Veepstakes, Olympic editionSubmitted by Primary Monitor on Thu, 2008-08-07 12:27.
The Wall Street Journal editorial page, which doesn't endorse presidential candidates, semi-endorses prospective running mates today:
As a young, rookie candidate running on "change," Barack Obama can help himself by choosing a safe, seasoned politician like Evan Bayh or Joe Biden. As the trailing candidate from an unpopular party, John McCain has the harder decision because there really is no obvious candidate.
The editorial goes on to mention Fred Thompson, Tim Pawlenty, Mark Sanford and John Kasich as people McCain ought to consider.
Meanwhile Condoleezza Rice continues to frustrate the notions of those who think she could be McCain's winning ticket.
Counter-programming the CW, UCLA professor Thomas Schwartz suggests McCain should pick Elizabeth Dole and Obama should choose Bob Graham.
Earlier this week, Bill Kristol suggested four different ways McCain could make his choice while listing a few people who would fit each mold.
Following the money, TV ads editionSubmitted by Primary Monitor on Wed, 2008-07-30 13:50.
According to a University of Wisconsin Advertising Project report, through July 26, New Hampshire ranked 15th in total presidential election campaign advertising spending by state. John McCain beat Barack Obama to TV in the state, airing his first general-election ad June 11 while Obama's first such ad aired June 21. Their total ad buys to date are fairly close: $391,000 for Obama and $342,000 for McCain.
The top states for campaign advertising so far are Pennsylvania ($10.3 million), Ohio ($6.4 million), Michigan ($6.0 million), Florida ($5.0 million) and Virginia ($4.4 million), according to the report (pdf). Interestingly, all the Florida ads have been Obama's. The other four states have seen big ad buys for both sides. Also:
Over 90 percent of the ads aired by Obama are positive in nature and do not mention Senator McCain. In contrast, approximately a third of the McCain campaign’s ads are negative, contrasting the two presidential candidates. . . .
The top three issues that Senator Obama addressed in his television ads were jobs, welfare, and defense policy, respectively. Senator McCain talked about energy policy, national defense, and economic recession in his ads.
Throughout the primaries Senator Obama labeled himself the candidate of change. Since winning the Democratic nomination, however, less than 1 percent of his ads mention the word change. . . .
In terms of total campaign advertising, the Philadelphia market has received the most campaign spots, followed by the Detroit and Cleveland markets.
The report also says: "As of July 26th, the Democratic National Committee had yet to air a single presidential election ad, while the Republican National Committee (RNC) has aired 6,005 ads, spending approximately $3.6 million. Between June 3rd and July 26th, the Obama campaign out-advertised the McCain campaign by nearly 9,000 ads: 55,312 ads for Obama to Senator McCain’s 46,563 ads. However, when the RNC ads are added to McCain’s total, the margin drops to just 2,744 ads. Likewise, although Obama has spent $6 million more than McCain on television advertising, including the spending by the RNC decreases the margin to roughly $2.3 million."
UNH poll: Sununu 14, Shaheen 14 (and Undecided 72)Submitted by Primary Monitor on Mon, 2008-07-28 14:18.
That's an alternative headline on the U.S. Senate portion (pdf) of the latest UNH Survey Center poll. As in:
- Definite Sununu 12%
- Lean Sununu 2%
- Undecided 72%
- Lean Shaheen 4%
- Definite Shaheen 10%
Contrast that to the standard reporting of the poll, which described a 46-42 Shaheen lead. That result, which prompted much debate (see here, here, here and here), made big news because the prior result was a 52-40 lead for Shaheen. The alternative presentation above puts the emphasis instead on the (very high) percentage of people who said they had yet to make up their minds.
The idea for this breakdown comes from David Moore, who wrote about a similar presentation of the latest UNH results for the presidential (pdf) election. As in:
- Definite Obama 28%
- Lean Obama 10%
- Other/Undecided 30%
- Lean McCain 10%
- Definite McCain 22%
As Moore explains, UNH asks people whether they have definitely decided which candidate to support as well as who would get their vote if the election were held today. Taken separately, the questions can yield very different pictures.
On the vote-today question, the UNH result was 46 percent for Obama, 43 percent for McCain, 3 percent for another candidate and 8 percent undecided. On the decided-yet question, however, only about half said they had definitely decided.
Moore refined the presentation of the results, emphasizing how much (or, if you prefer, how little) of the electorate is committed to a candidate. As Moore notes, these numbers make clear that Obama does better among people who have definitely decided how to vote while McCain does better among those who have not definitely decided.
Moving back to Sununu-Shaheen, UNH's Andy Smith gave me the breakdown at the top of the post, which strongly suggests that New Hampshire voters are much less focused on the Senate race than on the presidential race. I don't really think 72 percent of the electorate is up for grabs. Some of those people won't end up voting. Many more will vote for the Republican or the Democrat based on their usual preference. But clearly there is a significant pool of people whose attention has yet to be drawn to the specifics of a Sununu-Shaheen matchup, meaning there are plenty of people worth targeting with the millions of dollars yet to be spent on this race.
David Brooks today:
When I first heard this sort of radically optimistic speech in Iowa, I have to confess my American soul was stirred. It seemed like the overture for a new yet quintessentially American campaign. But now it is more than half a year on, and the post-partisanship of Iowa has given way to the post-nationalism of Berlin, and it turns out that the vague overture is the entire symphony. The golden rhetoric impresses less, the evasion of hard choices strikes one more. . . .
In Berlin, Obama made exactly one point with which it was possible to disagree. In the best paragraph of the speech, Obama called on Germans to send more troops to Afghanistan. The argument will probably fall on deaf ears. The vast majority of Germans oppose that policy. But at least Obama made an argument.
Much of the rest of the speech fed the illusion that we could solve our problems if only people mystically come together. . . . The great illusion of the 1990s was that we were entering an era of global convergence in which politics and power didn’t matter. What Obama offered in Berlin flowed right out of this mind-set. This was the end of history on acid.
Public radio's Marketplace is doing a series of reports on leadership PACs. The reporters also compiled a searchable, sortable database. Here are links to the money Sen. John Sununu raised and distributed and to the money Sen. Judd Gregg raised and distributed between December 2004 and December 2007. You can sort the results by date, giver/receiver, amount or purpose.
Here are the corresponding links for Sen. John McCain (raised and distributed) and for Sen. Barack Obama (raised and distributed). Because you can also sort by state, you can get a quick sense of the money each dropped in New Hampshire -- more from McCain than from Obama.
Larry Sabato considers New Hampshire (4 electoral votes) one of only eight states that's a complete toss-up in the general election. The others, he says, are Colorado (9), Michigan (17), Nevada (5), Ohio (20), Pennsylvania (21), Virginia (13) and Wisconsin (10). He lists five other states as leaning to one side but reversible (Iowa and New Mexico for Obama and Floria, Missouri and North Carolina for McCain).
Other takes: As of this morning, Nate Silver projects a 77 percent chance of Obama winning New Hampshire. Real Clear Politics lists New Hampshire among 11 toss-up states.
Here, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, are the top contributors this cycle to the Democratic and Republican governors associations. This story in last week's Wall Street Journal made clear that the governors groups -- to which individuals may make unlimited donations -- will play an enhanced role in the presidential race, not just in statehouse elections.
The Journal piece is also Exhibit 329 in the case against the campaign finance regime John McCain championed in his last run for president:
Allies of Sen. John McCain have found new loopholes in the campaign-finance law he helped write -- and they're using them to reel in huge contributions to help him compete with Sen. Barack Obama.
In one method, a Republican Party fund aimed at electing governors has started marketing itself as a home for contributions of unlimited size to help Sen. McCain. His 2002 campaign law limits donations to presidential races to try to curtail the influence of wealth.
Perhaps McCain's current run for president, which is forcing him to contend with what he wrought, will persuade him that his critics indeed had a point.
Jack Balkin, who agrees with yesterday's decision in the Second Amendment case, adds this ironic commentary:
Despite its long and occasionally dreary originalist exegesis, the Heller majority is not really defending the values of 1791. It is enforcing the values of 2008. This is no accident. Indeed, the result in Heller would have been impossible without the success of the conservative movement and the work of the NRA and other social movement actors who, over a period of about 35 years, succeeded in changing Americans' minds about the meaning of the Second Amendment, and made what were previously off-the-wall arguments about the Constitution socially and politically respectable to political elites. This is living constitutionalism in action.
Like Lawrence v. Texas, Heller is another example of how the Supreme Court exercises judicial review in response to successful social and political mobilizations, regardless of what individual Justices understand themselves to be doing. The only difference is that in Heller, it is conservatives who have successfully changed public opinion, a change that has now become reflected in Supreme Court opinions.
Welcome to the living Constitution, Justice Scalia. We couldn't have done it without you.
Elsewhere, Andy Siegel adds: "To a degree that current political and judicial rhetoric masks, all of the current Justices share a conception of the judicial role that gives Courts the right and the obligation to independently assess the meaning of ambiguous constitutional rights guarantees and then follow their own best judgment, letting the chips fall where they may. The Justices have differed on their vision of the society that the Constitution's rights provisions are designed to protect, not on their vision of the judicial role."
In other words, we're all activists now.
Justice Scalia wrote the main opinion. The Second Amendment protects an individual right. The court split 5-4. Justices Stevens and Breyer wrote dissents. More details here.
You can read the opinions (pdf) here.
John McCain's campaign plans an 11 a.m. conference call to make a campaign issue out of Barack Obama's position on guns.
UPDATE: From the summary of the opinion provided by the court:
The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. . . .
Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. . . .
The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home.
Scalia's opinion concludes with this comment: "We are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country, and we take seriously the concerns raised by the many amici who believe that prohibition of handgun ownership is a solution. The Constitution leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures regulating handguns. . . . But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home. Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct."
From Stevens's dissent:
Until today, it has been understood that legislatures may regulate the civilian use and misuse of firearms so long as they do not interfere with the preservation of a well-regulated militia. The Court’s announcement of a new constitutional right to own and use firearms for private purposes upsets that settled understanding, but leaves for future cases the formidable task of defining the scope of permissible regulations. Today judicial craftsmen have confidently asserted that a policy choice that denies a “law-abiding, responsible citize[n]” the right to keep and use weapons in the home for self-defense is “off the table.” . . .
The Court properly disclaims any interest in evaluating the wisdom of the specific policy choice challenged in this case, but it fails to pay heed to a far more important policy choice—the choice made by the Framers themselves. The Court would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons, and to authorize this Court to use the common-law process of case-by-case judicial lawmaking to define the contours of acceptable gun control policy. Absent compelling evidence that is nowhere to be found in the Court’s opinion, I could not possibly conclude that the Framers made such a choice.
From Breyer's dissent:
To assure 18th-century citizens that they could keep arms for militia purposes would necessarily have allowed them to keep arms that they could have used for self-defense as well. But self-defense alone, detached from any militia-related objective, is not the Amendment’s concern. . . .
[T]he District’s law is consistent with the Second Amendment even if that Amendment is interpreted as protecting a wholly separate interest in individual self-defense. That is so because the District’s regulation, which focuses upon the presence of handguns in high-crime urban areas, represents a permissible legislative response to a serious, indeed life-threatening, problem.
Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton will campaign together in Unity, N.H., Friday. Along with its name, the town has the distinction of having cast an equal number of votes for Obama and Clinton in the presidential primary.
Last week's Supreme Court ruling on the rights of detainees at Guantanamo Bay quickly became an issue in the presidential campaign. (See the latest from John McCain and Barack Obama here.) With only days left in the court's term, more than a dozen cases remain to be decided (at least one will be announced tomorrow). Which other ones are most likely to make it into the campaign? Three good bets:
D.C. vs. Heller -- on the meaning of the Second Amendment and whether the handgun ban in Washington, D.C., is constitutional. Background info here and an analysis of what to look for here.
Kennedy vs. Louisiana -- on whether someone who rapes a child may be executed. Background info here.
Davis vs. FEC -- on a portion of the campaign finance law that was once McCain's signature issue. Background info here.
Based on typical workloads for the justices, multiple remaining opinions are likely to be written by David Souter, Stephen Breyer and Antonin Scalia, though the hot-button majority opinions might still be written by others.
Thursday update: Five decisions today (three by Breyer), none from these three cases. Ten cases remain. The next decision day is Monday.
Monday update: Three more decisions today (one each by Breyer, Souter and Ginsburg). The big three cases (four, if you count the Exxon oil spill case) all remain. Tea leaf readers see a strong chance that Scalia will write the Second Amendment case. The next decision day is Wednesday.
Wednesday update: Justice Kennedy wrote a 5-4 opinion in the death penalty case, ruling that the death penalty is an unconstitutional punishment for a crime where there is no death or death is not intended. Justice Alito dissented, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia and Thomas.
The Second Amendment case and the campaign finance case are among three decisions that will be announced tomorrow (Thursday).
Thursday update: The D.C. handgun ban and the so-called millionaire's amendment to the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law were both struck down.
John Sununu is the subject of a Weekly Standard piece by P.J. O'Rourke, who came away impressed with what he heard. A few excerpts:
I went to see Senator Sununu at his office in the Russell Building and said that I assumed he had a political philosophy. "I like to think so," he replied. "But it's not something I have written down on an index card."
As a gut reaction conservative myself, I take the senator's point. In fact, however, Senator Sununu could write his political philosophy on a small piece of paper: "I have a deep-seated belief that America is unique, strong, great because of a commitment to personal freedom--in our economic system and our politics. We are a free people who consented to be governed. Not vice-versa." (Italics added for the sake of the multitudes in our government's executive, legislative, and judicial branches who need to fill out that index card and keep it with them at all times. And if the multitudes are confused by "Not vice-versa" they may substitute, We aren't a government that consents to people being free.) . . .
I asked Senator Sununu if there were many politicians in Washington with a political philosophy. "There are many," he said, "that would make the argument that they have a core set of values. But these values don't reflect a philosophy. Rather, they reflect a personal goal. 'I believe government should be fair and just.' 'I believe government should represent both the strong and the weak in America.' They're describing characteristics of what they'd like the government to be. They aren't describing principles of organizing a government." . . .
"Applying the philosophy isn't difficult," he said. "Applying the principles isn't difficult. The Patriot Act, for instance. It was a tool to find and prosecute criminals. Some of the laws we had were outdated. The biggest trouble with the Patriot Act was that the earliest version contained provisions for unlimited detention of suspects.
"Under no circumstances should we be allowed to detain people indefinitely. The provision was dropped, and we put a sunset on the whole Patriot Act. It had to be reauthorized in '05. You make sure, if you're giving powers to law enforcement, they're balanced with powers for civil liberties.
"Guantánamo, on the other hand--even if everything you're doing is legally approved, something can still be implemented in a way that's counterproductive to our moral perspective. We must be right and seem to be right. Guantánamo is a political, diplomatic, and moral liability. Give the Guantánamo detainees access to federal courts to appeal the determination."
O'Rourke also came away impressed with something he saw, but you'll have to read the piece to the end to find out where.
(AP photo by Jim Cole)
David Broder recalls 1968.
Both the Chicago Tribune editorial board and John Hood of the John Locke Foundation suggest John McCain and Barack Obama deserve to be lumped together. But where the Trib sees two excellent candidates, Hood see two mediocrities.
Bob Barr is the nominee for president of the Libertarian Party. (Note the similarities in presentation between Barr's website and Ron Paul's.) According to the Barr campaign blog, he believes his support will "come from 'disaffected Republican voters, Ron Paul supporters and independent voters and Democratic voters who believe in a strong message of civil liberties.' To him, both the Republican McCain and Democratic Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) and Barack Obama (Ill.) fail to offer 'a real choice' in November, especially on his No. 1 issue, reducing the size of government."