress were adamant that the auto bailout should come from the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), the $700 billion bailout mainly targeted towards the financial industry that Congress passed earlier this year, or if not from that source then in the form of a loan from the Federal Reserve.

The Bush administration and Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson balked at that and refused to spend money from the program, asking instead the Congress pass a separate bailout for the auto industry. And after making that clear, President Bush threatened to veto any bailout that took money from the TARP program (even future funds from it), and instead insisted that it should come from $25 billion already appropriated and earmarked to go to the Detroit automakers under a seperate bill to finance research and development of new cleaner and more fuel efficient vehicles.

After several days of negotiations with the White House, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid backed down and agreed to tap the research and development money. They agreed to a $14 billion package, which would keep the automakers solvent until January, when the next Congress and President can develop a longer term plan.

So then members of Congress started questioning union contracts. And the union made some concessions on payment to laid off workers and health care.

Once those were in, Harry Reid made another concession and agreed to not give Federal judges a pay raise in order to rope in wayward Democrat Clair McCaskill of Missouri.

So then Senate Republicans started demanding that the bill included a new wage structure in which union workers in Michigan would be paid on the same wage scale as non-union workers in Alabama. The union refused.

So then they launched a filibuster that garnered 43 votes, enough to block the measure. It died in the Senate.

So yesterday White House spokeswoman Dana Perrino said that the Bush administration will look at using TARP funds, or if not that then a loan from the Treasury Department. Heck, by the end of the day yesterday the White House announcement even had GM stock almost all the way back where it started the day.

Either way, whether TARP funds are used or it comes from the Treasury Department, this is where Democrats began on this whole thing. The $25 billion fund for cleaner vehicles will remain intact, there will be very few strings attached relating to union benefits, and the judges will get their pay raise.

Which is exactly what the Democratic leadership's position was in the first place.

It's great when your opponent is a party as leaderless, as directionless and as tied in knots as today's GOP. Even when they beat you, the result is that you actually get what you wanted to begin with.

I may have picked the winners, but missed the margins

I recently put up a post on the race here in CD-1 in which I predicted that Ann Kirkpatrick would win a close race against Howard Shanker. In the same post I predicted that Sydney Hay would win relatively easily against Sandra Livingstone.

I am happy that I was off on the numbers.

Kirkpatrick, who I've made it clear that I support, turned in a very strong performance today. The only real question is whether she will keep above fifty percent of the total vote against three challengers. In fact, it seems that she has dug deeply into the support in Flagstaff and other areas where there are a number of liberal activists that I had expected to go to Shanker, who will finish third. Mary Kim Titla as of right now has exactly the same percentage I had predicted for her (28%) but it is a distant second, not a close third.

What this does is validate Kirkpatrick as the clear choice of Democratic voters. I don't know what the final results will show tonight, but I am hopeful that she wins with an outright majority.

The Republican race is also good news, from my perspective. For one thing, It's too close to call. Sydney Hay, who I had expected to win by a solid margin, instead is leading by a narrow margin against Sandra Livingstone.

Although as a Democrat and Kirkpatrick supporter I am strategically nervous about Livingstone (I think she is about the only Republican who might be able to win this year), her strong showing makes it very clear that the anti-immigrant wingnuts who have hijacked the Republican party are still more bark than bight. Livingstone has sent them into apoplectic seizure with her immigration plan which involves giving undocumented workers who are already in the U.S. work permits (hence making them legal) and then from there giving them a path towards citizenship. The minuteman-oriented portion of the nutbag right is livid at Livingstone, but her strong showing in which she has come from way behind to give Hay a strong race sends a clear message that a whole lot of GOP voters don't buy into their rhetoric and want humane, practical solutions. Given the previous failures of the anti-immigrant right to mount much electoral support for their candidates (most notably in not showing up to help immigration blowhard J.D. Hayworth save his district in 2006 after he had earned the wrath of local Hispanics) a Livingstone win would be an unspeakable embarrassment. Even a close race, if Hay pulls it out (which it looks as though she may) in a race which even a month ago was not much of a contest shows the anti-immigrant crowd as the small group of nuts that they are. They can make lots of noise, sure. But they can't do much to help a candidate win-- certainly less than Hispanics can do to help him or her lose.

CD-1 primary analysis.

Living in Arizona Congressional District 1, I've decided to do a post on what may be the hottest congressional race in the country (certainly among the top five or so), pitting five Republicans and four Democrats against each other to replace indicted Republican congressman Rick Renzi. FULL DISCLOSURE: I AM ON RECORD AS BEING A SUPPORTER OF DEMOCRAT ANN KIRKPATRICK. I will try to be objective in this post, however. The primary here is late (Sept. 2). Call it the 'Arizona incumbent protection racket.' There is no incumbent in this race though so all the candidates are equally disadvantaged by the late primary.

Let's begin with an overview of the district itself. Prior to 2002, rural Arizona had been divided up among a number of metro Phoenix based districts, so that a map of Arizona districts often looked somewhat like a pizza, with a number of districts in which the majority of the population lived in the Phoenix area with a large, sparsely populated area extending all the way to the far reaches of the state. In 2002 however a citizens redistricting commission replaced the legislature in drawing district lines and they decided to create an exclusively rural district (the largest cities in the district at the time were Flagstaff and Prescott, both considerably less than 100,000 people.) The district includes almost all of rural Arizona, skipping only the counties along the border with Mexico and Mohave county in the northwest. Because of the Navajo-Hopi land dispute and other issues between the tribes, the Hopi reservation is actually not in CD-1 but is represented by the congressman from another district, CD-2 (presently Republican Trent Franks.) This looks like a gerrymander to anyone not familiar with the situation but in fact it is necessary in resolving disputes between the two tribes (maybe working nominally in favor of the GOP since both tribes normally vote Democratic in national elections.)

District 1 does include the Navajo reservation, the nation's largest (and a place where Renzi was able to sizeably dent the democratic base in the district by procuring enormous amounts of pork.) The district also includes a portion of Pinal county. When it was drawn, the district lines very nicely delineated the edge of development in 2002. However since then Pinal county, Arizona's (and one of the nation's) fastet growing county has been filling up rapidly with exurbanites from metro Phoenix and Tucson (which are growing together, with Pinal county as the primary target.) Pinal county now has up to one third of the population in the district. The number of votes from Pinal is somewhat less than a third just because there is a lag time between when people move there and when they get registered to vote. The district as a whole has an eight percent Democratic registration edge, but in fact this district is huge and diverse (being larger in land area than good sized eastern states like Illinois or Pennsylvania) so it would be a mistake to try and summarize it that way. The Republican bases of the district include Prescott, small mostly LDS towns in the east (like the one I live in) and portions of Pinal county (though in 2006 Democrat Ellen Simon almost tied Renzi in Pinal.) The Democratic bases include the reservations (besides the Navajo reservation the White Mountain and San Carlos Apache reservations and several smaller reservations are also in the district), Flagstaff (home of Northern Arizona University) and older towns with a Democratic history like Globe, Winslow and Holbrook. Given that there is no evidence that Rick Renzi's pork-bought popularity will be transferable to another Republican, it seems likely that the decisive votes in the election will be cast by two groups of swing voters-- 1. Pinal county residents (who as I mentioned didn't go as Republican as one would have thought in 2006 and where the mortgage crisis has hit hard) and 2. conservative rural Democrats, especially in places like St. Johns-- so called, 'pinto Democrats' who always vote Democratic for local and county offices but who supported Republicans George Bush, Senators McCain and Jon Kyl and Rick Renzi, but also supported Democratic Governor Janet Napolitano and Attorney General Terry Goddard-- in other words for higher offices willing to shuffle their ballot either way.

In the absence of any polling data (which is surprising to me) here is how I see the race unfolding:

The Democratic race is shaping up to be a real barn burner. Ann Kirkpatrick, an anglo who was raised on the Apache reservation and is fluent in Apache has easily raised the most money and is the favorite of many in the party establishment. Kirkpatrick has served as a prosecutor and also in the state legislature (where she represented both Flagstaff and the Navajo reservation.) Kirkpatrick has been very active on education and evnironmental issues in the legislature. She has the endorsement of the Sierra Club and other environmental groups but is a proponent of gun rights (which puts her in good standing with the 'pinto Democrats' for whom guns are a big issue.) I know many people who have known Kirkpatrick for years and they all consider her biggest asset to be that she is honest and ethical. After Renzi's ethical lapses this is a big plus. I know many people who have known Kirkpatrick for years and they all consider her biggest asset to be that she is honest and ethical. After Renzi's ethical lapses this is a big plus.

A few weeks ago I thought that Kirkpatrick had it in the bag, but recently Flagstaff Attorney Howard Shanker has been running very strongly. Shanker represents the Navajos in an ongoing lawsuit to prevent Arizona Snow Bowl from using treated wastewater to make artificial snow on the San Francisco Peaks (considered sacred by the Navajo--- think of the Mapplethorpe exhibit and the crucifix in urine and you get the idea of how they feel about it.) Right now, after several rounds in court that have gone both ways, the ski resort has won the latest round but it is likely to be appealed, maybe even up to the U.S. Supreme Court. Shanker has a lot of enthusiastic volunteers and seems to have boundless energy. I don't think I've gone to a major event in the past two years where I haven't seen either Howard Shanker (often personally) or someone representing him. Working against Shanker are the huge geographical size of the district and the fact that he has been far less successful at fundraising than Kirkpatrick. Shanker is the most liberal of the leading candidates and he has a lot of personal charisma.

The third major Democratic candidate in the race is Mary Kim Titla, a former television reporter. She therefore has high name recognition and a reporter's good looks, style and charm in person (I've met all the Democratic candidates personally this past year.) If elected Titla, a member of the San Carlos Apache tribe, would also be the first native American woman to serve in Congress. However, she is handicapped by the fact that she has been neither as successful on the fundraising circuit as Kirkpatrick nor generated the enthusiasm that Shanker has. Part of the reason may be her position on issues. She is (and proclaims herself to be) the most conservative of the Democratic candidates. This seems calibrated to appeal to the 'pinto Democrats' but in fact Kirkpatrick's pro-gun position deprives Titla of an edge on a key issue and frankly many of her other positions just aren't in tune with a lot of Democratic primary voters. Titla remains within striking distance though (particularly if Kirkpatrick and Shanker go negative on each other, which hasn't happened so far) and if she wins it will only be a mild upset.

Former Kucinich volunteer Geoffrey Brown is on the ballot but he will finish last.

The Republicans had trouble recruiting candidates last year (partly due to Renzi's legal problems, which has made the atmosphere here difficult for Republicans despite John McCain being at the top of the ticket.) It appears they will settle for Sydney Hay, the President of the Arizona Mining Association, an industry trade group. She ran when the district was created in 2002 and finished third in the Republican primary that year. She held a fundraiser that year with Ron Paul and is still friends with Paul and if elected would likely be an ally of Paul on most issues (except Iraq, where she favors staying until 'we win.') She is very conservative on taxes and spending and has a past as an education reform and anti-abortion activist (back when it looked like other serious candidates might be contending for the GOP nomination, Hay already had the endorsements of Phyllis Schlafley's Eagle Forum and of the national Right to Life committee in the bag.) One reason why Republicans are nervous about Hay is because she is so conservative it will be easy to paint her as an extremist. I still expect she will win the primary with around fifty percent of the vote though given that there are no other first tier candidates.

There are two second tier candidates. Sandra Livingstone of Prescott likes to stress that she is the only Republican running who was born in the district (a way of suggesting she is not like Rick Renzi, a carpetbagger who moved here from Virginia only to run for Congress). For a Republican she is very liberal-- in fact I feel she is probably to the left of Democrat Mary Kim Titla, all issues included and is openly running as a 'moderate Republican'. Livingstone hates partisanship and-- taking a gutty position that is sure to enrage the GOP's right wing-- has proposed a policy legalizing undocumented workers who are already working here. She even suggests that in time they could all work towards citizenship. This is amazing to hear coming from a Republican in Arizona. She won't win (though she will be in a close race for second) but if she gets a lot of votes it may underscore the fact that the anti-immigration crew makes a lot more noise than they can deliver at the polls (ask J.D. Hayworth about that.)

Tom Hansen is a school board member in St. Johns. He is more of a standard issue conservative Republican. On virtually every issue he is in line with the party orthodoxy. Given Hay's far right bent and Livingstone's tilt to the left I suspect that if the Republican establishment could choose the candidate themselves with an eye to choosing someone who was conservative but also mainstream they'd go with Hansen. One asset he has is that he is LDS, and has strong support in LDS communities (which represent about a quarter of the GOP vote in the district). The problem is that being from St. Johns he is from the less populated eastern side of the state (there are no cities in at least a hundred mile radius of his home with more than 10,000 residents), has more enthusiasm than money and as a school board member has a long jump up to running for Congress. He will probably contest with Livingstone for second, and together they may get as many votes as Hay does individually.

Baptist Minister Barry Hall and Preston Korn, who has withdrawn from the race will finish fourth and fifth.

In the absence of any polling data I have to make predictions based purely on what my own perceptions are so these run the risk of being completely off base (and of course there are still two weeks to go), but here is what I see right now:

My predictions for the Democrats:

1. Ann Kirkpatrick (37%)
2. Howard Shanker (33%)
3. Mary Kim Titla (28%)
4. Geoffrey Brown (2%)

My predictions for the Republicans:

1. Sydney Hay (46%)
2. Sandra Livingstone (26%)
3. Tom Hansen (24%)
4. others (4%)

Independent Keith Maupin will also be on the ballot in November but I'd be surprised if his presence makes a difference then.

Back from vacation.

A lot has happened since I went on vacation a couple of weeks ago. So here is a brief wrap-up of what's been going on.

1. I was disappointed that Congress gave in on letting telecom companies have immunity for breaking the law in the FISA bill and also on Iraq war funding. Giving in on important issues like this in exchange for more pork is NOT a compromise. For a lame-duck President I'm disappointed that Congress is still letting him lead them around by the nose on crucial issues involving Iraq and warrantless surveillance. It's no accident that Congress' approval rating, which was rising for a couple of months into 2007, started tanking to the day that they first knuckled under to the Bush administration on Iraq war funding.

2. I'm encouraged by how quickly the party is coming back together. It's been eighteen days since Hillary suspended her campaign, and it's safe to say that while there is still work that needs to be done, the rate that Clinton supporters have been uniting with the Obama campaign is faster than the rate at which conservatives were rallying to McCain after he in effect decided the issue on Super Tuesday, or even after he clinched the GOP nod a month later.

3. In 1977, Jimmy Carter proposed (and Congress for the most part passed) a plan to make us energy independent by 2000. Unfortunately, virtually all of it (except for the original Alaska pipeline, which was only a small part of the whole) was dismantled during the 1980's. Also last year Congress finally passed increased CAFE standards for the first time since the Carter administration-- and it was a combination of Republicans and oil or auto-state Democrats who had scuttled it for thirty years. Keep in mind that a model-T Ford got 25 mpg, and that was a hundred years ago. If the GOP wants to make energy an issue, then bring it on. And yes, while in California I did have to pay $4.679 a gallon for a tank of gas.

4. I was encouraged by some state polls out the last couple of weeks. A survey USA poll out today shows Obama slightly ahead though statistically tied with John McCain in Indiana. The Hoosier state politically has always been a staunch Republican bastion that the GOP could pretty much count on to avoid getting shut out in the Rust Belt even in years when the rest of the region went to the Democrats. That may not be true this year. And a poll in Alaska the other day showed Obama within four. Alaska has also been a solidly Republican state, but then again-- maybe not this year. Obama has said he intends to send paid staff to all fifty states, which he will have the funds to do and McCain won't be able to counter him everywhere.

5. That leads into this observation-- Yes, Obama's decision to pass on Presidential matching funds was a flip-flop and a crass political decision. So what? He's trying to win, and does anyone honestly believe that if McCain had a way to raise $200-$300 million for the general he wouldn't do the same thing? Obama's learned quickly how to play the game, and having a 3-to-1 or 4-to-1 money advantage (McCain will be limited to $84 million) in the fall will allow him to do exactly what Republicans have done in the past to Democrats (when they had the big money advantage.) The real root of the problem is that campaigns are getting more expensive and fewer Americans are dedicating that $3 of their taxes to go to the Presidential campaign. One reform that I would suggest Congress may want to pass sometime would be that when one of two major party candidates opts out of the system then the funds that would have gone to that candidate go to his or her opponent.

6. This observation-- when we went to Disneyland (we were lucky to be able to go this year ourselves, but we had promised the kids and we never break promises to them, plus they themselves worked harder and raised more for going to the Cinderella finals than they needed to this year) it was a lot less crowded than it was the last time we went-- on the same days and the same time of year-- in 2004.) Granted we were only there for two days, but either Disney raised prices too fast or less people can afford to go this year. Likely a bit of both. And oh, yeah-- speaking of Cinderella girls-- congratulations to Erin Nurss. She's always been really nice to our girls every year when we go to the state finals, and she's a class act all the way around. I hope she wins the Miss America pageant.

7. The state legislature, after shutting everyone out (especially members of the Democratic minority) for months has two budgets out-- the house Republican budget that makes deep cuts (and looks great for political grandstanding), and the Senate budget, more or less supported by the Governor, that is more reasonable given the current fiscal pressures facing the state. They will then resolve the differences by negotiating a budget that is likely to be closer to the Senate version. This is the same thing as happens every year. Here is an idea to save the state money-- since we know how this will turn out anyway, why not come out with the budgets in February and have the process wrapped up by March. Just think how much money this would save--especially by not having to pay legislators per diem pay for another three or four months. Well, read that last line again and you'll know why they give us this show every year. Incidentally, I want Obama to win, but if he does I'm well aware that it will hurt us in Arizona because Governor Napolitano would likely get a cabinet post, which would mean that Jan Brewer would move into the Governor's office-- and she'd likely sign the nutty stuff that comes out of the legislature. Plus, a cabinet call for Napolitano would likely deprive us in the Arizona Democratic party of our top candidate for McCain's Senate seat in 2010. Ah, well-- sometimes you are called on to sacrifice for your country and an Obama win would benefit all fifty states.

8. Apparently Senate Banking Committee Chairman and former Presidential candidate Chris Dodd got special treatment on his home loan from Countrywide (though he denies knowing he was getting anything better than anyone else.) He is now sponsoring a bill (actually a bi-partisan bill with Senator Shelby) to help bail out lenders, most notably Countrywide. It's a good thing Dodd isn't the nominee, otherwise this story would be broadcast wall to wall and would be called the biggest banking scandal since Credit Mobilier. In fact, it shows questionable judgement but no wrongdoing and will probably be gone within a week. But the fact that it will shows how much of a higher standard Presidential nominees are held to than also-rans.

9. I admit to being wrong about something. I picked the Lakers in five. What they really need is five. Five guys. Five guys playing defense. They are lucky they play in the western conference because the way they don't play defense I doubt if they would have even beaten Detroit or Cleveland to get to the finals if they were in the east. In fact, I'm wondering whether Tim Donaghy is right-- because the Lakers that showed up in the NBA finals weren't even good enough to have really beaten the Spurs.

10. It's good to be back.

Boehner having trouble marketing change that isn't really change.

Republicans in the house, still reeling over their defeat in a special election in a deep-red Mississippi congressional district (the third such special election loss this year) that clipped the size of their house delegation to a psychologically demoralizing 199 members, want to adopt a message of change.

Of course there would in reality be no 'change' about it, just the same old, worn-out and failed mantra of 'tax cut, trickle down, deregulate... tax cut, trickle down, deregulate' that has led us to the mess we are now in. But what they want is to put it in a new package, and let the new packaging say, "change."

So, as House Republican leader John Boehner was casting about for a slogan for a Republican 'change' agenda he considered a slogan in which Republicans pledged to give voters "the change they deserve."

Only he can't do that, because the slogan is almost identical to the slogan that pharmaceutical manufacture Wyeth uses to market an anti-depressant called Effexor.

Well, maybe they should take a hint. Republicans in Congress may need an anti-depressant.

House seat lost by GOP in Mississippi leaves 199.

The Republicans lost another special election for a previously Republican open seat tonight, as Democrat Travis Childers defeated Republican Greg Davis by a solid margin to win an open seat in Mississippi.

They may spin this as just a loss of a single seat, but it was damaging for the GOP on so many more levels than that.

This is the third such race for seats that were previously held by Republicans for decades, and like the former Speaker Dennis Hastert's seat in Illinois and another in Louisiana it went Democratic, so Republicans are now 0-for-3 in these strongly contested special elections.

But this is arguably far more damaging to the GOP than the other two. In both of those cases one could argue that the Republicans had flawed candidates. But Davis was the candidate they wanted in this race, so that excuse won't fly. Further, this is probably the most heavily Republican of the three districts. Though all are Republican, in the Mississippi first district, President Bush won by a landslide, just four years ago, with 62 percent of the vote.

Further the Republican Congressional Committee, despite having been outraised by the Democrats 6-to-1 and burned by an embezzlement scandal so that they had only $7.2 million cash on hand at the end of March according to FEC reports (vs. $44 million for the Democratic congressional committee), invested heavily in this race. So did the Democrats, but a battle of attrition ultimately favors the side better prepared to accept the costs, which is the Democrats. And then the result was the same for Republicans as if they had spent nothing.

The reason they invested so heavily is that they recognize that if Republicans can even lose this district, then there is essentially no such thing this year as a 'safe' Republican district. And you know what? They're right about that.

The Bush administration also invested a measure of what little prestige they have left, sending Vice President Cheney to bolster Davis (after all, if supporting the Bush administration was seen as a positive anywhere you'd expect it to be here.) The loss means that the Bush administration has no prestige left.

The GOP attack machine was in full gear, running ads against Childers that tied him to Sen. Obama and to Rev. Wright. Clearly they miscalculated. The voters apparently don't dislike Sen. Obama in the way that they have been trained to hate previous Democratic candidates. As to Rev. Wright, most voters know that Childers has nothing to do with Rev. Wright, and recognized the attack ads as a symptom of the shortage of anything of substance to discuss on the GOP side. Their well-oiled smear machine-- failed. And if they try to run these ads nationally and/or demonize local Democrats it likely the result will be the same. For at least the past couple of decades the Republicans have been masters of the personal smear, but that plan fell flat tonight so they will have to come up with another way to run a campaign. People have gotten wise to their game.

The loss of this seat is likely to unlock a flood of endangered Republican held seats.

And just to put the cherry on top-- a number that will compound the GOP's psychological barriers this year: This seat means that the number of GOP Congressmembers now numbers 199. Nothing screams 'minority party' louder than being back below 200.

Supreme Court declines to intervene in Jefferson case.

The U.S. Supreme Court declined today to involve itself in the question of whether evidence the FBI seized from the Congressional Office of Congressman William Jefferson (D-LA) can be used when Jefferson is tried on corruption charges later this year.

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Supreme Court on Monday let stand a lower court decision that allowed a congressman to review and remove documents seized during a controversial FBI raid of his office.

Rep. William Jefferson, D-Louisiana, said he was the victim of an overly aggressive raid of his Capitol Hill offices in May 2006. He was indicted 13 months later on public corruption charges.

The investigators' raid of Jefferson's office sparked a furor among congressional leaders, including Republicans, who argued the search violated the Constitution's separation of powers and legislative privilege.

The FBI did not warn leaders about the raid before they searched Jefferson's office.

The high court without comment let a lower court ruling stand that allows Jefferson -- with court oversight -- to review the seized documents and take out those that are privileged.

I can only imagine my Congressman, Rick Renzi (R-AZ), also under indictment, slapping his forehead with his palm at today's ruling that in effect bars the use of documents seized from a Congressional Office in a corruption trial and muttering, "Dang! THAT'S where I should have kept it!"

Now, there is no question that with or without the evidence taken from the office, Jefferson stands a high probability of joining Duke Cunningham and Bob Ney in prison. The FBI still has plenty of evidence-- most notoriously $90,000 in cash seized from a refrigerator at the Congressman's home-- with which to build a case against Jefferson.

The lower court ruling is essentially correct, in my opinion. And the reasons are a lot deeper than William Jefferson, Rick Renzi or anyone else.

At issue is the scope of the 'speech and debate' clause regarding separation of powers in the U.S. Constitution and whether it bars the FBI, an agency within the executive branch (the FBI director reports to the Attorney General, who reports to the President) from executing a search warrant on the official offices of a member of Congress.

The executive and legislative branches have ever since the Constitution was ratified been in a struggle for power (one refereed by the courts). At times one has prevailed, at times the other. Under the Bush administration however, we've seen a great expansion of executive power, with the President often choosing to simply ignore laws passed by Congress (even, far more often and far most specifically than was ever done in the past) issuing 'signing statements' when signing laws saying that in effect the laws don't apply to members or agencies within the executive branch. But when the FBI raided Jefferson's office, in effect a raid on Congress itself, it was a clear attempt to put executive control (of a putative sort) on Congress itself. In the history of the Republic, there have been a lot of Congressmen convicted of a crime while in that office, but in not a single one of those cases did investigators believe there was any reason to raid a Congressional Office (or likely realized the Constitutional peril if they tried.)

As a matter of principle, I prefer a strong legislative branch to a strong executive (and yes, I felt the same way philosophically even when the shoe was on the other foot in the 1990's and I felt that Congressional Republicans were using their legislative power to conduct investigation after investigation after investigation.) A strong Congress, no matter how repulsive their positions and actions may be, is not going to move us in the direction of dictatorship. Even when Congress passes laws restricting personal freedoms, as we've seen the past few years (especially between 2001-2006), it is often a weak and spineless Congress following the request and lead of the executive branch.

That does not mean that I feel there should be a 'safe' zone where any criminal can stash evidence and escape prosecution. The whole idea makes the idea of justice a farce. Suppose, for example, that we had a law saying that the police could not search inside a cookie jar. Then guess were all the criminals would keep the evidence? In fact by pushing this confrontation where they did and failing the FBI almost is inviting the next corrupt Congress member to keep a file cabinet marked, "None of your business" in their office, smugly assured that even if it is carted off it can't be used in a trial.

The solution would be for Congressional leaders and members of the Justice Department to negotiate a plan for how such searches should be handled in the future (such as having the Capitol Hill Police, a branch of Congress, do the actual searching). The breach between the present administration and Congress has gotten so deep though that this might be something on the agenda for the next administration.

New GOP strategy is to attack Congress for inaction-- but how accurate is it?

Recently the Republicans have begun claiming that this Congress is a 'do-nothing' Congress, in an attempt to undermine the Congressmen and Congresswomen that we have worked very hard to elect.

That is however, absolutely false.

This Congress has passed and the President has signed at least three major pieces of legislation, all on issues that had been languishing and unattended to since the beginning of his administration:

1. Minimum wage increase. This represented the first increase in the minimum wage since 1998. Previous attempts in the GOP Congress had failed every single year.

2. College financial aid bill. With skyrocketing tuition costs and students leaving school tens of thousands of dollars in debt before they even have their first full-time job, this bill cuts interest rates in half and helps school boards with limited budgets recruit qualified teachers by giving college graduates a way to be forgiven of some or all of their debt if they step into the classroom for a few years, and it will cost the local school boards nothing.

3. Ethics reform bill. We saw the 'culture of corruption' last year in Washington, and as we've seen this year some of it still has to be rooted out. So Congress passed the most sweeping ethics reform bill since the Watergate era. Critics like to point out the loopholes that still remain. Sure, but those which remain also remained when the GOP Congress did absolutely nothing about ethics reform (other than DeLay's attempts to 'fix' the problem by packing the ethics oversight committee with his cronies).

There are also three other important pieces of legislation that haven't gotten passed mainly due to the President's veto and/or Republican-led filibusters and opposition in the Senate:

1. An Iraq bill which mandates withdrawal deadlines. The American people are quite bluntly put sick and tired of pouring hundreds of billions of dollars down this rat-hole when there are crying needs to pay for here. And on top of that, we are borrowing money to pay for it, but the GOP members of Congress won't even consider a supplemental tax to pay for Iraq, preferring instead to pass the debt on to future generations (with interest, of course.)

2. A stem-cell funding bill. Our policy restricting research in this area is just one of many examples of the administration's disdain for science and scientific research. Other examples include cuts to alternative fuel programs and backing the teaching of creationism in public schools. The result is that the pace of progress for American science, which had effectively lapped the rest of field by the end of the Cold War, has slowed down considerably so that we are now living on 'borrowed time' until the rest of the world catches up (and they are not so far back anymore.) The stem-cell bill was of course only a piece of this whole but it is the piece where the battleground was drawn with Congress. In fact, even last year's Republican Congress realized how important this was and passed a stem-cell funding bill, but the President, who seems to live in a world of his own where science plays second fiddle to dogma, vetoed it.

3. SCHIP. The GOP has been misleading about this from the get go. SCHIP is not a Federal program except for residents of the District of Columbia, but rather a bunch of 'block grants' to states (recall that is something that the Republican Congress did with many Federal programs in the 1990's). Congress must give some guidelines to make sure the money is being spent appropriately, but it sets intentionally broad parameters as to what those limits are in order to allow the states the flexibility to tailor their programs to the specific needs within their state. Keep in mind this is a Republican reform. But opponents of SCHIP renewal are now implying that it is the federal government that would be paying for it (i.e. 'national' healthcare) and quote the maximum allowable limits for any state (intentionally set high to allow states to cover high-cost of living cities like NY and SF if they exist within the state) and imply that would be the limit for everybody. Of course if you live in most places, $81 thousand for a family of four sounds like a ridiculously high limit and in most places it is, but it would not be in, for example, downtown San Francisco where even small economy apartments can run upwards of $2500 per month plus utilities. In a place like where I live that would be two or three times the typical mortgage, so there is little comparison. But count on Republicans to take a good idea like flexibility to the states which they should be taking credit for and twist it into a way to deny funding for kids health insurance (at current levels, Maine and several other states will soon begin running out of funds as health care costs have continued to accelerate rapidly).

4. Comprehensive mmigration reform. We can't get a handle on the problem without including a market based solution that addresses the reason why illegal border crossers keep coming-- our own job market (unemployment is at historic lows, so the idea that they are taking jobs from Americans is just not true.) This was one bill that the President would have signed, but it was blocked primarily by Republicans in the Senate (though with the misguided defections of a handful of Democrats.)


So on these bills, the Democratic Congress passed six out of seven, and three of those were signed. Not good enough, but certainly not the 'do-nothing' title that GOP strategists are claiming (that title would belong to the previous GOP Congress which failed even to pass nine out of eleven spending bills in 2006, virtually guaranteeing that this Congress would get off to a slow start as they had to finish last year's work.*)

What needs to be done now? Well, getting larger Democratic majorities in Congress would be a very good start, especially in the Senate where the balance of power hangs by a thread. A veto-proof majority would be nice but probably a very high hill to climb (but not absolutely impossible-- on SCHIP 44 Republicans voted to override, leaving about fifteen short.) And this should make it absolutely clear that we will need a Democratic President next year, someone who will sign these bills if Congress passes them.

*-- the more conspiratorially minded among us might even wonder, given the current assault on Congress in the right-wing media, whether this was actually part of a grand strategy that began last year to gum up the works and lay the foundation for the kinds of charges we are now seeing.

President blames Congress for bridge collapse, proposes corporate tax cuts as the cure.

It's hard to believe, but President Bush blamed Congress for the bridge collapse last week at the same time that he pushed for new corporate tax cuts.

President Bush said yesterday that he is considering a fresh plan to cut tax rates for U.S. corporations to make them more competitive around the world, an initiative that could further inflame a battle with the Democratic Congress over spending and taxes and help define the remainder of his tenure....

Bush also warned China not to start a trade war, blamed Congress for not doing more to shore up infrastructure such as the bridge that collapsed in Minneapolis last week, and pushed back against Democratic presidential candidates who are promising to renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement.

Yeah. OK. We clearly need a lot of money to pay for upgrading and maintaining our infrastructure, whether it is bridges or other elements (like the steam pipe that blasted a hole in Manhattan last week). How is a corporate tax cut going to do anything about that?

I might take him seriously about claiming that 1. it's up to Congress to come up with the money to fix it, 2. we need more tax cuts now, and 3. we have to hold the line on spending, if he wasn't going to change the dial again and ask for another hundreds of billions for Iraq next month.

This guy doesn't understand the meaning of chutzpah.

Ann Kirkpatrick resigns to run for Congress.

Ann Kirkpatrick, who represents district 2 in the Arizona legislature has resigned from her seat in order to run for Congress against Rick Renzi, who is being investigated by the FBI and the Justice Department for corruption.

I had been supporting Allen Affeldt, a progressive friend of mine who is also the mayor of Winslow early in the campaign but Allen decided not to run. Even then though I felt that Kirkpatrick would be a very formidable candidate. Since Allen is not running I am glad that she is, not only because she can win but because she has spent much of her life working to make life better for people. And that is something I can support and work for enthusiastically.

There are several other candidates in the race including reporter Mary Kim Titla, attorney Howard Shankar and likely former congressional nominee and Al Gore campaign manager Steve Owens but I believe that Kirkpatrick is the candidate most in tune with the majority of rural voters throughout the district.

Hal Turner issues a fatwa on right wing assault radio

Hat tip to E.A. Prez at Details

It seems that conservative talk show host Hal Turner is advocating the assassination of members of Congress if they vote in favor of a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants.

Directly taken from his website (linked in the preceding paragraph) is the following:

They wanted to talk about my OPINION that we may have to assassinate members of the United States Congress if they BETRAY the nation by granting citizenship, AMnesty or even a "path to citizenship" to millions of [undocumented immigrants]. I will re-air the segment during my show tonight.

Which is the way some right-wingers think. If someone disagrees with you then any action, up to and including murder, is acceptable.

There is a reason why Mr. Turner and others who advocated his hard-line position on immigration lost. The reason is that the voters didn't agree with him. Most voters agree that we need to get a handle on who is coming over the border, but part of that is dealing with the people who are already here, and until we have a plan by which they can work towards citizenship you are likely to see them continue to not assimilate with our culture.

And the real irony is this: immigrants from Latin America are overwhelmingly Christian, very religious, hard workers who don't complain about what they earn or complain because someone else has more than them, and appreciate what the United States has to offer so much that they are willing to risk their lives in order to get here. They also have very strong family ties (one reason why bashing immigrants cost Republicans a 14% drop among Hispanic voters this year-- many voters are citizens whose family members may be here illegally, or who may have family members in Latin America waiting to come; I'm not even Hispanic but through my cousin I know I have Latin American relatives here (immigration status irrelevant-- they are still my family.) In other words, these are people who conservatives would be able to appeal to if they didn't keep bashing them.

But no, he'd rather (since he and his ilk have spent their wad and lost, rather than gained support among the public for their positions) advocate the people take up arms and shoot those who don't agree with them. And his show itself is an implied threat.

Which is why I am taking the time to post this to make it CLEAR that I support a path towards citizenship for immigrants with or without documents who are here in America and who have not been convicted of a crime. The best way to oppose a threat is to publically stand with those who are threatened (so, for example, the same reason I posted the Mohammed cartoons last year). However, unlike then, when I detested the cartoons but detested the fatwa more, in this case I actually do happen to agree with the concept of a path to citizenship for immigrants who are living in America peacefully.