What had been a major victory for conservative activists ended up in a stunning defeat as Tuesday night crept in to Wednesday morning and Fox News declared Democrat Bill Owens the winner of a closely watched special election in New York's 23rd congressional district.
Owens was actually an afterthought for much of the race, overshadowed by civil war amongst his opponents. Conservative activists banded together, with help from prominent Republicans like former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin and former House Majority Leader Dick Armey, to push Republican Dede Scozzafava out of the race over the weekend, leaving their favorite, third-party candidate Doug Hoffman as the GOP's pick.
Going in to the election, Hoffman was the favorite to win the seat, which has been in Republican hands for more than a century. But somehow, perhaps with the help of an endorsement and a little campaigning from Scozzafava, Owens managed to pull out a victory.
The thing to watch for now is the reaction of the GOP and its base. A Hoffman victory might have given the most conservative wing of the party even more clout, if not a virtual veto over 2010 candidates deemed too liberal. This result -- the right winning the intra-party battle, but not the war -- might give the Republican establishment more room to push back.
Update: Hoffman has reportedly called Owens and conceded.
At the town halls this summer, people who came to protest against healthcare reform had a few different messages and complaints. One ended up turning into a refrain: If the public option is so great, the protesters would ask their senators and representatives, then why won't Congress be using it?
Now, as the Senate's debate over its version of reform legislation kicks into gear, two Republicans -- Sens. Tom Coburn and David Vitter -- have picked up that theme and are running with it. The two authored an amendment they want attached to the bill; it would require members of Congress to enroll in whatever version of the public option the final legislation creates, if it includes one.
Both Coburn and Vitter are vehement opponents of the public option, and they're hoping to prove themselves right by showing that no senator who's in his or her right mind would want their healthcare covered by it. They've gotten a surprise, though: Genuine support for their amendment from someone on the other side of the aisle -- and a proponent of the public option, at that -- Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio.
Brown doesn't have any illusions about why Coburn and Vitter decided to introduce the amendment. "It's clear they just want to score political points. They hate the public option… they want to introduce [the amendment] and have it lose," the senator said in an interview with Salon on Friday.
But Brown's a strong supporter of the public option, and he's actually been taking a stand like this one since he was first elected to the House nearly 17 years ago, keeping a campaign promise to pay for his own coverage until Congress passed health insurance for everyone. For most of that time, he paid out of pocket; now, he's on his wife's plan, which costs him a fair amount than just using the coverage he's entitled to as a senator would. So he decided he wanted to co-sponsor Coburn and Vitter's amendment.
Senators are usually eager to collect co-sponsors for their bills and amendments, especially ones from the other party, for the simple reason that this helps the bill pass. It turns out their attitude is a bit different when the amendment in question is actually a political ploy, however. Brown's office contacted Coburn's about co-sponsorship of the amendment nine times last week, to no avail.
"We did get an email back saying they would check with their boss," Brown says, but that was the extent of the response.
So on Friday, Brown took matters into his own hands, going to the Senate floor and asking to be added as a co-sponsor to the amendment by unanimous consent. Since objecting under these circumstances is pretty much unheard of, Brown was finally added as a co-sponsor, along with fellow Democrats Chris Dodd and Barbara Mikulski.
Afterwards, Coburn spokesman John Hart claimed that his boss is "happy to have [Brown] on." He did note, however, that Brown had opposed a similar amendment when a reform bill was in the Senate Health, Education Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee.
Asked by Salon about his earlier vote, Brown said, "The one I voted against was to include all of the congressional staff. And the public option is an option. And one of the beauties of the public option is that people have a choice. I don't want to tell the people … in my office what their families should do."
When Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter switched parties and became a Democrat, he immediately got the support of his new party's leadership, including President Obama, for his upcoming re-election fight. But now another party leader has given Congressional liberals room to back the man challenging Specter in the Democratic primary next year, Rep. Joe Sestak.
Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., will be endorsing Sestak during an event in Philadelphia on Monday. It's an important get for Sestak; an endorsement from your average House liberal is nice, but Frank's nod means more.
Because he's one of the most influential men in the House, Frank can bring other members of Congress along with him. At the very least, he gives those among his colleagues who might otherwise worry about angering the White House and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid some cover.
"No one calls it like they see it quite like Barney Frank," Sestak said in a statement provided to Salon. "He's not willing to let Senator Specter get away with running from his record as a loyal Bush Republican. Just like Barney and I, Pennsylvanians won't be fooled by election year conversions."
It's nice of the State Department to provide the public with transcripts of all the public remarks made by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. It'd be even better if the transcripts gave any idea of what Clinton actually said.
That wasn't the case with one that State released earlier this week, of comments Clinton made at the Amsterdam News Educational Fund's 100th Anniversary Gala. And the result ended up -- unintentionally, no doubt -- being pretty funny.
Since the time when an alert reader sent me the transcript a couple days ago, someone at State evidently had the good sense to pull it down from the department's Web site. But through the magic of LexisNexis and Google's cache, it lives on. Here it is, unedited and in full:
Nick, thank you so much. Thank you (inaudible) to Michelle (ph) and everyone who could be gathered at this wonderful event. (Inaudible) I’m just happy to (inaudible). (Applause.) Being with so many friends, with so many people, (inaudible) so grateful. And this is why I am so grateful. I am delighted to have you with us (inaudible) in celebrating the Amsterdam News and helping it to raise money for digitizing its records. This is one of the great archives (inaudible). (Applause.)
(Inaudible) here as well. Susan and Bill Tataum, (inaudible) all these wonderful (inaudible) and in their home, visiting Bill (inaudible) and speak with him. And like everyone here tonight who (inaudible), I was a recipient of all the (inaudible) and I feel better for it. I also know (inaudible).
(Inaudible) one of the most thoughtful, provocative, (inaudible) experiences that I ever had. (Inaudible) and I will always remember Bill’s (inaudible) and energy (inaudible). I also want to just say I think I (inaudible) with a lot of my friends (inaudible) and especially (inaudible). (Applause.)
(Inaudible) be there for you when (inaudible) that you so well deserve because (inaudible). (Applause.) (Inaudible) to raise money for a worthy cause and it’s a night of (inaudible) of American history. (Inaudible) and it’s especially exciting to be here to celebrate the 100th anniversary. Now, recently in Russia where journalists are harassed and (inaudible), in China where bloggers and internet (inaudible) face evermore (inaudible) censorship. And I’ve met with writers who’ve been (inaudible). They (inaudible) sit up and take notice and change their ways forever. (Inaudible) proud.
Thanks (inaudible). (Applause.)
You might assume that Texas politics would still be a wild and woolly business, full of eccentric candidates who’d pull all kinds of crazy stunts to squeak by each other. Like how Lyndon Johnson lost one stolen election for the Senate and, having learned his lesson, probably stole the next one himself. Or like Gov. Lee "Pass the biscuits, Pappy" O’Daniel, the flour-peddling model and namesake for the politician character in "O Brother, Where Art Thou?" But modern Texas has settled into a situation of relatively quiet Republican dominance. Despite the best efforts of novelty-singer and 2006 independent gubernatorial candidate Kinky Friedman, there hasn’t been a genuinely close general election for a Senate seat or the governorship since the mid-1990s.
But this year, Texas looks like it’s getting back to its old self. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison is going through with a long-anticipated run for governor, which sets her up for a major run-in with incumbent Gov. Rick Perry in the Republican primary. Hutchison has amassed a lot of support from the GOP establishment, but Perry is burnishing his right-wing credentials to a fine gleam. (In case you were wondering, he landed Sarah Palin’s coveted endorsement back in February.)
This weekend’s New York Times Magazine will run a piece by Robert Draper on the race. Frankly, Draper leaves Perry looking like something of a buffoon. This is the governor, after all, who started talking about Texas’ right to secede from the union earlier this year. Perry suggested that Lino Graglia, a conservative legal scholar, would back up his view, so Draper called Graglia. Said the law professor, "No, I don’t think there’s any basis to that claim." In the article, Perry also expresses a fantasy about Sam Houston running for president in 1860 and beating Abraham Lincoln. This would, Perry claims, have prevented the outbreak of Civil War. No word, of course, on slavery.
This guy has actual bizarre policy ideas, though, not just Confederate reenactment fantasies. Perry claims that last year’s economic panic was overblown, and the only necessary response to the financial meltdown was to "cut the spending, cut the taxes," instead of passing any emergency bailout. Judiciously, Draper comments, "Most economists might take issue with the governor’s sentiment. Then again, economists are unlikely to decide the outcome of the Texas primary."
Perry’s flirtation with the far right is the basic rationale for the candidacy of the comparatively moderate Hutchison. As she puts it, "I’m in it to save our party."
And that’s just the issue. Perry, with his talk of states’ 10th Amendment rights and his accusation that the president is “hell-bent on socialism,” is as prime a specimen as you can find of tea party influence on the GOP. He’s a politician who’s trying to go as far as possible into right-wing fantasy world while still actually running a state.
Of course, there are some repercussions for acting like that. Assuming that he survives Hutchison’s challenge, Perry will have to put in a real fight in the general election. His approval numbers are relatively weak, and he’s dragging the GOP one way while Texas’ demographics run the other. As Draper points out, Texas has recently become of the few so-called majority-minority -- that is, majority non-white -- states in the country.
On top of all that, on Friday the Democrats landed their ideal challenger. In Houston Mayor Bill White, who confirmed that he will enter the race, Democrats have easily their strongest gubernatorial candidate since Ann Richards. Hutchison might be the voice of relative sanity in the Republican Party, but it's hard not to wonder what a Perry-White contest would be like.
People try to make some very, very silly things into issues in politics. Like the timing of President Obama's speech about Afghanistan on Tuesday night, which happened to coincide with -- and thus preempt -- showings of "A Charlie Brown Christmas Special."
In a saner world, this would have been a total non-story. (Among the numerous reasons that this is a total non-story: Assuming there is still someone living in the U.S. who hasn't seen the special, it will be replayed. Many, many times. Every year.) But people like Matt Drudge picked it up and ran with it anyway, and now we can see the results.
The Memphis Commercial Appeal reports that Russell Wiseman, the mayor of Arlington, Tenn., took to his Facebook page to weigh in, and to give his theory for why Obama timed the speech as he did. From Wiseman's post:
Ok, so, this is total crap, we sit the kids down to watch "The Charlie Brown Christmas Special" and our muslim president is there, what a load.....try to convince me that wasn't done on purpose. Ask the man if he believes that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and he will give you a 10 minute disertation about it....w...hen the answer should simply be "yes"
Wiseman went on to add such gems as, "you obama people need to move to a muslim country...oh wait, that's America....pitiful" and, "you know, our forefathers had it written in the original Constitution that ONLY property owners could vote, if that has stayed in there, things would be different........"
Contacted by the Commercial Appeal, Wiseman told the paper, "You guys are trying to make a mountain out of a molehill."
During her year in the spotlight, former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin has jumped on her fair share of conspiracy bandwagons. She's even kick-started one or two, like the infamous "death panels." But, at least, she'd never joined up with the Birthers, the people who believe President Obama wasn't born in the U.S. and is thus not eligible under the Constitution to hold his office.
Until now, that is.
Palin did an interview with conservative radio talker Rusty Humphries on Thursday. During their conversation, Humphries brought up a question apparently submitted by one of his readers: "Would you make the birth certificate an issue if you ran?"
The meaning of "the birth certificate" was clear. Humphries was asking about Obama's birth certificate, and the various myths about it: That he hasn't released a copy, that the copy he did release is a forgery and on and on. (If you missed it a few months back, my full debunking of the Birthers' theories is here.)
This is the exchange that ensued:
HUMPHRIES: Would you make the birth certificate an issue if you ran?
PALIN: Um, I think the public, rightfully, is still making it an issue. I don't have a problem with that. I don't know if I would have to bother to make it an issue, because I think enough members of the electorate still want answers.
HUMPHRIES: Do you think it's a fair question to be looking at?
PALIN: I think it's a fair question, just like I think past associations, past voting records, all of that is fair game. You know, I gotta tell you, too, I think our campaign, the McCain-Palin campaign, didn't do a good enough job in that area. We didn't call out Obama and some of his associates on their records and what their beliefs were, and perhaps what their future plans were, and I don't think that was fair to voters, to not have done our jobs as candidates and as a campaign to bring to light a lot of things that now we're seeing made manifest in the administration.
HUMPHRIES: I mean, truly, if your past is fair game and your kids are fair game, certainly Obama's past should be. I mean, we want to treat men and women equally, right?
PALIN: Hey, you know, that's a great point. That weird conspiracy theory freaky thing that people talk about, that Trig isn't my real son, a lot of people say, "Well, you need to produce his birth certificate, you need to prove that he's your kid," which we have done, but yeah, so maybe we should reverse that and use the same type of thinking on the other one.
(Video of the interview is at the bottom of this post, with a hat-tip to HotAir's Allahpundit on Twitter; the relevant portion begins at roughly 7:45.)
Palin is, of course, wrong to say that the public is still "rightfully" bringing up the issue -- it's been answered again and again at this point, and there's no doubt that Obama was born in Hawaii. But she is right about a couple of things: For one, whoever the Republican nominee is in 2012, they won't "have to bother to make it an issue." It already will be, if not one discussed explicitly by the campaign and its surrogates, because so many Republicans already have doubts about the president's birthplace. The fact that Palin and other mainstream figures, like Lou Dobbs and Tom DeLay, have indulged the Birthers doesn't help matters.
Palin's also right to draw a parallel between the conspiracy theories that surround Obama's birth and the one about her son. The two are equally nutty. You'd hope, however, that going through that experience would teach her that it's an awful thing to happen to anyone, regardless of political party. Instead, her attitude seems to be that the two wrongs somehow make a right.
Update: Palin's now taken to Facebook -- where else? -- to do a walkback of sorts of her comments. In a post titled "Stupid Conspiracies," she writes:
Voters have every right to ask candidates for information if they so choose. I’ve pointed out that it was seemingly fair game during the 2008 election for many on the left to badger my doctor and lawyer for proof that Trig is in fact my child. Conspiracy-minded reporters and voters had a right to ask ... which they have repeatedly. But at no point -- not during the campaign, and not during recent interviews -- have I asked the president to produce his birth certificate or suggested that he was not born in the United States.
Of course, Palin's original remarks went further than this. And "conspiracy-minded reporters and voters" have asked about Obama's birth certificate too. The questions have been answered. As Hot Air's Ed Morrisey observed after Palin posted this, "It’s the same thing as Truthers saying that all they’re doing is 'asking questions.' The answers have already been provided; they just reject them because they’re married to their conspiracies.
War Room is written and edited by Alex Koppelman, with contributions from Salon reporters around the country.
After 40 years, the Washington Blade closes down
Destroying the So-Called "Unit Cohesion" Argument
On Finding the Source Code of Republican Talking Points