I received about 2 hours ago in the mail a card from the Fairfaz County [VA] Republican Committee signed by Anthony Bedell, their Chairman.  It starts "Dear Absentee Voter" and does on and suggests at one point to call them at 703-766-4467 if I have questions about absentee voting. 

 

There are a couple of problems with this missive.  I have not requested an absentee ballot. I did a "walk-in" vote earlier this week in conformity with VA law. I always vote and am a notorious yellow dog Democrat. I am on the "Webb List."  VA does not have party registration, but there is what is called the "Webb List."  The "Webb List" consists of those people who voted in the primary that nominated Jim Webb for the US Senate. Nothing else was on the ballot, and these voters are considered to be the hardest of the hard core Democratic voters. The data is readily available.  It is reasonable to assume anyone on this list will vote Tuesday and vote a straight ticket.  This card is designed to create confusion.  Although I am knowlegable about VA election law, I had to think for a minute about whether I would be challenged. 

 

If any recipient calls the Republican Committee you can bet they will be told that they cannot vote Tuesday because they are on the absentee list.  [I have already verified I am not on the list; had I been, then someone would have filed a false application in my name. I have also notified the VA Democratic Party voter protection officials.]  There are other lies they will tell to keep people from voting.

 

What you can do.  If you know a VA voter, forward this to them, and if they have received such a mailing and need reassurance, they should call their local Democratic Party (check the telephone book) or the Democratic Party of VA in Richmond or check their web site.  Most VA counties have good and accurate voting information on their web sites.

 

During "walk in" voting in Fairfax County which ends at 5 PM today,  there have been numerous attempts by Republican poll watchers to supress voting.  For example, a voter comes in, is listed on the voting register as legal, the voter does not have the identification specified by VA law but states his/her name and address as listed on the register, the Republican will "demand" they go back and return with a "legal" ID.  VA law, however, in this precise situation provides for the voter to sign an "Affirmation of Identity" and vote on the regular machine.

Saturday I read an article about why the US lost the Olympic bid.  (I cannot find it now.)  Buried in that article was a quote from one person speculating that the US VISA restrictions imposed after 9/11 were the reason the US received so few votes and added that US universities had been especailly hurt by such restrictions severly restricting the ability of scholars and students to teach and study at US universities which has many worried about its negative impact upon US scientific prowess and future economic competitiveness. 

 

No one objects to intelligent diligence at the border, but there is widespread belief, based upon actual facts, that people of certain color and backgrounds do not get a fair shake at the border.  A few years ago I was in London, and the day I was to have lunch at Parliament with a friend who is a Labour MP, the morning BBC TV show reported that a junior Minister (and Labour MP) at the Home Office was detained for several hours by the Department of Homeland Security at Dulles Airport.  He was of Pakistani origin.  There is more.  He had all of his credentials AND had been invited by Secretary of Homeland Security Chertof to participate in a conference on terrorism.  The previous year this same Minister in the government of arguablely our closest ally had the same thing happen to him at JFK when he had been also invited by Sec Chertof to participate in a similar conference. 

 

I met my friend at Westminster in Central Lobby and off we went to lunch.  One of the first topics was the latest incarceration of this Minister/MP who also happened to be a good friend of my friend.  He told me that the previous year when this happened the US Ambassoador in order to forstall the adoption of a House of Commons resolution condemning the action borught over a high level official and met with numerous MP's.  They appologized profusely and promised it would never happen again.  My friend asked me if I thought it was racial/ethinic profiling and I said of course it was; he related that he had flown through JFK a few weeks ago and observed that the agents were pulling aside everyone who appeared to be Islamic. [The fallacy of this policy is that those up to no good will insure that they do not "look funny."]  My friend when he would run into other MP's sought support for a resoulution condemning this action and was receiving widespread (it appeared to me) support across party lines.  [The Blair government subsequently was able to talk the MP's into not introducing the resolution.]

 

The article also pointed out that most countries were not in th VISA waiver program and that it could take many months to get a VISA. It even causes problems for those in the waiver countries.  I recall reading an article, the Guardian I believe, a year or so ago about a non-London, well respected orchestra, the Halle as i recall, cancelling a US tour because it could not affored to transport all its orchestra members to the US embasy for interviews, pay all the fews, and come out ahead from the tour.

 

I strongly suspect this was a significant factor in the way many countries voted.

There are a few provisions of the US Constitution which are rarely mentioned in even rigorous Con Law classes in Law School.  The reasons are myriad and include that the evil against which it was to guard is no longer present or the Supreme Court has rendered a decision with such a hard, "bright line" that it is avoided.    The prohibition against the enactment of Bills of Attainder is one such provision  The Supreme Court issued a very hard, "bright line" decision about 60 years ago. The professional Congressional bill drafters are well aware of it and know how to avoid it--note emphasis on professional.   The Senate and House enacted amendments to different bills this past week purporting to bar an organization called ACORN from receiving Federal funds.  The Senate provision contains the precise formulation which the Supreme Court struck down 60 years ago as a Bill of Attainder.    The House provision makes an attempt to avoid this Constitutional prohibition but most attorneys I have talked with attorneys familiar with this clause (and there are very few in this category--I know of two in addition to myself but there are a few others I am certain) do not think it succeeded. One has expressed the opinion that the provision is so poorly drafted that it would apply to any organization which has an employee under indictment and would include, for example, any financial institution  with FDIC insured deposits.  The basic opinion is that the House provision, in order to avoid the Bill of Attainder absolute prohibition, must apply to more than ACORN; if it only applies to ACORN, which is named in the House amendment, then it falls afoul of the prohibition.  The "bright line" is the naming of specific organizations or individuals.   It will be difficult to fix this provision, and I am not certain it can be fixed.  In any event, it will be a boon to those who write articles for law journals and are looking for a topic upon which there is little analysis.

The article below is from the Center for American Progress by my good friend Scott Lilly.  It provides persepctive that has been absent this past week.

 

Boehner's Unfortunate Choice

SOURCE: AP/Lauren Victoria Burke

Congressman John Boehner's (R-OH, above) defense of Congressman Joseph's Wilson's (R-SC) behavior during the president's speech last week shows a higher obligation to a colleague instead of the institution he has sworn to defend.

By Scott Lilly | September 16, 2009

Probably one of the most difficult moments during Congressman Joseph Moakley's (D-MA) 74 years on this earth was while he was presiding over the House of Representatives on May, 15, 1984. His close friend and mentor, Speaker of the House Tip O'Neill (D-MA), gave Moakley the gavel and went into the well of the House to excoriate Congressman Newt Gingrich of Georgia for using political tactics O'Neill believed unbecoming of the body and destructive to the House's ability to conduct fair and civil debate.

But O'Neill grew very emotional and carried his rebuke too far. He stated, "in my opinion, what you and your colleagues have done, what you"--he pointed to Gingrich--"have done, was the lowest thing I have ever seen in 35 years of politics." Congressman Trent Lott of Louisiana immediately jumped to his feet to object that the rules of the House had been violated and that the speaker's words "be taken down," which means that they should be stricken from the record and that the individual who used them be barred from further participation in debate for the day on which the offense occurred.

It was up to Moakley to rule on whether his friend should be rebuked. While he was very much opposed to ruling against the speaker he sought the advice of the parliamentarian, an officer of the House who advises the chair on the precedents of the House and whether a ruling would be consistent with previous rulings in the history of the institution.

The parliamentarian was unequivocal--the speaker's words were in clear violation of House rules. Moakley argued that what the speaker had said was in fact true. The parliamentarian countered that the presiding officer of the House could not determine the veracity of charges made within the chamber and that characterizations of another member's conduct such as that made by the speaker lowered the standards of debate and decorum. Worse, if not rebuked it would become a future precedent for the standards of floor debate.

Reluctantly, Moakley picked up the gavel, ruled against his friend and ordered the words stricken from the record--the first time in the history of the House that a speaker had received such a rebuke.

Moakley's difficult but correct choice stands in sharp contrast to the outrageous stance taken by House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) and others who attempted yesterday to defend the indefensible conduct of Congressman Joe Wilson of South Carolina who not only used the House floor to call the President of the United States a liar--a violation of the rules under any set of circumstances--but did so while the president was speaking to a joint session of Congress.

Boehner to his credit attempted to get Wilson to apologize to the House for his outburst, but then reversed himself when the resolution disapproving of the conduct came to the floor yesterday. The floor leader's failure to defend the institution in which he serves was appalling. His arguments for doing so could only be called pathetic.

He called the measure a "partisan stunt" despite the fact that it was supported by one of Wilson's own South Carolina Republican colleagues, Bob Inglis, who saw little choice on the matter since he himself had ruled members out of order for less blatant violations of House rules when his party was in the majority. Boehner also argued that the House should not take time to discuss the matter while issues such as health care were before the country, and he seemed to think no one would remember that he and his colleagues had spent the entire summer attempting to filibuster the appropriation bills in order to delay the health care debate for as long as possible.

But his most egregious argument was that Wilson's apology for rude behavior to the president somehow rectified the damage that Wilson had done to the rules and standards of civility of the institution in which he serves. Given that it was widely reported that Boehner attempted to persuade Wilson to apologize to the House for his gaffe he obviously does not himself believe that argument. But Boehner, like Joe Moakley a quarter of a century ago, had to decide whether he had a higher obligation to a colleague or the institution he has been sworn to defend.

The seriousness of the offense that Boehner was asked to judge was far greater and the courage required to confront the offender was far less given the discomfort Moakley must have felt in ruling against the man who had given him the gavel. Nonetheless Boehner got it wrong.

John Boehner is not naturally mean-spirited, divisive, or comfortable with the kind of behavior that Wilson displayed last week. He--unlike others who have served his party in leadership positions since Bob Michel left the House--has in the past demonstrated serious legislative ability and a capacity to reach across the aisle and fashion compromises when the national interest required it. It is unfortunate that he now leads a group that will not allow him to use those skills and in which he has to portray himself as being something quite different from the congressman and legislative leader he might have otherwise become.

Scott Lilly is a Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress Action Fund. He previously served as clerk and staff director of the House Appropriations Committee and executive director of the Joint Economic Committee.

Joe Wilson is very simply an anarchist of the right.  This is why the Speaker has determined that a Resolution must be brought forward next week if Mr. Wilson does not apologize to the House of Representatives for his un-parliamentary conduct.   The only two Congressional officers mentioned in the U.S. Constitution are the Speaker and the Clerk of the House of Representatives.  This was not an accident and reflects the Drafters understanding of the English Civil War.  The Speaker's core function is to protect the integrity of the people's house, the House of Representatives, from the enemies of liberty.  Part of that function is to insure that there is debate.  Debate does not include personal attacks upon fellow members, members of the other body (i.e., the US Senate), or the President or Vice President.  Personal attacks are not debate.  It is that simple.   Some have said that this would be of no consequence in the UK's House of Commons.  That is false; calling another a liar is un-parliamentary speech and will subject the proponent of the statement to sanction.  There are, however, clever verbal circumlocutions used which get to the same point.    When debate stops through personal attacks, this Constitutional institution is debased by anarchy.  Mr. Wilson threatened the Constitutional fabric with his outburst of anarchy.  There were two issues to be resolved: Mr. Wilson's attack upon the integrity of the Office of the President, and, Mr. Wilson's attack upon the Constitutional integrity of the House of Representatives.  Mr. Wilson addressed the first issue with his call to the White House, and the Speaker was ready to accept that as addressing the second issue if Mr. Wilson made an effort ratify that statement in public.  This Mr. Wilson did not do.  On several occasions I have witnessed Members of the House engage in un-parliamentary conduct (speech) on the House floor, but have been absolved when they took the floor apologized to the House and, in effect, withdrew the words. It happens several times each year.  Although the House as a body would be perfectly entitled to impose sanctions upon a member for such conduct, it always (to my knowledge), in recent years anyway, lets the apology and withdrawal be sufficient to maintain the Constitutional integrity of the House of Representatives.  I believe that is proper.   Mr. Wilson from the reports I have read in the media has escalated his attack of anarchy.  The Speaker, and the House, have no valid Constitutional choice but to impose a sanction upon Mr. Wilson unless he takes the well of the House and repents of his attack.   Josh mentioned the potential political ramifications of such action.  First, I do not believe that the Speaker is taking this action for any reason other than her Constitutional duty to protect the Constitutional integrity of the House of Representatives.  That said, there are political ramifications which, I assert, are almost entirely adverse for the Republicans.  The President's speech aroused the Democrats and friendly independents form lethargy with his speech Wednesday evening.  Mr. Wilson has aroused them to fury.  The Republican candidates in VA and NJ may well feel the brunt of that fury in just a few weeks.  I also suspect that the aroused Democratic masses of 2006 and 2008 may well stay in the game through next November.    The wackos have become the public face of the Republican Party.  If Mr. Wilson does not withdraw his words, then Republican members will be faced with the decision of whether they will stand up for the Constitutional integrity of the House or play to their wackos and face the potential rage of Democrats next year as well as see their opponents tap the net roots for contributions.  There are probably 40 to 50 Republican House members who will be at some risk if they vote no.  Take, for example, Mr. Blunt who is running for the Senate in MO. If he votes yes then the right wing in MO will be after him and he could get a primary challenger.  If he votes no, then he doesn't gain any votes from the right wing but infuriates many of the voters in greater St Louis and greater Kansas City; I predict that those voters will stay motivated to turn out next November.    Will Mr. Wilson have enough sense to dampen the flames or will he pour gasoline upon them next week? My bet is that he is already at the gas station.

Assume that Texas implements it far right "curriculum" in its public schools and the book publishers cave in and provide the spurious text books.  Now I do not think that anyone with a modicum of intellectual honesty would contend that students educated under such an agenda have been prepared for college/university.   It is now several years into the future and the first students indoctrinated under such a specious regime are now applying for college/university.  You are the admissions officer at a reputable (not Regent University or Liberty, for example) college or university, public or private, not located within Texas. Would you admit someone "educated" in the public schools of Texas under such a regime?  If you were admissions officer at Rice what would you do?

Mr Hoekstra, the senior Republcian on the House Select Committee on Intelligence who continues to prove that the Committee is neither select nor intelligent on the Republican side, was recently ridiculed for his Twitter entries comparing the US House Republicans to the Iranian protesters.

 

A Capitol Hill friend advised me that House Republicans have been encouraged to actively use the "new media" to enhance their appeal to the younger voters and that those who have "embraced" Twitter call themselves 'Twits."  Often this gets delegated to young staffers to ghost the entries.

 

Although "Twit" may have a new meaning, it is an old British slang term which is not one of endearment.  The Wiki entry is the "cleaned up" version; the "unclean" version is rather vulgar.  Either is appropriate for the House Republicans.

The recently released report by the Pew Center for People and the Press http://people-press.org on Politcal Values and Attitudes 1987-2009 is especially interesting and worth taking the time to read the 165 page analysis.  (Get a six pack or two and read it this holiday.) One of the items I found fascinaitng is the collapse of people willing to admit they are Republicans.

 

The survey asks the party identification question whether the respondent considers him/herself a Democrat, Republican or Independent (and rotates the order).  In other words, the respondent is asked to tell a complete stranger what they consider their politcal affiliation to be.  It is human nature not to give an answer to a complete stranger that the respondent considers "socially unacceptable" to those outside his/her social group.  (I will let others supply the academic description of this behavior.) The survey shows that in the South only 25% will self-identify themselves as Republicans without being pushed to show their true leanings.

 

From election results in this region from the past several years, I think that there is a strong case that the Republican regional base vote is about 46-48%--some may out it a bit higher.  This is a massive differential.  Pew's methodology is "gold standard."  The only explanation I have is that in the South almost half of the regular Republican voters today see it to be socially unacceptable to admit they are Republicans to a total stranger. 

 

Today I learned that the President will first have a Town Hall Meeting in St. Louis on Wednesday and that evening have a Press Conference with the professional questioners of the White House press corps.  I thought I would pick up some easy bucks by making bets on which group would ask the more intelligent questions and I would take the "nonprofessionals" in St. Louis.  This project has been a failure.  I cannot find anyone who will take the White House press corps. Back to making an honest living.

For some time, I have been referring to Alan "Bubbles" Greenspan because his enire career at the Fed has been to inflate a bubble after the previous bubble deflates. I have never understaood why anyone took Bubbles seriously given that he derived his economic philosophy from a fifth rate novelist.

The Chart below is from Paul Krugman's blog, Conscience of a Liberal, at the NY Times web site.     October 11, 2008,  9:08 am Greenspan’s bubbles



Irrationalexuberance times two. 
Chart from a project I’m working on. PE ratio for S&P 500, from Shiller (10-year moving average of earnings, on right scale.) Real house prices from Case-Shiller, left scale.

       There are 4 1/2 weeks to go before the election. At this point, one can usually find a number of seats held by one party or the other which are lost causes. I cannot name one Democratic House or Senate seat, either with an incumbent or open, which is a no hoper or even on the verge of being a no hoper.

         Now, there are a number of Democratic seats where there are tough races, but I do not believe that even the most dispassionate analyst will categorize any as being a no hoper or on the verge.

        On the other hand, one can make a long list of Republican seats which are no hopers or on the verge of becoming no hopers. My list of the later would include in the Senate, VA, NM, CO, NC, NH and Alaska. [There are others where I think the Democrats has a strong chance and will win, but they are not Republican no hopers or on the vergers.] In the House my list of no hopers or vergers inlcude: Davis open seat, Musrgrave, Saxton open, Foeselli open, Walsh open, Renzi open, Young (AK), Weller open, Hayes (NC), Feeney, and Diaz Balarts (both).  There are many others that I think the Democrats will win but they are not no hopers or vergers. [I freely admit that the list above is subjective and open for disagreement or addition..]

    Now can anyone name a Democratic no hoper or verger?

      A further note, this is where the Democratic money advantage come itno play. The Democrats can (and are) pushing money in where needed amd playing offence where as the Republicans, even with help from the scum of Freedom Watch and similar groups, have to write off seats.

The ABC/Washington Post and SUSA polls out today seem to show Viginia moving firmly into the Obama column. Both show him following in the electoral geographic and demographic footsteps of the elections for Governor of Mark Warner and Tim Kaine and for Senator Webb. 
      The key for a Republican to win statewide in the last 10 years or so is to get a huge margin in the Shenandoah Valley to offset N VA. A Democrat just needed to get 40% in the Valley and anything above that started a move towards landslide.  SUSA had a breakdown for the Valley with Obama at 40%, 14 points behind McCain. The racists in the Valley are somewhat open about it so I do not think there is a "Bradley effect" here. The ABC/Post poll did not have a specific Valley breakout, but, from their descriptions of regional breakouts, it appears that it is safe to assert that Obama is at 40% in the Valley. I suspect that there may be a "hidden" Obama vote there by folks who for social reasons do not want to admit they are voting "for one of them."
    Both polls showed Obama off the map in N VA.
    Obama has a nice 10 point lead in the Hampton Roads area which has a very large active duty and retiree military community. This seems to "ratify" my surmise that military families are going to give Obama more votes than they usually give a Democratic Presidential candidate for several reasons: the strain of repeated deployments; McCain's opposition, and Obama's support, for the Webb GI Bill of Rights; somewhere between 30% and 40% of active duty military enlisted personnel are African-American or Hispanic; and, for the wives, the way McCain dumped his first wife which is especially well-known among Navy families.
    The Richmond area gave McCain a slight margin but I suspect that both polls are under-estimating the African-American vote and turnout in Richmond and Petersburg.
    Statewide, the demographic breakout by age refected the trends in the national tracking polls which made such a breakout available. Obama has taken the lead nationally, and in VA, in the Boomer group (40-65) where he had trailed since the spring. These are the 401(k) and IRA folks who think they want to retire soemtime. To get an idea why they may have moved to Obama just consider this: a rough, but quite accurate, guage of how 401(k)'s have done since January 20, 2001 is to look at the S&P 500 index number on that date and compare it to Friday (Friday was an up day for the market and within the polling timeframe) after adjusting for inflation as measured by the CPI. The answer is that it was less than it was in 2001. 
     These two polls provide enough information to show that Obama is hitting all the metrics he needs to hit to carry VA.  I suspect that both may under-estimate his vote. Will this continue for the next six weeks? All I can say, at this point in VA, I would rather be Obama than McCain.